Why is Americana so shit at warfare?

Why is Americana so shit at warfare?

Genghis Khan once said, "Conquering the world on horseback is easy; it is dismounting and governing that is hard." It's the same way with america, toppling regimes is easy, setting up new ones is hard

Sadly the Mongols had no concept of the "rules of war".

Basically if America was allowed to do whatever the fuck we wanted to make sure we won you know damn well every country on this planet would be fucked to shit.

More like, every country would fuck you to shit.

Quit hiding behind the flag you pussy.

Welp fpbp

They haven't properly adapted to modern guerrilla warfare because it's impossible for a traditional army to properly adapt to modern guerrilla warfare.

Because they think the war ends once they kick someones shit in.
If you dont win them over to your side you havent won shit

This image is so ridiculous. Gengis Khan had one of the most advanced cavalry.

See we have a shit ton of people just waiting, WAITING for some invasion to come down so we have the excuse to use our 3 billion guns.

This is why the middle east can't do shit but use some shitty, coweredly bombings instead of fucking trying to come invade from air or sea. They'd be wiped off the map.

>>Why is Americana so shit at warfare?

no concept of the "rules of war"~ Rules of engagement is a huge thing, put simply Mongolians didn't put up with Rules of engagement or morality went fighting an enemy.

>>child throws a rock at Mongolian swordsman
That child's entire family is hacked to pieces.
>>child throws a rock at a Modern western infantrymen
The infantrymen then has to ignore it, and write a report about it later at base.

Too much red tape to conquer the good old fashioned way. The soldiers need to breed with the native women and create a generation separated from the original culture. I think we also underestimate how fucking dumb these people in their own counties are. From Vietnam to Iraq the native armies would rather smoke opium than do anything else.

Pretty much because muh human rights, the west + Russia could pretty much have wipe the rest of the world of the map if they wanted too. In retrospect they should have done it - to secure the west's eternal rule over this planet. But muh liberals & muh feelings ...

Only thing you can do is play Hans zimmer - True romance ost and drink until ur dead now.
Cheers

i
In other words ;
human rights, prohibits the use of force that would succinctly settlle all disputes.

wait, when did america lose a war?

Keep telling yourself that.

Anything after ww2

The mongols didn't have to worry about the voters raging against them next election, dumb fuck.

Let me ask you this
When was the last time america was in a war that they lost more battles than they won

>loses
That's a bit of a stretch now.

What does that matter when you lose the war?

no you don't spic, you'd get destroyed by men with real discipline while blacklivesmatter uses the invasion as cover for raping your house and looting your wife

Mongols lost to Vietnam too.

Because OPs question wasnt "why does america lose so many wars" it was about warfare
And warfare is described as the specifics of war, not the war itself
So answer my question cuck

>"lost"

Believe me, the wars succeded in doing what they were designed to do. You didn't win anything but some people won a whole lot.

Why exactly were the Monghols so brutal? What was the purpose of decimating farming villages or slaughtering entire cities over the insult of their leaders? Was empathy just not a concept which existed?

This is misleading... Ghengis Khan was one of the greatest leaders of the time. He was only behind technologically when he was bringing the steppe nomads together. After that his soldiers had superior diets and bows to their enemies. Along with greater strategies.

>mongols
>conquered technologically superior enemies

Are you high? An army of horse archers moving around in a horde was THE technology in those times. Same for Attila the Hun.

>T booty blasted muslim

>Why is Americana so shit at warfare?

Human rights. Iraq and Vietnam would have been an easy victory with punitive actions against the civilians. You can't beat partisans if the civilians don't fear them more than you (i.e. proximity to them means death).

America is not into war because of winning, but jews and $

Why is Amer..

...

This is Mongol hysteria raised by the Europeans. Mongols were actually pretty civil.

Too obvious.

0/10

lrn2troll

But the question wasn't even about battles, it says "warfare". Which if you look at the scale of how much cash we inject to win a battle it's quite terrible. If war is a game we are the fat little rich kid buying their way to victories in battles, and still losing the war when we run out of money/moral and have to leave.

>Genghis Khan once said, "CHING CHONG CHING CHONG CHANG"
ftfy

What is this picture supposed to prove?

also, after his campaign in china, he had artillery that was unheard of in the west/near east. to say that the mongol horde wasn't technologically advanced is completely uninformed, and once european technology caught up with them, that's when we stopped hearing about mongols for the rest of western history.

that America can cause this much carnage while not winning anything

fpbp /thread

Because we don't rape and/or genocide everyone who dares fight back. Conquerors win, liberators lose.

You are a retard who doesn't understand the war if you honestly believe that.
War is about achieving the war goals and not about painting the map. The American goal was always to generate profit and sometimes to destabilize a country. They always achieve these goals so they are good at waging war.
You know which country sucks at war? Germany.

We did win the 1st Gulf War, which that pic is from.

>You know which country sucks at war? Germany
they still whooped you, untermensch

Japan makes our cars

Vietnam makes our cell phone batteries

Germany provides whores for our bases

This is so fucking true. We toppled Iraq in mere days. In Vietnam we had a fucking 100 kd ratio, its not like we ever lose these wars, it's that we never leave

>Wage an offensive war to gain more land
>End up losing half of the land
>Now average white in Germany has grandgrandfather named Ivan
>Any feelings of national pride destroyed
>Right wing banned forever
>B-but at least we killed some Poles!
>tfw your destiny is to be raped by Ivan and Muhammad for eternity

>loses WW1 by sperging out and getting the UK and USA involved
>loses WW2 by spergin out and getting the USSR, UK, and USA involved
You're good at tactics and strategy, but you're shit at administration and diplomacy.

That implies mounted swarm cavalry wasn't technologically superior.

The Mongols pulled off insane campaigns with relatively tiny numbers. They did this by avoiding attrition in every way possible. They encouraged surrender and violently and brutally made examples of those who didn't surrender. And to be fair, they weren't exceptionally brutal for that time period, they were just far more successful than everyone else.

gook