Can anyone explain to me...

Open to topics unrelated to Speed-Talk.
No politics. No religion topics.

Moderator: Team

David Redszus
Guru
Guru
Posts: 9633
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 9:27 am
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Post by David Redszus »

Where we differ is in what each of us defines as a just reason and cause to go to war and what is winnable and what is not.
Indeed we differ with regard to justification and winnability.
* In my view, defence of self, of one's homeland and one's fellow countrymen...... And of innocents unable to defend themselves against a stronger foe...... Is a just reason and cause to go to war, whether reactively or preemptively.
A true defense of one's homeland against invasion is a just cause for war. Retaliation strikes are not a just cause. Defense of innocents is not a just cause. We do not defend innocents at home, why should we attempt such utopian efforts globally? I believe a preemptive strike is called a sneak attack. If done by ourselves or allies its acceptable but if done against us it is not? Nonesense.
* And no just war is unwinnable by our nation if prosecuted with firm resolve, the full might of our military and seen through to its conclusion.
Absolutely not true. We get into serious trouble when we begin to believe our own bullshiit.
Even a war against terrorists used as surrogates by rogue states to wage war against us...... As a ploy to insulate those responsible in those rogue states from being held to account.
The swamp is getting a bit mucky. A rogue state is merely a political classification for political purposes. Isn't it interesting how some are labeled freedom fighters while others are labeled terrorists? While they engage in essentially the same type of actions.
However...... Having undertaken such a war, we must follow through and take it home to the rogue states sponsoring those surrogate combatants, else we fail to address the root cause of the conflict and will have to repeat our military deployments against a progressively stronger enemy over time......
A large dose of self serving jingoistic propaganda. Does the marine corps still teach this kind of stuff or have they adapted to reality and wisdom. We don't know the true sponsoring states (if there be any) nor the true root cause. That is because we are so eager to use our presumed military might instead of our intelligence.
An enemy potentially having nuclear, biological and chemical capabilities...... And no reservations against using them.
The only country in the history of the world that possessed all three and has used them is the United States. No wonder we are paranoid about their useage.
They have many misguided and gullible fanatics who are all too ready to act as human delivery systems. That is why we must address the problem at its source and take the war home to those rogue states who use terrorists as surrogate combatants to wage war against us.
They have highly motivated individuals who are willing to die for a cause they believe in. All warring countries have engaged in sucide missions, usually without telling the combatants.

The terrorists that you are so willing to fight represent a very small tip of a very large iceberg. They are merely agitators that can stir up hatred and other useless emotions and use it to their advantage. We are so very gullible that we step right into the trap and waste lives and treasure while the insurrectionists invest very little in their diversionary tactics. Meanwhile their recruiting efforts swell while ours dwindle.

Having read Clausewitz, perhaps it would be worth while to read Petraeus, "US Army/Marine Counterinsurgency Field Manual". Contained within are the reasons why we cannot win these types of wars using conventional military forces. Even our use of nuclear, biological and chemical warfare cannot ensure victory.

Insurgency wars are fought on the battle fields of economics, psychology, propaganda, cultural and political. We are weak in all these areas. Insurgency wars also use tactics such as: hijacking & skyjacking, hoaxes, hostage taking, indirect fire, infiltration, subversion, kidnapping, propaganda, hit and run raids, sabotage and seizure. This makes the list of potential targets incredibly large and easy to attack. This means easy to attack on a global scale and scope, including the US homeland. The only reason the US has not been vigorously attacked is simply because the insurgents have chosen not to do so, not because they could not.

Does anyone wonder why the commanding general in Afganistan has suggested that we begin negotiations with Al Queda? We need to get the hell out and every smart general we have knows that very well.

Homeland Security is a cruel joke on Americans by played by Americans.
enigma57
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1989
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 11:59 pm
Location: Galt's Gulch

Post by enigma57 »

Thank you for your reply, David. I will not take the time to rebut your every point here, except to say that what you have stated is incorrect...... And I believe you know that full well.

The terrorists are surrogates of rogue states waging war against us by proxy. Yes, we know which states sponsor them and yes, we can defeat them militarily...... Should those in Washington one day have the good sense to either lead, follow or get the hell out of the way and let our military do their job unfettered by the constraints presently placed on them by those who put partisan politics ahead of our nation's and our troops' best interests.

I sincerely hope that no one in a position of authority or command within our military shares the defeatist views you have posted here. If they do, they should resign their commission at once and step aside so better men than they may lead our troops to victory.

Our discourse here is done, Sir.

With respect,

Harry
User avatar
SWR
Guru
Guru
Posts: 2791
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 5:39 pm
Location: Norway
Contact:

Post by SWR »

David Redszus wrote: Isn't it interesting how some are labeled freedom fighters while others are labeled terrorists? While they engage in essentially the same type of actions.
What they are descibed as depends on the views of the onlooker, nothing else, except maybe there's a difference in that freedom fighters mainly aim for targets that would hurt the opposing (occupying) forces instead of purposefully aiming for innocent people...

My Grandpa was nothing but a terrorist.

That's according to the Gestapo men that picked him up at 4 am in the morning and tortured him...

Most of Norway would call him a freedom fighter.
-Bjørn

"Impossible? Nah...just needs more development time"
1989TransAm
Guru
Guru
Posts: 15481
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 8:43 pm
Location: Cypress, California

Post by 1989TransAm »

"Homeland Security is a cruel joke on Americans by played by Americans."

Tell that to the 2000 people who died in 911 and those who have died in other terrorists attacks. Just an amazing statement.
rmcomprandy

Re: Can anyone explain to me...

Post by rmcomprandy »

Just for clarity sake, there are 6 armed forces which are controlled by the United States government. ( Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, National Guard, U.S. Coast Guard )
Five are under the direction of the Department of Defense and ONE, the U.S. Coast Guard, is under the direction of the Department of Homeland Security, (which IS a part of the "Cabinet").
David Redszus
Guru
Guru
Posts: 9633
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 9:27 am
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Re:

Post by David Redszus »

Thank you for your reply, David. I will not take the time to rebut your every point here, except to say that what you have stated is incorrect...... And I believe you know that full well.
While I welcome your rebuttal (thats what makes this forum useful), please do not put words in my mouth. I say what I mean and I mean what I say.
I sincerely hope that no one in a position of authority or command within our military shares the defeatist views you have posted here. If they do, they should resign their commission at once and step aside so better men than they may lead our troops to victory.
There is a vast difference between being defeatist and being realistic. There is also a vast difference between being idealistic and being realistic. In each case, I prefer the later, you apparently do not.

Our military commanders know (at least some do) the realities that they face. The politicians and warmongers do not. Why did it take months for a generals request for more troops, take months while our "Commander in Chief" dithered and waited for the polls to tell him what to do.
Our discourse here is done, Sir.
Harry, my boy, there is no discourse. Just soapbox oratory.



Those who know, don't talk. Those who talk, don't know.
Post Reply