 |
|
Zulu Elephant
|
|
Isnt there a chance that in a few decades, the whole world will have become a virtual free trade area, what with the constant lowering of tarriffs. Wouldn't this take the ground from the underneath the feet of this US survival plan?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DAVOUT
The problem with qualitative superiority is that it never covers all the fields of risk and danger. Some are acceptable, others are not; having 96 soldiers wounded at lunch is totally unacceptable and depicts inferiority of the command, more than superiority. |
True, there are situations where there is simply no substituting for sufficient quantity. The incident where the suicide bomber managed to get into the mess tent is a combination of budget cutting (elimination of the Army's organic food preperation staff, which were replaced by contractors) and the incompetence of the base commander in regards to force protection. I can't imagine what was going through the minds of those who set up that system, as they had to be aware of the danger. Hopefully they won't be in a position to make important decisions again. One mistake can cost a battle, sometimes even a war. This one did neither.
quote:
Originally posted by DAVOUT
And what is the use of technology when it takes two years to improve the doors of the humvees which were the cause of many losses. Rumsfeld had the audace to explain that he goes to war not with the army he wanted but with the army he had. This is also totally unacceptable when you spent lavishly the billions dollars, and negates the theory of qualitative superiority. |
The use of technology is that humvee doors are a pretty small part of the picture. I think that our troops find reliable secure communications, satellite guided bombs, good night vision equipment etc. etc. ad nauseum to be quite useful. Qualitative superiority is not negated simply because it is not ideal, it can still exist even when the enemy has some areas of advantage.
Take look at what happened in Najaf when the Sadr's militia made the mistake of giving the intiative to the Americans. The kill ratio was over 200 to 1, with little damage to the city and a huge increase in the prestige of both the Americans and the Iraqi interim government. Had it been Vietnam we would have sent a brigade in there and leveled half of the city, and caused 1000+ civilian casualties.
As for America's reluctance to suffer casualties, it seems that we are more open to that possibility than we have been in the past. There isn't any chance that we'll cut and run from Iraq due to casualties in the foreseeable future. We are still more risk averse than we were in Vietnam, and less so than at any time afterward.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drake Tungsten
|
 |
Knee deep in alien womyn...
Oct 2001
time: 14:37
|
|
Do you know how long and difficult a process it is to reform an army? If so, do you really expect the Bush Administration to hold off on a war they thought was important in order to craft the "perfect" army (one that would probably prove to have unforeseen deficiencies once combat actually started anyway)? You're not that naive are you?
Last edited by Drake Tungsten on 24-03-2005 at 19:17
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:37
|
|
The reason Rumsfeld should have been fired long ago is that he was warned more boots on the gorund would be needed-and he did not do it.
Rumsfeld *****es about the army he had, but Rumsfelds dream army would be even less capable of pacifying Iraq then what we have. In fact, we got into this mess BECAUSE Rummy wanted to make the war a showpiece of his ideology, which is that wars could be fought and won with smaller better forces, and this was superior to using the whole Powell doctrine of utterly overwhelming forces. Yes, the US could certainly beat a degraded third world force with a small, quick force, which it did. Problem was, such a force, while good for taking out the enemy army, was not good enough to bring complete control- something that Rummy was told before we invaded and ignored.
So Rummy can ***** about the army under Clinton all he wants, but the Iraq mess is all his own.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Dracon II
|
 |
Communist Party of Apolyton
Jan 1970
time: 15:37
|
|
Excuse the following post, as I'm as drunk as an Aussie with a paycheque, and have enough booze to last a long weekend...
Hegemonic decline seems to me to be a reality. China, Europe, India et al seem to be developing their own structures independent of the US. Moves towards an east asian economic and political community are being held with reference to Chinese and Indian, not US power.
Given that rather spurious argument (the arguments for US decline have been made by infinitely more sober persons than I), I agree with Gpap, with his cute Nietszche avatar (ironic given that his post was about the impotence of power), that direct war between great powers is insane and would not come under serious consideration. Europe at the height of its power could not have occupied China, and Japan has no hope of doing it anymore (despite the latent fears of my girlfriend, whose hatred and fear of Japan is understandable given she comes from Nanjing, site of one the most horrible massacres in modern history). The proxy war model developed in the cold war seems to present a viable model for conflict in the future, providing it doesn't mutate into something bigger. If, as it seems to me, that several distinct poles of power are emerging in the world today, a worst case scenario would be a multipolar cold war. Like in the cold war, where two sides tried to build two distinct spheres of influence... a multipolar cold war would also be characterised by such... in the form of regionalism (several of you seem to suggest this in your rationalization of efforts to unite the americas).
I'm not equipped with statistics (where do you guys get all your information by the way? I've a feeling the Australian education system is quite inferior)... but by instinct alone I can sense trying times ahead (most immediately tomorrow morning when I wake up).
Makes me worried for Australia... we are wedged neatly between China and the USA at the moment... the USA being an old ally and still an important economic partner, and China a now unavoidable focus of our economic dependence with a proximity (especially close looking next to me in bed every night) that can no longer be ignored politically and strategically. If China isn't an emerging great power, why would Australia even suggest turning its back on the US come a confrontation in Taiwan? Being one of America's most sycophantic and adoring allies this should not be taken lightly. Australia has always allied itself with the hegemon of the time; Britain by virtue of our origin and fear of Asia, and the USA by virtue of our fear of Asians and Communists. So now that we are so doggedly courting an Asian country with a ruling Communist Party, beware! Australia backs the winner... and then proceeds to eat its ***** no matter the fishy smell.
If China's economy implodes... then it is brief... America's economy imploded in 1929 and it took a world war to recover so beware of an imploding China. Besides, China will never implode back to a time when it was not relevant... so quit delaying the inevitable. But maybe I'm biased, because I am eating Chinese ***** no matter the fishy smell..... 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wycoff
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
What would it matter if everyone were comfortable enough with each other to have open borders?
The age of needing to be so uptight about these things would be over, and I'm sure American commerce would be in a position to compete.
Bring it on, I say. |
Great plan. I love having the Salvadorian MS-13s turning suburbs into war zones... I love giving any terrorist with brains enough to get into central America easy access to anywhere he wants to go.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wycoff
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sikander
Security / border concerns were addressed, but immigration reform / guest workers were sidestepped. Bush told Fox that he'll press for them but doesn't see them getting through congress. |
That's because sensible Congressmen like Tancredo and Sensenbrenner thwarted his attempts. Bush is an open borders man, and Fox regularly implores his citizens to illegally immigrate.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-03-2005 16:09
|