A depressing thread

[Hauldren Collider]

Let's start a betting pool on regexcellent and Albie becoming officers. It will be fun!

I think reg has very good odds, assuming he sticks with ROTC. Somehow I doubt the Army would reject him.

[kentonio]

Oman is surrounded by countries that refuse to give quarter to terrorists, thus demonstrating my point.

The rebels were training and supplying in Yemen you tool.

Take a moment to consider what happened in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos after we left. Preventing the rise of Communism in those countries was a worthy goal. As soon as we left, thousands, and later millions of people were murdered. Our presence was the only thing stopping that. See for example the "killing fields" in Cambodia, the boat people of Vietnam, and the Hmong people of Laos.

Oh gee, I wonder who it was that overthrew the Khmer Rouge? Oh gee, that would have been those nasty Vietnamese.

But they weren't, as it turns out.

Isn't hindsight amazing.

In fact they went over McNamara's head to protest to Johnson that the war was being fought wrong, and that we should have been fighting it in a less limited way.

The same Joint Chiefs of Staff who had told Kennedy during the Cuban missile crisis that a full invasion of Cuba was the only solution?

There were other issues with the way Johnson prosecuted the war as well; for instance, the refusal to use the National Guard for political reasons, thus contributing to the deterioration of those units as they became filled with draft dodgers, and the lack of experienced volunteer troops.

The main issue was the US was fighting a pointless, grinding war on the far side of the world against an enemy no-one gave a crap about.

Countries aren't neutral if they're providing aid and comfort to terrorists. What you're saying is that the insurgents can regroup, rearm, recruit, and train in complete safety as long as they stay across a line in the sand. That's absurd; you can't fight a war like that.

That 'line across the sand' is a national border you idiot! Say some radical militia decided to stray south of the border and shoot up some Mexicans, does that give Mexico the right to start bombing Austin? Worse, you're talking about poor ass countries covered with jungle who didn't have the resources to detect let alone stop cross-border incursions. That did not give America the right to start dropping bombs and killing innocent neutral civilians. If any other country had done it, you'd have been screaming your heads off about war crimes.

I never said the "hearts and minds" aspect isn't important. It's necessary, but not sufficient.

Actually it is sufficient, America have just traditionally been awful at it.

The Taliban kill way more innocent children. Maybe if the drone strikes kill enough then the people will get fed up with the Taliban making them targets. This has happened in other places, such as Zambia during the Border War.

Oh so we're equating America to the Taliban now? As long as you kill a few less innocent children, then you win? Every child you kill over there CREATES more support for the Taliban you ****ing idiot!

Neither. Using human shields is a war crime. You know those baby carriers that hold babies to your chest when you're walking? Suppose you walked around with a machine gun and a baby in one of those on your front. You then shoot at a bunch of soldiers. Is it their fault or yours if the baby gets shot when they return fire? Obviously it's yours.

I think you would be shocked at how few people would shoot back if they thought there was a chance of that baby getting hit. It's called human empathy, and maybe one day it'll make sense to you.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

And we do make a concerted effort to avoid blowing up civilians, but it happens every now and again. When it does happen, it's not our fault.

The difference between you and the terrorists is - you have the means to kill remotely in a "nice" manner, and they do not. You have the propaganda machine behind you, and they do not. Effects are the same though except for every civilian they kill in the west, US kills one thousand civilians in Middle East. Nether side kill many of the "real" perpetrators, as in terrorists have less than 1% hit rate on some US government officials and anyone in Army chain of command, and you also have less than 1% hit rate of the confirmed "terrorist" leaders and such.

Sum total, people getting killed for nothing, terrorist numbers increasing and coffers of US defense contractors bloating at US taxpayers expense. Investors in defence industry and terrorist leaders in some caves win, everyone else loses, some greatly, like limbs, kids and family members, some less like having to repay incredible amounts of money via taxes into defence investors pockets, but sum total - you all lose, unless some of you are the actual investors here.

[Kidlicious]

If you are going to shame people you should try to be less ridiculous.

[Lorizael]

Lots of people did find ways to work against the Nazi regime. Most Germans didn't even try.

Oh, so when we firebombed Dresden, we made sure to only target the German civilians who did help the Nazis?

[Wezil]

I think he's already said they were guilty by association.

[DaShi]

And we do make a concerted effort to avoid blowing up civilians, but it happens every now and again. When it does happen, it's not our fault.

We? I'm not "they" would ever want "you" saying that.

[Jaguar]

Oh, so when we firebombed Dresden, we made sure to only target the German civilians who did help the Nazis?

Are there good people who died in Dresden? Sure. Does that matter? Only if there was a better alternative.

[Jaguar]

On the main thread subject:

Hey guys! Remember that time we did something in the Middle East, and the whole world looked up at us in admiration, and declared in one voice, "thank you, USA, you're super-awesome?"

Me neither.

[Felch]

The alternative was to not firebomb cities full of refugees.

[kentonio]

Are there good people who died in Dresden? Sure. Does that matter? Only if there was a better alternative.

There almost certainly was.

It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed. Otherwise we shall come into control of an utterly ruined land… The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing. I am of the opinion that military objectives must henceforward be more strictly studied in our own interests than that of the enemy.

The Foreign Secretary has spoken to me on this subject, and I feel the need for more precise concentration upon military objectives such as oil and communications behind the immediate battle-zone, rather than on mere acts of terror and wanton destruction, however impressive.

[Lorizael]

The alternative was to not firebomb cities full of refugees.

That's just silly, Felch. And anyway, without the firebombing of Dresden, we'd have no Slaughterhouse-Five.

[Jaguar]

I'm open to the idea that you, Churchill, and Felch are right. I'm open to the idea that tens of thousands of extra lives could have been spared, here or there, through better decisions by the Allied air command. But nobody should be put into that position in the first place, where any decision they make is a death sentence for tens of thousands of people.

Maybe the world would be a better place if we had slightly prolonged the collapse of Nazi Germany to try to avoid harming innocents contained within its borders. But... a narrow focus on 25,000 slain in a war that took 50 million lives seems arbitrary. None of those people needed to die. Why focus on those people? Why the 25,000?

[Imran Siddiqui]

On the main thread subject:

Hey guys! Remember that time we did something in the Middle East, and the whole world looked up at us in admiration, and declared in one voice, "thank you, USA, you're super-awesome?"

Me neither.

Liberating Kuwait

That was as close to the entire world saying anything in unison as it ever would. (Seriously, can't even get the world to agree the Holocaust happened)

[Jaguar]

I don't remember that, sadly. You're old, Imran.