Theories On How To Conduct War

[Lorizael]

Perhaps because they don't hold the oil over our heads the way Middle East countries do.

[Blaupanzer]

Actually, there are more than two choices. However, in the spirit of the poll, the US actually tends to follow Option 1, the same as the Israelis. Both countries have populaces highly sensitive to their own casualties and electoral methods able to punish any that forget this.

I suspect that the Israelis are in their "Shock and Awe" phase, so civilian casualties seem overly done. The US did this in Iraq not so long ago, and I recall civilian caualties were much lamented in the papers here in the US. Troop casualties were remarkably low in that phase of the war.

War is always a bad idea for civilians in the conflict zones, no matter what option the aggressors think they have chosen.

[Zkribbler]

The best general is the one who wins without fighting. Sun Tsu.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
The best general is the one who wins without fighting. Sun Tsu.

yeah I agree. Surrender to the terrorists.

american women are too fat anyways. They need to cover up with burkhas.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Smiley
Definitely the first one. It sucks more at first, but the war tends to end sooner. examples:

Vietnam - US burns villages, war goes on for decades.
Afghanistan - Civilian casualties are minimized. Five years later, situation in Afghanistan has improved to be comparable to inner city slums in the US.

Israel - almost 60 years and counting of hostilities...

Really? US inner cities are worse than I thought. 5 years on and our military still can't leave their bases in safety.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Japher
While the US says "with us or against us" Israel actually backs those words up with airstrikes. If you, as a society, harbor my enemy than you, as a society, are my enemy too.

It's so sad to see so many Americans justifying 9/11.

[GePap]

While the poll choices are silly, I find most of the answers here even sillier.

NOt surprised about Pati calling for crimes against humanity though. Not surprised at all.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
You people can ignore it and slam me, but these are the 2 points of views allowed.

Saying that your poll is stupid - which it is - is not a slam of you, so stop your bellyaching.

The "correct answer" does not exist because each situation calls for a specific solution and approach, not a adherence to some doctine of "f*ck them all, keep our boys safe" or vice versa. The ideal would be to attempt to have it both ways, understandably making certain allowances for one or the other when the situation merits it. The objective of virtually every modern army is to keep both civilian deaths and soldier casualties down.

Bottom line is, the fact that you only "allowed" two points for discussion doesn't mean your poll is any less worthless or misleading because of it. Your question on our proposed tactics for modern warfare is irrelevant to modern warfare, unless one happens to be a terrorist or just someone with profound disregard for life.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Patroklos
You don't have too much experience with people do you?

In any event, history proves me right on either method.

i dont have much experience with dogs. i assume dogs are either afraid or love you.

[:) Smiley]

Originally posted by Wezil
Really? US inner cities are worse than I thought. 5 years on and our military still can't leave their bases in safety.

well, there are neighborhoods that cops don't go into except in large numbers. US cities are far worse than their Canadian counterparts.

[Lazerus]

Option one, assuming you aren't deliberately targetting the civilians then you have no obligation to not bomb target X because some people refuse to move.

[Patroklos]

NOt surprised about Pati calling for crimes against humanity though. Not surprised at all.

Not suprised at you being once again overreacting, but please, where do I advocate war crimes???

[Mr. Harley]

In today's modern conflict, PR are critical. Both the Croats and Bosnians hired PR firms in the US, so now many Americans think the Serbs were the bad guys (I thought there were no good guys in that one).

Force protection makes military sense. That policy, without examining the PR effects of your decisions, can lead to your winning the battle and losing the war. Vietnam and the Serbs are the two best examples of this. Good PR, as in the case of the Croats, or Hezballah, can let you get away with murder, literally. Rumsfeld very obviously is utterly clueless about this dimension to modern conflicts, even though the US military is devoting increasing resources to both understanding it, as well as waging it.

Not only does the poll present a false dichotomy, it shows the designer is still on the same page as Rummy.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Dis
yeah I agree. Surrender to the terrorists.

[Dis's unsublte mind is unable to differentiate between winning without fighting and surrender.]

american women are too fat anyways. They need to cover up with burkhas.

If you'd ever seen some of the women I have dated, you'd grasp what a great idea this is

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Cyclotron


Saying that your poll is stupid - which it is - is not a slam of you, so stop your bellyaching.

The "correct answer" does not exist because each situation calls for a specific solution and approach, not a adherence to some doctine of "f*ck them all, keep our boys safe" or vice versa. The ideal would be to attempt to have it both ways, understandably making certain allowances for one or the other when the situation merits it. The objective of virtually every modern army is to keep both civilian deaths and soldier casualties down.

Bottom line is, the fact that you only "allowed" two points for discussion doesn't mean your poll is any less worthless or misleading because of it. Your question on our proposed tactics for modern warfare is irrelevant to modern warfare, unless one happens to be a terrorist or just someone with profound disregard for life.

Then bow out of the discussion. I asked a specific question.

My viewpoint is, and I've said this before, you need to be able to identify the opposition. If you can't, then all are the opposition.
Dropping leaflets on the city to say, "HEY! We're coming. Get out", was pretty damned decent of Israel.