Not easy, never easy. But it certainly doesn't always have to be made more difficult. By killing so many people, we would only be making more enemies.

(January 1, 2011 at 12:40 am)Ubermensch Wrote: Not easy, never easy. But it certainly doesn't always have to be made more difficult. By killing so many people, we would only be making more enemies.

You're right, mass murder in the information age is not possible to not get more enemies and human right court would force anyone that gave that order to be imprisioned

(January 1, 2011 at 12:40 am)Ubermensch Wrote: Not easy, never easy. But it certainly doesn't always have to be made more difficult. By killing so many people, we would only be making more enemies.

As opposed to leaving enemies to actively recruit instead of passively?

By your logic, Lebanon (Isreal's war) should've ended well. It didn't. In fact, Hezbollah is again influential despite bribes against them and mere terror.

(January 1, 2011 at 10:15 am)Ashendant Wrote: You're right, mass murder in the information age is not possible to not get more enemies and human right court would force anyone that gave that order to be imprisioned

Redefining war to "mass murder". Cheery. That evades the discussion, which centers around military tactics in days past and their effectiveness compared to modern day "pound them from above and run away" incursions.

"Mass murder" implies that friendly and neutrals are targeted - one who actively supports the economic or military structure qualifies as "enemy". That is long established in total warfare. Also, on the front of targeting friendlies and neutrals, (unfortunately) no influential court as of this date has convicted the US Military, for example, for bombing Islamic wedding parties, etc,. So already the ability to target unassociated peoples is considered "acceptable" enough by the powers that be (however awful).

Henceforth, your statement is unrealistic and rather silly.

William T. Sherman Wrote:If the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war, and not popularity seeking.

(January 1, 2011 at 11:46 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote:

(January 1, 2011 at 10:15 am)Ashendant Wrote: You're right, mass murder in the information age is not possible to not get more enemies and human right court would force anyone that gave that order to be imprisioned

Redefining war to "mass murder". Cheery. That evades the discussion, which centers around military tactics in days past and their effectiveness compared to modern day "pound them from above and run away" incursions.

"Mass murder" implies that friendly and neutrals are targeted - one who actively supports the economic or military structure qualifies as "enemy". That is long established in total warfare. Also, on the front of targeting friendlies and neutrals, (unfortunately) no influential court as of this date has convicted the US Military, for example, for bombing Islamic wedding parties, etc,. So already the ability to target unassociated peoples is considered "acceptable" enough by the powers that be (however awful).

Henceforth, your statement is unrealistic and rather silly.

William T. Sherman Wrote:If the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war, and not popularity seeking.

Your argument was that we should kill everyone in the country because of the possibility they might join a terrorist organization

Target unassociated people is despicable and one thing but targeting all unassociated people in a country just so you won't take any risks is another

Besides the EU already punishes other countries for shit like this, they just don't punish China and the US because they don't want long drawn out wars with very selfish people

Quote:For there to be a successful war, a nation must utterly destroy the enemy's fighting force and all who support it (civilians included).

Somehow we managed to defeat Germany and Japan without exterminating the civilian populations of both countries.

(January 2, 2011 at 12:37 pm)Ashendant Wrote: Your argument was that we should kill everyone in the country because of the possibility they might join a terrorist organization

Target unassociated people is despicable and one thing but targeting all unassociated people in a country just so you won't take any risks is another

Besides the EU already punishes other countries for shit like this, they just don't punish China and the US because they don't want long drawn out wars with very selfish people

Bull fucking shit I didn't say that. I said that one shouldn't leave vestiges of the old government in place, right down to administrators and local party leaders. Or would you like to twist that too?

I said target the enemies or, as I put it, those "who support the enemies economic or military [or political -- sic] structure". That is a basic definition and you know it.

War resides on tormenting the enemy enough to not support a cause, by killing supporters and combatants.

Or do you wish to redefine what I said?

Oh, and FYI, (because you cannot be bothered to read well enough, let alone between the words), I support either leaving places like Iraq well enough alone or, if war must be, eliminating or jailing all of the enemies' political organization, absorbing the turncoats that arrive. Meaning, for example, in Iraq, all Baathists who dare act against us are jailed or killed for inciting rebellion. Obviously, those who do not act against us and/or hold no established power are neutrals/friendlies.

And before you protest, I must point out that activity happened in all past wars. My favorite example is the American Civil War, but one could no doubt see this policy in action with the American Revolution, etc,.

I suppose, though, you could redefine things anyways...

I miss Pippy...

---

(January 2, 2011 at 1:06 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:For there to be a successful war, a nation must utterly destroy the enemy's fighting force and all who support it (civilians included).

Somehow we managed to defeat Germany and Japan without exterminating the civilian populations of both countries.

When I said "support", I meant actively support (as in providing resistance, continuing to build factories).

And last I checked, we did kill swathes of civilians who worked at German factories, for example.

When we wiped out enough of the German forces, the residual and their supporters switched to neutral/friendlies because they surrendered.

Had they not, but continued to fight to the last man, I assure you, it would've necessitated utter annihilation.

And the American generals would've certainly acquiesced.

Quote:Had they not, but continued to fight to the last man, I assure you, it would've necessitated utter annihilation.

And the American generals would've certainly acquiesced

American generals were shitting their pants at the thought of having to invade Japan. The atomic bomb ( and the Russian invasion of Manchuria) saved them from a bloodbath.


BTW, in Afghanistan we found a bunch who opposed the Taliban and put them in power. Guess what? They turned out to be just as big a bunch of scumbags. The enemy of my enemy is my friend only goes so far.

(January 2, 2011 at 4:11 pm)Minimalist Wrote: American generals were shitting their pants at the thought of having to invade Japan. The atomic bomb ( and the Russian invasion of Manchuria) saved them from a bloodbath.

BTW, in Afghanistan we found a bunch who opposed the Taliban and put them in power. Guess what? They turned out to be just as big a bunch of scumbags. The enemy of my enemy is my friend only goes so far.

Indeed. Quite true. The enemy of my enemy has a tendency of going sideways.

(December 23, 2010 at 8:40 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: America firmly supports South Korea, but China seem to be distancing themselves from the North.

China will absolutely not allow the collapse of the regime in North Korea, as they wouldn't be able to cope with the sudden influx of millions of refugees across their borders.

However unlikely as it may seem we can't afford to be complacent, I still cringe at the prospect of these two superpowers going all-out in the Chosŏn Pando region, it could kick start a new world war...

Although, America has no interest in obliterating North Korea, likewise the reunification of Korea is also against their militaries interests, as any entrepreneur would tell you "solving all the world's problems is very bad for business", it has no resources in relative comparison to say what the Middle East has to offer, so invading it would be a costly waste of time and effort, its simply treated with apathy at best and considered an annoyance at worse.

(January 2, 2011 at 3:49 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: I suppose, though, you could redefine things anyways...

You made it sound something else entirely carry on then