MovieChat Forums > Restrepo (2010) Discussion > You cannot win a politically correct, ma...

You cannot win a politically correct, made for TV war

posted 13 years ago by nasdaq311
14 replies | jump to latest

War has to be all or nothing, not this hearts and minds , negotiating with the civilians BS - scorched earth is the only way to win in Afghanistan

that is the reason we lost Vietnam

and I ask you:

Is it not in the vested interest of the United States military industrial complex to keep us perpetually embroiled in an unwinnable conflict , lest their funding dry up, their tanks and planes go unsold, and their political power and their ability to influence the everyday decision making of this country wane?

[–] jimiii 13 years ago

correct.

[–] Ezekiel_Stone 13 years ago

I agree friend, when you think of ww2, that was total war! Nukes, bombing civilian population centres. Thats how to win, defeating armies that exist on the battlefield. That's what we all think a classic war is. That's what the military is built to fight, armies that are of equal strength with similiar weapons, tanks, planes, ships. The ground war where it's soldier vs soldier has changed very little. Without a clear and achieveable objective there is no hope.

This kind of pseudo political war is unwinnable, how broad and ironic is the term "war against terror"? What terror are they referring to, can they quantify how many of these terrorists are in an army? Is the terror referring to the perpetual fear bombarding us from the tv screens about terrorists striking. It's only a means to get us scared so we support their war, support it by sending our loved ones out to fight, support it by capitulating to the government and watch them take away our freedoms. This is the new Vietnam of our generation, it's messy and it's not gonna be without a steady stream of casualties, the longer we stay there.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] monk_venkman 13 years ago

One key difference. The government has already been defeated here. So you can't just go Japan, when the government has been overthrown and replaced with the candidate of your choosing. If you want to go off-script, then it's impossible to win the people to your side when you behave as we do around the world, primarily our blind relationship to Israel and Saudi Arabia. But no one elected, other than a few, would ever utter such words. One guy came close (paul), and they quickly made him out to be an unpatriotic nut.

Merry Christmas, and happy holidays!

[–] jadzia223 13 years ago

Agreed. I certainly believe that collateral damage should be minimal, but when worrying too much about that puts troops in harms way, something is wrong. When our troops get called murderers and similar such stuff by our own American media, one has to wonder why anyone would join the military today.

We should have gone in, kicked butt, then get out and rebuild from there. This "don't shoot on sunday" or "don't shoot if they look like they are going to a mosque" crap has got to end. Either fight the war, or get us out of there.

[–] floatingrat 13 years ago

Politically correct? Maybe to patriotic numbskulls it is, but in my opinion, there are so many things wrong with this war (morally, economically, politically, strategically, etc.) I don't understand how there is any support for this war in America anymore.

"We should have gone in, kicked butt, then get out and rebuild from there."

This is such a laughable statement, displaying the extent of ignorance among those who do support the occupation. There is a reason Afghanistan is called 'The Graveyard of Empires" - so many empires have invaded it and failed to conquer it.

The ones who cooked up this war should have done some research on the history of Afghanistan. I bet one of the instructors from one of America's prestigious military academies could have filled them in.

Could have saved a lot of lives, money and time.

[–] SomethingOrAnother 13 years ago

scorched earth is the only way to win in Afghanistan

Worked well for Communist Russia in the 80s? Worked well for Nazi Germany in eastern Europe? Nope, they got nothing but headaches from vengence seeking militia.

Just creates nothing but resentment which will lead to terror attacks on home soil

that is the reason we lost Vietnam

1.5-2 million civilians died in that war

Look up the Korean War, douchebag. The NVA and VC were protected by the fact that any US forces entering North Vietnam would involve the Chinese Responce, the Viet Minh kicked out the Japanese, the NVA lasted longer politically than the American government in the 60s/70s, the Chinese were defeated by the NVA in the late 70s and Khemr Rogue was overthrown by the new, united state of Vietnam.

[–] nasdaq311 13 years ago

Somethingoranother: are you saying nazi military tactics were ineffective?

[–] FourthIVY 13 years ago

I believe he's talking about the German invasion of Russia; the Germans scorched earthed their way to Moscow, but got hell not only from the Red Army but partisan guerrillas.

[–] nasdaq311 13 years ago

yes, of course they over stretched themselves.

[–] Strazdamonas 13 years ago

Well from the people that served in defence of moscow during that invasion that i talked to i was told that that it was a situation of "you go suicide with bomb strapped on you under the german tank or we shoot you adn your family on the spot" so it was that that stopped germans and not scorching the earth. you really cant push forward with thousands (litteraly) civilians runing into you with bombs.

----------
I've been vandalized by Elvis! -Ernest, Ernest Goes to Jail (1990)

[–] cherubalways 13 years ago

I agree. I watched this thinking why in the hell don't they just nuke it? I mean Russia couldn't defeat them, we can't seem to either.

[–] mjaytee 13 years ago

Your last paragraph sums it up in a nutshell. Why on earth, if I was a war profiteer, would I want a short winnable war?

[–] Snoogan 13 years ago

Hearts and minds and the ideals behind it are whats separating the U.S from Nazi Germany, in the eyes of the rest of the world. Without that youre just an aggressive invasion force with reckless disregard for anyone but yourselves. If this is the case, then what was the point in WW2.....or the Cold War for that matter....

The international community has allowed themselves to turn a blind eye to this campaign in the confidence that the U.S's intentions were good.

To decide you're going to invade a smaller, weaker country just to completely annihilate it makes you no different from the evils of the countries we have all fought so hard against in the past.

You should be helping these people, otherwise what was the point? Retaliation for 9/11? Well the invasions resulting amount of death and destruction, has been retaliation enough - what else can you do from here?

Until you look at the objective rationally and without the smoke and mirrors and the empty patriotism what is the grand plan? Trying to make Americans safe? How do you do this - by occupying this country and weeding out the enemy or just destroying it?

Destroying it is completely unreasonable, unrealistic and FAR WORSE in the long run. You'll have another generation of bombers and anti-western extremists. So what is the real, rational objective here?

To me it seems most Americans cant even agree on what that objective is - That alone presents a huge problem.