[QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;27600750]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.[/QUOTE]
what? USSR fought in the korean war and supplied them with guns and shit
[QUOTE=Meller Yeller;27600511]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]
Well if your war profiteering thats not always true and 2nd opium and oil are worth something if you are talking about resources.
It happens all the time. Millions of Chinese coal miners die, and we barely hear about it. 6 Americans are killed by the AZ shooter and it's still in the front page news.
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;27600745]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]
You think the life of an American is worth more then someo0ne from a different country?
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;27600745]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]
We're talking about foreign citizens, not combatants. And while it's true that it's natural/understandable, they're using it as a pretext for a justification of war tactics that disregard citizenry far more than they are now for heightened efficiency.
I actually agree with the OP. If you're going to fight a war, you need to actually fight it.
Basically, you have to recognize that, no matter what, you're going to be seen as an asshole. So, you might as well be a successful asshole, rather than an incompetent one.
America has the "invade the country, utterly destroy all organized military resistance with shock-and-awe" part down. Just look at Iraq - 21 days from the start of the invasion to the fall of Saddam's regime. Three weeks. Against a force twice its size. That should have been enough to prove to the world that "you do not fuck with America, because we will FUCK YOUR SHIT UP."
Unfortunately, after that, we tried to make Iraq a friend, an "ally". Didn't work. The only thing it was successful at was redirecting terrorist activities to somewhere outside America.
You want to know how I would have done it? I would be brutal. I would be vicious. I would be barbaric. You kill one of my men, I kill ten of yours. You plant an IED, I drop a GBU-43 on you. You have a sniper take potshots at my base, I return fire with a 155mm howitzer. You blow up one of my Hummvees, I blow up one of your villages. Quid pro fucking quo. Not just "an eye for an eye", this would be "massive retaliation".
Basically, I would fight terror with terror. "Kill all sons of bitches". Those would indeed be my official instructions.
Enemy casualties would be high. Civilian casualties would be higher. The country might not be habitable by the end of it. The entire world might hate us at the end of it. But it would work. And you know what? Let them hate, so long as they fear.
However, I hope that fighting wars this way might, paradoxically, make wars less common. If war meant "utterly destroying your enemy", rather than "police the country for a decade", it might make alternative options seem more usable. That would be for the best.
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;27600783]We're talking about foreign citizens, not combatants. And while it's true that it's natural/understandable, they're using it as a pretext for a justification of war tactics that disregard citizenry far more than they are now for heightened efficiency.[/QUOTE]
Where did I say that we should disregard civilian life? I'm just saying that if you can save hundreds/thousands/millions of American lives at the cost of a few civilians, then the end justifies the means. Look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
[QUOTE=RebeccaChambers;27600808]Where did I say that we should disregard civilian life? I'm just saying that if you can save hundreds/thousands/millions of American lives at the cost of a few civilians, then the end justifies the means. Look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.[/QUOTE]
You have an odd definition of few, then. I would count few as 2k-3k max, not 200,000.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;27600799]I actually agree with the OP. If you're going to fight a war, you need to actually fight it.
Basically, you have to recognize that, no matter what, you're going to be seen as an asshole. So, you might as well be a successful asshole, rather than an incompetent one.
America has the "invade the country, utterly destroy all organized military resistance with shock-and-awe" part down. Just look at Iraq - 21 days from the start of the invasion to the fall of Saddam's regime. Three weeks. Against a force twice its size. That should have been enough to prove to the world that "you do not fuck with America, because we will FUCK YOUR SHIT UP."
Unfortunately, after that, we tried to make Iraq a friend, an "ally". Didn't work. The only thing it was successful at was redirecting terrorist activities to somewhere outside America.
You want to know how I would have done it? I would be brutal. I would be vicious. I would be barbaric. You kill one of my men, I kill ten of yours. You plant an IED, I drop a GBU-43 on you. You have a sniper take potshots at my base, I return fire with a 155mm howitzer. You blow up one of my Hummvees, I blow up one of your villages. Quid pro fucking quo. Not just "an eye for an eye", this would be "massive retaliation".
Basically, I would fight terror with terror. "Kill all sons of bitches". Those would indeed be my official instructions.
Enemy casualties would be high. Civilian casualties would be higher. The country might not be habitable by the end of it. The entire world might hate us at the end of it. But it would work. And you know what? Let them hate, so long as they fear.
However, I hope that fighting wars this way might, paradoxically, make wars less common. If war meant "utterly destroying your enemy", rather than "police the country for a decade", it might make alternative options seem more usable. That would be for the best.[/QUOTE]
You're pretty much a socio/psychopath and your tactics would make the US a pariah likely to get attacked by many, many other nations. So good thing you don't decide anything important.
[QUOTE=RebeccaChambers;27600774]It happens all the time. Millions of Chinese coal miners die, and we barely hear about it. 6 Americans are killed by the AZ shooter and it's still in the front page news.[/QUOTE]
6 americans killed by the AZ shooter, chinese people barely hear about it. Millions of chinese coal miners die and it's still in the front page news. this would be the case if you were chinese.
[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]
You're not taking into account for how long we had to occupy those countries that we absolutely devastated after World War 2.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;27600799]I actually agree with the OP. If you're going to fight a war, you need to actually fight it.
Basically, you have to recognize that, no matter what, you're going to be seen as an asshole. So, you might as well be a successful asshole, rather than an incompetent one.
America has the "invade the country, utterly destroy all organized military resistance with shock-and-awe" part down. Just look at Iraq - 21 days from the start of the invasion to the fall of Saddam's regime. Three weeks. Against a force twice its size. That should have been enough to prove to the world that "you do not fuck with America, because we will FUCK YOUR SHIT UP."
Unfortunately, after that, we tried to make Iraq a friend, an "ally". Didn't work. The only thing it was successful at was redirecting terrorist activities to somewhere outside America.
You want to know how I would have done it? I would be brutal. I would be vicious. I would be barbaric. You kill one of my men, I kill ten of yours. You plant an IED, I drop a GBU-43 on you. You have a sniper take potshots at my base, I return fire with a 155mm howitzer. You blow up one of my Hummvees, I blow up one of your villages. Quid pro fucking quo. Not just "an eye for an eye", this would be "massive retaliation".
Basically, I would fight terror with terror. "Kill all sons of bitches". Those would indeed be my official instructions.
Enemy casualties would be high. Civilian casualties would be higher. The country might not be habitable by the end of it. The entire world might hate us at the end of it. But it would work. And you know what? Let them hate, so long as they fear.
However, I hope that fighting wars this way might, paradoxically, make wars less common. If war meant "utterly destroying your enemy", rather than "police the country for a decade", it might make alternative options seem more usable. That would be for the best.[/QUOTE]
Brilliantly said!
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;27600577]That's blindingly obvious. What's your point in pointing that out?[/QUOTE]
It's necessary to point out the blindingly obvious to blindingly stupid people.
The wars going on now would have ended if the combatants fought like they should (i.e. Has uniforms, doesn't kill innocents, etc.).
[QUOTE=RebeccaChambers;27600808]Where did I say that we should disregard civilian life? I'm just saying that if you can save hundreds/thousands/millions of American lives at the cost of a few civilians, then the end justifies the means. Look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.[/QUOTE]
To be fair, the bombings most likely resulted in LESS deaths on the Japanese side also.
Whoa, this is groundbreaking. We should start writing letters to generals.
USE NUKES LOL
caps
[QUOTE=Extroll;27599606]I'm a pacifist in most cases but if I was the General of the Army I wouldn't waste time dicking around with diplomatic bullshit if I knew I could win the war with brute force in a matter of weeks or even days.[/QUOTE]
So basically the lives of other human beings mean nothing to you.
[QUOTE=Amez;27600855]You're not taking into account for how long we had to occupy those countries that we absolutely devastated after World War 2.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps, but they didn't try to kill us after we built them back up.
[QUOTE=amcwatters;27600871]It's necessary to point out the blindingly obvious to blindingly stupid people.[/QUOTE]
I'm glad to know my concern for human life and not just wantonly killing people makes me blindingly stupid.
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;27600836]You're pretty much a socio/psychopath and your tactics would make the US a pariah likely to get attacked by many, many other nations. So good thing you don't decide anything important.[/QUOTE]
The important question is this:
If the US had followed those tactics in Iraq, would anybody dare attack the US again, knowing what would happen if they didn't succeed, and seeing the slim chances of their success?
If being a psychopath is the only way to win a war, then so be it. If a war must be fought (something I actually hope doesn't happen), then put a psychopath in charge until you've won.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;27600799]
You want to know how I would have done it? I would be brutal. I would be vicious. I would be barbaric. You kill one of my men, I kill ten of yours. You plant an IED, I drop a GBU-43 on you. You have a sniper take potshots at my base, I return fire with a 155mm howitzer. You blow up one of my Hummvees, I blow up one of your villages. Quid pro fucking quo. Not just "an eye for an eye", this would be "massive retaliation".
Basically, I would fight terror with terror. "Kill all sons of bitches". Those would indeed be my official instructions.
.[/QUOTE]
Woah, bro, lay off the Call of Duty games. Smoke something and chill out, before you kill somebody. Either way: armchair Military Tactician and Internet Tough guy in one, good job.
[quote=gman003-main;27600799]that should have been enough to prove to the world that "you do not fuck with america, because we will fuck your shit up."
[b]you want to know how i would have done it? I would be brutal. I would be vicious. I would be barbaric. You kill one of my men, i kill ten of yours. You plant an ied, i drop a gbu-43 on you. You have a sniper take potshots at my base, i return fire with a 155mm howitzer. You blow up one of my hummvees, i blow up one of your villages. Quid pro fucking quo. Not just "an eye for an eye", this would be "massive retaliation".[/b]
basically, i would fight terror with terror. "kill all sons of bitches". Those would indeed be my official instructions.
Enemy casualties would be high. Civilian casualties would be higher. The country might not be habitable by the end of it. The entire world might hate us at the end of it. But it would work. And you know what? Let them hate, so long as they fear.
However, i hope that fighting wars this way might, paradoxically, make wars less common. If war meant "utterly destroying your enemy", rather than "police the country for a decade", it might make alternative options seem more usable. That would be for the best.[/quote]
[highlight][b]FUCKING. THIS.[/b][/highlight]
/c
[QUOTE=gman003-main;27600901]The important question is this:
If the US had followed those tactics in Iraq, would anybody dare attack the US again, knowing what would happen if they didn't succeed, and seeing the slim chances of their success?
If being a psychopath is the only way to win a war, then so be it. If a war must be fought (something I actually hope doesn't happen), then put a psychopath in charge until you've won.[/QUOTE]
Idk maybe someone would attack the US in the hopes that they would come fuck up their neighbor.
(you see the joke because iraq never attacked the US)
e: How about I describe your solution in more plain terms. So a group of radicals attacks a nation. The nation comes over and devastates two nations, one of which didn't really directly do much. Using your solution, not only would we kill the independent insurgents, we would also kill the random inhabitants of the country that did nothing, would do nothing, and probably don't care the slightest about America or world politics in general.
Or to put it even better, say a group of christians from the US got together and went and bombed say, Iran. Not only does Iran attack American, it also attacks Canada, and decides to bomb random towns that the insurgents may or may not have been from.
Do you see the problem here?
Generations of Americans didn't die for us to dick around with our current technology and piss on insurgents.
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;27600928]Idk maybe someone would attack the US in the hopes that they would come fuck up their neighbor.
(you see the joke because iraq never attacked the US)[/QUOTE]
Who cares if they did or not, they're still terrorists. And they are attacking American soldiers now (or atleast they were). Plus they committed human rights violations and...wait for it....wait for it.... "had weapons of mass destruction"
[QUOTE=gman003-main;27600799]I actually agree with the OP. If you're going to fight a war, you need to actually fight it.
Basically, you have to recognize that, no matter what, you're going to be seen as an asshole. So, you might as well be a successful asshole, rather than an incompetent one.
America has the "invade the country, utterly destroy all organized military resistance with shock-and-awe" part down. Just look at Iraq - 21 days from the start of the invasion to the fall of Saddam's regime. Three weeks. Against a force twice its size. That should have been enough to prove to the world that "you do not fuck with America, because we will FUCK YOUR SHIT UP."
Unfortunately, after that, we tried to make Iraq a friend, an "ally". Didn't work. The only thing it was successful at was redirecting terrorist activities to somewhere outside America.
You want to know how I would have done it? I would be brutal. I would be vicious. I would be barbaric. You kill one of my men, I kill ten of yours. You plant an IED, I drop a GBU-43 on you. You have a sniper take potshots at my base, I return fire with a 155mm howitzer. You blow up one of my Hummvees, I blow up one of your villages. Quid pro fucking quo. Not just "an eye for an eye", this would be "massive retaliation".
Basically, I would fight terror with terror. "Kill all sons of bitches". Those would indeed be my official instructions.
Enemy casualties would be high. Civilian casualties would be higher. The country might not be habitable by the end of it. The entire world might hate us at the end of it. But it would work. And you know what? Let them hate, so long as they fear.
However, I hope that fighting wars this way might, paradoxically, make wars less common. If war meant "utterly destroying your enemy", rather than "police the country for a decade", it might make alternative options seem more usable. That would be for the best.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://www.sonofthesouth.net/union-generals/sherman/pictures/general-william-tecumseh-sherman.jpg[/img]
Sherman would be proud.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;27600901]The important question is this:
If the US had followed those tactics in Iraq, would anybody dare attack the US again, knowing what would happen if they didn't succeed, and seeing the slim chances of their success?
If being a psychopath is the only way to win a war, then so be it. If a war must be fought (something I actually hope doesn't happen), then put a psychopath in charge until you've won.[/QUOTE]
but the war wasn't instigated by iraq, America is just a power hungry nation, that quite clearly needed to assert its masculinity to the whole world by sending troops over there.
[QUOTE=RebeccaChambers;27600952]Who cares if they did or not, they're still terrorists. And they are attacking American soldiers now (or atleast they were).[/QUOTE]
They're attacking American soldiers because they invaded and fucked up their home. I think i'd be pretty pissed if someone came to my city and killed a bunch of people that were tangentially related to the problem, if that.
And no they weren't terrorists what the fuck. America toppled Saddam's regime and fought Iraqi insurgents.
[QUOTE=certified;27600967][img_thumb]http://www.sonofthesouth.net/union-generals/sherman/pictures/general-william-tecumseh-sherman.jpg[/img_thumb]
Sherman would be proud.[/QUOTE]
You do realize that what Sherman did caused generations of resentment among the inhabitants of the affected areas and made reconstruction that much harder, right?
[QUOTE=RebeccaChambers;27599769]"Look at what Israel does. If they find a terrorist sniper in an enemy building, they just level the entire building. If there were civilians inside, then they should have gotten the fuck out when he started shooting." (not a quote by me)[/QUOTE]
Not really, Israel goes to great lengths to minimize civilian casualties. Hamas intentionally uses palestinian targets as meat shields so that if Israel does kill them inadvertantly, they can parade the dead bodies around and make Israel look bad in the eyes of other nations.
[QUOTE=RebeccaChambers;27600952]Who cares if they did or not, they're still terrorists. And they are attacking American soldiers now (or atleast they were). Plus they committed human rights violations and...wait for it....wait for it.... [B]"had weapons of mass destruction"[/B][/QUOTE]
You do know they didn't, right
Also agreeing with yourself is redundant because of (list)
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
