It’s called total war. Put me in charge and I will guarantee you that after one war - no one will ever want to mess with the US again. Here’s the scenario:
I line my forces up on all sides of the nation that is being stupid. Tell everyone who doesn’t want to get killed to tun themselves in at the border within 48 hours.
At 48 hours we flatten everything line by line from one side to the other - not a building left standing, not a green thing growing, not a cave left intact - complete and total devastation and complete annihilation of anyone remaining in the theatre of operations. Nowhere to hid, nowhere to run - if you are in the TOO you’re dead - no exceptions, no mercy.
That’s it and the next idiot dictator who so much as raises an eyebrow in my direction better watch out.[/quote]
I have thought of the middle east as one gigantic slab of glass before, you just need some nukes to melt all that sand. Only thing is the UN rule about disproportianate use of force…
Well, this is what you get when you don’t take terrorist threats seriously. All we need is the taliban to get nukes.
So what should we do?
If I were running the show, I would launch a full scale attack on the taliban, in Pakistan. It is clear Pakistan is not in control of the situation. The governement is unstable enough to fall, and they have nukes…Talibani’s have every intensive to over throw the governement and take over.
So is obama going to roll over and pee on himself, apologize to the taliban and try to negotiate, or find some testicles and take care of the issue?
What I know is this situation is no joke. I really don’t see a way out of a full scale military attack.
It really is the Af-Pak war - you cannot divorce the war in Afghanistan from the trouble in Pakistan. But this explanation requires much more writing than I am in the mood for now. Great thread by the way. You’re right on track.
OK- I have the solution.
It’s called total war. Put me in charge and I will guarantee you that after one war - no one will ever want to mess with the US again. Here’s the scenario:
I line my forces up on all sides of the nation that is being stupid. Tell everyone who doesn’t want to get killed to tun themselves in at the border within 48 hours.
At 48 hours we flatten everything line by line from one side to the other - not a building left standing, not a green thing growing, not a cave left intact - complete and total devastation and complete annihilation of anyone remaining in the theatre of operations. Nowhere to hid, nowhere to run - if you are in the TOO you’re dead - no exceptions, no mercy.
That’s it and the next idiot dictator who so much as raises an eyebrow in my direction better watch out.[/quote]
I hope you are willing to sacrifice Washington, New York and Los Angeles, because total wars usually go both ways.
And the Pakistanis have nukes.
Besides all their chemical and bacteriological weapons that are ridiculously easy to smuggle into the US and I cannot think of a more efficient way to unite them then to threaten them with a genocide.
Let me just say that the ideology of the Al-Sauds is more dangerous than that of the Taliban.
[/quote]
What is the difference?
For years you blamed the Saudis for spreading their extremist brand of Islam into areas like Pakistan, yet, now, when the chips are down, your propaganda will not let you condemn the Taliban.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Be specific. What kind of “innocent lives”? Children playing with their dolls or soldiers playing with guns? Do we have a crystal ball to predict it is saving “more innocent lives”? Who’s doing the taking of lives?[/quote]
If there is an excalation of warfare between the Taliban in Pakistan and US, or the Pakistan government, the Taliban will probably be the ones taking the most innocent lives. They already threatened 1 suicide bombing against Pakistan a week.
You mean to tell me the Taliban and their suicide bombs do not deliberately kill civilians?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Be specific. What kind of “innocent lives”? Children playing with their dolls or soldiers playing with guns? Do we have a crystal ball to predict it is saving “more innocent lives”? Who’s doing the taking of lives?
If there is an excalation of warfare between the Taliban in Pakistan and US, or the Pakistan government, the Taliban will probably be the ones taking the most innocent lives. They already threatened 1 suicide bombing against Pakistan a week.
[/quote]
No, the most innocent lives will as always be taken by the US.
You are most welcome to compare the number of killed Iraqis and Afghans that were killed by the US military and those killed by insurgents.
In case you do not know you are killing at least 4-5 civilians for every enemy combatant.
here’s a list of all the suicide attacks since 2003 in Iraq alone. Some weeks 100 people have been killed, even more wounded.
If you say the US is killing 4-5 civilians for every enemy combatant, I would say the suicide bombers are wounding 4x as many as they kill per attack.
You can wade through the list and add up all those killed by suicide bombers if you want to.
If you can find a list of every enemy combatant the US has killed, do the math.
Then we can compare the difference.
edit- you do not seem to understand that to spread terror, the Taliban MUST attack and kill civilians. We can not attack them without hurting innocent people, that’s the nature of war, but we do not SET OUT to kill civilians. That is not our intention. It IS the intention of the terrorists.
Too bad some people can not get their heads around that.
here’s a list of all the suicide attacks since 2003 in Iraq alone. Some weeks 100 people have been killed, even more wounded.
If you say the US is killing 4-5 civilians for every enemy combatant, I would say the suicide bombers are wounding 4x as many as they kill per attack.
You can wade through the list and add up all those killed by suicide bombers if you want to.
If you can find a list of every enemy combatant the US has killed, do the math.
Then we can compare the difference.
edit- you do not seem to understand that to spread terror, the Taliban MUST attack and kill civilians. We can not attack them without hurting innocent people, that’s the nature of war, but we do not SET OUT to kill civilians. That is not our intention. It IS the intention of the terrorists.
Too bad some people can not get their heads around that.[/quote]
I get that.
Too bad some people do not get that that makes no ethical and practical difference if you started a war that was avoidable in the first place.
It makes a slight ethical but still no practical difference if the war was not avoidable.
The result is the same.
People hate you and want revenge.
And they can keep blood feuds running for longer than your country has even existed.
here’s a list of all the suicide attacks since 2003 in Iraq alone. Some weeks 100 people have been killed, even more wounded.
If you say the US is killing 4-5 civilians for every enemy combatant, I would say the suicide bombers are wounding 4x as many as they kill per attack.
You can wade through the list and add up all those killed by suicide bombers if you want to.
If you can find a list of every enemy combatant the US has killed, do the math.
Then we can compare the difference.
edit- you do not seem to understand that to spread terror, the Taliban MUST attack and kill civilians. We can not attack them without hurting innocent people, that’s the nature of war, but we do not SET OUT to kill civilians. That is not our intention. It IS the intention of the terrorists.
[/quote]
You’re right, and we have not killed more civilians than the enemy in either Iraq or Afghanistan (although the latter is close). But if you’re a dead Afghan, do you really care all that much that the U.S. bombed your house/wedding/market by mistake? You’re still dead.
[quote]orion wrote:
It makes a slight ethical but still no practical difference if the war was not avoidable.
The result is the same.
People hate you and want revenge.
And they can keep blood feuds running for longer than your country has even existed.
[/quote]
And I understand what you are saying. In Iraq but not Afghanistan. The Taliban harbored Al-Qaeda and their terror training camps. The US was attacked by them on 9-11.
As you say: “The result is the same…”
edit-Sooooo, if we are not allowed to battle these guys because we might kill their wives and kids…how do we defeat them? What is the solution when your enemy straps a bomb to his back and kills as many innocent people as he or she can and is not constantly raked over the coals as our military is?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
orion wrote:
It makes a slight ethical but still no practical difference if the war was not avoidable.
The result is the same.
People hate you and want revenge.
And they can keep blood feuds running for longer than your country has even existed.
And I understand what you are saying. In Iraq but not Afghanistan. The Taliban harbored Al-Qaeda and their terror training camps. The US was attacked by them on 9-11.
As you say: “The result is the same…”[/quote]
Then get Bin Laden, hang him publicly, play the Star Spangled Banner and waltz out of there.
So much better if it ends in a parade and not like in Vietnam.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
pat wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
pat wrote:
Well, this is what you get when you don’t take terrorist threats seriously. All we need is the taliban to get nukes.
So what should we do?
If I were running the show, I would launch a full scale attack on the taliban, in Pakistan. It is clear Pakistan is not in control of the situation. The governement is unstable enough to fall, and they have nukes…Talibani’s have every intensive to over throw the governement and take over.
So is obama going to roll over and pee on himself, apologize to the taliban and try to negotiate, or find some testicles and take care of the issue?
What I know is this situation is no joke. I really don’t see a way out of a full scale military attack.
Unsurprisingly, you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Prove it, idiot.
I’m not sure if you don’t read the news, only watch partisan TV news, or are just in denial. But Afghanistan is not going well at all, virtually anyone will confirm that. Iraq is quite possibly creeping back toward civil war (see Tom Ricks’ blog for examples), as General Odierno makes noises about keeping U.S. forces there longer than planned. And you think we should be expanding the war into a country that would make either one of those look like a cake walk? You’re like an Onion article come to life:
[quote]orion wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
orion wrote:
It makes a slight ethical but still no practical difference if the war was not avoidable.
The result is the same.
People hate you and want revenge.
And they can keep blood feuds running for longer than your country has even existed.
And I understand what you are saying. In Iraq but not Afghanistan. The Taliban harbored Al-Qaeda and their terror training camps. The US was attacked by them on 9-11.
As you say: “The result is the same…”
Then get Bin Laden, hang him publicly, play the Star Spangled Banner and waltz out of there.
So much better if it ends in a parade and not like in Vietnam.
[/quote]
Hey, bota:
Just a quick clarification: Are you suggesting invading Pakistan to get bin laden?
[quote]Jeff R wrote:
orion wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
orion wrote:
It makes a slight ethical but still no practical difference if the war was not avoidable.
The result is the same.
People hate you and want revenge.
And they can keep blood feuds running for longer than your country has even existed.
And I understand what you are saying. In Iraq but not Afghanistan. The Taliban harbored Al-Qaeda and their terror training camps. The US was attacked by them on 9-11.
As you say: “The result is the same…”
Then get Bin Laden, hang him publicly, play the Star Spangled Banner and waltz out of there.
So much better if it ends in a parade and not like in Vietnam.
Hey, bota:
Just a quick clarification: Are you suggesting invading Pakistan to get bin laden?
I’d like you on record.
Thanks in advance,
JeffR
[/quote]
I think since your special forces are already there Bin Laden could mysteriously turn up in Afghans capital just like Eichmann suddenly appeared in Israel.