Report Says Iraq Didn't Have WMD

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Genesys


go and ask the soldiers and their families what their viewpoint is. all the soldiers [and their families] i know all agree with the President.
the American taxpayer on the other hand, their viewpoint changes with the tide of the war. at the beginning they supported it, in the middle [now] it looks as if we may be there for a while, so they oppose it. we catch Saddam, approval soars. all that is reported is bad news about death and ambushes, approval plunges.

I think you may be wrong.

perhaps you should read what i wrote then. it says and i quote all the soldiers [and their families] i know all agree with the president.
now then, im not claiming that the whole of the armed forces agree with the president, im just saying that the people serving that i know personally [and their families] agree with the president. so, no, im not wrong, im actually quite correct.

and just so you guys know, i know about 20 people in the armed forces.

and BBD, how was it determined that these people were selectively screened? was that told to people that wrote the article or was it an inference?
and where did The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace get their information? Did they go to Iraq themselves and conduct their own studies and garner their own results?

 

[Gaard]

Sorry. I misunderstood.

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Sorry. I misunderstood.

bah, its ok, it happens.

here, have a :beer:

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Kudos, BBD. Another case of wishful thinking refuted with facts.

And kudos to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace for their efforts. It's one thing for us to try to get the truth out one piece at a time based on our part-time research. It's another when a respected organization with dedicated resources can pull together everything we've been saying and present it with solid supporting documentation. Perhaps this will open a few more eyes.

The wishful thinking part is where you and BBD take what the World Socialist Website prints as fact. It's to be expected of bowfinger, he isn't very intelligent to begin with, but Doc, you should know better. Maybe a glance at the actual survey results would give you the real facts, all of them, instead of the ones that WSW wants to give you. BBD you're smart enough to figure it out yourself, bowfinger you'll need some help as usual.

LOL. You're such a sorry little man.

I note, as usual, that you make no attempt to present any useful information yourself, no attempt to refute, correct, or elaborate upon any of the information printed. Instead, you're a one-trick pony -- or at least the trailing portion of one -- whose only apparent talent is insulting others. Of course in this case, you would have found yourself even more challenged than normal, since it appears everything BBD quoted is 100% accurate.

Nonetheless, for the other bleating YABAs who, like yourself, continue to mindlessly, eagerly swallow whatever drivel comes from the Bush administration, here is the actual data from Stars & Stripes. Since I can't do tables here, the formatting stinks. If you want the pretty version, follow the link:

Troops' thoughts in Iraq

Stars and Stripes collected 1,935 questionnaires from servicemembers in Iraq between Aug. 10 and Aug. 31. The people who returned a survey make up a group known as a convenience sample, which means they represent the views only of those filling out the survey and do not necessarily represent the views of every servicemember in Iraq. As a result, there is no margin of error within these results. A number of steps were taken to verify accurate inputting of information. Some percentages may not total 100 percent due to rounding.

1. How do you rate the overall living conditions at your base?
No.
resp. Pct.
93 excellent 5%
578 good 30%
719 average 37%
370 not good 19%
158 poor 8%

2. How often do you have access to any post exchange facilities?
470 more than once a day 24%
320 once a day 17%
369 once every few days 19%
580 once a week 30%
108 never 6%

3. How do you rate the post exchange facilities?
42 excellent 2%
361 good 19%
802 average 41%
470 not good 24%
208 poor 11%

4. How would you rate your health since you arrived in the Middle East?
188 excellent 10%
694 good 36%
730 average 38%
251 not good 13%
60 poor 3%

5. How would you rate the health care services available to you in the Middle East?
142 excellent 7%
533 good 28%
714 average 37%
355 not good 18%
154 poor 8%

6. How would you rate your chain of command's ability to give you the materials you need to accomplish your mission?
130 excellent 7%
534 good 28%
563 average 29%
393 not good 20%
299 poor 15%

7. How concerned is your chain of command about your living conditions?
288 very concerned 15%
356 above average concern 18%
462 concerned 24%
504 somewhat concerned 26%
308 not concerned 16%

8. How effective is your command at making improvements?
215 excellent 11%
576 good 30%
567 average 29%
361 not good 19%
202 poor 10%

9. How likely is it that you will stay in the military after your current obligation is complete?
340 Very likely 18%
245 likely 13%
353 possible 18%
333 not likely 17%
611 very unlikely 32%

10. How do you rate the mail delivery system in the Middle East?
84 excellent 4%
379 good 20%
620 average 32%
471 not good 24%
369 poor 19%

11. How worthwhile do you think fighting this war was for America?
542 very worthwhile 28%
359 probably worthwhile 19%
395 worthwhile 20%
390 little value 20%
211 not worthwhile at all 11%

12. How clearly defined is your mission?
400 very clear 21%
282 mostly clear 15%
523 clear 27%
348 mostly not clear 18%
326 not clear at all 17%

13. How do you rate your unit's morale?
53 very high 3%
252 high 13%
653 average 34%
540 low 28%
412 very low 21%

14. How closely is what you're doing now related to your training?
170 identical 9%
391 very close 20%
560 close 29%
396 not close 20%
379 nothing to do with training 20%

15. How much training did you receive for your current mission?
260 more than enough 13%
665 enough 34%
386 some 20%
225 very little 12%
379 learning as I go 20%

16. How do you rate your personal morale?
146 very high 8%
365 high 19%
720 average 37%
368 low 19%
281 very low 15%

There you go, UQ. I'm looking forward to your next attack in lieu of anything meaningful. Until then, I'm sure you have important spy stuff to do. Say hello to Mini-Me.

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Kudos, BBD. Another case of wishful thinking refuted with facts.

And kudos to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace for their efforts. It's one thing for us to try to get the truth out one piece at a time based on our part-time research. It's another when a respected organization with dedicated resources can pull together everything we've been saying and present it with solid supporting documentation. Perhaps this will open a few more eyes.

The wishful thinking part is where you and BBD take what the World Socialist Website prints as fact. It's to be expected of bowfinger, he isn't very intelligent to begin with, but Doc, you should know better. Maybe a glance at the actual survey results would give you the real facts, all of them, instead of the ones that WSW wants to give you. BBD you're smart enough to figure it out yourself, bowfinger you'll need some help as usual.

LOL. You're such a sorry little man.

I note, as usual, that you make no attempt to present any useful information yourself, no attempt to refute, correct, or elaborate upon any of the information printed. Instead, you're a one-trick pony -- or at least the trailing portion of one -- whose only apparent talent is insulting others. Of course in this case, you would have found yourself even more challenged than normal, since it appears everything BBD quoted is 100% accurate.

Nonetheless, for the other bleating YABAs who, like yourself, continue to mindlessly, eagerly swallow whatever drivel comes from the Bush administration, here is the actual data from Stars & Stripes. Since I can't do tables here, the formatting stinks. If you want the pretty version, follow the link:

Troops' thoughts in Iraq

Stars and Stripes collected 1,935 questionnaires from servicemembers in Iraq between Aug. 10 and Aug. 31. The people who returned a survey make up a group known as a convenience sample, which means they represent the views only of those filling out the survey and do not necessarily represent the views of every servicemember in Iraq. As a result, there is no margin of error within these results. A number of steps were taken to verify accurate inputting of information. Some percentages may not total 100 percent due to rounding.

1. How do you rate the overall living conditions at your base?
No.
resp. Pct.
93 excellent 5%
578 good 30%
719 average 37%
370 not good 19%
158 poor 8%

2. How often do you have access to any post exchange facilities?
470 more than once a day 24%
320 once a day 17%
369 once every few days 19%
580 once a week 30%
108 never 6%

3. How do you rate the post exchange facilities?
42 excellent 2%
361 good 19%
802 average 41%
470 not good 24%
208 poor 11%

4. How would you rate your health since you arrived in the Middle East?
188 excellent 10%
694 good 36%
730 average 38%
251 not good 13%
60 poor 3%

5. How would you rate the health care services available to you in the Middle East?
142 excellent 7%
533 good 28%
714 average 37%
355 not good 18%
154 poor 8%

6. How would you rate your chain of command's ability to give you the materials you need to accomplish your mission?
130 excellent 7%
534 good 28%
563 average 29%
393 not good 20%
299 poor 15%

7. How concerned is your chain of command about your living conditions?
288 very concerned 15%
356 above average concern 18%
462 concerned 24%
504 somewhat concerned 26%
308 not concerned 16%

8. How effective is your command at making improvements?
215 excellent 11%
576 good 30%
567 average 29%
361 not good 19%
202 poor 10%

9. How likely is it that you will stay in the military after your current obligation is complete?
340 Very likely 18%
245 likely 13%
353 possible 18%
333 not likely 17%
611 very unlikely 32%

10. How do you rate the mail delivery system in the Middle East?
84 excellent 4%
379 good 20%
620 average 32%
471 not good 24%
369 poor 19%

11. How worthwhile do you think fighting this war was for America?
542 very worthwhile 28%
359 probably worthwhile 19%
395 worthwhile 20%
390 little value 20%
211 not worthwhile at all 11%

12. How clearly defined is your mission?
400 very clear 21%
282 mostly clear 15%
523 clear 27%
348 mostly not clear 18%
326 not clear at all 17%

13. How do you rate your unit's morale?
53 very high 3%
252 high 13%
653 average 34%
540 low 28%
412 very low 21%

14. How closely is what you're doing now related to your training?
170 identical 9%
391 very close 20%
560 close 29%
396 not close 20%
379 nothing to do with training 20%

15. How much training did you receive for your current mission?
260 more than enough 13%
665 enough 34%
386 some 20%
225 very little 12%
379 learning as I go 20%

16. How do you rate your personal morale?
146 very high 8%
365 high 19%
720 average 37%
368 low 19%
281 very low 15%

There you go, UQ. I'm looking forward to your next attack in lieu of anything meaningful. Until then, I'm sure you have important spy stuff to do. Say hello to Mini-Me.

those poll results dont look to bad to me. the majority of troops rated everything in the average [or equlivelent dependant on question] or above. as long as theyre not rating everything in the low [or equivelent] then they're doing ok.

besides, they're in Iraq, what do you expect? a friend of mine said he's had to sleep in the streets [!?] in Iraq and another buddy of mine said he's slept in ditches filled with dead enemies [!!], and they seem to be doing great [in terms of morale and how they feel about about their mission, the president, etc...]

but hey, thats only 2 guys out of the whole armed services.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Genesys
those poll results dont look to bad to me. the majority of troops rated everything in the average [or equlivelent dependant on question] or above. as long as theyre not rating everything in the low [or equivelent] then they're doing ok.

besides, they're in Iraq, what do you expect? a friend of mine said he's had to sleep in the streets [!?] in Iraq and another buddy of mine said he's slept in ditches filled with dead enemies [!!], and they seem to be doing great [in terms of morale and how they feel about about their mission, the president, etc...]

but hey, thats only 2 guys out of the whole armed services.

That's fine. They aren't uniformly bad, nor are they quite as rosy as some insist. My real point was to demonstrate BBD's quote was accurate in spite of UQ's innuendo.

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Genesys
those poll results dont look to bad to me. the majority of troops rated everything in the average [or equlivelent dependant on question] or above. as long as theyre not rating everything in the low [or equivelent] then they're doing ok.

besides, they're in Iraq, what do you expect? a friend of mine said he's had to sleep in the streets [!?] in Iraq and another buddy of mine said he's slept in ditches filled with dead enemies [!!], and they seem to be doing great [in terms of morale and how they feel about about their mission, the president, etc...]

but hey, thats only 2 guys out of the whole armed services.

That's fine. They aren't uniformly bad, nor are they quite as rosy as some insist. My real point was to demonstrate BBD's quote was accurate in spite of UQ's innuendo.

lol, i think most of us can infer what its going to be like whilst occupying a foreing country [especially one in the middle east.] but yeah, it really has to suck being in the desert all the damn time like that!

if it we were occupying a devolping country [or at least a middle eastern country that has discovered the miracles of irrigation and industrialization], things might be a little rosier though

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Powell replies

CkG

You mean spins right ?

 

[Insane3D]

Just a simple question here for all that think we did the right thing in Iraq and all our troops are jim dandy happy they are there.

I'm by no means an expert on the military, but isn't the whole point of it to protect and defend our country and way of life? If that is so, please explain to me how our soldiers dying and getting wounded over there is accomplishing that? If we did nothing, we would have been attacked by Iraq? Our way of life was going to be threatened by Iraq if we didn't act?

I know most of the people arguing in this forum seem to have all the answers, so hopefully they will enlighten me.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Genesys
those poll results dont look to bad to me. the majority of troops rated everything in the average [or equlivelent dependant on question] or above. as long as theyre not rating everything in the low [or equivelent] then they're doing ok.

besides, they're in Iraq, what do you expect? a friend of mine said he's had to sleep in the streets [!?] in Iraq and another buddy of mine said he's slept in ditches filled with dead enemies [!!], and they seem to be doing great [in terms of morale and how they feel about about their mission, the president, etc...]

but hey, thats only 2 guys out of the whole armed services.

That's fine. They aren't uniformly bad, nor are they quite as rosy as some insist. My real point was to demonstrate BBD's quote was accurate in spite of UQ's innuendo.

lol, i think most of us can infer what its going to be like whilst occupying a foreing country [especially one in the middle east.] but yeah, it really has to suck being in the desert all the damn time like that!

if it we were occupying a devolping country [or at least a middle eastern country that has discovered the miracles of irrigation and industrialization], things might be a little rosier though

They had industry and irrigation systems until someone bombed the sh!t out of it to destroy all the WMDs hidden there.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Personally I could care less. I said it before and I'll say it again: People should be free from tyranny and oppression. Saddam was a brutal dictator who abused his power in more ways than we are likely to ever know and millions are dead who would not be because we listed to the UN in 1991 and didn't remove him from power.

The world is a better place without Saddam, and Iraq's people have a chance at liberty and prosperity now that he is gone. How can you possibly oppose that?

Jason

The 9000 wounded AMerican Soldiers
The 500 DEAD American Soldiers
The American FAMILIES of the Dead and Injured
The American Taxpayer who was hoodwinked into shelling out $100,000,000,000 for some foreign country :disgust:

^^ I think those people might have an opposing viewpoint ^^

go and ask the soldiers and their families what their viewpoint is. all the soldiers [and their families] i know all agree with the President.
the American taxpayer on the other hand, their viewpoint changes with the tide of the war. at the beginning they supported it, in the middle [now] it looks as if we may be there for a while, so they oppose it. we catch Saddam, approval soars. all that is reported is bad news about death and ambushes, approval plunges.

If this Administration would have tried to sell this war to the American Public based on just liberating the Iraqi's they would have never have gotten the public approval to execute the invasion and occupation.

 

[UltraQuiet]

LOL. You're such a sorry little man.

Maybe but's it better than the "undefined" status you're currently in.

I note, as usual, that you make no attempt to present any useful information yourself, no attempt to refute, correct, or elaborate upon any of the information printed. Instead, you're a one-trick pony -- or at least the trailing portion of one -- whose only apparent talent is insulting others. Of course in this case, you would have found yourself even more challenged than normal, since it appears everything BBD quoted is 100% accurate.

It did, however, cause you to go and actually look at the data instead of just saying "great post". As predicted you aren't smart enough to read it or understand the WSW's misleading presentation but we'll get to that in a minute. As for being a one trick pony, that's one more trick than you've got. Now on to the data:

In response to the question, ?How worthwhile do you think fighting this war was for America?,?
. . . Only 28 percent responded that it was ?very worthwhile? and another 20 percent that it was ?worthwhile.?
What happened to the 19% that said it was "probably worthwhile"? Oh yeah, can't have that, pecentage would be too high for you and the rest of the YACS.

Overall, 49 percent of the respondents in Iraq indicated they intended to leave the military as soon as possible. Only 18 percent said it was ?very likely? they would remain.
Please point out where they said they were leaving the .mil ASAP. "Not likely" or "very unlikely" does not equal leaving ASAP especially when asking someone who is currently deployed. You could go to any deployed unit anywhere in the world and get very similiar numbers. Isn't it funny how the WSW counts "not likely" as leaving the .mil ASAP but "probably worthwhile" doesn't make it into the "worthwhile" stats. Of course you swallowed what they said without even bothering to go look at the data or the questions they asked, not that you're smart enough to understand it anyway.

Maybe if you spent less time whining like a little girl about my insulting you and making pathetic little jokes about "secret spy stuff" and more time researching and learning, or better yet understanding when you should keep your mouth shut about things you know nothing about, then maybe I wouldn't have to keep pointing out how stupid/ignorant you are. Maybe then we'll get someting more than, "Kudos, BBD. Another case of wishful thinking refuted with facts.", where the only fact is that you're ignorant and the wishful thinking is where you're hoping that the situation is how the WSW presented it.

Let me know if you need anything else explained to you but quite honestly it is getting a bit tedious.

You're dismissed.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

LOL. You're such a sorry little man.

Maybe but's it better than the "undefined" status you're currently in.

I note, as usual, that you make no attempt to present any useful information yourself, no attempt to refute, correct, or elaborate upon any of the information printed. Instead, you're a one-trick pony -- or at least the trailing portion of one -- whose only apparent talent is insulting others. Of course in this case, you would have found yourself even more challenged than normal, since it appears everything BBD quoted is 100% accurate.

It did, however, cause you to go and actually look at the data instead of just saying "great post". As predicted you aren't smart enough to read it or understand the WSW's misleading presentation but we'll get to that in a minute. As for being a one trick pony, that's one more trick than you've got. Now on to the data:

In response to the question, ?How worthwhile do you think fighting this war was for America?,?
. . . Only 28 percent responded that it was ?very worthwhile? and another 20 percent that it was ?worthwhile.?
What happened to the 19% that said it was "probably worthwhile"? Oh yeah, can't have that, pecentage would be too high for you and the rest of the YACS.

Overall, 49 percent of the respondents in Iraq indicated they intended to leave the military as soon as possible. Only 18 percent said it was ?very likely? they would remain.
Please point out where they said they were leaving the .mil ASAP. "Not likely" or "very unlikely" does not equal leaving ASAP especially when asking someone who is currently deployed. You could go to any deployed unit anywhere in the world and get very similiar numbers. Isn't it funny how the WSW counts "not likely" as leaving the .mil ASAP but "probably worthwhile" doesn't make it into the "worthwhile" stats. Of course you swallowed what they said without even bothering to go look at the data or the questions they asked, not that you're smart enough to understand it anyway.

Maybe if you spent less time whining like a little girl about my insulting you and making pathetic little jokes about "secret spy stuff" and more time researching and learning, or better yet understanding when you should keep your mouth shut about things you know nothing about, then maybe I wouldn't have to keep pointing out how stupid/ignorant you are. Maybe then we'll get someting more than, "Kudos, BBD. Another case of wishful thinking refuted with facts.", where the only fact is that you're ignorant and the wishful thinking is where you're hoping that the situation is how the WSW presented it.

Let me know if you need anything else explained to you but quite honestly it is getting a bit tedious.

You're dismissed.

Yawn.

In other words, BBD's post was, in fact, factually accurate, but you were still compelled to attack because you didn't like our posts and you wanted to divert attention from a message you can't accept. A more constructive approach would have been presenting your own interpretation of the results, but you are apparently too lazy or too inept to find the original article yourself. Otherwise, you would have jumped on the "Probably Worthwhile" result yourself, without my help. (But the article was accurate, they just drew the line differently than you want. Waaah.)

Re. leaving the military, what is the soonest time a soldier can legally decide to leave the military, barring exceptional circumstances? When their current obligation is complete, of course. (You don't seem very well informed about this for a military guy.) What was the survey question? "How likely is it that you will stay in the military after your current obligation is complete?" In other words, how likely is it you wll leave at your first chance to do so, i.e., As Soon As Possible? Once again, BBD's quote was accurate.

Finally, I note you ignored the fact that 49% rated morale as low or worse while only 16% reported it as high or better; 35% say they are unclear on their mission while only 21% are "very clear". Once again, BBD's quote was accurate. Much as you want to slander WSW, they seem to be able to report facts accurately. Perhaps your heros in the White House could learn from them.

By the way Rambo, if you're truly in the military -- the U.S. military, that is -- then you work for me. I will let you know when you are dismissed.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

LOL. You're such a sorry little man.

Maybe but's it better than the "undefined" status you're currently in.

I note, as usual, that you make no attempt to present any useful information yourself, no attempt to refute, correct, or elaborate upon any of the information printed. Instead, you're a one-trick pony -- or at least the trailing portion of one -- whose only apparent talent is insulting others. Of course in this case, you would have found yourself even more challenged than normal, since it appears everything BBD quoted is 100% accurate.

It did, however, cause you to go and actually look at the data instead of just saying "great post". As predicted you aren't smart enough to read it or understand the WSW's misleading presentation but we'll get to that in a minute. As for being a one trick pony, that's one more trick than you've got. Now on to the data:

In response to the question, ?How worthwhile do you think fighting this war was for America?,?
. . . Only 28 percent responded that it was ?very worthwhile? and another 20 percent that it was ?worthwhile.?
What happened to the 19% that said it was "probably worthwhile"? Oh yeah, can't have that, pecentage would be too high for you and the rest of the YACS.

Overall, 49 percent of the respondents in Iraq indicated they intended to leave the military as soon as possible. Only 18 percent said it was ?very likely? they would remain.
Please point out where they said they were leaving the .mil ASAP. "Not likely" or "very unlikely" does not equal leaving ASAP especially when asking someone who is currently deployed. You could go to any deployed unit anywhere in the world and get very similiar numbers. Isn't it funny how the WSW counts "not likely" as leaving the .mil ASAP but "probably worthwhile" doesn't make it into the "worthwhile" stats. Of course you swallowed what they said without even bothering to go look at the data or the questions they asked, not that you're smart enough to understand it anyway.

Maybe if you spent less time whining like a little girl about my insulting you and making pathetic little jokes about "secret spy stuff" and more time researching and learning, or better yet understanding when you should keep your mouth shut about things you know nothing about, then maybe I wouldn't have to keep pointing out how stupid/ignorant you are. Maybe then we'll get someting more than, "Kudos, BBD. Another case of wishful thinking refuted with facts.", where the only fact is that you're ignorant and the wishful thinking is where you're hoping that the situation is how the WSW presented it.

Let me know if you need anything else explained to you but quite honestly it is getting a bit tedious.

You're dismissed.

Yawn.

In other words, BBD's post was, in fact, factually accurate, but you were still compelled to attack because you didn't like our posts and you wanted to divert attention from a message you can't accept. A more constructive approach would have been presenting your own interpretation of the results, but you are apparently too lazy or too inept to find the original article yourself. Otherwise, you would have jumped on the "Probably Worthwhile" result yourself, without my help. (But the article was accurate, they just drew the line differently than you want. Waaah.)

Re. leaving the military, what is the soonest time a soldier can legally decide to leave the military, barring exceptional circumstances? When their current obligation is complete, of course. (You don't seem very well informed about this for a military guy.) What was the survey question? "How likely is it that you will stay in the military after your current obligation is complete?" In other words, how likely is it you wll leave at your first chance to do so, i.e., As Soon As Possible? Once again, BBD's quote was accurate.

Finally, I note you ignored the fact that 49% rated morale as low or worse while only 16% reported it as high or better; 35% say they are unclear on their mission while only 21% are "very clear". Once again, BBD's quote was accurate. Much as you want to slander WSW, they seem to be able to report facts accurately. Perhaps your heros in the White House could learn from them.

Yawn is exactly right. Your continued inability to grasp even the most rudimentary facts or numbers brings and your continued hypocrisy of accusing one side of spin but supporting the spin of others brings into specific relief your lack of intelligence. In no way does that survey say that 49% are leaving the .mil ASAP, I ignored no part of the survey, not when I originally read long before you did nor yesterday when I reviewed it subsequent to your first ignorant post. The facts presented by WSW were spun to the point of being inaccurate not that I would expect you to know the difference. I know it really stings you when you think you have something to criticize this admin about and it gets stuck up your ass but you really need to move past it. Try to develop some critical thinking skills or continue to let the WSW do your thinking for you, it doesn't matter to me, I'll just continue to point out your utter ignorance/stupidity every chance I get (there's another full time job).

By the way Rambo, if you're truly in the military -- the U.S. military, that is -- then you work for me. I will let you know when you are dismissed.

The ignorance continues. By what measure do I work for you. Because you pay taxes? HAHAHAHA. That's funny. I'll tell you what though, sh!t stain, anytime you think you're ready to give me an order, you let me know. I only take orders from men I respect and you don't qualify on either count.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

LOL. You're such a sorry little man.

Maybe but's it better than the "undefined" status you're currently in.

I note, as usual, that you make no attempt to present any useful information yourself, no attempt to refute, correct, or elaborate upon any of the information printed. Instead, you're a one-trick pony -- or at least the trailing portion of one -- whose only apparent talent is insulting others. Of course in this case, you would have found yourself even more challenged than normal, since it appears everything BBD quoted is 100% accurate.

It did, however, cause you to go and actually look at the data instead of just saying "great post". As predicted you aren't smart enough to read it or understand the WSW's misleading presentation but we'll get to that in a minute. As for being a one trick pony, that's one more trick than you've got. Now on to the data:

In response to the question, ?How worthwhile do you think fighting this war was for America?,?
. . . Only 28 percent responded that it was ?very worthwhile? and another 20 percent that it was ?worthwhile.?
What happened to the 19% that said it was "probably worthwhile"? Oh yeah, can't have that, pecentage would be too high for you and the rest of the YACS.

Overall, 49 percent of the respondents in Iraq indicated they intended to leave the military as soon as possible. Only 18 percent said it was ?very likely? they would remain.
Please point out where they said they were leaving the .mil ASAP. "Not likely" or "very unlikely" does not equal leaving ASAP especially when asking someone who is currently deployed. You could go to any deployed unit anywhere in the world and get very similiar numbers. Isn't it funny how the WSW counts "not likely" as leaving the .mil ASAP but "probably worthwhile" doesn't make it into the "worthwhile" stats. Of course you swallowed what they said without even bothering to go look at the data or the questions they asked, not that you're smart enough to understand it anyway.

Maybe if you spent less time whining like a little girl about my insulting you and making pathetic little jokes about "secret spy stuff" and more time researching and learning, or better yet understanding when you should keep your mouth shut about things you know nothing about, then maybe I wouldn't have to keep pointing out how stupid/ignorant you are. Maybe then we'll get someting more than, "Kudos, BBD. Another case of wishful thinking refuted with facts.", where the only fact is that you're ignorant and the wishful thinking is where you're hoping that the situation is how the WSW presented it.

Let me know if you need anything else explained to you but quite honestly it is getting a bit tedious.

You're dismissed.

Yawn.

In other words, BBD's post was, in fact, factually accurate, but you were still compelled to attack because you didn't like our posts and you wanted to divert attention from a message you can't accept. A more constructive approach would have been presenting your own interpretation of the results, but you are apparently too lazy or too inept to find the original article yourself. Otherwise, you would have jumped on the "Probably Worthwhile" result yourself, without my help. (But the article was accurate, they just drew the line differently than you want. Waaah.)

Re. leaving the military, what is the soonest time a soldier can legally decide to leave the military, barring exceptional circumstances? When their current obligation is complete, of course. (You don't seem very well informed about this for a military guy.) What was the survey question? "How likely is it that you will stay in the military after your current obligation is complete?" In other words, how likely is it you wll leave at your first chance to do so, i.e., As Soon As Possible? Once again, BBD's quote was accurate.

Finally, I note you ignored the fact that 49% rated morale as low or worse while only 16% reported it as high or better; 35% say they are unclear on their mission while only 21% are "very clear". Once again, BBD's quote was accurate. Much as you want to slander WSW, they seem to be able to report facts accurately. Perhaps your heros in the White House could learn from them.

Yawn is exactly right. Your continued inability to grasp even the most rudimentary facts or numbers brings and your continued hypocrisy of accusing one side of spin but supporting the spin of others brings into specific relief your lack of intelligence. In no way does that survey say that 49% are leaving the .mil ASAP, I ignored no part of the survey, not when I originally read long before you did nor yesterday when I reviewed it subsequent to your first ignorant post. The facts presented by WSW were spun to the point of being inaccurate not that I would expect you to know the difference. I know it really stings you when you think you have something to criticize this admin about and it gets stuck up your ass but you really need to move past it. Try to develop some critical thinking skills or continue to let the WSW do your thinking for you, it doesn't matter to me, I'll just continue to point out your utter ignorance/stupidity every chance I get (there's another full time job).

By the way Rambo, if you're truly in the military -- the U.S. military, that is -- then you work for me. I will let you know when you are dismissed.

The ignorance continues. By what measure do I work for you. Because you pay taxes? HAHAHAHA. That's funny. I'll tell you what though, sh!t stain, anytime you think you're ready to give me an order, you let me know. I only take orders from men I respect and you don't qualify on either count.

 

[maluckey]

Listen up all non-soldiers. I never knew a soldier, (myself included) that was happy with anything except three day weekends. They complain about food, commanders, uniforms, money, promotions, weapoms and lastly that every soldier is stationed in the worst base in the world. I was stuck in hell holes as a rule, with rotten food, poor living conditions, and bad weather. My saving grace was that we got rotating schedules for extra leave time every three months.

As far as WMD, Fmr President William Clinton himself, stated in October 2003 to Portugese leaders, that he believed that Iraq had WMDs. So that makes two Presidents, David Kay, and many in the CIA that beleived in WMD's. The Carnegie group certainly cannot claim to have all the evidence of the three aforementioned opinions as far as WMD goes, because they are a CIVILIAN group. As such, they are not privy to many classified reprts, or access to most classified sources of information that both the current President and his predecessor used.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: maluckey
Listen up all non-soldiers. I never knew a soldier, (myself included) that was happy with anything except three day weekends. They complain about food, commanders, uniforms, money, promotions, weapoms and lastly that every soldier is stationed in the worst base in the world. I was stuck in hell holes as a rule, with rotten food, poor living conditions, and bad weather. My saving grace was that we got rotating schedules for extra leave time every three months.

As far as WMD, Fmr President William Clinton himself, stated in October 2003 to Portugese leaders, that he believed that Iraq had WMDs. So that makes two Presidents, David Kay, and many in the CIA that beleived in WMD's. The Carnegie group certainly cannot claim to have all the evidence of the three aforementioned opinions as far as WMD goes, because they are a CIVILIAN group. As such, they are not privy to many classified reprts, or access to most classified sources of information that both the current President and his predecessor used.

When going to war risking the lives of our soldiers and an untold number of civilians you better damn well make sure you are correct, especially when you are using that argument to sell the war to the American Public!

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: maluckey
Carnegie report says no, David Kay's report says yes. Carnegie had very little access to the country when compared to Kay. Either way, it's still not what we expected is it?

David Kay's report says yes to what?

 

[Red Dawn]

Poor Colin Powell, he has to now go out and try to convince the world that this adminstration and it's Neocon handlers didn't overstate/politicize the threat based on extremely dodgy intel. Good luck!

 

[onelove]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Poor Colin Powell, he has to now go out and try to convince the world that this adminstration and it's Neocon handlers didn't overstate/politicize the threat based on extremely dodgy intel. Good luck!

yah, that's sort of true, except he sort of compromised himself as the voice of moderation by jumping on the WMD bandwagon. I like CP, & do feel a little bad for him nonetheless. OT: saw a bio on his life - the guy really came from nothing.

BTW: McNiel/Lehrer/whichever, tonight (1-9-04) Kwalmie Holman (sp?) does a story about the downgrading of the rhetoric about WMD--->Weapons Programs---->Intention to maybe pursue a weapons program at some unspecified future date (complete with a quote from W. that he can't see any difference between these confusing terms) (nook-u-ler).

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Yawn is exactly right. Your continued inability to grasp even the most rudimentary facts or numbers brings and your continued hypocrisy of accusing one side of spin but supporting the spin of others brings into specific relief your lack of intelligence. In no way does that survey say that 49% are leaving the .mil ASAP, I ignored no part of the survey, not when I originally read long before you did nor yesterday when I reviewed it subsequent to your first ignorant post. The facts presented by WSW were spun to the point of being inaccurate not that I would expect you to know the difference. I know it really stings you when you think you have something to criticize this admin about and it gets stuck up your ass but you really need to move past it. Try to develop some critical thinking skills or continue to let the WSW do your thinking for you, it doesn't matter to me, I'll just continue to point out your utter ignorance/stupidity every chance I get (there's another full time job).

The ignorance continues. By what measure do I work for you. Because you pay taxes? HAHAHAHA. That's funny. I'll tell you what though, sh!t stain, anytime you think you're ready to give me an order, you let me know. I only take orders from men I respect and you don't qualify on either count.

LOL. Long on spittle, still short on substance.

Pray tell, what is your definition of "As Soon As Possible", specifically in the context of military personnel leaving the service? You also continue to ignore the stats on morale and the clarity of their mission. Seems to me you are spinning every bit as much as WSW, selectively picking numbers that best support your agenda. All of this ignores the fundamental point you cannot refute: the WSW quote was factually accurate.

Re. working for me, I didn't say I was in your chain of command Gomer. I just pointed out -- correctly -- that you work for me. I draw great pleasure in seeing how much this infuriates you. Like it or not, you are a public servant. Don't forget it.

Dismissed.

 

[UltraQuiet]

LOL. Long on spittle, still short on substance.

I agree, your half a dozen posts in this thread don't even amount to a good loogy.

Pray tell, what is your definition of "As Soon As Possible", specifically in the context of military personnel leaving the service? You also continue to ignore the stats on morale and the clarity of their mission. Seems to me you are spinning every bit as much as WSW, selectively picking numbers that best support your agenda. All of this ignores the fundamental point you cannot refute: the WSW quote was factually accurate.

Since there wasn't a choice of "ASAP" the point is moot. You and the WSW decided that those two choices equalled that. They don't no matter how you try to keep spinning it. Sorry. And your statement that I'm ignoring other parts of the survey is more ignorance on your part. I'm commenting on the parts I found to be inaccurate.

Re. working for me, I didn't say I was in your chain of command Gomer. I just pointed out -- correctly -- that you work for me. I draw great pleasure in seeing how much this infuriates you. Like it or not, you are a public servant. Don't forget it.

I only work for you in your wet dreams, ballwasher. Get over it.

Dismissed

You aren't chairing your local NAMBLA meeting sh!t stain. This is ATPN. You get to dismiss them there, not here.

 

[Bowfinger]

I draw great pleasure in seeing how much this infuriates you.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I draw great pleasure in seeing how much this infuriates you.

No kidding, he must be foaming at the mouth.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
By the way, the full report is available on the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace home page. There is also a short summary of their findings (below), as well as other information and resources on various topics. Their server(s) seem a little overloaded at the moment, so be gentle.

Here is the summary:

WMD IN IRAQ - Evidence and Implications

WMD in IRAQ: Evidence and Implications, a new study from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, details what the U.S. and international intelligence communities understood about Iraq's weapons programs before the war and outlines policy reforms to improve threat assessments, deter transfer of WMD to terrorists, strengthen the UN weapons inspection process, and avoid politicization of the intelligence process.

The report distills a massive amount of data into side-by-side comparisons of pre-war intelligence, the official presentation of that intelligence, and what is now known about Iraq's programs.

The authors of the report are: Jessica T. Mathews, president; George Perkovich, vice president for studies, and Joseph Cirincione, senior associate and non-proliferation project director of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.


SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Changes to U.S. Policy

• Revise the National Security Strategy to eliminate a U.S. policy of unilateral preventive war, i.e., preemptive war in absence of imminent threat.
• Create a nonpartisan, independent commission to establish a clearer picture of what the intelligence community knew and believed it knew about Iraq's weapons program.
• Consider changing the post of Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) from a political appointment to a career appointment, based on the outcomes of the independent commission.
• Make the security of poorly protected nuclear weapons and stockpiles of plutonium and highly enriched uranium a much higher priority for national security policy.

International Action

• The United States and United Nations should together produce a complete history and inventory of Iraq's WMD and missile programs.
• The UN Secretary General should commission a high-level analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the WMD inspection processes in Iraq, and how inspections could be strengthened in the future.
• The UN Security Council should consider creating a permanent, international, nonproliferation inspection capability.
• Make the transfer of WMD a violation of international law.

Changes to Threat Assessments

• Recognize distinctions in the degree of threat posed by the different forms of "weapons of mass destruction" - chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons pose vastly different risks and cost-benefit calculations of actions to combat them.
• Recognize red flags indicating that sound intelligence practices are not being followed.
• Examine and debate the assertion that the combined threat of evil states and terrorism calls for acting on the basis of worst-case reasoning.
• Examine assumption that states will likely transfer WMD to terrorists.

SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS

Iraq WMD Was Not An Immediate Threat

• Iraq's nuclear program had been suspended for many years; Iraq focused on preserving a latent, dual-use chemical and probably biological weapons capability, not weapons production.
• Iraqi nerve agents had lost most of their lethality as early as 1991.
• Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, and UN inspections and sanctions effectively destroyed Iraq's large-scale chemical weapon production capabilities.

Inspections Were Working

• Post-war searches suggest the UN inspections were on track to find what was there.
• International constraints, sanctions, procurement, investigations, and the export/import control mechanism appear to have been considerably more effective than was thought.

Intelligence Failed and Was Misrepresented

• Intelligence community overestimated the chemical and biological weapons in Iraq.
• Intelligence community appears to have been unduly influenced by policymakers' views.
• Officials misrepresented threat from Iraq's WMD and ballistic missiles programs over and above intelligence findings.

Terrorist Connection Missing

• No solid evidence of cooperative relationship between Saddam's government and Al Qaeda.
• No evidence that Iraq would have transferred WMD to terrorists-and much evidence to counter it.
• No evidence to suggest that deterrence was no longer operable.

Post-War WMD Search Ignored Key Resources

• Past relationships with Iraqi scientists and officials, and credibility of UNMOVIC experts represent a vital resource that has been ignored when it should be being fully exploited.
• Data from the seven years of UNSCOM/IAEA inspections are absolutely essential. Direct involvement of those who compiled the more-than-30-million- page record is needed.

War Was Not the Best-Or Only-Option

• There were at least two options preferable to a war undertaken without international support: allowing the UNMOVIC/IAEA inspections to continue until obstructed or completed, or imposing a tougher program of "coercive inspections."

Download the report at www.ceip.org/WMD or contact Maura Keaney at 202-939-2372 or mkeaney@ceip.org.

If UQ is done frothing, let's see if we can get this thread back on-topic. It is an important report, the most comprehensive indictment yet of the Bush administration's rush to war.

(The good news is the CEIP server(s) seem to be back up.)