Views on the war on terror

[Darrin 3]

i think the war is the war of wars its the war that lets americans sleep safe at night work safe in the day have felt safe for the last 7 years not so much right now.

thank you to all fighting my kids thank you .

-Darrin-

Edited January 13, 2010 by Darrin

[+Dave 2,319]

Who are "they"? Is it the Taliban or is it all muslims? If the latter you're dead wrong. In fact most muslims here come from places like Turkey or the Balkans, and they are more than happy to integrate and they're really no more religious than average Joe Sixpack. With the arabs they come from areas less developed and so are more likely to be backwards fundies, but at any rate their kids do try to integrate and what's really needed is more help from the government to reach that goal. You have to realize that those who come here as adults from say Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia are likely to be lost causes as far as de-fundamentalising goes, but their kids are not and if we can reduce whatever backwards influence the family can excert then half the battle is won.

 

I suppose you're talking about the Taliban but it really does come across as treating all muslims as a homogenous group. There are extremists but the best way to combat them is to expose their lies for what they are.

 

I am talking about the Taliban, oh and this, your Joe Sixpack reference is a reference is a thinly veiled insult to a certain group of Americans, so do me a favor and cut that generalization out.

[MaverickMike 10]

Spot on.

 

These muslims were born in the UK and as far as I am concerned, they are traitors and should be executed.

 

I completely agree 100%. Instead they were given measly fines if im not mistaken.The way these animals treated the soldiers was absoloutely disgusting, yet its the very thing that the soldiers are sworn to defend, freedom of speech.

 

I sometimes think communism had the right idea.....

[eraser_tr 29]

Well, my method of just kick ass and leave, even if you have to come back with the place becoming a safe haven for them, it's still cheaper to do that repeatedly than for prolonged occupations. The extremists only understand power. After bombing them to oblivion a few times and leaving them in the rubble, they'll get the message: "Don't f*** with us"

 

As for how to end things, Julhelm has it right, eliminate the reasons for extremism and integrate. People I know with muslim backgrounds and are totally integrated, it becomes totally inconsequential.

 

But bombing people back to the stone age is a testosterone driven impulse that is very hard to suppress

 

In the end it's all group psychology, us vs them. Europe got over it and is now united, when it used to be the most bloody and unstable continent on the planet. But it's going to take something radical like aliens to put us all into the "us" camp and stop killing each other, because of course, even if ET is peaceful, we'll probably blow them up anyway.

 

That, or religion gives up being so repressive about sexuality and enjoyment being "sinful".

 

haha FalconCAF I thought of doing exactly that when they started with all their afghan strategy meetings.

[+Dave 2,319]

I completely agree 100%. Instead they were given measly fines if im not mistaken.The way these animals treated the soldiers was absoloutely disgusting, yet its the very thing that the soldiers are sworn to defend, freedom of speech.

 

Yeah I can't stomach traitors.

[Ruggbutt 45]

and they are more than happy to integrate and they're really no more religious than average Joe Sixpack.

What would you know about Joe Sixpack? Or integration for that matter? I live in the 5th largest city in the country and I see plenty of people who show up here (legally and illegally) who have no interest in integration. Take a look at Los Angeles, they have a Chinatown, Koreatown, Vietnamesetown, etc. My brother is married to a Korean girl and her mother has been here for over 30 years and speaks no english. Neither do the majority of her neighbors. They want the benefits of living in a free society but don't want to become part of it. Same with my city and people from south of the border. I work in construction and there is little to no attempts to integrate or even speak the language. I've met a grand total of 5 people who actually went to an ESL class and have applied for their green card so they can become part of this country. Without exception every one of them told me that they didn't wanna live 5 families to a house. They wanted something better than where they came from. And they were proud to one day become American. The company I used to work for had 250 employees. 3 of us were American. I've met quite a few of these people who don't care about integration. Look, I'm proud of my heritage. I'm Czech both sides of my family. I don't expect the ballot that I vote on to be in Czech. Nor do I expect to be able to press 2 for Czech on my phone. I know that INS is messed up and it's a PITA to get a green card, but ultimately don't we want those that will go the extra mile to become a citizen to be a fellow citizen? Or would you rather have a neighbor who despises you because you're American? On 9/11 two of the illegals who were working on my crew were laughing about the towers going down. I speak spanish enuf to get by and you can't imagine how pissed off I was that these people disrespect me and my countrymen like that. The country and the society that allowed them to make a living wage. And to send money home so their familes could surivive. I may sound cold hearted but we don't need people who hate this country in this country.

