1000 deads

I'm worried about this guys. Once it was clear that we were going in, and understanding actually the great strategy of it (not "WMDs" as Bush harped on incessantly), I was reluctantly for it, and of course, I want it to be enormously successful.

I am losing hope though. Can someone please tell me what merely "staying the course" will accomplish, if we do not adjust that course? Could we not keep on doing what we have been doing for another year, and have another 1,000 soldiers dead, another 7,000+ Iraqi civilians dead, another 200 billion + US dollars down the drain, and still have no security, stability, etc.? Let's not even talk about democracy or humane government yet. You simply can't have that under those conditions.

The US military had better get the go ahead to stop *****footing with places like Fallujah and Najaf and other "holy" cities, and just simply flatten them. To hell with the internal political fall out in Iraq. It's a necessary risk. Even the Iraqis seem to want the military to stop pulling its punches. If we don't, we'll just keep standing place like we've been doing for a year.

Hanky J, I think you hit the nail on the head with that. And i would also like to know what branch of the service that Monster Mach was in, and what war did you go fight?
[addsig]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2004-09-09 19:37, cobratori wrote:
Hanky J, I think you hit the nail on the head with that. And i would also like to know what branch of the service that Monster Mach was in, and what war did you go fight?

</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>

I hope by asking Monster Mach that, you're not implying that only those who have served in a war, are able to support a war.

A couple of points, guys. Hanky, I'm in complete agreement with you. If we stick to our present plan of action, we're going to have the same results which obviously aren't working. Bombing those so-called 'holy cities' into oblivion might hasten an end to this conflict. Our Administration definitely needs to rethink it's strategy.

Larry, with complete respect for your opinion as always, I think that most Americans believe that a soldier giving his life to preserve our freedom is a very noble act. I don't disagree. But that belief tends to be shaken when it's *your* child, friend or loved one that is killed. I'm not certain of your age though I know you're a bit younger than me. But during the Viet Nam war, I remember well what it felt like to have someone you cared about brought home in a body bag or die far too young as a result of Agent Orange. Ideologies tend to blow out the window when it hits close to your own home.

Just some food for thought...

Jan

Jan ...

I'm 47 years young ...

Since we declared independance from Mother England.
Many hundreds of thousands have given their life fighting for this country.

One fellow named Ebenezer Foote died in the Revolutionary War, he was my Grandfather (back seven generations.)

For the families of the dead there is zero doubt, it is something they want to avoid at virtually any cost. Keep in mind though (and especially now) these are Military folks who signed up, with serving their country, high on their priority list ... I find it hard to argue with that.

If all any of us did was sit around a twiddle our thumbs saying to one another ... "Ain't it Awful", I can't imagine we would be here now ...

The price of freedom is paid in Money, Intellect and Blood, thank God there are folks out there doing the work to keep us free.

cobratori ... the answer is ... I have zero military experience ... Is that a problem for you[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif[/img]

_________________
[img]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SQAHAx4XCm*K9I!SL0pJUnLkQYNtipgRhoOVVECK07Ggr6UCf PKaTXQFXCP9wN1RVIZilO2B6c9osZl2HgC5kDN45qoEfamc5ii bZ40m3VIHCzeuvrbabQ/montsr.bmp[/img]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: monstermach on 9/10/04 9:34am ]</font>

No Larry, i dont have a problem with your service record. I like you never had to go, were the same age. But i`m not as quick, or will to send our service men and women to a war that will never be won.
[addsig]

Thats the key there though isnt it?

This may very well be a war that cannot be won in the traditional sence, not in our lifetimes maybe.

But it very quickly and easily CAN be lost..
[addsig]

Afganistan, i didnt have a problem with. But when i start a project, i like to finish that one first, BEFORE i start another one.[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img]
[addsig]

Let me start off by saying Thank you to all, especially those from other Foriegn countries that have given their condolences, blessings, and best wishes for our lost, but definately remembered dead HEROES.

Kermit: "I'd say, get your troups back home. "

We cannot do this. If we do, it shows our weakness and that we CAN be beaten. If we give the terrorists an inch, they'll think that they are a ruler, or yardstick...and even more Americans, or ANY civillians, will die. If we pull out now before the mission is a COMPLETE success we lose the following:
Surrounding of the evil, treacherous land of Iran--the roots of all terrorism.
We took one step forward, and two back in the sense that we got rid of the taliban in Afghanistan and the free reign of terrorist there and allow them safe haven in Iraq. They ARE there...whether you choose to think they were not there before the war...they ARE there now.
Allow militia of Muqtada Al-Sadir to become the next ruthless dictator of Iraq. Again, one step forward and one step back.

jims67XL,
You are right...we must remember those that have given "another form of the ultimate sacrifice" and lost a limb, eye, or any sort of injury. May God continue to bless them as well.

Chilly,
I agree 100%

289nate,
I do not think we have been in disagreement yet?

HankyJ: "(not "WMDs" as Bush harped on incessantly)"
I will provide a list of quotes here very shortly for you.

"The US military had better get the go ahead to stop *****footing with places like Fallujah and Najaf and other "holy" cities, and just simply flatten them. To hell with the internal political fall out in Iraq. It's a necessary risk. Even the Iraqis seem to want the military to stop pulling its punches. If we don't, we'll just keep standing place like we've been doing for a year."
Please read above. Furthermore, if we do level these places...there are going to be 2.4 billion (I think that is the number of muslims in the world) pissed off at us...how many of these will be willing to give their lives in terrorist acts to kill the infidels (US) that showed them no disregard for their beliefs? These are their holiest sites.

cobratori,
See above please.

Tbirdchick (Jan): But that belief tends to be shaken when it's *your* child, friend or loved one that is killed.

My family knows that, if I was not blind in an eye, I would be there...in a heart beat. Would my parents like it? Ofcourse not, but they all realize this war was a ticking time bomb that we are trying to defuse now before it really blows up.
I had friends over there and there is not a day I think about them...and am SCARED for them. My oldest brothers best friend is/was an Army Aire Borne Ranger...special forces. He told us, what he could, some very serious, scary ****. He, his family, like me believe in the cause, and realize that this war MUST be won--period. No "if's" "and's" or "buts" about it. Since the invasion, both Afghanistan and Iraq he has been asked to try out for the Delta Force so he is back state side.

cobratori,
I am wayyyy too young for any previous wars. Infact, the only war I could have legally fought in was Afghanistan. Remember, lacking personal military records does not mean that you do not lose somebody with every casualty. These are Americans, and everyone that have been lost is not only lost to their immediate families, but also the their larger family--the American people.

Darrell, Larry (Luvs70sfords and MonsterMach),
Like always...we see eye to eye.

cobratori: "Afganistan, i didnt have a problem with. But when i start a project, i like to finish that one first, BEFORE i start another one."
I tend to agree to an extent...however, the taliban was defeated. The mission was accomplished. I disagree with you because we simply cannot wait for anything now. Had we not gone into Iraq, Al Qaeda would have gone there for safe haven. Do you, or anyone else not want to believe me on that?

Again, God bless America, all of our troops and their families that have given the ultimate sacrifices.

Jeff Given

HankyJ....here is your list...

One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of Mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President
Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Senator Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct.9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do." Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10,
2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002,

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.

"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.