Originally Posted by rdeyes

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20050225/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

getting closer rock:

Originally Posted by Maplegyver

just go with a ful out assault on the terrorist groups, forget the rules of combat. go carpet bombing, and tanks... a a blitzkrieg

Originally Posted by rdeyes

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20050225/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

getting closer rock:

Originally Posted by Quze

someone would just take his place.

Originally Posted by rdeyes

liberals wouldnt stand for that rolleyes:

Originally Posted by HeadUp

thats not true, we want and end to the war, and its not like bush has been listening to or caring about anyone but his cabinet, chiefs of staff, and businessman supporters anyway

Originally Posted by Acideyez

rules of combat? ffs the insurgents have no rules, why should the americans?

Originally Posted by Ferich

Because they're not trained to fight that way.

Originally Posted by Innoxx

Yeah and if they were to fight as dirty, then it'll just be like the Soviet-Afghan war in the 70's and 80's; it'll just be two sides commiting atrocities against eachother with neither side gaining the upper hand. Seeing the head of an Iraqi insurgent being brandished by a squad of coalition soldiers on the 6 o'clock news can't be good for anyone.

Originally Posted by Ferich

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=XSM2SWPLKKBHECRBAELCF FA?type=topNews&storyID=7747574



Yeah, what a fascinating war that was. Maybe a thread about it sometime. This situation is somewhat similar. The mujahideen(sp?) would make attacks then warp into the Afghan population. Of course the Soviets would take the bait and start cleansing.

The situation in Vietnam could be compared to that also, but in my mind and on paper the Soviet killings/tactics,etc don't even come close.