 |
| |
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
Felch:
One cannot be 100 percent sure that the Iraqi resistance is not getting support from the outside.
"Killing a bunch of Iraqis", will mean that someone will actually have to do the killing. Since the Iraqi are not unarmed, they will very likely respond in kind. This would mean that more American soldiers will get killed.
In the latest Intifada, which is still ongoing I think Israel has lost 600 civilians and soldiers, and the Palestinan have lost 3000. Considering the fact that Europe was quite recently the target of a terrorist attack, a lack of restraint might mean further reprisals.
There is also perhaps the most important factor, and that is that many of the Iraqi are actually cooperating with the Americans. Indiscriminate killing and brutalization of Iraqis will mean that the US will loose their Iraqi supporters.
Playing Sunnis and Shi'as against eachother might have worked before, but it seems their nationalism is strong.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Felch
|
 |
Germantown, Maryland
Sep 2001
time: 00:35
|
|
I agree it's problematic. But imagine one particular scenario.
The US and Iraqi forces are encircling Fallujah right now. Hypothetically, the air force could drop leaflets on the city promising to spare it in exchange for several hundred specific hostages, men from prominent families, and offer the city one week to comply. If the hostages are handed over, then they will be killed in the event of future problems. If not, then B-52s can carpet bomb the city, with a mixture of high explosive, incendiary, and possibly chemical munitions. I'm not an expert, but I'm sure people in the Pentagon know how to destroy cities.
Then you leave. You never have to enter the city. You don't have to mop up. You just need to show them who runs the show. If there are any further problems, you repeat the procedure.
As far as areas that are friendly you can reward them. Money and resources that would have gone to uncooperative cities can be shifted to cooperative ones, and make it clear that there is a connection between cooperation and the rewards or punishment.
There could be degrees of punishment, but you need to make it clear that atrocities committed against the Americans will be responded to in kind.
I understand that this is evil and sick. But so is war. Anybody who thinks wars can be waged without this sort of brutality is kidding themselves.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Alexander's Horse
|
 |
Panmunjon, hands up!
Jan 1970
time: 15:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Felch
It just so happens that those aspects were disasterously mishandled in 1968. |
Well no - the problem was, as it is now, that no amount of spin was going to stop voters making up their own mind about what they were seeing on their TV screens - the occupation of the US embassy, the summary execution in the street of VC prisoners by the Saigon police chief, the battle for Hue, the utter destruction of that ancient beautiful city by bombing and napalm, the troubled faces of the marines in that terrible street battle, the refugees streaming out of towns once considered safe, left an indelible impression on all people who saw it. It's some of the most compelling television footage ever shot. I'll never forget it.
Then as now the really damaging thing was noone could say when victory would be achieved and troops could come home. That freaked out voters, who had been told before Tet that the war was all but won.
Any of this sound familiar?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
The problem with the Shock and Awe Rinse and Repeat method is that it will not only show the Iraqis how the game is played, but very likely the entire World Community. It will further undermine the 'soft power' of which the US has already lost some. I can imagine that the Democrats will be outraged by indiscriminate bombings, because very likely they will have to take over fairly soon.
Awarding people who coorporate is perhaps a good idea. But I believe that the problem is essentially political, and not a question of financing the right people. In other words, the handover of power must be a real one.
As far as I understand Rumsfeld has said, that numerous people from Falluja have already been detained. But I doubt that the insurgents who did the actual killing have been detained. No photographs were taken of them. Only of the ones who mutilated the corpses.
It still strikes me as strange that so much emotion could be worked up over the bodies of four mercenaries. One of whose identity has not been revealed yet, as far as I understand. Very likely many American soldiers, young and not well paid, and who are still alive, have been mauled beyond recognition by various bomb-blasts. I don't see them being shown on the news.
Falluja has always been against the occupation, since they were bombed and lost the single most number of civilains during the First gulf War in one day. 200 dead and 500 wounded. April last year 15 demonstrators were killed by American troops. And 50 wounded, after the Americans were fired upon. The day before the killings of the 4 mercenaries, one Iraqi civilian was killed. The group that did the ambush against the mercenaries, said it was in revenge of the Israeli assasination of Sheik Yassin, leader of Hamas.
So a lot of different factors go into explaining the problem with Falluja.
Last edited by Tripledoc on 07-04-2004 at 06:15
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
I once again ask people like felch, if the tables were turned what would you do. Do you think that the Iraqi's are not justified in their actions. You say you have a problem with americans your age being killed but they were sent there and they do not seem to have been welcomed or at least have overstayed there welcome. At this point when Saddam Hussein is no longer in power the Iraqi's should be grateful to us if he was so bad. But they're not.
Why do you propose to continue to try to force your will on foreign soil. They have not been linked to any attack on U.S. interests prior to the invasion so by definition our soldiers there are not fighting the war on terror.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
There seems to be 135.000 American soldiers, as opposed to the stated offcial occupation force of 125.000, in Iraq now. This because of the current rotation.
The generals are exploring various options.
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/st...EN&SECTION=HOME
Some sort of escalation seems likely now.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-04-2004 05:21
|