CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Should we just destroy them and leave?
Absolutely! Why rebuild our enemies?  79%  [ 15 ]
No, the purpose of a military is humanitarian missions.  21%  [ 4 ]
Total votes : 19

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 1:02 pm
 


Maybe We Should Go Back to Only Using the Military to Kill and Destroy

Posted by Frank J. at 10:25 AM | TrackBack (0)

http://www.imao.us/

For the next war, we should totally just blaze into a country, bombing everything followed by ground troops to kill off the country's government. Then we just leave.

As soon as people start complaining that we left the country in turmoil and all the innocent people are suffering, we say, "Hey, last time we invaded a country and stayed to help, you whined about it. Thus, we will no longer stay and help countries after we devastate them. These people are suffering because you whined. It's your fault."

I, for one, know the military - and especially my brother - would like this policy a lot better. Actually, if the people shouting "Chickenhawk!" all the time got their way and only people in the military made decisions on wars, that's exactly what would happen. My brother, like many Marines, joined the military to kill evil foreigners, not to build schools. Do you have any idea how few casualties we'd take if our sole goal was to go into a country, kill all the readily available targets, and leave? Do you also know how much cheaper that would be? Plus, if we actually just left Iraq right after we had that infamous "Mission Accomplished" banner, the whole Middle East would be talking about that huge Iraq military win because we totally kicked the crap out of Iraq. The only reason the conflict doesn't look like a clear-cut victory is because we stayed after the crap-kicking to try and make friends.

America is big; we don’t need friends.

I now think liberals have had this issue right all along: We need to just go into countries, destroy them, and then leave them to rot. If you don't want your country destroyed, make sure it's only pestering France and not us.

So, maybe I'm changing my position: I'm for cutting and running. Then, we got into Iran gun blazing, and, a couple days later, cut and run again. Then North Korea. If a new evil government comes up in place of the ones we destroy, we just do it again. It's really not that hard for us to go into a country, destroy as much as we can, and leave considering our technological and training advantages. Plus, it's a lot more fun. I'd totally join the reserves if that was our policy.

"For your one weekend this month, instead of training, we're going to destroy Syria. You might want to call work and tell them you may be in late on Monday."

"Can we bring beer and bacon for this invasion?"

"Sure. The military has returned to its old policy of having complete and utter disdain for all other cultures."

"Hooray!"



That would be sweet. A lot of us really want to kill terrorists but wouldn't want to use more than a week's vacation for it. With shorter invasions, that makes terrorists killing more accessible to the general populace.

So, can we get a politician to push this or do I actually have to run for office?


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
Profile
Posts: 2282
PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 1:11 pm
 


Well the media would wet their pants if the Military treated civies like the terrorist do. Let us be honest, the media remains mute regarding Islamic Extremist strapping on bombs and killing innocents but hell has no fury like the media when the Military accidently kills innocents. Note the word accident, so why the double standard? If the Military were allowed to fight the enemy by using conventional methods the US and Canada would of kicked (killed) the snot out of these Extreme evil beings. So is warfare now fought on the front pages of the news papers and TV screens? How the hell can we win when the public decideds visa vie the media how we fight the enemy.

Sorry Bart rant over.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 1:34 pm
 


No apology necessary, my friend. I share the same frustrations.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2275
PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 2:06 pm
 


$1:
If the Military were allowed to fight the enemy by using conventional methods the US and Canada would of kicked (killed) the snot out of these Extreme evil beings. So is warfare now fought on the front pages of the news papers and TV screens? How the hell can we win when the public decideds visa vie the media how we fight the enemy.



In 1967 the NWA and Vietcong began the Tet holiday offensive, fighting in Saigon for several days, although American millitary power, defeated Communist forces, the only plausable outcome, 1 in 5 supporters of the war became opponents.

So dodes this meant that the public responce to set backs is to shout "unwinnable"? Reffer to Vietnam again in South East Asia American forces appear to have never lost a battle yet they also make little progress, until the Americans withdrw and the NVA wins every battle against the South until they are in Saigon.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Boston Bruins


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 11907
PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 5:26 pm
 


BartSimpson BartSimpson:
So, can we get a politician to push this or do I actually have to run for office?


You'd have my vote Bart! PDT_Armataz_01_37


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
Profile
Posts: 2282
PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 5:37 pm
 


You'll have to run for office Bart the politicians rule visa vie polls and the public outrage over what ever incident they read about true or not. I've read some great articles on this issue and those in the Military are extremely frustrated that the war in Irag is being fought in the media not in-theater. As long as the press smells a story about the evil Military they will perch like Crows crowing for blood. I fear the only way to win in Irag and Afghanistan is to allowed to use equal force against the Militants but the public would squack like pigs if one innocent civie dies but they are strangely silent when a suicide bomber kills hundreds of innocents weekly. I guess only those the Military kill are honored with public outrage while those the Militants kill are worthless and desearve to die cause the media and viewing public don't APPEAR to care.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Ottawa Senators


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 17037
PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 6:17 pm
 


I'm sorry, but the basic idea presented in this thread is stupid, dangerous, and will do more harm than good.

Yes, the military should always be war capable, because war is unavoidable. However, going in somewhere, and blowing everything up isn't going to make people lvoe us, appreciate us, and will only increase the numbers of our enemies...


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4229
PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 10:12 pm
 


Arctic_Menace Arctic_Menace:
However, going in somewhere, and blowing everything up isn't going to make people lvoe us, appreciate us, and will only increase the numbers of our enemies...


The official role of the Canadian Infantry is 'to close with and destroy the enemy". Absolutely no where does Canadian military doctrine make mention of "love".

This may comes as a surprise to you but there are three unpleasent facts about the military that I don't believe most Canadians are aware of:

1 - There are very few Liberals and no NDP supporters in the military. None I reckon in the army itself. There are many good reasons for this.

2 - No Canadian soldier regards himself as a peacekeeper and many actually find the label insulting.

3 - Everything in the army is either designed to directly kill people or enhance the efficiency of the task. Double tap centre mass is the rule and shooting to wound is a civilian fantasy.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 25032
PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 10:40 pm
 


IceOwl IceOwl:
Wouldn't it make more sense to not needlessly invade other countries in the first place?
Ok, we will let them die. Sure no probs.
$1:
The whole idea that we always must have enemies, and make some if there aren't any, is not only ridiculous and insane, but stupidly dangerous.
Who said that? Did you even read the first post?


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
Profile
Posts: 349
PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 11:06 pm
 


IceOwl IceOwl:
Wouldn't it make more sense to not needlessly invade other countries in the first place?

The whole idea that we always must have enemies, and make some if there aren't any, is not only ridiculous and insane, but stupidly dangerous.


Dear Lord,

Please help this "Ice Owl." He knows not what he says and his rhetoric, combined with that of millions of others just like him, is going to get us all killed. I know that you need souls for heaven, dear Lord, but you don't want them all at once... Do you? Please make Mr. Ice Owl understand that we indeed *do* have enemies at this time. I would not think it possible for any person on earth to have never heard of September 11th, 2001, but here one is. Amazing... You work in mysterious ways, oh Lord.

Amen.


W.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
Profile
Posts: 4731
PostPosted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 1:49 am
 


America is big; we don’t need friends.

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????

are you saying goodbye to world trade and no more Walmart, McDonalds , Wendys , etc etc etc [cheer] [cheer] [cheer]

Trust me , in this stage of the game you need all the freinds you have and can get mostly WITH BOMBS and besides , if you don't need anybody or anyone or "ANYTHING" why would you need to bomb the shit out of the planet ? ...oh forgive me I almost forgot "RETALIATION ", "JUST IN CASE" , and "ADVANCED PAINT BALL TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICS"

....and most of all "THE BOOGY MAN"


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 22594
PostPosted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 2:41 pm
 


What about the enemies that have become allies?
There are numbers of past enemies that we helped and now are trusted allies and friends.
I think the military needs to keep it's focus on it'd primary job, destroying the enemys will to fight. The key to a friendly recovery is foreign aid, protection and economic benefits.


Offline
Active Member
Active Member


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 122
PostPosted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 1:55 pm
 


Banff Banff:
America is big; we don’t need friends.

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????

are you saying goodbye to world trade and no more Walmart, McDonalds , Wendys , etc etc etc [cheer] [cheer] [cheer]

Trust me , in this stage of the game you need all the freinds you have and can get mostly WITH BOMBS and besides , if you don't need anybody or anyone or "ANYTHING" why would you need to bomb the shit out of the planet ? ...oh forgive me I almost forgot "RETALIATION ", "JUST IN CASE" , and "ADVANCED PAINT BALL TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICS"

....and most of all "THE BOOGY MAN"


Walmart, mac's and wendy's are all US companies dipshit.

and screw walmart anyways they are funding the commies ie china

and retaliation was abandoned in favour of pre-emption which was the best policy to come out of the current administration.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
Profile
Posts: 1571
PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 9:27 am
 


grainfedprairieboy grainfedprairieboy:
Arctic_Menace Arctic_Menace:
However, going in somewhere, and blowing everything up isn't going to make people lvoe us, appreciate us, and will only increase the numbers of our enemies...


The official role of the Canadian Infantry is 'to close with and destroy the enemy". Absolutely no where does Canadian military doctrine make mention of "love".


His word choice was unfortunate, but I should point out that simply defeating an enemy is insufficient. After WWII our troops stayed in Europe for quite sometime, and there we had a clear surrender and people who were ready for peace.

If you go in, topple the government, start a power vacuum, fail to fill it, then the country falls into chaos as competing factions try to seize power. Very rarely is the new regime pleasent. So it is the soldiers tactical objectives which further the strategic objectives. If it requires engaging an enemy batallion, construction of roads, or if it requires providing security to a region. Whether or not it is the soldiers job is defined by the military objective, not the narrow definition of war supported in the thread.

$1:
2 - No Canadian soldier regards himself as a peacekeeper and many actually find the label insulting.


At the moment they are creating the peace in the south, so peacekeeper would be inappropriate. But for it being insulting, I'm sure the term 'trip wire force' is also insulting. Doesn't stop the military and political leaders from needing tripwire forces.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ]  1  2  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.