An interesting experience with a soldier - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Paq · 06-25-2006, 01:39 AM

I havent posted here in quite a while, but i just wanted to pop in and ask a few things/unload a few things...

So, here goes:

i'm at dinner with my gf, her li'l sis and her li'l sis's new boyfriend. We're having a casual dinner at a cheap mexican place and all is well...

until it comes up that he was in the army during the first part of the new iraq war. So, my gf asked for his perspective on why we were over there and he just stated, with utmost clarity and certainty, "Weapons of mass destruction...the liberal media won't show you everything we've uncovered, but i've personally seen x amount of weapons discovered and they were extremely close to being nuclear capable and would have had hte reach to hit western europe" and he went on about how the war could be over if they shut off the cameras and how we could wipe out the N. Korean threat within 3 months...

So, i just nodded and tried to mention the lack fo evidence, etc, but was shot down with the "liberal media doesn't tell teh truth" which i can believe, but logically..if there were stockpiles uncovered, wouldn't bush have had 50,000 conferences about it; wouldn't a soldier have taken a pic and sold it to fox news; woudlnt' there have been SOME leak of a story that would get to the general public. He basicaly ended his speech with "all i know is that 83 of my friends are dead and they died for the right cause" which is impossible to argue against and makes you sound like an ass if you try...

And the whole encounter made me realize that the divide between the right and center and left in the country is just..extremely huge and seemingly insurmountable. Neither side of the argument will even consider the other side's and both sides end up more convinced that they are right....

Anyway, sorry for rambling, but i am curious, what is the prevailing argument for the war again? I honestly thought bush and co had retracted the WMD argument and was on the "Sadaam was a bad man" defense....

BTW, this is the only one of a few soldiers i have spoken to who agreed 100000% with the war. most others have the "we're over there now, so we should finish it' outlook. This one also said, "my son will serve in the military and i can only pray he will go to war"...

Thanks for letting me vent, any thoughts? anyone else have any encounters with soldiers that mimic this or are to the contrary?

Thanks again

ratbastid · 06-25-2006, 05:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paq

And the whole encounter made me realize that the divide between the right and center and left in the country is just..extremely huge and seemingly insurmountable. Neither side of the argument will even consider the other side's and both sides end up more convinced that they are right....

Yep. It's why I've been way WAY less active in Tilted Politics lately. My attempts to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with me fall on deaf ears, as do their attempts to convince me. So why bother?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paq

Anyway, sorry for rambling, but i am curious, what is the prevailing argument for the war again? I honestly thought bush and co had retracted the WMD argument and was on the "Sadaam was a bad man" defense....

Well, it depends when you're talking about. WMDs were the initial rationale. Colin Powell has said that he went to the UN and did a whole song-and-dance over the bogus intel on WMDs. He called it "the lowest point of my career". And you're right--if there was even a hint of them, it would have been all over the news. At that point the major media were running scared of the administration, and would have parroted anything they said. There was no "liberal media" then, there was a 24/7 talking point regurgitation machine.

Right around when it was getting clear there were no WMDs, we caught Saddam, and that turned out to have been the real reason to go in there in the first place. Then when that didn't stop insurgent activity, the rationale shifted to "Regime change" and "spreading Freedom and Democracy". The thing to notice is that when one thing didn't work out, our leaders didn't regroup and rethink. Instead they got more ambitous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paq

BTW, this is the only one of a few soldiers i have spoken to who agreed 100000% with the war. most others have the "we're over there now, so we should finish it' outlook. This one also said, "my son will serve in the military and i can only pray he will go to war"...

Yeah. EVERY soldier I've personally talked to has very mixed feelings about the war. They're proud to serve, but skeptical that they're making any lasting improvement in Iraq. They're actually pretty concerned about what will happen when the US presence finally disappears and Iraq is left on its own.

aberkok · 06-25-2006, 08:07 AM

Be wary of those who are so sure about anything. Sure...it means more research and bewilderment on your part, but the more work you put into knowing something, the more sound that knowledge will be.

Thinking people are often caught speechless in the face of relentless ignorance.

Charlatan · 06-25-2006, 08:17 AM

It sounds more like he is trying to justify, to himself, the death of his friends.

Coping strategies take many forms. This one is certainly understandable.

magictoy · 06-25-2006, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

. Yeah. EVERY soldier I've personally talked to has very mixed feelings about the war. They're proud to serve, but skeptical that they're making any lasting improvement in Iraq. They're actually pretty concerned about what will happen when the US presence finally disappears and Iraq is left on its own.

My experience has been this: Without exception, every soldier/sailor/airman/grunt I've talked to has felt that we're doing a great deal of good there.

It's true that they're concerned about what will happen when we leave.

Grasshopper Green · 06-25-2006, 08:41 AM

As far as the WMD's are concerned, I asked hubby (who was in Iraq at the start of the war), and he said that sounds like complete horseshit to him and doesn't make any sense at all.

As the war becomes more unpopular and increasingly complex, I think a lot of soldiers are, like Charlatan mentioned, justifying it in different ways.

matthew330 · 06-25-2006, 08:54 AM

"Right around when it was getting clear there were no WMDs, we caught Saddam, and that turned out to have been the real reason to go in there in the first place. Then when that didn't stop insurgent activity, the rationale shifted to "Regime change" and "spreading Freedom and Democracy".

I think the thing to notice is this: You acknowledge that it took 10 monthts ("Right around the time that it was getting clear") that WMD weren't in Iraq. I never needed WMD physically being found to justify going in there. The fact is that we had to go in there to make it clear, as you just pointed out. I've said this before, but I remember specifically President Bush saying "It's not up to us to prove he has WMD, it's up to him to prove he doesn't." He's had them, he's used them, and for 10 years he dicked with weapons inspectors. This was obviously never a good enough reason for the left, so why not throw out some of the other million and one reasons that justify this war, IMO.

And we're still bickering about weapons that were finding. Didn't we just find 500 containers of Sarin gas. The Dems saying "well that's not the WMD we were talking about". When Saddam should have been disclosing everything, why didn't we know about this 5 years ago.

He had proven himself willing to use WMD, he had booted the inspectors out for 4 years once leaving himself free to do whatever he wanted, and he continued to dick with inspectors. That's why we went to war. Not because we proved there was WMD prior to, but because there was evidence he did and Saddam didn't use the opportunity to prove us wrong.

But I guess this isn't another thread about that....

host · 06-25-2006, 09:17 AM

matthew330, I want to reserve this spot, below your post, because then I can avoid taking up space by quoting you.....stay tuned.....okay...I'm back....

My wife's son is a member of an elite U.S. military unit. he is looking forward to his first foreign deployment, after more than 30 months of training. He is positive that the liberal media and the opinions of folks like me have hurt recruiting efforts, and that Iraq is largely pacified, except in Anbar, Baghdad, Tikrit, and in Basra. He has no explanation for poor electrical and oil production in iraq.

He knows that the U.S. found WMD, and that, despite admitting that the U.S. has excellent "eye in the sky" surveillance, Saddam was able to smuggle all of his
WMD stockpiles and their R&D and manufacturing infrastructure to Iran and Syria before the 2003 U.S. invasion. He is frustrated and mystified by the failure of the Bush admin. to "defend itself" by publicizing the "proof" of all of this!

He has one of the highest IQs of anyone I've ever met....but he believes what he believes.

I look at what all three principle U.S. Iraqi weapons inspectors have said, and at the miserable job that the Bush admin. did to justify the reasons for invading and occupying Iraq....and what it has cost....in blood, and treasure:

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030317-7.html
Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours....

Quote:

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcrip...ecdef0223.html
Presenter: Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz Friday, May 9, 2003
Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz Interview with Sam Tannenhaus, Vanity Fair

......Wolfowitz: No, I think it happens to be correct. The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but -- hold on one second --

(Pause)

Kellems: Sam there may be some value in clarity on the point that it may take years to get post-Saddam Iraq right. It can be easily misconstrued, especially when it comes to --

Wolfowitz: -- there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two. Sorry, hold on again......

.....Wolfowitz: To wrap it up.

The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it. That second issue about links to terrorism is the one about which there's the most disagreement within the bureaucracy, even though I think everyone agrees that we killed 100 or so of an al Qaeda group in northern Iraq in this recent go-around, that we've arrested that al Qaeda guy in Baghdad who was connected to this guy Zarqawi whom Powell spoke about in his UN presentation........

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...061100723.html
Memo: U.S. Lacked Full Postwar Iraq Plan
Advisers to Blair Predicted Instability

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 12, 2005; Page A01

......Testimony by then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz, one of the chief architects of Iraq policy, before a House subcommittee on Feb. 28, 2003, just weeks before the invasion, illustrated the optimistic view the administration had of postwar Iraq. He said containment of Hussein the previous 12 years had cost "slightly over $30 billion," adding, "I can't imagine anyone here wanting to spend another $30 billion to be there for another 12 years." As of May, the Congressional Research Service estimated that Congress has approved $208 billion for the war

in Iraq since 2003........

Quote:

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075
Released: February 28, 2006

U.S. Troops in Iraq: 72% Say End War in 2006

.......The wide-ranging poll also shows that 58% of those serving in country say the U.S. mission in Iraq is clear in their minds, while 42% said it is either somewhat or very unclear to them, that they have no understanding of it at all, or are unsure. While 85% said the U.S. mission is mainly “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks,” 77% said they also believe the main or a major reason for the war was “to stop Saddam from protecting al

Qaeda in Iraq.”

“Ninety-three percent said that removing weapons of mass destruction is not a reason for U.S. troops being there,”

said Pollster John Zogby, President and CEO of Zogby International. “Instead, that initial rationale went by the wayside and, in the minds of 68% of the troops, the real mission became to remove Saddam Hussein.” Just 24% said that “establishing a democracy that can be a model for the Arab World" was the main or a major reason for the war.

Only small percentages see the mission there as securing oil supplies (11%) or to provide long-term bases for US troops in the region (6%)........

<a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=84506">Are the Feb. 18 Harris Iraq Poll Results "The triumph of Opinion Over News"?</a>

Quote:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5504298
Iraq
Expert: Iraq WMD Find Did Not Point to Ongoing Program
Listen to this story...

Talk of the Nation, June 22, 2006 · Two Republican lawmakers say a declassified report points to hundreds of weapons of mass destruction that were found in Iraq. Peter Hoekstra, who chairs the House Intelligence Committee, and Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) on Wednesday released a declassified summary of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center. A former weapons inspector says most of the degraded weapons are 20 years old and did not point to an ongoing chemical weapons program.

Guest:

Charles Deulfer, Former chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq; former deputy chairman of the United Nations Weapons

Inspection Team in Iraq:

NEAL CONAN (host): The report says hundreds of WMDs were found in Iraq. Does this change any of the findings in your report?

DEULFER: No, the report -- the findings of the report were basically to describe the relationship of the regime with weapons of mass destruction generally. You know, at two different times, Saddam elected to have and then not to have weapons of mass destruction. We found, when we were investigating, some residual chemical munitions. And we said in the report that such chemical munitions would probably still be found. But the ones which have been found are left over from the Iran-Iraq war. They are almost 20 years old, and they are in a decayed fashion. It is very interesting that there are so many that were unaccounted for, but they do not constitute a weapon of mass destruction, although they could be a local hazard.

CONAN: Mm-hmm. So these -- were these the weapons of mass destruction that the Bush administration said that it was going into Iraq to find before the war?

DEULFER: No, these do not indicate an ongoing weapons of mass destruction program as had been thought to exist before the war. These are leftover rounds, which Iraq probably did not even know that it had. Certainly, the leadership was unaware of their existence, because they made very clear that they had gotten rid of their programs as a prelude to getting out of sanctions.

[...]

DEULFER: Sarin agent decays, you know, at a certain rate, as does mustard agent. What we found, both as U.N. and later when I was with the Iraq Survey Group, is that some of these rounds would have highly degraded agent, but it is still dangerous. You know, it can be a local hazard. If an insurgent got it and wanted to create a local hazard, it could be exploded. When I was running the ISG -- the Iraq Survey Group -- we had a couple of them that had been turned in to these IEDs, the improvised explosive devices. But they are local hazards. They are not a major, you know, weapon of mass destruction.

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062201475.html
New Intel Report Reignites Iraq Arms Fight

By KATHERINE SHRADER
The Associated Press
Thursday, June 22, 2006; 11:11 PM

...."We now have found stockpiles," Santorum asserted.

But intelligence officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the subject's sensitive nature, said the weapons were produced before the 1991 Gulf War and there is no evidence to date of chemical munitions manufactured since then. They said an assessment of the weapons concluded they are so degraded that they couldn't now be used as designed.

They probably would have been intended for chemical attacks during the Iran-Iraq War, said David Kay, who headed the U.S. weapons-hunting team in Iraq from 2003 until early 2004.

He said experts on Iraq's chemical weapons are in "almost 100 percent agreement" that sarin nerve agent produced from the 1980s would no longer be dangerous.

"It is less toxic than most things that Americans have under their kitchen sink at this point," Kay said.And any of Iraq's 1980s-era mustard would produce burns, but it is unlikely to be lethal, Kay said.....

Quote:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...351165,00.html
Exclusive: Scott Ritter in His Own Words
The former weapons inspector explains his switch from getting up Saddam's nose to picking fights with Bush

....In 1998, you said Saddam had "not nearly disarmed." Now you say he doesn't have weapons of mass destruction

(WMD). Why did you change your mind?

I have never given Iraq a clean bill of health! Never! Never! I've said that no one has backed up any allegations that Iraq has reconstituted WMD capability with anything that remotely resembles substantive fact. To say that Saddam's doing it is in total disregard to the fact that if he gets caught he's a dead man and he knows it.

Deterrence has been adequate in the absence of inspectors but this is not a situation that can succeed in the long term. In the long term you have to get inspectors back in.

Iraq's borders are porous. Why couldn't Saddam have obtained the capacity to produce WMD since 1998 when the weapons inspectors left?

I am more aware than any UN official that Iraq has set up covert procurement funds to violate sanctions. This was true in 1997-1998, and I'm sure its true today. Of course Iraq can do this. The question is, has someone found that what Iraq has done goes beyond simple sanctions violations? We have tremendous capabilities to detect any effort by Iraq to obtain prohibited capability. The fact that no one has shown that he has acquired that capability doesn't necessarily translate into incompetence on the part of the intelligence community. It may mean that he hasn't done anything.....

Dilbert1234567 · 06-25-2006, 09:22 AM

They did find some WMD, the only problem with them was they were made prior to the 1991 conflict, and Way past their shelf life and worthless. The shells found did contain the remnants of nerve gas, how ever it was inert and worthless. It is incorrect to say there were now WMD in Iraq, but it is proper to say there were no viable WMD in Iraq.

“Yes I do have some milk in my fridge for your coffee, its 2 years past its expiration date and a bit thick, do you still want it?”

matthew330 · 06-25-2006, 10:11 AM

So you would feel comfortable personally checking out those shells? Somehow I doubt it.

It still doesn't change the fact the we found this and didn't know about it before. When exactly was it past it's shelf life and worthless? Because unless they were worthless at the 1991 conflict, your point is moot. We should have known about them when we had the inspectors in there after that conflict. If he was hiding them, what else was he hiding? Again - why we went to war.

filtherton · 06-25-2006, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matthew330

I think the thing to notice is this: You acknowledge that it took 10 monthts ("Right around the time that it was getting clear") that WMD weren't in Iraq. I never needed WMD physically being found to justify going in there. The fact is that we had to go in there to make it clear, as you just pointed out. I've said this before, but I remember specifically President Bush saying "It's not up to us to prove he has WMD, it's up to him to prove he doesn't." He's had them, he's used them, and for 10 years he dicked with weapons inspectors. This was obviously never a good enough reason for the left, so why not throw out some of the other million and one reasons that justify this war, IMO.

Wait, we just went in there to make it clear? It already seemed pretty clear to the chicken hawks that iraq did have wmds. In fact, i seem to remember a thread or two here on the tfp where a sentiment similar to "all you libs are gonna feel real stupid when we find wmd's" was expressed. The clarity already existed before we invaded. That there weren't actually wmd's should be a shock to no one.

Quote:

And we're still bickering about weapons that were finding. Didn't we just find 500 containers of Sarin gas. The Dems saying "well that's not the WMD we were talking about". When Saddam should have been disclosing everything, why didn't we know about this 5 years ago.

I don't know. We did seem to know an awful lot about wmd's that didn't actually exist. This seems like a more important question to me. Why hussein didn't tell us about useless ex-wmd's buried in iraq seems like an irrelevant question.

Quote:

He had proven himself willing to use WMD, he had booted the inspectors out for 4 years once leaving himself free to do whatever he wanted, and he continued to dick with inspectors. That's why we went to war. Not because we proved there was WMD prior to, but because there was evidence he did and Saddam didn't use the opportunity to prove us wrong.

I think you're intepretation is wrong. Clearly the evidence suggests that the bush administration was interested in invading iraq from very early on. Following 9.11 bush apparently sought a way to connect the attacks and hussein. The hunt for wmd's was just a convenient excuse. I think the more likely scenario is that the current admin wanted to invade iraq and figured out a way to sell the american people on it.

Dilbert1234567 · 06-25-2006, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matthew330

So you would feel comfortable personally checking out those shells? Somehow I doubt it.

It still doesn't change the fact the we found this and didn't know about it before. When exactly was it past it's shelf life and worthless? Because unless they were worthless at the 1991 conflict, your point is moot. We should have known about them when we had the inspectors in there after that conflict. If he was hiding them, what else was he hiding? Again - why we went to war.

One mans hiding is another mans destruction, Iraq is a crappy country, they placed there resources in the wrong place, making the weapons in the first place, they had no good method of proper destruction, so they did the next best thing, they buried them. The shelf life of sarin gas (what was contained by the shells) has a shelf life of a few months to a few years.

Mojo_PeiPei · 06-25-2006, 10:50 AM

For the record, there was never a "smoking gun" found, there was however plenty of evidence to suggest that the programs were still active.

ratbastid · 06-25-2006, 12:04 PM

Also, don't forget the bang-up job the administration did linking Iraq and 9/11 in the public mind, despite there being no evidence to support that. That's the ultimate justification right there--if 9/11 had never happened, Bush would have slinked into the history books undistinguished and unnoticed. 9/11 gave him an opportunity to bring about what has turned out to be the single greatest foreign policy disaster in American history.

Dilbert1234567 · 06-25-2006, 12:17 PM

One more point, if Saddam had WMD, he would have used them in the current war, maybe not at the beginning, but certainly when all was lost. Did he? No. why? Because he had none, there was nothing to lose by using them, he already knew he was going to be disposed and probably jailed for life or killed. If he had them he would have used them just for the sake of spite.

irateplatypus · 06-25-2006, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Also, don't forget the bang-up job the administration did linking Iraq and 9/11 in the public mind, despite there being no evidence to support that.

you made that up. Bush never linked 9/11 and Iraq though he has repeatedly (and justifiably) made the case that Iraq harbored terrorists and possessed the means to arm them with WMD.

Our troops have found over 500 different shells/canisters filled with weaponized chemicals. most predate the first gulf war... so that doesn't necessarily confirm an active WMD program during the runup to Operation Iraqi Freedom. However, it does underscore the threat a Saddam-led Iraq posed.

If we can recover 500 shells after Saddam's removal we can reliably assume that either:
1) his control over his arsenal was never complete
or
2) he had weaponized chemical compounds available to slide to jihadi groups under that table.

In either case, the potential for al-qaeda (or similar groups) to access chemical weapons via Iraqi channels was a definite threat. With Ayman Al-Zawahiri making trips into Iraq during the 90's and the preponderance of other evidence linking Ba'athist sympathies to jihadist goals... the pre-OIF situation was unsuitable for anything but a purely defensive stance in the GWOT.

Mojo_PeiPei · 06-25-2006, 06:44 PM

Can't forget that a wounded Al-Zarqawi slithered his way into Iraq following the invasion of Afghanistan, pre-Iraq invasion. And the whole Ansar Al-Islam link.

Gatorade Frost · 06-25-2006, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Can't forget that a wounded Al-Zarqawi slithered his way into Iraq following the invasion of Afghanistan, pre-Iraq invasion.

You know... Assuming Al-Zarqawi really is the terrorist mastermind and not a figment of Rove's imagination...

Mojo_PeiPei · 06-25-2006, 06:51 PM

But there was a man named Al-Zarqawi right? With links to Al Qaeda? Or is it the evil empire propaganda?

filtherton · 06-25-2006, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Can't forget that a wounded Al-Zarqawi slithered his way into Iraq following the invasion of Afghanistan, pre-Iraq invasion.

Into a region uncontrolled by iraq's government.

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

you made that up. Bush never linked 9/11 and Iraq though he has repeatedly (and justifiably) made the case that Iraq harbored terrorists and possessed the means to arm them with WMD.

Are you sure? Maybe not bush, but definitely rumsfeld and cheney. Shit, even after bush went on record explicitly stating that there was no connection between 9.11 and hussein, cheney continued to imply that there was.

Quote:

If we can recover 500 shells after Saddam's removal we can reliably assume that either:
1) his control over his arsenal was never complete
or
2) he had weaponized chemical compounds available to slide to jihadi groups under that table.

I could see 1, but i fail to see how we can reliably assume #2 based on the fact that what amounts to decade+ old expired wmd's buried in the desert.

Mojo_PeiPei · 06-25-2006, 07:02 PM

That's right, conveniently(sp) into Kurdistan where he apperently hooked up with Ansar Al-Islam, a group with alleged ties to Al Qaeda and links to the Hussein Regime as they were enemies of the autonomous Kurds.

host · 06-25-2006, 09:33 PM

irateplatypus and Mojo_PeiPei, this is not the first time that I offer the following on these threads to rebut your statements. Understand that both the 9/11 Commission and Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell's trusted aid of 16 years, as well as numerous news reports from sources in the U.S. and the UK, state that although it has never been established that Zarqawi received medical treatment in Baghdad, or that Saddam or his designates ever were aware of his presence in Baghdad, or elswhere in Iraq, much less had "ties" to Al Qaida.

Quote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9831216/site/newsweek/
Fabricated Links?
By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball
Newsweek

Oct. 26, 2005 - A secret draft CIA report raises new questions about a principal argument used by the Bush administration to justify the war in Iraq: the claim that Saddam Hussein was "harboring" notorious terror leader Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi prior to the American invasion...............

........No evidence has been found showing senior Iraqi officials were even aware of his presence, according to two counterterrorism analysts familiar with the classified CIA study who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the matter.

An intelligence official told NEWSWEEK that the current draft says that "most evidence suggests Saddam Hussein did not provide Zarqawi safe haven before the war. It also recognizes that there are still unanswered questions and gaps in knowledge about the relationship.".........

...........The new report is only the latest chink in the armor of the alleged Saddam-Al Qaeda connection. Last year, the September 11 Commission found there was no "collaborative" relationship between the Iraqi regime and Osama bin Laden; one high-level Al Qaeda commander—who had been cited by Powell as testifying to talks about chemical- and biological-warfare training—later recanted his claims. But the Pentagon and Cheney's office have been reluctant to abandon the case........

Yet, the Bush admin. told the world, in Powell's Feb. 2003 presentation to the UN, and in speeches by Bush, Cheney and others in the admin., that signifigant ties between Zarqawi, Al Qaida, and Saddam and his government existed, as if they were proven fact. After the invasion, intelligence "finds" by coalition forces and WMD inspectors were never presented to strenghthen the pre-invasion, Bush admin. claims that Zarqawi, Al Qaida, and Saddam's government had cooperated signifigantly.....<b>as in any f*cking way that could make an aggressive war, somehow legal.......</b>
Two months ago, the Bush admin. was caught doing just that:

Quote:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=105487
Military Plays Up Role of Zarqawi
Jordanian Painted As Foreign Threat To Iraq's Stability

By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, April 10, 2006; Page A01

The U.S. military is conducting a propaganda campaign to magnify the role of the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, according to internal military documents and officers familiar with the program. The effort has raised his profile in a way that some military intelligence officials believe may have overstated his importance and helped the Bush administration tie the war to the organization responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.....

Read the last quote box on this post.....see what the 9/11 Commission determined happened with the "testimony" of "two senior Bin Laden officials".

irateplatypus posted about ties between Ayman Al-Zawahiri and Saddam's government, but offered no references or documentation of fact, beyond a general "resume" of the man at a Wiki link. <b>irateplatypus offered his own opinion about the "signifigance" of 500 old artillery shells that I already countered, in my last post, with quotes of the opinions of three U.S. weapons inspectors who all headed long, thorough, and well documented weapons inspections programs in Iraq, at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars.</b>
All three U.S. inspection team leaders, including David Kay's cited comments on these specific "weapons", just the other day, reached conclusions, both Kay and Duelfer in official reports, that directly contradict the opinion of irateplatypus.

