Why do people buy the idea that enemies can be bombed into submission?

N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
This goes all the way back to ancient times, the general idea being that you can defeat an enemy by killing him. I certainly agree, you can kill a person who holds the ideals and beliefs of your enemy, but the enemy still persists. Why? Because you can't kill an idea with military force, no matter how strong it is.

This is something I feel doesn't compute to most Americans. Most humans are emotional creatures, most of us base most of our decisions on emotion; what we feel is "right" at the time. The people demanding action in Syria over James Foley's murder is a good example. Same thing with Daniel Pearl.. People act mostly out of instinct, in the moment, and governments rely on this to push agendas.

So what happens if you kill every single member of the IS? They have families, loved ones, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, fathers, mothers.. what happens to them? What happens to the sons who lose their fathers?

They become terrorists. We create them, through our offensive actions.

Bottom line; you can't defeat the IS, or any enemy, by military might.

No matter how big the force, the ideal will persist.


So this is the purpose of the thread; What do we gain by fighting the IS?
Click to expand...
The USA doesn't fight IS because we don't like their beliefs. We fight the war to provide money for the military industrial complex and the big banks. When they tell you that we need to go to war to save some little oppressed country from some evil dictator and that they need "democracy", those are just code words to appease the masses, we are in it for the money. Think we give a shit that some Kurd up on a mountaintop doesn't have 3 hots and a cot?

It's all about the Benjamins baby.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
This goes all the way back to ancient times, the general idea being that you can defeat an enemy by killing him. I certainly agree, you can kill a person who holds the ideals and beliefs of your enemy, but the enemy still persists. Why? Because you can't kill an idea with military force, no matter how strong it is.

This is something I feel doesn't compute to most Americans. Most humans are emotional creatures, most of us base most of our decisions on emotion; what we feel is "right" at the time. The people demanding action in Syria over James Foley's murder is a good example. Same thing with Daniel Pearl.. People act mostly out of instinct, in the moment, and governments rely on this to push agendas.

So what happens if you kill every single member of the IS? They have families, loved ones, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, fathers, mothers.. what happens to them? What happens to the sons who lose their fathers?

They become terrorists. We create them, through our offensive actions.

Bottom line; you can't defeat the IS, or any enemy, by military might.

No matter how big the force, the ideal will persist.


So this is the purpose of the thread; What do we gain by fighting the IS?
Click to expand...

It is easy enough for an adult to figure. We are not after submission.

We continue to fight Sunni Jihad as we have done for over 200 years.

We are not trying to fight Nazi anymore, are we? Did they submit, however? Oh hell no.

Did they re-ferment in Sunni Jihad? Oh hell yes.
 
heckler73

heckler73

Well-Known Member
greenlikemoney said:
Bombing is OK, but we are using the wrong bombs. Nuke them phuckers !!!
Click to expand...

I'd have to say the video evidence provided by Cheesus (if accurate) shows just how efficient air offensives are.
That said, I don't know the source of that material, but judging from the dresses those "warriors" were wearing, they appear to be of the correct affiliation as per the discussion. Then again, this is almost like a Ted Nugent "canned-hunt" considering these ISISILI cro-magnons were fostered and nurtured by Western interests.

 
A

althor

Well-Known Member
Japanese would probably be the people to ask.
Now, will we ever see that type of bombing again? Probably not.
 
tip top toker

tip top toker

Well-Known Member
Because they're weak and need someone to tell them everything will be ok.

All this talk from Cameron and Obama about how they will irradiate IS and terrorism with a magical coalition. Its fucking laughable. You can NEVER defeat terrorism with force. I mean hell, I wonder how many civilians of these very countries wouldn't put a bullet through their leaders head if they could. If I could obtain a bomb, id happily selotape it to the houses of parliament.
I'm just unruly though, I'm not a terrorist unless I'm part of an affiliated group or live in a desert.

They're pathetic. Terrorists, no matter what their religion or path in life, are here to stay so long as these governments disrespect everyone, including their own people, and there is absolutely nothing they can do about it. They can pour every penny of the countries GDP into tackling it, yet if one man decides to kill a bunch of policemen, soldiers, or a politician, there is not one thing they can do about it.
 
AlecTheGardener

AlecTheGardener

Well-Known Member
War on drugs

War on terror


Both a complete waste of time and energy. Bombing a group into dust only creates other splinter groups and angry civilians who become militant after our 'precision' bombs blow up their family.

No easy solution, but bombing only wastes money and lives, a ground war is foolish.

What to do?
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
AlecTheGardener said:
War on drugs

War on terror


Both a complete waste of time and energy. Bombing a group into dust only creates other splinter groups and angry civilians who become militant after our 'precision' bombs blow up their family.

No easy solution, but bombing only wastes money and lives, a ground war is foolish.

What to do?
Click to expand...
Snipers, with 0.50cal rifles.

Or Doer, with a helicopter and a bag of gravel.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
AlecTheGardener said:
War on drugs

War on terror


Both a complete waste of time and energy. Bombing a group into dust only creates other splinter groups and angry civilians who become militant after our 'precision' bombs blow up their family.

No easy solution, but bombing only wastes money and lives, a ground war is foolish.

What to do?
Click to expand...
Well, if we were trying solve anything I might agree.

We don't do anything unless a BUNCH of people agree that it is good.
If a bunch of people here wanted us to not bomb Esselle, we would not.

Nixon was elected to get us out of Nam and save us from the Dems.
He did that, by going to China and not sending more troop, as the Dems did.

Bombing is for stopping an aggression, just like shooting or lobbing a big rock.
But, nothing worked in Nam or Iraq against gooks. (insurgents)

But, when you get the gooks to mass up, then you can bomb them to good effect for stopping the advance.
 
jahbrudda

jahbrudda

Well-Known Member
AlecTheGardener said:
War on drugs

War on terror


Both a complete waste of time and energy. Bombing a group into dust only creates other splinter groups and angry civilians who become militant after our 'precision' bombs blow up their family.

No easy solution, but bombing only wastes money and lives, a ground war is foolish.

What to do?
Click to expand...
You forgot the worst war of all, the devastating, WAR ON WOMEN. :o
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top