Off-Topic :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/25/2008 08:32PM by Lurker..
"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Iraq Convoy Ambush Video
Posted by:
Lurker.
()
Date: August 25, 2008 08:31PM
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/25/2008 08:32PM by Lurker..
Re: Iraq Convoy Embush Video
Posted by:
Radiophile
()
Date: August 25, 2008 08:40PM
For an administration to not let caskets be photographed; to leak this out is despicable.
Re: Iraq Convoy Embush Video
Posted by:
WashingToneLocian
()
Date: August 25, 2008 09:33PM
Radiophile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For an administration to not let caskets be
> photographed; to leak this out is despicable.
It looks like KBR released this two years ago.
-------------------------------------------------------
> For an administration to not let caskets be
> photographed; to leak this out is despicable.
It looks like KBR released this two years ago.
Re: Iraq Convoy Embush Video
Posted by:
Radiophile
()
Date: August 25, 2008 10:26PM
WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Radiophile Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > For an administration to not let caskets be
> > photographed; to leak this out is despicable.
>
>
> It looks like KBR released this two years ago.
Even worse.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Radiophile Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > For an administration to not let caskets be
> > photographed; to leak this out is despicable.
>
>
> It looks like KBR released this two years ago.
Even worse.
Re: Iraq Convoy Ambush Video
Posted by:
Awakened
()
Date: August 25, 2008 10:38PM
This war = biggest mistake ever made.
Re: Iraq Convoy Ambush Video
Posted by:
Gravis
()
Date: August 25, 2008 11:14PM
this video is really old... at least a year.
"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."
"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."
Re: Iraq Convoy Ambush Video
Posted by:
Alias
()
Date: August 25, 2008 11:57PM
]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2012 10:12PM by Alias.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2012 10:12PM by Alias.
Re: Iraq Convoy Ambush Video
Posted by:
WashingToneLocian
()
Date: August 26, 2008 11:22AM
Lurker. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
I have to say, anyone who drives a convoy truck in Iraq and isn't armed is a fucking idiot. I don't know what the KBR/military policy is about this, but there is no way in hell anyone should even consider doing something like this without having a weapon in the cab and body armor.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
I have to say, anyone who drives a convoy truck in Iraq and isn't armed is a fucking idiot. I don't know what the KBR/military policy is about this, but there is no way in hell anyone should even consider doing something like this without having a weapon in the cab and body armor.
Re: Iraq Convoy Embush Video
Posted by:
Whiner
()
Date: August 26, 2008 12:14PM
Radiophile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For an administration to not let caskets be
> photographed; to leak this out is despicable.
When it rains do you blame the administration? When your hemroids flare up, do you blame Bush or Cheney? If you get a shitty meal at a restaurant, is it because the Republicans fucked up?
You sound like a whiney little bitch when you blame EVERYTHING on Bush. There are things outside the control of the White House.
-------------------------------------------------------
> For an administration to not let caskets be
> photographed; to leak this out is despicable.
When it rains do you blame the administration? When your hemroids flare up, do you blame Bush or Cheney? If you get a shitty meal at a restaurant, is it because the Republicans fucked up?
You sound like a whiney little bitch when you blame EVERYTHING on Bush. There are things outside the control of the White House.
Re: Iraq Convoy Embush Video
Posted by:
Radiophile
()
Date: August 26, 2008 01:40PM
Whiner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> You sound like a whiney little bitch when you
> blame EVERYTHING on Bush. There are things
> outside the control of the White House.
Mr. Whiner, for your reading pleasure, may I present to you the Downing Street Memo.
Enjoy
-----
SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY
DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02
cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell
IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER’S MEETING, 23 JULY
Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.
This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.
John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam’s regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism
and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4August.
The two broad US options were:
(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).
(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.
The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:
(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.
(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.
(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.
The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun “spikes of activity” to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.
We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second
could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.
The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.
On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.
For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.
The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.
John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.
The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.
Conclusions:
(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.
(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.
(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.
(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.
He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.
(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.
(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.
(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)
MATTHEW RYCROFT
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> You sound like a whiney little bitch when you
> blame EVERYTHING on Bush. There are things
> outside the control of the White House.
Mr. Whiner, for your reading pleasure, may I present to you the Downing Street Memo.
Enjoy
-----
SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY
DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02
cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell
IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER’S MEETING, 23 JULY
Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.
This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.
John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam’s regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism
and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4August.
The two broad US options were:
(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).
(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.
The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:
(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.
(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.
(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.
The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun “spikes of activity” to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.
We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second
could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.
The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.
On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.
For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.
The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.
John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.
The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.
Conclusions:
(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.
(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.
(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.
(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.
He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.
(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.
(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.
(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)
MATTHEW RYCROFT
Re: Iraq Convoy Embush Video
Posted by:
WashingToneLocian
()
Date: August 26, 2008 01:45PM
Whiner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Radiophile Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > For an administration to not let caskets be
> > photographed; to leak this out is despicable.
>
> When it rains do you blame the administration?
> When your hemroids flare up, do you blame Bush or
> Cheney? If you get a shitty meal at a restaurant,
> is it because the Republicans fucked up?
>
> You sound like a whiney little bitch when you
> blame EVERYTHING on Bush. There are things
> outside the control of the White House.
If you have ever worked as a contractor for the government, anything you produce on the government's dime is the government's property. This video technically belongs to the government. I don't think it was intentionally leaked or anything by the Administration. But it does make you wonder about what kind of controls the Administration is exercising over the hired help when something so sensitive (not so much politically but from a security standpoint) gets posted on YouTube.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Radiophile Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > For an administration to not let caskets be
> > photographed; to leak this out is despicable.
>
> When it rains do you blame the administration?
> When your hemroids flare up, do you blame Bush or
> Cheney? If you get a shitty meal at a restaurant,
> is it because the Republicans fucked up?
>
> You sound like a whiney little bitch when you
> blame EVERYTHING on Bush. There are things
> outside the control of the White House.
If you have ever worked as a contractor for the government, anything you produce on the government's dime is the government's property. This video technically belongs to the government. I don't think it was intentionally leaked or anything by the Administration. But it does make you wonder about what kind of controls the Administration is exercising over the hired help when something so sensitive (not so much politically but from a security standpoint) gets posted on YouTube.
Re: Iraq Convoy Ambush Video
Posted by:
Lurker.
()
Date: August 26, 2008 02:14PM
Yeah, driving that truck you would certainly want to have some heat and body armour.
I can't figure out why nobody was responding back to the guy. It's like nobody cared about him or his truck.
I guess think twice about taking a truck driver position in Iraq.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/26/2008 02:15PM by Lurker..
I can't figure out why nobody was responding back to the guy. It's like nobody cared about him or his truck.
I guess think twice about taking a truck driver position in Iraq.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/26/2008 02:15PM by Lurker..
Re: Iraq Convoy Embush Video
Posted by:
Whiner
()
Date: August 26, 2008 02:25PM
Radiophile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For instance, what were the consequences, if
> Saddam used WMD on day one.
You have said in the past that Bush knowingly lied about WMDs in Iraq. If this document is true, as you purport it to be, why would anyone be worried about WMD use on day one if Bush knew there weren't any?
-------------------------------------------------------
> For instance, what were the consequences, if
> Saddam used WMD on day one.
You have said in the past that Bush knowingly lied about WMDs in Iraq. If this document is true, as you purport it to be, why would anyone be worried about WMD use on day one if Bush knew there weren't any?
Re: Iraq Convoy Embush Video
Posted by:
Radiophile
()
Date: August 26, 2008 03:07PM
Whiner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Radiophile Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > For instance, what were the consequences, if
> > Saddam used WMD on day one.
>
> You have said in the past that Bush knowingly lied
> about WMDs in Iraq. If this document is true, as
> you purport it to be, why would anyone be worried
> about WMD use on day one if Bush knew there
> weren't any?
