We must show no mercy

(This is my opinion of course, this would never happen in the USA because most(civilians) of the citizens do not have the stomach for war)

War should be the last resort, because good men can resolve confilcts without death. But since we are in Iraq, we should be as ruthless and deadly to our enemies as possible.

As an example, we should have never pulled out of Fallujah, there should have been a massive US invasion and all of the enemy prisoners would be shot. The attack should've been lead by our leader (Bush unfortunatly) himself, he should be the first one in. There would be no prisoners. War is hell, and if we are going to wage war, let's do it right.

American losses would initially be high. But the terrorists would see us as an unremorseful and dangerous country. Their forces would lose moral and start to disband. We would keep the pressure on and kill all enemies on sight. They are criminals, not troops as the media calls them. They deserve a criminal's death.

That I believe is the only way to rid the stupidity etched into their minds. Afterwards, we help them rebuild and move on. As of now, we are still at war! They must be crushed without mercy


[Edited on 14-5-2004 by PolskieWojsko]

Yeah, but it's tough to wage war on a country that wasn't even fighting with us, and justify "killing them all". It's like if we went to Africa and decided to kill them all after they defended themselves. It's not right. We're the invaders. We're the ones waging the war. Now, as far as Al Qaeda goes, I agree. We should take no prisoners. But that's kind of like trying to stop the mafia, isn't it? We still haven't been successful at that, after all these years. It's like fighting an invisible army.

Or alternatively we could take a measured and balanced approach befitting a civilised country that wishes to lead by example rather than an untamed ravaging Mongol hoard.

So let me get this straight, you think that the American troops should invade Fallujah and kill any non-american?. Thats not war, thats called mass murder. The romans used to do things like this, is resorted into genocide.

American losses would initially be high. But the terrorists would see us as an unremorseful and dangerous country. Their forces would lose moral and start to disband. We would keep the pressure on and kill all enemies on sight

Your "plan" is totally insane. Not only will you be killing everything in sight, this will not go down well with the international community, but you will be playing into the hands of the terrorists.



[Edited on 14-5-2004 by infinite]

Im glad you have all the answers. I guess thats why you are running the country.

You know nothing about what is going on!

All you know is what you see on the news or in the paper.

We are not at war now. War was over a year ago.

We should have never have gone to IRAQ. It was all LIES. Have not seen this? People of Iraq live in fear EVERYDAY now, period. That was not the case 6 months prior to the "war".

Originally posted by SpittinCobra
We are not at war now. War was over a year ago.

Do what??? As long as our military is still occupying their country and people are dying, it's definitely war. What are you talking about?

My opinion on this has always been as follows: The only person/country/alliance that is going to win this war is the one that is willing to go one step further than the enemy.

This is not a traditional war where two (or more) rivalling sides are fighting for territory or strengthening their empire(s). This is a grudge match of sorts, with the west, lead by the US, fighing out of retaliation for the 9/11 atrocities and the failed coup to rid Iraq of Saddam in the early 90's.

The enemies we face have proved time and time again that they are willing to go the extra mile to cause harm to the other side. Unless we are willing to fly planes into Osama's face or turn the entire middle east into glass we will never win the 'war'. We are not naturally 'evil', though many of you NWO conspiracists will disagree. To win we need to be not just ruthless, but have a total disregard for the enemy, and the enemies innocent family, friends and countrymen.

I am not suggesting we do, but merely stating that until we are the ones who will always go that extra step, we cannot and will not defeat adversaries such as these.

B

[Edited on 14-5-2004 by benjj]

Satyr, its sad but true. We are not at war. The WAR was over a little more than a year ago.


Our troops are still there, and the war is over.

If you have any doubt,
www.twf.org...
www.pbs.org...

If this were the case then theoretically the "terrorists" can win. But as their agenda seems to be the complete obliteration of anyone who doesn't share their philosophy then the task is too big.

What we have here is an on going violent stand off which will presumably last until a bigger threat to the world as a whole becomes apparent or one side backs down.


Until that happens, we'll kill them, they'll kill us and it will go on forever.

You can't fight a war against "terror" you cant destroy an ideology.

Personally I think the best bet is to bug out of Iraq and just leave the terrorists to it whilst continuing to try and support and build impoverished nations in the hope that in a few generations your humanitarian efforts will be such that no one wants to attack you any more. You'd have the occasional terrorist attack but no more than you would have had any way, possibly less.
That's the only real solution.

[Edited on 14-5-2004 by Simon]

didn't Bush announce the end of major combat operations over a year ago??

www.whitehouse.gov...

guess he was wrong!!!

Simon,

I understand what you're saying, and agree to a point about Iraq specifically.

However, this is not the case with al Quaeda. They really do want to obliterate the west, and would certainly do it in a heartbeat of they had the resources. Put simply, we (the west) actually do have the resources to kill every last one of them very easily (flick of a button type stuff), though we won't.

I understand why we won't, essentially because it would mean wiping out a large percentage of the whole planet. But, technically, we can do it but chose not too.

Tacking back to another post on UN 'rules' etc, you'll notice it is only us that abides by them. I hardly think Saddam or Osama would have been put off doing their nasty deeds if Kofi had given them a stern warning that they were in violation of UN terms......

B

You can claim that all you want, but that doesn't make it so. Actually, we never really declared war, did we? So, you could also say that there never was a war, but that doesn't make it so either.

How do you know who the enemy is? How do you know who is innocent or guilty? Bush has said that Saddam had no ties to Al Quaeda, if they are in Iraq now, they came after we got there.

Originally posted by Satyr
You can claim that all you want, but that doesn't make it so.

I am just stating the facts. It is so. Sorry if you cant accept the facts.

We did declare war. Please only argue the facts with me. not opioins. thanks.

Originally posted by SpittinCobra
I am just stating the facts. It is so. Sorry if you cant accept the facts.

We did declare war. Please only argue the facts with me. not opioins. thanks.

I am! The fact is, we're still at war, no matter what you call it! Otherwise, wouldn't our soldiers be back in the states? Your stating the media and politics, not the facts.

Originally posted by Satyr

Originally posted by SpittinCobra
I am just stating the facts. It is so. Sorry if you cant accept the facts.

We did declare war. Please only argue the facts with me. not opioins. thanks.

I am! The fact is, we're still at war, no matter what you call it!

Otherwise, wouldn't our soldiers be back in the states? Your stating the media and politics, not the facts.

In both Whitehall and the Whitehouse it is now officially recognised as 'peacekeeping' duties.

I guess I should ask what The word WAR means to you.
That seems to be the problem. The meaning of the word.

We have troops in diffrent places all over, are we at war in all of those places?

Originally posted by benjj
In both Whitehall and the Whitehouse it is now officially recognised as 'peacekeeping' duties.

HA! I think you have to have peace, first, before you can keep it.

Originally posted by SpittinCobra
We have troops in diffrent places all over, are we at war in all of those places?

Are people getting shot in all those places? Are bombs being used?

[Edited on 5-14-2004 by Satyr]

I'm going to bow out on this one, it seems unlikely that anything is going to either be agreed on, or agreed to disagree on.

Bon chance.

I'm out too. It's just semantics. War is generally when the military is killing and/or being killed. That's my definition, anyway.