America isn't fighting wars right

[RebeccaChambers]

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.

 

[Care4all]

if the war is not worth giving our all to protect ourselves, then it is an unnecessary war..... iraq and now afghanistan are unnecessary wars.....undeclared, unconstitutional, wars imho....especially since neither have congress declared war as per the constitution, with 2/3's of congress required to vote in favor.

 

[RebeccaChambers]

"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)

 

[Care4all]

"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)

YOU are missing the point....

we should NEVER send our military men and women in to war and their possible deaths unless it is absolutely necessary, unless we are under attack or in immediate danger of being attacked.

if we are under attack or in imminent danger, then we would have no qualms with declaring war with 2/3's of congress voting yes and giving it our all...in it to win....in it to beat the crap out of the enemy that is trying to harm us.

the problem is we are in wars of CHOICE, not wars involved with our country's imminent danger.....that's why we are not kicking butt and winning them in less than a year.....that is why the rules of engagement are not heavy handed....the enemy is not a country but just a handful of bad guys, with a lot of collateral damage people who are INNOCENT, who are not the enemy that is trying to harm our country.

NO, killing innocent people without thought or consideration IS NOT the right way to go....it is immoral, it is unethical, it is murder and it is wrong....

 

[Toome]

I guess the latest version of Call to Duty is out.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

In all fairness the Gulf War lasted what 6-7 months?

 

[Vargulf]

If a nation must go to war, it must completely overwhelm the enemy. Throughout history, civilians have been considered collateral damage. We as a nation are so concerned with collateral damage in conflicts that we cannot utterly destroy an enemy. The only wars the US can win on its own, are against third-rate dictatorships with significantly inferior armed forces (Grenada, Panama). It only won against Iraq because of assistance from other nations. The american public cannot tolerate casualties in large numbers (Vietnam), they begin demanding that our troops run with their tails between their legs back to the US. The US had actually destroyed the Viet Cong and beaten back the NVA regulars, but the public screamed for us to get out, thus we fled like cowards back home.
Muslim nations could band together, send troop ships to our shores and invade. After racking up significant casualties of US personnel and civilians, the cowardly american civilian populace would cry out for peace. Russia knows how to deal with conflicts (Chechnya and Georgia), they use massive brute force. It's harsh and terrible...but...it's also successful.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

[youtube]CFsfjzzW0bw[/youtube]

5:50 : "This whole country has a manhood problem, big manhood problem in the USA. You can tell from the language we use, language always gives you away. What did we do wrong in Vietnam? 'We PULLED OUT!' Not a very manly thing to do, is it? When you are fucking people, you gotta stay in there and fuck them good, fuck them all the way, fuck them to DEATH. Fuck 'em to DEATH! Fuck 'em to DEATH! Stay in there and keep fucking them until they're ALL DEAD! We left a few women and children alive in Vietnam and we haven't felt good about ourselves since."

 

[jillian]

If a nation must go to war, it must completely overwhelm the enemy. Throughout history, civilians have been considered collateral damage. We as a nation are so concerned with collateral damage in conflicts that we cannot utterly destroy an enemy. The only wars the US can win on its own, are against third-rate dictatorships with significantly inferior armed forces (Grenada, Panama). It only won against Iraq because of assistance from other nations. The american public cannot tolerate casualties in large numbers (Vietnam), they begin demanding that our troops run with their tails between their legs back to the US. The US had actually destroyed the Viet Cong and beaten back the NVA regulars, but the public screamed for us to get out, thus we fled like cowards back home.
Muslim nations could band together, send troop ships to our shores and invade. After racking up significant casualties of US personnel and civilians, the cowardly american civilian populace would cry out for peace. Russia knows how to deal with conflicts (Chechnya and Georgia), they use massive brute force. It's harsh and terrible...but...it's also successful.

anyone else notice that the posting style is the same as the o/p?

just wondering.

 

[JWBooth]

The 101st Keyboard Warrior Battalion, always looking for someplace to send somebody else to fight and die.

 

[High_Gravity]

America is fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan wrong because they are trying to win hearts and minds and not offend their enemy at the same time they are at war with them, that is destined to be a failure.

 

[jillian]

The 101st Keyboard Warrior Battalion, always looking for someplace to send somebody else to fight and die.

chickenhawks never fight their own wars.

 

[PoliticalChic]

America is fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan wrong because they are trying to win hearts and minds and not offend their enemy at the same time they are at war with them, that is destined to be a failure.

The following seems a good basis for deciding how and when our military will be used:
a. We will not deal with other nations beyond the manner with which they deal with us.
b. We will not prop up corrupt and dangerous governments simply because they have enemies that are also our enemies.
c. We behave in accordance with our values rather than the need for commodities that a nation has.
d. If we must fight, we will fight to win, rather than ‘humanely,’ or in some ‘symmetrical’ manner: minimizing damage is not a consideration of war.
e. We will not rebuild nations that we have been forced to go to war with.
(Above idea from Beck and Balfe, “Broke,” p. 323.)

I think d. and e. pretty much agree with your post.

 

[High_Gravity]

America is fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan wrong because they are trying to win hearts and minds and not offend their enemy at the same time they are at war with them, that is destined to be a failure.

The following seems a good basis for deciding how and when our military will be used:
a. We will not deal with other nations beyond the manner with which they deal with us.
b. We will not prop up corrupt and dangerous governments simply because they have enemies that are also our enemies.
c. We behave in accordance with our values rather than the need for commodities that a nation has.
d. If we must fight, we will fight to win, rather than ‘humanely,’ or in some ‘symmetrical’ manner: minimizing damage is not a consideration of war.
e. We will not rebuild nations that we have been forced to go to war with.
(Above idea from Beck and Balfe, “Broke,” p. 323.)

I think d. and e. pretty much agree with your post.

Another thing I think we need to stop letting politics effect what our Military does on the ground, I remember when the Marines had to stop the assault on Fallujah back in April 2004 because Al Jazeerah was leaking pictures of casualties to the Arab world and Bush was looking like a butcher and that was going to effect the elections coming up, so they stopped the assault. That gave the insurgents time to regroup, rebuild and get confident on what they viewed as a US defeat. The US did have the Marines go back into Fallujah after the elections in November but giving the enemy time to regroup and re-arm because of an election thousands of miles away is bullshit.

 

[westwall]

I believe violence truly is the last refuge of the incompetent. I can't remember who said it but they are correct. I also believe the old adage "Peace Through Superior Firepower".
Smedley Butler was absolutely correct when he likened the US military to a mercenary outfit benefitting Big Business. It is deplorable that we have sunk to that level. I agree with much of what PC posted, however I would add one proviso, if we are forced to go to war against another country...we own it at the end. We annex it. That way the hope is that after the first dictator loses his ass the others figure out we're not worth messing with.

 

[Vargulf]

Political Chic, the concept of nation rebuilding after a war worked rather well with Japan and Germany. Germany was a European nation with similar lifstyles and Japan was only a cultural difference.
But, the nations we are fighting in now are Islamic and that is a whole other scenario entirely. Cultural and issues can be overcome, but religious fundamentalism, forget it. Trying to rebuild a nation that has at its base, a religion that adovcates persecuting or killing you, simply because you are not of their religion, is a waste of time and blood. The entire region (Pakistan included) should have had a few Hydrogen bombs dropped on them, then we could have just moved on to other matters. We have shed thousands of lives in Iraq and Afghanistan and what have we accomplished?
1. We got rid of Saddam Hussein and allowed a Shia dominated government and future ally of Iran to take his place.
2. Women are now more oppressed In Iraq.
3. Christians are fleeing Iraq because of death threats and killings.
In Afghanistan, the government is trying to include aspects of the Taliban back into its fold and women are gradually headed back to being where they were under the Taliban. Closet Christians must still hide their beliefs or face death. Citizens are still being whipped and stoned.
Basically, we have only accomplished getting thousands of sons, daughters, fathers, siblings, uncles, aunts and cousins killed for nothing. What a tragic waste.

 

[ginscpy]

Police Actions/Undeclared Wars (except against suck-countries like Iraq in 2 wars) - don't cut -it.

Thinking esp of The Korean War.

Meant nothing - solved nothing.

 

[whitehall]

Ironically Bill Clinton was the last president to use WW2 concepts to force a country to submit to authority. Clinton authorized the (indiscriminate?) bombing of Yugoslavia to force the surrender of one man.

 

[ginscpy]

The dimwits in Nam - LBJ, McNamara, Rusk,Westmoreland - didnt have a clue.

They all lived during WW2 -should have known what it takes. A cleary defined mission, and unconditional committment.

Born 1953 - had nightmares of serving in rice paddies................................