Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 113

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

  1. #81
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,319

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

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    I'd agree with you if we were talking about sports, not war. I have a bunch of examples actually, but I don't think examples are really necessary to prove the point that defense is inherently stronger than offense, other things being equal. Defense is stronger because its objective is negative, while the attack/offense is essentially tougher because it has a positive objective. The same way it's easier to demolish a house than to build one, it's easier to deny an attacker's move than it is to attack. Now of course I'm not saying offense never wins, just that playing defense has inherent characteristics that makes it stronger than the offense in war. Even if the attack achieves any degree of success, i'm sure you've heard the maxim that taking territory is always easier than holding it.

    But you wanted examples (just off the top of my head):
    Well, the American Revolution for one.
    Jet already provided you with one (Battle of Britain).
    Peninsular campaigns, Spain
    Russia, 1812.
    Russia, 1941-45
    Vietnam
    basically any case in which a native insurgency was victorious.

    And I know video games aren't real life, but if you ever play any strategy-type video games, it's usually a good strategy to establish a strong defensive position, have the enemy's attack break like waves upon a rock, and then counterattack. That's the true value of defensive strategy, combining it with offense.

    Edit: Now that I think about it...it even applies to sports. Defense wins championships.
    The Soviets didn't fight a defensive campaign. The Confederates employed a defensive strategy. How did that turn out for them?

    Do you fully understand the military definition of defense and offense?
    Last edited by apdst; 03-16-11 at 11:24 PM.

  2. #82
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,319

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

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    I'd agree with you if we were talking about sports, not war. I have a bunch of examples actually, but I don't think examples are really necessary to prove the point that defense is inherently stronger than offense, other things being equal. Defense is stronger because its objective is negative, while the attack/offense is essentially tougher because it has a positive objective. The same way it's easier to demolish a house than to build one, it's easier to deny an attacker's move than it is to attack. Now of course I'm not saying offense never wins, just that playing defense has inherent characteristics that makes it stronger than the offense in war. Even if the attack achieves any degree of success, i'm sure you've heard the maxim that taking territory is always easier than holding it.

    But you wanted examples (just off the top of my head):
    Well, the American Revolution for one.
    Jet already provided you with one (Battle of Britain).
    Peninsular campaigns, Spain
    Russia, 1812.
    Russia, 1941-45
    Vietnam
    basically any case in which a native insurgency was victorious.

    And I know video games aren't real life, but if you ever play any strategy-type video games, it's usually a good strategy to establish a strong defensive position, have the enemy's attack break like waves upon a rock, and then counterattack. That's the true value of defensive strategy, combining it with offense.

    Edit: Now that I think about it...it even applies to sports. Defense wins championships.
    You're going to have to be mor specific than just saying, "Vietnam!". Expand, I would love to hear it.

  3. #83
    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

    The Soviets didn't fight a defensive campaign.
    What would you call it then. Defensive campaign on the home territory weakening the German enemy, then launching a strategic counteroffensive after the Germans stretched their forces.

    The Confederates fought employed a defensive strategy. How did that turn out for them?
    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    Now of course I'm not saying offense never wins, just that playing defense has inherent characteristics that makes it stronger than the offense in war.
    As for the Battle of Britain being a battle not a war. I was talking about defense being inherently stronger than offense at the tactical, operational, and strategic levels. It applies to wars battles campaigns.
    Last edited by StillBallin75; 03-16-11 at 11:34 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

  4. #84
    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 apdst View Post
    You're going to have to be mor specific than just saying, "Vietnam!". Expand, I would love to hear it.
    Vietnam is a textbook example of defensive strategy. If a defender's will is strong enough, there pretty much isn't anything you can do to stop them. Isn't it impressive that someone can lose all tactical engagements and battles and still win the war.

    Col. Harry G. Summers: ""You never defeated us in the field."

    NVA Colonel Tu: "That may be true. It is also irrelevant."
    Last edited by StillBallin75; 03-16-11 at 11:36 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

  5. #85
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,319

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

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    What would you call it then. Defensive campaign on the home territory weakening the German enemy, then launching a strategic counteroffensive after the Germans stretched their forces.
    In case your history prof didn't tell you, the Soviets ended up in Berlin. Sound like a defensive strategy to you? Do you even know what a counter-offensive amounts to??????





    As for the Battle of Britain being a battle not a war. I was talking about defense being inherently stronger than offense at the tactical, operational, and strategic levels. It applies to wars battles campaigns.
    You don't have the first ****ing clue what these words mean; do you? Obviously, you're degree isn't in military history.

  6. #86
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,319

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

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    Vietnam is a textbook example of defensive strategy. If a defender's will is strong enough, there pretty much isn't anything you can do to stop them. Isn't it impressive that someone can lose all tactical engagements and battles and still win the war.

    Col. Harry G. Summers: ""You never defeated us in the field."

    NVA Colonel Tu: "That may be true. It is also irrelevant."
    Who were the dfenders?

    This is getting good!

  7. #87
    Student doctorhugo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Long Island, NY
    Last Seen
    02-10-17 @ 01:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    263

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

    Originally Posted by doctorhugo Nation-building in a land of primitive cave dwellers and tribal warlords committed to trafficking in hard drug raw material. A nation state barely existing as such with no concept of personal freedoms to be propped up as a venture in democracy. Sheer idiocy!
    Reply by MSgt
    Now...this really bothers me. And the fact that you cap the ignorance with a "idiocy" remark is really pitiful.
    Well..Golly gee sarge I truly am sorry that my stated opinion bothers you so much and the fact that it's replete with "ignorance". And, of course, pitiful or not is in the eye of the beholder, but you should guard against letting your emotions rule the intellectual bent of your comments.
    Afghanistan was a country that was modernizing in the mid-twentieth century.

    In 1964, Afghanistan's King deliberately abandoned 200 years of autocratic rule and diminished his family's power in order to give his people democracy. He knew that absolute monarchy in the twentieth century would not ensure his nation's survival like a democracy would. Unfortunately, in 1965, among the many political parties, was The People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan. It was strongle influenced by that of the Soviet Communist Party. Other Socialilist political groups began to emerge.

    During this phase, nations like the U.S., Britain, and the Soviet Union was channeling financial aid into the country. If you look at pictures of Afghanistan during this period, you will see a country you don't see on CNN. You will see modernization. There were thousands of enterprises underway. Major exports were cotton and fruit. There were two majopr discoveries in the 1960s. Natural gas was discovered in Shiberghan and iron ore in Bamiyan. Extensive traces of other mineral deposits were later discovered. There is a large sulphur deposit near Nangarhar. Coal is present and would later be mined in small quantities. There is also significant lead, manganese, marble, gypsum, barite, gold, beryl, and uranium deposits here and there. Until these mining operations could be brought into production, it was understood that agriculture had to be Afghanistan's primary economic prosperity for some time.

    In the mean time, pictures of the past would show you schools full of women learning about medicine. It's most prominent leaders in the mid-1960s were four female deputies elected to the lower house of the parliament. Women were abandoning the veil. When President Kennedy visited he was surrounded by business suits. Pictures of the men in the surrounding area would be beardless and many without robes. Hell, as far back as the 1920s, you would see pictures of men in suits sitting on bicycles and cars. In the 1960s you would read about the news in a couple magazines that were emerging from the free press. You would hear about your political party or the global happenings from a radio station. They were modernizing.
    I'm luvin' this brief reprise of Afghanian historical perspective. Very enlightening, but since I'm not a Professor of Middle Eastern Studies like yourself I wasn't really concerned with all that. I'm more into what is DIRECTLY relative to us as you see. So you can pack up your treatise in your old kit-bag and smile, smile, smile. Nice job



    Take a guess at what happened. Never mind, I'll help you. Three factors were crucial to Afghanistan's failure to modernize.

    1) Due to the education system, few were engaged in the political processes. Most in the country couldn't read (over 80 percent still can't). It was largely up to the Pashtun and they were being influenced by the Soviets at the time. This meant that mass fair circulation of the press was not only hampered, but most couldn't read it anyway.

    2) Those that were elected by those who were educated enough to know what they were doing were inflexible, which meant that they constantly sought ways to improve upon their power.

    3) The reflexive panic of the King and his family whenever they or the system they devised came under fire meant that no coherent, legitimate opposition could develop. The only alternatives to not trusting the natural instability of democracy meant that autocracy or anarchy was always in the shadows.
    Okay, now you are finally getting somewhere. Your item 1) I agree with and fully comprehend despite my limited range due to "idiocy". It's why all the rest of what you say is informative, but superfluous. EDUCATION. Toss all your historical facts into the hopper and after they've been completely digested, the end result is Afghanistan never did make a serious commitment to education. To the very basic ability to read and write. Having not done so she, as a nation, wallows in the rule of the strongest and has been the subject of external agitation by foreign nations all for their own ulterior motivations...NONE OF WHICH had anything to do with what was best for Afghanistan. So you see, despite and in spite of your well-intentioned and pedantic historical perspective and having gotten off to a somewhat rocky start we agree on a basic REALITY.

    The communist leaning political parties eventually gained strength and allowed the Soviet Union to gain influence. The West (America and Britian) was shoved out. The Soviet Union assumed to bank roll highways, irrigation systems, and other projects. The Soviet policy to "Russianize" Afghanistan took its toll on the tribes. Tribes in the north began to rebell against the communist parties in Afghanistan. Russian presence became more and more. The Soviets decided that invading into Afghanistan to help the struggling government was a good idea. It was a the last clear example of imperialism in history. During the years of warfare, the population radicalized, Islamic warriors traveled to find the latest jihad, agriculture fields were destroyed, irrigation systems were destroyed, social systems were destroyed. After we assisted the Mujahadeen to defeat the Soviets, we left. They turned on their own people and headed straight into a decade of civil war. Afghanistan led the world for amputees. Even more destruction ensued and the farmers of Afghanistan turned to poppy not only to feed their family, but to appease the Taliban's demands for financial support. The Taliban (means students - it's to show their conviction to learn true Islam) won at the end of the decade and two years later 3,000 Americans died across the Atlantic Ocean because of an international terrorist organization they harbored. Today, we can't burn the poppy fields because it means the death of their families when Taliban agents come to collect. It also means that without those irrigation systems and other systems that were destroyed, farmers only have poppy. Without it, we may as well usher them to the taliban so that they can pay them for digging holes to set IEDs for twenty bucks.
    At the risk of fanning your emotionalism, I know all this and understood it before your indocrination. What you have totally ignored is the point of my original comment which you actually haven't dealt with in this attempt to impress myself and others as to the breadth of your knowledge of things Afghanian. So before folks reading this fall into a somnambulistic stupor I'll make the cogent points to you.

    WE SHOULD GET THE HELL OUT, BECAUSE NOONE BELIEVES BIN LADEN IS THERE.
    BIN LADEN AND THE PURSUIT OF HIM WAS OUR ONLY MISSION THERE!
    WE ARE NOT IN THE NATION-BUILDING BUSINESS.
    WE DO NOT NEED TO SACRIFICE ONE MORE AMERICAN LIFE (OR $) THERE.
    THAT COUNTRY HAS NO NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST FOR AMERICA.
    THAT COUNTRY IS NO NATIONAL SECURITY RISK FOR AMERICA
    .




    "Primitive cave dwellers?"
    I guess you never read books with pictures, huh!http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/h...go/Image13.jpg
    http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/h...go/Image12.jpg
    http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/h...go/Image11.jpg
    http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/h...ugo/Image8.jpg
    http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/h...ugo/Image2.jpg
    I have about 15 or so I think from some research I did some time back on the cave/cliff dwellers of isolated areas like the Korengal Valley of Death where American soldiers die, desperately trying to win over the tribal elders to no avail. We need to get out...PERIOD!




    "No concept of personal freedoms?" Assuming that democracy is something that entered their world only after we showed up to engineer them out of their mess is ignorant. What was that about "sheer idiocy?" Read a ****ing book, then vomit an educated opinion.
    Your vomiting all over your self-righteous, pontificating self sarge. Shape up and wake up.
    Last edited by doctorhugo; 03-17-11 at 12:07 AM.
    "Ignorance confuses. Knowledge mediates. Truth resolves." (doctorhugo)

  8. #88
    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 apdst View Post
    In case your history prof didn't tell you, the Soviets ended up in Berlin. Sound like a defensive strategy to you? Do you even know what a counter-offensive amounts to??????
    Defense, followed by offense. I'm not sure what your problem is here. I mentioned the value of the defense followed by a counteroffensive in a previous post.

    You don't have the first ****ing clue what these words mean; do you? Obviously, you're degree isn't in military history.
    Actually that was my concentration, and yeah just keep making assertions without backing them up.

    Who were the dfenders?
    The NVA and VC. I don't see why this is even a question.
    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. #89
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

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

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    Vietnam is a textbook example of defensive strategy. If a defender's will is strong enough, there pretty much isn't anything you can do to stop them. Isn't it impressive that someone can lose all tactical engagements and battles and still win the war.

    Col. Harry G. Summers: ""You never defeated us in the field."

    NVA Colonel Tu: "That may be true. It is also irrelevant."
    That was not a case of defensive strategy as much as political strategy. The Left turned against Democracy and supported Communism. The result was a disaster which still reverberates around the world.

  10. #90
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,319

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

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    Defense, followed by offense. I'm not sure what your problem is here. I mentioned the value of the defense followed by a counteroffensive in a previous post.
    But, not a defensive strategy. Yes? No? Or, do you need to email your history prof to formulate a response?



    Actually that was my concentration, and yeah just keep making assertions without backing them up.
    I don't have to back my assertions up. You keep doing it for me. It appears that actual historical knowledge trumps that piec of paper hanging on your bedroom wall, by a mile, eh?



    The NVA and VC. I don't see why this is even a question.
    How many battles did the NVA fight in North Vietnam? Good ****in' try, bro.

Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... 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
  •