Donald Trump now advocating War Crimes to deal with ISIS.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76
It also didn't work for the Russians in Afghanistan.

I can see Trump being ok with targeting children the way the Russians were, sure.

It would have if we hadn't interfered by simultaneously bankrupting the USSR and arming the Muj with advanced weaponry. They killed a million people in a country with 10 million people. They were heading towards victory of one stripe or another.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
It would have if we hadn't interfered by simultaneously bankrupting the USSR and arming the Muj with advanced weaponry. They killed a million people in a country with 10 million people. They were heading towards victory of one stripe or another.
We certainly helped, but as the Brits discovered, in Afghanistan you have to kill 10 million out of 10 million to win.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
If we ended up in an all out war where our nation's existence were threatened, I wonder if we (Americans) would have the wherewithal needed to fight it.

General: "We need to bomb out these ammunition and tank factories that are behind enemy lines."

Advisor from President SJW: "But if we do that we run the risk of harming innocent civilians."

General: "You're right, as usual. All of this fighting causes too much collateral damage and kills too many innocent civilians. We'll just drop pink and green boxes of chocolates and Valentines on the enemy's factories instead. We will get them to love us."
 

JTsyo

Lifer
Nov 18, 2007
11,743
892
126
Isn't a good percent of ISIS soldiers from other countries than Syria and Iraq? Is Trump's plan to bomb their families internationally? Or maybe he's talking about the girls that were forced into marriage by ISIS.
 

Subyman

Moderator <br> VC&G Forum
Mar 18, 2005
7,876
32
86
If we ended up in an all out war where our nation's existence were threatened, I wonder if we (Americans) would have the wherewithal needed to fight it.

Yes, if it were life and death, we'd have to do something like we did with Dresden. It isn't though. Not even close. We are talking about using unmanned drones to drop $30k bombs on families in mud huts. We are fighting idiots with small arms and pipe bombs. Lets not call for genocide quite yet. :thumbsup:

The threat to America's existence by ISIS is zero.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
I love that Trump is making the Republicans looks like the douchebags they are. But god help us if he actually has a shot at the White House.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
27,529
37,070
136
It would have if we hadn't interfered by simultaneously bankrupting the USSR and arming the Muj with advanced weaponry.

Debatable. The Soviet Union and it's military were already in kinda lousy shape by the time we started giving the muj Stingers and heavy duty mortars. Afghanistan has a history of resisting invaders no matter the cost, and I believe this resolve would have eventually outlasted their brutal invader, who was running out of both capital and options. The muj didn't want food, or medicine, or trucks. They just wanted the tools they needed to kill Russians. Everything else was a secondary concern.

I'm sure you are aware that America was not the only benefactor of Afghanistan during that time as well. Saudi Arabia was a reliable source of jihadi and much like today they're happy to bankroll allies. Russia was going to lose either way, but we wanted it to happen sooner rather than later, and if we could make it an unpleasant act of revenge for their involvement in Vietnam, all the better.

In following with the dirty Russian playbook for Afghanistan, after the pullout the KGB gave us and Pakistan a parting Fuck You by killing our Ambassador and their President, al-Haq. Like poisoning wells, dropping explosive children's toys or driving T-62s over piled up muslim villagers, it didn't net anything positive for the Russians. With all the world wide condemnation, it was quite the opposite as I recall.

A valid strategy? Yes. One that always works no matter what? No.
 
Last edited:

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
27,529
37,070
136
Wasn't that bombing done by the RAF?

Correct. Bomber Harris did Dresden IIRC.

Lemay transitioned the Army AF into incendiary use over Japan, as all the wood and paper constructed housing being ignited was the best way to attack Japan's spread out production capability. They didn't like big plants like the Germans, which meant far more targets to consider if you're attacking the enemies production.
 

sm625

Diamond Member
May 6, 2011
8,172
137
106
The USA has committed more war crimes than any other country that currently exists (not counting Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia and others because those were aberrant regimes that do not exist currently with the same form of government). Since you're clearly not willing to do anything about our past history of war crimes, what is so wrong with simply embracing our inner demon and speaking openly about it? What is the difference, really? I'm not saying I approve of committing war crimes, I'm just talking about truth and facts. Why not live as we do instead of pretending we're some shining beacon of light on a frickin hill? Are you going to deny it? Are you going to pretend like a lifetime of propaganda carries more weight than the truth?
 

BxgJ

Golden Member
Jul 27, 2015
1,054
123
106
Correct. Bomber Harris did Dresden IIRC.

Lemay transitioned the Army AF into incendiary use over Japan, as all the wood and paper constructed housing being ignited was the best way to attack Japan's spread out production capability. They didn't like big plants like the Germans, which meant far more targets to consider if you're attacking the enemies production.

