[QUOTE=Joeballs;27600968]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]
Check your facts. Specifically, check Wikileaks. There was strong intel that Iraq was developing WMDs, and even physical evidence (found after the invasion) that they hadn't destroyed all of the ones they were supposed to after Gulf War I. I'm too tired to check which UN Resolution it was, but that did, technically, mean that the cease-fire made after the Gulf War was abrogated, causing a resumption of war.
What has america done right for the last 10 years?
[QUOTE=gman003-main;27601030]Check your facts. Specifically, check Wikileaks. There was strong intel that Iraq was developing WMDs, and even physical evidence (found after the invasion) that they hadn't destroyed all of the ones they were supposed to after Gulf War I. I'm too tired to check which UN Resolution it was, but that did, technically, mean that the cease-fire made after the Gulf War was abrogated, causing a resumption of war.[/QUOTE]How about you provide the facts rather than just saying "go check them"?
[QUOTE=En-Guage V2;27601046]What has america done right for the last 10 years?[/QUOTE]
I feel bad about saying it, but I agree.
[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 assume the opposing nation isn't going to resist America? :colbert:
America can roll over third-world shitholes like Iraq, sure, but that "shock-and-awe" crap doesn't work when fighting a major power, whom has the same tech, tactics, and quality as you do. The message wasn't "don't fuck with us", it was "if you're third-world and tick us off, we'll blow the shit out of you with or without legal justification".
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;27601062]How about you provide the facts rather than just saying "go check them"?[/QUOTE]
Funny considering your tidbit on Sherman was groundless.
[editline]22nd January 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;27601083]You assume the opposing nation isn't going to resist America? :colbert:
America can roll over third-world shitholes like Iraq, sure, but that "shock-and-awe" crap doesn't work when fighting a major power, whom has the same tech, tactics, and quality as you do. The message wasn't "don't fuck with us", it was "if you're third-world and tick us off, we'll blow the shit out of you with or without legal justification".[/QUOTE]
Pretty fuckin' irrelevant then to bring it up, isn't it genius?
[QUOTE=amcwatters;27601086]Funny considering your tidbit on Sherman was groundless.[/QUOTE]
[quote]Sherman's scorched earth policies have always been highly controversial, and Sherman's memory has long been reviled by many Southerners. Slaves' opinions varied concerning the actions of Sherman and his army. Those slaves who welcomed him as a liberator left their plantations to follow his armies. Jacqueline Campbell has written, on the other hand, that some slaves looked upon the Federal army's ransacking and invasive actions with disdain. They felt betrayed, as they "suffered along with their owners". These particular slaves often remained loyal to the Southern way of life, and continued to care for the land and families they were tied to.[8] As for the fate of those slaves who chose to flee their plantations and follow Sherman's army, a Confederate officer estimated that 10,000 followed, and hundreds died of "hunger, disease, or exposure" along the way.[9][/quote]
[QUOTE=RebeccaChambers;27601118]He said WikiLeaks[/QUOTE]
I'm aware of what he said, but when you claim something like that, you don't say there are facts supporting it but tell people to go find them themselves.
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;27601062]How about you provide the facts rather than just saying "go check them"?[/QUOTE]
He said WikiLeaks
[QUOTE=RebeccaChambers;27601118]He said WikiLeaks[/QUOTE]
That tells him jack shit.
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;27601062]How about you provide the facts rather than just saying "go check them"?[/QUOTE]
Fine then.
UN Security Council Resolution 687, Paragraph 8: "Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:
(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;
(b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities;"
Paragraph 10: "Iraq shall unconditionally undertake not to use, develop, construct or acquire any of the items specified in paragraphs 8 and 9 above"
and Paragraph 33: "Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective"
I can't find the exact documents on Wikileak's site, but that bit was major enough to make the news:
[url]http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/us_did_find_iraq_wmd_AYiLgNbw7pDf7AZ3RO9qnM[/url]
[url]http://www.examiner.com/law-enforcement-in-national/wikileaks-saddam-s-wmd-program-existed-iraq[/url]
[url]http://hotair.com/archives/2010/10/24/wikileaks-documents-show-wmds-found-in-iraq/[/url]
So there. I just proved the Iraq War justified. Problem?
-snip-
[QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;27601083]You assume the opposing nation isn't going to resist America? :colbert:
America can roll over third-world shitholes like Iraq, sure, but that "shock-and-awe" crap doesn't work when fighting a major power, whom has the same tech, tactics, and quality as you do. The message wasn't "don't fuck with us", it was "if you're third-world and tick us off, we'll blow the shit out of you with or without legal justification".[/QUOTE]
"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.
In an alternate universe were we spent this war money on stopping cancer we wouldnt have this thread and I would have a tan as well.
I was going to come in here and make a quote from 1984, but I have a feeling it's been said sevreal times.
The US's recent involvements with war consists of them running into a third world contry, stomping on everyone's faces, and running away giggling like a schoolgirl.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;27601172]Fine then.
UN Security Council Resolution 687, Paragraph 8: "Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:
(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;
(b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities;"
Paragraph 10: "Iraq shall unconditionally undertake not to use, develop, construct or acquire any of the items specified in paragraphs 8 and 9 above"
and Paragraph 33: "Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective"
I can't find the exact documents on Wikileak's site, but that bit was major enough to make the news:
[url]http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/us_did_find_iraq_wmd_AYiLgNbw7pDf7AZ3RO9qnM[/url]
[url]http://www.examiner.com/law-enforcement-in-national/wikileaks-saddam-s-wmd-program-existed-iraq[/url]
[url]http://hotair.com/archives/2010/10/24/wikileaks-documents-show-wmds-found-in-iraq/[/url]
So there. I just proved the Iraq War justified. Problem?[/QUOTE]
See was that so hard? And while it's seemingly justified in retrospect, that doesn't excuse the fact it wasn't to begin with, and we found no WMDs of the sort we actually said there were.
[QUOTE=alphatwo;27601246]I was going to come in here and make a quote from 1984, but I have a feeling it's been said sevreal times.
The US's recent involvements with war consists of them running into a third world contry, stomping on everyone's faces, and running away giggling like a schoolgirl.[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately, the US didn't do the "run away" part. If we had, we'd have pulled out of Iraq in 2004, leaving the country to descend into anarchy on its own.
War is good for the economy. Look at how war brought us out of the Great Depression. It provides American jobs, something that are relatively hard to come by nowadays.
We're not waging a proper war?
Isn't that a better thing than waging a more destructive war?
[QUOTE=RebeccaChambers;27601289]War is good for the economy. Look at how war brought us out of the Great Depression. It provides American jobs, something that are relatively hard to come by nowadays.[/QUOTE]
Yeah that military-industrial complex sure did boost up our economy.
[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]
Large and modernized, but France in particular and the UK (until they learnt from their early war mistakes soon after) had the wrong doctrine for the wrong war.
For the Soviet Union, you have to understand that after Stalin thought that eliminating most of the Soviet Army's key leadership was a good idea, all the Soviet military theory and doctrinal development by great minds like Tukhachevsky, Svechin and Triandafillov was basically thrown away and they had to relearn it in the middle of war.
And furthermore, "shock and awe" only works against foes who are totally dumb, such as when it was executed perfectly against Saddam's Iraqi military.
[QUOTE=amcwatters;27601086]Funny considering your tidbit on Sherman was groundless.
[editline]22nd January 2011[/editline]
Pretty fuckin' irrelevant then to bring it up, isn't it genius?[/QUOTE]
Just as irrelevant as his info.
And this IS a thread on how America fights wars, is it not? Wouldn't that make my info relevant?
The reason why we have so many insurgents is because of the bombings of innocent civilians.
War doesn't determine who is right, it only determines who is left.
And that isn't my point. He's claiming America's 'shock-and-awe' will annihilate anything, and American can and will kill 10 men for every 1 they lose.
He's assuming major powers can't scratch America, which is far from the truth.
[QUOTE=CoolKingKaso;27601321]The reason why we have so many insurgents is because of the bombings of innocent civilians.[/QUOTE]
There's also this unfortunate little fact. All of your scorched earth tactics would do little more than to piss off way more people that this war currently is and make enemies of a lot of them.
e: and their allies, and people semi supportive of their cause, and to the extremes you're saying, pretty much everyone.
[QUOTE=CoolKingKaso;27601321]The reason why we have so many insurgents is because of the bombings of innocent civilians by terrorists.[/QUOTE]
fix'd
[QUOTE=RebeccaChambers;27601289]War is good for the economy. Look at how war brought us out of the Great Depression. It provides American jobs, something that are relatively hard to come by nowadays.[/QUOTE]
First thats a dumb way to justify killing each other and 2nd that was when the government took resources from many different companies. not a few big ones.
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;27601345]There's also this unfortunate little fact. All of your scorched earth tactics would do little more than to piss off way more people that this war currently is and make enemies of a lot of them.[/QUOTE]
It's because America doesn't care to take 100 civilian lives for 10 terrorist lives in bombings that insurgents are constantly rising.
[QUOTE=RebeccaChambers;27601348]fix'd[/QUOTE]
Yeah curse those terrorists UAVs bombing all those Pakistani villages
Thread title contains 'America'
Controversy!
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
