Unwillingness for Absolute War...

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: eigen
You guys have a misunderstanding of what is meant by Absolute war.

You guys certainly understand total war.i.e all available methods to win the war.

Absolute war is this.The total capacity of the nation is mobilized to win the war.All social,economic and political structures work toward victory.

An example would be WWII.Victory Gardens were planted.

Now we would do sometshing similar.

Gas would be rationed,draft enacted,less resources used, war bonds bought.

The whole country gets behind the effort.

I suppose I did misunderstand you, but what you are talking about wouldn't help either. The problem isn't resources, it's how we're fighting the war. We're going about it the wrong way, becuase this way is "cooler" and reels in Bush supporters like bears to honey. Brute force isn't the answer to terrorism, so MORE of it isn't going to help.

Yup. More pressure of this type simply creates more angry people who don't have massive, ultra-expensive military machines to settle scores, which means more terrorism. The funny thing is that the government knows this. I read a Korea Times article today that thought that the US and UK have long since given up on the idea that creaming mostly civilians is going to stop terrorism and are just stumbling along trying not to loose face. Deeply stupid, huh?

What seems stupid to me is that I think it's very possible to "defeat terrorism" in the sense of preventing another 9/11. The solution might not be as flashy, and certainly won't make for good "war president" campaign material, but in the long run it will make us much safer.

I can't see ANY American president doing what it would take to greatly reduce terrorist acts against the US. Just the idea that our efforts should be limited to us is beyond comprehension for these guys, considering we're inexplicably responsible for so many other countries now. Really, it's not like bin Laden hasn't been crystal clear and unwavering about what?s gotten his, and millions of Arab's, pissed off.

For those who hadn't heard:

1. Stop slaughtering Arabs at the drop of a hat, any hat
2. Stop supporting despotic governments in the Middle East
3. Leave Arab affairs to Arabs
4. PLEASE, stop the blanket support for Israel

I know some here will angrily disagree, but considering our government was designed to be very limited and has proven itself incompetent repeatedly, I just don't see this as unreasonable. If we did these things terrorist recruiting would dry up and bin Laden would be reduced to what he actually is, a fanatic who spouts dogma based on an obscure, tiny religion.

1) With the implied exeception of Iraq - Where else has the US done this? Iraq handling has become a mistake that is difficult to get out of; and mistakes are being made while the US is trying to figure out how to extract from the quagmire without causing a civl bloodbath.

2) Allow the ME area and all Arab/Muslim areas be torn apart by civil wars if we withdraw support. - See #1 & #4 also.
3) As long as the Arabs do not come to the US and/or UN asking for assistance/help. this usually happens then an political organization can not solve its own problems internally. And when help is asked, it is usually to late.

4) Tit-for-Tat - Do not support either side. Remove all government funding support for both the Arab and Israel sides. Let Israel and the Arabs determine their own solution; Keep the US and Un out of it completely.

No cherry picking allowed.

1. All four of these demands where issued by bin Laden in response to our treatment of Iraqi's. Besides, isn't Iraq enough?

2. They're not children. Isn't it interesting that you see them as such? They're just waiting for us to mind our own business so they can slaughter each other.

3. We shouldn't have been sending "aid" in the first place. Where in the consitution does it say that congress and the president have the authority to give away billions of dollars to other countries, and moreover, what the hell good has it done?

4. The US speaks for the UN now when it comes to the ME? If they ask for UN help, and if the UN wants to get involved, they should. We should keep our BIG-FAT-FACES out of it. Why? Because all we we've done os make matters worse.

You don't need to shepherd our exchange. If I want to respond, I will, and in a fashion I choose.

 

[ocforums]

From what I have read there is a gross mis understanding of past wars and present doctrin.

What we use to do Is bomb the nation into submission combined with troops on the ground.But from Vietnam to present we have changed how we fight a war to pasify the Liberals.If people look you will notice when we did carpet bomb in Vietnam they became more willing to talk ,,BUT the liberals Decided to call us baby killers and demean our efforts to the point of crippling the governments will to subdue that nation .

In every conflict from Vietnam to persent we have suddenly played to liberals by making weapons that are limited to attacking a specific address,zip code and individual .

Looking at wars from mans history one thing is certain.When the population suffers enough they switch teams and go from supporting the home team to the team bashing there nation to bits..Simple easy and straight foward .

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: ocforumsBUT the liberals Decided to call us baby killers and demean our efforts to the point of crippling the governments will to subdue that nation .

So it's okay to kill babies, or anyone else who gets in the way of the "home team", but it's wrong to actually SAY it? Dude, I don't know if you were around during Vietnam, but the democrats did more than their share of war-mongering, just as now. The anti-war movement during that time was a broad-based coalition of people who spanned political parties, so you're dead wrong on that too. Also, you might want to find another crutch to justify your willful lack of knowledge. The "Blame the liberals for everything!!!" twaddle is starting to wear REAL thin and has NO basis is reality. Face it, you were lied to, played for a chump, and for some reason you think that's just peachy.

Instead of trying to prove how tough you are with someone else's ass and spewing numbskull sports metaphores about things you haven't a clue about, you should educate yourself on what's happening around you.

 

[imported_Ant]

Originally posted by: Genx87
You need to get a grip. I am not advocating carpet bombing but this thread does bring up the question of whether or not demoralization of the civlian population helps with post war rebuilding.

WWII has two peoples that were very fanatical in their defense of the regimes they were under. Both countries had massive bombing campaigns against civilian population centers. Both countries had little problems in the years after from the former regime remnants.

In WWII, half of germany didn't want the nazi regime in the first place. They were quite happy to capitulate and go back to normal life. They knew their war was a war of aggression and they deserved to pay for it.
In Japan, the code they have meant that what the emperor says must be done. Surrender meant no-one would continue the fight.

The war against Iraq was a war of aggression by the coalition that went in there(under the pretense of liberation).
The invasions of France and Holland by Nazi Germany were also a war of aggression and look at the resistance movements that came from that.

If you're going in to liberate a country, the last thing you want to do is start killing off the civilian population. All you do is make a lot more enemies than you already have.

I for one would take an active role in encouraging my government to actively oppose such actions that obviously violate the Geneva conventions.

 

[Trianon]

Originally posted by: ocforums
Looking at wars from mans history one thing is certain.When the population suffers enough they switch teams and go from supporting the home team to the team bashing there nation to bits..Simple easy and straight foward .

Where in history did you see that? Native population will always resist even when facing complete annihilation, they will pick at occupation troops until it becomes too expensive to hold pacifying garrisons in the occupied territory and occupier withdraws or gets defeated in uprising. I may take many years, but the struggle never stops unless locals admit that their occupation is their own fault.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: eigen

The american public would not being willing at this point to have the nation engage in absolute war.

Unfortunately absolute war is a great way to ensure you don't engage in conflict haphazardly and that when you do you are playing to win.

American public have always stood up against aggression, like against the british and against Germany and Japan. People supported the war fullheartly when the justification is true and they are more then willing to die defending real freedom, their freedom.

Strangely, American public also have a way to tell when the government is BS'ing, saying some war is about freedom when it is not. When those type of wars are waged, it is usually the wrong type of people standing behind those wars, and as a consequnce, those war failed. I guess it makes it easy for those warmongers to save face by pointing the failure at those people not supporting the war, instead of themselves who actually wage the war.

Thus you always hear people blaming the public for failed wars.....

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: eigen

The american public would not being willing at this point to have the nation engage in absolute war.

Unfortunately absolute war is a great way to ensure you don't engage in conflict haphazardly and that when you do you are playing to win.

American public have always stood up against aggression, like against the british and against Germany and Japan. People supported the war fullheartly when the justification is true and they are more then willing to die defending real freedom, their freedom.

You're kidding, right? We hardly have a history of standing up to aggression. We never would have joined WW2 if Japan did not attack us. The only country that stood up for aggression was the UK. They could have gone the way of France, but they stood up against them. Additionally, if we hate aggression so much, why did our government try and keep the extermination of the Jews as quiet as possible during WW2?

Sure, we didn't have to join in over in Europe, but we did, but only after we were attacked by Japan.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: eigen
You guys have a misunderstanding of what is meant by Absolute war.

You guys certainly understand total war.i.e all available methods to win the war.

