War on Terror - Saving Lives?

[Julie]

I'm at a disadvantage here. I was a soldier. Whatever desire I had to understand them ended the second the 1st plane crashed into the World Trade Towers. At that point on, my only interest is to kill them. I don't care about their motivations. I don't care about their dreams. I only care about their demise.

Afterwards, when the war is over, and the much vaunted and much needed self-examination would occur, then I will examine what happenned and why they did the things they did and why I did the things I did. Until then, I know all I need to know. They want to kill me ... but I will kill them.

I understand and respect your position and why you feel that way. As a civilian, I felt the same way that day, and long after. However, now I see pictures of those poor, innocent women and children in the hospitals in Iraq.....and can't help to know that they are probably feeling the same way that we did on 9/11. I hope you understand that I just can't feel or see any good coming out of that. Maybe you can.

[Julie]

Me either! I have never once indicated that I am pleased with the choice. I'm not even a democrat! I can't see the benefit of joining either party to be honest. All I know is what I know of Bush. And quite frankly I'll be proud to run on the "anyone but Bush" platform in a heartbeat.

Ditto

[Electric Hermit]

If you've ever traveled abroad, and hopefully some of our friends from other countries can attest to this, American's are rude and demanding.

Actually, the word probably most associated with Americans abroad is "LOUD"! But we make allowances.

[Officer of Engineers]

I understand and respect your position and why you feel that way. As a civilian, I felt the same way that day, and long after. However, now I see pictures of those poor, innocent women and children in the hospitals in Iraq.....and can't help to know that they are probably feeling the same way that we did on 9/11. I hope you understand that I just can't feel or see any good coming out of that. Maybe you can.

The only good thing about war is its ending.

We (and I do mean us Canadians as well) screwed up in Iraq, and we'll probably continue to screw up. We didn't have the postwar support mechanism in place and we probably never would. We may even be asking too much of the Iraqis that they start looking after themselves after being crushed under for so long. However, the only thing worst than staying and fighting in Iraq is leaving Iraq in turmoil. As bad as things are now in Iraq, they will be far worst if a vacuum is left in place.

I grimaced as I saw the innocent victims also. There are somethings that we could have done better and some we cannot avoid. Terror attacks against civilians selling us fruits and vegetables we cannot avoid.

I can tell you that I was one of those who believed that Saddam posed an intolerable strategic threat. I believed he still had his WMD ****nal. I supported the war to remove him.

I was wrong.

This being said, I cannot reverse time and the only road I know to peace in Iraq is through victory.

[Fonnicker]

I understand and respect your position and why you feel that way. As a civilian, I felt the same way that day, and long after. However, now I see pictures of those poor, innocent women and children in the hospitals in Iraq.....and can't help to know that they are probably feeling the same way that we did on 9/11. I hope you understand that I just can't feel or see any good coming out of that. Maybe you can.

Particularly true since, as far as our intellegence has been able to disern, the Iraqi people had nothing to do with 9/11.

[Electric Hermit]

The only good thing about war is its ending.

We (and I do mean us Canadians as well) screwed up in Iraq, and we'll probably continue to screw up. We didn't have the postwar support mechanism in place and we probably never would. We may even be asking too much of the Iraqis that they start looking after themselves after being crushed under for so long. However, the only thing worst than staying and fighting in Iraq is leaving Iraq in turmoil. As bad as things are now in Iraq, they will be far worst if a vacuum is left in place.

It is refreshing to find someone unafraid to acknowledge the realities. But I have to say that I can see no possibility of anything that might reasonably be called "victory". I see only two great tragedies. That all of this could so easily have been avoided. And that there is now no way out.

Americans not yet born will die in Iraq. And their blood will be on Bush's hands.

[Julie]

The only good thing about war is its ending.

We (and I do mean us Canadians as well) screwed up in Iraq, and we'll probably continue to screw up. We didn't have the postwar support mechanism in place and we probably never would. We may even be asking too much of the Iraqis that they start looking after themselves after being crushed under for so long. However, the only thing worst than staying and fighting in Iraq is leaving Iraq in turmoil. As bad as things are now in Iraq, they will be far worst if a vacuum is left in place.

I grimaced as I saw the innocent victims also. There are somethings that we could have done better and some we cannot avoid. Terror attacks against civilians selling us fruits and vegetables we cannot avoid.

I can tell you that I was one of those who believed that Saddam posed an intolerable strategic threat. I believed he still had his WMD ****nal. I supported the war to remove him.

I was wrong.

This being said, I cannot reverse time and the only road I know to peace in Iraq is through victory.

As civilians, we can only see what the media provides for us which is mostly the bad side, not any positive progress, where the innocents are concerned. But, one good thing that I know, after this discussion with you, is that you made it home safe. That's something. :) And, thank you so much for sharing.

[Confed999]

is that you made it home safe.

He did much more than that. I'm certain many have made it home that wouldn't have, because of him.

[Julie]

He did much more than that. I'm certain many have made it home that wouldn't have, because of him.

Yes, that is obvious and you are right. I apologize for not mentioning that as well.

[tarek]

Winning the war on terror
Donald H Rumsfeld

Last month, we observed the third anniversary of the day that awakened America to a new world, when extremists killed thousands of innocent people on American soil. Last week marked the third anniversary of the commencement of Operation Enduring Freedom, the day America resolved to take the battle to the extremists themselves — and we attacked Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Three years into the global war on terror, some ask whether America is safer, and if the world is better off. These are fair questions. But first some historical perspective. It has been said that this global war against extremism will be the task of a generation, a war that could go on for years, much like the Cold War, which lasted for decades.

We look back now at the Cold War as a great victory for freedom. But nothing was certain or preordained. The fifty-year span of the epic battle between the free world and the Soviet empire was filled with division, uncertainty, self-doubt, setbacks, and failures. Even with our closest allies, there were disputes over diplomatic policy, weapons deployment, and military strategies. In the 1960s, France pulled out of NATO’s military organisation altogether.

In America, columnists and editorialists questioned and doubted US policies. There were even instances where American citizens saw their own government challenged as being warmongers or aggressors.

But the United States — under leaders of both political parties — and our allies showed perseverance and resolve, year after year. The strategies varied — from coexistence to containment to detente to confrontation. Our leaders continued to stand up to what many thought an unbeatable foe, and eventually the Soviet regime collapsed.

That lesson has had to be relearned throughout the ages: the lesson that weakness is provocative,... that a refusal to confront gathering dangers can increase, not reduce, future peril, and that victory ultimately comes only to those who are purposeful and steadfast.

From the outset of this conflict, it was clear that our Coalition had to go on the offensive against an enemy without country or conscience.

A little over three years ago, Al Qaeda was already a growing danger. Its leader, Osama bin Laden, was safe and sheltered in Afghanistan. His network was dispersed throughout the world and had been attacking American interests for years.

Three years later, more than three-quarters of Al Qaeda’s key members and associates have been detained or killed. Osama bin Laden is on the run, many of his key associates are behind bars or dead, and his financial lines of support have been reduced.

Afghanistan, once controlled by extremists, is today led by Hamid Karzai, who is at the forefront of the world’s efforts in support of moderates versus extremists. Soccer stadiums once used for public executions under the Taliban are today used, once again, for soccer. Over 10 million Afghans, 41 percent of them women, were registered to vote in the country’s first national election.

Libya has gone from being a nation that sponsored terrorists, and secretly sought nuclear capability, to one that renounced its illegal weapons programmes, and now says it is ready to re-enter the community of civilised nations.

Pakistani scientist AQ Khan’s nuclear-proliferation network — which provided lethal assistance to nations such as Libya and North Korea — has been exposed and dismantled. Indeed, Pakistan, once sympathetic to Al Qaeda and the Taliban regime, has under President Pervez Musharraf cast its lot with the civilised world and is a stalwart ally against terrorism.

NATO is now leading the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan and is helping to train Iraqi Security forces — an important new ‘out of area’ responsibility. The UN is helping set-up free elections in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Over 60 countries are working together to halt the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Three years ago, in Iraq, Saddam Hussein and his sons brutally ruled a nation in the heart of the Middle East. Saddam was attempting regularly to kill American and British aircrews enforcing the no-fly zones. He ignored 17 UN Security Council Resolutions. He was paying $25,000 awards to the families of suicide bombers. Three years later, Saddam is a prisoner, awaiting trial. His sons are dead. Most of his associates are in custody.

Iraq has an interim constitution that includes a bill of rights and an independent judiciary. There are municipal councils in nearly every major city and in most towns and villages.

Iraqis now are among those allowed to say, write, watch, and listen to whatever they want, whenever they want. Have there been setbacks in Afghanistan and Iraq? Of course. But the enemy cannot win militarily. Their weapons are terror and chaos. They attack any sort of hope or progress to try to undermine morale. They know that if they can win the battle of perception, we will lose our will and leave.

These are difficult times. From the heart of Manhattan and Washington DC, to Baghdad, Kabul, Madrid, Bali, and the Philippines, a call to arms has been sounded, and the outcome of this struggle will determine the nature of our world for decades to come.

Today, as before, the hard work of history falls to America, to our coalition, to our people. We can do it knowing that the great sweep of human history is for freedom — and that it is on our side.

[Major_Armstrong]

See

http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4711

[Major_Armstrong]

http://www.memritv.org/

[Confed999]

See

http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4711

Sadly, it seems few care about that part.

[mostlymad]

Americans not yet born will die in Iraq. And their blood will be on Bush's hands.

not entirely on Bush's hands. Terrorists choose to kill. Might as well claim that the blood spilt by psychopaths is on the hands of their father, or mother, or the bully in grade school. Terrorists killed Americans before Bush's time, and would have continued to do so, along with any other people they could kill in an attempt to reach their ends even if Iraq had not been invaded.

Bush isn't innocent, he has been the cause of a lot of death in Iraq, but not the sole cause. Terrorists like to propogate that idea, though.

[barrowaj]

See

http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4711

Those figures are so interesting considering Iraq has a birthrate of 33/day and a deathrate of 5.66. This would leave a net of 27.66, which is much less than the 70-100 executions a day proposed by the website. So, if the 70-100 executions a day are accurate how would Iraq sustain a population growth of 2.75%? Immigration? I don't think so.

I don't care what website they came from, that number of executions a day is not true. At least when I call bull**** on your figures, I can back it up.