1 posted on
04/01/2004 4:07:42 AM PST by
kattracks
To: kattracks
Interesting post.
I don't care what it's a sign of, weakness or strength, this attack must bring an overwhelming unmistakeable response.
2 posted on
04/01/2004 4:11:40 AM PST by
Judith Anne
(Is life a paradox? Well, yes and no...)
To: kattracks
The real problem for the Sunni Triangle is going to come when the Shia living in Sadr City come into their own as major players in the Iraqi government.
The only question remaining on the table is whether or not the United States military should protect the barbarians in Fallujah, Tikrit and Ramadi when it becomes the responsibility of the new Iraqi government and military to clean out the rats' nests they made of themselves.
At the moment I am highly motivated to take the position that our troops should be kept out of it.
3 posted on
04/01/2004 4:14:50 AM PST by
muawiyah
To: kattracks
I'd let the Sunnis know in no uncertain terms that if they continue this course, we will stand aside when the Shiites take power.
6 posted on
04/01/2004 4:27:57 AM PST by
OpusatFR
(Sure they want to tone down the rhetoric. We are winning.)
To: kattracks
Good article.
"The terrorists are wrong. We're not quitting. But the tragic cowardice of the Spanish electorate last month encouraged civilization's enemies to believe that the West is inherently weak. They do not understand that America isn't Europe..."
7 posted on
04/01/2004 4:35:56 AM PST by
nuconvert
("America will never be intimidated by thugs and assassins." ( President Bush 3-20-04))
To: kattracks
Such atrocities are inevitable. I disagree with the author on this point.
1.Level the place.
2. Bring our servicemen home.
8 posted on
04/01/2004 4:41:34 AM PST by
WhiteGuy
(Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...)
To: kattracks
Does anyone else find the phrase "a cabal of Pentagon civilians" objectionable? Cabal: a small group joined in a secret intrigue.
First of all, it was no secret that the top civilians in the Pentagon favored small, rapid forces. They were quite open about it; it was a central theme of Bush's major defense policy speech (the Citadel speech).
Second, the term implies that the "cabal" had the intention to pursue its own narrow interests, rather than a sincere belief that their favored course of action was best for the country.
Third, the term is more than vaguely anti-Jew.
To: kattracks
They hope to repeat their electoral success in Spain and imagine, wrongly, that a Democratic victory would mean that Washington would retreat from Iraq and the War on Terror.But whoever our next president may be, America won't - and can't - quit. Politicians from both parties have a responsibility to make that unmistakably clear over the coming months.
Exactly what has John Kerry said that gives Peters the impression that he would continue the WOT -- as a war, not as a law-enforcement operation -- as President? It is precisely because the Dems are running on an anti-war platform that we can expect more attacks aimed at undermining Bush's re-election.
To: kattracks
Why not send back the Iraqis who live in the USA who claim to be here for freedom but remain Iraqis --- let them go work for freedom back home. If Iraqis won't fight for their own country and freedom then why should Americans die for them?
18 posted on
04/01/2004 5:37:36 AM PST by
FITZ
To: kattracks
Fallujah:
"Conan, what is good in life?"
"To crush your enemies, see them driven before you,
hear the lamentations of the women."
19 posted on
04/01/2004 5:37:51 AM PST by
smith288
(Who would terrorists want for president? 60% say Kerry 25% say Bush... Who would you vote for?)
To: kattracks
Second, a forlorn hope remains among the terrorists that, if only they can kill enough Americans and do so as graphically as possible, Washington will lose heart and abandon the struggle. A hope continually fanned by the seditious American Media Sinister* - al-Katie Quric, CNN-BS, See-BS "News" and Petey Jennings.
*Sinister is Latin for "Left" - me & John Kerry knew it, and now you do too. ;-)
21 posted on
04/01/2004 5:56:27 AM PST by
an amused spectator
(FR: Leaving the burning dog poop bag of Truth on the front door step of the liberal media since 1996)
To: kattracks
Ralph Peters sounds like his heart is in the right place, but I think he's delusional.
The U.S. military lost a ton of credibility when it disciplined Lt. Col. Allen West for his "unconventional" methods of extracting information from Iraqi prisoners. Ironically, his objective was to obtain information about planned ambushes just like the one we saw in Fallujah the other day.
I said at the time that if I were under his command when he was stripped of his duties, I would have abandoned my unit and walked to Paris from Iraq before I ever put on a military uniform again.
22 posted on
04/01/2004 6:00:08 AM PST by
Alberta's Child
(Alberta -- the TRUE north strong and free.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson