It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by paraphi
Originally posted by Skelkie3
The English have always been pirates, but, at least US has thrown more and more of that influence off...
Just when I thought I was understanding your point, you throw in this incomprehensible twaddle. What do you mean. Pirates? I know the Pirates of Penzance and Edward Teach (aka Blackbeard) and a host of other sea dogs came from the English shores, but your point is lost on how these are related to the ability of our American cousins to win a war.
Originally posted by Amagnon
Why are Americans always talking about fighting and winning wars?
Because their MSM propagnda has conditioned them to believe that they are surrounded by enemies - and that war is justified and normal.
Have they have no idea that everything they are being told is a lie? Do they simply believe everything they hear on the MSM?
Do they really believe that a starving nation like Afghanistan, where the population is so decimated that the average age is under 20 can pose such a threat to the US that they constantly need to be there - bombing and killing them?
For what purpose? They are no threat - it is a lie - NK does not want to attack anyone, it just wants to be left alone - but the US is imposing sanctions - harrassing their ships - to what purpose? To create a conflict - to bring them under the control of the Bilderscum.
Originally posted by Unknown Perpetrator
America ability to win a war on all fronts has been disabled, both against a massive conventional force and the assymetric ones too.
Starting with the latter, no clear objectives: The US is a force of occupation, securing forward facing bases in or around actual 'energy/resource interest' countires. History tells us going back 4000 years, all occupying forces will be repulsed or withdraw under stalemate/defeat.
Secondly, the US couldn't fund or fuel a 'major conflict' for more than two or three weeks. Firstly, the USA as a country is broke.... any major war would see BRIC countries stop buying US treasuries and they'd go broke within a month. Secondly, Russian, Chinese or Indian subs would take out the ant trail of oil tankers crossing the atlantic and the war machine would dry up and idle within weeks. America is only self sufficient in generating hot air and bull#
Russia has plenty of oil/gas to fuel a successful defensive war in eurassia.....China doesn't and is in a similar energy position to the US. I'm sure all those Ipod Factorys though could quickly retool to churn out 1 million AK-47s a week and billions of round of ammunition.
The America of today is very different of that of the mid 40's early 50's ... all this high tech gadgetry, the bits/chips come from Asia... the US couldn't retool for sustained combat, they've lost all the plant, technicalskills and finance to do so.
Looking at who's got the biggest gun or exotic stealth bomber doesn't even come into it anymore
The money numbers to fund the USA military against the Chinese Peoples Army or Russians who can field fighters at a fraction of the cost & at high effectivity levels equal to that of US combat troops.
The complexity and cost means the US have a defunct Military doctrine... even thought the Pentagon has had a Decade to change the structure, the top brass still go for Star Wars type programs with massive budgets, pork barrelling, and cronyism on defence contract and equipment procurement.
For example: Who would have thought that artillery shells and tanks rounds turned into massive roadside bombs would have taken out more tanks and APCs than the Iraqi army during invasion as the munnions were intended. One dimensional outlook, some cheap but insightful lateral thinking, unconventional tactics and the US war systems breakdown. It can't adapt quickly enough and complex systems will collapse due to chaos theory.
Originally posted by Skelkie3
Originally posted by C0bzz
2. The US military uses lots of high technology that can be easily defeated by a sophisticated enemy. Guided weapons, drones, etc.- rely on secure communications to operate. Jamming is as old as radio... ' nuff said.
As is ECCM.
Let me reiterate - you don't know what you're talking about.
[edit on 2/7/2009 by C0bzz]
Well, that's the question... even given the fact that I don't know what I'm talking about... what happens to these lines off comm., when somebody who knows what they are doing wants to take them out ?
ECM ( electronic countermeasures ) have been around since WW2.
Are you ( thank God ! ) the only one who knows about this stuff ?
I was worried there for a moment !
Originally posted by mattifikation
reply to post by 3DPrisoner
What, you think you can win a debate by dodging a question and resorting to semantics? My question stands regardless of your sad attempt at misdirection. What source do you have that "just about" every able bodied Russian is in camo and army boots?
Originally posted by jerico65
Originally posted by 3DPrisoner
You keep dancing around the fact that the U.S. is in no way capable of taking the losses that these two armies have endured in the past regularly and who have shelled out a good amount of casualties to the belligerants who they fought in turn.
That was then; this is now. Do you honestly think that the Russians would eat up that many combat casualities now?
The US Army can take casualities; it's the civilian population and the government that can't. When US troops first arrived in Bosnia, two guys were killed in a helicopter accident. Right after that, the anti-war crowd were screaming it was like Vietnam, we were going to lose, and we needed to leave.
Originally posted by The Vagabond
I would like to add to my earlier comments that the Original Post seems to assume that the Iraq war is emblematic of US warfighting.