»Iraq is a battlefield!«
|
|||
|
I wish people in the U.S. would use their minds endowed by your creator and stop marching in step with the liberal media and your robotic, liberal democratic leaders. Iraq is a battlefield, a place to wage war with Islamic terrorism. The terrorist from the middle eastern countires have been attacking us for decades. Remember the taking of the U.S. embassy in Iran over 28 years ago? How about the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon in the 1980's? Seems to me that there was a U.S. service member who was shot in the head and tossed out onto the tarmack from an airplane hijacked by whom? Yes, that's right young, radical, Islamic males. The World Trade Center was not first attacked on 9-11-01, it bombed in 1993 with the desire to fell the building. The US Cole bombing, Blackhawk Down and the attack on our military installation all in the 1990's, all under Clinton, all with no reprisal from Boy Clinton even though in 1996 Osama Bin Laden declared war against the United States. In Bin Ladens declaration he stated the enemy does not need to wear a uniform and there is no difference between military, the public, man woman or child, they are all the enemy equally. President Bush is only doing what should have been done years ago, trying to stop the butchering of the citizens of the United States. Afterall that is what a president is suppose to do. The Presiden'ts job is not to provide welfare benefits, fix social security, institute socialized medicine or wipe your nose and rear end. Bush understands something that you mealy mouth Joe six pack types don't understand. If we don't stop their aggression against us, we will perish from the earth. Iraq is the place to conduct this war. It is centrally located in the middle East with Iran to the East, Saudi Arabia to the south, Syria and Jordan west and afghanistan/Pakistan to the north. Instead of us chasing these unholy villains around the world we are letting them come to us. Fighting them over there, not here. WAKE-UP MORONS! posted by peckosugar |
|||
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgPoliticsBush, Kerry, IraqIraq is a battlefield! |
|
|||
 That's true but one thing that is not being done is fighting the Islamists in a manner to defeat them and win for our side. Unfortunately, Mr. Bush has hamstrung our soldiers with politically correct notions of how we are supposed to fight but never hurt people. Only nice clean kills. One can argue that it is noble to take such a stance but there is no nobility of war. The object is to demoralize and defeat the enemy. We cannot win merely by killing the enemy. They consider death in combat or while killing infidels to be the ultimate glory. Our troops must have the manicles removed. This is not the first time that radical Islamist have attempted violent overthrow of democracy in an attempt to impose a theocracy. Many lessons should be learned from the Moro uprising of the Phillipines in the early 1900's. General Pershing led our troops, then. He found that killing alone could not stop the jihad aggression. Even though he killed almost one third of the Islamic males, they continued to wage war. It was only when he instituted the 'Pershing burials' (being buried with pig entrails or blood / waste) that the Islamists were quelled. Our side has to abandon the politically correct prosecution of the war. If combat death is the direct path to Islamic heaven, then we have to remove that path. Whether it's cremating corpses and remains or Pershing burials for the homocide / suicide bombers or actually taking out their fighters when the opportunity arises at politically incorrect times, we must allow our troops to use the methods most effective in dispelling the Islamists' fascination with martyrdom. If Islamic young men are dispelled from believing that they are going to get a 72 room mansion with each room containing 72 virgins, then we will have a chance to have them understand that the other teachings of the despotic Islamic mulahs are also incorrect. That the hatred taught for so long is wrong. At that point, there will be the opportunity for reasoning and cooperation. Isn't that what we want? Isn't that why Pershing buried Islamics with pigs? And, isn't that the reason that the US dropped atomic bombs on Japan to end World War II? If we must have war, let's win. posted by ipsism |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 "Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster." --- Nietzsche. ipsism: If we must have war, let's win. It's not a war. It's an occupation. posted by Tiefling |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tiefling: "Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster."
--- Nietzsche. ipsism: If we must have war, let's win. It's not a war. It's an occupation. =========== Odd that you would choose to quote one who advocated a super-race. Regardless of how you feel about the presence in Iraq, it is naive to believe that there is not a war. Our enemies first declared the war, by name and deed. That you stick your head in the sand to prevent seeing what is happening will not prevent the enemy from slicing your throat. There is no war that does not require monsterous deeds. One can only hope that the monstrosities are quenched once there is a peace. posted by ipsism |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
ipsism: Regardless of how you feel about the presence in Iraq, it is naive to believe that there is not a war. Bush announced the end of major combat operations in Iraq on May 1, 2003. That marked the end of the war in Iraq, and the beginning of the occupation of Iraq. The following site provides a fairly good definition of occupation: These laws come into effect as soon as territory is “occupied” by adversary forces, that is, when the government of the occupied territory is no longer capable of exercising its authority, and the attacker is in a position to impose its control over that area. The entire country need not be conquered before an occupation comes into effect as a matter of law, and a state of occupation need not be formally proclaimed, as General Eisenhower did in the Second World War. Obligations and rights of the Occupying Power obviously extend only to those areas that the attacking forces actually control. Ultimately, whether territory is occupied is a question of fact. That some resistance continues does not preclude the existence of occupation provided the occupying force is capable of governing the territory with some degree of stability. Moreover, it is not legally relevant that the occupiers claim to be “liberating” the population; so long as an international armed conflict is underway, the justification for the conflict has no bearing on whether the laws of occupation apply. ipsism: Our enemies first declared the war, by name and deed. How did Iraq declare war upon the United States in either name or deed? If you're referring to 9/11, then your reference is incorrect, since Iraq had no connection to 9/11. WASHINGTON - There’s no evidence Saddam Hussein had ties with al-Qaida, according to a Senate report issued Friday on prewar intelligence that Democrats say undercuts President Bush’s justification for invading Iraq.
Bush administration officials have insisted on a link between the Iraqi regime and terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Intelligence agencies, however, concluded there was none. Republicans countered that there was little new in the report and Democrats were trying to score election-year points with it. The declassified document released Friday by the intelligence committee also explores the role that inaccurate information supplied by the anti-Saddam exile group the Iraqi National Congress had in the march to war. It concludes that postwar findings do not support a 2002 intelligence community report that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program, possessed biological weapons or ever developed mobile facilities for producing biological warfare agents. The 400-page report comes at a time when Bush is emphasizing the need to prevail in Iraq to win the war on terrorism while Democrats are seeking to make that policy an issue in the midterm elections. It discloses for the first time an October 2005 CIA assessment that prior to the war Saddam’s government “did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates.” Bush and other administration officials have said that the presence of Zarqawi in Iraq before the war was evidence of a connection between Saddam’s government and al-Qaida. Zarqawi was killed by a U.S. airstrike in June this year. ipsism: There is no war that does not require monsterous deeds. One can only hope that the monstrosities are quenched once there is a peace. You said earlier that "our enemies first declared the war". Per this argument of yours, their monstrous deeds were required. Are you certain that you want to provide moral justification for their actions? posted by Tiefling |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Peckosugar stated, "Iraq is a battlefield, a place to wage war with Islamic terrorism." You really should try to stay with the topic, rather than changing it to an argument that you wish to promote. UBL declare war on the US in the mid nineties - that was the naming. Surely I need not recount the deeds to you. That is the war that is subject of the post. Iraq is merely a battlefield in that war, no matter how hideous. There are multiple battlefields in this war. Ask the people whose loved ones were killed in Kobar, Bali, India, Italy, England, Gaza, Israel, Indonesia, multiple African sites, Darfur, and even NYC, to name but a few. The remainder of your comments are not germaine to the topic. No one has argued that Iraq had operational involvement with 9/11. I consider any killing of a human being as monsterous, whether it can be morally justified or not. That an action can be justified, or even necessary, does not mean that it is not also monsterous. That is an opinion. That is MY opinion. posted by ipsism |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
ispism: You really should try to stay with the topic, rather than changing it to an argument that you wish to promote. Your stance was that US troops should be permitted to perform atrocities in order to defeat their opponents, since their opponents are using atrocities. And both you and peckosugar claimed that we are engaged in a war in Iraq, when we are not; we are engaged in an occupation of Iraq. If you cannot see how my response was relevant to those points... that's your fault, not mine. ispism: UBL declare war on the US in the mid nineties - that was the naming. ispism: No one has argued that Iraq had operational involvement with 9/11. And Iraq had no operational involvement with bin Laden. Therefore, you are arguing that bin Laden's declaration of war on the US justified the US invasion of Iraq, even though Iraq had no involvement with bin Laden. posted by Tiefling |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
As I said, you can keep your head buried in the sand, it's not going to keep you from having your throat cut. I never advocated that our troops be "permitted to perform atrocities". It's sad that you have to try to misconstrue one's words to support your own postings. You said, "And Iraq had no operational involvement with bin Laden. Therefore, you are arguing that bin Laden's declaration of war on the US justified the US invasion of Iraq, even though Iraq had no involvement with bin Laden." I never made any such statement nor argument. Do you think that the only way to advance yourself is to misstate what another says? That is a base form of rhetoric, undeserving of response. Why not try elevating your comments to respond to those actually made rather than impugning motive and meaning. Are you capable of that? It appears not from your postings to me. You can declare yourself winner on this one as well. Your venom and vitriol prevent you from a rational response, to the detriment of reasoned discussion. I bid you well and hope that you always have American soldiers to protect you. posted by ipsism |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
at least you don't spout the bringing freedom and democracy crap we hear so often from right wing hot heads mocoy posted by mocoy |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
I am filled with rage to excess when I listen to the likes of Reid, Pelosi, Shumer, Durbin etc. They lie, distort, and propagandize to their stupid constituents in order to gain political advantage. Iraq is a quagmire and they are filled with glee about it because it aids their political ambitions. And their dumb constituents forget about the attacks on America that have been going on for many years. They forget about Democrats who were faulting the first Pres. Bush for not continuing the 1991 war and going into Baghdad. They forget about Saddam Hussein lobbing missiles into Israel. What logic would not indicate that Saddam would attempt to improve the range and destructiveness of thos missiles? They forget that we are in the most dangerous war in our history. Their propaganda when someone brings this up is: "fear mongering". Don't you think that many of the people who went to work on 9/11/01 in the World Trade Center should have been afraid? The democrats accuse Republicans of politicking but that is all the democrats seem to be interested in; from the Attorney General witchhunt to the Whitman ground-zero hearings. It's obvious that the reason for the last is an indirect attack on Giulani. They're shaking in their boots about his candidacy. Please, please vote for Giuliani. He is brilliant and honest and a great leader, unlike what will likely be his opponent. Please ladies, don't vote for Hillary just because she's a woman. Wait for someone better to come along. posted by milton |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
The idea of blaming our president for this mess is obserd !@! My daughter asked me what has happened, why are we at war daddy ? The logical answer was ... Some bad people came here ,killed some of our people and we are not letting that happen again. She stood there a moment... and then said "OK" . This doesn't take a politician to understand the logic. Take it to them and do not stop untill it can not happen again ! If someone came into my house and killed people I loved you bet I woud stop them ! posted by Denmar |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Agree with you except as to the question of blame. President Bush has hamstrung the military with the rules of engagement they are required to follow. The inability to return fire into mosques; the refusal to accept collateral damage even when the jihadists are using human shields; the failure to take out al Sadar in 2004/5 when he was cornered; the failure to allow drone air strikes on al Quaeda leadership because they were at a funeral; the refusal to allow psychological warfare on jihadists; the refusal to target religiously revered targets (i.e., the failure to try to break the will of jihad); and, lastly, the failure to maintain a dialog with the public. These are the things for which Mr. Bush deserves blame. Mr. Bush does not deserve blame for the response to the jihad attack, nor for the jihad invasion of Iraq, but he does deserve blame for his 'politically correct' handling of the conflict. posted by ipsism |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Look at the way the Democrats have blamed President Bush for all that has happened... Look at all that has not happened and give credit. Keeping a war "FAIR" is not in the best intrest of our Front Line and I'm not quite sure that our president makes those rules alone, but (and this a deep thought) But, it might be of an intrest to our Republic to find a way to not fight at a level of distruction that would take out the people that are happy that we are there. As far as the religiously reserved targets, don't forget that some of this is the Holy Land for the real Muslem people who are against all that the extremists are doing. Blowing up Mosques is reason for Holy war of another type. One with teeth. posted by Denmar |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
"One with teeth." - Are you on drugs? What do we have now? The only continents that aren't involved are South America, Antarctica and the Arctic North. Every other continent has THOUSANDS of people being killed by Muslims. I have not advocated the indiscriminate destruction of mosques, but I do condemn the policy that our troops cannot retaliate against those hiding in mosques. Likewise, Mr. Bush is Commander in Chief and it IS his responsibility to allow our troops to win and to win without undue restraint of our troops. As an example, Mr. Bush's recent directives on interrogation do not allow any 'religious' derogation. That means that our interrogators cannot say that Mohamed was a false prophet and probably can't say that the teaching of martyrdom is wrong. We cannot win until our leaders accept the fact that this IS a religious war. And, in the enemy's religion, death is noble and to be sought. So, killing is not the answer. Our side MUST defeat the enemy on the basis of their religion. For that reason, alone, religious targets SHOULD be considered. Allah akbar literally means "God is greatER". That is a fundamental aspect of Muslim war against infidels. Muslims believe that their Allah will defeat the infidel God. Destruction of Mecca would dispel that belief and collapse the will of the Muslims, worldwide. And, rather than causing war would end war. But Mecca is located in Saudi Arabia - our "strong ally" which is funding the wahibists. In a world war, it is essential that one knows their enemy and destroys that enemy and its morale. UBL declared the USA as a paper tiger, without the stomach to do what it takes to win. So far, he is proving to be right. The Muslims use human shields and religious shrines as protection. They send children out to become martyrs. They cook children to coerce parent's cooperation. In WWII, the allies fire-bombed German cities and dropped nukes on Japan. It was to END war, without worry of making people mad and without concern that there would be a war with 'teeth'. Currently, we are playing war with the Muslims while they are inflicting death by a thousand cuts. Small, relatively minor insults, individually, but will cause our death in 50 to 100 years. Our leaders must be decisive. We cannot forebear so that we don't anger the 'good' Muslims, any more than the Allies forebore bombing the 'good' Germans who refused to oppose Hitler's aggression. They must bear responsibility for their refusal to stop the terrorists in their midst. War is nasty, vile and an abomination. That's why it must be ended as soon as possible. And, if you believe that we can 'just talk' to the Muslim extremists, please go to a few Arab countries for six months or so and see if you can convince them of that. If you make it back, then we'll talk. I do not desire aggression against anyone. But, I do not believe that we should sit back and have our throats cut, literally, just so we don't have to be at war, even a war with 'teeth'. This 'jihad' is going to last for at least two generations after the imams stop teaching hatred to their children. We must break the will of the Islamists, if we are to survive. The sooner, the better, if we and our children are to survive. If that means a war with 'teeth', so be it. A brave man dies but a single death, a coward a thousand times. We must stop being politically correct. There is nothing 'correct' about war. The only correctness is survival of ourselves, our children and our homes. We can share that with all Muslims who desire the peace that their religion is supposed to teach. posted by ipsism |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 I agree, Iraq IS a battlefield weird. But yes, I agree with ipsism. He is 100% right posted by Agent Zero |
|||
|
|||
1, 2 Next
Goto page
1, 2 Next
 Register Log in |
The time now is 6 October 2008, 22:37 php B.B. |