# Has guerilla warfare ever been defeated?, and if so, how was it defeated, and.....



## actsnoblemartin (Jul 15, 2007)

can it be defeated today in places like the border between afghanistan and pakistan, and iraq, or any other place you think of.

your thoughts please


----------



## Gunny (Jul 15, 2007)

Sure it was.  The US Army defeated guerilla warfare waged by American indians in the 1800s.  They did it by ruthlessly pursuing the enemy, destroying his support system, and running him to ground until all were either dead or subdued.


----------



## pegwinn (Jul 15, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Sure it was.  The US Army defeated guerilla warfare waged by American indians in the 1800s.  They did it by ruthlessly pursuing the enemy, destroying his support system, and running him to ground until all were either dead or subdued.



And that pretty much says it all.


----------



## Gunny (Jul 15, 2007)

pegwinn said:


> And that pretty much says it all.



We used to understand that sometimes we had to do whatever it took to attain the greater good.

Something lost in realtivist, secular progressive and politically correct postuirng nowadays.


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Jul 15, 2007)

I agree with you 100%, liberals, and liberalistic thinking, doesnt want to win the war, it would rather feel good about itself instead. But trying to be on its high horse, but war really, when you think about has no morals.



GunnyL said:


> We used to understand that sometimes we had to do whatever it took to attain the greater good.
> 
> Something lost in realtivist, secual progressive and politically correct postuirng nowadays.


----------



## Gunny (Jul 15, 2007)

Warfare is a means of last resort, to be used only when all other means of negotiations have been exhausted.  People die in war, and it isn't just a movie.  They don't come back for Part Deux.

If one chooses to engage in war, then one must be willing to do whatever is necessary to win, or they will be defeated by an enemy who is willing.

Partisan politics, or politics/politicians do not belong in the actual waging of war.  They screw it up every time.


----------



## Ninja (Jul 15, 2007)

Chechnya


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Jul 15, 2007)

exactly, and war to me, correct me if im wrong, seems like a job, your job is to kill the enemy, and win the war. Like any other job, if youre going to go into half ass, why go into it at all?



GunnyL said:


> Warfare is a means of last resort, to be used only when all other means of negotiations have been exhausted.  People die in war, and it isn't just a movie.  They don't come back for Part Deux.
> 
> If one chooses to engage in war, then one must be willing to do whatever is necessary to win, or they will be defeated by an enemy who is willing.
> 
> Partisan politics, or politics/politicians do not belong in the actual waging of war.  They screw it up every time.


----------



## Gunny (Jul 15, 2007)

actsnoblemartin said:


> exactly, and war to me, correct me if im wrong, seems like a job, your job is to kill the enemy, and win the war. Like any other job, if youre going to go into half ass, why go into it at all?



You're oversimplifying.  It's NEVER just a job to the ones actually squeezing the triggers and making someone all they're ever going to be.  

There's no point to waging war if you are not prepared to do whatever it takes to win.  An enemy willing to use more ruthless but effective tactics will win.


----------



## Bullypulpit (Jul 15, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Warfare is a means of last resort, to be used only when all other means of negotiations have been exhausted.  People die in war, and it isn't just a movie.  They don't come back for Part Deux.
> 
> If one chooses to engage in war, then one must be willing to do whatever is necessary to win, or they will be defeated by an enemy who is willing.
> 
> Partisan politics, or politics/politicians do not belong in the actual waging of war.  They screw it up every time.



Unfortunately the invasion of Iraq was a war of choice, not a last resort. Had the administration actually done what needed doing in Afghanistan, al Qaeda would be a shadow of its former self, if not an unpleasant memory. And you might want to tell Dubbyuh about politicians and politics not belonging in the waging of war. But, if wishes were fishes, we'd all cast nets.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 15, 2007)

Bullypulpit said:


> Unfortunately the invasion of Iraq was a war of choice, not a last resort. Had the administration actually done what needed doing in Afghanistan, al Qaeda would be a shadow of its former self, if not an unpleasant memory. And you might want to tell Dubbyuh about politicians and politics not belonging in the waging of war. But, if wishes were fishes, we'd all cast nets.



The Philippines, the Central American countries and Carribean in the 20/30's, the British in Malaysia. All were successful wars against "insurgents". And according to the left of today they were all wars of " Choice". Hell using the leftoids definitions, FDR drug us into WW2 by FORCING the Japanese to attack us because of our agregious foreign policy towards them. And on conventional wars, WW1 was a war of "choice" also. Korea? Another example of those damn Democrats and their piss poor Foreign Policy dragging us into a shooting war. If we use the excuses of today.


----------



## Gunny (Jul 15, 2007)

Bullypulpit said:


> Unfortunately the invasion of Iraq was a war of choice, not a last resort. Had the administration actually done what needed doing in Afghanistan, al Qaeda would be a shadow of its former self, if not an unpleasant memory. And you might want to tell Dubbyuh about politicians and politics not belonging in the waging of war. But, if wishes were fishes, we'd all cast nets.



Was wondering how long before someone politicized the thread.

I'd tell ANY politician to his/her face they don't belong in the decision-making process of conducting war.


----------



## pegwinn (Jul 15, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> The Philippines, the Central American countries and Carribean in the 20/30's, the British in Malaysia. All were successful wars against "insurgents". And according to the left of today they were all wars of " Choice". Hell using the leftoids definitions, FDR drug us into WW2 by FORCING the Japanese to attack us because of our agregious foreign policy towards them. And on conventional wars, WW1 was a war of "choice" also. Korea? Another example of those damn Democrats and their piss poor Foreign Policy dragging us into a shooting war. If we use the excuses of today.



Guns, relax. BP cannot help himself. From time to time he posts things he actually put thought into and it's alright. But, like most ABB types, until GWB has finished his second term there will be little if any rational thought, historical context, etc. Don't let the students you are trying to teach give you a stroke.


