Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

ghost_stalker · Jan 4, 2007, 03:27 am

I think that the US tactic of trying to create little collateral damage, and trying to get the people to govern themsleves makes it almost impossible to win a war where the enemy has no traditional infrastructure, and is embedded within the people of that country.I think that if the US scrapped the precision munitions for those with a much large area of effect, and viewed all of the people it encountered as the enemy. (such as the bombs used in WWII) That we would have much less problems with these uprisings in Iraq. And it would have been much cheaper, even if we had to rebuild Iraq (except for the oil pipelines which were secured quickly and easily).

ByaKya · Jan 4, 2007, 03:39 am

Quote:

Quote by: ghost_stalker

I think that the US tactic of trying to create little collateral damage, and trying to get the people to govern themsleves makes it almost impossible to win a war where the enemy has no traditional infrastructure, and is embedded within the people of that country.I think that if the US scrapped the precision munitions for those with a much large area of effect, and viewed all of the people it encountered as the enemy. (such as the bombs used in WWII) That we would have much less problems with these uprisings in Iraq. And it would have been much cheaper, even if we had to rebuild Iraq (except for the oil pipelines which were secured quickly and easily).

Thats the spirit!

What do you call yourself? An Ultra-Neocon?
whats the motto of the ultra neocon? "if youre gonna screw up, screw up on a genocidal scale!"

PatrickHenry · Jan 4, 2007, 03:47 am

Quote:

Quote by: ghost_stalker

...I think that if the US scrapped the precision munitions for those with a much large area of effect, and viewed all of the people it encountered as the enemy. (such as the bombs used in WWII) That we would have much less problems with these uprisings in Iraq...

Presumably because everybody local would either be dead or scared shitless by a savage military onslaught?

What's wrong with deciding that the military options are a resort only after being attacked by another nation's military? Otherwise the WoT is fought using police work and extradition treaties?

ghost_stalker · Jan 4, 2007, 03:52 am

The way we are fighting the war now isn't very effective. Scared shitless would mean there wouldn't be any insurgency. And I would rather have it that their guys get killed besides ours.

PatrickHenry · Jan 4, 2007, 03:57 am

Quote:

Quote by: ghost_stalker

The way we are fighting the war now isn't very effective. Scared shitless would mean there wouldn't be any insurgency. And I would rather have it that their guys get killed besides ours.

So you approve of the US endless succession of aggressive wars?

ghost_stalker · Jan 4, 2007, 04:09 am

Actually I don't approve of the war. But I believe that if we do fight we should do so in a means where a decisive victory is possible.

JohnMK · Jan 4, 2007, 04:15 am

Quote:

Quote by: ByaKya

Thats the spirit!

What do you call yourself? An Ultra-Neocon?
whats the motto of the ultra neocon? "if youre gonna screw up, screw up on a genocidal scale!"

I took his initial post as observation and not endorsement. If he had added something like "and indeed, I believe this is right and just and we should proceed in such a manner" then a post such as yours might be appropriate. As it was, he was merely presenting facts, as he saw them. I agree with the gist of his post and oppose an interventionist U.S. foreign policy.

I'd hate to be your weather man.

PatrickHenry · Jan 4, 2007, 05:51 am

I don't view US military action in foreign nations as "our" policy.

I view the actions of the Washington SuitMonsters as assaults on freedom, hypocritically promoted as being justified. They want not freedom or democracy or world peace, but rather hegemony, tyranny and windfall profits.

I think they are blood cult, who would bathe in the blood of slaughtered men, women and children, were it possible to do so. They are ghouls.

ByaKya · Jan 4, 2007, 05:57 am

Quote:

Quote by: JohnMK

I took his initial post as observation and not endorsement. If he had added something like "and indeed, I believe this is right and just and we should proceed in such a manner" then a post such as yours might be appropriate. As it was, he was merely presenting facts, as he saw them. I agree with the gist of his post and oppose an interventionist U.S. foreign policy.

I'd hate to be your weather man.

read his later post, he does indeed support this action.

Vee · Jan 4, 2007, 06:19 am

I don't agree with the war and never have and never will but to successfully attack a country, you attack its people and on that basis I agree with ghost_stalker

ByaKya · Jan 4, 2007, 06:22 am

Quote:

Quote by: Vee

I don't agree with the war and never have and never will but to successfully attack a country, you attack its people and on that basis I agree with ghost_stalker

i thought everyone was taught the lessons of WW2? what do they teach you kids in australia about ww2? that its something we should strive towards?

ghost_stalker · Jan 4, 2007, 07:18 am

So what you are essentially saying that the way we are fighting this war is the right way? Would you rather have our soldiers dead than their people? You fight the people not the country. By not targeting the people as our enemies we leave ourselves this mess that we have now.

If the US was invaded and the invader attacked only our military do you not think that the people would defend the country? Even those of us that do not like the way our country is governed would fight. And you are stupid to say that any other people lack this.

ByaKya · Jan 4, 2007, 07:34 am

Quote:

Quote by: ghost_stalker

So what you are essentially saying that the way we are fighting this war is the right way? Would you rather have our soldiers dead than their people? You fight the people not the country. By not targeting the people as our enemies we leave ourselves this mess that we have now.

If the US was invaded and the invader attacked only our military do you not think that the people would defend the country? Even those of us that do not like the way our country is governed would fight. And you are stupid to say that any other people lack this.

i would rather the US troops defend US territory. how about you?
going 2,000 miles around the world and killing people is honorable? or does it simply contribute to the misery of our planet?

ghost_stalker · Jan 4, 2007, 07:38 am

As I stated in an earlier post, I do not think we should be in this war. But I do however believe that if we must carry on with it we should do it the right way.

ByaKya · Jan 4, 2007, 07:46 am

There is no right way, dont put yourself in a situation where you have a choice of killing "some" or "most" of the iraqis.
Fight going to war from the beginning and keep fighting it, and fight to bring our troops home, not encouraging a mass bombing campaign in a place where we now know we had no reason to go to.

Does it matter to you that we found no WMD or al qaeda in iraq like bush said? and youre still OK with mass killing iraqis even though our reasons for going there turned out to be lies? do you have a conscience?

pahl · Jan 4, 2007, 07:49 am

If this was a war against a leader with a military, then maybe it could be won by military. But its not, its against civilans. And the more civilians you kill, the more enemies you will get (everyone is someones friend, father, brother). Unless you kill all civilians (and dont forget the kids, cause they'll want revenge when they grow up). But killing everybody will only create more enemies from other surronding countries, untill you end up fighting the whole world.

ByaKya · Jan 4, 2007, 07:51 am

Quote:

Quote by: pahl

untill you end up fighting the whole world.

pahl dont give these people any ideas.
Pretty soon theyll come up with scenarios like "if we went to war with the whole world, wouldnt you rather the US nuke the whole world so we can be safe?"

ghost_stalker · Jan 4, 2007, 07:57 am

If we are using a strategy for the war that is going to prolong the war (perhaps indefinitely until we pull out) then we should pull out tomorrow for all the good it will do us. (I think we should pull out anyways btw) Everybody already know that we went in under false pretenses. If we are going to pull out do it now, and spare the thousands of lives that we are risking there. If we are going to fight, we should stop messing around and get the job done. It is a war, people are going to die. I would rather it be their people than out soldiers. If their people (sheeple?) wanted to stop these 'insurgents' then they would have taken some kind of action by now. We should stop trying to pick out the 'good ones' from the 'bad ones' and use the force that is necessary to scare them shitless and stop this mess.

ByaKya · Jan 4, 2007, 08:00 am

Quote:

Quote by: ghost_stalker

and stop this mess.

you wont stop a mess, youll only create one.
once again, remove yourself from this "position" you have placed yourself in.
You are talking like a war monger, ghengis khan would be proud of you, george washington wouldnt.

ghost_stalker · Jan 4, 2007, 08:03 am

So if you had to fight, you would rather we drag it out eventually pulling out leaving the country in shatters, and increasing the cost of this war 2 or 3 fold. Instead of putting and end to it quickly?

Jan 4, 2007, 03:27 am	#1 (permalink) (top)
ghost_stalker Igneous Magma Location: Aurora, Co Posts: 353	Why we can't win our wars I think that the US tactic of trying to create little collateral damage, and trying to get the people to govern themsleves makes it almost impossible to win a war where the enemy has no traditional infrastructure, and is embedded within the people of that country.I think that if the US scrapped the precision munitions for those with a much large area of effect, and viewed all of the people it encountered as the enemy. (such as the bombs used in WWII) That we would have much less problems with these uprisings in Iraq. And it would have been much cheaper, even if we had to rebuild Iraq (except for the oil pipelines which were secured quickly and easily).

