UN troops unable to return fire

[MobBoss]

Are you seriously telling me that at this present time it is absolutely impossible to achieve objectives using differing tactics? Have you considered he might be advocating using politics as a means of avoiding some of these situations in the first place?

Because politics has worked so well for all involved in the middle east before?

I mean really, RRW, I know your all proud of how things were resolved with the IRA (or is it?) and Britain, but not all terrorist groups are willing to 'come to the table' as it were....

If you think everyone can be dealt with via politics your wrong. As the man said in Batman 'some people....they just want to watch the world burn'...

In other words...there are simply people and groups in this world that will not ever deal with you no matter what.

Let me ask you a question. If the IRA hadnt been willing to deal and had just kept on bombing Britian what should the UK have done absent a political solution?

 

[Patroklos]

We are talkin about ROE, it is entierly seperate from the political question and simply descirbes what should happen when, not if, the military is called in.

Get your own thread!!!

 

[RedRalph]

Because politics has worked so well for all involved in the middle east before?

I mean really, RRW, I know your all proud of how things were resolved with the IRA (or is it?) and Britain, but not all terrorist groups are willing to 'come to the table' as it were....

If you think everyone can be dealt with via politics your wrong. As the man said in Batman 'some people....they just want to watch the world burn'...

In other words...there are simply people and groups in this world that will not ever deal with you no matter what.

Let me ask you a question. If the IRA hadnt been willing to deal and had just kept on bombing Britian what should the UK have done absent a political solution?

To the bolded sentence: consdering how 'well' military action has worked, you have got to be joking me.

I can think of few terrorist groups that cannot be at least negotiated with, or have some legitimate grievances. That dosent neccesarily mean concessions. I agree AQ, and some of their variants, almost certaintly can't be reasoned with, however that dosent mean I agree with all the tactics used against them.

The very fact that the US has now decided it is going to take EVEN MORE care to avoid civillian casualties in Afghanistan shows that up until now they weren't taking the most possible care. They seem to have realised you cant generally kill a terrorist group away (of course there are some exceptions).

MB, I agree that this route dosent work in every situation. Now can you and Patroklos agree that sometimes it does?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Invaded Kuwait.

After Kuwait deliberately ruined their economy by slashing the price of oil, slant drilled their oilfiends after the Iran-Iraq War backed by the US, and after they thought they had the express permisison of the US to do so.

Invaded This is where I must protest the strongest; the governments of Cuba and Iraq are/were creating misery and death, not the U.S.

Through blowback directly caused by the US and their absurd foreign policies. Or did you forget that Castro overthrew a brutal fascist dictator who seized control of the democratically-elected government by a coup, yet the US did nothing about it? Or did you forget that Hussein was our own puppet who was brought into power specifically to try to topple the Iranian government after their own 1979 revolution of our puppet fascist dictator?

In this day and age, deliberately attacking civilians is different than collateral damage, even if the results are effectively the same.

Only by those who commit the state-sanctioned acts of terrorism, or those who directly support them. It's amazing what despicable acts can be rationalized if you try hard enough. And they usually start out with "well, they are a lot worse..."

That was the least bad of all available options.

That excuae no longer works now that we know virtually all the US military leaders were against it, and they all stated their objections to the president who did it anyway. That makes Truman a war criminal.

 

[MobBoss]

It is if you label targeting a specific audience the important strategy instead of side effects.

These terrorists aren't the evil masterminds you make them out to be.

They dont have to be evil masterminds to recognize the effect of the media. Hell, OBL said long ago that the USA is simply a paper tiger and that the american people had no stomach to wage the kind of war required to beat them.

Vietnam did not fail because of the war weariness at home.

/fail. Total and utter fail.

It failed because of the duration of the war that caused the war weariness.

So then it did fail because of the war weariness at home?

I mean really ziggy...your going in circles here...

And it failed because the goals set could not be achieved without a full scale assault on North Vietnam, in effect risking an all out war against China. You guys could have kicked NV arse all the way to Hanoi and back if it wasn't for those restrictions.

Sounds to me like your making the case for unrestricted warfare here....

And just because war weariness was important in one conflict, that doesn't prove that terrorist make it an important part of their strategy now. Just like they're not blitzkrieging anywhere.

I think you need to study up on how asymetrical warfare actually works....if you have the time of course...

The plan! I'm sorry, but I have to giggle at a perception of: The Plan. Do you mean the Great Terrorist Masterplan?