If that is all you got out of the memo, I feel very sorry for you.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Radiophile Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > For instance, what were the consequences, if
> > Saddam used WMD on day one.
>
> You have said in the past that Bush knowingly lied
> about WMDs in Iraq. If this document is true, as
> you purport it to be, why would anyone be worried
> about WMD use on day one if Bush knew there
> weren't any?
If that is all you got out of the memo, I feel very sorry for you.
Re: Iraq Convoy Embush Video
Posted by:
Whiner
()
Date: August 26, 2008 03:15PM
Radiophile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Whiner Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Radiophile Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > For instance, what were the consequences, if
> > > Saddam used WMD on day one.
> >
> > You have said in the past that Bush knowingly
> lied
> > about WMDs in Iraq. If this document is true,
> as
> > you purport it to be, why would anyone be
> worried
> > about WMD use on day one if Bush knew there
> > weren't any?
>
>
> If that is all you got out of the memo, I feel
> very sorry for you.
And I feel sorry for you that two of your conspiracy arguments directly refute one another.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Whiner Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Radiophile Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > For instance, what were the consequences, if
> > > Saddam used WMD on day one.
> >
> > You have said in the past that Bush knowingly
> lied
> > about WMDs in Iraq. If this document is true,
> as
> > you purport it to be, why would anyone be
> worried
> > about WMD use on day one if Bush knew there
> > weren't any?
>
>
> If that is all you got out of the memo, I feel
> very sorry for you.
And I feel sorry for you that two of your conspiracy arguments directly refute one another.
Re: Iraq Convoy Embush Video
Posted by:
Radiophile
()
Date: August 26, 2008 03:40PM
Whiner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Radiophile Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Whiner Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Radiophile Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > For instance, what were the consequences,
> if
> > > > Saddam used WMD on day one.
> > >
> > > You have said in the past that Bush knowingly
> > lied
> > > about WMDs in Iraq. If this document is
> true,
> > as
> > > you purport it to be, why would anyone be
> > worried
> > > about WMD use on day one if Bush knew there
> > > weren't any?
> >
> >
> > If that is all you got out of the memo, I feel
> > very sorry for you.
>
> And I feel sorry for you that two of your
> conspiracy arguments directly refute one another.
For an anonymous poster, you sure believe you know what I said. Unfortunately, I don't have the ability to call you on your different "alias's".
The point I have made several times that the administration cherry picked evidence, ignored other evidence, and exaggerated additional evidence. With everything we now know (Cheney's hand written notes, Curveball, Plame leak case,) the justification for the war in Iraq was manufactured. If you still don't believe this, there is no hope for you.
And IF the "fault intelligence" came from a building named after, oh never mind....
Now stop using 15-20 plus names. It is not flattering to you.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Radiophile Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Whiner Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Radiophile Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > For instance, what were the consequences,
> if
> > > > Saddam used WMD on day one.
> > >
> > > You have said in the past that Bush knowingly
> > lied
> > > about WMDs in Iraq. If this document is
> true,
> > as
> > > you purport it to be, why would anyone be
> > worried
> > > about WMD use on day one if Bush knew there
> > > weren't any?
> >
> >
> > If that is all you got out of the memo, I feel
> > very sorry for you.
>
> And I feel sorry for you that two of your
> conspiracy arguments directly refute one another.
For an anonymous poster, you sure believe you know what I said. Unfortunately, I don't have the ability to call you on your different "alias's".
The point I have made several times that the administration cherry picked evidence, ignored other evidence, and exaggerated additional evidence. With everything we now know (Cheney's hand written notes, Curveball, Plame leak case,) the justification for the war in Iraq was manufactured. If you still don't believe this, there is no hope for you.
And IF the "fault intelligence" came from a building named after, oh never mind....
Now stop using 15-20 plus names. It is not flattering to you.
Re: Iraq Convoy Embush Video
Posted by:
Whiner
()
Date: August 26, 2008 04:08PM
Radiophile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Whiner Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Radiophile Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Whiner Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Radiophile Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > For instance, what were the consequences,
> > if
> > > > > Saddam used WMD on day one.
> > > >
> > > > You have said in the past that Bush
> knowingly
> > > lied
> > > > about WMDs in Iraq. If this document is
> > true,
> > > as
> > > > you purport it to be, why would anyone be
> > > worried
> > > > about WMD use on day one if Bush knew there
> > > > weren't any?
> > >
> > >
> > > If that is all you got out of the memo, I
> feel
> > > very sorry for you.
> >
> > And I feel sorry for you that two of your
> > conspiracy arguments directly refute one
> another.
>
>
> For an anonymous poster, you sure believe you know
> what I said. Unfortunately, I don't have the
> ability to call you on your different "alias's".
>
> The point I have made several times that the
> administration cherry picked evidence, ignored
> other evidence, and exaggerated additional
> evidence. With everything we now know (Cheney's
> hand written notes, Curveball, Plame leak case,)
> the justification for the war in Iraq was
> manufactured. If you still don't believe this,
> there is no hope for you.
>
> And IF the "fault intelligence" came from a
> building named after, oh never mind....
>
> Now stop using 15-20 plus names. It is not
> flattering to you.
Still whining? yawn.... I grow tired from your stupidity. Too stupid to recognize when your legs have been cut out from under you.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Whiner Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Radiophile Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Whiner Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Radiophile Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > For instance, what were the consequences,
> > if
> > > > > Saddam used WMD on day one.
> > > >
> > > > You have said in the past that Bush
> knowingly
> > > lied
> > > > about WMDs in Iraq. If this document is
> > true,
> > > as
> > > > you purport it to be, why would anyone be
> > > worried
> > > > about WMD use on day one if Bush knew there
> > > > weren't any?
> > >
> > >
> > > If that is all you got out of the memo, I
> feel
> > > very sorry for you.
> >
> > And I feel sorry for you that two of your
> > conspiracy arguments directly refute one
> another.
>
>
> For an anonymous poster, you sure believe you know
> what I said. Unfortunately, I don't have the
> ability to call you on your different "alias's".
>
> The point I have made several times that the
> administration cherry picked evidence, ignored
> other evidence, and exaggerated additional
> evidence. With everything we now know (Cheney's
> hand written notes, Curveball, Plame leak case,)
> the justification for the war in Iraq was
> manufactured. If you still don't believe this,
> there is no hope for you.
>
> And IF the "fault intelligence" came from a
> building named after, oh never mind....
>
> Now stop using 15-20 plus names. It is not
> flattering to you.
Still whining? yawn.... I grow tired from your stupidity. Too stupid to recognize when your legs have been cut out from under you.
Re: Iraq Convoy Embush Video
Posted by:
Radiophile
()
Date: August 26, 2008 04:57PM
Whiner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Radiophile Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Whiner Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Radiophile Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Whiner Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > Radiophile Wrote:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----
> > > > > > For instance, what were the
> consequences,
> > > if
> > > > > > Saddam used WMD on day one.
> > > > >
> > > > > You have said in the past that Bush
> > knowingly
> > > > lied
> > > > > about WMDs in Iraq. If this document is
> > > true,
> > > > as
> > > > > you purport it to be, why would anyone be
> > > > worried
> > > > > about WMD use on day one if Bush knew
> there
> > > > > weren't any?
> > > >
> Still whining? yawn.... I grow tired from your
> stupidity. Too stupid to recognize when your legs
> have been cut out from under you.
OK, just like the administration you cherry picked one clause out of the memo to make your weak case. Now, let me do the same.
"Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism
and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
The intelligence and facts were fixed... That is what he said.
First a lesson in reasoning. The phrase "For instance, what were the consequences,
if Saddam used WMD on day one." you believe supports your point. It doesn't. That is a forward looking question, a hypothetical if you will.
"But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" is a statement, not a hypothetical. Get the difference?
