Dipster:
“Pure stupidity, born of an exceptionalist mentality, that is on view elsewhere too.”
And displayed in politicians rather too close to home!
[/quote]
So clear isn`t it?
Clear to us special ones, anyhow.
Franglais:
Resisting an attack from a foreign power has clear goals.But how would a war “won” in Vietnam have looked?
A “bombed back to the stone age” wasteland?
A country with a foreign army of occupation?
A puppet government?
.
Genocide?
Subjugation?
Martyrs giving rise to enemies with nothing to lose?You don`t Win Hearts and Minds by killing more and more people.
Politicians etc say of enemies “each attack makes us stronger and more determined” then “we will beat them into submission” in the same sentence.
Pure stupidity, born of an exceptionalist mentality, that is on view elsewhere too.
Luckily we didn’t use your logic in WW2 v Germany.
Or JFK over Cuba.
It’s easy to spot those with a far left agenda.
All with the same brainwashed view of painting the US as the aggressor in Vietnam and the Communist invaders as heroic defenders of South Vietnam’s freedom.
Its all so predictable it’s laughable.
The ‘clear goal’ was/is whatever it took/takes to stop Communist invasion of the free world and Putin is as much a Communist now as he was when he served as a high ranking officer in the red army.
But NATOs tactics are as stupid as sending in boots on the ground to Russia’s borders in Europe, to stop Kruschev over Cuba would have been.Or served up piecemeal to a covert Chinese PLA invasion both in Korea and Vietnam.
Carryfast:
Monkey241:
Airpower never wins wars. Boots on the ground does thatVietnam, Korea, Iraq and Afghanistan all say otherwise.
So why didn’t JFK mobilise his ground forces during the Cuban missile crisis only SAC and Naval forces.Why did Russia back down just faced with that threat.
Also why did NATO bother with the mutually assured destruction strategy if it thought it’s ground forces would/could win WW3.
Korea etc all show boots on the ground and neither were won by air power!!
Indeed Vietnam is the epitome of how airpower alone DOESN’T win wars.
As for Iraq…seem to recall I went over the border shortly after the Shock and Awe bombing campaign. Why was that?
Do you live in aone kind of alternative world with a totally different set of facts??
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
Carryfast:
Monkey241:
Airpower never wins wars. Boots on the ground does thatVietnam, Korea, Iraq and Afghanistan all say otherwise.
So why didn’t JFK mobilise his ground forces during the Cuban missile crisis only SAC and Naval forces.Why did Russia back down just faced with that threat.
Also why did NATO bother with the mutually assured destruction strategy if it thought it’s ground forces would/could win WW3.
As for MAD - that was the point- deterrent.
MAD wasn’t dependent purely on conventional airpower etc
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
Franglais:
Resisting an attack from a foreign power has clear goals.But how would a war “won” in Vietnam have looked?
A “bombed back to the stone age” wasteland?
A country with a foreign army of occupation?
A puppet government?
.
Genocide?
Subjugation?
Martyrs giving rise to enemies with nothing to lose?You don`t Win Hearts and Minds by killing more and more people.
Politicians etc say of enemies “each attack makes us stronger and more determined” then “we will beat them into submission” in the same sentence.
Pure stupidity, born of an exceptionalist mentality, that is on view elsewhere too.
How do your last 2 paras hold up in light of WW2?
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
Monkey241:
Carryfast:
Monkey241:
Airpower never wins wars. Boots on the ground does thatVietnam, Korea, Iraq and Afghanistan all say otherwise.
So why didn’t JFK mobilise his ground forces during the Cuban missile crisis only SAC and Naval forces.Why did Russia back down just faced with that threat.
Also why did NATO bother with the mutually assured destruction strategy if it thought it’s ground forces would/could win WW3.Korea etc all show boots on the ground and neither were won by air power!!
Indeed Vietnam is the epitome of how airpower alone DOESN’T win wars.
As for Iraq…seem to recall I went over the border shortly after the Shock and Awe bombing campaign. Why was that?
Do you live in aone kind of alternative world with a totally different set of facts??
