Was this an Iraqi chemical weapon or some device rigged by insurgents using hosehold cleaners? It doesn't really say. Also does anyone else think that imploding the building is not necessesarily the best mitigation strategy?
[QUOTE=Jetcane]This is a real detriment to successfully prosecuting the war.
As a couple of us mentioned in bit's poll thread, there should be more of an overwhelming presence to run the table on these azzholes.[/QUOTE]
the powell doctrine was thrown out the window when the Administration
were in the rush to war.
That's how ignorant Bush administration has been. Colin Powell has a military doctrine named after him specifically dealing with this situation and he's on the President's staff ...
unfortunately it is not something Bush's other aides want to hear the man gets forced out, but not before he has to present baldfaced lies to the UN Security Council, and they wipe their collective asses with his Doctrine.
and he's not the only one
Bremer thought he needed more troops - he was fired.
Generals Zinni and McCrystal said 300,000 was about right - they were marginalized.
who would have thought that Rumsfeld and Cheney were wrong about matters of war? i mean they are such geniuses -
how many military doctrines have been named after Cheney?
Rumsfeld has really disappointed me with his prosecution of this war. No doubt. His stock was very high at one time, and now he is in the back room. Didnt he offer his resignation once or twice?
There is evidently internal disharmony with the strategies.
But, what I never forget, no matter how divisive politics has become, is this:
[QUOTE]McMaster hailed operations in Tal Afar as a major success against an “unscrupulous” enemy. "They are some of the worst human beings on the face of the Earth, and there is no real greater pleasure for us than to kill or capture these individuals,” he said.[/QUOTE]