..rid themeselves, no I would disagree, realized at the end of WW2 with a restless population they could not hold them. Second ,just so that we are on the same page. The whole point of a guerilla War is to outlast your enemy. Of course I am not saying a guerilla army has ever defeated a conventiopnal army in the field, that is ludicrious. However they caused enough pain and hurt, Kenya , Algeria, exct that the European powers had no choice but to leave. Read about the Algerian War and tell me the French were not forced out after a vicious war oir tjhe Brittish in Kenya.No the US will never be defeated in Battle in a large action in the field, but they using these tactics they will never win over the population and will continueto be attacked and most importantly ambused on a daily basis.
4 More Years!
- Thread starter onthebottom
- Start date
..the US Strategy in Fallujah was imbecilec, announce your comeing so they can booby trap the place , then after most of the bad guys leave, blow the place up. Right now as we speak children lay dying in the streets because the US will not let any help get through. Good strategy guys, I would say the people of fallujah will hate the US for the next 1,000 years, lets hope they can come up with something a little better for the rest of the country.
I don't think we can assume the stated objective was the real objective. If they were trying to trap the insurgents inside the city, either they didn't have enough troops, the plan was flawed, or it wasn't the objective in the first place. I get the impression the US was willing to settle for simply pushing most of the insurgents out of Fallujah, and not willing to risk the political fallout from a full scale attack. That the attack came almost entirely from one side of the city demonstrates they had no intention at encirclement, or realistically blocking the insurgents escape routes.assoholic said:
..very good point, however then the bombing of the place was to say the least strange, if they really care about winning over the population. If they just wanted to push the bad guys out. However if their real hidden objective is to whip the population into a frenzy, then mission accomplished.
I found it interesting how fast they pushed to take the city center, as if that was the objective. The US is trying hard to show they are in control before the proposed election. Hearts and minds will evidently come later. Meanwhile, the Iraqi security force has apparently abandoned Mosul en masse, leaving it to the US to deal with.
Geez papasmerf, lighten up a bit. I was poking fun at simplistic catch phrases trying to explain complex problems. You have a small business in trucking? Great. I truly hope it is successful. I have a small business myself, face all of the same problems you listed, and doubt either one of us would consider ourselves rich.papasmerf said:
Asterix said:
Problem is the government takes a complex aproach to simple problems. Much of it is done to gorge themselfs on government cash. The example of giving a fish and teaching to fish, is the perfect example.
Here is another example. If you were to grow a garden and take the time and effort to make it weed free, with healthy fruits and veggies. Then after you pick the garden clean, someone comes to your door and takes 50% to give not to your neighbors, but to folks 700 miles away who would not grow a garden. Would you find this to be fair? Would you begin to think that if you wanted to give the fruits of your labor away, you might like to decide to whom and how? Or would you just accept that you must do as you are told and be happy you are allowed to give?
When it comes to taxes and a government growing out of control, came we ever be too serious?
assoholic said:
If the USA would have had a full scale attack on Fallujah, thousands of innocent civilians would have died. It is a reall catch 22. If you don't give the civilians the chance to get out, you risk an even bigger backlash.
By anouncing your intentions "the top brass" of Al Quaeda is long gone. Sooner or later a decision has to be made as to the final goal of the war. It seems obvious that a large part of the population supports the insurgents and a large part of the population is not interested in "western style democracy". Is the USA to stay there and force it down their throats? Or give them a chance to have an election and live with whatever the outcome is?
I saw an interview with a former general on the Dennis Miller show, sorry can't remember his name. He said that for this type of chasing down and controlling insurgents, there are not enough troops on the ground. I tend to agree with him.
Why there was enough troops to get Saddam, this is a whole different ballgame.
I've read plenty about all of these conflicts.assoholic said:
You're missing my point - that the Imperial powers were divesting themselves of holdings GLOBALLY, regardless of violence against them or not.
I'm not sure what your point about WWII was, but I'm sure it's wrong.
The Germans weren't badly troubled by partisan /' guerilla activity anywhere on any front...I got your point I simply disagree, I think they wetre pressured into divesting because of the Guerilla activity or the percieved threat of Guerilla action in the future as was more the case with the Brittish in Palestine. On this point we will have to agree to disagree.
No, they weren't. I've already dealt with this. Of the paltry number of divisions the Germans used for security in conquered countries - 20 - only one would have been used elsewhere. The rest were scraped together as needed, made up mostly of "ethnics" (that is, non-Aryans), and would *not* have seen combat action on any other fronts.
They were NOT bothered by these groups.
These groups caused more innocent civilians to be killed in retaliation for action against the Wehrmacht than they killed or drew off German soldiers.
Both John Keegan and Caleb Carr, among numerous others, have written on the dramatic (thanks, Hollywood) exaggeration of the effect both the partisans and SOE forces had during WWII.
They were NOT bothered by these groups.
These groups caused more innocent civilians to be killed in retaliation for action against the Wehrmacht than they killed or drew off German soldiers.
Both John Keegan and Caleb Carr, among numerous others, have written on the dramatic (thanks, Hollywood) exaggeration of the effect both the partisans and SOE forces had during WWII.