Quote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/...807286,00.html
White House 'exaggerating Iraqi threat'

Bush's televised address attacked by US intelligence

Julian Borger in Washington
Wednesday <b>October 9, 2002</b>
The Guardian

.....Officials in the CIA, FBI and energy department are being put under intense pressure to produce reports which back the administration's line, the Guardian has learned. In response, some are complying, some are resisting and some are choosing to remain silent.

"Basically, cooked information is working its way into high-level pronouncements and there's a lot of unhappiness about it in intelligence, especially among analysts at the CIA," said Vincent Cannistraro, the CIA's former head of counter-intelligence..........

..........There is already considerable scepticism among US intelligence officials about Mr Bush's clams of links between Iraq and al-Qaida. In his speech on Monday, Mr Bush referred to a "very senior al-Qaida leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year".

An intelligence source said the man the president was referring to was Abu Musab Zarqawi, who was arrested in Jordan in 2001 for his part in the "millennium plot" to bomb tourist sites there. He was subsequently released and eventually made his way to Iraq in search of treatment. However, intercepted telephone calls did not mention any cooperation with the Iraqi government.

There is also profound scepticism among US intelligence experts about the president's claim that "Iraq has trained al-Qaida members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases".

Bob Baer, a former CIA agent who tracked al-Qaida's rise, said that there were contacts between Osama bin Laden and the Iraqi government in Sudan in the early 1990s and in 1998: "But there is no evidence that a strategic partnership came out of it. I'm unaware of any evidence of Saddam pursuing terrorism against the United States." .......

Quote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...04/wirq04.xml/
Spies force retreat on 'al-Qa'eda link'
By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent, and David Rennie in Washington
(Filed: 04/02/2003) (Comment by "host", date= Feb. 4, 2003....)

Colin Powell, the United States secretary of state, yesterday appeared to pull back from claims that he would show the United Nations a link between al-Qa'eda and Iraq, amid anger among Washington's spies over the way intelligence was being distorted to prove the link existed.

.........He faces a tough task made far tougher by President George W Bush's promise in his State of the Union address last week that Mr Powell would prove a link between al-Qa'eda and Iraq that, intelligence officials say, does not exist.

The intelligence shows that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a leading member of al-Qa'eda, was treated in hospital in Baghdad last spring but provides absolutely no evidence of any contacts with Iraqi officials.

<h3>It also shows that some members of a small Kurdish Islamic fundamentalist group, Ansar al-Islam, which controls a small area inside northern Iraq, were trained by al-Qa'eda. But this also shows no credible evidence of contacts with the Iraqi regime.

It is the attempt by both the White House and the Pentagon to make a clear and definite link between al-Zarqawi, Ansar al-Islam and Saddam Hussein that has infuriated many within the United States intelligence community.</h3>

"The intelligence is practically non-existent," one exasperated American intelligence source said. Most of the intelligence being used to support the idea of a link between al-Qa'eda and Saddam Hussein comes from Kurdish groups who are the bitter enemies of Ansar al-Islam, he said..............

Quote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3067876/
Distorted Intelligence?
Secret German records cast doubt on the Saddam-Al Qaeda connection. Plus, why Qatar is footing the legal bills for an ‘enemy combatant’
Web Exclusive
By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball
Newsweek
Updated: 12:15 p.m. ET June 9, 2006

<b>June 25, 2003</b>

THE VOLUMINOUS GERMAN records, obtained by NEWSWEEK, seem to undercut highly touted administration claims that Abu Mussab Al Zarqawi, a hardened Jordanian terrorist who once received medical treatment in Baghdad, was a key player in Al Qaeda.

In fact, the secret German records—compiled during interrogations with a captured Zarqawi associate—suggest that the shadowy Zarqawi headed his own terrorist group, called Al Tawhid, with its own goals and may even have been a jealous rival of Al Qaeda.

The captured associate, Shadi Abdallah, who is now on trial in Germany, told his interrogators last year that Zarqawi’s Al Tawid organization was one of several Islamist groups that acted “in opposition” to bin Laden’s Al Qaeda. At one point, Abdallah described how Zarqawi even vetoed the idea of splitting charity funds collected in Germany between Al Tawhid and Al Qaeda.

While the internal machinations between Al Tawhid and Al Qaeda may seem obscure, they cut to the heart of one of the most politically sensitive issues in Washington at the moment: whether the Bush White House exaggerated and distorted U.S. intelligence to justify the war on Iraq.

Much of the debate revolves around claims that Saddam had large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons—stockpiles that so far have not been found. But an equally fierce debate has been taking place behind the scenes about the handling of sketchy, and at times, contradictory evidence relating to Saddam’s supposed connections with Al Qaeda.

Zarqawi was at the center of those claims. In a Cincinnati speech delivered Oct. 7, on the eve of a congressional vote authorizing him to wage war on Iraq, President Bush asserted that “Iraq and Al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade.” His chief example was that “one very senior Al Qaeda leader” had “received medical treatment in Baghdad”—an obvious reference to Zarqawi, who had his leg amputated there in 2002.

Zarqawi received even more prominence in secretary of State Colin Powell’s Feb. 5 presentation to the United Nations Security Council. In that address, Powell described Zarqawi as “an associate and collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda lieutenants.” During his stay in Baghdad, Powell claimed that “nearly two dozen…al Qaeda affiliates” converged on the Iraqi capital and “established a base of operations there.”

But the German interrogations of Shadi Abdallah present a more complex and somewhat different picture of Zarqawi’s role in international terrorism.......

..........While a member of bin Laden’s entourage, Abdallah says he had numerous conversations with Ramzi Binalshibh, a Yemeni resident in Hamburg who later played a key role in the September 11 hijacking conspiracy.

But after “only about two weeks” as a bin Laden bodyguard, Abdallah told German investigators, he became disenchanted with bin Laden’s hard-line ideology, which he found distasteful because of bin Laden’s insistence that the Koran allowed the killing of women children and old people.

Abdallah said he made his way from bin Laden’s hideout to Zarqawi’s Al Tawhid training camp near Herat. There, he was informed that Al Tawhid’s mission was explicitly to “fight the Jordanian regime and to overthrow the government of Jordan” as well as the “annihilation of Jews all over the world.”

...............At the time of Abdallah’s arrest by German authorities last spring, Zarqawi apparently was still running the group out of Iran; and the only Iraqi connection with Al Qaeda was access to phony Iraqi documents, Abdallah told authorities.

Several U.S. officials familiar with intelligence reports that were used to craft Powell’s Feb. 5 presentation to the Security Council told NEWSWEEK they were aware all along of the German information about Zarqawi. But the officials insist the CIA firmly stands behind what Powell said about Zarqawi’s purported links to Al Qaeda. Even the German evidence, they said, indicates that there were some associations and links between the two organizations.

Despite the inflammatory language of Powell’s U.N. presentation, Bush Administration officials also have acknowledged that their information about Zarqawi’s stay in Baghdad is sketchy at best. According to U.S. officials, Zarqawi entered Iraq around May of last year to have an amputation performed on his leg, which was injured while he was fleeing American forces in Afghanistan. According to some reports, one reason that he might have gone to Baghdad for the operation was that the Iranian government, in one of its sporadic crackdowns on Al Qaeda, had expelled him.

Senior U.S. officials acknowledged to NEWSWEEK within days of Powell’s speech that it was “unknown” whether Saddam’s government helped arrange Zarqawi’s hospital stay in Baghdad or whether Iraqi intelligence had any contacts with him while he was in Baghdad.

Since U.S. forces ousted Saddam two months ago, only one confirmed member of Zarqawi’s group has been captured by American troops in Iraq. Little if any other information has surfaced to illuminate Zarqawi’s Baghdad stay or the dealings between Saddam’s government and Zarqawi or other alleged Islamic terrorist operatives, including bin Laden. U.S. officials acknowledge that some top captured Al Qaeda leaders, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah, have told U.S. interrogators bin Laden vetoed a long-term relationship with Saddam because he did not want to be in the Iraqi leader’s debt. .......

...........The German government evidence appears to demonstrate how the Zarqawi story told by Powell to the Security Council was partial at best and misleading at worst, in the sense that it took Zarqawi’s tenuous relationship to Al Qaeda and his mysterious visit to Baghdad and lifted them out of context to imply evidence of a closer collaboration between Iraq and bin Laden than the facts demonstrated.

Missing entirely from Powell’s speech was the qualifying and even contradictory information in the German files. Also missing was any reference to Zarqawi’s sojourn in Iran, which knowledgeable officials concede might be as significant, if not more important, than any visit he paid to Baghdad.

One intelligence source says that as the Bush Administration cranked up the government to prepare for war, intelligence agencies were ordered to produce two critical papers that could be published to justify an attack on Saddam. One paper related to Weapons of Mass destruction, the other to Saddam’s links to terrorism. Classified versions of both papers were written and the paper on WMD was eventually published by the Bush Administration as an official dossier. But an unclassified version of the paper on Saddam’s links to terrorism was never published because intelligence agencies could not reach final agreement on what exactly it should say.....

Quote:

Note: If you are interested...the rest of this article is focused on this man,
al-Marri, and there is more info on what became of him, here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jarallah_al-Marri
Jarallah al-Marri is a citizen of Qatar currently held in the United States Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba.[1] Al Marri's detainee ID number is 334.

Note that Powell's key assistant of 16 years, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, later called Powell's speech that day, as I documented earlier in this thread, <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/19/powell.un/">"the lowest point in my life".</a>

Then, please consider how interwined the Powell/Bush administration assertions about Zarqawi were with their argument that he was the "key" proof of a close ties and cooperation between Saddam's government and Al Qaeda. After Cheney's discredited assertions about Atta's Prague "meeting" with an Iraqi intelligenc official he denied what he was videotaped saying:

Quote:

http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/...404_flash3.htm
CHENEY: CLEAR LINKS BETWEEN SADDAM, AL-QAEDA; CALLS NY TIMES ARTICLE 'OUTRAGEOUS'
Thu Jun 17 2004 19:00:33 ET
...BORGER: Well, let's get to Mohammad Atta for a minute, because you mentioned him as well. You have said in the past that it was, quote, "pretty well confirmed."

Vice Pres. CHENEY: No, I never said that.

BORGER: OK.

Vice Pres. CHENEY: Never said that. ......

......BORGER: Let me ask you what your response is to the Democratic presidential candidate, John Kerry, who said upon looking at this 9/11 report that this administration, quote, "misled America."

Vice Pres. CHENEY: In what respect? I haven't seen that.

BORGER: In terms of the relationship between al-Qaida and Iraq......

Quote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3715396.stm
Tuesday, 5 October, 2004,
Rumsfeld questions Saddam-Bin Laden link

Rumsfeld's comments can be revealing
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has cast doubt on whether there was ever a relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.

..........He also said that although most of al-Qaeda's senior leaders had sworn an oath to Osama Bin Laden, the man suspected to be the principal leader of the network in Iraq, Abu Musab <b>al-Zarqawi, had not.</b>

Mr Zarqawi's reported presence in Baghdad before the war has been cited in the past by the US administration as evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. ........

Quote:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FJ15Ak02.html
Oct 15, 2004
THE ROVING EYE
Zarqawi - Bush's man for all seasons
By Pepe Escobar

.......Cheney also insisted that Zarqawi could not have had his leg treated in a Baghdad hospital without Saddam's Mukhabarat (secret service) knowing it. But the leg story is a mess. US intelligence thought that Zarqawi had lost a leg in Afghanistan in 2002. But then, last May, they concluded that he still had both legs. The Bush administration's "evidence" of an al-Qaeda-Saddam link via Zarqawi may be an intercepted phone call by Zarqawi from a Baghdad hospital in 2002, while his leg was being attended to. But then "Zarqawi" shows up in a video with both legs in the 2004 beheading of hostage Nick Berg.

