Yon Reports, Waiting For The MSM Take

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by Annie, Jul 1, 2007.

  1. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    We'll probably be waiting a long time:

    (warning: graphic pictures)

    http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/bless-the-beasts-and-children.htm

     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    *bump* No one has anything to discuss?
     
  3. onedomino
    Offline

    onedomino SCE to AUX

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,677
    Thanks Received:
    474
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Ratings:
    +476
    Yet another Al Qaeda atrocity. ME extremists make the hoards of Ghengis Khan look like missionaries. American and British politicians have chosen to fight the Iraq war to not win; in the same way that America chose not to win in Viet Nam. In VN, we never took the war to the enemy base; we never invaded the North. Instead we occupied the South with a 500,000 man police force. Moreover, we let the enemy get constantly resupplied from outside Viet Nam. We did not attack the external supply lines of the enemy. In Viet Nam, unlike WW2, we never systematically attacked the "civilian" population that supported the enemy. In Viet Nam we were not prepared to be both ruthless and remorseless enough to win. In Iraq, we have fought the enemy everywhere within the country, but we have let the enemy get constantly reinforced and financed from outside Iraq. We have not attacked the external supply lines of the enemy. Instead we have occupied Iraq with a 150,000 man police force. In Iraq, unlike WW2, we have not attacked the “civilian” population that supports the enemy. When it invaded Iraq, America did not understand the degree of ruthlessness and barbarity that characterizes the enemy. Unlike WW2, America has not been willing to pursue the Iraq war with the degree of ruthlessness and savagery necessary to win. The "winning of hearts and minds" is a fantasy that has no meaning in war, unless you want to lose. When Sherman decimated Georgia, he was attacking those that backed up the enemy, he was not concerned with hearts and minds. Defeat was so total, there was no insurgency in 1866. When we firebombed and nuked Japanese cities we were attacking those that backed up the enemy, we were not concerned with hearts and minds. The Japanese defeat was total. As a result, the million man Japanese Army in China surrendered, and there was no insurgency in the home islands. The object of war must be the complete, grinding, crushing defeat of the enemy and those who back him up. Anything less is begging for insurgency and stalemate. And that is just what we got.
     
  4. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    I'd like to think with a larger r'epertoire of experiences, tech tools, and superior forces that we would not be forced to crush civilians. To some degree that is playing out during this latest strategy, the civilians are turning to the stronger side, betraying al qaeda that has been subjugating them.

    However, the administration has been nearly criminally negligent at getting out the story of what has been done there. Few people here actually understand the success and challenges that have been faced. Buckets of ink and hours of airtime have been spent on crimes by a few, yet nearly none on what has been done correctly and for whom. There is a total lack of portraying the enemy in their ruthless reality. Yon has, but how many read his pieces? Roggio has, same problem. Totten too, as well as others. One has to ask, why the MSM has failed so miserably and why?
     
  5. onedomino
    Offline

    onedomino SCE to AUX

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,677
    Thanks Received:
    474
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Ratings:
    +476
    The media has behaved in Iraq the way it always behaves. It has behaved in exactly the same way it did in Viet Nam. It would have behaved the same way in WW2 had it not been strictly controlled. The way that the media has behaved in Iraq should have been expected. Unlike WW2, and similar to Viet Nam, the Iraq war was not fought with the degree of ferocity necessary to win. Name a war where the "civilian" enemy (those who back up the enemy combatants) was not crushed and yet complete victory was still achieved. History is filled with examples of wars where enemy combatants were defeated, yet the outcome was insurgency and/or stalemate: WW1, Korea, Viet Nam, Gulf War, Iraq War, the slow retreat of the British Empire, the French in Algeria, and the list goes on and on. To find examples where war has been won without a resultant insurgency, one must look at examples where the "civilian" backers up have been completely defeated: the American Civil War, WW2 in Europe, WW2 in Asia, the Communists on mainland China. The list is short. I am not referring to the morality of war on civilians. That is another matter. I am referring to who wins wars and why. It is clear that there is a difference between winning in combat and winning in war. A war is not won until the civilian supporters (those that enable the war) have been crushed. "War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over." William T. Sherman. That is the horrible truth about war. It was true in 1864 and it is still true today. If we are not prepared to fight war in the ruthless and savage way that is necessary to win, then we should not go to war in the first place.
     
  6. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/update-on-bless-the-beasts-and-children.htm

     
  7. Larkinn
    Offline

    Larkinn Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,598
    Thanks Received:
    174
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +175
    You bitch and whine about me "defending terrorists" and then you want to commit terrorist atrocities and murder civilians? You want the US to act no better than Hezbollah, even though you hate them so. Pathetic.
     
  8. onedomino
    Offline

    onedomino SCE to AUX

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,677
    Thanks Received:
    474
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Ratings:
    +476
    What is pathetic is the lying hostility contained in your post. Where did I say that I wanted war conducted like a terrorist, assbreath? The implication of your "murder civilians" comment is that American attacks on enemy cities during WW2 constituted murder. Obviously false. What is the meaning of the word "civilian," when those described with that word support and finance enemy combatants? My comments in the posts above were about what countries have avoided insurgencies and/or stalemates and why. I outlined a comparison between Iraq and Viet Nam, and why America did not eliminate the enemy insurgency in both cases. Then pointed out conflicts where insurgencies were avoided. Any fool, even someone as slow as you Larkinn, can observe that insurgencies were avoided when conflict resulted in the defeat of "civilians" that backed up enemy combatants. Moreover, fewer real civilian casualties result when the "civilian" supporters and financiers of a conflict are defeated, compared to those conflicts where long-term insurgencies develop. You have a real reading comprehension problem. What part of this sentence do you not understand:

     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. Larkinn
    Offline

    Larkinn Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,598
    Thanks Received:
    174
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +175
    Obviously false? No, sorry. The firebombings of civilian populations and the nuclear blasts were both murder.

    Considering almost everyone in America supports and funds our troops, does that mean that we are not civilians? With this idiotic logic 9/11 was not a crime against civilians, but this new term that you haven't specified yet.

    Regardless of what actually happens in the different scenarios, the fact remains that you are now advocating killing civilians, hence making you advocating terrorism.

    [/quote]

    Errr no. How many people civilians died in Dresden (just one city) vs, how many died in Iraq?

    And why the hell are you asking me what part of a sentence I don't understand when this is the first time you posted it? Posting new information and then demanding to know what I don't understand before I even have a chance to respond? What the hell is wrong with you.

    Murder can sometimes be justified, as it was in WWII. Then the situation was fairly desperate. Most of the major powers were at war, and the situation was...well grim. Tens of millions of people died in those battles, the cruelty was a necessary evil.

    Now? Iraq is a piddling ME country with barely any power. We are fighting an insurgency there. We don't need to crush them completely, its not worth the massive human loss of life, and frankly its incredibly stupid. Times have changed. We live in a more globalized world. We crush the Iraqi insurgency cruelly and inhumanely and we give reason for people across the Arab and Muslim world to join AQ.
     
  10. RetiredGySgt
    Online

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,590
    Thanks Received:
    5,908
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +9,017
    grrrrrrrr I dont know why it didnt quote right, the following is Larkin....
    His ends here....

    An outright LIE. Neither the bombing campaign nor the use of the two A Bombs was murder, nor criminal. You and those that claim so 60 years after the fact are ignorant of the conditions, the mores and the reasoning for the bombing and the Atomic weapons. I will grant that it MIGHT be possible Dresden was not necassary. But it was a legit target and was bombed for military reasons.

    Using your logic, machine guns are criminal as are grenades, artillery and any naval or airstrike.

    The atomic bombs are the easiest of all to defend if you were a sane person. But your obviously one of those crackpots that buys into the conspiracy theory that we bombed them to scare the Soviets.

    There is NOT ONE shred of credible evidence that PRIOR to the surrender of Japan and our gaining access to their documents and records ANYONE in a position of command on the Allied side had any idea that Japan would surrender out right before we invaded and slaughtered most of the Japanese population.

    Read up on Saipan and Okinawa and the conduct of the military of Japan through out the war. Then read up on the KNOWN war plans of the Japanese to defend the home Islands.

    The Japanese civilian population chose suicide to surrender in every location we encountered them on the ground. In Okinawa the Japanese army forceable chose death for Okinawans that wouldn't commit suicide that they had control over.

    The Japanese military did not surrender, or rather so few did that for all intents and purposes there was no reason to expect them to quit no matter the odds.

    Japan was run by the Military. Even after the Emperor, a man they considered a God, made the decision to surrender , after two Atomic Bombs, the Japanese Military tried to prevent his surrender.

    The projected losses in the planned invasion of ONE of the home Islands was a MILLION allied ( mostly americans) troops, with 1 to 2 hundred thousand being killed. It was, based on the previous experience of Saipan and Okinawa and the plans for use of civilians armed with bamboo spears, believed that the Japanese race could be in danger of being eliminated. At the least MILLIONS of civilians would die.

    Truman agonized over the use of the Bomb ( and in fact he never ordered the second, but left it to the military) And NO ONE knew the consequences of the radiation after the use of the bombs. Both targets were legit military targets. Ports and Army headquarters used to raise Armies to resist the invasion.

    A little history lesson may help as long as you don't buy into the revisionist history that somehow the Allies were the bad guys in WW2.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page