On Apr 21, 4:54 pm, Eric F. Richards wrote:
Cato wrote:
So what the ****s wrong with my hating I.E.D.'s and asshole
suicide bombers when ther're killing our boys and innocent
people????????? Don't tell me that they don't bother you!!!

Sure. But whether you like it or not, they are fighting to win for
whatever their cause is. Their attitude is, "**** fair." And,
frankly, that attitude wins wars and ultimately saves lives.

The crap with exclusion zones and fighting these guys with one hand
tied behind our back won't work. It may assuage our western
consciences, but it won't work... unless some large portion of the
populace fears that we will *stop* doing that.

We didn't in VietNam, so while they were sticking bamboo shoots under
fingernails of prisoners, we were worrying about exclusion zones.

In Iraq, we don't attack mosques used as armories because we want to
respect the mosque and Islam. How is using it as an armory
"respecting Islam?"
The crap with exclusion zones and fighting these guys with one hand
tied behind our back won't work. It may assuage our western
consciences, but it won't work... unless some large portion of the
populace fears that we will *stop* doing that.

We didn't in VietNam, so while they were sticking bamboo shoots under
fingernails of prisoners, we were worrying about exclusion zones.

In Iraq, we don't attack mosques used as armories because we want to
respect the mosque and Islam. How is using it as an armory
"respecting Islam?"

I think we are maybe not talking about the same thing exactly. What
I am talking about is that in this war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the
enemy has no feelings about innocent civilians. They will not hesitate
to target innocent people and erase them from this world. I would like
to think that we do not intentionally target civilian non-combatants.
If we did, then we would be just as much murderous animals as the
enemy that we fight.
(( Only if some country fired nukes at our cities, or we had
conclusive evidence that they about to fire them at us, ( example,
North Korea) would I agree to taking out the country with massive
retaliation on their cities.))
That is what I am talking about. Doing the best we can to take
out the enemy, and leave the civilians unharmed as best we can. Sure
there will be times were we fall down on that effort and some
civilians will be killed accidentally, but I would like to think that
we do our outmost to keep those innocent deaths to an absolute
minimum.
Cato

Cato wrote:

I think we are maybe not talking about the same thing exactly. What
I am talking about is that in this war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the
enemy has no feelings about innocent civilians. They will not hesitate
to target innocent people and erase them from this world. I would like
to think that we do not intentionally target civilian non-combatants.
If we did, then we would be just as much murderous animals as the
enemy that we fight.

Unfortunately, our aim must be terrible. Bush himself, personally and on
National TV, *admitted* to the deaths of 35,000 innocent civilians, a
number on the very *low* end of the range. Many other organizations put
the figure much higher. Maybe those "smart" bombs weren't. :-(

Oh, by the way, read any of the books about the war--we *did*
intentionally hit many civilian targets--power plants, sewage treatment
plants and many other NON-military targets. Why do you think the country
is in such a total shambles? There weren't *that* many military targets.

One recent book that clearly documents this (with many references) is
"Web of Deceit" by Lando.

Cato wrote:


I think we are maybe not talking about the same thing exactly. What
I am talking about is that in this war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the
enemy has no feelings about innocent civilians. They will not hesitate
to target innocent people and erase them from this world.

That's right...

I would like
to think that we do not intentionally target civilian non-combatants.

Generally, that's true...

If we did, then we would be just as much murderous animals as the
enemy that we fight.

....and I agree...

(( Only if some country fired nukes at our cities, or we had
conclusive evidence that they about to fire them at us, ( example,
North Korea) would I agree to taking out the country with massive
retaliation on their cities.))

But that's not what I'm talking about.

The Powell Doctrine was pretty clear: Go in with overwhelming force,
have a clear definition of the job from beginning to end, do the job
with overwhelming military force, and get out.

We went in on the cheap, with no reasonable answer to how to deal with
the aftermath of taking the Iraqi government out, and neglected since
then the escalating problems.

We have also treated, for example, al Sadr to continue to function as
a corrosive influence over there. A sniper team could have taken him
out and I think we would have been better off with him as a potential
martyr than as an active cancer.

But, because he is a self-described "cleric" (as opposed to his
father, who really was an expert on Islam), and hid in a mosque, we
didn't touch him. He had no problem with taking us out.

That is what I am talking about. Doing the best we can to take
out the enemy, and leave the civilians unharmed as best we can. Sure
there will be times were we fall down on that effort and some
civilians will be killed accidentally, but I would like to think that
we do our outmost to keep those innocent deaths to an absolute
minimum.
Cato

What I read you talking about is that they don't fight fair. War
isn't about fair, war is about winning control through violence.
That's why we souldn't play with it, but treat it as soberly and
seriously, something our American administration hasn't been willing
to do.

