It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Calling all defenders of US policy and doctrine, hawks, shills, honest right wingers

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Babushka

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Babushka

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Kapusta

The awful reality is the US can't beat a bunch of desert countries in simple engagements. Every time they come out and play the US runs away.

Bully to those that think they can beat Russia at their own game in their own backyard… Its been tried before.

Look at track records, US, lost every engagement its recently fought.

Russia, sitting back and drawing US in ever closer…

US, spent casings and clouds of smoke; Russia and China, steadily building reserves.


That's because we haven't been truly fighting. The public at large has no stomach for what a real war actually is -- Hell. There is no such thing as a war fought to win hearts and minds. That's a huge load of crap, and when the war is run by a bunch of politically divided hacks, you aren't going to have a consistent message.

If we actually locked, loaded and committed to a fight, we would win, but that would require savagery the likes of which most people aren't ready to admit is needed.


\When you win the battle for hearts and minds you do not need to make war.


In the countries of the ME where the media and education are so tightly controlled, the battle of hearts and minds was lost before it began.

It's a pretty sounding quote though.


Can you explain, please?


If you wait for everyone to love you, you will be waiting forever. It will never happen. The ME has been engaged in internal propaganda against the infidel world for as long as they've been Muslim. They believe it's their God-given duty to conquer/convert the rest of us. They will not love us short of us becoming like them. This won't change short of a reformation of the dominant Islamic sects undergoing a reformation.


Oh, so the people of Crimea loving Russia and wanting to be part of Russia was no factor in their joining with Russia? I think it proves that if soft-power works and the peeps love you then you do not need to fight a war for their submission.

As for your generalisation about Muslims, well, I'll leave that to stand as it is. I need not comment.




posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 09:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Babushka

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: intrptr

No, I mean rolling in and using every means at our disposal short of nukes to put the full populace into submission. We did it in WWII. It was done by Sherman during the Civil War. It is not nice. It does not do much to spare the populace or worry much about innocent civilians. It just does what a war machine does best.


So, what did the US do to Germany that it did not do to Iraq? Land, sea, or air, the overwhelming use of force resulted in occupation.


We stayed in Germany for decades, rather than mere years. Germany was also a far different country. Nazi ideology was only a thin veneer laid over top of another, far saner ideology which came to the fore as soon as the Nazis were removed. Germans were not Nazis, they were German.

The people of Iraq, by contrast, have been Muslim for centuries. That ideology has been firmly entrenched in the culture for generations. In order to think you are going to have any real impact on that, you would need to stay for at least a generation and have a real effect on how people perceive you and your culture as they grow up.

The idea of winning hearts and minds would have been a rebuilding thing and it would have taken decades to a generation or more of close partnership with the Iraqis. However, the political climate was not there to support such an effort, and of course, there would be no guarantee that such a thing would have worked even then. It was ambitious and different than other approaches.



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 09:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Rosinitiate
a reply to: WineAndCheese9

You suck at this game so bad even Russian sympathizers turn. I'd want my money back or maybe that's the point and you're actually a US troll. The plot thickens.

A false flag double agent troll that only ATS can bring us. I love a good conspiracy!



Lol, this post just gave me the thought of dumb and dumber playing good cop bad cop, or in this case idiot cop and stupid cop.

Sorry just had to share.



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Babushka


No, I mean rolling in and using every means at our disposal short of nukes to put the full populace into submission. We did it in WWII.

Yah, and Japan refused to submit, until we nuked them.

Lesson lost in history. Every new generation makes the same mistake. They don't know what war is like because they haven't lived through one. America is the supreme example of this ignorant, prideful, warmongering around the world.



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Babushka

No you are drawing false equivalences.

Crimeans are largely from Russian roots and Tatar roots. This is because the old USSR had a policy of forcibly moving large numbers of different ethnic groups around its empire to destabilize them in their native lands and thus consolidate its control. The native Ukrainians were starved through a forced policy that Ukrainians could not eat their own food while the ethnic Russians moved in to keep control could eat that food. Large numbers of Taters were also moved in.

Of course the Crimeans Russians are uncomfortable living amongst a group of people they helped starve. Wouldn't you be?

Of course, Hitler also justified the annexation of Austria by the same reasoning - the ethnic Germans in Austria would rather live in Germany than under Austrian rule. We see where that went, but of course, I suppose he used soft power to win those German's hearts and minds and never mind what the Austrians thought of it.

I think if you don't think that Muslims in the ME are of the brand that believe they have a duty to conquer/convert the rest of the world, then you haven't been paying attention. Of course, your own Russian (Babushka) country has had trouble with the like in Chechnya. That is what they want. Not all Muslims are like that, but the ME brand primarily are. You can attack me on baseless grounds all you want, but it simply shows you are engaging in a Kafka trap.



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 09:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: pavil
I don't think anyone really hates Russia on the U.S. side. However, if you continue to bully by force of arms, sooner or later you are going to get resistance. The Russian economy can't really go another year with cheap oil and sanctions without major hurt to the average Russian citizen. Russia's behavior is antagonistic and is will backfire in the long run. I find it funny you think our Nobel Peace Prize winning President is a tough anti Russian, stratergist. Putin has been confrontational because President Obama is hardly a serious threat to Russian aggression. Putin's been nibbling off pieces of neighboring countries and no one has put roadblocks up to stop him.


Lol did you imply we think Obama is tough enough to take on Putin??

Bwahah . Ahahshah, hahahaha, hahahah....

Wow thanks man I needed a good laugh.



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 09:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: ketsuko


If we actually locked, loaded and committed to a fight, we would win, but that would require savagery the likes of which most people aren't ready to admit is needed.

You mean nukes? That would destroy everything hawks are trying to conquer, so theres no point.

Otherwise US military doctrine seeks to avoid that open, wide scale fight. Divide and conquer is the ROE, one little defenseless nation at a time, pretending the whole time there is no wider goal to eventually subjugate them all.

Problem is, going at it minimally like you say, leaves too many enemies in the conquering wake. The bane of all ambitious empires.


You do know empires seek to conquer and expand their territory right?

When was the last time America took and kept a single piece of land by force?

When was the last time Russia did?

Who is playing at empire now then?



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Kapusta


how much is Russia paying to to put this Hogwash out spook


£500 a month.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Some members' posts are so preposterous that it seems their real task is to star pro-Putin posts to make him appear more popular than he actually is.



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Babushka

Another new account for a banned Troll...yawn



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Here's to all the Russian posters who think we Americans have a doctrine and actually follow it;



In all honesty, the only doctrine we currently follow is Big Oil's. Crush Gazprom. Crush OPEC. Disrupt the gulf states. Regime change in oil-producing gulf states. That's it. We don't give a crap about human rights, unless it's in a state with a regime we don't like. We're not against Russia, nor for it - unless it interferes with one of our oil interests above.



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Babushka

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Babushka

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Kapusta

The awful reality is the US can't beat a bunch of desert countries in simple engagements. Every time they come out and play the US runs away.

Bully to those that think they can beat Russia at their own game in their own backyard… Its been tried before.

Look at track records, US, lost every engagement its recently fought.

Russia, sitting back and drawing US in ever closer…

US, spent casings and clouds of smoke; Russia and China, steadily building reserves.


That's because we haven't been truly fighting. The public at large has no stomach for what a real war actually is -- Hell. There is no such thing as a war fought to win hearts and minds. That's a huge load of crap, and when the war is run by a bunch of politically divided hacks, you aren't going to have a consistent message.

If we actually locked, loaded and committed to a fight, we would win, but that would require savagery the likes of which most people aren't ready to admit is needed.


\When you win the battle for hearts and minds you do not need to make war.


In the countries of the ME where the media and education are so tightly controlled, the battle of hearts and minds was lost before it began.

It's a pretty sounding quote though.


Can you explain, please?


If you wait for everyone to love you, you will be waiting forever. It will never happen. The ME has been engaged in internal propaganda against the infidel world for as long as they've been Muslim. They believe it's their God-given duty to conquer/convert the rest of us. They will not love us short of us becoming like them. This won't change short of a reformation of the dominant Islamic sects undergoing a reformation.


Just like destroying the Nazis.

Just apply the right amount of force and reeducation.

We wiped the Nazis out because we used total war.

No quarter, no mercy, no goal except total complete victory.



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: johnwick


When was the last time America took and kept a single piece of land by force?

What planet is this?



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Babushka

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: intrptr

No, I mean rolling in and using every means at our disposal short of nukes to put the full populace into submission. We did it in WWII. It was done by Sherman during the Civil War. It is not nice. It does not do much to spare the populace or worry much about innocent civilians. It just does what a war machine does best.


So, what did the US do to Germany that it did not do to Iraq? Land, sea, or air, the overwhelming use of force resulted in occupation.


We stayed in Germany for decades, rather than mere years. Germany was also a far different country. Nazi ideology was only a thin veneer laid over top of another, far saner ideology which came to the fore as soon as the Nazis were removed. Germans were not Nazis, they were German.

The people of Iraq, by contrast, have been Muslim for centuries. That ideology has been firmly entrenched in the culture for generations. In order to think you are going to have any real impact on that, you would need to stay for at least a generation and have a real effect on how people perceive you and your culture as they grow up.

The idea of winning hearts and minds would have been a rebuilding thing and it would have taken decades to a generation or more of close partnership with the Iraqis. However, the political climate was not there to support such an effort, and of course, there would be no guarantee that such a thing would have worked even then. It was ambitious and different than other approaches.


First-up, many folk (rightly or wrongly) will question your assumptions about having bases in a country equating to somehow projecting a way of thinking. You should tell that to the folk of Ireland who had to put up with British military and culture for centuries... failed though did it not? Or Scotland? Or the Dutch in Indonesia, or France in VietNam?

Sadly, soft power (the ability to use cultural and other non-violent means) is often damaged by the use or presence of hard power (use of and presence of military forces). Force often destroys the good will of those toward whom soft power is targeted. Indeed, the level and scale of the use of force and its impact upon a populace can be seen as a direct correlation - the greater the use of force the greater the rejection of the occupation.

Germany can be said to have embraced "western" style democracy not because of US occupation but because that was their natural state of affairs. It can be argued that from a very early point in post-war Germany the Germans exhibited cultural and economic values far different from those of Americans. Resentment toward occupying western forces (and Soviet forces) was present, if not always publicly spoken.

To claim that the use of force and time of stay were factors in German compliance is wrong. Rather it was government-led sanctioning of a guaranteed defence paid for by the US and then NATO. It was the anti-Soviet bulwark represented by things such as The Berlin Airlift, Check Point Charlie and comparative freedom in West Germany.

As for your claiming that there was no "will" presence in Iraq to change, consider the fact that pre-invasion Iraq was a secular society with co-existing Jewish, Christian, Shiite and Sunnis. The invasion broke that peace that had lasted more less for hundreds of years. The result: ethnic cleaning and genocide.



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
Here's to all the Russian posters who think we Americans have a doctrine and actually follow it;



In all honesty, the only doctrine we currently follow is Big Oil's. Crush Gazprom. Crush OPEC. Disrupt the gulf states. Regime change in oil-producing gulf states. That's it. We don't give a crap about human rights, unless it's in a state with a regime we don't like. We're not against Russia, nor for it - unless it interferes with one of our oil interests above.

So what? Any one who has studied US Foreign Policy at Uni will know this. Some say that US policy is based upon Chaos Theory. Their incoherent policies in the Mid east seems to bear this out.



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 09:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: noeltrotsky
a reply to: Babushka

Another new account for a banned Troll...yawn

Calling peeps who have just joined a "troll". Real big of you.



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 09:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Babushka

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: intrptr

No, I mean rolling in and using every means at our disposal short of nukes to put the full populace into submission. We did it in WWII. It was done by Sherman during the Civil War. It is not nice. It does not do much to spare the populace or worry much about innocent civilians. It just does what a war machine does best.


So, what did the US do to Germany that it did not do to Iraq? Land, sea, or air, the overwhelming use of force resulted in occupation.


We forced every German citizen to help bury the millions of dead.

We marched every one of them through the death camps to make them see what they had done.

We then forced them to watch as we tried convicted and killed all their remaining leaders.

Then we help west Germany rebuild, and they got to watch east Germany suffer decades of suck under Russian occupation.

That is of course after we fire bombed Dresden.

And flattened the entire country.

In the mean time killing entire generations of men and boys in the process.



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Babushka

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: intrptr

No, I mean rolling in and using every means at our disposal short of nukes to put the full populace into submission. We did it in WWII. It was done by Sherman during the Civil War. It is not nice. It does not do much to spare the populace or worry much about innocent civilians. It just does what a war machine does best.


So, what did the US do to Germany that it did not do to Iraq? Land, sea, or air, the overwhelming use of force resulted in occupation.


We stayed in Germany for decades, rather than mere years. Germany was also a far different country. Nazi ideology was only a thin veneer laid over top of another, far saner ideology which came to the fore as soon as the Nazis were removed. Germans were not Nazis, they were German.

The people of Iraq, by contrast, have been Muslim for centuries. That ideology has been firmly entrenched in the culture for generations. In order to think you are going to have any real impact on that, you would need to stay for at least a generation and have a real effect on how people perceive you and your culture as they grow up.

The idea of winning hearts and minds would have been a rebuilding thing and it would have taken decades to a generation or more of close partnership with the Iraqis. However, the political climate was not there to support such an effort, and of course, there would be no guarantee that such a thing would have worked even then. It was ambitious and different than other approaches.


You forgot poorly planned and short sighted.



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I'll not bother with most of your post.

But on the issue of Russia doing what Germany did to Austria, well maybe that is a tad better that what the US did in Hawaii, when they simply annexed the Kingdom despite the opposition of the people who had been living there and governed their own islands for centuries.



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: johnwick

They are all good points.



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 10:01 AM
link   



Lol did you imply we think Obama is tough enough to take on Putin??

Bwahah . Ahahshah, hahahaha, hahahah....

Wow thanks man I needed a good laugh.


Hey, I'm not the pro Russian posters here whining about how the super smart West is picking on poor innocent Russia. Just imagine if we had a real anti Putin President in power these past 7 years........

Even Western and Central Europe sees the threat that Putin is. Are you proud that Putin is restablishing the old Soviet Union again by aggression against its neighbors?



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join