The Confederacy was About Slavery

@cicerone imposter,

Lord I can not tell if you are being stupid or dishonest or both.

The details change with the tools however the principles do not and a Napoleon brought back to life by some magic and given a good briefing on the new tools of war would be as great today as he was in 1807 or so.

GPS and smart bombs and long range missile weapons or computers or any other tool of war does not change the basic nature of warfare one little bit.

That is why Napoleon study and comment on the Rome war leaders even those they did not have firearms or field artillery.

You still try to take the high ground on today battlefields as the battlefields of a thousands years ago.

It is still dangerous to divide your forces in the face of your enemy and only the lucky or the great tend to get away with doing so.

You still need to worry about your being out flank and on and on and on and on.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

High ground is a good strategy? You've got to be kidding! It makes for easy target for planes.

Where did you learn war strategy? From Napoleon?

3 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

High ground is a good strategy? You've got to be kidding! It makes for easy target for planes.

Staggering for its stupidity . The high ground controls more ground, it is not easier to attack from the air, it is harder to attack from the ground, it allows better directed fire, etc etc....you are depressingly dumb .

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Quote:

The high ground controls more ground, it is not easier to attack from the air, it is harder to attack from the ground, it allows better directed fire, etc etc....you are depressingly dumb .

Agree and it is far better to attack downhill then to attack up hill even today.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Facing tanks with modern weapons in your hands or facing war elephants with a spear on the battlefield is more similar then not also.

Details change however the basic tend to stay the same.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

We longer face elephants with spears. There's a reason for that; it's called progress in weapons. Even when fighting ground wars with tanks, it helps to have air power. That's not war strategy; it's common sense.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

High ground is a good strategy? You've got to be kidding! It makes for easy target for planes.
Where did you learn war strategy? From Napoleon?

http://www.captainsjournal.com/2008/03/19/taking-the-high-ground-in-afghanistan/

Yet the firewall can quickly turn into an ambush for US and Afghan fighters in the low ground. There are so many infiltration points available on the Pakistani border – particularly as the snow melts – that real issue is “who controls the high ground”, according to a senior Afghan security official.

Insurgents rarely attack US fighters unless and until they have managed to position themselves at a higher altitude than their foe. “I would say that 95% of the time they hit us from the high ground – when our backs are turned,” says Tanner Stichter, a soldier serving in the Korengal Outpost. “We have a very difficult time finding these foreign fighters – as they remain hidden.”The first response of US infantry when they are hit from insurgent positions in the hills above them is to call in air power and heavy artillery. This is not always effective as insurgents operate out of well-hidden redoubts – often the same positions used by guerrilla fighters in the war against the Soviets in the 1980s.

American forces, whose air power is far superior to any in the world, often end up pummeling the rocks in frustration. “I’ve watched on – you know – Predator feeds from the drones firing 155 shell after 155 shell and slamming into a house,” says Lieutenant Brandon Kennedy, a recent graduate of West Point military academy. “They watch fighters come running out of these same structures. It is fairly difficult to accurately engage these guys.”

Both US fighters and their Afghan proteges agree that they could do with controlling more of the high ground along the border with Pakistan.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

We longer face elephants with spears. There's a reason for that; it's called progress in weapons. Even when fighting ground wars with tanks, it helps to have air power. That's not war strategy; it's common sense.

You have shown no common sense at all.

Once more read the following carefully.

American forces, whose air power is far superior to any in the world, often end up pummeling the rocks in frustration. “I’ve watched on – you know – Predator feeds from the drones firing 155 shell after 155 shell and slamming into a house,” says Lieutenant Brandon Kennedy, a recent graduate of West Point military academy. “They watch fighters come running out of these same structures. It is fairly difficult to accurately engage these guys.”

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Your quote,

Quote:

often end up pummeling the rocks in frustration.

How often is "often," and how often do they really hit the target? Any stats, or just your words. "Often" depends on how many shots were made, and who's doing the counting. "Often" is such a subjective word, nobody in their right mind will try to guess what the percentage is. One airman doesn't make up the whole of the US air power.

I will grant you that air power is messy, and more often than not will have very high collateral damage. Not a good way to fight wars, but we know that the US Air Force is not about to close shop any time soon.

It was effective during WWII with our carpet bombing of Japan and Germany; maybe it's passed its time.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

This (my previous post) also proves my point that war strategies change with time.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

You do not have any sense when it time to retreat from a discussion of a subject you had proven not to have any knowledge of.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Rather than making sweeping statements about my lack of knowledge, you need to point out what I said that is untrue or without credibility.

What you are doing is called ad hominem; it's not addressing the subject, but attacking the messenger.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Your stupidity is mind numbing.....air power IS the high ground .

Where would you site an anti-aircraft asset ? In a valley or on the high ground ?

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

What you are doing is called ad hominem

Count the number of your posts where you contribute nothing but your opinion of another person .

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
I posted dates (a.k.a. facts,)
You are as much of a dipshit as ANUS. Youve posted a minimum of anything that hadnt already been posted EXCEPT When you posted "facts" , for example,you stated that the date of seccession for SC was Dec 20 1864,

1864?

I said SC seceded on December 20 1860. That's because it was December 20 1860. Shots were first fired at Fort Sumter on April 12 1861. Dates are facts. You can't tell fact from fiction but that's a problem with you and not with the facts. You're even more of a revisionist than Cyclo with his "versions of events". And FYI I don't know anybody named for any body parts so keep your insults to yourself.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

It gets tedious explaining things over and over again to you. The subject of the thread is not whether or not the North fought to liberate the slaves. It is that the Confederacy was founded to defend the institution of slavery--so the date of the emancipation proclamation is meaningless.

Dates are meaningless? The names of slave states NOT seceding and joining the Confederacy are meaningless? The names of the slave states NOT mentioned in the emancipation proclamation are meaningless?

Only Snood's delusional "feelings" have a meaning, so forget the facts! Great school of history you and your pals belong to
History with Feelings but without Names and Dates. Laughing

2 Replies

@electronicmail,

Thud, You dont get it and are being purposely dumb. You know damn well that what I said was that , fo the date (Dec 20 1860), you poted the ordinance of secession that was presented in MQAY of 1861. I presented the "reasons for Secession" presented to the US Congress on Dec 20, and they were about slavery.

I presented the actual "reasons for Secession" and youve ignored that historical document(as you usually do). Dont bother me if your going to be a practiced moron.

1 Reply

@electronicmail,

Yeah, you will have a lot of trouble with Gomer the Turd as he gets drunker during the night...his spelling deteriorates, his typing gets even worse (no, seriously!) and the next morning he is all academic complaining about ad hominems .

1 Reply

@electronicmail,

Quote:

Dates are meaningless?

They dont want to confuse the issue with a sequence .

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

they were about slavery.

I suppose if you investigated a plane crash you would be happy to determine it was about air . Your inability to see anything but the simplest of associations and only then by leaving out cause and effect is truly puzzling . Have you had a head injury ? A stroke ? Not everyone who has a stroke know they have had one . Just saying.....

0 Replies

The Confederacy was About Slavery

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know