Stubob
09-23-2007, 11:24 PM
This was e-mailed to us by a great Vet -
An observation of mine is that wars in the 19th and 20th Centuries were won mainly by getting other countries to modernize, go into debt, have their weapons rust and become obsolete, then it was time to attack. Most wars fairly easily won with the imbalance. 21st Century brings a whole new meaning to things. With B2 bombers running $2.3 billion, an aircraft carrier now about $3 Trillion, Abrams tanks at $6.8 million., anyone opposing is going to need a pretty robust economy.
I laugh at such as Iran. They want to be in the big league. But anything they have will be items less than 1/20 of the cost of ours. That means they will need 20 times as many in number. Course that would completely destroy their economy. The Soviet Union collapsed because thyey couldn't produce the technology and new weapons to counter the US. So they quit the race. Not that the US is free from financial ruin. We need to return to being the industrial empire we were in WWII and following 2 decades. Currently our manufacturing is mainly military and everything else imported, largely from China. Though our decline as a military power may be some time, our economic decline is emminent. We need to take a different course.
The way to deal with Iraq is tell them, "You have 90 days to put your government and country together. After that the US troops will all be gone. Should you fail to accomplish this, the US will divide Iraq up like a pie and invite every neighboring country to take a slice. Your country will cease to exist." Those countries getting parts of Iraq would be Israel, Jordan, Syria, Turkey, Kuwait, Saudia Arabia, Pakistan and if they give up the nuclear program even Iran. I like playing hardball. And the result would bring more of the Islamic nations into closer proximity to either work their problems or fight it out. I often refer to this as the "Burning Bridge Policy" of withdrawl. Actually a good chance the Iraqis would accomplish it. I rely on national pride and peoples resorcefullness when faced with a sink or swim situation.
My e-mail name gives away my philosophy. Gengis Khan was my favorite leader of all time. Unlike Alexander, he went from orphan to conquering the world from a tiny nation that he assembled and an army that probably only numbered about 80,000. Actually his empire was more one of trade than conquest. Basically he only destroyed those that wouldn't become corporate allies.
An observation of mine is that wars in the 19th and 20th Centuries were won mainly by getting other countries to modernize, go into debt, have their weapons rust and become obsolete, then it was time to attack. Most wars fairly easily won with the imbalance. 21st Century brings a whole new meaning to things. With B2 bombers running $2.3 billion, an aircraft carrier now about $3 Trillion, Abrams tanks at $6.8 million., anyone opposing is going to need a pretty robust economy.
I laugh at such as Iran. They want to be in the big league. But anything they have will be items less than 1/20 of the cost of ours. That means they will need 20 times as many in number. Course that would completely destroy their economy. The Soviet Union collapsed because thyey couldn't produce the technology and new weapons to counter the US. So they quit the race. Not that the US is free from financial ruin. We need to return to being the industrial empire we were in WWII and following 2 decades. Currently our manufacturing is mainly military and everything else imported, largely from China. Though our decline as a military power may be some time, our economic decline is emminent. We need to take a different course.
The way to deal with Iraq is tell them, "You have 90 days to put your government and country together. After that the US troops will all be gone. Should you fail to accomplish this, the US will divide Iraq up like a pie and invite every neighboring country to take a slice. Your country will cease to exist." Those countries getting parts of Iraq would be Israel, Jordan, Syria, Turkey, Kuwait, Saudia Arabia, Pakistan and if they give up the nuclear program even Iran. I like playing hardball. And the result would bring more of the Islamic nations into closer proximity to either work their problems or fight it out. I often refer to this as the "Burning Bridge Policy" of withdrawl. Actually a good chance the Iraqis would accomplish it. I rely on national pride and peoples resorcefullness when faced with a sink or swim situation.
My e-mail name gives away my philosophy. Gengis Khan was my favorite leader of all time. Unlike Alexander, he went from orphan to conquering the world from a tiny nation that he assembled and an army that probably only numbered about 80,000. Actually his empire was more one of trade than conquest. Basically he only destroyed those that wouldn't become corporate allies.