America isn't fighting wars right - General

Maybe we should stop getting into so many pointless wars, then we won't have this problem.

The OP doesn't seem to give a shit if innocent people die. :golfclap:

[QUOTE=gman003-main;27601202]"Shock-and-awe" is essentially the English way of saying "Blitzkrieg". And blitzkrieg was remarkably effective against the large and modernized armies of France, England and the Soviet Union back in 1940.[/QUOTE] Well England was only bombed from the air so it didnt have much effect except for morale, the targets they bombed were cities instead of military installations allowing us to retain a strong defensive airforce, which stopped them from landing on our coasts, their mistake. If England was connected to France however it would get fucked as fast as the USSR and France.

[QUOTE=cheesedelux;27609611]The OP doesn't seem to give a shit if innocent people die. :golfclap:[/QUOTE] That's not true. I'm just saying that right now the politicians are making military decisions. And the politicians care more about being politically correct than they do about winning the war. They don't have what it takes to do what is necessary to win a war.

[QUOTE=RebeccaChambers;27609704]That's not true. I'm just saying that right now the politicians are making military decisions. And the politicians care more about being politically correct than they do about winning the war. They don't have what it takes to do what is necessary to win a war.[/QUOTE] I can agree to that to be honest, they care more about what others think of them than actually achieving their goals.

[QUOTE=gman003-main;27601464]Yeah? And? N Germany is pretty much the same, except with the addition of a treaty banning them from launching a war. [/QUOTE] Late reply, but we are allowed to lunch a defensive war

I believe this album holds the solution to all problems. [media]http://www.metal-archives.com/images/5/3/8/538.jpg[/media]

[QUOTE=RebeccaChambers;27609704]That's not true. I'm just saying that right now the politicians are making military decisions. And the politicians care more about being politically correct than they do about winning the war. They don't have what it takes to do what is necessary to win a war.[/QUOTE] Do you? There is absolutely no way some armchair general like you could actually make a proper decision. It's the same when everyone says "If I had that much money I would give it all to charity". You obviously wouldn't, not if you were in that situation. If you were in a general's shoes, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't make rash decisions like that.

Must be the only thing over there than isn't on the right. :rimshot:

The problem is that every war is what leads to the next. Americans drown in the Irish sea-intervention in to WWI Germans pissed over WWI- WWII East-West global power struggle after WWII- Korea, Vietnam, Soviet-Afghan War Leftover Military State from the Cold War- Gulf War Leftover Guerrilla Movement from the Cold War- Taliban Resurgent Iraq- Operation Iraqi Freedom The only way we can stop war is if we just step back and NOT intervene for once.

America get butthurt about everything

[QUOTE=Earthen;27610190]Do you? There is absolutely no way some armchair general like you could actually make a proper decision.[/QUOTE] That was perhaps the dumbest thing I've ever heard anyone say on Facepunch before in my entire life.

People in this thread do not understand that needlessly killing civilians makes it so much worse. One reason, the obvious, that killing civilians is very wrong in a combat zone. Second reason is that killing civilians actually makes it worse for soldiers. Take a standard family, a father, mother/wife, daughter/sister and son. Wife and daughter are killed in bombing by American troops. Father and son grow extreme hatred towards Americans, and join insurgency groups to kill them. My opinion in a nutshell: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW0eiPiuUuk[/media]

Are you saying muslims dont like it when you kill them? Crazy

I wouldn't call the Korean War long OP, it was from 1950 - 1953.

[QUOTE=-n3o-;27614913]I wouldn't call the Korean War long OP, it was from 1950 - 1953.[/QUOTE] It's technically not over.

“All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.”

[QUOTE=RebeccaChambers;27599474]Pretty much every war since World War II has been fought incorrectly. America is just fighting lightweight wars, which is terrible. This is the reason we see wars last a long time (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.). If we actually invaded our enemies, things would be different. Right now we worry more about collateral damage than we do about winning the war. It's supposed to be a war, bad things happen from time to time, we have to roll with the punches. Had we launched a full scale invasion of Iraq, I guarantee you the war would be have been over almost instantly. Same goes for all of the other wars America has fought in since World War II. Politicians are making military decisions, and that is why we are stuck in unnecessarily long and bloody wars that last 5+ years. It's gotten so ridiculous now, if a soldier is being shot at by a terrorist, but the terrorist sets his gun down and just walks away (but doesn't surrender), you aren't supposed to kill him anymore, despite the fact that he was trying to kill you a second ago, and will most likely try to kill you or another American later.[/QUOTE] *sigh* do you know what a) the cold war/a proxy war b) an insurgency is

America spends way too much money on wars, that's for sure.

[QUOTE=RebeccaChambers;27600237]The lives of American soldiers are more important than those of Middle Eastern civilians.[/QUOTE] You are the reason everyone hates America.

Woah, what's with the dickwaving in this thread. Seems like you people think war is the best thing since sliced bread, what the fuck.

[QUOTE=RebeccaChambers;27607046] Contrary to popular belief? I'm fairly certain almost everyone knows that everyone hates terrorists.[/QUOTE] I was making a point that some people seem to think the "war on terror" is just some "amerikay bullshit to invade afghanistan". The War on Terror is a GLOBAL thing, with many countries fighting smaller conflicts everyday we never hear about. [editline]24th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Stupideye;27614119]People in this thread do not understand that needlessly killing civilians makes it so much worse. One reason, the obvious, that killing civilians is very wrong in a combat zone. Second reason is that killing civilians actually makes it worse for soldiers. Take a standard family, a father, mother/wife, daughter/sister and son. Wife and daughter are killed in bombing by American troops. Father and son grow extreme hatred towards Americans, and join insurgency groups to kill them. My opinion in a nutshell: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW0eiPiuUuk[/media][/QUOTE] Everyone agrees Iraq was a terrible shitty excuse for a war Afghanistan is a different story. Good has be done there, there are many Afghanis who are thankful to be free from the grip of the Taliban. (I'm sure the ones who have been mortared hate the Coalition forces equally though) The question now is, is it at all worth it to keep fighting and to provide education and hopefully try to raise a competent Afghani government? Personally, as I've stated earlier, it's not worth the human or monetary costs. But at the same time, to leave now would make these past 10 years all for nothing, as the Taliban would surely just move into power again. The ANA is not a competent military force either yet, and still has many Taliban inside of it playing both sides.

[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;27623006]Everyone agrees Iraq was a terrible shitty excuse for a war Afghanistan is a different story. Good has be done there, there are many Afghanis who are thankful to be free from the grip of the Taliban. (I'm sure the ones who have been mortared hate the Coalition forces equally though) The question now is, is it at all worth it to keep fighting and to provide education and hopefully try to raise a competent Afghani government? Personally, as I've stated earlier, it's not worth the human or monetary costs. But at the same time, to leave now would make these past 10 years all for nothing, as the Taliban would surely just move into power again. The ANA is not a competent military force either yet, and still has many Taliban inside of it playing both sides.[/QUOTE] Once allied forces leave Afghanistan, the Taliban will force their way back in no doubt. It's a endless money pit.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;27599526]the right way to fight war is to not fight at all!!!!! GIVE PEACE A CHANCE[/QUOTE] Here here!

[QUOTE=not_Morph53;27599671]"War does not determine who is right - only who is left." -- Bertrand Russell[/QUOTE] My Desktop would agree. [img_thumb]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/4940834/Desktop%20screen.png[/img_thumb]

[QUOTE=kestner;27624416]My Desktop would agree. [img_thumb]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/4940834/Desktop%20screen.png[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] That's some really shitty art/photoshop.

Do you have to make this thread everywhere? [url]http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=199243[/url] [url]http://www.giantbomb.com/forums/off-topic/31/america-isnt-fighting-wars-right/477716/[/url] [url]http://www.usmessageboard.com/military/151955-america-isnt-fighting-wars-right.html[/url] [url]http://www.politicsforum.com/national-security/6372-america-isnt-fighting-wars-right.html[/url] You need to get off the internet and not be a member of every form.

[QUOTE=RebeccaChambers;27611780]That was perhaps the dumbest thing I've ever heard anyone say on Facepunch before in my entire life.[/QUOTE]Seriously? Since when did you become a goddamn general? You're an absolute moron, a bloodthirsty one at that, and I am eternally grateful you will never have control of any size of military force. [editline]24th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Stupideye;27615179]It's technically not over.[/QUOTE]That technicality is irrelevant, there has been no resumption of full military action i.e. the 2 countries trying to invade and conquer each other, since the truce was signed. Did you know that Berwick-upon-Tweed was technically at war with Russia from the Crimean war until 1966? And before you say it, the series of incidents between them since the war have not caused the war to resume fully, just the usual round of condemnations and diplomatic shouting.

It's not that America isn't fighting wars right (sic), it's that war is different. WWII is completely incomparable to the Iraq war. Combating independent religious extremists is not the same as combating governments and armies.

[QUOTE=Hats;27624647]Do you have to make this thread everywhere? [url]http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=199243[/url] [url]http://www.giantbomb.com/forums/off-topic/31/america-isnt-fighting-wars-right/477716/[/url] [url]http://www.usmessageboard.com/military/151955-america-isnt-fighting-wars-right.html[/url] [url]http://www.politicsforum.com/national-security/6372-america-isnt-fighting-wars-right.html[/url] You need to get off the internet and not be a member of every form.[/QUOTE] Why do you care so much about what someones does in their free time?