Unwillingness for Absolute War...

[Strk]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Taggart

Originally posted by: eigen

The american public would not being willing at this point to have the nation engage in absolute war.

It depends on the situation. If China shot cruise missiles deliberately at our navy tomorrow and killed a bunch of sailors, I think Americans would support declaring war and engaging in 'total' war.

total war? including nukes?

A total war does not require the use of nukes.

By definition it does. "Total" meaning the commitment of all resources necessary to utterly destroy the enemy.

You answered it for yourself why you don't need to use nuclear weapons. This is also why some people have issues with the concept. I've been in classes where people argued entire classes about what is "total war." It's usually by people who are not Political Science/IR majors though.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: YoshiSato

Originally posted by: Taggart

Originally posted by: eigen

The american public would not being willing at this point to have the nation engage in absolute war.

It depends on the situation. If China shot cruise missiles deliberately at our navy tomorrow and killed a bunch of sailors, I think Americans would support declaring war and engaging in 'total' war.

You are way wrong!!! When the USS Cole was bomb no one cried for anything. We should have vaporized Yemen for that.

When the Pentagon and the World Trade Center was attack what kind of respond did we deliver, a very very weak one. We sent in some marines into Afaganistan

We need to follow the plan from Swordfish. You blowup an American airplane we destory one of your airports. You execute american citizens on our soil, we tatically nuke one of your cities.

But the ignornate masses don't have the stomachs for that type of response. But as the so called most powerful nation in the world we better start acting like it.

Rome never put up with this crap.

Oh my God. I joke about you tough guy wannabes getting your view of the world from movies like Die Hard, but I think you are actually serious.

Counter-attacking a country that wages war on us is one thing, but randomly killing a bunch of civilians who have nothing at all to do with the fighting makes us just as bad as the terrorists. In fact, responding with even more killing makes us significantly worse. Seriously, you need to go see a doctor if you are being serious here. There has got to be some name for what is wrong with you, everyone might feel like that at one time or another (especially after a serious tragedy) but to seriously propose that...damn.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: eigen
You guys have a misunderstanding of what is meant by Absolute war.

You guys certainly understand total war.i.e all available methods to win the war.

Absolute war is this.The total capacity of the nation is mobilized to win the war.All social,economic and political structures work toward victory.

An example would be WWII.Victory Gardens were planted.

Now we would do sometshing similar.

Gas would be rationed,draft enacted,less resources used, war bonds bought.

The whole country gets behind the effort.

I suppose I did misunderstand you, but what you are talking about wouldn't help either. The problem isn't resources, it's how we're fighting the war. We're going about it the wrong way, becuase this way is "cooler" and reels in Bush supporters like bears to honey. Brute force isn't the answer to terrorism, so MORE of it isn't going to help.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Taggart

Originally posted by: eigen

The american public would not being willing at this point to have the nation engage in absolute war.

It depends on the situation. If China shot cruise missiles deliberately at our navy tomorrow and killed a bunch of sailors, I think Americans would support declaring war and engaging in 'total' war.

total war? including nukes?

A total war does not require the use of nukes.

By definition it does. "Total" meaning the commitment of all resources necessary to utterly destroy the enemy.

You answered it for yourself why you don't need to use nuclear weapons. This is also why some people have issues with the concept. I've been in classes where people argued entire classes about what is "total war." It's usually by people who are not Political Science/IR majors though.

Good try, but military doctrine at its extremes isn't decided by a bunch of kids arguing BS in a classroom.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: eigen
You guys have a misunderstanding of what is meant by Absolute war.

You guys certainly understand total war.i.e all available methods to win the war.

Absolute war is this.The total capacity of the nation is mobilized to win the war.All social,economic and political structures work toward victory.

An example would be WWII.Victory Gardens were planted.

Now we would do sometshing similar.

Gas would be rationed,draft enacted,less resources used, war bonds bought.

The whole country gets behind the effort.

I suppose I did misunderstand you, but what you are talking about wouldn't help either. The problem isn't resources, it's how we're fighting the war. We're going about it the wrong way, becuase this way is "cooler" and reels in Bush supporters like bears to honey. Brute force isn't the answer to terrorism, so MORE of it isn't going to help.

