National Defense idea

[Lonecowboy]

A Better Idea For National Defense


December 27, 2011 by Robert Ringer




War is big business.

If there's one thing that bothers me this time of the year, it's seeing ex-servicemen in wheelchairs or sporting titanium arms and legs on television. If peaceful, rational humanoids from another galaxy landed in the United States, I have to believe they would be appalled. I can just hear them asking, "Who sent all these healthy young men and women off to be maimed and killed?" And, "Did the people who sent them lead the charge into battle?"

Many people argue that having the lives of thousands of young adults destroyed — or lost — is the price of preserving our freedom. During World War II, when America was a very different Nation, most people had no trouble buying into that proposition. But in today's corrupt, semi-socialist America, the biggest threat to our freedom comes not from abroad, but from the criminal class in Washington — and, unfortunately, no one is talking about invading the Nation's capital.
It's time to skip the political-correctness silliness and face up to reality: Most wars are transfer-of-wealth scams — transferring money from you and me to the companies that build the planes, tanks, bombs, uniforms, drones, etc. that politicians say they need to protect us. The military-industrial complex has been dominant in all advanced civilizations throughout history, and it's never been in better health than it is today.

We're talking very big business here. It's so big that those who benefit the most from it are willing to have people killed in order to keep the war assembly lines moving ahead at full speed.

As a third-generation tyrant (Kim Jong Un, a.k.a. "Chublet II") steps to the fore in North Korea, one can't helping thinking about the infamous Korean War that ended without victory in 1953 — even though victory was in the palm of General Douglas MacArthur's hand.

Or the infamous Vietnam War that ended in defeat in 1975 — even though the United States could have won that war years earlier had it been willing to use overwhelming force.

Or the infamous Gulf War that ended, curiously, with Saddam Hussein still in power in 1992.

If you want to be ahead of the curve, you can add the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War to the above list as well. Bet the farm on this one: The Iraq story is going to have a very unhappy ending. The only question is whether the country will be overwhelmed by civil war or by an Iran takeover.

As to Afghanistan, it will end the same way that all Afghan wars end — meaning never. Its latest attackers — the Americans — will go back home with their tails between their legs, just as the Russians did before them. And the Afghans will continue to do what they have always done — fight.

It's not possible to win a war against Afghanistan, because it's not a real country. It's a down-and-dirty suburb of the moon, filled with tribesmen who get up every morning, put on their skirts, and do what they have been doing for thousands of years — fight anyone who is willing to enter the ring with them. If there are no takers, they are happy to fight each other.

I don't doubt the courage or patriotism of the young Americans for whom wheelchairs or prosthetics are now a way of life. They acted in good faith and did what they thought was right. They believed they were being patriotic and defending our freedom.

But it makes me angry that their lives have been shattered because corrupt men and women in Washington got them to believe they were fighting for a noble cause. They were not. That will become obvious to all in the coming years as we watch events unfold in Iraq and Afghanistan. But, along the way, $1 trillion got transferred from the pockets of taxpayers into the coffers of the military-industrial complex.

With drones, bunker busters and, in a pinch, nuclear weapons, war should by now be passé. It isn't necessary to risk the lives of young men and women in far-off lands. If I were a hawk (which I most definitely am not), I would free the North Korean people in about 17 minutes — without harming any young Americans. Iran might take a week — just long enough to turn things over to the pro-Western youths in that country whom Barack Obama was so pleased to see crushed.

But, as I said, I'm not a hawk, so I wouldn't take either of the above actions. I'm just your average libertarian-centered conservative who is tired of war … tired of seeing young people's lives shattered … tired of seeing American taxpayers forced to hand over their money to politicians so they can pursue never-ending overseas military adventures.

That said, let me make it clear that I'm a big advocate of having a strong national defense. My message to rogue nations would be simple: Mess with us and yesterday will always be remembered as the best day of your life. And, yes, we use nukes if that's what it takes to make you behave.

Imagine all the lives and money that could have been saved had we hit the Tora Bora mountain range with a string of nuclear bombs in 2001. No U.S. casualties, no trillion dollars wasted, no decade of political posturing. And, best of all, from Russia to China, from North Korea to Iran, the rest of the world would live in fear of what might happen to them if they messed with the Great Satan. How much more comforting it is to be feared rather than liked.

The holiday season is a good time to reflect on how nice it would be if young Americans didn't lose any more arms or legs and taxpayers would not have to fund a military-industrial complex with such a voracious appetite.

Strong national defense: Yes! Unwarranted wars and wars that we're not serious about winning: No!

–Robert Ringer

 

[Steve]

as a retired vet, I do not ever want to send our troops into a war unprepared for battle and would never hold them back form a victory..

but the author makes a few mistakes..

first.. he calls for nuclear weapons to be used.. costly in both $cost and our ability to deter others from using them as a first strike.

we could have leveled the range with conventional weapons at a fraction of the cost.

second.. the "With drones, bunker busters and, in a pinch, nuclear weapons,"

they are not free, they are the result of the "along the way, $1 trillion got transferred from the pockets of taxpayers into the coffers of the military-industrial complex."

without the industry there would not have been the drones, bunker busters, and with out the trillion$ there would have been no industry..

he has put the horse in front of a cart he didn't want to buy.

yes we could win the wars without landing troops.. but it isn't cheap, and risk free. ,.... and the past wars were lost by politics.. not troops on the ground,

a better idea would be that once a war is declared by congress the military is allowed to do what ever it wants to win... and congress, nor the President has no further say in how we fight the war they authorized,


but even that idea has faults.. as man is not very good at doing what is right consistently

one thing I do agree fully with him on...

My message to rogue nations would be simple: Mess with US and yesterday will always be remembered as the best day of your life. And, yes, we use nukes if that's what it takes to make you behave.

 

[jigs]

wars are waged to be won, but now wars are waged for the political gain. if we went into Vietnam with a goal, why did that goal change? the let up of bombing the north was a major turning point. the press is another obsticle. why protect them? they know it is a war zone...let them fend for themselves.
we can not win a war playing by the rules if we are fighting people who cut off heads to make a point.
Generals who are puppets of politicians are about as useful as a squirt gun in a forest fire.

 

[Steve]

if we went into Vietnam with a goal, why did that goal change?

history shows the liberal democrats cut funding for the war... without funding it was lost..

they are historically in favor of surrender by not allowing the means to win...

and then ignore the millions who suffer and die as the result of their surrender.

 

[Anonymous]

if we went into Vietnam with a goal, why did that goal change?

history shows the liberal democrats cut funding for the war... without funding it was lost..

they are historically in favor of surrender by not allowing the means to win...

and then ignore the millions who suffer and die as the result of their surrender.

So remind me again of how successfult the Nixon Doctrine and the Paris Peace Accords were?

Or how it was the liberals/Dems that cut funding to the war- when it was a bipartisan bill- supported bipartisanly that ended US envolovement?

The Case-Church Amendment was legislation approved by the U.S. Congress in 1973 that prohibited further U.S. military activity in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. This ended direct U.S. military involvement in the Vietnam War, although the U.S. continued to provide military equipment and economic support to the South Vietnamese government. It is named for its principal co-sponsors, Senators Clifford P. Case (R-NJ) and Frank Church (D-ID).

It passed the United States Congress in June by a margin of 278-124 in the House, and 64-26 in the Senate.

But by then old Tricky Dick was so tied up in his paranoid program of lies, deception, and criminal activity that no one would believe anything he said...

 

[Mike]

Tricky Dick was in a hell of a fix, trying to straighten Johnson's Vietnam War escalation.

This week on the JOURNAL, Bill Moyers looked back some four decades to his experience as a member of President Lyndon Johnson's administration. At the time, Johnson made a series of fateful decisions to escalate the war in Vietnam, where eventually over two million American military personnel would serve. Estimates indicate that nearly 60,000 U.S. troops – and more than a million Vietnamese – were killed during the course of the conflict.

 

[loomixguy]

if we went into Vietnam with a goal, why did that goal change?

history shows the liberal democrats cut funding for the war... without funding it was lost..

they are historically in favor of surrender by not allowing the means to win...

and then ignore the millions who suffer and die as the result of their surrender.

So remind me again of how successfult the Nixon Doctrine and the Paris Peace Accords were?

Or how it was the liberals/Dems that cut funding to the war- when it was a bipartisan bill- supported bipartisanly that ended US envolovement?

The Case-Church Amendment was legislation approved by the U.S. Congress in 1973 that prohibited further U.S. military activity in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. This ended direct U.S. military involvement in the Vietnam War, although the U.S. continued to provide military equipment and economic support to the South Vietnamese government. It is named for its principal co-sponsors, Senators Clifford P. Case (R-NJ) and Frank Church (D-ID).

It passed the United States Congress in June by a margin of 278-124 in the House, and 64-26 in the Senate.

But by then old Tricky Dick was so tied up in his paranoid program of lies, deception, and criminal activity that no one would believe anything he said...

Operation Linebacker was an unqualified success, and brought Charlie to the Paris Peace talks PDQ. When OT's pals cut funding, then things went to hell. Had they kept Operation Linebacker going, there is no doubt it would have brought the war to a close much earlier and saved more than enough American lives.

 

[Steve]

What happened when Democrats in Congress cut off funding for the Vietnam War?

Historians have directly attributed the fall of Saigon in 1975 to the cessation of American aid. Without the necessary funds, South Vietnam found it logistically and financially impossible to defeat the North Vietnamese army. Moreover, the withdrawal of aid encouraged North Vietnam to begin an effective military offensive against South Vietnam. Given the monetary and military investment in Vietnam, former Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage compared the American withdrawal to "a pregnant lady, abandoned by her lover to face her fate." 2 Historian Lewis Fanning went so far as to say that "it was not the Hanoi communists who won the war, but rather the American Congress that lost it." 3

I forgot to add that as well as ignoring the millions that died as a result of US liberal inaction, that liberals will ignore the lessons of history as well...

 

[smalltime]

Is it possible the winner was Viet Nam?

 

[Steve]

Is it possible the winner was Viet Nam?

not for the millions in southeast Asia that were "purged",






[/quote]