Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-24-2019 10:23 AM
39 online now:
1.61803, AZPaul3, DrJones*, edge, FLRW, GDR, JonF, Percy (Admin), Stile, Tangle, Theodoric (11 members, 28 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,147 Year: 5,184/19,786 Month: 1,306/873 Week: 202/460 Day: 18/29 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67
...
10Next
Author Topic:   Is the media hurting the war?
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6531
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 61 of 145 (409997)
07-12-2007 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by taylor_31
07-12-2007 12:16 AM


BWAHAHAHA!
You obviously know more about this topic than I do....

You want to know how to fix that? Go to a library. After one afternoon, you will know far more about this subject (or any other) than Tal.


Q: If science doesn't know where this comes from, then couldn't it be God's doing?

A: The only difference between that kind of thinking and the stereotype of the savage who thinks the Great White Hunter is a God because he doesn't know how the hunter's cigarette lighter works is that the savage has an excuse for his ignorance. -- jhuger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by taylor_31, posted 07-12-2007 12:16 AM taylor_31 has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 145 (410021)
07-12-2007 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Tal
07-12-2007 2:38 PM


Re: Money
Al Anbar was recently thought to be a lost cause by the media. I'm sure you heard all about it when the violence was high. Now that the locals are fighting AQI, and the province has done a 180, what have you heard from it lately?

That it appears to have actually done a 360:

quote:
However as of late October, tribal resistance had yet to materialise and Islamist forces affiliated with the Shura Council (an umbrella organisation claiming to represent a number of insurgent factions) staged military parades in cities throughout Anbar province including Ramadi and Haqlaniyah. [2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Anbar

quote:
The insurgency in Anbar -- a mix of Islamic militants, former Baathists and recalcitrant tribesmen -- still thrives among the province's overwhelmingly Sunni population, killing American and Iraqi security forces and civilians alike. This was underscored by three suicide car-bomb attacks in Ramadi on April 23 and 24, in which at least 15 people were killed and 47 were wounded, American officials said.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003685559_iraqramadi29.html

The whole Iraq was is a game of whack-a-mole. Sure, the fun part of whack-a-mole is that when you whack the mole, it stays down for a little bit. But only someone who refused to see the big picture would claim that as progress, what with all the other moles popping up all over the place.

It's no surprise that Al Anbar is relatively quiet - we've got a ton of troops there. When they leave, it'll be business as usual - just like it was last time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Tal, posted 07-12-2007 2:38 PM Tal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Tal, posted 07-13-2007 5:37 PM crashfrog has responded

taylor_31
Member (Idle past 4033 days)
Posts: 86
From: Oklahoma!
Joined: 05-14-2007


Message 63 of 145 (410053)
07-13-2007 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Tal
07-12-2007 2:38 PM


Re: Money
By all means if you find something in the book that piques your interest toss it up here and I'll give it a read.

I found something that interested me.

Jay Garner, an ex-general, was the man initially in charge of post-war Iraq. After the major conflict was over, Woodward writes that widespread looting corrupted Baghdad and that there was a massive "power vacuum" in the country. To respond to this vacuum, Garner consulted with several northern Kurds who wished to set up a diverse Iraqi interim government. In addition, Garner planned to pay the Iraqi army and keep most of the Baath party members to ensure that the government kept working. In May 2003, before Garner could implement his plans, he was abruptly replaced by Jerry Bremer, whom he was forced to work for.

Garner thought that Bremer made three huge errors: "broad de-Baathification, disbanding the [Iraqi] military, and rejecting the Iraqi council set up [by Garner]." These decisions effectively gave the United States 350,000 more enemies, including 50,000 of Iraq's educated elite and 300,000 trained professional soldiers. I've only read a third of the book, but Woodward seems to be emphasizing these mistakes as the turning point, after which Iraq began to descend into violence.

Do you think that that's accurate?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Tal, posted 07-12-2007 2:38 PM Tal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Tal, posted 07-13-2007 5:50 PM taylor_31 has not yet responded

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 64 of 145 (410071)
07-13-2007 4:59 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Tal
07-10-2007 6:59 PM


Re: Money
quote:
Yes, President Bush said on many occasions that we knew Saddam Hussein possessed chemical and biological weapons. Why did he say it?

Because he was ignoring all of the intelligence information that was coming to him that clearly indicated that there were no WMDs. Why he decided to ignore it, only he can say.

quote:
He said it because it was the best judgement of the career intelligence analysts who serve our nation.

Incorrect. As the intelligence analysts themselves had said, they were saying the opposite. Let us not forget, Bush lied about the status of the weapons inspections. He claimed that Hussein was preventing the inspectors from having complete access in direct contradiction to the inspectors, themselves. In fact, on the very day that Bush said that he had to go to war because of Hussein's refusal to allow the weapons inspectors access, the inspectors were destroying missiles that exceeded the range limitations put on Iraq after the first Gulf War. If they had no access, how is it that they managed to find missiles?

So why did Bush refuse to listen to their claims that they hadn't found any WMDs?

quote:
George W. Bush said it, just as President Clinton said it

Ah, yes. Zero to Clinton is 2.3 seconds.

Hint: What happened between the end of Clinton's presidency and the invasion of Iraq?

Hint: Might it be weapons inspectors?

quote:
France in the 1990s

Excuse me...the [b][i]1990s?[/b][/i] Are you seriously claiming that we should have relied upon results that were years out of date?

quote:
I'm sure we all remember David Kay

Indeed, we do. But why are you ignoring Hans Blix?

Inspections in Iraq resumed on the 27th of November 2002. In matters relating to process, notably prompt access to sites, we have faced relatively few difficulties, and certainly much less than those that were faced by UNSCOM [U.N. Special Commission] in the period 1991 to 1998. This may well be due to the strong outside pressure.

That's from Blix's testimony to the UN Security Council. Why would Bush say that the weapons inspectors were being stymied when they were saying they weren't?

This is not to say that the operation of inspections is free from frictions, but at this juncture we are able to perform professional, no-notice inspections all over Iraq and to increase aerial surveillance.

Again, this flies directly in the face of Bush's claim that Hussein had blocked the inspectors. Why would Bush say that?

You do recall that it was Bush that had to pull the inspectors out because he was about to start bombing the country, yes?

Several inspections have taken place at declared and undeclared sites in relation to mobile production facilities. Food-testing mobile laboratories and mobile workshops have been seen as well as large containers with seed-processing equipment. No evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found.

Why did Bush ignore this?

During inspections of declared or undeclared facilities, inspection teams have examined building structures for any possible underground facilities. In addition, ground-penetrating radar equipment was used in several specific locations. No underground facilities for chemical or biological production or storage were found so far.

Why did Bush ignore this?

Now, it isn't like Hussein was rolling over. However, the inspection process was ongoing and finding nothing. Blix was asking for more time:

Neither governments nor inspectors would want disarmament inspection to go on forever. However, it must be remembered that in accordance with the governing resolutions, a sustained inspection and monitoring system is to remain in place after verified disarmament to give confidence and to strike an alarm if signs were seen of the revival of any proscribed weapons programs.

Why did Bush ignore this? Why did he pull the inspectors out so that he could start bombing Iraq when the inspectors were saying they weren't finding anything?

quote:
My assessment is that they were moved.

Why, when all evidence indicates that there weren't any to move?

And most importantly: Why weren't they used against us? We know that Hussein had no qualms about using them. He used the gas (that [b][i]WE[/b][/i] gave him in the 1980s as brokered by Donald Rumsfeld at the behest of Reagan and Bush, Sr.) against both the Kurds and Iranians.

So if he had them, why didn't he use them?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Tal, posted 07-10-2007 6:59 PM Tal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Tal, posted 07-13-2007 6:23 PM Rrhain has responded

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 3786 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 65 of 145 (410197)
07-13-2007 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by crashfrog
07-12-2007 7:52 PM


Re: Money
That it appears to have actually done a 360

Your first quote is dated "as of late October." The Times story I linked was dated 23 May 07.

Your second reply and link are what the subject of the OP is all about. You read about car bomb attacks from 2 days in April and conclude that we aren't winning and it is a lost cause, which is the goal of the insurgents.

From your seattle times link:

"There are some people who would say we've won the war out here," said Col. John Koenig, a planning officer for the Marines who oversees governing and economic development in Anbar. "I'm cautiously optimistic as we're going forward."

The whole Iraq was is a game of whack-a-mole. Sure, the fun part of whack-a-mole is that when you whack the mole, it stays down for a little bit. But only someone who refused to see the big picture would claim that as progress, what with all the other moles popping up all over the place.

I know it certainly seems like it, even to us at times. We (US Army) are doing 2 things differently this go around:

1. We are taking away the insurgents' Center of Gravity (COG). A COG is like the inside circle of a spoked wheel. If you take the circle out, the entire wheel collapses. The 2 main COGs for the insurgents (AQI/Iranian supported Shia) is Baghdad and Al Anbar. How are we doing that? See 2.

2. We aren't commuting to work anymore. We've set up COPs (Combat Outpots) and JSSs (Joint Security Stations) in all parts of the city in our (82 Airborne) area of operation. We've moved in. Either we are going away, or the bad guys are going away. It is a new Clear/Control/Retain policy.


News Media: Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory 1 negative report at a time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by crashfrog, posted 07-12-2007 7:52 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by crashfrog, posted 07-13-2007 9:34 PM Tal has not yet responded

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 3786 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 66 of 145 (410200)
07-13-2007 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by taylor_31
07-13-2007 12:13 AM


Re: Money
Do you think that that's accurate?

I think the numbers are inflated. It is accurate, although I'm not up on the Iraqi council set up by anyone. I can speak to the other 2 items.

De-baathification thinking came from the WWII model of Germany. After we won in Europe, we got rid of everything Nazi and that was the reasoning Bremer used. We told a bunch of people, "You no longer have jobs, and oh by the way don't apply for any jobs in the new goverment." Coupled with the disbanding of the Iraqi Army, you have the pool of motivated people that would start fighting the new Goverment in which they had no future. The Iraqi Army, not the Republican Guard (they were Saddam's men), were looked up to by average Joe Iraqi and was a solid, if underfunded/trained organization.

If those 2 things would not have happenned, I don't think there would have been an insurgency. The political will and military infrastructure would have been in place to better handle AQI moving in than building it all from scratch like we are doing now.

Edited by Tal, : grammer


News Media: Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory 1 negative report at a time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by taylor_31, posted 07-13-2007 12:13 AM taylor_31 has not yet responded

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 3786 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 67 of 145 (410204)
07-13-2007 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Rrhain
07-13-2007 4:59 AM


Re: Money
Because he was ignoring all of the intelligence information that was coming to him that clearly indicated that there were no WMDs.

Incorrect. As the intelligence analysts themselves had said, they were saying the opposite.

Link? Source?

He claimed that Hussein was preventing the inspectors from having complete access in direct contradiction to the inspectors, themselves.

One of my instructors was a weapons inspector in Iraq. They didn't have complete access.

Ah, yes. Zero to Clinton is 2.3 seconds.

You'll note I cited Kerry and Gore too, and I can cite every major democrat in 90s.

Mr. Blix in Feb 04.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2268819.stm

Mr Blix says the experience taught him something. "It's correct to say that the IAEA was fooled by the Iraqis," he said recently.

That still doesn't refute David Kay.

Several inspections have taken place at declared and undeclared sites in relation to mobile production facilities. Food-testing mobile laboratories and mobile workshops have been seen as well as large containers with seed-processing equipment. No evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found.

Why did Bush ignore this?

Second suspected mobile weapons lab found in Iraq

Why, when all evidence indicates that there weren't any to move?

Again, you use phrases like "all evidence." Please post a link.

You are right I guess. There weren't any to move.

Oh...there were those 500 chemical weapons with sarin and mustard agent. 500 Chemical Weapons

And that is just what the Senator got declassified.

And most importantly: Why weren't they used against us?

Bomb said to hold
deadly sarin gas explodes in Iraq

Here's some more of those weapons that don't exist.

Polish Troops Find Sarin Warheads

Chemical Munitions have been used against US Forces many times. This go around we've had several instances of chemical weapons in IEDs.


News Media: Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory 1 negative report at a time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Rrhain, posted 07-13-2007 4:59 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Rrhain, posted 07-14-2007 9:27 PM Tal has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 145 (410235)
07-13-2007 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Tal
07-13-2007 5:37 PM


Re: Money
1. We are taking away the insurgents' Center of Gravity (COG). A COG is like the inside circle of a spoked wheel. If you take the circle out, the entire wheel collapses. The 2 main COGs for the insurgents (AQI/Iranian supported Shia) is Baghdad and Al Anbar. How are we doing that? See 2.

You've got to be fucking kidding me. You think that by having to move out of Baghdad, they're just going to give up?

And you're in military intelligence? Jesus Christ. It's like a game of whack-a-mole, only every time the mallet comes down, a couple more kids aren't coming home.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Tal, posted 07-13-2007 5:37 PM Tal has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by anglagard, posted 07-17-2007 3:00 AM crashfrog has not yet responded
 Message 75 by Chiroptera, posted 07-17-2007 8:16 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 69 of 145 (410403)
07-14-2007 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Tal
07-13-2007 6:23 PM


Re: Money
Tal responds to me:

quote:
Link? Source?

I provided them. Don't you remember all that quotation from Hans Blix? Do you not remember the confessions from Tenet? What about the Downing Street memos? The Duelfer report? Do you seriously not know about these things?

quote:
One of my instructors was a weapons inspector in Iraq. They didn't have complete access.

As you said: Link? Source? Why should anybody "My father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate said so!" over the chief UN inspector giving testimony before the UN?

Question: When did your "instructor" engage in inspections? You will note that Blix's report happened right before Bush pulled the inspectors out.

Do not confuse obstruction on the part of Hussein previously to continued obstruction right up to the moment of invasion.

quote:
You'll note I cited Kerry and Gore too

Indeed, and it's precisely the same logical error: Blaming somebody else for Bush's decision.

Hint: Neither Clinton nor Kerry nor Gore were president.

Hint: Gore specifically and directly stated that Bush should not invade Iraq before we did.

What did Gore know that Bush didn't?

quote:
Mr. Blix in Feb 04.

Ahem.

We didn't invade Iraq in 2004. We invaded in 2003. The question before is whether or not there was any information or intelligence or report from BEFORE the invasion that indicated that there were no WMDs to be found.

It turns out that there were. Blix was one of them, begging for more time to complete the inspections which Hussein was cooperating with and had found nothing.

By the way, you're misquoting the article. Here is what it actually said:

During that time, the Iraqis managed to hide an advanced nuclear weapons development programme from the IAEA.

It was only discovered after the Gulf War in 1991.

Hmmm...so it would seem that what Blix was saying is that Iraq was fooling people regarding its WMD research capabilities....

[b][i]...BUT WE FOUND OUT ABOUT IT.[/b][/i] And on top of that, we found out about it [b][i]TEN YEARS BEFORE WE INVADED.[/b][/i] You seem to think that the situation in Iraq was identical in 2003 to what it was in 1993.

Oh, and here's another quote from that article you seem to have overlooked:

Now that the war has finished, he has made clear his feeling that the US and UK had exaggerated, or "over-interpreted" - as he put it - the case for war.

So where do you get this idea that Blix wasn't of the opinion that Iraq had fooled the inspectors?

quote:
That still doesn't refute David Kay.

(*blink!*)

You did not just say that, did you?

It most certainly does contradict Kay. Blix said they had not found any indication of chemcial, nuclear, or biological weapons. How is that not a contradiction of the claim that intelligence indicated Iraq had them?

quote:
Second suspected mobile weapons lab found in Iraq

What part of "suspected" do you not understand? It turns out that it wasn't real. That article you posted was from May of 2003. It's been four years since and nothing has turned up.

quote:
Again, you use phrases like "all evidence." Please post a link.

It's called "the newspaper." Are you seriously saying you haven't been reading them?

Here's a hint: Why do you think the United States called off the search for WMDs in Iraq in Januray 2005? As Scott McClellan said:

"Our friends and allies had the same intelligence that we had when it came to Saddam Hussein. Now we need to continue to move forward to find out what went wrong and to correct those flaws."

Here's what Blair said in 2006:

"I have to accept that we have not found them [Iraqi WMD], that we may not find them," Blair said before the House of Commons Liaison Committee.

Do you seriously not know about this?

quote:
Oh...there were those 500 chemical weapons with sarin and mustard agent.

You mean those [b][i]WORTHLESS[/b][/i] canisters? Those munitions were so old that the chemical agents had degraded to be of no use. They were from the 1980s. And we all know who was president at the time and giving chemical weapons to Hussein at that time, don't we?

Since you seem to like Kay so much, let's hear what he had to say:

“In terms of toxicity, sir,” Kay told Weldon at one point, “I suspect in your house, and I know in my house, I have things that are more toxic than sarin produced from 1984 to 1988.”

Not only that, but the munitions that were found had been disabled and couldn't be used directly, nor could the agents be extracted from them:

[T]wo briefers for the Defense Intelligence Agency explained that the recovered weapons were too degraded to serve their original purpose and too delicate to be used as roadside explosives. “These munitions that were found were badly corroded in most cases,” said DIA analyst Col. John Chiu. “Some were deliberately dismantled, if you will, to prevent them from being used.” To make matters worse, Terence Taylor, a former member of the U.N. Special Commission on Iraq, testified that the warheads’ designs made the nerve gas almost impossible to use outside of its original purpose. “I think it would be very difficult to extract the nerve agent from these weapons,” he said.

By the way, you know better than to trust CNS. They, like Fox, are not real news services.

quote:
Bomb said to hold deadly sarin gas explodes in Iraq

And what were the details of this? It wasn't a roadside bomb. Instead, according to the US Army, it was a botched attempt to create a high-explosive. Again, since you seem to trust Kay, why aren't you paying attention to his conclusion that they were left over from the decommissioning from the 90s? As he directly stated:

"I rather doubt [that it was creation of sarin] because it appears the insurgents didn't even know they had a chemical round."

So it would seem that this "sarin bomb" of yours was simply a leftover shell from the 80s that was overlooked in the 90s and then used in the 00s by people who didn't even know it was a chemcial bomb.

Not exactly proof that Hussein was creating WMDs, now is it?

quote:
Polish Troops Find Sarin Warheads

I see you've moved to Fox. You know better than to trust them. The Polish find wasn't real, either. As was reported just mere hours later after the Agence-France Presse report that Polish troops had found them:

Meanwhile, a dozen warheads that Polish forces said on Thursday contained mustard gas or sarin contained neither, according to US forces, who tested the 122mm munitions.

So it would seem that the AFP jumped the gun. They had to retract the story just hours after it was reported.

When did Fox ever get around to retracting it?

quote:
Chemical Munitions have been used against US Forces many times.

Not in any way connected to the reason given for invasion of Iraq. There were no WMDs in Iraq. Both the United States and the Brits have made direct statements claiming that there were no WMDs in Iraq.

If you aren't going to believe Bush when he says that there were no WMDs in Iraq, who are you going to believe?

quote:
This go around we've had several instances of chemical weapons in IEDs.

No, we haven't. What we have had, at best, is insurgents using ancient weapons from the 80s that were overlooked in the 90s trying to recycle the explosives from them into IEDs and other high-explosive devices and not realizing that they had their hands on chemical weapons.

Of course, since those weapons were 20 years old, the chemical agents in them were of no consequence.

Therefore, the short answer is that no, there haven't been any instances of chemical weapons being used against the US in our invasion of Iraq.

So if Hussein had them, why didn't he use them? We know that he had no problems using them since he gassed the Kurd and the Iranians using the chemical agents that Donald Rumsfeld gave him at the behest of Ronald Reagan.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Tal, posted 07-13-2007 6:23 PM Tal has not yet responded

  
Peal
Member (Idle past 2808 days)
Posts: 64
Joined: 03-11-2004


Message 70 of 145 (410624)
07-16-2007 11:47 AM


quote:
Polish Troops Find Sarin Warheads

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A24403-2004Jul2?language=printer


Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Tal, posted 07-16-2007 12:49 PM Peal has responded

Tal
Member (Idle past 3786 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 71 of 145 (410636)
07-16-2007 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Peal
07-16-2007 11:47 AM


No Sarin in the warheads. I hadn't read that story, thank you.

Duelfer said the current danger he sees is that some anti-coalition forces and foreign terrorist groups are trying to tap into Iraq's weapons expertise for use against the United States. "Former experts in [Hussein's] weapons-of-mass-destruction program," he said, "are being recruited by anti-coalition groups." As a result, he said, his Iraqi Survey Group (ISG) is "keeping a very close eye on some anti-regime people."

Why would they be recruiting former WMD experts?


News Media: Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory 1 negative report at a time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Peal, posted 07-16-2007 11:47 AM Peal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Modulous, posted 07-16-2007 12:58 PM Tal has responded
 Message 73 by Peal, posted 07-16-2007 2:46 PM Tal has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 214 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 72 of 145 (410637)
07-16-2007 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Tal
07-16-2007 12:49 PM


Why would they be recruiting former WMD experts?

So they can build weapons of mass destruction? That would be the ultimate self fulfilling prophecy I suppose: By going in there to save the world from nonexistent WMDs we find ourselves under the threat of real WMDs being used against the world. Hurrah!

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Tal, posted 07-16-2007 12:49 PM Tal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Tal, posted 07-26-2007 6:18 PM Modulous has responded

Peal
Member (Idle past 2808 days)
Posts: 64
Joined: 03-11-2004


Message 73 of 145 (410661)
07-16-2007 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Tal
07-16-2007 12:49 PM


Why would they be recruiting former WMD experts?

Modulous replies:

So they can build weapons of mass destruction? That would be the ultimate self fulfilling prophecy I suppose: By going in there to save the world from nonexistent WMDs we find ourselves under the threat of real WMDs being used against the world. Hurrah!

I would have to agree with Modulous on this.

With all of the IED explosions and suicide bombers, why hasn't sarin or mustard gas been involved with any of this destructive measure? None to my knowledge anyway. It leads me to believe that there isn’t any in Iraq, now, or back in 03.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Tal, posted 07-16-2007 12:49 PM Tal has not yet responded

anglagard
Member
Posts: 2185
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 74 of 145 (410743)
07-17-2007 3:00 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by crashfrog
07-13-2007 9:34 PM


Victory or Just Leave
Crash writes:

And you're in military intelligence? Jesus Christ. It's like a game of whack-a-mole, only every time the mallet comes down, a couple more kids aren't coming home.

I was in military intelligence twixt 84 and 87.

Let me tell you a secret, if there was a desire to actually win this bullshit war, it would have happened yesterday. All that has to be done is to seal the borders and work from the outside in. Give everyone within the perimeter a week to turn in weapons and kill everyone who refuses. There you go, war over.

Do you know the real reason the war exists and why it is drawn out forever? It is so the fear card can be played in the next election, a strategy that the neocons feel they can't relinquish, and are too stupid and/or ignorantly stubborn to renounce. They don't give a damn about victory in war, only victory in elections.

The great sacrifice of the soldiers is just a means to an end, according to our high holy politicians they are just objects. It is just as Marx preached and the neocons, being of an equivalent moral capacity, and through admiring their opponents above their allies, their sole filter by which they see the universe.

Win or leave are not options when one considers each body bag another thousand votes, however much currently politically mistaken in that assessment such moral garbage may be that currently leads the US.

The primary reason that this simple fact has not been presented is the cowardice and abject prostitution of the common media in this nation.

Since the US under current leadership refuses to win, they should leave.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by crashfrog, posted 07-13-2007 9:34 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6531
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 75 of 145 (410766)
07-17-2007 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by crashfrog
07-13-2007 9:34 PM


Re: Money
crashfrog asks:
And you're in military intelligence?

Good question.

Tal responds to another post:
I hadn't read that story, thank you.

I've always found it strange that someone in military intelligence would be unaware of basic information that anyone with a library card can get a hold of.


Q: If science doesn't know where this comes from, then couldn't it be God's doing?

A: The only difference between that kind of thinking and the stereotype of the savage who thinks the Great White Hunter is a God because he doesn't know how the hunter's cigarette lighter works is that the savage has an excuse for his ignorance. -- jhuger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by crashfrog, posted 07-13-2007 9:34 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

Prev1234
5
67
...
10Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019