Who's the U.S. politician that said doing things like dropping bombs or shooting bad guys from a distance isn't "fair," and we should just go fight with knives?

Oy.

That wasn't from a distance. That was danger close. Well, within assault rifle range. The MG was laying down suppressing fire. Keep the fuckers in place while clear and hot. I think somebody was right, "those motherfuckers are dead".

It's a strange phenomenon, this war stuff.

I'd be curious to see how much we have spent for each Taliban fighter killed.

I wonder if the mafia could have done it cheaper.

It will piss off my left wing bretheren, but I bet nuking Tora Bora back in the day would have saved lives, money, and future lives and money.

Apologies, they just piss me off.

Acid in children's faces, etc....

Quote:
It will piss off my left wing bretheren, but I bet nuking Tora Bora back in the day would have saved lives, money, and future lives and money.

Interesting statement. It's the same rational behind Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As for the costs for today? I don't think will ever be able to figure that one out. It does cost a lot of money to kill one single combatant. And we've killed a shit load of them but nobody is "officially" counting. There is an ebb and flow in Taliban forces. We wipe out an area. Then we let them regroup. Each time the Taliban are less trained and more Taliban get killed the next time. As usual with war, eventually we will see Taliban boys as combatants. Since this counter-insurgency warfare the death toll of the enemy isn't that important. We can kill all the enemy we want. That part is easy. While the killing is going on the counterinsurgency of improving infrastructure is going on. The latter is what defeats an insurgency. The violence is almost a byproduct that is necessary for security but can contaminate the whole thing with a cumulative series of tactical mistakes. After all, all the insurgency has to do is not lose. Two steps forward, one step back. Two steps forward, no steps back, and so forth. It can take forever with no guarantee.

"The Surge" in Iraq was nothing more than counterinsurgency warfare completed correctly. It was a three block strategy. In Afghanistan it is a little different and more difficult. More like a three valley war. Humanitarian in one, peacekeeping in another, and conventional war in the next. The process continues until we hit a brick wall. Pakistan. And if you're keeping a watch on this we have hit the brick wall in eastern Afghanistan.

So, back to the rationale. We should nuke Pakistan, and while we are at it, Iran as well. In the end, it will saves lives and money.

Quote:

So, back to the rationale. We should nuke Pakistan, and while we are at it, Iran as well. In the end, it will saves lives and money.

I disagree.

If you have a group of bad guys and you shoot one and then tell the others to behave, the survivors are likely to listen, given your recent actions.

Lamont wrote:...eventually we will see Taliban boys as combatants...

When the US troops took hold of a valley in Afghanistan a few years back, they captured a lot of Talibans, among them a 14 year old boy, who had been firing at the US troops from a ridge.

Afterwards they asked him "Why were you firing at us? You are not even a Taliban!" He answered "Do you know how boring it is to live around here?"

This is a true story.

They asked him "why?"

"I don't like..."

They asked him "Why?"

"I don't like..."

They asked him "Why?"

"I don't like Mondays. I wanna sho-oo-oo-oo-oot, the whole day down."

Quote:
We should nuke Pakistan, and while we are at it, Iran as well. In the end, it will saves lives and money.

Oh, what the hell, why not? It would give us a chance to check out all of that high priced equipment we taxpayers have been paying for for years. Besides, Iran has been going out of it's way to get nukes. I say we help them out and send over a few models. While we're at it, let's nuke the Swiss. I've had it up to here with the Swiss ....

I never heard of the Swiss. Do they need their asses handed to them?

Quote:
I never heard of the Swiss. Do they need their asses handed to them?

Not right now, but I'm sure at some point in the future they will and in a big way too .... we need to look at this as kind of a preemptive strike thing. You know, for good measure.

Quote:

Quote:
It will piss off my left wing bretheren, but I bet nuking Tora Bora back in the day would have saved lives, money, and future lives and money.

Interesting statement. It's the same rational behind Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As for the costs for today? I don't think will ever be able to figure that one out. It does cost a lot of money to kill one single combatant. And we've killed a shit load of them but nobody is "officially" counting. There is an ebb and flow in Taliban forces. We wipe out an area. Then we let them regroup. Each time the Taliban are less trained and more Taliban get killed the next time. As usual with war, eventually we will see Taliban boys as combatants. Since this counter-insurgency warfare the death toll of the enemy isn't that important. We can kill all the enemy we want. That part is easy. While the killing is going on the counterinsurgency of improving infrastructure is going on. The latter is what defeats an insurgency. The violence is almost a byproduct that is necessary for security but can contaminate the whole thing with a cumulative series of tactical mistakes. After all, all the insurgency has to do is not lose. Two steps forward, one step back. Two steps forward, no steps back, and so forth. It can take forever with no guarantee.

"The Surge" in Iraq was nothing more than counterinsurgency warfare completed correctly. It was a three block strategy. In Afghanistan it is a little different and more difficult. More like a three valley war. Humanitarian in one, peacekeeping in another, and conventional war in the next. The process continues until we hit a brick wall. Pakistan. And if you're keeping a watch on this we have hit the brick wall in eastern Afghanistan.

So, back to the rationale. We should nuke Pakistan, and while we are at it, Iran as well. In the end, it will saves lives and money.

You may not be aware that the rational behind nuking two Japanese cities was because they wouldn't surrender. That ment a land assault would have been necessary. The projected American losses were more than 100,000 for a land based assault and pacification.

We could nuke most of the Middle East with Neutron bombs. that would preserve what infrastructure is there. Afghanistan has no real infrastructure so a couple of strategically placed conventional nukes would suffice.

I almost forgot if we nuke Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iran we run the risk of burning a Koran or two. We must take this into consideration. It's a real deal breaker.

Start with North Korea then, and make it a practice run.

Quote:
I never heard of the Swiss. Do they need their asses handed to them?

You ever seen a Swiss Commando, all jacked up on chocolate bars, handle one of them little red knives? It ain't no joke, my friend.

Quote:

Quote:
I never heard of the Swiss. Do they need their asses handed to them?

You ever seen a Swiss Commando, all jacked up on chocolate bars, handle one of them little red knives? It ain't no joke, my friend.

The only thing I ever seen was Baby Swiss Cheese. I didn't know it came from a nation of people. I thought it was a brand name like Swiss Army Watch, Swiss Army Knife, Swiss Miss Hot Chocolate, and so forth.

Don't laugh. You don't see things like Baby American Cheese, American Watch, American Knife, American Miss Hot Chocolate.

Quote:
I almost forgot if we nuke Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iran we run the risk of burning a Koran or two. We must take this into consideration. It's a real deal breaker.

That's why I suggested Neutron bombs. Don't call me a book burner.

Right, right. Good idea. Okay, that's solved. Neutron bombs is the ticket. What size? Large enough to wipe out living matter something the size of Tehran? What I like about neutron bombs is that a large number of casualties may be able to Twitter before they die. That would be super cool. Then there are the people that will be the walking ghost phase. They can continue to post on Facebook and Twitter for days, even weeks. I'm getting all warm and fuzzy inside.

Quote:
Start with North Korea then, and make it a practice run.

I like the way you think Keld. Unfortunately, the current administration in Washington D.C. is more into apologizing (ie: Obama apologizing to Japan for the U.S. ending WWII with the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki) to the world. Remember, Obama was the one that stated, "In the past America has shown at times..arrogance."

Flashbacks of Neville Chamberlain IMHO.

Mark

North Korea would make a good example.

"Peace in our time". What an Ass!