we used to do a much better job of that.
Posted on 10/05/2010 5:25:46 AM PDT by rightwingintelligentsia
I meant we could of won it any day we wanted to, starting with the first day.
... can just play golf, throw lavish parties on our dime and take repeated extravagant vacations, again on our dime, while plotting to desacrate America further and not have to be bothered with those pesky terrorists killing Americans right here in the USA. That would put a real crimp on his current lifestyle. So, better to set our guys up as sitting ducks so he can live the good life uninterrupted by real life job duties.
Well, you are right on that point. We didn’t win in one day, it took us 3 entire weeks. ;*)
I think we could win. But it wouldn’t be pretty, and I doubt we (the civilian government) have the guts for it.
We’d have to put in a real ally in Kabul (as in “He may be a bastard, but he’s OUR bastard.”).
We’d have to violate the “Laws of War.” We’d have wipe out entire families, villages, towns, clans, tribes, etc., for the support they provide to the Taliban.
We’d need special forces, who, when facing exposure by some kid herding goats, would not hesitate to cut the kid’s throat.
We’d have to help “allied” tribes slaughter and loot their (and our) enemies and take their women and children as slaves.
We’d have to invade Pakistan and wage that same sort of war through the “tribal” areas.
Can you imagine the screaming from the NGOs, the UN, the media, various “human rights organizations,” etc.? (I can, and sort of enjoy it...).
When fighting savages, you fight savagely and enlist other savages as allies. If we’re not willing do that, we do need to pack up and go home.
“Americans are confused and uneasy about the war in Afghanistan...”
Says who?
Perhaps it’s time for the average Moron in the Street to realize that if our fabulous troops weren’t engaging the terrorists in their training camps, we’d ALL be engaging them here at home.
You are quite wrong. We’d have given up and SUED FOR PEACE by now. No bombing of German and Japanese industrial centers because of concern for civilian casualties. No invasion of Pacific Islands for the SAME reason. No invasion of Normandy, due to the proximity of civilians to the beaches to be bombarded by the navy and air forces.
And the LIBERALS would be proud of AMERICAN concern for the lives and safety of civilians.
Meantime, the slaughter will have continued unabated in areas controlled by the AXIS powers.
wars should be fought to win with the least amount of treasure and blood on our side as possible, with no regards to how much damage or blood is shed on the enemy side, especially if the other side has no intention of giving any quarter to our side.
It is one thing to come to an agreement (that BOTH sides live up to) on what is or is not acceptable during war, it is entirely another to have one side weighed down with endless rules that make victory all but impossible, while the other is free to do whatever it wants.
The reality is, the victor gets the luxury of deciding which actions were allowed. If Germany had won WW2 they would of put the allied leaders on trial for the fire bombing of Dresden and the internment of US Japanese among other things.
If the Muslims ever were to completely conquer us... there will be no talk of rules of war or civilian casualties, there will be wholesale slaughter, rape, and pillage of America unrivaled since the beginning of time.
we used to do a much better job of that.
The democrats don’t support the war on terror. They have no idea what winning means, and have no desire to win in any case. Obama only did what he thought was politically expedient, and our troops are dying for it.
It should be strongly and repeatedly pointed out that Obama is now losing a war that we should be winning, a war that he claimed he WOULD fix, a war he attacked the previous president for not taking seriously enough, a war that the american people are turning against, and that is seen now as the “democrats war” — but the republicans are NOT attacking him for it.
That’s because the Republicans know what it means to support the troops, and that means not hurting our troops in battle by undercutting their mission for political gain, like the democrats did for years.
Interesting semantics. If you 'quit' your job, you 'lose' it. If you quit a game (forfeit), you 'lose' it. The rules of engagement and "winning hearts & minds" philosophy of modern American warfare is a losing strategy, especially when it's applied to a ruthless, barbaric enemy.
Well, I sure would not ask the Brits to define ‘victory’.
>We did not lose in Vietnam ... we QUIT!
Same thing. Same results.
It’s like when Colonel Summers confronted General Giap and informed him that the NV never won a battle with the Americans - Gen Giap’s reply, true but irrelevant and went on to say that we fought in your kitchens and dining rooms and won there.
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.