T1B

Phibes, do a realistic comparison of the level of warfare we employed in WWII with our halfassed efforts in Vietnam and Korea. Once you've spotted the difference in political commitment/military objectives, go ahead and get back to us.

They're incomparable, regular/irregular. Insurgent campaigns aren't measurable with big battalions. Kursk does not =/= Tet. Equating a large explosion with success seems simple-minded to me.

It seemed simple to Truman, too, as it did to Hirohito. Simple, and profoundly effective. The Republican Guard would also attest to our military's abilities to do the job.

Point being, when the U.S. military has been given a clear, achievable objective with no political roadblocks compromising the mission, it's delivered every time.

Van wrote:Nick, the U.S. military has been utterly dominant. Other than for an uncommitted quagmire in Vietnam along with a similarly hamstrung effort in Korea, they've done pretty much anything they've wanted for seventy years now.

It's not my fault your view of what constitutes a military victory vs a military defeat is so far removed from reality as to be laughable even while accounting for the fact that you're trolling, but hey...whatever floats your happy little gremlin boat.

Excuse me, but the list I've presented of America's major wars (I left off Somalia) details exactly what "victories" had asterisks and which losses have been shamelessly spun. If you really believe what you're saying then please explain just where I've misstated the outcome. And be specific. Go ahead, just try.

Meanwhile Mall Cop actually goes into deep run ("Duke level") denial and suggests what? That we could've won Vietnam???!!! Alright, since apparently Limpdick is getting tossed out like fetid garbage by his ClearChannel overlords, we'll allow him some quivering delusions for a bit. He's been through a lot of septic waste for breakfast, lunch and dinner for a long time and as you can see...well.. :wink:

No problem, Nick. See, unlike you, I won't try to spin things to suit some harebrained agenda. I'll just go by the military facts.

The War of 1812: While not a decisive victory, a victory nonetheless. The Brits did not succeed in their mission, and they were defeated in the decisive battle. With America's victory here, the Brits were never an issue again.

The Mexican American War: A rout.

The American Civil War: It was a Civil War, so keeping score depends on whose side you were on, but suffice it to say that it has to go down as a victory for the American military.

The Spanish American War Another rout.

WW1: The very definition of "winning ugly," yet whose side dictated the terms of the Treaty of Versailles? It wasn't a stalemate. One side did win. Ours.

WW2: A decisive win on both fronts.

Korea: The first of our two political assfucks, and still it ended in a tie.

Vietnam The second of our political assfucks, and still we held the upper hand until the suits pulled the plug.

Grenanda: Hey, when Bama rolls Northwest Buttsnort A&M, it still goes down as a 'W.'

Desert Storm A nearly unprecedented rout. Our military did as they pleased while wiping the desert floor with the world's "fourth largest army."

Iraq 2: Ditto.

Afghanistan: Our boots are on their ground, and there isn't a damn thing they can do about it. We completely decimated the Taliban in the blink of an eye. The only thing we didn't do is figure out what the fuck we're doing there. Militarily, however, it's been another SEC OOC tilt from Day One.

So, 10-1-1, with the two blemishes coming not as a result of any real defeat of our military but rather political indifference.

Yep, despite a sometimes spotty SOS we did manage a few major road wins, and we're undefeated at home. All in all, we're definitely in the hunt for a shot at the title game.

And you really believe that idiotic analysis? That's how you view history?

Where to begin..

War of 1812--The Brits torched the early version of the White House and we completely caved on all the shipping treaties which had sparked the war. The Battle of New Orleans was moot (the war was officially over--we'd capitulated completely and signed) except for future propaganda. WTF!

The Civil War was a slaughter of Americans, period. There was no "win" in retarding half the country for a century.

The Mexican War was the sort of "victory" celebrated by John Wayne fans and similar morons. Yes, we subjugated Mexico and stole tremendous amounts of their land. Yes, a "victory." But, it was a fake war (the usual fake "redline" and so forth) and really just an imperialist assault. But, okay, Duke, that's a win.

The Spanish American War was a thorough disgrace to American principles and basic human decency. Pure imperialism and betrayal. A victory? Okay.

WWI was a stalemate which led directly to WWII. Not only did we lose 50,000 or so Americans in the trenches, but the horrid conditions of camping hundreds of thousands of men in fetid conditions created the influenza epidemic which killed approximately 1% of the entire planet's population. You call that a victory?

WWII was a win, but hardly a slam-dunk. As i pointed out--and as you of course ignored--we ONLY prevailed in Europe because of the Soviet horde, and we ONLY prevailed over Japan by nuking civilian cities. Well, that's a very tainted win. But it did land us in the number one slot for a couple of decades.

Korea Again, a dismal stalemate requiring massive expense for permanently stationed divisions is INCOMPETENT. What's with all this allowance you're extending for a "victory?" Let's be clear, no one has questioned that we have the biggest military machine, or that we don't spend more than all other nations combined on our military. The question is COMPETENCE. Okay? And the Korean stalemate was simply a clumsy and confused conundrum of incompetence. Consider that MacArthur was seething for a nuke strike on China while Truman (the most unqualified president until the Chimp) had to fire him. This is Incompetence. And the results speak for themselves.

Vietnam An absolute total defeat, period. On many levels, don't forget. The inane suggestion that we could have won "but for the suits" is so divorced from the basic facts--let alone the bigger picture--that anyone seriously believing it is literally delusional. Or just a lazy fraud.

Grenada was not a war, and we prevailed. But it serves as well as any as to the essential incompetence of our bloated massive war machine. Nineteen friendly fire deaths should tell you all you need to know. But consider this snapshot: U.S. marines are pinned down by a U.S. army helicopter, obliviously showering them with gunfire. The horrified--and dying--marines can't radio the chopper because the bickering agencies apparently don't share frequencies. So the marines have to sneak into the embassy (which they were assaulting when attacked by their own guys) and call on the basement telephone to the army base in Georgia--which then calls the helicopter pilot and tells him to cease fire. Got it?

As for the ensuing heavy handed assaults on the Middle East--including Desert Storm, Iraq II, and Afghanistan, so what if our "boots are on the ground"? There's no victory in assaulting and undermining civilian populations, except to insure the perpetual hatred of America in those regions. The fact that these horrific endeavors were launched at the behest of Israel should properly disgust you...but?....

The bottom line is that our militarism over the decades has benefited only the corporate interests (think about the twenty or so assaults, coups, and invasions of Central and south American nations in the past fifty years) and Zionazi nutjobs. And moreover, that our utterly bloated military has ultimately only succeded in undermining our economy and national infrastructure. And that you're a total fake--but that's just nothing.

And why is that, "roach"? because the truth crawling through your limp noodle brain pan is causing you some discomfort? Relax, just go see Act Of Valor and yell out "Booya" right in the theater as the hunky white Special Forces titans mop up the rag head terror-sponsoring muzzie/commies and preserve the American Way.

Go roach, go! It's your time!

LTS TRN 2 wrote:War of 1812--The Brits torched the early version of the White House and we completely caved on all the shipping treaties which had sparked the war. The Battle of New Orleans was moot (the war was officially over--we'd capitulated completely and signed) except for future propaganda. WTF!

Simply too wrong to bother answering.

The Civil War was a slaughter of Americans, period. There was no "win" in retarding half the country for a century.

One side still had to win, and the side that won was the American side. The Confederates lost.

The Mexican War was the sort of "victory" celebrated by John Wayne fans and similar morons. Yes, we subjugated Mexico and stole tremendous amounts of their land. Yes, a "victory." But, it was a fake war (the usual fake "redline" and so forth) and really just an imperialist assault. But, okay, Duke, that's a win.

I already said I wasn't going to get into your harebrained agendas, and this kind of crap is precisely why. The discussion is purely about who won and lost each war, not whether Nick Tinfoil Beanie feels we should've bothered.

The Spanish American War was a thorough disgrace to American principles and basic human decency. Pure imperialism and betrayal. A victory? Okay.

You're pathetic.

WWI was a stalemate which led directly to WWII. Not only did we lose 50,000 or so Americans in the trenches, but the horrid conditions of camping hundreds of thousands of men in fetid conditions created the influenza epidemic which killed approximately 1% of the entire planet's population. You call that a victory?

Yes. At least we weren't the other side. In war, even the victors usually suffer, but it's always better to win than to lose. Ask the Germans how they felt about it, and whether they would've preferred to have been on our side of the bargaining table.

WWII was a win, but hardly a slam-dunk. As i pointed out--and as you of course ignored--we ONLY prevailed in Europe because of the Soviet horde, and we ONLY prevailed over Japan by nuking civilian cities. Well, that's a very tainted win. But it did land us in the number one slot for a couple of decades.

Don't be a fucking moron. Nuking Japan was merely a quick and easy way to expedite an end to a war we were clearly going to win anyway. It was also the method that ensured the fewest number of casualties for Japan, never mind for our side.

Have you forgotten Okinawa and Iwo? We were knocking on their door, ready to invade their homeland. We were bombing the living fuck out of Tokyo.

They were defenseless to prevent the inevitable.

In Europe, yes, the Russians did the bulk of the heavy lifting. Still, last I checked, there were part of the Allies, not the Axis powers.

Korea Again, a dismal stalemate requiring massive expense for permanently stationed divisions is INCOMPETENT. What's with all this allowance you're extending for a "victory?" Let's be clear, no one has questioned that we have the biggest military machine, or that we don't spend more than all other nations combined on our military. The question is COMPETENCE. Okay? And the Korean stalemate was simply a clumsy and confused conundrum of incompetence. Consider that MacArthur was seething for a nuke strike on China while Truman (the most unqualified president until the Chimp) had to fire him. This is Incompetence. And the results speak for themselves.

I didn't call this one a victory. I called it a tie. Hamstrung by our own political leadership, we still went on the road and forged a tie despite halfassing it.

Vietnam An absolute total defeat, period. On many levels, don't forget. The inane suggestion that we could have won "but for the suits" is so divorced from the basic facts--let alone the bigger picture--that anyone seriously believing it is literally delusional. Or just a lazy fraud.

Again, don't be an utter moron. Had we approached that war with the same commitment we applied to WWII, Hanoi falls like a Nick Frisco pick-up line in Hef's grotto.

Grenada was not a war, and we prevailed. But it serves as well as any as to the essential incompetence of our bloated massive war machine. Nineteen friendly fire deaths should tell you all you need to know. But consider this snapshot: U.S. marines are pinned down by a U.S. army helicopter, obliviously showering them with gunfire. The horrified--and dying--marines can't radio the chopper because the bickering agencies apparently don't share frequencies. So the marines have to sneak into the embassy (which they were assaulting when attacked by their own guys) and call on the basement telephone to the army base in Georgia--which then calls the helicopter pilot and tells him to cease fire. Got it?

WGARA? You always seem to fail to realize that in life Shit Happens, whether it's war, oil pipeline maintenance, or snitching prom dates.

As for the ensuing heavy handed assaults on the Middle East--including Desert Storm, Iraq II, and Afghanistan, so what if our "boots are on the ground"? There's no victory in assaulting and undermining civilian populations, except to insure the perpetual hatred of America in those regions. The fact that these horrific endeavors were launched at the behest of Israel should properly disgust you...but?....

Militarily, they were routs. This thread is about the performances of the American military, not our country's political vision.

You're quite simply incapable of staying on topic without spinning.

LTS TRN 2 wrote: Where to begin..

I suppose we could begin by wondering why 90% of your content is your editorial opinion of the political motivations for the war rather than staying strictly focused on the topic at hand which is military competance.

War of 1812--The Brits torched the early version of the White House and we completely caved on all the shipping treaties which had sparked the war. The Battle of New Orleans was moot (the war was officially over--we'd capitulated completely and signed) except for future propaganda. WTF!

WTF is right. First off regarding the burning of DC, this was exactly the brand of pointless, hamfisted military operation that you deplore when executed under the Stars and Stripes. The British burning of DC horrified much of the British public and was widely condemned in continental Europe. In any event, it doesn't really matter. The subject is military competance. Now, what advantage did Britain gain by this victory? Anything? Nope. Their thrusts against New York, Baltimore and New Orleans were all checked.

The War of 1812 was an unequivocal American victory. Our objectives for fighting this war were to discourage the British from fucking with us and to force them to agree to abide by their prior diplomatic agreements with us. The Treaty of Ghent confirmed the status quo antebellum. That isn't an opinion. It is an undeniable fact.

Since the topic is military competance, the Battle of New Orleans is far from moot. At New Orleans we stood up to the best troops in the British Empire, Wellington's Spanish veterans. We didn't just kick their asses. We butchered them including Wellington's brother in law who had just recently taken command of British Forces, North America from his predecessor, Robert Ross. Ross was another highly experienced officer with extensive service in the Napoleonic Wars. He was the asshole who burned DC and we slapped his bitch ass around at Baltimore, killed him and came out of it with our national anthem.

The Civil War was a slaughter of Americans, period. There was no "win" in retarding half the country for a century.

As a point of fact, they already were retarded economically, financially and socially. Slavery tends to do that to the societies which practice it. If they weren't losing demographic ground and thus control of the federal government, why rebel?

To say that there was "no win" in eradicating chattel slavery in the United States is idiotic at best.

The Mexican War was the sort of "victory" celebrated by John Wayne fans and similar morons. Yes, we subjugated Mexico and stole tremendous amounts of their land. Yes, a "victory." But, it was a fake war (the usual fake "redline" and so forth) and really just an imperialist assault. But, okay, Duke, that's a win.

It was, in fact, a militarily brilliant campaign. Winfield Scott's Veracruz campaign is studied to this day as an example of rapid manuever and shoestring logistics enabling a smaller, professional force
to defeat a larger, more poorly coordinated opponent. It was the template for Grant's Big Black River Campaign (itself a masterpiece of operational art) and Sherman's March through Georgia.

The Spanish American War...A victory? Okay.

OK.

WWI was a stalemate which led directly to WWII. Not only did we lose 50,000 or so Americans in the trenches, but the horrid conditions of camping hundreds of thousands of men in fetid conditions created the influenza epidemic which killed approximately 1% of the entire planet's population. You call that a victory?

A global military dark age, no doubt. Limitations in local command and control and lack of mobility of field artillery led to horrific carnage...on the Western Front. No stalemate. Germany was defeated with a fresh infusion of American cannon fodder.

Further note, the Spanish Flu did not originate in the trenches but was spread by demobilized troops after the armistice.

WWII was a win, but hardly a slam-dunk. As i pointed out--and as you of course ignored--we ONLY prevailed in Europe because of the Soviet horde, and we ONLY prevailed over Japan by nuking civilian cities. Well, that's a very tainted win. But it did land us in the number one slot for a couple of decades.

The Soviet Horde wouldn't have made it out of Russia without American trucks. "We ONLY prevailed over Japan by nuking civilian cities." What is this even supposed to mean? What is a "civilian city"? Are you attempting to claim that Hiroshima and Nagasaki had nothing whatsover to do with the Japanese war effort or would you have preferred that we invade Japan and killed four or five times as many Japanese civilians? I suppose YOU would prefer that we simply surrender.

In WWII, we really didn't display a lot of operational skill. We had the right overall strategy and the troops and junior officers were, on occasion, tactically brilliant but our operational ability left much to be desired. Our SNAFUs, clusterfucks and bungled operations in WWII are too numerous to mention for this topic.

It was a decisive 'W,' though.

That's enough for now.

mvscal wrote: The War of 1812 was an unequivocal American victory. Our objectives for fighting this war were to discourage the British from fucking with us and to force them to agree to abide by their prior diplomatic agreements with us. The Treaty of Ghent confirmed the status quo antebellum. That isn't an opinion. It is an undeniable fact.

The practical objective was to expel the British Empire from North America by seizing Upper Canada, no outposts, no reason for being here. You failed miserably. Burning the White House was retaliation for the burning of York, it was a propaganda coup. Who were exactly upset about this in Europe? The French? The Spanish? The treaty of Ghent confirmed the status quo: behave.

