Originally posted by Tango
You didn't answer my first question. How would you have fought the war?
As for the second question, you seem to not like my answering about carpet bombing Bagdad because it would kill innocents. HOWEVER, your answer was "To win an Army must be allowed to be unleashed with it's full power onto the enemy, not have to tip toe in a land where some are innocent and others are not." How exactly is that different?
As for Clinton, if he were still in office Saddam would probably be back in Kuwait.
Question 1. I would have fought the war by using CIA, military, and covert operatives, along with willing people from the area who are in the know, like the brave interpreters they have now (those guys are amazing), much as they're doing in Afganisthan. Sort of sniffing terrorist out with a combat roach bait that they can take back to the nest and kill the queen. Things such as infiltrating info such as terrorist meetings and bombing the crap outta them when they show up. Possibly getting operatives to hold arms sales in the guise of a helping entity (such as Iranian undercover arms traders) everybody shows up dies. You gotta weed em out like termites, get my drift. Large scale conflict on a country that may or may not have terrorist influence is not the way. (we know it does but we don't want to piss off the locals and cause anymore destabilization). Another thing, i know i'm setting up a earthquacke amongst conservatives now. America needs to own up to it's own responsibility for the hatred it is recieving upon it. Such as the ugly American syndrome, which has been going on a long time. Example in the fifties my dad described how upon entering the port of a foreign country the country would have to raise it's flag in salute before America would raise it's flag. That's not nice isn't that kind of arrogant. If someone came into my house and did that i'd be pissed. Things like that translate into hatred. Terrorism in it's essence is a feeling, a feeling of hatred and that needs to be healed before any long term closure can be reached.
Question 2:
I'll compare it this, in WW2 America waged total destruction on a group of (this is the point) COUNTRIES which had the energy and population and industriy to wage war, therefore anything in that country was open season.
In Iraq were supposed to be fighting (main point) terrorism. Where's the industry, who's the terrorists, where's their equipment, what uniforms do they wear, of course our military doesn't know untill some guy blows their head off and runs away by then it's to late. Where'd the guy go, who did that, our soldiers look into the crowd for help but everyones staring at the sky either not willing or scared to help. See how that could be confusing, see how that could be a tough situation?
Question 3:
Your probably right, Clinton might have. Sadaam would still be in power today. However what's worse a President who sends troops into harms way with a bb gun and a sling shot with an obscure drawing of the "Big bad wolf " in a land of "Big badWolf's" and tells him to kill the enemy with a rifle with no sight on it while wearing a blind fold against an enemy who has telescopic sights and no blindfold who cleary knows who we are and can pick us off at will while our soldiers are disoriented and defensive. That's a *****ty situation to send our troops into and any President that can't realize those facts should have been sent to Vietnam and died in his plane like his peer's that did. Since he expouses to be a "Tough President", "War President" "Bring em On", get my drift.
