Overrated US Armed forces

**gunnut** · 07 Nov 07,, 06:32

Originally Posted by Bella

Korea; The U.S. did not just fight North Korea in that war! I believe China, and Russia had their hands in the conflict also. It is proven that many Russian and Chinees combat piots fought against the U.S.
Also, as stated by Zraver, the South Koreans preserved there independence.
Also note that if South Korea, and the U.S. lost...then why is North Korea soo poor and there people starving to death?

I could be wrong, but I don't believe there were any Chinese pilots. China sent hundreds of thousands of "volunteers" to help its communist neighbor.

Originally Posted by Bella

Somalia; Just read zraver's comment! The U.S. did not go to war with Somalia, but to take out certain people. When doing so several U.S. troops were killed, but thousands of Somalian troops were killed. If the U.S. wanted to, that country would have been crushed in days.

The original mission was to deliver aid supplies. After Clinton took office, for some odd reason, the mission became hunting down local warlords.

Originally Posted by Bella

Final; The only problem the U.S. millitary has in todays warfare, is the U.S. follows international law in engaugement, where as other millitant forces do not.

That's exactly right. We actually care about where we aim our weapons. We have rules. Those who kill non-combatants for fun will face harsh military justice. However, innocents will die in the course of the war. That's just the nature of warfare. The differences is we try not to kill civilians as much as possible.

Originally Posted by Bella

That is why we see car bombs everyday on T.V. killing women and children, and the U.S. not bombing the living crap out an entire country!
If the U.S. wanted to, and did not follow international law, Iraq and everyother country they fought after WWII would be in the stone age!

Sorry for rambling, but that is my thought.

Thanks!

That's pretty much it. We have enough bombs and the delivery means to make Fallujah disappear from the map without touching our nuclear stockpile. Yet we sent in soldiers on foot to kill those who need to be killed. We suffered some losses in the process. But we completed our objectives of getting rid of terrorists from that city and not kill civilians as best we can. Can you say that about those we have fought against?

**Ray** · 07 Nov 07,, 06:34

Zraver,

While I have time for your post since they are very informative and has seriousness of thought, yet I am constrained to raise a few issues for your consideration, even if couched in my blunt syntax, for which you must forgive me!

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by zraver

prior to the war it was not a national capitol.

Abdali Kuwait to Baghdad 300 miles in 20 days 300/20= 15 miles a day

Dhaka- never more than 100 miles from the Indian Border, 100/13= 7.6 miles a day

Dacca was the capital of East Pakistan and it was as important as to the Pakistan national capital.

You forget one thing - the paddy fields, the tracks and not roads, the rivers including the mighty Meghna and the wide Padma. The width is 11kms. Do read "The Lifeblood of War" by Maj Gen J Thompson (Brassey) to realise the Herculean effort required and which is no comparison to Iraq. I dislike the words, but then what could be better to explain than the words - apples and oranges!

Becuase the US Congress cut funding and supplies and would not send the US Military back in, the ARVN didn't have the tools or weapons to fight.

Too bad, what? All countries would say the same for any fiasco. The British are then equally justified for quitting Iraq, even though they did a good job inspite of lack of funds and equipment.

If the US had unleashed its might earlier North Vietnam would have folded the same way they did during the Christmas bombings. But as a nation we didn't. LBJ thought you could fight a war on the cheap but limited wars only work when both sides are playing for limited objectives and North Vietnam was playing for keeps.

One can conjecture.

Iraq should be an example what the Communists could have done!

The real masters of insurgency are the Communists.

**Ray** · 07 Nov 07,, 06:39

Originally Posted by Bella

You have no idea what your talking about.

He know what he is talking about.

All countries in the world have their pet ideas and pet peeves.

To believe otherwise is to believe Grimms Brothers to be the real historians of the world!

**Ray** · 07 Nov 07,, 07:16

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid

Why did you miss out WWII and before?
You're missing out half the twentieth century. The US military did not fight alone in any of the conflicts you mentioned here, although they did by far the most legwork on their side.

That is history and the world was not divided in two camps. Note: I said the world as it is today and not the world of imperial powers and other western nations. A whole lot of difference, if I may humbly suggest!

Are you joking? It was a stalemate. Compare the 1950 border, the Pusan perimeter, the extent of the Allied advance upwards and the 1953 final border and it shows that they overall drew. PS fought with British, Canadians, South Koreans, and more.

Militarily a stalemate.

Politically, a defeat!

What was aimed to be achieved politically?

The political aim drives the military aim!

US Armed Forces or political conditions at the time? Combination, I'd say. PS fought with South Vietnamese, South Korea and Australia.

Was VN not lost?

It was not a military or a political failure. It was a societal mismatch between national pride vs the dislike for own being returned in bodybags! Wars mean bodybags and if one is not ready for the same or stomach the same, one should not wage war and that too wars that have the chance to prolong itself!

Combination of US Armed Forces and political conditions at the time. PS Somalia was in 1992-3. PS fought with Pakistani, Malaysian and other UN peacekeepers.

And Indians if you do not mind!

They hung around because it was what their govt's ordered and it was not for them to reason why, but to stand and die, if the need arose!

Yes, and it was incredibly one-sided. PS this was 1990-91. PS fought with a large coalition.

Won, true. But the political aim was shortsighted wherein the Iraq problem is what it is!

Don't count your chickens before they've hatched.

Eggs are not hatching the way one would like it to hatch.

But, yes, one must wait and hope.

At least it is better than the mess in Iraq!

Why have you left out the actions in the Balkans?

Because it is an embarrassing mess. Heard of Kosovo?

They destroyed Saddam Hussein and are wrestling with an insurgency - hardly outright losing. In any case, don't count your chickens before they've hatched. PS fought in coalition.

Saddam was predictable and anti AQ.

I rather have Saddam an island of horrifying peace than the confusion it is, wherein the US is about to bomb all around to Kingdom come.

Depends what is done. Airstrikes+Specops to eliminate nuclear programme? I imagine they would stall it, though not permanently stop it. Regime change? I seriously doubt the Iranian military is strong enough to stop that. Regime change + pacification Iraq-style? Now you might have a point due to US tied up resources, but that's not going to happen.

In this case, your eggs haven't even been laid yet!

In this case, your chicken are the sterilised types. All cackling and no action! And anyway, there is nothing left to taken action with. Putting all the eggs in one basket i.e. Iraq and Afghanistan and letting the Russians off the hook and once again acting important!

...Upon your presentation of the evidence? Are you joking?

PS I am British and have never been to the United States, so don't dare call me a jingoistic right-wing patriot evil conspirator.

See my avatar.[

I fail to see his joke.

Are you joking?!

**~~Feanor~~** · 07 Nov 07,, 09:14

Originally Posted by Ray

One can conjecture.

Iraq should be an example what the Communists could have done!

The real masters of insurgency are the Communists.

But because it's not us there, is why Americans are winning every fight.

Originally Posted by gunnut

That's pretty much it. We have enough bombs and the delivery means to make Fallujah disappear from the map without touching our nuclear stockpile. Yet we sent in soldiers on foot to kill those who need to be killed. We suffered some losses in the process. But we completed our objectives of getting rid of terrorists from that city and not kill civilians as best we can. Can you say that about those we have fought against?

They have differing objectives, and therefore differing means. Their killing of civilians doesn't make them a less dangerous, and therefore a weaker, enemy.

**Cactus** · 07 Nov 07,, 13:16

Originally Posted by Ray

And Indians if you do not mind!

They hung around because it was what their govt's ordered and it was not for them to reason why, but to stand and die, if the need arose!

Indians, Italians (and Belgians?) were up North, not near the Mog hence less well known, but it does bring up a tangential point of interest: Brig. Ray, a battalion from your Regiment had a bunch of M113s in pictures comming out of Somalia... it would be a cool story if you know how they got hold of it and if they took it back to India?

**HistoricalDavid** · 07 Nov 07,, 13:17

Originally Posted by Ray

That is history and the world was not divided in two camps. Note: I said the world as it is today and not the world of imperial powers and other western nations. A whole lot of difference, if I may humbly suggest!

Then I might as well cut off everything before 1989-91 and all before it and say "that's ancient Cold War history." Or, cut off everything before 9/11 and say that's ancient history in better times when terrorism did not dominate foreign policy thinking so much. Why do you (or Hamilar Barca, for whom you oddly seem to be speaking) cut off WWII, especially considering it was the biggest baptism of fire for the superpower called the United States?

Militarily a stalemate.

Politically, a defeat!

What was aimed to be achieved politically?

The political aim drives the military aim!

They managed to leave the country much as it was - half commie, half pro-West. The political aim does drive the military aim, but we are not talking about political aims - we are talking about general military effectiveness.

Was VN not lost?

It was not a military or a political failure. It was a societal mismatch between national pride vs the dislike for own being returned in bodybags! Wars mean bodybags and if one is not ready for the same or stomach the same, one should not wage war and that too wars that have the chance to prolong itself!

I didn't so much mean the bodybag issue - I meant the mistakes in the tactical and strategic conduct of the war arising partly from political circumstances... in other words, zraver's eminently expert post.

And Indians if you do not mind!

Unfortunately my memory is not as photographic, nor as well-read in the first place, as yours or someone like OoE's so I do apologise. The point is, the US did not fight alone.

They hung around because it was what their govt's ordered and it was not for them to reason why, but to stand and die, if the need arose!

Hang on, who hung around?

Won, true. But the political aim was shortsighted wherein the Iraq problem is what it is!

I don't see your point. How does this comment on US armed forces effectiveness?

Eggs are not hatching the way one would like it to hatch.

But, yes, one must wait and hope.

At least it is better than the mess in Iraq!

They've done, under the constant gaze of the international media, with 20,000-odd troops + international assistance (IIRC another 10,000 overall) what the Soviets failed to do with 110,000 - secure much of Afghanistan with a somewhat friendly government.

ecause it is an embarrassing mess. Heard of Kosovo?

Somalia, Vietnam etc were messes but he included those.

Saddam was predictable and anti AQ.

Again, doesn't say much for military effectiveness.

I rather have Saddam an island of horrifying peace than the confusion it is, wherein the US is about to bomb all around to Kingdom come.

There's no bigger fan of moral idealism than me but trouble is, this is the wrong thread.

In this case, your chicken are the sterilised types. All cackling and no action! And anyway, there is nothing left to taken action with. Putting all the eggs in one basket i.e. Iraq and Afghanistan and letting the Russians off the hook and once again acting important!

The Russians are acting, not necessarily being, important.

I fail to see his joke.

Are you joking?!

It's an idiom from various parts of very modern Anglophone culture which expresses disdain for a given opinion. "Pepsi over Coca-Cola? *****, please..." on as in '...please don't talk nonsense'. Combined with the woman's confrontational posture, it's quite a useful avatar.