Take off the gloves

[Grave_n_idle]

The myth that non-state enemies like al-Qaeda can't be defeated

...exists only in your own head?

...There is no refuting the argument that if you kill all of your enemies, you win.

And that's not a job you can do with Total War, unless you are going to kill absolutely everyone outside this country. And probably, some inside.

[Des-Bal]

It seems prepostorous to follow rules of etiquette when dealing with enemies that exercise a policy of murdering civillians. Under certain conventions a nation cannot respond to acts of terrorism or genocide with all of its resources, for example a blade with more than two edges or incendiary ammuniton. Following these rules when combatting an enemy that doesn't can only promise more death. Why should my country tie its own hands in this situation?

Sir, I believe the words you are looking for are "Total Warfare," General Sherman.

I'm not talking about devoting all capital and labor to the war effort I'm talking about using weapons that were banned for no rhyme or reason save compassion for the gentleman your trying to kill.

No in Sherman's definition: "Burn Everything, Kill Everything, Take Everything of Value."

Somehow you quoted my post that said "this is not about killing and burning everything" and interpreted it to mean I'm talking about killing and burning everything.

[Des-Bal]

No its about dealing with terrorism, however if we sent troops to england where there are startlingly few terrorists it would be not only stupid but it would get us into it with a few world powers.

There are native born terrorists in the US, too. Maybe we should nuke America just to make sure we get them all?

Afghanistan DID attack us Al Qaeda was heavilly based out of Afhanistan

Afghanistan didn't attack us. We went into Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban - who ALSO did not attack us.

...we just responded far too late the efforts of the shaved monkey we called Commander in Chief failed miserably to identify the actual target iraq had no purpose. We can fight a total war where they are.

Where are they?

That's the problem with asymmetrical warfare - ESPECIALLY this kind of global phenomenon - terrorism isn't 'based' anywhere. It's not specific to one group, one country - you can't invade terrorism.

1.Those ones are sent to special unnamed facilities convieniently placed outside of the jurisdiction of the constitution and never seen or heard from again.
2.Maybe you missed the Al Qaeda part.
3.Al Qaeda specifically? Afghanistan and all over the middle east there are extremeties all over the world but cutting off the head will make them fall into line.

[Chumblywumbly]

Afghanistan and all over the middle east there are extremeties all over the world but cutting off the head will make them fall into line.

'Terrorism' isn't a structured organisation/institution, let alone a hierarchical one.

[Des-Bal]

Afghanistan and all over the middle east there are extremeties all over the world but cutting off the head will make them fall into line.

'Terrorism' isn't a structured organisation/institution, let alone a hierarchical one.

I wasn't talking about the head of the organization I was talking about the bulk of the problem.

[Chumblywumbly]

I wasn't talking about the head of the organization I was talking about the bulk of the problem.

Then I don't see how your point stands; managing to prevent terrorism in Afghanistan via a total war scenario (whether this is possible or not) would not entail that terrorism cease in other areas of the world.

[Alsatian Knights]

It seems prepostorous to follow rules of etiquette when dealing with enemies that exercise a policy of murdering civillians. Under certain conventions a nation cannot respond to acts of terrorism or genocide with all of its resources, for example a blade with more than two edges or incendiary ammuniton. Following these rules when combatting an enemy that doesn't can only promise more death. Why should my country tie its own hands in this situation?

Sir, I believe the words you are looking for are "Total Warfare," General Sherman.

I'm not talking about devoting all capital and labor to the war effort I'm talking about using weapons that were banned for no rhyme or reason save compassion for the gentleman your trying to kill.

No in Sherman's definition: "Burn Everything, Kill Everything, Take Everything of Value."

Somehow you quoted my post that said "this is not about killing and burning everything" and interpreted it to mean I'm talking about killing and burning everything.

Um, no, I was telling him there is a difference between Sherman's "Total War" and everyone elses "Total War"

[Grave_n_idle]

1.Those ones are sent to special unnamed facilities convieniently placed outside of the jurisdiction of the constitution and never seen or heard from again.

That doesn't sound like Total War.

That sounds like almost the exact opposite - precisions trikes based on intelligence, that only target the guilty.

Which makes me wonder why you're talking about 'taking off the gloves' elsewhere.

2.Maybe you missed the Al Qaeda part.

Not at all - maybe you did?

Al Qaeda is not an Afghanistan problem. It's never been an Afghanistan problem.

There was a point, before we decided to start declaring stupid wars, where we MIGHT have been able to catch a lot of Al Qaeda people that WERE in Afghanistan - but we blew that. And they were never centred there, or reliant on Afghanistan.

If we nuked Afhanistan flat, todaay - it wouldn't kill Al Qaeda.

3.Al Qaeda specifically? Afghanistan and all over the middle east there are extremeties all over the world but cutting off the head will make them fall into line.

Which head?

Are you confusing the Taliban with Al Qaeda? It's an easy mistake to make, but it's still a mistake.

Al Qaeda doesn't even have 'a head'. Again - we're not talking about war with a nation - you cn't 'assassinate the president of Al Qaeda'.

