Total war tactics vs Current limited engagement tactics

[soda72]

Threat tactics worked great in Eisenhower's dealings... he had atomic weapons...

The threat tactics worked for Eisenhower not because he had atomic weapons but was because they actually believed he would use them.  NK is currently using this same tactic against us, yep the very same tactic.  Every time they launch a missle we get real nervous don't we.  Why? because we know deep down he is capable of using them.  This tactic has worked quite well for them so far to.  How much more aid will we give them this next time?  

No western leader today can use the tactic simply because no one would ever believe them insane enough to do so.   It would be an empty threat...

[Yeager]

Wouldnt that be genocide?
====
Only if you targeted a specific classification of race, culture or religion.  I would simply target everyone

[indy007]

Originally posted by Maverick
Lets see here,

Does Iraq contain all of any particular religion, culture, ethnic group? Or are you considering just existing in Iraq makes one a special group that destroying the city would be considered genocide.

All Jews did not live in Germany. The Final Solution was still genocide imho. However, to you, you may consider it Mass Murder. Doesn't really matter though, both have the same results.

I suppose by using the sub part of the definition  "or in part" that the taking of a single life could be considered "genocide". [/B]

You'd need one hell of a lawyer to get that to fly in a court. It'd be alot easier to get hate crime charges to stick.

Only if you targeted a specific classification of race, culture or religion. I would simply target everyone

They'd still get you cuz it's a "national group" Yeager. The good news is though, Pol Pot only got house arrest. If he can do that, people can get away with anything.

[Shifty]

Originally posted by Yeager
Ok...ok

make that 2000 B17s

Yeah Baby!:aok

[Wolfala]

Ok,

So the basic jist of what i'm getting here is as follows.

1. The rules of what is considered lawful engagement have been pussified to the point of being completely ineffective and contrary to the point of going to war in the first place. Largely in part because you are restricted by lawyers and unable to ignore the basic principle of Clauswitz - the complete and total destruction of the enemy and his ability to wage anything other then rubbing 2 sticks together.

2. Information and Perception management matters more then the raw aggregate military outcome.

3. Burning and pillaging would still be effective.

Did I miss any points?

Wolf

[john9001]

4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.

[Vudak]

I don't see a democracy as ever being able to win a war against a non-democracy again.  Our citizens get all squeemish, college kids rally against it, and the media blasts how awful we are after a few thousand are killed over the course of a few months.

In WW2, how many thousand could we kill on a single bombing raid without the public giving it a second thought?  Those war bond rallies did fairly well long after firebombing became an Allied tactic.

IF we really wanted to win in the middle east, we would indescriminately firebomb the hell out of the place.  If there were insurgents hiding in a hospital, for example, we'd blow the hell out of it.  Hopefully with better results then blowing up the Abbey at Monte Casino, but if a few repeats of that happen, so what, so long as we win.

I'd personally rather hear "100,000 Iraqi's killed this month" then hear the monthly debriefings we've been getting for the past few years.  IE, "hundreds, or thousands, killed, nothing's changed for the better."

This whole babysitting affair is clearly not working.  We aren't even fighting a "war" as I understand the definition.

There's really only three options:

1.  Stay the course and bleed to death;

2.  Withdraw, humiliated, and never be taken seriously as a military power again, with all the problems that result; or

3.  Study some damn history, get some resolve, and win this stupid side-show already.

I can tell you, I doubt #3 will happen.

[Shifty]

I know my idea isn't politically correct or even original. Why even worry about how we are percieved by people that hate us and want us dead anyway?
Radical Islam vs The Rest Of Us.
One of them has to go.
Any Questions?

[Vudak]

Originally posted by Shifty
I know my idea isn't politically correct or even original. Why even worry about how we are percieved by people that hate us and want us dead anyway?
Radical Islam vs The Rest Of Us.
One of them has to go.
Any Questions?

Hey, the total war idea is nothing new indeed - it's been tried and tested - it works.

If, as some have claimed, total war is, in fact, genocide, then all I have to say is then I pledge allegiance to a nation which has, in the fairly recent past, committed genocide, and done so for the very greater good of the entire world.

[Wolfala]

Vudak,

Thats sig material if ever i've seen it.

[Shifty]

I hear ya Vudak.

I don't want to understand their anger, frustration or feel their pain. I could give a s**t about why they are so angry. We tried the metrosexual good guy route it doesn't work.

If we're going to be at war with them, then make war. If we're not going to attempt to win this thing, then pull out come home. Then warn them every act of terrorism soldiers of Islam commit on the U.S.. Islam will lose one city in the blink of an eye. If they don't take us serious make believers out of them the second they try anything. No talking, no CNN talking heads to tell us what we should do , or how we should feel. Un-blinking retaliation. Simple, and swift.

Maybe after losing a city or two the non radical believers of Islam will get off their butts and figure out these guys are their problem. You might even see Muslims actually holding their more radical brothers accountable.

[Elfie]

All Jews did not live in Germany. The Final Solution was still genocide imho. However, to you, you may consider it Mass Murder. Doesn't really matter though, both have the same results.

While all the Jews certainly did not live in Germany, The Final Solution did call for the removal of ALL Jews from the gene pool, hence why it is considered genocide.

[Elfie]

If we're going to be at war with them, then make war. If we're not going to attempt to win this thing, then pull out come home.

I agree completely.

[Toad]

It's why democractic states are caught with their pants around their ankles when war does start.

No one really wants total war; no one.

Yet, because of this, one group becomes emboldened thinking that the other group can't be pushed to total war because of they way they think, act, react, etc.

So the one group becomes evermore aggressive until  SUPRISE! the other group reacts with equal ferocity and total war begins.

Right now the terrorists are pushing aggressively and successfully; they become ever more confident and ever more bold.

They believe their enemies are incapable of reacting in a strong, meaningful way.

It is a huge miscalculation that could easily lead to another world conflagration.

[KgB]

2600 US troops are dead,300 billion spent.
Any results Gentlemen?
Can anybody even answer why midle east hates Unated States?
Does anyone even know?