------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To chucky2 the clueless,
Where do you come up with the idea that the USA has ever fucked around when going to war, " as you claim, we should stop F'ing around when we go to war."
Where do I come up with the idea? Try Vietnam, Afghanistan, and GW2. Korea would partially be in there as well.
As I submit chucky2, when you say that, it simply proves how wrong you are.
You can submit whatever you'd like, it'll still be wrong.
As we can turn the question around, and ask, when has the US military fucked up and failed to deliver ever since WW2? And that might makes right question is a basically never!
What the F are you talking about here dude? This isn't a question about the US military, although one could certainly wonder WTF the US Military Leadership was thinking during Vietnam. This is a question about when the
US et al goes to war. The US Military is just the first in, smashing sh1t up like they do best. If we look at just Afghanistan and GW2 specifically, it's a classic example of the US half assing because the people at home cannot stand to feel pain when going to war. They don't want 700k-1M troops deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq simultaneously, whether it's the actual people being there or the cost involved. They want things the Walmart and Starbucks way, cheap, quick, and instant gratification with everything being perfect, no bad news. Our Politicians know this, and hence have the military ask for whatever they think they need, as long as it fits into this public view. This is how you have generals resigning because they know WTF is going to happen once we go in, smash up their military, and then can't be everywhere in the numbers needed to dissuade their nonkowed populace; and because this isn't a WWII scenario, where pretty much every German male between 13-50 was already captured or killed, and their remaining civilians population was mentally beaten out of their war mindset, there's going to be
plenty of troublemakers running free.
When the war in Korea started, the US military promptly responded, stopped North Korean advances, as US military were soon well into North Korea.
What??? What planet are you on dude? The US military was gutted after WWII. When NK attacked, they pushed
deep into NK and we rushed military units in piecemail as stopgaps - units often times weren't even cohesive units. That you'd even state this as you've done shows you don't know d1ck all about military history. McA the prima donna got lucky (he was brilliant too though) with his Inchon landing, turning the tide of the war. Had they tried to slug it out back up the pen., Seoul would still be in NK hands likely (or we'd had bled a hell of a lot more than we did getting back there).
We can say the same in Vietnam, once LBJ escalated the war, from a US advisory role to a combat role, the US military owned all of South Vietnam in jig time,.
You are quite simply insane here. Insane. We owned the piece of ground we had people standing on, and in lots of cases, we didn't even own that. Just because you are in your base and there are no towns outside of your base or the town you border, doesn't mean you own everything to the next town 15k away. You can say you 'own' something when you can leave your base at night, and walk that 15k away without worrying you're going to disappear when you walk through the town, or get past town. Your Korea statement was crazy wrong, here you are insane wrong.
The same thing can be said about Gulf War one and two, and Afghanistan too. As our US military have never once failed to deliver the bacon in jig time.
The military tries its best with what it's given and the parameters it's allowed to work in. In modern times, Yes, our military is other worldly good at wrecking other countries defenses, especially when we don't have the limitation of jungle warfare as we had in Korea and Vietnam. We finally sort of agree on something.
But you are clueless chucky2, simply because winning the war, is basically worthless, as the crucial step 2 of winning the peace becomes not the job of the US military and instead the job of US civilian politicians. Who have a long and consistent bi-partisan record of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Yes, exactly. When you turn things over to State, and have them attempt to do what they're tasked with doing, State fails. And to be brutally honest, State was going to fail regardless of how F'd up State is because instead of having 10 troops on every corner, we've got 10 troops on one side of our base looking out 1/4 mile away at a town a mile deep and they can see 60 yards of it. All the while, the populace who we're trying to get to come around to our way of thinking, something that takes
decades of commitment (see above for the patience span of the American public, which means the Political commitment span of our Politicians), is being bullied by those working against us at worst, and at best, our indoctrination/persuasion efforts are going no where/almost no where because we don't have the mental influence being imparted on the populace in part by our military being in their face in large #'s.
Meanwhile chucky2, I would appreciate if you stopped trying to claim I agree with you, in statements like "I'm glad to see LL you're coming around to a more realistic way of thinking"
When nothing could ever be further from the case.
I think it's pretty clear we don't agree on much, especially militarily.
Chuck
Facebook
Twitter