America isn't fighting wars right

[DinoCrisisFan]

Pretty much every war since World War II has been fought incorrectly. America is just fighting lightweight wars, which is terrible. This is the reason we see wars last a long time (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.). If we actually invaded our enemies, things would be different. Right now we worry more about collateral damage than we do about winning the war. It's supposed to be a war, bad things happen from time to time, we have to roll with the punches. Had we launched a full scale invasion of Iraq, I guarantee you the war would be have been over almost instantly. Same goes for all of the other wars America has fought in since World War II. Politicians are making military decisions, and that is why we are stuck in unnecessarily long and bloody wars that last 5+ years. It's gotten so ridiculous now, if a soldier is being shot at by a terrorist, but the terrorist sets his gun down and just walks away (but doesn't surrender), you aren't supposed to kill him anymore, despite the fact that he was trying to kill you a second ago, and will most likely try to kill you or another American later.

[DinoCrisisFan]

"Look at what Israel does. If they find a terrorist sniper in an enemy building, they just level the entire building. If there were civilians inside, then they should have gotten the fuck out when he started shooting." (not a quote by me)

[Iceman]

So your suggesting just bomb the shit out of everything? Bad idea, especially if we are trying to get other countries to be on our side. It took us so long in Iraq because its a country, its not a town it will take time. And then we wanted to set up a stable government. Same as Afghanistan. Its not a big, flat piece of land. We have to actually find the terrorist. :headbonk:

[Amnesiac]

Better idea: let's not fuck with other countries at all, unless they're actually going to destroy us. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interventionism)

[TopGear]

Pretty much every war since World War II has been fought incorrectly. America is just fighting lightweight wars, which is terrible. This is the reason we see wars last a long time (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.). If we actually invaded our enemies, things would be different. Right now we worry more about collateral damage than we do about winning the war. It's supposed to be a war, bad things happen from time to time, we have to roll with the punches. Had we launched a full scale invasion of Iraq, I guarantee you the war would be have been over almost instantly. Same goes for all of the other wars America has fought in since World War II. Politicians are making military decisions, and that is why we are stuck in unnecessarily long and bloody wars that last 5+ years. It's gotten so ridiculous now, if a soldier is being shot at by a terrorist, but the terrorist sets his gun down and just walks away (but doesn't surrender), you aren't supposed to kill him anymore, despite the fact that he was trying to kill you a second ago, and will most likely try to kill you or another American later.

I completely agree. Politicians should not make military decisions. 4 or 5 star generals Should. They are over there and they know what the fuck their doing when they do it. Not Mr. President sitting back in Washington watching it all fold out as he stokes the fire with a golden fire poker. The only president that should be capable of making a military decision is an ex 4-5 star general. The whole "Rules of Engagement" are fucked up, If they have a gun shoot, turn them into a human milkshake.

What socko is saying is correct. Part of our job is to rebuild, not only what we have destroyed but there government and there military,police, everything. Things like that take massive amount of time, effort and BILLIONS of Dollars. Same goes with Afghanistan.

Also we are not fighting countries, Make sure thats out there. We are fighting a tiny, tiny, tiny, Did I say tiny. tiny group of people that don't like the United states. The normal people and civilians over there are just like me and you. But live in a war zone. They are trying to live their life without being killed either by us ( on accident) or by militants. So not all the people over there are bad people. Just a select few.

Better idea: let's not fuck with other countries at all, unless they're actually going to destroy us.

That doesn't work. Why, because by the time we figure out that they are trying to destroy us, its already too late.

Prime example is 9/11.

The 9/11 attacks has costed the United States over $2 trillion dollars. That itself destruction. Not to mention the lost of roughly 3,000 Americans. To me that seems like they tried to destroy us.

[Sage]

Here's a crazy idea: Maybe we'd have less enemies if we stopped selling weapons to people who hate us.

[TopGear]

Here's a crazy idea: Maybe we'd have less enemies if we stopped selling weapons to people who hate us.

How do you stop that though? I mean Yeah that would be great, but how?

[Sage]

How do you stop that though? I mean Yeah that would be great, but how?

Oh, gee, I don't know, how about staying out of the politics of other countries? How about not profiting off of conflicts and war? How about realizing that our military presence in these countries only creates more people who hate us?

What the fuck is the point of this war on terrorism? When can we pack up and call it mission accomplished? How long will it take to do that? What right does America have to tell people to be democratic?

[TopGear]

Oh, gee, I don't know, how about staying out of the politics of other countries? How about not profiting off of conflicts and war? How about realizing that our military presence in these countries only creates more people who hate us?

What the fuck is the point of this war on terrorism? When can we pack up and call it mission accomplished? How long will it take to do that? What right does America have to tell people to be democratic?

Well, Maybe if their country had a FUCKING grip on the people they house. If the terrorist, Al-Qaeda & Osama bin Laden where in Canada im sure we there wouldn't be a war, why because they would hand them over and be done with it. But its the middle east... The people who run those counties support Al-Qaeda and others. So We have to go in and get them ourselves. No, Our military presence in other countries doesn't make more people hate us. Majority of civilians want us, because they know there land and town won't be overthrown by militants. The ones who hate us are they ones that caused us to come over there in the first place.

The point of the war on terrorism is to reduce the risk of ever having another terrorist attack on the United States, or for any country for that matter. We could pack up right now and call it quites. But we already have our feet in the door and there is no point in turing back now. We need to finish what we have started. I don't care how Long it takes us, It could go on till the day I fucking fall over dead, but as long as there is not another terrorist attack on US Soil, They have done there job. and up till this point they have. So I applaud them on what they are doing. We don't but thats just something that came with us invading. or maybe killing their dictator?

[Sage]

Majority of civilians want us,
Source please.

I don't care how Long it takes us, It could go on till the day I fucking fall over dead,
So you support an indefinitely long state of warfare with an unrealistic and impossible goal?

[TopGear]

Source please.

From my father thats been over there, and also a brother thats served years over there as well.


So you support an indefinitely long state of warfare with an unrealistic and impossible goal?

If that means that the United States doesn't have another terrorist attack, sure. Also it's not an unrealistic or impossible goal, Completely destroying Al-Qaeda and other groups like that are not impossible, would just take alot more effort then what we are giving right now, Like OP said, If we fought like we did in WWII this would of been over a long ass time ago. But no politics got in the way.

[Sage]

From my father thats been over there, and also a brother thats served years over there as well.
So you don't have a reliable source then.

If that means that the United States doesn't have another terrorist attack, sure. Also it's not an unrealistic or impossible goal, Completely destroying Al-Qaeda and other groups like that are not impossible, would just take alot more effort then what we are giving right now, Like OP said, If we fought like we did in WWII this would of been over a long ass time ago. But no politics got in the way.
I'm deeply troubled that the only solution you have to the problem of terrorism, the act of using violence and/or threats to intimidate people into achieving a goal, is to either perpetuate a state of non-ending warfare or absolutely obliterate an entire country.

Also, you're completely ignoring the fact that the US has its own domestic terrorists.

[The Dark Lord]

From my father thats been over there, and also a brother thats served years over there as well.


Working on the assumption that your father and brother haven't spoken to over 50% of the population, that means your "source" isn't really a source at all.

America shouldn't be going into conflicts unless they are going to win, it's the half-arsed planning and illegality of what they are doing that is the reason why they so regularly find themselves in the same position

[Sage]

Working on the assumption that your father and brother haven't spoken to over 50% of the population, that means your "source" isn't really a source at all.

Even if they had it wouldn't be reliable. They're American soldiers, they have biases they may or may not be aware of. They are incapable of objectively analyzing the situation.

[TopGear]

I'm deeply troubled that the only solution you have to the problem of terrorism, the act of using violence and/or threats to intimidate people into achieving a goal, is to either perpetuate a state of non-ending warfare or absolutely obliterate an entire country.

Also, you're completely ignoring the fact that the US has its own domestic terrorists.

Why not, It works right? Its keeps our country safe? Did I say anything about obliterating an entire country?

Just a little history fact for you; We still have troops stationed everywhere we have ever landed on. Germany, Japan, Vietnam, and Now Iraq and if it has to be where we have a larger amount of troops located in Afghanistan, so be it. Its not a pretty world anymore, if you want to survive you got to have the bigger stick. I plan on living in a country that uses the whole fucking tree.

About the domestic terrorist thing, when was the last time we had a domestic terrorist, Kill roughly 3,000. Take down 2 skyscrapers ( World Trade Center) and few other buildings, 1/5 of the Pentagon and get close to hitting the white House?

[Amnesiac]

Well, Maybe if their country had a FUCKING grip on the people they house. If the terrorist, Al-Qaeda & Osama bin Laden where in Canada im sure we there wouldn't be a war, why because they would hand them over and be done with it. But its the middle east... The people who run those counties support Al-Qaeda and others. So We have to go in and get them ourselves. No, Our military presence in other countries doesn't make more people hate us. Majority of civilians want us, because they know there land and town won't be overthrown by militants. The ones who hate us are they ones that caused us to come over there in the first place.

The point of the war on terrorism is to reduce the risk of ever having another terrorist attack on the United States, or for any country for that matter. We could pack up right now and call it quites. But we already have our feet in the door and there is no point in turing back now. We need to finish what we have started. I don't care how Long it takes us, It could go on till the day I fucking fall over dead, but as long as there is not another terrorist attack on US Soil, They have done there job. and up till this point they have. So I applaud them on what they are doing. We don't but thats just something that came with us invading. or maybe killing their dictator?

http://pictures.directnews.co.uk/liveimages/Laptop_898_19398797_0_0_7017014_300.jpg

I'm sorry man, but the best policy is one that doesn't involve us fucking around in other peoples' countries, no matter how bad they are at managing it. The easiest and most effective way to counter terrorist attacks is to increase airport security and not fly to countries where there are terrorists. But no, we (I say 'we' because, thanks to ANZUS, Australia had to join in) had to start a fucking war where Bin Laden is always one step ahead of us. Face it, terrorism will always exist. It's not possible to eradicate it, only to increase our defenses against it.

Besides, the 9/11 terrorists weren't even from Iraq.

And don't even get me started on Saddam Hussein and "Iraqi liberation" or whatever bullshit they call it. I couldn't give less of a fuck how messed up other countries are. The U.S. has its own problems, it should keep to itself.

[Magus]

And don't even get me started on Saddam Hussein and "Iraqi liberation" or whatever bullshit they call it. I couldn't give less of a fuck how messed up other countries are. The U.S. has its own problems, it should keep to itself.No, they had the WMDs, remember? They were about to sell it to the 9/11 perpetrators, remember that too?

Anyways, what I felt that Bush wanted to finish what his father started, back in 1990.

[Iceman]

And we "stuck" in Afghanistan/Pakistan until Kashmire gets setteld apparently.

And then I disagree with Commander up there. Basically America pushes all those countries around because we can. But if we backed out someone else would take over all those countries and then push us around.

[Severus Snape]

Or America could stop policing the world, then nobody has to die.

[Sogeking]

The easiest and most effective way to counter terrorist attacks is to increase airport security and not fly to countries where there are terrorists.

I'm not cool with the government taking away our civil liberties for a false sense of security. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act)

The war on terror is a war that we might possibly never win, but it is also a war that the terrorists can win. It's just like saying "We should shut down every police station out there because there will always be crime,derp."

I mean don't get me wrong, I support the war on terrorists as much as the next non-interventionist guy, but what other option do we have?

[Rutherford The Brave]

Pretty much every war since World War II has been fought incorrectly. America is just fighting lightweight wars, which is terrible. This is the reason we see wars last a long time (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.). If we actually invaded our enemies, things would be different. Right now we worry more about collateral damage than we do about winning the war. It's supposed to be a war, bad things happen from time to time, we have to roll with the punches. Had we launched a full scale invasion of Iraq, I guarantee you the war would be have been over almost instantly. Same goes for all of the other wars America has fought in since World War II. Politicians are making military decisions, and that is why we are stuck in unnecessarily long and bloody wars that last 5+ years. It's gotten so ridiculous now, if a soldier is being shot at by a terrorist, but the terrorist sets his gun down and just walks away (but doesn't surrender), you aren't supposed to kill him anymore, despite the fact that he was trying to kill you a second ago, and will most likely try to kill you or another American later.

America shouldn't be fighting wars in the first place. As far as Im concerned, none of the wars after World War 2 served any significant purpose. The others we just us repeating history over and over and over again. You'd think we'd learn from previous attempts to gain power.

[Magus]

America shouldn't be fighting wars in the first place. As far as Im concerned, none of the wars after World War 2 served any significant purpose.

The only war that I can think of that didn't serve any significant purpose is the Vietnamese war. The Cold-War was an actual war between the commies and the capitalists.

The 1990 war was to defend an ally who had petroleum - it was strategic to defend Kuwait(where I live! :P), if Kuwait was given to Iraq, guess how much gas would have cost.

2001 war, is a war against Terrorism. Obviously, non of the Arab's/Islamic republics countries would intervene with the "terrorists". Ten years, and they are still fighting!

Iraq war, started at 2003, truly ended at 2006. Was another job well done by America. Iraq is a tyrant and was a threat to the region.

I am not being sarcastic, I am serious here.

A war with Iran? I hope so. Many Iranians regret picking the religious guys instead of the Shah rulings.

So, is there a war I don't know about?

[Amnesiac]

I'm not cool with the government taking away our civil liberties for a false sense of security. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act)

The war on terror is a war that we might possibly never win, but it is also a war that the terrorists can win. It's just like saying "We should shut down every police station out there because there will always be crime,derp."

I mean don't get me wrong, I support the war on terrorists as much as the next non-interventionist guy, but what other option do we have?

I'm not saying we should increase airport security to the point where our civil liberties are being breached, but it needs to be at a level where the terrorists won't be able to get past easily. It's a tricky situation. Either way, fighting a war in the Middle East over it won't solve anything. It's just an incredible waste of money and time. Police stations do actually prevent crime, unlike the War on Terror, which has barely dented Al Qaeda's operations in the Middle East.

They're in Pakistan now, a step ahead of America. What is the U.S. gonna do, invade Pakistan, an 'ally' of the United States that has nuclear weapons?

[Rutherford The Brave]

The only war that I can think of that didn't serve any significant purpose is the Vietnamese war. The Cold-War was an actual war between the commies and the capitalists.

The 1990 war was to defend an ally who had petroleum - it was strategic to defend Kuwait(where I live! :P), if Kuwait was given to Iraq, guess how much gas would have cost.

2001 war, is a war against Terrorism. Obviously, non of the Arab's/Islamic republics countries would intervene with the "terrorists". Ten years, and they are still fighting!

Iraq war, started at 2003, truly ended at 2006. Was another job well done by America. Iraq is a tyrant and was a threat to the region.

I am not being sarcastic, I am serious here.

A war with Iran? I hope so. Many Iranians regret picking the religious guys instead of the Shah rulings.

So, is there a war I don't know about?

I completly understand. I just see a war over oil as useless in a way, I know it vital but I as a eco-friendly purpose see fighting for it useless. I dont agree with the Irag war because we kind of just barged in and scared them beyond belief after 9/11. The cold war definatly was important I see that. I just dont see any real purposes that is close to the fear in WW2.

[embers]

The only war that I can think of that didn't serve any significant purpose is the Vietnamese war. The Cold-War was an actual war between the commies and the capitalists.

The 1990 war was to defend an ally who had petroleum - it was strategic to defend Kuwait(where I live! :P), if Kuwait was given to Iraq, guess how much gas would have cost.

2001 war, is a war against Terrorism. Obviously, non of the Arab's/Islamic republics countries would intervene with the "terrorists". Ten years, and they are still fighting!

Iraq war, started at 2003, truly ended at 2006. Was another job well done by America. Iraq is a tyrant and was a threat to the region.

I am not being sarcastic, I am serious here.

A war with Iran? I hope so. Many Iranians regret picking the religious guys instead of the Shah rulings.

So, is there a war I don't know about?

America (or rather, Bush and Blair's rather intimate relationship) is the stupidest country when it comes to war, bar the Pakistan-India-Bangladesh beef.

Saddam Hussein's negotiators were offering the US just about everything they wanted: they would let the US come in and check for WMDs, support for the US position on Israel and Palestine and even some of its oil. He seems to have looked for every diplomatic situation, but America insisted on war. Sure, it's good they toppled a horrible dictator, but at the price of hundreds and thousands of civilians? Did you see the hell they raised in Fallujah?

And then Bush says to the public, "I want to remind you that it's his choice to make whether or not we go to war. He's the person that can make the choice of war and peace. Thus far, he's made the wrong choice." Bush claimed that America had taken "every measure" to "avoid war".

Same goes to Afghanistan. On Sept. 20th, the Taliban offered to simply hand bin Laden over to a neutral Islamic country if the US proved that he was behind the attacks on Washington and New York. The US rejected, and on a later date the Taliban offered again. They believed "Only negotiation will solve our problems". But the US, being their war-hungry selves, went to war.

America fight their wars wrong. Then when their soldiers were shown on public TV being humiliated, they piped up and said that it was against the Geneva conventions. Well, here's what we know they do in Guantanamo (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2648547.stm):

They displayed them on television; breach of article 13.
They were stripped and deprived of their possessions; article 18.
They were denied proper mess facilities, canteens, religious premises, opportunities for physical exercise, freedom to write to their families, and parcels of food and books; articles 26, 28, 34, 38, 70/71 and 72 respectively.
They weren't released without delay after the cessation of active hostilities; article 118.

All that and America refused to recognise them as PoWs, torturing them for information. They called them unlawful combatants rather than prisoners of war, but the redefinition is a breach of article 4 of the third convention: people detained as suspected members of a militia (the Taliban) or a volunteer corps (Al-Qaeda) must be regarded as prisoners of war.

And there you have it. America's display of ineptitude in fighting wars.


Oh, and most of this is from George Monbiot's well-sourced 'Bring On The Apocalypse'. Old articles, but a pretty fucking brilliant man.

[The Dark Lord]

America (or rather, Bush and Blair's rather intimate relationship) is the stupidest country when it comes to war, bar the Pakistan-India-Bangladesh beef.


This implies that Bush and Blair were equals, they weren't.

[Sage]

This implies that Bush and Blair were equals, they weren't.

I didn't get that implication.

[The Dark Lord]

I didn't get that implication.

He refered to Blair and Bush's "intimate" relationship, which I thought implied equality. It has appeared to be more of Blair following Bush rather than 2 equal partners tackling world terrorism. Britain followed America into Iraq against the advice of the Attonery General and Foreign Secretary, Blair was determined to preserve what remained of the "special relationship" and consequently followed Bush against the will of the majority of British people.

[embers]

If you really want me to elaborate on 'intimate relationship', I did mean Blair was Bush's private arse-wiper.

[Iceman]

Where are these ever stated? Just asking for evidence.

Saddam Hussein's negotiators were offering the US just about everything they wanted




Same goes to Afghanistan. On Sept. 20th, the Taliban offered to simply hand bin Laden over to a neutral Islamic country if the US proved that he was behind the attacks on Washington and New York.

[CypherCore]

Ah, the new generation is completely blind to everything around them. As expected.

[Iceman]

Ah, the new generation is completely blind to everything around them. As expected.

The new generation:confused: your like 5 years older thats not room for "the new generation"

[CypherCore]

The new generation:confused: your like 5 years older thats not room for "the new generation"

True, but people shouldn't listen to the media and fall for all that bullshit. War fuels oil prices, we need oil. It's that simple. That's why America occupies Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries. They use war as an excuse to gain control of the oil fields. The same goes for Afghanistan and its surplus of natural gas. As for politicians, large corporations control them. They're simple puppets and people are dumb enough to believe their bullshit.

[Cloud]

How do you fight a war right?
storm through with tanks, bombers, gunships and artillery?
but would that not defeat the purpose of the war? since it would only destroy the country they are trying to benefit by occupying.
You cant help a baron wasteland of death and bomb craters

Also i think once you start at one edge with your tanks bombers gunships and artillery, by the time you get to the other side then that chappy wont be too happy about you destroying his shit so will whack out his RPG and blast shit out of you,
Only pose a threat to your countries threats and that happy chappy with his RPG will be gracious and leave it in its box since hes got no reason to be pissed at you

A war is not just violence, its hearts and minds too

[Iron Man]

1. How do you fight a war RIGHT? Answer me that one. 2. Afghanistan and Iraq are countries, not single buildings or small towns. 3. Where are you getting these facts? It seems as if all you post is bullshit, so we really can`t take what you say as credible.

[TopGear]

True, but people shouldn't listen to the media and fall for all that bullshit. War fuels oil prices, we need oil. It's that simple. That's why America occupies Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries. They use war as an excuse to gain control of the oil fields. The same goes for Afghanistan and its surplus of natural gas. As for politicians, large corporations control them. They're simple puppets and people are dumb enough to believe their bullshit.

Your not any different; you got your information most likely like anyone else, Just on the other end of the stick. You have no proof or sources to show that we purely occupy Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries just for oil. Sorry but your just believing the other side of the Bullshit.

[Peace God]

Pretty much every war since World War II has been fought incorrectly.
Yeah, that's because World War 2 was the last time our freedoms were actually in danger. The rest is just economic imperialism in the name of "anti-communism" and later... "anti-terrorism".

[ShaneK]

Unless you have actual experience of asymmetric warfare, or more convential warfare.You can't understand the reality of it, like much of life you need to experience things for yourself to truly understand them.

As for the geopolitical implications, they are very uncertain due to many factors. To mention several

divided groups in iraq
outside influence in the theater of combat
oil
"terroist" groups
politics

[embers]

Where are these ever stated? Just asking for evidence.

Looked through George Monbiots endnotes (i.e his sources), and for the essay of his I was taking details from, the sources are as follows:

A Newsweek web exclusive for where he stated that Saddam was willing to comply with just about every of the US's demands. Also: 'Iraq Said To Have Tried To Reach Last Minute Deal To Avert War' - The New York Times, 6th November 2003. Also this (http://wsws.org/articles/2003/nov2003/iraq-n07.shtml). There was also an article in the Guardian on 7th November 2003, look up 'Saddam's Desperate Offers To Stave Off War'.

As for Taliban handing over bin Laden: 'Bush Rejects Bin Laden Deal', Guardian 21st September 2001, and 'White House Rejects Call For Proof; Taliban 'Ready To Negotiate'' in the Guardian on 3rd October 2001. Tony Blair followed Bush in telling the public there were no negotiations in his speech to the Labour party conference in Brighton on 2nd October 2001.

Edit: His article on precisely this is here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/nov/11/afghanistan.iraq), but he only mentions his sources in his book (6 Arguments For Global Justice).