I'm sure I'm the only one here who sees you as a bleeding-heart ultra liberal. [not]
You'd have to copy and post every statement you made starting with the discussion on war being considered in Afghanistan to present day to disprove my true statement about a position you've taken on these threads many times.
If it bothers you that those 'little innocent' children you're always wanting to protect from the mean US military who are randomly killing them, according to you, then you also must face those same 'little not so innocent' children's actions. They committed these terrible acts against those there to help their countrymen, are not so innocent and have been raised to have such hatred.
posted on April 2, 2004 03:45:53 PM new
linda you are describing a conversation that I never had with you and now you are telling me that's OK because you can presume to know what I would think about a house to house search based on the fact that I'm a liberal.
posted on April 2, 2004 04:24:25 PM new
Helen, now Linda is quoting me from yesterday when I said about the kids being raised with hatred. Only when I said those words she was fast to come back at me and turned it all around trying to make it sound like I was anti-American.
posted on April 2, 2004 04:44:53 PM new
Look at this statement for example...
"If it bothers you that those 'little innocent' children you're always wanting to protect from the mean US military who are randomly killing them, according to you, then you also must face those same 'little not so innocent' children's actions. They committed these terrible acts against those there to help their countrymen, are not so innocent and have been raised to have such hatred."
So, she thinks I'm always wanting to protect children from the US military which according to linda, I see as mean.
She says that I think the innocent children are randomly being killed by the US military?
posted on April 2, 2004 05:39:44 PM new
this is worse than vietname war.
when us pulled out of vietnam,the north vietnamese took over.
when we pull out of iraq,who will take over??
-sig file -------we eat to live,not live to eat.
Benjamin Franklin
posted on April 2, 2004 06:03:48 PM new
What will happen afterwards? According to some here the Americans will leave the end of June, Iraq will be peaceful, the people will get down and pray daily to President Bush and everyone will live happily ever after.
posted on April 3, 2004 12:05:04 AM new
stopwhining - This is not at all like Vietnam. This is an outbreak of violence from one small area in Iraq. These actions come from saddam's strongest supporters. And they will be dealt with.
when we pull out of iraq,who will take over?? From everything I've read we will not be pulling out for quite sometime. In June it will be up to the leaders in Iraq if they want our forces to stay or not. So far they have asked that we stay. And our military has been training Iraqi citizens to defend themselves. Their numbers are rapidly growing.
posted on April 3, 2004 03:56:15 AM new
That is true Linda, they predict they need a force of 19,000 for Baghdad itself and as of last count only had 12,000 with another 2,000 in training.
They need a strong police presence just as any major metropolitan area does.
There are currently 39,110 police officers in NYPD
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
Pentagon officials view Wednesday's horror in Fallujah as the Iraq war's Mogadishu incident: a disaster that may be a turning point for American policy. We will not flee, as we did in Somalia, but Fallujah should teach even the administration's most die-hard optimists that the mission is deeper and muddier than they'd imagined, that the country they have conquered is far uglier and far less pliant than they hoped, and that a new course of policy is necessary if we want to sustain the occupation.
So, what do we do? Bomb the place till the rubble bounces? The U.S. Air Force briefly tried this approach last November with Operation Iron Hammer, in which we bombed buildings that the insurgents had been using, to no effect. The Israelis have been raining missiles and bombs on their own local terrorists for years, also to no effect. The danger of massive bombardment is that it kills the wrong people, angers their friends and relatives, and sires new insurgents as a result.
Do we send in more troops to "pacify" the Sunni Triangle?
First, the occupying "coalition" must be broadened, and the occupation authority must be turned over to some international body. The Bush administration seems to realize this—hence Bremer's recent urgent calls for the United Nations to mediate internal disputes in Iraq.
Second, somebody—the U.S., the U.N.—must devise a policy toward the Sunnis.
As Juan Cole states here,"Unless the Sunni Arabs are drawn into parliamentary politics and convinced that the new game is not a zero-sum game, the bombs will continue to go off."
posted on April 3, 2004 08:39:52 AM newThe U.S. Air Force briefly tried this approach last November with Operation Iron Hammer, in which we bombed buildings that the insurgents had been using, to no effect.
