Defending the Truth

Of course, the truth is that none of these "high ranking military officials" were around during WWI or WWII - and it's likely that they weren't around for Nam.

Obviously they know more than the average Joe does about war. But it's a little dangerous to jump to conclusions just because some "high ranking military official" said so.

We should be fighting this war like WWII. No holds barred. If we took off the gloves, there would be such screaming from the left that it would make what they do now look like a party. If we killed the civilians along with the terrorists who are hiding behind them, pretty soon the civilians would start fighting back. I know I would. I would rather be on the side that is winning instead of being taken by the loser who will get me killed.

I would fight against the side that was shooting innocent people indiscriminately. Call me a liberal pansy but I will always oppose the intentional killing of innocent people.

What many of the officers were talking about was the conduct of the Military following the end of hostilities. Martial law was imposed, military commanders were placed as governors until the local people were able to come together and work out their new government.

This allowed the military to control the attacks of what at the time were called guerillas and are today the terrorists in Iraq. By declaring martial law and setting curfews, the military was able to break the back of the uprisings which led to faster redevelopment of many areas in Germany and Japan after the end of the war. Many officers are claiming that this is what is needed today. It worked well after WWII along with the Marshall Plan.

dmk

Then you would be fighting against the Germans. Unless, of course, you're like a lot of the revisionist history liberals who want to make believe the Holocaust was not real.

The Marshall Plan was genius.

And I think Bush envisioned doing it again, after toppling Saddam. Alas, I don't think it worked - or ever could work in the Middle East, especially not now.

What are your thoughts?

Lets not close it, lets put it to good use!

I have to agree with you on this. During World War II it was a good idea as in most cases it was just one group of peoples. I also think it wouldn't work now because we are dealing with some many different groups of people, over in Iraq. Also, our percentages of troops(compared to potential enemies), on the ground, are alot less.

Sounds great but implimenting your plan will mean changing our elected offical's veiws first, which might only be possible if we elect new people to office.


VOTE GREEN in November!

I oppose killing people indescriminately also. When the rubber meets the road, you have a choice. Do you kill civilians to ensure you kill the enemy or do you let the enemy escape by hiding behind the civilians? The left wont let us do the latter and you proved that by your statement.

Who is more valuable? This is the conundrum of liberal thought. Everyone is equal, even the terrorists. They wouldn't be shooting at us if we would just leave and not piss them off. Wrong. We weren't invading them and they were attacking us regularly in the 1990s. What did Clinton to do to piss them off? They made 4 or 5 attacks on us during his terms. Everyone has to realize this is not going to go away if we just leave them alone. Cancer does not go away if untreated. It will eventually kill you. You either kill it or it kills you. Same thing in my opinion.