Yup. More pressure of this type simply creates more angry people who don't have massive, ultra-expensive military machines to settle scores, which means more terrorism. The funny thing is that the government knows this. I read a Korea Times article today that thought that the US and UK have long since given up on the idea that creaming mostly civilians is going to stop terrorism and are just stumbling along trying not to loose face. Deeply stupid, huh?

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Good try, but military doctrine at its extremes isn't decided by a bunch of kids arguing BS in a classroom.

More like a kid arguing with a professor who has spent his life studying it.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: eigen
You guys have a misunderstanding of what is meant by Absolute war.

You guys certainly understand total war.i.e all available methods to win the war.

Absolute war is this.The total capacity of the nation is mobilized to win the war.All social,economic and political structures work toward victory.

An example would be WWII.Victory Gardens were planted.

Now we would do sometshing similar.

Gas would be rationed,draft enacted,less resources used, war bonds bought.

The whole country gets behind the effort.

I suppose I did misunderstand you, but what you are talking about wouldn't help either. The problem isn't resources, it's how we're fighting the war. We're going about it the wrong way, becuase this way is "cooler" and reels in Bush supporters like bears to honey. Brute force isn't the answer to terrorism, so MORE of it isn't going to help.

Yup. More pressure of this type simply creates more angry people who don't have massive, ultra-expensive military machines to settle scores, which means more terrorism. The funny thing is that the government knows this. I read a Korea Times article today that thought that the US and UK have long since given up on the idea that creaming mostly civilians is going to stop terrorism and are just stumbling along trying not to loose face. Deeply stupid, huh?

What seems stupid to me is that I think it's very possible to "defeat terrorism" in the sense of preventing another 9/11. The solution might not be as flashy, and certainly won't make for good "war president" campaign material, but in the long run it will make us much safer.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: techs
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room.

I loved that line!

Or Maddie Halfbright to the Clinton cabinet: Gentlemen, decide right now; We make love or we make war! Hours before the invasion of Bosnia.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: techs
A total war does not require the use of nukes
I must not understand the meaning of the word "total" then.

You're goal is to completely elimate a country's ability to wage a war and, ultimately, remove that group for power. You can use whatever means necessary, but that does not mean you have to use them. The Korean and Vietnam Wars, by definition, were total wars. Our goals weren't simply to stop the North, but to remove them from power. Did we use nukes in either war? No, but our goals were still the same. A lot of people have issues with the term total war, because most think "total" requires you to use everything you have, when it doesn't.

Do you have some kind of background above Polisci 101, or are you just blowing smoke up everyones butt?

Yes, I do have a background in it beyond polisci 101. It's a screwy concept to understand, but despite what you want to assume, you do not need to use all of your weapons or even win the battle to be considered a total war.

What would that background be?

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Taggart

Originally posted by: eigen

The american public would not being willing at this point to have the nation engage in absolute war.

It depends on the situation. If China shot cruise missiles deliberately at our navy tomorrow and killed a bunch of sailors, I think Americans would support declaring war and engaging in 'total' war.

I really doubt such a scenario would go that far.

Our navy would just start blowing Chinese navy ships out of the water until they want to start talking.

You are in a dream world. Look at the size of China. They have never been weak.

The size of China has nothing to do with their ability to stand against us in a naval war.

It does have a lot to do with the ability to build the tools of war and sustain. We no longer can do that and we have exported most of our factories to China! They have the manpower, the will, the training and the resource4s to out produce us. We kill the ships, they produce more.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Good try, but military doctrine at its extremes isn't decided by a bunch of kids arguing BS in a classroom.

More like a kid arguing with a professor who has spent his life studying it.

Which still means just this side of nothing.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Taggart

Originally posted by: eigen

The american public would not being willing at this point to have the nation engage in absolute war.

It depends on the situation. If China shot cruise missiles deliberately at our navy tomorrow and killed a bunch of sailors, I think Americans would support declaring war and engaging in 'total' war.

I really doubt such a scenario would go that far.

Our navy would just start blowing Chinese navy ships out of the water until they want to start talking.

You are in a dream world. Look at the size of China. They have never been weak.

The size of China has nothing to do with their ability to stand against us in a naval war.

It does have a lot to do with the ability to build the tools of war and sustain. We no longer can do that and we have exported most of our factories to China! They have the manpower, the will, the training and the resource4s to out produce us. We kill the ships, they produce more.

We did not export our shipyards to China

China's navy is still small compared to ours and we have a 30 year headstart on them in the technology department. If such a conflict was to arise it would be over in a few days, not the years it takes to build new ships.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Condor

What would that background be?

2 incompletes short of a degree in it. How about yourself?

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: eigen
You guys have a misunderstanding of what is meant by Absolute war.

You guys certainly understand total war.i.e all available methods to win the war.

Absolute war is this.The total capacity of the nation is mobilized to win the war.All social,economic and political structures work toward victory.

An example would be WWII.Victory Gardens were planted.

Now we would do sometshing similar.

Gas would be rationed,draft enacted,less resources used, war bonds bought.

The whole country gets behind the effort.

I suppose I did misunderstand you, but what you are talking about wouldn't help either. The problem isn't resources, it's how we're fighting the war. We're going about it the wrong way, becuase this way is "cooler" and reels in Bush supporters like bears to honey. Brute force isn't the answer to terrorism, so MORE of it isn't going to help.

Yup. More pressure of this type simply creates more angry people who don't have massive, ultra-expensive military machines to settle scores, which means more terrorism. The funny thing is that the government knows this. I read a Korea Times article today that thought that the US and UK have long since given up on the idea that creaming mostly civilians is going to stop terrorism and are just stumbling along trying not to loose face. Deeply stupid, huh?

What seems stupid to me is that I think it's very possible to "defeat terrorism" in the sense of preventing another 9/11. The solution might not be as flashy, and certainly won't make for good "war president" campaign material, but in the long run it will make us much safer.

I can't see ANY American president doing what it would take to greatly reduce terrorist acts against the US. Just the idea that our efforts should be limited to us is beyond comprehension for these guys, considering we're inexplicably responsible for so many other countries now. Really, it's not like bin Laden hasn't been crystal clear and unwavering about what?s gotten his, and millions of Arab's, pissed off.

For those who hadn't heard:

1. Stop slaughtering Arabs at the drop of a hat, any hat
2. Stop supporting despotic governments in the Middle East
3. Leave Arab affairs to Arabs
4. PLEASE, stop the blanket support for Israel

I know some here will angrily disagree, but considering our government was designed to be very limited and has proven itself incompetent repeatedly, I just don't see this as unreasonable. If we did these things terrorist recruiting would dry up and bin Laden would be reduced to what he actually is, a fanatic who spouts dogma based on an obscure, tiny religion.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: Condor

What would that background be?

2 incompletes short of a degree in it. How about yourself?

Don't take this the wrong way, but you're going to have a hard time being the final, unchallenged authority on any subject, no matter what your creds are.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: Condor

What would that background be?

2 incompletes short of a degree in it. How about yourself?

Don't take this the wrong way, but you're going to have a hard time being the final, unchallenged authority on any subject, no matter what your creds are.

I'm not trying to be. It's just a matter of semantics. And I'm going by what I've learned. How about yourself?

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: Condor

What would that background be?

2 incompletes short of a degree in it. How about yourself?

Don't take this the wrong way, but you're going to have a hard time being the final, unchallenged authority on any subject, no matter what your creds are.

I'm not trying to be. It's just a matter of semantics. And I'm going by what I've learned. How about yourself?

Actually, it?s second-hand semantics in your case. As for your question, it's a stupid one that I won't bother entertaining.

 

[imported_Ant]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior
I can't see ANY American president doing what it would take to greatly reduce terrorist acts against the US. Just the idea that our efforts should be limited to us is beyond comprehension for these guys, considering we're inexplicably responsible for so many other countries now. Really, it's not like bin Laden hasn't been crystal clear and unwavering about what?s gotten his, and millions of Arab's, pissed off.

