IRAQ: 250 Militants killed in Najaf

[Kerad]

So elections that surpass our own percentages by miles, a ratified Constitution, standing national government, local governments, a running stock market, a fully up and running internet (have you seen all the Blogs coming out of Iraq?), fully running cell phone network (even the kids have cell phones), TV shows that mimic and rival that of our own (i.e. Iraq Star; the Iraq version of American Idol), 85+% of the cities are at peace. That's not even all of it and you call that a few successes? I call this HUGE successes considering the destruction they suffered.

Yours is the media brain-washed perception of what is going on in Iraq. Now, I'm certainly not trying to down-play the seriousness of the violence, at least not like the media and the left-wing are actively down-playing the successes that have happened since Saddam was toppled.

Holy Crap! Everybody...look! Dick Cheney is a member of the SOMD forums! Mr. Vice President, you are indeed a “person reflecting a half-glass-full mentality.”.

 

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

...then they certainly don't need us anymore.

Right you are

 

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

Holy Crap! Everybody...look! Dick Cheney is a member of the SOMD forums! Mr. Vice President, you are indeed a “person reflecting a half-glass-full mentality.”.

Vrai, you should be proud!

 

[mehlert74]

actually, what we really need to do, is not only get the troops needed, like it has been stressed ffrom the beginning...but we also need to take this rules of engagement sh!t, and just do what we need to do...if they want to shoot at us from their mosques, then we should be able to shoot,bomb,whatever it takes to get them out. we have been following the rules of engagement for far too long now...we couldn't shoot back or what not because the mosque is their "religious" place...we need to bomb the hell out there, and get our troops home eventually, and as long as we keep pussy footing around it's never going to happen.

 

[PsyOps]

Holy Crap! Everybody...look! Dick Cheney is a member of the SOMD forums! Mr. Vice President, you are indeed a “person reflecting a half-glass-full mentality.”.

And yours is, no doubt, half empty.

 

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

And yours is, no doubt, half empty.

Kerad, careful, you don't want to piss Dick off. He might take you out "hunting."

 

[PsyOps]

Kerad, careful, you don't want to piss Dick off. He might take you out "hunting."

You can believe I'm a much better shot.

 

[forestal]

What sort of rules are you wanting to change? We already have clearance to go after anyone who's shooting at us. The only rules left to lose are the ones governing humanity.

You don't want to end up with scenes from Full Metal Jacket:

Marine Gunner: Anyone who runs is VC.
Marine Gunner: Anyone who stands still is a well trained VC.

Pvt Joker:How can you do that?
Marine Gunnero what?
Pvt Joker: Shoot women, children.
Marine Gunner: Easy, I just don't lead them so much.

actually, what we really need to do, is not only get the troops needed, like it has been stressed ffrom the beginning...but we also need to take this rules of engagement sh!t, and just do what we need to do...if they want to shoot at us from their mosques, then we should be able to shoot,bomb,whatever it takes to get them out. we have been following the rules of engagement for far too long now...we couldn't shoot back or what not because the mosque is their "religious" place...we need to bomb the hell out there, and get our troops home eventually, and as long as we keep pussy footing around it's never going to happen.

 

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

What sort of rules are you wanting to change? We already have clearance to go after anyone who's shooting at us. The only rules left to lose are the ones governing humanity.

You don't want to end up with scenes from Full Metal Jacket:

Marine Gunner: Anyone who runs is VC.
Marine Gunner: Anyone who stands still is a well trained VC.

Pvt Joker:How can you do that?
Marine Gunnero what?
Pvt Joker: Shoot women, children.
Marine Gunner: Easy, I just don't lead them so much.

Taking movie lines to attack our soldiers. Pathetic.

Then again, I'd expect this from you.

 

[2ndAmendment]

actually, what we really need to do, is not only get the troops needed, like it has been stressed ffrom the beginning...but we also need to take this rules of engagement sh!t, and just do what we need to do...if they want to shoot at us from their mosques, then we should be able to shoot,bomb,whatever it takes to get them out. we have been following the rules of engagement for far too long now...we couldn't shoot back or what not because the mosque is their "religious" place...we need to bomb the hell out there, and get our troops home eventually, and as long as we keep pussy footing around it's never going to happen.

Ever been to downtown Berlin. Ever seen the ruins of the Kaiser Wilhelm Memorial Church? http://berlin.barwick.de/sights/famous-places/kaiser-wilhelm-memorial-church.html We bombed it and destroyed it in 1943. Christian churches were not off limits. Why are Muslim mosques?

 

[Larry Gude]

I have a theory...

Ever been to downtown Berlin. Ever seen the ruins of the Kaiser Wilhelm Memorial Church? http://berlin.barwick.de/sights/famous-places/kaiser-wilhelm-memorial-church.html We bombed it and destroyed it in 1943. Christian churches were not off limits. Why are Muslim mosques?

...on that; Because our CIC doesn't really believe that the threats represented by hardcore Islamic fundamentalists are dire.

Many of his actions, the tactical ones, show him to be worried about individuals, and not very many at that, not the religion as a whole, as evidenced by his limited warfare approach. His other actions, his major ones, his strategic ones, show him wishing to change Islam at it's core as evidenced by invading Afghanistan and Iraq.

So, the tactical actions are designed to win hearts and minds of the many good people while rooting out the few bad.

His strategic actions are designed to make the many good reconsider that maybe the bad were right about us being a threat to their faith after all, or that maybe living with them, the bad, wasn't so bad after all.

On top of that our leader constantly tells us, the people he is defending and whose support, as a democracy, he must have in order to go about this as he sees fit, that the bad guys will stop at nothing to hurt us while showing us we'll only go so far to get them.

The question is;

Was the limited tactical approach coupled with the aggressive strategic approach, given the target audiences, both them and us, the proper one?

The way to answer that is to identify the problem.

Was it lack of Jeffersonian Democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan that needed to be rectified, which we're trying to germinate, or was it the religion, which we, as you point out, are desperately trying to soft touch? Given that you can't have both, it's the critical question.

It seems W has decided you can have both and that brings a whole other line of questions which lead back to the same original question but by a different route.

 

[Kerad]

Ever been to downtown Berlin. Ever seen the ruins of the Kaiser Wilhelm Memorial Church? http://berlin.barwick.de/sights/famous-places/kaiser-wilhelm-memorial-church.html We bombed it and destroyed it in 1943. Christian churches were not off limits. Why are Muslim mosques?

You post this as if we specifically targetted German churches in WWII. Today, we have smart bombs, laser and GPS guided. It's obvious that we did not have this during WWII, which is why the collateral damage from carpet bombing was so extensive. Today, we can hit exactly what we target, without taking out everything around it.

 

[PsyOps]

Because our CIC doesn't really believe that the threats represented by hardcore Islamic fundamentalists are dire.

Many of his actions, the tactical ones, show him to be worried about individuals, and not very many at that, not the religion as a whole, as evidenced by his limited warfare approach. His other actions, his major ones, his strategic ones, show him wishing to change Islam at it's core as evidenced by invading Afghanistan and Iraq.

So, the tactical actions are designed to win hearts and minds of the many good people while rooting out the few bad.

His strategic actions are designed to make the many good reconsider that maybe the bad were right about us being a threat to their faith after all, or that maybe living with them, the bad, wasn't so bad after all.

On top of that our leader constantly tells us, the people he is defending and whose support, as a democracy, he must have in order to go about this as he sees fit, that the bad guys will stop at nothing to hurt us while showing us we'll only go so far to get them.

The question is;

Was the limited tactical approach coupled with the aggressive strategic approach, given the target audiences, both them and us, the proper one?

The way to answer that is to identify the problem.

Was it lack of Jeffersonian Democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan that needed to be rectified, which we're trying to germinate, or was it the religion, which we, as you point out, are desperately trying to soft touch? Given that you can't have both, it's the critical question.

It seems W has decided you can have both and that brings a whole other line of questions which lead back to the same original question but by a different route.

You see Larry, it’s comments like this that make me go hmmm, what is he really saying here? The CINC “doesn't really believe that the threats represented by hardcore Islamic fundamentalists are dire”? Where the heck are you getting this from? With the left accusing Bush of being a chicken hawk and all the rhetoric coming from Bush about how dangerous these radicals are. I’m just not getting you.

From his last SOTU speech:

“Our enemies are quite explicit about their intentions. They want to overthrow moderate governments, and establish safe havens from which to plan and carry out new attacks on our country. By killing and terrorizing Americans, they want to force our country to retreat from the world and abandon the cause of liberty. They would then be free to impose their will and spread their totalitarian ideology.”

From his address to the nation:

“Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States. The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions.”

I hardly find this rhetoric as indicating Bush isn’t aware of the dire situation with this enemy. His actions in this war were affected by the negative campaign launched by the left and human rights advocates as well as Maliki tying the hands of our troops about who and where we can strike the enemy. Rather than being a military battle it became a political battle. This, no doubt was a mistake on Bush’s part. He should have ignored the negativity and political posturing and given our military leaders in the field complete autonomy to eradicate those committing the violence. But there was too much political pressure. But Bush is completely aware of the dire situation.

Now Bush is talking possible military action in Iran and the left is, once again, putting the negative pressure on him. Since the left gets much more air time and the mainstream media plays right into their game the American people will, no doubt, become mired into the thinking of the left and Bush’s plans will once again get quashed.

Finally, I agree with you that Bush’s soft-handed approach is not the way you fight this war. Even though I believe there has to be a delicate balance so as not to further upset the battling factions, Bush needed to act and apologize later rather than ask persmission.

 

[Larry Gude]

Fascinating...

You see Larry, it’s comments like this that make me go hmmm, what is he really saying here? The CINC “doesn't really believe that the threats represented by hardcore Islamic fundamentalists are dire”? Where the heck are you getting this from?

You say you don't get it. And then...

His actions in this war were affected by the negative campaign launched by the left and human rights advocates as well as Maliki tying the hands of our troops about who and where we can strike the enemy. Rather than being a military battle it became a political battle. This, no doubt was a mistake on Bush’s part. He should have ignored the negativity and political posturing and given our military leaders in the field complete autonomy to eradicate those committing the violence. But there was too much political pressure. But Bush is completely aware of the dire situation.

...you say you do. You have no idea what I am saying then point it out, exactly, and then even agree.

And then...

Even though I believe there has to be a delicate balance so as not to further upset the battling factions,

....you say you don't get it again. The US military is many things. It is not, however, a delicate instrument.

 

[2ndAmendment]

You post this as if we specifically targetted German churches in WWII. Today, we have smart bombs, laser and GPS guided. It's obvious that we did not have this during WWII, which is why the collateral damage from carpet bombing was so extensive. Today, we can hit exactly what we target, without taking out everything around it.

My point is that if churches were not off limits during WWII for whatever reason, mosques should not be off limits if someone is shooting from them. Turn a mosque into a artillery platform, park a tank by one, shoot from one, it gets blown up.

 

[PsyOps]

You say you don't get it. And then...





...you say you do. You have no idea what I am saying then point it out, exactly, and then even agree.

And then...




....you say you don't get it again. The US military is many things. It is not, however, a delicate instrument.

Nice try again Larry to fumble my words around to do nothing more than place confusion in the conversation. If you are having a hard time keeping up just say so. But all you just did here is say pretty much nothing.

Your attempt to parse my words out of context is not very compelling. I never said the military is some sort of delicate instrument. I said just the opposite:

“I agree with you that Bush’s soft-handed approach is not the way you fight this war. Even though I believe there has to be a delicate balance so as not to further upset the battling factions, Bush needed to act and apologize later rather than ask persmission.”

The first and last sentence of this dismisses your claim. Bush should have utilized the full power and arsenal of our military to completely subdue the Iraqi people so there would have been no chance for an insurgency. He should have coupled this with a complete and controlling border control. Do all these things at the expense of pissing the region off then utilize democracy to apologize (so-to-speak) later. This is where I believe we should exercise the delicacy of the situation.

 

[MMDad]

...on that; Because our CIC doesn't really believe that the threats represented by hardcore Islamic fundamentalists are dire.

He does believe that there is a real threat from Islamic fundamentalists. Unfortunately, he is more askeered of those big, bad liberal headlines. If he stopped trying to appease the people who will never approve of him, maybe he could make some progress.

 

[forestal]

You're such a loser. Why do you want Usama to win?

Taking movie lines to attack our soldiers. Pathetic.

Then again, I'd expect this from you.

 

[mehlert74]

What sort of rules are you wanting to change? We already have clearance to go after anyone who's shooting at us. The only rules left to lose are the ones governing humanity.

You don't want to end up with scenes from Full Metal Jacket:

Marine Gunner: Anyone who runs is VC.
Marine Gunner: Anyone who stands still is a well trained VC.

Pvt Joker:How can you do that?
Marine Gunnero what?
Pvt Joker: Shoot women, children.
Marine Gunner: Easy, I just don't lead them so much.

we have clearance to a point, there are still those rules of engagement

 

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

You're such a loser. Why do you want Usama to win?

..............





Why do you hate our troops?

I don't want Osama to win, that's why I support OUR troops going after his ass. I was in absoolute anger after those towers fell and that's why I supported us going to war with Iraq. Knowing what we know now, I just don't. 9-11 is why I support doing something about Iran, and Hizbollah. Look at the big picture.

You almost make me support the Iraq war and the President, forestal/Saddam.