Anyone else starts to talk about the Armenian genocide..guess we'll have some waiting time before that's addressed.

I love this country more than some I guess... :-[

Care to elaborate, or are you just going to keep on being vague?

Care to elaborate, or are you just going to keep on being vague?



You were expecting a clear and concise post?  Really? 

I think he was talking about President Obama's recent "Apology World Tour".  Part of which was urging Turkey to create a dialog with Armenia, and blaming the current problems the US is facing on our own arragance.

Of course, because of this we now have people (Castro) suggesting we apologize to Cuba.  And Hugo Chavez thinks we should apologize to Japan for nuking them in WWII.

I also heard that PETA is demanding an apology to the animals of the world because we keep eating them.  And Flipper is demanding an apology for all the dolphins we killed in our tuna nets.  And don't forget the apology the rabbits are demanding of GM for all of them killed on the highways of the US.

Practically in the same breath Obama addressed "insidious" anti-Americanism on the part of European countries.  Of course, you're not going to see that side of the statement on Sean Hannity.
::)

Speaking from outside the US, damn right I was happy he apologised for US arrogance... I don't think a lot of Americans realize quite how much resentment and even hatred has been stored up over the last few years, how Bush & co managed to squander a huge amount of fellow-feeling after the WTC attack by behaving with really quite overwhelming hubris.

Care to elaborate, or are you just going to keep on being vague?


During WWI the Turks massacred thousands of Armenians in what was clearly an act of genocide, and there has been pressure put on Obama to get the Turks to acknowledge it.  What he did was to suggest that everybody has some bad stuff in the past (for us, slavery and genocide - does the name Wounded Knee ring a bell) and that we all need to confront our past. 

omg. he practiced diplomacy. we better bomb somebody real fast to make up for it.

You were expecting a clear and concise post?  Really?   


It's a hope of mine, yes. ;)


During WWI the Turks massacred thousands of Armenians in what was clearly an act of genocide, and there has been pressure put on Obama to get the Turks to acknowledge it.  What he did was to suggest that everybody has some bad stuff in the past (for us, slavery and genocide - does the name Wounded Knee ring a bell) and that we all need to confront our past. 


Gracias. ;D


omg. he practiced diplomacy. we better bomb somebody real fast to make up for it.


BURNINATING THE PEASANTS!!!

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Trogdor

omg. he practiced diplomacy. we better bomb somebody real fast to make up for it.


;D  word

omg. he practiced diplomacy. we better bomb somebody real fast to make up for it.



BOOM!!!!!




Cat

Speaking from outside the US, damn right I was happy he apologised for US arrogance... I don't think a lot of Americans realize quite how much resentment and even hatred has been stored up over the last few years, how Bush & co managed to squander a huge amount of fellow-feeling after the WTC attack by behaving with really quite overwhelming hubris.




Our politicians and pundits have this habit of proclaiming, "America is the greatest country in the world!"  The rest of the world wonders, "So what does that make us?"

Suppose you had a guy at work who shouted at every staff meeting:  "I'm the the best; I'm the smartest person in this company.  Do you know how many times I've saved all your asses? If it wasn't for me, you'd all been out of a job years ago!  If it wasn't for me and all the awesome work I do for you ingrates, this whole company would be kaput by next quarter, so don't you bitch at me!  You see me in the hall, you just drop to your knees and kiss my...ring!"

What would you think of your co-worker?  What would you say about him at the water cooler?

That's what was so embarrassing about the Bush Administration.

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/07/oink.gif

Our politicians and pundits have this habit of proclaiming, "America is the greatest country in the world!"  The rest of the world wonders, "So what does that make us?"

Suppose you had a guy at work who shouted at every staff meeting:  "I'm the the best; I'm the smartest person in this company.  Do you know how many times I've saved all your asses? If it wasn't for me, you'd all been out of a job years ago!  If it wasn't for me and all the awesome work I do for you ingrates, this whole company would be kaput by next quarter, so don't you bitch at me!  You see me in the hall, you just drop to your knees and kiss my...ring!"

What would you think of your co-worker?  What would you say about him at the water cooler?

That's what was so embarrassing about the Bush Administration.

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/07/oink.gif
talking to a friend of mine from another country the other night about the whole thing about america being the most powerful country in the world and i'm speculating that china could probably hand us our ass in an all-out conventional military conflict in a month or two. she sez, "yeah, that whole america being the strongest country thing is something only you guys believe anyway." it's sorta like how the french always claim they're the only country with any culture and the british are saying they're the only country with any manners, and everybody sorta humors them and then there's lots of chuckles and eyerolling the minute they leave the room.

