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
Falluja a "horror" After US Led Offensive
Topic Started: Dec 1 2004, 12:38 PM (656 Views)
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
gvok
Dec 1 2004, 01:41 PM
Their rhetoric seems inconsistent with the size and equiptment of the initial invasion force and their initial tactics after the fall of Baghdad.

How so - the size and equipment of the initial invasion force was adequate for the initial invasion that went off well.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

Dandandat
Dec 1 2004, 01:48 PM
gvok
Dec 1 2004, 01:41 PM
Their rhetoric seems inconsistent with the size and equiptment of the initial invasion force and their initial tactics after the fall of Baghdad.

How so - the size and equipment of the initial invasion force was adequate for the initial invasion that went off well.

It was not adequate to contain the looting and the resistence that followed. The Army War College told the Administration that a larger forces was necessary. And based on the aftermath I'd say they were right.
| Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
Personal Response

I know, Gvok, that you sometimes get concerned when people don't answer your questions. (Something about "fear" as I recall.) You also have asked me several times when I have asked you questions.

Quote:
 
Are you now saying that we should simply ignore attempted genocide because it's too "difficult"?


^^^^^

Here's a question I asked you:

End of Personal Response
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
To me it seemed that Bush delivered the message that he wouldn't not do something in the war on terrorism because it was more difficult or costly than might seem palatable.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

Wichita
Dec 1 2004, 01:52 PM
Quote:
 
Are you now saying that we should simply ignore attempted genocide because it's too "difficult"?


No.
| Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

38957
Dec 1 2004, 01:53 PM
To me it seemed that Bush delivered the message that he wouldn't not do something in the war on terrorism because it was more difficult or costly than might seem palatable.

The real question is, was it necessary? Surely you don't think we should fight battles in the "war on terror" simply because they are difficult, right? Shouldn't we wisely choose our battles?
| Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
gvok
Dec 1 2004, 06:56 PM
38957
Dec 1 2004, 01:53 PM
To me it seemed that Bush delivered the message that he wouldn't not do something in the war on terrorism because it was more difficult or costly than might seem palatable.

The real question is, was it necessary? Surely you don't think we should fight battles in the "war on terror" simply because they are difficult, right? Shouldn't we wisely choose our battles?

Personal Response

Are you saying that fighting attempted genocide may not be necessary?

End of Personal Response
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

Wichita
Dec 1 2004, 01:59 PM
Are you saying that fighting attempted genocide may not be necessary?

No. Are you saying that the primary reason the Bush Administration invaded Iraq was the mass killings perpetrated by Saddam's government?
| Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
gvok
Dec 1 2004, 02:05 PM
Wichita
Dec 1 2004, 01:59 PM
Are you saying that fighting attempted genocide may not be necessary?

No. Are you saying that the primary reason the Bush Administration invaded Iraq was the mass killings perpetrated by Saddam's government?

Their was no primary reason, but the mass killings perpetrated by Saddam's government was defiantly a big one.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

So the reasons the Bush Administration offered (i.e., WMD and Saddam's terrorist connections) were not the primary reasons?
| Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
38957
Dec 1 2004, 12:24 PM
gvok
Dec 1 2004, 01:21 PM
I would support that.  Thanks.

I hope I didn't knock anyone back down from Comodore or something with all that deleting. :lol:

I left wichita's post both because it was relevant and I am scared of her. ;)

Gee, too bad I missed it...
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
gvok
Dec 1 2004, 12:56 PM
38957
Dec 1 2004, 01:53 PM
To me it seemed that Bush delivered the message that he wouldn't not do something in the war on terrorism because it was more difficult or costly than might seem palatable.

The real question is, was it necessary? Surely you don't think we should fight battles in the "war on terror" simply because they are difficult, right? Shouldn't we wisely choose our battles?

How do you know we aren't choosing our battles wisely?

Can I guess that "wisely" to some means not at all?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

You didn't miss anything. He deleted posts you were involved in.
| Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

Admiralbill_gomec
Dec 1 2004, 02:14 PM
gvok
Dec 1 2004, 12:56 PM
38957
Dec 1 2004, 01:53 PM
To me it seemed that Bush delivered the message that he wouldn't not do something in the war on terrorism because it was more difficult or costly than might seem palatable.

The real question is, was it necessary? Surely you don't think we should fight battles in the "war on terror" simply because they are difficult, right? Shouldn't we wisely choose our battles?

How do you know we aren't choosing our battles wisely?

Can I guess that "wisely" to some means not at all?

Well no actually. Afghanistan is a good example of a battle I thought was chosen wisely.
| Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Why? Because they were a pushover?

This nation does things because they are right, not because they are easy (paraphasing JFK).
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