For those who hadn't heard:

1. Stop slaughtering Arabs at the drop of a hat, any hat
2. Stop supporting despotic governments in the Middle East
3. Leave Arab affairs to Arabs
4. PLEASE, stop the blanket support for Israel

I know some here will angrily disagree, but considering our government was designed to be very limited and has proven itself incompetent repeatedly, I just don't see this as unreasonable. If we did these things terrorist recruiting would dry up and bin Laden would be reduced to what he actually is, a fanatic who spouts dogma based on an obscure, tiny religion.

Nice idea but it might be a little late for that.

IMHO there's at least a generation of fresh recruits to Bin Laden's cause thanks to inept western policies.

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: Ant

Originally posted by: HardWarrior
I can't see ANY American president doing what it would take to greatly reduce terrorist acts against the US. Just the idea that our efforts should be limited to us is beyond comprehension for these guys, considering we're inexplicably responsible for so many other countries now. Really, it's not like bin Laden hasn't been crystal clear and unwavering about what?s gotten his, and millions of Arab's, pissed off.

For those who hadn't heard:

1. Stop slaughtering Arabs at the drop of a hat, any hat
2. Stop supporting despotic governments in the Middle East
3. Leave Arab affairs to Arabs
4. PLEASE, stop the blanket support for Israel

I know some here will angrily disagree, but considering our government was designed to be very limited and has proven itself incompetent repeatedly, I just don't see this as unreasonable. If we did these things terrorist recruiting would dry up and bin Laden would be reduced to what he actually is, a fanatic who spouts dogma based on an obscure, tiny religion.

Nice idea but it might be a little late for that.

IMHO there's at least a generation of fresh recruits to Bin Laden's cause thanks to inept western policies.

Yup I second what Ant said. Nice idea but ain't no one buying....

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Ant

Originally posted by: HardWarrior
I can't see ANY American president doing what it would take to greatly reduce terrorist acts against the US. Just the idea that our efforts should be limited to us is beyond comprehension for these guys, considering we're inexplicably responsible for so many other countries now. Really, it's not like bin Laden hasn't been crystal clear and unwavering about what?s gotten his, and millions of Arab's, pissed off.

For those who hadn't heard:

1. Stop slaughtering Arabs at the drop of a hat, any hat
2. Stop supporting despotic governments in the Middle East
3. Leave Arab affairs to Arabs
4. PLEASE, stop the blanket support for Israel

I know some here will angrily disagree, but considering our government was designed to be very limited and has proven itself incompetent repeatedly, I just don't see this as unreasonable. If we did these things terrorist recruiting would dry up and bin Laden would be reduced to what he actually is, a fanatic who spouts dogma based on an obscure, tiny religion.

Nice idea but it might be a little late for that.

IMHO there's at least a generation of fresh recruits to Bin Laden's cause thanks to inept western policies.

I agree, but we have to start somewhere. It's either that or a perpetual war that we can't win.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: Condor

What would that background be?

2 incompletes short of a degree in it. How about yourself?

About 16 hours complete in that particular subject - History of Asia and Polisc, 6 expired Diplomatic passports with 230 some international entry/exit stamps and a whole bunch of visas. Actually been to many of those places and actually worked with the people who do those things.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: eigen
You guys have a misunderstanding of what is meant by Absolute war.

You guys certainly understand total war.i.e all available methods to win the war.

Absolute war is this.The total capacity of the nation is mobilized to win the war.All social,economic and political structures work toward victory.

An example would be WWII.Victory Gardens were planted.

Now we would do sometshing similar.

Gas would be rationed,draft enacted,less resources used, war bonds bought.

The whole country gets behind the effort.

I suppose I did misunderstand you, but what you are talking about wouldn't help either. The problem isn't resources, it's how we're fighting the war. We're going about it the wrong way, becuase this way is "cooler" and reels in Bush supporters like bears to honey. Brute force isn't the answer to terrorism, so MORE of it isn't going to help.

Yup. More pressure of this type simply creates more angry people who don't have massive, ultra-expensive military machines to settle scores, which means more terrorism. The funny thing is that the government knows this. I read a Korea Times article today that thought that the US and UK have long since given up on the idea that creaming mostly civilians is going to stop terrorism and are just stumbling along trying not to loose face. Deeply stupid, huh?

What seems stupid to me is that I think it's very possible to "defeat terrorism" in the sense of preventing another 9/11. The solution might not be as flashy, and certainly won't make for good "war president" campaign material, but in the long run it will make us much safer.

I can't see ANY American president doing what it would take to greatly reduce terrorist acts against the US. Just the idea that our efforts should be limited to us is beyond comprehension for these guys, considering we're inexplicably responsible for so many other countries now. Really, it's not like bin Laden hasn't been crystal clear and unwavering about what?s gotten his, and millions of Arab's, pissed off.

For those who hadn't heard:

1. Stop slaughtering Arabs at the drop of a hat, any hat
2. Stop supporting despotic governments in the Middle East
3. Leave Arab affairs to Arabs
4. PLEASE, stop the blanket support for Israel

I know some here will angrily disagree, but considering our government was designed to be very limited and has proven itself incompetent repeatedly, I just don't see this as unreasonable. If we did these things terrorist recruiting would dry up and bin Laden would be reduced to what he actually is, a fanatic who spouts dogma based on an obscure, tiny religion.

Sorry chief. Tried that. Got attacked!

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: eigen
You guys have a misunderstanding of what is meant by Absolute war.

You guys certainly understand total war.i.e all available methods to win the war.

Absolute war is this.The total capacity of the nation is mobilized to win the war.All social,economic and political structures work toward victory.

An example would be WWII.Victory Gardens were planted.

Now we would do sometshing similar.

Gas would be rationed,draft enacted,less resources used, war bonds bought.

The whole country gets behind the effort.

I suppose I did misunderstand you, but what you are talking about wouldn't help either. The problem isn't resources, it's how we're fighting the war. We're going about it the wrong way, becuase this way is "cooler" and reels in Bush supporters like bears to honey. Brute force isn't the answer to terrorism, so MORE of it isn't going to help.

Yup. More pressure of this type simply creates more angry people who don't have massive, ultra-expensive military machines to settle scores, which means more terrorism. The funny thing is that the government knows this. I read a Korea Times article today that thought that the US and UK have long since given up on the idea that creaming mostly civilians is going to stop terrorism and are just stumbling along trying not to loose face. Deeply stupid, huh?

What seems stupid to me is that I think it's very possible to "defeat terrorism" in the sense of preventing another 9/11. The solution might not be as flashy, and certainly won't make for good "war president" campaign material, but in the long run it will make us much safer.

I can't see ANY American president doing what it would take to greatly reduce terrorist acts against the US. Just the idea that our efforts should be limited to us is beyond comprehension for these guys, considering we're inexplicably responsible for so many other countries now. Really, it's not like bin Laden hasn't been crystal clear and unwavering about what?s gotten his, and millions of Arab's, pissed off.

For those who hadn't heard:

1. Stop slaughtering Arabs at the drop of a hat, any hat
2. Stop supporting despotic governments in the Middle East
3. Leave Arab affairs to Arabs
4. PLEASE, stop the blanket support for Israel

I know some here will angrily disagree, but considering our government was designed to be very limited and has proven itself incompetent repeatedly, I just don't see this as unreasonable. If we did these things terrorist recruiting would dry up and bin Laden would be reduced to what he actually is, a fanatic who spouts dogma based on an obscure, tiny religion.

1) With the implied exeception of Iraq - Where else has the US done this? Iraq handling has become a mistake that is difficult to get out of; and mistakes are being made while the US is trying to figure out how to extract from the quagmire without causing a civl bloodbath.

2) Allow the ME area and all Arab/Muslim areas be torn apart by civil wars if we withdraw support. - See #1 & #4 also.
3) As long as the Arabs do not come to the US and/or UN asking for assistance/help. this usually happens then an political organization can not solve its own problems internally. And when help is asked, it is usually to late.

4) Tit-for-Tat - Do not support either side. Remove all government funding support for both the Arab and Israel sides. Let Israel and the Arabs determine their own solution; Keep the US and Un out of it completely.

No cherry picking allowed.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: jjzelinski

Originally posted by: Genx87
not being the main target of our military.

