Faulty idea of Nice War

Okay hypewaders, I understand the diplomatic problems associated with warfare, and I'm basically condemning them. If you're really going to war because you need to be at war, then the importance of the war should supercede diplomatic concerns. (What does this say about our endeavors in Iraq?)

Obviously this isn't how it really works. But it probably ought to.
 
Why not show symapthy and humanity?

Two reasons– soldiers&generals would like some humanity and sympathy showed back. Non-civilian employees of the DoD (ie, not Rummy) have complained about guantanomo and the like because it sets precedent for other forces to do the same to our forces.

Pictures of dead babies on TV, no matter whos, tends to rankle with the US public. Until Americans can either grow some balls or give up their voting rights, America's going to continue to do real shitty at waging wars.
 
Well, fine. I hereby declare the foundation of the America Grow Some Balls (AGSB) campaign. Get all this shit fixed up in a jiffy, I will. Yess, preciousss.
 
baumgarten said:
You're right. War isn't a glorious adventure. There is neither dignity nor honor to be found in battle. So why the feeble attempts to wage "humane" war? They are only a form of hesitation, and they only work to ensure defeat.

The only rule of war is to do what is necessary. If the torture of prisoners and the killing of civilians will quicken victory, then not only should it be encouraged, it is the responbility of a commander to order it. To not do whatever is possible to bring about a swift end to the conflict is to sacrifice your own men for the sake of the enemy, and that is downright despicable.
Click to expand...
I wholeheartedly agree. Bringing an end to the war is the first priority, and you have to do some nasty things in order to accomplish it. Anybody who has a problem with that has no business participating in the conflict.

Roman said:
Furthermore, dissident civilians need to be shut the fuck up, the press corp incarcerated, goods rationed, and all non-war-essential jobs shut down. The whole economy ought to be mobilized to production of military equipment and a draft instituted. And get rid of voting.
Click to expand...
Yea, if you want to crush your enemy, that's what you have to do. The thing you have to remember though is the term "economy of force". You do what you have to, and only what you have to, in order to end the war. No more, no less. Otherwise, it's a waste. Of course, the time when this principle is ignored is usually when an accurate assessment of the strength of your opponent cannot be made. In which case, every resource you can get your hands on is utilized. Anything less will bring about your destruction, pure and simple. It's not a matter of morality, it's a matter of necessity.
 
Jaster Mereel said:
Yea, if you want to crush your enemy, that's what you have to do. The thing you have to remember though is the term "economy of force". You do what you have to, and only what you have to, in order to end the war. No more, no less. Otherwise, it's a waste. Of course, the time when this principle is ignored is usually when an accurate assessment of the strength of your opponent cannot be made. In which case, every resource you can get your hands on is utilized. Anything less will bring about your destruction, pure and simple. It's not a matter of morality, it's a matter of necessity.
Click to expand...

Dude, Americans aren't warriors, they're managers and used car salesmen. And lawyers. Th eonly way to effectively mobilize Americas is get em scared so they rally behind one leader long enough to kill some babies. Then American dead start showing up on TVs and everyone backs down.

The only solution I see is a compulsary draft. Everyone serves. Either Americans learn how to properly support a war, or they learn how ugly they are and stop waging them in the first place.

Besides, the real money's to be made in trade, not invasion. Rebuilding their infrastructure is costly. Better they build it while buying our products.
 
times are changing and war must change with it.
in the past what was the reasons for war?
answer? conquer countries to gain land and resources.
this strategy can no longer be justified.

in the future what will be the role of war?
answer? population control.
the wars of the future will be fought solely to kill people be they civilian or military.

another reason for war in the future is to combat rogue states
 
hypewaders said:
the term "total war".
Click to expand...
"Total" refers to the way own society is being dedicated to the war effort, not to the way the enemy is treated or engaged.
It is not "my" understanding, it is the common understanding.
It is an issue that is practically outside this thread.

ES
 
Roman
Two reasons– soldiers&generals would like some humanity and sympathy showed back. Non-civilian employees of the DoD (ie, not Rummy) have complained about guantanomo and the like because it sets precedent for other forces to do the same to our forces.
Click to expand...

Roman, these are the POW camps were the enemy treated our prisoners with such compassion, Sandakan, Hellfirepass, Kinkaseki, Bad Orb, Oryoku Maru, Changi, Colditz, Fukuoka, Saggan, Hanio Hilton, Son Tay-----------

If you have the courage to do the research you will find that the abusive treatment of the prisoner, started with there incarceration, and only got worse, if I was a ever to become a POW I would pray to GOD that it was the US that was my captors as I would have the best chance of surviving my captivity, in the best possible shape.
 
