Posted on 10/24/2005 7:48:17 AM PDT by areafiftyone
Okay, I'm over that. I find this ironic, since the terrorists must have known it was media that was mostly in that hotel, and so they clearly don't care. This is yet another STUPID move by the foreign terrorists fighting the Coalition in Iraq. Their first big stupid move was to engage the Iraqi police/military force as it started to emerge. Killing Muslim iraqi's, whether they were new police or not, no upside for the terrorists on that. Then their second big stupid move, opening up on the Iraqi civilian populace, killing thousands of them, in their homes and mosques, going to and from work and school. That is the stupidest thing the foreign terrorist zarkoui movement could have done. The Iraqi people absolutely HATE the terrorist movement. They've now killed many more Iraqi civilians with their intentional attacks on them, than we killed accidentally in the war. The Iraqi people may not want us there, and who can blame them, it's hard having your country be full of another nations military, but they HATE the terrorists now, and I bet the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi people want us there to fight the terrorists, because they know good and well what would happen if we leave and the terrorists are left there.
With the recent events unfolding that Syria helped assassinate the Pro-U.S. P.M. in Lebanon, I don't know that military actions against Syria wouldn't be a great idea. We have our military right there on the border, Israel might help, and one thing that I don't think can be argued, is that if Syria's thugarchy government was toppled, it would have the instant benefit of cutting foreign interference in Iraq almost in half, if not more, and Lebanon would be free to be what its people want it to be, a Pro-U.S. representative constitutional republic, with close ties to Israel and the U.S.. Lebanon is nearly 90% Christian, so toppling the government in Syria would have the effect of most likely creating two new democracies in the Middle East, Syria and Lebanon, and it would also cut in half the foreign influx of terrorists in to Iraq, making Iraq more stable, and allowing more attention to be turned to Iran.
No small undertaking by any means I know, but I don't think invading Syria can be discounted. It's been a known terrorist state for decades, occupying Lebanon, harboring terrorists groups that attack Israel, and now Iraq, and destabilizing the whole Middle East. It seems there are more benefits to invading Syria than what would happen if it's not invaded. Just something to think about.
Don't think we will be invading Syria any time soon. This is just the leftists speculation. They have been speculating about Syria and Iran. I don't believe it will happen.
The terrorists/insurgents understand that our media plays a big role in generating or eliminating support for the war on terror. I'm convinced that they will now try to separate the head (media) from the body (US support).
"What's the count for innocents killed by terrorists?"
Now THAT is the real question and the answer would be newsworthy.
I dunno, they kill a few "sympathetic" journalists, that might wake the rest of the industry up to reality.....
Yea, I know its a long shot... but losing a colleague or friend tends to make folks rethink some fundamentals about their world views.
And, as I always love to point out, Vietnam, N and S, is significantly larger than the total geographic area of Iraq. Iraq is 168,000 square miles in size. South Vietnam is only 67,000 square miles in size. Iraq is nearly three times larger than South Vietnam. North Vietnam, which we NEVER occupied at all, is 61,000 square miles in size. So even if you include all of Vietnam, Iraq is still about 22% larger than all of Vietnam.
South Vietnam never had an established government elected by the Vietnamese people. Iraq does. Vietnam never had an election or a constitution. Iraq does. Three elections now in fact, and a constitution.
Also, in Vietnam, the U.S. military was opposed by North Vietnam soldiers exclusively. I’ve never seen or heard any evidence that the Chinese or Soviets were in Vietnam fighting our soldiers. They were there, but not fighting, except maybe for some Russian or Chinese pilots that manned fighters against ours, making it really impossible to ever prove. The terrorists movement in Iraq is over 90% foreign. The few Iraqi’s that are involved with the terrorists were part of hussein’s government.
It’s also important to point out that we never occupied all of Vietnam, and there were over half a million troops in Vietnam at the height of the war. In Iraq, there have never been more than 160,000 American combatants present. The major combat operations in Iraq was over in a matter of weeks. In Vietnam, major combat operations were never opened, and there was never as much of South Vietnam secured as is currently secured in Iraq.
Iraq is going better than any war the U.S. has ever fought in, not counting the first Gulf War. No other war in U.S. history has ever taken so few casualties, only about 2 per day, other than the first Gulf War. The Revolutionary War, War of 1812, Civil War, Spanish American War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and the smaller wars, ALL had a casualty rate much higher than 2 per day. Where is the media reporting of that fact? There should be celebrating in the streets that it’s 2 per day and not 14 like Vietnam, or over 40 per day like WWII, and praise by name the 2,000 heros who gave their lives for freedom and democracy. Those 2,000 brave fallen heros are symbols to be praised and held up on high, not symbols of a failed effort. The media presenting them as such clearly demonstrates their deliberate bias against the military and any war effort not led by a democrat President. Most importantly. When the 1,000th troop was killed in Iraq, I remember doing this same thing, figuring the average per day, and it came to about 4.5% per day killed in Iraq when the 1,000th troop was lost. And now, at 2,000, that average is 2.1% per day, so the number of troops killed per day is half what it was about a year ago, but the media talks about the number of attacks being up as though that is the only significant event. Well if the number of troops lost per day is half what it was before, and the number of attacks is up, that demonstrates that more of those attacks are failing and fewer troops are killed by them, and THAT is more significant than the number of attacks taking place. But the media will NEVER point that out. Iraq is going VERY well, and Vietnam NEVER went this well on its best day. I should know a thing or two about Vietnam, my father was there for four years and has told me about it all my life. But the media will say Iraq is as bad as Vietnam, and that couldn’t be a bigger lie.
But hey, why let the facts get in the way of a liberal inflammatory headline?
Yep, walking to dinner I heard a couple of zip-snaps overhead then within a couple of minutes one horrendous explosion. There was quite a plume and within 3 minutes two other explosions only a minute apart that sounded more like rockets. I'm still wondering what the rounds were overhead right before the explosions. Normally we get the occasional falling rounds from distant firefights or wedding celebrations. These passed overhead.
Oh I don't think it will happen anytime soon either. I was just speculating. There are some very positive things that could come out of that kind of action against Syria, if it's done properly. Talk about establishing democracy in the Mid-East, Syria would be a HUGE step, seeing as how much they are interferring with Lebanon and Iraq. And if Syria is removed as a major border interferrance threat, that would put much more pressure on Iran. It would be interresting.
Now THAT is the real question and the answer would be newsworthy.
I wouldn't be a bit surprised to learn that our military has killed well over 10,000 hussein radicals / terrorists in the past two and a half years. Anytime in history a nation has killed its enemy 5 to 1, they've never lost. That's just simple fact. The fact that the overwhelmingly non-Iraqi foreign terrorists are now killing Iraqi civilians enmasse will further make them hated in Iraq, and hasten their defeat there.
I didn't mean 4.5% and 2.1%. I meant just 4.5 and 2.1. When the 1000th troop was killed in Iraq, the average was about 4.5 troops per day killed in Iraq. Now, with 2,000 killed in Iraq, nearly have from accidents, that makes it 2.1 per day killed in Iraq. I don't know why I put % with it. This proves that the deathtoll in Iraq is much lower than it was over a year ago. But all the media will talk about is the number killed, not how the rate is declining by half.
Wow so you're there? Do you think it was Halliburton that attacked the hotel, trying to get the media? ;)
You could hardly blame them. Actually, I think this might be a mini-tet offensive and attempt to get the media to claim that the war is lost because the bad guys are still able to get bombs that close to well protected areas. It wouldn't surprise me to see a lot more of this kind of thing in the next couple of weeks.
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.