Screw fair. They do, and we should. I'm not talking about paving
over the surface of Iraq and killing everyone, but we sure as hell
shouldn't be afraid to fight the insurgents, al-Quida, the Taliban,
etc on the grounds that they choose to hide from us.


--
Eric F. Richards

"Don't destroy the Earth! That's where I keep all of my stuff!"
- Squidd on www.fark.com

On Apr 21, 7:22 pm, Eric F. Richards wrote:
Cato wrote:
I think we are maybe not talking about the same thing exactly. What
I am talking about is that in this war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the
enemy has no feelings about innocent civilians. They will not hesitate
to target innocent people and erase them from this world.

That's right...

I would like
to think that we do not intentionally target civilian non-combatants.

Generally, that's true...

If we did, then we would be just as much murderous animals as the
enemy that we fight.

...and I agree...

(( Only if some country fired nukes at our cities, or we had
conclusive evidence that they about to fire them at us, ( example,
North Korea) would I agree to taking out the country with massive
retaliation on their cities.))

But that's not what I'm talking about.

The Powell Doctrine was pretty clear: Go in with overwhelming force,
have a clear definition of the job from beginning to end, do the job
with overwhelming military force, and get out.

We went in on the cheap, with no reasonable answer to how to deal with
the aftermath of taking the Iraqi government out, and neglected since
then the escalating problems.

We have also treated, for example, al Sadr to continue to function as
a corrosive influence over there. A sniper team could have taken him
out and I think we would have been better off with him as a potential
martyr than as an active cancer.

But, because he is a self-described "cleric" (as opposed to his
father, who really was an expert on Islam), and hid in a mosque, we
didn't touch him. He had no problem with taking us out.

That is what I am talking about. Doing the best we can to take
out the enemy, and leave the civilians unharmed as best we can. Sure
there will be times were we fall down on that effort and some
civilians will be killed accidentally, but I would like to think that
we do our outmost to keep those innocent deaths to an absolute
minimum.
Cato

What I read you talking about is that they don't fight fair. War
isn't about fair, war is about winning control through violence.
That's why we souldn't play with it, but treat it as soberly and
seriously, something our American administration hasn't been willing
to do.

Screw fair. They do, and we should. I'm not talking about paving
over the surface of Iraq and killing everyone, but we sure as hell
shouldn't be afraid to fight the insurgents, al-Quida, the Taliban,
etc on the grounds that they choose to hide from us.

--
Eric F. Richards

"Don't destroy the Earth! That's where I keep all of my stuff!"
- Squidd onwww.fark.com

Eric F. Richards Wrote: I'm not talking about paving
over the surface of Iraq and killing everyone, but we sure as hell
shouldn't be afraid to fight the insurgents, al-Quida, the Taliban,
etc on the grounds that they choose to hide from us.

Cato: I agree. I don't think we are really that far into
disagreement. We shouldn't be afraid to fight them on the ground of
their choosing. The type of war we are fighting over there is a hell
of a lot different the most of the large conventional wars of the
past. But we have to remember the Liberal Eastern Establishment and
what they did during 'Nam through the media. Especially after the My
Lai affair in '68. The liberal media is always looking for ways to
weaken the resolve of the U.S. people. And not just in the U.S., but
up here in Canada too. Whenever our Canadian forces go in, like
Cyprus, or the Balkan's affair, (Thank God the military kept that one
under wraps pretty good from our liberal media.) or Somalia in Africa,
the leftwing media looks for ways to turn the people against the job
that our soldiers are doing in those parts of the world, and put heavy
presuure on the politicians to pull out and run. They will look at any
excuse to hurt the military.
I mentioned My Lai. Well we had an incident in Somalia in '95 that
destroyed the Canadian Airborne Regiment. The regiment was disbanded
after the media did a big smear job on them. All because of the action
of two of the soldiers in the torture and beating death of a
Somalian. He was one of a couple of Somalians that had slipped past
our razor wire at night and was stealing regiment supplies. That one
incident was the end of the regiment. A great regiment destroyed by
the actions of two soldiers, and of course "The Liberal Media" in
Canada. The left held parties to celebrate the disbanding of the
Canadian Airborne Regiment. They saw it as a huge success, in their
"war" against us. The liberal media will stop at nothing in their
attempts to weaken us in the face of the citizens of our countries.
I guess what I am saying is, we have to be careful that we don't
set ourselves up as a bigger target for the liberal extablishment and
their socialist buddies. Because everytime we do something over there
that looks like we're hurting or killing civilians the media will do
their utmost to turn our fellow American or Canadian citizens against
us.
My God. I don't like the situation any more then you do. It ****'n
stinks. Pardon the language.
I agree, that the best way is to go in with overwhelming massive
force and end it quickly. (Why did I just think of Patton?, Always did
admire that great American General.) Best regards,
Cato