~The World's Strongest Militaries~

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
we could do it in about a week if our job was to kill them.

no, you couldn't

you could kill huge swaths of the civilian population who hide the maybe hundreds of fighters. However, in such action you would generate more fighters than you killed, expanding the scope of the current Afghan conflict from the West coast of Africa to the Philippines.

For instance, your goal since 9-11 has been to kill Bin Laden. Using indiscriminate air strikes and drones, you haven't got this singular individual, and his supporters have become more powerful. However, you propose that more of the same would get all of them?

I'm glad the Americans understand terrorism 🙄

EDIT: not to mention, even as far as conventional warfare goes, NATO commanders have pretty much said, unequivically, there is no military solution in Afghanistan. You can't kill your way out of an insurgency. And no, while Al Qaeda and the Taliban movements are NOT the same thing, the presence of American troops, or any common enemy, makes them very much tied militarily.

way to like... totally not see my point. 😐

I thought I addressed your point...

In your scenario are all the Muj in the world lined up and standing in the open for you to bomb?

where did i imply that killing everyone would solve the problems in the middle east? you said that we're unable to defeat a "loosely aligned force of religious extremists".

i suppose the confusion come from your definition of "defeat" in this context...

out of curiosity do you think that if if our military object changed to sterilizing Afghanistan and iraq of its population, meaning just kill everybody in those countries the army comes across, do you think any of those terrorist organizations could stop us from doing that? and no i dont mean by sneaking people out of the country i mean by actually fighting soldiers back and preventing them from killing civilians. do you think they could?

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
where did i imply that killing everyone would solve the problems in the middle east? you said that we're unable to defeat a "loosely aligned force of religious extremists".

i suppose the confusion come from your definition of "defeat" in this context...

out of curiosity do you think that if if our military object changed to sterilizing Afghanistan and iraq of its population, meaning just kill everybody in those countries the army comes across, do you think any of those terrorist organizations could stop us from doing that? and no i dont mean by sneaking people out of the country i mean by actually fighting soldiers back and preventing them from killing civilians. do you think they could?

It's pretty hard to flatten an entire country.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
out of curiosity do you think that if if our military object changed to sterilizing Afghanistan and iraq of its population, meaning just kill everybody in those countries the army comes across, do you think any of those terrorist organizations could stop us from doing that? and no i dont mean by sneaking people out of the country i mean by actually fighting soldiers back and preventing them from killing civilians. do you think they could?

no, but they don't fight like that anyways...

not to mention it is those very tactics that spawn more terrorists, and such heavy handedness would instantly polarize all allies America has in the region.

like, who is it you think you are fighting? The people of Iraq?

Originally posted by inimalist
no, you couldn't

you could kill huge swaths of the civilian population who hide the maybe hundreds of fighters. However, in such action you would generate more fighters than you killed, expanding the scope of the current Afghan conflict from the West coast of Africa to the Philippines.

For instance, your goal since 9-11 has been to kill Bin Laden. Using indiscriminate air strikes and drones, you haven't got this singular individual, and his supporters have become more powerful. However, you propose that more of the same would get all of them?

I'm glad the Americans understand terrorism 🙄

EDIT: not to mention, even as far as conventional warfare goes, NATO commanders have pretty much said, unequivically, there is no military solution in Afghanistan. You can't kill your way out of an insurgency. And no, while Al Qaeda and the Taliban movements are NOT the same thing, the presence of American troops, or any common enemy, makes them very much tied militarily.

Afghanistan has never been able to be conquered for very long. It's not so much an insurgency as a bunch of roving criminal gangs shooting at everyone. The Taliban also poses 0 threat to America.

Originally posted by Dr Will Hatch
Afghanistan has never been able to be conquered for very long. It's not so much an insurgency as a bunch of roving criminal gangs shooting at everyone. The Taliban also poses 0 threat to America.

indeed, but I'm not talking about the Taliban, nor the people of Afghanistan.

Originally posted by inimalist
indeed, but I'm not talking about the Taliban, nor the people of Afghanistan.

Even if our plan was to just carpet bomb everyone, there would still be plenty of survivors eager to avenge the dead. It suprises me that people think you can just waltz onto someone's property and act like it's yours.

Originally posted by Dr Will Hatch
I know, just adding an addendum for Ms Marvel. 🙂

Even if our plan was to just carpet bomb everyone, there would still be plenty of survivors eager to avenge the dead. It suprises me that people think you can just waltz onto someone's property and act like it's yours.

ah, my bad, I tend to confuse things... lol

Its just so strange to me that, 8 years on, people don't seem to understand where these people who want to kill Westerners so badly come from.

Sure, America could kill ~100% of the population of any nation before the people of that nation could retaliate, but that is so irrelevant. Carpet bombing has destabilized Pakistan to the point that it engaged in a civil war that is increasingly being fought in major cities. Its as if Ms Marvel thinks more carpet bombing in that area would lead to more stability in Pakistan...

Originally posted by inimalist
no, but they don't fight like that anyways...

so then youd agree that if that was their military objective they would fail at it. they would be "defeated" by the us military./

not to mention it is those very tactics that spawn more terrorists, and such heavy handedness would instantly polarize all allies America has in the region.

like, who is it you think you are fighting? The people of Iraq?

im trying to make a point. maybe youre just being facetious and i suck at detecting internet humor but from what i see youre using the situation in the middle east as proof of the us militaries ineptitude. my point is that the failed war on terror hardly points to the us army not being the strongest in the world, or even the most affective. its not getting its ass kicked due to inefficiency its getting its ass kicked because its trying to achieve a goal thats its not inherently designed to achieve.

im tipsy right now and cant word this properly ill add onto this later

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
so then youd agree that if that was their military objective they would fail at it. they would be "defeated" by the us military./

of course. I've mentioned it before in this thread: the specific power of the Mujaheddin is how they fight.

if they fought like the Americans, sure, they would loose.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
im trying to make a point. maybe youre just being facetious and i suck at detecting internet humor but from what i see youre using the situation in the middle east as proof of the us militaries ineptitude. my point is that the failed war on terror hardly points to the us army not being the strongest in the world, or even the most affective. its not getting its ass kicked due to inefficiency its getting its ass kicked because its trying to achieve a goal thats its not inherently designed to achieve.

im tipsy right now and cant word this properly ill add onto this later

My point is more about the nature of asymmetrical warfare. The Muj has developed military strategy that undermines what you consider the power of the American military. Sure, the Americans could beat any conventional military on the planet. Why the **** would anyone join a conventional military or use conventional tactics when fighting them.

It seems to me that you want to define power in a very limited way, as in: Power is the ability to engage in what America defines as warfare. This is totally untrue. Sure, the Muj isn't a force bent on invading or conquering territory, but it does huge damage to conventional armies. Your charge that I'm criticizing the Americans for not being able to do what they aren't designed for is equally as valid in your conceptualization of the Muj. They aren't designed to fight you face to face.

Originally posted by inimalist
of course. I've mentioned it before in this thread: [b]the specific power of the Mujaheddin is how they fight.

if they fought like the Americans, sure, they would loose.

My point is more about the nature of asymmetrical warfare. The Muj has developed military strategy that undermines what you consider the power of the American military. Sure, the Americans could beat any conventional military on the planet. Why the **** would anyone join a conventional military or use conventional tactics when fighting them.

It seems to me that you want to define power in a very limited way, as in: Power is the ability to engage in what America defines as warfare. This is totally untrue. Sure, the Muj isn't a force bent on invading or conquering territory, but it does huge damage to conventional armies. Your charge that I'm criticizing the Americans for not being able to do what they aren't designed for is equally as valid in your conceptualization of the Muj. They aren't designed to fight you face to face. [/B]

so if both armies are designed to fight in two completely different ways how can you say that one is superior to the other or use their skirmishes against one another to gauge their overall strength?

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
so if both armies are designed to fight in two completely different ways how can you say that one is superior to the other or use their skirmishes against one another to gauge their overall strength?

both are designed to fight conventional armies, one is a conventional army.

said conventional army is also designed to destroy other conventional armies and occupy its territory. loosely organized terrorist group can not do that.

if you want to "keep score" of their strengths and weaknesses, that would be 1-1 😐

so, that really doesnt answer my question.

ok, cool, you have, undoubtedly the most powerful military on the planet

though it is inept at defeating the enemies it has currently declared and is in the process of losing two wars against a comparatively poorly armed force with a fraction of the man-power.

have it your way then

are you having a bad day or are you always this obtuse? 😐

if that isn't your argument, what is?

forget it. maybe someone else can simplify my point for you... perhaps if a non-american parrots it you'll understand my actual message and not automatically pass it off as redneck patriotic bullshit.

I don't see why you are getting so defensive...

If America has the strongest military, period, in the world, why are they losing two wars to a less well armed and less numerous enemy with less resources?

You might say: "Because they are tying their hands, America could bomb any nation these people are in to the ground", but that isn't an actual victory against the Muj. Looking at Lebanon in the 80s and Pakistan today, actions of those type appear to strengthen the people America has deemed its enemies. It is irrelevant, then, how many people America could kill, unless you are suggesting that victory for the Americans is killing everyone, including, eventually, a huge portion of their own population.

EDIT: if heavy handed militirism were the solution to this brand of terrorism, Israel would have successfully occupied Gaza decades ago.