RE: Another Arab-Muslim country bombed by a western country.

RE: Another Arab-Muslim country bombed by a western country. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Moonhead -> RE: Another Arab-Muslim country bombed by a western country. (1/16/2013 5:51:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: SadistDave I sincerely hope they bomb Mali back into the Stone Age, then start on the rest of the Middle East. The problem with the Taliban is that you dont bomb them BACK to the stone age. To get those people up to the level of neolithic culture would require lots of foreign aid. Encouraging dependency on foreign aid payments then using the threat of cutting them off as a form of coercion would probably work quite well. Even if most of the Taliban are pakistanis not pashtuns, that was how the Empire used to keep the Afghan warlords in line, wasn't it?

meatcleaver -> RE: Another Arab-Muslim country bombed by a western country. (1/16/2013 6:17:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 90% of the problems in Africa and the Middle East stem from the end of the colonial Era and WW1, so you are right, the west, specifically the European countries, created the fucking problems. The middle east problems stem from the end of the Ottoman colonial era and the rise of nationalism within that empire, not Europe. Europe just tried to do what the US is doing now, firefighting with bombs. The Europeans couldn't make that strategy work so why the Americans think that strategy will work, I've no idea. And why European lapdogs still think that strategy can work is also beyond me.

Powergamz1 -> RE: Another Arab-Muslim country bombed by a western country. (1/16/2013 6:21:34 AM)
Yeah, but thanks to the History Channel, they're onto that trick now. [;)] quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: SadistDave I sincerely hope they bomb Mali back into the Stone Age, then start on the rest of the Middle East. The problem with the Taliban is that you dont bomb them BACK to the stone age. To get those people up to the level of neolithic culture would require lots of foreign aid. Encouraging dependency on foreign aid payments then using the threat of cutting them off as a form of coercion would probably work quite well. Even if most of the Taliban are pakistanis not pashtuns, that was how the Empire used to keep the Afghan warlords in line, wasn't it?

vincentML -> RE: Another Arab-Muslim country bombed by a western country. (1/16/2013 6:53:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 90% of the problems in Africa and the Middle East stem from the end of the colonial Era and WW1, so you are right, the west, specifically the European countries, created the fucking problems. The middle east problems stem from the end of the Ottoman colonial era and the rise of nationalism within that empire, not Europe. Europe just tried to do what the US is doing now, firefighting with bombs. The Europeans couldn't make that strategy work so why the Americans think that strategy will work, I've no idea. And why European lapdogs still think that strategy can work is also beyond me. The Ottoman Empire was taken apart by the Western Allies after the end of WWI b/c the Turks sided with Germany. We should not forget that in the process a million or more Armenians were slaughtered in the first genocide of the 20th C. Turks and Kurds were involved in the killing of Armenian christians. History ain't nice.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Another Arab-Muslim country bombed by a western country. (1/16/2013 7:30:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver The USA lost in Vietnam, it cut and run in Iraq and it is cutting and running in Afghanistan, along with lapdog Britain. Having the ability to bomb someone into the stoneage doesn't appear to be a very effective strategy, it has failed time and time again to solve perceived problem regarding vested interests. It is just an expensive way to waste national wealth and resources. With what the USA has spent on bombing people back into the stoneage, the USA could have had a healthcare system free at use that could have been the envy of the world. The ability to bomb someone back into the stone age isn't effective unless that someone actually thinks we'll do it. With the media the way they have been during 'Nam and since, we aren't likely to do that without absolutely no other choice. Had we bombed al Qaeda back to the stone age in the mountains of Afghanistan, how likely would it be that we'd still be there, or in Iraq? There's no way we'd still be over there. And, we could use out status to prevent a lot of other stuff, too. It's the whole, "speak softly and carry a big stick" thing. We're barking like chihuahua's and carrying a toothpick now.

meatcleaver -> RE: Another Arab-Muslim country bombed by a western country. (1/16/2013 7:34:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML The Ottoman Empire was taken apart by the Western Allies after the end of WWI b/c the Turks sided with Germany. We should not forget that in the process a million or more Armenians were slaughtered in the first genocide of the 20th C. Turks and Kurds were involved in the killing of Armenian christians. History ain't nice. The Ottoman Empire was falling apart a long time before it was defeated in WWI. Nationalism had been on the rise for over fifty years. Incidently the rise of nationalism in the Ottoman Empire was the root of the current Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The lines in sand after WWI basically followed the regional borders within the Ottoman Empire. Like many Empires have done, nationalism was suppressed while the empire was strong but as the old empires weakened nationalism came to the for. When you think about it, should the US start to wane, no doubt different nationalism will come to the fore. It is almost a rule of nature.

meatcleaver -> RE: Another Arab-Muslim country bombed by a western country. (1/16/2013 7:38:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri The ability to bomb someone back into the stone age isn't effective unless that someone actually thinks we'll do it. With the media the way they have been during 'Nam and since, we aren't likely to do that without absolutely no other choice. It wasn't just the media, the problem was the USA had no strategy, there was little support at home and no idea what they would do with the place if they won. It is for those three specific reasons why many historians compare the British experience in the American war of Independence with the USA's experience in Vietnam. Oh And Ho Chi Min said the Vietnamese will still be in Vietnam when the last American has gone home, no matter how long that takes.

SadistDave -> RE: Another Arab-Muslim country bombed by a western country. (1/16/2013 7:41:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: SadistDave The cheese-eating-surrender monkeys have the right idea for once. I sincerely hope they bomb Mali back into the Stone Age, then start on the rest of the Middle East. I don't know what they're dropping, but I know that Napalm is cheap, effective, and solves a multitude of problems. I have absolutely no problem with putting them on the fast track to their 72 virgins. Any collateral damage among the Christian population pretty much guarantees them a harp and a fluffy cloud. Everyone gets to meet the imaginary friend of their understanding. I'm not seeing a down side here... -SD- The USA lost in Vietnam, it cut and run in Iraq and it is cutting and running in Afghanistan, along with lapdog Britain. Having the ability to bomb someone into the stoneage doesn't appear to be a very effective strategy, it has failed time and time again to solve perceived problem regarding vested interests. It is just an expensive way to waste national wealth and resources. With what the USA has spent on bombing people back into the stoneage, the USA could have had a healthcare system free at use that could have been the envy of the world. Having the ability and the will to do something are 2 completely different things. The US has the ability, but lacks the will. Instead of exercising our will in war, the U.S. has foolishly chosen to make wars political statements. In the latter part of the Vietnam war and every "war" since, America has abandoned sound military tactics in order to curry favor on the world stage. Obama-&-Co. will not exercise the will to display any kind of military strength. We could also have a healthcare system free to all citizens if we stopped running this nation like a nanny state. If we just stopped paying for long-term unemployment and extending welfare benefits to deadbeats and baby factories, and just shot everyone convicted of any crime that carries a sentence of more than 20 years or life, we could probably have that healthcare system. If we don't want criminals in society then let's just get rid of them and save everyone a lot of aggravation. I'll pay for the first 10,000 rounds myself if that means free healthcare. What I am unwilling to do though is sacrifice the countries sovereignty and security so people can have free shit. That's probably just me though... -SD-

SadistDave -> RE: Another Arab-Muslim country bombed by a western country. (1/16/2013 7:43:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: SadistDave I sincerely hope they bomb Mali back into the Stone Age, then start on the rest of the Middle East. The problem with the Taliban is that you dont bomb them BACK to the stone age. To get those people up to the level of neolithic culture would require lots of foreign aid. Excellent point. -SD-

meatcleaver -> RE: Another Arab-Muslim country bombed by a western country. (1/16/2013 8:07:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SadistDave Having the ability and the will to do something are 2 completely different things. The US has the ability, but lacks the will. They might be two different things but you need both. Will is as important as ability, that is why history is littered with small powers unexpectedly defeating larger powers. quote: ORIGINAL: SadistDave In the latter part of the Vietnam war and every "war" since, America has abandoned sound military tactics in order to curry favor on the world stage. The Vietnam war was a stupid war to fight in the first place. The British prime minister at the time told Johnson Vietnam was a colonial war and not a war against communism, which is why he refused to send British troops. There was always going to be one winner. Fortunately for Britain they had a social democratic prime Minister at the time and not a Conservative one.

Moonhead -> RE: Another Arab-Muslim country bombed by a western country. (1/16/2013 8:43:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SadistDave America has abandoned sound military tactics in order to curry favor on the world stage. Which obviously worked brilliantly over the invasion of Iraq. You guys curried so much favour with that one the Congress now comes with free prawn crackers. [;)] (I mean: WTF? Where on earth did you get that notion from? I can't think of a single military intervention your country's been involved in since the '70s that wasn't a PR disaster. You didn't even come out of the ugliness in the former Yugoslavia looking all that good, did you?)

SadistDave -> RE: Another Arab-Muslim country bombed by a western country. (1/18/2013 12:45:28 AM)
You're absolutely right. The P.R. of our wars has been a disaster. Which is actually my point in a roundabout kind of way. I was trying not to write one of my usual long winded posts. My point obviously wasn't as clear as it could have been... The Armed Forces of any nation make poor political tools, and when they are used as such they make poor military tools. America has the ability (notice I said ability, not desire or will ) to win a conventional war against any country on the planet. Russia is no longer a real threat like they were 50 years ago, and China is the only other super power left. China would be a tough ground war, but their Navy and Air Forces are laughable. I mention them only to illustrate a point, which is that we are dicking around in back-water-shit-holes like Iraq and Afghanistan and playing idiotic political games instead of simply using our military might and getting the job done. We get involved in these alleged wars, then do everything imaginable to not upset the locals. Look at Afghanistan. Soldiers have severely limited rules of engagement which include ridiculous restrictions on actual combat. (I'm not sure if this is still S.O.P., but for a while it was so bad that our soldiers could watch people lay out I.E.D.s, but were not allowed to fire on them.) Our soldiers in Afghanistan are required to follow special protocols in order to appease local authorities. Soldiers have been punished for stupid things like peeing on Korans and being disrespectful of Muhammad. Afghanistan is our special feel-good war. The world is on an information overload. News from wars gets publicized within hours, and is instantly analyzed by the talking heads, politicized, and dumped on the public in short order. Public opinion is expressed, causing the President and Generals here at home start making policy changes based on their perceptions of public opinion. The purpose of an army is to either attack and defeat the enemy, or to defend and defeat the enemy. Armies are designed for the express purpose of killing people. Having the military shackled to public opinion is making it a political tool, and that doesn't ever work out well. The medias involvement in war didn't really happen until Vietnam, but can you imagine what Europe would be like right now if Hitler had started his Blitzkrieg with the same sort of instant opinion news we have now? America would probably not have even gotten involved in Europe in WW2, because of the way that nasty bully Churchill was bombing civilians. Oh sure, Hitler was bombing people civilians too, but that would have been overlooked because the poor man was fighting on two fronts. All of you European bullies were trying to destroy Germany just because Hitler wanted to liberate Poland and France. With everyone picking on Germany like that, what was poor old Hitler to do? Under that kind of stress it was probably very hard for him to make sure all of those buzzbombs were pointed at military targets. That may sound far fetched to you, but look at the modern liberal medias love of Islam. Progressives want gay rights, and legalizing drugs, recreational sex, and all sorts of shit that Islam is against. In many Muslim countries, being gay or taking recreational drugs or having sex out of wedlock will get you beheaded if you're lucky. If you're not lucky, you'll be stoned, pressed, or beaten to death. But the left loves Islam, because Islam is soooooo understanding and peaceful. If you think for an instant that the modern American media would have backed Churchill in WW2, then you just aren't paying attention... If the progressive American media would stop demonizing our soldiers in Afghanistan over stupid things like pissing on books, the military would be able to go about the business of making war. If our military were allowed to go about the business of making war, this conflict, like many, many others, would have been over quickly, and efficiently with a minimum of American lives lost. -SD-

meatcleaver -> RE: Another Arab-Muslim country bombed by a western country. (1/18/2013 3:19:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SadistDave America has the ability (notice I said ability, not desire or will ) to win a conventional war against any country on the planet. Russia is no longer a real threat like they were 50 years ago, and China is the only other super power left. China would be a tough ground war, but their Navy and Air Forces are laughable. I mention them only to illustrate a point, which is that we are dicking around in back-water-shit-holes like Iraq and Afghanistan and playing idiotic political games instead of simply using our military might and getting the job done. But this is nonsense because as Karl von Clauswitz said, “War is nothing more than the continuation of politics by other means.”. If war doesn't produce the political ends you want, the war is lost, even if you have militarily won. This was the folly of Vietnam, what the hell did the USA expect to do with a country in which their allies were totally and utterly corrupt and their enemy was willing to sacrifice their last man to make sure any US victory was a pyric one. It was actually the USA's communist paranoia that made it blind. The ability to blast everyone to glass and Russia and China have the ability to do that to anyone on the planet just as the USA has, is rather pointless if political aims aren't gained. All a country is doing is throwing good money after bad and US military interventions post WWII have been throwing good money after bad. The problem is the USA has a bloated industrial military complex and the pressure is on to use it, even use it stupidly which has been the case post WWII. The USA won't be the first or the last empire to sink under the burden of its bloated military. China doesn't actually need a navy, it can get almost all the resources it wants overland so it only needs to defend its coastal waters. When you consider China is prefered as partners by most developing countries than western countries, China doesn't have a huge problem and China seems smart enough to stay out of military adventures.

Moonhead -> RE: Another Arab-Muslim country bombed by a western country. (1/18/2013 4:53:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SadistDave America has the ability (notice I said ability, not desire or will ) to win a conventional war against any country on the planet. Russia is no longer a real threat like they were 50 years ago, and China is the only other super power left. China would be a tough ground war, but their Navy and Air Forces are laughable. It's very easy to make this kind of statement, and impossible to test it. Remember that Hitler thought the Russian armed forces were a pathetic joke, yet they are the only reason he didn't win the second world war. Until such time as your supposition about China's military inferiority is tested, your assumption here barely even qualifies as a speculation. While you're talking about the Russians no longer being the military power they were fifty years ago when they still controlled the soviet union, you're forgetting that your own country is no longer the military and economic power it was under Kennedy and Johnson. It isn't just Russia that has had its wings clipped over the last half century.

Politesub53 -> RE: Another Arab-Muslim country bombed by a western country. (1/18/2013 7:45:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri The ability to bomb someone back into the stone age isn't effective unless that someone actually thinks we'll do it. With the media the way they have been during 'Nam and since, we aren't likely to do that without absolutely no other choice. Had we bombed al Qaeda back to the stone age in the mountains of Afghanistan, how likely would it be that we'd still be there, or in Iraq? There's no way we'd still be over there. And, we could use out status to prevent a lot of other stuff, too. It's the whole, "speak softly and carry a big stick" thing. We're barking like chihuahua's and carrying a toothpick now. You need to check just how many bombs the US dropped in those same mountains. It is impossible to do as you say bomb your enemies into the stone age, without pissing off the locals. If you had turned Iraq to glass, it would have made GWBs claim of liberating the Iraqi peiple ( Like thats happened ) look pretty fucking stupid, no ? Much of Americas policy is based on American interests, so bombing shit out of those you intend to trade with isnt exactly sensible.

Politesub53 -> RE: Another Arab-Muslim country bombed by a western country. (1/18/2013 7:52:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SadistDave I'm not seeing a down side here... -SD- And as per usual, there lies your problem. Do you not read global news articles ?

Politesub53 -> RE: Another Arab-Muslim country bombed by a western country. (1/18/2013 8:07:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 90% of the problems in Africa and the Middle East stem from the end of the colonial Era and WW1, so you are right, the west, specifically the European countries, created the fucking problems. I will also say that there is nothing anyone can do to solve the problems, these people are going to keep trying to kill each other off, so I say we let em. It is all very cosy living under this notion, but it fails to look at history as a whole. This is somethingi see a lot of from my colonial cousins on the boards. [8D] You could probably get away with blaming Israels problems on the west, neatly overlooking the stances of both Palestinian and Israeli hardliners. the middle east as a whole, is an entirely different ball game. The bigger picture to peace in the area is caused by the Sunni/Shia split. A quick look at who is allied with who, explains it all rather neatly. The Bush administration had no clue as to what tensions were in the area, GWB didnt even know there were two Muslim faiths in Iraq either. Iran, for historical reasons, became an enemy of America and the West, yet AQ was and still is, backed by the very nations we call our friends. Saudi and the other oil rich nations. Africa, is and always has been tribal, a fact which Europeans exploited, but it is foolish to suggest all was well before we ever arrived on the scene. A read of the Zulu Empire quickly points that out. Afghanistan is tribal, with blood feuds going back a thousand years, suddenly making these countries into a western style democracy is almost impossible in the short term.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Another Arab-Muslim country bombed by a western country. (1/18/2013 8:08:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri The ability to bomb someone back into the stone age isn't effective unless that someone actually thinks we'll do it. With the media the way they have been during 'Nam and since, we aren't likely to do that without absolutely no other choice. Had we bombed al Qaeda back to the stone age in the mountains of Afghanistan, how likely would it be that we'd still be there, or in Iraq? There's no way we'd still be over there. And, we could use out status to prevent a lot of other stuff, too. It's the whole, "speak softly and carry a big stick" thing. We're barking like chihuahua's and carrying a toothpick now. You need to check just how many bombs the US dropped in those same mountains. It is impossible to do as you say bomb your enemies into the stone age, without pissing off the locals. If you had turned Iraq to glass, it would have made GWBs claim of liberating the Iraqi peiple ( Like thats happened ) look pretty fucking stupid, no ? Much of Americas policy is based on American interests, so bombing shit out of those you intend to trade with isnt exactly sensible. Collateral damage is one of the things that makes war so incredibly horrible. The benefits of bombing someone back to the stone age, isn't just getting rid of those you bombed, it's also in the example that you'll not take any shit. It shows that you aren't all talk and no action. "Shock and Awe," Bush said. Both were there. I was shocked and awed at how little shock and awe there was. Here is the problem I have with Afghanistan: We told the World we were going to eradicate the terrorists and that al Qaeda was a terrorist group. We also put out the warning that we were going to take down any Governments that either prevented us from doing the first, or were knowingly harboring terrorists. The Taliban refused to give up bin Laden and refused us entry to get him ourselves. We told them we were going to take them down and get bin Laden anyway. We went in and knocked them flat on their asses and started going after bin Lade and al Qaeda. Somewhere along the line, it was decided that we were also going to rebuild Afghanistan and all sorts of other shit. Our beef with the Taliban was over within a week. We deposed them and they could no longer prevent our access. That was our only beef, really. Al Qaeda was the real target. Should have bombed the Hell out of them when we had them holed up in the mountains. Would have been done and over with before we added Iraq to the mix. I, personally, don't have an issue with our having gone into Iraq. I don't think we did it for the right reasons, and, if we had, I think we'd have been able to get the UN to go with us (like in Afghanistan). Iraq was in violation of the peace treaty ending the Persian Gulf War. That right there should have been reason enough. It wasn't, simply because France and others were enjoying the under-the-table deals that flouted the oil trade sanctions placed on Iraq.

