[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Liberator
i beg to differ, once they see that we are willing to "drop the hammer", i believe that the militants will give up.  Right now, even with 150,000+ US soldiers in Iraq, they are convinced they can win.  (And depressingly, there are many who would help them, because it is politically expedient for them)

They must be shown, through a demonstration of raw power if necessary, that under no circumstances can they win.

Is carpet bombing the entire Shia region because some oppose you any different from, say, Saddam gassing a village of Kurds because some may have been rebels?

And if you give them warning... they'll relocate.  Just like they did from Fallujah.  Maybe they'll move to Baghdad; should you flatten that too?  Or what about the Sunni rebels like the (Moqtada Al-Sadrs') Mahdi army?  Do you flatten the Sunni area then?

And what if the previously open-minded, non-violent population starts protesting at you massacring hundreds of thousands of civillians to make a point - do you then just go 'sod it', and kill everyone in Iraq?

Because if your solution is waving your gun around like it'll change anything, then that's what you'll need to do.  The militants will only give up when they don't have the public support to operate and move freely (and the hardcore that don't will be isolated and weakened); so long as you're advocating strategies of uber-violence and collateral damage, then you're activately working to support their cause.

[Liberator]

I think you need to reexamine the Vietnam conflict.  2 years after the conflict began, MacAuthur had the VC pushed from from Vietnam completely, then the Politicians got involved.  They prevented the Army from pursuing the enemy into neighboring Laos and Cambodia.  The VC sat over there and rebuilt and then when they returned they were able to use fear and disinformation to turn the tide of battle in their favor.

You are correct about 1 thing, Iraq and Vietnam are similar in a few key ways, the majority of the population is uneducated and conditioned to accept the word of a specific group as absolute truth.

[aldo_14]

McArthur?

He died in 1964 and wasn't involved in 'Nam insofar as I can see (he was dismissed for insubordination during the Korean war IIRC and retired in the same year).

I'm not sure what year you define as the start of the Vietnam war, anyways; if it's the Gulf of Tonkin incident in '64, then the Vietcong weren't driven out by any historical site I've seen; the US ended up allowing napalm in  '65 and authorising an increase to 400,000 troops in '67.  I've read nothing that suggests the Vietcong had been defeated as such (bar the loss of 'visibility' due to a switch to guerilla tactics having been comprehensively defeated by US air dominance in initial battles in '65); and if you use 65 as the start date of ground fighting and hence the war, the VC / North Vietnam were definately still fighting in '67 (and launched an ultimately doomed siegewith 20,000 troops upon Khe Sang in January '68).

And then there's the Tet offensive, when the supposedly crippled VC forces captured Hue.  Although ultimately driven back, it shown that the war wouldn't be ending soon and was a propaganda victory (given that war is as much about politics as military strength).

EDIT; IIRC there were US troops operating in Laos and Cambodia anyways; the US launched bombing of Laos from 1968 to 1972, and also bombed Cambodian.  It then invaded Cambodia in 1970 with South Vietnamese troops and secretly sent Marines into Laos in 1969 (South Vietnam would later invade in 1971).

[Genryu]

Originally posted by Liberator


You are correct about 1 thing, Iraq and Vietnam are similar in a few key ways, the majority of the population is uneducated and conditioned to accept the word of a specific group as absolute truth.

The American following their presidents ?

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Liberator
If you're going to make war, MAKE WAR.

It's nice to see a good christian perspective on the matter for a change.

You know. Killing hundreds of thousands of women and children or driving them from their homes and destroying them. Taking christianity back to the Crusades when it was a far less civilised religion than Islam.

Good to see someone taking a back to basics approach to christianity rather than going with that whole tolerance thing that all the liberal christians claim is what Jesus actually preached.

[Zarax]

1925: "A german extremist can't be that bad"

2005: "A german pope can't be that bad"

Not that I have anything against germans but...

[Liberator]

Originally posted by karajorma


It's nice to see a good christian perspective on the matter for a change.

You know. Killing hundreds of thousands of women and children or driving them from their homes and destroying them. Taking christianity back to the Crusades when it was a far less civilised religion than Islam.

Good to see someone taking a back to basics approach to christianity rather than going with that whole tolerance thing that all the liberal christians claim is what Jesus actually preached.

I didn't say it was the Christian thing to do.

I am just sick to death of the pussyfooting around.  Either finish it or leave, don't dick around and let our boys(and girls now) die for little or no reason.

Yes, you heard correctly, I said they are dying needlessly.  The spirit of the enemy must be crushed for victory and the desired result of this war to come to fruition.  Or else, the children will continue to die and we willl have another vietnam on our hands...

[Bobboau]

lib... what is the objective of the war in Iraq?

[Rictor]

Originally posted by karajorma


It's nice to see a good christian perspective on the matter for a change.

You know. Killing hundreds of thousands of women and children or driving them from their homes and destroying them. Taking christianity back to the Crusades when it was a far less civilised religion than Islam.

Good to see someone taking a back to basics approach to christianity rather than going with that whole tolerance thing that all the liberal christians claim is what Jesus actually preached.

Leave religion out of it kara. Every civilization is history has been involved in "Killing hundreds of thousands of women and children or driving them from their homes and destroying them". Neither crimes of agression nor the mentality behind them are particular to a single religion, and it's stupid to pretend otherwise. More or less, it's human nature.

[Kosh]

I am just sick to death of the pussyfooting around.

They "pussyfoot around" because that is how things must be done. There is simply no other way to do it. Occupying a foreign country is a long, drawn out process.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Rictor
Leave religion out of it kara.

I wasn't critising christianity. Notice the last line? I went out of my way not to do that. I was critising Liberator for constantly telling us that we should do things according his to his christian ideals when he can't even hold them himself.

[Ace]

Originally posted by Liberator
I think you need to reexamine the Vietnam conflict.  2 years after the conflict began, MacAuthur had the VC pushed from from Vietnam completely, then the Politicians got involved.

Ermm... mixing Korea and Vietnam together, aren't we?

In the case of the Korean war, MacArthur did manage to pull all the way up to the Chinese border and was ordered to stand down. Patton was primed and ready to roll into Moscow when Berlin fell... US forces were ready to take on full operations in Laos and Cambodia.

What do all of these things have in common? The 'Commander and Chief' "reprioritized" targets due to political reasons.

The end results? North Korea exists. The Cold War occured. Cambodia fell to Pol-Pot. Afganistan is pumping out more opium than ever.

[Liberator]

Exactly, the politicans need to let the warriors war, and to hell with their delicate sensibilities.  There is too much "oh what will X think if we crush these people who are threatening them too?".  You know I don't care what someone 100 miles from me is thinking, why should i care what someone on the other side of the ocean thinks?

[Zarax]

Originally posted by Liberator
Exactly, the politicans need to let the warriors war, and to hell with their delicate sensibilities.  There is too much "oh what will X think if we crush these people who are threatening them too?".  You know I don't care what someone 100 miles from me is thinking, why should i care what someone on the other side of the ocean thinks?

Suuure, keep giving more power to the army...

But then don't complain when the generals will replace the politicians...

[Liberator]

I didn't say give more power to the military, i said stop hampering them because it makes you look bad politically.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Liberator
I didn't say it was the Christian thing to do.

I am just sick to death of the pussyfooting around. Either finish it or leave, don't dick around and let our boys(and girls now) die for little or no reason.

Yes, you heard correctly, I said they are dying needlessly. The spirit of the enemy must be crushed for victory and the desired result of this war to come to fruition. Or else, the children will continue to die and we willl have another vietnam on our hands...

And what about the deaths of those innocents who get caught up in crossfire?  What about the people left homeless, or crippled, or who see their entire family taken from them in the flash of a misdirected tank shell or suicide bomb?  They don't care whether it was aimed at them, or who was right in the fight - if anyone - they just know they've lost everything.  Does preventing the death of a single American soldier now matter more than them, in their own country?

Have you ever actually considered why civillian casualties - stroke 'collateral damage' - is politically negative?

[Ace]

...and for that matter if all life is equal why not have a "war on drunk driving" because more Americans die each year from car accidents in general, or from complications of smoking and obesity, then have ever died from terrorism.

[Zarax]

Originally posted by Ace
...and for that matter if all life is equal why not have a "war on drunk driving" because more Americans die each year from car accidents in general, or from complications of smoking and obesity, then have ever died from terrorism.

Are you insane? That would hamper the corporate interest  and require even more welfare for multibillion companies while the majority dies from easily avoidable diseases.

[Liberator]

I don't think you quite get it, it is WAR.  Mistakes happen, people die, we mourn, we go on.  Innocents getting killed cause they were too dumb to get out of the way means that that stupidity won't be bred to the next generation.

If you can't tell, I'm pissed off at the soft shoes in the world who think everything should be happiness and light all the time.  I hate to break it to ya, creep, Life is Pain, get used to it or move on.

[Styxx]

Originally posted by Liberator
I don't think you quite get it, it is WAR.  Mistakes happen, people die, we mourn, we go on.  Innocents getting killed cause they were too dumb to get out of the way means that that stupidity won't be bred to the next generation.

If you can't tell, I'm pissed off at the soft shoes in the world who think everything should be happiness and light all the time.  I hate to break it to ya, creep, Life is Pain, get used to it or move on.

You could tell that same thing to the american soldiers then, who, incidentally, signed up voluntarily knowing that they might die in service, contrary to the innocent civilians living in their own country.