It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

You can't win a war when you're the only ones playing by the rules...

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2004 @ 03:19 PM
link   
America is learning that now. America is attempting to keep a squeaky clean image while participating in one of the dirtiest actions humans participate in (war).

America is trying to apply constitutional rights to prisoners held overseas and is trying to be fair to prisoners overseas in a time of war. America is trying so hard to not kill civilians that they are missing potential momentum turning targets (See Bill Clinton's failure to go after Osama when it was almost a guaranteed capture because of collateral damage fears.

It is time to take the gloves off. You can't fight and win a war when you're the only one fighting by the rules. America is fighting a desperate and cornered people who aren't bound by any Geneva conventions or treaties or rules of war. America is fighting a people that don't care how or who they kill as long as they kill someone. When will America learn that the only way to defeat ruthless savages is to become a ruthless savage?

If someone is caught shooting at Humvees and then running away - don't jail him. Publicly execute him.

If Osama Bin Laden is known to be inside a civilian house - tough luck. Take out the house.

If 200 rebels are holed up in a Mosque - poor mosque. Obliterate it.

If extremists execute an American prisoner on tape - execute an extremist prisoner on live TV.

General MacArthur is probably spinning in his grave right about now.

The US is in Iraq now. You don't go into a fight swinging one arm while the other person is kicking and punching. Once you've resorted to fist fighting, use every part of your body to win that fight. The US can't just leave - if they do, their world statues would be greatly weakened. North Korea would no longer respect and fear the US, nor would Iran, Syria, etc. The only thing to do is go all out.




posted on May, 14 2004 @ 03:24 PM
link   
You are the greatest, Cutwolf!!!

This is exactly what I've been saying. The problem with the U.S. has always been that they don't know what war is. War is about survival and if you want to survive, you have to get dirty and win at all costs. Instead, they try to find ways to incorporate economics and politics, things that are completely incompatible with war.

No wonder the U.S.'s victories are limited tactically. We are losing in the big picture because we are denying the fact this is war.

Good post.



posted on May, 14 2004 @ 03:28 PM
link   
I'm not exactly sure where this war you are talking about is at, but why stop there! Let's shoot criminals on tv in the US! Think of all of the money will save by not needing courts anymore!

EDIT: Or, we could attack another unarmed country under false pretenses and then bring in civilians to order our military to toture wrongly imprisoned civilians. That would show we are really getting serious about getting Bin Laden!

[Edited on 14-5-2004 by curme]



posted on May, 14 2004 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Yeah, time for the gloves to come off.

Not enough of the world thinks that the USA is arrogant and violent and stupid and ignorant.

Maybe you need to prove it, and this is the perfect way.


Murderers and cowards.

You started the war and now that it's not going well, you complain you need to get tougher.

It still won't work. You're fighting against people who are defending their homes and are more than willing to die for their country. You can't win against that kind of enemy.

Because nobody ever has.

Why not just move directly to Fascism, it'll take a load off your mind to have your government OFFICIALLY do all the thinking for you.



posted on May, 14 2004 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Ok, Cutwolf. I would normally agree, but this is just what happens when conventional forces take on irregulars. I think you have deliberately pulled some variables out of the equation. When we bomb civilians, people get pissed. Not only people at home, but our allies as well. And not only our allies, but our enemies. You realize that the extremists have a potential pool of nearly a billion men of fighting age from which to recruit, right? And the majority of them are living in abject poverty and have little else to live for save honor and praise of their people and the benevolence of their chosen diety. It doesn't matter if they are right. It doesn't matter if there even is an Allah. It only matters that they believe it. The more we destroy, the more we'll have coming at us. And the trouble with irregular forces is that you can't distinguish the malignant from the benign.

And then, where would you go next? Syria? Iran? Lebanon? Egypt? Libya? If we went your route, we wouldn't be able to stop with Iraq and still be able to maintain our security. If you whack the hornets nest with a stick, you better be near water and be able to hold your breath for a long, long time.

SweatmonicaIdo: How much money you got? Hmmm....? Are you willing to float the bill for these actions. In case you haven't noticed, the variable of economy on war is one that cannot just be dropped from the equation as you have. This war has cost hundreds of billions, and we're not done yet. Bush promised he wouldn't ask for any more money before the election, and what does he do? He asks for more money before the election.

Again, normally I would agree with you. The only way to wage war is to do it with extreme speed and violence of action. Secure a decisive victory and exfil. That's it. What you are seeing right now is how it is not supposed to be done. Armies are not capable of building nations. They are not capable of securing democracy. They are not capable of making people free. The only ones that can make Iraq free are the Iraqis. And apparently, they aren't ready for that, or they'd be out there fighting the insurgents right along side us.



posted on May, 14 2004 @ 04:37 PM
link   

I'm not exactly sure where this war you are talking about is at, but why stop there! Let's shoot criminals on tv in the US! Think of all of the money will save by not needing courts anymore!


There is a difference - the people held in Iraq are NOT American citizens and thus the constitution does not apply to them.


EDIT: Or, we could attack another unarmed country under false pretenses and then bring in civilians to order our military to toture wrongly imprisoned civilians. That would show we are really getting serious about getting Bin Laden!


Like I said, I don't agree with this war in the first place, but the fact is we are there. We can't limit ourselves against enemies with no limits or else we will lose.



Yeah, time for the gloves to come off.

Not enough of the world thinks that the USA is arrogant and violent and stupid and ignorant.

Maybe you need to prove it, and this is the perfect way.


The countries and people that think the US is arrogant are not going to change their mind. Period. A lot of the hatred of the US is due to its power and freedoms. It is jealousy, and nothing is going to change that.


Ok, Cutwolf. I would normally agree, but this is just what happens when conventional forces take on irregulars. I think you have deliberately pulled some variables out of the equation. When we bomb civilians, people get pissed. Not only people at home, but our allies as well. And not only our allies, but our enemies. You realize that the extremists have a potential pool of nearly a billion men of fighting age from which to recruit, right? And the majority of them are living in abject poverty and have little else to live for save honor and praise of their people and the benevolence of their chosen diety. It doesn't matter if they are right. It doesn't matter if there even is an Allah. It only matters that they believe it. The more we destroy, the more we'll have coming at us. And the trouble with irregular forces is that you can't distinguish the malignant from the benign.



Anger our allies? What allies? I think it is hard to argue that the British government will go a long with whatever decision the US makes and they are basically are only major military ally in Iraq. And the enemy hates us and will always hate us, regardless of how we fight. Of those billion "recruits" there is only a small number that would actually come to Iraq and fight for something that is not directly affecting them.


And then, where would you go next? Syria? Iran? Lebanon? Egypt? Libya? If we went your route, we wouldn't be able to stop with Iraq and still be able to maintain our security. If you whack the hornets nest with a stick, you better be near water and be able to hold your breath for a long, long time.


Why is that? If we crush any resistance in Iraq not only will we accomplish our goals and win the war, we will send out a message of "See what happened? Don't slip up or you're next!" It would not only be military warfare but psychological warfare for the rest of the world.

I understand the need for the rules of war and the Geneva convention and all that, but why should we be the only country attempting to follow those rules? In a war between the lawful and the lawless, the lawless have the advantage.



posted on May, 14 2004 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cutwolf
I understand the need for the rules of war and the Geneva convention and all that, but why should we be the only country attempting to follow those rules? In a war between the lawful and the lawless, the lawless have the advantage.
We (try to) follow these rules because we are better than them. Why reduce ourselves to the level of what seems savage? I assure you that when in combat, we kill, maim, and destroy better than anyone. You seem to forget... WE GOT THE BOMBS!

I just wish we didn't have the problem we're having with target ID.



posted on May, 14 2004 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Don't you think that the manner in which the war is fought is more important than a quick victory?

Without simplifying too much, if you embrace lawlessness to combat lawlessness, then you are as bad as they are.

If your cause is just, Cutwolf, then apply yourselves to the battle with nobility and courage. If your cause is unjust, then you shouldn't be there in the first place and ultimate, lasting victory will be impossible.

For crying out loud, we're supposed to be the Civilised World!



posted on May, 14 2004 @ 04:47 PM
link   

We (try to) follow these rules because we are better than them. Why reduce ourselves to the level of what seems savage? I assure you that when in combat, we kill, maim, and destroy better than anyone. You seem to forget... WE GOT THE BOMBS!

I just wish we didn't have the problem we're having with target ID.


Why reduce ourselves to that level? Because as long as we continue playing by the rules and being nice, the insurgents will continue to gain strength. Sure, in battle we kill better than anyone, but you forget that to the Iraqis, 1 dead american is a victory. And yes, we have the bomb, but what is the point of the bomb without being able to use it out of fear of collateral damage? Its war, there is going to be collateral damage. Trying to limit it so much that ithinders your objective is stupid, in my opinion.



Don't you think that the manner in which the war is fought is more important than a quick victory?


If the manner in which a war is fought is going to lead to a loss rather than a quick victory than...

Victory is the most important thing in a war.


Without simplifying too much, if you embrace lawlessness to combat lawlessness, then you are as bad as they are.


I find it ironic that we can even throw around the terms "good" and "bad" when talking about war. America should fight by the rules as long as the other side is fighting by the rules. If the enemy is doing something that is working, yet we can't do it back to them because of "morals" even though it may win the war, than we might as well surrender now.


If your cause is just, Cutwolf, then apply yourselves to the battle with nobility and courage. If your cause is unjust, then you shouldn't be there in the first place and ultimate, lasting victory will be impossible.


What about an unjust cause without the ability to withdraw due to world stability? The US withdrawing would lead to mass chaos and the world saying "Hey, if Iraq could do it, so can we!" The US would lose its pull in the world.


For crying out loud, we're supposed to be the Civilised World!


You really believe that? Why are we at war period, if that is true?



[Edited on 14-5-2004 by Cutwolf]

[Edited on 14-5-2004 by Cutwolf]



posted on May, 14 2004 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Cutwolf, what you describe would literally set off another world war. This war is already seen incredibly negatively by most of the world and many people in the United States as it is. If the U.S. had no cover story for what they really did, the U.S. would right now be facing trade embargoes which would cripple it and cause the U.S. to attack even more countries in desperation. Setting off the next world war. Which would likely be a nuclear war.

The world, and many of the U.S. constituency, isn't about to watch this happen and not object to it.

This "enemy" that the U.S. is fighting has been so vague and come up so short in what actually is real regarding the threat, that to continue to act like there is something the U.S. must wildly defend itself against is a preposterous notion in the first place. Everybody in the world can see it save for many war hungry people such as yourself.



posted on May, 14 2004 @ 05:01 PM
link   
The thing that really troubles me about this war is that it was predicated on lies. I agree with the war, but it couldn't have been more poorly timed, planned, or executed. And it was all because Bush had to rush in like a fool. He had to pin something on Hussein in order to go into Iraq as quickly as possible, completely forgetting that he would have at least three factions to contend with instead of one after he took Saddams guard. He couldn't forsee that with such porous borders, unguardable, would lead to a massive influx of insurgent irregulars.

I really wish we could execute this war the way was meant to be executed. But without the proper justification, any collateral damage is indefensible, and any death of an American soldier or civilian is indefensible. Everything about this war is unjustified.

Actually, I think it was just part of a larger plan. I think the idea was to take down Iraq easily, and then set up a base of operations for the region from which to launch continued operations in other target countries. Conveniently, there is an ample supply of refined fuel right there for our planes, tanks, and equipment. Then Israel would find or fabricate evidence against Iran, swoop down and take them out. Leapfrog the Middle East, you know.

It's all about PNAC.



posted on May, 14 2004 @ 05:02 PM
link   
I'm not saying go bomb random things and kill random people or bomb houses/mosques that are only "suspected" of being an insurgent haven. What I am saying is if someone is if 200 people are shooting at you from a Mosque and you're sure it's from that mosque, don't retreat because you don't want to blow up the mosque. You have the right to defend yourself in any way possible.

