As far as I am concerned, Bush has to tackle a new kind of war. He had to develop new kinds of tactics by trial and error. There are no books on how to fight a war like this one. Bush is trying everything, and I think determination like his, can't lose. He is fighting terrorism, and not democrats, as much as they would like to distract him. He thinks will eventually convince them that terrorism doesn't work against freedom oriented people. I am behind Bush's efforts, and wouldn't discourage him from his plans to win this war.
Olen wrote:As far as I am concerned, Bush has to tackle a new kind of war. He had to develop new kinds of tactics by trial and error. Ther are no books on how to fight a war like this one. Bush is trying everything, and I think determination like his, can't lose. He is fighting terrorism, and not democrats, as much as they would like to distract him. He thinks will eventually convince them that terrorism doesn't work against freedom oriented people. I am behind Bush's efforts, and wouldn't discourage him from his plans to win this war.
Yes, a war against any and all including his own countrymen if necessary to get his own way, although I don't think that is that new a war.
Bush isn't fighting terrorism. He's creating more of it through his short-sighted and arrogant policies of pre-emption.
I'll link to it for the third time today.
www.pnac.org . The policies in place today were set up BEFORE 9/11.
Cycloptichorn
Anoxia wrote:Its in poor taste because he died, and the family didn't approve.
oh, somedays I am slow. agree
We have never fought a war where there were no navy, airforce, military bases nor people in uniform to defeat. Only people in the street who could be hostile or not. That is a new kind of war to us. I think Bush is trying the tactics I probably would, if in his position. I hope I would stick to them the way he has.
Have you ever heard, olen, of..... Vietnam?
I'm not going to go full out and compare the two because I know there are major differences. But, you can definately see that there was no navy, airforce, or military bases for us to fight there, and look how well we handled that one.
It is NOT a new kind of war. We just didn't do ANY of the requisite planning, part of which is, to understand the minds and motivations of the people whose country we are occupying.
Cycloptichorn
Olen wrote:We have never fought a war where there were no navy, airforce, military bases nor people in uniform to defeat. Only people in the street who could be hostile or not. That is a new kind of war to us.
Vietnam?
Most of the war you were waging there was also not against any readily identifiable standing army, navy and airforce, right, but against guerrillas that seemed to melt into the people in the street who could be hostile or not?
Olen wrote:We have never fought a war where there were no navy, airforce, military bases nor people in uniform to defeat. Only people in the street who could be hostile or not.
That describes just about every indian war fought on this continent between 1620 and 1890.
Olen, I'm afraid, is brainwashed like all neocons. Can't see the tree for the forest. Even can't see that there's more terrorism today than before 9-11. Can't see that almost 800 of our military have died, we've spent upwards of 200 billion dollars, killed over 10,000 innocent Iraqis, and Osama is still free. How do these people reconcile all of this?
CI: I agree that I misstated the lack of military groups to defeat in other wars. But I think we have to go through the action in which we are now involved to stop terrorism. This is the correct place to begin, and we are makng much progress, at a cost of course. Less than there would be if we sat back, did nothing and be a motionless target.
There's an ocean of difference between 'nothing' and what we could do differently.
Cycloptichorn
Colin Powell's good name is going down the toilet quickly. When is he going to wake up and smell the stench?
Oh, he woke up a while ago to this one. He's been an unhappy camper for quite some time now.
It's just a matter of extracting himself from the situation without enraging the right wingers in America.
Personally I think we'll see a book out of him in a few years, titled 'mistakes I made and people I shouldn't have agreed with,' or perhaps, 'hindsight.'
Cycloptichorn
nimh wrote:Olen wrote:We have never fought a war where there were no navy, airforce, military bases nor people in uniform to defeat. Only people in the street who could be hostile or not. That is a new kind of war to us.
Vietnam?
Most of the war you were waging there was also not against any readily identifiable standing army, navy and airforce, right, but against guerrillas that seemed to melt into the people in the street who could be hostile or not?
The American Revolution - the British complained that the Americans would terrorize their troops and then melt into the streets
