Kudos to Bush

POSTED BY: dreamtrove
UPDATED: Sunday, March 26, 2006 02:14
VIEWED: 2704
PAGE 2 of 4

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 3:30 AM

Chris

I believe that would be Bush, or the people who made him, being Condi and Karl, for copywrite violation. They thought they had created an original dominar, but actually he was a cheap copy of Kodos.

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 4:25 AM

Quote:
If you were fighting the US a defensive missile system is useless....

Nah, I disagree. I think it's exactly what you need. The US has squat in the way of ground power these days compared with other large military powers. I mean, 160,000 combat forces mobilized at one time is less than Saddam Hussein had, and he was the tin plated dictator of the back forty. America's power is air, and if you stop that, you're looking pretty good.

GINOBIFFARONI

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 4:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Quote:
If you were fighting the US a defensive missile system is useless....

Nah, I disagree. I think it's exactly what you need. The US has squat in the way of ground power these days compared with other large military powers. I mean, 160,000 combat forces mobilized at one time is less than Saddam Hussein had, and he was the tin plated dictator of the back forty. America's power is air, and if you stop that, you're looking pretty good.

2/3 of your strategic weapons....

ICBMs, SSBNs, B1s are within easy reach of our borders... Without them, I think what economic power you have left will fall apart. Europe, Russia, China will stand up and put you in your place...

Defensive Missile system....

hahaha, it doesn't work anyway

" Over and in, last call for sin
While everyone's lost, the battle is won
With all these things that I've done "

The Killers

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/killers/allthesethingsthativedone.html

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 1:59 PM

Gino,

On this I think you're just plain wrong. The US Nuclear Asernal accomplishes nothing. We're certainly not stopping China now. If the US had no military whatsoever, no one would conquer it. Ever. No one would even try. Aside from the huge ocean gap, the fact remains that it's not particularly easy to conquer a country without a military, as we found out in Somalia and are now finding out in Iraq. And it's not like Dubai is getting it's economic success due to it's military. It's not like Korea Japan Taiwan and Hong Kong are either. In fact, almost the reverse is true. I believe the countries with the strongest military:citizen ratio in asia are N. Korea and Vietnam, both relatively destitute.

Missile defense doesn't work only because we haven't invested in the idea. Instead we just lob bombs at other bombs in hopes of hitting them. That's not going to work.

HERO

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 3:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Quote:
If you were fighting the US a defensive missile system is useless....

Nah, I disagree. I think it's exactly what you need. The US has squat in the way of ground power these days compared with other large military powers. I mean, 160,000 combat forces mobilized at one time is less than Saddam Hussein had, and he was the tin plated dictator of the back forty. America's power is air, and if you stop that, you're looking pretty good.

I disagree. American ground combat power is all about force multipliers. Since WW2 we have devoted ourselves to qualitiy over quantity. Thats why America toppled Saddam in 2003 in a matter of days with a single Mechanized division and a few support troops.

Air power is only a single factor in the mix. Our artillery is now so powerful that we can create a constant rolling barrage that decimates enemy formations even as the army advaces. Special forces can now operate with near impunity to disrupt enemy supply lines and command and control operations. Real time satalite and drone technology allows for unprecidented command and control of ongoing operations. Our logistics system moves mountains of supplies across the world making our soldiers the best supplied soldiers in the field even in the heart of enemy territory.

Also a missile defense system alone would be of little use against our fleet of sub-launched ground-hugging cruise missiles, or stealth technology aircraft, or planes whose sole purpose is to disrupt and destroy air defense networks (the best of which is based on twenty-year old Soviet technology).

That said, I agree we need a larger ground army. I've always said that Clinton cut the army by too much. We should have kept a couple more light infantry formations like the old 6th and 7th light infantry divisions and at least one more heavy division like the old 24th Mechanized. All those units were long ago part of the Rapid Deployment Force and I think we could have used them (especially the 6th and 7th ID's) back in 2003 to help garrison Iraq.

Nowadays we have what...the 10th Mountain, 101st, and 82nd to cover all of our potential emergencies and provide troops for Iraq and Afganistan. They're spread thin and the Guard isn't designed to fill the gap. But its a Clinton decision and you can't blame Bush, he campaigned in 2000 on this very issue but 9/11 happened before the Defense Department could complete the review they started when Bush took office or implement the military buildup Bush had in mind. Its like Rumsfeld said...'you go to war with the army you have'.

H

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 3:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

'you go to war with the army you have'.

Please explain to this naive and unsophisticated (Militarily) soul why we couldn't have sent in units of Special Ops along with needed air support to go take out actual terrorist groups without sending the whole gorram army in...?

Or have I just watched 'Predator' too many times Chrisisall

HERO

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 3:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
And it's not like Dubai is getting it's economic success due to it's military. It's not like Korea Japan Taiwan and Hong Kong are either.

They have their economic successes because we have agreed to defend them.

Make no mistake. The US military commitments in the Gulf have checked would-be agressors like Iran, the Soviet Union, and Iraq. Just check out the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait for a practical example.

In Korea, American military power has secured the independence of a favorite ally and trading partner for over fifty years from a hostile and aggressive North Korean regime (read about the Korean War and then tell me you honostly think the North would have held off if we hadn't stayed to make it so).

US power has kept a constantly beligerant and threatening China from conquering another democratic American ally and trading partner, Taiwan (even now China continues its military buildup opposite Taiwan).

In Japan both communist China and the former Soviet Union had post WW2 cravings for video games and anime (the Russians still own a disputed portion of Japanese territory and China would love some WW2 payback).

And you forget to mention Europe where American military presense has secured the longest period of sustained peace in European history, including stopping cold a cycle of conflicts that was growing in both size, world reach, and destructive potential.

In North America our neighbors don't invade us, not because we all love each other, but because we are the strongest and have been since about 1845 and they know that they exist at our whim and thank God we are a generous and merciful people and good neighbor to them.

And don't think its all about America. America alone is a world power, but our real strength is NATO. The Western Alliance assures would-be aggressors that not only will they face American might, but the might of a united Europe as well. The split between Europe and America, the blunting of that great threat, is what emboldened Saddam to defy the United Nations and lead to the 2003 invasion of his country. Now we know from captured tapes and documents that such was his strategy...bribes and election manipulation in France to bring about just such a split...so it was a good and well executed strategy, but one the did little to favoribly determine the outcome (mainly because enough of Europe chose to remain with us rather then falling for Saddam's manipulation of the weak willed European powers and the Iraqi-funded interantional peace movement).

H

HERO

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 4:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

'you go to war with the army you have'.

Please explain to this naive and unsophisticated (Militarily) soul why we couldn't have sent in units of Special Ops along with needed air support to go take out actual terrorist groups without sending the whole gorram army in...?

Or have I just watched 'Predator' too many times Chrisisall

Predator...good movie. Try Commando, now if we had a guy like that... But those movies reflect 1980s reality. The Clinton administration would never have approved such people or operations. You can't have the best without programs and people. You can't send in a special warefare unit that doesn't exist (granted most 'don't exist' to some extent...but I mean it literally), or deploy an infantry divison disbanded by the prior administration, or use a weapon never develpoed by a cancelled R&D program.

Now to answer your question. The purpose of the Army is to kill people and break things. Its also to prosecute the nations wars. Wars are ultimately political expression. The navy and the air force have arguably the most powerful weapons on the face of the earth. But a navy and an air force cannot win a war. A ship cannot occupy a hill. Neither can a plane. Sure, they can deny use of certain portions of enemy territory. Perhaps if the enemy is reasonable they can force a negotiated settlement. But if your enemy is determined, unreasonable, and unreachable, then you are left with the need to see the hill, take the hill. Thats a job for soldiers, boots on the ground. Take the hill, kill the enemy until the enemy's will is broken, or their capacity to resist is destroyed, or if necessary until they simply no longer exist. Its like playing 'king of the hill' when we were kids. You can throw things at the guy on top, but the only way you can really be sure that he's going down is to go up there yourself and drag his sorry ass down. For that you need a whole gorram army...or a handfull of Marines.

H

FLETCH2

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 7:17 PM

Hero, interesting interpretation but if you look at the direction the current administration is going in it is towards smaller, rapid deployment style formations. What Clinton did is just the first stage in retasking the military from an organisation set up to oppose one huge enemy to one able to deal with smaller flash points. I can't imagine any president, even Reagan, being able to sell the idea that you should keep big mechanised units it a world where there are few chances to use them.

Ironically Iraq is probably the last time we will fight that kind of big land war. It was unfortunate that it came at about the time the restructuring was taking place.

REAVERMAN

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 8:09 PM

Quote:
I believe the countries with the strongest military:citizen ratio in asia are N. Korea and Vietnam, both relatively destitute.

Actually, the nation with the highest military:civilian ratio is switzerland. Every Swiss citizen by law is given military training, rank, and serial number. Every two years, they have to redo basic training. Each citizen is issued a rifle, while some are given heavier things(I saw a special where one guy had a full blown heavy artillery piece w/ammo in his barn).
What, you thought they stayed neutral by making everyone happy? Noone fucks with the Swiss.
As for N.Korea, they are actually more advanced and deadly than people realize.

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE