Posted on 12/02/2005 9:17:39 PM PST by jmc1969
More to come
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
This seems appropriate:
Another One Bites the Dust--Music Video by Queen
http://www.hotget.com/videocode/Queen-Another_One_Bites_The_Dust--7395.html
COME ON GUYS!
This is what you are refusing to "get" - And where you are creating a straw-man and trying to act as if you are the smartest one in the room....when in reality you are completely in the dark.
We have fought and continue to fight the most successfully UNconventional war in history! - Since Sept 11th our enemies have suffered one strategic defeat after another. We have not suffered one. That is the reality.
Furthermore for you to continue to insist that we have not engaged more with SOF is completely and utterly ridiculous (or for you to suggest we should be using them more). If you only knew the reality you would know how absurd that suggestion is. In many cases it is the Conventional forces playing a support role for our SOF (never in history has that happened until now! And the Big Green isn't happy about it either!).
Your notion that "air attacks" would accomplish anything permanent regarding Iran is silly at best. It could only complicate the situation in Iraq 10 fold over night!
You would need boots on the ground to deal with Iran effectively (and stop the ROOT causes of any problems Iran could cause after these "air strikes").
Thank God your type mindset is not leading this GWOT. The way we have fought this war is allowing us to systematically and deliberately destroy our enemies while assuring both short term and long term victory.
ABC radio keeps saying it is believed that Bin Laden is in this same area. Anyone hear anything else on this?
Hope so. I wonder if the CIA could use some of Al Qaeda's tactics against it. Perhaps this was just a lucky break, a rare tip (I hope not), but why don't they try several attacks on Al Qaeda at once? Nothing like a little subsidence to get the roaches scurrying out from under the rocks.
Wrong. We are fighting 1] a conventional, tactical style for an urban setting and 2] we are fighting in a politically correct fashion -- we have sent many millions of dollars to Iran in "charity" even though the are aiding Iraq and killing our troops with their IEDs.
our enemies have suffered one strategic defeat after another.
Strategic?
You say we have inflicted a "strategic" hurt on our enemies?
Do you know the slightest about the military, military history, definitions, anything? All our actions have been tactical and it is a stretch to even say that considering we have done nothing to the nations that are funneling IEDs, money, know how and thugs into Iraq. NOTHING! And you call that "strategic"? If you call that "strategic", you must think ten bucks is a fortune.
In many cases it is the Conventional forces playing a support role for our SOF
It is regular Army and Marine and Guard guys who have been killed almost entirely. Part of what I stated is we need less conventional, more SOF and more clandestine. You call that "ridiculous"? You think regular guard and Army getting blown up by IEDs is somehow "the way to go"?
Your notion that "air attacks" would accomplish anything permanent regarding Iran
Did I say "permanent? No. I said Iran needs to pay for waging war against us. Few nations could continue to have daily air attacks against prime targets. Eventually, they would either stop waging war against us or do something stupid which would cause us to do real strategic attacks against them. Your answer is to continue to let Iran wage war against us and just give them a free pass on it, like Bush is doing now. I'll take my way, you can have your way.
You would need boots on the ground to deal with Iran effectively
Wrong again. VERY wrong again. We have boots on the ground in Iraq and that is not effective. What makes you think boots on the ground in Iran will be any different? When you fight in a tactical, politically correct fashion, all boots on the ground gets you is dead American soldiers in their boots on the ground.
The way we have fought this war is allowing us to systematically and deliberately destroy our enemies
Iran is an enemy and is causing a lot of deaths of our soldiers with their IEDs, leadership help, thugs, et al. Iran has gotten stronger over the last few years, not weaker. In fact, they are going nuclear!!! You say Iran has been destroyed? Better call Drudge. That will be news to him.
Look, you sound like a good foot soldier for the RNC. I applaud your loyalty to Republicans. I differ from you. I am a "nation's future person", not a GOP party fan club member like you are.
I want victory at less cost to us in manpower and money, and more effectively counter our enemies using unconventional methods including total financial warfare, trade warfare, diplomatic warfare (against nations that support Iran and Syria, e.g.), assassination, more SOF and more clandestine methods, psychological warfare, air strikes, ZERO political correctness et al. This is the way to fight this war, not the current way.
Thank you, that was really great information.
Absolutely wrong - You have never set foot in Iraq or Stan yet you spin a bunch of BS you have no clue about - To suggest we are fighting a mostly "conventional" battle plan in either theatre only continues to show you don't have a clue what you are talking about. I won't divulge specific tactics but we are fighting anything but a conventional style warfare in either Country on the whole.
Your notion that we are fighting a "PC" war is so boring. Get another whine line - We are not fighting a PC war. We are fighting an enemy that hides among many millions of good Iraqis and Afghanis! That at times makes this war frustrating or difficult. But it does not make us fighting a PC war because we choose not to kill indiscriminately. (which would only cause a long term failure).
