Hmmm....countries that use poor tactics? Come on...say it with me Englander...DIEPPE.
And why dont I throw in Dunkirk just for good measure.
US Army with Tactics???
Moderator: MOD_SPWaW
-
Jagdpanther
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Sterling Heights, Michigan, USA
- Contact:
I disagree with Chris McDee about American tactics. The American Army picked things up very quickly once it became involved in North Africa, and even in Tunisia gave the Germans something to think about.
Given the evident lack of grasp of the facts that he shows, perhaps he should have adopted a less abrasive approach.
As far as Vietnam is concerned, I was one of few European young people that actually welcomed the American involvement there, and was sad and disappointed to see them lose.
They got in to do a difficult job, and they did not see it through.
However I have little sympathy for the argument that goes "our Military was brilliant, it was the politicians and the media that scewed up".
The President is also the Supreme Commander.
It would be invidious to second guess Johnson and later Nixon, they were handling a very complex situation, with implications that went beyond just what was happening in Vietnam.
However, in the end, their conduct of the war did not lead to an American victory, and the manner of the American disengagement is one of the less proud episodes of American history.
As far as the body count is concerned, there are many ways to interpret the figures, and some of them do not reflect well on the US.
The North Vietnamese and the VC were willing to sacrifice 4m lives to gain control of the whole country. The US lost 56k men, and decided that the heat was too great. How many South Vietnamese died?
This is just a different way to look at it. I don't support it, but it just shows that facts mean different things to different people depending on where they stand.
In other postings American members have been quite hard when judging other nations and their poor performance at different times in the war. I guess perspectives change when failure is closer to home.
Eisenhower was given the top job because America was by then making the major contribution to the war effort.
As a diplomat, politician and organiser of one of the greatest human enterprises, he gets full marks from me.
I am less convinced of his merits as a tactician. At the level he was, they were not the skills required.
Patton was in my opinion the most brilliant of the Allied generals. He had panache, and real flair. He was also a prickly SOB, and his feud with Montgomery (another difficult character)is well documented.
The last time that England won an engagement bigger than the Falklands escapes me.
British forces (English+Scottish), with Australians, New Zealanders and South Africans, whipped the Germans and the Italians on their own at El Alamein under Montgomery.
That can not be taken away from them.
As far as weight of responsibility for militarily defeating the Germans, it is the Red Army that played by far the most important role.
I can not understand the bad feeling between the British and the Americans that was so evident throughout the campaigns of 1943-1945.
So much petty squabbling cost time and lives so often. Neither side seems prepared to give proper weight to the other's contribution. It is still going on.
I can't see the parallel between Vietnam and Northern Ireland. They seem to me to be totally different situations. There were no American citizens living in large numbers in Vietnam and Vietnam was not an American State. I am also not aware of the British having lost in Northern Ireland.
As for giving up the Empire, I applaud the British for the way in which they managed their disengagement, made necessary because their position as an imperial power was no longer economically sustainable, in a comparatively bloodless and civilized way.
Other empires have collapsed far more violently.
America is now the dominating world power. History will judge whether it will perform the role better or worse than those who came before.
------------------
Fabs
[This message has been edited by Fabs (edited 07-08-2000).]
[This message has been edited by Fabs (edited 07-08-2000).]
Given the evident lack of grasp of the facts that he shows, perhaps he should have adopted a less abrasive approach.
As far as Vietnam is concerned, I was one of few European young people that actually welcomed the American involvement there, and was sad and disappointed to see them lose.
They got in to do a difficult job, and they did not see it through.
However I have little sympathy for the argument that goes "our Military was brilliant, it was the politicians and the media that scewed up".
The President is also the Supreme Commander.
It would be invidious to second guess Johnson and later Nixon, they were handling a very complex situation, with implications that went beyond just what was happening in Vietnam.
However, in the end, their conduct of the war did not lead to an American victory, and the manner of the American disengagement is one of the less proud episodes of American history.
As far as the body count is concerned, there are many ways to interpret the figures, and some of them do not reflect well on the US.
The North Vietnamese and the VC were willing to sacrifice 4m lives to gain control of the whole country. The US lost 56k men, and decided that the heat was too great. How many South Vietnamese died?
This is just a different way to look at it. I don't support it, but it just shows that facts mean different things to different people depending on where they stand.
In other postings American members have been quite hard when judging other nations and their poor performance at different times in the war. I guess perspectives change when failure is closer to home.
Eisenhower was given the top job because America was by then making the major contribution to the war effort.
As a diplomat, politician and organiser of one of the greatest human enterprises, he gets full marks from me.
I am less convinced of his merits as a tactician. At the level he was, they were not the skills required.
Patton was in my opinion the most brilliant of the Allied generals. He had panache, and real flair. He was also a prickly SOB, and his feud with Montgomery (another difficult character)is well documented.
The last time that England won an engagement bigger than the Falklands escapes me.
British forces (English+Scottish), with Australians, New Zealanders and South Africans, whipped the Germans and the Italians on their own at El Alamein under Montgomery.
That can not be taken away from them.
As far as weight of responsibility for militarily defeating the Germans, it is the Red Army that played by far the most important role.
I can not understand the bad feeling between the British and the Americans that was so evident throughout the campaigns of 1943-1945.
So much petty squabbling cost time and lives so often. Neither side seems prepared to give proper weight to the other's contribution. It is still going on.
I can't see the parallel between Vietnam and Northern Ireland. They seem to me to be totally different situations. There were no American citizens living in large numbers in Vietnam and Vietnam was not an American State. I am also not aware of the British having lost in Northern Ireland.
As for giving up the Empire, I applaud the British for the way in which they managed their disengagement, made necessary because their position as an imperial power was no longer economically sustainable, in a comparatively bloodless and civilized way.
Other empires have collapsed far more violently.
America is now the dominating world power. History will judge whether it will perform the role better or worse than those who came before.
------------------
Fabs
[This message has been edited by Fabs (edited 07-08-2000).]
[This message has been edited by Fabs (edited 07-08-2000).]
Fabs
The Dieppe raid was staged to learn lessons concerning amphibious operations. Being the first ever operation of this nature, it is hardly surprising that it was a disaster.Originally posted by Jagdpanther:
Hmmm....countries that use poor tactics? Come on...say it with me Englander...DIEPPE.
And why dont I throw in Dunkirk just for good measure.
And what is this about Dunkirk? Most historians agree that the evacuation of the BEF was an extraordinary feat, and the British can not be held responsible for the collapse of the French Army.
If you want to point out aspects of British generalship that are less than brilliant try Singapore, Greece and a number of episodes in the Western Desert between Rommel's arrival and El Alamein.
They may want to draw your attention to Kasserine, the near collapse of the American beach-head at Salerno and Lucas's performance at Anzio.
This way the only thing that we have proved is that both British and Americans had their difficult moments during the war.
------------------
Fabs
Fabs
Fabs:
Perhaps you missed my stating that Vietnam and N. Ireland are similar in and of the situation concerning Joe Six-pack and the will to win. Your analysis of the role of the commander in chief never having lived here is indeed interesting. The CinC's role is not very strictly defined by our Constitution.
I love George Bush because he was intelligent enough to not attempt to micromanage the Gulf War. There is no way a President (Except Washington, Grant, and Eisenhower)will ever be able to understand military operations better than his senior leadership. That being the case a good CinC picks the opponent, the objective, and lets the soldiers win.
I will not attempt to second guess the former Presidents either, but I will say that micromanagement helped put two of my kinsmans names on the wall. If a problem is serious enough to merit US involvement than it is serious enough to merit a US win unless the CinC wishes the shed blood be in vain. It never fails to amaze me how the rest of the world begs US involvemnt, and then decries our "Imperialism".
regards,
sven (who does not think American blood should be viewed as a renewable resource)
------------------
Give all you can all you can give....
[This message has been edited by sven (edited 07-08-2000).]
Perhaps you missed my stating that Vietnam and N. Ireland are similar in and of the situation concerning Joe Six-pack and the will to win. Your analysis of the role of the commander in chief never having lived here is indeed interesting. The CinC's role is not very strictly defined by our Constitution.
I love George Bush because he was intelligent enough to not attempt to micromanage the Gulf War. There is no way a President (Except Washington, Grant, and Eisenhower)will ever be able to understand military operations better than his senior leadership. That being the case a good CinC picks the opponent, the objective, and lets the soldiers win.
I will not attempt to second guess the former Presidents either, but I will say that micromanagement helped put two of my kinsmans names on the wall. If a problem is serious enough to merit US involvement than it is serious enough to merit a US win unless the CinC wishes the shed blood be in vain. It never fails to amaze me how the rest of the world begs US involvemnt, and then decries our "Imperialism".
regards,
sven (who does not think American blood should be viewed as a renewable resource)
------------------
Give all you can all you can give....
[This message has been edited by sven (edited 07-08-2000).]
Sven,Originally posted by sven:
Fabs:
Perhaps you missed my stating that Vietnam and N. Ireland are similar in and of the situation concerning Joe Six-pack and the will to win. Your analysis of the role of the commander in chief never having lived here is indeed interesting. The CinC's role is not very strictly defined by our Constitution.
I love George Bush because he was intelligent enough to not attempt to micromanage the Gulf War. There is no way a President (Except Washington, Grant, and Eisenhower)will ever be able to understand military operations better than his senior leadership. That being the case a good CinC picks the opponent, the objective, and lets the soldiers win.
I will not attempt to second guess the former Presidents either, but I will say that micromanagement helped put two of my kinsmans names on the wall. If a problem is serious enough to merit US involvement than it is serious enough to merit a US win unless the CinC wishes the shed blood be in vain. It never fails to amaze me how the rest of the world begs US involvemnt, and then decries our "Imperialism".
regards,
sven (who does not think American blood should be viewed as a renewable resource)
America was fighting in Vietnam in pursuit of its own national interest. I applauded its involvement because i am a staunch anti-communist.
America is the new world power. Its reluctance to expose its soldiers to the risk of becoming a casualty must be a source of puzzlement to allies and enemies alike. It is well documented.
I agree with you that if a problem is serious enough it should warrant the effort necessary to secure a victory. This normally means three things:
1) the possibility of embarassing setbacks on the way there. In such circumstances you need a Leader with determination, a united political system and supportive media and population, who understand the rerasons for the sacrifice.
2) casualties greater than anticipated. The needs are as above.
3) unexpected political complications leading to a widening of the conflict and thus the commitments. Even more need for the above.
American politicians want to run wars as media events, with an eye to quick results and the avoidance of traumas. Their political opponents are quick to exploit their bad fortune, as are the media who influence the disposition of the population.
In the Gulf they were lucky. In Yugoslavia too.
The next mix-up may yet test American power much more severely.
The people who ask America to get involved in international conflicts and the people who decry American imperialism are not normally the same.
The two situations go with the territory of being a world power. A thick skin is helpful.
Regards,
------------------
Fabs
Fabs
-
troopie
- Posts: 644
- Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Directly above the centre of the Earth.
Should like to point out that if, Churchill had not pulled most of the British army out of North Africa to help the Greeks, the British would have run the Italians out of Libya before Rommel got there, and he would never have made a reputation as the Desert Fox.
As far as Vietnam is concerned, there were two wars there, the political war and the military war. The US won the military war, but that was not the important one. The US military and GVN defeated the Viet Cong in 1972. But the VC would not have stayed defeated. By my estimate, GVN (the government of South Vietnam) lost the political war in 1965. US military aid only delayed the inevitable.
troopie
------------------
Pamwe Chete
As far as Vietnam is concerned, there were two wars there, the political war and the military war. The US won the military war, but that was not the important one. The US military and GVN defeated the Viet Cong in 1972. But the VC would not have stayed defeated. By my estimate, GVN (the government of South Vietnam) lost the political war in 1965. US military aid only delayed the inevitable.
troopie
------------------
Pamwe Chete
Pamwe Chete
-
Sabot Scott
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Mon May 15, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Opelousas, La. USA
So imagine my suprise when I found that the US Army had been given high troop quality and Leadership!!! I suppose all the Americans here will disagree with me, but I just thought I'd have my opinion said and done.
You're mistaking tactics with operational art and strategy. Vietnam was a tactical victory (we won every battle) but a strategic loss (we lost support at home and bailed), unlike our War of Independence which enjoyed tactical and strategic victory. Go read von Clauswitz. The one area where in the US has historically been weak has been in the operational stage. I say has been because we licked that problem in Desert Storm!
You're mistaking tactics with operational art and strategy. Vietnam was a tactical victory (we won every battle) but a strategic loss (we lost support at home and bailed), unlike our War of Independence which enjoyed tactical and strategic victory. Go read von Clauswitz. The one area where in the US has historically been weak has been in the operational stage. I say has been because we licked that problem in Desert Storm!
Sabot
You are absolutely right about Churchill diverting troops from North Africa to Greece.Originally posted by troopie:
Should like to point out that if, Churchill had not pulled most of the British army out of North Africa to help the Greeks, the British would have run the Italians out of Libya before Rommel got there, and he would never have made a reputation as the Desert Fox.
As far as Vietnam is concerned, there were two wars there, the political war and the military war. The US won the military war, but that was not the important one. The US military and GVN defeated the Viet Cong in 1972. But the VC would not have stayed defeated. By my estimate, GVN (the government of South Vietnam) lost the political war in 1965. US military aid only delayed the inevitable.
troopie
It was a strategic blunder. Rommel did get his chance, and his superior generalship gave the 8th Army a very hard time.
They did not help themselves by suffering from problems of poor combined arms co-ordination and eventually falling under Rommel's invincibility spell.
El Alamein was the turning point. From then on, superior generalship had to give way to weight of material.
Montgomery was also a better commander than his predecessors. Was he better than Rommel?
Montgomery supporters will point out that he beat Rommel twice, at El Alamein and in Normandy. But then in Normandy Rommel was not calling all the shots.
Patton, Rommel, Montgomery, Von Manstein, Guderian, Zhukov... maybe we should start a thread discussing which of these guys was "el supremo".
That should make for an even more interesting and lively debate.
I agree with your analysis of Vietnam being two wars, and the US losing the main one.
The US needed to learn that overwhelming military power on its own is not a guarantee of ultimate success. That lesson should make it a better world power.
------------------
Fabs
Fabs
-
Hauptmann6
- Posts: 109
- Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Portage, MI
- Contact:
Arg, I need to stay out of the generals debate, but you need to add one name, Bradley.
At low levels the US has always been quite good due to the initiative taken but the small unit commanders, where we were weak was in the operational level, battalion, regimental/ division. at the strategic level, we are about the best.
I will shut up now before I go into rant mode
hehe...
Haupt
At low levels the US has always been quite good due to the initiative taken but the small unit commanders, where we were weak was in the operational level, battalion, regimental/ division. at the strategic level, we are about the best.
I will shut up now before I go into rant mode
hehe...Haupt
-
Greg McCarty
- Posts: 231
- Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: woodbury,mn,usa
This really shouldnt turn into a bashing contest. The problem here is that Chris generalized. You can point out that some American units behaved with ineptitute during
various points in history, all the way up to
Division level. I could name names. And America has never been known for the kind of blue-blood military traditions of the Prussians. But many of our individual leaders proved brilliant -if egomanics. (nature of the beast) There are many accounts of individuals behaving with
extraordinary panache. (Audy Murphy) Overall, Americans probably had better leaders than troops, on average. I think
we performed rather well up thru WWII considering our training was either none or
assembly line fashon. But you have to admit, West Point has produced some great minds.
various points in history, all the way up to
Division level. I could name names. And America has never been known for the kind of blue-blood military traditions of the Prussians. But many of our individual leaders proved brilliant -if egomanics. (nature of the beast) There are many accounts of individuals behaving with
extraordinary panache. (Audy Murphy) Overall, Americans probably had better leaders than troops, on average. I think
we performed rather well up thru WWII considering our training was either none or
assembly line fashon. But you have to admit, West Point has produced some great minds.
Originally posted by ChrisMcDee:
As I'm sure you all know, the Americans are known throughout history for their lack of tactics and feeling of self superiority. From the Foolish attack on Vietnam to Custer's Last stand, the Americans are not exactly famous for their tactical knowledge and the quality of their troops. So imagine my suprise when I found that the US Army had been given high troop quality and Leadership!!! I suppose all the Americans here will disagree with me, but I just thought I'd have my opinion said and done.
Greg.
It is better to die on your feet
than to live on your knees.
--Zapata
It is better to die on your feet
than to live on your knees.
--Zapata
Holy crap. That first post on this topic had to have been an intentional fuse lighting. And just look at the explosion. USA did kinda suck it early in WWII, but we got our sh*t together pretty quick. Even so, you can't expect to go toe to toe with anyone that had the experience of the east front. In Korea we sucked... the US wasn't prepared and we were all high on the victory of '45. By the time we got to Vietnam though you can't be serious if you say we didn't know tactics. We made airmobile what it is today in Vietnam. The Vietnamese beat us, but that's because the war was unwinnable, they we're on top of their political/military game (big time). What were we gonna do? Kill all the Vietnamese? Once you get past Vietnam we probably went into a period of reduced effectiveness due to the low probability of war (or it being nuclear) and the bad taste of vietnam. But nowadays we have a high degree of training and proficiency in our soldiers... Tactics are more a matter of experience than anything else. Those who have done it before have a better idea of how to do it... It's all kinda irrelevant anyways, those values in SPWAW reflect morale and leadership which amount to training. Tactical success is dependent on the relative battlefield 'smarts' of the people who are fighting. (Us players)
Someone said earlier that MacArthur was a tactical genius. I disagree. He was a leader for sure, but a great military mind he was not.
Tomo
[This message has been edited by Tombstone (edited 07-10-2000).]
Someone said earlier that MacArthur was a tactical genius. I disagree. He was a leader for sure, but a great military mind he was not.
Tomo
[This message has been edited by Tombstone (edited 07-10-2000).]
Oh, we could have won Vietnam the way the British won the Second Boer War, by putting them all in concentration camps, right Chris? Oh wait, he's gone 
If anyone ever had to point to a big American disaster, Korea would be the one. We just dusted off some WWII surplus crap, and sent a bunch of softies with no training off to die. Thank god we got serious. I'm not much on Emperor Macarthur, he was a bit of a nut, and not so great a general as he made himself out to be. If you read Korea: the Forgotten War (a huuuuge book), they say that there was already a plan for Inchon, and it was not Macarthur's 'stroke of genius'. He probably had much more skill cultivating a cult of personality than campaigning. Lots of depressing anecdotes in the early part of the book about totally deficient equipment, and bad leadership at just about every level. I think America tends to start off mediocre, and then come on strong.
If anyone ever had to point to a big American disaster, Korea would be the one. We just dusted off some WWII surplus crap, and sent a bunch of softies with no training off to die. Thank god we got serious. I'm not much on Emperor Macarthur, he was a bit of a nut, and not so great a general as he made himself out to be. If you read Korea: the Forgotten War (a huuuuge book), they say that there was already a plan for Inchon, and it was not Macarthur's 'stroke of genius'. He probably had much more skill cultivating a cult of personality than campaigning. Lots of depressing anecdotes in the early part of the book about totally deficient equipment, and bad leadership at just about every level. I think America tends to start off mediocre, and then come on strong.-
Larry Holt
- Posts: 1644
- Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2000 10:00 am
- Location: Atlanta, GA 30068
The US Army agrees with you. Years ago an analysis showed just this fact and the leadership decided to change it. Out of this the national training centers were born. It was noted that if soldiers, marines, etc. could get some realistic experience before the bullets started flying then their survival and success ratio in war would be better. "No more task force Smiths" is the rallying cry of the training centers. Given the impressive tactical* display of the US military (not just the army) in Desert Storm. I'd say that they are doing a good job.Originally posted by Seth:
think America tends to start off mediocre, and then come on strong.
