War in Ukraine

Oh we’re excellent at war. We kill better than near anybody in history has we are one of the most warlike people to ever walk the earth. We just suck at “winning the peace”.

I am pretty sure Afghanistan holds that distinction but we are a close second. They come out of the womb knowing how to shoot an RPG and AK-47
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
Precisely and that is the problem with many of the wars we have engaged in recent history, they were questionable at best and we didn't seem very interested in winning them militarily. War should always be last resort and should be fought to win. If they aren't a last resort and aren't fought to win then we have no business being in them.
The consideration will always be, once the war is over, what will be our position and standing.
Russia will win this war with Ukraine but will be the loser in standing and position. So they didn't really win at all.
 
I disagree with "we are excellent at war".
Eh you’re arguing semantics. When you put our military in contact with a combatant we will destroy them. We’re very good at that. All the fluff surrounding the “simple” part is what you’re capitalizing on 🤷‍♂️
 
Do you believe there should be rules of war?

If there were, who would be the all power that would make them? That would enforce them?

There are no rules of war but what the winners make after the conflict is over.

There is no morality between nation-states. God is the only judge and history is written by winners. To assume otherwise, that some "world body" of "governance" is to cede power to that organization, which only the weak will do, never the strong. If the strong associate, it is a pretense, so that they can use the organization to influence and control the weak for their own benefit - as we have done since Bretton Woods.

You can ask such questions because you really dont understand what it means to be in an existential war because you have the privilege of living within the cocoon of the USA. The one moment that feeling of safety was threatened by a relative few terrorists a world away most Americans were ready to carpet bomb 1/2 the world to eternity and gave up a ton of personal privacy and freedoms.

All of you should take the lessons of the Melian Dialogue to heart - I encourage you to read the whole page - As relates to the current conflict in the Ukraine, study also what happened to Melos after refusing the Athenian logic.

Athenians. For ourselves, we shall not trouble you with specious pretences- either of how we have a right to our empire because we overthrew the Mede, or are now attacking you because of wrong that you have done us- and make a long speech which would not be believed; and in return we hope that you, instead of thinking to influence us by saying that you did not join the Lacedaemonians, although their colonists, or that you have done us no wrong, will aim at what is feasible, holding in view the real sentiments of us both; since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
I disagree with "we are excellent at war".

I would agree. I believe America would excel at true "war" and overwhelming win, but we always seem to be fighting with one arm behind our backs. I don't believe civilians should pay the ultimate price for war like you seem to believe so some restraint is good. We just don't play to win recently with all of our RoE in our "military operations".
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and McDad
Eh you’re arguing semantics. When you put our military in contact with a combatant we will destroy them. We’re very good at that. All the fluff surrounding the “simple” part is what you’re capitalizing on 🤷‍♂️

Agreed, we definitely destroy those we are unleashed on.
 
Not anymore cringe worthy than anything else taken out of context and reported these days. I believe those numbers were for the entire Normandy campaign which lasted around 3 months (90 days vs the 14 or so days currently for Russia's campaign). Also, weapons/information were considerable less accurate almost 80 years ago. To even compare the 2 number is ignorant to begin with. Also, the entire world was at war then and people were dying all over the globe. To pull this one number out of that war is very misleading.

That was my point, they took it way out of context with a heck of a lot worse technology. That was the cringe worthy part
 
I would agree. I believe America would excel at true "war" and overwhelming win, but we always seem to be fighting with one arm behind our backs. I don't believe civilians should pay the ultimate price for war like you seem to believe so some restraint is good, but we just don't pay to win recently with all of our RoE in our "military operations".
We haven’t fought a war for our sovereign existence since WW2. But even not having our heart in it we still stack bodies pretty damn high. And our restraint normally gets our people killed not theirs.
 
That was my point, they took it way out of context with a heck of a lot worse technology. That was the cringe worthy part

Gotcha. Sorry, it is hard to determine which way to take some of the posts in this thread. Well, not Ras's, who is clearly for Russia.
 
Eh you’re arguing semantics. When you put our military in contact with a combatant we will destroy them. We’re very good at that. All the fluff surrounding the “simple” part is what you’re capitalizing on 🤷‍♂️
I don't think I am arguing semantics. America is very adept at destroying things. Destroying things is a component of war. But we don't define success of war as only destruction.
 
If there were, who would be the all power that would make them? That would enforce them?

There are no rules of war but what the winners make after the conflict is over.

There is no morality between nation-states. God is the only judge and history is written by winners. To assume otherwise, that some "world body" of "governance" is to cede power to that organization, which only the weak will do, never the strong. If the strong associate, it is a pretense, so that they can use the organization to influence and control the weak for their own benefit - as we have done since Bretton Woods.

You can ask such questions because you really dont understand what it means to be in an existential war because you have the privilege of living within the cocoon of the USA. The one moment that feeling of safety was threatened by a relative few terrorists a world away most Americans were ready to carpet bomb 1/2 the world to eternity and gave up a ton of personal privacy and freedoms.

All of you should take the lessons of the Melian Dialogue to heart - I encourage you to read the whole page - As relates to the current conflict in the Ukraine, study also what happened to Melos after refusing the Athenian logic.

Athenians. For ourselves, we shall not trouble you with specious pretences- either of how we have a right to our empire because we overthrew the Mede, or are now attacking you because of wrong that you have done us- and make a long speech which would not be believed; and in return we hope that you, instead of thinking to influence us by saying that you did not join the Lacedaemonians, although their colonists, or that you have done us no wrong, will aim at what is feasible, holding in view the real sentiments of us both; since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.
The world court.
And yes, there are rules of war, thus the term "war crimes".
Of course there is morality between nation states.
God?? lol....
"God", or more accurately the bastardization of "god", has actually been at the root of many of those wars.
 
I would agree. I believe America would excel at true "war" and overwhelming win, but we always seem to be fighting with one arm behind our backs. I don't believe civilians should pay the ultimate price for war like you seem to believe so some restraint is good. We just don't play to win recently with all of our RoE in our "military operations".

Civilian death, disease, discomfort is unfortunately a collateral to any war. I wouldn't pursue civilians if I were in charge of war unless it gave me a tactical advantage. Restraint is good. But war, isn't good. War isn't noble. War is death. War is destruction. War is hell. Landscapingvol said it the very best, if war is the last option and absolutely necessary, then it is worth winning as quickly as possible. To me, if it doesn't meet the justification, then war isn't necessary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gandalf
The world court.
And yes, there are rules of war, thus the term "war crimes".
Of course there is morality between nation states.
God?? lol....
"God", or more accurately the bastardization of "god", has actually been at the root of many of those wars.

Luther - this betrays some willful ignorance on your part. Setting aside God, who makes those rules of war? the winners of the past wars. The world court is only an apparatus of the winners of that war. Had the Axis won, such a thing would still exist but with their principles and for their benefit.

You can be sure that if China (or another nation or group of them) is able to grow strong enough to overthrow America's dominance, that your precious "world court" will be whatever they say it is. Consider the WHO now.

Moral good, if unmoored to religion, is 100% malleable to the dominant culture of the times. We are all a product of the past dominance of Greek, Roman and British culture.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MWR
I don't think I am arguing semantics. America is very adept at destroying things. Destroying things is a component of war. But we don't define success of war as only destruction.
I’m basically saying the same thing you are. Killing people and breaking things isn’t our problem. Getting the hell out and leaving whatever **** hole we just destroyed… again… in some serviceable fashion is our problem.
 

VN Store



Back
Top