Pages: 1 … 6 7 8 9

 

2010-09-06 06:58:59
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6624|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

and there's the flawed premise from the word 'Go'...
There you have it, trying to turn the various tribal lands of the ME into the United States of Arabia is simply a non-starter - better to forget it and try something which has a chance of working.
The fact you think that is what's happening show how little you understand the systems of governance in the ME.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2010-09-06 07:09:55
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6624|'Murka

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Your "logic" is astounding.

I guess Vietnam wasn't a failure for the US because it wasn't against the Vietnamese alone, then. Right. Makes perfect sense.

Failure is failure. The Soviets failed in Afghanistan. It was a counterinsurgency that they tried to fight by using overwhelming force. And they failed. Hence, a failed counterinsurgency using the strategy and tactics you say didn't fail.
ffs, try reading what i posted. ussr failed in afghanistan. does it mean the methods they employed do not work? no, it doesn't, they used the same methods to conquer other similar central asian republics in the past. it DID work. that's not to say how many times the same methods have been used to great effect by others.
I did read what you wrote. Your clear implication was that Afghanistan would've been a Soviet success would it not have been for the meddling of others (namely the US). That is utter fallacy. It was the strategy and tactics employed by the Soviets and the Soviet-backed government in Kabul that caused the Soviet effort to fail, not some Stingers and AKs supplied by the US. Just as it was the strategy and tactics employed by the US and South Vietnamese that caused the US effort in Vietnam to fail, not the weapons supplied to the North Vietnamese by the Soviets.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Chechen Wars. Doesn't matter whether the USSR existed or not.
it absolutely does matter. as i said, chechen wars wouldn't have been possible in stalin's time. at all.
Stalin didn't exist for the entirety of the USSR. Come on back to the real world.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

It was the same military strategy executed by the same military against insurgents. And it failed. Again.
you don't know much about chechen wars, do you? "same military", pfffft.
Yes, I know there was a degradation...or at least the onion got peeled back and the world saw reality for once. So, yes, essentially the same military.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Yet you say those three gems weren't failures.
they were. and i said so myself on numerous occasions. does that prove that methods used by soviets (and coutless others, including the free, the brave and the enlightened) do not work? absolutely not and there's a tonne of evidence supporting this - the whole bloody history of human civilization is one enormous piece of evidence.
They are clear proof that to-fucking-day those methods do not fucking work. It is irrelevant if they worked hundreds of years ago. We are dealing with today's environment, not that of the 1600-1800s or early-mid 1900s. And if you think it's anything remotely similar, you are severely deluded.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2010-09-07 02:51:33
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|6989|Moscow, Russia
@FEOS: geee... how typical. look, man, you obviously have NO idea what you are talking about. as i said earlier, you have probably never even spoken to any of the people you are fighting against. throughout the history of human civilization there were always a lot of those, who were saying "the times have changed, the old methods don't work" - saying that right before another barbarian tribe got in and bashed their sculls open. the fact of the matter - NOTHING's changed  for those, whom you are going to win a war with now using your so called "new" ways. these people are still stuck back there - somewhere in the dark ages - and the only methods that are going to work on them are dark ages' methonds. no point in "spreading democracy" over to them - they cannot sustain it, and there's no reason to be nice to them - they won't appreciate it, and the only way they are going to use your so called "freedom" is to start eating each other and anybody who gets close.
but, anyway, you'll see for yourself. i think we are both have good chances of living long enough to see how it all ends - and mark my words, if usa & co don't change their approach to this, afghanistan is gonna be another vietnam.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2010-09-07 03:11:47
Vilham
Say wat!?
+580|6980|UK
lulz Shatner.
2010-09-07 03:13:26
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7023|Nårvei

What approach should they change to if I may ask?
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
2010-09-07 03:16:49
jord
Member
+2,382|6891|The North, beyond the wall.
Indeed general, what tactics should we employ, sir!
2010-09-07 03:21:43
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6888|Canberra, AUS

Varegg wrote:

What approach should they change to if I may ask?
bomb them to the stone-age, i assume.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2010-09-07 03:32:45
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|6989|Moscow, Russia

Spark wrote:

bomb them to the stone-age, i assume.
they ARE in the stone are, dipshit. only instead of clubs and spears they have ak's and rpg's. there's only one way of making them behave like human beings - and i already explained how it's done.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2010-09-07 03:36:37
jord
Member
+2,382|6891|The North, beyond the wall.
Resident sun tzu.
2010-09-07 03:41:38
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6930
drop the gay bomb. worked in gulf war
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2010-09-07 04:39:35
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6624|'Murka

Shahter wrote:

@FEOS: geee... how typical. look, man, you obviously have NO idea what you are talking about. as i said earlier, you have probably never even spoken to any of the people you are fighting against. throughout the history of human civilization there were always a lot of those, who were saying "the times have changed, the old methods don't work" - saying that right before another barbarian tribe got in and bashed their sculls open. the fact of the matter - NOTHING's changed  for those, whom you are going to win a war with now using your so called "new" ways. these people are still stuck back there - somewhere in the dark ages - and the only methods that are going to work on them are dark ages' methonds. no point in "spreading democracy" over to them - they cannot sustain it, and there's no reason to be nice to them - they won't appreciate it, and the only way they are going to use your so called "freedom" is to start eating each other and anybody who gets close.
but, anyway, you'll see for yourself. i think we are both have good chances of living long enough to see how it all ends - and mark my words, if usa & co don't change their approach to this, afghanistan is gonna be another vietnam.
And how many of these "barbarians" have YOU spoken with? And have you taken your ridiculous tone with them, as well? Referred to them as barbarians, who only need to be bombed to oblivion?

The problem with you is that you think you know something about counterinsurgency and you don't. So you come on here spouting shit about bombing people into pink paste and you don't have the first fucking concept of what that actually means. The Soviet/Russian method of counterinsurgency (your proposed method) simply doesn't work. It's been proven time and again by multiple military forces, to include the US. Current counterinsurgency strategies, such as those outlined in FM 3-24, DO work--and that has been proven multiple times, by multiple military forces. The problem is that it takes a long time to do it right and it takes far more than military action.

It's not about "spreading democracy". That's just something easy for people who don't know what they're talking about to pick at. So keep at it. It only shows your ignorance.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2010-09-07 04:50:56
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7023|Nårvei

Shahter wrote:

Spark wrote:

bomb them to the stone-age, i assume.
they ARE in the stone are, dipshit. only instead of clubs and spears they have ak's and rpg's. there's only one way of making them behave like human beings - and i already explained how it's done.
rethorics ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
2010-09-07 05:28:15
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|6989|Moscow, Russia

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

@FEOS: geee... how typical. look, man, you obviously have NO idea what you are talking about. as i said earlier, you have probably never even spoken to any of the people you are fighting against. throughout the history of human civilization there were always a lot of those, who were saying "the times have changed, the old methods don't work" - saying that right before another barbarian tribe got in and bashed their sculls open. the fact of the matter - NOTHING's changed  for those, whom you are going to win a war with now using your so called "new" ways. these people are still stuck back there - somewhere in the dark ages - and the only methods that are going to work on them are dark ages' methonds. no point in "spreading democracy" over to them - they cannot sustain it, and there's no reason to be nice to them - they won't appreciate it, and the only way they are going to use your so called "freedom" is to start eating each other and anybody who gets close.
but, anyway, you'll see for yourself. i think we are both have good chances of living long enough to see how it all ends - and mark my words, if usa & co don't change their approach to this, afghanistan is gonna be another vietnam.
And how many of these "barbarians" have YOU spoken with?
a lot. they are right here, all around me, travelling in packs like wild beasts and barking at those who go by.

FEOS wrote:

And have you taken your ridiculous tone with them, as well? Referred to them as barbarians, who only need to be bombed to oblivion?
with some - yes, i did. and it didn't end well. sometimes for them, sometimes for me.

i've also been to the places where those people are from and lived among them. briefly. they are aliens, man, there's no way for you or me to really understand them, much less impose our values and ways of life on them. as a russian saying goes (i think i posted this one here already) "no matter how much you feed the wolf, it will always long for the forest".

FEOS wrote:

The problem with you is that you think you know something about counterinsurgency and you don't. So you come on here spouting shit about bombing people into pink paste and you don't have the first fucking concept of what that actually means. The Soviet/Russian method of counterinsurgency (your proposed method) simply doesn't work. It's been proven time and again by multiple military forces, to include the US.
orly? i gave you an example - formation of the ussr. that didn't work, right?

FEOS wrote:

Current counterinsurgency strategies, such as those outlined in FM 3-24, DO work--and that has been proven multiple times, by multiple military forces. The problem is that it takes a long time to do it right and it takes far more than military action.
and the example..?

FEOS wrote:

It's not about "spreading democracy". That's just something easy for people who don't know what they're talking about to pick at.
"spreading democracy" was a sacractic comment, obviously. democracy doesn't even work for you, much less for anybody who your talking heads claim to have brought it to.
but then again, i'm pretty sure those who actually decide on the course of action in usa understand very well what's going on and what they are really doing in afghanistan and the rest of the middle east. it's grunts like you who are only given this shit about "counterinsurgency", "representative government" etc to chew on.

FEOS wrote:

So keep at it. It only shows your ignorance.
yeah, yeah.

Last edited by Shahter (2010-09-07 05:40:28)

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2010-09-07 18:38:17
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6624|'Murka

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The problem with you is that you think you know something about counterinsurgency and you don't. So you come on here spouting shit about bombing people into pink paste and you don't have the first fucking concept of what that actually means. The Soviet/Russian method of counterinsurgency (your proposed method) simply doesn't work. It's been proven time and again by multiple military forces, to include the US.
orly? i gave you an example - formation of the ussr. that didn't work, right?
That isn't an example of a counterinsurgency, Shahter. That's an example of a civil war/popular uprising--an example of an insurgency that didn't fail, if you will.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Current counterinsurgency strategies, such as those outlined in FM 3-24, DO work--and that has been proven multiple times, by multiple military forces. The problem is that it takes a long time to do it right and it takes far more than military action.
and the example..?
Iraq, for one, though it's still a work in progress. As I said, it takes a long time.

The problem is that it's taken quite a long time for people to realize what works and what doesn't work and to document those practices. Most of what's been observed is what doesn't work (like the USSR in Afghanistan, for example).

A couple of other historical examples that did work:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malay_Emergency

- Britain never approached the Emergency as a conventional conflict and quickly implemented an effective combined intelligence (led by Malayan Police Special Branch against the political arm of the guerrilla movement)[18][19] and a "hearts and minds" operation.
- Many Malayans had fought side by side with the British against the Japanese occupation in World War II, including Chin Peng. This is in contrast to Indochina (Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia) where French colonial officials often operated as proxies and collaborators to the Japanese. This factor of trust between the locals and the colonials was what gave the British an advantage over the French and later, the Americans in Vietnam.
- In purely military terms, the British Army recognized that in a low-intensity war, the individual soldier's skill and endurance was of far greater importance than overwhelming firepower (artillery, air support, etc.) Even though many British soldiers were conscripted National Servicemen, the necessary skills and attitudes were taught at a Jungle Warfare School, which also worked out the optimum tactics based on experience gained in the field.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huk_Rebellion

The point to both of these (and others) being that the key to winning an insurgency--for either side--is the population. If you bomb them into paste, you will not win.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

It's not about "spreading democracy". That's just something easy for people who don't know what they're talking about to pick at.
"spreading democracy" was a sacractic comment, obviously. democracy doesn't even work for you, much less for anybody who your talking heads claim to have brought it to.
but then again, i'm pretty sure those who actually decide on the course of action in usa understand very well what's going on and what they are really doing in afghanistan and the rest of the middle east. it's grunts like you who are only given this shit about "counterinsurgency", "representative government" etc to chew on.
Sometimes you truly do make me laugh. Your tinfoil hat propaganda bullshit is like a clown on fire--kind of funny, yet kind of sad.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2010-09-07 23:57:19
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|6989|Moscow, Russia

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The problem with you is that you think you know something about counterinsurgency and you don't. So you come on here spouting shit about bombing people into pink paste and you don't have the first fucking concept of what that actually means. The Soviet/Russian method of counterinsurgency (your proposed method) simply doesn't work. It's been proven time and again by multiple military forces, to include the US.
orly? i gave you an example - formation of the ussr. that didn't work, right?
That isn't an example of a counterinsurgency, Shahter. That's an example of a civil war/popular uprising--an example of an insurgency that didn't fail, if you will.
ah, of course! - if something leads to the formation of a state like ussr - that's "insurgency that didn't fail". it is only "revolution" and "fighting for freedom" when the result is the land of teh free and the brave. /sigh

the uprising you speak about, man, first led to bolshevik run russia as well as ukraine, belarus and a part of tatarstan. ussr was formed later by annexing the rest of what later became soviet republics - that included the -stan's i was talking about here, and was done using the methods i described. go read some more on the subject, will ya.

FEOS wrote:

Iraq, for one, though it's still a work in progress. As I said, it takes a long time.
we'll see. so far you haven't exactly impressed anyone, no matter how much you like to pat yourselves on the back.

FEOS wrote:

The problem is that it's taken quite a long time for people to realize what works and what doesn't work and to document those practices. Most of what's been observed is what doesn't work (like the USSR in Afghanistan, for example).
of course! it's not a matter of getting to know people you are fighting against - it's all about documenting the practices! oh, for fuck sake, man, you are dence...

FEOS wrote:

A couple of other historical examples that did work:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malay_Emergency

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huk_Rebellion

The point to both of these (and others) being that the key to winning an insurgency--for either side--is the population. If you bomb them into paste, you will not win.
gee... so those conflicts were decided not by military intervention - no, they won by going in circles singing the songs about "freedom, democracy and evil commies". these articles are just about the dumbest pieces of propaganda i have ever seen.

FEOS wrote:

Sometimes you truly do make me laugh. Your tinfoil hat propaganda bullshit is like a clown on fire--kind of funny, yet kind of sad.
i know you take that shit about "the great nation of usa fighting for freedom all around the world" seriously. i'm not here to change your indoctrinated mind - i think i know a lost cause when i see it. but still - you are a smart man, how can you possibly beleave that you and your fellow american soldiers are being sent to the other side of the globe to "fight evil" and "fix problems" of the people who do not - CAN not - affect your personal lives in any way, is beyond me.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2010-09-07 23:59:18
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5450|Cleveland, Ohio
shatler:

why did russia invade afghanistan?

Last edited by 11 Bravo (2010-09-08 00:02:13)

2010-09-08 00:00:51
DonFck
Hibernator
+3,227|6845|Finland

11 Bravo wrote:

why did russia invade afghanistan?
The Soviet Union did.

The Soviet war in Afghanistan was an almost ten-year conflict involving the Soviet Union, supporting the Marxist-Leninist government of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan at their own request against the Mujahideen Resistance
I need around tree fiddy.
2010-09-08 00:01:36
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5450|Cleveland, Ohio
wasnt asking you tbh
2010-09-08 00:08:26
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|6989|Moscow, Russia

11 Bravo wrote:

why did russiaussr invade afghanistan?
to "saber-rattle". and, if possble, to establish a puppet "communist" government and control the region - though i still think it was mostly "dick-a-waving" there - they couldn't have been so stupid back then not to understand that they didn't have nearly enough resources to actually pull it off, especialy when it was so obvious that usa would interfere.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2010-09-08 00:11:52
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5450|Cleveland, Ohio
hmmm.. thats a good explanation.  thank you.


on topic:

as i said, i wish they had more reporters following them.
2010-09-08 00:20:47
rdx-fx
...
+955|6805

11 Bravo wrote:

as i said, i wish they had more reporters following them.
Reporters with working iPhones, damnit!  hand them all working iPhones before they embed with the Taliban, please.

Last edited by rdx-fx (2010-09-08 00:21:25)

2010-09-08 04:13:53
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6624|'Murka

Shahter wrote:

ah, of course! - if something leads to the formation of a state like ussr - that's "insurgency that didn't fail". it is only "revolution" and "fighting for freedom" when the result is the land of teh free and the brave. /sigh
Was the Russian revolution/civil war an insurgency or not? It has nothing to do with a comparison to the US, Shahter. I'm not the one constantly doing e-penis comparisons between the US and Russia here and claiming one always comes up short, being filled with propaganda-driven zombies.

That would be you doing that, btw, in case you're having trouble keeping up.

Shahter wrote:

the uprising you speak about, man, first led to bolshevik run russia as well as ukraine, belarus and a part of tatarstan. ussr was formed later by annexing the rest of what later became soviet republics - that included the -stan's i was talking about here, and was done using the methods i described. go read some more on the subject, will ya.
I've done plenty of reading on the subject. Hence why I described it as an insurgency that didn't fail. It's not like it was a derogatory statement. It was a statement of fact. The American Revolution was an insurgency that didn't fail, as well.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Iraq, for one, though it's still a work in progress. As I said, it takes a long time.
we'll see. so far you haven't exactly impressed anyone, no matter how much you like to pat yourselves on the back.
Nobody's patting anyone on the back about anything. You can't be objective about anything, can you?

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The problem is that it's taken quite a long time for people to realize what works and what doesn't work and to document those practices. Most of what's been observed is what doesn't work (like the USSR in Afghanistan, for example).
of course! it's not a matter of getting to know people you are fighting against - it's all about documenting the practices! oh, for fuck sake, man, you are dence...
Oh sure. Don't bother to actually fucking read or anything. You've got it all figured out. That's right. It's all about documenting, not about doing.

And you say I'm the dense one, ffs.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

A couple of other historical examples that did work:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malay_Emergency

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huk_Rebellion

The point to both of these (and others) being that the key to winning an insurgency--for either side--is the population. If you bomb them into paste, you will not win.
gee... so those conflicts were decided not by military intervention - no, they won by going in circles singing the songs about "freedom, democracy and evil commies". these articles are just about the dumbest pieces of propaganda i have ever seen.
Ah. He throws the "propaganda" flag yet again. Shocking.

Again, if you had bothered to read, you would have seen that military operations were an integral part of the overall counterinsurgency effort. I never claimed otherwise. But the heavy-handed tactics you claim will result in victory were not used, particularly in the Malaya situation.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Sometimes you truly do make me laugh. Your tinfoil hat propaganda bullshit is like a clown on fire--kind of funny, yet kind of sad.
i know you take that shit about "the great nation of usa fighting for freedom all around the world" seriously. i'm not here to change your indoctrinated mind - i think i know a lost cause when i see it. but still - you are a smart man, how can you possibly beleave that you and your fellow american soldiers are being sent to the other side of the globe to "fight evil" and "fix problems" of the people who do not - CAN not - affect your personal lives in any way, is beyond me.
And you've gone completely off the deep end. Based on your rants, it's clear who's indoctrinated. I'm not worried.

I don't know who told you that I'm under the impression that I and my "fellow soldiers" are being sent to "fight evil and fix problems". I never said that and never alluded to the belief. The application of military power is all about national interests, not personal lives.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2010-09-08 05:04:19
jord
Member
+2,382|6891|The North, beyond the wall.
Have you not clicked on yet feos? Everything is propaganda and we all subscribe to it.
2010-09-08 05:22:04
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|6989|Moscow, Russia

jord wrote:

Have you not clicked on yet feos? Everything is propaganda and we all subscribe to it.
well, exactly. i have no problem with usa & co doing what they do - namely, fucking up those, who doesn't want to integrate themselves into a financial pyramid you all call "global market", "capitalism", "freedom and democracy" and all that shit. the only thing that really bugs me is people calling that - an empire which is about to outgrow itself struggling to keep from collapsing by taking over not yet conquered lands and resources - "policing the world", "spreading democracy", "war on terrorism" and all that bullshit. you stop it - and we will have come to an agreement.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2010-09-08 05:40:56
jord
Member
+2,382|6891|The North, beyond the wall.

Shahter wrote:

jord wrote:

Have you not clicked on yet feos? Everything is propaganda and we all subscribe to it.
well, exactly. i have no problem with usa & co doing what they do - namely, fucking up those, who doesn't want to integrate themselves into a financial pyramid you all call "global market", "capitalism", "freedom and democracy" and all that shit. the only thing that really bugs me is people calling that - an empire which is about to outgrow itself struggling to keep from collapsing by taking over not yet conquered lands and resources - "policing the world", "spreading democracy", "war on terrorism" and all that bullshit. you stop it - and we will have come to an agreement.
A bit off topc but still relevant to the "fucking up tribals" discussion. Would you have any problem with australia taking over aborigals land and way of life? Or perhaps brazil flattening amazonian tribes homes and telling them to integrate into brazilian culture, an identity they just aren't a part of in any way?

 

Pages: 1 … 6 7 8 9

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard