Richard Rowland

As with all schemes, there's usually a hidden motive. The policy of limiting collateral damage has its hidden agenda. While it leads one to believe it's out of concern for those innocents caught in the middle of a war, nothing could be farther from the t***h.

During WWII armies bombed the s**t out of one another, there was no concern for collateral damage. The goal was to force submission. The Middle East wars are for anything but submission. D**gging out the war is the goal of the Military Industrial Complex. The combatants we're now fighting wear no uniforms, they can fight one day, return to civilian life the next, and return to fighting again another day. The politically correct concept of limited civilian casualties does nothing but assure a prolonged war. The MIC couldn't be more delighted.

If one truly wanted to win, it would be as in WWII, it would be bombing and k*****g everything in sight. America has been at this war for sixteen years, with the policies now in place, we'll be at it another sixteen.

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

Very interesting and insightful.

However, I believe the motive behind the effort to limit collateral damage is more PC than it is to extend the war.

But that's very good post on your part. It is thought provoking. Thank you.

pafret Loc: Northeast

[quote=Richard Rowland]As with all schemes, there's usually a hidden motive. The policy of limiting collateral damage has its hidden agenda. While it leads one to believe it's out of concern for those innocents caught in the middle of a war, nothing could be farther from the t***h.

During WWII armies bombed the s**t out of one another, there was no concern for collateral damage. The goal was to force submission. The Middle East wars are for anything but submission. D**gging out the war is the goal of the Military Industrial Complex. The combatants we're now fighting wear no uniforms, they can fight one day, return to civilian life the next, and return to fighting again another day. The politically correct concept of limited civilian casualties does nothing but assure a prolonged war. The MIC couldn't be more delighted.

If one truly wanted to win, it would be as in WWII, it would be bombing and k*****g everything in sight. America has been at this war for sixteen years, with the policies now in place, we'll be at it another sixteen


I posted this comment in another thread:

We cannot pursue the enemy into the mountains and caves without horrendous loss of life. The Afghani rebels cannot eat stones. Pursue a Sherman Strategy and destroy all means of agriculture and food production. Use an Agent Orange type of chemical on the Poppy fields.
Their only purpose is to generate income for rebels and death for our addicts. These will be soft easy targets which cannot hide or shoot back.

Set up centers for daily food distribution, which we will import into the country. Vet each and every recipient and conduct door to door searches for weapons. Possession of weapons shuts off your access to the food supply. Inform the Iranians and the Chinese that attempts to smuggle food into Afghanistan will be considered an act of war and use drones to attack any movement of large t***sport vehicles emanating from those borders. Inform the Pakistanis that unless they become proactive in shutting off sanctuary and resupply for the Afghani rebels they will be put on an enemy list and any treaties, financial and military support between our nations will be abrogated.

Use drones to interdict food smuggling through the passes in the Hindukush mountains. Let the combatants starve until they surrender, then execute all cadre, religious and political leaders. Put the rank and file in internment camps on subsistence rations.

See to it that the prisoners undergo a constant barrage of propaganda, indoctrination and counter culture immersion. Fingerprint and DNA sample each prisoner so that in the future, when he attacks elsewhere he can be identified and executed if taken prisoner again.

This will cause maximum collateral damage and end the charade of one day friend, next day enemy. They are all enemies.

Richard Rowland

[quote=pafret]

But, of course, pafret, the common sense approach that you suggest isn't going to happen.

2tap

I'll tell you this for nothing. The reason for this specifically under obama, was that 1. He could have cared less if our troops were maimed or k**led. Have you ever heard speak of it? I sure havent. 2. He is and will always be a Muslim. He had every intention of protecting as many o f those Muslims as possible regardless of the fact that our troops were being fired upon from buildings that had so called civilians in there. PERIOD!
Semper Fi