The truth is more straightforward. Zarqawi had no connection either with bin Laden or with Saddam. Secular Saddam hosting an Islamic radical, of all people, at a time when the American campaign against the "axis of evil" had reached a fever-pitch is a ludicrous proposition. A newspaper editor in the Sunni triangle says Zarqawi may have gone on an underground trip to Baghdad to have his leg operated on before scurrying back to Kurdistan. And <b>sources in Peshawar confirm to Asia Times Online that Zarqawi never took the all-significant bayat (oath of allegiance) and so never struck a formal alliance with bin Laden and the al-Qaeda leadership.........</b>

Quote:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report...t.pdf#page=487
http://demos.vivisimo.com/search?inp...iraq&x=40&y=12
75. Intelligence report, Iraq approach to Bin Ladin, Mar. 16, 1999. 76. CIA analytic report,“Ansar al-Islam:Al Qa’ida’s Ally in Northeastern Iraq,” CTC 2003-40011CX, Feb. 1, 2003. See also DIA analytic report,“Special Analysis: Iraq’s Inconclusive Ties to Al-Qaida,” July 31, 2002; CIA analytic report,“Old School Ties,” Mar. 10, 2003.We have seen other intelligence reports at the CIA about 1999 contacts.They are consistent with the conclusions we provide in the text, and their reliability is uncertain. Although there have been suggestions of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda regarding chemical weapons and explosives training, the most detailed information alleging such ties came from an al Qaeda operative who recanted much of his original information. Intelligence report, interrogation of al Qaeda operative, Feb. 14, 2004.Two senior Bin Ladin associates have adamantly denied that any such ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. Intelligence reports, interrogations of KSM and Zubaydah, 2003....

If you find the poll results that I included in my last post curious or troubling, or even as confirmation of you own strong but difficult to defend POV, there is an obvious explanation why so many of our troops and residents are of the misguided opinion that Saddam was somehow responsible for the 9/11 attacks
.........in my posts last month, at these links, I documented the news reporting of Bush admin. members attempts to link Al Qaida with Saddam's regime:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...0&postcount=61

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...8&postcount=63

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...0&postcount=64

Last week there was this documentary on http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/ :

Quote:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm..._cheney20.html
"Frontline" documentary makes case that Cheney used 9/11 to go to war
By Mark Rahner
Seattle Times staff reporter

.......But apparently he didn't use the actual intelligence from the agencies.

The CIA and its then-director, George Tenet, knew immediately that al-Qaida in Afghanistan was responsible for the 9/11 attacks and said so. But author James Bamford says that while the Pentagon was still smoking, Rumsfeld said, "We've got to see, somehow, how we can bring Saddam Hussein into this."

"The Dark Side" claims that 9/11 provided Cheney and Rumsfeld with a pretext for achieving their longstanding ambition to go after the Iraqi dictator and to boost executive power that they'd seen diminish ever since their days as allies in Nixon's administration. As consummate political infighters, they resented and continually undermined Tenet — a sports-loving man's man who had become pally with George W. Bush.

The CIA repeatedly insisted that there was no connection between Saddam and al-Qaida, and Tenet explicitly warned that invading Iraq would "break the back" of our counterterrorism effort. Tenet even ordered the agency's records scoured 10 years back for links. CIA vet Michael Scheuer, who led that effort, says, "There was no connection between al-Qaida and Saddam."

But Cheney, the chief architect of the war on terror and the most powerful vice president in U.S. history, had made up his mind, according to "The Dark Side." CIA vets say Cheney and his now-indicted chief of staff, Scooter Libby, made unprecedented trips to CIA headquarters to pressure and "harangue" analysts who were compiling the National Intelligence Estimate. Analyst Paul Pillar, one of its primary authors, says he regrets his role in the hastily prepared, fatally flawed document, which was "clearly requested and published for policy-advocacy purposes ... to strengthen the case for going to war with the American public."......

<b>Now....wouldn't it be appropriate to consider moving the posts of irateplatypus and Mojo_PeiPei to a forum where undocumented speculation is more the norm......than here?</b>

Dilbert1234567 · 06-25-2006, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Can't forget that a wounded Al-Zarqawi slithered his way into Iraq following the invasion of Afghanistan, pre-Iraq invasion. And the whole Ansar Al-Islam link.

Have you taken a look at how many illegal aliens cross into the US every day, do you know how easy it is? now look at Iraq, its one huge desert, its hard to keep boarders sealed, saying that saddam let him come into the country is a joke, just because some one entered a country does not mean they have ties to the countries leaders, otherwise, bush has a few hundred thousand Mexican friends. now I am not saying that I have proven there was no tie between saddam and zarqawi, but just because zarqawi got in does not mean they were in cahoots

matthew330 · 06-26-2006, 02:36 PM

As worthless as this POV may be without links, this caught my eye..

"there is an obvious explanation why so many of our troops and residents are of the misguided opinion that Saddam was somehow responsible for the 9/11 attacks"

I have never heard a single person argue that Saddam was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, on either side of the aisle. Seriously - not once.

Admittedly I should probably read your whole post, but I just don't see that happening until..well....65 is retirement or something right, so 30 to 35 years. There's no way I'm gonna take whatever you have to say at face value and I just don't have the time to read, for what it really is, every article you post.

host · 06-26-2006, 09:06 PM

matthew330, 2525 dead American soldiers, thousands more seriously wounded, and direct, immediate costs detailed below, to remove the threat of WMD that you described, and even though U.S. and U.N. weapons inspectors have said for some time that no WMD, or their R&D and manufacturing infrastructure existed in Iraq, you're not buying their conclusions, and, even knowing what is now known, you wouldn't change a thing, if the opportunity to "do it all over again", existed. The invasion and occupation of Iraq ended a 12 year effort to hold Saddam Hussein "in check", that Wolfowitz told congress, cost $30 billion. Not a single allied aircraft patrolling the "no fly zone", in Iraq was lost in those 12 years.

Below is a description of only the direct cost of the first U.S. experience in waging what Mr. Bush described as "pre-emptive war"....what the Nuremberg Court described as "war of aggression". The long term cost has been estimated to ulitmately be as high as $2 trillion. The loss to the reputation and financial standing of the U.S., in the community of nations, and by the lessons learned by many of us who took the record of the Nuremberg Court seriously, are immeasurable...... Uncounted numbers of innocent Iraqis have died as a result of the new Bush doctrine of "pre-emption". The "humanity" of many in the U.S. has been dormant, as they labored under the misconceptions that enabled all of this to happen with so little resistance from fellow citizens who should have known better, but as the poll results below, indicate.....didn't.

Quote:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...aqspend14.html
Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - Page updated at 12:00 AM
Iraq is a political football in D.C.

By Jonathan Weisman and Shailagh Murray

The Washington Post

....The House on Tuesday passed a record-breaking $94.5 billion emergency spending bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Gulf Coast hurricane relief, border security and avian-flu preparation. With Senate passage expected later in the week, the bill would push the cost of the Iraq war to nearly $320 billion, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. Military and diplomatic costs in Iraq this fiscal year will have reached $101.8 billion, up from $87.3 billion in 2005, $77.3 billion in 2004 and $51 billion in 2003, the year of the invasion, analysts said.

Nearly $66 billion would go to the Pentagon to pay for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and an additional $4 billion would be spent on foreign assistance, including $66 million to promote democracy in neighboring Iran....

matthew330, from a quote box in my post (#8) on this page:

Quote:

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075
Released: February 28, 2006

U.S. Troops in Iraq: 72% Say End War in 2006

.......The wide-ranging poll also shows that 58% of those serving in country say the U.S. mission in Iraq is clear in their minds, while 42% said it is either somewhat or very unclear to them, that they have no understanding of it at all, or are unsure. <h3>While 85% said the U.S. mission is mainly “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks,”</h3> 77% said they also believe the main or a major reason for the war was “to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq.”

and this link was posted directly below the aforementioned quote box, on post #8:
<a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=84506">Are the Feb. 18 Harris Iraq Poll Results "The triumph of Opinion Over News"?</a>

and if you "clicked" on the above link, duplicated from it's original appearance on post #8.....you would have an opportunity to find:

Quote:

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/har...ex.asp?PID=544
.......However, the public remains split on whether the invasion of Iraq strengthened (46%) or weakened (48%) the war on terrorism.

These are some of the results of a nationwide Harris Poll of 1,012 U.S. adults surveyed by telephone by Harris Interactive between February 8 and 13, 2005.....

......More surprising perhaps are the large numbers (albeit not majorities) who believe the following claims not made by the president and which virtually no experts believe to be true:

<h3>* 47 percent believe that Saddam Hussein helped plan and support the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001 (up six percentage points from November).
* 44 percent actually believe that several of the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11 were Iraqis (up significantly from 37% in November).</h3>
* 36 percent believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. invaded (down slightly from 38% in November).

Another interesting finding is that only 46 percent believe that Saddam Hussein was prevented from developing weapons of mass destruction by the U.N. weapons inspectors, a fact which most reports now support.

matthew330, you seem to project an impression....as my stepson in the military does, of someone who thinks that he knows what he's talking about.....here are your own words: (from post #7 )

Quote:

Originally Posted by matthew330

........I never needed WMD physically being found to justify going in there. The fact is that we had to go in there to make it clear, as you just pointed out. I've said this before, but I remember specifically President Bush saying "It's not up to us to prove he has WMD, it's up to him to prove he doesn't." He's had them, he's used them, and for 10 years he dicked with weapons inspectors. This was obviously never a good enough reason for the left, so why not throw out some of the other million and one reasons that justify this war, IMO.

And we're still bickering about weapons that were finding. Didn't we just find 500 containers of Sarin gas. The Dems saying "well that's not the WMD we were talking about". When Saddam should have been disclosing everything, why didn't we know about this 5 years ago.

He had proven himself willing to use WMD, he had booted the inspectors out for 4 years once leaving himself free to do whatever he wanted, and he continued to dick with inspectors. That's why we went to war. Not because we proved there was WMD prior to, but because there was evidence he did and Saddam didn't use the opportunity to prove us wrong...........

My response was to present my opinion, buoyed by much relevant and supportive documentation, that, in order for what you've said to be taken seriously, one would have to ignore the assessements of the most prominent three U.S. Iraqi weapons inspectors....including comments that I documented, from Mr. Duelfer and Mr. Kay, made just this past week.

I'm not willing to concede that your opinions on the subject of WMD, or on why the U.S. invaded Iraq, are accurate, or even informed, when they are compared to the record of what has been said by Ritter, Duelfer, Kay, and on the subject of why Iraq was invaded, compared to comments by Bush and Wolfowitz. The stature of your arguments is further diminished, by the lack of your provision of any backup references or supportive documentation. It appears to me that your opinions go directly against the record I've provided of news reports and the statements of all five of the men that I named in this paragraph.

Your tone and declarations in your last post are puzzling, since you've given me the impression that you think that you've made a convincing argument. Your conviction seems to hinge on your admitted refusal to read and consider what I've posted, yet you indicate a belief that you are qualified to comment and dismiss my efforts on this thread, anyway. What's up with that?

matthew330 · 06-27-2006, 09:59 AM

Host - there's no need to get offended that I won't give your posts an hour of my time. I don't think i'm obligated to and honestly I don't think you were posting that for my benefit necessarily. That's why i decided against, after my first post and anticipating you coming, trying to save you some time and effort by letting you know that I don't read your posts. One thing caught my eye, I pointed out a personal observation that is in direct contradiction to that. I think I'm allowed to do that...... I think.

boatin · 06-27-2006, 01:41 PM

Matthew330,

I've been dealing with someone at work who disagrees with me on an important issue, but won't sit still long enough to discuss it. As a consequence, we can't really move forward one way or the other. The similarities between that and your last post prompt this opinion:

If I believe something that someone says is demonstrably wrong, but I won't listen to their evidence I feel my credibility crumbles to dust. How can I expect someone to listen to me, or believe me, if I can't do the same? More importantly to me, how can *I* continue to believe myself?

With the history of people being wrong on most every conceivable issue (flat earth, plate tectonics, slavery, and on and on), how can I *not* challenge my own beliefs? If I'm not prepared to change my mind, aren't the odds near certain that I'll become an old and inflexible thinker?

In related news, I've found that the people that are most likely to get under my skin are most likely the ones likely to teach me something. Even if it's unintended lessons.

Having said that, you are obviously free to read/not read anything. But I don't think there's much credibility in that, do you? Host's posts are long, but I'm not sure it's ever taken me an hour to read any of them

edit: and to tie to the original thread, my guess (too) is that the soldier just can't let himself think differently about the war. Understandable, of course. But a shame. I hope I never need to dig in like that.

Willravel · 06-27-2006, 03:09 PM

Matthew, Host has been good enough to highlight some of the most relevant points in giant size so that people who skim can still see them. If you can't spend the time to read the whole post (which took me about 7 minutes), then you might want to just look for the stuff in bold or in a larger size. Please be aware, though, that every word in that post is primarily written for your benifit. Whether or not you agree with Host, his intent is to help you.

Paq, while this seems on the surface a rehashing of old arguments, I can see that there is a particular relevence considering this man is one of the troops that everyone seems to want to support (according to their bumper magnets). My concern in the matter is that because of this man's probable denial, he may be more likely to follow illegal and immoral orders because he feels the ends justify the means. This is the most dangerous kind of warrior. My grandfather, a WWII and Vietnam vet and historian, was always very clear about his experiences in the war. A soldier cannot be a drone. In order for militaries to be vindicated in the eyes of history, they should commit every act with their eyes open. Be aware of what you're capable of, but more importantly, what you should or should not do. When a soldier ceases to have morality, he or she ceases to have a soul...and that's not a soldier; that's a killing machine. If yo've seen the Terminator movies, you know that no one wants a killing machine. Espically Linda Hamilton. What ever happened to Linda Hamilton, anyway?

matthew330 · 06-27-2006, 05:54 PM

OH lord why do I let myself get dragged into this...

Will, again with Hosts history I will not take anything he says at face value, so his large fonts are meaningless to me.

Boatin..your just funny. Plate techtonics, flat earth and slavery? And it's the other guys fault he won't sit still long enough for you to enlighten him?

Listen to yourselves, not only are you comfortable suggesting that there's some underlying pathology for a brief description of a soldiers support of the war but projecting that onto he american military personnel.

"When a soldier ceases to have morality, he or she ceases to have a soul...and that's not a soldier; that's a killing machine. If yo've seen the Terminator movies, you know that no one wants a killing machine. Espically Linda Hamilton. What ever happened to Linda Hamilton, anyway?"

Between Linda hamilton, the terminator and the earth being flat....how can one argue with all this drama.

Dilbert1234567 · 06-27-2006, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matthew330

What ever happened to Linda Hamilton, anyway?

she's in a new show on FX called thief
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Hamilton

Quote:

Originally Posted by matthew330

how can one argue with all this drama.

I don't know, unfortunately threads about the current war/administration/etc tend to go down hill really quickly. I really wish we could have a civil discussion about it...

oracle2380 · 06-27-2006, 06:38 PM

I can't help but laugh to myself as I read these accounts of why we're here (in Iraq). I see all these sources from stateside reporters, who for the most part have never set foot in Iraq. It is certainly strange to see the results of a poll published in FEB 06, that states that I have no idea why I'm here, and that I don't believe I'm making a difference. My unit Commander clearly stated our reason for being here: To plant seeds. Seeds of trust, and respect, two key cogs in the fight against terrorism. The problems we face here are not, for the most part, from the Iraqis socially, but from the insurgents 'joining the fight' from elsewhere in the arab world. We are making progress here, though it is not often shown on CNN or MSNBC, and the people appreciate the troops. I can tell you this:

1. The Soldiers here believe in what they are doing, though there are disinters (as in every group).

2. We are accomplishing something good, despite your feelings in regards to the administration, and you can't put value on that.

3. The Iraqis want us here, we're helping them remember.

4. If we leave now it will only cause more instability in the region, and that is bad.

To sum it up; The media paints an inaccurate picture of the "war" in Iraq, The Iraqis appreciate what we're doing, and the soldiers feel that they are accomplishing something.

If you don't believe me try joining one the wonderful organzations that supports our troops. If you get onto one of the letter writing commitees I'm pretty sure you'll get an 'interesting perspective' on the world around you.

-Support your troops, because in the end everything we do is for the betterment of the greatest nation on earth.

boatin · 06-27-2006, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matthew330

OH lord why do I let myself get dragged into this...

Boatin..your just funny. Plate techtonics, flat earth and slavery? And it's the other guys fault he won't sit still long enough for you to enlighten him?

Well, it won't be the last time I'm unintentionally funny, I guess. As always, it makes more sense in my head than on paper... let me try again. There's really two points that combine to form my conclusion:

#1: The point of involving myself on a discussion board is to discuss. To try to learn something. To read people's posts that make me nuts and try to understand what they are saying. To read people who are more articulate than I am, and try to learn how to do better.

#2: People hold wrong opinions all the time. Little things and big things. They always have. Opinions that are flatly wrong, and disproved over time. Scientific opinions like the earth being flat, or moral opinions like slavery. They are wrong wrong wrong, and I doubt anyone would hold those opinions any more. Given that people throughout history have been wrong about near everything, it seems likely that that is still true.

My conclusion: I don't want to be wrong. I don't want to hold onto thoughts/opinions because that's what I've always believed. I want to use my time to listen, learn and form new conclusions. One way to do that is to challenge my own assumptions, to actively chase down the things I prefer to believe and subject them to a greater scrutiny BECAUSE I prefer to believe them.

It turns out that message boards are a great way to do that for me. My question to anyone else is: why are you here? If you're not going to take the time to read something that challenges your own position, what's the point? And, perhaps more relevently, why should anyone listen to your opinions?

You don't have to agree with Host, Matthew330. You don't have to be 'enlightened'. But we sure as sh** should be able to respond to the merits of someone's post.

stevo · 06-28-2006, 04:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oracle2380

I can't help but laugh to myself as I read these accounts of why we're here (in Iraq). I see all these sources from stateside reporters, who for the most part have never set foot in Iraq. It is certainly strange to see the results of a poll published in FEB 06, that states that I have no idea why I'm here, and that I don't believe I'm making a difference. My unit Commander clearly stated our reason for being here: To plant seeds. Seeds of trust, and respect, two key cogs in the fight against terrorism. The problems we face here are not, for the most part, from the Iraqis socially, but from the insurgents 'joining the fight' from elsewhere in the arab world. We are making progress here, though it is not often shown on CNN or MSNBC, and the people appreciate the troops. I can tell you this:

1. The Soldiers here believe in what they are doing, though there are disinters (as in every group).

2. We are accomplishing something good, despite your feelings in regards to the administration, and you can't put value on that.

3. The Iraqis want us here, we're helping them remember.

4. If we leave now it will only cause more instability in the region, and that is bad.

To sum it up; The media paints an inaccurate picture of the "war" in Iraq, The Iraqis appreciate what we're doing, and the soldiers feel that they are accomplishing something.

If you don't believe me try joining one the wonderful organzations that supports our troops. If you get onto one of the letter writing commitees I'm pretty sure you'll get an 'interesting perspective' on the world around you.

-Support your troops, because in the end everything we do is for the betterment of the greatest nation on earth.

Keep coming back to the TFP, oracle. Give us first-hand accounts of our progress in iraq. There's a lot of anti-war people on this board, but theres a good deal of mission supporters as well. Stick around a while, people need to hear the good first hand. God bless you and your buddies.

Charlatan · 06-28-2006, 05:20 AM

Oracle... your account is an accurate account of the current mission. I don't dispute that whatsoever. In fact, this late in the game, anyone who advocated for immediate withdraw would be advocating for making things worse.

The fact remains that the current mission does not account for the original reason the Administration chose to put you in harms way. Some here would say that regardless of the reasons good is being done. I would say that, yes, some good may come of this but at what cost?

I am not convinced the price in treasure and lives was worth it. Especially since there was no truly justifiable reason to start with...

host · 06-28-2006, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

Keep coming back to the TFP, oracle. Give us first-hand accounts of our progress in iraq. There's a lot of anti-war people on this board, but theres a good deal of mission supporters as well. Stick around a while, people need to hear the good first hand. God bless you and your buddies.

'couple-o-questions for ya, stevo.....
Do anecdotal accounts from oracle, influence you more than the results of answers to questions in a recent, scientific poll, with a purported 2-1/2 percent margin of error, of over 1700, random Iraqi adults....and if they do....could you send a "loved one"...to risk their life or limb to fight for this "cause"?

Quote:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/...ory?id=1389228
Poll: Broad Optimism in Iraq, But Also Deep Divisions Among Groups
Analysis By GARY LANGER and JON COHEN

Dec. 12, 2005

........ Negatives

Other views, moreover, are more negative: Fewer than half, 46 percent, say the country is better off now than it was before the war. And <b>half of Iraqis now say it was wrong for U.S.-led forces to invade in spring 2003,</b> up from 39 percent in 2004.

The number of Iraqis who say things are going well in their country overall is just 44 percent, far fewer than the 71 percent who say their own lives are going well. Fifty-two percent instead say the country is doing badly.

<b>There's other evidence of the United States' increasing unpopularity: Two-thirds now oppose the presence of U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq, 14 points higher than in February 2004.</b> Nearly six in 10 disapprove of how the United States has operated in Iraq since the war, and most of them disapprove strongly. And nearly half of Iraqis would like to see U.S. forces leave soon.

Specifically, 26 percent of Iraqis say U.S. and other coalition forces should "leave now" and another 19 percent say they should go after the government chosen in this week's election takes office; that adds to 45 percent. Roughly the other half says coalition forces should remain until security is restored (31 percent), until Iraqi security forces can operate independently (16 percent), or longer (5 percent).

This survey was sponsored by ABC News with partners Time, the BBC, the Japanese network NHK and the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel, with fieldwork by Oxford Research International. It consists of in-person interviews with a random national sample of 1,711 Iraqis from early October through mid-November.........

.........And despite the billions spent, reconstruction does not win broad accolades. Just 18 percent of Iraqis say postwar reconstruction efforts in their area have been "very effective." Instead 52 percent say such efforts have been ineffective or, while needed, have not occurred at all.

<b>Few — just 6 percent — credit the United States with the main role in reconstruction.</b> More say it's the Iraqi people (12 percent) or the Iraqi government (9 percent), but 37 percent say it's "no one." .......

.....<b>Confidence in Public Institutions: Percent Confident</b>

Police 68%
Iraqi Army 67%
Religious Leaders 67%
Natl. Govt. 53%
Ministeries in Baghdad 45%
Local Governate 42%
Local Leaders 41%
U.N. 31%
Political Parties 25%
<b>U.S./U.K. Forces 18%</b>

.......Methodology

This poll was conducted for ABC News, Time magazine, the BBC, NHK and Der Spiegel by Oxford Research International. Interviews were conducted Oct. 8 to Nov. 22, 2005, in person, in Arabic and Kurdish, among a random national sample of 1,711 Iraqis age 15 and up. The results have a 2.5-point error margin. Details of the survey methodology are available upon request.

stevo, is it "anti-war" to offer observations, backed by poll results like the ones above, that "hint" that oracle2380 may not be the "authority" on how the war is "going", that you and he so strongly believe that he is?

Is there any chance that I am offering accurate, well documented observations, below, from authoritative voices....such as oracle2380's commanders, and their predecessors....that demonstrate a consistant assessment, contrary to what oracle2380's...that the U.S. is fighting a primarily homegrown, guerilla insurgency, all over Iraq?

Consider reports below, that in the latest offensive drive against the insurgents in the city of Ramadi, only 145 soldiers in an Iraqi battalion, could be persuaded to fight and die alongside American troops. Consider that this latest offense has the potential to destroy another large Iraqi city, like Fallujah, the former city of 400,000, before it. stevo, how many cities this large, in a country of only 27 million, can be destroyed in these actions, rendered unliveable for many years to come, before you could begin to question the "mission" and the tactics of our military, and of the POTUS?

Quote:

Originally Posted by oracle2380

..... I see all these sources from stateside reporters, who for the most part have never set foot in Iraq. ......

.......The problems we face here are not, for the most part, from the Iraqis socially, but from the insurgents 'joining the fight' from elsewhere in the arab world. We are making progress here, though it is not often shown on CNN or MSNBC, and the people appreciate the troops.....

How do oracle2380's comments about "stateside reporters", look alongside the results of polls offered here, conducted exclusively by questioning only folks randomly, who were all in Iraq? How do they look, when you consider that more members of the press have been killed or wounding covering the Iraq war....from Iraq, including the ABC co-anchor, and a prominent CBS foreign correspondent, the lone survivor recently, in a press crew of three, than in the much longer, Vietnam war?

Quote:

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcrip...1230-1082.html
Tuesday, December 30, 2003 9:01 a.m. EST United States Department of Defense.
News Transcript
resenter: Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, Deputy Director for Operations

Q What is the scale in terms of the situation of foreign fighters in Iraq? What sort of incidents does the coalition suspect foreign fighters of? And what does the coalition suspect their numbers are, as well?

GEN. KIMMITT; Well, we've said a number of times that we think that the number of foreign fighters is a small minority of <b>the overall enemy that we face here in Iraq, probably on the order of 10 percent, no more.</b> But that could change on a daily basis. What type of activities do we sort of instantly say, "We better look at that one because that might be foreign fighters"? Any time that we see a car bomb, we start saying that probably is not something that was home grown, that that might be from somewhere else. We've seen tactics being used by some of the belligerents, some of the enemy, that would indicate that they might have had training in other than former-regime element, former Iraqi army. And that's sort of how we say we better take a look at that one a little bit closer.....

Quote:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/...ney.interview/
Cheney: Iraq will be 'enormous success story'

Friday, June 24, 2005; Posted: 12:28 a.m. EDT (04:28 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Vice President Dick Cheney on Thursday defended his recent comment that the Iraqi insurgency was in its "last throes," insisting that progress being made in setting up a new Iraqi government and establishing democracy there will indeed end the violence -- eventually.

However, in an exclusive interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Cheney said he thinks there still will be "a lot of bloodshed" in the coming months, as the insurgents try to stop the move toward democracy in Iraq.

"If you look at what the dictionary says about throes, it can still be a violent period, the throes of a revolution," he said. "The point would be that the conflict will be intense, but it's intense because the terrorists understand that if we're successful at accomplishing our objective -- standing up a democracy in Iraq -- that that's a huge defeat for them.........

......Cheney compared the current situation in Iraq to the last months of World War II, when Germans launched a desperate offensive in the Battle of the Bulge and the Japanese offered stiff resistance on Okinawa.

He said the insurgents will "do everything they can to disrupt" the process of building an Iraqi government, "but I think we're strong enough to defeat them.".......

Quote:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/30/cheney.iraq/
Iraq insurgency in 'last throes,' Cheney says

Monday, June 20, 2005; Posted: 12:19 p.m. EDT (16:19 GMT)

....."I think we may well have some kind of presence there over a period of time," Cheney said. "The level of activity that we see today from a military standpoint, I think, will clearly decline. I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency."......

Quote:

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/Transcripts/051002b.htm
Interview with Gen. Abizaid
" MEET THE PRESS" on NBC TV
OCTOBER 2, 2005

MR. RUSSERT: How many insurgents are there in Iraq?

GEN. ABIZAID: I think there's no more than 20,000 insurgents in Iraq.

MR. RUSSERT: There was a study done, and this is according to The Christian Science Monitor -- even if the U.S. can seal Iraq's borders stopping the flow of foreign fighters would do little to eliminate most of the country's insurgents, only 4 percent to 10 percent of the country's combatants are foreign fighters, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Do you agree with that?

<h3>GEN. ABIZAID: I think we have to watch out hyping the foreign fighter problem to the point where it becomes unrealistic. The foreign fighters are not the broad majority of fighters that are taking part in the insurgency.</h3> But the foreign fighters generally tend to be people that believe in the ideology of al Qaeda and their associated movements, and they tend to be suicide bombers. So while the foreign fighters certainly aren't large in number, they are deadly in their application. They've killed well over 5,000 Iraqis here this year alone in suicide attacks, and these are innocent Iraqis that are minding their own business trying to get through the day and, all of a sudden, somebody from Tunisia, Algeria, Libya or some other foreign country shows up and explodes a suicide bomber. Very rarely do they ever hit a target of military value.

MR. RUSSERT: But if there are 20,000 insurgents, and most of them Iraqis, it is largely, then, a homegrown insurgency that could not exist without the support of the people. Is that fair?

GEN. ABIZAID: It all depends what you say the support of the people might mean. Insurgency is not endemic throughout Iraq. The north is calm, the south is calm, essentially there are portions of the Sunni Arab community that are in insurgency. And that's where we've got to concentrate our efforts, both militarily and, by the way, politically. We need the Sunni Arab community in Iraq to be part of the future of Iraq.

MR. RUSSERT: General Casey said there are about 500 attacks a week. Vice President Cheney said the insurgency was in final throes. Is the vice president correct?

GEN. ABIZAID: Tim, I knew somehow or other the final throes question would come. I will tell you that the insurgency, as long as politics continues to move in the direction that it appears to be moving, and the Iraqi security forces continue to move in the direction that they're moving, the insurgency doesn't have a chance for victory.

MR. RUSSERT: But is it alive and well?

GEN. ABIZAID: It's certainly alive and well, and I don't think any of us that are military people have every said anything other than the fact that we've got fighting on our hands, especially as we go through this political process. The political friction associated with the referendum and with the new government is tremendous. And in Iraq, unfortunately, they've got a long, long record of resorting to violence in order to solve their political problems. This revolutionary change that's taken place is going to require some military effort to suppress it...

Quote:

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075
Released: February 28, 2006

U.S. Troops in Iraq: 72% Say End War in 2006

......About two in five see the insurgency as being comprised of discontented Sunnis with very few non-Iraqi helpers. “There appears to be confusion on this,” Zogby said. But, he noted, less than a third think that if non-Iraqi terrorists could be prevented from crossing the border into Iraq, the insurgency would end. A majority of troops (53%) said the U.S. should double both the number of troops and bombing missions in order to control the insurgency.

The survey shows that most U.S. military personnel in-country have a clear sense of right and wrong when it comes to using banned weapons against the enemy, and in interrogation of prisoners. Four in five said they oppose the use of such internationally banned weapons as napalm and white phosphorous. And, even as more photos of prisoner abuse in Iraq surface around the world, 55% said it is not appropriate or standard military conduct to use harsh and threatening methods against insurgent prisoners in order to gain information of military value.

Three quarters of the troops had served multiple tours and had a longer exposure to the conflict: 26% were on their first tour of duty, 45% were on their second tour, and 29% were in Iraq for a third time or more.

A majority of the troops serving in Iraq said they were satisfied with the war provisions from Washington. Just 30% of troops said they think the Department of Defense has failed to provide adequate troop protections, such as body armor, munitions, and armor plating for vehicles like HumVees. Only 35% said basic civil infrastructure in Iraq, including roads, electricity, water service, and health care, has not improved over the past year. Three of every four were male respondents, with 63% under the age of 30.

The survey included 944 military respondents interviewed at several undisclosed locations throughout Iraq. The names of the specific locations and specific personnel who conducted the survey are being withheld for security purposes. Surveys were conducted face-to-face using random sampling techniques. The margin of error for the survey, conducted Jan. 18 through Feb. 14, 2006, is +/- 3.3 percentage points.

(2/28/2006)

Quote:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...nWubQ&refer=us

Cheney Says U.S. Underestimated Iraq Insurgency (Update1)

June 19 (Bloomberg) -- Vice President Dick Cheney said that while the administration underestimated the strength of anti- American violence in Iraq, he still believes the insurgency is in its ``last throes,'' as he asserted last year.

``I don't think anybody anticipated the level of violence we encountered,'' Cheney said in a question-and-answer session following a speech today at the National Press Club in Washington.

The past 18 months will be viewed by history and a crucial period for democracy in Iraq as ``Iraqis increasingly took over responsibility for their own affairs,'' Cheney said.

Asked if he still believed the insurgency was in its final throes, as he said in a CNN interview on May 31, 2005, Cheney said, ``I do.'' He cited election of an interim government, a constitutional referendum and parliamentary elections in December that established a unity government as evidence the insurgency is being pushed to the margins.

Insurgent and sectarian violence has flared during the same period, and Cheney as well as President George W. Bush previously have acknowledged errors in dealing with the aftermath of the U.S.-led invasion and coping with resistance.

Still, Cheney said, that is the ``period that we'll be able to look at and say: That's when we turned the corner, that's when we began to get a handle on the long-term future of Iraq.''

Quote:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/...0627ramadi.php
U.S. and Iraqi troops push into Ramadi
By Dexter Filkins The New York Times

Published: June 26, 2006

.....Ramadi, the capital of Anbar Province, has bedeviled American forces for months, making itself the toughest city in the most violent of Iraqi regions. Whole city blocks here look like a scene from some post-apocalyptic world: row after row of buildings shot up, boarded up, caved in, tumbled down.

Many neighborhoods are out of the control of either the American or Iraqi government forces; insurgents hold sway.......

....Central to the strategy, American commanders say, is the decision to commit significant numbers of Iraqi troops who can hold the neighborhoods after the Americans do most of the work of pacification. That, the American commanders hope, will make the city safe enough for its shattered economy to renew itself and for Iraqi police officers to feel secure enough to start showing up for work.

"I'm a realist," Colonel MacFarland said. "I know we are not going to be here long enough to realize that vision. The Iraqis will have to do that. What we can do is try to impart an irreversible momentum."

The challenges of doing even that became evident as the operation unfolded Monday. American soldiers - trained, disciplined, with overwhelming firepower - outnumbered their Iraqi counterparts. Officers here said there were about 250 American soldiers involved in the operation, and about 145 Iraqis.

Lt. Col. Raad Niaf Haroosh, the Iraqi battalion commander, said the 145 soldiers represented a fraction of the battalion's usual numbers. <h3>He said as many as 500 of his fellow soldiers - most of them Sunni Muslims from Al Jabouri tribe - stayed behind in Mosul rather than fight in Ramadi.</h3>

Colonel Raad is a Sunni, as are most of the Iraqi soldiers who made the trip with him. They seemed alert and disciplined as they moved about the area, in contrast to some Iraqi units that have accompanied American soldiers in the past.

<h3>He said that many of the Iraqi soldiers who stayed behind feared they would create tribal vendettas if they came to Ramadi and killed other Iraqis.

"They said, 'We don't want fight our own people,' " he said.</h3>

As it was, Colonel Raad, who is a tribal sheik when out of uniform, said he got a warm reception from the Iraqis as he moved through the streets. He said he hoped the operation started on Sunday would begin to loosen the hold of insurgents on Ramadi.

"Insurgents have the bigger grip here," he said......

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062600312.html
Iraq conflict leaves at least 130,000 displaced

By Hiba Moussa and Michael Georgy
Reuters
Monday, June 26, 2006; 8:26 AM

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq's sectarian violence of the past four months has pushed the number of displaced people to above 130,000, parliament heard on Monday as members urged ministers to give more aid and security to contain the crisis.

"There should be more field visits to understand their plight," Sunni Arab parliamentarian Dhafir al-Ani told the assembly. "The government should take direct steps and provide security for displaced families, including at their camps."

Iraq's Ministry of Displaced and Migration now puts the number of internal refugees at 130,386, or 21,731 families, its spokesman Sattar Nowruz said.

The number of registered displaced has climbed by as much as 30,000 in the last month, according to ministry statistics.

The actual figure must be higher as many thousands go uncounted, quietly seeking refuge with relatives or heading abroad. It seems hardly no-one in Baghdad does not have a friend, relative or neighbor who has had to move in fear.

Already a problem due to the violence and anarchy of recent years, the crisis deepened after the February 22 bombing of a major Shi'ite shrine in the town of Samarra set off reprisals and pushed Iraq to the brink of sectarian civil war.

The problem has been likened to the "ethnic cleansing" of the Balkans in the 1990s and few expect a quick solution.

Sectarian violence, which kills dozens of people a day in Baghdad alone, has started to force demographic shifts, with Shi'ites and Sunnis fleeing for safer areas made up of their own sect.

Mixed neighborhoods are breaking apart.....

To sum it up for you, stevo, and oracle2380, the results of the polling are consistant with news reports that U.S. troops are destroying vast urban areas of a small country, rendering huge numbers displaced, and a signifigant number of innocents killed or wounded, against a primarily homegrown insurgency, while making little progress in fielding an Iraqi security force to replace them on the "battlefield". This is aggravated by a U.S. executive branch, as Cheney's assertions above, show, that is neither credible, nor competent to quickly resolve the situation that is has mired our troops in.

The misinformed, myopic opinions of oracle2380, IMO, and, when compared to the polling results of questions asked randomly of the soldiers who he serves alongside of, are understandable, considering where they are, and what is easier to believe, in order to motivate them to follow orders, but they are, IMO, unsupported by the facts.

Please stevo or oracle2380, post the comments by oracle2380 that either of you believe are accurate enough to "be taken to the bank", and the documentation that counters what I have posted. Supply the name and the quote of an American commander who agrees with oracle2380, that <b>"The problems we face here are not, for the most part, from the Iraqis socially, but from the insurgents 'joining the fight' from elsewhere in the arab world."</b>
Show me random scientific polling results of Iraqis, conducted by well known sources, that indicate Iraqi support of the continued presence of U.S. troops in Iraq. Show me proof that the "news" from Iraq is primarily sourced from
"stateside reporters".

Persuade other readers that it is "host", and not you, matthew330, and oracle2380 who is posting "propaganda", and that you guys are the ones, armed with the facts, cuz I don't see that to be the case. If you're right, you should be able to provide arguments with some substance...like....uhhhh....I seem to do...even with the "questionable" reputation that mattew330 hung on me, with nothing posted to back it up.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by matthew330

Will, again with Hosts history I will not take anything he says at face value, so his large fonts are meaningless to me.....

Give me credit for continued participation here....if the above is an example of the quality of the argument from the "other side...." I believe that this subject is too important to concede to any point that seems contrary to what my research persuades me to believe....and so I continue to share it here.

I may be "anti-war", stevo, but my opinions are supported by a well documented set of quotes, polls, and reports. What is the basis of your opinions? Where are you getting them, and why do they trump what I bring to this discussion?

Willravel · 06-28-2006, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oracle2380

My unit Commander clearly stated our reason for being here: To plant seeds. Seeds of trust, and respect, two key cogs in the fight against terrorism.

Doesn't that strike you as being propoganda? Sadam Husain was bad news, but his power was diminshed before the Second Gulf War. If I were a betting man, I would have put money on a revolution within the next 25 years in Iraq without foreign interference. Of course that bet couldn't have existed, because Iraq has been a hotbed of foreign interference for decades, and it still is. Sadam Husain was not a threat to the US. We attacked the legitimate government of Iraq and defeated them despite the fact that no on in Iraq asked for our help and they were not a threat to us. Now the US has set up a govnernment (of wealthy elite Iraqis, BTW) that still ultimately answers to us. Rome, anyone? While the Romans brought roads and technology to the nations they conqoured, they also brought tyrany. If we were liberators in Iraq, then why are we, the US, building perminant military bases? Why are those bases so close to oil pipelines?

I also have to ask...what does the war in Iraq have to do with terrorism?

Quote:

Originally Posted by oracle2380

The problems we face here are not, for the most part, from the Iraqis socially, but from the insurgents 'joining the fight' from elsewhere in the arab world.

What percentage of insurgents are Iraqi, and what percentage are from elsewhere? Do you have access to reliable statistics?

Quote:

Originally Posted by oracle2380

I can tell you this:
2. We are accomplishing something good, despite your feelings in regards to the administration, and you can't put value on that.

What about the value of innocent human life? Do you know how many Iraqi civilians died in the initial attack? How are their deaths leading to a good acomplishment? Are the means really justifiable by the ends?

Quote:

Originally Posted by oracle2380

3. The Iraqis want us here, we're helping them remember.

If they want us there, then why are 2526 American Military officers dead? Why are 18,490 wounded officially (which is actually a lot closer to 45,000)?

Quote:

Originally Posted by oracle2380

4. If we leave now it will only cause more instability in the region, and that is bad.

There already is instability in the regoin. There has been for decades. Our presence in Iraq is feeding their civil war.

I can understand that soldiers want to feel that they are accomplishing something. I really can. I can't understand why so many people have to die in a war started under false pretenses.

Quote:

Originally Posted by oracle2380

-Support your troops, because in the end everything we do is for the betterment of the greatest nation on earth.

I support those who are willing to accept that no one is perfect, and that we are responsible for our mistakes.

Oracle, take care of yourself. No one over here, whether pro or anti war, wants to see anything bad happen to any of our troops. All I ask is that you know the UCMJ, the Geneva conventions, and the other various treaties, laws, and rules that apply to war. A war without morality is a war already lost.

stevo · 06-28-2006, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

'couple-o-questions for ya, stevo.....
Do anecdotal accounts from oracle, influence you more than the results of answers to questions in a recent, scientific poll, with a purported 2-1/2 percent margin of error, of over 1700, random Iraqi adults....and if they do....could you send a "loved one"...to risk their life or limb to fight for this "cause"?

Yes. they do. Yes. I could.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

stevo, is it "anti-war" to offer observations, backed by poll results like the ones above, that "hint" that oracle2380 may not be the "authority" on how the war is "going", that you and he so strongly believe that he is?

It is if those observations are so blinded by an agenda such as yours.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Is there any chance that I am offering accurate, well documented observations, below, from authoritative voices....such as oracle2380's commanders, and their predecessors....that demonstrate a consistant assessment, contrary to what oracle2380's...that the U.S. is fighting a primarily homegrown, guerilla insurgency, all over Iraq?

Nope. You only see what you want to, host. You cherry pick your articles to suit your agenda. You are as transparant as the window by my desk.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Consider reports below, that in the latest offensive drive against the insurgents in the city of Ramadi, only 145 soldiers in an Iraqi battalion, could be persuaded to fight and die alongside American troops. Consider that this latest offense has the potential to destroy another large Iraqi city, like Fallujah, the former city of 400,000, before it. stevo, how many cities this large, in a country of only 27 million, can be destroyed in these actions, rendered unliveable for many years to come, before you could begin to question the "mission" and the tactics of our military, and of the POTUS?

consider the reports from 2006. Not last year, or even 2003. If you didn't have your mind already made up and an agenda to support you could find many an article aobut the improvements pertaining to the Iraqi national guard and their US counterparts. In fact I just read one in the WSJ last week. It wasn't a rosy, all-is-well, story, but it was straight forward, talked about the improvements and how far we still have to go.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

How do oracle2380's comments about "stateside reporters", look alongside the results of polls offered here, conducted exclusively by questioning only folks randomly, who were all in Iraq? How do they look, when you consider that more members of the press have been killed or wounding covering the Iraq war....from Iraq, including the ABC co-anchor, and a prominent CBS foreign correspondent, the lone survivor recently, in a press crew of three, than in the much longer, Vietnam war?

Of course polls don't have any element of bias introduced. They aren't easily slanted to paint a picture or support an agenda. The anti-war folk in the media would never intentionally portray something in a less than honest fasion to help their cause.

I work with polls every day. I develop surveys and analyze them. I know how easy it is to make it look like you want it too. I take the word of a soldier over that of the media any day of the week.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

The misinformed, myopic opinions of oracle2380, IMO, and, when compared to the polling results of questions asked randomly of the soldiers who he serves alongside of, are understandable, considering where they are, and what is easier to believe, in order to motivate them to follow orders, but they are, IMO, unsupported by the facts.

Its funny, how you, sitting at home, with your mind already made up, selectively reading news reports call someone's first hand account of the situation in iraq a "myopic opinion." What are you, the authoratative source?

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

I may be "anti-war", stevo, but my opinions are supported by a well documented set of quotes, polls, and reports. What is the basis of your opinions? Where are you getting them, and why do they trump what I bring to this discussion?

Your opinions are supported by nothing more than other people's opinions, half-truths, selective reading and memory, slanted polls and an anti-war agenda.

host · 06-28-2006, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

Yes. they do. Yes. I could.

.....consider the reports from 2006. Not last year, or even 2003. If you didn't have your mind already made up and an agenda to support you could find many an article aobut the improvements pertaining to the Iraqi national guard and their US counterparts. In fact I just read one in the WSJ last week. It wasn't a rosy, all-is-well, story, but it was straight forward, talked about the improvements and how far we still have to go.......

......Your opinions are supported by nothing more than other people's opinions, half-truths, selective reading and memory, slanted polls and an anti-war agenda.

that was a "rush job" response stevo.....you didn't even notice, apparently, that the reporting on Ramidi, and the article on the 130,000 displaced Iraqis were both published in the last few days. The poll that showed an 18 percent trust figure of coalition troops by Iraqis was conducted last october, the quotes from the Tim Russet interview, as to the opinion that the foreign fighter factor is miniscule, was also dated last october, and Cheney's "who could have known",,,blah...blah...comments were reported last week. The Zogby poll of the troops was conducted in 2006....

.....and you sir, failed, as usual, to document a source for anything that you posted....the gun, however, that you used to "shoot the messenger", because you disagree with the message, is still smoking......but you can't or won't refute what I posted...... in any way that can be checked or verfied....stands out here, for all who stop by, to see......

roachboy · 06-28-2006, 01:36 PM

interesting. back once again to fundamentally divergent views of the iraq thing.

on oracle's post:

i do not understand the position from which this post was written--the basic underlying claim is "i am in iraq and so i know everything about the situation. you, reading this, are not there so you dont know anything." this seem a bit...um...arrogant, particularly when you move to the enumerated points in the post, which could come from any number of bush administration press releases concerning their particular view of the war.

i do not understand where this impression comes from that if you are in a situation personally that you know all there is to know about the situation in general. one might ask oracle where in iraq he is, how extensively he has been able to move around the country, under what conditions he has een able to move around, if he has, whether he has spoken to iraqi folk, whether he does this speaking in english or in arabic or in the local dialects of arabic...for example.

this is not to say that accounts of his particular experience would not be interesting to read--i would hope that some would appear here, myself--but accounts of his particular experience in a complex and confusing situation that would hopefully take at least some account of its complexity. the post above aint it.

i continue to be surprised by the ability of folk like stevo (and matthew330) to refuse to look at information that may cause their a priori political committments to support george w bush no matter what any problems.
i am surprised that this kind of behaviour persists---it seems to me kind of infantile---but am also quite bored with the fact of it, and so will simply stop here.

stevo · 06-28-2006, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

i continue to be surprised by the ability of folk like stevo (and matthew330) to refuse to look at information that may cause their a priori political committments to support george w bush no matter what any problems.
i am surprised that this kind of behaviour persists---it seems to me kind of infantile---but am also quite bored with the fact of it, and so will simply stop here.

Nice to see you again, roach. Don't worry though, my support for bush isn't 100%. He lost about 15 percentage points from me on his stance on immigration.

So he's currently receiving a B (better than he did in college).

Aside from that. It doesn't really matter to me what news reports on the war say. There is one side who wants nothing more than a complete withdrawl from iraq asap. Those people I will not listen to, for those people will not listen reason, do not realize (or care) what would happen if we were just to pack up and leave tomorrow. Harping on reasons for the war is pointless now, and will not help us to win. We have 2 options. We can bring our troops home before iraq is ready or we can stay until the job is done. 1 option will lead to a complete mess, the other to much less of a mess.

06-25-2006, 01:39 AM	#1 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	An interesting experience with a soldier I havent posted here in quite a while, but i just wanted to pop in and ask a few things/unload a few things... So, here goes: i'm at dinner with my gf, her li'l sis and her li'l sis's new boyfriend. We're having a casual dinner at a cheap mexican place and all is well... until it comes up that he was in the army during the first part of the new iraq war. So, my gf asked for his perspective on why we were over there and he just stated, with utmost clarity and certainty, "Weapons of mass destruction...the liberal media won't show you everything we've uncovered, but i've personally seen x amount of weapons discovered and they were extremely close to being nuclear capable and would have had hte reach to hit western europe" and he went on about how the war could be over if they shut off the cameras and how we could wipe out the N. Korean threat within 3 months... So, i just nodded and tried to mention the lack fo evidence, etc, but was shot down with the "liberal media doesn't tell teh truth" which i can believe, but logically..if there were stockpiles uncovered, wouldn't bush have had 50,000 conferences about it; wouldn't a soldier have taken a pic and sold it to fox news; woudlnt' there have been SOME leak of a story that would get to the general public. He basicaly ended his speech with "all i know is that 83 of my friends are dead and they died for the right cause" which is impossible to argue against and makes you sound like an ass if you try... And the whole encounter made me realize that the divide between the right and center and left in the country is just..extremely huge and seemingly insurmountable. Neither side of the argument will even consider the other side's and both sides end up more convinced that they are right.... Anyway, sorry for rambling, but i am curious, what is the prevailing argument for the war again? I honestly thought bush and co had retracted the WMD argument and was on the "Sadaam was a bad man" defense.... BTW, this is the only one of a few soldiers i have spoken to who agreed 100000% with the war. most others have the "we're over there now, so we should finish it' outlook. This one also said, "my son will serve in the military and i can only pray he will go to war"... Thanks for letting me vent, any thoughts? anyone else have any encounters with soldiers that mimic this or are to the contrary? Thanks again __________________ Live. Chris

06-25-2006, 08:07 AM	#3 (permalink)
aberkok “Wrong is right.” Location: toronto	Be wary of those who are so sure about anything. Sure...it means more research and bewilderment on your part, but the more work you put into knowing something, the more sound that knowledge will be. Thinking people are often caught speechless in the face of relentless ignorance. __________________ !check out my new blog! http://arkanamusic.wordpress.com Warden Gentiles: "It? Perfectly innocent. But I can see how, if our roles were reversed, I might have you beaten with a pillowcase full of batteries."

