The left does not allow us to fight properly !!

[bodecea]

215 in the House 48 in the Senate.

How many Republicans voted against the Iraq War?

Why are asking the question I already answered?

AGAINST....not FOR

 

[Flopper]

properly fighting a war means to break the enemies will !!! not just their military but their populace as a whole ... we have not accomplished this since WW2 !!! the reason is very simple .....the political left !!! name an instance that the left has rallied around our troops and our country in a time of war in the past 50 yrs !!! they protest ,march,boycott,and rally in sympathy on behalf of our enemies example [Jane Fonda ] .... with the political clout the leftist carry our leaders are afraid to do what needs to be done against our enemies !!! and now with the UN [whom the lefties love ] dictating what we can and cannot do in a time of war we are fighting with one hand tied behind our backs !!! if we would have been allowed to wage the 2 wars we are currently involved in like we did in WW2 our troops would have come home yrs ago !!

The wars of the 20th century were or at least were perceived to be a fight for survival of the nation. We fought nations not bands of terrorist and insurgences. In WWII, the enemy was clearly defined. In today's war, the enemy is mixed into the general population. The Taliban is estimated to have only a few thousand actual fighters in a country of 40 million. Attacking the civil population would turn the thing into a Vietnam.

It's a different kind of war and one we should not be in.

 

[Full-Auto]

properly fighting a war means to break the enemies will !!! not just their military but their populace as a whole ... we have not accomplished this since WW2 !!! the reason is very simple .....the political left !!! name an instance that the left has rallied around our troops and our country in a time of war in the past 50 yrs !!! they protest ,march,boycott,and rally in sympathy on behalf of our enemies example [Jane Fonda ] .... with the political clout the leftist carry our leaders are afraid to do what needs to be done against our enemies !!! and now with the UN [whom the lefties love ] dictating what we can and cannot do in a time of war we are fighting with one hand tied behind our backs !!! if we would have been allowed to wage the 2 wars we are currently involved in like we did in WW2 our troops would have come home yrs ago !!

In all fairness the repubs bought into the notion. Gw and his nation building is BS. The only choices we now face at elections are dem or dem light.

 

[Flopper]

I've made the same argument many times. 67 years ago, we beat 2 enemies into submission. We killed thousands of troops, but hundreds of thousands of civilians. They were completely demoralized, both militarily and domestically. Now we wage war casually, without conviction or fortitude. We avoid "collateral damage" like the plague.

All killing Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters does is breed more fighters.

If you're going to start a war, be ready to finish it. Completely destroy cities, kill thousands of people. Destroy their infrastructure and if necessary, turn deserts to glass.

Yes it's cruel, cold, horrible even. War is SUPPOSED to be horrible! The mere thought of going to war should terrify us, but it should terrify those that would attack us, even more.

You could completely destroy the cities, kill thousands of people, destroy their infrastructure and still the Taliban would still be there because they are a very small part of the population. The major effect of attacking the civil population would be to increase the number terrorists.

 

[Cowman]

I've made the same argument many times. 67 years ago, we beat 2 enemies into submission. We killed thousands of troops, but hundreds of thousands of civilians. They were completely demoralized, both militarily and domestically. Now we wage war casually, without conviction or fortitude. We avoid "collateral damage" like the plague.

All killing Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters does is breed more fighters.

If you're going to start a war, be ready to finish it. Completely destroy cities, kill thousands of people. Destroy their infrastructure and if necessary, turn deserts to glass.

Yes it's cruel, cold, horrible even. War is SUPPOSED to be horrible! The mere thought of going to war should terrify us, but it should terrify those that would attack us, even more.

Mmmm mmm, nothing like hundreds of thousands of dead civilians to get your patriotic dick ROCK HARD.

 

[Ernie S.]

Anyone remember the post-war occupations of those countries we bombed flat?

Any one notice how we get along with them now? How about Viet Nam?
We didn't beat Viet Nam, we turned and ran. , We settled for a draw in Korea and now the North hates us and the South stands with us. The first time we went to the Gulf, we didn't get the job done and 10 years later, we were right back where we started.
I'm not a fan of war and hope we avoid it at all costs, but when it becomes necessary, we must win decisively.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The wars of the 20th century were or at least were perceived to be a fight for survival of the nation. We fought nations not bands of terrorist and insurgences. In WWII, the enemy was clearly defined. In today's war, the enemy is mixed into the general population. The Taliban is estimated to have only a few thousand actual fighters in a country of 40 million. Attacking the civil population would turn the thing into a Vietnam.

It's a different kind of war and one we should not be in.

Or at least a situation ill-suited for conventional military tactics.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

properly fighting a war means to break the enemies will !!!

Ronald Reagan

Shortly after the barracks bombing, American president Ronald Reagan appointed a military fact-finding committee headed by retired Admiral Robert L. J. Long to investigate the bombing.

There was no serious retaliation for the Beirut bombing from the Americans

1983 Beirut barracks bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Ernie S.]

properly fighting a war means to break the enemies will !!! not just their military but their populace as a whole ... we have not accomplished this since WW2 !!! the reason is very simple .....the political left !!! name an instance that the left has rallied around our troops and our country in a time of war in the past 50 yrs !!! they protest ,march,boycott,and rally in sympathy on behalf of our enemies example [Jane Fonda ] .... with the political clout the leftist carry our leaders are afraid to do what needs to be done against our enemies !!! and now with the UN [whom the lefties love ] dictating what we can and cannot do in a time of war we are fighting with one hand tied behind our backs !!! if we would have been allowed to wage the 2 wars we are currently involved in like we did in WW2 our troops would have come home yrs ago !!

The wars of the 20th century were or at least were perceived to be a fight for survival of the nation. We fought nations not bands of terrorist and insurgences. In WWII, the enemy was clearly defined. In today's war, the enemy is mixed into the general population. The Taliban is estimated to have only a few thousand actual fighters in a country of 40 million. Attacking the civil population would turn the thing into a Vietnam.

It's a different kind of war and one we should not be in.

I don't really disagree with you, but suspect we see what war should be, once started, differently. Had we gone ahead in Korea and Viet Nam and finished what we started, no half assed dictator like Sadam Hussein or terrorist like Osama bin Laden would have fucked with us.

I'm almost resigned to the fact that the world needs an all out war every couple of generations lest we forget how horrible war is.

The problem is, today war is so sanitized that it is not nearly as horrible as it should be. Wars should end with the looser spending a generation burying their dead and digging out from under the rubble, keeping fresh for them the memory of their failure, and by example, showing the world that the victor is not to be fucked with.

 

[Ernie S.]

I've made the same argument many times. 67 years ago, we beat 2 enemies into submission. We killed thousands of troops, but hundreds of thousands of civilians. They were completely demoralized, both militarily and domestically. Now we wage war casually, without conviction or fortitude. We avoid "collateral damage" like the plague.

All killing Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters does is breed more fighters.

If you're going to start a war, be ready to finish it. Completely destroy cities, kill thousands of people. Destroy their infrastructure and if necessary, turn deserts to glass.

Yes it's cruel, cold, horrible even. War is SUPPOSED to be horrible! The mere thought of going to war should terrify us, but it should terrify those that would attack us, even more.

You could completely destroy the cities, kill thousands of people, destroy their infrastructure and still the Taliban would still be there because they are a very small part of the population. The major effect of attacking the civil population would be to increase the number terrorists.

At that point the civilians would actively seek out and neutralize those that wanted to carry on.

 

[Ernie S.]

I've made the same argument many times. 67 years ago, we beat 2 enemies into submission. We killed thousands of troops, but hundreds of thousands of civilians. They were completely demoralized, both militarily and domestically. Now we wage war casually, without conviction or fortitude. We avoid "collateral damage" like the plague.

All killing Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters does is breed more fighters.

If you're going to start a war, be ready to finish it. Completely destroy cities, kill thousands of people. Destroy their infrastructure and if necessary, turn deserts to glass.

Yes it's cruel, cold, horrible even. War is SUPPOSED to be horrible! The mere thought of going to war should terrify us, but it should terrify those that would attack us, even more.

Mmmm mmm, nothing like hundreds of thousands of dead civilians to get your patriotic dick ROCK HARD.

You miss my point entirely. War should be horrible. The mere thought of waging it should terrify everyone. My point is, we've sanitized war to where it is almost an acceptable alternative to diplomacy. I have no desire to wipe out large portions of any culture or civilian population. I desire for there never to be any doubt that attacking the United States will be met with the most strenuous retaliation possible.

 

[Cowman]

I've made the same argument many times. 67 years ago, we beat 2 enemies into submission. We killed thousands of troops, but hundreds of thousands of civilians. They were completely demoralized, both militarily and domestically. Now we wage war casually, without conviction or fortitude. We avoid "collateral damage" like the plague.

All killing Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters does is breed more fighters.

If you're going to start a war, be ready to finish it. Completely destroy cities, kill thousands of people. Destroy their infrastructure and if necessary, turn deserts to glass.

Yes it's cruel, cold, horrible even. War is SUPPOSED to be horrible! The mere thought of going to war should terrify us, but it should terrify those that would attack us, even more.

You could completely destroy the cities, kill thousands of people, destroy their infrastructure and still the Taliban would still be there because they are a very small part of the population. The major effect of attacking the civil population would be to increase the number terrorists.

At that point the civilians would actively seek out and neutralize those that wanted to carry on.

How the fuck can you prove that. You think the bombed to fuck civilians would stand a chance against the fucking militants that our own military can't vanquish and that numerous civilizations in the past couldn't hope to conquer?

I just think you get your jollies off over the prospect of bombing civilians.

You sick fuck.

 

[Cowman]

I've made the same argument many times. 67 years ago, we beat 2 enemies into submission. We killed thousands of troops, but hundreds of thousands of civilians. They were completely demoralized, both militarily and domestically. Now we wage war casually, without conviction or fortitude. We avoid "collateral damage" like the plague.

All killing Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters does is breed more fighters.

If you're going to start a war, be ready to finish it. Completely destroy cities, kill thousands of people. Destroy their infrastructure and if necessary, turn deserts to glass.

Yes it's cruel, cold, horrible even. War is SUPPOSED to be horrible! The mere thought of going to war should terrify us, but it should terrify those that would attack us, even more.

Mmmm mmm, nothing like hundreds of thousands of dead civilians to get your patriotic dick ROCK HARD.

You miss my point entirely. War should be horrible. The mere thought of waging it should terrify everyone. My point is, we've sanitized war to where it is almost an acceptable alternative to diplomacy. I have no desire to wipe out large portions of any culture or civilian population. I desire for there never to be any doubt that attacking the United States will be met with the most strenuous retaliation possible.

Bitch please, war hasn't changed very much in millenia. The only thing that has changed is the weapons of destruction that allows one group to kill a shitload more of another group. War doesn't and has never terrified warriors. Nations have gone to war since time immemorial, and it's the civilians that have to deal with it.

War isn't sanitized, it's just people like you who like to be shielded from the realities of war and like to justify it because they don't have to see the front lines. They don't want to think about the bodies of both enemies and friendly alike. They just want to think about the end result.

 

[MikeK]

properly fighting a war means to break the enemies will !!! not just their military but their populace as a whole ... we have not accomplished this since WW2 !!! the reason is very simple .....the political left !!! name an instance that the left has rallied around our troops and our country in a time of war in the past 50 yrs !!! they protest ,march,boycott,and rally in sympathy on behalf of our enemies example [Jane Fonda ] .... with the political clout the leftist carry our leaders are afraid to do what needs to be done against our enemies !!! and now with the UN [whom the lefties love ] dictating what we can and cannot do in a time of war we are fighting with one hand tied behind our backs !!! if we would have been allowed to wage the 2 wars we are currently involved in like we did in WW2 our troops would have come home yrs ago !!

When in the past 50 years has the U.S. been at war?

While our de facto rulers propagate, via a network of media propagandists, the idea that our Country is almost always at "war," that notion is readily absorbed by the receptive minds of war-loving zealots and impressionable minions. But the fact is the U.S. hasn't been at war since 1945. Nor has the U.S. been the focus of any relatively signigicant "enemies."

What the U.S. has engaged in, from the Korean "conflict" to the present debacle in Afghanistan, is a series of aggressive military adventures the only real beneficiaries of which have been the the corporate oligarchs, mainly the Military Industrial Complex, which departing President Dwight Eisenhower solemnly warned us to beware of. The fact that we almost constantly have troops fighting and dying in foreign countries and oppressing their peoples simply reflects an expedient but important necessity of maintaining an Empire. In that regard, as well as a few others, we are little different from Ancient Rome.

I wonder just how far that comparison will follow.

 

[MikeK]

That is precisely why the mere threat of war would keep the peace. No one wanted to go there. Now countries benefit because we are such wussies and play games and our own government speaks out against our troops. Sad when you can tell the far left is against the US and sympathetic towards the enemy.


[...]

Specifically who is this "enemy" you speak of? How do we recognize them? What uniform do they wear? What language do they speak? What government do they represent? Most important, why are we fighting them?

I'm not being smart-ass. These are serious questions which I would like you to answer.

 

[MikeK]

Anyone remember the post-war occupations of those countries we bombed flat?

****************************************
No, nor have read of any. And who "protested" Korea?

That's a very good question. It's been hanging in the air and I'm glad you asked.

The actions of our military forces during WW-II had left the American people with a kind of hangover from the glorious pride and sense of justice in that victory. So when the government saw fit to send troops to Korea to resist the advance of communism, while only one out of every ten thousand Americans had the slightest idea of what communism was or why we should be concerned about it, we were still hung over with pride and trust in our government -- even though we didn't know why. Simply stated, we were comparatively innocent and naive back then and we just went along.

My father fought the Japanese on Guadalcanal. His unit was one of those that relieved the Marines on that island and he always spoke with great respect and reverence for them. Which is why I chose to join the Marine Corps in 1956 rather than be drafted into the Army. I was so affected by the patriotic hangover from our WW-II glory it never entered my mind that our government would send us into harm's way for any reason but expedient defense of the Nation.

I was separated from the Corps in 1960. My inactive reserve obligation was completed in 1962, so luckily I couldn't be called back for service in Vietnam. And by the time that debacle started heating up I had learned enough to be thoroughly and painfully disillusioned by what I painfully perceived as an incredibly wasteful and unnecessary action by a corrupt and incompetent government. I became an active protester of the Vietnam debacle in the mid-60s and have been increasingly distrustful of and critical of our government ever since.

So the short-form answer to your question is; almost nobody protested the Korea "conflict" because most of us were politically ignorant and blinded by prideful innocence.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Conservative hero ..

properly fighting a war means to break the enemies will !!!

Ronald Reagan

Shortly after the barracks bombing, American president Ronald Reagan appointed a military fact-finding committee headed by retired Admiral Robert L. J. Long to investigate the bombing.

There was no serious retaliation for the Beirut bombing from the Americans

1983 Beirut barracks bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Flopper]

I've made the same argument many times. 67 years ago, we beat 2 enemies into submission. We killed thousands of troops, but hundreds of thousands of civilians. They were completely demoralized, both militarily and domestically. Now we wage war casually, without conviction or fortitude. We avoid "collateral damage" like the plague.

All killing Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters does is breed more fighters.

If you're going to start a war, be ready to finish it. Completely destroy cities, kill thousands of people. Destroy their infrastructure and if necessary, turn deserts to glass.

Yes it's cruel, cold, horrible even. War is SUPPOSED to be horrible! The mere thought of going to war should terrify us, but it should terrify those that would attack us, even more.

You could completely destroy the cities, kill thousands of people, destroy their infrastructure and still the Taliban would still be there because they are a very small part of the population. The major effect of attacking the civil population would be to increase the number terrorists.

At that point the civilians would actively seek out and neutralize those that wanted to carry on.

Possibly in a few areas it might work but for the most part, I think it would have a negative effect creating insurgents groups who have little liking for the Taliban but who hate the American invaders. Only about 1 in every 10,000 civilians is a Taliban fighter.

Unlike wars of the 20th century, the primary consideration is not accomplishing the military objective but rather avoiding deaths both military and civilian. When a military campaign is conducted in this manner, it can drag on for many years. It could even last decades as long as lost of life is relatively low and the commitment of resources don't require any major sacrifice from most of the country. There are a lot more people who die from falls in their bathroom than soldiers that die in Afghanistan. Wars today extracts a huge cost on a relative small part of the population. Most people would not even know a war was in progress, if it wasn't in the news.

 

[FA_Q2]

Anyone remember the post-war occupations of those countries we bombed flat?

****************************************
No, nor have read of any. And who "protested" Korea?

That's a very good question. It's been hanging in the air and I'm glad you asked.

The actions of our military forces during WW-II had left the American people with a kind of hangover from the glorious pride and sense of justice in that victory. So when the government saw fit to send troops to Korea to resist the advance of communism, while only one out of every ten thousand Americans had the slightest idea of what communism was or why we should be concerned about it, we were still hung over with pride and trust in our government -- even though we didn't know why. Simply stated, we were comparatively innocent and naive back then and we just went along.

My father fought the Japanese on Guadalcanal. His unit was one of those that relieved the Marines on that island and he always spoke with great respect and reverence for them. Which is why I chose to join the Marine Corps in 1956 rather than be drafted into the Army. I was so affected by the patriotic hangover from our WW-II glory it never entered my mind that our government would send us into harm's way for any reason but expedient defense of the Nation.

I was separated from the Corps in 1960. My inactive reserve obligation was completed in 1962, so luckily I couldn't be called back for service in Vietnam. And by the time that debacle started heating up I had learned enough to be thoroughly and painfully disillusioned by what I painfully perceived as an incredibly wasteful and unnecessary action by a corrupt and incompetent government. I became an active protester of the Vietnam debacle in the mid-60s and have been increasingly distrustful of and critical of our government ever since.

So the short-form answer to your question is; almost nobody protested the Korea "conflict" because most of us were politically ignorant and blinded by prideful innocence.

Good post. The underlined portion should ALWAYS be the default position when the government begins to look at going to war. Such a thing should always be a last resort.

You could completely destroy the cities, kill thousands of people, destroy their infrastructure and still the Taliban would still be there because they are a very small part of the population. The major effect of attacking the civil population would be to increase the number terrorists.

At that point the civilians would actively seek out and neutralize those that wanted to carry on.

Possibly in a few areas it might work but for the most part, I think it would have a negative effect creating insurgents groups who have little liking for the Taliban but who hate the American invaders. Only about 1 in every 10,000 civilians is a Taliban fighter.

Unlike wars of the 20th century, the primary consideration is not accomplishing the military objective but rather avoiding deaths both military and civilian. When a military campaign is conducted in this manner, it can drag on for many years. It could even last decades as long as lost of life is relatively low and the commitment of resources don't require any major sacrifice from most of the country. There are a lot more people who die from falls in their bathroom than soldiers that die in Afghanistan. Wars today extracts a huge cost on a relative small part of the population. Most people would not even know a war was in progress, if it wasn't in the news.

This is part of the problem and one of the points that I think the OP was getting at though he is misguided by the idea that the problem is being too careful with civilian casualties, an asinine idea if you ask me. We do have a problem with muzzling the military out of fear though and when we do go to war we need to commit fully and not play games like we have been doing (not sending enough troops, the correct equipment, playing political games with local forces ect).

The greatest problem here is what you touched on though - most people do not even know that we are in war. It was what made me uneasy when we started the Afghanistan war - our casualties were near zero. The general public looked at that and considered it normal when, in fact, it was just because we were not actually fighting but paying others to fight for us. Then when Iraq came around people were not afraid of what a real war actually entails. War is ugly and people here tend to want to jump into far far FAR too easily. Just as bad is the publics whimsical attitude that it takes in wanting to end conflict before we have finished the job.

 

[regent]

properly fighting a war means to break the enemies will !!! not just their military but their populace as a whole ... we have not accomplished this since WW2 !!! the reason is very simple .....the political left !!! name an instance that the left has rallied around our troops and our country in a time of war in the past 50 yrs !!! they protest ,march,boycott,and rally in sympathy on behalf of our enemies example [Jane Fonda ] .... with the political clout the leftist carry our leaders are afraid to do what needs to be done against our enemies !!! and now with the UN [whom the lefties love ] dictating what we can and cannot do in a time of war we are fighting with one hand tied behind our backs !!! if we would have been allowed to wage the 2 wars we are currently involved in like we did in WW2 our troops would have come home yrs ago !!

Is America at war, has Congress declared war? The answer is no. We are involved in a military engagement or call it what you like but America has probably been in hundreds or so of these military engagements with no declared war. Our engagements against the American Indians was largely by military engagement, our escapades in Nicarauga and other Central American nations were military engagements. Korea, Kosovo and all the rest were military engagements, we are not in a declared war. This is not WWII, but more of a sort of pointless, who knows why were there, thing. I would also remind you that WWII was fought under a Democratic administration, and probably the majority of the enlisted men fighting that war were Democratic.