Veteran Affairs

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:
We have things like this…

We have a lot of vets committing suicide, at a higher rate than being killed in action.

We don’t have much in this country in terms of psychological care for vets either.

I know most of my vet buddies are super pro gun, most are somewhat if not strongly conservative. I don’t know if Obama will help, don’t know what the conservatives will do about it, everyone is happy to have the support of vets, but not so many help them… It’s always something people get sad about, and voice their disapproval, but usually those people quickly forget about it or focus on some other issue. [/quote]

History has demostrated this is one of the consequences of war. That is why it should conducted with overwhelming force and ended quickly. It generally takes two decades from when the fighting stops before these issues return to baseline. (note…we are still fighting) This has been understood since the days of Sun Tzu. [/quote]

Another option is not conducting war at all when it can be avoided. But I hear you. [/quote]

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.
Sun Tzu

Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.
Sun Tzu[/quote]

Far from the myth of America as a reluctant sheriff, American wars after the Second World War were predominantly wars of choice. Keep in mind that this isn’t a normative assessment, but a positive one. I like the love for Sun Tzu. His work, along with that of Clausewitz and Machiavelli, are classics of security and strategy.

[/quote]

‘A state begins to decline when it permits the immoderate aggrandisement of a rival, and a secondary power may become the arbiter of nations if it throw its weight into the balance at the proper time.’ - Baron de Jomini, The Art of War

22

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:
We have things like this…

We have a lot of vets committing suicide, at a higher rate than being killed in action.

We don’t have much in this country in terms of psychological care for vets either.

I know most of my vet buddies are super pro gun, most are somewhat if not strongly conservative. I don’t know if Obama will help, don’t know what the conservatives will do about it, everyone is happy to have the support of vets, but not so many help them… It’s always something people get sad about, and voice their disapproval, but usually those people quickly forget about it or focus on some other issue. [/quote]

History has demostrated this is one of the consequences of war. That is why it should conducted with overwhelming force and ended quickly. It generally takes two decades from when the fighting stops before these issues return to baseline. (note…we are still fighting) This has been understood since the days of Sun Tzu. [/quote]

Another option is not conducting war at all when it can be avoided. But I hear you. [/quote]

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.
Sun Tzu

Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.
Sun Tzu[/quote]

Far from the myth of America as a reluctant sheriff, American wars after the Second World War were predominantly wars of choice. Keep in mind that this isn’t a normative assessment, but a positive one. I like the love for Sun Tzu. His work, along with that of Clausewitz and Machiavelli, are classics of security and strategy.

[/quote]

‘A state begins to decline when it permits the immoderate aggrandisement of a rival, and a secondary power may become the arbiter of nations if it throw its weight into the balance at the proper time.’ - Baron de Jomini, The Art of War
[/quote]

Jomini’s work is first rate as well. Is the quote a reference to the wars of choice comment or his rivalry with Clausewitz?

23

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:
We have things like this…

We have a lot of vets committing suicide, at a higher rate than being killed in action.

We don’t have much in this country in terms of psychological care for vets either.

I know most of my vet buddies are super pro gun, most are somewhat if not strongly conservative. I don’t know if Obama will help, don’t know what the conservatives will do about it, everyone is happy to have the support of vets, but not so many help them… It’s always something people get sad about, and voice their disapproval, but usually those people quickly forget about it or focus on some other issue. [/quote]

History has demostrated this is one of the consequences of war. That is why it should conducted with overwhelming force and ended quickly. It generally takes two decades from when the fighting stops before these issues return to baseline. (note…we are still fighting) This has been understood since the days of Sun Tzu. [/quote]

Another option is not conducting war at all when it can be avoided. But I hear you. [/quote]

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.
Sun Tzu

Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.
Sun Tzu[/quote]

Far from the myth of America as a reluctant sheriff, American wars after the Second World War were predominantly wars of choice. Keep in mind that this isn’t a normative assessment, but a positive one. I like the love for Sun Tzu. His work, along with that of Clausewitz and Machiavelli, are classics of security and strategy.

[/quote]

‘A state begins to decline when it permits the immoderate aggrandisement of a rival, and a secondary power may become the arbiter of nations if it throw its weight into the balance at the proper time.’ - Baron de Jomini, The Art of War
[/quote]

Jomini’s work is first rate as well. Is the quote a reference to the wars of choice comment or his rivalry with Clausewitz?[/quote]

Wars of choice. ‘A state’ = US. ‘A secondary power’ = Soviet Union.

24

I know this would never happen. But, sort of the way I see it. Troops work for the people and are servants to the country just like our politicians are supposed to be. We all are supposed to be working for the civilians of the nation.

On those grounds, why not MAKE something like the VA necessarily where they have to get their care as well?

I know we do a lot of talking, politicians should have to do this and that just like the rest of us… And getting them to have to take part in the same shit we do would get them to fix things. Just hopeful thinking, will never happen. We are just the peons, pee ons.

25

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:
We have things like this…

We have a lot of vets committing suicide, at a higher rate than being killed in action.

We don’t have much in this country in terms of psychological care for vets either.

I know most of my vet buddies are super pro gun, most are somewhat if not strongly conservative. I don’t know if Obama will help, don’t know what the conservatives will do about it, everyone is happy to have the support of vets, but not so many help them… It’s always something people get sad about, and voice their disapproval, but usually those people quickly forget about it or focus on some other issue. [/quote]

History has demostrated this is one of the consequences of war. That is why it should conducted with overwhelming force and ended quickly. It generally takes two decades from when the fighting stops before these issues return to baseline. (note…we are still fighting) This has been understood since the days of Sun Tzu. [/quote]

Another option is not conducting war at all when it can be avoided. But I hear you. [/quote]

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.
Sun Tzu

Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.
Sun Tzu[/quote]

Far from the myth of America as a reluctant sheriff, American wars after the Second World War were predominantly wars of choice. Keep in mind that this isn’t a normative assessment, but a positive one. I like the love for Sun Tzu. His work, along with that of Clausewitz and Machiavelli, are classics of security and strategy.

[/quote]

‘A state begins to decline when it permits the immoderate aggrandisement of a rival, and a secondary power may become the arbiter of nations if it throw its weight into the balance at the proper time.’ - Baron de Jomini, The Art of War
[/quote]

Jomini’s work is first rate as well. Is the quote a reference to the wars of choice comment or his rivalry with Clausewitz?[/quote]

Wars of choice. ‘A state’ = US. ‘A secondary power’ = Soviet Union.[/quote]

So you are saying that there were few wars of choice because inaction on the part of the US, say in Vietnam, would have led to decisive Soviet relative gains that would have significantly dampened American power on the world stage?

26

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:
We have things like this…

We have a lot of vets committing suicide, at a higher rate than being killed in action.

We don’t have much in this country in terms of psychological care for vets either.

I know most of my vet buddies are super pro gun, most are somewhat if not strongly conservative. I don’t know if Obama will help, don’t know what the conservatives will do about it, everyone is happy to have the support of vets, but not so many help them… It’s always something people get sad about, and voice their disapproval, but usually those people quickly forget about it or focus on some other issue. [/quote]

History has demostrated this is one of the consequences of war. That is why it should conducted with overwhelming force and ended quickly. It generally takes two decades from when the fighting stops before these issues return to baseline. (note…we are still fighting) This has been understood since the days of Sun Tzu. [/quote]

Another option is not conducting war at all when it can be avoided. But I hear you. [/quote]

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.
Sun Tzu

Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.
Sun Tzu[/quote]

Far from the myth of America as a reluctant sheriff, American wars after the Second World War were predominantly wars of choice. Keep in mind that this isn’t a normative assessment, but a positive one. I like the love for Sun Tzu. His work, along with that of Clausewitz and Machiavelli, are classics of security and strategy.

[/quote]

‘A state begins to decline when it permits the immoderate aggrandisement of a rival, and a secondary power may become the arbiter of nations if it throw its weight into the balance at the proper time.’ - Baron de Jomini, The Art of War
[/quote]

Jomini’s work is first rate as well. Is the quote a reference to the wars of choice comment or his rivalry with Clausewitz?[/quote]

Wars of choice. ‘A state’ = US. ‘A secondary power’ = Soviet Union.[/quote]

So you are saying that there were few wars of choice because inaction on the part of the US, say in Vietnam, would have led to decisive Soviet relative gains that would have significantly dampened American power on the world stage?
[/quote]

Bingo.

27

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:
We have things like this…

We have a lot of vets committing suicide, at a higher rate than being killed in action.

We don’t have much in this country in terms of psychological care for vets either.

I know most of my vet buddies are super pro gun, most are somewhat if not strongly conservative. I don’t know if Obama will help, don’t know what the conservatives will do about it, everyone is happy to have the support of vets, but not so many help them… It’s always something people get sad about, and voice their disapproval, but usually those people quickly forget about it or focus on some other issue. [/quote]

History has demostrated this is one of the consequences of war. That is why it should conducted with overwhelming force and ended quickly. It generally takes two decades from when the fighting stops before these issues return to baseline. (note…we are still fighting) This has been understood since the days of Sun Tzu. [/quote]

Another option is not conducting war at all when it can be avoided. But I hear you. [/quote]

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.
Sun Tzu

Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.
Sun Tzu[/quote]

Far from the myth of America as a reluctant sheriff, American wars after the Second World War were predominantly wars of choice. Keep in mind that this isn’t a normative assessment, but a positive one. I like the love for Sun Tzu. His work, along with that of Clausewitz and Machiavelli, are classics of security and strategy.

[/quote]

‘A state begins to decline when it permits the immoderate aggrandisement of a rival, and a secondary power may become the arbiter of nations if it throw its weight into the balance at the proper time.’ - Baron de Jomini, The Art of War
[/quote]

Jomini’s work is first rate as well. Is the quote a reference to the wars of choice comment or his rivalry with Clausewitz?[/quote]

Wars of choice. ‘A state’ = US. ‘A secondary power’ = Soviet Union.[/quote]

So you are saying that there were few wars of choice because inaction on the part of the US, say in Vietnam, would have led to decisive Soviet relative gains that would have significantly dampened American power on the world stage?
[/quote]

Bingo.
[/quote]

So the war in Vietnam was essential to US grand strategy and necessitated the blood and treasure that was sacrificed in Indochina, even if its outcome damaged US relative power?

28

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:
We have things like this…

We have a lot of vets committing suicide, at a higher rate than being killed in action.

We don’t have much in this country in terms of psychological care for vets either.

I know most of my vet buddies are super pro gun, most are somewhat if not strongly conservative. I don’t know if Obama will help, don’t know what the conservatives will do about it, everyone is happy to have the support of vets, but not so many help them… It’s always something people get sad about, and voice their disapproval, but usually those people quickly forget about it or focus on some other issue. [/quote]

History has demostrated this is one of the consequences of war. That is why it should conducted with overwhelming force and ended quickly. It generally takes two decades from when the fighting stops before these issues return to baseline. (note…we are still fighting) This has been understood since the days of Sun Tzu. [/quote]

Another option is not conducting war at all when it can be avoided. But I hear you. [/quote]

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.
Sun Tzu

Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.
Sun Tzu[/quote]

Far from the myth of America as a reluctant sheriff, American wars after the Second World War were predominantly wars of choice. Keep in mind that this isn’t a normative assessment, but a positive one. I like the love for Sun Tzu. His work, along with that of Clausewitz and Machiavelli, are classics of security and strategy.

[/quote]

‘A state begins to decline when it permits the immoderate aggrandisement of a rival, and a secondary power may become the arbiter of nations if it throw its weight into the balance at the proper time.’ - Baron de Jomini, The Art of War
[/quote]

Jomini’s work is first rate as well. Is the quote a reference to the wars of choice comment or his rivalry with Clausewitz?[/quote]

Wars of choice. ‘A state’ = US. ‘A secondary power’ = Soviet Union.[/quote]

So you are saying that there were few wars of choice because inaction on the part of the US, say in Vietnam, would have led to decisive Soviet relative gains that would have significantly dampened American power on the world stage?
[/quote]

Bingo.
[/quote]

So the war in Vietnam was essential to US grand strategy and necessitated the blood and treasure that was sacrificed in Indochina, even if its outcome damaged US relative power?[/quote]

Any loss of US relative power was a result of the precipitous withdrawal which resulted in the loss of the South and the massacre of political dissidents and ethnic minorities like the Montagnards. Don’t forget the enormous amount of blood and treasure that the Communists expended in the war too. Had they not expended those resources there they would have been free to expend them elsewhere.

29

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Any loss of US relative power was a result of the precipitous withdrawal which resulted in the loss of the South and the massacre of political dissidents and ethnic minorities like the Montagnards. Don’t forget the enormous amount of blood and treasure that the Communists expended in the war too. Had they not expended those resources there they would have been free to expend them elsewhere.[/quote]

Precipitous? 58,286 American service members KIA is precipitous? The war was unwinnable. You aren’t espousing a Realist position. It was not a prudent war. Support for Vietnam War in the present in nothing short of ignorant intransigence.

Henry Kissinger wrote in a secret memo that “in terms of military tactics, we cannot help draw the conclusion that our armed forces are not suited to this kind of war. Even the Special Forces who had been designed for it could not prevail.”

Robert McNamara stated that “the achievement of a military victory by U.S. forces in Vietnam was indeed a dangerous illusion.”

30

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Any loss of US relative power was a result of the precipitous withdrawal which resulted in the loss of the South and the massacre of political dissidents and ethnic minorities like the Montagnards. Don’t forget the enormous amount of blood and treasure that the Communists expended in the war too. Had they not expended those resources there they would have been free to expend them elsewhere.[/quote]

Precipitous? 58,286 American service members KIA is precipitous? The war was unwinnable. You aren’t espousing a Realist position. It was not a prudent war. Support for Vietnam War in the present in nothing short of ignorant intransigence.

Henry Kissinger wrote in a secret memo that “in terms of military tactics, we cannot help draw the conclusion that our armed forces are not suited to this kind of war. Even the Special Forces who had been designed for it could not prevail.”

Robert McNamara stated that “the achievement of a military victory by U.S. forces in Vietnam was indeed a dangerous illusion.”[/quote]

I don’t want to derail this thread. We’re way off topic.

31

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Any loss of US relative power was a result of the precipitous withdrawal which resulted in the loss of the South and the massacre of political dissidents and ethnic minorities like the Montagnards. Don’t forget the enormous amount of blood and treasure that the Communists expended in the war too. Had they not expended those resources there they would have been free to expend them elsewhere.[/quote]

Precipitous? 58,286 American service members KIA is precipitous? The war was unwinnable. You aren’t espousing a Realist position. It was not a prudent war. Support for Vietnam War in the present in nothing short of ignorant intransigence.

Henry Kissinger wrote in a secret memo that “in terms of military tactics, we cannot help draw the conclusion that our armed forces are not suited to this kind of war. Even the Special Forces who had been designed for it could not prevail.”

Robert McNamara stated that “the achievement of a military victory by U.S. forces in Vietnam was indeed a dangerous illusion.”[/quote]

I don’t want to derail this thread. We’re way off topic.[/quote]

It certainly is but for future reference, when someone hands you a couple of questions like that- It’s a trap.

32

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Any loss of US relative power was a result of the precipitous withdrawal which resulted in the loss of the South and the massacre of political dissidents and ethnic minorities like the Montagnards. Don’t forget the enormous amount of blood and treasure that the Communists expended in the war too. Had they not expended those resources there they would have been free to expend them elsewhere.[/quote]

Precipitous? 58,286 American service members KIA is precipitous? The war was unwinnable. You aren’t espousing a Realist position. It was not a prudent war. Support for Vietnam War in the present in nothing short of ignorant intransigence.

Henry Kissinger wrote in a secret memo that “in terms of military tactics, we cannot help draw the conclusion that our armed forces are not suited to this kind of war. Even the Special Forces who had been designed for it could not prevail.”

Robert McNamara stated that “the achievement of a military victory by U.S. forces in Vietnam was indeed a dangerous illusion.”[/quote]

I don’t want to derail this thread. We’re way off topic.[/quote]

It certainly is but for future reference, when someone hands you a couple of questions like that- It’s a trap.

[/quote]

He may think it’s a trap but it’s not a very good one.

http://journals.hil.unb.ca/index.php/jcs/article/view/4372/5043