We didn’t actually win in NK it was a stalemate and Iraq and Afghanistan predictably turned into a lose lose quagmire just like Korea and Vietnam did.As opposed to unrestricted bombing of Iraq and the threat of using nukes on China in the case of Vietnam and Korea if the Communists refused to give up their plans for ■■■■■■■■■■.
Luckily for the world JFK didn’t try to stop Kruschev by marching his GIs and the USMC and the BAOR to Russia’s borders.
As opposed to if the Commies threaten us we end it using strategic air power obviously including UCBMs.Thats how to stop Communists and Putin is a Communist.
While ironically this is all about NATO stupidly threatening Russia’s borders with boots on the ground.Which makes NATO the aggressor .
Monkey241:
Carryfast:
Monkey241:
Airpower never wins wars. Boots on the ground does thatVietnam, Korea, Iraq and Afghanistan all say otherwise.
So why didn’t JFK mobilise his ground forces during the Cuban missile crisis only SAC and Naval forces.Why did Russia back down just faced with that threat.
Also why did NATO bother with the mutually assured destruction strategy if it thought it’s ground forces would/could win WW3.As for MAD - that was the point- deterrent.
MAD wasn’t dependent purely on conventional airpower etc
MAD didn’t involve boots on the ground either.It was a naval and air command operation.
You seem to have avoided the questions why didn’t JFK mobilise ground forces in Europe to stop Russia over the Cuba issue.
Why would Kruschev have backed down without that.
What do you think would have happened if JFK had have moved troops into the East Euro buffer states threatening Russia’s borders then.
The truth is none of us would be here arguing about it or we’d at least be speaking Russian working 16 hours a day in a Gulag eating cabbage soup.
Monkey241:
As for MAD - that was the point- deterrent.
Exactly.
As opposed to marching NATO troops up to Russia’s border.
A deterrent which wasn’t used to stop the invasion of Korea or Vietnam.
As opposed to the Cuban missile crisis and the inevitable defence strategy knowing that the BAOR would have been wiped out in 48 hours in any conventional war in Europe with Russia.
Boris and Biden are likely to get Europe destroyed in that regard.
Boots on the ground indeed.
Monkey241:
Franglais:
Resisting an attack from a foreign power has clear goals.But how would a war “won” in Vietnam have looked?
A “bombed back to the stone age” wasteland?
A country with a foreign army of occupation?
A puppet government?
.
Genocide?
Subjugation?
Martyrs giving rise to enemies with nothing to lose?You don`t Win Hearts and Minds by killing more and more people.
Politicians etc say of enemies “each attack makes us stronger and more determined” then “we will beat them into submission” in the same sentence.
Pure stupidity, born of an exceptionalist mentality, that is on view elsewhere too.How do your last 2 paras hold up in light of WW2?
How does any of Franglais’ theory or your position hold up.
Including the use of nukes on Japan to save the pointless losses and uncertain aftermath of sending in boots on the ground.
Strategic air/naval power up to and including MAD works.
JFK proved it.
While your are saying that boots on the ground were/are the solution.
Let alone when you’re using that suicidal idea to threaten Russia’s back yard.
Monkey241:
Franglais:
Resisting an attack from a foreign power has clear goals.But how would a war “won” in Vietnam have looked?
A “bombed back to the stone age” wasteland?
A country with a foreign army of occupation?
A puppet government?
.
Genocide?
Subjugation?
Martyrs giving rise to enemies with nothing to lose?You don`t Win Hearts and Minds by killing more and more people.
Politicians etc say of enemies “each attack makes us stronger and more determined” then “we will beat them into submission” in the same sentence.
Pure stupidity, born of an exceptionalist mentality, that is on view elsewhere too.How do your last 2 paras hold up in light of WW2?
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
Quite well, when you look at my first line I think.
Franglais:
Monkey241:
Franglais:
Resisting an attack from a foreign power has clear goals.But how would a war “won” in Vietnam have looked?
A “bombed back to the stone age” wasteland?
A country with a foreign army of occupation?
A puppet government?
.
Genocide?
Subjugation?
Martyrs giving rise to enemies with nothing to lose?You don`t Win Hearts and Minds by killing more and more people.
Politicians etc say of enemies “each attack makes us stronger and more determined” then “we will beat them into submission” in the same sentence.
Pure stupidity, born of an exceptionalist mentality, that is on view elsewhere too.How do your last 2 paras hold up in light of WW2?
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
Quite well, when you look at my first line I think.
What was the difference between the ‘goals’ of stopping Japan in WW2 and the Soviet Union in Cuba v the goals of stopping Communist aggression in Korea or North Vietnam.
As opposed to the ultimate tactics and strategy.
Let alone Bozo and Biden now trying to march NATO on Russia’s borders
Franglais:
Monkey241:
Franglais:
Resisting an attack from a foreign power has clear goals.But how would a war “won” in Vietnam have looked?
A “bombed back to the stone age” wasteland?
A country with a foreign army of occupation?
A puppet government?
.
Genocide?
Subjugation?
Martyrs giving rise to enemies with nothing to lose?You don`t Win Hearts and Minds by killing more and more people.
Politicians etc say of enemies “each attack makes us stronger and more determined” then “we will beat them into submission” in the same sentence.
Pure stupidity, born of an exceptionalist mentality, that is on view elsewhere too.How do your last 2 paras hold up in light of WW2?
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
Quite well, when you look at my first line I think.
Did the Nazis attack us then?
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
Monkey241:
Franglais:
Monkey241:
Franglais:
Resisting an attack from a foreign power has clear goals.But how would a war “won” in Vietnam have looked?
A “bombed back to the stone age” wasteland?
A country with a foreign army of occupation?
A puppet government?
.
Genocide?
Subjugation?
Martyrs giving rise to enemies with nothing to lose?You don`t Win Hearts and Minds by killing more and more people.
Politicians etc say of enemies “each attack makes us stronger and more determined” then “we will beat them into submission” in the same sentence.
Pure stupidity, born of an exceptionalist mentality, that is on view elsewhere too.How do your last 2 paras hold up in light of WW2?
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
Quite well, when you look at my first line I think.
Did the Nazis attack us then?
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
[/quote]
“Did the Nazis attack us then?”
You cannot be serious? I cannot believe any body could ask what I find, sorry, a truly stupid question! Ask those who lost loved ones in the blitz, or the battle of Britain, or the Atlantic convoys, etc… Really!
Dipster:
Monkey241:
Franglais:
Monkey241:
Franglais:
Resisting an attack from a foreign power has clear goals.But how would a war “won” in Vietnam have looked?
A “bombed back to the stone age” wasteland?
A country with a foreign army of occupation?
A puppet government?
.
Genocide?
Subjugation?
Martyrs giving rise to enemies with nothing to lose?You don`t Win Hearts and Minds by killing more and more people.
Politicians etc say of enemies “each attack makes us stronger and more determined” then “we will beat them into submission” in the same sentence.
Pure stupidity, born of an exceptionalist mentality, that is on view elsewhere too.How do your last 2 paras hold up in light of WW2?
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
Quite well, when you look at my first line I think.
Did the Nazis attack us then?
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
“Did the Nazis attack us then?”
You cannot be serious? I cannot believe any body could ask what I find, sorry, a truly stupid question! Ask those who lost loved ones in the blitz, or the battle of Britain, or the Atlantic convoys, etc… Really!
[/quote]
The point was context.
Technically by Declaring war we attacked them.
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
But how would a war “won” in Vietnam have looked?
A “bombed back to the stone age” wasteland?
A country with a foreign army of occupation?
A puppet government?
.
Genocide?
Subjugation?
Martyrs giving rise to enemies with nothing to lose?
You don`t Win Hearts and Minds by killing more and more people.
Politicians etc say of enemies “each attack makes us stronger and more determined” then “we will beat them into submission” in the same sentence.
Pure stupidity, born of an exceptionalist mentality, that is on view elsewhere too.
[/quote]
How do your last 2 paras hold up in light of WW2?
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
[/quote]
Quite well, when you look at my first line I think.
[/quote]
Did the Nazis attack us then?
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
[/quote]
[/quote]
“Did the Nazis attack us then?”
You cannot be serious? I cannot believe any body could ask what I find, sorry, a truly stupid question! Ask those who lost loved ones in the blitz, or the battle of Britain, or the Atlantic convoys, etc… Really!
[/quote]
The point was context.
Technically by Declaring war we attacked them.
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
[/quote]
Following attacks upon our treaty partners. So do you believe tha had we not complied with our treaty agreements Hitler & Co would have left us in peace? I fear you might be hiding behind semantics.
Dipster:
Monkey241:
“Did the Nazis attack us then?”
You cannot be serious? I cannot believe any body could ask what I find, sorry, a truly stupid question! Ask those who lost loved ones in the blitz, or the battle of Britain, or the Atlantic convoys, etc… Really!
We declared war on Germany for the same type of reason that we went to war with China over South Korea.
You know total war.Not a limited proxy engagement because we were scared of taking casualties at home.
Let alone giving a zb about winning German ■■■■ hearts and minds.The Lancasters and their crews rightly went out with the aim of killing more Germans than the German bombers had killed of ours.Configuring 4,000lb Cookies as parachute mines would only have helped in that regard can’t understand Harris not ordering it.
Just as loading the Enola Gay with a nuke to drop on Japan did.
The difference in this case is that it’s NATO which is acting as the aggressor providing Putin and Jumping with the pretext they want
and serving up NATOs forces on a plate using the wrong tactics to fight the wrong war in the wrong place on Russia’s terms.
Dipster:
Following attacks upon our treaty partners. So do you believe tha had we not complied with our treaty agreements Hitler & Co would have left us in peace? I fear you might be hiding behind semantics.
The irony when that was exactly JFKs reasoning for going into Vietnam.
The difference was that the US had no stomach for what it would have taken in the form the same threat and ultimatum to China that he issued to Russia over Cuba.
Bearing in mind that boots on the ground didn’t ultimately end WW2 in the Pacific.Two B29’s did.
Now here we are with the MAD strategy abandoned and Biden and Boris thinking that boots on the ground posturing on Russia’s borders can provide the type of security that we had under the MAD strategy.
What could possibly go wrong.
As for treaties there are situations in which blindly following treaties is in no one’s interests.‘Belgian neutrality’ in 1914 and moving NATO troops to Russia’s borders being two examples.
Carryfast:
As for treaties there are situations in which blindly following treaties is in no one’s interests.‘Belgian neutrality’ in 1914 and moving NATO troops to Russia’s borders being two examples.
Orban should have asked the question if we’ve got the ultimate deterrent why do we need to stir up more zb by having NATO troops poncing about on Russia’s borders.
dailymail.co.uk/news/article … s-now.html
Carryfast:
Orban should have asked the question if we’ve got the ultimate deterrent why do we need to stir up more zb by having NATO troops poncing about on Russia’s borders.
dailymail.co.uk/news/article … s-now.html
I’ve now put that question to the local MP supposedly a Boris loyalist.
It’ll be bad enough if Ukraine’s militia actually manage to fry any Russian tank crews with those missiles we’ve given em.
Thats going to mean a lot of really ■■■■■■ off even more motivated Russian artillery and other forces.If the Bozo and Biden circus doesn’t back off and request their return before they do some damage with them.
While the Russian naval ‘excercises’ off Ireland might suddenly turn all too real.
Bearing in mind they now know that NATO has lost the bottle for MAD or NATO wouldn’t have bothered with all this bs conventional sabre rattling aggro on Russia’s borders to start with.
It’s already gone way past Ukraine.
While NATO continues to take a knife to a gun fight.
Biden and Bozo combined don’t make one JFK.
Time to get NATO out of the old WP states and tell Russia and China that we’ve got nukes too and we’re not afraid to launch them.
Hopefully before they do so the Commy scum go first.
youtu.be/L6lQysqxNBk