| Author | Message | ||
     Aesquire |
I'm not going to condemn the Prez for starting another war. The bad guys in Libya are really bad, and Gaddafi said he'd kill 'em all, so intervention may be justified. Not looking for "we shouldn't have started this war", since, it's on. Too late to stop. I object to ANY war where the object is not to win. Swift Brutal and Nasty is far better than drawn out, politically cautious, and uncertain. IMNSHO Far less people die, on both sides. So, they way things are run displeases me. It seems to my simple minded way of thinking that after we took out the bulk of the air defenses a single arclight strike ( or modern pinpoint overkill ) on Gadddafi's Command and control would have already saved thousands of lives. I mean in particular, Gaddafi's palace and any hole he may be hiding in. I'd actually have preferred we drop a Moab on the self appointed Colonel while he was giving a speech to his followers. But I could be wrong. Your opinion on how to deal with Libya? Is the N. African region is going to go nutball Jihadi? Egypt scares me. And how to deal with the probable instigator of much of this, Iran, before they nuke someone. They've been 2-5 years from a nuke for over a decade now, per Intel morons.. They either have one, have bought one, or are so incompetent they can't do it. Heck, with their resources, I could have built several by now. As could any competent Tool Maker with a working knowledge of Neutron cross sections and high school chemistry. ( ok, grad school chemistry, I forget they don't teach much in school today..... ) Looks like Nato has trouble keeping airplanes up. ( to be fair it takes many hours of mechanic work for each hour of flying for modern jet fighter/bombers ) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/05/nato-l acking-strike-aircraft-libya Not looking for personality complaints about politicians. They suck. if you believe different, you have to provide proof. I want rational suggestions for the ongoing "arab revolution", please. ( Yes, we haven't tried the "glass parking lot" solution yet, but let's hold off on that one for a bit, ok?  ) | ||
| Jayvee |
I haven't given it much thought, as you clearly have, but Obama's caution might have made things worse in this case. He might have been jumpy due to the Egypt case. For our President to say "Leader X must go!" is not a good way to start a conversation, there's no where to go but guns. I think if I was in charge, I would have only talked in generalities about how we support freedom etc, but all have to respect the law. Right away I would take some jets like what Saudi has, painted out the insignias altogether, and enforce a no-fly zone unilaterally, without telling anyone. I think any the surviving pilots would defect at Mach 2. Then put extremely high altitude bombers to wail smart bombs on his armor and artillery, barracks, and military bases, maybe laser-painted by drones. And then politely negotiated a peaceful resolution where Quadaffi can 'retire' with asylum in the US. Then step back and let the rebels duke out who will be in charge, recognize them fast, give them some (non-military) aid, etc. | ||
| Sifo |
I agree that fighting a war not to win in insanity. I'm not sure what happened to the "you break it - you own it" philosophy. To break it and walk away leaving a power vacuum in that region is also insanity. Assigning command and control to a political steering committee is insanity too. I honestly don't see where this whole thing has a potential upside without ignoring everything that we know of the people of that area. The potential for unintended consequences on the down side really is frightening to think about. They really are morons when it comes to doing anything at all mechanically complicated. They just don't have their own people with any training in any sort of engineering. I say this having personally known on of the top engineers at UOP (United Oil Products). Virtually the entire middle east is dependent on outside consultants to get any oil out of the ground, much less build a nuclear bomb. It is getting easier and easier to simply buy what you want from Nukes Are Us though. I think the biggest thing stopping that is that it would be traceable back to the seller and I don't think even BO would not respond severely to a nuke strike in the US. I could be wrong on that last point. | ||
| Brumbear |
No easy answer here. It is however about time we stop and think about what must be done here as a Nation. Are we prepared to hit one of these countries as hard as the Germans hit one of their chosen enemies? This may be what is needed to get a point across is all I am suggesting here.Absolute brutal force with NO thought put to anything but Absolute victory? I don't think we are and therefore I think we need to get our men and women out of harms way. I am ABSOLUTELY sure they could and would do the job but just as sure the politicians wouldn't let them. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
The United States has lost the will to wage war as war is meant to be waged. The last time we saw this was the Highway of Death in GWI. THAT was war waged as it's meant to be. Extermination of the enemy until the enemy is gone or refuses to take up arms. I believe it is time to reinstate a WWII necessity, carpet bombing. Deem a territory hostile and make it cease to exist. Every man, woman, child and goat within that area vaporized. We then announce the next target. Unless immediate and unconditional surrender of the hostile forces is secured, we proceed with vaporization 2.0. We continue until we secure victory. It is currently impossible to tell friend from foe within the indigenous population in Iraq and Afghanistan (and soon to be Libya) because there is no real difference. Fundamentally there isn't a difference between "radical muslims" and "moderate muslims". There are simply those who have taken up arms against modernity and those who will. Total and complete extermination aligns both "radical" and "moderate" individuals to the same mindset, surrender. You don't like 10,000 American troops inhabiting "muslim" lands, how about 50,000 or 100,000? Don't like us enrichening your population through the purchase of your oil? How about we topple your government and seize your oil fields to pay for our expense of having to quell your global stupidity. Like that whole Hajj thing? How about we seize that giant lump of whatever the hell it is and hold it ransom. Come within 100 miles of it, and we shoot you on sight. It's time the American people practiced the type of religious insensitivity muslim clerics accuse us of. I think it's time FOR a war on Islam. They've declared a war on us. | ||
| Xdigitalx |
You guys know Obama announced his 2012 campaign run, It's gonna be the most expensive campaign in U.S. HISTORY!!! This year I will be more involved in bashing every chance I get. I say boycott EVERYTHING and EVERYONE that supports Obama, you know...like...in the same way the the Unions want to boycott anyone that does not support them or that won't put a "We Support the Union" sign in their window. PRICKS. Carry a black marker with you,... when walking down the street and you see an Obama bumper sticker... quickly place a large black N in front of the O. Sorry for jumping in on your fabulous post FT. I really dislike the mofo. I didn't allways. | ||
| Cowboy |
Hot Damn I say Ft_bstrd for prez. ( it is time to put political corectnes to bed) | ||
| Zane |
I hate war with a passion. It should be avoided at all cost. But if you're force to take up arms against another country, you should be ready to cut their heart out and eat it. Make war so horrible that future generations will want to avoid making the same mistake. We need to be on everyone's "don't f**k with list". General William Tecumseh Sherman had the right idea. Make war horrible enough to be avoided. | ||
| Whisperstealth |
Zane & Fatty +1 | ||
| Cataract2 |
NATO is the most gutless group in existence without the US. Since we're pulling to a support position they have nothing. Waste of money IMO like the UN. | ||
| Sifo |
NATO is the most gutless group in existence without the US. Compared to the UN, NATO is a raging tiger. I would have to say they are the second most gutless group in existence. The UN is actually a negative force in the world. We should start our budget cuts by pulling out of the UN. Call them what they are. A spineless group that capitulates to the will of evil dictators. +1 on no holds barred violence when fighting a war. It will make the next evil tin pot dictator realize they don't want that fate. Currently we are getting into too many conflicts and not committing to absolute victory. (Message edited by SIFO on April 06, 2011) | ||
| Cityxslicker |
Waggin the dog, if it wasnt Lybia, they would have had to find another location to commit our troops and military spending. They dont want a large group of battle trained, unemployed that have spent the last few years over seas to come back home and not recognize the place, it has dangerous reprucusions. | ||
| Aesquire |
Ft, There are simply those who have taken up arms against modernity and those who will. I would prefer not to believe that. Don't get me wrong, I basically agree with you here, not rejecting your point, but..... If there is NO difference between those who are islamic, and those who promote sharia law/the caliphate/violent jihad, then we can't hope for a reformation of islam. That leads us inexorably to plan x, total war with no thought of civilian casualties, because there are no civilians. Holy war. Some believe that there is Islam, the religion, with it's pluses and minuses, and there is Islamism, ( I prefer the term Jihad, or Jihadi ) the all encompassing political movement that leads to mass murder, rape, and poverty for all but the self chosen dictatorial leaders. Every time. Every Mother&*(^ing time. Now if there is a difference between the religion, and the movement, then we have hope that the good people ( who have a religion ) can finally see that the bad people, ( who have a political Movement ) are evil, reject them, and the movement, and we can have a 21st century that does not have a planet that has spots where you can see the glow from space. Perhaps I'm too optimistic, or liberal. ( not bleeding heart, though, I've got meds for that ) Or maybe I'm just hoping too much to avoid nuclear war, the second to last option. Because, IF there is no difference, if your statement above is fact, then we have little choice but to fight back, and there are no civilians. First, we'd have to take out the leadership and war making ability of Russia and China, since both support the Jihadi, for the purpose of attacking us with proxies. Then, mass extermination of Indonesia, much of the middle east, parts of Africa and southeast asia. Then the establishment of a police state that makes the old Soviet Union look like babies, since THEY tried to eradicate Islam in favor of their own True Faith, and failed to be ruthless enough. In fact, that failure to be ruthless enough to eradicate Islam, yet ruthless enough to be resented and hated, is one of the reasons that modern Jihadi are so hard core. Only the True Believers could survive the Soviets, and that evolution of a religion into the jihad of today is what happens when the only preacher left in the area is an old crazy guy with a few pages of torn up holy book, pronouncing edicts from memory and hatred. A distillation of hate, repression, and sociopathy that has led us to......today. I also want to avoid the fallout that killing a few billion people will leave, and would regret the deaths of millions of innocents who lived in the former nations we had to destroy to accomplish our goal. So, let's keep the ( planetary ) glass parking lot solution on the back burner for later, please.  I do admit, localized use of insanely overwhelming power ( glass ) might "send a message" far more effectively than the tactics used by LBJ back in the Vietnam war. ( bombing, then stopping, then bombing, depending on the argument over table flag heights at the negotiations in Paris. ) I was figuring that Gaddafi's palace, and a few blocks around, becoming.... gone, would end this particular war quickly. A FAE or MOAB should do the job. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/mun itions/moab.htm | ||
| Sifo |
Aesquire, I would like to believe that there is such a thing as a Muslim religion without sharia law, caliphate, etc., but I'm not terribly optimistic that there is such a thing. I don't want to make the argument that every Muslim is evil any more that I would argue that every Catholic is a practicing Catholic. I'm just not clear how someone can really be a practicing Muslim and not include sharia, caliphate, etc. We are seeing Muslims respond to the burning of a Koran by slaughtering people half a world away that had nothing to do with the Koran burning. That doesn't speak well of this religion of peace. Islam seems to be one of the few religions where the closer you follow it, the more violent the results. I'm certainly not a fan of the glass parking lot idea, but I certainly wouldn't be against a policy of full on nuclear response to the US being attacked with nuclear force. Make sure they know up front that vengeance will be total. Perhaps if there is such a thing as a moderate Muslim that will force them to eradicate the extremists if they wish to survive the future. | ||
| Strokizator |
And speaking of Kadaffy Duck, that guy's has been in power since 1969 and he's still only a colonel? What's it going to take to get him a promotion? Or is he more a "Kentucky Colonel"? At least Idi Amin gave himself a good handle as "His Excellency, President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji Doctor". I'd like to know this stuff before he gets blasted into oblivion and then nobody gives a crap. | ||
| Aesquire |
Lieutenant Quaddafi/Gaddafi ( who cares? ) made himself a Colonel after his coup put him in power. He was a big fan of Colonel Nasser and patterned himself after him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamal_Abdel_Nasser I see his point. His hero became leader as a Lieutenant Colonel, so why would a higher self appointed rank be needed? Kind of touching. ( never mind that I'm not a fan of either guy, romance is romance.) ( Heart Of Darkness was a romance novel. The current ripped bodice "romance novels" are really soft core S&M porn ) I don't think blasting Gaddafi into oblivion is the current plan. After all, he supports Obama's re-election.  | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Aesquire, What fundamental difference do you see between adherents of Islam and adherents of communism or adherents of nazism? Put another way, is there a fundamental difference between those who are chosen or volunteer to arm themselves in order to progress the core ideals of Islam/communism/nazism while others simply provide the support and foundation that allows those armed to fight? Could Hitler have marched across eastern and western Europe and north Africa with millions of troops had the average german people not provided support, aid and comfort? Is there a difference between the Nazi stormtrooper who fights or the Nazi wife of the stormtrooper who provides support? Same with Communist Russia? There is NO fundamental difference between Islam the religion and Islam the political movement. This is what makes Islam so dangerous. We view Islam through our First Amendment, Western, American goggles and assume that muslims in Afghanistan are like the muslims in Kansas. Muslims in Kansas are like the muslims in Kansas because they are in Kansas. The religion isn't different. There are simply laws in place to prevent Islam from reaching it's full potential. Look at Islam in European countries. When the population reaches a certain percentage, muslims seek to implement the more radical facets of Islam at the first opportunity. They seek to become nations within nations operating under sharia law vs. the law of the land. Many are seeking the same thing in the US already. If/when we grant muslims the right under the First Amendment to ignore rights under the rest of the law, it will spell the beginning of the end. We can take that lesson directly from Europe. Islam is a progressive doctrine like socialism/communism. It isn't viewed as "successful" until higher and higher levels of it are achieved. Land conquered by Islam can go from completely modern with equal rights for men and women, modern cities, modern world view to backward and abusive under Islam. In fact, the koran promotes it. Requires it in order to be viewed as a true adherent. Russia didn't fail at stamping out Islam because they weren't ruthless enough. They failed because there simply wasn't anything to hit. There was no strategic target. No city of value. No resources. If you bomb a pile of rocks, you just have a smaller pile of rocks. Russia also failed because we armed the Afghani fighters. We provided them with the tools to wage a successful asymetrical war. In the 70's and 80's both US and Russian forces were trained to trade blows with large, national forces. Not fast, nimble forces able to move quickly. Great targets for hit and run warfare. We were able to defeat communist Russia because we were able to wage an economic war on Russia. Although the arms race was about military strength, is was more about the cost to create and maintain that force. Russia couldn't create the capital necessary to keep pace. The infrastructure suffered, and the people revolted from within. We don't have that ability with Islam. Unfortunately, Islam sits atop the global resources needed by all, oil. We can't wage economic war on them in the same way we did the USSR. Even if we become energy independent, we will simply serve to reduce the global price helping China and India gain economic strength by purchasing cheaper oil. If we really wanted to alter Islam's global impact, we would nuke the strategic oil fields of every Islamic nation cutting them off from their primary source of economic strength while also making those reserves unavailable to China, Russia, India, and Europe. Then we'd drill our own reserves while the rest of the world choked on it. I don't advocate nuclear war. It isn't necessary and pollutes the method of cost recovery. My philosophy is that if we are required to quell an Islamic uprising, we seize the oil fields and pump the oil free of charge. Image the benefit of $.72/gallon oil on our economic system. The costs of goods we produce would plummet. The resources spent and burned in our tanks would be free to purchase goods, services, invest, etc. 100,000,000 million motorists driving an average of 15,000 miles a year could save $2,000 per motorist at 20MPG average (higher with lower mileage cars). That's $200B($200,000,000,000) a year saved. We can fund a hell of a lot of military actions with $200B a year. The United States has been one of the best friends of Islam for decades in an effort to "win hearts and minds". They take our money and don't bother to give us a reach around. It's time to give the Islamic world a dirty sanchez. | ||
| Kc10_fe |
There is no solution that fits or works. Its one thing to step in shit and another to throw it in your face. Anyone who thinks its a good idea to commit more troops to anything abroad should be punched in the mouth. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Troops for nation building? Fuq no! I prefer the Japanese model. | ||
| Aesquire |
In Jerry Pournelle's Falkenberg's Legion series, the U.S. and USSR get together to form the co-dominion, and pacify the planet. Not a very happy utopia. Great read, though. ( Mote In Gods Eye. Just read it. ) I will admit that taking the damn oil would be tempting, but I'm hoping we're beyond the traditional European war of Conquest for resources. ( Eurasia, however, shown no sign of that ) Just not an American tradition. We like to think we're the good guys, and would be very unhappy as a people if we really did believe we were at war for oil. I think it's better as a rally cry than reality, if you keep in mind it's sarcastic as heck. Pity though, $.72 a gallon.................... I recently heard that the Saudi's now need $88 bbl to keep the current level of free money to their people. Before this internet/blackberry revolution it was $68... http://www.morningstar.com/ht-0/topics--t--3861112 1--another-reason-to-brace-for-higher-oil-prices-i n-coming-years-saudi-arabia-will-need-its-oil-to-s ell-for-88-barrel-in-2011-for-its-government-to-br eak.htm.shtml At a certain price, most of the dictatorships go under. Hmmm. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
There are no "good guys". There are simply the conquerers and the subjugated. Those who fall to the American sword fare much better than those who fall to the Chinese, Russian or Muslim. Do you know why Japan entered WWII? | ||
| 86129squids |
The emperor wasn't holy no more. Or, he was gonna be. | ||
| 86129squids |
Oh, sorry, misread the thread. "entered/ended" are too easy to mistake. (Message edited by 86129squids on April 07, 2011) | ||
| 86129squids |
Lost.  (Message edited by 86129squids on April 07, 2011) | ||
| 86129squids |
 (Message edited by 86129squids on April 07, 2011) | ||
| Prowler |
Ft_bstrd, couldn't possibly agree more with your comments regarding this mess. You saved me typing time........... | ||
| Aesquire |
That was actually one reason we tried hard not to kill the Emperor of Japan. Without him, they would not have surrendered. One thing lost in the re writing of history by the Progressives is the real reason Japan Surrendered. We found this out after the war. The Japanese military elite was quite arrogant in its belief that the gods were on their side, and were preparing for the invasion of their islands. Okinawa was just a taste of the mass suicide, human wave charges and militia resistance. My Uncle Rusty was on a ship off Okinawa waiting for the invasion. A SeeBee, he would have been second wave with a bulldozer rolling onto the well mined beaches, and been up front clearing obstacles off the beach and into the towns and villages...... Burning the bulk of Tokyo in firestorms didn't stop Japan. Hiroshima wasn't really believed. Nagasaki, though, had a Division of Army troops, ( as well as a POW slave labor battalion ) that suddenly didn't answer the phone. A messenger was dispatched to check things out, who called from a nearby town after. They had a real hard time with the conversation. "they're all dead Dave." "where's the General" "dead Dave, everybodys dead Dave"......... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyKF2qd0-iQ&feature =fvsr The realization that The Bomb could kill the Army and not just civilians in a city... that ended the war. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Same could have been said for the NVA. We had them on the ropes several times and we kept letting them up. The most humane way to wage war is total destruction of the enemy until he surrenders. It ends the war much faster than "limited engagement kinetic military actions". Destroying some population centers wins hearts and minds also. Do you believe that the muslims would wage war surgically as we have done or would seek to burn every major city to the ground if they had the capability? What would war executed by the mullahs with the US military look like? | ||
| Hootowl |
"Do you know why Japan entered WWII?" Rubber. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Oil. Japan desperately needed the oil in the Dutch East Indies. It was the last reserve available to the Japanese, and that reserve was slated to be diverted to the war effort. |
