StarDestroyer.Net BBS

You know what's sad? When Mao Zedong created a national "hero" by embellishing the life story of Lei Feng, the guy's selflessness and modesty in addition to his devotion to Communism were played up and portrayed as desirable examples to be emulated.
America's Lei Feng meanwhile is a pychopathic mass-murderer, an all-around nasty person and most possibly also a complete liar. Is this really the sort of "hero" the American Right wants to look up to?

madd0ct0r wrote:A link to Grossman's writing, in case anyone feels the need to pleasure themselves by confrontation http://www.killology.com/sheep_dog.htm

I still think Slate is correct in saying the metaphor is simplistic, and in that simplicity, dangerous. It's just mil-wank industrial complex wearing a sheen of philosophy. Next they'll be referring to the UK as a nation of shopkeepers...

Ironically Grossman is actually generally disliked by milwankers, because his thesis is that men are not naturally inclined towards murder. That and he's part of the videogames make you more suceptible to be violent crowd.

Metahive wrote:You know what's sad? When Mao Zedong created a national "hero" by embellishing the life story of Lei Feng, the guy's selflessness and modesty in addition to his devotion to Communism were played up and portrayed as desirable examples to be emulated.
America's Lei Feng meanwhile is a psychopathic mass-murderer, an all-around nasty person and most possibly also a complete liar. Is this really the sort of "hero" the American Right wants to look up to?

I think it's more than just the right. Remember the buildup to the invasion of Iraq in 2003? Left and right were pretty much in lockstep until it turned into Vietnam 2.

American self image is tied up in its military the same way a city gets behind a sports team, and Iraq looked like a nice easy beatdown to remind themselves that they still had it. The myth of national hero Chris Kyle effectively becomes the hero that the US needs, because its reminds the country that even though the US got it's arse kicked again, there's points for meaning well and still playing a good game.

I should have probably cited Grossman when I made the original point. However, the other problem with that simplistic categorization is that it ignores the possibility of two sheepdogs fighting over territory, what make a war a war. Though I suspect his original point was more geared towards law enforcement than the military, that it was foolish for someone in law enforcement to not always be prepared. Though this does ignore the fact that many of the people who choose to be in law enforcement are doing it for the wrong reasons, a sense of self-justification with their authority. These are the types that are more likely to do things like shoot first when their authority is questioned.

Zinegata wrote:Ironically Grossman is actually generally disliked by milwankers, because his thesis is that men are not naturally inclined towards murder. That and he's part of the videogames make you more suceptible to be violent crowd.

Though I can't remember the percentage, didn't he say that there were a minority that would have no psychological problem with killing? I suspect that Chris Kyle is in that category.

Metahive wrote:America's Lei Feng meanwhile is a pychopathic mass-murderer, an all-around nasty person and most possibly also a complete liar. Is this really the sort of "hero" the American Right wants to look up to?

Sadly it does seem the case. Some have even taking to call this glorification an anti-war film. Though isn't Lei Feng something of a mythic figure?

Gandalf wrote:American self image is tied up in its military the same way a city gets behind a sports team, and Iraq looked like a nice easy beatdown to remind themselves that they still had it. The myth of national hero Chris Kyle effectively becomes the hero that the US needs, because its reminds the country that even though the US got it's arse kicked again, there's points for meaning well and still playing a good game.

Sadly the beat down mentality was exactly what the Bush administration had in mind with the invasion. An easy adversary that no one in the region liked who would then allow the US to appear military dominant again. Obviously it didn't work and whatever semblance of victory was once there has been destroyed by the rise of ISIS.

To make matters worse, given that the American military hasn't actually won a proper war outright since 1945(the Korean and First Gulf wars were draws and the various "peacekeeping actions" hardly qualify), the American people really need to reassess their military. Something that is made worse by this mentality that the military can do no wrong. When your sports team starts loosing every game, don't fans generally think it is a good idea to sack the coach and some of the players?

This mentality is strong enough there has even been the argument that American police are militarizing so that they can look more like the military and thus gain more respect.

Metahive wrote:You know what's sad? When Mao Zedong created a national "hero" by embellishing the life story of Lei Feng, the guy's selflessness and modesty in addition to his devotion to Communism were played up and portrayed as desirable examples to be emulated.
America's Lei Feng meanwhile is a pychopathic mass-murderer, an all-around nasty person and most possibly also a complete liar. Is this really the sort of "hero" the American Right wants to look up to?

Chris Kyle is more like Horst Wessel, complete with groupies who threaten violence against those who don't grieve enough for the "martyred hero".

Elfdart wrote:Chris Kyle is more like Horst Wessel, complete with groupies who threaten violence against those who don't grieve enough for the "martyred hero".

I wonder what people's reaction to the film(obviously with a different ending) and publicity would have been had Chris Kyle not died? Based on his interviews from when the book originally came out, I have a feeling that he would have blown some of the goodwill with his cocky attitude.

Adamskywalker007 wrote: Sadly the beat down mentality was exactly what the Bush administration had in mind with the invasion. An easy adversary that no one in the region liked who would then allow the US to appear military dominant again. Obviously it didn't work and whatever semblance of victory was once there has been destroyed by the rise of ISIS.

Are you fucking serious?

The US is militarily dominant.

Iraq militarily was a resounding success. Most American campaigns militarily tend to be a resounding success. The issues in Iraq were due to poor planning for the post-conflict reconstruction, and not "OMG we got our asses kicked" as you seem to imply. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make about ISIS, because they too will be defeated, at least in so far as their existence as a pseudo-state will cease.

To make matters worse, given that the American military hasn't actually won a proper war outright since 1945(the Korean and First Gulf wars were draws and the various "peacekeeping actions" hardly qualify), the American people really need to reassess their military. Something that is made worse by this mentality that the military can do no wrong. When your sports team starts loosing every game, don't fans generally think it is a good idea to sack the coach and some of the players?

Again, are you fucking serious? By any stretch, the US Military is very good at military things. Your assessments of Korea and the Gulf War I are so fucking far afield I wonder what your historical sources are. It's been in the aftermath of conflicts, once the Military has done it's job, that administrative blunders have lead to such major disappointments. But while America's nation building of late leaves much to be desired, that's not exactly the core function of the Military.

An argument could be made about what America's true needs are from a military standpoint, and whether we need to re-access how they are used, but at minimum your point is in serious need of refinement, or simply way off base.

This mentality is strong enough there has even been the argument that American police are militarizing so that they can look more like the military and thus gain more respect.

I think the attitude was probably always there amongst a segment of police. The problem was the mistaken policy of homeland security to actually start providing heavier military (armored vehicles for example) equipment to those police.

The only thing sure about Lei Feng is that there was a soldier by that name who died. Everything else is probably the product of Chairman Mao's propaganda office. And yet, the qualities in Lei Feng that were stressed were kindness, humility, selflessness and devotion. Chris Kyle's qualities are selfishness, pettiness, arrogance, callousness and bloodthirstiness. Come on, even those perpetually maladjusted heroes of old like Herakles and Gilgamesh had at least some positive traits.

Stupid Wanker wrote:Iraq militarily was a resounding success.

A yes, the "curb-stomp vastly inferior opponent"-part of the war was a success, so that cancels out the comepletely botched occupation...which was also the responsibility of the military BTW. I guess in Hammerworld all those US soldiers that were stationed, fought and died in Iraq until a few years ago don't count as "military".

@adamSkywalker

listen to this
http://www.ted.com/talks/thomas_barnett ... _for_peace#

TheHammer wrote:Are you fucking serious?

The US is militarily dominant.

Iraq militarily was a resounding success. Most American campaigns militarily tend to be a resounding success. The issues in Iraq were due to poor planning for the post-conflict reconstruction, and not "OMG we got our asses kicked" as you seem to imply. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make about ISIS, because they too will be defeated, at least in so far as their existence as a pseudo-state will cease.

The US isn't militarily dominant in the sense that they can actually achieve political objectives. That is all that matters. It's like claiming that your sports team may have lost, but individually the players were better. It doesn't matter. What matters is the simple fact that they lost. Occupations are a part of winning wars. It's like having an entire football team that claims that they shouldn't have to play defense.

As for ISIS, I was talking about failure to achieve strategic objectives. The existence of ISIS shows that the Iraq war was a strategic failure in the sense that it failed to accomplish any of the set political goals. ISIS will probably be defeated eventually, but the point is that the Iraqi takeover of security was an absolute failure and thus the American invasion was a failure.

TheHammer wrote:Again, are you fucking serious? By any stretch, the US Military is very good at military things. Your assessments of Korea and the Gulf War I are so fucking far afield I wonder what your historical sources are. It's been in the aftermath of conflicts, once the Military has done it's job, that administrative blunders have lead to such major disappointments. But while America's nation building of late leaves much to be desired, that's not exactly the core function of the Military.

An argument could be made about what America's true needs are from a military standpoint, and whether we need to re-access how they are used, but at minimum your point is in serious need of refinement, or simply way off base.

In both wars the United States failed to achieve victory as intended at the beginning of the conflict. Thus they were not successes. Pushing the Iraqis and North Koreans back across their side of the map isn't entirely victory. Though I more meant Korea was a draw, the first Iraq war was against an enemy that has never been good at conventional war for several centuries (I should have clarified this better). If military things are defined as they were in 1945, then yes America is good at military things. Unfortunately for the US Department of Defense, the world has changed since then. Trying to refight WW2 or the Cold War isn't going to lead to victory in the types of conflicts that currently dominate the world. Starting a new Cold War with China, as the US Navy seems interested in doing, isn't going to help either.

The point is that the worship without understanding that Americans have for the military is preventing any kind of serious reform that would allow them the ability to be successful at occupations and the type of warfare that has come to dominate the 21st century.

LaCroix wrote: listen to this
http://www.ted.com/talks/thomas_barnett ... for_peace#

Much of what he says is true, but the issue is that he seems to think that solution is for Americans to become proper imperialists. The inevitable result of his concept would lead to America becoming a full colonialist power. The inevitable consequence of this idea is that America would undoubtedly be drawn into never ending series of wars with no possible way out.

Not to mention the fact that he somewhat glosses over the direct combat potential of nations other than Iraq and Afghanistan. Great Power wars are less likely, but that isn't the same as saying that they are impossible. Assuming they will never happen again is just as foolish as preparing to win the peace. He is putting far too much faith into the buzzword Revolution in Miltiary Affairs. The Chinese know what that is to. Going back to my football analogy, it is akin to sacking the offense to strengthen defense.

Adamskywalker007 wrote:

TheHammer wrote:Are you fucking serious?

The US is militarily dominant.

Iraq militarily was a resounding success. Most American campaigns militarily tend to be a resounding success. The issues in Iraq were due to poor planning for the post-conflict reconstruction, and not "OMG we got our asses kicked" as you seem to imply. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make about ISIS, because they too will be defeated, at least in so far as their existence as a pseudo-state will cease.

The US isn't militarily dominant in the sense that they can actually achieve political objectives. That is all that matters. It's like claiming that your sports team may have lost, but individually the players were better. It doesn't matter. What matters is the simple fact that they lost. Occupations are a part of winning wars. It's like having an entire football team that claims that they shouldn't have to play defense.

The Military doesn't achieve political objects. It achieves Military ones. That should be obvious. As for the "occupation" the only way that becomes a MILITARY failure is if the military is driven out by force of arms. That did not happen. And while Iraq is far from a democratic Utopia, it also hasn't completely collapsed either. So even by your extremely stretched definition you can't call it a "defeat" at this point.

To use your football analogy, the Military isn't the whole team. They are the offense. The military's job was to remove the previous regime so that the politicians, the defense in your example, could attempt to create a "more favorable" government in it's place. The military did it's job with impeccable efficiency. The politicians are the ones who haven't lived up to the hype.

As for ISIS, I was talking about failure to achieve strategic objectives. The existence of ISIS shows that the Iraq war was a strategic failure in the sense that it failed to accomplish any of the set political goals. ISIS will probably be defeated eventually, but the point is that the Iraqi takeover of security was an absolute failure and thus the American invasion was a failure.

Absolutely moronic statements.

TheHammer wrote:Again, are you fucking serious? By any stretch, the US Military is very good at military things. Your assessments of Korea and the Gulf War I are so fucking far afield I wonder what your historical sources are. It's been in the aftermath of conflicts, once the Military has done it's job, that administrative blunders have lead to such major disappointments. But while America's nation building of late leaves much to be desired, that's not exactly the core function of the Military.

An argument could be made about what America's true needs are from a military standpoint, and whether we need to re-access how they are used, but at minimum your point is in serious need of refinement, or simply way off base.

In both wars the United States failed to achieve victory as intended at the beginning of the conflict. Thus they were not successes. Pushing the Iraqis and North Koreans back across their side of the map isn't entirely victory.

Except that from the perspective of the US Military, pushing Iraq and North Korea back across their side of the map was what they were ordered to do. They didn't stop because of being incapable of going further. Do a LITTLE fucking research rather than simply talking out of your ass.

Though I more meant Korea was a draw, the first Iraq war was against an enemy that has never been good at conventional war for several centuries (I should have clarified this better). If military things are defined as they were in 1945, then yes America is good at military things. Unfortunately for the US Department of Defense, the world has changed since then. Trying to refight WW2 or the Cold War isn't going to lead to victory in the types of conflicts that currently dominate the world. Starting a new Cold War with China, as the US Navy seems interested in doing, isn't going to help either.

Again, absolutely moronic.

The point is that the worship without understanding that Americans have for the military is preventing any kind of serious reform that would allow them the ability to be successful at occupations and the type of warfare that has come to dominate the 21st century.

It seems like you're throwing random buzzwords at the message board and hoping that in the end they form some sort of coherent thought. You might try supporting some of your statements with facts in the future, and perhaps learn to differentiate between "Military success" and "political success".

Hammerbruder wrote:The Military doesn't achieve political objects. It achieves Military ones. That should be obvious. As for the "occupation" the only way that becomes a MILITARY failure is if the military is driven out by force of arms. That did not happen. And while Iraq is far from a democratic Utopia, it also hasn't completely collapsed either. So even by your extremely stretched definition you can't call it a "defeat" at this point.

OK, friend, remind me again which part of the US goals in Iraq were actually achieved? Find and destroy Weapons of Mass Destruction? Weren't there, so an unobtainable objective. Severe links between Iraq and Al-Quaeda? Al-Quaeda swarmed in after Saddam's defeat, so major failure. Build a stable country? Well, that didn't happen and Iraq is a bigger shithole than before, so another cigar denied.

So no matter how you try and twist it, the US occupation of Iraq failed on ALL counts. The US military had to retreat from Iraq without accomplishing anything. Tell me, how's that not a defeat? That they weren't beaten in valiant setpiece battles is completely irrelevant here, that's just semantics and weaseling.

Metahive wrote:OK, friend, remind me again which part of the US goals in Iraq were actually achieved? Find and destroy Weapons of Mass Destruction? Weren't there, so an unobtainable objective. Severe links between Iraq and Al-Quaeda? Al-Quaeda swarmed in after Saddam's defeat, so major failure. Build a stable country? Well, that didn't happen and Iraq is a bigger shithole than before, so another cigar denied.

So no matter how you try and twist it, the US occupation of Iraq failed on ALL counts. The US military had to retreat from Iraq without accomplishing anything. Tell me, how's that not a defeat? That they weren't beaten in valiant setpiece battles is completely irrelevant here, that's just semantics and weaseling.

The US action in Iraq helped secure Bush's second term and helped Halliburton make a bundle of money. If that isn't a success, then you're just a communist.

Metahive wrote:

Hammerbruder wrote:The Military doesn't achieve political objects. It achieves Military ones. That should be obvious. As for the "occupation" the only way that becomes a MILITARY failure is if the military is driven out by force of arms. That did not happen. And while Iraq is far from a democratic Utopia, it also hasn't completely collapsed either. So even by your extremely stretched definition you can't call it a "defeat" at this point.

OK, friend, remind me again which part of the US goals in Iraq were actually achieved? Find and destroy Weapons of Mass Destruction? Weren't there, so an unobtainable objective. Severe links between Iraq and Al-Quaeda? Al-Quaeda swarmed in after Saddam's defeat, so major failure. Build a stable country? Well, that didn't happen and Iraq is a bigger shithole than before, so another cigar denied.

So no matter how you try and twist it, the US occupation of Iraq failed on ALL counts. The US military had to retreat from Iraq without accomplishing anything. Tell me, how's that not a defeat? That they weren't beaten in valiant setpiece battles is completely irrelevant here, that's just semantics and weaseling.

Don't bother with him, he's just... Bleh. There very much was a "let's kick some Arab ass!" feeling in the air after we basically took over Afghanistan in a month. A lot of people like TheHammer, weren't really satisfied and Saddam Hussein = Bad Man so that was where a lot of support came from. Bush/ Cheney just kind of took that general feeling of "let's go kick some Arab ass" and directed it at Iraq, which they had been planning on trying to muster up war against from before he was even crowned by SCOTUS. After all, they did "try to kill his daddy". Best thing to ever happen to the Bush junta was 9/11. Probably why so many of those idiot truthers exist.

Metahive wrote: OK, friend, remind me again which part of the US goals in Iraq were actually achieved? Find and destroy Weapons of Mass Destruction? Weren't there, so an unobtainable objective. Severe links between Iraq and Al-Quaeda? Al-Quaeda swarmed in after Saddam's defeat, so major failure. Build a stable country? Well, that didn't happen and Iraq is a bigger shithole than before, so another cigar denied.

What you are describing are political and administrative failures which were no fault of the military. Which again is the key point of differentiation.

So no matter how you try and twist it, the US occupation of Iraq failed on ALL counts. The US military had to retreat from Iraq without accomplishing anything. Tell me, how's that not a defeat? That they weren't beaten in valiant setpiece battles is completely irrelevant here, that's just semantics and weaseling.

No, the military did not "have to retreat" they left because of political and administrative decisions, not because they were "driven out" via military means. It's completely fucking relevant if you are discussing MILITARY DOMINANCE vs a failure to achieve political goals after said military dominance has been achieved. The semantics and weaseling is your attempt to conflate one with the other.

Flagg wrote: Don't bother with him, he's just... Bleh. There very much was a "let's kick some Arab ass!" feeling in the air after we basically took over Afghanistan in a month. A lot of people like TheHammer, weren't really satisfied and Saddam Hussein = Bad Man so that was where a lot of support came from. Bush/ Cheney just kind of took that general feeling of "let's go kick some Arab ass" and directed it at Iraq, which they had been planning on trying to muster up war against from before he was even crowned by SCOTUS. After all, they did "try to kill his daddy". Best thing to ever happen to the Bush junta was 9/11. Probably why so many of those idiot truthers exist.

Is anything you said even relevant to the discussion at hand? No, no it isn't.

So, wait, a military occupation is no longer considered a military goal, but purely a political/administrative one? That's moronic.

Your blathering reminds me of the equally stupid things that American military apologists said after Vietnam. "Oh no, the troops weren't defeated! It was just those pussies at home didn't let them finish the job." Which is an incredibly ignorant viewpoint - the American military was soundly and thoroughly humiliated by the Vietnamese repeatedly on both tactical and strategic levels. It's just mental gymnastics because you refuse to admit that the American military is not a perfect institution of unblemished ass-kicking prowess. It's a technologically adept leviathan that has struggled for decades to develop the flexibility needed to adapt to the new modern era of non-conventional warfare.

It reminds me more of the stab-in-the-back myth after the First World War. The one that goes "it wasn't the military that failed it was those politicians back home." The myth that helped fuel the Third Reich. It's not a good sign seeing someone use the same logic to describe the US.

Eternal_Freedom wrote:It reminds me more of the stab-in-the-back myth after the First World War. The one that goes "it wasn't the military that failed it was those politicians back home." The myth that helped fuel the Third Reich. It's not a good sign seeing someone use the same logic to describe the US.

true enough granted as long as it's doesn't lead to another it's still only troubling

in case of TheHammer he seems to be pitifully ignorant of the complexities of military campains, thinking it's just the battles and nothing else matters when in truth the aftermath is as important as the battle itself, after all the real word isn't like some video game where you win battle you win the war, in the real world beating the battle is just the starting point and as long as you got "boots on the ground" it's a military campain.

If the standards for "no military campaign" are "the civilians are in charge on the ground", then neither the occupation of Europe/Japan qualify as a military operation. Nor would most wars.

Ziggy Stardust wrote:So, wait, a military occupation is no longer considered a military goal, but purely a political/administrative one? That's moronic.

There are military aspects and political/administrative ones. Since we are specifically talking about military dominance, those are the aspects to which I'm referring. So

Your blathering reminds me of the equally stupid things that American military apologists said after Vietnam. "Oh no, the troops weren't defeated! It was just those pussies at home didn't let them finish the job."

Yes actually it was lack of political will at home that prevented victory in Vietnam. That's not passing a judgement whether it was the right or wrong decision, rather its a statement of fact. The military wasn't driven out of Vietnam. Politicians made the decision that the effort wasn't worth the cost.

Which is an incredibly ignorant viewpoint - the American military was soundly and thoroughly humiliated by the Vietnamese repeatedly on both tactical and strategic levels.

Historically inaccurate.

Produce evidence of this "sound and thorough humiliation" of the American military by the NVA. You probably don't want to look at such things as "kill to loss ratios" (because those are very bad for your position), so I'm curious as to what "mental gymnastics", since you're so fond of that phrase, you'll use to justify your statements.

It's just mental gymnastics because you refuse to admit that the American military is not a perfect institution of unblemished ass-kicking prowess. It's a technologically adept leviathan that has struggled for decades to develop the flexibility needed to adapt to the new modern era of non-conventional warfare.

Mental gymnastics? Its simple historical analysis. The fact remains that the military achieves the objectives laid out for it by the political arm. Issues that have arisen after those goals, or because those goals turned out to be ill thought by the politicians who created them doesn't reflect upon the effectiveness of the military. "Perfect" and "unblemished" are not words I'd use to describe any human endeavor, let alone war. However, as far as the "ass kicking prowess" of the US military, it simply cannot be denied.

Lord Revan wrote: in case of TheHammer he seems to be pitifully ignorant of the complexities of military campains, thinking it's just the battles and nothing else matters when in truth the aftermath is as important as the battle itself, after all the real word isn't like some video game where you win battle you win the war, in the real world beating the battle is just the starting point and as long as you got "boots on the ground" it's a military campain.

Is this some sort of troll? Did I say that the post fighting administration was "unimportant"? No, in fact I've said the opposite. However, if you're talking about Military Dominance then it should be fucking obvious that you are discussing actual combat capabilities.

Thanas wrote:If the standards for "no military campaign" are "the civilians are in charge on the ground", then neither the occupation of Europe/Japan qualify as a military operation. Nor would most wars.

I'd view an occupation of a defeated enemy to be a "post war" operation. While the military is still certainly present, they are actively transitioning to a support rather than combat role.

TheHammer wrote:

Flagg wrote: Don't bother with him, he's just... Bleh. There very much was a "let's kick some Arab ass!" feeling in the air after we basically took over Afghanistan in a month. A lot of people like TheHammer, weren't really satisfied and Saddam Hussein = Bad Man so that was where a lot of support came from. Bush/ Cheney just kind of took that general feeling of "let's go kick some Arab ass" and directed it at Iraq, which they had been planning on trying to muster up war against from before he was even crowned by SCOTUS. After all, they did "try to kill his daddy". Best thing to ever happen to the Bush junta was 9/11. Probably why so many of those idiot truthers exist.

Is anything you said even relevant to the discussion at hand? No, no it isn't.

Actually it's quite relevant, as I was telling the person in that post without the tiny mind filled with stupid jingoistic Iraq War apologism, another reason I believe the American people were so easily led to war. I also advised them that arguing with you about anything is utterly pointless and they would be better off conversing with a horse that's still not quite right ever since that bag of feed fell on its head. And you can't argue against facts, dummy.

Flagg wrote:

TheHammer wrote:

Flagg wrote: Don't bother with him, he's just... Bleh. There very much was a "let's kick some Arab ass!" feeling in the air after we basically took over Afghanistan in a month. A lot of people like TheHammer, weren't really satisfied and Saddam Hussein = Bad Man so that was where a lot of support came from. Bush/ Cheney just kind of took that general feeling of "let's go kick some Arab ass" and directed it at Iraq, which they had been planning on trying to muster up war against from before he was even crowned by SCOTUS. After all, they did "try to kill his daddy". Best thing to ever happen to the Bush junta was 9/11. Probably why so many of those idiot truthers exist.

Is anything you said even relevant to the discussion at hand? No, no it isn't.

Actually it's quite relevant, as I was telling the person in that post without the tiny mind filled with stupid jingoistic Iraq War apologism, another reason I believe the American people were so easily led to war. I also advised them that arguing with you about anything is utterly pointless and they would be better off conversing with a horse that's still not quite right ever since that bag of feed fell on its head. And you can't argue against facts, dummy.

Nope, still not relevant to what was being discussed. Please READ what is being talked about and try again.

TheHammer wrote:

Thanas wrote:If the standards for "no military campaign" are "the civilians are in charge on the ground", then neither the occupation of Europe/Japan qualify as a military operation. Nor would most wars.

I'd view an occupation of a defeated enemy to be a "post war" operation. While the military is still certainly present, they are actively transitioning to a support rather than combat role.

I don't get this. It would be one thing if there would be a civilian in command on the ground integrated in the military structures, but Paul Bremer certainly wasn't the CiC of Iraq. And as soon as the shooting started and largescale operations were pulled off, this really is not a civilian operation anymore.

TheHammer wrote:

Flagg wrote:

TheHammer wrote: Is anything you said even relevant to the discussion at hand? No, no it isn't.

Actually it's quite relevant, as I was telling the person in that post without the tiny mind filled with stupid jingoistic Iraq War apologism, another reason I believe the American people were so easily led to war. I also advised them that arguing with you about anything is utterly pointless and they would be better off conversing with a horse that's still not quite right ever since that bag of feed fell on its head. And you can't argue against facts, dummy.

Nope, still not relevant to what was being discussed. Please READ what is being talked about and try again.

Are you a mod? Oh thank god, you're not. You don't get to decide what I say you war crimes apologist piece of shit. The day I take a fucking order from you is the day that they find WMD in Iraq, so never. So the next time you get the inkling to assume you have any type of power over what I say, when, and where I say it, just Masturbate to 'American Sniper', OK buddy?

And next time you want to make an ad hominem post, at least be creative you dumb turd.


And since there was constant fighting during the "occupation" in which American soldiers took the lead... It was never a "civilian operation", unless you count Blackwater (now Xi) as civilians. And the day mercenaries who randomly massacre people in their own country for the great crime of trying to not die aren't considered part of the armed forces when it's the US paying them is the day hell freezes over and Thanas gains a sense of humor understandable outside of Germania.