----------



## Diuretic (Jul 16, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Warfare is a means of last resort, to be used only when all other means of negotiations have been exhausted.  People die in war, and it isn't just a movie.  They don't come back for Part Deux.
> 
> If one chooses to engage in war, then one must be willing to do whatever is necessary to win, or they will be defeated by an enemy who is willing.
> 
> Partisan politics, or politics/politicians do not belong in the actual waging of war.  They screw it up every time.



Gunny -  you must have read von Clausewitz surely.  War is a political act.  If it isn't a political act then what is it?  Who declares war?  It's not the general staff.  No, the politicians declare war, they set the broad political objectives and task the military with achieving the military objectives set within those political objectives.


----------



## Gunny (Jul 16, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> Gunny -  you must have read von Clausewitz surely.  War is a political act.  If it isn't a political act then what is it?  Who declares war?  It's not the general staff.  No, the politicians declare war, they set the broad political objectives and task the military with achieving the military objectives set within those political objectives.



Re-read my post carefully.  I did not address the cause(s) of war -- only the conduct of war.


----------



## ReillyT (Jul 16, 2007)

actsnoblemartin said:


> can it be defeated today in places like the border between afghanistan and pakistan, and iraq, or any other place you think of.
> 
> your thoughts please



The French had success in Algeria for a while.  They put down one insurgency, but it sprang up again after a couple of years.


----------



## ReillyT (Jul 16, 2007)

The South Africans and Rhodesians were also able to keep a lid on an insurgency for decades, but in doing so, they became essentially police states.


----------



## Vintij (Jul 16, 2007)

Guerilla warfare is nothing new, Napolean saw alot of it with his french regime. Its just a sneaky way of trying to defeat a much larger, stronger and slower enemy. What else can you do besides draw them to your territory and surprise attack them in any unconvential way possible? 

But they can be defeated, with our own guerilla type tactics like special forces.....navy seals......even smaller platoons of the army and marines. Ofcourse I dont think that would be possible without at least some aid from a civilian informant of some type.


----------



## pegwinn (Jul 16, 2007)

Defeating a Guerrilla foe requires two things.

First you have to militarily stomp them into the ground.

Second you have to convince the locals that it is better to support you over them. This can be done by "winning hearts and minds" or by being more ferocious than the guerrilla force.

The second is a lot harder than the first.


----------



## Gunny (Jul 16, 2007)

Vintij said:


> Guerilla warfare is nothing new, Napolean saw alot of it with his french regime. Its just a sneaky way of trying to defeat a much larger, stronger and slower enemy. What else can you do besides draw them to your territory and surprise attack them in any unconvential way possible?
> 
> But they can be defeated, with our own guerilla type tactics like special forces.....navy seals......even smaller platoons of the army and marines. Ofcourse I dont think that would be possible without at least some aid from a civilian informant of some type.



Using guerilla tactics against guerillas is not necessarily a way to defeat terrorists.  If identified, conventional tactics are easily just as effective.

Waging a guerilla war against terrorists might work, but I don't think you understand the tactics you are suggesting.  It's waging a ruthless war of annihilation without regard to collateral damage nor offending someone's overly-sensitive morals.


----------



## Gunny (Jul 16, 2007)

pegwinn said:


> Defeating a Guerrilla foe requires two things.
> 
> First you have to militarily stomp them into the ground.
> 
> ...



We don't seem to have ever been very good at the second.


----------



## pegwinn (Jul 16, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> We don't seem to have ever been very good at the second.



We really suck at the being more ferocious part at times. Problem with hearts and minds is that it is a bribe, and a recurring one. Miss one payment......


----------



## Diuretic (Jul 17, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Re-read my post carefully.  I did not address the cause(s) of war -- only the conduct of war.



Point taken.  However while I agree that in general the conduct of war is best left to the military I still argue that there is political oversight and, if necessary, direction, required.  War is imbued with politics. I'm not referring to the day to day or even the strategic carrying out of war, I'm more focused on questions such as, "should we bomb Laos?"  Militarily it makes sense to attack your opponent's supply lines but bombing a neutral country to achieve that aim is a political issue.


----------



## Diuretic (Jul 17, 2007)

If the insurgency arises from the people who are being subjugated and the people support the insurgency then the attempts to defeat the insurgency will fail.  If an alien force is trying to support a puppet regime that has no support among the locals then it will fail.  The Soviet Union couldn't maintain the puppet government in Afghanistan and had to withdraw and of course the government fell.  Same in South Vietnam.  I would think one of the main reasons that the British and Commonwealth forces were reasonably successful in Malaya was that the people weren't entirely convinced that the Communist insurgents would be good for them.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 17, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> If the insurgency arises from the people who are being subjugated and the people support the insurgency then the attempts to defeat the insurgency will fail.  If an alien force is trying to support a puppet regime that has no support among the locals then it will fail.  The Soviet Union couldn't maintain the puppet government in Afghanistan and had to withdraw and of course the government fell.  Same in South Vietnam.  I would think one of the main reasons that the British and Commonwealth forces were reasonably successful in Malaya was that the people weren't entirely convinced that the Communist insurgents would be good for them.



South Vietnam did NOT fall to an insurgency. They were invaded by North Vietnam with 25 Divisions and beaten by external force. TET 68 destroyed the so called insurgency, after that disaster the North had to " import" insurgents from the ranks of the North Vietnemese army.


----------



## Diuretic (Jul 17, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> South Vietnam did NOT fall to an insurgency. They were invaded by North Vietnam with 25 Divisions and beaten by external force. TET 68 destroyed the so called insurgency, after that disaster the North had to " import" insurgents from the ranks of the North Vietnemese army.



What was the motivation of the North Vietnamese forces and the Viet Cong?

