BF2S Forums I know it's a lofty dream, but how does one become a General?

FEOS wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

Yes but those wars have all been started by politicians. If JFK and LBJ didn't give the orders to send troops to 'Nam, it wouldn't have happened.

Of course it wouldn't ... doesn't matter who recides in the White House young one when the war lobby starts doing their thing, and that group whispering "war" in the ear of the President also has generals in it ...

You guys have an entire industry that depends on the army being occupied ...

Did you have to go somewhere special to get that tinfoil hat fitted, or is it an off-the-shelf thing?

As for the "very few days of peace" comment: we just get all the press. I think we've been down this road before regarding military action since WW2...it's not a US-only show by any stretch.

Correct ... but the US is one of the few that has adjusted it's strike capability for anything other than defence of it's own territory since WW2.

And the hat is homemade after a drawing I downloaded from a US website

FEOS wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Correct ... but the US is one of the few that has adjusted it's strike capability for anything other than defence of it's own territory since WW2.

Now you are indulging in self-delusion, Varegg. Any country with any kind of military capability has at least a modicum of power projection built in.

You know perfectly well what I mean ... it's not like we are talking defence + a little when it comes in handy ...

FEOS wrote:

Varegg wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Now you are indulging in self-delusion, Varegg. Any country with any kind of military capability has at least a modicum of power projection built in.

You know perfectly well what I mean ... it's not like we are talking defence + a little when it comes in handy ...

That's because everyone else was perfectly happy to let the US shoulder the load during the Cold War...when that strike capability was "adjusted".

And you claim I'm indulging in self-delusion

Can you prove yours to be right?

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-12-11 06:53:40)

Dilbert_X wrote:

Can you prove yours to be right?

Absolutely. It's called history.

Try reading it some time.

Dilbert_X wrote:

You're making an argument about history.
Just saying 'history' doesn't help.

When the entirety of that period of history proves my point, it most certainly does.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Which bits?

The ones concerning the Cold War (see previous post that you responded to).

Dilbert_X wrote:

No, can't see it.

FEOS wrote:

That's because everyone else was perfectly happy to let the US shoulder the load during the Cold War...when that strike capability was "adjusted".

Who was 'perfectly happy'?
I think most of us would have preferred not to have had a cold war between Russia and the US at all, when the prospect of all of us being vaporised in response to Cuba or a radar blip was pretty high.

You need to re-read what I posted.

I didn't say people were happy there was a Cold War.

Who was "perfectly happy"? All those "allies" who didn't have to spend fuckall because the US was shouldering the load...that's who.

Dilbert_X wrote:

But we did have to spend something, much more than if the US and Russia hadn't been in a spat.

Since it was Winston Churchill who coined the phrase "Iron Curtain" and NATO formed in response to Russia's expansion...it wasn't just the "US and Russia...in a spat".

It was just the US and Russia bearing most of the burden.

Varegg wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

But we did have to spend something, much more than if the US and Russia hadn't been in a spat.

Since it was Winston Churchill who coined the phrase "Iron Curtain" and NATO formed in response to Russia's expansion...it wasn't just the "US and Russia...in a spat".

It was just the US and Russia bearing most of the burden.

Aaaaand at the same time causing most of the burden tbh

FEOS wrote:

Varegg wrote:

And you claim I'm indulging in self-delusion

Can you prove my position to be incorrect?

Your own need for a large millitary force and of course being one of the few that could muster any speakable force to be reackoned with I agree with you, you kind of inherited the British Empires legacy of being the biggest millitary force and both parties was happy with it ...

So no I can't prove you to be incorrect ... but you were hardly as alone as you seem to think ...

I didn't say we were alone...just well "backed up".

Varegg wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I didn't say we were alone...just well "backed up".

I know ... it's just a tad pathetic how some Americans pound their chest and thinks they are the saviours of the free world

Didn't say that, did I?

The USSR imploding took care of that.

Now, if you look at a NATO vs Warsaw Pact conflict, what would the bulk of the forces be? US and Soviet. Even the collection of all the other players of the two alliances would not add up to the contributions of the two major players. That doesn't obviate the contributions of those others, but the contribution of those others certainly doesn't obviate the majority contributions, either.

FEOS wrote:

Varegg wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I didn't say we were alone...just well "backed up".

I know ... it's just a tad pathetic how some Americans pound their chest and thinks they are the saviours of the free world

Didn't say that, did I?

The USSR imploding took care of that.

Now, if you look at a NATO vs Warsaw Pact conflict, what would the bulk of the forces be? US and Soviet. Even the collection of all the other players of the two alliances would not add up to the contributions of the two major players. That doesn't obviate the contributions of those others, but the contribution of those others certainly doesn't obviate the majority contributions, either.

US spent more money on defending Europe than all NATO nations (besides US) combined...