2y ago

Tommy Tuberville Says US Wouldn’t Be Able to Take on China Because of ‘Wokeness’: ‘We’ve Got People Doing Poems on Aircraft Carriers’

www.mediaite.com

What passing-bells for these who die as cattle?
— Only the monstrous anger of the guns.
Only the stuttering rifles’ rapid rattle
Can patter out their hasty orisons...

-- Wilfred Owen

225 comments

LOL. It's cute this guy thinks modern warfare is like tribal war with heroes squaring off mano a mano with each other. The US military is terrifying because of its logistics and intelligence apparatus, not its individual soldiers. It is the only country that can send a Burger King field catering unit 1000 miles behind enemy lines. The Russians use scoobydoo vans and dump trucks. The CCP talk big but their """"""""stealth fighter"""" is a stolen SU-30 reskinned with salvaged F-117 skin shot down in Serbia that has a RCS of the old F-18. Its first aircraft carrier was scammed from the Russians too. China is the ultimate cargo cult wrt tech. They copy the form, hoping to eventually understand the mechanisms.
- The US military is terrifying because of its logistics and intelligence apparatus, not its individual soldiers.
  It may be the best in the world in training individual soldiers too.
  China is the ultimate cargo cult wrt tech. They copy the form, hoping to eventually understand the mechanisms.
  Well, if it works for consumer electronics and plenty of other tech, then it may eventually happen for aircraft carriers, no?
- That's why he was a football coach. He needed that simulation of old school war.
- China has working hypersonic missiles and USA doesn’t. Plus, USA just spent 20 years to lose a war to the Taliban. They’re “terrifying” in that they are good at wreaking death and destruction, but not in the sense that they’ve won any wars since like the 1940s.
  
  China has untested hyper-sonic missiles that still require the Chinese asset to be well inside the detection range of US assets to be launched. Taking away 90% of the advantage a hyper-sonic would offer.
  'Losing' to the Taliban comes down entirely to the singular US President in recent history who was Pro-Authoritarian, Pro-Tyranny, Pro-China decided to pull out of the conflict at the last minute because he couldn't throw his Diet Coke at it and since he lost the election he knew his base and the Pro-Authoritarian, Pro-Tyranny, Pro-China crowd would be stupid enough to blame it on the next guy.
  So in short you have a bag full of propaganda that isn't even worth the retail cost of that bag. And since you're probably Chinese oriented, that bag is probably some plastic lump choking a sea turtle. Good for you.
  
  Are you having a stroke
  
  Are you implying you couldn't understand that post?
  
  We won the war, it's the nation building that failed. Something we don't have to worry about because the rural Chinese would favor a better pension scheme than the crummy deal they have now, and I doubt the CCCP leaders who only favor Bush Jr era business tax cuts would have the best time selling a war to a one-child policy population.
  They can just go Dongfeng themselves some more instead of spreading anymore of their authoritarianism anywhere else.
  
  We lost the war. The Taliban beat the US military and forced them out, very pathetic. Also the Chinese people literally are very happy with their government and direction of their country, the idea that America would be greeted as liberators is even more fantastically stupid than when it was said about Iraq or any of Americas other many failed adventures
  
  There you go again; never said we'd do any liberating that is for the citizens to decide themselves. If China goes to war because of their authoritarian leader, the system may unravel & highly likely not be supported by their public. War won't fix their real estate Ponzi scheme that collapsed ruining a lot of people's retirement plans.
  Take off the rose-tinted glasses and see past propaganda. You don't know anything about China and their happiness. We are seeing discontent among the working age youth (they stopped publishing stats on it), and they have had plenty of protest squashed. It's not all bubbly (nor is it the worst possible thing). To be honest we can't know because authoritarians despise transparency. They are just happy for rubes like you.
  Afghanistan was a NATO Article V in response to 9/11. The guys that supported networks like Osma Bin Laden's & terrorist like him are long gone. NATO reformed the mission in 2015 with the goal of developing an independent, self-sustaining force capable of combating both internal and external threats. It wasn't the preferred government forces that would be duly elected & accountable to the citizens but hey they got there in a way. Now they can have water wars with Iran, get in scuffles with Pakistan, decide if they want a Chinese highway cutting through remote territory, and fight ISIS-K all on their own. The kids grow up quick and get to go their own path like Iraq.
  We exited a war with a more different version of our 2015 goals but we it wasn't some combat loss you are thinking of. They are fighting terrorism & standing up for themselves as a nation, not for sure how long but it got there. If I see some ballerinas playing on public TV, maybe I'll change my mind. I just like enjoying my life free from the taste of boot in my mouth and wish the Afghans could have enjoyed that too. But feel free to lick those boots if you want to.
  
  You like losing wars all the time? I’m sick of it!
  
  I don’t support any war. Bad for business
  
  Let's have a war! Jack up the Dow Jones!
  -FEAR
  
  20 years
  20 years
  20 years on the other side of the planet with the average citizen so uninterested that weeks would past without a news story on it. How is that not the definition of terrifying? Hell, it was terrifying to Americans who were paying attention.
  
  They lost the war
  
  Clearly so did your mom.

225 comments