UN experts - WMD material removed from I raq

“If you really fight hard MarkO for your beliefs, you can have the blood in your back yard.

Make sure that's what you want before you fight too hard for your convictions.
last edited: 6/04/05 12:11:13 PM”

“I made a simple statement, embellish upon it all you like.”

“Pa-leeze.”

“Is there a better example of Sarge's opinion than his post above that we are in Iraq as a training exercize for a coming full-scale war?

Go team!”

“speaking of embellishing ... LOL”

“Phaedrus - You might want to reread my post more carefully. Take it slowly. Clear your mind of your preconceptions about our "evil" intentions.

I purposefully did not say we were "training" in Iraq. I was very careful and specific in my wording.”

“Sarge - we're obviosly learning in the same way the Soviet Unions learned so much in Afganistan.”

“Ok y2. How so?”

“Sarge - to be honest, I've heard different opinions on the right size of the invasion force for the war on Iraq. I am really not in a position to say that the US had too few people to defeat Saddam and his army. What is obvious, is that there weren't enough people in place to secure order or to secure sensitive sites once Saddam's army crumbled.

And, speaking of embellishing - that's definitely what you did in presenting the UN report.

Lastly, I think Geo was trying to point to this pattern of people on the right who seize on any evidence provided by the mainstream media which supports their beliefs and who reject anything that challenges their beliefs because of media bias. It provides a great deal of ideological insulation.”

“pedx -

to be honest, I've heard different opinions on the right size of the invasion force for the war on Iraq. I am really not in a position to say that the US had too few people to defeat Saddam and his army. What is obvious, is that there weren't enough people in place to secure order or to secure sensitive sites once Saddam's army crumbled.

If you're not in a position to say, then why did you?

And, speaking of embellishing - that's definitely what you did in presenting the UN report.

Only if I'm wrong. I don't believe you're in a position to say if I'm wrong or not, are you? Then don't claim to know if I'm embellishing or not.

Lastly, I think Geo was trying to point to this pattern of people on the right who seize on any evidence provided by the mainstream media which supports their beliefs and who reject anything that challenges their beliefs because of media bias. It provides a great deal of ideological insulation.

You're wrong in so many ways here I am having great difficulty deciding the most simple way to say it with the least amount of points to be made.

1. I'm not pointing to the article for my benefit.
2. Nobody claimed the media is always wrong, just biased.
3. What I know for fact will not be changed by the media's portrayal of reality.
4. There aren't many other options for demonstrating reality on the other side of the world, other than through the media. (that's it's intended purpose)
5. Ideological insulation comes from not experiencing reality for yourself, and limiting yourself to one view. I have never done that. In fact, my view of the media comes from experiencing reality and from witnessing their reporting of it. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? It's the media that made me a conservative. I was a liberal until I saw the media lying, and the left siding with them. If I was guilty of ideological insulation, I'd still be a liberal, and I'd still be wrong.”

“I'm going to need hip boots for this thread from here on.”

“You can't say the media is lying just because you don't like the spin they put on things when you do the exact same thing with your careful and specific wording. As a matter of fact, this thread was started by you posting an article and then putting a spin on it to insinuate it proved there were WMD's. Are you sure you don't work for the media already because I think you'd be good at it.”

“Sarge..

You are just not very good with putting the pupose and mission into words.

It is like you are standing on your tounge and still trying to speak.”

“BW - I don't try to spell everything out. I just say what needs to be said. I'm not here to explain the entire process and reality to these guys. I know they're not going to believe me b/c they have their minds made up already. I say just enough that, when the truth comes out, they'll realize that they're on the wrong team. I'm not here to babysit or to educate - just to say what is going on. Anyways, some things are better left unsaid.

Anyways - These guys understand more of what I'm saying than they let on. They like to gang up and make these personal attacks b/c it's all they've got. It's easier for them than walking through the logical point one at at time. Doing that would make them think about their positions, and they know that's not something they want to do. Logic doesn't work for the left, so I don't try to use it. I just put the information out there, watch them say it's ridiculous, then later, as the truth becomes public, watch them squirm. Look at the Few Good Men thread. I was attacked the same way there ... but when everything comes out ... in hindsight ... it's obvious the left had no clue about reality.
last edited: 6/05/05 7:47:17 AM”

“Phaedrus - You want hip boots?

Explain yourself.

You posted this:

Is there a better example of Sarge's opinion than his post above that we are in Iraq as a training exercize for a coming full-scale war?

Go team!
Phaedrus
2:34:56 PM
6/04/05

So if you're not "full of it" yourself, explain to us how I said this was a training exercise for a full scale war. You backed off this. If you're not BSing here yourself, explain how what you said is true. Back it up with my words, not your mis-interpretation of them.”

“If you are going to start threads that discuss your topic, then you should be prepared to spell everything out.”

“I noticed you started a thread about your duty station.

Did you spell everything out that goes on there?

Why didn't you post all of the pictures?

hypocrite”

“No BWMT, it's better to deal with glittering generalities so you can't be pinned down.

Hmmmm, now where did I hear that term before?”

“Geo - You want to talk about specifics?

Name some specific sources you'd accept from me without criticism.”

“Geo - In reference to "generalities", again you twist the situation to make your point.

When I used the term "general", I used it in reference to "liberals" so as not to be accused of painting with a broad brush. I wasn't using the word in terms of a specific event, like this thread references. Why are these basic concepts difficult for you? You will be critical no matter what I say because you prefer to attack me than the message. Ad hominem. It's your entire MO. You're transparent.”

“When I used the term "general", I used it in reference to "liberals" so as not to be accused of painting with a broad brush.

I think I see your problem.”

“Once again, Geo avoids the issue and makes personal attacks.

Geo, do you have nothing better to do than to criticize people you don't even know? Do you ever actually talk about politics?

If I purposefully don't apply a broad brush, you criticize. If I'm not specific, you assume I'm painting with a broad brush. If I use a source you like, you criticize, if I use a source I like, you criticize, if I use no source, you criticize.

Geo, you're transparent. Do you talk to people like that in real life? Do you tell them that no matter what direction they explain their view, it's an invalid explanation?

So much for free expression of ideas ... unless of course, it's your idea.
last edited: 6/05/05 12:45:24 PM”

“Read what I quoted and think about what you actually wrote instead of what you think you wrote. This is a very valuable bit of information for you.

Your characterizations of me sound like you're talking about yourself.

Do you want to talk about how you debate? The other day you decided that I was gay. Now that was really adult.

In case you still don't get it, you wrote that you used the term general so as not to be accused of painting with a broad brush. Well Sarge, the term general is a broad brush where I went to school.

You talk in circles with double meanings, then jump all over everybody else for not being specific. When you're not winning an argument you duck behind some infantile thing like calling the other person gay or whatever.

You're more concerned with, how did you put it, exposing me than debating.

Just to show that it's not just me, here's what you said to Blind Willie just a few hours ago:

“I noticed you started a thread about your duty station.

Did you spell everything out that goes on there?

Why didn't you post all of the pictures?

hypocrite”
Sarge

Way to handle yourself. The way I read Blind Willie's post, he was trying to help you understand something, not criticize you.

And even if he was, criticism is good if you stop and think about it and consider it. But no, it's easier to call the other person a hypocrite.

Frankly, your posts come off as shallow thoughts from somebody with low self esteem.”

“I do not beleive that I have left anything out.

I provided a link to CJTF-HOA, and no question was left unanswered (unlike the threads that you start).

The reasons for not posting some of the most graphic pictures at the MEDCAPs is because of the nature of this site. This is just a backpacking site. I was being polite to those that may not want to see such images...
Some of those photos of peoples infestions are hard to look at. It is manners. Something that most of the military have.

Do I post about Everything that goes on here?

No, of course not you fool. It is called OPSEC (Since you don't know what that means, it is Operational Security). Only a complete dumb-ass would go online to post mission oriented information. All the information that you need is on the link.

Did you even go there?

You have massive shortfalls in your debate. My threads have never caused any argument, because I know my subject, and I have the resourses and know how to answer all questions that deal with my subject.

A hypocrite? you are silly. I was stating that you have holes all in your facts, and people are burying you with it. You should have been more prepared before posting.”

“I guess my point is:

Your post, as a member of the Armed forces, should be squared the f*&K away. By posting public, you are representing all of us. Make it good, and based on fact and credible sources so that you do not have a cluster of a thread like this.

My threads are clean, and questions are answered in a professional manner (as long as it doesn't get into the fun trash talking)

You get me Devil-Dog?”

“No, of course not you fool. It is called OPSEC (Since you don't know what that means, it is Operational Security). Only a complete dumb-ass would go online to post mission oriented information. All the information that you need is on the link.

So for you it's ok not to post everything for security reasons, but for me, I'm supposed to?

"Fool". That's hypocritical.

PS - I am not a member of the Armed forces, Devil-Dog. I was, but am not any longer, Devil-Dog.

PS2 - When I was in the armed forces I wasn't obsessed with the cantina, Devil-Dog. I was soldiering. So don't tell me how to represent the Armed forces, Devil-Dog.”

“Geo - I never said you were gay, not that there's anything wrong with that.

Somebody on here said it best, I forget who - but you can dish it out but you cry like a baby when it's dished to you. Like I said, you're transparent. You're not all the hot stuff you think you are. You're a kid on the playground. You just throw personal insults, and when one finally comes back at you you cry "fowl".

Why don't you stop your obsession with me and either put me on ignore, or talk about the topics instead of me. I do think you're obsessed - not that there's anything wrong with that.

Speaking of shallow and low self-esteem ...”

“Geo - Here's something for you to think about.

Let's assume you're right, that I'm shallow and have low self-esteem.

What kind of grown man takes advantage of a person with low-self esteem?

By your own admission - "you" do.

So, doesn't that make you shallow? Who would do that, unless, of course, they had low-self esteem?

I try so hard to just talk about politics on here. You consistently turn it to a discussion about me. If you think I'm defensive, well, that's only because of you're obsession to attack me. It has nothing to do with self-esteem, trust me. I'm going to try my best to just respond to your posts if they don't somehow mention me. That will be a rare occurance, I know. But I'm sick of stooping to your level. It feels dirty down there, where you are.
last edited: 6/05/05 2:05:41 PM”

“You can't even remember what you type on the same thread, so I guess it would be too much to expect you to remember what you wrote on another thread several days ago.

Carry on.”

“Sarge:

You missed several points. First of all, I was saying I was not in a position to know the best force size to accomplisht he mission of defeating Saddam's army. That still seems to be subject to debate and the whole story will not be known. What can be known is that there were not enough people in position to provide security afterwards, particularly to secure gov't facilities. That's obvious because of the unchecked looting which took place - and it had key consequences. Could troops elsewhere in Iraq have been quickly reassigned to secure those positions? I don't know. If they could have been, they should have been. If they couldn't have been - then more troops should have been in theater.

Secondly, as I pointed out, you continue not to want to own your distortion of what the UN report said. That is what I meant by your embellishment. Whether you agree or disagree with them is a separeate issue from your misrepresentation.”

“pedx - I think you missed the main point.

What is needed to do the job is known. There are rules in place that knowingly permit things like (1) the "war" to be dragged out (2) caches to be looted. It's figured in. It's not as consequential as the media makes it out to be, and as you have come to believe.

The UN is fully aware that Saddam had WMD and was pursuing them. Again, I don't know how else to say this, what is presented as the "official statement" from some freak or "official report" of the UN has very little to do with what they know as fact.”

“And before you say "well, if you know all of this as fact get out there and prove it to the world" - (1) There are people who have been saying the exact same thing, but you've (general) chosen not to believe them, and (2) There are some facts that don't need to be made public. This isn't a popularity contest. There is a lot that goes on to protect your way of life that you never hear about. Sometimes Bush, Rice, whoever ... just don't care about popularity. They only care about doing their job. If you choose not to believe what has been told to you, fine, that's your choice, it's your right as a citizen to have your own opinion. But, honestly, they people doing their jobs really don't care what you think, because if they did, they'd have to give away all our secrets. Then, you wouldn't have the chance to think because you would be ruled by somebody who wouldn't allow it. It's simple really.”

“Sarge: The looting was significant in that it struck a major blow to the confidence of the Iraqi people and a loss of confidence in the US forces amongst Iraqis. If you are right, it was also critical because it allowed WMDs to slip from our grasp.

Again, your claim about what the UN "knows" is a separate issue from your misrepresentation of what the UN said.

I try to cheerfully admit when I am wrong on a factual claim, because unwillingness to do so makes one an unworthy opponent in a debate.
last edited: 6/05/05 2:36:43 PM”

“pedx- What makes you think the looting was a major blow to their confidence?

What the UN said would only have been misrepresented by me if I had been wrong about what they know. I was not attempting to quote them verbatim. Again, I'm telling what I know to be true. I'm not here to be PC. Just because the UN or whoever chooses to dance around the truth doesn't mean I have to. I understood your point from the beginning about how you think I mischaracterized what they said. But I'm not concerned about what they say. I'm concerned about reality. That's it. If it sounds like I'm adding to the point they were making, so be it. But you have to understand something - If I'm right, then I'm not adding anything to what they said, I'm just drawing it out to it's logical conclusion. Is that embellishing? Technically anything said on this board is embellishing because you're just adding to thoughts or ideas that have previously been made. Most people think of embellishing as adding an extraneous information to somebody else's story in a way that changes what was originally said. I didn't change what was said - I just clarified what was said. If they said that those chems and bws were definitely not used for WMD planning, then yes, I embellished. But I don't think that's what they said.”

“ps - I know you agree with Geo that my manner of debate is imperfect, and that we hold differing beliefs, but I appreciate how you stick to the debate and do not make this a personal battle. You've always responded that way. Thank you.”

“And Sarge, as I said before, - we've both disagreed in strong terms - but I've never felt you took a personal swipe or threw a low blow in our disagreements. And, at least once we managed to find significant eagreement about controversial things.

As far as my opinion on the looting. It came from a variety of sources, Iraqi opinion polls, blogs by Iraqi's, reporting, and the analyiss of a variety of thoughtful analyses I've read - as well as my own observation that people will accept a forgive a great deal if basic order and security is provided.

Even Paul Bremer said the United States made two major mistakes: not deploying enough troops in Iraq and then not containing the violence and looting immediately after the ouster of Saddam Hussein. More specifically, He said "We paid a big price for not stopping it because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness, we never had enough troops on the ground."”

“This thread is great for laughs....”

“just like a dog chasing it's tail, round and round it goes”

“pedx - re: Iraqi opinion polls, etc. - What effect do you think that has on this "war"?
last edited: 6/05/05 4:52:53 PM”

“It seems old Europe had it right!


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2247600.stm”

“That information has been public knowledge for almost three years. But the administration continues to grasp for straws to support its b@st@rd policy, relationships between Sunni and Shiite are worse than they were before (and they were plenty bad then), and another generation of Muslim fundamentalists will grow up hating the United States.

But things are going so well over there and I just don't understand anything.”

“There are task forces just like mine being set up to help the relations between the future Muslim generations and Americans. That is part of the mission here in the Horn of Africa, is to stop the spread of terrorism (many terrorist moving into this are from the middle east) and to strengthen relationships with the people of Muslim faith.”

“Geo - most of those Muslim fundamentalists you speak of are either (a) not from Iraq and are there to stir trouble taking advantage of the situation, or (b) have no real convictions against the U.S., but are the equivalent of uneducated buck-tooth hill-billies just looking for something to do, and once the dust settles, won't even remember what they were so fired up about. The rest were already anti-American and they are fewer than you'd think. Most Muslims in reality over there treat you like royalty if you're American. I haven't spoken to Blind Willie, and he will disagree with me if at all possible, but I bet you that if you ask him he'll tell you that most Mustlims that he personally knows about treat him like family. Of course, you won't see that coming out of Terry Morans' Peter Jennings butt kissing lips.”

“Actually, I have known a few Arabs in my time. And they managed to teach me a bit about Middle East geopolitics.

Whatever happens over there happens in a broader context. Osama bin Laden came to power based on a host of issues, not the least of which was the Saudi royal family. But the prime motivator for al Qaeda was and still is Israel and the United States. Hezbollah just won a huge victory in south Lebanon - a result that has both the US and Israel alarmed. The victory is good news to Syria, which is where a large number of the insurgents fighting us have either originated or moved into Iraq.

The other nexus for the insurgency is the Sunnis, who, remember, did not vote in the election, or at least in any appreciable numbers. However wrong it was for Sad Sack Insane to conduct ethnic cleansing against the Shiites (I've never argued that Sad Sack was a nice man), the basic fact remains that the Sunnis were a minority in power and now they are a minority out of power.

This may seem good in the short run, but memories run long in the Middle East. Our concept of time is a whole lot shorter than theirs. Remember, the United States has existed for less than 300 years. These people go back millennia.

I'm glad to hear about your mission BWMT, and about the onus on relationships between the U.S. and Muslims in Iraq. One cautionary note, however, and not to bust your bubble, but beware of people telling you what you want to hear. Third world people do things like that, particularly when dealing with overwhelming military force camped in their yard. I can only hope that your work is having a desired effect, and for the long term.

Another note about that huge tunnel complex the Marines discovered: there are undoubtedly more. This is not the first time this sort of thing has happened. The Viet Cong managed to burrow deeper than our bombs were reaching. And when one complex was discovered and neutralized, another was already dug for backup.

I keep drawing analogies between this war and Vietnam. The ties are more numerous than most people imagine, but with each passing day it seems more like deja vu all over again. The military should have drawn lessons from Vietnam, but as I sit and watch things unfold I keep getting twinges. All during Vietnam we were told that things were going just swimmingly, thank you, and villagers were flocking to our side. Then, too, the military was out to make friends with villagers and forge relationships that would snuff out the insurgency. Meanwhile, Vo Nguyen Giap bided his time. The Americans pulled out, and the rest is known history. When the time was right, the order went out to the tank divisions: "Gentlemen, start your engines!"

Militarily, Syria occupies a position very similar to North Vietnam in this conflict. Syria is the wild card. If the U.S. were to invade Syria, the result would not be in doubt militarily. But it would be a direct slap in the face of the Russians, and we cannot risk that diplomatic (at the very least) setback.

What can the insurgents accomplish? They can drag things out, continue to inflict casualties until the American people get tired of it, and bide their time. At the point where the U.S. declares victory and cuts the Iraqi government loose, they go back to work. I seem to detect a change in tactics already, with attacks directed more at government and civilian targets and less against Americans.

If my assessment is wrong, and I hope for the sake of my country it is wrong, then my analysis is that it will be because of the American serviceman and service woman. I've met a few young people who are now serving, and I know their mettle. I spoke about one of them in my Memorial Day address. For whatever it is worth, I can separate the war from the warrior. I have a close friend who left a leg in Vietnam, and his prosthetic leg is now his good leg, because the other still has schrapnel in it.

Rick and I disagree about Vietnam. He feels we won a victory there. Militarily, he is correct. Politically, he is wrong. The political failure stems from the inability of the administrations involved to understand what exactly was transpiring. It stems from supporting corrupt dictatorships and not pressing for democratic reform. And it stems from underestimating a willful and determined enemy.

When all the dust settled, I felt a strong sense of despair and defeat. It was not until I stood before the Vietnam Memorial in Philadelphia that I came to understand that the work we did kept names off that wall. But Vietnam remains at the top of the list of American failures. I hope it remains so.”

““Actually, I have known a few Arabs in my time. And they managed to teach me a bit about Middle East geopolitics."

Geobeet...the new Mutt. LOL!”

“Your wish is my command oh great and wise geopolitical wonder. LOL!”

“I guess I should remember not to use that term in the future, although it fit in this context.”

“Sarge... I think it turned significant portions of the population against the occupation. #1 it makes the post Saddam era worse, it enhances feelings of insecurity and it makes the US look less powerful and less confident.

It probably wasn't as big a mistake as disbanding the entire Iraqi army, but it hurt. Also, as Bremer put it "it established an atmosphere of lawlessness."”

“I've been out of the house lately traveling back and forth between Ohio and North Carolina. So, I finally sat down last night to start watching about 2 weeks worth of The Daily Show. To my surprise, Colin Powell actually came on the show. I immediately thought of this thread when he said, "the thing we got completely wrong was that we thought he had stockpiles of these weapons." Straight from the horses mouth I'd say.”