White Culture

[Nick Carter icp]

1 hour ago, MalcolmB said:

It is the Jews doing all the bombing and killing in Gaza, West Bank and Lebanon today.

 

   No , they are Israelis and Iranians .

Edited yesterday at 12:46 PM by Nick Carter icp

[Flyguy330]

.

Edited yesterday at 12:55 PM by Flyguy330

[Flyguy330]

 

Some facts clearly spoken.

[Cameroni]

There is one clear proof that illustrates clearly how White Culture is not superior to any other: Black Hawk Down.

 

Despite enjoying a massive technological gap, the US army was humiliated by Somali street fighters. 

 

The Somalis shot down not one, but two Black Hawks. They shot down the supposed supermen from Delta Force like rabbits.

 

The US army, desperate, asked the Malaysian and Pakistani peacekeepers to bail them out and bring their tanks. They agreed.

 

After a shot time the US decided to withdraw from Somalia.

 

This episode clearly shows that White culture is not superior to any other, but rather that White Culture depends on the technology gap to win its battles.

 

If a bunch of Somali street fighters can beat the US army, what does that say about the superiority of White Culture? It does not exist.

Edited 23 hours ago by Cameroni

[Flyguy330]

12 hours ago, Cameroni said:

There is one clear proof that illustrates clearly how White Culture is not superior to any other: Black Hawk Down.

 

Despite enjoying a massive technological gap, the US army was humiliated by Somali street fighters. 

 

The Somalis shot down not one, but two Black Hawks. They shot down the supposed supermen from Delta Force like rabbits.

 

The US army, desperate, asked the Malaysian and Pakistani peacekeepers to bail them out and bring their tanks. They agreed.

 

After a shot time the US decided to withdraw from Somalia.

 

This episode clearly shows that White culture is not superior to any other, but rather that White Culture depends on the technology gap to win its battles.

 

If a bunch of Somali street fighters can beat the US army, what does that say about the superiority of White Culture? It does not exist.

That's quite a stretch. Stupid military misadventures are ubiquitous in all nations.

 

Speaking of which;

I'm not sure how the Israeli military and Zionism came to be associated with 'White Culture' in this thread. The truth is that Jews are not white. To me being white means being of the Caucasian race. Jews are not Caucasian. They are Semites. A fact of which they like to remind us of repetitively. Jews are the CHOSEN RACE, and NOT the Caucasians.

Caucasians (etc) are regularly branded as Anti-Semites, a label which surely only emphasises the 'otherness' Jews proudly see for themselves. 

So please stop filing the actions of Semites under 'White Culture'.

[Cameroni]

17 minutes ago, Flyguy330 said:

That's quite a stretch. Stupid military misadventures are ubiquitous in all nations.

 

Exactly. 

 

Which underlines that White Culture is no different and not superior to, say Somalis.

 

18 minutes ago, Flyguy330 said:

 

Speaking of which;

I'm not sure how the Israeli military and Zionism came to be associated with 'White Culture' in this thread. The truth is that Jews are not white. To me being white means being of the Caucasian race. Jews are not Caucasian. They are Semites. A fact of which they like to remind us of repetitively. Jews are the CHOSEN RACE, and NOT the Caucasians.

Caucasians (etc) are regularly branded as Anti-Semites, a label which surely only emphasises the 'otherness' Jews proudly see for themselves. 

So please stop filing the actions of Semites under 'White Culture'.

 

I think the key thing is that Jews are a religion, not a race. There's jews from many races. Even the Nazis thought the Jews are an amalgam of many races in their day:

 

"..for instance, in Rassenkunde des jüdischen Volkes ("Ethnology of the Jewish people"), Günther wrote that Jews predominantly belonged to the "Near Eastern race" (often known as the "Armenoid race").[270] He thought that Jews had become so racially mixed that they could possibly be regarded as a "race of the second-order".[270] He described Ashkenazi Jews as being a mixture of Near Easterners, Orientals, East Baltic peoples, Inner-Asians, Nordic peoples, Hamites and Negroes, and he described Sephardi Jews as being a mixture of Orientals, Near Easterners, Mediterranean peoples, Hamites, Nordic peoples, and Negroes."

