You were, and I am very disappointed in you. I expect that this won't happen again.Originally Posted by Seika
You were, and I am very disappointed in you. I expect that this won't happen again.
The US populace isn't precisely as war happy as they were back then.
[20:47:33] I3uster: in 2015 a crack memer was sent to skype prison by a court of his Peers for a crime he didnt commit. he promptly escaped from his Maximum security Forum into the twitter Underground. Today, still wanted by the skype Group he survives as memer of fortune. If you Need a shitpost, if nobody else can fuck up a thread, and if you can find him, maybe you can hire: June.
20.06.2014 Never forget
Modern democratic society is incapable of waging a long term military action.
He never sleeps. He never dies.
Battle doesn't need a purpose; the battle is its own purpose. You don't ask why a plague spreads or a field burns. Don't ask why I fight.
We were in Iraq for a decade.
Not even half a century, pretty weak.
A successful one. To maintain a long term campaign or an occupation, you need public support. But that support gets drained away by the effect of the media during modern war. The daily drip-drip of violence reduces people's appetite for conflict even though it's basically what you're signing up for when you want to see through a conflict like that in the first place. It ends up becoming a political domestic problem.
He never sleeps. He never dies.
Battle doesn't need a purpose; the battle is its own purpose. You don't ask why a plague spreads or a field burns. Don't ask why I fight.
Doesn't it say in the art of war that if you have been in a country for more than 3 months you can't win due to the expense to your own country? In war both sides are losers
Completely irrelevant in the modern context.
lolIn war both sides are losers
No, and it would be absurd if it had, and the methods of waging war and of funding it have so changed since Sun Tzu's time that it wouldn't be terribly useful advice even if neither of those things were true.
A pithy truism that, like most other pithy truisms, is made untrue by the effort to make it pithy.In war both sides are losers
Beast's Lair: Useful Notes
(Lightweight | PDF)
Updated 01/01/15
If posts are off-topic, trolling, terrible or offensive, please allow me to do my job. Reporting keeps your forum healthy.
Seika moderates: modly clarifications, explanations, Q&A, and the British conspiracy to de-codify BL's constitution.
Democracy on Beast's Lair
Well you do lose stuff. You loose men, drones, money. Imagine how great it would be if American spend half the money they spend on military on stuff that benefits their citizens.
Oh yeah, the old canard that the size of the military budget is completely arbitrary and doesn't affect our ability to actually conduct policy.
America is a real help to the rest of the world -_-
It has nothing to do with helping people. The budget is to carry out American policy.
The US is the only western power left with any force projection capability worth speaking of. The Royal Navy doesn't even have any carriers at the moment.
Like, people seriously don't understand how true this is. The reason the rest of NATO can spend so little is because the rest of NATO is completely incapable of independent operations. There's no real fuel stocks, no real ammunition stocks, no command/control support, very little good intel, almost no tanker capacity outside of the US in NATO.
We actually can't do that though?
Global economics are the realm of mad people but America spending less on the military would actually be a terrible idea because of our bananas defense backed currency.
As for ISIS: yes, Bush's fault that they had the opportunity, yes they need to fucking die. The problem is that the US is really not interested in parading around in the desert again and Europe is in no hurry to reverse the military joke it became living under that nice nuclear defense umbrella for decades on end (also: more concerned with Ukraine than ISIS).
This is why the west has been poking the surrounding countries as hard as they possibly can to do something about it themselves. Helpfully, ISIS encourages this by doing things like burning their fellow Sunni alive and generally just being a bunch of insane, evil fuckers.
I mean the damn buck would definitely not be top on the list of "why dropping defense spending would be a problem," the more pressing issue is really that even at present levels we have a huge problem with needing to recapitalize pretty much everything we have in inventory, and due to rising per-unit costs, at present spending, we're in danger of simply not having enough equipment to be able to cover everything that we want to be dealt with.
One could argue that we don't need to be involved with everything we want to be (Which is practically everything but large parts of our government think it's still the 50s).
I'd be open to the argument in abstract but the two ideas don't get paired as policy proposals. Like, nobody in Congress pitching lower defense spending is going to actually also agitate for disengagement.
Posting Permissions
