Platoon defies orders in Iraq

[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.

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.

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!!

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.

[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.

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

You are subscribing to an agenda when you pick your candidate.
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.