America’s not so great military

[JudoThrowFiasco]

They took out ruling forces in Afghanistan and Iraq within a month of engaging each -- the issue was the power vacuum it created and that's a political issues, not a military

 

[That209]

but those colony victories are against cans.

Lol yeah, I pretty much edited that in. Fought natives n shit, people with sticks covered in feces.

 

[SmilinDesperado]

This is a silly argument.
The WW days are over. If America just cared purely about winning then they could just drop atomic bombs.
America's war losses are due to political idiocy, not military inadequacy.
You're not going to win a "war" that you're fighting for another people, especially when you have no objectives, or plans on what to do. Obviously, the moment we left those countries ,the otherside was going to take over.

 

[That209]

They took out ruling forces in Afghanistan and Iraq within a month of engaging each -- the issue was the power vacuum it created and that's a political issues, not a military

It’s both political and military. That’s what war is. It can’t only be military, it’s always both. THe source is through political gain, the military is sent in to do their bidding.

You’re right about taking out the ruling forces early on and creating something else. That’s the problem. It IS still armed conflict. So it is military as much as it’s political. It’s an unwinnable war, though.

It’s like he Brits trying to stop the IRA completely. It’s not going to happen unless you give them what they want and that’s to leave them alone. You aren’t destroying an idea/belief.

 

[sub_thug]

We have the best military in the world. What we are not good at is knowing how to use that military to achieve a political objective. That seems to be our problem, particularly when we are dealing with non nation-state actors.

We won all the battles in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. We didn't win the wars because there were so many political elements to the problem set that weren't properly addressed.

 

[EradiatedHaggis]

Dude, I asked for links. I’m not denying anything you said, I just want to read about it myself. Gimme facts.

All done by one person, Commodore Mathew C Perry, did not have to kill a single person.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakumatsu
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_of_Kanagawa

 

[That209]

This is a silly argument.
The WW days are over. If America just cared purely about winning then they could just drop atomic bombs.
America's war losses are due to political idiocy, not military inadequacy.
You're not going to win a "war" that you're fighting for another people, especially when you have no objectives, or plans on what to do. Obviously, the moment we left those countries ,the otherside was going to take over.

It’s actually not that easy to drop nukes anymore. It’s like a 50/50. You could be taken out of the sky before dropping any REAL bombs these days. Nukes are illegal anyway, yes? If you dropped a nuke the EMTIRE world would be pissed.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

It’s both political and military. That’s what war is. It can’t only be military, it’s always both. THe source is through political gain, the military is sent in to do their bidding.

You’re right about taking out the ruling forces early on and creating something else. That’s the problem. It IS still armed conflict. So it is military as much as it’s political. It’s an unwinnable war, though.

It’s like he Brits trying to stop the IRA completely. It’s not going to happen unless you give them what they want and that’s to leave them alone. You aren’t destroying an idea/belief.

Ok, but military they handle business quickly -- if you want to obfuscate the discussion with political components -- no country has a positive record. You brought up the brits, how many countries can be seen as failures due to aftermath of British colonization (a lot of them)

Focus your op to be less reductive - seperarte a more detailed analysis of military vs political challenges. Otherwise it's just a lazy premise that's going to get mocked

 

[Billy no mates]

Let’s be real.

I’m not hating. I’m being realistic.

America has won just one time since WWII. Korea considered a draw. Vietnam considered an outright loss (more political, but still). Won desert storm. Iraq and Afghanistan have been failures so far. The main issue with Iraq and Afghanistan is you can’t win because there’s no way you’re going to destroy an idea (an idea that you guys created), but you can’t leave or just ask for peace at this point anymore. Ya fucked up, big time.

Technologically, you’re the best. Strategically, on the ground, hmm..



So amazing that one if your own prefers to use special forces from a different country instead of his own, lol.

I’m not saying any specific country is better because in reality we’re all not nearly as powerful as we think. I honestly feel america has become too reliant on their tech and their soldiers aren’t what they used to be. There’s more to war than just bombs. How are you on the ground? Definitely one of the best still, but without your bombs you’re in a real hard place.

Believe me I’m on your side when I say this. These are just historical facts. So don’t hate on me, hate reality.

I love you, Murica. Canada is more Americanized than you seem to think (except the French part above us).

This is the reality of war. Let’s understand these countries we’ve all made fun of are VERY capable. They’re stronger than you’d think. America has went through hell time and time again and in the end it’s almost always never worked out. War is complicated.

This is gonna upset some people for no reason, but oh well. Ignore facts again and share opinions. Time for war.

The people that spend money and more importantly make money from the military are really not that concerned with the tawdry little wars the west is actually engaged in , the real money is spent on the epic war that will probably never come , the Americans are perfectly set up for that one if it does come to pass .

 

[JonesBones]

but those colony victories are against cans.

And others did the heavy lifting against Napoleon.

 

[Prex32]

They took out ruling forces in Afghanistan and Iraq within a month of engaging each -- the issue was the power vacuum it created and that's a political issues, not a military

you can win a battle, but not the war

 

[That209]

We have the best military in the world. What we are not good at is knowing how to use that military to achieve a political objective. That seems to be our problem, particularly when we are dealing with non nation-state actors.

We won all the battles in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. We didn't win the wars because there were so many political elements to the problem set that weren't properly addressed.

I don’t know, the Russians are pretty fucking powerful and damn near fearless.

