You do not have to occupy to initiate a failed military campaign.
Realize: just going in, shooting a few thousnad shepherds in a few months and withdrawing will yield no results and will get you off your chair quick.
If anything, you will look even more impotent after the same guys start local uprisings, acts ot terror etc, again.
No matter what, Obama or Bush will have something to sell. Even if it’s mostly bs.
Your hands will be empty.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
You do not have to occupy to initiate a failed military campaign.[/quote]
We wouldn’t fail. We’d go in, scatter them, and break their stuff. Just as advertised.
Nope. The populace was rather satisfied with the invasions. It’s the occupations that have been politically damaging.
Now that’s funny, considering you’ve advised standing around doing nothing. No, I’m sorry, you did offer an admittedly theoretical idea to air-drop prefabricated schools staffed by immortal teachers deep behind enemy lines.
Your political thinking is either nonexistant or binary.
Please don’t mention my school-theory (hardly mine) because you cannot seem to grasp what this was about - It was all about money and effort, btw.
Of course I wouldn’t sell it that way- that would be suicidal. I also don’t say I wouldn’t do anything at all, just no marching legions.
Look, we both seem to agree that going in, roman style, is out of the question, probably for different reasons.
But what you completely lack, if I may say so, is the desire to anticipate results based on what we know, historically speaking.
No modern military campaign will nullify your problem with religiously motivated extremism around the Hindukush.
It will probably worsen it, for a large variety of reasons.
Let’s rather discuss what one could do to deescalate it, neutralize ot contain it.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Of course I wouldn’t sell it that way- that would be suicidal. I also don’t say…[/quote]
That’s just it…You don’t say anything, though you’ve had more than enough opportunity to. You see, you’re critical of everything expect for doing nothing. When it comes time for you to show that you’re not just going to martyr your own people as passive sheep-like targets to the delight of your enemy, you’ve repeatedly become paralyzed. You stammer out nonsense about…well, the schools, for instance. Or, suddenly, you worry about the appearance of ‘impotence’ when you’ve been defending doing jack squat the whole time. You warn about the political consequences, yet you’d handcuff your military and declare your citizens fodder in your campaign of do-nothingness, while the enemy’s own people are untouchable. You’d crown asymmetrical-terrorist warfare the undisputed victor without even firing a shot. Well, heck, it’s time to move military bugets off the record, do away with military markings, and adopt the Schwarzie and Orion approved military sctructure and tactics.
let’s make this as Sarah-Palin-easy as possible:
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Yes. I’ve said so multiple times.
Ummmm yeah, actually, it is an option. Don’t care, see? Why the heck would any sane person care what the Islamic world thinks? And talk about impotent, who care what the UN thinks?
That we can completely crush any and all forces opposing invasion, and take out their assests with ease? See the invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq. I just don’t make nation-building my goal, avoiding the post-invasion guerrilla warfare.
Excellent. They know their enemies get hit back 100 times as hard for every time they hit us.
Much better than it would now.
[/quote]
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Yes. I’ve said so multiple times.
Ummmm yeah, actually, it is an option. Don’t care, see? Why the heck would any sane person care what the Islamic world thinks? And talk about impotent, who care what the UN thinks?
That we can completely crush any and all forces opposing invasion, and take out their assests with ease? See the invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq. I just don’t make nation-building my goal, avoiding the post-invasion guerrilla warfare.
Excellent. They know their enemies get hit back 100 times as hard for every time they hit us.
Much better than it would now.
[/quote]
[/quote]
well, what? Apart from having that nice, warm feeling of “done the right thing” in your gut.
That IS the question.
What is it you’ll have achieved? Money and more wars for the war-industrial complex?
Told you it’s not an option as a leader. If you don’t know what you are doing, at least admit so.
Again you’re playing the Bush-card.
The Taliban have no real assets. Like with Saddam’s WOMD, you cannot destroy what’s not there- although you can destroy aimlessly, which is just what you plan on doing.
You can’t even win a war with them soldier wise! They outbreed you by a large margin.
… and 5) sigh.
You’re not even trying.
Sorry, but this is way over your head.
It’s basically the same as saying: “I’d simply command the power rangers and the justice league to kill Bin Laden, see? No costs, since superheroes work for free. And 100% guaranteed success.”
It’s logical in itself, but sadly, the world doesn’t spin like in your childish fantasy.
Let’s try one last time:
How long you’d campaign?
Don’t say : “as long as it takes” you SHOULD know how long.
the first question should be “where” and “against who”.
the islamists terrorists are an international and decentralized faction.
they have recruits in dozen of countries, from dozens of ethnicity (western converts included)
their money is in dozens of banks
their weapons come from many coutries, including your own
their ideas are posted on dozens of websites and mailing lists.
there is probably more talibans in Pakistan than in Afghanistan right now, and yet, Pakistan is an “ally”.
there is probably more radical hanafists, more salafists, more al qaeda members, and more aspirant martyrs in Irak now than there were in 2001.
maybe (just maybe) it’s more a job for a competent intelligence service than a job for a powerful army.
but i admit it would be less showy.
Of course. Some of the gentlemen here never fail to point out what kind of heroism they prefer…above all.
You might think that after Vietnam, military solutions should be taken with caution, yet…nothing.
Sloth here continues to muse about a clean, nice military solution.
Even though there’s not a single shred of evidence telling us how such solution could be forced.
Even though his country is spread thin across the globe, has bigtime problems at home and is deep in debt.
Must be the irresistable charm of marching ranks, all dressed in these beautiful uniforms
[quote]PimpBot5000 wrote:
This gaunt, emaciated woman brings tears to my eyes. She’s been deprived of Wendy’s triple stacks and double Oreo Blizzards for far too long. Let’s liberate her![/quote]
that woman is niiiice
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Sloth here continues to muse about a clean, nice military solution.
[/quote]
Uh, what? Are you even reading my posts? There’s nothing ‘nice’ or ‘clean’ about it. And I don’t offer any solution. Certainly not a paratroop of immortal school teachers and indestructible schoos…
I’m suggesting that the military should be used to kill and break alot of people and stuff (after a high threshold has been crossed such as, you know, an act of war on one’s nation, like you know, 9-11) before going home. Solutions are to be worked out between the Taliban and the people they preside over, if ever.
Don’t play Prof X type semantics here.
If it’s not a solution, then why send the men?
and tell us already:
[quote]
How long you’d campaign?
Don’t say : “as long as it takes” you SHOULD know how long. [/quote]
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Don’t play Prof X type semantics here.
If it’s not a solution, then why send the men?
and tell us already:
I’ve told you at least 3 times (without looking back)…I said it explicitly in the post before your response. I’m not repeating myself again.
It’ll take 1 month, 2 weeks, 3 days, 42 minutes, and 17 seconds.
Bombing???
Listen you got 2 things going on:
#1: Bombing does not make state’s leaders behave as the leaders of a foreing state want them to. If you are talking “war”, then that requires to foreing state to occupy and justly rule the new country.
–failure to rule justly, provide security, and improve the lives of the locals will result in endless guerrilla war. Until years into the future the foreing state can no longer economically/polically afford the occupation and it is forced to withdraw.
#1.b: Bombing is, in general terms, a TACTICAL action. Bombing is done to destroy the industrial capabilities of a state, and/or destroy the military equipment of a state.
#2 The current requime in Iran is unstable. To undo it we need to support Iran’s POLITICAL OPPOSITION (which is strong, but it is being kept down for now).
[quote]Neospartan wrote:
Bombing???
Listen you got 2 things going on:
#1: Bombing does not make state’s leaders behave as the leaders of a foreing state want them to. If you are talking “war”, then that requires to foreing state to occupy and justly rule the new country.
–failure to rule justly, provide security, and improve the lives of the locals will result in endless guerrilla war. Until years into the future the foreing state can no longer economically/polically afford the occupation and it is forced to withdraw.
#1.b: Bombing is, in general terms, a TACTICAL action. Bombing is done to destroy the industrial capabilities of a state, and/or destroy the military equipment of a state.
#2 The current requime in Iran is unstable. To undo it we need to support Iran’s POLITICAL OPPOSITION (which is strong, but it is being kept down for now).
[/quote]
When in doubt, bomb. Don’t risk anymore of our nation’s finest…just start bombing. Locate them from satellite and bomb. Rinse and repeat.
Of course, we should ask diplomatically first: “Will you please release these few hikers who strayed across your border?” If they say no, then simply eliminate the problem. If they harm the hikers, bomb them more. If they kill the hikers, simply obliterate a few cities.
Soon, they will learn to quit being evil.
We are actually doing the Iranians a favor.
Now Iran wants us to release Iranian prisoners.
I would, for $500,000 a prisoner.
A nice refund for the family of the released hiker.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
[quote]Neospartan wrote:
Bombing???
Listen you got 2 things going on:
#1: Bombing does not make state’s leaders behave as the leaders of a foreing state want them to. If you are talking “war”, then that requires to foreing state to occupy and justly rule the new country.
–failure to rule justly, provide security, and improve the lives of the locals will result in endless guerrilla war. Until years into the future the foreing state can no longer economically/polically afford the occupation and it is forced to withdraw.
#1.b: Bombing is, in general terms, a TACTICAL action. Bombing is done to destroy the industrial capabilities of a state, and/or destroy the military equipment of a state.
#2 The current requime in Iran is unstable. To undo it we need to support Iran’s POLITICAL OPPOSITION (which is strong, but it is being kept down for now).
[/quote]
When in doubt, bomb. Don’t risk anymore of our nation’s finest…just start bombing. Locate them from satellite and bomb. Rinse and repeat.
Of course, we should ask diplomatically first: “Will you please release these few hikers who strayed across your border?” If they say no, then simply eliminate the problem. If they harm the hikers, bomb them more. If they kill the hikers, simply obliterate a few cities.
Soon, they will learn to quit being evil.
We are actually doing the Iranians a favor.
[/quote]
I think you just do not want to understand both how wars are won and how Iran is.
Bombing Iran would HELP the regime consolidate its power once again. What do you think the Iran-Iraq war 1980-1988 did to Ayatollah Khomeini’s revolutionary regime??? Sadam though Iran would be a cake walk because the Iranian revolution was young 1979 and it was killing the Shah’s political/military leaders and associates. But all Saddam did was to rally the country to the Ayatollah. 8 years of real bloody war strengthened the Ayatallah’s regime.
btw… war means fighting and fighting means killing. So if we are gonna fight we better be ready to bleed. The idea of fighting without bleeding is the sickness of Vietnam that this country has yet to get over.
Neo, just FYI, most of HH’s posts are troll-like.
I really wouldn’t be surprised if those idiots were spies or some shit. Which one got the bright idea to go “hiking” by the Iranian border, out of all the other places they could go. I don’t blame Iran for arresting their dumb asses.
