Posted on 10/02/2006 3:29:40 PM PDT by Roscoe Karns
Edited on 10/02/2006 3:49:15 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
"Sounds like you have a MSM IV in your arm."
LOL. That's a good one Howlin.
"Since we cannot win the war militarily (according to Frist) and since the Taliban and Afghan Muslims will never accept us as an authority we cannot win "hearts and minds" either."
I see 2 errors in the statement above. First, Frist did not say we could not win the war militarily, he said we can not win it militarily alone. Add to that, he said that based on what the commanders in the field said to him.
Second, the winning hearts and minds is not so the Taliban and Afghan Muslims (all Taliban are Afghan muslims, but not all Afghan mulsims are Taliban) will accept us, it is so they will accept the duly elected government in their country. The hearts and minds issue is for the government of Afghanistan, not for the US.
One more thing I might add. You, and others, make it sound like we are no longer fighting the war at all. In the last couple of months we have killed at least 500 Taliban/Al Quaeda. That is not PC, that is war and we are fighting.
"They can only distort so much."
You are right. They can only distort it up to 180 degrees from what was said.
Distorting it 180 degrees is what they did.
"Was turning either Dresden or Tokyo into a firestorm a military objective? Was the bombing of Hiroshima or Nagasaki about defeating an army?"
Yes to both questions. In both cases the vast majority of Germany and Japan in WWII backed their leaders and their military (more than 80%, from the studies I have done).
Show some proof that Afghanis backed the Taliban anywhere near those percentages. (Don't forget, they had been in civil wars for decades before we went in).
"Not in your mind they aren't, but in their minds they are the global caliphate,"
The question was not what they thought, the question was what nation are they?
Hence they were political targets, not military.
Show some proof that Afghanis backed the Taliban anywhere near those percentages. (Don't forget, they had been in civil wars for decades before we went in).
Why should I when all you'll do is redefine the terms? I never suggested such a treatment in Afghanistan, but at one time it would likely have been quite appropriate to flatten Fallujiah. Like any tactical element, there are some places where such destruction is more effective than others.
"You can't "ensure" this, probably. But by speaking as clearly as possible, you can reduce the chances of it, you can reduce the amount of it, and you can have a stronger defense for yourself when it happens to you."
Please provide an example.
"Why should I when all you'll do is redefine the terms? I never suggested such a treatment in Afghanistan, but at one time it would likely have been quite appropriate to flatten Fallujiah. Like any tactical element, there are some places where such destruction is more effective than others."
Wrong. First of all, I did not change any definitions. You are the one that changed the definition of Dresden and Hiroshima, Nagasaki from military targets to political targets. You answered a question about whether Al Quaeda was a military.
The answer is that Al Quaeda is not a National military. Nazi Germany and Tojo's Japan were a national military with a huge support from the people of each nation. I asked what nation supported Al Quaeda, your response was that I changed the definition. I did not. There is no nation of Al Quaeda. There is a nation that was in civil war, where some harbored Al Quaeda. That nation is called Afghanistan. That nation was in a civil war, which is quite a difference from nations in WWII that almost entirely supported what their national leaders and military were doing.
One more question. Why do you associate a city, Fallujah, as a nation? Also, I thought we were talking about Afghanistan. (And you said I would change the definitions).
Well.....we kept the emperor who was portrayed as the root of all evil during the war.
Your defeatist attitude is one reason why we still aren't running this country, even though we win some elections.
"Your defeatist attitude is one reason why we still aren't running this country, even though we win some elections."
Let me see. You proclaim that there is a limit on how far the DBM can go, I suggest that you are correct, that 180 degrees is the limit, and you call me defeatist.
Do you not see that the media does spin180 degrees? Show a little proof that the Drive by Media is not the problem. Further, show some evidence that I am a defeatist. I think you buy nearly anything that is brought your way and that you are the defeatist.
By the way, I am an optimist. I am also a realist.
Well said and I agree completely.
We should have sent 250,000 troops into Ashcanistan, killed every single Talibani, installed a puppet gov't and then left with the warning that if they ever do it again we won't be so nice next time. Ditto for Iraq and its savages.
I also agree that Muslims have shown that they WANT theocracy, oppresion and the jackboot of dictatorshiop on their necks at all times. They LIKE oppression, murder, and savagery of almost every form imaginable.
We did indeed overestimate the people of Ashcanistan and Iraq. We should never again promise to 'liberate' or 'free' anyone. They like the rancid cesspool they live in. In the future, if we ever have to attack another muslim country, we should simply bomb them into the 7th century (and I mean that in every sense) and then KEEP them in the 7th century, where they are no longer a threat to us.
Its too bad, really, but this is what these savages like, so let them have it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.