America isn't fighting wars right - General

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;27600158] What rules prevent us from getting what results?[/QUOTE] At the moment it's mainly very restrictive Rules of Engagement, to the point where it's cost many soldiers their lives. But also SF task groups aren't allowed to be as effective as they would be, because they are kept on a tight leash and very rarely are allowed to plan and put into action their own operations.

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;27600158]How often have these insurgencies/rebellions been in countries thousands of miles away from the army's home? And it's not not winnable, just much harder. You can target and destroy the major factories pumping out arms for an army. For a disorganized force, not so much.[/QUOTE] The British had a pretty good track record when dealing with insurrections in India or Africa.

You're supposed to line up and when both sides are ready, you shoot, at the same time and run towards each other, like the British, they took over half the world doing that.

[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;27600383]Not very often. You have to understand, most of these cases were fought by armies who don't have the red tape that 1st world countries have to deal with, so often they fought insurgencies by committing terribly inhumane acts of war. Virtually destroying the will of rebels because the price was too high to keep fighting. Obviously fighting a war like that isn't an option for any decent human being, so in our 1st world countries, your options for fighting unconventional warfare are very limited. However, this is what Special Forces excel at. Unfortunately in Iraq and A-stan, almost every countries forces are held up by retarded ROEs and political red tape. There have be so many cases in A-stan where various SF units were close to capturing high value targets, but couldn't because they have to wait to be cleared and given the go ahead. As someone else said, these wars are in effect, being controlled by politicians.[/QUOTE] Ok that's a more reasonable position. I agree with the special forces part, it seems like it would be more effective and be on a much smaller scale if we fought the insurgents with similar techniques/tactics, utilizing smaller and more focused groups rather than conventional warfare. [QUOTE=Canuhearme?;27600417]The British had a pretty good track record when dealing with insurrections in India or Africa.[/QUOTE] Yeah but again that goes back to my point that they knew that area well and already had a power base there. [QUOTE=JaegerMonster;27600416]At the moment it's mainly very restrictive Rules of Engagement, to the point where it's cost many soldiers their lives. But also SF task groups aren't allowed to be as effective as they would be, because they are kept on a tight leash and very rarely are allowed to plan and put into action their own operations.[/QUOTE] Care to go into more detail? I don't know much about the specific ROE regarding the war in the middle east

[QUOTE=Mr_Razzums;27600258]You all should look into the Afgan war "pre invasion". Before the Army/Marines/National Guard etc. came the entire war was fought with CIA drones and local militia. And god damn it was effective. Very minimal civilian causalities and the insurgents were losing moral because they were fighting an invisible enemy (drones). Should have kept it that way.[/QUOTE] Don't forget the majority of Afghanistan still doesn't know why the US is there in the first place.

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;27600251]Why?[/QUOTE] Because they are American citizens.

[QUOTE=ThePuska;27600393]It's much harder to make people believe that you're fighting a defensive war when you're just leveling a country. Israel isn't exactly well-liked for their actions in Gaza, and even they are holding back.[/QUOTE] Say what you want about Israel, but they actually get tangible results.

[QUOTE=RebeccaChambers;27600448]Because they are American citizens.[/QUOTE] Yes, they are. That makes them objectively more important why?

That's what happens when politicians try and fight a war from the other side of the world. Ridiculous how a soldier can't shoot back in fear of being convicted of "murder" and thrown in prison.

[QUOTE=RebeccaChambers;27600448]Because they are American citizens.[/QUOTE] Just because their American doesn't make them any more special. We're all human in the end.

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;27600467]Yes, they are. That makes them objectively more important why?[/QUOTE] When push comes to shove, a nation is meant to value their own citizens over another.

[QUOTE=RebeccaChambers;27600448]Because they are American citizens.[/QUOTE] No matter what flag we live under, we are all equal human beings.

[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27599736]you know war makes more money right?[/QUOTE] Half the time in your posts I can tell you have no idea what you're talking about and this is one of those posts. The way you make it sound, countries just get a steady cash flow for being in a war but you're not going to profit financially from a war unless you're actually fighting FOR something valuable.

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;27600486]When push comes to shove, a nation is meant to value their own citizens over another.[/QUOTE] Well obviously, but that's subjective. To an Afghan insurgent, their soldiers are worth more than American soldiers. I want a reason why that's objective, since she(?) stated it rather strongly. [QUOTE=Meller Yeller;27600529]Obviously trolling[/QUOTE] Yeah, pretty much, but it's still interesting to see the response.

[QUOTE=RebeccaChambers;27600448]Because they are American citizens.[/QUOTE] Obviously trolling

[QUOTE=I Broke The Sun!;27600493]No matter what flag we live under, we are all equal human beings.[/QUOTE] I didn't meant that humans aren't all equal, I meant that a country is going to value it's citizens over those of a foreign nation, like Canuhearme? said.

My Plan: 1. Eliminate all American involvement in third-world countries aside from non-profit organizations like World Vision. 2. Gain major support for this, since its what everyone's wanted the whole fucking time 3. Use savings generated from eliminating the "war" to annex Mexico. 4. Get oil. 5. Integrate stronger US police force into Mexican area. 6. Legalize Marijuana. Illegal immigration problems = Solved Drug cartels lose their w33d demand. Gang roots can be sterilized at the source. Lower oil prices, for now. United States regulations now apply to the once prominent sweatshop-esque factories in Mexico.

