Print
Email Friend
Add to Favorites
del.icio.us
Digg It!
Slashdot It!
Moron in charge asked me a question that I would like to answer here because of its length.
“You, and caller Frank, said we need to fight this war like a war (technically it is an occupation). I phoned in, but they didn't get to my call until 30 minutes later. I'll repeat my question here.
What do you mean by this? How would General McAverage conduct the operations in the Iraq theater? What are you going to do about the civilian population - you know, the people we bringing freedom and liberty to? Would you crack down hard on everybody like Saddam Hussein admirer Bill O'Reilly (his words), and shot anybody out past curfew "right between the eyes"? Since you cannot serve, what tough actions to you propose to back up your tough words?”
What I mean is we need to fight this like we did WWII, with the intention of winning it and drawing it to a close with a victory.
General McAverage is not in a position to question the daily activities on the ground, so asking me to play Monday morning quarterback is absurd, as absurd as all of you doing the same. That's not to say you shouldn't ask questions about what we are doing, just keep in mind that the government does not owe you an answer to every question asked. Some answers would undoubtedly cause adverse affects for our troops and should be kept secret.
During WWII everything was at stake, our very freedom and lives. Our country was at all out war. We won. We need to treat this war, in my opinion, as though everything we hold dear could be lost. AS I heard one soldier who called into a talk show say one day, "let us free to do our job". He went on to talk about all the problems with the media and the interpretations of everything they (the military) do, making it back to the press out of context to become the next big story. The military is actually holding back because of press coverage. This is a shame. If not for some of the stories that have been blown up out of proportion our military would be done with this war already.
As for the civilian population, I would let them know why were there, as we have done. I would warn them of what was coming and do my best to protect them, as we have done, but again, this is a war, there will be unintended casualties.
As for Bill O'Rielly, I don't watch the man, so I really do not care what he has said. I would free the hands of our military and make damn sure they knew the rules of combat, which we have done, hold those accountable for breaking those rules, which we have done, and let our military do what it was designed to do, fight and win a war. This is what we are not doing now. We are too damn worried about if we hurt and innocent, well, if they are in the line of fire, harboring terrorists, or just in the wrong place at the wrong time, I am sorry, but it is a war. You can not fight a war without death, both those you intended, and those you did not.
Also keep in mind that you and I are not privy to all the information about what exactly is going on in Iraq, only those news stories coming out of the Hotel in the Green Zone and those reporters moving around with troops. If any of these were intended to be high actions zones, the reporters are probably not with that group of soldiers.
Before any of you yell at me about the reports lost during this fight, I can only say that they too died in battle and deserve all the trappings that go with that title, but I doubt that those missions were intended to be so hostile. The government is not in the business of sending non-military personnel to the hottest spots of any war.
And here, to clarify this to everyone who seems to want to know, at the age of 17 I was hit in the eye with a rock. I subsequently lost all sight in it. By my 18th birthday I was already 25% blind in that eye and unable to serve, how do I know, because I tried to sign up. This was two years prior to the first Gulf War. Within another three years I had lost all sight due to full cupping of the optic nerve followed by a pressure build up nearing 80 which tore apart the internal chambers of the eye.
Would I serve today if they needed a 36 year old one eyed smoker, you bet your ass I would.
Answer it Moron's Question...
|
Posted By: Average American Posted on: Jun. 21, 2006 at 8:07 PM  22 Comments
|
3.2 / 5
Based on 7 ratings.
|
Anonymous commenting has been disabled, you must login to comment on articles.
Signup for an accountComments:
|
Jun. 22, 2006 at 09:01:55 PM
|
|
| I posted this on "All bleat, no feet" but it applies here also. Fight it like a real war, baby! Only problem is charlie, er... I mean the terrorists don't wear real uniforms, deploy in convential units, and have no visible supply, command and control, or assets like tanks, trucks, planes, etc. To fight it like a real war we need a real military enemy, that can be targeted. That has been Dubya's biggest failing of his war in Iraq. The failure to understand asymmetrical warfare, and the difficulities in putting down insurgencies. The Brits failed in Afghanistan, Palestine, and Northern Ireland, the Israelis have failed in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The Soviets failed in Afghanistan, and the French failed in Vietnam, the USA failed in Vietnam, and after we left, the Chinese failed in Vietnam, TWICE! And the Corporatist backed cuban govt failed against the popular uprising of Castro's guerilla war also. The only occupation in modern times that has succeeded, that I can recall was the USA in the Phillipines, 1900-1908, and if anyone wants to read some of that history and what was done to the Phillipinos, to make them free google the US Phillipines War. It'll include re-education camps (like concentration camps, but no ovens), round ups of entire towns, killing all people in a village for any sabotage, or attacks in the area... And AA your charge is false and hollow. Neither Kerry, or any of the Democrats or Republicans who voted for the war in Iraq knew at the time of the vote that George Dubya had no plan of any kind to deal with occupying the country. Now that Dubya has abandonded Iraq to 2 1/2 years of indecision on his part so the next President can sh!t or get off the pot (Bush has said leaving won't be happening while he's Pres, so no matter how big of a failure this becomes, Dubya is leaving or brothers in Iraq), and the fact that the only people who are pointing out the fact that Iraq is FUBAR, Iraq is in a civil war, Iraq is becoming worse/ more dangerous every month, are the Democrats and the people who are screaming "they're gonna cut n' run", the people who keep telling Americans that Iraq has turned the corner, or the insurgenecy is the last throes are all delusional and/or Bush Admin or Republican Senators well you get the point... |
||
|
Jun. 22, 2006 at 09:32:26 PM
|
Rating for this article
|
| What do you mean that Bush fails to understand asymmetrical warfare, Phaedrus? Those three detainees that committed suicide in Guitmo last week: asymmetrical warfare! There is no tactic to which these islamofascists won't stoop.
|
||
|
Jun. 22, 2006 at 09:43:07 PM
|
Rating for this article
|
| Moron... "Just who do we get tough with when the enemy is indistinguishable from the civilian population at large?" We start by getting tough on the nation in general, sorry moron, this is war, not another day at the God Damned resort for you, it is war. A bloody, dirty thing that requires us to act like it matters. If we are having problems identifying the enemy then we have to assume they are all enemies until we weed them out. That does not mean "kill them all, let God sort them out", it means control the country and the movements of the people until we have identified the enemy and fully built up an internal force of confidants who have proven themselves friends. "This is why guerilla warfare is so tough to combat. It is why we left Vietnam - because when the conflict degenerates into this, you have already lost." Have you ever wondered why this war is starting to look (at least in the media's eyes) like Vietnam. It is because you people are treating it like Vietnam. Some kind of 60's hangers on who didn't get over losing control to the Republican Party by virtue of your stupid and idiotic programs that to this day have not delivered on a single promise made of them. If we started treating this in the media like it was WWII, then I bet it would start looking like WWII, with victory after victory coming into the light. "How much napalm and how many Daisey Cutters will we have to drop on Iraqi cities to finally liberate these people?" This is a stupid "straw man" arguement that is based in your personal fear of the fight. You are so busy worrying about pissing someone off, hurting some a******s feelings, and protecting some foreign terrorist rights (which they do not have by either our U.S. Constitution or the Geneva Convention) that you have completely lost sight of the reason for the fight to begin with. There's your answers. Beyond that...ask away. |
||
|
|
Jun. 22, 2006 at 10:55:11 PM
|
Rating for this article
|
| There are 50 million people in Iraq and there are 120,000 Americans. Sure, we'll treat each and every Iraqi like an enemy. Time to get tough. You lead the way. And you're right AA. Every single blunder we made during the last three years in pushing Iraq toward civil war and bringing Al Queda to that country - that was the fault of the liberal press back in the U.S. It all makes perfect sense. Liberals lost to the strong and decisive Republicans, we have been shown to be completely impotent pussies, but yet we managed to totally subvert the effort of the powerful and manly GOP leaders with our incessent whining. If only the liberals left, the victories would just start rolling in. Liberals are afraid to fight? I remember hearing accusations from conservatives that it was the Democrats that got us into WWI, WWII, the Korean War, and Vietnam. We are the most agressive cowards in the world, it seems. If I was worried about pissing off some a****** and hurting their feelings, then I wouldn't be telling you that you are full of s***. |
||
|
Jun. 23, 2006 at 06:36:25 AM
|
|
| You didn't answer my questions or address my comments. So, would it be safe to assume that you, AA, believe that the way this war/occupation has been conducted has been completely FUBAR? So it has to be one thing or another. Either the Rumsfeld plan is completely flawed or the military is incapable of performing the task being asked of them. "The military is actually holding back because of press coverage. This is a shame. If not for some of the stories that have been blown up out of proportion our military would be done with this war already." First, where do you get that information? Second, What that statement says is that Bush/Rumsfeld are willing to prolong the war for their approval ratings. |
||
|
|
Jun. 23, 2006 at 07:28:40 AM
|
Rating for this article
|
| Indie, No it has not been FUBAR. I thas been fought with some reserve, this is my only problem with the war. If we are going to be there and we say we are not leaving until we win, then lets win the damn thing. "Either the Rumsfeld plan is completely flawed or the military is incapable of performing the task being asked of them." No it does not have to be one way or the other. Rummy isn't waging this war, the Pentagon is through the men on the ground. They have had their hands tied back a bit by Rummy but with the recent death and mutilation of two of our soldiers and the crys at home to finish the job, I think you will see a loosening of the ties. This war is going to over soon, and with a victory not a pullout. "First, where do you get that information?" Apparently your short term memory is fading, may I suggest Ginko to help. As I dais I heard it on a talk show, a soldier in Iraq called in. I really don't remember which one I heard it on, could have been Rush, Frankin, Rhoads or Hannity, I really don't recall. "What that statement says is that Bush/Rumsfeld are willing to prolong the war for their approval ratings.", No, what that statement says is that the media does have an effect on how we conduct certain aspects of the war, which is part of the reason we conservatives have suggested a news blackout in the past. People bet one side of the story from a reporter anymore, not the whole story as in the past. This is just another example of liberals creaing a sefdl fullfilling prophecy on the sid eof doom and gloom. You act as if Bush and the tohers in Washington live in a vaccum. They do not. Anyone who second guesses you will have an ompact on your thinking on any subject. This is another example the strength of being united vs. the weakness of being divided. What else you want to know Indie? |
||
|
|
Jun. 23, 2006 at 07:42:56 AM
|
|
| From DailyKos, a new statement from Shotgun Dick 1. The Republican "hawks" love to boast of how quickly and efficiently the Iraqi security forces are getting trained and deployed to defeat the terrorists inside their country. They promise that "as the Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down." 2. The Republicans also love to boast that invading Iraq made America safer because we're "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here." 3. Yesterday, Dick Cheney blew #1 and #2 all to hell with this jaw-dropping admission that we can never, ever pull our troops out: "If we pull out, [the terrorists in Iraq] will follow us. It doesn't matter where we go. ... And it will continue---whether we complete the job or not in Iraq---only it'll get worse. Iraq will become a safe haven for terrorists." SO SATANAAST, ACCORDING TO DICK WE CAN NEVER LEAVE, THE JOB WILL NEVER BE DONE. AND 400-600 OF OUR BOYS WILL DIE EVERY YEAR. We can never pull out. Now who says we will win? If we ever leave, we lose, haven't our troops already lost? |
||
|
|
Jun. 23, 2006 at 07:49:49 AM
|
Rating for this article
|
| Cheney's comments were reflective of aour roll in Gemany, Japan and South Korea. We are still there are we not. And to the best of my knowledge we are not losing 400-600 per year. We all knew that a complete pullout would never happen. But do we still thinkwe are fighting WWII or the Korean conflict, no we don't. We readily admit that the wars are long since over and that our military is there today as a safeguard against further agression from the old enemies. And like these old enemies we now count as allies, Iraq will become a stable influence on the Far East.
|
||
|
|
Jun. 23, 2006 at 08:14:13 AM
|
|
| I will start at the bottom first: "You act as if Bush and the tohers in Washington live in a vaccum. They do not. Anyone who second guesses you will have an ompact on your thinking on any subject." Bush says he doesn't pay attention to polls. And you gotta believe him to a certain extent. By poll a majority of Americans and 87% of Iraqi's want us outta there. Not to mention only 35% of Americans think is doing a good job overall. "What that statement says is that Bush/Rumsfeld are willing to prolong the war for their approval ratings.", No, what that statement says is that the media does have an effect on how we conduct certain aspects of the war." SEE ABOVE "No it has not been FUBAR. I thas been fought with some reserve, this is my only problem with the war. If we are going to be there and we say we are not leaving until we win, then lets win the damn thing." "Either the Rumsfeld plan is completely flawed or the military is incapable of performing the task being asked of them.' No it does not have to be one way or the other." We have been in Iraq over 3 years. Longer than WWII. We don't hold any ground, except the Green Zone. No city is safe. Basra, where the British soldiers used to walk around in their berets, are now putting on their helmets and chest gear just to go the latrine. In WWII, ground was gained. Tangible victories were reported on. Cities and territory were re-taken (and kept) by allied forces. The Germans were being forced back. So the media could report on those things. In Iraq, neither the Iraqi's or coaliation forces control any ground. Bush stands up at a presser one day, touts the great progress and safety of Tal Afar, and a few days later a huge bomb blows up the city square. Progress indeed. So, either war can't be won militarily, OR Bush/Rumsfeld have had the wrong approach for more than 3 years. That, AA is FUBAR. |
||
Perhaps if we launched into fits of ecstacy, rolling on the floor - screaming "nuke'em" in tongues - the BAA Boy might be more receptive to a discussion.
His silence tells me he's shot his wad here - is probably feverishly researching Rush's Republican Manifesto of the Fourth Reich for snappy non sequiturs that show Liberals are the reason we didn't wrap things up in Iraq years ago.
Mick, your comparison with Nam is becoming more apparent as each day passes. At least LBJ's guns and butter had domestic policy offsets but they couldn't swing the balance against an unwinnable war with 50,000 casualties. Bush's guns and pork pales in comparison.
The party line of "staying the course" may be rallying the GOP faithful but it's lost on the majority of Americans. Ditto the GOP's labeling the Democrat's Redeployment Strategy as more "cut and run". Those dogs don't hunt anymore.
I think Rove's cornered himself. Staying the course flies in the face of longstanding public opinion and any GOP plan for systematic troop withdrawal, while consistent with longstanding voter demands, would be considered politically motivated.
"I savor the taste of that. More mindlesss BAA Boy bombast only serves the Force. May it prevail and be with us all forevermore," she shouted, waving her light saber in circles, "upward and onward!"
Report Abuse