marharth Posted April 6, 2012 Author Share Posted April 6, 2012 Yes, this is not really a contributing post, but... Do we really need another thread about the Iraq/Afghan wars, whether we do or do not support them, whether they are or are not legal, etc...?Err... what? There isn't a single debate I can find that is directly about the wars, if there is one it is certainly not recent enough to bump. Not my issue that a bunch of people go off topic in other posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazzerfong Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 @ Aurelius: And has America actually won any wars since (Gulf War incident notwithstanding)? @ HeyYou: America has 11 aircraft carriers: they have to use them, no? :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurielius Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 (edited) @SyncI didn't start this thread so don't look to me for that answer. @DazzerfongNo...but it's never over till the fat lady sings. As for the carriers, they have other uses beyond just being a projection of US power. @HYThe same page as you, with the caveat that it always has bugged me when we ask young men/women to risk it all, then don't try to actually win. There is no substitute for victory. @Jim_UKAgreed, the current logistical set up is precisely what is needed for your premise to be operational. Edited April 7, 2012 by Aurielius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazzerfong Posted April 8, 2012 Share Posted April 8, 2012 @ Aurielius: Realistically, what are the chances of America out-rightly winning the war right now? Yes, you nabbed bin Laden, but the terrorism still continues. This war has all the classic give-aways of the Vietnam War: a mixed opinion at home, an enemy who really can't be seen too easily, asymmetric and guerilla warfare: only that it's set in the 21st century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurielius Posted April 8, 2012 Share Posted April 8, 2012 @DazzerfongThere are only two examples of successful defeat,occupation and rehabilitation (Germany and Japan) in both cases the ratio of occupation troops to civilian population was 1 to 50. the time span for both occupations was decades and the underlying economic viability of each was preexistent prior to hostilities commencing. Iraq could fit within that matrix but Afghanistan could not. I agree that Afghanistan is a case of a poor fit but Iraq was feasible, if actual reconstruction was attempted in a serious manner as we did post world war two ie The Marshall Plan which was the key to final success. That there is a serious division of opinion at home is beyond question, our citizens have a serious lack of continuous focus that is required for such an endeavor to be successful. Afghanistan still having a safe haven on it's border is analogous to Cambodia/Vietnam and therefor contains the same operational fatal flaw. That is my analysis...I am a pragmatist when it comes to facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted April 8, 2012 Share Posted April 8, 2012 Well, it helped that the folks in Germany/Japan actually WANTED to rebuild their nations, and WANTED peace...... We went into Iraq and afghanistan without a good understanding of their people, and their motivations. Bush senior did NOT go into Baghdad when he was there in the early 90's for the stated reason of: "No Viable exit strategy." He didn't want to get stuck there for a decade or more...... and he was right. (and obviously smarter than his son......) We have the same issue in afghanistan. Invading a country that we have no concept of what they actually want...... We aren't going to 'win' there. When we leave, they will go right back to what they were when we arrived. Probably within a year. Or less...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modder3434 Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 America wins battles. If for sake of the argument this war was a traditional with a front, rear etc. we would win. the problem with this war is that in the long run the terrorists, extremists etc. are going to win by attrition. They are using guerrilla warfare, don't have any rule book to follow ( ex. Geneva Convention, and Rules of Engagement) and the organization itself is indestructible. we killed osama, but in his place three more leaders have sprung up to take the reins. fighting terrorists is like fighting a hydra from greek myths. also for consideration is the fact no one has conquered Afghanistan. Think the Soviets vs. the Mujaheddin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazzerfong Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 Well, considering how out Ruskie friends drop several napalm bombs whenever they remotely think there's an Afghani fighter, and even then they couldn't win, I highly doubt the Americans could. And come on, who actually follows the Geneva and/or Hague conventions to the letter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 Well, considering how out Ruskie friends drop several napalm bombs whenever they remotely think there's an Afghani fighter, and even then they couldn't win, I highly doubt the Americans could. And come on, who actually follows the Geneva and/or Hague conventions to the letter? No one that I am aware of, or, they use a legal dance to make something prohibited by various agreements NOT illegal by redefining a term or two....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazzerfong Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 @ HeyYou: I can instantly name two examples: Gitmo, and the Raufoss Mk. 211. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now