 

As for the "War on Terror": You make some point Julhelm but it's clear that you're doing a good job at taking digs at my country without it appearing overt. I don't know the answers but I know about common sense. And I know that our government officials are hampering the military at every turn in doing their job. The only way to handle a situation with people who act like Taliban does is to get down and dirty with them. With all these BS rules it's insulting to our servicemen/women who put themselves in harms way over there. I remember when there was a higher up terrorist funeral in Iraq, and all his terrorist buddies showed up to mourn him at the graveyard and we weren't allowed to JDAM the procession. Or they shoot at our guys and run into a Mosque. As a non-Muslim how do you expect me to respect a Muslim's holy place when he doesn't respect it? This country has haters and apologists of all kinds and it filters down into our military and our people are dying because they are doing everything possible to make the rules of engagement difficult so that our soldiers can't do their jobs. Regardless of how you personally feel about our involvement in Afghanistan, we have a right to be there because we were attacked by the reigning government there. Unfortunately there is no negotiation with the Taliban. There is no discussion, all they know is evil and killing. So be it. When I have a bunch of ants trying to get into my house I don't try to shoo them out of the way. They only know one or two things and the only way to handle them is to kill them. IMHO the Taliban aren't any different.

[+lindr2 19]

I read the book of one of generals supervising operations in Afghanistan in 1979-84. Before a parcel of troops he headed prospecting mission for the purpose of studying of necessity of its intrusion it the answer was categorical NO. But nobody has listened to it. In thought 1979 nobody that the Soviet troops should be at war their mission was regime change in the country. But all has gone against the plan: party change has resulted to mass reprisals, 50-70 % of the higher and average Afghani officers has been subjected to repression, the army has lost fighting capability. The Soviet army had to be at war for them.

 

For a gepard

 

Unfortunately in Afghanistan it is impossible to send 3 million and even 500 thousand Afghanistan it not an Europe, for placing so a considerable quantity there are no conditions. The relief in in Afghanistan difficult, is not enough roads and they very bad speed of movement is insignificant. Huge & slow convoys of supply will be the fine targets. To defend them it is necessary to build a chain of outposts to control height. It is necessary to supply these garrisons means escorts will be even more and will move even more slowly. As a result the most part of soldiers will protect convoys which will supply those who convoys protects. Who then will be at war with Talibs?

Edited January 13, 2010 by lindr2

[GwynO 16]

I totally agree. Pouring more and more bombs upon a more and more impoverished country will resolve naught. They'll continue to raise armies of orphans from this undeclared war, those who have lost everything due to the brutal foreign occupation. How many they have seen there, of these brutal attempts of foreign occupation? Mongols, Moghols, Persians, Russians, Brits, Russians again... Most of these attempts hid behind seducing pretexts: unified empire, unified Islam, civilization, Socialist fraternity, and now the ultimate Western vision of constitutional democracy. All of these invaders have nevertheless been driven out from mountains that were not theirs, totally disgusted, bringing back their puppet leaders with them or letting them behind.

 

The real danger about terrorism in Western countries doesn't come from these huge armies of illiterate fanatics, but from tiny, trained, long and carefully prepared covert ops cells like those of 09/11. Such small "elite" units need money, plenty of money. And where does the money come from? Afghan heroin, yes, yes. But mainly from those countries who have money, plenty of it. I mean the Gulf monarchies, you know them: our best friends. Indeed, most of Taliban executives come from these countries. Today, the idea is to put high pression upon one of these peninsular countries, Yemen. But the poorest of them, accidentally.

 

As long as these principalities will play the tricky game with us, as long as our Western democracies will support and protect those despotic political systems, as long as the US senators and our Euro politicians will lick all those sandbox princes' slippers as they wait for golden retirements from them, there will be no end to the so-called War on Terror.

 

Exactly! You and Julhelm seem to have this covered, all I would add is that what you raise here is such an overlooked and potentially huge piece of the jigsaw. Forget Climatology, the best and most compelling argument for going "green" over night and using something other than oil to run the modern (free and not so free) world, is to STOP the flow of oil money into fundamentalist regimes, groups and individuals. That and pollution, which is not the same as climate change (you can see dirt right here right now, you can smell diesel fumes and they makes you feel sick) But back to the point, we really, really need to find some other way of powering the globe than the current system of making unfit regimes rich. How much of the fuel involved in your car, your plastic packaging, your food, your entire life comes from Iran? Never thought your money would support a place like Iran, check out the stats on the major breadwinners in the oil world, even if you don't use it, someone else will. Soo replace oil with something shiny and new and better that China will want to use, that India will want to use, that everyone will want and you stop the money going into Iran thereby turning it into a virtual North Korea (impotent) Problem solved. Poor fundamentalists are a lot less of a threat to anyone than rich terrorists.

[GwynO 16]

I will focus my words on war theory and on conclusion toward the war at the Hindukush.

 

The term "War on Terror" or "War against Terror" show the problem. Its a problem of understanding. Terror is no opponent which you can fight. Terror is a tactic, its a strategy. "War against terror" is nonsens like "War against Blitzkrieg" or "War against Retreat". You can fight only against an enemy.

Conclusion: Look who the enemy is. Name it. Then decide how to fight.

This are the basics.

 

The other basics are written in the book "Vom Kriege" by the prussian general Carl von Clausewitz. This book is standard in all military libraries all around the world. Its an old book (written 1832) but up today the best book about the subject of war. Read it and you know what went wrong in Afghanistan.

Two basic rules by Clausewitz are called "Victory".

1." To achieve the victory you must fight with all power, with all ressources and with all methodes of warefare. If not you will lose the war."

 

Ask: Is the west willing to fight following the first rule?

 

If yes we should sent more men into Afghanistan. And if i say more men i'm not speaking of 30.000, but of 3.000.000.

 

If no then we should retreat as fast as possible.

 

2 rule by Clausewitz:."The victory is achieved either if the enemy is accepting our will or if he is totally annihilated, so that he is unable to resist our will."

 

Conclusion: Our enemy are the taliban. They are fanatic religious motivated guerilla fighters. It is impossible to break their will. Thatswhy they must be annihilated man by man.

 

But as guerilla fighters the taliban were supported by the people of Afghanistan (Mao said: A guerilla is withn the people like a fish in the water. It is difficult, or nearly impossible to decide friend or foe)

 

Conclusion: To annihilate all taliban it is neccessary to annihilate all supporters. What in reality means, that if one person in a village would support the Taliban you must annihilate the entire village, all men, women, children, even all animals. You must burn them out. You must break the resistance by all means. What means our forces will have to do warcrimes to win this war.

 

Ask: Is the west willing to fight in this way? Is he willing to accept war crimes to annihilate the enemy.

 

If the answer is yes, then send more troops.

 

If the answer is no, then call back the boys.

 

 

 

Final conclusion following Clausewitz: Make a war right, or let it be.

 

 

This makes so much sense. The NVA knew it in Vietnam and that's why they went all out to destroy entire villages to show as examples to others what they would do if the villagers supported the DRV or the US. The Taliban, Sudanese Ganjaweed and all kinds of other fundamentalists do exactly the same thing. It isn't right to sink to the same level, if it is to just kill by numbers for attrition then better to do it the quick way with WMD which would be more humane if anything than the long running slaughter of millions that would be the likely event of an all out, 3,000,000 strong armed incursion into fundamentalist countries. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying WMD doesn't work as an attitude adjuster, history proves that it did once, but the effects are so horrific that absolutely all other means should be tried first. The best economic sanction against fundamentalist would be to make oil obsolete, but what about the innocent people of those oil producing countries? Not a problem if they are willing to be as ingenious and industrious in the development of a modern service economy rather than making roadside bombs, problem for them is solved. It would just mean that oil regimes would have to work a lot harder to earn their money, this could encourage the development of a more modernised Middle East. Pakistan does a lot better than Yemen, and they don't have hardly any oil, their systems, infrastructure and attitude towards democracy is what enables Pakistan to be so much better at surviving on the globe than say Yemen, where it is possible for a tiny elite to distribute millions of dollars of oil money to their friends as they see fit while most of the people live a subsistence lifestyle herding goats and selling AK-47s.

 

We need more countries like Pakistan and Turkey, while they have their problems, they are to all intents and purposes living in the modern world, relying on their industry and intellect to survive and have chosen democracy as the framework to support this success. Without the easy access to cash in the absence of enlightenment that occurs across much of the globe, down to oil, war wouldn't even be necessary. It's hard to be a global threat when you're so poor you have to light your bombs with matches.

 

 

[eraser_tr 29]

GwynO, you are perfectly right with the green movement, and another thing opponents to being more environmentally friendly keep missing is "does anyone really want pollution?" There are places in china where you can't see the sun, lets just say that no matter what humans do, it won't affect the global temperatures, wouldn't we still want to keep the place clean and pleasant? Who wants to be in bladerunner where there's nothing but perpetual smog?

 

And of course, oil is a finite resource, even if every country in the middle east suddenly became a flourishing, modern and free society, we'd still need to get off it or one day everything will grind to a halt.

 

Except about Pakistan really hasn't gotten on board with the modern world, Turkey, to some extent, but Pakistan is a farce of democracy as a veil over recurring military dictatorships who do plenty to fund terror.

Edited January 13, 2010 by eraser_tr

[GwynO 16]

GwynO, you are perfectly right with the green movement, and another thing opponents to being more environmentally friendly keep missing is "does anyone really want pollution?" There are places in china where you can't see the sun, lets just say that no matter what humans do, it won't affect the global temperatures, wouldn't we still want to keep the place clean and pleasant? Who wants to be in bladerunner where there's nothing but perpetual smog?

 

And of course, oil is a finite resource, even if every country in the middle east suddenly became a flourishing, modern and free society, we'd still need to get off it or one day everything will grind to a halt.

 

"we'd still need to get off it or one day everything will grind to a halt." That is what should be the scariest part of all this, if one day the oil does start to become ever more noticeably scarce, the Gulf will have the world by the softies, and the whole world would be fighting each other, them, everyone would be fighting to control the precious oil. I don't want that to happen, better to switch to soya, or nuclear, or anything than let that happen! I'd rather be an arsehole about it and let the Gulf grind to a halt first than let that happen.

 

The silly greens, like Al Gore are ironically serving to promote oil with their silly nonsense. The Eco warriors are making going green such an unfashionable thing that they are in a way responsible for the continuing reliance on oil, and the resulting pollution and terror funding.

 

If anyone who reads this who previously thought that going "green" ideas like abandoning oil was a load of bollocks, please, please think again! By replacing oil with something home grown, we could make the major fundamentalists bankrupt.

[+Dave 2,319]

Gwyno

 

I like that thinking, if we didn't need oil we would need them. I am all for a green planet.

[GwynO 16]

Gwyno

 

I like that thinking, if we didn't need oil we would need them. I am all for a green planet.

 

That's what I'm hoping! If the alternative to oil is uranium, and they find themselves sitting on a load of it, we would be back to square one, handing over trillions of dollars of hard earned cash from the fruit of intellect; to fund regimes that have absolutely no reason whatsoever to encourage their own people to think and act for themselves.

 

It's scary how like a black flag operation for oil, the Global Warming spokesmen have almost destroyed the argument for evolving our technology beyond fossil fuel. Vocal elements hijacked, corrupted and derailed the argument against pollution that was based on solid evidence. Just like smoking producing tangible results such as cancer, fossil fuel does the same as anyone can see in the industrial badlands, but to argue that the main reason to give it up is because it gives off too much CO2 is just going to make people think "what a lame argument" and thereby keep the status quo which is good for oil, good for short term gain on the stock markets, and bloody marvellous for Al Qaeda and friends. (Note: I am not advocating any kind of conspiracy theory, I'm just saying that people should think who really benefits from oil, who really benefits from Global Warming, and who would benefit from a cleaner planet run on e.g. home grown fuel)

 

But enough of my ranting, I should be lesson planning.

 

 

Just one more thing though, seriously, whenever you touch a plastic bag, or see a car pull off, or smell the petrol at the station; every time you realise just how dependent we are on a small number of undeserving petroleum rich nations, think. If you live in Europe, every time you turn on the gas tap, can you smell the new Tzar's bank balance? Every time anyone sees an oil slick, or feels sick from fumes, ask yourself who needs it this way? Go Green! (Bay packers)

[+Dave 2,319]

Go Packers????????

 

What a shameless plug!

[eraser_tr 29]

Making going green unfashionable? black flag operation for oil? What the hell are you talking about? "going green" has become such a trendy thing that if it wasn't for the real consequences of not going with clean energy, I'd be mocking it simply because it was fashionable.

[GwynO 16]

Go Packers????????

 

What a shameless plug!

 

Super Bowl XXXI, classic! Must find a DVD somewhere. And like Rugby Union in my homeland, many years ago, a community doing it for love of the game!

[GwynO 16]

Making going green unfashionable? black flag operation for oil? What the hell are you talking about? "going green" has become such a trendy thing that if it wasn't for the real consequences of not going with clean energy, I'd be mocking it simply because it was fashionable.

 

I'm talking about the people I work with, the people I have worked with and the people around me in the community. Most people I know are so fed up of all the Global Warming flanel that they have totally forgot about pollution, or worse, think it is the same thing because it sounds like it comes from the same people.. "yea man! save the trees, free the pandas" That just makes some people so mad they will turn up their energy consumption, use more plastic bags, and do anything they can to justify running an uneconomical car just as a way of throwing two fingers up at the Global Warming, Vegitarian, Ethnic handbag, Libertarian hippies that they think it will ultimately annoy. Those people are the ones that I have the hardest time trying to convince of the case for going for an alternative to oil, they don't care, they are not interested, because they think it all comes down to saving the rainforest or whatever else fashionable cause that trendy people go for. The point is though, progress out of dependence on a dirty product, funding dirtier regimes and fundamentalists.

[serverandenforcer 33]

I'm talking about the people I work with, the people I have worked with and the people around me in the community. Most people I know are so fed up of all the Global Warming flanel that they have totally forgot about pollution, or worse, think it is the same thing because it sounds like it comes from the same people.. "yea man! save the trees, free the pandas" That just makes some people so mad they will turn up their energy consumption, use more plastic bags, and do anything they can to justify running an uneconomical car just as a way of throwing two fingers up at the Global Warming, Vegitarian, Ethnic handbag, Libertarian hippies that they think it will ultimately annoy. Those people are the ones that I have the hardest time trying to convince of the case for going for an alternative to oil, they don't care, they are not interested, because they think it all comes down to saving the rainforest or whatever else fashionable cause that trendy people go for. The point is though, progress out of dependence on a dirty product, funding dirtier regimes and fundamentalists.

 

I was actually talking to my supervisor about this, and he does not buy fuel from Chevron, Mobile, Arco, Shell, and Texaco because those are owned and operated by foreign nations that do not support the US, mostly Arab, and the money spent purchasing their fuel directly supports their operations over there. He does however buy fuel from 76 and Circle K. I might start doing that as well. Used to be a Chevron consumer untill I heard about that.

[GwynO 16]

I was actually talking to my supervisor about this, and he does not buy fuel from Chevron, Mobile, Arco, Shell, and Texaco because those are owned and operated by foreign nations that do not support the US, mostly Arab, and the money spent purchasing their fuel directly supports their operations over there. He does however buy fuel from 76 and Circle K. I might start doing that as well. Used to be a Chevron consumer untill I heard about that.

 

That's one way to do it! There's also the hidden stuff, like where did the oil that fuelled the cargo vessels our goods were transported in come from, where did the oil that produced our plastics come from, it's a sure bet that somewhere in our day to day life, our oil dependence means that money has gone to places we would rather it didn't. One way to totally eradicate the market sustaining fundamentalism in the Gulf, is to make oil globally obsolete so that no one needs it, no one buys it, even better if the alternative is cleaner and more importantly something that friendly nations produce.

 

I hope somewhere "behind the green door" someone is working on a solution to this.

[MaverickMike 10]

Iv gotta be honest here and say that, although I knew oil was involved in it all, Iv never looked at it from thids point of view. What your saying GwynO makes perfect sense. By doing what you are saying it would be like opening another front on the war, one that we would have more control over than the conventional war. Ezcellent points GwynO, convincing politicians to tsake up this idea is what we should all be working toward.

[MaverickMike 10]

By the way sorry about my spelling. I'm using a blackberry and still not used to the keyboard

[+Julhelm 266]

I am talking about the Taliban, oh and this, your Joe Sixpack reference is a reference is a thinly veiled insult to a certain group of Americans, so do me a favor and cut that generalization out.

Actually I was not aware of it referring to a certain group of americans. I always thought it was synonymous with 'average joe'.

[+Julhelm 266]

What would you know about Joe Sixpack? Or integration for that matter? I live in the 5th largest city in the country and I see plenty of people who show up here (legally and illegally) who have no interest in integration. Take a look at Los Angeles, they have a Chinatown, Koreatown, Vietnamesetown, etc. My brother is married to a Korean girl and her mother has been here for over 30 years and speaks no english. Neither do the majority of her neighbors. They want the benefits of living in a free society but don't want to become part of it. Same with my city and people from south of the border. I work in construction and there is little to no attempts to integrate or even speak the language. I've met a grand total of 5 people who actually went to an ESL class and have applied for their green card so they can become part of this country. Without exception every one of them told me that they didn't wanna live 5 families to a house. They wanted something better than where they came from. And they were proud to one day become American. The company I used to work for had 250 employees. 3 of us were American. I've met quite a few of these people who don't care about integration. Look, I'm proud of my heritage. I'm Czech both sides of my family. I don't expect the ballot that I vote on to be in Czech. Nor do I expect to be able to press 2 for Czech on my phone. I know that INS is messed up and it's a PITA to get a green card, but ultimately don't we want those that will go the extra mile to become a citizen to be a fellow citizen? Or would you rather have a neighbor who despises you because you're American? On 9/11 two of the illegals who were working on my crew were laughing about the towers going down. I speak spanish enuf to get by and you can't imagine how pissed off I was that these people disrespect me and my countrymen like that. The country and the society that allowed them to make a living wage. And to send money home so their familes could surivive. I may sound cold hearted but we don't need people who hate this country in this country.

When I talk about Joe Sixpack or Average Joe I mean the average guy on the street. Over here the term for that is 'Svensson'.

 

Also, like I said the crux with integration is that you almost have to expect that most of the 1st generation immigrants will likely be lost causes as far as adapting goes. You can't teach old dogs to sit and all that (well actually you can but it requires knowledge on how to properly motivate and reward the dog). Generally immigrants adapt better if they have a chance to interact with the indigenous population and the best way of course is by having a job. But you can't expect an adult to simply become american or become swedish (whatever being american or swedish actually means) and not try to cling to their heritage and culture. If you were to emigrate to somewhere else, surely you would seek the comfort of your fellow countrymen where you can speak english and watch football? Doesn't that seem easier than trying to approach people who not only have totally different norms and values than you may have, but in many cases may also be suspicious of you or downright hostile? The thing is, you as an adult have the means to make the choice of isolating yourself with your peers and not interact with society as a whole, but your kids will be forced to be part of and interact with society whether you or they want it or not, and there's our chance to shape and integrate new people into loyal citizens who adher to values of democracy and equality. But it's not their responsibility to integrate. You and I have a responsibility as well to help them do so, and if we don't, then they won't integrate and it becomes a problem for society.

 

Of course a lot of 1st gen immigrants want to become that too (my partner, for instance) but there are always those who don't, and the correct way to handle things is to make sure their influence on the 2nd generation is as diminished as possible.

[Capitaine Vengeur 263]

"War is continuation of politics by other means, conducted in a manner dictated by generaly accepted law and custom". When General Bonaparte cold-bloodly slaughtered the ca. 5000 defenders he had taken as prisonners at Jaffa (Palestine), he committed an act he certainly would have never made in Europe. Question of "accepted law and custom". But here in the Middle East, he felt he could deeply impress the Oriental mentalities. When the US dropped the A-Bomb over Japan, they committed an act they certainly would have never made over Europe, where most of their first class citizens (White ones) had their roots and often tied families, unless extreme conditions. Question of "accepted law and custom". With mondialization and media coverage, the Western "accepted law and custom" has spread to the Worldwide (even if only bonding the Western countries), and no exception (no media-covered exception, at least) would pass upon the opinion. To lead a 21st Century war in the way it should be led against a 14th Century opponent (i.e. implying evident war crimes, in the Western 21st Century "accepted law and custom") could simply not be possible.

[Capitaine Vengeur 263]

Actually Sun Tzu's book did helped the NVA and the VC kicked our butts in Vietnam. The generals in North Vietnam also used the Game "GO" for tactical ideas. Our Generals use "Chess" tactics. IMHO US Generals and Spec Ops officers need to read "Art of War" and play "GO"; from I'm seeing in the news, Terriosts are using similiar tactics that NVA and VC was using ie Ambushes and Boobie traps (IED's)

 

And I'd give a copy of "Art of War" to Pres. Obama.

 

Falcon

 

 

At St-Helen, Napoleon wrote about Sun Tzu: "Had I read this book before, I would have never been vanquished!". Quite a reference.