War in Ukraine

#55,528
#55,528
NorthDallas40 said:
Yes it did Curly. The term shock and awe was credited to first use in the 1996 book of the same title was used to describe the doctrine of overwhelming force demonstrated in the 1991 Gulf War for which several examples of overwhelming force over time were also given. You’re wrong. Again.
Click to expand...
So you've read the book? Are you saying there are no other examples given in the book? If so please point us to the page number as a reference.

Also the Wikipedia reference mentioned nothing about Desert Storm.
 
#55,530
#55,530
Look at them fall over themselves arguing over a term and when it was popularized vs the overall strategy that was employed in 2003 Iraq vs 2022 Ukraine.
 
#55,532
#55,532
Rasputin_Vol said:
Look at them fall over themselves arguing over a term and when it was popularized vs the overall strategy that was employed in 2003 Iraq vs 2022 Ukraine.
Click to expand...
I think most of them are just trying their best to prove you wrong on something and make you admit it.
 
#55,533
#55,533
C/O said:
I think most of them are just trying their best to prove you wrong on something and make you admit it.
Click to expand...

I have no problem admitting when I am wrong. I misspelled a word. Sorry. But with regards to the substance of what I have been saying, you saw for yourself that they confirmed what my original argument was.

They would rather argue semantics and minutia over the real issues.
 
#55,534
#55,534
Rasputin_Vol said:
Look at them fall over themselves arguing over a term and when it was popularized vs the overall strategy that was employed in 2003 Iraq vs 2022 Ukraine.
Click to expand...
I notice these trolls do things like this anytime someone posts something effectively challenging their messaging. Instead of watching videos or links we post they become fixated with the personal attacks that proceed to take up 2 to 3 pages of this thread. Which proves some of them are nothing but trolls.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol
#55,536
#55,536
Rasputin_Vol said:
I have no problem admitting when I am wrong. I misspelled a word. Sorry. But with regards to the substance of what I have been saying, you saw for yourself that they confirmed what my original argument was.

They would rather argue semantics and minutia over the real issues.
Click to expand...
It’s hard to argue with a person whose fallback position is that it’s always the US’ fault and that Russia is the victim here.

I said in the early stages that Russia isn’t fighting to win. If that were the case, there’d be no news coming out of Ukraine that wasn’t first vetted by the Kremlin. Russia would be in complete control of daily life in Ukraine and Zelensky would either be dead or in exile and a Vichy government of sorts would be in Kiev.

They could have done that in a month. But here we are, still waiting for these 300 thousand Russian badasses that appear to be as mythical as the Ghost of Kiev.

I know. But NATO!
 
  • Like
Reactions: norrislakevol, tvolsfan, 615vols and 1 other person
#55,537
#55,537
DonjoVol said:
So you've read the book? Are you saying there are no other examples given in the book? If so please point us to the page number as a reference.

Also the Wikipedia reference mentioned nothing about Desert Storm.
Click to expand...
I skimmed to today yes. And yes it references Desert Storm. Feel free to go back to the Forbes article I linked a couple of pages ago referencing the book. You’ll love it the author says he expected Russia to not invade as the Forbes article was from Feb 2022.

This study was written as a result of the results from Desert Storm to extrapolate the US doctrine to 21 century near peer conflicts. Iraq was not a near peer. The author interviewed is credited with coining the term shock and awe to describe the doctrines applied over the years. It is the title of chapter 2 I believe. So yes the term is tied to an analysis resulting from the US doctrine used in Desert Storm

You’re welcome. Now go read Curly!
 
Last edited:
#55,538
#55,538
Rasputin_Vol said:
Look at them fall over themselves arguing over a term and when it was popularized vs the overall strategy that was employed in 2003 Iraq vs 2022 Ukraine.
Click to expand...
You’re the one dragging it out. You and your accomplice stooge. You could have just left it at you being wrong in your reply to MG. That’s on you
 
#55,540
#55,540
NorthDallas40 said:
I skimmed to today yes. And yes it references Desert Storm. Feel free to go back to the Forbes article I linked a couple of pages ago referencing the book. You’ll love it the author says he expected Russia to not invade as the Forbes article was from Feb 2022.

This study was written as a result of the results from Desert Storm to extrapolate the US doctrine to 21 century near peer conflicts. Iraq was not a near peer. The author interviewed is credited with coining the term shock and awe to describe the doctrines applied over the years. It is the title of chapter 2 I believe. So yes the term is tied to an analysis resulting from the US doctrine used in Desert Storm

You’re welcome. Now go read Curly!
Click to expand...
It's funny. Because no description that I have read of the book says it's an analysis of Desert Storm, written as a result of Desert Storm nor do they say Desert Storm was the first use of "shock and awe".

I'll be happy to read the book if you and others do. We can even start the VNPF Book Club thread and that can be the first book we read and review. What do you say Proctor?
 
#55,541
#55,541
DonjoVol said:
It's funny. Because no description that I have read of the book says it's an analysis of Desert Storm, written as a result of Desert Storm nor do they say Desert Storm was the first use of "shock and awe".

I'll be happy to read the book if you and others do. We can even start the VNPF Book Club thread and that can be the first book we read and review. What do you say Proctor?
Click to expand...
I don’t need to. I’ve already absorbed its message. You and Moe probably should read it though as you’re using it just as the author points out it was so widely misused from 2003 onward.

Shock and awe wasn’t illustrated in say the battle of 73 Easting. It was instead all of the activity leading up to encounters such as 73 Easting. It is the focused unrelenting attacks on the opponents ability to wage war. FOCUSED. Shock and awe setup the dominance achieved in 73 Easting and other battles. Not the idiotic claim you fellow comrade made of mass civilian casualties resulting from US shock and awe tactics.

That is where this all started. Your fellow home boy incorrectly ran his mouth again and @MG1968 correctly set him straight. I believe he used the example of the carpet bombings of Dresden as what your homie was incorrectly claiming and instead correctly pointed out it was specific targeting, focused, relentless attacks on actual military targets. Not the continual attacks against civilian housing that your fellow comrades are doing daily. And since MG’s correction Moe has been deflecting away from his idiotic fast and loose usage of terminology again for exaggeration purposes.

Thus endeth the lesson.
 
#55,542
#55,542
MG1968 said:
I said in the early stages that Russia isn’t fighting to win. If that were the case, there’d be no news coming out of Ukraine that wasn’t first vetted by the Kremlin. Russia would be in complete control of daily life in Ukraine and Zelensky would either be dead or in exile and a Vichy government of sorts would be in Kiev.
Click to expand...
No, they were not fighting to grab land outside of liberating Donbas. Again, if Russia was hellbent on expanding territory, they had the perfect opportunity 6 weeks earlier in Kazakhstan.
 
#55,550
#55,550
MontyPython said:
To our resident Putin punks, one word for you:

Navalny
Click to expand...
If it looks like Putin’s dictatorship is about to fall I think they’ll kill Navalny to prevent him from stoking opposition to whatever the new regime is. Navalny and anyone else who could provide significant opposition leadership.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top