Quote
Obormot wrote:
America's incompetence in war, I think, does not require proof, but I'll say it anyway. In World War II, the U.S. restricted itself to bombing Germany. This was somewhat effective, but not very. The actual fighting in the air was done by the British; on the ground, by the Russians. May I remind you that it was Russian troops who took Berlin.
Only superficially true. US ground troops were used extensively on the push to Berlin on the Western Front, and Russia took Berlin because the remainder of the allies slowed their advance so that they could do so as a concession to the Russian desire for revenge for the enormous hardships visited upon them because of Germany's actions during the war.
Quote
The nuclear bomb is another example. The Japanese were ready to fight to the end, if not for that nice American tactic of "kill the civilians; we'll show them what we can do!".
By your own argument, the Japanese were prepared to fight to the end (and that would have included most of the civilians), so the US tactic of dropping the nuclear weapons on them probably ended up saving lives. I'm not saying that nukes are wonderful things, but it is possible to come up with justifications for their use, and the two that have been dropped in anger thus far in human history can quite easily be justified in terms of the overall saving of life.
Quote
Then, the Vietnam war. We all know that as a failure for America. How they managed to mess up so badly is an issue too long for this discussion.
Not going to argue overmuch on this one as the US did make a bit of a mess of the Vietnam War. However, when it was finally decided to launch a full scale offensive, the US (and its allies) forced the frontline back enormously in a relatively short period. Remember, very few wars can be won by defensive tactics (which was how the war was being fought for a long time), and even fewer can be won without popular support back home.
Quote
And let's not forget the latest evidence, the "peacekeeping" in Kosovo. An F-117, supposedly invincible and super-stealthy, shot down during the first days of the conflict? And, of course, that bomb that accidently hit Macedonia. As a Russian political leader so succintly put it, "How do you miss a country?"
The F-117 is not invincible, like any other craft it is susceptible to bullets and missiles, as well as technical malfunctions. Any aircraft can be shot down if someone is in the right place at the right time with the right weapon and is a little lucky. And when you consider that the rescue team managed to get the pilot out before the Serbains managed to get to him, that should tell you about how efficiently the air campaign was being run. Yes one or two aircraft were lost, and an occasional missile went astray, and one or two civilian targets were mistaken for military ones, but that is war. Mistakes are made, and some innocent people die. It is a shame. But when you compare civilian casualties in the Kosovo confrontation to other recent wars in the region, and you also take into account the amount of damage caused by NATO actions to Serbian military and civilian infrastructure, NATO did very well considering they went with an air-only campaign.
Quote
Lest this be taken the wrong way, I love the U.S. It's a great country in all other respects. And let's face it, with our technology, America could take over the world in several hours. So there.
Just to put it all in balance, you simply do not have the troop numbers to hold the entire world. Because to hold ground, you need to have soldiers on it. You cannot hold ground with bombs (although you can clear it), nor can you do it with satellites, rockets, trucks, tanks or any other piece of gucci (Australian army speak for schmicko if slightly superfluous) technology. Men on the ground is what counts. You could severely cripple the rest of the worlds ability to make war, but you do not have enough people to keep the rest of the world 'pacified'. And I think it would take a little longer than a mere several hours.
------------------
