English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

17 answers

I would send more troops to Iraq. I would lift the shoot only when shot at order. I believe William T. Sherman summed it up best with several different quotes:

"I would make this war as severe as possible, and show no symptoms of tiring till the (enemy) begs for mercy."

"There is many a [boy] who looks on war as all glory, but, boys, it is all hell. You must bear this warning voice to generations to come."

"I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are. If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast."

"...we are not only fighting hostile armies, but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war, as well as their organized armies."

“My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.”

"To those who submit to the rightful law and authority, all gentleness and forbearance; but to the petulant and persistent secessionist, why, death is mercy, and the quicker he or she is disposed of the better."

And last, but not least, the most relevant:

"War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over."

2006-11-05 16:28:50 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

First of all, the war is on terrorism. I don't know how the whole thing got turned into an Iraq war. The fact of the matter is that the guy we're looking for couldn't be found. Hanging Hussein really isn't going to solve terrorism. This wasn't a war Bush intended to fight, but they keep saying they're fighting terrorism and yet they're hanging the wrong person. If you're old enough to think this through, I think you'd know how screwed up our government really is. It's the damnation of a true shame we all have to face with right now. It's sad, but true. Good enough, yes?

2006-11-05 16:10:41 · answer #2 · answered by FILO 6 · 1 2

I would've never invaded that country. I knew from the get go that it was a bad idea and that our focus should've been Afghanistan. Since we're there, I would tell the Iraqi govt. that our incompetent president and staff made a horrible mistake and lied to us about wmd. I'd make halliburton pay for the destruction we've caused there and bring our soldiers home. All the war profiteers would be responsible for building Iraq like it was before the invasion.

2006-11-05 16:15:06 · answer #3 · answered by liberalthinktank 3 · 1 2

Any town or area that commits an act of violence against US troops would be leveled using artillery. Any town or area that cooperated with US forces would be rewarded. Any Iraqi Army or Police unit that did not fight to the utmost of their ability would be decimated, in the Roman tradition.

Decimation is 1 out of every 10 is killed in punishment for cowardice.

Any nation state supporting the insurgency in Iraq would first be warned to stop. Then attacked with all our might and power. There would be no rules or laws of warfare. The troops would be allowed to loot whatever they could carry. The US military would be reorganized along Roman military traditions and ways of fighting, just with modern weapons. Surrender and you willl be allowed to live. Fight us and you will die.

2006-11-05 15:55:04 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

Well I believe we had excellent reasons for invading.
I also believe once Saddam was captured and the elections held we should have left.

Now we cannot just pull out. We have to leave with honor or we invite attacks aganst us and allies. So the goal would be to create a temporary peace. No lasting peace can come about without the Iraqi's wanting it and doing the real work. Temporary peace can be brought about by making it too dangerous for anybody to attempt a stupidity.

So sniper stations along major roads. Catch somebody who looks like they are planting an IED and blow thier head off. End all the kicking in of doors. Who have we caught by kicking in doors and searching buildings? Nobody. We caught Saddam hiding in a hole in the ground not in a building. Unless we have a real reason for kicking in that door lets not. It only alienates people.

I would end patrols and road blocks. Instead I'd place a string of cameras accross major areas in balloons. Somebody does something to disturb the peace like blow up a car, a shoot out, etc. it'd be caught on the cameras and probably lead us to thier lair. I'd spare no expense finding anybody who did anything that stopped the peace process. Soon as it was peacefull long enough to say we did our job I'd yank the troops and fast.

Simple facts. We are trying to be too nice in Iraq and it only makes us look weak. War is not a nice business. In fact the faster you convince your enemy that being at war is the last thing they want the sooner you win a war. You don't win wars by being nice. It's a war, lets fight it like one, win it then get out of there. The puppet that Bush wants just is not compatable with current Islamic culture. It just aint going to happen. Attempting only makes us enemies. Strength, skill and being compentent on the battlefield is what will make us friends in that part of the world. High time we did exactly that.

Next if Turkey doesn't want Iraq devided into 3 parts then Turkey can send a substantial force. Turks would be much better qualified than Americans in rooting out terrorists and talking to the Iraqi people. If Turkey is unwilling to send troops then Turkey can put up with a Kurdish state.

Ground troops walking around with big target signs or driving around in big convoys with target signs has never been a good way to fight a war. This tactic proved 400 years ago to be a good way to get troops killed and in Nam proved itself as useless against gurillas time and time again. Why are we doing it today in Iraq? Instead we should just make our troops draw lots, shoot every 100th soldier until people get tired of it and call us home. Patrols are useless. American troops stand out miles away. Anything they are patroling for goes quiet until they leave. People feel like they are in an occupied state. So sending troops on patrol gets troops killed. Alienates the Iraqi population and has no positive gains. We should be like Daddy when he gets home. If our troops show up somewhere that means somebody is in trouble. It means we are there to get somebody. That we will not fail to capture or kill our target and that we leave when we are done. We do that and we'll get a far better reception from the Iraqi people. Those that come on our bases and into normal contact with us will have friendlier perceptions. Those who are our enemies will have less reason to be so and more to fear from us.

It's a dessert for the most part. How exactly do you hide any substantial troop movements from sattalites and balloons? Somebody fires a missle at one of our aircraft where can they hide? If we are watching we CAN find them. The Isrealis demonstrated such technology. Though they were a bit overzealous about application at times. In short not much that has been happening couldn't be stopped. If we couldn't stop it we COULD find those behind it. We need merely a modicrum of public support which we had going in but have since lost and reasonable use of technology already in existance. Our generals are fighting with tactics hundreds of years out of date.

So in short. Get mean. Get out of the Iraqi peoples hair. Get Turkey involved or give the Kurds a homeland. Get results then leave.

2006-11-05 18:41:49 · answer #5 · answered by draciron 7 · 2 0

Don't get in in the first place. But, since no one has a time machine, I would admit to the mistake of the Bush Administration and place an Iraqi security force there.

2006-11-05 15:56:30 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

Well it is not a war it is a occupation of someones country. We need to show the Iraqis that we are backing away and we should split the country in three like it used to be before Saddam.

2006-11-05 15:51:56 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3 2

I would handle it in one or two ways. Either send many, many, many more troops in and end it that way, or bring them home at once. Quit playng around with too few troops, putting their lives on the line, without proper numbers or equipment.

2006-11-05 15:53:59 · answer #8 · answered by pupcake 6 · 4 0

Treat it like a real war!

2006-11-05 15:46:03 · answer #9 · answered by no one here gets out alive 6 · 5 0

Tactical Nuclear Weapons, across the region. Phuck all of them.

2006-11-05 15:53:02 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 3

fedest.com, questions and answers