I think he was talking about President Obama's recent "Apology World Tour". 


what Jess and I are saying...if Jess doesn't mind my speaking for her... is that saver has tendency to try to stir up a political debate  but he never fully forms an idea nor gives support to the few statements or judgments he makes...he just hits and runs... It's annoying.

what Jess and I are saying...if Jess doesn't mind my speaking for her... is that saver has tendency to try to stir up a political debate  but he never fully forms an idea nor gives support to the few statements or judgments he makes...he just hits and runs... It's annoying.


oh yeah? well, where's obama's birth certificate?  >:( why wont he tell the truth about attending a muslim madrassa?  >:(

oh yeah? well, where's obama's birth certificate?  >:( why wont he tell the truth about attending a muslim madrassa?  >:(


nice try... I ain't fallin' for it.. Oh look Tuff Turf is on!

Sorry Snoz, I can't quote you cause I'm on my phone, but you are correct.  Saver's tendency to post things that make no sense (unless you are high) are annoying.  I'm all for different opinions on here, but for crap's sake, try to be coherent!

Sorry Snoz, I can't quote you cause I'm on my phone, but you are correct.  Saver's tendency to post things that make no sense (unless you are high) are annoying.  I'm all for different opinions on here, but for crap's sake, try to be coherent!



and stick around for the discussion!

what Jess and I are saying...if Jess doesn't mind my speaking for her... is that saver has tendency to try to stir up a political debate  but he never fully forms an idea nor gives support to the few statements or judgments he makes...he just hits and runs... It's annoying.



Make that a miss and run!
:D

Make that a miss and run!
:D


That is a more accurate depiction! THX!

I'd like to apologize to the rest of the world for how neocons are actively trying to discredit sound science in the name of being "skeptical" about global warming and evolution.

Of course, it would be more appropriate for Bush to make the apology.

oh yeah? well, where's obama's birth certificate?  >:( why wont he tell the truth about attending a muslim madrassa?  >:(


I hear the topics on the radio and ask the questions that some people get 'screened out' from asking..

Here's the quote-'President Barack Obama has declared that America has “failed to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world” and has “shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive” towards its allies.'

REALLY?
Seems we DID partner with them in this War on Terror.....many countries in Europe didn't stay with US in the effort......it wasn't us who didn't want to work with Europe and heck NO I don't want to become part of the European Nation.


*followed that Obama birth certif .charge and funny how it was swept away....the lawyer who started the yell(Mr. Berg)..just stopped pursuing it YET funny how Obama WILL NOT allow anyone to look into his records..what will they find he is older than stated?

Now I am dealing with the new fight to say 'HELL NO' to the new immigration reform bill on its way 4/08/09 (see NY TIMES headline 4/9/09)
Does the Pres. think he will slip this in before next year when we all find out his money plan didn't work?
Sounds like they will cover it as a good thing as making amnesty an orderly system and if you oppose it, you will be called a racist.

 
l 

Sorry Snoz, I can't quote you cause I'm on my phone, but you are correct.  Saver's tendency to post things that make no sense (unless you are high) are annoying.  I'm all for different opinions on here, but for crap's sake, try to be coherent!


For you and snoz..an article that explains how it came off as balanced..if so,you're agreeing with O'Reilly which many hardly do on this site:
http://tinyurl.com/d5k5v7

For you and snoz..an article that explains how it came off as balanced..if so,you're agreeing with O'Reilly which many hardly do on this site:
http://tinyurl.com/d5k5v7



Ah ha.  See how easy it is to post a link so everyone is on the same page as you? :D

And yes, in this case, I do agree with Bill ORLY.  It was a balanced speech, so I don't know why everyone is getting their knickers in a twist over it.  Tia had it right with this post:


talking to a friend of mine from another country the other night about the whole thing about america being the most powerful country in the world and i'm speculating that china could probably hand us our ass in an all-out conventional military conflict in a month or two. she sez, "yeah, that whole america being the strongest country thing is something only you guys believe anyway." it's sorta like how the french always claim they're the only country with any culture and the british are saying they're the only country with any manners, and everybody sorta humors them and then there's lots of chuckles and eyerolling the minute they leave the room.

