Fallujah - Sunni Triangle

[NousDefionsDoc]

[echoes]

Wednesday, March 31, 2004
FALLUJAH, Iraq — The charred corpses of four coalition civilian contractors, all Americans, were pulled out of burning cars, dragged through the streets of Fallujah and hung from a bridge by rejoicing residents Wednesday.

WASHINGTON, April 6, 2004
U.S. forces have been conducting raids in Fallujah and have captured a number of high-value targets, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said in Norfolk, Va., today.

As NDD says"
"I said basically "Pick the right delivery method for the audience you have"...

I have chosen to say that I know Those responsible for this brutality against those Brave Men WILL BURN IN HELL FOREVER!

Holly

April 13 2136 GMT - Several blasts -- probably from mortar shells -- were heard in An Najaf, while U.S. combat aircraft and helicopters flew over the city April 13. About 2,500 U.S. troops have approached An Najaf, preparing to storm it. There is some Iraqi police presence in the city, but there are also an unknown number of Shiite radical militia led by Muqtada al-Sadr, the leader of the current Shiite uprising



Assault on al-Sadr started?
Thoughts and prayers are with you guys.

[D9 (RIP)]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
You don't think stopping genocide or massacres is a morally legitimate reason to send troops to an AO?

Not on its own, no.

[D9 (RIP)]

Originally posted by pulque
answer: the constitution is not a dead document, nor is the law petrified and stuffed. we all enjoy the "protections" of being americans, and this is why I feel sorry for the executive branch. all they have to pursue for their lives is power.. and it is not surprising that it appears corrupt.

I disagree with the "living document" interpretation. But we're getting a little far afield of Fallujah.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Originally posted by D9
Not on its own, no.

De Oppresso Liber

[pulque]

ok, nevermind the living document for now

Originally posted by D9
If the primary basis for us being there was explicitly named and our policies justified in terms of American security interests, then I think forcing that region by whatever means necessary into becoming free and peaceful is the policy that would emerge.

Maybe the Iraqi people are breaking up along tribal lines because they dont have a good idea of "free and peaceful" yet until they build it. Don't be so quick to assume that the provided force won't be enough! And if its not enough, then does your policy have a set point where enough is enough for those neccesary means? As much as we accept propoganda, alot of the "we will win at any cost" is not meant to be policy, but inspiration.
just 2 cents.

[D9 (RIP)]

Originally posted by pulque
Maybe the Iraqi people are breaking up along tribal lines because they dont have a good idea of "free and peaceful" yet until they build it. Don't be so quick to assume that the provided force won't be enough! And if its not enough, then does your policy have a set point where enough is enough for those neccesary means? As much as we accept propoganda, alot of the "we will win at any cost" is not meant to be policy, but inspiration.

I wish I could say I understand what you are saying, but unfortunately I do not. Perhaps you could put it more simply for me.

The only part I think I understand is your statement, "Don't be so quick to assume that the provided force won't be enough!" Let me say that I think the force - in the sense of the men and materiel there - is enough. I'm talking about the ROE and overall strategy.

[pulque]

Originally posted by D9
I wish I could say I understand what you are saying, but unfortunately I do not. Perhaps you could put it more simply for me.

Bwahaha I have not had any coffee yet.

Sorry D9!

[D9 (RIP)]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
De Oppresso Liber

I think that is a fine motto for a unit, and there are certainly times when helping others redounds back to the defense of our own rights. In those cases, I'm all for it. I like the Marine Rifle Creed as well, insofar as it applies to the Marine Corps' mission, but I don't want it to be used to chart the course for the nation at large. That's the context in which I answer "no" above.

But in cases where there is no conceivable benefit to the US and we have no interests whatever in the conflict, I do not think it is morally appropriate for our government to intervene. It is my opinion that the only legitimate function of gov't is the protection of the rights of Americans.

[D9 (RIP)]

Originally posted by pulque
Bwahaha I have not had any coffee yet.

LOL, I never post before coffee.