You say we have inflicted a "strategic" hurt on our enemies? Do you know the slightest about the military, military history, definitions, anything?
Bud - Thanks for the laugh - I'm sure this has caused a few good inside chuckles here -
All our actions have been tactical and it is a stretch to even say that considering we have done nothing to the nations that are funneling IEDs, money, know how and thugs into Iraq. NOTHING! And you call that "strategic"? If you call that "strategic", you must think ten bucks is a fortune.
FREEDOM and self-worth are spreading throughout a region of the World that for far too long denied its citizens either! And you don't call that a strategic defeat for our enemies who's sole ability to exist thrives off the extinction of both!!
You have a lot to learn - Freedom and self-worth are spreading precisely because of our actions. Precisely because of our success. You don't think a strategic defeat has taken place against the Taliban and al Qeade whom both used for their sanctuary in Stan -
You don't think removing Saddam and his elk from power in Iraq is one domino down in a strategic plan (Was removing Hitler from Germany just a tactical victory? - What about even Mussolini from Italy...was that only a tactical victory? Please.
Your notion that IEDs were developed in Iran is utterly silly - The vast majority of IEDs in Iraq are built right in Iraq (not anywhere else). Just as the vast majority of those we are fighting in Iraq are Sunni Iraqis...NOT thugs from other nations (only 5-10%) are from outside of Iraq.
Another great straw man you try and create by suggesting I am saying giving Iran a "free pass" - No one has said any such thing. What has been said is the FACT that Iran will be dealt with at the times and places of our choosing. Not theirs (or yours).
You keep insisting our CIC is holding our military back against Iran. You must hate reality to keep repeating such...when the fact is as CIC, GWB is listening to his military commanders who don't agree with direct action against either Iran at the current time.
But you know more then them (we know!). Thanks for the additional laugh.
Did I say "permanent? No. I said Iran needs to pay for waging war against us. Few nations could continue to have daily air attacks against prime targets.
First off we are in a real war! - If we aren't going to take action to make permanent changes then those actions wouldn't be worth it currently. Especially because of the certain ramifications of air strikes on Iran. Which would only increase the direct flow of thugs coming into Iraq from Iran. (currently less then 5-10% are outsiders, that would jump 10 fold over night!).
Then you foolishly suggest we wouldn't need more "boots on the ground" if we bombed Iran - How would we stop the 10 fold increase of thugs coming into Iraq then? - How would we stop the flow of all types which would increase 10 + fold overnight?
There are already issues concerning the borders as is (with our current level of troops) yet you suggest if those coming from Iran increased 10+ fold we still wouldn't need more troops on the ground. (Thank God you aren't running anything and foolishly costing American lives).
VERY wrong again. We have boots on the ground in Iraq and that is not effective. What makes you think boots on the ground in Iran will be any different? When you fight in a tactical, politically correct fashion, all boots on the ground gets you is dead American soldiers in their boots on the ground.
Probably the most unintelligent thing you have said yet - Without boots on the ground you don't win anything. You don't control anything. Without boots on the ground you can't bring needed change to anything. Our goal is not to simply kill citizens of Iraq, Stan or Iran. It is to bring Freedom and remove an evil element among them.
Air strikes alone could not accomplish a thing.
As for your odd continuous notion that you want more SOF and clandestine operations (without actually having one F'ing clue about what our SOF or OGA's are actually doing) is too hysterical!.
You live in an odd world.
"CindyDawg wrote: I thought we already got #3.
That was the old #3.
The guy they just got was the new #3.
Pretty soon there'll be a new new #3."
WHO IS NUMBER 1#
YOU ARE NUMBER 6#
[From The Prisoner with Patrick McCuan]
It seems al Qaeda has based their org chart on the Amway model. They must have more "number 3" jerkoffs than we can drop bombs on. Sakes...
Personally, I think we're getting jerked around with these reports. There's no way any organization can keep losing "#3 high ranking members" over four years and still continue to function.
I don't agree at all that President Bush is doing a lousy job of prosecuting the WoT. A bad PR campaign, YES!
But I don't want to argue. Just-- Prayers that your nephew is safe.
The formula is n3=n-2 where n3=number of number 3 guys and n=total number of Al-Qaida.
It doesn't matter what number they are. A dead "any" # is just as good as a dead #3 or #4 or #5 or etc.
Your assertion that freedom and self-worth spreading throughout the Middle East is not a strategic victory is flat out wrong. As are a number of your other assertions.
Being #3 in Al Qaeda is getting to be as bad a job as Zarqawi's Top Aide.
Worst. Job. Ever.
I guess when you find the rock one of them is hiding under, you need to get them right away before they run to a different rock. Every one of these scum we get is a step in the right direction.
Any Al quaida member who has out lived his utility becomes number #3. Once you are #3, you get taken out.
Hopefully, this is just one of many early Christmas presents this year.
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.