Platoon defies orders in Iraq

[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.

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.

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.

[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 all

That'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.