Hey Kev..aw ..luvin the fairy tales..heh 
You stated on another site that you view the U.S.'s compassion and integrity as weaknesses. You are not actually suggesting that the US military stop acting with compassion. Caring for the wounded enemy, avoiding collateral damage? Or that we give up integrity which is defined as...firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values? You really see this as a weakness?
During wartime, I am suggesting exactly what you are so incredulous about. Caring for the wounded enemy is great, but giving them a comfy chair to lounge in until the war is over is not. Feed them, but make sure it's known that they are not happy. And if you take brutality out of war, you create a continuous war. I'm against war, so brutal is my choice.
Think of the last war we won unconditionally - WWII. Did we try to win hearts and minds before utterly decimating the enemy? Absolutely not. Look how well that turned out for Japan, Italy and Germany today.
Think of the last war we lost unconditionally - Vietnam. Rather than utterly decimating the enemy, we tried to win hearts and minds. Look how well that turned out for Vietnam.
If you want to look kind and compassionate, fight a war with one hand tied behind your back. Sure the war will last much longer and more people will be dead because of it, but hey, you looked kind and considerate!
If you would rather just have the war end quickly and the people begin new, productive, comfortable lives, obliterate the enemy, and don't stop until they unconditionally surrender. After that we can move in and help like we did with the Axis powers of WWII.
The choice is yours, Humphrey, but I like the second option better.
So if you are at war with an ideology instead of a nation state how do you declare a winner? I see iraq as a catch 22. Staying emboldens the terrorists, leaving emboldens the terrorists. Act cruely and you embolden the terrorists, act weakly and you embolden the terrorists. How to you completely obliderate the enemy when the enemy lives among the population that you invaded to "liberate"? Kill them all and let God sort them out? I am totally serious.
Iraq is the definition of a quagmire and entrapping position. The only way that the country could be restored to any simblance of order would be to run it like the ruthless dictator we invaded to topple. Murder people by the thousands, establish a secret police, use rape as a weapon. Is this what you are suggesting?
Treat the insurgents with huggy-feely kid gloves, or rape people... Are you sure those are the only two choices?
But yes, I do suggest brutal tactics, such as:
"This particular sunni section of Bahgdad is a hotbed of terrorist activity. We really don't want to level the whole section, so if anyone could help us catch the bad guys, it might save a lot of housing."
There is no need to kill people, just kill their stuff. Pretty soon the regular people will have had enough of the insurgency, and start kicking them out/turning them in. At that point we can become the good guys and rebuild, much like we did in Germany, Japan and Italy. They will be better off, we will be better off, the world will be better off. The same holds true for the insurgent sections of Afghanistan, and probably for Palestine.
I find it interesting that you consider secret police, mass murder and rape a necessity to restore order in Iraq. Disregarding the fact that all are horribly evil ideas, they don't work, at least not for long.
There is no need to kill people, just kill their stuff.
We didn't just kill peoples stuff in Germany and Japan, we slaughtered civilians by the hundreds of thousands. Vietnam too, estimates reach millions.
Are you suggesting we just kill stuff like Israel did with such smashing success in Lebanon? If you recall it made Hezbolah the hottest ticket in the middle east.
What I am saying is there is no way to control the country and keep our compassion and integrity and I have no interest in supporting a mass murdering tyrant, so we are basically screwed either way. Fools errand this war.
"Are you suggesting we just kill stuff like Israel did with such smashing success in Lebanon? If you recall it made Hezbolah the hottest ticket in the middle east."
No no no. I'm suggesting we kill much more stuff than that. Israel's success was very minor and is only now being noted as Lebanese start to stand up to their Hezbollah oppressors. If the land were continually degraded even now, hezbollah would be a thing of the past. But instead they bowed to world pressure, insuring more war and death in the near future.
"there is no way to control the country and keep our compassion and integrity and I have no interest in supporting a mass murdering tyrant"
No one has suggested tyranny but you. Unless you consider FDR and Truman to be tyrants I guess. Also, no one is suggesting mass murder but you. Unless you consider FDR and Truman to be mass murderers as well.
