Obama the golphing presidentFollow

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.

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. ♪♪

In the loosest sense of the term, maybe.

Fucking Brits ruin everything.

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

Hey dude?

"ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS" is not the same as "often a very important factor"

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.

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.

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

Napoleon lost to England, more specifically, Welsley, despite more troops and better technology. He lost out to better training and superior tactics.

What?





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

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.

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