A Can of Man
Je suis aware
LeMask, the question was: is it possible to defeat the Taliban. If the West truly was in a scenario where it was ultimately and undeniably us or them, I believe our side could destroy them. But we're not in that scenario. And you're right, many of these strategies and tactics are unacceptable to us. That was NOT what I was trying to answer.
But my evidence of using maximum violence in the shortest amount of time actually does hold water in an abstract point of view. It has worked pretty darn well when it has been used. I don't mean general oppression. I mean MAXIMUM violence in a short time. Both factors are key.
That was the question and that's what I answered. If we went into the whole what is acceptable and what is not, that's a whole different can of worms.
As for caring about avoiding civilian casualties, 03 is right. These darn terrorists are the ones who in fact take out their own people with seeming impunity. I'm sorry but that's simply true. Funny thing, it happened during the Korean War too. In some instances Americans fired back resulting in civilian casualties. There has been an outcry in recent times about how Americans murdered civilians, completely ignoring the fact that communists used these refugees as shields and held their lives in no regard.
America spends billions of dollars developing stuff to reduce collateral damage.
I don't know. This started with the whole thing about victory over the Taliban being possible or not. I say yes, we can do it if our survival depended on it and we were able to get the sort of determination required to do so. But we're not at that stage and the lengths we'd have to go to in order to ensure victory are too brutal for us to justify.
But my evidence of using maximum violence in the shortest amount of time actually does hold water in an abstract point of view. It has worked pretty darn well when it has been used. I don't mean general oppression. I mean MAXIMUM violence in a short time. Both factors are key.
That was the question and that's what I answered. If we went into the whole what is acceptable and what is not, that's a whole different can of worms.
As for caring about avoiding civilian casualties, 03 is right. These darn terrorists are the ones who in fact take out their own people with seeming impunity. I'm sorry but that's simply true. Funny thing, it happened during the Korean War too. In some instances Americans fired back resulting in civilian casualties. There has been an outcry in recent times about how Americans murdered civilians, completely ignoring the fact that communists used these refugees as shields and held their lives in no regard.
America spends billions of dollars developing stuff to reduce collateral damage.
I don't know. This started with the whole thing about victory over the Taliban being possible or not. I say yes, we can do it if our survival depended on it and we were able to get the sort of determination required to do so. But we're not at that stage and the lengths we'd have to go to in order to ensure victory are too brutal for us to justify.