[Mideast + Africa] Getting rid of Bongo- but at what Brice?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > [Mideast + Africa] Getting rid of Bongo- but at what Brice?

«‹›587 »

Albinator: Mar 31, 2010

Ardennes posted:

You are living 30 years in the past.

Pfft. You'll be telling us next you can drive tanks through wooded hills.

# ? Jan 7, 2020 03:35

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 31, 2024 11:25

i say swears online: Mar 4, 2005

Crowsbeak posted:

Let�s also consider that the chuddiest part of the military. Ie spec ops would be on the receiving end of the first round of fighting. Securing Khuezestan which would probably be bled white in the fighting. Also let�s consider that just getting a toehold likely in the first year sees losses approaching say two thousand that will likely require a deployment of the guard. I could see America move out of Khuezestan but only with losses that surpass casualties from Iraq from 03-2010. Let�s also consider that the climate emergency is not ending. In fact is getting worse and what happens when said guard cannot be deployed to say a wild fire in Colorado. Or Cali. A a hurricane ravaged Texas or Louisiana . This will create chaos in the us. Now let�s say losses hit the point where the military cannot make up the replacement of men. We could see calls for the draft. All of this will create more noticeable contradictions. Hell I could even see a much larger support of a anti war coalition if the economy also goes tits up. Note if Bernie is ratfuck Ed at the nomination we could also see a third party run in 2020 (hopefully with a Bernie) that could even possibly get a plurality. But possibly not get 272. What we want of course is the contradictions to heighten. So that chaos can create the situation necessary to bring a crisis of the American oligarchy.

you're missing a step. anyone that completes even a 3-4 year contract with the military has the option to be called up to return to service, and the government would take advantage well before a draft. it would also not go well at all

# ? Jan 7, 2020 03:35

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

the U.S. is seriously unprepared to fight a conventional war. actually... watch some mark milley think tank talks. there are no artillery officers anywhere in the U.S. army that has even seen an entire artillery battalion fire its guns all at once, because they haven't trained to do so since the the 90s. they'll train to fire one or two rounds and that's it because that's how you use artillery againt insurgents

# ? Jan 7, 2020 03:35

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

i say swears online posted:

you're missing a step. anyone that completes even a 3-4 year contract with the military has the option to be called up to return to service, and the government would take advantage well before a draft. it would also not go well at all

Oh poo poo. I forgot about that. Still can heighten the contradictions necessary. Acceleration at this point is the only way out of America�s oligarchy.

# ? Jan 7, 2020 03:36

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

also the reason the national guard is now such a big thing is because of post-vietnam reforms. the US can't go to conventional war without calling up the guard. this is for political reasons since the military wants every community to be affected by it (as a way of building support for war)

# ? Jan 7, 2020 03:38

Raskolnikov38: Mar 3, 2007; We were somewhere around Manila when the drugs began to take hold

sum posted:

Yes, it wasn't close to a fair fight because of the massive materiel advantages of the US army, which is my entire point. Iran's military budget is a small fraction of the US's and that has huge consequences on the battlefield.

They hadn't been spent. Iraq had the 4th largest military on the planet at the start of the Gulf War (larger than Iran's current military, incidentally), much of it pretty modernized. They just got owned.

forces that aren't spent usually don't surrender en masse the moment they're engaged in combat

# ? Jan 7, 2020 03:39

Atrocious Joe: Sep 2, 2011

gradenko_2000 posted:

https://twitter.com/ErinBanco/status/1214329264411152390?s=20

TRELP doing the puppetmaster defense, but for foreign relations

ahhh yes, the Iraqis were freaked out the US would leave

of course, that's why they confirmed it was real

# ? Jan 7, 2020 03:39

i say swears online: Mar 4, 2005

BrutalistMcDonalds posted:

also the reason the national guard is now such a big thing is because of post-vietnam reforms. the US can't go to conventional war without calling up the guard. this is for political reasons since the military wants every community to be affected by it (as a way of building support for war)

are you aware of the texas state guard? they're hilarious

# ? Jan 7, 2020 03:41

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

BrutalistMcDonalds posted:

also the reason the national guard is now such a big thing is because of post-vietnam reforms. the US can't go to conventional war without calling up the guard. this is for political reasons since the military wants every community to be affected by it (as a way of building support for war)

Yeah. I don�t think in the age of climate emergency that will work.

Really. We should see this as an opportunity for a five years preparation to seizing power in the us.

# ? Jan 7, 2020 03:41

sum: Nov 15, 2010

The US's going-on-two-decades of constant low level warfare have unprepared it for the rigors of real war. Iran's heavily sanctioned, mostly conscripted military that hasn't fought a conventional war in 30 years and is still driving around Chieftans from the 70s is certain to beat it.

# ? Jan 7, 2020 03:42

CAPS LOCK BROKEN: Feb 1, 2006; by Fluffdaddy

DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:

not only that but also 20 years of war have used up almost all of america's war materiel, like there's a reason only 2 CVNs are currently floating and the other 9 are in dock for maintenance.

c'mon chief think big here, we can reopen the federal arsenals and give tons of people cushy jobs assembling cluster bombs

DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:

I don't know what the stats are on Air Force planes but it's something similar, like 60% of airframes are out of commission for longterm maintenance or something. same with the army. it's all getting more expensive (because of dumbass MBA consultant-thinking and poo poo far beyond "normal" graft) and it's all being used way past what it was designed to do. oh yeah also there's not enough recruits for actual army poo poo to meet current needs much less the requirements of a new general war (that doesn't make a draft more likely though since the last thing you want is people who don't want to be there operating all your expensive as hell equipment)

the level of contracting graft is obscene. virtually every major F100 in america has some kind of military touch, from outright making war toys to periphery companies like UPS shipping those around for the DoD

DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:

i think a lot of people haven't really internalized that america's military heyday is actually already past us. maybe whatever iran does next will be an object lesson.

I always wonder if imperial japan came to the right conclusion about the US but in the wrong decade. Like if Iran is what finally stops the US juggernaut will the takeaway be to double down on war spending or will it serve as the straw that broke the camel's back?

# ? Jan 7, 2020 03:42

Raskolnikov38: Mar 3, 2007; We were somewhere around Manila when the drugs began to take hold

sum posted:

The US's going-on-two-decades of constant low level warfare have unprepared it for the rigors of real war. Iran's heavily sanctioned, mostly conscripted military that hasn't fought a conventional war in 30 years and is still driving around Chieftans from the 70s is certain to beat it.

jesus christ you're as thick as an armor plate

did north vietnam lose the vietnam war in your mind?

# ? Jan 7, 2020 03:44

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

i say swears online posted:

are you aware of the texas state guard? they're hilarious

they are different from the nat guard but yes and they are hilarious

# ? Jan 7, 2020 03:44

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

CAPS LOCK BROKEN posted:

c'mon chief think big here, we can reopen the federal arsenals and give tons of people cushy jobs assembling cluster bombs

the level of contracting graft is obscene. virtually every major F100 in america has some kind of military touch, from outright making war toys to periphery companies like UPS shipping those around for the DoD

I always wonder if imperial japan came to the right conclusion about the US but in the wrong decade. Like if Iran is what finally stops the US juggernaut will the takeaway be to double down on war spending or will it serve as the straw that broke the camel's back?

Straw. America is about a decade at most from a 1917. This will accelerate the forces necessary.

# ? Jan 7, 2020 03:44

Stringent: Dec 22, 2004; image text goes here

sum posted:

The US's going-on-two-decades of constant low level warfare have unprepared it for the rigors of real war. Iran's heavily sanctioned, mostly conscripted military that hasn't fought a conventional war in 30 years and is still driving around Chieftans from the 70s is certain to beat it.

The shape war has taken for the past 50+ years isn't real war is some real galaxy brained poo poo.

# ? Jan 7, 2020 03:46

Ardennes: May 12, 2002

sum posted:

.

I wonder why exactly Iraq's military was willing to fight the Iran-Iraq war but not the Gulf War. I wonder what specifically about the two wars made them fight competently in one but completely dissolve in the other. Well I guess it's going to have to be a mystery

The Iran-Iraq war didn�t go so well my man and was before the invasion of Kuwait.

# ? Jan 7, 2020 03:47

sum: Nov 15, 2010

Raskolnikov38 posted:

jesus christ you're as thick as an armor plate

did north vietnam lose the vietnam war in your mind?

You know the reason the US didn't invade North Vietnam was because they didn't want to trigger a Chinese intervention right? Like it's not because they couldn't beat the North Vietnamese military.

I'm not arguing that the US could "win" an occupation of Iran, that's absurd. I'm saying that, in a conventional war and invasion, the US would beat Iran, and probably pretty easily.

# ? Jan 7, 2020 03:53

Zedhe Khoja: Nov 10, 2017; sürgünden selamlar
yıkıcılar ulusuna

i blame total war and paradox games for this sort of thinking

# ? Jan 7, 2020 03:55

redneck nazgul: Apr 25, 2013

sum posted:

I'm saying that, in a conventional war and invasion, the US would beat Iran, and probably pretty easily.

so if the us lines up on one side and the iranians line up on the other on a mostly flat battlefield and the fighting kicks off at dawn?

# ? Jan 7, 2020 03:56

i say swears online: Mar 4, 2005

sum posted:

You know the reason the US didn't invade North Vietnam was because they didn't want to trigger a Chinese intervention right? Like it's not because they couldn't beat the North Vietnamese military.

I'm not arguing that the US could "win" an occupation of Iran, that's absurd. I'm saying that, in a conventional war and invasion, the US would beat Iran, and probably pretty easily.

oh poo poo i forgot the north vietnamese and china were on the same side and totally supported each other in that period

# ? Jan 7, 2020 04:01

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

If the US committed itself to total war with Iran and put like say twenty percent of gdp or more to fighting them. It could win. But that would require loving with Capital too much.

# ? Jan 7, 2020 04:01

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

sum posted:

You know the reason the US didn't invade North Vietnam was because they didn't want to trigger a Chinese intervention right? Like it's not because they couldn't beat the North Vietnamese military.

I'm not arguing that the US could "win" an occupation of Iran, that's absurd. I'm saying that, in a conventional war and invasion, the US would beat Iran, and probably pretty easily.

the US didn't want to provoke china but also didn't have the means to occupy north vietnam and south vietnam at the same time. the US could barely hold onto the south. also sheer lack of logistical infrastructure to move troops and supplies into north vietnam.

don't think the US could occupy both iran and iraq, which would be required

# ? Jan 7, 2020 04:01

i say swears online: Mar 4, 2005

Zedhe Khoja posted:

i blame total war and paradox games for this sort of thinking

weirdly vicky 1 taught me anything belligerent after like 1910 is a bad idea

# ? Jan 7, 2020 04:01

AnEdgelord: Dec 12, 2016

I think this is what John Dolan was talking about when he was said that people's military thinking was being far too constrained by "the rules".

# ? Jan 7, 2020 04:02

gradenko_2000: Oct 5, 2010; HELL SERPENT; Lipstick Apathy

quote:

At least one army officer, Stephen D. Wesbrook, cited the disintegration of the American military forces in Vietnam as a starting point for his criticisms, the unwillingness of war- managers �to recognize that political factors have anything to do with soldiers� behavior in combat.� His own research in the late 1970s found that �a large percentage of Americans have traditionally regarded wars of colonialism or economic expansion as unjust. To the extent that an American soldier perceives a war to be motivated by these factors, he will also perceive hierarchical demands to be illegitimate.�

In another study Wesbrook showed that the army recruited people in the 1970s and 1980s who were likely to see colonial and economic aspects of intervention in the Third World, namely working-class people and minorities. When the American economy began to collapse in this period, radical critics called the volunteer military a �poverty draft.� Racial and ethnic minorities began to comprise upward of 40 percent in many military units. In Wesbrook�s assessment, these were the �alienated� members of society, those whose lack of commitment to American society made it �impossible for the Army�s leadership to exert the only kind of power that is likely to be effective in modern battle.� Troops outnumber and outgun officers. Wes- brook�s reference to the �only kind of power� refers to moral persuasion, the belief in legitimacy; he despaired at the inability of the military hierarchy to recognize such factors:

The military establishment is also so overly concerned with the instrumental factors of war that it frequently neglects the moral factors; it emphasizes the capacity to fight rather than the will to fight. This is no more evident than in the indicators of combat readiness which the U.S. Army monitors. While keeping scores of statistics on equipment readiness and the state of training, it has not systematically asked whether soldiers trust and like each other, whether they have pride in their units and believe their units would support them in battle, whether they respect and trust their officers and political leaders, whether they know or believe in what they are preparing to fight for, or whether they have an underlying commitment to the worth of their larger political system.

Major Wesbrook compared �unit readiness� in the United States Army to the readiness of the People�s Army of Vietnam. He found that in heavy equipment the American military totally dominated the NVA. The NVA�s victory, then, was the result of categories not conceptualized by the American military � questions of motivation and organizational cohesion: �the under- armed army, living in great physical deprivation, persevered to eventual victory. The enemy credited this perseverance to a strength produced by political purpose that was itself guided by political training. Perhaps it is time to believe him.�

Ten years after defeat in Vietnam, then, the United States once again prepares for war. If the war does not occur in Central America, then there is possible U.S. intervention against the growing insurgency in the Philippines, and if not there, then perhaps South Africa. In many ways, the particular country does not matter. As long as popular insurgencies that challenge vast economic inequality, racial and ethnic oppression, and fight for national independence continue to be conceptualized as bogus causes masking encroachment by a unified Communist machine, then the United States will find almost endless opportunities for another Vietnam.

A new war will not redeem U.S. defeat in Vietnam. There is no such thing as �new, improved� Technowar that will produce more value for the investment. There is no way to move peasants 100 miles and place them in concentration camps without disrupting their lives. There is no way to torture people humanely. Nor can rules of engagement be devised that distinguish between guerrillas and civilians, since they live and work together and often are the same people.

Instead, another major war against a popular insurgency only offers the prospect of more death and destruction. The insurgents will suffer the most, but American soldiers will die, too. Since the same mechanistic theory of revolutionary war in- forms the war-managers today as it did over thirty years ago, and since the same organizational dynamics characterize to- day�s military, the redeployment of Technowar can only result in another massive defeat. To finally understand the American defeat in Vietnam is to understand how the United States both created and became entrapped by a mythology and a war- production system. And with such understanding, changing the war system and mythology, and creating a more complex, humane, vision of the world, become compelling obligations.

The Perfect War: Technowar in Vietnam
By James William Gibson

# ? Jan 7, 2020 04:07

Pener Kropoopkin: Jan 30, 2013; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS
(and can't post for 28 days!)

https://twitter.com/NTarnopolsky/status/1214247277096779779?s=20

# ? Jan 7, 2020 04:08

SpaceGoku: Jul 19, 2011

the confidence that the US would easily win an invasion into iran is weird to me

for the past 50 years we've mostly used our military to crush countries that were 30 years behind the US in military technology, or worse

generally the countries we bullied didn't have air forces or the much in the way of anti-air letting us yeehaw in for bombing runs and aerial support unmolested

on top of that most of our actions have had some kind of coalition support, material or logistical, we've been doing the equivalent of 7v1 comp stomp in starcraft, on easy mode, and we're still failing to accomplish any meaningful strategic goals

the actual ability of the US military to fight someone that's remotely close to it in technology and equipment hasn't been tested in a long time

iran would be that test

# ? Jan 7, 2020 04:08

Raskolnikov38: Mar 3, 2007; We were somewhere around Manila when the drugs began to take hold

sum posted:

You know the reason the US didn't invade North Vietnam was because they didn't want to trigger a Chinese intervention right? Like it's not because they couldn't beat the North Vietnamese military.

I'm not arguing that the US could "win" an occupation of Iran, that's absurd. I'm saying that, in a conventional war and invasion, the US would beat Iran, and probably pretty easily.

any invasion of iran is going to depend on helicopters and sea transport. the former will have to transverse hundreds of miles of mountains hiding MANPAD equipped troops while the latter will have to deal with missile spam from the entire coastline. any invasion force that manages to land, and they will have to land because no one is going to us a land base ala the KSA in 1991, will get bogged down in the mountains half way to tehran. conquering iran will entail a blood price so high that even if we did conquer it, America would dissolve in civil unrest

# ? Jan 7, 2020 04:09

Atrocious Joe: Sep 2, 2011

https://twitter.com/Ahmedzehzeeh222/status/1214282537092165633

This is going around, claiming Iraqi PM Adil Abdul-Mahdi made a speech saying that the US provoked protests in the country and attacked Soleimani because Iraq signed a reconstruction deal with China

take it with a grain of salt

China is Iraq's biggest trade partner, and they did sign a "oil for reconstruction" deal in October after Mahdi visited China in September.

# ? Jan 7, 2020 04:10

Feldegast42: Oct 29, 2011; COMMENCE THE RITE OF SHITPOSTING

sum posted:

The US's going-on-two-decades of constant low level warfare have unprepared it for the rigors of real war. Iran's heavily sanctioned, mostly conscripted military that hasn't fought a conventional war in 30 years and is still driving around Chieftans from the 70s is certain to beat it.

If you are so sure we are going to roll over them bud why don't you go enlist

Zedhe Khoja posted:

i blame total war and paradox games for this sort of thinking

Funny enough, in EU4 I basically recreated the British Empire (complete with conquering all of India) and I still got stomped by Persia in that game out of hubris when I invaded into Iran. Hell of a history lesson I guess.

Feldegast42 has issued a correction as of 04:18 on Jan 7, 2020

# ? Jan 7, 2020 04:10

Raccooon: Dec 5, 2009

US would need like 20 million+ troops for an invasion lol at thinking Americans are gonna go for that.

# ? Jan 7, 2020 04:10

Stringent: Dec 22, 2004; image text goes here

Raskolnikov38 posted:

any invasion of iran is going to depend on helicopters and sea transport. the former will have to transverse hundreds of miles of mountains hiding MANPAD equipped troops while the latter will have to deal with missile spam from the entire coastline. any invasion force that manages to land, and they will have to land because no one is going to us a land base ala the KSA in 1991, will get bogged down in the mountains half way to tehran. conquering iran will entail a blood price so high that even if we did conquer it, America would dissolve in civil unrest

Exactly. There isn't even a place an invasion could be staged from without taking critical losses, regardless of how the invasion itself would go.

# ? Jan 7, 2020 04:12

Raccooon: Dec 5, 2009

GOP found its way of stopping the Demo shift by having Gen Z wiped out in the mountains of Iran.

# ? Jan 7, 2020 04:13

CAPS LOCK BROKEN: Feb 1, 2006; by Fluffdaddy

SpaceGoku posted:

the confidence that the US would easily win an invasion into iran is weird to me

for the past 50 years we've mostly used our military to crush countries that were 30 years behind the US in military technology, or worse

generally the countries we bullied didn't have air forces or the much in the way of anti-air letting us yeehaw in for bombing runs and aerial support unmolested

on top of that most of our actions have had some kind of coalition support, material or logistical, we've been doing the equivalent of 7v1 comp stomp in starcraft, on easy mode, and we're still failing to accomplish any meaningful strategic goals

the actual ability of the US military to fight someone that's remotely close to it in technology and equipment hasn't been tested in a long time

iran would be that test

It's the poo poo that white americans have been conditioned from birth to believe uncritically that all they need to do is jump out of a helicopter, wave the US flag with their burly arms and the dusky hordes will see the error of their ways and surrender. no matter how many times that's been proven to be completely false hollywood primes american males to think that not only would the next war will be good, it will also be easy

# ? Jan 7, 2020 04:13

Grapplejack: Nov 27, 2007

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

https://twitter.com/NTarnopolsky/status/1214247277096779779?s=20

lol this was 100% Netanyahu's idea too and he's already running

# ? Jan 7, 2020 04:14

SpaceGoku: Jul 19, 2011

how much did it cost per gallon to get fuel to all the tanks in iraq/afghanistan at the peak of instability?

something like $150/gal or something

and that was via land transport you say?

hmm, troubling

# ? Jan 7, 2020 04:14

Raskolnikov38: Mar 3, 2007; We were somewhere around Manila when the drugs began to take hold

our 2 invasions of iraq could not have been easier unless saddam ordered all units to stand down the moment the first bomb hit baghdad

Gulf War: 10 years of war with iran have destroyed the morale of the Iraqi army and we have a secure border to launch the invasion from

2003: 10 years of bombing by the US military have prevented saddam from rebuilding his military to any effective degree and we have a secure border to launch the invasion from

we didn't even invade afghanistan. giving air support to the northern alliance allowed them to capture kabul before 2001 was over

# ? Jan 7, 2020 04:18

SpaceGoku: Jul 19, 2011

house to house fighting in fallujah was pretty sick right everyone had fun yeah

let's do it in five more cities each with a population of over 1 million (tehran has over 10 million people)

# ? Jan 7, 2020 04:20

sum: Nov 15, 2010

Feldegast42 posted:

If you are so sure we are going to roll over them bud why don't you go enlist

The US is a murderous empire that has killed millions and immiserated billions to prop up capitalism and its own hegemony around the globe. It also has a peerless military that would be the heavy favorites against any army on the planet. These are not contradictory statements dumbass

# ? Jan 7, 2020 04:21

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 31, 2024 11:25

Raskolnikov38: Mar 3, 2007; We were somewhere around Manila when the drugs began to take hold

really we've at war with iraq for about 96% of my life

# ? Jan 7, 2020 04:22

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > [Mideast + Africa] Getting rid of Bongo- but at what Brice?

«‹›587 »