House passes HR 2956 (223-201) Redeployment from Iraq Act

[MontyB]

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.

 

[Rob Henderson]

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

 

[MontyB]

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.

 

[Rob Henderson]

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

 

[Gator]

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.

 

[MontyB]

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

 

[major liability]

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.

 

[The Other Guy]

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

which we ignored...

 

[MontyB]

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.

 

[Damien435]

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.

 

[Gator]

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

Don't lose any sleep over it, rest assured that I am not in charge of the release of Nuclear Weapons on other Nations, nor am I anywhere in the decision making process of such an action.

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?

In a word, yes.
Not persoanlly mind you, as there are far too many Iraqis.
I view the indigenous humans of Iraq as just worth less than United States Military Personnel, and American Citizens in general.

As for being safe, or more safe, perhaps you have a better idea?

 

[mmarsh]

Gator

I have been reading your posts, I simply cannot agree with you there.

Your words echo those sentiments of the SS and Gastapo the in the lands they occupied. In order to stop the resistence they used tactics of sheer brutality. In other words a German soldier KIA by the resistance was worth 50 dead French civilians. The death of Reinhardt Heydrich was worth 1500 totally innocent Czechs.

Those terror tactics totally backfired. It rapidly increased sympathy to resist the occupation. In the Ukraine (where there was sympathy to Germany) it made the Germans even more unpopular than the Russians (and the Ukrainians hate the Russians).

If the US were to bomb Iraq flat, every single Muslim terrorist in the world would make an express B-line to the US coast. Every single US soldier anywhere, would become a target and the world would be much more dangerous for any American civilian (like myself) who is abroad.

That is a very dark path you are suggesting, not only does it violate of law against humanity and would be morally indefensible, but it would unite the entire world against us.

I could never support such a strategy.

 

[The Other Guy]

I cannot agree with that. It would make them think twice about attacking us if one of us means 2,000 of them. However we cannot do that in Iraq because we are supposed to be liberating them, not killing them.

 

[MontyB]

I cannot agree with that. It would make them think twice about attacking us if one of us means 2,000 of them. However we cannot do that in Iraq because we are supposed to be liberating them, not killing them.

These people kill anyone that crosses their path and are quite happy to die themselves why do you think they would think twice about attacking you?

Furthermore many of these people are stateless so what do they care if you attack a country on their behalf its just more recruits to the process hell what happens if one of these "terrorists" turns out to be Russian or Chinese who's nations can return fire on a grand scale if you choose to attack them.

Even if you can justify all this to yourself I have a strong suspicion that the bulk of the US people themselves would not stand for it, thus while it may appeal to a fringe lunatic element and you all know who you are it will never happen.

 

[Gator]

I have been reading your posts, I simply cannot agree with you there.

I'm not trying to change your mind.

Your words echo those sentiments of the SS and Gastapo the in the lands they occupied. In order to stop the resistence they used tactics of sheer brutality. In other words a German soldier KIA by the resistance was worth 50 dead French civilians. The death of Reinhardt Heydrich was worth 1500 totally innocent Czechs.

Oh people were doing such way, way, way..... way, way before the SS and Gastapo, the SS and Gastapo did not invent killing in mass and reprisal.
The term No Quarter comes to mind, and, it worked well in the past, as Security would last for many, many years, until War broke out again.... but, that's the thing about War, not only are they very bad things to have in the first place, but also a new one is just around the corner it seems.

Those terror tactics totally backfired. It rapidly increased sympathy to resist the occupation. In the Ukraine (where there was sympathy to Germany) it made the Germans even more unpopular than the Russians (and the Ukrainians hate the Russians).

Well, the Russians killed an awful lot of people during the Second World War and after the Second World War..... the Ukrainians made their bed.... and they slept (or died) in it.
The Iraqis are resisting the Occupation even without killing them all wholesale, the Iraqis are resisting the Occupation after being nice to the Iraqis, so, I say try something new, and see what happens.
What is being done now, as in allowing them to live, is not working, in my own opinion.

If the US were to bomb Iraq flat, every single Muslim terrorist in the world would make an express B-line to the US coast. Every single US soldier anywhere, would become a target and the world would be much more dangerous for any American civilian (like myself) who is abroad.

Shooting them coming up to the Coast Line would be very easy, there is nothing for them to hide behind.... be like Fish in a Barrel if you ask me.

Restricting Muslims entry into the United States would help security.

Every single US Soldier anywhere outside the USA is a Target already, as the Muslims live all over, even in England, hell there is even a few here in the USA.
Likewise, being an American Civilian and outside the US is dangerous, but, that's why you make the big bucks.... and if you do not make big bucks, well, you need to ask for big bucks, in my own opinion.

That is a very dark path you are suggesting, not only does it violate of law against humanity and would be morally indefensible, but it would unite the entire world against us.

The Very act of War violates some Law some where put in place to protect Humanity from the act of War itself.
If we win only the other side will stand trial for crimes, that's just the way War goes..... Just like when we Nuked Civilians in World War II, but the Japanese had no legal leg to stand on, and no one else was coming to their aid to champion their cause.
And, well, even if we lose in Iraq we will in my opinion still not stand trial as a Government, Nation, State, or People, as we are still the most powerful Nation on Earth, and we can destroy pretty much all life on this Planet.

I could never support such a strategy.

Noted

 

[major liability]

I could be the most freedom-loving, pro-America Iraqi. But if you bombed out my cities, I would be first on the list of people looking for new and interesting ways of detonating fissile materials in major US cities.

There can be no protection strong enough to keep one lucky tango with a briefcase nuke out. It's not a question of if, it's when.

 

[Gator]

I could be the most freedom-loving, pro-America Iraqi. But if you bombed out my cities, I would be first on the list of people looking for new and interesting ways of detonating fissile materials in major US cities.

There can be no protection strong enough to keep one lucky tango with a briefcase nuke out. It's not a question of if, it's when.

Yes but there are already Iraqis looking for such just to kill Americans, after being so very nice to them and taking Saddam out, they are in short a very ungrateful lot.
Iraqis all look alike if you ask me, they all talk alike in my opinion, and by the looks of things they all dress, and act alike, theres just no telling the good from bad..... with US Troops around they are our friends, as soon as the Troops leave they are our enemy.

I also do not know where it is you live that Briefcase Nukes or perhaps even Backpack Nukes are sold at the corner store, but it's not in the USA thats for sure, we have laws against such things here.

 

[major liability]

I didn't say they were easy to get. I was saying it would be easy to get into the country. Just look at all the Mexicans coming in. They can't even be fired upon.

And don't tell me they search every container on those huge cargo ships.

Man, I sure am glad I don't live in NYC any more.

 

[Gator]

I didn't say they were easy to get. I was saying it would be easy to get into the country. Just look at all the Mexicans coming in. They can't even be fired upon.

And don't tell me they search every container on those huge cargo ships.

Man, I sure am glad I don't live in NYC any more.

While not getting into the classified specifics regarding the role of the DoE and NEST in such a scenario, would it be safe to presume from this statement....

There can be no protection strong enough to keep one lucky tango with a briefcase nuke out. It's not a question of if, it's when.

......that you believe that no matter which road the US takes with regard to Iraq, that no matter how many Iraqis are killed; no matter how many Iraqis are allowed to live; no matter how nice we are to Iraqis; no matter how mean we are to Iraqis; that in the end there will still be someone somewhere who will do the deed?

I notice that you do not seem, to me at least, to have a problem with Iraqis taking retaliatory measures by way of the release of a Nuclear Device on US Soil.....

I could be the most freedom-loving, pro-America Iraqi. But if you bombed out my cities, I would be first on the list of people looking for new and interesting ways of detonating fissile materials in major US cities.

...no doubt killing many Americans in the process..... but, seems to me that you at the same time stand against the USA taking such a course of action as a retaliatory measure.

 

[major liability]

I don't want Iraqis to kill any of us. But I don't think bombing them will make any difference - our security just isn't good enough.