Should we be better than this

[Joe]

It's solid reasoning, if it were Iraqis hijacking the airlines. The perpetrators of 9/11 were Saudi nationals.
No civilian deserves to die over the action of their state. But if you've got a four block area chock-a-block full of insurgents, is there a more casualty conducive method than going methodically, door-to-door? While leaving ample time and opportunity for escape?
Secure the perimeter and burn the hotspots to to the ground. Which in turn would make the next neighborhood less willing to harbor insurgents and more likely to inform if they were present - lest they burn next. Having U.S. servicemen going door to door and getting their as_ses shot off makes little sense. Ask the families who lost soldiers - there were twice as many of them than there was on 9/11.
When civilians equate the tolerance of insurgents with certain death from us, rather than possible death from them,then the the insurgency loses traction.

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by Joe

It's solid reasoning, if it were Iraqis hijacking the airlines. The perpetrators of 9/11 were Saudi nationals.
No civilian deserves to die over the action of their state. But if you've got a four block area chock-a-block full of insurgents, is there a more casualty conducive method than going methodically, door-to-door? While leaving ample time and opportunity for escape?
Secure the perimeter and burn the hotspots to to the ground. Which in turn would make the next neighborhood less willing to harbor insurgents and more likely to inform if they were present - lest they burn next. Having U.S. servicemen going door to door and getting their as_ses shot off makes little sense. Ask the families who lost soldiers - there were twice as many of them than there was on 9/11.
When civilians equate the tolerance of insurgents with certain death from us, rather than possible death from them,then the the insurgency loses traction.

I will have to think that over only because I really would rather not burn or kill civilians. This does have some merit if it's done correctly, but it is beyond me figuring out how it should be done. I don't like the door to door method and agree that's not the way to do it, fear is necessary terror isn't.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Joe

It's solid reasoning, if it were Iraqis hijacking the airlines. The perpetrators of 9/11 were Saudi nationals.

Just to clarify, this ties with reason I did not think Hamburg translated well to Iraq. In hamburg, pretty much all the deaths were civilians. Something like 60 or 70% were women and children, many of whom burned alive as they sank in molten blacktop as they tried to escape. It would have been much harder to defend such a campaign based on the circumstances of the invasion of Iraq. In wwii the Germans were murdering millions and actively pursuing world domination, aided by Japan. The situation was so dire that most people support the use of nuclear weapons to end the war. Iraq was a different situation, and whether or not Bush and Cheney intentionally misled, it was not anywhere near the dire situation of wwii. That said, Joe may very well be correct that a similar type of attack could have shortened the war.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by Joe

No civilian deserves to die over the action of their state. But if you've got a four block area chock-a-block full of insurgents, is there a more casualty conducive method than going methodically, door-to-door? While leaving ample time and opportunity for escape?

That would imply that ANY of them are afraid of death.

They don't live in your first world problems fast food instant gratification world that worries if Dunkin Donuts gets your coffee right.

All stupidity like that would do is solidify their hatred of our troops.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by likwid

They don't live in your first world problems fast food instant gratification world that worries if Dunkin Donuts gets your coffee right.

Man that's for sure, and some find it hard to understand.
Their idea of society is at the other end of the spectrum compared to ours.