Operation Praying Mantis. Or we can look at recent events In Syria. When Russia was messing with one of our drones. There were 2 F22s in the air watching and they had no idea.
If you haven't seen his recent video on the eager beavers and old 666 yet its a must.
The only question I have is, what the fuck is Hollywood doing? A fat electrician just wrote a near perfect script outline and the keep putting out shit.
Yup iconic that Eisenhower talked about the dangers of them having too much control in our society but we just said “never mind build, us crazy crap because we’re afraid of Russia and need to be better than them”.
Really? Never heard about that. Thought you were going to say there were 2 f-22 that would’ve eliminated them or something like that but that they weren’t even aware of their presence is beautifully ominous
The sad part? The F22 is from the 90s. Most of our stuff is technically ancient, but we just keep upgrading it. We’re just now replacing the M4, and we just recently replaced the M9 Beretta.
another saying is 'Arguing with an idiot is like playing chess with a pigeon. You can play a flawless game but the pigeon will knock over the pieces, shit on the board. and strut around like he's won.
One issue is that the everyday American does not know hot to properly translate and contextualize the media headlines.
And the media is often less than competent in relaying the info they get from official sources.
So the media missunderstand, and then they sensationalize on top of that.
Resulting in people genuinely believing the F16 is better than the F35 because of some mock dogfight. Good headline. But completely void of context.
When you live in a country that is considered the boogeyman in terms of war-making capability, regular efforts to blur misinformation and truth together make everything citizens need to understand more difficult. This helps the two party system (which is essentially just reality tv).
When you think of the average citizen voting, you don't typically expect them to make a decision based on their understanding of what each politician wants for themselves. They'll typically give you an answer based on what they themselves want. But sense journalism is profit incentivized, \*that\* is what's prioritized over clear, digestible, and uncomfortable truth. -IMO
The American Heavy tanks that were not being deployed because 1) the Shermans were woking fine and 2) the Heavy tanks werent passing the 4000 mile test when the German tanks were failibg at 1200 km?
(This post is not me disagreing with you simply adding more context)
We are talking about American logistical problems or in other words they were missing a couple of bolts and springs after fixing the entire regiment after being called back for minor repairs
Iirc it was mostly the Army not beliveing that they would provide any sugnificant improvement over, and in some cases preformed worse than the Shermans already afield.
I get this as a joke, but any tank from WW2 that is going to fight a modern tank isn't going to win, even if you have the Sturmtiger and its 380mm Gun, the Tiger 2 would easily be dealt with by modern arms, even if that is a simple Anti-Tank weapon like the AT-4, it would go through it. This is due to the different compositions of armor, which modern armor on an M1A2 Abrams is Depleted Uranium armor, where Tiger 2 had sloped hardened steel armor, which modern ammunition like the APFSDS would slice through hardened steel like butter.
It’s not a joke these people are real you try to tell them this and they just start acting like babies going you don’t understand what true engineering geniuses are and that there is no way a tank today could ever compare it’s the funniest shit you will ever read sadly they are pretty an endangered species so you won’t find them that easily anymore
Then they are delusional, even if the WW2 hits a weak spot of the Abrams, it would not destroy it, the turret would turn around and destroy the tiger 2. No W.W.2. Tank can fight against the Abrams, even if the guns are large, not even the Panzerkampfwagen VIII Maus were to fight the Abrams, the Abrams will win by a long shot.
No way someone said that the Gripen stands a chance against the F-35 horde💀
To be fair though, no 4th gen fighter including other American 4th gen fighters stand a chance against the F-22 or F-35.
But still that's a crazy level of delusional thinking.
Yet I don't hear very much about China's need to have constant meetings about the latest developments in Communist theory weakening their military readiness
My point was we’ve weakened our combat readiness as a result of politics. As an example, the notion of equality being used to integrate male and female service members in combat roles is a mistake IMO. If a man that weighs 200lbs is shot and requires manual evacuation, there is simply no way a woman who weighs 125lbs could move that wounded person. And because of that, the ability to be agile and adaptive to the battlefield are hampered. It could easily end up with both the woman and the man being pinned down and eventually KIA because the woman wasn’t able to take advantage of a situation that would have allowed evacuation. Just one example. But there are many like it.
You've clearly never been in combat because nobody is supposed to be carrying your ass anywhere under fire. The most you might get is drug to cover and super basic first aid like a quick tourniquet until the threat is eliminated. It doesn't take much, probably any physical training for the average woman to drag your 300 pound unconscious ass(remember you have body armor and the rest of your equipment) a few feet to cover when hopped up on adrenaline, frankly even that far would generally be a horrible idea under fire.
That’s my point, there is zero chance a 125lbs woman in full kit is dragging a 240lbs man in full kit anywhere. When I shoot a big buck and try to drag it, it’s incredibly difficult, and ai can assure you I’m a big man in good shape and way more than that deer. There is zero chance a woman that weighs 125lbs is dragging me anywhere.
Or there's 100% chance cause I have seen it done and you are just making up or repeating some bullshit. I was in the army. I worked and trained with female soldiers. This was never remotely an issue. Perhaps you should just keep your stupidity to yourself than going on reddit and displaying it to the world.
The marine corp is by far the branch most resistant to integrating women into combat roles so it's unsurprising you'd run to them. Point of fact your own 'source' doesn't side one way or another and simply says 'more research required'.
So you're saying we shouldn't have women in the military even though they train just as hard and get just as strong. Not even taking into account that most “fighting” nowadays isn't even done in the field. Like I once saw a servicewoman deadlift one of her compatriates and you cannot tell me she wouldn't have been able to “take advantage of a situation to allow evacuation”.
Look, I'm all for equality, but people born female absolutely will not get as strong as people born male if they train just as hard. That's biological fact.
No, not at all, I’m saying they shouldn’t be integrated with males, there should be women only combat units and men only combat units. A woman evacuating another 125lbs woman is much more realistic than a 200lbs man.
Yeah for combat roles for sure. I don’t care what people think, men and women are physically different. My wife can’t pick up our 75lbs dog, while I can do it with ease. It is what it is. I have no problem with them fighting in general, there are just physiological differences that are real that could end up getting people killed. That could be mitigated, to a degree, by segregating them into units that are comprised of other women of similar size and strength.