Absolute war is this.The total capacity of the nation is mobilized to win the war.All social,economic and political structures work toward victory.

An example would be WWII.Victory Gardens were planted.

Now we would do sometshing similar.

Gas would be rationed,draft enacted,less resources used, war bonds bought.

The whole country gets behind the effort.

I suppose I did misunderstand you, but what you are talking about wouldn't help either. The problem isn't resources, it's how we're fighting the war. We're going about it the wrong way, becuase this way is "cooler" and reels in Bush supporters like bears to honey. Brute force isn't the answer to terrorism, so MORE of it isn't going to help.

Yup. More pressure of this type simply creates more angry people who don't have massive, ultra-expensive military machines to settle scores, which means more terrorism. The funny thing is that the government knows this. I read a Korea Times article today that thought that the US and UK have long since given up on the idea that creaming mostly civilians is going to stop terrorism and are just stumbling along trying not to loose face. Deeply stupid, huh?

What seems stupid to me is that I think it's very possible to "defeat terrorism" in the sense of preventing another 9/11. The solution might not be as flashy, and certainly won't make for good "war president" campaign material, but in the long run it will make us much safer.

I can't see ANY American president doing what it would take to greatly reduce terrorist acts against the US. Just the idea that our efforts should be limited to us is beyond comprehension for these guys, considering we're inexplicably responsible for so many other countries now. Really, it's not like bin Laden hasn't been crystal clear and unwavering about what?s gotten his, and millions of Arab's, pissed off.

For those who hadn't heard:

1. Stop slaughtering Arabs at the drop of a hat, any hat
2. Stop supporting despotic governments in the Middle East
3. Leave Arab affairs to Arabs
4. PLEASE, stop the blanket support for Israel

I know some here will angrily disagree, but considering our government was designed to be very limited and has proven itself incompetent repeatedly, I just don't see this as unreasonable. If we did these things terrorist recruiting would dry up and bin Laden would be reduced to what he actually is, a fanatic who spouts dogma based on an obscure, tiny religion.

Sorry chief. Tried that. Got attacked!

Huh? So you're one of the people who think the feds are pure as the driven snow, and the Arabs hate our freedoms and great stores?

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: Trianon

Originally posted by: eigen

The american public would not being willing at this point to have the nation engage in absolute war.

Unfortunately absolute war is a great way to ensure you don't engage in conflict haphazardly and that when you do you are playing to win.

Absolute war scenario doesn't work for "overthrow the dictator, build democracy" kind of war, cause it creates lifetime enemies.

No, it would pacify/ eliminate your would-be enemies. The kind of crap we are doing now in Iraq is what makes lifetime enemies. It may be harsh and draconian but if you are going to go to war you should do it balls to the wall and get the job done as quickly and efficiently as possible. Not this long drawn out crap like is going on in Iraq and what happened in Vietnam. But what is going on in Iraq would be hard to justify all out war. That is why we should never have gone in there in the first place.

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: Trianon

Originally posted by: eigen

The american public would not being willing at this point to have the nation engage in absolute war.

Unfortunately absolute war is a great way to ensure you don't engage in conflict haphazardly and that when you do you are playing to win.

Absolute war scenario doesn't work for "overthrow the dictator, build democracy" kind of war, cause it creates lifetime enemies.

No, it would pacify/ eliminate your would-be enemies. The kind of crap we are doing now in Iraq is what makes lifetime enemies. It may be harsh and draconian but if you are going to go to war you should do it balls to the wall and get the job done as quickly and efficiently as possible. Not this long drawn out crap like is going on in Iraq and what happened in Vietnam. But what is going on in Iraq would be hard to justify all out war. That is why we should never have gone in there in the first place.

That's utopic thinking, it wouldn't be applicable in real-life. If it would, it'd cost soooo many innocent people. You think too square.

 

[DarkKnight69]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Taggart

Originally posted by: eigen

The american public would not being willing at this point to have the nation engage in absolute war.

It depends on the situation. If China shot cruise missiles deliberately at our navy tomorrow and killed a bunch of sailors, I think Americans would support declaring war and engaging in 'total' war.

I really doubt such a scenario would go that far.

Our navy would just start blowing Chinese navy ships out of the water until they want to start talking.

LOL, Are you stupid???

The chinese would not simply allow us ships to blow them out of the water. News Flash, China and Russia would easily be able to compete with the US in total war.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: DarkKnight69

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Taggart

Originally posted by: eigen

The american public would not being willing at this point to have the nation engage in absolute war.

It depends on the situation. If China shot cruise missiles deliberately at our navy tomorrow and killed a bunch of sailors, I think Americans would support declaring war and engaging in 'total' war.

I really doubt such a scenario would go that far.

Our navy would just start blowing Chinese navy ships out of the water until they want to start talking.

LOL, Are you stupid???

The chinese would not simply allow us ships to blow them out of the water. News Flash, China and Russia would easily be able to compete with the US in total war.

Since I am so stupid, please tell me how the Chinese navy would stop the US.

 

[DarkKnight69]

hmm, since china does not stand alone and I dont think that the United states has the power to conquer russia and china...

The American military is impressive yes, but attacking chinese ships will not get them to beg for mercy!!

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: Trianon

Originally posted by: eigen

The american public would not being willing at this point to have the nation engage in absolute war.

Unfortunately absolute war is a great way to ensure you don't engage in conflict haphazardly and that when you do you are playing to win.

Absolute war scenario doesn't work for "overthrow the dictator, build democracy" kind of war, cause it creates lifetime enemies.

No, it would pacify/ eliminate your would-be enemies. The kind of crap we are doing now in Iraq is what makes lifetime enemies. It may be harsh and draconian but if you are going to go to war you should do it balls to the wall and get the job done as quickly and efficiently as possible. Not this long drawn out crap like is going on in Iraq and what happened in Vietnam. But what is going on in Iraq would be hard to justify all out war. That is why we should never have gone in there in the first place.

That's utopic thinking, it wouldn't be applicable in real-life. If it would, it'd cost soooo many innocent people. You think too square.

In the situation of Iraq, yes it would cause too many innocent people to justify all out war. . .but what we are doing now is still killing a lot of innocent people just over a drawn out time. It's arguably costing more lives and more money than if you just hit hard and fast. War and use of military force against a sovereign nation shouldn't be something taken as lightly as president Bush seems to think. It should be a last resort. And when the situation justifies it, do it hard, do it fast, get it over with. It is precisely because of the loss of innocent lives that war should be the last resort. Innocent people will get killed in time of war. That is the harsh and draconian aspect of it that I was talking about. If you are going to go to war then you have to accept some innocent people will be killed and you have to be willing to accept that loss. If you can't accept that then you shouldn't go to war. Pussy footing around about it will just make matters worse.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: DarkKnight69

Originally posted by: K1052

Our navy would just start blowing Chinese navy ships out of the water until they want to start talking.

LOL, Are you stupid???

The chinese would not simply allow us ships to blow them out of the water. News Flash, China and Russia would easily be able to compete with the US in total war.

The chinese do not have a strong blue water fleet nor the manpower trained to use what they have effectively.

On a land based war, the amount of manpower that could be thrown into combat could make a diffference IF it could be transported to where is could be useful.

The quality of the Chinese Air Force (unless it has improved drastically over the past 4 years) leaves much to be desired. The machines may be good, however, teh pilot quality is suspect.

ICBMs would be the only potential area where the Chinese could be on equal terms.

It is very difficult to move an army across water without sea and air cover. Neither which China can effectively mount against a US effort. Therefore the transports would be at risk.

w/ respect to Russia, the Russian armed forces have a lower level than when the Soviets existed and their air combat training has been curtailed due to economics. They do have a larger blue water fleet than the Chinese, however much of the orginal fleet has been split up when the Soviets split.

Therefore in defense of their own countries, China and Russia may be able to fend off an opponent, however, agression against the US militarily is out of the questions from a military standpoint.

With egomanical politicians, anything is possible, however, most do not want to lose their power in a losing conflict.

 

[DarkKnight69]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050817-122515-2218r.htm

They appear to have at least a bit of competition. The us would not win without massive losses and huge amounts on monies spent. Lets not forget that Russia has a substantial nuclear arsenal and we do not have a missle defense system in place. (I say we because if the United States were forced to goto war with the east, our troops would be under American control).

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: Trianon

Originally posted by: eigen

The american public would not being willing at this point to have the nation engage in absolute war.

Unfortunately absolute war is a great way to ensure you don't engage in conflict haphazardly and that when you do you are playing to win.

Absolute war scenario doesn't work for "overthrow the dictator, build democracy" kind of war, cause it creates lifetime enemies.

No, it would pacify/ eliminate your would-be enemies. The kind of crap we are doing now in Iraq is what makes lifetime enemies. It may be harsh and draconian but if you are going to go to war you should do it balls to the wall and get the job done as quickly and efficiently as possible. Not this long drawn out crap like is going on in Iraq and what happened in Vietnam. But what is going on in Iraq would be hard to justify all out war. That is why we should never have gone in there in the first place.

That's utopic thinking, it wouldn't be applicable in real-life. If it would, it'd cost soooo many innocent people. You think too square.

In the situation of Iraq, yes it would cause too many innocent people to justify all out war. . .but what we are doing now is still killing a lot of innocent people just over a drawn out time. It's arguably costing more lives and more money than if you just hit hard and fast. War and use of military force against a sovereign nation shouldn't be something taken as lightly as president Bush seems to think. It should be a last resort. And when the situation justifies it, do it hard, do it fast, get it over with. It is precisely because of the loss of innocent lives that war should be the last resort. Innocent people will get killed in time of war. That is the harsh and draconian aspect of it that I was talking about. If you are going to go to war then you have to accept some innocent people will be killed and you have to be willing to accept that loss. If you can't accept that then you shouldn't go to war. Pussy footing around about it will just make matters worse.

How would you do it? Please explain what you mean by it.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Competition exists - Yes.
Nuclear threat - Yes.
Manpower - YES

Blue water capability for invasion - No.

The comments I made were based on the statement of the Chinese Naval power.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: DarkKnight69
hmm, since china does not stand alone and I dont think that the United states has the power to conquer russia and china...

The American military is impressive yes, but attacking chinese ships will not get them to beg for mercy!!

You misunderstood what I said.
I never said anything about the US conquering China and Russia.

The Chinese navy cannot stand against the US navy toe to toe and survive.

 

[DarkKnight69]

I understand that, My comments were that you would not simply be able to pull up, blow up some Chinese warships and have them back off and beg forgiveness. Would not happen. In fact, I am willing to be that if american warship attackted Chinese warshipe they would find themselves under attack from surface to surface missles as well as air to surface missles. As well, I dont believe the majority of american ships are sitting off the coast of asia so I am thinking there would be some american war ship losses.

Dont get me wrong, I think the american military is amazing, and I am happy we are allies and are protected by you, but it would not be as simple as sinking sone Chinese ships. If you think that then you are ignorant and stupid!

 

[DarkKnight69]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: DarkKnight69
hmm, since china does not stand alone and I dont think that the United states has the power to conquer russia and china...

The American military is impressive yes, but attacking chinese ships will not get them to beg for mercy!!

You misunderstood what I said.
I never said anything about the US conquering China and Russia.

The Chinese navy cannot stand against the US navy toe to toe and survive.

Our navy would just start blowing Chinese navy ships out of the water until they want to start talking.

That is an ignorant statement... If you would attack a chinese ship there would be war! There would likely not be 'talks'.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: DarkKnight69
I understand that, My comments were that you would not simply be able to pull up, blow up some Chinese warships and have them back off and beg forgiveness. Would not happen. In fact, I am willing to be that if american warship attackted Chinese warshipe they would find themselves under attack from surface to surface missles as well as air to surface missles. As well, I dont believe the majority of american ships are sitting off the coast of asia so I am thinking there would be some american war ship losses.

Dont get me wrong, I think the american military is amazing, and I am happy we are allies and are protected by you, but it would not be as simple as sinking sone Chinese ships. If you think that then you are ignorant and stupid!

The Navy would start destroying Chinese warships until there were none left then move on to the naval shipyards.

I am not saying this would happen over single day. More like a week or so. as more assets get into place. Their are fewer enemies to practice against these days so we most likely have a sizable sub force in the area already following their surface groups and subs around.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: DarkKnight69

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: DarkKnight69
hmm, since china does not stand alone and I dont think that the United states has the power to conquer russia and china...

The American military is impressive yes, but attacking chinese ships will not get them to beg for mercy!!

You misunderstood what I said.
I never said anything about the US conquering China and Russia.

The Chinese navy cannot stand against the US navy toe to toe and survive.

Our navy would just start blowing Chinese navy ships out of the water until they want to start talking.

That is an ignorant statement... If you would attack a chinese ship there would be war! There would likely not be 'talks'.

When faced with the obliteration of their fleet and shipyards along with the years and money spent on them, I think so. The loss of influence at sea against their regional neighbors won't be attractive.

 

[Starbuck1975]

The chinese would not simply allow us ships to blow them out of the water. News Flash, China and Russia would easily be able to compete with the US in total war.

China does not pose a naval threat, which has been one of the limiting factors preventing them from siezing Taiwan...they may have a lot of boots on the ground, but lack the resources to move them effectively or decisively.

The Russian military is still using Cold War era technologies and equipment, and despite the little war games that China and Russia recently demonstrated, the lethality of their combined armed forces is decades behind America.

In dealing with a nation the size of Russia or China, or perhaps an alliance between the two, it becomes a question of technology and strategy against shear numbers.

China and Russia lack the resources to launch an assault on American soil, save for perhaps a nuclear option.

Assuming a war between America Vs. China and Russia, an expected scenario would be for America to establish naval and air dominance in the Pacific, which would not be terribly difficult...although at some point, America would have to land on Chinese soil, or establish an eastern front in Russia...as lethal and effective as our military is, it could never win a ground war in China or Russia just due to both those nation's tendencies to throw their entire populations into the meat grinder, one human wave at a time.

So we would establish air and naval superiority, form a blockade, and just bleed them dry instead.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: Trianon

Originally posted by: eigen

The american public would not being willing at this point to have the nation engage in absolute war.

Unfortunately absolute war is a great way to ensure you don't engage in conflict haphazardly and that when you do you are playing to win.

Absolute war scenario doesn't work for "overthrow the dictator, build democracy" kind of war, cause it creates lifetime enemies.

No, it would pacify/ eliminate your would-be enemies. The kind of crap we are doing now in Iraq is what makes lifetime enemies. It may be harsh and draconian but if you are going to go to war you should do it balls to the wall and get the job done as quickly and efficiently as possible. Not this long drawn out crap like is going on in Iraq and what happened in Vietnam. But what is going on in Iraq would be hard to justify all out war. That is why we should never have gone in there in the first place.

That's utopic thinking, it wouldn't be applicable in real-life. If it would, it'd cost soooo many innocent people. You think too square.

In the situation of Iraq, yes it would cause too many innocent people to justify all out war. . .but what we are doing now is still killing a lot of innocent people just over a drawn out time. It's arguably costing more lives and more money than if you just hit hard and fast. War and use of military force against a sovereign nation shouldn't be something taken as lightly as president Bush seems to think. It should be a last resort. And when the situation justifies it, do it hard, do it fast, get it over with. It is precisely because of the loss of innocent lives that war should be the last resort. Innocent people will get killed in time of war. That is the harsh and draconian aspect of it that I was talking about. If you are going to go to war then you have to accept some innocent people will be killed and you have to be willing to accept that loss. If you can't accept that then you shouldn't go to war. Pussy footing around about it will just make matters worse.

How would you do it? Please explain what you mean by it.

Well, I think I already explained that I would not have gone into Iraq in the first place. I don't think the situation warrants a full blown war. Now this is just my personal opinion on the matter of war but if you are going to war, you should be prepared to obliterate anything and everything and anyone and everyone that stands in the way of accomplishing whatever it is you want to accomplish because there is NO OTHER WAY to do it. You have to do it with finality so that when it is over, there is no question that it is over. We should not have declared war on Iraq because our goal was not to obliterate Iraq. It is the horrible reality of war that Bush takes too lightly. . .the only way to truly pacify your enemy is to kill him ruthlessly and without remorse or regret. Do I think that's what should happen in Iraq? No. So we should not have gone there to begin with. But now we are there. . .and everything is all messed up which is pretty predictable. What can we do about it now? I have no idea.