An untrue statement proven by the fact that after the bombing and the Army started Operation Iron Hammer the assaults on our military were greatly reduced. The result of Iron Hammer was it resulted in fewer deaths of our soldiers.
But then helen didn't like Operation Iron Hammer and compared the Army's actions to Nazi tactics. She was more in favor of Operation Velvet Glove.
posted on April 3, 2004 10:19:15 AM new
Linda_K - posted on December 12, 2003 03:16:02 PM edit
"I could go on"
....and I have no doubt you will continue to do so. But anyone who reads the papers/listens to the news is well aware that since Iron Hammer started, there have been less US soldiers killed. Which doesn't work well for your agenda....as then it would be less likely people would want us to withdraw from Iraq.
The GOAL, helen, is to take down those who supported Saddam and his regime ....AND to help the Iraqi's establish a new government. It won't matter whether it's the Marines or the Army....they're all working towards the same goal.
Helenjw -
posted on December 12, 2003 03:48:06 PM
"It won't matter whether it's the Marines or the Army....they're all
working towards the same goal."
Of course they are.
The point, linda is that the strategy will change from IRON Hammer to Velvet Glove...according to the article that I posted. You are so defensive of the status quo which in this case is a miserable failure. Any tactic that takes into consideration the good will and independence of the Iraqi people will succeed over one that is reminiscent of a Nazi operation by the same name.
Give the Marines a chance!
Re-elect President Bush!!
helenjw - posted on April 3, 2004 09:25:43 AM
Wrong again, pita.
I compared it to Sharon's tatics.
Sharon is not a Nazi.
posted on April 3, 2004 10:21:55 AM new
Hamza, an Iraqi farmer, holds a shell from a U.S. helicopter gunship raid that, he claims, killed three of his cows.
It made a big noise.
Operation Iron Hammer: Make noise, kill cows
If the U.S. wants to capture or kill Iraqi insurgents, local residents ask, why is it providing advance notice of its attacks?
If the Americans wanted to catch resistance fighters, why did they come in convoys every afternoon to warn people of the impending operations? It's just a show of force, they told me. It's to make a big noise.
Standing in that very desolate place, I felt inclined to agree with Basam and the other men. It seemed possible that the strategy behind Operation Iron Hammer lay, at least in part, in demonstrating the breadth of American firepower without actually killing anyone. Intelligence about the resistance has been notoriously spotty. Every night soldiers raid homes, only to discover that the correct target lies down the street or a few blocks away. Or even that the tips themselves (encouraged by heavy reward money) came from disgruntled neighbors intent on solving personal disputes. If American bombing killed a neighborhood's worth of innocent Iraqis right now, it could easily spark a massive and dangerous backlash. In other words, Iron Hammer seems intended to be (at least in Baghdad) heavy on the sound and light on the fury.
posted on April 4, 2004 06:30:16 AM new Linda said, "It won't matter whether it's the Marines or the Army....they're all working towards the same goal."
In response to that remark, I said "Of course they are".
And, I added, "The point, linda is that the strategy will change from IRON Hammer to Velvet Glove...according to the article that I posted. You are so defensive of the status quo which in this case is a miserable failure. Any tactic that takes into consideration the good will and independence of the Iraqi people will succeed over one that is reminiscent of a Nazi operation by the same name."
So, linda,
Taking remarks out of context, without a link to the thread is confusing and really unfair. In the future please add a link to your futile efforts to malign. Before that remark, I linked to a news article indicating that the Marines planed a new strategy, called Velvet Glove with a goal to avoid the get-tough tactics of operations such as operation hammer. The title of the New York Times article was, Leathernecks Plan to Use A Velvet Glove in Iraq
posted on April 4, 2004 07:31:11 AM new
And about the Sharon comment...
