American Exceptionalism (split)

[HSVol]

So, you're trying to compare a conventional military force with a guerilla force? Not an apples-to-apples comparison.

 

[golfballs]

Let other countries reach that ability, and then you can make that point. We might find out under Dr. Ron Paul

 

[golfballs]

So, you're trying to compare a conventional military force with a guerilla force? Not an apples-to-apples comparison.

especially considering the actual composition of the military. this isn't the civil war.

 

[n_huffhines]

It isn't a feeling.

It's not a fact.

 

[therealUT]

So, you're trying to compare a conventional military force with a guerilla force? Not an apples-to-apples comparison.

So, the term "greatest military" does not imply that such a military should achieve strategic victory when it is deployed against any force? In that case, what would having an expeditionary force do for us, even if it is the most superior. Now, this no longer appears to be a critical component of th notion of "superior nation". Time to look at the other factors.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[HSVol]

Iraq was not a huge success when I was there in 09-10. Our military paid off the insurgents in the Sunni Triangle to stop fighting us.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Ever hear of PSYOPS? It's a military tactic, you know.

 

[therealUT]

Ever hear of PSYOPS? It's a military tactic, you know.

Right, tactic not strategy. Paying the insurgents gave us tactical breathing room to try and focus on strategic objectives which we proceeded to bungle.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[golfballs]

It's not a fact.

It is to many of those who have worked to make this nation what it is.

 

[HSVol]

So, the term "greatest military" does not imply that such a military should achieve strategic victory when it is deployed against any force? In that case, what would having an expeditionary force do for us, even if it is the most superior. Now, this no longer appears to be a critical component of th notion of "superior nation". Time to look at the other factors.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

The term "military" has a real definition, that has inherent implications.

military - Noun: The armed forces of a country.

 

[GAVol]

we're not exceptional because we're big and bad. We're exceptional because we weren't born out of ethnicity, geography or a common religion . . . But out of individualism and liberty.

 

[HSVol]

Right, tactic not strategy. Paying the insurgents gave us tactical breathing room to try and focus on strategic objectives which we proceeded to bungle.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

So what do you propose we should've done, as a military? Try to kill them all?

Please.

 

[n_huffhines]

It is to many of those who have worked to make this nation what it is.

They don't know what a fact is, then.

It's your theory/idea/feeling. You may have a lot of people that agree with you. It may even be true, but it isn't fact.

 

[n_huffhines]

we're not exceptional because we're big and bad. We're exceptional because we weren't born out of ethnicity, geography or a common religion . . . But out of individualism and liberty.

That's exceptionalism that I'm fine with. "Unique excellence". It's the sentiment of "superiority" that is the problem. Being "big and bad" is part of what makes America exceptional in a lot of people's minds.

 

[HSVol]

Wow. Great discussion on Herman Cain. lol:

 

[therealUT]

So what do you propose we should've done, as a military? Try to kill them all?

Please.

Should have decided not to invade.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[therealUT]

The term "military" has a real definition, that has inherent implications.

If you are going to throw out the term "real definition" you might want to cite which dictionary you are using.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[GAVol]

That's exceptionalism that I'm fine with. "Unique excellence". It's the sentiment of "superiority" that is the problem. Being "big and bad" is part of what makes America exceptional in a lot of people's minds.

not surprising. People are just looking at the result rather than what created it.

 

[HSVol]

Should have decided not to invade.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

The topic of whether we should or should not have invaded Iraq has nothing to do with the current discussion. We're talking military, not politics. If you want to discuss whether or not the Bush administration lied to everyone about the reasons for the invasion, go ahead. That has NOTHING to do with our military and the conflict in which they've been involved in since 2003.

And make no mistake, Iraq was a clear military success. The military employed various tactics and "strategies" in order to achieve it's objective. If the Sons of Iraq campaign worked because it paid Sunnis to man checkpoints instead of fight Americans, then it worked. And the SOI strategy (not just a tactic) was a strategy that was formulated and executed by MNF-I.

And on the definition of military, you're really grasping at straws here. The classic definition of "military" is related to the fighting force of a government. So don't act like it matters what dictionary the definition I used came from. We don't call the Taliban a military. We don't call Hamas a military. We don't call Los Zetas a military. But they are, or do have, fighting forces.

There seems to be some underlying things going on with you and your military experience.

 

[golfballs]

They don't know what a fact is, then.

It's your theory/idea/feeling. You may have a lot of people that agree with you. It may even be true, but it isn't fact.

none of which are the same.

But it doesn't really matter. It's the point that they believe it.

 

[n_huffhines]

The topic of whether or not we should or should not have invaded Iraq has nothing to do with the current discussion. We're talking military, not politics.

Well, the topic is actually American exceptionalism. If our politics mess up our military efforts then we aren't all that exceptional. It's like bragging that you have a Ferrari when you don't know how to drive stick. It does you no good.

 

[golfballs]

That's exceptionalism that I'm fine with. "Unique excellence". It's the sentiment of "superiority" that is the problem. Being "big and bad" is part of what makes America exceptional in a lot of people's minds.

pffft

 

[golfballs]

that unique excellence is part of what makes us superior.

 

[Weezy]

War, what is it good for.

 

[HSVol]

Well, the topic is actually American exceptionalism. If our politics mess up our military efforts then we aren't all that exceptional.

Oh, I see. So you advocate a more ruthless approach to war where we don't consider political implications and just kill to achieve our objective?

Cool.

You're right, we shouldn't have telegraphed our effort in Fallujah. Should've just taken that sum'***** down without telling the innocents to leave, even though it meant the smart bad guys walked right by the Marines, smiling. /sarcasm

 

[volinbham]

we're not exceptional because we're big and bad. We're exceptional because we weren't born out of ethnicity, geography or a common religion . . . But out of individualism and liberty.

Yes. The notion of American exceptionalism is the system that prizes individualism, ownership, liberty and self-determination is a model that is superior. It is not the country or the people - it is the system and it's ethos.

It is an ideal; not an outcome (e.g. most wealth, biggest military, etc.).