What...you think simply because these people are from the middle east that some of them are not educated? That they are a bunch of dumb sheepherders?

Come on Ziggy. Again, yes, asymetrical warfare does have 'a plan' and you are extremely foolish or naive for not understanding that it does.

Anyway, was that staged media targeted at the Bleeding Heart Israelis you think? Or better yet, the infidel Americans who are out to destroy Islam. You know, those demons without soul who eat babies according to Hezbollah. Or rather aimed at the international community to put pressure on Israel? I suspect we agree it's the latter.

Of course it was for the international community - but again, you are being naive if you dont think it was also for elements of Israeli and american society as well.

How does that translate to Al Quaida and Afghanistan for instance? Which is a whole different kettle of terrorists. It's not limited to one kind of conflict, you cannot fight terrorists as an homogeneous group.

No, but you can fight against the similar tactics that all those groups employ.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

They dont have to be evil masterminds to recognize the effect of the media. Hell, OBL said long ago that the USA is simply a paper tiger and that the american people had no stomach to wage the kind of war required to beat them.

So?

/fail. Total and utter fail.

No, you!

So then it did fail because of the war weariness at home?

No. Read: "It failed because of the duration of the war that caused the war weariness."

And even: And it failed because the goals set could not be achieved without a full scale assault on North Vietnam, in effect risking an all out war against China.

Sounds to me like your making the case for unrestricted warfare here....

Only if I'd consider it a good idea to bring China into this. Do you think I'd consider it a good idea to bring China into the war? Because it sounds to me you do.

In other words: Do you really think I'm that stupid?

I think you need to study up on how asymetrical warfare actually works....if you have the time of course...

Oh snap! You got me there.

So .... what were your credentials again?

What...you think simply because these people are from the middle east that some of them are not educated? That they are a bunch of dumb sheepherders?

You really do live in a binary Universe dontcha? because Ziggy doesn't believe X, he believes the exact opposite of X.

Come on Ziggy. Again, yes, asymetrical warfare does have 'a plan' and you are extremely foolish or naive for not understanding that it does.

A Plan.

Of course it was for the international community - but again, you are being naive if you dont think it was also for elements of Israeli and american society as well.

Easy counterargument: you are being naive if you think it was also for elements of Israeli and american society.

No, but you can fight against the similar tactics that all those groups employ.

Well ....

How does that translate to Al Quaida and Afghanistan for instance?

 

[MobBoss]

To the bolded sentence: consdering how 'well' military action has worked, you have got to be joking me.

For the simple fact that Israel isnt divided up between Egypt, Syria and Jordan right now is evidence that I am far more correct than you are in our assertions.

I can think of few terrorist groups that cannot be at least negotiated with, or have some legitimate grievances. That dosent neccesarily mean concessions. I agree AQ, and some of their variants, almost certaintly can't be reasoned with, however that dosent mean I agree with all the tactics used against them.

In the face of politics not being an option, what tactics do you recommend then?

I cant wait to hear your suggestions.

MB, I agree that this route dosent work in every situation. Now can you and Patroklos agree that sometimes it does?

But of course. Its all politics in the long run actually. Remember, warfare is simply politics at the end of a sword....

 

[MobBoss]

No. Read: "It failed because of the duration of the war that caused the war weariness."

Thats the same thing ziggy.

Oh snap! You got me there.

So .... what were your credentials again?

22+ years of military service, which include advanced classes on asymetrical warfare and its effects, among a long list of other military issues.

And yours?

Easy counterargument: you are being naive if you think it was also for elements of Israeli and american society.

You dont think Cheezy (and folks that believe like him) qualifies as an element of american society? Because if you dont think that fake media was for folks like him as well then there simply isnt any further need of discussion. Your opinion is too far out of touch with realtiy to really matter...

Your 'counterarguement' is much too easily countered itself......

How does that translate to Al Quaida and Afghanistan for instance?

Minimizing soldier/civilian casualties for the folks at home, while at the same time forging ties to the local leaders to counter insurgent activities. All the while eliminating as many insurgents as we can find. And thats only a very small slice of the translation...

 

[RedRalph]

]For the simple fact that Israel isnt divided up between Egypt, Syria and Jordan right now is evidence that I am far more correct than you are in our assertions.

Rubbish. All it's indicative of is that Israel has a strong conventional military.

