Jump to content

Countrydave55

Advanced Member
  • Content Count

    3,791
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Countrydave55

  1. Well my spell checker says it is spelled narragansett but I don't understand the sentence.
  2. I agree that labels especially now that they are being taken over by other groups may not be accurate. But I have voted for the most conservative candidates historically and if I had to be labeled I would most probably respond to conservative.
  3. It seems that the New Yorker magazine is reporting that Rumfield approved the interrogation methods in Iraq. Guess it isn't just 7 soldiers after all?
  4. The Army just released 400 something Iraqis from the prison and promise 300 something next week. I think with what were released last week that is close to 1000. How many people are locked up there? Why are they letting close to 1000 terrorists back out on the streets?
  5. The Geneva issue with regard to the pictures appears to be that individual prisoners can be seen. It would seem to me that if they were serious about this issue they could spend some of the 25 billion on a magic marker and obscure the faces of the prisoners. I suspect that they would really prefer to not release them but I also think that they will leak.
  6. Well if I were the conspiracy theory type I would expect that there will be a badly mangled corpse, believed to be Bin Laden's, that will show up a few days before the elections. Unfortunately DNA testing will not prove that it is just some poor :filtered: that got blown up until the week after the elections. But the good news is Rumfield announced that about "3 handfuls of nations" which I would think is at least 20 are about to agree to possibly send some troops maybe to the Iraqi war to help relieve our over stretched & over burdened troops. I guess the down side is we will need more money appropriated to pay for them.
  7. Surely no one is suggesting that we should have concentrated on Al quieda when we could go in and blow up a country and chase down Saddam. No we have to have priorities. Bin Laden and al-Zarqawi are just terrorist. We know that the administration doesn't have time to swat flies when they can be bringing freedom, and democracy to the middle east whether they want it or not.
  8. Actually we know where this ends. Since there are Muslims than Americans the Muslims would win. No thanks I will take my chances trying other solutions than trying to win a war of ruthless attrition when I am outnumbered.
  9. Since the US is influenced by other countries, the politics of other countries, and the perceptions of other countries I say "say what you want within the forum rules" I think that the British and Australian contingent are particularly welcome to chime in as they are some of our more prominent allies in the Iraq quagmire. They should surely have earned the right to comment on how it is going how it should go differently.
  10. Wish somebody had explained that to him before he sent us to Iraq.
  11. Well Syria had been grudgingly helping with the war on terrorism. I guess since George doesn't waste time reading all that stuff that he gets he figured he might as will tic off another middle east country.
  12. We do have reason to suspect that some of the detainees are innocent since 2 dozen were released as soon as the scandal broke. The general in charge indicated that there would be more to come.
  13. I am not sure that the video taped beating to death of iraqi prisoners was significantly more humane than the beheading but I guess that is a value judgement.
  14. I am not surprised he hasn't been found. It took almost a year to find Saddam and we were pretty sure what country he was in, he had relatively little support from his own people, we had more than 150,000 people roaming around looking for him and the full attention of the military. Contrast that with someone that is well respected/honored by large numbers of Muslims in different countries, that is believed to be traveling from country to country, while being hunted by a few thousand troops. The administration is pretty clearly giving the message that Osama is not a high priority target. I think Bush said that he doesn't want to swat flys he wants to address the big picture.
  15. "We had 3000 innocent people killed on 09/11. How many more terrorists from America did it cause against the Arab world?" Perhaps no terrorists perhaps 100 we don't know. We do know that after 9-11 military recruitment went up. It stands to reason that when a people feel threatened or are attacked that they are more likely to resist than when they don't feel attacked or threatened. Didn't someone just post that we should avenge the beheading of the American Citizen by blindly attacking the innocent as well as the guilty. How is indiscriminate killing for a political objective different than terrorism?
  16. I didn't say you can force the military to give you a job. Lets not get too far astray. I said sitting in your comfy home preaching to others that they aren't supportive of the military is not support. Go donate blood, volunteer for the red cross, volunteer at a VA hospital, that is support. Most of the support personnel in Iraq are civilian: truck drivers, oil field workers, security personnel, red cross. Go do that. Saying go kill more innocent people indiscriminately is not supporting the military. They already have Rumfield.
