Tidal Fish Forum banner
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
G

·
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I think a little background might be in order. Think it will help spur debate and give ya'll a frame of reference from where I'm coming from.

Politically I lean right. I liked W the first term but, haven't agreed with alot that he has done the second term.

Iraq- done poorly from the start. We were too careful when we went in, more stuff should have been blown up. There is no point in having a srong military if we can't use it right. I feel like this may be another Vietnam. We go in strong and then can't last due to political hacks. If we let the generals on the ground do what they need to do then this would be over. JMO

Religion - I was born and raised a Methodist. That should be enough.

Illegal aliens - I think the key word here is illegal.

That should be good for now. Let the bashing begin.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Nothing seems solid. Appears as if things are done on a whim or a guess. The thing about W that I liked was he said what he felt and if you didn't agree, to bad. Seems that since the Democrats got control he has lost that ability. Seems he is grasping at straws instead of saying this is how it gets done. The only thing inrecent memory that he flat out said that I truly believed was with the attorney general firings. He said he would not allow his aides to be subpeoned. That was the W that I liked.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
If more bombs were dropped there wouldn't be enough sunnis and shias to matter. The point of war is to win. If you ain't in it to win it then you don't belong. In my book you do what it takes to win a war. You do it quickly and with extreme predjudice. You hit them so hard that you break there will to fight. All these muslims are scared of pigs or something. Why don't we use that against them? We could get Smithfield Foods to open a middle east division and end the dang conflict.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
672 Posts
If more bombs were dropped there wouldn't be enough sunnis and shias to matter. The point of war is to win. If you ain't in it to win it then you don't belong. In my book you do what it takes to win a war. You do it quickly and with extreme predjudice. You hit them so hard that you break there will to fight. All these muslims are scared of pigs or something. Why don't we use that against them? We could get Smithfield Foods to open a middle east division and end the dang conflict.
Now there's some insight for you.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Right. Gotcha. I was thinking just the country of Iraq. I still think we were to careful going in.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,160 Posts
Battle but not the war? Explain please.
your "solution" would do more harm in the middle east than good. The greater goal is to bring peace to Iraq, and in turn neighboring countries. If you think flattening an entire country is going to do that, then you don't have a very good grasp of the situation.

In other words, sure the Iraq battle would be over, but what we would have created would be much worse.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Maybe not. The neighboring countries would see what we did to Iraq and wouldn't want that happening to their country. All we would have to do is say, see that over there, you're next. I would think they would back down.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,849 Posts
your "solution" would do more harm in the middle east than good. The greater goal is to bring peace to Iraq, and in turn neighboring countries. If you think flattening an entire country is going to do that, then you don't have a very good grasp of the situation.

In other words, sure the Iraq battle would be over, but what we would have created would be much worse.
Assuming we stop in Iraq.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
728 Posts
Freebase may actually have a valid point. When Syria experienced an Islamic extremist uprising, it was dealt with in the most severe way possible. I don't condone targeting civvies as a course of policy, but if the civvies are supporting the terrorists, they shouldn't be exempted from the bombs.

n February 1982 the secular Syrian government of President Hafez al-Assad faced a mortal threat from Islamic extremists, who sought to topple the Assad regime. How did it respond? President Assad identified the rebellion as emanating from Syria's fourth-largest city - Hama - and he literally leveled it, pounding the fundamentalist neighborhoods with artillery for days. Once the guns fell silent, he plowed up the rubble and bulldozed it flat, into vast parking lots. Amnesty International estimated that 10,000 to 25,000 Syrians, mostly civilians, were killed in the merciless crackdown. Syria has not had a Muslim extremist problem since.


The rest of the story...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,849 Posts
Freebase may actually have a valid point. When Syria experienced an Islamic extremist uprising, it was dealt with in the most severe way possible. I don't condone targeting civvies as a course of policy, but if the civvies are supporting the terrorists, they shouldn't be exempted from the bombs.

n February 1982 the secular Syrian government of President Hafez al-Assad faced a mortal threat from Islamic extremists, who sought to topple the Assad regime. How did it respond? President Assad identified the rebellion as emanating from Syria's fourth-largest city - Hama - and he literally leveled it, pounding the fundamentalist neighborhoods with artillery for days. Once the guns fell silent, he plowed up the rubble and bulldozed it flat, into vast parking lots. Amnesty International estimated that 10,000 to 25,000 Syrians, mostly civilians, were killed in the merciless crackdown. Syria has not had a Muslim extremist problem since.


The rest of the story...
Not unlike the islamist's justification for terrorism. If the solution is military and not diplomacy, the only way to win for us is extermination and re population. Otherwise there will always be an islamist insurgency. Kinda like we did in the new world.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,849 Posts
Freebase may actually have a valid point. When Syria experienced an Islamic extremist uprising, it was dealt with in the most severe way possible. I don't condone targeting civvies as a course of policy, but if the civvies are supporting the terrorists, they shouldn't be exempted from the bombs.

n February 1982 the secular Syrian government of President Hafez al-Assad faced a mortal threat from Islamic extremists, who sought to topple the Assad regime. How did it respond? President Assad identified the rebellion as emanating from Syria's fourth-largest city - Hama - and he literally leveled it, pounding the fundamentalist neighborhoods with artillery for days. Once the guns fell silent, he plowed up the rubble and bulldozed it flat, into vast parking lots. Amnesty International estimated that 10,000 to 25,000 Syrians, mostly civilians, were killed in the merciless crackdown. Syria has not had a Muslim extremist problem since.


The rest of the story...
Also, they are an Islamic nation. The Jews did much of the same against the Palestinians and it only served to further unify the Islamic nations against Israel. Our efforts in Iraq and our build up against Iran are seen as imperialism by much of the Muslim nations. A brutal, indiscriminate slaughter will do little to further our stated cause. I am not saying that there is no Merritt to your argument, it is just hard to pull off without looking like the Nazis gassing the Jews.
 
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
Top