NationStates Jolt Archive

During WWII, a man by the name of George S. Patton said this: "No son of a bitch ever won a war by dying for his country, but won it by making some other son of a bitch die for his country."

Think about those words. Not only do they tell us that Patton swore a lot, but they give us the answer to winning the Iraq war"

Carpet bomb any place believed to hold terrorists(No, they aren't "freedom fighters", or "insurgents", they are filthy, evil disease-carrying rats.)

That simple. Sure, civilians might get hurt, but isn't it true that in war, people die?

And there you have it.

Shouldn't you call this thread "How to stir up the biggest Islamic outcry and cause far more violence in 24 hours?"

I mean if you believe that bombing is the way to win wars, then you really should read up on your history, particularly the bit that deals with "The London Blitz".

Not to mention the UN and the Geneva Convention people would be breathing down our asses faster than we can drop a bomb...

I still think Robin Williams had the better idea, let's fight vermin with vermin, lets drop a whole planeload of New York rats into the Tora Bora-like complexes. That'll get ANYONE out of a cave, those F*ckers are HUGE!

Shouldn't you call this thread "How to stir up the biggest Islamic outcry and cause far more violence in 24 hours?"

I mean if you believe that bombing is the way to win wars, then you really should read up on your history, particularly the bit that deals with "The London Blitz".
Understand this: Its either they die, or we die. By the bombing part, I mean, we go in there, bomb the crap out of them, then send our troops in there and slaughter any terrorists still alive. You can't negotiate with these people, they aren't true Muslims. Besides, in war, you can't do all that "touchy-feely" crap. You should try to not hurt the feelings of psychos that behead your own country's citizens. People will get angry, and we must continue with what we do. True Muslims won't support the terrorists, they would understand that the terrorists are their enemies, too.

I mean if you believe that bombing is the way to win wars, then you really should read up on your history, particularly the bit that deals with "The London Blitz".

He'd better read up the part about "Auschwitz" and the "Shoa" for the "final sollution to the Muslim menace" he might be looking for.

...

Not to mention the UN and the Geneva Convention people would be breathing down our asses faster than we can drop a bomb...
Oh yeah, the UN can really berate us about it, even though they've been raping women like crazy in Africa. Also, the Geneva Convention only applies to enemies that are fighting on behalf of a nation.

He'd better read up the part about "Auschwitz" and the "Shoa" for the "final sollution to the Muslim menace" he might be looking for.

...

Hey, i'm no Nazi. I hate Nazism. I don't want to kill every Muslim. There are good Muslims. 99% of the Muslim population are good people. Its the 1% that are the ones that we must stop.

True Muslims won't support the terrorists, they would understand that the terrorists are their enemies, too.Yes, shortly before they get blown to smithereens by your bombs. Good idea.

During WWII, a man by the name of George S. Patton said this: "No son of a bitch ever won a war by dying for his country, but won it by making some other son of a bitch die for his country."

Think about those words. Not only do they tell us that Patton swore a lot, but they give us the answer to winning the Iraq war"

Carpet bomb any place believed to hold terrorists(No, they aren't "freedom fighters", or "insurgents", they are filthy, evil disease-carrying rats.)

That simple. Sure, civilians might get hurt, but isn't it true that in war, people die?

And there you have it.



um....i agree with the idea behind this..if you want results inb warfare you can not just handle it like a bunch of pansies..you have to quik and efficient...

i dont think for a second that Rommel would have said " ooo dont shoot them..they might be wounded...oo..lets just wait till the media get here to make our descion for us.." no he would have blown up every mosque until he was sure that he had bullied allah in to submission...!!! note: i am not a nazi...rommel was a good tactician and was not afraid to do the job in hand.

Carpet bomb any place believed to hold terrorists(No, they aren't "freedom fighters", or "insurgents", they are filthy, evil disease-carrying rats.)

That simple. Sure, civilians might get hurt, but isn't it true that in war, people die?

And there you have it.


By this 'logic':

The United States should carpet bomb itself.

It certainly believes that there are members of Al Qaeda within its own borders.

Sure, civilians might get hurt, but isn't it true that in war, people die?

And there you have it.

Hey, i'm no Nazi. I hate Nazism. I don't want to kill every Muslim. There are good Muslims. 99% of the Muslim population are good people. Its the 1% that are the ones that we must stop.

No, you "only" want to carpet bomb half of Iraq qith no regard for the innocent.

Sounds very nazi to me.

That's stupid. The terrorists are everywhere in Iraq so that would mean nuking the whole country. Oh and bomb New York, Amsterdam and Paris too while you're at it, I bet terrorists live there too. :rolleyes:

Understand this: Its either they die, or we die. By the bombing part, I mean, we go in there, bomb the crap out of them, then send our troops in there and slaughter any terrorists still alive. You can't negotiate with these people, they aren't true Muslims. Besides, in war, you can't do all that "touchy-feely" crap. You should try to not hurt the feelings of psychos that behead your own country's citizens. People will get angry, and we must continue with what we do. True Muslims won't support the terrorists, they would understand that the terrorists are their enemies, too.


When you carpet bomb indiscriminately, you hit "true" Muslims, and you get them pissed off that you come over into their country, and bomb the crap out of anything that moves. (think about it this way. Americans commit crimes in other countries. Would you accept a foreigner carpet bombing NY just to get them? Hell no.

Lacking the ability to perform a counter attack (it's that damned lack of a navy, and considering the bee-hive you stirred up, ain't no way a Muslim will be walking US streets without being pre-emptively locked up), muslims will make sure that you get nothing from their countries ever again. That means oil.

So basically, what you do, is you alienate the US from the entire world, especially its one billion muslims, annihilate your oil industry, and recieve, hopefully, a global trade embargo.


Good plan, batman.

Yes, shortly before they get blown to smithereens by your bombs. Good idea.
Ugh..no one gets what I'm aiming at. I would hope that the military try to use the bombs and make sure they don't destroy more than they're aiming for.

That won't work unless they have some sort of terrorist-seeking missiles.

i Don't Want Innocent People To Die! I Do Care About Innocent People. But More Innocents Are Being Killed By Those Goddamn Terrorist Bastards Through Cowardly Techniques Such As Suicide Bombers And Car Bombs Than We Would Ever Purposely Do! Damnit!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/frisbeeteria/modedit.jpgEnough with the massive fonts already.

Well, this was the US policy in WWII. We bombed the living daylights out of German and Japanese cities. It worked brilliantly. We won and the Nazis and Imperial Japanese are no more.

just if i may, suppose we do go in and carpet bomb entire cities out of existence, suppose we do end the insurrection... a great number of ifs about the second clause, but we'll take it as a given here.

so we win the "war" by killing all our enemies... but what do we get out of the whole affair?

the united states, contrary to some popular opinion, cannot survive on its own, there are, for example, some strategically important minerals that we must import large quantities of - not including oil. However, if we go wiping out entire civilian populations, the united states will not endear itself to the world, we will make enemies of our friends. And while it's true a lot of nations require things the United States has, they could go to the rest of the world's countries for their supplies, for their business. In iraq, the US-puppet government would likely be forced to act out against the US occupation in response to what would likely be a massive Iraqi surge in anger over the mass-killings comparable to presumably the atrocity that was Dresden.

if that happens, we're more than likely not going to get iraqi oil or anything out of iraq for that matter... if that happens, what have thousands of american troops died for, what have billions of american dollars been spent for, what has my tax money gone to... nothing of any benefit to the united states. sure we have a "free" government, and that's nice in the world of idealism, however if one believes in practicality, the united states would gain nothing from the war.

the united states decided to involve itself in another country's internal affairs, and now must pay the consequence for its action - be it right or wrong. and part of this cost is the loss of life. ultimately, carpet bombing iraq could work, and i emphasize could because you may enrage a great number of iraqis and only further fuel the insurrection... but if it did work, what would the united states have really won?

Killing the enemy is not the point. War is never a bodycount, there are always political, economic objectives. A war's success is judged not purely by a kill ratio, but by whether you achieve what you set out to do. If you cannot see beyond the fighting, to the motives of nations, you will never understand the subject.

Iraq is a good example, the goal of the war is not to kill a clearly-defined group of people and leave, there are numerous political and economic goals, notably energy security, and a long-term occupation is one means towards them.

Please read a foreign policy primer before debating. A few quotes from a junior high history text book are an insuffcient grounding.

kthxbye

"Well, this was the US policy in WWII. We bombed the living daylights out of German and Japanese cities. It worked brilliantly. We won and the Nazis and Imperial Japanese are no more."

Well uhh, US was in war with Germany and Japan.

US is not in war with Iraq.

US is in war with terrorists.

Not to mention the bombing you're talking about was 43-45, not 2005.

And oh US didn't win the war by bombing civilians though.

i Don't Want Innocent People To Die! I Do Care About Innocent People. But More Innocents Are Being Killed By Those Goddamn Terrorist Bastards Through Cowardly Techniques Such As Suicide Bombers And Car Bombs Than We Would Ever Purposely Do! Damnit!

Be a darling and explain to me how carpet bombing an enemy who have no airforce is less cowardly than using car bombs or suicide bombers, would you?

Not to mention the UN and the Geneva Convention people would be breathing down our asses faster than we can drop a bomb...

Yeah, if they really think that carpet bombing Iraq is just so wrong, don't you think they might come up with some better ideas instead of sitting on their hands telling us what we're doing wrong. If they want peace, they'll have to either help us or stay out.

During WWII, a man by the name of George S. Patton said this: "No son of a bitch ever won a war by dying for his country, but won it by making some other son of a bitch die for his country."

Think about those words. Not only do they tell us that Patton swore a lot, but they give us the answer to winning the Iraq war"

Carpet bomb any place believed to hold terrorists(No, they aren't "freedom fighters", or "insurgents", they are filthy, evil disease-carrying rats.)

That simple. Sure, civilians might get hurt, but isn't it true that in war, people die?

And there you have it.
World War Two was not won in 7 days. Anyway, what's wrong with what the US military are currently doing therre?

Fine, we don't carpet bomb them. How about instead, we send our troops into every building in every city in Iraq. If there is any terrorists, we pop a bullet into their brains.

World War Two was not won in 7 days. Anyway, what's wrong with what the US military are currently doing therre?

well tacticly i would say (not just U.S forces) they are doing it pretty .....well..its not very good is it..

Fine, we don't carpet bomb them. How about instead, we send our troops into every building in every city in Iraq. If there is any terrorists, we pop a bullet into their brains.

Question for you before these sumamry executions: how do you recognise a terrorist?

i Don't Want Innocent People To Die! I Do Care About Innocent People. But More Innocents Are Being Killed By Those Goddamn Terrorist Bastards Through Cowardly Techniques Such As Suicide Bombers And Car Bombs Than We Would Ever Purposely Do! Damnit!Then why don't you, oh, I don't know, launch an operation in and around Baghdad in which Iraqi security forces (with support from the US forces) round up and detain as many suspected insurgents as possible (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4617177.stm)?

Be a darling and explain to me how carpet bombing an enemy who have no airforce is less cowardly than using car bombs or suicide bombers, would you?
Good Lord, I am surrounded by numbskulls. We are good, they are bad! END OF F***ING STORY!

Middle East = Glass Farm.

Actually, the Geneva convention would apply to the USA's action regardless of the enemy.

Question for you before these sumamry executions: how do you recognise a terrorist?

They have big black beards, wear towels on their heads, have rectangular bulges in the front of their robes, or all three. Everyone knows that. ;)

Good Lord, I am surrounded by numbskulls. We are good, they are bad! END OF F***ING STORY!


How do you come to that conclusion? you are only "good" because the media says so...they see themselves as "good"...who are we to determin "good" from "bad"...there is no black and white in war...only lots of grey and red

Good Lord, I am surrounded by numbskulls. We are good, they are bad! END OF F***ING STORY!

Oooh. Flaming. Nice way to try and convince me.

So, a nation that (hypothetically) indiscriminately carpet bombs population centres full of non-combatants in the hope of killing terrorists are the good guys? Something of a betrayal of all the priniciples that the US was founded on, no?

Looks like the white hat got lost somewhere along the line.

Anyhow, I'll ask again seeing as you didn't deign to provide an actual answer the first time round:

Be a darling and explain to me how carpet bombing an enemy who have no airforce is less cowardly than using car bombs or suicide bombers, would you?

AHHH.....TO HELL WITH IT.I guess this idea will please all of you: Let's just lay down our guns, hold hands, and sing, "Give Peace a Chance" while we get beheaded, blow away, or wasted one by one. Then in America we can lower security to the point where its non-existant, ban the military, and we then all die! The end. I'm done with this crap.

Fine, we don't carpet bomb them. How about instead, we send our troops into every building in every city in Iraq. If there is any terrorists, we pop a bullet into their brains.
How many buildings in Iraq? It takes at least a squad to take even a modestly-sized building. The extreme case is Stalingrad, took over a year to clear out, with a couple of million dead. A mini-holocaust right there.

Christ, look at Grozny. If there is one thing the Russian Interior Ministry cannot be accused of, it is excessive sensitivity to casualties. They spent a week firing MLRS at it in 1995, conservative estimate says 70,000 civilians died. They're still trading sniper fire with the bandits today.

Rofl, you are such a simple mind.

Discussions like these are not for you, kid.

AHHH.....TO HELL WITH IT.I guess this idea will please all of you: Let's just lay down our guns, hold hands, and sing, "Give Peace a Chance" while we get beheaded, blow away, or wasted one by one. Then in America we can lower security to the point where its non-existant, ban the military, and we then all die! The end. I'm done with this crap.

I would actually consider this a far less counterproductive strategy than your initial one.

Question for you before these sumamry executions: how do you recognise a terrorist?

Easy, anyone who attempts to defend themselves against armed men bursting into their homes for no apparent reason other than that that home happens to be located somewhere in Iraq is obviously a terrorist.

Shoot on sight. :rolleyes:

AHHH.....TO HELL WITH IT.I guess this idea will please all of you: Let's just lay down our guns, hold hands, and sing, "Give Peace a Chance" while we get beheaded, blow away, or wasted one by one. Then in America we can lower security to the point where its non-existant, ban the military, and we then all die! The end. I'm done with this crap.I'm pretty sure there's more options than blowing the shit out of everything or surrendering.

Question for you before these sumamry executions: how do you recognise a terrorist?

Well, he obviously has a big sign saying "Grr. I am an evil terrorist." Or a Terrorists Union badge.

On a side note stalingrad did not take a year to clear out. I believe the germans launched a siege on september, captured in november/december, and got surrounded because of hitlers pride in february.

On a side note stalingrad did not take a year to clear out. I believe the germans launched a siege on september, captured in november/december, and got surrounded because of hitlers pride in february.
Well, officially the siege was not lifted until much later. Plenty of fighting in the expanse around the city.

Middle East = Glass Farm...
:eek: :sniper:

WTF DON'T TRY TO ARGUE WITH ME :mp5:

haha just kidding. ;) :fluffle:

During WWII, a man by the name of George S. Patton said this: "No son of a bitch ever won a war by dying for his country, but won it by making some other son of a bitch die for his country."

Think about those words. Not only do they tell us that Patton swore a lot, but they give us the answer to winning the Iraq war"

Carpet bomb any place believed to hold terrorists(No, they aren't "freedom fighters", or "insurgents", they are filthy, evil disease-carrying rats.)

That simple. Sure, civilians might get hurt, but isn't it true that in war, people die?

And there you have it.


Heeheehee!! Holy Paradise(any get the irony of the name of the poster in relation to the inital thread!!) amuse me you do! What a splendid way of removing ones enemies! I do not like you, wait one minute I think you may be a ..ttt.terrorist.. :eek: Oh what that behind you?? An Oil rig you say ;) ..well now Sir I know you must be a terrorist.
Step on this magic carpet and I shall shower you with bombs.
Holy Crusades Batman, if I do this said Mr T. R. Ist's buddies may get angry hmmm whats an incumbent President to do??? I might offend the UN, well I will ha ve to endure their slap on the bum and just carpet bomb all Middle East states. Except my good ol buddies Issie Rail.

Holy Paradise have you been watching Team America too much. Or reading the Christian Science Moniter a bit too avidly.

Incidently if you read Pattons words a bit more carefully you will be amazed to discover that dear Mr Patton was refering to the little well know fact that a politican can not win a war by fighting it himself, the more soldiers(cos thats what he ment, not terrorist) from the other side that die, the more likely in Pattons time that you would win a war. It might be of worth noting in the LEFT hand corner of your latest copy of the Christian Science Moniter that terrorism has changed dramatically in the last couple of years for some unknow :confused: reason, Patton didn't really have to deal with terrorist, insurgents, bob the builder or what ever you want to call them on the same level as governments do now.


However if you still believe that Patton ment what you initially thought he ment then may I point out Iraq is no longer the 'terrorists' country as of March 17th 2003. The delight that is there now(I'm not disputing how dispicable Iraq under Saddam was) is not what they call their country but their ideas of freedom. So what country are they dying for? Is this how you DEMONstrate how democracy works to the people of the 'New' Iraq?? :confused:

Well, this was the US policy in WWII. We bombed the living daylights out of German and Japanese cities. It worked brilliantly. We won and the Nazis and Imperial Japanese are no more.
The terrorists are not a government like Fascist Japan and Nazi Germany.

Understand this: Its either they die, or we die.
Wrong. Living in the USA, you are in very little danger. Terrorists have almost no ability to take their jihad to you.

behead your own country's citizens
I agree that these types should not be appeased or treated with sensitivity, but it beheading any worse than dropping a bomb?

By the bombing part, I mean, we go in there, bomb the crap out of them, then send our troops in there and slaughter any terrorists still alive.
You know nothing about how to wage a war. The US military do.

True Muslims won't support the terrorists, they would understand that the terrorists are their enemies, too.
It's not A or B. Just because someone doesn't support über-bombing campaigns to kill thousands of civilians to get a few terrorists, does not mean that they support the terrorists.

That simple. Sure, civilians might get hurt, but isn't it true that in war, people die?
i Don't Want Innocent People To Die! I Do Care About Innocent People.
:rolleyes:

But More Innocents Are Being Killed By Those Goddamn Terrorist Bastards Through Cowardly Techniques Such As Suicide Bombers And Car Bombs Than We Would Ever Purposely Do! Damnit!
Actually I would say that if your plan were executed the US could deftly kill millions more Muslims than suicide bombers ever have.

The initial plan (carpet bombing) was born by playing far too much Age of Empires, where the people aren't real.

The second idea (individual house sweeps) is too stupid to talk about...

The surrender idea is just immature babbling.

*Sniffs the air*

Hmm, I smell a troll.

Be a darling and explain to me how carpet bombing an enemy who have no airforce is less cowardly than using car bombs or suicide bombers, would you?

Well not in the case of car bombs. But in the case of suicide bombers, it is certainly less cowardly.

Courage is doing something, despite the fact that it may lead to an undesirable outcome for you personally. For example going over the top in World War I. None of those soldiers wanted to die, but there was a chance that they would.

The same can be said for the B-52 crews. All of them want to live, yet there is the possiblity that something could happen to their aircraft, and they would all be killed in the crash. So they are performing actions which could conceivably lead to outcomes that they do not desire (and in normal circumstances would do anything to avoid).

In the case of suicide bombers the opposite is true. Self immolation in the name of islam is something they are actively seeking, not trying to avoid. A suicide bomber wants to blow himself in this context. It is certainly not a consequence he is trying to avoid, or that is worrisome to him. Indeed, it is his preferred outcome as he believes that it will open the gates to paradise. As such it is far from a courageous act. Rather it is extremely cowardly. By committing this act, he believes he will be transported from this world, with all its ills and discomfits to another far better place. In other words he is using this as a pretext to run away from the actual conflict in the first place.

A truly courageous man would try and avoid death, and avoid paradise, in order to keep on fighting until the conflict is resolved.

Okay, okay, everyone. Let me explain. Yes, carpet-bombing is a bad idea. I just think that we should strike while the iron is hot in a way that causes the least collateral damage.

Good Lord, I am surrounded by numbskulls. We are good, they are bad! END OF F***ING STORY!


not to gang up on you like this HP, but damnit. in risk of forum ban, i'll hafta say this is the most stupidest, idiotic and worst post i've seen on the internet. It's so niave i was shocked when i first read it. You can't tell a person is good or bad by just looking at them, you hafta see their actions for that. I understand your frustration for the war to end, but damn, think and open up your mind to 21st century ideas, not something that may have worked in the past. (whomever said that dropping bombs on civilians didn't stop wars need to remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki(sp)).

not to gang up on you like this HP, but damnit. in risk of forum ban, i'll hafta say this is the most stupidest, idiotic and worst post i've seen on the internet. It's so niave i was shocked when i first read it. You can't tell a person is good or bad by just looking at them, you hafta see their actions for that. I understand your frustration for the war to end, but damn, think and open up your mind to 21st century ideas, not something that may have worked in the past. (whomever said that dropping bombs on civilians didn't stop wars need to remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki(sp)).
Give me a break, I'm only 13 years old. God.

A truly courageous man would try and avoid death, and avoid paradise, in order to keep on fighting until the conflict is resolved.

Well said. :) :) Death, in those circumstances is an easy option. grr Religon causes so many problems. Why can't we all get along? (enter people skipping merrily thro fields all while singing Kum By ya...{thats a Christian song}..I have it..Its a small world after all.. :D

Not to mention the UN and the Geneva Convention people would be breathing down our asses faster than we can drop a bomb...

Please the UN on here has almost the same effect against the unied States as the real one does. What are they going to do use the great UN army that is mostly American soldiers any way? As for the Geneva Convention were the only ones who follow it any way so as far as Im concearned "I never heard of it"(free cookie to the man or woman who tells me what movie thats from) Screw them all and bomb them back to the stone age. Level the entire place and move Isreal to there then nobody will conplain about them any more they will have there own country and all the Palestanis and what not can have there land back.

Okay, okay, everyone. Let me explain. Yes, carpet-bombing is a bad idea. I just think that we should strike while the iron is hot in a way that causes the least collateral damage.

How would you suggest we accomplish this oh nobel warrior???

Screw them all and bomb them back to the stone age. Level the entire place and move Isreal to there then nobody will conplain about them any more they will have there own country and all the Palestanis and what not can have there land back.

Are you suggesting that the countries that make up the UN be bombed back to the stone age, or that Iraq should be bombed back to the stone age?

Wrong. Living in the USA, you are in very little danger. Terrorists have almost no ability to take their jihad to you.

Phew. That's a relief. I guess 9-11 was just a figment of my imagination.

The terrorists are not a government like Fascist Japan and Nazi Germany.
Actually Japan's aggressive tendencies were primarily directed by the head military advisor, not by the actual leader at the time, and those bastards were just as crazy as the terrorists are - they were suicide bombers long before Muhammad and his dogs were.

Wrong. Living in the USA, you are in very little danger. Terrorists have almost no ability to take their jihad to you.
Ummm... very little? 2500, very little, 2500, very little... I'm sorry, 2500 is a pretty big number.


I agree that these types should not be appeased or treated with sensitivity, but it beheading any worse than dropping a bomb?
Have you actually seen the videos? If not, don't ask this question. I'd take one American killed in that manner over ten thousand insurgents any day.

Actually I would say that if your plan were executed the US could deftly kill millions more Muslims than suicide bombers ever have.
You know, this is cold-hearted in the extreme, but what do you think the little kids of insurgents are going to do when they grow up? Become doctors? As for women, I believe women have performed suicide bombings, as well.

Give me a break, I'm only 13 years old. God.

And you think you can command an army!?!

Go back to AoE kid, you can't hurt anyone there.

Fine, we don't carpet bomb them. How about instead, we send our troops into every building in every city in Iraq. If there is any terrorists, we pop a bullet into their brains.
Are you retarded? How many soldiers does the US have? Do you think terrorists are just going to let soldiers walk into their hideouts without chucking a few grenades and spraying them with fire?

Good Lord, I am surrounded by numbskulls. We are good, they are bad! END OF F***ING STORY!
We are not good. But they are worse than us. Just the beginning of the story...

Our moral superiority is dependent on the things we do. You are not better simply because you are American. You're better than them because you're not into doing things like shooting women for showing their hands in public.

If your brutal plan is executed you're not really any better than them.

AHHH.....TO HELL WITH IT.I guess this idea will please all of you: Let's just lay down our guns, hold hands, and sing, "Give Peace a Chance" while we get beheaded, blow away, or wasted one by one. Then in America we can lower security to the point where its non-existant, ban the military, and we then all die! The end. I'm done with this crap.
Seriously... that plan is just as stupid as your original plan.

The initial plan (carpet bombing) was born by playing far too much Age of Empires, where the people aren't real.

The second idea (individual house sweeps) is too stupid to talk about...

The surrender idea is just immature babbling.

*Sniffs the air*

Hmm, I smell a troll.
His ideas are becoming progressively more stupid. Too much Kool-Aid there, Holy Paradise!

Okay, okay, everyone. Let me explain. Yes, carpet-bombing is a bad idea. I just think that we should strike while the iron is hot in a way that causes the least collateral damage.
This is a U-turn. Now you want to avoid collateral damage? Can you speak in real terms not metaphors? "Strike while the iron is hot?"

Give me a break, I'm only 13 years old. God.
This explains a lot. (Also, don't take His name in vain.)

Please the UN on here has almost the same effect against the unied States as the real one does. What are they going to do use the great UN army that is mostly American soldiers any way? As for the Geneva Convention were the only ones who follow it any way so as far as Im concearned "I never heard of it"(free cookie to the man or woman who tells me what movie thats from) Screw them all and bomb them back to the stone age. Level the entire place and move Isreal to there then nobody will conplain about them any more they will have there own country and all the Palestanis and what not can have there land back.

Only Bomb them?? Sure why not kill a few birds with the one stone. Not only Bomb them, but nuke em too? To rid the world of the conflict in the Middle East lets Nuke that too. See, Problems solved!

But what(Mekonia askes innocently) will the US Administration do to occupy their time??? Now thats a mystery? Any takers? Austrailia is looking some what shifty these days!

Phew. That's a relief. I guess 9-11 was just a figment of my imagination.

Compare the totals of the civilians killed during the attack on the WTC and the total of those civilians killed since the US intervened in Iraq for the second time, and you will see that Swimmingpool's statement holds up. If you want further evidence hunt up the civilian death toll from Afghanistan.

And you think you can command an army!?!

Go back to AoE kid, you can't hurt anyone there.
I don't think I can command an army. I'm just saying what I think, it doesn't mean its of any importance!

How would you suggest we accomplish this oh nobel warrior???

Daisy cutters, of course. Many, many daisy cutters.

Ummm... very little? 2500, very little, 2500, very little... I'm sorry, 2500 is a pretty big number.

Not compared to 22,111 it ain't. Safety is relative.

Phew. That's a relief. I guess 9-11 was just a figment of my imagination.
Alright, bad choice of words. I was just refuting the notion that the Iraq war is some sort of fight to the death for America.

Have you actually seen the videos? If not, don't ask this question. I'd take one American killed in that manner over ten thousand insurgents any day.
Bombing is just as horrible an ugly as beheading.

You know, this is cold-hearted in the extreme, but what do you think the little kids of insurgents are going to do when they grow up? Become doctors? As for women, I believe women have performed suicide bombings, as well.
So all Iraqi civilians are terrorists? Because we're talking about civilians being killed here.

(on a side note saddam did have WMD he just used them on his population)

if we would of invaded Iraq in the first Gulf war we wouldn't have this problem with terrorists now (everyone who fought saddam in Iraq was killed with chemical weapons thanks to us deserting them)

but I can understand the idea of bombing everything though it would be a hell of allot easier just to capture terrorist leaders and stop weapons from getting into the "wrong hands" because without a madman telling kids to hate terrorism just dries up

or we could just leave Iraq altogether it would work out in the long run

Give me a break, I'm only 13 years old. God.

Really?? :eek: I'd have never guessed! Isn't it passed your beddie byes time? Ahhh louke at the ickle baby having an opinion!!

Okay, Okay I had my fun. I'm sure its just all your parents influence. Read more than the Bush Times and get back to us!

when i was 13 i was in charge of 10 men and expected to learn how to neutralize a house full of enemy troops..

During WWII, a man by the name of George S. Patton said this: "No son of a bitch ever won a war by dying for his country, but won it by making some other son of a bitch die for his country."

Think about those words. Not only do they tell us that Patton swore a lot, but they give us the answer to winning the Iraq war"

Carpet bomb any place believed to hold terrorists(No, they aren't "freedom fighters", or "insurgents", they are filthy, evil disease-carrying rats.)

That simple. Sure, civilians might get hurt, but isn't it true that in war, people die?

And there you have it.

Yes they should bomb all the areas containing terrorists, but I don't think the US military is going to bomb it's own bases.

Compare the totals of the civilians killed during the attack on the WTC and the total of those civilians killed since the US intervened in Iraq for the second time, and you will see that Swimmingpool's statement holds up. If you want further evidence hunt up the civilian death toll from Afghanistan.

Well, excluding the fact that the civilian death tolls are extremely skewed, because many of the people they include may or may not have actually been civilians, I'm much more worried about the lives of Americans than the lives of Iraqis. Saddam was involved with various terrorist organizations including Al Qaeda and Hezbollah, even if he wasn't involved with the Taliban. If just one attack similar to that on 9/11 was prevented by cutting their funds so majorly with taking Saddam down, every single life lost in Iraq was worth it.

Bombing is just as horrible an ugly as beheading.

Have you seen the videos?

Daisy cutters, of course. Many, many daisy cutters.


I like your style! Can we have an army of Pandas too!??



Message to Blackadder....I love your show! Its gonna b on UKStyle in 30 minutes....

Really?? :eek: I'd have never guessed! Isn't it passed your beddie byes time? Ahhh louke at the ickle baby having an opinion!!

Okay, Okay I had my fun. I'm sure its just all your parents influence. Read more than the Bush Times and get back to us!
Listen you little shit, I'm not a fricken 3 year old! Damnit, I'm tired of people on this damned forum saying I'm just a little kid, because I'm not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I hate you.

Well, excluding the fact that the civilian death tolls are extremely skewed, because many of the people they include may or may not have actually been civilians, I'm much more worried about the lives of Americans than the lives of Iraqis.

Are you suggesting that American civilian lives have a greater absolute value than Iraqi civilian lives, or are you just displaying your subjective nationalism?

Saddam was involved with various terrorist organizations including Al Qaeda and Hezbollah, even if he wasn't involved with the Taliban. If just one attack similar to that on 9/11 was prevented by cutting their funds so majorly with taking Saddam down, every single life lost in Iraq was worth it.

Did I sleep through the bit where links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda were actually proven?

Really?? :eek: I'd have never guessed! Isn't it passed your beddie byes time? Ahhh louke at the ickle baby having an opinion!!

Okay, Okay I had my fun. I'm sure its just all your parents influence. Read more than the Bush Times and get back to us!

Wow... that's hilarious... you act like more of an immature little brat than the 13-year-old.

I like your style! Can we have an army of Pandas too!??



Message to Blackadder....I love your show! Its gonna b on UKStyle in 30 minutes....

ah good...if only i had UKstyle...damn you ON DIGITAL!!!...allwell...i have every series on vid :)

Are you suggesting that American civilian lives have a greater absolute value than Iraqi civilian lives, or are you just displaying your subjective nationalism?

Both.

Hey, at least I'm honest.

ah good...if only i had UKstyle...damn you ON DIGITAL!!!...allwell...i have every series on vid :)

Digital??? In the boglands of Ireland??? You must be joking me. Chorus it is for us of little money.

Can I borrow all your BA videos?? pretty please???? Has to be the funniest comedy ever written.

Ah well he's only 13. At least he takes interest in the world, can't say that for most 13 year olds. Or for most americans, for that matter.

Keep that up.

Both.

Explain the first one to me, would you?

Digital??? In the boglands of Ireland??? You must be joking me. Chorus it is for us of little money.

Can I borrow all your BA videos?? pretty please???? Has to be the funniest comedy ever written.


go on then.. :D

which series?

Wow... that's hilarious... you act like more of an immature little brat than the 13-year-old.

Ah, an insult. Rogue Newbie, you just thrashed my post. I spent so long thinking of that. :( sniff sniff.


Grow up!

Explain the first one to me, would you?

I'm an American. I like America. I'm pretty attached to Americans. Pretty simple.

Consider the following:

Two rooms.
Each room is rigged to explode when the door to the other is opened.
A friend of yours is in one room, and ten Iraqis you don't even know are in the other room.
Who's dyin'?
You can guess who I'm saving.

The people who propose these kinds of idiotic assaults have completely forgotten about why the US is in there to begin with. Bush claims he is in there to help the Iraqi people transform their nation into a democracy. Bombing the crap out of them will not help this goal. In fact, right after they do the firsrt such bombing, the provisional authority in Iraq will demand that the US leave immediately. If the US doesnt leave as they promised they would if asked by the democratically elected provisional authority in Iraq, then democracy lost and the US lost. If they do leave, then the insurgents will take over, and the US lost. Such assaults are a lose/lose situation and are promoted only by those who have completely lost sight of what it is that the US is trying to accomplish in Iraq. Such massive firepower, high casualty techniques would be helpful in a war against North Korea or China, but are simply not in reaching the goals that the US is trying to reach in Iraq.

Listen you little shit, I'm not a fricken 3 year old! Damnit, I'm tired of people on this damned forum saying I'm just a little kid, because I'm not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I hate you.

Hey, listen kid, you're only called one because you act like one.

Large lettering, too much punctuation and CAPS LOCK wont change that viewpoint*.

Sensible discussion will.

And do you have AoE? It's bugging me

*That said, at least you use punctuation and capitals, unlike many others.

Ah, an insult. Rogue Newbie, you just thrashed my post. I spent so long thinking of that. :( sniff sniff.


Grow up!

Wow... you mock me childishly, and then tell me to grow up. You're a smart guy.

I'm an American. I like America. I'm pretty attached to Americans. Pretty simple.

That explains the second one - the subjective angle. It was the first that I wanted you to justify.

Now guys, I hate to be the one to bring this up, but all your carpet bombing just isn't going to work. Sure, it worked in World War Two, but if you haven't noticed, tactics tend to change over the years. Want to really know how much carpet bombing is going to work, look at another famous war: Vietnam. Enough said about that.

Second, innocent people do die in war, and if you do carpet bomb the place, the 99% good true Islams are not going to cheer because out of 10,000 Civilans killed you managed to kill 1,000 terrorists. That is just stupid...I don't even think the Western World would stand for it.

Thirdly, you can't use those smart bombs to only hit the terrorists, because in order to use them, you have to know where they are....do any of you guys know what house Bin Laden is hiding in......

You are all using out dated tactics from the Greatest War of the 20th Century-mass bombing raids are useless, mass artillery bombardments are useless- tanks even are useless. Someone even said that they're not fighting for any country and that is why they're not protected by the Geneva convention. So...if they're not governed by a country, how do you guys expect to get them to surrender.... exactly...they won't. This is a new war, and with the exception of a few things, the NATO and US fighting tactics should be burned as they are useless.

The only way to fight is with infantry-in the streets. If you guys want to compare this to a battle from your favorite war, search for the Battle of Ortona, in Italy, December 20-27 1943. Yes they did have tanks, but this was in the day when the bad guys wore uniforms.....

go on then.. :D

which series?

All of them!! :D I was staying at a hostel in Belfast recently and they came equipped with 1 &2. I was very impressed! Hours of entertainment for just E15 per night!

when i was 13 i was in charge of 10 men and expected to learn how to neutralize a house full of enemy troops..

CS is a fun game isn't it?

Wow... you mock me childishly, and then tell me to grow up. You're a smart guy.
Twould all be true if I weren't a guy!!!!

The people who propose these kinds of idiotic assaults have completely forgotten about why the US is in there to begin with.

Because the regime possessed WMDs?

Well, excluding the fact that the civilian death tolls are extremely skewed, because many of the people they include may or may not have actually been civilians, I'm much more worried about the lives of Americans than the lives of Iraqis. Saddam was involved with various terrorist organizations including Al Qaeda and Hezbollah, even if he wasn't involved with the Taliban. If just one attack similar to that on 9/11 was prevented by cutting their funds so majorly with taking Saddam down, every single life lost in Iraq was worth it.

Once again, I applaud you Rogue Newbie. Keep posting.

Anyhow, the wholesale bombing of Iraq would be a somewhat bad thing. Where we made our mistake was when we let all those surrendering guys just go home. We should have shot them. It would have been perfectly legal as long as we didn't accept their surrender. We probably would have too, if all those journalists weren’t there. Of course, their presence wouldn't have mattered if the US people could just buck up and accept that in war people die.

Good Lord, I am surrounded by numbskulls. We are good, they are bad! END OF F***ING STORY!
Um, not really.

Most People are good. Some people are bad. This is not a difficult concept.

Seriously, so many people have started threads like this... every time one goes away, someone starts a new one, acting like they thought up the idea.

You cannot carpet bomb Iraq. Tell me, why are terrorists so evil?

(Hint: Its because they are willing to sacrifice millions of innocents in order to achieve their militaristic goals. Think on that for a moment...)

Listen you little shit, I'm not a fricken 3 year old! Damnit, I'm tired of people on this damned forum saying I'm just a little kid, because I'm not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I hate you.

Oh I didn't see this!!! That put me in my place. What happened to peoples sense of humour. I recognise that you are an adult in the making, this is what you get for suggesting the carpet bombing of an already fragile country!!!! :eek: ;) :)

Because the regime possessed WMDs?

No, thats the reason for attacking, its not the reason the US is in there at this point.

You shouldnt feel bad when people insult your age. Chances are that those people who insult you for being young are barely any older than you are and are just glad that now they are finally old enough to make fun of others. 13 is a great age to be. You should be the one making fun of us old people who only wish we could be 13 again.

Saddam was involved with various terrorist organizations including Al Qaeda and Hezbollah, even if he wasn't involved with the Taliban. If just one attack similar to that on 9/11 was prevented by cutting their funds so majorly with taking Saddam down, every single life lost in Iraq was worth it.

"to date (July 22 2004) we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States."



Anyone care to guess where that text comes from?

Listen you little shit, I'm not a fricken 3 year old! Damnit, I'm tired of people on this damned forum saying I'm just a little kid, because I'm not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I hate you.

most of the people you are talking to are in their 20's or older. to them, you are a little kid. As some say, it's good that you keep tabs on what's going on in the world. However, it's not good presenting the violent ideas you have as a good way to end anything. It's also not good that you seem to be throwing tempertantrums(see above quote). in an earlier post, you stated something along the lines of it's just your idea, and it has no significant importance. It may not, but we have ideas too and we like to express them if we disagree or agree with your idea. Don't be so defensive, this is just an online forum.

as the saying goes, opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one. don't get upset if someone's opinion goes against yours.

Because the regime possessed WMDs?

Eh? I thought we were there to create a pro-US government in the M.E. that would be more stable and reliable than Saudi Arabia. Also to bracket and destabilze Iran.

Wasn't that WMD stuff just a pretext to keep the chattering classes happy?

The people who propose these kinds of idiotic assaults have completely forgotten about why the US is in there to begin with.

...

No, thats the reason for attacking, its not the reason the US is in there at this point.

Eh? I thought we were there to create a pro-US government in the M.E. that would be more stable and reliable than Saudi Arabia. Also to bracket and destabilze Iran.

Personally I lean towards the 'personal revenge for making my dad look like a fool' interpretation.

Wasn't that WMD stuff just a pretext to keep the chattering classes happy?

Italics used as NS still hasn't implemented a tag for [ironics].

No, thats the reason for attacking, its not the reason the US is in there at this point.

Oil.

I'm an American. I like America. I'm pretty attached to Americans. Pretty simple.

Consider the following:

Two rooms.
Each room is rigged to explode when the door to the other is opened.
A friend of yours is in one room, and ten Iraqis you don't even know are in the other room.
Who's dyin'?
You can guess who I'm saving.

If you want to make the situation more realistic, make it a room with 1 american you don't know, and a room with 1000 iraqis you don't know.

Personally I lean towards the 'personal revenge for making my dad look like a fool' interpretation.

Well that could be GWBs reason. But that would be a hard sell to the rest of the team. I have to go for looking for a Saudi Arabia replacement owing to their increasingly unreliable nature. And that the US was in the mood to kick someoneps ass in the middle east at the time and Iraq drew the short straw, it being such a pariah and all.


Italics used as NS still hasn't implemented a tag for [ironics].

My bad, I always read italics as: "I am saying this forcefully". I'll remember that in the future.

Well that could be GWBs reason. But that would be a hard sell to the rest of the team.

IIRC a lot of the rest of 'the team' were also either directly part of or tied heavily to the Bush Sr. administration, which means they still had their own unfinished business to resolve.

I have to go for looking for a Saudi Arabia replacement owing to their increasingly unreliable nature. And that the US was in the mood to kick someoneps ass in the middle east at the time and Iraq drew the short straw, it being such a pariah and all.

Indeed. Democracy for the Iraqi people is not the primary objective.

"to date (July 22 2004) we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States."

Anyone care to guess where that text comes from?

If I had to guess, I'd say the 9/11 report, sounds like I read that somewhere. Of course, that doesn't matter, because "these and earlier contacts" refers to Taliban contacts, and it says no evidence ties Iraq to al Qaeda in attacks "against the United States." Al Qaeda operates in more places than the U.S., and could decide to take a swing at us any time. Besides, Saddam did give funding to al Qaeda, which supports them in their anti-U.S. endeavors, either way.

Indeed. Democracy for the Iraqi people is not the primary objective.

I think we can all agree on that one.

If you want to make the situation more realistic, make it a room with 1 american you don't know, and a room with 1000 iraqis you don't know.

Actually that's less realistic, because A.) you or your friends could be the victims of a terrorist attack just as easily as anyone, and B.) I believe the official count of dead Iraqi civilians is only around 12,500 or so, AKA about 5 times the amount of civilians we lost on 9/11.

During WWII, a man by the name of George S. Patton said this: "No son of a bitch ever won a war by dying for his country, but won it by making some other son of a bitch die for his country."

Think about those words. Not only do they tell us that Patton swore a lot, but they give us the answer to winning the Iraq war"

Carpet bomb any place believed to hold terrorists(No, they aren't "freedom fighters", or "insurgents", they are filthy, evil disease-carrying rats.)

That simple. Sure, civilians might get hurt, but isn't it true that in war, people die?

And there you have it.
The US has no business being in Iraq in the first place. To suggest "carpet bombing" Iraq is in my humble opinion an act of insanity.

With thoughts like these plastered over international web sites, the citizens of the US are inviting more hatred towards them. Such foolishness. :eek:

If I had to guess, I'd say the 9/11 report, sounds like I read that somewhere. Of course, that doesn't matter, because "these and earlier contacts" refers to Taliban contacts, and it says no evidence ties Iraq to al Qaeda in attacks "against the United States." Al Qaeda operates in more places than the U.S., and could decide to take a swing at us any time. Besides, Saddam did give funding to al Qaeda, which supports them in their anti-U.S. endeavors, either way.

Saddam didn't fund al Qaeda. Where do you get the B.S. from?

I think we can all agree on that one.

I do at any rate.

And where is Holy Paradise, anyway? Say "bedtime" and die.

Actually that's less realistic, because A.) you or your friends could be the victims of a terrorist attack just as easily as anyone, and B.) I believe the official count of dead Iraqi civilians is only around 12,500 or so, AKA about 5 times the amount of civilians we lost on 9/11.

....Sounds like you want it to be more....

Actually that's less realistic, because A.) you or your friends could be the victims of a terrorist attack just as easily as anyone, and B.) I believe the official count of dead Iraqi civilians is only around 12,500 or so, AKA about 5 times the amount of civilians we lost on 9/11.

The offical count from the US goverment is about 12,500 or so. The UN and a few international organizations put there estimates at about 500,000 to 1,000,000.

The offical count from the US goverment is about 12,500 or so. The UN and a few international organizations put there estimates at about 500,000 to 1,000,000.

Do I strike you as the kind of person to like the UN? Honestly?

This is my idea for how we should have defeated the Iraqi army, or any other Army that happens to be IN THE MIDDLE OF A DESERT.

I mean, isn't that like, an easy target for a B52?

As for insurgents, I think we're doing a good job. The only real way to fight an urban war is street by street, house by house, with highly trained people.

I also think that, dispite the recruiting whoes, that this has been a good thing to happen to the US Army.

Why? Because now our Army is trained for an urban war against guerillas. As we advance farther into the future more and more wars are going to be in urban enviroments with guerilla tactics. And the fact is, there is no real way to train for urban warfare other than experiencing it.

In Vietnam when soldiers first engaged in an urban fight they had been taught that to cross a street they were supposed to drop a smoke grenade and run across. Well guess what? That gives away where you're crossing and the enemy can just shoot into the smoke.

That's a good example. In a few years if we are faced with an organized army that we must fight in a city, we'll be more ready than we would have been without Iraq.

Do I strike you as the kind of person to like the UN? Honestly?

Only a retard would argue with the UN. I just assumed you could dress yourself in the morning. Am I wrong?

IIRC a lot of the rest of 'the team' were also either directly part of or tied heavily to the Bush Sr. administration, which means they still had their own unfinished business to resolve.

Some were, but they don't strike me as the types who would really care that much if Senior had in fact been whacked. I mean, I can't see Dick Cheney getting that upset about that sort of thing.

Also, there were non-team members that were fairly gung-ho. Certainly I can see the advantage for the US having a nice little puppet state over there. From a self-interested perspective, it's really a good idea, due to the lack of friendly - to the US - arab governments. You also have to consider how cozy China is becoming with some M.E. governments. Naturally the US is seeking to create a counter weight I imagine.


Indeed. Democracy for the Iraqi people is not the primary objective.

Democracy is never the primary objective of anyone's foreign policy. Despite what they tell you. This is why people should not read newspapers, it only confuses them, as they believe newspapers have some connection to reality.

This is my idea for how we should have defeated the Iraqi army, or any other Army that happens to be IN THE MIDDLE OF A DESERT.

I mean, isn't that like, an easy target for a B52?

As for insurgents, I think we're doing a good job. The only real way to fight an urban war is street by street, house by house, with highly trained people.

I also think that, dispite the recruiting whoes, that this has been a good thing to happen to the US Army.

Why? Because now our Army is trained for an urban war against guerillas. As we advance farther into the future more and more wars are going to be in urban enviroments with guerilla tactics. And the fact is, there is no real way to train for urban warfare other than experiencing it.

In Vietnam when soldiers first engaged in an urban fight they had been taught that to cross a street they were supposed to drop a smoke grenade and run across. Well guess what? That gives away where you're crossing and the enemy can just shoot into the smoke.

That's a good example. In a few years if we are faced with an organized army that we must fight in a city, we'll be more ready than we would have been without Iraq.

For your benefit, I will repeat one of my earlier posts

Now guys, I hate to be the one to bring this up, but all your carpet bombing just isn't going to work. Sure, it worked in World War Two, but if you haven't noticed, tactics tend to change over the years. Want to really know how much carpet bombing is going to work, look at another famous war: Vietnam. Enough said about that.

Second, innocent people do die in war, and if you do carpet bomb the place, the 99% good true Islams are not going to cheer because out of 10,000 Civilans killed you managed to kill 1,000 terrorists. That is just stupid...I don't even think the Western World would stand for it.

Thirdly, you can't use those smart bombs to only hit the terrorists, because in order to use them, you have to know where they are....do any of you guys know what house Bin Laden is hiding in......

You are all using out dated tactics from the Greatest War of the 20th Century-mass bombing raids are useless, mass artillery bombardments are useless- tanks even are useless. Someone even said that they're not fighting for any country and that is why they're not protected by the Geneva convention. So...if they're not governed by a country, how do you guys expect to get them to surrender.... exactly...they won't. This is a new war, and with the exception of a few things, the NATO and US fighting tactics should be burned as they are useless.

The only way to fight is with infantry-in the streets. If you guys want to compare this to a battle from your favorite war, search for the Battle of Ortona, in Italy, December 20-27 1943. Yes they did have tanks, but this was in the day when the bad guys wore uniforms.....

Shouldn't you call this thread "How to stir up the biggest Islamic outcry and cause far more violence in 24 hours?"

I mean if you believe that bombing is the way to win wars, then you really should read up on your history, particularly the bit that deals with "The London Blitz".

Hasn't this already been accomplished by the jackasses at newsweek?

During WWII, a man by the name of George S. Patton said this: "No son of a bitch ever won a war by dying for his country, but won it by making some other son of a bitch die for his country."

Think about those words. Not only do they tell us that Patton swore a lot, but they give us the answer to winning the Iraq war"

Carpet bomb any place believed to hold terrorists(No, they aren't "freedom fighters", or "insurgents", they are filthy, evil disease-carrying rats.)

That simple. Sure, civilians might get hurt, but isn't it true that in war, people die?

And there you have it.

War is not won by extermination. War, by nature, is about the acquisition of power, usually through resources.

You truly win a war by forcing the opposition to accept your superiority and become part of your culture, or at least as a workforce. Make them believe that it was wrong to defy your power, and you've just gained a lot of power. That's the goal of any war.

Any war that when won doesn't make you more powerful was a waste. Exterminating a populace does not make us more powerful. Remember that the sinews of war are infinite money, so that's what war should be fought for.

Only a retard would argue with the UN. I just assumed you could dress yourself in the morning. Am I wrong?

Only a retard would trust a U.N. estimate, especially over an official count. I just assumed that you hadn't been living in a box for the last five years. Am I wrong?

The offical count from the US goverment is about 12,500 or so. The UN and a few international organizations put there estimates at about 500,000 to 1,000,000.
uh?
The UN doesn't do body count, neither did the US gouvernment. I think you mean the website Iraq body count for the 10k+ and an article from The Lancet who pretends there has been over 100k+ since the beginning of the war.

Listen you little shit, I'm not a fricken 3 year old! Damnit, I'm tired of people on this damned forum saying I'm just a little kid, because I'm not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I hate you.
You just got yourself a timeout.

Holy Paradise, three day forumban, flaming.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop

For your benefit, I will repeat one of my earlier posts

Now guys, I hate to be the one to bring this up, but all your carpet bombing just isn't going to work. Sure, it worked in World War Two, but if you haven't noticed, tactics tend to change over the years. Want to really know how much carpet bombing is going to work, look at another famous war: Vietnam. Enough said about that.

Second, innocent people do die in war, and if you do carpet bomb the place, the 99% good true Islams are not going to cheer because out of 10,000 Civilans killed you managed to kill 1,000 terrorists. That is just stupid...I don't even think the Western World would stand for it.

Thirdly, you can't use those smart bombs to only hit the terrorists, because in order to use them, you have to know where they are....do any of you guys know what house Bin Laden is hiding in......

You are all using out dated tactics from the Greatest War of the 20th Century-mass bombing raids are useless, mass artillery bombardments are useless- tanks even are useless. Someone even said that they're not fighting for any country and that is why they're not protected by the Geneva convention. So...if they're not governed by a country, how do you guys expect to get them to surrender.... exactly...they won't. This is a new war, and with the exception of a few things, the NATO and US fighting tactics should be burned as they are useless.

The only way to fight is with infantry-in the streets. If you guys want to compare this to a battle from your favorite war, search for the Battle of Ortona, in Italy, December 20-27 1943. Yes they did have tanks, but this was in the day when the bad guys wore uniforms.....

I miss the good old days when two sides met on an open field, and marched at eachother in straight lines. But times have changed, and now-a-days the only way to win a war is with guerillas, and, let's face it, the US army doesn't know how to do it. That's why a trained force of 180,000 have been at war with a civilian militia of 15,000 for two years now.

The US Army DOES know how to do it, it just took the people in command too long to make a decision to start changing things.

It is important to realize that there was a big difference between the position Paton was in and the position the world is in today. In WW2, there was no chance of starting a nuclear war.. because as far as I'm aware, America was the only nation with the technology to do so. Now as much as I believe that Terrorism is a problem, I don't believe that this terrorist scare comes close to threat imposed on the world by Hitler and and his allies. The terrorist threat is far more like the Red Scare in the way that, while it seems dangerous at the moment, the government is simply overreacting to a threat made against their rule (and I agree that it's better to overreact then to underreact), but in reality, no terrorist cell can overthrow the United States. The only thing they can do is sit back and hope that the States will do it for them, by reducing civil liberties so much that the citizens of America themselves will otherthrow them. I'm getting a bit off topic, but to the point, I do not believe that the terrorist threat is as great as it has been made out to be. The government didn't fall apart when Kennedy or Lincoln was assasinated, so taking out the head of the United States now probably wouldn't do much. I don't really see terrorism as being the ultimate evil in the world at the moment, and I think if the world understood why the terrorists had attacked the United States, things wouldn't be quite so drastic at present, because I don't believe that Al'Quida simply wants to kill everyone, I believe there is a reason, and untill that reason is clear, we should refrain from carpetbombing.

You just got yourself a timeout.

Holy Paradise, three day forumban, flaming.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop

I wondered when you'ld turn up.

Woo! Go Frisbeeteria!

This is why people should not read newspapers, it only confuses them, as they believe newspapers have some connection to reality.


This is only problematic if they consider reality to be a more pressing concern than the world the media has created for their pleasure.

Are you suggesting that American civilian lives have a greater absolute value than Iraqi civilian lives, or are you just displaying your subjective nationalism?



Did I sleep through the bit where links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda were actually proven?

They wern't, both Brittish and American intelligence sevices have always been firm in their belief that he didn't, political preasure just led to distorted documents like Blair's 'Dodgy Dossier'. The truth is that Saddam and Bin Laden have always been enemies, Bin Laden saw Saddam as a blasphemer for allowing the building of churches aswell as mosques in Iraq and at one point was involved in an attempt on Saddam's life. The fools who continue to repeat garbage about links between Saddam and terrorists are the bane of my reading in these forums, they interupt my amusement at just how ignorant many Americans seem to be by taking it a step to far.

Anyway, it's not like invading their country is going to solve any problems, it's been shown time and time again that 'terrorists' are usualy just young men frustrated by their inability to combat the injustices brought down upon them and seek to make a statement through the only means possiblr: violence.

If I had to guess, I'd say the 9/11 report, sounds like I read that somewhere.

Correct.

Of course, that doesn't matter, because "these and earlier contacts" refers to Taliban contacts, and it says no evidence ties Iraq to al Qaeda in attacks "against the United States."

Nope. That refers to Al Qaeda.

Besides, Saddam did give funding to al Qaeda, which supports them in their anti-U.S. endeavors, either way.

Point me in the general direction of some evidence of this, would you?

can i just add that:-

"The name 'al-Qaeda' was coined by the United States government based on the name of a computer file of bin Laden's that listed the names of contacts he had made in Afghanistan, which talks about the organization as 'the base' of the jihad."

so the terrorist group that everyone talks about (al qaeda), doesn't really exist as the terrorist group people believe it to be.

I'm an American. I like America. I'm pretty attached to Americans. Pretty simple.

Consider the following:

Two rooms.
Each room is rigged to explode when the door to the other is opened.
A friend of yours is in one room, and ten Iraqis you don't even know are in the other room.
Who's dyin'?
You can guess who I'm saving.
Ok, a friend of yours is in one room, and 10 Americans you don't know are in the other. Who's dying?

Because the regime possessed WMDs?
They didn't, it was just Blair's/Bush's excuse.

Well that could be GWBs reason. But that would be a hard sell to the rest of the team. I have to go for looking for a Saudi Arabia replacement owing to their increasingly unreliable nature. And that the US was in the mood to kick someoneps ass in the middle east at the time and Iraq drew the short straw, it being such a pariah and all.
Thats more likely to be the reason, but still, why destabalise one of the most stable and non-agressive countries in the middle east?

Actually that's less realistic, because A.) you or your friends could be the victims of a terrorist attack just as easily as anyone, and B.) I believe the official count of dead Iraqi civilians is only around 12,500 or so, AKA about 5 times the amount of civilians we lost on 9/11.
Right...Taking the Iraq population (28 807 thousand), and comparing with your (under) estimate of the Iraqi dead (12 500), the ratio of Iraqi dead to total population is 1:2300. Compare with US figures for 9/11 (US pop=300million, 9/11 victims=3000), the ration is 1:100 000.

ie, compared to population size 40 times more Iraqis died than Americans, hence you are far less likely to know someone who died on 9/11 than an Iraqi is to know someone who has been killed by American forces.
(pop. estimates from here (http://esa.un.org/unpp/) )

Have you seen the videos?
Yes. My point stands. Head being sawn off, guts and limbs blown everywhere by a bomb; what's the difference?

Both.

Hey, at least I'm honest.
How are Iraqi lives objectively less valuable than Americans?

Actually that's less realistic, because A.) you or your friends could be the victims of a terrorist attack just as easily as anyone, and B.) I believe the official count of dead Iraqi civilians is only around 12,500 or so, AKA about 5 times the amount of civilians we lost on 9/11.
A) But they probably won't be the victim of an attack. It will probably be someone you don't know.

B) So make it 5 Iraqis. Are five Iraqis objectively less valuable than one American?

Besides 9/11 is irrelevant in this argument. It has nothing to do with the Iraq war. We're arguing about your disgusting notions of American supremacy. How are Americans objectively worth more than Iraqis?

Your arguments are so weak. Extreme nationalism has always been proven wrong in the past.

Do I strike you as the kind of person to like the UN? Honestly?
Do I strike you as the kind of person to like the US Government? Honestly?

Thats more likely to be the reason, but still, why destabalise one of the most stable and non-agressive countries in the middle east?


The US has no friends in the middle east. The closest arab ally is Saudi Arabia, and they are hardly what you would call reliable. The ties with the US may also bring down the Saudi government at some point, resulting in a Saudi which is actively hostile.

So, if the US wants any influence in that region it needs to "create" an ally. The only way this can realistically be accomplished in a short time period is by invading a middle eastern country and installing a washington friendly regime.

Iraq was the easiest to invade, for a variety of reasons.

I don't imagine this was the only reason for Iraq, but it's probably the principle one.

And installing a puppet regime is a political goal.

Just as gaining preferential access to resources is an economic goal.

To do either, you need people alive, organised under a functioning state. Kill everyone, and you have failed both objectives, and lost the war. Eliminating the insurgents is not the goal, it is an occupational hazard to be endured whilst working towards higher-priority goals. Obviously, this complex and unwelcome truth is not something you will hear said on Fawx News.

I'm not surprised he turned out to be 13. :rolleyes: Guess my junior-high history textbook barb was closer to the truth than I dared hope.

as the saying goes, opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one.

ROFL

You know my plan for dealing with terrorism?

We pull out of Iraq and Afganistan (stay with me here.) We take the money from that and our other operations in the middle east and put it into research for nuclear energy that can work in cars and other things that run on oil.

Then, we pass laws in each state that no more than 2 people can ride in a car, and we buy everyone over 18 a Hummer. After the oil in the middle east is gone and we have the lead in nuclear energy products, we simply make a fortune on selling enriched uranium.

At that point, the middle east will go back to the way it supposed to be. Muslims fighting each other, for the most part; only eventually (with no money coming in from oil, remember) they all run out of money to support weapons.

Then we ignore them and go on with our lives.

After the oil in the middle east is gone and we have the lead in nuclear energy products, we simply make a fortune on selling enriched uranium.

So, does the US end up invading those countries rich in uranium, like Canada and Kazahkistan, somewhere down the line if you follow this plan?

The cheapest way would be to dump a million tons of hog manure into Mecca every time they kill someone.

Yes.

We have to fight at least one weak enemy, that keeps the people united and listening to the government

There is no solution to the Iraq War in 7 days. It might take as long as 7 years...

The cheapest way would be to dump a million tons of hog manure into Mecca every time they kill someone.

I heard this one guy talking once. He said that if we promised islamic terrorists that everytime a muslim terrorist killed an American we launched a nuke campaign against a holy target in the islamic world, they would eventually stop.

That said, I laughed.

There is no solution to the Iraq War in 7 days. It might take as long as 7 years...

Optimistic. The Iraq War is the continuation of a chain of events set in motion by the US funding anti-government rebels in Afghanistan in 1978... 27 years and that still hasn't been solved.

Shouldn't you call this thread "How to stir up the biggest Islamic outcry and cause far more violence in 24 hours?"

I mean if you believe that bombing is the way to win wars, then you really should read up on your history, particularly the bit that deals with "The London Blitz".


This worked in Yugoslavia. Total air war. Yet it wasnt carpet bombing.

I said pig manure, not nukes, because it's cheap and they hate pigs. And it's worth a try.

This worked in Yugoslavia. Total air war. Yet it wasnt carpet bombing.

Total air war is good for destroying enemy positions and supressing their movements. But an aircraft can't take a position, nor can it hold it. that'll always be for the infantry, and to a lesser extent, the armour divisions to cope with.

Optimistic. The Iraq War is the continuation of a chain of events set in motion by the US funding anti-government rebels in Afghanistan in 1978... 27 years and that still hasn't been solved.

Funding began after Reagan became President, actually.

After the oil in the middle east is gone and we have the lead in nuclear energy products, we simply make a fortune on selling enriched uranium.
So, does the US end up invading those countries rich in uranium, like Canada and Kazahkistan, somewhere down the line if you follow this plan?
US vs. Kazakhstan would not be a war the human race would survive. For one thing, the Tyuratam cosmodrome is located in Kazakhstan, and the Siberian Defence-Industrial Complex is just north of the border. The world "pwned" would get etched in glass on the desert sands, after which the world would rip itself to pieces. No American is that stupid.

We have to fight at least one weak enemy, that keeps the people united and listening to the government
I see, you're a fascist. Kinda unAmerican, wouldn't you say?

The cheapest way would be to dump a million tons of hog manure into Mecca every time they kill someone.
This children, is a racist. A long time ago, the country fought a Civil War against people like him.

The offical count from the US goverment is about 12,500 or so. The UN and a few international organizations put there estimates at about 500,000 to 1,000,000.


More like 100,000-200,000 known civilian casualties, probally higher including the actual war and other unkown deaths.

[QUOTE=Tactical Grace]

I see, you're a fascist. Kinda unAmerican, wouldn't you say?

QUOTE]

I'm just looking at it from a government standpoint.

The nation has never been as united against once cause (other than the world wars and the communists) than we were after 9/11.

The government, in a fascist way, needs something like that every 20 years or so to keep people from thinking too hard about other things.

During WWII, a man by the name of George S. Patton said this: "No son of a bitch ever won a war by dying for his country, but won it by making some other son of a bitch die for his country."

Think about those words. Not only do they tell us that Patton swore a lot, but they give us the answer to winning the Iraq war"

Carpet bomb any place believed to hold terrorists(No, they aren't "freedom fighters", or "insurgents", they are filthy, evil disease-carrying rats.)

That simple. Sure, civilians might get hurt, but isn't it true that in war, people die?

And there you have it.

im with you man blow it up pave it over a make the worlds biggest wal-mart.

This children, is a racist. A long time ago, the country fought a Civil War against people like him.

Which country?

The government, in a fascist way, needs something like that every 20 years or so to keep people from thinking too hard about other things.
Identifying such a need is one step away from manufacturing such things. No thanks. I'd rather not have my government blow up its own stuff to provoke feelings of national unity, and then go beat up on some black guys to distract people's attention from a budget shortfall or trade deficit.

Funding began after Reagan became President, actually.

Not according to Zbigniew Brzezinski it didn't. (1979 rather than 1978 though, that I admit).

Not according to Zbigniew Brzezinski it didn't. (1979 rather than 1978 though, that I admit).

The Carter Administration would never support anticommunists.

US vs. Kazakhstan would not be a war the human race would survive. ... No American is that stupid.

Fair enough: invasion of Canada and Australia then?

The Carter Administration would never support anticommunists.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

The Carter Administration:

1.Cancelled military aid to Nicaragua, Chile, Paraguay, Argentina, Brazil, El Salvador, and other Latin American countries;

2.Continued the policy of sanctions against Rhodesia;

3.Broke off diplomatic relations with Taiwan;

4.Renewed trade with the People's Republic of China;

5.Attempted to undermine other anticommunist nations, such as South Africa and South Korea


Carter had the worst foreign policy ever. He called it "human rights." He didn't care about human rights at all, though. He used it only as an excuse to help the communists win. He ignored human rights violations in the U.S.S.R., Red China, Panama, et. al. He vilified, demonized, and derided every anticommunist nation over every human rights abuse committed, both real and imaginary. He was a big hypocrite.

Fair enough: invasion of Canada and Australia then?
But...but...they're democracies. :eek:

He was a big hypocrite.

And the relevance of this is what exactly? Are you just trying to shock me with the revelation that politicians are conniving scum that shouldn't be trusted any further than they can be thrown?

And the relevance of this is what exactly? Are you just trying to shock me with the revelation that politicians are conniving scum that shouldn't be trusted any further than they can be thrown?

I was just pointing it out. Most people think Carter was an honest-to-goodness great guy who genuinely cared about human rights.

I was just pointing it out. Most people think Carter was an honest-to-goodness great guy who genuinely cared about human rights.

Instead he was evil enough to not share your world view.
Evil enough to not believe Capitalism to be the one and only way to go to heaven.
Evil enough to seek a better relationship with that other half of the world.

Whether or not a government calls itself communist (of course there never has been a communist country, I refer you to eg Wikipedia's definition of a communist country), Human Rights abuses, such as carpet bombing civilians are the same.
Not to alienate and antagonise the other half of the world for the sake of ideology, now that is clearly evil.

Evil enough to seek a better relationship with that other half of the world.

He ignored all human rights abuses committed by leftist dictatorships. Yet, he went absolutely apeshit whenever a right-wing government committed a human rights abuse, whether said government was a dictatorship or not. For example, he was eerily quiet when, in their first year of power, the Sandinistas slaughtered over 3,000 people and imprisoned tens of thousands more.

Good Lord, I am surrounded by numbskulls. We are good, they are bad! END OF F***ING STORY!

http://www.southbaymobilization.org/getinformed/matrix/left_bothPills4WebLarge.jpg

http://www.southbaymobilization.org/getinformed/matrix/left_bothPills4WebLarge.jpg

Dude, half the pic is missing. :confused:

Dude, half the pic is missing. :confused:
poor kid, he is not ready for the red pill...so why bother to even show it to him

http://www.southbaymobilization.org/getinformed/matrix/left_bothPills4WebLarge.jpg http://www.southbaymobilization.org/getinformed/matrix/right_bothPills4WebLarge.jpg

Optimistic. The Iraq War is the continuation of a chain of events set in motion by the US funding anti-government rebels in Afghanistan in 1978... 27 years and that still hasn't been solved.

Nah, if it wasn't Afganistan it would have been Yemen.

Either way, Iraq was going to get it in the ass.

During WWII, a man by the name of George S. Patton said this: "No son of a bitch ever won a war by dying for his country, but won it by making some other son of a bitch die for his country."

Think about those words. Not only do they tell us that Patton swore a lot, but they give us the answer to winning the Iraq war"

Carpet bomb any place believed to hold terrorists(No, they aren't "freedom fighters", or "insurgents", they are filthy, evil disease-carrying rats.)

That simple. Sure, civilians might get hurt, but isn't it true that in war, people die?

And there you have it.

See, THAT is how war IS supposed to be fought. The problem is that Iraq is not a real war. If it was, we would be fighting its populace. We however got involved in a political piss fight. Due to this, and the utter disregard for our Constitutional outline for war, we got ourselves in a political MESS. That is what Iraq really is. A political mess that is getting our people killed. We aren't taking the land for ourselves, we aren't really profiting from it. We are just stuck there hoping the situation improves so we don't lose as much face, AND see all we invested going in going down the tubes.

If it was a REAL war, not only would we have the right to bomb the hell out of everything and carpet bomb, we woudl win quickly and we would defeat ANY action or problem area with death and distruction.

This is WHY we must avoid getting in stupid wars. Because if we don't, you have Vietnam, North Korea, and Iraq. People who supported this war had NOT learned from history. Its a good lesson.

Ignore the Constitution and our founders, and you will likely get reprocussions and consequences you may not like.

Fair enough: invasion of Canada and Australia then?

Never invade a country who has a far smaller military than yours- it rules out their commanders ever being cocky. And, I know you're all going to laugh at what I have to say next, but it's the truth: you can't win against Canada. Sure, they've got a smaller military, but they're the ones designing the state of the art military equipment that you guys use. There is nothing more fierce then a Canadian soldier- they're all volunteers and spend all day training for any kind of war. But, if you guys don't believe me (which I know you don't) look at the following-
1 German Parachute Army
12 SS Panzer Corps
An unknown Chinese Corps (Kap Yong, Korean War)
Unknown German Corps on Vimy Ridge, 1917
Unknown German Division at Ypres, 1915
American Army, 1812-1815

Oh, that by the way, was a list of some of the units the Canadian Army has defeated over the years while outnumbered. They have never lost a war (which they have fought many of since 1812) and throughout those wars only lost two battles (Hong Kong, 1941 & Dieppe, 1942).

Sorry to be irrelevant and immature but can I just say... Anal Snail?

Never invade a country who has a far smaller military than yours- it rules out their commanders ever being cocky. And, I know you're all going to laugh at what I have to say next, but it's the truth: you can't win against Canada. Sure, they've got a smaller military, but they're the ones designing the state of the art military equipment that you guys use. There is nothing more fierce then a Canadian soldier- they're all volunteers and spend all day training for any kind of war. But, if you guys don't believe me (which I know you don't) look at the following-
1 German Parachute Army
12 SS Panzer Corps
An unknown Chinese Corps (Kap Yong, Korean War)
Unknown German Corps on Vimy Ridge, 1917
Unknown German Division at Ypres, 1915
American Army, 1812-1815

Oh, that by the way, was a list of some of the units the Canadian Army has defeated over the years while outnumbered. They have never lost a war (which they have fought many of since 1812) and throughout those wars only lost two battles (Hong Kong, 1941 & Dieppe, 1942).


Canada has a curse on it that makes it impossible for America to take. We've tried it a couple of times before . . . and one of our leaders who did became a traitor later on.

Fear the Canadian Curse.