True, but if America is to also remain the leader of the Free World, we cannot ignore what is in the interests of the Free World, either. I could probably support sending enough troops there to get the job done right. It would take sending back another 2 or 3 divisions and this insurrection could be quelled. But dinking with them on their terms is what is happening right now and that is getting us nowhere. There aren't enough troops on the ground to lay siege as you advocate. Meanwhile Special Operations Forces could deal with this more effectively, since they are trained specifically in counter-insurgency techniques. Of course, they are still badly needed in Afghanistan.
Their actions are following their beliefs and therefore I again would not shed a tear if these cities disappeared. I would not be upset to see a mushroom cloud. A great many and maybe the majority of Muslims who have been born and raised in the middle east have been taught to take verses like the below literally and not in a symbolic or historical way. We will always be the enemy to these types of muslims no matter what we do. They are stuck in the middle ages. Since the world is a smaller place and being in the "New World" does not offer the same protection that it once did we can no longer ignore the implications of their hatred towards us. What did we do to muslims before 9-11, before the USS Cole, before all the Embassy bombings, before the first attempt on the WTCs, before the attack on our Rangers, before Libya's various terror attacks, before the attack on our Marines in Beirut? Yes we have supported Israel, but we also helped stop Israel from taken more of Syria and Egypt than they probably could have. We have held back Israel more than helped them. We helped in the removal of Russia from Afghanistan. We removed Saddam from Kuwait and protected Saudia Arabia from him. We tried to help Lebanon. We tried to help Somalia. We aid various other countries in Africa that have large muslim populations. We let them into our country, educate them, and share our freedoms. Did that stop their hatred? I always laugh when I hear that we are creating a 1000 Bin Ladens in Iraq. Osama is from a rich family that benefitted from America, helped his side against Russia, stopped Saddam from possible taking over the holy cities in Saudi Arabia, and we did we not really attack him (I do not count lobbing cruise missiles up a camels butt to paraphrase Bush) even though he and his followers attacked us numerous times until the 9-11 attack. From the site that Jetstorm posted once. link to INFO
No stockpiles have been found, but violations and unaccounted for pathologies have been found. Read the entire report from OCT. It has been gone over on this forum many times. Saddam even got caught trying to buy banned missiles from N Korea. He was basically sheltering the terrorist involved in killing the american on the cruise ship a while back (cannot remember the name of the top of my head). He was paying the families of suicide bombers in Israel. He was shooting at our planes that were enforcing the UN No fly zone. During the Clinton Presidency he sent an agent to try and kill the first President Bush. You keep bringing up "the lie". There has been no proof that anyone has lied. There is proof that Clinton, Bush, and the rest world had poor intelligence since everyone thought he had stockpiles and did not know that Libya had a program (which was another benefit from this war). When Clinton tried to convince us, France, and Russia back in 1998 that military action in Iraq was needed was he lying as well? Decades of Democracy and proper (not religion based) education are the only things that are going to stop the breeding of hatred in that region. The cold war was not won over night and neither will this. Good will around the world?? What planet have you been living on? France and Russia were two of the biggest beneficiaries to Saddam's illegal actions in regards to the UN's oil for food program. Russia gave (or sold) them technology used against us. If you think France and Russia were against the war because they were taking the moral high ground you need some serious help. And as for your "I'm talking about the people who resent us being in their country trying to impose our will on them under the guise of "liberating" them." The majority Shiites were oppressed under Saddam. The had no will of their own before last year. The Sunis do not want the Shiites to impose their will on them since they were in power under Saddam.
You are entitled to your opinion, of course. But I must admit, I find the advocacy of genocide a little disturbing from someone who openly advocates the gospel of Christ. What part of "Do unto others..." and "Turn the other cheek" supports mass murder? I'm angry too, and I would love to see some Old Testiment vengeance on the guys who dragged bodies in the streets. But the nuclear incineration of an entire city? It doesn't seem to fit with your religious philosophy, amigo.
Where do you see me advocating genocide? Taking out this city is not genocide. You may want to look up the definition. Also how is it Mass murder? You have already said we do not have enough Marines to take on the entire city. If the city is our enemy how is defending ourselves murder. In war is the killing of any innocent civilian through collateral damage murder in your opinion. If our enemies are willing to use people or churches as shields, is that our fault? or if these "innocent" people are willing to house our enemies, support them, hide them, cheer them, but just not fire the weapon are they really innocent civilians during war. I do not want vengeance. I want security and justice. First you say we got out of Somalia when the getting was good. Now you question my faith due to what I could stomach so our troops will quit being sitting ducks when you have already picked Harry Truman as the person you would most like to be President in another thread. By your definition didn't he commit Mass murder.
I admit to having some mixed feelings about this war, who doesn't. I would love to see us take out the militias, if it is feasible. But not in a half-assed way. 1,200 Marines are not going to be able to do much with a city of that size. Collateral casualties are unavoidable, of course. But flattening a city is not collateral. Killing women and children is lowering ourselves to the level of the enemy and it surely conflicts with my faith. Harry Truman was a decisive leader which is why I like him. He fired MacArthur without hestation when he tried to make his own policy. His use of nuclear weapons in a declared total war against Japan was justified, in my view. We profess to be rebuilding Irag and we are not in a total war against the country. This war is against the insurgents, not the city. And I don't question your faith, just curious about how you interpret some things. gen-o-cide, n. The systematic and planned extermination of a national, racial, political, or ethnic group. I think the extermination of a city qualifies. I'm with you on killing the enemy "soldiers" that challenge us, just not on exterminating their wives and children.
Thanks for your very civil reply, Dallas. In response to your last paragraph, who is it that is behind the current violence but a major Shiite cleric? Now, according to reports in todays paper, the Shiites and Sunnis, long bitter enemies, have now joined forces to fight the "evil Americans". Isn't it strange that the very people we went to 'liberate' are now fighting against the "occupiers" of their country? They don't seem to be too grateful for their 'liberation". You have another Shiite cleric who has all but controlled the actions and decisions of the Ruling Council. My point is, we're stuck in a quagmire in Iraq. Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, we are far from in control and not likely to be. How can people be so blind as to not see the similarities between Iraq and Viet Nam and the Russian invasion of Afghanistan? If anybody has seen the HBO presentation of "Path to War", you can't miss it. If you've read Robert McNamara's book, you can't miss it. You have all this talk about "winning the hearts and minds" of the Iraqi people. How many of you Viet vets have heard that before? This war has nothing to do with terrorism. It is about empire building. For a country so proud of it's philosophy of "Government of, by and for the people" we sure have a funny way of letting people decide for themselves what kind of government they want.
I think your Truman reasoning is merely semantics, but you seem to agree that it was not murder because we were at war. We are both at War and rebuilding in Iraq. Though I do not agree there are a lot of people who thought the second bomb in Japan was not needed and not justified. Leveling a city is not genocide. The definition in your post proves that. If I wanted to exterminate every member of the Baathist party world wide your bold print would make sense.
The violence in fallujah, which this and elsewhere in the triangle have been the worse as far as our troops and people are concerned, is not shiite. There have been reports of communications "at the lowest levels" between the these two militias, but my point is still valid the Shiites could not impose anything in the past. They were oppressed, so even though they may say something similar to what you are trying to say it defies logic. You prove that you believe that they are not now oppressed by implying the shiite is controlling the ruling council. It reminds of some of the Shiites protesting our occupation during some type of religious thing last year (when they cut their scalps) when they could not even celebrate it under saddam and for sure could not protest. Again just because it is said does not make it true or logical.
Well screw me for believing what I read in the papers or see and hear on the news on tv! To hear them tell it, it IS the Shiites, allied with the Sunnis now, behind this surge of violence. But if that's not true, then I wonder what the news medias agenda is for reporting it that way.
