Was falluja attack (forgive spelling) held off?

spyhunterk19

spyhunterk19

CAGiversary!
Feedback
3 (100%)
It just seems kind of fishy to me that the fahlluja(forgive speling) attack was held off because of the massive deaths that are sure to happen during it... I mean, if 100 people die a week before the election, I doubt he would have won.
 
Bush would've won run regardless due to the fact the red(neck) states are only worried about god, guns and gays....as opposed to poor exit stratedgies in the war, mass unemployment, global warming...you know actual important things..
 
To be honest, I think the attack was held off because there was a good chance that the commander-in-chief would be changing, and he new Prez may have had some different opinions about how the war would be run.
 
well i'm sure if bush would've lost like he should've, he would've gotten some major actions like this in before januaray when the change would've occured..
 
me and the 55million who voted against him....too bad diebold won for him in ohio..otherwise he wouldn't have won
 
They have besieged the city, why do they need to send Americans in to die when they can use siege tactics and win with minimal casualties?

It is a fact that if troops are sent into the city many of them will die, possibly hundreds. But it doesn't have to happen this way.

They know we are comming, and they have set up sniper and machinegun nests, mortars, and rpg ambushes.

These kids don't need to die.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']They have besieged the city, why do they need to send Americans in to die when they can use siege tactics and win with minimal casualties?

It is a fact that if troops are sent into the city many of them will die, possibly hundreds. But it doesn't have to happen this way.

They know we are comming, and they have set up sniper and machinegun nests, mortars, and rpg ambushes.

These kids don't need to die.[/quote]


You can't just blow up the entire city and say "Looks like we got all the bad guys... and good guys... well, pretty much everyone." (well, not unless you want the left/U.N. complaining about the loss of civilian life)
 
[quote name='gamefreak'][quote name='Quackzilla']They have besieged the city, why do they need to send Americans in to die when they can use siege tactics and win with minimal casualties?

It is a fact that if troops are sent into the city many of them will die, possibly hundreds. But it doesn't have to happen this way.

They know we are comming, and they have set up sniper and machinegun nests, mortars, and rpg ambushes.

These kids don't need to die.[/quote]


You can't just blow up the entire city and say "Looks like we got all the bad guys... and good guys... well, pretty much everyone." (well, not unless you want the left/U.N. complaining about the loss of civilian life)[/quote]

You know, every one of your posts bitches and moans about the fact that there is another point of view, which you label as the "left". The left won't support the war, the left don't like seeing massive civilian casualties, the left don't want schools to teach the Christian religion, wah wah wah...

Are you one of the masses that has been brainwashed by shows like Crossfire into thinking that every single issue must be divided into left and right before you can safely pick your side and stand proudly with your fellow right-wing "patriots"?

Talking about the best way to lay siege to a city has almost nothing to do with left and right. Yet this contentious, poisonous, divisive way of posing everthing in terms of "from the left" and "from the right" has fully permeated American media and politics to the point that people don't feel safe unless they are talking about their side and berating everyone else. Become independent, start thinking for yourselves!
 
[quote name='gamefreak'][quote name='Quackzilla']They have besieged the city, why do they need to send Americans in to die when they can use siege tactics and win with minimal casualties?

It is a fact that if troops are sent into the city many of them will die, possibly hundreds. But it doesn't have to happen this way.

They know we are comming, and they have set up sniper and machinegun nests, mortars, and rpg ambushes.

These kids don't need to die.[/quote]


You can't just blow up the entire city and say "Looks like we got all the bad guys... and good guys... well, pretty much everyone." (well, not unless you want the left/U.N. complaining about the loss of civilian life)[/quote]

Don't you know what a siege is?
 
[quote name='gamefreak'][quote name='Quackzilla']They have besieged the city, why do they need to send Americans in to die when they can use siege tactics and win with minimal casualties?

It is a fact that if troops are sent into the city many of them will die, possibly hundreds. But it doesn't have to happen this way.

They know we are comming, and they have set up sniper and machinegun nests, mortars, and rpg ambushes.

These kids don't need to die.[/quote]


You can't just blow up the entire city and say "Looks like we got all the bad guys... and good guys... well, pretty much everyone." (well, not unless you want the left/U.N. complaining about the loss of civilian life)[/quote]

Hmm. So your hesitation to cause massive civilian casualties stems solely from the fact that there'd be complaints about it?
 
Well his complaint stems from the fact that he thinks siege tactics involve blowing up the city, instead of cutting off supplies and waiting.
 
The thing I don't get is that they took a poll and 22% said they voted the way they did because of "moral issues", they have fucking issues, but now there is a poll saying getting out of Iraq is the top worry. Those are two extremely different things people.

I'm glad I like in the United States of Canada. :whistle2:D
 
[quote name='pfunkpearl']me and the 55million who voted against him....too bad diebold won for him in ohio..otherwise he wouldn't have won[/quote]

What's diebold?
 
[quote name='coffman'][quote name='pfunkpearl']me and the 55million who voted against him....too bad diebold won for him in ohio..otherwise he wouldn't have won[/quote]

What's diebold?[/quote]

Published on Thursday, August 28, 2003 by the Cleveland Plain Dealer

Voting Machine Controversy

by Julie Carr Smyth


COLUMBUS - The head of a company vying to sell voting machines in Ohio told Republicans in a recent fund-raising letter that he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."
The Aug. 14 letter from Walden O'Dell, chief executive of Diebold Inc. - who has become active in the re-election effort of President Bush - prompted Democrats this week to question the propriety of allowing O'Dell's company to calculate votes in the 2004 presidential election.
O'Dell attended a strategy pow-wow with wealthy Bush benefactors - known as Rangers and Pioneers - at the president's Crawford, Texas, ranch earlier this month. The next week, he penned invitations to a $1,000-a-plate fund-raiser to benefit the Ohio Republican Party's federal campaign fund - partially benefiting Bush - at his mansion in the Columbus suburb of Upper Arlington.
The letter went out the day before Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, also a Republican, was set to qualify Diebold as one of three firms eligible to sell upgraded electronic voting machines to Ohio counties in time for the 2004 election.
Blackwell's announcement is still in limbo because of a court challenge over the fairness of the selection process by a disqualified bidder, Sequoia Voting Systems.
In his invitation letter, O'Dell asked guests to consider donating or raising up to $10,000 each for the federal account that the state GOP will use to help Bush and other federal candidates - money that legislative Democratic leaders charged could come back to benefit Blackwell.
They urged Blackwell to remove Diebold from the field of voting-machine companies eligible to sell to Ohio counties.
This is the second such request in as many months. State Sen. Jeff Jacobson, a Dayton-area Republican, asked Blackwell in July to disqualify Diebold after security concerns arose over its equipment.
"Ordinary Ohioans may infer that Blackwell's office is looking past Diebold's security issues because its CEO is seeking $10,000 donations for Blackwell's party - donations that could be made with statewide elected officials right there in the same room," said Senate Democratic Leader Greg DiDonato.
Diebold spokeswoman Michelle Griggy said O'Dell - who was unavailable to comment personally - has held fund-raisers in his home for many causes, including the Columbus Zoo, Op era Columbus, Catholic Social Services and Ohio State University.
Ohio GOP spokesman Jason Mauk said the party approached O'Dell about hosting the event at his home, the historic Cotswold Manor, and not the other way around. Mauk said that under federal campaign finance rules, the party cannot use any money from its federal account for state- level candidates.
"To think that Diebold is somehow tainted because they have a couple folks on their board who support the president is just unfair," Mauk said.
Griggy said in an e-mail statement that Diebold could not comment on the political contributions of individual company employees.
Blackwell said Diebold is not the only company with political connections - noting that lobbyists for voting-machine makers read like a who's who of Columbus' powerful and politically connected.
"Let me put it to you this way: If there was one person uniquely involved in the political process, that might be troubling," he said. "But there's no one that hasn't used every legitimate avenue and bit of leverage that they could legally use to get their product looked at. Believe me, if there is a political lever to be pulled, all of them have pulled it."
Blackwell said he stands by the process used for selecting voting machine vendors as fair, thorough and impartial.
As of yesterday, however, that determination lay with Ohio Court of Claims Judge Fred Shoemaker.
He heard closing arguments yesterday over whether Sequoia was unfairly eliminated by Blackwell midway through the final phase of negotiations.
Shoemaker extended a temporary restraining order in the case for 14 days, but said he hopes to issue his opinion sooner than that.
© 2003 The Plain Dealer
 
[quote name='David85']The thing I don't get is that they took a poll and 22% said they voted the way they did because of "moral issues", they have shaq-fuing issues, but now there is a poll saying getting out of Iraq is the top worry. Those are two extremely different things people.[/quote]

Probably the biggest problem that pollsters have had to contend with this election has been the fact that people know how fucked up their opinions are, and try their best to hide them. As long as you stay nice and general, they'll happily tell you that they're most concerned about 'moral' issues. If you try to press them for specifics, though, they'll refuse to come right out and admit the truth - they hate gay people more than they hate dead soldiers.

Again, though, they know themselves that that's a completely screwed up value system. So, when a poll is vague, you'll get a hint of the truth. When the poll is specific, people will shift to other issues to hide how they really feel.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']Well his complaint stems from the fact that he thinks siege tactics involve blowing up the city, instead of cutting off supplies and waiting.[/quote]

You can't do that. The liberal media would spin it into sounding as if they're not letting the poor old ladies have their medicine. No matter what Bush does people hate it from him. Sure every issue has multiple viewpoints. But the medias "multiple viewpoints" comes across as multiple ways to attack Bush.

Edit: Oh and FYI my post was sarcasist... in case your sarcasm detectors weren't working.
 
[quote name='gamefreak'][quote name='Quackzilla']Well his complaint stems from the fact that he thinks siege tactics involve blowing up the city, instead of cutting off supplies and waiting.[/quote]

You can't do that. The liberal media would spin it into sounding as if they're not letting the poor old ladies have their medicine. No matter what Bush does people hate it from him. Sure every issue has multiple viewpoints. But the medias "multiple viewpoints" comes across as multiple ways to attack Bush.

Edit: Oh and FYI my post was sarcasist... in case your sarcasm detectors weren't working.[/quote]

I wouldn't hate Bush if he just bit the bullet and asked for some UN help in Iraq. That's something he could do.

PS: your post didn't contain anything to denote sarcasm. It was a typical post from you, so any "detectors" wouldn't have registered, unless your whole persona here is just one big trolling, which isn't out of the realm of possibility, I suppose.
 
I hate bush for many reasons...the war is one of the lesser ones...ya know what..55 million people hate him but that's only in this country...wonder what the numbers are like in the rest of the world...
 
[quote name='jmcc'][quote name='gamefreak'][quote name='Quackzilla']Well his complaint stems from the fact that he thinks siege tactics involve blowing up the city, instead of cutting off supplies and waiting.[/quote]

You can't do that. The liberal media would spin it into sounding as if they're not letting the poor old ladies have their medicine. No matter what Bush does people hate it from him. Sure every issue has multiple viewpoints. But the medias "multiple viewpoints" comes across as multiple ways to attack Bush.

Edit: Oh and FYI my post was sarcasist... in case your sarcasm detectors weren't working.[/quote]

I wouldn't hate Bush if he just bit the bullet and asked for some UN help in Iraq. That's something he could do.

PS: your post didn't contain anything to denote sarcasm. It was a typical post from you, so any "detectors" wouldn't have registered, unless your whole persona here is just one big trolling, which isn't out of the realm of possibility, I suppose.[/quote]

Oh... I thought it was rather aparent.

Anyways. The UN is rather incompetent, with France, Germany, et al basically saying they won't help in Iraq under any circumstances that wouldn't do too much. Also considering how they can't even get a simple a thing as using the right kind of ink in the Afghan election and the Oil for Food program...

The UN is a good idea but it really doesn't help in this case.

Edit: Wow I sepl badli
 
[quote name='gamefreak'][quote name='jmcc'][quote name='gamefreak'][quote name='Quackzilla']Well his complaint stems from the fact that he thinks siege tactics involve blowing up the city, instead of cutting off supplies and waiting.[/quote]

You can't do that. The liberal media would spin it into sounding as if they're not letting the poor old ladies have their medicine. No matter what Bush does people hate it from him. Sure every issue has multiple viewpoints. But the medias "multiple viewpoints" comes across as multiple ways to attack Bush.

Edit: Oh and FYI my post was sarcasist... in case your sarcasm detectors weren't working.[/quote]

I wouldn't hate Bush if he just bit the bullet and asked for some UN help in Iraq. That's something he could do.

PS: your post didn't contain anything to denote sarcasm. It was a typical post from you, so any "detectors" wouldn't have registered, unless your whole persona here is just one big trolling, which isn't out of the realm of possibility, I suppose.[/quote]

Oh... I thought it was rather aparent.

Anyways. The UN is rather incompetent, with France, Germany, et al basically saying they won't help in Iraq under any circumstances that wouldn't do too much. Also considering how they can't even get a simple a thing as using the right kind of ink in the Afghan election and the Oil for Food program...

The UN is a good idea but it really doesn't help in this case.

Edit: Wow I sepl badli[/quote]

They can throw money at the problem, if nothing else. Anything I won't eventually have to pay in taxes helps.
 
Actually if you weren't only watching CNN and FOX News you would know that France is currently involved in a small scale war of it's own in a former French colony in Africa.
 
Also you'd know if you didn't trust the conservative press(the idea of a liberal press is a lie) You'd realize that England is working with Iran to deal with their nuclear weapons, and possible dissarmant...note I said working with not bombing the bejesus out of innocents...
 
[quote name='pfunkpearl']Also you'd know if you didn't trust the conservative press(the idea of a liberal press is a lie)[/quote]

Not an attack on you, but I think its funny how people always say the media has a bias for the side they don't support.
 
ac130Fire.jpg


See Falluja by air!
U.S. Air Force tours available, see your local recruiter.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue'][quote name='pfunkpearl']Also you'd know if you didn't trust the conservative press(the idea of a liberal press is a lie)[/quote]

Not an attack on you, but I think its funny how people always say the media has a bias for the side they don't support.[/quote]

Yep. It would seem that most want to read / watch / hear something that they already agree with. If a newpaper writes an article critical of a White House policy, many disreguard it as a product of the "liberal media." The same is true when the situation is reversed (the "conspiracy" attack Clinton, for example).

My point is that the myth of "biased" media is perpetuated by the most biased individuals to continue their own popularity and ensure thier market share. It all comes down to dollar bills.
 
Actually, I think the media has become quite conservative. At one point, in the 70's and early 80's, it was somewhat liberal, and it was attacked (quite rightly) for that. For most of the mid-80's and early 90's, I think it was pretty fairly balanced overall.

The problem is that there are a lot of conservatives who weren't happy merely pulling the media back to neutral: They continued their attacks on the 'liberal' media. After all, it worked before, and unfortunately, it worked again. At this point, the media is, overall, pretty dang conservative. Anything they do that can be in any way construed was liberal draws a huge outcry - Just look at the screaming about that memo (forget what network at the moment) that basically just said "If Bush lies, you're allowed to call him on that without having to find a Kerry lie first"

This is an overall-evaluation, of course. There's some variation within individual networks. CNN is marginally liberal, while Fox is pathetically conservative. NBC is rather conservative, while MSNBC is mostly neutral (I don't quite know how they manage to do that, but they do...) ABC is marginally liberal, and I'd say CBS is pretty neutral.
 
[quote name='spyhunterk19']It just seems kind of fishy to me that the fahlluja(forgive speling) attack was held off because of the massive deaths that are sure to happen during it... I mean, if 100 people die a week before the election, I doubt he would have won.[/quote]

Ramadan started Oct. 14th and ends Nov 14th. I think it had more to do with that than the election.
 
[quote name='Elrod'][quote name='RedvsBlue'][quote name='pfunkpearl']Also you'd know if you didn't trust the conservative press(the idea of a liberal press is a lie)[/quote]

Not an attack on you, but I think its funny how people always say the media has a bias for the side they don't support.[/quote]

Yep. It would seem that most want to read / watch / hear something that they already agree with. If a newpaper writes an article critical of a White House policy, many disreguard it as a product of the "liberal media." The same is true when the situation is reversed (the "conspiracy" attack Clinton, for example).

My point is that the myth of "biased" media is perpetuated by the most biased individuals to continue their own popularity and ensure thier market share. It all comes down to dollar bills.[/quote]

Personally, I think the media is lazy and only looks out for the bottom line. Look at all the play the Swift Boat liars got in the media, when there was ample evidence that their story was complete bull. Or after the last debate where Kerry mentioned Cheney's daughter. The media hyped on that, yet didn't make a peep about Bush's remark that he never said he didn't care about where Bin Laden was, which he did do.
 
[quote name='ZarathosNY'][quote name='Elrod'][quote name='RedvsBlue'][quote name='pfunkpearl']Also you'd know if you didn't trust the conservative press(the idea of a liberal press is a lie)[/quote]

Not an attack on you, but I think its funny how people always say the media has a bias for the side they don't support.[/quote]

Yep. It would seem that most want to read / watch / hear something that they already agree with. If a newpaper writes an article critical of a White House policy, many disreguard it as a product of the "liberal media." The same is true when the situation is reversed (the "conspiracy" attack Clinton, for example).

My point is that the myth of "biased" media is perpetuated by the most biased individuals to continue their own popularity and ensure thier market share. It all comes down to dollar bills.[/quote]

Personally, I think the media is lazy and only looks out for the bottom line. Look at all the play the Swift Boat liars got in the media, when there was ample evidence that their story was complete bull. Or after the last debate where Kerry mentioned Cheney's daughter. The media hyped on that, yet didn't make a peep about Bush's remark that he never said he didn't care about where Bin Laden was, which he did do.[/quote]

The FCC has declared war on all outlets that don't wisen up and show good Christian family fare, or at least refrain from attacking the Bush administration. It's just good business for the media to go along.

I was watching French news the other day, they went to Houston, TX and talked to non-commercial pickup/SUV owners about the rising cost of gas. Some observations about the people they picked:

1. All were fat and inarticulate.
2. All were whiners who complained about the rising cost of gas.
3. All absolutely LOVED their trucks/SUVs and didn't see themselves as part of the gas consumption problem.

Obviously it was a slash piece but I had to laugh, after all the French sure do have our culture pegged. But you'll never hear about this on CNN.
 
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='ZarathosNY'][quote name='Elrod'][quote name='RedvsBlue'][quote name='pfunkpearl']Also you'd know if you didn't trust the conservative press(the idea of a liberal press is a lie)[/quote]

Not an attack on you, but I think its funny how people always say the media has a bias for the side they don't support.[/quote]

Yep. It would seem that most want to read / watch / hear something that they already agree with. If a newpaper writes an article critical of a White House policy, many disreguard it as a product of the "liberal media." The same is true when the situation is reversed (the "conspiracy" attack Clinton, for example).

My point is that the myth of "biased" media is perpetuated by the most biased individuals to continue their own popularity and ensure thier market share. It all comes down to dollar bills.[/quote]

Personally, I think the media is lazy and only looks out for the bottom line. Look at all the play the Swift Boat liars got in the media, when there was ample evidence that their story was complete bull. Or after the last debate where Kerry mentioned Cheney's daughter. The media hyped on that, yet didn't make a peep about Bush's remark that he never said he didn't care about where Bin Laden was, which he did do.[/quote]

The FCC has declared war on all outlets that don't wisen up and show good Christian family fare, or at least refrain from attacking the Bush administration. It's just good business for the media to go along.

I was watching French news the other day, they went to Houston, TX and talked to non-commercial pickup/SUV owners about the rising cost of gas. Some observations about the people they picked:

1. All were fat and inarticulate.
2. All were whiners who complained about the rising cost of gas.
3. All absolutely LOVED their trucks/SUVs and didn't see themselves as part of the gas consumption problem.

Obviously it was a slash piece but I had to laugh, after all the French sure do have our culture pegged. But you'll never hear about this on CNN.[/quote]

:lol:
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Ramadan started Oct. 14th and ends Nov 14th. I think it had more to do with that than the election.[/quote]

So blowing people up during the end of Ramadan is OK, but blowing people up at the beginning of Ramadan would be a problem?
 
[quote name='camoor']1. All were fat and inarticulate.
2. All were whiners who complained about the rising cost of gas.
3. All absolutely LOVED their trucks/SUVs and didn't see themselves as part of the gas consumption problem.[/quote]

Sounds about accurate to me. In my experience, maybe about 20% of SUV owners are people with large families who honestly need a large vehicle. The other 80% are inconsiderate, selfish blobs who can't fit into a regular car because they can't pass a McDonalds without going through the drivethrough.
 
[quote name='Drocket'][quote name='bmulligan']Ramadan started Oct. 14th and ends Nov 14th. I think it had more to do with that than the election.[/quote]

So blowing people up during the end of Ramadan is OK, but blowing people up at the beginning of Ramadan would be a problem?[/quote]

Not a problem for me, but I'm sure there is some strategic value in letting them think they had time to rest for 4 weeks then hitting them at the end of week 3. I never said it was doone for moral reasons. I know the enemy isn't and doubt the terrorists will be taking christmas off.
 
[quote name='ZarathosNY']

Personally, I think the media is lazy and only looks out for the bottom line. Look at all the play the Swift Boat liars got in the media, when there was ample evidence that their story was complete bull. Or after the last debate where Kerry mentioned Cheney's daughter. The media hyped on that, yet didn't make a peep about Bush's remark that he never said he didn't care about where Bin Laden was, which he did do.[/quote]

Gimmie a break, the only press the swiftboat liars got was a lambasting by EVERY newsmedia outlet save Fox News. Every morning show, every nightly network news, every newspaper story was a commentary about the inconsistancies in the boatmens accusations and their personal records and whereabouts. Never were they talked about as valid, only mentioned repeatedly as dirty attacks. The only ones giving their story creedence were the right wingers like Limbaugh, Hannity, and Reagan, etc. So, it's patriotic to doubt the president and call him a liar but heresey to question the record of John Kerry. That's fair and balanced for ya!
 
[quote name='camoor']

1. All were fat and inarticulate.
2. All were whiners who complained about the rising cost of gas.
3. All absolutely LOVED their trucks/SUVs and didn't see themselves as part of the gas consumption problem.

Obviously it was a slash piece but I had to laugh, after all the French sure do have our culture pegged. But you'll never hear about this on CNN.[/quote]

I challenge you to find people in houston that didn't match that discription... :D
 
I don't know how many of you realize that clear channel owns at least 40% of what you see and hear in the media. They own television stations, radio stations and billboards(don't believe me? Start looking at the billboard frame around a billboard on the road, chances are it says viacom or clear channel) Clear channel is a very conservative group, which is a big part of why howard stern was kicked off the air, not because of his filthy mouth but more because of his anti bush remarks...
 
[quote name='pfunkpearl']I hate bush for many reasons...the war is one of the lesser ones...ya know what..55 million people hate him but that's only in this country...wonder what the numbers are like in the rest of the world...[/quote]

I hope 55 million people don't hate him in this country. I would wager that a much lower percentage actually out-and-out hate him like many in this forum do. I think most of the people who voted against Bush just thought he had done a bad job or that Kerry would do a better job. Conversely, I think most who voted for Bush did so because they thought he would do a better job than Kerry, not because they hated Kerry. Why do all the partisans assume that disagreeing with someone's policies means you have to hate them? Hate is a very strong word.
 
[quote name='pfunkpearl']Also you'd know if you didn't trust the conservative press(the idea of a liberal press is a lie) [/quote]

How is it a lie when polls show 85-90 percent of journalists vote Democratic? It's pretty obvious the two biggest newspapers in the country, The NY Times and The Washington Post, lean to the left.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Not a problem for me, but I'm sure there is some strategic value in letting them think they had time to rest for 4 weeks then hitting them at the end of week 3. I never said it was doone for moral reasons. I know the enemy isn't and doubt the terrorists will be taking christmas off.[/quote]

I might buy this if the Fallujah attack was in some way, shape or form a surprise attack, but it wasn't. It took them a couple of weeks to build up the troops in the area, and even longer to blockade the area. That's why the military has already admitted that they don't expect to capture or kill any resistance leaders worth mentioning - they long since left town. All that's left at this point are a bunch of kids who have been tricked/brainwashed into thinking that they're defending their country...

The Fallujah situation SHOULD have been taken care of a couple of months ago, long before Ramadan began. It was held off for one reason - the US elections. It was carefully timed so that the buildup would begin right before the election, giving Bush the 'You can't vote me out on the eve of a big battle! It'll make us look weak to the world!' advantage, but so that the actual attack would happen after the election so if/when anything bad would happen, it would be too late to hurt Bush.

Manipulating military operations for political advantage on this level is just sickening...
 
[quote name='Drocket'][quote name='bmulligan']Not a problem for me, but I'm sure there is some strategic value in letting them think they had time to rest for 4 weeks then hitting them at the end of week 3. I never said it was doone for moral reasons. I know the enemy isn't and doubt the terrorists will be taking christmas off.[/quote]

I might buy this if the Fallujah attack was in some way, shape or form a surprise attack, but it wasn't. It took them a couple of weeks to build up the troops in the area, and even longer to blockade the area. That's why the military has already admitted that they don't expect to capture or kill any resistance leaders worth mentioning - they long since left town. All that's left at this point are a bunch of kids who have been tricked/brainwashed into thinking that they're defending their country...

The Fallujah situation SHOULD have been taken care of a couple of months ago, long before Ramadan began. It was held off for one reason - the US elections. It was carefully timed so that the buildup would begin right before the election, giving Bush the 'You can't vote me out on the eve of a big battle! It'll make us look weak to the world!' advantage, but so that the actual attack would happen after the election so if/when anything bad would happen, it would be too late to hurt Bush.

Manipulating military operations for political advantage on this level is just sickening...[/quote]

I agree that the situation should have been taken care of months ago. There could be a myriad of reasons why it was not. Concluding it was for election advantage is pretty simplistic, isn't it? Does anyone know all the reasons for every action in Iraq? No. Considering we are dealing with many new civillian Iraqis in command of the government, it is perhaps more likely that there were larger political issues in Iraq to deal with in and above the political reasons in the US. Contrary to popular democratic belief, every action by the president and the millitary is not intended to decieve the american people. It's to achieve an objective. How about a little benefit of doubt? Unlikely from someone who thrives on jumping to conclusions of republican dirty tricks.

Your logic is also fallible. Why wait to attack after the election? Wouldn't it be advantageous to launch the attack before the election to solidify the necessity of keeping Bush in office during a major assault? I, for one, wouldn't want to vote against Bush during a major conflict and send a mixed message to the terrorists.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']
Your logic is also fallible. Why wait to attack after the election? Wouldn't it be advantageous to launch the attack before the election to solidify the necessity of keeping Bush in office during a major assault? I, for one, wouldn't want to vote against Bush during a major conflict and send a mixed message to the terrorists.
[/quote]

I don't think the attack timing had anything to do with the election, I think it was a sincere effort to wait after Ramadan, it's a REAL big deal for them and any attack could severly worsen (yes, worsen) our image over there.

But bmulligan, c'mon man! You make some good points and then you say you wouldn't vote out a prez in the middle of an offensive? Never get manipulated by the government man, all that "a vote for the other guy is a vote for a terrorist" talk is just to get you scared. Vote like an American, with courage and optimism for the future!
 
Not during this offensive. I am not a Bush supporter, I am a conservative. The fact that republicans were using this as a scare tactic does not invalidate the premise, which is sound.

Perception of the US by the world community was a huge issue in the campaign. The defeat of Bush would have conveyed a message of weakness and lack of resolve for sustaining a millitary campaign against them. These terrorists were counting on the US to cave in to fear which would confirm their view of us as cowards and give them a huge boost of confidence in their tactics.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Not during this offensive. I am not a Bush supporter, I am a conservative. The fact that republicans were using this as a scare tactic does not invalidate the premise, which is sound.

Perception of the US by the world community was a huge issue in the campaign. The defeat of Bush would have conveyed a message of weakness and lack of resolve for sustaining a millitary campaign against them. These terrorists were counting on the US to cave in to fear which would confirm their view of us as cowards and give them a huge boost of confidence in their tactics.[/quote]

Actually I'm pretty sure Osama and the terroist leaders have a "Bush '04" poster in thier bunker rooms. A bumbling Christian fundamentalist chicken hawk like Bush is great propaganda fodder for Islamic terrorists worldwide. All Osama has to do is push the sheep closer to Bush by threatening the US again, knowing that fear will drive the US electorate back to a false savior. Osama may be a wretch, but he isn't as stupid as Bush looks.
 
[quote name='bmulligan'][quote name='ZarathosNY']

Personally, I think the media is lazy and only looks out for the bottom line. Look at all the play the Swift Boat liars got in the media, when there was ample evidence that their story was complete bull. Or after the last debate where Kerry mentioned Cheney's daughter. The media hyped on that, yet didn't make a peep about Bush's remark that he never said he didn't care about where Bin Laden was, which he did do.[/quote]

Gimmie a break, the only press the swiftboat liars got was a lambasting by EVERY newsmedia outlet save Fox News. Every morning show, every nightly network news, every newspaper story was a commentary about the inconsistancies in the boatmens accusations and their personal records and whereabouts. Never were they talked about as valid, only mentioned repeatedly as dirty attacks. The only ones giving their story creedence were the right wingers like Limbaugh, Hannity, and Reagan, etc. So, it's patriotic to doubt the president and call him a liar but heresey to question the record of John Kerry. That's fair and balanced for ya![/quote]

I don't know what media you were watching, but they were sure as hell not getting a lambasting in the media. Time and time again they were given air time to push their lies. The facts PROVE them as liars, yet the media presented them as credible.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Not during this offensive. I am not a Bush supporter, I am a conservative. The fact that republicans were using this as a scare tactic does not invalidate the premise, which is sound.

Perception of the US by the world community was a huge issue in the campaign. The defeat of Bush would have conveyed a message of weakness and lack of resolve for sustaining a millitary campaign against them. These terrorists were counting on the US to cave in to fear which would confirm their view of us as cowards and give them a huge boost of confidence in their tactics.[/quote]

Actually a new president would've said america is not happy with the past 4 years and it would;'ve been easier to get our old allies support again. The rest of the world had riots and protesting when bush won...so it looks 59 million people like him here, while 55 million here don't plus the rest of the world...I think it would've shown we dissapprove of the cowboy mantality and drawn foriegn countries to our sides but instead it makes us look even more crazy...
 
[quote name='ZarathosNY'][quote name='bmulligan'][quote name='ZarathosNY']

Personally, I think the media is lazy and only looks out for the bottom line. Look at all the play the Swift Boat liars got in the media, when there was ample evidence that their story was complete bull. Or after the last debate where Kerry mentioned Cheney's daughter. The media hyped on that, yet didn't make a peep about Bush's remark that he never said he didn't care about where Bin Laden was, which he did do.[/quote]

Gimmie a break, the only press the swiftboat liars got was a lambasting by EVERY newsmedia outlet save Fox News. Every morning show, every nightly network news, every newspaper story was a commentary about the inconsistancies in the boatmens accusations and their personal records and whereabouts. Never were they talked about as valid, only mentioned repeatedly as dirty attacks. The only ones giving their story creedence were the right wingers like Limbaugh, Hannity, and Reagan, etc. So, it's patriotic to doubt the president and call him a liar but heresey to question the record of John Kerry. That's fair and balanced for ya![/quote]

I don't know what media you were watching, but they were sure as hell not getting a lambasting in the media. Time and time again they were given air time to push their lies. The facts PROVE them as liars, yet the media presented them as credible.[/quote]

Actually CNN wouldn't let their reportes call the swiftvets liars. The lies were usually referred to as unbacked claims or disputed facts.
 
[quote name='ZarathosNY']
I don't know what media you were watching, but they were sure as hell not getting a lambasting in the media. Time and time again they were given air time to push their lies. The facts PROVE them as liars, yet the media presented them as credible.[/quote]

The same media you watched. Every show with a swiftboat rep wasn't called to trumpet their cause, they were invited to be ripped by the interviewers as liars. Then portrayed as liars by the DNC in various sunday shows and news outlets nationwide. Never was their story treated as valid by any of the major networks, they were mentioned only as attacks. Meanwhile, Kerry's record was never even questioned by the likes of Brokaw, Jennings, Rather, Williams. I'd have no problem with this if they would openly admit themselves as left leaners instead of objective news reporters. The right wingers in the industry make no bones about their party affiliations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top