|
On August 16 2010 05:26 angelicfolly wrote:Hey dude, did I ever say I was surprised? Was I the one who made that statement? No? Didn't think so. With that said, I don't even think you know what that was quoted. Having maps and such do as much good as planning. Meaning we cannot magically get supplies where we need it. Actually to put it bluntly, our technology means as much as a rock and sling in that country geography.
Bloody ignorant statement. Go look at my post history troll, if you really want to know my views on civilian deaths in war. But sadly 3000 people lost there lives not because of a accident or war. But because fanatics wanted to kill (I'm putting this bluntly because right now that statement flared me up). So don't even set there and suggest that it was an accident or somehow those people where in a war.
You know, was I debated wither we are winning or not? I was at that time dealing with a specific point nothing more. And I do well know how to really kill terrorism, and that deals with the actual demographic.
I'm not going to watch a 4 part series split up into 9-10min intervals. Actually to put it bluntly I'm not going to watch a so called "documentary", for that very reason.
1: And you didn't know how well your technology would do in that geography or that they would attack your supply routes? That's a lack of intel.
2: I'm not a troll, and it's not an ignorant statement. I don't think you know how many hospitals and schools the US alone has blown up in wars thinking they were different things. And stop acting like the people who were BORN in Afghanistan/Iraq chose to live in those war zones. They're as much responsible for the terrors going on around them as the people in those 2 towers were, so stop whining and get over it.
3: Terrorism, in this world we live in, will never perish. It can, but it won't. As for the Taliban and Al Qaeda, the US cannot "beat" these groups and there are many reasons for that. The second you label them as terrorists you've lost the battle.
4: You don't want to be informed, that seems surprisingly American to me. Keep watching Fox News and you'll be fine.
|
Why don't we just let our soldiers be walking targets and just have them only fire when fired upon. Sure it would dehumanize the brave men and women who are risking their lives for some vague cause in the name of patriotism... but it would make the game very simple in the long run.
Unless the taliban/al-qaeda can continue to convert insurgents, their numbers will continue to fall. And it's really hard to rile murderous sentiment about guys who don't shoot unless shot at first. So our troops keep dying for a while. Then a few years down the road, the taliban/al-qaeda runs out of shit to throw at us, given our superior weapons, numbers, and economy. Just think Mech vs. goon/lots.
|
On August 16 2010 01:49 exeexe wrote:
Stability should not come for a price.
If stability can come at a price, it might be the economic route to take.
|
Actually, after looking into this a little more, it's clear the only situation is to fucking nuke afghanistan. That place is a shithole that treats its women like animals and makes all its money from growing opium.
We should just protect the oil routes and quite literally let the whole country turn into the flaming pile of rubble it's eventually going to end up as anyway.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Bosnia-Herzegovina114 Posts
On August 16 2010 05:06 Jayve wrote:
Can you give me a list of countries that have succesfully invaded Afghanistan? That's because no one has done it.
Exactly!
I'm reading a book called "The Afghan Campaign" by Stephen Pressfield.
It contains some embellishments, but the crux is not even Alexander the Great could conquer it. Rather, after years of war, the Afghan people surrender the head of the rebel leader, and Alexander 'graciously accepted peace'.
And, if my memory serves me well, not even the all-mighty Xerxes (compared to Alexander's treasury and troop count as having 'infinite wealth and infinite reinforcements' ) was able to invade it successfully.
He also graciously accepted that they pay taxes, in exchange for certain autonomy :-D
|
On August 16 2010 06:03 love1another wrote:
Actually, after looking into this a little more, it's clear the only situation is to fucking nuke afghanistan. That place is a shithole that treats its women like animals and makes all its money from growing opium.
We should just protect the oil routes and quite literally let the whole country turn into the flaming pile of rubble it's eventually going to end up as anyway.
Ironic user name. Methinks you haven't 'looked into it' quite enough.
|
On August 16 2010 06:03 love1another wrote:
Actually, after looking into this a little more, it's clear the only situation is to fucking nuke afghanistan. That place is a shithole that treats its women like animals and makes all its money from growing opium.
We should just protect the oil routes and quite literally let the whole country turn into the flaming pile of rubble it's eventually going to end up as anyway.
I think we should nuke anyone who shares your opinion. You're nice and happy in your nice little home where you have no worries because your parents do everything for you. You're so ignorant and stupid I had to post. Completely oblivious to anything but himself is what you are.
|
On August 16 2010 05:54 Jayve wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2010 05:26 angelicfolly wrote:Hey dude, did I ever say I was surprised? Was I the one who made that statement? No? Didn't think so. With that said, I don't even think you know what that was quoted. Having maps and such do as much good as planning. Meaning we cannot magically get supplies where we need it. Actually to put it bluntly, our technology means as much as a rock and sling in that country geography.
Bloody ignorant statement. Go look at my post history troll, if you really want to know my views on civilian deaths in war. But sadly 3000 people lost there lives not because of a accident or war. But because fanatics wanted to kill (I'm putting this bluntly because right now that statement flared me up). So don't even set there and suggest that it was an accident or somehow those people where in a war.
You know, was I debated wither we are winning or not? I was at that time dealing with a specific point nothing more. And I do well know how to really kill terrorism, and that deals with the actual demographic.
I'm not going to watch a 4 part series split up into 9-10min intervals. Actually to put it bluntly I'm not going to watch a so called "documentary", for that very reason.
1: And you didn't know how well your technology would do in that geography or that they would attack your supply routes? That's a lack of intel. 2: I'm not a troll, and it's not an ignorant statement. I don't think you know how many hospitals and schools the US alone has blown up in wars thinking they were different things. And stop acting like the people who were BORN in Afghanistan/Iraq chose to live in those war zones. They're as much responsible for the terrors going on around them as the people in those 2 towers were, so stop whining and get over it. 3: Terrorism, in this world we live in, will never perish. It can, but it won't. As for the Taliban and Al Qaeda, the US cannot "beat" these groups and there are many reasons for that. The second you label them as terrorists you've lost the battle. 4: You don't want to be informed, that seems surprisingly American to me. Keep watching Fox News and you'll be fine.
1. I'm NOT going to debate this point with you. NOT the purpose of this thread, and it was never one of my points I was trying to make.
2.If your not a troll your trying to start a flame war. It is an ignorant statement. Dude go look at my posts I have made on subjects that involve civilian deaths in War, I will not go any further with you on this.
Here's the difference the US doesn't go after civilians, Al Qaeda and the Taliban DO. 9/11 was not an byproduct of a war, it was a intentional attack on a civilian target. It was NOT a byproduct of war, you cannot label it the same as people getting killed in war.
As far as Afghan/Iraq is concerned, unless you can find the quote that says I'm putting more stock into being American over middle Eastern don't you make that accusation again. There also as much responsible as there living conditions and mindset that brought up the situation we have now, i.e. none....
3. Wait, you just contradicted yourself. Ok, I get it roll over and let more attacks on the US, I mean at the time of 9/11 it wasn't like Al Qaeda hadn't attacked us before....
4. Get out. Seriously make more blanket statements, or just label every single American on this site, good job! Anyone up for labeling this guy a flamer/troll?
EDIT,
I really cannot believe you honestly told me to stop "whining" about 9/11, that really leaves me speechless.
|
On August 16 2010 02:49 KwarK wrote:
Obviously bribing is by far the simplest solution to most the conflicts in the world. If instead of going to the enormous expense of fighting a war you simply spent half that money making the war unnecessary then there would be far less wastage. In fact, if you want to get round the employment created by the army issue as well then instead of bribing them in cash you could bribe them in American goods, thereby simulating the boost to the economy of military spending.
The only reason people don't take this pragmatic solution is because of the ideological problems in just backing down to avoid wasting money. However when you delegate security to someone who doesn't share your ideology, such as is happening in Afghanistan, then of course they'll just buy off the enemy. There's no reason not to.
I agree with this and we can only hope that governments become smart enough to understand that they will be better off bribing America with their oil so we don't have to go in their and take it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
