Military/War discussion - Page 7

Eric5273 · #61 09-20-2006, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BMW X5

and yet unfortunately some yuppy jihadissts pricks seem to be blowing us up any way and you want us to follow the Geneva and UN resolutions

Well, we have discussed this before. History shows that no war like this has ever been won regardless of whether or not we follow the Geneva convention.

The Israelis have been fighting the Palestineans for decades, the Columbians have been fighting the FARC for decade, and the Russians have been fighting the Chechnyan rebels for over a decade.

Now I'm going to make my "extreme" analogy here:

Even the Nazis were unable to crush the French and Polish resistance movements, and we know they did not follow the Geneva convention. Starting in 1943, they had a policy in France that whenever a Nazi soldier was killed by an attack, then would go into the town where the attack happened, and randomly select 10 men and execute them all. All this did was increase hatred for the Nazis and increase support among the population for the resistance movement. I'm sure the Nazis thought this would scare the population into submission and decrease their supoprt for the rebels. But that thinking was flawed.

The lesson here is that you cannot defeat a resistance movement if that movement has support among the general population. Call them "terrorists" or "insurgents" or whatever other name you like, but right now in both Iraq and Afghanistan, they have support among the population and are able to hide out in civilian areas without being exposed by the locals. That allows them to wage a gorilla war, and as we learned in Vietnam, you cannot win a war if you cannot see the enemy. If you go looking for the enemy in civilian areas, you will upset the civilians and thus increase support for the enemy. If you attempt to kill the enemy, you will kill innocent civilians in the process, and thus increase support for the enemy. And once you give up on those two ideas, there is really no other way to continue fighting the war.

Sorry to say, but the end result in both Iraq and Afghanistan will be that we will eventually have to pull out and let the two new governments fall. That is my prediction. I could be wrong. Only time will tell.

Sponsored Links

Eric5273 · #62 09-20-2006, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scottie

actually looking at charts like that just make you realise how good us Britains are what with our tiny wee island and even more tiny budget.

Notice that the big bad military countries of North Korea, Iran, Syria, Libya, Venezuela and Cuba are nowhere to be found on that list. In fact, all of these countries put together spend less than 2% of what the United States does.

Eric5273 · #63 09-20-2006, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scottie

well at least we get the job done

Hardly. My recollection of history is that the British got expelled from each of those countries one by one as each group won their independence.

BMW X5 · #64 09-20-2006, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric5273

Well, we have discussed this before. History shows that no war like this has ever been won regardless of whether or not we follow the Geneva convention.

The Israelis have been fighting the Palestineans for decades, the Columbians have been fighting the FARC for decade, and the Russians have been fighting the Chechnyan rebels for over a decade.

Now I'm going to make my "extreme" analogy here:

Even the Nazis were unable to crush the French and Polish resistance movements, and we know they did not follow the Geneva convention. Starting in 1943, they had a policy in France that whenever a Nazi soldier was killed by an attack, then would go into the town where the attack happened, and randomly select 10 men and execute them all. All this did was increase hatred for the Nazis and increase support among the population for the resistance movement. I'm sure the Nazis thought this would scare the population into submission and decrease their supoprt for the rebels. But that thinking was flawed.

The lesson here is that you cannot defeat a resistance movement if that movement has support among the general population. Call them "terrorists" or "insurgents" or whatever other name you like, but right now in both Iraq and Afghanistan, they have support among the population and are able to hide out in civilian areas without being exposed by the locals. That allows them to wage a gorilla war, and as we learned in Vietnam, you cannot win a war if you cannot see the enemy. If you go looking for the enemy in civilian areas, you will upset the civilians and thus increase support for the enemy. If you attempt to kill the enemy, you will kill innocent civilians in the process, and thus increase support for the enemy. And once you give up on those two ideas, there is really no other way to continue fighting the war.

Sorry to say, but the end result in both Iraq and Afghanistan will be that we will eventually have to pull out and let the two new governments fall. That is my prediction. I could be wrong. Only time will tell.

agree however if we pull out or if we dont kill them they will kill us regardless, if we were to pull out our military from all the areas we have them in now, and were to stop interfering in any world issues then sorry to say the world would fall apart and everyone would kill themselves and we wouldnt be spared either. Not to say that we keep the world together but just like police keep order it seems that we have taken on that role whether voluntarily or not. look at Thailand, we werent there and whoops the country is taken over from a "democracy" to a current marshal rule while the prime minister is in NYC at the UN of all places. Education goes a long way and we dont go and kill civilians purposefully we go for insurgents or whatever you want to call them. the fact that they hide amongst and put in danger the lives of civilians is really no ones fault. if civilians know that they will be killed for harboring these pricks and they still do it then they clearly dont care. the anti-US sentiment will not go down regardless of what we do. sort of like the palestinians will not leave the Israelis alone no matter what they do unless they leave the country and thats an impossible and unlikely scenario and if hypothetically Israelis were to leave then they would find trouble elsewhere just like us here in the US

BMW X5 · #65 09-20-2006, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scottie

do you drink whiskey??

well a dram is a small glass of whiskey I guess you guys might say " shot "

the education I'm giving you guys

you need to come visit Scotland

would love to if you pay for flight or at least get me a flat

ylwjacket · #66 09-20-2006, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scottie

I mean American military are so well trained they shout there own.

Have the Brits never had a friendly fire accident?

This "you shoot your own" thing seems to come out alot, is patently offensive, and has no place in a discussion like this.

from BBC 2 years ago.......two British soldiers - Corporal Stephen John Allbutt, 35, and 19-year-old Trooper David Jeffrey Clarke - were killed last Tuesday when their Challenger II tank was mistakenly fired upon by British comrades in another tank.

from the CBC, which explains it..........The United States military has been criticized for having a lengthy record of friendly-fire incidents. But some critics admit that American troops often make up the overwhelming majority of combat forces around the world, and are therefore more likely to be involved in friendly-fire incidents.

BMW X5 · #67 09-20-2006, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ylwjacket

Have the Brits never had a friendly fire accident?

This "you shoot your own" thing seems to come out alot, is patently offensive, and has no place in a discussion like this.

from BBC 2 years ago.......two British soldiers - Corporal Stephen John Allbutt, 35, and 19-year-old Trooper David Jeffrey Clarke - were killed last Tuesday when their Challenger II tank was mistakenly fired upon by British comrades in another tank.

from the CBC, which explains it..........The United States military has been criticized for having a lengthy record of friendly-fire incidents. But some critics admit that American troops often make up the overwhelming majority of combat forces around the world, and are therefore more likely to be involved in friendly-fire incidents.

Scottie · #68 09-20-2006, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ylwjacket

Have the Brits never had a friendly fire accident?

This "you shoot your own" thing seems to come out alot, is patently offensive, and has no place in a discussion like this.

from BBC 2 years ago.......two British soldiers - Corporal Stephen John Allbutt, 35, and 19-year-old Trooper David Jeffrey Clarke - were killed last Tuesday when their Challenger II tank was mistakenly fired upon by British comrades in another tank.

from the CBC, which explains it..........The United States military has been criticized for having a lengthy record of friendly-fire incidents. But some critics admit that American troops often make up the overwhelming majority of combat forces around the world, and are therefore more likely to be involved in friendly-fire incidents.

Oop's did I hit a nerve.

It's just the Americans are renowned for it way back to WWII