Our boys are Dyin' over in Iraq because of Bush's Weak Policy?

[-Cp]

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=10478&news_iv_ctrl=1221

Moral Cowardice Prevents Winning the War
Thursday December 23, 2004


IRVINE, CA--The blame for the murder of 19 Americans in Mosul yesterday lies not only with the insurgents who initiated the attack, but also with the Bush Administration's suicidal policies, said Dr. Yaron Brook, president of the Ayn Rand Institute. "The insurgency would have been crushed long ago, and yesterday's attack averted, were it not for America's altruistic policy of placing the lives of Iraqi civilians above its own self-defense.

"America must destroy the insurgency if we are to implement a non-threatening government in Iraq," said Dr. Brook. "This can be done, but to do so we must make the insurgency's complicit civilian population--those who harbor and support the insurgents--pay for the violence that they abet. We must enforce their complete surrender to our presence. Thanks to such a policy, during the occupation of Japan zero soldiers were killed by insurgents and the threat posed by the country was ended.

"Shamefully, the Bush Administration has been unwilling to make hostile Iraqi civilians pay for their crimes," said Dr. Brook. "Time and again, it has treated Iraqi lives as sacrosanct and American security and soldiers as dispensable. It is in the name of sparing civilians that our soldiers have been ordered to follow crippling rules of engagement that have cost hundreds of their lives. It was in the name of sparing civilians that we withdrew from Fallujah in April, and in November allowed thousands of insurgents to flee to places like Mosul. Such capitulations have preserved and emboldened the insurgents, while giving hope to Islamic terrorists worldwide.

"To win this war," concluded Dr. Brook, "we need a fundamental shift in our moral priorities. We need to see the military place the lives of Americans--including American soldiers--above the lives of Iraqi civilians. To those who insist that we continue to sacrifice for the sake of Iraqi civilians, I say that the death of 19 Americans yesterday, and the many more to come, are on your heads."

 

[Doc Holiday]

Actually,we just need better intelligence and the ability to act upon that intelligence.

 

[Merlin1047]

I agree with the substance of the post. We have been trying to fight a politically correct war and that needs to stop.

Pres. Bush miscalculated when he assumed that the Iraqi people were going to cooperate in gaining their freedom once Saddam and his regime were gone. Apparently, this is not the case. Conjure whatever reason you will, but muslims appear to prefer to be tortured and murdered by one of their own rather than be liberated by "infidels".

If we're going to continue this attempt at nation building, then it's way past time to take the gloves off and treat the entire country as hostile.

 

[Gunny]

Yeah ...let's blame Bush for it. How about the American people/society as a whole are guilty for disallowing our troops to fight fire with fire. Instead, we place this Christian morality on their every step and give these murdering terrorists a weakness to exploit.

Make the price more than the scumbags are willing to pay and I bet they back off.

 

[Patriot]

. Instead, we place this Christian morality on their every step and give these murdering terrorists a weakness to exploit.

The Christians dont do that. That is all Liberals!

 

[dilloduck]

and their side-kicks---the press!

 

[sagegirl]

"To win this war," concluded Dr. Brook, "we need a fundamental shift in our moral priorities. We need to see the military place the lives of Americans--including American soldiers--above the lives of Iraqi civilians. To those who insist that we continue to sacrifice for the sake of Iraqi civilians, I say that the death of 19 Americans yesterday, and the many more to come, are on your heads."

I am opposed to our invasion of Iraq. I do agree with what this article implies. When we go to war, we must be determined to win. The idea of a clean, or moral, or honorable war is absolute la la land. We are now engaged in a battle with an enemy that is determined not to give in and will die proudly for their cause. We just cant justify going in and killing indiscriminately, somehow killing people so they can be free is a hard sell....nor could this sort of reality been successfully "sold" to the average american. (I hope) We cant fight this war the way it needs to be fought....you must meet your enemy.....blow for blow... and more to win.
We are not going to win this war.....the fighting in Iraq is going to continue... And we will continue to have americans die in the process. Its been going on for a long time....Saddam controlled it somewhat with a merciless regime. Whoever ends up with the most control will have access to the money that flows with the oil.
I do not want a fundamental shift in our moral priorities as Dr. Brook suggests
I do think we need to start thinking for ourselves and start demanding sensible and constructive policies from our government.

 

[dilloduck]

I am opposed to our invasion of Iraq. I do agree with what this article implies. When we go to war, we must be determined to win. The idea of a clean, or moral, or honorable war is absolute la la land. We are now engaged in a battle with an enemy that is determined not to give in and will die proudly for their cause. We just cant justify going in and killing indiscriminately, somehow killing people so they can be free is a hard sell....nor could this sort of reality been successfully "sold" to the average american. (I hope) We cant fight this war the way it needs to be fought....you must meet your enemy.....blow for blow... and more to win.
We are not going to win this war.....the fighting in Iraq is going to continue... And we will continue to have americans die in the process. Its been going on for a long time....Saddam controlled it somewhat with a merciless regime. Whoever ends up with the most control will have access to the money that flows with the oil.
I do not want a fundamental shift in our moral priorities as Dr. Brook suggests
I do think we need to start thinking for ourselves and start demanding sensible and constructive policies from our government.

