US admits it can no longer fight two wars at once

[ford man xf]

Originally Posted by WMD351

I'm curious, in what way does the "Israel's right / no the Arab countries are right" argument have any relevance to the topic of the American economy and it's military spending?
I wonder where this thread will go...

I personally believe it has great relevance, the Middle East play a pivotal role in US military spending and the next decade the US will play an important role in this region, especially with what might happen with Iran. The US has big dealings with Israel and it will be interesting what budgets cuts might effect this.

[ltd_on20s]

Originally Posted by WMD351

I'm curious, in what way does the "Israel's right / no the Arab countries are right" argument have any relevance to the topic of the American economy and it's military spending?
I wonder where this thread will go...

because the US spends 3 trillion a year of taxpayers money in the ME.

and most goes to military invasions, israel and propping up dictators like mubarak.

you know, if the US pulled out of the ME, and stopped funding everyone there, it could balance it's budget in 12 months.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by Falc'man

"Generally started by the other side,"?

So, in 1948 when Israel became "legal", they displaced hundreds of thousands indigenous inhabitants, and millions since. How are they any better than Hitler? Are they a different, superior breed that it is okay for them to kick people out of their homes?


Damo, if someone came into your house and demanded that you leave, you would leave, although the papers say you own the house.

If you were a little tougher you might put up a fight and say "hold on a minute buddy, this is my house, you're mistaken, these are my papers to prove it".

They would turn around and tell you "No, actually, this land is all ours now, you papers mean nothing".

You don't leave because you believe what they're doing is unjust, so they threaten to level your house with you in it.

This is exactly WHY "the other side keep starting it", Damo.

Some of them were kicked out, some of them were killed in their homes before their homes were leveled. Read that link if you need proof.

FYI, even the indigenous Jews of Palestine, the real Semites, are also fighting WITH the Arabs, against the so called state of israel and it's genocide.

Sounds just like 1788, doesn't it?

If the aboriginals picked up arms and fought for their land back, would you justify them?

[ford man xf]

Originally Posted by ltd_on20s

[B]

in 1981 israel attacked iraq, iraq had started nothing with israel.

There was a little more to it then that, it was a preemptive strike against a nuclear facility, I'm not saying it was right, it probably should not have occurred, but then we could mention Iraq's use of Scud missiles against Israel for no reason...you see its like a never ending game, you could list all the unjust's of each Nation, neither makes it right (or wrong).

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by ford man xf

From what I believe the territories that the Jews captured had been already allocated to them by the UN, the reason the Jews did this (what would seem strange to us because the land had already been allocated to them) was because they were already fighting small conflicts with the Arabs over land, the Arab League had also voted against a resolution for the creation of Israel, nations from the Arab League moved their armies into the land allocated by the UN to them.
Really the US and Britain were weak for not putting more effort in to resolve the issue.

The US had no input and the lands (mostly) belonged to the UK and France.
The poms dumped and ran and the UN stood back and watched.
If one was cynical you could say that it was deliberately left open for a long and drawn out conflict between the different arab parties. 60yrs later....

[ford man xf]

Originally Posted by ltd_on20s

the US has been there for 10 years trying to knock them off. it's now been reported that the US is trying to sit down and negotiate an end to hostiliies.

with the taliban. to me that looks like the Gurellia tactics worked and forced the worlds biggest superpower to negotiate.

They work extremely well, but when your a Super Power that tries to stick to the rules of warfare it's a little hard to fight the enemy effectively, the Taliban and the other groups have used this to their advantage.

[ford man xf]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

In much the same way the USA handled Vietnam and Korea... yet the lessons were never learnt. For when you invade someone, you expect them to all lay down and surrender?
The French managed to wage a good gurellia war in WW2 against the Nazis...
Dont underestimate the locals..

I don't agree with your comparison of France during WW2 and the Korean and Vietnam conflicts.
France was a united & free nation when the Nazis aggressively invaded, so the whole nation opposed the Nazis (apart from a few silly individuals trying to further themselves)
Both the Korean & Vietnamese conflicts the nations were split between two very different democratic and communist parties the USA and Allies stepped in to support the democratic portion, obviously trying to stop the spread of communism which was an extremely big concern of the USA during the Cold War period.
Afghanistan was not that much different as the Northern Alliance had already been battling the Taliban before the US invaded.

[z80]

Sadly..The most effective way to get a bully superpower to pay attention to your cause is to employ guerrilla tactics aimed at their financial systems.

The IRA went for years bombing London shopping centres etc, it was only when they bombed the Financial district on a quiet sunday morning and the major banks threatened to pull out of the UK that the poms decided to open peace talks with the IRA..

Al Queda bombed the financial heart of America to achieve the same result....(albeit much more dramatically).

To draw attention to what is happening in the middle East, particularly Israel's role in relation to the Palestinians.

Israel is of course a major player in the US financial system and hence very influential in US foreign policy....

That's my version of US history...

[mr smith]

Originally Posted by flappist

USA has been the defacto "moderator" of most of the skirmishes between countries that bicker and argue over almost anything and refuse to accept that any of their ideas could possibly be not the absolute truth while constantly copping criticism and complaints of bias and unfair action over their peace keeping efforts from the worst offenders.

I am beginning to understand the how they feel.

CLOSED.

And who put them in charge?
Since WW2 they have been the self appointed world police hiding under the guise of world peace keepers, when all they care about is their own interests and big buisiness.

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by ford man xf

They work extremely well, but when your a Super Power that tries to stick to the rules of warfare it's a little hard to fight the enemy effectively, the Taliban and the other groups have used this to their advantage.

Rules? In war there are no rules.... look at the number of civilian casualities because the US/UN get the wrong target and the congressional investigation into several cases where US troops killed civilians and tried to cover it up.

Lets also not mention Blackwater and other mercinaries who in Iraq deliberately killed civilians for no reason and were never tried in a court of law.

In one American news footage several years ago where a camera crew followed a bunch of US soldiers, were involved in a firefight with Iraqis... An Iraqi hiding behind a building was hit and dropped his weapon. He was hit several time already and probably was going to die. With the news camera zoomed in on the iraqi (a quiet lull in shooting) a US soldier opened fire several times on the now unarmed and injured soldier.

In an other bit of footage from Wikileaks was the famous (infamous) Apache footage whereby the crew misidentified a civilian camera crew to be holding a rocket launcher and opened fire.... later when a van shows up to pick up the wounded they opened fire again. they clearly made comments about CHILDREN in the van who were killed. Having Children in a van didnt stop them from shooting it up with a 30mm cannon... and at NO stage were they under fire.


There are hundreds of cases like this throughout both Iraq and Afghan.... so dont ever say "we" as "civilized" western people adhere to the "rules" of war....

Edit: as a sidebar, I know that during the Iraqi invasion in 2003 when australia had Hornets over there, that a flight of Aussie Hornets (I believe it was a pair) actually refused to bomb a target because they were told the area was full of civilians. The US then simply said no worries and got one of their aircraft to do it.....

[Flogginit]

Originally Posted by bungarra

You can only have peace if you are prepared for war is the old adage and with Iran just wanting to provoke either the US or Israel into a new middle east war, better to be prepared for the consequences of what may arise.

Dude you may want to do some research on your theory that Iran is Provoking the US and Israel into war. I would avoid mainstream media for your research.
The latest I have read is that the US is being bombarded by the Zionest Israel into starting war with Iran. Iran is the Second biggest exporter of oil and has the second largest natural gas reserves in the world. Israel and the Global Banks want to control this wealth. The only reason US and Israel don't want Iran having Nukes is so when the west invades to take Iran's resources they can't nuke Israel and the US.

[MelsGolf]

Originally Posted by mr smith

And who put them in charge?
Since WW2 they have been the self appointed world police hiding under the guise of world peace keepers, when all they care about is their own interests and big buisiness.

Someone had to take the initiative i would have thought. You must be new to this fine country then, the reason you have freedom here is because of the combined efforts of the US/Australian and British Armed forces, and dont you forget it.

[ltd_on20s]

it's a very dangerous game for the ME atm.....

as much as i am cynical about US politics atm i really hope this ron paul guy gets the gig. he's been saying the same thing for 30 years. he seems the only one thta hasn't changed his mind every time someone gives him cash. it santorum gets the gig, we are all royally screwed.

if he doesnt (ron paul) we are in for a ride. and if Australian soldiers are sent to fight iran i will picket parliment house everyday. i will not support australian soldiers going over there, because here we have a choice, you can quit, rather then take a paycheque drenched in innocent blood.

i say everyone should take their cash and get out of the ME, let it sort itself out.

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by MelsGolf

Someone had to take the initiative i would have thought. You must be new to this fine country then, the reason you have freedom here is because of the combined efforts of the US/Australian and British Armed forces, and dont you forget it.

I wonder... where was the US/ British when Darwin was being bombed?
Or when the battle for the kokoda trail was being fought with a few hundred untrained milisha?

Yes lets not forgot how the mother land sent aussie diggers to a masacre on a beach in Turkey....

[ford man xf]

Originally Posted by ltd_on20s

fair enough, so.....

when will australia be allowed to have a base in the US and stockpile cluster munitions?

does taiwan have a base in the US?

btw, china could take Taiwan back in about 4 days if it wanted to. all war games theories every played out have china taking tawain back, no matter what what defences were deployed.

it's just not in china's interest to have a costly war against the US, because it's watching the US go bankrupt anyway.

Why would Australia need to stockpile weapons in the USA? You do realize the US having bases around the world is to not only used as a deterrent to other nations (if you attack we actually have something here and we will use it and send more if we need to) but also have a first strike capability and defense if needed.

I don't think anyone doubts China could take Taiwan, it would be costly to them but no doubt they could do it and that's the whole reason the USA has publicly stated it would come to Taiwan's aid to prevent this from happening, its called nuclear deterrence, the US has a very advanced nuclear arsenal, rather than single nukes being launched they have the capabilities of launching a single missile that can launch several nuclear devices to different regions, its a scary thought trying to defend against that, not to mention the Missile Defense shield, I certainly sleep more comfortable at night knowing the USA has the edge in terms of warfare.

I'm not sure where you got the "China could take back Taiwan in about 4 days" stat from, have you got a source for this? You realize that Taiwan consists of a lot of small islands also which are heavily defended, Taiwan is a very urban country as well, this kind of urban warfare is not pretty and can take weeks if not months to clear an entire town of enemy combatants.

Its not the China of today the USA is concerned with, it's the China of tomorrow (as in the next 20 years) when they start getting serious with their naval powers especially aircraft carries which are about 20 years away from serious operations, people seem to think China today is a threat to Australia, but China lacks the real naval force it would need to even think about invading any pacific nations, its quite a few years off from achieving this. It doesn't have the world wide capabilities that the US has.

[ltd_on20s]

Originally Posted by MelsGolf

Someone had to take the initiative i would have thought. You must be new to this fine country then, the reason you have freedom here is because of the combined efforts of the US/Australian and British Armed forces, and dont you forget it.

no. it isnt. japan was screwed by the time it got to australian shores. all it could do was bomb darwin. it didnt even have a supply line to create a beachhead.

thats a fallacy long debunked. the US didnt even enter the war until after the whole peal harbour thing. the US didnt even enter while the UK was being pounded, then after the war ended, forced the UK to pay the US costs, which they only paid the last installment a few years back.

you can't hide the truth. no matter how far you bury it.

[mr smith]

Originally Posted by MelsGolf

Someone had to take the initiative i would have thought. You must be new to this fine country then, the reason you have freedom here is because of the combined efforts of the US/Australian and British Armed forces, and dont you forget it.

Maybe in 1942 but not today. Sounds like you bought the terrorist BS.
If someone invades our shores no problem hand me a gun and point me in their direction. To fight for Oil supplies and help the US get hold of key countries for economic gain. No thanks.
We are NOT a state of the USA. They make billons from war and killing innocent people who are already living in conditions you couldnt last a few hours in. Dont forget it.

[ltd_on20s]

Originally Posted by ford man xf

Why would Australia need to stockpile weapons in the USA? You do realize the US having bases around the world is to not only used as a deterrent to other nations (if you attack we actually have something here and we will use it and send more if we need to) but also have a first strike capability and defense if needed.

I don't think anyone doubts China could take Taiwan, it would be costly to them but no doubt they could do it and that's the whole reason the USA has publicly stated it would come to Taiwan's aid to prevent this from happening, its called nuclear deterrence, the US has a very advanced nuclear arsenal, rather than single nukes being launched they have the capabilities of launching a single missile that can launch several nuclear devices to different regions, its a scary thought trying to defend against that, not to mention the Missile Defense shield, I certainly sleep more comfortable at night knowing the USA has the edge in terms of warfare.

I'm not sure where you got the "China could take back Taiwan in about 4 days" stat from, have you got a source for this? You realize that Taiwan consists of a lot of small islands also which are heavily defended, Taiwan is a very urban country as well, this kind of urban warfare is not pretty and can take weeks if not months to clear an entire town of enemy combatants.

Its not the China of today the USA is concerned with, it's the China of tomorrow (as in the next 20 years) when they start getting serious with their naval powers especially aircraft carries which are about 20 years away from serious operations, people seem to think China today is a threat to Australia, but China lacks the real naval force it would need to even think about invading any pacific nations, its quite a few years off from achieving this. It doesn't have the world wide capabilities that the US has.

if you look though china's war history, you will see it's very iran like, it has no desire for emiprical expansion beyond it's borders through military means. most of it's arsenal is a deterrence arsenal. it uses its money to project it's power. throught it's history, rarely has it ever gone outside it's borders.

china has bought 35$ billion of Australia. more then any other nation.
china is buying up half of africa.

much like iran is using its oil to buy south america.

again, you deny china's trump cards. ICBM's and nukes, which it can launch at any US base over half the globe.

+ they fought the japanese with pitchforks. and won in the end.

[MelsGolf]

Originally Posted by mr smith

Maybe in 1942 but not today. Sounds like you bought the terrorist BS.
If someone invades our shores no problem hand me a gun and point me in their direction. To fight for Oil supplies and help the US get hold of key countries for economic gain. No thanks.
We are NOT a state of the USA. They make billons from war and killing innocent people who are already living in conditions you couldnt last a few hours in. Dont forget it.

What a load of dog doodie. The US are broke because of trying to sort out other peoples fights, they've made nothing from the mess they adopted.

[ltd_on20s]

Originally Posted by MelsGolf

What a load of dog doodie. The US are broke because of trying to sort out other peoples fights, they've made nothing from the mess they adopted.

dear god.................

i'm not sure if i should laugh or cry at that statement....

they were sorting out other peoples fights when the funded people like
idi amin?
mubarak?
the shah?
ben ali?

they were sorting out other peoples fights when they funded the overthrow of democratically elected mossadegh in 53?

they were sorting out other peoples fights in nicaragua?

they have made nothing out of it?

i guess by having your oil companies having a share in the oil of every nation you have invaded is nothing, well then yes, they have made nothing.

please. see it for what it is.

it is an empire, much in the same vein as the romans that came before them.

[geckoGT]

This thread is not really in the spirit of AFF and is certainly both political and controversial. It has been allowed to run on the basis that it was getting good discussion. Lets keep it that way, discuss the topic and not the poster.

[glavas]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

In much the same way the USA handled Vietnam and Korea... yet the lessons were never learnt. For when you invade someone, you expect them to all lay down and surrender?
The French managed to wage a good gurellia war in WW2 against the Nazis...
Dont underestimate the locals..

south korea was invaded so the un came to its aid and repelled the north and china. we stopped the spread of Communism..what leason are you talking about huh????

[glavas]

Originally Posted by ford man xf

I don't agree with your comparison of France during WW2 and the Korean and Vietnam conflicts.
France was a united & free nation when the Nazis aggressively invaded, so the whole nation opposed the Nazis (apart from a few silly individuals trying to further themselves)
Both the Korean & Vietnamese conflicts the nations were split between two very different democratic and communist parties the USA and Allies stepped in to support the democratic portion, obviously trying to stop the spread of communism which was an extremely big concern of the USA during the Cold War period.
Afghanistan was not that much different as the Northern Alliance had already been battling the Taliban before the US invaded.

it was france and briton who declared war on germany. so you could say that germany was just defending its self. just like ww1.

[glavas]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

I wonder... where was the US/ British when Darwin was being bombed?
Or when the battle for the kokoda trail was being fought with a few hundred untrained milisha?

Yes lets not forgot how the mother land sent aussie diggers to a masacre on a beach in Turkey....

your millatry histroy seems very off champ.

1 there were allied forces in darwin.

2 america was active in papua

3 france and england were on the peninsula too and new zealand and i think india

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by glavas

it was france and briton who declared war on germany. so you could say that germany was just defending its self. just like ww1.

I don't think invading Poland was a defensive move against England and France.

[FPV8U]

Originally Posted by glavas

it was france and briton who declared war on germany. so you could say that germany was just defending its self. just like ww1.

Not quite right on the WW1 situation there to my knowledge.

[anto]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

In much the same way the USA handled Vietnam and Korea... yet the lessons were never learnt. For when you invade someone, you expect them to all lay down and surrender?
The French managed to wage a good gurellia war in WW2 against the Nazis...
Dont underestimate the locals..

The US did not invade Korea nor Vietnam ! Get your facts right before you post ! It was the North Koreans who were invading the south, it was the Communist North Vietnamese who were waging war on the South. ...not the Yanks. In Korea they were part of a UN force to repel the North. In Vietnam they were Allied to the democratic Govt of the South...dont know how you call that an invasion.

Ive honestly never read so much drivel on this forum before. All the hate toward America is unreal. It has been them and there military dominance alone who have preserved our way of life since and including WW2.

[geckoGT]

Last warning, get back on topic or I will close the thread. The reopening of this thread was not a green light to discuss every controversial topic in world modern history.

Just in case you have all forgotten, I know I have because it was so long ago the topic was discussed.

Not surprising really - the ravages of being fully engaged for the past 10 years in war in two separate theaters were bound to crop up sooner or later.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-0...y-plan/3759556

Quote:
The United States will unveil a "more realistic" vision for its military later today, with plans to cut ground forces and invest more in air and maritime power at a time of fiscal restraint, an official said.

The strategic review of US security interests will also emphasise an American presence in Asia, with less attention overall to Europe, Africa and Latin America alongside slower growth in the Pentagon's budget, the official said.

Its biggest change is an acceptance that the United States cannot afford to maintain the ground troops to fight more than one major war at once, a move away from the "win-win" strategy that has dominated Pentagon funding decisions for decades.

The move to a "win-spoil" plan, allowing US forces to fight one campaign and stop or block another conflict, includes a recognition that the White House would need to ramp up public support for further engagement and draw more heavily on reserve and national guard troops when required.

President Barack Obama will help launch the review at the Pentagon on Thursday and is expected to emphasise that the size of the US military budget has been growing and will continue to grow in spite of the recalibration, albeit at a smaller pace.

Defence secretary Leon Panetta and General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, are set to hold a news conference to flesh out the contents of the review after Mr Obama's remarks.

Pentagon spokesman Captain John Kirby said with the military winding down a decade of war that saw troops deployed to both Afghanistan and Iraq, it was appropriate to re-evaluate the role of US forces abroad.

"From an operational perspective it's an opportune time to take a look at what the US military is doing and what it should be doing or should be preparing itself to do over the next 10 to 15 years," he said.

"So yes, the budget cuts are certainly a driver here, but so quite frankly are current events," Captain Kirby said.

A congressional staffer said some lawmakers were worried that defence budget cuts, required by an August debt ceiling deal, would end up being more blunt than strategic and effectively erode the US military's power.

"We expect to see a strategy that's driven less by the threats we face than the math we face," he said.

I remember reading a declassified Pentagon OPPLAN in the late 1990's - early 2000's that focused on the doctrine (at the time) that the US military had to have enough resources to be able to fight two "major theater" wars in different locations on the planet at the same time - and win. This primarily centred on the Korean Peninsula and the Middle East, but I guess times change, and people and politics change with it...

[ltd_on20s]

back on track.

you can't use half your money to fund your army.

every single empire thats tried that has found out the hard way.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by ltd_on20s

back on track.

you can't use half your money to fund your army.

every single empire thats tried that has found out the hard way.

Thats pretty much what happened to the USSR wasn't it.

I remember seeing a doco about the coldwar and the americans calculated how much the reds were spending on their military out of their whole budget and figured it was just a matter of time before it all hit the fan, and that was years before it finally did.

You'd think the yanks would have learnt the lesson, now it looks like they will do the same thing.