• U.S Draws up plans for fucking up Syria if diplomacy fails
    114 replies, posted
[QUOTE=CakeMaster7;36175210]We don't go to war now because it's just not worth it.[/QUOTE] as Marbalo said, this pragmatic viewpoint is quite easy to change. sure, someone raised to be peaceful will know when something is an isn't worth doing, but if just changing the environment can change the person so much, then it isn't an innate part of their humanity that they be violent. we were war-mongering back in the early days of tribes because everyone else was, and [I]they[/I] were war-mongering because their elders were short-sighted and fostered violence over diplomacy. if their elders were smart or even just kind-hearted, would you be saying it is human nature to be ethical and nice directly because of these few people? face it, environment is everything. humans can't be summed up as "naturally violent" because everybody is taught different things about life through the things they do and the things they are told; if we could just say that self-centered villainy is ingrained onto the very soul of every man and woman on this Earth, why can we change that so easily with something as simple as reading a different book, or hearing different words?
[QUOTE=GunFox;36174337]Really I only have a problem when guardsmen start dying. Our primary branches of the military are almost exclusively designed to be offensive. The national guard are more than capable of fending off a conventional assault of almost any magnitude when you consider the ridiculously well armed population. The standard military knows exactly what they are signing up for at this point. The national guard keep getting used offensively though. Which really defeats the entire purpose of having them and really isn't why most of them signed up. Otherwise we are just paying boatloads of money for our military to do absolutely nothing.[/quote] I have a problem with every American that gets killed. [QUOTE=GunFox;36174337][editline]2nd June 2012[/editline] [img]http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/4481/carriers.gif[/img] Note that this includes amphibious assault carriers, which can basically only launch VTOL fixed wing aircraft and helicopters. It should also be noted that the UK doesn't currently have any fixed wing VTOL aircraft in service, making their four assault carriers basically helicopter transports.[/QUOTE] You realize that Europe has a lot of countries in it? It really honestly doesn't have to include [I]just[/I] France and UK.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36178444]I have a problem with every American that gets killed. You realize that Europe has a lot of countries in it? It really honestly doesn't have to include [I]just[/I] France and UK.[/QUOTE] Only France, Russia, Spain, Italy and the UK have Aircraft Carriers.
[QUOTE=Thlis;36165692]What about the people that are getting slaughtered that can't defend themselves?[/QUOTE] Why can't any other country but the US do something? I understand that there is a lot of joint work going on with these types of scenarious, but the US doesn't have to be involved with every single one. I want to see Norway and Japan in the news fighting insurgents in Pakistan.
All someone has to do is say "they've got oil!" and we'll be flying over faster than you can say oh no not again.
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;36178876]Why can't any other country but the US do something? I understand that there is a lot of joint work going on with these types of scenarious, but the US doesn't have to be involved with every single one. I want to see Norway and Japan in the news fighting insurgents in Pakistan.[/QUOTE] Japan has a defensive military if I remember correctly. America has bases in Japan (Along with most European countries) and apart of the treaty after WWII (Again, as far as I remember) was to reduce their military so much that they can't form an offensive force. Or something like that. I lived overseas for a few years with the Air Force and have had friends whose parents were also stationed in Japan or other places in the Pacific. This may not be totally true because I never really researched into it.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36178444]I have a problem with every American that gets killed. You realize that Europe has a lot of countries in it? It really honestly doesn't have to include [I]just[/I] France and UK.[/QUOTE] Carriers are means by which you project power. That image is all of the carriers on the planet. The US sporting not only the most of any single nation, but also the majority of all carriers and the largest ones. You can't fight a modern conflict across an ocean against an enemy of any real military capability without a carrier. Really you need an actual carrier, as amphibious assault carriers are pretty limited. [editline]3rd June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Mr. Sun;36179200]Japan has a defensive military if I remember correctly. America has bases in Japan (Along with most European countries) and apart of the treaty after WWII (Again, as far as I remember) was to reduce their military so much that they can't form an offensive force. Or something like that. I lived overseas for a few years with the Air Force and have had friends whose parents were also stationed in Japan or other places in the Pacific. This may not be totally true because I never really researched into it.[/QUOTE] Aye. Japan can only defend. They often support American troops with medical teams and engineers though.
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;36163603]Actually, in a way we do. You know what has historically gotten the US on its feet during hard times? Wars. More specifically, the traditional army vs. army style of war. Things go south when we end up fighting against enemies like Al Qaeda and the Viet Cong because of their tactics. Now I'm not saying we should just go around starting wars for the heck of it, but honestly actually winning a war could do this country some good. Not to mention what kind of a despicable person we'd be bringing down in the process. I don't like the idea either but it's true.[/QUOTE] Umm, you seem to be forgetting that two simultaneous wars actually helped put the U.S. into the state it is today. Over a trillion dollars in deficit doesn't just pop up magically.
[QUOTE=smurfy;36161970]If the US does go in, I bet they won't do it until after November 6[/QUOTE] sorry if im stupid but why would they go in so late?
[QUOTE=Ermac20;36188930]sorry if im stupid but why would they go in so late?[/QUOTE] November 6th is Election Day
[QUOTE=Marbalo;36174988]Yes lets compare wolves to humans there are absolutely no other factors that we should be added to the equation besides the fact that we're both part of 'nature' and have similar behavioral instincts. The only reason we waged war in the past was because generation after generation was being raised by the same ideals. People were brought up by elders claiming that 'war is necessary' and 'conflict is necessary' and that is exactly the type of societal climate that spawned war mongering psychopaths. War is entirely the creation of society. There is no 'nature' involved in this. If we were to raise our children based on peaceful ideals and belief systems, no one would ever see war as even a remote possibility. Thus, if it is something we can easily alter if we wanted to, it isn't human nature. Furthermore, take a look at history. We've had a massive decrease in global conflicts gradually as centuries went by. Sure, we still have quite a lot of war overseas - but compare that to the 19th century where wars were rampant and would kick off at the slightest sign of dispute. Global conflict will never happen at any point in the near or far future. It cant. There are an untold numbers of UN laws that prevent just that. Governments are becoming increasingly transparent and society is watching their every move. And if the major powers of this world cannot start a war, the smaller ones won't either and will soon follow the same peaceful path.[/QUOTE] Used to be you could just raze a neighboring countries cities to the ground and take all their shit, and nobody would bat an eye.
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;36178876]Why can't any other country but the US do something? I understand that there is a lot of joint work going on with these types of scenarious, but the US doesn't have to be involved with every single one. I want to see Norway and Japan in the news fighting insurgents in Pakistan.[/QUOTE] Because by equipping that seize of a military you are essentially screaming "step aside infidels we got this" and if you don't people would start thinking what else you'd need all this agressive potential for.
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;36163603]Actually, in a way we do. You know what has historically gotten the US on its feet during hard times? Wars. More specifically, the traditional army vs. army style of war. Things go south when we end up fighting against enemies like Al Qaeda and the Viet Cong because of their tactics. Now I'm not saying we should just go around starting wars for the heck of it, but honestly actually winning a war could do this country some good. Not to mention what kind of a despicable person we'd be bringing down in the process. I don't like the idea either but it's true.[/QUOTE] Rate him dumb, but its what stopped the depression. Eisenhower may have taken credit for it, but the war is really what got our economy going because of the massive efforts
[QUOTE=Lord Derp;36189297]Rate him dumb, but its what stopped the depression. Eisenhower may have taken credit for it, but the war is really what got our economy going because of the massive efforts[/QUOTE] Yes it was totally not half of the world buying weapons and lending money from the US. Seriously if you really think that the build up and destruction of millions of weapons and soldiers lifes is what kept economy going you need to think some more.
[QUOTE=shewolf51;36188899]Umm, you seem to be forgetting that two simultaneous wars actually helped put the U.S. into the state it is today. Over a trillion dollars in deficit doesn't just pop up magically.[/QUOTE] It is a matter of intensity. These conflicts are pretty low intensity conflicts that are easily matched by our current production capabilities. WWII required INSANE efforts. Conscription, rationing, and a complete societal change that saw women entering the working world. Suddenly everyone was employed and we were producing all sorts of goods at a rapid pace. We went from the vast majority of our pacific fleet being destroyed to taking the throne of most powerful/advanced navy by a huge margin in a few short years. Getting even one ship built takes forever these days, let alone the huge number produced then. Substantial amounts of armored vehicles and aircraft were being lost and huge amounts of supplies were consumed by the war effort. The problem, if we can call it that, is simply that nobody can really challenge us like that anymore. Anyone with sufficient ground forces to force a draft would simply nuke us rather than duke it out on the ground.
ITT: nobody knows what conditioning is, assumes because there's been war their whole lives its somehow a 'part of human nature' like breathing or some shit lol wtf
[QUOTE=GunFox;36189334]It is a matter of intensity. These conflicts are pretty low intensity conflicts that are easily matched by our current production capabilities. WWII required INSANE efforts. Conscription, rationing, and a complete societal change that saw women entering the working world. Suddenly everyone was employed and we were producing all sorts of goods at a rapid pace. We went from the vast majority of our pacific fleet being destroyed to taking the throne of most powerful/advanced navy by a huge margin in a few short years. Getting even one ship built takes forever these days, let alone the huge number produced then. Substantial amounts of armored vehicles and aircraft were being lost and huge amounts of supplies were consumed by the war effort. The problem, if we can call it that, is simply that nobody can really challenge us like that anymore. Anyone with sufficient ground forces to force a draft would simply nuke us rather than duke it out on the ground.[/QUOTE] I feel for you. So sorry starting fights isn't as easy anymore.
[QUOTE=Killuah;36189420]I feel for you. So sorry starting fights isn't as easy anymore.[/QUOTE] ...really? The German is sarcastically prodding the American about starting large scale conflict. [I]really?[/I]
[QUOTE=GunFox;36185272]Carriers are means by which you project power. That image is all of the carriers on the planet. The US sporting not only the most of any single nation, but also the majority of all carriers and the largest ones. You can't fight a modern conflict across an ocean against an enemy of any real military capability without a carrier. Really you need an actual carrier, as amphibious assault carriers are pretty limited. [/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure numbers alone don't determine things in war.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36189498]I'm pretty sure numbers alone don't determine things in war.[/QUOTE] Until the dawn of automatic firearms, they did.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;36189555]Until the dawn of automatic firearms, they did.[/QUOTE] Superior arms has always ousted superior numbers throughout history. It's how Rome conquered the vast barbarians.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36189593]Superior arms has always ousted superior numbers throughout history. It's how Rome conquered the vast barbarians.[/QUOTE] Though strategy is also a huge part of it, the Romans didn't merely have more advanced technology, they had discipline and training
[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;36162879]I think the smartest way to handle this is to trade off attacks on Syria and Iran with the relevant powers in the region. Something like: Russia gets to attack some country that they've been dying to kick ass on and we(NATO) don't say anything. Meanwhile, NATO kicks ass on Syrian and/or Iran and the Russians back off their alliances with at least Syria. What could go wrong?[/QUOTE] Well, let me break this down into an easy timeline for you! The Russians get a good go at the Baltics/Georgia. After thousands begin dying as Talinn, Riga, and Vilinus goes up in flames, while soon to be NATO member Georgia begins turnning into Afghanistan II electric boogaloo. The US attacks Iran and Syria with extremely heavy losses and Europe tells them "get out." Push comes to shove and soon the Middle east, Europe, and Asia are in flames. Good job. [editline]3rd June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Killuah;36189420]I feel for you. So sorry starting fights isn't as easy anymore.[/QUOTE] This forum gets dumber everyday.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.