RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story

RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Alumbrado -> RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story (2/24/2008 11:07:33 AM)
quote: Vietnam only proved that aerial bombardment didn't work in Vietnam. [sm=lol.gif]

mnottertail -> RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story (2/24/2008 11:11:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy Of course, Vietnam proved aerial bombardment doesnt work either. Vietnam only proved that aerial bombardment didn't work in Vietnam. Good Morning Mr and Mrs America, and all the ships at sea..... Let's go to press.......... London's buning, get outta town... Edward R. Murrow anyone remember the movie of the smart bomb down the chimney? Whatever happened in that little conflict? I am sure the country that happened to is wiped off the map along with Isreal. Ron

KenDckey -> RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story (2/24/2008 11:17:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey I am sure there are shortages. I agree with the SecArmy that you go to war with what you have too. No one gets an unlimited supply of anything. R&D is important as well. Discovering how to do more with less is essential. Even in WWII GI ingenuity was used to breach barracades that no one had thought of. The "all might military industrial complex" that we hear about that is cheating us out of our money can't produce due limitations some of which are established by civilians who have no military experience. Priorities are established. Often situations change before the priorities aare executed. It is a no win situation. Stock piles have been depleated. Depots wereclosed by politicaians to save money. What we had we no longer have. It will be gone forever. So what is the solution. Realistically go to war with what you have. KenDckey: There is always the option of ...not going to war. thompson I agree that is an option, a preferable one at that, but that isn't an option the military can exercise, only one that politicians control. If the military exercised that option it would probably have to overthrow the politicians like they do in other countries where the military doesn't agree with what the leaders do. Not a good option as far as I can see for us. But I know very few soldiers that ever wanted a war. They just fight them when told to. so it comes back then to the politicians. KenDckey: This thread is about the politicians who take our country, unprepared, to war. Why do you inject this spurious contention about soldiers overthrowing the government. Now if they just refused,en mass, to go that would be insubordination and not treason. Would you approve of that? thompson No and I believe it is called muntiny which is punishable up to death just like treason.

Sinergy -> RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story (2/24/2008 11:19:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy Of course, Vietnam proved aerial bombardment doesnt work either. Vietnam only proved that aerial bombardment didn't work in Vietnam. Where has it worked without any other military measures being undertaken? My point is that traditional methods of warfare dont really work anymore. Sinergy

wkdshadow -> RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story (2/24/2008 11:23:19 AM)
Well put caitlyn. And bombardment also did work in Vietnam, with napalm taking oxygen out of tunnel networks that were hiding the VC from patrols, and too deep for a conventional bomb to take out. My uncle was in 'nam and told me of a network his company was charged with taking, that was burried so deep it took 3 daisycutters to the same area before they put men on the ground, only to find it was still full of VC when they got there.

Sinergy -> RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story (2/24/2008 11:24:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wkdshadow Well put caitlyn. And bombardment also did work in Vietnam, So we won the Vietnam War then? LookingAtTheBigPicturgy

wkdshadow -> RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story (2/24/2008 11:28:17 AM)
Sinergy, bombardment works when you want to take out established positions, critical infastructure, and clear an area for entry. The modern use of precision munitions to get the job done doesn't make it less effect vs straight carpet bombing runs, it makes bombing runs more effective. The air campaign in Iraq was very successful in taking out infastructure with the idea of minimizing casualties to civilians. You can't just take out an entire city to take out a small insurgent force that's hiding within the civilian population.

wkdshadow -> RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story (2/24/2008 11:35:31 AM)
When has strictly air support ever won a war? Air superiority is only a single element of modern warfare. sarcasm obviously naval guns are useless too, since the Germans were still on Omaha Beach after we shelled the living shit out of it.

Sinergy -> RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story (2/24/2008 11:36:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wkdshadow Sinergy, bombardment works when you want to take out established positions, critical infastructure, and clear an area for entry. The modern use of precision munitions to get the job done doesn't make it less effect vs straight carpet bombing runs, it makes bombing runs more effective. The air campaign in Iraq was very successful in taking out infastructure with the idea of minimizing casualties to civilians. You can't just take out an entire city to take out a small insurgent force that's hiding within the civilian population. Then what do you do once the infrastructure is taken out? Invade. Occupy. Lose a war of attrition. Crawl away with your tail between your legs as your economy goes bankrupt. I am simply pointing out that when viewed with a sense of perspective, aerial bombardment does not work to win a war. Sinergy

caitlyn -> RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story (2/24/2008 11:37:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy Where has it worked without any other military measures being undertaken? My point is that traditional methods of warfare dont really work anymore. Actually, you are changing the bar. Bombing is a single part in a greater strategy. Within that framework, it can be very effective. It worked well against the Serbs, and in the first Gulf War, and has not worked well in several other situations. This is nothing new. In the Second World War, there were times when bombing was highly effective, especially when combined with naval bombardment ... and times when it was close to ineffective, such as at Okinawa. That traditional methods of warfare don't work, is just a theory, and is too complex to state categorically. Different armed forces, have different views of what qualifies as traditional warfare. One can assume that North Vietnam won with their own version of "traditional warfare." Israel has won many wars using their own method of traditional warfare. To me, your heart is in the right place, but your point is way off base. The only strong case that can be made, is that no method an American army uses, will work when the people do not support the actions of our government. Stop slinging mud and creating fiction ... and keep your eye on the ball.

