Page 43 of 75 FirstFirst ... 33414243444553 ... LastLast
Results 421 to 430 of 743

Thread: U.S. Tomahawk Cruise Missiles Hit Targets in Libya

  1. #421
    Educator
    Ron Mars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Last Seen
    02-01-14 @ 04:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,194

    Re: U.S. Tomahawk Cruise Missiles Hit Targets in Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by solletica View Post
    Vietnam was not just a political victory. It was military victory for the Viet Cong, because the Viet Cong forced the US to withdraw.
    The Viet Cong were destroyed during the TET offensive in '68.

    Quote Originally Posted by solletica View Post
    The Taleban doesn't have anywhere near the offense budget of the US, but it's able to hold its own in Afghanistan because its tactics are superior to the those of the US forces,
    The tali tactics are to hide behind women and children and explode bombs. When they fight US forces face to face they get their a** shot off. There is nothing superior about that. Where do you get your information?
    The national security of the United States can never be left in the hands of liberals.

  2. #422
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: U.S. Tomahawk Cruise Missiles Hit Targets in Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Mars View Post
    The Viet Cong were destroyed during the TET offensive in '68. The tali tactics are to hide behind women and children and explode bombs. When they fight US forces face to face they get their a** shot off. There is nothing superior about that. Where do you get your information?
    But that's the point, Ron Mars. The Islamists don't care if they hide behind women and children, or in fact use children as suicide bombers. They want 'collateral damage', and never concern themselves with an 'exit strategy' because their exit strategy is centuries old.

    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.

  3. #423
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Yop
    Last Seen
    06-27-16 @ 05:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    2,366

    Re: U.S. Tomahawk Cruise Missiles Hit Targets in Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Mars View Post
    The Viet Cong were destroyed during the TET offensive in '68.
    Do you mean, the Vietcong who created an urban front in 1968 called the Alliance of National, Democratic, and Peace Forces, who then merged in June 1969 with the NLF to form a "Provisional Revolutionary Government," were a bunch of zombies?

  4. #424
    Sage

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    10-10-16 @ 10:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    6,073

    Re: U.S. Tomahawk Cruise Missiles Hit Targets in Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    They were used to great effect in Japan with the war ending very quickly soon after. Knowing they will never be used will certainly embolden enemies, and will force you to fight their fight. That's just what's happening now. No one else but the democracies worries about "collateral damage" in a war, which is why we are always at a disadvantage.
    WWII was far different from the kinds of wars the US military currently wages.

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    No, the US military could easily have defeated the Vietcong.
    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.

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    Keep in mind it is not just the US fighting in Afghanistan, though that's the way anti American propaganda works. There are several countries involved, including my own. It will be a political self defeat by the West when we leave, and will just be a continuation of what's gone before.
    It will be both a military and political defeat, mostly for the US, as the bulk of troops in Afghanistan are American.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    There are military defeats and political defeats. Give the military carte blanche and we'll see how long the Taleban, Gadaffi, or any of these third world dictatorships stand up. They would be gone in weeks. But the democracies are weak and without any political cohesion or determination.


    Sure. That's why it is not all military. It's about will and politics.



    I agree. The US is the strongest democracy while the rest are comparative wimps, filled with self doubts and no stomach for war. Plus they are as anti American as the Taliban and the Muslim Brotherhood. The US will eventually crumble also as soon as there are any body bags arriving home and the accent will be placed on "Exit Strategy", a recent term devised to disguise defeat as victory. I think it's quite clear where the future lies. The only saving grace for the American people is their Second Amendment.
    the 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.
    Last edited by solletica; 03-21-11 at 06:31 PM.

  5. #425
    Sage

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    10-10-16 @ 10:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    6,073

    Re: U.S. Tomahawk Cruise Missiles Hit Targets in Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Mars View Post
    I've read some silly posts but this was remarkable.

    If you think the West is weak and can be easily defeated you really need to pay more attention to world events. Especially if you plan to make your opinions public.
    I have. Recent history has shown that the US military, with the world's most expensive hardware, is unable to defeat a Third World fighting force (Taleban) after 8 years.

    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.

  6. #426
    Sage

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    10-10-16 @ 10:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    6,073

    Re: U.S. Tomahawk Cruise Missiles Hit Targets in Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    But that's the point, Ron Mars. The Islamists don't care if they hide behind women and children, or in fact use children as suicide bombers. They want 'collateral damage', and never concern themselves with an 'exit strategy' because their exit strategy is centuries old.
    A bit presumptuous--eh? To suggest that Muslims don't care if their kids are blown up and killed. . .?





    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    This is just part of the thinking behind what the West is up against.
    That thinking is based on cold logic. When armed w/nothing but rifles and RPGs and faced w/an opponent w/planes and tanks, the only rational defense is to level the playing field by forcing your opponent to duke it out on the streets one on one.

    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

  7. #427
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: U.S. Tomahawk Cruise Missiles Hit Targets in Libya

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by solletica View Post
    WWII was far different from the kinds of wars the US military currently wages.

    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.
    So you're of the opinion that this is all about exploiting a countries natural resources and the only way to get those resources is to declare a war on the object country? This idea is so pathetic that it beggars belief.

    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.


    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.
    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.

    It will be both a military and political defeat, mostly for the US, as the bulk of troops in Afghanistan are American.
    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?

    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.



    the 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.
    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 knowledgeable

  8. #428
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: U.S. Tomahawk Cruise Missiles Hit Targets in Libya

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by solletica View Post
    A bit presumptuous--eh? To suggest that Muslims don't care if their kids are blown up and killed. . .?
    Reading is not your strong point, is it?

    From now on I'll ask you to use direct quotes or I honestly can't be bothered with you.

  9. #429
    Sage

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    10-10-16 @ 10:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    6,073

    Re: U.S. Tomahawk Cruise Missiles Hit Targets in Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Mars View Post
    The Viet Cong were destroyed during the TET offensive in '68.
    They were only bloodied, not destroyed; if the latter were true, the US forces would've won right then and there by definition

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Mars View Post
    The tali tactics are to hide behind women and children and explode bombs. When they fight US forces face to face they get their a** shot off. There is nothing superior about that.
    That's only one of their tactics.

    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.

  10. #430
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    dimensionally transcendental
    Last Seen
    08-15-11 @ 04:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,153

    Re: U.S. Tomahawk Cruise Missiles Hit Targets in Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant
    But that's the point, Ron Mars. The Islamists don't care if they hide behind women and children, or in fact use children as suicide bombers...
    Quote Originally Posted by solletica View Post
    A bit presumptuous--eh? To suggest that Muslims don't care if their kids are blown up and killed.
    Pretty sure most reasonable people would read Grant's comment as referring specifically to Islamic terrorists, not to ALL Islamic people.

Page 43 of 75 FirstFirst ... 33414243444553 ... 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
  •