right serious question, based on some of the stuff i have been reading on here between different people. Who/what do you think really starts a war? politics/religion/money etc and who actually wins the war? politicians/soldiers/ money etc for me most wars are started by a craving for power. I would say all wars have this as the basis, and use every means at their disposal to achieve it I think most wars a won by politicians/politicking. For example if the UN and Nato didnt exist would america have gone to Iraq and would they have won. Politcians foresaw 'unions' as power/victory and set the processes in place. brief i know, but your thoughts?
Starts - Power, money, oil, perverted religion Wins - The side with the better trained military force normally win unless the opposition use guerilla tactics which are very hard to counter
Greed for monetary gain and power starts wars assisted by a populous deluded by religion and/or patriotism What wins wars? Technology. 10 people operating 1 AC130 gunship or similar( like in Libya) can devastate numerous divisions of opposing ground troops. (assuming we are tallking conventional warfare)
captain for me power oil money are the same thing I dont thing religion perverted or otherwise starts wars. Its use/misuse helps recruitment and the will for soldiers to fight. 'religion is responsible for wars' is a myth imo better trained military force doesnt win the war imo. neither does better equipped soldiers. Its the politicians negotiations etc that eventually win the war
the search for power starts wars. religion and patriotism are tools used by those seeking power to 'brainwash' people into fighting as fo technology, i disagree. I genuinely believe that the americans alone would not be the stongest army despite their technology and weaponary
That's what I meant by perverted religion. I probably should have been clearer. To be fair that's what politicians would have you think because they love the glory but I still think training and hardware are more important.
That was a war designed to last, not to be won. I could start on the ins and outs of it but it would derail the thread completely. But im sure (if they tried to win it now) they could make short work of the viet cong with thermal image assisted gunships and the like.
sorry i misunderstood re the perverted religion The training and hardware are a strange one I once read in a military magazine a top general (it was in the 90's so i forget names etc) who actually was impressed at the training of the pakistani armed forces citing it as best in the world. including their navy. I LOL tbh when reading it. but he made a good case. but you wouldnt rank pakistan in the top 10 hardware wise i think the USSR are a good example where they matched the hardware, but long term politics won that war As i said the americans have all the hardware/technology but i think alone they are not so tough. I think soldier to soldier the Israeli's would give them a good beating. but politics and US money wouldnt allow that
I think we can all agree that hardware alone, training alone or politics alone will never win a war. Some combination of all 3 are needed.
Nowadays, imo war is almost exclusively started for resources like oil, sometimes using religion as a foreground so it looks like people are fighting for something morepersonally important. But pretty much everyone is in it for the money now.
