I heard a quote from kerry saying about how he wants to fight a sensitive war. that got me thinking about how dangerous to US that is. It seems to me we are to sensitive as it is, we cant afford to be any more sensitive or we will be laying down our arms and walking away. A good example of the ridiculous lengths we will go to to be sesitive is this "holy city" of najaf battle. Thier fighters hide in the mosque becasue they know we wont fire on it. We know they are there, they just sit in thre and fire on us. Its BS. I personlally dont think that mosque is worth the life of one american soldier. It seems our sensitive government already wants to sacrafice our guys to fight a PC war, now we got a guy who wants to be even more sensitive? no way. I say if they are going to use that mosque as refuge and fight FROM it against us we should level it. no american should have to die to make sure no ahrm comes to the mosque if there are enemies fighting from inside its walls. If they played teh game too and refused to fight from it that would be one thing, but they re shooting at us from inside of it! We dont need sensitvity in war. we are already way to sensitive. We need General Patton, we need to do to that mosque what we did to the abby at Monte Cassino. If we really want to win this thing we need to stop fooling ourselves and get it done.

Trav, I understand how you feel but I don't think the decision to not level the mosque was made strictly out of 'sensitivity", rather it was a practical one. The truth is that if we destroy the mosque we will be creating more enemies. If these people are shooting at us from the building, we should surround them, and lay siege to them. Starve them out.

I would also like to point out that when we bombed Monte Cassino into a pile of rubble, it did not destroy the Germans who were occupying it. After the bombing, they crept out of their bunkers and dug in inside the rubble. It wasn't until they were forced out by an infantry attack that the mountain was taken by the allies.

I understand the theory behind it, I dont agree with it. I dont think a lot of iraqis who are not fighing us now will all of a sudden pick up rifles and start shooting us if we attacked the mosque. tehy might not like it, but few would actually risk their lives to show how unhappy they were. adn those that did were already agaisnt us anyway. It would be like the abu garib thing, the terroirsts claim they were cutting off heads becasue of that, but in reality if that never happened they would be cutting off heads anyway. if they can pin the blame on us and cut off heads al the better. Perhaps the Iraqi forces could storm the mosque along with some special ops guys in iraqi garb.

I kno wwhat you mean about the monte cassino thing pagan. they did use the rubble as cover, but the fact is we did bomb it and we did attack it. We had to becasue they were using it as an OP for artillery with no fear of attack. of course it was a christian church and chritians are not as irrational as the muslims are.

Originally posted by Travh20
I heard a quote from kerry saying about how he wants to fight a sensitive war.

You really should get your statements right. This is a misquote, taken out of context. The actual statement was.....

Kerry: “The first part focuses on security. I will fight this war on terror with the lessons I learned in war. I defended this country as a young man, and I will defend it as president of the United States. I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history. I lay out a strategy to strengthen our military, to build and lead strong alliances and reform our intelligence system. I set out a path to win the peace in Iraq and to get the terrorists wherever they may be before they get us.” [Kerry, 8/5/04]

Bush’s Attack Dog Tries Once Again To Divert Attention From The Bush Administration’s Failed Policies

Dick Cheney’s desperate misleading attacks now have him criticizing George Bush’s own words, who called for America to be “sensitive about expressing our power and influence.” Dick Cheney doesn’t understand that arrogance isn’t a virtue, especially when our country is in danger. Alienating allies makes it harder to hunt terrorists and bring them to justice. If Dick Cheney learned this lesson instead of spending his time distorting John Kerry’s words, this country would be a safer place.

that wasnt really the main point of the article, it is what got me thinking about the battle in najaf and the mosque, but I am glad to see kerry didnt fail to mention his vietnam service yet again :rolleyes:

travh, i do agree with you on that mosque thing. if these guys are attacking from there, then they take out all religeous attachments to the place.........but, believe me, if we do that , more middle eastern people will be offended and will pick up arms......but, in that case, we take the good with the bad.........also, echo....i like the points you make about that jerk cheney. you know, what in hell did he have to offer bush to be vice.....this guy looks like DR. SINISTER. if evil had a look, its him, i actually believe that he's the original MR. YUK.

you know, even if kerry is elected, these allies that will magically spring forth from the woodwork have already said not to expect any troops. and of course the leftists are going to say kerry didnt really mean what he said, thats practically the first thing out of their mouths anytime this guy speaks anymore, quickly followed by the words republican attack dogs :rolleyes: its not the republican fault kerry cant stop putting his foot in his mouth. "I voted for it, before I voted agaisnt it", those are not my SUV's they belong to my family"

I have a creeping suspicion that Bush is just a figurehead and Cheney is the one running the country... Maybe we've been falsely accusing Bush of all the things aout the economy and whatnot, when it was really all Cheney's fault.

Maybe that's why he can't seem to give a decent explanation for his actions. And why he had to have cheney go with him to the 9-11 hearings.

Dance little puppet, dance.

ya, never head that before :rolleyes: remember ladies, as long as you believe it, it is true

I think you make a great point, Trav. WTF are we supposed to do, sit on our hands, while we take bullets from these radical punks? I say fu*k that, and diplomacy along with it. We're at war, and it's that simple. If they stop us from doing ANYTHING, we should allow them the chance to surrender, and if they don't, we should kill them mercilessly. We can't afford to take the time, or spend the money to "wait it out". Holy house, or bunker...I say F that...it's a target.

ya, give them an ultimatum. surrender and leave the mosque or be responsible for its destruction. after all, it wouldnt be destroyed if they were not waging war from within its holy walls.

The problem with Kerry's statement is that Kerry felt he had to make it. It was a stupid thing to say, but is the type of adjective that politicians think our Oprah-fied society seeks to hear. Bush is just as guilty. The question about September 11th isn't that he kept reading "The Little Goat" for another seven minutes. The question is what the hell is the leader of the free world doing there in the first place?


PS - Echo 2, You're nuts, but if that's you in the picture I will no longer refer to you as Ecchh 2

I love the little thing about bush reading to the kids. The criticism from the left started literally at the moment of the attack, LOL. ya, no partisanship here :rolleyes:

Originally posted by The Praetorian
We can't afford to take the time, or spend the money to "wait it out".

Why? I think we can easily afford it . What we can't afford is to look like a bunch of heavy-handed, trigger-happy slobs. These holy sites in Iraq are not just important to Iraqis, they are holy sites for all muslims worldwide, and there is no benefit to us in pissing off all muslims because one mosque in Najaf is occupied by some thugs.

I say clear out all the buildings within 500 yards of the mosque and let them rot inside as long as they want. Set up some loudspeakers and play Barry Manilow 24 hours a day until they surrender

:D

Has anyone given any thought to the idea that perhaps we need to wipe some of these mosques off the face of the earth?

Now that I've got your attention, think about it.

If we accept that the Muslim terrorists have as much in common with the completely peaceful followers of the Muslim faith as the great American KKK has in common with completely peaceful followers of the Christian faith, and knowing that only certain Muslim clerics are espousing hatred, why not go after them and their sanctuaries?

I fully concur, but the problem is apparently political. I don't know why we, during a time of war, have to tip toe through daisies to appease the rest of the goddamned world, while we're demonized for acting "unfairly" by a bunch of friggin countries who'd be there doing the exact same thing if we weren't. I say fu** ‘em all!!!

I definitely agree that if a mosque is being used in a function similar to a base or citadel, then it needs to be treated as such.