Discussion
QuantumTokoloshi said:
Grumfutock said:
Utter b
ks!
1. The yanks didn't in 65 and we didn't in Afghanistan because politicians ran the wars, not the soldiers.
To quote you, utter bks!1. The yanks didn't in 65 and we didn't in Afghanistan because politicians ran the wars, not the soldiers.
ks.What more should America have done in Vietnam ? Chemical warfare with the defoliants, bombing campaigns that made Laos the most bombed country in the world ever with over 2.5 million tons of ordnance dropped in a relatively tiny area.
Totally levelling North Vietnam infrastructure, including mining Haiphong harbour, the US bombed Hanoi into rubble, then bombed the rubble.
The cost of the war ended up damaging the US economy severely.
The only thing left in the armoury was a case of instant sunshine or Bio weapons ? Because that was all that was left to throw at the North Vietnamese.
Bombing Germany or Japan in WW2 worked because they were industrialized. Vietnam wasn't so it wont work. Pointless mining a harbour when they have an perfectly good border. Simple basic soldiering.
Countdown said:
Grumfutock said:
Countdown said:
Grumfutock said:
Where did I say that? Kindly point it out to me!
Conversely by your statement you are suggesting that all Iraqis and Afghans hate us? It seems you need to read your history.
You seem to prefer the "wriggle out of awkward questions" style of debating.Conversely by your statement you are suggesting that all Iraqis and Afghans hate us? It seems you need to read your history.
Here's a fairly straightforward question - Do you think the majority of either Afghans or Iraqis "wanted" their country to be invaded by the UK and US?
Grumfutock said:
Utter bks!
1. Yes we faced an identifiable enemy in 1940. That really wasn't the point. Churchill realised they were a fanatical enemy and took the gloves off. The yanks didn't in 65 and we didn't in Afghanistan because politicians ran the wars, not the soldiers.
You really are the epitome of "Armchair general" aren't you. Churchill was able to "take the gloves off" because the civilian population was completely behind him. That was the case in the Falklands. But it wasn't the case in either Vietnam or Afghanistan. Ergo Blair, Nixon, Bush etc were restricted in the amount of force they could use. Our soldiers didn't "forget" anything (as you so eloquently put it).ks!1. Yes we faced an identifiable enemy in 1940. That really wasn't the point. Churchill realised they were a fanatical enemy and took the gloves off. The yanks didn't in 65 and we didn't in Afghanistan because politicians ran the wars, not the soldiers.
Grumfutock said:
2. If Soldiers run wars there is only ever one simple objective, defeat the enemy. In both wars this wasn't the case so the objective was blurred. We didn't take the gloves off!
We didn't take the gloves off because (a) it wouldn't have achieved what we wanted and (b) it was politically unacceptable.Grumfutock said:
3. Why would killing every Afghan win the war? You make the same ignorant assumption that EVERY Afghan is/was against us. Not the case I can assure you.
Oh yes. Absolutely. We would have been able to target the non-friendly Afghans and surgically eliminate them. there wouldn't have been any civilian casualties, there wouldn't have been sons/brothers joining the Taliban to get revenge.Exactly what restrictions would you have removed, in order for the UK to win the war in Afghanistan?
Grumfutock said:
4. Yes, of course the Russians did forget, do you honestly think Stalin would of got the same result? They made the exact same mistake the Yanks did in '65. Don't just take the cities. Always, always take the high ground and keep it. Neither did and they both lost. But that is a separate and bigger debate that doesn't belong in this thread.
What a load of bks! neither the Russians nor the US could hold ground outside of the main cities purely because you can't hold ground permanently where the domestic population hates your guts. israel tried it in South Lebanon and Gaza. perhaps you think they've forgotten how to fight as well?I imagine the death toll inflicted by the IDF will be inflated by these
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/23/world/middleeast...
Countdown said:
Grumfutock said:
Pointed out that I asked a question first! Is this really that hard for you? It is all there in black and white. Look up!
It's a good thing you don't try to avoid the question. No sirree...ETA You could have actually answered the question......
I also like the way you now choose to quote only that bit.
Edited by Grumfutock on Friday 22 August 16:04
Countdown said:
What a load of bks! neither the Russians nor the US could hold ground outside of the main cities purely because you can't hold ground permanently where the domestic population hates your guts. israel tried it in South Lebanon and Gaza. perhaps you think they've forgotten how to fight as well?
Sorry I haven't quoted your entire post as that will take up way to much room and to be honest I really cant be arsed with you any more. ks! neither the Russians nor the US could hold ground outside of the main cities purely because you can't hold ground permanently where the domestic population hates your guts. israel tried it in South Lebanon and Gaza. perhaps you think they've forgotten how to fight as well?You are correct, I am an armchair general. I know nothing of military tactics, methods or weaponry. I am completely ignorant of history and it's lessons. My knowledge is all made up and I am a child. I ignore questions and twist and turn like a twisty turny thing when I am pressed to answer. I insult people instantly and without any provocation.
You are indeed a wise man and we can all learn from you if only we were worthy. Now if the UN would give you a job you could solve all wars, eliminate famine and walk on water. Your in depth knowledge of history and it's lessons is something that Max Hasting could learn from, has he been in touch about researching and writing his next book for him?
In short I bow to your experience, knowledge and expertise oh sage.
Have I missed anything?????
Oh yes.
Grumfutock said:
Real simple answer and the most commonly accepted reason that they lost. Keep the ground you capture. Do not fight battles, win them and then surrender the ground. REAL SIMPLE!
Bombing Germany or Japan in WW2 worked because they were industrialized. Vietnam wasn't so it wont work. Pointless mining a harbour when they have an perfectly good border. Simple basic soldiering.
If that is your evaluation of a good COIN strategy, the comedy club is open on a Thursday for stand-up performances. The taking and holding of territory means nothing, the way you fight is everything.Bombing Germany or Japan in WW2 worked because they were industrialized. Vietnam wasn't so it wont work. Pointless mining a harbour when they have an perfectly good border. Simple basic soldiering.
Go read the jungle is neutral by Spencer Chapman or The U.S. Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual 2006 as a start before making a fool of yourself.
This thread is about Israel, I have derailed it enough.
Grumfutock said:
Sorry I haven't quoted your entire post as that will take up way to much room and to be honest I really cant be arsed with you any more.
You are correct, I am an armchair general. I know nothing of military tactics, methods or weaponry. I am completely ignorant of history and it's lessons. My knowledge is all made up and I am a child. I ignore questions and twist and turn like a twisty turny thing when I am pressed to answer. I insult people instantly and without any provocation.
You are indeed a wise man and we can all learn from you if only we were worthy. Now if the UN would give you a job you could solve all wars, eliminate famine and walk on water. Your in depth knowledge of history and it's lessons is something that Max Hasting could learn from, has he been in touch about researching and writing his next book for him?
In short I bow to your experience, knowledge and expertise oh sage.
Have I missed anything?????
Oh yes.
That's probably your most sensible contribution to date. Keep it up. You are correct, I am an armchair general. I know nothing of military tactics, methods or weaponry. I am completely ignorant of history and it's lessons. My knowledge is all made up and I am a child. I ignore questions and twist and turn like a twisty turny thing when I am pressed to answer. I insult people instantly and without any provocation.
You are indeed a wise man and we can all learn from you if only we were worthy. Now if the UN would give you a job you could solve all wars, eliminate famine and walk on water. Your in depth knowledge of history and it's lessons is something that Max Hasting could learn from, has he been in touch about researching and writing his next book for him?
In short I bow to your experience, knowledge and expertise oh sage.
Have I missed anything?????
Oh yes.
league67 said:
Probably just different servers at postimage. Could be that one at 30* is sharing ip with something less savoury. Who knows.
I understand your reasoning. But, for me, even taking into account 2D picture and the fact that we weren't there, picture is pointing at the kid, to the best of available info. I'm not going to guess as to why he is pointing gun at that kid. I had gun pointed at my direction on two occasions, and it's not an experience that I'll like to repeat. As for looking down the sights, completely unnecessary at that range, so moot point?
As for the finger not being on the trigger, I don't think that would have any bearing on the fact that gun is pointed at the kid.
To illustrate that I linked the video where Israeli soldier is using the weapon in the same way to, quite obviously, threaten someone. If you look up you'll see the link to youtube.
The finger on the second picture, as well as at 0:40 of the first video is in the exactly same position, I would imagine it's placed there to prevent involuntary squeeze of the trigger, but close enough that it could be moved very quickly.
I still don't think in the pic posted that the soldier is pointing the gun at the child. The soldiers pose is not agressive, the child does not appear to be in fear, there is a different child nearby, none of this suggests that the picture illustrates a combat or confrontation situation. I'd say the soldier is on guard but is not threatend by either of the two children in the photograph and neither of the two children threatened by the soldier.I understand your reasoning. But, for me, even taking into account 2D picture and the fact that we weren't there, picture is pointing at the kid, to the best of available info. I'm not going to guess as to why he is pointing gun at that kid. I had gun pointed at my direction on two occasions, and it's not an experience that I'll like to repeat. As for looking down the sights, completely unnecessary at that range, so moot point?
As for the finger not being on the trigger, I don't think that would have any bearing on the fact that gun is pointed at the kid.
To illustrate that I linked the video where Israeli soldier is using the weapon in the same way to, quite obviously, threaten someone. If you look up you'll see the link to youtube.
The finger on the second picture, as well as at 0:40 of the first video is in the exactly same position, I would imagine it's placed there to prevent involuntary squeeze of the trigger, but close enough that it could be moved very quickly.
My only objection is that it's a poor illustration of a soldier threatening children, which was why it was posted. Your other pic may be a much better illustration however, I'll check tonight.
Mr_B said:
Looks like 18 less Gazans. Killed by Hamas in revenge.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleea...
I wonder how many of them will be counted as civilian children in the UN stats?http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleea...
Scuffers said:
Mr_B said:
Looks like 18 less Gazans. Killed by Hamas in revenge.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleea...
I wonder how many of them will be counted as civilian children in the UN stats?http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleea...
Lost soul said:
Scuffers said:
Mr_B said:
Looks like 18 less Gazans. Killed by Hamas in revenge.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleea...
I wonder how many of them will be counted as civilian children in the UN stats?http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleea...
If not, I'm not sure why you're suggesting this might be the case now.
One might think that you're trying to suggest that the figures for number of children killed during the conflict has been falsely overstated, which is a pretty pathetic attempt to absolve the IDF, in my opinion.
Countdown said:
Lost soul said:
Scuffers said:
Mr_B said:
Looks like 18 less Gazans. Killed by Hamas in revenge.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleea...
I wonder how many of them will be counted as civilian children in the UN stats?http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleea...
If not, I'm not sure why you're suggesting this might be the case now.
One might think that you're trying to suggest that the figures for number of children killed during the conflict has been falsely overstated, which is a pretty pathetic attempt to absolve the IDF, in my opinion.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff