O'Reilly's anti-insurgency strategy: "Fallujah should not exist. It should have been leveled a long time ago"

1. Evacuate populated area (refuge location is responsibility of the populace itself). 2. Destroy all buildings, homes and utilities. 3. Call Halliburton. 4. Keep watered with lots and lots of U.S. tax money.

War on terror? He's not talking about Iraq is he? Oh yeah, now I remember, Iraq become part of the war on terror after the start of our occupation.

Mr. 'Pen-and-Paper Combat' sure can talk a great game when it comes to war. Experienced Generals? We don't need no stinking experienced Generals! They make huge mistakes, ladies and gentlemen.

Why not gas Iraqis? That would send a message, no? I mean, where do we stop? Let's nuke Basra!

Is is Fallujah that O'Reilly wishes flattened, or San Francisco? Can't keep up with which city O'Reilly says should be wiped-out, or who ought to fear that their lives will become horrors, or which group or country will suffer by being boycotted.

So Bill, you advocate doing to Faalujah wht the Nazis did to a Czech town in WW II when the resistance killed Himmler's deputy Rhienhard Heydrich? In that incident, the Nazis killed all the men and teenage boys and shipped the women and children to the Extermination Camps in Poland. No one survived. Is that what your pushing here Bill?

I need to add also, that the Nazis completley leveled the after they killed/deported the resisdents. It was never rebuilt. The Czechs left it as it is as a memorial to those who lost there lives in this barbaric act carried out by a brutal regime which savagly suppressed any dissent or resistence to them.

"They (the Romans) make a desert, and they call it peace" Publius Cornelius Tacitus Good to see that we've evolved so much in the last 2000 years Of course, if Bill actually practiced the Christianity rather than fighting his silly 'War on Christmas' he might not be so quick to wipe out whole populations. I'm waiting for him to propose the 'Final Solution' for the Mideast any day now.

Regarding public discourse on how U.S. forces should be (ultimately must be) redeployed from the otherwise interminable Operation Iraqi Freedom, certainly FOX and Bill O'Reilly contribute nothing to it; but they cause a lot of thought on the matter. This talk about insurgents, and an insurgency, at least gives us those new words; I recall guerillas generally, the viet cong particularly, and some kind of contra 'freedom fighter' in Central America, so-called by the same bunch today, so in love with using the word 'freedom' to describe what it is they seek, whether for a Middle Eastern people, or a Central American. But the words insurgent and insurgency, my Webster's has... insurgency, a revolt against the government, not reaching the proportions of an organized revolution, and not seen as (mere) belligerency. insurgent, U.S. one who acts contrary to the policies and decisions of his political party. ...which makes me wonder: if America were somehow militarily occupied by a foreign force, what might constitute an insurgency here; I mean who would be called insurgents here, and for what reason? That is, if that shoe were on this other foot, would Americans who resisted an occupying force be called insurgents? Guerillas maybe? Certainly we wouldn't be called the viet cong. My guess would be we'd be called 'freedom fighters' if we, Americans, resisted an occupying military force. But not contras though; no way, Jose. ...and whatever we'd call ourselves, we'd probably care less what others called us; others such as TV and radio commentators back home on the turf of the occupying nation. We might not care for anything such types might call us, or say about us. ...except for calling for the destruction of an entire city; that would get our attention; that wouldn't seem like a humane thing to call for. It wouldn't even seem like a sane thing to advocate, never mind do.

But enough about "the War on Christmas." Lets lighten the mood with my thoughts on Fallujah. I pray to Jesus! Please protect me from your followers.

I suppose that O'Reilly also believes that towns in Mississippi and Alabama should have been leveled in order to destroy the KKK terrorist threat that existed there in the '60s.

All right, in no-spin news, bad news right off the top The "No spin" claim immediately followed by an opinion, a fact, and a long opinion interspersed with some factoids.

"That town -- everybody should have been evacuated and flattened."

Besides that what O'Reilly suggests is against Article 48 of the Geneva Conventions (link) which states that "the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives", what does O'Reilly think should happen to the 300,000 plus civilian population of Fallujah and how does he plan to calm them so they don't take revenge for flattening the city?

Is what O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Buchanan and other pundits doing, by suggesting the flattening of Fallujah, inviting an Al Queda attack on San Francisco, assassinations of foreign leaders (Syria & Venezuela), wish that the UN was hit by a Hurricane, all an attempt to desensitize the American public so when they do hear of crimes, torture, or atrocities committed by the US, they are not in shock?

I would challenge anyone to point to a map and show exactly where Fallujah is or name more than 5 cities in Iraq before they make blanket assertions about it. Iraq is filled with normal, regular people yearning to be free. Insurgents had taken over their town. If gangs take over a section of a city in the US, would we level it? Would we desert it? The fact of the matter is that Fallujah has over 55 schools re-opened and rebuilt thanks to Marines, Sailors, soldier and the Army Corps of Engineers along with the Fallujah Reconstruction Committe - led by Iraqis. Over half of Fallujah participated in free elections. There are 1,200 police now stationed in Fallujah. A total of $226,965,754 in Iraqi and US funding has been allocated for reconstruction efforts for FY05. More than $59 million has been spent already. In Nov 2004, while insurgents controlled the town 5% of the city had intermittent power. Today, 65% of of the city has power 8-12 hours a day. More than 80% of the city has water service as well. There is hope. The fact remains that US servicemembers and Iraqis are improving their conditions and the foundation for a proseperous and free city and country everyday, while people in the US enjoy their freedom to criticize and point fingers at the expense of the people doing all the work. Insurgents continue to try and gain a foothold with hope that Americans will tire and give up. They inflict casualties on these people and those that help them, while offering nothing but destruction and hate. Americans who openly express that we are losing or that this is not worth it are helping insurgents every time. Fallujans are fighting back and will have their freedom to live peacefully and raise their children in a free and democartic society. Incidentally, on Dec 15th Iraqis will again go to the polls and exercise their right to vote for a 3rd time. This will go largely unreported and ignored by the main stream media. For accurate information go to the IECI Website or www.iimeffwd.usmc.mil/forward

What would we do with all the people after destroying the city? The Superdome? Call Brownie? Ok O'Reilly get back to defending the "Prince of Peace" birthday.

O'Reilly promotes a similar response to terrorists/guerilla warfare as the Nazis did during WW2. If a Nazi officer was killed in an attack in Poland, Romania etc, they used to wipe out all the villages in the area as a response. It would sure send out a great message to the people of Iraq...

didn't o'reilly pay a lot of money to a former female employee to settle a lawsuit about jerking himself off while he talked to her on the phone? a real good spokesman for conservatives values