It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Coward War of a Nation

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by mike184ever
ok fartomahawk thrower, answer me this. At best the weaponry of the Afghan rebels is 30yrs old at best. As well armed and combat vested as the U.S. is, why can't our Hi powered, Hi moral & motivated,Hi fed, Hi speed advanced more than anybody, can't in a number of days or months woop these talibaners asses?


An enemy that hides in the civilian population. Tribal loyalities and warfare. Trying to kill the enemy while not killing the civilian population.




posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Constantlysilenced
Your ignorance is astounding. Italy has two carrier battle groups, the UK has two carrier battle groups (and two supercarriers being built), France has one carrier battle group and has ordered one supercarrier from the uk, in addition, the Eurofighter Typhoon is as advanced, if not more advanced than most mainstream US fighter jets (excluding the F22), the Challenger 2 tank used by the UK has had NO losses to enemy action, unlike your "high tech we're better than else" tanks. Just face it, your armed forces are all the gear, no idea.


You whine about Fararcher bragging about the US and not NATO forces, yet you then talk smack about the US. "All the gear, no idea". Pot, meet kettle.

Yeah, the Typhoon is a great fighter. How many have been in combat?

How are the Challenger 2 tanks deployed? Are they out in the field, or on a FOB? Two different ballgames, Highspeed. Not gonna take many losses when you're laagered on a FOB.


Originally posted by Constantlysilenced
And you may think numbers are everything, but look at this:

en.wikipedia.org...

The Russians had three times as many soldiers as the Finns, 30 times as many aircraft, and a hundred times as many tanks. The Finns defeated them. It's about training, and from what I have seen, heard and read, your training is nowhere near as intensive as most major European nations. All the gear, no idea.


Hmmm...1939-40. "All the gear, no idea"? Did you make that little saying up yourself? The Russians had gear; crappy, obsolete gear. And they weren't ready for the winter (like they'd be in WW2).

And US training is nowhere near intensive? What are you basing that little fact on?



Originally posted by Constantlysilenced
Sorry, but once again your ignorance is sickening, you say that even if we put all the European nations together, we wouldn't have as much as the US? If the EU's separate militaries were combined, we would have 6,884,296 active personnel, 6,895 tanks, 3,523 fighter jets, 1,349 transport planes and 7 carriers. I think you will find that these numbers are more than the US.


Yeah, "together". That's an important word in your little rant, isn't it?



Originally posted by Constantlysilenced
It's time to face it, you're nothing more than a second rate Great Power now, move over, your show is finished.


Whatever, Highspeed.
edit on 2-1-2011 by jerico65 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by FarArcher
 


your referance to a 100-150 : 1 kill ratio was achieved with operations "Rolling Thunder" and "Steele Tiger" to start with then they just roled in with the B-52's. More ordnance was dropped in Laos and Cambodia than N. Veitnam and we wern't at war with them. Yeah you want to make it sound like Special Forces slipped in under the wire with Injian tomahawks and had a blood bath ...not the story. Even still I cant argue with the kill ratio cause I dont know but I think its fair to say those bombing missions tore up more ground than killed NVA combat troops.Which was the mission anyway.Disrupt the Hi-way. Like I said I was 7 in 1968 so all i could do was read as much as I could about it later on. I dont know 67K dead GI's and a walk away dont sond like we won anything,but hell I had my stingray bike with Mickey Mantle baseball cards pinned to make the spokes rattle, what do I know about it.
Tell me FarArcher. What gives you the right to justify lives lost to educate an army that fought the same kind of war 40+ years ago. Dollars to Dougnuts in the next 20 years we will be fighting Commies and all this desert training and lives lost will be for not.....History repeating its self.....Time after time...unless we follow Russia's history and go down their even more tragic path



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by mike184ever
 

You're right about one thing - you don't know much about it.

That 100:1 to 150:1 kill ratio had nothing to do with the Arc Light strikes, which were awesome to observe - from a distance.

Special Ops.

You mention the 60,000 soldiers lost from 1962-1975.

Hell, we lose almost 50,000 Americans in car wrecks every year right here in the States.

What can we do about the education/or whatever crap point you were trying to make of these people.

And by the way. Those traffic accidents occur EVERY year. Not spread over 13 years.

You act like you're getting out of this life alive. No one lost their life because of war. Only the timing was affected, and even that's not a guarantee.

I was stunned to discover how many of my SF group buddies were dead. My Ranger company that are dead.

Don't worry about soldiers too much. They can often do more living in 30 minutes of combat that most men do their entire lives.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by FarArcher
 


Farflamthrower I now know you know no bounds at which you can justify the waist of life. I also find it striking that you openly display your grandeur, very nearly delusional. I have never in my life time known such a charactor talk so openly about lost dead lives the way you have. I dont think it makes me a bad person to see this.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 05:03 AM
link   
yup a war for oil



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by FarArcher


In Cambodia and Laos, our forces enjoyed a 100-150:1 kill ratio.


