Russian Submarine Patrols Gulf of Mexico Undetected.

Garbage. You define anyone that questions spending three quarters of a trillion dollars a year for pointless cold war hardware as "anti military." The most expensive fighter jet in the history of the world hasn't done squat in combat. The last person who attacked us was Bin Laden and we used helicopters to take him out. You need to stop with your knee jerk "anti military" stuff and think.

 

Cold war hardware my fanny. Wake up that war going on over there is pretty hot, it isn't a cold war. We are using those aircraft carriers you think are so worthless. I guess you still don't realize we were fighting more than bin Laden.

 

We may be using them, but are they helping us " win" the war? We havent won a war since ww2, and if you want to count Korea then you can go on from there. All these expenses hasnt done (*)(*)(*)(*) because we pick battles that these toys we have do nothing really to help. Sure we may have a higher kill count because of it, but that isnt the only objective in war.

 

We would have an almost impossible time fighting in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Kuwait and Afghanistan without those carriers. We could have used better fighters in Korea, ours were no match for the Migs the N.Koreans, Chinese and Russians were flying.

 

i know......... but we still LOST even WITH them. We are fighting battles that WE CANT WIN using the tactics. Increasing the funding of these tactics and numbers doesnt seem to help either .... arguing that something prolonged our defeat isnt a trillion dollar point...

 

We fought the Korean war to a draw, even though we were fighting the North Koreans, China and Russia right on the doorstep. S.Korea is a free nation because of it. We lost the war in Vietnam without losing the battles, because the South couldn't hold it. Kuwait is free and so is Iraq. Hopefully we can get out of Afghanistan as soon as we train enough of their army to defend their own country. Then I hope we never have to get in another war.

 

You just dont get it.

 

A fighter jet is not an "aircraft carrier." We've spent billions of dollars on a jet fighter that hasn't done squat in combat.

 

What don't I get? Should we have let N.Korea take over the South? Vietnam we should have never got involved in, I admit that. Iraq invaded Kuwait. Should we have allowed that to happen? We were attacked by the people living and training in Afghanistan and the Afghan government wouldn't hand them over. Should we have just forgot about 3,000 Americans being killed? Iraq turned out to be a mistake. But it was believed they still had WMD. So far there is no proof that it was all a lie. Plenty of proof of bad intelligence. So tell me what don't I get?

 

That plane is an attack fighter. It's not a bomber, not a transport, it;s a fighter. We have no use for a high speed fighter in Afghanistan. But does that mean we shouldn't build it? The Russians are building faster planes all the time and they sell those plane to other countries. We could have used a plane like that in Korea. Our Saber was no match to the Mig.

 

Since I have some military experience myself I get it. The reason the U.S. lost all those wars had nothing to do with the military. It had everything to do with the white house and the department of defense. The military isn't allowed to do what it does best. it is micromanaged by political people - most of whom have no military experience at all. For the military it is all about death, destruction and the acheivment of objectives. For the politicians it is all about public opinion, international relations and internal politics. I can think of few things that are further apart from one another.

The hardware is, for the most part, a war deterrence. Despite your opinion, it would be quite foolish for any country to attack ours. Hopefully we don't have to use the stuff. The military feels the same way. But if we need to use it in a war that the politicians are intent on winning, we'll win with it.

We have troops stationed in 125 countries (some, of course, are marines who guard the embassies.) We could bring 2/3 of the military home and save a bundle from defense budget. We are gaining nothing by having politicians guide our military efforts in Afghanistan for instance. Neither did the Russians when they did it. There is no longer a need for troops in Europe or Korea. We have way too much military. But don't think for a minute that the military can't win a war if it is allowed to.

Finally, nuclear submarines are so quiet that they are almost impossible to detect. We can't detect Russian subs in the Gulf any better than they can detect U.S. subs in the North Sea and North Atlantic. So neither the fact that the subs are there nor the fact that we can't detect them should be a surprise to anybody knowlegeable about the military.

 

You are right and it showed a lot in Korea and Vietnam. The high brass or White House prevented us from chasing Chinese fighters back to China. We were limited on where we could bomb in N.Korea. Same with Vietnam. We weren't allowed to bomb the N.Vienam harbor where all kinds of war supplies were brought in. We weren't allowed to finish off Iraqi forces after chasing them out of Kuwait, which could have avoided the Iraqi war. Does anyone think we are fighting in Afghanistan like the Soviets were? No one told them where they couldn't bomb.

 

Thats because we are attempting to avoid the repeating the same mistakes of the Soviets in Afghanistan.

 

And been a diplomatic disaster. The second Gulf war was totally unnecessary. Again instead of prolonging wars unnecessarily or starting pointless ones we could reduce the number of troops and the amount of hardware and start working on paying the debt. You remember the debt don't you?

Yeah, how did that work our for them? Did they "win?" After all the atrocities and land mines blowing off kids limbs did they increase their standing in the world?

 

History will record that President Obama lost the war in Afghanistan by adopting the wrong strategy in the face of certain Pakistani perfidy. Loser.

 

No, that's because we try and avoid civilian casualties. No other nation on earth has done more to protect civilian lives as we have in in Iraq and Afghanistan. NONE. I can prove it if you don't believe me.

 

My dear, bin Laden accomplished his objectives and defeated the American Empire.

President Obama is an accomplished assassin, nothing more. I suppose you also support the Drone Warrior's Kill List. Very sad.

 

The war in Afghanistan isn't lost and I don't think Obama will pull out until he thinks the government can protect it's self.

Pakistan is a touchy subject. We need them desperately to fly our planes over and bring in our trucks. So we have to walk on water dealing with them We are limited in getting stuff in and out of Afghanistan.

 

I like M1, but I don't agree. There is an internal inconsistency in your view. The war in Afghanistan couldn't be won as long as America relied on a country which funds and directs the Haqqani Network out of Pakistan's North and South Waziristans and the Quetta Shura out of the Pakistani city of Quetta.

The war in Afghanistan is lost. The various Pashtun insurgencies aggregated under the name Taliban need only wait until the Americans leave Afghanistan. The current Western model of war won't work in Afghanistan.

The very best thing America can hope for after it withdraws from Afghanistan is continued civil war among Pashtuns, Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hasara.

 

That is exactly what we need. Not thousands of cold war tanks.

 

It will only be lost if the Afghan army allows it to be lost. I don't believe for a minute the the people want to be ruled under the Taliban again. But with American forces there, the people have split loyalty. As much as I believe they want freedom, many want us out. So you have some fighting with the government and some fighting the government and us trying to drive us out. Once we are gone, I think there will more loyalty to the government against the Taliban.

Muslims are funny. As much as they complain about the tyrant rulers in the Middle East, they don't want non Muslims fighting Muslims. to get them out.

 

America doesn't need assassins. America's real enemies are the mutually hostile versions into which the country has been smashed. I'm not interested in fighting any foreigners. There is a struggle to be waged between competing philosophies on American soil.

Foreign enemies are remote. Internal enemies are at the gate. Forget about fighting any foreigners. What happens overseas is no longer of any concern as long as there is an ongoing struggle between Classical Liberalism and Post-Modern Liberalism here.

 

A bunch of people still don't get. Especially user Jebediah. Its not the submarine that is a concern, its a concern, because it shows weakness in the military. Read through the posts before going back to the OP and quoting it, it makes people have to repeat stuff.

 

Weakness against what? Who is going to actually launch a submarine attack against us?