America's New War

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

America's New War

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> America's New War

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

America's New War - 11/5/2001 9:15:00 PM

byron13

Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline

What happened to our other threads on production models and whatnot? Did they drop off because there wasn't any new traffic? Darn. I was going to use one of my brilliant posts as a writing sample for a new job. Commander Cain: You're suggesting that if we find Iraq is involved in involved in the Anthrax attacks to date, we should just drop the bomb on Baghdad? The response doesn't seem a little disproportionate to you? I know our policy is to allow unfettered response to use of weapons of mass destruction, but do six deaths in the U.S. warrant the dropping of an atomic bomb killing a million people? Creating radioactive fallout pattern over a large portion of the world's oil fields? Possibly contaminating limited water supplies for the region? You think we've got a public relations problem now, see what it looks like after you've dropped an atomic bomb on a country you are not at war with and with probably flimsy or undisclosable intelligence. And, yes, world opinion does matter because we need the support and cooperation of the world in this war and we want to cut off the supply and young recruits for bin Laden's army. Finally, you will have also reduced the nuclear use threshhold, sending a dangerous message to other nuclear powers. No, dropping a nuke for what has happened to date is probably not possible. It would feel good - until we see pictures of the million or so innocent victims and we suffer through a decade of repercussions. I can't imagine the collective feeling of guilt this nation would have upon reflection after-the-fact.

_____________________________

Post #: 1

- 11/6/2001 6:34:00 AM

grumbler

Posts: 214
Joined: 12/4/2000
From: Falls Church VA USA
Status: offline

Yes, it is easy to say "nuke 'em 'till they glow" but any sober thinking on the subject would reveal that counter-use of weapons of mass destruction on a military dictatorship isn't going to be one of the best possible options. I am a bit fightened for the state of education in the world when I hear some of the glib "easy solutions" to the problem of Third-World extremism. While a nations that has international interests must not shrink from the use of force when it is necessary, the use of force must be proportionate and must have a clear and achievable goal in mind. Personally, I blame Billy Mitchel for the current contrempts of air power being unable to accomplish meaningful goals on its own, and other forms of military power having been starved of funds so more airpower could be purchased!

_____________________________

(in reply to byron13)

Post #: 2

- 11/9/2001 7:03:00 PM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

Correct me if I am wrong: North Vietnam had 23 millions people and
500,000 trained cadre. It took them 25 years to win. Taliban has 5,000 trained cadre and a MUCH
lower recruitment base. I cant see these situations as similar.
I wonder if North Vietnam still feels that
they 'won' My figures may be off sadly. I am NOT a statistition.

_____________________________

�It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.�

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

(in reply to byron13)

Post #: 3

- 11/10/2001 5:18:00 AM

byron13

Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline

Chiteng: I don't know if your figures are right or wrong. But if you're suggesting that the figures indicate that this will be a cake walk, I think you're wrong. A couple of differences between Viet Nam and our current little war jump out at me. In Viet Nam, we had a relatively secure base of operations within the country from which to operate. So far, our only potential base of operations is in Uzbekistan or Tajikistan, neither of which make me too comfortable and are certainly limited in how much you can run through them logistically. You also have to overfly several countries that allow you to do so. So whether we can run a large ground operation is questionable. Viet Nam was fought during the cold war, and we could squelch criticism from our allies and didn't care about criticism from the other side. Now we are subject to the opinion of the entire world, and it does matter. Perhaps most important of all is the opinion of Muslim countries. Benny Laden draws cadre from all Muslim countries, and Muslims from all over the world volunteered to fight in Afghanistan against the Soviets. My concern is that if this war draws out, he may be able to increase his cadres and we may suffer terrorist attacks (or at least strong antipathy) in any or all of these other Muslim countries - some of which do not have strong, stable governments. And, since Afghanistan is already gutted, I think their only criteria for winning is keeping the West out. Unfortunately, with the goals of both sides being so nebulous, the war will not end with a resolution in Afghanistan. The terrorists will continue to attack us, and we will continue to attack the terrorists.

_____________________________

(in reply to byron13)

Post #: 4

- 11/11/2001 7:02:00 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

Somehow I am not surprised since you never seem to agree with anything I might say. However, numbers DO matter. Napoleon was a great
general but he was crushed under the weight of
his enemies. Sure Bin Laden can make sick appeals to naive
groupies that is true. Not unlike the French
in 1917. It just increases the body count.
The realities of facing the US in any type of identifiable organized formation soon become
evident. It is obvious that the northern 'alliance' will
occupy the bulk of Afganistan after we blow the
hell out of any organized opposition for them. Does that mean we will 'win'? nope.
However, The 'south' had much the same attitude
yet by 1865 they were ready to call it quits. I agree that we dont seem to actually be fighting
a 'war'. You dont feed your enemies. That is transparent 'feel good' stupidity that is peculiar
to the 'modern' United States. If you wish to win
you DESTROY your enemies. Rhetoric is rhetoric. They dont have the numbers.
Of course bad diplomacy is capable of changing that.

_____________________________

(in reply to byron13)

Post #: 5

- 11/13/2001 12:42:00 AM

byron13

Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline

No, Chiteng, I don't disagree with everything you say. Or, rather, I disagree with everything everybody says! I just like to hear myself talk. Based on accounts over the weekend, my concerns obviously don't (or didn't) take into account the Northern Alliance winning the war for us.

_____________________________

(in reply to byron13)

Post #: 6

- 11/13/2001 2:55:00 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

There is an old Roman word that applies:
'Interdiction' The Northern Alliance will not win anything 'for' us. They are simply along for the ride.
Who can blame them? It is better to watch bombs fall, than be the target of the bombs. Unless we become willing to KILL OUR ENEMIES
we are doomed to suffer recurring attacks.
There will be no end to it. Apparently this
democracy simply cannot summon the will to
be that ruthless. I say offer like 20million in gold bullion
for this guy's head dead or alive. Someone
will step up to the plate. There was a time
that the entire world trembled outside the door
of MI-5. It is sad that we are hamstrung by our
own sensibilities.

_____________________________

(in reply to byron13)

Post #: 7

- 11/13/2001 8:35:00 AM

gdpsnake

Posts: 786
Joined: 8/7/2000
From: Kempner, TX
Status: offline

My two cents,
We already offer 5 million, that's more than enough to any afgan. Trouble is, they buy and sell themselves every day.
Chiteng, Trouble is, about 1 million muslims world wide believe Bin Laden is right and they cheer him behind closed doors every day. This must be a war fought unlike vietnam in that we must win the people over to believing we aren't a bunch of rich stuck up snobs and that our principles of freedom and democracy are good things.
Nuclear or other over-bearing reactions will only help us lose.
Let's not forget that we created this problem many years ago when we 'aided' the Afgans to fight the Soviets and then bailed on them when the war was over. This does not justify terrorism but you must understand what motivates your enemy in order to destroy their will to fight. We created a lot of our own problems with poor diplomacy throughout modern times. Look at Cuba, South America, Iran, Iraq. Hussein used to be our ally! We supported him in his war against Iran. In Iran we supported the Shah and helped the unrest to allow the religious zealots to take power. And we're doing the same kind of thing again by not fully integrating Russia into world decisions. Nato should be for every country that wants to join against any country that would threaten any one member. Look at the Palestinian situation. My point is that we could have done a lot better, it's no wonder people hate and distrust us.
And let's not forget that people with less always blame the people with more. Can't we all just get along?
Dropping food doesn't win the minds.
Dropping bombs doesn't win the minds.
Killing the leaders only makes room for future leaders.
You must forge the hearts and minds when they are young. In our case, the education and knowledge of the Western World's way of life, Democracy, Freedom and Liberty are the best choices.
Now, has Matrix done any work on this game at all?

_____________________________

(in reply to byron13)

Post #: 8

- 11/13/2001 6:56:00 PM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

I am sorry, I have no patience for fanatics.
Yes I agree that we are culpable in many things.
That doesnt change the need to deal with them.
They have no such sensibilities. They ARE willing
to kill women and children and even their own countrymen. Kill them all now and sort out injustice later. Never said to use nukes. That would be silly. Tailored disease would be a nice touch but I suppose a bit too ruthless for the feelgood fools running the policy.

_____________________________

(in reply to byron13)

Post #: 9

- 11/14/2001 10:33:00 AM

moore4807

Posts: 1089
Joined: 6/2/2000
From: Punta Gorda FL
Status: offline

GDPSNAKE- I understand your point and the position you made... however we as both a nation and as a world have not been able to sucessfully prevent conflicts for over the last two centuries. Stopping them is a different matter. Religion is the number one cause of wars worldwide for the last two centuries-its not any different now- just the USA doesnt have a history of religious wars because of our constitution and makeup that made us Americans. Britain's Catholic/Protestant wars, Chechyan/Russia conflict, Israeli/Arab wars, Iran/Iraq (different ethnic Muslims fighting each other), Afganistan (any number of times in past 200 years) Africa (just about anywhere-anytime), Churchill's Gallopi debacle, are just some examples I can think of right now. As far as Chiteng's comment- RIGHT ON!!!!
My personal view is "they" brought it on themselves. Who "they" are??? Anyone who commits an act of terrorism or war against USA or our allies. PERIOD. If it isnt a country, but a radical faction -we must exterminate that faction. Nothing less will do. "They" already crossed that line by taking women & children's lives on 9/11/01. If we are the biggest bully as other paint us, so be it... I wont accept being pushed around so we WILL scrap, but I WILL be the baddest bully on the street taking on all comers til there are none left- then I can rest again knowing nobody will be swinging at me anytime soon. (funny I think it was exactly that- we rested too long between fights and it was too easy on us) "They stopped being afraid and thought "David" could beat "Goliath" twice... I dont think so... Just my 2 cents worth, good posts though!
Jim

