Patriot Disproportionate Force?!
July 17th, 2006 by Patriot
The European Union and many others around the world are accusing Israel of using "disproportionate force" against Lebanon. Some of those people are here in our country.
Those in disagreement to this should recognize that those same types of terrorists "only" collapsed a few buildings in New York City in 2003 and our country destroyed Afghanistan. There is no such thing as "disproportionate force" when fighting a war. Actually, it's something you want. Wars aren't won when each side counts what the other has and organized his force to ensure everything is equal. The reason America is the greatest military power on earth is because of our disproportionate force.
The goal of war isn't to prolong the suffering, but end it as quickly as possible. Imagine where we'd be in Iraq if we only launched a rocket everytime Iraq did, only fired a shot when an Iraqi did, only killed a soldier or terrorists, when they did. That's not the way war works. If Israel is using "disproportionate force", they're doing it to end this thing as quickly as possible.
As Charlie Sierra said, Hezbollah isn't playing dirty. They've taken cues from our campaign in Iraq and learned how to win. They're using women and children, just like the Iraqis did and continue to do. If those civilians are there to watch Hezbollah and Hamas attack Israel on their own free will, then they DESERVE to die as a consequence. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand those guys are targets. If they're there against their will, it's a tragedy that they are killed, but showcases the true evil nature of the Islamic terrorists.
The North won the Civil War not because they were the greater Army, but because they outnumbered the South by a huge margin. That's disproportionate force. When the Confederates threw the first punch, the Federals laid the hammer down until they were beat into submission. This is the same thing that needs to happen in Israel.
I believe that within the next couple of months (or earlier) Syria and/or Iran will get involved in this skirmish in the Middle East. When that happens, I truly believe we will get involved. One thing we have going for us is that Iran can't really afford to bring us into this war.
We have them surrounded. One of my suspicions is that we are keeping the troop levels we have in Iraq and Afghanistan not really because we need them all, but because Iran is acting irrational and it would be too expensive to pull out all those troops only to send them back in when Iran implodes and goes bizerk.
I think you are most likely correct Patriot. Good post.
What the media is not reporting is that, Israel is the most responsible for this escalation of viloence. And what the core of the problem is, Israel still refuses to withdrawl from Palestianian territories. Also, Israel has to stop commiting human rights violations.
Cj, America crediabiltiy is shot. Its dead. If Iran gets involved, well, we might have another draft. The only way we could win an all out war in that region is with a draft. A draft is politically impossible. The only way we can win just the Iraq war even, well need a draft, but that's not my point.
Anyway, Iran won't get involved. America won't get involved, we can't. The mess in Iraq has left us bogged down, we can't afford to doanything right now.
The illegal/immoral invasion/occupation of the Republic of Iraq, has done nothing but strenghtened Iran. Iraq is now controlled by the Shia. That's what Iran likes. Also, Saddam was an enemy of Iran. Now, Iraq is an allie. Afghanistan was an enemy of Iran, now its an allie.
Hey Patriot!! Great post!! You totally have a handle on the situation. I think the greatest example of disproportionate force though might be Japan, WWII. Hiroshima, Nagasaki. I'm thinkin, planes bombing ships to mushroom cloud… sounds good to me!! Can't tell you how many guys have told me we should pull out, let them all gather and then rename the middle east the glass desert!!
Blue Barn, I so tire from this whole "illegal/immoral" war crap. Not ONE person has yet shown me how this war is illegal. It's a fun term that liberals like to throw around but it doesn't mean anything. If it's so illegal, why isn't the President being charged? Why isn't the President being impeached? Clinton did something "illegal" and he got impeached. For that matter, why aren't the Congressman who voted for the war being indicted and charged? How is this war illegal?
As for a draft…I'm all for it. It's about time more Americans stepped up to the plate and made a vested interest in our success.
It's illegal because, you can't just invade countries. According to international law, just invading countries is illegal. Kofi Annan has stated this war is illeagl.
The grass-roots movement to impeach Bush, which I am a part of, is growing and gathering momentum. Another reason Bush is safe is beacuse Republicans still control the House, Senate, Executive Branch and most of the Judiciary Branch.
Democrats have no power to start an investigation.
