<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">We should start publicly beheading each Iraqi prisoner we have, say one per week.
</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I do consider the possibility, though, that if we killed terrorists instead of imprisoning them that would be more effective.
</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">We kill each and every one of them.
</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">For every fighter that is killed, a dozen more rise. The Americans might be killing some individuals, damaging infrastructure, cutting off supplies, but they are doing nothing to damage their cause.
The 'war on terror' will not be won by the Americans and their allies.
</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Passion alone does not carry a movement
</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">It's the one element you can't crush.
</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">You only need three or four people to conspire together. It could be quite effective, if they use their bodies as weapons.
One or two suicide bombers inside a cafe, and one or two outside to take out the crowds fleeing from the first detonation. Simple, eh?
</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">It has the potential to fail if we don't stay the course or if we allow the UN to corrupt the process. </font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Well it's certainly hindered them.
Imagine where Israel would be now without the suicide bombers. The whole issue would have had no media coverage, Israel would probably be occupying even more Palestinian land, and Israel would still be in Lebanon.
It is slow progress, but it is desperate progress.
As for Iraq, without the attacks everyone would pretty much have forgotton about it Afganistan-style, and there would be no pressure on the Americans to leave. The coalition forces have accelerated many different aspects due to the insurgent attacks and everything is going to be handed over a lot quicker because of them.
But this is not a war like any other.
This is not a war at all.
In any other conflict in history, it has been enemy verses enemy and the first one to kill their enemy wins.
This is not like that. This is much bigger, this is different, very different. The coalition forces are handling this as a conventional 'war' and that is why they are doomed to fail. The Americans are fighting harder after the invasion than they did before.
This enemy don't need guns, don't need weapons, because they themselves are the weapons. And this cause has an unlimited number of soldiers. This has to be tackled differently. They cannot simply carpet bomb a target. I don't know how they are to tackle this, I have no idea. How do you fight an enemy who will kill themselves anyway?
And don't tell me that American soldiers "are willing to die". Going into an area where you might possibly die is not the same as going to a target and blowing yourself up. Waking up in the morning knowing for certain that this is the day that you are to die, knowing that date weeks in advance. That is something quite different.
Would an American soldier blow himself up in the war on terror? Considering that Americans do everything possible to protect American soldiers, even if it costs the lives of Iraqi civilians, I think it's quite clear that they won't.
</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Good grief. The United Nations is probably the only organization on earth that can fix things. I don't doubt that the US has the ability to put an army in Iraq and keep patrolling, getting shot at and killing the odd guy for two or five or ten years, but without the UN there isn't going to be any improvement.
</font>