RWers time to close your eyes , plug your ears and yell LALALA! New poll is here

[Mucho]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18312789

[BT]

David Halberstam made the observation 40 years ago that Americans did not have the stomach for protracted wars.

Apparently not much has changed.

[Mucho]

David Halberstam made the observation 40 years ago that Americans did not have the stomach for protracted wars.

Apparently not much has changed.

So why does your ilk keep giving US one?

[BT]

Your memory is faulty. The best and the brightest was actually a slam of JFK and LBJ's hiring abilities. McNamara ring a bell?

[Mucho]

Your memory is faulty. The best and the brightest was actually a slam of JFK and LBJ's hiring abilities. McNamara ring a bell?

I know that, but they especially McNamara learned from their mistakes. Mc is still trying to atone. But you guys , the worst & the dummest , just keep on fucking the world up.

[modestyblase]

While I will not give any credibility to that Goldwater Republicanism so inherent in the Reagan&on Republican presidents and parties, nor to their mindless and selfish and poorly executed wars(seriously, what on earth is wrong with their strategists lack of, well, strategic excellence?!), I do have to point out that WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam were all initiated by Democrats. This, of course, bars all invasions, occupations, etc.

[BT]

I know that, but they especially McNamara learned from their mistakes

McNamara took 30 plus years to come to the conclusion that he made mistakes in the execution of the Viet Nam War.

So again your analysis is flawed.

[Plane]

While I will not give any credibility to that Goldwater Republicanism so inherent in the Reagan&on Republican presidents and parties, nor to their mindless and selfish and poorly executed wars(seriously, what on earth is wrong with their strategists lack of, well, strategic excellence?!), I do have to point out that WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam were all initiated by Democrats. This, of course, bars all invasions, occupations, etc.

Should they hire Bobby Fisher and never loose again?

Or should we use purely defenseive means to tackle attackers from Al Queda?

I still like the idea of going on the offensive and giveing an order of magnitude better than we get.

What is the better idea?

[sirs]

I still like the idea of going on the offensive and giveing an order of magnitude better than we get.  What is the better idea?

Bring all our soldiers home, from all across the globe, and say "Please don't hurt us"?     

[Mucho]

I know that, but they especially McNamara learned from their mistakes

McNamara took 30 plus years to come to the conclusion that he made mistakes in the execution of the Viet Nam War.

So again your analysis is flawed.

At least he came to that conclusion and every indication is that he came to it even before he left office he just wouldnt say so because of false sense of loyalty http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19950501fareviewessay5044/george-c-herring/the-wrong-kind-of-loyalty-mcnamara-s-apology-for-vietnam.html. Your embecile of a Pres and his moronic lackeys  will never learn I am afraid.

[modestyblase]

While I will not give any credibility to that Goldwater Republicanism so inherent in the Reagan&on Republican presidents and parties, nor to their mindless and selfish and poorly executed wars(seriously, what on earth is wrong with their strategists lack of, well, strategic excellence?!), I do have to point out that WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam were all initiated by Democrats. This, of course, bars all invasions, occupations, etc.

Should they hire Bobby Fisher and never loose again?

Or should we use purely defenseive means to tackle attackers from Al Queda?

I still like the idea of going on the offensive and giveing an order of magnitude better than we get.

What is the better idea?

Yes, hire a Bobby Fisher sort, naturally. Chess is war(Sicilian Defense! McDonell(sp?) Attack!). The Art of War, The 36 Strategies, and The Prince are all necessary reads for anyone going into anything where strategy is the difference between success or failure. A British Officer recently wrote a book on how war has changed and how it is being/should be executed, the name of which I can't recall, should be read as well.

In regards to "tackling terrorists", I've a hunch that diplomacy and statesmanship could help considerably. As it stands, we are not "tackling terrorism" and in fact need those idiots as whipping boys so Bush&Co(&others) can devestate as much as they want while fooling people into thinking its for a "good cause". Exceptionally good spies would help as well(as would not outing them).

And so what have we done on the offensive that has actually helped? Everything the wannabe cowboy has initiated has only made matters worse for America and Americans on a whole, and has not put any respectable dent in "terror".

As for a better idea-first, make them realize that you will not tolerate being fucked with. Not by invading their turf, but by what you will do if they invade yours. Wrapping them in pigskin, etc. as I mentioned in an earlier thread would work effectively. Second-don't "occupy" their land, instead begin "occupying" their minds. Not insidiously; but manipulation and diplomacy are of the same currency for damn good reason.

[Plane]

War is more like Poker than Chess , but knowing the tecniques of both would not be a bad idea.

In Chess it is goodto take controll and force an opponent to move the moves you plan for him .

In Poker it is good to know a good bet from a bet against the odds , it is good to play the game and also play the players , boldness pays one hand and looses another.


In wha game is it a good gambit to leave the table?

[Mucho]

>>In wha game is it a good gambit to leave the table?<<
In any game when you are losing badly. Just ask GA.