America isn't fighting wars right - General

[QUOTE=kestner;27624984]Why do you care so much about what someones does in their free time?[/QUOTE] Oh come on, it's pretty funny that he made the same contentless OP on 5 different forums.

[QUOTE=fenwick;27625054]Oh come on, it's pretty funny that he made the same contentless OP on 5 different forums.[/QUOTE] I agree on that, just i was making the comment toward what he said at the end about "You need to get off the internet and not be a member of every form."

[QUOTE=SkinkYEA;27599627][img_thumb]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/19/William-Tecumseh-Sherman.jpg/472px-William-Tecumseh-Sherman.jpg[/img_thumb] We should fight wars like this guy does. Sherman's Total War.[/QUOTE] The end goal of every war should be to burn Atlanta...

[QUOTE=Stupideye;27623838]Once allied forces leave Afghanistan, the Taliban will force their way back in no doubt. It's a endless money pit.[/QUOTE] No they won't because we're training the ANA to take over from the coalition, that's why we're still there right now, trying to cut out the cancerous taliban while we're simultaneously training others to do the same.

The current middle east war overall is shit. America invades uninvited, kill some civilians and then does nothing.

snip

[QUOTE=Derubermensch;27610723]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.[/QUOTE] The harsh aspects of the Treaty of Versailles were mostly opposed by Wilson, Clemenceau was the one who was all anti-German. Al Qaeda went crazy because Kuwait wanted America's help instead of theirs.

[QUOTE=kestner;27624416]My Desktop would agree. [img_thumb]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/4940834/Desktop%20screen.png[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] time to make this my new desktop.

Awful lot of :goonsay: in this thread. I wouldn't trust FP to understand where milk comes from (hint: not a magical jug factory!) much less how to fight wars. Rolling in on insurgent-laced countries with loose ROE and a huge force is even more fucking retarded than rolling in with a huge force and retardedly restrictive ROEs, because every collateral damage incident is going to create enough propaganda to recruit another ten insurgents. Politicians do need to have a lot less control on what happens because they don't understand how anything works and ROEs need revision (not total removal), but that's really all I can agree with from the OP. Trying to fight an asymmetrical war with overwhelming force is stupid and wasteful. Of course, if the US would learn to pick up its shit and had actually helped rebuild Afghanistan the first time around, none of this bullshit would've even happened. I guess once the last BMP rolled back across the Soviet border, any motive for American involvement in Ghan did too, since they didn't so much as help them set up a stable government.

[QUOTE=MenteR;27599495]Wars are always fought the wrong way.[/QUOTE] Why is this not the end of the thread?

[QUOTE=power-mad;27632365]Why is this not the end of the thread?[/QUOTE] Because Facepunch obviously knows best when it comes to fighting wars. You know, what with all their cumulative experience. I'd wager that less than 10% of people in this thread are actually in any position to do so.

i would like to note the people we are fighting aren't fighting a war properly either

[QUOTE=RebeccaChambers;27599474] 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.). [/QUOTE] Lightweight wars? Korea and Vietnam were proxy wars, they were ONLY to combat Communism. Afghanistan is not a proxy war, but our reason for being there is pretty much police business. We are not there just to hunt down the ones that attack us , we are there to protect the world, more or less. And although many countries are involved, they also have a reason, us ( america ) were not the only ones attacked by the terrorist bastards over in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I can't be fucked to trawl through eight pages of drivel which no doubt contains stupidity the likes of which would give me an aneurysm, so tell me: has anyone tried the "WAR FOR OIL" drawcard on Afghanistan yet? If so, please tell me who and where so I can yell at them for being literally the most retarded person on the face of the planet

[QUOTE=gamefreek76;27599657]We're not fighting against any nation. We are fighting against insurgents in other countries. Long story short, it's not a war, it's a police action. Something that doesn't involve us in the first place.[/QUOTE] Something we shouldn't be doing in the first place - at least not in the current economic situation.

[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] Unless you kill [b]all[/b] the civilians, anyway.

war has gone from fightening in a field to shoting them from miles away so i think nuke?

[QUOTE=RebeccaChambers;27599474]Had we launched a full scale invasion of Iraq, I guarantee you the war would be have been over almost instantly.[/QUOTE] You're an idiot. We did launch a full-scale invasion of Iraq. We took down the entire country in 17 days.