Help support TMP

"More bleeding heart crap from a lack of reality" Topic

23 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2008-present) Message Board

2,508 hits since 11 Jul 2017
©1994-2018 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Great War Ace Inactive Member11 Jul 2017 3:59 a.m. PST


My reaction:

I am sure that "corridors" exist. And I am sure that nothing worse than ISIS can happen. They deliberately surround themselves with civilians like body shields. There are no "lightly populated areas" that have any strategic importance.

A sensitive soul in the presence of localized "total war" is not going to see enough good on the side of the "good guys". This is too analogous to fighting cancer. You have to kill enough good cells in order to eradicate the deadly cells. There is no possible "surgical precision" here.

WW2 reached that point where the only way to limit the enormity of death was swiftness. There is no capability of excising the evil power other than killing it and moving on to the next enclave and killing it again. To pussyfoot around because of a fear of inflicting civilian casualties is to allow ISIS to exist surrounded by its victims. This has already gone on too long because of the very fear this writer speaks to.

Personal logo Virtualscratchbuilder Supporting Member of TMP Fezian11 Jul 2017 4:46 a.m. PST

Its like I told my kids when they were growing up… "don't come to me with complaints…. come to me with ideas on how to fix it". I would love to hear the author's ideas on how to exterminate ISIS without causing casualties.

foxweasel11 Jul 2017 5:54 a.m. PST

Starve them out! Oh, hang on, that won't work either. Some people are absolutely clueless about the realities of defeating a determined, well dug in enemy in an urban environment, especially one with no morals.

Personal logo Cacique Caribe Supporting Member of TMP11 Jul 2017 7:42 a.m. PST

For years many people already knew this is how ISIS was going to make its final stand. So why do these backseat drivers sound so surprised and shocked about?


Great War Ace Inactive Member11 Jul 2017 9:09 a.m. PST

WW2 happened because the Great War was too terrible to call to mind. Nobody in power could influence the nations to resist Hitler and his pals. When it became obvious that he was on the road to conquest, the momentum was all his. That's why the War took so long to finish. If ISIS gained momentum like that, the world would face the same kind of long, total war. At least it appears that this time the fundamentalist nutjobs are getting crushed before they can gain enough momentum to stand off the rest of the free world forcing us to another total war to eradicate them. May it ever be so. May we unite in a timely, rational fashion against any and all evil before it gains momentum; or, as it is said in Mormon scripture, "suffer not that these murderous combinations shall get above you"…………

Bunkermeister Supporting Member of TMP11 Jul 2017 11:03 a.m. PST

The US does not bomb houses of worship.
Put the HQ in the mosque.

The US does not bomb schools.
Store the weapons in the schools.

The US does not bomb hospitals.
Quarter the troops in the hospital.

That's how this enemy works. You cannot move the conflict to un-populated areas when the enemy stays in populated areas.

You cannot create corridors for people to use to escape when the enemy is in the same room with the people.

The longer the war goes on the greater the suffering will be on the civilian population. The most humane answer is the harshest answer, do whatever it takes to defeat the enemy as quickly as possible and end the fighting.

Once the fighting is over provide health and welfare for the remaining civilians. That is how you win them over to our side. We should treat them well once the combat is over, but the fighting must be over for that to happen.

The enemy will not come out and fight a stand up fight because they know they will lose. So we have to go in and get them, and that causes either American and allied casualties, or civilian and enemy casualties. I know of no other options.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek

28mm Fanatik11 Jul 2017 11:51 a.m. PST

The civilians in Mosul and Raqqa are on their own and have to fend for themselves, just like the ones in Aleppo last year.

Personal logo FingerandToeGlenn Sponsoring Member of TMP11 Jul 2017 2:06 p.m. PST

I believe the phrase "glittering generalities" applies to the original…accompanied by hand waving and incantations…with about as much effect.

Personal logo piper909 Supporting Member of TMP Inactive Member11 Jul 2017 7:18 p.m. PST

No, I cannot agree with the overly dismissive attitude here about how civilian casualties are just something we should not unduly trouble ourselves about. If these wars aren't about protecting innocent lives, then what ARE they being fought for? If the "good guys" aren't going to care more about civilian lives than the "bad guys," what's the difference?

Let's not lose sight of what the real enemy is. I'd rather be a bleeding heart than a heartless killer.

Great War Ace Inactive Member11 Jul 2017 9:15 p.m. PST

But you've missed/dismissed the core value: save lives by ending the war swiftly. Prolonging it out of some misguided concern for accidentally killing civilians simply condemns even more of them to a lengthy, messy death. The occupation is killing them and in far worse ways than collateral damage.

Personal logo Cacique Caribe Supporting Member of TMP11 Jul 2017 10:41 p.m. PST

The level of restraint on the part of our Western troops is impressive, with very few exceptions. They do not take civilian losses lightly. It is the fanatical enemy that is treating these people as living sandbags to make their cowardly stand.

News media is still under the impression that wars can be conducted without civilian casualties. Family and friends who have served, and civilians I've spoken to who have been there all tell me this is hogwash. They still haven't invent d such a thing. All that can be done is keep those civilian deaths to a minimum, without putting your men under unnecessary risk.

The longer it takes to eradicate ISIS, the more innocent civilians will die. Huge numbers of them. So ending this swiftly is the lesser of all the evils. It's that simple.


Jcfrog Supporting Member of TMP12 Jul 2017 1:57 a.m. PST

It is not fought by western powers and Russia to help or save the locals, of whom many of the enemy come from by the way.
It is revenge, and to stop the cancer from spreading more with a territorial base to feed it.
And as the rant said abruptly, there are not so many ways. That is with a result. For ex you don't want them to get out and start elsewhere, well to add those to the other cancer cells already emerged. Each has to be treated. The rest is fooling yourselve, which the saints, their head in sand, their feet in ( so far) secure posh places, do a lot, giving outraged lessons to others.

Jcfrog Supporting Member of TMP12 Jul 2017 1:58 a.m. PST

Acw, 1870, ww1 up to a point were wars with little civilians casualties. Maybe the last ones.

Great War Ace Inactive Member12 Jul 2017 5:32 a.m. PST

@Jc: Those were the days when armies massed in open battle. WW1 proved that weapons tech had destroyed that "ethic".

WW2 was similar to now, in that the enemy took over entire cities and enfolded himself inside of them and dared the enemy to drive him out. When the enemy did so, the cities took a beating. There is no escape from that scenario when cities are used as fortifications, and their people as cover.

Jcfrog Supporting Member of TMP12 Jul 2017 8:22 a.m. PST

No one actively used human shields in ww2. Per se.
Civilians were engulfed into the fighting ( as in a large scale siege from ancient to 19 th cty ) plus the targetibg of civilians thorough mass bombings, and of course the nazis doctrinal aim of destroying specific populations. Sort of new but might look at ancient times and Tamerlan etc.

Personal logo M1Fanboy Supporting Member of TMP12 Jul 2017 9:04 a.m. PST

SMH, another clueless NGO who thinks wars can be fought in such a manner as to please the chattering classes. Am I sorry for the folks caught in the middle of this? Yes, they don't deserve what is about to happen to them, but, as Great War Ace said, the best way to end this is swiftly, and the best way to do that is with the overwhelming application of firepower. Do not send a man when a bomb or bullet will do.

And on a related note? How come when the press reports from a conflict, all we see are the refugees and we hear very little about well…the actual conduct of the fighting?

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP12 Jul 2017 11:07 a.m. PST

Why compare it to ww2.

Ww2 was a totally different scale fought with primitive weapons. By the last year of the war tens of millions of people had died. While the wars in Syria and Iraq are bad and has cost hundreds of thousands of lives. It's still a Vietnam not a WW2.

Great War Ace Inactive Member12 Jul 2017 1:19 p.m. PST

It's the best that ISIS can muster, Grand Prez. The comparison to WW2, by me, is to point out the futility of limiting civilian casualties because you won't bomb the bad guys out. I'm sure that in Mosul, the citizens do not see a scrap of difference between the Nazis and ISIS, well, other than ISIS is actually worse than the Nazis typically were. The destruction required to root out ISIS is going to be almost as bad as the worst city fighting in WW2.

And btw, "primitive weapons"? Eh!? Other than "smart bombs", the weapons are all on a pare with those used throughout the twentieth century. Again, the people dying in their homes and streets can't tell any difference between a bullet and a bullet or a piece of shrapnel, or a burning building, or a beheading, or a rape, or going hungry and without medical attention, etc. and etc. and etc. For the people on the ground, it is a "total war"…….

Winston Smith Supporting Member of TMP12 Jul 2017 10:13 p.m. PST

Frankly the civilians who do not see "a scrap of difference between Nazis and ISIS" see little difference between ISIS and the "coalition" determined to "root out ISIS".

I doubt they have any sympathy for the head wagging "tragic but necessary" civilian death calculation. They're the ones getting killed, not the armchair quarterbacks and generals.

To be honest, I don't give a damn about ISIS. I don't care which branch of Islam rules that part of the world.
The USA is now a net exporter of gas and oil, thanks to fracking. We now have no need for the Middle East. Let it rot.
If Russia and Syria want to "root out ISUS" from cities I never heard of, let them, and let their souls be damned for "unfortunate but necessary civilian deaths". Include us out.

Great War Ace Inactive Member13 Jul 2017 1:48 p.m. PST

If I didn't hold a historical view of acting too late with too little, I'd go along with that point of view. But we are ending this brand of tyranny soon enough to actually kill it off, for now.

We ought to provide tons of medical and infrastructure aid to the ravaged areas, through the UN, of course. Every member paying their fair share of the bill. And the bill should be kept on file for as long as it takes the aggrieved people to pay it back. Once their countries are running smoothly, a lengthy repayment can be put in place. Nothing onerous, just fair and just: the kind of repayment any grateful people should be willing to do.

Of course, the real world will say that such an eventuality is highly unlikely. The Mid East is a pit of economic despair and always has been. So there won't be any repayment of services rendered.

The US ought to draw a "line" both geographical and ethical and also political: with attendant consequences should any of these nutcase countries "cross the line". And then we simply adhere to our stipulations without question.

"Imperialism" is not and never should have been an activity of the US. "Nation building" it is called. And "interventionism". But never by its real name…….

ITALWARS Supporting Member of TMP Inactive Member14 Jul 2017 5:10 a.m. PST

but…except second, third source infos that usually media manupulate at will…which is the real beahaviour of those civilians or supposed to be innocent by standers?…why did they remain in the ISIS controlled cities?…are we sure that they are hostages or are'nt they, in a certain way, supporters of ISIS?..if i think at Mogadiscio during Enduring Freedom the international forces were hampered if not attacked by civilians..same in Gaza with IDF doing all the best to avoid civilian casualties but being attacked continuasly by those supposed to innocent civilians..also in Sarajevo the Serbs trying to save isolated and persecuted serbian comunities were attacked by civilians supporting Bosnian cutthroats or in Kossovo with "civilains" helping the albanian terrorists against Federal troops trying to restore order in their land…i'm not very indulgent with civilians that, instead of defendeding their lands (i'm speaking in this case of young males) Vs terrorists, prefer to stay and see what happen..something similar to the Attendisme in occupied Vichy..or, worst, escape illegaly to Europe..

Winston Smith Supporting Member of TMP14 Jul 2017 7:11 a.m. PST

"Sorry we had to blow up your city. It's unfortunate that all of your family was killed liberating your city.
However, look on the bright side. You are now FREE! You can listen to Selena Gomez on the radio now!
Well, you could if we hadn't found it necessary to blow up the radio station.
Anyway, we know how your primitive culture values manners and repaying debts and obligations above all things. So here's a bill for our services. Don't worry about the terms. You can take 15 years to pay it back."

Sobieski20 Jul 2017 7:41 p.m. PST

Cacique Caribe interesting that you appear to think it possible to be cowards and fanatics at the same time. Deleted by Moderator

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.