Alan Watts on modern warfare
27 Oct 2010, 5:52 pm
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
If it is against Israel, then you're for it. If it is for Israel, then you are against it.
Nice bit of guesswork and assumption there. Utterly relevant, and accurate too. Also completely on-topic You should trademark that.
The question that stands is "Would Israel go to the extreme and attack the US with nuclear weapons to provoke the US into retaliating against the perceived attacker, or is that a bridge too far?"
The answer to your question is, no. Israel would not attack the US intentionally - certainly not with nuclear weapons, nor, with malice aforethought, with conventional either.
As previously established, Israel can and will attack whosoever she sees fit. I too doubt she would use the nuclear option, it being just a bit extreme if she gets caught. The potential retaliation would too final for such a small nation.
Hideous hack-job butchering my post by the way. Nuclear-level fail. Changing the word "off" to "on" doesn't make your digression any less irrelevant.
_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
27 Oct 2010, 6:02 pm
Macbeth wrote:
As previously established, Israel can and will attack whosoever she sees fit. I too doubt she would use the nuclear option, it being just a bit extreme if she gets caught. The potential retaliation would too final for such a small nation.
I doubt that Israel would even consider doing that to allies intentionally, however if you were to live in a nation surrounded by enemies, many of whom consider it a religious mandate to slaughter your people based upon your creed or genealogy, I'd think you'd probably be a bit more paranoid about who your friends actually are. Given the state of being under continual attack from one nation or militia or another since its modern re-inception, I think Israel has shown a lot more patience and restraint than most nations around them would at the very least and even more than the nations of the West would also if under similar attack on a constant basis.
27 Oct 2010, 6:08 pm
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
As previously established, Israel can and will attack whosoever she sees fit. I too doubt she would use the nuclear option, it being just a bit extreme if she gets caught. The potential retaliation would too final for such a small nation.
I doubt that Israel would even consider doing that to allies intentionally, however if you were to live in a nation surrounded by enemies, many of whom consider it a religious mandate to slaughter your people based upon your creed or genealogy, I'd think you'd probably be a bit more paranoid about who your friends actually are. Given the state of being under continual attack from one nation or militia or another since its modern re-inception, I think Israel has shown a lot more patience and restraint than most nations around them would at the very least and even more than the nations of the West would also if under similar attack on a constant basis.
Israel already HAS done such things precisely BECAUSE of their position.
_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
27 Oct 2010, 6:22 pm
Macbeth wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
As previously established, Israel can and will attack whosoever she sees fit. I too doubt she would use the nuclear option, it being just a bit extreme if she gets caught. The potential retaliation would too final for such a small nation.
I doubt that Israel would even consider doing that to allies intentionally, however if you were to live in a nation surrounded by enemies, many of whom consider it a religious mandate to slaughter your people based upon your creed or genealogy, I'd think you'd probably be a bit more paranoid about who your friends actually are. Given the state of being under continual attack from one nation or militia or another since its modern re-inception, I think Israel has shown a lot more patience and restraint than most nations around them would at the very least and even more than the nations of the West would also if under similar attack on a constant basis.
Israel already HAS done such things precisely BECAUSE of their position.
Would you care to properly qualify your statement?
27 Oct 2010, 6:32 pm
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
As previously established, Israel can and will attack whosoever she sees fit. I too doubt she would use the nuclear option, it being just a bit extreme if she gets caught. The potential retaliation would too final for such a small nation.
I doubt that Israel would even consider doing that to allies intentionally, however if you were to live in a nation surrounded by enemies, many of whom consider it a religious mandate to slaughter your people based upon your creed or genealogy, I'd think you'd probably be a bit more paranoid about who your friends actually are. Given the state of being under continual attack from one nation or militia or another since its modern re-inception, I think Israel has shown a lot more patience and restraint than most nations around them would at the very least and even more than the nations of the West would also if under similar attack on a constant basis.
Israel already HAS done such things precisely BECAUSE of their position.
Would you care to properly qualify your statement?
Say it slowly. Israel has already engaged its allies in combat quite intentionally for its own ends. It has done this in the belief that it must, in order to maintain its own existence. Quite understandable really.
