How the US won the war
in [Aussie Drivers]
|
From: Milton on 11 Aug 2010 19:18 "Clocky" <notgonn(a)happen.com> wrote in message news:4c63249b$0$11090$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > 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. Yep and their fucked in the head way out religious beliefs > > Sometimes you reap what you sow but it's always innocent people that > suffer - and are still suffering. That is too true Clocky. Regards Milton
From: Jason James on 11 Aug 2010 19:33 "Noddy" <me(a)home.com> wrote in message news:4c63251c$0$56728$c30e37c6(a)exi-reader.telstra.net... > > "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. Indeed,..the alliance between China and the USSR, was limited and sporadic,..in fact it was the constant bickering between these two behemoths that saved a the "free world" from attempted domination by the 2 Communist super-states. Added to that, the USSR simply started to run out of funds, attempting to keep ahead of the nuclear arms race. Jason
From: D Walford on 11 Aug 2010 19:37 On 12/08/2010 3:08 AM, Kev wrote: > D Walford wrote: >> On 11/08/2010 10:24 PM, 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. >>> >> >> Exactly, politics stops them winning any wars these days, if they had >> the political will it could be all over within a couple of hours. >> If they aren't willing to use their full arsenal everyone would be >> better off it they stayed home. > > > Getting involved in a war with China would have also meant a war with > Russia and a nuclear war True so they should have just stayed home. Daryl
From: Clocky on 11 Aug 2010 20:50 Noddy wrote: > "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. Why don't the Jews nuke Lebanon then? > > 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. Adjoining neighbours are not going to be happy about it and with good reason. > 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. > Worst case is better then being blase about it, and other countries did suffer from the effects both long and short term but comparing Chernobyl to an nuclear warhead is like comparing apples to oranges in relation to how and what was released and over what period of time. > Yet hear we are some 25 years or so after the event with people > having moved back to Chernobyl to live. Not within 30 km of the site.
From: Noddy on 11 Aug 2010 21:05
"Clocky" <notgonn(a)happen.com> wrote in message news:4c634557$0$11111$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > Why don't the Jews nuke Lebanon then? I'm sure they'd *like* to, but you'd have to ask them as to exactly why they don't. My guess is that doing so would eliminate any friendship they have with anyone else in the world. > Adjoining neighbours are not going to be happy about it and with good > reason. I never said no one wouldn't get their hair mucked up :) > Worst case is better then being blase about it, and other countries did > suffer from the effects both long and short term but comparing Chernobyl > to an nuclear warhead is like comparing apples to oranges in relation to > how and what was released and over what period of time. Compared to what was released over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which to this day remain the only two cities ever to be subjected to a nuclear attack, Chernobyl was *massive* in terms of nuclear fallout. The Japanese cities suffered much more devastation from the explosive effects of the bombs themselves, but compared to the radiation release at Chernobyl their after effects were pretty minor. > Not within 30 km of the site. People aren't living right next door to what remains of the power station, no, but the point being that within hours of the explosion and radioactive cloud that was released the doomsayers were predicting that an area the size of Western Australia would be a nuclear wasteland for thousands of years afterwards and that very clearly *isn't* the case today. The facts are that as horrible an accident as the Chernobyl explosion was, and it's hard to imagine one that could be worse, it showed that the problems associated with an accidental nuclear release weren't as bad as what some people like to think. -- Regards, Noddy. |