Without a quote or reference to a thread, your conclusion that I had compared the Army's actions to Nazi tatics appeared to be a continuation of the Sharon comparison. Such misunderstanding and time consuming search could be avoided by simply adding a link to your information.
Should I be flattered that you still remember what I said in Dec. 2003?
posted on April 4, 2004 09:56:42 AM new
helen - [i]Should I be flattered that you still remember what I said in Dec. 2003[i]?
ROFLMHO No, I sure wouldn't say that. Your posts are easy to remember because, imo, you often step over the line in defense of those who wish to see our country destroyed. Many here didn't agree with going to war in Iraq...but they don't step over the line like you do, on a continuous basis. They accept that we are there and I believe most hope that the U.S. is successful in their efforts to protect our troops and the Iraqi people who want peace and freedom.
And if you think my comments of your past statements are unfair, I'd suggest that you remember your own statements before you continually deny you're being misquoted when you aren't.
Just as I pointed out this time. [b]You compared the actions our Army was taking to stop the deaths of our own soldiers and the innocent Iraqi people and compared those actions to those "reminiscent of a Nazi operation by the same name". And somehow you see that as being on the side of our country.
out of context LOL I took nothing out of context. You said that Operation Iron Hammer was "which in this case is a miserable failure" when it was, in FACT, at great success at stopping all the deaths that were occuring before it was implimented. Which doesn't surprise me, you didn't earn the names of Badhdad Helen, Hanoi Helen and haven't been called anti-American by many here for no reason.
Even in the Afghanistan war, you did the same thing. Always so quick to point out how 'terrible' the actions of the US are while giving your sympathy to our enemies.
For me personally, it's the constant, cumulative negativity of your own countries actions, almost every thing we do, that is the 'context' I put your posts in, rather than any 'one' post you make.
Just like in this disagreement we both face....you did argue that it was terrible that these poor people had their farms, homes, lives invaded by our troops....rather than being able to open your eyes to the fact that they were ONLY going after those who were attacking our own soldiers. Not the peaceful Iraqi's.
U.S. Forces Wield 'Iron Hammer' to Nail Insurgents By John D. Banusiewicz
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Nov. 13, 2003 – A series of coordinated strikes dubbed "Operation Iron Hammer" kicked off Nov. 12 with U.S. forces striking back at anti-coalition insurgents in Iraq. A U.S. Central Command news release today said Iron Hammer is a joint operation to target enemy operating areas, deny the enemy the opportunity to stage weapons for use against coalition forces and the citizens of Baghdad, and destroy enemy forces conducting mortar attacks against Baghdad. ------------------------
Army Launches 'Ivy Cyclone II' to Target Insurgents American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Nov. 16, 2003 – The Army's 4th Infantry Division and Task Force Ironhorse have launched a combined-arms operation called Ivy Cyclone II in the effort to root out and crush insurgents in Iraq, U.S. Central Command officials announced today.
Officials said the operation combines "actionable intelligence" with close-air support, Army aviation, armor, artillery, mechanized infantry and air-assault operations for rapid deployment of dismounted artillery. Coalition forces, officials added, will continue to deploy large numbers of forces in specific areas that have been identified as platforms for coordination and control of enemy operations. CENTCOM officials said intelligence reports from a variety of sources indicate former regime leaders, criminals and other subversive groups are operating in the areas of Tikrit, Baquba, Kirkuk and Balad, and Ivy Cyclone II directly targets those operations. "The intention is to permanently disrupt their capability to plan attacks against coalition targets," a CENTCOM news release said.
DefenseLINK News: Enemy Attacks Drop 70 Percent Since Iron Hammer's Start By John D. Banusiewicz
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Nov. 20, 2003 – Enemy attacks against the coalition in and around Baghdad have dropped by 70 percent since Operation Iron Hammer began Nov. 12, the commander of the 1st Armored Division said today.
Army Brig. Gen. Martin E. Dempsey told reporters in Baghdad and the Pentagon press corps here by video teleconference that information gathered over several weeks -- mainly from Iraqi citizens -- and pattern analysis of enemy actions have combined to make Iron Hammer "an intelligence-based, precise combat operation."
The general said Iron Hammer is a joint operation involving the Army, the Air Force and the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps and police. "Fundamentally, we want to communicate to the enemy the high cost of continuing to resist, as well as to assure the good citizens of Baghdad of our resolve," Dempsey said. The operation involves cyclical processes that comprise three phases, he said.
Dempsey explained that gathering and fighting for intelligence is the first phase. Next comes "force-oriented reconnaissance," he said, followed by attacks. He noted the distinction between reconnaissance in general and the force-oriented reconnaissance that makes up the second phase of Iron Hammer operations.
"I make that distinction because reconnaissance can be aimed at terrain and other things as well," he said. "But in this case, we're looking for those individuals who are fighting us. And then we will attack again, based on that intelligence, as well as exploiting the intelligence that we've gained in the earlier phases.
"Each phase is event-driven, not time-driven," the general continued. "And so we'll base our decision on when to move from phase to phase based on our determination that we've got what we want out of that phase."
But seriously, in order to maintain some credibility and understanding, you should back up your statements, linda. It shouldn't be too difficult to post a url to the thread and it would be appreciated so very much.
I'm happy to know that you at least consider my position consistent in my opposition to this war. When I object to our position in Iraq I am not "wishing to see our country destroyed." Your thinking on this point is skewed. I see the George Bush administration as the destructive element in our government. He has led this country into an unnecessary war with Iraq...not to defeat terrorists but rather in an attempt to establish power in the mid-east and while doing so he has managed to alienate our allies throughout the world. Everyone is now less safe.
Instead of going after bin Laden Bush has increased the threat of terrorism all over the world.
It's nice to see you back on topic for a change. I'll be working on taxes nearly all day.
posted on April 4, 2004 12:29:39 PM newIt shouldn't be too difficult to post a url to the thread and it would be appreciated so very much.
Oh how polite you're being now. What happened to your beginning each post to me with "pita"?
Why should I go hunt for posts of statements you made and can't remember making? That's your issue....not mine. But you like to make challenges to make it appear the person repeating what you've said, isn't being truthful.
My experience with you has been that even when I've back up what I've said...you either deny it or do as you're doing this time.....can't admit you did make the comparison between the actions of our Army and Nazi actions. Let alone admit that statements like that go way beyond being anti-war. You're comparing our soldiers actions to those of the Nazis. sad....very sad.
Most who have tried to do a search for a statement [not a subject] know it is not easy to find old posts as they are deleted/cached from time to time. And one has to remember key words in order to pull them up. And it's very time consuming. I refuse to be sent on a hunt to find *your* past words.
Because few here make statements they then deny....then say they didn't make those statements and ask for proof they said it. You're unique in that way.
In addition with all the editing you do...you've been known to make changes to your posts and to totally erase others. Just try to remember your own words and there won't be any problem. I proved you made a statement you denied....not unusual for you. But do you admit it? No....it's my fault because you were confused by my not posting a link. LOL
There are times when I'm willing to prove you're lying and did say those things and other times when I could care less. You have a habit of often denying many things you've said, and not just ones I state.
So....I made a decision long ago that I won't play your little game - about proving what I say you've stated. I've posted here a long time and don't think anyone judges me to be a liar. But be careful what you deny saying....I might just be in the mood to prove you wrong again.
my position consistent in my opposition to this war. As I said your comments go WAY BEYOND not agreeing with the decisions of this President or not approving of any war, into the realm of not supporting your country or those whose lives are on the line. Once we're in a war it's a different ball game helen. Most dems in Congress, and posters here, who didn't want us to go to war can STILL be on our soldiers side. Most who don't think we should just cut and run, still would leave the decisions on what's in our soldiers best interest to the military commanders. But you worry more about those poor innocent victims of the US soldiers actions rather than the soldiers themselves. You complain they don't have the supplies they need, while opposing the funding for their needs. Things like that. You work both sides.
Just like those who killed those civilians and continued to destroy their burned bodies....
those are the people Operation Iron Hammer were going after. But you didn't post support for the success of our soldiers in rooting out those who commit these terrible acts Operation Iron Hammer or any of the other military actions....you continually posted support for all the poor innocent victims of what our soldiers were doing to take away the threat they faced. And then called their actions like those of the Nazi's. Over stepping the line helen....once again.
I am not "wishing to see our country destroyed. It appears that way to me from almost all your statements/articles because you sure don't appear to me to want those behind the attacks on the US made to pay for their actions.
Then you also wished the US to admit defeat and run. Admit defeat to the terrorists who would love nothing more than to see your country destroyed. Give them good reason to see us as weak. Good message you'd be sending to the terrorists around the world about American being a paper tiger like binladen has said. Terrorists see your lack of action as being scared....not being strong. How many democrat [elected] leaders call for the US to withdraw and run? LOL You are a tiny, tiny minority in that thinking.
"Your thinking on this point is skewed. Oh yes....ALL of us who see your posts the same way have skewed thinking. LOL I think not. I think they have the ability to clearly see a difference between not supporting this Presidents policies and being against what's in the best interest of the US and our soldiers - who are over there fighting.
As in the case of Operation Iron Hammer that saved our soldiers lives. Your view was what a miserable failure it was. Bet most don't see a reduction of 70% of US soldiers deaths as any kind of a failure. I think the way you see success, if you'll even find one positive thing at all in any situation, is the one that's screwed up...[not skewed].
managed to alienate our allies throughout the world.
Yes, even there you supported the ones who sided against our country. I don't care what other country's think when a president of our nation believes we need to do something to protect ourselves. Just like when clinton bombed Iraq. Those countries didn't support him either. I didn't care then what other countries thought either. They have their own special interests and the US should act on what's in it's own best interest.
Not be ruled by the UN like you would like to see.
Everyone is now less safe. No helen....we weren't going to be safer giving terrorists the time to grow stronger until they have the means to do more great damage to the US.
Instead of going after bin Laden Bush. Another out-and-out lie from your mouth. Our military is and has been searching for binladen since we first went into Afghanistan. Again you're mistating the truth about what our soldiers have been doing, have given up their lives trying to accomplish. More lack of repect for our soldiers and their goals.
linda, I don't understand your animosity toward me.. Your accusation is completely without basis. You are simply making a fool of your self by these long winded attacks and by repeating unfounded allegations against me. I have never lied on this board...absolutely never. The fact that you are again accusing me of a lie without documentation is absurd. Whenever I refer to something that someone says, I always have a quote and the location of the quote. Whenever I post information I always have a link available. If I don't have the time to do a search and locate information...either a quote or other info, I simply don't make it. Maybe you should consider doing that.
I am not doing anything sinister with edits. May I suggest that if you are paranoid about edits, have the comments from the thread mailed to you.
posted on April 5, 2004 06:42:53 PM new
Bush has lost Bill O'Reilly now. Tonight he said that if Bush doesn't have us out of Iraq by October, he will not be elected. He also compared Iraq to Vietnam.
Bill O also compared the Iraqis to the South Vietnamese, they won't fight and they won't help us to stop the insurgents. There is no way to win.
This tops it all.....always making fun of O'Reilly, putting down all views and articles posted from Fox News ....but boy when he says what they want to believe....they sure eat it up. LOL
This takes the cake for sure. LOL
I'll remind you both you were will to accept this great news [for your side] when this President is re-elected. And I won't ever ever ever accept a put down of Fox News again.
posted on April 5, 2004 07:36:01 PM new
It shouldn't be funny to you, Linda. After all this represents votes that Bush will be losing. Did you notice the irony and my little Lol? Control yourself.
posted on April 5, 2004 08:20:19 PM new
It is very, very funny. Because I've forever posted that O'Reilly doesn't side with Bush but presents both sides to the issues. I've often said he's critical of Bush or his administration. I've also stated he's said many many times he's not a Republican.
But was that ever believed? Nooooooooo
but now you're willing to listen.....
LOL
Re-elect President Bush!!
helen -
