Thread: Democrats: What is the most politically-advantageous number of dead US troops?

Originally Posted by AmosGraber

Actually Dale you gotta be kidding? Right? Or are you still under the belief they just made a mistake about WMD's? Wake up smell the coffee it was intentional propaganda, which worked on alot of people.

Never underestimate stupid and misinformed people in mass numbers!

Then count me one as those stupid and misinformed people and also, another Queen's Officer, LCol Tim Collins.

And both these Queen's Officers based our opinions not on anything Bush and company produced but what Saddam did and I point to you.

1) Saddam could never produced proof what happened to several thousand tons of VX and mustard.

2) 15 chemical artillery shells found in perfect, maintained conditions, even after their supposed destruction (ie, somebody signed for them to be maintained even after they were supposed to be destroyed)

3) The Iraqi al-Samoud rocket, a modifed SA-2 without the guidance but with the proximity fuse in tact. It has a 12 kg warhead. I'll let you guess for a Surface-to-Surface missile, just how much damage 12 kg HE actually does ... or did Saddam had something else in mind?

4) The 3 Rings of Death

5) The chemical release order he gave to his Generals which he knew we would find out about. It was only after the war that we learned his Generals had no idea what Saddam was talking about.

Now, are you going to correct our evals on this?

Originally Posted by AmosGraber

Give me time; give me time. It will be my life's goal as an historian....Thinking the book will be entitled, "Hang me High: Why Dubya should share the same fate as Saddam."

Careful around here you get crucified, or stoned to death, for opinions like that

Originally Posted by Feanor

Careful around here you get crucified, or stoned to death, for opinions like that

Stop trolling feanor

Originally Posted by Feanor

So it's ok to vote for someone who is for immediate pullout? That's not treason by your definition?

No its not, I don't agree with that stance and I think its incredibly counter productive but its not treason. Now if you actively state that "We have lost the war", when thats not the case, and do everything else in your power to actively seek defeat THAT is treason.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Then count me one as those stupid and misinformed people and also, another Queen's Officer, LCol Tim Collins.



Now, are you going to correct our evals on this?

You betcha!

For one I never knew tactical weapons, no matter how deadly were considered Weapons of Mass Destruction; was pretty sure at the time the Bush administration meant the ability to launch or detonate nuclear missiles.

Regardless SMPIMN, (stupid misinformed people in mass numbers) About every Presidency since before Lincoln has used mass manipulations and lies to promote their agendas, this is nothing new. Just with Bush his blatant obvious disregard for cleverness was astounding!...

Besides you ought to go read this law, which he broke every time he played the WMD scenario to the American people:

Making False Statements Against the United States (18 U.S.C. § 1001)

This law does not have an exclusion clause for "Whoops my bad, made a mistake". This law is the most cut and dry law he broke.

Duelfer Report-ISG

Amos,

Read and know. The intent remained. The violations profuse, and the willingness to use demonstrated. As OoE pointed, the legacy of weaponized artillery shells WAS there, if not in the numbers to excite the media. Right...Saddam would occasionally gaze at a VX prepped 152mm round just to remember the good ol' times him and his cous', ol Chem' Ali, himself would have up in them thar kurdish hills.

I guarantee unequivocably that Iraq's WMD programs are now null and void. Fini. Done.

So is the baath party. So is Saddam. Anything there about those outcomes which disturbs your sensibilities?

"Making False Statements Against the United States (18 U.S.C. § 1001)

This law does not have an exclusion clause for 'Whoops my bad, made a mistake'. This law is the most cut and dry law he broke."

Why aren't you leading the prosecution or are you simply seeking debating victories?

Originally Posted by AmosGraber

You betcha!

And you call us stupid and misinformed?

Originally Posted by AmosGraber

For one I never knew tactical weapons, no matter how deadly were considered Weapons of Mass Destruction; was pretty sure at the time the Bush administration meant the ability to launch or detonate nuclear missiles.

The Chemical Weapons Convention says you're absolutely wrong.

Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction

Originally Posted by AmosGraber

Besides you ought to go read this law, which he broke every time he played the WMD scenario to the American people:

Making False Statements Against the United States (18 U.S.C. § 1001)

This law does not have an exclusion clause for "Whoops my bad, made a mistake". This law is the most cut and dry law he broke.

Don't know. Don't care. The Queen's Officers are not subject to your President's domestic problems. I again, challenge you to find our evals false.

Originally Posted by smilingassassin

Now if you actively state that "We have lost the war", when thats not the case, and do everything else in your power to actively seek defeat THAT is treason.

Actually that is just being plain wrong, not treason. Treason is something like, umm let me see....Manipulating an entire country, for the single goal of going to war.

History teaches that war begins when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap.-Ronald Reagan

In all history there is no war which was not hatched by the governments, the governments alone, independent of the interests of the people...
- Leo Tolstoy

The first casualty when war comes is truth. ~Hiram Johnson

The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem; it is generally employed only by small children and large nations. ~David Friedman

During times of war, hatred becomes quite respectable, even though it has to masquerade often under the guise of patriotism-Howard Thurman

When will our consciences grow so tender that we will act to prevent human misery rather than avenge it?-Eleanor Roosevelt

Originally Posted by S-2

Duelfer Report ISG

Anything there about those outcomes which disturbs your sensibilities?

Whenever we leave the next ruler in Iraq will make Saddam look like a pussycat, he will more than likely be a religious zealot. And when that happens you SMPIMN will probably try to point the finger at those who share my point of view as being at fault.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

1) Saddam could never produced proof what happened to several thousand tons of VX and mustard.

Perhaps they were never there to begin with. Perhaps some innovative number crunching to show Saddam that he has those weapons but in reality never did because of ineptness or inability to produce those weapons. Too afraid to tell Saddam the truth. Better to tell Saddam a lie.

2) 15 chemical artillery shells found in perfect, maintained conditions, even after their supposed destruction (ie, somebody signed for them to be maintained even after they were supposed to be destroyed)

Did the soldiers manning those shells know they were chemical weapons?

3) The Iraqi al-Samoud rocket, a modifed SA-2 without the guidance but with the proximity fuse in tact. It has a 12 kg warhead. I'll let you guess for a Surface-to-Surface missile, just how much damage 12 kg HE actually does ... or did Saddam had something else in mind?

Keeping something in reserve or up his sleeve such as belligerently posturing. We all know Saddam is a bad poker player when playing on the world stage.

4) The 3 Rings of Death

5) The chemical release order he gave to his Generals which he knew we would find out about. It was only after the war that we learned his Generals had no idea what Saddam was talking about.

He very well knew that the Americans were reading his signals and communiques. Perhaps he wanted to scare them or just doing his bluster. I mean take a look at Baghdad Bob telling the whole world that the US Army was in retreat or defeat blah blah blah.

The point is that despite all the search the Coalition has done, we just came up with 12 shells and one missile out of the supposed tens of thousands of shells and hundreds of missiles. Perhaps some of them slipped through the cracks and Saddam nor his cronies knew about it?

I am not saying that you could have read it another way but do keep in mind that the majority of those evidence you just quoted only came after the invasion and that was all you had to show for it. What were the evidence before the invasion that gave rise to the analysis that Saddam was still procuring weapons.

Please do keep in mind that there were Iraqi elements that desperately wanted to see Saddam go and perhaps they thought that giving evidence of WMD programs, real or fabricated would do the trick. They were right. I mean take a look at Chalabi and his cronies. They gave every excuse, real or imagined to stoke the fires of the Bush administration whose feelings were raw after 9/11 and were spoiling for a fight.

Here's a joke:

A man came across a big blond hulking fellow looking for something on the ground at night. The man asked the blonde what he was looking for. The blonde says, "I'm looking for a key." The man offered his help and asked the blonde, "Did you search this area?" The blonde replies, "No because I lost the key over there but the light is better here so I am looking here."

The moral of the story is that it doesn't really matter where the key is as long as you can have something to look for. The Bush administration was spoiling for a fight and Saddam didn't quite understand that. He thought he could keep playing the rope and dope game. He did not realize that the Americans were looking for any excuse to blow the **** up any enemy and feel good about it. Saddam unwittingly gave them when he refused to let in the inspectors. And those Iraqi defectors guilelessly guided Saddam to that end.

"Whenever we leave the next ruler in Iraq will make Saddam look like a pussycat, he will more than likely be a religious zealot. And when that happens you SMPIMN will probably try to point the finger at those who share my point of view as being at fault."

That's speculative crystal-ball gazing by a rank geo-political amateur. How do you know that we'll leave? How do you know if we leave there'll even BE an Iraq? If next you describe the horrors of Iraq today using the LANCET report, spare us.

Actually, Amos, I've achieved all my goals. No WMD, no SADDAM, no baath party, geo-strategic leverage between Iran and Syria, and a (relatively)independant and secure Kurdistan to which America can run if things go to crap in the south.

Start reading the stuff in the staff college here. There's an education to be had. Go to SmallWarsjournal and be amazed at what you can learn and from whom. Learn about CTC.

SMPIMN is childish, elitist, and rude- all in one tasteless acronym. Improve your arguments. To date, your college tuition is being wasted.

Originally Posted by smilingassassin

No its not, I don't agree with that stance and I think its incredibly counter productive but its not treason. Now if you actively state that "We have lost the war", when thats not the case, and do everything else in your power to actively seek defeat THAT is treason.

So stating that your country has lost the war is treason? what if honestly believe so? Ok you're stupid. Counter productive. Sure. But I'm trying to find where you're placing the distinction. In all honesty I do not see the principal difference which would allow you to transfer from the real of legal political opposition (stupid or otherwise (almost typed in Democrat or otherwise )), into the realm of treason, according to you.

Originally Posted by Parihaka

Stop trolling feanor

Sorry :( .... well I'm not exactly far off am I? Maybe I worded it too strongly with the stoning

Originally Posted by S-2

To date, your college tuition is being wasted.

Harsh, harsh. And I alway pictured you as this middle-aged, somewhat chubby, nice guy; sitting with a beer in front of his computer





Well maybe a lot of beers





What?

At 52 I've my hair and it's still brown. I'm 6'0", 186lbs. I'm doing fine.

"Well maybe a lot of beers"

Debilitating nonsense. Mexican mochas. LOTS OF THEM. And bourbon. Sharpens the tongue if not the mind.