CDZ How do you win a war (any war), if you don't break the spirit and will for an opponent to fight ?

[beagle9]

I see journalist discussing the war going on in Syria on the news, and I see them cherry picking the wars to pieces, but no real solutions coming out of it, just finger pointing. Who is holding back any major country fighting in the war from winning the war, and this in order to stop the killing and death there finally ? Here we all are in 2016 (USA, Russia), with the most lethal militaries in the world, but we pick and pick and pick at these conflicts like a scab that won't heal, and because of this picking it goes on and on and on, but meanwhile their are hundreds of thousands who are killed or become collateral damage in the whole scheme of things. Why if a major super power or powers are involved, does these wars go on and on until atrocities or humanitarian crisis (that could have been avoided) become an issue due to dragging out these wars on and on ???? Then the finger pointing starts, but finger pointing don't stop the slaughter of innocent lives, so why not utilize militaries in the most humanitarian way possible, and that means WIN the DAM war quickly, and stop the slaughter of innocent lives. I think wars go on to long, and it's evil when see this going on.

 

[Drachenjäger]

I agree entirely. It's better to rip a band-aid off than peel it slowly. Warfare is useless as a tool unless used in the most shocking, brutal, and rapid fashion. Destruction of morale and instilling utter hopelessness in your opponent has always been the essential pinnacle factor in combat of all shapes and sizes.

 

[Tehon]

I see journalist discussing the war going on in Syria on the news, and I see them cherry picking the wars to pieces, but no real solutions coming out of it, just finger pointing. Who is holding back any major country fighting in the war from winning the war, and this in order to stop the killing and death there finally ? Here we all are in 2016 (USA, Russia), with the most lethal militaries in the world, but we pick and pick and pick at these conflicts like a scab that won't heal, and because of this picking it goes on and on and on, but meanwhile their are hundreds of thousands who are killed or become collateral damage in the whole scheme of things. Why if a major super power or powers are involved, does these wars go on and on until atrocities or humanitarian crisis (that could have been avoided) become an issue due to dragging out these wars on and on ???? Then the finger pointing starts, but finger pointing don't stop the slaughter of innocent lives, so why not utilize militaries in the most humanitarian way possible, and that means WIN the DAM war quickly, and stop the slaughter of innocent lives. I think wars go on to long, and it's evil when see this going on.

Nice observation. From the US perspective they don't want to defeat the combatants that are challenging the Assad regime. A victory for the US would consist of dropping all pretenses to fighting ISIS and destroying the Syrian Army and Assad. So the war drags on. The sooner the American people own up to the fact that we don't always wear the white hats the better.

 

[Stratford57]

The war will never stop as long as Obama/Clinton Syrian policy remains:
1. to supply all kids of weapons to "moderate opposition"= Al-Nusra;
2. never to bomb Al-Nusra (was admitted yesterday by spokesperson John Kirby) because they need it against Assad.

* The bottom line for the Obama administration is regime change, which means a jihadist victory in Syria, and that is the rabbit they are constantly trying to pull out of the hat.
'US priority in Syria: Stop Aleppo from falling to pro-Assad forces'

* one of the US demands was that the Syrian air force must be prohibited from attacking al-Nusra Front (al-Qaeda in Syria).
George W. Bush famously said, "either you're with us, or you are with the terrorists." But what happens when Washington itself is "with the terrorists"?
In Kerry's Own Words: Syria Prohibited from Attacking al-Qaeda

* September 17:
The CIA has been coordinating weapon deliveries on the Turkey-Syria border, German journalist Jurgen Todenhofer, who recently spoke with a Jabhat al-Nusra commander, said. He added that the US knows that the weapons it delivers to rebels end up with terrorists.
In the interview the Jabhat al-Nusra unit commander Abu Al Ezz said that US weapons are being delivered to the terrorist group by governments that Washington supports and American instructors have been providing instruction on how to use them.
‘US knows weapons sent to Syrian rebels end up with terrorists’ – German journo to RT
Watch the video^, you'll learn a lot of interesting things about Washington

* Lavrov’s Interview to BBC
The US is keeping jihadist group al-Nusra for a “Plan B”, potentially to overthrow Syrian President Assad, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in an interview with the BBC.
Lavrov said that Washington has still not delivered on its promise to persuade US-backed rebels to separate from Jabhat al-Nusra jihadists.
Lavrov countered that it’s the militants “controlled by al-Nusra” who jeopardize peace efforts. The terrorists are“shielding themselves with other armed groups” in order not to be attacked, Lavrov noted, stressing thatWashington needs to do more to persuade moderate forces to dodge any cooperation with Jihadists.
US ‘spare Nusra for plan B’ to change regime in Syria – Lavrov
Russia's Sergei Lavrov: BBC interview in full - BBC News

* Daniel McAdams is Executive Director of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity:
The concept of “moderate rebels” in Syria is a joke. If an armed group of people in USA tried to pull out a coup, would Washington recognize it as a “moderate”? Not likely. Washington has to admit: their “moderate rebels” and al-Qaeda are the same things.
-----
The main result of Russia’s operation in Syria is that Islamic State and Al-Nusra Front terrorists have been kept out of Damascus, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said.

Russian airstrikes on radical Islamists in Syria over the past year have ensured that "neither Islamic State, nor Al-Qaeda nor the Nusra Front are now sitting in Damascus," Peskov said in a conference call with reporters.
ISIS & Al-Nusra not in Damascus: Kremlin on major outcome of Russia’s campaign in Syria

 

[anotherlife]

The ancient book of Sunzu titled "the Art of war" mentions, that every war is lost and won before it begins. So it looks like that your spirit / will breaks when your home base dies, and you need new ideas that sell if you want to win. In Europe, the entente, and other forces before it, ensured that the spirit of the opponent breaks, by starting genocides. Most famous genocide examples are those in 1946 by the entente's communist, 1711 by the Habsburgs, and in 1200's France.

 

[anotherlife]

I agree entirely. It's better to rip a band-aid off than peel it slowly. Warfare is useless as a tool unless used in the most shocking, brutal, and rapid fashion. Destruction of morale and instilling utter hopelessness in your opponent has always been the essential pinnacle factor in combat of all shapes and sizes.

So we need real weapons of mass destruction, that the US can actually control, not like those annoying dirty ineffective ones like the nuclear ones that render your land useless or chemical/bio ones that have only a few % kill rate, but real weapons against enemy populations that really wipe them out.n

 

[waltky]

How do you win a war (any war), if you don't break the spirit and will for an opponent to fight ?

Uncle Ferd says...

... ya nuke `em.

 

[Drachenjäger]

I agree entirely. It's better to rip a band-aid off than peel it slowly. Warfare is useless as a tool unless used in the most shocking, brutal, and rapid fashion. Destruction of morale and instilling utter hopelessness in your opponent has always been the essential pinnacle factor in combat of all shapes and sizes.

So we need real weapons of mass destruction, that the US can actually control, not like those annoying dirty ineffective ones like the nuclear ones that render your land useless or chemical/bio ones that have only a few % kill rate, but real weapons against enemy populations that really wipe them out.n

Destroying civilian targets isn't an absolute necessity in shock and awe warfare, although it is a completely viable tactic.

 

[anotherlife]

I agree entirely. It's better to rip a band-aid off than peel it slowly. Warfare is useless as a tool unless used in the most shocking, brutal, and rapid fashion. Destruction of morale and instilling utter hopelessness in your opponent has always been the essential pinnacle factor in combat of all shapes and sizes.

So we need real weapons of mass destruction, that the US can actually control, not like those annoying dirty ineffective ones like the nuclear ones that render your land useless or chemical/bio ones that have only a few % kill rate, but real weapons against enemy populations that really wipe them out.n

Destroying civilian targets isn't an absolute necessity in shock and awe warfare, although it is a completely viable tactic.

General Sherman of the Civil War introduced this concept. I think it's real value goes beyond this tactical style and ensures that the absolute headcount of the enemy population is kept in check.

 

[Drachenjäger]

I agree entirely. It's better to rip a band-aid off than peel it slowly. Warfare is useless as a tool unless used in the most shocking, brutal, and rapid fashion. Destruction of morale and instilling utter hopelessness in your opponent has always been the essential pinnacle factor in combat of all shapes and sizes.

So we need real weapons of mass destruction, that the US can actually control, not like those annoying dirty ineffective ones like the nuclear ones that render your land useless or chemical/bio ones that have only a few % kill rate, but real weapons against enemy populations that really wipe them out.n

Destroying civilian targets isn't an absolute necessity in shock and awe warfare, although it is a completely viable tactic.

General Sherman of the Civil War introduced this concept. I think it's real value goes beyond this tactical style and ensures that the absolute headcount of the enemy population is kept in check.

You're right, and if you're willing to go to those lengths it works well. However with the current situation in Syrian and Iraq the US would get so much backlash for unleashing those levels of decimation that the payout may not even be worth the consequences.

 

[beagle9]

How do you win a war (any war), if you don't break the spirit and will for an opponent to fight ?

Uncle Ferd says...

... ya nuke `em.

. Don't need to nuke 'em in Syria, but rather just either get out of the way so the killing can stop or get in there and stop the killing with a strong allied force that would get the job done. Now undoubtedly something is bad wrong with our position on the war in Syria as some here describe, and that is why we are impotent on helping to resolve this thing on our part, and it's why Russia had to take a more dominant roll in the conflict right ??? I see a huge failure of US policy going on it seems, and it could definitely lead back to Obama and Hillary's blunders in the whole thing. If we have an administration this careless, then how can we be poised to continue the crazy crap right on and on from our side of the equation or point of view ???

 

[beagle9]

I agree entirely. It's better to rip a band-aid off than peel it slowly. Warfare is useless as a tool unless used in the most shocking, brutal, and rapid fashion. Destruction of morale and instilling utter hopelessness in your opponent has always been the essential pinnacle factor in combat of all shapes and sizes.

So we need real weapons of mass destruction, that the US can actually control, not like those annoying dirty ineffective ones like the nuclear ones that render your land useless or chemical/bio ones that have only a few % kill rate, but real weapons against enemy populations that really wipe them out.n

Destroying civilian targets isn't an absolute necessity in shock and awe warfare, although it is a completely viable tactic.

. Yes, but the Syrian war doesn't rise to that occasion for a super power to use such a tactic as that, but what needs to be done is that a winning strategy needs to be formed with the parties involved, and it needs to be executed against the real enemy of the innocence in that nation. The innocent needs to be defined, a face then put to them, and next a message that help is on the way or is coming, and the war is about to be over for them. Fighting wars with no end is EVIL.

 

[beagle9]

I agree entirely. It's better to rip a band-aid off than peel it slowly. Warfare is useless as a tool unless used in the most shocking, brutal, and rapid fashion. Destruction of morale and instilling utter hopelessness in your opponent has always been the essential pinnacle factor in combat of all shapes and sizes.

So we need real weapons of mass destruction, that the US can actually control, not like those annoying dirty ineffective ones like the nuclear ones that render your land useless or chemical/bio ones that have only a few % kill rate, but real weapons against enemy populations that really wipe them out.n

Destroying civilian targets isn't an absolute necessity in shock and awe warfare, although it is a completely viable tactic.

General Sherman of the Civil War introduced this concept. I think it's real value goes beyond this tactical style and ensures that the absolute headcount of the enemy population is kept in check.

You're right, and if you're willing to go to those lengths it works well. However with the current situation in Syrian and Iraq the US would get so much backlash for unleashing those levels of decimation that the payout may not even be worth the consequences.

. Once the face of the innocent is defined, and it is seen by all to be abused, dying or starving per an oppressor that is doing that to them, then when you run a campaign to not allow those innocents to be killed, abused or starve any longer, there will be NO NATION that would stand in the way of those who are trying to save hundreds of thousands from such things. Bringing the people here is NOT the answer, but to stop their oppressor's is the answer. Now are we on the wrong side of this because of Obama or what ?????

 

[Stratford57]

Bringing the people here is NOT the answer, but to stop their oppressor's is the answer.

Doesn't it make more sense to stop the war, to clean the ME from terrorists and to restore the ME countries rather than to intentionally spread millions of refugees/terrorists into EU and US?????

Putin: The military intervention in Iraq and Libya are the most vivid examples of this irresponsible and mistaken policy that has led to a rise in terrorism and extremism. It is clear to everyone today that this policy has contributed to the emergence of menacing organisations such as the Islamic State (DAISH). "
Meeting of Russian Federation ambassadors and permanent envoys

Putin: The reason for today’s problem with migrants lies in the destabilization of states and whole regions of the world – North Africa, Afghanistan and other nations. And in order to resolve the migration problem, we need to eliminate the root cause of this – we need to restore statehood, the economy and the social sphere in these states, so that people can live in their own nation or return home. We need to create all the necessary conditions for this. But to do this, we need, first and foremost, to eliminate terrorists. This is our number one challenge.
News conference following Russian-Hungarian talks

Putin: if we want to stop the flow of refugees into Europe, for example, if we want people to want and be able to live in their home country and not flee abroad, we need to restore statehood where it had been lost. I was referring above all to Libya. We need to support and strengthen statehood in the countries where it still exists, and here, I am referring to Syria.
Truth and Justice regional and local media forum

Putin: First, we must efficiently combat terrorism and extremism together.
Second, we need to restore the economy of those countries and their social sphere. Only this way, by showing respect for the history, traditions and religion of these peoples and countries, we can restore their statehood and provide large-scale economic and political support.
Vladimir Putin answered Russian journalists’ questions

Putin: International terrorism will never be defeated by just one country, especially in a situation when the borders are practically open, and the world is going through another resettlement of peoples, while terrorists are getting regular financial support.
Presidential Address to the Federal Assembly

 

[Drachenjäger]

I agree entirely. It's better to rip a band-aid off than peel it slowly. Warfare is useless as a tool unless used in the most shocking, brutal, and rapid fashion. Destruction of morale and instilling utter hopelessness in your opponent has always been the essential pinnacle factor in combat of all shapes and sizes.

