Posted on 01/27/2006 12:42:52 PM PST by Dog Gone
"As [Colonel H.R.] McMasters and others know, the vast majority of the "terrorists" killed and detained during the fight for Tall Afar were natives of that town simply fighting to defend their homes... There can be little doubt about what will motivate them for the foreseeable future -- a burning desire to drive out an occupying force, that destroyed their homes and slaughtered their fellow townspeople.
In an effort to win back the "hearts and minds" of the citizens of Tall Afar, Col. McMasters' 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment participated in a program in mid-November 2005 to distribute blankets to help ward off the cold of the coming winter. This action was reported by the Department of Defense's new "Defend America" website, part of a propaganda effort to feed to the American people the "good news" coming from Iraq. Tell that to the citizens of Tall Afar, who know that a few blankets and repaired schools can't undo the damage done by a brutal occupation run by officers like Col. McMasters who have lost all sense of history or responsibility when it comes to waging war in Iraq."
or the Iraqi mayor of the city of Tall Afar?:
[O]ur city was overrun by heartless terrorists, Zarqawi and his followers, who unloaded their bloodthirsty and voracious action of evil on this city for several months by indiscriminately killing men, women and children. Tall Afar was a human slaughterhouse. Simple services were not possible, causing the people to suffer, till the day you dispatched your troops, who were our lion-hearted saviors. Your troops came to rescue Tall Afar led by our heroes, whom Tall Afar will never forget. After the major operation, your wonderful soldiers started nursing the wounds of this city by rebuilding the damaged lives and buildings with great compassion and speed. These soldiers have done more than their original mission required of them. Thank you from the bottom of our hearts.
Ritter needs to hook-up with Sheehan and live happily ever after in Ven. sucking on Chavez's toes.
The key to understanding Scott Ritter is to realize that everything is relative. If you are a partisan extremist on the take, then the other guys' "terrorist" is your "native... simply fighting to defend their homes."
Maybe Scott may want to search some 10 year old girls for weapons.
Scotty *will indeed* get his comeuppance someday. There may not always be justice in this world, but you can't escape it in hte next.
Scott Ritter is a turd...I'll believe the other guy who speaks from his heart-the Iraqi.
Who do I believe?
The Mayor.
I'm starting to see a consensus here.
There was a crazy woman on Rush today quoting scott ritter as her source. This pedophile, took sadman's blood money bribe and sold his soul to the devil. When I see him on tv my blood boils. This traitor should be tried, found guilty and shot. I volunteer for the final act. {I'll bring my own gun and ammo}.
Great clip!
If I have to choose between Col. McMaster and Scotty-boy, no contest.
McMaster is a fine, courageous officer and a pretty fair historian. Scotty Ritter is, shall we say, truth-challenged. I think Ritter criticising Col. McMaster's sense of history is ridiculous, to say the least.
I submit that Col. McMasters knows far more about "history or responsibility when it comes to waging war" than does Ritter.
For one thing, McMasters IS a historian...
Dereliction of Duty: Johnson, McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies That Led to Vietnam, by H.R. McMasters.
This book, perhaps the most important book on the subject of Viet Nam and why it turned out as it did, was McMasters' graduate thesis at UNC-Chapel Hill.
Ritter is an utter fool.
That Scott Ritter has an agenda has been painfully obvious for at least five years. That this mayor would speak well, publicly, of foreign troops in his town is only rational. I'd wait and see, until after our troops leave his town, as far as how genuine this mayor's comments actually are. There's a spin on both sets of comments, in other words. I'd be willing to bet that the first is far more spun than the second, though.
Look at the clip in post 11 and judge for yourself who might be spinning.
You can read the reports of our soldiers, you can read and see (rarely) the reports of the Iraqis, or you can read the reports of the moonbat American left and the Islamic terrorist websites.
If you want to keep an open mind on it until we've left the country because we might be an oppressor occupying army, that's up to you. That's not how I see it.
"If you want to keep an open mind on it until we've left the country because we might be an oppressor occupying army, that's up to you."
You're reading something into my reply that isn't there.
I'd wait and see, until after our troops leave his town, as far as how genuine this mayor's comments actually are.
You don't know whether he's being honest because American troops are there. That's what you said.
"You don't know whether he's being honest because American troops are there."
The meaning of the sentence, as far as I am concerned, is that this mayor may be speaking about our presence there in more glowing terms while we're there than he will after we're gone. Foreign troops are often resented, no matter how well treated the native people might be. History bears this out. To try and turn this into saying that I think our troops are oppressors is wrong.
Okay, you have your doubts.
If you can find a similar statement from him made to Zarqawi while his folks were running the show, I'll be convinced.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.