Meliva wrote:Kim Jong Un wrote:
really lol? You said maybe we shouldn't be as involved in international affairs. I was responding to that and you think I said you weren't involved in international relations. I know you spend a lot of money on other stuff since you guys have a lot of money in the first place. I think you did make it worse in places such as my examples except for Iraq as I said I don't know much about that conflict. In Vietnam you definitely made it worse, Agent Orange dropped on Vietnam is still causing deformities in newborn babies, disabilities rose and you basically killed their economy since you bombed all their infrastructure. I get that it was war but still if you guys were getting that desperate and loosing then the war was basically unwinnable. Afghanistan still has the Taliban there, the corruption is widespread there and it is still a third world country. Country building is hard though so I get why you left there. You guys might be the most powerful conventional fighting force in the world but against Guerrilla troops in irregular and unconventional warfare you guys are mediocre at best. Your way of fighting a unconventional war with conventional tactics does not work, prolongs the war and eventually you loose destabilizing the country. Follow and copy smaller countries tactics like Australia's tactics or British tactics because our troops are better at that kind of warfare. Anyway point is your points aren't exactly valid against most of mine since I meant offensive wars not defensive ones like if South Korea gets attacked etc. Also Korea was a more conventional war since there was a set border and the North Koreans came from the North. Also there were British, Commonwealth and American units already in or near Korea so it would have been easy to help since you were in the general vicinity of the war
I did not say we should not be involved in ANY international affairs, I said we should be LESS involved. I don't like how much money we send to global organizations and other countries, or how often we get involved in foreign conflicts. I don't think we should become a hermit nation either though.
It's true, we didn't do so well in Vietnam. But like you said-they used unconventional tactics, and ultimately as much damage as we may have done, we could have done far more and won the war. It also didn't help that the Vietnamese who we were fighting for didn't want to fight at all for the most part.
Also, there were French forces in Vietnam. They also failed. Also, great military and tactics you Aussies got, when your military LITERALLY failed to handle Emus. Easily a force for the ages. Hilarious you want to claim you are better at small tactics when you couldn't handle oversized birds
It's also funny to me that you decided to ignore my comment on your idiotic point that political leaders should be legally obliged to listen to experts. Again, at that point, what's the point in getting political leaders? Might as well just put these experts in charge since they would be legally able to command our leaders.
Also China would eat you for breakfast without outside help. They could island hop if need be, taking control of the islands between you guys. Also, how are you going to use guerrilla warfare? Most of your population is on the coasts-they could just bomb them into oblivion with ships and planes, and drive you into the desert that makes up the center. You are really biased to just how good your country really is honestly. Hate to break it to you-it's not as great as you seem to think it is.
I'm not sure what you are getting at with global relations. That is what I said myself but you confused me because you tried to argue the same thing and I'm not sure why. We couldn't handle birds because Emu's are very fast and we were using primitive machine guns on vehicles that were not designed to mount a machine gun and shoot. I am also aware that the French tried before you guys, I simply decided not to mention it since the end result was basically the same. We are also better at Guerrilla warfare and our troops in Vietnam were optimized for that. We had similar weapons to your troops and equipment and we had far better results and morale in Australian units were higher. I literally also said basically the same thing about island hopping how if they attacked southwards like Japan did and got a base in range of Australia then they could win. Really though we could stage Guerrilla warfare for a bit, not that long though because we would run out of water. Way down South would be relatively safe and you would need a shit ton of planes and bombs to be able to bomb the entire coastline effectively where most of the population is even if you focused on just the East Coast cities. I am biased to Australia I guess but they would have to have a wondrous amount of medium to long distance planes to be able to hit anywhere in Australia at any time. As I said also before though managing to hold all that ground though is impossible, that is why the Japanese did not try to invade Australia and due to other reasons. I mean we are not a major military power but the smaller the Defense force (if it's a wealthy country) the more elite it will be like in Germany the Weimar Republics army was small and elite.
I did not respond to leaders listening to medical experts because I couldn't find a good way to explain what I mean because what I mean is a bit different to how you interpret it but now your saying it's idiotic even though I'm sure your smart enough to know I probably don't mean what you said. Anyway my original point about that still stands that this pandemic has shown a possible weak spot in how your country manages against Diseases/viruses.
