Posted on 08/13/2006 6:50:11 PM PDT by semaj
Such thinking is the problem. This is asymmetrical warfare. Suppose that we had worried about making global enemies when we nuked Japan. The rest of the world still condemns us for that. So what? Some of us know that we must be ruthless and fearsome toward this enemy. Half measures only prolong the suffering of innocent Muslims as well. Ponder that.
You can't mean what you say if you don't say what you mean.
We're at war against the ones with the bombs. The ones who have connections to known terrorists who would kill you, your parents, your nieces and nephews.
If for whatever reason we refuse to or cannot do this, then we shouldn't send our young men and women into harms way on a false premise.
Sorry your hatred for Bush and apologies for Clinton doesnt allow you to see that there is a global jihad against western civilization. False premise? Ask your beloved Clintons, Kerry, Edwards, Biden, Schumer, et al about that. Oh yeah! I forgot, that idiot doofus Bush out-smarted them even with access to the same intel. lol
Don't ge tme wrong, I dance a jigg whenever a dirty jihadist is sent to allah. I can't remeber if it was MacArthur or Patton, that commented on the immorality of limited warfare.
I don't remember the saying but it sounds like it would've been from MacArthur because of this desire to take Japan, too, when Truman called him off.
If we are to engage in warfare, sending are young men and women to possibly die or be gravely injured, in the process, than we should have the guts to call out our enmey by name and kick the living shit out of him, until he cries uncle or until he is dead.
Don't know about "calling out our enemy by name," but I do agree with kicking the shit out them. This war should've been over a year ago.
But the global jihad continues and we need results (dead/imprisoned terrorists) far above just naming them.
Hey James (semaj backwards), I guess you missed Bush finally calling them Islamo fascists. The left all have their panties in a wad over this. I agree with you that we must call our enemy by their proper names. And their religion is a cult of death. Mosques are not religious buildings, they are terrorist plotting and financing centers. Let's really piss off the left and wiretap ALL mosques.
To hell with you and your semantics.
BTTT
How about supporting A war on islamofacism, instead of THE war on terrorism? It can be a cold war at that. We need to bring back the asassination squad or just start kidnapping these clerics and imams and throwing them in Gitmo. The radical muslims will fight each other if we leave them alone. They must fight - it's their nature. They're quicker to fight amongst themselves, if we would get out the way. They hate infidels, but what they really hate is someone who calls himself a muslim AND has the audacity to fly a kite.
One major difference:
Much of the military success we have enjoyed to date has been achieved by waging war specifically on the Taliban, not on Afghanistan. By identifying Saddam Hussein as the enemy, not all Iraqis.
Today, the vast majority of Iraqis want us to stay in-country until the job is done. Are these people "enemies"?
If most Muslims were jihadists, they'd already be blowing themselves up in the streets of our cities.
I support the WOT; however, I do wish the President would fight this war like we fought against the Germans and the Japanese. Liberal political-correctness is tying our hands behind our back.
Bush has not said that for a long time has he?
Obviously, the poster's comments have some grain of truth to them, because he still has an account and haven't been zotted.
I am so sorry I clicked on this thread.
Good grief man, get a grip or get out of the way. Sounds like you can't be counted on in any real fights. I suppose it's better for us to know that about you.
So what are going to do now that you can't support the war against, as the President has called them, Islamic facists, vote Democrat?
I haven't called for a zot but I am perplexed by the post. What purpose does this carping about the name "Religion of Peace" serve?
Your argument is merely devoid of reason and understanding. It is apparent that the requirements of the War on Terror call for Moslem allies such as those who are bearing the brunt of the deaths from the Terrorists, such as those who risk their lives merely by joining the armed forces of Iraq or Afganistan. Such as those who endanger their families as well as themselves by joining the police forces of the Iraqi or Afgani government.
We are getting great assistance from Moslems powers and forces such as that from Pakistan which allowed the Brits to bust up the recent plot.
If you hope to understand such complex issues as this perhaps you would start by reading The Art of War by Sun Tzu. It would help to remove the contradictions and lack of understanding within your ill considered post.
Tactics require the President to speak of Islam in such a way but our strategy is based upon other ideas.
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.