 

This was consistent with their view of most races, even the Germans were viewed this way:

 

Dr. Ernst Brandis, a legal bureaucrat, who made an official comment about the Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honour and the Law for the Protection of the Hereditary Health of the German people on 18 October 1935, defined "German blood" as:

 

The German people is no unitary race, rather it is composed of members of different races (of the Nordic, Phalian, Dinaric, Alpine, Mediterranean, East-Elbian race) and mixtures between these. The blood of all these races and their mixtures, which thus is found in the German people, represents 'German blood'.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_racial_theories

 

In that sense the Nazis were significantly more sophisticated than the Smithsonian which talks of "White Culture".  Really no such thing.

[impulse]

13 hours ago, Cameroni said:

There is one clear proof that illustrates clearly how White Culture is not superior to any other: Black Hawk Down.

 

Despite enjoying a massive technological gap, the US army was humiliated by Somali street fighters. 

 

The Somalis shot down not one, but two Black Hawks. They shot down the supposed supermen from Delta Force like rabbits.

 

How many Blackhawks have the Somalis built?

 

Destroying stuff is easy, in relative terms.

[Cameroni]

18 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

How many Blackhawks have the Somalis built?

 

Destroying stuff is easy, in relative terms.

 

Well, the helicopter was really a Chinese, Italian, German, Argentinian, French, American, Spanish affair. Somalis are more poetry and music people. They have several airlines of course, as well as technology companies, but the civil war hit them hard.

 

However, if you accept, as I think you have to, that all nations are capable of building technology, while admittedly European nations have had for a long time a significant technological gap over other nations due to a large variety of factors clearly all nations today show aptitude for modern technology, then it comes down to the strategy, tactics and intelligent use of those weapons.

 

Now in Somalia we had the US army, with Delta Force, supposedly the finest of the finest American infantry, their state of the art Black Hawk helicopters, sophisticated night vision, automatic rifles, etc etc, so a clear technological gap in favour of the Americans.

 

And yet the Somalis were able to shoot down the Delta Force supermen like rabbits, shoot down the two Black Hawks and force the Americans ultimately to withdraw from Somalia.

 

Now, if American culture were truly superior in intelligence or anything else, obviously it enjoyed a technological gap, however, the conduct of the US army and Delta Force in Somalia was far from impressive, if the American culture really were superior, surely they would have conducted themselves differently in Somalia.  I think we can all agree. Begging Malaysian and Pakistani peace keepers to come and bail them out with tanks, I mean, it was just not a superior culture at work in any way.

Edited 9 hours ago by Cameroni

[impulse]

35 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

However, if you accept, as I think you have to, that all nations are capable of building technology, while admittedly European nations have had for a long time a significant technological gap over other nations due to a large variety of factors clearly all nations today show aptitude for modern technology, then it comes down to the strategy, tactics and intelligent use of those weapons.

 

I've recently been listening to some Thomas Sowell audio books.  He presents a lot of fascinating history of the culture coming out of various parts of Europe, where the cultures were transplanted, and how that still affects the world, hundreds of years later.

 

Spoiler alert...  Some may not like what he says about the cultures from Northern England and Scotland of yesteryear.  While he says that area has outgrown the historical redneck culture, the places around the world where it landed haven't outgrown it to this day.  He's not kind to the southern USA, or the internal diaspora that moved all over the USA during the WW2 manufacturing boom.

 

I dozed off for a few hours and woke up when he was talking about Germanic culture.  I need to go back and replay that chapter.   It seemed very interesting.   I play the audio books in the background while I'm doing other things.  Like napping.

 

Edited 9 hours ago by impulse

[Cameroni]

12 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

I've recently been listening to some Thomas Sowell audio books.  He presents a lot of fascinating history of the culture coming out of various parts of Europe, where the cultures were transplanted, and how that still affects the world, hundreds of years later.

 

Spoiler alert...  Some may not like what he says about the cultures from Northern England and Scotland of yesteryear.  While he says that area has outgrown the historical redneck culture, the places around the world where it landed haven't outgrown it to this day.  He's not kind to the southern USA, or the internal diaspora that moved all over the USA during the WW2 manufacturing boom.

 

I dozed off for a few hours and woke up when he was talking about Germanic culture.  I need to go back and replay that chapter.   It seemed very interesting.   I play the audio books in the background while I'm doing other things.  Like napping.

 

 

Sounds very interesting, The most comprehensive attempt i have seen to rank cultures is Charles Murray's "Human Accomplishment". I don't agree with it, but like many things by Charles Murray worth a read.

 

But in any event, looking at Black Hawk Down, where the US had a technological gap and still got beat by its Somali opponent, it does make you think, what if this culture did not have this technological gap and faced cultures like the Somalis. Could Americans prevail? Without the technological gap I mean.

[Inderpland]

14 hours ago, Cameroni said:

There is one clear proof that illustrates clearly how White Culture is not superior to any other: Black Hawk Down.

 

Despite enjoying a massive technological gap, the US army was humiliated by Somali street fighters. 

 

The Somalis shot down not one, but two Black Hawks. They shot down the supposed supermen from Delta Force like rabbits.

 

The US army, desperate, asked the Malaysian and Pakistani peacekeepers to bail them out and bring their tanks. They agreed.

 

After a shot time the US decided to withdraw from Somalia.

 

This episode clearly shows that White culture is not superior to any other, but rather that White Culture depends on the technology gap to win its battles.

 

If a bunch of Somali street fighters can beat the US army, what does that say about the superiority of White Culture? It does not exist.

I fail to see what one isolated and poorly executed military engagement can tell us about the superiority (or lack thereof) of any culture. If you'd been familiar with urban warfare you'd know that such fighting greatly evens out the odds between forces of vastly different technical capabilities.

Take for instance the use of attack helicopters. Hugely effective on a conventional battle field but pretty much useless in an urban warfare scenario, particularly when the technologically advanced side is not willing to impose heavy civilian casualties on it's opponent.

 

This is in no way to be taken as a 'white culture rules' post. Some of what I've read in this thread has made me ashamed to be a white male. Absolutely disgusting.

I was even called a feminist when I challenged the assertion made by a poster claiming 'a marriage is a contract in which the male gives the woman children and the man gets sex'!

I have a feeling he doesn't get many invitations to family gatherings.😁

Edited 8 hours ago by Inderpland

[impulse]

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

Sounds very interesting, The most comprehensive attempt i have seen to rank cultures is Charles Murray's "Human Accomplishment". I don't agree with it, but like many things by Charles Murray worth a read.

 

I'm  the same with Sowell.  I can't dispute the fact after fact and statistic after statistic that he quotes.  I assume his university research team vets them thoroughly for his books.  That's what fascinates me.  He explains the differences in  American enclaves settle by Germanic migrants and the enclaves settled by, for example, the Scottish migrants.

 

But I do disagree with some of his conclusions.  Though I'd say he absolutely nails some of my experiences as a Yankee transplant when I moved to Houston, Texas around 1980 as a college student.  Especially west Texans...  He's got them pegged (as a whole, obviously they're not all the same since a lot of them are oilfield transfers)

 

 

[BritManToo]

2 hours ago, Cameroni said:

Now in Somalia we had the US army, with Delta Force, supposedly the finest of the finest American infantry, their state of the art Black Hawk helicopters, sophisticated night vision, automatic rifles, etc etc, so a clear technological gap in favour of the Americans.

 

And yet the Somalis were able to shoot down the Delta Force supermen like rabbits, shoot down the two Black Hawks and force the Americans ultimately to withdraw from Somalia.

 

Now, if American culture were truly superior in intelligence or anything else, obviously it enjoyed a technological gap, however, the conduct of the US army and Delta Force in Somalia was far from impressive, if the American culture really were superior, surely they would have conducted themselves differently in Somalia.  I think we can all agree. Begging Malaysian and Pakistani peace keepers to come and bail them out with tanks, I mean, it was just not a superior culture at work in any way.

Disagree,

US forces are crippled by 'rules of engagement'

Whilst the 3rd world forces can shoot anything, anywhere, anytime and not worry about women, kids an bystanders.

Now if the civilized forces were allowed to nuke/shell Somali cities ....... end of game.

Edited 7 hours ago by BritManToo

[JimTripper]

16 hours ago, Cameroni said:

There is one clear proof that illustrates clearly how White Culture is not superior to any other: Black Hawk Down.

 

Despite enjoying a massive technological gap, the US army was humiliated by Somali street fighters. 

 

The Somalis shot down not one, but two Black Hawks. They shot down the supposed supermen from Delta Force like rabbits.

 

The US army, desperate, asked the Malaysian and Pakistani peacekeepers to bail them out and bring their tanks. They agreed.

 

After a shot time the US decided to withdraw from Somalia.

 

This episode clearly shows that White culture is not superior to any other, but rather that White Culture depends on the technology gap to win its battles.

 

If a bunch of Somali street fighters can beat the US army, what does that say about the superiority of White Culture? It does not exist.

I think you can be superior and still lose a fight. How about morals, intellect, compassion, etc. Combat is just one area that a superior race would likely not be involved in as they could manage to avoid it.

Edited 6 hours ago by JimTripper

[Flyguy330]

I found this website interesting: https://geerthofstede.com/country-comparison-graphs/

 

Geert Hofstede was a Dutch 'Social Psychologist' who came up with theories on definitions and comparative qualities of culture. The website has numerous tables and dynamic graphs that allow you to choose combinations of his major cultural markers and compare nations according to them. It's fun to mess around with.

On the Masculinity comparison graph for Asian nations, Thailand scores 34 (bottom of the table). Japan is top, with a score of 95.

Military prowess may be related to masculinity as a cultural marker (Somalia scores almost same as the US) - but as JimTripper points out that's only part of the story. Throw in comparisons to other cultural traits and you see Somalia crash down the tables.

Check it out.

Edited 6 hours ago by Flyguy330

[Nick Carter icp]

On 9/30/2024 at 6:37 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

 

Whatever the reason, I'm happy that I grew up as a white person in a white culture.

 

   A few weeks ago you were a Native New Zealander , a  Maori whose forefathers were fighting against the British .

   When did you change into a white person ?

[Nick Carter icp]

On 9/30/2024 at 4:48 PM, Cameroni said:

 

Let me explain this way, the American culture is the most dominant today in soft culture. Do you think this would be the case if the US had not won WWII?

 

Clearly it would not be the case. The reason why the American culture today is dominant is not because Megan Thee Stallion is superior to Richard Strauss, but because for political, military and economic reason the US ascended to this position of cultural dominance. 

 

It is not a result of the culture itself, but of brute force, do you see what I'm saying?

 

   Which wars have the USA won ?

You got ran out of Vietnam, ran of out Somalia and run out of Afghanistan and you were a side kick to Russia  in WW2  .

   Where have you successfully displayed your superior brute force ?

[theblether]

Part 1 - Magna Carta, Register of Oxford, Declaration of Arbroath, Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights.

 

Part 2 - Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Knox et al - the Reformation which lifted the peasant classes out of ignorance. 

 

Part 3 - The Italian Renaissance, the celebration of beauty, artistry, engineering, perspective. 

 

Part 4 - The Age of Enlightenment. 

 

Part 5 - the Industrial Revolution. 

 

It took European culture around 500 years to explode into the dominant force that shaped the world. The world is a better place for this. 

 

Clowns such as William Dalrymple, himself a scion of Scottish aristocracy and privilege, make up wee stories about countries such as India, with their abhorrent human rights abuses such as Thugee cults and bride burning being excused. 

 

No one reading this needs convincing of the barbarity of the First Nation tribes, the Aztecs, Mayans etc Borneo Headhunters? Benin human sacrifices so vile that the air was rancid with rotting corpses? 

 

Human were and still are vicious creatures capable of unspeakable depravity - we've seen it this past year, never mind in the books of history. 

 

However, without the five developments I mentioned above - fundamental to White Culture - the world would be in a permanent state of repulsive savagery. 

 

 

[Cameroni]

5 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Disagree,

US forces are crippled by 'rules of engagement'

Whilst the 3rd world forces can shoot anything, anywhere, anytime and not worry about women, kids an bystanders.

Now if the civilized forces were allowed to nuke/shell Somali cities ....... end of game.

 

There is some truth to this, one of the problems the Americans had  with Black Hawk Down was that the general in charge insisted, once the rescue battalion was finally able to reach those stranded, that they all go pick up the dead body of the pilot. As the rules of engagement specified "no man left behind".  As the pilot was wedged in the wreckage of the helicopter it took time to free his body from the twisted metal. This gave the Somalis time to once again reach the Americans trying to get out. They were almost out. But were then set upon again because they spent so long trying to free the body of the pilot they had to take with them.

 

Hard to comprehend in the circumstances why the general in charge insisted on this. Since two other bodies were lost and then paraded by the Somalis through the street.

 

In this mission the aim was to kidnap and extract two henchmen of a known criminal in Somalia. Nuking and shelling were therefore not an option. But you see what you're saying, only if the technological gap were fully exploited would the Americans have had a chance to win. In a fair fight, would they have lost therefore? And are they then superior or inferior?

 

 

Edited 2 hours ago by Cameroni

[Cameroni]

3 hours ago, Flyguy330 said:

I found this website interesting: https://geerthofstede.com/country-comparison-graphs/

 

Geert Hofstede was a Dutch 'Social Psychologist' who came up with theories on definitions and comparative qualities of culture. The website has numerous tables and dynamic graphs that allow you to choose combinations of his major cultural markers and compare nations according to them. It's fun to mess around with.

On the Masculinity comparison graph for Asian nations, Thailand scores 34 (bottom of the table). Japan is top, with a score of 95.

Military prowess may be related to masculinity as a cultural marker (Somalia scores almost same as the US) - but as JimTripper points out that's only part of the story. Throw in comparisons to other cultural traits and you see Somalia crash down the tables.

Check it out.

 

It took me a long time to understand why there are so many ladyboys in Thailand, Philippines etc. Turns out Asians have less testosterone, there are physiological reasons. It's pretty shocking.

 

Looks interesting, I'll give it a shot.

[Cameroni]

1 hour ago, theblether said:

Part 1 - Magna Carta, Register of Oxford, Declaration of Arbroath, Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights.

 

Part 2 - Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Knox et al - the Reformation which lifted the peasant classes out of ignorance. 

 

Part 3 - The Italian Renaissance, the celebration of beauty, artistry, engineering, perspective. 

 

Part 4 - The Age of Enlightenment. 

 

Part 5 - the Industrial Revolution. 

 

It took European culture around 500 years to explode into the dominant force that shaped the world. The world is a better place for this. 

 

Clowns such as William Dalrymple, himself a scion of Scottish aristocracy and privilege, make up wee stories about countries such as India, with their abhorrent human rights abuses such as Thugee cults and bride burning being excused. 

 

No one reading this needs convincing of the barbarity of the First Nation tribes, the Aztecs, Mayans etc Borneo Headhunters? Benin human sacrifices so vile that the air was rancid with rotting corpses? 

 

Human were and still are vicious creatures capable of unspeakable depravity - we've seen it this past year, never mind in the books of history. 

 

However, without the five developments I mentioned above - fundamental to White Culture - the world would be in a permanent state of repulsive savagery. 

 

 

 

The barbarity of the Aztecs, Mayans, Borneo Headhunters etc is undeniable, yet we see the exact the same thing in the early history of the Germanic tribes, the "sacrificial moors" tell their own stories.

 

This extreme barbarity seems to be a phase of  evolution, much like the Chimpanzee shows absolute cruelty..I quite agree that this depravity is part of human nature. 

 

There's plenty of fine achievements in European culture, like the ones you list. However, there are similar periods of cultural blossoming in a vast number of cultures, Japan, China, Indonesia, Iraq, even.  To see our own European cultures as the only ones who go through such periods is not to see the full picture. However, the technological gap, the industrial revolution, this was arguably by far the most important.

 

As we saw with Black Haw Down, only through the technological gap were the European/Americans able to defeat other people.

 

 

Edited 2 hours ago by Cameroni

[Cameroni]

4 hours ago, JimTripper said:

I think you can be superior and still lose a fight. How about morals, intellect, compassion, etc. Combat is just one area that a superior race would likely not be involved in as they could manage to avoid it.

 

Excellent point. 

 

And with morality in particular the Asians provided Europeans with their blueprint, and developed many others of their own. Not to mention compassion with Buddhism.

 

This is why I was saying we need to define not just who "White Culture" is, many disparate nations and races, but also in what exactly are they superior?

 

In the development of morality and compassion, arguably the Asians were the leaders, and the Europeans followers. Even today.

 

But I like this idea that a superior race would avoid to be involved in a fight. But the counter argument is that you are strong and superior if you can affect the world around you to your will. Is this true though? Maybe avoiding conflict is the superior marker. Hard to say.

Edited 2 hours ago by Cameroni

[Cameroni]

5 hours ago, impulse said:

 

I'm  the same with Sowell.  I can't dispute the fact after fact and statistic after statistic that he quotes.  I assume his university research team vets them thoroughly for his books.  That's what fascinates me.  He explains the differences in  American enclaves settle by Germanic migrants and the enclaves settled by, for example, the Scottish migrants.

 

But I do disagree with some of his conclusions.  Though I'd say he absolutely nails some of my experiences as a Yankee transplant when I moved to Houston, Texas around 1980 as a college student.  Especially west Texans...  He's got them pegged (as a whole, obviously they're not all the same since a lot of them are oilfield transfers)

 

 

I must confess I have not read Sowell, he is a black marxist, or was a marxist, but of course so were Foucault and Adorno. No reason why politics should preclude interesting research. I will have a look, as it sounds interesting. Funnily enough I was just reading about Germans transplanted into the West, and apparently one of the points of friction was that Germans then would go out in the weekend for drinks ,making merry and going for walks. Something which the church going Anglo Saxons viewed with disdain then. How times have changed.

 

 

[Cameroni]

6 hours ago, Inderpland said:

I fail to see what one isolated and poorly executed military engagement can tell us about the superiority (or lack thereof) of any culture. If you'd been familiar with urban warfare you'd know that such fighting greatly evens out the odds between forces of vastly different technical capabilities.

Take for instance the use of attack helicopters. Hugely effective on a conventional battle field but pretty much useless in an urban warfare scenario, particularly when the technologically advanced side is not willing to impose heavy civilian casualties on it's opponent.

 

This is in no way to be taken as a 'white culture rules' post. Some of what I've read in this thread has made me ashamed to be a white male. Absolutely disgusting.

I was even called a feminist when I challenged the assertion made by a poster claiming 'a marriage is a contract in which the male gives the woman children and the man gets sex'!

I have a feeling he doesn't get many invitations to family gatherings.😁

 

Which begs the question if helicopters are so useless in urban warfare why did these highly experienced superior American military men take helicopters with them on this mission, but not tanks, which they needed?

 

 

[Inderpland]

10 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Which begs the question if helicopters are so useless in urban warfare why did these highly experienced superior American military men take helicopters with them on this mission, but not tanks, which they needed?

 

 

This entry in Wikipedia can explain if far better than I ever could:

 

Battle of Mogadishu (1993)

 

BTW, tanks are not effective in urban combat. In fact, they are very vulnerable in such an environment.

 

 

[impulse]

8 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

I must confess I have not read Sowell, he is a black marxist, or was a marxist, but of course so were Foucault and Adorno.

 

I'd suggest doing a YouTube search for his name and starting off watching a few digestible 5-10 minute videos.  Usually short interviews or excerpts from his audio books.  If you like them (and I did), then go onto the actual audio books.   They're wordy.

 

I found him to be more of a anti-victimhood and anti-race baiting than a Marxist.  I'm fascinated by the history of how cultures migrated around the world, and how they've changed in different places they landed.  With tons of statistics to demonstrate.

 

Kinda makes the idea of "White Culture" a chuckle, because there's so much difference between (for example) Germanic and Scottish culture.  And (for another example) British culture as it's matured in the UK and how differently it matured when it came across the ponds.

 

[Cameroni]

1 hour ago, impulse said:

 

I'd suggest doing a YouTube search for his name and starting off watching a few digestible 5-10 minute videos.  Usually short interviews or excerpts from his audio books.  If you like them (and I did), then go onto the actual audio books.   They're wordy.

 

I found him to be more of a anti-victimhood and anti-race baiting than a Marxist.  I'm fascinated by the history of how cultures migrated around the world, and how they've changed in different places they landed.  With tons of statistics to demonstrate.

 

Kinda makes the idea of "White Culture" a chuckle, because there's so much difference between (for example) Germanic and Scottish culture.  And (for another example) British culture as it's matured in the UK and how differently it matured when it came across the ponds.

 

 

Sounds very interesting indeed, thanks for the recom. I will definitely have a look.

 

I agree with the last sentence 100 per cent.

[Cameroni]

1 hour ago, Inderpland said:

This entry in Wikipedia can explain if far better than I ever could:

 

Battle of Mogadishu (1993)

 

BTW, tanks are not effective in urban combat. In fact, they are very vulnerable in such an environment.

 

 

 

And yet in the Black Hawk Down saga the Americans were desperate for tanks and approached the Malaysians and Pakistanis for help  because they had tanks.

 

Wow, they shot down three Black Hawks, not two.

 

Edited 17 minutes ago by Cameroni

[theblether]

2 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

There is some truth to this, one of the problems the Americans had  with Black Hawk Down was that the general in charge insisted, once the rescue battalion was finally able to reach those stranded, that they all go pick up the dead body of the pilot. As the rules of engagement specified "no man left behind".  As the pilot was wedged in the wreckage of the helicopter it took time to free his body from the twisted metal. This gave the Somalis time to once again reach the Americans trying to get out. They were almost out. But were then set upon again because they spent so long trying to free the body of the pilot they had to take with them.

 

Hard to comprehend in the circumstances why the general in charge insisted on this. Since two other bodies were lost and then paraded by the Somalis through the street.

 

In this mission the aim was to kidnap and extract two henchmen of a known criminal in Somalia. Nuking and shelling were therefore not an option. But you see what you're saying, only if the technological gap were fully exploited would the Americans have had a chance to win. In a fair fight, would they have lost therefore? And are they then superior or inferior?

 

 

 

You need to quit with this Black Hawk Down analogy. The defensive ratio far exceeded 4:1. If the US military had moved with the required manpower to eradicate the defensive position it would have been an annihilation of the Somalis, and that would have been without using wipe-out weaponry. 

[theblether]

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

 

Which begs the question if helicopters are so useless in urban warfare why did these highly experienced superior American military men take helicopters with them on this mission, but not tanks, which they needed?

 

 

 

Dear me.