REALLY?
Seems we DID partner with them in this War on Terror.....many countries in Europe didn't stay with US in the effort......it wasn't us who didn't want to work with Europe and heck NO I don't want to become part of the European Nation.

No one is asking you to become part of the European UNION, although if you think about it, your ancestors probably came from one of those countries you don't want to belong to.

*followed that Obama birth certif .charge and funny how it was swept away....the lawyer who started the yell(Mr. Berg)..just stopped pursuing it YET funny how Obama WILL NOT allow anyone to look into his records..what will they find he is older than stated?

What records do you speak of?  His birth certificate?  An easy Google search will turn it up.

Now I am dealing with the new fight to say 'HELL NO' to the new immigration reform bill on its way 4/08/09 (see NY TIMES headline 4/9/09)
Does the Pres. think he will slip this in before next year when we all find out his money plan didn't work?
Sounds like they will cover it as a good thing as making amnesty an orderly system and if you oppose it, you will be called a racist.


I'm not even going to touch this one because if I do, I will get banned.  Have a nice day.

No one is asking you to become part of the European UNION, although if you think about it, your ancestors probably came from one of those countries you don't want to belong to.

What records do you speak of?  His birth certificate?  An easy Google search will turn it up.

I'm not even going to touch this one because if I do, I will get banned.  Have a nice day.


Ok..do you mean you have pro or con to say on it?

Just wondering where you stood?

I will stop on this as well, but feel there will be many things thrown out there in the next few days after the headlines tomorrow.

More recently(in last few minutes).heard a family that was part of a tragedy in San Fran. is finally deciding to sue the city after their loved ones were killed by an llegal using the citys' sanctuary status...that is a developing story..and another matter.

Our politicians and pundits have this habit of proclaiming, "America is the greatest country in the world!"  The rest of the world wonders, "So what does that make us?"


Oh that is hardly unique Max.  Pretty much every country says that.  Not all that long ago, there was another country that claimed it was going to leave us in the "dustbin of history".

Every country from Spain and Egypt to Greece and Argentina has something to be proud of, and all claim to be "the best".  Heck, even my wife is always going on about how great Argentina is, and how they do this or that better in Argentina.  And this is a country she fled 30 years ago and will never return to.

Honestly, I think the rest of the world is jealous, because they know when we say it, we are telling the truth.   ;)


talking to a friend of mine from another country the other night about the whole thing about america being the most powerful country in the world and i'm speculating that china could probably hand us our ass in an all-out conventional military conflict in a month or two.


Been there, done that.  Look up "Korean War" on Wikipedia.  In that conflict the US was in from the beginning, and lost only 36,516.  China came in much later, and lost between 114k and 400k (depending on who's estimates you believe).  Even accepting the much lower Chinese figure, that is a ratio of almost 4:1.

China does have a massive Army.  But they lack the capability to extend it much beyond their own border.  Their equipment mostly dates to the 1970's, and their tactics are the failed "Warsaw Pact" with a bit of "human wave" thrown in.  Both of which failed in almost every engagement they were used in since 1945.

If there was to be a "Korean War II", it would probably be a repeat of the first.  The numerical superiority of China would give the US forces a beating.  But once the pipeline opened up with increased troops and equipment, the tide would turn.  The US would have logistical superiority, and the ability to keep supply lines open.

And as an old maxim goes, "amateurs talk tactics, professions talk logistics".  During 2 conflicts with Iraq, the US was able to keep it's supply lines open during the entire operation.  Saddam could not even keep his supply lines open from Iraq to Kuwait.  And in that war there was a close parity in ground troops.  Allies had an almost 3:1 air superiority.  Iraq had a 4:3 superiority in tanks.  

China's military looks huge.  Over 7 million strong.  But remember, over half of that (3.9m) is the Peoples Armed Police.  This is composed of all police organizations, border guards, and fire fighters in the nation.  So unless somebody is invading China, that is not much of a threat since only a small fraction could effectively be removed from the country.

More recently(in last few minutes).heard a family that was part of a tragedy in San Fran. is finally deciding to sue the city after their loved ones were killed by an llegal using the citys' sanctuary status...that is a developing story..and another matter.


Oh noes!  Not the illegal immigrant killers again!  Please dude, bring it up again after you tally up how many people have been killed in the past several months by legal residents.  Here, I'll start you off.  There were the nursing home shootings in N.C., the murder of 10 people in Alabama, the murders at the civic center in Binghamton, NY....

So don't even try to bring up the bullsh*t story of how illegals are causing all sorts of trouble unless you're scrutinizing your legal neighbors as well, because they're the ones that are going nutso and blasting away 90 year olds trying to live the rest of their lives in peace.

In that conflict the US was in from the beginning, and lost only 36,516.  gee, 36 thousand dead? is that all? what a drop in the bucket! that's hardly more than a dozen 9/11s! hardly even worth mentioning.

Oh noes!  Not the illegal immigrant killers again!  Please dude, bring it up again after you tally up how many people have been killed in the past several months by legal residents.  Here, I'll start you off.  There were the nursing home shootings in N.C., the murder of 10 people in Alabama, the murders at the civic center in Binghamton, NY....

So don't even try to bring up the bullsh*t story of how illegals are causing all sorts of trouble unless you're scrutinizing your legal neighbors as well, because they're the ones that are going nutso and blasting away 90 year olds trying to live the rest of their lives in peace.
http://tinyurl.com/dxnhem

http://tinyurl.com/dxnhem


I'm frickin' rolling over here. ;D

YOUNG WHITE BOYS!

I'm frickin' rolling over here. ;D

YOUNG WHITE BOYS!
i can't believe jill pike (the female cohost, i don't think they ever show her) said that thing about, "if my name were kipland kinkel i'd shoot some mfers too." so inappropriate! makes me wish she had her own show.

gee, 36 thousand dead? is that all? what a drop in the bucket! that's hardly more than a dozen 9/11s! hardly even worth mentioning.


Considering most scholars estimate the Chinese dead at 10 times that figure, it is rather low.

Oh noes!  Not the illegal immigrant killers again!  Please dude, bring it up again after you tally up how many people have been killed in the past several months by legal residents.  Here, I'll start you off.  There were the nursing home shootings in N.C., the murder of 10 people in Alabama, the murders at the civic center in Binghamton, NY....

So don't even try to bring up the bullsh*t story of how illegals are causing all sorts of trouble unless you're scrutinizing your legal neighbors as well, because they're the ones that are going nutso and blasting away 90 year olds trying to live the rest of their lives in peace.


Jovially, of course we have 'our own' killers we don't need illegal ones...
But it would mean less dead if this last one was dealt with properly by the authorities.

omg. he practiced diplomacy. we better bomb somebody real fast to make up for it.


Guess that Obama bow to a SAUDI PIG KING was diplomacy too??  While The Queen of England gets a nod.. >:(

join the 'blindly led' Washington spinmaster spokesperson who described it as 'Obama bowing to shake his hand with both hands as the king was shorter'..uh, side view shows Obama using ONE hand and with no need to make ANY bending moves.

Read between the lines people!

Jovially, of course we have 'our own' killers we don't need illegal ones...
But it would mean less dead if this last one was dealt with properly by the authorities.




Good point there.  Jolly good.


Guess that Obama bow to a SAUDI PIG KING was diplomacy too??  While The Queen of England gets a nod.. >:(

join the 'blindly led' Washington spinmaster spokesperson who described it as 'Obama bowing to shake his hand with both hands as the king was shorter'..uh, side view shows Obama using ONE hand and with no need to make ANY bending moves.

Read between the lines people!





This, on the other hand, not so good.  That bow was customary--a diplomatic move, not a sign of personal allegiance.  As for loyalty to the "Saudi Pig King," you'll have to ask the Bush family...
::)

Considering most scholars estimate the Chinese dead at 10 times that figure, it is rather low.
I was thinking about this, i wonder about the chinese thing. obviously the US would have a tech and logistical advantage but the chinese, not only in terms of sheer infantry numbers, also seems to have inherited the legacy of the manufacturing base that did the US so much good in wwii. you know, the germans were using tiger tanks that totally outperformed our shermans in every way, but the combination of the ability to manufacture shermans much more quickly due to simple design, then shlepp them across the pond, ended up working in our favor.

i think i read that there were actually fewer american than german tanks in the western theater after D-day but because of superior american logistics, as you point out, the yank tanks were just in smarter places, had better air cover, and of course we didn't have to fight a devastating two-front war against the soviets. (kinda key, actually, that.)

nevertheless, the fact that we were essentially pitting ford pintos against BMWs, 1940s tankwise, could have turned out quite differently. but even if the western european war had dragged on interminably, america probably would still have won because we could have kept pouring cheaper tanks, more quickly manufactured, at the problem. i have to be honest, though, if hitler hadn't decided to try and punk stalin in '41, i think we in the US would all be drinking jagermeister by government fiat and wondering exactly when our gay and jewish relatives were planning to return from their extended overseas vacations. amateurs might talk tactics and professionals might talk logistics, but true war-winners, those who can snatch autocracy from the prospect of violent national and cultural annihilation, do so by willingly giving orders that result in the death of millions of their own. that's a big part of the reason why i think war is so abysmally sad.

anyway.

in the hands of the chinese, a strategy like the US army strategy in the european theater might work. they, the chinese, seem to like to just throw resources at the problem, come up with a cheap design and roll with it. like the sherman tank, the higgins boat, the jeep. and that did us good stead in the western theater, along with -- well, interestingly, very cutting-edge air power (the P-51 was a masterpiece, of course, and the B-29 was a touchstone of aerodynamic design and we probably have it to thank, along with the nazi work in jet propulsion, for the modern commercial airline industry. to the extent we still have one) --

basically i'm saying, hypothetically, if the US were ever to try and conquer the chinese mainland, well, we'd be fudged. it'd be iraq times one trillion. and amusingly, if the chinese ever decided to call in our formidable debt to them, we might be looking at something like that -- a pliable puppet dictator in china would be the US's only way of wriggling out of such an entanglement. and i dont think the gags kermit roosevelt pulled in iran would fly. they run a pretty tight ship over there in china, palace-coup speaking. so it would be iraq-style, running columns of armor up the main drag in beijing. not too pretty.

if, on the other hand, for whatever reason china decided to attack the US mainland -- and yes, i'm getting into wild hypotheticals, here, but at the same time i'm always amused that the prospect of "red dawn"-style US mainland attacks are the stuff of conspiracy theory and yet the most military-minded seem always, secretly, on the lookout for just such a prospect -- well, where did we just spend the last thirty years transferring our industrial manufacturing base to? who better to manufacture the modern equivalent of crappy vomit-inducing flatbottom higgins boats, glorified go-cart jeeps, and cardboard cutout tanks in massive, massive quantities than the chinese? in order to transport their hordes of fanatical human-wavers onto the coasts of california?

starting in or around the late 70s, early 80s, we took all that mid-century civilian industrial capacity, wrapped a pretty bow on it, and mailed it to the chinese with a trillion-dollar IOU slapped on the top, so we could spend the last three decades playing around with paper on wall street. and if the chinese wanted to concoct a quick and dirty but devastating assault on the west coast of the US and pretty much try and pwn us the way we pwned hitler on the western front, they could probably have a fighting chance. all they'd have to do is manage to get over the hump from a war of technological full spectrum dominance and transform it into an old-school war of attrition, shock and awe style. hit hard, fast, and in such overwhelming numbers that you break your opponent psychologically and you are in it for the win. on the US mainland.

in fact, i think i might have a screenplay pitch brewin'.  8)

^

the preceding is the result of a psychological fugue state, much like max's of a few weeks back about SatC. only instead of ambien, i just use good old-fashioned high-proof rum. the way god intended.

Guess that Obama bow to a SAUDI PIG KING was diplomacy too??  While The Queen of England gets a nod.. >:(

join the 'blindly led' Washington spinmaster spokesperson who described it as 'Obama bowing to shake his hand with both hands as the king was shorter'..uh, side view shows Obama using ONE hand and with no need to make ANY bending moves.

Read between the lines people!





I'm SO glad you're not representing the US in the diplomacy arena. ::)


^

the preceding is the result of a psychological fugue state, much like max's of a few weeks back about SatC. only instead of ambien, i just use good old-fashioned high-proof rum. the way god intended.


I thought God wanted us to have beer, or so said Ben Franklin.

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." ;D

I'm SO glad you're not representing the US in the diplomacy arena. ::)

I thought God wanted us to have beer, or so said Ben Franklin.

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." ;D
yeah, well ben franklin never had to contemplate repelling a massive chinese invasion of san francisco. i gotta turn it up a notch, here.

I'm SO glad you're not representing the US in the diplomacy arena. ::)



Muslims take serious exception to being called "pig."
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/07/oink2.gif

I was thinking about this, i wonder about the chinese thing. obviously the US would have a tech and logistical advantage but the chinese, not only in terms of sheer infantry numbers, also seems to have inherited the legacy of the manufacturing base that did the US so much good in wwii. you know, the germans were using tiger tanks that totally outperformed our shermans in every way, but the combination of the ability to manufacture shermans much more quickly due to simple design, then shlepp them across the pond, ended up working in our favor.

i think i read that there were actually fewer american than german tanks in the western theater after D-day but because of superior american logistics, as you point out, the yank tanks were just in smarter places, had better air cover, and of course we didn't have to fight a devastating two-front war against the soviets. (kinda key, actually, that.)

nevertheless, the fact that we were essentially pitting ford pintos against BMWs, 1940s tankwise, could have turned out quite differently. but even if the western european war had dragged on interminably, america probably would still have won because we could have kept pouring cheaper tanks, more quickly manufactured, at the problem. i have to be honest, though, if hitler hadn't decided to try and punk stalin in '41, i think we in the US would all be drinking jagermeister by government fiat and wondering exactly when our gay and jewish relatives were planning to return from their extended overseas vacations. amateurs might talk tactics and professionals might talk logistics, but true war-winners, those who can snatch autocracy from the prospect of violent national and cultural annihilation, do so by willingly giving orders that result in the death of millions of their own. that's a big part of the reason why i think war is so abysmally sad.

anyway.

in the hands of the chinese, a strategy like the US army strategy in the european theater might work. they, the chinese, seem to like to just throw resources at the problem, come up with a cheap design and roll with it. like the sherman tank, the higgins boat, the jeep. and that did us good stead in the western theater, along with -- well, interestingly, very cutting-edge air power (the P-51 was a masterpiece, of course, and the B-29 was a touchstone of aerodynamic design and we probably have it to thank, along with the nazi work in jet propulsion, for the modern commercial airline industry. to the extent we still have one) --

basically i'm saying, hypothetically, if the US were ever to try and conquer the chinese mainland, well, we'd be fudged. it'd be iraq times one trillion. and amusingly, if the chinese ever decided to call in our formidable debt to them, we might be looking at something like that -- a pliable puppet dictator in china would be the US's only way of wriggling out of such an entanglement. and i dont think the gags kermit roosevelt pulled in iran would fly. they run a pretty tight ship over there in china, palace-coup speaking. so it would be iraq-style, running columns of armor up the main drag in beijing. not too pretty.

if, on the other hand, for whatever reason china decided to attack the US mainland -- and yes, i'm getting into wild hypotheticals, here, but at the same time i'm always amused that the prospect of "red dawn"-style US mainland attacks are the stuff of conspiracy theory and yet the most military-minded seem always, secretly, on the lookout for just such a prospect -- well, where did we just spend the last thirty years transferring our industrial manufacturing base to? who better to manufacture the modern equivalent of crappy vomit-inducing flatbottom higgins boats, glorified go-cart jeeps, and cardboard cutout tanks in massive, massive quantities than the chinese? in order to transport their hordes of fanatical human-wavers onto the coasts of california?

starting in or around the late 70s, early 80s, we took all that mid-century civilian industrial capacity, wrapped a pretty bow on it, and mailed it to the chinese with a trillion-dollar IOU slapped on the top, so we could spend the last three decades playing around with paper on wall street. and if the chinese wanted to concoct a quick and dirty but devastating assault on the west coast of the US and pretty much try and pwn us the way we pwned hitler on the western front, they could probably have a fighting chance. all they'd have to do is manage to get over the hump from a war of technological full spectrum dominance and transform it into an old-school war of attrition, shock and awe style. hit hard, fast, and in such overwhelming numbers that you break your opponent psychologically and you are in it for the win. on the US mainland.

in fact, i think i might have a screenplay pitch brewin'.  8)



Your rum is about ten times more coherent than my stone cold sober. 

I was thinking about this, i wonder about the chinese thing. obviously the US would have a tech and logistical advantage but the chinese, not only in terms of sheer infantry numbers, also seems to have inherited the legacy of the manufacturing base that did the US so much good in wwii. you know, the germans were using tiger tanks that totally outperformed our shermans in every way, but the combination of the ability to manufacture shermans much more quickly due to simple design, then shlepp them across the pond, ended up working in our favor.

i think i read that there were actually fewer american than german tanks in the western theater after D-day but because of superior american logistics, as you point out, the yank tanks were just in smarter places, had better air cover, and of course we didn't have to fight a devastating two-front war against the soviets. (kinda key, actually, that.)


The biggest difference was the basic tactics of both sides.  Germany (as well as Soviet and Chinese) doctrine favors strong central control, with little to no ability by lower echelons to devise their own tactics.  They also are slow to learn new tactics.  The old ones worked before, so they will obviously work in the future.

The US on the other hand has a strong tradition of leaders useing their own initiative to "change on the fly".  All of our ward, from the Revolution to 1812 and the Civil War showed that the US can rapidly adapt to a changing battle situation, and the leaders are encouraged to change as new lessons are learned.

And the US had an even larger 2 front war then Germany did.  Don't forget, we were also fighting Japan (and Italy in the Med).


i have to be honest, though, if hitler hadn't decided to try and punk stalin in '41, i think we in the US would all be drinking jagermeister by government fiat and wondering exactly when our gay and jewish relatives were planning to return from their extended overseas vacations. amateurs might talk tactics and professionals might talk logistics, but true war-winners, those who can snatch autocracy from the prospect of violent national and cultural annihilation, do so by willingly giving orders that result in the death of millions of their own. that's a big part of the reason why i think war is so abysmally sad.


Actually, Germany and Japan never had any illusions they could conquer the US.  Their long-range goals had them conquering Asia-Pacifica-Europe-North Africa.  They would then force the US to the bargaining table, useing the thread of constant raids to force them into a peace treaty.  You would then have a 30-50 year period of detante, with each trying to out-do the other in a prolonged Cold War.

Of course, that was the official "Party Line".  Most believe that after peace was achieved, Germany would try to work on the US to form an alliance.  The goal would be to turn on the "Yellow Dogs", and hope that the "Aryan US" would see it was in it's best interest to remove the Japanese scum that attacked it in the first place.


in the hands of the chinese, a strategy like the US army strategy in the european theater might work. they, the chinese, seem to like to just throw resources at the problem, come up with a cheap design and roll with it. like the sherman tank, the higgins boat, the jeep.

...

basically i'm saying, hypothetically, if the US were ever to try and conquer the chinese mainland, well, we'd be fudged. it'd be iraq times one trillion. and amusingly, if the chinese ever decided to call in our formidable debt to them, we might be looking at something like that -- a pliable puppet dictator in china would be the US's only way of wriggling out of such an entanglement. and i dont think the gags kermit roosevelt pulled in iran would fly. they run a pretty tight ship over there in china, palace-coup speaking. so it would be iraq-style, running columns of armor up the main drag in beijing. not too pretty.

if, on the other hand, for whatever reason china decided to attack the US mainland -- and yes, i'm getting into wild hypotheticals, here, but at the same time i'm always amused that the prospect of "red dawn"-style US mainland attacks are the stuff of conspiracy theory and yet the most military-minded seem always, secretly, on the lookout for just such a prospect


China could not adapt to a US style strategy.  They took to many lessons from the Soviet Union.  Their military is rigid, and does not allow for individual initiative.  It favors "massive wave" style attacks, to steamroller the resistance.  And we saw how well that worked in Korea.

And I am not worried about an attack from China.  They have no "lift capacity".  They do not even have sufficient resources to invade Taiwan.  They have a huge army, but no way to move it anywhere not connecting to them directly by land.

And much like most places under a Dictatorship, the people would probably accept a regeime change about like those in Germany-Japan-Iraq have.  Some would resist, but they live in a society where "might makes right".  The biggest problem would be among the "Warlords" that would pop up, each wanting to get a piece of the country for themselves.

BTW, did you know that "Red Dawn" actually came from the Soviet invasion of Afganistan?  The initial invasion (military planes trailing commercial airliners) was exactly what they did in their initial attack on Kabul.  And the movie fairly closely paralleled the Soviets own experience in Afganistan (partaisan forces fighting along supply routes, hit and run attacks against technologically superior forces).  The writers and producers simply changed the invasion from Asia to North America.

The biggest difference was the basic tactics of both sides.  Germany (as well as Soviet and Chinese) doctrine favors strong central control, with little to no ability by lower echelons to devise their own tactics.  They also are slow to learn new tactics.  The old ones worked before, so they will obviously work in the future.

The US on the other hand has a strong tradition of leaders useing their own initiative to "change on the fly".  All of our ward, from the Revolution to 1812 and the Civil War showed that the US can rapidly adapt to a changing battle situation, and the leaders are encouraged to change as new lessons are learned. and yet the russians defeated the germans, with an even more rigid command structure than the germans had. (i don't remember the germans making their soldiers break up in pairs and share one rifle, with one picking it up if the other was shot.) and while on a certain level US forces are very adaptable, on another they plainly aren't, which is why we're still wasting money on cold-war era weapons (which, ironically, woudl actually be useful in the hypothetical i'm talking about, but largely suck eggs in, say, iraq and afghanistan against enemies who are strapping homemade bombs on donkeys. i agree with you that on the field level there's more adaptability but on the broader political level i get the impression it's very rigid and political. look at the debate over the F-22.

And the US had an even larger 2 front war then Germany did.  Don't forget, we were also fighting Japan (and Italy in the Med).tough as the japanese were, you'd have a tough row to hoe trying to convince me they were tougher than the russians. and of course, we weren't fighting italy except in the very beginning. they capitulated quite quickly. (hell, didn't the germans turn on them?) we were going through italy fighting the germans. so it was more of a preliminary action on the western front. the germans, sandwiched between the entire western world on one side and the soviet goliath on the other, had it much tougher than us. probably why they lost.

Actually, Germany and Japan never had any illusions they could conquer the US.  Their long-range goals had them conquering Asia-Pacifica-Europe-North Africa.  They would then force the US to the bargaining table, useing the thread of constant raids to force them into a peace treaty.  You would then have a 30-50 year period of detante, with each trying to out-do the other in a prolonged Cold War.

Of course, that was the official "Party Line".  Most believe that after peace was achieved, Germany would try to work on the US to form an alliance.  The goal would be to turn on the "Yellow Dogs", and hope that the "Aryan US" would see it was in it's best interest to remove the Japanese scum that attacked it in the first place.i've read different things on this. a lot of people shout you down if you say anything other than that the nazis were hellbent on world conquest because it often slippery-slopes into holocaust revisionism or pat buchanan-style 'we should have let the nazis and the rooskies kill each other off.' i personally think they probably experienced scope creep based on the resistance they encountered from britain and the west. originally they planned on deporting the untermench and claiming some liebensraum in exchange for the outrage of versaille and chamberlain gave them the impression they'd get away with it. i don't know if they wanted to take over the US in the beginning, hitler seemed pretty conciliatory toward the US in the beginning, though he thought americans were soft and would be easy to defeat, with their jazz and their dancing and lack of regimentation, so aside from the logistics of crossing the atlantic i think he was sanguine about the prospect of defeating the US if it came down to it. i'm not sure he really wanted england at first, either, but it was plain that after poland he was mroe than happy to give it a shot. i think he probably planned on getting as far as england and then letting the US wait for a later generation. he also had eventually to decide whether he was going to eventually betray the japanese the way he betrayed the soviets.

China could not adapt to a US style strategy.  They took to many lessons from the Soviet Union.  Their military is rigid, and does not allow for individual initiative.  It favors "massive wave" style attacks, to steamroller the resistance.  And we saw how well that worked in Korea.i actually think the nazis' original hubris over the US's supposed softness over our indulgence in democracy and individual initiative has caused, in turn, US military culture to overestimate the value of individual initiative. it has its advantages and disadvantages, but is no guarantee of victory against other, more brutal and vertical command structures.

And I am not worried about an attack from China.  They have no "lift capacity".  They do not even have sufficient resources to invade Taiwan.  They have a huge army, but no way to move it anywhere not connecting to them directly by land.how are they getting all these lead-tainted nesting dolls and sulfur-tainted drywall sheets into the US? I dont' mean to cite Xbox 360 as a source but in "world in conflict" the gag is the soviets sneak in a sizable first wave assault force in mammoth shipping freighters and tankers. i dont know whether such a thing is feasible or if it's just a conceit that's fun for a videogame but it occurs to me there are probably plenty of chinese freighters coming into american ports that would do just such a thing. and so far, we're not really checking them before they dock.

BTW, did you know that "Red Dawn" actually came from the Soviet invasion of Afganistan?  The initial invasion (military planes trailing commercial airliners) was exactly what they did in their initial attack on Kabul.  And the movie fairly closely paralleled the Soviets own experience in Afganistan (partaisan forces fighting along supply routes, hit and run attacks against technologically superior forces).  The writers and producers simply changed the invasion from Asia to North America.
i guess that's part of why this idea sorta interests me. the switcheroo of taking these landing-boat d-day invasion images and switching them around so it's not normandy or iwo jima but california, and the landing troops aren't americans but chinese, but otherwise it might look at lot like saving private ryan or thin red line. just with everything reversed.