SEAL raid in Somalia?

Marvel

Psalm 149:5-9
Joined
May 19, 2012
Messages
8,804
Reputation
813
Daps
15,171
Reppin
House of Yasharahla
I honestly think you have it backwards. It seems like deliberate prolonging of war in my eyes. Your talking about possibly the mightiest military to have ever existed on this planet just literally giving gained terrain to the enemy. It would be the equivalent of taking Normandy during D-Day and then going back across the English Chanel .

Just sitting back in the defense, carelessly holding onto territories. No offense. Pissing off the local populations, including South Vietnamese. Random, bullshyt bombing raids not only in Vietnam but adjacent countries, bombings that actually had no strategic effect.

Same in Korea. General MacArthur pushed the North Koreans literally into the border with China. When the Chinese sent one million troops across, he wanted to invade China and nuke them. DC was content as it was. Left those cats out there to die for a stalemate for no reason but greed in my opinion. Just enough war to keep the military contractors happy, but not too much war as to slow down booming US productions and industry.

I didn't realize this until I looked back on these wars after witnessing and reading reports of what was going on in Afghanistan. I can't find a single reason what the US military and government did what they did in Afghanistan except to prolong the war for some purpose. No military in the history of this planet would ever make decisions that stupid.

There are varying reasons for every war. I agree, the US goes to war at times to give a elites a "money grab" through DoD contracts. The Iraq and Afgan War was perfect timing because it came on the heels of 9-11 so the American public stupidly co-signed the go ahead for war. These DoD contracts are worth billions of dollars and these same companies are publicly traded as well. War has fueled the US elite for a long time. That is the reason why they need so much propaganda get the general public on their side. If not the American people will have their kids leaving the military or not going at all. Its the same reason why the US elite is not stupid enough to send their kids into war at least until it is at their doorsteps.

Nuking territory is not a good idea especially when you consider the value the land may have through trade routes, natural resources or even its strategic advantage. The US would not drop a nuclear bomb on a land that has oil or other valuable resources on it. Having superior weaponry does not always win wars. There are many historical examples of this. You brought up the US nuking China. Do you think the Soviet Union was going to sit back and watch that happen? :heh: The US would be biting off more than they can chew. The Cold War would have turn into a Nuclear War. Nobody can be on top forever. Every empire underestimate people and eventually fell off and were defeated. We cannot name one that has maintained their dominance.
 

Type Username Here

Not a new member
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
16,368
Reputation
2,385
Daps
32,643
Reppin
humans
There are varying reasons for every war. I agree, the US goes to war at times to give a elites a "money grab" through DoD contracts. The Iraq and Afgan War was perfect timing because it came on the heels of 9-11 so the American public stupidly co-signed the go ahead for war. These DoD contracts are worth billions of dollars and these same companies are publicly traded as well. War has fueled the US elite for a long time. That is the reason why they need so much propaganda get the general public on their side. If not the American people will have their kids leaving the military or not going at all. Its the same reason why the US elite is not stupid enough to send their kids into war at least until it is at their doorsteps.

Nuking territory is not a good idea especially when you consider the value the land may have through trade routes, natural resources or even its strategic advantage. The US would not drop a nuclear bomb on a land that has oil or other valuable resources on it. Having superior weaponry does not always win wars. There are many historical examples of this. You brought up the US nuking China. Do you think the Soviet Union was going to sit back and watch that happen? :heh: The US would be biting off more than they can chew. The Cold War would have turn into a Nuclear War. Nobody can be on top forever. Every empire underestimate people and eventually fell off and were defeated. We cannot name one that has maintained their dominance.


This happened right after WWII though. The Soviets had just developed their first nuke if I recall correctly. Keep in mind though that the US essentially propped up the Soviet Union through WWII on a lot of supply fronts. Most people don't realize that. The US gave $700 Billion dollars (today's money) in support to Allies, including Soviets:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

Much of the aid can be better understood when considering the economic distortions caused by the war. Most belligerent powers cut back severely on production of non-essentials, concentrating on producing weapons. This inevitably produced shortages of related products needed by the military or as part of the military-industrial complex.

The USSR was highly dependent on rail transportation, but the war practically shut down rail equipment production: only about 92 locomotives were produced. 2,000 locomotives and 11,000 railcars were supplied under Lend-Lease. Likewise, the Soviet air force received 18,700 aircraft, which amounted to about 14% of Soviet aircraft production (19% for military aircraft).[17]

Although most Red Army tank units were equipped with Soviet-built tanks, their logistical support was provided by hundreds of thousands of U.S.-made trucks. Indeed by 1945 nearly two-thirds of the truck strength of the Red Army was U.S.-built. Trucks such as the Dodge 3/4 ton and Studebaker 2½ ton, were easily the best trucks available in their class on either side on the Eastern Front. American shipments of telephone cable, aluminium, canned rations, and clothing were also critical.[18]

In total, the US deliveries through Lend-Lease amounted to $11 billion in materials: over 400,000 jeeps and trucks; 12,000 armored vehicles (including 7,000 tanks); 11,400 aircraft and 1.75 million tons of food.

The US was in a much better position at the time and I think could have taken down the Soviet Union any time during the cold war, but especially so in the beginning.

Truman didn't want to start WW3 though because that war in Korea was never really about stopping communism or winning it. Neither was Vietnam. Eisenhower made that very clear to anyone listening. It was about defense contracts and money, and nothing is more evident about that then where we are currently:

China is our biggest trading partner. The Vietnamese essentially work for America and American companies. South Korea is America's bytch and North Korea might be the worst place to live in on this planet.

People made good money of those two wars. A lot of people and companies won those wars. Military is there to follow orders of what civilian leadership thinks is in the best interest of the country, and if the leadership is slaves to greed, well you know the rest.
 

88m3

Fast Money & Foreign Objects
Joined
May 21, 2012
Messages
89,166
Reputation
3,722
Daps
158,751
Reppin
Brooklyn
Obama doing the things Clinton and Bush couldn't

:salute:
 

emoney

custom user title
Joined
May 9, 2012
Messages
3,928
Reputation
100
Daps
2,305
I know that breh. Not cool for them especially the innocent civilians. The point is, they don't care if they die as long as you leave and give up first. In fact, the more you kill the harder they fight. The number of casualties is sometimes a wrong way to think about a war or battle. We can look throughout history and see conflicts where one side had a ridiculous amount of casualties and still got what they wanted from the Haitian revolution, Eastern Front in WW2, the US Civil War, to the Indochina war, to the Vietnam and Korean War, Afghan War, etc.

I don't believe that
a) they don't care if they die
b) they fight harder the more you kill them

Even if what you say is true...I think it's cool that these religious extremists and militants don't care
 

emoney

custom user title
Joined
May 9, 2012
Messages
3,928
Reputation
100
Daps
2,305
The only reason they don't get wiped out is because there is no long term money to be made by wiping them out. The US had control of a good chunk Somalia at one point , just like they did Afghanistan. Less than a regiment of Marines and various support units controlled a lot of important cities in a matter of days. This shyt seems almost deliberate to me now, giving away territory to prolong engagements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Restore_Hope#Operation

I agree.

Muslim extremists need to understand they are just pawns on a chess board being sacrificed.
 
Top