Why is the US military so inefficient at" winning" wars

Because the modern American military is first and foremost a money laundering scheme:

Taxpayer money + pork barrel kickbacks > military contractors (Boeing, McD-Doug. General Dynamics, etc.) > political re-election funds. And so the cycle continues
.
Fighting and winning wars is a distant second behind this. It's the same in most NATO countries.

If you look at the statistics on large nations vs small nations, large nations almost always win

Until the small nations implement gorilla warfare, then they almost always win

Tactics strategy and propaganda win wars, everything else is bonus stuff

If we could actually kill everything in sight, we'd be pretty damn good.

The political 'hearts and minds' mentality running around policy discussions is what's killing us.

War is an industry that generates a lot of income.

This, honestly. We expect savages to act civilized when we win a war. You can't treat everyone like you would treat krauts or nips.

These wars were never meant to be won. They were meant to exhaust western (white) resources by forcing us to spend billions of dollars chasing a small handful of cave dwelling kebabs.

If we were serious about winning, we'd just drop thousands of incendiary dumb bombs over the population centers and MOABs over the ports and bases, no boots on the ground.

All this "save the civilians" faggotry is why we lose

Because walking around the desert until you step on a mine or get shot at isn't fighting a war.

Maybe because we don't send them into a country to rape and pillage as they're designed and instead turn them into glorified police officers while we spend billions of dollars trying to engineer society for them they'd never achieve on their own and could never maintain?

These.

Supposedly the Diems were South Vietnam's best chance at survival - but they were so hated by American journalists (who were themselves being fed information by a fucking undercover North Vietnamese agent) that nothing good was ever heard about them.

The funny part is that even after their source was outed as a North Vietnamese agent the journalists involved still insist that he was right about everything

This. The old saying goes 'All's fair in love and war' and to ignore this is to be a fool.

Putin controlled the muslims by butchering the families of terrorists and sending their dismembered parts to them. The British bombed Nazi towns and cities into rubble with no care for civilian casualities to force their surrender. Muslims would slaughter every male and rape or enslave every female and child when they captured areas. Crusaders on occasion massacred entire towns and cities and would put to death hostages and prisoners of war when they became 'unwieldy' (this is a good analogy to the US problem, on the whole killing hostages/POW was not a 'good' thing but when you have as many of them as you do soldiers, you cannot reliably keep track of them so it is better to wipe them out; America clearly cannot control the large populaces that they allow to live and refuse to fire upon, some culling is necessary if they want to 'win').

There's also the fact that these wars are not being fought to be won but for money; but the truth of the matter is that all Western nations have grown too soft in how they approach their enemies; be they domestic criminals, migratory terrorists or a hostile host. Too many these days are unwilling to do what must be done.

Low-energy bait thread.

OP writes like either a foreigner or a moron.

Because they're not designed to be "won".

Read the couple posts in this thread and it was all bullshit.

It's quite simply that not all wars are the same, and those the US has been leading up until now are the hardest to win: occupation wars.
The end goals are to stir shit, control infrastructures and resources, and establish semi permanently on that position to invade nearby countries to stir more shit, control more infrastructures/resources and generally piss Russia off.

It's easy to fight an invader even for a Viet rice farmer or a shitskin goat fucker. Just compare the Vietnam war with the Indochina war, and you'll see the difference knowing the terrain, being implanted for a long time, and defending acquired positions makes. Same fucking place, same fucking people, but with an actual goal and not just the army used as pawns in some geopolitical/economic gamble. Or Libya, which the French handled efficiently as well, because they knew the place, had their army nearby… The French are a great example of how a small country can have a great effect by picking its fights and having respect for its army.

The US problem has been a political one all along.

are you sure you can't kill in over 700 ways, and that's only with your bare hands?

not bait was a genuine question and im just not good at writing to be honest

are you fucking retarded or a white nationalist?

Those wars are being won, but not in the way you think of "winning". For example US wealth has increased because of the invasion in Iraq and Afghanistan (the latter invasion being more justified). Look at all the rare metal mines and the trillions of dollars in wealth that the US has control over them.

Oil is also very important, but that is baby's first redpill tier in regards to resources. Don't be a pussy to learn about the sort of wealth that is relevant in the 21st century

It's been getting progressively worse. More feminized cant hit recruits can't say certain swear words need more diversity trainjng, the top brass is all horribly innept. To top it all of these days it is mostly flooded with niggers and spics.

Look, just because fuck faces and armchair generals say that does not mean its less true.

groups that use irregular forms of warfare win more then large nations with vast amounts of technology.

When a car bomb goes off, who is left to fight?
No one, the battle is over and the enemy is already gone.

When the sand niggers mortar the base will it mater if they find you and bomb you?

No because one of your 50 brothers will take your place with your soviet captured gear.

You cant win that without genocide

I might've overreacted tbh, fam.
I'm sorry, been drinking schnapps for a few hours.

Some of the replies ITT are quite good.

The US doesn't have control of any of those resources in fact the US is slowly loosing control of the middle east

that's why
might makes right

Military is so bad at losing wars for one of two reasons:

1) We're not fighting to actually "win", we're fighting to occupy. Even Vietnam the goal was to create a North-South Divide like Korea, which has really shit up that area for those people to this day. The Gulf War is the closest we've come to winning a war. We did our thing and left, however did so half assed. Should have knocked Saddam out back then when we could easily have, but politics. Assuming we would just be in this same shit sandwich regardless if we did in in the 1990's or 2000's.

2) Warfare has evolved, or just reverted back to its earlier days. No more uniforms, insurgency is rampant, tactics are designed to drain moral and resources from the opposing force over the course of years or decades.

