|
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
"Eisboch" wrote in message
... "Harry Krause" wrote in message . .. The loss in Vietnam was a harbinger. I'm sure our military forces can take on and defeat any modern uniformed military force waging traditional warfare, assuming no great disparity in the order of battle or availability of troops. That is, we can take on and defeat uniformed, traditionally organized forces that are smaller than ours, the same size as ours or perhaps somewhat larger. What our military cannot do is defeat a large, well-organized, non-uniformed and non-traditional group or groups of motivated partisans in areas outside of urban areas. Thus, we flopped in Vietnam and we're flopping in Iraq, even though we defeated the Iraqi army, and why the Taliban are re-emerging in Afghanistan, and why the Israelis are having so much trouble with Hezbollah and Hamas. So .... assuming for the moment that a well-organized, non-uniformed, non-traditional group deserves to be defeated (Al Qaeda and Bin Laden come immediately to mind) ... how do you win? Or do you simply give up? All sorts of ideas: 1) If you're a competent leader, you notice that the various groups causing the trouble have been at each other's throats since before you got it in your head to "help". You learn from the experiences of other countries that have had their heads handed to them. You also notice that sometimes, stability is a good thing, even if you don't like the reason for it. This last FACT was obvious to past presidents (from both political parties) who dwarfed your intellectual capabilities. Need I say more about this? 2) If you're a competent leader, you listen to your best military people, who, from the beginning, told you that we'd be facing a non-traditional enemy which, depending on the specific city, time of day, and position of the moon and stars, might have popular support and be impossible to dig out of their holes. 3) If you're a competent leader, you realize that the enemy is driven by the exact same religious zeal that drives your own decisions, and which also makes you unfit for the office you hold. 4) If you're a competent PARENT, you realize that kids are still very idealistic at age 19. So, you don't tell your underlings to go digging for happy tra-la-la stories about kids who think it's delightful that they built a school for some Iraqi kids, and hope these stories will cause your employers (aka "voters") to enter a trance state and not notice how badly you screwed up. You notice that when 19 year old soldiers are interviewed, they don't sound much different than 16 year olds, in terms of their ability to put your little war in perspective. Maybe when they're 45, they'll have some perspective. 5) If you're a competent leader, you realize that ripping the Saudis a new asshole right after 9/11 would've been the right thing to do. Even if out of spite, they raised the price of oil, the instability created by your war did the exact same thing. Even if "the rip" involved nothing but throwing their sorry asses out of the country and cancelling their country club memberships, it would've been the right thing to do. Seems to me you have to keep trying ... picking away at the core and at all the supporting elements, learning as you go, modifying tactics and slowly diminishing the enemy's ability to conduct warfare or terrorism. Good idea. You do it. Or, send your kids & grandkids. Do it right now. What the hell? They're expendable, right? Anything to support the rhetoric. Diplomacy hasn't worked at all in this environment, despite the best efforts of world leaders including several US Presidents of both parties. Remember the stability mentioned in #1, above? About two years after we "enclosed" Saddam and began flying endless patrols around his borders, I read an article in which an Air Force general said, in effect, "We couldn't ask for a better setup for testing every manner of new weapon technology". That wasn't diplomacy. That was stability, no different than the tense situation we juggled with the USSR beginning right after WWII. You'd better have one hell of a good fairy tale ready for your grandkids, because if we ever leave Iraq, it will be no different than when we got there, except that we will have converted people who were curious about us into people who think we're animals. |
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 15:50:27 +0000, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
Nobody believes that it wasn't a good thing to rid of the world of Saddam - what ever the excuse used. True, but at what cost? You can't overlook the cost. We have shed more American blood ridding Iraq of Saddam, than we spent ridding this country of the British. IMO, Iraq, nor Saddam, is worth the 2600 young American lives. However, I don't believe it's time to cut and run. If we can change the paradigm, we will make progress. It's changing the paradigm that will be the problem. Every time I think about the current situation, I am reminded of the first Lebanonese civil war in which kidnapping became a sport in which civilians of all sort of Western nations were kidnapped and held for various reasons. Two Russian diplomats were kidnapped and the KGB merely walked up to the leader of that particular unit, explained that they knew who they were married to, where their kids were, the names and locations of the kidnappers extended families and that they had exactly 12 hours to return the Russians back to the embassy. They were back less than 3. And I have an absolutely unimpeachable source on that. The point of that is unless we are willing to do the same, we will be there forever. Apples and oranges. The Russians only wanted the return of their diplomats. We want a stable and democratic Iraq. We have to win the "hearts and minds". Brutality won't accomplish that, and we have a good example as we speak. Look at Lebanon. The Israelis have been quite accomplished in their bombings, but the situation isn't any better for them, and they are not trying to stabilize Lebanon, only to pacify it. What the answer is, I don't know. |
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
... On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 13:19:08 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message . .. On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 21:58:47 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: wrote: Don White wrote: Why are you dissin' the French? They softened the Viet Cong up for you al through the 50's and you still couldn't win. Courtesy of the Paris "peace" talks? I'll diss the french on that one What's absolutely amazing is that we didn't seem to learn much from our war against Vietnam and its various "insurgencies." I'm hearing the same sorts of really stupid talk from our Prez and company about our war against Iraq as I remember from the late 1960s and early 1970s, and there is still a large percentage of American people who actually believe the Chimp-in-Chief and his henchmen. When will they ever learn? I'm not sure you can directly analogize the Vietnam conflict with the Iraqi War, but I get your point. If you made a product comparison chart for the two wars, you'd find enough shared characteristics to be alarming, at least to anyone who doesn't NEED to kill something in order to be happy. Here is what bothers me about the whole Iraq "thing". Nobody believes that it wasn't a good thing to rid of the world of Saddam - what ever the excuse used. Actually, there are people in our own military who thought that keeping him roped in was a better option for various reasons. But, that didn't fit the Bush/Cheney religion & oil picture. You can't fight a civilized war with two different constructs for how you wage it. Bingo! However, I don't believe it's time to cut and run. If we can change the paradigm, we will make progress. It's changing the paradigm that will be the problem. If we were doing that in Saudi Arabia, I would be all for the idea. Unfortunately, we're in the wrong country. If the police did things this way, they'd shoot a rapist's mother because she gave him money for the taxi which brought him to the neighborhood where he committed his crime. Every time I think about the current situation, I am reminded of the first Lebanonese civil war in which kidnapping became a sport in which civilians of all sort of Western nations were kidnapped and held for various reasons. Two Russian diplomats were kidnapped and the KGB merely walked up to the leader of that particular unit, explained that they knew who they were married to, where their kids were, the names and locations of the kidnappers extended families and that they had exactly 12 hours to return the Russians back to the embassy. They were back less than 3. And I have an absolutely unimpeachable source on that. The point of that is unless we are willing to do the same, we will be there forever. I believe this KGB thing was described in a book I read: "Veil: Secret Wars of the CIA". These things work, but there are two problems, one absolute, and one which can be solved. Absolute: Although tactics like the KGB's (or the CIA's) have lots of positives to recommend them (and are much more fascinating to read about 20 years later), it is sometimes difficult or impossible for politicians to use these successes to any political advantage. "Lebanese release 3 hostages because they were bored with them"? What can be solved (but I don't know how): That book I mentioned said that by Reagan's time in office, many of the CIA's most experienced and creative risk-takers were retired. These were people who started with the OSS, and pretty much invented tactics that we think are only appropriate in movies. One of William Casey's frustrations was finding more people like this. |
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
"Harry Krause" wrote in message . .. Eisboch wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message . .. The loss in Vietnam was a harbinger. I'm sure our military forces can take on and defeat any modern uniformed military force waging traditional warfare, assuming no great disparity in the order of battle or availability of troops. That is, we can take on and defeat uniformed, traditionally organized forces that are smaller than ours, the same size as ours or perhaps somewhat larger. What our military cannot do is defeat a large, well-organized, non-uniformed and non-traditional group or groups of motivated partisans in areas outside of urban areas. Thus, we flopped in Vietnam and we're flopping in Iraq, even though we defeated the Iraqi army, and why the Taliban are re-emerging in Afghanistan, and why the Israelis are having so much trouble with Hezbollah and Hamas. So .... assuming for the moment that a well-organized, non-uniformed, non-traditional group deserves to be defeated (Al Qaeda and Bin Laden come immediately to mind) ... how do you win? Or do you simply give up? Seems to me you have to keep trying ... picking away at the core and at all the supporting elements, learning as you go, modifying tactics and slowly diminishing the enemy's ability to conduct warfare or terrorism. Diplomacy hasn't worked at all in this environment, despite the best efforts of world leaders including several US Presidents of both parties. I agree with you that our military has been traditionally equipped and trained for massive retaliation, designed to win as quickly as possible. The new warfare requires new tactics, particularly commitment, patience and tenacity. We aren't going to see major battles won. Eisboch Ahh, but al Qaeda and bin Laden are only a tiny part of the forces we're facing in Iraq. Most of the "trouble" in Iraq is over whether the Shi'a or the Sunnis will control Iraq, and some of it is Shi'a payback for the years of Sunni horrors. How do "we" stop that sort of warfare? We don't. It's something the Iraqi people will have to decide how and when to stop. The Iraqi security forces were supposed to be handling it "in a few months", according to what we were told about 30 months ago. Last week, the news said Iraqis have reached the point where they don't trust anyone in a uniform, period. |
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
wrote in message
... On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 11:12:53 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: I'm not sure you can directly analogize the Vietnam conflict with the Iraqi War, but I get your point. The thing that is common between them is we die a death by 1000 cuts and eventually leave ... far too late. The Iraq war is over 15 years old, Damn near old enough do drive. Maybe next year it will get it's license and drive the hell out of there. Lets see what the electroate says in November. So far, it seems the electorate cannot separate its brains from its hormones. This hasn't changed since at least 1898, when Vietnam was called "Cuba and the Phillippines". |
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
wrote in message
... On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 13:09:52 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: You've got it backwards. Any chance that if Bush had NOT invaded Iraq, he would have more friends, People seem to forget we were bombing Iraq virtually every day for 10 years. We didn't have many friends from that either. Three presidents did that. Why didn't Bush 1 and Clinton get us out of there ? We bombed them when we felt our patrols were being targeted, remember? Once Saddam's forces were sent home with their tails between their legs, we didn't continue with major forays into the country. |
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 09:27:09 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote: Bert Robbins wrote: JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... basskisser wrote: Harry Krause wrote: Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 21:58:47 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: wrote: Don White wrote: Why are you dissin' the French? They softened the Viet Cong up for you al through the 50's and you still couldn't win. Courtesy of the Paris "peace" talks? I'll diss the french on that one What's absolutely amazing is that we didn't seem to learn much from our war against Vietnam and its various "insurgencies." I'm hearing the same sorts of really stupid talk from our Prez and company about our war against Iraq as I remember from the late 1960s and early 1970s, and there is still a large percentage of American people who actually believe the Chimp-in-Chief and his henchmen. When will they ever learn? I'm not sure you can directly analogize the Vietnam conflict with the Iraqi War, but I get your point. No, the conflicts are not the same, but the callousness, stupidity, and b.s. coming from our national leaders is pretty much the same. I watched Rumsfeld testifying last week, no, telling one lie after another last week. It was an incredible performance. Hell, all of the talk radio Fox news types are saying we are in WW3 and claiming that this is just like the rise of the Nazis in the late '30s. All you have to do is get past your hatred for the Bush administration and "Big Oil" and things will become clear. You've got it backwards. Any chance that if Bush had NOT invaded Iraq, he would have more friends, or at least more people who would patiently wait for him to vanish from public life? Or, do you think a person's deeds are not connected with his reputation? I thought it was the intent rather than the action that determines the effectiveness of a person or a project? And, if Pres. Bush had stayed out of Iraq the BP pipeline wouldn't have rusted and corroded? If Bush hadn't lied us into Iraq and remained there, there likely would be more oil on the market, with disruptions of supply, at lower prices, and Iran wouldn't be so aggressively pursuing our demise, North Korea might be behaving, and Hezbollah wouldn't have invaded Israel. Many of the serious problems the world is facing right now can be attributed to the ignorance, hubris, stupidity, laziness and utter incompetence of Bush and his administration. Glad you asked. And Hurricane Katrina wouldn't have happened and all those charter boats would be operating and the shrimp boats would be catching shrimp and Safeway wouldn't be making a fortune on imported shrimp and we'd all be happy ever after, Amen. -- ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** John |
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
What can be solved (but I don't know how): That book I mentioned said that
by Reagan's time in office, many of the CIA's most experienced and creative risk-takers were retired. These were people who started with the OSS, and pretty much invented tactics that we think are only appropriate in movies. One of William Casey's frustrations was finding more people like this. Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: That's one point and a good one. They don't make good spies like they used to. Now they all seem to be Valerie Palme. The only thing Valerie Plame did wrong was to disprove some of Vice President Cheney's pet theories about how to justify starting a war for profit. I guess when you put ideology above reality, you are obligated to hate the guys (and women) who keep pointing out that water really does run downhill. DSK |
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
wrote in message
... On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 17:37:12 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: People seem to forget we were bombing Iraq virtually every day for 10 years. We didn't have many friends from that either. Three presidents did that. Why didn't Bush 1 and Clinton get us out of there ? We bombed them when we felt our patrols were being targeted, remember? Once Saddam's forces were sent home with their tails between their legs, we didn't continue with major forays into the country. We did bomb the **** out of them foir the next 10 years with impunity in the name of "no fly zones". That stopped with 9-11 when Islam proved we were "touchable" too. Maybe I'm wrong, but I recall our limiting our bombing to points containing radar & antiaircraft weaponry, not missions into their cities. Never mind. The point was that our goal at that stage was, as you said, the no-fly zone, or containment. Here's what really concerns me: I keep hearing news reports about how there's a growing number of Iranians who are disgusted with the lunatics who run their country. Some of them give up and leave for other countries. Various agencies of ours try and reach the ones who stay, with varying measures of success. There is no reason to believe that we missed an opportunity to do the same in Iraq, and will never again have a chance. Instead, Bush chose to invade that country for reasons which are not worth debating here. The best way to collapse a regime is from within. But, it does not produce the erection that the current administration desperately needs in order to be personally happy. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:24 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com