Author Topic: The boer war... (Read 1759 times)

Hangtime · « **Reply #45 on:** January 10, 2006, 09:49:07 AM »

Winning a war of occupation against a population that has a 'rifleman' or 'militia' mentality and means is utterly impossible in modern times with forces constrained by PC 'rules of war'.

Unfortunately for the Boers, American Indians, Phillipinos, Cubans and most Europeans up through WWII, an army of occupation, faced with a militia or gurellia componenet supplied and succored by the indigent population usually resorts to the practical solution of imprisionment or 'liquidation' of the 'non combatant' population closest to the indigent attack..

Nowadays, rounding up the population of the village or town closest to the indigent attack and shooting or 'transporting' them is considered 'not cricket'. At least, this is a tactic untenable for our military in it's current engagement... Serbs, Croats, Russians and Checkens and virtually all African nations seem to be excluded from the 'cricket' club.

Occupying armies always look to removal of 'means' before attending to little details like winning the hearts and minds of the indigents. In circumstances where government slips from constitutional democracy towards something less appetizing, the guize changes quite a bit... first talk the populace into peacefully surrendering their 'means' by winning the 'hearts and minds' war first.

That's whats happening here in the US... and the battlefield for the 'hearts and minds' is in the school system, where are kids are taught from jump street that 'guns are BAD!', then in the local courts and elections where unconstitutional bans and encrochments on civil liberties are easily masked by political diatribe and prejudice, reinforced by orchestrated fear-mongering media hype outrage.

Based on the general populations reaction to the NSA 'Spying on Citizens' revelations it would appear we're pretty much screwed already... seems the population will wind up turning a blind eye to government intrusions on civil rights as long as it's in the name of 'public saftey'.

Whats Boer or Pidgen Dutch for 'gullible sheep'? That's what they'd call us, I'm thinkin.

lazs2 · « **Reply #46 on:** January 10, 2006, 02:17:38 PM »

suave...you are right that I identify more with farmers who are armed and individualistic fighting british imperialism than I am with ethiopian tribes armed with spears fighting...... italians.

I am after all, and American with the American history of farmer militia defeating british forces.

I also identify with the fact that in both the American revelotion and the Boer war... that england first demanded that the civilian population disarm.

lazs

Replicant · « **Reply #47 on:** January 10, 2006, 03:14:21 PM »

I guess it also comes to the point of how many soldiers you actually put into combat. If your resources are spread over the world you can't afford to put all your troops into one war because you're lowering defences elsewhere and also causing a logistical nightmare. This has happened with virtually every world power, inluding Britain in the past and the US more recently.

lazs2 · « **Reply #48 on:** January 11, 2006, 08:37:56 AM »

When have our resources been stretched to the point that we couldn't put as many men on the ground as we want to?

lazs

Curval · « **Reply #49 on:** January 11, 2006, 09:22:55 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
When have our resources been stretched to the point that we couldn't put as many men on the ground as we want to?

lazs

Korea?

Replicant · « **Reply #50 on:** January 11, 2006, 10:02:51 AM »

Yep Curval, was thinking of Korea and Vietnam

lazs2 · « **Reply #51 on:** January 11, 2006, 02:08:40 PM »

How so? We put enough forces on the ground to do the job in both cases. In the case of korea... the peace and lines still hold...

In the case of vietnam... we won the war but refused to honor our political commitment to support with arms and money the South... they could not win for much longer after we left but did win several major engagements with what we left in place... sad really. the troops and Abrams won the war...the politicians sold the South down the river.

lazs

Curval · « **Reply #52 on:** January 11, 2006, 03:00:18 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
How so? We put enough forces on the ground to do the job in both cases. In the case of korea... the peace and lines still hold...

Your question was this:

"When have our resources been stretched to the point that we couldn't put as many men on the ground as we want to? "

At the beginning of the War the US and their allies were almost pushed into the sea. "Your" resources were seriously streched....and "you" wanted more men on the ground. Then, after going on the offense after the landings at Inchon "you" got too close to the Chinese border and the Chinese attacked. Thus began the long retreat when the US were seriously streched and "you" couldn't put enough men on the ground as you wanted.

Toad · « **Reply #53 on:** January 11, 2006, 03:13:05 PM »

Curval, I think you overlook the fact that the US had no "Empire" to rule or protect after WW2.

There was a tremendous drawdown of the US military in the years after the war and, truth be told, no one anticipated another war so soon.

So Korea wasn't a case of expanding or defending the "Empire", however you choose to view the Boer War. Korea was a reaction to an unexpected war, much in the same vein as Pearl Harbor.

The NK's kicked our rears to the Pusan Perimeter from about the end of June until mid-August when it sort of stalemated. Then came the Inchon landing and the situation reversed. Mac was at the 38th by the first days of October.

Bit of a different view. We didn't start the Korean war and we got caught short. OTOH, it took less than three months to push the NK's out and have them on their ass.

Carry on, however. I'm enjoying it.

Swoop · « **Reply #54 on:** January 11, 2006, 03:15:15 PM »

Besides, the British arrived to help ya out.

habit of ours......

Toad · « **Reply #55 on:** January 11, 2006, 03:16:02 PM »

LOL.

Habit of yours? Now there's a bit of nationalistic bait I think I'll just swim by!

Curval · « **Reply #56 on:** January 11, 2006, 03:17:13 PM »

I'm not overlooking it Toadster...I was simply answering a direct question that lazs asked:

"When have our resources been stretched to the point that we couldn't put as many men on the ground as we want to? "

I answered it.

Toad · « **Reply #57 on:** January 11, 2006, 03:20:44 PM »

As you like. Not that the situations are/were in the least similar.

Swoop · « **Reply #58 on:** January 11, 2006, 03:23:19 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
LOL.

Well at least we're not as late as you guys usually are when it's us that's getting the help.

Bait still stinky?

Okay.

Toad · « **Reply #59 on:** January 11, 2006, 03:25:49 PM »

Yeah, pretty stinky.

You gents have a view of "late" that, as it happens, shows absolutely no knowledge of the US society, politics and culture at those two particular times.

Curious, because that view of "late" is so Euro-centric that it reminds of all the posts made here about how US folks only take a US view of events.