The M1 Abrams tank has seen more combat than just about any other tank on the battlefield today. It has never been knocked out by enemy fire. (Completely killed). Ever.
As the author says enemy fire not a land mine or IED, any vehicle can be taken but those.
newjez
20 Sep 2015, 03:34 PM
Why would you want to fight a conventional war against the US?
It's easy to win a war. It's much harder to win a peace.
Wars which major powers will fight will be conventional wars. While the Iraqi/Syrian wars against ISIS and the like are a distraction from the real event which is major conventional war between world powers. Unless you can fight and win a conventional war against another nation state that you have ambitions against you cannot achieve your aims.
If your aim is to distract, degrade, blind temporarily then cyber war or other means can be of use, but boots on the ground, ships at sea, bombers in the air is what wins wars.
The War against ISIS is barely worth fighting, leave it to the local actors. It serves no US interest other then for humanitarian reasons. The US is has more interest calibrating it's forces to face, meet and defeat either Chinese or Russian expansionism which the US is exceptionally good at.
The US has also been highly successful at counter insurgency warfare, wiping them out in Iraq and Afghanistan. The problem being is to truly win these kinds of wars you need to eliminate the safe havens in Syria where they enemy retreated to and Pakistan (tribal areas). The US could certainly do this but the cost would be huge and the interests served would not meet the required expenditure in treasure or material. Hence why they do not do it.
Do not confuse an insurgent war which any conventional army is poorly organised, trained or equipped to deal with a major regional or global war which the US is perfectly tailored to fight.
Look at the last conventional war fought, Persian Gulf War. The worlds 5th largest Army was obliterated.
As the author says enemy fire not a land mine or IED, any vehicle can be taken but those. Wars which major powers will fight will be conventional wars. While the Iraqi/Syrian wars against ISIS and the like are a distraction from the real event which is major conventional war between world powers. Unless you can fight and win a conventional war against another nation state that you have ambitions against you cannot achieve your aims.
If your aim is to distract, degrade, blind temporarily then cyber war or other means can be of use, but boots on the ground, ships at sea, bombers in the air is what wins wars.
The War against ISIS is barely worth fighting, leave it to the local actors. It serves no US interest other then for humanitarian reasons. The US is has more interest calibrating it's forces to face, meet and defeat either Chinese or Russian expansionism which the US is exceptionally good at.
The US has also been highly successful at counter insurgency warfare, wiping them out in Iraq and Afghanistan. The problem being is to truly win these kinds of wars you need to eliminate the safe havens in Syria where they enemy retreated to and Pakistan (tribal areas). The US could certainly do this but the cost would be huge and the interests served would not meet the required expenditure in treasure or material. Hence why they do not do it.
Do not confuse an insurgent war which any conventional army is poorly organised, trained or equipped to deal with a major regional or global war which the US is perfectly tailored to fight.
Look at the last conventional war fought, Persian Gulf War. The worlds 5th largest Army was obliterated.
I think you may be in danger of missing the point.
The US is alot like the British army in the American war of independence. All they needed to win was to get the Americans to form up in nice little lines so they could shoot them. Sadly the real world doesn't work like that.
Huh? This statement does not even makes sense! How can you "get the deficit down" by "borrowing"??? Can't wait to hear the mechanics of how you think that works!
Well you're gonna have to wait, because you're too lazy and too stupid to research it yourself.
"Panics do not destroy capital; they merely reveal the extent to which it has been previously destroyed by its betrayal into hopelessly unproductive works." John Stuart Mill
Well you're gonna have to wait, because you're too lazy and too stupid to research it yourself.
Again huh? It's a simple question - clearly too much for you though - maybe time to admit that you just fucked up there and said something that was complete crap? And why should I have to do research to try and prove an obviously completely bullshit, nonsensical statement by you? It;s your freaking claim! You back it up, pillock!
Or are you REALLY still trying to tell us the "Clinton got the deficit down by borrowing"??? Really?
"The government can have a surplus even if it has trillions in debt, but it cannot have a surplus if that debt increased every year. This article is about surplus/deficit, not the debt. However, it analyzes the debt to prove there wasn't a surplus under Clinton.
For those that want a more detailed explanation of why a claimed $236 billion surplus resulted in the national debt increasing by $18 billion, please read this follow-up article:
I think you may be in danger of missing the point.
The US is alot like the British army in the American war of independence. All they needed to win was to get the Americans to form up in nice little lines so they could shoot them. Sadly the real world doesn't work like that.
Yes hence why the US has drones and special forces to go after insurgents or terrorists.
Conventional armies of a foreign power should not be used for anti-insurgent fighting.
The mistake the US made in Iraq was not it ability to defeat the insurgents, they won that battle hands down. It was the decision to disband 400,000 Iraqi Officers/Soldiers. What did they think these men and their families would now do to survive. The reason this was done was due to political power struggles in Baghdad and an impulsive decision by Paul Bremer. This was done against the advice of many advisors in the White House and Bush did not approve it. Worst mistake of the war.
Had he not disbanded the Army many of the events of the past 10 years may never have happened including the rise of ISIS.
You could say from this point on the US and its allies were outnumbered 3-1 by an enemy on its own turf (400,000+ vs 125,000).
The other problem was the Whitehouse ignored the advice of the Generals who planned the war. The first plans called for 450,000 troops, this was not acceptable. It was reduced to 300,000, then 225,000 and finally 175,000 was approved. Even this number was never used as 1 Division (4th Armoured from memory) was denied permission from Turkey to use its territory as a stagging point to invade northern Iraq. The invasion commenced with around 125,000. This was enough to destroy the Iraqi military easily enough but not enough to restore law and order and provide security for the population. This is why the Generals wanted 450,000 to start with as they knew what needed to be done. With that amount of forces also comes the engineers and equipment needed to help restore basic services such as water and power which was a constant problem.
