Screw The Dems, Bush Was Speaking To Iran

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
This has merit:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzQzMjU0ZWIxNWQyODk1MDdjMWVjNTIwMWI5YWJhOTA=

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

BUSH PROMISES PREEMPTION AGAINST IRAN -- BY CLEAR IMPLICATION [Mario Loyola]
For me, the most interesting statement the president made in his 9/11 address to the nation was this:

If we do not defeat these enemies now, we will leave our children to face a Middle East overrun by terrorist states and radical dictators armed with nuclear weapons. We are in a war that will set the course for this new century — and determine the destiny of millions across the world.

Stop and think: Why did he mention nuclear weapons in this address?

If Tehran becomes convinced that military conflict is inevitable if they proceed in their nuclear activities, diplomacy might just have a chance to resolve this peacefully. But the crucial thing is that today, Bush made it clear that he would consider a nuclear-armed Iran as tantamount to defeat in the war that started on September 11. That is as clear—and subtle—a warning to the Mullahs as one could hope for.

Conservatives these days are dejected that the president's rhetoric appears less-than-reinforced by the decisions and actions of the national -security establishment. But viewed from Tehran, Washington has continued to raise the stakes—and quite skillfully united the international community—against Iran's nuclear program. Nearly 60% of the public in France would approve the use of force before allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons.

With statements such as the president made yesterday, and the brilliant diplomacy orchestrated by U.N. ambassador by John Bolton, the United States is fanning an increasingly chill wind in the direction of Tehran. Have no doubts that the Iranians are starting to get scared, and not a moment too soon.
Posted at 6:06 AM
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
OP
Annie

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
Words are great. I'll be impressed when I see something happen to back them up. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for preempting Iran's quest for nuclear power. It is too dangerous a nation to posess nuclear power of any form.

However, so far only words have been tossed at the issue.
I'm with you. The title was reflecting the post, I wish I believed it.
 

1549

Active Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
676
Reaction score
59
Points
28
Location
New Jersey
The Taliban is gaining strength in Southern Afghanistan
Our forces in Iraq might as well be Schwarzkopf's proverbial 'dinosaur in the mud'
Bin Laden and other Al Queda brass are still at large.
There are rumblings that all of this could be a result of our armed forces being spread too thin.
So what the fuck? We have already fucked up the middle east, right? What is a little more blood on the hands of the Bush administration?

Mr. President: :finger3:
 

CSM

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2004
Messages
6,907
Reaction score
708
Points
48
Location
Northeast US
The Taliban is gaining strength in Southern Afghanistan
Our forces in Iraq might as well be Schwarzkopf's proverbial 'dinosaur in the mud'
Bin Laden and other Al Queda brass are still at large.
There are rumblings that all of this could be a result of our armed forces being spread too thin.
So what the fuck? We have already fucked up the middle east, right? What is a little more blood on the hands of the Bush administration?

Mr. President: :finger3:


I suppose you advocate that we surrender, withdraw US military forces from across the globe and one all the troops are home we disband the military.

I have news for you...the Middle East was "fucked up" (as you put it) long before this administration came along. The truth is nobody really cared about the Middle East until somebody found oil under all that sand and the Muslims decided that fighting only amongst themselves was no fun.

One more comment: I do not believe the military is spread too thin; I believe they have been handcuffed and restrained from doing whatever it takes to win this war and control that particular country. They have had national support pulled out from under them and in fact, have had the politcally correct, moral relativists, bleeding hearts attempt to remove the national will so vital to their success. You could send 2 million more troops over there and they CANNOT win unless we provide them the assets, the policy, and national resources to do so.
 

1549

Active Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
676
Reaction score
59
Points
28
Location
New Jersey
I suppose you advocate that we surrender, withdraw US military forces from across the globe and one all the troops are home we disband the military.
I have news for you...the Middle East was "fucked up" (as you put it) long before this administration came along. The truth is nobody really cared about the Middle East until somebody found oil under all that sand and the Muslims decided that fighting only amongst themselves was no fun.

One more comment: I do not believe the military is spread too thin; I believe they have been handcuffed and restrained from doing whatever it takes to win this war and control that particular country. They have had national support pulled out from under them and in fact, have had the politcally correct, moral relativists, bleeding hearts attempt to remove the national will so vital to their success. You could send 2 million more troops over there and they CANNOT win unless we provide them the assets, the policy, and national resources to do so.
I think that pulling out of Iraq/Afghanistan now would be a terrible thing to do. It would not solve anything. We should not invade Iran at all, but especially not when we still have two unfinished puzzles in the region.
 

CSM

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2004
Messages
6,907
Reaction score
708
Points
48
Location
Northeast US
I think that pulling out of Iraq/Afghanistan now would be a terrible thing to do. It would not solve anything. We should not invade Iran at all, but especially not when we still have two unfinished puzzles in the region.
I tend to agree with you (for the most part). Truthfully, I have not seen too much of a movement pressing for the invasion of Iran. IMO, we are in the "give diplomacy a chance phase" and Iran is playing their hand masterfully. It will not be long before Iran's nuclear capability is fait accompli (sp?).
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
The Taliban is gaining strength in Southern Afghanistan
Our forces in Iraq might as well be Schwarzkopf's proverbial 'dinosaur in the mud'
Bin Laden and other Al Queda brass are still at large.
There are rumblings that all of this could be a result of our armed forces being spread too thin.
So what the fuck? We have already fucked up the middle east, right? What is a little more blood on the hands of the Bush administration?

Mr. President: :finger3:
Just to add my 2 cents to what the SgtMaj already stated, being spread too thin isn't a problem at all. We could have every swinging d*ck capable of carrying a weapon on the ground in the ME and as long as people such as yourself insist our troops fight by some arbitrary set of rules -- that apparently you apply only to OUR troops -- that the enemy not only has no intention of adhereing to but actually exploit, it will ALWAYS look like we don't have enough troops.

Blaming Bush for a sore that's been festering for decades is nothing more than political hackery. Bush's predecessor had pretty much the same situation and EVERY opportunity to deal with it and did nothing but pay lip service to it for eight years.
 
OP
Annie

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
Just to add my 2 cents to what the SgtMaj already stated, being spread too thin isn't a problem at all. We could have every swinging d*ck capable of carrying a weapon on the ground in the ME and as long as people such as yourself insist our troops fight by some arbitrary set of rules -- that apparently you apply only to OUR troops -- that the enemy not only has no intention of adhereing to but actually exploit, it will ALWAYS look like we don't have enough troops.

Blaming Bush for a sore that's been festering for decades is nothing more than political hackery. Bush's predecessor had pretty much the same situation and EVERY opportunity to deal with it and did nothing but pay lip service to it for eight years.
I may well be projecting here; My take is that the troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan should be told to 'win' whatever their objective is-no holds barred, within the confines defined from their commanding officers, which should be within the Congressional defined parameters-NOT what the UN decides are 'today's international laws'.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
I may well be projecting here; My take is that the troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan should be told to 'win' whatever their objective is-no holds barred, within the confines defined from their commanding officers, which should be within the Congressional defined parameters-NOT what the UN decides are 'today's international laws'.
Close. Isn't it odd the same people screaming for secularism and tearing down historical landmarks because they happen to be Judeo-Christian are the very ones that apply a set of ethics to combat troops that Jesus Christ himself would be proud of?

Ironic is the fact that they refuse to admit to the origin of such beliefs, and absurd is the fact that the only place they want to apply them is the one place common sense and logic dictates they shouldn't.

IMO, they "swithced off" the war machine too soon and turned our military into the local police force. The military should have a clearly defined mission and be allowed to carry out that mission according to their rules of engagement, not Code Pink's rules of engagement.
 
OP
Annie

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
Close. Isn't it odd the same people screaming for secularism and tearing down historical landmarks because they happen to be Judeo-Christian are the very ones that apply a set of ethics to combat troops that Jesus Christ himself would be proud of?

Ironic is the fact that they refuse to admit to the origin of such beliefs, and absurd is the fact that the only place they want to apply them is the one place common sense and logic dictates they shouldn't.

IMO, they "swithced off" the war machine too soon and turned our military into the local police force. The military should have a clearly defined mission and be allowed to carry out that mission according to their rules of engagement, not Code Pink's rules of engagement.

To make it more clear, within parameters given, the troops should be told to win, regardless of civilians, win. Regardless of religious conotations, such as a mosque, win. I'm sorry, I know not politically correct, but to wage war with political correctness is just wrong. If WE care so much about 'sites', we should not be there. Send the French.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
To make it more clear, within parameters given, the troops should be told to win, regardless of civilians, win. Regardless of religious conotations, such as a mosque, win. I'm sorry, I know not politically correct, but to wage war with political correctness is just wrong. If WE care so much about 'sites', we should not be there. Send the French.
The rules of engagement according to the Laws of War are very clear for both:

Places of worship cannot be fired upon UNLESS US forces are being fired on from that place.

In Iraq, we deviated from that policy for political reasons due to the overly-sensitiveness of Muslims towards their places of worship.

Noncombatant casualties are to be kept to a minimum while accomplishing the mission. It is illegal to wage war against noncombatants.

In Iraq, the media has made noncombatant deaths supercede mission accomplishment as far as importance goes. I think this has clearly shelved a lot of what otherwise would be "search and destroy" missions. It appears that every couple of months, after gaining a mountain of evidence and a not from their mother, the military will launch a one-time sweep operation into an area and bag what they can. Otherwise it appears they play cop and/or hide out in their compounds.
 
OP
Annie

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
The rules of engagement according to the Laws of War are very clear for both:

Places of worship cannot be fired upon UNLESS US forces are being fired on from that place.

In Iraq, we deviated from that policy for political reasons due to the overly-sensitiveness of Muslims towards their places of worship.

Noncombatant casualties are to be kept to a minimum while accomplishing the mission. It is illegal to wage war against noncombatants.

In Iraq, the media has made noncombatant deaths supercede mission accomplishment as far as importance goes. I think this has clearly shelved a lot of what otherwise would be "search and destroy" missions. It appears that every couple of months, after gaining a mountain of evidence and a not from their mother, the military will launch a one-time sweep operation into an area and bag what they can. Otherwise it appears they play cop and/or hide out in their compounds.
Then the rules of engagement should be changed. The idea of 'sanctuary' were bygone a long time ago. We are the only ones holding to this. And they know it. Israel was caught in this trap a few years ago, while a church was defiled by Islamicists. If chuches are ok to be desecrated, who are we to make mosques more precious?
 
OP
Annie

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
More of Us doing the same stupid with cemetaries:


http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/taliban_gets_bury_lucky_worldnews_ian_bishop.htm
TALIBAN GETS BURY LUCKY

By IAN BISHOP

September 13, 2006 -- WASHINGTON - Taliban terror leaders who had gathered for a funeral - and were secretly being watched by an eye-in-the-sky American drone - dodged assassination because U.S. rules of engagement bar attacks in cemeteries, according to a shocking report.

U.S. intelligence officers in Afghanistan are still fuming about the recent lost opportunity for an easy kill of Taliban honchos packed in tight formation for the burial, NBC News reported.

The unmanned airplane, circling undetected high overhead, fed a continuous satellite feed of the juicy target to officers on the ground.

"We were so excited. I came rushing in with the picture," one U.S. Army officer told NBC.

But that excitement quickly turned to gut-wrenching frustration because the rules of engagement on the ground in Afghanistan blocked the U.S. from mounting a missile or bomb strike in a cemetery, according to the report.

Pentagon officials declined comment and referred The Post to Central Command officers in Afghanistan, who did not respond to a request for comment or explanation.

Agonizingly, Army officers could do nothing but watch the pictures being fed back from the drone as the Taliban splintered into tiny groups - too small to effectively target with the drone - and headed back to their mountainside hideouts.

Military experts told The Post that rules of engagement are constantly adjusted on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq, depending on the severity of the threat posed by the enemy.

In Iraq, gun battles have raged inside cemeteries in Fallujah, and once-off-limits mosques are now subject to U.S. searches.

The lost opportunity in Afghanistan came amid a spike in Taliban activity in Afghanistan - a craggy country roughly the size of Texas that poses problems for U.S. troops hunting fighters in remote mountain areas.

Taliban militants have launched their deadliest attacks since the terrorist regime was toppled by U.S.-led forces in late 2001 for providing a sanctuary for Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda camps.

U.S. troops and NATO allies recently reclaimed territory in southern Afghanistan from Taliban fighters following a bloody 11-day operation.

NATO leaders announced yesterday the hard fighting killed at least 510 Taliban insurgents.

And American and Afghan forces stormed a fortified compound in the Wardak province to arrest a dozen Taliban leaders who were planning a new wave of attacks.

"Five years ago, the Afghan national army was zero," Maj. Gen. Robert Durbin, who heads the training of Afghan soldiers and police, told CNN.

"We now have sufficient forces - that's why there is some tough fighting down in Kandahar."
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
Then the rules of engagement should be changed. The idea of 'sanctuary' were bygone a long time ago. We are the only ones holding to this. And they know it. Israel was caught in this trap a few years ago, while a church was defiled by Islamicists. If chuches are ok to be desecrated, who are we to make mosques more precious?
Maybe I wasn't clear. The rules of engagement ALREADY allow US forces to fire on or otherwise attack a place of worship if they are attacked from it. The current politicos are the ones making the rules stiffer than they are.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top