English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Because it seems that with all of the tied hands and political correctness in fighting this war we could had this thing wraped up and put to bed.

It's the U.S. Military people ! and we are looking atr this as a WAR it could have been more of a couple of slaps and over with . IF we fought the way we did in WW2.. But as you know the support back home was much stronger back then. And this country was more United in a cause.

2007-01-06 18:31:20 · 17 answers · asked by caciansf 4 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

17 answers

dang we're suppose to be the #1 army in the world an we could have finished this in 5 days there just being lazy an im not a relly big fan of war i think we could have solved in a more civilized calmer mannor

2007-01-06 18:39:26 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 5

Anybody is free to speak out whatever they wish to or whatever they think.Practically speaking the question you're asking is extremely easy.Pakistan doesn't stand a chance against India's might.India's is far more superior and stronger the them in all the three departments.People who think Taliban to be stronger or something like that to take on Indian army seem to be dreaming.Taliban is nothing but a bunch of terrorists.ZamZam seems to be having paranoid illusions which he narrates in his long descriptions.

2016-05-23 02:14:43 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

A lot of truth in what you ask. I certainly don't fault the troops on the ground, but this entire war has been a politically correct operation...the poor grunt has to ask permission to engage every enemy...can't go into mosques, so of course that's where the enemy goes, has to always be worried that some decision made in the heat of battle could get him brought up on charges, etc.

If we had been allowed to take it to the enemy properly, this war would have been long over and thousands of lives saved.

"Political correctness" kills.

2007-01-07 01:25:54 · answer #3 · answered by kathy_is_a_nurse 7 · 1 0

Globalisation also means that wars are now beamed 'live' - courtesy of media anchors and tv crews from both sides and every other major media station. It's one thing to shoot civilians in the privacy of your own colonies like once in British India, Kenya, Malaya; or WWII Japanese soldiers beheading non-combatants in occupied territories in China, Papua New Guinea... nowadays a massacre or torture can be secretly recorded on video under the full glare of tv lights.

There is NO DOUBT at all of the capability of the US military as a fighting force. And because it is America, civilian populations are never intentionally targeted; in fact I believe the US go out of the way to ensure this. Not because CNN is around but because it is the civilised culture the West, America is founded on.

I don't think you will find a better example of military capability than the US taking of Iraq. In just one week they moved men and machine from way down south of the country to encircle Baghdad; fighting fierce resistance and desert sandstorm. This is a military achievement quite unlike any other in the annal of military history.

Americans must not look back at their past war achievements as yardsticks to current conflicts. Those are wars which will unlikely be fought again. Because any adversary would know that guerilla tactics and warfare IS the way to wear down a vastly superior US. This was proven in Vietnam, Mogadishu. Guerilla type warfare may not win it for the enemy but it can slow drip, piling up casualties - painful for the American public to accept in the long run. These days Americans will not tolerate this... the result? Antiwar sentiments to pressure your president to bring home the boys. They win.

2007-01-06 19:13:56 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1 3

It all depends on the contry you invading. WW2 was won because the war was a symmetrical war. It will only work on cultured countries that understand the concept of freedom. You invade middle-East, Africa, South America countries you would get the same result as in IRAQ.

2007-01-06 18:43:13 · answer #5 · answered by Gator 5 · 1 1

First of all the military does not tie their own hands (that's what politicians are for) Secondly you can not compare WW2 with the Iraq war. In WW2 we were fighting a uniformed enemy.

I mean sure we could all line up and walk across Iraq and shoot everyone there and that would end the war but would it be right? No so we fight the best way we can.

2007-01-06 18:37:21 · answer #6 · answered by Asking for a social outcry 1 · 0 3

look the problem here is our soldiers they don't fight against an conventional enemy,
they fight against terrorists this people they will smile on you
and when you turn your back they ready to shoot you
or worse our soldiers they can't even see the enemy
they just wait to blow up your Humvee there is many video
they show you how US soldiers get kill in Iraq.

insurgery and terrorism in iraq they know they can't fight directly against US military so they hide,hit and run that is called
"guerrilla warfare"

in order to win this war we need to cut the insurgery supply
coming from Iran and Syria and you can't forget that because
we don't have enough soldiers in the field so we need more
soldiers with better objectives like control the Iraq-Iran border.

again:

1. isolate the insurgery from the rest of the world
2. hunt the insurgery and kill em
3.better propaganda in order to gain the favor of all civilians
4.stop play around with this new Iraq Government and get more serious
5. more security from Iraq Police against mob and small crime.

We can't fight this war like we did in WW2 is totally different

2007-01-06 18:58:02 · answer #7 · answered by Arizona A 2 · 3 1

Our troops are stuck playing the role of teacher and support. I say let the Iraqi army learn by watching, and our guys and gals take over all operations. We could have them starting to come home by the end of next year, knowing they won the war decidedly.

2007-01-06 18:38:59 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

If you are referencing to the Iraqi War, I have to say that this war is definitely not World War II.
In this war we are stuck in is not just a shoot'em and beat'em. It's a real rough war where the enemy is in civilian clothes and the only weapon they prefer is IEDs, which they plant in potholes or concealed places were they detonate the explosive when a U.S. vehicle drives by. In WWII, it's you there, I'm here. Like I have said many times before, it not red coats and blue coats. The enemy hides, closest thing they do to actual warfare is sniping.
If the enemy actually showed himself, Bang! Bang! We won one. Now it's just Vroom! Boom! They won one.

2007-01-06 18:49:41 · answer #9 · answered by Eh? 2 · 2 2

This is 21 century my dear. I hope we evolved a bit from crazy cowboy days. Just because we have more sophisticated killing machines and stronger army, that does not give us the right to go Hee Haa and do what we want with others. We are talking about human lives here. I'm glad some policies and protocols involved still.
Is the price of human life dropped these days?

2007-01-06 18:43:58 · answer #10 · answered by tulipnoir_1 1 · 2 4

fedest.com, questions and answers