Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
How many have died, and will die, directly as a result of us being there?
Thousands, which is why I say we're doing a completely shitty job of it, not that we shouldn't be there. If you're in a position to help, you help. Saying that things might be worse is no excuse. If you don't help then you're still responsible for what happens.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Being a superpower generally gives us the right since nobody else can do it but thanks for the philosophy 101 question.
Spoiler:
“What if Mr. Clean were a supervillain who was also a resurrected undead king from ancient Sumer?â€
I find myself agreeing with DE for once.
How many people are dying as a result of us being there? A lot. How many died to keep tyranny at bay in WWII? More than that? then why did we fight? fewer people would have died, if we had peacefully surrendered than if we had bothered to fight the war, this is fact.
Originally posted by Nephthys
Thousands, which is why I say we're doing a completely shitty job of it, not that we shouldn't be there. If you're in a position to help, you help. Saying that things might be worse is no excuse. If you don't help then you're still responsible for what happens.
Okay, so give me your strategy for how we can stay there and defeat the Taliban without killing a single person.
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Okay, so give em your strategy for how we can stay there and defeat the Taliban without killing a single person.
Hmm, I can't think of one off the top of my head, but maybe I will later. I think I'll go for a Utilitarian line though. Killing is fine as long as we end up saving more in the long run. And no killing of civillians.
Originally posted by truejediIn which case you're wasting your time, because every Taliban member you kill has family and friends who will take up arms against you in his place. It's like fighting a hydra; every head you cut off, two more will take their place. Therefore it's impossible to simply kill them all. So what's your plan? Are you content to stay there forever, never succeeding in killing the Taliban for good, while killing civilians in the process?
we absolutely cannot. I contend its better to stay an kill some civilians than abandon the people we have promised to protect.
I agree; it was rhetorical because I already know that it's impossible.
I'm still curious to know what your strategy would be, though. I'm confident you're not a complete moron so you must have some sort of winning strategy for if you were in command of our forces. Spill it. How would you handle the Taliban?
How would I handle the Taliban?
When a U.S. soldier is killed, line 50 random people up and shoot them.
Brutal, horrific, and efficient. You would have afghani's falling all over themselves to turn in insurgents, and insurgents also have people they care about.
It worked to brutal efficiency in Poland in WWII. Horrible, but honestly might be the best way to save the most lives over say, the next 50 years.
However.... since we consider ourselves too humane for such a course of action (and rightfully so) you respond with overwhelming firepower in any firefight. Unleash the beast so to speak. When the taliban knows that engaging the troops is certain death, their number of volunteers will go down. Right now we have weak rules of engagement and it shows, Taliban have actually been winning full scale battles against us since we refuse to call in air-support in highly populated areas.
They know our rules of engagement as well as we do, and use them against us. Yes we make SOME more enemies when we do this, because they are under-informed, BUT we still make progress. the civilians need to seriously recieve some motivation to turn in insurgents.
These people live somewhere , and receive food somewhere. IF the civilians won't turn them in, is it our fault if civilians die when we engage?
Somebody knows these people
The worst possible option is do nothing.
Originally posted by truejedi
[B]How would I handle the Taliban?When a U.S. soldier is killed, line 50 random people up and shoot them.
Brutal, horrific, and efficient. You would have afghani's falling all over themselves to turn in insurgents, and insurgents also have people they care about.
This wouldn't work anyway, because the Taliban would then put out the word that anyone who is discovered to be an informant will be killed, as well as their families, and their friends' families.
When the taliban knows that engaging the troops is certain death, their number of volunteers will go down.
They willingly strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up. Certain death means nothing to people who think that dying in holy war is the greatest possible honor one could ever have.
Right now we have weak rules of engagement and it shows, Taliban have actually been winning full scale battles against us since we refuse to call in air-support in highly populated areas.They know our rules of engagement as well as we do, and use them against us. Yes we make SOME more enemies when we do this, because they are under-informed, BUT we still make progress. the civilians need to seriously recieve some motivation to turn in insurgents.
Slaughtering them isn't the way to do it. The more civilians you kill the more join the insurgency. The problem is that you think that you can explain to the populace that what you're doing is for the greater good. But you can't. The Taliban can, though, because they're deeply rooted into the community and speak the language. When they kill an entire family, they can explain it to the populace in a way that makes them look like the good guys. You don't have the luxery.
So, that's not good enough. Keep pumping out more ideas though. I'm also starting to get an idea of your stance. You genuinly think that saying **** it and not going out of your way to prevent collateral damage is a good way to save lives. Okay.
NOT killing members of extremist groups sends the wrong message to those groups, that we are weak and they are able to get away with their bullshit. Killing them causes far less damages than not. The problem, and you might completely disagree with this, is that we're too lenient with these groups. We don't unleash the full fury of our capabilities. Ever wonder why acts of terrorism or hostage are incredibly rare? Because the Russians don't mess around. There's no trial, they take you to the back and put a gun to your head. They cause far more collateral damage than we do but in the end, their method is extremely brutal, yet more effective.
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
You genuinly think that saying **** it and not going out of your way to prevent collateral damage is a good way to save lives. Okay.
Yes.
Going out of our way to prevent collateral damage allows those trying to kill our soldiers to escape and lets them fight another day. We kill quickly, brutally, efficiently, and the violence ends SOONER. Over the long haul, we save lives.
If we continue to "kinda fight" the terrorists, this fight could last a 100 years. In the end, more lives are lost than if we just fight it brutally right now.