|
herfacechair -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/6/2007 4:06:10 PM)
|
mnottertail: what asymmetrical threat exists or even existed regarding Iraq?
From earlier in this thread:
The War on Terrorism is an asymmetrical war. You should view this as such, otherwise, you’re begging to lose the war.
Under asymmetrical warfare, you don’t need a power projecting military to deliver a blow against a powerful enemy. Terrorists proved that in 1993 and 2001.
In this case, all you need is a suitcase nuclear bomb, and a member of a terrorist organization’s martyrdom brigade, and presto. A precision guided “bomb” that could strike a target within inches.
Not even the greatest military in the world, with enough firepower power to level a continent, could prevent 19 hijackers from turning airliners into precision guided projectiles aimed at targets on our own soil.
Under asymmetrical warfare, allowing a dictator to play cat and mouse games with regards to his WMD programs, given his past history of supporting terrorists, given his hosting radical terrorist conventions, given his making death to America statements, and given Bin Laden’s search for WMD, and better ways to kill more Americans, not going into Iraq would’ve been equivalent to letting someone play with matches in a room you’re both in, when it’s flooded with gasoline.
mnottertail: Illogical conclusions, combined with Red Herring. Should make a pungent sushi, but no reason to believe.
You’re precisely what the two Chinese colonels were talking about when they wrote their book, “Unrestricted Warfare.” In this book they interchange the west, with the U.S., military, and members of the west.
There’s one section where they say that these methods of warfare are beyond the frequency bandwidth of certain people. Meaning, people like you are going to have problems grasping this war, where you have to think outside the box and get rid of the outdated notion of what constitutes a real war and what doesn’t.
The war paradigm has shifted, or, as the authors put it, the “war god” has changed his mask.
Unrestricted Warfare scratches the surface of asymmetrical warfare. And one of the aims is for the weaker organization to defeat a powerful nation, and this is pending on that nation having people like you who can’t think outside the box--people who dismiss this as “illogical” and “red herring”.
However, here’s a link to that book, read it and learn it. THAT’S what a REAL conservative will do before dismissing asymmetrical warfare out of hand:
http://www.c4i.org/unrestricted.pdf
mnottertail: Don't buy any of the unproven and extremely tenuous assumptions, and therefore don't buy the deal.
You’ve described how to treat your drivel to the “T”.
As far as “unproven” and “tenuous assumptions”, I beg to differ.
I’ve used my understanding of asymmetrical warfare to predict how the terrorists would react to certain actions in Iraq. In fact, back in 2004, I made a projection on Iraq, with five or six specific predictions.
All but one has been fulfilled, and the last prediction is in progress, and is slated to happen.
Three years later, my projection, based on my understanding of asymmetrical warfare, human nature, and my readings of thousands of years worth of history, is still holding.
You CAN’T do that with an assumption or something that isn’t proven.
Read the book that the above link leads to, read it more than once if you have to, and you’ll start understanding what we’re dealing with.
Then, proceed to listen to what our enemies are saying. Everything from using population to leverage one’s advantage, to financial wrangling, word exchange over the media, to specifically timed terrorists attacks, etc, used in combination, or in lieu of conventional warfare means, and you’ll see asymmetrical warfare written all over it.
I highly recommend that you actually study something before you pass judgement on its validity.
mnottertail: (and as is occuring, more and more people are dropping away from the unconvincing buncombe as well).
Speak for yourself, and your neighborhood. You don’t speak for the rest of the country.
I’ve found that when I’ve explained asymmetrical warfare on the street, people understand what’s going on better, and they’re less likely to trend toward what the other side of the argument has been arguing.
In fact, they start trending toward my side of the argument.
If people are drifting away, it’s because the media is doing a good job hoodwinking them into believing the spin that I see over and over again with the people that I’ve argued against.
|
|
|
|
