|
Post by ElricMorlockin on Nov 1, 2001 9:03:47 GMT -5
In all honesty, Nach, LB despite his pessimism (or perhaps because of it) plays a pretty good devil's advocate at times. Though he and I rarely see eye to eye, he does make some good points, one being the Taliban being part of a democratic process in a "New Afghanistan". I think that goes without saying since, the great majority of the educated people in that country are part of or affiliated with the Taliban. Pedro, again, mis amigo, right on target. We definitely need to get busier ending this mess in Afghanistan and show quite a bit more determination by getting the ground forces in there in the near future. I firmly believe this is going to be the case, since B-52 strikes have drastically been stepped up.
Pattons quote was taken from an assembly speech he was given to his troops. "No bastard wins a war by heroically dying for his country. On the contrary, one wins a war by making some other poor bastard die for his." Agree or disagree because of personal feelings about war, violence etc. But that statement holds quite a bit of truth, and depite Patton being an incredibly agressive army commander, he did have a "sweat saves blood" mentality which endeared him the average fighting man. My Great Uncle served in Pattons Third Army during the "Liberation of France". Hes dead now, but when bringing up the topic had nothing but high praise for "Uncle George" (Patton). The servicemen new that serving with Patton meant heavy fighting, but they also had a strong confidence that "Uncle George" would do everything possible to avoid being slaughtered senselessly and bring them to victory. Finally, Billy! Your Sgt. was a smart hombre.
|
|
|
Post by Silmarillion on Nov 1, 2001 9:08:03 GMT -5
but if you believe for one second that the largest part of the Afghani would prefer the horrible clanwar they were in instead of the Taliban, you're the deluded one, not me. I'm sorry....didn't realize you lived amongst the Afghan people.
|
|
Lord Bane
Peasant
D?faitiste Extraordinaire
Posts: 63
|
Post by Lord Bane on Nov 1, 2001 9:14:10 GMT -5
Sil Listen to or read non-US news once in a while, and you'll notice there *are* other points of view possible. True, Elric, that quote holds a lot of truth, which is probably why I hate it.
|
|
|
Post by Silmarillion on Nov 1, 2001 9:21:30 GMT -5
Sil Listen to or read non-US news once in a while, and you'll notice there *are* other points of view possible. That's preposterous.
|
|
|
Post by pedro2112 on Nov 1, 2001 15:51:07 GMT -5
I thought that after every ridiculous theory of his has been evsicerated, that LB would finally get a clue and pipe down. Alas, that is not to be...
Anyway, the FIRST and most important concern of ANY war is to win... and the military concerns ALWAYS AND WITHOUT QUESTION should be above any other concerns (nation building, humanitarian aid, etc). Those who think otherwise are the same idiots who got us into the mess in vietnam
|
|
|
Post by Kothoses the Tyrant on Nov 1, 2001 17:17:38 GMT -5
I thought that after every ridiculous theory of his has been evsicerated, that LB would finally get a clue and pipe down. Alas, that is not to be... Anyway, the FIRST and most important concern of ANY war is to win... and the military concerns ALWAYS AND WITHOUT QUESTION should be above any other concerns (nation building, humanitarian aid, etc). Those who think otherwise are the same idiots who got us into the mess in vietnam Oh lord above please forgive me of my sin today.... Pedro I agree with you, once you get into a war there are only 2 options WIN or LOSE, you cant play for a score draw like we did in the Balkans, if the boys are going in let them go in properly. However for your Vietnam comment, I disagree (thankfully this post finds a redeeming feature j/k) from what I saw you did everything but blow the country off the planet, destroyed landscape buildings ect, thats why you lost that war the apathetic non sympathisers who would have left alone, rose up to fight against the people whose Napalm bombs ruined their country and burned to death or scarred their children, there has to be consideration given to those not given a choice as to if they live or die......
|
|
|
Post by Billy_Yank on Nov 1, 2001 19:36:22 GMT -5
Nope. We lost in VN because fuzzy thinkers in Washington didn't allow a win. The military never lost a battle, but that didn't matter. The VN war could have been over by '69 (what would have happened after that is another topic, and not a military matter). The civillian population's attitudes never came into play because we never invaded the North.
|
|
|
Post by pedro2112 on Nov 1, 2001 23:30:06 GMT -5
Fonz, your opinion on vietnam is based on inaccurate information. As the Yanker stated, we lost in vietnam because we never wanted to win. We spent a lot of time and energy into winning "hearts and minds" of the populace, instead of taking over the entire country and then setting up a democratic government like we did in Japan. When you have the President of the US vetoing bombing missions because the targets are too "politically sensitive", you know you are in trouble.
If we would have gone in their from the get go and did what we had to do, the war would have been over in a few years and most of the "atrocities" wouldn't have had an opportunity or time to take place.
Notwithstanding the above, I think that the decision to go to war in vietnam was a bad one. A bunch of harvard educated ideologists take over the state department during Kennedy's administration, and hoodwinked the naive president into making some type of military commitment there. Wars that are faught for ideology rather than national security reasons are doomed to fail. The state department fools were extremely worried about china, and they felt if Ho Chi Min's communist party took over vietnam, that would spread China's influence in the area. However, anyone with half a brain knows that China and Vietnam hated each other, and always will! In fact, the main supporter and supplier of the North Vietnamese and thier VC brethren during the war was the USSR, NOT the Chinese.
|
|
Lord Bane
Peasant
D?faitiste Extraordinaire
Posts: 63
|
Post by Lord Bane on Nov 2, 2001 8:19:31 GMT -5
Sil, what is presposterous is that you see the Taliban as Demons of the purest evil and probably Omar as the Antichrist.
Pedro! LOL! What is basicly my one and only point is that I'm not in the least convinced that war is the best solution in this situation. But we all know that already, aye ?
|
|
|
Post by ElricMorlockin on Nov 2, 2001 10:57:17 GMT -5
LB! I firmly believe that there are no Americans here that just absolutely LOVE war and cant wait to get into the next one. As a matter of fact, I'd also "go out on a limb" and wager that all Americans here probably have a similar attitude as mine, just leave us the hell alone! Where disagreements come into play it seems, is how to define where the battles for our national security should be fought. But, Pedro pinned it rather well IMO. What we cant do is to expect people around the globe to want to be free. Most dont have a clue as to what this is or what to do with it, and would rather fight against such a system out of sheer ignorance. Billy and Pedro were "dead on" why we "lost" in Nam. When you "send the boys in" like Koth said, it should be with the attitude that we ARE going to kill as many of the enemy as possible and win this damn thing. As in any war, where there is fighting there is killing and there is always cases of baseless atrocities. I however, will not dishonor the 99.999999999999% of US servicemen who performed their duties honorbly in Nam by classing them together with a couple of black hearted thugs that happened to dishonor our uniform. You may hate what Patton had to say, but it is truth in the purest sense when it comes to war. But, IMO it is a good thing to have a commander with such an attitude. Patton was a product of "southern" military tradition, and an admirer of another military genius in the form of Robert Edward Lee. Whom by the way was known to say, "It is good that war is so terrible, lest we become too fond of it". Hopefully you understand a little better the American point of view on fighting. Do we have folks here that are pacifists, yes! And though I dont agree that NOTHING in life isnt worth going to war over, I am glad to have their voice in the fray. Diverse opinion is what makes this a great country, not our wealth! I think the US military insignia says it all. An American Bald eagle clutching a sheaf of arrows in one talon and an olive branch in the other (war and peace). The eagle has its head turned toward peace but will fight to maintain that peace.
|
|
|
Post by Kothoses the Tyrant on Nov 2, 2001 11:10:48 GMT -5
Sil, what is presposterous is that you see the Taliban as Demons of the purest evil and probably Omar as the Antichrist. Pedro! LOL! What is basicly my one and only point is that I'm not in the least convinced that war is the best solution in this situation. But we all know that already, aye ? LB you are in this instance takeing the devils advocate thing too far, sure any government is better than total anarchy, but the Taliban are the lowest form of leadership going, Make no mistake, they would see you dead as soon as look at you if they wanted to and u were there, freedom of thought, never mind speech is basically against the law with them. The only reason they maintain their power base is fanatascism, after all its hard to fight against a man that is not scared of dying, but for the purposes of WORLD security regiems like this must be brought into line with acceptable moral standards IE NOT MURDERING OVER 5000 PEOPLE JUST COS THEY CAN. The Talban Are harbouring Bin Laden, they are an Accessorie to murder in american law, here they would be charged with Conspiracy charges anyway you look at it they are out of line, they wont listen to reason, Buh tried sabre rattling it doesnt work, sometimes u have to take that Sabre out and cut of the head of the demon before it has chance to eat your children.
|
|
Lord Bane
Peasant
D?faitiste Extraordinaire
Posts: 63
|
Post by Lord Bane on Nov 2, 2001 12:01:36 GMT -5
Elric, I'm just saying that war IMHO isn't the solution here. Time'll tell.
And on the pacifism-comment, I think that Europe has seen too many wars (one long war for the past 2 millenia actually) to fully support it.
Fonz, nearly each and every of the fighting militias in Afghanistan are cruel fanatics and have commited the worst of atrocities. This is a fact. Next, frankly I don't think it's all as easy explicable over there as it's pictured. The Taliban *have* offered even before the 11th to hand over Osama under certain conditions, but without even knowing these conditions the US have always radically declined (does this show an intention to solve this crisis peacefully? Don't think so, it rather shows that the US have no intention to lose the massive oil supplies beneath Afghani surface.). Even now I can imagine they'd be happier without than with Osama, but the unconditional surrender of Al Qaeda Bush demands is understandably out of the question for the Taliban, since they -as you stated- need Osamas croonies at the moment.
Btw, Fonz-man, the freedom-of-speech issue (and the type of government it implies) has never been much of problem internationally. Just look at China, even nowadays (or what Russia's doing in Chechnia, etc), and do you believe that the Iraq that was the US's closest ally (in their war against Khomenei that is) in the early 80's was any different than the one that became their biggest enemy a decade later ?
|
|
|
Post by Kothoses the Tyrant on Nov 2, 2001 12:23:05 GMT -5
do you believe that the Iraq that was the US's closest ally (in their war against Khomenei that is) in the early 80's was any different than the one that became their biggest enemy a decade later ? But just because mistakes were made in the past does that mean they should carry on makeing them just so as not to put some Faction or others nose out of joint?
|
|
Lord Bane
Peasant
D?faitiste Extraordinaire
Posts: 63
|
Post by Lord Bane on Nov 2, 2001 12:40:29 GMT -5
Of course not, I'm just saying (for what must be the zillionth time) that it's not as black & white as a whole lot of people seem to think it is.
|
|
|
Post by ElricMorlockin on Nov 2, 2001 13:12:05 GMT -5
LB! That is so God D!$#'ed off base I cant believe you actually believe that crap! We wont offer a peaceful solution because we want Afghani oil! Where in the nine hells do you come up with this crap? OK, let me put this in a light (hopefully) that will fit into your life. Lets say that your mom is a Socialist Liberal politician and I, an affiliate of your right wing anarchist party group, murders your mother. Yet I live in the USA not Belgium. You demand for me to be turned over to your law system for trial. The US government declines outright extradition, and offers to try me in the deep south where the KKK has political sway. You know full good and well that the majority of the jurists are going to be right wing extremists similar to the group you have in your country. Likely the result will either be my outright innocence found or in a worst case scenario a hung jury and another retrial with the same jury poll. Are you going to actually sit here and tell me that you would be happy with this?
|
|