_____________________________

(in reply to byron13)

Post #: 10

- 11/15/2001 12:06:00 AM

gdpsnake

Posts: 786
Joined: 8/7/2000
From: Kempner, TX
Status: offline

I'm not denying that terrorism must be vanquished and I'd love to hang every one of the bastards, man, woman, or child from the nearest tree if they be guilty of terrorism.
But we must hold the moral high ground or become no better than terrorists ourselves. My other main point is that we must be careful not to create future terrorists by acts of aggression or response that only give our enemies the chance to say "See, I told you so."
Terrorism is not a regular war like conflicts of the past. You can kill terrorists but unless you remove the underlying reasons why they're terrorists in the first place, you'll never remove the threat. We must pave the way for moderates to take control of their lives and countries from the fanatical zealots and police states. Sometimes, a bomb isn't the answer but when it is you don't want to antagonize the moderates.
I believe the key is to tie the world together in economic and democratic beliefs so that pain against anyone produces pain against the perpetrators. We see some of that now with "unfriendly" nations joining the coalition because they have as much to lose as we do. When that's the case, EVERYONE roots out terrorism. How do you solve places like Ireland and Palestine? I don't know but territory isn't the answer because they'll just build fences and throw rocks over the new fences. Everyone must be given the same rights and opportunities as everyone else in both states! For example, all Palestinians must be equal to Israelis in Israel and all Israelis must be equal to Palestinians in Palistine. And everyone involved must pratice tolerance. Future generations will be more tolerant and so on. Only then do borders dissolve and real 'getting along' begins.
Pie in the sky perhaps but as history buffs, we should all look back and study it. The clues are there.
This makes four cents!

_____________________________

(in reply to byron13)

Post #: 11

- 11/15/2001 7:53:00 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

You cant resolve the underlying causes.
It isnt possible. The reasons in every case are simple and NOT religious. They are economic. Some people have more than other people. It matters not at all how that happened. The People
that have MORE are resented by the people that have LESS. Now add into that equation overpopulation. The more we limit our population HERE in the USA
the more the other countries throw their surplus people at us. We are a waste bin for the world.
We are envied by everyone and hated by many. I dont claim that the USA is right in all things
or right in even ANYTHING. I merely claim it is MY
country. We should act to preserve our own interests. If that means kill everyone else then DO IT. Until the WORLD population is under control we should do NOTHING for people who overbreed.
We should see BODIES piling up along the US/Mexican border. Only then will people even hesitate to cross. The Catholic Church in this context is an enemy. AND it perpetuates the cycle.
The cycle of overpopulation MUST be broken.
Either by limiting births, or INCREASING DEATHS.
We cant do much about the first. But we can sure as hell fix the second. Food will become the most feared weapon of the future. I will be very happily dead by that time.
But you guys will still be here having to deal with it. I forsee one day Israel being forced to use its nukes. God only knows what will happen after that. Pakistan and India are on launch on warning
supposedly (I doubt it frankly) What makes me sad is that I am one of the last
of the old time liberals. I wonder what the rabid
right wing is actually doing.

_____________________________

(in reply to byron13)

Post #: 12

- 11/16/2001 1:25:00 AM

byron13

Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline

Backing the Snake for the most part. Moore, the problem with punching the heck out of all comers is that the more noses you break, the more relatives want to take you on. Pretty soon you're spending all day and all night fighting on the corner, and you don't have time to enjoy life. That's what has happened to Israel. No one is tougher on terrorism than Israel, yet they suffer the most attacks. The Arabs know that Israel will retaliate ruthlessly, but it doesn't deter them; it just leads to more violence. And now, even though they're the toughest guy on the block, no one in Israel feels safe going to the market or a pizza shop. Is that what you want? The real answer is to address the underlying cause of the terrorists - at least as they relate to wanting to terrorize us. I'm sure each terrorist is motivated by different combinations of economics, politics, and religion, so there is no single answer. Unfortunately, it has gone on long enough that now it is just the thing to do: My dad was a terrorist, my older brother was a terrorist, my best friend is a terrorist, so I want to be a terrorist, too, so that I can be cool and have bragging rights with the babes.

_____________________________

(in reply to byron13)

Post #: 13

- 11/27/2001 8:16:00 AM

David Heath