Against whom?
'War' is one army or coalition against another in a defined theatre of war. Define, pray, the parameters of the enemy in this game of "let's throw our brave yet vulnerable troops against a bunch of lethal shadows"?
--------------------------------------------------------
not paying attention.
we are not executing a WAR.
if we were, when our troops get fired on, we FLATTEN EVERY BUILDING and kill every person we find that is not on theri knees, naked, with their hands on theri heads either prasing amreica, or begging for theri lives. we KILL EVERYONE ELSE.
it wont matter who is sending in aid. there is no where they can hide if everything is rubble, and our troops have orders to shoot anything that moves not wearing an american uniform, or on theri kness, naked, with theri hands on theri heads.
you flatten the entire city. starting with bagdad. puppet government? ***** them. a true american occupation with martial law. they riase their hands and start chanting "death to america" in the streets, shoot them, and keep shooting untill all that is left are bodies and naked people kneeling in teh street with their hands on their heads.
after bagdad is nothing but a pile of rubble, mobe to Sadr,s home town and do the same. some cleric pops up crying foul? add his town to the list and keep rolling unill any and all resistance is reduced to what lies under the treads of our tanks.
then leave.
rebuilding? nope. medical aid? nope. financial aid? nope. humanitarian aid of any kind? nope.
just go. make it so they NEVER want to have us come back. EVER. even at the cost of dosavowing their religion. rather die first? fine, we can help them with that.
that is WAR. you crush any and all resistance. shooting at you from behind a building? occupy the biggest one and FLATTEN everything within 300 yards of it. everything. homes, bridges, hospitols, schools, EVERYTHING.
if we dont have the resolve to go to WAR, then get the hell out. it is obviously not that important to us. war should be avoided if at all possible. but when its not possible to avoid it, go to WAR. anything less is failure.
failure is what we have legislated for our country reguarding iraq.
the troops should not have to pay becuase our politicans legislated failure for us. the politicians should. impeach their stupid ****** get out or go to WAR.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Iraq
IraqFollow
shadowrelm, Are you sure you're not a closet rightwiger, who's just masquerading as a hippy lefty to ***** about Bush?
Quote:
if we were, when our troops get fired on, we FLATTEN EVERY BUILDING and kill every person we find that is not on theri knees, naked, with their hands on theri heads either prasing amreica, or begging for theri lives. we KILL EVERYONE ELSE.
Hmmmm, sounds awfully familiar to something.
The Rules of War are something you need to read before you even attempt to explain what the military is for, and what it is trained to do.
A non-combatant cannot legally be with purpose of intent and/or direct targeting be killed regardless if they hate Americans or not, with certain provisions excluded (like civilian ran facilities that manufacture weapons for the enemy force). However you cannot simply march from town to town killing anyone you see. To even give such an order is a severe war crime, and can legally be disobeyed.
It is also illegal to execute enemy combatants if they are otherwise unable to fight, i.e. unconscious, captive, surrendered, or maimed to a point where they cannot fight (i.e arms blown off from a bomb attack).
Furthermore, you might be alright with just walking up to children whom are unaffiliated with the war and blowing their heads off(according to your kill everyone theory), but most people join the military to defend the US and its interests, not to become butchers and murderers.
EDIT: Sever =/= Severe
Edited, May 1st 2007 5:08pm by Rimesume
I'm beggining to hate you more than Varus you stupid f'uck.
lets make the people of iraq run away screaming from their extremist bothers
Millions already have. The ones who are left, are too poor to leave.
You are everything that sux about a country that the world as a whole used to look up to.
In short. You are an utter (illiterate)cnut.
F'ck off and die.
Quote:
lets make the people of iraq run away screaming from their extremist bothers
Millions already have. The ones who are left, are too poor to leave.
Quote:
after bagdad is nothing but a pile of rubble, mobe to Sadr,s home town and do the same. some cleric pops up crying foul? add his town to the list and keep rolling unill any and all resistance is reduced to what lies under the treads of our tanks.
You are everything that sux about a country that the world as a whole used to look up to.
In short. You are an utter (illiterate)cnut.
F'ck off and die.
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
Shadowrelm, this has got to be one of the stupidest post I have ever read.
On any board.
Ever.
Seriously, you don't have the smallest idea about what you are talking about.
If what you're advocating would ever happen, it would be humanity's darkest days. There is a reason why wars are, by and large, constrained. It's because one day, you might be on the receiving end of it. And if it's not you, it might your kids.
If the US, or nay country in the world, took war to that extreme, they would be the moral equivalent of the *****. And would deserve the same fate. There is no justification, ever, in any situation, for doing what you're advocating.
Your level of stupidity should be a criminal offence.
You know, the US's position as world super power is ephemeral. Nothing lasts forever. Just think about what would happen if China suddenly decides to do what you're preaching in the US.
I know you're not representative of anything, except the incredible depths at which stupidity can plunge.
But with great power comes great resposibility. You probably don't realise that the US, today, is setting the standards for next super powers.
What goes around comes around.
On any board.
Ever.
Seriously, you don't have the smallest idea about what you are talking about.
If what you're advocating would ever happen, it would be humanity's darkest days. There is a reason why wars are, by and large, constrained. It's because one day, you might be on the receiving end of it. And if it's not you, it might your kids.
If the US, or nay country in the world, took war to that extreme, they would be the moral equivalent of the *****. And would deserve the same fate. There is no justification, ever, in any situation, for doing what you're advocating.
Your level of stupidity should be a criminal offence.
You know, the US's position as world super power is ephemeral. Nothing lasts forever. Just think about what would happen if China suddenly decides to do what you're preaching in the US.
I know you're not representative of anything, except the incredible depths at which stupidity can plunge.
But with great power comes great resposibility. You probably don't realise that the US, today, is setting the standards for next super powers.
What goes around comes around.
What you guys are missing is not what he's saying (because it's obvious he's still in high school), but the fact that he has been this beacon of left wing ignorance and stupidity, and now, even he is starting to understand that we (and I mean all of us that want a safer planet for our kids) are fighting this war of ideals the wrong way.
I can't say that I agree with what he actually said, just because bombing people that are our allies, just because there are people that are fighting us nearby them, is wrong. I can agre with the fact that we're fighting with the wrong rulebook. We shouldn't be fighting against terrorists with bombs and bullets, but we should be fighting them with ideas. I think that King Bush has been trying to do that, but with his horrible speach writers, and the fact that he's unable to communicate his actual beliefs the first time he speaks, he's not been able to get that across.
The idea that W has been trying to get out there is: Freedom. At this point in the Iraqi conflict, it's about helping the Iraqis remain free, and encouraging them to put down the resistance in their own country. You can't do that by sending in more troops. You can't do that by dropping bombs on people. In order to encourage the concept of idea discussion, and bringing these groups together, and showing them that there is room for everyone, and hoping that they finally get it, and see that we, as screwed up as we are, are not their enemy, and we're fighting hard to fix our own problems as well as help them secure their own future. This is what I think they're trying to accomplish by bringing everyone into talks about the future of Iraq. Is it possible that it will work? I don't know, but I know this, if the people can be reached, and can understand that we don't want to remain in their country any longer than they need our help, I think that they will stop listening to these radical clerics, and the facist movment that we see in Islam will start to die off. Call me an optimist for thinking this, but with 1.2 billion Muslims on the planet, I'm quite sure that the majority just want to raise their families in peace, and couldn't care much less about world government affairs, like most other people, and would rather work toward peace and harmoy with their neighbors, than spend their lives fighting to an end that will be a violent death.
What we need is another Ronald Regan. We need someone who can let the guys on the other side of the table know that they're wrong, without enraging them to the point that they no longer care about their own lives, much less anyone elses. We also need to show that we are a strong nation, still. That we're not a nation of weak bellied, spineless, cowards, who would rather turn our heads from death and war, but understand that sometimes, you do need to risk it all for greater glory, and when you do, you bare it all, and use full force to win, (which the enemy is doing). That's why we won WWII, well that and because the Russians occupied most of the German forces on the Eastern front. We won WWII because we were willing to do whatever it took. In this case, whatever it will take, may just be getting everyone at a table, and telling them to air their concerns for this new nation. Letting them know that everyone has a voice, and their voice will be heard in the government. On our side of that argument, if the people of Iraq want to have a Muslim government, who are we to deny them? We've spent lives, and countless dollars fighting for something that we're not sure if we're even fighting for what the Iraqis want anymore.
The cold, simple, facts are: We're now at a stalemate. Many, if not a majority, of Iraqis are starting to believe that we're not there to help them anymore. And because of this, we're now starting to lose ground in this war of ideas and ideals.
I can't say that I agree with what he actually said, just because bombing people that are our allies, just because there are people that are fighting us nearby them, is wrong. I can agre with the fact that we're fighting with the wrong rulebook. We shouldn't be fighting against terrorists with bombs and bullets, but we should be fighting them with ideas. I think that King Bush has been trying to do that, but with his horrible speach writers, and the fact that he's unable to communicate his actual beliefs the first time he speaks, he's not been able to get that across.
The idea that W has been trying to get out there is: Freedom. At this point in the Iraqi conflict, it's about helping the Iraqis remain free, and encouraging them to put down the resistance in their own country. You can't do that by sending in more troops. You can't do that by dropping bombs on people. In order to encourage the concept of idea discussion, and bringing these groups together, and showing them that there is room for everyone, and hoping that they finally get it, and see that we, as screwed up as we are, are not their enemy, and we're fighting hard to fix our own problems as well as help them secure their own future. This is what I think they're trying to accomplish by bringing everyone into talks about the future of Iraq. Is it possible that it will work? I don't know, but I know this, if the people can be reached, and can understand that we don't want to remain in their country any longer than they need our help, I think that they will stop listening to these radical clerics, and the facist movment that we see in Islam will start to die off. Call me an optimist for thinking this, but with 1.2 billion Muslims on the planet, I'm quite sure that the majority just want to raise their families in peace, and couldn't care much less about world government affairs, like most other people, and would rather work toward peace and harmoy with their neighbors, than spend their lives fighting to an end that will be a violent death.
What we need is another Ronald Regan. We need someone who can let the guys on the other side of the table know that they're wrong, without enraging them to the point that they no longer care about their own lives, much less anyone elses. We also need to show that we are a strong nation, still. That we're not a nation of weak bellied, spineless, cowards, who would rather turn our heads from death and war, but understand that sometimes, you do need to risk it all for greater glory, and when you do, you bare it all, and use full force to win, (which the enemy is doing). That's why we won WWII, well that and because the Russians occupied most of the German forces on the Eastern front. We won WWII because we were willing to do whatever it took. In this case, whatever it will take, may just be getting everyone at a table, and telling them to air their concerns for this new nation. Letting them know that everyone has a voice, and their voice will be heard in the government. On our side of that argument, if the people of Iraq want to have a Muslim government, who are we to deny them? We've spent lives, and countless dollars fighting for something that we're not sure if we're even fighting for what the Iraqis want anymore.
The cold, simple, facts are: We're now at a stalemate. Many, if not a majority, of Iraqis are starting to believe that we're not there to help them anymore. And because of this, we're now starting to lose ground in this war of ideas and ideals.
You do realize that the US isn't all powerful right? Hell China could wipe you off the face of the earth, probably India too. There are countries more powerful than the US, they're just not nearly as overt about it.
If you adopted this policy you would be bombed into oblivion. Quickly. You're having a hard time policing 1 and a half countries. What would happen when 10 countries decided you had to go because you're indescriminately slaughtering people after an illegal invasion?
Who are you? Sadam's father?
A lot of Amercian's are decent people (I assume most but I don't know many), it's your type (that seems to have wormed its way into your government) that gives your country such a bad rep.
If you adopted this policy you would be bombed into oblivion. Quickly. You're having a hard time policing 1 and a half countries. What would happen when 10 countries decided you had to go because you're indescriminately slaughtering people after an illegal invasion?
Who are you? Sadam's father?
A lot of Amercian's are decent people (I assume most but I don't know many), it's your type (that seems to have wormed its way into your government) that gives your country such a bad rep.
Adopt what policy, encouraging all sides to embrace their new found free government?
Am I missing something, or were you just too slow in typing your response to shadowrelm?
Am I missing something, or were you just too slow in typing your response to shadowrelm?
Metastophicleas wrote:
Adopt what policy, encouraging all sides to embrace their new found free government?
Am I missing something, or were you just too slow in typing your response to shadowrelm?
Am I missing something, or were you just too slow in typing your response to shadowrelm?
Sorry, should have been more clear.
The policy of flattening every building and killing everyone that isn't on their knees begging you not to shoot them.
Ah, no harm then, and you're right.
2 posts
Ok let me see if i got this right. The original poster said basically have the united states pull out of Iraq, and let them have their civil war. gaurd the borders using satellites, and bombs (by bombs i have to assume he meant some form of laser guided bomb), drop supplies in on the war torn country, destroy any alqueada traing camps that pop up during the civil war, and warn any other country in the region that if they try to interfer they will be dealt with militarily. Is that about the gist of it?
I like it. It lets the people of Iraq form their own form of government without alot of outside forces sending in munitions or what have you. It sounds like a pretty effective way of dealing with the situation. Of course any genocidal attempts (like in Rawanda). would have to be contained, but barring that those people over there need to have their civil war, anyone who thinks otherwise is living in a Mary Poppins like world and has flowers for brains.
Shadowrelm I dont know who you are, and hey i dont really give a damn, but man you should check yourself into a hospital, run, do it quickly. You need serious psychiatric help. How you took an alternative plan for ending the United State's ground offensive in Iraq and turned it into a theme for mass butchery is beyond me. You are one sick mother******, and I think you should maybe be dealt with in the same way as you want to deal with those poor people in Iraq.
Metastohicleas wrote "What we need is another Ronald Reagon." Well i remember that particular waste of human flesh sending our boys into Beruit without ammuntion, and making them sitting ducks for bombers. I think we lost 400 of our fine young men over that idiots theories on how to deal with war.
Mestastophicleas also wrote about fighting a war of ideals. Wars of ideals are great ideally, but war in and of itself is ideally wrong. Wars of ideals do not work, as every individual in the world has their own set of ideals, and most are unwilling to compromise where their ideals are concerned. If you want to fight a war of ideals, go hug a tree, the United States is fighting a war that should never have been fought and the lives of 250,000+ American soldiers are at risks and millions of Iraqi lives hang in the balance.
The United States is fighting a war that i believe to be unwinnable, and the original posters plan does indeed have merit, but i dont think he went far enough. I think that after Iraq has had her civil war the United States should be held responsible for rebuilding the country. Persia is the cradle of civilization, and i think it only fair that Iraq be returned to her former glory.
Thank you
Lavok
Edited, May 2nd 2007 5:39pm by lavok
I like it. It lets the people of Iraq form their own form of government without alot of outside forces sending in munitions or what have you. It sounds like a pretty effective way of dealing with the situation. Of course any genocidal attempts (like in Rawanda). would have to be contained, but barring that those people over there need to have their civil war, anyone who thinks otherwise is living in a Mary Poppins like world and has flowers for brains.
Shadowrelm I dont know who you are, and hey i dont really give a damn, but man you should check yourself into a hospital, run, do it quickly. You need serious psychiatric help. How you took an alternative plan for ending the United State's ground offensive in Iraq and turned it into a theme for mass butchery is beyond me. You are one sick mother******, and I think you should maybe be dealt with in the same way as you want to deal with those poor people in Iraq.
Metastohicleas wrote "What we need is another Ronald Reagon." Well i remember that particular waste of human flesh sending our boys into Beruit without ammuntion, and making them sitting ducks for bombers. I think we lost 400 of our fine young men over that idiots theories on how to deal with war.
Mestastophicleas also wrote about fighting a war of ideals. Wars of ideals are great ideally, but war in and of itself is ideally wrong. Wars of ideals do not work, as every individual in the world has their own set of ideals, and most are unwilling to compromise where their ideals are concerned. If you want to fight a war of ideals, go hug a tree, the United States is fighting a war that should never have been fought and the lives of 250,000+ American soldiers are at risks and millions of Iraqi lives hang in the balance.
The United States is fighting a war that i believe to be unwinnable, and the original posters plan does indeed have merit, but i dont think he went far enough. I think that after Iraq has had her civil war the United States should be held responsible for rebuilding the country. Persia is the cradle of civilization, and i think it only fair that Iraq be returned to her former glory.
Thank you
Lavok
Edited, May 2nd 2007 5:39pm by lavok
Smasharoo wrote:
I know you can't help it, being a stumbling buffoon and all, but the "remember Clinton" thing doesn't really play very well in terms of military success for Bush. Or really anything else, but less so military success. IF you really want to compare someone with a worse military record you'd probably have to go back to Johnson, and see that would actually make sense because he'd have dropped more bombs than Bush instead of less by an order of 1000.
I wasn't talking about war record Smash. I was talking about foreign policy. Clinton doesn't have a "war record" (good or bad) because he choose to use a foreign policy similar to that which the OP was espousing (don't engage, just bomb them when they get uppity).
Hence my statement. I'm sorry if that was a bit too complex for you.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Seriously, you don't have the smallest idea about what you are talking about.
If what you're advocating would ever happen, it would be humanity's darkest days. There is a reason why wars are, by and large, constrained. It's because one day, you might be on the receiving end of it. And if it's not you, it might your kids.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
do you think for a milisecond that some country hell bent on taking over this country would fight the war we are fighting? not a single other country in the world has ever, or has even demonstraited they might, take civilians into consideration when fighting a war. NO ONE. might happen to us and we would want them to treat us good?
ignorance. sheer stupidity to even entertain the idea. not gona happen. im not the one off my rocker here, you are living in a world so full of your own moral superiority you cant see reality.
look what lebonon did to israel. look what israel did to lebonon. look at the palistinians. look what is happeing in daufur. look what happened in the balkins. look what happened in EVERY war ever fought on this planet.
WE are the ONLY ones trying to protect civilians. no one else. and our enemys are using this to develop tactics against us we can not overcome with our current stratagy.
look at iraq. hell, they will kill their own people just to get a shot at us. they shoot through their own people. they bomb near their own people. they ram car bombs into crowds of their own people just to get at us.
we are not fighting a war. we are linning up our troops in a shooting gallery, and while the enemy can shoot at us no matter where we are, we have to first identify the enemy from the middle of a crowd and pick him off?
THAT is why we are loosing and can not hope to win.
we can win. but the price in human lives would be HUGE. we need to decide if we are willing to pay that price. if this is that important to us.
i dont think it is. neither does the majority of the rest of america.
if our idiot politicans want to use our military, then they should be allowed to wage a WAR, not a police action. this poitical agenda crap with limited enguagements and "measured" responses is exactly why we look like a bunch of flaming idiots to the rest of the world. these same tactic failed us in vietnam, somalia, iraq,liberia, and now afganistan is falling apart too.
it does not work. it has never worked. the ONLY people it is working for is our enemys.
if it is impotant enough, then lets go to WAR. if its not important enough to go to war over, then our politicains should not have the power to call up our military. WAR or nothing. we can win a WAR. we can only make ourselves look impotent to the entire world with "measured" responses.
we should have gone to WAR in afganistan to go after bin-laudin. but no. we used a "measured" response, and he is gone, and afgainistan is mfalling back into caos with a serious resurgance of the taliban.
some one drops a plane on a few buildings, you destroy a few cities. someone uses a nuke on one of our cities, you nuke ALL of their cities. you make the retribution so severe NO ONE wants to go down that path. and if a lone madman gets into power, you make sure his country men KNOW it will mean the death of them all if they LET him have his way.
you go to WAR.
no one has EVER had mercy on our civilians in any of the wars we fought. no one. no one has ever had any mercy on our prisoners. no matter how we treat theirs, it wont matter if they get some of ours. you think for a micro second the people we are fighting in iraq wil take our men prisoners and hold them, and feed them till this is over? you think for a second they will try to NOT kill any american citizen that comes into their cross hairs just because WE wouldnt?
if you do, your a fool.
THEY are waging a WAR. we, on the other hand, are not. and that is why we are LOOSING on ALL fronts.
we should get the hell out. let them kill themselves for the next few years. and if their new leader steps over the line, we go in, kill and destroy everything in our path to get to him, take him out, and LEAVE. make sure the next guy fully understands they DO NOT want us to come back.
this measured response andf limited enguagement crap has made us look weak to the entire world. N.K. is flaunting nukes, iran is flaunting nukes. syiera and jordan wont even talk to our diplomats.
THIS is what measured and limited gets you. the entire world thinks they can pushg all our buttons to a point and the american people are too full of their own superiority to really fight back. like poking sticks at a tiger through the bars of the cage we made for ourselves.
either fight a WAR or GET OUT. our troops deserve that much. they deserve the right to fully protect themselves and to destroy there enemy whereever they are, be it a training camp, a church full of innocents, or even a hospitol or school. that is what war is about. its ugly. its brutal. its cruel and heartless.
and here is the message i am trying to get across. the WORSE it is the MORE our enemys would try to AVIOD it though other channels.
this crap we are doing gives them absolutly NO incintive to stop fighting and start talking. they are winning, they dont have to.
you flattenm a few cities, butcher a few hundred thousand people, i guarentee you they will forget all about their power struggle and focus more on surviving and want to TALK to us.
THAT is what a couple nukes did for WW2 in the pacific. pride, ideals, culture all took a back seat to survival when faced with total destruction.
if its not important enough to commit the ultimate sin of war, then GET OUT. anything else just embarasses us and emboldens our enemys. anything less CREATES MORE terrorism, not less.
do it or get off the pot.
If what you're advocating would ever happen, it would be humanity's darkest days. There is a reason why wars are, by and large, constrained. It's because one day, you might be on the receiving end of it. And if it's not you, it might your kids.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
do you think for a milisecond that some country hell bent on taking over this country would fight the war we are fighting? not a single other country in the world has ever, or has even demonstraited they might, take civilians into consideration when fighting a war. NO ONE. might happen to us and we would want them to treat us good?
ignorance. sheer stupidity to even entertain the idea. not gona happen. im not the one off my rocker here, you are living in a world so full of your own moral superiority you cant see reality.
look what lebonon did to israel. look what israel did to lebonon. look at the palistinians. look what is happeing in daufur. look what happened in the balkins. look what happened in EVERY war ever fought on this planet.
WE are the ONLY ones trying to protect civilians. no one else. and our enemys are using this to develop tactics against us we can not overcome with our current stratagy.
look at iraq. hell, they will kill their own people just to get a shot at us. they shoot through their own people. they bomb near their own people. they ram car bombs into crowds of their own people just to get at us.
we are not fighting a war. we are linning up our troops in a shooting gallery, and while the enemy can shoot at us no matter where we are, we have to first identify the enemy from the middle of a crowd and pick him off?
THAT is why we are loosing and can not hope to win.
we can win. but the price in human lives would be HUGE. we need to decide if we are willing to pay that price. if this is that important to us.
i dont think it is. neither does the majority of the rest of america.
if our idiot politicans want to use our military, then they should be allowed to wage a WAR, not a police action. this poitical agenda crap with limited enguagements and "measured" responses is exactly why we look like a bunch of flaming idiots to the rest of the world. these same tactic failed us in vietnam, somalia, iraq,liberia, and now afganistan is falling apart too.
it does not work. it has never worked. the ONLY people it is working for is our enemys.
if it is impotant enough, then lets go to WAR. if its not important enough to go to war over, then our politicains should not have the power to call up our military. WAR or nothing. we can win a WAR. we can only make ourselves look impotent to the entire world with "measured" responses.
we should have gone to WAR in afganistan to go after bin-laudin. but no. we used a "measured" response, and he is gone, and afgainistan is mfalling back into caos with a serious resurgance of the taliban.
some one drops a plane on a few buildings, you destroy a few cities. someone uses a nuke on one of our cities, you nuke ALL of their cities. you make the retribution so severe NO ONE wants to go down that path. and if a lone madman gets into power, you make sure his country men KNOW it will mean the death of them all if they LET him have his way.
you go to WAR.
no one has EVER had mercy on our civilians in any of the wars we fought. no one. no one has ever had any mercy on our prisoners. no matter how we treat theirs, it wont matter if they get some of ours. you think for a micro second the people we are fighting in iraq wil take our men prisoners and hold them, and feed them till this is over? you think for a second they will try to NOT kill any american citizen that comes into their cross hairs just because WE wouldnt?
if you do, your a fool.
THEY are waging a WAR. we, on the other hand, are not. and that is why we are LOOSING on ALL fronts.
we should get the hell out. let them kill themselves for the next few years. and if their new leader steps over the line, we go in, kill and destroy everything in our path to get to him, take him out, and LEAVE. make sure the next guy fully understands they DO NOT want us to come back.
this measured response andf limited enguagement crap has made us look weak to the entire world. N.K. is flaunting nukes, iran is flaunting nukes. syiera and jordan wont even talk to our diplomats.
