Reply With Quoteand I don't sell insurance.
Now that's funny. :sqeyes:
Ain't it funny how these people want "covert opperations", yet they want to know what is going on, and every single time a "covert op" has a chance of doing anything, somebody REPORTS ON IT, making it public knowledge, and therefore, useless.
Kind of like the "wiretap" program the NSA had looking for terrorists in the US calling their buddies/contacts in the middle east.
Just exactly WHAT is wrong with, at the current problematic time, listening to telephone calls:
FROM US PHONES
TO MIDDLE EAST TELEPHONE NUMBERS IN TERRORIST PROBLEM NATIONS
AND TO TERRORIST NUMBERS THAT INTEL HAS ALSO DISCOVERED?
Just exactly how does this violate some grandma's "right to expectation of privacy"?
and I don't sell insurance.
Now that's funny. :sqeyes:
Well said. We need to and are using every tool we have, including blowing up people and stuff. THAT, they understand. Only the completly blind think we can do it with words alone and only the ignorant think we aren't doing covert ops behind the scenes.
Seems the only people interested in seeing us fail in Iraq are the democrats and the terrorists. Things that make ya go hmmmmm....
My opinion is that the war in Iraq was compromised and flawed in the very first days by the people in Washington. Shock and awe on TV was the word of the day. Letting the majority of Saddam's army run for the hills to fight us again now and featuring imbedded reporters at every turn to make sure all was PC was the reality of the day. That army should have been captured (preferably) or killed and rules of engagement should have been planned for just that in advance of the first troop on the ground. That is what a war is. Whether you agree or not with the reasons for going there, if you go there it better be to win. This 5 year ongoing semi war, semi police mission there is bs. And AL Quieda didn't have the large presence there in those early days that we've allowed it to develop now. By drawing it out we've drawn them there (maybe that was the goal right from the start designed by someone with much deeper insight and understanding than myself)... if so mission accomplished. But now that so many are there, why not complete the mission and obliterate them (if that was the mission, which we will likely never know).
It was never a real war right from day one with any intention of obliterating the enemy and then withdrawing. That is the problem today. We should never have started a war in Iraq we didn't intend to win quickly and decisively. We should have removed Saddam and his entire army immediately and had the forces and technology in place to stop any influx of fighters from surrounding nations like Syria. Big job, yes certainly. But that should have been planned for in advance or we should have stayed home and maybe used all that money and military might to secure our own borders (now there's a novel idea).
Just my .02 as some dumass looking at it from the outside.
to answer the question, High Roller could be on to something with the withdraw now dem pres orders back in later idea.
strangely familiar to our involvement in china during the WWII.
It would, however, require a most unique set of circumstances and a marketing blitz as yet unseen...maybe Obama could do it!?
It is therefore, highly unlikely captain, and illogical.
CC spok
My opinion is that the war in Iraq was compromised and flawed in the very first days by the people in Washington. Shock and awe on TV was the word of the day. Letting the majority of Saddam's army run for the hills to fight us again now and featuring imbedded reporters at every turn to make sure all was PC was the reality of the day. That army should have been captured (preferably) or killed and rules of engagement should have been planned for just that in advance of the first troop on the ground. That is what a war is. Whether you agree or not with the reasons for going there, if you go there it better be to win. This 5 year ongoing semi war, semi police mission there is bs. And AL Quieda didn't have the large presence there in those early days that we've allowed it to develop now. By drawing it out we've drawn them there (maybe that was the goal right from the start designed by someone with much deeper insight and understanding than myself)... if so mission accomplished. But now that so many are there, why not complete the mission and obliterate them (if that was the mission, which we will likely never know).
It was never a real war right from day one with any intention of obliterating the enemy and then withdrawing. That is the problem today. We should never have started a war in Iraq we didn't intend to win quickly and decisively. We should have removed Saddam and his entire army immediately and had the forces and technology in place to stop any influx of fighters from surrounding nations like Syria. Big job, yes certainly. But that should have been planned for in advance or we should have stayed home and maybe used all that money and military might to secure our own borders (now there's a novel idea).
Just my .02 as some dumass looking at it from the outside.
Great post Rex
By drawing it out we've drawn them there (maybe that was the goal right from the start designed by someone with much deeper insight and understanding than myself)... if so mission accomplished. But now that so many are there, why not complete the mission and obliterate them (if that was the mission, which we will likely never know).
I think you are on to something with that.
Think what a daunting task it is to fight a war against an enemy that wears no uniform...has no "country" to associate itself with. How do you fight such an enemy that is so dedicated to fighting and killing us? You can't bomb every country where they happen to reside.
History will tell how this all turns out....it is far from over, as the liberals would have you believe.
I think you are on to something with that.
Think what a daunting task it is to fight a war against an enemy that wears no uniform...has no "country" to associate itself with. How do you fight such an enemy that is so dedicated to fighting and killing us? You can't bomb every country where they happen to reside.
History will tell how this all turns out....it is far from over, as the liberals would have you believe.
This is the exact point I have stated over and over and have been labeled a liberal pussy for stating the same.
I don't believe anyone with half a brain, liberal or otherwise, believes that the fight against the terrorists around the world is nearly over. A ground war in Iraq will never produce the result that this Country is seeking which, as I see it, is the reduction or elimination or terrorist attacks around the world. I have suggested a more covert and intelligent approach as a more effective means of attaining our Country's goal, and will continue to. Let me add to that a more aggressive approach as well. The cowboys and Indians method, simply isn't working.
I've given this a lot of thought and nothing would make me happier than to see all of our troops out of that sh*thole and back home safe with their families. It seems to me though that if ( or when) we leave all hell is going to break loose over there. Iran will support the Shiite from the west and Syria will support the Sunni from the east. Major conflict will erupt and as a result 100's of thousands will die and oil will spike to $150 dollars a barrel. Lots of politicians pushing for withdrawl yet seem to be very shortsided as to the actual effect this would have. If Bush was smart ( ha ha yeah right) maybe he should let congress make the decision to withdraw and stand back and watch the fireworks. Talk about damned if you do, damned if you don't. The next President is going to have their hands full.
Some times things just reslove themselves ! boom problem solved
This is the exact point I have stated over and over and have been labeled a liberal pussy for stating the same.
I don't believe anyone with half a brain, liberal or otherwise, believes that the fight against the terrorists around the world is nearly over. A ground war in Iraq will never produce the result that this Country is seeking which, as I see it, is the reduction or elimination or terrorist attacks around the world. I have suggested a more covert and intelligent approach as a more effective means of attaining our Country's goal, and will continue to. Let me add to that a more aggressive approach as well. The cowboys and Indians method, simply isn't working.
Because a war is difficult doesn't mean you shouldn't fight it. Personally, I think the tactic of drawing them out and establishing a "front line" is about the only tactic we had. How much more of Afghanistan could we blow up? We scattered them like rats there and killed many of the enemy. We also established that we would no longer sit back to wait to be attacked.
Pre 911, the intel we had on Iraq would never have been enough to justify a ground war. Post 911, we couldn't take the chance. Removing Saddam made since on every level. Is there a downside? Of course there is. There are downsides to every strategy.
The question you have to ask yourself is this...Are we safer?
The answer is a resounding yes and it didn't come from JUST the war, the removal of Saddam, covert actions or sound police work and intel gathering. It came from all of the above and all of the above feed on each other. All of the above will also continue to ensure our success.
Say what you like about W but I truly believe he has the countries best interests in mind as he fights the global war on terrorism. I can't say the same for those in power who wish to see us fail.
This is the exact point I have stated over and over and have been labeled a liberal pussy for stating the same.
I don't believe anyone with half a brain, liberal or otherwise, believes that the fight against the terrorists around the world is nearly over. A ground war in Iraq will never produce the result that this Country is seeking which, as I see it, is the reduction or elimination or terrorist attacks around the world. I have suggested a more covert and intelligent approach as a more effective means of attaining our Country's goal, and will continue to. Let me add to that a more aggressive approach as well. The cowboys and Indians method, simply isn't working.
Because a war is difficult doesn't mean you shouldn't fight it. Personally, I think the tactic of drawing them out and establishing a "front line" is about the only tactic we had. How much more of Afghanistan could we blow up? We scattered them like rats there and killed many of the enemy. We also established that we would no longer sit back to wait to be attacked.
Pre 911, the intel we had on Iraq would never have been enough to justify a ground war. Post 911, we couldn't take the chance. Removing Saddam made sense on every level. Is there a downside? Of course there is. There are downsides to every strategy.
The question you have to ask yourself is this...Are we safer?
The answer is a resounding yes and it didn't come from JUST the war, the removal of Saddam, covert actions or sound police work and intel gathering. It came from all of the above and all of the above feed on each other. All of the above will also continue to ensure our success.
Say what you like about W but I truly believe he has the countries best interests in mind as he fights the global war on terrorism. I can't say the same for those in power who wish to see us fail.
Posting Permissions