E6Hotel

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Mar. 23 2003,05:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quick rundown: At the 101st ABD's camp in Kuwait, someone rolled a couple grenades into a tent and injured over ten soldiers, including brigade/battalion command staff. After the initial confusion, the only loose end that turned up was one missing trooper, who was tasked to guard duty near the tent. After a short search, they found the guy hiding in a bunker in the camp. Well, naturally they want to inquire as to what the hell happened, so they flex-cuffed the bastard and are probably grilling him as we speak.<span id='postcolor'> I'm wondering about this guy's religious affiliation. Â Hope he's not a Muslim. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ Mar. 23 2003,04:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'll give you a Navy Hoo-yah, none of that jarhead shit for us squids. <span id='postcolor'> Ooh rah! Semper Fi

A couple of things to consider. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Mar. 22 2003,22:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Thirdly, I must emphasise that the plans for Iraq cannot be compared to the Marshall plans since Germany was a country with a democratic tradition and eager to reimplement it after the war. Iraq has no such tradition and therefore implementing democracy in Iraq  would be like telling an elephant to wear high-heels.<span id='postcolor'> That's true.  However, it must be pointed out that Japan had no democratic tradition, either, but turned out well.  Like Iraq, they had an educated population and resources.  I'm not saying that Iraq and Japan are comparable -- Japan, for example, didn't have three separate ethnic groups constantly trying to kill each other. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Mar. 22 2003,22:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Thirdly, the US (in contrast to the UK, France and Spain) has no experience in the area of governing colony-like states.<span id='postcolor'> The problem here is the assumption that we'd try to "colonize" Iraq.  As the two examples above illustrate, there's no historical basis to support that claim. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (interstat @ Mar. 21 2003,23:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">'BTW: Â The photo of the ship dates back to the Afghanistan invasion, which is clearly a result of some of the events listed.' So is the Taliban somehow related to blowing up the American soldiers in Lebanon? Is the Taliban related to PAN AM downing?<span id='postcolor'> I draw your attention to the word "some" in my quote. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Badgerboy @ Mar. 21 2003,22:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Colin Powell came back at a journalist with that one didn't he? He's the only guy in the cabinet I have any respect for.<span id='postcolor'> Unfortunately, it's an urban legend. Do you realize how long I've been waiting to use that line? Â Set-ups like that come along once in a blue moon. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FallenPaladin @ Mar. 21 2003,23:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In german media they say the US used it`s B52 bombers for raiding Baghdad. Veeeeeery precise.<span id='postcolor'> B-52 = JDAMs </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FallenPaladin @ Mar. 21 2003,23:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I hope the amount of dead civilians is not too high.<span id='postcolor'> Me too. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Badgerboy @ Mar. 21 2003,21:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ignorance, consider that only 13% of US students can point out the country they are attacking on a map.<span id='postcolor'> *From Saddam's point of view* Good news: Â Only 13% of young Americans can find Baghdad on a map. Bad news: Â They're all Marines. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Mar. 21 2003,2107)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why is it that only the US Marines are allowed to have long memories. Â Why are countries like Iran not allowed to remember what the US did to them under the Shah.<span id='postcolor'> Â Sorry, I didn't get this memo. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Mar. 21 2003,2107)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Perhaps it's lucky for the USA that the Japanese, Guatemalans, Cambodians, Chileans, El Salvadorians, Nicaraguans, Panamanians and Sudanese don't have such long memories.<span id='postcolor'> Certainly can't argue about Central and South America. Â Our history there is almost completely indefensible. Â Then again, it is completely unrelated to the terror attacks documented on the ship. BTW: Â The photo of the ship dates back to the Afghanistan invasion, which is clearly a result of some of the events listed. Â Â Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (interstat @ Mar. 21 2003,1907)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">After the 'greatly competent' american Navy shot down an Iranian passenger plane in the 1980's I have though that the Iranians hired Palestinians to blow the plane up.<span id='postcolor'> Er, Pan Am 103 was Libya's handiwork. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (interstat @ Mar. 21 2003,1907)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why put that on the side of your ship? Â What's Lebannon got to do with this illegal attack on a soverign state? Â So is the US Navy against the Palestinian's and their struggle?<span id='postcolor'> No, the U.S. Navy is not against the Palestinian people. Â Lebonese terrorists, on the other hand... Well, let's just say we've got long memories, too. Â The USMC would like nothing better than to square off against Hezbollah. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wires @ Mar. 21 2003,03:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They aren't using USMC chopper pilots again are they  it's happened before and a big op failed - they only used them because the USMC was going to be left out too. Stupid prideful commanders  It could very well be the appauling weather atm with all the big dust storms. So BBC says 12 US 4 Brit and Fox says 12 Brit and 4 US not really surprising.<span id='postcolor'> Pardon me if I seem testy, but could you fill me in on this failed operation?  I'd be interested to hear about a combat operation where we had to weasel a role for ourselves. The problem is not with the pilots -- they receive the same training other helo pilots get.  It's the birds.  The newest -46's are over 30 years old. Truly sorry for the loss of the Brits.  Per Mare, Per Terram

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hellfish6 @ Mar. 21 2003,00:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oh, yeah, I know all that, but I always thought that when an MUE was deployed, it was more or less independent. Like when a Ranger battalion deploys, it is independent of the 75th Ranger Regiment and instead is under the command of the regional HQ or the Joint Chiefs.<span id='postcolor'> True. Â If a MEU is on a typical deployment, it operates independently under the command of a Colonel. Â The MEF's role is to coordinate the training and integration of the component units before deployment. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hellfish6 @ Mar. 21 2003,00:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I guess if there's an MEF HQ in the area, the MEU is then subordinate to that MEF. I wasn't sure if that was the case or if it was attached to CENTCOM directly or not.<span id='postcolor'> Sounds good to me! Â But seriously. Â A MEU is subordinate to a MEF, which is subordinate to the "combatant commander," which in the present case I'd interpret to mean General Franks/CENTCOM. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hellfish6 @ Mar. 20 2003,23:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">MEUs are technically seperate from MEFs, right? Like I know that the 15th MEU is from the 1st MarDiv, but are they always under operational control of 1 MarDiv or CENTCOM?<span id='postcolor'> <deep breath> Okay... from small to large: A battalion (e.g. 1st Bn, 5th Marine Regt) is the ground combat element of a MEU. Â A division (e.g. 1 MarDiv) is the gce of a MEF. Â Each MEF (we've got three -- I MEF in Pendleton, II MEF in Lejeune, and III MEF in Okinawa) has operational control of it's ground, air, and support elements. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Othin @ Mar. 20 2003,21:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I've heard that a Brit is in charge of a large number of U.S. Marines, any truth to this?<span id='postcolor'> The 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU), a component of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force (1 MEF), is under the command of Brigadier Dutton, the commander of 3 Commando Brigade. 1 MEF is under the command of USMC LtGen Conway. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Mar. 20 2003,00:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Impossible to hide or not, they still did it.<span id='postcolor'> Yes, I know. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Mar. 20 2003,00:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Planting WMD evidence in Iraq might be "impossible to hide", but who's to say they still won't try it?<span id='postcolor'> Again, you are entitled to your opinion. Â My opinion, and I suspect the opinion of many service members, is that planting fake evidence would be stupid, pointless, and ultimately would be discovered. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Mar. 20 2003,00:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Or is lying and espionage acceptable if there is a good chance you will be caught out after the fact?<span id='postcolor'> Actually, as has been said about twenty times already, "a good chance you will be caught out after the fact" is a good argument against these types of activities. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Mar. 19 2003,20:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In my opinion, recruiting and coaching the Kuwaiti ambassador's 15 year-old daughter to misrepresent herself and tell lies to the US congress goes a bit beyond "propaganda." Â Sorry, if you disagree.<span id='postcolor'> Oh, I agree. Â I think that Citizens for a Free Kuwait, the Kuwaiti lobbying group that recruited "Nayirah," was out of line. Â Hill and Knowlton, the American P.R. firm, was equally guilty. Â HOWEVER: Â If you're going to blame the U.S. government for believing the story, make sure you spread some of that blame over to Amnesty International, who validated the story as well. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 19 2003,2109)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As for the capabilities of hiding some nasty things from the public, I have two words for you: My Lai.<span id='postcolor'> Once again, this points out the impossibility of keeping stuff like that hidden. Â BTW, who blew the whistle about Mai Lai? Â U.S. Army Warrant Officer Hugh Thompson. And re. small teams of SF or CIA planting the WMD's, I hope they make two trips, 'cause carrying 10,000 gallons of anthrax at one time can hurt your back. Â Remember, bend at the knees! Â Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 19 2003,17:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1) While it perhaps didn't create it, it used it fully, referenced to it and transmitted it.<span id='postcolor'> Yep, but as I hope I've finally made clear, that's not my point. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 19 2003,17:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">2) This is one example. How do you know that there are not thousands of other deceptions that didn't come out.<span id='postcolor'> You know the flip side of this argument. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 19 2003,17:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It leaves only two options. US intelligence is either 1) Grossly incompetent 2) Grossly incompetent and malicious.<span id='postcolor'> I'd suggest a third option: 3) Human and therefore imperfect. I don't buy 1) because these are the same people who (among other things) brought NK's nuclear program into the light while in-country UN nuclear inspectors didn't. Â Not the sort of work riders on the short bus would be capable of performing. Â Ignoring the "grossly incompetent" part of 2), I don't buy the malicious bit either, because as has been repeated ad infinitum in this very thread, U.S. intel is on record as downplaying the likelihood of an Iraq-AQ connection. Â Not the action of a group of warmongering assassins. Â </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 19 2003,17:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The US and UK governements has shown that it is both willing and able to both forge evidence and to support forged evidence to further their cause.<span id='postcolor'> What evidence has the U.S. or UK forged? Â The Brit's intel report? Â Plagiarized but mostly accurate, yes. Â Forged, no. Â I can't say who forged the Nigerian docs (and neither can anyone else on this board), but judging by the conniptions the CIA and FBI are having right now, I don't think we made 'em. As for supporting forged evidence, the question is whether the information was known to be forged at the time it was presented. Â Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Mar. 19 2003,1806)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Schoeler felt that the US would never manufacture WMD evidence and propagate such a deception. Â And anyone who believes the US could do such a thing is "fucking nuts." Longinius argued against this, using the GW1 incubator scam as an example. You defended Schoeler by pointing out that the incubator scam was not manufactured by the US. I've been arguing that if the US could propagate such a deception (as they did with the incubator scam) then it's very likely the US could also manufacture such a deception.<span id='postcolor'> I'm sure you'll agree that the last thing Schoeler needs is me defending him. The point I'm arguing is that the incubator story is stronger evidence that the U.S. would not invent a story and would not be able to keep it under wraps in the event said story was invented. Has the U.S. ever used propaganda? Â Who hasn't? Â This particular example, however, does not support the case being presented. Â At least make sure the reasons for distrusting us are accurate. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Mar. 19 2003,08:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So, based on the incubator scam the bottom line seems to be this: Â If Saddam Hussein's enemies plant evidence of WMDs for the US military to find then the US government could be expected to propagate such a deception, even if they know the evidence to be bogus. Â However, we'd all have to be "fucking nuts" to believe that the US military would directly plant such evidence themselves, right? Â Umm... sure thing, Sarge.<span id='postcolor'> I tried to follow this paragraph all the way through, but I just don't have enough mental RAM, I guess. Â It's safe to say that since I don't have a frickin' clue what the paragraph says, it doesn't reflect my viewpoint. Let me try again. The incubator story was brought up in a discussion about (1) whether the U.S. government would plant WMD's in Iraq and (2) whether such an act could be concealed. Â My response indicated that the incubator story was not convincing evidence, because (1) we didn't create the incubator story, and (2) the truth eventually got out. As you have conceded, these are facts. At no time did I defend the incubator story, and in fact pointed out that I don't think it was necessary to use it to justify our actions. If you believe that we'll plant WMD's in Iraq, go ahead -- you're entitled to your own opinion. Â However, you are not entitled to your own facts. Semper Fi

One question from the Jarhead perspective: Where's the bayonet lug? Â Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Mar. 19 2003,0507)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Do you honestly believe it was ok for the US to propagate the incubator deception as long as the fable originated elsewhere?<span id='postcolor'> Nope. Â Never claimed it was. Â And I sure as hell don't think it was necessary to use it to justify our actions in the Gulf War. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Mar. 19 2003,0507)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Schoeler: Â You guys are fucking nuts. Â The U.S. doesn't work that way, and even if it tried, it couldn't get away with it. Â Americans would blow the whistle. Â That just a bunch of conspiracy theorist irrational paranoid bullshit, and anyone with half an education and a rationally working mind is laughing at you right now. Longinius: Â What about the made up report of Iraqi soldiers killing babies in incubators during GW1? E6Hotel: Â And one final reminder, the U.S. did not originate the incubator story. Â It was first told by the exiled Kuwaiti housing minister, and reported by The London Daily Telegraph on September 5, 1990.<span id='postcolor'> Bush Sr did not quote the Kuwaiti minister. Â Bush Sr sold the GW1 idea using the bogus incubator testimony before congress that had been arranged by representatives Lantos and Porter. Â In other word, yes Virginia, the US does work that way.<span id='postcolor'> 1) Â Incubator story presented as evidence of U.S. propensity to manufacture evidence. 2) Â U.S. didn't create incubator story. Â 3) Â On December 10, 1990 USA Today reported: "A doctor just out of Kuwait challenges assertions by President Bush and Kuwait exiles that invading Iraqi soldiers had dumped babies out of incubators." Â -- further substantiation of Schoeler's claim that someone, somewhere would blow the whistle if the U.S. tried to plant WMD's in Iraq. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Mar. 19 2003,02:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't really carry about who may have mentioned Kuwait's dozen incubators before 10 October.<span id='postcolor'> For anyone who does care about the facts, here are a few links showing that what I posted was correct. Incubator story origin Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 19 2003,00:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Either way it makes a good case for not trusting US intelligence reports.<span id='postcolor'> It makes an even better case that the U.S. wouldn't do something as blatantly stupid as planting WMD's in Iraq, because it would get out. Â Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Mar. 18 2003,22:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Uhm, what about the evidence that have proven to be falcified all ready? What about the made up report of Iraqi soldiers killing babies in incubators during GW1? <span id='postcolor'> I assume you're referring to the Brit's plagiarized intel brief and/or the fake "nuclear shopping spree" docs. Â In the first case, you're overlooking the fact that the report, while not properly footnoted, is factually correct (with the exception of one date being off by two years). Â In the second case, while the counterfeiter hasn't yet been named, it wasn't the U.S. Wrong information does not always equal falsified information. And one final reminder, the U.S. did not originate the incubator story. Â It was first told by the exiled Kuwaiti housing minister, and reported by The London Daily Telegraph on September 5, 1990. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Red Oct @ Mar. 14 2003,20:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">if that's too much work for ya, could i intrest you in a mint condition delorian? another guy near where i live has one in great shape it looks as if it came right off the assembly line.<span id='postcolor'> Does it still have the factory-installed Mr. Fusion and flux capacitors? Semper Fi