Obama Drags the US Into War #4

[Reynolds357]

Seriously the US is in way over its head and it looks like we are entering into WWIII. To the muslim world we must look like invadiners and I do believe we are not accomplishing anything for the good. The muslim world may in the near future get China to help them out in driving out western invaders. I wonder if Owe-bama has the good sense God gave a rock to look at what he is doing and pull out before this becomes a real firestorm from which there is neither victory nor retreat from. Nope Owe-bama is as dumb as a box of rocks. Whatever the issue he will be on the wrong side of it no matter what.

Dravenhawk

I have been saying for three years now that Obama does not have the sense of a rock. I guess the answer to yoru question is, Yes, he is that dumb.

[zeke77]

I think it is more like the president dropped the ball when he had a chance to take out the Colonel easily, and now he will have to do it the hard way. He committed too late, but he committed. Now that he is committed, he can't walk away.

Isn't what you suggest simply the old "damned if you do , damned if you don't" situation?

[Reynolds357]

Isn't what you suggest simply the old "damned if you do , damned if you don't" situation?

No. I suggest that he should make up his mind whether or not we should get into that war. If we are going to get in it, get in at the right time and commit the resources to win.

[bdh]

Seriously the US is in way over its head and it looks like we are entering into WWIII.

Something I'm always keenly aware of is the huge blunder Japan made in WWII by attacking Perl Harbor - their generals realized that the victory needed to be complete or they would never be able to resist the massive material wealth of the US which would surely follow... and it did.

And so it was that at the peak of production, the US was turning out an arcraft carrier every few months and a "liberty ship" (these were b-i-g ships) every 4-6 days!! with the record being 4 days!

Against that, Japan (and Germany) had zero chance. They simply couldn't sink American shipping faster than they were being built!

At the same time, England was in deep trouble because they had the opposite problem - lack of raw materials and infrastructure meant they were in danger of being bombed into oblivion.

So when you say

the US is in way over its head

It's true. True because since 1945 US heavy industry - all Western industry - has steadily been shifted offshore. Pretty much anything one turns upside down says "made in China" (or Malaysia, Korea, Taiwan etc) underneath. If it does say "Made in USA" or "Made in England", it's usually good quality but [usually] more expensive and mostly niche products.

The bottom line is the US no longer has that unstoppable manufacturing capacity. The capacity to wage a war of material attrition. It's now all in China! Ships, cars, trucks, computers ... all made across the shores.

In a conventional war, it's all about resources and and who has the biggest factories. Who can replace troops and war equipment the fastest.

With the US's resources being drained on a dozen fronts (Iraq, Libya and the like) and being spread thinner all the time, WWIII would have to be nuclear. A terrible thought.

[zeke77]

No. I suggest that he should make up his mind whether or not we should get into that war. If we are going to get in it, get in at the right time and commit the resources to win.

It was a political given that we would 'get into' that conflict. What is your definition of "win"? You may want to think of world conflicts in terms beyond WWII concepts.

[Reynolds357]

It was a political given that we would 'get into' that conflict. What is your definition of "win"? You may want to think of world conflicts in terms beyond WWII concepts.

Win? I define win the way Sherman defined it.

[zeke77]

Win? I define win the way Sherman defined it.

And therein lies your problem.

[Reynolds357]

And therein lies your problem.

If you say so.

[the sound]

Win? I define win the way Sherman defined it.

do you mean William Tecumseh Sherman?

[Reynolds357]

do you mean William Tecumseh Sherman?

Yes. To historians, "Sherman" always means W.T. Sherman.

[Vhayes]

Question - and I don't know the answer so it's legit.

Did NATO determine to enter into the Yemen rebellion?

[howszat]

According to the Bible, a nation that has faith in God has no need of a standing army:

Psalm 27; 81:13-15

Deuteronomy 28:7

Isaiah 41:12

I Samuel 8:20

and,

Luke 1:69-75

As we are a Christian nation we can dissolve the parasitical military industrial complex, desist from all foreign wars, and we will have peace in our land. So says the Bible.