Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Iraq crash kills 14 US soldiers
BBC ^ | 8/22/2007 | Staff

Posted on 08/22/2007 1:44:38 AM PDT by Cardhu

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-115 last
To: SoldierDad

Right and no problem.


101 posted on 08/23/2007 10:12:17 PM PDT by Cindy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: cherry
Always amazed how eager the same people who would never even notice if this had been a peace time military training accident get all hysteric over deaths in war time.

Really sick of the way the Do Nothings, on both the Right and the Left, start weeping rivers of crocodile tears when ever they get the chance to use the bodies of dead American service people as propaganda props.

HERE is what we are doing in Iraq.

Why Iraq

One of the really infuriating things in modern politics is the level of disinformation, misinformation, demagoguery and out right lying going on about the mission in Iraq. Democrats have spent the last 3+ years lying about Iraq out of a political calculation. The assumption is that the natural isolationist mindset of the average American voter, linked to the inherent Anti Americanism (what is misnamed the “Anti War movement”) of the more feverish Democrat activists (especially those running the US’s National “News” media) would restore them to national political dominance. The truth is the Democrat Party Leadership has simply lacked the courage to speak truth to whiners. The truth is that even if Al Gore won the 2000 election and 09-11 still happened we would be doing the EXACT same things in Iraq we are doing now.

Based on the political situation in the region left over from the 1991 Gulf War plus the domestic political consensus built up in BOTH parties since 1991 as well as fundamental military strategic laws, there was NO viable strategic choice for the US but to take out Iraq after finishing the initial operations in Afghanistan.

To start with Saddam’s Iraq was our most immediate threat. We could NOT commit significant military forces to another battle with Saddam hovering undefeated on our flank nor could we leave significant forces watching Saddam. The political containment of Iraq was breaking down. That what Oil for Food was all about. Oil for Food was an attempt by Iraq to break out of it’s diplomatic isolation and slip the shackles the UN Sanctions put on it’s military. There there was the US Strategic position to consider.

The War on Islamic Fascism is different sort of war. in facing this Asymmetrical threat, we have a hidden foe, spread out across a geographically diverse area, with covert sources of supply. Since we cannot go everywhere they hide out, in fact often cannot even locate them until the engage us, we need to draw them out of hiding into a kill zone.

Iraq is that kill zone. That is the true brilliance of the Iraq strategy. We draw the terrorists out of their world wide hiding places onto a battlefield they have to fight on for political reasons (The “Holy” soil of the Arabian peninsula) where they have to pit their weakest ability (Conventional Military combat power) against our greatest strength (ability to call down unbelievable amounts of firepower) where they will primarily have to fight other forces (the Iraqi Security forces) in a battlefield that is mostly neutral in terms of guerrilla warfare. (Iraqi-mostly open terrain as opposed to guerrilla friendly areas like the mountains of Afghanistan or the jungles of SE Asia).

Did any of the critics of liberating Iraq ever look at a map? Iraq, for which we had the political, legal and moral justifications to attack, is the strategic high ground of the Middle East. A Geographic barrier that severs ground communication between Iran and Syria apart as well as providing another front of attack in either state or into Saudi Arabia if needed.

There were other reasons to do Iraq but here is the strategic military reason we are in Iraq. We have taken, an maintain the initiative from the Terrorists. They are playing OUR game on ground of OUR choosing.

Problem is Counter Insurgency is SLOW and painful. Often a case of 3 steps forward, two steps back. One has to wonder if the American people have either the emotional maturity, nor the intellect” to understand. It’s so much easier to spew made for TV slogans like “No Blood for Oil” or “We support the Troops, bring them home” or dumbest of all “We are creating terrorists” then to actually THINK.

Westerners in general, and the US citizens in particular seem to have trouble grasping the fundamental fact of this foe. These Islamic Fascists have NO desire to co-exist with them. The extremists see all this PC posturing by the Hysteric Left as a sign that we are weak. Since they want us dead, weakness encourages them. There is simply no way to coexist with people who completely believe their “god” will reward them for killing us.

So we can covert to Islam, die or kill them. Iraq is about killing enough of them to make the rest of the Jihadists realize we are serious. They same way killing enough Germans, Italians and Japanese eliminated the ideologies of Nazism, Fascism and Bushido.

Americans need to understand how Bin Laden and his ilk view us. In the Arab world the USA is considered a big wimp. We have run away so many times. Lebanon, the Kurds, the Iraqis in 1991, the Iranians, Somalia, Clinton all thru the 1990s etc etc etc. The Jihadists think we will run again. In fact they are counting on it. That way they can run around screaming “We beat the American just like the Russians, come join us in Jihad” and recruit the next round of “holy warriors”. Iraq is also a show place where we show the Muslim world that there are a lines they cannot cross. On 9-11-01 they crossed that line and we can, and will, destroy them for it -

If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”

Winston Churchill

102 posted on 08/24/2007 11:00:20 AM PDT by MNJohnnie (Donate to Vets For Freedom! http://www.vetsforfreedom.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
You left out the part that looking at at the map, iran is surrounded. Aside from that DAMN!


103 posted on 08/24/2007 10:38:51 PM PDT by Eagles6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: b4its2late

But..but...saddam had no connection to 9/11. The rat bastard commision said so, sort of.


104 posted on 08/24/2007 11:17:21 PM PDT by Eagles6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Cap Huff
All no threat to us or any of our business . Under the butcher’s rule, Jews,Christians and muslims lived there in relative peace . His hate for iran was a good thing .Were some kurds terrorist ?

After the USS Cole and especially after 911 Medina and Mecca should have been dealt with .The breeding grounds of the Sauds is where to strike . Think of all the killed and maimed young people it would have saved .

Our military is not meant to die for our country, it is meant to kill others to protect it from outsiders, not run around the damn world protecting our enemies or inviting their sorry ass’s inside !

Don’t pray for the leaders, pray for yourself !

105 posted on 08/27/2007 12:37:50 PM PDT by noamnasty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
Very good points . I have thought of this myself . But there are also some questions to be answered here . Why open up the poppy crops again; why open up our borders and start allowing sharia laws inside them ; why are there now thousands of mosque inside America? Why do we not demand the Sauds stop teaching and financing jihad ?
106 posted on 08/27/2007 12:49:18 PM PDT by noamnasty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: ladtx

That was terrific! One of my nephews flew Apache Longbow D copters in Afghanistan for a year. For some unknown reason, they top out at Captain if they want to continue flying. If he wanted to advance, he had to do some administrative job, which he didn’t want. He ended up joining Special Forces, and is training with them right now.


107 posted on 08/28/2007 1:12:32 PM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: neverendinghunt
Can’t even justify why he was hung, we didn’t find proof that he was going to attack us with his WMD’s/yellowcake enriched uranium imported from africa.

Wow, you've just sucked up that propaganda from the MSM haven't you?

108 posted on 08/28/2007 1:13:56 PM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: neverendinghunt
What gets me though, is the whole ease of this. when bush said mission accomplished (and no, i am not mocking cuz at the time it seemed so) the only army they took down were people with sandals and fn pacman t-shirts.

Again, with the mainstream media, BDS propaganda. The President NEVER said "Mission Accomplished". The Commander of the USS Lincoln, on which the President gave his speech, had his folks hang up that banner to salute the sailors on his ship for THEIR mission, which HAD BEEN accomplished. That was what that statement was signifying. In fact, the President's speech actually said we have a long way to go.

109 posted on 08/28/2007 2:56:06 PM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ

wow yer one for the archives..

look up the original bush speech for war. hey everyone bought it, the drats etc. saddam had yellowcake enriched uranium from africa and was gonna attack us.

now, we’re hunting al queda, THERE. you do the math, we’re missing about 7 steps inbetween which distorted everything.

You tell me why did congress vote for war with iraq?

in their words! According to you the MSM is all bullsh*t but i saw this coming from bush;s own mouth so don’t try and doubt me here. you know this as well as i but are in the denial stage.

what was the original reason for war with saddam?

and why are we there now?

answer #1: saddam had wmd’s and was about to attack us

answer #2: we gotta hit AQ there so they don’t hit us here

.. wow we skipped a step somewhere din’t we? i will bring up bush’s speeches if you want, this is the presidents own words not mine. i just love how after 4 years this war has twisted justification in so many ways you can actually debate why we are there?

keep quiet, it’d be better for your health cuz when i reply i’ll have evidence straight from the president’s and his advisors mouth. YELLOWCAKE ENRICHNED URANIUM NUKES - SADDAM - ENEMY.

now?

we can’t even secure baghdad, one freaking city! do the math!

but first, tell me why we went into iraq. trust me, it was the yellowcake nuke deal, not to beat al queda.

-h

and thanks for replying 8 days later, yer a weird one.


110 posted on 08/29/2007 7:50:04 AM PDT by neverendinghunt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: neverendinghunt
keep quiet, it’d be better for your health cuz when i reply i’ll have evidence straight from the president’s and his advisors mouth. YELLOWCAKE ENRICHNED URANIUM NUKES - SADDAM - ENEMY.

