User Tag List

First 1234513 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 188

  1. #21
    Supreme Allied Commander Take Five's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Posts
    925

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Athenian200 View Post
    I'm not sure ground troops are the best solution. Sending in too many ground troops was what failed in Vietnam without decent support from the air, lack of armor, and lack of tanks, wasn't it?

    What they need is more equipment, not more men... if you ask me. Sending an "army" of psychologists and missionaries to reeducate the citizens might also be an effective and underused tactic.
    Not really. We sent more ground troops to Viet Nam than we send to Afghanistan, but they're two completely different contexts.

    In Viet Nam, the US(+ allies) and South Vietnamese Army (ARVN) were fighting both a guerrilla force (the Vietcong, or VC) and a regular conventional army, the North Vietnamese Army (NVA). Extremely important to note is that the NVA and the VC were aided by neighboring Communist China.

    Despite a poor strategy from the LBJ Administration, the US did not suffer a military defeat. Why was the strategy poor? For one thing, we refused to close of the Ho Chi Minh Trail that brought supplies and routes of attack for the Communists. We did not attack that because it was not in Vietnamese territory. LBJ actually made too much use of air force--air force that was ineffective. Air force was also worse at discriminating targets, so civilians were sometimes killed accidentally, which lessens civilian support of US. Tanks weren't really an issue. The NVA never beat the US in any major battle. And even the VC was really destroyed during the Tet Offensive of 1968 because they adopted conventional tactics too soon. It's much more complicated than this, but you probably get the idea.

    The fact is that in counterinsurgency, ground units are the most important and effective. The more ground units the better for several reasons--they are better at preventing civilian casualties, they make the US look committed to victory, they decrease insurgent moral, they make US troops feel more confident and secure, they can make more areas secure and raise more Afghan security personnel. You can't do that stuff with airpower and tanks alone--you need people on the ground with the civilians. You win over the population, and keep the American public convinced we are winning, and there should be a victory for the US.
    Johari Nohari

    "If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared. "--Niccolo Machiavelli

  2. #22
    Senior Member Feops's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INTx
    Posts
    829

    Default

    Seems fine to me. Either commit ground forces or pull out. Going halfway is the worst of both worlds.

    My gut feeling is that americans will mentally lump that area in the world together, so there will be an impression that Obama is being contradictory in his aims. But really it was a lose-lose scenario for him that regard. Best to ignore the immediate and make what will be seen as the best decisions in hindsight.

  3. #23
    it's tea time! Walking Tourist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    esfp
    Enneagram
    7
    Posts
    1,452

    Default

    We should bomb the heck out of foreign countries, wreck their environment by the use of depleted uranium (which is a carcinogen), and then charge them a tax??? We need to send both soldiers and tax collectors?
    Um. Yuck.

    Quote Originally Posted by Athenian200 View Post
    Well, I think the military industrial complex would work a lot better if the military held up their end of the bargain and sent money home from conquered territories. But alas, we'd never get away with taxing these people...
    I'm a little teapot, short and stout. Here is my handle and here is my spout. Every time I steam up, I give a shout. Just tip me over and pour me out.

  4. #24
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    All the troop commitment needs is a good benefit detriment test.

    Does the benefit of the troop commitment outweigh the cost to the American people?

    Under the present circumstances, we must certainly agree that it does not.

    What are we achieving by staying in Afghanistan?

  5. #25
    Crazy Diamond Billy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    1,196

    Default

    Gotta maintain the empire yo.
    Ground control to Major Tom

  6. #26
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    I'd prefer to be a member of the rebellion, but then again I have always been a sucker for Star Wars.

  7. #27
    THREADKILLER Prototype's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    Why?
    Socionics
    SEX
    Posts
    855

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    I was for going into Afghanistan after 9/11, but mismanagement and the invasion of Iraq really screwed things up. Anyone who really believed that Obama was truly going to be a different politician was deluded...

    ...That being said, this is probably necessary if there is to be any chance of "success" in Afghanistan. It's a shame (and a crime, IMHO) that we chose to start another offensive war while we were fighting what could reasonably be considered a retaliatory war.

    Yes, they truly are, and you said it well...

    However, Obama is truly going to be a different politician, you just haven't recognized his strategy yet!... Give it time!
    ... They say that knowledge is free, and to truly acquire wisdom always comes with a price... Well then,... That will be $10, please!

  8. #28
    Ghost Monkey Soul Vizconde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    All the troop commitment needs is a good benefit detriment test.

    Does the benefit of the troop commitment outweigh the cost to the American people?

    Under the present circumstances, we must certainly agree that it does not.

    What are we achieving by staying in Afghanistan?
    Exactly! Its pure stupidity and waste. What we are doing is protecting oil pipelines for international corporations. Do the corporations benefit the American people? Absolutely not, they just use a small percentage of the capital they gain/speculate to gain, to bribe/lobby American politicians/media. The U.S.A as a nation is then severely depleted of their tax dollars(i.e. worse a growing deficit because the costs exceed the tax pools) and the young men as women of the milary who parrish/become cripples. In the meantime Afgan civilians are killed in the bombings and become recruited by terrorist who bomb America and Europe because we are over there. And the circle continues.

    In otherwords some red neck at home thinks he is being patriotic for sending his children to kill or be killed by other people in other lands for the benefit of international corporations. (when that same red neck would otherwise refuse to have anything to do with the international corporations)
    I redact everything I have written or will write on this forum prior to, subsequent with and or after the fact of its writing. For entertainment purposes only and not to be taken seriously nor literally.

    Quote Originally Posted by Edgar View Post
    Spamtar - a strange combination of boorish drunkeness and erudite discussions, or what I call "an Irish academic"

  9. #29
    Crazy Diamond Billy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    1,196

    Default

    What we are achieving in Afghanistan is that Obama knows that the last time the Democrats lost a war for us (Vietnam) they committed political suicide.
    Ground control to Major Tom

  10. #30
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Well, I guess there is that.

Similar Threads

  1. Obama's 30 minute commercial (sealing the deal)
    By Didums in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 11-03-2008, 07:57 PM
  2. [INTP] If you put 30 INTPs in a room together...
    By Sunshine in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 10-20-2008, 06:36 PM
  3. US Army 2008 Modernization Strategy: 30 or 40 Yrs of War
    By heart in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-02-2008, 07:39 PM
  4. 30-day challenge
    By Randomnity in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 03-22-2008, 10:39 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO