I appreciate that the author was in the Theater of Operations. I respect that he has an enormous amount of anecdotal data about military personnel and conflict. That being said, this person appears to have a rather shallow understanding of the nature of conflicts as it pertains to Geo-politics.
To say the US has not won a war since Korea is idiotic, as the US did NOT win; there is a de facto state of war between the Koreas and the US is bound to the South by alliance. I get the feeling that the author is European (just a guess). I wonder what the answers would be if you asked a large range of people (age and nation of association) who won WWII. Asking an American who won the Cold War will probably yield a more homogeneous pool of responses. Ask a N.Korean who won the Korean Conflict and the diversity of answers would drop even further. The point is that anyone can say anything that they want; the winners are decided over and over again culturally as well as historically. There has not been a 'real' war since the Second Global Conflict in terms of losses in material and personnel. If the Ukraine Conflict becomes a shooting war between Russia and Ukraine, the losses in one week could total the entire losses of the US in the ten years of brush beating. 5K soldiers is a paltry sum: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll .
The world has not known war in many years, and it is precisely because of the political efforts of the US, Russia, England & Friends, and more recently China. They do this not out of compassion for their citizens, but out of necessity for their profits.
In forums like these, people love to belabor the trope that war brings technological advances and benefits the D-Con companies solely. They use this as some sort of reasoning behind why the US invades the countries it does. This is silly. War turns an economy to shit. It does this to both sides, though obviously it takes longer for the 'victor' to feel it. Peace == Prosperity. Regardless of the 'billions' that are said to be invested in America's wars, they are trickles compared to the naked power of a well cared for middle class. There is so much more money to be made when people are free to save it and spend it. this is the fundamental principle behind US Capitalism: 1)make peace through force 2)inundate with currency 3)?????? 4) Middle class appears.
Instead of large wars heralding dramatic shifts in power and means, a background of smaller conflicts in emerging raw material provider countries keeps the weapons sales up and makes the way for more ethnically homogeneous locals when the drilling crews show up.
One can say the US loses, and on many counts we do. But the world* wins. We invaded Iraq to stabilize oil supplies, guarantee supremacy, and foment regime change: the European and Chinese oil supply, the supremacy of Saudi Arabia over Iran, and regime change in the Middle Eastern monarchies.
Somewhat non sequitur, but if you want to learn about an amazing american geo-political victory that used some of that 'excessive' spending, try to find info about the shadow campaign waged across the -stans to secure power and water as a preemptive strike against nascent extremist populations. Good luck; there is not much documentation ou there.
Having a clear definition of terms is important, both in conflict as well as in blogposts.
Vietnam is at the top. Lel.
I appreciate that the author was in the Theater of Operations. I respect that he has an enormous amount of anecdotal data about military personnel and conflict. That being said, this person appears to have a rather shallow understanding of the nature of conflicts as it pertains to Geo-politics.
To say the US has not won a war since Korea is idiotic, as the US did NOT win; there is a de facto state of war between the Koreas and the US is bound to the South by alliance. I get the feeling that the author is European (just a guess). I wonder what the answers would be if you asked a large range of people (age and nation of association) who won WWII. Asking an American who won the Cold War will probably yield a more homogeneous pool of responses. Ask a N.Korean who won the Korean Conflict and the diversity of answers would drop even further. The point is that anyone can say anything that they want; the winners are decided over and over again culturally as well as historically. There has not been a 'real' war since the Second Global Conflict in terms of losses in material and personnel. If the Ukraine Conflict becomes a shooting war between Russia and Ukraine, the losses in one week could total the entire losses of the US in the ten years of brush beating. 5K soldiers is a paltry sum: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll .
The world has not known war in many years, and it is precisely because of the political efforts of the US, Russia, England & Friends, and more recently China. They do this not out of compassion for their citizens, but out of necessity for their profits.
In forums like these, people love to belabor the trope that war brings technological advances and benefits the D-Con companies solely. They use this as some sort of reasoning behind why the US invades the countries it does. This is silly. War turns an economy to shit. It does this to both sides, though obviously it takes longer for the 'victor' to feel it. Peace == Prosperity. Regardless of the 'billions' that are said to be invested in America's wars, they are trickles compared to the naked power of a well cared for middle class. There is so much more money to be made when people are free to save it and spend it. this is the fundamental principle behind US Capitalism: 1)make peace through force 2)inundate with currency 3)?????? 4) Middle class appears.
Instead of large wars heralding dramatic shifts in power and means, a background of smaller conflicts in emerging raw material provider countries keeps the weapons sales up and makes the way for more ethnically homogeneous locals when the drilling crews show up.
One can say the US loses, and on many counts we do. But the world* wins. We invaded Iraq to stabilize oil supplies, guarantee supremacy, and foment regime change: the European and Chinese oil supply, the supremacy of Saudi Arabia over Iran, and regime change in the Middle Eastern monarchies.
Somewhat non sequitur, but if you want to learn about an amazing american geo-political victory that used some of that 'excessive' spending, try to find info about the shadow campaign waged across the -stans to secure power and water as a preemptive strike against nascent extremist populations. Good luck; there is not much documentation ou there.
Having a clear definition of terms is important, both in conflict as well as in blogposts.
*Europe