We all know ‘nam was political but again, they all are. The politicians send the military in to do their bidding. When that doesn’t work and the other side beata you politically, that’s still a win. That means your highest person of power got outsmarted by someone else. You are right, you won many if not most of the battles, but you had a hard time doing it because you weren’t used to the guerilla warfare style.

In a head on collision you guys are almost unbeatable, but there’s more to it than brute force. You had that much trouble against rice field workers, poor people, etc, with shit technology for the most part. That’s the reality that you and WE are not as strong as we think. Winning a war is about intelligence and strategy. Not just force.

 

[superpunch]

Let’s be real.

I’m not hating. I’m being realistic.

America has won just one time since WWII. Korea considered a draw. Vietnam considered an outright loss (more political, but still). Won desert storm. Iraq and Afghanistan have been failures so far. The main issue with Iraq and Afghanistan is you can’t win because there’s no way you’re going to destroy an idea (an idea that you guys created), but you can’t leave or just ask for peace at this point anymore. Ya fucked up, big time.

Technologically, you’re the best. Strategically, on the ground, hmm..

Strategically, yes, you're absolutely right: our military is among the worst.

Our military is the best in the world by a long shot. What you're missing is that our form of government is the worst for war. Freedom and democracy are terrible for war.

During the Civil War, WW I, and WW II, we transformed into a completely government run military directed economy and got rid of freedom of speech, private property rights, rationed everything, and removed all strategic limits that freedom and democracy impose upon military strategy and resources. None of these things were the case after WW II.

Korea -- the government, responsible to the electorate, decided it wasn't worth it to go all in and put the entire nation's war effort against China. Vietnam -- strategy was limited and the press fought tooth and nail against the war effort and civilians led mass protests; all involved in undermining the war effort would have been prosecuted to the full extent of the law during WW I or WW II. None of these things would have happened in WW I or WW II or the Civil War.

I'm not saying that's right or wrong. Maybe freedom matters more than winning Vietnam. Maybe it doesn't. I'm not judging values or making any subjective judgements. I'm just pointing out the truth objectively.

 

[That209]

All done by one person, Commodore Mathew C Perry, did not have to kill a single person.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakumatsu
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_of_Kanagawa

Thank you. Now was that so hard?

 

[all caps]

Can you really call it a failure when its objective is to destabilize?

 

[SmilinDesperado]

It’s actually not that easy to drop nukes anymore. It’s like a 50/50. You could be taken out of the sky before dropping any REAL bombs these days. Nukes are illegal anyway, yes? If you dropped a nuke the EMTIRE world would be pissed.

In places like Afghanistan it'd be 50/50???
We've only been fighting desert people the past few decades.

Even without nukes, how quickly was Iraq taken over? Like a week?
The military isn't the issue, it's the after that's the problem. If you're going to take over a lawless country then you are going to have to occupy that country for a while to bring order.
The US just drops a shit ton of bombs, but does nothing politically to get these countries on track after they've wrecked them.
The whole premise of this shit is flawed from the get go. You can't fight for someone's freedom for them. They have to architect that themselves, and find their own leaders and goals. The US can't do that for another country.

 

[EradiatedHaggis]

Thank you. Now was that so hard?

No, in fact it was easier than if you had just directed your question to the part you didnt understand to begin with...seeing as how I made other points that would lead to so many other links with proofs that most people should know already just like the ones I gave.

 

[Billy no mates]

And others did the heavy lifting against Napoleon.

Really in what way by giving up and/or siding with him whenever it all got a bit much .

 

[sub_thug]

I don’t know, the Russians are pretty fucking powerful and damn near fearless.

We all know ‘nam was political but again, they all are. The politicians send the military in to do their bidding. When that doesn’t work and the other side beata you politically, that’s still a win. That means your highest person of power got outsmarted by someone else. You are right, you won many if not most of the battles, but you had a hard time doing it because you weren’t used to the guerilla warfare style.

In a head on collision you guys are almost unbeatable, but there’s more to it than brute force. You had that much trouble against rice field workers, poor people, etc, with shit technology for the most part. That’s the reality that you and WE are not as strong as we think. Winning a war is about intelligence and strategy. Not just force.

The Russian spirit doesn't mean shit when we can bomb their airfields, use nuclear weapons, and try to wipe them off the face of the earth. If it comes to that, we will likely all die, but they will definitely die.

We adopted unconventional warfare by the end of the war. Not sure what you're getting at here. And no, not all wars are entirely political. Each one is different. Some are about force-on-force conflicts, such as defeating the North Koreans (pushing them back was the objective, not conquering them) and disposing of Nazi Germany.

Is all this analysis based on your extensive study of military policy, or are you just talking to talk?

 

[sub_thug]

In places like Afghanistan it'd be 50/50???
We've only been fighting desert people the past few decades.

Even without nukes, how quickly was Iraq taken over? Like a week?
The military isn't the issue, it's the after that's the problem. If you're going to take over a lawless country then you are going to have to occupy that country for a while to bring order.
The US just drops a shit ton of bombs, but doesn't do enough socially, economically, policitically, and culturally to get these countries on track after they've wrecked them.
The whole premise of this shit is flawed from the get go. You can't fight for someone's freedom for them. They have to architect that themselves, and find their own leaders and goals. The US can't do that for another country.

No, you can't make people do something they don't care about doing. Making decisions for other people doesn't really work. We've lost our perspective on that.