The first strike; not what we expected.

[TeknoAXE]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81677,00.html

From all information that we've been getting, it appears that the United States has veared greatly off of its original battle plan to strike specific targets. The strike, in no way, resembled what we were to expect, and even our allies are surprised at the quickness this initial attack was conducted.

Any thoughts on this?

AXE

[DJ Rawkus]

Wow. I haven't seen anything spun that hard since I saw a dreidel during that "one Jewish holiday". Way to spread misinfo AXE!

[186k\sec]

thoughts?

sure,,

we're sending an army to swat a fly..

[kristinachilds]

the point of the air strike (minus the psychological damage) was to go after military leaders (eg saddam hussein.) when they thought they got him, they halted further attack to see if further attack was even necessary. so many iraqi soldiers are surrendering, and if saddam and his sons were dead, what would be the point?

i respect them for stopping, even though they were talking so loudly about "shock and awe." it just goes to show that they DO indeed want to limit loss of life.

what i wonder is why this attack on Saddam is being viewed as an attack on Islam when Saddam created a secular state and oppressed the Muslim population. I can see why Islamic fundamentalists would use this as an excuse to rally more support against the US, but this raises some questions:

a) [accurately] how widespread is this view?

b) if it is widespread, how true are the reports/rumors that Saddam inhibited free worship (or rather speech of worship?)

c) if he did indeed oppress Islam, why are so many Muslims sure that the US attack on Iraq is an attack on Islam?


thoughts?

[Tecknowledgy]

Oregonian this morning confirms that Saddam and at least one of his sons WERE infact in the bunker bombed on the first day of the strikes...

Now ponder this, if this is true, and the object of this war was to liberate Iraqi oil, I mean people, from the rule of Saddam, and he's now dead...why the fuck are bombs still being dropped all over Iraq?

[186k\sec]

he's now dead...why the fuck are bombs still being dropped all over Iraq?

Is he? - I dont think that has been confirmed. - if its true, you have a great question !

[Tecknowledgy]

The front page of my Oregonian says he is...but who the fuck knows?

I'm still looking for the article so I can put it up...I'll put the lines pertaining to this in this thread.

[kristinachilds]

he's now dead...now you're/they're editorializing. even though one of them may have been in the bunker, that's not enough proof to declare him dead.

...also, i don't think one is enough. three is *snicker* a crowd.

okay, i'll stop.

[Tecknowledgy]

Originally posted by kristinachilds
now you're/they're editorializing. even though one of them may have been in the bunker, that's not enough proof to declare him dead.

...also, i don't think one is enough. three is *snicker* a crowd.

okay, i'll stop.

Now you're taking things out of context like you always do...put the word "IF" back in front of that quote and it completely changes...

[TeknoAXE]

Originally posted by DJ Rawkus
Wow. I haven't seen anything spun that hard since I saw a dreidel during that "one Jewish holiday". Way to spread misinfo AXE!

There was no spin. This was posted an ALL major news sites. Obviously you haven't kept up with things, so I fail to see how you can sling insults when you don't even know what's going. In any case, the shock and awe bombing of Iraq is going on now. This is going to be the psychological hit against Iraq, and hopefully most of the forces there will be ready to give up by the time the 3rd infantry Division gets there.

AXE

[Tecknowledgy]

Ok, found the article...This is taken from the March 21st Oregonian.

U.S. officials say Iraqi leader was in bunker hit by missiles
By Walter Pincus, Bob Woodward and Dana Priest

"U.S. intelligence officials say Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, possibly accompanied by one or both of his powerful sons, was inside a compound in southern Baghdad early Thursday when it was struck by a barrage of U.S. bombs and cruise missiles..."

Ah...further into the article which I didn't completely read it says, "But intelligence analysts in Washington and operatives working in the region weren't certain whether the Iraqi leader was killed or injured or escaped the attack..."

Nevermind...

[HexRei]

Originally posted by Tecknowledgy
Ok, found the article...This is taken from the March 21st Oregonian.

U.S. officials say Iraqi leader was in bunker hit by missiles
By Walter Pincus, Bob Woodward and Dana Priest

"U.S. intelligence officials say Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, possibly accompanied by one or both of his powerful sons, was inside a compound in southern Baghdad early Thursday when it was struck by a barrage of U.S. bombs and cruise missiles..."

Ah...further into the article which I didn't completely read it says, "But intelligence analysts in Washington and operatives working in the region weren't certain whether the Iraqi leader was killed or injured or escaped the attack..."

Nevermind...

No one knows for sure. There are reports but the Iraqi gov't claims he is still alive and they have broadcast footage that they claim is post-attack of him addressing the nation and meeting with officials. So there is a good chance he is still alive.
They have not surrendered and are still fighting back in the name of Saddam. They have launched a couple of scuds so far...

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by 186k\sec
thoughts?

sure,,

we're sending an army to swat a fly..

riiiiggghht.

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Tecknowledgy
Oregonian this morning confirms that Saddam and at least one of his sons WERE infact in the bunker bombed on the first day of the strikes...

Now ponder this, if this is true, and the object of this war was to liberate Iraqi oil, I mean people, from the rule of Saddam, and he's now dead...why the fuck are bombs still being dropped all over Iraq?

Becuase there is still resistance.

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Buttrock_Beethoven


There was no spin. This was posted an ALL major news sites. Obviously you haven't kept up with things, so I fail to see how you can sling insults when you don't even know what's going. In any case, the shock and awe bombing of Iraq is going on now. This is going to be the psychological hit against Iraq, and hopefully most of the forces there will be ready to give up by the time the 3rd infantry Division gets there.

AXE

Yeah that 3rd infantry is obvious the spearhead to bagdhad. The military have been strong FOX supporters and it looks like they are getting the best coverage becuase of it. They have some good reporters with that 3rd division.

[kristinachilds]

Originally posted by Tecknowledgy
Now you're taking things out of context like you always do...put the word "IF" back in front of that quote and it completely changes... like i always do? how so?

"and he's now dead...why the fuck are bombs still being dropped all over Iraq?"

this is what i was responding to. "if" woudn't have changed the context at all, but i'll put it into different words to make more sense:

whether or not he was in the bunker doesn't mean he's dead. since they can't prove (e.g. don't think) he's been killed, they will continue the strike. besides, i have a hunch they want all three gone for good.

[Carley]

Bodies everywhere... (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/21/1047749944836.html)

[TeknoAXE]

Originally posted by Carley
Bodies everywhere... (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/21/1047749944836.html)

Well, I know the purpose for a registration shot, but that pretty much signified that the artillery unit was not ready to surrender.

AXE

[Tecknowledgy]

Originally posted by kristinachilds
like i always do? how so?

"and he's now dead...why the fuck are bombs still being dropped all over Iraq?"

this is what i was responding to. "if" woudn't have changed the context at all, but i'll put it into different words to make more sense:

whether or not he was in the bunker doesn't mean he's dead. since they can't prove (e.g. don't think) he's been killed, they will continue the strike. besides, i have a hunch they want all three gone for good.

Ugh...there's seriously no reasoning with you. Yes, you always take things out of context, much like what I was saying...you took three words and used them alone to make it sound like I'm speaking pure fact, just so you can argue with me and flex your pseudo-politically aware muscles.

I don't know how to deal with you, it seems you consistently post just to twist words around to start an argument of some sort...it doesn't look like you have any real viewpoints on anything, just disagreeing with whatever was last said. I'm pretty tired of you and you're really losing credibility in my book. I know that probably doesn't mean much to you, but whatever.

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by HexRei
They have launched a couple of scuds so far...

Bullshit! Saddam doesn't have those banned weapons!

[Tecknowledgy]

Originally posted by Tecknowledgy
Oregonian this morning confirms that Saddam and at least one of his sons WERE infact in the bunker bombed on the first day of the strikes...

Now ponder this, if this is true, and the object of this war was to liberate Iraqi oil, I mean people, from the rule of Saddam, and he's now dead...why the fuck are bombs still being dropped all over Iraq?

Notice that I'm posing a theoretical question there? If I could draw your attention to the part where I said "If this is true..." where I clearly show that I'm uncertain of whether or not it is infact true, you'll notice that when YOU excluded that part and focused only on the words he's now dead you blatantly twisted what I said around to make it sound as though I was 100% certain he had been killed...

Please don't do that.

[kristinachilds]

Originally posted by Tecknowledgy


Ugh...there's seriously no reasoning with you. Yes, you always take things out of context, much like what I was saying...you took three words and used them alone to make it sound like I'm speaking pure fact, just so you can argue with me and flex your pseudo-politically aware muscles.

I don't know how to deal with you, it seems you consistently post just to twist words around to start an argument of some sort...it doesn't look like you have any real viewpoints on anything, just disagreeing with whatever was last said. I'm pretty tired of you and you're really losing credibility in my book. I know that probably doesn't mean much to you, but whatever. (in a calm, caring tone)

if i disagree with something, i'm going to say so, and say why. what's the point of having discussion or debate if everyone is always agreeing? isn't that the nature of debate; to disagree and discuss? perhaps i'll learn something new or change my viewpoint. it seems you just don't like my views. that's fine, that's the beauty of democracy.
however, calling me names, and claiming i twist words without giving me instances isnt' going to do any good. if i have a tendency to "twist words" as you say, i'd like to know so i can take care to stop it.

in this particular instance, i still fail to see how i've taken your words out of context, especially after i put it into other words "whether or not he was in the bunker doesn't mean he's dead. since they can't prove (e.g. don't think) he's been killed, they will continue the strike. besides, i have a hunch they want all three gone for good." i wasn't saying you were wrong, and i surely wasn't sniffing for an argument. all i was saying is that they are still dropping bombs because there is no way to know *if* Saddam is really dead. you put a question on the table and I answered it. in no way could you have been “wrong” because you didn’t state any fact. likewise, I couldn’t have tried to “argue” with you, because you stated no fact to argue over. if you thought my comment was directed in order to belittle you, i apologize. that was not my intention.

i like discussion, but a discussion of yes men is a boring one indeed. that’s the main reason why i spend so much of my work hours on this board. i like being able to hear differing opinions and being able to voice mine. i don't look for argument, i look for intelligent conversation. losing credibility does mean something to me (obviously, or i wouldn't be taking care to write this post.) what i don't understand is why you are beginning not to take me seriously. because i have differing opinion? becuase i participate in a lot of discussion? maybe i should word my posts more carefully? understand that while i am full of passion and have a lot of opinions, i am a mild tempered, caring individual, and would never try to instigate a fight/argument, and absolutely never say demeaning or hurtful things. (...well. almost never. it takes a lot to get me to say such things, and you'll know it when i do, because i'll say so.)

tone is a hard thing to read in text, so if i have mislead you i'm very sorry. all i want is engaging discussion, so if i offend, please let me know so i can either explain what i really meant, or apologize.

sincerely,
k

[kristinachilds]

Originally posted by Tecknowledgy


Notice that I'm posing a theoretical question there? If I could draw your attention to the part where I said "If this is true..." where I clearly show that I'm uncertain of whether or not it is infact true, you'll notice that when YOU excluded that part and focused only on the words he's now dead you blatantly twisted what I said around to make it sound as though I was 100% certain he had been killed...

Please don't do that. and again, i pulled my quote from 186k's quote, not yours. that's why i only used those words. but i'm sorry, i will refrain from doing that in the future.