a new korean war?

i have been reading the new paper about us thinking about going into war with north korea......do yall think that is true.

They threatened us with a nuclear war and all kinds of other things....and my question is....if we do go to war what would we be fighting for?

Thank you

nationalguard1313:salute2:
 
1) There's not going to be a war.
2) Isn't losing in Iraq and Afghanistan enough?
3) It would be a fight about ending a very oppressive and murderous regime. At the cost of millions of lives and the destruction of the 13th largest economy in the world.
 
1) There's not going to be a war.
2) Isn't losing in Iraq and Afghanistan enough?
3) It would be a fight about ending a very oppressive and murderous regime. At the cost of millions of lives and the destruction of the 13th largest economy in the world.

"2) Isn't losing in Iraq and Afghanistan enough?" quote A Can of Man

Could you please clarify?
 
You didn't hear that the Dems declared the Iraq War lost back when Bush was Prez?

Yes, that. But I had not heard Afghanistan was gone.

Actually, I would not declare either as lost. As we have GPS and know exactly where they are.:confused:
 
Yes, that. But I had not heard Afghanistan was gone.

Actually, I would not declare either as lost. As we have GPS and know exactly where they are.:confused:

When CINC says we pull out in summer of 2011, shows lack of resolve, when we show lack of resolve we accept defeat.

GPS thats over one hour old don't mean nothing.
 
You didn't hear that the Dems declared the Iraq War lost back when Bush was Prez?

Yes, that. But I had not heard Afghanistan was gone.

Actually, I would not declare either as lost. As we have GPS and know exactly where they are.:confused:

Keep trollin man. Keep trollin.

My response was to George's comment and had nothing to do with you. I thought his comment was funny.

Your comment is just a cover up for not answering my question.

When CINC says we pull out in summer of 2011, shows lack of resolve, when we show lack of resolve we accept defeat.

GPS thats over one hour old don't mean nothing.

It hasn't happend yet, but if you feel are troops have given up, I think you are wrong.

I don't think our troops lost Vietnam and I don't think they have "lost" Iraq and Afganistan as ACoM suggests.
 
Last edited:
"I don't think are troops lost Vietnam and I don't think they have "lost" Iraq and Afganistan as ACoM suggests."


I agree totally, not in the slightest, but I do think if you call the conflict "lost" then it was lost by politics, and bad policies.
 
It really has little to do with troops having given up.

War is all encompassing. It is military and political. If you lose either, you lose the war. The war in Vietnam was lost by the military. It was unable to win the trust of the locals all the while focusing on attrition which only made their moral position in the eyes of the local population worse. They did not understand unconventional warfare and most evidence suggests that they didn't even want to try to understand it, all the while being fixated on thinking they were fighting another World War II style conventional war. The man who did realize that a different kind of war would follow was John F Kennedy, who managed to get the military adopt the concept of Special Forces. The leg Army of course was not amused and met it with much resistance and many times tried to use Special Forces soldiers as elite NCOs within conventional formations at worst and use them strictly for Direct Action missions at best. That is bad Generalship. Yes, the military did lose the war in Vietnam.

Also, when you need to win the trust (therefore the Hearts and Minds) of the locals, a pull out date is essentially a "this is when you die if you side with us" date. Think about it. Would you side with the Americans if they said they would leave next year while it's plainly evident the Taliban will still be around and don't show any signs of going anywhere? Hell no.

Has little to do with servicemen suddenly giving up, which is not the case.
 
When CINC says we pull out in summer of 2011, shows lack of resolve, when we show lack of resolve we accept defeat.

GPS thats over one hour old don't mean nothing.

I disagree. The fact he planned an exit date does show resolve. A resolve to finally end this tragic foreign policy disaster. What didn't show resolve was to let the war drag on...and on...and on...with no goal, no strategy, and no end in sight. The military did its best in Iraq, whatever happens next the rest of up to the Iraqis. Obama was right on this, it is simply not in the US interest to continue our involvement as its just not worth the effort anymore. A War without a purpose is not a war worth fighting.

