Breaking: U.S. forces launch largest air assault since invasion

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Scribbler1 I didn't notice. I really don't find anything at all funny about politicians OR lawyers so I guess I wasn't looking for/at the smiley.

yeah, well you can laugh at some of the multiple times they have made fools of themselves. that is always entertaining.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: rmnunez We differ, if the coalitioneers fled then I think its likely insurgency would diminish, but not completely end, unless they managed to seize the government -then there'd be a different insurgency opposing them. An end to foreign occupation would mean insurgents animated by this would drop out, but those who are motivated by a desire to maintain the prior ethnic status quo, those who seek to restore Ba'athist rule, those who want Saddam and his family back in control and those who seek the establishment of an Islamic fundamentalist regime -would fight whatever government was in power. It is difficult to calculate what proportion of the insurgency is inclined to lay down arms if the coalitioneers fled. The critical left suggests all insurgents are solely focused on this foreign occupation issue, they anticipate that is all that it would take to bring peace -have the foreigners leave. I think we will see a gradual reduction and the garrisoning of occupying forces and that this should produce a diminution in insurgency, if this is the case, then the local government should gain more control and be capable of handling unrest with its reconstituted forces.

put simply, pulling out now means civil war. and if we want to keep Suddam out of control, we would have to return him to America. basically, this whole damn war would be no damn good, and history would point at the people who wanted to pull out for that. foresight is everything here. what will be better for the next generation? us pulling out and risking an even crazier nut (than Suddam) taking control of Iraq, and all the equipment we just gave them. with that, they would definitely have the equipment needed to launch a war on their own terms. so, the real question is, do you want war on our terms, or theirs. the militarily smart thing to do would be to keep it on our terms. choose our own battlefields instead of them choosing. that way we can shape the battle to our liking. an old quote, from Alexander the Great (at least according to my history book, it might be another person.) is:
"the man who knows the battlefield, can win the battle. the man who doesn't will be hard-pressed to come to even breaking even."

[rmnunez]

I don't find it funny to laugh at lawyers, but anyone who makes mistakes or a fool of himself can be amusing.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: rmnunez I don't find it funny to laugh at lawyers, but anyone who makes mistakes or a fool of himself can be amusing.

yeah, well those of us interested in at least the letter of the law, and not the twisted versions some lawyers/politicians/judges use, find them all as making fools of themselves. the truthful lawyer doesn't last too long, why do you think I changed majors to Sign Language Interpreting.

[rmnunez]

why do you think I changed majors to Sign Language Interpreting?

Didn't know you'd changed majors, what was your major before? Did you take up sign language interpreting because you felt there were better job prospects, grew concerned over the rights of the orally challenged or did you discover you had particular talent with your hands?

Lawyers are more maligned than we deserve, probably has a lot to do with the fact many politicians are lawyers. The reason politicians often are lawyers is because both jobs relate to the law. But the law is complicated since there has been lots of legislation interpreting, expanding making exceptions and modifying previous laws. Modern societies need lawyers to identify within a myriad of statutes the specific regulations applicable in their client's case. Some think if the law were really simple (not more complicated than the "10 Commandements") then things would run much better, definitely wouldn't need many lawyers or politicians.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: rmnunez Didn't know you'd changed majors, what was your major before? Did you take up sign language interpreting because you felt there were better job prospects, grew concerned over the rights of the orally challenged or did you discover you had particular talent with your hands?

to give a hint to my previous major, it is the same profession as the people I have been bashing in my last few posts. and the answer would be a mix of all three.

Lawyers are more maligned than we deserve, probably has a lot to do with the fact many politicians are lawyers. The reason politicians often are lawyers is because both jobs relate to the law. But the law is complicated, there has been lots of legislation interpreting, expanding making exceptions and modifying previous laws. Modern societies need lawyers to identify in the myriad statutes specific regulations and their application in goven cases. Some think if the law were really simple (not more complicated than the "10 Commandements") then things would run much better, definitely wouldn't need many lawyers or politicians.

heehee, I agree with that whole thing.

[lily]

Quote by: dthmstr254 you know, if it weren't for our press, they would be. however, the press makes it hard to even hold a war. hypothetical question: would we have remained in World War 2 if our press had been around with the technology we have? answer, via a busfull of recruits heading home from Fort Benning via Greyhound: hell, no. (and that was the lightened answer. would you like a direct quote? it would get a little colorful, especially the one I got from the commander who was training them. he has been in Iraq, on the field. he wants to go back. you know why the soldiers in Iraq want to return? because of the morons in the news. most of the soldiers in Iraq are latecomers, replacing troops that were already in Iraq at the time. send the troops that returned back out on a volunteering basis, and I bet the majority will go.

I'm having a little trouble following the logic in this post.

Ok, so the problem isn't with the way this war has been handled........it's the press's fault for reporting? You know.........where's Jeff Gannon, McManus and Armstrong Williams when you need them? Why did we stop paying our military to stop reporting false stories in the Iraqi paper?

But what I'd really like an answer to , dthmstr, is if it wasn't for the press, they how/why would all these soldiers want to return to the battlefield?

Been away for a while and I haven't read all the threads, but you are aware, dthmstr that the latest iraqi poll of the soldiers say that %70 no longer believe in the mission.

[lily]

Quote by: dthmstr254 put simply, pulling out now means civil war. and if we want to keep Suddam out of control, we would have to return him to America. basically, this whole damn war would be no damn good, and history would point at the people who wanted to pull out for that. foresight is everything here. what will be better for the next generation? us pulling out and risking an even crazier nut (than Suddam) taking control of Iraq, and all the equipment we just gave them. with that, they would definitely have the equipment needed to launch a war on their own terms. so, the real question is, do you want war on our terms, or theirs. the militarily smart thing to do would be to keep it on our terms. choose our own battlefields instead of them choosing. that way we can shape the battle to our liking. an old quote, from Alexander the Great (at least according to my history book, it might be another person.) is: "the man who knows the battlefield, can win the battle. the man who doesn't will be hard-pressed to come to even breaking even."

Whoa there a minute............what do you mean, do we want war on our terms or their terms? I thought after three elections and training over a three year period, this was suppose to be their government............not ours.

I agree with your Alexander the Great quote.............at least if I'm interpreting it right. The iraqi's know the land, the customs, the different religions.......it's time we moved to the sidlines and see what they can do.

[lily]

Quote by: rmnunez You think the insurgents would be peaceful and lay down arms once the foreigners left, I doubt it. They want power, control of the government, some want Saddam back, a few hope to establish an Islamic regime which probably means something like Iran, there are those ethnic issues too. Regardless of foreign presence the unrest would remain, the question is how to bring this down to a level which, once the US has substantially withdrawn, the Iraqi reconstituteds can handle with reduced support.

First off, there is no way that they are going to get Sadaam back. It's bad enough that they have to have court blackouts, because he tells the insurgents to uprise. Now for your statement that some would like to establish an Islamic regime. What the Iraqis voted in their constitution, which we forced them to complete, with promises of ammendments after wards is Islamic law, don't you? Now you add that into Palestine's voting in Hamas and Iran and Syria pretty much having Islamic law.........then this fiasco is Bush's worst nightmare.

[rmnunez]

Press coverage of "Swarmer" decidedly didn't favour the exercise, I think they resented that they weren't properly invited. The coverage we got was limited and seems to have started off under the mistaken impression an air assault would involve lots of missiles and bombs from aircraft. Not finding much of this, the media reported the operation was not as billed.

The data we are receiving now from the media is that the effort, despite fanfare, was insignificant. That the thousands of troops, hundreds of vehicles and aircraft yielded about 50 captives who are just farmers caught unable to get out of the way fast enough and a few weapons in a country flooded with these.

The military description of the event was misleading, though accurate. The media misread the label and were disappointed by what they got to see. They shouldn't have carried this over into their reportage. Resulting coverage has portrayed the event as a complete failure, its only saving feature is seen in the fact all insurgents got away so there was no shooting.

That sort of coverage works to the detriment of any suggestion the reconstituted Iraqi military have been adequately assimilating training and equipment from the coalitineers.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: lily Whoa there a minute............what do you mean, do we want war on our terms or their terms? I thought after three elections and training over a three year period, this was suppose to be their government............not ours.

training didn't start until we had a place safe enough to do the training. as I recall, it wasn't until a year after that occurred. if the only choice is who's terms the war will be on, would you rather be the one choosing the terms of the battles? or would you rather that they choose them?

I agree with your Alexander the Great quote.............at least if I'm interpreting it right. The iraqi's know the land, the customs, the different religions.......it's time we moved to the sidlines and see what they can do.

but we know the land as well. a lot of the leaders in Iraq have been there through the entire term. some were in Desert Storm. if we remove the troops and war breaks out again (as is very probable), we will have to return. however, the attackers will have the ability to shape the battlefield to their liking. then we won't know the area we are fighting in. it's like walking into a paintball field against people you have never played. you will get painted head to toe.we move to the sidelines, and the only government we will have instituted is anarchy.

But what I'd really like an answer to , dthmstr, is if it wasn't for the press, they how/why would all these soldiers want to return to the battlefield?

because they don't give a (according to three soldiers who returned from Iraq) "rat's ass" about what the press "lies about." according to the soldiers who were in Iraq in the beginning, the press is a big liar. who do you trust? the ones who were on the front lines? or the biased morons who filter the information you get? when the soldiers who were there are seeking to return, there is something wrong with our press, not our President.

[rmnunez]

I doubt the media has a lot of impact on soldiers re-upping. Any effect likely is indirect by way of influencing the views of the war in the minds of people who do have influence on the soldier's volunteering. If you think the media promotes the war, then you likely figure friends and relatives of the soldiers going back are full of distortions that make the soldiers think the US is engaged for good reason and with some success. If you think the media is working against intervention, likely then you figure their description of the mess in Iraq should discourage volunteers.

[RickSp]

Quote by: dthmstr254 actually, if you watched the videos from Iraq that showed Iraqis destroying the statues of Suddam, and reading the statistics shows the revelation of the first publically available schooling. the people are closing in on finalizing the constitution years faster than we did with ours. progress in changing a country is always difficult. it matters not what you dream about, the reality is, this is the fastest we could have hoped for in terms of progress. I say have the returned soldiers volunteer to return. from the polls from them, I bet the majority would say a resounding "yes" to returning.

LOL. The statue was a stunt by Chalabi's minions staged for the cameras and they failed to bring the statue down. They needed to bring in a US tank. But you believed it. Amazing.

Every year things get worse in Iraq, more lies are revealed, more abuse uncovered, more innocents die. The civil war claims more lives. Two thirds of all Americans know the war was a mistake. 80 percent of the troops oppose a continued occupation as do 80 of the Iraqis. And those like you continue to bathe in your bizarre delusions. Could you possibly be more disconnected from reality? I doubt it.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: rmnunez I doubt the media has a lot of impact on soldiers re-upping. Any effect likely is indirect by way of influencing the views of the war in the minds of people who do have influence on the soldier's volunteering. If you think the media promotes the war, then you likely figure friends and relatives of the soldiers going back are full of distortions that make the soldiers think the US is engaged for good reason and with some success. If you think the media is working against intervention, likely then you figure their description of the mess in Iraq should discourage volunteers.

and the people who only watch the news long enough to catch the weather and traffic wouldn't be much into it. shoot, my dad rarely listens to the news. he drives regionally for Triple Crown. several of my family members are former military. the former military and soldiers who were in Iraq at the beginning are rather pissed at our press. I haven't seen one of them complaining about it, and considering that 10% of my church's registry are former military, that's a pretty big lot of people (my church has a total of 500 members, so there are about 50 former military members. another 5% are on active duty, and they actively support the war. I have friends who are currently in Iraq (as I am sure many of us on this site that are americans have friends in Iraq as well). you think I hide in a sheltered lifestyle? hell, no I don't. maybe one day, when the media pulls its head out of its rectum enough to see the light of day, they will understand exactly what is going on. right now, their opinion is as useful as a pig's.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: RickSp Every year things get worse in Iraq, more lies, more abuse is revealed, more innocents die. The civil war claims more lives. Two thirds of all Americans know the war was a mistake. 80 percent of the troops oppose a continued occupation as do 80 of the Iraqis. And those like you continue to bathe in your bizarre delusions. Could you possibly be more disconnected from reality? I doubt it.

