Samurai vs. Kali Warrior

[Martial_Artist]

Goshinman,

 

Yes, the US was involved in what was called Balikatan, or military exercises. But while I was living in the Philippines there were several times the US actively engaged the Abu Sayyaf. Several officials in the Philippines got upset about this, but nothing really came of it. The US even had casualties, 6 servicemen were killed in an ambush near a base. There were other sporadic deaths elsewhere. They weren't publicized outside of the Philippines. I thought because of the casualties the US would engage in a more open effort, rather than using the cover of Balikatan.

 

The Vice President of the Philippines was very upset over the whole Balikatan thing because according to the Filipino commanders the US was engaging actively against the Abu Sayyaf. However, the cover was military exercises so as not to break a law written several years ago.(The same law responsible for the closing of Clark AirForce Base).

 

According to several sources the US was there under the cover of providing logistical and training support to fight and remove the Abu Sayyaf threat. 1,200 US troops on a single island is a bit much just for training/advising. Several military leaders were quoted during the whole issue saying that the US was trying to destroy the Sayyaf, but could not.

 

Honestly, unless a government wants to destroy every single person on those islands they won't be able to remove the Abu Sayyaf or any other group. Governments have been trying for several long years.

 

But all of this is a bit off topic. So we should continue it elsewhere and let the argument about Kali vs Samurai go on.

 

MA.

[sansoouser]

Martial Artist,

 

 

 

They could remove them if they wanted to. But then again what would be the point of it unless they were causing trouble. I don't see what you are saying, are you saying the US gave up or what?

 

SSU

[goshinman]

Martial-Artist let me start off by saying that you are a very respectful and knowledgable guy and I really enjoy reading your posts and I belive you for the most part. But having said that, I could argue that any geurilla warfare operation will be very difficult to fight against because the enemy isn't fighting with conventional means. Just look at what is going on in Iraq as a testament to that. The US went in there and routed the Iraqi army with minimal casualties. Now that the Sadaam loyalists are using guerilla tactics they have killed more US troops in two weeks then they did in the entire month of major fighting. Toe to toe there would be no way in hades that the Abu Sayyaf could stand a chance against the US so they use guerilla tactics to beat the odds. Guerilla warfare is as unconventional as it gets and it is often used with lots of success by small armies e.g. the U.S. in the revolutionary war, the plains indians vs the U.S., the Viet chong vs the U.S., and the U.S. vs Al Quaida.

 

If you notice in all of the examples I have given of guerilla warfare being used the U.S. only won two of those, and the only reason we beat the plains Indians (who some would argue were even tougher then the fillipinos in hand 2 hand/weapons combat, thus the name "savages") was through sheer atrition. They simply outlasted and overwhelmed them with numbers. And we used guerilla tactics against the Brits successfully. The al quaida thing is pending and we lost vietnam flat out.

 

All i'm trying to say here is that while the Kali/Arnis guy's are badass, it is their guerilla tactics in conjunction with thier fighting skills that have served them well.

[Drunken Monkey]

for sme strange reason, i would trsut the u.n over the u.s any day.

 

as for the thing about bristish history being "juiced up". how do you juice up the history of a country that has been invaded lord knows how many times?

 

it serves no purpose and doesn't inform or educate.

 

now not meaning to be unfair but the u.s has a history of wanting to sound/be better than everyone else and has been know to teach history that vaguely resembles the truth...

[Cybren]

Goshinman, militarily, the US overwhelmed Vietnam, the problem was, the vietnamese were fighting us with politics, not bullets.

[Warp Spider]

Goshinman, militarily, the US overwhelmed Vietnam, the problem was, the vietnamese were fighting us with politics, not bullets.

 

Uhh.. that's not true. The US may have "controlled" the land, but how "in control" were they really when they were ceaselessly getting picked off by guerillas? The US forces were everywhere, but the areas they were in were not secured.

[Warp Spider]

but remember that modern American history books have been creatively written to tell a different tale, and, in fact, many Americans deny that such a war ever even took place... so before you point to history books and internet sites, perhaps you could take a look at a recent study by the UN regarding freedom of the press in various developed countries.

 

don't make statements about Americans with proof to back it up, warp.

 

http://www.multied.com/1812/

 

Ah, the joys of reading. Perhaps I can spell it out for you. That site is exactly the propeganda I was referring to. The comment about the UN refers to a recent study that found that the US scored 17th in freedom of the press among developed countries.

 

And Goshinman, I'm not British, and I don't care what their history books say either. It just so happens that the US is a small part of the world, despite their vision that they are the biggest thing in the world they actually are only about 15% of it... so I'd go by what every country in the world except for the United States says. Since it's 5 against 1 by count of the world's population, and you Americans claim to love democracy, it should be clear who to believe.

 

Furthermore, Guerilla Warfare is easy to defeat if you step back and think about it. The argument about them being harder to fight because they use unconventional means is not very reasonable. Who's to define what's conventional? For Iraq, Vietnam, and many other countires, that is conventional warfare.

[Martial_Artist]

Ok, now we have really over stepped the bounds of going a "bit off topic" this really needs to continue in another thread. Not here.

 

To Goshinman,

 

Yes, it is guerilla warfare that has allowed them to survive this long. It is their military tactics. But it is also the culture of war that permeates their society that has truly made them into the menace they are today. It is a different lifestyle. War/combat is regular and ingrained from childhood.

 

And I agree with you. The Kali guys are tough. And it is their tactics of war that have allowed them to survive for so long. They are a society of warriors. Not conventional by any means, but certain people in Mindanao sure do know their stuff. Unfortunately, no one trained as they are trained can be found in the West.

 

Anyways, my argument was to clarify the misconception many people have about Kali Warriors. What we see in the West, taught by Filipinos who have come to the West to make money is not the Kali/ living fighting arts of the Philippines and shouldn't be used to judge the trueness of the art. That being said, my money would still be on the Kali Warrior versus a Samurai.

 

Now on to something else.

 

Guerilla warfare is easy to defeat if you think about it? Hmm, several centuries of warfare has certainly taught us otherwise. Much wiser and more experienced men have tried and failed. If guerilla warfare was really that easy then it would not be an issue so heavily worried over by generals across the world, Warp Spider.

 

War is something outside what you seem capable of comprehending. It is not as simple as point A attacked by group B end of story. Open field warfare is a much different game than urban combat or guerilla warfare.

 

Take Urban Combat, for example. This is realitively new word/phrase. This is big problem for military and police forces across the world. Why? It is not simple? Just destroy the enemy. It's really quite easy if you think about it. Actually, it is not. Urban combat, which roots are based on guerilla warfare--which is why I am using it as an example--poses a problem of manueverability, target acquisition/identification, collateral damage, and troop vulnerablity (among a great many other things). This is not easy combat. Very few armies around the world are truly prepared for a complete Urban Combat situation. They have admitted this. It is a difficult fight. Neither is guerilla warfare. Believe me many generals have spent long, experienced hours contemplating this type of warfare. It is a losing situation for the attacking army. It is by no means easy no matter how you look at it. Methods and techniques are STILL being developed to fight against an enemy who fights guerilla. Why are they STILL being developed even after centuries of fighting guerilla armies? Because nothing completely effective has been discovered. It is a hard fight, a long fight, and a fight not easily won.

 

Now, Warp Spider, how can you do what generals around the world and throughout history have not?

 

MA.

[JohnnyS]

Let's remember that in 1812 the British had their attention and troops focused on the Napoleonic Wars. If they'd turned all their attention on the U.S. it would have gone back to being a colony.

[Warp Spider]

I suspect a barrage of deuterium fusion or neutron implosion warheads would resolve any Urban Combat or Guerilla operation. However, since we are talking about the US and not France or China, we'll have to settle for the good ol' plutonium fission bomb.

 

This would of course, cause massive civilian casualties, but unlike many generals that really doesn't bother me. There's only three types of people in a war as far as I'm concerned: the people on your side, the people who aren't on your side, and the people who are out of missile range.