BF2S Forums Only Force Works

-=]DeatH1337[=- wrote:

156000 troops in Iraq and your still getting nowhere! That's alot of troops for one country.

we took the place over in a week.  troops do not build countries.  and what the fuck does that have to do with delivering food?  jesus.  this fucking forum.

-=]DeatH1337[=- wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

-=]DeatH1337[=- wrote:

156000 troops in Iraq and your still getting nowhere! That's alot of troops for one country.

this is NOT about Iraq ! <----- see the exclamation mark ? I am getting pissed here. Iraq has nothing to do with what we are currently discussing. If you want to do some US bashing, do it someplace else please.

I don't intend to bash the US.

cool

Force is sometimes best, but not always.

I'd say right around genocide is when its time to shut up and do something.

B.Schuss wrote:

FEOS wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

cool

Schuss just doesn't want you on his turf.

I have turf here ?

GTFO ma turf! /invades

But there a numerous cases that involve force, Gulf War 1, Kuwait was liberated via military action and the Iraqis were pummelled all the way back. Gulf War part 2 ground war was over within a few days. Falklands war, didn't last long either.

Its just the bit afterwards that is time consuming.

But I think that a quick knuckle down in Sudan with troops would be a good way to get supplies to those who seriously need them. It may not be a long term solution, but you'll be keeping them alive while you plan for long term.

Personally I think they should just go in and wipe out the ones doing the killing. Quick and easy.

FEOS wrote:

The sad thing is, there ARE troops in Darfur. But they are amateurish at best. But the AU wants Africa to deal with Africa's problems...I say let them.

Exactly.  +1
/debate

usmarine wrote:

-=]DeatH1337[=- wrote:

156000 troops in Iraq and your still getting nowhere! That's alot of troops for one country.

we took the place over in a week.  troops do not build countries.  and what the fuck does that have to do with delivering food?  jesus.  this fucking forum.

Ask the starving/thirsty in Iraq maybe?  Yeah it only took a week to topple the Iraqi government but how long did it take to get electricity and water working again after that week?  Yep, troops don't build nations but if you want to talk about troops being effective at getting food to people how can that be acknowledged when it took so long to get basic services (water!) working again in Iraq when you "pwned 'em" in a week?

From the BBC:

A 2007 Poll found 69% of Iraqis described the availability of clean water as somewhat or very bad, up from 48% in 2004. 

This is just for water and got worse after THREE YEARS.  But no, we can just waltz into Africa guns blazing and solve their problems.  Short sighted imo.

Violence is never the only solution.  It may be a needed solution at times but that doesn't mean it's the only way to solve issues.  And if you feel the need to respond with the "you're a tree-huggin' hippie" remarks then get a pair and give a decent argument.  Name calling is the sign of a very weak position.

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

I'd say right around genocide is when its time to shut up and do something.

ReTox wrote:

FEOS wrote:

How about you look into why the water situation was so bad in Iraq back then (or maybe try to find current numbers)? It was due to insurgents destroying their own country's infrastructure.

What?  It got worse, according to the BBC and 3 other news agencies, AFTER the troops went in.  And current numbers???  The poll was done in 2007.

Yes, insurgents are causing problems with the infrastructure but do you honestly think the African rebels will sit idly by and not do the same thing?  The OP was about force being used to deliver food and water to those needing it, well Iraqi is showing that mentality fails.

Building non-existent/destroyed infrastructure is different than delivering packaged food/water supplies.

I explained how it got worse...insurgents destroying their own country's infrastructure. After troops went in. But again, the Africa scenario (the topic at hand) is sufficiently different than the Iraq scenario (your counterargument) so as to make your counterargument, while interesting, not relevant. Proverbial apples and oranges.

Currency: A lot has changed (improved) in the past year with regard to infrastructure attacks.

"I know some of you live in the land of teddy bears and rainbows where wars do not need to be fought and everyone can just stay in their own countries and live long and happy."


that line makes me think of the movie where all the peace loving hippies were on the top of a building to welcome the spaceship that was hovering over it.    then the aliens blow them to hell!  hahah  good times!  forget what damn movie it was.   maybe independence day? or was it mars attacks?

ReTox wrote:

Good counter but my argument holds "water" when you think about Basra.  Months without electricity or water even though no insurgents where there.  Only left over Iraqi army thugs who tended to flee instead of fight and the British forces who drove them out.

Sorry to burst your bubble about Basra (say that five times fast):

source wrote:

That was the case until late 2004, when USAID and Bechtel Corp. finished rehabilitating Basra's 14 water treatment plants, the canal system, and the main water reservoir, providing fresh water to a city accustomed to salty, unusable water.

Gleason's team fixed irrigation systems and provide fresh water to farmers in the region by September 2006.

To state there were no insurgents there is patently false. They were/are there, just not nearly as active due to the Shia majority...hence the ability to bring the infrastructure back.

ReTox wrote:

Africa may be a very poor place but they still have some infrastructure the same as most habitable places.  Thus the correlation is justified... McIntosh to Red Delicious Apples.

It's not an infrastructure issue in Africa. It's a packaged food/water dissemination/protection issue. So it really is two different types of fruit...so to speak.

Edit: Found info on Basra's infrastructure c 2004-2006.

Last edited by FEOS (2008-03-11 12:38:58)

ReTox wrote:

usmarine wrote:

-=]DeatH1337[=- wrote:

156000 troops in Iraq and your still getting nowhere! That's alot of troops for one country.

we took the place over in a week.  troops do not build countries.  and what the fuck does that have to do with delivering food?  jesus.  this fucking forum.

Ask the starving/thirsty in Iraq maybe?  Yeah it only took a week to topple the Iraqi government but how long did it take to get electricity and water working again after that week?  Yep, troops don't build nations but if you want to talk about troops being effective at getting food to people how can that be acknowledged when it took so long to get basic services (water!) working again in Iraq when you "pwned 'em" in a week?

From the BBC:

A 2007 Poll found 69% of Iraqis described the availability of clean water as somewhat or very bad, up from 48% in 2004. 

This is just for water and got worse after THREE YEARS.  But no, we can just waltz into Africa guns blazing and solve their problems.  Short sighted imo.

Violence is never the only solution.  It may be a needed solution at times but that doesn't mean it's the only way to solve issues.  And if you feel the need to respond with the "you're a tree-huggin' hippie" remarks then get a pair and give a decent argument.  Name calling is the sign of a very weak position.

I did not name call there did I?  But I will to you.  STFU.

Now, what the fuck does Iraq have to do with it?  You got a one track mind or something?

And go find me a real source like Janes or don't even bother with that bbc junk.

CameronPoe wrote:

usmarine wrote:

I know some of you live in the land of teddy bears and rainbows where wars do not need to be fought and everyone can just stay in their own countries and live long and happy.  Thank god they are some of us who live in the real world.  I understand it may not be your faults since most of you have yet to leave your sheltered little suburban life.  But there is only one solution to this, and many other problems like this.  Force.  Plain and simple.  Not songs and celebrities, but men with guns whose mission is to help people, not steal their food.

Or we can just sit around and do some more diplomacy since that seems to be working just fine eh?


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080310/ts … stdarfurun
"The agency said it was transporting about half as much food into western Sudan's war-torn Darfur as normal, and that the turnaround time for deliveries had slowed because truckers were unwilling to risk dangerous roads."

lol. Still trying to 'save the day' eh marine? Concentrate on defending America. That's what armies are for: defence.

Nope an army is for defense and offense, a specified army such as IDF or JGSDF is a defensive army.