Platoon defies orders in Iraq

[ruthie]

October 15, 2004

Platoon defies orders in Iraq

Miss. soldier calls home, cites safety concerns
The (Jackson, Miss.) Clarion-Ledger


A 17-member Army Reserve platoon with troops from Jackson, Miss., and around the Southeast deployed to Iraq is under arrest for refusing a “suicide mission” to deliver fuel, the troops’ relatives said Thursday.
The soldiers refused an order on Wednesday to go to Taji, Iraq — north of Baghdad — because their vehicles were considered “deadlined” or extremely unsafe, said Patricia McCook of Jackson, wife of Sgt. Larry O. McCook.

Sgt. McCook, a deputy at the Hinds County, Miss., Detention Center, and the 16 other members of the 343rd Quartermaster Company from Rock Hill, S.C., were read their rights and moved from the military barracks into tents, Patricia McCook said her husband told her during a panicked phone call about 5 a.m. Thursday.

The platoon could be charged with the willful disobeying of orders, punishable by dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of pay and up to five years confinement, said military law expert Mark Stevens, an associate professor of justice studies at Wesleyan College in Rocky Mount, N.C.No military officials were able to confirm or deny the detainment of the platoon Thursday.

Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said he plans to submit a congressional inquiry today on behalf of the Mississippi soldiers to launch an investigation into whether they are being treated improperly.

“I would not want any member of the military to be put in a dangerous situation ill-equipped,” said Thompson, who was contacted by families. “I have had similar complaints from military families about vehicles that weren’t armor-plated, or bullet-proof vests that are outdated. It concerns me because we made over $150 billion in funds available to equip our forces in Iraq.

“President Bush takes the position that the troops are well-armed, but if this situation is true, it calls into question how honest he has been with the country,” Thompson said.

The 343rd is a supply unit whose general mission is to deliver fuel and water. The unit includes three women and 14 men and those with ranking up to sergeant first class.

“I got a call from an officer in another unit early (Thursday) morning who told me that my husband and his platoon had been arrested on a bogus charge because they refused to go on a suicide mission,” said Jackie Butler of Jackson, wife of Sgt. Michael Butler, a 24-year reservist. “When my husband refuses to follow an order, it has to be something major.”

The platoon being held has troops from Alabama, Kentucky, North Carolina, Mississippi and South Carolina, said Teresa Hill of Dothan, Ala., whose daughter Amber McClenny is among those being detained.

McClenny, 21, pleaded for help in a message left on her mother’s answering machine early Thursday morning.

“They are holding us against our will,” McClenny said. “We are now prisoners.”

McClenny told her mother her unit tried to deliver fuel to another base in Iraq Wednesday, but was sent back because the fuel had been contaminated with water. The platoon returned to its base, where it was told to take the fuel to another base, McClenny told her mother.

The platoon is normally escorted by armed Humvees and helicopters, but did not have that support Wednesday, McClenny told her mother.

The convoy trucks the platoon was driving had experienced problems in the past and were not being properly maintained, Hill said her daughter told her.

The situation mirrors other tales of troops being sent on missions without proper equipment.Aviation regiments have complained of being forced to fly dangerous missions over Iraq with outdated night-vision goggles and old missile-avoidance systems. Stories of troops’ families purchasing body armor because the military didn’t provide them with adequate equipment have been included in recent presidential debates.

Patricia McCook said her husband, a staff sergeant, understands well the severity of disobeying orders. But he did not feel comfortable taking his soldiers on another trip.

“He told me that three of the vehicles they were to use were deadlines ... not safe to go in a hotbed like that,” Patricia McCook said.

Hill said the trucks her daughter’s unit was driving could not top 40 mph.

“They knew there was a 99 percent chance they were going to get ambushed or fired at,” Hill said her daughter told her. “They would have had no way to fight back.”

Kathy Harris of Vicksburg, Miss., is the mother of Aaron Gordon, 20, who is among those being detained. Her primary concern is that she has been told the soldiers have not been provided access to a judge advocate general.

Stevens said if the soldiers are being confined, law requires them to have a hearing before a magistrate within seven days.

Harris said conditions for the platoon have been difficult of late. Her son e-mailed her earlier this week to ask what the penalty would be if he became physical with a commanding officer, she said.

But Nadine Stratford of Rock Hill, S.C., said her godson Colin Durham, 20, has been happy with his time in Iraq. She has not heard from him since the platoon was detained.

“When I talked to him about a month ago, he was fine,” Stratford said. “He said it was like being at home.”
from Army Times (http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-453911.php)

Yup. Let's keep hearing from the administration how "we take care of our troops". It's a bunch of bullshit. Many of the troops have family members sending equipment from home because they are not properly armed.
Sounds like they might be getting Gitmo treatment...where are the lawyers? America needs to wake up

[Busyman]

I heard about families buying body armor for the loved one's in Iraq but damn.

I'll have to wait and see about this though. ;)

President Bush is supposed to be the so-called "military" President. If all this money for the war isn't being spent for the war he is one traitor bitch...but I won't jump to conclusions.

Many of you don't actually know soldiers in Iraq but I do and take shit like this to heart.:angry:

[ruthie]

I heard about families buying body armor for the loved one's in Iraq but damn.

I'll have to wait and see about this though. ;)

President Bush is supposed to be the so-called "military" President. If all this money for the war isn't being spent for the war he is one traitor bitch...but I won't jump to conclusions.

Many of you don't actually know soldiers in Iraq but I do and take shit like this to heart.:angry:
We've been to several protests, and a Veterans Vigil for the Fallen. At that particular event, (and one we attended 10/2 in DC) Iraq Veterans Against The War (http://www.ivaw.net/) were there. They spoke about what has been happening. Also, Military Families Speak Out (http://www.mfso.org/) were there, and had quite a bit to say on the subject matter.

[bigboab]

Is this why they are sending the Black Watch up to that area?:(

[Everose]

Thankfully there will be lawyers, Ruthie. No automatic shooting, beheaded or such and branded as traitors.

I am thankful it is this way in our country, under any Administration. It doesn't seem like any soldier in any war under any administration gets everything he needs. Were it so, we would send them in a nice warm bubble with all their needs met, or better yet, we would not be sending them, period.

A touch of irony here, no? These soldiers were sent on a mission to carry needed petrol (supplies) to their comrades, were they not????

[Rat Faced]

Thankfully there will be lawyers, Ruthie.

I am thankful it is this way in our country, under any Administration.

A touch of irony here, no? These soldiers were sent on a mission to carry needed petrol (supplies) to their comrades, were they not????

Tell that to those in Cuba ;)

Granted, that they were going to take supplies to their comrades, its still the responsability of the commanders to protect a logistics convoy.

If that Convoy includes trucks that are unlikely to even make the distance, and are carrying Dangerous Cargo, then that is even more so.

Western Armies often send Combat Troops on risky missions, thats what they are trained for.

Logistics are there to transport needed supplies...they are not primarily trained as Infantry, they are Drivers, Warehousemen, Clerks... ie: The trades that are required in a Trucking Company, with basic Infantry Skills added.

This is why they are escorted on their Journeys.

If you try and get Infantry to fire Artillery, you'll kill more of your own guys than the enemy. Likewise, the Artillerymen may have basic Infantry Training, but they are not Infantry... the grunts would do a much better job of any mission with a hugely reduced casualty rate.

To ask Trained personnel to try and master Trades and Training that they do not possess "On the Ground" in a Combat Environment is, to all intents and purposes, a suicide mission... Skills need time and training to be aquired.

Sorry for my rant, however being an Ex Artilleryman myself, I can see their point in this...

[Everose]

Yup. Let's keep hearing from the administration how "we take care of our troops". It's a bunch of bullshit. Many of the troops have family members sending equipment from home because they are not properly armed.
Sounds like they might be getting Gitmo treatment...where are the lawyers? America needs to wake up


Thankfully there will be lawyers, Ruthie. No automatic shooting, beheaded or such and branded as traitors.

I am thankful it is this way in our country, under any Administration. It doesn't seem like any soldier in any war under any administration gets everything he needs. Were it so, we would send them in a nice warm bubble with all their needs met, or better yet, we would not be sending them, period.

A touch of irony here, no? These soldiers were sent on a mission to carry needed petrol (supplies) to their comrades, were they not????

Rat--imho the irony stands. ;)

[Rat Faced]

Yup. Let's keep hearing from the administration how "we take care of our troops". It's a bunch of bullshit. Many of the troops have family members sending equipment from home because they are not properly armed.
Sounds like they might be getting Gitmo treatment...where are the lawyers? America needs to wake up



Thankfully there will be lawyers, Ruthie. No automatic shooting, beheaded or such and branded as traitors.

I am thankful it is this way in our country, under any Administration. It doesn't seem like any soldier in any war under any administration gets everything he needs. Were it so, we would send them in a nice warm bubble with all their needs met, or better yet, we would not be sending them, period.

A touch of irony here, no? These soldiers were sent on a mission to carry needed petrol (supplies) to their comrades, were they not????

Rat--imho the irony stands. ;)


Oh i see...

Rather dead for no reason, than sent with an escort, as Standard Operating Procedures require....

They have a defence, in that if they were ordered to go against SOP's, then they have every right to refuse... at least in the UK forces they have, and i would assume that the US forces would also look at it this way...

[Everose]

Oh i see...

Rather dead for no reason, than sent with an escort, as Standard Operating Procedures require....

They have a defence, in that if they were ordered to go against SOP's, then they have every right to refuse... at least in the UK forces they have, and i would assume that the US forces would also look at it this way...


Please re-read my post, Rat. In America, we do have lawyers that will handle this. You are very right. They do have a right to refuse, and I am thankful for this. I am sorry you could not see the simple irony in the fact that Ruthe was saying our soldiers cannot get the supplies they need and these soldiers were carriers of supplies.

[Rat Faced]

Please re-read my post, Rat. In America, we do have lawyers that will handle this. You are very right. They do have a right to refuse, and I am thankful for this. I am sorry you could not see the simple irony in the fact that Ruthe was saying our soldiers cannot get the supplies they need and these soldiers were carriers of supplies.

Ah..

My appologies Everose, not at my best today...

[hobbes]

Ruthie,

You are posting the opinions of family members and accepting it as fact. Your sources couldn't be more biased.

I am a bit bewildered to what end it would serve to send anyone on a "suicide mission". The soldiers would die and the supplies would not be delivered.

I think we will need to see how this plays out and get a more objective opinion of the situation.

At the moment, we have to consider what those people are doing that were relying on those supplies.

Has another group of soldiers done the job those soldiers refused and, if so, what happened to them?

War can be dangerous.

This may be a situation in which the soldiers were completely in the right, but I don't have enough information, other than the opinions of their wives and mothers, to make an informed decision.

[Comic_Peddler]

Has another group of soldiers done the job those soldiers refused and, if so, what happened to them?


Another group of soldiers did the job, and nothing happened to them.

Edit: I find it interesting that they originally said the did not want to deliver the supplies because they would be without an armed guard, but now, their story has changed. They now claim that the fuel they were delivering was contaminated and would have caused the helicopters to crash, so apparently they are claiming they saved lives......hmm, yea ok, I believe that. Get the story straight BEFOREhand.

[vidcc]

Another group of soldiers did the job, and nothing happened to them.

Edit: I find it interesting that they originally said the did not want to deliver the supplies because they would be without an armed guard, but now, their story has changed. They now claim that the fuel they were delivering was contaminated and would have caused the helicopters to crash, so apparently they are claiming they saved lives......hmm, yea ok, I believe that. Get the story straight BEFOREhand.
Looking at the story we don't have enough first hand information to tell exactly what the reason(s) was.

Seems to be mostly statements from relatives. I haven't been following this story in the media, but usually the real reason gets bound up with rumours and misquotes. so i wouldn't go judging them too quickly.:)

[Comic_Peddler]

No one ever judges here, suredly not! :-P

Actually, when they played the recorded phone calls of the soldiers talking to family the soldiers say they DO NOT HAVE THE APPOPRIATE PROTECTION to do the job properly. They never mentioned any other reason, only this one.

And another thing, these are adults, why the hell are they running calling mommy? Mommy didn't fill out your enlistment papers, you did.

[DanB]

And another thing, these are adults, why the hell are they running calling mommy? Mommy didn't fill out your enlistment papers, you did.


Cos if you get one phonecall home who the hell are you going to call if its not your mum/wife/husband? :unsure:

[ruthie]

They were orginally on a fuel delivery mission. That was halted because of contaminated fuel..mixed with water. Upon return, they were given another assignment..into a danger zone. Normally, on that particular type of mission, to the location they were going, there would be armored truck and helicopter escort, however there were none available.

[Biggles]

To be fair to the guys, transporting petrol with an escort is a risky business in Iraq - without is just suicidal.

Petrol is a rather nasty thing to be sitting on when people are throwing bullets about.

Did the replacement platoon volunteer to do without an escort or was one available by then?

Sounds like there are too few troops - surely not? :o

[Busyman]

They were orginally on a fuel delivery mission. That was halted because of contaminated fuel..mixed with water. Upon return, they were given another assignment..into a danger zone. Normally, on that particular type of mission, to the location they were going, there would be armored truck and helicopter escort, however there were none available.
Comic Peddler are you reading this?

RIF

I still agree that more info is needed though. It's still weird that folks come to conclusions based info that they read incorrectly.

agian RFI :blink:

[ruthie]

To be fair to the guys, transporting petrol with an escort is a risky business in Iraq - without is just suicidal.

Petrol is a rather nasty thing to be sitting on when people are throwing bullets about.

Did the replacement platoon volunteer to do without an escort or was one available by then?

Sounds like there are too few troops - surely not? :o
haven't heard anything on that yet.

[scroff]

"I am sorry you could not see the simple irony in the fact that Ruthe was saying our soldiers cannot get the supplies they need and these soldiers were carriers of supplies"

For want of a nail the shoe is lost, for want of a shoe the horse is lost, for want of a horse the rider is lost.....

[cpt_azad]

Ancient Bush family proverb; Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day... drown him in the lake and he'll never be hungry again.

lol, nice scroff, i like it

[Rat Faced]

"I am sorry you could not see the simple irony in the fact that Ruthe was saying our soldiers cannot get the supplies they need and these soldiers were carriers of supplies"

For want of a nail the shoe is lost, for want of a shoe the horse is lost, for want of a horse the rider is lost.....

Finish it....

for want of a rider the battle was lost, for want of the battle the war was lost...

[Everose]

Ah..

My appologies Everose, not at my best today...


No problem, Rat Faced. Happens to us all.

[scroff]

Ancient Bush family proverb; Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day... drown him in the lake and he'll never be hungry again.

lol, nice scroff, i like it

thankee, sir!

[hobbes]

700 hundred trucks per day delivering 300 million gallons of fuel with over 50 million miles logged.

The drivers make 3X the normal trucker pay and the job is completely voluntary and the drivers are civilian.

And were are supposed to understand that this particular incident about 17 people has any relevance in relation to the big picture, in relation to what has been done in order to protect our drivers.

How many truckers have died? 17. Assuming 300 days as a conservative guess, that is 210,000 missions with 17 deaths.

Just absolutely astounding what people will post to support their agenda. Really turns me away from their cause.

[scroff]

700 hundred trucks per day delivering 300 million gallons of fuel with over 50 million miles logged.

The drivers make 3X the normal trucker pay and the job is completely voluntary and the drivers are civilian....

"A 17-member Army Reserve platoon "

Guess you missed that, eh?


Just absolutely astounding what people will post to support their agenda. Really turns me away from their cause.

I agree.

[hobbes]

"A 17-member Army Reserve platoon "

Guess you missed that, eh?



I agree.

No I didn't. Why would the Army treat it's people any differently? It does not change the concept. Nice attempt to make people miss the point. These supply runs have been successfully performed by civilian and military units. The case presented is an exception and not the rule. We must investigate this case further, but we must not accept family member testimony at face value, which is what the author wants us to do.

Before you make some quip about my agenda, please explain what it is. Vague innuendo is rather childish. Ruthie's agenda is in every post and at her web site. Anti-Bush at all cost.

Would have been nice for you to admit your bias up front, helps people to know you are really speaking sincerely and not just defending your wife :dry:

[Rat Faced]

The Army DOES treat its people differently from Civilian Companies...

I would have thought that self evident :blink:

No right to withdraw labour, lower wages by far for the same job, Extra Regulations and Laws to be considered, a lot more "Bosses" per employee, Discipline, usually worse equipment, and the Employer has less responsibility for the safety of servicemen... I mean, where are they actually similar?


Congratulations Scrogg and Ruthie... I didnt know you'd tied the knot.. :P

And also... to vdcc on his 102nd Birthday? :blink: :unsure: :rolleyes: :lol:

[ruthie]

Would have been nice for you to admit your bias up front, helps people to know you are really speaking sincerely and not just defending your wife :dry:

ROFL. It has already been discussed through another thread that we are indeed, a couple. I don't need to be defended. You obviously know of our (http://www.anywhichway.net) website..which Scroff put together. Anyone checking the site knows this, so let's not pretend there were veils of secrecy..like the Bush administration. ROFL


Congratulations Scrogg and Ruthie... I didnt know you'd tied the knot.. Why thank you. I didn't know either. Neither does Scroff. ROFL

[Busyman]

ROFL. It has already been discussed through another thread that we are indeed, a couple. I don't need to be defended. You obviously know of our (http://www.anywhichway.net) website..which Scroff put together. Anyone checking the site knows this, so let's not pretend there were veils of secrecy..like the Bush administration. ROFL

Why thank you. I didn't know either. Neither does Scroff. ROFL
You were hypnotized by a priest. :dry:

[ruthie]

Say it ain't so, Busyman. I am only hypnotized by the smell of good coffee. LOL

[scroff]

Wanna bet?

[scroff]

Would have been nice for you to admit your bias up front

Um, I'd think it's pretty obvious.

What's the big deal about bias? Yea, I'm biased when it comes to Bush and his followers, so what? I think they're screwing up my country.

[ruthie]

Wanna bet?
you win! :wub:

[hobbes]

The Army DOES treat its people differently from Civilian Companies...

I would have thought that self evident :blink:

No right to withdraw labour, lower wages by far for the same job, Extra Regulations and Laws to be considered, a lot more "Bosses" per employee, Discipline, usually worse equipment, and the Employer has less responsibility for the safety of servicemen... I mean, where are they actually similar?


Congratulations Scrogg and Ruthie... I didnt know you'd tied the knot.. :P

l:


I would imagine that an Army officer would be just as concerned for the life of one of his soldiers as a civilian life.

True that one must send soldiers on dangerous missions, but in regards to delivering supplies, what motivation would there be to needlessly risk a life and have no expectation for the supplies to arrive? That is what we were told...it was a suicide mission.

And to use the testimony of family members to justify their refusal, that is about as biased a source as one can get.

The implication is that this is the norm, otherwise why bother posting it, but really how many have died delivering supplies, out of the total killed? How many supply missions have been run? Why are we letting an exceptional case represent the norm. Unless, of course, it fits our agenda.


Scrogg,

I know you and Ruthie have a relationship, but many here don't. That would be relevant information to the average Joe in understanding the context in which to view your post. Is he some objective onlooker, or is there something between he and Ruthie that might explain why he was objecting to Hobbes' post.?

Whether you are actually married or not is not relevant to the CONCEPT. You 2 share a passion for politics and host a site together. Ruthie has been known to post under your name and refer to you as "sweetie".

The important concept is that you have strong feelings for her, whether you are actually legally united is not relevant to how you might have an inclination towards defending her. No need to quibble details.

Some people will laud your posts because they concur with your outlook. They will agree with you and slap you back when you twist a scenario to make Bush look bad. They will turn their heads away from the truth and say, "Well, it is justified for the cause".

I'll tell you it is biased crap, even if I agree with you that Bush needs to go. I think that anything that we stand for can justify itself, without unbalanced stories to deceive.

Bias: 3 a : BENT, TENDENCY b : an inclination of temperament or outlook; especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment.

Bias leads to intellectual dishonesty and undermines the credibility of the poster.

Anything that is posted should attempt to look at both sides of the coin. My 2 sided cent.

[Rat Faced]

Individual Officers ARE concerned about their soldiers safety, very concerned.

Army regulations are much tighter regarding the safety of civilians, over the safety of Soldiers though.

Certainly in UK and Europe in general, and im almost certain in the US Services

[Biggles]

I am not going to say anything about the cut and paste debate. I prefer to say my own piece rather than go looking for links - but rather assumed this was because I couldn't be arsed. I also suspect that, like me, many can't be arsed to read half the links placed here, although I do of occasion dip in if a tasty morsal pasted in attracts my attention.

With regards the convoys, I believe these have taken a bit of a beating and a lot of them have been attacked. These attacks may not have resulted in a lot of deaths amongst the truck drivers but this may be because the attackers can't see past blowing up the Humvees escorting them. An awful lot of US military deaths are as a result of convoy escort duties or regular patrols of the roads used by the convoys. If an unescorted convoy was attacked it would stand little chance. I have some sympathy if the soldiers were asked to perform an unreasonable task due to over-stretch of resources. However, the whole thing may be due to a combination of factors including personality clashes with middle ranking officers and the men in the unit. Bad management happens in the army too.

[hobbes]

Individual Officers ARE concerned about their soldiers safety, very concerned.

Army regulations are much tighter regarding the safety of civilians, over the safety of Soldiers though.

Certainly in UK and Europe in general, and im almost certain in the US Services

That is my point, they are concerned about a soldiers safety. They would not send them on a suicide mission simply to deliver tainted gas.

Doesn't that sound bizarre? Why would they send reservists (not real soldiers, but those 1 weekend a month people) on a suicide mission to deliver tainted fuel? Don't you see how this is supposed to make you think "conspiracy". What sane leadership would order this and arrest them if they did not participate. Certainly someone who didn't care, who was cruel and manipulative.

You have to be sensitive to the subtle nuances. And if you are wrong or over-reading, it is because the submitting author has undermined her credibility with prior posts of dubious merit.

[hobbes]

However, the whole thing may be due to a combination of factors including personality clashes with middle ranking officers and the men in the unit. Bad management happens in the army too.


Yes, I was wondering if this might have arisen from a "pissing contest". Some little man in charge with a Napolean complex. Really hard to say, but I have certainly been in situations in which "professional" people have became completely petty when their judgemnet was questioned.

[vidcc]

ask any military leader, soldiers are not toys to throw away for no reason but there has to be risk assesment and sometimes the objective puts pressure on safety. What has to looked at was "acceptable risk". Perhaps in the mind of these soldiers the risk was viewed greater than the view of the person giving the orders not going on the mission thought.

Of course this goes against military dicipline and could lead to a serious problem if it becomes common.

[Rat Faced]

That is my point, they are concerned about a soldiers safety. They would not send them on a suicide mission simply to deliver tainted gas.

Doesn't that sound bizarre? Why would they send reservists (not real soldiers, but those 1 weekend a month people) on a suicide mission to deliver tainted fuel? Don't you see how this is supposed to make you think "conspiracy". What sane leadership would order this and arrest them if they did not participate. Certainly someone who didn't care, who was cruel and manipulative.

You have to be sensitive to the subtle nuances. And if you are wrong or over-reading, it is because the submitting author has undermined her credibility with prior posts of dubious merit.

The trouble is that... the higher in Rank they get, the less concerned they are about the soldiers themselves.

A Lt KNOWS these guys, a General doesnt, they are just numbers, and that General has priorities laid before him.

In a Combat situation, there is no distinction between Regular and Reserve Forces. Take it from one that knows...

On a weekend excercise, the TA (equivalent to your National Guard) can get away with Blue Murder... they are volunteers and they have to make it fun for them, or they dont come back next weekend.

In the Combat Environment however, they are treated EXACTLY the same, and expected to perform EXACTLY the same as the Regular Soldiers. Often, the senior Officers do not even know who is Regular and who is Reserve, unless the Regiments are kept intact. Due to the training, this is quite rare... they often put Reserves in Regular Regiments and vise versa... to spread the experiance.


Edit: This is the TA, UK equivalent. Im pretty sure its common practice in US National Guard too.

[hobbes]

By "real soldiers", I meant those who could respond to an attack. I would be more likely to send soldiers, who could carry out a counter attack, or at least respond to an averse situation in a well choreographed fashion into a trickier situation than someone who is basically just a driver.

[ruthie]

Scrogg,

I know you and Ruthie have a relationship, but many here don't. That would be relevant information to the average Joe in understanding the context in which to view your post. Is he some objective onlooker, or is there something between he and Ruthie that might explain why he was objecting to Hobbes' post.?

Whether you are actually married or not is not relevant to the CONCEPT. You 2 share a passion for politics and host a site together. Ruthie has been known to post under your name and refer to you as "sweetie".

The important concept is that you have strong feelings for her, whether you are actually legally united is not relevant to how you might have an inclination towards defending her. No need to quibble details.

Some people will laud your posts because they concur with your outlook. They will agree with you and slap you back when you twist a scenario to make Bush look bad. They will turn their heads away from the truth and say, "Well, it is justified for the cause".
To address this briefly. We thought this was understood..we are a couple, as I stated previously, days ago. I am known to post under Scroff's name..when I have ever done that, it has been accidental, and followed with the proper log-in, stating it was RUTHIE who made the post. I understand you feel i don't present a "balanced" view, however I find nothing balanced in the politcal scene these days. I have, however, posted my own feelings about Kerry, which are not all positive. Enough already.

On an entirely different note, the Company Commander of the US Army Reserve unit has been relieved of her duties...as per her request, effective immediately. The statement given was basically that this not to indicate any type of misconduct on her part.

[hobbes]

I understand the relationship you two have, but I was saying that others may not, and that is important for them to know in the context of his reply.

Unfortunately, I am probably wrong. I have looked back over several pages and many threads, and it seems to be the same handful of people.

Rat, when is fearless leader going to learn to redirect hits our way so that our stagnant puddle doesn't dry up? Why can't he make it so that if someone types K-lite in Google, our little forum shows up in the list?

[Mathea]

As an aside, going off topic from the original post but stayin on with the alternating theme of the thread.... while you view ppls posts as biased, it seems that you harbor a grudge against certain ppl in particular. From my understanding, they're both open about their views as well as their relationship. Meanwhile I dont see you going after other people who make comments and such that have no factual backing at all.

Dont get me wrong. I think its important for ppl to have all the facts, from both sides, when dealing with an issue. While some people are clear on where they stand and their opinions, others may come here to learn more about whats going on, and these people do have the right to see both sides of an arguement. (Though it is quite possible to search things if one wants to know whats going on). But I dont see how they are hiding their "agenda"....

Ive only been coming in here again the past couple days, but the threads i have read seem to be as they should. An article is found, quoted... the source is linked. Then the persons opinion or comment is written. Am I missing something here? As for them advertising their site... its in their sigs, and not all the articles either scroff or ruthie post are from there. While they may be copied on their site, they come from other sources (this one being armytimes.com).

Basically, everyone is entitled to their say, so let them have it. When debating with them, how about you finding some facts that support the other side, if you're so supportive of a fair and unbiased thread for other readers? Im not trying to argue with you, just saying that it seems as though btwn u 3 this has gotten rather personal, and it doesnt seem necessary.

Again, I think it's good that theres someone that feels as i do in that all the facts should be laid out, not just the ones that support a particular side. But in order for that to happen, someone has to do the other sides research.

Okay, end of rant. Hope it makes sense, Im extremely tired having worked after little sleep.

[Busyman]

At the very least, I know why Scroff and ruthie post what they post, which I might has basis in fact.

Others on here merely post only rhetoric and barely have an opinion.

I know, as Scroff said, that they post these things because they believe Bush is fucking up the country.

What about the Bush supporters?

[Mathea]

At the very least, I know why Scroff and ruthie post what they post, which I might has basis in fact.

Others on here merely post only rhetoric and barely have an opinion.

I know, as Scroff said, that they post these things because they believe Bush is fucking up the country.

What about the Bush supporters?


this being a nicer, shorter summary of what i meant to say :P

ty busyman

[scroff]

Hobbes...

As far as ruthie and I, it's nobody's business, and I think you should mind your own. If we choose to make it public that's our choice. I could care less what you might think of our relationship or how you might think that lends to my credibility. Perhaps you and your wife, girlfriend, dog or whatever might walk in lockstep, but that doesn't mean we do. Perhaps you should read Everose's latest post.


Is he some objective onlooker, or is there something between he and Ruthie that might explain why he was objecting to Hobbes' post.? I don't recall objecting to any of your posts to ruthie on the basis of substance. I may disagree with you and respond. I only "objected" to one of your posts, in another thread, where you personally attacked her in a manner I felt was unnecessarily abrasive.

Another thread, btw, where you state

"Anyway, it is done, I too am ready to move on to fresh ground"

I guess that was bullshit eh? Or... maybe you just flip-flopped?

[scroff]

That is my point, they are concerned about a soldiers safety. They would not send them on a suicide mission simply to deliver tainted gas.

Doesn't that sound bizarre? Why would they send reservists (not real soldiers, but those 1 weekend a month people) on a suicide mission to deliver tainted fuel? Don't you see how this is supposed to make you think "conspiracy". What sane leadership would order this and arrest them if they did not participate. Certainly someone who didn't care, who was cruel and manipulative.

You have to be sensitive to the subtle nuances. And if you are wrong or over-reading, it is because the submitting author has undermined her credibility with prior posts of dubious merit.They would send them on a "suicide mission" if the OIC didn't think it was a suicide mission. Why does that sound bizarre? Do you know how many times troops, including reservists, are sent into harms way, all the while thinking the mission is absurd? Do you know how many times troops protest a specific mission, and how often the OIC will reconsider it, perhaps even taking their concerns into consideration and altering the mission? Do you know how many reservists are in Iraq right now? Do you know what missions they have been sent on? Have you bothered to do a follow up on the story to see what else has developed?

I don't see how this is supposed to make anyone think "conspiracy". I see it as information to consider when forming your own opinion. Opinions not based on information, all the information available, are uninformed opinions and pretty much worthless. I'm sure you've heard that old saying about opinions. The submitting author has only, as far as I can see, undermined her credibility in your view, and the dubious merit of those articles is a matter of uninformed opinion. :cool:

I'm not sure what your agenda is here. Are you trying to discredit the story, the reservists, the family members, or ruthie? If you have issues with the stories or the information presented in them, then do some research and refute them. I'm getting real tired of these innuendos about ruthie.

[scroff]

By "real soldiers", I meant those who could respond to an attack. I would be more likely to send soldiers, who could carry out a counter attack, or at least respond to an averse situation in a well choreographed fashion into a trickier situation than someone who is basically just a driver.
You mean infantry, riflemen, combat troops? The 343rd Quartermaster Company is none of those. It's a supply outfit.

So you're saying you would be less likely to send troops who weren't "real soldiers" into a "trickier" situation, unless they were able to respond to an averse situation in a well choreographed fashion? Really. What would be your considerations when making that decision?

[hobbes]

At the very least, I know why Scroff and ruthie post what they post, which I might has basis in fact.

Others on here merely post only rhetoric and barely have an opinion.

I know, as Scroff said, that they post these things because they believe Bush is fucking up the country.

What about the Bush supporters?


Yes, I understand why they post what they post, just like I understand why Frank the Tank and J2 post as they do? So what?

As you have stated the articles posted have a basis in truth, just like Fahrenheit 9/11 and a made for TV movie. You tell people the parts you want them to hear and sweep the relevant material that might create a more balanced story under the rug.

Are you in support of people pushing agenda over truth Busyman, or only in those cases in which you agree?

@Mathea, I have not personally atttacked Ruthie, I have attacked the style in which the articles she has posted were constructed and the conclusions she came to based on those articles. I think articles should not just state that something happened and the soldier Mommies' agreed it was bad and we should assume from this single incident that US military does not care for it's soldiers. Which was her conclusion.

Had I called her names, or stupid or presumed myself more enlightened than she (as Scroff and his not so modest opinion does with me), that would be a personal attack.

Why are they allowed to state their opinions and I not allowed to state mine? They state their opinions via the articles they post. I post my opinion by looking a how well the article attempt to give a balanced view of a situation. I'm not say they are wrong, just telling people that the whole truth has not really been revealed.

Copy and paste is also extremely lazy. What would be the point of talk club if those with opposing views just exchanged copy and paste articles from their propaganda site of choice?

I prefer discussions in which people say what they think in their own words and you can say, "I see you point, but what about.... ?" An exchange of ideas can ensue.

Posting someone elses article and saying, "See, the government doesn't care, wake up", leaves me dis-satisfied.

As for RF, don't worry about that, we get along fine.

[hobbes]

Hobbes...

Another thread, btw, where you state

"Anyway, it is done, I too am ready to move on to fresh ground"

I guess that was bullshit eh? Or... maybe you just flip-flopped?


And I did, where is the confusion?

[ruthie]

from Army Times (http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-453911.php)

Yup. Let's keep hearing from the administration how "we take care of our troops". It's a bunch of bullshit. Many of the troops have family members sending equipment from home because they are not properly armed.
Sounds like they might be getting Gitmo treatment...where are the lawyers? America needs to wake up



I have not personally atttacked Ruthie, I have attacked the style in which the articles she has posted were constructed and the conclusions she came to based on those articles. I think articles should not just state that something happened and the soldier Mommies' agreed it was bad and we should assume from this single incident that US military does not care for it's soldiers. Which was her conclusion.

Just a correction here. I did not conclude that the US military
does not care for it's soldiers. I concluded the problem is the administration. I conclude this as I watch what happens to VA benefits, as I see troops sent to Iraq without proper equipment, etc. The point is..I said ADMINISTRATION...not US MILITARY.

[hobbes]

Yes, it would be very convenient for us to believe in a black and white world where Bush is pure evil.

"The troops, fuck'em, you can't sell 'em by the barrell and they're easy to replace".

When you think of the administration, they are responsible for every dead soldier and the American people will only tolerate so many dead soldiers. It is of the utmost importance to them to minimize casualties. As for equipment, perhaps our soldier are at war, and not a country club ordering from the bar. Perhaps nobody wanted to risk their life delivering the need supplies?

Look at the major offense, the take over of an entire country. How many died? An astoundingly low number. An air campaign paved the trail, as in Gulf War 1, to save our soldiers lives. No kudos for that, eh? No, we berate Bush for killing innocent Iraqi women and children in a wanton and craven manner. We specialize in blowing up wedding parties.

We are now mirered in a civil war, the suicide attacks and sniper fire are certain to take soldiers out one at a time. Nothing one can really do about that and that is a scary situation.

I think the administration cares, I can't see why they wouldn't. They have everything to loss and draw closer to losing it with every soldiers death.

[ruthie]

Yes, it would be very convenient for us to believe in a black and white world where Bush is pure evil.

"The troops, fuck'em, you can't sell 'em by the barrell and they're easy to replace".

When you think of the administration, they are responsible for every dead soldier and the American people will only tolerate so many dead soldiers. It is of the utmost importance to them to minimize casualties. As for equipment, perhaps our soldier are at war, and not a country club ordering from the bar. Perhaps nobody wanted to risk their life delivering the need supplies?

Look at the major offense, the take over of an entire country. How many died? An astoundingly low number. An air campaign paved the trail, as in Gulf War 1, to save our soldiers lives. No kudos for that, eh? No, we berate Bush for killing innocent Iraqi women and children in a wanton and craven manner. We specialize in blowing up wedding parties.

We are now mirered in a civil war, the suicide attacks and sniper fire are certain to take soldiers out one at a time. Nothing one can really do about that and that is a scary situation.
I think the administration cares, I can't see why they wouldn't. They have everything to loss and draw closer to losing it with every soldiers death.

I understand what you are saying..I don't normally see things in black and white..I see shades of gray...in most situations. I also don't like to use the word "evil" because that sounds too churchy for me, yet somehow it fits when talking about Bush.
I'm sure not one soldier "wants" to risk their life. Having proper equipment would somewhat lower the risk. They were sent into Iraq unprepared on every level.

The major offense is where the problem began..the takeover of a country. I don't think the number of casualties is low at all. And yes, we have blown up wedding parties, we keep bombing Fallujah..cause the bad guy was in a safe house. I don't buy that the entire city has only safe houses in it and not plain old civilians. The way was paved to save our soldiers lives? I don't believe thats true. If they didn't equip them properly, we paved no road. Why were not the lives of civilians equally important? No one knows the true number of Iraqi casualties. I'm not even touching the depleted uranium issue here. (but I probably should).

I agree that we are mired in the war. There was no plan. I don't think the administration is worried about losing support with added deaths of soldiers. It seems like the general feeling in this country is..yer either with em, or against them.. (them being the administration).
There are no kudo's to be given to an occupier.
More importantly, what was the reason we went into Iraq again? How easy was this going to be? How were we going to be greeted by Iraqi's?
Most importantly...Saddam had NOTHING to do with 911. It is a war based on bullshit.

