Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Obama the golphing presidentFollow

#77 Oct 26 2009 at 10:40 PM Rating: Good
Good point.

Although I think in the case of the minutemen, not having a ******* stupid strategy of wearing bright red coats in open landscape and marching in formation helped them a lot more. The guns owned by the Brits and the patriots were both pretty rudimentary and had bayonets on the end in case they missed, I believe.
#78 Oct 27 2009 at 1:09 AM Rating: Good
***
3,829 posts
catwho, pet mage of Jabober wrote:
Good point.

Although I think in the case of the minutemen, not having a @#%^ing stupid strategy of wearing bright red coats in open landscape and marching in formation helped them a lot more. The guns owned by the Brits and the patriots were both pretty rudimentary and had bayonets on the end in case they missed, I believe.


The not marching in formation was kinda what I was getting at, though I really didn't have time to type it out fully (and besides, I was trying to be pithy.)

The thing that made the VC--and the American revolutionaries--so successful was their willingness to use guerrilla tactics. All the technology in the world isn't gonna save you from someone fully willing to snipe your *** from the bushes.
#79 Oct 27 2009 at 4:33 AM Rating: Good
ManifestOfKujata wrote:
Dude, that doesnt even make sense. There isnt even a logical link that any sane person could follow there. Are you just throwing out conservative buzz phrases - freedom, communist, democrat, etc - in the hopes that some bafoon will agree with your second point about social services - one that hat has NOTHING to do with terrorists in the middle east - and hope they will accept your first point through association?


Hmm, I see you've never met Varrus before. ManifestOfKujata, this is Varrus. Varrus, stop chewing on the doorknob and come meet our new friend.

Anyway, I'm quite glad the Communists are back as the scapegoat of the far-right. It's always sad to see a good baddie go. Say what you want about the Muslim terrorists or the Chinese computer hackers, they always lacked the complete sense of doom and terror that Communists brought along with them.

Because Communists aren't just about setting one bomb here or there, or infitrating some silly computer no one has access to anyway. No, they're in it for the long-haul, they want complete world domination, through sleeper agents, and mind-control mechanisms, and no one can ever be sure if someone is a communist or not, cos they don't have slit eyes or a bushy beard.

♪♪ Arise ye workers from your slumbers
Arise ye prisoners of want
For reason in revolt now thunders
And at last ends the age of cant.
Away with all your superstitions
Servile masses arise, arise
We'll change henceforth the old tradition
And spurn the dust to win the prize.

So comrades, come rally
And the last fight let us face
The Internationale unites the human race. ♪♪
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#80 Oct 27 2009 at 4:55 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,359 posts
Phoenix wrote:
Anyway, I'm quite glad the Communists are back as the scapegoat of the far-right. It's always sad to see a good baddie go. Say what you want about the Muslim terrorists or the Chinese computer hackers, they always lacked the complete sense of doom and terror that Communists brought along with them.


NOT EVEN STAIRS!


Phoenix wrote:
No, they're in it for the long-haul, they want complete world domination, through sleeper agents, and mind-control mechanisms, and no one can ever be sure if someone is a communist or not, cos they don't have slit eyes or a bushy beard.


It's a party!
#81 Oct 27 2009 at 5:43 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
catwho, pet mage of Jabober wrote:
He's a troll.
In the loosest sense of the term, maybe.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#82 Oct 27 2009 at 6:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Ambrya wrote:
catwho, pet mage of Jabober wrote:
Although I think in the case of the minutemen, not having a @#%^ing stupid strategy of wearing bright red coats in open landscape and marching in formation helped them a lot more. The guns owned by the Brits and the patriots were both pretty rudimentary and had bayonets on the end in case they missed, I believe.
The not marching in formation was kinda what I was getting at, though I really didn't have time to type it out fully (and besides, I was trying to be pithy.)

The Colonial armies did march in formation and used volley-fire from muskets. They just didn't do so exclusively. And I suppose they wore blue instead of red.

Really, what won the Revlutionary War was Britain having its best troops in France and ranking the colonial affair as a lower priority than the European conflict. Had they sent their full force to the colonies, we'd all be part of Greater Canada or something today. There were enough points where Washington was close to losing the thing that a slight tip in power would have ended it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#83 Oct 27 2009 at 6:32 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Had they sent their full force to the colonies, we'd all be part of Greater Canada or something today.
Fucking Brits ruin everything.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#84 Oct 27 2009 at 6:52 AM Rating: Decent
Jophiel wrote:
The Colonial armies did march in formation and used volley-fire from muskets. They just didn't do so exclusively. And I suppose they wore blue instead of red.

Really, what won the Revlutionary War was Britain having its best troops in France and ranking the colonial affair as a lower priority than the European conflict. Had they sent their full force to the colonies, we'd all be part of Greater Canada or something today. There were enough points where Washington was close to losing the thing that a slight tip in power would have ended it.


And the world would be a better place.
#85 Oct 27 2009 at 7:26 AM Rating: Default
***
1,137 posts
Kavekk wrote:
Kujo wrote:
Training and sacrifice does not win wars, and it NEVER has. The guy who wins is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS the guy that has better technology available.


You're one stupid motherfucker, ain't ya? Have you ever read a history book in your entire fucking life?


Yes, I have. And I know whites were out numbered Native Americans 10 to 1 but still somehow drove the indigenous people of North America to the brink of extinction primarily with their technology. Oh, and when the Native people figured out a strategy to wait for the bullet to be fired and then charge smaller troops (when bullets had to be loaded singularly), the revolver was invented and literally mowed them down.

I know the Spanish conquered the entire South American continent with a handful of men, and they did it to the Aztecs - who at the time held one of the largest empires and were known for being excellent in battle (they even picked wars with smaller civiliations just to keep their armies battle ready).

I know the English - a very small country but with vastly superior Navy than anyone else - was able to conquer India AND the entire continent of Australia. And large parts of North America and Africa.

I know the North won the Civil War, even though the South had the better trained generals and overall better strategy.

I know that Germany was VERY close to perfecting the atomic bomb, and if they had done it before us, WWII may have ended differently.

I know of many smaller wars in medieval Europe because people used axes vs swords and shields, and then the defeated came back with longbows and wiped the initial victors out.

I know that Israel - while they have highly trained troops - would never be able to hold their own if it wasnt for their tanks and planes vs the muslim world's soviet era broken-down equipment; and Israel is feared - in part - due to them having nukes and no one arond them having that technology.

Unless there is an overwhelming amount of troops, technology (and in modern times, a way to finance that technology) ALWAYS trumps strategy and bravery - and even with an overwhelming amount of troops its questionable.

Have you read a history book?


Edited, Oct 27th 2009 9:36am by ManifestOfKujata
#86 Oct 27 2009 at 7:31 AM Rating: Good
ManifestOfKujata wrote:
Yes, I have. And I know whites were out numbered Native Americans 10 to 1 but still somehow drove the indigenous people of North America to the brink of extinction primarily with their technology. Oh, and when the Native people figured out a strategy to wait for the bullet to be fired and then charge smaller troops (when bullets had to be loaded singularly), the revolver was invented and literally mowed them down.

I know the Spanish conquered the entire South American continent with a handful of men.


Those two are horrible examples since most of the exterminations in question were done through germs, rather than guns.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#87 Oct 27 2009 at 7:34 AM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
Hey dude?

"ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS" is not the same as "often a very important factor"
#88 Oct 27 2009 at 7:46 AM Rating: Decent
***
1,137 posts
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
ManifestOfKujata wrote:
Yes, I have. And I know whites were out numbered Native Americans 10 to 1 but still somehow drove the indigenous people of North America to the brink of extinction primarily with their technology. Oh, and when the Native people figured out a strategy to wait for the bullet to be fired and then charge smaller troops (when bullets had to be loaded singularly), the revolver was invented and literally mowed them down.

I know the Spanish conquered the entire South American continent with a handful of men.


Those two are horrible examples since most of the exterminations in question were done through germs, rather than guns.


Not really. The Spanish conquest began in 1519 and ended successfully in 1521. Two years is too short for any germ warfare strategy to take hold.

As for the germ-infested blanket scheme....while that was devistating, it certainly wasnt the main factor. There were many battles between the American forces and healthy, war-ready Native Americans and the Native Americans were slaughtered in every battle. Outside of Custer of course, but then again, he was grossly outnumbered.

Brining it back to the main point, in the instance of Americans in the Middle East, America is winning primarily due to our technology. Its very difficult to invade and occupy a foreign land when you are heavily outnumbered unless you have superior technology.

When I say "winning", I mean for the meantime - as soon as we leave things will go back to how it was. That is not to say we cant "win," but all we can do is just manage the terrorists as long as we are physically there. The only way we can "win" is by the people of Afganistan, Iraq, and all of the other countries getting tired of being ruled by the terrorist and taking a stand against them, and then convincing the people that America wants to them to be happy - although this will be tough, as the American people truly want this, but there are American businesses that are ******** with the middle east, and that is what the people of the middle east see. That is the only true way to route out the terrorists for the forseeable future without maintaining American forces there.


Edited, Oct 27th 2009 10:00am by ManifestOfKujata
#89 Oct 27 2009 at 8:01 AM Rating: Good
ManifestOfKujata wrote:
Not really. The Spanish conquest began in 1519 and ended successfully in 1521. Two years is too short for any germ warfare strategy to take hold.


Not really. Germs don't wait for an official declaration of war before spreading.

Anyway, I don't dispute the importance of technology in warfare. But reducing all the military victory to one single factor will always lead to accusations of simplification, and rightly so in my opinion.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#90 Oct 27 2009 at 8:07 AM Rating: Good
Quote:
Have you read a history book?


Yes, imbecile. I can't honestly believe you are stupid enough to stick with this. The victor of a war is decided by a complex mix of interrelated factors of which technology is but one. In the case of the Spanish, diplomacy and subversion were larger factors than technology. Gunpowder weapons weren't anywhere near good enough for a few hundred men to take on the Aztec empire at that point. Most of the early **** victories were due to risky strategies that paid off and the extreme effectiveness of Blitzkrieg tactics before people figured out what the things called anti tank guns were for.

Anyway, I guess what I'm trying to say is that you should never post about this again.
#91 Oct 27 2009 at 8:14 AM Rating: Default
***
1,137 posts
hmmm, of course there are other factors that can help speed things up. I really cant think of any instance where someone had superior technology and lost. I am being honest here (no sarcasm), can anyone think of a time when someone had the technology behind them and lost (and it wasnt due to the case I mentioned, just an overwhelming amount of opposing troops).

I saw someone mentioned the Vietnam war, but.....really, the Chinese (and to a very small extent) the Russians sent troops as well, and they supplied North Vietnam with arms - which was on par (at the time) with America's arms, so in that war technology was somewhat nullified by both sides having comparable weapons. In that instance, it was probably troop numbers (and homeland advantage) that won it for the North Vietnamese.
#92 Oct 27 2009 at 8:19 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Afghanistan repelled Russia in the '80s.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#93 Oct 27 2009 at 8:23 AM Rating: Decent
***
1,137 posts
Kavekk wrote:
Quote:
Have you read a history book?


Yes, imbecile.


I just took offense to how you were nasty towards me. If you disagree with me fine - post it, tell me where I am wrong, but no need to be a total douche.

I had had a few spats with Varus in the past and in every instance - before I jumped on him - he just brings out the guns and accuses me of being Anti-American, godless, communist, whatever, so I am always willing to return the favor. He is a self-righteous douche, and I expect that from him. But you? I dont know you from Adam, and you come out of the gate and just offer a one liner insulting me without giving any kind of "hey, I disagree with you because of X, Y, and Z." At least Phoenix had that courtesy and guess what? Through his posting I can see that maybe, I was a bit too over the top with it.

Your posts though were just insulting out of the gate and you are being just a big of a douche as Varus. At the very least he attempts to have a civilized conversation before he attacks.

Would it be fair of me to lump you in with him?

Edited, Oct 27th 2009 10:27am by ManifestOfKujata
#94 Oct 27 2009 at 8:24 AM Rating: Default
***
1,137 posts
Samira wrote:
Afghanistan repelled Russia in the '80s.




Yes, that was Russia's vietnam. We actually supplied the rebels (bin laden) with arms though :(
#95 Oct 27 2009 at 8:27 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
ManifestOfKujata wrote:
hmmm, of course there are other factors that can help speed things up. I really cant think of any instance where someone had superior technology and lost. I am being honest here (no sarcasm), can anyone think of a time when someone had the technology behind them and lost (and it wasnt due to the case I mentioned, just an overwhelming amount of opposing troops).
Napoleon lost to England, more specifically, Welsley, despite more troops and better technology. He lost out to better training and superior tactics.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#96 Oct 27 2009 at 8:28 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
ManifestOfKujata wrote:
Samira wrote:
Afghanistan repelled Russia in the '80s.




Yes, that was Russia's vietnam. We actually supplied the rebels (bin laden) with arms though :(


Guns are not the whole story. Like the Vietnamese they lacked heavy artillery and air cover. Russia had both. The U.S. had both in Vietnam.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#97 Oct 27 2009 at 8:33 AM Rating: Good
***
3,829 posts
ManifestOfKujata wrote:
Varus. At the very least he attempts to have a civilized conversation before he attacks.


What?

Smiley: lol
Smiley: lol
Smiley: lol

Oh, man, I may have pulled something laughing so hard. Dude, you really don't have a clue.
#98 Oct 27 2009 at 8:37 AM Rating: Decent
***
1,137 posts
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
ManifestOfKujata wrote:
hmmm, of course there are other factors that can help speed things up. I really cant think of any instance where someone had superior technology and lost. I am being honest here (no sarcasm), can anyone think of a time when someone had the technology behind them and lost (and it wasnt due to the case I mentioned, just an overwhelming amount of opposing troops).
Napoleon lost to England, more specifically, Welsley, despite more troops and better technology. He lost out to better training and superior tactics.


Hmm, I was under the impression that he lost to Russia due to him attacking Russia during the winter, and it was his undoing.

Which I guess has less to do with Russian technology and relies moreso on Napoleon's general idiocy of not being prepared.
#99 Oct 27 2009 at 8:38 AM Rating: Good
ManifestOfKujata wrote:
At least Phoenix had that courtesy


That's only because I'm getting old. Had this been 6 months ago, I probably would've insulted you too. This is the Asylum after all.

Anyway, Afghanistan is a good exemple. There are others. Iran in the Iraq-Iran war. Or Algeria in their war of independence, just to name a couple.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#100 Oct 27 2009 at 8:38 AM Rating: Good
***
1,137 posts
Ambrya wrote:
ManifestOfKujata wrote:
Varus. At the very least he attempts to have a civilized conversation before he attacks.


What?

Smiley: lol
Smiley: lol
Smiley: lol

Oh, man, I may have pulled something laughing so hard. Dude, you really don't have a clue.


Ok, what I meant was he feigns an intelligent conversation. Maybe it was a mistake to say he tries to have one, lol.
#101 Oct 27 2009 at 8:40 AM Rating: Good
ManifestOfKujata wrote:
Which I guess has less to do with Russian technology and relies moreso on Napoleon's general idiocy of not being prepared.


No, it was more down to Napoleon being too confident because he had the better technology. It's a common mistake to make. Hitler did it. And so did you Smiley: wink
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 316 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (316)