Many water facilities have been damaged or destroyed by Israel’s war in Gaza, according to the UN and others, compounding the civilian population’s suffering, risking the spread of disease and leading human rights experts to accuse Israel of using water supply as a weapon.
Okay, cool. Think that about every land war you’ve seen since the dawn of the modern age and tell me how that’s an incorrect statement. I think two world wars and some folks in Vietnam would have some enlightened conversations for you.
i like that you specifically cited the two world wars and vietnam as examples of where logistics didn’t matter, then fell back to “well, many non-land wars exist”
NON-land wars are even more an expression of logistics, because navies can’t function without logistics, and air forces extremely very definitely can’t function without logistics
Backing up, so this isn’t buried in the comment thread. You mention land wars and highlight Vietnam and the world wars.
When the other commenter replies specifically about how logistics were vital to those wars, you say there were other wars, and when they corner you in that, you insist they aren’t defining land war right?
I would love to know what you believe the aforementioned enlightened conversations would entail. Just explain it - I’m not going to challenge your explanation. I’m legit curious.
Preemptively, though - if you’re focusing on what the wars were “about,” rather than how they’re prosecuted, then you’re arguing a moot point. The “about” is meaningless if the participants lack the ability to make war.
What of the other wars you mention that you haven’t given a name to? Which wars? In what ways do they not fit the bill for logistics?
And finally, what is your definition for land war, if that’s vital to understanding your comments?
“land wars aren’t about logistics” is the single most clueless statement i’ve ever heard
Okay, cool. Think that about every land war you’ve seen since the dawn of the modern age and tell me how that’s an incorrect statement. I think two world wars and some folks in Vietnam would have some enlightened conversations for you.
the two world wars were incredibly famously about logistics
the us spent literally billions of dollars attempting to stymie viet minh logistics, and failed to do so
just as a quick question, what in the actual fuck are you talking about? thanks
There have been many non-land wars in between. Apparently you’re unfamiliar.
Go read up and come back after you’ve digested all that.
Bye.
i like that you specifically cited the two world wars and vietnam as examples of where logistics didn’t matter, then fell back to “well, many non-land wars exist”
NON-land wars are even more an expression of logistics, because navies can’t function without logistics, and air forces extremely very definitely can’t function without logistics
I don’t think you understand what “land-wars” mean. Especially when you actually mentioned world wars…c’mon.
Bye.
no you’re right ww1 and ww2 weren’t world wars
ww1 definitely wasn’t a world war, and ww2, which involved the pacific campaign, definitely didn’t involve logistics in said pacific theater
Exactly. Not equal. Not the same thing. Not a border dispute. NOT Vietnam or Korea, which are exactly those things.
“yeah i agree, the wars that i said were land wars weren’t land wars”
oh no
equal oh no at suggesting vietnam and korea were “border disputes”
You’re right, you mean Star Wars.
Read up on what land wars mean.
Backing up, so this isn’t buried in the comment thread. You mention land wars and highlight Vietnam and the world wars.
When the other commenter replies specifically about how logistics were vital to those wars, you say there were other wars, and when they corner you in that, you insist they aren’t defining land war right?
I would love to know what you believe the aforementioned enlightened conversations would entail. Just explain it - I’m not going to challenge your explanation. I’m legit curious.
Preemptively, though - if you’re focusing on what the wars were “about,” rather than how they’re prosecuted, then you’re arguing a moot point. The “about” is meaningless if the participants lack the ability to make war.
What of the other wars you mention that you haven’t given a name to? Which wars? In what ways do they not fit the bill for logistics?
And finally, what is your definition for land war, if that’s vital to understanding your comments?
The United States is not in this war, dipshit.
I did not mention the U.S.
I have, however, reported your comment for violating community rules.
First, you clearly did.
Second, I haven’t.