By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - The reason for pointless wars

Porcupine_I said:
izaaz101 said:
Porcupine_I said:

my ideal of a war would always be the opponents both get a group of their elite soldiers onto a uninhabited island and let them fight each other. last man standing wins.

 

would save us a lot of hassle,and also make great quotes

What kind of quotes?

TV quotes

of course it would be a reality show for everyone to enjoy

 

LOL, you should work for NBC.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

Around the Network
Porcupine_I said:

my ideal of a war would always be the opponents both get a group of their elite soldiers onto a uninhabited island and let them fight each other. last man standing wins.

 

would save us a lot of hassle,and also make great quotes


Why a group of elite soldiers when we could just make it 1 soldier... and give them a giant robot.

Just have every country build a giant robot and have someone pilot it.  Hold a bunch of 1 on 1 elimination matches and whoever wins get's to rule everybody else for 4 years.

 



So you're trying to find a point to something you already labeled pointless?

:P



Kasz216 said:

No offense... but that's just stupid.

 

You are going to learn WAY more from war games then you are fighting a horrible opponent like the Iraqi or Afghanistan or Libya.

 

I mean, what are soldiers really learning?   Nothing, because the competition is way too low.

 

I mean, is a proffesional sports team going to learn more by scrimmaging against itself or by playing the local highschool team?


That's what War Games are for.

When in an controlled environment vsing each other you run into the problems of: both sides knowing what to do and men taking risks because there is no consequences ontop of not trying the fullest because there life is not on the line. 



Of Course That's Just My Opinion, I Could Be Wrong

mchaza said:
Kasz216 said:

No offense... but that's just stupid.

 

You are going to learn WAY more from war games then you are fighting a horrible opponent like the Iraqi or Afghanistan or Libya.

 

I mean, what are soldiers really learning?   Nothing, because the competition is way too low.

 

I mean, is a proffesional sports team going to learn more by scrimmaging against itself or by playing the local highschool team?


That's what War Games are for.

When in an controlled environment vsing each other you run into the problems of: both sides knowing what to do and men taking risks because there is no consequences ontop of not trying the fullest because there life is not on the line. 

So, fighting an opponent that doesn't know what he's doing, and poses you almost no threat at all is going to be better?

Here's a fun fact.  You know what's been the biggest killer of soldiers during the Iraq/Afghanistan war?

Accidents.  So your life very much is at stake at every point of your training.  Most soldiers i'd imagine are aware and tkae that seriously.

If you are a soldier you are more likely to die in your regular duties then you are dieing at the enemies hands.

And those few that do face harsh life or death situations... that's not a breeding ground for being "battle hardened".  It's a breeding ground for PTSD.



Around the Network
Kasz216 said:
mchaza said:
Kasz216 said:

No offense... but that's just stupid.

 

You are going to learn WAY more from war games then you are fighting a horrible opponent like the Iraqi or Afghanistan or Libya.

 

I mean, what are soldiers really learning?   Nothing, because the competition is way too low.

 

I mean, is a proffesional sports team going to learn more by scrimmaging against itself or by playing the local highschool team?


That's what War Games are for.

When in an controlled environment vsing each other you run into the problems of: both sides knowing what to do and men taking risks because there is no consequences ontop of not trying the fullest because there life is not on the line.

So, fighting an opponent that doesn't know what he's doing, and poses you almost no threat at all is going to be better?

Here's a fun fact.  You know what's been the biggest killer of soldiers during the Iraq/Afghanistan war?

Accidents.  So your life very much is at stake at every point of your training.  Most soldiers i'd imagine are aware and tkae that seriously.

If you are a soldier you are more likely to die in your regular duties then you are dieing at the enemies hands.

And those few that do face harsh life or death situations... that's not a breeding ground for being "battle hardened".  It's a breeding ground for PTSD.


Just to back this up, according to one of my books, an American soldier was more likely to take his own life than be killed by an opponent during the Clintonian years.



mchaza said:

Really why invade Afghanistan, an nation who had an long history of invasions and countless times resisting to such invasions from many powerful empires. And the whole terrorist thing could of been solve with special operations then an full ground operation: sure its sounds all well liberating from the Tailban who are pretty bad, but when the people despise outside influences you are going to get no where. Really they should be in somailia: thats an country in need of full Allie support. They should of been in Seirra leone during its bloody blood diamond fueled civil war. 


Uh, I hate to stick up for the US, but they went into Afghanistan because they were attacked, now Iraq I will accept is a pretty pointless war.



SamuelRSmith said:
Kasz216 said:
mchaza said:
Kasz216 said:

No offense... but that's just stupid.

 

You are going to learn WAY more from war games then you are fighting a horrible opponent like the Iraqi or Afghanistan or Libya.

 

I mean, what are soldiers really learning?   Nothing, because the competition is way too low.

 

I mean, is a proffesional sports team going to learn more by scrimmaging against itself or by playing the local highschool team?


That's what War Games are for.

When in an controlled environment vsing each other you run into the problems of: both sides knowing what to do and men taking risks because there is no consequences ontop of not trying the fullest because there life is not on the line.

So, fighting an opponent that doesn't know what he's doing, and poses you almost no threat at all is going to be better?

Here's a fun fact.  You know what's been the biggest killer of soldiers during the Iraq/Afghanistan war?

Accidents.  So your life very much is at stake at every point of your training.  Most soldiers i'd imagine are aware and tkae that seriously.

If you are a soldier you are more likely to die in your regular duties then you are dieing at the enemies hands.

And those few that do face harsh life or death situations... that's not a breeding ground for being "battle hardened".  It's a breeding ground for PTSD.


Just to back this up, according to one of my books, an American soldier was more likely to take his own life than be killed by an opponent during the Clintonian years.

Yeah... the real issue with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars that most people are just now realizing is that the number of cases of PTSD we'll have to deal with as a country will be ridiculiously high.

It's like vietnam but "worse" since almost no one dies.

"Nothing ruins a good soldier more then war."



scottie said:
mchaza said:

Really why invade Afghanistan, an nation who had an long history of invasions and countless times resisting to such invasions from many powerful empires. And the whole terrorist thing could of been solve with special operations then an full ground operation: sure its sounds all well liberating from the Tailban who are pretty bad, but when the people despise outside influences you are going to get no where. Really they should be in somailia: thats an country in need of full Allie support. They should of been in Seirra leone during its bloody blood diamond fueled civil war. 


Uh, I hate to stick up for the US, but they went into Afghanistan because they were attacked, now Iraq I will accept is a pretty pointless war.

Afghanistan attacked the US??? 

an provish nation with no armes forces and an extemist group from pakistan terrorising its its afghan people attacked an global super power. 



Of Course That's Just My Opinion, I Could Be Wrong

Kasz216 said:
Porcupine_I said:

my ideal of a war would always be the opponents both get a group of their elite soldiers onto a uninhabited island and let them fight each other. last man standing wins.

 

would save us a lot of hassle,and also make great quotes


Why a group of elite soldiers when we could just make it 1 soldier... and give them a giant robot.

Just have every country build a giant robot and have someone pilot it.  Hold a bunch of 1 on 1 elimination matches and whoever wins get's to rule everybody else for 4 years.

 


LOL, this sounds like the plot of Michael Bay's next movie.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)