Can't really add anything to this except the idiots in D.C. must have never studied history (not just war history), because they are doing the same stupid things over and over again.
Can't really add anything to this except the idiots in D.C. must have never studied history (not just war history), because they are doing the same stupid things over and over again.
Correct, plus he was trying to do away with their parliament and sideline the shah. The democratically elected government was turning into a dictatorship anyway. We just installed one that was useful to us.
It's odd that you quoted my post, as it was a response to bombing Iran for doing the same thing we do in multiples. But the rest of the conversation after that point addressed our meddling in their political affairs, which negates the bolded portion below:
And was brutal to the people. I mean, someone should just come in and install a tyrannical government here that's useful to their interests, since we're headed down the road to oppression anyway.
Just look at Ukraine. The US backed a coup that deposed a legitimately elected government and replaced it with a neo-nazi puppet government who has decided to launch military attacks against civilians in the eastern part of the nation. What is even more laughable is that the US claims Russia has sent it's military into eastern Ukraine that the Chief of Staff of Ukraine’s Armed Forces, General Viktor Muzhenko says is not the case.
I'm not talking about collateral damage and neither are those who are calling for all out war against all muslims as the solution.
Carpet bombing won't work here because we aren't dealing with a nation that has infrastructure and government. Precision won't either. We've dropped millions of tons of bombs on Iraq and Afghanistan and we've actually stepped backwards in progress. I'll state flatly that bombs won't get this done.
We've also tried the "occupier" route, the "nation building route". They've fallen flat. What's next? That's what I'm asking…what's the plan besides jingoism and sound bites?
Assisting local governments to carry the fight? Shipping beans and bullets to Jordan? Lots of Fox News watchers/Facebookers are masturbating to pictures of the King of Jordan in his camo flight suit (believing that a helicopter pilot is participating in "bombing missions")…but is it really the answer? Maybe, but we need to be smart about that and choose our puppet army wisely. History is cluttered with the wreckage of our choices in that arena. Talk about insanity.
Last edited:
You guys sound like once we help them, buy them, or whatever they should stay loyal forever. That does not happen when dealing with real people. Not in the mid-east, Asia, Europe, or even in the US. Things are changing all the time. You do the best you can at the time and hope, that is it. To expect anything else is fantasy and not a very bright one at that.
Hey, if we don't have the right to change the government of a sovereign nation to one that suits us, what can we do?
Last edited by a moderator:
Here is an interesting piece by William Lind focusing on how Clausewitz might see the situation.
http://www.military.com/Opinions/0,,Lind_111004,00.html
"If there is one point on which all of America's leaders, civilian and military, seem to agree, it is that the United States must remain on the offensive in the misnamed "War on Terrorism." The offensive is the only form of war that offers hope for a decisive victory.
Clausewitz would disagree. In his On War, Clausewitz writes, "defense is simply the stronger form of war, the one that makes the enemy's defeat more certain...We maintain unequivocally that the form of war that we call defense not only offers greater probability of victory than attack, but its victories can attain the same proportions and results."
"What does that definition mean for America in a 21st century that will be dominated by Fourth Generation, non-state war? As I write in TAC, "it means America's grand strategy should seek to connect our country with as many centers of order as possible while isolating us from as many centers and sources of disorder as possible." That, in turn, leads toward a defensive, not offensive, military strategy."
"As Clausewitz also argues, a defensive strategy must include a powerful counter-offensive. When Fourth Generation opponents attack us at home, as on 9/11, our response should be Roman, which is to say annihilating. But the defensive sends a strong message on the moral level of war: if you leave us alone, we will leave you alone. Fourth Generation enemies may find it difficult to motivate their people to attack us if we keep our side of that bargain."
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
North East OK WTS: (price drop#2)Ruger 10/22 factory takeoff barrel and flashhider
- Latest: Tin Star Firearms
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
