| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Reaction to the Nick Berg outrage | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 12 2004, 12:50 AM (1,724 Views) | |
| doctortobe | May 14 2004, 07:15 PM Post #106 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
IE- I really don't mean to sound condescending about this, but I don't want to risk American lives on maybes and what ifs. Warfare is not something that is kind to daring new tactics. Believe it or not, the military still uses a variation of the old "assault and flank" technique that has been used since the Revolutionary War. The only reason that we use a variation is because it was no longer possible for the frontal assault element to attack when the geniuses in the weapons industry made guns that shot multiple bullets at once. So now, we use the "suppress and flank" technique. The only difference is that the suppressing element takes cover and keeps the enemies' heads down until the flanking element wipes them out. These tactics have served us well and continue to make sure that more of the enemy die then American soldiers. That's why I say that it would be better to go back to old PROVEN techniques then to try something new and untried. American lives are lost if this idea proves wrong. In any case, why do you insist on calling these civilians "innocent"? They aid terrorists in their attacks on American forces, they celebrate when Americans die, the VAST MAJORITY of them keep assault weapons in their house. These people are about as innocent as gang members. The only thing separating these people from being enemy combatants is the say so of their clerics. If this were WWII, the French, British, Russians, and Americans would have taken action against the civilian populations to halt the attacks. Instead, our military is forced to just wag our finger at them and yell BAD. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Sgt. Jaggs | May 14 2004, 07:39 PM Post #107 |
|
How about a Voyager Movie
|
Exactly. 38957 is right I believe that there IS no end game to figure out for some time to come if ever at all. TheSisko you nailed it, they must pull themselves out of the dark ages and while they're at it they need to hold their leaders accountable for their actions! |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| doctortobe | May 14 2004, 08:14 PM Post #108 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
Only problem is, how will they magically rise out of the Middle Ages? As it is they already living in destitution and are already under the iron fist of dictators. If they haven't risen up to fight for their freedom now, why would they do it in the future? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Sgt. Jaggs | May 14 2004, 08:48 PM Post #109 |
|
How about a Voyager Movie
|
Survival of the fittest? Hhmmmmm...................what have the Mohammeds given the rest of the world besides a bill for their oil? Hhhmmmmm................. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| 8247 | May 14 2004, 09:54 PM Post #110 |
|
Apparently we look like this now
|
I have a problem with Michael Berg saying that Nick died for Bush and Rumsfeld's sins. I cant imagine what this must be doing to him, but really...The last person to say that his son died for someone's sins was GOD!
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | May 14 2004, 10:04 PM Post #111 |
|
Admiral
|
What "maybes" and "what ifs" are you talking about?
You're speaking only of the visible ones - the ones that make a nuisance out of themselves at whatever level, get noticed, and get reported in the news. There are plenty of others - most of those are innocent. If they keep weapons in their houses - well, think about where they live. Wouldn't you do the same? That doesn't prove guilt of anything. And again, even many of the visible ones are just doing what they believe will keep themselves alive. Change the leadership, remove the fear of dying, and you'd be surprised how many of them (in time) would be completely different people. Regarding your "proven techniques", they've never been proven in an environment like the Middle East because there has never been another environment like it and nothing has resolved the Middle East problems yet. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | May 14 2004, 10:17 PM Post #112 |
|
Admiral
|
Of course it's possible. But I do have trouble believing we can all work together well enough to accomplish what is needed over the inevitable long period of time. I also don't think we have any choice but to work on it unless we want to live with terrorism forever.
And once isolated, do you suppose they will see the error in their ways? No, instead they will just become really p.o.ed. And guess who they will blame...? And guess what their response will be...? That would make us oil independent from them, but it wouldn't end our problems. As long as they have the same leaders teaching the same hate, things will never change. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | May 14 2004, 10:22 PM Post #113 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
Doc:
THe situation was TOTALLY different in WWII - both sides in both theatres engaged in TOTAL & INDESCRIMINATE warfare - including targeting innocent non-combatant civilians - did that make it right ? No. Did the end justify the means ? Ask those who were the victims at the time . Seems to me that you are making the same mistake as you made in Viet Nam - you don't know exactly who the enemy is (he could be selling fruit and veg to you at the market today , and then sniping at you as you drive by in the Hummer the next day, and so everyone becomes the enemy . The Germans had the same problem in occupied Europe , and , well , didn't they eventually loose ? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Sgt. Jaggs | May 14 2004, 10:23 PM Post #114 |
|
How about a Voyager Movie
|
Still sounds like survival of the fittest. Us VS Them.Guess who's gonna move on?
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | May 14 2004, 10:54 PM Post #115 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
That could be them - they are afterall out breeding the christian / western world ie our fertility is falling , while they are having children like there is no tomorrow. Re - Minuet's comment - still sounds like a Freudian Slip on her behalf to me - but if you people disagree or don't think so - then I'll accept that on this occasion.:shrug: So if I have misinterpreted her response and the :wacko: hidden normative values behind it, then here's my appology. I still think she has shown a spiteful and vindictive tendency when it comes to legitimate posts regarding the Israeli/Palestinian Troubles . Dwayne:
Harder said than done. So maybe you'd like the USA and Europe to stop buying (or stop paying for - and just take by force ?) Saudi's oil ? Isn't that what it'll take to dry up the money flow to these extremists ? 8247:
If he feels that Bush Jr and Rumsfeld are responsible for his son's murder as a consequence of their policies - he has a point and that's his perogative - you don't have to agree with him. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Sgt. Jaggs | May 14 2004, 11:09 PM Post #116 |
|
How about a Voyager Movie
|
Someled have you not ever heard of the Harem of inbreeding that are the trailor parks of Kentucky, west Virginia, and the Carolinas? Me thinks the good of the many out weigh the good of the Eewww!!!!
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| doctortobe | May 15 2004, 12:59 AM Post #117 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
IE- the what ifs and maybes come from "getting creative". When you start thinking outside the realm of proven military tactics, you put lives at stake. For example. A WWII bomber commander (I can't remember his name) believed with all his heart that the gunners of a B-16 were sufficient to keep away German fighters (or perhaps Japanese, the story is vague in my mind). In any case, he set off on a bombing mission with no fighter escort. A good many of his bombers were decimated and the commander didn't make it back home to learn from his mistake.
Your average Middle Eastern Muslem does not need much motivation to become a "visible" one. The insurgents shoot their own shrine and the whole damn region wants to fight. When the Iraqi civilians are shooting at American soldiers, they really don't stop to think about which civilian is shooting at them. They fire into the crowd to take the guy out. In any case, the ones that aren't visible often provide the best support for the enemy. Many Muslems have confessed on TV that they provide refuge to terrorists because they are Muslem. We also frequently find weapon caches with explosives, RPGs, and assault rifles in Muslem civilian homes.
They worked well in Vietnam. Unfortunately the folks back home didn't have the intestinal fortitude to let us win the war anymore so they bickered until we were forced back home. I will say that the Iraqi war is like Vietnam in one aspect. It is that we could win it easily if the public would let the military do its job right and not force us to fight a half hearted battle. Somerland
Yes, the situation IS different. At this point, only the Muslems are engaged in TOTAL & INDESCRIMINATE warfare - including targeting innocent non-combatant civilians. Either they should fight fair, or we should be allowed to engage in total warfare. From the point you are trying to make, if Russia nuked Washington, we shouldn't be allowed to nuke Moscow because that would target innocent civilians. The military should be allowed to have free reign to use its full capabilities in this matter.
The only "mistake" made in Vietnam was that the President allowed a bunch of hippies to dictate his policy. We were winning the Vietnam War militarily, but we were brought home before we could finish the job. Maybe we shouldn't have gone there in the first place. But given the number of people that died, we should have at least been given one or two more years to finish the job. As it was, all those people died in vain.
You know somerland you're right. Even though Germany was having its industry obliterated from the western front and was having its forces slaughtered by the BIGGEST ARMY IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD on the eastern front, it was the paltry French Resistance that won the war. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| fireh8er | May 15 2004, 02:13 AM Post #118 |
|
I'm Captain Kirk!
|
I wish we would have done this after the Oil Embargo of the early 1970's. We wouldn't dealing with this mess right now! |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | May 15 2004, 02:17 AM Post #119 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
Wish in one hand and poop in the other... |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | May 15 2004, 02:31 AM Post #120 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
The ring-ins, die-hards, criminals, and radicals are engaging in is a snipping and hit and run guarrula style fighting, and they are then melting away unto the masses after . I think that is the situation - this is what the French resistance did in WWII . The Germans never got on top of them. Similarly the Viet Cong did this to the Americans and Australians in Viet Nam, the ADF left, and the USA never got on top of the "insurgents" and left. Similarly the Soviets had the same problems in Afganistan and eventually gave up and left - resulting in the Taliban taking hold. And before that the British empire failed to sort out the Afgans. Looks like these mistakes are being repeated in Iraq. The example you gave of Moscow is not really applicable - and no one in Iraq is currently engaged in Total War. Engaging in total warfare against the "insurgents" in Iraq would be huge mistake and is not the answer. Jagalom Shaarek:
Not what I meant - I think you know that, But just in case you don't. The Muslims have many more children per family than we in the west (where it's less than 2 children per couple on average). They are as a result out-breeding us, and I believe (culturally) inbreeding is frowned on in most of Islam as it is in western culture - unless you are "Royal" like in Europe where they are all related to each other. As to the mating practices in Kentucky, West Virginia, and the Carolinas (*the Bible Belt" ?), I'll take your word for it. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |



9:12 AM Jul 11