How should America go about winning the war on terror ? Your suggestions

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Japher
Wild E. Coyote and The Roadrunner rule!!!

Indeed

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Ted Striker



Stop exaggerating.

Exaggerating what? I've read lots of stories where jumpy soldiers shot people that looked suspicious, then not even bothered to check out whom they just killed and why, and not being restricted by their officers for shooting the people they are there to protect. It probably hasn't been reported on FOX, but that doesn't make it an exaggeration.

If you read Oerdin's blog, you see that they even weld extra metal plates onto their vehicles to bump civilian cars off the road whenever there is a traffic jam. Imagine how angry you would be if some ashole smashed your car and your insurance did not cover it. Your soldiers, often hiding behind SOP orders, don't act like the liberators they are supposed to be, they are rather arrogant and scared. A bad combination.

Look at the Brits, they are confident and polite. They do things like play football with the locals. When a British unit under attack ran out of ammo, they fixed bayonets and charged, taking a higher risk to save civilian lifes while still solving the problem. The American SOP in that situation would be to call in an airstrike, causing a lot of colateral damage.

The firefighters in WTC did not say: - Hey I won't go in that building, it might collapse! They said: - My mission is to save civilian lifes, so I must face the risk of going in there!
A soldier is also payed to take a higher risk. As the mission in Iraq is "Iraqi freedom", they must face the higher risk in order to win, not shoot at everything that looks suspicious, just in case.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Ned
I take you cannot read.

I read words like leftist, crap, neanderthal and moron.

I did not read your explanation how airstrikes, tank attacks and the creation of bitter orphans prevents terrorism. Can you write it again please?

[Whoha]

http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm

That is how.

[Japher]

what? Nuke Japan?!


will it help?

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Whoha

http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm

That is how.

That site would take hours to read, and it's only about WW2 anyway. In WW2, you were facing rich and powerful nations with strong regular armies, air forces and navies, not terrorists.

If you want to prove a point by posting that link, could you please extract the essentials and explain your logic?

[Whoha]

To end Terror the populace supporting it is going to have to be made to lose faith in terrorism to do whatever it is that they want it to do.

"In June 1944 approximately two percent of the population believed that Japan faced the probability of defeat. The fall of Saipan could not be kept from the Japanese people. Even though the psychological effect of this disaster was far greater on the Japanese leaders and intellectuals than on the mass of the population, all indices of Japanese morale began thereafter to decline. By December 1944 air attacks from the Marianas against the home islands had begun, defeats in the Philippines had been suffered, and the food situation had deteriorated; 10 percent of the people believed Japan could not achieve victory. By March 1945, when the night incendiary attacks began and the food ration was reduced, this percentage had risen to 19 percent. In June it was 46 percent, and just prior to surrender, 68 percent. Of those who had come to this belief over one-half attributed the principal cause to air attacks, other than the atomic bombing attacks, and one-third to military defeats. "

[Chemical Ollie]

According to your president, you are not trying to defeat the Iraqi people, you are trying to liberate it. The defeat and humiliation of Japan is not comparable. It's another time, another culture, another religion and another war.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Kill the male population of an enemy country, take the females as slaves, burn it's capital and salt the earth afterwards.

this is why history is so important. Otherwise, we'd have to keep reinventing the wheel.

I'd support either that, or hiring Ming to ban all the terrorists.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Richelieu
How should America go about winning the war on terror?

Become what you are pretending to be. Build that shining city on the hill. If you build it, they will come...

Please. America's biggest ****ing problem is the stupid city on the hill idea. England should've just killed the Puritans, not let them come to the US

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by The diplomat
How can you say such a thing?

He's a moron.

Don't you care about the 3000 lives that were lost on 9-11?

No.

That's not "insignificant". No life is insignificant.

Yes it is.

The only importance is symbolic, and the damage to our economy.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
According to your president, you are not trying to defeat the Iraqi people, you are trying to liberate it. The defeat and humiliation of Japan is not comparable. It's another time, another culture, another religion and another war.

I thought Iraq didn't have anything to do with the war on terror?

[Pekka]

While I'm not totally agreeing with Chemical Ollie, yeah, I mean, that kind of **** must happen in there too. How much, that's another question. Hopefully it's very marginal.

But the point is, how the soldiers act is very important outside combat. I mean, there are lot of young lads, who might be living it up when not in duty, or showing great disrespect for the culture, people etc when in duty. People sense that kind of thing even if they don't speak the language. Now this is totally understandable, lot of young guys, in stressful place like Iraq and war. It might be just something very little a single soldier could do. But mark my words, you can tell when a person is insulting you even if it's not up your face, close and personal.

So that being said, it's extremely important that as many as possible could act politely but firm and very professional. It's difficult. I'm not blaming anyone here. I'm just stating the obvious. THis kind of **** happens everywhere. You're not so special you wouldn't do this. It's an individual thing. Young lads. War. **** happens. But I'd say the amout of leash that can be put on that behaviour has correlation to the reqruitment numbers. Maybe not significant, but some, and every bit counts.

How can we prevent this? By supporting the troops the best we can. Have them on R&R, making their life as easy as possible, taking care of them physically and mentally. Because the better they feel, the better they act, and that's just a fact. By bringing way more troops, tens of thousands, even couple of hundred of thousand. That relieves the situation a lot.

But this is a fact: Nothing like a disrespectful young soldier can make a young kid on the other side join the resistance. If the wise man waves at the kid, throws him candy and talks with the kid a little, gives him a soccer ball and promises to come see him again, that effort goes to waste when some other guy next day makes fun of him or insults him or his group, culture, religion or country in some way. That's them mixed signals.

[MrFun]

One of the ways to combat terrorism, is to abolish neo-colonialism, that great bane of nearly all third-world countries today.

[GePap]

Nothing.

The "War on Terror" is as winnable as "The War on Drugs" or a "War against War"

Are you assking what the US could do to minimize the damage done to the US by Islamic extremists, well that is a different question.