Could have pursued al-Qaeda, and screwed 'em to the wall. We could have done a great job there. Could have "won" that. Could have eliminated al-Qaeda for once and for all. Could have been selective and targeted.
Instead the tactics only provided a recruiting incentive for 'em. The heavy-handedness seems to have spawned more and more people willing to use terror as a tactic.
Yeah, we could have said a Magic Word and made all the bad guys disappear. How in the hell were we supposed to accomplish this amazing feat without being "heavy-handed?" And pissing al Qaeda off in the process?
You're complaining because we are "violating the rights" of combatants held in Guantanamo. Exactly what legal, non-heavy-handed, polite and proper procedures and tactics would you have advised for "screwing al Qaeda to the wall?"
This kind of talk is about as useful as going to the Marines outside of Fallujah and informing them that the solution is simple: just go in and kill only the bad guys. How hard can it be?
Current Events » in reply to What "war"?
re: war
The whole thread (28 posts)
- Sounds like a typical concentration camp...paid by your tax dollars.
- More on the SCotUS argument
- Gitmo is an abomination....
- They should be declared to "Prisoners of War" and held for the duration. That is the proper thing to do by international law. (n/t)
- "The most important theme in all the cases is the power of the president to conduct a new kind of war as he sees fit."
- It is, but it's "ours".