The War - Page 4

liftbig · #31 01-17-2007, 03:16 PM

Well said B-line.

Sponsored Links

E61Silver · #32 01-17-2007, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by liftbig

Well said B-line.

xxx · #33 01-17-2007, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric5273

There is a good reason why reporters have been banned from taking pictures of the ceremonies when the draped caskets are unloaded from transport planes. This ban has been in place since the Persian Gulf War. Whoever took the picture I posted above was breaking the law.

People are not moved by statistics and numbers. People are indeed moved by pictures, and the Pentagon wants to make sure that nobody actually sees death, for then they may make a mental connection between death and war. Very few people make that connection otherwise.

You should read about how US troops burried thousands of dead civilians in mass graves in Panama in 1989 in an attempt to hide how many had been killed. Or how they burried thousands of Iraqi troops in Kuwait in 1991 and then used Earth Movers to smooth out the land and make sure that nobody could see what was there. It's too early to know yet what has been done in the current war, but I can only imagine. They are indeed worried about public perception and they do whatever they can to hide what is really going on.

Isent that a form of brainwashing in snort.

xxx · #34 01-17-2007, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B-Line

Here is my uneducated opinion.

I think the U.S. needs to have a presence in the middle east. At least until some level of stability happens. We also need to be within arms reach of any terrorist organizations that may be fueling an attack against the US, Israel, or any other area of the Western world.
Regardless of WMD's which at the time were a great excuse. The US is on the ground in Iraq for more reasons than just Iraq.
It is my belief that having a large US army within a stones throw from other "aggressive" anti-western countries is important right now.
If we pull out of Iraq, I am pretty confident, we are going to be sending an army back to the Middle East as quickly as we can pull out.
And I would also not be surprised if Israel were to come under attack with a US withdrawl from the Middle East.

So now the question of, MORE TROOPS?
If that's what the General's need and that's what the existing troops need, then I say it's a good decision.

No, we might not be able to "win" this war. But what is "winning" a war? We beat Germany in WWII when we killed Hitler and entered Berlin. Well, we entered Bahdad and took care of Saddam.

The problem as I see it, is the war that will continue to exist between people that hate the U.S. and Israel. So if the fighting is in Iraq, it's in Iraq. If it's Afghanistan, then that is where the fighting will be. Iran, who knows... But I don't think it's time to retire the entire U.S. armed services and hope the fundamentalists start to like us.

I don't have an answer on how to win this war against the West. Except maybe, other West countries might realize we are fighting for them too. Things will probably have to get much worse before they get any better.

So, I'm sorry for the coutry of Iraq that the fighting, for now, has to be on their land. But if it's not there, it's going to be somewhere else.

B

My friend I don't know what history books you read in the States but you didn't kill Hitler or for that mater have anything to do with his death. You lost this war just like any other war your country ever got involved in and now your administration is trying to save face. I hope I don't offend any of you with my comments but in the near futer you will see a country as strong as USA perform their classic "tuck and run" mauve.

ylwjacket · #35 01-17-2007, 10:45 PM

I doubt that it really matters a hell of alot about what I think, because I am not a field commander nor the commander in chief. So, this whole argument is pointless.

xxx · #36 01-17-2007, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by burkleymh

The trouble with our "wars" is that they become politized, the media adds their $.02, and we end up never following through with what needs to be done. The 1991 Iraq war should have brought Saddam down if we followed through, but the bleeding hearts crying over the "road of death" out of Kuwait brought about a political end to the war instead of a military end. The Kurds thought (and was most likely promised) they would have our help. It cost them thousands of lives. The UN was supposed to oversee the sanctions on Saddam, but instead went to bed with him. Saddam should have been captured and brought to trial in 1991. We did not have enough troops to secure Iraq this time, and we still don't. We had a misguided belief that with Saddam's fall and capture, the country would embrace freedom. We STILL do not understand the influence the many different Islamic mullahs and imans have on the public opinion and the political process. I STILL do not hear ANYONE talking about getting the religious leaders to speak out against the bombings. Until they unite their voices and speak out against the indiscriminant killings, NOTHING'S GOING TO CHANGE.

Reading this I assume you have no problems bringing Bush and the rest of the officers of the US army on trial for the atrocities they committed in Iraq. Your administration is not offering them freedom, they are making them their bitch and that much closer to Israel. As far as the religious leaders you don't understand them now and you never will, Its their purpose to keep it so.

E61Silver · #37 01-17-2007, 10:48 PM

I still think we should divide the country and keep some land for "safe keeping bases"

These different groups/tribes will never coexist.

Eric5273 · #38 01-18-2007, 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxx

Isent that a form of brainwashing in snort.

Say what?

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Eric5273 · #39 01-18-2007, 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by x54.4blue

I still think we should divide the country and keep some land for "safe keeping bases"

Just so we can be 100% impartial here in our discussion, how about you give a solution that you would accept from another country if they were in the same position that the US is in. Unless of course you believe in a double standard.

Let's suppose that it had been Iran who invaded a country 8,000 miles away from them because that country "possed a threat to their national security" (the reason given by our government for the Iraq war). And let's suppose after 3 years of their troops being there, there was civil war. What solution would you accept from them as a good one?

Or let's suppose that it had been China. Or Russia. Or Venezuela.

Please share your opinions.

B-Line · #40 01-18-2007, 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxx

My friend I don't know what history books you read in the States but you didn't kill Hitler or for that mater have anything to do with his death. You lost this war just like any other war your country ever got involved in and now your administration is trying to save face.

Yes, you are right, we didn't "KILL" Hitler. Hitler killed himself when we arrived at his doorstep. SAME DIFFERENCE....

And, in terms of losing every war we ever fought, if that were true, we would still be 13 colonies, not 50 states and, you would be speaking German or waiting in line for 6 hours for a loaf of bread..

B

p.s.
-- If your going to argue my points, at least "try" to make some valid arguements...

Sponsored Links