Did you ever stop making these demands on our govt? If you did ,you shouldn't have !

 

[sagegirl]

Did you ever stop making these demands on our govt? If you did ,you shouldn't have !

For good or bad I have not sold out my principles for a slice of the american pie. I watch in disbelief as everyday events unfold, and they are accepted as issues that we have no control over....the rationale from those that we elect to be responsible is that "no one could have predicted blah blah blah.....that is their job and they have failed us. Those who do not hold them responsible, are those who re elect these same people time and again.
This election was based on fear, and those who voted out of fear, are selling us all short, buying into this neocon cause.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

For good or bad I have not sold out my principles for a slice of the american pie. I watch in disbelief as everyday events unfold, and they are accepted as issues that we have no control over....the rationale from those that we elect to be responsible is that "no one could have predicted blah blah blah.....that is their job and they have failed us. Those who do not hold them responsible, are those who re elect these same people time and again.
This election was based on fear, and those who voted out of fear, are selling us all short, buying into this neocon cause.

Isn't it a little early in the day to be this drunk?

The world needs global leadership. No other nation is up to it. The u.n. has failed from corruption and lack of moral framework.

We are here to save the day. Why are you on the side of evil?

 

[Gunny]

The Christians dont do that. That is all Liberals!

Not saying "Christians" are doing it. It's our Christian thought process that is. It is all of us that hold ourselves to a higher moral standard, based on our Christian upbringing and Christian-based Western society who allow an enemy who holds himself to a completely different standard to use our sense of morality against us.

They outrage and offend us, while they merely accept the death we deal them as a great thing. Time to quit playing their game by our rules and fight fire with fire.

The liberals hamstring our goverment politically. They only have Christian morality when it suits their agenda.

 

[padisha emperor]

Isn't it a little early in the day to be this drunk?

The world needs global leadership. No other nation is up to it. The u.n. has failed from corruption and lack of moral framework.

We are here to save the day. Why are you on the side of evil?

Is it not a little bit too strong ?
The governement is responsible.
they made a fault. they have to pay.
Adn it is true, tthe election was based on fear : fear of terrorism ? vote Bush.
So, people vote for him...;.but......his policy shows it weaks.....

 

[CSM]

Is it not a little bit too strong ?
The governement is responsible.
they made a fault. they have to pay.
Adn it is true, tthe election was based on fear : fear of terrorism ? vote Bush.
So, people vote for him...;.but......his policy shows it weaks.....

I have to admit, I voted out of fear. Fear that Kerry would win and turn the governing of this country over to the UN and the Europeans. As for Bush's policies being weak...ask the Taliban...ask Saddam Hussein...ask any European nation who has it's panties in a wad. If the US and Bush are so weak, why is France in particular working so hard to bring the US to its knees?

 

[padisha emperor]

here, Weak does'nt mean...weak in might, in power
it means : the policy of Bush made strong thing, like wars, but had all the same weaks.
every policy has weaks.
Bush's one doesn't avoid this fact.
So, it was not meaning that Bush's policy was unable to win a war. We see it.
but it has weak.
Example : nice thing, to make war and waste a country in 2 weeks. but better people win peace.
Bush's weak : still the war in Iraq, US soldiers are killed everyday.
tha's an awesome weak, no ?

And I think that on the interior point of view, there are a lot of other weaks.

 

[Merlin1047]

Not saying "Christians" are doing it. It's our Christian thought process that is. It is all of us that hold ourselves to a higher moral standard, based on our Christian upbringing and Christian-based Western society who allow an enemy who holds himself to a completely different standard to use our sense of morality against us.

They outrage and offend us, while they merely accept the death we deal them as a great thing. Time to quit playing their game by our rules and fight fire with fire.

Not true. We were a far more devoutly Christian nation during WWII than we are today. But back then we had no qualms nuking the Japanese or reducing German cities to rubble and decimating their civilian population.

What hamstrings us today in not Christianity. It is the secularist demand for a politically correct and essentially antiseptic conflict. Today it is leftists who second guess our tactics in Europe and our use of nukes in Japan.

We need to return to the premise that our armed forces are here for two reasons - to blow things up and to kill people. They are not here to build nations, direct traffic, reconstruct bridges, build roads, or supervise elections. We also need to understand that wars are not fought exclusively against enemy combatants. The civilian populace which supports those enemy combatants is just as much a legitimate target as an enemy army.

Sherman understood this during the civil war. Patton understood, so did Eisenhower, Truman, FDR, Curtis LeMay and MacArthur just to name a few. If we're going to fight, we need to stop being so squeamish about civilian casualties. They are going to happen and sometimes they NEED to happen if you intend to win.

