How we really support the troops

[fintstone]

You failed to show how it was different than the similar situation that Reardon trapped you with. Calling names only weakened your argument.

[Rearden]

Originally posted by fintstone
You failed to show how it was different than the similar situation that Reardon trapped you with. Calling names only weakened your argument.

Glad you appreciated my trap, fint.
Check. Mate.

[drauz]

my, you guys really like games, but since I'm not playing, I guess you can just claim a forfeit - does that work for you?

In a previous post I stated that yes, the Axis was willing to attack and invade America in WII, and I showed some evidence for that claim. The fact that they may not have been capable of mustering the forces (the thousands of tanks & millions of men that was mentioned) to make good on their plans is not the point - at least not the one I was making (and again, I tried to point out that their intent was serious and they believed they could make it happen, even to the point of a massive invasion - given time - not my fault they were deluded and took a long view). But then I don't believe the point of dialog is to score "gotchas!".

The point that counts (if one wishes to address the present threat) is that there is a significant distinction between the existential threat posed by the Axis nation-states and that posed by AQ. In fact, my own analysis is that our insistance on employing combat tactics of a conventional style in the Iraq Civil War amplifies (on the operational level) the strategic policy blunders committed by the White House, both in Iraq and in the counter-AQ effort. I struggle to find examples of successful US security policy since 9/11. kinda depressing...

[fintstone]

Originally posted by drauz
my, you guys really like games, but since I'm not playing, I guess you can just claim a forfeit - does that work for you?

In a previous post I stated that yes, the Axis was willing to attack and invade America in WII, and I showed some evidence for that claim. The fact that they may not have been capable of mustering the forces (the thousands of tanks & millions of men that was mentioned) to make good on their plans is not the point - at least not the one I was making (and again, I tried to point out that their intent was serious and they believed they could make it happen, even to the point of a massive invasion - given time - not my fault they were deluded and took a long view). But then I don't believe the point of dialog is to score "gotchas!".

The point that counts (if one wishes to address the present threat) is that there is a significant distinction between the existential threat posed by the Axis nation-states and that posed by AQ. In fact, my own analysis is that our insistance on employing combat tactics of a conventional style in the Iraq Civil War amplifies (on the operational level) the strategic policy blunders committed by the White House, both in Iraq and in the counter-AQ effort. I struggle to find examples of successful US security policy since 9/11. kinda depressing...

Face it, it was no "gotcha game"...your logic was flawed and you were called on it. That is why you suddenly decided not to "play."

If the current folks in charge are making such "blunders," what is your plan? I cannot imagine how you find it so difficult to" find examples of successful US security policy since 9/11." The mere fact that there has not been a single successful terrorist attack in our country seems pretty significant.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by drauz
my, you guys really like games, but since I'm not playing, I guess you can just claim a forfeit - does that work for you?

In a previous post I stated that yes, the Axis was willing to attack and invade America in WII, and I showed some evidence for that claim. The fact that they may not have been capable of mustering the forces (the thousands of tanks & millions of men that was mentioned) to make good on their plans is not the point - at least not the one I was making (and again, I tried to point out that their intent was serious and they believed they could make it happen, even to the point of a massive invasion - given time - not my fault they were deluded and took a long view). But then I don't believe the point of dialog is to score "gotchas!".

The point that counts (if one wishes to address the present threat) is that there is a significant distinction between the existential threat posed by the Axis nation-states and that posed by AQ. In fact, my own analysis is that our insistance on employing combat tactics of a conventional style in the Iraq Civil War amplifies (on the operational level) the strategic policy blunders committed by the White House, both in Iraq and in the counter-AQ effort. I struggle to find examples of successful US security policy since 9/11. kinda depressing...

Face it, it was no "gotcha game"...your logic was flawed and you were called on it. That is why you suddenly decided not to "play."

If the current folks in charge are making such "blunders," what is your plan? I cannot imagine how you find it so difficult to" find examples of successful US security policy since 9/11." The mere fact that there has not been a single successful terrorist attack in our country seems pretty significant.

[island911]

Originally posted by drauz
. . . I lean more towards "let's be rational, show fidelity to our highest values, and be creative". ...

You are mistaken to think we are so lacking in creativity towards our goals. It's easy to to be critical of our politicians and tacticians, but believe me, they are are a tough as nails breed who know how to put the long slow hurt on their enemies. (in all sorts of creative fasions) You might say, screwing over an opponent is what they live for. ...just look at the extremes Murtha and his ilk will go to, just to grab some power. --nasty nasty stuff.

[svandamme]

Originally posted by Rearden
The Japanese were developing chemical weapons and the Nazis were a few years away from a nuclear weapon. Just like Saddam was in 1991. Woulda coulda shoulda. Be consistent. Better safe than sorry in 1942, better safe than sorry in 2003. You can't have it both ways.

can't compare 44Germany-44US ( where the first one to have a few nukes would have a major advantage) with 200x Iraq or any other upcoming nation trying to bring up 1 nuke, vs the US with thousands of ICBM's with Mirvs and megaton payloads...

just can't

to make that comparison, you'de have to be talking about some new type of technology , like eehm photon torpedoes launched from space or something, able to penetrate every bunker, fully guidable, max range, and untouchable for defence systems...

that would be a good analogy

if the Germans would have had a bomb before the US, then the US would have been in the shoes of Japanese... cause you'de have no defence against a weapon like that, no deterent, no "if you do us, we'll do you 100 times worse" which you do have now, even had enough deterrent to keep the Ruskies deterred... and they had plenty nukes too...

[fintstone]

How would the Germans deliver their few nukes to the US in '44?

[drauz]

I see that my link to the wiki article failed, so here are some relevant extracts...
Germany:
"Before the winter of 1941, Germany appeared to be moving toward a swift victory over the Soviet Union in Operation Barbarossa. Alfred Rosenberg, Reich Comissaire for Eastern Affairs, was ordered to print the motto "Deutschland Weltreich" (German World Empire),[citation needed] and Hitler made known his intention of further conquest following victory over Russia. These plans appeared to include an invasion of the United States.

In Autumn of 1940, the attack on the US was fixed for the long-term future. This appears in Luftwaffe (German airforce) documents, one of which dated October 29, 1940 mentions the "extraordinary interest of Mein Führer in the occupation of the Atlantic Islands. In line with this interest...with the cooperation of Spain is the seizure of Gibraltar and Spanish and Portuguese islands, along other operations in the North Atlantic."

In July 1941, the Führer ordered the continued planning for an attack against the United States. Five months later, on December 11, 1941 Germany declared war on the United States.

Operation Barbarossa was alleged by some to be a testing ground for an invasion of America. Another alleged German invasion plan was "Operation Felix", in conjunction with Spain, which called for obtaining control of Atlantic islands and seas to launch long-range strikes and an eventual invasion of America.
Operation Felix (Fall Felix) and Operation Sealion, planned the occupation of Ireland and Operation Ikarus, would have provided some support bases for installing the Wehrmacht and Kriegsmarine infantry seaborne or Luftwaffe Airborne forces for the invasion.

These units, with proper support from the Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe, were to capture coastal areas in Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey and Delaware.

On the other hand, the invasion could have come from airborne landings on the Atlantic coast of Canada in the Northwest Territories, Quebec, Newfoundland, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, with the army then continuing into U.S territory. The Saint Lawrence River was also considered to be a major possible entry point into North America. Another option involved launching seaborne rockets, long range missiles or aerial bombardments, against U.S. territory. The Germans were also considering the development and use of an atomic bomb against the United States.

Air strikes with heavy long range bombers would have not only put the coastal targets of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Washington, D.C., Boston, and New York within range, but also targets in Ohio and even Indiana."

Japan:
"During the Second World War the Japanese Navy strongly advocated the capture of the Hawaiian Islands. This would have involved landing after the first stage of the war. The Hawaiian Islands could be used for future landings in the continental U.S., or to conduct aerial surface, naval, or submarine attacks against U.S. coasts. The operations bureaus of both the Army and the Navy investigated the matter on a number of occasions. When it became apparent that the Hawaii operation was beyond the capability of the Army to carry out alone, the General Staff vigorously resisted the project, which was eventually discarded.

Kinoaki Matsuo, a high-ranking officer of the Black Dragon Society, and Japanese Navy thinker wrote the book The Three Power Alliance And The United States-Japanese War, which is purported to detail the Japanese war plans for the simultaneous invasions of the Panama Canal Zone, Alaska, California, and Washington.

For Japanese Naval strategists, an invasion of American, Mexican, and Central American Pacific coasts would have required naval bases in the Aleutian and Hawaiian islands, as well as the Mexican Revillagigedo and French Clipperton islands.

From the Aleutians, Japanese forces would have landed in Alaska and Canada, from Hawaii naval or airborne landings in Washington state, Oregon, and California were considered. From these bases, long-range heavy land-based bombers or flying boat attacks on U.S. territory could be launched. The High Command staff considered bombing San Francisco, Panama, Los Angeles, the Texas oilfields, in coordination with German naval strikes against Boston, Washington D.C. or New York. The use of biological and chemical weapons was also considered."

It is also worth recalling that the German invasion of Britain (Operation Sea Lion, and note: "...the losses in personnel and materiel suffered by German paratroopers during the Battle of the Netherlands, in May 1940, could not be replaced in time for the planned operation.") may well have been successful had it been launched big and early in the war, despite Germany's weakness as a naval power... and America's invasion of the Japanese home islands could have failed, had it been required.

[fintstone]

So you are saying that the Nazis thought about attacking the US mainland...but they were too busy gassing helpless Jews....and then, before you know it they were getting their asses kicked so badly at home that they decided a good defense was better than a good offense? They should have stopped after France. Not all nations are so quick to surrender...at least not then.

[svandamme]

Fint, if you going to talk stereotype rubbish , you loose all your credibility... if you want to know how hard the french fought, then visit the WW1 battlefields and count the graves, they had to fight harder then the US has ever had to fight, and even before that the French have fought more wars then the US has so far, don't think because the 20th century happend to have been a strong one for the US, that history will automatically rate you lot as supreme beeings for evermore

what goes up, must come down
and France, isn't down that much, they are a nuclear state, they have special forces that are on par with your special forces in terms of quality, and the Legion is harder then a coffin nail, trust me , they didn't surrender easier then the US would have done if A it had been worn out in 1918 on US soil B got overrun by a Blitz Krieg

don't go thinking, that because the US has had the luxury of relative Geographical isolation, that it means you guys are better at defending your country in a ground war, you just never had a ground war in your backyard...not like the French or the Russians, or the Afghanis or the Iranians...or the Belgians

maybe americans would talk a bit differently if it would have happened to you, maybe y'all would be less eager to go fight elsewhere if you had to endure 2 bigscale invasions that thinned out your population

[drauz]

"The A9 was a further development of the A4 rocket. ... a variant, the A4b, was produced before the end of the war. The A9 would have been used as the upper stage for an intercontinental missile or a manned craft. The A10 was intended to serve as first stage for the A9, to help it to reach an intercontinental range. New York City and other targets in the northeastern U.S. were its intended targets. Test Stand VII was built at Peenemünde for use in the A10's development. To keep range to its target (New York City or Washington DC) to a minimum, it was intended to be launched from western Spain in its original form."

I have stated my own approach previously, but they center around diplomacy (including Israel / Palestine issues), economic policy, and spl ops aimed at specific AQ targets, regardless of borders or alliances, but in concert with similar allied teams. For Iraq, we move away from the cities as we call upon the Arab League to step in under UN auspices, then we move out altogether (except spl ops, and humanitarian aid, of course). We enable Islamic culture to work out their factional, theological issues among themselves, aiding the progressive ones as appropriate (non-combat forces). It will be painful to watch, but it is a neccessary stage. We clean house in the Pentagon & State of neocon idealogues - get some adult supervision having no ax to grind.

island 911, I'm afraid I've been too close to the flames in DC to confuse toughness with wisdom. There's alot of bragadoccio among the policymakers, not alot of depth. Our spl ops and intel field operatives are another matter (it would be nice if there were more resources for language and culture skills) - pros in service to the nation being poorly served by their politically appointed managers - just my opinion.

people often bring up the "there have been no attacks since 9/11..." argument. it is specious logic, because absent supporting evidence ("it's a secret!" - how convenient), one cannot distinguish chance from causation. further, alternative explanations are equally sensible (and no more valid), such as; the 9/11 plot team was unique, self-contained and eliminated by the mission (one argument for why the WH felt comfortable shifting from AQ to their preferred adventure in Iraq). also, considering the interval from the previous attempt, one would not expect a subsequent attack for a few more years, & the next attack, being on the WH or Capitol with a much more significant device(s) will take even longer to set into motion.

I looked over the posts again, found no flaw in my logic, though I can see potential for misinterpretation, willful or otherwise.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by svandamme
Fint, if you going to talk stereotype rubbish , you loose all your credibility... if you want to know how hard the french fought, then visit the WW1 battlefields and count the graves, they had to fight harder then the US has ever had to fight, and even before that the French have fought more wars then the US has so far, don't think because the 20th century happend to have been a strong one for the US, that history will automatically rate you lot as supreme beeings for evermore

what goes up, must come down
and France, isn't down that much, they are a nuclear state, they have special forces that are on par with your special forces in terms of quality, and the Legion is harder then a coffin nail, trust me , they didn't surrender easier then the US would have done if A it had been worn out in 1918 on US soil B got overrun by a Blitz Krieg

don't go thinking, that because the US has had the luxury of relative Geographical isolation, that it means you guys are better at defending your country in a ground war, you just never had a ground war in your backyard...not like the French or the Russians, or the Afghanis or the Iranians...or the Belgians

maybe americans would talk a bit differently if it would have happened to you, maybe y'all would be less eager to go fight elsewhere if you had to endure 2 bigscale invasions that thinned out your population

Just because a lot of Frenchmen died in a war does not necessarily mean they fought hard or well. Perhaps there were indeed once men in France...but now they are nothing but surrender monkeys who do not hesitate to sell-out their friends or support any two-bit dictator thay can wrangle a bribe from (oil for food scam for example).

Maybe we would not have to go elsewhere to fight if countries like France had abit more nads and did not constantly support terrorists and dictators in the UN. Pussy european countries are exactly why the United States is forced to be all over the globe for the past 60 years...to protect their pansy asses.

[drauz]

in retrospect, this all seems almost quaint, but it wasn't merely interesting to Londoners having V1s & V2s fall upon them.

"The Wehrmacht, in planning for the British invasion, developed some types of airborne and amphibious tanks and other special heavy armour, later considered for an eventual invasion of America. The Kriegsmarine ordered the design of some aircraft carriers (Based on Akagi-Type Great Japanese Navy Flag-Carriers):

Graf Zeppelin Carrier
Peter Strasser/Deutschland Carrier
Europa Carrier(Project)
Potsdam Carrier(Project)
Carrier based aircraft were created for the invasion of Britain and later, America. Such units were intended for equipping the Luftwaffe/Kriegsmarine 650th Geschwader.

The Luftwaffe also arranged for the ultra-heavy giant armed assault glider Junkers Ju 322 "Mammut" to transport airborne forces and light vehicles. Such vehicles were supposed to be used in an invasion of America alongside the Messerschmitt Me 321 "Gigant" heavy transport glider."

The Messerschmitt Me 264, part of the "Amerika Bomber" program, was developed to bomb the continental United States from Germany. Only three prototypes were built... A similar design was the Junkers Ju 390. It was intended to strike America, particularly New York City. This gave it the name "The New York Bomber." It is alleged that such a bomber was tested in 1944, flying an unarmed test flight to within 100 miles of the East Coast of the United States, but this has never been confirmed. (reported by The History Channel in 2001.)

The Horten brothers were also working on an Amerika Bomber toward the end of the war, the all-wing Horten 18 turbojet. According to one researcher, the aircraft may have been meant to deliver a rudimentary atomic bomb to New York City or Washington, D.C., despite the fact that German scientists had not yet learned how to produce a chain reaction. [1]

Another plan called for V-1 and V-2 rockets to be fitted to U-Boats and launched on New York City, and Luftwaffe Junkers Ju 290 planes armed with four V-1 under their wings. The Germans also considered using long-range missiles launched from France to hit the American mainland."

[fintstone]

Sounds like the Nazis were "considering" an awful lot of stuff to do to the US. I wanted to take a crap earlier...but only passed gas. They must have had a bunch of Democrats in charge because they didn't do any of it...just talk...
But they sure were good at gassing defenseless women and children.

[svandamme]

Originally posted by fintstone
support any two-bit dictator thay can wrangle a bribe from (oil for food scam for example).

please, the US has and is supporting dictators whenever it pleases US foreign policy... no different then the French

[fintstone]

Originally posted by svandamme
please, the US has and is supporting dictators whenever it pleases US foreign policy... no different then the French

I would suggest that it is different to support a government whan it is thought to be in the world's best interest...as opposed to making a quick buck like the French.

[svandamme]

so supporting Sadam , against Iran was in the worlds best interest, and it wasn't done out of a grudge you boys had with Iran???


shot yourself in the foot right there Fint... bigstyle

[fintstone]

Originally posted by svandamme
so supporting Sadam , against Iran was in the worlds best interest, and it wasn't done out of a grudge you boys had with Iran???


shot yourself in the foot right there Fint... bigstyle

Of course it was.

[fintstone]

The mistake was letting our ally, the Shah of Iran, fall.