- advertisements -
There are only two types of ships:Fast Attack submarines, and targets.
Spoken like a true bubblehead..
Qualified on 688s.
i'm not sure what a 688 is, possibly some kind of water craft, but it doesn't much matter. the u.s. does not have global geostrategic advantage at this point. any additional trouble of any sort (and the recent double murder of pakistani intelligence officers with the u.s. shooter in their custody doesn't help) will make "our" overextension and lack of strategic reserve more apparent. see below for if they're sunk in the canal, if iran decides to destabilize iraq (further), or somehow do anything to raise the price of oil (which with parabolic money supply and the growing realization of overstated saudi reserves and pumping capacity wants to go up). it ain't all "battleship".
So, if we just destroy Iran in nuclear fire, problem solved?
No but, It would solve 10x more problems by doing that to Israel
1000 more problems created, some of which will be nuclear armed themselves, with submarines.
Only the Soviets mattered. Europe is no longer anything but brown water sailors.
You fking Zionists and their American lackeys are driving America to a nuclear Holocaust. Do you really want to see millions of Americans dead? Do you fking idiots think it will be without terrible retributions to America and its people?
It will not be very pretty with nightmarish consequences for you warmongers.
As for Iranians, any military provocation/confrontation against Iran will be welcome by their leaders helping unite Iranian people and squash any internal decent.
Obama stood around with his thumb in his ass during the Green Revolution, and Iran squashed all dissent, and rather brutally. What's the diff?
The U.S. controls the world: its oceans, its atmosphere, its resources. The only thing anyone has on us is the Chinese with their geographic luck of sitting on all the world's REEs. We are basically a soft power. If we so desired, we could make the world tremble with absolute fear. The only reason we are overextended is cause of our lack of a conscript army. That can be solved with one executive order. Peopl forget here and elsewhere that even though we are in debt and have big deficits we also have 10s of trillions in assets. The end is nowhere near. If the economic seas become rougher, and people are deprived of their cable (and I love cable) and other luxuries, and war ensues, We will win. I don't see who could defeat us. Well maybe Chna will send their Navy to invade us. Oh wait they dont have a Navy of any respectable size.
1. The US Navy is the undisputed lord of its domain. That is @72% of the Earth's surface. And any beach you care to name.
2. Selective Service, Bitches. All y'all who took student loans should remember that.
3. I keep telling folks they would hate it if the US became a real empire.
4. A real empire would kill your armies, take your stuff, AND exact tribute.
"US Navy is the undisputed lord of its domain"
Somali pirates didnt get the memo, it seems ...
Pirates took over a US navy ship! Oh wait no they didn't. Did you ever notice how there has only been one US merchant ship hijacked. Maybe it's cause we killed all the pirates except for one and then sent him to the depths of the federal penal system: probably Florence, Colo. Super Max.
a draft would be an absolute sure sign of the endgame. didn't work at all well last time and we were far more naive.
Feel free to go fight this war on your own. I'm sure you'll be happy to offer up any children you managed to conceive as fodder for the cause. Good luck with it. We'll maybe put up a memorial of you somewhere. Perhaps right next to the one we erected for General Custer.
I am Chumbawamba.
Native americans won the battle at Little Big Horn but lost the war. Was that the point you were trying to make, deadbeat? lulz.
I guess I was making the point that you're as irrelevant as Ariel Sharon and that your mother was likely a crack whore. Yep, bingo:
I'd be a sad junkie, too, if I had to fuck your father to conceive you.
P.S. Ask any of the palefaces who spend all day feeding nickels into a slot machine at an Indian casino who won the war.
And by the way, thanks for covering my tax liability. Are you also going to contribute a dollar towards the general election fund?
I am Chumbawambhahahahahahaha.
That's all you can do? Junk me? Talk about lack of personal empowerment.
I really enjoyed all of those posts, but I junked you just for the thrill of it
You seem upset, flim flam. All those creditor lawsuits and upcoming trials must be wearing on you. Still, I'm touched that you took time away from grifting your creditors to reply to my message. I look forward to many more laughs at your expense, unless they won't let you post from Club Fed. :)
Seriously, is that all you got?
Isn't there a game of three card monte somewhere with your name on it, shady?
Dude, you're a fricking zionist. What makes you think anything you say matters?
as the berlin wall's demise was the foreshadow of the ussr's demise, so too the breakup of the middle east autocratic/u.s. petrodollar/zionist entity protectorate.
The US controls:
the world - hmm - no!
the oceans - hmm - no!
the atmosphere - hmm no!
the resources - hmm no!
These are complex, dynamical systems and as such completely out of any control. The desire to control such things is simply a delusion of power and will only hasten the already precipitate decline of the American empire.
If the U.S. goes back to the Monroe Doctrine, the world would beg us to return and all you have to do is look at who would fill the vacuum: China. How do they behave? Poorly is the answer. Just ask the workers who demanded better wages in Angola and were shot.
Also, to say we don't control the sea is, imho, absurd. You can use some abstract argument that no one can and I get it but we are the world's foremost naval power. So, if it aint us then who? And I meant the atmosphere as in we have the world's best air force. I don't want the U.S. to be an empire by any stratch and BTW, I did try and join the army but i had a medical condition at the time that precluded me from joining. If I was called up, I would serve.
"If the U.S. goes back to the Monroe Doctrine, the world would beg us to return and all you have to do is look at who would fill the vacuum: China"
Beg us to return? NOT.
I think that you meant to say that the US controls other nations access to and use of, the seas.
Some people are waaaaaay to literal.
That is what I meant. I try to add a bit of nuance and flare to my posts and hope that people take sarcasm as sarcasm and take bold statements, like the I made, as having some nuance behind it. I don't mean we own the seas or some such garbage. And yes, the world begs us to do something everythime something bad happens to the poster above. I guess you're not American though. Not saying you're unamerican saying you send like your from a different country by your words.
"If the U.S. goes back to the Monroe Doctrine, the world would beg us to return...."
So you prefer US bakrupting itself while policing the world. Uhm, yes, that makes sense.
Did I say that? Uh, no. I didn't. I said the world wouldn't like it and would soon find out they need us more than we need them. But, ys, i think we should trade with other countries and protect our interests where necessary. bases in germany. get rid of em. bases in Djhibouti. keep em.
Except that this mighty, mighty war machine you speak of is incapable of holding a narrow strip of land in Baghdad. Not to mention it is bogged down in Afghanistan in another unwinnable situation.
Could the US bomb everyone into obscurity? Sure. But what would that solve? Nothing...outside of giving a few pro-military jackasses on this site a military boner.
Why would any nation fight the US on a traditional battlefield when asymmetric warfare is a proven success?
Mis-assumption -- the incapability you mentioned is not a military issue.
Our issues in Iraq and Afghanistan are the result of trying to force the military to do what it should NOT be doing -- namely, "nation-building" and reconstruction of a war zone. If we took the gloves off our military and allowed it to do its job (kill people and break things, which leads to domination of the local population), there would be an enforced peace overnight in both sandboxes.
By tying our hands together via political correctness and inappropriate missions, our military has no chance, and the desired outcome has odds greatly stacked against it.
If we allowed the Marines to go kick ass and create some order without having to worry about DC bureaucrats bringing them up on charges, the MidEast changes forever. Until then, we have a waffling policy that serves no one and unnecessarily exposes our fine military personnel to injury, stress, and death.
Thank you TMC, those are my sentiments precisely. If we wanted to, we coulda wiped out those insurgents in a flash. But D.C. put shackle on our soldiers and our military.
Does the phrase "cutting off your nose to spite your face" mean anything to you jackasses?
So there's no downside to carpet bombing the Middle East? (hint: ME contains a valuable resource upon which the US 'economy' depends)
Man if only the bureaurcracy would remove the shackles that prevents the US from killing thousands of people - THEN we'd win the war!
Time for a cold shower, guys.
A. calling names is juvenile and has no place in serious discussion -- grow up.
B. no mention was made to downside of carpet bombing anything. The challenge was to the statement about military ineffectiveness, not the good/bad of being there at all.
The point is that our failures in Iraq/Afghanistan are not from military weakness or inability to deliver force -- look back at the invasions where we cut through their best defenses like a laser through butter. If we were to cut all roads, rails, bridges, and airstrips in and out of major cities while bombing the daylights out of the capital and having boots at the borders, the nonsense would stop.
If we're going to be there, we need to flex and conquer. Being there in our current mode is the reason for the ineffectiveness in your original post. Frankly, I agree that we shouldn't be there -- should have pulled out long ago. However, we ARE there, placed by a Republican president and continued by a Democrat president. To not allow our military to dominate is a crime to all concerned.
Re-read my earlier comment. No one is disputing US military superiority.
So...since we're there we "might as well" let the military do what it does: flex and conquer? But you think the US shouldn't be there?
Sorry, but I don't follow.
Your first statement disputed US military superiority.
Dunno about you, but there have been plenty of situations in my life that "shouldn't have" been present, but the only choice is to work through it and succeed as best you can given the circumstances. That is the situation we are in in Iraq/Afghanistan -- I disagree strongly that we went in (I will admit to supporting at the time but that is another discussion). Once we were in, the choice was to either dominate militarily (empire, takeover) or garrison places/people that were not defeated sufficiently in the invasion phase. The garrison was further hamstrung by Byzantine rule of engagement, UN/DC prosecutions of soldiers, and general media hostility to the entire exercise (whipping up the populace into a false outrage).
Make sense now? We shouldn't be there. However we are. The choices are success (dominate) or failure (status quo); I'll take success, please.
No, you make no sense. Hence my calling you a jackass.
But hey, the "aww shucks" approach to US militarism is all the rage. What's a few (hundred thousand) dead brown people and a bankrupt empire anyway? Your ethnocentrism is appalling.
Predictably, the name-calling is back. See ya.
To conquer and/or to dominate ... is one thing. Holding power is different, I think.
Agreed -- I was taking exception to the "our military can't hold a strip of sand" comment.
We cannot realistically hold power at this time because we have not quelled the population and established that we are running the show. Leadership was handed to the Iraqis before they were ready, and now there is a huge confused mess, with no one really in charge and US soldiers getting snuffed every day.
"If we took the gloves off our military and allowed it to do its job (kill people and break things, which leads to domination of the local population), there would be an enforced peace overnight in both sandboxes."
Soviet Union killed people* and broke things and they lost the afghan war. Same for US in Vietnam. What you say is nonsense.
* it´s estimated they killed 1million afghanis
The Soviets lost Afgahnistan partially because they had serious issues with disease breaking out amongst their troops and were never at 100% effective. At the time, their government was also in the process of beginning to topple over due to their own unmanageable communist society and the US began to spend them into obilivion.
The afghanis did not win that war; the Soviets lost it.
Again, not caused directly by military weakness -- the decimated forces were certainly a factor, but political and economic facets were the reason they lost.
Anytime a nation sets out to invade another for any reason, success requires a clearly stated goal, executed by competent leaders and soldiers, with the support of the citizens and should be undertaken MOST reluctantly, under the idea that there is literally no other option -- war is a horrible event that is nonetheless part of the human condition and is occasionally necessary. It also tends to backfire badly if not handled correctly -- any history book is filled with examples.
This business of going in under fuzzy circumstances, around the constitution, with no real plan after the target gov't is toppled, is a lock for confusion and failure. The military is more than capable of doing its mission; it is the civilian "leadership" and lack of attention and/or misleading information from media sources that cut the legs out from our armed forces. Worrying about PR in the target country is way down on the list in terms of effectiveness, but it gets placed very high by modern leaders -- bad idea that gets in the way of the business of doing what is necessary.
The lessons of Viet Nam being ignored is EXACTLY at the heart of this discussion -- another war that the US won from a military standpoint but lost politically due to a lack of will in leadership. The Soviets didn't heed the lesson and it cost them Afghanistan. We have never heeded the lesson since, and now we find ourselves entangled in conflicts that we either should stay away from or get in with determination and win.
I think Hiroshima, Berlin, and Paris would all like a word with both of your ID's regarding what happens when someone comes in and whips you so badly that you have no alternative but to bend to their will.
If you have no intentions of winning then why fight?
Tips: tips [ at ] zerohedge.com
General: info [ at ] zerohedge.com
Legal: legal [ at ] zerohedge.com
Advertising: ads [ at ] zerohedge.com
Abuse/Complaints: abuse [ at ] zerohedge.com
Advertise With Us
Make sure to read our "How To [Read/Tip Off] Zero Hedge Without Attracting The Interest Of [Human Resources/The Treasury/Black Helicopters]" Guide
How to report offensive comments
Notice on Racial Discrimination.