Use The Big Guns in Iraq

In Vietnam we fought with our hands tied behind our backs. The only thing we had was enough men to be killed because we could not legally go into Cambodia, cross the DMZ, use tactical nuclear weapons, and all the other don'ts that got our troops killed.
So once again in Iraq we fight with ouy hands tied. No forays into Syria, Iran and Afganistan. Way to few troops. We need a least another 200,000 more troops if we want to conclude this war with dispatch. If the draft is necessary so be it. If we need to pull our troops out of Korea that's fine. They don't seem to want us anyway. Tactical nukes when necessary.
Short and sweet-we need to do all that is necessary to win the war quickly and then very soon our troops will come home alive!

1st of all we have not declared war on Iraq, Syria or Afganistan, nor should we. And the "big guns" you refer to cause big death tolls. We cannot kill alot of presumably innocent civilians in hopes of getting a few bad guys. This is a totally new kind of warfare. It is surgical, if you will. Bottom line, and i hate to say this, but we are fighting them over there, instead of on our own soil. It is a war on Terror, meaning take the fight to them, so that they are to busy to bring the fight to us. Sure it is messy and sometimes seemingly unsuccesful, but its just war, win some battles, lose some battles.

as much as we like to use overwhelming force that back in the past has helped America win wars. this time its not possible where we could face consequences. this aint WW2 where we can just bomb the targets even with civilians near by and nobody would talk or argue about it. but this is now and we have to deal with a situation where the enemy can use the propaganda that we are intentionally targeting civilians. we can win wars in limited conflict that does not require the use of tactical nukes as you say. it depends on the situation where you can deal with it. adapt or die.

Use The Big Guns in Iraq

Why?


The war in Iraq is being won HANDIDLY. The weapons the troops, both coalition and ISF, are using are more than enough to route the insurgency and defeat all enemies of democracy and freedom.

Don’t confuse the "doom & gloom" news you hear about with what’s really going on in Iraq.


Want to know whats really going on in Iraq? The reason why more potent weapons are simply not needed? Read this blog here

The truth is there, read it all.


[edit on 23-11-2005 by skippytjc]

Nothing Like spreading freedom and Democracy to Iraq by bringing the big guns. Blowing up an entire town leaving entire families dead expcept for one teenage son, He will grow loving America for sure and not resort to terroism.

What exactly are the "big guns" going to accomplish?

Tactical nukes against small groups of insurgents hiding among a civilian population?

Are you a psychopath?

Doing the surgical dance and fighting the 'New War" has sure not been working. We need new tactics or maybe old tried and true methods Will work. This pitiful slow bleeding of our troops is just what the terrorists want.

Originally posted by monk84
Use The Big Guns in Iraq

In Vietnam we fought with our hands tied behind our backs.

The US and Coalition are and have been fighting in Iraq with one-hand behind its back, since major combat was declared over and Saddam's government was toppled/removed. If the US was to simply do what it could not do in Vietnam, the cries and whining from the anti-war peanut gallery, the human rights groups and organizations, etc would be deafening, more so than it is now. The US governing bodies, the Senate, Congress, and House do not have the stomach nor the gonads to allow the US military to use more than one hand tied behind its back. The ramifications of the US using both hands, so to speak, would be quite vocally profound.

What is even more damning is that some here and within the US governing bodies actually desire a US defeat, politically or militarily, in Iraq, like they sought and gained in Vietnam.

That is my opinion and conclusion.





seekerof

"What the terrorists want" is for us to invade a Muslim country causing lots of bloodshed and earning them lots of new recruits. We've already done that, thanks to our brain dead leadership.

What the terrorists would like even better is for us to start killing noncombatants en masse so they can get tens of millions, and not merely thousands, to join them.

WE are not psychopaths. We are just tired of doing the politically right thing while they fight from Iraq, Iran and Afganistan. It is time for us to get on our feet and off our backs. It's very simple, but the vote getting ,and hand wringing politicians and the let's lose the war groups want our defeat and we cannot let them get it!

Remember why we have no go zones where fighter bombers cant bomb parts of North Vietnam? its because of the fear of Chinese intervention. Yeah the Soviets and the Chinese provided pilots for MIGs but America had dominance anyways. but still its better than having to see millions of Chinese troops backed by the North Vietnamese Army and the Vietcong where the American troop casualties would have been higher. These events happened in response to the Korean War where the Chinese intervened since we invaded North Korea and pretty much got close to comfort for the Chinese. Its not to say we should have invaded North Vietnam where casualties would have increased but it would have change the outcome of the war. It depends on how you can win the war with minimal casualties without hitting any snags. for example Chinese intervention. But Iraq is different where it does not have the backing of major powers. Syria is different but the borders are porous for foreign fighters to cross through and into Iraq. We can have troops but especially Iraqi troops to man those borders. The best way to help win the war is to train the Iraqi troops to fight effectively against insurgents and terrorists. We fail to do that in Vietnam where the South Vietnamese expect the Americans to do the burden. This time we have to learn those lessons and win. Thats what history is about. Learning the past.

I don't understand. How exactly would tactical nuclear weapons be helpful against insurgents and terrorists who survive by blending in with the innocent civilian population? It would be like Nuking Northern Ireland to defeat the IRA. IMO Laughably stupid.

Tactical nukes was just one of many susjestions I made. When ben laden hid in the hills that might have been a point for them. Now my other tactics are in order or are you just another let's lose the war and cut and run?

Originally posted by monk84
Tactical nukes was just one of many susjestions I made. When ben laden hid in the hills that might have been a point for them. Now my other tactics are in order or are you just another let's lose the war and cut and run?

we use nukes, Al Qaeda pretty much can use nukes without anybody critcizing them, even the Muslim population. right now Al Qaeda probably are hesitant to use nukes (if they had one), unless they can justify it in front of the Muslim world. but we use nukes first in this war, then the Muslim population would be like changing their minds about us completely and join Al Qaida. thats why you dont see a billion Muslims joining Osama bin Laden's organization. Remember the bombings of the hotels of Jordan? That got the Muslim world mad and forced Al Qaida having to defend itself and explain the justification of it. thats a positive note for our side.

not to mention any future conflict where our enemies would use nukes first because they seen what we did in the past against Al Qaida if we use nukes on Al Qaida as well.

[edit on 23-11-2005 by deltaboy]

O.K. Forget the nukes if you have no stomach or are politically right about their use, but let's use the other tactics I suggested. Or is the drafting of 200,000 more troops, going after Syria, Iran and fighting in Packistan just to much for you sensitive tastes. Why do you want our troops to die by the inch and not win by a mile?

Good! Then maybe we can move on to win this war!

Originally posted by monk84
O.K. Forget the nukes if you have no stomach or are politically right about their use, but let's use the other tactics I suggested. Or is the drafting of 200,000 more troops, going after Syria, Iran and fighting in Packistan just to much for you sensitive tastes. Why do you want our troops to die by the inch and not win by a mile?

monk, think of the Spanish-American war where we fought against Spain in all parts of the world where we didnt even have to invade Spain and take its capitol and we still won. think of fighting against Islamic fundamentalism without having to go after every Muslim country and take all the capitols of those nations. Heck even the British took Washington and burn it to the ground and that didnt really helped them win the war in 1812. We fought the Spaniards without invading Spain where the casualties would have been higher and European nations would have gone nuts over our invasion of Europe. we are fighting a limited war here where we can win, but its base on strategy and tactics not just on numbers. Even in Vietnam we have over half a million men and that didnt win the war. We won every battle in Vietnam but still lost the war. Yeah you can blame on pressure by anti war protestors and stuff but the enemy won the war by waiting. Al Qaida is waiting for us to give in. We have to strike the enemy where it hurts while not dealing the consequences by world opinion where we may face many more people who would join their side. We invade Iran, Pakistan, and Syria where does that leave us? Hundreds of millions of Muslims and many of them will become suicide bombers and would inflict massive casualties. Thats what you want? We would fall into Osama bin laden's trap where he made America as a modern Crusader and an enemy of Islam where he says we would destroy Islam. We cannot fall into that trap. We have to fight a war where we can win but does not involve overwhelming firepower. This is the 21st century. But remember during the Spanish American war with limited objectives and limited war.

As for invading Syria, Iran, Pakistan well...

Before Iraq the US had NEVER invaded a soveriegn nation. I mean when does it end Why not invade any country with a Muslim population?

The other part you mention is Drafting 200,000 more troops?

Do you really propose a draft? America is suposed to be a relatively free nation and being forced to go fight a war on the otherside of the world to secure oil and reshape the Middle East is not a Hallmark of any democracy.

Lets be honest about why were there and what the prize is, then we can move foward and win this war.

from seekerof What is even more damning is that some here and within the US governing bodies actually desire a US defeat, politically or militarily, in Iraq, like they sought and gained in Vietnam.

It is difficult to argue with that statement when we see it day after day in our Congress; the condemnation of our leader, our tactics, our progress. And if that doesn't work, they can always echo back to 2002/2003 when "intel was being cherry-picked".

To desire American defeat for gain in the next round of elections is almost understandable. But I fear that we are seeing the blackness of some men's souls in many cases. They do it for spite, for malice, not for some belief.

If they manage to succeed, it will be very painful to watch the elation on the faces of the insurgency as we leave. We will have collapsed from within.

I did not say invade Iran, Syria or Packistan. I said forays into the countries to kill the insurgents who are inflitrating from the borders before they get to Iraq or Afghanistan.
Believe it or not our SEAL teams are doing that now, but again they are being held back, for political reasons, from doing the job completely and to the full extent of their capabilities.