Lets start this off right... - The Firearms Forum

03-27-2003, 09:51 PM

Current conventional wisdom has us fighting a politically correct war at the moment.

How many favor a blitzkrieg type...roll them over with superior firepower type advance?

VS.

A let the air force carpet bomb them back to the stone age and then we go mop up the pieces?

Being an ex USAF guy... I favor the latter.

Any opinions???

swede

Hope 69/70 · 03-28-2003, 12:01 AM

Also like your latter idea WS. However, instead of going back to mop up the pieces, just flat bury them .

Hope

Xracer · 03-28-2003, 09:13 AM

Well, both ways have their advantages and disadvantages.

The "Blitzkrieg" method works well in a "war of liberation" where you have the backing of the civilian populace. If you don't, your flanks are exposed to hit-and-run raids from the bypassed cities and towns.

It looks as if we severely misjudged the mood of the Iraqui populace who was supposed to be lining the roads throwing roses at our troops.

The "Bomb 'em back to the stone age and hit 'em with overwhelming force" method is surely effective, but results in a high number of civilian casualties...and can have severe political consequences down the road.

My opinion....to hit them with precision bombing attacks (as we're doing now), but go in with an overwhelming number of troops over a broad front (as we did in Gulf War 1).

Looks like the Pentagon believed it's own propaganda about how our troops were going to be received (mass Iraqui troop surrenders and civilian uprisings against Saddam), and failed to provide enough troops in case it didn't turn out that way.

We've got lots of wonderful whiz-bang technological gizmos, but wars are won by "Grunts On The Ground".

03-28-2003, 07:50 PM

Agree that wars are won with "grunts on the ground". But we gotta loosen up the rules of engagement.

No use putting our boys in jeopardy because the Iraqi's are in a populated area...too much PC...smacks of Vietnam.

If they can pull a tank into a mall parking lot...then lets park a Maverick on top of it. Big splat...no more bad guys. probably some civilian casualties yes...but how many gotta get wasted before the civilians figure out that tanks are not the smartest things to be hanging around.

swede

berto64 · 03-31-2003, 07:17 PM

I totally agree, Mr. Swede.

This PC crap is killing our troops unneccesarily, and is prolonging the inevitable.

In my opinion, it's time for the"Full tilt Boogy".

berto

03-27-2003, 09:51 PM	#1
WyomingSwede Adnanced Senior Member Posts: n/a	Lets start this off right... Current conventional wisdom has us fighting a politically correct war at the moment. How many favor a blitzkrieg type...roll them over with superior firepower type advance? VS. A let the air force carpet bomb them back to the stone age and then we go mop up the pieces? Being an ex USAF guy... I favor the latter. Any opinions??? swede -->

03-31-2003, 07:17 PM	#5
berto64 VMBB Admin Staff Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Owyhee County, Idaho Contributor Posts: 7,388	I totally agree, Mr. Swede. This PC crap is killing our troops unneccesarily, and is prolonging the inevitable. In my opinion, it's time for the"Full tilt Boogy". berto __________________ Be who you are & say what you will, Those that matter won't mind and those that mind don't matter. I'm a bitter clinger, One Nation Under God.

03-28-2003, 12:01 AM	#2
Hope 69/70 Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 2,549	Also like your latter idea WS. However, instead of going back to mop up the pieces, just flat bury them . Hope

03-28-2003, 09:13 AM	#3
Xracer TFF Admin Staff Mediator Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Minn-eeee-sota, ya, sure, you bet! Posts: 9,144	Well, both ways have their advantages and disadvantages. The "Blitzkrieg" method works well in a "war of liberation" where you have the backing of the civilian populace. If you don't, your flanks are exposed to hit-and-run raids from the bypassed cities and towns. It looks as if we severely misjudged the mood of the Iraqui populace who was supposed to be lining the roads throwing roses at our troops. The "Bomb 'em back to the stone age and hit 'em with overwhelming force" method is surely effective, but results in a high number of civilian casualties...and can have severe political consequences down the road. My opinion....to hit them with precision bombing attacks (as we're doing now), but go in with an overwhelming number of troops over a broad front (as we did in Gulf War 1). Looks like the Pentagon believed it's own propaganda about how our troops were going to be received (mass Iraqui troop surrenders and civilian uprisings against Saddam), and failed to provide enough troops in case it didn't turn out that way. We've got lots of wonderful whiz-bang technological gizmos, but wars are won by "Grunts On The Ground".

03-28-2003, 07:50 PM	#4
WyomingSwede Adnanced Senior Member Posts: n/a	Agree that wars are won with "grunts on the ground". But we gotta loosen up the rules of engagement. No use putting our boys in jeopardy because the Iraqi's are in a populated area...too much PC...smacks of Vietnam. If they can pull a tank into a mall parking lot...then lets park a Maverick on top of it. Big splat...no more bad guys. probably some civilian casualties yes...but how many gotta get wasted before the civilians figure out that tanks are not the smartest things to be hanging around. swede