Posted on 06/22/2004 9:47:27 AM PDT by Maigrey
Breaking from Al Jazeera.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
And it must be noted that what people on this thread are trying to do, is to get rid of "people problems."
The real question, of course, would be: would such bombings do more harm than good? I believe in this case the answer is yes.
At present, the attitude of general population of Iraq toward us is probably somewhere in the range of moderate dislike to grudging respect. We can work with this, and are successfully doing so across the country. We cannot make the Iraqis love us. However, we can make them hate us -- and sieges and destruction such as are being suggested here are almost certain to do just that. There's no way we could hold our ground in Iraq if the population hated us -- our presence would be pointless, and we'd end up losing the war.
As to Fallujah, I think we do not know enough about it to be able to make a serious judgement on how that's shaping up. MSM reports on the situation there are not to be trusted. Letters from Marines in the area seem to indicate that things are much more encouraging there than the MSM reports, but perhaps they haven't got the big picture.
The recent bombings, which killed 50+ foreign bad guys, seem to indicate that the USMC reports are closer to the truth -- the pinpoint identification of safe-houses is a mark of very good intel, probably coming from people who live in Fallujah. IOW, Fallujah may not be as uniformly pro-terrorist as people like to think it is. (It's a city of 300,000, after all -- you'd expect a wide range of opinion there.)
Which proves the old maxim 'everything's fair in war.' The only good thing in war is winning. You are consistent, r9, you are wrong on every issue.
So you're saying the only thing wrong with the Nazis was that they lost? Or that Mao was good, because he won? What twaddle.
You are consistent, r9, you are wrong on every issue.
Coming from you, I take that as a compliment.
I didn't say that. Is English a second language to you?
Such sweet smiles. Such fresh faced young Iraquis. The lovely blossom of youth and the promise of the future in their exhuberant exhultations. Inspiring in'nt it?
That's right. And yet there are a bunch of folks out howling for blood, based on little more than their own emotional response to the actions of a small number of vermin. It's a bad idea to trust people who call for blood when they do not know what's really going on -- it's hard to tell the difference between such people, and the people they want to kill.
More to the point, there are no practical arguments in favor of widespread destruction of Iraqi cities (even the best of them -- "it'll make 'em respect us" -- is fantasy, and wholly impractical besides), and plenty of arguments against it.
Strip 'em and put panties on their heads, every one. Dog collars too.
I noticed the latter months ago. I hate the thought that he's besliming my native state of Colorado.
Muslim spawn collateral damage.
Wow. I think you need to ponder what you just said.
LOL!!!!! Looks like I was right about you.
Better my enemy's offspring than mine. War is hell.
Ooooooh.....! Now I'm cut to the quick.
Let's see. The enemy appears to be from places like Syria, Saudi, Jordan, and Egypt. So of course you think we must kill the offspring of the Iraqis. That'll show the foreigners!
I'm sure you can spot the logical difficulties with your proposition. There are also numerous practical difficulties, some of which I have mentioned; not to mention moral ones, with which your side seems to be unconcerned.
And of course, your "muslim spawn" comment is completely odious.
All in all, I'd say you guys are doing a pretty good job of making yourselves unworthy of the name "American."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.