How did Ho Chi Minh characterise it?  Ho, as we know, fought for the liberation of his country from the French after WWII.  He defined his country differently from the colonial powers.  That was my point.  

What was the extent of support in ordinary South Vietnamese for the regimes of Diem and later Thieu?  Diem and Thieu were corrupt and had very little popular support.  If they had support from the people then the VC and the forces of the North would never have overcome the forces holding South Vietnam.

Yes I remember reading about/watching news reports about the Tet Offensive in 1968.  From memory it was situated around Hue?  Yes, it was a victory for conventional military forces.  And in the end the insurgents won.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 17, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> What was the motivation of the North Vietnamese forces and the Viet Cong?
> 
> How did Ho Chi Minh characterise it?  Ho, as we know, fought for the liberation of his country from the French after WWII.  He defined his country differently from the colonial powers.  That was my point.
> 
> ...



Your history is lacking. TET was a rising across the entire south. The entire infrastructure and manpower of the Souths insurgents ceased to exist in any meaningful way after that year. Perhaps you would care to research what the North Vietnemese had to say about the results of TET?

North Viet Nam was a seperate country, claiming its armed forces were insurgents is ludicrous on its face. South Vietnam FOUGHT for a month against an army twice its size. They lost , not because they didn't fight, but because they had no spare parts, no fuel and no extra ammo for their equipment. Why? Because the democrats in the US Congress cut them off the year before.

You really should learn to research facts rather than go with " folk lore".


----------



## Diuretic (Jul 17, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Your history is lacking. TET was a rising across the entire south. The entire infrastructure and manpower of the Souths insurgents ceased to exist in any meaningful way after that year. Perhaps you would care to research what the North Vietnemese had to say about the results of TET?
> 
> North Viet Nam was a seperate country, claiming its armed forces were insurgents is ludicrous on its face. South Vietnam FOUGHT for a month against an army twice its size. They lost , not because they didn't fight, but because they had no spare parts, no fuel and no extra ammo for their equipment. Why? Because the democrats in the US Congress cut them off the year before.
> 
> You really should learn to research facts rather than go with " folk lore".



It's not my history that's lacking, it's my bloody memory  

Historically - and this is the position I'm taking to try and make the point - Indo-China has been in turmoil for hundreds and hundreds of years.  The Chinese and Vietnamese (I'll use that term for convenience) had been at it well before the French turned up.  Ho - now I'm going from memory of my reading about him so this could go anywhere - was a patriot who wanted  the Japanese out of his country and then the French.  

My point is that Ho regarded South Vietnam as being part of his country.  From his perspective and that of his colleagues it wasn't an invasion (although in the eyes of the international community outside of China and the Soviet Union it was).  What drove them was a sense of liberation from colonial and then imperialist powers.  

This thread is about motivation, about why guerilla insurgencies are difficult for conventional forces to deal with.  Part of the problem has to do with the sheer difficulty of fighting guerilla forces.  Conventional forces - as we know - find it difficult to fight guerillas for various reasons.  But even when guerilla tactics are used against guerillas I'm not sure if it works.  I remember reading many years ago about the US Army Special Forces working with the Montagnard people in Vietnam.  I don't know if it was very successful but it was an example of fighting fire with fire I suppose.

There are some examples of situations where insurgents may have not been as successful as they woudl have hoped.  The French Resistance in WWII fought the Vichy government and the German occupiers both.  Despite much heroism shown by the resistance I'm not sure if they were able to make a dent on the Vichy and Germans.  If the D-Day Invasion hadn't been such a stunning success (or if it had never happened or if Operation Sea Lion had been successful itself) I wonder if the resistance would have eventually faded when the light of defiance had faded.  Of course the Vichy and German forces were in a good position to defeat the resistance and, as we know, they were absolutely ruthless.


----------



## CSM (Jul 17, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> It's not my history that's lack, it's my bloody memory
> 
> Historically - and this is the position I'm taking to try and make the point - Indo-China has been in turmoil for hundreds and hundreds of years.  The Chinese and Vietnamese (I'll use that term for convenience) had been at it well before the French turned up.  Ho - now I'm going from memory of my reading about him so this could go anywhere - was a patriot who wanted  the Japanese out of his country and then the French.
> 
> ...



Actually, motivation and tactics are two very different things though related. Your last sentence says it all. Ruthlessness  is the very heart of the matter. Currently, Islamic extremists are willing to be as ruthless as necessary to win. We are not. For example, a few well placed nukes would most certainly go a long way in curtailing the terrorists (training camps, safe houses, etc.) even to the point of bombing safe areas in certain border regions. There are other less extreme measures but you get the idea. The terrorists for their part are willing to bomb mosques, schools, etc. and really don't care about "collateral damage". In fact, for them, the more they kill the happier they are.


----------



## Diuretic (Jul 17, 2007)

CSM said:


> Actually, motivation and tactics are two very different things though related. Your last sentence says it all. Ruthlessness  is the very heart of the matter. Currently, Islamic extremists are willing to be as ruthless as necessary to win. We are not. For example, a few well placed nukes would most certainly go a long way in curtailing the terrorists (training camps, safe houses, etc.) even to the point of bombing safe areas in certain border regions. There are other less extreme measures but you get the idea. The terrorists for their part are willing to bomb mosques, schools, etc. and really don't care about "collateral damage". In fact, for them, the more they kill the happier they are.



Yes, the Islamicists know that there are many constraints on their opponents.  They also know that they only have to wait out everyone to achieve their objectives which makes it extremely difficult for their opponents.

The Nazis were ruthless and it worked for them.  Lidice might ring a bell.  They pulled similar atrocities in Greece, I think in Crete they murdered all the men in a village as reprisal.  Of course in the end they were defeated by convention military forces and punished for their transgressions.


----------



## CSM (Jul 17, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> Yes, the Islamicists know that there are many constraints on their opponents.  They also know that they only have to wait out everyone to achieve their objectives which makes it extremely difficult for their opponents.
> 
> The Nazis were ruthless and it worked for them.  Lidice might ring a bell.  They pulled similar atrocities in Greece, I think in Crete they murdered all the men in a village as reprisal.  Of course in the end they were defeated by convention military forces and punished for their transgressions.



UNless they screw up really badly, they will win because of those constraints. If they push the envelope too far however, all scruples will disappear and the terrorists may find themselves in dire straits. What the limit is, remains to be seen. 

I suspect they have learned it is far easier and more beneficial to keep the current sentiment among the US populace (which is to their advantage) by NOT attacking the US.  The 911 event came very close to unifying the US which nearly resulted in the destruction of the terrorists themselves.


----------



## Edward (Jul 17, 2007)

Bullypulpit said:


> Unfortunately the invasion of Iraq was a war of choice, not a last resort. Had the administration actually done what needed doing in Afghanistan, al Qaeda would be a shadow of its former self, if not an unpleasant memory. And you might want to tell Dubbyuh about politicians and politics not belonging in the waging of war. But, if wishes were fishes, we'd all cast nets.



A politician started this war and it was a war that we did not need to fight and one that was a choice based on a specific ideology. It has resulted in the deaths of many innocent Americans and yet so many people attempt to justify the war as being somehow noble when in reality it is the insane action of insane men. Time and again Democrats have tried to focus on winning in Afghanistan and on eliminating Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda but these insane morons have decided to play their cards in Iraq thinking that the Iraq war would stabilize the Middle East when in fact it has done nothing of the sort. The question we should continue to ask is: How many more Americans must die because of the opinion of George W. Bush and those who agree with him? Will it be 1, 10, 100, 1000, 10,000, or a 100,000? Of course, even one more death is one to many when it is the result of a war of choice.


----------



## Edward (Jul 17, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> Point taken.  However while I agree that in general the conduct of war is best left to the military I still argue that there is political oversight and, if necessary, direction, required.  War is imbued with politics. I'm not referring to the day to day or even the strategic carrying out of war, I'm more focused on questions such as, "should we bomb Laos?"  Militarily it makes sense to attack your opponent's supply lines but bombing a neutral country to achieve that aim is a political issue.



How a war is conducted is a political question because it is a question of how our men and women in uniform will be used to achieve the political end we desire. They don't get to question the commands of their officers or those over them in the military and their only recourse is through their member of Congress and that is why every action taken by the military of major concern should be overseen by the Congress who is the lawful body for the conduct of a war. The President is merely the Commander in Chief and he can only direct the day to day operations of the military but the policy making of a war rests solely with the legislative body. I just wish Bush had taken the time to read the Constitution but I doubt he ha the ability to understand what it says.


----------



## CSM (Jul 17, 2007)

Edward said:


> How a war is conducted is a political question because it is a question of how our men and women in uniform will be used to achieve the political end we desire. They don't get to question the commands of their officers or those over them in the military and their only recourse is through their member of Congress and that is why every action taken by the military of major concern should be overseen by the Congress who is the lawful body for the conduct of a war. The President is merely the Commander in Chief and he can only direct the day to day operations of the military but the policy making of a war rests solely with the legislative body. I just wish Bush had taken the time to read the Constitution but I doubt he ha the ability to understand what it says.



Don't know much about the military, do you.


----------



## Edward (Jul 17, 2007)

CSM said:


> Actually, motivation and tactics are two very different things though related. Your last sentence says it all. Ruthlessness  is the very heart of the matter. Currently, Islamic extremists are willing to be as ruthless as necessary to win. We are not. For example, a few well placed nukes would most certainly go a long way in curtailing the terrorists (training camps, safe houses, etc.) even to the point of bombing safe areas in certain border regions. There are other less extreme measures but you get the idea. The terrorists for their part are willing to bomb mosques, schools, etc. and really don't care about "collateral damage". In fact, for them, the more they kill the happier they are.



We have shown just how willing we are to win wars and how willing we are to start them so I doubt very much that anything any liberal can say will stop the butcher and traitor in the White House from doing whatever the hell he wants to do since he thinks he is above the American people and above the Congress. The difference between the terrorists and us is that their acts of terror are more blatant while we try to disguise ours through military logic and claim to fight for something good and noble. The only real conclusion Americans should draw is that the war is actually a war against conservatism whether in America or in the Middle East. That the evil of people like Osama bin Laden and George W. Bush should not be tolerated and that we can and should overcome them and what they represent if we are ever going to find common ground and build a peaceful society where idiots like you are told to shut up and sit down. There will always be traitors, tyrants and hatemongers and it is up to good people everywhere to oppose them, to fight them and to do what is necessary to defeat them. We must eliminate al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden and then we must deal with the problem of conservatism in this country as well once we defeat it over there because if we do not the problem will raise its ugly head in the future.


----------



## CSM (Jul 17, 2007)

Edward said:


> We have shown just how willing we are to win wars and how willing we are to start them so I doubt very much that anything any liberal can say will stop the butcher and traitor in the White House from doing whatever the hell he wants to do since he thinks he is above the American people and above the Congress. The difference between the terrorists and us is that their acts of terror are more blatant while we try to disguise ours through military logic and claim to fight for something good and noble. The only real conclusion Americans should draw is that the war is actually a war against conservatism whether in America or in the Middle East. That the evil of people like Osama bin Laden and George W. Bush should not be tolerated and that we can and should overcome them and what they represent if we are ever going to find common ground and build a peaceful society where idiots like you are told to shut up and sit down. There will always be traitors, tyrants and hatemongers and it is up to good people everywhere to oppose them, to fight them and to do what is necessary to defeat them. We must eliminate al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden and then we must deal with the problem of conservatism in this country as well once we defeat it over there because if we do not the problem will raise its ugly head in the future.



Booooooring....


----------



## Edward (Jul 17, 2007)

CSM said:


> Don't know much about the military, do you.



I don't claim to know much about the military and I am quite proud of the fact that I do not know much about an organization that subverts the democratic process and seeks to undermine the American ideals that our forefathers fought for. The only thing I need to know is what I see with my own eyes Yes, I am against a standing Army and I agree with our founding fathers on that much and I condemn those motherfuckers like you who support a standing army. When and if the people cease to direct the affairs of war is the day we cease to be a free people. It is bad enough that much of our freedom has already been lost but it is pathetic that we have a military empire that spans the globe with military installations in the majority of countries around the world because the truth is that this is what the Roman Empire did and it is what we are now witnessing taking place in this country and if we become as foolish as the Roman Republic and allow the same to happen then it is our own damn fault.


----------



## Edward (Jul 17, 2007)

CSM said:


> Booooooring....



Boooring says the fucking tryant who enters the fucking voting booth and talks out of his ass on a mesage board and who supports tryanny just like his members of Parliment. I CLAP MY HANDS FOR YOU YOU RED COAT PIECE OF SHIT.


----------



## CSM (Jul 17, 2007)

Edward said:


> I don't claim to know much about the military and I am quite proud of the fact that I do not know much about an organization that subverts the democratic process and seeks to undermine the American ideals that our forefathers fought for. The only thing I need to know is what I see with my own eyes Yes, I am against a standing Army and I agree with our founding fathers on that much and I condemn those motherfuckers like you who support a standing army. When and if the people cease to direct the affairs of war is the day we cease to be a free people. It is bad enough that much of our freedom has already been lost but it is pathetic that we have a military empire that spans the globe with military installations in the majority of countries around the world because the truth is that this is what the Roman Empire did and it is what we are now witnessing taking place in this country and if we become as foolish as the Roman Republic and allow the same to happen then it is our own damn fault.



Just who did all the fighting for our forefathers, asshole? 

What the hell do your posts have to do with the original topic of this thread?

You are just hijacking what would otherwise have been an intelligent discussion.


----------



## CSM (Jul 17, 2007)

Edward said:


> Boooring says the fucking tryant who enters the fucking voting booth and talks out of his ass on a mesage board and who supports tryanny just like his members of Parliment. I CLAP MY HANDS FOR YOU YOU RED COAT PIECE OF SHIT.



Thanks for the applause. You confirm my beliefs.


----------



## Diuretic (Jul 17, 2007)

Edward said:


> I don't claim to know much about the military and I am quite proud of the fact that I do not know much about an organization that subverts the democratic process and seeks to undermine the American ideals that our forefathers fought for. The only thing I need to know is what I see with my own eyes Yes, I am against a standing Army and I agree with our founding fathers on that much and I condemn those motherfuckers like you who support a standing army. When and if the people cease to direct the affairs of war is the day we cease to be a free people. It is bad enough that much of our freedom has already been lost but it is pathetic that we have a military empire that spans the globe with military installations in the majority of countries around the world because the truth is that this is what the Roman Empire did and it is what we are now witnessing taking place in this country and if we become as foolish as the Roman Republic and allow the same to happen then it is our own damn fault.



Actually just on that.  General Smedley, USMC.  He actually blew the whistle on a bunch of very undemocratic folks who wanted to take over the US government.  I think it was in the late 1920s or 1930s.  As far as I know, the US military has never been a threat to its own country.


----------



## Edward (Jul 17, 2007)

CSM said:


> Just who did all the fighting for our forefathers, asshole?
> 
> What the hell do your posts have to do with the original topic of this thread?
> 
> You are just hijacking what would otherwise have been an intelligent discussion.



That would be the people, and the organized militias which formed the Continental Army. Ever hear of Paul Revere, and Willaim Dawes? They didn't rely on a standing army and when the war was over the army was disbanded and it was only after that the people decided that everything our forefathers did meant nothing that a Standing Army was formed and it was the one thing that was most feriously opposed by those who loved freedom and supported by evil bastards like you who hated everything that was gained from the American Revolution. As for intelligent discussion. It is apparent that you can't have one of those because you are an idiot. If and when you want an intelligent discussion then you might get one but until then you get the same discussion as the retards who represent you in Congress.


----------



## CSM (Jul 17, 2007)

Edward said:


> That would be the people, and the organized militias which formed the Continental Army. Ever hear of Paul Revere, and Willaim Dawes? They didn't rely on a standing army and when the war was over the army was disbanded and it was only after that the people decided that everything our forefathers did meant nothing that a Standing Army was formed and it was the one thing that was most feriously opposed by those who loved freedom and supported by evil bastards like you who hated everything that was gained from the American Revolution. As for intelligent discussion. It is apparent that you can't have one of those because you are an idiot. If and when you want an intelligent discussion then you might get one but until then you get the same discussion as the retards who represent you in Congress.



I almost (but not quite) feel sorry for you.


----------



## Edward (Jul 17, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> Actually just on that.  General Smedley, USMC.  He actually blew the whistle on a bunch of very undemocratic folks who wanted to take over the US government.  I think it was in the late 1920s or 1930s.  As far as I know, the US military has never been a threat to its own country.