2/3 of all Americans have been led to believe the war was a mistake. what if we had refused to enter the First World War? would the Allies have won then? 80% of the troops (who just happen to be 80% of people who came to replace someone else) were already biased because of the morons in the press with their heads shoved so far up their butts that they can't even see the light of day. poll the ones who returned. they were the ones that Darryl Worley talked to before he wrote "Have You Forgotten?" they are the ones who have the exact interpretation. talk to the ones who were there and are now back. you can bet that they remember just what we're fighting for. you think this war isn't worth fighting for? well, what about our (humanity's) freedom, and this piece of ground? we didn't get to keep 'em by backin' down. I am talking to soldiers who CAME BACK from Iraq. they are looking for a unit to return in. maybe you should go there yourself instead of relying on second and third hand reports.

[RickSp]

Quote by: dthmstr254 2/3 of all Americans have been led to believe the war was a mistake. ......

You think this war is about humanity or freedom? Tell that to the uncounted dead slaughtered in our "liberation" of Iraq. What does invading a country that never attacked us, destroying their cities and butchering tens of thousands of innocent civilains have to do with humanity or freedom? And you claim that it is the media with their heads up their asses? Sure.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: RickSp You think this war is about humanity or freedom? Tell that to the uncounted dead slaughtered in our "liberation" of Iraq. What does invading a country that never attacked us, destroying their cities and butchering tens of thousands of innocent civilains have to do with humanity or freedom? And you claim that it is the media with their heads up their asses? Sure.

you say that they never attacked us? that is a lie straight from hell, and no, I am not talking about 9/11. any country that sanctions the death of an American citizen is basically declaring war against us. well, Voice of the Martyr has several videos of people who have died because of the Hussein-sanctioned persecution of Christianity. many of these people were Americans that died in horrible ways. publically whipped, tortured and killed, on video. that is a blatant act of war that our precious democrats decided to ignore (remember, Bill Clinton?) would you rather the same number of American CIVILIANS be dead because of Iraq? or would you rather that the dead people took some of the assholes down with them?

[jose]

QUOTE]
you say that they never attacked us? that is a lie straight from hell, and no, I am not talking about 9/11. any country that sanctions the death of an American citizen is basically declaring war against us. well, Voice of the Martyr has several videos of people who have died because of the Hussein-sanctioned persecution of Christianity. many of these people were Americans that died in horrible ways. publically whipped, tortured and killed, on video. that is a blatant act of war that our precious democrats decided to ignore (remember, Bill Clinton?) would you rather the same number of American CIVILIANS be dead because of Iraq? or would you rather that the dead people took some of the assholes down with them?
[/quote] no links from any site supporting your views?
If someone breaks the law of a country they must face that countries justice system, many foriegn people are put to death in America, is that then a decleration of war against thier country?

[RickSp]

Quote by: dthmstr254 you say that they never attacked us? that is a lie straight from hell, and no, I am not talking about 9/11. any country that sanctions the death of an American citizen is basically declaring war against us. well, Voice of the Martyr has several videos of people who have died because of the Hussein-sanctioned persecution of Christianity. many of these people were Americans that died in horrible ways. publically whipped, tortured and killed, on video. that is a blatant act of war that our precious democrats decided to ignore (remember, Bill Clinton?) would you rather the same number of American CIVILIANS be dead because of Iraq? or would you rather that the dead people took some of the assholes down with them?

If you really believe this then you are out of your mind. Do you seriously believe that the US should launch a brutal invasion of any nation that has even persecuted Christians? You basically want the US to pick up the banner of Christian jihad.

Iraq never attacked us. It is your argument for Christian jihad that comes straight from hell.

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: dthmstr254 you say that they never attacked us? that is a lie straight from hell, and no, I am not talking about 9/11. any country that sanctions the death of an American citizen is basically declaring war against us. well, Voice of the Martyr has several videos of people who have died because of the Hussein-sanctioned persecution of Christianity. many of these people were Americans that died in horrible ways. publically whipped, tortured and killed, on video. that is a blatant act of war that our precious democrats decided to ignore (remember, Bill Clinton?) would you rather the same number of American CIVILIANS be dead because of Iraq? or would you rather that the dead people took some of the assholes down with them?

The interesting thing about Christian martyrs is that they seem to go down without a fight. Rather than wanting vengeance against their oppressors, they pity them and often pray for them even as they die. They would rather allow their own lives to be taken so that others can have chance of being saved. I do not think that those who make the ultimate sacrifice for Christ would want somebody to come in and kill the very people that they worked so hard to bring to God. I think that to do so would be to dishonor their memories.

Quote by: John 18:36 Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."