_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
27 Oct 2010, 7:16 pm
Macbeth wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
As previously established, Israel can and will attack whosoever she sees fit. I too doubt she would use the nuclear option, it being just a bit extreme if she gets caught. The potential retaliation would too final for such a small nation.
I doubt that Israel would even consider doing that to allies intentionally, however if you were to live in a nation surrounded by enemies, many of whom consider it a religious mandate to slaughter your people based upon your creed or genealogy, I'd think you'd probably be a bit more paranoid about who your friends actually are. Given the state of being under continual attack from one nation or militia or another since its modern re-inception, I think Israel has shown a lot more patience and restraint than most nations around them would at the very least and even more than the nations of the West would also if under similar attack on a constant basis.
Israel already HAS done such things precisely BECAUSE of their position.
Would you care to properly qualify your statement?
Say it slowly. Israel has already engaged its allies in combat quite intentionally for its own ends. It has done this in the belief that it must, in order to maintain its own existence. Quite understandable really.
Aside from the USS Liberty accident during the 6-Day War back in 1967, how many times has Israel "quite intentionally" "engaged its allies in combat"?
27 Oct 2010, 8:31 pm
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
As previously established, Israel can and will attack whosoever she sees fit. I too doubt she would use the nuclear option, it being just a bit extreme if she gets caught. The potential retaliation would too final for such a small nation.
I doubt that Israel would even consider doing that to allies intentionally, however if you were to live in a nation surrounded by enemies, many of whom consider it a religious mandate to slaughter your people based upon your creed or genealogy, I'd think you'd probably be a bit more paranoid about who your friends actually are. Given the state of being under continual attack from one nation or militia or another since its modern re-inception, I think Israel has shown a lot more patience and restraint than most nations around them would at the very least and even more than the nations of the West would also if under similar attack on a constant basis.
Israel already HAS done such things precisely BECAUSE of their position.
Would you care to properly qualify your statement?
Say it slowly. Israel has already engaged its allies in combat quite intentionally for its own ends. It has done this in the belief that it must, in order to maintain its own existence. Quite understandable really.
Aside from the USS Liberty accident during the 6-Day War back in 1967, how many times has Israel "quite intentionally" "engaged its allies in combat"?
Lavon affair? Could also be argued that the behaviour of the Irgun attacking the British might come under "attacking allies". Certainly it fits under "attacking people sympathetic to their plight." Likewise Mossad have been "borrowing" nationalities for decades then misbehaving on foreign shores. Lets also not forget we are talking about covert operations here. Its not unlikely that other events may come to light given time.
I think you might be taking the term "in combat" too literally. In this context it means "firing on or attacking or in some manner molesting". It could also be extended to cover all forms of false flag behaviour. Face it, the Israelis do bad things sometimes. They pretty much invented rendition. Not really surprising. They aren't angels. They are people, like everybody else on this planet, and subsequently vulnerable to all human failings.
_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
28 Oct 2010, 8:02 am
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Say, during WWII, didn't England perform saturation bombardment of civilians in retaliation for the attacks upon London? I think I remember the planes used were called "mosquitos" and were made out of balsa.
The De Havilland Mosquito IS made of wood, yes. It isn't a heavy bomber. You need squadrons of heavy bombers to do "saturation" or "carpet" bombing.
Web Page Name
Mosquito. Used as a nightfighter (and source of the infamous "carrots improve eyesight" legend.), a pathfinder, and a precision bomber, amongst other things.
Web Page Name
B-17 Flying Fortress. Heavy bomber, Used for bombing. Heavily, in Germany by the USAAF.
So, having set you right on your military history again, what exactly IS the relevance of carpet bombing during a global conflict against an enemy who utilized saturation bombing even before the war, a tactic used by American airforce units as much and more than the RAF, against an enemy state replete with anti-aircraft defences, to Israeli espionage and strafing/bombing of an allied ship?
_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
28 Oct 2010, 8:07 am
Macbeth wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Say, during WWII, didn't England perform saturation bombardment of civilians in retaliation for the attacks upon London? I think I remember the planes used were called "mosquitos" and were made out of balsa.
