War 55 replies

Please wait...

Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#1 11 years ago

whats happening. we can all agree on the fact that the war in iraq has become a serious issue for not only the U.S. but for the rest of the world and wehter you agree with that statement is not my problem but i want to know why it would be so wrong for the U.S. military to just open up a can of whoop @$$ on the country of Iraq. the war would more than likely end quicker because we would kill them faster and maybe the world would finally figure out not to screw with the United States. these are my thoughts now barrad and attack me but i want to see some more views here.




tusse

I want to be like Revenge

50 XP

14th March 2004

0 Uploads

363 Posts

0 Threads

#2 11 years ago

Who exactly would you target to end this mess faster?




Artie Bucco

Guey>Tio(a)

50 XP

27th April 2003

0 Uploads

3,682 Posts

0 Threads

#3 11 years ago
ThePhilosophizer;3607619whats happening. we can all agree on the fact that the war in iraq has become a serious issue for not only the U.S. but for the rest of the world and wehter you agree with that statement is not my problem but i want to know why it would be so wrong for the U.S. military to just open up a can of whoop @$$ on the country of Iraq. the war would more than likely end quicker because we would kill them faster and maybe the world would finally figure out not to screw with the United States. these are my thoughts now barrad and attack me but i want to see some more views here.

The problem is that in the actual sense of the world the war is over. It is now a multifaceted struggle for power, Sunnis don't wan't to be marginalized, Shia's wanna be the big dogs in the Persian Gulf, and the Kurds want to carve out their own country and the US is in the fracas and the US and Coalition are trying their best to referee a bar brawl.

The US could easily kick some ass but in doing so they would come off as the bad guys even more than they do now. The problem is body counts mean nothing in guerrilla wars i mean the US casualties were a drop in the bucket when compared to those suffered by the North Vietnamese. It will take political dialog to get the majority Sunni Arab insurgency to lay down their arms. Hell, the recently announced move to relocate Arabs from Kirkuk will be seen by many Sunni as a governmental pogrom against them.

However, too many events have polarized the Sunnis against the Americans amongst them De- Baathiation, the siege and subsequent operation against Fallujah, and increasingly powerful Shia Militias that seem to operate with tacit governmental approval.

Call me a pessimist but i don't think the situation is redeemable.




Deanoz

Get money all over again..

50 XP

31st December 2006

0 Uploads

218 Posts

0 Threads

#4 11 years ago
ThePhilosophizer;3607619whats happening. we can all agree on the fact that the war in iraq has become a serious issue for not only the U.S. but for the rest of the world and wehter you agree with that statement is not my problem but i want to know why it would be so wrong for the U.S. military to just open up a can of whoop @$$ on the country of Iraq. the war would more than likely end quicker because we would kill them faster and maybe the world would finally figure out not to screw with the United States. these are my thoughts now barrad and attack me but i want to see some more views here.

Since it was so wrong for Iraq to be invaded by the United States(that's the only thing I can think of that they did, and it wasn't even their fault, but apparently it's wrong), then we should just nuke them all to hell. Got invaded, that's what Iraq did to the United States! And if you do the wrong thing of being invaded by the United States too, suffer the same fate you will. What exactly are you accusing Iraq of doing to the U.S.? If your answer(the same as the right answer), is nothing at all, then why would it be so wrong for the U.S. to annihilate any country on the map to demonstrate our superiority and instill fear into others? But yeah, by saying that it brings us back to the cause of the war and not the solution for the current conditions in Iraq and the situation(which has become increasingly complicated) there, which is much more imperative to focus on.




Rich19

Italicised no more

50 XP

14th August 2004

0 Uploads

4,058 Posts

0 Threads

#5 11 years ago

Do you not think that the US is trying 100% to destroy the insurgency then? How would you "open a can of whoop ass" different to what is happening now?

Also, would you be prepared to pay for the increse in military spending that would come with this action?




Chemix2

Paladin: The Holy Knight

50 XP

16th March 2005

0 Uploads

3,789 Posts

0 Threads

#6 11 years ago
Deanoz;3608979Since it was so wrong for Iraq to be invaded by the United States(that's the only thing I can think of that they did, and it wasn't even their fault, but apparently it's wrong), then we should just nuke them all to hell. Got invaded, that's what Iraq did to the United States! And if you do the wrong thing of being invaded by the United States too, suffer the same fate you will. What exactly are you accusing Iraq of doing to the U.S.? If your answer(the same as the right answer), is nothing at all, then why would it be so wrong for the U.S. to annihilate any country on the map to demonstrate our superiority and instill fear into others? But yeah, by saying that it brings us back to the cause of the war and not the solution for the current conditions in Iraq and the situation(which has become increasingly complicated) there, which is much more imperative to focus on.

What is Iraq doing to us as a nation, burning US funding. What is Iraq doing to us as a collective, killing our soldiers stationed there after freeing them from Saddam Husseign.

If there was a person I could liken to Sadam Husseign, it would be (the potentialy, and probably mythical), Vlad the Impaler. He raped women, tortured families, slaughtered people for the fun of it, a cruel evil bastard that attempted genocide on the Kurds and the Kuwaits. 270,000 Iraqi people were killed under his reign, not mentioning what he was never punished for in Kuwait, millions killed cruely and unfairly over an oil dispute where oil companies in kuwait were drilling with a slant to tap Iraq's oil reserves. We invaded, with light casualties to Iraqi civilians, most were simply in the wrong place at the time of the bombings.

Few generals in real life are the mustache twirling villains of films, most of the time, we never mean to kill innocents, and in general we don't target innocents as nation, atleast now anyway. There are always civilian casualties and there are always insurgencies, it is what comes with war, but most of the now... 50-60,000 dead "civilians" in Iraq were insurgents after the invasion, not innocent families, but men that either wanted power, were mad, or were under the control of those who were either mad or wanted power.




Fadeaway

Fegh.

50 XP

4th March 2007

0 Uploads

243 Posts

0 Threads

#7 11 years ago

They wanted Saddam Hussein gone, they didn't want a government by the United States. Granted, they should have expected that in effect, the Coalition would have to set up a provisional government, but they just expected their own people to clean up Saddam's mess after we left.




Roaming East

Ultima ratio regum

50 XP

7th November 2005

0 Uploads

4,770 Posts

0 Threads

#8 11 years ago

Rich19;3609014Do you not think that the US is trying 100% to destroy the insurgency then? How would you "open a can of whoop ass" different to what is happening now?

Also, would you be prepared to pay for the increse in military spending that would come with this action?

Actually, no we are not. 100% efforts to annihilate the insurgency would mean the military would martial law the shiat out of Iraq, isolated every major urban area and garrison the regions in between. Would flood the region with troops and material to the sum of over 100-200 thousand troops and would in every instance control the fate of its government. Strong handed? yeah, but it WOULD get results. The immediate body count would be pretty high though and certain urban areas would be turned into wastelands from the fighting. Move in counter insurgency fellows like the CIA used to have and use them as secret police. You step out of line you disappear along with your family and anyone they ever knew. The whole place is clan based so the only way to engender any cooperation or respect would be to basically threaten the family unit with annihilation. Most arab men wouldnt think twice about taking a bullet from Uncle Sam but if the after effect is the obliteration of your blood line, that changes the argument around a tad.

Since im aware my nation is too gutless to enact this kind of policy, we should just pull out now and save ourselves the trouble. We are in effect trying to staunch a major arterial wound with a cottonball and are failing miserably.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#9 11 years ago

Roaming East;3609141Actually, no we are not. 100% efforts to annihilate the insurgency would mean the military would martial law the shiat out of Iraq, isolated every major urban area and garrison the regions in between. Would flood the region with troops and material to the sum of over 100-200 thousand troops and would in every instance control the fate of its government. Strong handed? yeah, but it WOULD get results. The immediate body count would be pretty high though and certain urban areas would be turned into wastelands from the fighting. Move in counter insurgency fellows like the CIA used to have and use them as secret police. You step out of line you disappear along with your family and anyone they ever knew. The whole place is clan based so the only way to engender any cooperation or respect would be to basically threaten the family unit with annihilation. Most arab men wouldnt think twice about taking a bullet from Uncle Sam but if the after effect is the obliteration of your blood line, that changes the argument around a tad.

Since im aware my nation is too gutless to enact this kind of policy, we should just pull out now and save ourselves the trouble. We are in effect trying to staunch a major arterial wound with a cottonball and are failing miserably.

i think that that would be a very good policy to institute in Iraq it would take care of the problems. i think America has growing problems in the world that we also need to take care of such as north korea and also iran. i think that the U.S. should give serious thought into just nuking the bejesus out of them and show the world at the same time that we do have balls and if you screw with us were are not only going to retaliate but it will 100x worse. but as said in the quote above this our country no longer has any balls and we would not even consider things such as this to be an option.




Ryette

suburban baroness of bud

50 XP

19th April 2005

0 Uploads

1,887 Posts

0 Threads

#10 11 years ago
ThePhilosophizer;3607619why it would be so wrong for the U.S. military to just open up a can of whoop @$$ on the country of Iraq.

Well, we'd kill possibly thousands of innocent lives, who's only "crime" was to be an Iraqi citizen. We'd only worsen our reputation in the middle east, and believe it or not, reputation is very valuable in the role of global politics. And when we have a country as advanced as the U.S. is, there is not reason to act like simple-minded barbarians and go around the world slinging bombs any direction we please. Developed nations have better things to do. And while there are many uneducated, blindly patriotic people out there that think just because we have a decent military, we can attack whoever we please without consequence... and wouldn't mind the countless deaths of anyone not of American descent, that doesn't mean it's the proper thing to do.