US Drones Targeting Rescuers

#103
#103
nbakerld said:
I'm saying if they say that, and we say that, then it goes down like this:

Party A kills 1 person
Party B kills 1000 people
Party A kills 1,000,000 people
Party B kills 1,000,000,000 people

It's not a sustainable policy.
Click to expand...

You can do the talking, I talk with my guns pimping.

It's not what you say that matters, but can you back it up. I can and we can. I could careless what our enemies think. If they want some bring it on, son!
 
#104
#104
7thgroupvolfan said:
You can do the talking, I talk with my guns pimping.

It's not what you say that matters, but can you back it up. I can and we can. I could careless what our enemies think. If they want some bring it on, son!
Click to expand...

So you're currently active duty?
 
#107
#107
In my opinion, if a war is worth fighting you should be willing to put boots on the ground. Bombings from the air have killed countless thousands of civillians. Ground tactics kill civillians at times too, but they are much more discriminatory. I am not against air support if you are sending in troops but the idea of targeting people from on high seems like a ruthless tactic that can only be employed by the rich. Jesus wouldn't use drones.

(I'm actually a conservative Republican, beleive it or not.)
 
#109
#109
WesternKyVol said:
In my opinion, if a war is worth fighting you should be willing to put boots on the ground. Bombings from the air have killed countless thousands of civillians. Ground tactics kill civillians at times too, but they are much more discriminatory. I am not against air support if you are sending in troops but the idea of targeting people from on high seems like a ruthless tactic that can only be employed by the rich. Jesus wouldn't use drones.

(I'm actually a conservative Republican, beleive it or not.)
Click to expand...

This is real life we're talking about. Not some Jesus wouldn't do this bs. You put boots on the ground then maybe you can talk.
 
#110
#110
7thgroupvolfan said:
This is real life we're talking about. Not some Jesus wouldn't do this bs. You put boots on the ground then maybe you can talk.
Click to expand...

How about we just stop fighting wars that aren't worth putting boots on the ground? My argument doesn't need the Jesus line, I included it for emphasis, but I am cool w/o it.
 
#111
#111
WesternKyVol said:
In my opinion, if a war is worth fighting you should be willing to put boots on the ground. Bombings from the air have killed countless thousands of civillians. Ground tactics kill civillians at times too, but they are much more discriminatory. I am not against air support if you are sending in troops but the idea of targeting people from on high seems like a ruthless tactic that can only be employed by the rich. Jesus wouldn't use drones.

(I'm actually a conservative Republican, beleive it or not.)
Click to expand...

precision bombings and air tactics may cause more unwanted casualties, but they also save American soldiers lives. Weigh that how you want.
 
#113
#113
nbakerld said:
I'm still wondering about a reasonable long term plan anybody might have for fighting terror?
Click to expand...



Terrorism has been around for all of history. Success comes when ordinary people don't support it and the extremists are forced to operate in the dark and to commit crimes for even their most basic logistical needs.

The key is stability and engagement with nations around the world using all the tools we have available (DIME/PMESII) so that extremists cannot operate in freedom and have limited options on where to train, get equipment, plan and launch their attacks.

Take the Jemaah Islamiyah Islamist terror group in Indonesia. As we know Indonesia is the largest Muslim population in the world. The JI is an extremist group that has conducted several successful terrorist attacks against western tourists and businesses over the past decade. They published a 20 year plan to establish a caliphate in the Pacific/Asia.

Prior to the Free Aceh Movement when the Indonesian SF went overboard, we had a solid relationship with the Indonesians. After sorting that out, and after a couple of horrendous attacks, in 2005 we restarted a military engagement program specifically to discuss and train in counter-terrorist intelligence, planning and operations. But at the same time, we promoted other engagement opportunities, especially economic and social. By building up relationships across the spectrum we remove a lot of the support for the JI and are also able to work cooperatively with the Indonesians to predict and prevent future attacks.

The strategy applies in central Asia as well. A stable Afghanistan, Pakistan and the former Soviet states (we call them the Upickastans), allows for this relationship building, strengthens ties across the spectrum and removes support for the extremists. It is extraordinarily complicated, especially in the Af/Pak border area because those areas have been autonomous for decades. For example, in 2003-04 when the Pak Army put 70,000 troops in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), we had to provide them with updated maps of the region. The Pak Army had never been in the FATA prior to that time.

Now, given the 27 nationalities and languages, the historic hatred of Pashtus and Uzbeks, etc, etc, gaining stability in Afghanistan may prove to be beyond our capability. Certainly the mistakes we make during the heat of battle (or even the perception of mistakes) hurts our effort. But that doesn't mean that stability in Central Asia isn't a US national interest. It most definitely is in our national interest, which is why President Obama has reinforced our efforts in the region. The biggest problem now is communicating that to the country and maintaining our national commitment to the effort--that is where we are really failing right now.
 
#114
#114
This is the sh!t that pisses me off. People come in here talking like they know what is going on when they don't know jack sh!t. I live this on a daily basis. So unless you're another combat vet wanting to have a discussing, then shut the hell up.

Otherwise, enlist and get yo ass over here.
 
#115
#115
WesternKyVol said:
In my opinion, if a war is worth fighting you should be willing to put boots on the ground. Bombings from the air have killed countless thousands of civillians. Ground tactics kill civillians at times too, but they are much more discriminatory. I am not against air support if you are sending in troops but the idea of targeting people from on high seems like a ruthless tactic that can only be employed by the rich. Jesus wouldn't use drones.

(I'm actually a conservative Republican, beleive it or not.)
Click to expand...

I disagree with your entire post 100%. Technology reduces collateral damage. With the tech we have today, we have reduced the blast radius from a couple thousand feet to tens of feet. Is it perfect, no, but technology wins wars and also limits the amount of American lives lost.
 
#117
#117
KiffinKiller said:
precision bombings and air tactics may cause more unwanted casualties, but they also save American soldiers lives. Weigh that how you want.
Click to expand...

Ok. One group from a rich nation volunteered to be in a mercenary army. The other group of a majority women and children are dirt poor and have nothing and volunteered for nothing. All they want from life is a concrete floor and enough food and medicine for their kids. It's no contest for me.
 
#118
#118
7thgroupvolfan said:
This is the sh!t that pisses me off. People come in here talking like they know what is going on when they don't know jack sh!t. I live this on a daily basis. So unless you're another combat vet wanting to have a discussing, then shut the hell up.

Otherwise, enlist and get yo ass over here.
Click to expand...

wait so we can't discuss anything unless we've been over there? Ever think some people have friends/family that have been there/are currently there?
 
#123
#123
OrangeEmpire said:
Hatred of freedom of choice is not the primary reason?

They use religion as a form of control, the issue isnt freedom?
Click to expand...

Yes, the government fears that the average person will become active in their desire for what we have and uses the Imams preaching in the mosques to reinforce their control. Twitter is having a different effect than they want, hence the Arab Spring...
 
#124
#124
7thgroupvolfan said:
Well, so far is been a circus show. Enlighten me, pj. What are we doing wrong?
Click to expand...

missed my point. You obviously think no one but vets should be able to discuss these things. Is that valid?

my main problem is we're still there fighting for people that don't give a damn while our country falls apart. Same situation as Iraq yet we were able to get out of there
 
#125
#125
golfballs03 said:
the Pakastani people should be pissed and do something about their government
Click to expand...

about as much chance of that happening as it would be here. I always laugh when people say they bear arms ro protect themselves from govt tyranny. Which one of the boneheads is going to lead the charge on washington?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top