Putin

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 8 of 8 << First < 4 5 6 7 8

Stirlingsays Online 21 Feb 15 9.16pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 21 Feb 2015 8.44pm Quote Stirlingsays at 21 Feb 2015 8.23pm Quote susmik at 21 Feb 2015 8.12pm He retired from the RAF on 12 October 2003 so is only spouting his own ideas and not that of the present day MOD and I doubt he has access to any up to date military information. You have plucked him out from what he said some 12 or more years ago. Please do not make things sound as bad as you yourself think they are. Try and get some up to date information from somebody who is stationed there or who knows something concrete about the present situation. Not from newspapers and Google! This man reached the height in his profession and these people don't leave and not maintain contacts. It's ridiculous to imply that he doesn't know the defense capabilities of the Falklands or have a worthy opinion on it over a solider serving there.....or indeed you. People in the MOD are restricted in what they can say so you implying that silence means that these opinions aren't held isn't realistic....Actions will tell us that. Like I said, I will be happy for MOD actions over this latest development over this next year will prove which one of us is a right plonker. Quite true, the only real solution the UK has presented in terms of military successes since the first gulf war, has been air campaigns, with 'logistical' ground support. Afghanistan and Iraq arguably have been failures, not necessarily for military reasons either. Politically, the UK lacks the real capacity to 'accept the necessary' that such conflicts require in order to achieve a chance of success (in terms of casualties, publicity and of course reprisals). The fact is you can't win any war, if your population 'gets the jitters' at casualties in the hundreds. Precisely. People often say the Americans lost the Vietham war......They didn't really....The Viet Cong just survived long enough. They took loses of ten VC to one American.....The difference was that the leadership didn't give a f*** about its own people because it was a dictatorship and America had elections every five years and an informed public and so did care. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays Online

21 Feb 15 9.16pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 21 Feb 2015 8.44pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 21 Feb 2015 8.23pm

Quote susmik at 21 Feb 2015 8.12pm

He retired from the RAF on 12 October 2003 so is only spouting his own ideas and not that of the present day MOD and I doubt he has access to any up to date military information. You have plucked him out from what he said some 12 or more years ago. Please do not make things sound as bad as you yourself think they are. Try and get some up to date information from somebody who is stationed there or who knows something concrete about the present situation. Not from newspapers and Google!

This man reached the height in his profession and these people don't leave and not maintain contacts.

It's ridiculous to imply that he doesn't know the defense capabilities of the Falklands or have a worthy opinion on it over a solider serving there.....or indeed you.

People in the MOD are restricted in what they can say so you implying that silence means that these opinions aren't held isn't realistic....Actions will tell us that.

Like I said, I will be happy for MOD actions over this latest development over this next year will prove which one of us is a right plonker.

Quite true, the only real solution the UK has presented in terms of military successes since the first gulf war, has been air campaigns, with 'logistical' ground support. Afghanistan and Iraq arguably have been failures, not necessarily for military reasons either. Politically, the UK lacks the real capacity to 'accept the necessary' that such conflicts require in order to achieve a chance of success (in terms of casualties, publicity and of course reprisals).

The fact is you can't win any war, if your population 'gets the jitters' at casualties in the hundreds.

Precisely.

People often say the Americans lost the Vietham war......They didn't really....The Viet Cong just survived long enough.

They took loses of ten VC to one American.....The difference was that the leadership didn't give a f*** about its own people because it was a dictatorship and America had elections every five years and an informed public and so did care.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 21 Feb 15 10.11pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 21 Feb 2015 9.16pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 21 Feb 2015 8.44pm Quote Stirlingsays at 21 Feb 2015 8.23pm Quote susmik at 21 Feb 2015 8.12pm He retired from the RAF on 12 October 2003 so is only spouting his own ideas and not that of the present day MOD and I doubt he has access to any up to date military information. You have plucked him out from what he said some 12 or more years ago. Please do not make things sound as bad as you yourself think they are. Try and get some up to date information from somebody who is stationed there or who knows something concrete about the present situation. Not from newspapers and Google! This man reached the height in his profession and these people don't leave and not maintain contacts. It's ridiculous to imply that he doesn't know the defense capabilities of the Falklands or have a worthy opinion on it over a solider serving there.....or indeed you. People in the MOD are restricted in what they can say so you implying that silence means that these opinions aren't held isn't realistic....Actions will tell us that. Like I said, I will be happy for MOD actions over this latest development over this next year will prove which one of us is a right plonker. Quite true, the only real solution the UK has presented in terms of military successes since the first gulf war, has been air campaigns, with 'logistical' ground support. Afghanistan and Iraq arguably have been failures, not necessarily for military reasons either. Politically, the UK lacks the real capacity to 'accept the necessary' that such conflicts require in order to achieve a chance of success (in terms of casualties, publicity and of course reprisals). The fact is you can't win any war, if your population 'gets the jitters' at casualties in the hundreds. Precisely. People often say the Americans lost the Vietham war......They didn't really....The Viet Cong just survived long enough. They took loses of ten VC to one American.....The difference was that the leadership didn't give a f*** about its own people because it was a dictatorship and America had elections every five years and an informed public and so did care. Indeed, the Tet Offensive was a military disaster for the Viet Cong and NVA, and whilst it was a PR disaster for the US, had they escalated their deployment after the Tet Offensive, the VC and NVA would likely have been pushed back into 'the Jungle'. Of course, the US had been saying for years that they had the NVA and VC on the back foot, so the Tet Offensive, was also an amazing disaster for the US because the scale of the enemy was shocking. The problem isn't limited to democracies, the Soviets suffered similarly in Afghanistan. The simple fact is that nations aren't generally willing to conduct prolonged military losses in 'distant' lands. Once they were drafting on a one year tour the US had essentially lost the fight, economically, because each solider was costing tens of thousands to train and equip each year, let alone supply and deploy in the field - whilst the NVA and VC had troops that had decades in the field, were almost self reliant, could fight part time and cost hundreds to equip. A fact that's often missed, an irregular army generally can consist of soliders that maintain farms, fields etc 75% of the year, and then is engaged in conflict 25% of the time. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 21 Feb 15 10.11pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 21 Feb 2015 9.16pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 21 Feb 2015 8.44pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 21 Feb 2015 8.23pm

Quote susmik at 21 Feb 2015 8.12pm

This man reached the height in his profession and these people don't leave and not maintain contacts.

It's ridiculous to imply that he doesn't know the defense capabilities of the Falklands or have a worthy opinion on it over a solider serving there.....or indeed you.

People in the MOD are restricted in what they can say so you implying that silence means that these opinions aren't held isn't realistic....Actions will tell us that.

Like I said, I will be happy for MOD actions over this latest development over this next year will prove which one of us is a right plonker.

The fact is you can't win any war, if your population 'gets the jitters' at casualties in the hundreds.

Precisely.

People often say the Americans lost the Vietham war......They didn't really....The Viet Cong just survived long enough.

Indeed, the Tet Offensive was a military disaster for the Viet Cong and NVA, and whilst it was a PR disaster for the US, had they escalated their deployment after the Tet Offensive, the VC and NVA would likely have been pushed back into 'the Jungle'.

Of course, the US had been saying for years that they had the NVA and VC on the back foot, so the Tet Offensive, was also an amazing disaster for the US because the scale of the enemy was shocking.

The problem isn't limited to democracies, the Soviets suffered similarly in Afghanistan. The simple fact is that nations aren't generally willing to conduct prolonged military losses in 'distant' lands.

Once they were drafting on a one year tour the US had essentially lost the fight, economically, because each solider was costing tens of thousands to train and equip each year, let alone supply and deploy in the field - whilst the NVA and VC had troops that had decades in the field, were almost self reliant, could fight part time and cost hundreds to equip.

A fact that's often missed, an irregular army generally can consist of soliders that maintain farms, fields etc 75% of the year, and then is engaged in conflict 25% of the time.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 8 of 8 << First < 4 5 6 7 8

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Putin

Site Map

Sponsors