ElBlanco wrote:
The Clinton Syndicate...er administration is responsible for nearly emmasuclating (sp?) the military.
No, his administration was responsible for cutting down on wasteful military spending.
Ummm, NOT!! That jerk rammed enough cuts on us while I was in to make us pathetic!! The stuff I needed that I couldn't get...
You're probably talking to someone who has grown up on Clintonite sound bytes.
"Wasteful military spending," hah!
”A Radical is a man with both feet planted firmly in the air.” – Franklin Delano Roosevelt
"No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism." - Sir Winston L. S. Churchill, Princips Britannia
American Conservatism is about the exercise of personal responsibility without state interference in the lives of the citizenry..... unless, of course, it involves using the bludgeon of state power to suppress things Conservatives do not like.
DONALD J. TRUMP IS A SEDITIOUS TRAITOR AND MUST BE IMPEACHED
Well, there is such a thing as wasteful military spending, and yes, it does happen. What Clinton did was kill funding across the board (thus decreasing wasteful military spending as well as useful military spending) and increase the optempo of the military - not a good thing.
From what I've been hearing, a lot of the extra money that the DOD is getting is going to expendible munitions - they were never restocked after the various campaigns during the Clinton Administration.
I thought Afghanistan did have a democratic government before it was overthrown (in the 60's? Can't remember). Places like Iran are not really helped when they're labelled as part of the axis of evil; the conservatives there can say "See, we told you, the US are out to get us. Now let's go and lock up the (comparatively) pro-US moderates and reformers." That makes the moderates less likely to successfully apply democratic reforms, and makes the people less willing to listen to the moderates. As for Saudi Arabia, I guess the government has to appear anti-US to the people or it would be overthrown. I'm not at all sure what value there is in using a dictatorship like that one to further the interests of peace, freedom and democracy (Saudi Arabia is not really a prime example of any of those!). There are plenty of examples where that sort of policy has backfired; Saddam is one of them.
Going back a bit. It would be really nice to think that democracy would work out in Iraq. But unlike Europe, a Marshall plan would have a difficult time working, it requires too much commitment which I don't think the American people would have stomach for. We're talking something like 20 years. And it would never work with neighbors like Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, etc still around. Democratization of Europe worked because fundamentally those were Christian countries, where most of the basic precepts of democracy already had some roots. And besides, there was nothing left of Europe at the end of WWII. Americans were looked on (along with the Soviets) as the saviors.
Today, America is looked on by the rest of the world as a country that everyone wish would just bud out of their business. American intervention in the eye of the rest of the world is an anethema, the Europeans wished America would just go away. Of course, if America never intervened, all of the Persian gulf (except Iran) would be under the thumb of the Iraqis. (Let's face it, without American muscle, the Europeans can't do diddly sqat, they can't even clean up their own backyard: Bosnia, Kosovo, etc, until the Americans got involved) On top of that, the middle east has not suffered the kind of trauma that the Europeans suffered during the first half of the last century, it takes a shock like that to make people realize may be the old ways of doing things weren't so great. Even if Iraq were liberated today, Jeffersonian democracy would be a very difficult thing given the nature of the society itself. (Can anyone honestly imagine the Saudis or Iranians accepting a functional democracy as a neighbor)
Personally, I'd say it's best if America back out of the Persian gulf permanently, lift the sanctions, let them do whatever they want as long as Israel and Jordan (which is at least a democracy in some sense) is secure. If Saddam knew for a fact that America would not come to the aid of the Saudis and the other pathetic gulf states, he would immediately drive to the bottom end of the gulf with whatever he had left. The Europeans can do nothing about it except to accept whatever terms the Iraqis offered them after the drive was over, I figure it would realistically take the Iraqi army in its present state about a couple of months of fighting to secure most of the gulf. All the while, the UN will be pouring on the sanctions, calling for resolutions condemning Iraq, etc, etc, etc.
Of course, none of the above would happen since America and the rest of the world is far too dependent on the oil from the middle east, its like a drug. So, in the end,
BTW, as far as the military is concerned, Iraq as a country is only a big deal as long as the military plays with kiddie gloves on and try to avoid looking bad on CNN and BBC. Otherwise, does anyone honestly believe that it would take anything more than a few weeks to turn Baghdad into a pile of smoldering rubbles with just conventional means. (Don't go into the bloody city, just have B-52s take down every single structure in sight, if they leave the city to fight, slaughter them with airpower and roving ground forces)
Stormy, about the half ass job in Afghanistan... you must know this because you're watching CNN and all of that right. After all, television never lie, if it's on TV, it must be true.
Half ass... hmmm, I presume you must have top secret Pentagon sources or have been talking to the troops on the ground who are saying: "this is a half ass job that we're doing."
0.1 wrote:(Don't go into the bloody city, just have B-52s take down every single structure in sight, if they leave the city to fight, slaughter them with airpower and roving ground forces)
Given the utter stupidity of that statement it is impossible to regard any of your other comments with much more than a very, very large grain of salt.
It is better to remain silent and allow others to believe that one is a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.
It's not my place in life to make people happy. Don't talk to me unless you're prepared to watch me slaughter cows you hold sacred. Don't talk to me unless you're prepared to have your basic assumptions challenged. If you want bunnies in light, talk to someone else.
0.1 wrote:(Don't go into the bloody city, just have B-52s take down every single structure in sight, if they leave the city to fight, slaughter them with airpower and roving ground forces)
Given the utter stupidity of that statement it is impossible to regard any of your other comments with much more than a very, very large grain of salt.
It is better to remain silent and allow others to believe that one is a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.
And just how was it stupid, O Enlightened One?
”A Radical is a man with both feet planted firmly in the air.” – Franklin Delano Roosevelt
"No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism." - Sir Winston L. S. Churchill, Princips Britannia
American Conservatism is about the exercise of personal responsibility without state interference in the lives of the citizenry..... unless, of course, it involves using the bludgeon of state power to suppress things Conservatives do not like.
DONALD J. TRUMP IS A SEDITIOUS TRAITOR AND MUST BE IMPEACHED
Steve wrote:And just how was it stupid, O Enlightened One?
1. The destruction of civilian populations--such as by flattening cities--is a war crime. In the case of Iraq, they're just arabs so I don't have a problem with it, but the law is the law.
2. When faced with a hostile city, the only alternatives to urban warfare are to either lay siege or bypass the city. Bypassing a major city will result in leaving a few thousand+ enemy troops free to harass rear areas. This is bad. Sieges can take years (way, way too long to be workable given US politics) and can be extremely bloody (see: WWII eastern front).
3. The historical record on urban warfare is very clear that reducing buildings to rubble simply gives the enemy more places to hide. This is bad.
Getting the point yet?
It's not my place in life to make people happy. Don't talk to me unless you're prepared to watch me slaughter cows you hold sacred. Don't talk to me unless you're prepared to have your basic assumptions challenged. If you want bunnies in light, talk to someone else.
Hmmm, I think my dear Enlightenment, you need to learn to read. As in, take your own advice, shut the hell up, and read what I wrote. Specifically, I said, IF the military took off the kiddie gloves, Baghdad would be not be a real problem.
Now, let's talk military, Enlightenment since you seem to be such an expert. You bypass Baghdad and what... nothing happens. Get it through your your head, Saddam hides in Baghdad, what do you do, have thousands of casualties slogging through it? You can't bypass it, because it is the damned objective. You lay seige to Baghdad, then what, have CNN pipe out pictures of starving civilians. Great idea. Military tactics is one thing, objective reality is another. You can apply any fatansy scenario you like, but the objective reality is if you go to war in Iraq, expect civilian casualties, expect Baghdad to be the objective. Because Saddam would be an idiot to sit in the middle of the desert shouting: "COME AND KILL ME, HERE I AM."
Let's look at just pure military fact though. If the kiddie gloves came off, Baghdad would be smoking ruins in no time. In history, destruction of cities demoralized populations and there are ample historical precedence for doing these things. During his campaigns in Persia, Genghis Khan essentially told cities, to surrender or die. When the city refused, it died... completely. The shock effect was such that subsequent cities surrendered with significantly less deaths involved. Consider the end of WWII, Nagasaki and Hiroshima were population centers, sure, there was military value there, but that didn't stop anyone right? Do you see anyone on the American/British side get sent up for war crimes for the fire bombing of Dresden?
Speaking of urban warfare, after the place is reduced to rubbles (think Dresden, Hiroshima, etc) what further urban warfare is there. Who the hell is gonna be left fighting over rubble. But let's not get away from a simple point: I said IF the kiddie gloves came off. This is something that would never happen and even an idiot like you must see that.
You do realize the Army and civilian populace will not fight for Saddam once given a better option, right?
You do realize the nuke program isn't to be the new Big Bad Evil Dictator (tm), but to stave off American military might, restore Iraq to a local power, and stave off attempts to launch a coup against his rule.
The Army doesn't want to fight for Saddam, and the people don't want to die for him. There will not be a long, drawn-out siege.
PPOR otherwise.
"You know what the problem with Hollywood is. They make shit. Unbelievable. Unremarkable. Shit." - Gabriel Shear, Swordfish
"This statement, in its utterly clueless hubristic stupidity, cannot be improved upon. I merely quote it in admiration of its perfection." - Garibaldi in reply to an incredibly stupid post.
The Fifth Illuminatus Primus | Warsie | Skeptical Empiricist | Florida Gator | Sustainability Advocate | LibertarianSocialist |
DoD has already made it abundantly clear that should Saddam hide out with his Republican Guard inside Bagdad, there wouldn't be much debate about with regards the cruise missiles and such.
Speaking of urban warfare, after the place is reduced to rubbles (think Dresden, Hiroshima, etc) what further urban warfare is there. Who the hell is gonna be left fighting over rubble. But let's not get away from a simple point: I said IF the kiddie gloves came off. This is something that would never happen and even an idiot like you must see that.
The Russians were pretty fond of their "rubble" in Stalingrad. Dont under estimate a groups willingness to fight. Most of the Iraqi army might not fight, but you never know with the Republican Guard.
DoD has already made it abundantly clear that should Saddam hide out with his Republican Guard inside Bagdad, there wouldn't be much debate about with regards the cruise missiles and such.
Cruise missle wont help to get 4 guys out of a basement. Hopefully any city fighting will be minimized, should it come to combat.
0.1 wrote:You lay seige to Baghdad, then what, have CNN pipe out pictures of starving civilians. Great idea.
And razing the city is going to look any better on al Jezeera?
Do you see anyone on the American/British side get sent up for war crimes for the fire bombing of Dresden?
Given that the modern concept of war crimes stems largely from the aftermath of WWII it's hardly to be expected.
Speaking of urban warfare, after the place is reduced to rubbles (think Dresden, Hiroshima, etc) what further urban warfare is there. Who the hell is gonna be left fighting over rubble.
Read up on the battles of Stalingrad and Berlin. Berlin is about as flat as a city gets without bulldozing every building (which requires putting troops in the city), getting a lucky firestorm, or using nuclear weapons.
It's not my place in life to make people happy. Don't talk to me unless you're prepared to watch me slaughter cows you hold sacred. Don't talk to me unless you're prepared to have your basic assumptions challenged. If you want bunnies in light, talk to someone else.
Darth Wong wrote:He's just been watching too much Star Trek. That's how they demonstrate "leadership" in Star Trek; the captain asks how long it will take, the subordinate says "8 hours", the captain barks "I want it in 4", and everyone looks admiringly at his demonstration of Superior Command Skills.
All thats neded now is some female officer didn't just unzip his pants and give him a blowjob right then and there, thats what superior skills will get ya.
Hey, given what we've seen of "Enterprise" sofar I wouldn't be suprised if thats the next step.
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who did not.
2. When faced with a hostile city, the only alternatives to urban warfare are to either lay siege or bypass the city. Bypassing a major city will result in leaving a few thousand+ enemy troops free to harass rear areas. This is bad. Sieges can take years (way, way too long to be workable given US politics) and can be extremely bloody (see: WWII eastern front).
The logic there is don't fight in city, it's messy. Quite true, but simply put, you some times don't have an alternative. Berlin but not Stalingrad illustrate that case nicely.
My earlier point was:
does anyone honestly believe that it would take anything more than a few weeks to turn Baghdad into a pile of smoldering rubbles with just conventional means.
Turning a city into rubbles is within means. Using copious amounts of FAE and high explosives to flatten a city essentially makes urban warfare easier than if you had to slog through a city that is largely untouched. Neither Berlin nor Stalingrad was ever flattened to that degree. So militarily, it is far more efficient to simply flatten the place rather than go through street by street. It might not be the wisest course of action, but on a strict military terms, it works.
2. When faced with a hostile city, the only alternatives to urban warfare are to either lay siege or bypass the city. Bypassing a major city will result in leaving a few thousand+ enemy troops free to harass rear areas. This is bad. Sieges can take years (way, way too long to be workable given US politics) and can be extremely bloody (see: WWII eastern front).
The logic there is don't fight in city, it's messy. Quite true, but simply put, you some times don't have an alternative. Berlin but not Stalingrad illustrate that case nicely.
My earlier point was:
does anyone honestly believe that it would take anything more than a few weeks to turn Baghdad into a pile of smoldering rubbles with just conventional means.
Turning a city into rubbles is within means. Using copious amounts of FAE and high explosives to flatten a city essentially makes urban warfare easier than if you had to slog through a city that is largely untouched. Neither Berlin nor Stalingrad was ever flattened to that degree. So militarily, it is far more efficient to simply flatten the place rather than go through street by street. It might not be the wisest course of action, but on a strict military terms, it works.
What made Stalingrad so bad was the Germans bombed the city heavily long before the ground forces arrived. The same was true of Berlin. This burned off much of the flammable material and collapsed the weaker buildings. However there where few troops lost in such because most where dig in on the edge of the city waiting for the Panzers to show up. This was one of the biggest mistakes of the battle on the German side.
Once the bombing ended, the Russians then had time to dig into the rubble and stronger buildings without fear of fire or easy collapse.
Had the Germans waited till their troops had already reached the perimeter defenses, the Russians would have dig o dig in under fire and would have suffered heavily. Since most buildings would still burn, the Germans would have a much simpler time clearing them out.
Berlin had much stronger construction that didn't burn easily, but the problems of much already have been destroyed still made for an easier defense.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956