Time limits for war?

We have seen a verry interesting phenomenon it the last decade, (time limits for War). We actually put on paper that we will pull out and leave a War by a specific date, regardless of the state of the War or the individual outcome.

Does anybody else think that this is the most insane thing you have ever heard? Or do they expect us (after 10 years) to be use to the idea by now?

I liken this to a 15 round prize fight, where the promoters of the fight tell one or both of the fighters: "Now I know we could go the full 15 rounds, and determine a true winner, but the reality is that after 6 rounds, the likelyhood is you will both be tired. The people will begin to lose interest, and they might not be willing to pay the $49.95 on pay per view next time if we get too boring. So therefore if you can't win by round six, one of you had better take a dive.

I pesonally would love to be in charge of the insurgents in Afghanistan, watching a TV, and hearing the leader of the United States, state that we will begin to pull out our troops in a one year period. The tactical, intelligent, strategy by the insugents, should be to lay low, and do very little fighting over the next year. The United States at that point will leave as promised, and at that point they can completely regain control of Afghanistan and surrounding regions. They can reinstate Sharia law. They can kill every one of the people who stood by us while we have been there. Although that's OK because the American people have gotten bored with the war. Are you f%^*#$g kidding me?

Better yet, lets take this scenario into the early 1940's. Can you, in even your most fantasy based, completely unrealisic immagination, see The president of the United States saying: "Here in 1941, the Allied forces are making ground daily against the Nazis. We are coming closer to winning World War 2 every day. Therefore by next year, we will begin to pull all of our troops out of Europe and Africa."

Or for that matter Lincoln saying: "We come closer every day to a United country based on individual States. By the end of next year we will begin withdrawing all Northern troops from the South, we are bound to win by then!"

Wars are wars. They are not politically correct. They are not for the entertainment of the people. They are meant to be won or lost period. They do not have TIME FRAMES! These statements by our leadership, continue to confirm to the rest of the world, that we as a country, have become a joke. Our leadership has no backbone, and we are not likely to survive as a superpower.

As a follow up I would like to state: The enemies of the United States, have no time line, and never will. If it takes months, years, or decades, they will fight for our fall. Our resolve is being tested, and we are getting a D-.

What we've been fighting for the last 50 years have indeed been War for the combatants, but not really War in the classical sense. Up until Vietnam it was see the enemy, kill them. Now we have to get OKs all the way up the chain to the Pentagon and the President. It just isn't total War anymore. We either fight to win the MF or we don't. There seems to be no such thing as total victory. Is this a result of MAD (mutual assured destruction)?

Our resolve is being tested in two wars of choice? I see. Well, I might agree about time limits for "war" being odd if these were actually wars of necessity rather than choice. Time lines make perfect sense for wars of choice. We choose when to go in and we choose when to leave. Pretty logical.

[edit on 5-7-2010 by ~Lucidity]

These are not typical "wars", as I am sure you must be aware. Could we go in and destroy the regions after lunch if we chose to do so?

I think we probably could. But that is not the goal. Perhaps those with "no backbone" (I'm not sure I really want to have that term defined by the OP just now), have a more humanitarian objective in mind, and want to gradually wade out of this mess before more destruction is made to the human beings who live there, to their infrastructure, and to our kids over there constantly in harm's way.

In the event that all hell should once again break loose, I'm sure those with no backbone would step up, and rise to the occasion.

To the OP:
I'm interested. What do you think we should do?

Never at any time in world history has there ever been a global peace, war seems to be a constant with very few limits.

reply to post by deadred


I agree this is the case. Therefore the only sollution I can come up with, would be to redifine the enemy. Our "new" enemy would be any cleric, or leader of any mosque who preaches the destruction of the United States, and actively recruits people into this "holy war". I know, not very PC, but likely the only way to win in the long run.

Originally posted by Johnze
Never at any time in world history has there ever been a global peace, war seems to be a constant with very few limits.

There have always been robbers, murderers and rapists. There always will be. And now that the heinous criminal acts of terrorism have found the way into civilized countries, it will also always exist.

We will have to face them, prepare for them, and deal with them as we would any other criminal or group of criminals.

reply to post by ~Lucidity


As far as "wars of necessity" go, I will once again go back to WWII. How many people were killed at Pearl Harbor? How many people were killed in the 9/11 terror attacks? If The U.S had not gotten involved in WWII, would Germany eventually have invaded the U.S.? If we didn't get involved in Afghanistan, would funamentallist radicals continue to kill thousands of our people, attack after attack? I don't believe this is a war of choice, I'd much rather fight them over there than here.

They don't need a telegram to let them know we are leaving,

they have been down this road in the last half century with the soviets.

We WILL leave when we are bankrupted like the Soviets or if we get UNEXPECTEDLY sane, somewhat sooner.

This is not secret hand poker.

HOW MANY FREAKING NATIONS AND EMPIRES HAVE FAILED THERE?

Jesus Freaking Christ.

if 9 years = zero progress;

INFINITE years -> zero progress

If we didn't 'win' in the first three years there it was a lost cause PERIOD.

You can possibly capture the people's hearts & minds over the shorter term, until by dragging it out for a decade they realize you are barely better than the last bastard occupiers.

I can not believe how stupid right wing idiocy rhetoric is,

& how Americans either believe this crap or are too demoralized to speak out against the destruction of their United States.

God you people are mind bogglingly stupid.

But it is really all about looting the US treasury for global murder corporations & the taxpayer & unborn American babies will be left with the Trillions IOU & a destroyed nation.

Your idiocy is TREASONOUS idiocy.

It isn't limits on war,

it IS limits on this ceaseless insanity!

reply to post by ladyinwaiting


Question: If one of these fundamentalist holy warriors, was able to get a nuclear weapon into the United States, do you think he or she, would hesitate for even a second to wipe out 1,000,000 our citizens?

Now a follow up question: Do we blame the individual who killed a million of our citizens. Or do we blame the leader of the Mosque, who brainwashed him into commiting the act?

There is infact a strong leadership in the terrorist network. It is not Al Queda, It is not the leaders of the Taliban. It is the leaders of their mosques. It is their holy men, who wish the destruction of the United States. We need to go after the leadership, not their minions.

reply to post by dreamwalker74


No, Germany would not have attacked us in the U.S. We would have protected ourselves.

Going to "war" on both Afghanistan based on intelligence and rumors that may or may not be true in response to what happened on 9/11 was ludicrous. Anyone still buying that this made any sense at all for the reasons they were given is operating from a place basis of fear and jingoism rather than logic and facts and allowing colonization of the Middle East that will soon encroach on Central Asia. Please stop a moment and simply compare how we have retaliated against Iraq and Afghanistan over a horrible but unrelated incident that happened to occur in our country, perpetuated by primarily Saudis.

On it's face our totally disproportionate response, in sheer numbers of deaths alone, if you insist on bringing that up, makes us look cowardly more than brave. Go count the numbers of American deaths from all acts of "terrorism" in modern history and then count the deaths we have caused in response and you tell me who like either a scared or uniformed bully or appears to have another agenda altogether.

That tired line of "we'll fight them there so we don't have to fight them here?" First, who do you think created this monster to begin with with their actions in the Middle East. Second, So we'll fight them here. We'll pour the money into law enforcement and ACTUALLY tighten security on our airports and ports and borders and be far safer (if that's your huge concern) than we are now..

reply to post by slank


You are very right. Although, as long as there remains a direct threat, which I believe there is. I want to be as proactive as possible, in taking them out, before they can take out my family or myself. You are absoluttely correct that 9 years of war have accumulated to nothing. The fact is we have been targeting the followers and not the leadership, because of PC mindsets.

reply to post by ~Lucidity


First, who do you think created this monster to begin with with their actions in the Middle East?

Well, after long thought, I would say it was the muslim holy men, who through thousands of years of Sharia law, and the whole idea that all infidels (non muslims) should die. Not to mention the fact that through the religion, it is their RESPONSIBILITY to not only kill us, but to spread their laws and religion throughout the planet. So as an answer to your question, in the long run I have to blame Mohammed.

reply to post by dreamwalker74


It's pretty clear to anyone who actually listens to the people of the Middle East or has read Osama bin Laden's letters who created this.

reply to post by ~Lucidity


"No, Germany would not have attacked us in the U.S. We would have protected ourselves. "

Therefore, do you believe we should not have played a roll in WWII? Wow wonder what the outcome of that one would have been?

reply to post by ~Lucidity


Good to know Bin Laden is a reliable source to you. No I do not trust my government. At the same time I might trust him a little less.

reply to post by ~Lucidity


Was the war justified? Maybe, Maybe not. Are we actually making a difference in this war? No. Should we change our strategy? Yes. Are we up to our elbows in this war? YES. Should time limits for this war exist? ABSOLUTELY NOT!

I think the OP should take a history class to understand why a time limit on this hilariously failtastic war in Afghanistan would be a good thing.