0
   

Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread III

 
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 11:14 am
Foxfyre wrote:

Quote:
I believe this would be over now if we had allowed our military to take off the gloves from the beginning and do what was necessary to win the war. It would have been ugly and bloody, but it would have saved countless lives then, now, and in the future.

Political correctness has been one of the worst mistakes made thus far.


Mctag replied
Quote:
I'm not sure what you mean by this, honestly.



Com'on, McTag, play fair. What is being tried here is the "Well, someone tied the hands of our commanders" ploy in order to deflect responsibility from George W.

Who done that? All the while that General Shinseki and Generals (retired and soon to be retired) were talking about needing 500,000 troops who was shushing him??

Meanwhile, this surge is another half-measure. The President's own backers were urging a level of at least 30,000 more to be effective. What's another couple of billion dollars a month??

Joe(Excuse me, Don, are you napping?)Nation
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 11:25 am
It is painfully obvious that none of you have any idea what Foxy meant,so I will; try and explained for you.

Under the current ROE,we are barred from firing on or destroying mosques and schools.
The insurgents know that,so they use the tall minarets on mosques as sniper posts and observation posts.

They use schools as observation posts and as weapons caches.
If we had targeted the tall minarets and destroyed them,as we did to the tall spires of most churches in WW2,that would have eliminated those points to enemy use and would have not allowed them to be used as sniper posts.

THat would have saved American lives and Iraqi lives by denying the enemy the chance to use them for snipers.

Also,the schools that the enemy is using should also be destroyed,for the same reason.

The American military cannot lose this war,but the politicians can lose it for them.
By handcuffing how the soldiers in the field can fight,the politicians in Washington are doing the exact same thing the did in Vietnam.
The military never lost a battle in Vietnam,but the politicians did.

Take the handcuffs off the troops,and this war will end in a few weeks.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 11:29 am
Joe Nation wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:

Quote:
I believe this would be over now if we had allowed our military to take off the gloves from the beginning and do what was necessary to win the war. It would have been ugly and bloody, but it would have saved countless lives then, now, and in the future.

Political correctness has been one of the worst mistakes made thus far.


Mctag replied
Quote:
I'm not sure what you mean by this, honestly.



Com'on, McTag, play fair. What is being tried here is the "Well, someone tied the hands of our commanders" ploy in order to deflect responsibility from George W.

Who done that? All the while that General Shinseki and Generals (retired and soon to be retired) were talking about needing 500,000 troops who was shushing him??

Meanwhile, this surge is another half-measure. The President's own backers were urging a level of at least 30,000 more to be effective. What's another couple of billion dollars a month??

Joe(Excuse me, Don, are you napping?)Nation


The libs are quite fond of quoting military officers who now say they opposed the war and advised against it or said we should go in with X number more troops yadda yadda, while they conveniently avoid mentioning the military officers who approved the plan that was implemented.

I believe the President had to go with a plan for which he could get funding from Congress. I agree it isn't enough. I also believe that if we don't untie the hands of our fighting forces and turn them loose to get the job done, no amount of additional forces will be able to do it.

A day or two ago I posted a very good piece written by the current Iraqi vice president. He said the time has come to consider the terrorist and the Iraqi militias doing terrorist acts as one and the same and all must be eliiminated.

He's right. And that means the libs need to just shut up their political correctness garbage for awhile and throw their support behind the President and military so they know they can go ahead and get the job done. EVERYBODY needs to change tactics at this point to accomplish the goal.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 11:32 am
mysteryman wrote:
IUnder the current ROE,we are barred from firing on or destroying mosques and schools.
The insurgents know that,so they use the tall minarets on mosques as sniper posts and observation posts.

They use schools as observation posts and as weapons caches.
If we had targeted the tall minarets and destroyed them,as we did to the tall spires of most churches in WW2,that would have eliminated those points to enemy use and would have not allowed them to be used as sniper posts.


You forgot to mention hospitals.

And why only target churches and not schools, especially, when they are not only observation posts like the minarets but hiding places for weapons as well?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 11:35 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
IUnder the current ROE,we are barred from firing on or destroying mosques and schools.
The insurgents know that,so they use the tall minarets on mosques as sniper posts and observation posts.

They use schools as observation posts and as weapons caches.
If we had targeted the tall minarets and destroyed them,as we did to the tall spires of most churches in WW2,that would have eliminated those points to enemy use and would have not allowed them to be used as sniper posts.


You forgot to mention hospitals.

And why only target churches and not schools, especially, when they are not only observation posts like the minarets but hiding places for weapons as well?


This is a poor Waltism (tm).

Quote:
Also,the schools that the enemy is using should also be destroyed,for the same reason.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 11:36 am
mysteryman wrote:
It is painfully obvious that none of you have any idea what Foxy meant,so I will; try and explained for you.

Under the current ROE,we are barred from firing on or destroying mosques and schools.
The insurgents know that,so they use the tall minarets on mosques as sniper posts and observation posts.

They use schools as observation posts and as weapons caches.
If we had targeted the tall minarets and destroyed them,as we did to the tall spires of most churches in WW2,that would have eliminated those points to enemy use and would have not allowed them to be used as sniper posts.

THat would have saved American lives and Iraqi lives by denying the enemy the chance to use them for snipers.

Also,the schools that the enemy is using should also be destroyed,for the same reason.

The American military cannot lose this war,but the politicians can lose it for them.
By handcuffing how the soldiers in the field can fight,the politicians in Washington are doing the exact same thing the did in Vietnam.
The military never lost a battle in Vietnam,but the politicians did.

Take the handcuffs off the troops,and this war will end in a few weeks.


So, your plan calls for pacificying Iraq by destroying all the Mosques and schools that we see insurgent activity in? What stops them from forcing us to destroy every mosque in Iraq? You think that's going to go over well with the Iraqi populace?

It isn't as if there are a static number of insurgents or terrosists and Shiite militia members. Far from it; the number has risen over time. It is impossible to believe that killing large numbers of civilians and bombing schools and mosques will lead to a reduction in the number or those who are willing to fight.

You guys just can't think of anything other than the act of shooting someone or blowing something up, of the ramifications of our actions, can you? I read all the time about how Sadr should be 'taken out' by people who don't have a f*cking clue what they are talking about; remember when the Golden Dome mosque was blown up? Remember how pissed off it made many Iraqi Shiites? Well, what do you think will happen when one of their top clerics is attacked and assisintated? Things will just calm down?

Victory is right around the corner...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 11:41 am
not only kill Sadr, but drop a MOAB on the funeral procession...

The Islamic terrorists have no qualm with destroying opposing factions mosques. What we need to do is make the assassination look like it was done by Sunni's and that we tried to stop them.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 11:41 am
McGentrix wrote:
This is a poor Waltism (tm).

Quote:
Also,the schools that the enemy is using should also be destroyed,for the same reason.


Obviously you didn't read what I quoted.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 11:42 am
That oughta lead to peace in Iraq.

I sometimes think you guys believe you are inside a movie or video game or something.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 11:45 am
McGentrix wrote:

What we need to do is make the assassination look like it was done by Sunni's and that we tried to stop them.


Yes, that's it - bring all the good parts of American democracy to Iraq.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 01:30 pm
just a comment from an innocent bystander :
most of the people killed in iraq are not killed by sniperfire but by carbombs and improvised explosive devices - these items would hardly be kept in the tower of a minaret .
when there are reports of 20 , 30 and even 40 people killed at once , it would seem to be quite clear that they were not killed by sniperfire but carbombs and IED's - not that is any consolation to the dead and their families .
hbg
perhaps watching some newsclips will help in understanding that .
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 01:37 pm
But they use those facilities to store materials and create the car bombs and IED's
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 02:06 pm
if there was wide-spread use of mosques to produce/store car bombs and IED's , i would think that the u.s. military would regularly report on that .
i have not much doubt that 'some' mosques have been use for that purpose .
what seems to happen more frequently is that mosques and worshippers are attacked from the outside or in front of a mosque - often by rivals , i would think .
i don't believe the u.s. army would simply go away quietly if they knew a mosque would be used as a bomb factory - but i'm willing to listen to reports on such occurences .
hbg
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Jan, 2007 08:30 am
This has gone very quiet.

Has the blood-lust abated? Have the contributing neocons wiped the foam flecks from their lips?

Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Jan, 2007 10:03 am
McTag wrote:
This has gone very quiet.

Has the blood-lust abated? Have the contributing neocons wiped the foam flecks from their lips?

Rolling Eyes


No, the far-left terrorist appeasers have been out hugging trees.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Jan, 2007 10:41 am
Ticomaya wrote:


No, the far-left terrorist appeasers have been out hugging trees.


A mind governed solely by hackneyed cliches.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Jan, 2007 10:43 am
Quote:
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Jan, 2007 10:43 am
anything wrong with hugging trees ?
certainly preferable to large scale clear-cutting imo - the results of which can be found all over the world , and it's not only NOT a pretty sight but has killed many people - mainly poor ones .
but what the heck , who wants to worry about the poor ?
hbg


"ill fares the world , to hastening ills a prey ,
where wealth accumulates and men decay"

oliver goldsmith , "the decaying village"
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Jan, 2007 11:03 am
hamburger wrote:
anything wrong with hugging trees ?


Who am I to judge?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Jan, 2007 11:39 am
Ticomaya wrote:
hamburger wrote:
anything wrong with hugging trees ?


Who am I to judge?


I would think it would dependon whether trees are valued more than people and other pertinent criteria.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 01/11/2025 at 02:06:20