Iraq: The mistake and the true solution that has no chance

[Steph]

Ah, if only the Iraqi could be killed as the Native americans did... That was the good old days... Then you could send settlers with wagons to claim their land and their oil.

We pretend that civilians shouldn't be targetted cause they have nothing to do with it... the majority of them needed to die.

Oh? And what about the few thousands people in the twin towers? Did they need to die to?

How can someone, saved a dangerous psycopath, just casually say "we just have to kill a few millions Iraqis and Iraq wouldn't be a problem anymore?

Don't you realize this IS the problem? Your willingness to kill, destroy, erradicated, anything that could bother you?

 

[JohnRM]

Ah, if only the Iraqi could be killed as the Native americans did... That was the good old days... Then you could send settlers with wagons to claim their land and their oil.


Oh? And what about the few thousands people in the twin towers? Did they need to die to?

How can someone, saved a dangerous psycopath, just casually say "we just have to kill a few millions Iraqis and Iraq wouldn't be a problem anymore?

Don't you realize this IS the problem? Your willingness to kill, destroy, erradicated, anything that could bother you?

The primary problem is that Sunnis and Shias hate each others' guts. It has very little to do with the USA at this point. In either case, I don't want to have to kill anyone, but I will do it if we have to. If we find that the entire city of Fallujah is full of terrorists and insurgents, we surround it, give everyone 72 hours to get out, take those who leave prisoner, and pound the city of Fallujah until it is rubble and dead bodies. END OF STORY. Why can't we do that?

 

[Insane_Panda]

Yugoslavia had no resources. Iraq does have one resource, one which destroys any chance at partition:

OIL.

There is only oil in the north and the south, whilst the predominately Sunni regions towards the west have none. Oil is the life blood of the country, and Iraq is (or was) one of the leading oil producers in the region, everyone wants a peice of the pie, and they are willing to fight for it. A partition would leave a southern Shi'ite state with a monopoly on the oil, and most likely run by a Shi'ite government aligned with Iran, a northern Kurdish state which is relatively prosperous (but threatened by invasion from Turkey), and a poor, isolated Sunni state, one which would likely become a bastion for terrorism and harbor revanchist sentiments towards the west for leaving it in such a horrid condition.

A partition is not workeable unless you divide the oil resources, something which the Kurds and the Shi'ites might not be so eager to do.

 

[C~G]

In either case, I don't want to have to kill anyone, but I will do it if we have to. If we find that the entire city of Fallujah is full of terrorists and insurgents, we surround it, give everyone 72 hours to get out, take those who leave prisoner, and pound the city of Fallujah until it is rubble and dead bodies. END OF STORY. Why can't we do that?

Something known as "common human decency" which to protect millions of people died during the middle of last century.

Well, if we killed every last man, woman, and child in the country, we would not have much of a problem left, would we? Even if we could reduce the population by 1/3 or 1/2, it would make the situation more managable.
One of the ways you reach that point is by being bombed day and night by big B-52s with chubby bellies.

Take this as much as flame as you want and I think I report myself but how can you post something like that while having the flag of US as your avatar?

You should be shame of yourself like quite many of your forefathers would be about you if they would read your message.
I can listen to some BS but your talk is full of actual want on violence fueling such terror which would make 9/11 look like sunday picnic.

BTW, that B-52 thing worked well in Vietnam, didn't it?

EDIT: It seems I cannot report myself, so go ahead if you have need to.

 

[Kosez]

I can't believe my eyes.
We have Fascists in OT.
Cause that's what John HSOG's posts are. Pure Fascism!
Good Lord almighty, America really came a long way from its save the world from Nazis days. If that's going to continue, somebody'll have to save us from Nazism again.

 

[Xanikk999]

I can't believe my eyes.
We have Fascists in OT.
Cause that's what John HSOG's posts are. Pure Fascism!
Good Lord almighty, America really came a long way from its save the world from Nazis days. If that's going to continue, somebody'll have to save us from Nazism again.

Once again. Dont judge america on people who have no clue like him.

Remember we are the most liberal generation yet. So who is going to run this country in the near future?

 

[Steph]

The primary problem is that Sunnis and Shias hate each others' guts. It has very little to do with the USA at this point. In either case, I don't want to have to kill anyone, but I will do it if we have to. If we find that the entire city of Fallujah is full of terrorists and insurgents, we surround it, give everyone 72 hours to get out, take those who leave prisoner, and pound the city of Fallujah until it is rubble and dead bodies. END OF STORY. Why can't we do that?

Oh, you can, if you want to be rated as the worst criminal against humanity. Not even Hitler, Staline or the other managed to completly eradicated the population of a whole large city so far.

 

[Sidhe]

Oh, you can, if you want to be rated as the worst criminal against humanity. Not even Hitler, Staline or the other managed to completly eradicated the population of a whole large city so far.

The English came the closest to that, lest we forget. Oops

The Romans decimated the warriors of North Gaul as well, one of the few times this overly harsh punishment was used on a defeated army(Knowing the Romans they probably saw it as a mark of respect) And took many of the the remaining people as slaves.

The Jews suposedly almost anihilated the Canaanites.

Essentially the reason we can't do those things any more is because, we have moved on from being mindlessly barbaric, not far, but there is some progress.

 

[Spartan117]

The primary problem is that Sunnis and Shias hate each others' guts. It has very little to do with the USA at this point. In either case, I don't want to have to kill anyone, but I will do it if we have to. If we find that the entire city of Fallujah is full of terrorists and insurgents, we surround it, give everyone 72 hours to get out, take those who leave prisoner, and pound the city of Fallujah until it is rubble and dead bodies. END OF STORY. Why can't we do that?

that is clearly not a practical solution and will not be as effective as you assume.

 

[dh_epic]

Even if you ignore the idea that killing that many innocent civilians would be moral, because you'd be killing a few bad guys...

You have to wonder about the long term practical consequences. Pretty much everyone in the world, even some of the most democratic countries, would think that you're a raving lunatic, an ***hole, perhaps even evil. If not most of the world, then certainly most people outside of America/Europe.

People who used to like you would no longer defend you. And people who used to tolerate you would never forgive you.

Do you really want to provoke war with a billion people, and isolate yourself from your allies?

I'm sure if we did so, there would be quite a few countries (I'm not going to name any of them) who would leap at the opportunity to use world opinion against us.

 

[JohnRM]

Something known as "common human decency" which to protect millions of people died during the middle of last century.
Take this as much as flame as you want and I think I report myself but how can you post something like that while having the flag of US as your avatar?

You should be shame of yourself like quite many of your forefathers would be about you if they would read your message.
I can listen to some BS but your talk is full of actual want on violence fueling such terror which would make 9/11 look like sunday picnic.

BTW, that B-52 thing worked well in Vietnam, didn't it?

EDIT: It seems I cannot report myself, so go ahead if you have need to.

Actually, it did work very well in Vietnam. We killed a buttload of people that way. When we bombed the jungle, it was a waste.

In any case, you are taking this whole thing out of context. My point is that in recent wars, we are reluctant to attack civilians, because we want to pretend that they have nothing to do with the war itself. That is simply BS. If we treated Iraq like Germany and Japan, during WWII, I garauntee that we would not have nearly as much of a problem.

 

[JohnRM]

I can't believe my eyes.
We have Fascists in OT.
Cause that's what John HSOG's posts are. Pure Fascism!
Good Lord almighty, America really came a long way from its save the world from Nazis days. If that's going to continue, somebody'll have to save us from Nazism again.

Oh spare me! If you don't have an actual argument to add, you are just spamming and flaming.

 

[JohnRM]

Once again. Dont judge america on people who have no clue like him.

Remember we are the most liberal generation yet. So who is going to run this country in the near future?

Well, the recent trend suggests that Republicans will.

 

[JohnRM]

Oh, you can, if you want to be rated as the worst criminal against humanity. Not even Hitler, Staline or the other managed to completly eradicated the population of a whole large city so far.

As I said, give everyone 72 hours to get out, and by the way, there were dozens of large cities that were almost completely eradicated during WWII, along with their entire population.

 

[CaptainF]

Actually, it did work very well in Vietnam. We killed a buttload of people that way. When we bombed the jungle, it was a waste.

In any case, you are taking this whole thing out of context. My point is that in recent wars, we are reluctant to attack civilians, because we want to pretend that they have nothing to do with the war itself. That is simply BS. If we treated Iraq like Germany and Japan, during WWII, I garauntee that we would not have nearly as much of a problem.

The thing is that in this war bombing civilians would be really ********, because we are supposedly "liberating" them.

So were trying to save them, but at the same time fraggin them?

Doesn't add up.

 

[JohnRM]

The thing is that in this war bombing civilians would be really ********, because we are supposedly "liberating" them.

So were trying to save them, but at the same time fraggin them?

Doesn't add up.

Like I said, save the Kurds and any other group that are obvious allies, but when you get an entire area full of the enemy who hate our guts and is simply a training ground for the enemy, why not destroy it along with anyone who lives there? I even offered the 72 hour amnesty!

 

[C~G]

In any case, you are taking this whole thing out of context. My point is that in recent wars, we are reluctant to attack civilians, because we want to pretend that they have nothing to do with the war itself.

Or you learned a lesson from Vietnam.

That is simply BS. If we treated Iraq like Germany and Japan, during WWII, I garauntee that we would not have nearly as much of a problem.

Problem about what? You don't need to bomb them, they are bombing the place up by themselves. It's a mess already.

The real reason why such bombings aren't done recently especially in war on terror because this is new kind of war where you don't know what will happen if you bomb civilians. It's exactly the reason why war on terror doesn't work since it turns into war of terror.

dh_epic, is also right about the practical side of things even though IMO it's almost irrelevant in this case as I strongly resent your way of showing how massacres solves all issues. Because that is what you seem to be advocating in contrast of being a "softie".

 

[dh_epic]

As I said, give everyone 72 hours to get out, and by the way, there were dozens of large cities that were almost completely eradicated during WWII, along with their entire population.

Even if you assume that what was moral 60+ years ago is still moral today (including racial apartheid, colonialism, and so on)...

... this was before the television era. Now public opinion is inextricably linked to warfare. War on TV will affect people's opinion of the war, and of your government. And people's opinions will affect people's actions.

Personally, I'd rather not give China or Russia an excuse to be the moral leader of the world. (Not yet, anyway. A lot can change in 20 years.)

 

[JohnRM]

Or you learned a lesson from Vietnam.
Problem about what? You don't need to bomb them, they are bombing the place up by themselves. It's a mess already.

The real reason why such bombings aren't done recently especially in war on terror because this is new kind of war where you don't know what will happen if you bomb civilians.

dh_epic, is also right about the practical side of things even though MO it's almost irrelevant in this case as I strongly resent your way of showing how massacres solves all issues. Because that is what you seem to be advocating in contrast of being a "softie".

No, I am just saying that in a case where we know an entire city is working doubletime to kill American soldiers and spawn terrorist attacks against other civilians who actually want to make democracy work, we should destroy that city. What part of this do you people seem not to understand? What if they have a nuclear missile and were protecting it? Would you still not destroy it?

 

[nc-1701]

The primary problem is that Sunnis and Shias hate each others' guts. It has very little to do with the USA at this point. In either case, I don't want to have to kill anyone, but I will do it if we have to. If we find that the entire city of Fallujah is full of terrorists and insurgents, we surround it, give everyone 72 hours to get out, take those who leave prisoner, and pound the city of Fallujah until it is rubble and dead bodies. END OF STORY. Why can't we do that?

Everbody remember that only a very part of Americas pop are faacists most of us are people. Not barbariens. Like this guy.

Theres no way I'de ever support bombing civilians who are looking to us for help just for the sake of killing. I don't have a problem with destroying cities if it is actualy done to protect us from invasion (WW2) but theres no way Iraq could ever threaten us with more than a view suicide bombers.