Jan 4, 2007, 05:51 am	#8 (permalink) (top)
PatrickHenry 9/11: Inside Job Location: Hawai'i, Big Island Posts: 10,437	I don't view US military action in foreign nations as "our" policy. I view the actions of the Washington SuitMonsters as assaults on freedom, hypocritically promoted as being justified. They want not freedom or democracy or world peace, but rather hegemony, tyranny and windfall profits. I think they are blood cult, who would bathe in the blood of slaughtered men, women and children, were it possible to do so. They are ghouls. "Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." -- John Adams

Jan 4, 2007, 06:19 am	#10 (permalink) (top)
Vee Igneous Magma Posts: 353	I don't agree with the war and never have and never will but to successfully attack a country, you attack its people and on that basis I agree with ghost_stalker Australian Parliamentary Simulator Aussies: Welcome to the Rudd Regime Yanks: Welcome to Hell Now Purgatory. Others: G'day mate.

Jan 4, 2007, 03:52 am	#4 (permalink) (top)
ghost_stalker Igneous Magma Location: Aurora, Co Posts: 353	The way we are fighting the war now isn't very effective. Scared shitless would mean there wouldn't be any insurgency. And I would rather have it that their guys get killed besides ours.

Jan 4, 2007, 04:09 am	#6 (permalink) (top)
ghost_stalker Igneous Magma Location: Aurora, Co Posts: 353	Actually I don't approve of the war. But I believe that if we do fight we should do so in a means where a decisive victory is possible.

Jan 4, 2007, 07:18 am	#12 (permalink) (top)
ghost_stalker Igneous Magma Location: Aurora, Co Posts: 353	So what you are essentially saying that the way we are fighting this war is the right way? Would you rather have our soldiers dead than their people? You fight the people not the country. By not targeting the people as our enemies we leave ourselves this mess that we have now. If the US was invaded and the invader attacked only our military do you not think that the people would defend the country? Even those of us that do not like the way our country is governed would fight. And you are stupid to say that any other people lack this.

Jan 4, 2007, 07:38 am	#14 (permalink) (top)
ghost_stalker Igneous Magma Location: Aurora, Co Posts: 353	As I stated in an earlier post, I do not think we should be in this war. But I do however believe that if we must carry on with it we should do it the right way.

Jan 4, 2007, 07:46 am	#15 (permalink) (top)
ByaKya BANNED Posts: 1,372	There is no right way, dont put yourself in a situation where you have a choice of killing "some" or "most" of the iraqis. Fight going to war from the beginning and keep fighting it, and fight to bring our troops home, not encouraging a mass bombing campaign in a place where we now know we had no reason to go to. Does it matter to you that we found no WMD or al qaeda in iraq like bush said? and youre still OK with mass killing iraqis even though our reasons for going there turned out to be lies? do you have a conscience?

Jan 4, 2007, 07:49 am	#16 (permalink) (top)
pahl Igneous Magma Location: Sweden Posts: 261	If this was a war against a leader with a military, then maybe it could be won by military. But its not, its against civilans. And the more civilians you kill, the more enemies you will get (everyone is someones friend, father, brother). Unless you kill all civilians (and dont forget the kids, cause they'll want revenge when they grow up). But killing everybody will only create more enemies from other surronding countries, untill you end up fighting the whole world.

Jan 4, 2007, 07:57 am	#18 (permalink) (top)
ghost_stalker Igneous Magma Location: Aurora, Co Posts: 353	If we are using a strategy for the war that is going to prolong the war (perhaps indefinitely until we pull out) then we should pull out tomorrow for all the good it will do us. (I think we should pull out anyways btw) Everybody already know that we went in under false pretenses. If we are going to pull out do it now, and spare the thousands of lives that we are risking there. If we are going to fight, we should stop messing around and get the job done. It is a war, people are going to die. I would rather it be their people than out soldiers. If their people (sheeple?) wanted to stop these 'insurgents' then they would have taken some kind of action by now. We should stop trying to pick out the 'good ones' from the 'bad ones' and use the force that is necessary to scare them shitless and stop this mess.

Jan 4, 2007, 08:03 am	#20 (permalink) (top)
ghost_stalker Igneous Magma Location: Aurora, Co Posts: 353	So if you had to fight, you would rather we drag it out eventually pulling out leaving the country in shatters, and increasing the cost of this war 2 or 3 fold. Instead of putting and end to it quickly?