If you could end the Iraq war by allowing US and Coalition forces, to fight using guerilla warfare, would you do it, although many civilians will be killed, would you do it?
2007-12-19 02:10:51 · 15 answers · asked by GatorBowler 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
I would also allow the Air force to carpet bomb at will just to show them that I dont care about civilians or mosques until they gave in
2007-12-19 02:21:02 · update #1
Yes. I think that sometimes the best way to win a war is to be a bit barbaric!!!
2007-12-19 02:14:47 · answer #1 · answered by IH8TomBrady 3 · 6⤊ 3⤋
So what you are suggesting is using any means possible to win? Using this same rationale, why not:
- use nuclear weapons
- use weapons of mass destruction
- use chemical weapons
I seem to remember that this was a reason for going into Iraq in the first place. So will that make the coalition no better than the person removed.
2007-12-19 04:04:59 · answer #2 · answered by G M 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What really makes the insurgency strong is the degree of support they receive from civilians.
The British Commonwealth had their own long war against Communist guerrillas in Malaya - the security forces eventually prevailed by alienating the guerrillas from the civilian population. With minimal support, the Communist guerrillas had to obtain supplies themselves, they had fewer places to hide and far fewer people wanted to join their numbers.
Fighting unconventional forces in an unconventional manner is always a good idea. But deliberately sacrificing civilians to do it is like giving yourself a black eye and a bloody nose.
What do you suppose people are going to think after they're carpet bombed? "These Americans aren't afraid to bomb us, let's co-operate with them"? or "These Americans are brutal, we must have revenge, let us back these otherwise crazy guys trying to kick them out"?
Obviously you'd have to find some different ways of alienating the insurgents from the civilian population than the British did in Malaya - but clumsiness with collateral damage won't do you any favors.
2007-12-19 03:32:30 · answer #3 · answered by Gotta have more explosions! 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That is why we are still there, we don't fight wars the way they are to be fought.
people die in wars, many innocent. Unfortunatly we care about civilians,that is why we have a hard time with guerilla warfare. we have rules they do not.
Mike...
2007-12-19 02:45:06 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Um...we are in guerilla warfare..that's what it is called when an unknown enemy pops out of nowhere and empties a clip at you...and yes I suppose I would....possibly save more lives in the long run...you didn't say how many civilians.
2007-12-19 02:15:01 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Yes but did you know it isn't a war. It is a fight! It is not a war unless the president declares it. The last war for us was World War II.
2007-12-19 04:27:47 · answer #6 · answered by Mariah 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes carpet bomb them into submission, I dont care about them.
2007-12-19 04:44:38 · answer #7 · answered by SpellBinder 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Use guerilla-type tactics because conventional warfare will not win it for the US in Iraq.
2007-12-19 02:15:33 · answer #8 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Yes... the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few!
UNLIKE what is going on in the US with EOE and civil rights these days!
2007-12-19 02:28:26 · answer #9 · answered by MadMaxx 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
if we pulled our guys out I would have no issues with the carpet bombings but as for their peopel I think you have teh right idea.
2007-12-19 02:52:21 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would allow mosques to be raided. Obviously the radical clerics are giving them sanctuary there.
2007-12-19 02:15:24 · answer #11 · answered by civil_av8r 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