Strategy for War- Your in Charge - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Hatterasguy · #16 07-31-2006, 02:14 PM

No no, when you win you make the rules.

TwitchKitty · #17 07-31-2006, 02:16 PM

Your question is an oversimplification.

There is a civil war for power in Iraq which was inevitable with Saddam's downfall. Saddam assassinated the leader of Iraq and took over. The guy that took Saddam's place was going to have to fight his way into power also.

There is a religious war overlayed onto the whole area and Israeli's latest problems are mostly part of that.

The latest world war has started, it is between the oil producing nations and the oil companies against the oil consuming nations. An example would be Putin in Russia. His power is based on the price of oil. Low oil prices, no power.

Like I have said before, people in the US don't even know who their enemies are, or what the battle is about, much less how to win a war.

We are sheep treated like mushrooms.

Botnst · #18 07-31-2006, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 87tdwagen

OK I can buy that, winning is also legally supported in common law, possession is 9/10's of legal ownership. So when one side wins, the losers need to accept that what is taken from them is OK, so why complain? Next time there is a war, the previous losers should strive to win and take back all of their stuff and them some...the cycle repeats itself.

All I'm saying is that to blame others for acting in their own best interest and not aligning with your own aspirations (which is done in your own best interest) is fruitless, you are saying I hate your for being just like me...and with both sides feeling the same way no supprise they can't come to terms

I don't especially blame anybody. I like accurate scorecards.

B

87tdwagen · #19 07-31-2006, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

I don't especially blame anybody. I like accurate scorecards.

B

Bot, not saying your are blaming anyone, just a hypethetical sense of 'you'.

Why keep score? Does it really matter if the current outcome is all that has to be accepted? One side wins, the other loses, no score needed, you are either free to confiscate or not. Next war, new game only one outcome, winners and losers. Scores do nothing to help a cause, just because one side won 4 wars and the other only 2, who's to say that the underdog must be allowed to win the next time?

Botnst · #20 07-31-2006, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 87tdwagen

Bot, not saying your are blaming anyone, just a hypethetical sense of 'you'.

Why keep score? Does it really matter if the current outcome is all that has to be accepted? One side wins, the other loses, no score needed, you are either free to confiscate or not. Next war, new game only one outcome, winners and losers. Scores do nothing to help a cause, just because one side won 4 wars and the other only 2, who's to say that the underdog must be allowed to win the next time?

Maybe "scorecard" is too flippant. What I mean is that I like accurate context in order to more fully understand what I see and hear and read.

TwitchKitty · #21 07-31-2006, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwitchKitty

Your question is an oversimplification.

There is a civil war for power in Iraq which was inevitable with Saddam's downfall. Saddam assassinated the leader of Iraq and took over. The guy that took Saddam's place was going to have to fight his way into power also.

There is a religious war overlayed onto the whole area and Israeli's latest problems are mostly part of that.

The latest world war has started, it is between the oil producing nations and the oil companies against the oil consuming nations. An example would be Putin in Russia. His power is based on the price of oil. Low oil prices, no power.

Like I have said before, people in the US don't even know who their enemies are, or what the battle is about, much less how to win a war.

We are sheep treated like mushrooms.

Putin is just an example in the above, he is not to be singled out as the root of the problem. But the powers behind him and others with with the same motives will do whatever it takes to keep oil prices high including funding, aiding and supporting the insurgency, hamas, hetzbola, etc. Hold on, it is going to be a wild ride.

87tdwagen · #22 07-31-2006, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Maybe "scorecard" is too flippant. What I mean is that I like accurate context in order to more fully understand what I see and hear and read.

Worst thing about posts is the lack of body language, emmotion etc explaining true intent. What you say is very true, accurate context for understanding. Like someone important, whos name escapes me, once said...
Read both sides of the story with equal dilligence, somewhere smack dab in the middle you will find the truth...or...

two half truths make one full truth

Dee8go · #23 07-31-2006, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

Shouldn't its under ground. We have lots of vintage nuclear weapons we could use up on them as well. Kill two birds with one stone so to speak.

Some of us really are a bunch of cretins, aren't we?

The founders of our country recognized that nations ultimately act in their own best interests. Trying to apply a sense of personal morality and/or altruism to the foreign policies of a nation does not usually have a happy ending. It's better to form alliances in which all parties will benefit by achieving the same ends.

aklim · #24 07-31-2006, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dee8go

The founders of our country recognized that nations ultimately act in their own best interests. Trying to apply a sense of personal morality and/or altruism to the foreign policies of a nation does not usually have a happy ending. It's better to form alliances in which all parties will benefit by achieving the same ends.

Of course, it is. However sometimes it is possible and other times not without a little nudging. Our founding fathers lived in a much different world where each area is not really affecting the other too much. Today, it is much different. If your nearest neighbour is 200 miles away, you can leave him do what he wants. Today, we have brought that neighbour much closer and so you might have to be concerned if his area is a mess.

A264172 · #25 07-31-2006, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siduri19

I know this forum contains some of the finest war strategists on the face of this planet- Your in chage- How would you fight the war in Isreal? You have the American military at your disposal. Then when your done how would you finish the mess in Iraq?

If I had to fight it ...
It would be door to door, house to house, hole to hole.
Almost everyone in the way would end up dead or interned.
Too much resistance?.. ...carpet bomb the area... then try again...
And it would not stop until the other side says uncle.
If you want to be seen as nice, caring, friendly... then don't start a war.

jlomon · #26 07-31-2006, 03:45 PM

Getting back to your original question, how would I win the war that Israel is currently waging against Hezbollah in Lebanon if I had the full spectrum of US assets at my disposal? Assuming for a moment that we don't adopt Hattie's strategy (although I agree that it would not only be the easiest but would also address the problem on a long-term basis), I think it requires a shift in the perception of the engagement.

This isn't a war in the traditional geopolitical sense, with Israel and Lebanon having declared war on each other as nations. This is Israel attempting to remove a rogue terrorist army that has taken root in a soverign nation with at least tacit if not overt approval of the government and local populace. If I really wanted to win the engagement I would mobilize every member of the US special forces, Delta, Navy SEALs, etc and send them in with an unlimited budget, complete logistic support and very flexible rules of engagement. That should allow them to either elimiate Hezbollah from Lebanon either by attrition or by having them flee the country. This will create the conditions to allow Israel to retreat to their border.

I haven't got a clue how to handle Iraq. Its a civil war.

BENZ-LGB · #27 07-31-2006, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlomon

Getting back to your original question, how would I win the war that Israel is currently waging against Hezbollah in Lebanon if I had the full spectrum of US assets at my disposal? Assuming for a moment that we don't adopt Hattie's strategy (although I agree that it would not only be the easiest but would also address the problem on a long-term basis), I think it requires a shift in the perception of the engagement.

This isn't a war in the traditional geopolitical sense, with Israel and Lebanon having declared war on each other as nations. This is Israel attempting to remove a rogue terrorist army that has taken root in a soverign nation with at least tacit if not overt approval of the government and local populace. If I really wanted to win the engagement I would mobilize every member of the US special forces, Delta, Navy SEALs, etc and send them in with an unlimited budget, complete logistic support and very flexible rules of engagement. That should allow them to either elimiate Hezbollah from Lebanon either by attrition or by having them flee the country. This will create the conditions to allow Israel to retreat to their border.

I haven't got a clue how to handle Iraq. Its a civil war.

SO you are saying that hezbo is like a cancer then?

Then chemo-therapy would seem to be the most efficient way to eliminate the cancer.

TwitchKitty · #28 07-31-2006, 05:12 PM

Every atmospheric nuclear blast in history has been accompanied by an increase in the cancer rate. Nuclear warfare is another term for suicide. Suicide is a closely related term to too stupid to live.

87tdwagen · #29 07-31-2006, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwitchKitty

Every atmospheric nuclear blast in history has been accompanied by an increase in the cancer rate. Nuclear warfare is another term for suicide. Suicide is a closely related term to too stupid to live.

Sooo are you saying that all nuclear nations are suicidal and stupid? They are the only ones having done the testing, above ground, underground and in the ocean and atmosphere....

I don't have an opinion on this one just curious as your arguement has a tenant of truth to it

aklim · #30 07-31-2006, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A264172

If I had to fight it ...
It would be door to door, house to house, hole to hole.
Almost everyone in the way would end up dead or interned.
Too much resistance?.. ...carpet bomb the area... then try again...
And it would not stop until the other side says uncle.
If you want to be seen as nice, caring, friendly... then don't start a war.

Depending how severe the fighting gets in the cities, either carpet bomb or tactical nukes. Why send a man in when a bullet or in this case a bomb will do?