 |
| |
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Defiant
The war over in Iraq is the Infrastructure being controlled and we did that, this is the war on terror in Iraq, now. You have outsiders and some remnents of Saddam fighting. When they are beheading civilians, blowing up school children, this is not a country war, it is a terror war and that is what we are fighting.
OK, so if Bush could have taken Falluja earlier, I agree and we should have, why is he now piling up forces around Falluja getting ready for a massive assault in an election year, just days away? |
He isn't going to invade until after the election, assuming he gets re-elected. Kerry might invade too, but that's not the point.
As for controlling the infastructure; we don't. Our troops cannot walk the streets safely in most areas, they must drive through quickly prepared to shoot.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Defiant
I don't want to see massive deaths either, that is why we are doing this the way we are, trying to let the diplomats handle Falluja the first time, which hindsight might say was a mistake. But there comes a time when you have to eliminate the forces that are stopping you to create a democracy for the betterment of the Iraqi people, all the Iraqi people alike. In Falluja, some of the folks have no heart and mind to win, sometimes all they understand is the sword. |
No, I won't say it is a mistake. It was a mistake to let them get control in the first place, it was a mistake to pull our troops out at the last second the way Bush did, because he didn't want to do it before an election.
Firebombing a city full of civilians who are not attacking you is not an answer. It creates enemies more than it eliminates them, especially in the war on terror.
And almost everyone can be reasoned with. You might not reach a 100% accord, but you can reason with them, work with them. Only very rare individuals cannot be reasoned with. Nearly all Iraqis are reasonable, even the ones in Falluja.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Defiant
|
 |
WISCONSIN
Aug 1999
time: 05:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drachasor
No, I won't say it is a mistake. It was a mistake to let them get control in the first place, it was a mistake to pull our troops out at the last second the way Bush did, because he didn't want to do it before an election.
Firebombing a city full of civilians who are not attacking you is not an answer. It creates enemies more than it eliminates them, especially in the war on terror.
And almost everyone can be reasoned with. You might not reach a 100% accord, but you can reason with them, work with them. Only very rare individuals cannot be reasoned with. Nearly all Iraqis are reasonable, even the ones in Falluja.
-Drachasor |
I agree on the your first part, it was a mistake to let them get it and hold it, I don't think it was for your reason specified, I believe he was letting the diplomats try their swing at it, which BTW most military analysts said was a mistake but it was to give the new interim gov't a shot at it. Sir Ralph was making a point that the majority of the city was willfully helping and supporting the insurgents. I said under those circumstances flattening a city may be the solution.
Almost anyone can be reasoned with, however we are dealing with a select few(in the overall) who cannot, we are seeing that prisoners from Cuba who are released are going back and fighting against the coalition, there is only one thing you can do with these kind of people, detain them(forever) or kill them, there is no reasoning with them, and you can only reason with civilians who are not under threat to be killed by terrorists, otherwise you don't stand a chance because if they say no to you, they have no demise, if they say no to terrorists, they die. They are simply less afraid of you then of them, how do you pose to fix that?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sir Ralph
|
 |
Long live teh Schwampel!
Dec 2001
time: 06:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Defiant
I agree on the your first part, it was a mistake to let them get it and hold it, I don't think it was for your reason specified, I believe he was letting the diplomats try their swing at it, which BTW most military analysts said was a mistake but it was to give the new interim gov't a shot at it. Sir Ralph was making a point that the majority of the city was willfully helping and supporting the insurgents. I said under those circumstances flattening a city may be the solution.
Almost anyone can be reasoned with, however we are dealing with a select few(in the overall) who cannot, we are seeing that prisoners from Cuba who are released are going back and fighting against the coalition, there is only one thing you can do with these kind of people, detain them(forever) or kill them, there is no reasoning with them, and you can only reason with civilians who are not under threat to be killed by terrorists, otherwise you don't stand a chance because if they say no to you, they have no demise, if they say no to terrorists, they die. They are simply less afraid of you then of them, how do you pose to fix that? |
Do you put the resistance (= people attacking the military of their occupants) and criminals, who kidnap and behead civilians under the common term "terrorists"?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Defiant
Here is another way to look at it, when I went to college my father paid and he couldn't write any off on taxes, now when my daughter is going I get college credits to write off, there is a substantial benefit that I directly see. |
Oh yeah....and that really makes it seem like Bush was responsible for all of that.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
That must explain the 2 trillian dollar expense of partially privatising S.S. which is what Bush wants to do.
And that must explain the complete lack of a policy regarding the debt in Bush's list of policies:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/index.html
Yeah, he has a plan all right!
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arrian
Not really, no. But I believe that his fiscal policy will be better than Bush's. Why? Because it is difficult to imagine worse policy than Bush's. No other reason.
-Arrian |
Hey, you have to give him credit for actually saying fiscal policy is an issue and the national debt is an issue.
Bush hasn't said anything about that for himself; he critisizes Kerry on spending when he plans to spend much, much more.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
Well, I only meant acknowledging it as an issue is a step in the right direction.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-10-2004 01:23
|