The Solution is to Clamp Down
 

Well here is what it's going to take to get the natives quiet...if we have the stomach to do it, with out everyone whining about how brutal the USA is...

We should get the Irwreckie government to ask us to clean up Faluja....or any other city that is out of control... surround the city with our troops so no one can get out...

1. Two weeks before we should broadcast that 2 weeks from the this date everyone is to be out of Faluja, no ands ifs or buts....

They can travel out on any road, all weapons are to be deposited in a great big pile right outside of the city...everybody will then be searched at a checkpoint. Anybody found with arms gets a one way ticket to reeducation camp in Sh1ite or Kurd land... Any foreign fighters get a one way ticket to a caribbean island getway. Anybody who trys to breakthrough without going through a checkpoint either gets shot or if captured gets a one way ticket to one of the above vacation spots.


2. After the deadline for everybody to leave the place has passed you level it.... end of story.. ANybody who is left shouldn't be there and is the enemy.

Anyother city wants to be lawless gets the same treatment.... It's kinda a page out of Sadams book only nicer than he would be...he'd just level the place without giving anylone the chanch to leave.


with MR Sadr...go to the Ayotola Sistiney or whatever the wogs name is and get his blessing...using Muslim troops of Shie+ orgin go in and get the SOB and send him to a reeducation camp...

You gotta get these peoples attention somehow...we aren't there to be loved, we are there to do a job. So lets do it and not worry about how much they don't like us...

Yep! The easiest way to make the entire population of Iraq play nice....is to kill anyone who doesn't. Pretty simple.

Come on tabs. Las Vegas is surrounded:

(a) would you leave
(b) would you take your guns

Tabby would leave....only AFTER the officials promised there would be buffets at his final destination! :eek:

Randy

Right on Flintstone. The reason our guys are being killed with weapons bought with oil for food money provided by those rat b*stards in Russia, France & Germany is because we won't "lay the smack down.' This won't be won with M16s, but it can be won with B52s.

Shoulda sent one right down the center of the mosque (oh excuse me, *holy* site) that the last cleric was spouting off in...

Didn't work in Vietname, won't work in Iwreck.

Here I am, a 'peace loving liberal,' yet I seem to understand more about warfare than you chickenhawks.

The only way you "win" a war is through complete and utter subjugation. You have to kill enough of the enemy that they don't have the will and/or resources to continue fighting. With the resources available to us, that's the easy part. If it was simply a matter of 'we need to stop Iraq from attacking the US' it would have been a cake walk; a weekend operation.

The problem is, since this was never about Iraq being a physical threat to the US, we're hogtied from the get-go. We have huge war 'potential' but can't use it. It's like a kid who won't stop kicking the back of your seat at the movie theater. Sure, it annoys you, and you can ask his parents to stop, you can complain to the management, etc, but your choices are to get up and beat the **** out of him (and face the consequences from the other theater patrons) or move to another seat.

We have no more moral justifcation for the 'B-52 soltuion" than Hitler. This isn't just useless hyperbole. If we were to take the Stromberg/Flintstone/Mul(e) approach, and flatten the whole place, we'd essentially be creating a sandy version of Hitler's takeover of Europe. As such, the rest of the world would organize against us. China would be a major player, and has a huge industrial base and even larger manpower base. I'm sure Russian and North Korea would love to get a poke in at us as well. Betcha didn't think of that.

Nope U lost me here...wouldn't happen..there'd be whining...but nobody would stand in our way...

Thom, you must be smarter than your post would indicate. We don't need to flatten the WHOLE place, just the places inhabited by the enemy. When enough die the problem will be over. And I wouldn't be too worried about korea or anybody else jumping up & saying "Hey, I bet you won't do that over hear!"

Thom, you must be smarter than your post would indicate...Implying HE is smart...and then : Hey, I bet you won't do that over hear!" A very bad spelling mistake that indicates:
1- An IQ < 90
2- An education level lower than high school
3- Or both...

I would not prefer having you in charge of the war in Iraq, thanks...

Aurel

While Mule flung an insult and followed up with clarification on his point, you flung only an insult.

