Soren wrote on Oct 7^th, 2014 at 8:01pm:


Evidently.

Pity about unconditional surrender, eh?

Soren wrote on Oct 7^th, 2014 at 12:52pm:


Excellent thinking, Soren except of course you have forgotten what the key function of war is, in the modern world.  As Karl von Clausewitz suggested so succinctly in his seminal work, On War, "war is but politics by other means."   The function of war is not to kill your enemy but rather to force a political decision in our favour.  Indeed, killing people tends to be counter-productive.  As the examples of both Germany and Japan in WWII, waging total war, giving no other means of surrender than unconditional meant that they dug their heels in, until we saw the horrors of atom war unleashed.  Millions died unnecessarily in whole cities razed to the ground by fire and blast.

Modern war is not total war, modern war is fought for limited objectives, intended to force a political decision, Soren and your obvious misunderstanding of it reflects more about your personality than you might be comfortable revealing to us.  Increasingly I see little or no difference between you and the Islamists you oppose.  You are their mirror image.

Quote:


"Carpetbombing" is a nonmilitary term which is meaningless.  It is hyberbole.

Quote:


No it was not.  What happened in German was that brave Russian soldiers fought the Germans to a standstill on the Eastern Front at the gates of Moscow and then drove them all the way back to Berlin.   Strategic bombing as practiced by the USAAF and the RAF actually had little real effect on the German being able to wage war.  Were you aware that German aircraft production actually increased until the last few months of the war, despite the strenous efforts of the Western Allies to stop it?  How?  Because the Allied bombing actually released labour by destroying all the civilian industries and that enabled the Germans to actually redeploy those workers to military industries.   In Japan's case, it was the US Navy's unrestricted submarine warfare which defeated Japan, not the USAAF's bombing campaign.  By the time the two atomic bombs were dropped, Japan was starving, there was insufficient food for the population, no fuel for industry or the military and no raw materials for industry.  The A-Bombs forced the Japanese Government recognise their precarious position but even then, the militarists still wanted to fight on until the Emperor's personal intervention.

Quote:


"Labia"?  A Freudian slip?   

"Syria", "Iran"?  I wasn't aware that the West had yet intervened there in either nation nor made any attacks against them.  Obviously they are non-starters as an example, Soren.   

There were simply not the targets to justify such a bombing campaign, Soren, in Iraq. So we didn't see it attempted.  Also, Iraq was not a total war but a limited war, with limited objectives - although, as we saw, even those limited objectives proved too ambitious for the US and its coalition of dupes.   

There are many examples of where strategic bombing has failed as a means of winning a war, Soren.  Others have mentioned them.  Unfortunately for the Douhetists, airpower alone cannot win a war.  "Boots on the ground" are needed, with an extended occupation usually, to reinforce the message of defeat.  Clever means also of winning the civilian population over are also required but you'd just prefer to exterminate them all, now wouldn't you, Soren, particularly if they are Musselmen.   

The old boy has been calling for a systematic cull of the Muslim world for years. His backpeddling is all rather - what’s the word?

Mendatious.

Cunning, no?

Karnal wrote on Oct 8^th, 2014 at 8:44am:

You are, of course, lying, PB.

Karnal wrote on Oct 8^th, 2014 at 11:41am:



You lose. Your enemy will pound you until you accept ITS terms. What did you think?

Karnal wrote on Oct 8^th, 2014 at 11:49am:


This war has been going on since Mohammed died. Our involvement in the region  since 2002 has been about the same thing  - to kill them over there so they do not come here to kill us. Ee are not in Sudan because there is no tgreat from them to come to the west to commit atrocities. The Arab Muslims, on the other hand, are keen on inflicting pain on the Great Satan and the Little Satan.

Karnal wrote on Oct 8^th, 2014 at 5:45pm:

The rot set in with letting the mullahs get away with taking American diplomats hostage in 1979. Since them it has been endless concessions and limited engagement and bringing democracy to the primitive natives. A lot of it with misguided good intentions, most of it out of cowardice. Carter embodies Western pusillanimousness.  When you bugger up like that it is hard to climb back into a position where you are taken seriously. America has not been taken seriously since then (or possible since 1968 or 1956).
Having a bigger army than the next 10 guys combined but being the most unreliable friend ever is not the way to be taken seriously.
Bush tried to be principled but it is too late. 8 years is too short to reverse decades of credibility loss. Then along comes Obama and Carter looks like a guy who at least made some vague gestures.

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 8^th, 2014 at 10:33pm:


No sh.t?!?

Quote:

ridiculous nonsense.

Quote:


And who said that the aim of every war must be unconditional surrender, Brain?

Quote:

No you enter to win. Whether you want to minimise casualties or not doesn't alter the aim of winning.

Quote:


It is impossible without electing a new people, to quote Brecht.


Quote:

No. But there is no war without death and destruction - on both sides. If you have no appetite for that,  don't start a war. Do something else, like sanctions or give concessions to your enemy as an opening gambit.