My health is just fine, and I'll be quiet, if I feel like it. ;o)

When the President spoke of yellowcake, he said that the BRITISH had credible evidence that Sadaam was trying to obtain yellowcake uranium from Niger. He didn't say that OUR intelligence sources had confirmed it. Joe Wilson claims he didn't find any evidence of it, but from what I've read about Joe, he couldn't find his a$$ with both hands. There WAS evidence that Sadaam was trying to obtain yellowcake uranium, and the President was stating a simple fact.

It was anticipated, not only by President Bush, but by almost every Senator, Republican AND Democrat, that he would use the uranium to further his nuclear ambitions. When Clinton was President, HE expected this, and claimed that Sadaam was furthering terrorist ambitions throughout the region, and was joined in this by his Democrat Senators; the same Senators who started backtracking on their support as soon as Bush became President.

Sadaam had been supporting terrorists for years; he was paying Palestinian families whose sons blew themselves up in order to kill Jews. There were terrorist training facilities within Iraq, and Sadaam was harboring known terrorist leaders well before we decided to go in in 2003.

The original reasons for attacking Sadaam were based, in part, on that he had WMD, and was willing to use them. We KNEW this because he already HAD used them, against his own countrymen. To claim he didn't have them in 2003, and had NEVER had them, is to live in a dream world, or to be lying, simply for political reasons, as the Democrats are doing. Another reason for attacking Sadaam was because he was defying the UN Resolutions to which he'd agreed after the first Gulf War, and apparently no one else seemed to be bothered by this. The fact that he was beginning to harbor folks who were connected to those who had attacked us on 9/11 was just another reason, among many, to go after him.

All hindsight is 20/20, and many mistakes have been made along the way, but saying that we should have left him in place is just plain naive. By doing that, we'd not only have Sadaam with nukes by now, but President Iwannajihad next door with the same ambitions. To say, let them fight it out among themselves is silly as well, because clearly, many more innocent people would die in such a conflagration, and nuclear fallout doesn't respect national borders, and that entire area would have been uninhabitable for years. Even if they hadn't used nukes against each other, BOTH would be trying to figure out how to use them against the West, just because they though they could.

111 posted on 08/29/2007 8:55:42 AM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ

chick, i don’t give a crap who supplied the evidence... everyone provided it, (giving you the benefit of every doubt here) . They all provided the commander in chief with false info.

but, that was the case! don’t distort my words, this iraq crap opened with yellowcake uranium and an imminent attack from iraq.

4 years later, well it’d be a good idea to start planning an exit strategy and saving face at the same time. any ideas on how we can do that?

i am just sadden, we f*cked up the middle east for nothing.

-h


112 posted on 08/29/2007 4:31:33 PM PDT by neverendinghunt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ

btw- our problem atm seems to be insurgents in iraq.

wrong . the problem is the main vein of AQ all over, itching to pull the trigger on something from what i hear will be big.

We didn’t exactly make friends by this iraq mess. if we solely stuck to afghanisan and by now with the resources we’d have bin laden, that’d be fine. but instead, how much money goes into iraq daily?

what are we winning there exactly? i hate to be the devils advocate but i have no other choice...damn MSM!

i want to know WHY WE ARE IN IRAQ TO BEGIN WITH , WE HUNG SADDAM AND KILLED HIS SONS BUT FOR WHAT? TO DESTROY THEIR INFRASTRUCTURE?

saddam wasn’t an idiot, he saw this coming a mile away. level with me here.. the weapons got shipped elsewhere. iraq is definitely a lose/lose situation, when i hear bush comparing it to nam now, wow.... weird.

but, wheres the enemy? guess what, they are lurking.. if you haven’t read up abou tal quedas method yet, they infiltrate, trojan horse styles.

get your head out of your ass please... yes we can argue forever about why we originally went after saddam , or we can discuss how this war created more enemies than friends.

you choose the next topic, i’m around. in short, there will be no good outcome after all of this. iraq was fn babylon.

-h


113 posted on 08/29/2007 4:42:21 PM PDT by neverendinghunt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: neverendinghunt

Whatever


114 posted on 08/29/2007 4:57:22 PM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ

Exactly, well put.

out of gas eh? not surprising. i won’t rub it in your face, but you couldn’t counter one thing i said.

thanks cuz you know right now your only, -only- option is to agree with me.


115 posted on 08/29/2007 5:03:00 PM PDT by neverendinghunt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-115 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson