Posted on 09/22/2004 10:23:04 AM PDT by crushelits
NO MERCY TO TERRORISTS!
ON 9/11 THEY SHOWED NONE.
(runs ... hides)
GO TO AUTO RANGE. AUTO RANGE ON?
I already have seed it.
Try post#21, and see if that works. That is the one that worked for me.
For one thing, we can get better intelligence from a live enemy than a dead one. It's also a good policy to encourage other terrorists or spies to surrender, rather than fight to the death. Lastly, we're supposed to be the good guys, so we just can't go around blowing away the bad guys just 'cause we feel like it -- it may be emotionally satisfying to some, but it's just not professional.
Thanks.....I did. See my post 69.
God Bless our Military!
bump
I am sorry to be imprecise in my post.
Of course I was speaking about wounded no longer in the battle.
So, the guy that gets nailed and is clearly wounded and is crawling away from the truck is what I meant...
And, I am not sure about your claim that aircraft may kill all wounded on the ground merely because they cannot accept their surrender.
Would it be okay to strafe a military hospital?
Also, more language issues, when did ALL Iraqi combatants become "terrorists"?
If they are fighting on the battlefield, they are combatants, if they are blowing up innocent men. women, and children in order to make a poltical point rather than for some military objective they are "terrorists."
Probably better to just use the term "soldier," "insurgent" "guerilla" or, my preference, "enemy" for those actually on the battlefield engaged in military operations.
While I certainly do not think we need to have our apache piltos giving out sweets and smiley faces to bad guys, I am also a bit uncomfortable portraying all Iraqis engaged in resistance to US forces as "terrorists."
I do not think it is a good tactic to portray all Iraqis as "terrorists" worhty of extermination. Such an attitude will make the war tougher rather than easier in my view.
Were the roles reversed, I am quite sure many freepers would be fighting for the USA. We would not be "terrorists," we would be rebels, guerillas, the resistance, or something.
I know this is just language games, but it seems obvious-- to me at least--that at this point there are a lot more fighters in IRaq that are just nationalist locals pissed off and fighting the occupation.
They are nto all "terrorists," "regime remnants," "criminals," etc.
This refusal to deal with this reality on the part of the Bush Administration is dangerous in my view. It smacks of the sort of denial that was so evident among policy makers during Vietnam.
Whenever I read any reports from the front these days, it seems that one gets far more respect for the guerillas on the part of the GIs.
To deal with Iraq effectively, politicians need to quit deluding themselves or trying to scam the populaiton by portraying all of the resistance as the acts of Al Queda, Zarqawi, etc.
Bump for later.
I guess there are others who would say, "No, some are terrorists but some need to be called by other names -- like resistance or insurgents or militants or freedom fighters." That's the Reuters argument. I don't think I'm going to agree with that.
If you want results, divide the millions between everyone who lives within one block of where al-Zarqawi dies. Then tell everyone how much money they would win. Yeah, win.
The psychological impact will be a passive support of Americans. Then later, self justifications -- they're not traitors to the cause, they really like Americans.
Have American PR firms do lotto type ads -- asking Iraqi women how they would spend their share of the reward. "How would your family spend $3,000?"
Trust me, for many that's more than a years pay, and they'll help. Walkin' around money -- dreams of cold cash, and dead terrorist. As a perk, because no family would receive a huge sum, they would convince themselves they wanted al-Zarqawi caught.
Your ideas sound interesting. Have you ever considered a job in Army psychological operations?
Bump.
I understand that some may not like thinking about this issue, but I think it is a propaganda/political ploy to label anyone opposed to US foreign policy a "terrorist."
--Hannity lumping US libs in with terrorists, or those that try to make tree-hugging hippies "terrorists," or people like Richard Perle that refer to journalists as "terrorists" are "defining deviancy down" as Rush would say...
I just think there is some self-delusion going on here about Iraq that will be harmful in the long run.
I think this leads to some dangerous modes of thinking whereby in the long run it will be more harmful to our military strategy and the overall WOT.
The Pentagon and the White House need to concern themselves far more with military strategy and setting the conditions that will allow victory in the WOT and far less with various PR issues like trying to control language via the media.
I think that for political reasons they are refusing to face the reality that there is now a widespread insurgency in Iraq. They want to claim this is just the work of a few hundred terrorists, but this is not reality. There are tens of thousands of people now involved in the resistance and I am sure that many of them could give a shit about Osama Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein...
I think this delusional thinking is in large part responsible for the mess we now have in Iraq. The neo-cons should have listened to the military people like Shinseki rather than convincing themselves that a bunch of arabs were going to greet US troops with flowers and candy.
And, I find this whole situation starting to smell very much like LBJ and Vietnam circa 1968. Obviously it is not all the same, but I am seeing a level of political meddling with military operations that I thought I would never see again.
General Conway's discussion of White House meddling during the April assault on Fallujah was VERY disturbing to me...
In my mind, the refusal to follow the Powell/Weinberger doctrine in an effort to prove Rumsfeld's pet theories about military transformation is now causing some real problems.
I think the US should have sent every "swinging dick" to Tora Bora. Why have the best military on the planet if you are going to leave it at home when you've got Osama trapped in a cave?
I also think that if they really had to invade Iraq, they should have sent 500,000 troops just like the Gulf War rather than trying to do it on the cheap due to some Washington bureaucrat's pet theories...
I think that the politicians in Washington are in serious need of a reality check, and I think that rather than dealing with the fact that the situation is deteriorating, they are more focused on the November elections.
I don't pay much attention to the "everything is great" rhetoric of politicians and flag officers, if I want the straight dope, I look for what the O-3s and E-5s and below are saying--especially the Marines, they don't seem to bullshit as much as the Army. And what I see there is completely opposed to the sorts of stories being told by the Pentagon, the White House, and the higher-level officer corps.
As far as the zarqawi reward money goes, I have long argued that they need to boost it 10 million every week. Or, perhaps they could up the reward to say, one billion dollars. If the reward was big money, it would attract some consortiums of mercs and bounty hunters as well as some home grown "treasure hunters" looking for Zarqawi.
Do the same thing for the Osama cash...
I find your PI analogy just a bit problematic,
The US killed 100s of thousands of locals during that insurgency, they adopted scorched earth tactics in many areas and they engaged in mass reprisals and torture of locals on a large scale.
And, the PI wasn't declared "independent" until what, 1947?
I don't think that an operation ostensibly undertaken to "liberate" the Iraqis can really be considered a success if it involves killing 100s of thousands of them.
Of course the US military can win on the battlefield in Iraq, but that doesn't turn the country into a democracy.
The military objective was achieved in April 2003, the problem is now political, and I don't think the White House has any idea of how to deal with this...
For ideological reasons they discarded the State Department plan for the post-war phase and tried to turn Iraq into some sort of playground for all of the various programs they have been unable to get through congress here...
As usual the GIs get stuck dealing with the mess created by the politicians.
I really think that if Powell was SecDef rather than Rumsfeld, this invasion and occupation would have been handled much better.
In my mind they needed way more troops to provide post-invasion security--400-500,000
They also needed to immediately declare a date for elections--90-120 days or something (and who gives a shit if saddam was still at large, he woudln't have been able to claim that he was "the elected leader of Iraq" once that election went down. This would have made it impossible for people like Sadr to create a constituency because only well-known figures would have had a chance in that short a time period.
Nobody that had been out of Iraq for 30 years--like Chalabi--should have been placed into political power over there...
All construction projects should have gone to local firms or the lowest bidder rather than these no-bid deals.
And, they should have spent ALL that 20 billion for reconstruction by now even if they just had to give every Iraqi a check for $500 or something.
I find your PI analogy just a bit problematic,
The US killed 100s of thousands of locals during that insurgency, they adopted scorched earth tactics in many areas and they engaged in mass reprisals and torture of locals on a large scale.
And, the PI wasn't declared "independent" until what, 1947?
I don't think that an operation ostensibly undertaken to "liberate" the Iraqis can really be considered a success if it involves killing 100s of thousands of them.
Of course the US military can win on the battlefield in Iraq, but that doesn't turn the country into a democracy.
The military objective was achieved in April 2003, the problem is now political, and I don't think the White House has any idea of how to deal with this...
For ideological reasons they discarded the State Department plan for the post-war phase and tried to turn Iraq into some sort of playground for all of the various programs they have been unable to get through congress here...
As usual the GIs get stuck dealing with the mess created by the politicians.
I really think that if Powell was SecDef rather than Rumsfeld, this invasion and occupation would have been handled much better.
In my mind they needed way more troops to provide post-invasion security--400-500,000
They also needed to immediately declare a date for elections--90-120 days or something (and who gives a shit if saddam was still at large, he woudln't have been able to claim that he was "the elected leader of Iraq" once that election went down. This would have made it impossible for people like Sadr to create a constituency because only well-known figures would have had a chance in that short a time period.
Nobody that had been out of Iraq for 30 years--like Chalabi--should have been placed into political power over there...
All construction projects should have gone to local firms or the lowest bidder rather than these no-bid deals.
And, they should have spent ALL that 20 billion for reconstruction by now even if they just had to give every Iraqi a check for $500 or something.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.