Remedy for Iraq. Simple!! LTTE in local paper explains it all.

The answer to success in Iraq is plain. We need to send fewer troops and drop more bombs. Otherwise we could conceivably be in Iraq 20 years from now hearing the same scenarios in the news.

Throughout history, wars have been won with a clear intention of total annihilation of the enemy. Iraq is no exception.

Every American knows that the United States could bomb Iraq and every country sitting on its border into oblivion. But we choose not to. Meanwhile, our soldiers die.

It seems clear that Iraqi civilians help terrorist groups. If those civilians knew that aid could result in their death, their behavior would change really fast. This is how to win a war. It is an ugly fact, but a fact nonetheless. If we are not willing to fight this way, then the time to bring the troops home is now.

http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkzOTcmZmdiZWw3Zjd2cWVlRUV5eTcxMDk3NzImeXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkxNA==

A japanese aircraft carrier in the ocean makes an easily recognizable and rather large target to bomb. What do we bomb in Iraq?

I have a notion that if we went home, the Iraqi leadership and its supporters would grow spines. Right now, they have no reason to. If my neighbor said he would pay my mortgage until I got back on my feet, what incentive would I have to get back on my feet?

>If we are not willing to fight this way, then the time to bring the troops home is now.

I'm not willing to fight that way.

Bill

And the consequences would be dire! The CEOs of the oil companies might not be able to extract enough profits to get by comfortably! This cannot happen!

to liberate them from life? And by the way, who is the 'enemy' that you want to totally annihilate?

<snip>
Iraq Papers Mon:"US Army Used Neutron Bombs"
Former General Speaks, Recounts the Battle for Baghdad
AMER MOHSEN, Iraqslogger

April 8, 2007

For the fourth anniversary of the fall of Baghdad, Aljazeera published an interview with the former leader of the Iraqi Republican Guard, Saif al-Deen al-Rawi, who was charged with organizing the defenses of the capital during the 2003 invasion.

Al-Rawi claimed that US forces used neutron nuclear bombs against the Iraqi Army during the battle for Baghdad’s airport. Al-Rawi said that his units were decimated by neutron bombs which, he added, neutralize soldiers without damaging buildings and equipment. Al-Rawi also claimed that large 9-ton bombs and phosphoric weapons that can cover large areas were used during the battle.

The battle for Baghdad’s airport was the turning point of the war, and the quick defeat of the elite forces that defended the area opened the way for the general collapse of the Iraqi Army and the subsequent fall of Baghdad.

The former commander affirmed that the elite units that were engaged in the battle "fought till death" and that there were no survivors among them.

Al-Rawi is still on the list of major Ba'thists wanted by the US army, and ranks as number 14 on the list.

An alternative account of the fall of Baghdad posits that certain key leaders of the Republican Guard (like al-Rawi) had a prior arrangement with the invading forces to disband their units once the Coalition approached the capital. It is also rumored that bribes and guarantees were extended to said commanders in exchange for their "cooperation."
<MORE>

http://uruknet.info/?p=m31983&

Given we are still fighting an escalating war in Iraq, regardless of how much a country is bombed and what kinds of weapons are used, we can not win! So, without the potential of winning the war, which has now elevated to a civil war of multiple factions, we should leave now.

...the crap out of that country from the time he took office in early 1969 until he was forced to deal with Watergate. There was no peace and the U.S. ended up withdrawing under Gerald Ford after 58,209 dead U.S. soldiers, over 305,000 wounded in action, 2,330 MIAs and 766 CIAs.

Saturation bombing must be backed up with ground forces and that means that U.S. military people die in an ever escalating war without end.