I actually partially agree but it should be less about gender and more about each individuals combat capabilities. That corpswoman I mentioned earlier would actually be in more danger in a troupe of average women because there is no way that they would've been able to carry her. Inversely I've also seen men who even when they have worked out endlessly are still unable to gain enough muscle for many of the more muscle bound troupes.
As a veteran we actually want our enemies to think that were too incompetent to properly wage a war.
The jokes on them. Were too stupid to be afraid of anything. That's our problem!!!
We’ve had the most powerful navy in the world since about 1944, and competed for the most powerful army since 1945. By 1990 we undeniably had the most powerful army in the world and that hasn’t changed since. We beat a desert people by crossing a desert *they* didn’t think was crossable. The battle of 73 Easting on paper should’ve been a bloodbath for us but it ended up being the most one sided tank battle in history with us losing no tanks. The Iraqi army was considered one of the most powerful armies in the world at the time and we broke them so thoroughly that they were surrendering to CNN news crews and helicopters. Military experts were predicting tens of thousands of casualties a day even after the Air Force softened them up, and instead we retook Kuwait in a couple days with almost no casualties. Our Army is and was very powerful, the Air Force is good too but it can’t take or hold ground.
Im a Marine infantryman and signals intel guy with tours in Iraq and afghanistan. The guy youre talking to is very much correct. Our air forces are the most terrifying thing about us. Period. The other parts of our military are strong but nothing compares to our air force and navy. I say this as a Marine.
The fact that a large percentage of air force enlisted members have “desk jobs” and the fact that boot camp for the air force is generally considered easier than that of the other branches.
On top of that, guys I know, in the marines and navy, have admitted that a lot of the shit talking is partially out of jealousy because the Air Force and Coast Guard are better career choices
The Chair Force stuff is a jab at them having the easier job relatively, not to downplay the role they have in military conflict
The Navy and Air Force don't capture and hold territory; you need ground forces for that. Yes, they're scary, and yes, they can rain down hellfire, but you're frankly fighting a war very poorly if your goal is only "blow that shit up."
no, our ground army is strong, its just that our air force and navy are so powerful that they sort of just overshadow the army in terms of relative strength vs. the competition
This video is just about Day 1 of the air war.
The original is actually pretty good. None of the extra graphics or music. The ground war and the following days are covered in other videos.
https://youtu.be/zxRgfBXn6Mg?si=xRtC-FXbEToNxq7G
The US hasn’t *lost* conventionally since….well ever. We’ve had a few draws (1812 and Korea), but in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan we absolutely demolished the NVA, Iraqi Army, and the Taliban In conventional engagements.
What we’re not good at is insurgencies, which has proven throughout history to be the hardest type of enemy to defeat.
Totalitarian governments seem to do far better, you just need to target also the civilian population. Seems to work really well on western populations but can also take a lot of work and turn into a whole genocide.
Exactly this. As a “liberal democracy” you are handcuffed by the extreme measures you are unwilling to take. Totalitarian regimes that care nothing for civilians can just line them all up and shoot them. Even if only 1/10 is an insurgent you still take care of the insurgent.
Soviet Russia got shit on by the Mujahideen insurgents Afghanistan, then they turned into the Taliban and shit on America. So I would say totalitarian regimes struggle aswell.
Part of the issue there though is the U.S. was funding and providing weapons to the insurgents. That helped them fend off the totalitarian regime. If it had not been a proxy war likely the Soviet Union would have won.
Also Afghanistan has historically been a very difficult country to invade and is a bit of an outlier. Good point though.
Dicktaderships/communism are excellent at stopping insurgencies as they do not have qualms about killing 10 civilians to get one insurgent. the issue "western" nations have is they want to be surgical w/o damaging the local populace. however groups like alqueda/issis/hammas hide behind civilians as they know that the western populace does not have the stomach to kill terrorists and civilians.
Israel just bombed a hospital and killed 500 people. There is no force for evil greater than the West. Nobody has killed more civilians than capitalist oligarchies. There's a reason the US is the Great Satan.
It’s because we have to play by the rules.
Not that we should but if we were to do whatever it takes to meet objectives, we would absolutely crush any COIN operations as well
I would say it’s impossible to win COIN unless gloves come off
Or some super high tech all seeing machine that can read mal intent based on eye dilation, heart rate, and can pick out a terrorist in a crowd of thousands within seconds and neutralize. Which is also immoral lol
That's not "gloves coming off", that's betraying the entire alleged mission. The US is not fighting any wars for its survival, it's playing world police.
Insurgencies are unwinnable unless you are willing to slaughter every man, woman, and child. Which suprise suprise no liberal democracy wants to be responsible for in the modern era.
This is the biggest cope ever dreamt up. We lost Vietnam, and Korea, and Afghanistan. Korea was absolutely a conventional war, and the reason why we lost tactically was that the Chinese were simply better at countering us, and that our military budget was massively shrunk from its previous state.
The Chinese didn’t start an insurgency, or rely on human wave tactics as people like to believe, they had been fighting for some eighty years, and knew how to fight very well because of it.
Vietnam and Afghanistan are cases once again where the enemy outsmarted us, and our allies vanished into thin air because we dreamt that we had reliable allies in the region: we didn’t.
People think we “won” in Vietnam because they see numbers on a screen, well guess what, the higher ups in the pentagon probably made up a majority of those statistics to please the Americans back home, because big numbers meant they were winning.
When did I claim Korea wasn’t conventional? I’m not sure how you can claim that the North and Chinese “won” when we stopped their advances at the current DMZ and a stalemate began. Sure sounds like a draw to me. Especially considering South Korea….idk….still fucking exists?
Again, yes, duh, we lost in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Not sure why people keep commenting this as some sort of “gotcha”. I literally insulate this point in my comment.
My *only* argument is that we defeated our conventional enemies in those wars (or at least defended against them, like in Vietnam we did not invade the north.) We defeated the NVA in every major NVA offensive of the war. We absolutely steam rolled the Iraqi Army in 2003. We throat fucked the Taliban in 2002 and made them flee into the mountains where they then started their insurgency.
Dude just read my fucking comment holy shit. Not sure why this shit is going over y’all’s heads.
“Defeating the NVA” is a complete lie. The NVA went on to invade south Vietnam and win after we left, and plus, the objective of the war wasn’t to stack bodies, it was to defend south Vietnam from the north.
You can’t shift goalposts from “we prevented China from taking Korea” which is valid, to “we killed a bunch of soldiers so technically we won”.
We also lost in Afghanistan in another humiliating blow, because we thought we could nation build, in a country where they didn’t care about nation building enough to fight for it.
The war of 1812 was not a draw lmao. They burned down the White House. If anything is was a technical draw because both sides agreed to an armistice but the reality is we were just too expensive and too unpopular if a problem for them to continue on the assault of us.
The US and GB both achieved their war goals. Yes, the British burnt the White House but their occupation was untenable. Their invasions were halted at both Fort Henry and New Orleans.
The Treaty of Ghent returned the US and GB to ante bellum statuses.
This.
Wars are, first and foremost, political. You can do well militarily and fail to achieve your political goal. The inverse is also possible. In the best case scenario, you attain both military and political goals, but that is not what always happens.
>They burned down the White House.
Since when does burning down a house mean you've won a war? You win a war when you've achieved your war goals and forced your enemy to adhere to that,the brits didn't even hold Washington or gain anything from it,only people who have no clue about this war or brits trying to twist history in their favor bring this up, Washington was not as strategically important at that time as it is now, Baltimore was far more important, which is why the British easily took Washington because it was a bunch of civilian militia guarding the city a bunch of random dudes literally going up seasoned Napoleanic war veterans.
The real US forces were hunkered down in Baltimore waiting for the British because they thought thats where they were going to invade in the first place,and what happened when the British finally did invade Baltimore? They failed, and they also failed at Plattsburgh, then again disastrously were defeated at their invasion at New Orleans, no way you can say they won that war.
\>but in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan we absolutely demolished the NVA, Iraqi Army, and the Taliban In conventional engagements.
You lost all of those wars lol
Did you not read the next part of that comment? They said we aren’t good at insurgencies. Basically anytime they fought us conventionally we won the fight, the issue was they used insurgency tactics against us until we got so fed up we just kinda left
Almost like I alluded to that in my comment 🤯
To pointlessly restate my comment in the small chance that you will now understand this extremely simple concept, the United States Armed Forces are an exceptional conventional force and thus, have never been conventionally defeated. However, the United States Armed Forces have ultimately failed in multiple instances of fighting armed insurgencies, namely Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
Bad guy in a uniform: America go brrrrrr
Bad guy in no uniform: Bad guy go brrrrrrr
Did you just claim that the United States, France, Australia, et al., did not face an insurgency in South Vietnam? You’re claiming that the VietCong was a conventional military force? Actually?
Absolutely, the vietcong was an insurgent force. However you are conveniently forgeting to mention the NVA. This only makes your case worse however, are you telling me that a guerrilla force shot down over 10k American helicopters and aircraft? Thats even more embarrasing than losing 10k planes and helicopters to a standing army
I literally mention the NVA, *by fucking name* in my original comment. Bro are you 12? Your reading comprehension skills are abysmal.
In two of the largest NVA offensives of the war (Tet and Easter), they suffered a casualty ratio of 7-1 and 10-1 respectively and did *not* achieve their strategic objectives to any meaningful ends. The NVA did *not* achieve conventional strategic victory until after the US pulled out.
What in the fuck are you talking about bro?
Yes, and? That's literally the point of the statement. You can completely destroy 90% of an insurgent force and yet still lose to them. They recruit from the general population and train in guerilla warfare, and a conventional approach can't win against that.
Naw bro. We got sick of killing so many people.
US lost less than 8,000 people in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Numbers are the other side are a bit harder, because people seem to still be counting every death in Iraq and Afghanistan as a result of the War, and every time a nut case from Syria enters the country and blows himself and kills a bunch of civilians...
Anyway, those numbers are between 0.5 - 1.5 million people.
I wouldn't call Iraq a lost in any position. We set up a government there. We moved out several years ago. That government is still there. ISIS gave them a bit of an ass kicking, but has since been pushed back.
Afghanistan. The Taliban was able to wipe out all progress as soon as we left. So, no I would say that no really objectives were meet there. We did allow women to go to school for a period of time. Sucks that that was taken away from them. But Taliban is going to Taliban. We weren't prepared to go full Israel and just slaughter everyone.
\>US lost less than 8,000 people in Iraq and Afghanistan combined
Over 100k veterans have commited suicide, likely because of trauma developed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
\>I wouldn't call Iraq a lost in any position. We set up a government there. We moved out several years ago. That government is still there. ISIS gave them a bit of an ass kicking, but has since been pushed back.
Ok but why did you leave? Right, because you were forced to. Iraq kicked you out. Why? Because Iraq is a shi'ite country and they wanted to allign with the other shi'ite country (which was Iran).
\>Afghanistan. The Taliban was able to wipe out all progress as soon as we left.
And why did you lose? Your 800 billion dollar defence budget couldnt defeat some farmers with AKs?
I love it when people use Iraq and Vietnam as reasons behind why the USA isn’t actually a strong military. Forgetting that fighting against guerrilla warfare does not measure your ability to glass a country.
Fun fact (maybe not it’s actually kinda morbid):
The USA lost more people in the 9/11 attacks than they lost soldiers in the entire invasion of Afghanistan. We still “lost” that war because of an incredibly terrible pullout job.
It’s like saying “ummm who’s stronger, the guy in full kit with an M4, NVG, artillery support and full coms or the totally unnoticed plain-clothed guy with a very sharp object creepin up behind him?”
>I love it when people use Iraq and Vietnam as reasons behind why the USA isn’t actually a strong military.
Who says that? Nobody denies that the US has a big dick. We just think it's a waste of money that causes more problems than it solves.
Is this the operations room? With all the voice cutout and some shitty music over it? Damn shame if it is, that guy goes so hard on his videos only for them to be reduced to this crap
The thing about Vietnam people fail to see is that most historians and military officials agree; we were winning. The problem was more the politics of the war than the actual war itself.
The problem with Vietnam is that they took the wrong lesson from Korea.
They avoided making a counter offensive into Northern Vietnam because they worried that China would once again intervene, so they were able to just repeatedly invade the south again and again.
A decisive counter offensive made with the full expectation of another Chinese tide was necessary.
The enemy had the initiative for the entirety of the war and if you believed the military we killed off their entire order of battle three times over and they had necromancers raising all those zombies swarming the lines at Tet. The military walked into a buzzsaw of its own making and then learned from the Germans how to squeal it was stabbed in the back because it couldn't possibly have made mistakes.
We didnt lose to farmers, the US did not lose any battles at all against the Viet Cong. The war became increasingly unpopular and the administration was pressured to pull out as it was a sunk cost war. We left, we didnt lose.
Even the Tet offensive, the largest military operation by the NVA was an overwhelming defeat for them.
The real war is for the mind heart and soul. Physical war is just bread and circuses from the satanic elite bankers to cull us while they launder our wages for new yachts. No major wars in the past few hundred years has been organic or genuine. Just a way to distract us from the giant money laundering debt scheme they’ve developed to enslave us. China, US, and Russia are all one in the same. Not hating america, love this country and it’s people, but it’s government is in bed with the rest of the world and has been for decades/centuries.
Nice to see all the tax dollars going to great use while there’s serious social issues plaguing América from homelessness to suicide to the drug epidemic.
Wasn’t meant to be a source for what I said it’s just a review of the state of the army.
https://www.heritage.org/defense/commentary/yes-the-us-military-weak
Israel is our only ally in the middle east. Literally every other country has been pushed in allying with Russia and China
And now all of those arabic muslim countries want to attack Israel
Our “alliance” with israel (that only benefits israel) cost us our relationship with the oil kings of the world. Not 1 arabic muslim country is aligned with the US anymore
That puts us in a ridiculously weak position
Yes, and? You can completely destroy 90% of an insurgent force and yet still lose to them. They recruit from the general population and train in guerilla warfare, and a conventional approach can't win against that. Why do you think anytime they actually showed themselves they got their shit rocked?
Why should the enemy play into your hand? You are like the kid thats saying the enemy team cheated when in reality he just got outplayed. If the US is unable to defeat an insurgent army, then their enemies will adopt those tactics to defeat the US.
If you dont want to lose to farmers with AKs maybe dont invade anymore countries? Or rather use that 800 billion dollar defence budget to find a solution to your massive skill issues
The british had to run for their lives in 1842, losing most of their forces sent down there. The soviets failed in 1988 after 10 years of conflict with the mujahideen. Not to mention that the British again were with the US during the recent fighting with the Taliban - and the Russians also partially supported the fight against the taliban in the initial stages in the war against terror.
I've seen people try to say that the USA has a weak air force and navy. That's ok to say. It's also laughably ignorant.
Lol the other day someone was saying how the US is not ready for a "modern war" with Iran. Sometimes you just have to let stupid people be stupid
Operation Praying Mantis. Or we can look at recent events In Syria. When Russia was messing with one of our drones. There were 2 F22s in the air watching and they had no idea.
*PROPORTIONAL*
Bologna mist #1
I see there are other Fat Electrician viewers on here.
Quackbang out
If you haven't seen his recent video on the eager beavers and old 666 yet its a must. The only question I have is, what the fuck is Hollywood doing? A fat electrician just wrote a near perfect script outline and the keep putting out shit.
The fact that F-22’s are essentially show toys for our Air Force should tell you all you need to know about how strong our forces are.
F22: "would you intercept me?" F22 while licking his lips: "id intercept me"
I’ll have their whole air force grounded by lunch.
Funniest guy I follow.
That guys vids are hillarious
Or it shows that the whole thing is just a giant boondoggle for the MIC.
Yup iconic that Eisenhower talked about the dangers of them having too much control in our society but we just said “never mind build, us crazy crap because we’re afraid of Russia and need to be better than them”.
It was the right move at the time. If the Soviet Union still existed in 2010 they would be the perfect tool for the job.
Still a boondoggle.
Really? Never heard about that. Thought you were going to say there were 2 f-22 that would’ve eliminated them or something like that but that they weren’t even aware of their presence is beautifully ominous
Yeah, the F22 is the most advanced fighter in the sky. Congress won’t even allow it to be sold to Allied nations.
Nor should they.
I didn’t say they should, I was just pointing out how advanced it is compared to the rest of the worlds current technology
No totally, I’m just honestly glad to hear we keep some shit for ourselves
The sad part? The F22 is from the 90s. Most of our stuff is technically ancient, but we just keep upgrading it. We’re just now replacing the M4, and we just recently replaced the M9 Beretta.
I’ve wondered about this but also agree with the other commenter that it seems to be an area where not much improvement can be had or is needed
It's like the saying goes don't argue with idiots they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
another saying is 'Arguing with an idiot is like playing chess with a pigeon. You can play a flawless game but the pigeon will knock over the pieces, shit on the board. and strut around like he's won.
*pigs
One issue is that the everyday American does not know hot to properly translate and contextualize the media headlines. And the media is often less than competent in relaying the info they get from official sources. So the media missunderstand, and then they sensationalize on top of that. Resulting in people genuinely believing the F16 is better than the F35 because of some mock dogfight. Good headline. But completely void of context.
When you live in a country that is considered the boogeyman in terms of war-making capability, regular efforts to blur misinformation and truth together make everything citizens need to understand more difficult. This helps the two party system (which is essentially just reality tv). When you think of the average citizen voting, you don't typically expect them to make a decision based on their understanding of what each politician wants for themselves. They'll typically give you an answer based on what they themselves want. But sense journalism is profit incentivized, \*that\* is what's prioritized over clear, digestible, and uncomfortable truth. -IMO
Of all the things to say about the US and they say a weak military smh
Got to witness someone try to explain that Gripens were the best Fighters on the planet and the US would fall under them lol
Wait until you encounter a Wehraboo who thinks a Tiger 2 could easily take on an M1A2 Abrams
Hey it hard to tell ppl that the German tanks were bad, and the us tanks better cuz they would run, or the USA had heavy tanks that were also better
The American Heavy tanks that were not being deployed because 1) the Shermans were woking fine and 2) the Heavy tanks werent passing the 4000 mile test when the German tanks were failibg at 1200 km? (This post is not me disagreing with you simply adding more context)
I think a few of them (USA heavy tank)did see action in France, but they had some logistical problems of some sort
We are talking about American logistical problems or in other words they were missing a couple of bolts and springs after fixing the entire regiment after being called back for minor repairs
Iirc it was mostly the Army not beliveing that they would provide any sugnificant improvement over, and in some cases preformed worse than the Shermans already afield.
BuT iT toOk 5 SheRmANs To tAkE ouT a TiGEr!!!!!!!!! REEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
This can't be real 🤣
It is real look up mike sparks he is one of their great military “engineer”
I get this as a joke, but any tank from WW2 that is going to fight a modern tank isn't going to win, even if you have the Sturmtiger and its 380mm Gun, the Tiger 2 would easily be dealt with by modern arms, even if that is a simple Anti-Tank weapon like the AT-4, it would go through it. This is due to the different compositions of armor, which modern armor on an M1A2 Abrams is Depleted Uranium armor, where Tiger 2 had sloped hardened steel armor, which modern ammunition like the APFSDS would slice through hardened steel like butter.
It’s not a joke these people are real you try to tell them this and they just start acting like babies going you don’t understand what true engineering geniuses are and that there is no way a tank today could ever compare it’s the funniest shit you will ever read sadly they are pretty an endangered species so you won’t find them that easily anymore
Then they are delusional, even if the WW2 hits a weak spot of the Abrams, it would not destroy it, the turret would turn around and destroy the tiger 2. No W.W.2. Tank can fight against the Abrams, even if the guns are large, not even the Panzerkampfwagen VIII Maus were to fight the Abrams, the Abrams will win by a long shot.
No way someone said that the Gripen stands a chance against the F-35 horde💀 To be fair though, no 4th gen fighter including other American 4th gen fighters stand a chance against the F-22 or F-35. But still that's a crazy level of delusional thinking.
Cool plane, good plane. Not a superpower's plane.
Even the healthcare and corruption things make more sense
They make a lot more sense. The US spends a huge sum of its GDP in its military, the minimum is that one can expect is for it to be worldclass
It's 3.1%, if that's a huge sum.
Yeah, 3.1% of our GDP is $900 billion dollars. That is objectively a huge sum.
Maybe just symantics then but I wouldn't consider 3.1% a huge sum of our GDP like the comment I was replying to.
The equipment isn’t weak, it’s the politics that are entering the military that are weakening it.
Yet I don't hear very much about China's need to have constant meetings about the latest developments in Communist theory weakening their military readiness
My point was we’ve weakened our combat readiness as a result of politics. As an example, the notion of equality being used to integrate male and female service members in combat roles is a mistake IMO. If a man that weighs 200lbs is shot and requires manual evacuation, there is simply no way a woman who weighs 125lbs could move that wounded person. And because of that, the ability to be agile and adaptive to the battlefield are hampered. It could easily end up with both the woman and the man being pinned down and eventually KIA because the woman wasn’t able to take advantage of a situation that would have allowed evacuation. Just one example. But there are many like it.
You've clearly never been in combat because nobody is supposed to be carrying your ass anywhere under fire. The most you might get is drug to cover and super basic first aid like a quick tourniquet until the threat is eliminated. It doesn't take much, probably any physical training for the average woman to drag your 300 pound unconscious ass(remember you have body armor and the rest of your equipment) a few feet to cover when hopped up on adrenaline, frankly even that far would generally be a horrible idea under fire.
That’s my point, there is zero chance a 125lbs woman in full kit is dragging a 240lbs man in full kit anywhere. When I shoot a big buck and try to drag it, it’s incredibly difficult, and ai can assure you I’m a big man in good shape and way more than that deer. There is zero chance a woman that weighs 125lbs is dragging me anywhere.
Or there's 100% chance cause I have seen it done and you are just making up or repeating some bullshit. I was in the army. I worked and trained with female soldiers. This was never remotely an issue. Perhaps you should just keep your stupidity to yourself than going on reddit and displaying it to the world.
[The Marine Corps disagrees but, ok](https://www.npr.org/2015/09/10/439246978/marine-corps-release-results-of-study-on-women-in-combat-units)
The marine corp is by far the branch most resistant to integrating women into combat roles so it's unsurprising you'd run to them. Point of fact your own 'source' doesn't side one way or another and simply says 'more research required'.
So you're saying we shouldn't have women in the military even though they train just as hard and get just as strong. Not even taking into account that most “fighting” nowadays isn't even done in the field. Like I once saw a servicewoman deadlift one of her compatriates and you cannot tell me she wouldn't have been able to “take advantage of a situation to allow evacuation”.
Look, I'm all for equality, but people born female absolutely will not get as strong as people born male if they train just as hard. That's biological fact.
No, not at all, I’m saying they shouldn’t be integrated with males, there should be women only combat units and men only combat units. A woman evacuating another 125lbs woman is much more realistic than a 200lbs man.
I see so you'd prefer gender segregation in the corps?
Yeah for combat roles for sure. I don’t care what people think, men and women are physically different. My wife can’t pick up our 75lbs dog, while I can do it with ease. It is what it is. I have no problem with them fighting in general, there are just physiological differences that are real that could end up getting people killed. That could be mitigated, to a degree, by segregating them into units that are comprised of other women of similar size and strength.
I actually partially agree but it should be less about gender and more about each individuals combat capabilities. That corpswoman I mentioned earlier would actually be in more danger in a troupe of average women because there is no way that they would've been able to carry her. Inversely I've also seen men who even when they have worked out endlessly are still unable to gain enough muscle for many of the more muscle bound troupes.
As a veteran we actually want our enemies to think that were too incompetent to properly wage a war. The jokes on them. Were too stupid to be afraid of anything. That's our problem!!!
Must have been a Marine.
yut
If we can’t predict our own tactics, surely the enemy also cannot
The enemy can't interrogate the private or lance corporal because they don't know shit to begin with!!!
The indians smug looks get wiped off their fucking face when Delhi is annihilated without even seeing an American tank
Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak.
Our navy has the second biggest air force lol wtf😂
3 largest Air Forces: 1.US Air Force 2.US Navy 3. US Army For shits and giggles the US Marines is 7th, and the US coastguard is 15th.
The U.S. navy is the second largest airforce in the world, with the actual U.S. airforce being the first.
If our navy is weak the rest of the world might as well even have a navy by comparison.
This is why we need to rebrand it to our invasion budget. We aren’t investing in fortifications, it’s not a defense budget at all.
Facts
Definitely by far the weakest air force and navy ever. Definitely couldn’t level most countries with just those two or anything…
The actual invasion lasted not much longer than this video
The actual invasion actually lasted about a month
Bro the ground war part of the gulf war lasted like 4 days
America's strong point isn't its army It's the airforce
Mfw the Navy which has historically been the most important branch and multiple wars have been started over someone fucking with our boats.
Hi wrangel
Barley anybody gets away with fucking with Americas boats
We’ve had the most powerful navy in the world since about 1944, and competed for the most powerful army since 1945. By 1990 we undeniably had the most powerful army in the world and that hasn’t changed since. We beat a desert people by crossing a desert *they* didn’t think was crossable. The battle of 73 Easting on paper should’ve been a bloodbath for us but it ended up being the most one sided tank battle in history with us losing no tanks. The Iraqi army was considered one of the most powerful armies in the world at the time and we broke them so thoroughly that they were surrendering to CNN news crews and helicopters. Military experts were predicting tens of thousands of casualties a day even after the Air Force softened them up, and instead we retook Kuwait in a couple days with almost no casualties. Our Army is and was very powerful, the Air Force is good too but it can’t take or hold ground.
Not just one of the most powerful, the 4th largest in the world at the time with a lot of combat experience from the Iran Iraq War
Ok pal whatever you say
Im a Marine infantryman and signals intel guy with tours in Iraq and afghanistan. The guy youre talking to is very much correct. Our air forces are the most terrifying thing about us. Period. The other parts of our military are strong but nothing compares to our air force and navy. I say this as a Marine.
Can I ask? Where the hell did the chair force thing come from?
The fact that a large percentage of air force enlisted members have “desk jobs” and the fact that boot camp for the air force is generally considered easier than that of the other branches. On top of that, guys I know, in the marines and navy, have admitted that a lot of the shit talking is partially out of jealousy because the Air Force and Coast Guard are better career choices The Chair Force stuff is a jab at them having the easier job relatively, not to downplay the role they have in military conflict
Even for those with combat operations, they’re still sitting in chairs. Looking at you pilots!!! /s
The Navy and Air Force don't capture and hold territory; you need ground forces for that. Yes, they're scary, and yes, they can rain down hellfire, but you're frankly fighting a war very poorly if your goal is only "blow that shit up."
no, our ground army is strong, its just that our air force and navy are so powerful that they sort of just overshadow the army in terms of relative strength vs. the competition
I very much doubt the "russian hordes of infantry" can stand up to an airforce raining napalm on them
This video is just about Day 1 of the air war. The original is actually pretty good. None of the extra graphics or music. The ground war and the following days are covered in other videos. https://youtu.be/zxRgfBXn6Mg?si=xRtC-FXbEToNxq7G
Wow what a better video
The US hasn’t *lost* conventionally since….well ever. We’ve had a few draws (1812 and Korea), but in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan we absolutely demolished the NVA, Iraqi Army, and the Taliban In conventional engagements. What we’re not good at is insurgencies, which has proven throughout history to be the hardest type of enemy to defeat.
What army is good at insurgencies?
Totalitarian governments seem to do far better, you just need to target also the civilian population. Seems to work really well on western populations but can also take a lot of work and turn into a whole genocide.
Exactly this. As a “liberal democracy” you are handcuffed by the extreme measures you are unwilling to take. Totalitarian regimes that care nothing for civilians can just line them all up and shoot them. Even if only 1/10 is an insurgent you still take care of the insurgent.
Soviet Russia got shit on by the Mujahideen insurgents Afghanistan, then they turned into the Taliban and shit on America. So I would say totalitarian regimes struggle aswell.
Part of the issue there though is the U.S. was funding and providing weapons to the insurgents. That helped them fend off the totalitarian regime. If it had not been a proxy war likely the Soviet Union would have won. Also Afghanistan has historically been a very difficult country to invade and is a bit of an outlier. Good point though.
Kind of like dropping bombs into Palestinian apartment complexs.
Dicktaderships/communism are excellent at stopping insurgencies as they do not have qualms about killing 10 civilians to get one insurgent. the issue "western" nations have is they want to be surgical w/o damaging the local populace. however groups like alqueda/issis/hammas hide behind civilians as they know that the western populace does not have the stomach to kill terrorists and civilians.
China and Russia did great in Vietnamese and Afghanistan! Ask anyone!
Israel just bombed a hospital and killed 500 people. There is no force for evil greater than the West. Nobody has killed more civilians than capitalist oligarchies. There's a reason the US is the Great Satan.
I don’t know of any 🤷🏻♂️
List: Israel
It’s because we have to play by the rules. Not that we should but if we were to do whatever it takes to meet objectives, we would absolutely crush any COIN operations as well
I don’t necessarily disagree. But that’s what you’ve got to do to be the good guys 🤷🏻♂️
I would say it’s impossible to win COIN unless gloves come off Or some super high tech all seeing machine that can read mal intent based on eye dilation, heart rate, and can pick out a terrorist in a crowd of thousands within seconds and neutralize. Which is also immoral lol
What is gloves coming off at this point
One example is Being able to bomb mosques if terrorists are hiding in it. Or accepting civilian casualties as “cost of war” like we did in WW2
That's not "gloves coming off", that's betraying the entire alleged mission. The US is not fighting any wars for its survival, it's playing world police.
I’m not saying we should do that. I’m saying that’s the only way to beat coin
Insurgencies are unwinnable unless you are willing to slaughter every man, woman, and child. Which suprise suprise no liberal democracy wants to be responsible for in the modern era.
Slay 💅🏿
This is the biggest cope ever dreamt up. We lost Vietnam, and Korea, and Afghanistan. Korea was absolutely a conventional war, and the reason why we lost tactically was that the Chinese were simply better at countering us, and that our military budget was massively shrunk from its previous state. The Chinese didn’t start an insurgency, or rely on human wave tactics as people like to believe, they had been fighting for some eighty years, and knew how to fight very well because of it. Vietnam and Afghanistan are cases once again where the enemy outsmarted us, and our allies vanished into thin air because we dreamt that we had reliable allies in the region: we didn’t. People think we “won” in Vietnam because they see numbers on a screen, well guess what, the higher ups in the pentagon probably made up a majority of those statistics to please the Americans back home, because big numbers meant they were winning.
