Can the US win a war ? ...

page: 9
6
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by jd140
 


While I am an advocate of peace, I am not blind to the plight of the military. They are sent into battle with rules that put the soldiers' sense of morality and lawful duty at odds with survival, which is more important. People in these peace groups forget that the military has a purpose, and that is to close in on and destroy the enemies of the USA. Thats all they do. If you want to stop needless war you have to tie the hands of corrupt politicians not soldiers.




posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 03:39 PM
link   
make love not war...
peace out brothers.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by maestro46
REWIND!!!
From the OP:
"Mercenaries ( Russian ) are known to have highjacked various laser guided munitions during the Iraq invasion... causing ( in some cases ) very expensive bombs to fall into empty fields. It's likely that most aborigines cannot figure out laser- light frequencies, but my hypothetical question has to do with people who are MODERN and Who Would Fight Back."

I'd like to hear a little more on this please.

Regards,
Maestro


This statement has to do with a pal o mine who is still ' in ' venting a frustration at a Bar B Que.
He operates a very sophisticated ship indeed.
I don't know if there is anything public on this ( though I think I remember something from early on in Iraq 2 ).
I will look and report back if I find it.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by jd140
 


I Completely Agree Whichu . If The American Military Could Fight Like They Did In The 1940's , Shoot Everything That Moves And If U Break Something Fix It Wen The Fighting Is Done We Could More Than Likely Have BEEN Done With Iraq .



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Skelkie3
 





The question is simple enough- can the United States actually win a war when the enemy fights back ?


Yes No Problem and have been for a while ,,and getting very good experience at it too,

But once they work out to use british/Aussi soldiers with German officers and American Tech and supplys... Un"Bloody"Beatable......(joke joyce!)

[edit on 8-8-2009 by MinMin]



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Yes, the US could win a war if the opposition fights back.

As a matter of fact we *could* win a war with only one ship...if we were to go there.

Nuclear Ballistic Submarine= NO CONTEST

Here is a cool video. At last count I believe we had 16 of these babies. Each capable of being submersed for 6 months, and each capable of destroying an entire continent.



[edit on 8-8-2009 by Taxi-Driver]



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Of course.
Just take Vietnam and Iraq as examples



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
Yes, the US could win a war if the opposition fights back.

As a matter of fact we *could* win a war with only one ship...if we were to go there.

Nuclear Ballistic Submarine= NO CONTEST[edit on 8-8-2009 by Taxi-Driver]


Typical American view of "victory". Victory is about eventually winning over the support of the people you are fighting, regardless if it is wrong or right. There is no victory if you annihilate your enemy, just sadness and disbelief.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Would the US win??? NO.

Reasons.

The concept, or perception most have of what a country is wrong. Countries are nothing more than subsidiaries of Power Broker's; these power broker's have run the entire world for a very long time from the shadows.

These power broker's have general overlapping business interests; as can be seen in war, or by pages of confused posts'="we'd win if only the brass in the rear with the gear would let us"... sure, very likely, but the brass, and puppeteers above them are following orders. It could be very likely that the Power broker in ownership of the US has a factory, or area of strategic, or other importance which they don't want destroyed, in the very country being fought in.
Now, another issue is the complete support infrastructure. The military is only the razor sharp spear head. The shaft is made up of support infrastructure that stretches into every living room in the US. I'm sure all is well with the individual soldier's capability. I can feel my testosterone flowing through my veins right now, as well. LMOA.

However, without a supply chain fighting units begin to break down at a critical manner.

I don't think the US, or the Power broker in ownership there of has the strength to pull off a real war at this stage. So no.
just my two pesos, but if the US could win a war at this point, then they'd have done it

[edit on 9-8-2009 by sanchoearlyjones]



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
Yes, the US could win a war if the opposition fights back.

As a matter of fact we *could* win a war with only one ship...if we were to go there.

Nuclear Ballistic Submarine= NO CONTEST[edit on 8-8-2009 by Taxi-Driver]


Typical American view of "victory". Victory is about eventually winning over the support of the people you are fighting, regardless if it is wrong or right. There is no victory if you annihilate your enemy, just sadness and disbelief.


Good job with that massive and sweeping generalization.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
Yes, the US could win a war if the opposition fights back.

As a matter of fact we *could* win a war with only one ship...if we were to go there.

Nuclear Ballistic Submarine= NO CONTEST[edit on 8-8-2009 by Taxi-Driver]


Typical American view of "victory". Victory is about eventually winning over the support of the people you are fighting, regardless if it is wrong or right. There is no victory if you annihilate your enemy, just sadness and disbelief.



I suppose the question should have been can America win a kinder, gentler, conventional war then...

I am not for the anniihilation of the planet, I am just saying we own the seas, and from that-- the end game.

Really I just like the video.. it is pretty cool.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Iblis

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
Yes, the US could win a war if the opposition fights back.

As a matter of fact we *could* win a war with only one ship...if we were to go there.

Nuclear Ballistic Submarine= NO CONTEST[edit on 8-8-2009 by Taxi-Driver]


Typical American view of "victory". Victory is about eventually winning over the support of the people you are fighting, regardless if it is wrong or right. There is no victory if you annihilate your enemy, just sadness and disbelief.


Good job with that massive and sweeping generalization.



I know, it's sad that there's so many ignorant people who believe that you win wars by killing everyone. That's not victory, that's massacre and it should be dealt with in kind response. Nuclear weapons are weapons of fear and desperation, never resulting in victory. While "nuclear winter" might be a load of crap, it does not mean that hundreds of millions of innocent people will be forever affected by the swords of light. Good thing discipline ruled the Cold War generation.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Iblis

-How was Vietnam, Korea, etc. an energy/resource interest? Nice use of nationalist b-sh-t you've got going there.


Oh how very ignorant Americans are on the subject of their own history and wars that THEY engaged in.

Source:

www.britannica.com...

"Since the end of the Vietnam War, the Gulf of Tonkin has been the site of oil exploration by many multinational companies."


So western text books admit it but the war and the bombing was a front, the exploration
was HAPPENING during the war. US oil companies like Standard Oil had an edge, they knew after the war which fields to bid on and which areas were dry and they didn't have to spend a dime on costs, american taxpayers picked up the tab

Regardless of who wins and who dies... there is money to be made and marshall plans everywhere you look, off the back of other peoples misfortunes and miseries..... the results not as important as the act of destroying plant, capital and human life in the name of profit and control of resource by bankers and money men

There is no moral high ground for Americans.... you bombed Chinese journalists in Bosnia, tortured Iraqi and Afghan civilians, double crossed the Kurds in Iraq with promises galore then let the Turks bomb them after Gulf War I, Not to mention the grand theft of rebuilding funds by the corrupt afterwards in Iraq.


Please be up front about it and admit that to keep your empire and couch potato lifestyle intact you'll rape grandmothers and bomb kids schools everywhere, anytime

The real war is the working class people against the oppressors in government and corporations, the enemy within who leech off our toil like vampires. Militarist arsekissers like yourself and apologists for the military industrial complex are part of the problem.

Until you grasp this jaggy nettle and accept it, nothing will make sense.

Ask yourself one question, why was the atom bomb dropped on civilians heads TWICE and not some Japanese military base or on a battlefield ??

I'm 1000% sure that the US would have dropped 100 bombs if they had them... like the firebombing of Dresden it was about taking out industrial plant competition for AFTER the war: if the A bomb was such a fearsome weapon and all pervasive, why drop two and why so highly densely populated areas ?? Don't believe the propaganda, don't believe it.

ATS is not a place for kool-aid drinking Top Gun watchers!

Dresden
Taylor writes that an official 1942 guide to the city described it as "one of the foremost industrial locations of the Reich" and in 1944, the German Army High Command's Weapons Office listed 127 medium-to-large factories and workshops that were supplying the army with material.[29]

But historian Sonke Neitzel wrote in 2006, "The industrial plants of Dresden played no significant role in German war industry at this stage of the war".



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Indeed, the US raped Dresdene in a matter of days. Over a hundred thousand people melted alive from the firebombing over the course of one night is what I heard. The city was industrial with minimal military presence.

In school I was taught that the massacre was revenge over the death of two allied spies. Hope their sacrifice was worth it.

As for Japan, I know the US had more bombs on the go and planned to drop some even in the ocean to create tidal waves. The question was if the US actually expected the Emperor to surrender, especially since the US had invasion of Japan almost ready to proceed... I wonder what the world would be like now if Japan became an American territory.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
As for Japan, I know the US had more bombs on the go and planned to drop some even in the ocean to create tidal waves. The question was if the US actually expected the Emperor to surrender, especially since the US had invasion of Japan almost ready to proceed... I wonder what the world would be like now if Japan became an American territory.



Why didnt it?
I mean we had all the marbles in one bag?



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 04:36 PM
link   
I don't know. My guess is that the world had enough of two world wars and the US still had the morale ground to back down when it was ahead.

On top of that, USSR would've probably fought with the US for Japanese land grab.



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 12:30 AM
link   
War evolves through time. Look back during the 18th and 19th centuries when armies faced each other in lines taking turns shooting. When Troops started to shoot from cover and fight in smaller groups it was devastating to the line formation style.
Now it seems that in some cases (Iraq and Vietnam) that guerrilla warfare is effective against 'modern' combat practices.



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Bringmeachair
 


Before You Know It The United States Will Be Useing Gorrila Warfare



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 02:01 PM
link   
All special forces use unconventional warfare, which is why they're so effective these days against terrorists.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest
if we absolutely had to, we have nukes.

but
i have we could win, if we actually declared war. i think most of the problem with iraq was that war wasnt declared and we werent really prepared for anything long term or even lasting over a couple months.


America has won every war.We always kill more.In every war we always kill more of them.the current ratio every American soldier kills a hundred of the enemy

SO YOU CAN REST EASY TONIGHT.

We have 128000 nukes.we can destroy the planet.

we have squirreled away enough nukes for world war 4 never mind world war 3 according to aviation weekly.

americans are always ready to destroy to destroy the enemies of america.



We Americans don't declare wars.We defend America.

we are the most civilised race on the planet.





top topics
 
6
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join