Yes, people focus on newer aircraft, but before that they focused on the current aircraft and before that they focused on the current aircraft. The point is you are just saying that we need to think about old aircraft as well.............for what purpose? They are cool, but we need to focus on what is coming and the strengths and weaknesses of our new air force.
No I haven't read it, sounds like a conspiracy/Micheal Moore type thing. Most of the scenario's you just wrote really have no basis because they leave out our response, and they also leave out a little bit of reality.
Re-read what I said, you seem to think that just because they have old weapons and tactics means we should have beaten them by now and you are using the fact that they don't have a lot of new technology and we do as an example of how technology isn't that great. Here is the thing though, technology is not everything, but before you go off about stuff like this, saying stupid things like 'we should've beaten them by now' think about it. In a conventional war we would be done by now. Both world wars lasted less than Vietnam, and the Iraq war. That is because they were conventional wars, and they were World wars which have a bigger effect on the world as a whole in a quicker period of time than other wars.
Firstsgt_cap wrote:
No actually, we shouldn't have won by now...............this isn't a conventional war. Yes they are using weapons that are more than 50 years old, but they are using tactics from before the American Revolutionary war, just the same as our special forces are. Conventional wars can be gauged, you can say, we are winning now because we know we have decreased their numbers, their equipment, and ability to wage war. You can't do that in an unconventional war because you have to put both physiological factors and numbers into consideration. That has always been a problem for the public who wants to hear how we are winning. We are fighting people that have been fighting constantly for years and years, they are set in what they want to do and are in a mind set that what they are doing is right. We have to do the same thing, and basically its like a siege you have to wait it out, until the other side gives up or is killed off. And on a final note, technology saves lives, I'd say thats a good thing...........
And for not giving us the upper hand............I disagree, how many soldiers have we lost? 4,000 some? I feel horrible that any of our men and women have died for us, however if you look at that number versus WWII which had over 60 Million casualties total, its quite small. Due to our armor, and newer technology to save lives less people are dieing, which gives you the upper hand in any war. Obviously, there is no confimed number that we have killed of 'the enemy' but it has to be much, much, much higher than our death toll.
Create New Topic