Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I voted fore Rome! But that's because I thought we were voting on what we preferred; The United States of America or the hit HBO series.
Ah, today's youth...
Apparently you forgot to attend reading class...you know, the art of deciphering symbols such as "USA vs Roman Empire IN A WAR" or "Who wins (be serious)"
WE MUST IMPROVE OUR EDUCATION SYSTEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
"USA vs Roman Empire IN A WAR" or "Who wins (be serious)"WE MUST IMPROVE OUR EDUCATION SYSTEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I think sucess rates of wars in Afghanistna and Iraq speak for themselves.
You can bomb and bomb and bomb and nuke, but the sheer fact is, when you get on the ground, troops return in body bags and the country is still not conquered.Hitler's Germany was the first to ban smoking in public places, to promote health education, organising medical lectures and raising tobacco tax, so you must live in a Nazi country.
Do you realize the U.S. military could win any war within a day if we just dropped a few nukes. Iraq would be nothin' but a wasteland if we did that right now. The only reason we don't is for obvious reasons...to protect innocent civilian lives.
Also, if the U.S. exercised "total war" protocols...all the insurgents would've been killed or retreated out of the country by now.
Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Do you realize the U.S. military could win any war within a day if we just dropped a few nukes. Iraq would be nothin' but a wasteland if we did that right now. The only reason we don't is for obvious reasons...to protect innocent civilian lives.Also, if the U.S. exercised "total war" protocols...all the insurgents would've been killed or retreated out of the country by now.
nuking Iraq would not defeat the Mujaheddin
not understanding this is why you are in Iraq in the first place
Originally posted by inimalist
nuking Iraq would not defeat the Mujaheddinnot understanding this is why you are in Iraq in the first place
😆
Really? We haven't nuked them, so how could you know it wouldn't defeat them? Besides, if we nuked the entire region...and held security perimeters to quarantine the entire country...they would all die from radiation sickness. Trust me...if the U.S. really wanted to go on genocidal campaign...this war would have been finished a long time ago....but, damn the mandates of the Geneva Convention.
Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
😆Really? We haven't nuked them, so how could you know it wouldn't defeat them? Besides, if we nuked the entire region...and held security perimeters to quarantine the entire country...they would all die from radiation sickness. Trust me...if the U.S. really wanted to go on genocidal campaign...this war would have been finished a long time ago....but, damn the mandates of the Geneva Convention.
so, in your opinion, extreme force is likely to create less extremists?
and while your scenario is childishly interesting, it is incorrect. America could not do that. why? MAD. Russia and China have way more pull in the middle east than America does.
And seriously, you can't occupy Iraq or cover some mountains in Pakistan. You are going to "quarantine" everything from The Western Coast of Africa to the Philippines?
Originally posted by inimalist
so, in your opinion, extreme force is likely to create less extremists?and while your scenario is childishly interesting, it is incorrect. America could not do that. why? MAD. Russia and China have way more pull in the middle east than America does.
And seriously, you can't occupy Iraq or cover some mountains in Pakistan. You are going to "quarantine" everything from The Western Coast of Africa to the Philippines?
No one said anything about the entire Islamic world...I'm only referring to Iraq. What I said is that it "could" be done through extreme measures. Hell, an all out nuclear attack, followed by a nuclear winter would decimate nearly all life in that part of the world...what don't you understand about that???
Again, I didn't say America "would" do that....I'm sayin' that it "could" happen if we didn't care about collateral damage.
Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
No one said anything about the entire Islamic world...I'm only referring to Iraq. What I said is that it "could" be done through extreme measures. Hell, an all out nuclear attack, followed by a nuclear winter would decimate nearly all life in that part of the world...what don't you understand about that???
A nuclear strike in Iraq would cause MAD.
Also, you totally don't understand your enemy. They aren't the Iraqis, they are autonomous groups who currently operate and recruit in Iraq. If you turned Iraq into a wasteland, they wouldn't stay, and no, you couldn't keep them in, as you can't keep them out from Lebanon and Iran now.
However, that ignores that such action in Iraq would make the Iraqi insurgents the least of the American's concerns, as it would literally be the genesis of the next generation of terror.
Wait, you do know that it was unnecessarily violent bombings in Lebanon that initially radicalized the current Al Qaeda leadership, yes? You realize that American violence creates the people you are trying to kill?
Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Again, I didn't say America "would" do that....I'm sayin' that it "could" happen if we didn't care about collateral damage.
Or the survival of the American Empire
Originally posted by inimalist
A nuclear strike in Iraq would cause MAD.Also, you totally don't understand your enemy. They aren't the Iraqis, they are autonomous groups who currently operate and recruit in Iraq. If you turned Iraq into a wasteland, they wouldn't stay, and no, you couldn't keep them in, as you can't keep them out from Lebanon and Iran now.
However, that ignores that such action in Iraq would make the Iraqi insurgents the least of the American's concerns, as it would literally be the genesis of the next generation of terror.
Wait, you do know that it was unnecessarily violent bombings in Lebanon that initially radicalized the current Al Qaeda leadership, yes? You realize that American violence creates the people you are trying to kill?
Or the survival of the American Empire
Listen, I totally agree with what you are saying. I'm just stating a "possibility" to end Islamic terror threats. With just our nuclear stockpile alone, it would be enough to wipe out the Islamic region entirely.
The reason insurgents travel freely through those borders is because a real effort isn't made to keep them in or out. If a nation, like America, was hell bent on destroying the Islamic world...it could happen...even at the expense of our "status" in the eyes of the world. Sure, it would cause WWIII due to the intervention of Russia and China...which would just make it worse on the Islamic region as a whole..especially if there is a nuclear exchange with those countries in those Islamic regions. Based on that, I fail to see how many isurgents could survive....including surviving the radioactive fallout afterwards.
Getting back to what I mentioned earlier concerning border security. If the U.S. commited more manpower to border security...they could contain the insurgents travel between borders. In this case..I'm only referring to Iraq. We wouldn't have enough manpower to commit to the security of every border within the Islamic world as a whole.
In any event, we're going to disagree on this matter. So, the best thing to do is agree to disagree. Besides, we're going off topic from the subject of this thread.
🙂