Pakistan: how long until finally, finally the gloves are taken off?

[Blood_splat]

I feel bad for our guys who are fighting, it must be so frustrating.

[Freiwillige]

When General Sherman marched into the south (C.S.A.) during the civil war he was brutal. But effective.

Warfare is not politically correct, Its ugly and horrible in the worst way and should be resoundingly avoided at all costs.

But I doubt Pakistan would even flinch if we told them that half of our nuclear arsenal is pointed at them and if they are feeling froggy go ahead and jump.

Obliteration is the greatest deterrent and builds respect for the ones who could turn your nation into a parking lot. Right now they play us as fools because they know that there will be no repercussion for there actions.

Sherman, Patton, Genghis Khan, Stalin, Hitler, Spartans all had the right idea's on how to fight a war just make sure your fighting it for the right reasons!!!!!

Be defensive in nature but if that fails you go on such a brutal offensive that they think twice before attacking you again!

[AngusJS]

Originally Posted by MH

When you want to shoot just shoot dont talk.


World is suffering Chamberlain syndrome all over again.
As then europe rolled its self on the back till too late it is happening again.

But you can swiftly go from just this




to this.

[Oberon]

I prefer:

World is suffering Chamberlain syndrome all over again.

Really? in what way?
Oh in no way
I thought you would have been really pissed off with Skybirds proposal to wipe Israel off the map and wreck the economy of the world....but hey alls fair in love and war

When General Sherman marched into the south (C.S.A.) during the civil war he was brutal. But effective.

The succesioniosts held very little territory , had miniscule finances or backing had had absolutely no real second string to fall back with their slave state ideology.
So general sherman can burn the **** out of Pakistan and Afghanistan and it won't have any positive effect at all.
Happy Times is the only one to put forward a possibly workable at a real long stretch plan, and that was to turn the world in to a one party dictatorship where every aspect of every persons life will be strictly controlled on all levels by a new one world state police

[AngusJS]

Originally Posted by Skybird

To le tthem have no doubt what would happen to them and their ideologic buddies, would make sure that right this would not happen and other nations like them would try to pressure them into giving up.

Ah, so now you can trust the untrustworthy ISI and the Pakistani religious fanatics, so you won't have to go through with your threat of mass murder?

Beyond that, you have just declared that in case of somebody attacking you first, you will not retaliate. In other words you have already declared your intention to surrender in case of being attacked.

No, I haven't. And at least I would retaliate against the attackers, and not random civilians in other countries. Crazy idea, I know.

[MH]

lol you realy succided in puting out of context all Skybird wrote here.
I thought it was about fighting war actully to win it instead of losing lifes of soliders for nothing.

[antikristuseke]

MH, the subject has been discussed here already, there is no concrete enemy to fight here, you just can't declare total war against every single muslim in the middle east just because some small minority of them are complete *******s.
What skybird has suggested in this thread, unless I misread it, is to destabilize another country like Afghanistan by killing off its entire political and military leadership, as if that would produce anything more than complete and utter chaos and turn more people to the cause of those religious ****nuts. I am going to leave his nuking ideas untouched in this post as I simply don't have anything more to say to that.

Yes, Afghanistan is a quagmire, but that won't be helped by turning Pakistan into the same kind of quagmire.

lol you realy succided in puting out of context all Skybird wrote here.

Really its putting skybirds nonsense into context.
After all he wants to threaten nuking every so called holy site anywhere in the world which means both screwing the vital resource which almost every industry relies upon plus wiping Israel off the map.

I thought it was about fighting war actully to win it instead of losing lifes of soliders for nothing.

And the solution he gives to solve the problem of a lawless crazy state is to make another lawless crazy state and then make another lawless crazy state followed by another lawless crazy state.
To put it in context it makes sense if your ideal is a world with no countries at all and just a very few rich people left still having a couple of babies in their isolated little eco friendly super technical very rural villages just to preserve human civilisation.
But of course to understand that you would have to put his afghan/pakistan vision into the context of his visions on such topics...and you don't even have to go as far as his regular Mein Kampf quotes to see how crazy it is.

[joegrundman]

I think, and i may be going out on a limb here, that Skybird's thinking on the matter is strongly influenced by Clausewitzian notions, particularly pertaining to the desirability of escalating to "ideal war" (which is i suppose total war).

I feel that Skybird does not adequately ask himself why, since the end of ww2, with the advent of nuclear weapons, and the increase in insurrectionary conflicts, the escalation to total war is not a viable option.

Also to say that since total war is not an option, the only other choice is to stay at home, is also something that can be challenged.

All great empires end up in situations of small, persistent conflicts around the periphery. And the US is a kind of great empire. What may be required is staying power and a means of handling the conflicts in a way that is not a long-term net-drain on resources (of all kinds) and not overly likely to produce war-weariness at home, something that modern democracies are rather prone to, once initial war-euphoria has worn off.

Nonetheless, these small persistent conflicts can add up, and in time do great harm to the empire.

So, i see the decision rather than as a need to raise the issue to one of a total conflict to permanently eliminate the opposition, an option which really is out of the question (even disregarding the SUBSIM flights of fantasy regarding pakistani atom bombs on western cities), the real question is, is it worth it in the long run, and if it is at present an unreasonable drain on resources, how soon can it be expected to be reduced to more manageable levels?

[joegrundman]

BTW Skybird,

big kudos for referencing Sir John Hawkwood

[Skybird]

The more "asymmetrical" a war is:

- the less Clausewitzian ideas can be applied

- the more difficult if not unwinnable the war becomes for the side sticking with the principles and demands of the Hague Landwarfare Convention (while the other side, whose participation in the conflict make that conflict qualifying for a description of being asymmetric, does not obey them - that is an inherent characteristic of "asymmetric wars").

But that is not the point so much, although these conclusions are dictated by any reasonable assessement of the matter of asymmetrical wars.

The point is: determination - or lack of.

If the latter, then the question is why you even started to fight at all. You are committing a crime against your own troops that way (which always has been one of my biggest criticisms of Bush, if you recall past debates in 2003, 04, 05, on Iraq). I am also criticising the Germans since long time to have absolute, total illusions about the nature of their military engagement in Afghanistan, and what can be achieved with an engagement like Germany's. I do not often say "Trapped in the Afghan maze" for no reason.

Either you are determined to do whatever is needed to crush the enemy and acchieve the military objective of the war, or you are not. Fighting kindly, and in the more beautiful way, with no sweat on your shirt and no blood on your hand, may earn you fine notes from the referees of the wellmeaning PC brigade. But it is meaningless. This is not basketball, and every goal by the enemy your people pay in blood for. You do not want to win by a margin of 77 to 72. You want to win 100 to 0, if possible. In war, there is no use in thinking in terms of "proportionality of means and tools". I deliberately refuse to thinkl and argue in terms of "proportionality" when it comes to war. You do not win by being fair or giving the enemy a chance, but by killing, crushing and destroying him, as fast as possible, as complete as possible, as brutal as necessary, you maximise your fighting power and and let go without holding back and allowing no distraction from the cause: destroying the enemy - the only chance that you will bring own losses to the minimum that you cannot avoid and reduce any further. You do not plan ahead to you and him shaking hands afterwards, but you want to saw fear in his heart so that after it ended he does not dare to turn against you again.

Morals and reasons are to be considered during the deicison making of whether to go to war or not. Consider them, and think twice. Ask yourself over your motives time and again. But if you are attacked, or if you have decided to go to war, understand that war means the end and the absence of peace, and the absence of morals and values deriving from peace. War has it'S own logic and it'S own values, and they are different than that of peace.

Espoecially true for asymmetrical wars.

[joegrundman]

Originally Posted by Skybird

The more "asymmetrical" a war is:

- the less Clausewitzian ideas can be applied

this is true, but it doesn't seem to stop you trying

[Edit for reduced glibness]

Clearly Afghanistan and Iraq are complicated situations. But your idea that the solution is more firepower more ruthlessly deployed calls ultimately for indiscriminate massacre.

We do not live in that world.

Your argument that there is no such thing as jus in bello is also not borne out by centuries of warfare in Europe and elsewhere. Although WW2 saw the world at large close to losing that perspective.

There is in fact a civilisation, and war is in fact a social act.

And indeed people do plan ahead for today's enemies may be tomorrow's allies.

You want to throw away everything in order to score a win in Afghanistan?

As I said, the only realistic option for a hegemon, is to appreciate that areas of the periphery will be restive, and will require patience and skill to keep things manageable.

This was true for Rome, true for Great Britain, and is true for the US.

Destroying whole nations to solve this sort of moderate threat is massive overkill and defeats the point in fact.

[Happy Times]

You pacifists make me vomit, you offer no other solutions but live in f*cking pink bubble..
All you say that its all the fault of the Europeans and we should pump money to these countries and not offend them over nothing, especially their religion.

F*ck their religion! The whole world is going crazy over a midieval tribal desert culture and religion!

Read world history, reflect how the future will turn out based to that and get a grib on the reality.
Maybe it was the WW2 or the communist peace propaganda financed by KGB but Westerners have lost the will to fight and it will be the end of us.

[MH]

Japan and Germany had been totaly defited in ww2 ,
Japan actully scored two A bombs to save lots of american and japanise lives.(some of you may disagree on that since well,,,,it was kind unfair battle )
Today those coutries are leading ones in the west and allies of US.
Which was determinated by relations and treatment after the war and lessons from wwi

War in Afganistan is kind like hostage situation you should never complay with demands/enemy exploits while always taking agresive action tring to minimaze civilian casualities but still acting agresivly and decisivly taking into consideration that someone may get hurt.