Defeating a enemy tactically is pointless if you lose strategically. This is useful for all wars.

WW2: The French and British fighting the Germans early on would usually end up with some torn up German tanks, but the Germans encircled the BEF and French in Belguim so they won strategically there.

Vietnam: The US's goal was to keep South Vietnam from being lost to the reds. They would usually win against the reds, but after all , the reds won against the south.

Afghanistan: The US's main job was to eliminate the Taliban. You know darn well that they didn't accomplish that. The US usually won tactically, but they lost the main thing.

Propoganda makes everything good. Even at the peak of antiwar demonstrations, only about 1/4 folk in America did not support the war in Vietnam.

I'd say the Taliban mostly* were slain, but they had a very good resources/folk:damage ratio.

This is just a modified and redesigned political spectrum.

http://imgur.com/p3ImSSO

The Taliban defeated the US , they didn't have the fanciest things. Neither did the Vietmanese. And if the non-governments have more people, we can also compare it to China and the US in 1951(and here the US's factories , farms and roads are much more vulnerable).

+1. Warfare is asymmetrical now. There's no need for the type of weapons the US is trying to design - advanced combat suits and lasers and sonic jets. The US defense budget is a total atrocity with the amount of waste that goes on. The truth is the US military hasn't won a war militarily in a very long time and we haven't won strategically in a very long time. The reason? That's up to debate, but there a number of factors I think. Morale and purpose - in Iraq and Afghanistan, I don't think soldiers really knew what they were there to do. Shock and Awe doesn't work anymore. Using civilian infrastructure as shields effectively neutralizes air power.

The US is preparing for the big one. If there is one, say NATO and Russia, the US will most likely knock down Russia with ease due to all the things on its side (giant population on the US's side, more money, more food, more resources). Very speculative though, many things could happen, but the US and NATO is much stronger than Russia.

@Major General Smedley Butler

That's why russia has nukes... Maybe you can beat them, but will NATO afford to take thousands of nuclear warheads in the processus?

There's absolutely no need to even go to war with Russia. I simply don't understand why NATO and the US think that Russia is such an existential threat when the US is more powerful militarily, diplomatically, economically, etc. Our government has become an insane warmongering apparatus. Anytime Russia or Putin does something wrong we go into hysteria as if Satan is coming to kill us. No Western European leader wouldn't even go to Russia last year to pay respect to the 75th Anniversary of the defeat of Germany in Russia. I think Americans forget that without Russia's sacrifices, most of Europe would be controlled by Nazi Germany.

I totally agree with you ^.

Maybe it's a first hahaha.

Actually a few did - I specifically recall the Czech PM raising some controversy when he went.

I agree, too, that is, about Russia not actually being a substantial threat to America.

If anything, America is a substantial threat to Russia :P

Actually a few did - I specifically recall the Czech PM raising some controversy when he went.

I was really referring to Western Europe. Eastern Europe almost across the board recognizes the sacrifice of the Russian people to free them from Nazi Germany. Obama didn't go, Merkel didn't go, Cameron didn't go, Hollande didn't go. No instead India and China show up along with Central Asian and Eastern European leaders. Speaks a lot about who cares about the historical sacrifices made in WWII.

"There's absolutely no need to even go to war with Russia. I simply don't understand why NATO and the US think that Russia is such an existential threat when the US is more powerful militarily, diplomatically, economically, etc. Our government has become an insane warmongering apparatus. Anytime Russia or Putin does something wrong we go into hysteria as if Satan is coming to kill us. No Western European leader wouldn't even go to Russia last year to pay respect to the 75th Anniversary of the defeat of Germany in Russia. I think Americans forget that without Russia's sacrifices, most of Europe would be controlled by Nazi Germany."

That is a good reason to support Trump - he is the only one in the race who is willing to be friends with Russia

Nukes: Is the person who would fire them ok with being incinerated thirty minutes later and everyone he ever knew being killed? This is why people usually won't do it, even if the country is being attacked.

WTF , I ended up at the tip of the conservative

Edited 3/11/2016 18:53:56

I was really referring to Western Europe. Eastern Europe almost across the board recognizes the sacrifice of the Russian people to free them from Nazi Germany. Obama didn't go, Merkel didn't go, Cameron didn't go, Hollande didn't go. No instead India and China show up along with Central Asian and Eastern European leaders. Speaks a lot about who cares about the historical sacrifices made in WWII.

Czechia and Slovakia are part of west Europe. Although Merkel went in 2010, I don't see why she should - it's obviously kind of awkward (same deal with a few other countries, like Italy, which didn't go in 2010, either).

Czech and Slovakia are Central Europe.

Czech can be either, depending on the time period's political and cultural state. Slovakia is eastern Europe though. imo

I don't see why she should

Because it was her country that was historically responsible for the atrocities of WWII and a significant portion of the 20 million that died in Russia and its satellite states.

Czech nowadays is definitely Central European; Slovakia Central/Eastern.