Reply By: danielost Posted: Wednesday, July 11, 2007
this is how i see it we should no longer be backing the Iraq government.


but we should be backing the Iraqi people who are starting to stand up against AL quid and other insurgents.


the government is whacked, the people are not.

And just how would you suggest we do that? Without a government there can be no end to the violence and no way to run a country of 26 million people!

according to you we are the puppet masters.

Reply By: danielost Posted: Wednesday, July 11, 2007
according to you we are the puppet masters.

No we have a President that thinks he should control the World!

this is probable the biggest difference between americans and everyone else

everyone else depends on their government.


which is why i have said since 9/11 that there would never be a successful high jacking of an airliner again with americans on board.

Americans will do everything possible to prevent another attack. However the concerted effort of the terrorists will require BOTH individual Americans as well as the Government in cooperation with governments all over the world. CNN just reported that al Qaeda is as strong as it was before 9/11 and the Sec. of Homeland Security fears another attack in America this summer. What is not making us safer is the Iraq war!

I think of this every time I read one of your articles, Gene . . .


Where Are The Dogs Humping.com

bla bla bla

No, it's about time someone informed YOU it's not bravado, it's fact! If we turned our soldiers loose and let them DO the job they were TRAINED for....it would be all over except for the crying!

Leaving and showing weakness will not make use "safer" either.  The worst attacks on the U.S. have happened when we weren't in Iraq, and their propaganda is something that you fall for over and over again.

Knighthood has put the UK "less safe", should we tell them to stop knighting people as well?

As I've stated before, this is a pointless argument. Al-qaeda will not stop coming after us no matter what we do so long as we keep sending soldiers to fight with 1 hand tied behind their backs and blanks in their guns. There was a time when battles were fought honorably, where the enemies fought by the rules (somewhat anyways) and face to face. In these days battles are not fought by the strength of the army but by the intelligence and willingness to do what it takes. We may have intelligence, but our enemy is smarter because we lack the willingness to do what must be done and they are taking advantage of that because they have will to spare.

i agree

ok,,,show me 1 instance where we had "blanks" in our guns in iraq. that is a LIE. and congress has been prevented from making any restrictions on the fighting in Iraq, so where does the "one hand tied behind their back" come from? fact is that we are in the lead in just about every combat operation and in total operational control.




they are winning because it's their turf. they don't want us there and unless we plan on becoming an authoritarian and facist regime, which totally defeats the purpose of the mission, we will never be allowed to control that area. it is their land, their choices to make. if they choose to blow each other up, then so be it. but i believe that quite possibly if we and everyone else backs off and finally take away the 1 thing that keeps them from totally going after each other...they will think twice about it. but as long as we stay, we give them the perfect excuses to continue the civil war.

who said anything about congress making any restrictions


we are not being allowed to attack the mosques where the weapons are being stored.

because we don't want to upset the non upset Muslims.

i say they should be upset with the ones turning the mosques into a combat zone.

and we should take out those mosques. after giving the locals a chance to remove anything holy to them. but if anyone tries to sneak weapons out all bets are off.

You have an amazing ability to be smart one day and a dud the next. Is it really that hard for people to get the point that what I meant was we have to follow the rules of engagement, that we can not just shoot a building for fear of there being innocent civilians inside, that we can not shoot someone suspicious because it will bring an outcry of all Muslims or Arabs? Our guys and gals have to be shot at first and possibly killed before we can even take action. Did we level any of the cities in Iraq when we first started this war, the infamous "shock and aww" of Bush? No, we only attacked a few buildings and even then we were freaking out over the innocent who died. Stop acting ignorant as if you didn't know what I mean. Our soldiers at check points run chances every day of being blown up because we give every person the benefit of the doubt that it's not a bomb.

As far as I'm concerned we should just level the place and sort out the mess later. This war would have been over in a week or 2 if the US military would have been able to do what they were trained to do. For crying out load we create weapons that have the ability to destroy a single room with barely disturbing the rest of the building, bombs that can destroy the inside of a building while not bringing it down, bombs that even explode after the penetrate a wall, all this so that we hurt less innocent bystanders. And while all of this is a great idea it still ties one hand behind their backs since once there is an innocent person with the terrorist or they are in schools, hospital or churches all these weapons are worthless and useless.



They are beating us because we won't play by their rules, we won't use the full potential of our soldiers and the full power of the arsenal of weapons and vehicles we have. Every time they plan an assault they always take into consideration not killing everyone, only if necessary. We are being beat by our own rules of engagement. Believe what you want but this would have been over had we just leveled the country from the beginning. Heartless but effective and would have yielded the same hatred towards us anyways but with results.

Patten said when you fight the war. fight it to get over with. when it was over then you apologize