Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > Non Hunting > Politics
Thousands of US troops deploying to Israel >

Thousands of US troops deploying to Israel

Politics Nothing goes with politics quite like crying and complaining, and we're a perfect example of that.

Thousands of US troops deploying to Israel

Old 01-11-2012, 10:06 PM
  #21  
Super Moderator
 
CalHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 16,998
Default

Originally Posted by Champlain Islander View Post
The question I have is what is the definition of war? I am 63 years old and the last real war was before I was born (WW2). I grew up during the Vietnam era and served in the armed forces during the latter part of that time. That, and in the early 50's the Korean conflict was the start of our misguided mentality of nation building or getting involved with other country's business. In the event of an extreme problem anywhere on the globe coalitions such as the UN should intervene. Were all these invasions a result of the military wanting to justify their budgets? We seem to be quite capable of invading other country’s but can’t keep our own borders secure.
Since you quoted my comment, I assume the question is at least partially directed at me. Our military is the best in the world and they do excel at winning wars. Winning a war, IMHO, is the part where our military attacks and overcomes the enemy forces. We're actually very good at that part. When we try to rebuild a nation, it's government, reform/change its' people, etc., we do poorly.

Bigbulls posted a list of the major conflicts or wars within the last 50 or 60 years that is useful for explaining why I think we excel at "winning" wars.

In a nutshell, I look at our military defeating their military. Not taking and occupying land, establishing the government you want, rebuilding a country or taking over a country. I'm not saying our troops aren't dying in this "peace" part of the process--they are. However, that is the precise aftermath of a war that we simply don't do that well at and aren't prepared to win.

We didn't win Korea.
Yes and no. We beat back the Korean army and probably some Chinese units as well. They didn't surrender but they did agree to a truce.

We didn't win Vietnam.
Actually we did. NV was ready to throw in the towel after the Tet offensive. Our media decided it was a loss instead of a win. South Vietnam was corrupt and incapable of defending themselves so that part of the war was un-winnable. But the actual fight or battles between US troops and NV forces was a win.

We didn't win Desert Storm.
I agree that we stopped short of what we needed to do but we accomplished what we set out to do. I don't think anybody seriously thinks the Republican Guard won that "war."

We didn't win Iraq
.
If I recall correctly, I believe our troops defeated the Republican Guard in less than a week. That conflict was won. Since then, we have been doing a lot of nation rebuilding, government rebuilding and fighting various terrorists without a clear goal or endgame as people like to call it.

We haven't won Afghanistan.
Again, we accomplished a lot very quickly. Then we bogged down in the peace part which honestly is not our forte, Europe after WW2 notwithstanding. Yes, it took several years to get Osama Bin Laden and we got him in another country (Pakistan) but that success was made possible

And we sure as hell aren't going to win the "war on terrorism".[/QUOTE]
I guess this comment would depend on how you define our war on terrorism. Does it mean we'll kill, capture, imprison every single terrorist in the world? We'd lose that one for sure. Does it mean we'll prevent any countries from supporting terrorism? I doubt we'd win that one either.

Or does it mean we'll prevent any major attacks on American soil from occurring again? We're doing pretty good at that. Depending on whose county you accept, I think we've prevented 40 or 45 terrorist plots on American soil in the 10 years after 911. Does it mean that we'll severely disrupt different terrorist organizations' ability to fund and carry out terrorist activities? we're making a huge impact in that sense too.

I look at this war on terror kind of the same way the media bollixed up the Tet offensive. The troops are winning the war. The media, on the other hand, seem determined to lose it.

I would agree with anybody that we expend too much of our national treasure (our troops lives) overseas in conflicts where we often don't have a clear cut national need or reason. I think we could save a few bucks by cutting back on some of those overseas missions and conflicts. I know our troops will win whatever war they are asked to fight. I just want to see a wise leader elected who doesn't waste their lives and treasure needlessly.
CalHunter is offline  
Old 01-11-2012, 10:08 PM
  #22  
Super Moderator
 
CalHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 16,998
Default

Originally Posted by Fieldmouse View Post
wow........, pass me the bong dude.
I'd have to agree with this assessment. Too negative and too much doomsday.
CalHunter is offline  
Old 01-12-2012, 02:55 AM
  #23  
Dominant Buck
 
Champlain Islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Vermont
Posts: 20,898
Default

Originally Posted by CalHunter View Post
I'd have to agree with this assessment. Too negative and too much doomsday.
I have the feeling that Jeff said it all in jest. He built up worst case scenario and expanded it. The situation he painted would probably make a good grade B movie. My other comment about the war in no way means our nation doesn’t have the top military in the world. My point was to comment about the other part of the military…the political side. When someone decides to invade another country it needs to be warranted. Viet Nam was a political “war” that lost 56,000 of our finest and crippled many more. Why were we even there? The rest of the invasions you mentioned were on a smaller scale but the same question arises. Why? Desert Storm was because Iraq invaded Kuwait. Job for the UN. We invaded Iraq because they had an evil dictator who had WMD that were going to be used against the west. Our military machine cut through them like butter and our victory was earned within a week. The WMD were the excuse and was crafted by the politicians to justify the invasion. Where we lost that one was after we defeated them. We didn’t lose it militarily we lost it politically. A decision was made to stand back and let the animals pillage the wealth of that nation. Their eventual civil war was spurned at that time. Now we are pouring billions back into that country to rebuild. I know roads and bridges in the US that could use that money and allow our citizens to get back to work. Now Iran is developing the bomb and that is the justification for an attack looming. It appears to me that all such aggressions against any country should come via a coalition of all nations such as the UN. The US needs to take care of our own. We have plenty of problems right here in America to focus on.
Champlain Islander is offline  
Old 01-12-2012, 06:36 AM
  #24  
Little Doe Peep
 
sachiko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Japan
Posts: 14,929
Cool

Originally Posted by CalHunter View Post
Since you quoted my comment, I assume the question is at least partially directed at me. Our military is the best in the world and they do excel at winning wars. Winning a war, IMHO, is the part where our military attacks and overcomes the enemy forces. We're actually very good at that part. When we try to rebuild a nation, it's government, reform/change its' people, etc., we do poorly.

Bigbulls posted a list of the major conflicts or wars within the last 50 or 60 years that is useful for explaining why I think we excel at "winning" wars.

In a nutshell, I look at our military defeating their military. Not taking and occupying land, establishing the government you want, rebuilding a country or taking over a country. I'm not saying our troops aren't dying in this "peace" part of the process--they are. However, that is the precise aftermath of a war that we simply don't do that well at and aren't prepared to win.

**** First of all, I'm not an historian, military or otherwise. My comments are based on discussions I've overheard or questions I have asked of my husband and the guys he hangs with, some of whom actually served in Korea (during the fighting) and Viet Nam.

------------------------------------------------

We didn't win Korea.
Yes and no. We beat back the Korean army and probably some Chinese units as well. They didn't surrender but they did agree to a truce.

**** Yes and no is about right. The North invaded the South and drove us back. We were able to drive the North back almost to the Manchurian border when the Chinese entered the conflict and drove us (and the South Koreans) back down almost to the sea. We reinforced our troops and drove the North and the Chinese back to the current liine where a truce was declared. Technically we are still at war. British and Australian troops were also involved. I don't know why were afraid to tangle with the Chinese. Our fear might have been based on their almost endless supply of cannon fodder.

-------------------------------------------------

We didn't win Vietnam.
Actually we did. NV was ready to throw in the towel after the Tet offensive. Our media decided it was a loss instead of a win. South Vietnam was corrupt and incapable of defending themselves so that part of the war was un-winnable. But the actual fight or battles between US troops and NV forces was a win.

**** No we didn't win, we lost. Maybe we could have won, but we allowed the Viet Cong supported by the North Vietnamese Army to drive us out. You can't blame the media. The media wasn't giving orders to the troops. My husband says that someone calculated that it cost us about $600,000 to kill each member of the enemy. They probably would have given up for much less.

----------------------------------------------

We didn't win Desert Storm.
I agree that we stopped short of what we needed to do but we accomplished what we set out to do. I don't think anybody seriously thinks the Republican Guard won that "war."

**** We won that one but we didn't finish the job. We wouldn't have had to go back if Bush 1 hadn't called off the troops.

------------------------------------------

We didn't win Iraq.
If I recall correctly, I believe our troops defeated the Republican Guard in less than a week. That conflict was won. Since then, we have been doing a lot of nation rebuilding, government rebuilding and fighting various terrorists without a clear goal or endgame as people like to call it.

**** Yes, we defeated them but managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Instead of declaring victory and a job well done with the death of Saddam, we hung around humiliating ourselves by playing social worker. We beat Japan because we went all out and took over the country. Limited war doesn't work.

----------------------------------------------

We haven't won Afghanistan.
Again, we accomplished a lot very quickly. Then we bogged down in the peace part which honestly is not our forte, Europe after WW2 notwithstanding. Yes, it took several years to get Osama Bin Laden and we got him in another country (Pakistan) but that success was made possible

**** We're getting nowhere in Afghanistan. If Al Queda and the Taliban are showing some weakness, it's because bin Laden and his money are gone. They may go underground until we finally run out of steam and leave. Then they'll be back.

-----------------------------------------------------

And we sure as hell aren't going to win the "war on terrorism".

**** We're ahead of the game here because the loss of bin Laden's money severely hampers their ability to pull off another 9/11 type action.
I guess this comment would depend on how you define our war on terrorism. Does it mean we'll kill, capture, imprison every single terrorist in the world? We'd lose that one for sure. Does it mean we'll prevent any countries from supporting terrorism? I doubt we'd win that one either.

Or does it mean we'll prevent any major attacks on American soil from occurring again? We're doing pretty good at that. Depending on whose county you accept, I think we've prevented 40 or 45 terrorist plots on American soil in the 10 years after 911. Does it mean that we'll severely disrupt different terrorist organizations' ability to fund and carry out terrorist activities? we're making a huge impact in that sense too.

I look at this war on terror kind of the same way the media bollixed up the Tet offensive. The troops are winning the war. The media, on the other hand, seem determined to lose it.

I would agree with anybody that we expend too much of our national treasure (our troops lives) overseas in conflicts where we often don't have a clear cut national need or reason. I think we could save a few bucks by cutting back on some of those overseas missions and conflicts. I know our troops will win whatever war they are asked to fight. I just want to see a wise leader elected who doesn't waste their lives and treasure needlessly.[/quote]

I agree with the above, especially with the part I marked in bold.
sachiko is offline  
Old 01-12-2012, 06:45 AM
  #25  
Giant Nontypical
 
bergall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,626
Default

I don't exactly remember any MILITARY defeats. I remember the military being either gutted by the congress or the military being opposed by socialist media and communists fomenting campus strife...but I don't remember the MILITARY losing anything. My memory seems to tend towards the expertise of the congress in turning military victory into ultimate defeat. Just an observation there...

As far as military personnel in Israel...well...I guess we're just going to have to wait and see.
bergall is offline  
Old 01-12-2012, 06:50 AM
  #26  
Little Doe Peep
 
sachiko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Japan
Posts: 14,929
Cool

Originally Posted by bergall View Post
I don't exactly remember any MILITARY defeats. I remember the military being either gutted by the congress or the military being opposed by socialist media and communists fomenting campus strife...but I don't remember the MILITARY losing anything. My memory seems to tend towards the expertise of the congress in turning military victory into ultimate defeat. Just an observation there...

As far as military personnel in Israel...well...I guess we're just going to have to wait and see.
Based on what I've heard from those who were there, I believe you're correct. But it isn't only your military who wins or loses. Your entire nation wins or loses. We didn't just defeat the German and Japanese military, we defeated Germany and Japan.

I believe we did extensive bombing of civilian targets in both countries.

We seem to have developed a dogma that only military targets are subject to attack. 9/11 should have disabused us of that notion.
sachiko is offline  
Old 01-12-2012, 07:21 AM
  #27  
Giant Nontypical
 
bergall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,626
Default

Originally Posted by sachiko View Post
Based on what I've heard from those who were there, I believe you're correct. But it isn't only your military who wins or loses. Your entire nation wins or loses. We didn't just defeat the German and Japanese military, we defeated Germany and Japan.

I believe we did extensive bombing of civilian targets in both countries.

We seem to have developed a dogma that only military targets are subject to attack. 9/11 should have disabused us of that notion.
the purpose of warfare is to destroy the enemy's desire to make war.
Plain and simple. That leaves a lot to the imagination. You can bomb his industrial complexes so he cannot produce the materiel for war. You can firebomb residential neighborhoods to sicken his heart for war. You can execute all who surrender to bring him despair. No matter how you conduct your warfare, whether savagel y or not, the ultimate goal is to make the enemy stop fighting. TO break his will to fight. We DID defeat GERMANY and JAPAN. The reason for this is because we were either able to remove the leadership conducting the war (Germany) or were able to break the will of the Japanese leadership to make war. In both cases, the 'nations' of Germany and Japan were effectively decapitated and subjected to the will of we, the victors. Currently, we are fighting terrorists who have no organized leadership, territory or government. They are not centralized. They have no uniforms. They engage in a type of warfare that exempts them from most of the niceties of the Geneva Conventions on warfare and it's conduct. WHY DO WE AFFORD THEM SUCH NICETIES ? The idea is to break the enemy's will to fight. If we cannot do that, then we must kill all of them, or render them unable to fight.
Why is this option not being pursued ? It seems that we are not making war at all are we ? We are keeping them occupied in someone else's back yard so they wont poop on our lawn. War is a dirty business by all accounts but if the enemy gives us no option but to kill each and every one of them, why should we not ?
Is not war something to be avoided ? Why ? We are certainly not making a big enough impression on our enemies in this regard. Should we relent and allow them to rebound and redouble their efforts at destroying us ? Or should we kill our enemies. I think we should kill our enemies. If that entails carpet bombing Tehran, then that's something that should be considered. I just think that the way warfare is being conducted now, shows that we are militarily invincible, but our leadership lacks the intestinal fortitude to 'finish it', thereby giving our enemies the impression we are weak and vulnerable. Destroy the enemy. Burn his food. Kill his familiars. Disrupt his communications. Win .
bergall is offline  
Old 01-12-2012, 12:34 PM
  #28  
Fork Horn
 
DylanT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 100
Default

Originally Posted by bergall View Post
no, but it would be awfully convenient if Israel launched a pre-emptive strike on Iran while we were 'exercising' over there....very convenient.
Agreed but the US would not let Israel do that. We're better of letting Israel do our dog work on this one without our direct involvement.

DylanT is offline  
Old 01-13-2012, 11:11 AM
  #29  
Giant Nontypical
 
bergall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,626
Default

Originally Posted by DylanT View Post
Agreed but the US would not let Israel do that. We're better of letting Israel do our dog work on this one without our direct involvement.

It does not matter...we will be lumped together with Israel in any offensive moves against Iran. We are allies...we will be blamed and we will necessarily have to come to their defense once they kick the hornet's nest. I figure it's most fortuitous to launch a pre-emptive strike while we're there in the immediate Theatre of Operations as it will save time and money if we have to redeploy forces that have been prematurely removed.
bergall is offline  
Old 01-13-2012, 11:27 AM
  #30  
Nontypical Buck
 
Jeff Ovington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location:
Posts: 1,830
Default

Originally Posted by CalHunter View Post
I'd have to agree with this assessment. Too negative and too much doomsday.
Well Russia just spoke up..
Moscow warned.. Any attack on Iran is a direct threat to Russia..
Jeff Ovington is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.