I wonder if we carpet bombed all of Iraq and just pounded the civilian populations if we would see the same amount of resistance from these terrorists. It could very well be the people including the ones recruited by the terrorists wouldnt have the stomach or heart to continue the fight.

Clearly the populations of Japan and Germany were willing to give up by the time we got done with them. Both had a very fanatical following that is very close to what we see today. And there wasnt a prolonged resistence and attempts to derail the process of rebuilding the country and govt.

That's insane. You?re talking about carpet bombing a country that we're trying to "liberate?" >>>>>>>>WTF<<<<<<<<

EDIT:

Where the hell do you people come from and how did you take control of this country? Despite my shock at having read your post (which I'm sure was submitted in a *strictly* hypothetical sense) it's far from the first time that I've encountered this sentiment. We went there because some people were either tricked or coerced into accepting the retarded notion that Iraq (IRAQ of all places, I mean WTF?) posed a significant threat to our national security. AT LEAST HALF THE COUNTRY knew this was bullsh1t and yet the neo-nationalists (I just invented that term; you're welcome ) pulled out the patriotism whip and made the LOGICAL dissenters keep their pvssy mouths shut.

We then "shocked and awed" the world with our brazen stupidity by rolling through hundreds of miles of battle scarred landscape, impoverished villages and dilapidated cities on search for WMD's that we were just CERTAIN to find. After kicking the sh1t out of crippled little Iraq again in search of them, guess what; WE CAN'T FIND A TRACE of the huge arsenal that they'd supposedly been building up for the last 12 years. "...but the intelligence said!" they told us. In order to commence the invasion we kicked out weapons inspectors WHO EXPLICITLY TOLD US they'd not yet found *****a bit of evidence**** to suggest there was an NBC stockpile or even a weapons program to support the effort to eventually obtain them.

OOPS! Guess it's time to save face! "Ok ok, American public, what I REALLY meant to say was that we've just GOT to liberate those poor Iraqi's from... uhh.... themselves.... yeah!" Are you kidding me? Are we really that dumb? We've made ourselves into an absurd caricature of our own society. Black is now, white. Up is now down. Excuses for issues of global significance and national security can be made retroactive right in front of our faces.

Now, these same numb nuts who feed of this psychotropic trail of bread crumbs claim those who are FINALLY starting to cry fowl loud enough for the nation to hear "don't have the stomach for war." I don't even have words to describe the sheer absurdity of that sentiment. Yeah, what the hell was I thinking?! What better way to APPOLOGIZE to a country we've invaded under ADMITEDLY FALSE PRETENSES then to CARPET BOMB IT!

You need to get a grip. I am not advocating carpet bombing but this thread does bring up the question of whether or not demoralization of the civlian population helps with post war rebuilding.

WWII has two peoples that were very fanatical in their defense of the regimes they were under. Both countries had massive bombing campaigns against civilian population centers. Both countries had little problems in the years after from the former regime remnants.

If you cant have an honest discussion on the matter and instead decide to put words into people mouths then please dont bother responding anymore.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: Genx87
I have pondered this as well. Ever since WWII our country has tried to increase our effectiveness of conventional weapons to limit the loss of civilian life. Long gone are the days of dropping thousands of tons of napalm on a civilian population center with the intent to demoralize the population into giving up.

In Korea and Vietnam we saw the consequences of a civilian population able to continue the fight due to not being the main target of our military.

I wonder if we carpet bombed all of Iraq and just pounded the civilian populations if we would see the same amount of resistence from these terrorists. It could very well be the people including the ones recruited by the terrorists wouldnt have the stomach or heart to continue the fight.

Clearly the populations of Japan and Germany were willing to give up by the time we got done with them. Both had a very fanatical following that is very close to what we see today. And there wasnt a prolonged resistence and attempts to derail the process of rebuilding the country and govt.

Maybe that's because we're not fighting a faulty ideology but a religiously-backed force. IMO, religion gives much more power to the people than Nazi ideology. That's not to say that Islam is bad; the terrorists are simply using it to further their goals. If Hitler or the Japanese had thought of that, WWII would have been different.

True however parts of both regimes could be considered a religion. Certainly parts of both regimes were more than willing to do whatever it took including suicide bombings.