Angry and sullen Korean War veteran, Walt Kowalski, has to learn to live with his Korean neighbors and accept that his neighborhood is in drastic need of change and cultural acceptance. This Eastwood classic and masterpiece shows violence, the moving away from violence, and change due to the removal of violence. His change occurs when a young man from the Hmong culture of Southeast Asia moves next door. The young man has distinct cultural differences to the Detroit born and bred Kowalski.
The article then went on to list a number of Russian weapons systems which were clearly superior to their US counterparts when those even existed. The USA definitely has the quantitative advantage, but in terms of quality and training, Russia is way ahead.
So what is going on here?
Why do otherwise very well informed people have such totally contradictory views? To speak with any authority on this topic I would have to have access to a lot of classified data both on the US armed forces and on the Russian ones. Still, I am confident that what follows is factually correct and logically analyzed.
To sum up the current state of affairs I would say that the fact that the US armed forces are in a grave state of decay is not as amazing by itself as is the fact that this almost impossible to hide fact is almost universally ignored.
The bottom line was this: US forces were better equipped quantitatively and, sometimes, even qualitatively than the others and they could muster firepower in amounts difficult to achieve for their enemies.
After WWII the USA was the only major industrialized country on the planet whose industry had not been blown to smithereens and for the next couple of decades the USA enjoyed a situation to quasi total monopoly.
That, again, hugely benefited the US armed forces but it soon became clear that in Korea and Vietnam that advantage, while real, did not necessarily result in any US victory.
Following Vietnam, US politicians basically limited their aggression to much smaller countries who had no chance at all to meaningfully resist, nevermind prevail. If we look at the list of US military aggressions after Vietnam see here or here we can clearly see that the US military specialized in attacking defenseless countries.
These wars will go down in history as case studies of what happens when politicians believe their own propaganda. While Dubya declared victory as soon as the invasion was completed, it soon became clear to everybody that this war was a disaster from which the USA has proved completely unable to extricate themselves even the Soviets connected the dots and withdrew from Afghanistan faster than the US Americans!
So what does all this tell us about the US armed forces: Actually, no, it is not. The recent wars in Lebanon, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq have clearly shown that well-adapted tactics mostly deny the US armed forces the advantages listed above or, at the very least, make them irrelevant.
This means that there is an emerging consensus amongst the countries which the USA tries to threaten and bully into submission that for all the threats and propaganda the USA is not nearly as formidable enemy as some would have you believe.
Why nobody seems to be aware of it The paradoxical thing is that while this is clearly well understood in the countries which the USA is currently trying to threaten and bully into submission, this is also completely ignored and overlooked inside the United States themselves.
This is both true and false. Potential nuclear target countries for the USA can be subdivided into three categories: Countries who, if nuked themselves, could wipe the USA off the face of the earth completely Russia or, at least, inflict immense damage upon the USA China.
Those countries which the USA could nuke with relative impunity but which the USA could also crush with conventional forces making the use of nukes pointless Venezuela, Cuba. And, of course, in all these cases the first use of nukes by the USA would result in a fantastic political backlash with completely unpredictable and potentially catastrophic consequences.
Others would, no doubt, disagree: US nukes are only useful as a deterrent against other nuclear powers; for all other roles they are basically useless. And since neither Russia or China would ever contemplate a first-strike against the USA, you could say that they are almost totally useless I say almost, because in the real world the USA cannot simply rely on the mental sanity and goodwill of other nations; so, in reality, the US nuclear arsenal is truly a vital component of US national security.
Which leaves the Navy and the Army. The USN still controls the high seas and strategic choke points, but this is becoming increasingly irrelevant, especially in the context of local wars.
Besides, the USN is still stubbornly carrier-centric, which just goes to show that strategic vision comes a distant second behind bureaucratic and institutional inertia.
|Hell & Israel: Après Lavrov le deluge||Of them, only one was not a first time actor. Joel Cox and Gary D.|
As for the US Army, it has long become a kind of support force for Special Operations and Marines, something which makes sense in tiny wars Panama, maybe Venezuela but which is completely inadequate for medium to large wars. Surely that counts for something?
Actually, no, it does not. Ask yourself a simple question: Do you really, sincerely, believe that this has anything to do with national security?
If you do, please email me, I got a few bridges to sell to you at great prices!Clint Eastwood’s Gran Torino was released in cinemas in A quite well received movie, it represents the culmination of Eastwood’s fifty-year career as actor and director.
A quite well received movie, it represents the culmination of Eastwood’s fifty-year career as actor and director. Clint Eastwood dispels that myth and several significant scenes epitomize this concept in the movie hit Gran Torino ().
Gran Torino () exposes and defends against ageist assumptions although many believe the underlying theme is that of racism and bigotry. The FIFA World Cup was the 21st FIFA World Cup, an international football tournament contested by the men's national teams of the member associations of FIFA once every four years.
It took place in Russia from 14 June to 15 July It was the first World Cup to be held in Eastern Europe, and the 11th time that it had been held in Europe.
At an estimated cost of over $ billion, it. Clint Eastwood’s Gran Torino was released in cinemas in A quite well received movie, it represents the culmination of Eastwood’s fifty-year career as actor and director.
A quite well received movie, it represents the culmination of Eastwood’s fifty-year career as actor and director.
- Gran Torino (Clint Eastwood, ) draws attention to the cultural differences between people living in a working class neighborhood in Michigan.
An ideology of multiculturalism is promoted as Walt, a heterosexual white man, moves past his prejudices and forms a relationship with his Hmong neighbors.
The following are personal reviews of some of my favorites films, covering the period of Hollywood cinema from , and there isn’t a loser in the bunch—not a single SJW-themed film can be found, and the overall entertainment and educational value is uncommonly solid.