Page 6 of 14 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 139

Thread: Exclusive: Rumsfeld unloads

  1. #51
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Exclusive: Rumsfeld unloads

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    It's irrelevant. My point is, you fight wars to win, you don't fight wars not to lose.
    No one fought it to lose. They merely fought the wrong war. What was needed was different than what we did in WWII. And we should not have been there to begin with.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  2. #52
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,520

    Re: Exclusive: Rumsfeld unloads

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    No one fought it to lose. They merely fought the wrong war. What was needed was different than what we did in WWII. And we should not have been there to begin with.
    That's not what I said.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  3. #53
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ft. Campbell, KY
    Last Seen
    12-31-14 @ 08:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    12,177

    Re: Exclusive: Rumsfeld unloads

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    What happened in Iraq was, "freaky-deaky"

    This, is shock and awe.

    That is not "shock and awe" especially in the modern sense. Shock and Awe is meant primarily to demoralize the enemy by showing them the absolute superiority of our airpower and ability to strike the enemy anywhere precisely, thus hopefully destroying their will to fight, what you're showing is total destruction and an attempt to complete destroy the enemy's ability to fight. It is in fact the total opposite of shock and awe.

  4. #54
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Exclusive: Rumsfeld unloads

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    That's not what I said.
    You said:

    It's irrelevant. My point is, you fight wars to win, you don't fight wars not to lose.
    As no one fought it to lose, what is your point then?

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  5. #55
    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: Exclusive: Rumsfeld unloads

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    They're wrong, just like, "politics", is wrong.
    You're a Clausewitz expert? I have the Michael Howard and Peter Paret translation right in front of me, which is the most recent translation and the one most Clausewitz scholars regard as the best available English translation. It uses the words "continuation" and "politics."

    Vietnam was the first war that the United States fought, where political decision took priority over tactical decisions. That's not a winning combination.
    I think it's a lot more complicated than that. All wars are political in nature. Tactics should always adhere to a coherent strategy. Even with a war like Vietnam, if you took politics and politicians out of the equation, how would it have been fought? What would have been the end game? What would be the point of the war? To win? To win and beat whom and to what extent exactly, and to what end?

    The decision to go to war in Vietnam in the first place was just dumb. You can't fight and win wars with broad objectives like "rolling back Communism." You can't fight ideas or ideologies with force, the same way religious wars are pointless and we can't really fight "terrorism."
    Last edited by StillBallin75; 02-09-11 at 06:37 PM.

  6. #56
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,520

    Re: Exclusive: Rumsfeld unloads

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    That is not "shock and awe" especially in the modern sense. Shock and Awe is meant primarily to demoralize the enemy by showing them the absolute superiority of our airpower and ability to strike the enemy anywhere precisely, thus hopefully destroying their will to fight, what you're showing is total destruction and an attempt to complete destroy the enemy's ability to fight. It is in fact the total opposite of shock and awe.

    That's exactly what we did in Hamburg, pictured above.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  7. #57
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,520

    Re: Exclusive: Rumsfeld unloads

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    You said:



    As no one fought it to lose, what is your point then?
    Keep reading it, you'll figure out what I really said. Hint: "not", is the operative word in that sentence.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  8. #58
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ft. Campbell, KY
    Last Seen
    12-31-14 @ 08:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    12,177

    Re: Exclusive: Rumsfeld unloads

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    That's exactly what we did in Hamburg, pictured above.
    Except our airpower wasn't absolutely untouchable, it wasn't precise, and the attacks were designed to destroy the ability to fight economically, not necessarily their will to fight. Its the difference between strategic bombing and shock and awe. Of course the effects and definitions can overlap sometimes, but I think there's a clear difference between the air campaign over Hamburg in WW2 and Baghdad in 2003.

  9. #59
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,520

    Re: Exclusive: Rumsfeld unloads

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    You're a Clausewitz expert? I have the Michael Howard and Peter Paret translation right in front of me, which is the most recent translation and the one most Clausewitz scholars regard as the best available English translation. It uses the words "continuation" and "politics."
    The quote I posted is the won I read in, "On War". It could be wrong, since there are several translations of the work.



    I think it's a lot more complicated than that. All wars are political in nature. Tactics should always adhere to a coherent strategy. Even with a war like Vietnam, if you took politics and politicians out of the equation, how would it have been fought? What would have been the end game? What would be the point of the war? To win? To win and beat whom and to what extent exactly?
    It would have been fought to win, not just reach a certain political stopping point. Factor out the politicians and places like Haiphong and Hanoi wouldn't have been off limits to American bombing.

    The decision to go to war in Vietnam in the first place was just dumb. You can't fight and win wars with broad objectives like "rolling back Communism." You can't fight ideas or ideologies with force, the same way religious wars are pointless and we can't really fight "terrorism."
    We defeated Facism and Bushidoism during WW2. So, you're incorrect there.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  10. #60
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Exclusive: Rumsfeld unloads

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Keep reading it, you'll figure out what I really said. Hint: "not", is the operative word in that sentence.
    That distinction doesn't mean much. No one fought not to lose either.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

Page 6 of 14 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
  •