Right on George, very nice challenge for Vince to get smart.
Sounds and reads like he is writing from emotion. Maybe he actually
lost a friend, family member etc in the war? I could understand from
frustration maybe why his idoligical, even political ranting would
prevail in his mind. Bottom line Vince, ask any second or third term
professional military what their opinion is on this subject. I
wouldn't think a first term enlisted would give you an accurate
portrayal, either way. A professional military individual such as
myself, has adequate resources (not just CNN and the anti-Bush media)
to make our own opinion. You are wrong, but entitled to your own
opinion, please base it on fact and not what you have overheard. Try
stepping even for a few minutes in a sailors or soldiers shoes. Look
Vince, I was there, seriously, for real, in OSW, did that 4 times over
the last 9 years, for six months at a whack on 3 different carriers.
Was it all pretend that Saddam was continually violating the no fly
zones, both north and south? We were being targeted and shot at
routinely. Glad we finally put a stop to that! Aren't you? ONW and OSW
was costing the US billions alone in Battle Group and CAG support.
Enough for now,,, I can't even believe I lowered myself to respond to
your trash in the first place. Post again and I (along with others in
here), will respect what you say but will continue to prove you are
seriously demented.
On 10 Nov 2003 18:32:08 -0800,
(George William
Herbert) wrote:
Vince Brannigan wrote:
George William Herbert wrote:
Vince Brannigan wrote:
[....]
Knowing what we knew pre-war, the conclusion that he was
still hiding a WMD program was well supported and reasonable.
Not universally agreed with, but well supported and reasonable.
And at least largely wrong, as we now know.
ole busho gambled and lost. unfortuantely the lives that were
lost were not his campaign supporters.
You are failing to move beyond your own political prejudices.
It's perfectly reasonable to debate the point whether the
state of knowledge when the US went from vague threats to
escalating ultimatums justified a prompt war. That debate
was valid and quite fruitful, then and now.
It's not reasonable, at all, to debate whether the preponderance
of information available to the west indicated at least some
concealed program and at least some concealed information in
Iraq at that time. Nobody who has ever seriously looked at
that question, regardless of their opinions on the first
question, has ever come away with a coherent case to the
contrary of that conclusion.
You are conflating the two questions. Because you are
ideologically biased against the outcome of the first question.
I know you know you're doing it; unlike questions of law or
engineering where you clearly know that you're qualified to
answer (even if some judgement / opinion calls may be disagreed
with by other professionals), on this issue you have rarely
posted more than a one or two sentence ideological snap.
The question is whether you can rise above your preconception
on this question to study enough about it to be able to
speak with authority, as opposed to just blind raging
opinion as you do now.
Fortunately, education on this point is rather easy,
if somewhat tedious: The UNSCOM and UNMOVIC reports are all
online thanks to the UN. A few websites, a few books from
the library (Hamza's, Butler's... that's an acceptable
start at least) plus actually reading the whole UNSCOM/
UNMOVIC report history at least once usually is an adequate
first pass. Unfortunately typically over a week's work:
UNSCOM and UNMOVIC reports are voluminous, and they
reported at least once a quarter since 1991...
Also:
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Iraq/index.html
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Iraq/IraqRefs.html
http://www.cns.miis.edu/research/iraq/index.htm
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/index.html
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/deception.htm
-george william herbert
Similar Threads
Threaded Mode