[ARCHIVED THREAD] - How to fight !!! (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 6/20/2006 2:45:09 PM EDT
How does one country fight another country when one has a set of rules to go by, and the other country hasd NO rules, and they can play as dirty as they want to???? My point, this Iraq shit.... We have got to keep the GD reporters out of there so we can do WHATEVER we have to do to win. I'm sick of hearing how the Enemy has killed another prisoner or beheaded another american,... while we can't even take "degrading pictures"of prisoner or all hell breaks loose... We can't win with one hand tied behind our back!!! 
|
|
+1 We had a reporter with us during OIF I. He reported what his boss wanted him to, but at the same time he kept his mouth shut about a lot of stuff. Maybe we just got lucky with him. Media is just one of those parasites that you have to deal with in situations like these. Just a part of life I guess. Or we could all get together with our weapons and...nvrmnd 
|
Which country are we fighting? |
Very good point. |
|
Whatever country the enemy is from... it does'nt matter if they are from Iraq , Syria , Iran , Afganistan, Pakistan, N Korea!!! All of them do what ever they want as far as torturing Americans, But we have to sooooo Political Correct. We (our Soldiers and Marines) have got to be able to fight fire with fire, Not fire with "oh well maybe they'll do right someday if we are nice to them!!!" Come on.... Give me a F@#KING BREAK!!! 
|
You do realize that torture doesn't work, right? That it often only steels the resolve of the enemy? Isn't seeing the torture and brutal treatment of our own soldiers steeling our resolve? Besides, do you really think that we are losing the war? We are winning! This war in Iraq is going to be over within a few years - depends on when Saddam is executed. The longer we stay "PC" is the harder it is for the insurgency to find popular support. Any insurgency that lacks the support of the people is doomed to fail. As Mao Tse-tung said - The revolutionary is the fish, and the people are the water. The fish cannot live without the water. So, I say to you, as I say to all others - what do you suggest we do that we aren't already doing? |
|
It's a war of ideologies. Abandoning the moral high ground is not a path to victory. Even while playing by the rules, we run the risk of turning the population against us due to collateral damage, mistakes, and just plain killing the enemy. We're in their country, most of the insurgents are Iraqis, they have families, friends, clans, tribes and so on. Every time we kill one we run the risk of making more enemies. Try to imagine if it was a foreign army (say China) in your country, and they killed your son or whatever. Would it matter to you that they were bringing the glorious benefits of communism? These peoples only experience with freedom and democracy is what we've provided them, if we start breaking the rules we'll end up having to choose between genocide and defeat. |
So you are saying we should target civilians? To what end? What purpose will that serve, besides inducing sexual ecstasy in ARFcommers? |
Desperation showing. Same impulse that drives people to say we should just nuke 'em all and be done with it. |
Absolutely incorrect. |
Really? According to the US military, less than 10% of the insurgents are foreign fighters, are you saying they're THAT far off base? If so, maybe we should be reexamining our command structure. |
orly? |
Is'nt that what kicked Japan ass!!! That pretty much ended all the BULLSHIT!!! 
|
Don't know where you got that from, everything I have ever read show that Iraqi make up the most significant portion of the insurgency...though the foreign fighters may be the "leaders." Pretty sureit delved into that in the "No True Glory" book by Bing West, too. |
This should be something like : American soldiers don't intentionally target non-combatants. We make up stupid rules and fight accordingly, while our enemy mocks us and tortures our soldiers. |
I LOVE these kill 'em all threads. Always good for a laugh. Josey, use your friggin head. What you are suggesting is un-american and self-defeating to boot. This idea of yours has been tried many times and never works. "Punishing" the civillians just works in favor of your enemy. Also, the fact that it is purely evil deserves some mention. |
Depends on who defines the rules, we intentionally targeted civilians in WWII and killed hundreds of thousands of non-combatants. Helped end the war sooner and we won, saving countless American lives. Vietnam also saw tens, possibly hundreds of thousands (depending on whose stats you wish to believe) of non-combatants killed by American bombs. Whether we "intentionally targeted" them is irrelevent, they are just as dead. We all know who the "victory" went went to in that war. If we had followed the same doctrine (firebombing cities) in Vietnam as we did in Japan and Germany the Vietnam war would have been over in a very short time. The wholesale slaughter of civilian populations is/was an effective tool of war, although an outdated concept nowadays it seems. The U.S. and the rest of the civilized world will not stomach astronomical civilian casualties in Iraq, we must take the so-called highroad and fight a civilized war against a savage and barbaric enemy, thus, victory will take much longer to achieve and more GI's will die. Sometimes "playing by the rules" sucks.  |
|
Let me have my say. I've spent my year in the sandbox, and will probably end up back before it's all over with. I love America, even with her flaws, and I consider myself lucky to be able to defend her. I also belive that America is a good country that overall she has good intentions. If I ever come to belive otherwise, me and the military will be parting ways. Why? Because I like to think that I'm an ethical person. I hope to make it into Heaven one day. And I don't see where actions like beheading prisoners or killing civilians with roadside bombs are any good for me. I think it's fair, if I'm sent off to war, to expect that America wants me to behave as a "good Guy." Because what's the fucking point of going over there to fight if I end up as evil as the people I'm fighting. |
Maybe my info is dated then. I could certainly be wrong, I suppose. Everything I can remember reading said that most of the scumbags were from places like syria, jordan, iran, saudi arabia and north africa. All retards coming into iraq to start shit and wage their stupid holy war against the evil infidels. I could very well be wrong, I guess. Maybe the percentage of foreign shitbags has shifted radically in recent months. |
Well said and thanks for your service! |
|
Alright, what do you suggest? We have one of the best ROE's over there; as far as I understand, if you see someone with beltfeds, green headbands, "black pajamas" (used by some militia over there), RPG's, IED's, mortar's, WHATEVER, it's shoot to kill. We are acting as tough as we can short of firebombing entire cities, Dresden style. It sure sucks that the media glorifies us taking pictures of dogs in front of terrorist's face, but guys that's the media. The media does NOT equate to how well we are doing and whether or not we are winning. We are NOT fighting with one hand behind our backs; seriously folks, to get any "tougher" we'd have to firebomb and level entire cities. Oh, and we targeted civilians in WWII because they were making weapons not in the factories but in their homes. And these were whole cities doing it, not just one house or two in every couple of neighborhoods. |
We would have been done along time ago. Instead we just play around,letting our guys get killed. This is a dog eat dog world,kill or be killed.BRING BACK CARPET BOMBING |
To what end? What would that accomplish? |
We would have been done with Iraq a few days after it started. |
|
Wish that natives ran for shelter whenever a rumur of a Humvee was coming down the street. Fight fear with fear. Bust them and walk away. Stop playing nice, it is war and get it over with quickly. Our troops deserve to be respected and protected. But we are a civilized nation...... |
How many of those civilian mass casualties occurred AFTER the enemy surrendered? We haven't been at war with the nation of Iraq for almost three years now, the civilians we're discussing are the same people who elected the government we supposedly have friendly relations with. If there were cities full of people contributing to Saddams war effort, and Saddam was still in power, and we were pressing for his surrender to end major hostilities, then the arguement might hold some water. I don't recall any heavy bombing campaigns on or executions of non combatant civilians when we were dealing with partisan holdouts after WWII. ETA, Now, if the arguement is that we should have gone into Iraq heavy to begin with, thoroughly crippled the nations ability and will to fight, and come home. That's an arguement that can be made. Of course then we'd be dealing with Iranian dominance in the region on a scale that's totally unacceptable. Perhaps if "shock and awe" had been a little more shocking and a lot more awesome we could have moved on to Iran by now, shocked and awed them as well. The Iraqi campaign never made much strategic sense unless we intended to escalate. My response to that arguement would be if we're not willing or justified in waging total war we shouldn't be there at all. But we're there now, we chose the path of occupation and nationbuilding, we own it, as they say. Whenever I read these "kill 'em all" posts I can't help but think the authors have backed themselves into a corner in their minds where anyone who doesn't support the war is somehow unpatriotic, yet they're having trouble supporting the war as it's being waged, so the problem in their mind is those ungrateful, barbaric Iraqis are just doing too much breathing. |
I may be wrong here but I was under the impression we are helping them build their country back up to a civilization after years under a ruthless dictator. If we just wanted to destroy their military capacity and economy we could've just fucked the entire infrastructure and then blockaded. One of the very first theatre rules IIRC (from Colby Buzzel's book) was NOT to destroy Iraqi infrastructure. We are there to help the average person in Iraq. I think you are missing the entire point of this war as it stands now. |
The war as it should be is to do what we need to do and be done with it,concerning ourselves with other people will bring on the downfall of the US. I know it sounds harsh but you have to look out for number 1. |
Done with what? |
I disagree. One, the American people should know what is being done in their name. Secondly, we should NOT be fighting with NO rules , doing "whatever" it takes. We are supposed to be demonstrating the moral superiority of our system of government; you can't do that if you let your military loose with no control over them. |
That isnt the stated policy of the US government before or after the war started.
What you're saying essentially is you're against the war. We're fighting a war to essentially re-educate the Iraqis. The "war" has been over since 2003, now we're essentially policing the country for an ambivalent populace. |
Getting rid of Saddam and doing what we want with the country. |
Such as? |
|
I'm not into that blow them all up doctrine,but I would say that it would be good press to tell people that don't want to get blown up (they might want to distance themselves from known targets)and dinner with Zaqourie is deffinatly a NONO! Who would have thunk it? Bob
|