Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 113

Thread: Libyan rebels urge west to assassinate Gaddafi as his forces near Benghazi

  1. #51
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,051

    Re: Libyan rebels urge west to assassinate Gaddafi as his forces near Benghazi

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    Oh my bad I misread. I still don't believe preemption is defense though, but that's my personal opinion.
    You believe in concepts. Many do, but don't realize where that gets them. You believe in the concept of the UN, and thusly defend the illusion. The concept of how war is to be managed and therefore criticize all imperfection. The concept of right and wrong and therefore ignore the grey of reality and survival. Am I close? I do this when it comes to what the US is supposed to stand for versus it's Cold War behaviors.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  2. #52
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: Libyan rebels urge west to assassinate Gaddafi as his forces near Benghazi

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    You believe in concepts. Many do, but don't realize where that gets them. You believe in the concept of the UN, and thusly defend the illusion. The concept of how war is to be managed and therefore criticize all imperfection. The concept of right and wrong and therefore ignore the grey of reality and survival. Am I close? I do this when it comes to what the US is supposed to stand for versus it's Cold War behaviors.
    I don't think I've mentioned the UN at all in this thread, and I pretty much agreed with your last post.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  3. #53
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,051

    Re: Libyan rebels urge west to assassinate Gaddafi as his forces near Benghazi

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    I don't think I've mentioned the UN at all in this thread, and I pretty much agreed with your last post.
    No. It was just some random thoughts. The pre-emptive strike versus waiting to be attacked to justify a defense argument. It usually involves a belief in concept rather than reality. Historically, pre-emptive strikes have saved lives and shortened what would have been longer wars. An obvious threat should not be allowed to build. Germany should have been a no brainer the moment that build up started to be accompanied with rally cries of violence towards neighbors. The price of maintaining our "justice" was hundreds of millions of lives and trillions of dollars and decades to repair. Israel spared itself a much longer war by taking out Egypt's air force in the Suez pre-emptively. This notonly saved Israeli lives but also Egyptian lives (as well as any other Arab band wagon tag alongs in the region). And what will preserving our "justice" do for the Middle East and the rest of the world if Iran gets what it achieves? An Islamic nuclear tribal Cold War from Cairo to Islamabad and a lot of anxiety medication for the rest of us?

    But the concept of pre-emptive strikes make us look or feel bad. It's the same as the word "invasion." No moral nation should ever "invade" another because we have been trained (educated) our entire lives to think of Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Genghis Khan, etc. when it comes to that word. We think of Nazi Germany when we think of aggressor and therefore think of that initial instigation of violence as the guilty party. This makes us uncomfortable with pre-emptive strikes. There's a difference between the concept of things and the reality of things. It's this confusion that had people more than willing to turn GITMO into a Gulag or a Concentration Camp in their heads.
    Last edited by MSgt; 03-16-11 at 03:24 PM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  4. #54
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: Libyan rebels urge west to assassinate Gaddafi as his forces near Benghazi

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    No. It was just some random thoughts. The pre-emptive strike versus waiting to be attacked to justify a defense argument. It usually involves a belief in concept rather than reality. Historically, pre-emptive strikes have saved lives and shortened what would have been longer wars. An obvious threat should not be allowed to build. Germany should have been a no brainer the moment that build up started to be accompanied with rally cries of violence towards neighbors. The price of maintaining our "justice" was hundreds of millions of lives and trillions of dollars and decades to repair. Israel spared itself a much longer war by taking out Egypt's air force in the Suez pre-emptively. And what will preserving our "justice" do for the Middle East and the rest of the world if Iran gets what it achieves? An Islamic nuclear tribal Cold War from Cairo to Islamabad and a lot of anxiety medication fot the rest of us?
    Oh I wasn't talking about the morality of offense vs. defense, only that preemption would not be considered defense in a Clausewitzian sense...but I get the feeling you don't want to talk about concept and theory here.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  5. #55
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,051

    Re: Libyan rebels urge west to assassinate Gaddafi as his forces near Benghazi

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    Oh I wasn't talking about the morality of offense vs. defense, only that preemption would not be considered defense in a Clausewitzian sense...but I get the feeling you don't want to talk about concept and theory here.
    I believe Clausewitz is over stated. "On War" summarized a lot of the theories that former great leaders in time already proved or stated (It's also a tough, tough read). His "War is politics by other means" idea is not just a cliche, but it is largely BS in our day and age. Today's politicians are not generals. Such cliches of old allow today's politicians a way of dismissing the fact that they failed to prevent war. And it assumes to give them a place in war so that they can reach in and screw up the military job just to try to salvage face or take credit for getting something right on the backs of others who don't fail.

    I'm not big for theories. Unless in a mathematical or scientific capacity, they usually get in the way of progress. In my world, half cocked theories and hair brained schemes are deadly. Social theories are also deadly.
    Last edited by MSgt; 03-16-11 at 03:41 PM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  6. #56
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: Libyan rebels urge west to assassinate Gaddafi as his forces near Benghazi

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    I believe Clausewitz is over stated. "On War" summarized a lot of the theories that former great leaders in time already proved or stated (It's also a tough, tough read). His "War is politics by other means" idea is not just a cliche, but it is largely BS in our day and age. Today's politicians are not generals. Such cliches of old allow today's politicians a way of dismissing the fact that they failed to prevent war. And it assumes to give them a place in war so that they can reach in and screw up the military job just to try to salvage face or take credit for getting something right on the backs of others who don't fail.

    I'm not big for theories. Unless in a mathematical or scientific capacity, they usually get in the way of progress. In my world, half cocked theories and hair brained schemes are deadly. Social theories are also deadly.
    I respectfully disagree and find a lot of value in Clausewitz/On War. It's tough precisely because it's comprehensive, and "war is politics by other means" might be a cliche but it's also a truism. I respect your opinion, and I have mine so I'll just leave it at that.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  7. #57
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,051

    Re: Libyan rebels urge west to assassinate Gaddafi as his forces near Benghazi

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    I respectfully disagree and find a lot of value in Clausewitz/On War. It's tough precisely because it's comprehensive, and "war is politics by other means" might be a cliche but it's also a truism.

    Of course there's a lot of value, but like so many war handbooks, it's classroom. At least Sun Tzu kept it simple. But either way, it's mostly common sense information.

    And it's only a truism if the politicians are also the generals (like Clausewitz). They are not anymore. They are no longer kings or emperors marching across Europe on horses extending their national policies. War, in the 20th century, has largely been a sign of failure for politicians and diplomats. If Clausewitz could see the Rumsfelds, Clintons, Obamas, Carters, etc. of the day, he would fancy a different cliche.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  8. #58
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: Libyan rebels urge west to assassinate Gaddafi as his forces near Benghazi

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    Of course there's a lot of value, but like so many war handbooks, it's classroom. At least Sun Tzu kept it simple. But either way, it's mostly common sense information.

    And it's only a truism if the politicians are also the generals (like Clausewitz). They are not anymore. They are no longer kings or emperors marching across Europe on horses extending their national policies. War, in the 20th century, has largely been a sign of failure for politicians and diplomats. If Clausewitz could see the Rumsfelds, Clintons, Obamas, Carters, etc. of the day, he would fancy a different cliche.
    I believe that he would fancy the same cliche but criticize our election of people who aren't necessarily strategic thinkers. Politics and war are still as intertwined as ever. It really is different when you have civilian leadership of the military. The political leadership of Clausewitz's day wasn't perfect either, I think On War was in part tongue-in-cheek criticism of the older guard of generals and King Frederick William himself during his time period. God knows he was pretty damn pissed when the French occupied Prussia.
    Last edited by StillBallin75; 03-16-11 at 05:40 PM.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  9. #59
    Dungeon Master
    Hooter Babe

    DiAnna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Northern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,683
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Libyan rebels urge west to assassinate Gaddafi as his forces near Benghazi

    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    It is over.

    Gaddafi will win.

    The west has failed.
    Failing implies that the west actually tried to do something, which it didn't.

  10. #60
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,051

    Re: Libyan rebels urge west to assassinate Gaddafi as his forces near Benghazi

    Quote Originally Posted by DiAnna View Post
    Failing implies that the west actually tried to do something, which it didn't.
    I would call that the failure. The ultimate failure of the West, since the Berlin Wall came down, has been to pretend that none of the European Colonial Frankenstein's monster nations of the third world - along with the American/Soviet Cold War prescrition to maintain "stability" in those said nations - is our problem. That some how, after three hundred years, none of these consequences is our responsibility. Sinceit set us up for a decade and a half of confusion and bewilderment, I would state that the biggest tactical blunder of Washington was them declaring "our wars over" in 1989. Short of installing a handy dandy dictator, we cannot prevent these people from rising up and demanding prosperity and opportunity (they were doing so in the beginning of European colonialism and again during the "Age of Independence"). But what we can do is take responsibility and help them transition into the future as peaceful and manageable as possible. That is the tactical route for long term security. If we do not, we encourage the 9/11s' and the countless terrorist organizations throughout the region. Thus far...we have failed because we pretend that after we have placed them into these situations that they are solely responsible for digging themselves out. We don't get that luxury.

    The mass majority of all our terrorist problems stems from a lack of education, poverty, and religious brutal doctrine. Education and economic opportunity will subside the ease for which desparate people seek religious doctrine. And thusly ease the terrorist threat. The only thing that stands in the way is the Cold War left overs that continue to prevent the people their voice. If they don't get their voices heard through fair elections and honest representation, then "God" will supply it for them. And we all should know by now who Saayid Qutb named as God's enemy.
    Last edited by MSgt; 03-16-11 at 05:59 PM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •