[rocketraccoon]

Quote

As for the out of place WW2 comparisons, as Smokey pointed out in another thread, we didn't completely destroy Japan's culture when we occupied the country. Instead of destroying the Emperor, we spun events to exonerate and not prosecute him (even though he was far from innocent), and co-opted him and used him to help keep the peace and make the Japanese accept occupation. We deliberately avoided targeting him while the war was still going on. If we had taken your approach, we would have killed him and millions of more lives would have been lost on both sides in a bloody ground invasion and guerrilla war.

It's true that Downfall would have been a costly assault--borne exclusively by GI's and Marines. In the GWOT there were still purple hearts being awarded that were originally made for Operations Olympic and Coronet.

[GI JANE]

Quote

[name='scotsman' timestamp='1331931177' post='684923970']
Nope. If you would actually bother to have followed Iran over the last few years outwith what Fox, Rush and talk radio tells you, you would know that Iran has a growing young population, and that many of that young population both rejects the current regime and does not hate the US, the UK or the West and wants a post-Imadinnerjacket Iran that isnt a Caliphate, isnt anti-Israel and is an Iran with a good relationship with the West, America most of all (like most young people, its American pop culture and American gizmos that they love).

What the F**K? My observations about the Middle East are "dictated by Rush Limbaugh" and "Fox News", in spite of the fact that what's going on RIGHT NOW proves that we're facing a substantial threat from Iran??? Iran's saber rattling, nuclear ambitions, and anti Israeli tub thumping is going to be deterred by the "youth population"? Tell me how that youth population is going to stop "Imadinnerjacket" from pushing the nuke button, jackass? Quite frankly, the polls prove otherwise.

The trouble is there isn't enough of a so-called "movement" to stop that.

Quote

There IS a young culture in Iran which wants to be friendly to America.
Dont reject them as ignorant Middle Eastern savages.

Tell you what, sweetpea, I've got a big shiny bridge in Brooklyn, NY for sale , CHEAP.

Quote

Wow. Are you naturally ignorant or do you work at it?. I am not sure what it worse: your callousness or your ignorance.
They DID rise up, and the world saw what happened. Hundreds, if not thousands, dead, injured and jailed. I mean, I know American news coverage of the rest of the world is a pathetic joke, but the whole world saw the people of Iran, the young people, rise up in protest, and we all saw how the regime in Tehran brutally reacted.

Rise up? Really? That will last about two minutes...wait...the two mintues are up. And I also saw who is waiting in the wings, or didn't you read the reports? And pray tell, what is the "world" doing about it?
WHAAAAAAAAAA!! Let me see if I can find a few spare tears for the region of the world that spits out muzzie terrorists like a f**king assembly line. I just can't. Scuse my "callousness".

Quote

For the 9,875,432 nd time, hearts and minds refers to and is used on the people who ARENT terrorists. Its used to seperate and isolate the terrorist.

Oh, please assemble the ones who "AREN'T terrorists", so we can work on the "hearts and minds" of the ones who commit the widespread atrocities. Good luck. Tacit disapproval doesn't count.

Quote

The IRA men who killed two British soldiers last year are Muslim?. The IRA is Muslim?.
ETA in Spain are Muslim, are they?.

Let me get this straight: you are saying that all terrorists are Muslim?. Yes?.

Last I checked, the ones doing the most damage, are MUSLIM. The IRA hasn't declared a wholesale slaughter against the West. Or am I mistaken? Is there a Celtic jihad I'm not aware of?

Quote

By Yemen, I am referring to the work done by America, the UK and Yemen to tackle the AQ problem in their country. The work between the US, UK and Yemeni intelligence and security forces has been heavily covered over the last couple of years in the world media.

I am surprised that you seem unaware. It has been front page news at times.

Oh yeah, Yemen is such a front runner in the war against the terrorist groups IT SPONSORS. Wow, I'm impressed.

The problem is, in spite of your "peace, love, and Kumbaya" crap, no one with a couple of firing neurons will buy it.

This post has been edited by GI JANE: 17 March 2012 - 06:11 PM

[Natural Selection]

Mrdirt73, on 07 March 2012 - 12:02 AM, said:

The first thing that comes to mind is: How would the Muslims in the middle east feel about the U.S. treating Osama's body in any way that didn't respect Islam?

GI JANE, on 07 March 2012 - 04:29 PM, said:

Who the <censored> cares?

Exactly. Who the <censored> cares?

Those in the middle east appreciate revenge and would respect our disrespect of Osama's body. Kindness really is viewed as weakness over there. Some would use any disrespect for recruitment propaganda, but hey, anything we do is recruitment propaganda. In the end, political correctness is a waste of time with middle eastern cavemen. If it was up to me I would nuke em' all, take their oil, and get on with my life without the threat of some brainwashed muslim hijacking my flight or blowing up the car next to me.

We all die, but timing can make a real difference. I'm all for "adjusting" their timing.

This post has been edited by natural_selection: 17 March 2012 - 07:22 PM

[Timothy]

GI JANE, on 16 March 2012 - 11:48 AM, said:

Like what? A Dhimmi administration and a brain dead TSA who targets old ladies instead of muslim males?

You skipped over my actual point.

Quote

This is like saying we "created" more Nazis and the rest of the Axis enemies by fighting back. Your peicemeal approach is moronic and the current strategy being applied in the Middle East bears that out.

Not really because world war two and the current we are fighting are very, very different.

In world war two we were fighting nations, where most of the population was mobilized against us in some way, voluntarily or involuntarily, either to join the military that we were fighting or as part of the economy that was sustaining the war effort.

We targeted civilians (cities) because it was a total war and we didn't have the technological means for more precise bombing that would be effective.

In the war on terror we have decent relations and the support of many of the countries in the region. We are only explicitly at war with a small subsets of the population that are in terrorist groups, not entire states.

Quote

Unfortunately, the muslims who engage in jihad take it very seriously.

Their interpretation of it. My point is that the "culture" over there is not monolithic by any means and the Koran isn't an all powerful thing.

Quote

The childish unrealistic idea of "winning their hearts and minds" ain't working out so well. Clearly, you are not a strategic or battlefield tactician. You're a naive civilian who would rather respond with pithy indignant comments rather than substance.

I have given you plenty of substance to try to argue against us.

I'd argue that it is working by the way. Terrorist groups are weak and mostly isolated. We have many allies in the region helping us against them.

Quote

It would really help your argument if you came up with a better one than "your position is stupid" because because you don't like my simple and effective approach. Your way is to kiss ass, play patty-cake, and worry about offending them. My solution is to reduce the threat to nothing more than a decomposing corpse. That is definitely a way to avoid a quagmire, which is precisely what is happening now.

Simple and effective? How would you "reduce the threat"? Kill every Muslim that you can? That is by no means "simple" nor would it ever be effective.

Quote

Tell you the truth, we're not fighting much of a war right in Afghanistan right now. Karzai is a corrupt bureaucrat who will un-ass the AO if things get too bad. The whole military hierarchy as well as the inept morons in the White House are too busy apologizing to the Taliban and Al Qaeda to kill them. Now, unless you can come up with an opinion that involves an intelligent strategic/tactical plan other than the inane ones I've seen so far, there's no use in even paying attention to you.

When have we stopped fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda. When have we ever apologized explicitly to them. We have apologized to the general Afghan people at times because to gain/keep the support of our allies and fence sitters. But never to our enemies.

Quote

Like the world Caliphate they want? Like the thousands of atrocities they commit every day? And how would you counter that? With more hearts and minds bull<censored>? Yeah, that'll make 'em put away their bombs and stop taking the koran "so seriously". Lunkhead.

You missed the point. They engage in those terrorists attacks without any plan for how those attacks are supposed to bring about their goals (a world caliphate). It basically amounts to childish and emotional thinking that they must "attack the enemy" in any way that they can and looking towards the American people as the "enemy". There's no broader strategic plan. There's no consideration that they only make more enemies and make our resolve more determined when they attack us in that manner. Your ideas are the flip side of the same coin, with the same flaws.

[TANK RIGGINS]

I just wanted them to kill him, chop him and feed his remains to the hogs. I wanted this filmed and sent to those terrorist bast@rds to show them this is what will happen to you @ssholes too. F$%k those people. The only good terrorist is one blown all to hell and in a number of pieces.

[scotsman]

Quote

The trouble is there isn't enough of a so-called "movement" to stop that.

Perhaps. And treating every Iranian as some Arab/Muslim loony cum terrorist isnt going to help that movement. We should be (are we quietly?) trying to support that young movement and forment eventually a revolution that will eject the current scumbags and isnt fundamentalist, but nationalist and has pro-Western ideas.

Quote

Tell you what, sweetpea, I've got a big shiny bridge in Brooklyn, NY for sale , CHEAP.

Good grief. I am so obviously talking about the pro-democratic, pro-western movement that Tehran brutally put down, and the one that would hopefully take control if the regime fell. Or at the very least, gain huge influence on those who did.

Quote

WHAAAAAAAAAA!! Let me see if I can find a few spare tears for the region of the world that spits out muzzie terrorists like a f**king assembly line. I just can't. Scuse my "callousness".

The people brutally put down by Tehran werent terrorists, but ordinary (mainly young) people, who want positive change away from the current pro-terrorist, anti-Israel/West regime. They are the very (moderate) people we want running Iran in years hence. We should bemoan their deaths, not only because of the brutality of their deaths, but that such brutality keeps the current scumbags in power and delays the change we want.

I see those deaths as a tragedy for both Iran and for the West. People like you just see every brown face west of Cyprus as a terrorist.

Quote

Last I checked, the ones doing the most damage, are MUSLIM. The IRA hasn't declared a wholesale slaughter against the West. Or am I mistaken? Is there a Celtic jihad I'm not aware of?

Do you make a beeping sound as you back up?.

You said 'all terrorists are Muslim'. Its there in black and white.

Quote

The problem is, in spite of your "peace, love, and Kumbaya" crap, no one with a couple of firing neurons will buy it.

Dont try and portray me as some hippy.
I have said time and time again that I want every Muslim extremist and terrorist dead or in prison for life, preferably the former.

The difference is that I think your ideas for victory are ridiculous, ludicrous, completely unworkable and a joke.

[Dolly]

I pray he isn't dead and being tortured slowly as his "troops" have done to ours. :whistling:

[TANK RIGGINS]

Dolly, on 18 March 2012 - 07:00 AM, said:

I pray he isn't dead and being tortured slowly as his "troops" have done to ours. :whistling:

[satellite66]

These folks see hearts and minds as weakness. Just as all our enemies for the last 65+ years have. Weak willed politicians catering to pantywaist leftist dribble about American imperialism has cost us untold American lives. Relocate the UN to Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iran without American protection and lets see how that works out for them.

[GI JANE]

Quote

quote name='scotsman' timestamp='1332046195' post='684924229'
Perhaps. And treating every Iranian as some Arab/Muslim loony cum terrorist isnt going to help that movement. We should be (are we quietly?) trying to support that young movement and forment eventually a revolution that will eject the current scumbags and isnt fundamentalist, but nationalist and has pro-Western ideas.

Have you paid attention to some of those groups influencing that "movement"?????

READ: http://sfcmac.wordpr...muslim-despots/

Quote

Good grief. I am so obviously talking about the pro-democratic, pro-western movement that Tehran brutally put down, and the one that would hopefully take control if the regime fell. Or at the very least, gain huge influence on those who did. The people brutally put down by Tehran werent terrorists, but ordinary (mainly young) people, who want positive change away from the current pro-terrorist, anti-Israel/West regime. They are the very (moderate) people we want running Iran in years hence. We should bemoan their deaths, not only because of the brutality of their deaths, but that such brutality keeps the current scumbags in power and delays the change we want.

Don't hold your breath. I was really enthused at first over the initial "Arab Spring" protests, but after taking a look at the groups behind it, those using it for their advantage, and considering the history of Arab "culture", that quickly fizzled. Don't mistake anti-government for "pro-West". Right now, there's not a whole lot of "pro-West" motivation over there to capitalize on.

Quote

I see those deaths as a tragedy for both Iran and for the West. People like you just see every brown face west of Cyprus as a terrorist.

Those brown faces have built up quite a body count. Didja check this out yet?: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

That sound you hear is the hot air going out of your argument.

Quote

You said 'all terrorists are Muslim'. Its there in black and white.

You betcha.

Quote

Dont try and portray me as some hippy.

That's hi-larious! The image I get is not of some sandle-wearing flower child with little daisies painted on his face and love beads around his neck. Far from it.

Quote

I have said time and time again that I want every Muslim extremist and terrorist dead or in prison for life, preferably the former. The difference is that I think your ideas for victory are ridiculous, ludicrous, completely unworkable and a joke.

You're only half right. I want them dead, too. ALL of them. Right now, we're half-stepping. We're not fighting a real war. You think a tedious, futile approach of "winning the hearts and minds" of an Arab culture stuck in the 7th century is a good idea. While we pussyfoot around, they plot, shoot, bomb, kidnap and murder. We've tried your lackadaisical tack and it failed. A little digression: Think about this. While Bubba Clinton was in office, at least FIVE terrorist attacks of significance occurred; each more severe and closer in proximity than the last. Khobar Towers, the U.S. Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, the USS Cole, and the FIRST WTC attack that no one remembers, in 1993. Clinton, who was too preoccupied with selling classified technology to the Chinese for campaign cash, and Monika's mouth-to-crotch rescusitation, chose to wag the dog in Bosnia and pull a disastrous <censored> up in Somalia. BTW: Bubba had multiple chances to get Bin Laden.
(http://www.nationalr...hryn-jean-lopez)

He also refused the Sudanese government's offers to capture him, and decided that non-retaliation was the best response to the USS Cole attacks. He didn't have the guts or the responsibility to act like a commander-in-chief. They could have been stopped almost 15 years ago. As a matter of fact, I'll go back even further and say that after we helped the mujahedin kick the Soviets out of Afghanistan, we should have made damned sure the power vacuum wasn't filled by the Taliban cutthroats, even if that meant heaving a few MOABs. Clinton's cowardice, hesitation, corruption, and the reluctance to do what it took, gave Bin Laden and Al Qaeda the green light. As a matter of fact, Bin Laden later said that Clinton's Somalia failure encouraged him to act.

