Theories On How To Conduct War

[SlowwHand]

USA is hesitant to strike "civilians" in Iraq. This causes higher losses for our troops. Civilian casualties are relatively light.

Israel tells their intended targets, in certain cases, "Civilians, haul ass". In spite of best intentions, civilian losses are high. Israeli military losses are comparatively light.

Let me say in advance, I think either way, it's a terrible thing. I don't condemn either. I only note the difference.

Given that fact, which tactic would you choose?

[Cyclotron]

I reject your question as representative of a false dichotomy.

Obligatory Edit: Also, no banana.

[SlowwHand]

WTG, Cyclotron. A non-answer. Just what the world needs.

[Wiglaf]

Re: Theories On How To Conduct War

Originally posted by SlowwHand
USA is hesitant to strike "civilians" in Iraq. This causes higher losses for our troops. Civilian casualties are relatively light.

Israel tells their intended targets, in certain cases, "Civilians, haul ass". In spite of best intentions, civilian losses are high. Israeli military losses are comparatively light.

Let me say in advance, I think either way, it's a terrible thing. I don't condemn either. I only note the difference.

Given that fact, which tactic would you choose?

this is so idiotic it's unbelievable

civilian casualities relatively light in iraq? lol wtf are you on.

[Wiglaf]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
WTG, Cycltron. A non-answer. Just what the world needs.

read a book instead of asking such dumb questions ...

[SlowwHand]

Listen, punkass. Compare statistics before you run your mouth.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
WTG, Cyclotron. A non-answer. Just what the world needs.

The world certainly doesn't need "you're either with us or you're against us" stupidity. I expected better of you than to give an obvious false dichotomy and then dismiss any criticism of it as a "non-answer."

[Patroklos]

You mean compare casualties relative to population and time and the alternative?!?!?!?!?

How dare you suggest such a thing Slow, did you forget where you are?

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
I reject your question as representative of a false dichotomy.

Obligatory Edit: Also, no banana.

Agreed on both counts. Your question is invalidated, and thus not answerable, by the fact that it presents a choice between two options that are not representative of the full gamut of choices ... ie, you're saying "choose A or B" when clearly C is the correct (or a correct) answer ...

[Ninot]

OMGWTFBBQ!!! Conservatives=teh Evil!!!

I've changed my mind on this recently though. If you send the soldiers there, give them all the tools they need to stay alive, damn the civilians that get in the way.

But of course, give the civilians a decent chance to get out of the way, Ala Israel.

[Wiglaf]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Listen, punkass. Compare statistics before you run your mouth.

*shoots gun into the air*

yeeehawwwwwwwww texan by the grace of gawwwddd

[MRT144]

what happened to the real wiglaf?

[:) 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...

[Patroklos]

Basically, whichever way you go you need to follow through.

Vietnam and Isreal are examples of half assing it. Today we are going to burn your village, tommarrow we are going to vaccinate you, the next day I kill all your cattle, next week I build you a school. That makes them neither scared of you or enamored of you, and you are going for one or the other.

[MRT144]

you know that would work if people were dogs patroklos.