BCR
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2010
- Messages
- 598
- Reaction score
- 178
- Location
- Heart of Dixie
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
When will we learn War is never the answer?
That wasn't going to happen. Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Saudia Arabia... none of these states have a "Come on in Americans and hunt down terrorists!" policy.
Refer back to one of your historical sources and see how Viet Vets were treated after Vietnam. They were treated like losers, the same way Iraq Vets will be treated, if this is declared a defeat.
I nevr said that. Any suggestion that I did is an outright lie.
So, your contention is that we are being opposed militarily in Iraq? Doesn't that fly in the face of your belief that these are enemy combatants who can be tortured, then? Which is it?
The tactics of street gangs largely depend on the gang, but in Los Angeles and Chicago, they are fairly organized in criminal activity and control of specific neighborhoods through terror and intimidation.
Doesn't mean they have to know about it. Send special forces in, kick ass, get out, undetected.
Just because a fighting force doesn't rate protections under the Geneva Convention, doesn't make them any less of a military force. Anytime a force uses interlocking fields of fire, explosives, anti-armor ambushes, etc. to fight, then they are using military tactics and that makes them a military force.
What is the upside of being there? Pride? Sorry, but that does not cut it for me, especially every time I see on the news someone coming home in a casket. Bring our guys home, where they are supposed to be.
Then 18th Street and Gangster Disciples are an army.
Are you a tactical expert or are you just pulling this shi'ite opinion out your ass?
Or, rehash Kuwait, circa 1991...bomb the fuck out of them. Worked better than invasion.
Ok, so explain to us whose tactical orginization they used to make themselves into an army.
The upside of being there, is that we don't have to go back and start all over from scratch.
You don't like seeing people come home in caskets? If we have to go back in ten years, to re-learn how to fight the enemy all over again, you'll see even more young Americans coming home in caskets.
I don't disagree, but all you Lefties would go ape **** if we did that. But, even in Desert Storm, we had to attack the enemy and suffered 1,200 casualties.
The DoD reports that U.S. forces suffered 148 battle-related deaths (35 to friendly fire), with one pilot listed as MIA (his remains were found and identified in August 2009). A further 145 Americans died in non-combat accidents.[78]
There is an assumption on your part that our police actions prevented these things. I don't think you can prove this. Thus, your point is moot.
Real history suggests that Vietnam worked?
Welcome to training exercises, 101. Our guys hadn't fought since vietnam when we went into Kuwait in 1991, and they managed.
You consider me a lefty? LMFAO!
I am all in favor of bombing the **** out of bad guys.
And, as usual, your numbers are way off:
That adds up to 253. I don't know where you pulled the 1200 figure, likely out from between your buttocks, as per your usual m.o.
We wound up with 1,200 casualties, inflicted by a two-bit army.
The DoD reports that U.S. forces suffered 148 battle-related deaths (35 to friendly fire), with one pilot listed as MIA (his remains were found and identified in August 2009).
Did I say, "deaths", or did I say, "casualties"? You do know the difference?
1,200 kuwati's were killed.
Okay this makes alot more sense, when explained like that it seems like something with a goal, instead of just empty rhetoric. Though I still think we went about it the wrong way. Invading, occupying,and nation building isn't the best way to stop terrorists. If we hunted down, and just destroyed the terrorist cells individually it would of been a much more effective, and cost efficient(in both money, and lives) way to accomplish the same goal. Also I really doubt recruitment for such cells would be anywhere near as high as it is now.
Definition: a member of the armed forces lost to service through death, wounds, sickness, capture, or because his or her whereabouts or condition cannot be determined.
We had 145 combat deaths, one MIA, and 148 accidental deaths.
Please feel free to provide the source of your 1200 figure.
Combat deaths: 148
Other: 235
Wounded: 849
United States casualties of war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
My personal feelings would be that I'd rather have bombed the hell out of Afghanistan, made it an example that if anyone wishes to sponsor this as a state again expect similar abject and utter destruction, and from that point forward deal with this with special forces and intelligence agency blackops, amending our standing rules on assassination if need be specifically with regards to non-political figures noted as enemies of the state. At the same time, that line of tactics would likely do little with regards to the propoganda, as I'm sure many would see the notion in Afghanistan as heartless (While currently complaining about nation building) and would complain about the blackops as being fascist and setting precedent for them to do it to our own citizens or such other foolishness.
Look as those figures, then re-read your own definition of casualty, where it says: "a member of the armed forces lost to service through death, wounds, sickness, capture", then add those numbers up and see what you get.
I totally agree with your position here. We should have pounded the **** out of Afghanistan, from a distance, and made an example of them as how any nation who shelters terrorists who attack the U.S. will be treated. That would have sent a much clearer message to the world.
That's not quite the same as what Apdst is claiming, is it?
You actually highlight and issue I have, and that's the notion many people seem to have that by supporting the idea of a "War on Terror" somehow one must be blanket supporting of everything done during it and how its done.
I actually agree with you, I think the method they attempted was a failed one. My personal feelings would be that I'd rather have bombed the hell out of Afghanistan, made it an example that if anyone wishes to sponsor this as a state again expect similar abject and utter destruction, and from that point forward deal with this with special forces and intelligence agency blackops, amending our standing rules on assassination if need be specifically with regards to non-political figures noted as enemies of the state. At the same time, that line of tactics would likely do little with regards to the propoganda, as I'm sure many would see the notion in Afghanistan as heartless (While currently complaining about nation building) and would complain about the blackops as being fascist and setting precedent for them to do it to our own citizens or such other foolishness.