[jude24]

I agree with Mark Levin and Ann Coulter. We should have carpet-bombed at least a dozen major Iraqi cities into complete rubble and allowed their inhabitants to die.

That'd make us terrorists. No thanks.

That would have been actual progress if we were serious about achieving our war aims.

Being serious about the war doesn't require that we commit atrocities. It would have required more ground troops to stabilize the region and keep law and order, and forestall the sectarian violence we now see.

[George W. Bush]

That'd make us terrorists. No thanks.

Nonsense. Unless you consider nearly all our presidents and generals and soldiers in major American wars prior to 1980 to be 'terrorists'.

This kind of thinking is just goofy.

The job of the military is war. Break things, kill people, bomb countries into submission. If you can't handle the stress of thinking about it, go take a quiet douche in the boudoir.

Being serious about the war doesn't require that we commit atrocities. It would have required more ground troops to stabilize the region and keep law and order, and forestall the sectarian violence we now see.

Wrong, wrong and wrong. All wars have unavoidable atrocities. It is a civilian fantasy that wars can somehow be bloodless affairs conducted without impact on civilians. It's never true. And it would have required far fewer troops if we had bit the bullet and really wreaked havoc on them. Fire and brimstone. And the sectarian violence is largely an internal matter that will proceed at the same pace under Saddam, under us or after we leave. See the last thousand years of Arab Muslim history if you're not convinced.