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;27600423] Care to go into more detail? I don't know much about the specific ROE regarding the war in the middle east[/QUOTE] I'll see if I can find official documentation, but as far as I understand it, for many NATO countries at the moment, the ROE is restricted the point where many soldiers, even when they can clearly see an armed combatant, have to wait till they have been shot at before they can fire back. If you look at some of the footage of firefights from Afghanistan, you can see clear cases where Marines or Soldiers will be in position and reporting armed combatants, but won't engage until they've been shot at.

[QUOTE=RebeccaChambers;27600545]I didn't meant that humans aren't all equal, I meant that a country is going to value it's citizens over those of a foreign nation, like Canuhearme? said.[/QUOTE] That's blindingly obvious. What's your point in pointing that out? [QUOTE=JaegerMonster;27600571]I'll see if I can find official documentation, but as far as I understand it, for many NATO countries at the moment, the ROE is restricted the point where many soldiers, even when they can clearly see an armed combatant, have to wait till they have been shot at before they can fire back. If you look at some of the footage of firefights from Afghanistan, you can see clear cases where Marines or Soldiers will be in position and reporting armed combatants, but won't engage until they've been shot at.[/QUOTE] I can somewhat understand that due to the gray area over who is a combatant period, but they should be able to engage if there's a clear threat/if they're blatantly not a civilian.

I believe that one of the big problems that still infects the US military (and furthermore, most of the armies of the Western world) is our arrogance and confidence in high technology over everything else, which originated in the "Revolution in Military Affairs" of the 1990s. We believe that any armed conflict we fight, we will solve it in short order and with minimal casualties. We think that with all our fancy gadgets, UAVs and networked systems, we can eliminate what Clausewitz calls the "fog" and "friction" of war and have total domination over the battlefield. That's all right when the enemy is totally feckless like Saddam, but a real determined foe can and will work around it all. With low-intensity conflict, I think that looking back in history is worth it. What can politicians and senior military leaders learn from past events like the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayan_Emergency]Malayan Emergency[/url]? That is perhaps one of the few times that a Western force had actually defeated an insurgency, and no, superiority in equipment and weapons wasn't the key to British victory. If you've got some time, I'd recommend reading this to see the kind of stuff the British employed against the MNLA insurgents: [url]http://www.cgsc.edu/carl/download/csipubs/historic/hist_c3_pt1.pdf[/url]

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;27600577]That's blindingly obvious. What's your point in pointing that out?[/QUOTE] That we, as citizens of America (and other first world countries) care more about our citizens than we do about some Iraqi dude who was just at the wrong place at the wrong time. While both deaths are unfortunate, one is going to have a more profound impact on our nation and people.

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;27599893]What was the last war the Western World has won since World War 2? Excluding the Falklands War, which was more of an incident then an actual war.[/QUOTE] Depending on what people class as a "proper" war (and more importantly what you would class as a "win") you could say the Gulf war. There could be more but that is the only that stands out when doing quick read of Wikipedia. I guess you could also say that the second gulf war was won, the primary objective that the US seemed to have was completed, its the aftermath that is / was the problem.

[QUOTE=RebeccaChambers;27600626]That we, as citizens of America (and other first world countries) care more about our citizens than we do about some Iraqi dude who was just at the wrong place at the wrong time. While both deaths are unfortunate, one is going to have a more profound impact on our nation and people.[/QUOTE] Yes, again: and? While it's understandable and reasonable that there is disproportionate care about the two, that doesn't mean at all that the deaths of the civilians should be treated more carelessly or there should be less effort to prevent them.

"an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" - Call of duty dead screen

[QUOTE=RebeccaChambers;27600448]Because they are American citizens.[/QUOTE] you know we can all tell that you agreed with yourself right? (the only person that does agree with your xenophobic thoughts)

500 US soldiers killed in massacre = super sad news story that is in the news for days/weeks 500 Middle Eastern civilians killed in massacre = in the news for 5 seconds, not much of a fuss made

[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27600720]you know we can all tell that you agreed with yourself right? (the only person that does agree with your xenophobic thoughts)[/QUOTE] No, he may have gone about it in a retarded way, and I'm not really the most nationalistic person, but I agree with the gist of what he is saying. We may all be human beings, but like canuhearme said, when push comes to shove, it's only natural to care more about your own people than you do about enemy combatants you do not know.

[QUOTE=RebeccaChambers;27600626]That we, as citizens of America (and other first world countries) care more about our citizens than we do about some Iraqi dude who was just at the wrong place at the wrong time. While both deaths are unfortunate, one is going to have a more profound impact on our nation and people.[/QUOTE] plz dont talk for other countries. im certain that others "first world" countries don't give a shit when an american soldier dies

A side note, the reason America didn't make all-out war against Korea and Vietnam wasn't because they were worried about collateral damage, it was because they were worried the USSR would intervene.

[I][B]I don't believe in killing, whatever the reason! Please, everyone, just give peace a chance![/B][/I]