Originally Posted by Gator

The Prime Minister of Iraq said that the US Military can leave at "any time" and Iraq woud be fine......




So, makes one wonder what the US Military is still doing in Iraq.

Now, Hassan al-Suneid, a top Aid to the Prime Minister of Iraq seems to think that the US Mission in Iraq was a mere Lab experiment, and that United States Military Forces are breaking International Law by committing Human Rights Violations.

I believe Iraq will be a mess if the US pulls out, no matter if the US leaves in one year or five years from now.
So, I believe all of Iraqs Cities should be bombed and burnt to the ground. Iraq should be bombed back into the Stone Age, so none of the Iraqi People benefit from American Losses while trying to make Iraq a better place, yet having Iraqis actively resisting such change with force of arms.

It is true that many (if not most) of the Iraqis will die taking such a path, but it is my belief that better people will one day repopulate and rebuild the Area once controlled by the Iraqis.
And it will, in my opinion, be better for the long term Security of the United States of America, as we will have killed them over there, so we wouldn't have to kill them over here.... and the other nations in the Area who feel froggy may think twice before messing with the US.

I believe the same thing should have happened to Vietnam upon the US Military Ground Forces withdraw, furthermore, I believe that had all the Cities of North Vietnam been turned to dust and ash that the very Threat of US Withdraw in Iraq now would be taken more seriously, and perhaps avoided altogether by the Iraqis picking up the pace and playing nice with each other.

I see the history of the last century has managed to evade you, if you look at it you will discover that dropping bombs on people doesn't make them think twice about taking you on in fact it just pisses them off more and makes them fight harder.

As verification of this take a look the earlier experiments such as:
- German bombing of cities WW1.
- German bombing of cities WW2.
- Allied airforces Destruction of Germany cities.
- American bombing of Hanoi.

Did any of these events achieve the "bomb them into submission" policy?


Considering the number times people seem to love spouting the "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it" quote on these boards it seems it really hasn't sunk in.

In the end I am beginning to think that setting a hard and fast departure date may not be such a bad idea as it forces the Iraqi government to get their act together and get things under control or come the week after departure they will find themselves facing a firing squad.

Course, there was Hiroshima and Nagasaki...Seems you've forgotten a bit of history yourself. And heck...We're ok with Japan now.

Originally Posted by C/1Lt Henderson

Course, there was Hiroshima and Nagasaki...Seems you've forgotten a bit of history yourself. And heck...We're ok with Japan now.

I discounted those two as the will of the people didn't come into it, the military seemed quite happy to fight on.

Still...It stopped the war, am I right?

Originally Posted by MontyB

I see the history of the last century has managed to evade you, if you look at it you will discover that dropping bombs on people doesn't make them think twice about taking you on in fact it just pisses them off more and makes them fight harder.

As verification of this take a look the earlier experiments such as:
- German bombing of cities WW1.
- German bombing of cities WW2.
- Allied airforces Destruction of Germany cities.
- American bombing of Hanoi.

Did any of these events achieve the "bomb them into submission" policy?


Considering the number times people seem to love spouting the "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it" quote on these boards it seems it really hasn't sunk in.

In the end I am beginning to think that setting a hard and fast departure date may not be such a bad idea as it forces the Iraqi government to get their act together and get things under control or come the week after departure they will find themselves facing a firing squad.

Perhaps a look back a little further into history, like say to when we (the USA) destroyed entire Nations of American Indians, so, let me call it a Scorched-Earth Campaign instead of mass bombing.

At the end of the Second World War the United States of America did not possess the power to end just about all human life on Planet Earth, and yet, here we are, and now we do.

Sending Iraq back into the Stone Age would not cause the Iraqis to attack the United States of America any more than just staying there and letting the Iraqis slow bleed the United States Military, in my own opinion, as there may be Iraqis more pissed off than they are now, but there will be far fewer (in the millions) of them.

Would another group want to risk losing all just to attack the USA in a Terrorist Attack? Maybe, but they may regardless.

Oh, and the Mass Bombing of North Vietnam did bring the North Vietnamese back to the Peace Talks.

hehe, I think you may be believing your hype a little too much.

That's brilliant. You fail miserably at containing the worst people in their society, so you want to kill them all, just to be safe?

People like you make me wish the US didn't have nukes.

Originally Posted by Gator

Oh, and the Mass Bombing of North Vietnam did bring the North Vietnamese back to the Peace Talks.

which we ignored...

Originally Posted by The Other Guy

which we ignored...

I am not sure it worked out that way as there is a very strong argument that said the North Vietnamese used the peace talks as time to reconstruct their defenses so they didn't have much desire for peace either.

And the Democrats wonder why Congress has a lower approval rating than the President, it's because they try to pull b******t moves like this.

As for the "mass bombing" argument, yes, it did work, especially in Vietnam. Linebacker and Linebacker II forced to the North Vietnamese to the negotiating table, in fact Linebacker II wouldn't have been necessary if the South Vietnamese hadn't been so demanding at the peace talks. But that's not really an option with Iraq because we don't have a Hanoi to bomb in Iraq, the closest thing would be Tehran but the Iranian support of the Iraqi insurgents has been a nuisance, but hardly as decisive as support by North Vietnam for the Viet Cong.