[Butch]

Will somebody please explain to me why, We have enough power in the air & on the ground, in our military, to smash any power onearth. So why do we keep messing with fire fights at some dumb backwater town in Iraq. We should just blast the place with a Daisy cutter, or some other conventional weapon, and let whoever scream about it. What are they gonna do? I just don't get why we have to keep fighting on thier terms.:confused:

[MaterDei]

Well, for one thing the bad guys are in towns as you pointed out. The towns are filled mostly with noncombatants, women and children included. Dropping daisy cutters on towns is just wrong in my opinion. What you're suggesting is no different than nuking them.

Besides if you think the prison mess is bad, can you imagine the fall out from picture and videos of a town full of innocent, dead women and children?

If we as a nation can't accept the realities associated with fighting war on humane terms then we shouldn't be there in the first place.

Bad idea all around in my opinion.

Michael

[Butch]

Ok I'll buy that but why not some other bomb with just enough force to destroy the mosque & cemetary where they are holed up? I just dont buy that song & dance about it being a holy place , when they are using it as a base of operations.:rolleyes:

[Don Gwinn]

Because the enemy is hidden among an innocent population. You could cure Cancer more reliably by shooting the victim, too.

[Art Eatman]

Butch, a major problem in all this about Iraq is terminology. We're not at all in a "war" in the classic sense of something like WW II. It can't even be compared to Vietnam.

There's no clearcut, obvious enemy government against whose troops we use classic methods of destruction. In Iraq, that part's all over with.

In Iraq, unlike Vietnam: The action is mostly in or near towns and cities full of noncombatants, many of whom are sympathetic toward our goals, if not overjoyed at our presence.

The people who are attacking us include many who are as much enemies of the Shiite Iraqis as they are of us. Baathists head this list; it is known that individuals from Syria and Iran are involved as well as Al Qaida members or sympathizers. It is thus pointless and contra-productive to consider any large-scale destruction.

Worldwide, the odds are highly against much more of classical wars. Many more of the "Brushfire" types of problems will become even more the norm, and there will generally be more need of small units, rapid maneuverability, large amounts of Intel and a lot more knowledge of foreign languages and cultures. It doesn't matter if these attributes are part of the coming U.S. military structure or of the many other countries who are directly involved.

The future is going to be both more difficult and more complex than the present or the past, in anybody's dealings with intransigent groups.

Art

[JW2]

I'm all for developing a bomb that will only target "the bad guys". Until then, we have to use discretion, even if it means putting our troops in harms way.

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

Besides if you think the prison mess is bad, can you imagine the fall out from picture and videos of a town full of innocent, dead women and children?

Ashes don't make good video. ;)

It would be wrong and counter-productive to perform such operations. The combatants are hiding amongst the non-combatants. 5% give or take.

We did it in Afghanistan, we can do it in Iraq.

[Marshall]

Yea, but droppin a few of them bad boys might make em think that we will do it all the time and anytime. :evil:

[Butch]

I gotta git up early in the mornin'4:30 AM so this is my last thought tonight but, We could evacuate the city while holding the bad guys in thier little hiddy holes, Then blow the place to kingdom come, No?

[JW2]

It would be nice if it were so easy to even identify the baddies before they start shooting at you.

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

Exactly how do you propose to compel men, women and children to leave their homes, for destruction I might add, and keep the BGs inside the city limit?

Fallujah has 500,000 people.

[Standing Wolf]

We haven't won a land war in Asia since 1945—but we did win that one.

[w4rma]

We did it in Afghanistan, we can do it in Iraq.Correction: Afghanistan is in not much (if any) better shape that Iraq, now.

The President of Afghanistan has no power outside of the capital city. He is nicknamed the Mayor of Kabul. And he and his staff are always being targeted for assassination attempts, and in many cases they have been successful, with respects to other members of his administration.

[Marshall]

Yea, every since the media gave the American people the ability to see war for what was is really is, killing the enemy, we have had tougher time of it.

But, the yellow belly liberals have to go and make the U.S. out to be the bad guy in order to stop the killing and gain liberal power but, in reality all they do is get more of our boys killed.

Unfortunately it will take another mass killing in our country for these folks to wake up again and realize their freedom is and has been based on the killings of those who have been hell bent on our destruction. They should move to France where being a wimp is readily embraced.

Don't get me wrong, I love all of us. I just get worked up when I see people make it more difficult on the very people that keep their freedom.

[jimpeel]

The "holy place" argument is just a ploy so they can gather supporters. They go to the mosques so they can say "Look what the Great Satan did to our holy shrine!" They would have no compunction with blowing up a Synagogue or Church filled with Jews or Christians. There would be no great outcry and wringingg of hands in any Arabic country on how these people desecrated a shrine. Thjis is a weapon for their use alone.

They do the same thing during their "holy days" like Ramadan. They decry anyone coming for them during this "holy time" but have waged wars amongst themselves during this time without so much as a peep. In the meantime, they think nothing of attacking Jews or Christians at Passover, Christmas, or Easter.

They know that the domestic enemies in the Congress will side with them and kowtow to their every whim.

[c_yeager]

We face a difficult moral situation in Iraq. In WWII civilian populations could be targeted because on a war of that scale every man woman and child in some way helped the german or japanese war effort. Either by providing food, weapons, or comfort to the enemy. This is not the case in Iraq. Here we have an enemy that is using people who truly are innocent and/or uninvolved in the conflict as human sheilds. We can't in good conscience simply kill everyone there.

It is somewhat interesting to note that many of the people we are fighting consider us to be either weak or cowards because we are unwilling to engage in the wholesale slaughter of their families. I guess it's all about perspective. I can say with some certainty that if our roles were reversed, the people we are fighting wouldnt hesitate for a moment in killing thousands to get at a few dozen. Thats just not how we do things. That is also why we are better than them.

[GigaBuist]

I spoke with my brother tonight who's the local call-in contact for two of our buddies over in the sandbox.

Last word we got was: The rules of engagement HAVE changed.

They're both tank drivers... and they were getting mighty ticked off for the past few months not being able to shoot back.

Buddy number 1 we haven't heard from in about a month. His tour was extended and last we knew he was part of a rather large migration of tanks into hot area to quell local problems. Wherever he is, he can't call back right now it seems. His last call indicated that they were being allowed to fire on enemies finally or at least would be in the next engagment. He was working as a road-block enforcer originally.

Buddy number 2 just called back in the past two weeks. My brother didn't give any exact dates or anything. He's also indicated that the rules of engagement have changed and he's no longer got to take fire like a sitting duck. They take fire and they light up whatever is shooting at them. I'm not sure if this guy is a driver or the gunner on the tank. It seems he's got some pent up rage after months of just sitting there though, and he seemed quite happy to know that it's likely his tank rounds are taking out enemies.

Some of you might want to step things up a bit over there, and I can't fault you for that -- but for goodness sakes my buddies have called back with stories of the commander sticking his head outta the tank and having an RPG whizz by 4 feet from his head. He ducks back in, but they couldn't return fire. That's changed, thank God.

[Gary H]

Ignoring the morality of your suggestion, it is a political year and a daisy cutter would make the Iraqi prisoner story seem likes child's play. The media, politicians and half of the Republicans would have Bush's resignation. Any claim to the moral high ground would be gone. The Iraqi population would turn against us in unison. At least now they are split as to if they want us in their neighborhood.

You can win the battle and lose the war.

[davec]

because you dont "liberate" and "bring freedom and democracy" to people by killing them where they live.

[The_Antibubba]

Fallujah has a shrine that is the holiest such place to Shiites. If we were to destroy it, we would be fighting every Shiite in the world.

If you want to get an idea of the chaos that would cause, imaging blowing up the Vatican, blasting the Western Wall, or torching the Temple in Salt Lake City. Some targets will always be too risky.

[carpettbaggerr]

because you dont "liberate" and "bring freedom and democracy" to people by killing them where they live.
Germany?

Japan?

[RealGun]

The strategic approach that ignores political fallout could win the battle and lose the war. Once troops are on the ground, it becomes a tactical fight. This is not our specialty unfortunately, because folks at home tend not to accept that there will be casualties. Our military technology has come a long way in reducing troop casualties, but at some point occupying forces will need to go in and be in harms way.

In an attempt to restore law and order in Iraq, our people are like law enforcement trying to do their job while the bad guys, who are not recognized as legitimately representing the Iraqi people, are shooting back. My understanding is that there have been efforts underway to turn this job over to Iraqi police and military, but first there has to be a critical mass that can be trusted to serve what we believe is the best interests of the Iraqi people.

This is all going to take awhile and cost dearly, so looking for the quick fix in an effort to get back to who is winning on American Idol, leading in NASCAR wins, current wrestling champion, or done in or mated up in our favorite sitcom, soap, or miniseries is not realistic. We might want to put 9/11 out of our minds, but the underlying causes are still with us.

[agricola]

some views:

I get tired of repeating myself, but there even now IS an exit strategy which will not only work but ensure a US presence as well as encourage support for the US throughout the world; that is to keep the promises made to the Kurdish people and officially recognize a Kurdish state within Iraq.

They are rapidly becoming our only friends in the whole mess and we should start to recognize that fact before they go the way of the shiites and start to turn against us. The main "strategic" goal of the invasion would be far better, and far more efficiently completed by having bases within a much more defensible, more friendly and stabler Kurdistan; and the establishment of a state would allow the opening of a new front against Iran.

The attitude of the rest of the Middle East would be important as well - the relative level of concern at civilian casualties in the region can be contrasted, on the one hand with the outpouring of grief at the Abu Ghraib pictures, on the other with the almost total silence from the region (and, to its eternal shame, the world) when the images of what happened at Halabja were released. For several hundred years the Kurds have been the whipping-boys of the region; lets support them now.

[Orthonym]

and Saladin, who chased the Crusaders out of there, was a Kurd.

But


All of the Kurds' neighbors hate their guts and want to kill them.

How do we solve this problem?

[HankB]

. . . they were getting mighty ticked off for the past few months not being able to shoot back. If I was there and someone was shooting at me, I think I'd end up in the brig. For shooting back. :barf:

Hmmm . . . here's a thought.

Wait for one of their anti-American parades - you know, the ones where a bunch of men (never women) are chanting "Death to America" and dancing with masked men carrying AKs and RPGs. Sometimes even dancing on damaged US vehicles. Then send over a drone helo at low level, hoping it will draw fire.

Once it's hit, shoot back, with napalm or cluster bombs or SOMETHING of the sort on the crowd.

Collateral damage to people who are NOT part of the "Death to America" group will be minimal, and we should be able to get a WHOLE LOT of bad guys at once.

As far as managing news coverage, put together some "snatch" teams as Al-Jazeera (or, for that matter, NBCCBSABSCNN) news crews. Send 'em in for interviews, but us them to grab bad guys. Let it be known that we've got commados dressed up as news crews. Then sit back and see how Al-Quaeda and the Baathist terrorists react to camera crews. I mean, it's not as if they're on OUR side anyway, right? :evil:

[oldfart]

c_yeager said: "Thats just not how we do things. That is also why we are better than them.

You're right of course, but that may very well be the reason for our eventual downfall. The Christians being used as 'Lion Chow' in the Roman Coliseum were "better" than their tormentors too... but the lions didn't care. The women and children who were marched into the gas chambers were "better" than their guards, but they died anyway. Sure, both groups eventually came out ahead, with Christianity becoming a major religion and the Jews getting their own country, but a lot of people died before it happened.

Fortunately for the early Christians, Rome was already on the slippery slope as was Nazi Germany in the mid 40's. I'm not sure we have that advantage now. Islam is spreading across Europe almost as fast as Hitler's army and, unlike that army, it already has a strong foothold here in the United States.

War is messy. It is also cruel in that innocent people get hurt and killed. But it is necessary. No organism on the face of the earth can survive as a species without some sort of conflict to weed out the weaker strains. We, with our 'holier than thou' attitudes about how we wage war may very well have weakened our strain to strengthen our cause. As others have pointed out here, we agonize over public opinion when we wage war, they worry about winning the war.

Consider this hypothetical situation: You and your family are threatened by someone who is hiding among a group of nuns. This person raises up and takes a shot at you from time to time and then returns to his cover. You are unable to run or retreat but you do have a hand grenade. Do you let him pick off your kids one at a time or do you throw the grenade knowing full well that some of those nuns will die too?

For now that scenario is hypothetical. Ten years from now???

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

Is this topic now verboten?

I am in cease fire until clarifications are forthcoming

[Gary H]

See the float.

[kbr80]

Is this topic now verboten?


Me thinks so, according to the float, we are not to discuss religion.

[davec]

Originally posted by carpettbaggerr

Germany?

Japan?


Who declared war on us December 11th 1941, and the other who attacked us unprovoked in December 7th, 1941.

Neither of those things was done by Iraq, so the idea that we line them up and shoot them/bomb them/your-favorite-Nazi-partisan-pacification-method is ludicrous.

They did nothing to bring about such treatment, nor do they deserve it.

[agricola]

Yeah, the Kurds are cool and manly and wonderful,
and Saladin, who chased the Crusaders out of there, was a Kurd.

But


All of the Kurds' neighbors hate their guts and want to kill them.

How do we solve this problem?

and this is a problem how? a perfect reason to ally with them IMHO (emphasis mine)

hankB,

As far as managing news coverage, put together some "snatch" teams as Al-Jazeera (or, for that matter, NBCCBSABSCNN) news crews. Send 'em in for interviews, but us them to grab bad guys. Let it be known that we've got commados dressed up as news crews. Then sit back and see how Al-Quaeda and the Baathist terrorists react to camera crews. I mean, it's not as if they're on OUR side anyway, right?

I think you'll find that al Qaeda is rather fond of that particular trick - they eliminated an opponent of the Taliban just prior to 9/11 using that very method.

[The_Antibubba]

762, I can't tell if you're being snarky or not, but the difference between this thread and the "verboten" ones is that here we are not discussing the merits of one religion over another. Religion will always be a factor of everything we discuss, because religion is so intertwined in law, morality, and politics.

Blaming an entire religion for the actions of a small minority of it's adherents is like blaming a gang shooting on the existence of guns, and that the law allows them to exist.

And if High Road members can see the fallacy of that argument, why can't we see the fallacy to using it for any other argument?

Hey Mods-how about using this as a guideline:

We cannot discuss the forbidden topics using any tactics which are used by Antis to ban firarms.

For example, the above, where we can discuss religion as it impacts a particular scenario, but not allow talk about how much better the world would be if we banned the icky things (guns, Moslems, reality television, etc).


Talk amongst yourselves.

[HankB]

agricola: I think you'll find that al Qaeda is rather fond of that particular trick - they eliminated an opponent of the Taliban just prior to 9/11 using that very method. So did they dress up as newscrews and hit a Taliban opponent, or did their doing this cause the Taliban to start hitting news crews? I assume it's the former . . .

But in any case . . . thanks for the verification that this actually WORKS.

[agricola]

hank,

they obtained access to him in the guise of press and whacked him that way. i am trying to do a google search for the blokes name, for the life of me i cannot remember what it was.

[jimpeel]

HERE (http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/10/06/bindra.focus/) is the story of the assassination of Commander Ahmed Shah Massoud using a camera rigged with explosives. The two "newspeople" were also killed in the explosion.

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

I am not being snarky.

The scope of L&P is now limited to our primary function, the discussion of RKBA, both in the US and elsewhere, and to the discussion of the preservation of our Constitutionally-guaranteed human rights. Other recent events and political topics are not for this forum, because we would like to stick to our primary function. Digressing into other topics makes it impossible for the few moderators to keep up with a forum of over eleven thousand members. People who continue to post off-topic after being asked to stop will be asked to go elsewhere. We do not enjoy disciplining anyone, so please make that aspect of moderating unnecessary. Finally, some topics are going to be off-limits because I specifically exclude them from the scope of THR. Advocacy of genocide or religious or racial supermacy will be unwelcome and grounds for account termination, even if politely expressed.

I am confused. Seems like this topic, among others, were the source of the contention that created the kerfufle.

I am just waiting for clarification.

Does this thread relate to RKBA? And if it does, how?

Can I respond to posts here or am I violating the new precepts?

[cordex]

From Starship Troopers:

[...] If you wanted to teach a baby a lesson, would you cut its
head off?"
"Why . . . no, sir!"
"Of course not. You'd paddle it. There can be circumstances when it's just as foolish to hit an enemy city with an H-bomb as it would be to spank a baby with an ax. War is not violence and killing, pure and simple; war is controlled violence, for a purpose. The purpose of war is to support your government's decisions by force. The purpose is never to kill the enemy just to be killing him . . . but to make him do what you want him to do. Not killing . . . but controlled and purposeful violence. But it's not your business or mine to decide the purpose or the control. It's never a soldier's business to decide when or where or how -- or why -- he fights; that belongs to the Statesmen and the generals. The statesmen decide why and how much; the generals take it from there and tell us where and when and how. We supply the violence; other people -- `older and wiser heads,' as they say -- supply the control. Which is as it should be. That's the best answer I can give you. If it doesn't satisfy you, I'll get you a chit to go talk to the regimental commander. If he can't convince you -- then go home and be a civilian! Because in that case you will certainly never make a soldier."
"There are a dozen different ways of delivering destruction in impersonal wholesale, via ships and missiles of one sort or another, catastrophes so widespread, so unselective, that the war is over because that nation or planet has ceased to exist. What we do is entirely different.
We make war as personal as a punch in the nose. We can be selective, applying precisely the required amount of pressure at the specified point at a designated time -- we've never been told to go down and kill or capture all left-handed redheads in a particular area, but if they tell us to, we can. We will."

[pax]

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?threadid=82260

Closed as OT.

pax