STORM2K

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/ ... index.html

The situation in those areas is very tense as the insurgents are trying to get control of Fallujah and not permit the entrance to Najaf where Al Sadr is honkered down in a mosque.IMO the US troops must go into those 2 areas and terminate with those minority elements including capturing or killing that person Al Sadr.

this is starting to sound like viet nam, where washington prevented the troops from winning

cycloneye wrote:The situation in those areas is very tense as the insurgents are trying to get control of Fallujah and not permit the entrance to Najaf

rainstorm wrote:this policy will only encourage more killing of us soldiers. the militants have forced us to back down. as with spain, when you flinch, it makes the enemy see you as weak.

I notice that word "terrorist" to describe those opposing to US troops is not used very often lately. Have you noticed the same?

I think that depends on who is being talked about Paolo.

mf_dolphin wrote:I think that depends on who is being talked about Paolo.

you tell me: who are we talking about?

These are both situations that will be turning points in the war in Iraq...and the war on terror.

Washington may be hesitant again, but the resolve to win the war is as high as ever. The challenge is twofold.

Politically, the beaurocracy knows that shifting sands can change the outcome of the election. A bad move here, a miscalculation there, or a failed outcome.

Militarily, I believe there are already plans in place to finish the job in these two cities. We'll witness that during the course of this week, it appears.

How much force, and just when to apply it, is already known.

Many people in our country are wanting to believe we can simply tidy up Iraq and come on home. This is a very real war with much more at stake than Iraq's future, so it will get the attention it deserves from lawmakers and our military soon.

They are still Coward's and terrorists. Nothing has changed

Couldn't of said it better if I'd tried Steve. Unfortunately there are always "political" options that must be considered in any action such as this. The reason is twofold. First, we may be a World power, but we do not want to be seen as a war machine rolling over all in our way, ala Hitler. 2nd and much less important in my book, but nonetheless part of it-it is an election year and one must look good during an election year.

That all said, Steve has it right when he says the plans are in place and deadlines have been set. I, for one, think it is time to take of the gloves and go in and do the job in that particular area. Other areas may be handled differently, but in the end WE MUST PREVAIL IN THE WAR ON COWARDS!!!!(AND IT WILL BE A LONG FIGHT!!-President Bush told us that from the start.)

In the next few days we will know what the US will do in those areas in Iraq that right now are the focal points.Steve said it right about politics dictating things here and I hope that they decide to do the right thing not based in politics as we are in an election year.

Paolo, Al Sadr is just making a power play. His establishment of a private militia is against the laws of the Iraqi counsel. They will be disbanded one way or the other. Call them militia, terrorists, thugs or whatever you want to.

Najaf was under siege last night, and I suspect this will grow still more in the next day or two. Military solutions seem so senseless, but then again so are threats of intimidation and more violence against civilians around the world.

The next phase of this war is about to unfold.

At Fallujah a decision about heavy military action there is on the virge to be taken.

PaolofromRome wrote:

cycloneye wrote:The situation in those areas is very tense as the insurgents are trying to get control of Fallujah and not permit the entrance to Najaf

rainstorm wrote:this policy will only encourage more killing of us soldiers. the militants have forced us to back down. as with spain, when you flinch, it makes the enemy see you as weak.

I notice that word "terrorist" to describe those opposing to US troops is not used very often lately. Have you noticed the same?

No....but I notice you only believe things that put the US in a bad light. Their insurgents who support Saddam's old regime. They supported a man who murdered and tortured millions. No big deal I guess.

stormchazer wrote:No....but I notice you only believe things that put the US in a bad light. Their insurgents who support Saddam's old regime. They supported a man who murdered and tortured millions. No big deal I guess.

Jara, it seems to me they are not those supporting Saddam's once, and wanting Saddam back now.
they are the ones massacrated by Saddam, as opposition to the Baath's party.
What is wrong and what makes me wonder is how you, that are supposed to give them a better life, would rather prefer to kill them out, regardeless of resistants, terrorists or innocents.
Is that switching on a bad light on US? I guess the troops over there fighting to save their own lives can hardly recognize, under fire, who is an innocent and who might be a terrorist.
I'm blaming those that committed to have the troops in that position, those that make such a bad plan for postwar period, those that in stead of fighting terror are just counting how many dollars are entering the depository.

A desicion has been made both in Fallujah and Najaf.We are seeing the first attacks to those insurgents in Fallujah tonight.And in Najaf over 2,000 US forces are ready to invade that city and get dead or alive AL SADR.