The United States is bombing an area of Iraq in hopes that it will take out terrorists that have been trying to start a civil war. It's about time. What has our government been waiting for? How many more soldiers did we have to lose before we woke up and started these bombings? I said this a few months ago that we should be just dropping bombs on these terrorists. Finally someone is using there brains.


DS

So you bomb an area, in order to kill terrorists, so that there are less US soldiers killed. Okay.

What if there are civilians killed? Is the bombing then still worth it?

What if the number of civilians killed by the bombings, is higher than the number of soldiers killed by terrorists?

In other words; what if, thanks to the bombings, more innocent people die than if there wouldn't have been bombings? Is it then still worth it?

It don't matter if we bomb them or not, innocent people there are getting killed everyday by those terrorists. It has been US policy to avoid collaterial damage. We don't bomb just to kill innocent people. Who is using schools,hospitals,mosqes(sp) to hide their weapons and to keep from being killed?

Could someone please explain to Don Smitty the difference between discriminate and indiscriminate killing.

For that matter... could someone please explain it to the US Army.

You tell em Mama!


Don Cardi

Bombing worked really well in Vietnam. So well that it gave the other side more resolve...and we lost that one. It will work just as well in Iraq. Anyone who buys the line that "the terrorists" (whoever they may be..... with this gang in Washington thaty changes every day) are the cause of the near civil war in Iraq has drunk too much Bush kool aid. This is a can of worms we opened withan ill advised invasion to "liberate" a people we knew nothing about.

So now we have to bomb them in order to liberate them?

It's not a bombing, it's an air assault--which means that they're dropping troops into the area via air transport; LINK . It's not the "shock and awe" that we saw during the initial phases of the conflict.

This was clarified on the major news networks earlier today.

Bush declared "major combat over in Iraq" on May 1, 2003.



Nearly three years later, he orders a huge airstrike. How much longer until we can pull out?

Right now, in the mess we've created, we have to clean it up and stay until Iraq is stable and a stable government and army is in place. We can't just pull out now and leave it in shambles.

I agree with Don A. Pulling out of Iraq would be disatrous for Iraq, The Middle East, The U.S.A. and The World. W wanted this war very badly and like the mental defective he is he declared it over (as has been brought up) 3 years ago. The war is obviously not over and I don't see how anyone in their right mind could say that it is. This would never happen, but I think The U.S.A. should send more troops to Iraq to secure the country and finish the mess that Bushie started. Bushie will be out of office in 2008 and then the whole world will be able to breathe a huge sigh of relief. Until then, I expect more idiot, bullshit from the small minded, abnorm, moron Bushie and his band of merry men.

Yes absolutely.

If we start fighting this war the way a war should be fought, then it is gonna end a lot sooner and ultimately, it will mean saving not only the lives or our own troops, but ultimately, the lives of the Iraqi civilians. I think that in a war where a powerful country is fighting a weaker country, fighting it half assed only does more harm than good, for both sides.

KILL!KILL!KILL!KILL!KILL!KILL!KILL!KILL!KILL!
WAR!WAR!WAR!WAR!WAR!WAR!WAR!WAR!WAR!WAR!WAR!
DIE!DIE!DIE!DIE!DIE!DIE!DIE!DIE!DIE!DIE!DIE!

Yea man lets keep them bombs comin. Why stop there. Lets drop all the bombs(science has done us so well hasn't it?) we can on all Heathens.

Cus if we want peace the only way we can get it is by warfare

F*ck the human race

Well, that was an epiphany of proportions I can't even fathom. Perhaps next time, you can try to make an argument that makes sense. I'd like to hear the "treuth."

As Butters already said, it is not a bombing campaign. It was a massive troop drop.

Is it worth it if we do nothing and the enemy kills more civilians and troops alike?

Again, I'm so tired of these unsubstantiated statements/assumptions. President Bush declared major fighting over (which may have been incorrect) but he never said the war was over; in fact, as I recall, he said we'd be there as long as it takes, and anyone that thought this was going to be a quick battle was mistaken.

Secondly, the "Mission Accomplished" sign was from the troops on the ship, not from the Administration.

Read and learn. I know, a novel idea for some, but please, like peace, give it a chance.

Cheers,
Double-J

I'm glad that the Iraqi troop's are getting involved in this mission.

As you may remember, my position is that it was a mistake to invade iraq in the first place but what's done is done, and it would only compound the initial mistake by simply withdrawing all of our troops tomorrow.

That said, I find the statement quoted above a bit hard to believe.

Obviously, anything that the administration and/or our military people can do to speed up the end of the war will change public opinion about it, so it's not necessarily fair to make the accusation that a particular military operation is based on politics only.

But to say that "This was a decision made by our commanders," and that "President George W. Bush was briefed but did not specifically authorize the operation" seems ludicrous.

Even if all he said was "OK, let's leave it up to the Generals, I have confidence that they know that they're doing" he's still "specifically approving it."

He's the Commander-in-Chief and should be advised by his Joint Chiefs of Staff and other military advisors, and he should be approving these decisions.

So you want the President to micro-manage the war?

I don't see why it is so egregious that the President allows the military commanders and the Joint Chiefs to do their job.

Today's New York Post calls this operation a "major new offensive" and "the largets airborne assault since the U.S. invasion of Iraq."

I think it's fair to say that the president's approval of such an operation is not "micro-management".

I don't expect him to approve every single maneuver or action, but this seems to be a fairly major tactical move and i would expect him to approve.

Let's put it another way: If he is "briefed" about it then it's apparently considered important enough for him to "approve" it.

You don't think that it is inherent that it has been approved by the fact that it went down? I don't think he needed to sign any executive orders or initial any papers to approve a troop drop and tactical manuevers.

The NY Post? They need to define an "airborne assault," since this isn't a bombing campaign. We're dropping soldiers into certain regions to supplant the efforts of Iraqi troops, and providing cover.

It's not "Shock-and-Awe" part two.

I doubt Bush was briefed. Perhaps, however, he was boxered.

Get it? Boxer...? :p

You're absolutely right Plaw.


Don Cardi

YEEE-HAW! LET'S BOMB THOSE WHIPPER-SNAPPERS RIGHT TO THE ALMIGHTY! FINALLY WE GOT SOME BIG-BRAINED, GOD-REARING GENIUSES IN THE GOVERNMENT! SADDLE UP! YEEE-HAW!

The Doc

P.S. This is me expressing my anger. Don't bother to respond to it if you're gonna say it's "not worthy debate material", because I know it is. Just me being me, nothing more.

Double J, The President Of The U.S.A. declared what? "Major fighting over?" Ok, you're right, he didn't declare the war over. He declared "major fighting" over. This is WRONG there is no maybe about it. Bush fucked up. Whether he knows it or not is anybody's guess. I don't know who you're referring to when you speak of those who expected a quick battle but I can assure you brother, I was under absolutely none of these misaprehensions. I was against the war before it started. I've always hated Saddam Hussein's guts but I felt that the Iraqi people should have overthrown him and there was no discernable threat to The U.S.A. or any of her allies (excluding perhaps Israel) so The U.S.A. did not need to invade Iraq. Even the threat to Israel if there was one at all was miniscule. Israel's armed forces and large stockpile of nuclear weapons would have been so much more than what the Iraqis could muster a war between these two countries would be nothing short of a massacre.

However, now that the war is over three years old it is nothing short of sheer stupidity to fight over why American troops are in Iraq in my opinion. They are there. What The U.S. Government and Americans should focus on is how best to stabilize the country, ensure that a free democracy is developed and equip it with the tools to maintain freedom, liberty and the other rights that we in The West take for granted. I hope to God that Bush was serious when he said that he will do whatever it takes to accomplish these tasks and in this particular aspect of his policies (if he is being truthful of course) he has my full support. I'll say it again, for The U.S.A. to pull out of Iraq at this very moment would be absolutely disastrous for not only Iraq, the entire Middle East and The U.S.A. and to a lesser extent Great Britain but to the entire World.

This may have been how the conversation went in the Oval Office when the United States was looking for Saddam Hussein :

BUSH JR. : That's part of the deal -- Uday & Hussey cancel out what they did to my father...

COLIN POWELL: Junior, we ought to hear what they have to say...


BUSH JR. (standing in front of Powell, who's seated): No; no; no! No more! Not this time, consiglieri. No more meetin's, no more discussions, no more Saddam tricks. You give'em one message: I want Saddam -- if not, it's all-out war -- we go to the mattresses...


Colin Powell (stands): Some of the other countries won't sit still for all-out war!

BUSH JR.: Then they hand me Saddam!


POWELL: Your father wouldn't want to hear this! This is business, not personal, Junior!


BUSH JR.: They took a contract out on my father -- that's business? Your ass...


POWELL: Even the contract on your father was business, not personal, Junior!


BUSH JR.: (now seated behind the desk) Well, then, business will have to suffer, alright? And listen -- do me a favor, Colin -- No more advice on how to patch things up. Just help me win, please, alright?





Don Cardi

Lol! Lol!

Very good DC!

That was great DC

Well, look at the approval polls. It isn't unexpected that people thought we would sweep through Iraq like we did in the first Gulf War. A majority of people approved the war when it began, and now, what? Under 40% maybe?

Inquiry: Why didn't the Jews, Poles, Slavs, Hungarians, Russians, etc. in death camps overthrow Hitler?

Not really...Iraq was building nuclear facilities in the 1980's before Israeli aircraft blew it up in 1982.

Had Hussein been able to rebuild or purchase nukes on the black market *coughRUSSIAcough*, there is no doubt Israel (and the free world in general) would be at greater risk.

Do we really think that they will be able to coexist once we leave?

I support the fact that we took out Saddam; frankly, I would have been happier to see him with a .50 caliber sniper rifle bullet through his brain, but...

I have no optimism about the Middle East. I firmly believe that it will be the source of the next major World War, even if we hadn't gone into Iraq. As I've said before...Crusades Part II.

Well, you see, we had to pay close attention to their (the terrorists) technique's, and study their moves. Then, and only then, were we ready to adopt their own attack method's.