1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!


Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by poncho, Jul 23, 2004.

  1. poncho

    poncho Well-Known Member

    Mar 30, 2004
    One of the first things I learned in the US Army's basic training was to shoot to wound not to kill. The idea behind this was for every enemy wounded it would take two more out of the battle to care for that wounded. Three for the price of one so to speak.

    So, what of our wounded? How many are there and are we being told the truth?

    "The Best Kept Secret In Washington"
  2. Scott J

    Scott J New Member

    Apr 25, 2001
    The article looks more than a little biased but there are a fairly significant number of wounded coming out of Iraq. However that has to be balanced fairly against the risks of not having gone after Saddam.

    The Russians recently confirmed that Saddam wanted to instigate terrorism against the US. Everyone "in the know" believed Saddam was hiding WMD's prior to the invasion. Although the 9/11 commission stated that there was no proof that Saddam was involved in that attack, there is significant evidence that al Qaeda and Saddam had a relationship built around a common hatred for the US. Iraq did provide havens for terrorists training camps. Added together, no President loyal to his oath could have not done what Bush did... in spite of the politics of expediency now being employed by Bush haters.

    My heart aches for everyone who becomes a casualty over there for any reason. I feel for those who must be separated from family as well. But the only way to win the war on terrorism is to fight it on the enemies turf as much as possible. If terrorists' resources weren't being used on car bombs in Baghdad, the news could very well be reporting on how "Bush failed" as car bombs exploded in Boston or Baltimore.

    Saddam was a terrorist. A direct threat to the US. It is better to have soldiers with Bradleys taking him down in Iraq than having the city police trying to stop his minions with handguns in Atlanta.

    Bottom line is this: Clinton tried the restrained response method. It didn't work. While we were "working with our allies", "building concensus", "seeking help from the international community", and all that other non-sense, al Qaeda was attacking US interests around the world and planting terror cells here.

    Kerry's rhetoric indicates that not only will he not continue the aggressive 'find'em and snuff'em out before they get here' policies of Bush, he will probably skip over Clinton's restraint all the way back to Carter's paralyzing belief that all we have to do is talk it out willing to make concessions. The terrorists don't want concessions. They hate us for what we are, what we represent, and that we stand in the way of the spread of radical jihad.
  3. LadyEagle

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

    Feb 7, 2002
    Scott, that was a great post. One of the best I've seen on the topic. [​IMG] [​IMG]
  4. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member

    May 14, 2001
    President Reagan said it best (at least what I read attributed it to him) that with some enemies it's not the difference between war and peace but war and surrender. In other words "peace" to radical Islam means surrender on our part.