American trucks were useless to the Soviets, the wheel base was to narrow to function in inclimate weather, the engines too complex to run in the cold and they wouldn't process Russian fuel. Glorified tow-sleighs

The point seems to be, successfully operating within the parametres of a theatre and the political situation, of five major campaigns since the Second World War, only one has had a positive outcome - and only then with limited objectives.

Dr_Phibes wrote:

mvscal wrote: The War of 1812 was an unequivocal American victory. Our objectives for fighting this war were to discourage the British from fucking with us and to force them to agree to abide by their prior diplomatic agreements with us. The Treaty of Ghent confirmed the status quo antebellum. That isn't an opinion. It is an undeniable fact.

The practical objective was to expel the British Empire from North America by seizing Upper Canada, no outposts, no reason for being here. You failed miserably. Burning the White House was retaliation for the burning of York, it was a propaganda coup. Who were exactly upset about this in Europe? The French? The Spanish? The treaty of Ghent confirmed the status quo: behave.

American trucks were useless to the Soviets, the wheel base was to narrow to function in inclimate weather, the engines too complex to run in the cold and they wouldn't process Russian fuel. Glorified tow-sleighs

The point seems to be, successfully operating within the parametres of a theatre and the political situation, of five major campaigns since the Second World War, only one has had a positive outcome - and only then with limited objectives.

Bottom line: my dad could kick your dad's ass.

mvscal wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:the GOP-led stripping of regulations on pipeline safety standards, all sorts of serious ruptures spills have been taking place all over the country.

He asked you for a link, you stupid asshole. Name the specific regulations on pipline safety standards which were repealed and the date on which these regulations were allegedly repealed.

:crickets:

pity, too. I was waiting for him to accuse the GOP (under the nefarious direction of Koch Industries) of digging up pipelines that had been in place for decades to strip them of safety standards.

Goober McTuber wrote:
Bottom line: my dad could kick your dad's ass.

Dr_Phibes wrote:The practical objective was to expel the British Empire from North America by seizing Upper Canada,

Wrong. The objective was to hurt the British. The British were in Canada, so we attacked them there.

American trucks were useless to the Soviets, the wheel base was to narrow to function in inclimate weather, the engines too complex to run in the cold and they wouldn't process Russian fuel.

Yeah, I guess that's why we gave them 22,000 tanks and halftracks, 350,000 trucks, 78,000 jeeps and 15,000 aircraft because they were "useless" and made no contribution to Soviet mobility and firepower.

Just STFU, idiot.

Yeah, whatever didn't wind up at the bottom of the Baltic succeeded in racking up fantastic German scores against 'Soviet' armour. What were the losses on the approaches to Berlin and what make of vehicle?

mvscal wrote: Yeah, I guess that's why we gave them 22,000 tanks and halftracks, 350,000 trucks, 78,000 jeeps and 15,000 aircraft because they were "useless" and made no contribution to Soviet mobility and firepower.

Just STFU, idiot.

yup, just shameless war time profiteering. uncle joe accepted all that stuff as a goodwill gesture.

I have yet to see a photograph of an American vehicle in Russia.. without a rope in front being towed by a T-34. And fifty happy Russians sitting on top enjoying the ride.

It must have been the superior, massive barrel and thick armour plating of a Sherman that appealed to Uncle Joe.

Dr_Phibes wrote:It must have been the superior, massive barrel

~swoon~

Sincerely,

LTS TRN 2

Is it just me, or does Phibes often seem like Post-Rehab LTS?

Dr_Phibes wrote:I have yet to see a photograph of an American vehicle in Russia.. without a rope in front being towed by a T-34. And fifty happy Russians sitting on top enjoying the ride.

It must have been the superior, massive barrel and thick armour plating of a Sherman that appealed to Uncle Joe.

And you can god damn well bet that rope was made in the good ole US of A as well!!!!

No one here will try to defend the Sherman as superior weapon. Hell, we won't even call it mediocre.

But, it's simplicity resulted in approximately eleventy billion being produced. And you can bet your ass Uncle Joe was happy to trade 30 russkie tank jockeys for 1 tiger jock. Too bad he didn't ship the plans for the T-34 to detroit. We probably could have built damn near as many of them and run the gerries out of armor a year earlier.

As for pics of commies driving yank duece and a halves, they probably wouldn't have gotten past the censors.

I can show you a few trillion pics of those same trucks being driven, not towed by our guys. We didn't peddle them across france and germany. Musta been our good gas.

Van wrote:Is it just me, or does Phibes often seem like Post-Rehab LTS?

More like LTS before he drank the kool-aid.

Van wrote:Is it just me, or does Phibes often seem like Post-Rehab LTS?

It's practical leftism. Socialism without fags in the fire department and people nagging at you not to smoke. Flatcaps and over-alls.

Same basic-seeming agenda, minus the hair-pulling hysteria.

Dr_Phibes wrote:I have yet to see a photograph of an American vehicle in Russia..

Kharkov 1942


Poland 1944


Vienna 1945


Czechoslovakia 1945

It must have been the superior, massive barrel and thick armour plating of a Sherman that appealed to Uncle Joe.

I imagine what appealed to him was that the Sherman was more than a match for the overwhelming majority of German tanks and it was fast and extremely reliable. The Germans only built 6,500 Panthers and 1,300 Tigers.

It really does help to have a clue. I'm glad I could be of assistance.

Van wrote: WGARA? You always seem to fail to realize that in life Shit Happens, whether it's war, oil pipeline maintenance, or snitching prom dates.

As for the ensuing heavy handed assaults on the Middle East--including Desert Storm, Iraq II, and Afghanistan, so what if our "boots are on the ground"? There's no victory in assaulting and undermining civilian populations, except to insure the perpetual hatred of America in those regions. The fact that these horrific endeavors were launched at the behest of Israel should properly disgust you...but?....

Militarily, they were routs. This thread is about the performances of the American military, not our country's political vision.

You're quite simply incapable of staying on topic without spinning.

Okay, Van, take your meds and listen to some Holdsworth noodling. Your take on American military competence is duly highlighted. It is really the sort of nonsense muttered by kids playing GI Joe in the backyard.

Yours and Mall Cop's ludicrous reductive analysis is useless to address because you're both so bunkered in your John Wayne "American Exceptionalism" dream world.

Notice how Mall Cop tries to slide by this absurdity like a carny

mvscal wrote: Further note, the Spanish Flu did not originate in the trenches but was spread by demobilized troops after the armistice.
.

Of course soldiers took it home with them--from the giant fetid base camps where the influenza was generated (various huge pens of geese, pigs, etc., )

This sort of robust denialism--very Limpdickian--is standard reflex action by the minions of right-wing hackdom.

Have you actually read the article posted at the beginning of this thread? Are you actually daring to add up the costs of these two present clusterfucks? And you're--let me check--yep, you're calling them "routs" and thus a clear indication of American military competence. Okay...relax...and look: Iraq is now less stable and far more prone to Islamic fundamentalist influence. The people of Iraq have been devastated and America's image ruined. Or what? We do not have any more influence on the politics or natural resources of Iraq, and it could well get much worse as we're forced to leave. Or what? In Afghanistan, we've made the situation much worse after our longest war ever. That's competence? Even in Vietnam--a total loss, stop the denial--we had a puppet government that wasn't shooting our people in the back every day. It's a total bust. And...the seething Zionazis want more!

Now...are you a total medicated fraud, lying there like a sad sack of shit pretending you're in a fucking John Wayne movie?

Well wake the fuck up!

Nick, when it comes to assessing the winners and losers in a military conflict, who cares how an influenza epidemic started? It has nothing to do with the topic. It's just you moving the goalposts again.

As with music, you seem stubbornly oblivious to the basic fact that the reason for the endeavor will ultimately inform its content. And in the case of the American military, the actual content--and competence--is ultimately measured by the result of the particular war. You speak in childish sports metaphors of "goalposts," as though wars are to be tabulated and scored like football games--with lots more injuries. And of course you won't dare actually weigh the various tremendous costs and actual dire results in your assessment. Your sheer intellectual laziness extends immediately to flopping down with a tired canard like "we could have won in Vietnam if only we'd gone all out like WWII." Just think how utterly false and misleading this is. First, are you suggesting that we should have nuked the North Vietnamese? Yes or no. If yes, you're a simple nutcase, and if no then what more could we have done? Do you really suppose we could have dropped any more bombs on those nations than we did? Or do you believe that we could have mustered some gigantic infantry assault in the manner of Alexander? Or...? Starve them out for ten years like Iraq? You see, this absolute canard is the basis for your entire argument. that along with "shit happens."

You need a little wakey wake dose of classic American military incompetence. And notice how completely systemic is the fuck-up


Hey, is this thing gassed up? Anyone..? Oh well, let's go..


all the details
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayaguez_incident

and standard scandal
http://www.vspa.com/nkp-56th-sps-mayaguez-1975.htm

LTS TRN 2 wrote:And of course you won't dare actually weigh the various tremendous costs and actual dire results in your assessment.

When evaluating these "tremendous costs", you generally project your "facts" through an American filter, Felchco.
All debt, all suffering...the entire burden of the affair is American to you.
Because you're an inward fascist-nationalist. You're only shaken by the bloodstains on your own clothes.

You can go fuck yourself, clown. Why do you think a rehabilitated America would be any better for this planet than the slight variant that we are presented with now? You're so shit terrified that your fat, corpulent lifestyle will evaporate due to the excesses of your more loutish fellow citizens.

You are no better than "Mall Cop". You are "Mall Cop 2: The Return Home".

mvscal wrote: Vienna 1945

The lead vehicle is spilling oil all over the cobblestones. Nice shit tank, America.

Martyred wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:And of course you won't dare actually weigh the various tremendous costs and actual dire results in your assessment.

When evaluating these "tremendous costs", you generally project your "facts" through an American filter, Felchco.
All debt, all suffering...the entire burden of the affair is American to you.
Because you're an inward fascist-nationalist. You're only shaken by the bloodstains on your own clothes.

You can go fuck yourself, clown. Why do you think a rehabilitated America would be any better for this planet than the slight variant that we are presented with now? You're so shit terrified that your fat, corpulent lifestyle will evaporate due to the excesses of your more loutish fellow citizens.

You are no better than "Mall Cop". You are "Mall Cop 2: The Return Home".

You gibbering fraud. Again and again I point out very clearly that the costs of American wars are primarily the devastation of other nations, their citizens and social infrastructure. Moreover, the militarist policy of America over the past few decades is hardly a "slight variant." Of what? Do you realize you're just blathering and don't make any sense? Drunk in the daytime, claiming some idiotic nonsense? Don't you care that you are seen as a doddering fool? As for your prior similar inane suggestion that I'm really just like Mall Cop, well this is complete bullshit as well. I'm patriotic in that I seek to invest in the nation, not in corporate militarism--like he and the other right-wing robots in fact endorse every time.

Of course it's basically a waste of time kicking your sorry ass around because you hide and only squirt out little snippets--as though you're some sort of wit. What a joke.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:I'm patriotic in that I seek to invest in the nation...

Oh. Okay. Yours is a homespun, Prairie Home Companion version of hierarchical control. A Norman Rockwell, lemonade on the porch in the summertime rendition of fascism.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:...I'm really just like Mall Cop...

You are. Your "Fortress America" view of a protected homeland only differs in the minutest detail. In every other way, you mimic his bunker mentality.

Go fist yourself and your anachronistic vision of an America that "can return to former glory".

Nick wrote:Again and again I point out very clearly that the costs of American wars are primarily the devastation of other nations, their citizens and social infrastructure.

Which is exactly how it's supposed to go...for the victor.

When are you ever going to accept this most basic fact of war?

Van wrote:

Nick wrote:Again and again I point out very clearly that the costs of American wars are primarily the devastation of other nations, their citizens and social infrastructure.

Which is exactly how it's supposed to go...for the victor.

When are you ever going to accept this most basic fact of war?

Good job on the KYOA there, Felchie.

Dr_Phibes wrote:Nice shit tank, America.

Narrow tread? CHECK

High profile? CHECK

Under-powered main gun? CHECK


Shit tank is correct. There was no shortage of up-gunned T-34's and Stalin tanks at the end of the war.

smackaholic wrote:No one here will try to defend the Sherman as superior weapon. Hell, we won't even call it mediocre.

I will. The Sherman was an outstanding tank. When it first saw action with the British in North Africa in 1942, it completely dominated the German MkIIIs and MkIVs. It was faster, more heavily armored and had a bigger gun. The MkIV was subsequently uparmored and upgunned to enable it to hang with the Sherman and the T-34. The Sherman was also upgunned to high velocity 76mm main gun. This version could easily kill a Panther though it wasn't as heavily armored. Tigers were a different story but the Germans never built more than a handful of them and they were a maintenance nightmare.

T-34 v. Sherman comparison is fairly even. The T-34 had better cross country mobility while the Sherman had a higher top end speed. The 85mm gun in the T-34/85 was only marginally inferior to the long 76mm the Shermans eventually used. Head to head fighting between the T-34 and the Sherman also showed that these tanks were pretty evenly matched though the Sherman had superior optics.

Too bad he didn't ship the plans for the T-34 to detroit.

Actually, some of the key components of the T-34 were based on the designs of Walter Christie from New Jersey.

Van wrote:

Nick wrote:Again and again I point out very clearly that the costs of American wars are primarily the devastation of other nations, their citizens and social infrastructure.

Which is exactly how it's supposed to go...for the victor.

When are you ever going to accept this most basic fact of war?

What, are you completed medicated unto bleary mouthings? Did the orderly accidentally fit you with a used Depends?

Look, the civilian populations devastated by American military incompetence were supposedly our ALLIES!!! You know, those hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians we were supposedly "liberating"? The good folks who were to greet us with flowers and sweets? And the hundreds of thousands of Filipinos we were similarly "liberating" in the Spanish-American war? The hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese and Cambodians whose families and land we ruined in our "liberation' invasion?

What the fuck is wrong with you? How long can you drag yourself along believing the lightweight twaddle you spout? I'll administer one more waxing of your tired ass and then you're done.

Listen carefully...the average American soldier in Vietnam was a very disgruntled poor black guy (or poor white guy from Decatur) with no interest or belief in the so-called mission of our invasion. On the contrary, they were counting down the days of their one-year nightmare deployment in the bush exactly like a prisoner in a penitentiary. And then...he would hurry home to nurse his heroin habit--or similar devastating post trauma. Okay? Now that is an incompetent military, period. And too, the inverse moral patriotism on the part of the barefooted Vietnamese is the exact reason they won (against the biggest war machine ever). Same with Afghanistan.

Martyred wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:I'm patriotic in that I seek to invest in the nation...

Oh. Okay. Yours is a homespun, Prairie Home Companion version of hierarchical control. A Norman Rockwell, lemonade on the porch in the summertime rendition of fascism.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:...I'm really just like Mall Cop...

You are. Your "Fortress America" view of a protected homeland only differs in the minutest detail. In every other way, you mimic his bunker mentality.

Go fist yourself and your anachronistic vision of an America that "can return to former glory".

What, Opie/Rummy is making silly statements again? Look, B-Juice, any time you feel you've got any sort of game, step up. because as everyone knows, you're a fake who just spurts little weird nothings--and never backs them up. In point, you claim--or imply--that you're Canadian, and yet you've never given any indication that you know anything at all about Canadian politics, culture, history, or current events. You're a tired old fuckstain with nothing going an--and really a coward. Carry on.

Nick wrote:What, are you completed medicated unto bleary mouthings?

Sometimes I really do wish I was from K.C.

Yeah, whatever..it's time for your meds. And as you drift into cozy darkness, remember the good Afghanis we strafed as they walked along in their devastated homeland going to a wedding. Shit happens as we rack up wins, right? :doh:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:...remember the good Afghanis we strafed as they walked along in their devastated homeland going to a wedding. Shit happens as we rack up wins, right? :doh:

Yes, just walking along...firing their weapons in the air. As a general rule of thumb, it's a pretty good idea to avoid firing your weapon in the air when American aviation assets are present. They might mistake your intent and decide to liberate the fuck out of you.

mvscal wrote:They might mistake your intent and decide to liberate the fuck out of you.