So we need real weapons of mass destruction, that the US can actually control, not like those annoying dirty ineffective ones like the nuclear ones that render your land useless or chemical/bio ones that have only a few % kill rate, but real weapons against enemy populations that really wipe them out.n

Destroying civilian targets isn't an absolute necessity in shock and awe warfare, although it is a completely viable tactic.

General Sherman of the Civil War introduced this concept. I think it's real value goes beyond this tactical style and ensures that the absolute headcount of the enemy population is kept in check.

You're right, and if you're willing to go to those lengths it works well. However with the current situation in Syrian and Iraq the US would get so much backlash for unleashing those levels of decimation that the payout may not even be worth the consequences.

. Once the face of the innocent is defined, and it is seen by all to be abused, dying or starving per an oppressor that is doing that to them, then when you run a campaign to not allow those innocents to be killed, abused or starve any longer, there will be NO NATION that would stand in the way of those who are trying to save hundreds of thousands from such things. Bringing the people here is NOT the answer, but to stop their oppressor's is the answer. Now are we on the wrong side of this because of Obama or what ?????

Well therein lies the problem. The world doesn't look at the fact that prolonged fighting may actually be much worse in the long run. They don't notice it, they shrug it off. However as soon as you go in ferociously and bombastically you hold the entire planet's gaze. What I'm saying is we're going to get shit for solving problems like this in one decisive campaign but nobody will bat an eye if it gets drawn out and lasts years.

 

[Picaro]

I see journalist discussing the war going on in Syria on the news, and I see them cherry picking the wars to pieces, but no real solutions coming out of it, just finger pointing. Who is holding back any major country fighting in the war from winning the war, and this in order to stop the killing and death there finally ? Here we all are in 2016 (USA, Russia), with the most lethal militaries in the world, but we pick and pick and pick at these conflicts like a scab that won't heal, and because of this picking it goes on and on and on, but meanwhile their are hundreds of thousands who are killed or become collateral damage in the whole scheme of things. Why if a major super power or powers are involved, does these wars go on and on until atrocities or humanitarian crisis (that could have been avoided) become an issue due to dragging out these wars on and on ???? Then the finger pointing starts, but finger pointing don't stop the slaughter of innocent lives, so why not utilize militaries in the most humanitarian way possible, and that means WIN the DAM war quickly, and stop the slaughter of innocent lives. I think wars go on to long, and it's evil when see this going on.

What would be the point of ending it quickly? As long as the animals are killing each other they have less time to devote to killing others outside the country, which is exactly what these vermin will turn to doing.

I agree with a lot of what you said in principle, but the ME is a different animal; when the oil runs out, then they can be forgotten and regress back to hacking each other up over sheep and water holes, and the West and Putin can focus on the really important issues, like the Suez Canal and keeping the shipping lanes open and neutral, areas they both have virtually the same interests.

 

[beagle9]

I see journalist discussing the war going on in Syria on the news, and I see them cherry picking the wars to pieces, but no real solutions coming out of it, just finger pointing. Who is holding back any major country fighting in the war from winning the war, and this in order to stop the killing and death there finally ? Here we all are in 2016 (USA, Russia), with the most lethal militaries in the world, but we pick and pick and pick at these conflicts like a scab that won't heal, and because of this picking it goes on and on and on, but meanwhile their are hundreds of thousands who are killed or become collateral damage in the whole scheme of things. Why if a major super power or powers are involved, does these wars go on and on until atrocities or humanitarian crisis (that could have been avoided) become an issue due to dragging out these wars on and on ???? Then the finger pointing starts, but finger pointing don't stop the slaughter of innocent lives, so why not utilize militaries in the most humanitarian way possible, and that means WIN the DAM war quickly, and stop the slaughter of innocent lives. I think wars go on to long, and it's evil when see this going on.

What would be the point of ending it quickly? As long as the animals are killing each other they have less time to devote to killing others outside the country, which is exactly what these vermin will turn to doing.

I agree with a lot of what you said in principle, but the ME is a different animal; when the oil runs out, then they can be forgotten and regress back to hacking each other up over sheep and water holes, and the West and Putin can focus on the really important issues, like the Suez Canal and keeping the shipping lanes open and neutral, areas they both have virtually the same interests.

. I guess I see people as having a purpose and reason in the world (all God's children), and once upon a time you could travel to some if not all of these countries in peace, and in harmony, but something has upset the apple cart very bad now (maybe bad dealings over the oil through out time I guess, and/or empowering the wrong people), but whatever the reason the civilized world can't just sit back and act as if the innocent lives of men, women, and children don't matter.