In case you haven’t noticed, the Muslim world has hated the US for a very long time, and we are winning the war against terrorism.
Shouldn’t this begin with “once upon a time……”
True. But at Chosin, the battle that I mentioned, most of the fighting against the 220,000+ Chinese was done by 7,000 USMC. What’s more amazing is that the Chinese generals stated that their 4 divisions were not sufficient to take the frontmost regiment of USMC, and that they needed more.
The Korean war had the same lousy outcome: not enough commited to the war and we had to pull back and draw the line in the middle.
Oh just for info, someone stated in some thread here that the concept of “heats and minds” was a British notion. It’s not. It’s an American one.
Are you an expert in sexuality and relationships in the same way as you’re an expert in tactics, i.e. by having no experience ?[/quote]
Hang on a sec, wasn’t he claiming his degree was in Philosophy a while back? Is this some new course - “Make your relationship better using the ancient wisdom of Thales of Miletus”?
The blunt truth, Ironman, is that without overwhelming proof we’re going to assume you’re lying again. You have consistently posted rubbish and claimed knowledge in areas where some members of this board are specialists (infantry weapons/tactics and jet engines spring to mind). Quite a few of us do this for a living, so we can spot bovine excrement at a hundred yards.
If you want to prove us wrong, it’s dead easy. If you’re a published author, quote your name (or pseudonym you wrote the book under), publisher, date, and ideally ISBN. If you founded this world famous institute, give us it’s name and website (if it’s that famous, it will have one). From that, we can get an email address and contact you via that - something that’s hard to fake. If you do this, we might start taking you seriously. Until then, we’ll just continue treating you as the sad, Walter Mitty-esque character that I think you are.
Not quite an edit: Looked at the website linked from google - for an “internationally famous” place, an expired website and a whois page that has been (deliberately?) corrupted is not a good sign. I could almost see the tumbleweeds rolling accross the website!
You had total air superiority over Vietnam, I’m sure the people carpet bombed by B-52s would argue that your air war wasn’t all that limited. You had complete air and naval superiority and you had 500,000 of the best equipped men in the world, and you lost. There’s no excuse, there’s no ifs or buts, you lost.
Wrong again - it was introduced in Borneo by the SAS
I never once said that the US was pulling out - I said that IF they did, the Joe Daqis would tear each other apart. We did make a mistake by being there, Iraq would cave in if we left (because most of them will be dead), we’re not winning the “War on Terror”.
Would the full quote expounding the original theory be “If you’ve got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow”? The USMC did use hearts and minds type tactics in the 1920s with the “oil-spot” theory and the like, but they were comprehensively overruled in Vietnam by the Army.
How many CCF were actually in contact at Chosin? Somehow I can’t see it being all 220,000 - if for no other reason than you’d have great difficulty fitting that many people into the space around a mere 7,000 marines!
Furthermore, given the human wave tactics prevalent at the time, it’s not exactly unusual - the 1st Battalion of the Gloucestershire regiment (as already mentioned) was attacked by a very large number of Chinese in the battle of the Imjin river (Chinese attackers were the 63rd Army - various sources give strength as between 10,000 and 27,000). Depending on which source you take, this means that the Glosters were actually more outnumbered than the USMC at Chosin. I would be surprised if this was anything particularly exceptional for the war - it is really a reflection of the state of infantry weapons and tactics of the time, and of the terrain.
Another quote from Walter’s link. Puts the Vietnam question to rest I think.
America’s greatest military theorist, Air Force Colonel John Boyd, used to say:
“When I was a young officer, I was taught that if you have air superiority, land superiority and sea superiority, you win. Well, in Vietnam we had air superiority, land superiority and sea superiority, but we lost. So I realized there is something more to it.”
Would the full quote expounding the original theory be “If you’ve got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow”? The USMC did use hearts and minds type tactics in the 1920s with the “oil-spot” theory and the like, but they were comprehensively overruled in Vietnam by the Army.
How many CCF were actually in contact at Chosin? Somehow I can’t see it being all 220,000 - if for no other reason than you’d have great difficulty fitting that many people into the space around a mere 7,000 marines!
Furthermore, given the human wave tactics prevalent at the time, it’s not exactly unusual - the 1st Battalion of the Gloucestershire regiment (as already mentioned) was attacked by a very large number of Chinese in the battle of the Imjin river (Chinese attackers were the 63rd Army - various sources give strength as between 10,000 and 27,000). Depending on which source you take, this means that the Glosters were actually more outnumbered than the USMC at Chosin. I would be surprised if this was anything particularly exceptional for the war - it is really a reflection of the state of infantry weapons and tactics of the time, and of the terrain.[/quote]
I seem to remember a RM commando being there too.
There is a bit of philosphy in sexuality as a matter of fact. Particularly so in relation to gender roles and the psychology of sexuality.
I have no need of providing you proof of anything. Believe what you like.
Again, I keep my professional and cyber lives seperate. However, here’s an edited log of a debate I held with some heavy SM/BD dweebs some years ago. Just thought you’d find it interesting reading. I had it on my personal web site for the longest.
Wrong again - it was introduced in Borneo by the SAS[/quote]
Nope. John Adams, the 1st Vice President of the United States coined the term. The British simply began using it because they like it and what it was in reference to.
Love the second comment on “your” site Ironman
The article…is horribly inaccurate and out of date and terribly misleading"
:lol:
:lol: Uh huh.
Which unsurprisingly is entitled, “A Debate With The Mentally Ill” !
Ring a bell with the rest of the site members ?
:lol: :lol: :lol:
I would’nt go as far as mentally ill but having view’d the link Ironman posted in comparison with his post( on this site ) and style/ methods of argument I would say ( in a professional capacity ) that there are strong indicators of an enduring personality disorder, possibly steming from a difficult relationship in childhood.
I was going to run a profile but as this would require the subject to respond honestly it would be pointless.
Yea, sure. Can we get back to the subject now guys? We’ve gone a bit off the mark.
Ironman, I understand if you don’t want to go further, so lets stick to the topic for now if it make you feel more comfortable.
If you want to debate sexuality I am willing, but this is not the appropriate forum to do it. If you find one and wish to persue it, I’m willing.
Otherwise we should not fill THIS thread with THAT subject.
I did’nt mention your sexuality in fact it was far from my train of thought, I was leaning towards your dominant( narcissistic personality traits ) and your inability to develope meaningful relationships although this may be linked to concerns around your sexuality ( between the physical and masturbatory fantasy)and your fear of inadaquacy re you relationship with a significant adult.Your use of patonising terms ie, kiddo and My boy and editing your past posts to justify your position in any given argument elude to the above
I agree this is not the forum for an anallisys of your behaviour or psycho-sexual difficulties so lets stay on topic
The real issue is that though John Adams may have coined the phrase Hearts and Minds but did he put into practice?.