BF2S Forums General David Petraeus

ATG wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Harmor wrote:

Perhaps all these stupid rules of engagement will be turned on their head and we'll actually start fighting a real war.

One would hope...   although I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.

The problem is that we're in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" position.  Our current PC rules of engagement handicap our ability to stabilize Afghanistan and Iraq, but if we revised them to be more practical, then we'd have the locals and much of the rest of the world throwing a bitchfit over "civilian casualties."

Maybe these occupations will finally drive home the point that you don't enter a war unless you're willing to kill anything that gets in your way.  Anything short of that spells either defeat or a completely unnecessarily extended occupation period.

We certainly weren't as PC when we took over Japan and Germany.  We also were much more controlling over what was reported.

The fired guy had a good point;

" The soviets killed a million Afghans, look what good it did them... "

Well, two things...

First, technology has improved a lot since the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

Second, the Soviets weren't as tactically advanced as us.  We've got a lot more options to work with, if we're willing to suffer the negative publicity and repercussions.  We can kill a lot more effectively than the Soviets could, but it's all a matter of will.

The point is...  you can't ever hope to control some of these regions of Afghanistan that are growing opium and harboring the Taliban.   Some of the herd has to be culled, if you're serious about instilling order, and these people seem to respond much better to fear than to respect.

Turquoise wrote:

ATG wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

One would hope...   although I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.

The problem is that we're in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" position.  Our current PC rules of engagement handicap our ability to stabilize Afghanistan and Iraq, but if we revised them to be more practical, then we'd have the locals and much of the rest of the world throwing a bitchfit over "civilian casualties."

Maybe these occupations will finally drive home the point that you don't enter a war unless you're willing to kill anything that gets in your way.  Anything short of that spells either defeat or a completely unnecessarily extended occupation period.

We certainly weren't as PC when we took over Japan and Germany.  We also were much more controlling over what was reported.

The fired guy had a good point;

" The soviets killed a million Afghans, look what good it did them... "

Well, two things...

First, technology has improved a lot since the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

Second, the Soviets weren't as tactically advanced as us.  We've got a lot more options to work with, if we're willing to suffer the negative publicity and repercussions.  We can kill a lot more effectively than the Soviets could, but it's all a matter of will.

The point is...  you can't ever hope to control some of these regions of Afghanistan that are growing opium and harboring the Taliban.   Some of the herd has to be culled, if you're serious about instilling order, and these people seem to respond much better to fear than to respect.

So, to be clear, you are advocating genocide?

JohnG@lt wrote:

The war is already lost. Obama set a withdrawal date and everyone in the region is just biding their time until we pack up and go home. We're at war with a set of ideas, and you can't kill ideas with force, not unless you plan on committing genocide.

I have to be honest here.  Do you guys remember during the campaign when then candidate Obama mentioned going into Pakistan?  And when he made that comment it sounded like he was naive and ill-equipped for the job?

Well I actually agreed with him because I knew that Pakistan's Warisitan region is where the hotbed of terrorists are. 

If Petraeus can change it so we actually follow the terrorists back into Pakistan instead of stopping the chase when they cross the border, as well as, taking the fight to the enemy (with Nuclear-armed Pakistan's ok), then we might do alot to fight radical Islam.


---

Not to change the subject BUT the war wouldn't be over once we clean out Pakistan...their neighbor to their west is still a festering wound that'll eventually needs to be delt with.

NOTE: Everyone knows that Osama Bin Ladin is in Iran, right???

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

ATG wrote:

The fired guy had a good point;

" The soviets killed a million Afghans, look what good it did them... "

Well, two things...

First, technology has improved a lot since the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

Second, the Soviets weren't as tactically advanced as us.  We've got a lot more options to work with, if we're willing to suffer the negative publicity and repercussions.  We can kill a lot more effectively than the Soviets could, but it's all a matter of will.

The point is...  you can't ever hope to control some of these regions of Afghanistan that are growing opium and harboring the Taliban.   Some of the herd has to be culled, if you're serious about instilling order, and these people seem to respond much better to fear than to respect.

So, to be clear, you are advocating genocide?

Again, if you would learn to read, there was an " if " in there that makes all the difference.

If civilians are cavorting with terrorists are they still civilians?

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Well, two things...

First, technology has improved a lot since the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

Second, the Soviets weren't as tactically advanced as us.  We've got a lot more options to work with, if we're willing to suffer the negative publicity and repercussions.  We can kill a lot more effectively than the Soviets could, but it's all a matter of will.

The point is...  you can't ever hope to control some of these regions of Afghanistan that are growing opium and harboring the Taliban.   Some of the herd has to be culled, if you're serious about instilling order, and these people seem to respond much better to fear than to respect.

So, to be clear, you are advocating genocide?

Yes, if we're serious about winning in Afghanistan.  The same would have been necessary to win in Vietnam.

But bear with me...   I'm making this point because this is what a lot of war becomes.  Look at WW2.  We didn't hold back from bombing the shit out of civilians, and neither did our enemies.

While it is true that we're dealing with a different type of enemy now, some of the same logic applies.  To win, you've got to do some heinous things sometimes.   Because people don't seem to get that, the war is unwinnable.

So, we're left with 2 choices.

1) do the heinous shit necessary to win

2) get the fuck out

I prefer the latter, but if we're going to stay....   well....

As I said, you can't wage war against ideology and win. You could wipe every Afghan and Pakistani off the face of the planet and the ideology expressed by the Taliban would still live on in other places.

Different example... the idea of a functional Republic went out the window for the better part of 1600 years but the idea lived on long enough that it eventually established roots in this country.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-06-24 22:01:41)

Turquoise wrote:

So, we're left with 2 choices.

1) do the heinous shit necessary to win

2) get the fuck out

I prefer the latter, but if we're going to stay....   well....

We agree;

http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 2#p1106972

Harmor wrote:

If civilians are cavorting with terrorists are they still civilians?

No.

That is rather fickle.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

So, to be clear, you are advocating genocide?

Yes, if we're serious about winning in Afghanistan.  The same would have been necessary to win in Vietnam.

But bear with me...   I'm making this point because this is what a lot of war becomes.  Look at WW2.  We didn't hold back from bombing the shit out of civilians, and neither did our enemies.

While it is true that we're dealing with a different type of enemy now, some of the same logic applies.  To win, you've got to do some heinous things sometimes.   Because people don't seem to get that, the war is unwinnable.

So, we're left with 2 choices.

1) do the heinous shit necessary to win

2) get the fuck out

I prefer the latter, but if we're going to stay....   well....

As I said, you can't wage war against ideology and win. You could wipe every Afghan and Pakistani off the face of the planet and the ideology expressed by the Taliban would still live on in other places.

Different example... the idea of a functional Republic went out the window for the better part of 1600 years but the idea lived on long enough that it eventually established roots in this country.

True, there will always be extremists.  The questions are how many are acceptable to allow to exist and where should they be allowed?

My personal feelings are that we've wasted enough time in Afghanistan that it's time to leave, but at the same time, if we choose to stay, the only way forward involves a lot of death and destruction -- a lot more than has already happened.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

True, there will always be extremists.  The questions are how many are acceptable to allow to exist and where should they be allowed?

Infinite and wherever they please.

Unless you're planning on bringing the Ministry of Love into this world, you can't control peoples thoughts so any effort to do so is futile. Nor should you even want to.

I would side with you if terror acts were nonexistent.

Instead, I believe the Ministry of Death is occasionally necessary to wield against festering shitholes in the general vicinity of the Middle East.

JohnG@lt wrote:

"The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error."
-John Stuart Mill

It's not about silencing opinions, it's about removing threats.

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

True, there will always be extremists.  The questions are how many are acceptable to allow to exist and where should they be allowed?

Infinite and wherever they please.

Unless you're planning on bringing the Ministry of Love into this world, you can't control peoples thoughts so any effort to do so is futile. Nor should you even want to.

I would side with you if terror acts were nonexistent.

Instead, I believe the Ministry of Death is occasionally necessary to wield against festering shitholes in the general vicinity of the Middle East.

JohnG@lt wrote:

"The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error."
-John Stuart Mill

It's not about silencing opinions, it's about removing threats.

It is most assuredly about silencing opinions. You deem them a threat, you want them gone.

We'll never be able to eradicate the opinions you despise, the best we can do is to play an active defense and wall ourselves off from that part of the world.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Infinite and wherever they please.

Unless you're planning on bringing the Ministry of Love into this world, you can't control peoples thoughts so any effort to do so is futile. Nor should you even want to.

I would side with you if terror acts were nonexistent.

Instead, I believe the Ministry of Death is occasionally necessary to wield against festering shitholes in the general vicinity of the Middle East.

JohnG@lt wrote:

"The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error."
-John Stuart Mill

It's not about silencing opinions, it's about removing threats.

It is most assuredly about silencing opinions. You deem them a threat, you want them gone.

We'll never be able to eradicate the opinions you despise, the best we can do is to play an active defense and wall ourselves off from that part of the world.

Most of the time, I would agree with your tactic, but after a major attack occurs, we do have to respond with force.

But no, it really is not about opinions.  It's about when opinions lead to murderous actions.

As a side note, I know it's probably strange to hear me side with a neocon argument.