Thought this article might be interesting to those who claim that an urban war in Iraq would be devastating to US troops. They're already engaging in this exact form of warfare in Afghanistan and have been for months with great success: http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/central/10/01/afghan.search/index.html Every week or so they catch small groups of Taliban or Al-Qaeda as well as military stashes of ammo or explosives.
@ max: oh dear, you really are the queen of spin, dear boy. his military background has zero, nada, to do with the material content of his message. now, as you dislike the content, you're doing everything you can to divert attention away from that, as it's uncomfortable and it doesn't fit into your very narrow view of the world that seems to be based exclusively on rehashing W's stance on the matter. as is your standard modus operandi, btw. when there were decorated soldiers and officers who'd been involved in numerous military conflicts that were quoted here saying why they were against an attack on saddam you just put and shut up for awhile until the post is no longer on the current page, and you then go back to your simplistic W hero follwoing. when there are high ranking republicans against the war, you twist facts until you find a tiny nugget, and then proceed to quote that on it's own and out of context. you're just a fact twister, dissembler, in short, a queen of spin. brent scowcroft, national security advisor to george bush senior and gerald ford: Don't Attack Saddam It would undermine our antiterror efforts
oh no, not at all, not when it's absolutely immaterial to the stance being put across. all you're doing here is a cheap attempt to undermine the credibility of others who happen to disagree with your simplistic and internationally isolated view of the world. like all good spin masters would. but, it's just spin.
He is like the Don King of Spin......to bad he has entered "THE NO SPIN ZONE"........ http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-10-01-iraq-war-1acover_x.htm
Thanks for the link. Somehow we are the greatest country in the world, until it comes to the military shining. We are to believe that so many of our troops are going to just walk into harms way smiling and get slaughtered. Nowhere are they given credit for being resourceful, competent, just plain old good at what they do. I can't help but back up and look at the bigger picture, which is what war always is. I seem to remember during Gulf I that we were being chastised for unnecessarily killing thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians. That is sad. But never once did I hear of the Iraqi troops killing forty or fifty American soldiers during battle. Seems as though if we killed several thousand, they should have at least killed a few hundred. Don't you think? We even took on the Elite Guard troops that Sadam prides as his best armed and trained forces. Where are the hundreds of Americans that Sadam's best took out? Now the detractors can point out all the medical hazards that we have caused. They can even point out those who died from friendly fire. So we aren't hiding any "dead soldiers" info. Can you tell me the death count from the Iraqi actions? Tens (if not hundreds by some accounts) of thousands of dead Iraqi, where's the massive amount of American body bags? I think somewhere along the way someone was misquoted. The cry was that there would not be enough body bags after the Mother of All Wars fight began. Maybe, just maybe, they meant Iraqi body bags!
Sorry, but you are patently wrong. In his dissertation on the possibility of armed conflict, rs7 has given his perspective as a combat soldier who has witnessed deadly force. How can you claim that his military background or lack thereof, is immaterial? Frankly, I think Baron should do an ip address check between the two of you.
queen of spin, at it again? now you're disingenuously trying to imply that r7 and i are one and the same? how incredibly pathetic. btw, genius, you do not need to have been a soldier let alone have been involved in warfare to be able to imagine death or mutilation on the one hand, or come to an educated assessment of strategic diplomatic, geopolitical and economic consequences of war on the other. that is why r7's background of having or having not been a combat veteran is absolutely immaterial to the content of his posts, and you are just trying to get off some cheap shots at those who disagree with your and W's position characterized, inter alia, by splendid isolation, on there being a need to start a war against iraq, by trying to undermine their credibility. brent scowcroft, national security advisor to george bush senior and gerald ford: Don't Attack Saddam It would undermine our antiterror efforts The United States could certainly defeat the Iraqi military and destroy Saddam's regime. But it would not be a cakewalk. On the contrary, it undoubtedly would be very expensive--with serious consequences for the U.S. and global economy--and could as well be bloody. In fact, Saddam would be likely to conclude he had nothing left to lose, leading him to unleash whatever weapons of mass destruction he possesses. Israel would have to expect to be the first casualty, as in 1991 when Saddam sought to bring Israel into the Gulf conflict. This time, using weapons of mass destruction, he might succeed, provoking Israel to respond, perhaps with nuclear weapons, unleashing an Armageddon in the Middle East. Finally, if we are to achieve our strategic objectives in Iraq, a military campaign very likely would have to be followed by a large-scale, long-term military occupation. http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002133 and it's just going to cost the pittance of a mere 9 billion a month, and our economy and the world economy are going just great, right. we never had a bubble, the enron and worldcom scandals are inventions of lefties, liberals and other bleeding hearts, absolutely no problems anywhere, and everybody has health and pension insurance. just spiffy, no problem.
Queen? Dimunitive blathering is hardly a good debating technique. So, are you telling me, if true, it's ok to lie about being a combat veteran?
spin spin, must be great fun. Queen? diminutive, as it's spelled by the way, blathering? oh, i see, emancipation is not a strong point in circles such as yours where many a jack or jane sixpack roam, where no leftie, liberal or other bleeding heart, of course, only as per your definition, may venture and survive to tell the tale, no, in your circles women belong in the kitchen, so the only valid conclusion obviously has to be that behind every mini and maxi posting on boards there can only be a male, as women do not have web access in their kitchens and wouldn't be allowed to post anyway? oh, and btw, RE vets, there you go again. didn't ronnie say that? not going all out and making the accusation, no, just subtly implying that r7 lied about being a vet, when you know and i know that there is not a chance in a million to prove or disprove that point, whilst, at the same time, again managing to evade the salient points from my previous post, that it has no impact on the material content of his post as to wether he served or not, and if yes, wether he saw combat or not. brent scowcroft, national security advisor to george bush senior and gerald ford: Don't Attack Saddam It would undermine our antiterror efforts