BF2S Forums Do we need to revise our military strategies?

We need to revise our diplomatic strategies for sure.

The Bartenders Son wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

We need to revise our diplomatic strategies for sure.

I agree...Nuke them all... let god deal with them lol

some_random_panda wrote:

In WW2, the fighting was done, by major part, by the planes.

Very true.

unnamednewbie13 says:
what kind of history must you know to say this:

unnamednewbie13 says:
"In WW2, the fighting was done, by major part, by the planes."

The Maliman says:
you didnt know about the human plane waves that hit the shore on d-day?

unnamednewbie13 says:
yes

unnamednewbie13 says:
the carriers released the planes

The Maliman says:
and the fierce bombarding bunkered german planes

unnamednewbie13 says:
but they got shot down before they could even leave the deck

unnamednewbie13 says:
planes fell by droves in the sand

unnamednewbie13 says:
wings broke off on the plane traps

The Maliman says:
lol

The Maliman says:
NOOOOO

unnamednewbie13 says:
the paraplanes landed in all the wrong areas behind enemy skies

The Maliman says:
so many planes were floating to shore in pieces

The Maliman says:
the images

The Maliman says:
the oil

unnamednewbie13 says:
and patton's third squadron pushed through

The Maliman says:
heheh

unnamednewbie13 says:
north africa

unnamednewbie13 says:
destroying rommel's flights

unnamednewbie13 says:
the italian planes stood no chance after that

unnamednewbie13 says:
german planes were fighting russian planes in the cold snowy sky

unnamednewbie13 says:
some russian planes had no ammo and no fuel to get back

unnamednewbie13 says:
so they had to crash into the germans

The Maliman says:
this is great, you should give them the stories.

The Maliman says:
they would be offended though

unnamednewbie13 says:
they would

The Maliman says:
YOURE TWISTING THE FACTS

The Maliman says:
THATS NOT TRUE

unnamednewbie13 says:
i will

The Maliman says:
Yaah!

Yeah, I think I'm pretty funny.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-01-13 01:29:16)

some_random_panda wrote:

In WW2, the fighting was done, by major part, by the planes.

Ummm..what?

Yes, yes we do. The current ones aren't working, from what I can see. The question is not 'do we need to?', but 'what to?'.

Personally, I think we should start rounding up all the AK47s people have lying around, and make it so that wielding one in public is grounds for being shot at.
And maybe, just maybe, get the civillians out of the habit of firing into the air in celebration. (Maybe just give them blank rounds and adaptors that alter the heat signature and sound of the weapon?)

some_random_panda wrote:

In WW2, the fighting was done, by major part, by the planes.

I would dispute this statement. War on the european and russian fronts was still highly dependent upon troops. Planes were important, but I would not say they consisted of the majority of the fighting. They may or may not have had the largest portion of the fighting, but they certainly did not have the majority of the fighting.

ATG wrote:

CommieChipmunk wrote:

stop getting involved in childish wars that we don't need to be in maybe..?  Hell with all this money we're using to kill people and defend the oil, we could have spent it for researching new energy supplies... we could have had hydrogen fueled cars by now.  But oils tight and everything...


No, we don't need to revise our military strategies, we need to gtfo..

Why are people like you so disinterested in the fact that pulling out now will lead to a blood bath of epic proportions?

Because people like him realize sending more troops into a situation where previously sending more troops equated to nothing productive getting done. We still hold what a few providences in an entire country? Its a joke, the entire thing was a joke this administration is a joke.

You can't have it both ways....we go in because of a threat to terrorism now we can't leave because of possible increase threats to terrorism and safe heaven being created for more terrorist. So essentially there will always be a terrorist threat no matter what you do, you cannot kill every single last "terrorist" since for the most part they blend in with the community. Its highly unlikely that our troops can fight a conventional style war and effectively defeat all of the insurgents in that country. Admit defeat and have  phased withdraw with more Iraqi's taking more responsibility may sounds like a bad thing , but once again why continue to feed billions of dollars into a lost cause?

If anything to be honest this administration is going to try its hardest to escalate the situation overseas. Evidence to this can be the subtle mentioning of possible Syrian and Iranian targets, not only this but recent attacks being conducted in Somalia. For example why is it that the Iraqi elected government can chose to have talks with Iran, but for some reason the United States arrest people whom the IRAQI government has called in...in order to resolve the security issues? Check out the lovely consulate that was taken over by US forces please tell me why Iraq has no say on how it conducts its diplomatic negotiations with other countries? Hell I'll tell you...the US installs US friendly governments in order to improve our foothold in any given Area, check out South America, yet its funny though how we can threaten the elected Iraqi PM with living on borrowed time but at the same time we stand for "democracy." haha fucking joke

Commie Killer wrote:

I think your confusing me^^^wtf?

In my opinion we dont need to revise our military stragedy, we have one for just this occasion, it is just not being put into use because of "political correctness". You can not fucking fight a fucking limited war. It does not work. The people of the United States of America do not like that, they want a war that you go in, kill the bastards, and leave. A long drawn out war only works in a suppressed dictatorship. It will not work. The only way to fucking finish this is a massive surge in troops, invasions into Iran and Syria which will destroy the backing. This is like in Vietnam, you can not just leave North Vietnam alone, and in this case, you cannot just leave Iran and Syria and others alone. It just does not fucking work.

What he said. Nice to see somebody with a brain on here.

Major_Spittle wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

I think your confusing me^^^wtf?

In my opinion we dont need to revise our military stragedy, we have one for just this occasion, it is just not being put into use because of "political correctness". You can not fucking fight a fucking limited war. It does not work. The people of the United States of America do not like that, they want a war that you go in, kill the bastards, and leave. A long drawn out war only works in a suppressed dictatorship. It will not work. The only way to fucking finish this is a massive surge in troops, invasions into Iran and Syria which will destroy the backing. This is like in Vietnam, you can not just leave North Vietnam alone, and in this case, you cannot just leave Iran and Syria and others alone. It just does not fucking work.

What he said. Nice to see somebody with a brain on here.

You people have to be out of your fucking minds.  And unfortunately you think exactly like all world leaders.  Imperialism and killing solves all the problems of the world.

-=CB=-krazykarl wrote:

Fen321 wrote:

ATG wrote:

Why are people like you so disinterested in the fact that pulling out now will lead to a blood bath of epic proportions?

Because people like him realize sending more troops into a situation where previously sending more troops equated to nothing productive getting done. We still hold what a few providences in an entire country? Its a joke, the entire thing was a joke this administration is a joke.

You can't have it both ways....we go in because of a threat to terrorism now we can't leave because of possible increase threats to terrorism and safe heaven being created for more terrorist. So essentially there will always be a terrorist threat no matter what you do, you cannot kill every single last "terrorist" since for the most part they blend in with the community. Its highly unlikely that our troops can fight a conventional style war and effectively defeat all of the insurgents in that country. Admit defeat and have  phased withdraw with more Iraqi's taking more responsibility may sounds like a bad thing , but once again why continue to feed billions of dollars into a lost cause?

If anything to be honest this administration is going to try its hardest to escalate the situation overseas. Evidence to this can be the subtle mentioning of possible Syrian and Iranian targets, not only this but recent attacks being conducted in Somalia. For example why is it that the Iraqi elected government can chose to have talks with Iran, but for some reason the United States arrest people whom the IRAQI government has called in...in order to resolve the security issues? Check out the lovely consulate that was taken over by US forces please tell me why Iraq has no say on how it conducts its diplomatic negotiations with other countries? Hell I'll tell you...the US installs US friendly governments in order to improve our foothold in any given Area, check out South America, yet its funny though how we can threaten the elected Iraqi PM with living on borrowed time but at the same time we stand for "democracy." haha fucking joke

blah, blah, you sound like you puked up a media sandwich, do you have an opinion? or do you plagiarize the media without one?

haha media sandwich, debate me on any of the points so we can see how much of a "media sandwich" i am.

Then again you said it yourself its opinion what are the odds that someone other than me holds the same opinion, probably pretty high, check out the election in the states and ask yourself what the salient issue was that swayed people's votes

oh yeah next time don't start out with a "blah blah blah" it makes your argument look well childish.

Last edited by Fen321 (2007-01-13 16:33:59)

Armchair general time!

Picking the wrong conflicts isn't bad strategy its bad diplomacy.

I believe the US military (and any other that adopts a similar strategy) is going down the right track by removing as much of the manpower requirement as possible; low maintainence stuff, unmanned vehicles etc.  I think reducing the need for fossil fuels would help the logistics side of things; less need to truck in fuel if you can just plug your humvee or M1A2 into a generator (presumably nuclear) and be ready to go again in 30mins.