War in Ukraine

#68,152
#68,152
vols40 said:
No disrespect at all because if you are currently serving I am the last person you should concern yourself with as it relates to respect for military. With that said in a hypothetical one on one between Jocko Willink and @SayUWantAreVOLution

I'm going with Jocko. Again with all due respect
Click to expand...
Captain Run-On, "P"rivate "S"chool probably should have taught you about punctuation. Somebody wasted some money.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BeardedVol
#68,153
#68,153
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
There are more halfway trained civilians for sure but I've had a little jujitsu training but I'm not ready walk up to a Gracie trained instructor who makes his living training and say.... "There's a lot more self trained jujitsu civilians than instructors."

It's just disrespectful.
Click to expand...

That movie sucked.
 
#68,156
#68,156
KB5252 said:
What the hell happened to this thread? We were talking about the invasion of Ukraine .......... Now it's some weird pissing contest.....


Can we just get back to roasting Ras again?
Click to expand...

Looks like a couple of newbies have driven it into a ditch. Both of them seem a bit high on themselves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KB5252
#68,159
#68,159
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
China is playing the long game economically, as they have for a long time. They saw the USSR bankrupt itself, essentially, trying to keep up with Reagan's defense initiatives. When Russia could no longer maintain their expenses in the Bloc nations, they lost their strangle hold socially and it crumbled.

Putin's vision is to rebuild that as much as is slowly sustainable but his ground forces and military leadership is trash. His only hope to gain power in the region is that we'll ignore him. In my opinion it's better to expose him in Ukraine than wait until he gets to a NATO country. It REALLY weakens Russia on the world stage that he seemingly can't even make big ground gains in Ukraine. He's weak enough now that he is posturing with nukes. Threatening nukes is not a strong leader's move.

China, as previously, sits back and makes money and steals intellectual property. They just ignore us when we tell them they can't develop the South China Sea. They ignore us when we tell them to stop bullying Taiwan. They've been investing and establishing connections and goodwill by building infrastructure in Africa for decades.

China is ruthless. They will control their people regardless of cities with awful air quality and working conditions. They really don't care about today nor about their citizens. They care only about survival long term. That's a formidable enemy especially for the "I want results now" culture America promotes.
Click to expand...
its happening to Russia to. Those gas deals with China are going to bite them in the butts.

Mass Fighting Breaks Out At Giant Russian Gas Field | OilPrice.com

Russia will struggle to meet the goal, and incidents like this won't help. Pretty telling the manufacturing giant of Russia has to bring in its own cheap labor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and Hunerwadel
#68,160
#68,160
  • Like
Reactions: vols40
#68,161
#68,161
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
😂😂😂😂 No, I'm old and realistic. I no longer have to posture that citizens who don't train intensely for combat are going to be in any way successful against better armed, more disciplined, regularly trained professional soldiers.

It's obvious you're still in the "posturing" phase.
Click to expand...
say that to the Afghans, the Vietnamese, you can even go back to the Revolution, it wasn't the Continental Army defeating the redcoats on the field that changed the war.

Focusing down on an individual situation isn't the way to look at a broad scale conflict, like the invasion of a country. you have to look at it in the aggregate. and typical guerilla fight doesn't assume its one home owner defending his one home from direct assaults. Its a group within the community getting together, doing a hit and run, and melting back into the population. The 2A does a couple things with that. 1. It means people are armed, the US population has more guns than our military. 2. there is no formal/centralized control that can be corrupted/taken out. 3. this also makes it impossible to hunt down via a list one might have in another nation. 4. if you go searching door to door you are going to find more "innocent" people with guns, than guerilla fighters, which will tick off the locals and increase support for them. 5. it guarantees that no place is safe, the invader would never have a place to be safe, no where for them to put their back to something safe, having to defend everything all the time really means you are defending nothing.

Even the Chinese don't have the numbers to come in a deal with 100 million armed Americans, even if only a percentage of that is willing to take a shot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vols40 and AM64
#68,162
#68,162
hog88 said:
China is laughing at all of us.
Click to expand...
Its going to be more of the same.

China over promises what their contribution will do, or what the host country is capable of. They uphold their part of the bargain, and when the host nation inevitably fails, China ends up with a pretty sweet deal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#68,163
#68,163
FzxcZyiWwAAiLO5
 
#68,164
#68,164
LouderVol said:
say that to the Afghans, the Vietnamese, you can even go back to the Revolution, it wasn't the Continental Army defeating the redcoats on the field that changed the war.

Focusing down on an individual situation isn't the way to look at a broad scale conflict, like the invasion of a country. you have to look at it in the aggregate. and typical guerilla fight doesn't assume its one home owner defending his one home from direct assaults. Its a group within the community getting together, doing a hit and run, and melting back into the population. The 2A does a couple things with that. 1. It means people are armed, the US population has more guns than our military. 2. there is no formal/centralized control that can be corrupted/taken out. 3. this also makes it impossible to hunt down via a list one might have in another nation. 4. if you go searching door to door you are going to find more "innocent" people with guns, than guerilla fighters, which will tick off the locals and increase support for them. 5. it guarantees that no place is safe, the invader would never have a place to be safe, no where for them to put their back to something safe, having to defend everything all the time really means you are defending nothing.

