This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

The Greatest Self-defeating Military in the Wide, Wide world!

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Name the last war we actually won .... anyone?

I lifted the following from the article linked at the bottom of this comment:

"The Greatest Self-Defeating Force in History?

Incessant warfare represents the end of democracy. I didn’t say that, James Madison did.

I firmly believe, though, in words borrowed from President Dwight D. Eisenhower, that “only Americans can hurt America." So how can we lessen the hurt? By beginning to rein in the military. A standing military exists -- or rather should exist -- to support and defend the Constitution and our country against immediate threats to our survival. Endless attacks against inchoate foes in the backlands of the planet hardly promote that mission. Indeed, the more such attacks wear on the military, the more they imperil national security.

A friend of mine, a captain in the Air Force, once quipped to me: you study long, you study wrong. It’s a sentiment that’s especially cutting when applied to war: you wage war long, you wage it wrong. Yet as debilitating as they may be to militaries, long wars are even more devastating to democracies. The longer our military wages war, the more our country is militarized, shedding its democratic values and ideals.

Back in the Cold War era, the regions in which the U.S. military is now slogging it out were once largely considered “the shadows” where John le Carré-style secret agents from the two superpowers matched wits in a set of shadowy conflicts. Post-9/11, “taking the gloves off” and seeking knockout blows, the U.S. military entered those same shadows in a big way and there, not surprisingly, it often couldn’t sort friend from foe.

A new strategy for America should involve getting out of those shadowy regions of no-win war. Instead, an expanding U.S. military establishment continues to compound the strategic mistakes of the last 16 years. Seeking to dominate everywhere but winning decisively nowhere, it may yet go down as the greatest self-defeating force in history."

Put our best losing generals (somebody please name one who actually WON a war) together giving their advice to our most uninformed, stupid, gullible, and most impulsive president EVER, and what do you get?

You spend a lot more money and blood playing world policeman in a kind of fighting that solves nothing, kills thousands of innocents and NEVER, NEVER, NEVER concludes. Fuck Trump and all his Generals!


http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/us-military-fighting-itself-and-losing?akid=16075.260394.sw2Xj5&rd=1&src=newsletter1082392&t=10

View user profile
Yawn. Once again - it's not the military - it's the politicians that initiate a conflict for political reasons then send in the military with their hands tied behind their back. Of course the liberal public doesn't have the stomach for real war - you know, the kind where you send in the military to actually WIN at all costs.

The mideast is one big tar baby. Pull our troops out (there aren't really that many there anyway) and let the residents of those cesspools fight it out themselves.

View user profile
gatorfan wrote: Once again - it's not the military - it's the politicians

Do the names Westmoreland or MacArthur mean anything to you, you idiot.

View user profile
gatorfan wrote:Yawn. Once again - it's not the military - it's the politicians that initiate a conflict for political reasons then send in the military with their hands tied behind their back. Of course the liberal public doesn't have the stomach for real war - you know, the kind where you send in the military to actually WIN at all costs.

The mideast is one big tar baby. Pull our troops out (there aren't really that many there anyway) and let the residents of those cesspools fight it out themselves.

I agree with your last statement, but not your former. If the generals who lead our military spoke honestly to the administration instead of sucking up and promising a lot more than they can deliver, we wouldn't be fighting in so many places. "I don't have enough troops or logistics to win a fight here, or there, or there, or there," etc. The problem Gatorfan, is that our generals never speak honestly to the politicians. Our team is "always ready" etc. etc. etc. and other bullshit. Just keep sending us big bucks and we'll always say "yes." For gosh-sake, we've actually got 800 overseas military bases. And you want to cut the system -- political and military some slack? No way!

View user profile
Deus X wrote:
gatorfan wrote: Once again - it's not the military - it's the politicians

Do the names Westmoreland or MacArthur mean anything to you, you idiot.

I usually don't respond to childish insults from obvious morons but your two examples are of politicians in uniform.

View user profile
Wordslinger wrote:
gatorfan wrote:Yawn. Once again - it's not the military - it's the politicians that initiate a conflict for political reasons then send in the military with their hands tied behind their back. Of course the liberal public doesn't have the stomach for real war - you know, the kind where you send in the military to actually WIN at all costs.

The mideast is one big tar baby. Pull our troops out (there aren't really that many there anyway) and let the residents of those cesspools fight it out themselves.

I agree with your last statement, but not your former.  If the generals who lead our military spoke honestly to the administration instead of sucking up and promising a lot more than they can deliver, we wouldn't be fighting in so many places.  "I don't have enough troops or logistics to win a fight here, or there, or there, or there," etc.  The problem Gatorfan, is that our generals never speak honestly to the politicians.  Our team is "always ready" etc. etc. etc. and other bullshit. Just keep sending us big bucks and we'll always say "yes."  For gosh-sake, we've actually got 800 overseas military bases.  And you want to cut the system -- political and military some slack?  No way!

Are you sure most of them don't speak honestly? The problem (as I've personally seen) is that even when politicians are told the truth they don't care. They're already trying to figure out who to call next for campaign donations. We have no business having military folks in many of the places they're stationed. Some places where it seems ridiculous to have troops positioned is done for logistical reasons alone. It's complicated.

I've said many times there is a tremendous amount of waste in military spending and with certain services worshiping the latest shiny object like the F-35, super carriers, and nuclear subs.

View user profile
gatorfan wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:
gatorfan wrote:Yawn. Once again - it's not the military - it's the politicians that initiate a conflict for political reasons then send in the military with their hands tied behind their back. Of course the liberal public doesn't have the stomach for real war - you know, the kind where you send in the military to actually WIN at all costs.

The mideast is one big tar baby. Pull our troops out (there aren't really that many there anyway) and let the residents of those cesspools fight it out themselves.

I agree with your last statement, but not your former.  If the generals who lead our military spoke honestly to the administration instead of sucking up and promising a lot more than they can deliver, we wouldn't be fighting in so many places.  "I don't have enough troops or logistics to win a fight here, or there, or there, or there," etc.  The problem Gatorfan, is that our generals never speak honestly to the politicians.  Our team is "always ready" etc. etc. etc. and other bullshit. Just keep sending us big bucks and we'll always say "yes."  For gosh-sake, we've actually got 800 overseas military bases.  And you want to cut the system -- political and military some slack?  No way!

Are you sure most of them don't speak honestly? The problem (as I've personally seen) is that even when politicians are told the truth they don't care. They're already trying to figure out who to call next for campaign donations. We have no business having military folks in many of the places they're stationed. Some places where it seems ridiculous to have troops positioned is done for logistical reasons alone. It's complicated.

I've said many times there is a tremendous amount of waste in military spending and with certain services worshiping the latest shiny object like the F-35, super carriers, and nuclear subs.


You make a number of good points. As for the "liberal" country not supporting a real, all-out war, consider: the last "real, all-out war" was Vietnam. And what we've got now isn't a national military force made-up of citizen-soldiers, but a collection of mercenaries -- an "all-volunteer" military force. The reason for this is the terrible outcry the government and pentagon received for their folly in Vietnam -- when it became ever more apparent we were losing not winning, and that either way really meant nothing -- zero -- nada -- to our own national security. Fearing another situation with millions of irate American citizens marching against the powers that be, your government in all its wisdom did away with the draft.

It almost worked. But what we've got right now -- a middle and lower class country being economically decimated to pay for unending, unwinnable wars -- no longer supports such actions. They won't be marching to save their sons and daughters, but their money! The system now being employed spends money and blood like water and gains us absolutely nothing in world respect, nor does it make any of us safer in our homes. Reality.

View user profile
The US military and the industries that comprise it are a behemoth.

The founding fathers would spin in their graves at the thought of it.

Its handlers must constantly create threats and bogeymen to justify it's existence.

It has next to nothing to do with defending the homeland.



Last edited by Sal on 9/13/2017, 11:15 am; edited 1 time in total

View user profile
Wordslinger wrote:
gatorfan wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:
gatorfan wrote:Yawn. Once again - it's not the military - it's the politicians that initiate a conflict for political reasons then send in the military with their hands tied behind their back. Of course the liberal public doesn't have the stomach for real war - you know, the kind where you send in the military to actually WIN at all costs.

The mideast is one big tar baby. Pull our troops out (there aren't really that many there anyway) and let the residents of those cesspools fight it out themselves.

I agree with your last statement, but not your former.  If the generals who lead our military spoke honestly to the administration instead of sucking up and promising a lot more than they can deliver, we wouldn't be fighting in so many places.  "I don't have enough troops or logistics to win a fight here, or there, or there, or there," etc.  The problem Gatorfan, is that our generals never speak honestly to the politicians.  Our team is "always ready" etc. etc. etc. and other bullshit. Just keep sending us big bucks and we'll always say "yes."  For gosh-sake, we've actually got 800 overseas military bases.  And you want to cut the system -- political and military some slack?  No way!

Are you sure most of them don't speak honestly? The problem (as I've personally seen) is that even when politicians are told the truth they don't care. They're already trying to figure out who to call next for campaign donations. We have no business having military folks in many of the places they're stationed. Some places where it seems ridiculous to have troops positioned is done for logistical reasons alone. It's complicated.

I've said many times there is a tremendous amount of waste in military spending and with certain services worshiping the latest shiny object like the F-35, super carriers, and nuclear subs.


You make a number of good points.  As for the "liberal" country not supporting a real, all-out war, consider:  the last "real, all-out war" was Vietnam.  And what we've got now isn't a national military force made-up of citizen-soldiers, but a collection of mercenaries -- an "all-volunteer" military force.  The reason for this is the terrible outcry the government and pentagon received for their folly in Vietnam -- when it became ever more apparent we were losing not winning, and that either way really meant nothing -- zero -- nada -- to our own national security.  Fearing another situation with millions of irate American citizens marching against the powers that be, your government in all its wisdom did away with the draft.  

It almost worked.  But what we've got right now -- a middle and lower class country being economically decimated to pay for unending, unwinnable wars -- no longer supports such actions.  They won't be marching to save their sons and daughters, but their money!  The system now being employed spends money and blood like water and gains us absolutely nothing in world respect, nor does it make any of us safer in our homes.  Reality.

Involvement in Vietnam was a mistake on the order of Afghanistan. But the reality (as you say) is the war or conflict could have ended in a matter of months if not for political intransigence and interference. By merely using a difficult to watch strategy like city bombing in WWII Hanoi could have been decimated, Haiphong harbor destroyed, and the flow of weapons from China cut off at the border and it would have ended. None of those "winning at all costs" strategies would have been necessary if we had just stayed home...as we now know the end result would have been the same without lives and billions of $$'s wasted.

It all comes back to foolish politicians who don't have to execute their own poorly conceived orders.

View user profile
gatorfan wrote: politicians in uniform.

That's interesting, any general that fucks up is a politician in uniform. Yeah, that's the ticket!

View user profile
gatorfan wrote:
Involvement in Vietnam was a mistake on the order of Afghanistan. But the reality (as you say) is the war or conflict could have ended in a matter of months if not for political intransigence and interference. By merely using a difficult to watch strategy like city bombing in WWII Hanoi could have been decimated, Haiphong harbor destroyed, and the flow of weapons from China cut off at the border and it would have ended. None of those "winning at all costs" strategies would have been necessary if we had just stayed home...as we now know the end result would have been the same without lives and billions of $$'s wasted.

It all comes back to foolish politicians who don't have to execute their own poorly conceived orders.

You don't know what you're talking about. You're obviously too young to have been there or maybe you were 4F because you're too stupid, but that has to be one of the dumbest statements I've ever read about 'Nam. The generals were the ones who wanted an expansion of the war in '65 and LBJ went along with them because he didn't want to be perceived as being "soft on communism". Do a little reading, sonny boy, before you start shooting off your mouth.

View user profile
Deus X wrote:
gatorfan wrote:
Involvement in Vietnam was a mistake on the order of Afghanistan. But the reality (as you say) is the war or conflict could have ended in a matter of months if not for political intransigence and interference. By merely using a difficult to watch strategy like city bombing in WWII Hanoi could have been decimated, Haiphong harbor destroyed, and the flow of weapons from China cut off at the border and it would have ended. None of those "winning at all costs" strategies would have been necessary if we had just stayed home...as we now know the end result would have been the same without lives and billions of $$'s wasted.

It all comes back to foolish politicians who don't have to execute their own poorly conceived orders.

You don't know what you're talking about. You're obviously too young to have been there or maybe you were 4F because you're too stupid, but that has to be one of the dumbest statements I've ever read about 'Nam. The generals were the ones who wanted an expansion of the war in '65 and LBJ went along with them because he didn't want to be perceived as being "soft on communism". Do a little reading, sonny boy, before you start shooting off your mouth.

The dumbest statements come from you. Your knowledge of the history of Vietnam isn't even Wikipedia deep. Try reading real history books or talking to REAL veterans including former POWs like I have. I never claimed to have served during Vietnam (too young) but did 20 years in the military (including combat time) after college. You should have done that - perhaps it would have "manned" you up a little (if you didn't get zapped) instead of coming on here like some spoiled little playground fat kid.

You're a laughable example of a "computer superhero". Get a life.

View user profile
gatorfan wrote:
The dumbest statements come from you. Your knowledge of the history of Vietnam isn't even Wikipedia deep. Try reading real history books or talking to REAL veterans including former POWs like I have. I never claimed to have served during Vietnam (too young) but did 20 years in the military (including combat time) after college. You should have done that - perhaps it would have "manned" you up a little (if you didn't get zapped) instead of coming on here like some spoiled little playground fat kid.

A lifer, I should have guessed. You guys fucked over and tormented DDs (the designation for draftees) every chance you got. I doubt if one lifer ever served on a shit burning detail for the entire war, you bastards always assigned a couple of draftees to that kind of detail. You shoved draftees out on point and gave them every shitty, hazardous detail whenever possible while you scarfed up assignments like tending bar at the O clubs. Every kid from my neighborhood who got drafted came back with horror stories about that shit. Every one. A lifer, I should have known.

View user profile

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum