Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I've said from the beginning the military is being misused. We're trained to go out and take shit, and destroy anything that gets in between us and the shit.
Using our military forces as glorified cops takes away our military advantage and puts our troops on the skyline as targets. To make it worse, any time they do take action the left-wingnuts start crying "foul."
The only way the military should be used in this situation is if they declare martial law and let the military strictly enforce it WITHOUT political consideration trumping strategy and tactics.
And screw that love-in shit. That's THEIR problem. They can square it away or the military does it for them most likely in a manner neither side is going to like.
Yep, a few weeks ago I saw a posting on I think Blackfive that unless the military is going to be used to decisively kill the jihadists in Iraq, making clear they are taking control, there is no sense in trying to 'win the minds and souls.' The order is all wrong and those are political decisions at work.
The irony here is I have maintained this stance from the beginning. I STILL recall some Republicans/conservatives jumping in my ass for daring to hold such an opinion a few years ago.
It's like time-lapse common sense.
Point well taken. My guess is that those that 'jumped you' didn't have your training. I admit to being happy when I read about schools being built, etc. Now they are being destroyed, because of lack of control.
Not at all.
I wasn't posting on this board at the time.
The schools are being destroyed because John Q Iraqi allows these idiots to hide out and operate in their midst unopposed. If they don't want to fight for their own freedom, screw 'em.
The question becomes now where do we draw the line, and how do we get out with our reputation intact? The MSM won't print the truth. They'll have their "defeat" and "disaster" mechanisms in full swing.
I don't see us leaving because the Iraqi people won't support their own freedom as a loss. We went there to kick Saddam out.
Iraq is not unsalvageable. I just don't see politicians changing their ways to salvage it, and that includes the Dim-o-craps who think they have a "mandate to govern."
Yeah, I'm a real pacifist....
Sure you are, are you for all out war in Iraq alla WWII?
Different wars....different reasons. This one, no. Not worth one allied life IMO...
Sure you are, are you for all out war in Iraq alla WWII?
This isn't like WWII. But you might try asking if we should have put our resources into Afghanistan instead of starting this war of adventure.
So it's all cut and run for you , hey Grump?
Yup...you?
I personally think that regardless of what I think about how we got there the reality is that, unlike Vietnam, this particular war has the actual danger of reaching our shores if we are foolish enough to leave that nation in disarray. We must be smarter than that and leave when the leaving can be accomplished without handing total victory to the terrorists we do fight there... Not every person fighting our forces or even attacking their citizens are Iraqis and ignoring the danger would be foolish indeed.
I personally think that regardless of what I think about how we got there the reality is that, unlike Vietnam, this particular war has the actual danger of reaching our shores if we are foolish enough to leave that nation in disarray. We must be smarter than that and leave when the leaving can be accomplished without handing total victory to the terrorists we do fight there... Not every person fighting our forces or even attacking their citizens are Iraqis and ignoring the danger would be foolish indeed.
And I think we've done more to set back the "war on terror" with this adventure into Iraq than almost anything else we could have done. Saying it "has the danger of reaching our shores" is kind of besides the point because it got to our shores when the towers were attacked the first time. We didn't blow up white supremacists because Timothy McVeigh committed a terrorist act. Nor should we have invaded a country that didn't attack us when we were attacked by a bunch of Saudis trained in Afghanistan.
If you want to avoid terrorism on our shores, tell your representatives in Congress to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
*Edit* It also seems to me that when there's a total screw up in policy, that saying "well, we screwed up, so now we have to continue screwing up" is pretty poor justification for the continuing loss of lives of our service people and those innocent Iraqis caught up in it.
And I think we've done more to set back the "war on terror" with this adventure into Iraq than almost anything else we could have done. Saying it "has the danger of reaching our shores" is kind of besides the point because it got to our shores when the towers were attacked the first time. We didn't blow up white supremacists because Timothy McVeigh committed a terrorist act. Nor should we have invaded a country that didn't attack us when we were attacked by a bunch of Saudis trained in Afghanistan.
1. I agree it has distracted from the "war on terror;" however, at this point, it appears they are one and the same.
2. White supremicists as a matter of policy do not commit acts of terror. If and when they violate the law they are held accountable.
3. As far as which Arab nation the 9/11 terrorists are from, you're thinking like an American, and placing traditional boundaries on militant Islamics/terrorists who do not recognize said boundaries. They come and go anywhere in the Middle East they wish.
If you want to avoid terrorism on our shores, tell your representatives in Congress to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
The recommendations of the 9/11 Commission would no more secure us against terrorist attacks than the Patriot Act will. The Patriot Act was an act of appeasement; while, the 9/11 Commission was just a hunt for scapegoats, and a chance for Democrats to criticize the Administration and offer alternative recommendations than the Republicans/Administration.
*Edit* It also seems to me that when there's a total screw up in policy, that saying "well, we screwed up, so now we have to continue screwing up" is pretty poor justification for the continuing loss of lives of our service people and those innocent Iraqis caught up in it.
HMMMMMM, ZERO, ZILCH, NADA, Terror attacks since 9/11. Yea, thats a pathetic and losing record.
As for the liberals, its ironic and telling. They claim we shouldnt have entered Iraq at all, even if Saddam was torturing and murdering thousands of the Iraqis. Let it go on they said.
Fast forward. Now in Iraq, almost all the violence is happening to the Iraqis and NOT the US servicemen.
But of course the hypocritical liberals are screaming that we have caused a mess over there, and how bad that is, when really, its no different than when Saddam was in, except we dont have to worry about Iraq acquiring nukes right now.
Last months causulty count was an abberation because it was prior to the elections and ramaden for the Islamos. Plain and simple.
Other than that the count has been going steadily down on our number of deaths.
Regarding "winning" the war, hmmm, I oont think anyone has a real good explanation for what that would involve since we are not, for the first time in history, battling a conventional war or enemy.
However, we do have a clear cut GOAL, and we are achieving it. Turn the security duty over to the Iraqis, and we are accomplishing that goal. Let it continue and we will be out of there. What happens then is anybodys guess and not our responsability. Another thing it will accomplish is keeping the terrorists very busy over there so they cant concentrate on hitting US soil. Also not to mention that many thousands of terrorists would be getting killed.
Which has nothing to do with Iraq. There were no attacks during the seven years between the two tower attacks, either.
How many Iraqis have been murdered during this little misadventure?
Which directly contradicts your prior statement. Saddam bad because thousands of Iraqis were killed. Occupying Iraq good even THOUGH thousands of Iraqis are dying?
Did anyone ask the Iraqi people what THEY wanted? Nope. Pretty stupid and heavy-handed if that's your justification.
Saddam's weapons weren't a threat to us.
And, in fact, seems he didn't have weapons to speak of, at all..... which all of the reliable intelligence confirmed.... too bad Cheney, Rummy and their neo-con buddies didn't care about the reliable intel.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/24/w...e1b1e85db&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
That's wholly and totally inaccurate.
If there's no definition for "winning" then we have no business being there.
Terrorists? Or people who want us off their land? Who's the enemy? What's the objective? What defines victory? Aren't they fighting because we're there? Without those questions being answered, there should never have been a military operation. What you're really talking about is being damned if we do, damned if we don't. That's probably fairly accurate. But the question remains, if we're damned either way, then not another life should be lost because of it. And if we leave, they'll stop fighting us. It's not our job to be in the middle of a civil war between Shi'a and Sunni..... a civil war created because we destabilized a stable country in an otherwise unstable region. And you can say anything you want about Saddam... he was a vile leader, but we had no problem with him when it suited our political agenda. And THAT'S the biggest hypocrisy of all... so it's kind of boring to hear about "liberal hypocrisy". Our efforts should have been focused on Afghanistan. Everything else is Bush's war of choice.... a war of choice that's killing our troops and bankrupting our country.
