should we pull the guys and gals out now and just nuke iraq to take care of the problem, or should we continue with the prolonged military occupation route?
Wouldn't it be better to ask Captain Kirk and the Starship Enterprize to use a photon torpedo on 'em! Or maybe we could send Spiderman to kick their ass. You know, something practical.
Your sarcasm is lost on me, Red. Frankly, I fail to see the impracticality of the nuclear option. These people understand one thing and one thing only: OVERWHELMING FORCE. It doesn't get much more overwhelming than a 20 megaton warhead, pal.
Get real, G-man. If you can't understand why a nuclear weapon is not appropriate for this job, you just don't understand what atomic warfare is. The overwhelming force we need is the additional 150,000 to 250,000 more troops that General Shenseki, The Rand Corporation and The Brookings Institute have calculated will be required to occupy Iraq, control the highways, establish order, and eliminate the insurgents. Our infantry can handle these thugs, they just need the proper resources to do it. The insurgents are the problem, NOT the entire population. Killing civilians, women and children is not the American way, amigo. Alienating all of our friends and allies as well as inflaming our enemies is another really stupid move. Even George Bush isn't going to make a move that ridiculous. Talk about lose the election! Typical nothing-intelligent-to-say response. If you ever add anything to a conversation besides insults and inflammatory remarks, I'll be shocked. You've been on my idiot list for some time. Expect to be ignored in the future.
My response was in line with your nothing-intelligent-to-say Captain Kirk comment. As for your idiot list, I'd love a copy.
At the risk of being lumped in with Red. I voted no also. Be serious, nuke them? Rest assured we'll screw them up properly over time. And I'm not talking militarily. We'll force our progressive culture on them. Just give it time. We'll be stopping those prayers before sporting events, introducing the joys of manlove and aborting the hell out of their middle and upper class to produce a large underclass before they know what hit them. Just be patient.
I voted no also and I don't feel lumped in with Red - in fact, he is ignoring me for the time being. Those voting yes to nuclear warfare hardly mean it. Granted, there are some nuts running through this forum, I have to believe that they are making a statement far short of a literal nuclear attack...
red....i wish i could agree in thinking that we can ever control this iraq thing. we can't. we have just bought ourselves into a 24-7 babysitting job for decades. those 3 factions of iraqis will never get along because they never have gotten along. the kurds won't forget being gassed by the suni controlled gov't at the time, and they'll be looking for payback the first chance they get. now we've set our young people up in a no-win mess. those pictures of the servicemen and women in that prison weren't right but it happens when young people are in combat like that. remember in vietnam the stories of bringing up two (2) vietcong in a chopper and tossing one out to get the other to talk. death cards. special forces with human ears around their heads. those are the things that happen. it doesn't make them right, but it happens when you throw our young men and women into this type of nonsense. not one drop of american blood was worth iraq. and the rest of the world opinion about the u.s.a. is infuriating. again, we have to take it on the chin while they sit back and do nothing (except maybe england and australia and a few other loyal friends). but you watch, the first time any of these "critics" needs our help to bail them out....we will and always have. i just want these kids home and out of that mess.