Bravo. :rolleyes:

The problem is, we're not simply trying to "destroy an enemy". Of course we have lots of military power. We could surround any Iraqi city, drive all the civilians from their homes, imprison anyone who might be a terrorist (kinda hard to tell once they've hidden their guns, so how about "all males from 16 to 60"), kill everyone left inside, leave only smoking ashes, all the women and children get to live in relocation camps . . .

But we're not trying to destroy the country. We're trying to build a (1) democratic country that (2) is friendly (or at least not hostile) to us. (1) means the people choose their leaders. (2) means they choose leaders who are pro-American (or at least moderates who don't want to kill us).

So, suppose we do the smoking ashes bit on three or four Iraqi cities. Everybody in Iraq hears about their uncle who was killed, their second cousin who was imprisoned, their neighbor's nephews who lost their homes. Then we hold elections in January. How do you think Iraqis will vote? Think a moderate candidate who favors sensible policies will win? Get serious. The radical, Jihadist, "death to America" candidates will take power.

Then they kick us out. The US government breathes a sigh of relief - finally, a face-saving way to declare victory and get the hell out of Iraq. We removed Saddam, established a democratic government, now it's "Mission Accomplished 2" and the troops come home. Pity about the WMD, but that was never the point.

So what gets left behind in Iraq? A violently, passionately anti-American country. Tens of thousands of experienced fighters and terrorists. Not much law and order, or central infrastructure. A whole country for Al-Qaeda and other terrorists to hide in, train in, make money in, build bombs in. Oil money. Room for Iran, Syria, and other neighbors to move in and assert control. In short, a bigger, nastier version of Afghanistan under the Taliban, but even closer to the oil fields of Saudi Arabia. In a couple years we'll be saying "WTF? 2,000 GIs dead and $150 billion spent, and we got this? Why, this is worse than Saddam!"

Alternatively, we could rig the election so that a moderate, US-friendly government wins. Cite security concerns to cancel voting in any city or region that isn't under decent control. So, no voting in the entire center of the country, nor big parts of the north, maybe not in the slums of Baghdad either.

So now a government that we like "wins". Maybe the existing governing council, that would be handy. But it didn't really win, is seen as a US puppet, so it can't actually govern. The insurgency and terrorism continues. Hastily-trained Iraqi troops can't control the situation, so US troops have to stay. How long? The Pentagon is now planning for up to 100,000 troops in 2006. The 2,000th GI dies, then the 3,000th. Another $100 billion, then another. In a couple years, we're not so happy under this scenario either.

That is why the US Army can't take the macho "Dirty Harry" approach that some on this board suggest. Like it or not, Iraq is now ours. We broke it, now we own it (Colin Powell's "Pottery Barn" rule of foreign policy). We can't fix it by smashing its cities to bits.

I am confident that US troops are already doing their very best to kill anyone who doesn't play nice. And they are killing them, as shown by the body counts that the commanders are starting to give.

The problem is, when an Iraqi insurgent tosses his rifle in an alley and walks on down the street, he looks a lot like an ordinary civilian. The Vietcong were good at that too.

Eventually enough of the bad ones will die that the moderates will step forward and identify the rest.
Even the Vietnamese generals have said since the war that we had won..and they were ready to surrender......until they heard the Jane Fondas and John Kerrys...and knew they only had to hold out a little longer and make the price unbearable...they knew we had even worse enemies within....who would help them win.

Iraq is a country of 22 million, probably 5-8 million males of fighting age. There are something like 20,000 active insurgent fighters. The insurgent forces draws fighters from the civilian population. If we "B-52" Iraqi cities and otherwise create hatred among more and more ordinary Iraqis, there is a very large pool of new insurgents.

AP: Iraq insurgency larger than thought

BAGHDAD (AP) — Contrary to U.S. government claims, the insurgency in Iraq is led by well-armed Sunnis angry about losing power, not foreign fighters, and is far larger than previously thought, American military officials say.


The officials told The Associated Press the guerrillas can call on loyalists to boost their forces to as high as 20,000 and have enough popular support among nationalist Iraqis angered by the presence of U.S. troops that they cannot be militarily defeated.


That number is far larger than the 5,000 guerrillas previously thought to be at the insurgency's core. And some insurgents are highly specialized — one Baghdad cell, for instance, has two leaders, one assassin, and two groups of bomb-makers.


Although U.S. military analysts disagree over the exact size, the insurgency is believed to include dozens of regional cells, often led by tribal sheiks and inspired by Sunni Muslim imams.


The developing intelligence picture of the insurgency contrasts with the commonly stated view in the Bush administration that the fighting is fueled by foreign warriors intent on creating an Islamic state.


"We're not at the forefront of a jihadist war here," said a U.S. military official in Baghdad, speaking on condition of anonymity.


The military official, who has logged thousands of miles driving around Iraq to meet with insurgents or their representatives, said a skillful Iraqi government could co-opt some of the guerrillas and reconcile with the leaders instead of fighting them.


"I generally like a lot of these guys," he said. "We know who the key people are in all the different cities, and generally how they operate. The problem is getting actionable information so you can either attack them, arrest them or engage them."


Even as Iraqi leaders wrangle over the contentious issue of offering a broad amnesty to guerrilla fighters, the new Iraqi military and intelligence corps have begun gathering and sharing information on the insurgents with the U.S. military, providing a sharper picture of a complex insurgency.


"Nobody knows about Iraqis and all the subtleties in culture, appearance, religion and so forth better than Iraqis themselves," said U.S. Army Lt. Col. Daniel Baggio, a military spokesman at Multinational Corps headquarters in Baghdad. "We're very optimistic about the Iraqis' use of their own human intelligence to help root out these insurgents."


The intelligence boost has allowed American pilots to bomb suspected insurgent safe houses over the past two weeks, with Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi saying Iraqis supplied information for at least one of those airstrikes. But the better view of the insurgency also contradicts much of the popular wisdom about it.


Estimates of the insurgents' manpower tend to be too low. Last week, a former coalition official said 4,000 to 5,000 Baathists form the core of the insurgency, with other attacks committed by a couple hundred supporters of Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and hundreds of other foreign fighters.


Anthony Cordesman, an Iraq analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the figure of 5,000 insurgents "was never more than a wag and is now clearly ridiculous."


"Part-timers are difficult to count, but almost all insurgent movements depend on cadres that are part-time and that can blend back into the population," he said.


U.S. military analysts disagree over the size of the insurgency, with estimates running as high as 20,000 fighters when part-timers are added.


Ahmed Hashim, a professor at the U.S. Naval War College, said the higher numbers squared with his findings in a study of the insurgency completed in Iraq.


One hint that the number is larger is the sheer volume of suspected insurgents — 22,000 — who have cycled through U.S.-run prisons. Most have been released. And in April alone, U.S. forces killed as many as 4,000 people, the military official said, including Sunni insurgents and Shiite militiamen fighting under the banner of a radical cleric.


There has been no letup in attacks. On Thursday, insurgents detonated a car bomb and then attacked a military headquarters in Samarra, a center of resistance in the Sunni Triangle 60 miles north of the capital, killing five U.S. soldiers and one Iraqi guardsman.


Guerrilla leaders come from various corners of Saddam's Baath Party, including lawyers' groups, prominent families and especially from his Military Bureau, an internal security arm used to purge enemies. They've formed dozens of cells.


U.S. military documents obtained by AP show a guerrilla band mounting attacks in Baghdad that consists of two leaders, four sub-leaders and 30 members, broken down by activity. There is a pair of financiers, two cells of car bomb-builders, an assassin, separate teams launching mortar and rocket attacks, and others handling roadside bombs and ambushes.


Most of the insurgents are fighting for a bigger role in a secular society, not a Taliban-like Islamic state, the military official said. Almost all the guerrillas are Iraqis, even those launching some of the devastating car bombings normally blamed on foreigners — usually al-Zarqawi.


The official said many car bombings bore the "tradecraft" of Saddam's former secret police and were aimed at intimidating Iraq's new security services.


Many in the U.S. intelligence community have been making similar points, but have encountered political opposition from the Bush administration, a State Department official in Washington said, also speaking on condition of anonymity.


Civilian analysts generally agreed, saying U.S. and Iraqi officials have long overemphasized the roles of foreign fighters and Muslim extremists.


Such positions support the Bush administration's view that the insurgency is linked to the war on terror. A closer examination paints most insurgents as secular Iraqis angry at the presence of U.S. and other foreign troops.


"Too much U.S. analysis is fixated on terms like 'jihadist,' just as it almost mindlessly tries to tie everything to (Osama) bin Laden," Cordesman said. "Every public opinion poll in Iraq ... supports the nationalist character of what is happening."


Many guerrillas are motivated by Islam in the same way religion motivates American soldiers, who also tend to pray more when they're at war, the U.S. military official said.


He said he met Tuesday with four tribal sheiks from Ramadi who "made very clear" that they had no desire for an Islamic state, even though mosques are used as insurgent sanctuaries and funding centers.


'"We're not a bunch of Talibans,'" he paraphrased the sheiks as saying.


At the orders of Gen. John Abizaid, the U.S. commander of Mideast operations, Army analysts looked closely for evidence that Iraq's insurgency was adopting extreme Islamist goals, the official said. Analysts learned that ridding Iraq of U.S. troops was the motivator for most insurgents, not the formation of an Islamic state.


The officer said Iraq's insurgents have a big advantage over guerrillas elsewhere: plenty of arms, money, and training. Iraq's lack of a national identity card system — and guerrillas' refusal to plan attacks by easily intercepted telephone calls — makes them difficult to track.


"They have learned a great deal over the last year, and with far more continuity than the rotating U.S. forces and Iraqi security forces," Cordesman said of the guerrillas. "They have learned to react very quickly and in ways our sensors and standard tactics cannot easily deal with."

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

.Harsh land, harsh society, harsh discipline...You've got to put the foot down sometime and say enough is enough, you step out of line and there will be consequences...We are not there to win a popularity contest..we are now there to restore some kind of stability...even if it isn't Democratic (we'd like it to be). You do that a couple of times and they will know we mean business..and Jane Fonda loving guys like Kerry don't really help our cause that much..

I'm not going to sit here and say the Bilbo Baggins sitting in the White House didn't fk up....some place between the twlight zone of their ideology and reality the wires got crossed up ....they ultimately didn't have a clue an idea or a synaspe as what to do with the Humpty Dumpty of Irwreck once they got it. The big mistake was they didn't keep the Irwreckie Army and Police on the job.

Now the choich is clear...We have to suffer the consequences and restore order to the place no matter how long it takes.. we cannot afford to walk away...

If Kerry thinks anybody else is going to put any up in Irwreck if he is elected he's more out to lunch than the boyz in the White House...not unless you cut them in for the swag....you know the contracts to rebuild the place....ahhh I love the smell of corruption in the mornining...ok yeah it still is mornining...had me worried there a bit....

Now some of U boyz and the Liberals sit there and moan an cry like a B!tch about a 1000 American dead....well I wonder what you'd say back in 1945 about Iwo Jima.....a 1000 American dead... that was in the first hour of the battle....the Marine units suffered something like 75% casualities....sometimes to achieve a goal you gotta put up...was Iwreck right I don't know, but we are there and commited...to walk away will PROVE Bin Laden right ....Americans are Pu$$ies...and by Gawd we deserve to lose if we do...

Jesus Christo, Tabs; you sound like some old man who hasn't had his daily feel-up from his house nurse...

WWII and Iraq aren't the same, and you know it.

Anyway, I'll cut you a thick slice of credit and say just this: there are times, like today, where I wholeheartedly agree with you: when beheadings of innocents come into the mix of a country that represents chaos far and wide, I say clean up the town. But I pose the question back to you? Would you do tactical nukes? Now there's a solution that will resonate throughout the world.

I usually don't think in such violent terms that can result in so much collateral damage, but hey, enough is enough.

I thought about Nuking Faluja after everyone was supposed to be out...wouldn't that put the fear of Allah into any of the rag heads who wanted to dare us and stay behind....you have to tell em your going to do it first...and give everybody a chanch to get out...

But NO no NUKES..... It is a very large moral question....it also would be opening pandoras box...everybody would get the message it's Ok.

Now suppose a Dirty bomb/ tactical device is used against an American city by Al Queada and there are uptine deaad and dying...

Who do you point the Trident missle against???? the answer is nobody..you can't use it.... I suppose I would use a tactical nuclear weapon as a bunker buster if I found a hidout...but that becomes a slippery slope...World opinion would be decidedly against anybody who uses a Nuke first....and if the USA is hit....the USA only has to point the finger and say to the world you better root out these Al Queda boyz or your all gona be eatin out of garbage cans..the world economy would collapse. U see that the danger with free radicals like Al Quedea they can bring the house of cards down..and thats the motivation of the Bushy crew to do what they are doing..they realize the danger...and so does anyone else with half a brain.

WTF didn't anyone get a PPI before they 'bought' the damn country?

Need PPI in ME
 

There's a country I'm thinking of invading; can someone recommend a shop to do a PPI on Iraq? Does anyone have one of those CountryFax accounts?

Thanks!
--George

World opinion? Come on now. The term "all's fair in love and war" comes to mind. They behead our innocents, we conjure conflagration in brilliant white light.

Yes, the world will pay attention. They'll say "Oh no!" and soon realize we have enough to drop on other countries if they get out of line.

You've said so yourself as have others here, including the president himself: world opinion does not matter if world opinion is not in our best interest.

What I'm getting at is we aren't winning Iraq. We're attempting to douse that fire with water from an eye dropper. It's now time to step things up - a few notches. Therefore, I think tactical nukes or at least carpet bombing is the way to go. I mean, really, Tabs, let's get this crap over with so that Bush or Kerry doesn't have to contend with it for the next four years.

Damn! That's one of the funniest statements I've read on this board to date. Hilarious!

Re: Need PPI in ME
 

CountryFax report for Iraq:

Title: Unclear. Partially restored after salvage title issued by the British.

Accidents: Generally considered to be in a single continuous, ongoing collision with the 20th century.

Odometer: Miles and miles of nothing.

Condition: In general disrepair. Leaks oil. (a lot).

U may think I'm just winging ***** here..but the proof of the pudding that I'm not winging ***** is the fact that I say NO to NUKES...

It is far better to lose 1000's more American lives than to use a Nuke FIRST...Call it a moral issue if you will....Bin Laden and the rest of the world will get the message if we are willing to do it the hard way...with feet on the ground... then he and all the other scum will know we not only have the moral ground but the same will as they have to sacrafice ourselves for something we believe in...

Bin Laden and the rest of the world have already seen that we can't win this way, and that we need even more troops just to hope to make an impact. That's why The Draft has come up.

Look, either you want to win, or play games. So which is it? We've fed enough of our lambs to the sacrifice.

Send in more troops..put a US soldier on every corner with a machine gun.....then you put an Irwreckie on evry corner with the American soldier then just the Irwreckie.. The we get the fk outa Dodge and call it good..

Uh-huh. Like in Vietnam...

Look, if you want to destroy an ideology expediently, your best bet is complete and swift annihilation. Enough foreplay. Let's have the money shot.

Shame on U DD you know this ain't Vietnam...

Quacking Duck ...U bin in Hollywood land for toooo long, or bin watchin those Francis Marion Morrison movies till dawn again....get back to the planet.... We ain't gona be the first ones to use Nukes

Nor are we about to establish troops on every street corner, unless we reach a nice toll of, um...maybe 5,000; maybe more.

If it is unwinnable no matter how much fresh Marine meat is thrown at it, it becomes a quagmire.

I say nuke 'em, but you say moral issues? Since when are moral issues part of this conflict?

Always have been....have you noticed that since 1945 nobody has used a NUke on anybody else....and then the rarional was that it saved millions of US and Japanese lives (we didn't have to invade)

Island blew my cover on another thread, so some of you may know I'm not entirely neutral when it comes to politics. Still, I feel as though I notice two things.

1) The answers, or at least the relevant questions to ask, seem to always get presented here. These are tough problems, and no easy answers. Or at least that's how those posts strike me, though obviously some disagree. Some feel there are not that many questions, and the answers are exceedingly simple. Which brings me to....

2) For some, this is like a football game and what we're seeing here is the empty beer cans hitting the TV screen. "Blow 'em all to Kingdom Come and let God sort 'em out." I sometimes wish I were one of these people. Life, and international relations, would be much simpler.

syria, jordan, egypt, saudi arabia, iran, indonesia, france, germany, great britton. you see, they just are not going far enough to erase the problem. the u.s. needs to occupy each country and bring the murderous bastads to their knees.

Relevant questions...empty beer cans hitting the TV screen. One of what people?

What's your point?

dd, I am reporting my vision of a dichotomy. On the one hand, we've got guys with their index knuckle against their lips, slightly wrinkled brow, noticing a terrible and frightening problem and imagining the various things that might work or not work.

And on the other hand, I see another group of people who think we just have not killed enough towel-heads. Throwing suggestions like this one out, just like the NFL fan might throw an empty beer can at the TV in disgust at the play calling by the coaches. And before you beer-can-throwers get your panties all in a bunch, I myself am a beer-drinking NFL fan.

And yeah, life is very complex for some people, and exceedingly simple for others. And the folks who agonize over distant things like world peace and man's inhumanity to man and what's going to happen to the lives of Americans when the Chinese finish the MASSIVE infrastructure building program that's driving raw material prices through the roof just as America's public infrastructure is beyond repair and we've squandered our fiscal resources pissing off Muslims.....wish life were as simple as it seems to be for some others.

I sincerely hope folks are mature enough to not get their feelings hurt when I say these things. I'm not trying to belittle anyone. My sister has one of those black-and-white brains and she's smarter than I am. she's got my full respect. I've taken some heat here for being critical, but I'm not going to play to the lowest common denominator, maturity-wise.

I like to think as, and would rather practice being a peacenik, but the fact is this: Junior got us in a mess neither Junior nor Kerry can get us out of - I sincerely believe this.

So what now? My thoughts: if we really want to win this, do it by enormous and undeniable force, probably nuclear, or if at least, carpet bombing day and night. If we don't care, pull back, and let civil war take its toll.

Sure, it's a lose-lose. But it was from the get-go.

Well the Quacker becomes a Hawk when in despair

Yeah, but how many of my threads have been closed, chief?

And anyway, what're you so afraid of? He's your war president. He likes this war. Oh, wait. No nukes. You mean because there're rules in war? I woulda never guessed.

Hey, like I said, I like peace - so much so that I'm willing to wipe a modern-day country from the Earth's memory if it'll result in peace. You Neocons should feel the same way, unless you're no better than the beheader jihadists who like to watch a man's head get sliced from his body sloooowwwllly. Is it the same with war? Do you like to see war unfold sloooowwwllly?

As for me, I just want to get the ***** over with, and shove democracy down the world's throat once and for all, Tabbikins...

Well that just part of being Tabby....if I don't get one closed once in awhile I'm slipping and can't claim to be Tabby anymore...Besides that...

Once U start using Nukes it's a quick desent into the abyss...

Using them won't result in peace...Using ground feet in day to day slogging will slowly achieve what we want...which is a stabile Irwreck. I base my comments on what the Egyptian Foreign Minister said on C Rose last night.

I agree with the more-force idea, but...

DD: what could you nuke in Iraq? 95% of the people live in cities that you can count on your fingers. I assume you mean that we should nuke one of those cities? 22 million civilians and ~20k bad guys. That's .001% of the population. If we could convince all of the bad guys to get together in one of those cities and take out all of the civilians, I would say "nuke 'em! the hell with what the rest of the world says" but if we could get those 20k together, several hundred marines and a few f-16s and the war would be over within 2 days.

What's my suggestion? Take out the leaders. I think Israel is taking the proper approach to the Hamas. I know that's not an easy thing to do and perhaps they have been trying to do just that, but it makes sense to me. Find Sadr and take care of him. You say that someone will replace him. That's good. Keep taking them out until all of the intelligent ones are taken out. It'll leave a lot of stupid bad guys behind.

That's crap. What "abyss?"

And don't be so sure about the peace part. Fear can develop peace. Fear, in fact, is peace.

Under Saddam, the country was stable. All I'm saying is we have to become...wait...I got it...

THE NEW SADDAM!!!