Perhaps we are too "nice"

[Commander-K25]

Do not take what I have to say the wrong way, but perhaps we have become too "nice" when it comes to war. We don't want to knock out power, we don't want to destroy bridges, we try to treat our enemy as if they constantly want to surrender, etc. Today, soldier were killed and captured because they were deceived by an Iraqi unit that pretended to surrender and then ambushed them.

This only confirms my belief that we have become too soft at war. Our army is held to such high standards that we shall soon be unable to compete with enemies that fight dirty or use unconventional tactics. I'm not saying that we should be barbaric, but that we should be lest trusting and a bit more aggressive. If an enemy unit "surrenders", then from a distance they should be ordered to pile their weapons up and lie naked in the sand.

The issue of civilian casualties is an especially touchy one. Peaceniks and hand-wringing liberals must understand that in war people DO get killed. Some civilians will die. This may sound heartless, but if you wish to win, you must value the lives of your troops more than any others. If Iraq was about to use chemicals weapons stored in a bunker in which 100 civilian were also housed, should we bomb the bunker? The answer is yes. One hundred civilians will die, but thousands of your troops will be saved. Decisions such as these are essential to winning a war. However, in recent years, due mainly to a sensationalist media and whining leftists, we are making choices towards preserving civilian lives at any cost, even our own troops.

In 1945, we dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This example is often used by anti-Americanists as an example of the general evil and atrociousness of the U.S. This was, by nature, a horrific event, but was it unjustified? It was, in fact, quite justified. Over 200,000 civilians died, but the U.S. military was saved the massive casualties involved in an invasion of Japan.

A strategy such as that is not a war winning one. It's trying to be the "nice guy." Unfortunately, the "nice guy" finishes last.

I fear that one day we shall lose because we will have become too "nice" and overly "humane."

[NEMESiSZ]

My thoughs exactly, the Allies didn't win world war 2 by peeing in their pants over every civilian who dies.

[Ted-Easton]

It's because our opponents aren't following what has always been the unwritten rules of war.

A simple comparison is when the British were unused to the tactics of the natives of North America, or the Americans to the Viet-Cong.
Eventually, we'll have to adapt, and we will stop being so "nice".

[NEMESiSZ]

The Iraqis can use whatever unexpected tactics they want, they're still getting very thoroughly roughed up.

[implodinggoat]

Have you seen the news recently? They are talking about how we are taking "heavy cassulties". We have lost about 20 troops and somehow we are taking heavy cassulties. Iwo Jima,thats heavy fucking cassulties, 20 troops out of 300,000 is pretty light.

[NEMESiSZ]

They're reluctant to say how many enemy casualties, probably because you can't count vaporized bodies very well.

Anyone who thinks Iraq is winning really needs to stop watching Al-Jazeera.

[Commander-K25]

At 3/23/03 07:56 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote:
Anyone who thinks Iraq is winning really needs to stop watching Al-Jazeera.

I don't think Iraq is winning. I'm just theorizing on tactics.

As for the casualties, they are extremely light. Perhaps it comes from studying so much of WWI, but that is NOT heavy casualties to me. In that war, if you lost 50,000 men for a mile of front, you had won a great victory.

"It takes fifteen thousand casualties to train a major-general."
-Ferdinand Foch, WWI French general and field marshall

[Ted-Easton]

At least they're putting up a better fight than last time.

[NEMESiSZ]

Last time everyone thought it would be the ultimate battle...haha. Republican guard....

[RoboTripper]

America is taking the moral high ground in fighting the battles of this war. But if they didn't want to be the defenders of that high ground, would they even be involved in this war at all? After all, we are sending people to die in order to "free" the Iraqi people from their evil dictator. If the U.S. is gonna be self-righteous in their reasoning for attacking Iraq, they should be self-righteous in their conduct during the attack.

[Der-Ubermensch]

At 3/23/03 06:39 PM, Commander-K25 wrote:

I fear that one day we shall lose because we will have become too "nice" and overly "humane."

Be careful what you wish for, because if the newly established codes of war do change, you could very well suffer the consequences yourself. This scuffle with Iraq is far from being a real war. Saddam is far from being able to launch any conventional assault against the US... just imagine though if he could. Needless to say that for its own sake, America shouldn't be making any negative precedents.

[NJDeadzone]

The US is gonna do what the US feels is right. The media has taken the largest role in this war by its unparalleled coverage. You can watch the war 24/7 with constant reports and what not. The US, already understanding the reprecussions of acting inhumanely, has chosen to play nice as long as the media is covering it. However, the people never get the real story.

[mysecondstar]

the fact that the US is being too nice and too humane is a real threat. taking the moral high ground isn't going to win any battles. but i would have to say that this war doesn't work that way exactly.

we can actually be more humane and still win decisively. a little decieved? yes. that ambush was a cowardly move by the Iraqi military. but in the long run it will be the Iraqis looking down the barrel of a M1A1 Abrams.

[Taxman2A]

At 3/23/03 07:56 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: They're reluctant to say how many enemy casualties, probably because you can't count vaporized bodies very well.

Anyone who thinks Iraq is winning really needs to stop watching Al-Jazeera.

The reason that they are withholding this information is because of the same sensationalistic media and whining liberals already mentioned in this thread. I can guarantee you the chain of command in the middle east knows exactly how many people they are killing/ capturing. The reason that we haven't been hearing about it is because everything you here is first cleared by the department of defense's public affairs office. It is growing pretty obvious that there has been an order issued not to give the numbers of any enemy casualties... for the reason of it adding fuel to the protestors...
Just imagine what it would be like with protestors everywhere feeling like they have proven that the evil bush administration has already caused 4,700 Iraqi deaths. Our rediculous media would spin the images of thousands of ravaged "innocent" Iraqis.

We have entered into the game of justifying military decisions to the naive, coddled, overly liberal civilian Americans. This will cost American lives. I can guarantee you that if it weren't for our military trying to appease naive americans, we could have completed this mission without losing any US personnel (besides those who die due to accidents like the Helo crash).

I love America and it's ideology. I support as free a world as possible. But in times like these, its time to remember just what team you play for.

[MarijuanaClock]

Lets face it, the arab world hates America. If you go in there guns a blazing thats going to piss alot of people off. Not to mention the ramifications of an aggressive war if you want a friendly Iraq after this. You do not create a friendly country by bombing the shit out of it.

This is very much a P.R. war as it is a militaristic war. The area is already unstable, the very act of war isn't helping the situation.

However, in order to ensure a stable, and econcomicly viable, region America must use a great deal of tact. Even in war.

It's not about "taking the moral high ground," it far from that, it's about ensuring peace and normal relations. After the war is over.

Secondly I'm against war, but if it has to happen, then this is the way it should happen. If you want America to be presented as a "liberator," then you must win the support of the people you are liberating.

Lastly America has suffered very minimal casualties. There is no need to escualte the action when the war itself is going well.

Commander k-25, I know you're a conservative and as such, naturaly want to kill things. But fucking chill dude. Smoke a joint or somthing.

[Timethian]

At 3/24/03 04:18 AM, MarijuanaClock wrote: Commander k-25, I know you're a conservative and as such, naturaly want to kill things. But fucking chill dude. Smoke a joint or somthing.

You were making so much sense until that statement. Don't assume Conservative=loves to kill things. Many of us who are considered in the 'conservative' camp are as averse to war as everyone else... even when we feel it a necessary evil.

As far as the humanity of our current tactics goes, I say it's perfect. We're going in there as the agressor, in a area of the world known for its hatred of us. It's time for us to put on our true face, which I feel our military is doing. If nothing else, our actions here will do much to dispell the myth of the evil Satan America that people hear about day in and day out.

[House-Of-Leaves]

I actually started a new thread about the Geneva Convention that sorta touches on this.

We're good to try to not hurt the civilians, but at the same time...we're being naive.

If we think Iraq isn't going to fight dirty, then...well...yeah. We're being a little blind. They'll fight dirty out of sheer desperation. I don't condone going around and killing everything we can to retaliate the Iraqi army's tactics...but I also think turning the other cheek is just going to get more American soldiers killed.

We're not being too nice. We're being too naive.

[JMHX]

At 3/23/03 10:51 PM, NJDeadzone wrote: The US is gonna do what the US feels is right. The media has taken the largest role in this war by its unparalleled coverage. You can watch the war 24/7 with constant reports and what not. The US, already understanding the reprecussions of acting inhumanely, has chosen to play nice as long as the media is covering it. However, the people never get the real story.

Man I'm beginning to dislike all of the coverage. A soldier was readying his weapon for an attack on an outpost, and the reporter was hovering over him the whole time with his "what's this" and "what exactly is the purpose of doing this action to the barrel". Aaah! I would love to see one of the reporters just punched right in the jaw by a Coalition soldier who's sick of listening to the stupid questions.

[Commander-K25]

At 3/24/03 04:18 AM, MarijuanaClock wrote:
Secondly I'm against war, but if it has to happen, then this is the way it should happen. If you want America to be presented as a "liberator," then you must win the support of the people you are liberating.

But, we owe our own troops much more. They have pledged their lives in support of their country. We must not betray their good faith by squandering their lives.

Lastly America has suffered very minimal casualties. There is no need to escualte the action when the war itself is going well.

