Three US Troops Missing: Could Bush Have Avoided This?

Discussion in '2007 Archive' started by Martin, May 13, 2007.

  1. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yesterday news came out that three American soldiers were missing in Iraq. The assumption, of course, is that they have been captured and have been/will be murdered by their captors. That is sad news, yet what makes me angry is the following comment on MSNBC this morning..

    "The military said the patrol was attacked before dawn west of the town of Mahmudiya in the Sunni "triangle of death", the same area where two U.S. soldiers were abducted by al Qaeda insurgents last year before their mutilated bodies were found." -from MSNBC.com

    The "same area"? If this is true, and I have no reason to believe it is not, then this latest tragedy is a result of the failure of George W Bush. Last year when those soldiers were murdered I said that Bush should have used massive military force on that town, that he should have order an operation that would make "shock and awe" look like a cake walk. In short, he should have had that town/area flattened. Yet, he did not. Just like Bill Clinton before him, George W Bush let the people who committed those crimes go free. He allowed the people who knew who committed those crimes, and failed to turn them in asap, go free. That was a major mistake. This time I hope, and pray, that Bush does not repeat the same mistake.

    It is time for those people to learn the hard lesson; you don't mess with the United States Military. I am tired of our military looking weak.
     
    #1 Martin, May 13, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: May 13, 2007
  2. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    Yep, me, too. But when you have a CIC who is being counseled by muslims, has longstanding business relationships with muslims, and believes islam is a peaceful religion (according to him, they worship the same god as Christians and Jews), this is what you get. GW Bush has done more to emasculate our military than any other president this country has ever had, IMO. Hearts and minds, ya know. Nation building, ya know.
     
    #2 LadyEagle, May 13, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: May 13, 2007
  3. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    ==Sadly, and I mean sadly, I must fully agree with you. Despite my original support for Keyes (in '00), I was fooled into thinking that Bush was the man for the job. I was fooled into thinking he was a true conservative. Sadly, I now realize that I was fooled on both points. :tear: It is for this reason that I plan to vote very, very carefully in '08 so that I can be sure that I don't cast my vote for another big government, nation building, liberal like George W Bush again.
     
  4. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,894
    Likes Received:
    294
    Nice thought, but politically impossible.

    Falluja comes to mind. Using limited force in the attack, we were still castigated by anti war liberals here at home and other nations for "excessive" civilian casualties.:mad:
     
  5. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    ==Right! But that is where real leaders step up and do what must be done even when it results in them being "castigated" by a bunch of left wing nuts. Civilian casualties are tragic and we should attempt to avoid them. However we must accept the fact that civilian casualties are a part of war and nothing can be done to avoid them.

    If Bush, and this country, are not willing to do what must be done in Iraq to win then our troops need to be pulled out (100%) right now.
     
  6. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,894
    Likes Received:
    294
    Again, nice thought but still unrealistic.

    It is my opinion that the U.S. may not "win" another war...ever.

    Our military will win the battles, but liberal appeasers and defeatists here at home will make sure we "lose" the war, if it takes longer than, oh say...a year.

    How many Liberals does it take to win a war?

    How many of you Liberals does it take to win a war?
    Well how the hell can we tell? You won’t fight one anymore.
    You say that you support the troops, but the truth’s plain as your face,
    You’d pull us from the battle, march us home in full disgrace.
    You’ve no stomach for the fighting, got no mettle, got no pluck;
    If you ran this war on terror, we’d be a very well plucked duck.
    The wolves of Jihad smell your dread, can smell your craven breath,
    And emboldened by the fear they scent, lust for our bloody death.

    “But wait,” you protest piously, “We are fighters for the poor.”
    Might we suggest you start to fight, before wolves come through the door?
    Do you think they’ll still believe in you, your poor, your gays, your blacks,
    When the wolves run wild among them, sinking fangs into their backs?
    Think then that they’ll be caring, when they’re counting out their dead,
    We inflict pain upon a captive wolf to learn what’s in his head?
    Do you really think, you bleeding hearts, when they bleed in scarlet torrents,
    They’ll care we cage the savage wolves, search lairs without signed warrants?

    SNIP

    So how many of you Liberals does it take to win a war?
    Or is there simply nothing you believe worth fighting for?
    How is it that you’ve never learned, like most when they grow older,
    That appeasing badness is a bad idea, only makes the bad guys bolder.
    Has your fear of spilling human blood made you Jihad’s useful fools,
    Ignoring that their wolf packs never fight within the rules?
    By your demand we stay our hand, you weaken and you bind us;
    Forcing us to fight off wolf attacks with that hand tied behind us.

    Russ Vaughn
     
  7. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,123
    Likes Received:
    1
    I am no liberal, and I hope by now many know this.
    But I am apalled that you seem to be suggesting that "scorched earth" be adapted here on this area ?
    Are you suggesting a wholesale massacre of the population ?
    In my country when we were still under the dictatorship, some of his troops applied the "juez de cuchillo" principle, "scorched earth", "no man's zone".
    Same tactics the Japanese army applied during the second world war, when Japanese troops or Korean conscripts were killed in a certain town by the Filipino guerillas.
    They burned the whole town down, raped women, indiscriminately killed civilians, and tossed babies into the air to catch them with their bayonets.
    General "Howling" Smith earned his nickname during the Filipino American war when he ordered his men to scorch the whole town of Balangiga in Samar province. He said to make it a howling wilderness. In retaliation for the death of many of his men as a result of guerilla warfare being waged in resistance against American occupation.
    Is this what you are suggesting, Martin ?

    I should hope not.

    I would say yes to no prisoners. No quarters given, none asked.

    But certainly not to indiscriminate killing.

    That makes us no better than the terrorists.
     
    #7 pinoybaptist, May 13, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: May 13, 2007
  8. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    ==No. I said "Civilian casualties are tragic and we should attempt to avoid them. However we must accept the fact that civilian casualties are a part of war and nothing can be done to avoid them". I am suggesting an very tough crack down on terrorists and those who support them. I am supporting tearing down their networks, their towns, their bases, their safe houses, and other such places.

    ==Of course nobody here is suggesting any such thing be done. I am simply suggesting that this administration needs to allow the military, order the military, to take a much harsher course of action then is currently being used. Such a strategy would go after those who commit terrorist acts against Americans, Iraqis, or anyone else. It would also target those who support, aide, cover for, or hide terrorists.


    ==Nobody here has suggested any such thing. However to win this war, to stop the killing and terrorism, to bring our troops home, this administration must start using very heavy handed tactics. In short they should "flatten" those towns/cities that the terrorists use and get support from. Does that mean kill everyone in the town? Does that mean willfully kill innocent civilians? No. What it does mean, however, is going in and forcefully getting rid of the terrorists. Easier said than done? I'm sure it is. But I have faith that our military is up to the task.
     
    #8 Martin, May 13, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: May 13, 2007
  9. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    It doesn't matter whether the anti war liberals here at home and other nations castigate us or not, if we had a CIC who really cared about what was best for his troops and wasn't deluded by his muslim friends, muslim advisors, and muslim business cronies. Our sons and daughters are his and his associates (our enemies) cannon fodder. GW Bush cares not one wit about our nation or our military IMO. His actions over 2 terms have proven that is the case. One cannot build a civilized nation within a nation of people whose religion teaches they will go to paradise when they kill you.

    To prove my point, what is the doctrine of al Qaeda? What is the bottom line doctrine of sunni islam? What is the doctrine of shia islam? All are the same - kill the infidel. (Remembering these are the people who bite the heads off of frogs and eat the beating hearts of rabbits while they are still alive. As pointed out in another thread several month ago.)
     
    #9 LadyEagle, May 13, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: May 13, 2007
  10. Petra-O IX

    Petra-O IX
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    0
    Our soldiers removed Saddam, Our soldiers helped establish a Democracy and our soldiers have been deployed over and over again. Our soldiers have done enough for this thankless country where politicians feel they need a couple of months off for R&R. If these people do not wish to pursue peace then let them pursue violence amongst themselves, we'll clean up the mess when they are done.
     
  11. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,123
    Likes Received:
    1
    Agreed, Petra-OIX.

    We've done enough for them already. We now amount to shedding our men and women's blood to prop up an Iraqi leadership that cannot seem to garner the political will to lead.

    Let them blow themselves up, let them shoot themselves down, then let them clean up their own mess as well.

    We've never had a stake in their country's history anyway, and I don't see why we should be there any longer than necessary.

    In the meantime, there's this idiot in Iran. And there's the thin tall murderer we need to catch, or prove dead. Those are the threats.

    We have the illegals here at home, and homeboy terrorists.

    Iraq ?

    Let them learn to stand up for themselves.

    They know who those are who are hurting them, let them go after them.
     
  12. JDale

    JDale
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2006
    Messages:
    494
    Likes Received:
    0
    What an absurd question. A flaming liberal had to have originated it.

    George Bush is in Washington, DC in the White House. The battlefield is 8,000 miles away. President Bush is NOT a battlefield commander, and thus, doesn't know these three missing soldiers personally. (Why is it that brainless liberals seem to think every conservative/military-industrial complex/republican/Christian/fascist individual MUST know EVERY OTHER conservative/military-industrail complex/republican/Christian/fascist individual?!?)

    These soldiers were DOING THEIR DUTY. They were apprehended BY THE ENEMY (A note for Liberals: The ENEMY is Al-Queda -- NOT George W. Bush).

    On a battlefield, things like this happen. See, it's called WAR. I know liberal, do-gooders don't believe in the concept. Nevertheless, it's a reality.

    To blame GWB for the capture of these 3 soldiers makes about as much sense as anything else liberals say.

    JDale
     
  13. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Maybe they joined Alqada. (sp?)
     
  14. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    ==Actually I am a true-conservative who believes, as many of the founders did, that America should stay out of the business of other countries (ie...no nation building). I also believe that if we are going to wage war we should wage it to win. After we win, btw, we should not engage in nation building.

    ==Bush is the Commander and Chief, as Sean Hannity loves to say, and therefore he is responsible for the policies of his administration. His administration's policies in Iraq have been nothing but a massive failure. These soldiers were captured because (1) Bush has our military performing nation building (something NO true conservative supports), (2) Bush has not fought this war to win, and (3) Bush involved us in a war which we should never have been involved with (it is not our job to remove other leaders, etc...ie: NO nation building).

    ==If this administration had not started this war they would not have been captured. They were captured because Bush, and other recent presidents, ignored the advice of the founders of this nation who warned us not to get involved in the political affairs of other nations. O, and btw, Saddam was not a threat to the United States.


    ==Our military should only engage in war to defend our nation. Our military should not be used to defend other nations or to help rebuild other nations (nation building). I am sick and tired of all of these pretend conservatives supporting nation building. If someone supports nation building they are not conservative. Period. Conservatives believe in a SMALL federal government and conservatives believe that America should not engage itself in the political/domestic affairs of other nations.
     
  15. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    I thought the title to this OP was a joke...unfortunately it's not. I guess if Bush were dropped with his big old Rambo knife into Iraq he may have been able to prevent the kidnappings. :rolleyes:
     
  16. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,240
    Likes Received:
    2
    I blame J.F.K. for John McCain's Vietnam prisoner of war status. Vietnam had nothing to do with it, it is all Kennedy's fault.
     
    #16 Bro. Curtis, May 14, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: May 14, 2007
  17. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,240
    Likes Received:
    2
    Oh yeah, and I hold Jimmuh Carter personally responsible for the Iran hostages. I don't blame Iran, but Jimmuh.
     
  18. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    FDR wounded my dad which lead to his early demise at age 52;
    It wasn't a German hand gernade.

    Conspiratorial smilie: :1_grouphug:
     
  19. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm talking about the direction Bush's policies have lead this country and our military. There is nothing silly about that. It is certainly not a joke.
     
  20. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,123
    Likes Received:
    1
    Martin:

    Refresh my memory. I might be wrong.
    But what I remember is that Saddam repeatedly made fun of UN efforts to confirm if he did have WMD's.
    Bush was led to believe, at that point in time, that Saddam Hussein was in possession of WMD's.
    Blair also held to that belief, unless there was a covert collussion between Bush and Blair to attack Iraq on a previously known to them non-existent WMD's as pretext.
    The United Nations had a resolution that it needed enforced, and Saddam was running circles around them.
    From all appearances, at that time, military action was inevitable, never mind the dancings and gyrating of France, Russia, and all those countries with obvious, known financial benefits from Saddam Hussein.
    So Bush led this country to war.
    Congress approved it.
    The American "people", whoever they are, approved it.
    Turns out down the road there were no weapons of mass destruction.
    Was that Bush's fault, or was that the fault of faulty intelligence.
    You tell us.
    The facts are that the US had an intelligence made up of big bellied, out of breath, sluggish, dim witted communities, and I'm not talking of individuals. I'm talking of the system which is a far cry from that which the US had during the cold war when that community was constantly on its toes, kept "physically fit", and well-budgeted.
    And then this community also operated under a climate where political correctness prevailed, and the suspect had more rights and privileges and more people championing them than the victims or those they are trying to protect.
    If these were not so, then 9/11 could have been avoided, for one.
    But, I am digressing.

    So, now we are at war.

    You tell us.

    Do you think this president evilly, cunningly, connivingly, deliberately took this country to war, for whatever intents and purposes other than that he was fed false intelligence on which he based his decisions ?

    Personally, I don't think so.
     
    #20 pinoybaptist, May 15, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: May 15, 2007

Share This Page

Loading...