Iraq War

[LegalEagle 22]

. . . worse.

We've lost over 1,000 now with 7,000 injured.

We still have areas which we have never occupied. In these areas, we basically form a perimeter and react when they kill some of us. If it's a war, why don't we fight like it's a war? Give the civilians x # of hours to leave through checkpoints, then carpet bomb. It might not be pretty, but it will get it over with and save American lives.

What happened to capturing the thugs who hung American bodies over a bridge?

What happened to capturing Al-Sadr? Now we made a deal with him not to capture him. That's determined and decisive direction?

How can TV cameras get close-up shots of the enemy firing motars, rpgs, etc. at us and we can't blast 'em?

Even though I don't support the Iraq War, I am for a positive outcome for the U.S. Now that we've gone in, we must leave victorous. How can we do that without killing all of the enemy who has vowed to fight to the death? We have the military might to kill 'em all in a day or two. Show Bush a Nike commercial and tell him, "Just Do It."

I'd rather have the world pissed off royally for a few weeks than moderately for years - expecially when American soldiers are dying by protracted war.

I'm trying to be objective here, so please try to keep the replies within the bounds of objectivity.

[LegalEagle 22]

I kind of wandered off my own topic. I should have said that it appears to me that we are bogging down in Iraq, then suggest the proper way out.

[SupperClub 0]

. . . worse.

We've lost over 1,000 now with 7,000 injured.

We still have areas which we have never occupied.  In these areas, we basically form a perimeter and react when they kill some of us.  If it's a war, why don't we fight like it's a war?  Give the civilians x # of hours to leave through checkpoints, then carpet bomb.  It might not be pretty, but it will get it over with and save American lives. 

What happened to capturing the thugs who hung American bodies over a bridge?

What happened to capturing Al-Sadr?  Now we made a deal with him not to capture him.  That's determined and decisive direction?

How can TV cameras get close-up shots of the enemy firing motars, rpgs, etc. at us and we can't blast 'em?

Even though I don't support the Iraq War, I am for a positive outcome for the U.S.  Now that we've gone in, we must leave victorous.  How can we do that without killing all of the enemy who has vowed to fight to the death?  We have the military might to kill 'em all in a day or two.  Show Bush a Nike commercial and tell him, "Just Do It."

I'd rather have the world pissed off royally for a few weeks than moderately for years - expecially when American soldiers are dying by protracted war.

I'm trying to be objective here, so please try to keep the replies within the bounds of objectivity.

I actually agree with the majority of your post (which shocked me!). Obviously, coming out of Iraq victorious is our only option. I am all for a "by any means necessary" campaign. I wish we would stop allowing these "jihadists" to hide in masques. We know we have 100 or so terrorists/insurgents in a central location, just bomb the hell out of them! It's not like we are going to make the radical Muslim world any more angry with us than already are.

I have supported the Iraq war from day 1, and will continue to support it until the last soldier leaves. I believe we are fighting a for a just cause. I sometimes wish we would flex a little more muscle.

[clantontiger 0]

We still have areas which we have never occupied. In these areas, we basically form a perimeter and react when they kill some of us. If it's a war, why don't we fight like it's a war? Give the civilians x # of hours to leave through checkpoints, then carpet bomb. It might not be pretty, but it will get it over with and save American lives.

I agree with you on the carpet bombing. I would use those new MOAB bombs. The problem with letting the civilians go is the millitants would leave with them and be back to fight another day. This is not a typical army. It is a group of thugs who like to use non traditional military tactics. I support the war and think we have done a good job so far, but it is going to take the IRAQI people need to get of their arses and begin to fight these thugs themselves. If the people in that country want what we are offering then, THEY need to fight for it just as hard as we have.

[CCTAU 3,351]

In Iraq we are helping a new government rebuild. You can't just bomb it to hell. The people in Iraq want peace. The insurgents are terrorist not supported by the people.

You want us to have an exit strategy? Where have you been the last 50 years we were "occupying" Germany and South Korea?

It has not gotten "worse." Things are going as well as expected, even better. Even your libbie's predicted over 10,000 deaths for just the war part alone.

The death of each and every person is mourned, but they are not dying in vain. A new nation will rise up and it can only make it with our help.

We didn't ley Sadr go, the new government dealt with it. Which has brought about new respect for said government.

Now all we'll hear from now till election day is 1000 dead. Those 1000 would gladly slap you upside the head for trying to undo all that they died for.

And what about the 3000 dead form the attacks on our country? Guess we forgot about those. And I guess there are NO Iraqis paying the price! Get off the hate Bush bandwagon and support democracy around the world. Its who we are and will be for a while. Or until some wimpy demoncrat weakens us again.

[LegalEagle 22]

Did you miss the part about objectivity? *grin*

[TrueBlue72 0]

It does seem to be bogged down a bit right now, but I wonder just how much of that can be attributed to the muslim world's view of a divided America? I believe that progress will be slow until after the election when the "insurgents" will realize that they have to deal with a Bush led America for four more years.

Just like 30 years ago, JF'ingKerry and his devisive, anti-American message has proved to be tremendous help to the enemy of his own country.

[Tiger Al 0]

It does seem to be bogged down a bit right now, but I wonder just how much of that can be attributed to the muslim world's view of a divided America? I believe that progress will be slow until after the election when the "insurgents" will realize that they have to deal with a Bush led America for four more years.

Just like 30 years ago, JF'ingKerry and his devisive, anti-American message has proved to be tremendous help to the enemy of his own country.

got hyperbole?

[rexbo 104]

. . . worse.

We've lost over 1,000 now with 7,000 injured.

Just an editorial comment, we have lost about 750 to the enemy, the other ~250 are by accidents that have occured in Iraq.

As far as how we are doing, there is no doubt that we must gain control, or help the Iraqi security forces, quickly gain control of those areas under control of militias. The great, great majority of Iraqis, 99% are going on with their lives and enjoying their new found freedoms, we owe it to them to finish this job. Despite what Kerry says, we are not in the wrong in trying to build a free and democratic Iraq at this time and this place in history.

[Tiger Al 0]

Despite what Kerry says, we are not in the wrong in trying to build a free and democratic Iraq at this time and this place in history.

Is this why we attacked Iraq?

[AU Tailgating Rules 0]

Despite what Kerry says, we are not in the wrong in trying to build a free and democratic Iraq at this time and this place in history.

Is this why we attacked Iraq?

As a long tern goal..............HELL YES

[Tiger Al 0]

Despite what Kerry says, we are not in the wrong in trying to build a free and democratic Iraq at this time and this place in history.

Is this why we attacked Iraq?

As a long tern goal..............HELL YES

Was nation-building the top reason, or even among the top 5 reasons, for attacking Iraq? Was nation-building the pitch Colin Powell threw to the UN to get the Security Council to support attacking Iraq? Was nation-building included in the 2003 State of the Union address by Bush as a reason to attack Iraq?

[Bottomfeeder 244]

]

Was nation-building the top reason, or even among the top 5 reasons, for attacking Iraq? Was nation-building the pitch Colin Powell threw to the UN to get the Security Council to support attacking Iraq? Was nation-building included in the 2003 State of the Union address by Bush as a reason to attack Iraq?

I was against the war from the get-go. I believed none of the spew from the political side of the coin. While following Iraq for about 14 years now, and knowing there was no reason to kill off the rest of the population that didn't die from sanctions, I have conclude the following:

-Bogged down is exactly what the defense contractors ordered, along with the Carlyle Group.

-If the Bush administration was truly interested in fighting terrorism they should have attacked the Saudi Royal Regime, but NOoooo. They're buddies.

-Avoiding real threats and replacing them with easy targets is charcteristic of a coward. (yous can read between the lines can't you, you know since yous have your degrees and all).

-WMD are practically everywhere in the United States of America and Israel. These terrorist are conservative by nature and would not waste the money, or effort, to attempt to ship a container with nucks in it (this fear can be contributed to the media). Their are much more resourceful than that, and would resort to using our own facilities against us.

-They're smarter than the Bush administration.

-Again, as usual, it's about spending (wasting) our tax dollars for ineffective resulotants including our efforts in Iraq (to be paid back by your children, but mostly by you grandchildren and their children).

-"The blind leading the blind" is the current Mantra in the Washington, D.C.

-War is the only, I mean the only, accomplishment that Dubya's failing attempt at presidency has accomplished.

-Bush just doesn't care about people, Heck, you hear it in his voice when strains to says something that is supposed to empathatic. That man is fake...and, if you don't think so then you are blind. :ph34r:

Well, if that's all they can do then we must rid ourselves of such an embarrassment to the American Archives, White House and American way of life both here and abroad. He's not my president.

[LegalEagle 22]

I know it's difficult, but folks, try to leave out the politics.

1. We should be able to agree that we are deeply involved militarily in Iraq.

2. We should be able to agree that our involvement there will continue for some years to come (absent a policy change or flowers flowing in the streets). The issue hear could be how long do we stay depending on whether things go well or poorly. The draft will be coming if it is prolonged. How many of us will appreciate the War enough to see our children and grandchildren go and die vs. those kids and grandkids of our fellow citizens?

3. We can agree that the lives of American soldiers are very valuable. The issue could be, "How many American casualties are we willing to suffer to avenge the deaths of less than 3,000? (Does anyone recall how many of these were Americans?)

4. We should be able to agree that our involvement is so costly that it is putting a great strain on our national finances. The issue here is whether we are better off spending $200B in Iraq rather than $100B in the U.S. while saving $100B. Why can't we ask/force the Iraq Gov. to pay us back in oil revenue as it is available - with interest?

5. From what I see on TV, which may be misleading, we control the rural sand of Iraq and a few portions of cities in Central Iraq. Northern Iraq is pretty much pacified and Southern Iraq is moderately pacified. What % of the population is actually at peace vs. war? Muslims are coming across the border in sufficient numbers to more than replace the militants we kill. One party says we can't fight a "sensitive war on terror" but they are in charge of a war in Iraq and are using sensitive tactics. Don't we just have to blow 'em away and wish them extra virgins in heaven? How else can we win? IMHO it will take over 10 years to "convert" these people to peaceful co-existence under a Western-type government.