beat the crap out of them untill they yeild. finish what you started, ffs. but first, stop pretending you are jedi - nobody buys that crap anymore.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
So what is justice then if its not bumping off those with connections to one of if not the worst terrorist attack in history?Shahter wrote:
beat the crap out of them untill they yeild. finish what you started, ffs. but first, stop pretending you are jedi - nobody buys that crap anymore.
Justice can be defined as administering the deserved punishment, in this case, killing those who would sooner kill innocent, uninvolved people than give in.
tell that to all the "innocent, uninvolved people" who were killed along with those who "deserved punishment", man. who are you again to say, who's to be punished?M.O.A.B wrote:
So what is justice then if its not bumping off those with connections to one of if not the worst terrorist attack in history?Shahter wrote:
beat the crap out of them untill they yeild. finish what you started, ffs. but first, stop pretending you are jedi - nobody buys that crap anymore.
Justice can be defined as administering the deserved punishment, in this case, killing those who would sooner kill innocent, uninvolved people than give in.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
He is Harry brown, judge Jury and executioner.Shahter wrote:
tell that to all the "innocent, uninvolved people" who were killed along with those who "deserved punishment", man. who are you again to say, who's to be punished?M.O.A.B wrote:
So what is justice then if its not bumping off those with connections to one of if not the worst terrorist attack in history?Shahter wrote:
beat the crap out of them untill they yeild. finish what you started, ffs. but first, stop pretending you are jedi - nobody buys that crap anymore.
Justice can be defined as administering the deserved punishment, in this case, killing those who would sooner kill innocent, uninvolved people than give in.
Yet you're all for beating the crap out of them? Are we going to string every one up, give him a filling in and see whether or not he knows something? I believe that's been tried numerous times but that's always condemned as well. How do you decide which ones we beat up? Is beating them up not some form of justice? A reprisal for what they might have done?Shahter wrote:
tell that to all the "innocent, uninvolved people" who were killed along with those who "deserved punishment", man. who are you again to say, who's to be punished?M.O.A.B wrote:
So what is justice then if its not bumping off those with connections to one of if not the worst terrorist attack in history?Shahter wrote:
beat the crap out of them untill they yeild. finish what you started, ffs. but first, stop pretending you are jedi - nobody buys that crap anymore.
Justice can be defined as administering the deserved punishment, in this case, killing those who would sooner kill innocent, uninvolved people than give in.
how many times should i say this? - there's no universal "justice", not the kind on which both you and your enemies could agree anyway. the only common ground on which you can build your relationship with those whom you started this war with is might and fear. usa had won a certain war by dropping a single bomb on their enemy in the past - do you remember which war it was? now, i'm not suggesting anything like that, but the general idea should be similar, imo - your enemies should have a very clear understanding of what would happen if another plane crashes into some scyscraper in the united states. that's the only form of pursuasion they'd understand.M.O.A.B wrote:
Yet you're all for beating the crap out of them? Are we going to string every one up, give him a filling in and see whether or not he knows something? I believe that's been tried numerous times but that's always condemned as well. How do you decide which ones we beat up? Is beating them up not some form of justice? A reprisal for what they might have done?
so, stop playing jedi, stop "fighting the war on terror" and concentrate on what this shit really is about: control over the region and it's resources. show them muslims that their lives could actually be better if only they'd play the ball, and maybe then you'll be able to leave.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
You have any idea how many bombs were dropped on the Afghan mountains? That didn't exactly persuade them to stop. We're not fighting a country here, we're fighting a mix-up of nationalities brought together by one desire to hate the west and everything it stands for, and that includes turning their countries into better places. If the US dropped a nuke they'd be condemned and it still isn't guaranteed to stop them. Unlike the Japanese, the AQ and Taliban leadership care nothing for civilians or their own followers, its that simple.Shahter wrote:
how many times should i say this? - there's no universal "justice", not the kind on which both you and your enemies could agree anyway. the only common ground on which you can build your relationship with those whom you started this war with is might and fear. usa had won a certain war by dropping a single bomb on their enemy in the past - do you remember which war it was? now, i'm not suggesting anything like that, but the general idea should be similar, imo - your enemies should have a very clear understanding of what would happen if another plane crashes into some scyscraper in the united states. that's the only form of pursuasion they'd understand.M.O.A.B wrote:
Yet you're all for beating the crap out of them? Are we going to string every one up, give him a filling in and see whether or not he knows something? I believe that's been tried numerous times but that's always condemned as well. How do you decide which ones we beat up? Is beating them up not some form of justice? A reprisal for what they might have done?
so, stop playing jedi, stop "fighting the war on terror" and concentrate on what this shit really is about: control over the region and it's resources. show them muslims that their lives could actually be better if only they'd play the ball, and maybe then you'll be able to leave.
And what's this Justice = Jedi bull you keep mentioning? Lawmakers and all number of non-military organisations refer to justice all the time. How about hunting down and putting to trial the orchestrators of the genocide in Rwanda or Bosnia? I believe they were referred to as seeking justice for the families. Hunting down those responsible for 9/11 and other attacks is no different.
Also, if it were all about resources then why isn't the US or its allies defending the resource-rich areas? I've said this before and I'll say it again, resources may be one reason, but they are not the main reason, because if they were they'd just say bollocks to the towns and cities, dig in around the resources and ship them home under heavy protection.
well, bombing certainly worked on saddam, right? there are still those, who could be "pursuaded" with this kinda stuff in there.M.O.A.B wrote:
You have any idea how many bombs were dropped on the Afghan mountains? That didn't exactly persuade them to stop. We're not fighting a country here, we're fighting a mix-up of nationalities brought together by one desire to hate the west and everything it stands for, and that includes turning their countries into better places. If the US dropped a nuke they'd be condemned and it still isn't guaranteed to stop them.
bingo! we are finally getting somewhere here! how do you fight those, who do not have nationality and are not bound to certain territory? c'mon, man, i know you can guess this one.M.O.A.B wrote:
Unlike the Japanese, the AQ and Taliban leadership care nothing for civilians or their own followers, its that simple.
lawmakers... /sigh. dude, do you actually beleave any of those can invent something that would be accepted not only by yourself but by your enemies too? justice has no purpose if it's not perseived as such by all parties involved, no matter how many people in suite'n'ties set the ink to the paper for it.M.O.A.B wrote:
And what's this Justice = Jedi bull you keep mentioning? Lawmakers and all number of non-military organisations refer to justice all the time. How about hunting down and putting to trial the orchestrators of the genocide in Rwanda or Bosnia? I believe they were referred to as seeking justice for the families. Hunting down those responsible for 9/11 and other attacks is no different.
wouldn't "digging in" for "heavy protection" be a wee bit too costly to make it economically feasible?M.O.A.B wrote:
Also, if it were all about resources then why isn't the US or its allies defending the resource-rich areas? I've said this before and I'll say it again, resources may be one reason, but they are not the main reason, because if they were they'd just say bollocks to the towns and cities, dig in around the resources and ship them home under heavy protection.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
Jesus fucking christ you people are silly.US Could Have Caught Bin Laden
Last edited by Ioan92 (2009-11-30 10:58:22)
The point seems to be.. Maybe if they had more than one hundred commandos on the ground while he was trekking through the mountains.Ioan92 wrote:
Jesus fucking christ you people are silly.US Could Have Caught Bin Laden
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Bombing didn't stop Saddam being a tyrannical leader in his own country. Bombing didn't find him either.Shahter wrote:
well, bombing certainly worked on saddam, right? there are still those, who could be "pursuaded" with this kinda stuff in there.
You tell me, you're the one suggesting a big enough bomb to shock their socks off and force them into submission. Like I said, even with a nuke its not going to happen.Shahter wrote:
bingo! we are finally getting somewhere here! how do you fight those, who do not have nationality and are not bound to certain territory? c'mon, man, i know you can guess this one.
So unless something is viewed exactly the same by all parties, its meaningless? What about stealing There's a law set about saying its wrong, but others would say there's nothing wrong, so that must discount the law because not all involved parties are happy right?Shahter wrote:
lawmakers... /sigh. dude, do you actually beleave any of those can invent something that would be accepted not only by yourself but by your enemies too? justice has no purpose if it's not perseived as such by all parties involved, no matter how many people in suite'n'ties set the ink to the paper for it.
I think policing the streets to prevent militants bombing everything left right and centre costs far more than setting up defences in the desert.Shahter wrote:
wouldn't "digging in" for "heavy protection" be a wee bit too costly to make it economically feasible?
If you go in, bomb the crap out of a country and leave, what d'you think the reaction would be to the perpetrator of that attack? Do you think its going to stop your enemy right there and then? No. You go in and bomb a country these days and leave it in ruins, you're going to have Amnesty International on your ass faster than a horny dog.
They raped my grandmother and sent her to a concentration camp in Siberia. I have a half-Russian uncle.Shahter wrote:
did nazies kill some thirty millions of americans? did they burn them alive in concentration camps? did they starve them to death? did they ruin american cities? did they rape americam women? no? who do you think they'd rather surrender to then - those, whom they did all that nice stuff to or those whom they didn't?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
wat? why was it important to find him again?M.O.A.B wrote:
Bombing didn't stop Saddam being a tyrannical leader in his own country. Bombing didn't find him either.Shahter wrote:
well, bombing certainly worked on saddam, right? there are still those, who could be "pursuaded" with this kinda stuff in there.
a shame. okay, i'll tel you: you fight those bin ladens and the likes by denying them the resources. now, who was the biggest supporter of aq? to hell with taliban, to think that those poor wretches could actually support aq by themselves is utterly preposterous. so, were's the home of the vahabbism? where's the center of the most radical branch of islam and extremism? who spreads that islamist shit that gives lowings the hard on every time it's mentioned to 'em? where the hell that osama dude is from ffs? and why aren't you there yet?M.O.A.B wrote:
You tell me, you're the one suggesting a big enough bomb to shock their socks off and force them into submission. Like I said, even with a nuke its not going to happen.Shahter wrote:
bingo! we are finally getting somewhere here! how do you fight those, who do not have nationality and are not bound to certain territory? c'mon, man, i know you can guess this one.
all this is irrelevant. if your "just retribution" is not viewed as such by those whom you wish to set the example for, it does not serve it's purpose. period.M.O.A.B wrote:
So unless something is viewed exactly the same by all parties, its meaningless? What about stealing There's a law set about saying its wrong, but others would say there's nothing wrong, so that must discount the law because not all involved parties are happy right?Shahter wrote:
lawmakers... /sigh. dude, do you actually beleave any of those can invent something that would be accepted not only by yourself but by your enemies too? justice has no purpose if it's not perseived as such by all parties involved, no matter how many people in suite'n'ties set the ink to the paper for it.
last time i checked usa didn't intend to police those streets forever, right? the idea was to install so called democratic regime - read "the one that would be easy to manipulate" - and leave.M.O.A.B wrote:
I think policing the streets to prevent militants bombing everything left right and centre costs far more than setting up defences in the desert.Shahter wrote:
wouldn't "digging in" for "heavy protection" be a wee bit too costly to make it economically feasible?
oh, that again... so, usa said to everybody who didn't agree with them invading middle east, including un, to fuck right off already, and now you are affraid of what? - amnesty international? lulz?M.O.A.B wrote:
If you go in, bomb the crap out of a country and leave, what d'you think the reaction would be to the perpetrator of that attack? Do you think its going to stop your enemy right there and then? No. You go in and bomb a country these days and leave it in ruins, you're going to have Amnesty International on your ass faster than a horny dog.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
who sent you grandmom to siberia? nazies? man, nazies never did as much as set a foot in there, they didn't even come close.JohnG@lt wrote:
They raped my grandmother and sent her to a concentration camp in Siberia. I have a half-Russian uncle.Shahter wrote:
did nazies kill some thirty millions of americans? did they burn them alive in concentration camps? did they starve them to death? did they ruin american cities? did they rape americam women? no? who do you think they'd rather surrender to then - those, whom they did all that nice stuff to or those whom they didn't?
Last edited by Shahter (2009-11-30 11:35:58)
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
He might mean Russians? Half Russian uncle?Shahter wrote:
who sent you grandmom to siberia? nazies? man, nazies never did as much as set a foot in there, they didn't even come close.JohnG@lt wrote:
They raped my grandmother and sent her to a concentration camp in Siberia. I have a half-Russian uncle.Shahter wrote:
did nazies kill some thirty millions of americans? did they burn them alive in concentration camps? did they starve them to death? did they ruin american cities? did they rape americam women? no? who do you think they'd rather surrender to then - those, whom they did all that nice stuff to or those whom they didn't?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
That's exactly what we were doing in Afghanistan.Shahter wrote:
so, stop playing jedi, stop "fighting the war on terror" and concentrate on what this shit really is about: control over the region and it's resources. show them muslims that their lives could actually be better if only they'd play the ball, and maybe then you'll be able to leave.
The Special Ops guys went in to build rapport with the local Afghani mountain tribes, to live with them, to learn their culture & concerns.
They went in with a relatively small force of Americans, and took great pains to stay as out of view as possible.
They went in "small", to show the Afghanis they respected their independence, and to work with them to get rid of just the Al Quaeda.
In effect, to "show them muslims that their lives could actually be better" as you put it.
And, personally, it's not about what I believe our troops are there for. It's about what I've seen myself, what I know I've done as a soldier, what I've seen other soldiers do.
How about the SF medic (& team) , sent to the Honduras to help a local doctor's village hospital.
Spent 5 weeks trying to save the lives of women, children, and policemen shot up or blown up by Nicaraguan Sandanistas.
Having such limited supplies, and such a large number of wounded that you're forced to choose between the life of a 7 year old girl (blown up by an IED) - and the only combat-experience leader of a platoon of soldier/policemen. Meaning "save the girl, or save the 28 men under the sergeant's command".
How about the Army Engineer, standing guard over generators, to provide power to a field hospital, provide power to a water filtration system, and provide electricity for lighting. And having some of the brilliant natives throwing rocks (or molotovs on a good day) at you, so they could move in to strip the copper wiring off the generators to sell for a few cents. And not shooting back in defense, because that'd offend the natives. Knowing that, as a soldier, you're expendable if it's a choice between your life or a firefight that'd cause bad TV coverage for President "Blow Jobs" Clinton.
How about the medic who had to fight his way out of a building, carrying a comrade who'd just had a chunk of his face blown off.
How about getting shot at, but not shooting back because there are civilians mixed in with the hostiles. The hostiles are, effectively, hiding behind the civilians to shoot at you on purpose.
How about being on a helicopter crew, patrolling the no-fly zone over Iraq after the first Gulf War. Trying to keep Saddam's air force from dropping nerve agent on the Kurds again. How about continuing to make a radio call, while an Iraqi SAM site locks onto your helicopter, knowing if that missile launches you're dead (heavy helicopters can't dodge a SAM meant to catch an F-15). Knowing there's a high probability that that radio transmission may be your last words.
How about sitting in a bunker, near the DMZ in Korea, knowing you're the 1st target if the North Koreans decide to attack. Sitting there, enforcing a peace, keeping the South Korean forces strong enough to ensure that the North will think twice about coming across.
Or, if the DMZ in Korea is too far to relate to.. how about the Balkans, or West Germany?
How about going to a foreign nation, helping them build housing, build infrastructure, build medical facilities, and train the local military/police defense force in how to better defend their countries for themselves.
How about being one of the first on-scene when a water truck rolls over, splits in half, and smears three fellow soldiers into the asphalt underneath the wreckage. Or picking through a helicopter crash site, and being able to identify a severed hand as belonging to the co-pilot, because the hand has a wedding ring on it, and he was the only one on the crew that was married.
How about sitting in a counter-battery radar station in Iraq. Waiting for insurgents to drop mortars on you, trying to get a origin point on those mortar rounds as they head towards you, and relaying that information to infantry or artillery (hopefully) quickly enough to catch the bad guys before they escape. As long as the origin of the mortar attacks wasn't a schoolyard, mosque, or hospital rooftop (which it often was).
How about spending months of your life in a 3rd world shithole, as a medic, trying to prevent the spread of fun diseases like dysentary, the plague, etc. Trying to patch up people shredded by leftover mines, grenades, or IEDs.
We (the soldiers I know) go with the intent of helping the people overseas, not taking anything from them. We're the richest nation in the world, some of us do feel like we should try to help out those not as fortunate in the accident of our birthplace.
If that's Jedi, well cool. Thanks.
Every one of those stories above is a member of my family. Not a news story, not propaganda, not fiction.
Every one of those stories, is either my Father, myself, my wife, my sister, or my brother-in-law.
Some of those stories apply to more than one of us, if you change the location.
Doesn't much matter what you believe. Some of us actually know why we were there, and what we did
Christ this is totally pointless. Make up your mind about what you want to do, because it looks like your flip-flopping between different points of view. You want us to invade Saudi Arabia? Pakistan? Should we hit Somalia or maybe the rest of the ME? What's that going to acheive? AQ's funding isn't confined to one country and neither is its support. The leaders of Saudi Arabia are as far from what AQ wants them to be as is possible, so I guess we should invade them.Shahter wrote:
wat? why was it important to find him again?M.O.A.B wrote:
Bombing didn't stop Saddam being a tyrannical leader in his own country. Bombing didn't find him either.Shahter wrote:
well, bombing certainly worked on saddam, right? there are still those, who could be "pursuaded" with this kinda stuff in there.a shame. okay, i'll tel you: you fight those bin ladens and the likes by denying them the resources. now, who was the biggest supporter of aq? to hell with taliban, to think that those poor wretches could actually support aq by themselves is utterly preposterous. so, were's the home of the vahabbism? where's the center of the most radical branch of islam and extremism? who spreads that islamist shit that gives lowings the hard on every time it's mentioned to 'em? where the hell that osama dude is from ffs? and why aren't you there yet?M.O.A.B wrote:
You tell me, you're the one suggesting a big enough bomb to shock their socks off and force them into submission. Like I said, even with a nuke its not going to happen.Shahter wrote:
bingo! we are finally getting somewhere here! how do you fight those, who do not have nationality and are not bound to certain territory? c'mon, man, i know you can guess this one.all this is irrelevant. if your "just retribution" is not viewed as such by those whom you wish to set the example for, it does not serve it's purpose. period.M.O.A.B wrote:
So unless something is viewed exactly the same by all parties, its meaningless? What about stealing There's a law set about saying its wrong, but others would say there's nothing wrong, so that must discount the law because not all involved parties are happy right?Shahter wrote:
lawmakers... /sigh. dude, do you actually beleave any of those can invent something that would be accepted not only by yourself but by your enemies too? justice has no purpose if it's not perseived as such by all parties involved, no matter how many people in suite'n'ties set the ink to the paper for it.last time i checked usa didn't intend to police those streets forever, right? the idea was to install so called democratic regime - read "the one that would be easy to manipulate" - and leave.M.O.A.B wrote:
I think policing the streets to prevent militants bombing everything left right and centre costs far more than setting up defences in the desert.Shahter wrote:
wouldn't "digging in" for "heavy protection" be a wee bit too costly to make it economically feasible?oh, that again... so, usa said to everybody who didn't agree with them invading middle east, including un, to fuck right off already, and now you are affraid of what? - amnesty international? lulz?M.O.A.B wrote:
If you go in, bomb the crap out of a country and leave, what d'you think the reaction would be to the perpetrator of that attack? Do you think its going to stop your enemy right there and then? No. You go in and bomb a country these days and leave it in ruins, you're going to have Amnesty International on your ass faster than a horny dog.
Protip: Don't take everything literally.
yeah, sure, but you were being used for fighting resource wars against those people instead.rdx-fx wrote:
We (the soldiers I know) go with the intent of helping the people overseas
yeah, sure, but you were being used to fight a war the ultimate purpose of which was to make your richest nation even richer at the expence of the others.rdx-fx wrote:
We're the richest nation in the world, some of us do feel like we should try to help out those not as fortunate in the accident of our birthplace
all this chest beating was pretty impressive man, i'll give you that, but the fact of the matter is you are all soldiers, and soldiers are supposed to follow their orders. you hadn't been given orders to shoot at those civilians? others had been, and they shot, you can be sure of that. you had your opprtunity to be cool to them poor wretches? others had their orders and beaten the crap out of those. you may very well be the fucking saint, but those who sent you to war certainly aren't - and it's them who make the decisions there, you are just a tool for them.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
My grandmother was in Germany for WWII. She survived the firebombing of Dresden and then Russian soldiers came in to the dead city, raped her, and then shipped her off to a gulag in Siberia. My family has a lot of hatred for Russians.Shahter wrote:
who sent you grandmom to siberia? nazies? man, nazies never did as much as set a foot in there, they didn't even come close.JohnG@lt wrote:
They raped my grandmother and sent her to a concentration camp in Siberia. I have a half-Russian uncle.Shahter wrote:
did nazies kill some thirty millions of americans? did they burn them alive in concentration camps? did they starve them to death? did they ruin american cities? did they rape americam women? no? who do you think they'd rather surrender to then - those, whom they did all that nice stuff to or those whom they didn't?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
my english sucks, i know. sometimes i have a hard time explaining myself. the point is: you need to make up your mind, man. what you do in the middle east and what you say you do in there - it doesn't add up at all. that's your problem and that's what this discussion is all about. if you want to fight aq you are doing it all wrong and if you fight for resources and influence stop pretending you it's a "war on terror".M.O.A.B wrote:
Christ this is totally pointless.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
i see.JohnG@lt wrote:
My grandmother was in Germany for WWII. She survived the firebombing of Dresden and then Russian soldiers came in to the dead city, raped her, and then shipped her off to a gulag in Siberia. My family has a lot of hatred for Russians.
well, everybody, each and every russian in here, myself included, have a parent, grand-parent, or grand-grand parent - many have more than one actually - killed in ww2. and you know what? - nobody, not a single person i know, have any hatred for german people for that. go figure.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
US military works a little differently than the Soviet Army.Shahter wrote:
all this chest beating was pretty impressive man, i'll give you that, but the fact of the matter is you are all soldiers, and soldiers are supposed to follow their orders. you hadn't been given orders to shoot at those civilians? others had been, and they shot, you can be sure of that. you had your opprtunity to be cool to them poor wretches? others had their orders and beaten the crap out of those. you may very well be the fucking saint, but those who sent you to war certainly aren't - and it's them who make the decisions there, you are just a tool for them.
Every Private is trained that they are obligated to disobey an unlawful order.
Specifically, if a superior orders you to kill unarmed civilians, captured EPW (POW), or non-combatants - you are legally obligated to refuse that order, and report the violation to another superior officer or NCO.
Doesn't matter if it's the highest ranking General in the area, regulations 'outrank' officers.
Sometimes the real world gets a little 'grey', determining who's unarmed (cell phone or IED detonator?).
Sometimes soldiers 'break', and forget their orders.
The Nazis tried the "Just following orders" defense at Nurenburg. Didn't work for them, doesn't work for the US Army.
All wars, in the overall scheme of things, are about resources, influence, and power. Period. End of statement.Shahter wrote:
yeah, sure, but you were being used for fighting resource wars against those people instead.
Having said that, there is plenty of room for interpretation for how the soldiers on the ground carry out their orders.
Pass out candy, food, and soccer balls to the local kids -- or treat every one as a potential suicide bomber?
Influence does not have to mean "do this, or we bomb you". Influence can be "help us out, and we'll help you out".
Little things, like showing the Afghani Mountain Tribes that, despite popular press coverage, we're not all godless infidels bent on destroying their way of life, killing all muslims, and taking their land or oil.
Cheaper to just buy the oil from a friendly nation, than send in an army to take it.
I'm not a politician, I'm not a soldier, but I know that while the politician's may want access to resources along the line, that's not what the troops are doing. They're training the Afghan's and fighting the militant groups. I've already said that its almost impossible to cut AQ off because there are so many ways for it to get funding.Shahter wrote:
my english sucks, i know. sometimes i have a hard time explaining myself. the point is: you need to make up your mind, man. what you do in the middle east and what you say you do in there - it doesn't add up at all. that's your problem and that's what this discussion is all about. if you want to fight aq you are doing it all wrong and if you fight for resources and influence stop pretending you it's a "war on terror".M.O.A.B wrote:
Christ this is totally pointless.
I don't need to make my mind up about anything because I'm not in charge. I'm not relaying instructions to commanders. The troops want to beat the militants and jihadists, they are fighting the terrorists. Whatever the politician's want is another matter.
As far as what we do and what we say we do, are we not training up Afghan forces and holding the valleys against militants in firebases? Are we not setting up hospitals and schools? Are we not pressuring Kharzi into taking a harder line against corruption so he can actually run his country? Letting this places fall back into Taliban control is letting them win and letting AQ. You show them fear, they'll exploit it.
A point that gets missed in Western history books.Shahter wrote:
well, everybody, each and every russian in here, myself included, have a parent, grand-parent, or grand-grand parent - many have more than one actually - killed in ww2. and you know what? - nobody, not a single person i know, have any hatred for german people for that. go figure.
Out of all the deaths in WW-2, Russia lost about 30 million people.
In comparison, the nightmare genocide of the Jewish Holocaust was 6 million people dead.
The great sacrifice of the UK, including the London blitz? 400,000 civilians and soldiers total
The horrors of D-Day, the bloody fighting of Iwo Jima, the total losses of the USA? 400,000
Germany - 6 million. Japan - 3 million.
Out of the carnage of WW-2, the Russians and Chinese suffered fully 85% of the casualties of that war.
30 million each.
Russia and China bled for that war.
another piece of propaganda? - thank you very much, i just had mine.rdx-fx wrote:
Every Private is trained that they are obligated to disobey an unlawful order.
Specifically, if a superior orders you to kill unarmed civilians, captured EPW (POW), or non-combatants - you are legally obligated to refuse that order, and report the violation to another superior officer or NCO.
Doesn't matter if it's the highest ranking General in the area, regulations 'outrank' officers.
Sometimes the real world gets a little 'grey', determining who's unarmed (cell phone or IED detonator?).
Sometimes soldiers 'break', and forget their orders.
war never changes (c).rdx-fx wrote:
All wars, in the overall scheme of things, are about resources, influence, and power. Period. End of statement.Shahter wrote:
yeah, sure, but you were being used for fighting resource wars against those people instead.
Having said that, there is plenty of room for interpretation for how the soldiers on the ground carry out their orders.
Pass out candy, food, and soccer balls to the local kids -- or treat every one as a potential suicide bomber?
but, for good or bad, it works best that way, especially with those backwards barbarians. as a russian saying goes, "no matter how long you feed the wolf, it would still long for its forest".rdx-fx wrote:
Influence does not have to mean "do this, or we bomb you".
Last edited by Shahter (2009-11-30 12:49:56)
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.