Stupid Question

Discussion in 'Politics' started by saturneptune, Sep 3, 2013.

  1. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    This seems elementary to me, but why is it, in the last few decades, we have given the enemy plenty of lead time, sometimes almost down to the hour, as to when we are going to attack. This was true in the Gulf War, Afghanistan, the Iraq War, and now Syria. We debate, discuss, etc, until the enemy knows exactly when and what we are going to do. It reminds me of a horse race, ready, set, go and bang.

    I do not know if it is the demands of news coverage or what, but we did not announce D Day or the atom bombs over Japan.

    What are your thoughts on this? I mean, if we are going to go in and fight, (another debate) should not we try to at least make an effort to use the element of surprise?
     
  2. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,645
    Likes Received:
    158
    Blame it on the Constitution.
     
  3. ktn4eg

    ktn4eg
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    3,517
    Likes Received:
    1
    This just in .....

    HIGHLY [UN]RELIABLE WHITE HOUSE AND PENTAGON SOURCES REPORT THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA PLANS TO BOMB SYRIA ON 9/11!!!!!
































    :smilewinkgrin::smilewinkgrin:
     
  4. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,129
    Likes Received:
    221
    Bush I, gave a deadline - but did not say exactally when the fighting would begin.

    I agree, by giving the exact time when we will take action is not good.
     
  5. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Yep having a dictatorship would definately give us a tactical advantage. For awhile. Why not blame television and the internet? Oh wait they're already blaming the internet. The television they already control.

    Zbigniew Brzezinski shares your concerns SN. He's a bit more concise.

    He just says . . . "Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization."

    I think that might have something to do with why the founders gave congress the power to declare war and not the president. It slows down the rush to war. But then what do I know I'm not a constitutional scholar like John Yoo or Barrack Obama.
     
    #5 poncho, Sep 3, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 3, 2013
  6. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,250
    Likes Received:
    619
    Depends on the opponent and type of war. Nowadays, against most foes the US has an overwhelming military advantage. We could announce the day and the hour when we are going to attack and most countries could do little to defend themselves. How do you defend against cruise missiles? Drone attacks? Stealth fighters and bombers? Laser guided munitions?

    In Gulf War I we dropped millions of leaflets prior to the ground war and the result was the largest mass surrender in history.
     
  7. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    With Germany and Japan, we were facing opponents that had, earlier in the war, proved quite capable of defeating us in battle. Not so with anyone we have faced off against since.

    By D-Day, Germany's ability to make war was significantly diminished, and Japan was fighting a war of attrition in 1945, stalling the allied forces for as long as possible leading up to the anticipated invasion of the homeland, upon which eventuality, the Japanese government fully intended to turn out every living body for the fight.

    Therefore, the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki came as complete surprises, and with Hirohito still reeling from the blows, President Truman announced the emperor had three days to surrender, or Tokyo would be the third target. Faced with certain death from a weapon he could only faintly imagine, Hirohito capitulated. Ironically, Truman's announcement was the greatest poker bluff ever played. We did not have a third bomb. Harry's bluff saved millions of Japanese lives, and his use of the two bombs saved the lives of millions on both sides, as a land invasion of the Japanese homeland would have dragged on for years.

    Germany suspected D-Day was upon them, but could not guess where the sea-borne assault would come. Their confusion rendered them unable to get the upper hand, though as with any invasion from the sea, they made it extremely difficult for allied forces. Still, the Allies beat their own schedule by nearly 200 days in approaching the German border. Nonetheless, Germany was still strong enough that, even after the defeat at Normandy and the fall of France, the Reich was still able to mount an effective defense against the invasion of northern Europe and the attempted circumvention of the dreaded Siegfried Line.

    All this to outline the effectiveness of our opponents in that war. Those we have engaged since have been weak, corrupt and unable to defend themselves effectively. In Vietnam, we gave away our advantage through idiotic decisions made not be military men, but by unschooled and foolish politicians, fueled by a public opinion shaped by a biased media. We have since vowed never to fight a war that way again, and we haven't. But if anything, our opponents have been weaker still, and are incapable of retaliating. In fact, whether one believes it or not, there is no nation, not even China or Russia, that could mount an effective war effort against us. China's only advantage, and it would not last long, would be manpower, being able to mobilize 100 million troops. The problem is the quality of those troops.

    Give a commander two Apache helicopter and a well-trained platoon of U.S. Army Rangers, and there isn't a division in the world that could stand against them.
     
    #7 thisnumbersdisconnected, Sep 3, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 3, 2013
  8. just-want-peace

    just-want-peace
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    5,505
    Likes Received:
    40
    TND:
    What you say is true, BUT, just as in Israel, they prevailed only as long as they trusted God.
    I personally believe that God has been with us in the past, but I'm not that convinced that God is going to continue to be with us - the way we are heading now - in any future "democracy planting".
     
  9. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    So you think the change over in the way we fight was Vietnam instead of Korea? I do agree with you about the way we fought in Vietnam, but what is your opinion of Korea, since it is the first real conflict since WW2, when we actually declared war.

    You made an interesting point about civilians running the war in Vietnam. Which administration do you think caused more damage, if one believes we should have been there in the first place? Personally, I put the blame square on the Johnson Administration. I know Kennedy sent limited numbers of advisors, but the conflict took a massive escalation during the Johnson years. At one point we had almost 600 K troops in Vietnam. In total, we lost over 58,000. Anyway, the man I consider the focal point of the failed policy was Robert McNamera.

    While the actions of the Nixon Administration were not stellar, he at least reduced the number of troops. The invasion of Cambodia and Christmas bombing of the north were somewhat puzzling considering his goal was Vietnamization. I guess one of the saddest scenes is after Nixon resigned, when the North had overrun the South in 1975, and watching desperate people trying to get help at the American embassy, and seeing the last helo leave, after the 58,000 lives. I think this plus the pardon of Nixon allowed Carter to win in 76.

    Yes, Army Rangers are the best in the world. Getting back to the present conflict, it may not make any difference in this case with Syria whether the attack was a surprise or not. Assad is already weakened by a civil war. He has limited quality of soldiers, and his air force and navy is almost comical. The chemical weapons and their delivery systems remain dangerous. Maybe it makes no difference, but there seems just basically something wrong with making a media circus out of the start of a conflict. I like the analogy I used before, the guy at the starting gate of a horse race, saying "ready, set, go" then bang.

    Here is something else I wonder what your opinion is. It has been said our policy in the Middle East has failed over the last several decades. However, look at it. Jordan and Saudi Arabia and Turkey are allies, (real or not). We had a part of effecting change in Libya, Egypt, and Iraq (a high price). These may stick or not. But one must admit, that is a large number of countries. Also, we have smaller allies such as Oman, Kuwait, and Bahrain.
     
  10. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,123
    Likes Received:
    1
    it's symptomatic of a deteriorating society where political correctness reigns supreme, divulging secrets is called patriotic, identifying clandestine agents is called proper, and all things which old-time Americans hold dear is called unconstitutional.
     
  11. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think we would be very correct in considering the possibility that our turn away from righteousness, and our turn away from Israel, may quickly result in our fall. Well stated, JWP.

    Very reasonable post, Saturn, and deserving of a reasonable response. And from here on out, let's try to avoid letting our personalities get in the way of brother-to-brother discussion. I owe you an apology for exceeding the "pique" limit over the last day or so. God bless you.

    I agree with you on both counts. According to the conspiracy theorists, Kennedy was supposedly preparing to withdraw the advisors from South Vietnam, but I think it more likely he was ignoring the "all-in" advise of McNamara and was going to proceed cautiously and, given his combat experience in they Navy, was probably going to exercise his authority as commander-in-chief and direct a reasonable battle strategy that would have probably ended the war within a year or two. It wouldn't have taken that long, properly executed. I'm not sure what was behind McNamara's agenda, but given his background, it is likely he was trying to benefit his cronies in the military-industrial complex.

    I don't think his assassination had anything to do with his Vietnam strategy, but I do believe Johnson, not having any military background and relying on his concept of leadership from his days in the Senate, believed he was doing the right thing listening to McNamara. But neither of them were qualified to lead a war effort. They should have left it in the hands of the generals, as Kennedy obviously intended to do.

    I agree with all of that. I can't help but consider the fate of friends I had in ARVN and from among the people, real patriots who simply wanted their country to survive. Many of my fellow vets think little of ARVN, and perhaps late in the war, the inexperience and youth of those in the army there brought some disgrace on their military. However, the veterans were some of the bravest, most committed troops I knew. Congress wouldn't even send them supplies, and when they ran out in early '75, their fate was sealed.

    I missed that one, but it is appropriate. Or better yet, "Ready, set ... g- ... oh, wait a minute."

    I think those who criticize our "nation building" efforts fail to realize they have worked. Very astute observation.

    Amen, brother. :thumbsup:
     
    #11 thisnumbersdisconnected, Sep 5, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 5, 2013
  12. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    No apology, as I usually get my fur up at the mention of Republicans being conservative. One point you made, the change needs to be accomplished within the Republican Party as long as they are one of the two major parties.

    Another point, I never met someone that transcended both wars, Vietnam and the Gulf War. I did know an older guy once in the service that had served in WW2, Korea, and Vietnam.

    Anyway, getting back to the op, I do think the need of a surprise attack date has diminished throughout the years. It could become vital if we ever get in another conflict with a nation on our level at the time.
     
  13. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    There are a few of us. Gen. John Shalikashvili is probably the most prominent.

    Absolutely. I don't believe one exists right now, but that doesn't mean China or Russia can't grow in strength and adventurism.
     
  14. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    If Russia (or one of the former Soviet states) or China ever decides to attack us, I doubt they are going to precede that with national televised hearings from Peking or Moscow.

    One of the funniest quotes I remember from a Soviet leader (aside from remembering as a kid Khrushchev pounding his shoe on the table), was a reporter asking Brezhnev, the Soviet leader at the time, how he would handle a situation like Watergate. He said, Watergate, no problem.................

    For your enjoyment, a Soviet fashion show by Wendy's

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWAKtYGJZSM
     
  15. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    You two are starting to sound envious of the Russians and Chinese. Just pokin fun now don't go gettin all upset.

    Seriously though this conversation already comes in book form. The Grand Chessboard. Have either of you read it?

    From the book . . .

    "The most immediate task is to make certain that no state or combination of states gains the capacity to expel the United States from Eurasia or even to diminish significantly its decisive arbitration role." (p. 198)

    "In the long run, global politics are bound to become increasingly uncongenial to the concentration of hegemonic power in the hands of a single state. Hence, America is not only the first, as well as the only, truly global superpower, but it is also likely to be the very last." (p.209)

    "Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." (p. 211)

    For more quotes from The Grand Chessboard CLICK HERE. One of Obama's foreign policy advisers and good buddy wrote it.

    He was close to Jimmy Carter too. I can almost hear him thinking . . ."Oh if only Obama had a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat he could use to unite the country behind him like Bush did. Congress and the American sheople would bow down and drink kool aid from his boots instead of acting like we still live in a republic an gettin all up in his face and everything".

    Blame it on "democracy" Brzezinski does.
     
    #15 poncho, Sep 6, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 6, 2013

Share This Page

Loading...