I question anybody's leadership who voted for this war.
This war is immoral because we were lied too and mislead.
It's also immoral because we are their for altruistic reasons.
Blue Barn,
I think you should look 'altruistic' before using it in a sentence.
Good post, Patriot. CJ, agreed on all counts except the draft. 'Speshly agree with Blue Barn's need for a dictionary
– and a good dose of common sense!
Why, oh, why, do liberals think they need an argumentative forum on someone else's blog??!! I get so tired of it. If they think they are going to change our minds or enlighten us, they had best get some arguments of substance and not these same, boring, talking points.
As for Kofi – who made him King of the World. Oh yeah, Saddam and Oil for Food – he's still mad because we dried up his personal slush fund. The UN never enforces its resolutions – that is how we got into Iraq and how Israel got into this war. I wish some people would read up on their history – we didn't "just invade". I gather from your post that you believe that the Iraqis were happy and better off under Saddam.
Altruistic – that's a liberal ideal. The basis for all they believe in. Don't pin it on us. I'd be against the war if we were there for altruistic reasons.
This blog is advertised publically. I have already asked the moderator if I can post here.
My original comment was about Iran and how its impossible to get involved. I was commenting on the subject that the moderator has posted, I wasn't arguing.
I mispelled a couple of words, my fault. I meant we are NOT THERE for altrustic reasons.
It has never been proven Kofi had anything to do with that scandle. We are in I raq because Bush decided to invade the Republic of Iraq. Iraq is a complete disaster, in the words of one Iraqis: "There is no security, there is no freedom".
Iraq was a complete disaster way before we went there.
Do you want me believe that it was ok with you that Saddam executed millions of innocent people and burying them in mass graves?
I have to extend my thanks to CJ for ok'ing you Blue Barn to post here. I haven't had so many laughs in a long time.
Lauren, I actually just feel for you. I mean you are completly making up facts. Saddam never executed millions of people. It was more around 100,000 at the very most.
The sanctions and continual bombing we laid on Iraq in past decades were more devastating to the iraqi people than Saddam.
commondreams..../0802-01.htm
I am the last person you have to feel for and I refuse to go back and forth with someone I feel is a non entity in the human race.
If you think there should be a difference in millions of people being executed or 100,000 then you truly are an idiot. I don't care if he had 1 person executed he got what he deserved to live in a hole in the ground like a trapped rat.
On that note any future posts made by you directed to me will be ignored. I will give you the satisfaction as going back and forth with someone who has no points to make of any smarts.
Yep, just be ignorant. What and the U.S. has never killed its own people?
en.wikipedia....te_shootings ,
So, couldn't somebody invade us and say that we are a bad country?
If you are so un-happy living in the U.S. (if you even live here) nobody is keeping you here. I highly doubt anyone would be upset if you packed up your dictionary and went to another country. I wouldn't be surprised if your own family helped you pack your belongings.
No country has the b*alls to invade us. They only know how to do it like sneaky rats and crash airplanes into our buildings. I have yet to see a terrorist with balls to come and fight without doing it sneakly. But yet how smart can they be they are still waiting for the virgins they were promised.
I just get a kick out of people like you who sit behind a computer and post comments they way you do. Stand behind your comments get on the first plane to the Middle East and fight for the terrorists and I can guarantee you that they would careless if your on "their" side. If your an American and get caught you will be killed.
Lauren, I never said I was un-happy.
Lauren, you need to formulate an actual arguement. Instead you just steam off snarky comments.
True, we are the most powerful military nation on the planet. It wouldn't be in the interest of any country to invade us becasue of the economic fall out.
Not everybody in the Middle East is a terrorist.
I will not go over to the Middle East and fight for the terrorists because I do not share the same values and belief system they have. I also think mthat their casue is not noble.
Blue, let me tell you a story. A personal story.
I went to Kuwait in September 2002, six months BEFORE we crossed the border. We went there to train and show Saddam that we were serious. We didn't invade in Sep 2002. He was given ultimatums that he had to meet by November 2002, then we would invade. We didn't invade in Nov 2002. Around Christmas time, another timeline wasn't met and we were supposed to cross the border; Christmas in Iraq. We didn't invade Iraq in Dec 2002. Once again, we were alerted and prepared to crossin February 2003 after telling Saddam he needed to give up and comply, leave the country. We didn't invade Iraq in February 2003.
On March 2, I moved out of my relatively comfortable tent in the middle of the Kuwaiti desert, packed my truck with everything I needed and literally moved to the berm separating the two countries. To imply that this was an irrational, illegal, and ill-conceived war is simply incorrect.
I recall breathing sighs of relief each time we were told to stand down, Saddam was being given another chance. That whole six months I slept in the dirt, the sand, the heat, and the cold. We took showers in freezing cold water and ate MRE's much of the time.
The fact is that this war wasn't illegal, by international terms or American. We weren't "lied" to about this war. President Bush made the decision, as did Congress, based on intelligence given to them. President Bush doesn't create intelligence. Turns out that intelligence wasn't as bad as people like you who want him impeached thought. Amazingly enough there WERE WMDs in Iraq. Amazingly enough, Saddam WAS funding terrorism. Amazingly enough, we were the only ones with the cajones to enforce resolutions passed in the gutless U.N. (which we just need to pull out of).
You just keep on trying to impeach Bush. What a great way to spend one's time! How about instead using that energy to speak out against terrorism?! Where is this energy when our soldiers are being beheaded and maimed? Where is this energy when our soldiers are getting blown up? You liberals really make me scratch my head. It honestly baffles my mind at how your focus is on constantly making us look bad or tearing us down while being silent on terrorism and terrorist acts.
My gosh, I can't go on.
But I do agree we're there for altruistic purposes. I'm glad you recognize that, even though you tried to backtrack out of it.
Cj,
newstatesman....200505300013 ,.
This war was illegal,:
wsws.org/arti...aw-m26.shtml ,
commondreams..../0916-01.htm ,
guardian.co.u...9158,00.html ,
This war was ill-concieved,
dailykos.com/...8/215257/257 ,
amazon.com/gp...=cobra%20two ,
There are no WMD"s found in Iraq,
en.wikipedia....Survey_Group ,
The 9/11 commision report found no connection to Saddam and Al-qaeda,
washingtonpos...04Jun16.html ,
Bush cherry picked evidence,
freenewmexica...s/39306.html ,
downingstreetmemo.com/ ,
en.wikipedia....ence_on_Iraq ,
Cj, I do denounce terrorism I do not like it at all. But once again you are justing hearing what you want to hear and disregarding the facts. And the facts are we should have not even gone in there. There was a reason why the first Bush did not go in there. We were lied to. I am not against war. I am against UNECESSARY war. America survival was not at stake here. Look I do support the troops. I support them by getting rid of leaders who just see you guys as a tool to gain economic and personal goals of theirs. Esienhower use to keep letters of the dead with him at all times to make sure he knew what he was doing. Bush has not gone to one funeral. I may be wrong though. This war is immoral/illegal. Period. I don't understand why you make up facts. The only thing I can think of is that you are using your military experience and connections to promote your own Republican worldview for political gain.
When my country is right, I love it.
When its wrong, I try to right it.
Blue,
This war could have been legally launched any time since 1991, when Saddam agreed to a cease fire under terms, namely abiding by the no-fly zones. He targetted our aircraft on numerous occasions.
If Bush "cherry picked" intelligence, so did Congress and they should censured if Bush is impeached. Congress has access to the same intelligence as Bush. Bush is not an intelligence clearing house.
There are WMDs in Iraq. You provide links, so I'll provide some. Ain't it funny how links just don't work?
news.bostonhe...cleid=148385
soldierspersp...ve.us/?p=703
worldnetdaily...CLE_ID=38213
That "Iraq Survey Group" you quote? They're the same ones that confirmed a WMD located in Iraq that contained Sarin and Mustard Gas.
foxnews.com/s...0137,00.html
But, this linking thing is absurd. First of all, the fact is that I am providing links of PROOF that WMDs HAVE been found. There's no PROOF on any of your links that they HAVEN'T been found.
I know what you're going to say because all the anti-war nutcases are saying the same thing: but that was only (fill in the blank) amount of (fill in the WMD material) found. Saddam lied, not Bush. Saddam broke the agreements that authorized military force if not abided by, not Bush. Saddam is the criminal, not Bush.
