Posted on 08/03/2005 4:04:27 AM PDT by leadpenny
Roadside bomb in western Iraq.
Thanks for the answer, Jeff. I meant my questions in all sincerity, although I am distressed by our losses. I trust our commanders also and know that our troops have been and are doing an awesome job. I am so proud of the finest military in the world, the U.S. Armed Forces.
Barkeep, send that man a beer on me. I've been of that opinion since 911. They would've been first on my list, oil be damned! When are we going to stop kissing their robed asses and ignoring their role in 911. The media, the UN and the Bush administration continue to ignore the blatantly obvious. The majority of the terrorists on 911 held Saudi passports!
Besides half hearted threats and hand wringing, what was the response from the Clinton's after the USS Cole?
Many will say drop more bombs which will only fuel their(insurgents) propaganda to get new recruits
x ACT LEEEEEEEEEEEE!
Syria needs to bleed.
You cannot come to some sort of peace or truce with Al Qaeda. They are more irrational than the Nazis
That guy is a very bitter and confused person. It is of no value to engage such fools. I could write at length about people with such mindsets, but I wont waste my time.
$50+ million a year spent on DC buys you a lot of blindspots, or has for decades for the Saudis. These guys are the scum of the scum and the majority of the suiciders in the Sunni areas are Saudies. Time to start lobbing their heads back across the border.
Hate to say it, but the Marines could learn something about tactics from the Army.
"Just the same, we are drawing the terrorists to our fighting forces by the thousands there and killing them. . .rather than them coming here."
Unfortunately, they are coming here due to lax immigration policy. My question is whether it's realistically possible to come out of this thing ahead without giving up the PC and accepting more civilian casualties. Is it really fair to subject our forces to the current rules of engagement? It would be nice, before judging though, to hear what the people fighting over there
have to say about this.
Goes deeper than that. I am worried about the Zetas, the Mexican mercenaries who are trying to gain tactical control of the border around Nuevo Laredo. This is a military problem that the Administration should take care of.
What he meant was that most IEDs don't do much.
But all it takes is one.
I agree you must hunt down and kill all terrorists with extreme prejudice. Since 9/11 in all my readings, I have concluded that based on the lessons of History, not only must the terrorists be killed, their families and supporters need to be hunted down and killed with incredible violence. We are dealing with pure evil. We (meaning most American citizens) have not yet reached the Warrior mindset to understand that incredible violence is needed against this evil. PC and the evil left is part of the reason we can't do the "right thing" and viciously exterminate this evil. It may take an WMD on our soil to set free the force to finally kill these b*stards.
Do you think the Kurds can survive without our continued long term military help. I mean, they have no outlet to the sea and are surrounded by enemies. Iran, Turkey, Sunnis to the south. Maybe if the Kurds took out the Sunnis they'd have a chance but in their present situation they would get ganged up on quick, wouldn't they?
What about the turks, arn't there a lot of them living in the Kurds zone of control?
I'd prefer to let the Kurds loose on the Sunnis until the Sunnis surrender. Use them like our Ghurkas or something. I'm aware the Kurds are helping us out already. Do you think they can do more or are they maxed out.
Wasn't gonna say it, but when the Army controlled Al Anbar, we owned the roads. Not saying that there wasn't ambushes or that it wasn't dangerous, but we could travel.
Attacks increased significantly when the USMC took over Al Anbar. And by mid April 2004 we'd lost the highways and there were prohibitions on the same travel we had just weeks earlier.
The USMC seemed determined to reject out of hand any lesson the Army learned and tried to pass on. Lessons paid for in Army blood had to be relearned with USMC blood.
Also....the first thing the USMC did when they hit ground was to fortify their office areas on the bases as if they were going to stay behind sandbags and HESCOs for their 6-7 month tour. Just stay out of trouble. Then the Blackwater security guys got hit near Falluja. Then the Top Brass (Sanchez, Abizaid) had to come in personally to 'motivate' the USMC into attacking Falluja.
Some have tried to tell me that the Army didn't conduct raids, and that was wrong. The USMC still pushes machismo when technical competency is usually more valuable.
But what would I know about any of that?
Interesting. Wonder if the Marines are being utilized properly.
This is the same situation the Marines faced in I Corps in 1965-1967, when the majority of combat casualties were from booby traps (IEDs, today). Same with the US Army in II Corps. Faceless enemy that at the time chose to hit and run, until late 1967 and into 1968 and Tet.
I'm not trying to minimize the loss of 7 Marines one day and 14 the next in ambushes, but it wasn't uncommon to lose 20 or 30 to as many as 60 US servicemen in individual large-scale ambushes in SEA in 1967-1969. The main difference then was the VC often stood and fought after triggering their ambush, unlike the raghead bastards who are basically cowards. I'm shocked they could wipe out 6 USMC snipers, but maybe those guys were green? How did they walk into this? Were they betrayed from the inside, like US personnel often were in recon units?
I'm sad today. God bless these men.
(I have not served. My tagline honors my
son and my cousin.)
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.