Hamas declares war on America . . .

[Predicto]

Sorry, we haven't done anything overtly military since Vietnam. We're too concerned about Greenpeace and Amnesty International crying and whining about civilian casulaties to go balls to the wall

All we need to do is make an example out of someone, completely. WWII like.

then all these pissants will STFU and crawl back under thier rocks

No they won't. That's the problem. They won't go away.

[Sarge]

No they won't. That's the problem. They won't go away.

"Dead" is another term for "going away"

The survivors make sulk and pout, but they'll think better of acting up or electing homocidal leaders to act up for them

[Henry]

No they won't. That's the problem. They won't go away.

Hooboy.

This is where people stop calling me a liberal.

I agree with Sarge. Kinda.

If you are going to do something, go in and destroy everything. And I mean everything. You go General Sherman on your enemy. You go Dresden and Hiroshima on them. You make certain the enemy knows that anything and everything within 100 miles of them will be gone, dead and useless until we show up and rebuild their nation for them, and by then their leaders will be dead, and whoever is left will be so beat down, scared and desperate that they'll actually thank us ... eventually

One thing Iraq and Vietnam (and to a lesser extent, Korea) should have taught us is that there is no such thing as a 'limited' war. You don't surgically destroy military targets and leave the civilians alone. You can't. You are declaring war. You are trying to rid the world of a detrimental culture, and cultures aren't created by militaries. They are created by civilians.

Sarge is right. Had we unapologetically gone into Afganistan with 500,000 to 1,000,000 troops and killed everything in our path and declared Martial Law and clamped down on that nation HARD, set up a provisional government, run by us, until we were satisfied that the Afgan government would be friendly to us and 100% complacent and we had bases there and a permanet significant troop presence ... Iraq wouldn't have been necessary. Neither would Iran. Neither would North Korea. And Hamas would shut the hell up.

Israel is a bad example to use because for one thing they don't have the resources to sustain a total war like that, and for another, they don't have the political clout to do it. We can invade another country and there's not a whole lot the world can do about it. Israel has to make sure we're happy, at least partially.

Now, I'm not saying we should start bombing everyone that looks cross-eyed at us into oblivion. I'm simply saying we have to stop trying to sugar-coat war. It's dirty and messy and people who don't deserve it die. That's why we don't like them. And that's why when we find ourselves in one, we should make sure the other side doesn't like them either.

I think that's what Sarge is trying to say. And if it is I agree with him.

[Predicto]

Hooboy.

This is where people stop calling me a liberal.

I agree with Sarge. Kinda.

If you are going to do something, go in and destroy everything. And I mean everything. You go General Sherman on your enemy. You go Dresden and Hiroshima on them. You make certain the enemy knows that anything and everything within 100 miles of them will be gone, dead and useless until we show up and rebuild their nation for them, and by then their leaders will be dead, and whoever is left will be so beat down, scared and desperate that they'll actually thank us ... eventually

One thing Iraq and Vietnam (and to a lesser extent, Korea) should have taught us is that there is no such thing as a 'limited' war. You don't surgically destroy military targets and leave the civilians alone. You can't. You are declaring war. You are trying to rid the world of a detrimental culture, and cultures aren't created by militaries. They are created by civilians.

Sarge is right. Had we unapologetically gone into Afganistan with 500,000 to 1,000,000 troops and killed everything in our path and declared Martial Law and clamped down on that nation HARD, set up a provisional government, run by us, until we were satisfied that the Afgan government would be friendly to us and 100% complacent and we had bases there and a permanet significant troop presence ... Iraq wouldn't have been necessary. Neither would Iran. Neither would North Korea. And Hamas would shut the hell up.

Israel is a bad example to use because for one thing they don't have the resources to sustain a total war like that, and for another, they don't have the political clout to do it. We can invade another country and there's not a whole lot the world can do about it. Israel has to make sure we're happy, at least partially.

Now, I'm not saying we should start bombing everyone that looks cross-eyed at us into oblivion. I'm simply saying we have to stop trying to sugar-coat war. It's dirty and messy and people who don't deserve it die. That's why we don't like them. And that's why when we find ourselves in one, we should make sure the other side doesn't like them either.

I think that's what Sarge is trying to say. And if it is I agree with him.

I sorta agree too.

Which is why war should be the very very very LAST resort, and you don't declare war first. Which is why you don't level the Gaza strip in response to this stuff from Hamas. Which is why you don't invade Iraq on a whim.

And when you do have to go to war, you better be damn sure not only that you are in the right, but that the rest of the world percieves that you are in the right, because otherwise, you just made hundreds of millions more enemies and decades more problems for yourselves.

Like now.

[Henry]

I sorta agree too.

Which is why war should be the very very very LAST resort, and you don't declare war first. Which is why you don't level the Gaza strip in response to this stuff from Hamas. Which is why you don't invade Iraq on a whim.

And when you do have to go to war, you better be damn sure not only that you are in the right, but that the rest of the world percieves that you are in the right, because otherwise, you just made hundreds of millions more enemies and decades more problems for yourselves.

Like now.

I don't necessarily disagree with that either.

[Spaceman Spiff]

I agree with Sarge. Leave no doubt.

[DjTj]

I agree with Sarge. Leave no doubt.

I agree with Predicto. Have no doubt.

[sacase]

Being pissed off and being able to do something about it are two different things. Why do you think there are no sanctions against us? We can have troops on the ground in 18 hours anywhere in the world, no other country can do that. We can fight anywhere on the planet, no other country can do that. You know why france and russia are mad at us? Its not because they care about Iraq it is because they were doing things there they were not supposed to, IE trading with them when there were sanctions in place. hands caught in the cookie jar.

[Sarge]

Hooboy.

This is where people stop calling me a liberal.

I agree with Sarge. Kinda.

If you are going to do something, go in and destroy everything. And I mean everything. You go General Sherman on your enemy. You go Dresden and Hiroshima on them. You make certain the enemy knows that anything and everything within 100 miles of them will be gone, dead and useless until we show up and rebuild their nation for them, and by then their leaders will be dead, and whoever is left will be so beat down, scared and desperate that they'll actually thank us ... eventually

One thing Iraq and Vietnam (and to a lesser extent, Korea) should have taught us is that there is no such thing as a 'limited' war. You don't surgically destroy military targets and leave the civilians alone. You can't. You are declaring war. You are trying to rid the world of a detrimental culture, and cultures aren't created by militaries. They are created by civilians.

Sarge is right. Had we unapologetically gone into Afganistan with 500,000 to 1,000,000 troops and killed everything in our path and declared Martial Law and clamped down on that nation HARD, set up a provisional government, run by us, until we were satisfied that the Afgan government would be friendly to us and 100% complacent and we had bases there and a permanet significant troop presence ... Iraq wouldn't have been necessary. Neither would Iran. Neither would North Korea. And Hamas would shut the hell up.

Israel is a bad example to use because for one thing they don't have the resources to sustain a total war like that, and for another, they don't have the political clout to do it. We can invade another country and there's not a whole lot the world can do about it. Israel has to make sure we're happy, at least partially.

Now, I'm not saying we should start bombing everyone that looks cross-eyed at us into oblivion. I'm simply saying we have to stop trying to sugar-coat war. It's dirty and messy and people who don't deserve it die. That's why we don't like them. And that's why when we find ourselves in one, we should make sure the other side doesn't like them either.

I think that's what Sarge is trying to say. And if it is I agree with him.

Isn't that what I said? :laugh:

[Zen-like Todd]

Um, ditto? Consensus on the Tailgate, something must be wrong!