Sheldon
Senior Member
- Apr 2, 2010
- 5,213
- 1,431
- 48
No, I disagree on Gitmo and thinking Afghanistan is a waste of money. If anything is a waste of money it is not prosecuting the war like he should.
The only problem both Bush and Obama have is trying to fight wars with political correctness.
If we had fought both Iraq and Aghanistan like we did in WWII, not only would these wars be long over, we have more Time life pictures in Time Square of sailors kissing nurses.
PC tactics is what is killing our soldiers and not enough terrorists.
Afghanistan and WW2 are fundamentally different. I have no idea what "fighting wars with political correctness" even means. If you're alluding to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we can't nuke Kabul in the hopes that the Taliban will then sign a formal treaty with us and al-Qaeda will just go away like the kamikaze pilots. It doesn't work like that.
I thought Tea Party people were against the nation-building ideals of neo-conservatism?
Then you thought wrong. I am NOT Ron Paul or Pat Buchanan.
And it's not nation building we are dealing with here, we are fighting terrorism.
What part of 9/11 did you miss?
And I am not talking about nukes either, unless Iran gets the bomb.
But in WWII, we would have not allowed the enemy to hide in churches and mosques and hide behind civilians. We would have routed them out. If civilians got killed, that was the unfortunate tides of war. It's what makes war something to avoid unless necessary.
Just as Pearl Habor made it necessary so did 9/11.
The only reason we were only involved in WWII for three years, while we have been involved in the War on Terror for nine is the PC tactics being forced on the military. The enemy is allowed to hide, regroup and fight again. In WWII, they would have not been allowed such tactics. We would have wiped them out.
It is my contention more civilians get killed by drawing out the war, than would be killed by an all out offensive that would wipe out the enemy once and for all.
Just as in Vietnam, there are too many politicians fighting the war, and not enough generals. As in WWII, the politicians need to butt out and let the generals fight it.
And if we had listened to Patton, we would not have had the Cold War and Eastern Europe would not have had to live 40+ years with death, starvation, torture and oppression. Damn FDR and his Yalta agreement.
Okay, I was just going by your user name, assuming someone in the tea party would be a Ron Paul supporter.
We are nation building. It's been packaged and sold as part of the "War On Terror", that we need to transform this backwards third-world country so it's not a breeding ground for the Islamic radicalism that led to 9/11. But if we somehow turn Afghanistan into a glittering first-world country, the psychos and their ilk will just infest some other area of a different shithole country. They're like a virus, moving from one host to the next.
al-Qaeda and the Taliban, like the VietCong, use hide-and-go-seek guerrilla tactics... something the German army didn't really do. We're not fighting a standing army in a uniform; we're fighting against religiously-fanatic civilians with guns. If we recklessly shoot and kill ANY civilians who just happen to be in the way, that would work counter to the whole "winning hearts and minds" goal which is fundamental to nation building, and would further minimize any possibility of success.
Ultimately, al-Qaeda is an "idea", and ideas can't be beaten on a battlefield.
That's about all I have to say about this, and I'm sure it's all been said before.