Platoon defies orders in Iraq

[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

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.

[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 (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"...