"The government can have a surplus even if it has trillions in debt, but it cannot have a surplus if that debt increased every year. This article is about surplus/deficit, not the debt. However, it analyzes the debt to prove there wasn't a surplus under Clinton.
For those that want a more detailed explanation of why a claimed $236 billion surplus resulted in the national debt increasing by $18 billion, please read this follow-up article:
That article just reads like obfuscation and BS to me - but even it is correct, it's assertion is simply that Clinton did not actually run surpluses - that it was all "creative accounting" (which I don't buy) or whatever. Even if this is true, it is a completely different proposition to the one The Whole Bullshit made, which was "Clinton got the deficit down by borrowing". You CANNOT reduce a government deficit by borrowing - if anything this article simply makes the same point!
Again huh? It's a simple question - clearly too much for you though - maybe time to admit that you just fucked up there and said something that was complete crap? And why should I have to do research to try and prove an obviously completely bullshit, nonsensical statement by you? It;s your freaking claim! You back it up, pillock!
Or are you REALLY still trying to tell us the "Clinton got the deficit down by borrowing"??? Really?
I was only responding to your claim that "clinton got the deficit down....".
He didn't.
It doesn't matter to me whether he lied, borrowed, or stole to make it appear he got it down.
The fact is he didn't get it down. The point you seem to be arguing about doesn't exist.
WHAT WOULD EDDIE DO? MAAAATE! Share a cot with Milton?
I was only responding to your claim that "clinton got the deficit down....".
He didn't.
It doesn't matter to me whether he lied, borrowed, or stole to make it appear he got it down.
The fact is he didn't get it down. The point you seem to be arguing about doesn't exist.
I never claimed "Clinton got the deficit down" - although reading up on it a bit more *since* it looks like his administration actually *did* - most criticism centers around whether it was really the former Bush-senior's policies that produced this outcome, or around the fact that government deficit was reduced at the expense of private debt growth. I don't think the article you linked to is a correct representation of the figures - it's obfuscation.
But regardless of all that, and either way, I was simply pointing out the stupidity of TWTs claim that "Clinton got the deficit down by borrowing". That is still a stupid and nonsensical assertion IMO, and it was his, not my assertion.
Australian Property Forum is an economics and finance forum dedicated to discussion of Australian and global real estate markets and macroeconomics, including house prices, housing affordability, and the likelihood of a property crash. Is there an Australian housing bubble? Will house prices crash, boom or stagnate? Is the Australian property market a pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme? Can house prices really rise forever? These are the questions we address on Australian Property Forum, the premier real estate site for property bears, bulls, investors, and speculators. Members may also discuss matters related to finance, modern monetary theory (MMT), debt deflation, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin Ethereum and Ripple, property investing, landlords, tenants, debt consolidation, reverse home equity loans, the housing shortage, negative gearing, capital gains tax, land tax and macro prudential regulation.
Forum Rules:
The main forum may be used to discuss property, politics, economics and finance, precious metals, crypto currency, debt management, generational divides, climate change, sustainability, alternative energy, environmental topics, human rights or social justice issues, and other topics on a case by case basis. Topics unsuitable for the main forum may be discussed in the lounge. You agree you won't use this forum to post material that is illegal, private, defamatory, pornographic, excessively abusive or profane, threatening, or invasive of another forum member's privacy. Don't post NSFW content. Racist or ethnic slurs and homophobic comments aren't tolerated. Accusing forum members of serious crimes is not permitted. Accusations, attacks, abuse or threats, litigious or otherwise, directed against the forum or forum administrators aren't tolerated and will result in immediate suspension of your account for a number of days depending on the severity of the attack. No spamming or advertising in the main forum. Spamming includes repeating the same message over and over again within a short period of time. Don't post ALL CAPS thread titles. The Advertising and Promotion Subforum may be used to promote your Australian property related business or service. Active members of the forum who contribute regularly to main forum discussions may also include a link to their product or service in their signature block. Members are limited to one actively posting account each. A secondary account may be used solely for the purpose of maintaining a blog as long as that account no longer posts in threads. Any member who believes another member has violated these rules may report the offending post using the report button.
Australian Property Forum complies with ASIC Regulatory Guide 162 regarding Internet Discussion Sites. Australian Property Forum is not a provider of financial advice. Australian Property Forum does not in any way endorse the views and opinions of its members, nor does it vouch for for the accuracy or authenticity of their posts. It is not permitted for any Australian Property Forum member to post in the role of a licensed financial advisor or to post as the representative of a financial advisor. It is not permitted for Australian Property Forum members to ask for or offer specific buy, sell or hold recommendations on particular stocks, as a response to a request of this nature may be considered the provision of financial advice.
Views expressed on this forum are not representative of the forum owners. The forum owners are not liable or responsible for comments posted. Information posted does not constitute financial or legal advice. The forum owners accept no liability for information posted, nor for consequences of actions taken on the basis of that information. By visiting or using this forum, members and guests agree to be bound by the Zetaboards Terms of Use.
This site may contain copyright material (i.e. attributed snippets from online news reports), the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such content is posted to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues. This constitutes 'fair use' of such copyright material as provided for in section 107 of US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed for research and educational purposes only. If you wish to use this material for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Such material is credited to the true owner or licensee. We will remove from the forum any such material upon the request of the owners of the copyright of said material, as we claim no credit for such material.
Privacy Policy: Australian Property Forum uses third party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our site. These third party advertising companies may collect and use information about your visits to Australian Property Forum as well as other web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here: Google Advertising Privacy FAQ
Australian Property Forum is hosted by Zetaboards. Please refer also to the Zetaboards Privacy Policy