Originally posted by FMFSorry, you seem to have an echo... 😉
What 'all out war'? The last all out war was over hald a century ago,
If the military - which costs you Americans $700,000,000,000 a year - is not ready and able to fight the kind of wars that Americans need it to fight, and huffily calls being asked to do so a'misuse' of the military, the taxpayers really ought to be asking serious questions.
Originally posted by FMF"What 'all out war'? The last all out war was over hald a century ago,"
What 'all out war'? The last all out war was over hald a century ago,
If the military - which costs you Americans $700,000,000,000 a year - is not ready and able to fight the kind of wars that Americans need it to fight, and huffily calls being asked to do so a'misuse' of the military, the taxpayers really ought to be asking serious questions.
What war was this FMF?
1 edit
Originally posted by utherpendragonThe U.S. has been picking on relatively defenceless countries ever since the Korean War. There have been no "all out wars" conventional wars in any any meaningful sense. The U.S. military is ill equipped and ill-trained to cope with asymmetrical warfare, insurgencies* etc. which - lo and behold - what wars are all about nowadays. You thought that opponents would stand in fields in red tunics and busbies after you secured total spectrum dominance?
"What 'all out war'? The last all out war was over hald a century ago,"
What war was this FMF?
* I reckon it's got a few more ideas about how to do it after using up the last half decade and $3,000,000,000,000 (or whatever its been) subduing one of the weakest major countries in the Middle East.
** What 'all out war'? The last all out war was over half a century ago
Originally posted by whodeyWelcome to the US. Did you know, by the way, that we're still in Afghanistan??
I got to thinking the other day, where are the cries to leave Iraq? Where are the Cindy Shennans of the world? Are they simply resigned to the fact that "W" is gone and assume Obama will leave?
If Obama spent half his time trying to leave Iraq as he is on these other massive issues such as cap and trade, it seems to me we would be gone by now. Heck, I ...[text shortened]... orists have been appeased by the Messiah's appearence just like that of the average liberal.
Originally posted by FMFI believe during the first Gulf war Iraq was the 6th largest army in the world. Hardly defenseless.The second one,they had around 400,000 troops. 11 inf.divions,3 mech.divisions,3 armor divisions.
The U.S. has been picking on relatively defenceless countries ever since the Korean War. There have been no "all out wars" conventional wars in any any meaningful sense. The U.S. military is ill equipped and ill-trained to cope with asymmetrical warfare, insurgencies* etc. which - lo and behold - what wars are all about nowadays. You thought that opponents would ...[text shortened]... dle East.
** What 'all out war'? The last all out war was over [b]half a century ago[/b]
Originally posted by FMFyes he does get it. as i said, its the poiticians who screw things up.Not the military. You want body counts? Mass destruction, send in the U.S. Military w/the "gloves off".Nobody does it better. UHWAH!
No he doesn't. And for all his military bravado and passion and love of mythology, he doesn't really get military things on an objective level.
Originally posted by DrKFwell, no war is perfect.
It doesn't matter who decided on the occupation; the fact remains that what passed for a plan in that regard was woefully ill-conceived and executed. As I said before, those decisions altogether abounded with tactical and strategic blunders, whoever made them.
It could have been worse.
Originally posted by generalissimoI'm not sure you understand this thread. It's totally up to the US army to be ready for what the people in DC to decide's necessary. This whole "send in the U.S. Military w/the 'gloves off'.Nobody does it better" is teenage woody zone. Got nothing to do with the 21stC.
Im not sure if you know this, but its up to the people in DC to decide whether or not to occupy, not the army.
Originally posted by FMFHow do you have so much info on the performance of the US army?
I'm not sure you understand this thread. It's totally up to the US army to be ready for what the people in DC to decide's necessary. This whole "send in the U.S. Military w/the 'gloves off'.Nobody does it better" is teenage woody zone. Got nothing to do with the 21stC.
don't you know anything about guerrila war?