U.S. Soliders Do Not (Always) Protect Our Freedom

[fistor!@#]

But is "posturing" enough justification to start a war?

Given his track record I say "yes".

Hindsight's 20/20, but I disagree. Yes, he was a prick, but I think it was pretty damned irresponsible to go in with guns blazing with no concrete proof that he had WMDs. I am glad he's dead, but I'm not sure it was worth 4,124 American and 314 foreign lives (to this point).

There are other tyrants who are more of a threat to the US, whom we have not attacked.

[ratrad]

Given his track record I say "yes".

4,124 American

Hey Fistor. How many Americans died on 9/11?

[Biff]

What track record? The one where he asked the US if he could invade Kuwait and Bush Sr. said he'd look the other way and then as soon as Saddam went in we called foul and took action?

Or is it the 100,000 people he killed, only to have at least 800,000 Iraqis killed by this war? Sheesh, Bush Jr. is like 8 times worse than Saddam!

Or perhaps its his record of being put into power by......ummm.....who was that now?..........Oh, thats right, it was the United States.

Let's see some proof of those numbers. Solid proof not blogs.

[fistor!@#]

4,124 American

Hey Fistor. How many Americans died on 9/11?

3,000. Why?

[Biff]

There are other tyrants who are more of a threat to the US, whom we have not attacked.

No argument from me.

[Biff]

Hindsight's 20/20, but I disagree. Yes, he was a prick, but I think it was pretty damned irresponsible to go in with guns blazing with no concrete proof that he had WMDs. I am glad he's dead, but I'm not sure it was worth 4,124 American and 314 foreign lives (to this point).

I don't think Bush lied in order to start the war but he sure bungled it since the cease fire was detracted.

[ratrad]

Hey Fistor. How many Americans died on 9/11?

3,000. Why?

Oh, I was just curious since there has been 4,124 US soldiers killed and numerous more injured. So, I was wondering at what cost is this still beneficial.

Hey! Remember this?

"And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq. All of a sudden you've got a battle you're fighting in a major built-up city, a lot of civilians are around, significant limitations on our ability to use our most effective technologies and techniques. Once we had rounded him up and gotten rid of his government, then the question is what do you put in its place? You know, you then have accepted the responsibility for governing Iraq."
-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney 1992

[fistor!@#]

Hindsight's 20/20, but I disagree. Yes, he was a prick, but I think it was pretty damned irresponsible to go in with guns blazing with no concrete proof that he had WMDs. I am glad he's dead, but I'm not sure it was worth 4,124 American and 314 foreign lives (to this point).

I don't think Bush lied in order to start the war but he sure bungled it since the cease fire was detracted.

Do you believe there were WMD's, and that they were relocated?

[fistor!@#]

3,000. Why?

Oh, I was just curious since there has been 4,124 US soldiers killed and numerous more injured. So, I was wondering at what cost is this still beneficial.

Hey! Remember this?

"And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq. All of a sudden you've got a battle you're fighting in a major built-up city, a lot of civilians are around, significant limitations on our ability to use our most effective technologies and techniques. Once we had rounded him up and gotten rid of his government, then the question is what do you put in its place? You know, you then have accepted the responsibility for governing Iraq."
-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney 1992

9/11 and Iraq were never related. I don't believe the 4,124 American lives lost in Iraq were in any way lost to avenge 9/11.

Sadly, I'm not sure why they were lost.

[Biff]

Do you believe there were WMD's, and that they were relocated?

Absolutely. One day that may be proved but I'm not holding my breath (especially given the current administration's ineptitude).

[ratrad]

Oh, I was just curious since there has been 4,124 US soldiers killed and numerous more injured. So, I was wondering at what cost is this still beneficial.

Hey! Remember this?

"And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq. All of a sudden you've got a battle you're fighting in a major built-up city, a lot of civilians are around, significant limitations on our ability to use our most effective technologies and techniques. Once we had rounded him up and gotten rid of his government, then the question is what do you put in its place? You know, you then have accepted the responsibility for governing Iraq."
-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney 1992

9/11 and Iraq were never related. I don't believe the 4,124 American lives lost in Iraq were in any way lost to avenge 9/11.

Sadly, I'm not sure why they were lost.

Thats my point! But we get told over and over that that is why we are there!

[fistor!@#]

Do you believe there were WMD's, and that they were relocated?

Absolutely. One day that may be proved but I'm not holding my breath (especially given the current administration's ineptitude).

Are you referring to nerve gas which Saddam used on his own people, among others, or nuclear missiles/ICMs that would be capable of reaching the US?

If the latter, how do you account for the UN inspectors not finding them?

[fistor!@#]

9/11 and Iraq were never related. I don't believe the 4,124 American lives lost in Iraq were in any way lost to avenge 9/11.

Sadly, I'm not sure why they were lost.

Thats my point! But we get told over and over that that is why we are there!

I know.

I was trying to reinforce your point in my own special effed up way.

[Biff]

Are you referring to nerve gas which Saddam used on his own people, among others, or nuclear missiles/ICMs that would be capable of reaching the US?

If the latter, how do you account for the UN inspectors not finding them?

Probably both.

As to how they weren't found: he had sufficient time to hide/ship them. He denied the UN access for quite some time IIRC.

[fistor!@#]

Are you referring to nerve gas which Saddam used on his own people, among others, or nuclear missiles/ICMs that would be capable of reaching the US?

If the latter, how do you account for the UN inspectors not finding them?

Probably both.

As to how they weren't found: he had sufficient time to hide/ship them. He denied the UN access for quite some time IIRC.

I would think the shipment of massive missiles would get picked up by satellite, don't you? And if it was, we'd have seen it over and over again by now.

[Biff]

I would think the shipment of massive missiles would get picked up by satellite, don't you? And if it was, we'd have seen it over and over again by now.

I was thinking about that and it seems to me that there was a mysterious ship that was being tracked because it was suspected of having "interesting" cargo. The story seemed to die and I don't remember reading anything else about it.

This doesn't change my opinion on it all. Hussein wasn't stupid. He knew about satellite tracking et al.

BTW, the only thing they would have to move were the warheads and elements.

[scooterfanatic]

So Biff, your "proof" is a bunch of quotes from congresspeople who were fed all their information from the Bush administration?

All that proves is that a lot of people THOUGHT he had WMDs, not that he actually had them at the time.

Really? Bill Clinton?

Keep going. I enjoy reading you.

Make no mistake, Saddam did have chemical weapons in the 1990's. What we're talking about is 2003, after the weapons inspectors found nothing, and we still went in.

Bringing up the 90's is avoiding the issue. We invaded Iraq in 2003 because Bush said Saddam had WMDs in 2003. I don't care if every senator and congressperson believed it, the fact is he didn't have WMDs in 2003.

[vsangelchick]

So Biff, your "proof" is a bunch of quotes from congresspeople who were fed all their information from the Bush administration?

All that proves is that a lot of people THOUGHT he had WMDs, not that he actually had them at the time.

Your latest argument is now that many democratic congresspeople ate everything the republicans were feeding them without putting up an argument? Are they not smart enough to do their own research and come to their own conclusions? I hate the "they were fed misleading info" argument. I'm marrying a Veteran of the currant War in Iraq. Talk to him, it's not what they say it is....he gets pissed watching the news "report" on the war.

[scooterfanatic]

So Biff, your "proof" is a bunch of quotes from congresspeople who were fed all their information from the Bush administration?

All that proves is that a lot of people THOUGHT he had WMDs, not that he actually had them at the time.

Your latest argument is now that many democratic congresspeople ate everything the republicans were feeding them without putting up an argument? Are they not smart enough to do their own research and come to their own conclusions? I hate the "they were fed misleading info" argument. I'm marrying a Veteran of the currant War in Iraq. Talk to him, it's not what they say it is....he gets pissed watching the news "report" on the war.

My argument is that a collection of government people (Democrats or not) who thought Saddam had WMDs is not proof that he had WMDs, especially now that they have not been found.

Keep in mind I am not saying he never had WMDs, just that there is no evidence he had them in 2003 when we invaded.

[fistor!@#]

I would think the shipment of massive missiles would get picked up by satellite, don't you? And if it was, we'd have seen it over and over again by now.

I was thinking about that and it seems to me that there was a mysterious ship that was being tracked because it was suspected of having "interesting" cargo. The story seemed to die and I don't remember reading anything else about it.

This doesn't change my opinion on it all. Hussein wasn't stupid. He knew about satellite tracking et al.

BTW, the only thing they would have to move were the warheads and elements.

Have they found missile bodies?

I'd think that we would have heard a hell of a lot more than what we have, if there were even the slightest possibility that this mystery train was shipping WMDs. They surely could've tracked were the train was going and started a search there.

I think believing Saddam shipped out WMDs that could've been picked up by satellite, but weren't, is giving the president the benefit of the doubt. I understand you want to do that, whereas I do not.

I'm not saying I'm perfect, either. I firmly believe I was duped. After 9/11, I wanted blood, and stupidly believed that everyone in the Middle East belonged to the same "hate America" club. When Bush said Iraq = bad, I swallowed the hook. I willingly let him talk me into believing Iraq had something to do with 9/11, and didn't start believing I made a mistake until years later. I loved Dubya and craved his warmongering ways. I wanted blood - any Middle Eastern blood would due. I think he willingly redirected the same "kill Obama" sentiment in all of us. And I'm kinda pissed about that.

[ratrad]

I was thinking about that and it seems to me that there was a mysterious ship that was being tracked because it was suspected of having "interesting" cargo. The story seemed to die and I don't remember reading anything else about it.

This doesn't change my opinion on it all. Hussein wasn't stupid. He knew about satellite tracking et al.

BTW, the only thing they would have to move were the warheads and elements.

Have they found missile bodies?

I'd think that we would have heard a hell of a lot more than what we have, if there were even the slightest possibility that this mystery train was shipping WMDs. They surely could've tracked were the train was going and started a search there.

I think believing Saddam shipped out WMDs that could've been picked up by satellite, but weren't, is giving the president the benefit of the doubt. I understand you want to do that, whereas I do not.

I'm not saying I'm perfect, either. I firmly believe I was duped. After 9/11, I wanted blood, and stupidly believed that everyone in the Middle East belonged to the same "hate America" club. When Bush said Iraq = bad, I swallowed the hook. I willingly let him talk me into believing Iraq had something to do with 9/11, and didn't start believing I made a mistake until years later. I loved Dubya and craved his warmongering ways. I wanted blood - any Middle Eastern blood would due. I think he willingly redirected the same "kill Obama" sentiment in all of us. And I'm kinda pissed about that.

ME TOO!! I voted for that dude! Did you mean "Kill OSama"?

[jaydethespaz]

Hate the war ? Okay, that's your right.

Hate the administration that perpetuates the war ? Okay that's your right too.

But for F's sake man, do not talk shit about the soldiers okay ?

Thanks.

(my nephew is one of the guys who is defending your freedom )

Yea my uncle just got back. I really think that the war is stupid, but no one has the right to rip on the people that do go over there and either get really F-ed up or die while people here sit on their couch and bitch about it. If anyone rips on someone like that, they can all go to hell!

I exalt you man!

[scooterfanatic]

So far all the arguments I've seen for Saddam having WMDs in 2003 were "oh well there was this mystery train X" or "there was this mystery boat Y" or "well Saddam was a bad guy so of course he had them!" All these are are hunches, guesses, and dare I say wishful thinking.

I don't believe in sending people to war over hunches, guesses, and wishful thinking. The facts for the justification of the Iraq War were cobbled-together at best. Now, we're there, regardless of the reasons, and it seems we're stuck.

John McCain does have a point when he says that we're there now, and pulling out immediately has the potential to cause more harm and more terrorism. The fact is though that he, nor any other neocon, has defined what the goals are in Iraq other than some vague concepts.

I'll support us staying in Iraq for a few more years if someone has a good, specific, effective plan of stabilizing Iraq. Maybe not a "time-table" but a "task-table." No one has put forth a plan and said "this is what needs to be done in Iraq, once these tasks are accomplished, we no longer need to be there." I just don't see that with John McCain. The other parties just want to pull us out immediately, which could cause more harm than good. I don't see a commitment from John McCain to stop this foolhardy cowboy mentality when it comes to foreign policy, either. And quite frankly, I don't see it from Barack Obama. What good is an effective strategy to stabilize a region after messing it up on bad information if we keep making that initial mistake? Remember, it was the Democrats who got us into Vietnam.

Meanwhile, we managed to avoid war with the Soviet Union for almost half a century for Christ's sake! We stood fast against a hostile nation with a nuclear arsenal ready to wipe us off the map at a moments notice! They were a FAR greater threat than Saddam and his 1950's technology was. Yet, in that case, we chose diplomacy. Now we're quivering in our boots over some goat herders with a few grenades and some old Toyotas? Is it because we're only willing to go to war with nations that are far weaker militarily than us?