[hobbes]

Actually, a relationship between Saddam and 9/11 has ABSOLUTELY no bearing on the justification of the war. I'm not sure why people think this important.

I never did and I don't. I think I posted on this in WN but it got lost in the move.

But then again, I have posted my opinions on the war over and over.

The war is based on getting a guy out who the world (and RF) wanted us to take out 14 years ago, but we didn't do it because we really had no plan. 12 years of sanctions made no headway, but to allow Saddam to build gold toilets and let his people die as he diverted Iraqi's resources to his pet projects.

We have a plan now, it is just going to be harder to execute than it was originally thought.


There are no kudo's to be given to an occupier.

You have completely distorted the context in which I used "giving kudos". Since you here to play word games, count me out!


I guess the bottom line Ruthie is that I agree with you and Scroff that Bush needs to go.

But when I read some of the things you post, my sense of fair play makes me say "Oh come on now, that's not the whole story".

So if I am on your side and I react negatively to things I see as propaganda, how will the neutral observer feel. You will drive him from your goal.

If one lays out a situation, addressing the pluses and minuses and concludes that that overall Bush fucked up, I have no problem with that. But I get the feeling that anything and everything you see and hear gets put through the twister and comes out as another anti-Bush piece, the real truth bedamned.

Anybody who is purely motivated will always triumph when the truth is on their side. No need to distort and deceive, that is what the people you are better than do.

[Busyman]

Yes, I understand why they post what they post, just like I understand why Frank the Tank and J2 post as they do? So what?

As you have stated the articles posted have a basis in truth, just like Fahrenheit 9/11 and a made for TV movie. You tell people the parts you want them to hear and sweep the relevant material that might create a more balanced story under the rug.

Are you in support of people pushing agenda over truth Busyman, or only in those cases in which you agree?

There is no so what. If you happen to have another side that is so conveniently left out let us know or else a STFU might be in order.

Most of the posts here are opinions on reality.
Sad to say not that much spin is needed with the current administration.

Whatever we might hear on the news can be construed as one sided.
Again if it's not presented to your satisfaction please entertain us all by, not really stating an opinion about the topic.

Thank You hobbes for Being A Good Journalist 101.

Astounding news......


The war is based on getting a guy out who the world (and RF) wanted us to take out 14 years ago, but we didn't do it because we really had no plan. 12 years of sanctions made no headway, but to allow Saddam to build gold toilets and let his people die as he diverted Iraqi's resources to his pet projects.

Hmph. I thought it was WMD. :dry:

[scroff]

And I did, where is the confusion?
Oh, I don't know, maybe it was the reference in this thread, in a personal post to me, to the thread where you said you were ready to move on to fresh ground. Silly me.

So, you can have the last word.

[scroff]

The war is based on getting a guy out who the world (and RF) wanted us to take out 14 years ago, but we didn't do it because we really had no plan.We definitely did have a plan, the plan was not to go into Iraq...


"Trying to eliminate Saddam .. would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible ... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq ...there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land." (as an aside, the bit in there about an international response sounds vaguely familiar...)


12 years of sanctions made no headway, but to allow Saddam to build gold toilets and let his people die as he diverted Iraqi's resources to his pet projects.Which were?


"We had a good discussion, the foreign minister and I and the president and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was 10 years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."See it in video (http://www.anywhichway.net/mp3/apv_aeon/andromeda.php?q=m&m=%2Fvideo%2Fpowell-rice-wmd%2Ewmv) (windows media file)

Sanctions were achieving their intended purpose. There were changes needed, but they were working. The inspectors sent in in 2001 needed more than the few months given to establish the absence of WMD, and just when they said they were ready for full scale operations, Bush invaded Iraq, needlessly. Over 1100 US troops, as well as "coalition" troops and thousands of Iraqis, are dead. For each dead or maimed Iraqi there is a family, many of whom are now seeking revenge. "Flowers" have been replaced by IEDs.

I wonder if it would be considered "propaganda" to attribute this snafu to one George W Bush?

[scroff]

We have a plan now, it is just going to be harder to execute than it was originally thought.

I'd love for someone to elaborate on this "plan"...

[hobbes]

Oh, I don't know, maybe it was the reference in this thread, in a personal post to me, to the thread where you said you were ready to move on to fresh ground. Silly me.

So, you can have the last word.

It had nothing to do with you at all Scroff, it was Ruthie. So I guess you are silly.

Clarification: Ruthie had stated that she was done with the subject. My post was to say "fine, next topic". And we did so in the medical chip thread.

My same philosophy applies to you, but you seem to want to continue the discussion, which is fine with me. But you won't find me looking for posts you make and trying to undermine you. You might find that I am agreeing with you in one of your posts while telling you to STFU in another. I care about issues, not holding grudges against people.

[hobbes]

There is no so what. If you happen to have another side that is so conveniently left out let us know or else a STFU might be in order.

Most of the posts here are opinions on reality.
Sad to say not that much spin is needed with the current administration.

Whatever we might hear on the news can be construed as one sided.
Again if it's not presented to your satisfaction please entertain us all by, not really stating an opinion about the topic.

Thank You hobbes for Being A Good Journalist 101.

Astounding news......



Hmph. I thought it was WMD. :dry:


Hobbes very first post:

This may be a situation in which the soldiers were completely in the right, but I don't have enough information, other than the opinions of their wives and mothers, to make an informed decision.

Summary line of my first post. That is my opinion. It about critical evaluation of the merit of a post. I questioned if we were getting the whole story and I objected to Ruthie's conclusion that this incident justified the belief that the administration just doesn't care about our soldiers.

The other side that is left out is "How many supply missions have been run, how many deaths have occured". Then we can look for a trend.

I, of course, posted on this as well, did you miss that? Rat pointed out that I was citing civilian supply runs, not military supply runs and that the numbers might be different.

The point is that anyone implying that this incident somehow reflected a bigger failure by the administration would need to show how many similar missions were run and how many deaths occured. That would either support or debunk the assertions made.

It is called "reading analysis".

So I have not only clearly stated my opinion but also commented on what the "other side" would be.

I get the feeling that you are not reading this in an effort listen to alternate opinions but rather skimming it enough so that you may form a rebuttal. I cannot believe you are so blinded by your agenda. You're worse than Frank the Tank and his seeing eye dog. :dry:

As to WMD, that was the given reason, the real reason was to get Saddam out at all costs. And you, Busyman, should know by now my opinion on whether the war was justified.

Sorry that I am posting things that you don't want to hear.

So, the obligatory STFU and GTFO goes back to you.

[hobbes]

We definitely did have a plan, the plan was not to go into Iraq...

No, that is not true at all. General Schwarzkopf clearly stated that we wanted to go into Iraq. They were wary, however of the reaction of the neighboring Muslim countries and their hosts in Saudi Arabia. It was one thing for them to be there to liberate an Muslim country, but quite another to invade on. In addition, they realized that they had absolutely no plan after they took Hussein out.


But I think, more importantly, there's a strategic consideration. Saddam Hussein portrayed that war from the very beginning as "This is not a war against Iraqi aggression against Kuwait. This is the Western colonial lackey friends of Israel coming in to destroy the only nation that dare stand up to Israel, that is Iraq".

Had we proceeded to go on into Iraq and take all of Iraq, I think that you would have millions of people in that part of the world who would say Saddam was right, that that was the objective.

Instead we went in, we did what the United Nations mandate asked us to do and we left and we didn't ask for anything. We didn't leave permanent military forces over there, we didn't demand territory, we didn't demand bases, and the Arabs became convinced that the West was willing to deal with them evenhandedly which has led directly, in my mind, to the progress that's going on at the peace table an.. between Israel and the Arabs and the Palestinians. It never would have happened if Desert Storm hadn't occurred.

So the bottom line, as far as I'm concerned, is that sure, emotionally I would have loved to have gone to Baghdad and grabbed Saddam Hussein, but this was not an emotional decision, it was a strategic decision, and strategically we were smart enough to win the war and win the peace.

Wasn't George Senior president then? Could his so be son different?



Sanctions were achieving their intended purpose.

Killing Iraq citizens, yes. Colin Powell was delivering "politic speak" you are aware, no?

Political propaganda is something put forth which intentionally conceals relevant information. If you can't tell if something you post is propaganda or not, then you really shouldn't be posting. It is all about honesty to ones self. If you're posting partial truths and you know it, you are just as bad as the man who posts that Bush went into Iraq to free the fine people of a proud nation. :lol:

[scroff]

Wow, like Bush said... where to start?

First, I'd like you to point out to me where, in your quote, (I'm assuming that was Schwarzkopf) he said "we" wanted to go into Iraq and take Baghdad? I see where he says he, personally, would have liked to go, but that, as far as any general is concerned, is moot. Patton wanted to go into Moscow... the rest is history.


No, that is not true at allThat's not true? That's a direct quote from Bush 41, but I guess that was "politic speak".


Wasn't George Senior president then? Could his so be son different?Yes. His father didn't want to go into Iraq.


Colin Powell was delivering "politic speak" you are aware, no?Demonstrate that point to me... Show me any evidence to the contrary... show me where the sanctions weren't working. We now know, through the inspectors, that they were working, Iraq had no significant military, much less any wmd. Otherwise it's your opinion. You're entitled to your opinion, but you should say it's your opinion, like "In my not so humble opinion", or something to that effect. I guess you didn't bother to watch the video, eh?

Powell's "politic speak" happened in his presentation to the UN.

Sanctions, btw, weren't killing Iraqi citizens, Heussien was, and I've already said there were problems that needed to be addressed... but not by invading the friggin country.


As to WMD, that was the given reason, the real reason was to get Saddam out at all costs.That is your opinion.

The reason given to the US population and 1100+ dead toops was that Iraq was a threat to the US, that Iraq had UAV that could strike the heart of downtown Minneapolis and kill thousands of people, that we may wake up to find a "mushroom cloud" somewhere over the US. There are many "real reasons", some of which I garantee you do not know.

It's very easy to say something is "propaganda" or "politic speak" (Orwell would be proud) when you don't bother to check it out. If something is true is it still "politic speak" as far as you're concerned? Or do you just sling those terms around when you don't feel like checking things out and you need to dismiss something that doesn't fit with your world view?

[scroff]

This may be a situation in which the soldiers were completely in the right, but I don't have enough information, other than the opinions of their wives and mothers, to make an informed decision.
At that point, rather than blathering on about opinion and propagnada and agendas, you should find the information you need to make an informed decision.

Have you done that yet?

Have you considered my earlier questions, or, as you posted in your advice to Everose, should I simply consider you a liar?


If you ask specific questions and they don't tackle them head on, point for point, they are probably just liars attempting to keep their self delusion alive. Feck'em
Perhaps I should take your advice...

[Rat Faced]

OK Guys....

This is getting way too heated and personal...

As J2k4 once said... This place is for Rapiers, not Clubs....

Lets keep on topic, and less heated, or i'll have to close it...


Paul

[hobbes]

The reason given to the US population and 1100+ dead toops was that Iraq was a threat to the US, that Iraq had UAV that could strike the heart of downtown Minneapolis and kill thousands of people, that we may wake up to find a "mushroom cloud" somewhere over the US. There are many "real reasons", some of which I garantee you do not know.


Yet again, you deceive. No one said anything like that. You really undermine your credibility with your hyperbole. Makes you sound like a fringe character.

As to Norman S.- I believe that the he was reflecting the sentiment of the administration. The quote I gave you came from a documentary on Gulf WAr 1. It seemed rather evident that he was not just talking about his agenda. Believe what you need to.

When Bush says he has no plan to go into Iraq, when Colin Powell speaks his flowery lines, you post them as fact. Then turn around and tell us that Bush Jr spouts nothing but lies. On what criteria do you decide to believe one thing and reject another.

As for the sanctions working, RF tells me that they weren't. In fact, they were killing far more Iraq's than this current war did. My concern about sanctions is that once they were lifted, wouldn't Saddam or his sons' just return to business as usual in rebuilding their military and nuclear program or is the world supposed to moniter them indefinitely?

But then again, I have clearly stated my position on the war in Iraq in other posts, you might check them out.

[Rat Faced]

As for the sanctions working, RF tells me that they weren't. In fact, they were killing far more Iraq's than this current war did.


I believe I was saying that a decade of Bombing the hell out of Water Purification Plants and Electricity Generators, mixed with the denial of Basic Medical Supplies as "Dual Use" (Such as those frightening syringes) together with the repurcusions of using Depleted Uranium in Desert Storm..... had killed more civilians than Saddam Managed in his whole term as resident Bastard in Charge of the Country....



Edit:
I will agree in total in the generalisation that with Sanctions, the main people hit are the population. The Rich will always get what they want in any country....they can afford the Black Market. The General Public suffers... Such was the case in Iraq too. The Sanctions were NOT working as a means of removing Hussain from power, and thats all that the major nations really gave a monkeys about.

They did however work in one way... that of not being able to rebuild his Armed Forces.. He had to Canabalise most of what he had, to repair the remainder.. If the USA had asked Kuwait prior to the Invasion, they would have told you his Military Capability was the regions joke at the time...

[hobbes]

At that point, rather than blathering on about opinion and propagnada and agendas, you should find the information you need to make an informed decision.

Have you done that yet? Yes, an aspect of it is posted in this thread. Thanks for asking. Besides when someone makes a sweeping statement based on a single incident, why is the burden of rebuttal on me? I say the case has not effectively been made.

The burden of conclusive and balanced evidence should be placed on the poster.

Remember the thread 101 Bush lies. Remember how many of those were half truths or just simply wrong? It took the author 5 seconds to copy and paste and it would take days to research each lie and offer a rebuttal. Get my point?



Have you considered my earlier questions?

State them again, I'm not sure what I have not addressed, scouts honor.

[hobbes]

I believe I was saying that a decade of Bombing the hell out of Water Purification Plants and Electricity Generators, mixed with the denial of Basic Medical Supplies as "Dual Use" (Such as those frightening syringes) together with the repurcusions of using Depleted Uranium in Desert Storm..... had killed more civilians than Saddam Managed in his whole term as resident Bastard in Charge of the Country....

The point is that the sanctions were causing Saddam no distress, but his people were feeling the heat.

Saddam alone could have the sanctions lifted, he chose to let his people suffer. He could have also made syringes, chemotherapeutic agents and anti-biotics had that been part of his plan.

How were the sanctions working, Saddam couldn't give a crap about his people.


Noted edit:

About your last part RF, the problem I have, big picture, with sanctions is that if they were lifted, is the world supposed to babysit Saddam and his heirs forever? When does it end? You ignore SAddam and we all know exactly what he will do. Sanctions would never have provided a cure, only ridding Saddam and his sons would do that.

[Rat Faced]

Targeted sanctions may well have worked.

However, thats not what happened is it? How was denying anyone to send basic medical supplies supposed to affect Hussain? The only people it would affect was the general population.

As the whole idea behind the sanctions was, supposedly, to make him disarm... I guess there would be those that could argue that they did indeed work. I mean, no one found any WMD and the Armed Services were hardly anything special were they?

For myself, I think the cost was way too high in Human Life to justify the sanctions in the 1st place.

The time to go into Iraq was after Desert Storm, if it was going to happen. The same political problems and more, remained last year... As ive maintained all along. This whole thing has made the world a much more dangerous place :(

[ruthie]

The reason given to the US population and 1100+ dead toops was that Iraq was a threat to the US, that Iraq had UAV that could strike the heart of downtown Minneapolis and kill thousands of people, that we may wake up to find a "mushroom cloud" somewhere over the US. There are many "real reasons", some of which I garantee you do not know.



Yet again, you deceive. No one said anything like that. You really undermine your credibility with your hyperbole. Makes you sound like a fringe character.

Hobbes..do you not remember Condi's statement about a mushroom cloud? You don't remember talk of a UAV being capable of reaching the USA?

[hobbes]

Hobbes..do you not remember Condi's statement about a mushroom cloud? You don't remember talk of a UAV being capable of reaching the USA?

No and no.
But fair enough.
Looks like she "sexed up" the threat.

I don't really listen to the details politicians feed us. I only gestalt it. I think no one really knew what Saddam had. But given that, if you attack and are wrong, even if your intelligence was spotty, you still carry the blame.

I am sorry having never heard the above, but having read this:


This administration has no points, no balance. Bush is not an American president, but a Republican, fanatical, evangelical Christian president.

Still, I think a guy who speaks in absolutes might have a flair for the dramatic and might be a fringe character. ;)

[ruthie]

I know you are talking about Bush here.

[Busyman]

Hobbes very first post:


Summary line of my first post. That is my opinion. It about critical evaluation of the merit of a post. I questioned if we were getting the whole story and I objected to Ruthie's conclusion that this incident justified the belief that the administration just doesn't care about our soldiers.

The other side that is left out is "How many supply missions have been run, how many deaths have occured". Then we can look for a trend.

I, of course, posted on this as well, did you miss that? Rat pointed out that I was citing civilian supply runs, not military supply runs and that the numbers might be different.

The point is that anyone implying that this incident somehow reflected a bigger failure by the administration would need to show how many similar missions were run and how many deaths occured. That would either support or debunk the assertions made.

It is called "reading analysis".

So I have not only clearly stated my opinion but also commented on what the "other side" would be.

I get the feeling that you are not reading this in an effort listen to alternate opinions but rather skimming it enough so that you may form a rebuttal. I cannot believe you are so blinded by your agenda. You're worse than Frank the Tank and his seeing eye dog. :dry:

As to WMD, that was the given reason, the real reason was to get Saddam out at all costs. And you, Busyman, should know by now my opinion on whether the war was justified.

Sorry that I am posting things that you don't want to hear.

So, the obligatory STFU and GTFO goes back to you.

Read my first post. I'm the last person to believe everything against Bush but most refutation to the contrary doesn't add up either.

I'm inclined to believe ruthie's story as a somewhat underpinning of what's going on there since I have talked to a couple of soldiers "on rotation", there are soldiers getting help from "outside sources", and Bush simply had shit, or better yet, no plan. Soldiers on camera simply have no logistical problems. :dry:

At the same time wtf is the whole story? There some folks there that are working just fine and you feel the need to point it out.
Mmmkay. Great!!1!1! Duly noted.

Translation.......NO SHIT!! :lol: :lol:

No breakthrrough, nothing profound.

Maybe next time you want to group liberal minded folks into agenda driven story twisters you'll GTFO of that arrogant mind state, STFU, and actually read before attacking me about such things that do not exist.

RIF

and uh....os waht. :blink:

[hobbes]

Actually, I stated my opinion and clearly demonstrated why the story was biased with supporting evidence.

Why did you ask me what it was when it was already there?

You agenda driven lot are a frustrating bunch of sheep.

I'm glad you've managed to talk to 2 soldiers, I've talked to many more. All soldiers and their families want to live in an impervious plastic bubble. Their bias is easily understood.

As for liberal people, that would probaly include me, though I don't define myself as either conservative or liberal. I am truth motivated and do not subscribe to any agenda.

[hobbes]

Cardinals lost game 1 of the World Series 9-11. Coincidence? I think not.

Bush must go!

[scroff]

Still, I think a guy who speaks in absolutes might have a flair for the dramatic and might be a fringe character.
So, can I ask you to post some balance and positives of the Bush administration?

[scroff]

Targeted sanctions may well have worked.

However, thats not what happened is it? How was denying anyone to send basic medical supplies supposed to affect Hussain? The only people it would affect was the general population.

As the whole idea behind the sanctions was, supposedly, to make him disarm... I guess there would be those that could argue that they did indeed work. I mean, no one found any WMD and the Armed Services were hardly anything special were they?

For myself, I think the cost was way too high in Human Life to justify the sanctions in the 1st place.

The time to go into Iraq was after Desert Storm, if it was going to happen. The same political problems and more, remained last year... As ive maintained all along. This whole thing has made the world a much more dangerous place :(I agree the time to go into Iraq was after Desert Storm. The campaign was originally scheduled for five days, and within that time frame Schwarzkopf could have easliy taken Baghdad. The CiC and his advisors, Colin Powell and Dick Cheney being among them, decided not to and ended it early after conferring with Schwarzkopf.

After 9-11 this president squandered a golden opportunity concerning Iraq. The sanctions were achieving their objective, to force Iraq to dis-arm and keep them from re-arming. Weapons inspectors were back in Iraq, and were ready to begin fullscale inspections. On 1/27/03 Blix reported


Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt. We have further had great help in building up the infrastructure of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosul. Arrangements and services for our plane and our helicopters have been good. The environment has been workable.This was after only two months of renewed inspections. The two problems he noted were Iraq's unwillingness to allow U2 "spy" planes and that Iraq wanted thier helicopters to accompany our own (carrying inspectors) into the no-fly zones.

Had they had more time than the four months allowed by Bush, could they have found what we now know, after thousands of deaths and billions of dollars, at a fraction of the cost? Most likely.

Given that there were weapons inspectors in Iraq, and given that there could have been as many as were needed to do the job, what is to say that there couldn't have been human rights inspectors? The US could have chosen to lead the world in reviewing the sanctions, which were contributing to the deaths of 4500 children every month, according to UNICEF reports, and in conjunction with weapons inspectors and human rights inspectors, could reasonably have ended Saddam Hussein's reign of terror and may have lead to his downfall. We'll never know. We do know that Bush blew the chance to demonstrate to the world and the International Muslim community that we are capable of reviewing policy and correcting past errors. Remember that Iraq had nothing to do with 911 and was no "threat of unique urgency" as Bush stated in October 2002.

Bush should have continued Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and used the UN inspectors, in conjunction with Human Rights inspectors to remove Saddam Hussein, whose only power was over his own people. He would have trumped Clinton and the Democrats who, for eight years, did little to review or repair the sanctions. It would have shown that he was a real "compassionate conservative" and made it much more difficult for "Islamofacists" to find new recruits, unless, of course, one buys into the whole "they hate us for our freedoms" schtick. Had this failed, there was always the Iraq Resolution.

Instead, Bush went with

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

and

"Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."
both from Oct. 7, 2002 speech

Not everybody thought there were WMD and an immediate (if not imminent) threat from Iraq. Millions of people globally protested, but Bush, who now scolds Kerry for insulting the contributions of his so-called "coalition", wasn't concerned about global contributions then.

So, while the sanctions were horrible, the argument stands that prior to the invasion of Iraq they had achieved their purpose. While Bush couldn't have undone the years of sanctions, he could have made attempts to right a wrong rather than perpetuate and worsen it.

[Busyman]

Actually, I stated my opinion and clearly demonstrated why the story was biased with supporting evidence.

Why did you ask me what it was when it was already there?

You agenda driven lot are a frustrating bunch of sheep.

I'm glad you've managed to talk to 2 soldiers, I've talked to many more. All soldiers and their families want to live in an impervious plastic bubble. Their bias is easily understood.

As for liberal people, that would probaly include me, though I don't define myself as either conservative or liberal. I am truth motivated and do not subscribe to any agenda.
I asked facetiously and because, according to you, no one has the whole story (and I agree).
Folks aren't always going to be "fair and balanced" but that's no new new's.

Regarding soldiers and their families, they want to feel at the very least that their cause is just if lives are to be risked. Their bias is obvious if soldiers are ill-equiped, whether widespread or not. :dry:

You may be truth motivated as I am but at the same....

You are subscribing to an agenda when you pick your candidate. :dry:
For example, I have always maintained that Bush gets the shit end of the stick for the economy being bad when in fact, we had a recession and 911 to fuck it up. Do I bother mentioning it everytime someone says Bush has a fucked up economic plan? Hell no for I believe he still has very little redeemable qualities. He's scores a 2 out 10.

That's about as agenda driven as I get bud.

I remember a story manny brought up about DNC and voter fraud. It wasn't even spin (citing the Drudge Report), it had an outright lie.

Talk about agenda driven.

I used to be frustrated on about why someone would want Bush for President.

Are they rich?
Do they believe Jesus talks to him personally as he says?
Is he tough even though he dodged war?
Is it dominion heresy?

None of us are journalists. Stay frustrated. ;)

[Busyman]

So, can I ask you to post some balance and positives of the Bush administration?
That's easy.....

Accomplishments of Bush (http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/showthread.php?t=82021)

It's loaded with positives. In the future don't ask dumb questions. :lol: :lol:

[ruthie]

ROFL. What were we thinking?

[vidcc]

I used to be frustrated on about why someone would want Bush for President.

Are they rich?
Do they believe Jesus talks to him personally as he says?
Is he tough even though he dodged war?
Is it dominion heresy?


God said "turn your swords into ploughshares"

God weak on defense...wrong for America :rolleyes:

Bill M

[ruthie]

you guys crack me up

[Mathea]

and yet the saddest part is he has quite a chance at being voted in for a second term...

[vidcc]

i long for the day we get our first athiest president

[hobbes]

So, can I ask you to post some balance and positives of the Bush administration?

How is that relevant? Balance is understanding how a single incident reflects the bigger picture. Is this refusal truly a reflection that the administarion does not care or is this more about interpersonal conflicts in a platoon?

The post in way no addresses the bigger picture, but sites the incident and jumps to the assumption that this somehow confirms that the administration doesn't care.

This reflects more about the authors bias than on the reality of the situation.
We must not look at this post in isolation, but rather look at said posters 7 other threads on the same theme (anti-Bush) and her website link.

Just because I don't like Bush doesn't mean I'm going to bleat like a sheep everytime someone posts something derogatory. I hold myself to a higher standard. I am not agenda driven.

[hobbes]

i long for the day we get our first athiest president

Probably already had one, he just didn't put that in his press clippings. You really think that Clinton was religious? You don't commit adultery when you love God. This is not a shot at Clinton, just the first example I could come up with.

[Busyman]

Probably already had one, he just didn't put that in his press clippings. You really think that Clinton was religious? You don't commit adultery when you love God. This is not a shot at Clinton, just the first example I could come up with.
Bullshit.
You can kill someone and love God.

Utter bullshit. :dry:

People want someone that shares religious their religious views because of a perceived gauge of their moral compass.

People want to believe in something even if there is evidence screaming bullshit. Weak bastards. :dry: Many cite religion itself as an example. It can get worse with politicians.

[hobbes]

Bullshit.
You can kill someone and love God.

Utter bullshit. :dry:

Please explain how one can willfully commit adultery and still love God.

Thanks for the stupidest post I have ever read.

As for killing, God destroyed every human on the planet with the great flood. So if he can kill, why can't we. He has such double standards.

[ruthie]

How is that relevant? Balance is understanding how a single incident reflects the bigger picture. Is this refusal truly a reflection that the administarion does not care or is this more about interpersonal conflicts in a platoon?

The post in way no addresses the bigger picture, but sites the incident and jumps to the assumption that this somehow confirms that the administration doesn't care.

This reflects more about the authors bias than on the reality of the situation.
We must not look at this post in isolation, but rather look at said posters 7 other threads on the same theme (anti-Bush) and her website link.

Just because I don't like Bush doesn't mean I'm going to bleat like a sheep everytime someone posts something derogatory. I hold myself to a higher standard. I am not agenda driven.

you keep saying there is no balanced/fair viewpoint posted..at least by me, so I think it is quite relevant to ask you to post something. You say, "Balance is understanding how a single incident reflects the bigger picture."
There are hundreds of "single incidents" that paint a much bigger picture..and that's what you go on about...the big picture. Many actions by the administration have shown a blatant disregard for the "regular folk". that is obvious.

Stating your agenda and backing it up is not bleating like a sheep hobbes, so why don't you do it? All you've done is complain about the postings. I'm open to hearing you present a balanced fair view of everything...you don't do it though..you make judgements based on nothing.
I believe you are agenda driven. It's amazing to me you don't recognize it.




Probably already had one, he just didn't put that in his press clippings. You really think that Clinton was religious? You don't commit adultery when you love God. This is not a shot at Clinton, just the first example I could come up with.
I'm sure there are lot of people out there that are religious, love god, and behave in ways that one deems "immoral". I don't like to label it. We are human, imperfect people. So, I don't think that is a factual statement, just a judgemental one.

[Busyman]

Please explain how on can willfully commit adultery and still love God.

Thanks for the stupidest post I have ever read.

As for killing, God destroyed every human on the planet with the great flood. So if he can kill, why can't we. He has such double standards.
Arrogance is your strong point.
I'll oblige.

You are about to kill my son. I kill you first.

Dirt nap. Nighty Nick At Nite. :dry:

[ruthie]

Please explain how one can willfully commit adultery and still love God.

Thanks for the stupidest post I have ever read.

As for killing, God destroyed every human on the planet with the great flood. So if he can kill, why can't we. He has such double standards.

This post explains alot about you, hobbes

[hobbes]

Arrogance is your strong point.
I'll oblige.

You are about to kill my son. I kill you first.

Dirt nap. Nighty Nick At Nite. :dry:

Please justify adultery in the same manner.

[hobbes]

This post explains alot about you, hobbes

Such as? Do they give college degrees in quips and platitudes?

[hobbes]

you keep saying there is no balanced/fair viewpoint posted..at least by me, so I think it is quite relevant to ask you to post something. You say, "Balance is understanding how a single incident reflects the bigger picture."
There are hundreds of "single incidents" that paint a much bigger picture..and that's what you go on about...the big picture. Many actions by the administration have shown a blatant disregard for the "regular folk". that is obvious.

Stating your agenda and backing it up is not bleating like a sheep hobbes, so why don't you do it? All you've done is complain about the postings. I'm open to hearing you present a balanced fair view of everything...you don't do it though..you make judgements based on nothing.
I believe you are agenda driven. It's amazing to me you don't recognize it.



I'm sure there are lot of people out there that are religious, love god, and behave in ways that one deems "immoral". I don't like to label it. We are human, imperfect people. So, I don't think that is a factual statement, just a judgemental one.


Ruthie, what IS my agenda. Where have I ever lied. I criticize your and the opposite side equally. If there is additional evidence to support your position it was no where to be found in the post I criticized.

[hobbes]

I think politicians give a lot of lip service about their religious convictions, but they don't seem to live it. That is all I was saying.

[ruthie]

Roflmao

[hobbes]

Roflmao

Yeah, me too. Is that the best you can do?

May I suggest: PMSL, that is also a witty response.

[ruthie]

Rofl

[hobbes]

Rofl

If you can't answer, just say so.

What is my agenda, when have I lied.

The questions are very simple.

[Busyman]

Please justify adultery in the same manner.
To put in terms for atheists in non-religious speak.

Humans are not robots. Books were put forth for us to believe in and strive to subdue the very animalistic tendencies and primal nature that we exhibit.

It may actually stop someone from beating the shit out you, hobbes, and taking your lunch money when walk down the street at night.

Ripley

Believe it or not.

Actually on topic:
I just heard a funny.

"If your order is to ride a skateboard through a minefield to deliver a Zagnut bar to Donald Rumsfeld..... I'm sorry that's deal with the army." :lol: :lol:


"Because you know what happens to soldiers that disobey direct orders? That's right, they become President of The United States." :lol: :lol:

[ruthie]

very good

[hobbes]

To put in terms for atheists in non-religious speak.

Humans are not robots. Books were put forth for us to believe in and strive to subdue the very animalistic tendencies and primal nature that we exhibit.

It may actually stop someone from beating the shit out you, hobbes, and taking your lunch money when walk down the street at night.

Ripley

Believe it or not.

Actually on topic:
I just heard a funny.

"If your order is to ride a skateboard through a minefield to deliver a Zagnut bar to Donald Rumsfeld..... I'm sorry that's deal with the army." :lol: :lol:


"Because you what happens soldiers that disobey direct orders? That's right, they become President of The United States." :lol: :lol:

Hmmmm, your thoughts are very deep, grasshopper :lol: :lol: :lol:
Can I have my lunch money back, btw?

[hobbes]

very good

Good.

Please stand up and have a glass of water. We can't have you rolling about on the floor pissing yourself laughing (PMSL).

Lets' make some S'mores.

[Busyman]

Hmmmm, your thoughts are very deep, grasshopper :lol: :lol: :lol:
Can I have my lunch money back, btw?
I have certain beliefs but I'm also logical. I've read more than one religious book.....

And...uh...sorry, I must feed my family. After I rob two more people I'll be straight. I will then pray that I do well on this job interview tomorrow and that my kids don't freeze to death tonight. :unsure:

[hobbes]

I have certain beliefs but I'm also logical. I've read more than one religious book.....

And...uh...sorry, I must feed my family. After I rob two more people I'll be straight. I will then pray that I do well on this job interview tomorrow and that my kids don't freeze to death tonight. :unsure:

Yah, me too! After this bank job, I'm going to live the straight and narrow with my 2.3 million. In fact, I will tell people how to live their lives, after my secretary gives me a bj.

[Busyman]

Yah, me too! After this bank job, I'm going to live the straight and narrow with my 2.3 million. In fact, I will tell people how to live their lives, after my secretary gives me a bj.
Hey, do your job well and your bacon and jelly sandwich is your business.

;)

[scroff]

If you can't answer, just say so.

What is my agenda, when have I lied.

The questions are very simple.
Oh brother... so are mine.

*crickets*

[scroff]

Such as? Do they give college degrees in quips and platitudes?
If they do you must have a Phd. As in Piled higher and deeper.

[scroff]

How is that relevant?Trying to have a discussion with you is like trying to catch a fart and paint it blue.... :rolleyes:

Ok, I guess I'm in trouble now :cool:

[Rat Faced]

When i was young I was very Religious.

I used to Pray every night for a new Bicycle.

Then I heard "God helps those that help themselves"...

So I stole the Bike and prayed for forgiveness.






If the personal stuff doesnt stop, im gonna close this thread by the way...

Paul

[hobbes]

Scroff, as I asked before, What questions do you want answered?

Remember, to stay on topic.

The topic is recognizing bias when one is reading a submitted thread, which includes the greater context of other threads made by the same author.

It would quite relevant if one thread were pro-Bush and the next was anti-Bush versus all being anti-Bush and versus having your own anti-Bush website.

Just because one tends to agree overall in the authors anti-Bush sentiment, one should still critically read each post and not blindly accept them as representing the whole truth..

Does the content of the post justify the conclusion?

[hobbes]

Trying to have a discussion with you is like trying to catch a fart and paint it blue.... :rolleyes:

You've tried to catch and paint farts? Hmmm, that post explains alot about you.*










*-credit to Ruthie

[vidcc]

Probably already had one, he just didn't put that in his press clippings. You really think that Clinton was religious? You don't commit adultery when you love God. This is not a shot at Clinton, just the first example I could come up with.
I agree that we probably had a president that "omitted"... well had to lie about being a non believer....i should perhaps have said i long for the day when an "open about it athiest" can be president

we could have a perfect candidate that has a manifesto that we all agree with, but if he doesn't believe in God he won't get elected :(

As to only non believers or those that don't "love God" comitting adultery...well don't we all "sin", catholics confess theirs to get forgiveness. Does that make them all athiests or mean they don't love god? The point being is that humans make errors of judgement...they have free will. So i can't see how the act of adultery could be an indication of non belief or lack of love for god.

Isn't there a bit about heaven having more joy over a repented sinner than a completely rightious man (i confess i don't know the exact phrase being an athiest myself)

[Busyman]

Scroff, as I asked before, What questions do you want answered?

Remember, to stay on topic.

The topic is recognizing bias when one is reading a submitting thread, which includes the greater context of other threads made by the same author.

Actually the topic is

Platoon defies orders in Iraq

:dry:

[vidcc]

Sorry for all the Bill Maher stuff lately...but the guy hits the nail head on sometimes

New Rule: Soldiers have to follow orders. In World War II, there was none of this "we're not going because we don't have the right equipment." You want equipment, join the Swiss Army. If your order is to ride a skateboard through a minefield to deliver a Zagnut Bar to Donald Rumsfeld - I'm sorry, that's the deal with the Army. Because you know what happens to soldiers who disobey direct orders? That's right. They become the President of the United States!

[Busyman]

Sorry for all the Bill Maher stuff lately...but the guy hits the nail head on sometimes

New Rule: Soldiers have to follow orders. In World War II, there was none of this "we're not going because we don't have the right equipment." You want equipment, join the Swiss Army. If your order is to ride a skateboard through a minefield to deliver a Zagnut Bar to Donald Rumsfeld - I'm sorry, that's the deal with the Army. Because you know what happens to soldiers who disobey direct orders? That's right. They become the President of the United States!
You don't bother reading pages before you post do you?
Check the page juuuuuuust before this one. Check the post. :dry:

Bill Maher is a funny bastard isn't he? :lol: :lol: :lol:

[vidcc]

just don't bother reading your posts :lol: :lol: