Posted on 11/02/2006 8:26:18 AM PST by Dominic Harr
Go to war? OK Fine no arguments from me. But first lets state the objectives as solely related to the national security of the United States and not some UN Resolution laden writ toilet paper. WW2's congressional declaration took two paragraphs stating our national interest. State the objectives of war before congress which should be the unconditional surrender of the enemy or their unconditional elimination as a future threat. If this means bombing every standing structure so be it that is war. War is hell that must be understood by all planning it. If you don't have the stomach as a nation for it then stay home.
If the POTUS and congress are not willing to do this as it appears will be necessary then they are wrong and I don't care who's party they belong to.
Stop dragging it out and put some meaningful dead lines on the so called leadership of Iraq to either straighten up or face a destroyed nation. Six months from today should suffice. Keep the State Department home and use the Pentagon to convey this and any future messages.
If that fails then take out the bridges, power plants, communications, and any building or item that could ever possibly be used as a weapon or tool of war. Why was this not done early on? Because George W Bush and congress had every intention of nation building in Iraq and knew the American citizens wouldn't go for it? It sure looks like it to me. It was obvious after the second night of bombing where we were headed when they Wouldn't even secure Iraqi TV. {Remember Baghdad Bob?}
Do it and do it with prejudice and be done about it. Do not start into or turn Iraq an insane nation building program. {oops too late} Do not give the terrorist supporting thug dictator whom the war was all about over the the corrupt people who ALLOWED him to come to power to start with for a kangaroo trail in a make believe government court that has the stability of jello. {oops too late}
There are many reasons to ask questions about our policy in Iraq and that doesn't make one a DEM or Liberal or even anti-war for doing so. I call it holding congress accountable including John Kerry and Bill Frist for allowing the war in Iraq to become anything but just that the war in Iraq. Shame on you congress. You forget the lessons bought in blood of Korea and Nam and make the same policy mistakes.
I think our current heading is wrong and a waste of time. I think Iraq will be in a Civil War very soon and will never stand as free nation until the three factions fight it out amongst themselves. It is not our duty or responsibility to be their baby sitter nor re-builder of their nation. I am 100% against such doings but I am not against war and some need in the Whitehouse and Congress to learn the differences between those two.
Fight the war and let soldiers do their vocation. Support them and honor them. Stop making the War in Iraq some moronic experiment in NWO nation building and get it over with over there and out troops back home for well deserved victory celebrations and rest. Keep the United States State Department out of our wars and out of dictating our national defense policies.
We have at least two other nations on the back burner to possibly contend with and can anyone tell me why Rummy, Bush, nor congress, is not acting to increase out End Troop Strengths for active duty military? We are at Bill Clintons 1996 manpower level. Where is the outrage? Our military needs help and not some dolts who promise down the next few decades things will get better because of some far off yet to be built defense programs. We need a Reagan and a Cap in charge. Even in our Korea policy I feel like I'm watching LBJ part 2. /rant off
The mindset of the Democrats is frightening, to say the least. The fact that there are many Americans who share their dangerous views of the WOT and our homeland security makes it critical for us to all get out and vote, and to try and convince others that to vote for a Democrat is a vote against the troops and the future of the United States.
BTTT
And here is an example of Dom's point, Chena, and yours:
"WABC has just announced the first Military Iraq death for November!"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1730829/posts?page=269#269
by angcat
Angcat, I didn't see you on this thread, but I was using your post to illustrate the trumpeting of each and every casualty by the Left to get us out now.
Thank you, bwteim. Nothing the MSM does surprises me anymore. IMO, we are fighting more than one war. The MSM declared war on the U.S., President Bush, and our military men and women a long time ago. They are as emboldened and as dangerous to our future and security as the terrorists. They are, in fact, aiding each other. Americans who do not understand this do so at our peril.
"You seem to want to latch onto the title..."
Would you be irritated if you purchased a book that said, on it's cover "How to Win Friends and Influence People", but when you got home and read it, it was a book on how to efficiently undermine people in the workplace? Even if it was factually true?
Would you say there are people who MIGHT see that title and enter to read the thread and say to themselves "What am I wasting my time in here for? This is an aspect of an issue that has been discussed dozens of times, and this person thinks they are being profound with a new groundbreaking viewpoint on something? And they get people to take a look with a misleading, dishonorable and inconsiderate title?
The use of the phrase is not insignificant. Words have meaning. If I had started a thread:
"US Military Deaths in Iraq are Insignificant"
"Over the last three and a half years, thousands of American military personnel have died in the fighting in Iraq. To put this into perspective, we suffered 6,000 Marine in thirty days in WWII. While no deaths are good, these casualites are small and relatively insignificant in comparison..."
I could hardly be insulted if someone disagreed with the title of the thread, even if the main point makes sense, and I certainly wouldn't denigrate someone who did disagree with me, as this person did.
ESPECIALLY if I childishly titled it DELIBERATELY (as he says he did, by his own admission) to bump the volume on a thread and incite controversy for its own sake.
I SPECIFICALLY told him (in the FIRST post I made) that I understood the point he was making and agreed with it. And I did it in a sympathetic and civil way. His response was to ridicule my viewpoint as political correctness.
"And you think that they will answer, "Why yes, I did have it easy"?"
My point exactly.
That's why I stated (post #20) it was an extremely poor choice of words.
Gee, do you think that might be their strategy? Well, there's no way that will work so they might as well give it up. I mean it's never worked before, right?
Indeed, although not the only one, the DBM are a significant weapon in the enemy's arsenal. What has the Administration's strategy been for dealing with them? Embedding was an early one and somewhat successful. But since then? Nada.
If I had "purchased" a book that turned out to be exactly the opposite of what the headline inferred, I'd be irritated. Not only at the author, but at myself for judging a book by it's cover. LOL Unlike purchasing books, this forum allows us to click on a thread without having to spend our money.
Yes, I'm sure some people have clicked on a thread only to find that in their opinion, it was a waste of time. Easy solution for that one. Return "home" and find another thread.
Yes, this issue has been discussed before. As it is still at the forefront of our battle with our enemies, the MSM and the Lib/Dems, it will probably continue to be discussed on this forum. If I get tired of the discussion, I simply won't involve myself in it.
I agree that the title did not reflect the body of the post but I'm not going to let that bother me. There are far more important issues we are facing, and I choose to pick my battles accordingly.
All that being said, I do respect your viewpoint, rlmorel. Now, I think I'll go do battle with our enemies, not our FRiends. ;)
Thanks. I didn't really want to get into this kind of discussion either. Normally, I would walk away from it, but...I think his derisive tone when I was trying to HELP him make his point just plain ticked me off. You ended with a very civil response...thanks.
Cake walk? Unbelievably stupid choice of words on your part.
I understand where you're coming from, rlmorel. And, I appreciate your civility too, FRiend. :)
Hi, I'm back.
Miss me?
I personally think arguing with the choice of words here is *not* helping make the point. I stated what I meant, clearly. Some folks chose not to read the thread before posting, and *that* is what I believe deserves ridicule.
The idea of a provocative headline is to bring readers in, and then once they read the article they understand the point being made and debate it.
Your concern is for people who did *not* read the article, and think I'm insulting the troops, or making light of the horrors of war.
What you have to understand is, I don't care about such folks one bit. Anyone who is of a habit of commenting without reading what the topic is . . . all emotion, no reason.
Hmmm -- did you read the post?
Compared to Iwo Jima, it's a cake-walk. Would you agree with that?
Victory on the battlefield means controlling the territory. When the enemy face us, they die. They are so ineffective that their only real attack is to kill themselves.
I've been doing this for a long, long time.
The provocative headline is to get people to click and read the article.
For those who flame without reading, those who comment without listening, I just have no respect for.
Especially when they then complain that it's my fault they didn't read the actual comments in question!
They in no way threaten a military victory.
It's very easily winnable.
The only way the enemy can possibly win is by American public opinion. A military victory is impossible.
Losing a single soldier/marine/airman/seaman is a tragic loss, but a sacrifice we all agreed to make when we signed up for the service, should it be necessary in the defense of our fellow countrymen.
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.