  17. Rob your question "Question: If we are going to use the big one in Iraq, we would bring our own troops home first, right? " Obviously I can't know the answer but Bush has made it quite clear that US troops will remain in Iraq. I don't think I can make it any more clear than he has. Bush's position is that the Geneva rules do not apply to the situation in Iraq, Afghanistan, or anyone he decides is a terrorist. I don't know if his position applies exclusively to Muslims but it must apply extensively to Muslims since the policy is implemented in Muslim countries. This is not my position and I don't support the position but it is the administrations position. Please take up any disagreements with the position with the people who have formulated the position. As for going in and blowing them the heck up. Isn't that the exact same rhetoric that brought us 9-11. Didn't Bin Laden get up and say 'The infidel, barbarians, desecrate our sacred lands, expose us to unholy ways, starve our women and children, kill us indiscriminately. We must strike back at them. We will kill many to teach the few a lesson' So the proposed US plan is to use a Bin Laden plan of action but substitute bombs for fuel filled airliners? Now how does this make us better than them? Bruce I fully agree. All of these cheerleaders need to get off the bench and grab a rifle. As for staying behind and supporting the troops. I think if I were in the field someone watching my flank is much more supportive than somebody telling me I need to go kill more. To short to hold a rifle - fine there is plenty of need for corpsmen and medics. There is always a need for a typist to free up somebody that can use a rifle. Pack, go, don't even spend time replying. Good hunting to you.
  18. I haven't seen the article but it is easy enough to see how fundamentalist Christians and Muslims could make common treaty. Muslims want their lands left alone. Christians want more modest behavior, no alcohol, no sex etc. At least until they turned on one another they have similar beliefs. They could live together as long as Muslims were left in their holly lands and Christians were not there. At some point there would probably be clash but at least initially they could reach common agreement.
  19. While there are no WMD in Iraq and haven't been recently there are WMD in Iran. Before we attacked Iraq and said Iran was part of the Axis of evil, and before we demonstrated that Muslims should not be afforded the protections afforded under the Geneva Convention because they aren't the same as us, and now that we are busy labeling them as barbarians and plotting our revenge I wonder how long it will before an Iranian nuclear weapon is detonated somewhere we don't want it. Either sold to a sympathetic terrorist or stolen and detonated. This is a real fear that has only become legitimate after our 2nd Gulf War. Can someone propose a scenario where we win in Iraq?
  20. Yes but they were anti Saddam terrorists not anti-American terrorists. Can anyone describe any possible way that we can "win" this. If we define winning as producing a democratically elected, secular government that does not harbor/condone/encourage/support ant-American terrorists. Bush can't explain how it will happen. The Generals can't explain it. I think that is because their is no plan, even a plan that cannot be implemented, to culminate in victory as defined.
  21. I'm sorry I loose track is this the 3rd or 4th last gasp of resistance and clear evidence that we are on the verge of victory. Yes the countries do complain that we don't do anything but complaints are words and killing people and creating terrorists is a much worse thing. But looking just at Iraq they were maimed and killed and tortured for years under their leadership but that did not create terrorists. We were better off following the Bush doctrine of "no nation building".
  22. Well put and unfortunately correct Bruce. A huge screw up that can only be partially corrected by our immediate with drawl. A with drawl will slow down but not stop the terrorism. I don't see how the situation can be made good. The best we can hope for is the lesser of the evils. It is unfortunate that we have wasted so many lives and so much money to make the middle east worse instead of better but that should not be justification for holding onto an unwinnable position.
  23. Leaving aside that Sadr would not condemn the act and if he did it would be like Yessir Aerofat saying he will not support terrorism (which he says to the US at every chance). No I think that too many people think we can win this war and they want these people and other brought to justice. So no nothing can be done to prevent the short term revenge attacks on both sides.
  24. I want to thank those who spoke up indicating I was not supportive of beheading of Americans. I don't understand how that could be confusing because my post explicitly states I think that the executions are barbaric. My point is and was simply that we have given fuel to the fire of the radical Muslims' and their blood thirst. I personally do not understand how one can live with the smell of death, the odor of blood on your hands from such an up close, cold blooded murder but then I guess you get used to what you get used to. For the record I do not support the killing of Americans and I do not support their killing by beheading. Having said that I don't see a lot of difference in the blood lust and the revenge seeking voiced by some people. Is it not clear that from the Iraqi perspective they want revenge and they have blood lust. Don't the Iraqis sit around and say "the americans, they are barbarians, they eat unclean animals, they exhibited nude bodies, they torture prisoners" The Iraqis see us as the barbarians. Somebody needs to say stop. We cannot control the Iraqis. Hopefully we can control ourselves and say stop. One thing must be clear. That saying yes, kill more, give us revenge, give us 10 dead for every 1 of ours will not ever end this war and hatred till one or the other of us is annihilated. We have done little right in this war and we were led there through dishonesty. Yes I am angry too. There is no good that comes from fanatics no matter where they are or what they support.
  25. I fear that more such executions are inevitable. While for many this appears barbaric (and I would agree) it is not meant for a western audience except as a warning. In a land where beheadings, amputations and stonings are considered appropriate punishment and many such actions occur in public I do not think that it is surprising to find that many of the Iraqis and other middle Easterners find this appropriate and reasonable retribution for "American atrocities" I would also point out that there are many people in the US that think that executions should be televised as a means of driving home the message that crime does not pay. ( I can't find the citations but I think it was slightly over 1/2 of the people that support execution support televised/public execution).
×
×
  • Create New...