Discussion/Dialogue On Winning
Premises: #1. That superior strategies win wars. #2. That no one strategy is innately better than another strategy. #3. That strategies of attrition, limited
war and revolution may all succeed in various scenarios. #4. That the superior grand strategy is the one best fitted to the actual conditions under which the
war is waged. #5. That the underlying goal of virtually all war (public and private) is turf dominance and political control. #6. That brilliant strategies always
stress ambiguity (with words and concepts used to confuse the enemy; to alter his perceptions of reality; and to lead him into faulty counter measures and
waste of resources). #7. That protracted war erodes a weaker opponent's will to persist by presenting grim pictures of endless conflict without measurable
goals or prospect of success. #8. That superior strategies take advantage of the enemy's vulnerabilities with the focused application of its own strength...
while neutralizing the enemy's strength and minimizing its own vulnerabilities. #9. That wars will be quickly lost when both tactics and strategy are wrong.
#10. That with right tactics and wrong strategies, battles may be won but the war will be lost. #11. That with wrong tactics but right strategies, battles may
be lost but the war will be won. #12. That with right tactics and right strategies wars will be won quickly, and that these principles apply in many realms.
Your thoughts and points of view?
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyYou will lose fewer wars by renouncing war as a legitimate means of foreign policy than by preparing to wage war more efficiently. You will come out farther ahead than by winning wars as well.
Not until ---------------------------------------------------> The Millennium.
Originally posted by rwingett'The poor you shall have with you always' and 'Wars and rumours of wars until I come' I happen to buy off on and respect your rejection.
You will lose fewer wars by renouncing war as a legitimate means of foreign policy than by preparing to wage war more efficiently. You will come out farther ahead than by winning wars as well.
Edit: Throughout human history, without exception, freedom's been won through military victory. Today ours is still courtesy of World War II.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyAs long as the warriors write the history.
'The poor you shall have with you always' and 'Wars and rumours of wars until I come' I happen to buy off on and respect your rejection.
Edit: Throughout human history, without exception, freedom's been won through military victory. Today ours is still courtesy of World War II.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyIn this forum of losers, it fell on deaf ears. 😞
Discussion/Dialogue On Winning
Premises: #1. That superior strategies win wars. #2. That no one strategy is innately better than another strategy. #3. That strategies of attrition, limited
war and revolution may all succeed in various scenarios. #4. That the superior grand strategy is the one best fitted to the actual conditions under which ...[text shortened]... kly, and that these principles apply in many realms.
Your thoughts and points of view?
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyOpposing forces need not resort to war to resolve heir differences.
Opposing forces have always existed/still exist in the world (even as American Indians premised a black and white dog). Freedom is the issue.
Freedom need not be bought at the price of subjugating others.
