Kick Ass vs Pussy Wars

[alan1]

War is not won by declaring victory. It is won when one party admits defeat.
There are only a few ways to make them admit defeat, that is to either destroy their ability to continue fighting (killing people and/or destroying resources), destroy their will to fight (usually by killing people), or scare them so badly that they fear they will all be killed if they continue.
The way to win is to be brutal, cold and vicious. You have to be willing to use whatever means necessary to win, then do it.

But when it comes to some societies, they don't care about their civilians, they don't care about their infrastructure, they don't care about anything. Those cultures have nothing to lose and therefore you can never defeat them.

Sounds like you have a defeatist attitude, you'd make a lousy tin-pot dictator or super-power head of state.

 

[Diuretic]

War is not won by declaring victory. It is won when one party admits defeat.
There are only a few ways to make them admit defeat, that is to either destroy their ability to continue fighting (killing people and/or destroying resources), destroy their will to fight (usually by killing people), or scare them so badly that they fear they will all be killed if they continue.
The way to win is to be brutal, cold and vicious. You have to be willing to use whatever means necessary to win, then do it.

But when it comes to some societies, they don't care about their civilians, they don't care about their infrastructure, they don't care about anything. Those cultures have nothing to lose and therefore you can never defeat them.

Sounds like you have a defeatist attitude, you'd make a lousy tin-pot dictator or super-power head of state.

I think it's a pretty realistic assessment of "some" societies. Sparta comes to mind.

 

[alan1]

But when it comes to some societies, they don't care about their civilians, they don't care about their infrastructure, they don't care about anything. Those cultures have nothing to lose and therefore you can never defeat them.

Sounds like you have a defeatist attitude, you'd make a lousy tin-pot dictator or super-power head of state.

I think it's a pretty realistic assessment of "some" societies. Sparta comes to mind.

Does Sparta still exist?

 

[Diuretic]

Sounds like you have a defeatist attitude, you'd make a lousy tin-pot dictator or super-power head of state.

I think it's a pretty realistic assessment of "some" societies. Sparta comes to mind.

Does Sparta still exist?

Not any longer, well the site does but the society doesn't. There's a Hellenic Republic in Greece now.

And there's a republic in Italy too (that's where Rome is and where the heart of the Roman Empire was located).

 

[alan1]

I think it's a pretty realistic assessment of "some" societies. Sparta comes to mind.

Does Sparta still exist?

Not any longer, well the site does but the society doesn't. There's a Hellenic Republic in Greece now.

And there's a republic in Italy too (that's where Rome is and where the heart of the Roman Empire was located).

Then that thought process didn't work out to well for them, did it?

 

[Diuretic]

Does Sparta still exist?

Not any longer, well the site does but the society doesn't. There's a Hellenic Republic in Greece now.

And there's a republic in Italy too (that's where Rome is and where the heart of the Roman Empire was located).

Then that thought process didn't work out to well for them, did it?

Nothing lasts forever

Sparta was a society totally dedicated to militarism, almost a proto-fascist state. That didn't ensure its existence. Same for Rome. So there's not much point in Lumpy's wishes for the US to (apparently) embrace the concept of total war as did Sparta and Rome (among others). It's no guarantee of longevity.

 

[alan1]

Not any longer, well the site does but the society doesn't. There's a Hellenic Republic in Greece now.

And there's a republic in Italy too (that's where Rome is and where the heart of the Roman Empire was located).

Then that thought process didn't work out to well for them, did it?

Nothing lasts forever

Sparta was a society totally dedicated to militarism, almost a proto-fascist state. That didn't ensure its existence. Same for Rome. So there's not much point in Lumpy's wishes for the US to (apparently) embrace the concept of total war as did Sparta and Rome (among others). It's no guarantee of longevity.

Maybe I misunderstood Lumpy. I thought it was more about once a war is declared and military action was being used that you should wage "total war". Not that he was suggesting the US become a "total war" state, dedicated to war.
Maybe he can expound on that and clear up any confusion on either my part or yours.

 

[dilloduck]

I think it's about time America started kicking some ass around the world. Stop this politically correct BS and put some fear in our enemies and so-called friends. I say leave war to the military and let the politicians and historians piss and moan later.

I'm no military strategist, obviously but it seems to me that when politicians, lawyers, foreign countries and the peace niks get involved in setting U.S. military policy, more of our brave and honored soldiers end up injured and dead and wars seem an endless dribble of wasted money and lives.

So, I say if the military set the strategy of winning in the shortest possible amount of time, with least amount of military casualties. If that involved the death of innocent civilians, loss of cherished artifacts and so for forth, tough shit.

Clinton's no hero of mine but the War in Kosovo and the NATO method of bombing from March 22nd to June 11 1999 and breaking some politically correct eggs along the way was a step in the right direction.

Afghanistan/ Pakistan seems like a good place to start. Also, if countries like Germany, France and so forth are just over there to twiddle there thumbs, send them home in the disgrace they deserve.....

Ok that's off my chest....

Nice vent
Wiping the out the enemy is so much easier to IMAGINE than trying to figure to how to get all off their money.

 

[Gunny]

I think it's about time America started kicking some ass around the world. Stop this politically correct BS and put some fear in our enemies and so-called friends. I say leave war to the military and let the politicians and historians piss and moan later.

I'm no military strategist, obviously but it seems to me that when politicians, lawyers, foreign countries and the peace niks get involved in setting U.S. military policy, more of our brave and honored soldiers end up injured and dead and wars seem an endless dribble of wasted money and lives.

So, I say if the military set the strategy of winning in the shortest possible amount of time, with least amount of military casualties. If that involved the death of innocent civilians, loss of cherished artifacts and so for forth, tough shit.

Clinton's no hero of mine but the War in Kosovo and the NATO method of bombing from March 22nd to June 11 1999 and breaking some politically correct eggs along the way was a step in the right direction.

Afghanistan/ Pakistan seems like a good place to start. Also, if countries like Germany, France and so forth are just over there to twiddle there thumbs, send them home in the disgrace they deserve.....

Ok that's off my chest....

Did you miss the news? The pussies are in control. They couldn't win with their pansy-ass attitudes if the enemy laid down before them. They'd STILL surrender.

 

[Diuretic]

Then that thought process didn't work out to well for them, did it?

Nothing lasts forever

Sparta was a society totally dedicated to militarism, almost a proto-fascist state. That didn't ensure its existence. Same for Rome. So there's not much point in Lumpy's wishes for the US to (apparently) embrace the concept of total war as did Sparta and Rome (among others). It's no guarantee of longevity.

Maybe I misunderstood Lumpy. I thought it was more about once a war is declared and military action was being used that you should wage "total war". Not that he was suggesting the US become a "total war" state, dedicated to war.
Maybe he can expound on that and clear up any confusion on either my part or yours.

No doubt you're right. It's entirely possible that a state can return to being a liberal democracy while engaging in total war, happened during WWII I would think, but it would have to temporarily, at least, change into something approaching Sparta (just as an exemplar) to be able to engage in total war. And I doubt whether it's possible for any nation to wage total war, which is what I think - and I hope I gave Lumpy the benefit of the doubt - Lumpy was aiming at.

Lumpy - and again sorry to refer to a poster in the third person - advocated in the OP to have the military control the war in Afghanistan. That, with all due respect, as I said before, treats war as an end and not a means. My point was that war can never be removed from political control because it is a political act. The military is just an instrument used to wage war.

 

[Gunny]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiVGozLPazM&feature=PlayList&p=93937066974FDCFC&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=64]YouTube - Elvis Presley - Love Me Tender (Live)[/ame]

 

[Toome]

The nature of warfare has certainly changed, and it's difficult for old dogs like me to accept. Back in the "good ol' days," wars were pretty black and white and a matter of one nation aggressively attacking another with the intent of taking over the geography of the attacked nation. The only recent example of this was Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. Otherwise, the reality of 21st century warfare is that it is much more subtle and complex than one nation simply attacking another. Instead of sophisticated weaponry to wage age-old territorial domination of weaker nations, the irony is that 21st century warfare is largely based on racial, tribal, religious, and/or cultural disagreements rather than nation-sponsored attacks aimed at taking over terrain.

Terrorism adds a new aspect. We attacked Afghanistan not because its government attacked the United States but because the Taliban government did nothing to stop al Qai'da before the attacks and certainly did nothing to help the US after the attacks. The Taliban government was guilty of an act of omission rather than an act of commission. We attacked Iraq based on the speculation that Iraq would become another Taliban in the sense of allowing terrorists to organize and plan an attack using WMD ostensibly hidden from UN inspectors.

Having said that, how do modern nations wage wars against these threats? There is no infrastructure to attack such as the industrial centers of Nazi Germany or Imperialist Japan. There are no military installations or forces to attack such as the Wehrmacht or Luftwaffe or various Japanese strongholds such as Iwo Jima or Battle of Midway.

It's not a matter of being politically correct as much as it is in figuring out who really is the enemy that needs to be killed.

We first learned about that in a place called Vietnam. Unfortunately, we keep repeating the same mistakes.

 

[Gunny]

Need to change our name to "The United States of Pussy-Ass France".

 

[Diuretic]

Need to change our name to "The United States of Pussy-Ass France".

Then you could have a Foreign Legion

 

[dilloduck]

The nature of warfare has certainly changed, and it's difficult for old dogs like me to accept. Back in the "good ol' days," wars were pretty black and white and a matter of one nation aggressively attacking another with the intent of taking over the geography of the attacked nation. The only recent example of this was Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. Otherwise, the reality of 21st century warfare is that it is much more subtle and complex than one nation simply attacking another. Instead of sophisticated weaponry to wage age-old territorial domination of weaker nations, the irony is that 21st century warfare is largely based on racial, tribal, religious, and/or cultural disagreements rather than nation-sponsored attacks aimed at taking over terrain.

Terrorism adds a new aspect. We attacked Afghanistan not because its government attacked the United States but because the Taliban government did nothing to stop al Qai'da before the attacks and certainly did nothing to help the US after the attacks. The Taliban government was guilty of an act of omission rather than an act of commission. We attacked Iraq based on the speculation that Iraq would become another Taliban in the sense of allowing terrorists to organize and plan an attack using WMD ostensibly hidden from UN inspectors.

Having said that, how do modern nations wage wars against these threats? There is no infrastructure to attack such as the industrial centers of Nazi Germany or Imperialist Japan. There are no military installations or forces to attack such as the Wehrmacht or Luftwaffe or various Japanese strongholds such as Iwo Jima or Battle of Midway.

It's not a matter of being politically correct as much as it is in figuring out who really is the enemy that needs to be killed.

We first learned about that in a place called Vietnam. Unfortunately, we keep repeating the same mistakes.

Any good recommendations for fighting an ideology that kills?

 

[Gunny]

Need to change our name to "The United States of Pussy-Ass France".

Then you could have a Foreign Legion

Then we could surrender to the Boy Scouts and have the Girl Scouts come kick their asses and give our country back to us since we can't fight for the MFer ourselves.

 

[Gunny]

The nature of warfare has certainly changed, and it's difficult for old dogs like me to accept. Back in the "good ol' days," wars were pretty black and white and a matter of one nation aggressively attacking another with the intent of taking over the geography of the attacked nation. The only recent example of this was Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. Otherwise, the reality of 21st century warfare is that it is much more subtle and complex than one nation simply attacking another. Instead of sophisticated weaponry to wage age-old territorial domination of weaker nations, the irony is that 21st century warfare is largely based on racial, tribal, religious, and/or cultural disagreements rather than nation-sponsored attacks aimed at taking over terrain.

Terrorism adds a new aspect. We attacked Afghanistan not because its government attacked the United States but because the Taliban government did nothing to stop al Qai'da before the attacks and certainly did nothing to help the US after the attacks. The Taliban government was guilty of an act of omission rather than an act of commission. We attacked Iraq based on the speculation that Iraq would become another Taliban in the sense of allowing terrorists to organize and plan an attack using WMD ostensibly hidden from UN inspectors.

Having said that, how do modern nations wage wars against these threats? There is no infrastructure to attack such as the industrial centers of Nazi Germany or Imperialist Japan. There are no military installations or forces to attack such as the Wehrmacht or Luftwaffe or various Japanese strongholds such as Iwo Jima or Battle of Midway.

It's not a matter of being politically correct as much as it is in figuring out who really is the enemy that needs to be killed.

We first learned about that in a place called Vietnam. Unfortunately, we keep repeating the same mistakes.

Any good recommendations for fighting an ideology that kills?

Yeah. You beat them at their own game by using their tactics on them.

 

[dilloduck]

The nature of warfare has certainly changed, and it's difficult for old dogs like me to accept. Back in the "good ol' days," wars were pretty black and white and a matter of one nation aggressively attacking another with the intent of taking over the geography of the attacked nation. The only recent example of this was Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. Otherwise, the reality of 21st century warfare is that it is much more subtle and complex than one nation simply attacking another. Instead of sophisticated weaponry to wage age-old territorial domination of weaker nations, the irony is that 21st century warfare is largely based on racial, tribal, religious, and/or cultural disagreements rather than nation-sponsored attacks aimed at taking over terrain.

Terrorism adds a new aspect. We attacked Afghanistan not because its government attacked the United States but because the Taliban government did nothing to stop al Qai'da before the attacks and certainly did nothing to help the US after the attacks. The Taliban government was guilty of an act of omission rather than an act of commission. We attacked Iraq based on the speculation that Iraq would become another Taliban in the sense of allowing terrorists to organize and plan an attack using WMD ostensibly hidden from UN inspectors.

Having said that, how do modern nations wage wars against these threats? There is no infrastructure to attack such as the industrial centers of Nazi Germany or Imperialist Japan. There are no military installations or forces to attack such as the Wehrmacht or Luftwaffe or various Japanese strongholds such as Iwo Jima or Battle of Midway.

It's not a matter of being politically correct as much as it is in figuring out who really is the enemy that needs to be killed.

We first learned about that in a place called Vietnam. Unfortunately, we keep repeating the same mistakes.

Any good recommendations for fighting an ideology that kills?

Yeah. You beat them at their own game by using their tactics on them.

Blow up their humvees ?

 

[Gunny]

Any good recommendations for fighting an ideology that kills?

Yeah. You beat them at their own game by using their tactics on them.

Blow up their humvees ?

You terrorize them and their families. You hunt them down like dogs and kill them where found, and fuck collateral damage. When they see you aren't going to play by their rules -- which the pantywaist left forces us to -- they will rethink their strategy. They want to win. Right now, they can play dirty because they know our leftwingnuts won't let us.

War isn't about being morally superior in warfare. It's about having a morally superior cause but fighting to win, no matter what.

 

[Lumpy 1]

It's so easy for people to talk about waging war from in front of their computer screens....

i love chickenhawks... don't you?

Princess, since you don't know me or my family, I'll cut you some slack.

I haven't quite figured out why but I find your your jumps to B ville amusing. Perhaps, It's that I visualize you sliding off that throne, within your ivory tower....Ah yes, red faced and screaming, "Off with Their Heads".....