The Sad Cunts with No Life Thread

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) :( :o :shock: :? 8) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :wink: :froth: :loopy: :| :mrgreen: :demonic: 0:) 0;) :argue: :wry:
View more smilies
BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON
Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: The Sad Cunts with No Life Thread

Re: The Sad Cunts with No Life Thread

Post by kyotebue2 » Sun Dec 08, 2019 8:32 am

Tango will be out of the dawg house tomorrow/today.

Re: The Sad Cunts with No Life Thread

Post by sebigboss79 » Sun Dec 08, 2019 7:03 am

Condottiero wrote:
Picador wrote:
Condottiero wrote:
Tet was a tactical victory for the US, but a strategic loss due to the casualty count...


Fuck me, and you accuse others of being thick? :roll:

Care to point out where I'm wrong?


Alphabetically or Chronologically?


Yes condom these pages DO say you are wrong, you have neither read, no understood them and even if so would deny it. Lewin/Festinger say hi from the 1940s.

The OpFor (opposing force) had combat initiative pretty much throughout the war and if one side decides when and where to begin and end hostilities they decide when the war is over. It is indeed as simple as that.

In regards to underestimating air superiority, beg pardon they did not. They pretty much learned very quickly about US reaction times and combat radius, area of operations etc, so maybe they were not geniusses but what does that say about US Forces? Smart and smug like our condom here. The fact temains the US lost and perhaps it is just me but I rather lose againsta genius than a moron….

Banging on about brilliant victories let me elucidate that armies have lost every single battle (ok the opening engagement in case of the Sino French War) but in the end WON the war.

Condom is just a fuckwit, unable to admit he got it wrong and maybe likes being shown up. Not my thing and overall most of the time I have better things to do than tell a moron they are a moron. It does not have any ROI so, condom, if I feel bored I will tell you and the rest of the world what a dumbfuck you are – with evidence – at other times I will engage with something much more worthwhile like watching grass grow.

Re: The Sad Cunts with No Life Thread

Post by Macunaima nli mm » Sun Dec 08, 2019 4:00 am

Condottiero wrote:
Macunaima nli mm wrote:More to the point, I’m not sure Mao makes a meaningful distinction between tactics and strategy.

IIRC, he did make a distinction and there's one quote that's rather Clausewitzian: concerning the objective being the destruction of the enemy's army - I'd have to dig out my copy of Quotations from Chairman Mao Tsetung for the paragraph.


Wonder what that is in the original, however. “Destruction of the enemy’s army” as a goal isn’t something that only Clausewitz came up with, either.

Back to the main point: Gibson believes the U.S. was far too tied to a mechanistic way of waging war. I’d say history since he’s wrote the book has born him out.

Re: The Sad Cunts with No Life Thread

Post by Condottiero » Sun Dec 08, 2019 3:18 am

Macunaima nli mm wrote:More to the point, I’m not sure Mao makes a meaningful distinction between tactics and strategy.

IIRC, he did make a distinction and there's one quote that's rather Clausewitzian: concerning the objective being the destruction of the enemy's army - I'd have to dig out my copy of Quotations from Chairman Mao Tsetung for the paragraph.

Re: The Sad Cunts with No Life Thread

Post by JJCH reclining » Sat Dec 07, 2019 10:51 pm

Whilst there was a technical divide between the NLF and its forces and Hanoi’s PAVN, for all practical purposes the war was directed by Hanoi, especially so post 1968. Surviving NLF forces were heavily reinforced by northerners. It’s also worth noting that many of the larger ‘VC’ mainforce regiments and divisions originated in the North and/or had substantial PAVN elements as early as 1965.

The 1968 Tet Offensive was, in many ways, a diversion from or apostasy of, the long game strategy. There was a divide within the ranks of Hanoi’s leadership on strategic direction. The dominant faction, headed by Lê Duẩn actually believed that a General Offensive would topple the South and rally the bulk of the population and ARVN. He believed that so fervently, that in spite of the failure of Tet to meet its objectives, that in spite of the evidence, he launched two, smaller country-wide offensives (the May mini-Tet and June offensive) that were equally disastrous. After those, the penny dropped and Lê Duẩn, literally said enough is enough.

Using the US metric of bodycount, Tet was a tactical win for the US and allies. Using the North’s own metric of swift regime change, Tet was clearly a defeat for Hanoi. None the less the clear and obvious impact it had on US political, military and public opinion renders it an overall strategic victory.

Re: The Sad Cunts with No Life Thread

Post by Mac And Cheez » Sat Dec 07, 2019 10:05 pm

More to the point, I’m not sure Mao makes a meaningful distinction between tactics and strategy.

Re: The Sad Cunts with No Life Thread

Post by Macunaima nli mm » Sat Dec 07, 2019 9:26 pm

More to the point, I’m not sure Mao makes a meaningful distinction between tactics and strategy.

Re: The Sad Cunts with No Life Thread

Post by Macunaima nli mm » Sat Dec 07, 2019 9:26 pm

More to the point, I’m not sure Mao makes a meaningful distinction between tactics and strategy.

Re: The Sad Cunts with No Life Thread

Post by Condottiero » Sat Dec 07, 2019 7:30 pm

Picador wrote:
Condottiero wrote:
Tet was a tactical victory for the US, but a strategic loss due to the casualty count...


Fuck me, and you accuse others of being thick? :roll:

Care to point out where I'm wrong?

Re: The Sad Cunts with No Life Thread

Post by Condottiero » Sat Dec 07, 2019 7:28 pm

Macunaima nlimm wrote:Here is a legitimate “orientalism”, however: I’m not sure that the Chinese military tradition makes a clear cut decision between tactics and strategy as the Clausewitzian tradition does. It does indeed seem that Tsun Tsu sees warfare in a much more wholistic fashion than the Enlightenment-oriented Clausewitz.

Given this, it’s an open question whether or not your distinction between “tactical” and “strategic” victories is anything other than a philosophical tautology, Condi. Speaking as an anthro, here.

Thirty-Six Stratagems

Chinese military tradition, nor any other military tradition in the pre-modern world, didn't make any clear cut distinction between tactics and strategy, due to the simplistic mode of waging war. Occasional mention of or allusion to strategy and tactics pop up, like in the Taktika of Leo VI, but it's the ideas of the author, so no consensus with other authors, unless referencing a prior work.

Sun Tzu:
Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.


Sun Tzu's Art of War does try to make a distinction, but as a product of the period, it's not as "scientific" and can be as general or specific depending on the reader's interpretation.

Clausewitz's strategy and tactics and Jomini's grand tactics occurred in an era when warfare was increasing in complexity. Modern Chinese military still references the classics, but not in isolation.

The idea of genius in Clausewitz and Sun Tzu

Does Sun Tzu's The Art of War influence China's military behavior? A case study of the 1962 Sino-India War

Sun Tzu in Contemporary Chinese Strategy

Top