B.O.'s first interview?

[Silverback]

The subtext of this thread is a lot more interesting than the thread.

The subtext being, As warfare changes so too should the warfighter's understanding of warfare. Comparing a war against a non-nation combatant group to a war with a national combatant combatant group is APPLES and Oranges.

If we conducted warfare with the same principles we applied in WWII, Korea or even Vietnam we would be in a much worsened condition (militarily) than we are now.

[Silverback]

The subtext of this thread is a lot more interesting than the thread.

Yeah, that was my intent when I started it!

You are definitely in need of a "Country boy ass whippin' "

[rgrokelley]

The subtext of this thread is a lot more interesting than the thread.

The subtext being, As warfare changes so too should the warfighter's understanding of warfare. Comparing a war against a non-nation combatant group to a war with a national combatant combatant group is APPLES and Oranges.

If we conducted warfare with the same principles we applied in WWII, Korea or even Vietnam we would be in a much worsened condition (militarily) than we are now.

I don't know what you mean by applying the same principles. Conquering a non-nation combatant group was done several times in history, by applying the age old rule of violence. In our history it was done against Pirates, Indians, Mormons, Filipino, etc, etc. I could literally give you pages of times where we fought a non-nation, or an ideology, and destroyed it thoroughly.

In WWII there were fanatics, not just soldiers. The largest example I can think of is the Japanese, towards 1945. The soldiers and civilians would not give up, and committed suicide instead of surrendering. This was done on a huge scale. The only way we could make them stop, and surrender, was to let them know that we would kill them on a national level, with very little loss of life. Once the concept of atomic warfare was realized, they finally surrendered.

If we applied WWII methods to the current war, we would have a military of 10 million, and no border would be considered valid if there was a continued threat.

However now we have an administration who thinks that it can talk its way out of another 9-11. This did not work in the Clinton administration and it will not work now. How many bad guys will be killed will be determined in the future. Clinton also killed bad guys, but he did it in a totally fucked up way. Somalia is still fresh on many minds on this site. The number of times that Bin Laden could have been killed or captuered prior to 9-11 is another example. Like the 9-11 commission stated, prior to 9-11 we were a nation at war, but we didn't act like it. The enemy did.

[Silverback]

If we applied WWII methods to the current war, we would have a military of 10 million, and no border would be considered valid if there was a continued threat.

At what cost?

[Silverback]

If we applied WWII methods to the current war, we would have a military of 10 million, and no border would be considered valid if there was a continued threat.

At what cost?

What does cost matter a few billion here a trillion there, chickenfeed. (sarcasm face thingy here)

Therein lies the rub. As a Veteran of our current campaign I do not measure cost with dollar signs.

[Silverback]

You are definitely in need of a "Country boy ass whippin' "

but, I'm not a country boy! :)

Maybe Nick can throw you the kind you would prefer.

[rgrokelley]

This isn't that bad of an idea. Honestly how many of you would even watch a televised interview with President Obama? On another note, you may not like him, but it's irrelevant now, he's our President so address him as such.

I called President Reagan "Reagan" "Ronnie" or "Renaldus Maximus". I called President Bush "Bush" and "GW". I called President Clinton "Clinton" and "Bill". So I figure I can call President Obama "Obama" or "Barack". Its America, we do not have to call any President anything we do not wish. If I wanted to call him "Empty suit ass clown" I should be able to, without fear of any repercussions. I think quite a few folks have died to allow that right to continue.

Good for you. Save me the lecture on people dying for our freedoms.

No lecture. Everyone on this list has known those few. Statement of fact about the United States. We are one of the few, if not the only nation on earth that has the ability to speak against our politicians, without fear of retribution. The only reason we have that is due to blood spilled.

[Silverback]

No lecture. Everyone on this list has known those few. Statement of fact about the United States. We are one of the few, if not the only nation on earth that has the ability to speak against our politicians, without fear of retribution. The only reason we have that is due to blood spilled.

Your new title should be "Lothar...Master of the painfully obvious"

You should assess your audience before making statements like this.

[rgrokelley]

If we applied WWII methods to the current war, we would have a military of 10 million, and no border would be considered valid if there was a continued threat.

At what cost?

Monetary? If we did have to go "old school" on them, it would be about the cost of the current stimulus plan. However we don't need to draft yet.

Lives lost? It depends on how you do it. The projected casualties for the invasion of Japan in WWII was somewhere between 1 and 4 million. If you throw in the Japanese military and civilians it jumps up to round 15 to 30 million (that is killed and wounded). Why do I use Japan as the litmus test? They were the last enemy we fought that could compare to a suicide bombing enemy today. In other words, a fanatic who would destroy himself, and his family, to stop the enemy.

Anyway, the projected loss was millions. In the end it cost us zero, and it cost the Japanese less than 100,000. So, the methods used in WWII can be applicable, but you have to want to "go there" and have the backing of the US public.

[Silverback]

If we applied WWII methods to the current war, we would have a military of 10 million, and no border would be considered valid if there was a continued threat.

At what cost?

Monetary? If we did have to go "old school" on them, it would be about the cost of the current stimulus plan. However we don't need to draft yet.

Lives lost? It depends on how you do it. The projected casualties for the invasion of Japan in WWII was somewhere between 1 and 4 million. If you throw in the Japanese military and civilians it jumps up to round 15 to 30 million (that is killed and wounded). Why do I use Japan as the litmus test? They were the last enemy we fought that could compare to a suicide bombing enemy today. In other words, a fanatic who would destroy himself, and his family, to stop the enemy.

Anyway, the projected loss was millions. In the end it cost us zero, and it cost the Japanese less than 100,000. So, the methods used in WWII can be applicable, but you have to want to "go there" and have the backing of the US public.

Rhetorical question...