In response to your Iraqi quote, I'll offer one as well:
"Thank you, Ameryika. Thank you for Democracy!" Here's a video link so you can see more Iraqis thanking us:
links.streami...tvspot1m.asx
Senior Bush DID go into Iraq. As a matter of fact, we went as far north as An Nasariyah before pulling our forces back. It just takes a little research and understanding of the first Gulf War to know that. We had Saddam by the gonads and let him go.
You're right, Bush hasn't gone to one funeral. But, I think he has a point when he says he hasn't gone "Because which funeral do you go to? In my judgment, I think if I go to one I should go to all. How do you honor one person but not another?" However, he HAS met with HUNDREDS of families of the fallen. He meets with them at every opportunity. This is a no-brainer. If you think about it, it's actually quite sound reasoning. I'd do the same thing and I'm a soldier.
Making up facts? I'm presenting hard evidence. And for the record, I'm NO Republican. I tend to agree with the Republicans on many more issues than the Democrats because they tend to be more favorable to the military and aren\'t as negative all the time. I'm more Libertarian than anything, but I'm independent. Frankly, I don't care if you believe that, but I thought you should know. I can't speak for the other bloggers here, but there's my stand and I've been pretty open about it.
There are many things about the Republicans decisions that I haven't agreed with. The thing that you fail to see is that this site is focused on news and events that effect us in the military. Quite frankly speaking, that's the reason we're always diming out the Democrats. They don't care about us. And if they do, they have a funny way of showing us.
You say that the number of Iraqis murdered at the hands of Saddam is close to 100,000. I love what John Burns of the New York Times said back in January 2003 when he said, "In the end, if an American-led invasion ousts Mr. Hussein, and especially if an attack is launched without convincing proof that Iraq is still harboring forbidden arms, history may judge that the stronger case was the one that needed no inspectors to confirm: that Saddam Hussein, in his 23 years in power, plunged this country into a bloodbath of medieval proportions, and exported some of that terror to his neighbors."
He continues, "Stalin killed 20 million of his own people, historians have concluded. Even on a proportional basis, his crimes far surpass Mr. Hussein's, but figures of a million dead Iraqis, in war and through terror, may not be far from the mark, in a country of 22 million people."
I suggest you read the rest of the article to find out how many people Saddam has killed: frontpagemag.....asp?ID=5773
Blue, I keep finding absurd points you make and need to respond to them. This one involves the Kent State shooting.
The Kent State shooting had NOTHING to do with President Nixon, except that the students were protesting his invasion of Cambodia.
Kent State happened because of an untrained, nervous soldier who reacted rashly. The state GOVERNOR sent the troops in, not the President. For the record, the Governor was a Republican, if that matters to anyone. Four people died, which isn't a lot when we're comparing Nixon and Hussein.
If you really want an example of excessive government force, the best example is Waco, TX. Attorney General Janet Reno authorized the final invasion of the Branch Davidian compound where 76 people, including 26 children, were killed. I'm assuming you didn't use this example because the President at the time was a Democrat (Clinton).
You could have also used the Ruby Ridge stand-off, in which 4 people were killed, including a 10-month old baby, by U.S. Marshalls. I again assume you didn't use this example, which killed the same number of people as the Kent University incident, because again there was a Democratic president in office (Clinton again).
Talk about "promoting your own…worldview for political gain."
Blue,
I really don't approve of the topic hijacking that has taken place here, but I'll add my two cents since you've not only charging CJ with using the blog for political gain, but all of us that post here.
Yes. I am a Republican. I am also a Marine. I try my damnedest to keep my politics and my military separate, but most of the time it is very hard, especially when discussing Iraq. This is a MilBlog meaning we discuss things related to the military. Since it seems the Democrats have a hard time understanding that we have a mission to accomplish, we tend to slam them.
For the record, I do not post here to push any type of "Republican worldview for political gain." I post here to talk about the military.
And to add to CPL M, I don’t either. As a matter of fact, I’ve never talked about anything political that DIDN’T involve the military or security in some way. You’ll never see anything about abortion, gay marriage (unless related to the military approving it), or any other politically charged debate.
Blue, I'm going to give you the last word on this, then I'm going to delete any future comments on either side on this post NOT related to the topic, which is "disproportionate force".
If you take a look at my first post it was about the subject at hand. The other commenters went off in the other direction. [Cpl M corrects: You did go off on Iraq in your first comment which then took the entire discussion off Israel and to Iraq.]
I was going to use Waco, but could not find any wikipedia entry for it.
Cj, the DOD has never confirmed, nor our government for that matter, that there have been WMD\'s found. If there were WMD\'s trust me everybody would be publishing it, but there not, you know why. It\'s because there are no WMD\'s. All those talking points you have stated were all from the 1980\'s. They were stuff thaths been sitting out in the desert for years. Something our government hass confirmed though id the Iraq Survey Group, which did conclude that there were old sarin and mustard gas cartridges that were not usable.
And the Saddam killing people thing. That article was combining the amount of people Iraqis have died in the Iraq-Iran War. I was talking about the amount of people Saddam himself ordered to be killed.
Bush did not give Congress the same intelligence. He mislead them. The Bush Company, told them that Saddam was getting ready to attack the U.S. and America\\\\\\\'s survial as a state was at stake, He lied and mislead, everybody.
It's hopeless, CJ & Cpl M! It's extremely hard to have a discussion with a brick wall (or a blue barn).
One point I wanted to make, tho… Did you ever think what the presence of the President of the US at the funeral of a Seviceman/woman would do, even if it were feasible? It would detract attention from the honor due the deceased and his family. Our President loves and honors our Military and their families. Only a dunce would think otherwise.
I just want to reiterate that i AM the most beautiful person in the world.
emily
I still agree Emily!!! he he he
Excellent analysis, and incorporated it into my own blogpost.
I enjoy your Blog very much, some opinions I agree with others, not so much, but I am grateful to have the opportunity to see how others think and feel. I am a Canadian who spent 6 months in Afghanistan and 5 months at Abu Ghraib Base in Iraq. I made some very good friends American, Afghani, and Iraqi.
I just want to thank-you and all the other brave people Military and Civilian who like myself put their life’s in jeopardy for others freedoms. I hate coming home and seeing the fight being waged in our own countries. My son is now thinking of joining the US Marines and i could not be prouder and I hate the thought of people attaching him verbally for what he believes.
I have one story to share, and please consider this is one, small inncedent that was probably never reported;
An Iraqi man stood in a hall in the Abu Ghraib prison and said, there were 3000 men crowded into this small corridor living in their own filth. Saddam Hussein was called and asked what do about the problem. Mr. Hussein dispatched his son to line the men up against the walls and shoot every 3rd man in the head.
It is irrelevant to the Iraqi people what the world thinks of America’s politics for entering their country. All I know from the Iraqi people I have spoken with is that they feel hope for their future for the first time in years. THAT to me is what’s important!
Again, THANK-YOU!
I know the topic has been resolved with “disproportionate force�, but I am sick of the WMD argument and the idea that the media would be allover the story. Please read the article below and keep it handy.
foxnews.com/s...0601,00.html
Melted1, that's a great opinion piece, but the arguments don't hold up.
The fact of the matter is that WMDs DID exist, degraded or not. Saddam assured the US and international community that all these munitions were destroyed and they were not. They are still hazardous and could have been used against us or our "indefensible allies", as the article puts it.
The thing that bothers me is that people like Father Jonathan Morris and other liberal leaning folks want to distinguish between new and old WMDs. A WMD is a WMD. It very well is truth that Saddam didn't build anything new since 1991, but he hid what little he had left. This is evidenced by the WMD inspectors' reports of Saddam being difficult when the inspectors arrived at a location and reports of trucks leaving out the back while the inspectors were out front.
When I see that "WMDs Found In Iraq" article, I see "WMD found in Iraq". That's the important part of every debate. People trying to trash Bush and his administration ignore this and attempt to use the benign argument that "well, but they're old." That's not the point. Iraq HAD WMD. Period. Even if I said, Iraq had 1991-era WMD, he STILL HAD WMD!! He could still kill and maim people with those weapons. Why is that so hard to comprehend?