reply to post by SplitInfinity
(innocent smile) (whistles at ceiling) .... Now who could you possibly mean among those who would have suggested such ideas? I dunno... I think your
imagining things.. No one like that around here.
You know, I've talked privately about this with some at ATS and you really open the door to saying it very much outright.
There are two distinctly different and..yet to ever overlap..methods of fighting war.
#1. There is the approach of fighting for our national future and our possible survival. It's what we can all call Total War. No holds are barred and
no methods are taboo but perhaps the most extreme (even the powers in World War II never used Chem/Bio on a WIDE or effective scale). The only
focus in this way of fighting is the total destruction of the enemy's ability to hurt us now or in the future. Politics are secondary because
Politicians know they won't survive losing the war.
^^^ World War II was the last time we've seen this method of war actually fought...Although, I know you'll agree, we've been spending and building
a military capable of fighting that way
ever since. We simply haven't used them that way. This method of fighting requires a respect....even
fear....of the enemy being fought. It means, we fight with the knowledge we COULD lose.
#2. There is the approach of limited, escalating and politically re-active war. This, by it's very nature and definition, comes from a position and
confidence of being superior to the enemy being fought and ultimate survival is not even a question.....for us anyway. This is how, in my opinion
based on educating myself on the topics, we've fought Vietnam, the action in Beirut, Somalia (once it turned to something more than pure aid), Kosovo
and the 2001/2003 Wars.
^^^ I've left a couple out. Daddy Bush fought Gulf I with respect and caution...not fear..but caution by numbers and OVERWHELMING force. It made it a
"check those stopwatches" precisely 100 hour war. To the Minute. (snap). Korea was a fight for the very lives of every man in the theater .....only
because it became a rather arrogant RUSH to the Yalu river while starting to babble ideas of finding MacArthur street maps for Beijing.
doesn't find humor in crap like that...and we damn near lost every man there.
So... If we're talking TOTAL WAR... You're 100% and absolutely right. Iran wouldn't stand a serious challenge and never will. Not if the U.S.
fought as if our very survival depended on it. China and Russia would need to fight us together, to be totally honest...and probably with other
smaller nations as well....and it would still be a fight for survival with no clear winner from the outset, in my opinion. I agree...the US is SO
TOTALLY TOTALLY over built and over tech to what we can possibly be seeing (the numbers...don't make sense on a level that is crazytown)..total war
would mean world war is what it would take to beat us. REALLY defeat the U.S.
Just show me a President now or recently with the pair to wage total war. I don't see one now. We've gotten our butts kicked like nations a 1/4 our
true ability because our leaders don't fight like winning matters.Until they can and do......Why should anyone think Iran would be any different?
We're off to get stomped again.
Then pay the enemy for the damages.