Anyone have a feeling we may be overextended?

[bobhawg]

Rome got so much so they had to hire locals for soldiers and eventually those on the outer fringes of the Empire revolted and claimed free citizenship to their native countries and the dominoes fell one by one.

The British Empire of course fought in India, Afghanistan even China and those dominoes fell.

Since the very apex of our power, we have fought in Viet Nam, Iraq and Afghanistan and now we just might be sending troops to places like Yeman and other middle East places, Are we starting to see the decline and fall of the American Empire? How many more dominoes are there?

I do think the smartest thing Bill Clinton did was refuse to send troops into the mountains of Bosnia to fight the locals on their terms. I do wonder why we send hundreds of thousands of ground troops when we have enough air power to destroy the whole country. Unless of course we think it necessary to promote a "Regime Change"

We might do better bringing our guys home and letting any adversary know if we are attacked the home of the attacker will not exist for more than a day or two.

Like Terry Roosevelt said, "walk softly and carry a big stick"

 

[PeteJC]

When we faught in WWII the Russians were our ally. In wars since then we carefully tried to control areas without bringing other super powers into the battle. We also fear being seen as occupiers and the world knows it. We want regimes to change but we don't want to change regimes. Trying to finesse a war just gets more people on both sides killed. Bill Clinton didn't look so good in Somalia, Black Hawk down.

 

[bobhawg]

WW2 was as war for survival and fought accordingly. I fear the wars since have been more political than necessary and as a result have not been fought to destroy the enemy, but change them. We had no qualms about bombing Tokyo or Berlin to total destruction, but would not bomb Hanoi or Baghdad etc. War is awful, and should only be undertaken when your own existence depends upon it. Once you decide to go to war, you should, but we have tried to fight a partial war and have failed as like General Sherman said years ago, "War is Hell,"

 

[Ole Hambone]

Originally posted by bobhawg:
WW2 was as war for survival and fought accordingly. I fear the wars since have been more political than necessary and as a result have not been fought to destroy the enemy, but change them. We had no qualms about bombing Tokyo or Berlin to total destruction, but would not bomb Hanoi or Baghdad etc. War is awful, and should only be undertaken when your own existence depends upon it. Once you decide to go to war, you should, but we have tried to fight a partial war and have failed as like General Sherman said years ago, "War is Hell,"

You are exactly right Bob...


To win a war.. (or a fist fight for that matter) you have to accomplish one task... That is... break your opponents will to contineu the fight...


You cannot break their will without inflicting pain and suffering on them... severe pain and suffering...


America has been unwilling to do that since WWII... We have been unwilling to inflict the kind of pain and suffering it takes to break your opponents will.


On the other hand, we get in these long drawn out wars... drawn out because we're unwill to unlease the kind of destruction that breaks our enemies will and in the end... we lose our will to accept futher losses.


I blame that mentality entirely on the left.


Don't tell zippie but that is the answer to the question... "How do you win a war"... Answer: you break your opponents will to conitinue... The strategy and tactics you choose will vary depending on conditions but the bottom line is you have to break their will continue and that means you have to inflict pain, suffering and destruction on them...


The liberals whine because innocent people are dying... Well, that's part of war. And, when you're fighting an enemy that refuses to wear a uniform and hinds in and amongst "innocent" civillians... it's gonna happen even more and in my opinion.. it is THEIR fault. IF they don't want innocent people to die... put on a freaking uniform and quit hiding behind women and children...


And. while I'm on a rant.. it really pisses me off that the liberals want to try Bush and Cheney for war crimes...

 

[Ole Hambone]

Originally posted by bobhawg:
Rome got so much so they had to hire locals for soldiers and eventually those on the outer fringes of the Empire revolted and claimed free citizenship to their native countries and the dominoes fell one by one.


The British Empire of course fought in India, Afghanistan even China and those dominoes fell.

Since the very apex of our power, we have fought in Viet Nam, Iraq and Afghanistan and now we just might be sending troops to places like Yeman and other middle East places, Are we starting to see the decline and fall of the American Empire? How many more dominoes are there?

I do think the smartest thing Bill Clinton did was refuse to send troops into the mountains of Bosnia to fight the locals on their terms. I do wonder why we send hundreds of thousands of ground troops when we have enough air power to destroy the whole country. Unless of course we think it necessary to promote a "Regime Change"

We might do better bringing our guys home and letting any adversary know if we are attacked the home of the attacker will not exist for more than a day or two.

Like Terry Roosevelt said, "walk softly and carry a big stick"

I see a TON of parrallels between the fall of America and the fall of the Roman empire... We're going down the tubes just like they did... Same exact problem. Tooo many people on the dole...

 

[bobhawg]

I remember when they had televised hearings on the then beginning Viet Nam war and one William Fulbright D-Arkansas who was Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee tell the world that we could win the war in three days if we desired to. He added, "all we have to do is destroy Hanoi and anything of importance in the country." But he asked, "Do we have the desire to do so." It turns out we did not and the rest was futile.

By the way, I know no liberal who wants to try Bush or Cheney. I totally dislike Cheney, but we did what he as asked to do, except maybe make a few millions on the side, but that is another matter.

 

[Ole Hambone]

http://www.politicususa.com/bush-cheney-war-crimes.html


https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/05/13



http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/gaddafi-obama-bush-cheney-rumsfeld-all-war-criminals/3760/


http://www.warcrimestimes.org/2012/09/should-bush-and-blair-be-tried-for-war.html

I've heard the left calling for Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfield to be tried for war crimes for a long time...

 

[bobhawg]

Well, I am glad I had never heard of Kuala Lumpur or any of those publications. If it were not so stupid, it would be funny.

Are you sure those were not sample scripts from a TV satire?


Actually, I do wish the war powers act could be amended to say that after 90 days of troop involvement of US manpower, they would have to be recalled home unless Congress declares war. I do not believe for a minute the original intent of the commander in chief was to allow a president to wage undeclared war. But I do recall that when Teddy Roosevelt wanted to send the great white fleet on an around the world tour to show it off, Congress told him they would not fund the tour and Teddy replied, great, I have enough in the budget to send them half way around the world, then you worry about getting them home. Congress then funded the whole tour.

 

[Ole Hambone]

I wish we used the war powers act as well..


THEN, we could have it on record exactly who supported the war and who didn't.




As it is, the liberals all claimed that they supported the war because Bush cherry picked the data and lied to them... That is not true.


The concensus of our intel people did not change after Bush took office. The Democrats saw the same intel Bush did and reached the same conclusions Bush did.


Further more... FOREIGN intel services reached the same conclusions that our intel service did. My opinion is that Saddam Hussein was the one lying. He planted a lot of false intel.