Occupation of the United States - General

[QUOTE=Lankist;17457919]con·ven·tion (kn-vnshn) n. 1. a. A formal meeting of members, representatives, or delegates, as of a political party, fraternal society, profession, or industry. b. The body of persons attending such an assembly: called the convention to order. 2. An agreement between states, sides, or military forces, especially an international agreement dealing with a specific subject, such as the treatment of prisoners of war. 3. General agreement on or acceptance of certain practices or attitudes: By convention, north is at the top of most maps. 4. A practice or procedure widely observed in a group, especially to facilitate social interaction; a custom: the convention of shaking hands. 5. A widely used and accepted device or technique, as in drama, literature, or painting: the theatrical convention of the aside. That definition of Conventional Warfare is an oxymoron considering it is NOT the convention anymore. [editline]10:48PM[/editline] Convention means normal, average or regular. "Conventional Warfare" is none of those things when you consider insurgency. [editline]10:48PM[/editline] But it's cool how you idiots don't understand the point I am making.[/QUOTE] This is a conventional response :airquote: [editline]09:52PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Rofl my Waff;17457948]You took the definition of convention rather than the definition of conventional warfare. That was sort of stupid.[/QUOTE] I haven't laughed this hard for a while when I read that. Lankist, you have been defeated.

[QUOTE=Rofl my Waff;17457948]You took the definition of convention rather than the definition of conventional warfare. That was sort of stupid.[/QUOTE] See, you're being willfully ignorant to the argument. I am saying "Conventional Warfare" is an oxymoron in the same way as "Modern abacus" is an oxymoron. [editline]10:55PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;17457977]This is a conventional response :airquote:[/QUOTE] Your mom is conventional in bed when we had sex you are my bastard son i dont pay child support :airquote:

[QUOTE=Lankist;17458061]See, you're being willfully ignorant to the argument. I am saying "Conventional Warfare" is an oxymoron in the same way as "Modern abacus" is an oxymoron. [editline]10:55PM[/editline] Your mom is conventional in bed when we had sex you are my bastard son i dont pay child support :airquote:[/QUOTE] Son. I am disappoint. |:

[QUOTE=Lankist;17458061] you are my bastard son [/QUOTE] You are adopted. Wait, what relevance is this?

[QUOTE=Lankist;17458061]See, you're being willfully ignorant to the argument. I am saying "Conventional Warfare" is an oxymoron in the same way as "Modern abacus" is an oxymoron. [editline]10:55PM[/editline] Your mom is conventional in bed when we had sex you are my bastard son i dont pay child support :airquote:[/QUOTE] It doesn't matter if it's a so called oxymoron, the definition is what it is, that is what I was talking about. I don't care if it doesn't fit into the real definition of convention, in a conventional war, where two governments fought each other with their organized militaries, Iran's organized military would lose first.

[QUOTE=Rofl my Waff;17458146]It doesn't matter if it's a so called oxymoron, the definition is what it is, that is what I was talking about. I don't care if it doesn't fit into the real definition of convention, in a conventional war, where two governments fought each other with their organized militaries, Iran's organized military would lose first.[/QUOTE] You aren't listening. I am saying Conventional Warfare doesn't exist anymore. [editline]11:00PM[/editline] As shown here: [QUOTE=Lankist;17457553]"Conventional" combat is now insurgency and guerrilla warfare. There are no more head-to-head wars anymore. There haven't been for decades.[/QUOTE] [editline]11:00PM[/editline] You know before you idiots flipped the fuck out like HURR DURR WERE GONNA TRY TO BEAT LANKIST even though you can't fucking read.

hey American you president from Africa and you telling about occupation :D

[QUOTE=Lankist;17458155]You aren't listening. I am saying Conventional Warfare doesn't exist anymore. [editline]11:00PM[/editline] As shown here: [editline]11:00PM[/editline] You know before you idiots flipped the fuck out like HURR DURR WERE GONNA TRY TO BEAT LANKIST even though you can't fucking read.[/QUOTE] What about Russia and Georgia? That wasn't conventional? I must of missed it when the Russians and Georgians renamed their militaries "insurgents"... [editline]10:04PM[/editline] [QUOTE=FluD;17458211]hey American you president from Africa and you telling about occupation :D[/QUOTE] If you're gonna troll, atleast try it with proper grammar.

[QUOTE=Lankist;17458155]You aren't listening. I am saying Conventional Warfare doesn't exist anymore. [editline]11:00PM[/editline] As shown here: [editline]11:00PM[/editline] You know before you idiots flipped the fuck out like HURR DURR WERE GONNA TRY TO BEAT LANKIST even though you can't fucking read.[/QUOTE] But the issue is, it does exist. Just because you haven't seen it in the last few years because no conflicts involving two opposing governments have occurred for a while doesn't mean it's gone. That's actually insane, you're suggesting that if Iran got invaded by China, they would take their 1 Million military personnel and tell them to scatter and fight in a less organized guerrilla warfare. (Including large amounts of tanks, aircraft, missiles, and naval crafts. That is ridiculous.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;17458222]What about Russia and Georgia? That wasn't conventional? I must of missed it when the Russians and Georgians renamed their militaries "insurgents"...[/QUOTE] Uhh no it wasn't conventional at all. There were riots all over the place and Russia, the superior conventional force, lost. How the fuck can you even call that conventional in the loosest sense of the word? [editline]11:07PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Rofl my Waff;17458254]That's actually stupid, you're suggesting that if Iran got invaded by China, they would take their 1 Million military personnel and tell them to scatter and fight unorganized in guerrilla warfare. (Including large amounts of tanks, aircraft, missiles, and naval crafts.[/QUOTE] No, I am suggesting the Iranians would mount an insurgency against the occupation and the conventional force would be all but useless. [editline]11:07PM[/editline] Seriously, please up your reading comprehension skills. [editline]11:08PM[/editline] By YOUR definition it is only conventional warfare is BOTH sides fight on the same level.

[QUOTE=Lankist;17458258]Uhh no it wasn't conventional at all. There were riots all over the place and Russia, the superior conventional force, lost. How the fuck can you even call that conventional in the loosest sense of the word? [editline]11:07PM[/editline] No, I am suggesting the Iranians would mount an insurgency against the occupation and the conventional force would be all but useless. [editline]11:07PM[/editline] Seriously, please up your reading comprehension skills. [editline]11:08PM[/editline] By YOUR definition it is only conventional warfare is BOTH sides fight on the same level.[/QUOTE] Uhm, If iranian's mount an insurgency, that would denote they lost in conventional warfare, thus proving my point. No my definition of conventional warfare is recognized military organizations controlled by the government combatting eachother.

According to Lankist, if a nation were invaded, they would promptly shit their pants, retreat, allow themselves to be occupied, then would attempt to mount a resistance war. I can see his logic! Can't you?? :haw:

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;17458336]According to Lankist, if a nation were invaded, they would promptly shit their pants, retreat, allow themselves to be occupied, then would attempt to mount a resistance war. I can see his logic! Can't you?? :haw:[/QUOTE] That's an incredibly effective tactic for fighting a superior military force.

[QUOTE=thisispain;17454323][sp]Lankist is actually part of El Queso, a Mexican terrorist organization[sp][/QUOTE] !Pero yo tengo la intolerencia a la lactosa!

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;17458394]That's an incredibly effective tactic for fighting a superior military force.[/QUOTE] Except for the part where the government loses control of the country. Though in theory, if you somehow managed to scatter 1 million troops and somehow maintain your military equipment and supplies, it would work.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;17458394]That's an incredibly effective tactic for fighting a superior military force.[/QUOTE] We haven't been forced out of Iraq yet. Yes, extremely effective! :haw: [editline]10:16PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Rofl my Waff;17458420]Except for the part where the government loses control of the country. Though in theory, if you somehow managed to scatter 1 million troops and somehow maintain your military equipment and supplies, it would work.[/QUOTE] Communications, logicstics, and organization would be a nightmare.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;17458427]We haven't been forced out of Iraq yet. Yes, extremely effective! :haw:[/QUOTE] Hahahahaha you're kidding right? A handful of untrained rebels with homemade bombs and old AKs are actually giving us a fight. We declared victory in Iraq after we finished the conventional warfare, but that wasn't NEARLY the bulk of the fighting. And yeah you're totally right it's an awful tactic we won in Vietnam go USA

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;17458456]Hahahahaha you're kidding right? A handful of untrained rebels with homemade bombs and old AKs are actually giving us a fight. We declared victory in Iraq after we finished the conventional warfare, but that wasn't NEARLY the bulk of the fighting. And yeah you're totally right it's an awful tactic we won in Vietnam go USA[/QUOTE] We were doing pretty damn well in Vietnam. It's the home PR war that was lost.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;17458427]We haven't been forced out of Iraq yet. Yes, extremely effective! :haw:[/QUOTE] Well, actually, it is. Considering they've been giving us quite the bit of trouble all this time.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;17458456]Hahahahaha you're kidding right? A handful of untrained rebels with homemade bombs and old AKs are actually giving us a fight. We declared victory in Iraq after we finished the conventional warfare, but that wasn't NEARLY the bulk of the fighting. And yeah you're totally right it's an awful tactic we won in Vietnam go USA[/QUOTE] Vietnam is an exception since not only did they have huge support from china and the soviet union, but they also had the most suitable spot on the planet for guerrilla warfare.

[QUOTE=StupidUsername67;17458489]Well, actually, it is. Considering they've been giving us quite the bit of trouble all this time.[/QUOTE] Seriously. If this were a conventional war we'd be out of Iraq already victorious. It's not BECAUSE they're mounting an insurgency instead of a stand-up fight. Insurgency is really the best way to do anything if you're against a superior force. [editline]11:22PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Rofl my Waff;17458515]Vietnam is an exception since not only did they have huge support from china and the soviet union, but they also had the most suitable spot on the planet for guerrilla warfare.[/QUOTE] Not really an exception because insurgent warfare has always been more effective than conventional warfare for an inferiorly equipped force. Back to the current Iraq war.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;17458525]Seriously. If this were a conventional war we'd be out of Iraq already victorious. It's not BECAUSE they're mounting an insurgency instead of a stand-up fight. Insurgency is really the best way to do anything if you're against a superior force.[/QUOTE] It's pretty much the only way.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;17458525]Seriously. If this were a conventional war we'd be out of Iraq already victorious. It's not BECAUSE they're mounting an insurgency instead of a stand-up fight. Insurgency is really the best way to do anything if you're against a superior force. [editline]11:22PM[/editline] Not really an exception because insurgent warfare has always been more effective than conventional warfare for an inferiorly equipped force.[/QUOTE] But insurgency has been the result of failed conventional warfare for a long time now. This all started cause I pointed out that China's military is superior to Irans. That was my only point, and everyone seems to be ignoring that :( [editline]11:24PM[/editline] [QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;17458525] Not really an exception because insurgent warfare has always been more effective than conventional warfare for an inferiorly equipped force. Back to the current Iraq war.[/QUOTE] it's an exception because they were able to mount highly organized assaults and battles with very sophisticated logistics due to their geographical location and neighboring countries.

Wow, you are all seriously uneducated.

[QUOTE=Lankist;17458609]Wow, you are all seriously uneducated.[/QUOTE] Good rebuttal.

[QUOTE=Rofl my Waff;17458561]it's an exception because they were able to mount highly organized assaults and battles with very sophisticated logistics due to their geographical location and neighboring countries.[/QUOTE] It's an exception in that they were more disproportionately effective than they would already likely have been. [editline]11:28PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Rofl my Waff;17458561]But insurgency has been the result of failed conventional warfare for a long time now. This all started cause I pointed out that China's military is superior to Irans. That was my only point, and everyone seems to be ignoring that :([/QUOTE] Yeah but I jumped in in the middle so I never read your point.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;17458639]It's an exception in that they were more disproportionately effective than they would already likely have been. [editline]11:28PM[/editline] Yeah but I jumped in in the middle so I never read your point.[/QUOTE] That's my point, I'm applying that situation to Iran, Iran's military numbers about a million, with large amounts of modern technology. It seems incredibly unlikely that they would do anything but engage in conventional warfare if invaded by China. [editline]11:29PM[/editline] At least until they would be forced into fighting an insurgency war.

I think that game Homefront is about this

[QUOTE=Lankist;17458609]Wow, you are all seriously uneducated.[/QUOTE] Source please.

[QUOTE=Rofl my Waff;17458626]Good rebuttal.[/QUOTE] You are arguing that guerrilla warfare is ineffective. You are not educated in this subject matter. You are uneducated.