mnottertail -> RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story (2/24/2008 11:51:21 AM)
Stop slinging mud and creating fiction ... and keep your eye on the ball. Since this thread is about the pentagon questioning Obamas soldier story, I kinda gotta go, well, we are in the middle of an ollie ollie in free. And there are many wars lost in which the people supported the government. It has been loudly crowed that the people of america supported the incursion into Iran. Hant been lost hant been won. I think the Macedonians were pretty much behind the winning........oh fuckin well. Traditional warfare in vietnam would have been halberds, pikes, swords and goblins, guerrilla war making its way upon the scene long about the Boer War. Just in passing. Ron.

wkdshadow -> RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story (2/24/2008 11:56:13 AM)
No, bombardment doesn't win a war, it'll win you a battle, but not a war. An organized combined, coordinated effort on multiple fronts utilizing multiple methods of attack wins a war. If you pickup a book and read, you'll find that the most successful Infantry efforts since WW1 coexisted with close air support and bombing runs. Even when an enemy's dug in, it still weakens morale, and it still gets some of them, and it still takes out known foritifications that would otherwise obliterate a strictly land campaign... It's not meant to get every last one of them, that's the Infantry's* job! * replace Infantry with Marines where Semper fidelis may apply.

caitlyn -> RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story (2/24/2008 11:58:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail ... guerrilla war making its way upon the scene long about the Boer War. I think Simon Bar Kokhba came slightly earlier. [;)][;)]

mnottertail -> RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story (2/24/2008 12:04:46 PM)
Having fucked around with the concept a little in my youth, the military and war have no commerce with organized, combined or coordinated. Sure... people pretend and write about it in volumnous tomes (usually LTCs (ret). who've did a tour of duty at the war college in Kansas). But....not even. And you can fuckin' quote me. Ron

Sinergy -> RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story (2/24/2008 12:07:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wkdshadow No, bombardment doesn't win a war, it'll win you a battle, but not a war. An organized combined, coordinated effort on multiple fronts utilizing multiple methods of attack wins a war. This exactly describes the US strategy and tactics in Iraq. Are we winning yet? Sinergy p.s. I am not trashing the military, I am objecting to how politicians are using them.

mnottertail -> RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story (2/24/2008 12:12:40 PM)
quote: Simon Bar Kokhba quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail ... guerrilla war making its way upon the scene long about the Boer War. I think Simon Bar Kokhba came slightly earlier. [;)][;)] LOL, you are a smart cookie, lovie; and the point is well taken. But c'mon you hadda look that up, that didn't just flow off the top of your head. And truthfully hit and run, so on and so forth has been since the time that one force could overpower another and the overpowered would not give up. effective bombing at some point or not. Ron

wkdshadow -> RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story (2/24/2008 12:18:29 PM)
I still don't understand, what's your point? As history has shown time and time again, a regulated army vs. a guerilla group of irregular insurgents that don't wear uniforms is going to have a hell of a time winning, despite the number of troops you put on the ground. That's why guerilla war exists: it's a force multiplier, unless you're going to issue a blanket shoot to kill order and slaughter the civilians too. It seems to me you're suggesting if the bombing runs don't get 'em all in the first run, we somehow fail by default. I suppose it would just be easier for us to drop a few FAEs onto Iraq, killing all civilians along with the guerillas.... but that's a fucked up form of politics to be advocating man.

mnottertail -> RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story (2/24/2008 12:26:53 PM)
the eastern concept of the void (in one of the spins). that is what many would advocate, if you are not willing to snatch them from the earth, there is no sense going to war and making it worse fucked up for generations. Ron

LadyEllen -> RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story (2/24/2008 12:27:19 PM)
US Forces having problems getting supplies? Something very fishy about all that. Our lot are laughed at by your lot for being "The Borrowers" - ie, our lot get so little they have to come borrow it from your lot. And there was a report the other night on funding per soldier in Afghanistan. A UK soldier costs around £75,000-00 for a certain period. A Dutch soldier around £150,000-00 for the same period. A US soldier came out top at around £240,000-00 for the same period. Our Minister for Defence (or whatever he is) said that the disparity between UK and Dutch was because there were fewer Dutch troops than British, and it was understandable that the US spent more per soldier. Sounded like BS to me, but he is the Minister for Defence, defending what is indefensible, and made a valiant effort. But the point it, if the US is funding its soldiers three times more than we are funding our soldiers, and we have to borrow stuff from US forces - which if they are short themselves it sounds like an odd thing to do to loan stuff out - then it might suggest that the funding and the equipment bought with it, is not finding its way to the US troops. ie Someone, somewhere is making a lot of money out of all this. Maybe many someones, in many somewheres. OK no surprise perhaps, but whoever they are theyre making a fortune whilst your troops go short and die as a result. E

mnottertail -> RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story (2/24/2008 12:33:22 PM)
Haliburton, $600 toilet seats, that sort of thing. Ron

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125