![]() |
![]() |
#1 (permalink) | |
Banned
|
Is Bush Endangering Our Troops To Improve His Election Chances?
If, as this report claims, "major assaults on rebel-held cities in Iraq" are
being delayed until after Bush's election campaign, does this imply that Bush's administration is overruling military commanders who think it better to stage assaults sooner than 23 days from now? Does this report render Bush and Cheney's oft stated claims that the military commanders determine the execution of combat strategy and operations. Is the potenital for greater U.S. casualties when assaults are finally carried out, because insurgents have more time to strenghten their resisistance, knowing that they won't be attacked for at least three more weeks, a reason to condemn the Bush administration's blatant politicization of the "war"? Coupled with the findings that the reasons Bush and Cheney cited for invading Iraq; strategic cooperation between Saddam and al Queda, and Saddam's refusal to surrender and destroy his WMD's per U.N. resolutions have been revealed as baseless by the 9-11 commission's and the Dueffler weapons inspection's reports, along with Bush and Cheney's refusal to accept responsibility for the decision to promote questionable pre-war intelligence on Iraq with a certainty that could not be justified at the time, and their continuing misleading declarations and ever evolving reasons for war in Iraq, is this the time to demand impeachment hearings, for the sake of our troops, innocent Iraqis, and for the good of our country? Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#3 (permalink) |
Insane
|
I dont think that him endangering troops has anything to do with his election chances....and as for the troops.....if your in a different country and are luggin around tanks, guns and enough fire power to wipe out the country.....then i think the only ones endangering them are themselves from there only stupidity if they are trained and still end up getting killed over things that should kill them....plenty of soldeirs have allready died from simple civilian strikes.....how is this possible when only a few civilians have guns and we control the air and ground with not only better technology and but better trained forces and supplies......the major endangerment to a soldeir is stupidity..
__________________
0PtIcAl |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 (permalink) | |
Banned
|
Quote:
principle causes of post invasion casualties suffered by our troops in Iraq. I suggest that your go to a site such as google.com and search for info on IED or IRDs and the damage they have caused to light American military vehicles....hum-vees that are not equipped with armor. Also search for info on RPG's and the damage they can cause. Car bomb would be another search term to check out, and you should also search ak-47, because each Iraqi household is allowed to own one of these automatic assault weapons. Also, can you consider that if a group of armed enemy fighters has several extra weeks to build and place additional IED's, recruit additional comrades, located and store weapons in additional well protected attics, cellars, tunnels, <br>and other hiding places in an urban environment, that this enemy can inflict more casualties on our troops because he has extra time to build a stronger, better equipped, and better concealed and protected force than if our military commanders had a green light to attack sooner, if they chose to? One point of this thread is to discuss the premise that the Bush administration may want to delay the use of force by our troops in order to keep news of new American casualties from influencing voters, even if this is not the best way to deal with current armed resistance, or be compatible with an oft repeated strategy of giving military commanders authority to determine how best to counter Iraqi insurgents and "foreign" terrorists. Last edited by host; 10-13-2004 at 09:20 PM.. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#5 (permalink) |
Crazy
Location: Allen, TX
|
Is it just me, or is this the first time in American history at least where military operations on the ground have openly been announced as having their schedule timed to political events at home?
Sure, I know that many military decisions have been alluded to by commentators as perhaps being partly the result of a President's political planning, such as claims that the Kosova operation was to distract from Monica, or certain announcements about troop deployments in Vietnam being made to coincide with public opinion. Can you imagine in F.D.R. had delayed D-Day until after the 1944 elections?
__________________
"Don't tell me we're so blind we cannot see that this is my land! I can't pretend that it's nothing to do with me. And this is your land, you can't close your eyes to this hypocracy. Yes this is my land, I won't pretend that it's nothing to do with me. 'Cause this is our land, we can't close our eyes to the things we don't wanna see." - DTH |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 (permalink) |
Crazy
Location: Auburn, AL
|
We've actually scaled up attacks in the past week. We made a deal w/ al Sadr (again) to take control of Sadr City in Baghdad. Just the other day, Allawi pretty much gave the insurgents an ultimatum in Falluja, saying that if they don't come out, we're going after them (even in mosques). I think we've already dialed up the pressure, we just need to stay on the insurgents this time, instead of letting them off the hook.
|
![]() |
Tags |
bush, chances, election, endangering, improve, troops |
|
|