Posted on 01/18/2005 1:56:32 PM PST by rightalien
Fallujah wasn't quelled?
For a President who was apparently dead-set on taking out Saddam Hussein, Bush has been awful easy on the guy since he's been captured.
What kind of message is this sending when we sacrifice 1000+ American troops to put this asshat dictator in jail, rather than in the ground?
They left the mosques standing, didn't they?
Perhaps you should have read this article before posting the same old crap.
OK, who has been sitting on the Chicken Little eggs?? A few more have hatched...
It sends the message that we seek justice not revenge. This is a good message to send, revenge creates a cycle of revenge, justice doesn't.
He is in Iraqi custody and has been for quite some time. They will determine his fate.
This author's critique of Iraq is the only one I am willing to entertain.
We aren't killing enough bad guys.
Everything else I see is just whining without a suggestion of how to win.
Killing bad guys is a winning strategy.
Let the slaughter pour forth.
Oh please, the goal is to build a stable Iraqi government that can take charge of its own security. It isn't killing every man, woman or child, and you aren't going to build stability by wholesale killings. This author ought to look at the example of Russia in Chechnya.
Did you notice that Our Highly Esteemed Author does not bother to define "victory?" What a putz. He's just another whiner.
Marked for later reading.
excellent suggestion...if each time a bomb went off, we trotted out Saddam on Iraqi TV and applied the 20,000 volt jolt to the groin...I have the feeling that things would calm down nicely.
It's not Bush's decision - Iraq is a Soverign nation - and they alone will determine what will happen to Saddam. We are guarding him - that's all.
When are people going to realize Iraq has an interim government - and America is only there to support them and help them become a stable country. I'm sure we would do things differently if we were the ones setting the rules.
Bush has said many times: "the day Iraq asks us to leave - we will leave".
Being compassionate at the risk of American lives in not acceptable. Period.
The war isn't about revenge, it IS about justice, just like defeating Hitler was about justice, and sometimes beating an intractable and clever enemy requires using rather harsh methods. It's amazing how people today can't grasp this.
War is anything but compassionate. Most wars have a goal in mind, the objective does not twist in the wind like a rope. Regime change, WMDs, freedom, democracy, elections, nonelections, the goals keep changing. You cannot win any war until it is decided what the objective is. Are we in Iraq to conquer the country? If so, what are soldiers dying for an election for? If democracy is what we want to establish, how can democracy flourish while the potential democrat is looking down the wrong end of a gun barrel? It would help if our leaders had something in mind and would share that with the public. Staying the course when the course is unknown is not too informative and certainly is a waste of resources, both personnel and monetary.
Exactly. Which is why when we managed to capture Saddam alive we imprisoned him until Iraq had a set of proper authorities and then turned him over to them. If we'd have shot Saddam out of hand the whole concept of the war would have changed, and we would have lost our ability to claim to be the good guys.
I feel depressed seeing Ayn Rand institute getting published on frontlinenews.com, and seeing is as a starting point for discussion here. Oh well
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.