NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1290241,00.html
I'm glad this seige is over. This has gone on for too long, too many people were killed, and Shi'ite Islam's holiest shrine was a hostage. Now, however, they appear to be regrouping in nearby Kufa. Will they ever be stopped?

Not until we kill them all.( not civilians just all the militias and armys)

You know, if you want to kill all the Shi'ites who are up in arms against the Iraqi government, there's someone with previous experience at the job that isn't currently employed. His name escapes me - but I seem to recall he had a moustache.

You know, if you want to kill all the Shi'ites who are up in arms against the Iraqi government, there's someone with previous experience at the job that isn't currently employed. His name escapes me - but I seem to recall he had a moustache.

Some times extermanation is nessecary.

I don't think it'd be necessary for total extermination. We just need to capture (not kill) al-Sadr, and have him disband the Mahdi army. It'd be likely that quite a few of the fighters will form small resistance groups of their own, but they're easy to defeat. Besides, they're less dangerous if we first force them to give up their arms. Perhaps some fighters may even go into legitamite civilian life, or maybe some could be absorbed into the Iraqi army.

Some times extermanation is nessecary.

You have to exterminate the Shi'ites in order to liberate them? Riiiight.

Isn't it interesting how these people weren't our enemies until we invaded their country? Oh, and does anyone remember Sadr's armed revolt before we tried to 'arrest' him?

(Note for future operations - when you leak the fact that he was killed during the capture before he's actually captured, it radically decreases the chance he'll turn himself in.)

I don't think it'd be necessary for total extermination. We just need to capture (not kill) al-Sadr, and have him disband the Mahdi army. It'd be likely that quite a few of the fighters will form small resistance groups of their own, but they're easy to defeat. Besides, they're less dangerous if we first force them to give up their arms. Perhaps some fighters may even go into legitamite civilian life, or maybe some could be absorbed into the Iraqi army.

No I do not think it is necessary either but if it was I would support it.

No I do not think it is necessary either but if it was I would support it.
So would I. In fact, I'm in favor of total extermination of forces on the verge of wiping out the US army, perhaps with WMDs. Hopefully, none of the resistance or terrorist groups reach that level.

I don't think it'd be necessary for total extermination. We just need to capture (not kill) al-Sadr, and have him disband the Mahdi army. It'd be likely that quite a few of the fighters will form small resistance groups of their own, but they're easy to defeat. Besides, they're less dangerous if we first force them to give up their arms. Perhaps some fighters may even go into legitamite civilian life, or maybe some could be absorbed into the Iraqi army.

And give him some dental care . Ich, have you seen his choppers?

Ich!!! (http://schnittshow.com/alsadrteeth.html)

Euclid, i completely agree with your statement regarding how best to deal with the militia, but i believe counterterror should be treated as a police action, partially to create useful loopholes and partially to justify adaptable urban warfare procedures. The USA has already taken prisoners neither subject to civilian nor military regulations and could have great use for them if they could properly retain and interrogate them, also, justification needs to be made to fund light combat tactics best suited to urban environments as well as the ability to conduct professional investigations of civilian areas. Also, if a watered down military unit trained to remove the will and ability of enemy combatants to retaliate is deployed to deal with "minor threats" it might mean a significant hit to enemy morale.

Although i feel nonlethality might be greatly useful to the US (it could extract information and offer prisoners in bargains) such a force should also be armed and entitled to at the very least destroy light vechiles and identify the source of artilerry fire, among whatever else might be useful for combat in urban centers. Perhaps a watered down sniper program which can develop marksmen who operate at lesser ranges in urban environments with lighter munitions and diffrent training to move the focus from disabling vechiles to simply killing or incapitating combatants held up in buildings or other forms of cover? There are probably a myriad of interesting concepts floating around about this.

I don't think you can just kill everyone, because there doesn't seem to be a finite number of Iraqis willing to take up arms against Coalition forces. I don't claim to have the best answer here, but killing does beget hatred. I bet there are a lot of fighters who have had a loved one killed, which is the reason they're fighting.

I guess trying to cut the enemy's money supply would help some. I read in the morning paper that the Mahdi army pays 400 dollars a month, although it was a quote from an Iraqi whose son had told him that.