[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
how you will manage to turn things around, please?
[/i][/quote]
As I said, I don’t plan to. My plan is to kill them and break their stuff. Declare our goals met, therefore, victory. I’d go on the air and taunt them at how easily we scattered their so called men into holes. Then, I’d let them crawl out of their holes, rebuild their homes, public utitlities, and mosques (since those are their defensive positions). Probably a couple of years for that.
Then, I’d ask them to start killing and or/handing over the names on our list. If they don’t comply, we’d do it again. I could give two shits if they only gave up Al Qaeda so they could stay in power as the official government of Afghanistan. As long as they give up Al Qaeda.
Now, if the men of that nation want freedom from a government that executes ‘whores’ (she looked a man in the eye!) in public, they can drop their lover-boys, pick up a rifle, and work that out for themselves. But they will not harbor–or allow the Taliban to harbor–Al Qaeda, and still demand their complaints to be heard.
i will repeat myself :
let India deal with afghanistan.
they need to do it for their own security and they have repeatedly shown they were more than willing to do it.
you’re are actually actively stopping them to do it because of your alliance with Pakistan. A very ambiguous ally to say the least.
if you don’t, you will end up with another humiliating retreat.
And two or three decades later, China will finally take care of the Ouigours, and then move on the Talibans.
You already did that! There isn’t one battle you lost, just like your big role model, the soviet.
You’re worse then Obama here, because you retreat, only to resume shooting in a year or so.
Guerrilla is notoriously good at withstanding that.
Obama at least demands a long term bs strategy (read: fantasy) from his generals.
Still, a continous presence is probably cheaper and more effective then a flip flopping one.
I understand that.
But from a purely fiscal perpective, Obama is doing better.
Surely it costs more to roll in the tanks every year then to already have them around?
I mean, it keeps the men busy and looks great, but invading full force when a taliban farts is even worse then Obama’s & Bush’s wild ideas.
I’ll also add to my fiscal argument that it’s a systemically built-in feature that war spreads & tends to drag (so much for a quickie). Just look at history.
Sloth, I beleive you on a personal level. You really think you could push for a decisive, surgical strike -if you were president-
But reality would be merciless with you.
And how is pulverizing an area associated with surgical? Did you not see me mention public utilites and mosques? If they’re taking up a defensive position, whereever it is, it’s a target.
I can agree with that.
most of these conflicts started because of half assed decolonizations on the part of european nations. [/quote]
This is why neither of you two kids should ever commit a crime, become a bouncer in a hip hip club, move out of the suburbs to the ghetto or work in the state department. Because neither of you has a clue of how to deal with thugs and avoid a fight.
The first rule of dealing with thugs that you need to learn and never forget is this: If you act like a bitch, you will get run like a bitch.
The worst thing you can ever tell a thug is that you have a high tolerance for bullshit and that you are reluctant to fight. That is something that you keep to yourself otherwise you are asking for problems.
When Hillary Clinton was being vetted by the congress for Secretary of State she said that she would be very reluctant to use the military instead she was going to use “smart diplomacy”.
It may sound like a nice catchy slogan but the reality is that letting the thugs of the world know that much about her thought processes is “stupid diplomacy”.
Telling thugs you have a high threshold for the use of force is an invitation for them to test your limits and see just how much they can get away with. It undermines the use of diplomacy, because whenever you make a deal, thugs will wonder if they could have gotten even more, change their mind and go back on the deal. ie Our negotiations with North Korea keep getting nothing agreed.
If you tell people you have a low threshold and then back it up, like we did with Iraq. That is how you make people more responsive to diplomacy.
Pardon my misuse of words, I meant what you meant:
You’re going in, fight your fight and leave.
then round 1 ends, victory parades, commercials, etc
next year,(obviously) round 2, same awesome pictures, still no difference.
you’re doing foreman-ali (drama in tora-bora?) with the exception that you won’t last eight rounds.
Why is that so hard to understand?
Do you think there is a president on earth that can declare:
“fellow whatevercans, as you know, our nation will go to war, again. This may be the fifth year in a row, but I’m sure god is on our side, again and we will win, again.
Also taxes have to rise, naturally”
p.s.
For some bizarre reason, you did 2 rounds with Saddam, I’ll give you that. Still, it’s not like you’re more secure, neither was it cheap.
I can agree with that.
most of these conflicts started because of half assed decolonizations on the part of european nations. [/quote]
This is why neither of you two kids should ever commit a crime, become a bouncer in a hip hip club, move out of the suburbs to the ghetto or work in the state department. Because neither of you has a clue of how to deal with thugs and avoid a fight.
The first rule of dealing with thugs that you need to learn and never forget is this: If you act like a bitch, you will get run like a bitch.
The worst thing you can ever tell a thug is that you have a high tolerance for bullshit and that you are reluctant to fight. That is something that you keep to yourself otherwise you are asking for problems.
[/quote]
Yes. Show that you have the means and will use those means if any shiteater gets out of line.
We spent trillions to have the finest military in the world, and we worry about farting in the direction of Medina or Mecca…how fucking pathetic is that…
Those kids would probably be out hiking on another adventure (hopefully in Canada or some civilised place like that) if they had bombed the living shit out of those criminals.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Telling thugs you have a high threshold for the use of force is an invitation for them to test your limits… [/quote]
That’s fine.[/quote]
You are just a clueless kid talking shit. Telling thugs that we do not have the balls to use the worlds most powerful military is only going to give us temporary peace while we are getting backed into a corner that we are forced to fight out of.
You don’t even have the foresight to understand the usefulness of reconstruction in helping us avoid having to go back to somewhere we already had to conquer. We do rebuilding of a country that we conquered because we learned a hard lesson with Germany after WW1. We wouldn’t have needed to fight them a second time if they had handled the post war era better.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
next year…[/quote]
I’ve placed no time table. You did. My time table relies on how long it takes for them to rebuild.[/quote]
I think they are ready when you are.
What’s to rebuild?!?
Training camps that consist of a few tents and wooden posts.
WW2 equipment?
Selfmade explosives?
Old Trucks?
Caves?
Donkeys?
[/quote]
Er, my argument suggests we shouldn’t be hanging out there to rebuild or provide security against the Taliban. [/quote]
Do you know how being at war with guerrillas actually works?
There IS no definite end.
Do you think that Johnson and Nixon preferred to stay in Nam?
Guerrila war seethes. With no end in sight.
The asskisser-generals who want more stars proclaim victory within the next months.
But once you’re in there, you’ll find there IS no decisive battle. Only battle after battle.
If you won’t put the people to the sword (which is commendable), don’t go into foreign lands and expect a happy ending.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
You are just a clueless kid talking shit.[/quote]
Oh yeah? How’d those WMD’s in Iraq turn out? What happened in Afghanistan in the meantime? Oh, but that’s right, we’re also supposed to be occupying Iran right about now. Yeah, we need a low threshold. We can’t button up Afghanistan, but we need to leap frog across the middle-east.