A Most Eloquent and Compelling Argument

[Skuzzy]

Originally posted by Dos Equis
The idea that someday DC will be filled with Abraham Lincolns and Mr Smith Goes to Washington is a joke. This is how politics is, and how it's always .

And this is one reason why nothing will change.  The behavior of politicians is acceptable.  And once you accept this premise, nothing can change.

Between those who accept the status quo, and the apathetic, we have no prayer of changing things for the better.  No chance of an honest person winning an election.  Sheesh, we are just screwed.

[Momus--]

See Rule #4

[lukster]

Well, policemen get involved in conflicts where there is no direct or immediate threat to themselves to maintain order and protect those that can't protect themselves.

Tell me again why we became involved in WWI, WWII, Vietnam, and many others?

[Skuzzy]

Momus, I suggest you try to find a way to separate the people of a country from its government.  They are different entities.

[storch]

Originally posted by Momus--
See Rule #4

momus,  I missd your post because I had to step out onto the shop floor and see to a complicated gate structure consequently missing your post.  please rephrase your statement in a manner acceptable to the staff and in keeping with the fora rules.  thanks.

[Maverick]

Hangtime,


Your conception as to what constitutes a war is rather specious at best. I don’t recall any definition in any of the references I read while in the service regarding declarations of war requiring a full mobilization. This includes Command and General Staff College. Perhaps you have some reference in mind?


Second question and this is a repeat of one I have asked and never received an answer to .

Exactly what do you consider to be a proper response to a low intensity conflict? How do you envision a viable persecution of the conflict we are currently engaged in?

[storch]

Originally posted by Bronk
Clinton sending troops = Black hawk down.  

He'd a hamstrung the military so bad would a been useless anyway.


Bronk

precisely my point, not that our troops couldn't do the job but that the resolve of that administration was woefully lacking.  had it not been it would still be a bad idea to get involved in internal african strife.

[Hangtime]

Originally posted by Maverick
Hangtime,

Exactly what do you consider to be a proper response to a low intensity conflict? How do you envision a viable persecution of the conflict we are currently engaged in?

Massive, overwhelming force. If the troops are mobilized, the nation mobilizes with them. Top to bottom. No more pissing up ropes. I'm tired of seeing our troops under supported, under equipped, units undermanned, folks back home under involved. The moment Syria and Iran started supporting and supplying the insurgents should have been the moment we started bombing Damascus and Tehran.

If the cause is just, the nation as a whole should be involved in delivering the blow.

we've been sold a pig in a poke. this 'global war on terror' is a pissing contest. not a war.

[Maverick]

Using the phrase "Massive, overwhelming force" is not a response to the question. Exactly how are you going to use this force? What are your targets? To what degree of destruction are you going to go to? How do you differentiate non combatants from the enemy? C'mon Hangtime tell me how you would fight the war?

[storch]

Originally posted by Maverick
Using the phrase "Massive, overwhelming force" is not a response to the question. Exactly how are you going to use this force? What are your targets? To what degree of destruction are you going to go to? How do you differentiate non combatants from the enemy? C'mon Hangtime tell me how you would fight the war?

I would send in skuzzy and the mod squad they'll shape those terrorists up in a new york minute.  those guys will get rule #4'd so much their grandkids will be born polite.

[john9001]

we need to ration butter like in WW2, that'll show them we mean business

[Hangtime]

Originally posted by Maverick
Using the phrase "Massive, overwhelming force" is not a response to the question. Exactly how are you going to use this force? What are your targets? To what degree of destruction are you going to go to? How do you differentiate non combatants from the enemy? C'mon Hangtime tell me how you would fight the war?

What are yah lookin for Mav? A warplan? TO&E?, Unit numbers? A ****ing map?

Or are you just looking to belittle somebody who thinks our government is screwing us and the kids they send to fight the corporate forever war while they rake in billions in profits?

You know what 'war' is, every man here as seen the discovery channel. The one I fought in was no more a 'war' than this one.. what they did to us on the home front and in the field was wrong then, and what they're doing is wrong now.

My dad fought in a 'war'.. and he spent less time in the field under fire than I did.. but while he was out fighting for his country and freedom for the world, his nation had it's shoulder to the yoke at home. Corporate profits were capped, taxes were levied, bonds were floated. Folks sacraficed at home while their boys fought in the pacific and in europe.

This is no war.

It's a ****ing snow job, and yer part of the snowstorm.

[Maverick]

Nope Hang, I disagree with you. I don't believe I'm part of the snow storm and I certainly am not trying to "snow" anyone.

You used the terms about the conflict. I just wanted to see if you really thought it out rather than just spouting off nice sounding words. You want to "ramp up" the situation and "get serious" with "overwhelming force". The simple fact of the matter is that while those things "sound" nice they are empty and meaningless in the face of a low intensity conflict. It's very much like the idea of bombing the VC into the stone age. It doesn't work if you do not have specific viable targets. It's kind of hard to bomb the middle east into the stone age or middle ages as they aren't very far removed from it in many cases. Simply razing a community to the ground won't get it done either and would make us no better than those who think blowing up hospitals and schools are viable targets.

If you don't like the war, say so. At least be as honest about it as nash is. Please don't try to throw out a meaningless phrase as a solution to the conflict as it is simply nonsense and you used to be better than that.

[Hangtime]

What don't you get Mav?

The moment Syria and Iran started supporting and supplying the insurgents should have been the moment we started bombing Damascus and Tehran.

How many times have i said that sending the troops out as targets in an occupation doesn't accomplish a damn thing except get our kids killed?

hunh?

i've been barking the same tree since this thing turned from an invasion and victory into an occupation and disaster.. the moves made by syria and iran require direct response since they are actions by the governments of those nations. supplying and succoring terroists is an act of WAR.

The 'ungoverned portions' of pakistan should be bombing ranges. any nation that harbors and succors a terrorist organization should be getting thier assets seized, their ports closed and their governement buildings flattened. FOR STARTERS.

RIGHT NOW.

WTF is wrong with you? how many others out there just don't get it? WAR means you destroy that nations trade, it's assets and it's ability to continue to support, supply or succor the people that are trying to kill our troops or threaten our Nation.

Or, we get the hell outta there, because anything less is just providing handy targets of opportunity to an enemy that we haven't got the will or ability to wipe off the planet.

CHOOSE.

"WAR, THE WHOLE DAMN BANANA, OR BRING 'EM HOME."

Get it?

[RedTop]

Hang,

This country as a whole , a WHOLE mind you doesn't have the will nor the guts to win anything.

PART of this country does.

Your idea , lofty as it is , would never pass the muster.