Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
A Tipping Point?
Topic Started: Apr 6 2004, 05:22 PM (473 Views)
ANOVA
Vice Admiral
Charles Kruathammer stated that he believed Iraq was in the middle of a civil war weaks ago.

Most of the billgerents in this confrontation regard the brutal abuse of power as the only legitimate form of government. They view the US form of limmitted warfare (may Truman rot in hell) as a sign of weakness. They will have no respect for a democratic government that protects civil liberties.


ANOVA
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
Bomb the Mosque, assault the Mosque, I doubt that kind of definition means much on the ground.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Sgt. Jaggs
Member Avatar
How about a Voyager Movie
benetil
Apr 7 2004, 11:44 AM
I don't know if the current situation is a tipping point or not, but things certainly sound bad. Mission accomplished my butt.

The photo (some of today's newspapers) of the soldier carrying the body of the dead soldier in a black bag was so sad.

The things we're seeing right now make me wish that President Bush had tried harder to avoid attacking Iraq. I want my government to get out of Iraq right now. Instead we're beginning to hear Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld talk about sending additional US troops. I wish we had never gone. I want our troops out of Afghanistan, Bosnia and the dozens of other places around the world. The madness has to end.

While I can feel your compassion, you must understand that if you tried to stick your head in the sand and hide from the world the body bags would be in the streets of your hometown, just as they were on 9-11 and just as they were in Spain recently. They want you dead. Because you are not like them. Get it?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
ds9074
Apr 7 2004, 04:06 PM
Bomb the Mosque, assault the Mosque, I doubt that kind of definition means much on the ground.

The difference is that there is merely a hole in the perimeter wall of the mosque. If we had bombed the mosque itself, there would be nothing but a crater.

Of course, it would have been tactically easier to bomb the mosque itself to kill the insurgents firing from inside it. By assaulting the compound with men, we put our own lives at stake.

So yes, the definition means a whole lot.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
benetil
Unregistered

doctortobe
Apr 7 2004, 01:03 PM
. . . I really don't think civilians are mentally ready to see body bags on TV every day. A soldier is conditioned to this kind of thing through both experiance and training. What you see as horrible loss of life is actually a very acceptable death toll . . .

You're right - the body bag image was more than I could take.

"a very acceptable death toll" - - I know you're technically right, but I have such a hard time feeling good about the "limited" fatalities.

It makes me sick to my stomach to think that my entire adult life will be spent observing the events that develop in/around Iraq - we're obviously looking at a protracted occupation.
| Quote | ^
 
ANOVA
Vice Admiral
DS:

Another difference between the US assualting a mosque and the Nazis bombing churches in england is....England wasn't using the churches as cover for military operations.

ANOVA
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
benetil
Apr 7 2004, 05:05 PM
doctortobe
Apr 7 2004, 01:03 PM
. . . I really don't think civilians are mentally ready to see body bags on TV every day.  A soldier is conditioned to this kind of thing through both experiance and training.  What you see as horrible loss of life is actually a very acceptable death toll . . .

You're right - the body bag image was more than I could take.

"a very acceptable death toll" - - I know you're technically right, but I have such a hard time feeling good about the "limited" fatalities.

It makes me sick to my stomach to think that my entire adult life will be spent observing the events that develop in/around Iraq - we're obviously looking at a protracted occupation.

War is Reality, it sucks but it's true.

It certainly was nicer when you didn't have to see body bags on TV. The thousand of bodies of the tortured, raped, gassed, murdered Iraqis were just quietly thrown in a hole or burned. Nobody who cared heard their screams or saw the pain in their faces.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
benetil
Unregistered

Jagalom Shaarek
Apr 7 2004, 04:32 PM
. . . you must understand that if you tried to stick your head in the sand and hide from the world the body bags would be in the streets of your hometown, just as they were on 9-11 and just as they were in Spain recently. They want you dead. Because you are not like them. Get it?

Jagalom Shaarek: I'd feel a whole lot better about the situation in Iraq if I thought that Iraq had anything - anything at all - to do with the terror attacks of 9-11-2001. For me, the Bush administration argument that somehow weaves Iraq into the horror of 9-11 - that would somehow show that attacking Iraq makes me, my nation or the world more secure - completely escapes my understanding. Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks in Spain, either.

I am convinced that President Bush did the wrong thing - in the interest of fighting global terrorism - when he attacked Iraq.

I understand that terrorists have an irrational compulsion to kill indiscriminately. I agree that we have no alternative but to hunt and kill would-be terrorists. It's just that Iraq was an insignificant piece of the terrorism puzzle, in my opinion.
| Quote | ^
 
benetil
Unregistered

38957
Apr 7 2004, 05:14 PM
War is Reality, it sucks but it's true.

It certainly was nicer when you didn't have to see body bags on TV. The thousand of bodies of the tortured, raped, gassed, murdered Iraqis were just quietly thrown in a hole or burned. Nobody who cared heard their screams or saw the pain in their faces.

But we (our US government) had known that Saddam Hussein was a bad actor for decades - that's why our government "used" him to deal with our mutual enemy Iran. Even our intervention in the Gulf War had NOTHING to do with Saddam Hussein's inhumane treatment of his own people (and his neighbors).

It is just not right to say that someone today (in 2004) doesn't care about the suffering of the human beings that Saddam Hussein was torturing and murdering at some point in the past because that person happens to find fault with President Bush's decision to attack Iraq in 2003.
| Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
ds9074
Apr 7 2004, 05:06 PM
Bomb the Mosque, assault the Mosque, I doubt that kind of definition means much on the ground.

If a Mosque is so sacred why do they fight from in side it?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
benetil
Apr 7 2004, 06:40 PM
38957
Apr 7 2004, 05:14 PM
War is Reality, it sucks but it's true.

It certainly was nicer when you didn't have to see body bags on TV.  The thousand of bodies of the tortured, raped, gassed, murdered Iraqis were just quietly thrown in a hole or burned.  Nobody who cared heard their screams or saw the pain in their faces.

But we (our US government) had known that Saddam Hussein was a bad actor for decades - that's why our government "used" him to deal with our mutual enemy Iran. Even our intervention in the Gulf War had NOTHING to do with Saddam Hussein's inhumane treatment of his own people (and his neighbors).

It is just not right to say that someone today (in 2004) doesn't care about the suffering of the human beings that Saddam Hussein was torturing and murdering at some point in the past because that person happens to find fault with President Bush's decision to attack Iraq in 2003.

So we made a mistake in the past - all the more reason to remedy that mistake now. If we put Saddam on the map to fight Iran, that was stupid of us and we now have a responsibility to fix that don’t we?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Sgt. Jaggs
Member Avatar
How about a Voyager Movie
benetil
Apr 7 2004, 05:22 PM
Jagalom Shaarek
Apr 7 2004, 04:32 PM
. . . you must understand that if you tried to stick your head in the sand and hide from the world the body bags would be in the streets of your hometown, just as they were on 9-11 and just as they were in Spain recently. They want you dead. Because you are not like them. Get it?

Jagalom Shaarek: I'd feel a whole lot better about the situation in Iraq if I thought that Iraq had anything - anything at all - to do with the terror attacks of 9-11-2001. For me, the Bush administration argument that somehow weaves Iraq into the horror of 9-11 - that would somehow show that attacking Iraq makes me, my nation or the world more secure - completely escapes my understanding. Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks in Spain, either.

I am convinced that President Bush did the wrong thing - in the interest of fighting global terrorism - when he attacked Iraq.

I understand that terrorists have an irrational compulsion to kill indiscriminately. I agree that we have no alternative but to hunt and kill would-be terrorists. It's just that Iraq was an insignificant piece of the terrorism puzzle, in my opinion.

Can't you ever see oustside the box? Look at a map of the middle east.
We have removed the government of two countries flanking Iran.
Remember the Axis of Evil disclosure?

Make no mistake about it, a message is being sent loud and clear. Look at how Bush landed on an aircraft carrier, how Bush flew into Bagdad for Thanksgiving day, why we went forward without an additional blessing from the U.N. (it was not necessary).

We have the right to ACT in our own best interest. If the American people disagree then they can vote Bush out. Guess what, after the new President gets briefed, he will still be at war and drastic change in policy is not likely.

Iraq was our enemy long before 9-11. Uday and qusay will no longer put bullets in the heads of husbands, rape their wives, and then gun them down or cut their thoats. They asked for it. They are going to get it. Open your eyes.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
benetil
Apr 7 2004, 05:22 PM
Jagalom Shaarek
Apr 7 2004, 04:32 PM
. . . you must understand that if you tried to stick your head in the sand and hide from the world the body bags would be in the streets of your hometown, just as they were on 9-11 and just as they were in Spain recently. They want you dead. Because you are not like them. Get it?

Jagalom Shaarek: I'd feel a whole lot better about the situation in Iraq if I thought that Iraq had anything - anything at all - to do with the terror attacks of 9-11-2001. For me, the Bush administration argument that somehow weaves Iraq into the horror of 9-11 - that would somehow show that attacking Iraq makes me, my nation or the world more secure - completely escapes my understanding. Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks in Spain, either.

I am convinced that President Bush did the wrong thing - in the interest of fighting global terrorism - when he attacked Iraq.

I understand that terrorists have an irrational compulsion to kill indiscriminately. I agree that we have no alternative but to hunt and kill would-be terrorists. It's just that Iraq was an insignificant piece of the terrorism puzzle, in my opinion.

Dwayne posted this link on the Ted Kennedy thread:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...0030701-13.html

Look at the last bullet point under "Operation Iraqi Freedom"

There's a link between Iraq and 9/11. It is not direct, but it IS a link.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
That link gives a nice summary of some of our achievements in the war on terror, the trouble of course is that we can succeed 99 time out of 100 but the terrorists only have to suceed 1 time out of 100 to cause death and destruction.

Back to the origninal post, the situation in Iraq now looks even worse then when I posted the first time. Different parts of the US military are saying different things. We have lost control of certain places, and the terrorists and 'freedom haters' who we were never going to talk to we are now having dialogue with (which I welcome if it ends the bloodshed).

We have got to be very careful that we strike a balance between going after those inciting violence and being too heavy handed and thus turning the population against us.

In the ?1920's? the British tried to Govern the same region and soon ended up turning both Sunni and Shia against us. We dont want to make the same mistake twice.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Adrian
Lieutenant Commander
Sorry to say it Admiral, but that Salman Pak terrorist training site has been largely discounted for Al Quieda.
Any new insurgent activity (especially with large numbers) should be treated warily at best. A good sign would have been insurgent activity dying out slowly and disapearing as public opinion turned against them. I believe this is a bad sign; it shows the fundementalist are winning the war of "hearts and minds".
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus