Should the US stop getting involved in other countries affairs?

Status
Not open for further replies.

DeletedUser

Guest
I rode in one before.......afterwards I was a changed person. Moved to Washington and changed my first name to my middle name.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
If they would understand credit is money you DO NOT have..maybe we would actually get somewhere. Otherwise, keep spending! We all need private jets! I want one!!!

Haha totally. I think our heavy trading with China is also a problem.
 

DeletedUser39031

Guest
Manpower doesn't mean anything? In that case I think we should all step aside and let Vatican City handle the foreign conflicts for the US. They got it covered.:rolleyes:
If the Vatican city had a sizable drone fleet, various long range aircraft, remote missiles etc. then yes. By manpower I meant infantry, Pilots are still useful.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
If the Vatican city had a sizable drone fleet, various long range aircraft, remote missiles etc. then yes. By manpower I meant infantry, Pilots are still useful.
How is infantry useless?
There hasn't been a real war in the world since Vietnam. Should an actual conflict arise between capable nations there would still be full-scale war, not the kind of "killing a goat with a nuke" kind of war we have had lately (Gulf War, Afghanistan, Iraq). All modern armies still rely mostly on infantry and that's how it will be for a very very long time. A plane or a drone is not good for anything other than smashing another plane or a drone or perhaps a building, but all the actual work would be done by infantry in any situation.

The general way of warfare hasn't really changed too much since WW2, just the tactics. Machinery is still used just for clearing a way for infantry.
 

DeletedUser32250

Guest
How is infantry useless?
There hasn't been a real war in the world since Vietnam. Should an actual conflict arise between capable nations there would still be full-scale war, not the kind of "killing a goat with a nuke" kind of war we have had lately (Gulf War, Afghanistan, Iraq). All modern armies still rely mostly on infantry and that's how it will be for a very very long time. A plane or a drone is not good for anything other than smashing another plane or a drone or perhaps a building, but all the actual work would be done by infantry in any situation.

The general way of warfare hasn't really changed too much since WW2, just the tactics. Machinery is still used just for clearing a way for infantry.

When you say 'There hasn't been a real war in the world since Vietnam.' I cannot help but think that you are describing current ones such as British and American forces serving in Iraq and Afghanistan as 'Not Real'

Yes Vietnam was a brutal war but every war is brutal, that is why war is what it is. Considering the circumstances of both Vietnam and Afghanistan, their similarities such as it's guerrilla warfare have no importance over the other. No war has any more realism.

So when you point out Vietnam being that last 'Real war' what do you mean exactly?
Are you referring to the unfortunate death toll compared with the war's in the Middle East?


Screen Shot 2014-01-09 at 22.15.01.png

Screen Shot 2014-01-09 at 22.26.19.png

Tell me how this is unreal? Please! Because i cannot see it!
Every war is real! Not just once horrific one! THEY ARE ALL HORRIFIC
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
I believe chopper more or less used Vietnam as an example.

I do agree that infantry is still very useful. The most useful in fact. Infantry casualties are far greater than that of air force and navy casualties.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
First of all, it is not just US and UK troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, but all of NATO + others outside of that aswell, a total of 43 countries.

Second of all - the actual "war" in afghanistan and Iraq didn't last more than a couple of months and even that was like what I mentioned before - "killing a goat with a nuke" kind of war. What we have had since December 2001 is just occupation and "peacekeeping" as the authorities try to sell it to us, not a war anymore by a long shot. Just because there are pockets of partisan resistance there doesn't mean it's still a war. There was partisan resistance in the Soviet Union until the 1970s, did that still mean WW2 was going on?

Im not discrediting the soldiers, of course every act of warfare causes casualties, but the proportion is incomparable.
 

DeletedUser32250

Guest
First of all, it is not just US and UK troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, but all of NATO + others outside of that aswell, a total of 43 countries.

If you read my post, you will know that i said 'Such as' before giving 2 examples of serving forces.

such as British and American forces serving in Iraq and Afghanistan

I also posted 2 image attachments that clearly showed the coalition forces serving in Afghanistan and the unfortunate death toll, so therefore your point is just a repeat of what i previously stated!

WWII ended in 1945 and out came the famous 'Cold War' with , yes, the tensions of 'killing a goat with a nuke'.
(If you research more about the cold war, you will know that it was one of a tense political crisis more than anything else!

The resistance in the Soviet Union in the 70's is whats called insurgency. You may say the same about Afghanistan but it is different when a foreign coalition has to intervene. Then it becomes either an invasion or a liberation and in the case of Iraq, it was an invasion. Afghanistan leans more to a liberation as the goal is to enforce order and then gradually hand it back to the Afghan Government which lost control BECAUSE of the insurgency.

My point is...A war is a war and you cannot say one is more real than the other...that's like saying soldier A is more expendable than soldier B. Wrong.

Just friendly debating, please don't take this personally in anyway! :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
What we have had since December 2001 is just occupation and "peacekeeping" as the authorities try to sell it to us, not a war anymore by a long shot.

Now hold it right there!
On Christmas Day in Kabul, Taliban insurgents attacked the US embassy.
Last week, a Taliban suicide assault team attacked a joint NATO base, killing a NATO soldier.
December 5th, Yemen, al-Qaeda forces attacked a hospital.
You might not have heard of this, they kept it off most news stations; in the past 2 weeks, al-Qaeda forces in Iraq have seized Anbar province, a huge area just miles west of Baghdad. Causalities are presumed to be in the hundreds. Just 2 days ago, 21 people were killed and 35 wounded by a car bomb beside an Iraqi army recruiting station in this area.

And yet, this is just "peacekeeping." "Not a war" going on here people!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top