Quite frankly, any discussion of the “ethics” involved with killing people in war is naive bullshit.
I’ll take life. You can have your ethics. They won’t do you any good when your head is being stuck on a stake as a warning to all of your ethical compatriots.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
What a bunch of utter bullshit.
bullshit like “rules of engagement” [/quote]
We lost the war when we let Karzai dictate our rules of engagement.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
What a bunch of utter bullshit.
We are over there to destroy the Taliban’s ability to wage war from there against us. The first step is to kill every motherfucker associated with the Taliban. How you kill them is immaterial. Shit, this is a region that respects initiative and violence. Maybe the best way to win the hearts and minds of those goatfucking smack fiends is to show them how to REALLY get down. [/quote]
Oh? And here I thought that al-Qa’iada had carried out the 11 September attacks. The weapon systems deployed in warfare can have profound effects on the tactical, operational, and strategic levels. Remember Clausewitz’ maxim:“War is the continuation of politics by other means.” Could America use chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons in Afghanistan and Iraq with no catastrophic consequences for U.S. grand strategy?
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Another thing to consider is this: what is the point of putting American soldiers at risk, regardless of the reasons, if you effectively hamstring them by forcing them to adhere to wholly contrived bullshit like “rules of engagement” and that sort of thing? And if we are NOT willing to send our soldiers into places where the best way to annihilate the enemy is turn our boys loose with zero restraint, then maybe we shouldn’t send them at all. It’s a really good way to keep our noses out of shit that doesn’t necessarily have a clear objective.[/quote]
Killing alone does not defeat insurgencies. In fact, such a myopic approach can exacerbate them. As Mao famously said, such wars are “20 percent military action and 80 percent political.” Rules of engagement that limited the use of CAS (close air support)to when it was absolutely necessary saved not only the lives of Afghan civilians, but those of ISAF troops as well. As evidenced in both Afghanistan and Iraq, collateral damage serves as a cri de coeur to take up arms against coalition forces. These ROE were supported by both General Petraeus and General McChrystal, who understood the key to COIN is protecting the indigenous populace. Counterinsurgency can be succinctly defined by the maxim “clear, hold, and build”: clear the insurgents, hold the area, and build services and support. Massive body counts do not achieve this.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
What a bunch of utter bullshit.
bullshit like “rules of engagement” [/quote]
We lost the war when we let Karzai dictate our rules of engagement.[/quote]
David Galula was a veteran of the Algerian war and author of Counterinsurgency: Theory and Practice, among the most influential works in the COIN literature.
“One chapter of Galula’s book is titled “The Prerequisites for a Successful Insurgency.” The conditions it describes include a weak or corrupt government; a neighboring country that offers safe havens; a predominantly rural, illiterate population; and a primitive economy – precisely the traits that marked Hamid Karzai’s Afghanistan. In the PowerPoint briefing that Petraeus delivered to countless delegations visiting his Kabul headquarters, he titled one slide “Storm Clouds,” listing all these factors as ill omens for the war’s outcome.”
Same could be said during the Vietnam war, actually. The parallels are all there. Pakistan = Laos/Cambodia, for example.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Sexmachine, what is your opinion of the Obama administration’s strategic pivot to Asia? [/quote]
Obama lacks the resources and credibility to contain China.
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/5/6/china/why-obama-should-abandon-pivot
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Sexmachine, what is your opinion of the Obama administration’s strategic pivot to Asia? [/quote]
Don’t you think China’s at fault? Obama’s just trying to keep the status quo, much like the Russians in their sphere of interest. China’s the one ignoring international boundaries and other agreements. The countries involved want the United States as a power in the region and reject the Chinese power play.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Sexmachine, what is your opinion of the Obama administration’s strategic pivot to Asia? [/quote]
Obama lacks the resources and credibility to contain China.
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/5/6/china/why-obama-should-abandon-pivot[/quote]
So, what’s the solution? Let them have all of Asia and the Pacific?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Sexmachine, what is your opinion of the Obama administration’s strategic pivot to Asia? [/quote]
Obama lacks the resources and credibility to contain China.
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/5/6/china/why-obama-should-abandon-pivot[/quote]
So, what’s the solution? Let them have all of Asia and the Pacific?[/quote]
I’m just looking at it realistically. If you can’t handle a few thousand casualties in Iraq over ten years without riots in the streets and the government nearly being brought down what hope have you got of containing China or Russia? Obama can’t win; he can’t bluff; so what else is there? He should fold like the pathetic weakling he is and try to keep what chips he has.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
For both tactical and psychological reasons, CBRN’s represent a step along a path of escalation which ends in total (exterminatory) war. Cormac McCarthy shit. Obviously, it doesn’t matter to the dead how they died once they’re dead. But it matters to the living who’d rather not follow suit.
Weapons that initiate or can too easily lead to actual war – the kind of war we used to have before the Trinity test – are more worrisome than a civil war on the other side of the world and, frankly, more worrisome than some cave-dwellers planning to hijack an airplane somewhere in a nicer part of the world. Chemical weapons in particular are better suited for killing civilians than they are a useful tool for a battlefield strategist. More importantly, every time a chemical weapon is used, the anti-CBRN international norm is degraded, and we legitimize a qualitatively different kind of war, one which has the very real potential to end not in a treaty or a surrender or a draw-down, but in apocalypse. This is only a slight exaggeration, if that.
But don’t take my word for it. We made the escalation path explicit in the 2002 Statement on the National Strategy To Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction:
[quote]
The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force–including through resort to all of our options–to the use of WMD against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies.[/quote]
[“All of our options” means The Bomb.]
Also 2002:
[quote]
The emergence of a new, hostile military coalition against the United States or its allies in which one or more members possesses WMD and the means of delivery is a potential contingency that could have major consequences for U.S. defense planning, including plans for nuclear forces…North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Libya are among the countries that could be involved in immediate, potential, or unexpected contingencies.[/quote]
So, here is the DOD under Bush talking about a nuclear strike on Syria because of chemical weapons. If that isn’t heavy talk, heavy talk does not exist. And that isn’t Bush’s DOD being hysterical, as some people have argued: These are the natural stakes where CBRN’s are concerned, whether anybody thinks it’s logical or not. This is why chemical weapons stockpiles mean more than conventional weapons stockpiles, and this is why Syria’s being armed with Russian bombs and heavy equipment is not remotely comparable to their sitting on 2 million pounds of Sarin and Mustard gas. And all of this is to say nothing of chemical weapons as tools for terrorism, which would require some skill–but then again, so does flying a plane into a building.[/quote]
Wiat, chemical weapons were WMD’s, now there WMD’s? Or maybe that was Bismark making that claim?
Anyway, I agree, chemical weapons are bad nasty things that the world is better without.
The argument is that this request was insufficient. Getting rid of chemical weapons is a good thing, but it was too little too late in a degrading situation that is showing little hope of improving, in fact is showing signs of getting worse as it has already spilled over into Iraq and is hitting American interests pretty hard.
I would even argue that giving up chemical weapons has strengthened Assad and entrenched his position and is allowing him to slowly but surely get his country back.
Our strategy in Syria is unfocused, goalless, and ineffective.
Our initial concern wasn’t getting rid of chemical weapons. We didn’t state that was a goal. We had other goals in mind, Assad stepping down, Moderates take over, and free elections and a new constitution drafted and everybody is happy. While hemming and hawing about whether or not to support the opposition, we draw the ‘red line’ which Assad crosses immediately and in inhibited.
All the sudden, our focus becomes chemical weapons. I think it’s a valid question, why did we not demand this from the start, before they were used? Why did that become our goal?
It seems to me, that obama was looking for a way out of using military force and getting involved militarily. While we had all kinds of demands on the table, we settled for chemical weapons.
The situation has become more dire, Assad is armed better than ever, the opposition has turned into an al qaeda breeding ground, which is crossing borders now. Assad still uses chemicals to kill people, granted less effective less dangerous over all. You got a huge refugee crisis. The humanitarian crisis, chemical weapons or not is dire, a civil war with no end in sight which is spilling over into Iraq, Russia increasing arms shipments to Assad and now the U.S. is deciding to aid the rebels. The problem is, who are the rebels?
Everything is too little too late. We are either involved or we are not. The halfass measures have only serve to embolden our enemies to which we have on both sides of the fight.
I have to wonder why we are arming the rebels now after all seems lost, what is our end game? To keep the civil war going as long as possible? Assad is poised to win.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Sexmachine, what is your opinion of the Obama administration’s strategic pivot to Asia? [/quote]
Obama lacks the resources and credibility to contain China.
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/5/6/china/why-obama-should-abandon-pivot[/quote]
So, what’s the solution? Let them have all of Asia and the Pacific?[/quote]
Electing a new commander-in-chief that inspires fear and respect, both at home and abroad, together with a Congress to support him (or her), would help.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Sexmachine, what is your opinion of the Obama administration’s strategic pivot to Asia? [/quote]
Obama lacks the resources and credibility to contain China.
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/5/6/china/why-obama-should-abandon-pivot[/quote]
So, what’s the solution? Let them have all of Asia and the Pacific?[/quote]
Electing a new commander-in-chief that inspires fear and respect, both at home and abroad, together with a Congress to support him (or her), would help.[/quote]
Are you familiar with potential future president lineup… it’s not looking good.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
And to add one more thing, chemical weapons’ weaknesses, which Bismark was correctly talking about earlier, actually make them more dangerous in certain strange ways. Armies can fairly easily survive chemical attacks in modern warfare; civilians fare worse. And when civilians are targets, important fingers hover over big red buttons.[/quote]
It seems the targets were civilians and still are with respect to chemicals. The purpose of that is to weaken the resolve of the populous. I dare say it works.
I think the evils of chemical warfare are well understood. It doesn’t change the fact that our strategy with regards to Syria has been a disaster.
The uptick in arms shipments to Assad from Russia which seriously improves Assads capabilities after Assad gave up the chemicals seems to be no coincidence. It certainly explains Assads agreeability with regards to giving up the chemicals. Give up antiquated weapons for ones with greater strategic abilities would be a no brainer for anybody in Assad’s position.
I am sure they left that part out in it presentation to the U.S… We don’t know it was part of the deal for sure, but we know after the deal, Russia has increased it’s arms shipments. These aren’t AK47’s, we’re talking drone, fighter jets, guided missiles, radar systems etc.
Would you give up chemical weapons for that kind of artillery? Absolutely.
It’s no accident.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
What a bunch of utter bullshit.
We are over there to destroy the Taliban’s ability to wage war from there against us. The first step is to kill every motherfucker associated with the Taliban. How you kill them is immaterial. Shit, this is a region that respects initiative and violence. Maybe the best way to win the hearts and minds of those goatfucking smack fiends is to show them how to REALLY get down.
Another thing to consider is this: what is the point of putting American soldiers at risk, regardless of the reasons, if you effectively hamstring them by forcing them to adhere to wholly contrived bullshit like “rules of engagement” and that sort of thing? And if we are NOT willing to send our soldiers into places where the best way to annihilate the enemy is turn our boys loose with zero restraint, then maybe we shouldn’t send them at all. It’s a really good way to keep our noses out of shit that doesn’t necessarily have a clear objective.[/quote]
Yes, killing the enemy is an effective means of fighting a war. It’s kind of ridiculous to say that killing your enemy isn’t an effective tactic in war, since it’s usually the primary objective in a fight. The side that takes the most casualties is usually the loser in a battle.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
And to add one more thing, chemical weapons’ weaknesses, which Bismark was correctly talking about earlier, actually make them more dangerous in certain strange ways. Armies can fairly easily survive chemical attacks in modern warfare; civilians fare worse. And when civilians are targets, important fingers hover over big red buttons.[/quote]
It seems the targets were civilians and still are with respect to chemicals. The purpose of that is to weaken the resolve of the populous. I dare say it works.
I think the evils of chemical warfare are well understood. It doesn’t change the fact that our strategy with regards to Syria has been a disaster.
The uptick in arms shipments to Assad from Russia which seriously improves Assads capabilities after Assad gave up the chemicals seems to be no coincidence. It certainly explains Assads agreeability with regards to giving up the chemicals. Give up antiquated weapons for ones with greater strategic abilities would be a no brainer for anybody in Assad’s position.
I am sure they left that part out in it presentation to the U.S… We don’t know it was part of the deal for sure, but we know after the deal, Russia has increased it’s arms shipments. These aren’t AK47’s, we’re talking drone, fighter jets, guided missiles, radar systems etc.
Would you give up chemical weapons for that kind of artillery? Absolutely.
It’s no accident.[/quote]
Yes, chemical weapons can be avoided with some trouble by a military.
But the means are imperfect. I still get sick at my stomach just thinking back to training and being exposed to tear gas (on purpose as part of training). It’s truly one of the worst things that I’ve ever experienced, and I’ve been shot, blown up, and burned.
Moreover, the mere threat of chemical weapons makes the troops have to carry 25lbs worth of protective gear around, which is 25lbs less ammo, armor, and water you can carry. The only thing worse than lugging the gear is putting the stuff on — it’s a plastic suit. And it’s 120 degrees outside. And you can’t see/hear shit out of the gas mask. Seriously degrades you abilities as a fighting unit.
And it only works if you have a perfect seal. Which doesn’t happen in a combat situation.
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
He’s also been referred to as “The First Gay President”.
[/quote]
Obama failed even at that.
James Buchannon was the first gay president. There are even letters he sent bemoaning his inability to sleep with men while president.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Sexmachine, what is your opinion of the Obama administration’s strategic pivot to Asia? [/quote]
Obama lacks the resources and credibility to contain China.
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/5/6/china/why-obama-should-abandon-pivot[/quote]
So, what’s the solution? Let them have all of Asia and the Pacific?[/quote]
Electing a new commander-in-chief that inspires fear and respect, both at home and abroad, together with a Congress to support him (or her), would help.[/quote]
Are you familiar with potential future president lineup… it’s not looking good. [/quote]
Lol, beat me to it. I was going to say…
However, anyone with an honest look at Hilary knows damn well she is 1000x times more likely to go all Bush41 on you and there be a sudden accident where your life is lost if you step out of line.
Bam might use the IRS to politically prosecute, Hilary strikes me as someone who would just order your hit.
Funny Shit
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
If you can’t handle a few thousand casualties in Iraq over ten years without riots in the streets and the government nearly being brought down what hope have you got of containing China or Russia?[/quote]
6,805 service members and counting.
See those pics on the front page…there are 70 more just like it. Do you have miliary service in your background?
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
If you can’t handle a few thousand casualties in Iraq over ten years without riots in the streets and the government nearly being brought down what hope have you got of containing China or Russia?[/quote]
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/national/fallen/
6,805 service members and counting.
See those pics on the front page…there are 70 more just like it. Do you have miliary service in your background? [/quote]
See these kooks in NY?
Half a million and counting. I don’t need a military background to figure out taking on China or Russia is not a good idea.