Has it occured to you... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message

Wild Bill -> Has it occured to you... (3/19/2003 9:07:16 AM)

Have you ever thought about the fact that the lovers of freedom and the rights of every man fought Germany and Japan until they were utterly beaten with unconditional surrender. These countries since that time have never been a military threat to this day.

But then Korea and Iraq, countries we fought but did not totally defeat are back again, more threatening than ever.

Even with no great devotion to General MacArthur, his saying that "There is no substitute for victory" still rings true.



CCB -> (3/19/2003 9:39:05 AM)

IIRC, Robert McNamara went before a Congressional Committee to state that he was against Desert Storm in 1990/1. How's that for irony?

Its going to be interesting to see what kind of nation Afghanistan becomes in the next twenty years or so.



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (3/19/2003 12:09:42 PM)

Bush senior is at fault for today's mess.

He didn't finish what he started. So what the Iraqis were getting trashed big time. They invaded Kuwait, wouldn't leave when told, and suffered a horrible pounding for it.

But they were getting mauled and Bush senior balked at going to Baghdad.

And now 12 years later look at the friggin mess.

If daddy had gone and taken Saddam out and off to an international court (regardless of whether anything was accomplished), we would not be dabating whether any of the current mess was right wrong needed or justified.

I am sure glad I am not Bush junior.



Von Rom -> Re: Has it occured to you... (3/19/2003 3:16:49 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wild Bill
[B]Have you ever thought about the fact that the lovers of freedom and the rights of every man fought Germany and Japan until they were utterly beaten with unconditional surrender. These countries since that time have never been a military threat to this day.

But then Korea and Iraq, countries we fought but did not totally defeat are back again, more threatening than ever.

Even with no great devotion to General MacArthur, his saying that "There is no substitute for victory" still rings true. [/B][/QUOTE]

So true Wild Bill.

BTW, I am enjoying your articles on the East Front over at the wargamer.

Cheers!



Twotribes -> (3/19/2003 7:50:12 PM)

Bush senior was in a no win situation. He had agreed not to take out Bagdad when he formed the coalition.

So his choice was to go against that agreement and break the alliance to finsih Iraq or to honor his stated purpose and not invade Iraq once Kuwait was free.



AlBW -> (3/19/2003 8:23:15 PM)

I am a proponent of the very un-PC doctrine of total war. To over-simplify a bit, either win completely or don't win at all.



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (3/19/2003 9:10:31 PM)

I would have to agree with that.

If I was the General in charge of this current situation, and told I could not go to Baghdad, and take out Saddam, I would be inclined to inform my superior, I would be out of town at a golf tournament that week (with or without my commission).

Halfway measures are a waste of human lives.

The army isn't a police force.



Cap Mandrake -> (3/19/2003 9:18:12 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
[B]Bush senior is at fault for today's mess.

He didn't finish what he started. So what the Iraqis were getting trashed big time. They invaded Kuwait, wouldn't leave when told, and suffered a horrible pounding for it.



[/B][/QUOTE]


Les;

I think that is a bit of a simplification. I will allow they might have beat up a bit more on retreating Iraqi forces, but to go all the way to Baghdad was problematic for many reasons:

1) Arab "allies" in the '91 coalition (mostly the Saudis) would not have stood for the complete humilitiation of another Arab nation.

2) Domestic political opposition had predicted massive US casualties. They were proved wrong, but Bush's support might have evaporated had he ordered an attack on the city.

3) US forces were not prepared for massive civilian humanitarian assistance...which is the responsibility of the occupying power.

4) There was a French unit on the leftwing of the attack...US forces might have been slowed down when the French began to retreat ;-)



jnier -> (3/19/2003 10:56:15 PM)

I agree with Mandrake here. War always has been and always will be a political tool. The idea that poltical considerations could ever be [B]completely[/B] divorced from the conduct of a war, including desert storm, is ludicrous.



chief -> (3/19/2003 11:09:13 PM)

Mandrake are you saying we went in without a LEFT WING, talk about a "Wing and a Prayer". Good thing the Iraqi intelligence (oxymoron) didn't get wind of that. ;) :eek:



Wild Bill -> (3/20/2003 12:16:11 AM)

Thanks so much Von Rom for mentioning the EF articles. I've enjoyed doing them very much. It was a learning experience for me.

