FourFans
Supreme User
-
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Very true. The substance of your argument is purely theoretical and virtually useless in a real world sense. Sounds like you were a C-17 dude who touched down a couple times in Bagram. Or maybe an AWACS back seater. In any case, the substance of your argument reaches its useful limit at the door of the classroom where you heard it. Speaking of classroom, sounds like you didn't study that war or it's implementation very well. Sober up, go read "Dereliction of Duty" by H.R. McMaster, then reassess. Not even close to absolute or total war. While you're on that war, go read Flying Through Midnight...because every airman of our generation should read that.
-
In a just world, lawyers wouldn't exist, and they certainly wouldn't be involved in combat. Combat is supposed to be brutal beyond the pale to the point that anywhere a combatant hides is a valid target until there are no more targets or until the enemy gives up. America seemed to have forgotten that fact somewhere right around 1946. Somewhere along the line we decided to be "nice" when we use military force, which is how you end up with a military doing 'nation building'...the complete opposite of it's function.
-
Nope. Do it. What's the magic number? 4? Because I've been to 4 different CA cities and witnessed the horror show with my own eyes. None were SF.
-
Congrats, it's still rage bait. Good work with the ad hominin though, it really proves your point and definitely makes me want to believe that your opinions are the correct ones.
-
Is there any rage bait you don't fall for?
-
That's awesome! Not a single tube of shame!
-
Fully agree. What I'm curious about is after hostilities begin, what then? I don't see a conflict over Taiwan that doesn't expand after hostilities begin. Even if China is 100% successful in taking the island back (which I highly doubt), I don't see a scenario where the waves they make in doing so don't extend farther and result in consequences from Afghanistan to Japan. This is precisely how wars of conquest in Asia have proceeded in the past: Once the army is assembled, just keep going until defeat or complete exhaustion of the army. 'When holding a hammer, everything look like a nail' holds true in Asia. In some ways China's biggest threat is DISassembly of a massive army. All those men with training and nothing do. In that regard, Xi is almost a mitigating factor, because I have no doubt he actually does have a plan. An overthrowing mob wouldn't.
-
The question I'm beginning to ponder: Is a China instigated war scarier with Xi at the helm, or whomever comes after him? Imagine a world in a year or so where Xi is no longer in power, and China still decides to go to war... Echos of Russia turning into the USSR, or possibly France's revolution turning into a Napoleon led war machine...
-
It seriously feels like about every 18-24 months or so over the past decade DC spouts off with "UFOs are real, shiny object, look over here!"
-
Please. We Need To Move This Thread Along
-
-
...like -135 level genius? ...or actual genius? Risk aversion and that community seem...well...tight with each other. Not seeing how a -135 guy in a think tank = good strategic analysis of displacement of ground forces. Not saying it can't happen, but the correlation there seems odd. JTT is really intelligent too, and I would not have followed him into combat... Just sayin'.
-
Big difference, he quite literally put his own skin on the line. I say let him keep it.
-
-
Seriously. Can't believe Maduro thought he'd make it out unscathed.