Where did YOUR legs go?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Radiophile Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Whiner Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Radiophile Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Whiner Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > Radiophile Wrote:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----
> > > > > > For instance, what were the
> consequences,
> > > if
> > > > > > Saddam used WMD on day one.
> > > > >
> > > > > You have said in the past that Bush
> > knowingly
> > > > lied
> > > > > about WMDs in Iraq. If this document is
> > > true,
> > > > as
> > > > > you purport it to be, why would anyone be
> > > > worried
> > > > > about WMD use on day one if Bush knew
> there
> > > > > weren't any?
> > > >
> Still whining? yawn.... I grow tired from your
> stupidity. Too stupid to recognize when your legs
> have been cut out from under you.
OK, just like the administration you cherry picked one clause out of the memo to make your weak case. Now, let me do the same.
"Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism
and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
The intelligence and facts were fixed... That is what he said.
First a lesson in reasoning. The phrase "For instance, what were the consequences,
if Saddam used WMD on day one." you believe supports your point. It doesn't. That is a forward looking question, a hypothetical if you will.
"But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" is a statement, not a hypothetical. Get the difference?
Where did YOUR legs go?
Re: Iraq Convoy Ambush Video
Posted by:
Gravis
()
Date: August 26, 2008 05:46PM
"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."
Re: Iraq Convoy Ambush Video
Posted by:
WashingToneLocian
()
Date: August 27, 2008 09:34AM
Lurker. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, driving that truck you would certainly want
> to have some heat and body armour.
>
> I can't figure out why nobody was responding back
> to the guy. It's like nobody cared about him or
> his truck.
>
> I guess think twice about taking a truck driver
> position in Iraq.
If I was a soldier and had to choose between my life and some fat hillbilly stuck in a kill zone, I would choose my life as well.
I'm not sure what the requirements are in terms of convoy protection. Since these are not technically military vehicles, I don't know how obligated the troops are to protect them if it appears that a situation is too precarious. All I know is the truckers in Iraq get paid six figures and many troops simply resent having to protect them.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, driving that truck you would certainly want
> to have some heat and body armour.
>
> I can't figure out why nobody was responding back
> to the guy. It's like nobody cared about him or
> his truck.
>
> I guess think twice about taking a truck driver
> position in Iraq.
If I was a soldier and had to choose between my life and some fat hillbilly stuck in a kill zone, I would choose my life as well.
I'm not sure what the requirements are in terms of convoy protection. Since these are not technically military vehicles, I don't know how obligated the troops are to protect them if it appears that a situation is too precarious. All I know is the truckers in Iraq get paid six figures and many troops simply resent having to protect them.
Re: Iraq Convoy Ambush Video
Posted by:
Gravis
()
Date: August 27, 2008 10:21AM
WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not sure what the requirements are in terms of
> convoy protection. Since these are not technically
> military vehicles, I don't know how obligated the
> troops are to protect them if it appears that a
> situation is too precarious. All I know is the
> truckers in Iraq get paid six figures and many
> troops simply resent having to protect them.
ahh... now i recall the controversy about this video. the troops didnt simply run away, they called in reinforcements. there is no point in them staying when they are completely outnumbered and outgunned for them just be slaughtered.
"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not sure what the requirements are in terms of
> convoy protection. Since these are not technically
> military vehicles, I don't know how obligated the
> troops are to protect them if it appears that a
> situation is too precarious. All I know is the
> truckers in Iraq get paid six figures and many
> troops simply resent having to protect them.
ahh... now i recall the controversy about this video. the troops didnt simply run away, they called in reinforcements. there is no point in them staying when they are completely outnumbered and outgunned for them just be slaughtered.
"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."
Re: Iraq Convoy Ambush Video
Posted by:
WashingToneLocian
()
Date: August 27, 2008 11:01AM
I just think it is stupid that KBR wasn't required to put these guys through a two-week weapons training program and maybe a survival/evasion training. Not that it would have changed the outcome for the drivers that were killed, but at least you would give them a chance.