Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: slipknot on July 15, 2008, 12:25:19 PM
-
Many times I've seen the comparison of the WWII era approach to war to today's, often citing the fact that back then we managed far morein 4 years than we've managed in 5 today.
The execution of the total war was the difference, I believe. On August 6 and 9, 1945, the Japanese were assured, through action, that any continuation of hostilities, would end in their total obliteration. The Germans were left with much the same reality. Before we could rebuild, modernize and impose our value systems, we made sure that the enemy was broken.
Today, we practice a more selective war, striving for minimal damage to achieve a military objective. Minimal damage equates to minimal cost. The end result, the enemy is not backed up against the wall enough to completely lose faith in their goal. Remember, the Japanese were no less fanatical than some of our current adversaries. No less ready to die for their cause.
Or is there more to it?
-
Or is there more to it?
Yes
-
No, there really isn't that much more to it in my opinion.
"If you're not willing to wage total war, you shouldn't wage any war at all."
Basically, until you are willing to create the total destruction of your enemy to win, you'd best not get into the fight at all.
For example, in WW2 America was willing to not only fight the german and japanese army to theirs or our destruction, but we would hold the citizens of the country just as responsible. So not only did we fight them, but we also firebombed many cities. Not to mention the absolute annihilation of two japanese cities.
But take a look at Korea, Vietnam and all the wars since then. We haven't really beat a single enemy. Sure, we might have won a few narrow and shortsighted goals, but the end results has always been bad. Especially from vietnam on, we've been fighting under such restrictive rules of war that nothing was to be gained but a virtual stalemate.
Take a look even at recruitment and drafts in WW2 and today. Ignoring that Roosevelt was a war-time fascist, the American people felt that it was the right thing to do to get involved in the war. Especially after a major military attack.
However, take a look at the Vietnam era, and even today. Despite a small attack, both in Vietnam and Today, Americans didn't have the drive to go to war. And if they don't have the drive to go to war, they won't have the drive to wish to see the destruction of the enemy, and they especially won't have the understanding that American troops will die in a war.
-
Basically, until you are willing to create the total destruction of your enemy to win, you'd best not get into the fight at all.
I'm pretty sure majority of population, military and leadership wants total destruction of our current enemies.
-
I'm pretty sure majority of population, military and leadership wants total destruction of our current enemies.
yep
-
I'm pretty sure majority of population, military and leadership wants total destruction of our current enemies.
Be that as it may, it's not as easy for that population, military and leadership to purchase that total destruction at the price of high civilian and infrastructural casualities--which is what you'll need in order to convince the local population that it's either gonna be our will that they except, or death...
In short, instead of winning hearts and minds, you terrify them into submission. After that's done, and the resistance dries up from lack of support, you can go about rebuilding and nurturing.
-
Horse crap.
They don't let the troops fight like it.
Every generation since the baby boomers has been spoon fed the crock of trash that because you are an American you deserve this and are entitled to that.
They forgot to leave the part in that says you have to earn your freedoms.
-
Total war? Im not so sure it was necessary. Im pretty sure OBL was expecting a Clinton style middle of the night cruise missle attack on empty training camps in response to 9/11/2001.
The fact that Afganistan was attacked and had a parliment elected and the fact that 160,000 US Soldiers entered into Iraq to wage a crusade (face it, thats what happened) and had a Iraqi governement get elected never even entered into the minds of the terror attackers as a possibility, let alone a reality.
Now it looks like Afganistan will get the bulk of US attention since Iraq has calmed down so much, and the Iraqi security forces are finally becoming semi-pro enough to look after themselves.
Time to get to work on those tribal lands, and see how far we can entertain our Pakistani partners to cooperate with instead of subterfuging against us.
-
Be that as it may, it's not as easy for that population, military and leadership to purchase that total destruction at the price of high civilian and infrastructural casualities--which is what you'll need in order to convince the local population that it's either gonna be our will that they except, or death...
In short, instead of winning hearts and minds, you terrify them into submission. After that's done, and the resistance dries up from lack of support, you can go about rebuilding and nurturing.
Well, that's the problem. Our No 1 enemy is not confined to one country. It's a fast moving small target. The big classic military is just not cut to fight that kind of enemy.
Instead of bombing third world countries into submission, we could and should fight the real enemies, not artificial or low priority ones.
Basically it comes down to "choosing your enemy" and "setting priorities" and less with willingness of our people to wage the war.
-
Low Intensity conflicts are exceedingly profitable for the corporate entities that own our government.
So, that's the way we fight.
From our adversaries perspective.. When you play cards with a guy that never plays his Ace, after awhile, you ignore the possibility of him ever actually using it. In their eyes we're paper tigers.
We should have opened hostilities with Tehran using overwhelming force on Nov 5th 1979... the day after the Hostages were taken.
Hang
-
Well, that's the problem. Our No 1 enemy is not confined to one country. It's a fast moving small target. The big classic military is just not cut to fight that kind of enemy.
Instead of bombing third world countries into submission, we could and should fight the real enemies, not artificial or low priority ones.
Basically it comes down to "choosing your enemy" and "setting priorities" and less with willingness of our people to wage the war.
Again, horse manure.
Who ARE the real enemies? You can't tell. I bet you that if we turned the place into a huge kitty litter box, the natives would be less likely to keep their doors open for, OR tolerate nearly as much insurgent activity. IED's would be less common if the general populace had a keener eye and was aware of the consequences for not keeping an eye on these things and reporting them.
Hang, you hit the nail on the head.
-
I bet you that if we turned the place into a huge kitty litter box, the natives would be less likely to keep their doors open for, OR tolerate nearly as much insurgent activity. IED's would be less common if the general populace had a keener eye and was aware of the consequences for not keeping an eye on these things and reporting them.
isn't what you described right there just another way of saying Total War, though?
Less discrimination, less sympathy, less politically correct combat in favor of across the board engagement to put the terror into their hearts.
Not sure what you were referring to as horse crap earlier, other than why our soldiers are forced to limit the scope of their work.
-
Don't worry Slip, I am in agreement with you. Bomb them into the stone age.
-
That wouldn't be a long trip from where they are now :D
-
Who ARE the real enemies? You can't tell.
I bet you that if we turned the place into a huge kitty litter box, the natives would be less likely to keep their doors open for, OR tolerate nearly as much insurgent activity. IED's would be less common if the general populace had a keener eye and was aware of the consequences for not keeping an eye on these things and reporting them.
Huh? Who's coming over here and blowing things up and killing innocent people? Who's responsible? Who was hiding in Sudan, Afghanistan and now allegedly in Pakistan? Do you think if we vaporized those three, that terrorist scumbags would just automagically vanish? What about all others? Yeah right, they're all busy assembling IEDs in Iraq. Get real.
With yearly supplemental budget of 170 billions in average (what we spend now for Iraq and Afghanistan), we could hunt and capture most of those scumbags long ago.
But no, we rather bomb and rebuild Iraq for who knows what reason and we don't even get cheap oil out of it. Now that's horse manure.
-
Not really necessary to 'bomb 'em into the stone age'.... just destroy their relevance. For the middle east it's their oil... they sell it to us, use the money to arm insurgents and terrorists and kill americans.
Cure... get off the damn diet of mideast oil. Stop protecting the Saudi shipping lanes.
But... since our government ain't about to threaten the oil company profits with an emargo of middle east oil or denial of that oil to China or India...
...well, status quo; as they say.
-
Slipknot:
While there is some truth to what you are saying, one major difference between the end of WWII is who we are trying to beat into submission. The Germans and the Japanese were highly organized, trained to "get with the program". When that program was Nazism/Japanese Imperialism, they were obedient. When the authority was America, they were also obedient.
Compare this to Iraq and Afghanistan...both countries simmering unstable timebombs waiting to go off, centuries behind the West or Japan in any social way that counts. The brutality of Saddam/Taliban was the ONLY effective organizational tool. America will not "go there", nor do I WANT us to.
-
That I can't argue with BnZ...
I suppose that the concept of 'nothing to lose' counts here too, and with it comes the loss of the intimidation factor.
Now this is a whole new topic, but perhaps hangtime's broader concept can be applied. The entire region lives off of oil. Be it directly or indirectly. The vast majority of wealth and whatever organization and social developement they do have, it's thanks in large part to the trillions they've harvested from oil.
For a long time I've been an advocate of economic war on the entire region. Slowly or gradually pull out of there, become independant and let them sink back into the desert wholesale... Yes, we're all aware that Dubai will survive... Hopefully that will not be enough to keep alive the culture of religious fanaticism.
-
Huh? Who's coming over here and blowing things up and killing innocent people? Who's responsible? Who was hiding in Sudan, Afghanistan and now allegedly in Pakistan? Do you think if we vaporized those three, that terrorist scumbags would just automagically vanish? What about all others? Yeah right, they're all busy assembling IEDs in Iraq. Get real.
With yearly supplemental budget of 170 billions in average (what we spend now for Iraq and Afghanistan), we could hunt and capture most of those scumbags long ago.
But no, we rather bomb and rebuild Iraq for who knows what reason and we don't even get cheap oil out of it. Now that's horse manure.
Ah, yes. The kinder, gentler, U.S. Armed forces.
A hunting trip it is, then :aok
We could be like assassins. A U.S. subsidized death squad, picking and choosing who lives and dies. Very selective. That will make us much more popular than a plain old military invasion has already made us.
-
Ah, yes. The kinder, gentler, U.S. Armed forces.
Don't think any country ever had military to be loved.
A hunting trip it is, then :aok
Sure, we hunt DUI drivers, why not terrorists. Or is there moral abyss in between somewhere?
Very selective.
Correct. Way more effective, cheaper and faster than "Shock and Awe" with all the "collateral damage".
That will make us much more popular than a plain old military invasion has already made us.
We lost popularity contest long ago. Time to kick bastages where it hurts.
-
Or is there more to it?
Yes, a lot more to come there is, of total war.
-
"Terrorist states, Stanley. Someone must bring their war to them. They bomb a church, we bomb 10. They hijack a plane, we take out an airport. They execute American tourist, we tactically nuke an entire city. Our job is to make terrorism so horrific that is becomes unthinkable to attack Americans."
The point of total war is to make the consequences of disobediance so horrible, that people wouldn't dare dream to do otherwise.
I believe that the price of messing with American Citizens, American Interests and American Allies (who sign on board) should be pure violent retribution at least 10x worse than the damage done to us.
Take for example, the Iranian embassy. The iranians happened to capture a few Soviets back in their hay day. They demanded Russian compliance as well as American. The next day the russians went into iran, and captured the families of the hostage takers. After several real hands were mailed to the sons, the russians were released post haste.
War is a horrible violent thing. It shouldn't be anything but. To try to wage war and be liked at the same time is to get laughed at.
Of course, the only time most Americans gladly welcomed war and extremely open violence was under the hands of extremely manipulative Fascists.
-
Hang,
you back in game?
-
"Terrorist states, Stanley. Someone must bring their war to them. They bomb a church, we bomb 10. They hijack a plane, we take out an airport. They execute American tourist, we tactically nuke an entire city. Our job is to make terrorism so horrific that is becomes unthinkable to attack Americans."
Of course, the only time most Americans gladly welcomed war and extremely open violence was under the hands of extremely manipulative Fascists.
There is so much irony in these two statements. First off, the phenomenon "global terrorism" is a hoax, a paranoia delusion so that... -> The second statement you think is true, but look at what is happening in the US now. The domestic population be stripped of their rights in preparation for the "New World Order". It sounds like a cliché, you just wait 20 years and see if it was. Then you'll be too late to react, much too late.
"...extremely manipulative Fascists." :lol
-
Low Intensity conflicts are exceedingly profitable for the corporate entities that own our government.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qfej4q9kpRI
-
There is so much irony in these two statements. First off, the phenomenon "global terrorism" is a hoax, a paranoia delusion so that... -> The second statement you think is true, but look at what is happening in the US now. The domestic population be stripped of their rights in preparation for the "New World Order". It sounds like a cliché, you just wait 20 years and see if it was. Then you'll be too late to react, much too late.
"...extremely manipulative Fascists." :lol
No. The incredibly ironic thing is that you think you can enter into this conversation with very little idea of United States history.
First off, you wrongly think that 'Fascist' means extreme right winger. It does not.
Second, anyone who fears this "New World Order" has no grasp of actual history to see that it has come, and failed MANY TIMES. Most anyone who does have a grasp of history, does not fear this "New World Order" apocolypse, because nothing is happening like it has in the past.
-
I'm not going into details of your post because they are irrelevant when shooting at the wrong target. The deal is, we've never been so many people on this planet as we are now, so yes, you are right nothing is happening like it has in the past. What we are about to see the next 50 years or so is the inevitable end of economic growth and population growth, as we run out of resources to sustain growth rates. While at the same time quite possibly the death of 50% of the world population or more.
That is what you completely miss, because you are not aware of the very basic facts why this is happening.
-
Hang,
you back in game?
Nah... not yet. Thinkin' about it tho... need some new 'puter gear and controllers. ;)
Hang
-
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qfej4q9kpRI
Yup... Eisenhower's Farewell address.... heluva savvy Politician... and as a 5 star general in charge of the largest military operations in history, he was more than just a little conversant with the dangers of the military/industrial threat to government. Nobody listened. He wuz right... and we have lost.
*sigh*
Thanks fer cheerin me up. ;)
Hang
-
I'm not going into details of your post because they are irrelevant when shooting at the wrong target. The deal is, we've never been so many people on this planet as we are now, so yes, you are right nothing is happening like it has in the past. What we are about to see the next 50 years or so is the inevitable end of economic growth and population growth, as we run out of resources to sustain growth rates. While at the same time quite possibly the death of 50% of the world population or more.
That is what you completely miss, because you are not aware of the very basic facts why this is happening.
I can see this happening Vortex. Without veering too far into another controversial topics, some "groups" are already ahead of the curve on ZPG/population decline...and some aren't. The implications of the fact that the population is shrinking in places of relative civilization like Western Europe, Japan, and China while growing in bastions of human suffering and trouble like the Middle East and Africa are not entirely sunny.
-
It is refreshing to see that some people know the truth. Not that it helps us that much, but if we all knew the truth it would certainly help us all.
-
It is refreshing to see that some people know the truth. Not that it helps us that much, but if we all knew the truth it would certainly help us all.
Well, nothing is controversial about population decline. You see, turns out you don't have to be like China in birth policy. Turns out, in the post-pill, post-sexual revolution, post-AIDs world, middle class families in 1st world nations are weeding themselves out of the gene pool
Repeat for emphasis: I said I see it happening, I didn't say it was nessecarily GOOD. Even if we eventually achieve an Edenic existence through population control, is that so great? Man was happy in Eden. He was also naked, ignorant, and impotent. I want to see the Faustian bargain that is Man's ability to think and progress take us to the stars and across the galactic great divide.
-
BNZ,
We western white genius's who walked on the moon with high end 60's technology bred our own demise in our Liberlised spoiled children who now want us overrun by undocumented third worlders who couldn't even build working sewers in their home countries. Our Liberalised children may not have the balls to do much more than whine about the price of gas and beg congress to make us ride bicycles and live in mud huts to atone for once in the past being the greatest nation on earth. Look how Great Britain is suffocating into a quagmire of feminised political correctness while allowing itself to be invaded by the third world and Islam with Sharia Law.
The american national dream of walking among the stars was a dream made physical by cold war era racist white men who had the balls go to the moon. Now we just send robots to take picutures of objects and tell ourselves how clever we are because we have Phd's. It's politicaly incorrect to put a man on the moon today because our national direction is mired in a balkinised mess of politicaly correct victomhood and feminised values.
You wanna cross the galactic divide, come up with a way to grow balls and spines back in western white males.