Why not spread the troops out in a line across the desert, put up post to check those coming out of the area, and sweep through in direct lines and clear the path to victory?
Clear the town and villages, and anyone left will be arrested or killed if they become violent.
After the clearing, take all weapons out, let the people back in after checking them for weapons, post gaurds at the perimeter, and move on to the next one.
2007-01-09 07:10:40 · 11 answers · asked by coffee b 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
ur exactly right .. we could shut them down if we wanted to ...its a completely rational way of looking at it but thats not what theyre doing or telling us now is it .... the only conclusion is that theres more going on than the front page news tells us .. they obviously want to stay for a long period of time the only question is why ...
2007-01-09 07:18:06 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Ok, I have been somewhere in Iraq for almost 3 yrs. It is worse now than it was before-------if all of these Republicans, Democrats and "liberals" would take the time to come over here and REALLY see just what is going on instead of GUESSING then I am pretty certain they would not B-i-t-c-h about more troops being sent here. It is never good when we lose people, but right now from what I have seen it IS necessary for the troops to be here and more to come. do I like BUSH-absolutely NOT, Do I agree with BUSH--HELL NO, but from what I ahve seen if we leave now----you think hell has broke loose----------HELL WILL REALLY BREAK LOOSE if we leave. It doesnt matter how many guards are posted at the perimeters-----wanna know why(??) because around here even though someone's background check has cleared you just dont know who is or is NOT bad guy, and some areas are so easy for anybody to slip thru.
2007-01-09 15:30:02 · answer #2 · answered by nickle 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
You asked a Question, Can we win a War like this ?
Here is something that might help you with your answer.
If you took a country that has been following a certain way and certain culture for thousands of years and tried to make them change how long do you think it would take ? 1 week, 1 month, 1 year, 1 decade or 1 life time.
Look at how hard it would be on this next example to make just a single person change not even a country, just with his habbit being in this short of time.
(example 2)
You take a Guy who has been eating nothing but fat foods and was allowed to uncontrollably eat whatever he has desired for the last 15 years. He is now 500lbs and loves every single pound on his body. You come to this guy and Say to him out of the clear blue "
I'm going to give you a list of foods along with their daily amounts that you will be able to eat. You CAN NOT Eat anything other then what I tell you and cant go over the amounts either. Now you leave this guy alone and what happens ?
I hoped these examples helped you out because the true answer to your question is Our we the Americans going to be able to change a country that has practised, Lived and preached their methods for thousands of years to their people in even a 10 year span. Anyone who thinks this can happen is an absolute Total Moron and needs to have their heads examined. Bush being one of them.
2007-01-09 15:21:24 · answer #3 · answered by slimb20413 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I think the best non-exit strategy to Iraq I've ever heard is this:
1) get all the troops out
2) bomb the hell out of the whole country
3) give the survivors enough supplies to rebuild all of their homes and businesses
However, I do like yours also. I don't know how practical it is, because people can still hide and sneak around it. And, of course, people are very anal about interferring with the "innocent Iraqi civilians." Innocent, my behind. I think they need to pick a side. They should all be forced to join the US troops or be considered as harbouring terrorists.
Let's stop playing games and get this thing over with.
2007-01-09 15:17:39 · answer #4 · answered by ? 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Sounds easy but then reality sets in. It would take a hundred thousand more troops from each Coalition country to be able to do this. Along with the political will to do so. Both things are impossibilities!
2007-01-09 15:19:36 · answer #5 · answered by Wounded duckmate 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I prefer to just surround an area, then kill everything in it. I am sure that after 3 or 4 towns disappear the rest will smarten up and behave.
2007-01-09 16:04:14 · answer #6 · answered by pedohunter1488 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I would like to hear nickel's idea on what should be the best strategy.
From someone who is there, or been there, we could all use a little more insight.
I wish nickle would say if your idea would work or not, cause I am not smart enough to yes or no.
2007-01-10 11:46:16 · answer #7 · answered by Honesty is the best policy 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There is not enough men on the planet to pull that off.
My solution:
Everytime there is an attack fine the town, city, and neighborhood by confiscating property. Once the economic impact begins to be felt by the populace they'll start finking on the terrorists left and right.
2007-01-09 16:44:54 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
You can't win when the country has complete open borders and is in the middle of a civil war.
2007-01-09 15:14:30 · answer #9 · answered by kberto 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
well, due to wussie liberals, we have to be nice to the people we are at war with, they have to like us, so, we cant do anything that would guarentee victory, like firebombing a village if a mortar is shot from there, thus sending a signal to others, that if you attack us, we will kill a lot of you. the US cant wage war to win, we have to wage war to make people like us.
2007-01-09 15:21:46 · answer #10 · answered by NNY 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