While I would "prefer" to surgically(sp) f up the kidnappers, In the end, if that wasn't possible, I'd say yeah, go ahead a flatten the place they were at. That presumes that "we" know where they are. If we don't, then I say, no, don't flatten the whole place, whether I'm the hostage or not because you're going to be .. (this is so lame) throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

If we've got the location, yes, then I'd say I'd be willing to take 'em with me when I went knowing that the statement would be made that hostage taking holds no weight with us. When we find you, we will kill you and if one good guy has to go with the one bad guy that was holding them, then it's an even exchange. If we get 1/2 dozen of them to our one, then its a bonus.

As much as the temptation to just turn certain areas into glass appeals to some, and has to me at times, I just don't think thats the answer here. I'm not pretending to "Have" the answer, I'm just saying I'd like to see it stuck as hard as could be to the hostage takers as is possible with all consideration given to trying to free the hostage(s). But, like you've stated, if you'e a hostage... Let me change that, if you're an American Hostage, or a hostage of the "Coalition of the Willing", your chances of being released are slim to nill(n*ne was questionable content). You're public murder movie is worth more as propaganda then releasing you on the grounds that any set of demands has been met.

In short, If I knew the rat bastards that were holding me wouldn't live any longer then I did in that situation, I'd say, "Lets Roll". US wins, they lose.

I don't know how the Falluja situation is being reported in the US. Based upon what I have seen from many sources, most of the civilians still in the area are there for several reasons:

1) staying because they are intimidated by the terrorists

2) staying because they have no where else to go

3) staying because there is some circumstance that prevents them from leaving (ill relative or other reason)

4) some are staying because it is their home, even if they disagree with the terrorists, they refuse to abandon their homes

So I don't view this as a "hostage" situation analogous to the Iran-embassy hostage situation or even with the kidnapped hostages in Iraq. It is a war situation, where through what I regard as very poor decisions on the part of our political leaders, our troops are being asked to risk their lives to take the SAME city for the THIRD time in this war.

Before the war started, I called for more troops on the ground to occupy Iraq after the war was over, but Rumsfeld has insisted repeatedly that we had enough troops to "do the job". Well, as has been made clear, we had enough to destroy Saddam Hussein's army, but we did NOT have enough to occupy a country the size of Texas and keep the ENTIRE country under control.

This is a bit off-topic, though. My point is that this is not a "hostage" situation. This is a combat situation where we have to decide if we want to slaughter innocents to get the terrorists, or if we want to risk the lives of our troops to avoid killing people who are non-combatants in a combat zone.

We think of ourselves as "the good guys", and slaughtering innocents in the name of a cause is what "the bad guys" do. Every time I read calls to "kill them all" as some of the comments in your previous post said, I feel we come another step closer to looking more like "the bad guys" and less like "the good guys".

I've actually quit thinking of "the good guys" and "the bad guys."

I just think of it as "them and us."

Lamont