Posted on 02/12/2016 10:45:07 AM PST by Kaslin
Or they vote Trump. One of the two.
In before someone smears Trump or Cruz.... aw damn.
“Sen. Ted Cruz reassured us that “the single biggest national security threat facing America right now is the threat of a nuclear Iran.””
I think our biggest security threat are the Washington elites by far!
"There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare."It's the liberals that insist on prolonged warfare in order to weaken the military prior to their violent takeover at home. The patriots insist on swift victory using military might unfettered with absurd rules of engagement that tie the soldiers' hands.
— The Art Of War, II:6
Under an agreement the Taliban and child rapists are our friends according to Obama.
When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be damped. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength. / Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain. / Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue. / Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays. / There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare. ...Sound familiar? Perhaps engineered by the liberals in charge of the military?
This was known from the Start.
Some argued, just go in, kick ass, take the loot and run.
Others argued, this is a long term operation and we should eminent domain some strategic real estate for Military bases and Airfields for a very long presence.
I guess they chose: Run in, destroy everything. Rebuild it for them for free, prop up a dysfunctional government, declare victory and leave.
I wonder if we went in as in war, traditionaly, kill and maim, loot and destroy and then just pulled out wasn’t just the best answer.
Give our fighting men/women full release to engage the enemy at any place and any time and the war would be over in relatively short order. Simply “fire at will” should be the order of EVERY DAY.
We were right to go into Afghanistan. We were wrong to stay any longer than necessary to kill as many bad people as we could. Three months, tops.
We won WWII 71 years ago, and we still have 53,000 troops stationed there.
There are two correct ways to continue after a successful military action: Plan for a very long stay to enforce the changes (Europe, Japan), or leave immediately and warn the new government to be good or they get toppled too. Intermediate options, staying for just a few years (Iraq, Afghanistan), are a complete waste.
What about Islam? Seems like they are indeed taking the road of the “long siege”, over 1400 years.
Each and every day they kill on average another 25 or so (large standard-deviation) infidels, each day of the week, each week of the month, each month of the year, each year of the century, each century of the millenia, for the last 1400 years... since Medina.
By the sword, they now claim 1/5 of the earth’s population.
We still have troops in Korea with only a cease fire in place.
Making good on President Obama’s commitment to remove all U.S. forces by next January, said Campbell, “would put the whole mission at risk.”
Which is exactly what Obama wants and why he will follow through with it, just like he did in Iraq. Get ready for the caliphate to take over Afghanistan next year.
True, but technically, that was a UN “police action”. We never declared war on North Korea, did we? The cease fire is between the north and the south.
Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him. / If he is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. / If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. / If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. / Attack him where he is unprepared; appear where you are not expected. ... — I:20-24Now do many of those things sound like tactics our enemies have been using?
In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them. / Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting. Thus the highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy's plans; the next best is to prevent the junction of the enemy's forces; the next in order is to attack the enemy's army in the field; and the worst policy of all is to besiege walled cities. ... — III:1-3
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.