The national security of the United States can never be left in the hands of liberals.
This is just part of the thinking behind what the West is up against.
suicide bombing - Topics - Macleans.ca
We can throw whatever we learned from past wars out the window. This is one where the idea of 'collateral damage' is not only dismissed, it is actually used as a central tactic.
In WWII, the US was defending itself from an aggressor, so the collateral damage of the nuke was acceptable--it wouldn't have compromised the US objective.
But today, the US government fights offensive wars aimed at exploiting the natural resources of the attacked country. Nuclear weapons would be useless in such wars as they would make harnessing those resources difficult, i. e. once an Arab/African country is nuked, its oil fields and/or mines become contaminated and worthless.
It's no different than the Revolutionary War of 1776. The US defeated the British militarily. The Brits could have won if they kept fighting, but they quit, deciding it wasn't worth it.
A military victory means accomplishing one's military objectives. It doesn't matter how it was accomplished. The NVA accomplished its goal--withdrawal of enemy forces, while the US failed in its goal, so the NVA won.
Political victory only means to win widespread support for your side--that's it. It's possible to lose a war (i. e. get conquered) and still win a political victory.
Last edited by solletica; 03-21-11 at 04:31 PM.
Recent history has also shown that the US military, with the world's most expensive hardware, is unable to repel attacks from 20-something sex-starved flight school flunkies.
Maybe you should brush up on history A lot has changed since, uh, WWII.
And the way to do that is to create a situation where the opponent's use of aerial bombs would result in so many civilian deaths that the opponent would have to hold back from using it. That's a tactic of asymmetric warfare.
Randomly blowing up one's kids for no reason would imply savagery. But being forced to endanger their lives because of practical military necessity is not.
And, of course, as the world has seen in Afghanistan, that thinking works. If Afghan forces had not employed that strategy, the US would've won quickly as their targets would've been conveniently placed
Canada has incredible natural resources and yet we have no fear of an American invasion. Do you know why??? We can trade our natural resources with the Americans, just as we do with the Chinese, Japanese, and dozens of other countries. No one has to invade another country to get their natural resources, and that goes for oil as well. And do you know why? It is simply not cost effective. It is cheaper and less hassle to just trade.
Right. The US could have easily won but they left. They knew full well, once they left, that the Communists would win. And the carnage that followed is what Left Wing politics is all about.Could a-would a-should a. The point is that the US did not defeat the Viet Cong because it quit, which means the Viet Cong won by default.
The US is the leading democracy, for sure, but if the Taleban wins in Afghanistan, is that as bad for the Americans as it would be for the Afghanistan people?It will be both a military and political defeat, mostly for the US, as the bulk of troops in Afghanistan are American.
The Communist may have "won" in Vietnam once the Americans left but what of the Vietnamese people? Did they win? It will be the people of Afghanistan who would be the real losers if NATO leaves, just as they have been for centuries.
You obviously know nothing of the US or its history, even its very recent history. You should restrict your comments to areas where you are more knowledgeablethe US is only a democracy on paper. In practice, it's a plutocracy. The CINC does not take orders from the American people, but only from oil companies/contractors, offense contractors, private equity firms, and hedge funds. The previous Iraq war made that more obvious--most of the country was against it, but the President didn't have to listen to the country.
And it must be superior because it's working--it's making it hard for the US military to use its planes, AC-130s, MOABs, or any of its other rumsfeld-ejaculation gadgets to win the war fast.