Nidan1

BigDuke, Explain to me why the media chose to report the shooting of one insurgent in a Mosque in Fallujah, as if it were the only thing going on there at the time. No reporting about how the sacrifices of American troops would mean safer neighborhoods in the rest of Iraq, or how Americans were forced to step up because the Iraqis were not capable of dealing with Fallujah on their own. Are you saying that the only way that the Iraqi situation can be resolved is if American either club the inurgency into submission or just leave? The media cannot have it both ways...if America steps up militarily, the reporting will be just as negative, I think. Right now the U.S. is damned whatever it does. If someone were protecting your children, while you built up the ability to do it yourself, wouldn't you be appreciative in some small way? Why can't the media report both?

The 1973 Egyptian crossing of the Suez Canal, was a feat of arms unprecedented in Arab military history. This was accomplished after Russian advisors had been kicked out of Egypt. Unfortunately political pressures on Sadat caused him to violate his limited scope of offensive action plan against Isreal, and his forces were cut off and nearly completely destroyed.

The larger question of course is whether it is wise to go to war with a country when one is not prepared to go to war with its neighbors and allies as well. For very real geopolitical reasons were not prepared to go to war with all of Southeast Asia in the 1960s. For both geopolitical and very real military reasons, I do not believe we are anywhere near being prepared to go to war with all of Southwest Asia now. MIchael </font>

This sounds like based on your political bias, nothing else. </font>

Michael your point is well taken...the fact however is that most cultures came out on the historical "short end" in their dealings with western expansion, especially up to the glory days of the Roman Empire. The trend today to tell, the "other side of the story", is in my opinion at the expense of the truth in some cases, and done so in order to prove a current point. Let me ask any military historian if it is sound strategy to attack your enemy only if he is in a certain place. If he crosses map reference X he is no longer able to be attacked. This is the exact situation that American military commanders were faced with during Vietnam. There were obvious political restrictions which caused this condition, but from the viewpoint of a ground commander, such a policy invited disaster. If we allow the same situation to happen in Iraq, and insurgent fighters can slip across the murky borders of Iraq and its neighbors, we are again inviting destruction. Just trying to get back on topic.

Steve I think you have to admit that Bush's critics are anything but "silent"

Don't worry we are just playing. What I was saying is I think that there is a modern trend, especially in American academia, to discount the discoveries and progresses made by western civilizations after the fall of Rome, and on to the present, as so much exploitation of Eastern and African cultures which were far more "superior". I am not making the case that one is superior to another here, just the observation that others seem to want to do that with a passion. Being that war and conquest has created the most upheaval and dynamism throughout the world, it is no wonder that we discuss this here in a military game forum, where most of us are amateur, and maybe in some cases professional historians. Victor Davis Hanson has written that the military traditions of the western world as founded by the Greeks and then the Romans, has shown itself to be a decisive way to wage war, and in most cases has led to the conquest of peoples who maybe did not take warfare "as seriously" as westerners do. Using the recent engagements in Iraq as an example...we can see that although Iraqis were armed and equipped and in some cases trained by westerners, their tactics and military traditions were overcome by the sheer violence and destruction created by western military units. In Fallujah for example, last year when it was in the forefront of the news, the sheer violence created by the Marines far overshadowed the actual destruction that they caused in early April. Essentially, war reporting was turned over to Arab news agencies, that created a one-sided image of the battle, and caused a halt to the hostilities which only ensured that the devastation would be far worse six months later. The cult of the warrior, as raised in the west, is to close and destroy the enemy, unfortunately our civilian populations and our so called leaders do not have the stomach to watch what we set our soldiers out to do.

Is that like a tree falling in the forest, and no one hearing it fall?

Er....the last time you had sex, with someone other than yourself?

Ok, now you're trying to change history.

You better stop giving away all this secret ****. From what the media says, only the US and Britian have any personnel on the ground in Iraq.

Sergei , if I said to you..."I don't like what types like you have to say" How would you take it?

So while you may be an historian, you have attacked me personally for making an observation based on the very principles that you support. I am not part of any ruling class, why do you get your dander up over what I say?

And I find the major problem with types like you that you know **** about why we study history. </font>

I find two major problems with some modern historians (1) they are very eager to re-write history in order to apologize for most events involving western dominance and (2) they tend to look at past events through today's attitudes and mores.

I don't know...a Steyr in feminine hands can be quite sexy!

Where did the most belligerent Arab armies get their training and equipment during most of that time? It would seem dishonest not to mention the fact that the Arabs were trained in Soviet-style military doctrine. Could that fact in itself point to their poor performance?

There is something about a lass in cammies.!!!

I don't know what is more important...a place to eat or a place to take a dump?? We should have a poll on this. I hated Iraq_1 too, all that sand...and you know when wind blew the sand got into everything. Thank God for inventing baby wipes. The only problem was the Iraqis wouldn't fight, same thing today...they don't want to close...you know get real near and smell the other guy's onion breath. Sure any turd can blow themselves up...give me a squad of jarheads in a narrow streeted souk, a couple a SAWs maybe a grenade or two or three, a sharp K-bar...saftey glasses to protect the eyes from concrete chips...and awaaaaaay we go!!!!!

Now this I find to be over the line!!

****falls to the floor...twitching violently**** Boy, did that feel good!!

Hey guys we are getting dangerously close to violating the "don't be nice to each other rule", I think we better let it go.

You don't know my neighborhood, obviously.

Why is everyone picking on me?...I'm going to report you all to the moderators!!!!

I know what you mean...if there is anyway that they can potray a negative image of our military people, they will try it. If the mujahadeen are not dangerous enough, then the driving conditions for our troops will be deemed unsafe.