Ukrainian military managed to invade Russian land. Hundred thousands of Russians had to be evacuated. Russia managed to defeat the powerful Nazi army, against military from all Europe. But can't defeat the tiny Ukrainian army. This looks so fake that is unfuckingbelievable.
You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
1
PraiseBeToScience on scored.co
1 year ago1 point(+0/-0/+1Score on mirror)1 child
The US didn't lose, it simply didn't try to win. There's a very important distinction there.
If the US set out to truly conquer Afghanistan it wouldn't have done this hearts and minds shit or tried to install an Afghan government or played nice with them hiding in Mosques.
Every single step of the war there the US played it with kids gloves. See an HVT from an MQ-9? Inside the GCS stands literally CIA agents and LOAC experts and they need to index and cross reference and then make phone calls and then wait and maybe eventually sort of get authorization to strike.
If you didn't notice all innovations in US weapon technology have all been focused around increasingly accurate low yield weapons, even down to no-yield kinetic missiles.
If the US actually wanted to wipe out the Taliban it could have done what Russia did to Grozny but a thousand times more. But the public are pussies and have no taste for blood so they would've shrieked and wept and faggot liberals would've moaned and whined.
For fucks sake it took like 16 years before we even used a single one of the MOABs we made that were just rotting in a bunker.
That's what happens when you let women vote. Men *understand* war, women are weepy crybabies because they never have to fight. They literally believe retarded shit like 'if women were in charge there'd never be a war again'.
So you get into an ugly war and women whine and cry and protest and politicians lose their jobs.
The West now fights with values its enemies will not. For all of European history you would win by inflicting such staggering losses on the enemy that they had no choice but the surrender for fear of their annihilation. You'd starve them to death in their fortresses, or just smash their stuff to pieces. You utterly crush the morale and minds of your enemy and they will refuse to fight, and you break the spirit of their leaders who have their hearts torn asunder by what they're seeing.
u/vlad_the_impaler knows what I'm talking about.
In World War 2 that was the strategy - you blow up everything. Either the enemy all dies or they surrender.
Now we try to fight "nice" wars, and that even includes Vietnam. The US tied both its hands and one foot behind its back with retarded policies aimed at being 'nice'. Can't bomb airfields in Cambodia or Laos that the NVA are using. Can't strike supply lines from China. Can't engage targets without visual confirmation first, including in air combat which is retarded.
Case in point for Vietnam, look up Operation Linebacker II. In the last days of the war the US *finally* let the USAF off the leash and actually fought a real war for a change, in an attempt to force the NVA negotiations into a more favorable position. An enormous raid of B-52s that just dumped a fuckton of bombs on everything they could.
It's what the US should've done from the start if it actually intended to "win" Vietnam - dump tens of thousands of bombs on all their cities. Smoldering pieces of women and children spattered in a billion tons of rubble. If they kill one of ours, we massacre 10,000 of theirs. An unstoppable wave of annihilation with zero regard for anything. Flatten Hanoi with a nuke.
My favorite Air Force general, Curtis LeMay:
>"They've got to draw in their horns and stop their aggression, or we're going to bomb them back into the Stone Age. And we would shove them back into the Stone Age with Air power or Naval power—not with ground forces."
They ignored his advice until the very end but it was too late to change anything.
The US had a war machine capable of churning out thousands of fighter aircraft a year. So think about it this way - what if instead of losing 10,000 Army soldiers, you committed to losing 10,000 *PILOTS?*
When you send in soldiers, you may lose 150 to take one stupid hill. One soldier is totally inconsequential and ineffective. One *pilot*, however, can do tremendous damage before he is shot down. Marines can/will be thrown into emplaced defenses expecting losses, so why not treat the airwar like that?
But instead they had fanciful ideas of fighting a ground war in ridiculously difficult terrain and suffered terribly for it.
The US campaign in Iraq was an incredible success tactically and strategically. In one night the Air Force destroyed basically every airfield, ammo cache, fuel depot, barracks, and C2 facility and effortlessly drove into Iraq.
The problem is that the US no longer understands that you can't win a war by just breaking equipment, you need to kill people. The US didn't kill the Iraqis, so they started an insurgency. Instead of tracking down and executing all the Baath loyalists they let them go, and they went and formed ISIS.
Killing your enemies literally always solves all your problems, and always has.
If the US set out to truly conquer Afghanistan it wouldn't have done this hearts and minds shit or tried to install an Afghan government or played nice with them hiding in Mosques.
Every single step of the war there the US played it with kids gloves. See an HVT from an MQ-9? Inside the GCS stands literally CIA agents and LOAC experts and they need to index and cross reference and then make phone calls and then wait and maybe eventually sort of get authorization to strike.
If you didn't notice all innovations in US weapon technology have all been focused around increasingly accurate low yield weapons, even down to no-yield kinetic missiles.
If the US actually wanted to wipe out the Taliban it could have done what Russia did to Grozny but a thousand times more. But the public are pussies and have no taste for blood so they would've shrieked and wept and faggot liberals would've moaned and whined.
For fucks sake it took like 16 years before we even used a single one of the MOABs we made that were just rotting in a bunker.
Our defeat is an embarrassment to our ancestors, our military, and our posterity.
We have no will to win.
So you get into an ugly war and women whine and cry and protest and politicians lose their jobs.
The West now fights with values its enemies will not. For all of European history you would win by inflicting such staggering losses on the enemy that they had no choice but the surrender for fear of their annihilation. You'd starve them to death in their fortresses, or just smash their stuff to pieces. You utterly crush the morale and minds of your enemy and they will refuse to fight, and you break the spirit of their leaders who have their hearts torn asunder by what they're seeing.
u/vlad_the_impaler knows what I'm talking about.
In World War 2 that was the strategy - you blow up everything. Either the enemy all dies or they surrender.
Now we try to fight "nice" wars, and that even includes Vietnam. The US tied both its hands and one foot behind its back with retarded policies aimed at being 'nice'. Can't bomb airfields in Cambodia or Laos that the NVA are using. Can't strike supply lines from China. Can't engage targets without visual confirmation first, including in air combat which is retarded.
Case in point for Vietnam, look up Operation Linebacker II. In the last days of the war the US *finally* let the USAF off the leash and actually fought a real war for a change, in an attempt to force the NVA negotiations into a more favorable position. An enormous raid of B-52s that just dumped a fuckton of bombs on everything they could.
It's what the US should've done from the start if it actually intended to "win" Vietnam - dump tens of thousands of bombs on all their cities. Smoldering pieces of women and children spattered in a billion tons of rubble. If they kill one of ours, we massacre 10,000 of theirs. An unstoppable wave of annihilation with zero regard for anything. Flatten Hanoi with a nuke.
My favorite Air Force general, Curtis LeMay:
>"They've got to draw in their horns and stop their aggression, or we're going to bomb them back into the Stone Age. And we would shove them back into the Stone Age with Air power or Naval power—not with ground forces."
They ignored his advice until the very end but it was too late to change anything.
The US had a war machine capable of churning out thousands of fighter aircraft a year. So think about it this way - what if instead of losing 10,000 Army soldiers, you committed to losing 10,000 *PILOTS?*
When you send in soldiers, you may lose 150 to take one stupid hill. One soldier is totally inconsequential and ineffective. One *pilot*, however, can do tremendous damage before he is shot down. Marines can/will be thrown into emplaced defenses expecting losses, so why not treat the airwar like that?
But instead they had fanciful ideas of fighting a ground war in ridiculously difficult terrain and suffered terribly for it.
The US campaign in Iraq was an incredible success tactically and strategically. In one night the Air Force destroyed basically every airfield, ammo cache, fuel depot, barracks, and C2 facility and effortlessly drove into Iraq.
The problem is that the US no longer understands that you can't win a war by just breaking equipment, you need to kill people. The US didn't kill the Iraqis, so they started an insurgency. Instead of tracking down and executing all the Baath loyalists they let them go, and they went and formed ISIS.
Killing your enemies literally always solves all your problems, and always has.