Take off gloves in bloody Iraq

New York Daily News ^ | 10/28/03

[kattracks]

Happy Ramadan. Here's how the medieval fanatics celebrated the arrival of the holy month yesterday: with desecration. With one horrific Baghdad blast after another, killing at least 34, wounding more than 200.

The casualties included Iraqi police officers who have been dutifully working with coalition forces to secure their tattered post-Saddam nation and wholly humanitarian Red Cross volunteers who were blown up by suicide bombers driving a Red Cross ambulance.

Counting Sunday's brazen missile attack on a Baghdad hotel occupied by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, the daily slaughter is grimmer than it has been since the U.S. rolled into Iraq in March.

The soulless murderers are attacking with the clear intent of undermining U.S. resolve at a time when many Americans are growing skittish at the cost in lives and dollars of bringing a free and democratic Iraq into the 21st century. Amid the bloodshed, it is all too easy to lose sight of the hard-won progress that's being made toward that goal.

President Bush vows to stay the course in defeating the forces swarming in with hatred in their hearts, readied for death and glory. To abandon the Iraqis now, or even to waver in commitment, would be a disastrous blow to the region and to U.S. prestige.

There is an alternative to merely staying the course - take the gloves off altogether.

We've been playing a little too nice in Iraq. We've been pacifying more than we've been taking care of business. We've been more culturally sensitive than is entirely a good thing for the safety of our troops. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said it himself: Our aggression is insufficient. We're not punching hard enough.

Sunday's hotel assault, it is reported, was known by intel to be imminent. Yet local officials conceded that no particular precautions were taken. Not to put too fine a point on this, but: Why the hell not?

It has now been nearly six months since the President declared major combat operations to have concluded. It's time to declare them resumed.

[snip]

You can e-mail the Daily News editors at
voicers@edit.nydailynews.com
Please include your full name, address and phone number. The Daily News reserves the right to edit letters. The shorter the letter, the better the chance it will be used.

Originally published on October 28, 2003

[toothless]

"We know that the loyalists are men between the ages of 16 and, say 45. Have them register for ID's and wear a ID tag. All men, after a certain date not registered should be considered dangerous, shot, or taken prisoner and placed in a prison camp. Villages where there is a reluctance to register or cooperate should be advised that the village will be razed, destroyed after a certain date, and then carried out. "

We can call it the 'Final Solution'.

[technomage]

It has now been nearly six months since the President declared major combat operations to have concluded. It's time to declare them resumed.

These are not major combat operations! This is terrorism and we are now dealing with it on a daily basis for the first time in our history. Like Israel.

Israel is probably the best in the world at combating terrorism and they STILL get hit. A difference there is that the media, for the most part, is WITH their country, not against.

[Prodigal Son]

I asked you first. It seems to me that the one who was first asked should be the one to first answer. I don't mind answering your questions but I would like to hear the answer to mine.

What would you do with an entire village of people after you razed their village?

[Final Authority]

I answered the question in regards to villagers. Please answer or please, do not bother to think about this topic anymore because without considering difficult questions and communicating a response you are not in dialog or cannot think clearly.

What I said about the villages and the people residing there is that it is not a military problem about displaced residents until there is a military solution and then only after that it does become a political problem. We have not achieved a military victory yet, so in considering your fears one can only be hindered in causing victory. I would not fear victory, I fear the alternative.

Please answer, if you can.

[Prodigal Son]

In which post did you answer that?

We need to stop and think about this here. You obviously have me confused with someone else. I am good for the next 500 replies or so. I have never (knowingly) backed down from my end of an argument. When did you say what you would do with the villagers you had run out of their home?

Again, don't take this as obfuscation on my part. If my point is stupid, I will point this out better than you in the end. I just don't see where you answered my question.

[lodwick]

Learn what?

How to hate us more?

You underestimate the oppostion,
as well as the strength of their resolve.

Cheers.

[SJackson]

Seal the borders with Syria and Iran, probably Saudi Arabia too, with US troops (I'm told we have adequate forces there) until Iraqi's can take over the task.

Back up either you are with us or the terrorists canard, which could be done dipolmatically or worst case with air power.

If we don't, we're going to end up with another Islamic state, though their potential as a threat would be delayed by decades.

The most beneficial action would be shutting up the whiners who give encouragement to our enemies, tough to do, but there's no reason you can't call a spade a spade.

[Final Authority]

Read reply 39. If you need remedial reading I could help you find a source.

The problem with considering answers to questions is it requires cogent thought, something that you have not offered in the thread yet, at least, as directed to me. Answers also identify the ability to think based on thoughfulness and comprehension. Also, answers tend to un-cloak the politics of an individual. But answers are the only way to continue a dialog. Since you cannot or will not consider my questions I will forever consider you outside of the discussion for any topic. You are not good for 500 replies unless you consider them gratuitous.

The problem with the questions I posed is that if you follow the logic and come to a conclusion, you and I could not differ by doctrine, only by means. That must be troubling.

[Prodigal Son]

LOL, that's a nice answer. Well, it's sort of nice answer.

This thread is going into december. I will stake my entire reputation upon it. It doesn't matter to me. Right now, I'm going to bed. Your post number 39 offered no insight. I take it you have some experience to offer us here? You have served in the combat arms?

Let's be clear, I am offering you all night to get your sh!t together. You need to come up with more than "Since you cannot or will not consider my questions I will forever consider you outside of the discussion for any topic."

Cause I'm right here to discuss man. I don't think you will ever make the monkey out of me in this discussion but I dearly hope you can. (I hope you can)

We can have this discussion till it's over. If I look like a complete idiot afterwards- so be it. I don't think you have your sh!t together on this issue at all. You haven't answered my question but I will definitely answer yours.

If you win, I will ping everybody you ever knew and say "I'm and idiot"- right here live on Free Republic.

Right now, I still want to know what you would do with a village full of people after you destroyed their homes.

You've got all night to think about it...

[Prodigal Son]

Good thoughts.

[SJackson]

BTW, did I mention GWB needs to shut up the whiners and make his case as to what needs to be done to stabilize the region. If I did I'll say it again, because GWB isn't saying it loud enough or often enough. There may be 9 dems running, but 8 1/2 (1/2 point to Liebermen) of them are running on an "anti-Bush" plank which is really anti-American, and he needs to say it.

[SJackson]

How many Americans must die in defense of freedom before we use the weapons we have? Do we have a right to use the weapons we have in our defense? How many Americans would you have die to save the lives of our enemy's? Is an Iraqi Arab's life worth as much to you as an American soldier's?

I don't think it's a matter of "weapons". Though I'm not qualified to make the assessment, I suspect "boots on the ground", American now, Iraqi later, coupled with diplomatic (air power is diplomatic) pressure is the real issue. There are potential political costs. IMO, a more aggressive posture would be a political plus, but either way our troops deserve all the support we can give them, and if the dems magnificent 9 think they can play it to their political advantage, let them.

[Bob J]

Click Here for the RadioFR website!

Live NOW on RadioFreeRepublic!
“The Daly Report” with Kay Daly!
Kay’s Guest tonight is Tim Graham form the Media Research Center
And they will be discussing the Wed CBS Movie on Reagan!

5pm Pacific/8pm Eastern!

Click HERE to listen LIVE NOW while you FReep!

Would you like to receive a note when RadioFR is on the air? Send an email to radiofreerepublic-subscribe@radioactive.kicks-ass.net!

Click HERE to chat in the RadioFR chat room!

[Final Authority]

No thought. No answer. Allusion to a ad Hominem attack. Finished.

[Final Authority]

I do not disagree. As I wrote, my definition of weapons is that a weapon is more than the physical thing. It is more than a bullet or a bomb. It is strategy, willpower, tactics, political commitment used to sucess to defeat an enemy by the application of power. We have the power and now we must use it.

I'll digress and consider a problem we have with respect to a sucessful srategy. The elite media and bleeding heart types will forever equate the sucessful strategy of President Truman and that of unsuccessful Hitler with that of opression, barbarism, Hitler-like, etc., that is, if war is not pretty, surgical, sterile, fast, cheap, not bloody and immediately victorious then it must be wrong, criminal, Hitler-like, you name it, it will be in the op-ed page. War is dirty and the first consideration in war is to win. Pick up the pieces later.

BTW, a former communicant in this thread was posed these precise questions which were not answered. I commend you for considering them. Consider them, point by point, question for question, then offer a final understanding. It would please me and I suspect it would offer insight into the Socratic method, the basis for civilized thinking and understanding.

[Coop]

All we need to assure ultimate victory is patience -- on the part of the home front.

Agreed. But unfortunately we have an internal enemy in the form of national-level Democrats and the media doing their best to erode that patience.

[Coop]

Idle chatter with no specifics. A bit like "bring em on" or "we want to concentrate the evil-doers & terrorists in one place".

No, it's nothing like that. The President's Cabinet has been executing to a plan - and doing it impressively, I might add. At least it's impressive to those of us who can grasp the threat and the challenges of what's been undertaken. To those looking for perfection, they run around going "Al Qaeda blew up a car! We're losing the peace! We have no plan!"

[Coop]

I suspect it would offer insight into the Socratic method, the basis for civilized thinking and understanding.

I've seen little evidence of that so far in your posts.

[Final Authority]

Show some of your smarts and correct my thinking. It is easy to spout off without saying anything as you did. Please have a dialog or tell somebody else of your shortcommings. I wrote many words dealing with the issues at hand and asked some very revealing questions but apparently there is a reluctance of several of us here to consider them because they will expose the poster in regards to the ability to read, write, think, and their understanding of politics. Please make an effort or don't bother.