Troops in Afghanistan - Armor Games Community

163	31513

offline

Deth666

653 posts

Nomad

Posted December 25, '09 2:45am UTC

I think the public would be far more likely to support a war which took a long time but had fewer casualties than a war which was over faster at the cost of way more civlian and military deaths.

That's not necessarily, true look at Vietnam the US lost very few troops but still had to pull out because of civil unrest.

The longer wars last the more unrest results. A quick war is a good war. Look at Israel they get done with theirs in a matter of days historically. :P

That's very true. Sun Tzu even said
"There is no instance of a nation benefiting from prolonged warfare."

offline

Drace

3,880 posts

Nomad

Posted December 25, '09 5:03am UTC

The longer wars last the more unrest results. A quick war is a good war. Look at Israel they get done with theirs in a matter of days historically. :P

What? Israel has been occupying Palestine for over 30 years now!
Of course the US media only talks about the one day even where Palestine retaliates and Israel fires back.

And a quick war is dropping an atomic bomb. Like the US did on Japan, twice.
220,000 civilians dead in a matter of days.
Surely a good war, right?

offline

tomertheking

1,751 posts

Jester

Posted December 25, '09 7:01am UTC

What? Israel has been occupying Palestine for over 30 years now!

The same way the US is occupying florida for 200 years.

offline

EnterOrion

4,220 posts

Nomad

Posted December 25, '09 7:14am UTC

The same way the US is occupying florida for 200 years.

We own Florida . . . .

Literally. It's part of our federal union.

offline

balerion07

2,837 posts

Peasant

Posted December 25, '09 8:43am UTC

World Wars are not at all quick wars. Florida was annexed just as Israel was, so his statement holds true.

offline

woody_7007

2,662 posts

Peasant

Posted December 25, '09 9:39am UTC

That's not necessarily, true look at Vietnam the US lost very few troops but still had to pull out because of civil unrest.

50,000 troops isnt 'very few', especially when you consider the technology the VC and NVA were using.

"There is no instance of a nation benefiting from prolonged warfare."

WW1? The brits and french won a great negative victory from a prolonged war of attrition - freeing europe from the domination of a militaristic germany.

What? Israel has been occupying Palestine for over 30 years now!

Occupying yes, but not in a state of war for 30 years, also more like 50 years.

The same way the US is occupying florida for 200 years.

Or texas. You know that little war when your congress agreed to annex some mexican territory just for the hell of it.

World Wars are not at all quick wars

No, but back on point, i still maintain the public would prefer a longer war with fewer casualties than a shorter war with more casualties.

[quote]That's not necessarily, true look at Vietnam the US lost very few troops but still had to pull out because of civil unrest.[/quote]\r\n\r\n50,000 troops isnt 'very few', especially when you consider the technology the VC and NVA were using.\r\n\r\n[quote]"There is no instance of a nation benefiting from prolonged warfare."[/quote]\r\n\r\nWW1? The brits and french won a great negative victory from a prolonged war of attrition - freeing europe from the domination of a militaristic germany.\r\n\r\n[quote]What? Israel has been occupying Palestine for over 30 years now![/quote]\r\n\r\nOccupying yes, but not in a state of war for 30 years, also more like 50 years.\r\n\r\n[quote]The same way the US is occupying florida for 200 years.[/quote]\r\n\r\nOr texas. You know that little war when your congress agreed to annex some mexican territory just for the hell of it.\r\n\r\n[quote]World Wars are not at all quick wars[/quote]\r\n\r\nNo, but back on point, i still maintain the public would prefer a longer war with fewer casualties than a shorter war with more casualties.

offline

balerion07

2,837 posts

Peasant

Posted December 25, '09 10:47am UTC

I was polite addressing your last post, but this is simply ignorant.

Millions were slaughtered in the World Wars making 50,000 a relatively very small statistic.

The prolonged warfare did not benefit them it led to huge loss of life. By no means should it have been cut short, but the principal is that prolonged wars are not good for anyone which remains true.

The Romans renaming the area after the Philistines to piss off the Jews does not make it any less their land and it has been 61 years since they declared independence on May 14, 1948. A country by definition has to have land. They have turned back the hordes of Muslims who have sought to destroy them and when land is annexed it is no longer occupied but becomes that of the holder.

Texas was its own country. The USA did not fight Mexico to take it. To this day the REPUBLIC of Texas is the only state that holds the right to fly its flag as high as the US flag, and furthermore it can divide itself into 5 distinct states should it ever wish to. Texas was never annexed, and it was years after Texas won its independence from Mexico that the USA even acknowledged their application for statehood.

Again a longer war leads to much much more unrest as well as costs.

I was polite addressing your last post, but this is simply ignorant.\r\n\r\nMillions were slaughtered in the World Wars making 50,000 a relatively very small statistic.\r\n\r\nThe prolonged warfare did not benefit them it led to huge loss of life.  By no means should it have been cut short, but the principal is that prolonged wars are not good for anyone which remains true.\r\n\r\nThe Romans renaming the area after the Philistines to piss off the Jews does not make it any less their land and it has been 61 years since they declared independence on May 14, 1948.  A country by definition has to have land.  They have turned back the hordes of Muslims who have sought to destroy them and when land is annexed it is no longer occupied but becomes that of the holder.\r\n\r\nTexas was its own country.  The USA did not fight Mexico to take it.  To this day the REPUBLIC of Texas is the only state that holds the right to fly its flag as high as the US flag, and furthermore it can divide itself into 5 distinct states should it ever wish to.  Texas was never annexed, and it was years after Texas won its independence from Mexico that the USA even acknowledged their application for statehood.\r\n\r\nAgain a longer war leads to much much more unrest as well as costs.

offline

woody_7007

2,662 posts

Peasant

Posted December 25, '09 11:03am UTC

I was polite addressing your last post, but this is simply ignorant.

Did you even read my post?

Millions were slaughtered in the World Wars making 50,000 a relatively very small statistic.

Did i ever say this was not the case. Plus dont lecture me on casualty figures from WW1, you lost hardly any men compared to the 1 million british dead.

The prolonged warfare did not benefit them it led to huge loss of life. By no means should it have been cut short, but the principal is that prolonged wars are not good for anyone which remains true.

Like I already sad, the british, french and russiansto an extent, won a great negative victory by defeating the rival empires of the kaiser's germany, autstro hungary and the ottomans.

The Romans renaming the area after the Philistines to piss off the Jews does not make it any less their land and it has been 61 years since they declared independence on May 14, 1948.

Considering this was nearly 2000 years ago, i dont think its fair to say the jews who took the land after WW2 were returning to their rightful homeland. By all means emigrate, but it is not your state. By the same logic, kicking out the Palestinians (who had been living there for 2000 years btw) and renaming it Israel does not make it any less their land.

A country by definition has to have land.

A country is just an area where a people live, a very subjective term. A state needs to have land. Learn your definitions.

They have turned back the hordes of Muslims who have sought to destroy them

If someone kicked me out of my house and told me their family lived there 2000 years ago, id be fairly pissed off too.

when land is annexed it is no longer occupied but becomes that of the holder.

True, but that doesn't justify it. For the people still lving there after the annexation, it is an occupation. There are still hundreds of thousands of palestinians living in the west bank under israeli rule.

Texas was its own country.

No, it was part of Mexico, and they were in no position to defend themselves at the time.

Again a longer war leads to much much more unrest as well as costs.

Not if you fight it carefully. Fight a gradualist approach, especially in a theatre like Afghanistan, and casualty figures will drop, inevitably. One of the biggest problems is a lack of resources. If you concentrate them on smaller areas and take longer to take ground, then troops on the ground wouldnt have to expose themselves until absolutely necessary, minimising casualties.

[quote]I was polite addressing your last post, but this is simply ignorant.[/quote]\r\n\r\nDid you even read my post?\r\n\r\n[quote]Millions were slaughtered in the World Wars making 50,000 a relatively very small statistic.[/quote]\r\n\r\nDid i ever say this was not the case. Plus dont lecture me on casualty figures from WW1, you lost hardly any men compared to the 1 million british dead.\r\n\r\n[quote]The prolonged warfare did not benefit them it led to huge loss of life.  By no means should it have been cut short, but the principal is that prolonged wars are not good for anyone which remains true.[/quote]\r\n\r\nLike I already sad, the british, french and russiansto an extent, won a great negative victory by defeating the rival empires of the kaiser's germany, autstro hungary and the ottomans.\r\n\r\n[quote]The Romans renaming the area after the Philistines to piss off the Jews does not make it any less their land and it has been 61 years since they declared independence on May 14, 1948.[/quote]\r\n\r\nConsidering this was nearly 2000 years ago, i dont think its fair to say the jews who took the land after WW2 were returning to their rightful homeland. By all means emigrate, but it is not your state. By the same logic, kicking out the Palestinians (who had been living there for 2000 years btw) and renaming it Israel does not make it any less their land.\r\n\r\n[quote]A country by definition has to have land.[/quote]\r\n\r\nA country is just an area where a people live, a very subjective term. A state needs to have land. Learn your definitions.\r\n\r\n[quote]They have turned back the hordes of Muslims who have sought to destroy them[/quote]\r\n\r\nIf someone kicked me out of my house and told me their family lived there 2000 years ago, id be fairly pissed off too.\r\n\r\n[quote]when land is annexed it is no longer occupied but becomes that of the holder.[/quote]\r\n\r\nTrue, but that doesn't justify it. For the people still lving there after the annexation, it is an occupation. There are still hundreds of thousands of palestinians living in the west bank under israeli rule.\r\n\r\n[quote]Texas was its own country.[/quote]\r\n\r\nNo, it was part of Mexico, and they were in no position to defend themselves at the time.\r\n\r\n[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Annexation#Failed_treaty][/url]\r\n\r\n[quote]Again a longer war leads to much much more unrest as well as costs.[/quote]\r\n\r\nNot if you fight it carefully. Fight a gradualist approach, especially in a theatre like Afghanistan, and casualty figures will drop, inevitably. One of the biggest problems is a lack of resources. If you concentrate them on smaller areas and take longer to take ground, then troops on the ground wouldnt have to expose themselves until absolutely necessary, minimising casualties.

offline

balerion07

2,837 posts

Peasant

Posted December 25, '09 1:09pm UTC

I wasn't saying that MY nation lost millions.

To this I agreed, with the understanding that prolonged wars are very destructive to both sides and should be avoided as much as possible. Of course all war should be avoided as much as possible...

I know this will have errors being copied, but here it is anyway.

Country:
â"noun
1. a state or nation: What European countries have you visited?
2. the territory of a nation.
3. the people of a district, state, or nation: The whole country backed the president in his decision.
4. the land of one's birth or citizenship.
5. rural districts, including farmland, parkland, and other sparsely populated areas, as opposed to cities or towns: Many city dwellers like to spend their vacations in the country.
6. any considerable territory demarcated by topographical conditions, by a distinctive population, etc.: mountainous country; the Amish country of Pennsylvania.
7. a tract of land considered apart from any geographical or political limits; region; district.
8. the public.
9. Law. the public at large, as represented by a jury.
10. country music.

I was not referring to the Palestinians but the Egyptians, Jordans, Lebanese, Syrians, and Iraqis.

You aren't bitching about Poland regaining its sovereignty after it disappears for over 100 years before its being recreated.

Well of course Texas was part of Mexico. Then the Texans rebelled and hoped to instantly have the entire US army backing them up, but that isn't the way it worked now was it?

And the children who are currently asking their mothers why the US army has been there for as long as they can remember will grow up, and join the terrorists because they want us to GTFO.

I wasn't saying that MY nation lost millions.\r\n\r\nTo this I agreed, with the understanding that prolonged wars are very destructive to both sides and should be avoided as much as possible.  Of course all war should be avoided as much as possible...\r\n\r\nI know this will have errors being copied, but here it is anyway.\r\n\r\nCountry:\r\nâ�"noun\r\n1. 	a state or nation: What European countries have you visited?\r\n2. 	the territory of a nation.\r\n3. 	the people of a district, state, or nation: The whole country backed the president in his decision.\r\n4. 	the land of one's birth or citizenship.\r\n5. 	rural districts, including farmland, parkland, and other sparsely populated areas, as opposed to cities or towns: Many city dwellers like to spend their vacations in the country.\r\n6. 	any considerable territory demarcated by topographical conditions, by a distinctive population, etc.: mountainous country; the Amish country of Pennsylvania.\r\n7. 	a tract of land considered apart from any geographical or political limits; region; district.\r\n8. 	the public.\r\n9. 	Law. the public at large, as represented by a jury.\r\n10. 	country music. \r\n\r\nI was not referring to the Palestinians but the Egyptians, Jordans, Lebanese, Syrians, and Iraqis.\r\n\r\nYou aren't bitching about Poland regaining its sovereignty after it disappears for over 100 years before its being recreated.\r\n\r\nWell of course Texas was part of Mexico.  Then the Texans rebelled and hoped to instantly have the entire US army backing them up, but that isn't the way it worked now was it?\r\n\r\nAnd the children who are currently asking their mothers why the US army has been there for as long as they can remember will grow up, and join the terrorists because they want us to GTFO.

offline

woody_7007

2,662 posts

Peasant

Posted December 26, '09 4:05pm UTC

To this I agreed, with the understanding that prolonged wars are very destructive to both sides and should be avoided as much as possible.

But thats the thing. With the wars being fought now, the length of the war doesnt necessarily dictate the number of casualties.

Of course all war should be avoided as much as possible...

Says the person who thinks its ok for the US to do whatever it wants as long as it benefits the US.

I know this will have errors being copied, but here it is anyway.

See how many different usages of this term there are? Most other than point 3 can go under 'state' or 'nation' just as easily. Either way, in objective terms, the word 'country' is not very reliable, as perceptions of its true meaning differ so much. However point 3 is generally what it is most accurately described as.

3.the people of a district, state, or nation: The whole country backed the president in his decision.

I was not referring to the Palestinians but the Egyptians, Jordans, Lebanese, Syrians, and Iraqis.

The war in 48 was fought against all these states too.

You aren't *****ing about Poland regaining its sovereignty after it disappears for over 100 years before its being recreated.

Thats because the Polish were occupied by German kingdoms/Russian Tsarists for hundreds of years. They, as a nation have always been there, which should be refelcted as such in a nation state. They didnt just return to a homeland after thousands of years as the israelis did. You drawing a comparison between the poles and the israelis shows your lack of understanding in both areas. Even to the casual observer, its not a valid comparison.

Well of course Texas was part of Mexico. Then the Texans rebelled and hoped to instantly have the entire US army backing them up, but that isn't the way it worked now was it?

Your point? Just because a minority rebels doesnt mean they deserve to have a state.

And the children who are currently asking their mothers why the US army has been there for as long as they can remember will grow up, and join the terrorists because they want us to GTFO.

What does that have to do with anything?

[quote]To this I agreed, with the understanding that prolonged wars are very destructive to both sides and should be avoided as much as possible.[/quote]\r\n\r\nBut thats the thing. With the wars being fought now, the length of the war doesnt necessarily dictate the number of casualties.\r\n\r\n[quote]Of course all war should be avoided as much as possible...[/quote]\r\n\r\nSays the person who thinks its ok for the US to do whatever it wants as long as it benefits the US.\r\n\r\n[quote]I know this will have errors being copied, but here it is anyway.[/quote]\r\n\r\nSee how many different usages of this term there are? Most other than point 3 can go under 'state' or 'nation' just as easily. Either way, in objective terms, the word 'country' is not very reliable, as perceptions of its true meaning differ so much. However point 3 is generally what it is most accurately described as. \r\n\r\n[quote]3.the people of a district, state, or nation: The whole country backed the president in his decision.[/quote]\r\n\r\n[quote]I was not referring to the Palestinians but the Egyptians, Jordans, Lebanese, Syrians, and Iraqis.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThe war in 48 was fought against all these states too.\r\n\r\n[quote]You aren't *****ing about Poland regaining its sovereignty after it disappears for over 100 years before its being recreated.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThats because the Polish were occupied by German kingdoms/Russian Tsarists for hundreds of years. They, as a nation have always been there, which should be refelcted as such in a nation state. They didnt just return to a homeland after thousands of years as the israelis did. You drawing a comparison between the poles and the israelis shows your lack of understanding in both areas. Even to the casual observer, its not a valid comparison.\r\n\r\n[quote]Well of course Texas was part of Mexico.  Then the Texans rebelled and hoped to instantly have the entire US army backing them up, but that isn't the way it worked now was it?[/quote]\r\n\r\nYour point? Just because a minority rebels doesnt mean they deserve to have a state.\r\n\r\n[quote]And the children who are currently asking their mothers why the US army has been there for as long as they can remember will grow up, and join the terrorists because they want us to GTFO.[/quote]\r\n\r\nWhat does that have to do with anything?

offline

balerion07

2,837 posts

Peasant

Posted December 26, '09 4:44pm UTC

Costs of war are not measured in casualties alone.

If I were truly that arrogant about nationality I would want someone to shoot me.

Even if it were referring specifically to #3 those people have land.

That was my entire point as it was those nations that attacked the instant Israel declared itself a sovereign nation.

So if an entire population is scattered to the four winds they are supposed to be ok with that and not seek to regain that which was forcibly taken from them?

With all of the settlers from the states, they were not really a minority. The moved in much quicker than settlers coming from Mexico to the south. The citizens of Texas banded together to make their own army. Either way, your statement about the US going to war to take Texas from Mexico was pure fiction.

It has to do with why again prolonged warfare is not a good thing. You say drag it out while they simply want it to end.

offline

woody_7007

2,662 posts

Peasant

Posted December 26, '09 5:52pm UTC

Costs of war are not measured in casualties alone.

No, but that is the most important thing, and im sure both civilians and military personnel would agree.

If I were truly that arrogant about nationality I would want someone to shoot me.

Well you did say it, and you didnt seem to be sarcastic.

Even if it were referring specifically to #3 those people have land.

Yes, but land is not the criteria for a country. Look at the jews, or the kurds. They are a 'eople' but they do not all live in the same land.

So if an entire population is scattered to the four winds they are supposed to be ok with that and not seek to regain that which was forcibly taken from them?

Bad things happened to my ancestors thousands of years ago too. It doesnt mean its an excuse to punish others in this day and age, who had nothing to do with that. Also consider that 'israel' only existed because the jews kicked out the native arabs over 2000 years ago. Should it be their land now?

With all of the settlers from the states, they were not really a minority. The moved in much quicker than settlers coming from Mexico to the south. The citizens of Texas banded together to make their own army. Either way, your statement about the US going to war to take Texas from Mexico was pure fiction.

I said they annexed texas from mexico, not that they went to war.

It has to do with why again prolonged warfare is not a good thing. You say drag it out while they simply want it to end.

Who is 'they'?

Again people would accept a longer war if it meant fewer casualties. People value life over resource cost, especially if those lives belong to frends or family members.

[quote]Costs of war are not measured in casualties alone.[/quote]\r\n\r\nNo, but that is the most important thing, and im sure both civilians and military personnel would agree.\r\n\r\n[quote]If I were truly that arrogant about nationality I would want someone to shoot me.[/quote]\r\n\r\nWell you did say it, and you didnt seem to be sarcastic.\r\n\r\n[quote]Even if it were referring specifically to #3 those people have land.[/quote]\r\n\r\nYes, but land is not the criteria for a country. Look at the jews, or the kurds. They are a 'people' but they do not all live in the same land.\r\n\r\n[quote]So if an entire population is scattered to the four winds they are supposed to be ok with that and not seek to regain that which was forcibly taken from them?[/quote]\r\n\r\nBad things happened to my ancestors thousands of years ago too. It doesnt mean its an excuse to punish others in this day and age, who had nothing to do with that. Also consider that 'israel' only existed because the jews kicked out the native arabs over 2000 years ago. Should it be their land now?\r\n\r\n[quote]With all of the settlers from the states, they were not really a minority.  The moved in much quicker than settlers coming from Mexico to the south.  The citizens of Texas banded together to make their own army.  Either way, your statement about the US going to war to take Texas from Mexico was pure fiction.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI said they annexed texas from mexico, not that they went to war.\r\n\r\n[quote]It has to do with why again prolonged warfare is not a good thing.  You say drag it out while they simply want it to end.[/quote]\r\n\r\nWho is 'they'? \r\n\r\nAgain people would accept a longer war if it meant fewer casualties. People value life over resource cost, especially if those lives belong to frends or family members.

offline

balerion07

2,837 posts

Peasant

Posted December 26, '09 6:08pm UTC

The Kurds do not have a country while the Jews do. The Israelites did not kick out the Arabs but the 7 nationalities that had descended from Cannan. Those nations were destroyed.

Or texas. You know that little war when your congress agreed to annex some mexican territory just for the hell of it.

The people whose country we have invaded...

That resource cost lost could result in even more death because it was not available to be better used.

offline

woody_7007

2,662 posts

Peasant

Posted December 26, '09 6:24pm UTC

The Kurds do not have a country while the Jews do.

They do have a country. If it did exist, their territory would include parts of turkey, iran and iraq.

The Israelites did not kick out the Arabs but the 7 nationalities that had descended from Cannan.

Those 7 nations were ethnically arab.

Those nations were destroyed.

So what makes the israelites any different from the romans who tried to destroy their nationality?

Or texas. You know that little war when your congress agreed to annex some mexican territory just for the hell of it.

Yes it was a little war with sporadic fighting, but it is still an annexation.

That resource cost lost could result in even more death because it was not available to be better used.

How exactly? Not unless there are other wars to fight. Who would die as a result of more resources being put into Afghanistan? Iraq doesnt need many, since it has stabilised.

[quote]The Kurds do not have a country while the Jews do.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThey do have a country. If it did exist, their territory would include parts of turkey, iran and iraq. \r\n\r\n[quote]The Israelites did not kick out the Arabs but the 7 nationalities that had descended from Cannan.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThose 7 nations were ethnically arab.\r\n\r\n[quote]Those nations were destroyed.[/quote]\r\n\r\nSo what makes the israelites any different from the romans who tried to destroy their nationality?\r\n\r\n[quote]Or texas. You know that little war when your congress agreed to annex some mexican territory just for the hell of it.[/quote]\r\n\r\nYes it was a little war with sporadic fighting, but it is still an annexation.\r\n\r\n[quote]That resource cost lost could result in even more death because it was not available to be better used.[/quote]\r\n\r\nHow exactly? Not unless there are other wars to fight. Who would die as a result of more resources being put into Afghanistan? Iraq doesnt need many, since it has stabilised.

offline

Deth666

653 posts

Nomad

Posted December 26, '09 7:26pm UTC

50,000 troops isnt 'very few', especially when you consider the technology the VC and NVA were using.

Besides tanks the VC and NVA we're given relatively modern weapons by China and the Soviet Union.

WW1? The brits and french won a great negative victory from a prolonged war of attrition - freeing europe from the domination of a militaristic germany.

I believe you're misunderstanding. Britain and France paid a heavy toll for their victory, both in money and lives. The length of a war normally corresponds to the number of your casualties, the amount of money spent, the materials used and the level of civil unrest.

Your point? Just because a minority rebels doesnt mean they deserve to have a state.

Actually the majority of Texans didn't want to be part of Mexico. Texas, back then, didn't look like it does today. The area in which there was a very large US born population eventually became the Republic of Texas and later the State of Texas.

[quote]50,000 troops isnt 'very few', especially when you consider the technology the VC and NVA were using.[/quote]\r\n\r\nBesides tanks the VC and NVA we're given relatively modern weapons by China and the Soviet Union.\r\n\r\n[quote]WW1? The brits and french won a great negative victory from a prolonged war of attrition - freeing europe from the domination of a militaristic germany.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI believe you're misunderstanding. Britain and France paid a heavy toll for their victory, both in money and lives. The length of a war normally corresponds to the number of your casualties, the amount of money spent, the materials used and the level of civil unrest.\r\n\r\n[quote]Your point? Just because a minority rebels doesnt mean they deserve to have a state.[/quote]\r\n\r\nActually the majority of Texans didn't want to be part of Mexico. Texas, back then, didn't look like it does today. The area in which there was a very large US born population eventually became the Republic of Texas and later the State of Texas.

Categories

Quests

Community

Forums → WEPR → Troops in Afghanistan