[Unchecked Expansion]

The 9/11 Hijackers were mostly Saudi weren't they? And yet, the only troops there are stationed with your ally. Iraq was openly hostile to AQ, as Saddam was a secular leader at odds with them, so invading Iraq made the terror problem far worse by expanding AQ.
If you fight with unrestrained force, it only becomes a weapon against you. People will look at the damage you cause and side against you.

[JuNii]

It seems prepostorous to follow rules of etiquette when dealing with enemies that exercise a policy of murdering civillians. Under certain conventions a nation cannot respond to acts of terrorism or genocide with all of its resources, for example a blade with more than two edges or incendiary ammuniton. Following these rules when combatting an enemy that doesn't can only promise more death. Why should my country tie its own hands in this situation?

because everyone else believes that the country with the rules of etiquette should follow it.

Take the Iraq war.

A Terrorist blows up a bus full of civilians in a crowded market, a mention in the news.

US forces hit a wedding... it's on the news for 5 days. it's talked about, condemned by everyone and a lynch mob formed... all before the investigation can find out what really happened.

[Techno-Soviet]

Technically, doesn't committing atrocities in the first place make you an illegal combatant and NOT subject the same rights that other POWs have?

[Dbrought]

ok please don't flame me for what i am about to say. i am not repeat not saying that what these two people did was justifiable. all i'm saying is they are among the few that truly waged a war.
Generals Paton and Sherman thought and were quoted for saying the following (roughly)
"War is hell and this is war"
"May god have mercy on my enemies, for i won't"
They both are accredited to burning/ bombing towns the enemy controlled to the ground.
My own quote
"In truth war is not about killing your opponent. they can die and you can still lose. war is all about fear. If your nation breaks because they are afraid or fear going to every means necessary to win then they have already lost. An army can be led incompetently and still win if they have the will to. No leader can win with an army or people unwilling to fight. They only lose when they give in to fear. That is why enemies surrender. They fear their opponent more than failing to serve their own leaders and nation/group."
Sun tzu... possibly the greatest general of all time wrote essentially this. He never lost.

[Conserative Morality]

He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you.

[Unchecked Expansion]

ok please don't flame me for what i am about to say. i am not repeat not saying that what these two people did was justifiable. all i'm saying is they are among the few that truly waged a war.
Generals Paton and Sherman thought and were quoted for saying the following (roughly)
"War is hell and this is war"
"May god have mercy on my enemies, for i won't"
They both are accredited to burning/ bombing towns the enemy controlled to the ground.
My own quote
"In truth war is not about killing your opponent. they can die and you can still lose. war is all about fear. If your nation breaks because they are afraid or fear going to every means necessary to win then they have already lost. An army can be led incompetently and still win if they have the will to. No leader can win with an army or people unwilling to fight. They only lose when they give in to fear. That is why enemies surrender. They fear their opponent more than their own leaders."
Sun tzu... possibly the greatest general of all time wrote essentially this. He never lost.

And nothing that has been done in Afghanistan or Iraq has made them want to stop fighting. If cruise missiles, carpet bombing, air support, artillery barrages and armour doesn't faze a gang of paramilitary fighters with cold war equipment, don't you think pure force might be the wrong method?

[Conserative Morality]

Sun tzu... possibly the greatest general of all time wrote essentially this. He never lost.

He also may have never existed. Not to mention that his military record isn't exactly well-recorded.

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

Strongbad strongly opposes this notion of a hand naked of a glove.

[Dbrought]

And nothing that has been done in Afghanistan or Iraq has made them want to stop fighting. If cruise missiles, carpet bombing, air support, artillery barrages and armour doesn't faze a gang of paramilitary fighters with cold war equipment, don't you think pure force might be the wrong method?

I never said pure force. i said fear. our enemies need to fear us if we are to win, and our allies should fear not being with us when they see what happens to our enemies. To cite another source read about Machiavelli. he also has a bunch of theories on the subject in the prince or at least his own version. cause here is the natural truth of the world. the civilians just want to be left alone and the soldiers just want to get paid and not die. that is why a few determined people can accomplish great amounts. really what we need is not a WMDs but a WMFs. Weapons that make them fear us. If they are too busy being afraid of consequences they won't have time to fight back

[Tergnitz]

There is no prize for runner-up in a war. Unless your nation is prepared to use every single means to achieve victory, you might as well declare defeat now. If you allow your enemy to use successful tactics which you then prevent your own nation from using, you are just making their eventual victory all that much quicker.

Word.

The myth that non-state enemies like al-Qaeda can't be defeated needs to be shot in the head and buried under a ton of rubble. There is no refuting the argument that if you kill all of your enemies, you win. Also, if your actions make it unmistakeably clear to your enemy that it can't win, and that it will be crushed without mercy and everything it values will be destroyed along with it unless it permanently stands down, it is likely that that enemy will sooner or later realize it and give up.

It's all a matter of power and, more importantly, will. Who has the power, and who has the will to use it, determines who wins.

Now this man knows what he is talking about. If everyone of your foes are dead, then you've won haven't you.

[Dbrought]

Sun tzu... possibly the greatest general of all time wrote essentially this. He never lost.

He also may have never existed. Not to mention that his military record isn't exactly well-recorded.

i'm personally assuming he did. i read the book he supposedly wrote so whether he was a real person or not i will say i agree for the most part what i believe the art of war was saying

[Grave_n_idle]

There is no prize for runner-up in a war. Unless your nation is prepared to use every single means to achieve victory, you might as well declare defeat now. If you allow your enemy to use successful tactics which you then prevent your own nation from using, you are just making their eventual victory all that much quicker.

Word.

The myth that non-state enemies like al-Qaeda can't be defeated needs to be shot in the head and buried under a ton of rubble. There is no refuting the argument that if you kill all of your enemies, you win. Also, if your actions make it unmistakeably clear to your enemy that it can't win, and that it will be crushed without mercy and everything it values will be destroyed along with it unless it permanently stands down, it is likely that that enemy will sooner or later realize it and give up.

It's all a matter of power and, more importantly, will. Who has the power, and who has the will to use it, determines who wins.

Now this man knows what he is talking about. If everyone of your foes are dead, then you've won haven't you.

No, because you'll make new foes in bringing it to pass.

Eventually, it'll just be you, alone - because you'll have found cause for war with every other person.

It's a Pyrrhic victory. At best.

[Grave_n_idle]

Sun tzu... possibly the greatest general of all time wrote essentially this. He never lost.

He also may have never existed. Not to mention that his military record isn't exactly well-recorded.

i'm personally assuming he did. i read the book he supposedly wrote so whether he was a real person or not i will say i agree for the most part what i believe the art of war was saying

Ultimately, of course, it doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter if Sun Tzu actually said "When doing battle, seek a quick victory" any more than it matters if Jesus actually said "Do not judge, or you too will be judged". It's good advice, no matter who it comes from - no matter if it's attributed to real people... or if it's just accretion of common wisdom.

[North Suran]

...There is no refuting the argument that if you kill all of your enemies, you win.

And that's not a job you can do with Total War, unless you are going to kill absolutely everyone outside this country. And probably, some inside.

Bah, they're just brown people with their funny accents and their silly religion.

They should be grateful that we liberated them from their al-Qaeda oppressors - and their lives, too.

[Unchecked Expansion]

And nothing that has been done in Afghanistan or Iraq has made them want to stop fighting. If cruise missiles, carpet bombing, air support, artillery barrages and armour doesn't faze a gang of paramilitary fighters with cold war equipment, don't you think pure force might be the wrong method?

I never said pure force. i said fear. our enemies need to fear us if we are to win, and our allies should fear not being with us when they see what happens to our enemies. To cite another source read about Machiavelli. he also has a bunch of theories on the subject in the prince or at least his own version. cause here is the natural truth of the world. the civilians just want to be left alone and the soldiers just want to get paid and not die. that is why a few determined people can accomplish great amounts. really what we need is not a WMDs but a WMFs. Weapons that make them fear us. If they are too busy being afraid of consequences they won't have time to fight back

So we don't use pure force, just weapons of such power that they terrify them? You want to obtain allies through crude shows of force?
And I wasn't aware terrorists got a pay cheque. In this case AQ and the insurgents are the few determined people, who aren't fighting for money or land, just out of anger.

[Des-Bal]

I wasn't talking about the head of the organization I was talking about the bulk of the problem.

Then I don't see how your point stands; managing to prevent terrorism in Afghanistan via a total war scenario (whether this is possible or not) would not entail that terrorism cease in other areas of the world.

Terrorism wil always exist by dealing with the bulk of it and breaking up the organization between cells Al Qaeda will be no more dangerous than any of the other whack jobs.

[Des-Bal]

1.Those ones are sent to special unnamed facilities convieniently placed outside of the jurisdiction of the constitution and never seen or heard from again.

That doesn't sound like Total War.

That sounds like almost the exact opposite - precisions trikes based on intelligence, that only target the guilty.

Which makes me wonder why you're talking about 'taking off the gloves' elsewhere.

2.Maybe you missed the Al Qaeda part.

Not at all - maybe you did?

Al Qaeda is not an Afghanistan problem. It's never been an Afghanistan problem.

There was a point, before we decided to start declaring stupid wars, where we MIGHT have been able to catch a lot of Al Qaeda people that WERE in Afghanistan - but we blew that. And they were never centred there, or reliant on Afghanistan.

If we nuked Afhanistan flat, todaay - it wouldn't kill Al Qaeda.

3.Al Qaeda specifically? Afghanistan and all over the middle east there are extremeties all over the world but cutting off the head will make them fall into line.

Which head?

Are you confusing the Taliban with Al Qaeda? It's an easy mistake to make, but it's still a mistake.

Al Qaeda doesn't even have 'a head'. Again - we're not talking about war with a nation - you cn't 'assassinate the president of Al Qaeda'.

How many times do I have to say I'm not talking about total war before it becomes apparent that I'm not talking about total war?
Yes, because George Bush is an idiot.
No, I'm talking about the bulk of the cells the only thing that makes Al Qaeda dangerous is its organized structure without that we can just throw fundamentalist arabs on the pile with anarchists and skinheads and then pretend they don't exist until something else gets blown up.