In the sense that they were self-sure of their own righteousness and were unconcerned about what other nations thought, we are similar. Dresden is a poor example because nobody, even their allies, liked or had any sympathy for the Nazis. Nobody cared what anybody did to them. After reading Admiral Horthy's book, I'm fairly sure most of their allies were probably cheering. The same universal animosity does not exist for the people of Iraq. I had a much more invectively worded post written and decided to tone it down because your posts often seem to have a veneer of legitimate, rational thought. If you prefer to sneer and ridicule me, then I guess the effort was misguided.
I saw either an aerial or satellite image of Fallujah after the Marines got done with it... For all intents and purposes, it was flattened.
So you the almost 50 mouse jockey is willing to advocate for more ruthlessness and more sacrifice from our troops to inflict more suffering on the Iraqis? Leaving aside the obvious problem with your posts how are you so certain that such a policy will work? The Russians were ubelievable brutal on the Afghanis and the Chechens yet those people still fought. In Vietnam we killed almost 2 million NVA and Vietcong dropped more ordinance on North Vietnam than in all of WWII yet they still kept on fighting. So if we take out Sadr flatten Fallujah and Ramadi and they still fight what next? How long are you willing to throw troops into that situation? Especially considering you're not going to be one's who's going to have to go.
i wasn't sneering, i was asking. hard to tell i guess in two dimensional cyber space, but i was sincere. in any case, the belgians are the wrong example. i'm not talking about the people of iraq, but al queda and the other foreign fighters who were in fallujah. IMHO the greatest mistake we've made in iraq has been not being ruthless enough in dealing w/ the militias, al queda, and other thugs we're fighting. i would've surrounded fallujah, which i understand we did, then marched up to the first row of buildings and given any one inside an hour or two to vacate peacefully. then i would've flattened that row, and marched to the next one. wash, rinse, repeat. the people we're fighting, as distinct from the people of iraq, only respect force, and the only way to defeat them is to kill them. our prevarication on this point will have lasting consequences not only for the people in iraq, but also in iran, syria, lebanon, and israel.
That might have been a mistake in some cases, but I would hardly consider it the greatest mistake. The greatest mistake starts with going there in the first place, followed by doing it on the cheap in terms of number of troops and equipment. What gives you this understanding that the only thing they understand is force? What examples of this can you give to show that that is the case? I have seen little evidence to show that is the only thing they understand.
so you're saying saddam was justified in using force? why did he remove him again? so we can be ruthless instead of him?
Implement the rule that for every American solider killed, 100 Iraqis will be shot, that will put real fear into them and will stop the violence toward the Americans.
I find it hilarious that you believe you'd be alive to march to the second row. And by "you", of course, I mean somebody else with the actual courage of their convictions. I find it pathetic that 3 1/2 years later you still fail to understand that "the people we're fighting" are, for the most part "the people of Iraq". Actually, in your case, I chalk it up to willful ignorance.
A few years ago I went to my neighbors house and beat the crap out of some of his kids when he wasn't around because I thought they vandalized my property (they didn't). He came to my house the next day and I shot him in the head. In self-defense.
I apologize, then. I misunderstood. I think that your solution would rally many, many more Muslims and Arabs to fight who might otherwise sit on the sidelines and never become involved. I am thinking of the way that the 9/11 attacks rallied many Americans to join the military who might never have done so otherwise. We can, of course, argue whether they would be right to feel that kind of motivational outrage at such a solution, but I think in the practical view we would generate quite a bit of that feeling, and so create more enemies than we would be removing. If it comes down to 'Americans vs. Muslims & Arabs' (which I think your strategy would help create) then we would have a difficult time winning without doing the things that most Americans will do anything to avoid, like taking large numbers of casualties, reinstituting the draft, converting to a true 'wartime economy', etc. Perhaps you calculate the 'secondary effects' differently than I. If so I would be interested to hear where you disagree with my assessment.
I think the biggest thing we can do to protect our national security is to continue to elect people that will remove the failures who designed and implemented our current policy. We need accountability, we need to develop better support with our allies and the world, since terrorism is a world wide proble, and can only be contained if it is approached as such. Restoring America's good name in the world, and working to attack terrorism at its roots with cooperation from the world will be the greatest thing we can do.
