in the entire war and not a battle...i believe the insurgents have beaten the US military!!! now i think the superpower status of the US is doubtful and not worthy of receiving it after such a humiliation!!! i mean the US military is helpless....they dont know where to look.....the US troops are like lambs being brought into the slaughter house!!! boy if the US continues in this path.....US will lose all respect from other nations and seen as weak and might be the start of the end of american imperialism!!!! its just going to get worse and worse and eventually spread to american land!!! why dont bush nuke iran?
2006-12-08 17:18:43 · 8 answers · asked by glen 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
griff- as far as i see the US military has unleashed everything including the kitchen sink with the help of allies and still cannot beat the insurgents!!! i hear the US troops are crying in iraq when their troops get killed.....toughen up son!!! what a bunch of wussies!!!!!
2006-12-08 17:27:15 · update #1
renee B- bush doesnt have the balls do nuke anyone.....US is afraid of using nukes now since most countries have them!!
2006-12-08 17:28:45 · update #2
America is losing the war, I'm not being a pessimist, I'm just being a realist
2006-12-08 19:39:43 · answer #1 · answered by Arts 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
I was not going to address this question until I saw "most countries have nukes" this is a fallacy. There are only 8 actual nucler actors, and then there are 3 actors with nuclear ability, but not second-strike capability, meaning they cannot maintain nuclear deterrence. Seeing as how there are considerably more countries than 11 it is obvious that "most" countries do not have nuclear weapons.
I would like to now address the role of terrorism in a state. A state--for reasons that would take much longer to address--can only successfully wage a war against another state. Terrorist organization control no territory or borders, where would an army deploy, who would they fight?
It is important to note that I am not calling all insurgents terrorists, but insurgents until they regain their territory can act in ways similar to terrorists groups (although terrorists classicly target civilian population it is not impossible for them not to). Insurgents have attrition on their side--furthermore they have institutions that prevent complete domination by stronger military powers. If the united states did not have to worry about the Geneva convention, the un, its own constituency then its military could do whatever it wanted--pillage towns and villages, target civilians, cleanse populations of institutions.
But because of the protection that insurgetns are afforded they are also given the ability to wage wars of attrition. A war that a state power cannot win without targetting the actual state and thereby committing war crimes.
Important note:
I am not advocating the US committing war crimes or pillaging towns. I am just stating the nature of a conflict between states and insurgents and why a state will find fighting an insurgency difficult.
2006-12-09 04:38:24 · answer #2 · answered by jazzman1127 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
First, terrorism has been around since before Roman Empire days. Terrorism will never be defeated. It is an idea and not a country that is able to give a surrender. As far as LOSING, that was brought on by the media in this country. There were some DAYS in WW2 that brought on as many deaths as in the YRS of this current conflict. If you ask a WW2 veteran, they will tell you that if they needed to go through a town as the next step to Berlin or Tokyo, they crushed the town...no questions asked in order to get the job done. The media then was not as involved and the american public didn't know about the details of the war. With todays media, it has brought on such rules of engagement that have changed how wars are fought. If you ask the guys on the ground what we should do, which I have, some answers include sending in 3 times the troops and busting down all the doors and get this over and go through any town we need in order to get the job done. Basically we continue to gain at least a somewhat stable country that can police itself so that it does not spill over onto us as it did on 9/11. Preventing a cancer is better than reacting to it. And as far as the view on the war...purely a result of the power in today's media bringing a new ideaology on how to fight wars...Wars of nessesity (Japan bombing Pearl Harbor in plans to invade the U.S.) may take years and the public will support it in defense of our way of life if immediately threatened...Wars of seeming option (we need our oil prices to remain stable and that non-immediate problem is 10,000 miles away) may only take a short time before the public loses its willingness.
2006-12-09 02:47:10 · answer #3 · answered by Jared H 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You obviously have never been in the military and don't know anyone who is. BUT, you should be thankful for them and what they do so that you and others like you can sit there at the safety of your computer spewing your anit-American rubbish. The military has their hands tied, they are not free to do what needs to be done in order to get this over with. This could have been done quite some time ago. You don't have a CLUE as to what is going on over ther other than what the MEDIA is reporting, and they twist things around any way they want to. You really don't understand that? Talk to someone who actually HAS been there, maybe you will learn something. OR ever think about actually JOINING the military yourself? I didn't think so.
2006-12-09 06:13:56 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What the heck are you looking at? Everybody I talk to who's been there agrees we need some tweaks, but nobody's pessimistic. Please keep in mind that there are several things going on at once. The "War on Terror" is part of it, but the sectarian violence is a completely different issue. We take casualties from both, and an unanticipated number from the latter, but not the former. Have you read any military theory on 4th generation warfare? This is not by any means out of the realm of the expected. It isn't really off historically, either. Look at the careers of Smedley Butler and Chesty Puller, for instance. It looks to me like you're making judgements way out of your area of experience and knowledge.
2006-12-09 01:41:58 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
They haven't BEATEN the US military. A couple thousand deaths to a military of millions doesn't do much, does it?
If the war continues as it's going, the US will lose because of civil unrest caused by insurgents. After that it's a domino effect and it will force the US to withdraw. Remember Vietnam? You don't have to kill half of the army to beat it, you just have to do something to make them lose their patience and control.
2006-12-09 01:25:23 · answer #6 · answered by LaissezFaire 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Remove the political constraints on the military and you know how it would end. The enemies of the US act under no such political restraint. It would be frightening to see the US military truly unleashed. It is obvious you can not see this based on your statements. You do realize the full might of the military is not being used, right?
2006-12-09 01:23:48 · answer #7 · answered by Griff 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I think Bush would have nuked them all (Iraq, Iran etc...) if he could...Hey Griff...I couldn't agree with you more!
2006-12-09 01:24:47 · answer #8 · answered by Renee B 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