How the US won the war
in [Aussie Drivers]
|
From: Clocky on 11 Aug 2010 18:16 Noddy wrote: > "George W Frost" <georgewfrost(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:Oqw8o.3354$FH2.3071(a)viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com... > >> WW1 and WW2, were both "declared wars" >> as in countries facing off to each other >> whereas, in later years, the Yanks have got them selves involved in >> guerilla warfare and have been beaten >> and everyone knows that you can never win a guerilla war with regular >> troops or should do >> If anyone believes anything else, they have got fairies in the >> bottom of their garden >> A guerilla war must be and can only be fought by the same means and >> that is with the same type guerilla warfare > > I disagree. > > Both the Korean and Vietnam wars could have been won in *very* short > order if the US government approached them from the military > perspective rather than a political one. They could have dished out > the same treatment to North Korea and Vietnam as they did to > Hiroshima and Nagasaki and made an "artificial sun" over a couple of > major cities and it wouldn't have taken the locals too long to > realise that the yanks weren't pissing about and planned to use all > their tools to get the job done. > Instead they worried about what the neighbours might think, and > that's what fucked them. You have to care what the neighbours think, nuclear fallout involves every neighbouring country plus some. Drop a nuke on Vietnam and suddenly you have much bigger problem that could potentially threaten the homeland - and they can't have that.
From: Clocky on 11 Aug 2010 18:30 Milton wrote: > "Noddy" <me(a)home.com> wrote in message > news:4c62986d$0$56729$c30e37c6(a)exi-reader.telstra.net... >> >> "George W Frost" <georgewfrost(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:Oqw8o.3354$FH2.3071(a)viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com... >> >>> WW1 and WW2, were both "declared wars" >>> as in countries facing off to each other >>> whereas, in later years, the Yanks have got them selves involved in >>> guerilla warfare and have been beaten >>> and everyone knows that you can never win a guerilla war with >>> regular troops or should do >>> If anyone believes anything else, they have got fairies in the >>> bottom of their garden >>> A guerilla war must be and can only be fought by the same means and >>> that is with the same type guerilla warfare >> >> I disagree. >> >> Both the Korean and Vietnam wars could have been won in *very* short >> order if the US government approached them from the military >> perspective rather than a political one. They could have dished out >> the same treatment to North Korea and Vietnam as they did to >> Hiroshima and Nagasaki and made an "artificial sun" over a couple of >> major cities and it wouldn't have taken the locals too long to >> realise that the yanks weren't pissing about and planned to use all >> their tools to get the job done. Instead they worried about what the >> neighbours might think, and >> that's what fucked them. > > LOL. As well they might. You and I are of similar vintage. Did you get > conscripted to go? I would say no otherwise you wouldn't have said > that. The problem with the Vietnam war as opposed to WW1 & 2 was you > didn't know who your enemy were because the north and south all > looked alike. Unlike the Japs and Germans who were proud to march > into battle wearing their uniforms, these little fuckers (called > Charlies) could be your friend in the daytime and then shooting you > at night. Even the bloody sluts would insert razor blades into their > fannies to cut the penises off the yanks. Ever wondered why that > doesn't get discussed? The nuclear way wouldn't have happened back > then because the Americans weren't the only ones with those > capabilities, unlike WW2. Terrorism is the new war today and no one > knows how to fight it. There is nothing new about terrorism. The war on terror is really a war on themselves, because in most cases they created the problem themselves with their insidious support for warlords and dictators and their terror campaigns against other people. Sometimes you reap what you sow but it's always innocent people that suffer - and are still suffering.
From: Noddy on 11 Aug 2010 18:25 "Kev" <kevcat(a)optunet.com.au> wrote in message news:4c62d8b5$0$2080$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > Getting involved in a war with China would have also meant a war with > Russia and a nuclear war Assuming for a moment that the Soviets were willing to accept a few Nuclear strikes themselves for the sake of helping China, and I don't believe they would have been had push come to shove. -- Regards, Noddy.
From: st3ph3nm on 11 Aug 2010 18:35 On Aug 11, 10:10 pm, "George W Frost" <georgewfr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > "Noddy" <m...(a)home.com> wrote in message > > news:4c628449$0$56728$c30e37c6(a)exi-reader.telstra.net... > > > > > > > "Jordan" <jprin...(a)yooha.com.au> wrote in message > >news:tUo8o.3238$Yv.2089(a)viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com... > > >> Americans are by nature isolationists, I see nothing wrong with that. > > > It's perfectly fine if breeding a nation of ignorant pissants is your > > plan, and that seems to be working incredibly well for the yanks. > > >> When they get dragged, kicking and screaming into other peoples' messes > >> they often do a very good job of sorting it out indeed. Hadn't you > >> noticed? > > > WWII was about the last time they had any real success on that score. > > Since then it's been a tale of incredible woe. > > > -- > > Regards, > > Noddy. > > WW1 and WW2, were both "declared wars" > as in countries facing off to each other > whereas, in later years, the Yanks have got them selves involved in guerilla > warfare and have been beaten > and everyone knows that you can never win a guerilla war with regular troops > or should do > If anyone believes anything else, they have got fairies in the bottom of > their garden > A guerilla war must be and can only be fought by the same means and that is > with the same type guerilla warfare I can think of one successfull campaign against guerilla incursions, and that's the British campaign in Malaya. But no one (except war historians) seems to be able to repeat the feat. Some of the lessons are being used in Afghanistan, but the problem is that the yanks are in charge... Cheers, Steve
From: Noddy on 11 Aug 2010 18:33
"Clocky" <notgonn(a)happen.com> wrote in message news:4c632149$0$11120$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > You have to care what the neighbours think, nuclear fallout involves every > neighbouring country plus some. Drop a nuke on Vietnam and suddenly you > have much bigger problem that could potentially threaten the homeland - > and they can't have that. You can be tactical about it. The "problems" associated with nuclear fallout, such as they are, are largely over-rated by people who fear "worst case" scenarios. Japan is a relatively small country geographically who suffered two nuclear attacks, and even though they were relatively small in the grand scheme compared to the capability of nuclear weapons today the problems associated with those attacks half a century later are relatively minor. Even Chernobyl, the site of the world's worst nuclear accident, didn't suffer anywhere near what the doomsayers were predicting not long after it happened. At the time the "experts" were tipping nuclear fallout to cover most of Europe with a dramatic rise in cases of Leukaemia and other radiation related illnesses and food and water supplies being heavily contaminated for centuries. Yet hear we are some 25 years or so after the event with people having moved back to Chernobyl to live. -- Regards, Noddy. |