The De Havilland Mosquito IS made of wood, yes. It isn't a heavy bomber. You need squadrons of heavy bombers to do "saturation" or "carpet" bombing.
Web Page Name
Mosquito. Used as a nightfighter (and source of the infamous "carrots improve eyesight" legend.), a pathfinder, and a precision bomber, amongst other things.
Web Page Name
B-17 Flying Fortress. Heavy bomber, Used for bombing. Heavily, in Germany by the USAAF.
So, having set you right on your military history again, what exactly IS the relevance of carpet bombing during a global conflict against an enemy who utilized saturation bombing even before the war, a tactic used by American airforce units as much and more than the RAF, against an enemy state replete with anti-aircraft defences, to Israeli espionage and strafing/bombing of an allied ship?
These Mosquito bombers were used by England, at least once, in a gigantic swarm in the bombardment of civilian targets.
28 Oct 2010, 8:18 am
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Say, during WWII, didn't England perform saturation bombardment of civilians in retaliation for the attacks upon London? I think I remember the planes used were called "mosquitos" and were made out of balsa.
The De Havilland Mosquito IS made of wood, yes. It isn't a heavy bomber. You need squadrons of heavy bombers to do "saturation" or "carpet" bombing.
Web Page Name
Mosquito. Used as a nightfighter (and source of the infamous "carrots improve eyesight" legend.), a pathfinder, and a precision bomber, amongst other things.
Web Page Name
B-17 Flying Fortress. Heavy bomber, Used for bombing. Heavily, in Germany by the USAAF.
So, having set you right on your military history again, what exactly IS the relevance of carpet bombing during a global conflict against an enemy who utilized saturation bombing even before the war, a tactic used by American airforce units as much and more than the RAF, against an enemy state replete with anti-aircraft defences, to Israeli espionage and strafing/bombing of an allied ship?
These Mosquito bombers were used by England, at least once, in a gigantic swarm in the bombardment of civilian targets.
At a guess, you're referring to Hamburg (a major port sporting, amongst other things U-boat Pens which built U-boats used in unlimited naval warfare against military AND civilian ships, and Nobels very own dynamite factory). Your "gigantic swarm" is about 50 planes, tops.
So, the RAF (and the USAAF) bombed German cities. Boo f*****g Hoo. Shouldn't have started a genocidal global conflict hell-bent on conquest, or engaged in a tit-for-tat bombing campaign with an island nation. Still not at all relevant to Israel false-flag operations or even particularly to "Modern" warfare, except in so far as the Mossie was used a great deal for the kind of pin-point precision bombing favoured by modern fighter jets. In which case thank you for noticing our pioneering work.
_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
28 Oct 2010, 8:22 am
Macbeth wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Say, during WWII, didn't England perform saturation bombardment of civilians in retaliation for the attacks upon London? I think I remember the planes used were called "mosquitos" and were made out of balsa.
The De Havilland Mosquito IS made of wood, yes. It isn't a heavy bomber. You need squadrons of heavy bombers to do "saturation" or "carpet" bombing.
Web Page Name
Mosquito. Used as a nightfighter (and source of the infamous "carrots improve eyesight" legend.), a pathfinder, and a precision bomber, amongst other things.
Web Page Name
B-17 Flying Fortress. Heavy bomber, Used for bombing. Heavily, in Germany by the USAAF.
So, having set you right on your military history again, what exactly IS the relevance of carpet bombing during a global conflict against an enemy who utilized saturation bombing even before the war, a tactic used by American airforce units as much and more than the RAF, against an enemy state replete with anti-aircraft defences, to Israeli espionage and strafing/bombing of an allied ship?
These Mosquito bombers were used by England, at least once, in a gigantic swarm in the bombardment of civilian targets.
At a guess, you're referring to Hamburg (a major port sporting, amongst other things U-boat Pens which built U-boats used in unlimited naval warfare against military AND civilian ships, and Nobels very own dynamite factory). Your "gigantic swarm" is about 50 planes, tops.
