TBSS Posted October 28, 2004 Report Share Posted October 28, 2004 Looks like this particular news team may have seen the explosives shortly after Bagdad was taken. Video link is at the top of the story, very informative. Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoTToN Posted October 28, 2004 Report Share Posted October 28, 2004 Fast-tracked study just released....over 100,000 Iraqi civilians killed since the beginning of the war, including "a lot of women and children." This is a "conservative assumption." Lancet Study <{POST_SNAPBACK}> thats prob because their civilians are the ones shooting at us the most Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m396 #00-011 Posted October 28, 2004 Report Share Posted October 28, 2004 Yeah, and it's all because of us.......Sure...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackhawk Posted October 28, 2004 Report Share Posted October 28, 2004 Looks like this particular news team may have seen the explosives shortly after Bagdad was taken. Video link is at the top of the story, very informative. Link <{POST_SNAPBACK}> These missing HE are incompetence on the part of our government, and our president. It was a tactical blunder and a strategic blunder. It has been known for months now that such a situation could arise and no one did a thing during or after the war to truly eliminate the problem. The reason this problem exists is because of politics and business and it will continue to exist until the problem is resolved by a military commander with enough guts and brains to take action against whatever higher orders s/he is receiving. There are and were dozens of unguarded munitions depots like this that terrorists and partisans have been raiding for over a year now because the USA refused to guard them effectively because it took too much effort. The solution was simple if it could not be guarded; the solution was/is to aerial bomb all the munitions depots and destroy the explosives. Our president did not order the strikes, our congress did not call for the strikes, and our military did not make the strikes. It is incompetence that continues to take lives. If one is to wage war, and to do it correctly one has to wage attrition on the enemy's supplies to eliminate their means to fight. In WWII, we bombed ball bearing factories to take away the enemies means to progress, the terrorist can't make decent HE or RPGs they need industrial grade supplies, as long as those munitions depots remain they are a threat that must be eliminated… IMO Ay president, congressman, or commander who doesn't eliminate or voice for their elimination they are incompetent to lead… But of course the flip side to all of this is, when you wage a war based on a claim of WMD’s of course on must choose not to bomb the living s**t out of your evidence… Whoopsey, it all walked away to Syria with help from Russia while our backs were turned in shock and awe… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MN C5 Posted October 28, 2004 Report Share Posted October 28, 2004 The Mainstream Media Bush Bashing is just begining.... While this is a very serious issue I question how the president could be responsible. I respect the service men responsible for guarding these Weapons of Mass Destruction And their commanders who gave them orders to what a: " leave them un guarded?" b: "let the enemy pass as long as they are carrying these high explosives" c: "Dress up like Russian special forces and hide them yourselfs?" d: '' look at the stash and run like hell" e: '' here is some of the 400,000 tons of explosives lets call the president and see if he wants us to protect this stuff" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MN C5 Posted October 28, 2004 Report Share Posted October 28, 2004 John Kerry a Backseat Driver Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackhawk Posted October 29, 2004 Report Share Posted October 29, 2004 LOL MNC5 I pick scenario A…Lets deal with the problems of the situation… 1) Focusing on events at the 1 site, is erroneous there are dozens of these sites that were just as unguarded over the last 18+ months… 2) Bad spotting. If they were still viable they should have been hit again... 3) They should have been eliminated in Gulf War I... 4) Any remaining or newly built depots should have been destroyed in Gulf War II especially during the shock and awe phase... 5) Not following up on EOD measures as troops investigate abandoned sites... 6) Not waging a war of attrition on enemy equipment, vehicles, and weapons manufacturing facilities. If the enemy has military grade weapons and a capability to produce them they are a threat and must be deprived of the means to be a threat... 7) Adhering to the political realities of a situation instead of the physical realities for military decision-making. (AKA picking political targets instead of military targets, waging wars for political/ideological reasons instead of actual imminent threats and physical force being used. Avoiding hitting targets of imminent strategic and tactical importance for the sake of pacifist constituent’s votes but allowing the war to continue forward. Etcetera) 8) many of the sites are only Corrugated metal roofs over a open air steel frame. If these weren't destroyed it's pure idiocy... The point of War is to knock out your enemy's ability and will to fight, not go skipping lalalalalalala around looking for nonexistent weapons of mass destruction. If you don't have the right intelligence don't go in, if using UN Weapons inspectors save you trouble, time, and lives then wait for them to finish. If you have to jump the gun destroy all suspected weapons sites and depots before the enemy uses them or has time to respond, and before you mount land invasion. Pummel them with naval, air, and space power to the point where you absolutely know you have obliterated their supply lines, and then move in. 9) 10+ years of watching Iraq's every move by Satellite, Air, and HUMINT (plus actual visits in 1991) should have produced a very accurate picture of all the enemy's positions. Not asking for this intelligence or not retrieving it to attack those sites is incompetence... Face it, this is a major blunder and continues to be so. Not to mention the terrorist who is claiming to have the HE, claims the American Intelligence community helped them directly to procure it. "Hello Mr. Iran Contra Scandal - Meet Mrs.'s Iraq Cuban Resistance Scandal." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenKey Posted October 29, 2004 Report Share Posted October 29, 2004 Darric, you were in the miltary. You know that most, if not all, of this stuff is the fault of the Commanders in the field. You know that those Commanders are given authority for their specific areas of operation. Most specific directions does not come from the President himself. You were Navy right? Do you think a Battle Group Commander asks the President exactly how he is to fight and defend that Battle Group? No. they have directional authority to carry that out as best they see fit. To say that the President himself is the actual fault for all of these things you bring up is absolutely wrong. Yes, he is the Commander in Chief and ultimately he is responsible for everything. But, you and I know, and all who have served, he is only accountable, but not at fault. The Commanders in the filed are at fault and ultimately every soldier over there. But, to the taxpayer, the President is the man to blame it on - as it should be. You guys keep harping about the miltary blunders, if that is what they are, just keep in mind all of it is carried out by the servicemen. Failure and success is just as much a part of their lives as it is the President's. Nobody ever thinks about what impact the freedom of speech has on the servicemen in the field. Most are just heppy they are not there. That's my opinion and take offense to everything said against Vets or the military. I would never say that they didn't, or haven't, done a good job because I am not there and therefore do not know every situation as it happens. Especially in war, where nothing ever goes exactly as planned, and is probably one of the most dynamic areas that exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan06SS Posted October 29, 2004 Report Share Posted October 29, 2004 b: "let the enemy pass as long as they are carrying these high explosives" <{POST_SNAPBACK}> well ... if they were carrying high explosives and you shot at them you could have a potentially messy situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBSS Posted October 29, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 29, 2004 Fast-tracked study just released....over 100,000 Iraqi civilians killed since the beginning of the war, including "a lot of women and children." This is a "conservative assumption." Lancet Study <{POST_SNAPBACK}> thats prob because their civilians are the ones shooting at us the most <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Interesting, my posts are getting deleted again. I wonder who could be responsible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurbochargedBerserker Posted October 29, 2004 Report Share Posted October 29, 2004 Fast-tracked study just released....over 100,000 Iraqi civilians killed since the beginning of the war, including "a lot of women and children." This is a "conservative assumption." Lancet Study <{POST_SNAPBACK}> thats prob because their civilians are the ones shooting at us the most <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Interesting, my posts are getting deleted again. I wonder who could be responsible? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> "The researchers did 33 cluster surveys of 30 households each, recording the date, circumstances and cause of deaths. " Statistically irrelevant for a country the size of Iraq. This is just another case of the media finding something and shouting it to the world without checking for validity (just like the current polls who survey 500 people...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xero Posted October 29, 2004 Report Share Posted October 29, 2004 did you hear what rudy julini said in an interview? he said that president bush is doing the right thing. the problem is the soldiers in iraq wernt looking hard enough. wow.....i support our troops over there but thats just not right to say they were the ones who effed up jmo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackhawk Posted October 29, 2004 Report Share Posted October 29, 2004 Yes Ben, I did serve in the Navy. And I am not going to get myself into this claptrap of pushing blame onto the service men and woman that are out doing what they are TOLD, in this war… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBSS Posted October 30, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2004 Fast-tracked study just released....over 100,000 Iraqi civilians killed since the beginning of the war, including "a lot of women and children." This is a "conservative assumption." Lancet Study <{POST_SNAPBACK}> thats prob because their civilians are the ones shooting at us the most <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Interesting, my posts are getting deleted again. I wonder who could be responsible? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> "The researchers did 33 cluster surveys of 30 households each, recording the date, circumstances and cause of deaths. " Statistically irrelevant for a country the size of Iraq. This is just another case of the media finding something and shouting it to the world without checking for validity (just like the current polls who survey 500 people...) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It looks like you don't know the meaning of the term 'statistically significant.' It has a very specific definition and set of requirements that are more than fulfilled by the study. They are using stratified sampling, which adds considerably to the validity (face validity, content validity, and construct validity) as well as reliability of the study. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MN C5 Posted October 30, 2004 Report Share Posted October 30, 2004 Interesting, my posts are getting deleted again. I wonder who could be responsible? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't think anyone is deleting your posts Naked AV. Heck, your posts are good humor IMHO. You may have just hit the wrong button or something. Or do you think the moderating staff is trying to Disinfranchize you Yes Ben, I did serve in the Navy. And I am not going to get myself into this claptrap of pushing blame onto the service men and woman that are out doing what they are TOLD, in this war… Blackhawk I haven't bothered responding to several of your last diatribes simply because your rebuttles tend to use the following flawed tactics. Most likely your not doing it on purpose but it doesn't allow for an honest debate of the subject matter. A. Appeal to ignorance. The claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa. (e.g. There is no evidence against the existance of UFOs, so they probably exist.) B. Ad hominem. Latin for "at the man". This is a debating tactic that attacks the arguer and not the argument. There are three major forms of Attacking the Person: 1. Ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion, the argument attacks the person who made the assertion. 2. Ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an assertion the author points to the relationship between the person making the assertion and the person's circumstances. 3. Ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person notes that a person does not practise what he preaches. C. Straw man tactics. Making a caricature out of a position in order to make it easier to attack. This is when people Assume they know someone's point of view, and begin arguing a constructed view about their opponent, rather than just debate the words of their opponent. This tactic is a favorite of Naked AV D. Observational selection. Ignoring the bad in a situation, and only focusing on the good. This happens all to often on both sides, with the conservatives backing the "infallible Bush", and the liberals fighting or the "totally Honest Kerry" or just against Bush. E. Slippery slope. The idea that preventing something, we lead to something else, which will lead to something else...etc. (Allowing abortion in the first weeks of pregnancy, will make it impossible to stop abortions of full-term infants). Or (If the state prohibits abortion in even the ninth month, It will be telling us what to do around the time of conception). Both suggested changes have nothing to do with the actual argument presented. F. Suppressed evidence, and half-truths. This is pretty self-explanatory. Don't post half-truths and propaganda, and expect me to believe it. G. Arguments from "Authorities" carry little weight. Listen to only the FACTS presented by them. Only listen to Authorities (News Sources, pundits, ect) when the facts have been checked out by others of conflicting view. Don't just post the parties talking points and use half truths to support them. H. Argument from Authority. This is the fallacy that states: If an authority says something, it is obviously true, and it does not need to be evaluated on it's merits. e.g. (Elect Kerry because he has a secret plan to end the war.) Since there is no way to evaluate this plan, there is no way to debate this. While I'm directing my comments at you they easily apply to all of us on both sides. Basically I thought BenKey made some solid points and your response that BenKey was leading you into a "CLAPTRAP" was weak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.