PDA

View Full Version : Democracy Runs On Oil: Part 1, Occupation



Flying Tiger
09-12-2004, 02:50 PM
Now check this experience out:
I have a Japanese friend that I help with his A/c biz from time to time,, and he helps me from time to time.
He lived in Japan as a 12 year old during WWII.
OK Now this:
An German Couple I hang out with at Parker lived in Germany, both were 12 during WWII.
Their common take on war?:
Ya can't occupy a nation without anihilation of the civilian population.
All big conquering armies throughout time have done this.
The Romans, The Vikings, ect ect,,,
You beat the population into a state where they are not going to rise against you.

v-drive
09-12-2004, 03:25 PM
So that I just don't get this wrong what are you saying? v-drive

mickeyfinn
09-12-2004, 04:42 PM
I think he is saying that if we are at war we should be at war against a country. Not an individual,militant group or an army,but the whole country. Every man woman and child. We should have learned this in Vietnam. I dont disagree with the need to be in Iraq,but I do think that we should be at war with the whole country. After all the people allowed themselves to be ruled by the individual.If we do want to persue an individual then send in a team of assasins. If we at war with the country rhen lets start rounding people up and getting them out of harms way because our military should be considering EVERYONE a potential deadly enemy. The idea of just fighting the military makes war too sanitary. Wars should cause massive death and destruction. It is supposed to be serious business to be taken serious and avoided if at all possible. Just my .02

steelcomp
09-12-2004, 04:44 PM
Now check this experience out:
I have a Japanese friend that I help with his A/c biz from time to time,, and he helps me from time to time.
He lived in Japan as a 12 year old during WWII.
OK Now this:
An German Couple I hang out with at Parker lived in Germany, both were 12 during WWII.
Their common take on war?:
Ya can't occupy a nation without anihilation of the civilian population.
All big conquering armies throughout time have done this.
The Romans, The Vikings, ect ect,,,
You beat the population into a state where they are not going to rise against you.
What's your point? Where are your comments targeted? Do you think two people make a consensus?
We (occupied) Afganastan and Iraq both with little consequence to the civilian population, except mostly for the unfortunate victims that the enemy tried to use as a human shield. There is no more indiscriminate bombing of civilians or property on our part. That's why our technology is so important. That's why we need to have a strong military "technologically", which is expensive, but it saves untold lives, with better results. Now the terrorists...that's another subject. Their target is strictly civilian, but they're not trying to occupy a country, now, are they.

steelcomp
09-12-2004, 04:48 PM
Mickeyfinn...I totally agree with you, but it is not a country that attacked us three years ago, nor is it one that we can "occupy" that will solve the problem. it's a philosophy, which is prevelant in many countrys, including our own.

Jeanyus
09-12-2004, 06:02 PM
I think it's a problem, to capture the enemy soldiers, and then release them, so they pick up arms and attack our soldiers again. We try to fight wars to please the pacifists, and allow politics to determine our stratigies. We can't put enemy soldiers in prison camps, that violates thier civil rights, we can't interrogate them, and we can't eliminate them. If were going to fight a war then lets do it. News flash people get killed in wars. I think thats why they call it a war! Insurgents are hiding in a Mosk. 1 tomahawk missle puts an end to that. If you race your boat do you put a throttle stop on it, and use only 1/2 throttle, only if you plan on losing the race.
We send our military to war and tie one hand behind there back. Let the military finish the job.

steelcomp
09-12-2004, 07:29 PM
I think it's a problem, to capture the enemy soldiers, and then release them, so they pick up arms and attack our soldiers again. We try to fight wars to please the pacifists, and allow politics to determine our stratigies. We can't put enemy soldiers in prison camps, that violates thier civil rights, we can't interrogate them, and we can't eliminate them. If were going to fight a war then lets do it. News flash people get killed in wars. I think thats why they call it a war! Insurgents are hiding in a Mosk. 1 tomahawk missle puts an end to that. If you race your boat do you put a throttle stop on it, and use only 1/2 throttle, only if you plan on losing the race.
We send our military to war and tie one hand behind there back. Let the military finish the job.
so true, so very true.

Kurtis500
09-12-2004, 10:53 PM
Germany and Japan were completly behind thier governments and the war against the US at the time. To turn the population against thier contries fight the US bombed civilian targets killing unbelievable amounts of people.
Years ago I used to go on Thursday mornings with my grandpa and his neighbor Bud to eat breakfast. Like driving Miss Daisy they would sit in the back seat while I drove the new Cadillac up front by myself. Bud retired a full Colonel in the air force. He also flew 43 missions as a Captain with the Army's 8th air force in England. 30 in a flying fortress and 13 in a Liberator. 41 were bombing missions and 2 food drops. Pretty amazing stats for sure, and a list of medals and commendations to go with it. Funny thing, he used to always talk about being in England during the war but rarely talked about the fighting and more about the prostitutes :D :D He kept apologizing to me for bangin those english guys wifes at home while they were at war. :jawdrop: Anyways, while discussing something related to flying he slipped into a rare moment and told me about a bombing trip to Berlin. He said the sole purpose was to bomb the people. They loaded incendiary bombs on the planes and had maps of the civilian streets in Berlin. The point was to create a very large ring of fire with the buildings miles across and let the fires burn together, compounding the effect. Bud still had the reconisance pictures of the neighborhood. You could see the patios, buildings, school, cars and so-on...pretty sad. Surprisingly, he told me the exact number of people killed and it was somewhere in the 60,000 plus range. A figure he probably researched later on since realtime info wasn't available. As he was telling the story he was getting teary eyed, that kind of thing stuck with him 50+ years later. He knew kids, women and the elderly were the majority of those burned to death since the able bodied men where elsewhere. He wasn't the least bit proud of it, but I didnt sense regret, just a sadness for being called on to do it. The whole thing left you with a sense war being a big waste of life

ONAROLL
09-13-2004, 02:32 AM
Kurtis500
I was very fortunate to have a similar conversation with an old bomber veteran but he had a profound sense that he had saved millions of lives when he released his atomic bomb on Hiroshima, because he knew if the Japanese were not stunned into submission then Americans were going to have to occupy Japan, Colonel Paul Tibbets upon my direct question about feeling any personal guilt answered " No, never have ".............

v-drive
09-13-2004, 05:35 AM
I recall similar conversations with a marine uncle. I like to think that we have risen above total anililation but I guess when it comes down to it you have to show your superiority. If this is the case we will be taking on the whole region. v-drive

AzDon
09-14-2004, 04:05 PM
It took two atomic bombs on major cities in Japan to break their will and end the war on our terms, much earlier than it would have ended otherwise!
The Gutter-Muslim culture will not surrender their fanaticism and "will" until it is made clear to them that ALL OF THEM will die if they don't abandon their ways!

steelcomp
09-14-2004, 06:07 PM
It took two atomic bombs on major cities in Japan to break their will and end the war on our terms, much earlier than it would have ended otherwise!
The Gutter-Muslim culture will not surrender their fanaticism and "will" until it is made clear to them that ALL OF THEM will die if they don't abandon their ways!
news flash Don :sleeping: ...they don't care!!!! WTF do you think makes this so difficult? They don't care, their leaders don't care, their families don't care!

eliminatedsprinter
09-15-2004, 09:18 AM
It took two atomic bombs on major cities in Japan to break their will and end the war on our terms, much earlier than it would have ended otherwise!
The Gutter-Muslim culture will not surrender their fanaticism and "will" until it is made clear to them that ALL OF THEM will die if they don't abandon their ways!
I tend to agree with most of this. We need to find what they do care about. Perhaps we should target Mecca, Medina, and all those holy sites they claim to care so much about. Every time islamists commit an atrocity another site should disapear forever. Perhaps then they will show a little more control. Perhaps the islamic leaders who claim to care about such things will grow a pair and start policing themselves.

Havasu Cig
09-15-2004, 12:53 PM
Actually the majority of them do care. The fringe fanatics don't, but they are the minority.
In the lead up to the first Gulf war we were told that the Iraqi's would not care about dying and most would fight till the end. Well we found out that once you lit a few of them up the others did not want to fight. There were some exceptions like the republican Guard units, but for the most part they did not want to die.
I think in the hot spots like Falujah, Najaf ect... we should be much more harsh, but you won't see a surrender like we had in WW2. We need to kill as many of the fanatics as possible. It will take years but we must stay the course.

eliminatedsprinter
09-15-2004, 02:23 PM
Havasu Cig.
I took the above post on them not caring to be in referance to Muslim Fanatics. Either we have to find someting they care about or we have to put enough pressure on those near to them to make them stop. I know that the majority of Muslims probably would like to see the gross acts of terror stop, but they are themselves afraid of the terrorists among them. It may be getting to the point where we have to make the "moderates" in the islamic world fear us more. :skull:

Havasu Cig
09-15-2004, 02:26 PM
I agree but I think the only way to take care of the problem is to kill them. The fanatics don't give a $hit about much so I don't think they would care if we bombed some of their holy sites.
I say we take the problem areas and bomb the $hit out of them. I would even be ok with using tactical nukes.

Havasu Cig
09-15-2004, 02:28 PM
A good place to use tactical nukes would have been in Tora Bora when we had Bin Laden cornered. There would have been a good chance we would have killed him if we leveled the area.

eliminatedsprinter
09-15-2004, 03:28 PM
I've long thought that when a check was sent either from Iraq or the Saudis to the families of bombers. We or the Isralies should also send that same address a brand new Daisy cutter.