Bush admits Iraq nothing to do with 9/11

#51
#51
therealUT said:
You do realize I am an infantry officer in the US Army, right?

When Dan4Vols stated that the US has done little to avenge the 9/11 attack he is speaking out of his fourth point of contact. We have done incredible things in Afghanistan, the reason that Afghanistan seems to be on the backburner, is because our military has been so incredibly successful in operating in Afghanistan. Most of the reasons for this success, IMO, is a result of a more rural society and therefore less stringent ROE. Greater success and ROEs that do not hamstring our joint forces, leads to less forces be necessary to complete the task at hand. So, I will again repeat, Dan4Vols post was...
Click to expand...


Duh?? Knew that first time I ever saw your post. Officer, maybe not, which explains some things. Still doesn't excuse your abrasive, holier than thou mentality to others thoughts. I know alot of things are accomplished the media won't report. Not everyone is able to hear those stories.
 
#52
#52
Officer, maybe not, which explains some things. Still doesn't excuse your abrasive, holier than thou mentality to others thoughts.
Click to expand...

Not agging on the conversation, but why do you think he is abrasive?

He is honest with his opinions, I would venture to guess his jabs are meant to bring back a response which usually one would not give considering the setting.

*But I could be wrong........
 
#53
#53
OrangeEmpire said:
Not agging on the conversation, but why do you think he is abrasive?

He is honest with his opinions, I would venture to guess his jabs are meant to bring back a response which usually one would not give considering the setting.

*But I could be wrong........
Click to expand...
I would state that it is abrasive because it is so direct.
 
#54
#54
So are you saying that US soldiers should shoot first instead of 'do not fire unless fired upon'?
 
#55
#55
CSpindizzy said:
So are you saying that US soldiers should shoot first instead of 'do not fire unless fired upon'?
Click to expand...
Indeed. I am stating that US soldiers should fire upon enemy combatants unless the enemy combatant has signaled a surrender.
 
#58
#58
can you describe an enemy forces uniform in Iraq?

Considering all of the people armed in Iraq, wouldn't that include about 80% of the population there? And threatening - as in how? Because threatening could be defending ones home. Threatening could be "Yankee go home!"
 
#59
#59
CSpindizzy said:
can you describe an enemy forces uniform in Iraq?

Considering all of the people armed in Iraq, wouldn't that include about 80% of the population there? And threatening - as in how? Because threatening could be defending ones home. Threatening could be "Yankee go home!"
Click to expand...
There really is not an enemy uniform in Iraq.
As to the second part, that is why the "escalation of force" method is taught to all American military forces. However, the current ROE keeps us from even using that in most all situations.
 
#60
#60
What I'm getting at is how you would handle the situation there now. Considering you cannot identify these threats until you are fired upon, how would changing this formula make any difference?
 
#61
#61
CSpindizzy said:
What I'm getting at is how you would handle the situation there now. Considering you cannot identify these threats until you are fired upon, how would changing this formula make any difference?
Click to expand...
My main point of emphasis on the ROE concerned 'prepping' objectives prior to patrols; basic military doctrine. However, the ROE that came down during OIF 1, states clearly, "Do not fire into/onto buildings unless necessary for your own self defense." This single rule exposes patrols to routine sniper fire and allows dilapidated (non vacated) buildings to remain thorns in the sides of many units.
 
#62
#62
therealUT said:
I would state that it is abrasive because it is so direct.
Click to expand...


I would agree with that. I don't have a huge problem with my perception of you, because in any case, you are honest, and well prepared in your opinions. Not always right...but well prepared.:whistling:

I just figured someone that sees themselves the way you see yourself would actually show more respect to others, regardless of how educated (or not) you interpret their knowledge and opinions. No offense.

{Let me qualify that by saying there are a few posters that don't need mentioning that probably are considered "fair game" by most, but Dan4Vols is not one of them.}
 
#63
#63
therealUT said:
Indeed. I am stating that US soldiers should fire upon enemy combatants unless the enemy combatant has signaled a surrender.
Click to expand...


That I agree with. I despise the government position that we are to train soldiers to be "lean, mean, killing machines," and then sned them off into battle with the safeties locked. All crap. Let them do their jobs as they were trained, and they'll be home in 30 days. If all the oposition knew our military had a "free" hand, they'd leave the country.
 
#65
#65
CSpindizzy said:
What of the difference between 'killing machines' and peacekeepers? Is there no difference?
Click to expand...
I do not believe that our military should be used as 'peacekeepers.' As I understand that term, if there is a region that requires 'peacekeeping' then is there not an agent that is disturbing the peace? Whatever that agent is, it should be eliminated, not simply contained for the time being.
 
#68
#68
CSpindizzy said:
Would you say that we are acting as law enforcement in Iraq or actual combatant forces?
Click to expand...


I think there is a conspiracy by our government to sway the liberals by using our military as moving targets, thus justifying the need to be there longer.:birgits_giggle:
 
#69
#69
A war on terror is a war on terror. Plus Iraq is strategic in the war on terror. Once everyone comes out of the closet and admits this is really a war and not simply a small disagreement with a small group of individuals, we can perhaps become more aligned as a nation and live up to expectations. Iraq is prime real estate and will prove to be even more so once we decide to take out Iran. Iraqi oil reserves should help buffer oil prices in the event of war. Even before 9/11, the "Axis of Evil" was known. One of the 3 was nuclear at that point (North Korea). Iraq is now far away from becoming nuclear. That leaves only Iran. Israeli politicians are closely monitoring the world's response to Iran's UN defiance and refusal to shut down there nuclear operations. Because Hezbollah was weakened emensely during the war with Israel, look for Iran to stall and buy time until they can re-arm Hezbollah. Look for Israel to accelerate it's attack on Iran. Look for Kofi (it's all Israel's fault) Annan to immediately denounce the attack and portray the attack as unwarranted and a tremendous set-back in mid-east peace talks. Here's the thing...there will never be peace in the middle east and the muslims will never get along with the West and it's allies. Once everyone can agree on that, the better off we will all be.:thumbsup:
 
#70
#70
If you think Hezbollah was weakened in this last little event, you're mistaken. They clearly came out the winners and the US and Israel get black eyes among other things.

So let me get this straight. Your last statement basically says there's no hope for all of this. It sounds to me like you're leading to "what's the point in fighting?"
 
#71
#71
Isreal destroyed almost all of Hezbollah's long range Iranian missile launchers, over half of it's short and mid-range launchers, rolled the clock back on Lebanese infrastructure by 20 years, as advertised, and displaced Hezbollah...so, yep...it was pretty much a woodshed event. A good meter for this was the watching which side was calling for the cease fire...(hint: it wasn't Isreal). It would have been worse had Israel not called the dogs off after worthless UN intervention.

And, on the contrary, I have accepted that there will never be peace with muslim terrorists so I am ready for war. I use the September 11, 2001 attacks as my first point. If you think by simply pulling out of Iraq all the aggression against the West will stop, you are mistaken. That was an attack out of the clear blue (literally). There has been no attack on us like that since then...something is working, heh? Secondly, Isreal pulled out of the West bank and Gaza Strip, only to still be pounded daily by aimless rockets. The media likes for us to believe that Hezbollah was the victim, but it was Hezbollah that brought this on, running the script of the Iranians. By drawing Israel into that fight, Iran got to test some of it's weaponry and divert attention from its nuclear program. This will be over when Iran is over...not before.
 
#72
#72
I'm glad there is someone as optiminstic as you on having Hezbollah so limited. Considering Israel had no idea where most of these launchers were coming from and their numbers increased each day up to the cease-fire, I find it hard to believe Israel was that successful. Setting Lebanon back is not exactly an achievement. If you find that as an example of achievement, then you've just convinced the bulk of the people there which most being level-headed and even moderate to support Hezbollah. Seeing Hezbollah moving back south and also handing out hundreds of dollars to many people, I'd say Hezbollah comes out the winner. Don't forget the whole reason Israel went to war, those soldiers, are still missing.
 
#73
#73
CSpindizzy said:
Don't forget the whole reason Israel went to war, those soldiers, are still missing.
Click to expand...

You really think that was the whole reason Israel went to war? No, my friend, that was simply the straw that broke the camel's back. The ONLY reason this isn't still going on is because the UN stepped in to defend Hezbollah. And they continue to do so...calling for an immediate end to the blockades. And, of course Israel will have to do it for PR reasons.

As for the Hezbos handing out Benjamins, you saw 3 guys posing for the camera for a few hours handing out Iranian money...get real, guy...where were the crowds? Setup shop outside your house handing out $100's and see what kind of a line you get.

But, there are definitely people in Isreal not happy with the outcome...I mean Isreal certainly didn't deliver the knockout punch it needed. Why? Assymetrical warfare. You have highly organized armys going to battle with terrost militia who hide among civilians. The media reports over 1000 civilians dead...the part you don't hear about is how those same people just launched a dozen rockets 10 minutes earlier. The media spins war to the point of being treasonous.
 
#74
#74
I tell you what. Get on some Israeli message boards. Talk to some people who are in the IDF. Read some of the papers over there and tell me if you still come to the same conclusion. The IDF is questioning its own purpose and sense of existence. Enlisted and even lower level officers are OPENLY questioning this whole mission. Very few in that whole country would even say they agree with you.

I'd take the word of the people there in Israel, including a few friends I have in the IDF over your assessment. Again, seeing how the country was coming under greater fire each passing day up to the ceasefire and seeing how they now gave up that land and still do not have those two soldiers, I'd say they came out the losers here. Most of the people agree.
 
#75
#75
CSpindizzy said:
I tell you what. Get on some Israeli message boards. Talk to some people who are in the IDF. Read some of the papers over there and tell me if you still come to the same conclusion. The IDF is questioning its own purpose and sense of existence. Enlisted and even lower level officers are OPENLY questioning this whole mission. Very few in that whole country would even say they agree with you.

I'd take the word of the people there in Israel, including a few friends I have in the IDF over your assessment. Again, seeing how the country was coming under greater fire each passing day up to the ceasefire and seeing how they now gave up that land and still do not have those two soldiers, I'd say they came out the losers here. Most of the people agree.
Click to expand...

I don't think they came out losers, but the general population was not happy with the methods of Olmert. He restricted the IDF and thus limited the success of the mission. True they did not win either, but would not call them losers.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top