maddogdrivethru.net

Open all night
It is currently Sun Sep 23, 2018 3:29 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


It's the Gulag of Fun



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 664 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 ... 67  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Military stuff ... past and present.
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2018 3:13 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 11485
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 15095
You seem to be suggesting that the "proper" response to the twin towers attacks would have been to "take cover," and dig in?

_________________
Anthro's NSFW Thread


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military stuff ... past and present.
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2018 3:18 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 12:33 pm
Posts: 20769
Location: LV-426
Reputation points: 14927
No. The Afghan War was the one and only overseas war in which the USA has been involved, since 1945, that has legitimacy by the test of US sovereignty. An attack on US lands and waters is clear causus belli.

The only question I have about the Afghan War is why we thought an indefinite commitment to nation building in a region ruled by tribalists wedded each in their own way to a religion of mayhem seemed like a good idea. A massive punitive effort to kill lots of Taliban and AQ types makes sense to me. "Screw with us and this is what happens to your leaders, your wealthy financiers, etc." We probably should have rounded up all of Bin Laden's relatives everywhere and sunk them in the deep Atlantic in a shipping container to let the Saudis know as well to keep their stuff in order.

_________________
"Fuck the king." - Sandor Clegane

"And the story was whatever was the song what it was." - Dire Straits


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military stuff ... past and present.
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2018 3:28 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 11485
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 15095
mdiehl wrote:
No. The Afghan War was the one and only overseas war in which the USA has been involved, since 1945, that has legitimacy by the test of US sovereignty. An attack on US lands and waters is clear causus belli.

The only question I have about the Afghan War is why we thought an indefinite commitment to nation building in a region ruled by tribalists wedded each in their own way to a religion of mayhem seemed like a good idea. A massive punitive effort to kill lots of Taliban and AQ types makes sense to me. "Screw with us and this is what happens to your leaders, your wealthy financiers, etc." We probably should have rounded up all of Bin Laden's relatives everywhere and sunk them in the deep Atlantic in a shipping container to let the Saudis know as well to keep their stuff in order.


Setting aside Iraq, I am suggesting that the points I make would have improved results in Afghanistan. They would have improved results in Korea, and Vietnam and Iraq too.

Alexander the Great got it (more-or-less): you do not attain "victory" by brutalizing foreigners and then waving your dick in their face. You attain victory by the application of a JUDICIOUS quantity of brutalization, and then being even-handed, conciliatory and most importantly by understanding how they actually think and feel.

Hitler did not get it, and nor does the modern U.S. military industrial complex.

_________________
Anthro's NSFW Thread


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military stuff ... past and present.
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2018 3:40 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 12:33 pm
Posts: 20769
Location: LV-426
Reputation points: 14927
Possibly. The thing is, you can't have a permanent victory if your cause is unjust to begin with. I submit that German, Japanese, and Italian citizenry, many politicians, and much of the lower level cadre of their armed forces cooperated with the US during occupation both because of something similar to HTS policies and also because THEY KNEW THEY WERE IN THE WRONG. Likewise the US civilian population sustained WW2 because the USA was clearly in the right, both by virtue of having been attacked, and by the policies of the Axis in the occupied nations.

I see no evidence that the Viet Cong would have quit. They were arguably in the moral right... being the inheritors of the mantle of the Viet Minh. And the VM were clearly in the moral right during the rebellion against French colonialism. Indeed, a proper policy towards Viet Nam would have been for the US to back Ho starting in 1945. Likewise, the US citizenry was intolerant of US participation in Viet Nam (in any real sense it took 18-24 months for the US population to rally against that war because the US commitment was pretty marginal until 1966. That is because US sovereignty, security, and liberty did not have even the slightest thing to do with US involvement in Viet Nam.

So yes, HTS could improve occupation and relation strategies. But the only way for the US to win wars is to avidly avoid being involved in them, and to only be involved in them when US sovereignty and security is at stake. If it's not evident to average Joe that he's going to be harmed unless the US does something, the plan isn't going to work because the citizenry in general will quickly get past that militarist euphoria that accompanies the start of each war and come round to the question "In what way is waging this war in my interest." Then they stop supporting the war.

The Iraq war was stupid on all accounts. In Afghanistan, the war was just, but tribalists and religious zealots are unlikely to embrace the notion that they were in the wrong. So punitive war makes sense. Occupation does not.

_________________
"Fuck the king." - Sandor Clegane

"And the story was whatever was the song what it was." - Dire Straits


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military stuff ... past and present.
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 5:24 am 
Offline
His Most Gracious Majesty, Commie of the Year
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:44 pm
Posts: 7880
Reputation points: 17300
Once more you propose a path where Soviet Union still exists, controlling the whole Eurasian continent from Portugal to Vladivostok and South Korea, directly opposing United States.

That's a lot of lost comparative advantage and joint research on macro level.

I agree, Europeans are shitty allies to US, they're hardly allies but more like autonomous protectorate states or client states without any responsibilities.

Yet they are not hostile to US and continued to form an integrated economic and scientific zone with the US while also providing what they had to defend their own territories while relying heavily on US military.

Had all of their resources been available to communists then Russians would not have churned out 50,000+ of each and every tank they ever designed.

Instead they would have spent these resources to build fleets and air forces rivaling US Navy.

Obviously they would not be able to initiate direct attacks on US but now they would have the entire European populace in addition to their historic Warsaw resources all focused on infiltration and invasion of Americas.

Truly the threat would have been far closer to home for US as you would have preferred. I wonder with the additional resources at their disposal if they could have been better able to compete with the Star Wars program given that they didn't need to worry about having a land army to steamroll NATO forces in Europe with while taking hits from atomics.

_________________
Screw you nero


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military stuff ... past and present.
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 5:29 am 
Offline
His Most Gracious Majesty, Commie of the Year
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:44 pm
Posts: 7880
Reputation points: 17300
mdiehl wrote:
Possibly. The thing is, you can't have a permanent victory if your cause is unjust to begin with. I submit that German, Japanese, and Italian citizenry, many politicians, and much of the lower level cadre of their armed forces cooperated with the US during occupation both because of something similar to HTS policies and also because THEY KNEW THEY WERE IN THE WRONG. Likewise the US civilian population sustained WW2 because the USA was clearly in the right, both by virtue of having been attacked, and by the policies of the Axis in the occupied nations.

I see no evidence that the Viet Cong would have quit. They were arguably in the moral right... being the inheritors of the mantle of the Viet Minh. And the VM were clearly in the moral right during the rebellion against French colonialism. Indeed, a proper policy towards Viet Nam would have been for the US to back Ho starting in 1945. Likewise, the US citizenry was intolerant of US participation in Viet Nam (in any real sense it took 18-24 months for the US population to rally against that war because the US commitment was pretty marginal until 1966. That is because US sovereignty, security, and liberty did not have even the slightest thing to do with US involvement in Viet Nam.

So yes, HTS could improve occupation and relation strategies. But the only way for the US to win wars is to avidly avoid being involved in them, and to only be involved in them when US sovereignty and security is at stake. If it's not evident to average Joe that he's going to be harmed unless the US does something, the plan isn't going to work because the citizenry in general will quickly get past that militarist euphoria that accompanies the start of each war and come round to the question "In what way is waging this war in my interest." Then they stop supporting the war.

The Iraq war was stupid on all accounts. In Afghanistan, the war was just, but tribalists and religious zealots are unlikely to embrace the notion that they were in the wrong. So punitive war makes sense. Occupation does not.


Japan and Nazis had all the propaganda support they could hope for.

One of the problems that arises from this is that it can potentially lead to idiocy. "Well, the populace backs us up and we have started to believe ourselves that we're superior to those playboys, so let's risk destroying our entire nation while putting that belief to the test".

For Afghanistan, if US had better propaganda and different mindset you could have simply declared a war goal to bomb them from stone age back to .. just annihilate as many of them as possible indirectly without risking any service personnel.

"You bombed us, now we bomb you".
It wouldn't have been hard to sell either if there was any effort to do so - to sell this idea as opposed to some Marxist notion of self flagellation and turning the other cheek and apologizing for being born different.

_________________
Screw you nero


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military stuff ... past and present.
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 9:10 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 12:33 pm
Posts: 20769
Location: LV-426
Reputation points: 14927
Not sure I share your concern that the sky falls if the US does not do all the work. Backing Ho would not have resulted in more Russian control in SE Asia, but instead less control. As for Europe, the absence of Americans carrying Europe's water means Europe becomes favorably disposed towards Stalinism? So Europeans have learned nothing from two world wars? Or is Europe a place of child-like self-entitled dependents? Or did European women just stop having male offspring?

_________________
"Fuck the king." - Sandor Clegane

"And the story was whatever was the song what it was." - Dire Straits


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military stuff ... past and present.
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 11:11 am 
Offline
His Most Gracious Majesty, Commie of the Year
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:44 pm
Posts: 7880
Reputation points: 17300
mdiehl wrote:
Not sure I share your concern that the sky falls if the US does not do all the work. Backing Ho would not have resulted in more Russian control in SE Asia, but instead less control. As for Europe, the absence of Americans carrying Europe's water means Europe becomes favorably disposed towards Stalinism? So Europeans have learned nothing from two world wars? Or is Europe a place of child-like self-entitled dependents? Or did European women just stop having male offspring?


No, I meant the US presence in Europe during Cold War, when European NATO countries still had forces resembling armies and not of the salvation-type.

It is possible that European women in the western Europe stopped having male offspring and the few accidents were emasculated when they were young. This would certainly explain many things. Luckily the eastern side still has not gone through the mandatory Euro-removal-of-balls thing even if they've been sitting in the waiting room.

_________________
Screw you nero


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military stuff ... past and present.
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 4:25 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:43 pm
Posts: 15436
Reputation points: 1334
Woodware.



When kid I had balsa model airplanes, and British war comics like Siivet (Air Ace Picture Library) and Korkeajännitys (Commando) and Battler Britton were very popular among us kids.

I still think the Mosquito was the best airplane in the WWII. ;)

_________________
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt

Mit der Dummheit kämpfen selbst Götter vergebens.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military stuff ... past and present.
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 7:08 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:43 pm
Posts: 15436
Reputation points: 1334
The topic has been covered years ago, but was it this video.



Swedes have their experiences with subs. :lol:

_________________
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt

Mit der Dummheit kämpfen selbst Götter vergebens.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 664 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 ... 67  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group