Ray

I am not too sure if the 'Historic Struggle in Iraq' will be abandoned or not', especially since Saddams men 'with no blood on their hands' are to be allowed to return to the govt, schools and colleges and the army.

But this much I know. The folks on this thread will never abadoned their histroric struggle to hsitorically struggle through the mess in Iraq!

Attaboy, chaps. Go hammer and tongs......and throw in a sniper too!

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

Confed999

I never said anything about carpet bombing, I quoted talk of striking a particular site. I said locate the enemy and destroy the enemy, not kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out. In fact, you and Sniper are the only ones talking about the use of carpet bombing and/or indescriminate artillery strikes in this situation, and he qualified his statement. Currently it isn't necessary, and it's necessity has little to do with morality. If extermination ever does become necessary, then the decision to do it, or not, would be made based on morality. That decision will come down to the greater good, and since there are less of them than everyone else...

Now this all seems to have started with your misunderstanding of a post by Praxus. Several other people misunderstood too, I got it, but that's because I talk the same way. You were told that isn't what he meant, yet you've continued to carry that misunderstanding through the thread and even to other posters. The word "if" doesn't allways hide a malign agenda, usually it just means "if".

__________________
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

Trooth

I am responding to the suggestion that carpet bombing the area might be a good idea. I take a different view. Your comment about locating and killing the enemy came right in the middle of the carpet bombing and artillery part of the discussion. If you mean you disagree with carpet bombing and prefer laser guided or other more precise weaponry than perhaps say so. From what i can see you are neither agreeing or disagreeing with the discussion about how this should be handled.

"Locate the enemy, and destroy the enemy" can be achieved with a B2 or it can be achieved with a knife, or even a finely honed political arguement!

Which do you think should be used?

Confed999

But that isn't what I quoted, I responded to your statement about a strike on a religous site. Go check, it's true. It doesn't matter what anyone else says, I am my own person and my posts are not a continuation of anyone elses posts. BTW, M21 Sniper qualified his statement with his belief that the war is against Islam in general. To argue his points you have to convince him general Islam isn't the enemy... Because if all Islam is the enemy, as he says, his method of enforcement is the necessary one, no matter how much you dislike it.
How can a B2, a knife, or a politicial argument locate the enemy? I guess this is the problem, you don't understand that alot goes into figuring out where, and who, the enemy is, you've gone straight to enforcement. When you locate the enemy the method of enforcement can be determined by what means is necessary to do the job and by how badly the job needs to be done. Also note, a bomber can be as accurate as a knife.
Depends on the situation. Where is the enemy, who is the enemy, what else is in the area, what equipment does the enemy have, how many enemy are there, and what can respond to fight the enemy? I think whatever force is necessary, plus 20%, is the ammount of force that should be used. Do you think there is one all purpose solution to every problem? I'd sure like to hear it if you do.

Trooth

I don't believe that in any struggle "all" can be applied to either side. What i do believe is that the side of good can prove the bad side correct. Islam isn't the enemy. Militant islam may be the enemy. However the people who are not militant have to make choices everyday and the west has to be careful that it does not make the moderates make a badly informed choice. If buildings start turning to rubble, people are not going to assume that they deserved it in the asbsence of any other evidence. They tend to assume that this outrage must be revenged. Introspection is a grea thing, but it is seldom seen.

We have a city, and it has been proposed to use artiliiery against it (a city that contains religious sites although no-one has said shelling them - but we all know that there is such a thing as collateral damage) and it has further been proposed ot caprt bomb it. Which solution do you prefer? Shelling, carpet bombing, or something else?

Fallujah. It is not me that is proposing the same solution for each eventuality. However what is being proposed here is a "kill them all" approach. It has been stated several times that the US should be more aggressive and a parallel has been made to the 40s. I am getting the impression that people like to speak in terms of generalisations, to leave wiggle room for what they really mean, to allow for circumstances to unfold further. If that is the case then this is somewhat a futile debate.

Confed999

That doesn't even convince me Islam isn't the enemy, and I allready don't think it is, good luck with M21 Sniper. It doesn't do any good to say carpet bombing will create enemies if one allready sees them as the enemy. Until the moderates get off the fence and back a side, I have little sympathy for them, though I don't consider them the enemy.
Except for M21 Sniper I haven't seen anyone call for indescriminate artillery strikes or carpet bombing the city. You were the one talking about a strike on a religous site when you said "believe that "the US must be the great Satan, it has just sent a load of heavy bombers to lay waste to a religious site", the post I quoted. Besides Sniper, I've seen mentioned artillery to be called in for support of troops under fire, but that's it. I prefer the use of all force necessary plus 20%, I allready said that. It's impossible to be more specific because I don't have enough information on the exact situation in every single part of the city.
I haven't proposed the same solution either, nor the solutions you've accused me of making. It wasn't a parallel to the 40's, it was a comparison to the 40's, thus the "if this were" part, a parallel would be "should do it like". Also, since I understand what people are saying, and you don't, I'd say it's not so much their generalization, as your reading more than is written.

Trooth

I fail to see why you are jumping in then! I am debating the statements made, mainly by Sniper and Praxus Unless you are referring to my bad grammar in using a "you" when i should say "one" (which i normally find a little pretentious but if it clears things up i will stick my cravet on ).

Either way, as far as i am concerned we (the coalition) have not convinced the Iraqi's to come to our side, to follow our values, to support our way of life. However is has been advocated that we impose our way of life on them. Rightly or wrongly a group are resisting this. My point is that if we start carpet bombing cities, killing innocent civilians (which we have done and will continue to do and bringing the heavy weapons into the cities will increase that risk) and risk the destruction of religious sites then we will make the situation worse not better. I don't care who wants to argue that point, it matters not to me, i will argue it with them.

With regards to religious sites and other collateral damage. It seems prudent to me to argue the point, as I haven't seen precision weapons used where there has been no collateral damage, therefore we have to include it as a consequence for them, let alone the more indiscriminate weapons at the coalition's disposal.

EDIT:
We wouldn't, after all, want to embark on a strategy without thinking it and its consequences through.

Ray

What about the new policy to allow Baath Party chaps to return to govt position and the higher military echelons?

Chalabis of the Provisonal Govt of Iraq say it is like asking Nazi to govern Germany after WW II.

Trooth

I am confused by this policy. It strikes me as a possible short term cure for a symptom but leaves the disease in place to come back later when we have relaxed our guard. However if those people are simply being allowed to stand for elected positions then perhaps the short term solution will allow the right long term solution through the transparency of the ballot box.

Confed999

All I did was make a seperate statement based on a part of what you said. I've been trying to explain the misunderstanding ever since.

Confed999

Weren't Germans, and Japanese, allowed to come back into government/military after WW2? I remember they were, but I could be wrong.

Seems that, unless the Baath fellas can be charged with a crime other than association, they have equal rights. Personally, I think it's a bad idea.

Praxus

All deaths incurred on the Iraqi populace are the result of the innitiater of force, aka the Militant Islamists and other Rebels.

If artillery/air strikes that flatten half the city are required then so be it.

Trooth

That just a theoretical answer. The small children ripped apart by shrapnel, or the US soldiers caught in friendly fire would be pleased that your textbook makes it alright.

Confed999

Everything is theoretical or hypothetical, until it's tried and becomes fact or failure. You may believe one tactic/strategy or another will fail, but your belief is theoretical.
Troops would be withdrawn to form a perimeter before the bombardment began.

Trooth

So how come they die in FF incidents?