In the face of politics not being an option, what tactics do you recommend then?

I cant wait to hear your suggestions.

In some cases doing nothing (I know, as a real American hero you could never do that), and in some cases, military action. However that dosent mean I agree with all the tactics you might do.

But of course. Its all politics in the long run actually. Remember, warfare is simply politics at the end of a sword....

[/QUOTE]

OK, fair enough. At least you admit sometimes negotiation is better than force. To me that is true both on the strategic and tactical level.

 

[Patroklos]

The very fact that the US has now decided it is going to take EVEN MORE care to avoid civillian casualties in Afghanistan shows that up until now they weren't taking the most possible care. They seem to have realised you cant generally kill a terrorist group away (of course there are some exceptions).

The most possible care would be to not attack at all. You can always voluntarily be more restrictive than the GCs allow, that doesn't mean that is the best approach. This, however, is a perfect example of the misdirection of blame I mentioned before (again, our own fault to good extent).

MB, I agree that this route dosent work in every situation. Now can you and Patroklos agree that sometimes it does?

Remember RRW, I am talkin about ROE when force is already deemed necessary. I am not sure how you guys got backed up to pre conflict events.

After Kuwait deliberately ruined their economy by slashing the price of oil, slant drilled their oilfiends after the Iran-Iraq War backed by the US, and after they thought they had the express permisison of the US to do so.

Yeah, thos Kuwaities deserved strappado via construction crane! Wait, what?

 

[MobBoss]

Rubbish. All it's indicative of is that Israel has a strong conventional military.

No, its not rubbish. Especially not since it counters your point quite well.

In some cases doing nothing

Boy, now thats a plan.

(I know, as a real American hero you could never do that),

Well, as a real Irish hero, would you do that? I mean if someone came into your house to rob you and kill your loved ones...would you do nothing? Whats the Irish Hero response in that situation?

and in some cases, military action. However that dosent mean I agree with all the tactics you might do.

Thats not very specific there RRW. Come on. What 'tactics' do you recommend? Dont beat around the bush and waffle here like you just did.....give us some good answers.

OK, fair enough. At least you admit sometimes negotiation is better than force. To me that is true both on the strategic and tactical level.

I have never denied negotiation is valid, however, one needs to realize that its not always a solution either. Neville Chamberlin, 'peace in our time' and all that.....

 

[RedRalph]

No, its not rubbish. Especially not since it counters your point quite well.

right. Explain how. Explain how Israel existing shows that war works better in the ME than politics.

Boy, now thats a plan.

sometimes, it is the best thing to do, believe it or not. I can think of amny exaples when doing nothing was the best thing to do, if you need me to list them I can do so.

Well, as a real Irish hero, would you do that? I mean if someone came into your house to rob you and kill your loved ones...would you do nothing? Whats the Irish Hero response in that situation?

For the love of Dawkins... you know what? If they were heavily armed, and I wasn't, and they were robbing us and would leave once they got what they wanted? then yes, obviously it would be. If there was only one guy, and it was him vs me, then no, I'd kick his teeth in.

what a pathetic attempt to beat me. you know full well I said SOMETIMES nothing is the best thing to do, dont try and pretend otherwise...

BTW if you ever get a gun put to your head by someone who is after your wallet and will pull the trigger if you move, do your family a favour and do nothing.

Thats not very specific there RRW. Come on. What 'tactics' do you recommend? Dont beat around the bush and waffle here like you just did.....give us some good answers.

but it depends on the situation! Sometimes and airstrike might be a good idea, sometimes not. sometimes a full on assult might be a good idea, sometimes not. seriously, you dont need me to tell you that different tactics are appropriate to different situations. I can't even see what you are trying to get me to say here. If you are talkinmg about Afghanistan, as an example, I suspect the new US rules on civillian casualties will be closer to my position, whereas your position would probably be closer to the one they just rejected.

Basically, I suspect I would puit a different value on terrorists killed vs dead civillians than you would, but thats probably because you are such a good christian and I'm a godless athiest.

I have never denied negotiation is valid, however, one needs to realize that its not always a solution either. Neville Chamberlin, 'peace in our time' and all that...

did I say it was always a solution?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Thats the same thing ziggy.

Nope.

22+ years of military service, which include advanced classes on asymetrical warfare and its effects, among a long list of other military issues.

"advanced classes on asymetrical warfare and its effects" Sure MB

And yours?

Phd in classes on asymetrical warfare and its effects

You dont think Cheezy (and folks that believe like him) qualifies as an element of american society? Because if you dont think that fake media was for folks like him as well then there simply isnt any further need of discussion. Your opinion is too far out of touch with realtiy to really matter...

Your 'counterarguement' is much too easily countered itself......

Oh boy, the master of asymetrical warfare and its effects doesn't know the difference between targeted goals and side effects.

You must have missed that class.

Minimizing soldier/civilian casualties for the folks at home, while at the same time forging ties to the local leaders to counter insurgent activities. All the while eliminating as many insurgents as we can find. And thats only a very small slice of the translation...

That wasn't what I was asking.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

So...if you send the message to the terrorists that their tactic of using civilians as shields is a valid tactic and works.....they will stop doing it?

Naturally, I didn't argue that. But really, why would you start responding to what I actually wrote?

How somone could possibly believe this boggles the mind.

Well, maybe I can at least explain where I'm coming from. The efforts of the terrorists aren't merely meant to kill lots of people like, say, a serial killer -- they have political and ideological goals, too. And the efforts to combat terrorist groups must take those political and ideological struggles into account -- it's not solely a military matter.

So it's something larger than simply "getting" the people who at the time represent the terrorist group. Yes, that has to be part of it, but maybe the overall effort to stop Hezbollah would be better served by not bombing the human shields. Every time you bomb the human shields, you might "get" the terrorists, but you're also destroying families and weakening the support for the bombing nation. Those other things strengthen Hezbollah. Part of their decision to use human shields is to get Israel to bomb them, so they can use the civilians deaths to rally popular support.

So to sat that it "unquestionably" leads to more violence down the road, I think, ignores all those other factors.

Cleo

 

[MobBoss]

right. Explain how. Explain how Israel existing shows that war works better in the ME than politics.

Because if it were left up to politics, Israel wouldnt exist as it does today.

sometimes, it is the best thing to do, believe it or not. I can think of amny exaples when doing nothing was the best thing to do, if you need me to list them I can do so.

By all means, when facing terrorism and your citizens are being killed, tell me how doing nothing is the best option. Cant wait to hear it.

For the love of Dawkins... you know what? If they were heavily armed, and I wasn't, and they were robbing us and would leave once they got what they wanted? then yes, obviously it would be. If there was only one guy, and it was him vs me, then no, I'd kick his teeth in.

Well, Israel has those opposing it outclassed just as you face a single opponent. If they choose to 'kick their teeth' in just as you would....well....how can you fault them for that?

what a pathetic attempt to beat me. you know full well I said SOMETIMES nothing is the best thing to do, dont try and pretend otherwise...

And what about the other times then? You havent offerred anything as an alternative to 'nothing' yet....so?

BTW if you ever get a gun put to your head by someone who is after your wallet and will pull the trigger if you move, do your family a favour and do nothing.

It may come as a surprise to you RRW, but I have had a gun put to my head before in real life. And I did indeed do something and am still around to talk about it.

but it depends on the situation! Sometimes and airstrike might be a good idea, sometimes not. sometimes a full on assult might be a good idea, sometimes not. seriously, you dont need me to tell you that different tactics are appropriate to different situations.

Again...thats not too specific. Your not backing up your earliler arguement very well with that. You said there were good alternatives, and yet, what you mention here is what they actually do...not alternatives.

Try harder. Or you can simply admit you dont actually know any good alternatives to 'airstrikes' and 'full assaults'.

I can't even see what you are trying to get me to say here. If you are talkinmg about Afghanistan, as an example, I suspect the new US rules on civillian casualties will be closer to my position, whereas your position would probably be closer to the one they just rejected.

My position has always been to mitigate civilians casualties to the maximum extent possible while still completing the mission.

Basically, I suspect I would puit a different value on terrorists killed vs dead civillians than you would, but thats probably because you are such a good christian and I'm a godless athiest.

Rofl. You always resort to the ad homs when your getting your tail kicked in an arguement dont you?

So let me ask you in return. How many civilians would you kill to ensure you got OBL? How many would his head be worth? Give me a number...

 

[MobBoss]

Nope.

Of course it is. Now your just being obtuse for the sake of it.

"advanced classes on asymetrical warfare and its effects" Sure MB

Yes. Such courses of study are required for senior non-commissioned officers in the US Army.

Phd in classes on asymetrical warfare and its effects

You have mentioned what your education and profession were before here and it sure as hell wasnt that. I guess we are done here ziggy since you cant apparently even be truthful or even admit truth when its more than apparent.

Oh boy, the master of asymetrical warfare and its effects doesn't know the difference between targeted goals and side effects.

I didnt say I was 'the master' (and thanks for the logical fallacy btw)......but its readily apparent that I have indeed had some more in depth education on the subject that you have, and my qualifications and profession back that up.

Yours? Not so much.

You must have missed that class.

Nope. Again such classes are a required part of my professional development. Do us both a favor Ziggy - dont go away indignant......just go away.

That wasn't what I was asking.

Then be more clear in what you want.

Naturally, I didn't argue that. But really, why would you start responding to what I actually wrote?

Its a ramification of your arguement...surely you are able to see that. But, if you want to dodge the point go right ahead. I can see where it would be painful for you to actually address the point....

So it's something larger than simply "getting" the people who at the time represent the terrorist group. Yes, that has to be part of it, but maybe the overall effort to stop Hezbollah would be better served by not bombing the human shields. Every time you bomb the human shields, you might "get" the terrorists, but you're also destroying families and weakening the support for the bombing nation.

You assume there is actual knowledge of the existance of those 'human shields'. Thats not always the case. Very often those casualties arent even realized until the rubble is cleared.

Those other things strengthen Hezbollah. Part of their decision to use human shields is to get Israel to bomb them, so they can use the civilians deaths to rally popular support.

It only strengthens them if its allowed to. The counter is to continually point out how hezbollah puts civilians directly at risk by choosing to fight from positions with innocents close by.

So to sat that it "unquestionably" leads to more violence down the road, I think, ignores all those other factors.

If you allow groups like hezbollah to operate unrestricted it will unquestionably lead to more violence. Its not like they are going to call it good and just stop if you halt hitting them to avoid civilian casualties.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

If you allow groups like hezbollah to operate unrestricted it will unquestionably lead to more violence. Its not like they are going to call it good and just stop if you halt hitting them to avoid civilian casualties.

How did you get from "not bombing areas where human shields are present" to "operate unrestricted?" As I said (how many times can I write that in one thread?), the campaign against terrorist groups isn't simply . . . never mind. You aren't going to respond to what I write anyway.

Cleo

 

[MobBoss]

How did you get from "not bombing areas where human shields are present" to "operate unrestricted?" As I said (how many times can I write that in one thread?), the campaign against terrorist groups isn't simply . . . never mind. You aren't going to respond to what I write anyway.

Cleo

Of course I am. I just dont respond in ways you would like.

Cleo, its a very, very common tactic for groups like Hezbollah to operate in civilian dense areas. IF you dont counter them doing this you ARE allowing them to operate UNRESTRICTED in those areas (unless of course you think shaking your finger at them and yelling 'bad terrorist' is going to work).

I am not sure why thats confusing to you.

These types of groups cannot simply stand face to face with a nation like Israel and trade blows. Its part of the reason why they operate in the fashion they do...i.e. putting civilians at risk. They know there is a finite point at which their enemy will absolutely have to respond, and they know with absolute certainty that civilian casualties will indeed occur.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I didnt say I was 'the master' (and thanks for the logical fallacy btw)......but its readily apparent that I have indeed had some more in depth education on the subject that you have, and my qualifications and profession back that up.

Yours? Not so much.

Still without my 'qualifications' I still know the difference between a targeted goal and an unintended, but possibly beneficial, effect. But I don't qualify an unintended effect as important strategy. I guess you need in depth education on the subject to make that leap.

Nope. Again such classes are a required part of my professional development. Do us both a favor Ziggy - dont go away indignant......just go away.

Yeah, I'll save myself the bother of repeating me again and again, and you the trouble of having to quote my arguments out of context and misrepresenting and twisting them again and again.

I bet transparent misdirection was also part of your classes, am I right?

 

[Gecko1]

Mobboss have you nothing better to do than argue with a bunch of high schoolers and college students all day? If you have all the credentials you say you have shouldn't you be doing something that involves working or enjoying yourself away from your computer? I certainly do, that's why I don't waste my time arguing with angry old men like you anymore. C'mon go out get some fresh air, teach some advanced classes in "asymmetrical warfare and its effects" at the local community college. Live your life! Unless that is, you don't have one.