Platoon defies orders in Iraq

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

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.

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?

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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

ty busyman

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scroff

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruthie

from Army Times

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

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......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

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.

Quote:

---

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bush 41

"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...)

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin Powell, February 24, 2001

"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 (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?

Quote:

---

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"...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scroff

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scroff

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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:

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.

Quote:

---

No, that is not true at all

---

That's not true? That's a direct quote from Bush 41, but I guess that was "politic speak".

Quote:

---

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

---

Yes. His father didn't want to go into Iraq.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

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...

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scroff

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?

Quote:

---

Have you considered my earlier questions?

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

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.

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 :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scroff

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruthie

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:

Quote:

---

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. ;)

I know you are talking about Bush here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

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:

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.

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

Bush must go!

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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 :(

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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. ;)