Can the US win a war ? ..., page 2
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 6 times


reply posted on 2-7-2009 @ 03:56 PM by dariousg
reply to post by Zosynspiracy



True, but then I feel that it truly depends on where that fight will take place.

If it happens here on our soil do I think we can win? Hell yes. Because not only will the invaders have an army to deal with they will have one of the best armed group of civilians to deal with that know the lay of the land better than any invading army ever could.

But, as with most of our wars, we are say, in Russia fighting them, well, I think we would be hard pressed without any ally support. It's the same anywhere. If you invade a nation you had better expect to get your eye dotted over it because not only do you have to worry about the armies you have to worry about them knowing their country better than you.

That's why we have lost the wars that we have.


reply posted on 2-7-2009 @ 04:17 PM by grapesofraft
reply to post by Reading


I dont think the Military is poorly trained, it is the stupid politicians that try to put rules on what is meant to be a battle to the death.


reply posted on 2-7-2009 @ 04:37 PM by Skelkie3
Originally posted by grapesofraft
reply to post by Zosynspiracy


I agree that it would be a hell of a nasty fight. Just think our soldiers would be out there fighting for their lives against the Russians or Chinese while a bunch of the people they are fighting to protect are sitting here whining because a few civilians died in the crossfire. It is ridiculous.


Perhaps the knee-jerk blame game excuse faction is a hindrance to a successful deployment , too - eh ?

And a successful deployment against Russia/ China types is what we might want ot consider...


reply posted on 2-7-2009 @ 04:45 PM by Skelkie3
Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by dariousg


EXACTLY! Very good point.


Can the US win a war ?

Define WIN first.

If you mean that we declare victory then pull out and have a "Victory" Parade. Then yes it's a "WIN"

If you define a loss as.

1. The troops drop their weapons and surrender. Then Yes it's a loss.
Hasn't happened yet.
NEXT?

2. Major bases been over run or destroyed do to enemy fire. Then Yes it's a loss.
Hasn't happened yet.
NEXT?

3. Been defeated on the battlefield. Then Yes it's a loss.
Hasn't happened yet.
NEXT?

4. The present Government is incapable of running the country. Then Yes it's a loss.
Hasn't happened yet.
NEXT?


Well, actually all 4 of your points can be answered in the affirmative- and often on a massive scale.

1. The phillipines 1941-42

2. Cam Rahn Bay Vietnam ( and 200 others ) 1972

3.Holland 1944-45

4.The present government isn't capable of wiping their own asses

[edit on 2-7-2009 by Skelkie3]



reply posted on 2-7-2009 @ 04:46 PM by grapesofraft
reply to post by Skelkie3


A star for you only for point number 4 of your post.


reply posted on 2-7-2009 @ 04:47 PM by Reading
Originally posted by SLAYER69
Originally posted by Reading

America's troops are poorly trained too contrary to (american) popular belief



Thanks for your OPINION.

Let us know which countries services you have served in and when did you last serve in US forces and let us know from your personal experiences which is better trained.



Such a smart guy huh? im currently in the process of joining the RAF regiment is that good enough for you?

i have never served but i have spoken to many that have and i have heard all about team america

i also happen to know that most of your training programmes are borrowed from us in some way or another

thought you might like this slay:

this is from a news paper, even the US special operation forces are considered gung ho

The differences between the way US and British special forces operate became clear early in the war on terror. In Afghanistan in December 2001 a four-man Special Boat Service (SBS) team was 20 minutes behind the fleeing Osama Bin Laden when it was ordered to let the Americans take over. By the time the US special operations troops arrived several hours later, Bin Laden had escaped.

Similar tensions arose in Mosul in northern Iraq in July 2003. Coalition forces were tipped off that Saddam’s sons Uday and Qusay were hiding in a villa. A 12-man SAS team went in to recce the building. The commander of the 32-man SAS detachment in the city believed his men could quickly capture the brothers so they could be brought to trial.

US commanders disagreed. Not only did they doubt such a small unit could capture Uday and Qusay, they were also reluctant to cede a high-profile operation to nonUS forces. The result was mayhem: helicopters attacked with antitank missiles while a Delta unit stormed the building and support troops looked on. It was not the British idea of special operations.

The SAS and SBS - who often fight on land despite their naval connections - have been involved in America’s secret worldwide special forces activities since the start of the war on terror, operating alongside Delta, Seal Team Six and an ultra-secret US unit known as Task Force Orange. But Iraq has brought the differences between the two military cultures into sharp focus.

“The problem from the start was that operational training and procedures for the top UK and US special operations forces are vastly different,” one British source said.

In Iraq, British special forces aim to merge into the background, driving battered local cars and wearing cheap clothes bought in markets. They looked on aghast at their US colleagues who initially drove around in new Dodge pickups.

“We used to laugh when we saw the Americans around the green zone,” one source said. “They would be wearing designer jeans, heavy boots and T-shirts - that was their idea of local dress. To a man they would all have pistols strapped to each leg with black plastic holster and webbing, and of course they would be wearing the latest shades. We called it ‘living the dream’.”

But it was far from a joke. If the Americans were spotted for what they were, then any British forces operating alongside them would be at risk as well. Even more seriously, if US forces applied their doctrine of shooting first and asking questions later, the British risked being dragged into the same dangerous territory.


one British source said
“I saw a lot of things in Baghdad that were illegal or just wrong,” he said. “The Americans had a well deserved reputation for being trigger-happy.”

i think that says it all really



reply posted on 2-7-2009 @ 04:49 PM by punkinworks
Originally posted by Reading
The US has never fought anybody that can fight back thats the funny thing about it

Look at all of the wars america fights

Vietnam

Iraq

Afghanistan

The 'war' on drugs

Dont even get me started on ww2 thats a whole other thread!

America's troops are poorly trained too contrary to (american) popular belief



Dont even get me started,

Vietnam,
You obviously dont know WTF you are talking about.
The vietnamese not able to fight back are you kidding me.
The north vietnames army was well equipped and trained and an effective fighting force that had the advantage of terrain and a superior reason to fight.
You also have to remeber we didnt start the vietnamese conflict, the army of north viet nam invaded south viet nam.
They also invaded loas and cambodia first to get supplies to the viet cong in the south.
they also spread rebellioning neighboring countires by equipping nthe pathet loa, and khmer rouge.
The other side of the vietnames conflict was also fully supported by the soviet union and the chinese, so dont give me that crap that they couldnt fight back and north vietnam was the constant agressor in the situation.

Iraq: could have fought back but didnt have the will, thats how most conscript armies behave when put on the defensive.
Im not saying that our going into iraq was the right thing to do.

Afgahnistan: The initial mission was the right thing to to do but it somehow got transformed into us trying to undo 2000 years worth of inter tribal rivalry.
And I seem to remember the afganis also stopped the russians.
They tribal warriors in the afghan mtns are a formidable force they have a supior knowledge of the terrain and are drive by extreme religous ideology.
The war on drugs doesnt count thats just stupid.


And WW2?????


reply posted on 2-7-2009 @ 04:56 PM by Skelkie3
reply to post by Reading


All due respect to the good ol RAF and others- if I get caught in a hole somewhere ( and wars against tough opponents are not about super-smart operatives blending with the locals )- then I hope it's a hole full of US Marines.

You see, special forces become ( I think ) less effective in this meat grinder that seems possible in central Asia. Blending with the locals will mean being part of a stack of bodies...

So, some ( indirect ) advice from the soon-to-be RAF... discipline is lacking, and people act like cowboys to the detriment ( ? ) of the mission. Thanks.


reply posted on 2-7-2009 @ 05:08 PM by Reading
Originally posted by punkinworks

Dont even get me started,

Vietnam,
You obviously dont know WTF you are talking about.
The vietnamese not able to fight back are you kidding me.
The north vietnames army was well equipped and trained and an effective fighting force that had the advantage of terrain and a superior reason to fight.
You also have to remeber we didnt start the vietnamese conflict, the army of north viet nam invaded south viet nam.
They also invaded loas and cambodia first to get supplies to the viet cong in the south.
they also spread rebellioning neighboring countires by equipping nthe pathet loa, and khmer rouge.
The other side of the vietnames conflict was also fully supported by the soviet union and the chinese, so dont give me that crap that they couldnt fight back and north vietnam was the constant agressor in the situation.

Iraq: could have fought back but didnt have the will, thats how most conscript armies behave when put on the defensive.
Im not saying that our going into iraq was the right thing to do.

Afgahnistan: The initial mission was the right thing to to do but it somehow got transformed into us trying to undo 2000 years worth of inter tribal rivalry.
And I seem to remember the afganis also stopped the russians.
They tribal warriors in the afghan mtns are a formidable force they have a supior knowledge of the terrain and are drive by extreme religous ideology.
The war on drugs doesnt count thats just stupid.


And WW2?????





Ok buddy whatever makes you feel better, i keep forgetting that it was the north vietnamese that started the conflict silly me you really got forced into that one your country was in iminent danger !

Like i said whatever make's you feel better if you are sitting there honestly trying to tell me that The viet Cong and the Taliban match the might of the american military

then i think it is you that dont know WTF your talking about


reply posted on 2-7-2009 @ 05:14 PM by SLAYER69
reply to post by Skelkie3


Market Garden was planned by field Marshal Montgomery and which US airborne division was wiped out again?

Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>    ^^TOP^^



Nano Drones Flying in Formation
  Posted 9 days ago with 15 member flags
FPS RUSSIA
  Posted 14 days ago with 7 member flags
Spinel Thin Transparent Ceramic Armor defeats Barrett .50 Cal BMG
  Posted 13 days ago with 6 member flags
Self-steering Bullet Researched
  Posted 10 days ago with 5 member flags
Shockrounds take out three of your five senses.
  Posted 2 days ago with 5 member flags
Defective Ammunition Warning
  Posted 2 days ago with 5 member flags