Why would you write this? Cambodia was never invaded by ground forces, it was a neutral country that was secretly CARPET BOMBED. An estimated 600,000 Cambodians lost their lives due to these bombings. These bombings also helped strengthen the KR, which at the time only had about 600 members. It could be argued that these acts constitute an act of genocide, they certainly laid the groundwork for the KR's slaughter.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 05:33 AM
link   
One little point to remember when talking up the capabilities of the US war machine in smashing all before before them, is that they have not, very likely since the Korean war, fought anyone who has anything like the firepower and technology that the US possesses. In short, they have not had to go up against a similarly armed opponent and, therefore, the idea that they can whip anyone else is pure conjecture and simple misplaced bravado.
When did the US go up against another naval opponent? When did the US go toe to toe against another similarly mechanised land army? When did the US go up against another high tech airforce and have to fight to win "air superiority"?

See where I am goin here?

Picking on backward countries with little no standing armies, maritime or air defence is hardly a measure of military greatness.
All it does show is a simple bully mentality and willingness to use that force to fight wars for corporate gain and personal political wealth. The public need to be shown a good reason for the wars, hence all the media booga googs about the bad guys, whether it be commie pinkos or turban wearing cave dwellers plotting their world domination schemes.


Simple truth is, war is good for business. Why negotiate with somone for access to land and resources when the corporations, via their paid political hacks, can get it by terrorising another nation and bombing the crap out of them? Just stage a few little incidents or, if you are in a hurry, one big event, and get the public baying for blood and revenge and the deal is done. The financiers bankroll the war and thus get more control due to the debt placed on the taxpayers, the big corporations make a killing (literally) from supporting various services from military hardware to base building, and the politicians make a nice little packet from well placed stock portfolios in those very corporations involved in the war machine. The only people who suffer are those who have to go fight and the poor buggers on the other side who must die for corporate profit. It's a sick scheme but what do we really expect from the sociopaths we are presented with as leaders.... selected by those very institutions that make the money from war. A choice of 2 main parties, both bankrolled by the same warmongers isn't really a choice!

Bottom line... if peace broke out all over, the impact on corporate profit would be catastrophic!



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65

Originally posted by Constantlysilenced
Your ignorance is astounding. Italy has two carrier battle groups, the UK has two carrier battle groups (and two supercarriers being built), France has one carrier battle group and has ordered one supercarrier from the uk, in addition, the Eurofighter Typhoon is as advanced, if not more advanced than most mainstream US fighter jets (excluding the F22), the Challenger 2 tank used by the UK has had NO losses to enemy action, unlike your "high tech we're better than else" tanks. Just face it, your armed forces are all the gear, no idea.


You whine about Fararcher bragging about the US and not NATO forces, yet you then talk smack about the US. "All the gear, no idea". Pot, meet kettle.

Yeah, the Typhoon is a great fighter. How many have been in combat?

How are the Challenger 2 tanks deployed? Are they out in the field, or on a FOB? Two different ballgames, Highspeed. Not gonna take many losses when you're laagered on a FOB.


Originally posted by Constantlysilenced
And you may think numbers are everything, but look at this:

en.wikipedia.org...

The Russians had three times as many soldiers as the Finns, 30 times as many aircraft, and a hundred times as many tanks. The Finns defeated them. It's about training, and from what I have seen, heard and read, your training is nowhere near as intensive as most major European nations. All the gear, no idea.


Hmmm...1939-40. "All the gear, no idea"? Did you make that little saying up yourself? The Russians had gear; crappy, obsolete gear. And they weren't ready for the winter (like they'd be in WW2).

And US training is nowhere near intensive? What are you basing that little fact on?



Originally posted by Constantlysilenced
Sorry, but once again your ignorance is sickening, you say that even if we put all the European nations together, we wouldn't have as much as the US? If the EU's separate militaries were combined, we would have 6,884,296 active personnel, 6,895 tanks, 3,523 fighter jets, 1,349 transport planes and 7 carriers. I think you will find that these numbers are more than the US.


Yeah, "together". That's an important word in your little rant, isn't it?



Originally posted by Constantlysilenced
It's time to face it, you're nothing more than a second rate Great Power now, move over, your show is finished.


Whatever, Highspeed.
edit on 2-1-2011 by jerico65 because: (no reason given)


I think you're sour that the US is nothing more than a laughing stock to the world, populated by fat, greedy, stupid, useless, dumbed down people! I pity you, I really do. I'll pitty you as china crushes your economy too



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by FarArcher
reply to post by Constantlysilenced
 

Constantly, ignorance, contrary to what you've apparently been taught, is not a virtue.

