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

[CaptainF]

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!

Isn't that just a bit hypocritical?

Just a bit?

 

[dh_epic]

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?

A nuclear missile would definitely change EVERYTHING.

But aside from that, you have to consider the fact that the nearby cities have to be at least skeptical of America, even if they're innocent. And if the neighboring cities are skeptical, then the neighboring countries are tolerant -- at best.

This is a marathon, not a sprint. A short sighted attack that kills terrorists might seem like a good idea. But the long term impact can do more harm than good.

 

[C~G]

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?

The main problem being here that there's no such reality where you bomb one city and situation solves itself and secondly question might be is such democracy really worth it if we must kill thousands of people because of it beforehand? And we aren't sure of results?
This is pretty much what happened in Iraq. US thought that technological superioty in battle field would cause people to treat them as liberators and embrace the democracy and flock to western values. Now that it didn't happen, everybody is looking for answers. Maybe the answer isn't intensifying the violence, this time.

What if they have a nuclear missile and were protecting it? Would you still not destroy it?

Nuclear missile is weapon of mass destructing. It's little bit different kind of threat than terrorists in general. So, sure I would bomb if it would mean that they couldn't use the bomb afterwards and there would be evidence they are preparing to use it.
Now, would you bomb that city if they might be cabable launching that nuclear missile even if they are bombed?
Would you bomb that city if you would know that it would just spawn more terrorists from the nearby areas or continue it until death takes us all apart?

 

[JohnRM]

Whoever said it would solve EVERYTHING? As far as spawning more terrorists, keep killing them. Who cares if we create more terrorists. There are only so many Muslims on this Earth and if it takes killing every last one of them to stop worldwide Islamic terrorism, then lets have at it.

 

[Sidhe]

Well, the recent trend suggests that Republicans will.

Trends don't suggest generational gaps in politics, young people don't vote in the same number as old, give it time.

 

[JohnRM]

A nuclear missile would definitely change EVERYTHING.

But aside from that, you have to consider the fact that the nearby cities have to be at least skeptical of America, even if they're innocent. And if the neighboring cities are skeptical, then the neighboring countries are tolerant -- at best.

This is a marathon, not a sprint. A short sighted attack that kills terrorists might seem like a good idea. But the long term impact can do more harm than good.

And what is that long-term harm?

 

[JohnRM]

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.

So, you will sit by and do nothing while terrorists kill civilians as long as those civilians are Iraqis and not Americans. How noble of you.

 

[Sidhe]

And what is that long-term harm?

This is the problem with your argument, you couldn't care less about long term, your all about quick fixes that colapse into a chaotic hell, and as soon as they do your back at the window barking at shadows like a good lap dog. Think man, be progressive or proactive not reactionary, your better than that, I hope.

 

[JohnRM]

Trends don't suggest generational gaps in politics, young people don't vote in the same number as old, give it time.

Um, the young people are getting old, and the old are not voting any differently now than they have for decades; Republican.

 

[JohnRM]

This is the problem with your argument, you couldn't care less about long term, your all about quick fixes that colapse into a chaotic hell, and as soon as they do your back at the window barking at shadows like a good lap dog. Think man, be progressive or proactive not reactionary, your better than that, I hope.

You still have not told me what possible long-term harm there could be to killing a city full of terrorists.

 

[Sidhe]

You still have not told me what possible long-term harm there could be to killing a city full of terrorists.

The long term harm is the wellspring of hate it would produce,your not considering longterm just lets kill them, destroy them I am great, I kill hear me roar. It's pretty much the mentality of an animal. It's kind of implicit.

Um, the young people are getting old, and the old are not voting any differently now than they have for decades; Republican.

I have no problem with Republicans just the Bush regime, they're morons IMO. And sooner or later they'll have to reinvent themselves cause this s**t just aint playing dog. Or hadn't you noticed?

 

[JohnRM]

The long term harm is the wellspring of hate it would produce,your not considering longterm just lets kill them, destroy them I am great, I kill hear me roar. It's pretty much the mentality of an animal. It's kind of implicit.

See, but I don't look at that as a long-term problem. I don't care if they hate us, as long as they don't attack us. If they do, kill them too.

I have no problem with Republicans just the Bush regime, they're morons IMO. And sooner or later they'll have to reinvent themselves cause this s**t just aint playing dog. Or hadn't you noticed?

The Democratic Party is the one who has had to reinvent itself. The Republicans have been doing just fine. Or hadn't you noticed?

 

[CaptainF]

So, you will sit by and do nothing while terrorists kill civilians as long as those civilians are Iraqis and not Americans. How noble of you.

Hah, like you really care about Iraqis.

Lets not bullfeathers ourselves here. You just said that you would gladly exterminate the entire city of Fallujah.

 

[CaptainF]

Whoever said it would solve EVERYTHING? As far as spawning more terrorists, keep killing them. Who cares if we create more terrorists. There are only so many Muslims on this Earth and if it takes killing every last one of them to stop worldwide Islamic terrorism, then lets have at it.

I find it funny that you are getting so up in arms about something so miniscule in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Xanikk999]

Whoever said it would solve EVERYTHING? As far as spawning more terrorists, keep killing them. Who cares if we create more terrorists. There are only so many Muslims on this Earth and if it takes killing every last one of them to stop worldwide Islamic terrorism, then lets have at it.

Do you honestly agree with what you type? Thats ludicrous.

 

[FriendlyFire]

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.
.

You mean attempts by the US to cut of the Ho-chi-minh trail by relentless air bombardment ?
Or do you mean the H&I fire ?
Or the US attempts at defloration of the jungle primarly within the iron triangle ?

As oppossed to the bombing of the non-military targets escaleted under nixion ?
Which was ironcily since before that no single B52 stratergic bombers had been lost to enemy fire. These "no sweat" missions under LBJ designed to preserve US lives and NVA lives were thus changed and US were ordered to Press the attacks regardless thus the US began loosing bombers and crews.

Against the highly populated cities yes they were deversating. the NVA had pooled all there AA, AAA to defend there miitary structures which had been to sole target and the civilians were partcially without defense.

 

[FriendlyFire]

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.

I trust you understand the concept of total war ?
In which entire nations turned over entirely to war in an effect to win. ironicly The Germans which initiated the bombing of civilians and city centers on a large scale and they reaped what they sowed.

Of course you understand there are reprecusions of doing this during the modern era.

For example Saddam gassing the Kurds in effect to eradicate them and control a rebellion. What do you think most Iraqs will be able to draw from this ?

 

[El_Machinae]

Whoever said it would solve EVERYTHING? As far as spawning more terrorists, keep killing them. Who cares if we create more terrorists. There are only so many Muslims on this Earth and if it takes killing every last one of them to stop worldwide Islamic terrorism, then lets have at it.

For the record, I do not support your views and am happy that you represent the minority. Sadly, VD like yours perfectly legitimises any attacks against America and any Western Nations. So please, don't get on the news. We don't need more ammunition for people interested in "the Final Confrontation"

 

[JohnRM]

Hah, like you really care about Iraqis.

Lets not bullfeathers ourselves here. You just said that you would gladly exterminate the entire city of Fallujah.

If Fallujah was known to be full of terrorist and terrorist supporters, absolutely. Those Iraqis that want democracy and peace, I would defend. That is my whole point here.

*mumbles* Am I wasting my time?

 

[JohnRM]

You mean attempts by the US to cut of the Ho-chi-minh trail by relentless air bombardment ?
Or do you mean the H&I fire ?
Or the US attempts at defloration of the jungle primarly within the iron triangle ?

As oppossed to the bombing of the non-military targets escaleted under nixion ?
Which was ironcily since before that no single B52 stratergic bombers had been lost to enemy fire. These "no sweat" missions under LBJ designed to preserve US lives and NVA lives were thus changed and US were ordered to Press the attacks regardless thus the US began loosing bombers and crews.

Against the highly populated cities yes they were deversating. the NVA had pooled all there AA, AAA to defend there miitary structures which had been to sole target and the civilians were partcially without defense.

Why did you just elaborate on everything I already said?