If someone is shooting at you, don't arrest him, kill him.

When defending itself and protecting its troops, the US has the right to use any means necessary.



posted on May, 14 2004 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Well I think that when our troops get shot at, they shoot back. People are only arrested when the surrender and put their weapons down, a soldier will not hesitate to kill someone who is trying to kill him.

The problem comes when they are not shooting at you, and they take refuge in a mosque. When its not clear who is the enemy and who is just a bystander. We have made it our objective to democratize the country, and to intsill in people a sense of freindship with our county in order to further a larger strategy in the region. We can kill them, and we can push them into submision, but that will only make it harder for us to operate, and that will not be victory under the objectives that we have set for this mission.



posted on May, 14 2004 @ 05:49 PM
link   
okay, let's say the USA uses your theory, I dunno bout u guys nothing would make me want to throw a gernade into a humvee or mortar a hospital with americans in it, or gun down a group of foreigners in the back then to see my country men getting executed on live TV, prisoners getting tortured and executed right in my town, my religious buildings getting obliterated, etc...



posted on May, 14 2004 @ 05:53 PM
link   
hmm, but as far as I recall America brought this all on by themselves. Why do you think there is such a strong oppossition to the Coalition forces in Iraq, we seem to blame Al-Sadr and paint him as some sort of life hating monster. However could it not be that it all started with the shutting down of his news broadcasts (not very democratic by the way) then arresting his communications officer and stopping peacefull protests. This is when Al-Sadr said that his people should seek (other means), he did not say to attack the Coalition forces. Then to top it all off his supporters were attacked by the newly formed Iraqi forces, as well as being ambushed by tanks and other methods of coalition force (this was when they decided to retaliate). Note however that Muslims believe in defending themselves when necessary, and as far as I see it opression and violence is a definate call to arms. Of course you could just simply listen to what your media and government want you to believe that they are all mad terrorists bent on exterminating the west.

(Note this is not factual, this is simply thinking outside the box, remember that no war is one sided.)

[Edited on 14-5-2004 by daeldren]



posted on May, 14 2004 @ 06:25 PM
link   

okay, let's say the USA uses your theory, I dunno bout u guys nothing would make me want to throw a gernade into a humvee or mortar a hospital with americans in it, or gun down a group of foreigners in the back then to see my country men getting executed on live TV, prisoners getting tortured and executed right in my town, my religious buildings getting obliterated, etc...


Whats the difference? They're doing it and are going to continue to do it regardless of how we treat them.



posted on May, 14 2004 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cutwolf

okay, let's say the USA uses your theory, I dunno bout u guys nothing would make me want to throw a gernade into a humvee or mortar a hospital with americans in it, or gun down a group of foreigners in the back then to see my country men getting executed on live TV, prisoners getting tortured and executed right in my town, my religious buildings getting obliterated, etc...


Whats the difference? They're doing it and are going to continue to do it regardless of how we treat them.


Well, it'd make the USA look even more sadistic and cruel, plus even more fanatical people will join the rebel cause.



posted on May, 15 2004 @ 01:11 AM
link   
Cutwolf, so true!..to defeat a savage, you have to become a savage. Good post!


Q

posted on May, 15 2004 @ 01:52 AM
link   
No one cares how noble or fair you are when you're dead.
Marquis of Queensbury rules do not apply here...



posted on May, 15 2004 @ 10:13 AM
link   
war is N O T a gentle game !

i really feel bad everytime in the news i see footage about:
-making a deal with a (self declared) W A R L O R D !
-negociating with holy men and warlords.
-giving money and support to warlords.

by jeminee !!

do not do such things with criminal bandits,whom self declare themselve as kinda ruler over their people !

they are the bad guys too ! they just be "nice" till ripp off occured and than these two-faced good for nothing turns sour in joining the other side.

looking upon sheriff bills to the general public death or alive... i would say:identify,aim and fire = one piece of the problem gone.
the less warlords running around the less risques that americans are killed.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join