Actually, the institution of the military has always been a threat to this country and that is why former Presidents have warned of the military industrial complex. For example, former President Eisenhower said, "We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together" While, he was a man of war that I do not agree with on most areas I do recognize his words have a sound of truth to them. These people and what they represent are the anti-thesis of what the American people have stood from since we revolted against England. It is this fight against evil whether domestic or foreign that must continue and that is why we must defeat conservatisim in the Middle East and conservatism here whether it is the form of al-Qaeda or the Republican Party and only God can protect us from these people and what they represent therefore it is our duty to do what we can to protect ourselves, our families, and our associates and may God have mercy on us if they win because the principles of conservatism has done more harm to this world than any other principle. We must fight radical Islamic conservatism just like we must fight American conservatism if we are ever to have peace on earth. What CSM represents is of satanic origin and we must never back down from confronting that evil even when it takes advantage ouf our system of government to benefit itself and to usher in its reign of terror. So I hope every American has the courage to pray for America at this time because we are confronted with two of the greatest evils in the world at this time. Those being al-Qaeda and the Republican Party.


----------



## Edward (Jul 17, 2007)

CSM said:


> I almost (but not quite) feel sorry for you.



I really don't care what you feel asshole since it is obvious you are one sick bastard just like those who represent you are sick bastards. The fact that you served in the military does not shock me since there are also psycho's like you in Congress and there is one in the White House right now. There is nothing we can do but condemn you and hope that on election day we will defeat you and destroy everything you represent because that is the only way we will save our country from you and those who hate freedom, liberty and the ideals upon which this country was founded when our forefathers rebelled in 1776. The struggle between your vile faction against those who loved freedom culiminated in 1789 when you gained many of the things you wanted but we were able to get a Bill of Rights and we will fight with every last ounce of our street to retain our rights that we had yielded before the Revolution and had to fight to regain. The British Bill of Rights meant little to the elected Parliment of England and the Red Coats who violated our rights and that goes for your representatives. We fought conservatives in 1776 and we won and then they fought us and won in 1789 but the fight continues to this day and you will be defeated. Osama bin Laden will be eliminated and so will the Republican Party. We will deal with al-Qaeda with military force and we will vote the Republican Paryt out of existence.


----------



## CSM (Jul 17, 2007)

Edward said:


> Actually, the institution of the military has always been a threat to this country and that is why former Presidents have warned of the military industrial complex. For example, former President Eisenhower said, "We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together" While, he was a man of war that I do not agree with on most areas I do recognize his words have a sound of truth to them. These people and what they represent are the anti-thesis of what the American people have stood from since we revolted against England. It is this fight against evil whether domestic or foreign that must continue and that is why we must defeat conservatisim in the Middle East and conservatism here whether it is the form of al-Qaeda or the Republican Party and only God can protect us from these people and what they represent therefore it is our duty to do what we can to protect ourselves, our families, and our associates and may God have mercy on us if they win because the principles of conservatism has done more harm to this world than any other principle. We must fight radical Islamic conservatism just like we must fight American conservatism if we are ever to have peace on earth. What CSM represents is of satanic origin and we must never back down from confronting that evil even when it takes advantage ouf our system of government to benefit itself and to usher in its reign of terror. So I hope every American has the courage to pray for America at this time because we are confronted with two of the greatest evils in the world at this time. Those being al-Qaeda and the Republican Party.



Hot Damn! I'm right up there with the debbil!

What Edward reperesents is some serious inbreeding.

Do you always foam at the mouth or only when posting?

Do you seriously believe this nation could survive without a standing military???


----------



## Edward (Jul 17, 2007)

CSM said:


> Hot Damn! I'm right up there with the debbil!
> 
> What Edward reperesents is some serious inbreeding.
> 
> ...



That question was asked by the likes of you in 1789 as well but the fact remains that this nation could survive in peaceful co-existence without a standing military. You don't need a standing military to protect yourself or your family when you are attacked. It is only when you become an aggressor and take on the role of an empire that you need a standing military. There were periods in our history where we did not have a standing military. It make no sense to argue that a standing military is necessary when the truth is that what you represent is what the British in 1776 represented. You can deny this all you want but many of your faction openly advocated a monarchy during the Constitutional Convention and the ideological founder of the Republican Party, Alexander Hamilton, in fact advocated that the President be appointed for life and praised the British form of government. It's no wonder they wanted to meet in secret. I can see Patrick Henry marching up to Alexander Hamilton, dragging him into the street with thousands of other people and lynching him for his comments. That said, it is you who is foaming at the mouth just like your members of Congress do when they seek your vote. You enjoy the feeling of power you get from being able to vote and to do harm to this country. Now why don't you shut up you psychotic piece of shit and run for President like the mentally unhinged John McCain is doing.


----------



## CSM (Jul 17, 2007)

Edward said:


> That question was asked by the likes of you in 1789 as well but the fact remains that this nation could survive in peaceful co-existence without a standing military. Prove it.  You don't need a standing military to protect yourself or your family when you are attacked. Who will protect them then...you?  It is only when you become an aggressor and take on the role of an empire that you need a standing military. Care to mention ONE society that survives that way? Name just one nation that does not have an Army.There were periods in our history where we did not have a standing military. When? What planet do you live on? It make no sense to argue that a standing military is necessary when the truth is that what you represent is what the British in 1776 represented. Prove it. You can deny this all you want but many of your faction openly advocated a monarchy during the Constitutional Convention and the ideological founder of the Republican Party, Alexander Hamilton, in fact advocated that the President be appointed for life and praised the British form of government. That is a huge stretch. I was not alive in the 1700's nor do I know anyone who was. It's no wonder they wanted to meet in secret. I can see Patrick Henry marching up to Alexander Hamilton, dragging him into the street with thousands of other people and lynching him for his comments. That said, it is you who is foaming at the mouth just like your members of Congress do when they seek your vote. You enjoy the feeling of power you get from being able to vote and to do harm to this country. Ah so voting is bad then. You indicate that you believe a dictatorship run by the likes of you is the only way to go. Now why don't you shut up you psychotic piece of shit and run for President like the mentally unhinged John McCain is doing. For the same reason you wont do us all a favor and jump off a cliff.



Isn't it time for you to go clean your room or something? Does our mother know you aren't really taking a nap?


----------



## Edward (Jul 17, 2007)

CSM said:


> Isn't it time for you to go clean your room or something? Does our mother know you aren't really taking a nap?



Are you foaming at the mouth yet bitch? Does it upset you that I won't take your shit or accept your claim to have the right to vote us into a war of choice? So go take a nap now old man before you fall off your rocker and hit your head on the floor while foaming from the mouth at how you aren't be treated as a King who gets to vote us into a war of choice. We know that you are upset that no one gives a damn that old Granddady served in the military and we know that you are upset that no one shows you the respect and deference you think you deserve. Make sure to to let the nurse know you need your diaper changed now and that you need your morning meds. I know that it upsets you that you have to live in an Old Folks home for the senile but you will get over it since you can always look forward to the yearly prostate exam you receive from the Retirement Home physician.


----------



## CSM (Jul 17, 2007)

Edward said:


> Are you foaming at the mouth yet bitch? Does it upset you that I won't take your shit or accept your claim to have the right to vote us into a war of choice? So go take a nap now old man before you fall off your rocker and hit your head on the floor while foaming from the mouth at how you aren't be treated as a King who gets to vote us into a war of choice. We know that you are upset that no one gives a damn that old Granddady served in the military and we know that you are upset that no one shows you the respect and deference you think you deserve. Make sure to to let the nurse know you need your diaper changed now and that you need your morning meds. I know that it upsets you that you have to live in an Old Folks home for the senile but you will get over it since you can always look forward to the yearly prostate exam you receive from the Retirement Home physician.



An educated and well informed response.

Can't answer my questions, I guess. Interesting that you cannot even make up our own insults and have to pirate mine.  

In any case, care to tell us all just how this country could defend its national interests without a standing military? Care to expound on the original topic of this thread?


----------



## Edward (Jul 17, 2007)

CSM said:


> An educated and well informed response.
> 
> Can't answer my questions, I guess. Interesting that you cannot even make up our own insults and have to pirate mine.
> 
> In any case, care to tell us all just how this country could defend its national interests without a standing military? Care to expound on the original topic of this thread?



Let's start with the words of Patrick Henry: "What can avail your specious, imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances? But, sir, "we are not feared by foreigners; we do not make nations tremble." Would this constitute happiness or secure liberty? I trust, sir, our political hemisphere will ever direct their operations to the security of those objects. Consider our situation, sir; go to the poor man and ask him what he does. He will inform you that he enjoys the fruits of his labor, under his own fig tree, with his wife and children around him, in peace and security. Go to every other member of society; you will find the same tranquil ease and content; you will find no alarms or disturbances. Why, then, tell us of danger, to terrify us into an adoption of this new form of government? And yet who knows the dangers that this new system may produce? They are out of sight of the common people; they can not foresee latent consequences. I dread the operation of it on the middling and lower classes of people; it is for them I fear the adoption of this system."

These words aren't hollow ones and they apply today. We have no need for a standing military and never had a need other then to become an empire and to be counted among the empires of the world. No nation needs a standing military and the only reason all the current ones have one is because they are following our bad example. What nation in their right mind, except for maybe Switzerland, would not have a standing military when the United States has one. The Swiss military has changed over time as a result of the way the world has gone but they still retain the vestiges of a militia system and they have no standing military in the general sense of the word. Yet their militia is probably more feared by terrorists then ours because they can really defend their country on very short notice (i.e., 10 seconds) while our response isn't as quick and prepared for terrorist attacks. You insist on talking about national interests as if our interests span the globe. If and when we are attacked it would take no more than a fews hours to have the National Guard prepared to defend our country. There is absolutely no reason to have a standing military. The whole argument is based on the fear tactics of people like you. In almost every generation you have tried this and Patrick Henry's comments prove it. You even tried it as early as 1789 when you people talked out of your asses about how we needed a standing military to defend ourselves. You continued to do so because you are warped people who think of fighting first instead of living in peace. It is interesting to watch how Switzerland conducts itself and how we conduct ourselves and yet Switzerland has survived longer then we have and ironically on a war-torn continent. Interesting isn't it? Of course, since we decide to develop the nuclear bomb and use it it has become more difficult to protect our national security but it is still possible to do so without a standing army. We could disband the military in peace-time (but of course you bastards would try to start a war so you can build yourselves back up), place the National Guard in control of our national defense, discontinue all U.S. military installations in foreign country and conduct ourselves as equals among nations. Then I doubt very much we would have to worry about anyone attacking us because our national defense system would be feared and other nations would not have anything to fear from us. You have yet to provide one good reason why we should have a standing military other then to try to instill fear in people. So I wait for your answer to my question. Why do we need a standing army?


----------



## CSM (Jul 17, 2007)

Edward said:


> Let's start with the words of Patrick Henry: "What can avail your specious, imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances? But, sir, "we are not feared by foreigners; we do not make nations tremble." Would this constitute happiness or secure liberty? I trust, sir, our political hemisphere will ever direct their operations to the security of those objects. Consider our situation, sir; go to the poor man and ask him what he does. He will inform you that he enjoys the fruits of his labor, under his own fig tree, with his wife and children around him, in peace and security. Go to every other member of society; you will find the same tranquil ease and content; you will find no alarms or disturbances. Why, then, tell us of danger, to terrify us into an adoption of this new form of government? And yet who knows the dangers that this new system may produce? They are out of sight of the common people; they can not foresee latent consequences. I dread the operation of it on the middling and lower classes of people; it is for them I fear the adoption of this system."
> 
> These words aren't hollow ones and they apply today. We have no need for a standing military and never had a need other then to become an empire and to be counted among the empires of the world. No nation needs a standing military and the only reason all the current ones have one is because they are following our bad example. What nation in their right mind, except for maybe Switzerland, would not have a standing military when the United States has one. The Swiss military has changed over time as a result of the way the world has gone but they still retain the vestiges of a militia system and they have no standing military in the general sense of the word. You insist on talking about national interests as if our interests span the globe. If and when we are attacked it would take no more than a fews hours to have the National Guard prepared to defend our country. There is absolutely no reason to have a standing military. The whole argument is based on the fear tactics of people like you. In almost every generation you have tried this and Patrick Henry's comments prove it. You even tried it as early as 1789 when you people talked out of your asses about how we needed a standing military to defend ourselves. You continued to do so because you are warped people who think of fighting first instead of living in peace. It is interesting to watch how Switzerland conducts itself and how we conduct ourselves and yet Switzerland has survived longer then we have and ironically on a war-torn continent. Interesting isn't it? Of course, since we decide to develop the nuclear bomb and use it it has become more difficult to protect our national security but it is still possible to do so without a standing army. We could disband the military in peace-time (but of course you bastards would try to start a war so you can build yourselves back up), place the National Guard in control of our national defense, discontinue all U.S. military installations in foreign country and conduct ourselves as equals among nations. Then I doubt very much we would have to worry about anyone attacking us because our national defense system would be feared and other nations would not have anything to fear from us. You have yet to provide one good reason why we should have a standing military other then to try to instill fear in people. So I wait for your answer to my question. Why do we need a standing army?



We need a standing military to defend this country. Period.  Your Utopian ideals most certainly will not do it. Your assertions that the only reason to have a standing Army is to instill fear in people is just plain wrong.

You are niaive at best. How would you equip and train the National Guard? Do you have any idea how long it takes to train a soldier? Do you seriously think the United States has no interests outside its borders? Are you willing to rely on the good will of other nations to protect you and yours?  

As for the Swiss, they do indeed have a standing military. As does every other nation on earth.  Do you fear the Swiss military? or the French? I bet you do not.


----------



## CSM (Jul 17, 2007)

What the first CIC thinks about it:

http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/P/gw1/writings/brf/recrui.htm

"To place any dependance upon Militia, is, assuredly, resting upon a broken staff. Men just dragged from the tender Scenes of domestick life; unaccustomed to the din of Arms; totally unacquainted with every kind of Military skill, which being followed by a want of confidence in themselves, when opposed to Troops regulary train'd, disciplined, and appointed, superior in knowledge, and superior in Arms, makes them timid, and ready to fly from their own shadows. Besides, the sudden change in their manner of living, (particularly in the lodging) brings on sickness in many; impatience in all, and such an unconquerable desire of returning to their respective homes that it not only produces shameful, and scandalous Desertions among themselves, but infuses the like spirit in others. Again, Men accustomed to unbounded freedom, and no controul, cannot brook the Restraint which is indispensably necessary to the good order and Government of an Army; without which, licentiousness, and every kind of disorder triumpantly reign. To bring Men to a proper degree of Subordination, is not the work of a day, a Month or even a year; and unhappily for us, and the cause we are Engaged in, the little discipline I have been labouring to establish in the Army under my immediate Command, is in a manner done away by having such a mixture of Troops as have been called together within these few Months. "

also:

"The Jealousies of a standing Army, and the Evils to be apprehended from one, are remote; and in my judgment, situated and circumstanced as we are, not at all to be dreaded; but the consequence of wanting one, according to my Ideas, formed from the present view of things, is certain, and inevitable Ruin; for if I was called upon to declare upon Oath, whether the Militia have been most serviceable or hurtful upon the whole; I should subscribe to the latter. I do not mean by this however to arraign the Conduct of Congress, in so doing I should equally condemn my own measures, (if I did not my judgment); but experience, which is the best criterion to work by, so fully, clearly, and decisively reprobates the practice of trusting to Militia, that no Man who regards order, regularity, and (e]conomy; or who has any regard for his own honour, Character, or peace of Mind, will risk them upon this Issue"

So I guess we can conclude that George Washington is/was a traitor if we are to believe Edward's criteria.


----------



## Annie (Jul 17, 2007)

CSM said:


> What the first CIC thinks about it:
> 
> http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/P/gw1/writings/brf/recrui.htm
> 
> ...



Very true! I found this apropos also:

http://www.dojgov.net/Liberty_Watch.htm



> Terrorism and the New American Republic
> 
> In 1786, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson met with Arab diplomats from Tunis, who were conducting terror raids and piracy against American ships.
> 
> ...


----------



## CSM (Jul 17, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> Very true! I found this apropos also:
> 
> http://www.dojgov.net/Liberty_Watch.htm



Good find. Again, history reveals that there is nothing new.


----------



## Gunny (Jul 17, 2007)

CSM said:


> Good find. Again, history reveals that there is nothing new.



I'm amazed you have wasted your time trying to tell "his eminence" anything.  He's busy compiling his next unhinged sermon for his next post nothing you say sinks in.


----------



## CSM (Jul 17, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> I'm amazed you have wasted your time trying to tell "his eminence" anything.  He's busy compiling his next unhinged sermon for his next post nothing you say sinks in.



Its a rather mindless diversion equivalent to whittling.  You just keep peeling little chips away until there is nothing left.


----------



## Gunny (Jul 17, 2007)

CSM said:


> Its a rather mindless diversion equivalent to whittling.  You just keep peeling little chips away until there is nothing left.



LMAO.  THAT doesn't work with Edward ... he keeps coming back for more abuse.


----------



## CSM (Jul 17, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> LMAO.  THAT doesn't work with Edward ... he keeps coming back for more abuse.



Does a whittler whittle for the wood's entertainment or the whittler's?


----------



## Gunny (Jul 17, 2007)

CSM said:


> Does a whittler whittle for the wood's entertainment or the whittler's?



Point.


----------