*OK, given the operational situation, Iraq lost the war when they sat in the desert and let themselves be cut apart by bombers but when the forces clashed on the ground, US crews out performed their enemies because they were superbly trained. Not to slight the tactical expertise of our allies but this is a thread about US tactics.
------------------
An old soldier but not yet a faded one.
OK, maybe just a bit faded.
Never take counsel of your fears.
-
ChrisMcDee
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: England
- Contact:
No, I haven't gone. I was just waiting.
The Americans attacked Vietnam to try and show off to Russia and the rest of the world by starting a war that could have been prevented. Much like in Hiroshima, they only wanted to show off their 'power' and it backfired spectacularly, leaving America looking like fools. I am not having a go at the US here, I'm just stating my opinion. So let's end the topic now, it's getting dull.
The Americans attacked Vietnam to try and show off to Russia and the rest of the world by starting a war that could have been prevented. Much like in Hiroshima, they only wanted to show off their 'power' and it backfired spectacularly, leaving America looking like fools. I am not having a go at the US here, I'm just stating my opinion. So let's end the topic now, it's getting dull.
Verior Procella
Originally posted by ChrisMcDee:
No, I haven't gone. I was just waiting.
The Americans attacked Vietnam to try and show off to Russia and the rest of the world by starting a war that could have been prevented. Much like in Hiroshima, they only wanted to show off their 'power' and it backfired spectacularly, leaving America looking like fools. I am not having a go at the US here, I'm just stating my opinion. So let's end the topic now, it's getting dull.
Spoken like a defeated man. I guess England only goes to war for "the right reasons?" Germany, and Russia too? What about Japan?
Who in the hell do you think you are? You are speaking from a position of authority with no sources or referencing.(kind of shows a lack of intellectual honesty) You must be a Blair voter.
regards,
sven
------------------
Give all you can all you can give....
Every major military operation is full of imponderables and surprises.
Because America is a democracy, is not imperialist (contrary to generally held beliefs outside America) and is not a militaristic society, it always tends to struggle at the beginning of a new situation.
The free world owes America a debt of gratitude for the way in which it continues to try to keep some sort of progressive order in a chaotic world, regardless of whether one believes that it does so out of self-interest, or even incompetently at times.
We do get exasperated at times with aspects of how it chooses to project its power, but that should not detract from the general principle.
Every now and then, it can stupefy the world with its capability, as it did in 1991 under an extremely competent President.
It will be a long time before an equally illuminated and capable power will emerge, if ever.
Europeans that begrudge American hegemony do so because they hanker back to the days when their nations ruled the roost.
They like to think that if that would still be the case things would be running much better.
Their history, within which lie the reasons for their fall from power, does not support this.
------------------
Fabs
Because America is a democracy, is not imperialist (contrary to generally held beliefs outside America) and is not a militaristic society, it always tends to struggle at the beginning of a new situation.
The free world owes America a debt of gratitude for the way in which it continues to try to keep some sort of progressive order in a chaotic world, regardless of whether one believes that it does so out of self-interest, or even incompetently at times.
We do get exasperated at times with aspects of how it chooses to project its power, but that should not detract from the general principle.
Every now and then, it can stupefy the world with its capability, as it did in 1991 under an extremely competent President.
It will be a long time before an equally illuminated and capable power will emerge, if ever.
Europeans that begrudge American hegemony do so because they hanker back to the days when their nations ruled the roost.
They like to think that if that would still be the case things would be running much better.
Their history, within which lie the reasons for their fall from power, does not support this.
------------------
Fabs
Fabs
Every major military operation is full of imponderables and surprises.
Because America is a democracy, is not imperialist (contrary to generally held beliefs outside America) and is not a militaristic society, it always tends to struggle at the beginning of a new situation.
The free world owes America a debt of gratitude for the way in which it continues to try to keep some sort of progressive order in a chaotic world, regardless of whether one believes that it does so out of self-interest, or even incompetently at times.
We do get exasperated at times with aspects of how it chooses to project its power, but that should not detract from the general principle.
Every now and then, it can stupefy the world with its capability, as it did in 1991 under an extremely competent President.
It will be a long time before an equally illuminated and capable power will emerge, if ever.
Europeans that begrudge American hegemony do so because they hanker back to the days when their nations ruled the roost.
They like to think that if that would still be the case things would be running much better.
Their history, within which lie the reasons for their fall from power, does not support this.
------------------
Fabs
Because America is a democracy, is not imperialist (contrary to generally held beliefs outside America) and is not a militaristic society, it always tends to struggle at the beginning of a new situation.
The free world owes America a debt of gratitude for the way in which it continues to try to keep some sort of progressive order in a chaotic world, regardless of whether one believes that it does so out of self-interest, or even incompetently at times.
We do get exasperated at times with aspects of how it chooses to project its power, but that should not detract from the general principle.
Every now and then, it can stupefy the world with its capability, as it did in 1991 under an extremely competent President.
It will be a long time before an equally illuminated and capable power will emerge, if ever.
Europeans that begrudge American hegemony do so because they hanker back to the days when their nations ruled the roost.
They like to think that if that would still be the case things would be running much better.
Their history, within which lie the reasons for their fall from power, does not support this.
------------------
Fabs
Fabs
Sorry about repeating myself guys, got confused when the page switched.Originally posted by ChrisMcDee:
No, I haven't gone. I was just waiting.
The Americans attacked Vietnam to try and show off to Russia and the rest of the world by starting a war that could have been prevented. Much like in Hiroshima, they only wanted to show off their 'power' and it backfired spectacularly, leaving America looking like fools. I am not having a go at the US here, I'm just stating my opinion. So let's end the topic now, it's getting dull.
I am left breathless by the superficiality of this posting by Chris. A standard European left wing student type of argument, I do not believe that it even deserves to be answered.
Please do not confuse his rantings with his country. It just keeps the level of debate lower than it can be.
Incidentally, many Blair voters are actually pro-american. There is a greater affinity with America in the UK than in any other European country.
It remains to be seen whether they will vote for Blair in quite the same number. The one thing working for Blair right now is that the alternative is still far from compelling.
------------------
Fabs
[This message has been edited by Fabs (edited 07-10-2000).]
[This message has been edited by Fabs (edited 07-10-2000).]
Fabs
Good God Britboy, you are ignorant! We didn't start the Vietnam War, we joined it already in progress. Sure, we didn't have to, but it was certainly already going when we got there. But, since we all KNOW how terrible US tactics are, I'm sure we all KNOW that you're right, huh? I suppose I can say that the Romans were absolutely incompetent because they lost the occasional battle? Which military that has actually fought, has not?
On the other, I really don't get how Bush deciding we needed gas to stay cheap qualifies as a brilliant victory. If you spend a couple of months bombing unmotivated conscripts out in the desert, you'd damn well better win. I think just about anyone could have won that one. We haven't faced a real opponent in years. With the quality of our armed forces, very few qualify as worthy, and we're unlikely to invade Western Europe just to see how we'd do.
On the other, I really don't get how Bush deciding we needed gas to stay cheap qualifies as a brilliant victory. If you spend a couple of months bombing unmotivated conscripts out in the desert, you'd damn well better win. I think just about anyone could have won that one. We haven't faced a real opponent in years. With the quality of our armed forces, very few qualify as worthy, and we're unlikely to invade Western Europe just to see how we'd do.