Originally posted by Seito4Counter
The U.S. did not turn Iraq into glass, well because of international implications (although i doubt rumsfeld and his cronies care about the humanitarian ramifications) but because that would annihalate Iraqi infastructure. Buildings and roads that companies like Haliburton need.
Also, you can combat guerillas while minimizing civilian casualties. It called intelligence and secret service activity. In the case of Iraq you have a population which does not take to being conquered. Iraqi culture is an ancient one and I am sure Iraqis are proud of their nationalism. I don't think they like a bunch of gringos running around putting Israeli agents into their government (Chalabi).
Now I state that because the most effective way to combat guerillas is to get the local population to do it for you. To do this you must have the locals acknowledge the fact that the guerillas do not help them. In Iraq I am sure no one likes guerillas running around shooting people but I am sure they would like their country back.
You look at this combat as something that requires brute force, and without using brute force there will be casualties.... a very gringo attitude. This is the problem with U.S. command and was in Vietnam as well. You don't send an army for this type of mission, because it cannot combat guerillas without massive civilian casualties.
So in that case the U.S. CANNOT effectively supress guerilla actions, since it would not dare nuke a country so blatently. Your countries sons and daughters are dying in vain... for some sort of Bush type to make more money. On top of that you have an idiot commander Sanchez.. that man should not be allowed to hold a rifle, much less command an army, division, company, or battalion.
If you really wanted to "liberate" Iraq from Saddam, you organize a coup. An example being communist Poland. The U.S. did not go toe to toe with the USSR, but organized a coup...(the pope helped alot in that). Now, I am sure that someone in the government realized this.. So why did the U.S. not follow that model? Because the intention of the U.S. was not to liberate the Iraqis and give them their own government. The intention was to create a puppet state in Iraq. Unfortunatly this has been tried before.. and if the U.S. withdraws there will be huge civil war resulting in a 3 way partition of Iraq. Kurds, Sunni, Shiite. So, as I doubt America will win an intellectual war in Iraq, as they are the aggressors, it will be a long long time in Iraq, or an accepted "tactical withdrawl" similar to the 1970's.
So to tie this all together, don't feed me crap like the U.S. could just obbliterate the world.. and turn Iraq into dust.. it won't and wouldn't happen. That is a very childish recourse. I suggest you grow up and face the world as it really is.
