I know it's a loaded question, but still, you have to ask yourself who the terrorists would prefer in the White House. If they had to choose between two evils (a Republican or a Democrat), who would be the lesser evil for the terrorists? Wouldn't the terrorists want an American pullout from Iraq, just like some Democrats?

Here's the article that provoked this question: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/11/aus...a.ap/index.html

The terrorists won't like any one that gets in there. That's anyone.

True enough..but I'm sure alqueada would prefer someone who promises american defeat in Iraq.

Yes. But I don't know who that would be, bob--Democrat or Republican. Right now with things going the way they are in Iraq, the public is getting discontented with the whole thing. Lets face it; something has to give there--things can not keep going the way they have been. I'm really hoping that this new General has some answers.

I hope General Patreas has the answer as well, but what has to 'give' in the end is our enemy.

If General Patreas' attempt doesn't work I am for backing up and leveling those areas of resistance (10's of thousands of Iraqis dead that have been avoided til then). Shatter the Iraqi society. It will mean the abolition of the current Iraqi government, but the primary American goal has to be to pacify the battleground. Then move all of the troops that have been in Germany for 60 years to Iraq in order to pacify the entire country. The Iraqi people can not be trusted with a vote until they rebuff kamikazi (suicide) bombers.

And lets face it, the American's are the most easily swayed populace on the planet. They have the most military power and the least historical perspective in the history of man. What is new in the history of this country is that politicians and media are begging for the end of war regardless of the outcome. This was the case in Viet Nam, and for some reason the millions of people that died as a result of American withdrawl and cutting off funding were ignored. Stopping people from dying was not the goal, rather American defeat.

Post #11
http://www.bearpit.net/index.php?showtopic=8455&hl=#

I was thinking the same sort of thing (Leaving politics out of the discussion, of course.) a few months earlier with friends at work. What you said sounds to me sort of like the way I was talking about General Sherman during the Civil War. Prove to the Iraqi people that the terrorist war machine is not the way. Sort of like Sherman's March.

A bit of wry sarcasm here no doubt. However many on the left are quick to criticize our efforts in Iraq yet have yet to offer up any solutions of their own. Maybe you have a solution?

An opinion from the extreme anti-war conservative element (just to the left of the Amish): you cannot do Sherman's March to the sea any more. You cannot level tens of thousands of buildings with twice that many dead civilians. Not since world war two. "We" - those who consider ourselves civilized - no longer destroy the village in order to save it.

This war cannot be 'won' no matter how you define 'won.' Cannot. It is not realistic to plan to win this war.

Yes, our final retreat from South East Asia resulted in millions of deaths, but let's not blame the Quaker who finally got tired of carpet-bombing civilian Asians (Nixon). I recently visited one of the killing fields of Pol Pot in Cambodia (in addition to the killing fields of Nixon in Cambodia), but you can also visit places where the Russians killed Russians (or put them in Siberia to die).

Many of America's finest young men are dying for nothing in Iraq. Let's bring them home before they can't walk or breathe.

It wasn't sarcasm. I did say I wanted to leave the political aspect of it out, did I not? I was just trying to establish if iswhatitis was thinking the same thing from a militaristic viewpoint.

And Fit, I believe that you're right--this probably would have worked at one time, but now it would be ineffective.

Who's talking about saving a village, the Amish and Quakers? We've been there done that, and it appears to give you warm feelings inside.

I want to win a war, not just any war but this one in which Iraq is only a battle ground. We've been there and done that too, but it appears to be a completely foreign concept to you.

I do not want Americans to leave and let millions of people die at the hand of the next dictator or puppet in their absence. If Iraqis are going to die I want Americans and their allies to kill them and stand atop the remainder to teach them to live together and with the rest of the world. It is in U.S. national interest to do so, and U.S. national interests are the goal above and beyond how many Iraqi's die to get there. President Bush's strategic error was the same as Colin Powell's in the first Iraq war, too much compassion and not enough devastation.

How many unnecessary deaths have occured because "civilized" people decided that too many Iraqi soldiers were dying in retreat from Kuwait (remember the "highway of death")? I'm not only referring to the deaths as a result of the current Iraq war, but rather the Kurds and Marsh Arabs that died in the months after Americans signed the cease fire with Iraq. Who do you figure were the recipients of Colin Powell and George H W Bush's compassion? Yet here you are claiming our own pain is too high now. 3200 deaths in nearly 5 years is an historically (as in never been accomplished since firecrackers were weaponized) low number.

America's finest young men will have died for nothing if you get your way, and your compassion for our enemy out weighs the mission of those fine men that have and will die completing it. Let's honor their sacrifice by completing their noble mission, rather than relent to the "civilized" sissies whose nationalism is questionable and politics are clear.

We can win this war, and we will win this war. When I see 'won' in quotation marks, I assume you mean it can only end in defeat because people will and have died and there will be someone that disagrees with the outcome. Fine you win. People are going to die and not everyone will be happy with the result. I'll be happy so long as it is a cultural taboo to point a weapon at the U.S. I don't care if it is for fear of reprisal or respect.

There shouldn't be any politics in this thing, it's a war and people need to pick sides not a political party.

What I think is that the Iraqi people have been given an opportunity to make their country what they want of it. General Sherman rolled through the countryside destroying everything along the way on first contact in order to deny resources to his enemy, and to affect their resolve to continue the fight. I do not think that is the way to fight in Iraq, nor do I think General Sherman would do things that way with the resources we have in this fight. BUT, there ain't no damned way General Sherman would retake a town 3 times, the people of that town have either shown allegiance to the other side or the inabillity to govern themselves and would be levelled.

If you meant that some Iraqi towns and/or cities should have been rendered to the dust bins of history the way Sherman devastated some southern cities, my answer is yes and worse if necessary.