Kill all the insurgents.

I think it's time we bring back a little shock and awe. I don't know if you recall during the election when Bush and Co. Made fun of Kerry for wanting to fight a 'More Sensative war on Terror' Well holy shit, that's what Bush is doing now.

If you go into a War, you go in it to win. Everyone talks about the power vaccum if we leave, and how the insurgents would take over the country, so we are stuck there. Well here is the solution, Kill all the insurgents, say to the Iraqi government "There you go, you are in change" and get out.

Everytime I hear of our soldiers getting shot at from Mosques and not being allowed to shoot back because they don't want to hurt anyones feelings in the area, I get sick to my stomach. We are in a war, I hope we hurt more then Islams sensative little feelings.

If I were President, the war would be over in one month, I would turn half of Iraq into a mud hole.

Here's a solution - hand the country over to the U.N. Of course then Bush and Co. wouldn't be able to make sure that Iraq's government keeps conditions favourable for American business interests.

Where are these reports of soldiers not being allowed to fire on mosques coming from? Staff-Sergeant James Massey, a Marine, gave an interview where he said his squad alone (ten or so guys) had killed over thirty civilians in six weeks. He doesn't consider himself a war criminal, and nor does the American military. My point? The U.S military has extremely broad rules of engagement, as such I find it highly unlikely that U.S soldiers are not firing at mosques if that is where the enemy are (or even if it's where they aren't...). In fact I recall an incident where a U.S soldier shot dead a wounded, unarmed insurgent in a mosque. That was even on t.v ;) (because it was filmed, not because it's a rare occurence). Not to mention the fact that as an occupying power the U.S has a responsibility to safe guard civilian lives in Iraq. Whoops, I forgot, the Geneva conventions are irrelevant to Rumsfeld's military.

You know what Cap'n, I've changed my mind. You're right. In fact America should just drop a shitload of munitions loaded with nerve gas on Iraq, and wipe out the whole population. That would sort out those dirty sand-niggers... Afterall, they aren't human or anything. And it wouldn't damage the precious oil reserves. Win win.

Cap'n, most of the time I love you and would like to share a hot tub with you, but other times you really put the jerk in knee-jerk. "Kill all the insurgents." Stop the presses! A way out of the quagmire!

Have you enlisted yet?

shoot to kill lad . shoot to kill

"Kill all the insurgents."

"Turn half of Iraq into a mudhole."

Spoken like someone who knows fuck-all about guerilla warfare.

And people who never really cared about "finding WMD" or "freeing the people of Iraq" in the first place, anyway; in the end, this war was just about killing us some Ay-rabs, wasn't it?

We could do it, we have the most powerful military machine ever seen. We know what towns and areas the vast majority of the insurgents are in. We could bomb the hell out of it and then send in our soldiers to go clean up the rest.

Ask yourself why we don't? Two obvious reasons spring to mind.

A. International outrage. The reaction from your beloved (Yet impotent) U.N. would make a few people queasy. But heaven forbid we don't want to make a few French Liberals cry do we? That's a good reason to extend a war.

B. Alot of American soldiers would die all at once. Lets face it, 10 people dying a week isn't going to spark Vietnam-like protests at home. But if suddenly 500 soldiers died in a week, there reaction at home would be massive. But by the end of this war, far far more people are going to die then if we brought it to a quick end.

Listen, I was never in favor of going to this war in the first place. I think if people want democracy, or a change of government, it's thier own responsibility to do it. But now that we're there, we might as well try to win the damn thing.

That's a great idea Fryan, oh wait, I just remembered who is the military power that backs the U.N. That's right, it's the U.S. Military. The U.N. is impotent without us. Do you think just because the French and Germans are in there that roadside bombs are going to stop? Beyond that do you really think that they want to take over Iraq? No, it's our mess, we started it, we might as well finish it.

Cap'n Awesome, do you think about anyone but yourself?

May I point out at least one redeeming value of Capn's?

"Listen, I was never in favor of going to this war in the first place. I think if people want democracy, or a change of government, it's thier own responsibility to do it."

I think about myself first.

Lets put it this way, if someone breaks into my house with a gun, I shoot him. I don't stop to think 'Gee, maybe he has kids and a wife, maybe he's just hit hard times and is being forced to do this by bad circumstance. Maybe it's just some junkie who I can wrestle to the ground, or take the gun from him, what did I do to make this person angry in the first place' I think "How do I kill this person?" I'm not going to fire a warning shot, and give him a chance to plug me in the chest. I'm going to shoot him and be done with it.

The First quote is what our Military is like now, the second is what we should be like. We defeated the Iraqi army in what, a week? Declare victory and now mill around while we get blown up? It's time to get back to a little shock and awe, to remind the insurgents who has the bigger gun.

Personally, I'd have to say my guess is that when Cap'n Awesome wrote this, this was a slightly anger-motivated idea, most likely roused from watching the News that more people died, or something similar.

From a military perspective.
He's right.

"If you want to win a war, WIN A WAR, dammit." -Some general talking to the King.

Though when you put in politics, it'll never work as envisioned.
Since it's a DEMOCRACY, there will always be haters of any idea, no matter how good.
Just like how I pointed out that if I wanted to say something like... "Racism is Good" or something idiotic like that, I'd be able to find some Doctor who wrote an article supporting that, because there are simply so much... ideas? people? That there will always be disagreements with even the best of ideas.

And most people think of Iraq/Iran people as living beings, just like them. So they wouldn't want someone to nuke THEM, so they won't nuke the other people.

From some History Book I studied sometime ago, it was generally agreed on that dictatorship WAS a great idea, much better than democracy. Because with a dictator, he could do what you are proposing, etc, etc. But the problem is that no one likes a dictator, sooner or later everyone's going to disagree with SOMETHING he did wrong, and blah blah blah.

Since this is my first post, I hope it was helpful to this topic.

Good analogy, except for the fact that WE ARE THE ONES WITH THE GUN INVADING HOUSES! We're the assholes. What do we possibly have to win? its either a failure or a loss to us, in any case its not a win.

Heres a definition of Empathy:
em·pa·thy [émpəthee]
noun
1. understanding of another’s feelings: the ability to identify with and understand another person’s feelings or difficulties
2. attribution of feelings to an object: the transfer of your own feelings and emotions to an object such as a painting

Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

When we invade Their country on a false premise, cause terror, destroy cities, kill power, kill civilians, houses and a few insurgents, throw a few pewople off a bridge we CAUSE terror, and that causes TERRORISTS. You will only caise more hatred towards the US and thus more attacks. That mentality is irresposible. If you put yourself in an Iraqi's shoes, see through their eyes, you might see why your statement would cause such a great uproar.

I'll admit my own opinion on the war is somewhat muddled, but going around killing people in Iraq is exactly the wrong thing to to. Look, we tried it in Vietnam. It didn't work then, and it won't work now. If you kill one innocent civilian in an area like Iraq today, you'll have his brothers, sons, cousins and neighbors strapping bombs to their chests and blowing up your checkpoint tomorrow, and just as many signing up to crash planes into your home the day after that. That's the way life is when you don't have running water and your only education is the Koran.

If you want to win the war, you have to defend the Iraqi people, not attack them. We need to set up infrastructure: roads, water, police, and especially schools. Then they will see that it is the insurgency that is hurting them, not the infidel Americans, and in a generation, they stand a chance of being a functioning, developed country.

Anyone who thinks that using "shock and awe" and "killing lots of people" will "scare off the insurgents" knows nothing about the history of counter-insurgency operations. All you do is simply create more people willing to fight and die to throw you out of their country.

"Shock and awe" worked against the Iraqi regular army because they weren't that thrilled with Saddam to begin with, because our Army was kicking their asses, and they had hope we were really going to turn things around there.

Similar tactics have never worked against an insurgent movement in history. The only way they *can* work is if you commit absolute genocide, which I don't think anyone here is insane enough to actually be suggesting. Are they?

The key to beating the insurgents is to make more human pyramids, and taller ones too.