[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Revisit UN Resolution 1441, specifically the requirement that is was up to Saddam to provide complete evidentary documentation of ALL weapons, possessed, developed, or dismantled by December of 2002.



Because you won't even acknowledge the possibility that weapons programs will be discovered in the coming months, nor are you willing to allow our forces to have enough time to both stabilize and restore Iraq, or allow them to have time to continue the weapons search.

1. It was up to the UN to declare Iraq in violation, not for the US/UK. Blix asked for more time, the US/Uk said no. The justification was the "threat" was too great. Now that we know there was no credible threat (because no one can find it even after the war is 3 months over), it's time to admit that they over-reacted. They could have waited.

2. Stop moving the goalposts. We didn't invade to protect us from "programs" or documents buried in rose gardens. We invaded to prevent an attack that was sure to come if we waited. It's time to admit that Iraq didn't even have the means to defend itself let alone launch an attack. The fear of threat was unfounded and already proven non-existant.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by Gangrene:
what's weird is why god always tells world leaders to kill people. I mean, you'd think he'd be whispering "DONT kill people".

wierd.

God wants goodness
God wants light
God wants mayhem
God wants a clean fight

-- Roger Waters, "What God Wants"

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
2. Stop moving the goalposts. We didn't invade to protect us from "programs" or documents buried in rose gardens. We invaded to prevent an attack that was sure to come if we waited.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who's noticing how "weapons of mass destruction" is slowly morphing into "programs of weapons of mass destruction" in Bush/Blair's recent rhetoric.

[theolein]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Revisit UN Resolution 1441, specifically the requirement that is was up to Saddam to provide complete evidentary documentation of ALL weapons, possessed, developed, or dismantled by December of 2002.



Because you won't even acknowledge the possibility that weapons programs will be discovered in the coming months, nor are you willing to allow our forces to have enough time to both stabilize and restore Iraq, or allow them to have time to continue the weapons search.

I changed my mind, as you know, on the deposing of Saddam, purely because I thought the Iraqis would love to not have to live in fear. So, while I am definitely left wing on some subjects, I'm right wing on others.

Ok, so far?

But what really worries me is that, although I've mentioned this a number of times in the past, I kepp hearing the same answer: All I've heard since the cessation of hostilities as stated by Bush, is that nothing pertaining to freedom and reconstruction is happening in Iraq.

Read the following points and tell me why you think they're wrong (I'm assuming you'll think so)

1.Rumsfeld stated that the USA would not allow Shia clerics to rule the country, even if they won an honest election.

2.Bremer cancelled already planned local elections.

3.Bremer disolved the Iraqi gathering of politicians, and decided instead to institute an American appointed government on a national and local level.

4. On hearing this, the Ayatollah of Iranian Shiites, Ayatollah Sistani, who had up to then stayed out of politics and had promoted seperation of clergy and state, issued a fatwa ordering Iraqi Shiites not to comply with or obey a foreign instituted government.

5.More than two months after the end of fighting, it seems, from what I can gather, that most areas in the larger cities, still don't have regular electricity or flowing water.

6.The Iraqis that will work with the Americans, and the ones that are being appointed to positions of power are almost exclusively ex government employees and baath party members.

7.The security situation, from what I can see, has become progressively worse from day to day. There is now hardly a day that goes by in which American soldiers are killed or attacked.

8.The arriving "international" support, in the form of 240 Danes and 2500 Poles, appear to be almost wholly unprepared for what they have to do. The Danes were sent snow plows and other winter equipment, and the Polish foreign minister openly admitted that Poland was promised Iraqi oil in exchange for it's support in Iraq.

9.Rumsfeld, who previously only had ridicule for France and Germany, is now calling for French and German troops to help out in Iraq. Germany has already declined.

10.The UN weapons inspectors were called back after two months and after finding no WMD's. The Allied forces, operating under no restraints whasoever, have also failed to find any WMD's. How long do they need?

11.Turkish soldiers were arrested in northern Iraq by US soldiers this week, and then quickly released. I don't know if you've ever heard of Cyprus and what happened there in 1974, but Turkey is not a country to mess around with.

12.The mood of the Iraqi population seems to have swung against the occupation.


So there you have it. I don't want people to be killed and would be happy for the Iraqis to have a bit of freedom and happiness after 35 years of Saddam. But, for the life of me, I just don't see that the situation is improving. In fact, from what I can tell, it is steadily getting worse.

If it carries on getting worse, sooner or later the US is going to either have to
a.Start taking reprisal action against Iraqi civilians
b.Withdraw
or
c.Give the Iraqis a measure of self government and do something about the water and lights.

Else it could very well degenerate into a civil war or open rebellion, both of which would be desasters.

[theolein]

Speak of the devil!

In today's NYTimes - www.nytimes.com - under the title: "Iraqis to Set Up an Interim Council to Administer Country" - This weekend.

Iraqi political figures who have been involved in negotiations said that the process was speeded by the deteriorating security situation in Iraq and mounting American casualties from daily attacks on allied forces. That had created a sense of urgency within the Bush administration to create a credible Iraqi governing body that could help counter the negative image of foreign occupation that is being exploited by the remnants of Mr. Hussein's forces

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by Gangrene:
I think the bush administration should be allowed just as much time to find WMD as they allowed Blix.

read: None.

It was 12 years.

doh.

[mathew_m]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
They over-reacted. You might say it's better to be safe than sorry. You might say it was an honest mistake. You might say the end justifies the means. All of these would at least be intellectually honest. But to continue to pretend that this was anything resembling an airtight case is simply delusional. [/B]

With all that said may I ask...And your point is?

Are my labels and dupes done yet?

[Gangrene]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
It was 12 years.

doh.

heh. not much good at understanding a rhetorical point, are ya?

[Gangrene]

Originally posted by mathew_m:
With all that said may I ask...And your point is?

Are my labels and dupes done yet?

is this the best you can do?

Like I said, republicans love lies. They love to tell them, they love to be told them, they love to be apologists for the liars and they love to continue in their ignorance.

Open up your blinkin orbs, dude. The prez is playing rope-a-dope with the credibility of the entire country and all you dudes can do is bend over and supply your own vaseline.

how about addressing theolein's recent post....? You know, the one about the abysmal failure that is the prezzie's Iraq reconstruction policy?

[Face Ache]

"I think the burden is on those people who think he didn't have weapons of mass destruction to tell the world where they are." Mr. Fleischer said.

The rabbit-hole went straight on like a tunnel for some way, and then dipped suddenly down, so suddenly that Alice had not a moment to think about stopping herself before she found herself falling down a very deep well.

[nonhuman]

Yeah, I think that definitely fits with the threat topic.

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Yeah, I think that definitely fits with the threat topic.

Sorry. I know you're a slow reader and it must have taken an awfully long time to get through that sentence.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
Sorry. I know you're a slow reader and it must have taken an awfully long time to get through that sentence.

The "" was for going towards your first quote, not my statement. I meant what I said in a non-sarcastic manner.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
It's referred to as Monday morning quarterbacking, Lerk

�Qu�?

[ringo]

Weird, conflicting stories about the CIA and the uranium forgeries...

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationwo...news-headlines

It was the British and Italian intelligence services that first alerted the CIA in late 2001 that they had obtained letters -- later determined to be forgeries -- between Iraq and Niger reportedly indicating the two countries were negotiating the sale of yellow cake.

Asked why the CIA didn't bother to obtain a copy of the letters until this spring, the senior intelligence official said that the agency "had serious questions about [the claims] from day one."

"We had accounts of them [the letters] and that was close enough," he said. "We didn't take it that seriously to begin with. ... We didn't put a lot of stock in these reports from Niger we didn't rush around to get the actual documents."

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/192/...ush_s_S:.shtml

ENTEBBE, Uganda (AP) President Bush's national security adviser said Friday the CIA cleared Bush's State of the Union speech in its entirety, including a sentence alleging that Iraq was seeking to buy nuclear material from Africa.

If CIA Director George Tenet had any misgivings about that sentence in the president's speech, ''he did not make them known'' to Bush or his staff, said national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.

