Politicial correctness needs to fly the coop

[capen4]

This will create some controversy But here we go.

This country has the biggest and the most technological Military in the world This is so stupid were fighting a WAR and the Obaminator is contemplating about a few troops going into Afghanistan. What a Stupid SOB.
We could park a carrier group off any country in the world and make that country one bug crater. I believe 100% in the war in Afghanistan But we are just wasting money in the Politically correct way fighting this war. In WW2 there was no holds Barred and in 1 year Hitler killed himself. the Allied forces steam rolled over the dumb A$$. Ever since Korea its been get shot at first then shoot back. Yes there was many civilian casualties in WW2 but it was necessary in getting the job done. The Taliban obviously isn't worried about the people in their own country. All other countries that these people flee too they're next.
I know all this sounds kind of sadistic but all were doing is beating our heads against the wall and never making a hole in it eventually our head starts bleeding and we bleed out and die. what kind of smart thinking is this.
If they want us in a world government then we need to make sure WERE the big bully Its our way or the highway. We don't need nuks or any astronomical weapons we just need go old fashion brute force. like teddy Roosevelt said walk softly and carry a big stick.

Sorry if this offends any one but we do live in a free country and the citizens of the United States need to remember that how we have achieved this right to the way we live.

To quote another Snowest member RANT over.

 

[line8]

Nice fighting! I say beat the sheeott outa them. The end result is the same if your fighting to win. Otherwise..............

 

[POLZIN]

I agree! I think we should send every bomber we have and reduce the entire counrty to ashes and rubble.How may time are we going to fight this same war ?

One more Americam life is to many! Fight or GTFO !

 

[DaveB]

I agree! I think we should send every bomber we have and reduce the entire counrty to ashes and rubble.

But would anyone notice the difference?

 

[bungeeguy]

But would anyone notice the difference?

Hell yes, they would notice how nice everything suddenly looked.

 

[The Fourth Wolf]

The military is an instrument of policy controlled by civilian leadership. Everyone in uniform knows that. Sometimes the civilians want you to do things that are utterly pointless militarily.

The current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania has an agenda that doesn't include overwhelming force or a decisive military victory. Sadly the guys humping the rucks bear the brunt of all this nutless "leadership".

 

[BU1]

The military is is an instrument of policy controlled be civilian leadership. Everyone in uniform knows that. Sometimes the civilians want you do things that are utterly pointless militarily.

The current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania has agenda that doesn't include overwhelming force or a decisive military victory. Sadly the guys humping the rucks bear the brunt of all this nutless "leadership".

Very good analogy.

The current CIC has to be the most spineless in recent memory. Will he ever listen to his General and send enough help to kick some *** and get things taken care of?? Or is he too busy apologizing and campaigning???

 

[Chazmanian]

So....Lets spend a few billion bucks to prop up a corrupted "Faux Govermment" in Afghanistan?

How soon some forget amongst all the talk radio and Faux news chatter how much we have ramped up the war in Afghanistan.

Obama has doubled the troop count in Afghanistan compared to the Bush admin since taking office and now he is "Dithering"?

Here:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/12/AR2009011203492.html

And here:http://www.examiner.com/x-19823-Pos...-troops-in-Afghanistan-since-Bush-left-office

So all this silly talk radio crapola I read in this section? Makes me wonder whats really going on with some of my fellow snowriders. You guys are so deep in talk radio entertainment fantasy land that the simple facts simply...Escape most of yens.

Will he listen to his General?

Right outta Rash Limpbows and Glenn Bucks "Be Scared" analogy.

They werent scared last year when we had half the troops there?

Or when at one point we had what 19,000 total troops in Afghanistan?

This Lefty comes along doubles troop counts ramps up the war and he is puss?

OK....

Personally I was with the Bush team on this one.

Simply qouted as:
The Bush White House delivered a major review of Afghanistan that echoed that judgment, acknowledged that a modern Afghan democracy -- stable and free of extremists -- may be both unattainable and unaffordable.

Obama has ramped up the war in a big way. We need our Troops outta that chithole. Its not a winnable war as the definition of "Win" would be to impose a form of government that those Afghans do not want.....George Bush, Cheney and Rummy had this one nailed from the get go!! A waste of good men and resources.

 

[swampwater]

Can you remember a time when the occupant was interested in a decisive military victory? Swampy

The military is is an instrument of policy controlled be civilian leadership. Everyone in uniform knows that. Sometimes the civilians want you do things that are utterly pointless militarily.

The current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania has agenda that doesn't include overwhelming force or a decisive military victory. Sadly the guys humping the rucks bear the brunt of all this nutless "leadership".

 

[The Fourth Wolf]

Can you remember a time when the occupant was interested in a decisive military victory? Swampy

Yes I can. His name was Ronald Reagan.

I served under four Presidents. Reagan, God rest his soul, was by far the best.


Chaz your logic fails. Doubling troop levels in Afghanistan sounds good over coffee but the fact remains that for a military victory to be achieved a certain critical mass of force must be in place first.

Taking an inadequate force and doubling it without reaching that critical mass threshold merely renders that force half as inadequate as it was before. No matter how they spin it on K St., it still doesn't get the job done. Assuming, then, that the POTUS has the benefit of timely, factual data regarding this situation, and given that the full strength divisions are available for deployment...what other word fits better? At what point does analysis and deliberation become hesitation, balking, dithering.

On the other hand, and to be fair, if the President is unwilling to commit to the bloodbath required to root out and destroy the Taliban/al Queda then he should withdraw and not waste any further American lives. The problem with that plan is it's political suicide. So what will happen is the ChickenHawk Waltz: a fancy dance favored by liberal presidents where they commit enough force to appease the right but fail to use it decisively so as not to piss off the left. What results is a series of ever more convoluted half-measures that accomplish little or nothing other than a steady trickle of flag draped coffins.

 

[mold]

No worry about political correctness dominating conversation on Snowest, arrogance, intolerance and stupidity will always rain supreme.

 

[MTm7]

No worry about political correctness dominating conversation on Snowest, arrogance, intolerance and stupidity will always rain supreme.[/QUOTE]


so if you are not politically correct than this^^^ is the other side of that coin? well you just proved your own point!

 

[mold]

No worry about political correctness dominating conversation on Snowest, arrogance, intolerance and stupidity will always rain supreme.[/QUOTE]


so if you are not politically correct than this^^^ is the other side of that coin? well you just proved your own point!

THANK YOU (I think)

 

[duke1n]

No worry about political correctness dominating conversation on Snowest, arrogance, intolerance and stupidity will always rain supreme.

I think you meant "reign" but let's take it to the other thread.

 

[mold]

I think you meant "reign" but let's take it to the other thread.

Sorry, I had acid on my mind.

 

[Chazmanian]

Yes I can. His name was Ronald Reagan.

I served under four Presidents. Reagan, God rest his soul, was by far the best.


Chaz your logic fails. Doubling troop levels in Afghanistan sounds good over coffee but the fact remains that for a military victory to be achieved a certain critical mass of force must be in place first.

Taking an inadequate force and doubling it without reaching that critical mass threshold merely renders that force half as inadequate as it was before. No matter how you spin it on K St it is still doesn't get the job done. Assuming, then, that the POTUS has the benefit of timely, factual data regarding this situation, and given that the full strength divisions are available for deployment...what other word fits better? At what point does analysis and deliberation become hesitation, balking, dithering.

On the other hand, and to be fair, if the President is unwilling to commit to the bloodbath required to root out and destroy the Taliban/al Queda then he should withdraw and not waste any further American lives. The problem with that plan is it's political suicide. So what will happen is the ChickenHawk Waltz: a fancy dance favored by liberal presidents where they commit enough force to appease the right but fail to use it decisively so as not to piss off the left. What results is a series of ever more convoluted half-measures that accomplish little or nothing other than a steady trickle of flag draped coffins.

Sounds good....On talk radio.

I voted for Bush. Twice..I preferred the Bush strategy. The war in Afghanistan has no clear goal. Its not winnable. Is winning defined by the spreading of democracy?

Those people dont want our brand our Democracy.

To say that our current CIC is "Dithering" would be akin to calling the former CIC absolutely inept.

Either would be "Assuming" unfairly IMO as I dont think we are privvy to the intel over there.

Talk radio and political bluster just isnt a good source of "Intel".

 

[The Fourth Wolf]

Chaz I agree A-Stan is a waste of resources and lives. I was merely disagreeing with your broad brush that no president is/was concerned with winning. I don't buy the argument that they're all the same.

As far as the islamic middle-east is concerned? Were I King, my policy regarding that part of the world would be simple: Cut economic and military ties with the Saudi's, start producing our domestic oil supplies and build thousands of new nuclear power plants, sell the Israeli's whatever weapons they want, withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan and then inform the Syrians and Iranians that every time an act of terrorism is commited against the U.S., it's territories, foreign embassies or military bases, or American flagged ships...we're going to carpet bomb Damascus and Tehran...with our 60 year old B-52's. Daylight raids, flying at contrail altitude so they can see the pain coming.

Just saying