• Why the Coalition sucks in the War on Terror.
    232 replies, posted
Not much we or anyone else can do about it though.
[B]Americans, Britishers, Canadians, and other nationals whose soldiers are serving as part of the Coalition, put aside your blind patriotism for a while and hear me out. I spent the first thirteen years of my life in the Middle East, and I'm familiar, to an extent, with the way people there think. It's easy for the big rich western empire to brand anyone who opposes them a terrorist, but how many of us, through the veil of news propaganda, are looking at the big picture? Let's look at Iraq in this case, since it's the most obvious example by far. [/B] Being a devil's advocate: It's easy for the [B]you[/B] to brand anyone who sympathizes with the Middle East, to say that the Western World is in the wrong, but how are you,looking at the big picture? [B]The United States really, really had no reason whatsoever to go into Iraq. The claim that sending thousands of armed troops across a border had the noble intention of dethroning a dictator is so much hot air.[/B] Yet it still is a reason, no matter how bs it can be. [B]Since the United States invaded Iraq, many tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have died because of firefights, accidents with hellfire missiles, explosives, etc. - that's a LOT of women and children.[/B] I've never heard of an invasion that didn't have civilians dying. [B]Unless the Western world suffers under the delusion that the lives of brown people are somehow cheaper than those of Anglo-Saxons, I'm sure we agree that something is wrong.[/B] Western world does suffer that delusion, patriotism/racism, aka My country is more advanced/powerful/cooler than yours therefore we are better etc etc etc. [B]What disgusts me the most by far, however, is the fact that in the event we capture some of the militiamen that are attacking US troops, we try them as terrorists or as common criminals. Sometimes - no, most times - they're held for many years without a hope of a trial. And the trials are shams. [/B] I do not know much about this area, but from what I heard/deduced, the only reason these trials have not been publicized, is that the most these [I]belligerents[/I] will simply speak against the US. For the trials being a sham. Mayhaps. For the hope of no trial, most likely not, habeas corpus [I]I'd say[/I], [B]It's fucking disgusting. War is bad. People die. Get over it. If the United States expects the enemy to form ranks and march like sheep into a hail of their bullets, they've got another thing coming. [/B] How you've come off to me is that: it's not a war, rather a misinformed invasion, but now you're calling it a war? And since when has the US ever expected any enemy to march into its bullets? Rhetorical fallacy up in here. [B]Look at it from their point of view. A foreign western nation has invaded their country (or, in the case of foreign national militants, the country of an ally or relative.) Hundreds of people are dying every month. They have no army to defend them. Many of them will have lost people they loved to US explosive ordinance fuck-ups. Are they not justified in resisting the invaders? [/B] I'm pretty sure the US can say the same thing here, IE 9/11 hundreds die, not justified in retaliation, (among other things.) [B]To try them as criminals is just sickening. They should be treated as POWs. [/B] Read above. [B]Unless you've played too much Call of Duty and think that one guy with an AK47 can kill hundreds of tanks and helicopters and thousands of troops singlehandedly, you'll know that the guerilla hit-and-run tactics they've been employing are the only ones that will work.[/B] I do not understand how this supports your general argument. [B]I don't claim to know who is right and wrong, but I do consider the enemy legitimate combatants, even if white US politicians who are obviously motivated by racial prejudice try to claim otherwise.[/B] It seems as though you do claim what is right and wrong: Why the Coalition sucks in the War on Terror. Also more than one motive to [I]invade[/I]. [B]If you disagree, please tell me why.[/B] On the whole, I find your argument sparsely supported, and I have tried to refute most of your statements just for the hell of it. Unless I have grossly misinterpreted what you have been trying to say, (which I will take responsibility for doing so), please refute my [I]refutations[/I]? (Spell/vocabulary/grammar check up in here?)
[QUOTE=Rofl_copter;22775224][IMG]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_IzGDYJE7jOs/RlezyjdEWoI/AAAAAAAAAXs/pcPul6wqygw/s320/falluja_bridge.jpg[/IMG] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_military_company[/url] [I]On March 31, 2004, four American private contractors belonging to the company Blackwater USA were killed by insurgents in Fallujah as they drove through the town. They were dragged from their car in one of the most violent attacks on U.S. contractors in the conflict. Following the attack, an angry mob mutilated and burned the bodies, dragging them through the streets before they were hung on a bridge.[/I] I do not call animals that have hung private contracts and mutilated their bodies human. Contractors don't deserve all the shit they get.[/QUOTE] that's the risk involved in the job. They get a nice pay check every month and they chose to go there. Many of them are trigger happy anyway. Not justifying what happened, just explaining who they are.
All the taliban fight for there beliefs none of them are forced. The taliban are cowards, poor fighters and terrible parents. Everyone of those blind arrogant fuckers get what they deserve. If anything we are too easy on them with the whole "Only fire if fired upon" bullshit, if I see some fuck on the horizon with a PKM, I as his enemy should be allowed to shoot him. We cant leave until the ANA and Police are trained to combat them with minimal risks, however they need more regulations, too many taliban fighters are getting in their ranks and gunning them down the second they get a rifle. Our system about combating them is wrong old fashioned and needs to be overhauled. They are not soldiers I would show no mercy to them because I know I wouldnt receive the same.
Hah, he thinks enemy combatants who do not obey the Geneva Convention have the right to be taken prisoner. Same thing happened in World War 2. Wearing civilian clothing in combat, and using civilians as shields. All of those were offenses punishable by death. The current enemy forces use the 2 of those (civilian as shields and civilian clothing in combat) so much that it could be a fact that they are not following the Geneva Convention. The problem is, they aren't an army, they are a guerrilla force. They do not obey the Geneva Convention so if anything, it is a handicap for the coalition. Why should a terrorist group that doesn't follow the rules of war be taken prisoner by a side that does?
[QUOTE=Kybalt;22771894]tl;dr USA army is treating the enemy combatants as terrorists and criminals when they should be treated as enemy combatants and put into POW camps and all that shit. You don't put POWs on trial and then execute them for fighting against you do you?[/QUOTE] There is a difference. In a real conflict, the POWs actually weren't acting on their own will. They swear to serve the army, and can't disobey orders from chain of command. They can't stop fighting when they don't agree with the reasons of the conflict. They are also often drafted into the army against their will. Now most of the insurgents willingly participate in the combat, and even through there is some leadership, they mostly act on their own behalf. They can throw away their weapon and move away. Unless they do it during an actual conflict, I doubt anybody from their side is going to threaten them. Summary "Terrorists" - Fight on their own Actual army - Fulfills commands. I am not justifying the coalitions behavior, I think that the whole conflict is wrong, but I just want to point out that there IS a difference.
[QUOTE=Luuper;22775901]On September 16, 2007, Blackwater guards shot and killed 17 Iraqi civilians in Nisour Square, Baghdad [I]Lets kill innocent civilians and then not be reprimanded because we are not the military[/I][/QUOTE] You make it seem as though all PMCs are evil.
[QUOTE=Rofl_copter;22775224][IMG]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_IzGDYJE7jOs/RlezyjdEWoI/AAAAAAAAAXs/pcPul6wqygw/s320/falluja_bridge.jpg[/IMG] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_military_company[/url] [I]On March 31, 2004, four American private contractors belonging to the company Blackwater USA were killed by insurgents in Fallujah as they drove through the town. They were dragged from their car in one of the most violent attacks on U.S. contractors in the conflict. Following the attack, an angry mob mutilated and burned the bodies, dragging them through the streets before they were hung on a bridge.[/I] I do not call animals that have hung private contracts and mutilated their bodies human. Contractors don't deserve all the shit they get.[/QUOTE] [img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_qUFDMUpk9jE/SrJethY3iqI/AAAAAAAAYyc/yNuo4inWeN0/s400/U1507138.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=noctune9;22778495][img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_qUFDMUpk9jE/SrJethY3iqI/AAAAAAAAYyc/yNuo4inWeN0/s400/U1507138.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] dear lord that's disturbing
The US with its allies were able to defeat Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan and their well-trained armies, air forces and navies in just 4 years over the span of the entire planet, yet we are unable to tie down one relatively minuscule territory with a bunch of under trained extremists who are nothing more than an infantry force in NINE years?? And we have even more nations supporting the US there than there were allies in WWII.
It seems like Archangel is using his time spent living in the middle east as the best source for his information being true. Which doesn't seem like the case at all. It seems like he should do a bit more research.
[QUOTE=P1X3L N1NJA;22776905]All the taliban fight for there beliefs none of them are forced. The taliban are cowards, poor fighters and terrible parents. Everyone of those blind arrogant fuckers get what they deserve. If anything we are too easy on them with the whole "Only fire if fired upon" bullshit, if I see some fuck on the horizon with a PKM, I as his enemy should be allowed to shoot him. We cant leave until the ANA and Police are trained to combat them with minimal risks, however they need more regulations, too many taliban fighters are getting in their ranks and gunning them down the second they get a rifle. Our system about combating them is wrong old fashioned and needs to be overhauled. They are not soldiers I would show no mercy to them because I know I wouldnt receive the same.[/QUOTE] they have RoE because not everyone holding a gun in a war-torn country is out there to kill them, it's called protecting yourself and the US has done nothing but make things worse, instead of sticking their corrupted noses into other countries' business, they should deal with their own problems first
Mercs they do the dirty job...
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;22779490]The US with its allies were able to defeat Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan and their well-trained armies, air forces and navies in just 4 years over the span of the entire planet, yet we are unable to tie down one relatively minuscule territory with a bunch of under trained extremists who are nothing more than an infantry force in NINE years?? And we have even more nations supporting the US there than there were allies in WWII.[/QUOTE] you can't defeat terrorism, you can't win by conventionally fighting against guerrilla warfare, it's not possible terrorism has already won, it won a long time ago. people live in fear, look at what happened in New York not too long ago, for weeks after that van in Times Square, everyone was afraid of everything the "war on terrorism" was over before it started [editline]02:25PM[/editline] you can kill every member of every terrorist organization out there, and within a week you'll have 20 more each with their own reason to fight and terrorize
I think nobody should fight for rich people who want them to fight for their money or to make the flag they have more better and all the it's like chess my bruder said we are all pawns in a giant chess board and the king hides behind these castle shaped pieces and he is really a bad man. I don't like bad men and I see some in the shop I think about how mean men are better at getting other men to do things that the mean man is better at thinking more bad things about and he will do them and tell them to and is not afraid to be bad. And he gets better and better and then he stops playing chess and the other pieces are telling him what to do that are not the pawns but better ones. And these were the ones that were ALWAYS telling the king what to do they were the rich bad men who made the poor bad men do bad things to the other kings yucky men who were no good anyway. But some of the yucky men who were no good were actually good but nobody ever would know because the bad kings had them kill each-other and that makes me really sad and it's always the same thing but the giant chess board is more difficult to understand to make people want to play it and make them think it is ok to die for a bad man who makes up confusing reasons for people to kill people I want to kill all the bad men but my brother said when you kill the big bad men there are other bad men who want to be the best bad man too and there are too many bad men.
[QUOTE=archangel125;22771836]Americans, Britishers, Canadians, and other nationals whose soldiers are serving as part of the Coalition, put aside your blind patriotism for a while and hear me out. I spent the first thirteen years of my life in the Middle East, and I'm familiar, to an extent, with the way people there think. It's easy for the big rich western empire to brand anyone who opposes them a terrorist, but how many of us, through the veil of news propaganda, are looking at the big picture? Let's look at Iraq in this case, since it's the most obvious example by far. The United States really, really had no reason whatsoever to go into Iraq. The claim that sending thousands of armed troops across a border had the noble intention of dethroning a dictator is so much hot air. Since the United States invaded Iraq, many tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have died because of firefights, accidents with hellfire missiles, explosives, etc. - that's a LOT of women and children. Unless the Western world suffers under the delusion that the lives of brown people are somehow cheaper than those of Anglo-Saxons, I'm sure we agree that something is wrong. What disgusts me the most by far, however, is the fact that in the event we capture some of the militiamen that are attacking US troops, we try them as terrorists or as common criminals. Sometimes - no, most times - they're held for many years without a hope of a trial. And the trials are shams. It's fucking disgusting. War is bad. People die. Get over it. If the United States expects the enemy to form ranks and march like sheep into a hail of their bullets, they've got another thing coming. Look at it from their point of view. A foreign western nation has invaded their country (or, in the case of foreign national militants, the country of an ally or relative.) Hundreds of people are dying every month. They have no army to defend them. Many of them will have lost people they loved to US explosive ordinance fuck-ups. Are they not justified in resisting the invaders? To try them as criminals is just sickening. They should be treated as POWs. Unless you've played too much Call of Duty and think that one guy with an AK47 can kill hundreds of tanks and helicopters and thousands of troops singlehandedly, you'll know that the guerilla hit-and-run tactics they've been employing are the only ones that will work. I don't claim to know who is right and wrong, but I do consider the enemy legitimate combatants, even if white US politicians who are obviously motivated by racial prejudice try to claim otherwise. If you disagree, please tell me why.[/QUOTE] Agree wholeheartedly.
His whole argument makes some sense but he mentions all nations of the coalition yet just goes on and on about America. Plus, terrorists aren't people in my mind. They are fucking animals that deserve to all die. We are, for lack of better words, too nice. We need to install pyschological warfare. We need them to shit themselves in fear when they see us. For every other captured Taliban or terrorist, have public executions. Go old school, beheadings, gallows, anything. They won't listen. Nothing were doing works. Sure maybe public executions are a little far but anything to make them lose the will to fight. Scare them out of their fucking minds.
[QUOTE=NuclearAnnhilation;22780744]His whole argument makes some sense but he mentions all nations of the coalition yet just goes on and on about America. Plus, terrorists aren't people in my mind. They are fucking animals that deserve to all die. We are, for lack of better words, too nice. We need to install pyschological warfare. We need them to shit themselves in fear when they see us. For every other captured Taliban or terrorist, have public executions. Go old school, beheadings, gallows, anything. They won't listen. Nothing were doing works. Sure maybe public executions are a little far but anything to make them lose the will to fight. Scare them out of their fucking minds.[/QUOTE] uh no, terrorists are people who have been misguided or have been wronged to the point where they fight for their belief, and it's not always a bad thing
[QUOTE=hehe;22771939]The coalition's reasons for invading Iraq where definatly mixed up. They tried really hard to establish a link between Al-Queda and local Iraqi fighters. Afganistan and the whole Al Queda business is more of a response to the attack planned and executed by Bin Laden while he was a part of the Islamist movement in the late 80s, America was in Saudi Arabia at the time and Bin Laden saw that as threat to the Islamic nations, thus he started a war against the West and particularity Jews. Bin Laden woke the sleeping giant, now hes paying for it. Edit: Al Queda can be labeled as a Terrorist organization and its member are terrorists, the intentionally spread panic and fear through violent acts against non combatants.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=JerryK;22781006]uh no, terrorists are people who have been misguided or have been wronged to the point where they fight for their belief, and it's not always a bad thing[/QUOTE] No, terrorists are not "misguided souls". Terrorists are people who cause terror because they believe it will bring something better.
And by better, only better for them and no one else.
It was okay when the kids did it in Red Dawn. They're patriots. It was okay when the Afghans did it against the Soviets with US backing. They're patriots. It's not okay when the Afghans and Iraqis do it against the US, sometimes even the same ones that did it against the Soviets. They're terrorists.
[QUOTE=Detective P;22781749]It was okay when the kids did it in Red Dawn. They're patriots. It was okay when the Afghans did it against the Soviets with US backing. They're patriots. It's not okay when the Afghans and Iraqis do it against the US, sometimes even the same ones that did it against the Soviets. They're terrorists.[/QUOTE] It's okay to fight an invading power. The methods that the insurgents use are absolutely not acceptable. With one hand, they decry the coalition for violating human rights while the other dresses their soldiers in civilian garb, hands bomb vests to children and decapitates any who support the coalition forces. That's a mere fraction of the atrocities they commit. There's a fine line between freedom fighters and terrorists. Unless you can point out the scene in Red Dawn where the Wolverines bomb the school that the Soviets are trying to open so that American women will be able to have an education?
Everything of war sucks.
[QUOTE=Detective P;22781749]It's not okay when the Afghans and Iraqis do it against the US, sometimes even the same ones that did it against the Soviets. They're terrorists.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/africa-mideast/suicide-bomb-kills-40-wedding-guests-in-afghanistan/article1598766/[/url] Yeah. They are.
[QUOTE=JerryK;22781006]uh no, terrorists are people who have been misguided or have been wronged to the point where they fight for their belief, and it's not always a bad thing[/QUOTE] One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
[QUOTE=JerryK;22779710]you can't defeat terrorism, you can't win by conventionally fighting against guerrilla warfare, it's not possible terrorism has already won, it won a long time ago. people live in fear, look at what happened in New York not too long ago, for weeks after that van in Times Square, everyone was afraid of everything the "war on terrorism" was over before it started [editline]02:25PM[/editline] you can kill every member of every terrorist organization out there, and within a week you'll have 20 more each with their own reason to fight and terrorize[/QUOTE] Wasn't referring to the war on terror, I meant the Afghan war. Sorry for not being specific, my fault.
We aren't doing badly just on the political and social areas, but also in the military aspect as well. What our soldiers do in Afghanistan when they bump into the enemy and fight? Call in air and artillery support with the assumption that our vast firepower and technological superiority will then annihilate the opponent, but that rarely happens. Our guys still have to remedy the fact that they can't fight as well as the Taliban in the local terrain with firepower. Most ISAF troops just carry too much equipment methinks. Hell they'll probably carry the kitchen sink once it looks techno-new and is digitized and this won't enable them to be as mobile as the Taliban are. The effects of air power and precision guided munitions is still massively overstated. I think it's the fact that the population and Western culture still assumes that their soldiers are the best warfighters in the world and that their training and skill will make any war they fight a "clean" war won with the latest in weapons and technology and with low casualties.
[QUOTE=Regulas021;22781834]It's okay to fight an invading power. The methods that the insurgents use are absolutely not acceptable. With one hand, they decry the coalition for violating human rights while the other dresses their soldiers in civilian garb, hands bomb vests to children and decapitates any who support the coalition forces. That's a mere fraction of the atrocities they commit. There's a fine line between freedom fighters and terrorists. Unless you can point out the scene in Red Dawn where the Wolverines bomb the school that the Soviets are trying to open so that American women will be able to have an education?[/QUOTE] Not all insurgents do that, infact most don't, only specific groups, and some of them believe that what we're doing is wrong- we don't have the right to go in, create an institution directly opposing the majority belief and view, and not see some sort of action. Is it right on there part? No. But the way they see it, we're shitting on them. It's based on point of view- they believe that this is right, we believe something else is. We obviously believe that we're right, we're doing the right thing even though it opposes their beliefs and culture, but from their point of view, we're the bad guys, and they're doing the good thing. I do remember the part in Red Dawn where they bomb a Soviet-run Soviet-American Friendship Station, which very well could have had civilians in it and did have civies around it. I also recall the part where they allow the Soviets to mow down a bunch of civilian political prisoners. And I recall the deleted scene where they assaulted a Soviet-held operating McDonalds containing civilians.
[QUOTE=Pantz76;22781286]No, terrorists are not "misguided souls". Terrorists are people who cause terror because they believe it will bring something better.[/QUOTE] that's what i just said
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.