Not exactly a moral booster either:
And consider the families of the troops
Troops are naturally getting demoralized. The Iraqis dislike them being there so much that they don’t mind the deaths of Iraqis who work with Americans.
Heard an ABC radio news broadcast yesterday on the latest American soldier to be shot dead in Iraq. The report included a statement from some official flack, announcing that the serviceman had been taken to a hospital where he was “medically retired”.
I guess the term “medically retired” has now been expanded to include deaths on active duty. Sounds gentler than “dead”. Of course, we could adopt the old British High Command term from WWI. In those days, when there weren’t suicidal mass assaults taking place, hundreds were still dying every day in small actions along the Western Front. The Brits used to refer to the casualties as “normal wastage”.
And speaking of casualties:
“As difficult as it may be, I do attempt to keep my political opinions neutral.”
Dammit elucidator, you’ve just increased the number of serious eye-rolling injuries by 400%. :rolleyes:
Apparently, the casualty lists aren’t the sole indicators of the number of attacks our troops face. Between the homemade bomb and Bremer’s report of the lack of an Iraqi resisance centcom, it appears to be a grassroots sort of movement. Good thing that it’s not more effective at killing our soldiers.
How about a new strategy: announce to the Iraqis that :
(1) the death of ONE US soldier will be answered with the deaths of 10,000 Iraqis
(2) any mosque found to contain weapons will be blown up
(3) any Iraqis carrying waepons will be shot on sight
Of course, this strategy might be open to misinterpretation…
Yes, brilliant idea Ralph, in the long line of them, similar strategies worked so swimmingly for the Nazis.
We still have enough nukes to turn Iraq into a sheet of glass, don’t we?
We can still get the oil out after the hostiles and potential hostiles are cleared, can’t we?
What the hell are we waiting for?
So that’s what “liberation” really means.
How is that different from Al Qaeda killing innocent Americans because they do not like what their government does?
Yeah! Cool!
You guys go ahead and do just that.
Meanwhile, I’ll open a bag of chips and a coke and sit down to watch how another US landmark goes down in flames.
It’s win-win for us CNN junkies.
(WAR ! …HUUU!.. what -is -it -goooood for…)
This may be the worst list of suggestions I’ve ever seen.
Aside from the fact that it’s morally reprehensible, it would play right into the hands of Saddam, Bin Laden, and all the other people at war with the United States. The guerrillas still fighting would LOVE this. They kill a soldier, the Americans go on a rampage, and the Iraqi citizens turn against the U.S. and turn the situation into a widepread civil uprising. In the meantime, the U.S. loses the last shred of support throughout the world.
Great plan.
Indeed. It might very well put the universal approval we are currently enjoying at risk.
I know that my post was sarcastic. I assume that ralph’s was too.
I thought that the turn Iraq into glass was over-the-top enough not to need explanation. Sorry.
:smack: :o
I, also, intended a faint note of sarcasm.
Rubbish, we’ve seen far worse in the past. There’s nothing about forced conversion, for example.
What are you talking about Sam, similar policies worked brilliantly during the Nazi occupation of Europe! Stopped the French, Ukrainian, Yugoslav resistance movements right in their tracks and won the population right over. Come now man, let’s be effective, get to the heart of the matter. In for a penny, in for a pound…
I am getting a sarcasm overdose here.
Bother, you’re just not up to speed on the successes of collective punishment to enable occupation forces. Just read a little on the beautiful results the fine German forces had, or the brilliant successes of the French in Algeria. You’ll be converted in a second.
I would not assume that, given ralph’s past posting.