First Article: http://www.wargamer.com/articles/russo_german_historical_part1/page6.asp

Second Article: http://www.wargamer.com/articles/russo_german_historical_part2/

There will be an article on each year of the fighting in addition to the general overview at the outset.

As for the topic here, I understand completely all of the ramifications and limitations put on nations today. WW2 was a major holocaust, both East and West.

Still, victory was complete and we did not have to go back and do it again.

For those who say some of the other nations balked back then, well, they are balking now but we still have to do what we have to do.

There are moments when you have to do what is right. Leaving Iraqi citizens at the mercy of this evil torturer and murderer was not the right thing to do.

Now we have to go back, expose our boys and girls to death, maybe even a worse death, to do the same thing all over again. Only this time, I think the evil dictator will be a little harder to get to than he was before.

Total victory was in the grasp of the Coalition. We dropped it. Now we'll have to grasp it again.

Finish the job or don't take on the task...Wild Bill



Cap Mandrake -> (3/20/2003 2:04:51 AM)

Wild Bill;

I completely agree with your sentiments about leaving the murdering bastard Hussein in power. Clearly, a greater moral good would have been served in '91 had he been sent to He**. Unfortunately, short of Hussein manning a T-62 at Easting and taking a round of DU between his eyes, or a lucky shot with a bunker-buster, there was no way in light of pre-9/11 domestic and international political realities, that US forces could remove him from power. I have some sympathy for Bush 41 and Powell and Schwarzkoff who had to make a tough decsision.

It is my fervent hope that coalition losses will be few and that other governments that give refuge to terrorists or seek to aquire WMD (eg., Iran, Syria..even N. Korea) will think twice about the wisdom of their actions.



Wild Bill -> (3/20/2003 5:16:29 AM)

my sentiments exactly Mandrake. We think a lot alike on this matter.

For what it is worth. In 1991, I was full of exuburence about the Coalition and what was being done.

And even though now I realize that if this threat is as serious as purported (and I'm quite sure there are danger elements to risky to mention at this point), instead of exuberance, I have a deep foreboding of how costly this might be.

I pray my feelings are wrong and that casualties on all sides are minimal.

Some poor Iraqis have two guns pointing at them...one from the front and another one behind them. God help those poor souls!

Wild Bill



MarkFroio -> (3/22/2003 3:14:39 AM)

Bill,

You might say that WW I never ended until 1945 or that WWII had to be fought because we didn't defeat Germany totally in 1918. When the WWI ended, the Allies had not even gotten to German soil.

But, it is easy for us to argue these theories and alternate histories. We're not the President asking our men and women to risk their lives. And as someone pointed out in an earlier post, our leader don't make decisions in a political vacum.

Just my 2 cents.



Ian Packham -> (3/22/2003 11:59:29 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cap Mandrake
[B]
I completely agree with your sentiments about leaving the murdering bastard Hussein in power. Clearly, a greater moral good would have been served in '91 had he been sent to He**. Unfortunately, short of Hussein manning a T-62 at Easting and taking a round of DU between his eyes, or a lucky shot with a bunker-buster, there was no way in light of pre-9/11 domestic and international political realities, that US forces could remove him from power. I have some sympathy for Bush 41 and Powell and Schwarzkoff who had to make a tough decsision.

[/B][/QUOTE]

I agree that the US troops could not have entered Bagdad and removed Saddam themselves because of the politics of the coalition. But Bush did make a major blunder in not supporting the Shiites and Kurdish uprisings. He promised them support and then he went back on his word. He could have given them arms to defend themselves and placed troops in towns to stop the massacre of civilians. He also told dissident sections in the Iraqi army to revolt as they would get US support. This never happened either.

The reason Saddam stayed in power was that he immediately crushed all opposition as soon as Iraq surrendered to the coalition. That is how he has always stayed in power.

If the opposition forces to Saddam had been supported then Saddam would very likely have been quickly removed from office by the Iraqis themselves.



Wild Bill -> (3/22/2003 11:37:50 PM)

Thank you Gentlemen. Interesting point, Max. I had not considered that. Yes, WWI ended with a treaty, albeit a deadly one for Germany that created a lot of resentment and a desire for "payback."

I can't help wondering if the adminstration knows something that they are still not telling us for security or alarm reasons that has prompted this action.

One day we may know and then we may never know. There could still be bitter surprises ahead of us.

God bless the grieving families for lives lost in this war...WB



troopie -> (3/23/2003 11:54:47 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cap Mandrake
[B]Wild Bill;

I completely agree with your sentiments about leaving the murdering bastard Hussein in power. Clearly, a greater moral good would have been served in '91 had he been sent to He**. Unfortunately, short of Hussein manning a T-62 at Easting and taking a round of DU between his eyes, or a lucky shot with a bunker-buster, there was no way in light of pre-9/11 domestic and international political realities, that US forces could remove him from power. I have some sympathy for Bush 41 and Powell and Schwarzkoff who had to make a tough decsision.

It is my fervent hope that coalition losses will be few and that other governments that give refuge to terrorists or seek to aquire WMD (eg., Iran, Syria..even N. Korea) will think twice about the wisdom of their actions. [/B][/QUOTE]

Actually it will encourage them to acquire nuclear weapons. They will believe that it will make them safe from attack. NOBODY attacks nations that have nukes and delivery systems. North Korea's sabre rattling is the rattling of a rattlesnake. It is saying, "Do not attack me. I CAN hurt you. I WILL hurt you." Iran's search for nuclear weapons has a similar origin. But it is also seeking to counterbalance Israel and become the Islamic superpower. There was no love between Iran and Saddam Hussein. They will be glad to see him gone. But look for them to spend enormously on weapons now. Syria hasn't the ability to do so. Iran can do so

And there is another nation in the Middle East that funds terrorism and is actively buying arms from anyone who will sell. That country is Saudi Arabia.

troopie



Cap Mandrake -> (3/23/2003 2:28:26 PM)

Troopie;

The North Korean Nuclear program is centralized and its whereabouts are known....with the possible exception or one or two weapons-worth of reprocessed plutonium. The NK program could be taken out a la the Israeli attack on the Osarisk reactor in Iraq. The problem of course is Seoul is within conventional artillery range of the DMZ, and could be largely destroyed...one estimate puts their capability at 100,000 rounds deliverable on Seoul within hours!! Now if the US were to withdraw from South Korea (like many South Koreans seem to want) the North Koreans would likely feel more threatened as a possible attack on their facilities might seem more plausible. Several US Govmt officials have recently floated the idea of a reduction in US forces on the Korean Peninsula, perhaps with the purpose of rattling the NK's cage a bit.

If the NK goal were simply to say "dont attack me", why would they be making sutpid symbolic gestures like shooting of Silkworm missiles in the Sea of Japan? What they want in my opinion, is an international economic bailout and a promise not to attack from the US. Given the substanial leverage they have, they are likely to get the first and maybe the second.

Iran might be chastened by the attack on Iraq, but they are advanced in their ability to enrich Uranium with HUNDREDS of high-tech centrifuges ready to go and only discovered by the IAEA weeks ago! Either nation (NK or Iran) with nuclear weapons is a scary thought. Can you imagine if Iran gave a nuke to Hezbollah or Al Quaeda :eek:



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (3/23/2003 11:10:50 PM)

There is a lot of validity to what is being said in recent posts.

But one point is being missed. What would happen to any nation using a fledgling nuclear device on a world that is run by people like the US and Europe who possess super science surveillence and weapons of global reaching total annilhation proportions.

If for instance, Iran was to use a nucear weapon on another nation, even if with devestating effect, such as eliminating Tel Aviv in a stroke, the response would be the immediate removal of Iran through the most horrific response possible.

In an instant, the US would likely stike and remove the offending country in a heart beat.

This would not inflamme jihad like many would likely argue. The Iranians would have committed the most horrific act and would have no defense against a swift elimination.

If the US can go into Iraq on what some see as inadequate justification, try to imagine the response to nuking a friendly nations major cities.

NK, Iran, Saudia Arabia might have the means to make nuclear weapons, but they are more than 50 years out of the game.
They would never survive the usage of such weapons.

The cold war taught us a valuable lesson, there is no practical way to employ these weapons. Having them does not mean you can use them.



troopie -> (3/24/2003 4:24:41 AM)

1: The NK missile tests are an attempt to show they can deliver the nuclear weapons. But I agree the artillery on the SK border is more of a threat.

2: Iran is unlikely to give WMD to al-Qaeda. They are on the al-Qaeda hit list. Hezbollah is another matter. They are pro-Iranian.

3: Saudi Arabia's role is financial. The money for terrorism comes from there. Most of the 11 Sept. hijackers were Saudis. The radical Islam money comes from Saudi. They're not fighters, they're bankers.

troopie



Paul Vebber -> (3/24/2003 5:07:13 AM)

Just as we could not go on to Baghdad, we had to choose between supporting Iraqi revolution, or the support of Saudi arabi, UAE, Oman, and others.

One can hold Bush senior responsible, but it he was between a rock and a hard place as the Saudis in particular would not support any action to destabilize the IRaqi regime.

You can say we should have told the Saudis to go F off, but that is debatable.



North Korea is an interesting case. Most analysts predicted that it would not last anouther 5 years. The vigor with which they are crying out "pay attention to us" is indicative to many observers that the regime there is in much tougher straits than previously thoughts and may be on the verge of collapse.

This "child holding its breathe" routine is likely part of a domestic policy to prove the Dear Leader is a powerful international force who can demand the attention of the evil US now that he has nuclear weps.

Like ignoring the tantrum of a 3 year old, our dissmissive policy is exactly the right response and will likely hasten the demise fo teh regime there.

Given the close ties to China, and the involvement of "advisors" there is littel chance the Chinese will permit the NK to use the handful of nukes they have in ways counter to China's interest, or allow them to fall into the hands of terrorists.

It is in China's interest to ensure that those nukes are not used in ways that are not in China's interest.


Iran, Jordan and Syria are "teetering on the brink of democracy" and a demonstration in Iraq of an even marginally successful Arab democracy is hoped to have a favorable response.

The ability of Iran to move ahead with its nuclear weapons program under the watchful eyes of UN inspectors should be a lesson to those claiming inspections are the only road to non-proliferation...



Cap Mandrake -> (3/24/2003 8:47:45 AM)

DAAANG...we are smart :D

Who needs RAND or CIA analysts...lets start our own think tank...come on over, I'll throw some RibEyes on the barBQ and we can draw up incorporation papers.

I like the 3 yr. old breatholding analogy for NK....the problem is the spoiled little rugrat has a loaded 9 mm in his diaper. :)



denisonh -> (3/24/2003 10:57:07 AM)

Well said Wild Bill.

It is most certainly no coincidence. We are going to finally get around to finishing the business begun in the last Gulf War, a war that I lost a some good friends in.

I am glad to see that thier sacrifice will finally amount to something worthwhile.

I just hope it is not at the cost of the friends I currently have deployed there.

It is only victory when the opponent fully understands without a doubt that he has been defeated. Until then, it is a temproary advantage that time will most certainly destroy.



Ian Packham -> (3/24/2003 1:57:19 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
[B]
If for instance, Iran was to use a nucear weapon on another nation, even if with devestating effect, such as eliminating Tel Aviv in a stroke, the response would be the immediate removal of Iran through the most horrific response possible.

In an instant, the US would likely stike and remove the offending country in a heart beat. [/B][/QUOTE]

An interesting point is would the USA react with nuclear weapons. Israel would if it still could, but if the USA was not under nuclear attack itself, then I doubt if USA would launch retaliatory strikes.

After 6 years of world war and with a new weapon which was not fully understood, it is understandable why the bomb was dropped on Japan. But times have changed. You dont wipe out entire countries or cities because of the leadership. I think the US would attack Iran in that scenario but with conventional forces. They may bring along small strategic nuclear bombs with them to threaten the regime and/or destroy army and command compounds but the country itself would be left largely intact.

And what would happen if Iran said they had the means to detonate nuclear bombs in USA. It would give any US President reason to pause and wonder if it would be better just to make a truce and work on alternative plans to remove the Iranian regime.

Definitely better to halt nuclear profileration in its tracks. The problem is the US has allowed others who are not "enemies" such as India and Pakistan to develop their own. That could backfire in the future.



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (3/24/2003 9:05:35 PM)

Still undecided what the US would do actually.

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was done for many reasons. Part military , part political.

The US though, would not I think hesitate to wield it's might in response to a nuclear attack on an ally.

The idea being "it could be us next" would play a large part in that thinking.

Well that's it for me guys, political posts are getting out of hand. I am stepping back from this thread at this time.

Unsubscribed.



Raindog101 -> (3/25/2003 12:06:31 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
[B]Bush senior is at fault for today's mess.

He didn't finish what he started. So what the Iraqis were getting trashed big time. They invaded Kuwait, wouldn't leave when told, and suffered a horrible pounding for it.

But they were getting mauled and Bush senior balked at going to Baghdad.

And now 12 years later look at the friggin mess.

If daddy had gone and taken Saddam out and off to an international court (regardless of whether anything was accomplished), we would not be dabating whether any of the current mess was right wrong needed or justified.

I am sure glad I am not Bush junior. [/B][/QUOTE]
I agree with Les on this one.

Bush Sr. was a military man and a Cold Warrior. If anyone should know Saddam would be back, he should have.

IMO he made the mistake of trying to appease the coalition. He made the often fatal error of wanting to be "liked" instead of the much better for peace "feared"

The hard right warned we'd have to do this again, unless he was removed, and here we are.

Just my 2 cents.

[IMG]http://www.101stabndiv1stbrigade.com/jumpers.gif[/IMG]



AbsntMndedProf -> (3/26/2003 11:59:01 AM)

During his tenior as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General/Secretary of State Colin Powell developed a simple, three-point doctrine to be applied before U.S. troops were committed to battle. These points, as I recall hearing them, were:

Before the U.S. commits any military force to an engagement, it should:

1. Set definite and achievable goals within the scope of the training and capabilities of the armed forces.

2. Be willing to commit enough military force to ensure victory.

3. Have clearly defined plans for the 'end game'.

In my mind, if the Powell Doctrine were used by every administration, it would eliminate a lot of missions the military is ill prepared to carry out, such as drug interdiction, or sending the military on open-ended and/or unwinnable missions. JMHO.

Eric Maietta



Wallymanowar -> (3/27/2003 6:01:58 AM)

Getting back to Hitler and the Second World War - I had a history teacher, while I was in High School, who grew up in Germany, and was involved in the Hitler Youth, during that time. His point of view on whether it would have been better to kill Hitler to shorten the war went something like this -

He believed that it would have been a bad thing. Why? Because if Hitler had been killed his place would have been taken by someone else and a peaceful solution would have ended the war early. But! This would not have solved the real problem which was the inherent evilness of the Nazi party and its adherants. The war being fought to the ultimate end that it did destroyed Nazism and ultimately saved more lives than would have been saved by ending the war early. An interesting argument and something akin to the thread of discussion.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.5