Posted on 08/13/2004 4:08:07 PM PDT by jeltz25
Once again, it seems like we have not finished the job. Now that negotiations have begun in Najaf, Sadr will once again get away. We all know that he'll make some bs statement, drop out of the spotlight for a while, regroup, have the IRGC resupply him and be back to cause havoc.
This same thing happened with him in April, happened in Fallujah, it happens with Israel all the time, it'll happen again. What happened to the old "there is no substitute for victory", we will make no distinction between the terrorists and those that support them, all that talk, which it now seems like it was only that, talk.
I fear that if we continue to take this approach, we'll always have problems. This approach emboldens Tehran. Bush talks tough about their nuclear program, but does anyone here honestly think we'll do anything substantive about it. The Israelis are the only hope and even they have been a bit "wobbly" lately. If they don't have the balls to take out Arafat, do you think they have them to take on Tehran.
I'd appreciate a more positive outlook, but I think it's just spin. No disrepect to those in theater but if the politicians keep restricting them like this then their efforts are wasted. And before you flame away, I don't think Kerry will be any better, if anything he'll be worse, but Bush needs to realize that he needs to be decisive and be able to have victories to show the people. Coming on TV and saying "we have a cease fire, we're continuing to hunt them down" doesn't cut it, everyone sees right through it.
The ultimate irony we'll be that if Bush keeps this strategy up, he'll be back in Crawford come January and Moqtada al-Sadr we'll still be in power
In which case we should respond with more bombs and less bullets.
The US needs to speak clearly to the Arab world, the Shiite world, that Sadr must come out of that mosque. The Arab world is encouraged to get him out. If they cannot, or are unwilling to remove him, the US will remove him. If the US is required to remove him, any damage to the mosque is on Arab heads.
Who's we?
If you were dissatisfied with the progress, you could have gotten your lazy butt up out of your chair, gone to Iraq, and shown the Coalition officials how it should be done.
On the otherhand, you could have remained where you are, with your lazy butt planted in your chair -- and whined about it.
I guess we know which course of action you chose.
I completely agree! I don't like it, but I agree.
"They are afraid of hundreds of editorial writers."
_________________________________________________________
Bull$hit. Why should our forces do ALL of the heay work for the Iraqis? We've given them one Hell of a good down payment on Liberty, but if they can't or won't fight for it themselves, then they won't ever be free. This is more like dropping them into the deep end of the pool and making them swim. If they succeed, they'll have that much more pride in themselves. Worst case scenario, we just step back and let the B-52s finish the job.
Should it be contained at the current limits of expansion (measured by the gov't being controlled by Islamists)?
Should it be reduced in geographic scope? To what limits?
Should it be eliminated? And replaced by Buddhism/Christianity/Hinduism/Zoroastrianism/Secularism/etc?
Should it be contained at the current limits of expansion (measured by the gov't being controlled by Islamists)?
Should it be reduced in geographic scope? To what limits?
Should it be eliminated? And replaced by Buddhism/Christianity/Hinduism/Zoroastrianism/Secularism/etc?
It almost seems as if we are deliberately emboldening Tehran, so that they might overstep, perhaps?
I hate to second guess this admin, however strength and victory are more than often synonymous with self-possession and professionalism. For sure, there is nothing redeeming in letting these goons keep running around insane without checks. We cannot beg for sanity either lest we go insane as a result, and so we should make Sadr beg then... as he is... a perfect opportunity to make him pay most... for beggers should be killed, whether they beg for mercy or to kill us. I have no respect for these people, they cannot even be worked with intelligently,let alone moraly speaking. Love thy enemy means to incarcerate them and to keep separation thus from them, even if it means death penalty, in honor. Deals with Sadr brings us too close to him... and does not help the sanity.
Like an answer to a confusing increasing Blitz Krieg, overtures for peace to a weak people or gov is devastating in terms of confusing the situation and dividing us.
Q: "Why don't we ever finish things(Fallujah,Najaf?)"
A:
1) It is a Politically Correct war.
2) It is not a war.
with a majority .....
Spell check error.....
should be minority following.
"And our response? Fallujah. Najaf. Feh."
But the arab street is pleased: US Marines were stopped cold AGAIN - by a structure.
Please get your priorities in order.
#1: Pleasing arab muslim terrorists.
#2: Pleasing the arab street.
#3: Pleasing al-Jazeerah.
It's NOT President Bush doing this start-stop-start crap; it should be the generals on the ground, but I fear it's Colon Bowel and The State Department's Klintoon Kool-Aid® Coalition of The Wild-Eyed Scumbag liberal-demokkkRAT-socialist-commie-nazi morons.
But since I'm not in the *loop*, I don't really know, and neither do you. Get a grip, pal.
Isn't this the type of situation that brought about the development of the neutron bomb?
G-d Bless C&F.
President Bush, not the arabist suckup Bowell IS the CiC. No?
"History is written by the victors." - Churchill
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.