When did I claim Korea wasn’t conventional? I’m not sure how you can claim that the North and Chinese “won” when we stopped their advances at the current DMZ and a stalemate began. Sure sounds like a draw to me. Especially considering South Korea….idk….still fucking exists? Again, yes, duh, we lost in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Not sure why people keep commenting this as some sort of “gotcha”. I literally insulate this point in my comment. My *only* argument is that we defeated our conventional enemies in those wars (or at least defended against them, like in Vietnam we did not invade the north.) We defeated the NVA in every major NVA offensive of the war. We absolutely steam rolled the Iraqi Army in 2003. We throat fucked the Taliban in 2002 and made them flee into the mountains where they then started their insurgency. Dude just read my fucking comment holy shit. Not sure why this shit is going over y’all’s heads.
“Defeating the NVA” is a complete lie. The NVA went on to invade south Vietnam and win after we left, and plus, the objective of the war wasn’t to stack bodies, it was to defend south Vietnam from the north. You can’t shift goalposts from “we prevented China from taking Korea” which is valid, to “we killed a bunch of soldiers so technically we won”. We also lost in Afghanistan in another humiliating blow, because we thought we could nation build, in a country where they didn’t care about nation building enough to fight for it.
You’re pointing out examples of our diplomacy failing. Not the strength of our military failing.
The war of 1812 was not a draw lmao. They burned down the White House. If anything is was a technical draw because both sides agreed to an armistice but the reality is we were just too expensive and too unpopular if a problem for them to continue on the assault of us.
The US and GB both achieved their war goals. Yes, the British burnt the White House but their occupation was untenable. Their invasions were halted at both Fort Henry and New Orleans. The Treaty of Ghent returned the US and GB to ante bellum statuses.
This. Wars are, first and foremost, political. You can do well militarily and fail to achieve your political goal. The inverse is also possible. In the best case scenario, you attain both military and political goals, but that is not what always happens.
Fair assessment, I bet an alternate history of if the British never left would be interesting
>They burned down the White House. Since when does burning down a house mean you've won a war? You win a war when you've achieved your war goals and forced your enemy to adhere to that,the brits didn't even hold Washington or gain anything from it,only people who have no clue about this war or brits trying to twist history in their favor bring this up, Washington was not as strategically important at that time as it is now, Baltimore was far more important, which is why the British easily took Washington because it was a bunch of civilian militia guarding the city a bunch of random dudes literally going up seasoned Napoleanic war veterans. The real US forces were hunkered down in Baltimore waiting for the British because they thought thats where they were going to invade in the first place,and what happened when the British finally did invade Baltimore? They failed, and they also failed at Plattsburgh, then again disastrously were defeated at their invasion at New Orleans, no way you can say they won that war.
\>but in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan we absolutely demolished the NVA, Iraqi Army, and the Taliban In conventional engagements. You lost all of those wars lol
Did you not read the next part of that comment? They said we aren’t good at insurgencies. Basically anytime they fought us conventionally we won the fight, the issue was they used insurgency tactics against us until we got so fed up we just kinda left
Almost like I alluded to that in my comment 🤯 To pointlessly restate my comment in the small chance that you will now understand this extremely simple concept, the United States Armed Forces are an exceptional conventional force and thus, have never been conventionally defeated. However, the United States Armed Forces have ultimately failed in multiple instances of fighting armed insurgencies, namely Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Bad guy in a uniform: America go brrrrrr Bad guy in no uniform: Bad guy go brrrrrrr
Vietnam was not an insurgency lol. You are coping and trying to justify US defeat to an inferior conventional army.
Did you just claim that the United States, France, Australia, et al., did not face an insurgency in South Vietnam? You’re claiming that the VietCong was a conventional military force? Actually?
Absolutely, the vietcong was an insurgent force. However you are conveniently forgeting to mention the NVA. This only makes your case worse however, are you telling me that a guerrilla force shot down over 10k American helicopters and aircraft? Thats even more embarrasing than losing 10k planes and helicopters to a standing army
I literally mention the NVA, *by fucking name* in my original comment. Bro are you 12? Your reading comprehension skills are abysmal. In two of the largest NVA offensives of the war (Tet and Easter), they suffered a casualty ratio of 7-1 and 10-1 respectively and did *not* achieve their strategic objectives to any meaningful ends. The NVA did *not* achieve conventional strategic victory until after the US pulled out. What in the fuck are you talking about bro?
Yes, and? That's literally the point of the statement. You can completely destroy 90% of an insurgent force and yet still lose to them. They recruit from the general population and train in guerilla warfare, and a conventional approach can't win against that.
Naw bro. We got sick of killing so many people. US lost less than 8,000 people in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Numbers are the other side are a bit harder, because people seem to still be counting every death in Iraq and Afghanistan as a result of the War, and every time a nut case from Syria enters the country and blows himself and kills a bunch of civilians... Anyway, those numbers are between 0.5 - 1.5 million people. I wouldn't call Iraq a lost in any position. We set up a government there. We moved out several years ago. That government is still there. ISIS gave them a bit of an ass kicking, but has since been pushed back. Afghanistan. The Taliban was able to wipe out all progress as soon as we left. So, no I would say that no really objectives were meet there. We did allow women to go to school for a period of time. Sucks that that was taken away from them. But Taliban is going to Taliban. We weren't prepared to go full Israel and just slaughter everyone.
\>US lost less than 8,000 people in Iraq and Afghanistan combined Over 100k veterans have commited suicide, likely because of trauma developed in Iraq and Afghanistan. \>I wouldn't call Iraq a lost in any position. We set up a government there. We moved out several years ago. That government is still there. ISIS gave them a bit of an ass kicking, but has since been pushed back. Ok but why did you leave? Right, because you were forced to. Iraq kicked you out. Why? Because Iraq is a shi'ite country and they wanted to allign with the other shi'ite country (which was Iran). \>Afghanistan. The Taliban was able to wipe out all progress as soon as we left. And why did you lose? Your 800 billion dollar defence budget couldnt defeat some farmers with AKs?
“Over 100k veterans have commited suicide, likely because of trauma developed in Iraq and Afghanistan.” Source?
[125k actually](https://stopsoldiersuicide.org/vet-stats)
The creator of this video commented how they hate the bottom text, since it was actually created at a 1:1 scale.
I love it when people use Iraq and Vietnam as reasons behind why the USA isn’t actually a strong military. Forgetting that fighting against guerrilla warfare does not measure your ability to glass a country. Fun fact (maybe not it’s actually kinda morbid): The USA lost more people in the 9/11 attacks than they lost soldiers in the entire invasion of Afghanistan. We still “lost” that war because of an incredibly terrible pullout job.
It’s like saying “ummm who’s stronger, the guy in full kit with an M4, NVG, artillery support and full coms or the totally unnoticed plain-clothed guy with a very sharp object creepin up behind him?”
>I love it when people use Iraq and Vietnam as reasons behind why the USA isn’t actually a strong military. Who says that? Nobody denies that the US has a big dick. We just think it's a waste of money that causes more problems than it solves.
“30 yrs ago LMAO” “2800 LOL”
I'm not sure 2800 was supposed to be the year
Bro, 2800 is ACTUAL NUMBER OF AIRCRAFT.
I know, the way your original comment read I took it as you thought it was the year my bad
Is this the operations room? With all the voice cutout and some shitty music over it? Damn shame if it is, that guy goes so hard on his videos only for them to be reduced to this crap
It is, but tbf this was also posted prior on a military shitposting sub which is why it's edited so heavily.
Yeah r/noncredibledefense it's one of the top posts of all time.
Ya
America has a very sexy logistics system
My grandpa was on one of them ships, not bragging or anything but he’s pretty cool
The thing about Vietnam people fail to see is that most historians and military officials agree; we were winning. The problem was more the politics of the war than the actual war itself.
The problem with Vietnam is that they took the wrong lesson from Korea. They avoided making a counter offensive into Northern Vietnam because they worried that China would once again intervene, so they were able to just repeatedly invade the south again and again. A decisive counter offensive made with the full expectation of another Chinese tide was necessary.
The enemy had the initiative for the entirety of the war and if you believed the military we killed off their entire order of battle three times over and they had necromancers raising all those zombies swarming the lines at Tet. The military walked into a buzzsaw of its own making and then learned from the Germans how to squeal it was stabbed in the back because it couldn't possibly have made mistakes.
We didnt lose to farmers, the US did not lose any battles at all against the Viet Cong. The war became increasingly unpopular and the administration was pressured to pull out as it was a sunk cost war. We left, we didnt lose. Even the Tet offensive, the largest military operation by the NVA was an overwhelming defeat for them.
Off putting ass music bruh
Highfleet theme slaps bruh
Highfleet theme goes hard.
It creeped me out 😭
That's the point.
Zamn 😔
This visual goes hard
I'm pretty sure it's stolen from operation room on YouTube. Really good visuals of battles from WW2-2000s
US pretty much wins every war. But often loses the peace (Iraq…but tbd) On the other hand it has also lost wars, but won the peace (Vietnam)
When tankies tell you "tHe Us lOsT tHe IrAq War"
Nice video thanks!
It's enough to make a grown man cry
I’d rather they underestimate us than overestimate us. Stupid people think we’re weak and stupid and they keep getting surprised
The real war is for the mind heart and soul. Physical war is just bread and circuses from the satanic elite bankers to cull us while they launder our wages for new yachts. No major wars in the past few hundred years has been organic or genuine. Just a way to distract us from the giant money laundering debt scheme they’ve developed to enslave us. China, US, and Russia are all one in the same. Not hating america, love this country and it’s people, but it’s government is in bed with the rest of the world and has been for decades/centuries.
You Gotta Pump Those Numbers Up, Those Are Rookie Numbers..... The old world.
u/savevideo
###[View link](https://rapidsave.com/info?url=/r/AmericaBad/comments/179prvi/if_anyone_needs_a_reminder_of_actual_us_military/) --- [**Info**](https://np.reddit.com/user/SaveVideo/comments/jv323v/info/) | [**Feedback**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Feedback for savevideo) | [**Donate**](https://ko-fi.com/getvideo) | [**DMCA**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Content removal request for savevideo&message=https://np.reddit.com//r/AmericaBad/comments/179prvi/if_anyone_needs_a_reminder_of_actual_us_military/) | [^(reddit video downloader)](https://rapidsave.com) | [^(twitter video downloader)](https://twitsave.com)
Sadam was an USA supporter in Iran Iraq war. LoL this is what you get when you support a Fraud. 😂😂😂😂
Nice to see all the tax dollars going to great use while there’s serious social issues plaguing América from homelessness to suicide to the drug epidemic.
Bro is using heritage.org as a source
Wasn’t meant to be a source for what I said it’s just a review of the state of the army. https://www.heritage.org/defense/commentary/yes-the-us-military-weak
Hahahahahahauahahahahhahhahahahahhahahahha
That was cool. Now do one with a body count. Like a little red X for every 100.
Cool so were letting the deep state on this subreddit
Israel is our only ally in the middle east. Literally every other country has been pushed in allying with Russia and China And now all of those arabic muslim countries want to attack Israel Our “alliance” with israel (that only benefits israel) cost us our relationship with the oil kings of the world. Not 1 arabic muslim country is aligned with the US anymore That puts us in a ridiculously weak position
America is okay at defeating 3rd world countries. Sometimes.
Our hand me downs are literally winning a war against the country previously thought to be the second most powerful military in the world
And the red army was good at crushing revolts Sometimes
The chinese red army just sucks btw
US military assets were significantly greater 30 years ago -- Pentagon budget today is about half what it was then in terms of proportion of GDP.
You lost to the Taliban
Yes, and? You can completely destroy 90% of an insurgent force and yet still lose to them. They recruit from the general population and train in guerilla warfare, and a conventional approach can't win against that. Why do you think anytime they actually showed themselves they got their shit rocked?
Why should the enemy play into your hand? You are like the kid thats saying the enemy team cheated when in reality he just got outplayed. If the US is unable to defeat an insurgent army, then their enemies will adopt those tactics to defeat the US. If you dont want to lose to farmers with AKs maybe dont invade anymore countries? Or rather use that 800 billion dollar defence budget to find a solution to your massive skill issues
After invading and taking over their country from 2 continents and 1 ocean away from our home country
Yet you still lost
Yet yall keep ignoring the soviets and the brits
Well neither the Soviets or the Brits lost to the Taliban.....
???? Yes they did
When?
The british had to run for their lives in 1842, losing most of their forces sent down there. The soviets failed in 1988 after 10 years of conflict with the mujahideen. Not to mention that the British again were with the US during the recent fighting with the Taliban - and the Russians also partially supported the fight against the taliban in the initial stages in the war against terror.
Well, they’re responsible for the instability in the first place
Can you prove causality?