06-25-2006, 08:17 AM	#4 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	It sounds more like he is trying to justify, to himself, the death of his friends. Coping strategies take many forms. This one is certainly understandable. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

06-25-2006, 08:41 AM	#6 (permalink)
Grasshopper Green ...is a comical chap Location: Where morons reign supreme	As far as the WMD's are concerned, I asked hubby (who was in Iraq at the start of the war), and he said that sounds like complete horseshit to him and doesn't make any sense at all. As the war becomes more unpopular and increasingly complex, I think a lot of soldiers are, like Charlatan mentioned, justifying it in different ways. __________________ "They say that patriotism is the last refuge to which a scoundrel clings; steal a little and they throw you in jail, steal a lot and they make you king" Formerly Medusa

06-25-2006, 09:22 AM	#9 (permalink)
Dilbert1234567 Devils Cabana Boy Location: Central Coast CA	They did find some WMD, the only problem with them was they were made prior to the 1991 conflict, and Way past their shelf life and worthless. The shells found did contain the remnants of nerve gas, how ever it was inert and worthless. It is incorrect to say there were now WMD in Iraq, but it is proper to say there were no viable WMD in Iraq. “Yes I do have some milk in my fridge for your coffee, its 2 years past its expiration date and a bit thick, do you still want it?” __________________ Donate Blood! "Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

06-25-2006, 08:54 AM	#7 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	"Right around when it was getting clear there were no WMDs, we caught Saddam, and that turned out to have been the real reason to go in there in the first place. Then when that didn't stop insurgent activity, the rationale shifted to "Regime change" and "spreading Freedom and Democracy". I think the thing to notice is this: You acknowledge that it took 10 monthts ("Right around the time that it was getting clear") that WMD weren't in Iraq. I never needed WMD physically being found to justify going in there. The fact is that we had to go in there to make it clear, as you just pointed out. I've said this before, but I remember specifically President Bush saying "It's not up to us to prove he has WMD, it's up to him to prove he doesn't." He's had them, he's used them, and for 10 years he dicked with weapons inspectors. This was obviously never a good enough reason for the left, so why not throw out some of the other million and one reasons that justify this war, IMO. And we're still bickering about weapons that were finding. Didn't we just find 500 containers of Sarin gas. The Dems saying "well that's not the WMD we were talking about". When Saddam should have been disclosing everything, why didn't we know about this 5 years ago. He had proven himself willing to use WMD, he had booted the inspectors out for 4 years once leaving himself free to do whatever he wanted, and he continued to dick with inspectors. That's why we went to war. Not because we proved there was WMD prior to, but because there was evidence he did and Saddam didn't use the opportunity to prove us wrong. But I guess this isn't another thread about that....

06-25-2006, 10:11 AM	#10 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	So you would feel comfortable personally checking out those shells? Somehow I doubt it. It still doesn't change the fact the we found this and didn't know about it before. When exactly was it past it's shelf life and worthless? Because unless they were worthless at the 1991 conflict, your point is moot. We should have known about them when we had the inspectors in there after that conflict. If he was hiding them, what else was he hiding? Again - why we went to war.

06-25-2006, 10:50 AM	#13 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	For the record, there was never a "smoking gun" found, there was however plenty of evidence to suggest that the programs were still active. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

06-25-2006, 12:04 PM	#14 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	Also, don't forget the bang-up job the administration did linking Iraq and 9/11 in the public mind, despite there being no evidence to support that. That's the ultimate justification right there--if 9/11 had never happened, Bush would have slinked into the history books undistinguished and unnoticed. 9/11 gave him an opportunity to bring about what has turned out to be the single greatest foreign policy disaster in American history.

06-25-2006, 12:17 PM	#15 (permalink)
Dilbert1234567 Devils Cabana Boy Location: Central Coast CA	One more point, if Saddam had WMD, he would have used them in the current war, maybe not at the beginning, but certainly when all was lost. Did he? No. why? Because he had none, there was nothing to lose by using them, he already knew he was going to be disposed and probably jailed for life or killed. If he had them he would have used them just for the sake of spite. __________________ Donate Blood! "Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

06-25-2006, 06:44 PM	#17 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Can't forget that a wounded Al-Zarqawi slithered his way into Iraq following the invasion of Afghanistan, pre-Iraq invasion. And the whole Ansar Al-Islam link. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition. Last edited by Mojo_PeiPei; 06-25-2006 at 06:48 PM..

06-25-2006, 06:51 PM	#19 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	But there was a man named Al-Zarqawi right? With links to Al Qaeda? Or is it the evil empire propaganda? __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

06-25-2006, 07:02 PM	#21 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	That's right, conveniently(sp) into Kurdistan where he apperently hooked up with Ansar Al-Islam, a group with alleged ties to Al Qaeda and links to the Hussein Regime as they were enemies of the autonomous Kurds. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

06-26-2006, 02:36 PM	#24 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	As worthless as this POV may be without links, this caught my eye.. "there is an obvious explanation why so many of our troops and residents are of the misguided opinion that Saddam was somehow responsible for the 9/11 attacks" I have never heard a single person argue that Saddam was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, on either side of the aisle. Seriously - not once. Admittedly I should probably read your whole post, but I just don't see that happening until..well....65 is retirement or something right, so 30 to 35 years. There's no way I'm gonna take whatever you have to say at face value and I just don't have the time to read, for what it really is, every article you post.

06-27-2006, 09:59 AM	#26 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	Host - there's no need to get offended that I won't give your posts an hour of my time. I don't think i'm obligated to and honestly I don't think you were posting that for my benefit necessarily. That's why i decided against, after my first post and anticipating you coming, trying to save you some time and effort by letting you know that I don't read your posts. One thing caught my eye, I pointed out a personal observation that is in direct contradiction to that. I think I'm allowed to do that...... I think.

06-27-2006, 01:41 PM	#27 (permalink)
boatin Psycho	Matthew330, I've been dealing with someone at work who disagrees with me on an important issue, but won't sit still long enough to discuss it. As a consequence, we can't really move forward one way or the other. The similarities between that and your last post prompt this opinion: If I believe something that someone says is demonstrably wrong, but I won't listen to their evidence I feel my credibility crumbles to dust. How can I expect someone to listen to me, or believe me, if I can't do the same? More importantly to me, how can I continue to believe myself? With the history of people being wrong on most every conceivable issue (flat earth, plate tectonics, slavery, and on and on), how can I not challenge my own beliefs? If I'm not prepared to change my mind, aren't the odds near certain that I'll become an old and inflexible thinker? In related news, I've found that the people that are most likely to get under my skin are most likely the ones likely to teach me something. Even if it's unintended lessons. Having said that, you are obviously free to read/not read anything. But I don't think there's much credibility in that, do you? Host's posts are long, but I'm not sure it's ever taken me an hour to read any of them edit: and to tie to the original thread, my guess (too) is that the soldier just can't let himself think differently about the war. Understandable, of course. But a shame. I hope I never need to dig in like that. Last edited by boatin; 06-27-2006 at 01:52 PM..

06-27-2006, 03:09 PM	#28 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Matthew, Host has been good enough to highlight some of the most relevant points in giant size so that people who skim can still see them. If you can't spend the time to read the whole post (which took me about 7 minutes), then you might want to just look for the stuff in bold or in a larger size. Please be aware, though, that every word in that post is primarily written for your benifit. Whether or not you agree with Host, his intent is to help you. Paq, while this seems on the surface a rehashing of old arguments, I can see that there is a particular relevence considering this man is one of the troops that everyone seems to want to support (according to their bumper magnets). My concern in the matter is that because of this man's probable denial, he may be more likely to follow illegal and immoral orders because he feels the ends justify the means. This is the most dangerous kind of warrior. My grandfather, a WWII and Vietnam vet and historian, was always very clear about his experiences in the war. A soldier cannot be a drone. In order for militaries to be vindicated in the eyes of history, they should commit every act with their eyes open. Be aware of what you're capable of, but more importantly, what you should or should not do. When a soldier ceases to have morality, he or she ceases to have a soul...and that's not a soldier; that's a killing machine. If yo've seen the Terminator movies, you know that no one wants a killing machine. Espically Linda Hamilton. What ever happened to Linda Hamilton, anyway?

06-27-2006, 05:54 PM	#29 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	OH lord why do I let myself get dragged into this... Will, again with Hosts history I will not take anything he says at face value, so his large fonts are meaningless to me. Boatin..your just funny. Plate techtonics, flat earth and slavery? And it's the other guys fault he won't sit still long enough for you to enlighten him? Listen to yourselves, not only are you comfortable suggesting that there's some underlying pathology for a brief description of a soldiers support of the war but projecting that onto he american military personnel. "When a soldier ceases to have morality, he or she ceases to have a soul...and that's not a soldier; that's a killing machine. If yo've seen the Terminator movies, you know that no one wants a killing machine. Espically Linda Hamilton. What ever happened to Linda Hamilton, anyway?" Between Linda hamilton, the terminator and the earth being flat....how can one argue with all this drama.

06-27-2006, 06:38 PM	#31 (permalink)
oracle2380 Upright Location: Up in Washington watching the puddles grow.	I can't help but laugh to myself as I read these accounts of why we're here (in Iraq). I see all these sources from stateside reporters, who for the most part have never set foot in Iraq. It is certainly strange to see the results of a poll published in FEB 06, that states that I have no idea why I'm here, and that I don't believe I'm making a difference. My unit Commander clearly stated our reason for being here: To plant seeds. Seeds of trust, and respect, two key cogs in the fight against terrorism. The problems we face here are not, for the most part, from the Iraqis socially, but from the insurgents 'joining the fight' from elsewhere in the arab world. We are making progress here, though it is not often shown on CNN or MSNBC, and the people appreciate the troops. I can tell you this: 1. The Soldiers here believe in what they are doing, though there are disinters (as in every group). 2. We are accomplishing something good, despite your feelings in regards to the administration, and you can't put value on that. 3. The Iraqis want us here, we're helping them remember. 4. If we leave now it will only cause more instability in the region, and that is bad. To sum it up; The media paints an inaccurate picture of the "war" in Iraq, The Iraqis appreciate what we're doing, and the soldiers feel that they are accomplishing something. If you don't believe me try joining one the wonderful organzations that supports our troops. If you get onto one of the letter writing commitees I'm pretty sure you'll get an 'interesting perspective' on the world around you. -Support your troops, because in the end everything we do is for the betterment of the greatest nation on earth. __________________ "Two roads diverged in a wood, and I- I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference." - Robert Frost

06-28-2006, 05:20 AM	#34 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Oracle... your account is an accurate account of the current mission. I don't dispute that whatsoever. In fact, this late in the game, anyone who advocated for immediate withdraw would be advocating for making things worse. The fact remains that the current mission does not account for the original reason the Administration chose to put you in harms way. Some here would say that regardless of the reasons good is being done. I would say that, yes, some good may come of this but at what cost? I am not convinced the price in treasure and lives was worth it. Especially since there was no truly justifiable reason to start with... __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

06-28-2006, 01:36 PM	#39 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	interesting. back once again to fundamentally divergent views of the iraq thing. on oracle's post: i do not understand the position from which this post was written--the basic underlying claim is "i am in iraq and so i know everything about the situation. you, reading this, are not there so you dont know anything." this seem a bit...um...arrogant, particularly when you move to the enumerated points in the post, which could come from any number of bush administration press releases concerning their particular view of the war. i do not understand where this impression comes from that if you are in a situation personally that you know all there is to know about the situation in general. one might ask oracle where in iraq he is, how extensively he has been able to move around the country, under what conditions he has een able to move around, if he has, whether he has spoken to iraqi folk, whether he does this speaking in english or in arabic or in the local dialects of arabic...for example. this is not to say that accounts of his particular experience would not be interesting to read--i would hope that some would appear here, myself--but accounts of his particular experience in a complex and confusing situation that would hopefully take at least some account of its complexity. the post above aint it. i continue to be surprised by the ability of folk like stevo (and matthew330) to refuse to look at information that may cause their a priori political committments to support george w bush no matter what any problems. i am surprised that this kind of behaviour persists---it seems to me kind of infantile---but am also quite bored with the fact of it, and so will simply stop here. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite