Rumsfeld is Right [Archive] - Marine Corps

fontman

08-08-06, 06:58 AM

Rumsfeld is Right
By Cal Thomas
Aug. 8, 2006

Opponents of President Bush and his Iraq policy have jumped on a comment last week by Gen. John Abizaid, commander, U.S. Central Command, before the Senate Armed Services Committee: "I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I've seen it, in Baghdad in particular, and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move toward civil war."

Ignored in most of the media coverage was what Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at the same hearing: "I believe that we do have the possibility of that devolving to a civil war, but that does not have to be a fact." Gen. Pace added: "Our enemy knows they cannot defeat us in battle. They do believe, however, that they can wear down our will as a nation."

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY.) called the administration's Iraq policy a failure, which can only encourage the terrorist insurgents to keep on fighting and killing Iraqis and American soldiers. Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI.) seemed fixated on timetables for withdrawal instead of defeating those who want to destroy the elected government of Iraq.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld reminded the panel that the United States and the free world are in a "global struggle against violent extremists." Rumsfeld's testimony bears reading and repeating to a large number of people who, in their quest for pleasure and personal peace, appear to lack the staying power required to defeat perhaps the greatest evil the world has ever faced.

Taking note of the differences between the way the United States and terrorists fight, Rumsfeld said, "one side puts their men and women at risk in uniform and obeys the laws of war, while the other side uses them against us." We have seen that in the world's reaction to Guantanamo Bay prison and Abu Ghraib. Terrorists use torture and murder and no court of public opinion or judicial entity holds them accountable. The rare instance of abuse by American soldiers is punished.

Rumsfeld elaborated on the difference between the two sides: "One side does all it can to avoid civilian casualties, while the other side uses civilians as shields, and then skillfully orchestrates a public outcry when the other side accidentally kills civilians in their midst. One side is held to exacting standards of near perfection; the other side is held to no standards and no accountability at all."

Rumsfeld noted how the enemy uses our media to undermine American resolve, "planning attacks to gain the maximum media coverage and the maximum public outcry." And then, most importantly, he said: "If we left Iraq prematurely - as the terrorists demand - the enemy would tell us to leave Afghanistan and then withdraw from the Middle East. And if we left the Middle East, they'd order us - and all those who don't share their militant ideology - to leave what they call occupied Muslim lands, from Spain to the Philippines, and then we would face not only the evil ideology of these violent extremists, but an enemy that will have grown accustomed to succeeding in telling free people everywhere what to do."

For those who claim Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terrorism, Rumsfeld noted, "This enemy has called Iraq the central front in the war on terrorism."

During World War II, U.S. and German forces fought the battle of Hurtgen Forest. It began Sept. 19, 1944 and ended Feb. 10, 1945. That was one battle in a strategically insignificant corridor of barely 50 square miles east of the Belgium-Germany border. The Germans inflicted more than 24,000 casualties on American forces, while another 9,000 Americans were sidelined due to illness, fatigue and friendly fire. Had live TV beamed this battle to America, there might have been an outcry that the policy was failing and somehow a cease-fire and an accommodation with Hitler should be achieved.

America won that war because the objective wasn't to understand the Nazis, or to reach an accommodation with them; the objective was to win the war. Anything less in this war - against an equally evil and unrelenting enemy - will mean defeat for the United States and for freedom everywhere. That's what Rumsfeld was getting at when he said, "We can persevere in Iraq or we can withdraw prematurely, until they force us to make a stand nearer home. But make no mistake: They are not going to give up, whether we acquiesce in their immediate demands or not."

Rumsfeld is right.

yellowwing

08-08-06, 07:50 AM

If you count the Beirut Bombing as our blood initiation into this mess, we've had three Presidents and dozens of Senators and Congressmen come and go during these past 23 years.

The Mullahs have been there the whole time directing things, that is a huge difference when you are fighting a long protracted war.

Osotogary

08-08-06, 08:10 AM

"...the objective was to win the war. Anything less in this war - against an equally evil and unrelenting enemy - will mean defeat for the United States and for freedom everywhere."

Then the question is: Are our leaders doing everything they can, using all the resourses in both the military and private sectors, both unconventional and conventional, to win this war pschologically and physically?

This is where, this novice of all things military (me), has a problem. I am not convinced that are leaders are using all the resouces that one needs to succeed in war both on the homefront and on the battlefield. If I learned anything from this website it is: Listen to your NCO's. Most times it feels like they aren't being heard. God Bless our armed forces and support elements in harms way.

MillRatUSMC

08-08-06, 08:10 AM

Gary!!! I almost was reading your mind...

All that is well and good...but we must difer...on the grounds that all or a greater majority are not carrying the burden...as it was done during WW II...when I see the rich and famous join in this war...than I will believe that Rumsfeld is right...besides some now in the military being on 5th or 6th deployment, they would not have to be on so many deployments if the burden was felt by more than just a FEW...

Osotogary

08-08-06, 08:47 AM

I agree with you, my friend from the north, in regards to the use of human resources. The burden of conflict, as I see it, has rested on the shoulders of, when compared to the the population of all those within fighting age (18-35 plus), on a very few over and over again. The draft or mandartory military service? Create the needed resources and then utilize them, wisely.
I am not disagreeing with Rumsfeld's remarks but, in deed, what has he done wisely to utilize all of the resources in the private and military sectors to win the war?

rktect3j

08-08-06, 08:51 AM

He, and we, rely too heavily on "smart weapons" technology as well as the mindset that it brings with it. It used to be a numbers game but now it has gotten worse because those numbers are being used to tell us, Americans, that we can do much with very little. The wrong message has been sent. Hopefully we will learn from this war. We need mucho boots on the ground in a war. It is the only way you can win.

Osotogary

08-08-06, 09:22 AM

The utilization of available assets in regards to Fallujah dated 11/05/04 by none other than the distinquished member mrbsox.

Build a moat with 500 and 1,000 pounders. Drop leaflets, let the innocents out, and seige the place.
I want the moat deep enough to disrupt any tunnels into and out of the place, that I'm sure are there. That's the only explaination (in my mind) for how these MFs are getting in, supplies, arms, ammo, intel, etc.
Then start 'heating' the place up !! :rambo:

Sounded good then and still does. Apparently Rumsfeld didn't have the time or inclination to check out the Leatherneck.com website for some valuable insight and suggestions. LOL

redneck13

08-08-06, 12:13 PM

:flag: :banana: :D I agree with all of you. I'm so glad to see a topic that has the "truth in it", thanks Fontman. When you have to fight a war such as this?, it takes time. Time can be an enemy or friend. If the American public would just take a deep breath and realize that our Military has to change tactic's almost daily. Yes there's been some mistakes. I think as with any situation, one has to be able to "adapt, improvise, and overcome." I think this is what is going on there now. When these "radical" people are put to rest, and we'll get 'em or we'll make them want to give up, and time, then the country can be handed over. I feel we'll have a military present there, not unlike Korea, for a long time. War is not always the answer. But, we have to defeat these people or we could be, if not already, a target of them once again here in our Country. The administration has made mistakes which our Commander and Chief, without actually saying it, but, eluding to it, with word's like...it takes time, it's a new democracy that terrorist don't want. So, that's my 1c worth. SF

Zulu 36

08-08-06, 06:26 PM

Many moons ago, in fact during the Third Punic War (149-146 BC), a highly respected Roman senator, Marcus Cato, closed every speech he made with the phrase, "Carthago delenda est." Translated it meant, "Cathage must be destroyed."

When the Romans won their third go around with Carthage, they did just that. Anyone not put to the sword was sold into slavery, the city of Carthage was leveled and burned, and all of the arable lands surrounding it was salted.

In this day and age our nation doesn't hold with Roman methods, although I would bet our enemy does. However, that doesn't mean we can't modify Cato's statement and say, "Islamifacists delenda est."

There are things that could be done in Iraq. We can look to the British methods in Malaysia in the 1950's as an example with their strategic village concepts. We tried weak versions of this in Vietnam, but didn't go all of the way. We must hunt down and ruthlessly eliminate all terrorist forces. Innocents should always be given a chance, if possible. But anyone staying behind must be considered an enemy or sympathizer and treated accordingly.

Sadly our politicians don't have the stomach for even those relatively mild methods. Oh, for a Marcus Cato.

yellowwing

08-08-06, 06:51 PM

Ruthless warfare just ain't going to happen. It's very effective and gets the job done very quickly.

I think only dictators and their fanatical followers can make ruthless warfare a strategy.

mrbsox

08-09-06, 06:22 AM

Ruthless warfare just ain't going to happen. It's very effective and gets the job done very quickly.

I think only dictators and their fanatical followers can make ruthless warfare a strategy.

"...war is hell, and the more hellish it is, the sooner it's over"
Gen. Techeumsh Sherman, in a letter to the elected officials of Atlanta before he laid seige (and destruction) to the city. He pleaded with them to get the people out of the city, stating that he WILL remove that resourse from his enemy. And it would not be pretty, and he regretted doing it, but it was a matter of WINNING.

The point is, Gen. Sherman wasn't worried about the media, polls, or public opinion. He was worried about winning the war (of northern aggression)(lol). If our country' leaders do not realize this, then WE ARE in for a long period of war. We are in for a LONG drawn out period of our history, to be written in the history boks of the free world.

I think only dictators and their fanatical followers can make ruthless warfare a strategy.

Maybe because their mind sees that it works, and they aren't worried about the media.

Gary,
and as for 'distinquished'.... well, maybe just opinionated !!

Terry

mrbsox

08-09-06, 06:37 AM

http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/sherman/sherman-to-burn-atlanta.html

Also quoted as saying;
War is the solution our enemy has chosen. I say give them all they want (paraphrased)

jryanjack

08-09-06, 07:21 AM

mrbsox

08-09-06, 07:24 AM

it looks like I got a couple of my Sherman quotes tangled.
My fault for 'putting mouth in motion before the mind was in gear'.

But my point remains the same. If those in power do not have the stomach for waging war in a WINNING manner, then leave it to those that do.
That's why the congress COMMISSIONS these men, to wage war on the country' behalf.

So, to all of you selfservingleftwingpantywaisttreehuggingdouchbags;
shut the Fk up, sit down, and trust those that you commissioned to do what you ENTRUSTED them to do. And quit B!TCH!NG about loosing, when your not doing anything to help win.

OLE SARG

08-09-06, 08:51 AM

We need to quit playing patty cake with the ****head, towelhead, ****ing pieces of ****, "insurgent", terrorists, and start WINNING!!!!!!!! If the ****head leftists and some demos (ms kerry, dickhead durbin, dirty harry, etc.) in our country had their way, we'd probably be waging war with rubber bullets!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SEMPER FI,

Mike McIntyre

08-09-06, 09:57 AM

I know a little History, some Politics, and even less Military Tactics. Ya’ll have some awesome insight. I have a few questions especially to the NCOs.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
Technology is great but as the IDF is finding out, it is no substitute for boots on the ground. In non-tank terrain (Urban Warfare), troops are a necessity.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Do we need more troops to achieve our goals in Iraq?<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
The Military claims that only 28% of high schoolers meet Military standards (much fewer meet Corps standards) due to Drugs, Grades, Test Scores, Felonies, etc. The business world, with much more money, is competing for the same 28%. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
How does the Military maintain its Standards and Numbers and continue to deploy with such high frequency?

rktect3j

08-09-06, 10:55 AM

Just a little backup for Mikes post.

Military: Most Young Americans Are Unfit
Military Remains Choosy in Selecting Recruits, Shunning Many Who Are Overweight, Uneducated
By PAULINE JELINEK
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Uncle Sam wants YOU, that famous Army recruiting poster says. But does he really? Not if you're a Ritalin-taking, overweight, Generation Y couch potato or some combination of the above.

As for that fashionable "body art" that the military still calls a tattoo, having one is grounds for rejection, too.

With U.S. casualties rising in wars overseas and more opportunities in the civilian work force from an improved U.S. economy, many young people are shunning a career in the armed forces. But recruiting is still a two-way street and the military, too, doesn't want most people in this prime recruiting age group of 17 to 24.

Of some 32 million Americans now in this group, the Army deems the vast majority too obese, too uneducated, too flawed in some way, according to its estimates for the current budget year.

"As you look at overall population and you start factoring out people, many are not eligible in the first place to apply," said Doug Smith, spokesman for the Army Recruiting Command.

Some experts are skeptical.

Previous Defense Department studies have found that 75 percent of young people are ineligible for military service, noted Charles Moskos of Northwestern University. While the professor emeritus who specializes in military sociology says it is "a baloney number," he acknowledges he has no figures to counter it.

"Recruiters are looking for reasons other than themselves," said David R. Segal, director of the Center for Research on Military Organization at the University of Maryland. "So they blame the pool."

The military's figures are estimates, based partly on census numbers. They are part of an elaborate analysis the military does as it struggles each year to compete with colleges and companies for the nation's best and brightest, plan for future needs and maintain diversity.

The Census Bureau estimates that the overall pool of people who would be in the military's prime target age has shrunk as American society ages. There were 1 million fewer 18- to 24-year olds in 2004 than in 2000, the agency says.

The pool shrinks to 13.6 million when only high school graduates and those who score in the upper half on a military service aptitude test are considered.

The 30 percent who are high school dropouts are not the top choice of today's professional, all-volunteer and increasingly high-tech military force.
Other factors include:the rising rate of obesity; some 30 percent of U.S. adults are now considered obese.

a decline in physical fitness; one-third of teenagers are now believed to be incapable of passing a treadmill test.

a near-epidemic rise in the use of Ritalin and other stimulants to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Potential recruits are ineligible for military service if they have taken such a drug in the previous year.

Doctors prescribe these drugs to about 2 million children and 1 million adults a month, according to a federal survey. Many more are believed to be using such stimulants recreationally and to stay awake longer to boost academic and physical performance.

Other potential recruits are rejected because they have criminal histories and too many dependents. Subtract 4.4 million from the pool for these people and for the overweight.

Others can be rejected for medical problems, from blindness to asthma. The Army estimate has subtracted 2.6 million for this group.

That leaves 4.3 million fully qualified potential recruits and an estimated 2.3 million more who might qualify if given waivers on some of their problems.

The bottom line: a total 6.6 million potential recruits from all men and women in the 32 million-person age group.

In the budget year that ended last September, 15 percent of recruits required a waiver in order to be accepted for active duty services or about 11,000 people of some 73,000 recruited.

Most waivers were for medical problems. Some were for misdemeanors such as public drunkenness, resisting arrest or misdemeanor assault prompting criticism that the Army is lowering its standards.

This year the Army is trying to recruit 80,000 people; all the services are recruiting about 180,000.

And about the tattoos: They are not supposed to be on your neck, refer to gang membership, be offensive, or in any way conflict with military standards on integrity, respect and team work. The military is increasingly giving waivers for some types of tattoos, officials said.

On the Net:
Defense Department career and aptitude exploration site: http://www.asvabprogram.com
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Copyright © 2006 ABC News Internet Ventures

redneck13

08-09-06, 11:31 AM

:evilgrin: :flag: Good read Rektec.....very interesting. I want to just say a little, believe or not I can be short. LOL!!! When the first Gulf War broke out, I wanted to re-enlist, so I went to the recruiter's office, Marine's first. "How old are you they asked?" I were prolly, 48 I thank. LOL...Anyhow....I was walking with a cane, as my balance wasn't too good. I just tolt them...."Give me an armored Golf Cart, a good sniper rifle, and parachute me in close to Insane's hootch, and I'll bring back his head." They just looked at me like, HUH? Rejected. Army. "You ever in the service before, they asked?" I tolt them, "yeah." "How old are you?" I said, about 35. "What's the cane fer?" It ain't a real cane, it's a .38 cal cane, I tolt 'em. "Well, you're just a bit overweight." I tolt them the same thing I tolt the Marine's. They just laughed. The truth is, that I really did want to re-enlist. Overweight, over-age, so I walked out, with my head hung low, then laughed my ace off in my truck. SF

Osotogary

08-09-06, 12:59 PM

Thank you wind'nface for the chuckle. Today sure seems like a good day for one. As a side note, right now I am reading Warlord- No better friend, No worse enemy by Marine Lieutenant Ilario Pantano....

Zulu 36

08-09-06, 01:53 PM

We cannot simply declare war on all of Islam and all of those of Islamic faith and put to the "sword" all of those who stand in our way. The insurgents/terrorists/religious fanatics who are perpetuating the war are a minority of the total number of Islam (which is not a nation, but a religion). So to make war on the religion will only increase the amount of resistance that we face. Not a smart move.

Carthage was only one city, and granted if you look on it as a matter of proportions represented a respectable chunk of the known world at the time. To eliminate Islam from the face of the earth is to eliminate 900 million to 1.6 billion people (depending on which estimate is accurate).

Now, maybe I misunderstood Zulu's post, however to me that sounds alot like genocide, which is not something that I, for one, support.
No, I'm not advocating genocide. What I am advocating is war, not some patty cake version of it. I am advocating that any village, town, city, country, that becomes a haven for terrorists who attack us or our friends becomes a target.

The civilians who do not want to be part of an Islamifascist terrorist plot have the option of getting out of Dodge. They know when the bad guys are there without our saying something. We should help those people to the maximum extent. Anyone staying behind knows they will be considered an enemy. Their other option is to turn on the terrorists and present their bodies (alive or dead) as surety.

I don't care if they like us or not. Do I think those Islamic countries will hate us more than they do now? Nope, not one little bit, I don't think more hate is possible. But they will know we mean what we say and they will respect us as well as fear us.

I suggest a reading of the Koran. You will learn that we are indeed at war with a religion (some individuals excepted, but they are the vast minority).

Mike McIntyre

08-09-06, 02:00 PM

In addition Zulu, we can’t charge every Marine or Soldier with war crimes when they are trying to execute a WAR!!!!<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"...

redneck13

08-09-06, 02:23 PM

Ol' Sarge has a valid point as do other's. I have to disagree with Jack.....You have to remember that "NOT ONE NATION UPON THIS EARTH IS TRYING TO ELIMINATE ISLAM. It's the radical idiot's who "BRAIN WASH" young Islamic kid's from like 12-16-and older, of "HATE FOR ISREAL, AMERICA", AND THEY DO AS TOLD OR ARE KILLED, that go to camps for training, then sent out, to fight and kill whom they are said to kill.
The Terrorists, use "HUMAN SHIELD'S" no matter what else is said, it is the truth. Thus, civilian casulaties. Of course in War, there will innocent civilian's killed, a shame, but a terrible effect of War. Isreal is not attempting to destroy "ISLAM" This is not being said, expressed enough with our liberal media. All they want to do is show the "bad" and make American's think, "oh my, I didn't realize." I applaud Isreal, I applaud there resolve. If Rumsfeld would do as the President of Isreal does, have a big talk, and let them make their case, then vote, as Isreal did, then we might not be in the quaqmire (sp) as we are in Iraq. Mistakes made. Lesson's to be learned. Not until all terrorists are put to rest, will there ever be a safe world just my 3-1/2c worth SF
We need to quit playing patty cake with the ****head, towelhead, ****ing pieces of ****, "insurgent", terrorists, and start WINNING!!!!!!!! If the ****head leftists and some demos (ms kerry, dickhead durbin, dirty harry, etc.) in our country had their way, we'd probably be waging war with rubber bullets!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SEMPER FI,

redneck13

08-09-06, 02:27 PM

I had a friend who was a recruiter. He said things about how they pick 'n choose people who enter, I had some great laughs. You know I believe exactly what that recruiter did. SF

Zulu 36

08-09-06, 02:36 PM

My son-in-law, arch-conservative that he is (my daughter picked a good one with this guy), sent me the following link from the Wall Street Journal. Go to it and have a laugh, then shake your head at the continued stupidity (or more likely cupidity) of the media.

http://www:opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110008766

jryanjack

08-09-06, 02:53 PM

"Carthago delenda est." Translated it meant, "Cathage must be destroyed."

"Islamifacists delenda est."

Wind, this is my point - I am not saying that TERRRORISTS should not be destroyed, wiped off the face of the planet, what I am saying that we cannot, and should not aribitrarily state that all of Islam, as in all of Carthage, must be destroyed. For us to adopt a policy that ALL (i.e. not a portion) of Islam must be destroyed is for us to turn our backs on all that the US stands for and has stood for.

You and I do not disgaree in recognizing the need to eliminate terrorism - regardless of the religion that those terrorists may profess to follow. However, we should not declare war and vow to eliminate from the face of the earth those who are not our enemies - and from the last time I checked, not all Muslims are at war with us, or have attacked us, and in fact some have even been attacked for supporting us (Jordan).

I would argue that not all Muslims hate the US, some are indifferent, and some <gasp> support us. However, if we start eliminating entire villages and towns becuase they indirectly support terrorists (i.e allow them to hide out) or because they didn't leave town when the terrorists came in, then my thought would be that we will start to change the indifferent Muslims and lose our supporters as well. I could be wrong about that, but its my guess.

rktect3j

08-09-06, 03:10 PM

I can’t remember who it was that I was having this talk with but it went something like this.

I said that let’s pretend that you are a muslim. And we will also pretend that you are a good person that does not want to kill anybody and you want peace in the world. Now you have children and you raise them to believe in Islam because this is your way. You send them to the Imam to be trained and whamo we have a terrorists. Why? Because there is no control over the teachers of Islam and no one set path. The Quran breeds intolerance and eventually you will have extremists. We could smart weapons kill every last one of the terrorists in existence today and in 50 or 100 years we will have a large group of extremists Islamist terrorists because their religion advocates it if it does not down right demand it.

So which ones should we go after?

Mike McIntyre

08-09-06, 03:15 PM

And if we stay on our side of the pond and don’t bother anyone, they will leave us alone, right? <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
9/11 NEVER FORGET

jryanjack

08-09-06, 03:18 PM

jryanjack

08-09-06, 03:21 PM

[FONT=Times New Roman]And if we stay on our side of the pond and don’t bother anyone, they will leave us alone, right?

Never said that Mike, just said that we should not decide to eliminate all of Islam - lets stick to just eliminating the terrorists.

Mike McIntyre

08-09-06, 03:25 PM

JRYANJACK,<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Good points. I feel we should take Israel’s lead. Do not attack until threaten. Once threatened, show no mercy. Always give your Military the benefit of the doubt and #@%* the Media & UN. IMO

redneck13

08-09-06, 03:27 PM

:!: :thumbup: Clue me in on Carthage? Or did I miss that somewhere? Really, please? Thanks SF

Mike McIntyre

08-09-06, 03:39 PM

The term Carthage (Arabic: قرطاج also قرطاجة ) refers both to an ancient city in North Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Africa) located in modern day Tunis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunis) and to the civilization which developed within the city's sphere of influence. The city of Carthage was located on the eastern side of Lake Tunis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Tunis) across from the center of modern Tunis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunis) in Tunisia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunisia).
Originally a settlement of Phoenician (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenicia) colonists, Carthage grew into a vast economic power throughout the Mediterranean Sea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_Sea), accumulating wealth and influence through its economic prowess. Carthage was a contemporary superpower (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superpower) with the Roman Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Republic) of the 2nd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_Century_BC) and 3rd Century BC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3rd_Century_BC), and was its rival for dominance of the western Mediterranean. Eventually this rivalry led to a series of wars known as the Punic Wars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punic_Wars), in which a series of losses led to a decline in Carthage's political and economic strength, mostly due to the harsh penalties imposed on Carthage by Rome as conditions of the cessation of hostilites. The third and final Punic war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Punic_War) ended with the complete destruction of the city of Carthage and the annexation of the last remnants of Carthaginian territory by Rome.

rktect3j

08-09-06, 03:55 PM

rktect3j,

I hear you and understand that, but what if, in your senario you sent your children to a different Imam and they turned out just like you, a good, honest, peace loving person (well, you are a Marine, so I don't know how "peace loving you can be! :) but you know what I mean!)?

Who appointed us God? We could apply that logic to inner city kids, should we start killing all of them too - they may end up as gang bangers? What about the grandma who lives on that street because she has always lived there, has no where else to go and is afraid to kick the gangs out, do we kill her because she didn't move out of the area? I've also seen some Christian groups that scared me with what I would define as extemist ideas, after we're done with Islam are they next? Who decides what's extemist? Extreme examples (pun somewhat intended) but that's how that slope works, once you start rolling down it, its hard to stop.

First off let me say that I am not for wiping Islam off the face of tghe planet. My point, which I know I did not make perfectly clear is that if you are going to go to war with people then go to war and let the chips fall where they may. You can not win a war on terrorists who imbed themselves in the civillian population. This is like finding out you have cnacer. Most likely the treatment is chemotherapy. Most doctors are not going to go and get a scalpel and start cutting away at the cells that are cancerous. They will bombard the entire body with chemo. When we went into Iraq we should have decimated them. Look at some of the photos of Germany in 1944 at the end of the war. That is what war looks like. Many died. Good. Bad. Young. Old. Women. Men. Nazi's. etc. etc. So on and so forth. But let me tell you that the majority of the people left there standing wanted nothing more to do with war. They wanted to heal.
Now I still believe that if we took out all terrorists today we would have the same problem with islamist extremists in 50 or 100 years. I would hoipe that the people in the future would realize that 100 years earlier there was this same problem and the way we dealt with it was to bomb the everlovingschit out of them and that is why we had peace for a time.

jryanjack

08-09-06, 06:53 PM

I can agree with that - we cannot go to war with one hand tied behind our backs. I would also hope that we can find a way to peacefully coexist so that war would not be necessary, however, until that day we will need Marines who are ready (and allowed!) to do what must be done.

yellowwing

08-10-06, 09:43 PM

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
--Donald Rumsfeld
On March 30, 2003 on weapons of mass distruction in Iraq.

When confronted by a career 24 year CIA analyst, his response was, "I never said that." Busted, but the 'liberal' media ignored the obvious truth bending.

The adminstrative response is to appoint a Defense Department General to head the CIA.

The question is a no pressure free throw for even a troll like Hillary.

Note to every one! There is a huge difference between news and opinion. News is raw uncut facts. If the fact don't support your opinion then attack the source.

redneck13

08-11-06, 09:29 AM