Politesub53 -> RE: Another Arab-Muslim country bombed by a western country. (1/18/2013 8:26:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Collateral damage is one of the things that makes war so incredibly horrible. The benefits of bombing someone back to the stone age, isn't just getting rid of those you bombed, it's also in the example that you'll not take any shit. It shows that you aren't all talk and no action. "Shock and Awe," Bush said. Both were there. I was shocked and awed at how little shock and awe there was. Here is the problem I have with Afghanistan: We told the World we were going to eradicate the terrorists and that al Qaeda was a terrorist group. We also put out the warning that we were going to take down any Governments that either prevented us from doing the first, or were knowingly harboring terrorists. The Taliban refused to give up bin Laden and refused us entry to get him ourselves. We told them we were going to take them down and get bin Laden anyway. We went in and knocked them flat on their asses and started going after bin Lade and al Qaeda. Somewhere along the line, it was decided that we were also going to rebuild Afghanistan and all sorts of other shit. Our beef with the Taliban was over within a week. We deposed them and they could no longer prevent our access. That was our only beef, really. Al Qaeda was the real target. Should have bombed the Hell out of them when we had them holed up in the mountains. Would have been done and over with before we added Iraq to the mix. I, personally, don't have an issue with our having gone into Iraq. I don't think we did it for the right reasons, and, if we had, I think we'd have been able to get the UN to go with us (like in Afghanistan). Iraq was in violation of the peace treaty ending the Persian Gulf War. That right there should have been reason enough. It wasn't, simply because France and others were enjoying the under-the-table deals that flouted the oil trade sanctions placed on Iraq. Wow, you looked up how many bombs the US dropped on Tora Bora already, I am impressed. This small minded notion you can bomb your way past problems is laughable, unlike Japan, Afghanistan would still exist without a capital. the warlords would still rule, as they do now. the next problem you have is how do you stop nuclear fall out drifting onto so called friendly nations ? Afghanistan is surrounded by them. You need to read how Bush was duped into allowing a lull in the Tora Bora bombing so Pakistan could send trandsport planes to collect ISI personnel. AQ and Taliban leaders were also flown to safety. The rest of the AQ/Taliban escaped because the CIA backed militias failed to plug the escape routes into Pakistan. The Afghans had negotiated a ceasefire which thwarted UK and US special forces from capturing Bin Ladens men. Rumsfeld was insistant he could win with a light footpirnt and air power alone. History has shown him to be wrong. Edited to fix quotes

WantsOfTheFlesh -> RE: Another Arab-Muslim country bombed by a western country. (1/18/2013 8:34:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead Remember that Hitler thought the Russian armed forces were a pathetic joke, yet they are the only reason he didn't win the second world war. Until such time as your supposition about China's military inferiority is tested, your assumption here barely even qualifies as a speculation. Sayin' his invasion of da USSR was da only reason for Germany's failure is an assumption. Anyhow Mr. Hitler wasn't one to let facts get in da way of his plans.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875