[Vision2020] Free Speech and Crazy Bush
Wed, 29 Jan 2003 17:04:59 -0800
So, knowing that you are the repository of all things military, and
thinking that I somehow did a brain dump between graduating from, and
then teaching in, the United States Army Command and General Staff
Course, I went first to the syllabus and then to the indicated
reference, Karl von Clauswitz' "Vom Krieg"(On War), searching for the
generally accepted definition.
It seems that the people who fight wars define one as "The continuation
of diplomacy by other (violent) means". That's a lot different than "
We only attack countries that have no real possibility of fighting
back", and "under the principles of war, if your enemy cannot fight
back or reasonably defend itself, there is no war, merely a massacre."
Can you cite an accepted reference for this definition? If not,
perhaps you should read von Clauswitz and maybe Nicolo Machiavelli more
closely. And by the way, although I am not particularly enamored with
a war in Iraq, it is my earnest desire that all wars the United States
becomes involved in be concluded speedily, with maximum force applied
consistant with the mission and its goals, and with the fewest possible
U.S. casualties. You would prefer, perhaps, a bunch of American kids
coming home in body bags?
General George Patton once said to his troops before battle," It is not
your job to die for your country... it is your job to make the other
poor, dumb, S.O.B. die for his!" A lovely sentiment.
On Wednesday, January 29, 2003, at 11:35 AM, Bob Hoffmann wrote:
> At 09:38 AM 1/29/2003 -0800, Carl Westberg wrote:
>> It's obvious we will be at war soon. Why the obsessive focus on
>> Iraq? It seem's the "axis of evil" has been condensed to Saddam,
>> with North Korea, Iran, etc. being "different". After Iraq, which
>> way does Dubya point his cowboy hat? Iraq is far from the only
>> country we would have reason to go war with, given Bush's criteria.
>> I understand Canada's been ticking the adminstration off lately.
> Aside from the oil issue, Iraq meets a number of other U.S.
> considerations as a candidate for war, without any exclusionary > issues.
> For example, since Vietnam, it has been U.S. policy not to fight any
> wars that it would have a remote possibility of losing, or even a
> remote possibility of resulting in massive U.S. casualties. With
> 50,000 U.S. troops within artillery range of North Korea, this point
> on the axis is clearly excluded. Developing nuclear weapons? By
> their own admission. A target for U.S. military attack? Not under
> the mutual damage exclusionary principle. We only attack countries
> that have no real possibility of fighting back: Iraq, Grenada,
> Panama, Libya, etc. Again, under the principles of war, if your enemy
> cannot fight back or reasonably defend itself, there is no war, merely
> a massacre.
> Bob Hoffmann
> 820 S. Logan St.
> Moscow, ID 83843
>>> From: Bill Kerr <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>>> To: email@example.com
>>> Subject: [Vision2020] Free Speech and Crazy Bush
>>> Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 07:28:25 -0800
>>> Warning this message contains free speech stimulants. :)
>>> Does anyone else think that Dubya is complete in his craziness yet?
>>> What is the effect going to be on Moscow?
>>> Does anybody really care?
>>> Does Bush really care?
>>> Bill Kerr
>>> List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the
>>> communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>> Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
>> List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the
>> communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the
> communities of the Palouse since 1994.