It's worth noting that while people bring up Dresden, the worst by far was on Tokyo, operation meetinghouse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo

The relevant section -
The US Strategic Bombing Survey later estimated that nearly 88,000 people died in this one raid, 41,000 were injured, and over a million residents lost their homes. The Tokyo Fire Department estimated a higher toll: 97,000 killed and 125,000 wounded. The Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department established a figure of 83,793 dead and 40,918 wounded and 286,358 buildings and homes destroyed.[20] Historian Richard Rhodes put deaths at over 100,000, injuries at a million and homeless residents at a million.[21] These casualty and damage figures could be low; Mark Selden wrote in Japan Focus:

The figure of roughly 100,000 deaths, provided by Japanese and American authorities, both of whom may have had reasons of their own for minimizing the death toll, seems to be arguably low in light of population density, wind conditions, and survivors' accounts. With an average of 103,000 inhabitants per square mile (396 people per hectare) and peak levels as high as 135,000 per square mile (521 people per hectare), the highest density of any industrial city in the world, and with firefighting measures ludicrously inadequate to the task, 15.8 square miles (41 km2) of Tokyo were destroyed on a night when fierce winds whipped the flames and walls of fire blocked tens of thousands fleeing for their lives. An estimated 1.5 million people lived in the burned out areas.[20]

In his 1968 book, reprinted in 1990, historian Gabriel Kolko cited a figure of 125,000 deaths.[22] Elise K. Tipton, professor of Japan studies, arrived at a rough range of 75,000 to 200,000 deaths.[23] Donald L. Miller, citing Knox Burger, stated that there were "at least 100,000" Japanese deaths and "about one million" injured.[24]

The Operation Meetinghouse firebombing of Tokyo on the night of 9 March 1945 was the single deadliest air raid of World War II,[2] greater than Dresden,[25] Hiroshima, or Nagasaki as single events.[26][27]
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
27,529
37,070
136
Yup. LeMay would wait for there to be a strong wind, then send the bombers. It's said the firestorm of Dresden made the stone and brick of streets go soft, that the air consuming vacuum pulled people out of windows and doorways into the blaze.

I read something awhile back that featured stories from bomber crews in the Pacific. One of the B-29 guys said one particular raid when they were racing to get out of the area after having dropped their bombs, they saw almost an entire house fly by, caught in the firestorm's vacuum. I believe he said they also lost another B-29 to the same hurricane of fire, just sucked right down (B-29s were a little under-powered and had cooling issues)

Can you imagine how damn big that fire was? Shit. Kind of amazing what we did to Japan.

LeMay had a reputation for being a dirty fighter, he didn't like to lose. I think he would have adopted those tactics no matter the adversary. Harris on the other hand seems to have developed quite the hatred of the hun, and had no apologies for killing German civilians.

Mr. "I do not personally regard the whole of the remaining cities of Germany as worth the bones of one British Grenadier" was called The Butcher by many of his own pilots! Germany should be very glad Harris didn't have the resources LeMay did.
 
Last edited:

xgsound

Golden Member
Jan 22, 2002
1,374
8
81
We did that in Iraq. Then what happened?

Obama took our troops out after we "won" and left a vacuum. Isis filled it. In all fairness to the left, after Russia left Afghanistan the US did nothing to fill that vacuum either and Al-Qaeda (sp?) filled it. In that case we weren't already there, but it did result in Al-Qaeda.

Jim
 

Zorkorist

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2007
6,861
3
76
I love that Trump is making the Republicans looks like the douchebags they are. But god help us if he actually has a shot at the White House.
We need a shake up.

I'm fine with President Trump.

What could he do wrong?!

-John
 

CitizenKain

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2000
4,480
14
76
Obama took our troops out after we "won" and left a vacuum. Isis filled it. In all fairness to the left, after Russia left Afghanistan the US did nothing to fill that vacuum either and Al-Qaeda (sp?) filled it. In that case we weren't already there, but it did result in Al-Qaeda.

Jim

You are aware that we were following the treaty that was signed by Bush right? You know, the person actually responsible for fucking everything up.
 

Zorkorist

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2007
6,861
3
76
He didn't fuck up shit, but rather responded, to 911

Meanwhile people like you want to say "everything is okay, trust your government... show me your private parts."

-John
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,307
136
We need a shake up.

I'm fine with President Trump.

What could he do wrong?!

-John
You do understand basic economics enough to know that nothing increases government spending and the public debt faster than war, right?
 

Subyman

Moderator <br> VC&G Forum
Mar 18, 2005
7,876
32
86
You do understand basic economics enough to know that nothing increases government spending and the public debt faster than war, right?

Yeah but if all the poors didn't need food, water, and shelter we could kill more people world wide.
 

MongGrel

Lifer
Dec 3, 2013
38,751
3,068
121
Obama took our troops out after we "won" and left a vacuum. Isis filled it. In all fairness to the left, after Russia left Afghanistan the US did nothing to fill that vacuum either and Al-Qaeda (sp?) filled it. In that case we weren't already there, but it did result in Al-Qaeda.

Jim

Obama didn't take anything out of anywhere, he went along with a prearranged agreement that Iraq was even insisting on at the time.

I'll be polite and leave it at that.
 
Last edited: