Posted on 03/20/2011 4:13:01 AM PDT by Scanian
Politics seems to have become a sort of mental illness. We have no bloody business in Libya, and no idea what we hope to achieve there.
We are daily told that we have no money to spare. We have just scrapped a large part of our Navy.
Our Army is stuck in an Afghan war whose point nobody can explain. And now we have set out on a course that could drag us into a long, gory brawl in North Africa.
And yet, when the Prime Minister announces this folly he is praised. Why? Partly it is because we all watch too much TV. Its reports simplify, then exaggerate.
Reporters, much like politicians, like to feel they are helping to make history, and get excited by subjects they knew nothing about until last Wednesday.
Before we know where we are, we are taking sides in quarrels we dont understand. Who are the Libyan rebels? What do they want? Why do we love them so?
Ive no idea, and nor has Mr Cameron, as we discovered when he (yes, it was him, not poor William Hague) sent the SAS to see them and they were welcomed with pitchforks and mockery.
The only sensible policy in Libya is to wait and see who wins, and then make friends with them. If you think this heartless, you are of course right. Foreign policy is heartless. Nice countries end up being conquered or going bankrupt. But it may be no more heartless than our kindly interference.
I pray that this episode ends quickly and cleanly. Perhaps it will. But we cannot know. What if our humanitarian bombs and missiles accidentally kill women and children (which is almost certain)? What if air attacks and distant shelling fail to stop Gaddafis forces?
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
So what do you suggest?
It did.
You were asked several direct questions. None of which you have bothered to answer. Care to start? If you’ve forgotten here they are again:
1) You claim that our military is not over extended. Most active duty Marines and Soldiers would SEVERELY disagree. How can you come to such a conclusion?
2) You demand a policy of a “will to kill.” Please define such a policy. How it would translate into “victory” in Libya? Keep in mind that our military, contrary to your masturbatory fantasies, are staffed by upstanding men and women who aren’t down with murdering unarmed populations they are fighting in support of.
Very true. Today, nearly all terrorists are Muslims.
1 Group think. I don’t care what most people think I care about time tested truths.
2 I am not specifically talking about Libya when I talk about the will to kill (If you are a soldier you better have the will to kill). I am talking about the entire Islamic world. We happen to be engaged in Libya so we need to be willing to kill them, rather than set our men up for failure.
Okay, then why were you busting my chops earlier. I am more tolerant than you.
Yes, we won the air war in WWII, but plenty of military historians don't believe the bombing of civilian areas was the reason we won WWII. Even the dropping of nuclear weapons on Japan was not specifically targeted at civilians. I don't have to believe that air superiority is paramount in winning wars and believe that massacring civilians is the same thing, do I?
I will always want the US to be able to win on land, air, and sea.
1) You say groupthink. I say Solipsism. You have provided no evidence, facts or statistics to indicate that our forces are fine and dandy. Here are just a couple of mine that indicate otherwise:
2) Your comments indicate you have no idea what it means to be a Soldier or a Marine. There is a BIG difference between being willing to kill your enemy and killing everything that moves. One is the mindset of a professional. The other is held by little boys who have only seen combat when watching “Full Metal Jacket.” Finally your idea of winning in Libya is killing them if we need to? Great plan. -sarcasm off -
We’re done here. I’d like to get back to debating with adults. Have a nice day.
Look here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2691721/posts?page=1
We, as a real Nation, need to identify other Nations that share our common interests, goals, and culture, not engage in endless tail wags dog exercises for fuzzy feel good reasons that are usually cover for an entirely different agenda.
Nations do not have friends, they have interests, and this nation has, since Jimmy Carter, begun to define it's interests in promoting the spread of Islamic fundamentalism.
Intended or not Carter did it, Clinton did it, and now Hussein is doing it in spades.
We are sinking ourselves...
Why stop now? there's money to be made......bomb it - get the oil - rebuild it......brilliant!
Sherman was instrumental in winning the Civil War because he reduced the South’s willingness to fight, through total war.
Withdraw from the battlefield, hoser.
My problem is that I believe we are at war with radical Islam; therefore, If radical Islam wants something it is are job to keep it from them.
Personally, I don’t think this is our concern. There is totalitarianism all over the world. Taking out one aging thug so that he can be replaced with another is not going to do anything.
If I used that logic I would never weed the garden.
Works for me as long as you include the pols and bureacrats who aided and abetted the deal.
Was this before or after your epic fail "give me a gold star by my name" thread?
And who did you call exactly? What number did you dial?
Again, you misunderstand me. I agree that to win a war the will of the enemy has to break. Do you advocate genocide as the best way to do that?
Yes it was. I don’t like being accused of fraud. How about you Humble? Your credentials are as shallow as anyone’s on this site. The fact that you put gunner in your handle could mean that you are compensating for something. Frankly, I believe you.
No, not genocide. I simply believe you have to do what Sherman did. Is that fair?
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.