|
|
| Post Number: 51
|
Buba
Unregistered
|
 |
Posted on: Dec. 16 2003,4:33 pm |
|
   |
Winning the war is being able to control events and establish your order on the subjects you have concord. Is that what you think we have Irish?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 52
|
jimhanson 
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 16 2003,4:48 pm |
|
 |
| Quote | I know, I can already hear Jim cringe when I say this  but I still believe the UN was a better option than what did happen. Short of that we could have armed the Kurds and supported a revolution, something that should have happened after the last gulf war. |
Thanks, Slave--it's nice to be noticed! At a risk of replowing old ground--the U.N. was NOT an option--we tried time and again to get them to take action--they refused. That's a built-in problem with the "security council"--it is intentionally built to encourage gridlock. With the exception of the Korean War (when the Russians walked out in protest, and the council voted in their absence)--the Security Council hasn't done much of ANYTHING. Getting any action out of that debating society for third-world tinhorn strongmen is foolish--even Clinton couldn't do it in the Balkans--he had to go to NATO--and the U.S. had to provide the majority of troops and airpower there. So much for "World Consensus".
Should have "Armed the Kurds and supported a revolution". I agree--that is something that SHOULD have happened after the last Gulf war--but Bush the Elder wimped out--much like Kennedy on the Bay of Pigs. The lesson for would-be revolutionaries? "Don't trust the U.S." Armed the Kurds? Kind of like arming the Contras against Communism in Central America--any President, regardless of political party, would have been castigated for that action.
Clemenceau said "War is too important to be left to Generals". It seems that admonition has been turned on its ear--War is too important to be left to Politico's[b]. Korea saw Truman reigning in MacArthur--short of a victory. Vietnam saw the war micro-managed from the White House, with ever-changing Rules of Engagement, no front lines, and no way to "win". Gulf War I saw the war cut short, in only 100 hours, without forcing regime change or unconditional surrender. Bosnia and the Balkans saw "Nation-Building"--again, with no definition of victory, and no exit strategy. Somalia saw us dipping a tentative toe in the water, not really committed, so it was easy for us to pull out when accosted by ragtag ruffians in the back of an old Toyota. Clinton lobbed a few Tomahawks in the general direction of Iraq to "punish" the bad guys. Now, we go in, win the war in a matter of days, with minimum loss of life on either side--a war that had many predicting hundreds of thousands of deaths, that had the same people predicting that [/b]"we will be trapped in a quagmire (this, from the people that brought you Vietnam), and they are angry that the Administration (not just Mr. Bush, but all of those other government employees that liberals like to add to the payroll--the military, the CIA, think tanks, etc.--yep, fooled every one of THEM, TOO!) DIDN'T ANTICIPATE THAT THE WAR WOULD BE WON SO QUICKLY! Wars need civilian oversight, but not micro-management from politicos that bend to every change in the wind.
The old axiom [/b]"The best battle plans become useless once the first shot is fired" probably is most appropriate here.[b]
Edited by jimhanson on Dec. 16 2003,4:53 pm
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 53
|
KODIAK
Group: Members
Posts: 57
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 16 2003,5:08 pm |
|
|
I agree, the United Nations would never had come to an agreement, and is no longer a credible entity. We have argued that in other columns. I am more interested in the topic of this thread, what to do now?
Fighting a war on the host country's own turf is next to impossible. How do you identify the enemy for one? Hell, if it was that easy to "control" as some others are suggesting, then we would be able to control the gangs in New York and L.A. We seem to find that situation impossible to control, and impossible to win. It just has to be an ongoing battle, hopefully an internal one for Iraq. The military is learning to adjust tactics, like cordoning off whole villages that seem to centers for activity. It will not be until the populace trusts that a non-corrupt policing force is in place, so they do not have to fear reprisals, that they will help identify and turn in instigators.
--------------
"Dyin ain't much of a living.....boy" Clint (Outlaw Josie Wales)
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 54
|
irisheyes
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 3040
Joined: Oct. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 16 2003,6:55 pm |
|
|
| Quote (Guest @ Dec. 16 2003,4:33:pm) | | Winning the war is being able to control events and establish your order on the subjects you have concord. Is that what you think we have Irish? |
Those goals are so broad, and vague, that useing it would mean you could argue whether any war in history was won or lost.
To answer your question, no. I think the statement "control of events and order on the subjects" sounds too much like slavery, or oppression.
--------------
You know it's going to be a bad day when you cross thread the cap on the toothpaste.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 55
|
here it is
Unregistered
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 16 2003,7:31 pm |
|
|
ok it was brought up that we went to help the Jews in WWII, granted, that was one of the main focal points of WWII, but after the way the Jews were treated look how they are treating people that are in what they call 'their' land now.
talk about repeating history. how much longer before the world starts in after the Jews for their crimes?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 56
|
GEOKARJO
Google This!!!
Group: Members
Posts: 7799
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 16 2003,8:11 pm |
|
|
freedom...... people, governing themselves, policing themselves, persuing wealth and happiness.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 57
|
Buba
Unregistered
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 17 2003,8:41 am |
|
|
To have free people, governing themselves, policing themselves, and persuing health, wealth and happiness; you first have to establish order. I'm concerned that it is already too late to establish this order so that we can get on with our greater objective. Now if that sound too much like slavery to you, I guess you will have to be content with this Saddam side show and the abortion that is now Iraq!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
