Replies

"The fact that foreign fighters are streaming across Syria into Iraq in the hopes of killing America is not evidence supporting the "breeding ground" theory."

To whatever extent that's actually happening, we should be glad. The whole difficulty w/ fighting terrorists in our modern PC society is that they are scattered here and there, dispersed among the general population. Although its tempting, we can't just nuke the whole Mideast because of world opinion. And we can't always tell the "good" from the "bad" even when we're looking right at them.

The problem becomes "How can we sort them out?".

And the answer to that problem is we let them sort themselves out by letting them head toward the fighting rather than away from it.

In hindsight, maybe we should have considered a much slower approach to Baghdad to begin with. The more who migrated to the front lines to fight us, the better. And in that situation it would have been more "acceptable" on the world stage to hit 'em hard with traditional (ie. "indiscriminate") artillery, etc...

I know this sounds barbaric, but I think way more of 'em needed to die in the early stages.

And I doubt if that consideration was lost on our military leaders either. Unfortunately, they're saddled with our (and the world's) low tolerance for serious combat losses.

Nonetheless, they should have considered this before hand. If you're not willing to go in and do the job right, you may be better off not doing it at all.

I feel sorry for our troops there - constantly being put in harms way just so we could minimize damage to the enemy. Our philosophy should have been "The life of 1 American soldier is worth l000 Iraqi lives", and we should have stated that openly right from the get go. If they had to level Baghdad to avoid a few American casualties, I personally wouldn't have had any problem with that.

What better way to separate them out

"If they had to level Baghdad to avoid a few American casualties, I personally wouldn't have had any problem with that."

It we had leveled Baghdad, then there would not have been any reason to plan anything for a future Iraq. The federal government of Iraq will reside in Baghdad for many very good reasons. You figure it out if you don't understand what has been planned for phase 2 through 3+. But surely you are entitled to your opinions. I wonder for those that take your approch in constantly speaking of "nuking" cities, etc., if you ever gave any thought as how quickly our nuclear arsenal would be diminished. Would you like to suggest how many thousands of cities, military facilites, etc., would have to be nuked for months on end to "sorta" accomplish what you and others somehow believe could be a solution? I am not holding you to an answer, nor trying to bash your sentiments, I assure you I am no lover of Islam, nor Arab mentalities. And my question is poised to all that take the nuke option whatever that really means, not one individual, not you personally.