How exactly do we "win" this war on terror anyway? Bombing people just makes them more resolved to fight against us. Terrorism is a terrible thing, but you are still far more likely to die in a car crash than a terrorist attack. Safety is an illusion. No government, no army, no piece of technology can ever, EVER make us safe.

[scooterfanatic]

Hate the war ? Okay, that's your right.

Hate the administration that perpetuates the war ? Okay that's your right too.

But for F's sake man, do not talk shit about the soldiers okay ?

Thanks.

(my nephew is one of the guys who is defending your freedom )

Yea my uncle just got back. I really think that the war is stupid, but no one has the right to rip on the people that do go over there and either get really F-ed up or die while people here sit on their couch and bitch about it. If anyone rips on someone like that, they can all go to hell!

I exalt you man!

See I knew this would happen. I knew people would just read the title and a few choice sentences and totally miss the point of what I was saying. I knew they'd do that because that's what they wanted to think in the first place.

Saying that the troops aren't fighting for my freedom in this one instance does not mean that I hate the troops or even what they actually are doing in Iraq. It does not mean that I don't think they are even doing good things over in Iraq and it does not mean that I don't applaud them for doing that. I love the troops just as much as anybody else. I just love them for what they actually are doing. Soldiers protect my freedom in general by being ready and willing to fight against actual threats to it, but saying that they are fighting in Iraq for my freedom is like saying they are warding tigers away from my house. I'm not threatened by Tigers in the first place, and Iraq was not threatening my freedom in 2003.

Osama Bin Laden is the one who threatens my freedom, and he is the one that needs to be focused on. He is the mastermind of 9/11, so why is he not a "priority" to Mr. Bush?

[fistor!@#]

Have they found missile bodies?

I'd think that we would have heard a hell of a lot more than what we have, if there were even the slightest possibility that this mystery train was shipping WMDs. They surely could've tracked were the train was going and started a search there.

I think believing Saddam shipped out WMDs that could've been picked up by satellite, but weren't, is giving the president the benefit of the doubt. I understand you want to do that, whereas I do not.

I'm not saying I'm perfect, either. I firmly believe I was duped. After 9/11, I wanted blood, and stupidly believed that everyone in the Middle East belonged to the same "hate America" club. When Bush said Iraq = bad, I swallowed the hook. I willingly let him talk me into believing Iraq had something to do with 9/11, and didn't start believing I made a mistake until years later. I loved Dubya and craved his warmongering ways. I wanted blood - any Middle Eastern blood would due. I think he willingly redirected the same "kill Obama" sentiment in all of us. And I'm kinda pissed about that.

ME TOO!! I voted for that dude! Did you mean "Kill OSama"?

Heh....whoops.

[fistor!@#]

Yea my uncle just got back. I really think that the war is stupid, but no one has the right to rip on the people that do go over there and either get really F-ed up or die while people here sit on their couch and bitch about it.

K.

No one here did that, in case you were wondering.

[fistor!@#]

Yea my uncle just got back. I really think that the war is stupid, but no one has the right to rip on the people that do go over there and either get really F-ed up or die while people here sit on their couch and bitch about it. If anyone rips on someone like that, they can all go to hell!

I exalt you man!

See I knew this would happen. I knew people would just read the title and a few choice sentences and totally miss the point of what I was saying. I knew they'd do that because that's what they wanted to think in the first place.

Saying that the troops aren't fighting for my freedom in this one instance does not mean that I hate the troops or even what they actually are doing in Iraq. It does not mean that I don't think they are even doing good things over in Iraq and it does not mean that I don't applaud them for doing that. I love the troops just as much as anybody else. I just love them for what they actually are doing. Soldiers protect my freedom in general by being ready and willing to fight against actual threats to it, but saying that they are fighting in Iraq for my freedom is like saying they are warding tigers away from my house. I'm not threatened by Tigers in the first place, and Iraq was not threatening my freedom in 2003.

Osama Bin Laden is the one who threatens my freedom, and he is the one that needs to be focused on. He is the mastermind of 9/11, so why is he not a "priority" to Mr. Bush?

A few of us actually understand what you're saying, for what it's worth. I agree with everything you've said in this post.

Shame some people aren't willing to engage in a civilized discussion without the desire to be insulted getting in the way.

[Mad Dog]

Apparently your a blind idiot with no life experience

You go ahead and believe that.

If you would like too change my mind then quit being such an idiot and quit telling me I am naive. Obviously I'm not the only person on this board that thinks that the United States of America did the right thing in taking out Hussein. With or without WMD's.

You need too wake up too the fact that their are certain people in the world that would love to see America go extinct, and I, for one am against that happening. You cannot reason with people like that you can only keep on killing them until the fight is out of the whole lot.

That is exactly why we have a military that needs too be number one in the world, too break and kill those who would do the same likewise.

[fistor!@#]

You go ahead and believe that.

If you would like too change my mind then quit being such an idiot and quit telling me I am naive. Obviously I'm not the only person on this board that thinks that the United States of America did the right thing in taking out Hussein. With or without WMD's.

You need too wake up too the fact that their are certain people in the world that would love to see America go extinct, and I, for one am against that happening. You cannot reason with people like that you can only keep on killing them until the fight is out of the whole lot.

That is exactly why we have a military that needs too be number one in the world, too break and kill those who would do the same likewise.

This would be pretty much the exact wrong way to handle it, in my opinion. To radical muslims, being martyred is the ultimate achievement in life. They do not fear death, they embrace it. You aren't going to scare them into submission by killing some of them off, you'll only empower them.

Also, it looks to me as if you're associating 9/11 with Iraq, and as we all know, the two are exclusive of each other.

[scooterfanatic]

That is exactly why we have a military that needs too be number one in the world, too break and kill those who would do the same likewise.

I don't think our military is number one in the world. I think they're very good and very well-trained, but I think if we ended up in a war with China for example, there is a very real possibility of them cleaning our clocks. It's good to have pride in your armed forces, but as the Bible says "pride is before a crash." We've had our victories and our humiliations. It's important to avoid not just underestimating the enemy, but overestimating our ability as well.

I see our armed forces as beeing tooled and trained (for the most part) to fight regimented enemies, the formal armies of other nations. We won the American Revolution against a military power with far greater training, tactics, and overall fire power using guerilla tactics. There is hardly any defense against a roadside bomb or people shooting at you from deep cover. Going up against that is why it takes a hell of a lot of guts to be a soldier.

Like I said, be proud of your soldiers, just don't delude yourself into thinking they're invincible.

[ratrad]

You go ahead and believe that.

If you would like too change my mind then quit being such an idiot and quit telling me I am naive. Obviously I'm not the only person on this board that thinks that the United States of America did the right thing in taking out Hussein. With or without WMD's.

You need too wake up too the fact that their are certain people in the world that would love to see America go extinct, and I, for one am against that happening. You cannot reason with people like that you can only keep on killing them until the fight is out of the whole lot.

That is exactly why we have a military that needs too be number one in the world, too break and kill those who would do the same likewise.

I'm sorry my friend. If you believe everything that you are told by pundits with out doing your own research than you are naive. Sorry.

[Mad Dog]

Sorry Fistor, I've read alot of your posts and you seem too be pretty cool but in this case I disagree. If every radical militant Muslim were too commit suicide in two minutes guess what? There would be NO MORE radical militant Muslims left too strap on suicide bombs, set up IED's or too hijack jet liners etc etc etc too do innocent people harm. If they would like to commit suicide at the business end of an M16 or Abrams tank well bully for them. I've got a better idea. why don't they all just go home, take care of their family's and quit trying too destroy our soldiers and WE ALL would be better off.

Oh and as far as 9/11 having nothing too do with Iraq well sorry again. Don't you remember that just after U.S. forces pushed past Bag-dad that they uncovered and shut down dozens of terrorist training camps and in at least one or more of Saddam's Palaces were murals of the World trade center. Hummmmm I wonder why those were there. 1+1=2 I'm convinced that Saddam probably partied hard for weeks on the news that terrorists were successful in making a blow against the "Great Satan". Sorry Fistor, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one

[Mad Dog]

Ratrad, I do do my own research. Neither one of us can actually go to Iraq or get inside the White House ourselves too get first hand information or get inside of the minds of world leaders too find out 100% truth or lies. We all have sources of information that find more trustworthy or that when we hear it it rings true or false. We are continually get truths, lies, and innuendos from the left and the right.

But I know how I felt when I heard the news that the Iranian Embassy took 104 American hostages. I also know how I felt when I heard the news that a Truck bomb took out almost 400 marines in Lebanon. I recall how utterly pissed off I was when I heard the news that planes had crashed into the Twin Towers and how SOME BASTARD had too PAY!!
And those bastards are and were Saddam Hussein and Osama Binladin. One down one too go.

[flyersfantn]

That is exactly why we have a military that needs too be number one in the world, too break and kill those who would do the same likewise.

I don't think our military is number one in the world. I think they're very good and very well-trained, but I think if we ended up in a war with China for example, there is a very real possibility of them cleaning our clocks. It's good to have pride in your armed forces, but as the Bible says "pride is before a crash." We've had our victories and our humiliations. It's important to avoid not just underestimating the enemy, but overestimating our ability as well.

I see our armed forces as beeing tooled and trained (for the most part) to fight regimented enemies, the formal armies of other nations. We won the American Revolution against a military power with far greater training, tactics, and overall fire power using guerilla tactics. There is hardly any defense against a roadside bomb or people shooting at you from deep cover. Going up against that is why it takes a hell of a lot of guts to be a soldier.

Like I said, be proud of your soldiers, just don't delude yourself into thinking they're invincible.

You're a effing moron.
I'll concede that China might have a formidable ground Army, but a war with them would likely be mostly won in the air, where we have the superiority.

This is the part that pisses me off, when you said that there's no defense for roadside bombs, or counter-insurgent tactics. Who the eff do you think you are? You are a complete effing moron. the defense against roadside bombs is better armor as well as other tools implemented that I cant really discuss, becuase I'm not sure if it's a violation of opsec or not. Also, what do you think we've been doing all this time, sitting there with our thumbs up our asses waiting for terrorists to attack us. No, there has been extensive counter-insurgency training that I've personally taken part of and I can tell you we are much more prepared to fight a guerilla style war than you think.

Why must you make it a habit to talk out of your ass all the time? If you're going to make stupid claims, trying finding a little research to back up your bullshit....oh, right....you can't.

You dont know shit about the military or its tactics, stop trying to talk like you do or I will continue to rip you a new a-hole on a daily basis.

[kaboobie92]

That is exactly why we have a military that needs too be number one in the world, too break and kill those who would do the same likewise.

I don't think our military is number one in the world. I think they're very good and very well-trained, but I think if we ended up in a war with China for example, there is a very real possibility of them cleaning our clocks. It's good to have pride in your armed forces, but as the Bible says "pride is before a crash." We've had our victories and our humiliations. It's important to avoid not just underestimating the enemy, but overestimating our ability as well.

I see our armed forces as beeing tooled and trained (for the most part) to fight regimented enemies, the formal armies of other nations. We won the American Revolution against a military power with far greater training, tactics, and overall fire power using guerilla tactics. There is hardly any defense against a roadside bomb or people shooting at you from deep cover. Going up against that is why it takes a hell of a lot of guts to be a soldier.

Like I said, be proud of your soldiers, just don't delude yourself into thinking they're invincible.

"Be proud of your soldiers".. What the eff? As if they aren't your soldiers too? You obviously don't appreciate the troops, so maybe you should just move somewhere else.

[kaboobie92]

I don't think our military is number one in the world. I think they're very good and very well-trained, but I think if we ended up in a war with China for example, there is a very real possibility of them cleaning our clocks. It's good to have pride in your armed forces, but as the Bible says "pride is before a crash." We've had our victories and our humiliations. It's important to avoid not just underestimating the enemy, but overestimating our ability as well.

I see our armed forces as beeing tooled and trained (for the most part) to fight regimented enemies, the formal armies of other nations. We won the American Revolution against a military power with far greater training, tactics, and overall fire power using guerilla tactics. There is hardly any defense against a roadside bomb or people shooting at you from deep cover. Going up against that is why it takes a hell of a lot of guts to be a soldier.

Like I said, be proud of your soldiers, just don't delude yourself into thinking they're invincible.

You're a effing moron.
I'll concede that China might have a formidable ground Army, but a war with them would likely be mostly won in the air, where we have the superiority.

This is the part that pisses me off, when you said that there's no defense for roadside bombs, or counter-insurgent tactics. Who the eff do you think you are? You are a complete effing moron. the defense against roadside bombs is better armor as well as other tools implemented that I cant really discuss, becuase I'm not sure if it's a violation of opsec or not. Also, what do you think we've been doing all this time, sitting there with our thumbs up our asses waiting for terrorists to attack us. No, there has been extensive counter-insurgency training that I've personally taken part of and I can tell you we are much more prepared to fight a guerilla style war than you think.

Why must you make it a habit to talk out of your ass all the time? If you're going to make stupid claims, trying finding a little research to back up your bullshit....oh, right....you can't.

You dont know shit about the military or its tactics, stop trying to talk like you do or I will continue to rip you a new a-hole on a daily basis.

All i can say is that it is about damn time you found this thread. I agree with you 100%

[kaboobie92]

So Biff, your "proof" is a bunch of quotes from congresspeople who were fed all their information from the Bush administration?

All that proves is that a lot of people THOUGHT he had WMDs, not that he actually had them at the time.

Yes, because i'm sure John Kerry and Bill Clinton found their information from the bush admin.

[Wiener Poopie]

I don't think our military is number one in the world. I think they're very good and very well-trained, but I think if we ended up in a war with China for example, there is a very real possibility of them cleaning our clocks. It's good to have pride in your armed forces, but as the Bible says "pride is before a crash." We've had our victories and our humiliations. It's important to avoid not just underestimating the enemy, but overestimating our ability as well.

I see our armed forces as beeing tooled and trained (for the most part) to fight regimented enemies, the formal armies of other nations. We won the American Revolution against a military power with far greater training, tactics, and overall fire power using guerilla tactics. There is hardly any defense against a roadside bomb or people shooting at you from deep cover. Going up against that is why it takes a hell of a lot of guts to be a soldier.

Like I said, be proud of your soldiers, just don't delude yourself into thinking they're invincible.

You're a effing moron.
I'll concede that China might have a formidable ground Army, but a war with them would likely be mostly won in the air, where we have the superiority.

This is the part that pisses me off, when you said that there's no defense for roadside bombs, or counter-insurgent tactics. Who the eff do you think you are? You are a complete effing moron. the defense against roadside bombs is better armor as well as other tools implemented that I cant really discuss, becuase I'm not sure if it's a violation of opsec or not. Also, what do you think we've been doing all this time, sitting there with our thumbs up our asses waiting for terrorists to attack us. No, there has been extensive counter-insurgency training that I've personally taken part of and I can tell you we are much more prepared to fight a guerilla style war than you think.

Why must you make it a habit to talk out of your ass all the time? If you're going to make stupid claims, trying finding a little research to back up your bullshit....oh, right....you can't.

You dont know shit about the military or its tactics, stop trying to talk like you do or I will continue to rip you a new a-hole on a daily basis.

Hey expert on everything under the sun; the government has added armor to the hummers and roadside bombs still destroy them

[Wiener Poopie]

I don't think our military is number one in the world. I think they're very good and very well-trained, but I think if we ended up in a war with China for example, there is a very real possibility of them cleaning our clocks. It's good to have pride in your armed forces, but as the Bible says "pride is before a crash." We've had our victories and our humiliations. It's important to avoid not just underestimating the enemy, but overestimating our ability as well.

I see our armed forces as beeing tooled and trained (for the most part) to fight regimented enemies, the formal armies of other nations. We won the American Revolution against a military power with far greater training, tactics, and overall fire power using guerilla tactics. There is hardly any defense against a roadside bomb or people shooting at you from deep cover. Going up against that is why it takes a hell of a lot of guts to be a soldier.

Like I said, be proud of your soldiers, just don't delude yourself into thinking they're invincible.

the defense against roadside bombs is better armor as well as other tools implemented that I cant really discuss, becuase I'm not sure if it's a violation of opsec or not.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/apr/24/iraq.world

[scooterfanatic]

I don't think our military is number one in the world. I think they're very good and very well-trained, but I think if we ended up in a war with China for example, there is a very real possibility of them cleaning our clocks. It's good to have pride in your armed forces, but as the Bible says "pride is before a crash." We've had our victories and our humiliations. It's important to avoid not just underestimating the enemy, but overestimating our ability as well.

I see our armed forces as beeing tooled and trained (for the most part) to fight regimented enemies, the formal armies of other nations. We won the American Revolution against a military power with far greater training, tactics, and overall fire power using guerilla tactics. There is hardly any defense against a roadside bomb or people shooting at you from deep cover. Going up against that is why it takes a hell of a lot of guts to be a soldier.

Like I said, be proud of your soldiers, just don't delude yourself into thinking they're invincible.

"Be proud of your soldiers".. What the eff? As if they aren't your soldiers too? You obviously don't appreciate the troops, so maybe you should just move somewhere else.

OH MY GOD LETS NITPICK MINOR GRAMMATICAL DICTION

So I guess If I tell someone they should "support your local sherriff" that means I don't support him and don't consider him my sherriff?

Ass.