What's your "favorite" war(s)?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Yes I agree with you on both points , I think it should be difficult to kill people , but then I also think that people who eat meat should understand what they do
as well .People who eat meat only if it comes in little plastic packets are just like the people who encourage wars but could not pull a trigger themselves.
And if you couldn't face unblocking a sewer then you should really get off the toilet .

I don't hunt, but I could kill dinner if it came to that. I wrote a really creepy story about that one time.

[FedUpWithFaith]

This thread call for Carlin's Sanctity of life bit now - it's classic. Unfortunately it was removed from YouTube. But here are the applicable words:

"It's one of these things we tell ourselves so we'll feel noble. Life is sacred. Makes you feel noble. Well let me ask you this: if everything that ever lived is dead, and everything alive is gonna die, where does the sacred part come in? I'm having trouble with that. 'Cuz, I mean, even with all this stuff we preach about the sanctity of life, we don't practice it. We don't practice it. Look at what we'd kill: Mosquitos and flies. 'Cuz they're pests. Lions and tigers. 'Cuz it's fun! Chickens and pigs. 'Cuz we're hungry. Pheasants and quails. 'Cuz it's fun. And we're hungry. And people. We kill people... 'Cuz they're pests. And it's fun!"

[Chinaski]

Oh oh I change my vote to the Winter War between Finland and the Soviet Union. The Soviets invade with 4 times as many soldiers and 200 times as many tanks, and got their asses handed to them on a plate by the Finns.

[leo-rcc]

Still WW2, the European side of things.

[devogue]

The Spartans were pretty cool.

Beating the odds and then bumming to celebrate.

[Clinton Huxley]

Favourite war? 1st Punic war was quite a laugh, by all accounts

[JimC]

Burma, WW2, particularly the Chindit campaign, and the main battles from Imphal onwards. One of my favorite authors, John Masters, served in the campaign, and wrote vividly about it (The Road to Mandalay), as did Slim, in his "Defeat into Victory"

[AshtonBlack]

Ahhh military history, a small passion of mine.

The theatre I've studied the most is WWII Eastern Front 41-45. Starting with "Operation Barbarossa."

What fascinated me the most is the fact the German generals, read, but did not learn the lesson from 130 years before:

"They remembered what happened to Napoleon's Army. Most of them began to re-read Caulaincourt's grim account of 1812. That had a weighty influence at this critical time in 1941. I can still see Von Kluge trudging through the mud from his sleeping quarters to his office and standing before the map with Caulaincourt's book in his hand."

attrib: General Günther Blumentritt 1941.

I mean come on...

Anyway, Iraq and Vietnam. I think the only relevant similarity is: Politicians not listening to military advice, before (what exit strategy?) and during (erm.... we need 250k more troops if we are going to do this before the "welcome" wears off.)

My humble opinion: Force is the LAST option, but if you do it, it must be with totally overwhelming force and speed. Both in 'Nam and Iraq, it was a half hearted commitment which had a dawinian effect. Only the "good" VC/Insurgents survived to train others.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

My humble opinion: Force is the LAST option, but if you do it, it must be with totally overwhelming force and speed. Both in 'Nam and Iraq, it was a half hearted commitment which had a dawinian effect. Only the "good" VC/Insurgents survived to train others.

Force is a reserved option, not a last option, IMNSHO. You have to be careful who you give that option to, but when you give it you have to depend on the parties to use it rapidly when the case requires it. For example, Hitler was ready to pull back his troops from the Sudetenland at the least resistance from France or England. A show of force would have derailed his plans for some time, and might have given the opposition a chance to engineer a coup.

[AshtonBlack]

My humble opinion: Force is the LAST option, but if you do it, it must be with totally overwhelming force and speed. Both in 'Nam and Iraq, it was a half hearted commitment which had a dawinian effect. Only the "good" VC/Insurgents survived to train others.

Force is a reserved option, not a last option, IMNSHO. You have to be careful who you give that option to, but when you give it you have to depend on the parties to use it rapidly when the case requires it. For example, Hitler was ready to pull back his troops from the Sudetenland at the least resistance from France or England. A show of force would have derailed his plans for some time, and might have given the opposition a chance to engineer a coup.

Very well, I concede the point about force being a reserved rather than the last option. However, it doesn't change the point I made about, when you do decide to use it, it must be with all the men and material required to "get the job done in the shortest time" rather than committing less (for political or economic reasons) to begin and having to "ramp up" later. If you can't do it that way, you are not ready to achieve those goals.

(A big lesson from history, how many wars fell into attrition because of an unprepared attacker?)

[Gawdzilla Sama]

My humble opinion: Force is the LAST option, but if you do it, it must be with totally overwhelming force and speed. Both in 'Nam and Iraq, it was a half hearted commitment which had a dawinian effect. Only the "good" VC/Insurgents survived to train others.

Force is a reserved option, not a last option, IMNSHO. You have to be careful who you give that option to, but when you give it you have to depend on the parties to use it rapidly when the case requires it. For example, Hitler was ready to pull back his troops from the Sudetenland at the least resistance from France or England. A show of force would have derailed his plans for some time, and might have given the opposition a chance to engineer a coup.

Very well, I concede the point about force being a reserved rather than the last option. However, it doesn't change the point I made about, when you do decide to use it, it must be with all the men and material required to "get the job done in the shortest time" rather than committing less (for political or economic reasons) to begin and having to "ramp up" later. If you can't do it that way, you are not ready to achieve those goals.

(A big lesson from history, how many wars fell into attrition because of an unprepared attacker?)

As R.A.H. put it, "No department of defense ever won a war."

[AshtonBlack]

My humble opinion: Force is the LAST option, but if you do it, it must be with totally overwhelming force and speed. Both in 'Nam and Iraq, it was a half hearted commitment which had a dawinian effect. Only the "good" VC/Insurgents survived to train others.

Force is a reserved option, not a last option, IMNSHO. You have to be careful who you give that option to, but when you give it you have to depend on the parties to use it rapidly when the case requires it. For example, Hitler was ready to pull back his troops from the Sudetenland at the least resistance from France or England. A show of force would have derailed his plans for some time, and might have given the opposition a chance to engineer a coup.

Very well, I concede the point about force being a reserved rather than the last option. However, it doesn't change the point I made about, when you do decide to use it, it must be with all the men and material required to "get the job done in the shortest time" rather than committing less (for political or economic reasons) to begin and having to "ramp up" later. If you can't do it that way, you are not ready to achieve those goals.

(A big lesson from history, how many wars fell into attrition because of an unprepared attacker?)

As R.A.H. put it, "No department of defense ever won a war."

Damn Right.

Another point, I may bring turn into a thread is the recent "out sourcing" of war that has happened in Iraq and Afghanistan. You know in Iraq there were (as at 2006) 125k civilian contractors along with the 125k troops. The vast majority non-combat, but costing a fortune to the tax payer... (I was one of them.)

[Animavore]

The inner war with myself.

Outside of that I've no real interest in war. Nor have I got much sympathy for the people who get involved. They had a choice.

Usually I prefer war films like Schindlers List about the normal people who end up having their lives ruined by the stupidity of men.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Another point, I may bring turn into a thread is the recent "out sourcing" of war that has happened in Iraq and Afghanistan. You know in Iraq there were (as at 2006) 125k civilian contractors along with the 125k troops. The vast majority non-combat, but costing a fortune to the tax payer... (I was one of them.)

It's not all that recent. Armies used to have "camp followers" who cooked, did laundry, and provided "other services" to the troops. As last as the American Civil War this practice was common in the US. In fact, one Generalwas famous for having a platoon of prostitutes with him at all times. When someone new would ask about the women the veterans would simply say, "They're Hooker's."

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The inner war with myself.

Outside of that I've no real interest in war. Nor have I got much sympathy for the people who get involved. They had a choice.

Usually I prefer war films like Schindlers List about the normal people who end up having their lives ruined by the stupidity of men.

You will LOVE "W", then. :twisted: