Iran invades Iraq: U.S. bombs fall on Tehran

[TomT]

This country is to wrapped up in trying to be "the good guy". We will never be the good guy in the mid-east. Instead lets be the country that NO ONE dares f*ck with. THAT Muslims would accept and respect. Believe me, they look at things like negotiations as a sign of weakness.

 

[Adam Smith 2]

Remember that it was a Democrat President who ordered the A-bombs dropped (back when the Dems had balls).

Are you saying that it's macho and ballsy to kill innocent women and children if that's what it takes to win a war? I think that is cowardly, and I don't agree with Truman's choice. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that point.

Does that go for the Muslims too?

Yes. They should be ashamed of themselves, absolutely. The fact that they are not is what sets us apart, and I'd like to keep it that way. If the U.S. does equally horrible things to civilians, and has no shame, we are no better. You really can't argue that without having a double-standard that arbtrarily favors the U.S.

 

[Josh Langel]

Adam,



What should we have done to end the war with Japan?

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Mud Flap, Japan was a country...a small island nation. Islamic terrorists are a global threat. I'm not sure you can equate the too.

 

[Josh Langel]

TJR,



I am not trying to compair the two.



But, I sure as hell know that we can be fighting this war much more aggressive than we are now. That's the point.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Mud Flap, I agree we could be fighting it more aggressively. But not without significant civilian casualties. For example, if we wanted to nuke every country and city that harbors Islamic terrorists that would have to include Detroit.



TJR

 

[Adam Smith 2]

I'm not a WWII historian, and the war with Japan was more than 3 decades before I was born, in a very different era for the U.S. which I did not experience. So my criticism of Truman is obviously not going to put me in his shoes, and hindsight is 20/20 they say (even Robert Oppenheimer expressed shame over the bombing, and resigned).



That said, it seems like a slightly longer war with more military targets would have been the best idea. Japan was not causing mass casualties in the U.S., Pearl Harbor was an isolated event that got 100-fold retribution. What I was criticizing was the obvious complete lack of attempt to spare civilians. The U.S. fire-bombed parts of Tokyo that they knew full well were just residential areas. Ditto for where they dropped the nukes, non-military targets.



I applaud the use of laser guided bombs and careful surgically precise warfare in the middle-east, and I know there will always be some civilian loss in any war, but when you propose something like indescriminate bombing of a dense city like Tehran, you've lost my support.

 

[Josh Langel]

No, I am not saying nuke them. Never did.



But did we have to take on Fallujah in the way we did?



What stopped us from bombing the hell out of them. Better yet, surrounding the city, give the residence 24hrs to leave. After that, your considered hostile. Then we go in with a massive air strike, wiping the city off the planet. one by one... clean Iraq up like a pile of ants.



Not to mention, we should devide Iraq into two. North and South. It's worked before... these people can't live together. With or without US involvement.

 

[shawn stonbraker 2]

I have to agree with Mud Flap and the others that say we need to show more balls over there. Am I saying Nukes are the answer? Unfortunately, no. After being over there for the first Gulf War, (and seeing what the soldiers did with the bodies of baby Kuwaiti's to send the incubators home to Iraq) there is nothing more I'd like to see is a glass parkinglot made over there, the problem is, the ones causing most of the problems over there aren't Iraqi's. They are from other countries. As for the "innocent" women and children bits that are throw out there, these are the same ones that breed, and grow up to replace these a**holes. There is no correct way to answer the problems over there. But walking on egg shells isn't going to work. You need to hit these bastards in the balls to get it into their thick skulls, that we are not a nation to mess with. How are they to show "shame" when they believe they are doing exactly what thier God is telling them? They are the "underdogs" and has an underdog ever felt shame for thrusting a killing shot to the "more powerful" opponent? Nope.



As for the bombs dropped on Japan. I think it was a nessessary evil to retaliate for the one they pulled at Pearl Harbor. Was there no "collateral damage" done in Pearl Harbor? Did we show them that we were a nation not to be F-ed with? Yes. Things went pretty good after we dropped the "big one". I saw an interview of an old "Zero" pilot that flew at Pearl Harbor. This was on the anniversary of PH last year, the old guy still talked about how he didn't like Americans and how proud he was of what they did that day. He didn't sound to "shamed" during that interview.



This is just my 2 cents.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Mud Flapp,



You suggest the following:

...surrounding the city, give the residence 24hrs to leave. After that, your considered hostile. Then we go in with a massive air strike, wiping the city off the planet. one by one... clean Iraq up like a pile of ants.

I'm not sure how that would work. Wouldn't everyone leave? Seems to me most all that could would, and since we can't tell the terrorists by looking at them, we can't really pick out the terrorists from the fleeing crowd as they leave the city. Likewise, those that did stay would probably be the unfortunate ones that simply couldn't get out, like the New Orlean victims.



I'm skeptical of your plan. I think the terrorists would leave and unfortunate civilians would be killed in the air strikes. Your plan presumes that the terrorists would stay to die and there would be no logic in assuming that.



TJR

 

[Josh Langel]

I'm not sure how that would work. Wouldn't everyone leave?

A retreat? I highly doubt it.



It's quite obvious; they're not leaving. In fact, I believe they would go out of their way to be sure to kill as many of us in Fallujah.



I believe they would hold their ground.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Mud Flap, the reason they aren't leaving is because we are an occupying force and an easy target, thus they stay and pick away at us. If we circled the city and told everyone to evacuate the terrorists would, along with most everyone else. Then we would feel good about ourselves as we bombed the city into rubble, but the terrorists would still be there, elsewhere, ready to fight another day.



TJR

 

[Josh Langel]

Then we would feel good about ourselves as we bombed the city into rubble, but the terrorists would still be there, elsewhere, ready to fight another day.

I just don't believe they would all just leave and give up their town to us.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Mud Flap says:

I just don't believe they would all just leave and give up their town to us.

Their town?



So which is it? The party line has always been that our invasion BROUGHT the terrorists to the region. If that's true, those terrorists are "just visiting?"



Or, did somehow the residents "turn into" terrorists once we became an occupying force?



I just don't know which side to believe anymore. A smart man would assume the "truth" lies somewhere in between the propaganda spewed by both sides.



BTW...I haven't picked a side yet. I was on a side, but now I see that side is about as coordinated as a monkey screwing a football.



TJR

 

[Gypsy me]

It needed to be done unfortunately to Japan, and once we did that we spent billions to help rebuild them. Look at Japan today.



War is a necessary evil, nobody wants it ..nobody likes it...but without it We would not have theluxuries we take for granted everyday. Simple things like posting opinions on a website for example.



Got to go to work now, (my choice) another luxury.

 

[Gavin Allan]

A couple of questions, the first one really basic:



1. Where the hell are the Iraqis getting all their bullets, bombs, gunpowder, etc.? Seriously--they have been shooting, fighting, and blowing stuff up for over ten years, but yet there seems to be a never-ending source of ammunition and ordinance for the terroists and insurgents.



2. Say Bush's plan is successful and the surge cleans up Baghdad. What about all the other cities and the rest of the country? How will that get cleaned up? How will the borders be secured to keep the insurgents, terrorists, enemies, and their supplies, ammunition, and ordinance restocking out?



3. I don't have the answer, and at this point, with very little choice, I think the troop surge might be the best choice for us to take. If we leave we know what will happen. If we stay we know what will happen. There just doesn't seem to be many alternatives. However, if we are doing the troop surge, maybe we need the MOTHER OF ALL TROOP SURGES and we should flood the country with 100,000 additional troop surge and GIT-R-DONE?



.

 

[TomT]

I'm against additional troops if we are just going to remain an "occupation force". They aren't trained for that. Soldiers are trained to kill. Now if we send them in to fully utilize their training then I'm all for it. GIT-R-DONE or GET THE HELL OUT.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

gypsy~me, this war isn't necessary. Some in the past were, to protect our way of life. This isn't one of those wars.

 

[Josh Langel]

this war isn't necessary. Some in the past were, to protect our way of life.

I agree, but remember: it's all a matter of opinion. I am sure people can think of 3093 reasons why we're over there.



BTW, 3093 is the number of troops killed since we invaded Iraq.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Wow, Mud Flap.



You are saying that some are justifying the war in Iraq by the number of military men and women killed in the war in Iraq.



Again, that seems illogical.



That would be like me saying I am justified in breaking into my neighbors house because once I do he punches me in the nose.



TJR