Re: More Terrorist Attacks

mw wrote:
"VINCE" <Holvbphoto@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:nxyZh.434$Kc5.94@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Steve Newport wrote:
Holvbphoto@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (VINCE) <<<mikey: Bush's plan continues to work!>>>
------------------------------------- What plan? what are you on? ------------------------------------
Plan 9 from Outer Space, apparently.

O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O

Good answer, but seriously is this Bush's plan getting people
killed in a useless war?

--

History will have to decide if the was was "useless". If we don't win, then it probably was useless. The question "Should America have gone into Iraq?" is irrelevant. We are there now. Let history determine if we should have gone in. The important question now is, should we at least be TRYING to win? The democrats keep talking about "ending the war". You don't END a war. You WIN it. The democrats talk about "ending the war ". The Republicans talk about "winning the war." Are the democrats stupid enough to think that just because they vote to "end " the war, that our enemy is going to stop fighitng? "Oh, the democrats have ended the war, so we can all come crawling out of our caves, go back to our homes made of mud and start humping goats again." I don't think so! A group of namby-pamby politicians sitting in their air conditioned offices wearing their suits and ties and belching and farting all day long can't end a war. Not if the enemy doesn't want it to en
d. And this enemy does not want it to end until THEY win. The way THEY win is by us all becoming like them or being killed. And "ending" the war (thus turning Iraq over to the enemy) is helping them win. But the dems don't seem to care. As long as it makes President Bush look bad, they are all for it. And "ending (losing)" the war in Iraq would make Bush look bad --but, as Harry Reeid said, it would help the dems pick up some seats in the Congress! Great! Nice to know where your friggin' priorities are Harry, you moron!

I'd prefer a more "Kissinger" approach. In this particular case, there is no definition of "winning". There is no capital city to conquer, no army to vanquish. You have various competing groups, which have curiously competing and intersecting goals. But I get ahead of myself.

The same arguments as the poster uses were pretty much the exact ones used during the Vietnam war, and yes, I am that old as to both remember and have been involved. Yet now, through the test of time, what 'exactly' did we lose? Treasure, lives, credibility in the world, certainly those things, but did those 'namby pamby' politicians that would not let the generals carpet bomb Hanoi back to the stone age really cause us to 'lose' something?

Once again, we find ourselves involved in an asymmetrical conflict. We so seriously overmatch the enemy that its laughable. Still, they will not yield. Why? They can't, they have nowhere else to go. From their perspective WE are the unbeatable enemy. They only way to fight the unbeatable enemy is to make it clear that you are beyond barbaric in your methods and that you will always fight one day longer than the enemy does.

Again, just as before, what exactly do we 'lose'? Some confidence from local allies? Who exactly are those local allies? Also, the idea of separating they argument into two polar opposites - We either win, or we lose, is a red herring. Between those two are a great number of other outcomes, some good, some bad.

Additionally, this whole idea of The Enemy!, is an invented boogyman. The writer obviously does not remember the big bad 70's and 80's, or else he would not be elevating The Enemy into some mythic status. Some incidents, just to mention a very few....Achille Laro, El Al Airlines in Rome, Beruit Barracks, Hijacked passengers shot and tossed out airline doors......just to name a very few incidents.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Marine Corps Rules for Gunfights
    ... Have a backup plan because the first plan won't work. ... The faster you finish the fight, the less shot you will get. ... No plan survives contact with the enemy. ... Incoming fire has the right-of-way. ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Re: OT - Re: Where is should have been from the start Re: Bait And Switch
    ... Like most on the left, Ben seems to think it's honorable to support the terrorists, and evil to fight them. ... If we could just get Bush to fight the real enemy. ... And how is your plan better than the plan Bush has? ... Bush and his war generals plan to be fighting this war for 30 or more years. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: OT
    ... "Every war plan looks good on paper until you meet the enemy" ... No battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy. ... Incoming fire has the right of way. ...
    (talk.religion.buddhism)
  • Re: OT - Re: Where is should have been from the start Re: Bait And Switch
    ... Like most on the left, Ben seems to think it's honorable to support the terrorists, and evil to fight them. ... If we could just get Bush to fight the real enemy. ... And how is your plan better than the plan Bush has? ... Bush and his war generals plan to be fighting this war for 30 or more years. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: ChessRogue too random? Turn order
    ... matter of the enemy AI choosing which to move in and which to ... so long as the player ... and this would happen every time with plan B: ... you get deterministic behaviour that does not depend on turn order. ...
    (rec.games.roguelike.development)