Is Bombing Instead Of Boots On The Ground Cowardly Lol?

[kaz]

You can't immobilize an enemy with pure air power. The Nazis found that out in 1940 after, leveling London in the Battle of Britain the British, they were defeated due to poor intelligence and lack of experience did their airforce in

The Nazis lost because rather than invading England when they had the chance, they invaded Russia and created two fronts. England was not fit at that point to repel the entire Nazi army. It was a classic strategic blunder in history. It's the upside of fighting a megalomaniac like Hitler, they inevitably overreach. I'm not saying the Nazis win had they not done that, but wow, it would have been a whole heck of a lot harder to invade Europe.

The second blunder was as the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union and passed through countries like The Ukraine, the locals actually started fighting on the side of the Nazis because Stalin was so brutal. Rather than nurturing that, the Nazis convinced them they were worse and they went back to fighting for the Soviets.

Had the Nazis waited to invade Russia until England fell, nurtured Soviet citizens overthrowing Stalin, then stopped, wow, it would have been hard to believe we would not have agreed to peace at that point.

Of course that would not happen, as I pointed out, Hitler's megalomania prevented that.

 

[High_Gravity]

I think that Iran's President asked a good question here: Iran s Rouhani Blasts ISIS and Ridiculous U.S.-Led Coalition - NBC News . He asked, "Are Americans afraid of getting casualties on the ground in Iraq? Are they afraid of their soldiers being killed in the fight they claim is against terrorism?"

If bombing will make ISIS blend in with civilians, is not putting boots on the ground COWARDICE?

Nope.

 

[regent]

America has a couple patterns of limited warfare, they may not be good patterns but we have followed some in the past. First, the John Wayne stage: the inspiring of cowardly Americans to appreciate war begins, at one time bands and lots of flags were part of this stage.
Then the generals begin to fumble each with their own plan to win wars, and for the generals it may be their one chance to gain fame and go down in the history books.
Casualties mount, new methods are tried to inspire the civilians getting concerned with casualty figures, and worse the civilian population begin to feel the casualty figures getting close to their own. New war methods are tried to raise civilian morale. Might even have a casualty score board showing the dead on both sides, proof our side is winning.
Politicians begin to explain why their sons are not involved in the war or have cushy military jobs. We begin to look for a peace-with-honor solution.
The next decades are spent explaining why the "bad" political party lost the war, lost the peace, how the commies were responsible for America losing.

 

[TemplarKormac]

9858139

T

. When Democrats wage war these days, the do so lazily. They let politics get in the way of duty. When Republicans wage war, the use everything at their disposal to cull the enemy.

Do you know what US President ordered the largest US Marines air to ground assault since the Vietnam War?

I'll give you a clue. It was into Helmand and Kandahar Provinces in 2009.

That followed what Admiral Mullen defined as 'endless drift' which aptly describes the military policy in Afghanistan that functioned for five years under a Republican President who allowed the enemy to increase in lethality to the point of damn near defeating the US and ISAF forces in Afghanistan.

I am certain you will run from the truth.

Just as Deltex1 if Bush used the full might and power of the US military to 'cull' the enemy in Iraq.

Bush negotiated with the enemy on General Petraeus' advice in order to be able to withdraw US troops from the quagmire he got them into.

Whoops, Obama was president in 2009. So much for your 'truth.' Siddown.

Obama ordered the assault. Your hateful political talking point is in shambles.

You first said Bush ordered it IN 2009. Lets try to keep up, shall we? Is this what you combat my arguments with? That they are hateful? Typical liberal retort. If that is all you have to combat my assertions, you are sorely outmatched.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Is Bombing Instead Of Boots On The Ground Cowardly Lol?

There is the statement of a silly person who knows nothing about war making. Kill the enemy without risking oneself anymore than necessary.

There is a statement from a coward. Don't risk life or limb to complete the objective. Let politics and emotion dictate strategy.

Jake, if you truly were a soldier, you would know the basics of warfare. The warrior ethos says you put the mission first, not your petty politics. Never quit. Kill the enemy with the full force of your military might. Never surrender to fear. Take risks, crush the enemy, never let up until you win.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Is Bombing Instead Of Boots On The Ground Cowardly Lol?

Not if you were a kamikaze pilot.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Is Bombing Instead Of Boots On The Ground Cowardly Lol?

There is the statement of a silly person who knows nothing about war making. Kill the enemy without risking oneself anymore than necessary.

There is a statement from a coward. Don't risk life or limb to complete the objective. Let politics and emotion dictate strategy.

Jake, if you truly were a soldier, you would know the basics of warfare. The warrior ethos says you put the mission first, not your petty politics. Never quit. Kill the enemy with the full force of your military might. Never surrender to fear. Take risks, crush the enemy, never let up until you win.

What part of 'any more than necessary' didn't you understand?

 

[JakeStarkey]

TK is a coward and a flake.

He imagines we were out there with imaginary light sabers fighting off the storm troopers of Darth.

Idiot. General Patton would have slapped the crap out of him for such a statement.

 

[regent]

Is Bombing Instead Of Boots On The Ground Cowardly Lol?

There is the statement of a silly person who knows nothing about war making. Kill the enemy without risking oneself anymore than necessary.

There is a statement from a coward. Don't risk life or limb to complete the objective. Let politics and emotion dictate strategy.

Jake, if you truly were a soldier, you would know the basics of warfare. The warrior ethos says you put the mission first, not your petty politics. Never quit. Kill the enemy with the full force of your military might. Never surrender to fear. Take risks, crush the enemy, never let up until you win.

Jake wouldn't last long with those movie lines.

 

[TemplarKormac]

TK is a coward and a flake.

He imagines we were out there with imaginary light sabers fighting off the storm troopers of Darth.

Idiot. General Patton would have slapped the crap out of him for such a statement.

Seems like you are the coward. You want to hide, putting self preservation over the mission. Soldiers risk life and limb each day, they don't cower behind reasons such as yours. General Patton took risks. He was bold, and he did slap a soldier for showing cowardice in the midst of his fellow comrades. He got busted for it but he got more respect from his men. People like you think we are the evil empire. You imagine war to be easy, with no caveats and simple maneuvers. War is complicated. And is far more complicated than hiding in the shadows.

You are the idiot. You can't even own up to your own failures as a person. You can't even acknowledge that you aren't a Republican.

General Patton would do more than slap you for being such a coward. He never hid, he always went at his foes with full force. An example of that would be the Siege of Bastogne in December 1944:

The Germans had the 101st Airborne Division pinned down in the Belgian town of Bastogne, while Patton was in south central part of France. In a meeting with Eisenhower, after being asked how long it would take him and his men to respond, Patton said he could reach the town and deliver a counterattack in 48 hours. Nobody in the room believed him. But before the meeting on 19 December 1944, he had already ordered his staff to develop contingency plans for retaking the town. On 24 December, he turned his forces northward on a 100 mile trek to Bastogne. By Christmas Day, elements of the 3rd Army began punching holes in the German perimeter. On 26 December the spearhead of the 4th Armored Division broke the German stranglehold as Patton said it would. The day after the Christmas offensive, the town was relieved, and the Germans had been defeated.

Patton refused to give up. He didn't do things halfway. He didn't fight half a war. He most certainly did not show fecklessness in the sight of his enemies, unlike Obama. He was audacious, you are ambivalent and reserved. You wish to hide; like a snake in the bushes. But unlike you, even the snake will strike at his prey without hesitation and with all of its might.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Is Bombing Instead Of Boots On The Ground Cowardly Lol?

There is the statement of a silly person who knows nothing about war making. Kill the enemy without risking oneself anymore than necessary.

There is a statement from a coward. Don't risk life or limb to complete the objective. Let politics and emotion dictate strategy.

Jake, if you truly were a soldier, you would know the basics of warfare. The warrior ethos says you put the mission first, not your petty politics. Never quit. Kill the enemy with the full force of your military might. Never surrender to fear. Take risks, crush the enemy, never let up until you win.

Jake wouldn't last long with those movie lines.

And you wouldn't last long with that sarcasm, either.

 

[Mr Natural]

Maybe it's time for TK to man up and enlist to show them how it' s done.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Maybe it's time for TK to man up and enlist to show them how it' s done.

I could say likewise of you, smartass.

 

[Mr Natural]

Maybe it's time for TK to man up and enlist to show them how it' s done.

I could say likewise of you, smartass.

No you can't, I already did my time.

Can you say the same?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Maybe it's time for TK to man up and enlist to show them how it' s done.

I could say likewise of you, smartass.

No you can't, I already did my time.

Can you say the same?

You can be called back into service if the situation asks for it. You are placed in the IRR (Inactive Ready Reserve) after discharge, that is if you did not fulfill 8 years in active duty. You can serve a maximum of 30 years. You are exempt if you resigned your commission. If you were a CO, you will remain in the reserves indefinitely, no matter how long you have been out of the service. However, a non CO will be removed from the reserve after the allotted time period. Yeah, I know more than you think. And unless you are or were a high level EO, with special connections to the top brass, you have no clue. I mean, perhaps you could try to work your way back up the ladder and show our generals how it's done.

Apparently you fought wars under presidents with more balls than this one. You speak as if serving this country was a curse, not a blessing. And now that you are done, you use it as a cudgel. You dishonor your service by doing such. And yes, I did at one time try to enlist in the US Army, though it fell through when my grandmother grew ill that year. So, you can't say I don't understand war, nor that I didn't try. I wanted to serve my country. My ROTC teacher was a Green Beret who fought in the bloody battle of Khe San. My father served in the 82nd, fought in Desert Storm. I have family members all around me who served in every war since WWII. I was told stories of how hellish war can be, and how a good strategy would win the day. I didn't sit there marveling at their accomplishments, I did research on the battles they fought in.

Prove to me that an airstrike without ground troops is or will be effective. You can't kill everyone ordinance now can you? War requires precision.

 

[regent]

9857375.

Is it cowardice no if you have air dominance you use it but it's not a winning strategy either it's rare that you defeat an enemy with air power alone.

Do you agree that it is proper military strategy to use the air power advantage to the maximum benefit to degrade and paralyze the enemy to the maximum benefit available prior to inserting ground troops and exposing our allies human assets to casualties.

Simple stage one and stage two.

You can't immobilize an enemy with pure air power. The Nazis found that out in 1940 after, leveling London in the Battle of Britain the British, they were defeated due to poor intelligence and lack of experience did their airforce in. Four years later the British still invaded Normandy with the Canadians and the United States in 1944. As long as you leave the enemy contingent alive, they will re-mobilize elsewhere. You have to strike with air and land power simultaneously.

The Germans switched goals when they began bombing English cities instead of English radar and RAF airfields. That switch allowed the RAF to recuperate and that recuperation kept the RAF alive. Without air superiority Hitler then decided he could not invade England. Huge mistake by Hitler. The question, was that change of Hitler goals from the RAF to English cities engineered by the British?

 

[TemplarKormac]

9857375.

Is it cowardice no if you have air dominance you use it but it's not a winning strategy either it's rare that you defeat an enemy with air power alone.

Do you agree that it is proper military strategy to use the air power advantage to the maximum benefit to degrade and paralyze the enemy to the maximum benefit available prior to inserting ground troops and exposing our allies human assets to casualties.

Simple stage one and stage two.

You can't immobilize an enemy with pure air power. The Nazis found that out in 1940 after, leveling London in the Battle of Britain the British, they were defeated due to poor intelligence and lack of experience did their airforce in. Four years later the British still invaded Normandy with the Canadians and the United States in 1944. As long as you leave the enemy contingent alive, they will re-mobilize elsewhere. You have to strike with air and land power simultaneously.

The Germans switched goals when they began bombing English cities instead of English radar and RAF airfields. That switch allowed the RAF to recuperate and that recuperation kept the RAF alive. Without air superiority Hitler then decided he could not invade England. Huge mistake by Hitler. The question, was that change of Hitler goals from the RAF to English cities engineered by the British?

It could have been. The failure of the Nazis to crush the British resulted in their eventual defeat.

 

[elektra]

Is it cowardice, nope its just politcs.

 

[eagle1462010]

If our stated goal is to take out ISIS in Iraq, then it will take boots on the ground.

Shit or get off the pot in Iraq.

ISIS beheaded our people in Syria. Pound of flesh and more as needed via air power.

 

[Moonglow]

BAGHDAD —

Iraq’s new prime minister ruled out stationing U.S. ground troops in his country, chiding the international community Wednesday for inaction in Syria and lamenting the “puzzling” exclusion of neighboring Iran from the coalition being assembled to fight the Islamic State group

New Iraq PM says no to U.S. ground troops Japan Today Japan News and Discussion