• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Video of Army troops leaving Haliburton drivers to fend for themselves

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

imported_dna

Golden Member
Aug 14, 2006
1,755
0
0
Originally posted by: Narmer
The war may have been won by the military, but it was the civilian leadership that won the peace, not the generals. If there was no political peace, there would be no end to the war, just a continuous low-level guerilla warfare that you have in Iraq, where we also won militarily. Therefore, it is the politicians that win the peace, NOT the generals.
I think that after all the carpet bombing of Germany, Hitler definitely lost support, but still maintained control through the use of force.

People like you that think carpet-bombing Fallujah will convince the arabs to lay down their weapons forget that we DID carpet-bomb Fallujah and not a damn thing changed.
Huh? When did a B-52 carpet bomb Falluja?
If the US really bombed the hell out of the population, and made their life so miserable, I'm sure the insurgency would lose lots of support. The situation in Lebanon was the same -- if Israel wasted all the cities, then it would have had a much easier time.

Similarly, if the allies would've tried winning without bombing the cities in Germany, then it would've taken a whole lot longer to win.
 

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,293
0
0
Originally posted by: dna
Originally posted by: Narmer
The war may have been won by the military, but it was the civilian leadership that won the peace, not the generals. If there was no political peace, there would be no end to the war, just a continuous low-level guerilla warfare that you have in Iraq, where we also won militarily. Therefore, it is the politicians that win the peace, NOT the generals.
I think that after all the carpet bombing of Germany, Hitler definitely lost support, but still maintained control through the use of force.

People like you that think carpet-bombing Fallujah will convince the arabs to lay down their weapons forget that we DID carpet-bomb Fallujah and not a damn thing changed.
Huh? When did a B-52 carpet bomb Falluja?
If the US really bombed the hell out of the population, and made their life so miserable, I'm sure the insurgency would lose lots of support. The situation in Lebanon was the same -- if Israel wasted all the cities, then it would have had a much easier time.

Similarly, if the allies would've tried winning without bombing the cities in Germany, then it would've taken a whole lot longer to win.

Look it up yourself. The US Military made mince-meat of Fallujah in December of 2004. It was like trying to kill a fly with a sledgehammer. Nothing changed.
 

imported_michaelpatrick33

Platinum Member
Jun 19, 2004
2,364
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Narmer you are dense.

The war was won because the Germans and Japs were defeated militarily and realized that they had no chance of winning. Instead of facing utter destruction they gave up in order to stay alive. Had we not smashed their armies and destroyed their cities the politicians would have never called for an end of the war. BTW it was a German general that surrender, there was no civilian political leadership in Germany.

The problem in the war on terror is that we have not been able to defeat our enemies in a military fashion yet. And we may never be able to because we are so fixated on civilian casualties that we may never take away the will of the people to fight.

We, like the allies at the end of WW 2, have an overwhelming military might, but we hardly use it because of fears of "collateral" damage. Maybe if we carpet bombed Faluja the people there would decide that supporting the insurgents was not such a good idea after all.

Go find and read that thread about how we starting losing wars when we stopped fighting them the way we did in WW 2 and started fighting them the way we did in Korea and Vietnam, which is fight the warrior, but don't kill the civilians who support and enable them.
So fixated on civilian casualties? If you want to personally insult others than I will simply state you are the dense one. If we go in with more troops and begin bombing and killing civilians in any Muslim nation we will see terrorism explode. You might want to get educated or actually visit some ME countries (and as a corollary Afghanistan and Pakistan) to get a dose of reality.

What is your plan then genius? We have spent 400 billion in Iraq and Afghanistan. Vietnam and Iraq are lone nation wars. (We are basically going at it alone). The costs are high for us. WWII had Allies. If we bombed Iraq like we did Germany do you honestly believe the survivors (not to mention the other Muslim nations such as Iran, Syria etc.) would just go, "wow, those Americans are bad*sses we better not plot to kill them or commit terrorist acts." Your post gets a nice big :roll: for trying to equate our current one nation state conflicts to a multi-national allied conflict.

How much should we spend on Iraq and Afghanistan to rebuild them? 1 Trillion? 5 Trillion? That would be the cost if we did war your way. Should we leave them to rot like Germany and Japan ... oh wait we didn't. Our debt grew then as well but the cost of rebuilding Iraq (oil baby) and Afghanistan (secondary concern no oil baby) today would be staggering if we performed a WWII style magnesium jelly bomb runs. (Not to mention the horror of the world as we kill MILLIONS of innocent civilians.

Edit: And if you say Britain's help along with some throw in Allied troops in Iraq is really an Allied effort (though Britain did help significantly but not even close to WWII levels) than you are deluding yourself. Same with Afghanistan which is now becoming like Iraq and Nato is having call in more troops because some nation I won't mention decided that Iraq had priority.

:roll:
 

imported_michaelpatrick33

Platinum Member
Jun 19, 2004
2,364
0
0
Originally posted by: dna
Originally posted by: Narmer
The war may have been won by the military, but it was the civilian leadership that won the peace, not the generals. If there was no political peace, there would be no end to the war, just a continuous low-level guerilla warfare that you have in Iraq, where we also won militarily. Therefore, it is the politicians that win the peace, NOT the generals.
I think that after all the carpet bombing of Germany, Hitler definitely lost support, but still maintained control through the use of force.

People like you that think carpet-bombing Fallujah will convince the arabs to lay down their weapons forget that we DID carpet-bomb Fallujah and not a damn thing changed.
Huh? When did a B-52 carpet bomb Falluja?
If the US really bombed the hell out of the population, and made their life so miserable, I'm sure the insurgency would lose lots of support. The situation in Lebanon was the same -- if Israel wasted all the cities, then it would have had a much easier time.

Similarly, if the allies would've tried winning without bombing the cities in Germany, then it would've taken a whole lot longer to win.
You seem to be ignoring all the foreign led insurgents in the area. If we carpet bombed Iraq we would then have more extremists in Iran, Syria, Yemen, Saudia Arabia, Egypt etc. as they set aside their tribal and ethnic differences to fight the "infidels".

"If Israel wasted all the cities?" My God, do you have any true concept of what you are talking about or are you fantasy thinking? Imagine millions of innocent civilians dying and suffering. Don't just intellectualize it in your armchair, thinking of every footbal stadium in America being blown up on Sunday and Monday with every man, woman and child in it dying. Grow up and get out of that over there blow them all up I say reality free mindset.

By the way, are you stating that genocide is the way to end terrorism. If we nuked the whole ME that would take care of the problem except for the Muslim extremists in Africa and Asia but might make getting oil more difficult and might be questioned at the UN as we wipe out millions of people.
 

imported_dna

Golden Member
Aug 14, 2006
1,755
0
0
If Iraq was bombed as much as Germany, then people would have less time planting IEDs, and spending more time looking for food.

Similarly, if Israel wasted all the cities, then Hezbollah would have been denied refuge, access to weapons they stashed there, and would've been forced to live off the ground, or bring lots of supplies when they wanted to operate in Southern Lebanon.

Finally, it seems that you are unable able to deal with conjectures without getting all squimish about civilians death, and start throwing allegation about genocide. I never said that the population of Lebanon should be bombed -- only that the infrastracture that Hezbollah is using be destroyed.
 

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,293
0
0
Originally posted by: dna
If Iraq was bombed as much as Germany, then people would have less time planting IEDs, and spending more time looking for food.

Similarly, if Israel wasted all the cities, then Hezbollah would have been denied refuge, access to weapons they stashed there, and would've been forced to live off the ground, or bring lots of supplies when they wanted to operate in Southern Lebanon.

Finally, it seems that you are unable able to deal with conjectures without getting all squimish about civilians death, and start throwing allegation about genocide. I never said that the population of Lebanon should be bombed -- only that the infrastracture that Hezbollah is using be destroyed.

You're an idiot. Or maybe you're just young. Maybe both. Which one is it?
 

CitizenKain

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2000
4,480
14
76
Originally posted by: dna
If Iraq was bombed as much as Germany, then people would have less time planting IEDs, and spending more time looking for food.

Similarly, if Israel wasted all the cities, then Hezbollah would have been denied refuge, access to weapons they stashed there, and would've been forced to live off the ground, or bring lots of supplies when they wanted to operate in Southern Lebanon.

Finally, it seems that you are unable able to deal with conjectures without getting all squimish about civilians death, and start throwing allegation about genocide. I never said that the population of Lebanon should be bombed -- only that the infrastracture that Hezbollah is using be destroyed.
Yes, if we simply killed everyone else on the planet, then we wouldn't have all these problems.
 

Trianon

Golden Member
Jun 13, 2000
1,789
0
71
www.conkurent.com
Originally posted by: dna
If Iraq was bombed as much as Germany, then people would have less time planting IEDs, and spending more time looking for food.

Similarly, if Israel wasted all the cities, then Hezbollah would have been denied refuge, access to weapons they stashed there, and would've been forced to live off the ground, or bring lots of supplies when they wanted to operate in Southern Lebanon.

Finally, it seems that you are unable able to deal with conjectures without getting all squimish about civilians death, and start throwing allegation about genocide. I never said that the population of Lebanon should be bombed -- only that the infrastracture that Hezbollah is using be destroyed.
Reading Nazi propaganda much?

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY