Start of Civil War? Attacks Across Iraq!

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Felch
Not to diminish what I've never experienced, but in historical terms 31 dead is hardly a catastrophe. To me this situation seems to stem from the failure of the United States to adequately brutalize the hostile population.

Nice one Fez.

[Saint Marcus]

Mods: can Felch be banned for his call for genocide?

[Dr Strangelove]

Move the capital to Basra. Arm the southern Shiites, then declare the country independent and get our people out. If there's killing to be done over Saddqam Hussein, let the Iraqi people do it.

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by Felch
In all of those cases where the brutality did not subdue the populations, the brutalized people had powerful allies that could support clandestine guerilla movements. Although there are outside sources of assisstance to the Iraqis, there are none capable of providing aid in the way that the United States or the Soviet Union were able to help their fifth collumns in the past.

Rubbish. Check Gaza, and the West Bank. The Pals don't look subdued to me. I suppose you're going to tell me they have tremendous international suppport...

A situation in the end of a major 6 year world war, where you are trying to get the government to surrender, is very different than Iraq today. Where you are NOT AT WAR, where you are an occupational ruling, force.

In any event, you haven't explained to me why the United States should show restraint in the current situations. I still feel that killing a bunch of Iraqis would go a long way towards discouraging future revolts.

It is hard to understand why anyone thinks this. But certainly, millions of Americans do. I don't think it has ever worked.

Saddam's control was established through infiltration, spying, and counterspying. Nobody knew who was reporting what to whom. That is how control was maintained. Whether those "caught" were killed or beaten or jailed or had assets confiscated was less important. There was real control, and Iraqi's saw a cause and effect relationship between behaviour and consequences. Not to mention that they saw Saddam's rule as far more legitimate than Bremers.

Indescriminate "killing a bunch of Iraqis" will have the opposite effect. You don't understand Iraqi's, innocent people get killed for no reason. RESENTMENT.

The Iraqi people will be liberated as soon as they can behave themselves. If they all die before that happens, it's unfortunate, but I'd prefer a thousand hostile Iraqis dead to one American or coalition troop dead.

News flash. They are not children who need to behave. They are a sovereign nation, who have the same right to self-government as you. Every single one of them is hostile.

So if thats how you feel, start building the ovens.

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by Felch
Hypothetically, the air force could drop leaflets on the city promising to spare it in exchange for several hundred specific hostages... ...they will be killed in the event of future problems. If not, then B-52s can carpet bomb the city...

Ahh, so that's how you bring democracy to a country.

Memo to USA.

We don't want any.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
Every single one of them is hostile.

Were that the case the troops in Iraq would have problems orders of magnitude higher than they do now.

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by Felch
Well, even if they are innocent, I don't care. Evil is nothing to me. And I doubt you'll have to kill 8 million people. But I'm willing to support a President who does. I'm an American, not an Arab...

You are not an American. You are willing to kill 8 million innocent people. Hmm, who else in history was willing to kill 8 million innocent people?

[DinoDoc]

Someone seems even easier to troll than Aggie.

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Were that the case the troops in Iraq would have problems orders of magnitude higher than they do now.

Hostile: unfriendly, showing ill will, opposed.

They are mostly smart enough not to be "hostile combatants".

A minority, maybe 25%, are willing to make use of the US occupying forces to further their own interests and manoevre for power in the post-occ world.

But probably 90 to 98% are unfriendly and opposed.

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Someone seems even easier to troll than Aggie.

I'm just a big fish.

[Eli]

Err... The Marines bombed a Mosque and killed 40 Iraqis.

[Combat Ingrid]

Doesn't sound like a good strategy if they want to calm down the fundies...

[GePap]

The main problem we are seeing is that mainstream Shi'ite authorities, while not endorsing Sadr, are not denouncing him-making it fully the responsibility of the occupation forces to go after him-the Iraqi forces won't really get involved, so it makes it a Foreign vs. Shi'ite porblem as opposed to an insurrection by one Iraqi against others-and thus, the more Iraqis die, the more sympathy Sadr gets. BUT the US has no leverage on the Shi'ite leaders and the governing council has no real security powers.

[Chemical Ollie]

Yeah, bombing Mosques will really show the World who is terrorist and who is not. Why not nuke the Kaba while you're at it?

[Last Conformist]

It must have been so much more fun being a general before the advent of mass media.

Bombing that mosque does sound stupid. Were there any special priority targets in there or what?