Doesn't matter, we can't storm their nation and kill everyone. Morally wrong, very unjust. Especially as their population has to do that song and dance whetjer they want to or not.
Hiroshima was definitely a morally questionable action, but in that case it saved countless lives that would have been lost on both sides had an invasion of Japan commenced. Okinawa alone showed that. Messy business.
I do not! where did you get THAT idea? I said a sherman march to the sea! He didn't kill everyone, he destroyed everything (infrastructure, cities) in his path. The people left behind were forced to use all of their resources to rebuild, and were therefore useless to the Southern war effort. any who resisted was sent to a P.O.W. camp until after the war was over.
THAT'S what I said. "Make the South Howl."
If anything, my words have been twisted. I didn't say anything about systemic execution.
We can arrest these people and hold them till the war is over, but we can't leave them fully equipped at our backs. beesus jesssus...
I said they are all enemies, and I would stand by that. we don't have to kill them all to beat them.
Originally posted by truejedi
I do not! where did you get THAT idea?
Originally posted by truejedi
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.
Originally posted by truejedi
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.
Jesus, I'd forgotten about that.
Laem TJ. Beyond Laem.
Originally posted by truejediIf there's one way to antagonize the world, it's the total destruction of a nation whose civilian populace has been routinely starved, brainwashed, and conscripted for a half a century. "But surely, the civilians deserve it!" The soldiers, conscripts or no, who fire upon NATO troops, need to be killed. Those who surrender, need to be interred. The county's leaders who propagate the civilian suffering and who initiated the conflict, need to be tried and hanged. The civilians whose lives are comparable to slaves, shouldn't have their cities set ablaze, their professions destroyed, and their infrastructure demolished. Imagine if we had taken such retribution against the civilians of East Germany?
I do not! where did you get THAT idea? I said a sherman march to the sea! He didn't kill everyone, he destroyed everything (infrastructure, cities) in his path. The people left behind were forced to use all of their resources to rebuild, and were therefore useless to the Southern war effort. any who resisted was sent to a P.O.W. camp until after the war was over.THAT'S what I said. "Make the South Howl."
If anything, my words have been twisted. I didn't say anything about systemic execution.
We can arrest these people and hold them till the war is over, but we can't leave them fully equipped at our backs. beesus jesssus...I said they are all enemies, and I would stand by that. we don't have to kill them all to beat them.
Global condemnation against the perpetrators. Renewed and fervent hatred of the West (America). Liberating North Korea from a tyrannical yoke, after they started the war, would cause the West to be hailed as saviors. But if we pull a Hermann Goering, and send the country back to the stone age, we'll be vilified like never before. And we'd deserve it.
Originally posted by Nephthys
Jesus, I'd forgotten about that.Laem TJ. Beyond Laem.
If this had happened from the start, less people would have died. Now we have how many thousands of innocent civilians STILL dying in afghanistan? How many thousands would have lived if we had done this instead? Call it lame, but can you call inefficient? Can you say it wouldn't work? What about the greater good? Those in charge have to make tough decisions to save the most lives possible.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
If there's one way to antagonize the world, it's the total destruction of a nation whose civilian populace has been routinely starved, brainwashed, and conscripted for a half a century. "But surely, the civilians deserve it!" The soldiers, conscripts or no, who fire upon NATO troops, need to be killed. Those who surrender, need to be interred. The county's leaders who propagate the civilian suffering and who initiated the conflict, need to be tried and hanged. The civilians whose lives are comparable to slaves, shouldn't have their cities set ablaze, their professions destroyed, and their infrastructure demolished. Imagine if we had taken such retribution against the civilians of East Germany?Global condemnation against the perpetrators. Renewed and fervent hatred of the West (America). Liberating North Korea from a tyrannical yoke, after they started the war, would cause the West to be hailed as saviors. But if we pull a Hermann Goering, and send the country back to the stone age, we'll be vilified like never before. And we'd deserve it.
You can't fight a war halfway without millions of casaulties. I hate war. I hate it beyond belief. It is a horrible ugly thing that has already claimed people I care about, but if you put handcuffs on your troops, you are making it uglier.
In a war, you have to fight to win, and then pick up the pieces later. You can't fight for "liberation". If afghanistand and Iraq didn't teach you that, what will LL?
Originally posted by Nephthys
Imagine if we had taken such retribution against WW1 Germany. No Hitler.😐
😛
Better. No WWII. No Holocaust. I'm sorry, its tough decision making, but when you fight a war you have to destroy an enemy to the point that he will never be able to fight you again.
(who is the chinese guy who i keep paraphrasing? The total war guy?)
Originally posted by truejedi
i believe this post was about stopping an insurgency, wasn't it? Now YOU are the one twisting words. for sure.
I didn't twist anything.
We are fighting a war in Afghanistan. In your hypothetical scenario, we would be fighting a war in North Korea.
In both of these cases, you have advocated using the kind of tactics likely to be perpetuated by the likes of a ruthless warlord. Ideas I would expect from the likes of Charles Taylor and Pol Pot.
Originally posted by REXXXX
Lucien's summed up my thoughts on the matter. I could not condone the firebombing of North Korea.
He did mine too actually: He said, kill those who fire on Nato troops, arrest those who surrender.... I was pretty much saying the same thing, but realize that everyone is a soldier....
so u are left arresting everyone... don't plan on being heros, because it doesn't work that way apparently.
Originally posted by Lucius
I didn't twist anything.We are fighting a war in Afghanistan. In your hypothetical scenario, we would be fighting a war in North Korea.
In both of these cases, you have advocated using the kind of tactics likely to be perpetuated by the likes of a ruthless warlord. Ideas I would expect from the likes of Charles Taylor and Pol Pot.
we are doing an occupation in afghanistan. we would be fighting a "conquer the crap out of the enemy" war in NK. The situations are incredibly different, and for you to liken my response in one to my response in the other without asking first is indeed twisting my words.
Originally posted by truejedi
If this had happened from the start, less people would have died. Now we have how many thousands of innocent civilians STILL dying in afghanistan? How many thousands would have lived if we had done this instead? Call it lame, but can you call inefficient? Can you say it wouldn't work? What about the greater good? Those in charge have to make tough decisions to save the most lives possible.
If that had happened from the start the UN probably would have done something about America's monsterous war crimes. And I sincerely doubt it would be a strongly worded letter. Lucius' right, what you are suggesting is Hitler-level TJ. We banded together to take that ****er down. We would do the same to you if we had to. There's no certainty it would work at all. It could equally likely further entrench the rebels and lead to country-wide rebellion against such inhuman tactics.
Originally posted by Nephthys
If that had happened from the start the UN probably would have done something about America's monsterous war crimes. And I sincerely doubt it would be a strongly worded letter. There's no certainty it would work at all. It could equally likely further entrench the rebels and lead to country-wide rebellion against such inhuman tactics.
EDIT: And you realize how large a percentage of the UN is supported by the U.S, right? And the UN did NOTHING in Darfur. It did NOTHING in Rwanda. Why would it do ANYTHING in this situation?
Don't we already have a country-wide rebellion and well entrenched rebels? no way it could have made that WORSE.
when are you going to get it that you can't fight a war in such a way as to make the world LIKE you?
Serious question, do you think it was an acceptable decision to drop the atomic bombs in Japan?
Originally posted by REXXXX
You're still propagating tactics that are immoral and below us, though. Sure, we want to stop nations from being able to fight us. We don't want to cripple their entire way of life.
I'm curious, how would you deal with fighting NK?