War drum being beat louder than ever

[metis]

I could not nuke back, so I've decided not to become president.

 

[esmith]

I'm sure you want that. The man is clueless.

Yeah kill them all and let God sort them out

 

[psychoslice]

it depend on how mad he really is.
If he is mad, fear does not come into it.

yes that can be true also.

 

[Shad]

If it gets as far as NK using nukes, America's strategy has failed.

Yes but irrelevant to my point as the scenario already contains parameters that it already failed.

Of course America will respond in kind.
But at what cost to the world.

Your question is misdirected at the wrong nation. You seem to only consider the cost if America does something in return rather than what nations have allowed NK to do now. Nations like China

The strategy is based in the outher country fearing overwhelming retaliation. Unfortunately NK. Does not think rationally.

NK leadership shows self-preservation which is rational. Threaten the leadership's survival can work.

And well might call America's bluff. Then what...?

If NK nuke SK or Japan America is not going to be bluffing.

The stratergy is based on never having to respond.

No it is based on a response which is overwhelming use of fire power. It is applicable in any war scenario.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

No it is based on a response which is overwhelming use of fire power. It is applicable in any war scenario.

The USA and allies tried to overcome NK before... and failed. That war is only paused not concluded.
They also failed in Vietnam.
That was even before every tom dick and harry had ICBM's and Nukes.
The USA could never match the NK's troop on the ground. the logistics make it impossible.

 

[esmith]

The USA and allies tried to overcome NK before... and failed. That war is only paused not concluded.
They also failed in Vietnam.
That was even before every tom dick and harry had ICBM's and Nukes.
The USA could never match the NK's troop on the ground. the logistics make it impossible.

The reason the US failed in Vietnam was a political problem and to some extent the mindset of the upper echelon of the military using WWII tactics to fight a insurgency war (which was carried over into the Iraq war). The US fought the Vietnam war with one arm tied behind their backs.
As far as Korea
Seems that you haven't read enough about the Korean war.
The North Koreans were the ones that had a problem with their logistics. The farther south they went the longer their supply lines stretched and supplying their forces became something that they could not overcome.
Suggest you read some books on the subject.

 

[metis]

Some seem to forget that when you're fighting in someone else's country, they live there but sooner or later we have to leave. Vietnam was unwinnable for us, and Afghanistan will end up being much the same.

As the line from an old song Peter, Paul, & Mary sang, "... when will they ever learn, when will they ever learn?".

 

[esmith]

Some seem to forget that when you're fighting in someone else's country, they live there but sooner or later we have to leave. Vietnam was unwinnable for us, and Afghanistan will end up being much the same.

As the line from an old song Peter, Paul, & Mary sang, "... when will they ever learn, when will they ever learn?".

No, Vietnam was not unwinnable. It was winnable, but it was not politically winnable.
Afghanistan can be stabilized but not if we cut and run as we did in Iraq, and Vietnam

 

[metis]

Ya, and if we only had Rambo back, ...

"Afghanistan" and "stabilized" are incongruent concepts-- just ask the Russians. No one historically has been able to "stabilize" that region, and I have to wonder how many more American servicemen and servicewomen have to come back in body bags before some people realize that all we would be doing is throwing lives away?

To some, human life must seem so very cheap.

 

[esmith]

Ya, and if we only had Rambo back, ...

"Afghanistan" and "stabilized" are incongruent concepts-- just ask the Russians. No one historically has been able to "stabilize" that region, and I have to wonder how many more American servicemen and servicewomen have to come back in body bags before some people realize that all we would be doing is throwing lives away?

To some, human life must seem so very cheap.

And if you think that letting the Taliban, ISIS, and any other Islamic extremist remain a viable force and will not cost lives then that is your burden; just as it is those that do not want to see the Islamic extremist remain a viable force must shoulder the burden to insure that they will not.

 

[tytlyf]

Yeah kill them all and let God sort them out

Ya, but that's not original. You're just repeating what someone else said. Why do conservatives all repeat themselves?

Someone teaches them.

 

[esmith]

from someone who hasn't an original thought

 

[tytlyf]

from someone who hasn't an original thought

I said my ideas are all original. And same with my thoughts. I've told you for years about the establishment. And yes, they run your favorite media sources. But you're not supposed to know that.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The reason the US failed in Vietnam was a political problem and to some extent the mindset of the upper echelon of the military using WWII tactics to fight a insurgency war (which was carried over into the Iraq war). The US fought the Vietnam war with one arm tied behind their backs.
As far as Korea
Seems that you haven't read enough about the Korean war.
The North Koreans were the ones that had a problem with their logistics. The farther south they went the longer their supply lines stretched and supplying their forces became something that they could not overcome.
Suggest you read some books on the subject.

No nead to read I was in the artillery at that time andsent as a replacement in a regiment wiped out in Korea.

Politics is always an aspect of war.

 

[metis]

And if you think that letting the Taliban, ISIS, and any other Islamic extremist remain a viable force and will not cost lives then that is your burden; just as it is those that do not want to see the Islamic extremist remain a viable force must shoulder the burden to insure that they will not.

And why is it that some blindly believe that if one is opposed to actions in one theater that this means that we believe that we all should all just lay down and play possum with all other scenarios?

Logic and basic decency have it that we have to be careful and pick & choose which battles are worth fighting. Anyone who has even a basic knowledge of Afghan history well knows that this is an extremely difficult nut to crack, thus sending more of our troops there will simply lead to many more Americans getting killed if we are so foolish to buck history. Haven't we lost enough already, and what hope is there that 10 years from now that we'd be victorious, especially since this is already the longest conflict we've ever been in over our history as a nation?

Afghanistan will be Afghanistan, and we have little leverage to change that over the long haul. Sooner or later, out troops will all come home, and the Afghans will do what they have long done-- act like a non-unified country that's made up of tribes who prefer to be left alone. .

 

[metis]

No, Vietnam was not unwinnable. It was winnable, but it was not politically winnable.

You simply do not know what you're talking about. In Vietnam, we had tens of thousands of troops, used B-52's in extensive bombing raids, use Agent Orange to defoliate large areas, used weapons never used in any previous war, used different tactics as the war progressed, and yet we saw what happened.

The only way we could have "won" the war was to destroy Vietnam and just about everyone who lives there, and that includes the North and the South. The French had warned us that we were getting in over our heads, but what would the French know as we had to find out for ourselves-- and we did.

BTW, I was originally in favor of us going in, but when I started doing the research for a paper I had to write, I reluctantly changed my mind (I came from a military family-- my father served under MacArthur, and I didn't even see my own father until I was three years of age).

"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

 

[esmith]

You simply do not know what you're talking about. In Vietnam, we had tens of thousands of troops, used B-52's in extensive bombing raids, use Agent Orange to defoliate large areas, used weapons never used in any previous war, used different tactics as the war progressed, and yet we saw what happened.

The only way we could have "won" the war was to destroy Vietnam and just about everyone who lives there, and that includes the North and the South. The French had warned us that we were getting in over our heads, but what would the French know as we had to find out for ourselves-- and we did.

BTW, I was originally in favor of us going in, but when I started doing the research for a paper I had to write, I reluctantly changed my mind (I came from a military family-- my father served under MacArthur, and I didn't even see my own father until I was three years of age).

"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

First this was a insurgent style war and the US tried to fight it using WWII tactics. As I said previously this concept was carried over into Iraq which the US coming very close to withdrawing all troops. The switch to counter-insurgence tactics changed the outcome, until the politicians decided we had won and made the mistake of thinking the job was done. This falls on Bush as well as Obama.
I don't have the time or patience to deliver you a paper on your obvious misunderstanding of the mishandling of the air war, nor the mistakes made by ground commanders in prosecuting the war in Vietnam. There are many books dealing with the mistakes made.
I would suggest you obtain a copy of a excellent source of reading "Wrong War; Why We Lost In Vietnam" by Jeffry Record.
You can find a good preview at:
The Wrong War

as far as the failure in the air war try this link. Just a start.
Rolling Thunder 1965: Anatomy of a Failure

FYI, the French wanted us to intercede in their Indochina war.

 

[metis]

The switch to counter-insurgence tactics changed the outcome, until the politicians decided we had won and made the mistake of thinking the job was done.

Absolutely false. What happened was that the Tet Offensive showed that we were very far from winning, plus we had already lost about 58,000+ troops there, and the American public had turned against the war. To blame it on politicians, although maybe popular, is way off the mark on this.

There are many books dealing with the mistakes made.

Yes there are, so let me recommend the two that changed my mind: "Streets Without Joy" (1963) and "Two Vietnams" (1961), both by French historian Bernard Fall. In both books, he spelled out, not only why the French lost, but also why they couldn't win.

Essentially it was a civil war, and the French (and later us) made the mistake thinking that they could control the destiny of the Vietnamese people. Anytime the French seem to get the upper hand, the VC simply mixed in back with the public, which was largely on their side anyway, and waited for the opportunity to re-engage. This same exact strategy was used against us, and even though we had massively more firepower, they knew all that they had to do was to wait us out-- and they did, while more and more Americans came home in body bags. And that same exact tactic was used against the Russians by the Afghans, and now they are using it against us, and I can guarantee you that they will be successful because sooner or later we have to leave.

FYI, the French wanted us to intercede in their Indochina war.

Yes they did, so? They were mistaken even before we were, then they told us before our massive commitment of troops that we were being mistaken, but we felt we could just reinvent the wheel because, in our utter arrogance-- we thought we knew better.

Therefore, history has proven you wrong on this, and we continued to make other such mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan whereas there were better ways of dealing with them, and now we have lost far more American lives in both than we lost on 9-11., obviously not including the 58,000+ during the Vietnam conflict. On top of that, we destabilized the Middle East, thus giving the Iranians an upper hand because their number one enemy, the Iraqis, were left powerless. Keeping more American troops there would only have delayed the inevitable but at an increasing higher cost as even more Americans would come home in body bags.

"...when will they ever learn; when will they ever learn".

 

[esmith]

Absolutely false. What happened was that the Tet Offensive showed that we were very far from winning, plus we had already lost about 58,000+ troops there, and the American public had turned against the war. To blame it on politicians, although maybe popular, is way off the mark on this.

If you read what I wrote you will see that I was referring to the war in Iraq not Vietnam.

Yes there are, so let me recommend the two that changed my mind: "Streets Without Joy" (1963) and "Two Vietnams" (1961), both by French historian Bernard Fall. In both books, he spelled out, not only why the French lost, but also why they couldn't win.

Essentially it was a civil war, and the French (and later us) made the mistake thinking that they could control the destiny of the Vietnamese people. Anytime the French seem to get the upper hand, the VC simply mixed in back with the public, which was largely on their side anyway, and waited for the opportunity to re-engage. This same exact strategy was used against us, and even though we had massively more firepower, they knew all that they had to do was to wait us out-- and they did, while more and more Americans came home in body bags. And that same exact tactic was used against the Russians by the Afghans, and now they are using it against us, and I can guarantee you that they will be successful because sooner or later we have to leave.

yes we didn't fight this war as we should have. as I said those in "charge" of the military saw it as a conventional war where in actuality is was an insurgency war. In addition the government and military leaders were basically corrupt just as the government and military leaders of Iraq were after the US cut and ran. We had the war in Iraq won then made the mistake of assuming that the government was like a western style democracy; which it wasn't.

Yes they did, so? They were mistaken even before we were, then they told us before our massive commitment of troops that we were being mistaken, but we felt we could just reinvent the wheel because, in our utter arrogance-- we thought we knew better.

Therefore, history has proven you wrong on this, and we continued to make other such mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan whereas there were better ways of dealing with them, and now we have lost far more American lives in both than we lost on 9-11., obviously not including the 58,000+ during the Vietnam conflict. On top of that, we destabilized the Middle East, thus giving the Iranians an upper hand because their number one enemy, the Iraqis, were left powerless. Keeping more American troops there would only have delayed the inevitable but at an increasing higher cost as even more Americans would come home in body bags.

"...when will they ever learn; when will they ever learn".

I and many military experts and historians will disagree with you on some points and agree with you on others.. Again I say that when you unleash the military unleash the military. It cost lives to wage a conflict or war when policies are mandated by political objectives and tactics.
It seem that you have changed your mind about the withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq in your statement " On top of that, we destabilized the Middle East, thus giving the Iranians an upper hand because their number one enemy, the Iraqis, were left powerless." And you are wrong about the statement that Iran was the number one enemy of Iraq. Iran which major religion is Shi'a was opposed to the Hussein government which was Shia. Once the government and military leaders became dominated by Shiites Iran and Iraq became friends.

 

[metis]

yes we didn't fight this war as we should have. as I said those in "charge" of the military saw it as a conventional war where in actuality is was an insurgency war.

What you seemingly can't quite get is the fact that our military made the adjustments and slipped into the counter-insurgency mode as the conflict progressed. Remember the Green Barets, for just one example? I used to bring them into my poly sci classes most semesters. Also, one of my two closest friends did two stints in Nam, serving as a medic, losing 1/3 of his unit, including his partner who had his head blown off, and spent some time in Cambodia along the Ho Chi Minh Trail. He came back so disgusted with us being there that even today he can't stand to talk about it.

Again I say that when you unleash the military unleash the military.

That simply nuts because, first of all, our Constitution puts the military under civilian control and, secondly, such Rambo-style tactics just create more and more problems. Hell, we used B-52's, Agent Orange, Puff the Magic Dragon gunships, etc. And we lost 58,000 American men, so your response is thoroughly disgusting. How many more American and Vietnamese lives would be lost until you would feel that maybe that's enough? How many more American and Vietnamese families ripped apart? Where's your compassion for human life?

It seem that you have changed your mind about the withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq in your statement

No, I haven't, and for reasons we've all too often have discussed.

And you are wrong about the statement that Iran was the number one enemy of Iraq.

You obviously don't remember the simple fact that Iran and Iraq fought an eight year war against each other, killing over 1 million people, mostly civilians. The Shi'i government was elected after we took control and held elections, and before that, Hussein ran the Baath Party, which was Sunni.

Fini-- I've had enough.