Rumsfeld - This is really disgusting!

Easy. The plan was to rid us of the supposed threat of Saddam having WMD. We attack in force as we did, the Iraqi army collapses as it did, and we round up or kill all the senior Baathist leaders we can find. We then tell the lower level leaders:

"Don't act aggressive with your neighbors, don't even think about WMD, and this won't happen again. If Saddam or anyone else on this list comes back to power, count on us coming back. Next time we take all of you out."

Then we leave. The average Iraqi is still dancing in the streets, and pulling down Saddam statues. We haven't had time to get them to hate us. The party leaders, what's left of them, realize they have a good thing going, and take advantage of it. They still have control of the police, the security forces, and what's left of the army, so terrorists don't get a foothold.

We don't get to install a US-style democracy, though. But we don't get that the way we're handling it now, either. In a year, see what kind of government is there.

Objective realized, and about a thousand fewer Americans dead.

 

It was the "next time" already!

 

You had best not use such ignorant language in the presence of someone who has lost a loved one or friend fighting in the battle against al Qaeda in Iraq. They might very well smite you on your cheek. And I wouldn't blame them if they do so.

 

It's a real war being fought by real people whom we - that's all of us as a nation - have sent to act on our behalf. To not understand that is something I doubt I have the ability to clarify to one who's convicted otherwise.

Patrick

 

I just saw this story presented on Free Republic: It turns out that the premise of the question that was fed to the soldier by the reporter might have been false:

But, according to senior Army officers, about 800 of the 830 vehicles in Wilson's army regiment — the 278th Cavalry — had already been up-armored when he asked the question. What's more, 20 vehicles remaining to be modified were in the process of being up-armored — and that was completed within 24 hours of Wilson's question.

Joseph Botwinick

 

I just saw this story presented on Free Republic: It turns out that the premise of the question that was fed to the soldier by the reporter might have been false:

But, according to senior Army officers, about 800 of the 830 vehicles in Wilson's army regiment — the 278th Cavalry — had already been up-armored when he asked the question. What's more, 20 vehicles remaining to be modified were in the process of being up-armored — and that was completed within 24 hours of Wilson's question.

Joseph Botwinick </font>[/QUOTE]The real question is how long have then been fighting without the proper equipment. Obviously since the beginning of the war.

 

What has to be remembered is that at the beginning of World War II, we didn't exactly have the best military equipment.

The same at the beginning of the Korean Conflict and the Vietnam Conflict.

Merry Christmas, StraightAndNarrow.

 

Is there anyone on here old enough to remember what we went into WWII with, or for that matter the Korean Police Action. If not watch the History Channel and see soldiers doing exercizes with toy rifles and jeeps with a sign designating it as a tank on its side, prior to WWII. Korea was as bad or worse because the soldiers were so poorly trained.

 

You had best not use such ignorant language in the presence of someone who has lost a loved one or friend fighting in the battle against al Qaeda in Iraq. They might very well smite you on your cheek. And I wouldn't blame them if they do so. </font>[/QUOTE]You got to be kidding me! What's ignorant about it? Just because you know or anyone else knows someone that enlisted in the Military and died in Iraq has nothing to do with me. I CAN SAY WHAT I WANT! I did not say that those fighting overthere are a joke, DID I. THE WAR IS A JOKE. Not one soldier overthere is dying for me, get it. SADDAM WAS NOT A THREAT TO THIS COUNTRY, and the FACTS are that those people fighting against the US are not all AL QAEDA! You people will call anyone Al QAEDA to prove that we are fighting terrorist in Iraq. FACT, We are fighting IRAQI's in IRAQ! Ask yourself this question &lt;personal attack deleted&gt;, how many innocent non combatants did were killed? Don't look for any patriotism from me, YOU AIN'T GOING TO GET IT, NOT FOR THIS SO-CALLED WAR! I gave it when we went after OSAMA, because OSAMA claimed 911, SADDAM HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

And please don't give me that mess about US fighting for Iraqi freedoms, They did not asked for it, BUT SUDAN IS. So where is the congressional APPROVAL for this obvious genocide! THERE WAS NO GENOCIDE IN IRAQ, SADDAM DID NOT TRY TO WIPE OUT THE SHAITE'S!

THE WAR IS A JOKE, AND A BAD ONE!

Ron

Continued name calling will result in a suspension or banning from this board

[ December 23, 2004, 09:40 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

In the beginning of the Iraqi conflict, although we had sufficient armored vehicles, and the capacity to provide body armor to all troops, the decision was made to not send the vehicles or to buy additional armor as a cost-cutting measure.

Since the neocons said that once we beat Saddam, the Iraqis would love us and all resistance would end, it was thought to be wasteful to spend the money.

They messed up. We ended up in a nasty, prolonged war. And the cost-cutting killed troops.

Lying about why the material wasn't provided when needed and lying about whether or not Rumsfeld personally signed the letters to grieving families is just adding insult to injury.

The real failure was to protect the troops in the first place. Even Clinton, who once said he "loathed" the military was concerned enough to remove his Secretary of Defense for messing up like that.

But Bush doens't have as much respect for the troops as Clinton did.

And that's a shame.

 

You had best not use such ignorant language in the presence of someone who has lost a loved one or friend fighting in the battle against al Qaeda in Iraq. They might very well smite you on your cheek. And I wouldn't blame them if they do so. </font>[/QUOTE]You got to be kidding me! What's ignorant about it? Just because you know or anyone else knows someone that enlisted in the Military and died in Iraq has nothing to do with me. I CAN SAY WHAT I WANT!</font>[/QUOTE]You are correct, in general, you may say whatever you want in a free society with free speech. And, I certainly would defend your right to do so in a public forum paid for with taxpayer dollars. That is part of what makes this country great is the right to dissent without fear of imprisonment, torture, or death. However, I would say, for what it is worth, that there are many people who have family in Iraq, or friends (in my case) in Iraq right now. Many of us who have family and friends in the military would argue that if you degrade their mission, then you are degrading them. Please, don't do that. It isn't nice to degrade their work and what they are fighting and dying for. That is just my opinion.

I did not say that those fighting overthere are a joke, DID I. THE WAR IS A JOKE.[/QUOTE]

I disagree. Liberating millions of people is no joke.

Not one soldier overthere is dying for me, get it. SADDAM WAS NOT A THREAT TO THIS COUNTRY, and the FACTS are that those people fighting against the US are not all AL QAEDA! You people will call anyone Al QAEDA to prove that we are fighting terrorist in Iraq. FACT, We are fighting IRAQI's in IRAQ![/QUOTE]

1. Saddam was a threat to our country and no longer is. He was not, himself, Al Quaeda. Bit, he was working with Al Quaeda as is evidenced by his terror training camps and his harbouring Abu Nidal. Further, Sarin Gas has been found. He did have WMD's and used it on his own people. Those who don't respect the human rights of their own people will certainly eventually become a threat to us. We are fighting a war of pre-emption. Most people I know would rather not wait for the next 9-11 before we justify defending ourselves.

2. You are correct when you say that not all the enemy is Al Quaeda. Nobody has ever said otherwise. I think your mistake is not recognizing that all these terrorist groups are working together.

3. We are not fighting mainly Iraqis. In fact, most of the MSM points out that most of the terrorists come from outside of the country. They have come to fight freedom in Iraq because they are desperately holding on to their fear society in the Middle East. Further, the Iraqi people, for the most part, are not fighting against us, but rather are fighting and dying with us.

Ask yourself this question &lt;personal attack deleted&gt;, how many innocent non combatants did were killed?[/QUOTE]

How many of those were killed by terrorists? How many innocent people were gassed by Saddam? How many innocent people were tortured, imprisoned, raped, and murdered by Saddam? How many mass graves were filled by Saddam? There is no moral equivalence there. Americans do not, as a policy, target innocent civilians. The terrorists do. Saddam even went as far as using innocent civilians in Gulf War one as human shields. We liberated these people from this butcher and they are certainly better off than where they were.

Don't look for any patriotism from me, YOU AIN'T GOING TO GET IT,[/QUOTE]

Not surprising.

NOT FOR THIS SO-CALLED WAR! I gave it when we went after OSAMA, because OSAMA claimed 911, SADDAM HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.[/QUOTE]

Bush has never said that Saddam had anything to do with 9-11. He did say that there were connections between him and Al Quaeda and that they were actively giving aid to Al Quaeda at the time. He did say that Saddam was trying to hide WMD's. Indeed recently, our troops did find biles of sarin gas. Saddam has a record of supporting Al Quaeda and international terrorism (offered money to Palestinian families of suicide bombers in Israel to go and kill Jews, Americans, etc...). Please, don't feel to bad for Saddam. He wasn't as innocent as you might think.

And please don't give me that mess about US fighting for Iraqi freedoms, They did not asked for it, BUT SUDAN IS.[/QUOTE]

Have you ever heard of an organization called Women for a Free Iraq. They are a group of Iraqi dissidents here in America who fled Iraq during Saddam's brutal regime. They tell their stories of how they were raped. Some were tortured. Some had friends and family who were imprisoned and killed by Saddam and his sons. In 2003, they wrote President Bush and Prime Minister Blair a letter encouraging them to liberate Iraq. Here is the letter to President Bush:

Women For A Free Iraq

So where is the congressional APPROVAL for this obvious genocide![/QUOTE]

I could be wrong, but I believe that Congress gave approval for the war with Iraq, including Senators Kerry and Edwards (who now criticize the war for political gain). BTW, we are not committing genocide. As I said before, we do not target innocent civilians.

THERE WAS NO GENOCIDE IN IRAQ, SADDAM DID NOT TRY TO WIPE OUT THE SHAITE'S!

THE WAR IS A JOKE, AND A BAD ONE!

Ron

Continued name calling will result in a suspension or banning from this board [/QUOTE]

Tell that to the Kurds. I don't think you are in touch with reality if you are able to overlook the mass graves that were filled under Saddam. Saddam was a genocidal maniac and so were his sons. Good riddance to bad rubbish and God Bless America and George W. Bush for taking a stand for what is right in this war.

Joseph Botwinick

 

1. THERE WAS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN "SADDAM" AND 911 OR AL QAEDA!

2. THE WAR NOT NECCESARY!

3. IF INNOCENT PEOPLE ARE DYING FASTER THAN THEY WERE IN IRAQ NOW. IT IS NOT THE TERROIST BUT THE FACT THAT U.S. STARTED THIS UNJUST WAR! Please provide the figures of Iraqi deaths from 1997-2000.

4. PRIOR TO 911, SUDAN HAD PROBLEMS AND YES CLINTON DID NOT GO, BUT IF YOU PEOPLE KEEP CLAIMING HUMANITARIAN REASON FOR WAR WITH IRAQ, I THINK THAT THEY ARE WAY DOWN THE LINE!

5. IRAQ WAS NOT A THREAT TO THE U.S., MAYBE THE THREAT OF OIL MARKET, BUT THEY WERE NOT A MILITARY THREAT AS IT HAS BEEN PROVEN. NO ROCKETS COULD REACH OUR BORDERS FROM IRAQ!

6. IF YOU ASK ME, THE TRUE PATRIOTS ARE THE ONE THAT STAND FOR TRUTH AND JUSTICE, NOT WORLD DOMINATION AND IMPERIALISM! I'M ONE OF THEM

Ron

 

Sorry,

But you are wrong on all counts.

Merry Christmas,

Joseph Botwinick

 

Happy Hanukka to you.

 

A little late but thanks.

Happy Channukah!

Baruch ata Adoni, Elohenu melech ha-olam!

And Merry Christmas.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Edo bri'cho o rish d'shato brich'to!

Ron

 

Mo'adim Lesimkha. Shanah Tova

 

Chúc mừng giáng sinh và năm mới!

Patrick

 

Saddam and his regime had never come clean since the end of the previous war. He was a threat to us and the world in general. That's why so many nations were working through the UN - not a very effective organization - to correct the problem. That effort was getting no where. We stepped in - albeit fueled by the fire of 911 - to rid Iraq of this problem and are trying to help give the people there a chance at democracy with the hopes it will reduce the threat of future terrorist type activities.

The diplomatic approach and restraint from the previous war were not working. Saddam was busy rebuilding his war machine for future aggression and continuing his internal oppression. He may not have had the weapons we all honestly believed he did - particularly since he seemed to enjoy bragging that he did - but he was, based on past experience headed that way.

People are indeed dying in the war. Some are combatants and some are not. War does escalate casualties and, if it's in your back yard, you're going to have lots of civilian casualties. The objective of war is a lasting peace that in the long term will bear far fewer casualties than the short term. Hopefully, future generations in Iraq will not experience the mass killings of Saddam's regime.

There are plenty of trouble spots around the world. Whether or not we get involved and, if so, in what way depends upon the threat, the timing, the progress of diplomacy, the risks, the likelihood of success, etc. Just because we choose one does not obligate us to all. This is one that we - America - choose to get involved in. We're there now and we need to finish the job we started.

Of course, it's very unlikely that Iraq could have attacked the US directly - they didn't have that military capability. Neither have several other countries in which we've been involved. Direct attack isn't the only concern. Indirect attack - the work of terrorism - is the greater concern.

Natural resources are vital to security of nations. Nations will, and have, gone to war over food, treasure, land, religion, and a host of issues. We didn't launch our attack to take the oil from Iraq. However, it's a sure thing the people of Iraq will benefit from their oil because the sale of it to countries like us - a small part of the total consumed - will put money into their pockets instead of Saddam and his friends.

No offense intended but I disagree completely! There are, and always have been, well meaning people like you that believe that. It is most important to support the just cause and, in turn, those we send to enforce it. In battle, people respond out a will to live, to keep their comrades alive, to kill before being killed, etc. but, in war, people go in belief of the cause. If you remove the cause most would not ever return to the battle because there is nothing but maximum trauma waiting there. That's a fundamental difference in thinking not likely to be debated to a conclusion amongst us.

Patrick

 

Ná merye i turuhalmeri! Ná alya i vinya loa! Barbarian merin sa haryalye alasse!