I'm talking here about trends that are appearing now and may come back to us in the future.

Commander k-25, I know you're a conservative and as such, naturaly want to kill things. But fucking chill dude. Smoke a joint or somthing.

More misperceptions about conservatism. If people got less of their information from the liberal spin machine, then conservatism would not be so misunderstood.

As for my views on war, I believe war is a horrific thing that should never be taken lightly. However, we shouldn't run from it at any cost and cling to a futile and high-priced peace.

"I have never advocated war except as a means of peace."
-General Ulysses S. Grant

[NEMESiSZ]

Make sure that's all you say, the less you idiot newbies rant, the better.

[NJDeadzone]

way to stick it, Nem. Pita, we open arms to your opinion, but make it more interesting.

Anyone who thinks war should have rules is an idiot.
Like it or not, Killing civilians can make or break a war.
Civilians work to feed the army. Civilians can join the army. Civilians are the ones who provide the financial backing for the army.
Every civilian you kill is one less morsel of food in an enemy soldier's mouth.

[implodinggoat]

At 3/24/03 11:54 PM, FlattusMaximus wrote: Every civilian you kill is one less morsel of food in an enemy soldier's mouth.

You know General Sherman is burning in hell right now.

[thenark]

perhaps having george Bush's cock rammed down your collective throat has blurred your vision and perception of reality.

[karasz]

At 3/24/03 11:54 PM, FlattusMaximus wrote: Anyone who thinks war should have rules is an idiot.
Like it or not, Killing civilians can make or break a war.
Civilians work to feed the army. Civilians can join the army. Civilians are the ones who provide the financial backing for the army.
Every civilian you kill is one less morsel of food in an enemy soldier's mouth.

well if thats ur belief dont bitch about iraq torturing the US troops... after all u hold the belief that all is fair in love and WAR... right?

[mysecondstar]

At 3/25/03 12:25 AM, thenark wrote: perhaps having george Bush's cock rammed down your collective throat has blurred your vision and perception of reality.

honestly, is that necessary? you know, i thought you had gotten better and actually act maturely in this forum, yet i am terribly mistaken. gah, this frustration makes me want to have a cigarette. now look what you did!

[Jimsween]

At 3/24/03 05:02 AM, Timethian wrote:

You were making so much sense until that statement. Don't assume Conservative=loves to kill things. Many of us who are considered in the 'conservative' camp are as averse to war as everyone else... even when we feel it a necessary evil.

Oh god, why is it that I've heard hundreds of liberal stereotypes but nobody says anything but when one little conservative stereotype comes out It's a huge deal.

[MarijuanaClock]

At 3/24/03 11:54 PM, FlattusMaximus wrote: Anyone who thinks war should have rules is an idiot.
Like it or not, Killing civilians can make or break a war.
Civilians work to feed the army. Civilians can join the army. Civilians are the ones who provide the financial backing for the army.
Every civilian you kill is one less morsel of food in an enemy soldier's mouth.

Osama Bin Laden is waging a holy war, and the wtc was very much the financial back bone of America.

By your logic it was ok for al qaeda to kill those America civilians, was it?

It's easy to dismiss murder when it's not happening to you and your country. Then again you probably think "they're only Iraqis" right? Is that it?

You make me sick.

Hypocrite

[Kiwi-Clock]

The U.S. HAS to be nice because they shouldn't even be there.
They have to make as little impact on civilian life as possible whilst destroying large chunks of various cities.. which even for a missile that can hit a target the size of a person with pin point accuracy is hard to do.
If civilain casualties were as high as in something like WW2 (like Nem's idiotic comment) the Arab world would unite with the backing of many other countries! Then the U.S. would really have something to worry about.

And the main reason coalition troops are being taken by suprise with all this nasty resistance is because that pathetic operation 'Convince Defending forces to be nice to us with mass propaganda' didn't convince Iraqi people to roll over and let them all in without a fight.
If you were in thier shoes.. if Iraq was the mightiet country and they were invading your homeland? I bet you'd do what you could as patriots to turn them around.

[Alejandro1]

Dude, I totally agree with you. Although I like the fact that we're not trying to kill innocent civilians, I think were getting a little too nice with these bastards.

I mean, lets look at the POWs. When we capture Iraqi POWs, we give them food, water, clothing, blankets, medical care, etc. When Iraq captures American POWs, they execute them and broadcast it to the Iraqi civilians. And where are the "Geneva" war groups who should be investigating this? Oh, I know! They're investigating the bomb we dropped in Baghdad that killed 5 Iraqi civilians.

Maybe we should shoot some of the Iraqi POWs and broadcast it to the world and see how they like it. I mean, it would get our point across that we won't take this crap from Saddam or the rest of the world.