• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

The Ongoing Totally-Not-Terrorism Thread

WakeandBake said:
what say you jhmd? You're a big boy with thoughts of your own, and IIRC you were in the military. If you were in charge of giving the order to begin the shock and awe campaign, and your team of commanders discussed the fact that thousands of children were in the direct line of fire, would you give the order?
Click to expand...

e1d4cf268d205ff30a492a50e5e3b7cdb4f08be8694075bffeb1b7be50b8fc62.jpg
 
WakeandBake said:
what say you jhmd? You're a big boy with thoughts of your own, and IIRC you were in the military. If you were in charge of giving the order to begin the shock and awe campaign, and your team of commanders discussed the fact that thousands of children were in the direct line of fire, would you give the order?
Click to expand...

Knowing that I---a CFACC---know a hell of a lot more than W&B about how munitions guidance systems, yes.
 
deacvision7 said:
Was your suggestion what you thought would be the worst choice or best choice? If worst, what is the best? If best, what is the worst?

After that I will be happy to respond to your 4th option. I just want to know where you stand first.
Click to expand...

jhmd?
 
jhmd2000 said:
Knowing that I---a CFACC---know a hell of a lot more than W&B about how munitions guidance systems, yes.
Click to expand...

Kudos for answering, we knew the answer already.

So you feel that you - in representation of the United States Army and, by extension, the citizens of the United States - have the moral authority to kill these Iraqi babies in a preemptive strike, but a woman does not hold the moral authority to kill a baby in her uterus?
 
I don't feel entitled to anything, but was merely asking to engage with you in a debate.

So, OK, great, you thought what you put forward would have been the best answer. Any chance of you saying which of the 3 options I listed would have been the worst?

The options again were:
1) An Iraq today with Sadaam Hussein
2) US Troops still in Iraq by the tens of thousands
3) ISIS controlling a large swath of land in Iraq
Click to expand...

As for your preferred answer.
jhmd2000 said:
4) Shock and Awe air campaign to remove the Baath regime, followed by a handover of civilian authority to local leadership willing to work with the outside world and join the eighteenth century, buttressed by a concerted air campaign conducted by coalition Air Forces designed to erode and degrade insurgent centers of gravity.
Click to expand...

Do you think that you might have had trouble building a coalition of nations in the geographic area specifically and around the globe generally to put together an air force that would 1) oust an elected (as farcical as the election was) leader, and 2) keep their planes and munitions available to quickly quash any insurgent centers of gravity that came about from destabilizing the country?

And how would a air campaign, and only an air campaign, have knocked Saddam and his party out of power?

Also, how do you know which person/group to hand over authority of an entire country to? And do you name that person as monarch or do you hold democratic elections? If you opt for the latter, how do you then make sure that the person/group that you want to win the election actually does so?

How do you see this part of your plan, that being: "followed by a handover of civilian authority to local leadership willing to work with the outside world and join the eighteenth century", any different from what the Bush Administration actually did with the appointment of al-Maliki as Iraq's Prime Minister in 2006? Did they just choose the wrong person? If so, why was he the wrong person and who would you have appointed instead?



Now, since I asked you a lot of questions I'll say what I would have done in terms of Iraq in 2003. I would have left Saddam in charge.
It would not have been perfect to leave Hussein in charge, but that reality looks a lot better in hindsight of what we've got now with ISIS, Iran's growing influence in the region without a strong Iraq as a buffer, and thousands of dead American soldiers that died in the war in the in insurgency afterwards. And I'm not going to even talk about the bullshit WMDs that did not exist.
 
Last edited:
LOL at a former air force jockey seriously advocating for regime change by air attack alone. So stereotypical.
 
Still wondering why Bush and Obama can and should kill Iraqi babies if all live is precious.
 
There's a most orthodox sect of every major religion that follows the belief of separatism, of refusing to assimilate. They believe that social assimilation is the path to secularization (it is). I won't say that these separatists are poisonous, but their refusal to assimilate is what allows hate to fester and become terrorism. This is especially true among the poor, ignorant, and war-torn members of society who are most susceptible to the charms and consistency of orthodox religion. The moderation of American Muslims in comparison to those worldwide proves that, I think. I think it's fair to say that the Muslim faith is especially receptive to extremist views, but I think that a strong enough secular society is capable of disarming that danger. Of course you still need the FBI to do their fucking jobs, but that's another matter

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
 
More evidence that the faux populist right wing are terrible defenders of the Citizen

With trump torching our alliances, get ready for more terror here
 
The UK is a failed state. There is nothing left there but terrorists and pedophiles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top