So, the RAF (and the USAAF) bombed German cities. Boo f***ing Hoo. Shouldn't have started a genocidal global conflict hell-bent on conquest, or engaged in a tit-for-tat bombing campaign with an island nation. Still not at all relevant to Israel false-flag operations or even particularly to "Modern" warfare, except in so far as the Mossie was used a great deal for the kind of pin-point precision bombing favoured by modern fighter jets. In which case thank you for noticing our pioneering work.
Oh, and here is a quote from the Liberalpedia even:
Quote:
The Bombing of Dresden was a military bombing by the British Royal Air Force (RAF) and the United States Army Air Force (USAAF) as part of the allied forces between 13 February and 15 February 1945 in the Second World War. In four raids, 1,300 heavy bombers dropped more than 3,900 tons of high-explosive bombs and incendiary devices on the city, the Baroque capital of the German state of Saxony. The resulting firestorm destroyed 15 square miles (39 square kilometres) of the city centre.[1]
A 1953 United States Air Force report written by Joseph W. Angell defended the operation as the justified bombing of a military and industrial target, which was a major rail transportation and communication centre, housing 110 factories and 50,000 workers in support of the Nazi war effort.[2] Against this, several researchers have argued that not all of the communications infrastructure, such as the bridges, were in fact targeted, nor were the extensive industrial areas outside the city centre.[3] It has been argued that Dresden was a cultural landmark of little or no military significance, a "Florence on the Elbe," as it was known, and the attacks were indiscriminate area bombing and not proportionate to the commensurate military gains.[4][5]
In the first few decades after the war, some death toll estimates were as high as 250,000, which are now considered unreasonable.[6][7][8] An independent investigation commissioned by the city council in 2010 reported a minimum of 22,700 victims with a maximum total number of fatalities of 25,000.[9]
In direct comparison with the bombing of Hamburg in 1943, which created one of the greatest firestorms raised by the RAF and United States Army Air Force,[10] killing roughly 50,000 civilians in Hamburg and practically destroying the entire city, and the bombing of Pforzheim in 1945, killing roughly 18,000 civilians,[11] the bombing raids over Dresden were not the most severe of World War II. However, they continue to be recognised as one of the worst examples of civilian suffering caused by strategic bombing, and have become exposed among the moral causes célèbres of the Second World War.[12] Post-war discussion, popular legends, historical revisionism and Cold War propaganda of the bombing includes debate by commentators, officials and historians as to whether or not the bombing was justified, and whether its outcome constituted a war crime.
A 1953 United States Air Force report written by Joseph W. Angell defended the operation as the justified bombing of a military and industrial target, which was a major rail transportation and communication centre, housing 110 factories and 50,000 workers in support of the Nazi war effort.[2] Against this, several researchers have argued that not all of the communications infrastructure, such as the bridges, were in fact targeted, nor were the extensive industrial areas outside the city centre.[3] It has been argued that Dresden was a cultural landmark of little or no military significance, a "Florence on the Elbe," as it was known, and the attacks were indiscriminate area bombing and not proportionate to the commensurate military gains.[4][5]
In the first few decades after the war, some death toll estimates were as high as 250,000, which are now considered unreasonable.[6][7][8] An independent investigation commissioned by the city council in 2010 reported a minimum of 22,700 victims with a maximum total number of fatalities of 25,000.[9]
In direct comparison with the bombing of Hamburg in 1943, which created one of the greatest firestorms raised by the RAF and United States Army Air Force,[10] killing roughly 50,000 civilians in Hamburg and practically destroying the entire city, and the bombing of Pforzheim in 1945, killing roughly 18,000 civilians,[11] the bombing raids over Dresden were not the most severe of World War II. However, they continue to be recognised as one of the worst examples of civilian suffering caused by strategic bombing, and have become exposed among the moral causes célèbres of the Second World War.[12] Post-war discussion, popular legends, historical revisionism and Cold War propaganda of the bombing includes debate by commentators, officials and historians as to whether or not the bombing was justified, and whether its outcome constituted a war crime.
28 Oct 2010, 8:34 am
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Say, during WWII, didn't England perform saturation bombardment of civilians in retaliation for the attacks upon London? I think I remember the planes used were called "mosquitos" and were made out of balsa.
The De Havilland Mosquito IS made of wood, yes. It isn't a heavy bomber. You need squadrons of heavy bombers to do "saturation" or "carpet" bombing.
Web Page Name
Mosquito. Used as a nightfighter (and source of the infamous "carrots improve eyesight" legend.), a pathfinder, and a precision bomber, amongst other things.
Web Page Name
B-17 Flying Fortress. Heavy bomber, Used for bombing. Heavily, in Germany by the USAAF.
So, having set you right on your military history again, what exactly IS the relevance of carpet bombing during a global conflict against an enemy who utilized saturation bombing even before the war, a tactic used by American airforce units as much and more than the RAF, against an enemy state replete with anti-aircraft defences, to Israeli espionage and strafing/bombing of an allied ship?
These Mosquito bombers were used by England, at least once, in a gigantic swarm in the bombardment of civilian targets.
At a guess, you're referring to Hamburg (a major port sporting, amongst other things U-boat Pens which built U-boats used in unlimited naval warfare against military AND civilian ships, and Nobels very own dynamite factory). Your "gigantic swarm" is about 50 planes, tops.
So, the RAF (and the USAAF) bombed German cities. Boo f***ing Hoo. Shouldn't have started a genocidal global conflict hell-bent on conquest, or engaged in a tit-for-tat bombing campaign with an island nation. Still not at all relevant to Israel false-flag operations or even particularly to "Modern" warfare, except in so far as the Mossie was used a great deal for the kind of pin-point precision bombing favoured by modern fighter jets. In which case thank you for noticing our pioneering work.
Oh, and here is a quote from the Liberalpedia even:
Quote:
The Bombing of Dresden was a military bombing by the British Royal Air Force (RAF) and the United States Army Air Force (USAAF) as part of the allied forces between 13 February and 15 February 1945 in the Second World War. In four raids, 1,300 heavy bombers dropped more than 3,900 tons of high-explosive bombs and incendiary devices on the city, the Baroque capital of the German state of Saxony. The resulting firestorm destroyed 15 square miles (39 square kilometres) of the city centre.[1]
A 1953 United States Air Force report written by Joseph W. Angell defended the operation as the justified bombing of a military and industrial target, which was a major rail transportation and communication centre, housing 110 factories and 50,000 workers in support of the Nazi war effort.[2] Against this, several researchers have argued that not all of the communications infrastructure, such as the bridges, were in fact targeted, nor were the extensive industrial areas outside the city centre.[3] It has been argued that Dresden was a cultural landmark of little or no military significance, a "Florence on the Elbe," as it was known, and the attacks were indiscriminate area bombing and not proportionate to the commensurate military gains.[4][5]
In the first few decades after the war, some death toll estimates were as high as 250,000, which are now considered unreasonable.[6][7][8] An independent investigation commissioned by the city council in 2010 reported a minimum of 22,700 victims with a maximum total number of fatalities of 25,000.[9]
In direct comparison with the bombing of Hamburg in 1943, which created one of the greatest firestorms raised by the RAF and United States Army Air Force,[10] killing roughly 50,000 civilians in Hamburg and practically destroying the entire city, and the bombing of Pforzheim in 1945, killing roughly 18,000 civilians,[11] the bombing raids over Dresden were not the most severe of World War II. However, they continue to be recognised as one of the worst examples of civilian suffering caused by strategic bombing, and have become exposed among the moral causes célèbres of the Second World War.[12] Post-war discussion, popular legends, historical revisionism and Cold War propaganda of the bombing includes debate by commentators, officials and historians as to whether or not the bombing was justified, and whether its outcome constituted a war crime.
A 1953 United States Air Force report written by Joseph W. Angell defended the operation as the justified bombing of a military and industrial target, which was a major rail transportation and communication centre, housing 110 factories and 50,000 workers in support of the Nazi war effort.[2] Against this, several researchers have argued that not all of the communications infrastructure, such as the bridges, were in fact targeted, nor were the extensive industrial areas outside the city centre.[3] It has been argued that Dresden was a cultural landmark of little or no military significance, a "Florence on the Elbe," as it was known, and the attacks were indiscriminate area bombing and not proportionate to the commensurate military gains.[4][5]
In the first few decades after the war, some death toll estimates were as high as 250,000, which are now considered unreasonable.[6][7][8] An independent investigation commissioned by the city council in 2010 reported a minimum of 22,700 victims with a maximum total number of fatalities of 25,000.[9]
In direct comparison with the bombing of Hamburg in 1943, which created one of the greatest firestorms raised by the RAF and United States Army Air Force,[10] killing roughly 50,000 civilians in Hamburg and practically destroying the entire city, and the bombing of Pforzheim in 1945, killing roughly 18,000 civilians,[11] the bombing raids over Dresden were not the most severe of World War II. However, they continue to be recognised as one of the worst examples of civilian suffering caused by strategic bombing, and have become exposed among the moral causes célèbres of the Second World War.[12] Post-war discussion, popular legends, historical revisionism and Cold War propaganda of the bombing includes debate by commentators, officials and historians as to whether or not the bombing was justified, and whether its outcome constituted a war crime.
Coventry. Warsaw. Hell, I could name cities that got bombed for hours. Total war kills civilians. The moral of the story is "Don't start a total war." As Bomber Harris said, "The Nazis started this war under the rather naive belief that they would bomb everybody else, and no-one would bomb them. They have sowed the wind, and now they will reap the whirlwind." The Nazis openly threatened to (and attempted to) make whole cities disappear overnight in order to make gains against the Czechs, the Poles, and anyone else who stood against them. My heart truly bleeds for the poor Nazis. It was so mean of the allies to bomb them.
STILL NOT RELEVANT.
_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
28 Oct 2010, 5:22 pm
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Seems that you have a patriotic soft spot for the bloody redcoats. It's sad that you'd be willing to insult Americans and Israelis and yet stick up for the English.
1) When did I insult Israelis? You appear to have imagined some persecution by proxy. The fact that I consider Israel (like any other nation) to be capable of espionage, dirty tricks and so forth doesn't mean that I dislike them, hate them, or anything of the sort.
2) Why is it so sad or unusual that I might be a touch patriotic towards my own nation? This forum and many others are liberally bedecked with flag-waving patriots for the US, and that ISN'T sad? Ridiculous.
3) I happen to have a low opinion of American military strategy in general, considering it to be cack-handed, hamfisted, and wholly too reliant on gung-ho militarism, sheer weight of numbers, and reliance on technology. That and overwhelming hubris and arrogance that simply isn't backed up by American military achievements. Military strategy that is lent the appearance of success by dint of geographical isolation. I also happen to have a low opinion of "Patriots" who insist on waving flags in battles that happened in the 1700s as if they were personally there, and demonstrate absolutely ridiculous rudeness and ill manners towards a nation that is their ALLY and which sends its own soldiers to fight alongside (and be killed by) American soldiers. Such attitudes lead me to feel that we should pull out from being your bedfellow in these "World Police" activities and develop a separate international policy that has bugger all to do with America. Likewise I refuse to "be grateful" towards a nation populated by people who by majority were quite happy to let the rest of the world burn until they were "surprised" by the Japanese and subsequently made the target of a Nazi declaration of war. Cheers for the save there....
However, I also have a great deal of respect for anyone who happens to end up serving in that military, and any soldier who can survive such leadership.
4) I will let you google the last time British soldiers wore red coats in battle. Maybe you can get a date for when the US Army stopped being a shower of "traitor militia" as well? Then you could pull your head out of the War of Tax Evasion long enough to notice that STILL none of this bears any relevance towards either the topic, or Israeli espionage and false-flag operations.
_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
28 Oct 2010, 5:28 pm
Macbeth wrote:
sheer weight of numbers, and reliance on technology.
Sheer weight of numbers & reliance upon technology. So, I suppose the sheer weight of numbers in terms of aircraft gaining air superiority prior to engaging in ground based combat? The sheer weight in numbers of M1A1's? The sheer weight in numbers of anti-materiel and anti-personnel snipers? The sheer weight in numbers of carrier battle groups? I'm sorry, have you gotten your history of American military engagement from the movie Platoon?