You alter both ways by having realistic defined goals and achieving them, then picking up and fucking leaving the place. If you intend to occupy, which America seems to have a hard on for these days, then you're only goal is to violently, and brutally suppress your opponents. You don't interrogate you execute them on the spot. An enemy kills one of yours, you kill his whole family. The only way to deal with insurgencies are through sheer brutality that everyone including those not responsible will pay for one persons actions.

War profiteering and bad negotiation. Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Israel profit off of us going in and tearing up the place so they can stock pile oil reserve after certain regimes have fallen. Once those regimes are gone, oil is ripe for the taking.

Trump actually explains this, to a degree, in Chapter 2 of "Time To Get Tough".

This is also, partially, why. It's the how we do things, rather than why we do them.

they are not meant to be won user, they are meant to go on and on and on and burn through money

mostly this

We also don't make use of the citizens either.
We should be pushing into areas with proper military, then setup small colonies of citizens to control regions.

the goal is not to win its to spill blood and funnel currency through the black hole that is the MIC. have you read 1984? Its spelled out in the book. War perpetuates artificial scarcity and that is how you attempt to control nation/state level populations.

Vietnam only existed as long as it did because the US would not invade North Vietnam for fear of Korea 2.0.

So that was a pretty stupid war giving the enemy a safe base to operate from

Taliban only exist because they have a safe haven in Pakistan.

Counter insurgency conflicts last 10-20 years on average.

there is a grand strategy

keep making war and those in power make the money

how the fuck could a war in the middle east last twice as long as the fucking world wars

After the Gulf War II we should have told all the Iraqi soldiers that role call is at dawn, you are still Iraqi military, and made a transition state rather than building from nothing. Iraq should be for Iraqis, and after Iraq fell the remaining military should have remained in place for a strong state that does not exist today. What did Obama expect, when we remove all forces from a war torn region, leaving the government with a tiny fraction of force that it once had?

Both Gulf Wars were a mistake. But the situation today would be better if the USA had pushed for a unified Iraq under Sunni leadership that was already in place, rather than regime change that led to Shiites and separatist Kurds controlling the discourse. This is the clusterfuck that allowed ISIS to gather strength and move into Syria.

In short, it's all Obama's fault and his foreign policy is the worse than any of the so called imperialists in US history.

America stopped fighting total wars and started the faggy public relations campaign of "winning hearts and minds". We stopped nuking our enemies and started apologizing for hurting their feelings. From total war to appeasing muslim savages. Patton is rolling in his grave.

Because the conditions on winning aren't black and white.

Defeating some enemy force? Easy.

Stabilizing a foreign country? Impossible to say when that is done.

There's the constant argument when it comes to Iraq that because we went in to take out some leader that it meant we needed to care for the country til the end of time without actually controlling it. How do you control a region without controlling it? It's impossible.

OP - Your answer lies here.
It depends on what you define as winning wars.

The war on Iraq for example. Shock and Awe, in under two weeks the entire Iraqi army has been destroyed. The "failure" came next, due to invading by land, unclear objectives, and most importantly: TOO HIGH REGARD FOR CIVILIAN LIVES.

Wars today are not finished in complete victories due to the fact that the attacking force, usually western, tries too hard not to hurt innocents. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't, but this very fact alone stops modern armies from dismantling shit tier states like Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan in modern conflicts.

Take a look at Israel for example. The 2nd Lebanon war could be over in an instant if the IDF simply leveled out entire southern Lebanon. But they chose precise strikes, trying to infiltrate via armor and infantry, and got fucked in the ass. They still maintained a 3:1 K:D but considering the military superiority, it should've been 15:1 K:D at worst.

TL:DR - Wussified generals and defense ministers in the background are what's stopping western armies, not just US, from total victories and playing into the hands of shitty muzzies.

In a true all out war I don't think there's a nation, even a continent, that could withstand a full scale attack by the US army.

America has won every war when it was permitted to engage in 'total war'. These humanitarian wars where you try to rebuilt a country before you make it kneel has caused nothing but trouble.

You are simply regurgitating something you heard.

We protected Chinese miners in Afghanistan, mining and transporting those rare metals.

I had friends who had pics of them guarding poppy fields disappeared from their cameras and laptops - before the cloud.

We sure couldn't spare those bodies to guard the munitions dumps, that ended up being cherrypicked for IEDs down the road.

How young are you?

King nigger didn't disband the Iraqi army, Paul Bremer under Dubya did. I know. I was there.

Get your faggot politicians right kiddo.

none of the modern/current wars are real wars.

Relevant.

United States has a demotist form of government which means only very short term planning is allowed officially, and to win a war requires longer term strategy.

These are all tactical disadvantages. They do not account for the huge number of failures and the belayed response time and ridiculous inefficiency on every other level, and alone, they would not utterly decide the outcome of the war in such a manner.

America is great at winning wars.

The problem is, we aren't fighting to win. "Winning" isn't on the agenda.

Seems a contradictory statement par excellence, T.B.H., user….

Like a few have pointed out, the US is absolutely spectacular at fighting conventional wars. Now, currently all the wars that the US is in, they are fighting unconventionally, additionally, the US is also occupying nations - which is whats costing so much. I'll leave it to you to think if its worth it.

It's not

The US won the Vietnam war. Their goal was to halt the spread of communism, and after the war the original borders were restored.

The US has the most carriers etc, but those carriers can do jack shit when it comes to urban warfare like they're facing in the middle east. That's what makes ISIS so dangerous in my eyes. With all the refugees coming in (and even without them), the welfare state will collapse like they always do. As a result, you'll get poor muslim ghetto's. All ISIS has to do is announce an x amount of attacks in a certain area. This will force the government to come down hard on the muslim ghetto's, making it easier for ISIS to radicalize them. That's how you get an urban war. Your fancy high tech military won't mean jackshit, since they're equiped for conventional warfare.

Where is South Vietnam then?

it's dead :(

The Vietnam war (regardless of who won) was a prime example of terrible leadership. Not a terrible army. Let's just hope Trump gets our boys the leaders they deserve.

No doctrine or wrong doctrine.
AKA "all the gear and no idea".

Because its not about winning its about prolonging it for as long as its profitable, excluding outside factors the longer the war goes on the more money the kikes make because the country has to borrow even more money from the central banks and they make all their money off of loans, war is expensive, loads of loans = loads of money

Only time it would become unprofitable is if external stuff starts coming into the equation like it destabilizing regions that are good goy that they actually don't want to fuck up, or the people becoming so pissed at the war that they risk losing the good goy points they need to do other more profitable things or whatever

Its hard to say and varies from war to war but generally they wanna keep it going as long as they can
Literally all wars during the "cold war" were this, both the capitalist-democratic and communist blocks were run by the same people

radixjournal.com/journal/2015/6/4/our-kind-of-enemy?rq=our kind of enemy

As they had been since the end of WWI

WWII was the last time we had legit warfare with ideology in mind, the kikes were in it to destroy fascism which was an existential threat to their everything, even if the war stalemated militarily they still lost long term because it would slowly spread around the world due to how much better fascism was and still is, and the people of the other countries would see it and they wouldn't be able to cover it up.

We've had a handful of legit wars since the "cold war" ended and good guys took over the former communist block (the new fascists) and when it comes to cold war round 2: this time it's real edition, weak countries that were in the fascist block (Libya, Iraq, Syria, etc) have had the kikes fucking with them because they aren't strong enough to repel them on their own unlike Russia, China etc

Russia and China don't want to risk war with ZOG yet and vice versa, but they do try to fuck with eachother indirectly

Once nukes get obsoleted by global anti ballistic missile systems and we will probably have WWIII unless ZOG has somehow been taken down before them ala Trump and various other country's version of him (Brexit, etc)

I don't think the US wanted to win in Vietnam. The whole post WW2 era was designed to undermine nationalism
and replace it with internationalism, using the UN and other organizations to undermine national sovereignty and
move towards global governance.
The US population, after it's victory over the Axis, was far too proud of it's country. It had to be traumatized and made to feel ashamed or cynical about patriotism.
Defeat in Vietnam was designed to do just that.
Another objective of the war in Vietnam was to divert people's attention while the United States overwhelming military advantage over the Soviet Union was secretly reduced.
A third world war in 1960 would have been won by the United States
hands down. The Soviets simply didn't have sophisticated missile technology.
The Cold War was good for undermining national sovereignty too.
There were constant 'crises' which had to be solved by summoning
international conferences. People were acclimatized to the idea of 'working together' and the concept of global governance.
However this process was less effective with one side having too much power. The US had to be
reduced in power and the Soviet Union
strengthened. With the two sides equally matched, and therefore unable to win without destroying themselves, constant dialogue had to take place which gradually led to the growth and prestige of international organizations.
While the US population was distracted by the Vietnam war,
they didn't notice this process going on.
For example, while the war was going on, the US sold vital missile technology to the Soviet Union. Precision miniature ball bearings were vital to the manufacture of
intercontinental ballistic missiles, but only the US had the machinery
to make them. The Soviets couldn't make them, and thus had much less sophisticated missiles.
However, the Bryant Company in Vermont, the only place in the world which had the machines able to do this, actually sold these machines to the USSR. The State Department and the Commerce Department allowed this to happen -actually armed the deadly enemy of the US.
This is one of the reasons the media were allowed such free access to
the war in Vietnam, and why TV stations showed endless footage
of US troops fighting and dying.
Years later this was said to have been a mistake. It wasn't a mistake, it was deliberate. Watching dead a soldier being carried on a stretcher with a large hole in his head, in full color, was shocking. So shocking that the
average person didn't notice that little paragraph buried in the middle of the
newspaper announcing a reduction
in the numbers of a certain type of bomber being manufactured.
And defense correspondents and journalists, who otherwise might
have wondered about strange
goings on in the defense industry,
were distracted by their battlefield experiences.
So that was the whole point of the Vietnam war:
Lose it so the US population is traumatized and patriotism is undermined;
Use it to divert peoples attention. It gives the population the idea that the US is committed to fighting communism, while the opposite is actually the case -the US is actually committed to strengthening Communism in the USSR while at the same time reducing the power of the American military;
Encourage the Cold War so that there have to be international meetings to
deal with each new 'crisis' thus undermining national sovereignty, getting people used to the idea of 'working together' to solve problems, and acclimatizing people to the idea of Global Governance.

Good book on the Cold War era:

vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres10/SUTTONbest.pdf

Because winning is not (((their))) goal m8

All of this.

Read all of this to understand better

counter-currents.com/2013/09/americas-two-ways-of-waging-war/

counter-currents.com/2011/09/americas-two-political-factions/

counter-currents.com/2011/09/two-reflections/

counter-currents.com/2011/07/the-world-in-flames-an-estimate-of-the-world-situation/

counter-currents.com/2011/06/the-prague-treason-trial/

Ignoring political reasons, because the US military can't into tactics: dnipogo.org/lind/lind_4_18_07.htm

US military = primitive military having high tech weapons.

because the cia has motives that dont match up with the military

Americans will be fighting wars with bb guns if it continues like this. Trump will likely put a stop to all the pussyfooting.

Leadership is lacking

Ending the wars isn't part of the agenda.

Maybe we should ask the British

Because there hasn't been a real threat in a long ass time. People die, its dangerous, but the US hasn't been threatened for a long time. As a result the military has become another form of big money Jew Casino and is subject to the whims of political correctness as well. Its ww2 bombing civilians or die vs winning the hearts and minds of goatfuckers for israel. We are soft and spoiled.

This is true.

In reality, the USA didnt learned a lot from the germans during WW.

They mechanised all of their armies, sure, abut their armies arent done in a maneuver warfare mode. Their "combined arms" and "Shock and Awe" shit isnt not third generation warfare, while the Soviet Union did learned, and employed it.

Besides, the USA weapons are shit for 3ºGW anyways: Slow and logistical nightmare Abrams tank, Expensive and heavy Bradley, shitty Stryker, Too many super big carriers, when they sould just make smaller and cheaper carriers, etc…

We can't win literally because of jews and treaties.

Vietnam is a great example. Tunnels filled with chinks? Sorry, cant just fumigate them with teargas, that would break a treaty. Here is your pistol and a flashlight soldier, good luck!

Korea - This one was due to an asshat general who said we have nothing to fear from China when China said we could do anything we wanted to Korea so long as we didnt cross a river. Asshat general crossed river, and China descended 2,000,000 troops across the border and pushed us back to the sea.

Now? Jews, honestly. Jews created ISIS (they dont fight ISIS, they havent contributed a SINGLE thing to fighting the supposed hate group that is supposed to be against Isreal).

We had no reason to be in any of the countries we are in. We are not allowed to treat foreign countries as actual enemies anymore.

This whole thing in Syria? Yea, it would be 100% done if we were allowed to just march in there and exterminate the populous as if they were a true enemy (WW2 and the US/EU bombing civ targets).

The only way to win is to exterminate the enemy, but only when provoked.

Look at desert storm and invasion of Iraq 2, the US absolutely curbstormed the enemies in conventional regular battlefield.

We dont even need conventional battlefields. Anti-personel missiles (we're talking a football field of shrapnel) are illegal based on bullshit treaties we signed. We could launch about 100 of those and wipe out everything in a 2 mile radius and there isnt a damn thing the muzzies could do to stop it. War over.

you are missing a larger strategic overview of the system
iraq and syria or even vietnam were not wars, these were but mere skirmishes in a much large plan

the same plan has been in play for about 3 centuries and started with britain and continued nowadays under usa leadership, it is commonly refered to as the great game or the grand chessboard
basicly it boils down to this britain was a maritime power and even the usa is today condering it fully controls its own continent
however both americas are small compared to eurasia + africa
the past and current dominance of the anglo empire rested on being able to shut down any trade and shell all coastal cities of any who dare oppose you
considering land based transport was none existing, this strategy worked well, yet then railroads were developed all over the world and a continental power stretching over the eurasian landmass would have the population and resources to outcompete the anglo empire and all their naval vessels couldn't do any thing to stop them

historically speaking this was one long war to defend anglo dominance of the globe and is to this day still effective
it started with stopping napoleon and france, then prevent russia from growing too strong, serieusly backfired with the prussian rising yet with great cost these were suppressed and once again back to stopping russia
every action taken only makes sense on the grander strategy of the greater game
all the proxy wars today syria, libya and ukraine are all about keeping russia contained
and to date the usa is still winning, everything you see in the MSM is just diverting attention

That's not really true, they used teargas TOGETHER with the Tunnel Rats.

Russia actually has a pretty good strategy right now.

They 100% invaded Ukrain, crushed its army in a day. They even used the Hitler approach of "our poor mistreated russians!"

No one batted a fucking eye. "We'll sanction you!" Said the EU.
"Like I give a fuck" said Russia
"Well… we tried… and they have a shitton of nukes. Better let it go." Said the world.

Its a fucking joke. Russia just needs to feed smaller, closer, countries it's "refugees" then spread mis-info on their treatment. And slowly, over years, annex one more province.

...

A treatment generates more profit than a cure.

America has some pretty crazy shit in general. Drones that can fly above the clouds, but take super high resolution images of an entire city in real time that can track anything down to 2ft in diameter objects.

You should watch the military channel. That's just the shit they release to the public.

There is no military in history that has been so limited and cucked as the american military. If you were to remove the affirmative action hires (ie make it all men), then remove the limitations of action, and removed the jews who want to only to waste the goyims shekels to create debt for their banks then…you would see a truly fearsome force.

+1

I have a small hypothesis going. It's that cultural diversity effects group morale and a soldier's ability to fight effectively. When Tyrone and Jose get shot and killed on the battle field, the psychological response produces less of a berserker response; i.e. the will to avenge your fallen comrade, but instead you kind of just step back and think, "Welp, Tyrone's dead.. I don't really want to be next."

The intangible aspect of war is passion. It's why Germany held out so long as well as the south against the north. When Persia went into Greece, they encountered not massive forces and military technology, but they fought passion, and it wounded them pretty bad. Persia was another multi-culti empire that fell apart.

You can look at any expanding empire through out history and see this trend that whenever they absorb foreign people and territories and attempt to assimilate them into their army, their army suffers. The Assyrians conquered many and forced many empires in the Middle East to fight for them, and it tore them apart. Roman's tried to assimilate Germanics, and it tore them apart. The Mongols conquered many people (middle eastern as well as European) and forced them into their army, but people quit instantly when the Mongol empire had internal problems. England could never assimilate poo in the loo Indians, and even your "Based Sikhs" never had a permanent positive effect on the English empire.. Which mind you, fell apart during World War 1&2 because the only people that wanted to be ruled by the English were English people.

Now.. Now the US has amplified it's diversity and is forcing diversity in the military. The effects are stifled due to the sheer size of it, but believe me, it has weakened us terribly.

Anyways, I think this is part of a larger phenomena as a whole. One group of people cannot be ruled over by another group of people indefinitely. They will never be happy with the dominant groups rule and will always rebel. I think it's a self-defeating strategy to try and put the ruled-over group into the military so they feel like they are part of the oppressor's team, but instead, they maintain their group interests and damage the army by not fighting effectively/decreasing morale.

Tl;dr Diversity fucks the military, and we have plenty of historical examples. The defining limit of an empire is the number of natives themselves controlling a homogenous area. Everything past those parameters is subject to change given enough time and rebellion.

Because America has gone full CUCK. Literally a veteran on CNN was against dipping bullets in pigs blood because he deemed IT OFFENSIVE.

IT IS OFFENSIVE TO DO THAT GUYS. WE BETTER FIGHT A POLITICALLY CORRECT WAR. IF WE KILL THEM, THEY WIN!!!

I think the only army that did it faster than the americans are the russians, but Georgia was right next to Russia.

I like this theory a lot, it totally makes sense. I forget the exact quote but its something along the lines of the infantryman fights for the men beside him more than any other reason.

Good high effort post and thoughts.

Thanks.

I think if I die and I never join a white army of some sort, I think I'm gonna die miserable. I'm ready to die for you guys.. Don't mean to blog post, but the idea of joining the US military makes me sick.

it is totally unnecessary and kind of fucked up

Because all the "wars" we have fought since the Gulf War were military exercises in civilian control, not ordinary military objectives. We have been spending our time and money on very large experiments whose data will be used on the US population if/when civil unrest starts. All of the industrial complex benefits and nation building contracts were just icing on the cake.

Now that the US military won't be needed, we've been purposely sabotaging it through forcing women in combat positions, forcing the LGBTPAWTFBBQ agenda on everyone and firing key generals that wouldn't allow the things we're doing on sandniggers to happen to US citizens.

fix site

The wars in the Middle East and the Vietnam wars weren't meant to be one. They were for the purpose of the Jews.

America has the most elite fighting force on the planet, which within the span of the year could clear the deserts of virtually every enemy living there.

Unfortunately, it isn't the generals making the decisions. It's the politicians. Every time they step away and let the generals go at it, things get fixed. Then they step back in, and fuck everything up. Why? Because one, they don't know what they're doing, and two, they don't want us to win. They just want us to keep fighting the war and making money for the military industrial complex (read: jews).

If Trump declares that he's taking a hands off approach and the military can do what it wants, you'll see radical changes to our success.

The leadership is cucked; they kowtow to obongo. Each branch of service is full of good, loyal soldiers. But they are forced to 'fight' with one hand tied behind their backs.

How do you feel about Korea?

It is very difficult to win a war when the war is only won when you kill the last person. Most wars are fought between nations and once you have decisive victories, once side surrenders for the sake of saving lives. When you are fighting shitskins with no nation who will never quit, it is hard to grasp a win condition.

John Conrad is that you?

Western societies are structured in a way in which they are not allowed to win wars. You can't conquer a territory and subjugate its people any more. Instead you have to defeat their armies, police their country like you're civilian police instead of a fucking military, and put their own populace into power. You can't carry out shows of force to simply demoralize their population and force them to bend to your will.

No but I'll take that as a sign to finally get Heart of Darkness out of my backlog.

Because the goals of our leaders aren't to win wars, it's to have them in the first place since they can justify any bullshit agenda with them and can do anything they want because hey, it's war.

Are you a commie?
That sounds like commie talk.
Don't you ever question our military, they keep the world at peace including the countries we're blowing up.
Did I say blowing up?
I meant liberating.

Well said, lad. A new islamic terrorist has been born every day since we invaded Afghanistan post 9/11.

nevermind that words words words book, just play Spec Cucks: The Line instead.

-t. veddit

They listen to what people back home say, when they should just get the job done. This all started with Vietnam and the hippies, and has no evolved into SJW infiltrating the military and crippling it.

Tired of this bullshit.
The U.S. has never lost a WAR.
All that has happened is the rest of the world, tired of the U.S. kicking everybodies butts all the time, came up with a definition of "war" that…if applied to anyone in the entire world…indicates that a war cannot be won, period.

To win a war you have to kill more of the enemy than the enemy can kill of you, on a routine basis…you also have to be able to deny the enemy whatever it is the enemy wants, as long as you decide you care to deny him this.

To hear people like you puke up your bullshit, the Romans never conquered Israel, because when you go to Israel today…no Romans.

The same can be said of any country throughout history. The Allies never won WW2, because Germany now controls the EU and has essentially taken over Europe.
And Europe never turned back the invading Moorish armies because Europe is currently being flooded with Muslims and can't do a thing to stop it (it seems).

Even if the U.S. genocides an entire country, people like you would say "you list, haha!" as soon as the remnants of the original inhabitants ventured out of their spider-holes in the countries they fled to, and timidly tried returning to the blasted wasteland that was their home.

You're protestations of American overwhelming victories over other militaries sounds to me like the whining of despair.

Because shit like this

OP is an idiot.

Finish your GED before posting here again.

Well what do you mean by "win?"

In 2003, America destroyed the Iraqi army in a matter of weeks.

However, there are still millions of rifles in Iraq, and anyone who wants to pick up a rifle and shoot it at an American soldier is suddenly identified as an "insurgent." If your definition of "winning" is to terrorize the Iraqi people so much that they are unwilling to defend the land that they've occupied for thousands of years, then you're probably going to have a hard time winning.

Damnit kid, you need more schooling too.

Sorry, I was pissed & didn't bother to read what I wrote.
Also, "list" = "lost."

WHAT? The EU is a vassal of the USA since day one, you moron

And stop being in denial. USA defeats are few, but there are. War of Korea, as an example.

1.what i the goal in a war anyways?
In the middle east it was to secure imaginary WMDS's and kill saddam and bin laden.
And both of those guys are dead.
Then the goal changed, it changed to spreading democracy and occupation (thanks neocucks).This didnt go so well so we just left everything to fall apart.

Americas problem isnt that it can win wars, its that jew necons whispering into that ape george bushes head told him to occupy the middle east of our greatest ally Israel.

His definition of "winning" is that the U.S. stay there forever & make Afghanistan the 51st state of the union, I suppose.
I've heard the same crap vomited up about Vietnam, my entire life.
Libtards feel they can create reality by lying hard enough.

If I had my way, we'd be out of Korea at this point, too.
Trump is going to make these various "occupied" countries pay for their own defense, so maybe we can save a few hundreds of billions a year & pull our troops out of other countries, bring them back home, put them on the southern border, and then we might not lose the Mexican/American war (by your definition).

Boy, that Santa Anna…what a crafty guy! Who could have seen this coming? A strategy of pretending to lose the war, waiting 168 years, & then invading under the guise of "illegal immigration."
We should have known…guess we lost again.

Victory is eradication of the enemy.
If you limit the actions of your military that is not possible.
Go in and massacre them. That is how you win a war.
They will stop fighting you once they realize that you don't give a fuck and will burn them and their loved ones alive.
Look at the bombing of Dresden in WW2 THAT is a blow to enemy morale. This would never happen nowadays. Everyone would fall over backwards to give aid. Now it's all protocol and procedures. Oh we can't be too cruel. But in war that is what you have to be. Cruel, Ruthless, Relentless.
Iraq would have been over quick if the US could have just gone in bombed their villages, and let them suffocate and starve in their caves after blowing up the entrances, instead of rebuilding their infrastructure and FEEDING THEM.

There are still Germans in Germany, so I guess we lost WW2.
Damn…why can't they have picked YOU has the all-knowing general in control of our military?

Then there wouldn't be anyone left but Americans & we would have won every war, ever!

Germany surrendered because they were slaughtered ruthlessly. The women raped by the troops. Cities torched, infrastructure destroyed.
That is how you win.
Like I stated above.

Germany stopped fighting and surrendered. If they didn't it would have continued.
Japan got nuked. If they would have kept fighting they would have kept getting nuked.

The enemy has to know that you WILL NOT STOP until they either A give up, or B cease to exist.

If the enemy thinks your a pussy they'll keep fucking with you.
But if you are the unpredictable psychopath they'll make damn sure they won't piss you off.

underrated post. also explains how such an incompetent thing as EU grew so much

Go back to school, the Reich never surrendered.
Individual generals surrendered their armies, but the German high command never surrendered.
And Germany is still there & not part of the U.S., England, or France, so clearly the allies were foiled.

absolutely subversive post

If the people surrender as occurred then it's irrelevant what the government wants since without the support of the public they are nothing.

Germany was split into east and west both occupied territories for varying amounts of time and had to sign various treaties preventing them from even having a standing military and incurring massive land loss leading to the expulsion of many Germans from annexed territories.
Potsdam Agreement for example.

You seem to think that you have to decimate them completely. I never said that. I said
A Surrender or B cease to exist.
If you do not give the option of surrender the enemy will fight as hard as they can to prevent their extinction. BUT if you let them know that if they surrender their people will survive and ensure that if they do not they will all die horrible deaths guess what option do you think they'll pick?

If you are a pussy though and you rebuild their shit while they are fighting you? Why surrender? You are helping their war effort like an idiot.

Good goy!

Historically there are no crimes in war. Period.
War crimes were introduced by the weak to protect the weak. Oh no you can't do that we'd be destroyed.

War crimes were introduced by Politicians to gain votes from the public.

The general public is weak. Military decisions should never be made by the collective public. Hence Vietnam and the protests. Once the public demanded restrictions on military behavior they subverted their own war effort.
You do not restrict your military if you want an effective military.

Do you think that part of the reason is because the US tends to sort of strike at phantoms? In Vietnam and the Middle East the conflict is more against invisible and contagious ideals. It goes by Communism, or Terrorism, or what have you. But once you stomp out one instance, another takes its place. It's a war on memes if anything right?

Youre assuming the point of the military is to win wars. This is wrong in the modern world. The point of the American military is to make money

sadaam did it and we could to if we employed similar tactics, not that I think we should btw.t

Well, agreed. The term "Warcrime" never made much sense to me, unless if applied to deliberate recurrent friendly fire or giving classified info to some enemy spy.

But those are for martial court I guess, not for civil related perception.

1) We're not in it to win it, the defense industry wants money and that means continuous war
2) We're unwilling to do what it takes. Genocide is what wins wars and we've not even done a firebombing in decades.

fukken saved. Top post mate.

underrated as fuck

Because they exist to enforce cuckolding and gender equality

What's an Iraqi?

The basic issue is trying to use the military to "spread democracy". The point of a military invasion is to defeat the adversary and put their country under martial law. Martial law is the opposite of democracy. The US DoD could put half the globe under martial law if the White House gave the go-ahead, but it can't set up "democracy" anywhere.

Definitely. The US stopped screening for IQ when civil rights leaders demanded niggers in combat roles. Blacks are less intelligent and less good at reciprocal altruism.

Why not?

Both false. You've bought the ideology hook, line, and sinker.

Interesting, thanks.

It's okay dude. You didn't get pissy when I corrected you. In fact, you went as far as correcting yourself further, You're a good guy in my book. I completely understand about you being mad after reading the OP. That guy is mentally retarded, of this I am sure.

further.

Forgive me lads.

Because they're made to fight wars, not win them. We go in to cause a constant destabilizing presence to justify military spending, large contracts, etc. War is no longer about fighting to win territory, gain a better diplomatic position or whatever. It's a moneymaking scheme to line the pockets of contractors.

You've refuted nothing while ignoring my historical precedents

Because they are not meant to win the war any more and if they did then US Military will have to stop existing because us constitution say so. That can kill the war economy so they got to keep warmongering and filling jews' s with the yummy shekels. Please forgive my bad english.

It really isn't. It's merely bad at doing what it claims to be doing - which it isn't even trying to do.
You see, the claimed war goals are not the actual war goals. War is won if policy is enforced.
Saddam and Iraq were the problem, not WMD. Petrodollar and overall being evil were the cause for Libya, not 'democracy'.
Although 'democracy' is a big part of it. If people didn't live under the illusion that
and
There'd be a lot less useless wars.

...

They don't aim to win the wars. If they want to win then they would have end the wars sooner but they don't. It's about the money and it isn't what it used to be anymore, that was long time ago. People don't care about the democracy but US military had to because politicians say so.

...

I'M A CUCK

WOW
Please tell me this guy has Trump's ear.

probably because you guys lack a plan.
or rather, it would seem that the plan stops at the destabilization of some arab nation,the rest is just spending money to line the pockets of a corporation or two.

I still don't understand how this meme came to exist.

There's a plan alright, see

I don't know enough about 'nam to come to a solid conclusion about what the fuck happened there

But the reason the war in the middle east has lasted so long is because America wants to continue it you fucking idiot, why? Take a wild fucking guess, its the walled nation that starts with an "I" filled with people with massive noses who love being greedy and hate Palestinians, and America is its fucking allies,

>Israel America drives Muslims out of Jewish land and into Europe

Because Americans are shit warriors?

The US is in a state of perpetual war. And it won't have the advantage for much longer.

Americucks can't get the jungle gooks to do their bidding like they wished except for Philippines or maybe Vietnam? The strategy to strangle China in choke points is off the tables already. That means the Chinese navy will expand and that means there will be a contender in the oceans that can displace Americucks.

China would get its ass handed to them by America in a second and they know that, otherwise they would've been proactive in their Pacific campaigns already

The thing is; the rest of the world believes America relies on Chinese manufacturing, its the other way around in fact, China needs America to buy their shit, America knows it can become fully independent and rank up domestic manufacturing again if they needed too like back in WWII, we're just buying ourselves time before we have too so we can continue living in decadence while manufacturing is outsourced to slave children

Under-rated post and dubs of truth.

They are being proactive.

The US is so super the incredible that it couldn't fend off an attack on their psycho leader e-mail.

Americucks have to stop with their self-delusion of being exceptional. There's one thing US is super at, propaganda.

...

Why didn't we just bomb the fuck out of the commies in Vietnam? Isn't that a better idea? Just napalm them until we win

(((US))) Wealth, only a few companies actually made money off of these invasions, and most of those companies had no problem dodging taxes or getting subsidies approved from congress.

American citizens got jack shit from these wars, and they still got slapped with the war cost

Your problem is you say US wealth and pretend it's the American people benefiting from it

Thank for you these links user, easily the most interesting articles I've read in a long while.

From your second link, America's Two Political Factions:

FBI summary of Part One, from Chicago, Report dates July 20, 1953 (CG 100-25647), made by Agent Lloyd O. Bogstad.

"The true American nationalism is not constituted as a party, nor a faction, and not even yet as a movement. It is still a mere feeling distributed among a certain spiritual level of the American population. This American nationalism is a spirit that recognizes America’s colonial status vis-à-vis Europe that has no wish to destroy the mother-soil and father-culture of Europe that could be counted upon always to assist Europe against Asia and the world Colored Revolution."

I know it's just me posting here now, but I just want to bump this thread cause that other user posted some great links here

And it gives me some hope in the Alphabet Agencies, not all of them, or at least some groups within them, may not be as pozzed as we think they are.

That doesn't mean we don't have work to do, but we're not alone.

Or just fuck off and not' fight the jew's war for once.

Patton wouldn't even have gone to war in Iraq.

You must be slow.

Iraqi wars were interventions because oil and jewish reserve currency.

In what way are those in power (kikes) making money hand over fist for the war in the middle east? What do they get money from? If the answer is military industrial complex, then I wouldn't know because I haven't researched the MIC at all.

we good at winning wars but pretty bad at sustainment operations in post 1950s.

Take the example of the initial invasion of Iraq or desert storm. It was an example of the fastest advance of any modern army. an absolute victory that out paced out supply lines.

then look at how fucking horrible the occupation was or stability operations as they are termed.

The simple answer is we lack brutality, and the ability to put down insurrection like we used to.

Its hugely political why we suck a war

again ROE is weapons free during invasion period then gets cucked briefly after

Because the powers that be don't want to win to wars. If we actually fought to win, then we would win, and very quickly.

But in Vietnam, the communists, Jews, and their hippie sympathizers didn't want us to win, so we weren't allowed to go on the offensive and wipe out North Vietnam, we had to fight with one arm tied behind our back, and eventually the political push at home got our troops withdrawn and allowed the North Vietnamese to overrun South Vietnam and turn it all communist.

In Iraq, they're doing the same thing, because they don't want us to win. The American politicans and their big business cronies are making literal billions, if not trillions, in profit from manufacturing bombs, bullets, and the latest, greatest military gear. Government contractors are charging the Department of Defense $10,000 for a toilet seat, and the DoD is paying it; do you honestly think they want the war to end so long as it's profitable for them?

Israel is also the main cause of the war in the first place, and the main reason it continues with victory nowhere in sight: the Jews want the region destabilized so they can break it up into warring factions instead of having it all united under a clever warlord like Saddam or Assad, who could conceivably pose a significant threat to Israel. Notice the kikes are also profiting massively from all the conflict in Iraq and Syria, where their CIA/Mossad puppet ISIS is selling them cheap oil and allowing them to grab up land from their neighbors.

Basically, we don't win because we're not ALLOWED to win. The Jews and their good goy allies are profiting politically and financially, and if we actually win the war and go home then their ride on the cash carousel ends.

We're run by fucking psychopaths who have no qualms about spilling the blood of thousands if it makes their profit margins go up.

I'd say the speed with which we curbstomped them, twice, is a valid argument showing American power.

Two problems.

One the USA might go into a war wanting to win. But its rulers quickly realise that war spending is a great way to turn public money into private money. So they quickly abandon the idea of winning the war and perpetuate it to make more money for themselves.

Two is the US military's serious manpower problem.
That problem being the horrifying inconsistency of quality. The US military has to deal with a manpower pool so inconsistent that they're putting hood rats alongside good ol' boys along with middle class suburban cult kids.

This inconsistency means that everything has to be planned and done in accordance with the ability of the worst of their manpower.
Which means you have three people doing the work of one most of the time. In the technical elements it gets worse. For aircraft maintenance and repairs the relative manpower usage between the RAF and USAF has at times been as high as 1 to 10. Meaning the USAF have at times had to use 10 people to do what the RAF does with 1.

This as you can imagine results in an overall poor quality in terms the effort and such that people put into their work. This setup also tends to drag people down, turning the decent into the shit.
The US military as a whole does try to counter this with its hilariously large number of specialist groups. But they have a lot of difficulty identifying suitable people from within the masses they take in. Meaning theres a lot of waste.

And of course they have the issue of retaining manpower. It's difficult. The aforementioned demoralisation induced by the low standards coupled with PMCs constantly plundering the ranks and the huge benefits of being a non-injured and non-disabled veteran all conspire to make retaining quality manpower a serious problem for the US military. Since anyone with half a brain will get out and quick.

It's the manpower problem thats the big one for the yanks.
Other nations have a much more consistent quality of manpower which means that even if they're not brilliant they know how to work around them or develop them.
An excess of diversity I guess you could call it.

okie-dokie
nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us/small-pool-of-rich-donors-dominates-election-giving.html?_r=0

no such thing, they're tribal followed by Shia or Sunni

Just stop

america.aljazeera.com/articles/2016/1/20/how-secret-donations-influence-us-elections.html

nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us/small-pool-of-rich-donors-dominates-election-giving.html?_r=0

Because you're not supposed to leave an occupation until the citizens westernize completely.

Sure is Land of the Free.

America is just Europe with guns now. Fucking hell.

Westernize = embracing a worthless society of consumers

The average Chinese can't buy the very iphone they build but China will send a spaceship to the moon. The average Russian can't get the latest iphone but Russia will send a spaceship to the moon.

Patton would have been relieved of command for refusing to wear high heels.

My God what the fuck is this now.

You can't nation build these shit tier countries. The only countries that we ever really successfully nation built were Japan and Germany, who have high IQ, high trust citizens.

We destroyed Saddam's army in like 3 months, the problem is terrorists can be literally any person over there. The Soviets got rekt by Afghans even.

Unless you just exterminate or completely subjugate these mud people, you end up leaving a power vacuum or getting bled dry.

You mean delivered unto the jew.

Ayy, counter-currents links. They put out a lot of content, I don't agree with all of it, but they write well and present coherent arguments for their positions. They're also pretty damn extreme compared to anyone besides Holla Forums.
A poem
counter-currents.com/2016/05/the-diehard-which-side-are-you-on/
Age after age I’ve fought in wars,
I’m the diehard who’ll never die,
Adventure’s been my life’s breath,
no regrets I’ll ever sigh.
Faith and Loyalty — they’re my Laws,
Honour and Duty — they’re my Cause.

Haman was my man, when we did plan to make the Persians free,
And it was I who whispered counsel in Pharaoh’s ear,
the Hebrews saw, and to the Red Sea they did flee,
I was with Titus and Hadrian when we cleared the viper’s nest,
And I was with Lucius Flavius Silva’s Tenth when we finished off the rest.

Pontius Pilate looked on me with a face of tender woe,
When though but a child in the crowd and my voice was drowned,
I cried “Let our Saviour go!

I wore blue woad upon my skin and fought Rome’s mailed legions in the surf,
I stood fast in the Saxon shield wall when Harold fell to earth,
In Old Constantinople I remained and fought in the gate,
When the Jews threw open the doors to the Turk and glutted all their hate.

Vlad Tepes was my lord when we taught the Ottomans how true white men die,
And I was with Byron the poet, when we freed the Balkans and watched a new Sun rise.
I fought the invasions of Tatars, and the Mongol hordes — I never ran away.
Betrayed we stayed and fought by Roland’s side,
ten thousand Moors dragged us down and vilely won the fray.

Heartening words I did tell to the mind of Charles Martel,
And he turned to me with a smile and thanks at the sound of our Victory yell.

And I rode with The Cid, and under Isabella and Ferdinand,
Until we cleansed Iberia and thus freed the Christian land.
I was felled beside my King in battle at Bosworth field,
When to the Tudor usurper I would not cowardly yield.

I was the Knight who watched his peasants starve and slave under usury,
“Enough!” So I roused them up and we broke the chains of Jewry.
England was hurting, smarting and sore,
I sang to good King Edward, and England was merry once more.

And I wore the plume in my hat, devil may care in splendid array,
We laughed and charged with Rupert and so we won the day.
“Liberty, Equality, Fraternity” the urban mob did yell,
But my reason wasn’t swayed,
and I wasn’t fooled when the tumbrils rolled and the guillotine it fell,
So I fought them in the countryside and sent them all to hell.

And I fought beside the Bonnie Prince amidst the awful slaughter,
And still stay loyal to the one true King who lives across the water.
I wore the grey when the drums did roll and General Lee marched north,
And later nightly the hood of white when Forrest’s ghosts rode forth.

I rode with stern Baron Ungern when the cruel red beast awoke,
And we battled on and on, till the ground with our blood was choked.
When to destroy Civilization, the Capitalists and Communists came,
I fought to thwart their aim,
And when all was lost — I fought on just the same.

Justice should be swift and sure — and there for all to see,
So when the liberal judges let evil men go free,
I catch them all, judges too, and hang them from the gallows tree.

And so you see — ask me not which side I’m on, nor ask me why I fight,
Simply know this — I’m a fighter and I always choose the Right.