Posted: 07/March/2006 at 01:33 | IP Logged  |

Artemy Schnaps wrote: Offence is the only possible way to win a war... Especially against that big country like the USSR...

See. Reagan was right. QED

Posted: 07/March/2006 at 01:59 | IP Logged  |

ES wrote: See. Reagan was right.

Of course... It's a law of strategy, and Reagan was a good strategist...

The only problem of defence is that you never know where and when your enemy is preparing his attack... In this case war on terror is absolutely logical if to leave the other aspects...

Posted: 07/March/2006 at 12:11 | IP Logged  |

True, but in hindsight their offense was badly timed, and poorly executed. Napolean made the same mistakes Hitler did as they were attacking the USSR, although I think Hitler got much closer to Moscow. The problem is that as the US and Britain were fighting in the West, attacking fuel lines, bombing cities, the Germans still didn't have any defensive strategy except to keep using offensive ones.

Now Rommel was skilled at defense. If he'd been at D-Day or alive much longer through the war, we would have had a lot more trouble getting past Germany than we did.

Posted: 07/March/2006 at 12:12 | IP Logged  |

Well yeah, but imagine what would happen if our strategy was to go out and attack Iraq and Afghanistan while making no domestic defense against terrorism. That wouldn't blow over too well the next time the terrorists want to attack...

Posted: 08/March/2006 at 23:32 | IP Logged  |

Naeman wrote: Napolean made the same mistakes Hitler did as they were attacking the USSR, although I think Hitler got much closer to Moscow.

Napoleon captured Moscow...

Naeman wrote: The problem is that as the US and Britain were fighting in the West, attacking fuel lines, bombing cities,

If to watch out the German production statistics, this bombing wasn't that effective...

Naeman wrote: Now Rommel was skilled at defense. If he'd been at D-Day or alive much longer through the war, we would have had a lot more trouble getting past Germany than we did.

Nope... Rommel  was a good general but he wasn't a god... He could make a magnificent operation but he couldn't change total economical failure of Germany and couldn't find more people in the country...

If to be exact the D-Day could be stopped only if the Me-262 jet plane was designed as a bomber (as Hitler wanted), not as a fighter (as his aces wanted)...

Naeman wrote: but in hindsight their offense was badly timed, and poorly executed.

Usually it was underestimation of enemy (Poland) or misunderstanding of strategic plans of future enemy(France)...

Naeman wrote: but imagine what would happen if our strategy was to go out and attack Iraq and Afghanistan while making no domestic defense against terrorism.

You would fail, because defense is a part of any offencive operation...

Posted: 08/March/2006 at 23:48 | IP Logged  |

Well yeah. Except "If you're losing, escalate" can backfire as well *cough, Vietnam, cough*

Lets just all be happy that our Soviet friends are smarter and more responsible than SE Asians.  I think its pretty remarkable the the US and Russia have settled into this interesting relationship of "well we know we can kill eachother for sure, lets be friends now".

Posted: 09/March/2006 at 00:13 | IP Logged  |

ES wrote: Well yeah. Except "If you're losing, escalate" can backfire as well *cough, Vietnam, cough*

We're living in a real world where evident advantage of offencive strategy can be trumped by the other negative factors... We see it right now in Iraq... 

And... Hmmm... The USSR was beaten but not by the US...

Posted: 24/March/2006 at 00:17 | IP Logged  |

Artemy Schnaps wrote: Napoleon captured Moscow...

That must be REALLY embarassing. Beaten by France, holy shit.

Artemy Schnaps wrote: And... Hmmm... The USSR was beaten but not by the US...

Of course not. She did it.

Posted: 24/March/2006 at 01:16 | IP Logged  |

ES wrote: That must be REALLY embarassing. Beaten by France, holy shit.

Napolean captured continental europe and was beaten in Russia...

There is an old russian joke: Lesson in a school, teacher asks children

'What do you know about Kutuzov?'

'Kutuzov was a great russian military leader. Kutuzov ensnared Napoleon to Moscow waited till the russian winter came and defeated him'

'Good. And who was Zhukov?'

'Zhukov was a great russian military leader. Zhukov ensnared Hitler to Moscow waited till the russian winter came and defeated him.'

'Well, and what do you know about Yassir Arafat?'

'Yassir Arafat is a great palestinian military leader. He ensnared jews in Palestine and now is waiting for the russian winter'

ES wrote: Of course not. She did it.

Nope... You posted a wrong brand...

Posted: 24/March/2006 at 08:52 | IP Logged  |

Artemy Schnaps wrote: 'Yassir Arafat is a great palestinian military leader. He ensnared jews in Palestine and now is waiting for the russian winter'

Posted: 24/March/2006 at 08:53 | IP Logged  |

She works in mysterious ways. You will understand someday.  Ms. Liberty has a plan for all of us.

Posted: 24/March/2006 at 11:11 | IP Logged  |

Artemy Schnaps wrote: 'Yassir Arafat is a great palestinian military leader. He ensnared jews in Palestine and now is waiting for the russian winter'

Posted: 24/March/2006 at 15:08 | IP Logged  |

Naeman wrote: Well yeah, but imagine what would happen if our strategy was to go out and attack Iraq and Afghanistan while making no domestic defense against terrorism.

Where've you been Naeman?!

http://www.9-11pdp.org/press/2005-12-05_summary.pdf

If HALF of the resources that went into Iraq went into shoring up defenses, the grades in the report above by the 9/11 comission (headed by a Republican, and hailed as a bi-partisan effort) would be a LOT better.

Then again, we've always known Bush has been satisfied with "Gentleman's C's" for grades.

Naeman wrote: That wouldn't blow over too well the next time the terrorists want to attack...

Oh hell, they'll just blame it on the Democrats and liberals anyway. "See! You and your pesky "civil liberties", constitution hugging, terrorist sympathizing ways brought this upon us!"

Just wait.

Posted: 24/March/2006 at 18:49 | IP Logged  |

Well, that was before our war on terror.

Bush can only be blamed for what's happened during his administration, and there was no call or clear need for souped up terrorist defenses before 9/11.

Posted: 24/March/2006 at 19:31 | IP Logged  |

Naeman wrote: Bush can only be blamed for what's happened during his administration, and there was no call or clear need for souped up terrorist defenses before 9/11.

Thats right, & over here they must think Bush is god, as every thing is his fault Global warming terrorism the lot! The real truth is of course that they want Bush to endorse there pet subject & when he don't they blame him for whatever it is. He could have stooped Katrina, but never bothered.

Posted: 24/March/2006 at 19:57 | IP Logged  |

Naeman wrote: Well, that was before our war on terror.

No it wasn't. These are grades given to the administration for enacting security changes in key areas AFTER September 11th.

As I have asked time and again as our treasure and manpower is sucked away in a trillion dollar war with a country that never attacked us (for which, Naeman, both you and I will owe tens of thousands to pay for in the future long after these old men in power are dead from peaceful deaths in their sleep on 20,000 dollar mattresses....) do YOU feel safer yet? So much WASTE!!!!! And Republicans are supposed to be the party of "National Security!"

Naeman wrote: Bush can only be blamed for what's happened during his administration, and there was no call or clear need for souped up terrorist defenses before 9/11.

Watch the Moussaoui defense. I think they are going to try to bring evidence that Moussaoui DID try to warn the government of 9/11 attacks. We'll see how that pans out.