Last edited:
You cannot enslave your enemies as in the Global economy if you win they will be your future customers (Japan and Germany a perfect example).

Americans not warriors?? I will have to disagree on that one. We do a very good job killing people.
 
We do a very good job killing people.
Click to expand...
Correction. We do a very good job pushing buttons. The weapons do the killing.

There's more to being an actual warrior than death. It's a whole social class that doesn't exist in America.
 
baumgarten, sorry to disagree with you over this, the Samuri hold that belief, that the weapon dose the killing, but I disagree it take a will, behind the weapon to give it purpose and a target. We have become very efficent at killing.
 
crazy151drinker said:
Americans not warriors?? I will have to disagree on that one. We do a very good job killing people.
Click to expand...

Our army is professional. They're essentially a bunch of mercenaries.
Americans don't have any fighting spirit. Sure we're good at killing people; we have the money to spend on a huge military. But we haven't the kind of spine it takes to fight Israel, a modernized military force of real warriors, with Soviet era weapons. The Arabs do. And that's why we can only lose a fighting conflict with these people. They have far more guts, far more courage, and far less to lose than we do.

We'd be better beating them with Happy Meals and Fords than bullets.
 
The reason that we may loose the fight has nothing to do with the military, they are the finest fighting men in the world, the reason we would loose the war is lack of political, and civilian resolve to complete the necessary moves to win the war, the soldiers have the training and dedication, it the politicians that don't.
 
the soldiers have the training and dedication, it the politicians that don't.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know. Damn chickenhawks. I wish instead of Congress voting on allowing a war, make a special panel of politicians that used to be in the military and have seen combat to do the voting. Oh wait, it'd hardly have anyone in it, heh.

- N
 
Buffalo Roam said:
The reason that we may loose the fight has nothing to do with the military, they are the finest fighting men in the world, the reason we would loose the war is lack of political, and civilian resolve to complete the necessary moves to win the war, the soldiers have the training and dedication, it the politicians that don't.
Click to expand...

No shit?

That exactly what I was saying. Sure our soldiers are good. We have enough money to afford the best. But Americans, you know, the people of the United States of America who pay for the soldiers guns, training, and food, don't have any guts.
 
Roman said:
the people of the United States of America who pay for the soldiers guns, training, and food, don't have any guts.
Click to expand...
That is not true at all.
We are undermined by media and academia and judiciary, this is what happens.
They afraid of the truth more than of our defeat.
They gun for our defeat, to continue suppressing the truth and parasiting.

ES
 
extrasense said:
The whole point is that we have to use successful srategies of history.

Alexander the great has won over half of the world not by waging nice war.

He has destroyed every city that resisted him, and killed or sold for slavery everyone of its occupants.

ES
Click to expand...

It seems you have not ever read anything on Alexander the Great. He did destroy cities. That was one strategy. He also spared his enemies and reinstated them after the defeat on the battle ground. He also took over cultural aspects of conquered nations. In a sense nothing you are proposing in this thread even closely resembles the spirit of Alexander.

And interestingly in the analogy with Alexander the Great. His empire disolved quickly after he died. Alexander was a military genius backed up by the most professional army in the world of that era. An army largely erected by his father. He conquered the world. But long it didn't last.

A short-lived empire.

Let's hope this part of the analogy is true.
 
baumgarten said:
Correction. We do a very good job pushing buttons. The weapons do the killing.

There's more to being an actual warrior than death. It's a whole social class that doesn't exist in America.
Click to expand...
I said something similar once on another forum that had a lot of military/law enforcement people on it, and there was like 10 pages after the first day. And I just said that Americans don't have the "warrior's spirit that we had in WWII.
 
Buffalo Roam said:
The reason that we may loose the fight has nothing to do with the military, they are the finest fighting men in the world,
Click to expand...

Why is it then that military personal of other nations, such as SAS people, always mock the american military personel especially?

I think you have mistaken military dominance by overwhelming numbers, logistics, equipment and budget for having the finest fighting men.

Finland defended their country against overwhelming odds against Russia during WW2. They can claim they had the finest fighting men in that conflict. They held their noses up in a skewed conflict.

You just have the best american mercinaries money can buy operating the products of the most heavily invested in weapons industry in the world.

That's all. Money.

The finest soldier money can buy.

Still, they got their asses kicked in the past...and present.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top