Let's take just one of your points - Vietnam.

At no time did the US lose a battle in Vietnam.


YOU LOST THE WAR.


At no time did the US become responsible for South Vietnam.


IF YOU HAD WON THE WAR, WOULD THE NORTH HAVE INVADED?


At no time did the "peasants" defeat the US.


YOU WERE DEFEATED BY SOLDIERS WEARING CANVAS SHOES IN TUNNELS THEY DUG THEMSELVES, USING OUTDATED SOVIET EQUIPMENT. YOU ARE BEING DEFEATED BY THE TALIBAN IN AFGHANISTAN AND AL QAIEDA USING EVEN MORE DATED EQUIPMENT AND EVEN LESS TRAINING.


All US combat troops were gone by the Summer of 1972.


WITH THEIR TAILS BETWEEN THEIR LEGS IN DEFEAT.


South Vietnam fell in 1975.


BECAUSE YOU LOST THE WAR.


So before you go on repeating crap learned by rote from another retard, you'll look a lot less stupid if you can get a few facts straight before having diahrrea of the mouth.


The only retards here are you, and most of your armed forces.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by mike184ever
 

No glorification of a waste of life, I was addressing the numbers you brought up.

Yes, I imagine we've had completely divergent lives.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Britguy
 

Well, Britguy, you take your enemies as they come.

The US is the same US whose "peasants" defeated the greatest army of the day - the British Army.

It wasn't going too well in WWI, and oddly, the US forces get over there, tell the French and British commanders to go to hell when they wanted to use US soldiers as replacements for French and British losses, and oddly, the war started to turn as American forces began to fight.

I also seem to recollect that Britain and France greased up and bent over for HItler at every opportunity, and could have taken him out early on - but didn't have the guts to.

Your approach to war is to let **** get entirely out of hand, and then turn to your American cousins to pull your bacon out of the fire.

We'll fight them as they make themselves known.

Your way the last time out cost 52,000,000 lives.

Our way keeps things to a minimum.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Constantlysilenced
 

Constantly, how in hell can one lose a war when they're NOT THERE?

And pulled out three years earlier?

Fat, stupid, lazy Americans? Oh, we have our share all right, and that of course gets back to some of the ongoing topic.

Maybe the world needs another enema - to take care of those fat, stupid, lazy people - right after the destruction of those who are full of ideals.

Those ideals won't reload a rifle nor pull the trigger.

And at the end of the day, that's what gets it done.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by FarArcher
reply to post by Constantlysilenced
 

Constantly, how in hell can one lose a war when they're NOT THERE?

And pulled out three years earlier?

Fat, stupid, lazy Americans? Oh, we have our share all right, and that of course gets back to some of the ongoing topic.

Maybe the world needs another enema - to take care of those fat, stupid, lazy people - right after the destruction of those who are full of ideals
Those ideals won't reload a rifle nor pull the trigger.

And at the end of the day, that's what gets it done.

edit on 3-1-2011 by mike184ever because: sorry had to bite my tongue on this one



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by FarArcher
 


here are some very good numbers, all this waist of life and you say its prepration for?
www.creators.com...
dont be distracted by this messenger
www.youtube.com...
edit on 3-1-2011 by mike184ever because: video added



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by mike184ever
 

No.

Those are NOT good numbers. How in hell can you go from 35,000 American casualties (killed, wounded, missing) to 100,000 a year?

You sources are pinko liberal sources who count everything they can, including stray cats.

I have a flash for you. War is two sides killing each other until one side is either unable to kill further, or unwilling to get killed further. War is breaking things, including people.

The goal is to inflict maximum enemy casualties while suffering minimal friendly casualties.

Some of the numbers in your "source" is akin to the same folks who count Palestinian casualties. They count even those killed by Al-Queda, warring tribes, Sunni versus Shia on and on.

Your numbers are crap.

There is no way - and logic dictates this - no possible way for Americans to have killed some 400,000 civilians.

Assuming every soldier of a 50,000 man army is a combat soldier, each man would have to average eight personal kills of civilians apiece.

That, my friend, is BS.

Never happened.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by deessell

Originally posted by FarArcher


In Cambodia and Laos, our forces enjoyed a 100-150:1 kill ratio.


Why would you write this? Cambodia was never invaded by ground forces, it was a neutral country that was secretly CARPET BOMBED. An estimated 600,000 Cambodians lost their lives due to these bombings. These bombings also helped strengthen the KR, which at the time only had about 600 members. It could be argued that these acts constitute an act of genocide, they certainly laid the groundwork for the KR's slaughter.


Actually, we did invade Cambodia around mid 1970. The 11th Armored Cav, ARVN 3rd Airborne Brigade, and 3rd Brigade of the 1st Air Cav, swept through the Cambodia-Vietnam border. We made incredible advances, capturing huge tons of supplies and several large NVA bases. An enemy officer even wrote, after the war, "I do not know whether the Americans and Saigon government military analysts realized how close they were to annihilating or capturing the core of the southern resistance" (Truong Nhu Tang, A Vietcong Memoir). You know what saved them? Our 30km operations limit. Just like Afghanistan, we cannot win as long as we adhere to international borders while our enemies do not.

That 600,000 Cambodians dead due to bombings is ridiculous. Arc Lights were only called onto areas designated by guys on the ground, against what they surely thought were enemy positions. Of course civilians could and probably did get caught, but not to high numbers. Linking these bombings to the foundation of the KR's regime is equally ridiculous.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 12:02 AM
link   
Furthermore, the blood for money argument does not make much sense. It just happens to be an easy bandwagon to jump into, so a lot of people do it. I'm ripping the following from another thread that I posted in:

The whole military-industrial complex idea was brought about by Eisenhower. It simply refers to the comfortable relationship between the armed forces and the businesses that supply them. This relationship is based on competition, not this all-too friendly cooperation that is viewed as "war for profit."

Also, sure, the profits are high, but have you looked at the return of investment? Anyone that sells a product for more than their investment makes a profit. Making a $1000 profit on a $100 investment is good ($1100 sale). Making a $1000 profit on a $100,000 investment is not ($101,000 sale). This ratio is your ROI.

Huge ROIs exist in the civilian market, not the military. Civilian companies can charge WHATEVER the MARKET will bear. Thus highly desirable goods can generate huge ROIs. Off the top of my head, I can say that Google and Apple have about a 20-27% average ROI. Lockheed Martin and Halliburton sit at 7%. People do not enter the military defense market to make money. They do it to serve the nation. Usually.

The ROI for military contractors is tightly bunched - the profit margin is pre-negotiated by the government. You know why? Because given the option of 3 contractors offering the same gun, we will take the cheapest offer. Of course that leads to sometimes crap equipment, which is true. Anyway, this margin is usually set at around 10-15% per contract. The government also has very detailed accounting for EACH item. This means that if a contractor says, "we need $50 for a square meter of steel," and we give them that much, and the cost of making that square meter of steel comes out to only $30 per unit, WE take back that extra $20. That gets rolled back into government coffers.

Yes, military contractors do make very large profits. 10% profit on a multi-million dollar ship is a lot. But military equipment is expensive. They also need to always work. There is also a small market for most, especially expensive but cutting-edge, war materials.

Let's look at OIF costs. $749.9 Bil between FY2003 and the end of FY2010. 10% of that means potentially $75 Bil, very large profits indeed. However, not all of those funds are spent on contractors. A LOT of our stuff comes from the open market. Beds, paperclips, computer monitors, XBOXes, tables, chairs, food, etc. Furthermore, a lot goes into Iraqi companies hiring Iraqis to do work in Iraq.

Before I start rambling, the BOTTOM LINE IS:
Profit DOES NOT equal ROI
Profit DOES NOT drive up stock price (this is determined by shareholders, the people the board/directors work FOR. These include normal people, mutual funds, pension funds.)
Profit DOES NOT result in influence.

US military loss of life would be much greater without the capabilities provided by military contractors. But this Military-Industrial complex does not wield unwarranted influence. It exists, in a way, but not how most of you think it does.

And to steer this back on topic: from my experience (USAF), Iraq is doing better. Almost to the point where I'd say 'good.' Afghanistan as far as I'm concerned is a lost cause. Who's winning? We sure ain't.

EDIT: The above ROI numbers are indeed correct, for 2009. If anyone has more questions - I know people who work in acquisitions at various levels. This is not stuff that is kept secret, so the info is available."



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by qalameid
 


7% pretty thin dontcha think, but I guess its volume then and its not the military paying for it. Its, well face it, its China paying for it today. No I'm not so good with that and it doesnt make me sleep any better.

BTW you didnt post anything to back up your numbers, this is encouraged on this site I am finding. Otherwise its all pure speculation



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 02:23 AM
link   
reply to post by mike184ever
 


I'll be honest in that those numbers are based on what was given to me by a USAF Major during a talk. Where he got it from is beyond me. He's not in acquisitions, so I'm assuming he just talked to some guys.

EDIT: The numbers for both civilian and military ROI are from a PowerPoint slide, and I'm only told the numbers are public information. The best I can give you.
edit on 4-1-2011 by qalameid because: Clarification



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join