Kill the bad guys. When that's done, spread the love. Not before, unless you want what we have right now.
It seems to me that you ARE advocating mass murder by your statements. Unless in Happy Fun Land where you reside, bombs only destroy stuff, not kill babies. You are dellusional.
Regardig the firebombing of Japan. Curtis LeMay later said: "I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal."
In history, the unintentional deaths of innocents during war has never been considered mass murder. War is terrible, but it stops tyrants and is a necessary solution in some instances.
le
Clarification: In Iraq, I'm not suggesting killing any innocent people. I'm suggesting destroying large swaths of Baghdad. The people shouldn't be there when it occurs.
In the Israel/Hezbollah war I believe Israel should have stopped firing right after Hezbollah offered unconditional surrender. In this case, there would have been many additional deaths, but not many civilian ones, as they had already left. Some, but not many.
I think you are equating all death that occurs in war to 'murder'. Killing enemies is not murder. Accidental civilian death is not murder. Intentional killing of civilians IS murder. I'm not condoning that, and America/Western civ. doesn't do it. The people who do are the ones you want us to be so delicate with. No thanks.
"You are dellusional"
I don't mind you calling me names, but only if they are spelled correctly
I will keep that in mind, is saying you are delusional actually calling you a name? Calling you a delusional apologist would be calling you a name.
The firebombing of japan and germany in world war two was murder by your own definition. It was intended to kill civilians. Many many cities had zero strategic value. That is murder. Had we lost many people would have been hung or shot for it.
Leveling baghdad but not killing anyone. Great idea to end the insurrection. I think you should write to the Army War College and suggest your strategy. Sheer Brilliance. Maybe you arn't familiar with what happened to the crime rate in Houston after NO was leveled.
"I think you should write to the Army War College and suggest your strategy. Sheer Brilliance."
*blush* Thanks! Do you know their email address?
I'm not feeling the urge to argue WWII tactics, but I must say I'm glad we didn't have many people like you during WWII. You could have helped us to actually lose it!
Sure, I'm aware that crime rates went up wherever the New Orleans refugees, but not as much as they went down in New Orleans. And that's not even considering the fact that criminals in Iraq get shot mid-crime. Pretty soon (hopefully before all of Baghdad is rubble), people will get fed up and pick a side. Then we can help the one's who made the right choice bump off the bad guys. Then help them rebuild.
Face it, the only way for a war to be won requires brutality. Even Clinton realized that when he continuously destroyed Serbia for a month. It's not pretty, but it's a requirement for success.
You should probably head back to your regular-leaning blogs, Humphrey. This is getting kind of boring.
You can't stand me tearing apart your weak arguments then ban me.
In the mean time... you contradict yourself.
you state that while you realize that the crime rate went up in Houston you state that the crime rate when down in New Orleans. So you are in fact admitting that your "solution" is no solution at all, just a shifting of the problem elsewhere.
You misunderstand, Humphrey. You can comment here as long as you want, provided you continue to abide by the no swearing rule. I'm just saying you are wasting your time, since I fully support brutal WWII style tactics when confronting islamofascism, and you clearly do not. So we are at an impass. My opinion is not going to change. Is yours? I doubt it. Still, continue if you want.
you state that while you realize that the crime rate went up in Houston you state that the crime rate when down in New Orleans. So you are in fact admitting that your "solution" is no solution at all, just a shifting of the problem elsewhere.
That's only if you think I'm saying, "blow up the buildings, then leave." I'm not. I'm saying "force the Iraqis to pick a side, right now. Then kill the ones who chose wrong." The destruction of groups of buildings is the driving force that will make the Iraqis on the sidelines decide that they don't want this to continue. Once we get to the point where people are sick of all of the destruction, they'll either join the insurgents, or help us kick them out of their neighborhood.
At that point, we can win the war. Until then, it will just be a continuous low level bloodletting.
I am but the amused fly on the wall with a large, incessant grin. :-D
*Slash on, My Swordsman!*
Commenting by HaloScan
