ethno- you almost got me. and you're right about 1 thing.all i care about is the well being of my country.unfortunately people must die in war and if it means that others have to fall to secure our sovereignty then so be it.genocide?not sure where you got that out of what i said but its cool.no where did i say death to all iraqis.nor is it what i believe.you went wrong when you attempted to find deeper meaning in a short sentence. our military isnt geared towards gorilla warfare but towards battles in the field, air, and see. were fighting their style of war instead of making them fight ours. and our style involves blowing them away. china has already said that they dont fear a war with us because the U.S isnt prepared to do what it takes to win a war. so chew on that for awhile.
Granted, was a bit harsh on you. And I agree with you on the method of guerilla warfare. But in this last fifty years, it's generally been owned up to that we took too many liberties with too many lives. While it might mean that warfare is that much harder to wage, I think it's a step in the right direction from an ethical perspective. Additionally, if you don't care about the ethical perspective, it's simply the evolution of warfare. Hence the focus on "Future Force" and similar projects throughout most of the countries of the world. Less manpower, strategic precision strikes. Overall, reduced casualties. The technology and intelligence gathering we're capable of today makes this all possible, and preferrable. Preferable, at least, to total annihilation or wholescale bombing. Anyone who thinks the Cold War actually ended is mad. It's just shifted terms and playing fields.
I don't approve of war at all, but I do realize that armed combat, with the current state of the world, is sometimes necessary. With all of that being said, what you suggested IS tantamount to smallscale genocide, given the level of technology we have now. If the yield on our explosives doesn't wipe out an insane amount of people (more so than was ever possible in WW2 or even Vietnam), then the depleted uranium we use on our bombs will kill and/or mutate generations of Iraqis to come. In fact, what we used in the Gulf War has done just that; it's quite a reality, not hype and hyperbole. And we might have to face this in some small part now. Even though the U.S. Military said it wasn't going to use depleted Uranium shells, testing has shown that we have, despite the promises from the current administration. The amount of destruction we would cause using carpet bombing tactics would indeed wipe out the majority of the population. Hence, one of the many reasons (besides diplomatic relations with our allies) we don't use these tactics. That would be a lot of blood on our hands.
And much as it saddens me, we also have to consider how valuable that land is, and not just for the oil. I'm sure this is one of the reasons also why such tactics are not employed. Much of what is Western civilization began in that area. The archaeological and historical value of that region is worth more than all of the oil there. Unfortunately, that's been one of the least protected Iraqi resources. The U.S. military has destroyed A LOT of the archaeological record in Babylon, when they didn't need to. And received little heat for it. Likewise, when we invaded, the oil rigs were guarded, but not the museums. And we lost ancient texts that were never translated (and might never be recovered again). It might not matter to you, but I guarantee that future generations are going to downright loathe us for this. We're doing the bare minimum regarding this. Our military is stretched so thin though... I do indeed recognize the logistical problems in trying to do more.
What you said is still for the most part rephrensible. But if you think you're right on any point, convince me with logic. As you can see, I'm not close-minded, and will indeed consider your point. And this name calling and bickering between you guys... If you care about your fellow countrymen, Hempie, then try constructively conversing with them rather than demeaning them personally. I realize that fanatic liberals can be difficult to speak with. Because in their heads, they're yelling, and it shows, making it difficult to argue a point. But if you disagree with them, back up any sardonic comments made with YOUR reasoning, because most of what you've said seem to be the same sound bites heard over and over again on conservative radio. It's the proverbial pot calling the kettle black.
Politics really is one of those things that's just nearly impossible to discuss, it seems.
~Ethno
