- This topic has 13 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 22 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
The best way to stop the attacks on Coalition troops in Iraq is to threaten to raze a Village, Town or City (depending on the severity of the attack) to the ground. Then if the attacks continue, do it and tell the Iraqis that it was the fault of the Terrorists for not listening.
Those of you who know your History will know that Hitler tried this in Poland and it worked as the Polish “Freedom Fighters” all moved to Allied countries and started to fight with them, this will not be the case for the Iraqi Terrorists as their allies are also Terrorists and any attck from them will just result in another Village, Town or City being destroyed.
What are your views on this tactic?
Yes, it’s the only way they’ll learn. When you are up against fanatics and people who claim to be fighting for “The People” the only way to get through to them is to fight Violence with more Violence.
But haven’t enough innocent lives been taken already? I personally would never condone such an act. As frustrating as it may be, you must remember what and who you are fighting for. How can you fight for peace and freedom by spreading choas, death and terror?
I say we unleash another “shock and awe” campaign on their cities as we pullout and put our troops on the borders here in America. This would allow us to find terrorists here in the US and take ’em out while defending the borders. That’d get the world to stop complaining about us “interfering” with their affiars.
I recall watching Mr. George Dubya address the US saying if Saddam and his sons do not leave the country within 24 hours that the US would unleash a “shock and awe” campaign against Iraq.
The Shock & Awe campaign was the original bombing phase. I remember the images, just flashes in the night, with the anti-aircraft guns having no hope of hitting anything. I think the Hearts & Minds was the next stage.
I don’t believe the coalition should combat terrorism with terrorism, however, they could perhaps get a little tougher. What happened to Nick Berg was inhuman, bloody, and tragic. That sort of thing is what makes me think the coalition should be tougher.
However, at the end of the day, they are highly trained and sophisticated soldiers. I’m sure they know better than any of us.
Also, who was it that provoked and started the war? Al Queda, Sept 11th. That was a totally unprovoked attack, and, given human nature, America was not about to stand back and not retaliate.
**EDIT** Corrected typo.
Al Queda managed to provoke and start a war in Iraq, even though they have no known ties or links to Iraq or Saddam? Are you sure you know who started the war?
Um the war on terror has no relation whatsoever to Iraq, they are two seperate wars, with George bush using popular opinion against terrorists to justify the war on iraq…. Which ahd teh side -effect of producing mroe terrorists and fanatics…
As for the “shock and awe” and “Hearts and minds” campaigns, I believe both these campaigns were implemented at the same time…. in a truly ***ked up display of governement logic… lets win round the iraqi people to our side, by bmonbing their cities…. kill their families, friedns etc…. thats really going to make them love us….
Quote:quote:Al Queda, Sept 11th. That was a totally unprovoked attack, and, given human nature, America was not about to stand back and not retaliate.America retalliated by attakcing afghnistan and removing teh terrorist training camps, which was a good thin I believe, but then they got side tracked by Mr Bush’s insane quest to topple Saddam, greatly undermining the Americans efforts…. By acting prematurely against Saddam Mr Bush has create dfar more radical sentiments then previosuly, provoking widespread anger among the arab world…
Quote:quote: I say we unleash another “shock and awe” campaign on their cities as we pullout and put our troops on the borders here in America. This would allow us to find terrorists here in the US and take ’em out while defending the borders. That’d get the world to stop complaining about us “interfering” with their affiars.So bombing them to hell is not “interfering” with the affairs of other countries? sounds to me like that would be considerd an act of war… a highly interfering aspect of international relations…
And how exactly would you find these terrorsits in the US? These terrosits are US citizens, and it is impossible for the US to remove them form the o****ry.
Anyway your suggestion owuld result in widespread dissatisfaction throughout the world, turnign world opinion against the US, thousands would join the terroists who attack America, and i’d imagine the US’s power would quickly evaporate in the following decades….
Now as to penguin hunter’s suggestion, hitlers strategy may have been successful in the short-term, but it was in a totally different situation, he was facing freedom fighters, not religious fanatics, there mindset is totally different. Do you think that al-quaeda terrorists really care who gets killed? foreign insurgents in iraq don’t care what happens to iraqi towns the destruction of such towns would in fact result in more support for their actions, as the blame would be placed soely on the occupying German powers, embittered iraqis who lost their families to American purges would join the insurgents, and the raqi people would rise, and america would not be able to stop them.
The strategy also wouldn’t work, as a)the outrage among the britsih public owuld cause ythe british to withdraw from Iraq b) outrage among teh american public would cause the americans to cease the tactoc c0 if the british and ameriocan public did not stop the purges, I imagine large number of soldeirs would refuse to carry out such orders.
And finally I don’t think anyone would be so stupid as to imlement such an unwieldy startegy…. it quite simply wouldn’t work.
I never said that America did not retaliate. Read what I put, it does make sense to the abstract thinker. Also, the war on Iraq does have some link to the war on terror, after all, what was the main reason we went in, “Weapons Of Mass Destruction”. Which are used in terrorist attacks. We were told that Saddam could launch one of these within 45 minutes.
Also, Mr Bush did not act early on Saddam, the guy has had since 1991 to improve his ways. America gave Saddam enough warnings.
Quote:quote:
I never said that America did not retaliateyou implied that America was retalliating against al-queda when they invaded Iraq, which they weren’t, they were just removing saddam, who was not related to al-qaueda…
I merely stated that any retalliation america made was agianst Afghanistan, not Saddam, the two are in no way linked…
Quote:quote:Also, the war on Iraq does have some link to the war on terror, after all, what was the main reason we went in, “Weapons Of Mass Destruction”. Which are used in terrorist attacks. We were told that Saddam could launch one of these within 45 minutes.So the reason you attacked Iraq, was to stop the WMD’s, which have never to date been used in terrorist attacks, because the terroirists don’t have access to them, and this makes the war in Iraq related to terrorism?
I think you will find that the removal of saddam means that any WMD’s in Iraq are now more likley to be in terrorist hands, smuggled out by those who will use them in terrorist attacks,a s Saddam no longer controls them, so now the US is much more likely to suffer a terrorist attack, with WMD’s… as the analysis beofre the war said….
Mr Bush has sure done a bang up job of keepuing the copuntry safe from those WMD’s…
Quote:quote:Also, Mr Bush did not act early on Saddam, the guy has had since 1991 to improve his ways. America gave Saddam enough warnings.America acted early, because Saddam was starting to bow to the intense international pressure, he’d let in the weapons inspectors, they weren’t finding anything, he didn’t seem to have any WMD’s… america was losing its reason to invade Saddam, so attacked without internatinal support…
if America had been more patient, and persuaded more people to support them, then Saddm would have fallen, Saddma was bowing before international diplomatic pressure, I believe a sustained diplomatic effort would have freed Iraq, and restored democracy much more easily…. I could be wrong here, but thats juist my opinion
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.