I was trained to use predictive strategic and tactical analysis as a method to kill the enemy. You put yourself in the enemy's combat boots and figure out how they will fight you. If I were a Taliban, I'd be gleefully enjoying the sorry-assed war strategy of a country that plays right into my hands. Apologies, PC angst over koran burning and the outrage over killing civilians that I would have killed myself, except that SSG got to them first, would have me in peals of laughter. I could fake righteous indignation and get miles of press out of it. And the idea that you can sift through villages of locals and persuade them to tattle on the Taliban living next door is a hoot. Informants usually disappear. The supposition that there's any real chance of getting muzzies collectively, to stop doing what the koran tells them to do, is just plain laughable. Sorry scottie, I just don't have the diplomatic naivete. Wars left unfinished will be fought again. This one ain't over by a long shot. To end it, and I mean properly, you have to inflict absolute hell on the regions of the world responsible for breeding and supporting Islamofascist terrorism. That is a hell of a lot more workable than your 'hunt and peck' crap.

This post has been edited by GI JANE: 24 March 2012 - 01:05 PM

[scotsman]

Quote

Have you paid attention to some of those groups influencing that "movement"?????

READ: http://sfcmac.wordpr...muslim-despots/

Yes, I have.

Your article refers to Libya, Egypt and Tunisia. NOT Iran. And Iran IS different. Anyone who really looks at Iran and the rest will see that. There is a genuine non-extremist young political movement (the one being put down currentlky) that is potentially friendly to the West and Israel.

A friendly Iran (post Iamdinnerjacket) could be our best (Muslim/Arab) ally in the region IF the young people take power, or at least use their power to put in moderate men who have kinder thoughts to the West and Israel than the regime does now.

Quote

Don't hold your breath. I was really enthused at first over the initial "Arab Spring" protests, but after taking a look at the groups behind it, those using it for their advantage, and considering the history of Arab "culture", that quickly fizzled. Don't mistake anti-government for "pro-West". Right now, there's not a whole lot of "pro-West" motivation over there to capitalize on.

I agree. I am disappointed in how the extreme groups have angled their way in. Although I have warned against a hysteria that all of North Africa and the ME is now 'AQ Central', I have pointed out that the Muslim Brotherhood for example has great power within Egypt but historically has much less in Tunisia and North Africa, if any. Too much hysteria from the US esp. has come from a gross under-knowledge of Arab/NA history and politics.

I fear like you that we may have unleashed pandora's box by helping the revolutions (although it could be argued that the revolutions may have succeeded on their own over time). However, lets not get too hysterical about it.

Let us identify the extremists.
Let us then use our political power to ensure that such groups are on the margin of these new societies.

We cant change these groups existence.
We cant change their ideas.
We CAN change their appeal to Arab youth and to Arabs in general.
We CAN keep such groups on the margin, and help ensure moderate govts sympathetic to the West and Israel.

So if start writing these nations and peoples off, then they WILL simply turn to the very people who would use our rejection as 'proof' of Western 'Muslim/Arab hatred'.

Quote

You betcha.

Yeah, dont ya think that opinion was a little stupid?.

Quote

That's hi-larious! The image I get is not of some sandle-wearing flower child with little daisies painted on his face and love beads around his neck. Far from it.

Good. What you should see is a quiet, intelligent man who was trained to fight war and would fight wars by being much tougher and much more ruthless than the enemy, but also being much cleverer.

Quote

You're only half right. I want them dead, too. ALL of them. Right now, we're half-stepping. We're not fighting a real war. You think a tedious, futile approach of "winning the hearts and minds" of an Arab culture stuck in the 7th century is a good idea. While we pussyfoot around, they plot, shoot, bomb, kidnap and murder. We've tried your lackadaisical tack and it failed.

Even if I wasnt a fan of hearts and minds, and wanted only a ruthless 'kill first and ask questions later' way of waging war, I would STILL disagree until the end of time with you about your strategy. My brutal and ruthless war would STILL have to be fought with the scalpel, not the club.

With the SAS, SBS, SEALS and DELTA, not nuclear bombs.


Firstly, it is simply unworkable. The nuke em all idea is a nonsense. Not only the frankly obscenity of killing 100 innocent people
to get one terrorist bad enough, but purely from a military and counterterrorism standpoint, it using a ponderous sledgehammer to crack a mobile and clever nut.

Secondly, the tedious analogy people here bring up about 1939-45 is such an incorrect analogy my 7 year old niece in Preston, Lancashire could work out is flawed.

When we fought 1939-45 (or for you 1941-45), or 1991, or 2001, or 2003, we fought nation states, states with infrastructures that had to be and could be and were destroyed. Physical infrastructres, physical armies in the field that could be challenged and defeated.

BUT this enemy is not that.

We are fighting terrorist groups, small groups of men and women who use the innocent majority of their religious 'brethern' for the very cover necessary to commit their acts. To use the club of mass military power to crush these vile men and women would be the wrong strategy completely. It may not be mass 'f*ck yeah!' power, but the way to defeat terrorism is to hunt them down and take them out. And that requires intelligence, time, covertness, a precision warfare, a ruthless type of war, done in the shadows.

NOT turning everything east of Israel and west of India into a giant glass factory.

The 'biggest' war we should fight is selected military strikes: terrorist camps, Iran's nuclear plants etc. So in other words even when we use the 'big boys', we should fight smart and USE those major weapons intelligently and carefully.

The American mentality is that because you are the world's strongest military power, that America must fight its wars with its huge arsenal of weapons. If Vietnam taught you anything, its that that dosent always work. Wars are different. Its the peculiar American idea that having the most and biggest weapons means you win. One would have thought that Vietnam and Somalia, even elements of the last 11 years, would have disabused Americans of that notion.

When you killed Bin Laden, did America send in a mass of bombers, nuclear strikes and bomb half of Pakistan to hell?.
No, you sent in an elite but small group of men.
And job done.

As the old saying goes: its not having the biggest d*ck, its how you use it that counts.

Quote

That is a hell of a lot more workable than your 'hunt and peck' crap.

Well, that crap seemed to work well for the British, in several terrorist wars on three continents. At a time when both France and America got mauled in SE Asia and lost wars they were expected to win. An America whose main strategy was to bomb everything back to the Stone Age, and then send in 500000 young men, many drafted, many for just one year, to fight a conventional war in unconventional circumstances. It is no surprise then that America lost, and that many of its best successes came from the use of hearts and minds and the use of special forces units with specific tasks.

The British and Australians even taught US Special Forces during Vietnam. Delta Force exists because of an American who served in Malaya with the SAS and saw that the hearts and minds policy worked and that the US needed an American SAS unit. And Jerry King's cross-service with the SAS also lead to the formation of the ISA.

And BTW, that hunt crap also is the bread and butter of how the world's greatest intelligence force, MOSSAD, works. And Israeli commando strikes against their enemies.

Hunt and peck seems to have worked very well for our Israeli brethern, dont you think?.

This post has been edited by scotsman: 24 March 2012 - 03:39 PM

[GI JANE]

What?? I thought you were going to put me on "ignore". So much for bluster and indignation.

Quote

quote name='scotsman' timestamp='1332620914' post='684926097'
Yes, I have.

Your article refers to Libya, Egypt and Tunisia. NOT Iran. And Iran IS different. Anyone who really looks at Iran and the rest will see that. There is a genuine non-extremist young political movement (the one being put down currentlky) that is potentially friendly to the West and Israel.

A friendly Iran (post Iamdinnerjacket) could be our best (Muslim/Arab) ally in the region IF the young people take power, or at least use their power to put in moderate men who have kinder thoughts to the West and Israel than the regime does now.

That article pertains to any and all so-called "movements" in the Middle East. IRAN, as well:

Quote

Polling in Iran Shows Real Support for Ahmadinejad
Much commentary has portrayed Iranian youth and the Internet as harbingers of change in this election. But our poll found that only a third of Iranians even have access to the Internet, while 18-to-24-year-olds comprised the strongest voting bloc for Ahmadinejad of all age groups.
http://www.washingto...9061401757.html

Not much of a "movement". "Pro-western"? Fat. Chance. Even without the internet to give them a good look at the outside world, you'd think they would be fed up with the way their lives have been since the Ayatollahs took over. There's a lot of "ifs" in your scenario.

Quote

Let us identify the extremists.

Step one: Go to the Middle East.
Step two: Spit in any direction.

Quote

Let us then use our political power to ensure that such groups are on the margin of these new societies.

Political power hinges on the ability of Western democracies to stay united against Islamic aggression. I don't see that happening. Secondly, I don't see any "new society" emerging in the Middle East or any other Islamic-dominated region as long as they remain dedicated to a violent theocracy diametrically opposed to any kind of reform.

Quote

We cant change these groups existence.

We can kill them. Then they wouldn't exist.

Quote

We cant change their ideas.

Kinda makes the "hearts and minds" thing null and void.

Quote

We CAN change their appeal to Arab youth and to Arabs in general.

If the lousy example they've set for years hasn't been enough to change that appeal, then what the hell makes you think that will change any time soon? Sharia-based oppression has been a staple of Islamic nation states since the Caliphate was created in the 7th century. Somebody must have liked it enough to keep it going all these years.

Quote

We CAN keep such groups on the margin, and help ensure moderate govts sympathetic to the West and Israel.

"Moderate governments"...didn't we already have that discussion? You mentioned Yemen, and I pointed out that Yemen in fact sponsors terrorism. In case you missed the point, the only real ally we have in the Middle East is Israel, and just for that fact alone, most muzzie countries hate our guts.

Quote

So if start writing these nations and peoples off, then they WILL simply turn to the very people who would use our rejection as 'proof' of Western 'Muslim/Arab hatred'.

Until I see any real proof of genuine change, and I mean massive, I will continue to write them off. Face it, there just isn't enough grassroots support for transformation to a more free, open, democratic society. The saber-rattlers I see in the "movements" tend to gravitate to other extremists. If these "protesters" were just as determined to overthrow Ahmadinejad as the 1979 protesters were in overthrowing the Shah, it would have been over by now. I remember it well. Watching the millions of Iranian's joyous celebrations over the embassy hostages, hailing Ayatollah Khomeini as their holy savior and voting by national referendum, to become an Islamic Republic. Change in the Middle East never works out very well.

Quote

Yeah, dont ya think that opinion was a little stupid?.

Nope.

Quote

Good. What you should see is a quiet, intelligent man who was trained to fight war and would fight wars by being tougher than the enemy, but also being much cleverer.

Uh, you weren't so quiet on that other thread... :whistling:

Quote

Even if I wasnt a fan of hearts and minds, and wanted only a ruthless 'kill first and ask questions later' way of waging war, I would STILL disagree until the end of time with you about your strategy. My brutal and ruthless war would STILL have to be fought with the scalpel, not the club.

Again, the scalpel alone is useless against a metastasized cancer. When we entered WWI and WWII, we didn't lead with "hearts and minds" crap. We led with bullets and bombs. Disagree all you like.

Quote

With the SAS, SBS, SEALS and DELTA, not nuclear bombs.

After a few neutron bombs, the SpecOps/Spec Forces wouldn't be necessary.

Quote

Firstly, it is simply unworkable. The nuke em all idea is a nonsense. Not only the frankly obscenity of killing 100 innocent people to get one terrorist bad enough, but purely from a military and counterterrorism standpoint, it using a ponderous sledgehammer to crack a mobile and clever nut.

Dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki sure helped bring the Pacific portion of the war to a halt. "Terrorists" weren't the target but it send a message to the COUNTRY full of fanatics that would have certainly fought to every last man, woman, and child had we done a land invasion.

Quote

Secondly, the tedious analogy people here bring up about 1939-45 is such an incorrect analogy my 7 year old niece in Preston, Lancashire could work out is flawed.

It's not an incorrect analogy. If you're going to fight a war, then goddamn it, go all out and finish it. When I left Iraq after my first tour, I wrote this in my journal as the last entry:

"Unfortunately, Hussein is still alive. I still believe that the mission should have continued until we reached Baghdad and destroyed what was left of the Iraqi army. I think this tactical oversight will cause the U.S. Army to return to Southwest Asia in order to finish the job"

No kidding.

In 2003, we were deployed back to Iraq.

Quote

When we fought 1939-45 (or for you 1941-45), or 1991, or 2001, or 2003, we fought nation states, states with infrastructures that had to be and could be and were destroyed. Physical infrastructres, physical armies in the field that could be challenged and defeated.

BUT this enemy is not that.

Okay, we're halfway there. There are Islamic NATION STATES with INFRASTRUCTURES who support not conventional armies, but large contingents of terrorist individuals and GROUPS. Destroy their base of support, and you destroy them. In other words, destroy the very nation states who fund, train, and indoctrinate them, and there will be nowhere for them to hide, let alone reproduce.

Quote

When you killed Bin Laden, did America send in a mass of bombers, nuclear strikes and bomb half of Pakistan to hell?.
No, you sent in an elite but small group of men.
And job done.

After YEARS of sucessful interrogation techniques at GITMO which led to the capture of HVTs like Khalid Sheik Muhammad,and sending lieutenents like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to hell, we finally got the intel to track down Bin Laden to the compound where he had been hiding for gawd knows how long. Fantastic. I'm glad we did. But we knew he had been hiding in Pakistan for years, it was just a question of where. Secondly, Pakistan is a safehaven for Taliban and Al Qaeda. The Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI) has Taliban moles on its payroll, and cells run back across the Afghan border after re-grouping, thanks to the Pakistan regime. Any resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan can be directly attributed to terrorist groups operating carte blanche in Pakistan; abetted by a large portion of the Pakistani government, Army, and ISI. You see the point? We could have expedited the process with a little more persuasive action. If ya get my drift.

Quote

As the old saying goes: its not having the biggest d*ck, its how you use it that counts.

Yeah, I know the "it ain't the meat it's the motion" schtick, but we have the ability to wield a mighty big d*ck, and get rid of a lot of enemy territory.

Quote

Well, that crap seemed to work well for the British, in several terrorist wars on three continents. At a time when both France and America got mauled in SE Asia and lost wars they were expected to win. The British and Australians even taught US Special Forces during Vietnam. Delta Force exists because of an American who served in Malaya with the SAS and saw that the hearts and minds policy worked and that the US needed an American SAS unit. And Jerry King's cross-service with the SAS also lead to the formation of the ISA.

And yet we still have a quite a problem with the spread of Islamic terrorism and attacks around the world, don't we? US Special Forces can only do one particular target at a time, and that "hearts and minds" crap doesn't cut it.

I don't recall the U.S. signing any surrender papers to Hanoi, but I do recall the Dem majority in Congress pulling the war funding in 1974.

Quote

Hunt and peck seems to have worked very well for our Israeli brethern, dont you think?

Israel isn't engaged in a larger scale war like we are, but if Iran gets a wild ICBM hair up its ass, that might change.

This post has been edited by GI JANE: 24 March 2012 - 06:02 PM

[Timothy]

GI Jane: Would you try to destroy everyone and everything in the Middle East? How would you go about doing that? The Germans tried to do that kind of thing in WW2 and though they made a lot of horrific progress, didn't succeed. It would be logistically impossible.

But even if you were able to do that, what about foreign countries with minority Muslim populations. Which is nearly every country, but for a significant population, let's look at England. Your genocidal/Hitleresque actions in the Middle East would turn nearly everyone who was either pro-American, neutral, or passively anti-American into active anti-Americans hell bent on attacking Americans. How would you kill all of them?

And let's not ignore the fact that other countries would be very likely to not respond favorably to a genocidal American campaign. At a minimum they would impose sanctions that would crash our economy. That's if the destruction of the economies of the Middle East didn't already do that to the world economy, especially if you consider oil.

There are a large number of logistical problems with your ideas that would make them totally unworkable and delusional. The idea that we can somehow go in like Genghis Khan or treat this like WW2 is fantasy.

[scotsman]

Quote

What?? I thought you were going to put me on "ignore". So much for bluster and indignation

I have decided to take you off my list.
As long as its civil, I intend to continue as a counterweight to your arguments.

Quote

We can kill them. Then they wouldn't exist

They are extremists, not terrorists. As unpleasant and vile as they are, they write screeds, march, protest and a million things other than be terrorists. So how would you deal with taking out a public enemy?. Because thats what they are.

Quote

Kinda makes the "hearts and minds" thing null and void.

For the 8 billionth time, hearts and minds pertains to people who arent terrorists.

Quote

If these "protesters" were just as determined to overthrow Ahmadinejad as the 1979 protesters were in overthrowing the Shah, it would have been over by now. I remember it well.

They DID try to rebel against it, and look what happened. Brutal reprisals. Young people dead, maimed and imprisoned.
And what, to you, they just didnt 'try hard enough'?.

And if you know 1979 well, you will know that the Shah was told by America and Britain NOT to start a civil war and massacre his people. Thats why the 1979 Revolution was so easy. Its easy when you know your hated enemy wont open fire.

Quote

Nope.

You said all terrorists were Muslims. You did. Its there, in black and white.

Which is probably the stupidest comment ever posted here.

Even the densest person here could reel off a few terrorist groups who are NOT Muslim.

Quote

Again, the scalpel alone is useless against a metastasized cancer. When we entered WWI and WWII, we didn't lead with "hearts and minds" crap. We led with bullets and bombs. Disagree all you like.

Again, bad analogy. WW1 and WW2 were wars against nation states, not terrorist groups.
Different enemies, different wars.

I am frankly astonished that someone who has 30 years army service and trained in counterterrorism fails to grasp such a basic concept.

Quote

Dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki sure helped bring the Pacific portion of the war to a halt. "Terrorists" weren't the target but it send a message to the COUNTRY full of fanatics that would have certainly fought to every last man, woman, and child had we done a land invasion.

Again, nation states.
Again, very bad analogy.

Quote

It's not an incorrect analogy. If you're going to fight a war, then goddamn it, go all out and finish it.

Correct.

But thats not the point. The point is HOW to fight a war.

You seem to think that 'war' MUST mean using huge conventional force, against an unconventional enemy. That very statement answers its own question. And shows why a bomb em all strategy against modern terrorism will not work.

The idea that you can somehow bomb all terrorists to hell is a nonsense.

Quote

Okay, we're halfway there. There are Islamic NATION STATES with INFRASTRUCTURES who support not conventional armies, but large contingents of terrorist individuals and GROUPS. Destroy their base of support, and you destroy them. In other words, destroy the very nation states who fund, train, and indoctrinate them, and there will be nowhere for them to hide, let alone reproduce.

Nope. You cripple the nation states friendly to them, you still have an enemy that needs to be hunted and taken out. A weaker enemy, but these are people who kill with backpacks and boxes of nails. An enemy whose very existence is in cells that dont know each other, are self-funding and self-resourceful if need be.

You bombed the hell out of Afghanistan in 2001, but Bin Laden still managed to slip into the hills and get away.

Any success would at best be limited.

Quote

After YEARS of sucessful interrogation techniques at GITMO which led to the capture of HVTs like Khalid Sheik Muhammad,and sending lieutenents like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to hell, we finally got the intel to track down Bin Laden to the compound where he had been hiding for gawd knows how long. Fantastic. I'm glad we did. But we knew he had been hiding in Pakistan for years, it was just a question of where. Secondly, Pakistan is a safehaven for Taliban and Al Qaeda. The Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI) has Taliban moles on its payroll, and cells run back across the Afghan border after re-grouping, thanks to the Pakistan regime. Any resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan can be directly attributed to terrorist groups operating carte blanche in Pakistan; abetted by a large portion of the Pakistani government, Army, and ISI. You see the point? We could have expedited the process with a little more persuasive action. If ya get my drift.

Correct. Interrogation, intelligence. Thats what got Bin Laden.
Not destroying half of Pakistan with F-35's and B-52's.

What would levelling Pakistan have actually done to get Bin Laden?.

Quote

And yet we still have a quite a problem with the spread of Islamic terrorism and attacks around the world, don't we? US Special Forces can only do one particular target at a time, and that "hearts and minds" crap doesn't cut it.

Or the big white elephant is that the American Army, intelligence and US special forces and US intelligence simply arent very good at it.

Quote

I don't recall the U.S. signing any surrender papers to Hanoi, but I do recall the Dem majority in Congress pulling the war funding in 1974.

You lost.
Deal with it.

The idea that the US military was perfect in Vietnam, but had victory snatched from its grasp by a bunch of hippies and Walter Cronkite is a crock.

Quote

Israel isn't engaged in a larger scale war like we are, but if Iran gets a wild ICBM hair up its ass, that might change.

Even when Israel 'goes big', it uses its brain first, and deals in surgical strikes. Did it invade Iraq in 1981?. Will it invade Iran in 2012?.

No, smart people that they are, they see a bomb-em-all-to-hell idea as the ridiculous idea it is, best left to videogame junkies and bar room generals. Their way to survive is a million times more clever and more importantly much more effective.

This post has been edited by scotsman: 24 March 2012 - 09:58 PM

[pict]

scotsman, on 24 March 2012 - 09:40 PM, said:

You lost.
Deal with it.

The idea that the US military was perfect in Vietnam, but had victory snatched from its grasp by a bunch of hippies and Walter Cronkite is a crock.

I have to interject here, Scotsman. You're wrong.

The Vietnamese commanders, have admitted themselves they lost, but they had the incentive to keep going because of the 'Cronkites.' They were able to keep fighting on two fronts, in the field and domestically in the United States.

You're wrong on this, mate.

[GI JANE]

Quote

name='scotsman' timestamp='1332643205' post='684926157']
I have decided to take you off my list.
As long as its civil, I intend to continue as a counterweight to your arguments.

Oh, I'm so glad you decided to renege on your threat. :rolleyes:
Your "counterweight" is weak. Very weak. You keep resting your arguments on diplomatic asskissing instead of using the weapons we have at our disposal to erradicate the enemy.

They won't be stopped by appeasement or 'surgical' means. The cancer has matasticized. The muslim subculture is simply carrying out what their bat<censored> crazy prophet told them to do in 692AD. If you really believe your naive ideas will work, look no further than what Obama has done the last 3 years. He's made a fool out of himself and an embarrassment out of U.S. foreign policy with his Dhimmi idiocy.

I'm going on hiatus for awhile, but when I return, we can pick up exactly where we left off. In the mean time, don't be surprised if the muslim terrorist attacks escalate. I will still tell you exactly what should be done to get rid of the Islamofascist scourge, and you'll still be whimpering over "hearts and minds".

See ya later, sweetpea. ;)