 

[onedomino]

The civilian populace which supports those enemy combatants is just as much a legitimate target as an enemy army.

The points made in Merlin's post are correct. To his sentence quoted here, I would add, "The civilian populace (wherever located) which supports..." Regarding Iraq, this means "civilians" supporting Iraqi insurgent-murderers are legitimate (indeed necessary) targets wherever they are located; including Iraq, Iran, Syria, especially Saudi Arabia, Europe, and elsewhere.

-------------

 

[dilloduck]

The points made in Merlin's post are correct. To his sentence quoted here, I would add, "The civilian populace (wherever located) which supports..." Regarding Iraq, this means "civilians" supporting Iraqi insurgent-murderers are legitimate (indeed necessary) targets wherever they are located; including Iraq, Iran, Syria, especially Saudi Arabia, Europe, and elsewhere.

-------------

I don't think any of your recommended targets have been ruled out at all--gotta shape your battlefield carefully and timely.

 

[Gunny]

Not true. We were a far more devoutly Christian nation during WWII than we are today. But back then we had no qualms nuking the Japanese or reducing German cities to rubble and decimating their civilian population.

What hamstrings us today in not Christianity. It is the secularist demand for a politically correct and essentially antiseptic conflict. Today it is leftists who second guess our tactics in Europe and our use of nukes in Japan.

We need to return to the premise that our armed forces are here for two reasons - to blow things up and to kill people. They are not here to build nations, direct traffic, reconstruct bridges, build roads, or supervise elections. We also need to understand that wars are not fought exclusively against enemy combatants. The civilian populace which supports those enemy combatants is just as much a legitimate target as an enemy army.

Sherman understood this during the civil war. Patton understood, so did Eisenhower, Truman, FDR, Curtis LeMay and MacArthur just to name a few. If we're going to fight, we need to stop being so squeamish about civilian casualties. They are going to happen and sometimes they NEED to happen if you intend to win.

I agree with most of what you are saying. However I disagree in regard to Christianity. It is our societal beliefs based on Judeo-Christian law that dictate what is right and wrong to us, and we are indoctrinated from birth. What we consider right and wrong or good and bad is not inherent in man.

The PC have taken it a step further. They do not wish to admit anything exists they cannot touch; yet, they are STILL products of a society based on Judeo-Christian law. They have simply "evolved" of their own accord in thinking the beliefs are okay, but God himself is not.

That they wish for an antiseptic, all-loose-ends tied, neat and tidy war I do not argue.

Nor do I argue that we need to hit these Islamic fundamentalist morons with every-damed thing we can throw at them, and keep hitting them until they relent or are all dead. Either works for me. Threat neutralized.

It is a sad reality that noncombatants die in war. Allowing that to dictate tactics is a losing strategy. And while I personally do not care for Sherman, I agree completely with the way he conducted hs campaign and his reasoning for it.

 

[OCA]

Yeah ...let's blame Bush for it. How about the American people/society as a whole are guilty for disallowing our troops to fight fire with fire. Instead, we place this Christian morality on their every step and give these murdering terrorists a weakness to exploit.

Make the price more than the scumbags are willing to pay and I bet they back off.

Absolutely correct! We need to get in the mud and roll with these assholes, forget all this moral high road bullshit that we seem to be stoned on, we need to level some towns and villages civilians be damned!

These idiots understand power and strength through death and force only, negotiation and political correctness only ends up in things such as what happened in Mosul, if we continue on the road we are currently on the WOT will be lost.

 

[OCA]

Not true. We were a far more devoutly Christian nation during WWII than we are today. But back then we had no qualms nuking the Japanese or reducing German cities to rubble and decimating their civilian population.

What hamstrings us today in not Christianity. It is the secularist demand for a politically correct and essentially antiseptic conflict. Today it is leftists who second guess our tactics in Europe and our use of nukes in Japan.

We need to return to the premise that our armed forces are here for two reasons - to blow things up and to kill people. They are not here to build nations, direct traffic, reconstruct bridges, build roads, or supervise elections. We also need to understand that wars are not fought exclusively against enemy combatants. The civilian populace which supports those enemy combatants is just as much a legitimate target as an enemy army.

Sherman understood this during the civil war. Patton understood, so did Eisenhower, Truman, FDR, Curtis LeMay and MacArthur just to name a few. If we're going to fight, we need to stop being so squeamish about civilian casualties. They are going to happen and sometimes they NEED to happen if you intend to win.

This is true, blaming Christianity for this is ludicrous. The reason we find ourselves in this mess is because Americans today suffer from Vietnam syndrome, all libs have to do is mention Vietnam in reference to Iraq and everyone loses their head. For some stupid fucking reason we think war now means 1 week with just a few dead, we are seriously wrong in this thinking. We need to stop treating Iraq has a security situation and go on the offensive much as Patton went through France.