Kick Ass vs Pussy Wars

Yeah. You beat them at their own game by using their tactics on them.

Blow up their humvees ? :lol:

You terrorize them and their families. You hunt them down like dogs and kill them where found, and fuck collateral damage. When they see you aren't going to play by their rules -- which the pantywaist left forces us to -- they will rethink their strategy. They want to win. Right now, they can play dirty because they know our leftwingnuts won't let us.

War isn't about being morally superior in warfare. It's about having a morally superior cause but fighting to win, no matter what.

I miss the good old days when we could hire some third world country to do our dirty work for us.
 
Blow up their humvees ? :lol:

You terrorize them and their families. You hunt them down like dogs and kill them where found, and fuck collateral damage. When they see you aren't going to play by their rules -- which the pantywaist left forces us to -- they will rethink their strategy. They want to win. Right now, they can play dirty because they know our leftwingnuts won't let us.

War isn't about being morally superior in warfare. It's about having a morally superior cause but fighting to win, no matter what.

I miss the good old days when we could hire some third world country to do our dirty work for us.

There's no such thing as dirtywork in warfare. There's surviving and winning or getting killed and losing.
 
You terrorize them and their families. You hunt them down like dogs and kill them where found, and fuck collateral damage. When they see you aren't going to play by their rules -- which the pantywaist left forces us to -- they will rethink their strategy. They want to win. Right now, they can play dirty because they know our leftwingnuts won't let us.

War isn't about being morally superior in warfare. It's about having a morally superior cause but fighting to win, no matter what.

I miss the good old days when we could hire some third world country to do our dirty work for us.

There's no such thing as dirtywork in warfare. There's surviving and winning or getting killed and losing.

Winning dirty is ok by me, dammit. Now we're even too poor to hire a decent dictator.
 
Too late I'm afraid. The ability of any country to wage total war is probably now non-existent. Since war is a political strategy it has inherent limitations and also war is only a means to and end, not an end in itself as you seem to think.

I feel mumbo then jumbo, resulting in just dumbo....:eusa_doh:....:Some further explanation would be appreciated.

Certainly!

Total war is a conflict of unlimited scope in which a belligerent engages in a mobilization of all available resources at their disposal, whether human, industrial, agricultural, military, natural, technological, or otherwise, in order to entirely destroy or render beyond use their rival's capacity to continue resistance.

The practice of total war has been in use for centuries,[citation needed] but it was only in the middle to late 19th century that total war was identified by scholars as a separate class of warfare. In a total war, there is less (or no) differentiation between combatants and non-combatants (civilians) than in other conflicts, as nearly every person from a particular country (or opposing area), civilians and soldiers alike, can be considered to be part of the belligerent effort.

Total war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


We'll start there. And I think it's only fair that I give you a chance to comment on my claim that I think you are advocating total war.

Are you?

I read the wikipeda link to total war you graciously provided, thank you.
I don't believe total war is what I advocated. In consideration of the advances in warfare I would assume that the military would come up with a plan that included limited civilian casualties and limited loss of infrastructure. For instance, I wondered in the Kosovo War was it really necessary to blow up all the bridges? maybe it was
 
I think it's about time America started kicking some ass around the world. Stop this politically correct BS and put some fear in our enemies and so-called friends. I say leave war to the military and let the politicians and historians piss and moan later.

I'm no military strategist, obviously but it seems to me that when politicians, lawyers, foreign countries and the peace niks get involved in setting U.S. military policy, more of our brave and honored soldiers end up injured and dead and wars seem an endless dribble of wasted money and lives.

So, I say if the military set the strategy of winning in the shortest possible amount of time, with least amount of military casualties. If that involved the death of innocent civilians, loss of cherished artifacts and so for forth, tough shit.

Clinton's no hero of mine but the War in Kosovo and the NATO method of bombing from March 22nd to June 11 1999 and breaking some politically correct eggs along the way was a step in the right direction.

Afghanistan/ Pakistan seems like a good place to start. Also, if countries like Germany, France and so forth are just over there to twiddle there thumbs, send them home in the disgrace they deserve.....

Ok that's off my chest....:salute:

when did you serve?

Well, besides being too young for Vietnam, I was brainwashed from a highly liberal education. Thank God, I grew up and learned the error of my ways. Judging by your site picture you have not. Although you appear a harmless, happy figure.

I've spent many a year regretting my lack of service in the military and to the country. The regret is even more so now, with my only and much beloved Son, Sam a proud Soldier of the U.S. Army.
 
Last edited:
I feel mumbo then jumbo, resulting in just dumbo....:eusa_doh:....:Some further explanation would be appreciated.

Certainly!

Total war is a conflict of unlimited scope in which a belligerent engages in a mobilization of all available resources at their disposal, whether human, industrial, agricultural, military, natural, technological, or otherwise, in order to entirely destroy or render beyond use their rival's capacity to continue resistance.

The practice of total war has been in use for centuries,[citation needed] but it was only in the middle to late 19th century that total war was identified by scholars as a separate class of warfare. In a total war, there is less (or no) differentiation between combatants and non-combatants (civilians) than in other conflicts, as nearly every person from a particular country (or opposing area), civilians and soldiers alike, can be considered to be part of the belligerent effort.

Total war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


We'll start there. And I think it's only fair that I give you a chance to comment on my claim that I think you are advocating total war.

Are you?

I read the wikipeda link to total war you graciously provided, thank you.
I don't believe total war is what I advocated. In consideration of the advances in warfare I would assume that the military would come up with a plan that included limited civilian casualties and limited loss of infrastructure. For instance, I wondered in the Kosovo War was it really necessary to blow up all the bridges? maybe it was

You're welcome re the link. And points taken in your response. I understand that you're not advocating total war.

Good point about the bridges. I went through the Balkans in 1982 (it was still Yugoslavia then) and I was intrigued by the topography of the various areas I visited. Hilly and mountainous and lots of rivers, so I remember it and the bridges were the only means of physical communication between various areas. I have no idea if taking out all the bridges was necessary but it would have severely limited ground movement I think.
 
I think it's about time America started kicking some ass around the world. Stop this politically correct BS and put some fear in our enemies and so-called friends. I say leave war to the military and let the politicians and historians piss and moan later.

I'm no military strategist, obviously but it seems to me that when politicians, lawyers, foreign countries and the peace niks get involved in setting U.S. military policy, more of our brave and honored soldiers end up injured and dead and wars seem an endless dribble of wasted money and lives.

So, I say if the military set the strategy of winning in the shortest possible amount of time, with least amount of military casualties. If that involved the death of innocent civilians, loss of cherished artifacts and so for forth, tough shit.

Clinton's no hero of mine but the War in Kosovo and the NATO method of bombing from March 22nd to June 11 1999 and breaking some politically correct eggs along the way was a step in the right direction.

Afghanistan/ Pakistan seems like a good place to start. Also, if countries like Germany, France and so forth are just over there to twiddle there thumbs, send them home in the disgrace they deserve.....

Ok that's off my chest....:salute:

I totally agree with the opposite of everything you just said.

The expression, "Freeloading Freedom Pussy" comes to mind for both of us. While I regret it and have tried to make amends, you seem to revel in it, unless I'm mistaken and you have the guts of explanation.... :rolleyes:
 
I think it's about time America started kicking some ass around the world. Stop this politically correct BS and put some fear in our enemies and so-called friends. I say leave war to the military and let the politicians and historians piss and moan later.

I'm no military strategist, obviously but it seems to me that when politicians, lawyers, foreign countries and the peace niks get involved in setting U.S. military policy, more of our brave and honored soldiers end up injured and dead and wars seem an endless dribble of wasted money and lives.

So, I say if the military set the strategy of winning in the shortest possible amount of time, with least amount of military casualties. If that involved the death of innocent civilians, loss of cherished artifacts and so for forth, tough shit.

Clinton's no hero of mine but the War in Kosovo and the NATO method of bombing from March 22nd to June 11 1999 and breaking some politically correct eggs along the way was a step in the right direction.

Afghanistan/ Pakistan seems like a good place to start. Also, if countries like Germany, France and so forth are just over there to twiddle there thumbs, send them home in the disgrace they deserve.....

Ok that's off my chest....:salute:

so you want us bankrupt and losing all trade partners due to barbarian actions by our soliders? and we have already killed over a million civilians in iraq and afghanistan so I am not sure how much more destruction you want there.

Over a million civilians, well, I doubt you could prove that but I appreciate your brainwashed attempt....:lol::lol::lol:... feel free to comment in the future.
 
Certainly!



Total war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


We'll start there. And I think it's only fair that I give you a chance to comment on my claim that I think you are advocating total war.

Are you?

I read the wikipeda link to total war you graciously provided, thank you.
I don't believe total war is what I advocated. In consideration of the advances in warfare I would assume that the military would come up with a plan that included limited civilian casualties and limited loss of infrastructure. For instance, I wondered in the Kosovo War was it really necessary to blow up all the bridges? maybe it was

You're welcome re the link. And points taken in your response. I understand that you're not advocating total war.

Good point about the bridges. I went through the Balkans in 1982 (it was still Yugoslavia then) and I was intrigued by the topography of the various areas I visited. Hilly and mountainous and lots of rivers, so I remember it and the bridges were the only means of physical communication between various areas. I have no idea if taking out all the bridges was necessary but it would have severely limited ground movement I think.

If it wasn't so late I'd enjoy more discussion. I spent 3 years as a kid in New Zealand, perhaps we could bandy that around, mate?
 
I read the wikipeda link to total war you graciously provided, thank you.
I don't believe total war is what I advocated. In consideration of the advances in warfare I would assume that the military would come up with a plan that included limited civilian casualties and limited loss of infrastructure. For instance, I wondered in the Kosovo War was it really necessary to blow up all the bridges? maybe it was

You're welcome re the link. And points taken in your response. I understand that you're not advocating total war.

Good point about the bridges. I went through the Balkans in 1982 (it was still Yugoslavia then) and I was intrigued by the topography of the various areas I visited. Hilly and mountainous and lots of rivers, so I remember it and the bridges were the only means of physical communication between various areas. I have no idea if taking out all the bridges was necessary but it would have severely limited ground movement I think.

If it wasn't so late I'd enjoy more discussion. I spent 3 years as a kid in New Zealand, perhaps we could bandy that around, mate?

Ah the Land of the Long White Cloud - over the Ditch? Fascinating place, enjoyed my visits immensely. :)
 
I think it's about time America started kicking some ass around the world. Stop this politically correct BS and put some fear in our enemies and so-called friends. I say leave war to the military and let the politicians and historians piss and moan later.

I'm no military strategist, obviously but it seems to me that when politicians, lawyers, foreign countries and the peace niks get involved in setting U.S. military policy, more of our brave and honored soldiers end up injured and dead and wars seem an endless dribble of wasted money and lives.

So, I say if the military set the strategy of winning in the shortest possible amount of time, with least amount of military casualties. If that involved the death of innocent civilians, loss of cherished artifacts and so for forth, tough shit.

Clinton's no hero of mine but the War in Kosovo and the NATO method of bombing from March 22nd to June 11 1999 and breaking some politically correct eggs along the way was a step in the right direction.

Afghanistan/ Pakistan seems like a good place to start. Also, if countries like Germany, France and so forth are just over there to twiddle there thumbs, send them home in the disgrace they deserve.....

Ok that's off my chest....:salute:

Of course you'll be expecting other people to go out to do that asskicking so you can stop feeling like the panzy you are, right?
 
Over a million civilians, well, I doubt you could prove that but I appreciate your brainwashed attempt....:lol::lol::lol:... feel free to comment in the future.

this has been published many groups and no one argues it, it is not my fault if you can't comprehend reports or live in denial
 
Over a million civilians, well, I doubt you could prove that but I appreciate your brainwashed attempt....:lol::lol::lol:... feel free to comment in the future.

this has been published many groups and no one argues it, it is not my fault if you can't comprehend reports or live in denial

So Blu, I've been thinking of expanding my interests to include a middle east version of AlJazeera, perhaps I could just borrow yours?

Deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan total 753,399 that includes those American soldiers you so cavalierly, disrespectfully and in typical liberal leftist hate fashion... blamed.

Here's a link,..... American ...?

Unknown News | Casualties in Afghanistan & Iraq                                                             
 
I think it's about time America started kicking some ass around the world. Stop this politically correct BS and put some fear in our enemies and so-called friends. I say leave war to the military and let the politicians and historians piss and moan later.

I'm no military strategist, obviously but it seems to me that when politicians, lawyers, foreign countries and the peace niks get involved in setting U.S. military policy, more of our brave and honored soldiers end up injured and dead and wars seem an endless dribble of wasted money and lives.

So, I say if the military set the strategy of winning in the shortest possible amount of time, with least amount of military casualties. If that involved the death of innocent civilians, loss of cherished artifacts and so for forth, tough shit.

Clinton's no hero of mine but the War in Kosovo and the NATO method of bombing from March 22nd to June 11 1999 and breaking some politically correct eggs along the way was a step in the right direction.

Afghanistan/ Pakistan seems like a good place to start. Also, if countries like Germany, France and so forth are just over there to twiddle there thumbs, send them home in the disgrace they deserve.....

Ok that's off my chest....:salute:

Of course you'll be expecting other people to go out to do that asskicking so you can stop feeling like the panzy you are, right?

Ah editec , always so pleasant to hear from you.
Well, I am to old but not quite as grumpy as you, Thank God. You think I'm a Pansy... I could still kick your old wrinkly butt...:lol::lol::lol:
 
I think it's about time America started kicking some ass around the world. Stop this politically correct BS and put some fear in our enemies and so-called friends. I say leave war to the military and let the politicians and historians piss and moan later.

I'm no military strategist, obviously but it seems to me that when politicians, lawyers, foreign countries and the peace niks get involved in setting U.S. military policy, more of our brave and honored soldiers end up injured and dead and wars seem an endless dribble of wasted money and lives.

So, I say if the military set the strategy of winning in the shortest possible amount of time, with least amount of military casualties. If that involved the death of innocent civilians, loss of cherished artifacts and so for forth, tough shit.

Clinton's no hero of mine but the War in Kosovo and the NATO method of bombing from March 22nd to June 11 1999 and breaking some politically correct eggs along the way was a step in the right direction.

Afghanistan/ Pakistan seems like a good place to start. Also, if countries like Germany, France and so forth are just over there to twiddle there thumbs, send them home in the disgrace they deserve.....

Ok that's off my chest....:salute:

Did you miss the news? The pussies are in control. They couldn't win with their pansy-ass attitudes if the enemy laid down before them. They'd STILL surrender.

since when are the pussies in control?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top