THIS is what measured and limited gets you. the entire world thinks they can pushg all our buttons to a point and the american people are too full of their own superiority to really fight back. like poking sticks at a tiger through the bars of the cage we made for ourselves.
either fight a WAR or GET OUT. our troops deserve that much. they deserve the right to fully protect themselves and to destroy there enemy whereever they are, be it a training camp, a church full of innocents, or even a hospitol or school. that is what war is about. its ugly. its brutal. its cruel and heartless.
and here is the message i am trying to get across. the WORSE it is the MORE our enemys would try to AVIOD it though other channels.
this crap we are doing gives them absolutly NO incintive to stop fighting and start talking. they are winning, they dont have to.
you flattenm a few cities, butcher a few hundred thousand people, i guarentee you they will forget all about their power struggle and focus more on surviving and want to TALK to us.
THAT is what a couple nukes did for WW2 in the pacific. pride, ideals, culture all took a back seat to survival when faced with total destruction.
if its not important enough to commit the ultimate sin of war, then GET OUT. anything else just embarasses us and emboldens our enemys. anything less CREATES MORE terrorism, not less.
do it or get off the pot.
SR, just to let you know, following the Rules of War, the Iraqi Military fell to the US forces, twice.
War Criminals, also get dealt with severely. If you'd like an example, Nuremberg.
Your lack of knowledge of exactly how the Nuclear Attacks on Japan actually effected them. The generals of Japan at the time were planning to execute a coup against the Emperor claiming that a surrender was disgraceful. There were plenty of Japanese willing to continue the fight all the way to utter obliteration. The turning point of the Pacific War of WWII had nothing to do with nukes. Read about the Battle of Midway sometime. The nukes were simply a time saver and though debatable, potentially hundreds of thousands of both American and Japanese lives were saved. We were able to use nukes then because of one major reason; we were the only country with them. Today the world is a different place altogether. If anyone launches nukes, anyone else will launch theirs. Today, in nuclear warfare, no one wins, but all lose. We are far from the only people with them. If you don't understand this very basic concept then you are simply a fool.
SR, if your so eager to kill 100,000's of people then go visit your recruiter, pussy. I've known Navy Corpsman to come back from Iraq with severe PTSD1. You don't come back all fucked up, because it was a hell of a time. In fact, most people I've known that have been to war, won't talk about it. You think their might be a reason for that?
Lastly, Iraq is not a threat to the US, it never was, and it is likely, it'll never be.
Well the British for the most part, followed their "etiquette of war" during the Independence War.
Back then there was a "Gentlemanly" way of fighting a war. That, and I don't remember ever reading about any brutal acts upon the German civilians from the Americans/UK after the fall of the Third Reich.
In short, you're stupidity is stifling SR.
1 PTSD-Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
Edited, May 2nd 2007 8:44pm by Rimesume
War Criminals, also get dealt with severely. If you'd like an example, Nuremberg.
Your lack of knowledge of exactly how the Nuclear Attacks on Japan actually effected them. The generals of Japan at the time were planning to execute a coup against the Emperor claiming that a surrender was disgraceful. There were plenty of Japanese willing to continue the fight all the way to utter obliteration. The turning point of the Pacific War of WWII had nothing to do with nukes. Read about the Battle of Midway sometime. The nukes were simply a time saver and though debatable, potentially hundreds of thousands of both American and Japanese lives were saved. We were able to use nukes then because of one major reason; we were the only country with them. Today the world is a different place altogether. If anyone launches nukes, anyone else will launch theirs. Today, in nuclear warfare, no one wins, but all lose. We are far from the only people with them. If you don't understand this very basic concept then you are simply a fool.
SR, if your so eager to kill 100,000's of people then go visit your recruiter, pussy. I've known Navy Corpsman to come back from Iraq with severe PTSD1. You don't come back all fucked up, because it was a hell of a time. In fact, most people I've known that have been to war, won't talk about it. You think their might be a reason for that?
Lastly, Iraq is not a threat to the US, it never was, and it is likely, it'll never be.
Quote:
look what happened in EVERY war ever fought on this planet
Well the British for the most part, followed their "etiquette of war" during the Independence War.
Back then there was a "Gentlemanly" way of fighting a war. That, and I don't remember ever reading about any brutal acts upon the German civilians from the Americans/UK after the fall of the Third Reich. In short, you're stupidity is stifling SR.
1 PTSD-Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
Edited, May 2nd 2007 8:44pm by Rimesume
As much as I'm not sure the point of responding to a poster with one post, here goes anyway...
Um... Congress defined the mission they could perform. They are the ones who wrote the rules of engagement that effectively tied their hands. Reagan wanted to stay in Lebannon and deal with the situation there (and finish the mission they'd gone there to do, namely prevening extremists from gaining control of the country). The Democrat Congress of the day passed a resolution calling for the withdrawal of troops. Admittedly, it was non-binding, but they had the numbers to pass a real one if they wanted back then, and certainly Reagan could not possibly have gotten them to authorize the increase in men and change to RoE required to actually make use of them.
Sound familiar?
Sound more familiar?
It should. Because we're repeating the same mistake we made back then. And the Dems are once again on the wrong side of the issue. You want to know why this keeps happening? Because we keep failing to commit to winning even one of these situations. The end result is that we've quite effectively taught those in the region that the best way to gain power for themselves is to utilize exactly the sort of tactics that Hezbollah used back then and Al Queda is using today (not that Hezbollah has stopped or anything). It taught Syria that they could use these sorts of extremist groups as proxies to fight wars for them. That lesson has been picked up and repeated by more nations over time.
When do we reverse the trend? When do we realize what's going on and see the big picture? It's not that difficult to see. But we have to have the will to win. Just once. Do that and the next guy will think twice about using those methods. Allow them to keep succeeding, withdraw everytime things get a bit difficult, and you encourage more violence in the long run.
War sucks. But war is also quite often necessary. IMO, this is one of those times...
lavok wrote:
Metastohicleas wrote "What we need is another Ronald Reagon." Well i remember that particular waste of human flesh sending our boys into Beruit without ammuntion, and making them sitting ducks for bombers. I think we lost 400 of our fine young men over that idiots theories on how to deal with war.
Um... Congress defined the mission they could perform. They are the ones who wrote the rules of engagement that effectively tied their hands. Reagan wanted to stay in Lebannon and deal with the situation there (and finish the mission they'd gone there to do, namely prevening extremists from gaining control of the country). The Democrat Congress of the day passed a resolution calling for the withdrawal of troops. Admittedly, it was non-binding, but they had the numbers to pass a real one if they wanted back then, and certainly Reagan could not possibly have gotten them to authorize the increase in men and change to RoE required to actually make use of them.
Sound familiar?
Reagan wrote:
Yes, the situation in Lebanon is difficult, frustrating, and dangerous, ... But that is no reason to turn our backs on friends and to cut and run. If we do, we'll be sending one signal to terrorists everywhere: They can gain by waging war against innocent people.
Sound more familiar?
It should. Because we're repeating the same mistake we made back then. And the Dems are once again on the wrong side of the issue. You want to know why this keeps happening? Because we keep failing to commit to winning even one of these situations. The end result is that we've quite effectively taught those in the region that the best way to gain power for themselves is to utilize exactly the sort of tactics that Hezbollah used back then and Al Queda is using today (not that Hezbollah has stopped or anything). It taught Syria that they could use these sorts of extremist groups as proxies to fight wars for them. That lesson has been picked up and repeated by more nations over time.
When do we reverse the trend? When do we realize what's going on and see the big picture? It's not that difficult to see. But we have to have the will to win. Just once. Do that and the next guy will think twice about using those methods. Allow them to keep succeeding, withdraw everytime things get a bit difficult, and you encourage more violence in the long run.
War sucks. But war is also quite often necessary. IMO, this is one of those times...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
you flattenm a few cities, butcher a few hundred thousand people, i guarentee you they will forget all about their power struggle and focus more on surviving and want to TALK to us.
Well you've flattened Falluja, Najaf and more than a couple of others have been devestated beyond repair.
You've killed more than a 'few' hundred thousand innocent bystanders, and driven well over 2 million (of the best educated) iraqis out of the country as refugees. Not to mention the millions more, too poor or badly connected to leave, into internal refugees. (who, I might add are 'focused' on their struggle to survive)
Pardon me if you find any of those images offensive. But as you say "war is hell'. Not that you'd know. And owning 'Band of Brothers Collectors edition' doesn't count, mmmkay?
You think any of that stuff was done with 'mercy' for the civilians in mind? Your obvious blind belief that the US Military is in Iraq for humanitarian reasons is pathetic. The stream of stories and reports about torture, slaughter and massacres of bystanders coming out of Iraq (and Afghanistan) are so prevalent that you must have stopped noticing them. Just in case, in big letters for the hard of thinking....
YOUR MILITARY IS IN IRAQ TO KILL PEOPLE AND F'UCK STUFF UP. Period
All that bollox about reconstruction efforts is just that. Believed by the likes of Mccain and O'reilly.
And where has it got you? Less than nowhere.
You make an assumption that people who are Metaphorically pronated with a combat boot on their throat, while their children are being slaughtered in front of them, are gonna want to talk to you.
Well Mr. fuc'kin' know it all. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that that isn't what happens. Take away a persons (or a peoples) hope for the future, then they will fight back with whatever means they have left. To wit, the palestinians.
The people of Iraq were never your enemy.
They bloody well are now.
For you to condone more killing (if only to get their attention) is contemptible. For you to try and justify the illegal presence in Iraq of an occupation force, that has little or no understanding of the culture, beliefs or even the language, by condoning more slaughter of the occupied population is just nauseating.
And for you to believe that 'withdrawal' is even in your governments vocabulary shows your naivete in the world around you.
Leaving Iraq to the Iraqis was never part of the plan.
Iraq had nothing to do with your 9/11. It had nothing to do with Al qeada. And the people of Iraq are suffering and dying for the paranoia of a few bitter old men with greed in the space where their hearts used to live.
For you to accuse them of not being aggressive enough is just horrendous.
As Red said, what goes around comes around. The rotten, stinking festering mess that is inside your head makes me feel sorry for the people around you.
And learn to spell FFS. Illiterate ****.
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
shadowrelm wrote:
do you think for a milisecond that some country hell bent on taking over this country would fight the war we are fighting?
Yeah, pretty much. Go in illegally, install a puppet government, and then proceed to kill and torture anyone who resists.
Quote:
not a single other country in the world has ever, or has even demonstraited they might, take civilians into consideration when fighting a war. NO ONE.
Wrong. You're obviously completely clueless as the history of war. Ever heard of POWs? They've happened in most of the modern conflicts in which the US has been involved.
Quote:
look what lebonon did to israel. look what israel did to lebonon. look at the palistinians. look what is happeing in daufur. look what happened in the balkins. look what happened in EVERY war ever fought on this planet.
So your standard for the US are the most murderous and sickening groups on the planet. Nice. The ***** did it, so its ok for the US to do it? Israel went completely overboard against LEbanon, which by the way will result in their governmetn resigning, and you think that's what thw US should aspire to? To be the equal of the most barbaric and murderous people on this planet?
Quote:
look at iraq. hell, they will kill their own people just to get a shot at us. they shoot through their own people. they bomb near their own people. they ram car bombs into crowds of their own people just to get at us.
You obvisouly don't have the smallest clue of what's going on Iraq neither. Not that I'm surprised, but still, with all the info available you could've made an effort.
There's a civil war going on. You guys aer stuck in the middle. Read about it sometime.
Quote:
we are not fighting a war. we are linning up our troops in a shooting gallery, and while the enemy can shoot at us no matter where we are, we have to first identify the enemy from the middle of a crowd and pick him off?
Hehe. Do you really? Is that really what the US military is doing in Iraq? Read what Paulsol wrote. Read what the US soldiers do at checkpoints when a car doesn't slow down enough.
Quote:
THAT is why we are loosing and can not hope to win.
No, you're losing because the second you won the conventional war, you turned 60% of the young population unemployed. You allowed looting and sacking. You did Abu Graihb. You had no knowledge of the local politics. And, finally, you have no business being there. That's why you're losing.
Annihilating a whole population does not constitute "winning". It's called slaughter.
Quote:
we can win. but the price in human lives would be HUGE. we need to decide if we are willing to pay that price. if this is that important to us.
And the point will be...? What have the Iraqis done to the US for them to deserve to all die? You want to win a dead country? Without any care as to how many people will die? Sorry, that's the Khmer. Not the US.
Quote:
this poitical agenda crap with limited enguagements and "measured" responses is exactly why we look like a bunch of flaming idiots to the rest of the world.
Wrong. You look like idiots cos you went into the wrong war, against the wrong ennemy, without any idea as to what to do once you were in the country, and using the wrong tactics. Killing every single person there might hide your shame, but it won't make you "win" anything.
Quote:
these same tactic failed us in vietnam, somalia, iraq,liberia, and now afganistan is falling apart too.
No, it was different.
Quote:
no one has EVER had mercy on our civilians in any of the wars we fought. no one. no one has ever had any mercy on our prisoners.
First, the last time you fought on US soil was centuries ago.
Second, even countries like Japan, Vietnam and Germany had "mercy" on your soldiers. They had POWs. They survived, and came home.
You're dangerously ignorant.
But mostly, you're scared. And it's understandable. It's a big, nasty world out there, and people are pretty pissed off with the US. Not only that, but you obvisouly lack the knowledge, or brain capacity, to make sense of it all, except in most simplistic way possible, which is the geniusly clever strategy of "killing everyone".
Well done Einstein no one has ever thought of it before. The *****, Stalin, the Khmer, no one!
And those that have done it, look what heppened to them.
If your government was as stupid as you, the US would be the moral equivalent of the *****. That's the policy they had. That's the policy you're advocating.
Anyway, you're a ****. You're a **** from **** City, in the district of Twatshire, in the country of Twatistan. You're such a **** that you have a giant neon sign above your head with a huge arrow pointing down that says "****!" in giant pink letters that glow in the dark. For lunch you have a McTwat at McDonalds, and drink a Twatshake. I always thought Varrus was a ****, but we need scale of tawtiness to measure your twatness.
Seriously, don't have kids, and try not to talk to anyone. People like you put us back to the Middle-ages.
Quote:
Anyway, you're a ****. You're a **** from **** City, in the district of Twatshire, in the country of Twatistan. You're such a **** that you have a giant neon sign above your head with a huge arrow pointing down that says "****!" in giant pink letters that glow in the dark. For lunch you have a McTwat at McDonalds, and drink a Twatshake. I always thought Varrus was a ****, but we need scale of tawtiness to measure your twatness.
Priceless!
Englishmen are the l33t when it comes to the use of the the word ****.
Yeah yeah I know your french. But you obviously been in Engerland long enuff to call someone a **** without any problems.
I'd damn well rate you up if I could.
Suffice to say Niiiiice one yoou caaaant!!!!
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
Recent Visitors: 266
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (266)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Iraq
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC