Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Trooth
I am responding to the suggestion that carpet bombing the area might be a good idea.
|
But that isn't what I quoted, I responded to your statement about a strike on a religous site. Go check, it's true. It doesn't matter what anyone else says, I am my own person and my posts are not a continuation of anyone elses posts. BTW, M21 Sniper qualified his statement with his belief that the war is against Islam in general. To argue his points you have to convince him general Islam isn't the enemy... Because if all Islam is the enemy, as he says, his method of enforcement is the necessary one, no matter how much you dislike it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Trooth
"Locate the enemy, and destroy the enemy" can be achieved with a B2 or it can be achieved with a knife, or even a finely honed political arguement!
|
How can a B2, a knife, or a politicial argument locate the enemy? I guess this is the problem, you don't understand that alot goes into figuring out where, and who, the enemy is, you've gone straight to enforcement. When you locate the enemy the method of enforcement can be determined by what means is necessary to do the job and by how badly the job needs to be done. Also note, a bomber can be as accurate as a knife.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Trooth
Which do you think should be used?
|
Depends on the situation. Where is the enemy, who is the enemy, what else is in the area, what equipment does the enemy have, how many enemy are there, and what can respond to fight the enemy? I think whatever force is necessary, plus 20%, is the ammount of force that should be used. Do you think there is one all purpose solution to every problem? I'd sure like to hear it if you do.