It's time to play hot potato.

[chris v]

Washington Post story this morning, claiming CIA urged Britain to drop Niger claim from its report in Sept. and that reference to "British intel" was added to SOTU Africa reference at the last minute, dut to CIA uneasiness, and attempts to distance itself from the bogus docs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?nav=hptop_tb

CV

[theolein]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
Sorry. I know you're a slow reader and it must have taken an awfully long time to get through that sentence.

Took me a while as well to figure out what you were trying to say with your above sentence, Face Ache. I admit it, I'm dumb, sniff. I blame it on my childhood and Oscar the grouch

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by theolein:
Read the following points and tell me why you think they're wrong (I'm assuming you'll think so)

Rumsfeld stated that the USA would not allow Shia clerics to rule the country, even if they won an honest election.....Bremer cancelled already planned local elections....Bremer disolved the Iraqi gathering of politicians, and decided instead to institute an American appointed government on a national and local level....Give the Iraqis a measure of self government

Elecetions have never been the first step in establishing a democratic-based government. Those who claim otherwise haven't studied other nations' transformation to democratic-based societies.

I do think that the Iraqis need some semblance of elections at the local levels, but the place needs to be more secure, and election systems need to be defined. Terms of service (like length of time served per term) for these local officials also needs to be established.

You may as well get used to waiting. It's going to be years before elections are held on the state/provincial(?) and national levels in Iraq.

This is a start...from Iraqis Set to Form Interim Council with Wide Power

BAGHDAD, Iraq, July 10 � Representatives of the major political, ethnic and religious groups of Iraq � some of them skilled politicians, some of them exile leaders coming home and others political neophytes united by their suffering under Saddam Hussein � will declare the first postwar interim government in Iraq this weekend, Western and Iraqi officials said tonight.

After eight weeks of negotiations with the American and British occupation powers, a "governing council" of between 21 and 25 members will be granted extensive executive powers. The new body of Kurds, Shiites, Sunnis, Christians and Turkmen will share responsibility for running the country under a United Nations resolution that will continue to vest Washington and London with ultimate authority until a sovereign government is elected and a new constitution ratified, the officials said.

[christ]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Elecetions have never been the first step in establishing a democratic-based government...

Thought-provoking.

It seems that in the US playbook 'the first step in establishing a democratic-based government' is to invade a non-democratic country and overthrow the legal (but unpleasant) leader and government, in the process destroying whatever infrastructure that currently exists. I think this rates as an unusual 'first step in establishing a democratic-based government'

What precedent is there for establishing democracy by invading and overthrowing the legal government of a country then leaving to leave behind a democracy that didn't involve many years of colonisation in between those two events?

Is that what you expect to happen here - years of colonisation? If so, this may be the first time in history that a colonisation has occurred by force of arms, against the will of the colonised country, but ostensibly 'for the good of' the colonised country.

PS What is happening in Afghanistan? Will that provide any pointers, or has the US lost interest in that as 'old news'?

[Logic]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Elecetions have never been the first step in establishing a democratic-based government

Never? Are you sure?

Iceland voted to become independant and voted for establishing the democracy we have now. Therefore "never" is false. It might be that it normally doesn't happen that way but to claim it never does is wrong.



Just ignore me, I'm tired and shouldn't really be trying to add something to the discussion because I probably don't succeed. Go on

[theolein]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Elecetions have never been the first step in establishing a democratic-based government. Those who claim otherwise haven't studied other nations' transformation to democratic-based societies.

I do think that the Iraqis need some semblance of elections at the local levels, but the place needs to be more secure, and election systems need to be defined. Terms of service (like length of time served per term) for these local officials also needs to be established.

You may as well get used to waiting. It's going to be years before elections are held on the state/provincial(?) and national levels in Iraq.

This is a start...from Iraqis Set to Form Interim Council with Wide Power

You may have a point, in that it takes time for a country to make a transition to democracy, and Iraq does not have a tradition of this at all. In Bosnia and Kosovo, however the elections that came after the transition simply cemented the opposing parties positions, and the situation there is socially not much better than before. No one however, really seems to know what to do there, because the war might resume fairly rapidly if SFOR and KFOR were to suddenly go. (The changes in Serbia are helping very much though)

These places are however not Iraq and the situation is different. The war or intervention if you choose to call it that was not accepted or legitamised on an international level. Especially as regards the UN. One can accuse the UN of just about everything, but the UN does, at the very least, have a fair amount of experience in peacekeeping missions and the reconstruction of countries. The UN has played a large part in keeping the peace and reconstructing countries such as Bosnia, Kosovo (although without the intervention of NATO, it would have taken much longer, because Russia was keen on blocking SC actions against the Serbs) Afghanistan and elsewhere.

I also think the UN is too bureaucratic, but the invasion of Iraq was done against a lot of international opposition, and on some very shaky legal grounds. I know Simey will argue this until he's blue and aching in the face (excuse the pun) but the WMD argument was in all probability a fiction created in order to rationalise a de facto decision to invade Iraq. I have stated before that no one liked or wanted Saddam and that some grevious mistakes were made by Bush senior in not supporting the Shiites and Kurds in 1991. Whether this was because the USA did not want to anger Turkey in the north and was afraid of an Shiite Islamic republic in the south, I don't know.

I do however think that the USA in particular would have done far better if it had pursued the notion of liberating the Shiites and Kurds from genocide in the UN. There is ample evidence, as opposed to the WMD claim, that Saddam murdered and tortured thousands of particular ethnicities and religious groups in Iraq. If the US had pursued this track, the situation would be very different today and international support would be much stronger.

As it is, this wasn't the offical reason for intervention and the mess that is Iraq is there, with Polish politicians admitting that they're in it for the oil, the WMD claims falling apart around Bush and Blair's ears (and could conceivably cost Blair his job), a catastrophic security situation and destructive relations between France, Germany and the US and frictions within the EU, which indirectly influence me, because it damages the economy.

What is very interesting to note is the paragraph below the ones you posted in the New York Times article (I posted this further up)

Iraqi political figures who have been involved in negotiations said that the process was speeded by the deteriorating security situation in Iraq and mounting American casualties from daily attacks on allied forces. That had created a sense of urgency within the Bush administration to create a credible Iraqi governing body that could help counter the negative image of foreign occupation that is being exploited by the remnants of Mr. Hussein's forces

Question: Why wait until your soldiers are dying before doing something that had to be done anyway?

I seriously think that the management of Iraq was incredibly poorly planned and mostly as an afterthought at that.

Edit: Jeeeez, tpyos galoar...

[goldengoose7]

Originally posted by eklipse:
To liberate Iraqis of course - do try to keep up!

And they accuse Steve Jobs of using a reality distortion field!

Sheesh!

Wake up you MORON!

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by goldengoose7:
And they accuse Steve Jobs of using a reality distortion field!

Sheesh!

Wake up you MORON!

This is the second time today you have responded to someone's post without realizing they were being completely and totally sarcastic.

Sometimes its hard to notice sarcasm in text format (the smileys are usually a clue), but you should try to be more careful--especially if you are going to call people names.

In short: welcome to the forum, please be aware of rampamt sarcasm, try and keep from calling people names.

[avalon hill]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
It was 12 years.

doh.

U.N. inspectors were in Iraq for 7 years. Everyone knows that.

[goldengoose7]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
This is the second time today you have responded to someone's post without realizing they were being completely and totally sarcastic.

Sometimes its hard to notice sarcasm in text format (the smileys are usually a clue), but you should try to be more careful--especially if you are going to call people names.

In short: welcome to the forum, please be aware of rampamt sarcasm, try and keep from calling people names.

Nice to know that such a place still exists where ludicrous statements can be assumed to be sarcasm.

A few years ago I would have never assumed that comments like that could be real, but since Bush took office...

I will try and give posters the benefit of the doubt here from now on.

Cheers.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by goldengoose7:
Nice to know that such a place still exists where ludicrous statements can be assumed to be sarcasm.

A few years ago I would have never assumed that comments like that could be real, but since Bush took office...

I will try and give posters the benefit of the doubt here from now on.

Cheers.

No hard feelings. Its also hard to detect sarcasm when you don't have a feeling for the person posting. Once you've read a few of eklipse's posts, you probably recognize when he's being sarcastic much more easily (hint: when he says something good about Dubya )

[eklipse]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
(hint: when he says something good about Dubya )

Unfortunately that won't be today

According to this article , General Tommy Franks now believes US forces will probably have to remain in Iraq for up to 4 years. With 65 (acknowledged) deaths since the the major conflict was declared over on May 1st, this suggests over 1200 future deaths still to come - and the attacks on troops are currently increasing, not decreasing, with 10-25 incidents per day. This is having an obvious effect on morale.

The rhetoric coming out of Washington is altogether less than encouraging. All of a sudden the US has decided it 'needs help in Iraq' and is admitting to 'security problems'. It even seems to be considering asking a certain 'irrelevant', 'toothless' international organization for help. Oh how the tables have turned!

I still can't figure out what the US and its invisible 'Allies' have achieved from this endeavor - other than perhaps a temporary false sense of security? - and maybe oil contracts that they'll likely end up having to trade in order to get others to clear up the mess they made?

[shmerek]

What really pisses me off is Bush's "bring it on" rhetoric, easy to say from where he is sitting. Where was he during Vietnam?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by shmerek:
Where was he during Vietnam?

Here is a detailed table/timeline for you to peruse.

Oh, and another.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by shmerek:
What really pisses me off is Bush's "bring it on" rhetoric, easy to say from where he is sitting.

He wasn't talking to you, and any resulting action that occurs due to those comments doesn't affect you. So grab a sack and get over it.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by shmerek:
Where was he during Vietnam?

Unfortunately he missed it. Luckily he's making one of his own! Easy when you've got a coupla' billion tax payer dollars! Go Dubya!

(now that's sarcasm)

[eklipse]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
He wasn't talking to you, and any resulting action that occurs due to those comments doesn't affect you. So grab a sack and get over it.

You're a funny little person.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by eklipse:
You're a funny little person.

Thanks, Lerk. I found it funny myself that a person could be so distraught and devastated by Bush's 'bring it on' comment.

[shmerek]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
He wasn't talking to you, and any resulting action that occurs due to those comments doesn't affect you. So grab a sack and get over it.

Of course he wasn't talking to me what could I "bring on"?
And how the **** do you know that actions brought on by these comments won't effect me perhaps I have a brother or cousin in Iraq, no point in antagonizing people to attack you.

Obviously you missed the point of my post (talking big when you ass isn''t on the line)

[shmerek]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Thanks, Lerk. I found it funny myself that a person could be so distraught and devastated by Bush's 'bring it on' comment.

pisses me off=distraught and devastated? ...interesting

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by shmerek:
pisses me off=distraught and devastated? ...interesting

Actually, he stated "really pisses me off".

Distraught = Deeply agitated, mad = "really pisses me off"

Devastated = Overwhelmed, confounded, stunned

Gracias = Thank you

De Nada = You're welcome

[eklipse]

spacefreak = ....

...naah - too easy!

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by eklipse:
spacefreak = ....

...naah - too easy!

I admire your restraint. Where can I buy some of that?

[ringo]

Damn, I miss Clinton...

Oh, to have a president who wants to get it on instead of having someone bring it on.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by shmerek:
Of course he wasn't talking to me what could I "bring on"?
And how the **** do you know that actions brought on by these comments won't effect me perhaps I have a brother or cousin in Iraq, no point in antagonizing people to attack you.

No point in antagonizing the attackers to attack? Ridiculous. The comment boosts the troops morale, and in their situation that's important (whether you like it or not).

Obviously you missed the point of my post (talking big when you ass isn''t on the line)

Then you must have problems with morale-boosting words that ALL Presidents have said to the military over the last 200+ years, for the US has never put their Presidents in battle (and we never will).

Bring it on, bucko.

[shmerek]

Gee you got me, I cannot refute such devastating come backs. For the record I am neither t "distraught" or "devastated" just pissed.

[theolein]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Unfortunately he missed it. Luckily he's making one of his own! Easy when you've got a coupla' billion tax payer dollars! Go Dubya!

(now that's sarcasm)

The John Pilger essay is a very disturbing one. I disagree with some of his points (The claim that Iraqis, specifically Shiites and Kurds, didn't welcome being freed from Saddam is something I just can't imagine) but many make a sort of sense. The extensive use and denials of the dangers of DU ammunition and the use of cluster bombs and the far higher than anticipated civillian deathtoll do strike me as being somewhere closer to reality.

The desaster that is Afghanistan, where the security situation has become null and void, has been pushed to the sidelines and the point that Karzais government would probably fall rapidly if ISAF left is well made.

I dunno, I personally think that both the Taleban and Saddam are right to be gotten rid of, but as almost always happens in these conflicts is that so little thought is put into the actual running of the country.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by ringo:
Damn, I miss Clinton...

Oh, to have a president who wants to get it on instead of having someone bring it on.

Good line.

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I found it funny myself that a person could be so distraught and devastated by Bush's 'bring it on' comment.

Yeah I'll bet the US soldiers on patrol in Baghdad had a chuckle about that comment too.

[christ]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
...for the US has never put their Presidents in battle (and we never will)....

Have you not seen 'Independence Day'?

[christ]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
He wasn't talking to you, and any resulting action that occurs due to those comments doesn't affect you. So grab a sack and get over it.

OK. Assume that the US invaded Iraq to:

1) Free Iraq from their nasty leader
2) Stop their nasty leader consorting with international terrorists
3) Remove their nasty leader's WoMD

1) has been done (althought the replacement regime is taking a while to get off of the ground). 3) turns out not to have been a reason at all - silly public of the world for listening to all of that biased news reporting - obviously the US wouldn't have invaded a foreign country without evidence.

That leaves 2). That tends to imply that the US President's 'bring it on' addresses (or is likely to be interpreted by the bad guys as addressing) major international acts of terrorism. These are likely to effect lots and lots of people, most of whom would not be expecting to be effected by the US President's ivory tower rantings.

This means that the effects may be felt by shmerek, me, you and countless others. the US President really should stop willy measuring with terrorists, because it will only end in tears.

PS this would apply to any US President that got up to such silliness, I am not inherently anti-Dubya.

[shmerek]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
No point in antagonizing the attackers to attack? Ridiculous. The comment boosts the troops morale, and in their situation that's important (whether you like it or not).

Then you must have problems with morale-boosting words that ALL Presidents have said to the military over the last 200+ years, for the US has never put their Presidents in battle (and we never will).

Bring it on, bucko.

I am still not clear on how antagonizing someone to attack you will boast the morale of troops especially with the situation how it is now, the troops don't know who the enemy is or when or where they are going to get hit. One minute you are standing in line for a soda and the next minute you are dead with a bullet in the back of your head shot at point blank range. In case you haven't read any of the news the troops are getting pretty jumpy, I don't see how the president saying "bring it on" will boost the morale of the troops. It is a juvenile cowboy bravado nothing more.
If it were troops on the ground saying "bring it on" that is one thing but having somebody an ocean and a continent away saying it is pathetic and from what I have read most of the troops are saying "when can I go home".

[mydog8mymac]

And have you noticed that everytime these questions arise, we get new reports that Saddam is still alive, or that we did kill him and his sons in that attack.

Just wave something shiny in front of Americans and we'll be distracted.

[gerbnl]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
... but you guys still have not appreciated that this is a war of opinions between Downing Street and the BBC. You are quoting the BBC, but the BBC isn't a reporter in this story, it is a participant.

While that may be true, the Beeb at least has a good reputation which is way more than the other participants can claim...

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by shmerek:
I am still not clear on how antagonizing someone to attack you will boast the morale of troops...I don't see how the president saying "bring it on" will boost the morale of the troops. It is a juvenile cowboy bravado nothing more.

Seems that General Tommy Franks agrees with me.

Care to mention any active military leaders, or active troops in general, who agree with you?