Same for Afghanistan, our mission was to destroy the terrorist camps, destabilize Al Qaeda and kick out the Taliban. Mission Accomplished. It was never our Mission to Nation build, but here Obama has decided to fall into the same trap that Bush, Soviets and British did. Most of the "terrorists" are simply the locals who don't want a central Afghani or US governments telling them what to do.

As for NK, as much as I'd like to see the NKs out. I think the best thing to do is just to wait them out. Their society is crumbling, and when the people start to have had enough from their corrupt leadership we will see what happens. NK will probably get a new leader soon, lets see if he can be reasoned with. NK and Iran despite their sabre rattling don't really represent a threat. Even if they launched an attack on SK, it couldn't be sustained. They would be totally on their own, this isn't the cold war not even China or Russia would help them.
 
Last edited:
It really has little to do with troops having given up.

War is all encompassing. It is military and political. If you lose either, you lose the war. The war in Vietnam was lost by the military. It was unable to win the trust of the locals all the while focusing on attrition which only made their moral position in the eyes of the local population worse. They did not understand unconventional warfare and most evidence suggests that they didn't even want to try to understand it, all the while being fixated on thinking they were fighting another World War II style conventional war. The man who did realize that a different kind of war would follow was John F Kennedy, who managed to get the military adopt the concept of Special Forces. The leg Army of course was not amused and met it with much resistance and many times tried to use Special Forces soldiers as elite NCOs within conventional formations at worst and use them strictly for Direct Action missions at best. That is bad Generalship. Yes, the military did lose the war in Vietnam.
Vietnam: Helicopter combat developed, special forces developed, The US military adapted and was extremely effective.
Do not know what planet you grew up on but the war was lost on the home front.
I realize with your limited military experience how you might draw such a wrong unsupported position. But since there are "why the US lost Vietnam topics" all ready I will not go into it further.

Suffice it to say you do not have the background to determine that the US forces 1. "Lost" Iraq. 2. "Lost" Afghanistan.

You are entitled to your opinion such as it is.

"The leg Army of course was not amused and met it with much resistance and many times tried to use Special Forces soldiers as elite NCOs within conventional formations at worst and use them strictly for Direct Action missions at best." quote A Can of Man

What garbage is this?
 
It's not garbage.
The Leg Army has traditionally had a dislike for Special Operations and Special Operations Forces.
 
When Iraq was a bloody mess the chant was the Iraq War was lost, & that we should be fighting the "good" war in Afghanistan. Now that Iraq is winding down the same drumbeat says Afghanistan is a loser War & we ought to bail out.
 
Actually my argument that the US should never bail out and certainly not announce any sort of pull out dates.


Also Vietnam was not only lost in Vietnam but also on the home front because the war was going poorly. The public no longer tolerated high casualties for seemingly little or no gain. If the military ignores that, it again has failed to adapt to the conditions of the conflict.
I'm not saying the US Military itself was the sole reason for the loss in Vietnam but to say that the Generals did a bang up job only for everyone else to ruin it is fiction.
 
Last edited:
It really has little to do with troops having given up.

War is all encompassing. It is military and political. If you lose either, you lose the war. The war in Vietnam was lost by the military. It was unable to win the trust of the locals all the while focusing on attrition which only made their moral position in the eyes of the local population worse. They did not understand unconventional warfare and most evidence suggests that they didn't even want to try to understand it, all the while being fixated on thinking they were fighting another World War II style conventional war. The man who did realize that a different kind of war would follow was John F Kennedy, who managed to get the military adopt the concept of Special Forces. The leg Army of course was not amused and met it with much resistance and many times tried to use Special Forces soldiers as elite NCOs within conventional formations at worst and use them strictly for Direct Action missions at best. That is bad Generalship. Yes, the military did lose the war in Vietnam.

Also, when you need to win the trust (therefore the Hearts and Minds) of the locals, a pull out date is essentially a "this is when you die if you side with us" date. Think about it. Would you side with the Americans if they said they would leave next year while it's plainly evident the Taliban will still be around and don't show any signs of going anywhere? Hell no.

Has little to do with servicemen suddenly giving up, which is not the case.


Most of the opinion I've read regarding the Vietnam War would say that it's a political defeat, that the American military had never lost any battle there therefore it can't be called a military defeat. Whay you've posted is an interesting viewpoint. :smile:
 
Back
Top