Time For A Reality Check
- Thread starter susiedriver
- Start date
susiedriver
Well-Known Member
And the chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee. It's fun to see the repubs eat their own.moreluck said:
tieguy
Banned
Not as much fun as watching you get dunked everytime you try to downplay your ignorance of military tactics In order to support your already errant line of logic.
But I'll give you a break. Tell me why you think the Iraqi's should have have been in complete control of this operation( including command/control/ coordination) which would mean US troops would have been subjected to and worked under Iraqi command and control. The US had complete command and control in gulf war 1. Does this mean the british , german and french troops that fought beside us were also incapable of fighting on their own?
Or tell me why in todays military world you would possibly think the Iraqis could have led the charge in this combat exercise and had US. support of the offensive that acted independent of Iraqi command and control.
But I'll give you a break. Tell me why you think the Iraqi's should have have been in complete control of this operation( including command/control/ coordination) which would mean US troops would have been subjected to and worked under Iraqi command and control. The US had complete command and control in gulf war 1. Does this mean the british , german and french troops that fought beside us were also incapable of fighting on their own?
Or tell me why in todays military world you would possibly think the Iraqis could have led the charge in this combat exercise and had US. support of the offensive that acted independent of Iraqi command and control.
Last edited:
tieguy
Banned
"The facts were presented by a trained observer on the ground, under fire, embedded with the troops, whose reputation is beyond reproach. Sen. Warner even stated that his reporting was a credible description of what took place"
My dear I think I have given a very credible rebuttal of the information you posted. You certainly have not been able to rebut any of the points I have made. In fact you have floundered miserably trying. The points I made I feel prove that the information you presented was at the least slanted by the reporters bias and that slant heartily endorsed by you. Slanting information is a polite way of saying it was less than truthfull which is a polite way of saying it was dishonestly presented. As such its also very likely that Senator Warners statement was also misrepresented or at the least taken out of context from which he intended. I have a strong feeling you fully understand my points about misrepresenting information.
My dear I think I have given a very credible rebuttal of the information you posted. You certainly have not been able to rebut any of the points I have made. In fact you have floundered miserably trying. The points I made I feel prove that the information you presented was at the least slanted by the reporters bias and that slant heartily endorsed by you. Slanting information is a polite way of saying it was less than truthfull which is a polite way of saying it was dishonestly presented. As such its also very likely that Senator Warners statement was also misrepresented or at the least taken out of context from which he intended. I have a strong feeling you fully understand my points about misrepresenting information.
susiedriver
Well-Known Member
Lets see, what I said was George W, Bush was not entirely forthcoming when in his speech he said This year in Tal Afar, it was a very different story. The assault was primarily led by Iraqi security forces 11 Iraqi battalions, backed by five coalition battalions providing support.
According to Time Magazines bureau chief, who was embedded with the Iraqi Army in the battle; the Iraqi Army was, in fact led by US Special Forces Units, following a US battle plan. I said nothing more than that.
I never said anything of the sort. I believe the President said that when the Iraqis stand up, well stand down. Dont put words into my mouth.
I didnt say, imply or even think anything of the sort. Once again, President Bush is the one who claimed the Iraqis led the battle using US forces as support. I guess you are calling him a liar.
You have made absolutely no points. You have tried to misrepresent my statements. You have offered not one shred of evidence that the reporter is an any way biased. Sen. Warners statement was presented in full, without editing. The transcripts are on CNN.
When you have no facts and your own arguments prove that the Iraqis are incapable of leading an assault, I suppose you feel that just saying mission accomplished finishes the debate.
By the way, your pseudo quote from the Army Field Manual on leadership says that a leader accepts the consequences of their actions; do you believe GWB has done that?
Also, I have a very close friend who was a sniper in GW One, and he would reply that a sniper is a leader.
A final note to .5, I said immediately after my remark about leaving at $80:
Also I would be gone at $80 if you hadn't ticked me off, but I'll make you a deal...$90 and I'm gone, no changies.
A gal is allowed to change her mind once, isnt she?
tieguy
Banned
"I didn’t say, imply or even think anything of the sort. Once again, President Bush is the one who claimed the Iraqis led the battle using US forces as support. I guess you are calling him a liar."
You challenged his remarks by posting the slanted less than truthfull remarks of "someone who was there" as a rebuttal. By doing so you challenged Bushs statement that the Iraqi's led the charge by quoting this someone who was there who gave a description of what is essentially an operation combining Iraqi troops working with army special forces and 5 battalions of US troops in a support position working under US command and control. By posting this persons rebuttal you therefore challenged the concept of the 9 Iraqi battalions leading the charge in the aforementioned offensive.
In order to validate your point I believe you have to address what option was available that would have shown the Iraqi's were leading the charge based on this "someone who was there's" and your criteria. The only two are very undesirable options for us.
The first would require that the US support the Iraqi offensive working under Iraqi command and control. This the US does not do.
The second would be the US supporting the offensive while operating under their own autonomous command and control completely seperate from the Iraqis own command and control structure. This I believe would be disastorous.
You have to address this vital issue to prove your case.
If you cannot address this vital detail to prove your case then you have to conceed the point that your post was in error and that the news source who made this case clearly misrepresented the facts of this military offensive.
My point is directly on thread and directly addressed all points of your post that started this thread. You are now obligated to defend your attack on the presidents credibility and prove your case.
You challenged his remarks by posting the slanted less than truthfull remarks of "someone who was there" as a rebuttal. By doing so you challenged Bushs statement that the Iraqi's led the charge by quoting this someone who was there who gave a description of what is essentially an operation combining Iraqi troops working with army special forces and 5 battalions of US troops in a support position working under US command and control. By posting this persons rebuttal you therefore challenged the concept of the 9 Iraqi battalions leading the charge in the aforementioned offensive.
In order to validate your point I believe you have to address what option was available that would have shown the Iraqi's were leading the charge based on this "someone who was there's" and your criteria. The only two are very undesirable options for us.
The first would require that the US support the Iraqi offensive working under Iraqi command and control. This the US does not do.
The second would be the US supporting the offensive while operating under their own autonomous command and control completely seperate from the Iraqis own command and control structure. This I believe would be disastorous.
You have to address this vital issue to prove your case.
If you cannot address this vital detail to prove your case then you have to conceed the point that your post was in error and that the news source who made this case clearly misrepresented the facts of this military offensive.
My point is directly on thread and directly addressed all points of your post that started this thread. You are now obligated to defend your attack on the presidents credibility and prove your case.
susiedriver
Well-Known Member
Once again you are calling into question the remarks of Mr. Ware, backed up by the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. You yourself admit that the Iraqis would not be capable of leading such an operation. Admit it; bush embellished the Iraqis leadership role to suit his purpose. Just as he embellished Saddams weapons to justify an ill conceived invasion. He is the one who dismantled the Iraqi Army after the invasion. They have very little leadership at this point. Hopefully that will change soon, though one could wonder why, after nearly 1000 days, we havent trained a capable officers corps in Iraq yet.
My point exactly. Why would Bush imply that?
No, you must concede. The source was accurate in saying that the Iraqis were led by Green Beret forces and the entire operation was under the C&C of the US. The facts were misrepresented by the President.
Actually, no, your point as nebulous as it is, is just a Republican talking point. You ask for imaginary figures, yet cant come up with any real figures of your own. When asked how many Saddam killed in the two years leading up to the invasion, you throw out references to the Iran-Iraq War or Gulf War One. I have yet to see one fact presented by you, not one, big fella. Could it be that you have no facts to back up whatever point you claim to have made? The only point I can see is that there is no way the Iraqi Army could have possibly led the attack on Tal Afar. Thanks for proving that, and ducking every other question put to you.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
susiedriver
Well-Known Member
Visuals For The Reading Impared:
ok2bclever
I Re Member
Over, no, not really.
You disagree with what susie says and links to and that is your right, but tie is the unmitigated master self proclaimer of "I won, you lost".
Just reread some of these posts.
Not the contents of the arguments, as that will just make you mad reading what you don't want to hear
, but looking for the key phrases of I and You and you will find tie over and over praising his personal ability to argue and denegrading everyone elses.
Over and over and over.
He loves to paraphrase what his opponent says so he can try to put words in their mouths.
Guess he thinks most are too stupid to realize the original poster didn't actually say what he wants everyone to think they said.
Disagreeing with a philosophy is fine.
It's what America is all about.
Attacking the originator of an idea is what today's politics and tie is all about.
Realize, this has nothing to do with susie's arguments specifically which I know is the anthema of many on this forum, I'm just pointing out tie's style to personally attack and attempt to smear his way through a philosophy he disagrees with.
It's why I originally started firing back at the jerk.
At that time he was going after the guy with the french nickname and the dude with the bike motief and a few others, not me.
I thought what a piece of crap, the old style manager that I learned to despise at UPS, decided to front him on the issue and I knew that would make me his favorite target, so be it.
Luckily most such crap supes have been shoved into some useless, harmless corner of UPS or have been fired and I am pretty sure tie has probably been delegated and demoted to some such place so he takes his impotent frustrations out on those he disagrees with here.
You disagree with what susie says and links to and that is your right, but tie is the unmitigated master self proclaimer of "I won, you lost".
Just reread some of these posts.
Not the contents of the arguments, as that will just make you mad reading what you don't want to hear
, but looking for the key phrases of I and You and you will find tie over and over praising his personal ability to argue and denegrading everyone elses.Over and over and over.
He loves to paraphrase what his opponent says so he can try to put words in their mouths.
Guess he thinks most are too stupid to realize the original poster didn't actually say what he wants everyone to think they said.
Disagreeing with a philosophy is fine.
It's what America is all about.
Attacking the originator of an idea is what today's politics and tie is all about.
Realize, this has nothing to do with susie's arguments specifically which I know is the anthema of many on this forum, I'm just pointing out tie's style to personally attack and attempt to smear his way through a philosophy he disagrees with.
It's why I originally started firing back at the jerk.
At that time he was going after the guy with the french nickname and the dude with the bike motief and a few others, not me.
I thought what a piece of crap, the old style manager that I learned to despise at UPS, decided to front him on the issue and I knew that would make me his favorite target, so be it.
Luckily most such crap supes have been shoved into some useless, harmless corner of UPS or have been fired and I am pretty sure tie has probably been delegated and demoted to some such place so he takes his impotent frustrations out on those he disagrees with here.
ok2bclever
I Re Member
Boy, that chart is truly graphic.
I guess I am more indebted to bush than I realized.
I guess I am more indebted to bush than I realized.
tieguy
Banned
Excellent. Suzie you again avoided answering the questions critical to your case. You then tried to change direction on this thread in another effort to dodge anwering the question. Okie Dokie then tried to come to your rescue to save you from your impending defeat. Therefore I will now await your concession speech with the appropriate humility.
susiedriver
Well-Known Member
Sure there, big fella, whatever you say. Your brilliance is simply astounding, they way you were able to amass all those facts supporting your position was truly impressive, you must have spent all night at the library.
tieguy
Banned
Not required Suzie. Your biggest problem is you are in such a hurry to post information that slams Bush, this country and our valiant soldiors efferts in Iraq that you don't take the extra second you need to think this information through. Library research is not required. Your concession speech is accepted. 
susiedriver
Well-Known Member
Classic tie. I have never slammed this country, or it's fine men & women in uniform, nor have I diminished the service they give to our great nation. As for Bush, he lied to get us into this ill begotten mess, and now he's trying to lie his way out. How come he didn't pay homage to the brave Marines that gave their lives and were maimed in Fallujah when he gave his little speech in the Rose Garden?tieguy said:Not required Suzie. Your biggest problem is you are in such a hurry to post information that slams Bush, this country and our valiant soldiors (sic) efferts(sic) in Iraq that you don't take the extra second you need to think this information through. Library research is not required. Your concession speech is accepted.
I know facts get in the way of your views; perhaps that is why you have not posted even a single fact in all of your long-winded ramblings. Time to give it up, big fella, pour yourself another drink.
ok2bclever
I Re Member
Perfect, thank you for the succinct example of post #34, one needs to go no farther than that one as the rest are just repeats with more filler. 
dannyboy
From the promised LAND
Susie
Just another persective. Why is it always your line that Bush lied. Ever think it might have been bad intel, or that someone else lied to him, and he was acting in good faith?
What about all those lawmakers that saw the same information that bush did, I guess they lied as well? And Tony Blair?
Why is it your opinion that it was only bush that lied?
d
Just another persective. Why is it always your line that Bush lied. Ever think it might have been bad intel, or that someone else lied to him, and he was acting in good faith?
What about all those lawmakers that saw the same information that bush did, I guess they lied as well? And Tony Blair?
Why is it your opinion that it was only bush that lied?
d
Similar threads
