BUSH MAKES THE CALL: NO FULL SCALE FALLUJAH OFFENSIVE

The Drudge Report ^ | April 25, 2004 | Matt Drudge

[threat matrix]

developing tonight..header for now

[Endeavor]

Look, we don't want to burn villages. We want to kill the bad guys and scare the sh*t outta the other bad guys watching around the country.

[bygolly]

" since when does a cease fire allow us to use snipers at will?"

They are suppose to be laying down their weapons. It is a defensive measure to target anybody with a weapon.

[Arkinsaw]

I certainly have faith in our military as opposed to the hand-wringing, gun-slinging nut fringe that comes out on these threads. And I have faith in the President.

I don't understand what all the freak out is over. The Marines still get to take control of city center (faster). They still get to kill anybody they see with a weapon. They still get to search suspicious locations. They will have Iraqi police on the ground instead of none. The will have city leaders agreeing to it rather than opposing it.

The only difference I see is that the Marines get to avoid a bloody assault.

But maybe thats what some folks are more interested in seeing than actually taking control of the place.

[TADSLOS]

Good call, Chris. I think so also. Bush has weighed the options. He knows the Fallujah battle's won and the decision to win the peace with the populace on the cusp of a 30 June transfer of power is more important and lasting than the obvious outcome of going completely heavy handed on the town just to clean up what's left of a shattered group of foreign fighters and Saddam hangers on.

The Syrian/Iranian funded and equipped terrorists will do what they do on any account, so this is just one of a series of battles to deal with. It will be interesting to see the Bush strategy unfold after the election, especially with Syria and Iran.

[Dubya]

bump

[Hand em their arse]

"(especially women) who, weak as they often are..."

Oh yeah, you'll win friends with that one, care to word that a bit differently??

[victoryatallcosts]

Look, we don't want to burn villages. We want to kill the bad guys and scare the sh*t outta the other bad guys watching around the country. *Shrugs* I could care less how it's done, so long as it gets done. If we can win by deciding to keep on attriting the enemy- good. If we can win by burning enemy villages to the ground and executing all of their leaders and supporters- equally good. Remember what Churchill said: "You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: victory. Victory at all costs. Victory in spite of all terror. Victory however long and hard the road may be for, without victory, there is no survival."

[PISANO]

The "DECISION" is his and his alone. I pray to GOD it is the CORRECT one for our troops and for the success of this war. He is my C-in-C and I back his play. I, on the other hand would make a terrible politician because it would NOT have been my call.

[Edit35]

Once the slanted US media stops scrutinizing Fallujah so damn close, out Marines will be more effective.

We should keep the city surrounded so the foreign fighters and Iraqi insurgents can't escape, or more cant arrive. We should bleed the enemy dry of fuel, food, and ammo.

Maybe then our special forces could inch closer and closer, and pick off fighters one by one at 2,000 yards.

[Rokke]

"Bush is just like his father: a hesitant CINC."

What sensory deprived void have you been living in for the last three years? You've missed a lot of news.

[threat matrix]

I think our forces are more than adequate at this point in time..

[section9]

See, I think that the military hung back for a while to let the goobers in who wanted to die with their rags on. Now, the trap is shut. Instead of a full scale assault, like the evisceration on von Paulus' Sixth Army by the Red Army's Don and Stalingrad Front Army Groups in January of 1943, we'll have a grinding, methodical attrition of the bad guys.

Some of these people will, on their own, decide to break out of the ring. We'll spot them using thermal imagery, and they'll be dead.

No terrorist is coming out of Fallujah alive. I suspect that far from getting the martyrdom they crave, they will instead, receive only suffering and continued loss.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[victoryatallcosts]

Oh yeah, you'll win friends with that one, care to word that a bit differently?? Not really. It's fairly obvious to me. Not all women, but enough of them to matter, are too weak to be relied upon to not be seduced by the forces of treason in wartime. That doesn't apply to the women here, of course, but it applies to plenty through the country. Women who like low taxes and might support us normally, are easily taken in by emotional proaganda and their natural empathy (even towards our enemies). For every American heir to the Spatan mothers who would instruct their sons to, "come back with your shield or upon it" there are probably two would-be Princess Diana's.

[dinok]

"this single headline doesn't mean there is ANY parallel between Bush and LBJ"

Its weakness pure and simple.

Faluza should have been taken by now. It should have been taken in the begining.

The Kurds are our friends, the Shiites were neutral and the Sunis were Saddams powerbase and our enemies. They need to be defeated. Instead we are kissing their rear.

I don't care what you say. I know weakness when I see it and so do our enemies.

[Pukin Dog]

It would be nice if everyone could remember that the article said "FULL SCALE", not NO offensive at all. We are patrolling inside the city to draw fire, then pass coordinates to the Gunships for destruction.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

Chris, this is the only time I can recall you pursuing an argument into a full circle. LOL! :O)

I will now completely contradict a previous post I made on this thread. While I have grave concern for allowing an enemy any quarter to fight another day, I will defer to GW this time. If "controlled agreesion" works, in the short and medium term, perhaps that is in the best interests of all. However, I can't help but feel anger in the knowledge that our brave troops on the ground would be spared by crushing aerial bombardment (IMO, our troops are worth more than their "innocents"). If this plan fails (as I expect that it will), then the dogs of war must be unleashed with no further restraint.

[ohioWfan]

Who's weak??

Most of the Republican women I know around here have a killer instinct. ;o)

[Pukin Dog]

You frankly don't know what you are talking about.

[af_vet_1981]

There are few if any on this board with the knowledge and expertise to second guess our President on this issue. He is acting with the best advice available.

As did Truman in Korea, as did LBJ and Nixon in Vietnam

There was a time in our history when we fought to win. Now it seems we fight to tie yet again.

Can you imagine Roosevelt or Eisenhower deciding not to invade Europe because it might produce too many civilian casualties ?

[Squantos]

Agree.......if GW ain't gonna let em kick some he may as well let em come home and get some.......:o)

Stay safe !