Even the Chinese don't have the numbers to come in a deal with 100 million armed Americans, even if only a percentage of that is willing to take a shot.
Click to expand...
It's the equipment and organization. I've repeatedly said that. 100 million disorganized small arms aren't effective against missiles, tanks, etc.
 
#68,166
#68,166
hog88 said:
Might want to tell the Viet Cong that.
Click to expand...
Or insurgents we've seen in Mali. Afghanistan. Iraq. Syria. Everywhere.

Add to that the fact that the US has some of the roughest terrain in the world and a bunch of really motivated rednecks itching for a fight... logistics failures as I've said earlier...busted up supply chains that can't effectively support all the modern tech he's talking about en masse these days...

I'm not sure why this guy is on the military circlejerk.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vols40
#68,167
#68,167
LouderVol said:
its happening to Russia to. Those gas deals with China are going to bite them in the butts.

Mass Fighting Breaks Out At Giant Russian Gas Field | OilPrice.com

Russia will struggle to meet the goal, and incidents like this won't help. Pretty telling the manufacturing giant of Russia has to bring in its own cheap labor.
Click to expand...
China looks at Russia as their pawn since the USSR fell. Economically, they're nothing to China nor the US. With Russia, it's the nukes and Putin's foolishness with them that troubles me.

Putin is a menace to world peace when he spreads nukes to smaller satellite countries that Russia can't fully control. It's a recipe for a nuke to find its way to the very wrong hands and he pursues it in Belarus when that region is as unstable as it's been in decades.
 
#68,170
#68,170
ButchPlz said:
Or insurgents we've seen in Mali. Afghanistan. Iraq. Syria. Everywhere.

Add to that the fact that the US has some of the roughest terrain in the world and a bunch of really motivated rednecks itching for a fight... logistics failures as I've said earlier...busted up supply chains that can't effectively support all the modern tech he's talking about en masse these days...

I'm not sure why this guy is on the military circlejerk.
Click to expand...
So you're saying we don't control Iraq militarily? We do. Do we face IEDs and such? We do. Does it stop the mission? Just speed bumps, nothing more. Are you saying we don't have the military ability to control Iraq, if we desired? We do.

It remains. The equipment. I never said the military wouldn't face the continual harassment by civilians. I said they're professional fighters, organized, well trained, disciplined, practiced, and extremely well armed compared to civilians. They'll control what they want, if they want in America....... small arms, guerrilla tactics, terrain, etc be damned. It's their only job and they're the best in the world at it.
 
#68,171
#68,171
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
Might want to study history. Our hands were tied.
Click to expand...

After reading your posts, I would suggest you keep from ever suggesting that someone study history. You're lack of understanding is astounding.

Also, this all began with you claiming it was disrespectful to military members to suggest there are more well trained civilians than active duty combat troops. You even challenged me to tell a Marine that, like that's some taboo act. It's just simple math that there are more veterans than active duty combat troops, only about 20% of the military are combat arms so roughly 250-300k have combat MOSs. It is not disrespectful to point out the math and facts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vols40, ButchPlz, AM64 and 2 others
#68,172
#68,172
hog88 said:
After reading your posts, I would suggest you keep from ever suggesting that someone study history. You're lack of understanding is astounding.

Also, this all began with you claiming it was disrespectful to military members to suggest there are more well trained civilians than active duty combat troops. You even challenged me to tell a Marine that, like that's some taboo act. It's just simple math that there are more veterans than active duty combat troops, only about 20% of the military are combat arms so roughly 250-300k have combat MOSs. It is not disrespectful to point out the math and facts.
Click to expand...
It's suggesting that the veterans vs the Marines is anywhere near even that's your failure. The Marines STILL train for a living and with weapons and upgrades the civilians cannot have.

If it were one on five, who knows. Good soldiers have often won alone against substandard tactics and weapons. With the military, it's never one on five, however. When you can move your civilians as quickly and as efficiently as a military unit, get back to me.
 
#68,173
#68,173
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
It's the equipment and organization. I've repeatedly said that. 100 million disorganized small arms aren't effective against missiles, tanks, etc.
Click to expand...
which 100 million people you going to tomahawk? I don't think making 100 million people enemies of the state for exercising a right and thus worthy of liquidation by the military will sit too well with the remaining 230 million. Even if you assumed you got the 100 million at home in groups of 4, thats 25 million homes the US government would have to have cruise missiles, tanks, and trained squads to hit all at once to remove the threat. otherwise they are fighting a running war against guerillas who blend into the population and who wouldn't have a hard time using the military's own gear and strategy against itself. and that assumes the entire military structure is going to remain intact during a civil war incidence and that those remaining would be totally willing to strike innocent civilians.

how many of our vets now know how to handle IEDs? you don't need to blow a tank into a million pieces to take it out of a fight. planes have to land at some point, even drones to rearm/refuel, and they would have ground based operators.

it would not be the one-sided fight you think it would be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vols40, AM64 and ButchPlz
#68,174
#68,174
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
It's suggesting that the veterans vs the Marines is anywhere near even that's your failure. The Marines STILL train for a living and with weapons and upgrades the civilians cannot have.

If it were one on five, who knows. Good soldiers have often won alone against substandard tactics and weapons. With the military, it's never one on five, however. When you can move your civilians as quickly and as efficiently as a military unit, get back to me.
Click to expand...

Ok, you'd argue with a milepost. A complete waste of time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vols40 and Matt2496
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top