DescentBB

At these animals beheading people.

I want them beheaded too...with a dull spoon.

Amen to that.

WarAdvocat wrote:...these animals beheading people.

I would suggest tit-for-tat.
Some obvious candidates would be members of the Islamic group Unification and Jihad, which claims loyalty to Jordanian-born terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi who is reported to have performed the execution himself.

you CANNOT reason with these animals, you must fight fire with fire, I say next time we think we know where Zarqawi is we drop a MOAB on his friggin head

IN my better moments I realize that "an eye for an eye" leads to a cycle of violence...

But when I think about what these disgusting, vile, filthy butchering sonsofdiseasedwhores, these vomitous swine, these subhuman cretins, are doing (and getting away with), I see red, and I don't care.

This kind of villany deserves punishment, regardless of who it is carried out upon.

I agree. Sure, there's all that circle of violence junk, but it's time they got their end of the circle. If the circle stops with us, they think they can get away with whatever, and they'll keep it up. It's the same thing as disciplining a truculent 5-year-old.

If the US is going to get blamed, and it's allies punished, for occupying the country I say it's high time we actually occupy it. We should own that damn country by now.

We sould take control, declare marshal law, set a curfew, and anyone outside during the curfew ceases to exist. Period.

If our troops are fired on from a holy site, that holy site ceases to exist.

We should set conditions, not a date for our withdarawl. Untill those conditions exists, we should make it clear that the country is our to do with as we please. This may provide the ordinary Iraqi citizen the impetus to help thier own cause. They would know that as long as the conditions aren't favorable, we will remain.

Dedman wrote:If the US is going to get blamed, and it's allies punished, for occupying the country I say it's high time we actually occupy it. We should own that damn country by now.

We sould take control, declare marshal law, set a curfew, and anyone outside during the curfew ceases to exist. Period.

If our troops are fired on from a holy site, that holy site ceases to exist.

We should set conditions, not a date for our withdarawl. Untill those conditions exists, we should make it clear that the country is our to do with as we please. This may provide the ordinary Iraqi citizen the impetus to help thier own cause. They would know that as long as the conditions aren't favorable, we will remain.

Word.

perhaps instead, we should simply keep helping ordinary Iraqis rebuild their lives. If we set conditions to try to threaten them to help, we become the enemy again.

In certain parts of the country, we may need to tighten down security -- but jointly with Iraqi security forces, not on our own. Martial law, curfews, firing on mosques, etc. need to be implemented only in the worst cases, and only with the full cooperation of the interim government. Otherwise, we become the enemy and undo everything we've worked for.

Lothar wrote:In certain parts of the country, we may need to tighten down security -- ....

*cough*Falluja*cough*
*cough*like yesterday is too late*cough*

If you haven't noticed Lothar, we pretty much ARE the enemy in their eyes. Go figure.

Tyr, if you haven't noticed, we're actually NOT the enemy in the eyes of average Iraqis, just in the eyes of the nutjobs (who tend to congregate in certain regions.)

If you haven't noticed, I've been spamming this link to Iraq the Model for the past week. Read what actual Iraqis are saying before you say we're "the enemy" in their eyes. Read what others on the ground are saying, too -- find a blog or website by someone in the army or marines who's stationed in Iraq.

You get a very different picture than the mainstream media paints.

Were already the enemy, so I think I'm with dedman on this one until the terrorists are flushed out. Own that place brutally. Retaliate for attacks on our troops. Retaliate against beheadings. Break out the firebombs and dont be afraid to blow open a few muslim holy shrines to torch these animals.

Until democracy actually takes hold there, thats really the only way to deal with those people. As I see it we have two options now that were there: we go full-on and shove democracy down their throats, or we pull out completely and let the region descent into chaos. We cannot simply pu$$yfoot around down there. Over 1000 US soldiers dead and we still dont have either an effective occupation strategy or an exit strategy. We need to get hardcore on their asses. We made this mess, now we need someway to clean it up, and the velvet gloves have simply not been working. Break out the gauntlets and go to work.

Hmm, perhaps this would be better as a new thread. But I think the reason we are tip-toeing around so much has 100% to do with the fact that it is an election year.

We send more soldiers, then more soldiers die.

Bad for Bush.

We enter really troublesome areas, more soldiers die

Bad for Bush.

We tighten down security in general, then at first, more soldiers die..

....etc. etc.

Do you think Falluja would be the sanctuary it is, if it wasn't an election year?

When we take care of that problem, it will be messy.

Ask yourself why it's bad for Bush. The answer: Kerry will blame Bush for doing pretty much anything at this point, and people will believe him.

Bush's hands are tied as long as Kerry can get airtime on every major media network.

I think Bush has been try to be nice to these guys, and give them an out. The only "out" these guys are taking is the fast one--out of life.

We are the most advanced nation in the world. We have the firepower to turn Iraq into a smoldering crater. Yet with some people in this country (ACLU types) saying that we can't go after anyone because of their "rights," we can't so much as off Saddam (which should have been done a long, looong time ago).

Gooberman wrote:Do you think Falluja would be the sanctuary it is, if it wasn't an election year?

No, in fact I hear Bush gave the go ahead then backed off and I can only guess it was not for military strategic reasons but for political purposes. If I'm right it's very disapointing but so far it's a guess. I'm just being my usual cynical self, I hope I'm wrong.

I think if one wants to find a silver lining in the hesitation we can hope that while we wait the area fills with lots of Iranian and al Queda types so that it becomes such a target rich enviroment that we go in with air power first and then heavy armor etc.

If they just wait for the election and then only send in the grunts in small squads in fricken humvees I'm voting for Hillary next time!

Krom wrote:

Dedman wrote:If the US is going to get blamed, and it's allies punished, for occupying the country I say it's high time we actually occupy it. We should own that damn country by now.

We sould take control, declare marshal law, set a curfew, and anyone outside during the curfew ceases to exist. Period.

If our troops are fired on from a holy site, that holy site ceases to exist.

We should set conditions, not a date for our withdarawl. Untill those conditions exists, we should make it clear that the country is our to do with as we please. This may provide the ordinary Iraqi citizen the impetus to help thier own cause. They would know that as long as the conditions aren't favorable, we will remain.

Word.

Word. x2

it's funny you know, reading the rantings of you nationalistic idiots. America is very lucky you have no say in how the situation is being run.

Here's the upshot: the ONLY leg to stand on America has is "Moral Superiority". It's why Freedom is better than tyranny. It's why Democracy is better than communism. It's why the world has (in the past!) looked to the USA for moral leadership in terms of how to treat people.

Without a moral superiority it's impossible for America to achieve ANYTHING in Iraq - well, anything that actually leaves Iraq intact as a sovereign state, and without the rest of the world universally despising the USA.

What you are proposing, is that the USA starts to behave just like the dictator she ousted, except you're happy to blow up mosques, and drop 25,000 lb bombs to kill a single man.

NO - that will achieve NOTHING for Iraq, and equally, LESS THAN NOTHING for the USA. If the USA wants "Sandnam" - of course - then it's a great idea!

Sweet mother of all that's good, read what you are writing, and you'll discover your ideas and thoughts are morally corrupt, and without wisdom.

If it worked on Nazis, it'll work on Islaminazis.

The rest of the world just needs to start pulling their weight.

Mobius, I for one don't agree with turning the place into a military state and bombing the crap out of any terrorist target, religious or not. Sure, there's a more emotional side of me that, at times, would like to do that to some of these bastards, but common sense and morality should prevail. Not only would taking these steps be immoral, they would potentially lower us to the terrorists' level and certainly have drastic, negative repercussions for us. Not only would those actions turn the mostly-benevolent Iraqi civiliantry completely against us, but it would also paint a target on us for every Islamikazi in the world. This is something that requires more precise and deliberate action, but heavy-handed action nontheless.

As for the beheaders in question, I stand by what I said before: they should suffer.

They should smear those beheading videos all over american TV so everyone can see exactly what is happening. It is disgusting. I would bet a lot of people would change their tunes for some ass whoopins if they saw that shiz.

Surprise, surprise!
The savages are again playing with our heads!
For the second time in as many days, the mutilated body of an American hostage has been dumped in a Baghdad suburb.
Whatâ??s the next instalment in this seemingly unending Circus Macabre? Is tomorrows victim going to be the Briton Hensley, or one of two French journalists or maybe to spice things up one of the two Italian women who have been in the hands of these animals since early September?
We (myself included) rant and rave, we want the perpetrators caught and gutted! We want their guts for garters; we want them strung up on the nearest light pole. We want payback!
But like I said, and IMO these freaks are trying to play with our heads, they want someone to lash out blindly, kill innocent civilians, to bomb Holy sites. That would be grist to their mill, as it would alienate the more moderate fence sitters.
Maybe the time to play hardball has arrived, but it let it be a targeted response.
The armed militias totting their AK 47â??s, their RPG launchers, or the innocent civilians doing their war dances around bombed out Coalition tanks and APVâ??s would be a good place to start.