|
Post by YourCapnSpeaking on Jun 11, 2003 18:45:34 GMT -5
Obviously, Rush, you did not read the entire post. If you had, or at least been paying attention, you would have seen that I said to declare martial law.
And Panda, I only wish to annihilate those that threaten innocents. Namely, murderous dictators.
And using B-1, B-2, and B-52 bombers to attack these dictators would not kill massive civilians. It is obvious that you do not know about laser guided bombs and precision bombing and the types of weapons in the various militaries.
With today's technology, you can fire a missile to hit something the size of the head of a pin. And I know that you are going to bust me on collateral damage, but once again, before you bomb something, you make sure there isn't going to be avoidable civilian casualties. And I am sure that most of the people living in the city would be loyal to the dictator and those that are not want nothing more than to die.
Rush, Vietnam was fought under terms that we did not understand. Our militay was not used to fighting against or using guerilla tactics. The last time guerilla tactics were used by American soldiers was in the REVOLUTIONARY WAR. And then it was done by militia, more often then not.
We got our tails whipped in Vietnam because we did not know how to properly fight. However, today is different. Five M1 Abrams can drive into an African city and instantly own the place.
And those symapthizers who would fight to the death ... run over them using the tanks. But only if they pose a threat. If they're too far for you to run them over and they're shooting at you, place a few .50 caliber bullets in their body. The .50 caliber on an M1 is guaranteed to stop a man.
|
|
|
Post by paradoxPanda on Jun 12, 2003 6:19:52 GMT -5
And Panda, I only wish to annihilate those that threaten innocents. Namely, murderous dictators.
And using B-1, B-2, and B-52 bombers to attack these dictators would not kill massive civilians. It is obvious that you do not know about laser guided bombs and precision bombing and the types of weapons in the various militaries.
You're right, I do know very little about bombs. Perhaps it's because I'm a 14-year old girl. So explain to me, if this is so easy, why didn't we do it with Saddam?
|
|
|
Post by m on Jun 12, 2003 6:36:43 GMT -5
/\ We did, but it wasn't flawless, and never will be, because they still have to be programmed.
Obviously, Rush, you did not read the entire post. If you had, or at least been paying attention, you would have seen that I said to declare martial law.
I read your post, and martial law isn't the answer.
Rush, Vietnam was fought under terms that we did not understand. Our militay was not used to fighting against or using guerilla tactics. The last time guerilla tactics were used by American soldiers was in the REVOLUTIONARY WAR. And then it was done by militia, more often then not.
Not to mention Russia being part of the UN and the US having to filter its plan through the Russain embassy which in turn, they told the Vietnamese what we were going to do.
We got our tails whipped in Vietnam because we did not know how to properly fight. However, today is different. Five M1 Abrams can drive into an African city and instantly own the place.
Not every army is as ill-equipped, and unmotivated as the Iraqi's were. They're not just going to gasp, "Oh the Americans are coming!" Drop their weapons and run or surrender. It would be naive and incredibly dangerous to think otherwise.
And those symapthizers who would fight to the death ... run over them using the tanks. But only if they pose a threat. If they're too far for you to run them over and they're shooting at you, place a few .50 caliber bullets in their body. The .50 caliber on an M1 is guaranteed to stop a man.
In rules of engagement, it's just not that easy.
|
|
|
Post by YourCapnSpeaking on Jun 12, 2003 7:23:58 GMT -5
Russia hgave our plans to the Vietnamese because they were an enemy at the time. Ever heard of the Cold War? The American government also broadcasted our plans to the enemy at the same time they were broadcasted to our people. They still do it today. What do you think CNN is? Russia is one of our strongest allies to date.
As far as the rules of engagement are ... if they shoot you, you shoot back. It does not get any simpler than that. If they come at you with an AK-47, use a .50 caliber. Thing is with America, you screw us over, we'll screw you over, only a little worse.
And the reason it was harder in Iraq for precision bombing was because Saddam was a lot smarter when it came to military. He was a coward as well and hid behind human shields and constantly moved his location, never sleep in the same bed twice in a row. An enemy of that type is harder to kill. That is why it took so long to get Hitler in WWII, though he actually killed himself.
And I can guarantee that the African armies are wielding little more than Kalishnakovs and some anti-personnel grenades, a little bit of body armor, and maybe a few anti-armor grenades. But the M1 tanks was designed to take as much punishment as it can dish out.
|
|
|
Post by paradoxPanda on Jun 12, 2003 14:40:30 GMT -5
And the reason it was harder in Iraq for precision bombing was because Saddam was a lot smarter when it came to military. He was a coward as well and hid behind human shields and constantly moved his location, never sleep in the same bed twice in a row. An enemy of that type is harder to kill. That is why it took so long to get Hitler in WWII, though he actually killed himself.
Unlike the African dictators, who will immediately politely tell us exactly where they are. Please. After we bomb the first one, they'll catch on. They'll be exactly like Saddam, or bin Laden.
|
|
|
Post by YourCapnSpeaking on Jun 12, 2003 16:02:00 GMT -5
Once again, you overlooked something in the original post. I said swift SIMLUTANEOUS (same time) action! If you hit them all within 24 hours of each other, they won't have a chance to react. You just keep the news from reporting and strike.
|
|
|
Post by pettyluv on Jun 12, 2003 17:32:36 GMT -5
^^You must recognize how incredibly impractical this whole plan is. The tremendous cost of this operation and the ensuing occupation of most of Africa is just absurd.
|
|
|
Post by YourCapnSpeaking on Jun 12, 2003 18:39:21 GMT -5
Saving the lives of millions is absurd? Eradicating some of the most gruesome dictators in history is impractical? Please, I would like to know your response.
|
|
|
Post by paradoxPanda on Jun 12, 2003 19:17:14 GMT -5
^ Please. You're talking about knocking out the governments of half a continent. You're talking about using Nazi policies to prevent the spread of AIDS. You could at least admit that it would be completely impractical and unprecedented, which obviously matters when it comes to diplomatic relations. Unless you just want to bomb everyone you don't like and set yourself up as world leader, this whole idea is truly absurd. On the plus side, OBR, my respect for you is growing daily.
|
|
|
Post by m on Jun 13, 2003 6:30:00 GMT -5
Russia hgave our plans to the Vietnamese because they were an enemy at the time. Ever heard of the Cold War?Yes, that was the war we fought Russia with in 1968 when the Rolling Stones threw snowballs at Brezhnev. The American government also broadcasted our plans to the enemy at the same time they were broadcasted to our people. They still do it today. What do you think CNN is? Russia is one of our strongest allies to date.Yep, that's why they had oil deals in Iraq and yelled the loudest when we attacked Iraq. And the reason it was harder in Iraq for precision bombing was because Saddam was a lot smarter when it came to military. He was a coward as well and hid behind human shields and constantly moved his location, never sleep in the same bed twice in a row. An enemy of that type is harder to kill. That is why it took so long to get Hitler in WWII, though he actually killed himself.Don't think for a minute these dictators, who care even less about their own people, won't do the same thing. And I can guarantee that the African armies are wielding little more than Kalishnakovs and some anti-personnel grenades, a little bit of body armor, and maybe a few anti-armor grenades. But the M1 tanks was designed to take as much punishment as it can dish out. Again, you have people that maybe are not well armed, but will fight and in sheer numbers. You also have the aspect of several hundred years of blacks against whites -- thanks to the slave trade. Can you imagine the feelings we'd stir up. An advancing column of white Americans against a largely black population. And imagine what would happen to any of our guys if they were caught and imprisoned. It would turn into a race war. Also, Africa has thick jungles so it doesn't matter how big and tough our M-1 tanks are, because they will not beable to get through some of those jungles and swamps. You would have to have a severe and sustained bombing to level those jungles, which would cause environmental concerns. And lets face it, we don't have an unlimited supply of cruise missiles at $1,000,000 apeice. Unlike the African dictators, who will immediately politely tell us exactly where they are. Please. After we bomb the first one, they'll catch on. They'll be exactly like Saddam, or bin Laden. Ha Ha! Exactly. Also, in wartime and all the deaths of military personnel and civilians alike, you risk spreading the very diseases you want eradicated. And forget AIDS now you get to deal with the Ebola virus that has symptoms that make AIDS seem pleasant. And viruses like that can't tell and don't care who they infect. Now you have the problem of our guys coming home and some are hosts to these diseases. Now we have Ebola in the US, is it worth it? No. Costly? Too much so, and this may sound harsh, but Africa as an economy just isn't that important to the US and the rest of the world. [quote author=paradoxPanda link=board=00005&thread=1053980870&start=38#2 date=1055463434 On the plus side, OBR, my respect for you is growing daily. [/quote] My pleasure.
|
|
|
Post by YourCapnSpeaking on Jun 13, 2003 7:00:45 GMT -5
I realize that Africa is not economically important to the world scene, but don't you think liberating a people from over a hundred years of oppression is important? Not to the world scene, but from a moral stand point.
And like I said before, if you attack all within 24 hours of each attack, then thse dictators will not have a chance to hide like Hitler, Saddam, or bin Laden.
And my solutions to the AIDs problem are not Nazi in origin. They just happened to be put into effect on a world scene by the Nazi party. The Chinese used to do it for hundreds of years and I think that they still do restrict the amount of children per household.
And if you run these dictators into the jungles, then they'll succumb to Darwin's laws of may the fittest survive. They won't be able to survive in the jungle on their own without food or water. So once they are running in the jungle or the Sahara, leave them to die. And if they try to resurface, Army Ranger sniper. Simple.
What you said about the race war ... That would not happen on a full large scale. We are attacking the bad guys. Not the good guys. We are liberating the Africans, not oppressing them. When we attacked Iraq and Afghanistan, you didn't see a mass uprising of the Muslim community in America, which is actually quite large.
In WWII, the German-Americans did not rise up, nor the Japanese Americans. Were there harsh feelings towards the Japanese and Germans in America during WWII? Sure, but that was by the ignorant and prejudiced. Those were the unevolved humans that no longer have any say in society. Vietnam, I don't seem to remember Vietnamese Americans being put into slavery or public lynching.
Now during the Cold War, there was a mass Red Scare started by a US Senator. He was one of the unevolved. He started a modern Salem Witch Trial. Only instead of hunting witches, he was accusing people of Communism; mainly spying or treason to the United States governent. However, he was quickly removed from office and the accused were compensated in some way.
Take a look back at the recent 20th century. The decisions of the past can help us change the future. If we do not learn from history's mistakes, then we will inevitably be forced to repeat it.
|
|
|
Post by paradoxPanda on Jun 13, 2003 7:12:44 GMT -5
The Chinese used to do it for hundreds of years and I think that they still do restrict the amount of children per household.
I don't believe they performed mass sterilizations. The DO limit the number of children, but that has nothing to do with what you're propsing. That's a measure to control population, not to prevent the spread of a disease.
|
|
|
Post by m on Jun 13, 2003 10:37:53 GMT -5
/\ Yes, it's to control the population which is currently over one billion people, India isn't far behind.
I realize that Africa is not economically important to the world scene, but don't you think liberating a people from over a hundred years of oppression is important? Not to the world scene, but from a moral stand point.
You're thought in that way is very noble, but it's not workable. And as far as dictators having a chance to leave, 24 hours is a long time, they're gone when the first bomb hits or missile strikes.
And if you run these dictators into the jungles, then they'll succumb to Darwin's laws of may the fittest survive. They won't be able to survive in the jungle on their own without food or water. So once they are running in the jungle or the Sahara, leave them to die. And if they try to resurface, Army Ranger sniper. Simple.
Again not so simple. Who says a dictator will stay in one spot, or not kill a civilian and steal his clothes. if they're smart enough to oppress thier people, they're going to everything they can to stay alive. War planners have to look at every possible angle and where it can go wrong, and that includes the mindset and pschology of the enemy.
What you said about the race war ... That would not happen on a full large scale. We are attacking the bad guys. Not the good guys. We are liberating the Africans, not oppressing them. When we attacked Iraq and Afghanistan, you didn't see a mass uprising of the Muslim community in America, which is actually quite large.
No, but the feelings are mixed in Iraq. They think we wanted their oil. Propaganda and seeds of doubt once planted are extremly tough to root out, i.e. convince people otherwise.
Vietnam, I don't seem to remember Vietnamese Americans being put into slavery or public lynching.
That was 25 and 50 years ago, tempers and attitudes change and anger seethes.
Take a look back at the recent 20th century. The decisions of the past can help us change the future. If we do not learn from history's mistakes, then we will inevitably be forced to repeat it.
Which is why we are hesitant to rush into mistakes in the first place. And at this point, we simply cannot afford it with a 300 billion dollar deficit, and having to rebuild Iraq. The oil fields alone, as always, are going to cost more to rebuild. And we're footing the bill.
|
|
|
Post by YourCapnSpeaking on Jun 13, 2003 11:15:19 GMT -5
Well, if you want to remove the debt, which about 80% of we owe to ourselves, just forget about it. We have Fort Knox ... why not sell some of that gold off? I am sure there's enough there to pay for a quick military strike and still have more than enough.
And you would not give these African dictators any warning. You just strike. No 24 hour chance to leave like we gave Saddam. Press the button and they are dead!
|
|
|
Post by m on Jun 13, 2003 14:13:02 GMT -5
We have Fort Knox ... why not sell some of that gold off? I am sure there's enough there to pay for a quick military strike and still have more than enough.
What would we use to back up our own currency if there's less gold? And that would create other problems such as wildly changing interest rates.
And you would not give these African dictators any warning. You just strike. No 24 hour chance to leave like we gave Saddam. Press the button and they are dead!
But until then, any early warning they have, and it does work, will give someone ample time to get out. Like this and the above statements, it isn't that simple or we would have done it and long ago. Everything looks great on paper, but once you add people into the mix, it gets all the more complex.
|
|