Al-Zarqawi: Dead

I just not in the habit of criticizing the judgement of men on the ground. They were there, they had a number of options open and chose the one they thought best suited. The commander I'm sure reviewed the alternatives available to accomplish the mission, and he chose the method used. The means of killing is truly of less importance than the fact that Zarqaui is dead and no longer a personal threat to perhaps thousands of innocent women and children.

Someone asked above how many "innocent civilian" casualties I would be willing to take. That depends on the trade-off. To quell and crush the enemy, I'm personally willing to sacrifice a whole lot of our soldiers and twice that number of collateral casualties. One can not, and should not, wage war in any other fashion. I served on Destroyers, and it was accepted by all that our ships and the crew's lives would be given up to prevent a hit on the carrier we were screening. Fortune put me on a Destroyer, not the carrier. Thats the breaks.

It would really, really be nice if we could all agree that wars would never be fought in the mud, in trackless deserts, in sub-arctic cold, or during storms. It should be that only voluntary soldiers be injured, and none of them should ever suffer more than a broken arm or nose. Generals should never commence an operation unless they have overwhelming force and perfectly understand every contingency that might occur once hostilities are opened. Presidents and Chiefs of State should engage in duels to settle all international disagreements.

General Sherman said, "War is hell", and to believe that one could/should transform it into a teaparty is folly.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Setanta wrote:
No, that is not a warranted assumption at all. Asherman wrote, in part: . . . that's too bad but not a reason to let scum like Zarquai go on living. That clearly assumes that those objecting objected to the operation itself, rather than the method. I don't object to taking out a scumbag like that, i object to doing so with 500 lb. bombs. If we knew where the safe house was, we have troops, such as Delta Force, which specialize in such operations. The bombing was not necessary to accomplish the purpose.

Asherman gave you no valid basis to leap to the conclusion that because you objected to the use of bombs, he believed you would have preferred nothing be done. All he did was state his view that taking out innocents, while lamentable, should not bar the operation.

In stating it was too bad, but not a reason to let scum like Zarquai go on linving, he inferentially assumes that an objection to the method is an objection to the goal--it is not.

As you said, it was an idiotic assumption.

Quote:

Quote:
Quote:
Grow up, Tico, stop trying to play Perry Mason.

Huh? Perry Mason was a fictitious attorney in literature, TV, and movies. You think I'm trying to play a fictitious attorney?

No, you just emulate his melodramatic technique.

I've noted you despise my "technique" on many levels.

0 Replies

Now you suggest that those with whom you disagree want to turn war into a tea party. You drift farther into the realm of partisan surreality with every post.

0 Replies

Sure. So maybe the next time we decide to take ourselves and another population, who has no say in the matter, to hell, we ought to have a really good reason.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Now you suggest that those with whom you disagree want to turn war into a tea party. You drift farther into the realm of partisan surreality with every post.

" ... a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

0 Replies

Oh, come on Set. Read back through the leftist postings on these threads. You, sitting in your comfy armchair, said that Zarqaui should not have been targeted with bombs. Magginkat, Amigo and a bunch of others cry crocodile tears for every terrorist we kill. The U.S., our military and President are all pointed to as THE modern Nazi war machine responsible for the murders of countless "innocents". Even if war WAS a teaparty, that crowd would complain that the cookies served were stale, and probably poisoned by Republican conspirators.

0 Replies

Go away, little boy, the grownups are talking . . .

0 Replies

Ah, let FreeDuck have his say ... even the kids need to be heard from time to time.

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

Ah, let FreeDuck have his say ... even the kids need to be heard from time to time.

As opposed to the grouchy old men?

Get a grip.

0 Replies

I'm totally in favor of the world's listening with rapt attention as grumpy old men determine the fate of nations.

0 Replies

I prefer my fate to be determined by someone with something to lose....

0 Replies

I was referring to Tico, and the Duck is a woman, Ash.

Yes, i said that, although i'm not sitting in a comfy armchair. You, in yours, are willing to "accept" the civilian deaths which accompanied this operation. Don't try to come over superior in a grasp of reality. Your armchair is not closer to the action than is anyone else's. I'm appalled when Isreal uses helicopter gunships to attack aparment buildings, and i'm appalled to see the United States going the same route.

Once upon a time, the Israelis didn't feel the need to be so ham-handed, when Jews were involved. At Entebbe in 1976, they sent in commandos to take out the terrorists in a precise strike, because they didn't want Jews killed as bystanders. But when it's just other Palestinians, they don't care. Apparently, neither do we, when it's just some Iraqis.

0 Replies

The alternative being the likely increase in American causalities. To substitute small precision robotic weaponry for increased American deaths is the trade off. I can understand that rationale and certainly precision smart weapons are a far cry from carpet bombing.

As smart weapons progress further it will be possible to use even higher levels of precision with consequently lower levels of collateral damage.

The question that remains unanswered (to me at least) is can this type of war on terror succeed, or does it simply reinforce the resolve of terrorists and give them cause? It seems to me that there can be no wining of this type of war, but if we are smart and lucky perhaps it can be kept in check to some degree.

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

Oh, come on Set. Read back through the leftist postings on these threads. You, sitting in your comfy armchair, said that Zarqaui should not have been targeted with bombs. Magginkat, Amigo and a bunch of others cry crocodile tears for every terrorist we kill. The U.S., our military and President are all pointed to as THE modern Nazi war machine responsible for the murders of countless "innocents". Even if war WAS a teaparty, that crowd would complain that the cookies served were stale, and probably poisoned by Republican conspirators.

A better way to confront the "leftist" on this thread, whatever the hell "leftist" means or that it has anything to do with opposing the war, is to ask them what they would do.

Crocodile tears? Thats interesting. I avoid putting to much sentimentality into a debate for obvious reasons, it's a cheap tactic. The nature of war is......well it's war.. I do however acknowledge to myself that the little girl that died in the bombing of Zarqawi in the "war on war" will remain nameless.

Your position is highly represented on the nightly news. I represent 1% of a struggling but necessary dialogue of "Why".

If war is necessary then it is also necessary to be acompanied by "why". The nameless girl (wich will not be getting a thread of her own) is the reason for that "why" as is Zarqawis victims a reason to ask why. A war without "why" is insanity, a consuming insanity of soullessness.

0 Replies

I'm fine with questioning why.

0 Replies

Well alright! Now all we need........CANADA?!?! Very Happy

0 Replies

Quote:

A total of 619,636 men and women served in the Canadian forces in the First World War, and of these 66,655 gave their lives and another 172,950 were wounded. Nearly one of every ten Canadians who fought in that war did not return.

In the six years of conflict in the Second World War Canada enlisted more than one million men and women in her armed forces. Of these, more than 45,000 gave their lives.

Nearly 27,000 Canadians served in the Korean conflict, and another 7,000 served in the theatre between the cease-fire and the end of 1955. Nearly 1,600 Canadian troops were injured and over 500 died.

Currently Canadian peacekeepers are serving in 14 operations in Europe, Asia, Africa, South America and the Middle East.

Quote:

But Canada's involvement in so many trouble spots has not come without a price. More than 100 Canadians have been killed while on peacekeeping duties around the world.

Quote:

As Canada embarks on a new century and a new millennium, her legion of peacekeeping veterans has grown to almost 100,000. Of them, more than 100 hundred died in the line of duty, while hundreds more suffered serious injury.

Linky 1
Linky 2
Linky 3

0 Replies

Canada!!!!! Very Happy

0 Replies

Zarqawi #2 (a letter to the editor from this morning's paper):

Catch-22 lives on:

Tony Blair's triumph at the death of Zarqawi was lifted straight from Joseph Heller's Catch-22. We got Zarqawi. Who's he? He's the bad guy from Iraq. But I thought that was Saddam. He was bad too, but we got rid of him. Who put him there in the first place? Who, Saddam? We did. No, who put Zarqawi there? Oh, they did. Who's they? Al-Qaeda. Who put them in? They came in after we got rid of Saddam. So we put them in. No, they weren't invited. So they invaded Iraq. No, we invaded. Were we invited? No. So neither of us was invited. No, Saddam wouldn't hear of it. So we got rid of Saddam so we both could come. No, so that we could come. Uninvited. Yes. Like Zarqawi So it goes.

(stolen from msolga the aussie)

0 Replies

I don't mourn Zarqaui. But, I do mourn the senseless war that kills innocent Iraquis and so many of our own. Lets resolve this thing and get out of Iraq.

0 Replies

Al-Zarqawi: Dead

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know