did they have to kill them? ( Archived) (209)

President George Bush announces
the U.S. Attack of Iraq, stating
"this will not be another Vietnam"

Washington, D.C.
January 16, 1991



How about 'W?'

His son tried to say the same.

I looked and found nothing about Vietnam and Iraq but did find this State of the Union address where he mentions Iraq and others and says this;

"Our war on terror is well begun, but it is only begun. This campaign may not be finished on our watch -- yet it must be and it will be waged on our watch."

And we also have Bush's speech to a Joint Session of Congress, Sept. 20, 2001

"This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo 2 years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen."

I don't have anything saying it will be fast or not like Vietnam so that's why I asked you to provide the quote.

I do have a quote from Obama's campaign website that states

"Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."

maybe you wee thinking of him?

It's still a fact that on the battlefield, it's kill or be killed, whether war is rational or opportunistic.



So you're saying that if an armed assailant jumps me or one of my family, I should have his well being in mind? Sorry but in such a situation, my safety and that of my loved ones would be the priority. If the assailant ends up dead as a reason for his attack, he should have steered clear.

Aside from 'civilian' self defence, what should a security sniper do during some public occasion where there are thousands of innocent civilians and some crazy psycho tries to blow himself up? Should the sniper shoot at the psycho's arm or leg, running the risk that he'll still pull of the bomb, or go for the safe option of blowing his head off? I know what I'd choose, and to hell with PC crap



I just stated an example of where 'killing' someone may be the only option, or at least the most humane one. If I'd be wasted with my body ravaged by cancer, I know I'd be grateful to the guy who turned off my switch instead of prolonging needless agony.

Totally agree with you. It's been an absolute truth since ancient times to the modern ones, and probably into the future as well. It's the grunts who hold the hard won ground who win the war. The rest are support weapons that make the infantryman's easier, but they can't win it on their own, whether we are talking of horsemen, catapults, tanks or aircraft.




I agree with your views here from a purely military perspective, however from a PR perspective, don't you think that the locals, as well as the liberal media, will still try to portray those troops as a 'masked' US presence, acting as a sort of power behind the throne so to speak?

Sure but they don't research their garbage prior to flapping the gums. US gets less oil now than they did from Saddam. The Iraqi government awarded most of the contracts to Russia, China, Asia, the EU and other Arab countries. They also have to vote each year on whether or not they are going to extend the Status of Forces Agreement and then, they vote on whether or not they are going to extend the UN mandate for the coalition to remain to help.

It isn't a US run show anymore nor has it been for a long time. Sure, the US has input however, there is a government running Iraq along with a free press. Reps of the people have to show the people who elected them that they have presented their wishes and, if all those wishes add up to a 'get the US out of here now' and damm us all if we screwed up then so be it yet, nothing of the sort have become a majority.

Hmmm. Interesting.

Your first sentence sort of confirms my point I'm afraid. The press isn't exactly interested in portraying the 'real' truth, and if a bit of news is presented often enough, it'll be accepted as the 'real' truth anyways.

As Goebbels once said, 'the bigger the lie, the more easily it is believed' (or something of the sort, I'm sure you get the point).