Losman-McGahee-Evans Posted January 9, 2005 Posted January 9, 2005 First and foremost I am a Christian. If one can argue in favor of this they are not. If they don't agree I'll pass on that debate and let you ask your own pastor and see what he or she tells you. I guess we should have known this was coming since we put the same person who organized and directed death squads in Central America (The same ones that killed the three Catholic nuns). "What to do about the deepening quagmire of Iraq? The Pentagon's latest approach is being called "the Salvador option"--and the fact that it is being discussed at all is a measure of just how worried Donald Rumsfeld really is. "What everyone agrees is that we can't just go on as we are," one senior military officer told NEWSWEEK. "We have to find a way to take the offensive against the insurgents. Right now, we are playing defense. And we are losing." Last November's operation in Fallujah, most analysts agree, succeeded less in breaking "the back" of the insurgency--as Marine Gen. John Sattler optimistically declared at the time--than in spreading it out." It goes on to say -- "Now, NEWSWEEK has learned, the Pentagon is intensively debating an option that dates back to a still-secret strategy in the Reagan administration's battle against the leftist guerrilla insurgency in El Salvador in the early 1980s. Then, faced with a losing war against Salvadoran rebels, the U.S. government funded or supported "nationalist" forces that allegedly included so-called death squads directed to hunt down and kill rebel leaders and sympathizers. Eventually the insurgency was quelled, and many U.S. conservatives consider the policy to have been a success--despite the deaths of innocent civilians and the subsequent Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages scandal. (Among the current administration officials who dealt with Central America back then is John Negroponte, who is today the U.S. ambassador to Iraq. Under Reagan, he was ambassador to Honduras.) Following that model, one Pentagon proposal would send Special Forces teams to advise, support and possibly train Iraqi squads, most likely hand-picked Kurdish Peshmerga fighters and Shiite militiamen, to target Sunni insurgents and their sympathizers, even across the border into Syria, according to military insiders familiar with the discussions. It remains unclear, however, whether this would be a policy of assassination or so-called "snatch" operations, in which the targets are sent to secret facilities for interrogation. The current thinking is that while U.S. Special Forces would lead operations in, say, Syria, activities inside Iraq itself would be carried out by Iraqi paramilitaries, officials tell NEWSWEEK. " My son died in Iraq in November and he had told me that things there were detrioriating so rapidly that he and his unit had considered the war all but lost. I guess this is a sign that things really are getting desperate over there if has to come to this. This President is destroying everytihng Reagan, his father and all the came before him accomplished for my party. What a sad day this that we must become what we despise, what we ourselves are fighitng -- murderers. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6802629/site/newsweek/
RkFast Posted January 9, 2005 Posted January 9, 2005 With all due respect, and bless you and your son's sacrifices...but that the !@#$ do you WANT us to do? You DO realize this is a WAR, right? In one breath, you say how bad things are getting and how it has to stop, but in the next, seem upset that the U.S. is going to go on the offensive and try something new to put an end to the madness that has become this occupation. Look...Im not sure what they are considering is the right thing to do. But at least those in charge are trying to so SOMETHING to end this BS once and for all. And you should know...some times, those "somethings" arent pretty.
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted January 9, 2005 Posted January 9, 2005 I see what you are saying. This happened in Vietnam; the call for more men, the escalation in action, countless numbers being maimed and murdered by numbers who faded back into the masses, and the totally phony optimism the government tried to hoodwink the people with. Unfortunately, MORE people buy it now because they are scared 9/11 is going to happen again, and supporting a war where they don't have to fight or see the horrid effects of a wasted action. The insurgents are today's Vietcong. Why do you think their leadership has to hide behind a heavily fortified area??? They are scared shiiteless, but they are also very courageous. A very tenuous position indeed!!
UConn James Posted January 9, 2005 Posted January 9, 2005 I'm ashamed to be a Republican tonight. This is just happening for you? I'm a registered Rep who knew this in the second debate in 2000. With more and more people adhering to Bush's policies, the Democratic party is actually starting to make sense for the first time in 30+ years. Heartfelt condolences for your son. Look...Im not sure what they are considering is the right thing to do. But at least those in charge are trying to so SOMETHING to end this BS once and for all. And you should know...some times, those "somethings" arent pretty. 199075[/snapback] I'm sure that's exactly what Osama's minions were thinking on Sept. 10 when they learned what was going to happen the next day. It's like the cop in Heat and played out by Bernie Kerik, when you spend all your time and effort among criminals, you stay at most one step above them.
Losman-McGahee-Evans Posted January 9, 2005 Author Posted January 9, 2005 With all due respect, and bless you and your son's sacrifices...but that the !@#$ do you WANT us to do? You DO realize this is a WAR, right? In one breath, you say how bad things are getting and how it has to stop, but in the next, seem upset that the U.S. is going to go on the offensive and try something new to put an end to the madness that has become this occupation. Look...Im not sure what they are considering is the right thing to do. But at least those in charge are trying to so SOMETHING to end this BS once and for all. And you should know...some times, those "somethings" arent pretty. 199075[/snapback] My son's "sacrifices"? He didn't sacrifice, he died. What his widow is goign through with our grandson is a sacrifice. What our family is going through is a sacrifice. Unfortunately I am unable to not be a Christian as easy as it may be for you to not be one so it's difficult for me to endorse the "kill everybody" line of thinking. Winning wars has and always will be about winning hearts and minds. My son had said many times that due to catastrophic failures of the DOD (Rumsfeld is the most hated man in the military nad has been for some time) we had lost the Iraqi people.
KD in CA Posted January 9, 2005 Posted January 9, 2005 I'm sorry to hear about your son. My condolences.
RkFast Posted January 9, 2005 Posted January 9, 2005 Winning wars has and always will be about winning hearts and minds. My son had said many times that due to catastrophic failures of the DOD (Rumsfeld is the most hated man in the military nad has been for some time) we had lost the Iraqi people. Im not going to argue with you on this, because no matter what I say, Im going to come out "in the wrong" because of what happenned to you family. Ill leave it up to folks like Tom, VA and Darin, who have a lot of experience in regards to what war is all about and how to win it to show you the truth. I'll just say this...if you think that winning a war is really what you said above, again, with all due respect...you are TERRIBLY misguided.
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted January 9, 2005 Posted January 9, 2005 Im not going to argue with you on this, because no matter what I say, Im going to come out "in the wrong" because of what happenned to you family. Ill leave it up to folks like Tom, VA and Darin, who have a lot of experience in regards to what war is all about and how to win it to show you the truth. I'll just say this...if you think that winning a war is really what you said above, again, with all due respect...you are TERRIBLY misguided. 199282[/snapback] And I'll speak for the thousands of guys who thinks this whole operation is misguided, and has been botched from the very beginning, who have just as much 'experience'. If you ask people who was winning the Vietnam War in 1970, it didn't take experience to tell you that we were NOT winning, nor could we under the conditions! It doesn't take a military man, intel officer, or Iraqi diplomat to tell you that Iraq is a mess at this point. The proof is in the pudding... all you have to do is read the reports coming in!! Why SHOULD we believe what the govt tells us anymore is beyond me... they have repeatedly screwed up or outright manipulated intelligence, denied the existence of Gulf War Syndrome, and CONTINUE a campaign of misinformation!!! I myself find it despicable, ESPECIALLY when men and women are our there fighting and dying... it angers me to no end.
DC Tom Posted January 9, 2005 Posted January 9, 2005 Im not going to argue with you on this, because no matter what I say, Im going to come out "in the wrong" because of what happenned to you family. Ill leave it up to folks like Tom, VA and Darin, who have a lot of experience in regards to what war is all about and how to win it to show you the truth. I'll just say this...if you think that winning a war is really what you said above, again, with all due respect...you are TERRIBLY misguided. 199282[/snapback] Don't drag me into this argument. None of you have hit on the actual problem yet, let alone suggested a solution. it's really easy to B word, as it doesn't require thought, merely righteous indignation. But I defy any of you to actually think about the situation.
SilverNRed Posted January 9, 2005 Posted January 9, 2005 Glenn Reynolds has an early take on that article. Instapundit
gmac17 Posted January 9, 2005 Posted January 9, 2005 it doesn't sound like they have authorized anything yet, just that they are debating it. reminds me of what happened in columbia with pablo escobar. The terror was so bad they had one choice, and started fighting with fire with fire. Hundreds of innocent people died, but they got pablo and it all stopped. no good solution now.
Alaska Darin Posted January 9, 2005 Posted January 9, 2005 Shocking. People who've defended their party's rightousness to the hilt are now seeing what happens when you give carte blanche to a bunch of bureaucrats who have the money to realize their "dreams". The funniest post of all is that the Democrats are now making sense. Yeah, sure they are.
Losman-McGahee-Evans Posted January 10, 2005 Author Posted January 10, 2005 I'm sorry to hear about your son. My condolences. 199113[/snapback] Thank you sincerely.
Losman-McGahee-Evans Posted January 10, 2005 Author Posted January 10, 2005 The funniest post of all is that the Democrats are now making sense. Yeah, sure they are. 199616[/snapback] As a real Republican the current Democratic party is closer to Reagan-era Republican Party than this version of it. While you can argue that all you'd llike I'd prefer you disprove it. Also, I think the statement was made in comparison to not an absolute statement. Like I said I am loud and proud Republican but the current version is immoral from top to bottom. Lie after lie I sit here and count the days until this term is over. My only hope is that his incomptence on both domestic and foriegn policy isn't too much to come back from as a party.
Losman-McGahee-Evans Posted January 10, 2005 Author Posted January 10, 2005 it doesn't sound like they have authorized anything yet, just that they are debating it. reminds me of what happened in columbia with pablo escobar. The terror was so bad they had one choice, and started fighting with fire with fire. Hundreds of innocent people died, but they got pablo and it all stopped. no good solution now. 199545[/snapback] The mere fact it is being considered shows the failure of the mission in Iraq under their direction. As far as the point made about Escobar it's moot since we are still losing the drug war even after his death. So in reality hundreds died in vain.
Losman-McGahee-Evans Posted January 10, 2005 Author Posted January 10, 2005 Glenn Reynolds has an early take on that article. Instapundit 199460[/snapback] I don't read things from instapundit. It's spin, not journalism. Newsweek isn't Drudge, etc. It's an actual respected news source.
blzrul Posted January 10, 2005 Posted January 10, 2005 The mere fact it is being considered shows the failure of the mission in Iraq under their direction. As far as the point made about Escobar it's moot since we are still losing the drug war even after his death. So in reality hundreds died in vain. 199733[/snapback] I am so sorry for the loss of your son.
Alaska Darin Posted January 10, 2005 Posted January 10, 2005 As a real Republican the current Democratic party is closer to Reagan-era Republican Party than this version of it. While you can argue that all you'd llike I'd prefer you disprove it. 199730[/snapback] BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA Disprove it? You'll have to offer up proof of your ridiculous statement before I bother wasting my time ripping it to shreds.
RkFast Posted January 10, 2005 Posted January 10, 2005 BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA Disprove it? You'll have to offer up proof of your ridiculous statement before I bother wasting my time ripping it to shreds. 199824[/snapback] This person's never even heard of the term "Ultimate Sacrifice" and thinks winning wars is done by making nice with the man trying to kill you. I wouldnt expect much, Darin.
SilverNRed Posted January 10, 2005 Posted January 10, 2005 I don't read things from instapundit. It's spin, not journalism. Newsweek isn't Drudge, etc. It's an actual respected news source. 199736[/snapback] Most mainstream news is trash these days anyway.
Recommended Posts