Donald Trump: You have to take out terrorists families

[andy58-in-nh]

This is what you DO to win a war ............... not what you brag about.

Yes, except that one does not specifically target the families of one's enemies. That would be morally wrong, and we ought never forget it. And here once again, Donald Trump speaks off-the-cuff and is admired by his admiring admirers for being so "plain-spoken", when the same words spoken by virtually anyone else would be taken as reckless. 

In wartime, you attack the enemy and their capacity to make war wherever they reside, irrespective of the potential for collateral/civilian damage.  Prime examples of this military strategy include the US bombing of Dresden, Germany and the later firebombing of Tokyo, Japan in WWII.  In these events, our aim was to destroy German ball-bearing manufacturing capabilities, reducing their ability to produce more tanks and aircraft engines, and in Japan, to obliterate aircraft production facilities, fuel depots, and munitions plants.

Tens of thousands of civilians perished in these raids, but that was not our aim. Our purpose was to hasten the end of the war by destroying the enemy's ability to wage it, and our leaders back then justified America's actions in those terms.

I think it perfectly acceptable to attack identified ISIS fighters in their homes and villages, regardless of the potential for collateral damage. But let no one aver that we are ever specifically targeting their families, because that would be wrong.

[sinkspur]

Stabilized Iraq? Several hundred thousand troops maimed and killed to stabilized?  If that is your bragging point, then keep our damn troops out of their....

We did loose Korea, we surrendered to the Chinese after another many hundreds of thousands maimed and killed....

The cold war was not a war, no matter how the draft dodgers and politicians want to paint it.... besides, we bankrupted the country...

LOL!!  Wrong about all three, but truth is whatever we want it to be, right? 

[aligncare]

Yes, except that one does not specifically target the families of one's enemies. That would be morally wrong, and we ought never forget it. And here once again, Donald Trump speaks off-the-cuff and is admired by his admiring admirers for being so "plain-spoken", when the same words spoken by virtually anyone else would be taken as reckless. 

In wartime, you attack the enemy and their capacity to make war wherever they reside, irrespective of the potential for collateral/civilian damage.  Prime examples of this military strategy include the US bombing of Dresden, Germany and the later firebombing of Tokyo, Japan in WWII.  In these events, our aim was to destroy German ball-bearing manufacturing capabilities, reducing their ability to produce more tanks and aircraft engines, and in Japan, to obliterate aircraft production facilities, fuel depots, and munitions plants.

Tens of thousands of civilians perished in these raids, but that was not our aim. Our purpose was to hasten the end of the war by destroying the enemy's ability to wage it, and our leaders back then justified America's actions in those terms.

I think it perfectly acceptable to attack identified ISIS fighters in their homes and villages, regardless of the potential for collateral damage. But let no one aver that we are ever specifically targeting their families, because that would be wrong.

 Little Boy and Fat Boy dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not about taking out ball bearing factories.

It was to maximize psychological shock. 129,000 people were killed in that psychological shock that ended a war.

[Longiron]

Little Boy and Fat Foy dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not about taking out ball bearing factories.

It was to maximize psychological shock. 129,000 people were killed in that psychological shock that ended a war.

That was called winning a WAR not talking about it. The idea is to make the the lives of the people so bad that they turn on their leaders or gov't . Likewise asking what we did to piss them off so badly   they chop our heads off, brag about it and we do NOTHING is never going to work.

[andy58-in-nh]

Little Boy and Fat Foy dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not about taking out ball bearing factories.

It was to maximize psychological shock. 129,000 people were killed in that psychological shock that ended a war.

It was to prevent us from having to invade mainland Japan ("Operation Downfall"), which according to one study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7 to 4 million American casualties, including 400,000 to 800,000 battle deaths.

[Carling]

This is what you DO to win a war ............... not what you brag about.

Which other candidate is even "bragging" about it?  The past few days sinkspur has come out against tax credits for new business construction because Trump got a $40m credit on a self-funded $200m renovation of a crumbling building, and now he's taking the liberal view of how we lose wars these days.

He's actual opening my eyes as to how similar the establishment DEMS and GOP are these days.  Using liberal talking points to criticize Trump is an ineffective strategy, IMO

[Relic]

LOL!!  Wrong about all three, but truth is whatever we want it to be, right?

When I served, the cold war was still being waged. But, there were know shooting wars.

The VFW will not accept me.

Guess the VFW says it wasn't a war?

[flowers]

Many years ago I watched a TV special that interviewed men who where Serbs. They said they killed the enemies boys after when they reached a certain age. When fighting sharia you have to kill them all.

[sinkspur]

Which other candidate is even "bragging" about it?  The past few days sinkspur has come out against tax credits for new business construction, and now he's taking the liberal view of how we lose wars these days.

You know, I think you're still nursing a grudge from last March.  I didn't support your boy Moore against Thad Cochran, and you didn't approve of Cochran's tactics at winning the primary.

And here you are, supporting a liar, a crony capitalist, and a man who's advocating a war crime. 

Guess it depends on who's ox is getting gored to you.

[flowers]

Guess the VFW says it wasn't a war?

Which one?

[Relic]

Which one?

The Cold War.

[Carling]

You know, I think you're still nursing a grudge from last March.  I didn't support your boy Moore against Thad Cochran, and you didn't approve of Cochran's tactics at winning the primary.

And here you are, supporting a liar, a crony capitalist, and a man who's advocating a war crime. 

Guess it depends on who's ox is getting gored to you.

I'm not supporting Trump, I'm pointing out that you are using liberal talking points to criticize Trump.

As for Moore and Cochran, I have no idea what you're talking about.  I wanted Cochran, since he was the candidate who could win.  You have me confused with another poster.

[Carling]

"War crimes."

 

Do those Islamists targeting killing innocents all over the globe follow your liberal dogma on the rules of engagement?

Now you're supporting terrorists to slam Trump.  He specifically noted the use of human shields, not targeting "clean" neighborhoods.

Insane

[sinkspur]

"War crimes."

 

Do those Islamists targeting killing innocents all over the globe follow your liberal dogma on the rules of engagement?

Now you're supporting terrorists to slam Trump.  He specifically noted the use of human shields, not targeting "clean" neighborhoods.

Insane

No he did not.  He said "We have to kill their families."  No qualifiers.  Even Israel doesn't do that.

We all know, though, that Trump is not going to do this anymore than he's going to build a wall and get Mexico to pay for it.

[truth_seeker]

It was to prevent us from having to invade mainland Japan ("Operation Downfall"), which according to one study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7 to 4 million American casualties, including 400,000 to 800,000 battle deaths.

Okay, avoid invading Japan. The justification, and it worked.

Why now wouldn't a nearly identical justification be valid, for massive bombing in the Mideast, instead of "boots on the ground?"

*Near the end with Germany, bombing Berlin was about demoralizing the civilians, not ball bearings. The US and Britain knew full well, we were killing many civilians, not just going after armaments facilities.

The Germans knew it too. Like the Japanese, the leaders went on anyway, getting their people killed, when they had essentially lost the war.

[musiclady]

Trump cannot win this or any conflict until he's...elected president. At the moment he's not prosecuting a war, he's simply a candidate responding to media questions on what he would do if he were president.

Of course, from your perspective I'm quite certain you would prefer if Trump would just shut the heck up altogether. But that's not how one goes about getting themselves elected president.

I can turn around your insult and say that you would prefer that anyone who doesn't support trump should shut the heck up altogether, but that's not how free speech works now, is it?

My point is that, when one suggests a military strategy that kills the families of the guilty, one should not advertise it.

[flowers]

The Cold War.

Wow Then they don't consider you a veteran?

[musiclady]

Yes, except that one does not specifically target the families of one's enemies. That would be morally wrong, and we ought never forget it. And here once again, Donald Trump speaks off-the-cuff and is admired by his admiring admirers for being so "plain-spoken", when the same words spoken by virtually anyone else would be taken as reckless. 

In wartime, you attack the enemy and their capacity to make war wherever they reside, irrespective of the potential for collateral/civilian damage.  Prime examples of this military strategy include the US bombing of Dresden, Germany and the later firebombing of Tokyo, Japan in WWII.  In these events, our aim was to destroy German ball-bearing manufacturing capabilities, reducing their ability to produce more tanks and aircraft engines, and in Japan, to obliterate aircraft production facilities, fuel depots, and munitions plants.

Tens of thousands of civilians perished in these raids, but that was not our aim. Our purpose was to hasten the end of the war by destroying the enemy's ability to wage it, and our leaders back then justified America's actions in those terms.

I think it perfectly acceptable to attack identified ISIS fighters in their homes and villages, regardless of the potential for collateral damage. But let no one aver that we are ever specifically targeting their families, because that would be wrong.

Point well taken and expands and clarifies the point I was trying to make.  It is morally wrong to deliberately target children, but when such things occur in war, especially in efforts to end a war, it is not a point to be boasted about.

And your point about Trump is well-founded.......... and this is yet another example of how uncritically his fans accept his every word, no matter how irresponsible or reckless.

[EdinVA]

When I served, the cold war was still being waged. But, there were know shooting wars.

The VFW will not accept me.

Guess the VFW says it wasn't a war?

Me either relic... I was in SE Asia but not in Vietnam so I am not a veteran either....

[andy58-in-nh]

Okay, avoid invading Japan. The justification, and it worked.

Why now wouldn't a nearly identical justification be valid, for massive bombing in the Mideast, instead of "boots on the ground?"

*Near the end with Germany, bombing Berlin was about demoralizing the civilians, not ball bearings. The US and Britain knew full well, we were killing many civilians, not just going after armaments facilities.

The Germans knew it too. Like the Japanese, the leaders went on anyway, getting their people killed, when they had essentially lost the war.

We did not specifically target residential civilian neighborhoods. Our bombers targeted rail lines, bridges, roadways, government buildings, power stations, troop and material transport vehicles. Many of these were co-located in civilian areas. But as a matter of historical record, America manifestly did not set about to indiscriminately bomb civilian targets, for example the way that Germany did to London and Coventry in 1940.

[Longiron]

Point well taken and expands and clarifies the point I was trying to make.  It is morally wrong to deliberately target children, but when such things occur in war, especially in efforts to end a war, it is not a point to be boasted about.

And your point about Trump is well-founded.......... and this is yet another example of how uncritically his fans accept his every word, no matter how irresponsible or reckless.

Just wonder can you say " Radical Islamic  Terrorist"? You are a great example of why we have who we have as the current POTUS. Now you are to embarrassed to say you voted for him?

[Relic]

Wow Then they don't consider you a veteran?

VFW - Veterans of Foreign Wars.

They apparently consider my service irrelevant because there wasn't a shooting war, (77-81).

[Carling]

No he did not.  He said "We have to kill their families."  No qualifiers.  Even Israel doesn't do that.

We all know, though, that Trump is not going to do this anymore than he's going to build a wall and get Mexico to pay for it.

I'd carpet-bomb Raqqa if it were up to me.  Good for Trump.  Sounds like he actually wants to beat these animals, instead of the Obama/Clinton/Bush approach of pin-pricks and "negotiations." 

[EdinVA]

LOL!!  Wrong about all three, but truth is whatever we want it to be, right?

Iraq
"The report, which revealed that 247,243 veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars have been diagnosed with PTSD"
That is in addition to the 60,000 killed and wounded on the battle field.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/21/nearly-30-of-vets-treated-by-v-a-have-ptsd.html

Korea
In fact, the United States subtly threatened to use nuclear weapons in the conflict after Joseph Stalin’s death and that brought Chinese negotiators and their North Korean puppets to the bargaining table. It’s clear that China had little interest and no ability to combat the US if there were attacks in Manchuria or the bridges across the Tumen and Yalu rivers had been bombed cutting off their supply routes.
https://www.quora.com/Did-the-U-S-surrender-in-the-Korean-War

[NavyCanDo]

Not sure where this all ends, and how we get out of this alive - knowing how serious the radical Muslims take the Caliphate and how driven they are to global domination and the end-of-days (their version), nor if bombing their families will turn their clock back, or embolden them.  But it seems pretty silly arguing about a phrase very similar to something we have ALL said on numerous occasions since 9/11. • Bomb them back to the stone age, • smoking hole where Mecca use to be, • Carpet bomb them day and night, • Nuke the whole place - turning that sand into glass, • Dip bullets in Bacon grease.     All comments we have stated publically or written here, among other similar phrases of bravado.

Everyone knows I do not like Trump, but I'm not seeing this as a thread to jump in and say, "Trump said what?"