The way wars are fought today causing more problems?

[xj0hnx]

It's STILL the ONLY type of warfare both our nations are actually capable of handling, fighting terrorism isn't viable politically for either of our nations and the main reason is because we cannot do it properly.

No, we could do it properly, if politics would stay the fuck out of the way.

If i were to propose a way to deal with it it would be how we dealt with factions in SA during the 90's

It was extremely successful, so successful that without looking it up most people who were as old as i am have no idea what happened.

Destroying villages, sorry warlords, to secure diamond, and other mines? Just ribbing ya SoF.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

No, we could do it properly, if politics would stay the fuck out of the way.



Destroying villages, sorry warlords, to secure diamond, and other mines? Just ribbing ya SoF.

I was talking about how we handled South American aggression in the 90's.

It's not even politics though, if asked whether to get the people responsible for 9/11 or let them spread and regroup while invading a nation for no good known reason then i think we could have handled it just fine.

It's not politics, it's politicians with their own agendas that are the problem, politics refers to what people want and we both know that peoples interests were not served after the initial invasion of Afghanistan.

 

[xj0hnx]

I was talking about how we handled South American aggression in the 90's.

It's not even politics though, if asked whether to get the people responsible for 9/11 or let them spread and regroup while invading a nation for no good known reason then i think we could have handled it just fine.

It's not politics, it's politicians with their own agendas that are the problem, politics refers to what people want and we both know that peoples interests were not served after the initial invasion of Afghanistan.

Politics, politicians and their agendas, whatever, you know what I am saying.

I was talking about how we handled South American aggression in the 90's.

Wasn't that when the cocaine shipments started getting lighter?

 

[cwjerome]

Iraq vs. Kuwait was nations. Argentina vs. UK was nations. Serbia vs Croatia was nations. Even "coalition" vs. Iraq was nations.

I said very rarely. Still a war in 1982 that lasted about 75 days and a border war in 1990 is about all you can come up with, proving my point... it's rare, particularly post-cold war. Serbia vs Croatia falls under failed state since all those related conflicts there in the 1990s were the result of the dissolution of Yugoslavia and the consequences of that. These are the types of conflicts that will dominate the foreseeable future... civil wars, regional insurgencies, etc.

The general consensus is that since WWII, we've seen a dramatic decline of major warfare, and, that most future conflicts we likely involve low-grade warfare and policing actions. Don't argue with me, I'm just passing the word.

"Rogue state" is a term for a nation you don't like.

That's an interesting but wrong idea you have there.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Politics, politicians and their agendas, whatever, you know what I am saying.

Just for once in my life i wish i could play stupid and say no but yeah, unfortunately i do know what you are saying.

Wasn't that when the cocaine shipments started getting lighter?

What... who... i have never been so offended by any implication!

My dear sir, if you imply i stole and sold cocain for £110 a gram during the Wimbledon finals i must have a strong word with you outside!

On a serious note, yeah, they did, about when vice started picking up a lot of smaller boats outside the coastline too.

We solved everything but FARC and made a lot of nations virtually impotent.

Right now i'm wondering where Argentina went, all up in our face just a few months ago, now they are licking their injured balls and voila, not a sound of what happened.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I said very rarely. Still a war in 1982 that lasted about 75 days and a border war in 1990 is about all you can come up with, proving my point... it's rare, particularly post-cold war. Serbia vs Croatia falls under failed state since all those related conflicts there in the 1990s were the result of the dissolution of Yugoslavia and the consequences of that. These are the types of conflicts that will dominate the foreseeable future... civil wars, regional insurgencies, etc.

The general consensus is that since WWII, we've seen a dramatic decline of major warfare, and, that most future conflicts we likely involve low-grade warfare and policing actions. Don't argue with me, I'm just passing the word.



That's an interesting but wrong idea you have there.

For those who don't know, cwjerome knows his sheit, he's almost as ancient of a soldier as i am.

International laws and intermediary diplomacy while settling disputes has done a lot of good.

99% of the retarded Americanos who want the UN disassembled have no clue how many trillions it has saved a nation that would NOT be the worlds only superpower without the UN.

Without the rules, you're fair game, all of you, military or not.

 

[Jaskalas]

Without the rules, you're fair game, all of you, military or not.

Terrorists ignore the rules and make us all fair game, military or not.

 

[sandorski]

That type of War is obsolete.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Rob a store with a weapon - Death Sentence
Steal a Car - Death Sentence
Use a gun in a crime - Death Sentence
Give guns to criminals - Death Sentence
Break into a house - Death Sentence
Use Illegal Drugs - Death Sentence
Rape or Murder - Death Sentence

Your list shows some serious issues with the way you think.

I see at least two.

 

[SandEagle]

I hop you are kidding with that number.

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/sep/14/world/fg-iraq14

 

[JEDIYoda]

I love it, we kill a million civilians in Iraq yet we are WAY TOO CONCERNED WITH CIVILIANS.

Why not fight wars to win? I got one for you, why fight wars at all? All they are is another business venture for some fat, rich douchebags that couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper sack.

OP is stupid, move along.

<----I vote this the most assinine reply of 2012......well done!~!

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Terrorists ignore the rules and make us all fair game, military or not.

They may, i don't.

That is what makes them the bad guys and us the good guys, we try to restore peace and fight those who want the fight, they fight anyone but us.

Think of it as the kind of cunts who go out on a saturday night and bully people who don't want to fight, people who are not equipped to fight, like women and children and then they get them to the ground and kick them until they die.

Those are the terrorists, we are the ones who stop them from doing that.

If we become like them and... there have been times when i have wanted to just kill everyone, trust me, there have been those times in every soldiers life if he's been around in a war zone for any longer amount of time, but we don't.

Because we're the good guys, and you rely on us to protect you, you should expect that from us. If i ignore the rules and think you are annoying... You'd be shit out of luck.

To me it's about right and wrong, i try to see others viewpoints but seriously... terrorists don't get to be alive if i know where they are, i don't care, i REALLY don't care, they have given up their right to life, it has not bothered me even once.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

<----I vote this the most assinine reply of 2012......well done!~!

I have a hard time disagreeing with him (apart from being wrong on the numbers).

Why not do what our enemy does and just march through the entire fucking thing, surrender or die.

Those who surrender will remain alive, everyone who doesn't will die.

We have the means if all men are called in, you ready to bring some justice to our motherlands my brother?

We have millions of soldier all in all.

 

[3chordcharlie]

<----I vote this the most assinine reply of 2012......well done!~!

It's not even the most asinine reply in this thread.