Originally posted by FMF 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,
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 'all out war'? The last all out war was over hald a century ago,"
Originally posted by utherpendragon "What 'all out war'? The last all out war was over hald a century ago,"
What war was this FMF?
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 stand in fields in red tunics and busbies after you secured total spectrum dominance?
* 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 whodey 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.
Welcome to the US. Did you know, by the way, that we're still in Afghanistan??
Originally posted by FMF 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]
I 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.
Originally posted by utherpendragon I 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.
I'm not sure you have understood what has been put to you...
Originally posted by FMF 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.
yes 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!
Originally posted by utherpendragon yes 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!
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.
Originally posted by DrKF 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.
Originally posted by generalissimo 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.
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.
Originally posted by FMF 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.
How do you have so much info on the performance of the US army?
29 Jun '09 13:26
Where is the cry to get out of Iraq?
Back to Top