It isn't a "war" unless enough of our own guys die? Fine, call it what you like, then. I am also finding it a little hard to believe you were any kind of infantry...I've never run into a combat infantryman who said he lost sleep worrying over whether the enemy had a good enough chance against him.
As for "slaughter," you have also seemingly overlooked the small matter that we didn't start it, did we? It's not like we decided to invade a nation, and Afghanistan happened to be first on the alphabetical list.
The Taliban and Al Quaeda assigned themselves the task of annihilating Western civilization, and made the best start of it they could on September 11. Only the fact that they had no better weapons--like nukes from some friendly supplier--kept tens of thousands of other Americans from dying.
Once an enemy has decreed that they won't stop until you and everyone else in your country is dead, then the ideal solution is annihilating them with the minimum casualties on your own side, and as few non-combatant deaths on the other side as possible. If this doesn't qualify as a "war," then call it whatever makes you feel better. Maybe a Daisy Cutter Whup-Ass Procedure.
If I'm in a fight for my life, or the lives of my loved ones, my idea of good odds is a rusty knife on the other side, and an X-ray laser on my side. If you have a problem with that, I'll wait back here for a few minutes while you give it your best shot with your own rusty knife. Code of the Warrior, and all that.
Current Events » in reply to A "war" with no casualties is a slaughter.
This is nuts...
The whole thread (16 posts)
- U.S. Calls Special Warriors to Lead in Unconventional Fight . . .
