Everytime the US attacks/invades someone, the driving policy is to bring freedom and democracy to the people. Wouldn't it it be more effective to forget the wider issues and just annihilate the source of whatever is seen to be the problem.. That is to say, destroy everything that is (or is associated with) the problem regardless of who gets in the way and keep doing it until the opposition is destroyed. In the aftermath what the general population want or think is for them to choose. The Israelis do this very well (ref:south Lebanon) This requires no long term occupation or presence in the area of conflict. I am not advocating war or conflict, but if you are going to do it...do it to win. ...is war about freeing people from tyranny or destroying your enemy....(and tough luck for anyone that gets in the way of you objective)
What do you think?
2006-10-18 22:18:13 · 5 answers · asked by kiwi 2 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
yes
2006-10-19 20:05:49 · answer #1 · answered by acid tongue 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
WWII was the last war that the generals fought. Washington stayed in Washington and the skilled professionals fought the war.
But in WWII the governmemt didn't have thousands of bleeding hearts screeming that we were killing civilians and killing our enemies.
Starting with Korea the power was taken away from the Generals and given to someone that hasn't got enough expierence to polish the Generals boots.
The war in Viet Nam was controlled by Mc Namara and his whiz kids. Because of this leadership America lost at least 20,000 troops needelessly
None of this group with the exception of maybe McNamara had any military expierence and believe me they killed thousands of our troops.
Our Generals in Iraq are to busy traveling back and forth to Washington to answer to some stupid commitee to run the war.
What does it say about our country when in the middle of a war, our Generals are pulled back to answer to what some sergent and a few privates did that weren't even under their command.
Then our very own Senetors talked down to these Generals like they were stupid. Some of their comments bordered on total disrespect.
Who the Hell ever heard of sending troops into a combat zone one where the enemy is not easy to recognise and give them orders like "you cannot fire unless fired upon".
What they are really saying is after you are attacked if you are still alive, you can fire back if you can confirm your target.
Bush cannot run this war he skirted what service he did serve.
Rumsfield's creditentials don't impress me either.
Imagine how our Generals feel. They have trained 20 or more years just for war then whenwe do go to war some *** in Washington, with no expierence, tells them how to do their job.
Desert Storm went as good as it did because Stormen Norman told the George H. Bush. I'll do the job but only if I'm allowed to do it my way.
George H. didn't even bother him and look how it turned out.
2006-10-19 01:06:27 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You have the right idea. If you are going to go into war, go into it to win. We are the big dogs and we will pound your behinds into the ground. I wish we didn't have the wishy-washy libs thinking we can talk the terrorists into doing things our way.
2006-10-18 23:19:08 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I do not like war. They are a waste of time and resources. Also a waste of human life. To me US stands for Ultimate Sickness. I do not know any other US.
2006-10-18 22:52:51 · answer #4 · answered by Madinahbi Binti Abdul Hamid AHM 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Besides the insurgents -I blame the drive-by media . They all have blood on their hands . Cindy Sheehan is right beside them .
2006-10-19 16:34:48 · answer #5 · answered by missmayzie 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