Reply
Thu 26 Aug, 2004 06:06 pm
Hot Dogs
I guess in war time one always had a good chance to show his manhood through valor. In
Vietnam it seems that a new form of hot dogging came into it?s own by a few showing how
cruel they could be to the enemy. Now one took this form of lowlife-ness to a new low by
charging all others with their own crimes in order avoid being charged with war crimes.
You see if he could make it seem most others were into these crimes he would be just a
small fish in a big pond, but now it seems that he was the leader of this kind of
activity. Now if he can get the American people to vote for him that sort of activity, his
?war crimes? will be validated.
Now Mr. Kerry enjoyed and abused his freedom of speech and now would sues others to take
away their freedom of speech, some are always looking for new LOWS
the influx begins....<<sigh>>
Did you hear that Kerrys call sign in nam was the "Boston Strangler".
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=32213
So, should Americans avoid shooting at mosques in Iraq?
You sure like to change the debate don't you.
NO! The basic rules of engagement state that once soldiers are fired on from a place like a hospital or a religious building that they may return fire until the enemy is dead or gives up. When you don't do this you put the lives of soldiers in danger and get them killed.
It figures that these other fighters are so chicken **** of fighting they hide in a holy place. I say storm the building and kill them all, including their leader. He isn't going to stop what he has been doing, and the Iraqi govt is only showing weakness when dealing with such people. Others will now do the same thing and then request for amnesty.
Baldimo, you'll see in the first post of the thread I linked to that I'm merely tired of the rehashing. That thread has all kinds of answers -- so I post it instead of rehashing. And then let's talk about actual issues.
A quote from a NYT article -- what do you think?
Quote:"Don't shoot the mosque," said Maj. Doug Ollivant, operations officer of the First Battalion of the Army's Fifth Cavalry.
"Roger, we won't shoot the mosque," replied Capt. Kevin Badger, commander of Company A, which was leading the assault.
IMHO, first let me just say that we shouldn't even
be in this situation in the first place.
But since we are there and in this "stand-off" in Najaf I'd say "The roof, the roof, the roof is on fire. We don't need no water let the mutha f'er burn. Burn mutha f'er! Burn!"
This is where I'd get all cwazy and bomb that mosque into oblivion. I wouldn't waste any lives on that Al Sader. He's just a punk ass revolutionist. Not that I have a thing against punk ass revolutionists. It's just when they start costing American lives I gotta draw the line-----in the sand.
sozobe wrote:Baldimo, you'll see in the first post of the thread I linked to that I'm merely tired of the rehashing. That thread has all kinds of answers -- so I post it instead of rehashing. And then let's talk about actual issues.
A quote from a NYT article -- what do you think?
Quote:"Don't shoot the mosque," said Maj. Doug Ollivant, operations officer of the First Battalion of the Army's Fifth Cavalry.
"Roger, we won't shoot the mosque," replied Capt. Kevin Badger, commander of Company A, which was leading the assault.
I would be willing to bet that they were on orders from political people not military people. We don't want to offend the Muslim population and the terrorists know this. They use it to their advantage and we are falling for the trap. I don't think the mosque should be bombed but we should invade and take the people out. That is the way you win a fight, not by being nice. This is the same thing that happened in Vietnam, the political people micromanage the war and don't let the soldiers do what they were trained to do.
Why didn't we just cordone off the area about 500 meters, then just search anyone and everyone entering or leaving the area. Let them have the mosque. No food, no water, just the mosque.