[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Konovalov

@ TLAM Strike,

Lt. Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli, the commander of multinational forces in Iraq has it right when he said the following from this article:

So short of stating the obvious it's quite clear that I dissagree with your approach as to how Coalition forces should conduct this war which is a classic example of an insurgency.

Problem is you and the Lt. General think like Counter-insurgents while I think like an insurgent. Insurgancys don't stop until the counter-insurgent side gives in to sufficent demainds of the insurgents or they kill all the insurgents. Considering the main demaind of the insurgents is the destruction of American and Islamic Dictatorship of Iraq we have little choice but to kill all of them.

Originally Posted by scandium

How does Iraq, which is what we're actually discussing in this thread, tie into what you're saying here? Was Iraq planning an attack on the US? No, this has never been suggested and there is no indication that they were. Did Iraq pose an imminent threat to the US or its allies? The findings of the Iraq Survey Group suggest they did not. Was there any credible link between Iraq and 9/11? The Sept. 11 Commission concluded in their investigation that there wasn't. You have setup a strawman here as it has absolutely no relevance to Iraq. How you go from this strawman to a justification based upon it that the US Military gun down innocent civilians in Iraq I don't understand.

The 1991 Iraq War ended in a CEASE FIRE not a peace treaty. The US and its Allies and Iraq were still at war in 2003. US and UK aircraft in the No Fly Zones took AAA fire daily since at least 1997. Shooting at the other side is by definition a violation of a Cease Fire!

As far as gunning down innocent civilians my point is some countries still reserve that right as retaliation for unlawful acts of war. The US should too.