Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The problem as I see it is we dont fight wars to win them anymore. Instead we fight for vengeance & to look good. Since walking away after you win & leaving a pile of rubble doesnt look good we stay. Since taking over & making a conquered country yours after you win doesn't look good we stay & let them rebuild, heck we fund the rebuilding and help our enemies regain their strength so that we can fight them again in 5, 10 or 20 years.
We won in Iraq as soon as Saddams regime was conquered, we stayed to find him and instead of just hanging him from a tree or shooting him let it become a spectacle. Even after that we stayed & now have invested billions into a country which at the end of the day will still not be an ally.
We won in Afghanistan when we toppled the Taliban. But instead of leaving we have to stay & stabilize the region, so we look good. Except we dont look good. We look like tyrants shoving democracy down the worlds throat. But we ignore that, train & arm the same people that hate us so we can fight them in 5, 10 or 20 years.
We ignore the FACT that the 911 guys were ALL saudis & that the Saudis fund radical Islamic terrorism. The place we were most justified in leveling we leave alone, not to look good, but because they have oil.
Politically, no we didn't win Korea, Vietnam, in Iraq or Afghanistan. But from a military standpoint we won every one and if not for feel good politics that would be clear.
So you saw toppling the Taliban as a primary goal in Afghanistan?
Please understand, I'm not challenging you, but I find this interesting, because I was under the impression that the war in Afghanistan was about capturing Osama bin Laden.
Politically, no we didn't win Korea, Vietnam, in Iraq or Afghanistan. But from a military standpoint we won every one and if not for feel good politics that would be clear.
It is not simply "feel good" politics. The means and measures required to win wars (the classical way) are unacceptable to a large majority in the US as well as globally. Distraction power of weapons became such, that their use is limited and questionable. The mass media display of horrific war results is another reason. You cannot block information in our age. We view human lives (any life) today differently that 100 years ago.
So what is the answer? I am and always have been a conservative. War is hell and I was in Desert Storm.
I dont like it. But have been resigned in these last years that we dont have a choice.
But here we are years later and escalting Afghanistan (which i have advocated) and no end in sight.
So the question is, how exactly do we disengage in this war, without ending up with terrorists blowing up Americans in America and terrorists killing every American that travels anywhere in the world?
I am less interested in arguments for or againsts fighting these wars, than I am someone explaining what we can do to end the other guy wanting to kill us.
the best way is to keep them OUT OF OUR COUNTRY. they can't do anything if they can't get into the country. we are wasting so much money, so many resources, and losing good men for what?????
not one person has answered the question, "If we are fighting terrorism, why aren't our borders sealed"?
either the terrorism threat is being overstated, or we are badly managing a strategic entry point for terrorism. i still submit that if you keep bombing people in other countries, you will RAMP UP the aggression and the hostility.
i am not so sure that we aren't looking for a "war" to deal with this continuing recession/ depression. (when the government spending stops). notice all the tough talk with both iran and yemen now.
Politically, no we didn't win Korea, Vietnam, in Iraq or Afghanistan. But from a military standpoint we won every one and if not for feel good politics that would be clear.
Korea is the exception to your argument. Instead of a peninsula unified in poverty starvation and paranoia, we made it possible for a relatively progressive, industrialized and innovative South Korea to develop.
One out of four isn't bad. But I agree - it isn't nearly good enough, either.
It is obviously way past time for America to be in the ill-defined war business. Perhaps we need to bring our troops home now and put most of them to work securing our borders and rebuilding our infrastructure.
Let's the train up the rest as merciless high-tech quick-strike forces ready at a moment's notice to set on fire any country or group that dares to attack us. Somalia and Yemen, for example, should currently be smoking cinders...
Korea is the exception to your argument. Instead of a peninsula unified in poverty starvation and paranoia, we made it possible for a relatively progressive, industrialized and innovative South Korea to develop.
One out of four isn't bad. But I agree - it isn't nearly good enough, either.
Military objectives are worthless without diplomatic objectives. One could look at a fairly clear example as WW1. If the diplomatic objective after WW1 was to rebuild Europe instead of completely breaking Germany WW2 in all probability would not have happened.
The greatest triumph of our military and the warmongers getting rich off the government was the creation of the "Cold War" and its eventual metastasis into the “War on Terror†via the attempt to save the French Empire in Viet Nam.
World War 2 was so incredibly profitable for the military suppliers and their employees and consumed so much of our capacity the very thought of stopping the economic activity of this type terrified the business world because cutting back would have certainly caused a major post war depression and the loss of several warmonger's personal fortunes. This was unacceptable so the Cold War was created.
The “war on Terror†is just a way to continue the military spending to keep the connected industries profitable. Just consider what would happen to the economies of many parts of the country if the military spending was cut back to a minimum level actually required to defend our own borders. Much of southern California would be bankrupted without the spending for military aircraft. Southeastern Connecticut would collapse without building submarines designed to fight soviet submarines or carry city leveling missiles. These are just a couple of examples from a very long list.
I believe this administration did not dare cut military investment or spending by calling for an end of the Middle East “Endless War†because it probably would have doubled the unemployment in the most vulnerable parts of out industrialized country. Un-employing Detroit is one thing but un-employing Orange County quite another. The administration did not dare suggest stopping this War.
The right wing warmongers, secure in their position of preaching to their flock, without having to actually risk themselves or their privileged children, continue to call for “More courage and sacrifice†by everybody else. We are allowing our physical infrastructure to rust into oblivion because we have to “show our courage and firmness†against the very terrorists we develop by our use of modern weaponry in a primitive situation. The fact that we do not care about the collateral casualties created by the used of high explosive to kill “suspected†terrorists illustrates not only our callousness toward the civilian population but our ignorance of a culture built around retribution and blood feud. We make more terrorists than we destroy. We also bring shame upon us by wantonly killing women and childern. Just because the weapons guiders cannot see the dying kids does not excuse then from the guilt and shame.
We are being fools by allowing a privileged few of our industrialists control most of our government spending. We are being bigger fools by borrowing the money to feed the insatiable appetite of the warmongers for money and men. We need to stop this nonsense and get back to tending to our own house and minding our own business.
We do not need to be the sole protector of the international oil monopolies. The Saudi Royal family can pay for that as well as paying protection money to Al Qaida, The Taliban and the Whaabist (sp?) madmen in their fancy mosques filled with ignorant and gullible worshippers. We must NEVER take sides in the Shia vrs Sunni blood feud inside Islam.
We cannot afford to be the Policemen of the World. Let the rest of the world take care of itself. We are destroying ourselves trying.
FWIW – I am a Navy Vet that served in the Riverine Forces on the Mekong River in 1966 to 1967. I was quit good at staying alive. Many of my brothers were not so lucky.
I want to be clear that I do not minimize those who served in those conflicts--or any conflicts our government has put us/our military through. Servicemen obey orders, or suffer the consequences.
the best way is to keep them OUT OF OUR COUNTRY. they can't do anything if they can't get into the country. we are wasting so much money, so many resources, and losing good men for what?????
not one person has answered the question, "If we are fighting terrorism, why aren't our borders sealed"?
either the terrorism threat is being overstated, or we are badly managing a strategic entry point for terrorism. i still submit that if you keep bombing people in other countries, you will RAMP UP the aggression and the hostility.
Y'know this is another reason why I thought this War on Terror was kind of fishy. We had a Republican dominated executive & legislative branch, along with a public shocked so much by 9/11 that virtually no one seriously challenged the ME wars. Yet the south of the border was left a wide open mark.
There was all this talk about keeping us safe and foreign threats off our soil but in 8 years the border wall was never completed. What's up with that? Dobbs reported that most of the drugs used in America came from south of the border.
The mainstream media eventually even reported on the drug war going on in Mexico. Many former or corrupt military/mercenaries types were involved in this. Plus the fact that many ME are similar in appearance to Latin Americans, it boggles the mind if homeland security is a major concern why are our southern borders so insecure?
Y'know this is another reason why I thought this War on Terror was kind of fishy. We had a Republican dominated executive & legislative branch, along with a public shocked so much by 9/11 that virtually no one seriously challenged the ME wars. Yet the south of the border was left a wide open mark.
There was all this talk about keeping us safe and foreign threats off our soil but in 8 years the border wall was never completed. What's up with that? Dobbs reported that most of the drugs used in America came from south of the border.
The mainstream media eventually even reported on the drug war going on in Mexico. Many former or corrupt military/mercenaries types were involved in this. Plus the fact that many ME are similar in appearance to Latin Americans, it boggles the mind if homeland security is a major concern why are our southern borders so insecure?
If the government wanted to secure the border, they would have done so. They don't want to. But, don't ask me why. I can't figure that out either.
Military objectives are worthless without diplomatic objectives. One could look at a fairly clear example as WW1. If the diplomatic objective after WW1 was to rebuild Europe instead of completely breaking Germany WW2 in all probability would not have happened.
I certainly do not disagree but I think Yeledaf has a good point as far as methods of dealing with terrorist. As much as it pains me, Donald Rumsfeld's vision of using specific highly trained surgical groups has merit in my opinion in dealing with terrorist and terrorist groups. Granted, his view that you could conquer a nation this way was a bit misguided but in the role of shock counter-terrorism troops, it has already been shown to be effective. Combined with better political carrots and investigative aspects like Interpol, FBI, would certainly have much less footprint in country and would likely also mean less collateral damage on both sides.
Again, I have hope that those highly skilled among our military command will pursue more of this kind of methodology as opposed to one members analogy of hammers instead of scalpels.
I think it would have been WWII. Hitler/Germany/Japan were the enemy and we defeated them.
Since then wars have taken on a new definition, a new meaning, a new enemy.
We don't fight standing armies or enemies that have attacked our country.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
