|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Hobo on Fire
Goonfeet
0
   |
Posted - 2013.05.21 16:18:00 -
[1] - Quote
Rupture Reaperson wrote:
...relying ONLY on shrewed tactics, and specially on a FPS it shows that you have no faith in your performance therefore you need said adventage as a "crutch", and that makes you look weak, besides being despised.
Real life wars can be waged (and even won) solely using these kinds of tactics. Lets take the Taliban as an example:
In 2001 they control the country of Afghanistan. The US military invades, and they go into hiding. They understand that facing the American military head on is suicidal, so instead they infiltrate the new US backed Afghan government and military.
Some kid wants to join the Taliban? He enlists in the Afghan National Army where American troops not only train him how to fight, but pay him for it. When his training is complete he has three options:
A) Go AWOL and join the Taliban fighters off in the mountains
B) Find some Americans with their backs turned and shoot (knowing he will probably be caught/killed himself)
C) Wait for the US military to finally leave the country so he can help overthrow the US backed government from the inside.
The Taliban has lasted more than a decade against the most powerful military in the world, and that military is currently withdrawing from Afghanistan. If they can overthrow the current government, they'll have won the war despite never winning a conventional battle. I would hardly call that "weak." |
Hobo on Fire
Goonfeet
0
|
Posted - 2013.05.21 16:57:00 -
[2] - Quote
Rupture Reaperson wrote:
Sure they can, however thad doesnt stop the backlashes and stigma they have all around the world, and from a military standpoint.. it is "weak", the reason of why the taliban are still where they are its more about the motivations behind the conflict, (US doing an occupation on a country with a shitton of oil, moved by greed) if the situation was different like "all the middle east country just declared war on the US and european countries" AKA a fully fledged war... I doubt of them standing an ioda of chance.
You're missing the point. They figured out how to win a war without actively fighting a war. They may have a stigma attached to them, but at the end of the day, a win is a win. The Taliban's motivation was seeing US troops in their country, so they set the goal to get the Americans the hell out; they have very nearly accomplished this. They never set the goal of a full fledged war against the US/Europe, because they are smart enough to realize it's beyond their means. They have no reason to leave their homes and waste a bunch of money to fight in another country.
As for the US motivations, Afghanistan doesn't really have oil. The Taliban were harboring Bin Laden after 9/11. You're thinking of Iraq, who "honorably" tried to fight the US Military head on and got stomped. They adopted the guerrilla tactics after the fact, since they saw it was working for the Taliban. |
Hobo on Fire
Goonfeet
2
|
Posted - 2013.05.22 21:15:00 -
[3] - Quote
Schalac 17 wrote:Abu Stij wrote:You can also refer to:
- Mujahideen in the 1970s (precursor to the Taliban) vs the Soviet Union.
- North Vietnamese vs the US forces.
- Colonial Army vs the British Empire.
The list goes on and the message stays the same, attacking head on isn't the only way to win a war. Those were all the weaker factions in the war. So what was your point again?
They all won? |
|
|
| |
|