there arent enough troops to take iran. iran is twice the size of iraq and has twice as many people. they werent laid to waste 16yrs ago and the ruling party has done a very good job of keeping up the country and the military. it would not be possible to win such a war, even with nukes. we would need the help of russia and china to win and that wont happen.
"...I'm a thief, I'm a liar, There's my church, I sing in the choir..."
Umm... ya, I completely disagree with you in pretty much every statement you said aside from the size of Iran... It wouldn't be possible to "win" (if you want to call it that) a war against Iran if nukes were used? Are you retarded? If a nukes were used, trust me, the war would be over VERY quickly. It will never come to that though, I seriously doubt another nuke will ever be used by the US military. Way too many "innocents" of war dieing.Originally Posted by sebastianHoff
Even without nukes, you dont think this war could be won with simply the US and Israel (yes, they would jump at a chance to take them out)? You seem underestimate Israel and the US...
You are right on, every single human activist group would come out of the woodworks if they had even the slightest feeling that the US would use a nuke. I swear to god, I hate all these pussy ass bastards that always want to protest about something...what happened to the people who believed in their country and govt, instead of whining about it?
If US did decide to take Iran up on their threat, Hyper was right....Israel would jump right in line to help us out, and that would cause a whole shit storm for Iran.
Ya im done lissening to liberal boy, The size of the army dosnt matter in 1991 during the persian gulf war the Iraqis had the 3rd or 4th largest army in the world cant remember(over a million men), but with 550000+ troops we kicked the shit outta them, and at the time our smart bomb technology was no where near as good as it is now, during the first gulf war 10% of all bombs dropped were smart bombs so that speaks for itself. Iran has hardly the amount of weaponry that the Iraqis had, 70 F14 tomcats were sent to Iran before 1979 but those are in complete disrepair b/c they havnt been able to get parts from them and before the US advisors left they sabotaged the aircraft...Yes we could take Iran by ourselves it would just have to be a much longer bombing campaign. For the next 10 years the US probably wont be engaged in another major war. We may be involved in small policing actions like that in Liberia, Bosnia, Kosovo where some military force is required but nothing like a full scale war.
9 times outta 10, we will go into some type of war w/ Iran eventually. With the way that they run things, it's going to be inevitable. The same thing goes w/ N.Korea. It's unfortunate that we'll have to waste money on something so worthless but... that explains why we spend THE MOST money than all other nations combined.
AIM: briang1084
1997 Mitsubishi Eclipse GS-T (Back in action...)
2001 Acura 3.2 CL (Soon to be retired....)
Owner - Essence Technology - Computers & More...
Bush sucks Dick!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i dont think that right now the US can afford to go to war with another country. Look at how numbers of enlistments have dropped since the war in iraq has been going on. I think if they went into another war, enlistments would drop even more and they would have to reinstitute the draft.
Chances are if we went to "war" with Iran, it wouldn't be a full out assault like we did on Iraq. It'd be mostly an air campaign, taking out there Air defense, then going after there suspected "nuclear" facilitys.. Atleast thats how I see it. No need to waste the lives of American soldiers when you can simply take out there air defenses and bomb them at will all you want.
yeah but then what? take out their defenses, take out their suspected nuclear capabilities, then just up and leave? we didn't do that for a shitty country like iraq (for which we're STILL bogged down in), what makes you think that we'll just up and leave and bombing them to kingdom come?
there current threat is the nuclear program... we destroy there facilities and let them know that if they keep pressing the issues we'll destroy rest of Iran.. lmao... hell if i know. i'm a mechanic, not a politician = P
honestly, we MIGHT be lucky in the sense that even if war with iran is inevitable, it might be after bush gets out of office. i say this because currently, it would take another 5-7 yrs or something like that before iran is expected to build a nuclear weapon (yes, that's taking into account their newfound technology to better and more quickly enrich uranium).
but i mean it's sad but true that we're the target of these terrorist attacks because of our foreign policy. i mean why didn't al qaeda go after a european country initially or china? or fuckin zimbabwe? america sticks its neck out too far sometimes and that leaves us vulnerable.
the Liberal/socailist(you know I'm not counting you decient lib folksmotto: "It's better to Die on your knees than Live on your feet." <If you think that's backwords look ata again and think about a sec....roflmao!
Iran has openly expressed hatred for the US as well as the destruction of Israel(Our allies). They have also openly expressed support for Palistine(Currently being run by Hamas---Terrorists)
I foresee use of tactical ballistic missles in neutralizing(sp) Irans Uranium enrichment facilities after years of threats and negotiations from the US as well as Israel and the rest of the UN. If and when we are "forced" to attack Iran will either do the smart thing and back down, or they'll stand and we'll blow the shit out of them. Who the president is at the time won't matter. Republican or Democrat. The only reason liberals are so against the war in Iraq and our foreign policy is because they didn't write it and they aren't in office. Iraq had TWELVE YEARS to dismantle it's chemical weapons(The same weapons Sadaam was using on his people as well as the Kurds(sp) to the south) Sadaam REPEATEDLY denied UN weapons inspectors access to his country to scan for chemical and biological agents. Everyone saying "Bush" went to Iraq for the "oil" is a moron. The funny aspect of the previous statement is that those same people are the ones bitching about rising gas prices(Something Bush has NO CONTROL OVER). The reason the airline industry is doing badly is because TERRORISTS HYJACK(sp) PLANES(something Bush has NO CONTROL OVER). You say we are nowhere close to an alternative for petroleum fuels. Bush enforces stricter regulations on refining these fuels, but then you bitch about the rising gas prices. We have ample oil supplies in Alaska, but tree huggers won't let us drill for it. Hurricane Katrina decimates our gulf coast oil operations. That's somehow Bush's fault? ok...You people are so blinded by your hatred for this man(thinking he is the source of ALL these problems) that it clouds your judgement until EVERYTHING he does is a "stupid" move. You think Bush "lied" about Iraq having WMD's. He was going off info from the UN, not to mention WMD's were one of SIXTEEN COUNTS against Iraq and Sadaam's regime. Bill Clinton flat out LIED TO YOUR FACE ON NATIONAL TV AND NOONE GAVE TWO SHITS!? You tell everyone to pull their heads out of their asses. Maybe it's you who should see the light. World affairs are OUR affairs whether you like it or not. And how someone types has no bearing on this topic. That's a liberal's attempt at changing the subject.
what reason did saddam have for letting un inspectors in? he didn't like us (or other countries) for obvious reasons, his being an ass about it seems very sensible to me, but that still doesn't mean he was hiding wmds. regardless, 1 of 16 counts, who cares? when did those other counts become a personal issue for any of us living here in the US? i mean i'm not trying to sound like a heartless assholes but it's clear that there are plenty of issues in the homeland that need to be addressed, why spend the money and lives of our citizens to rid the world of its wrongs?
the administration has plenty of control over rising gas prices, and while enforcing stricter refining regulations is a GREAT idea, the timing couldn't have been much worse. also, are you saying that the shitty preparation for katrina is in no way the govts fault? cuz that'd be one helluva claim.
i'm not blinded by my hatred for anyone or anything, a long string of facts (and no, i'm not talkin about fahrenheith 9/11) and observations have led me to believe bush is the most retarded president we have ever had. and clinton lying to me in my face? that's a good one. but you know what the difference is? his lie on national tv affected his PERSONAL life, it did not tie in the lives and money of the united states and its hardworking citizens. not to mention anyone with half a brain KNEW he was lying anyway and can even comprehend (key word here) why he lied.
and you're right, how someone types does not have bearing on the TOPIC at hand. but it does have bearing on the character and potentially the intellect of the person typing it, in fact part of the reason i respect what you posted.
now welcome to the boardseven if you're not a cool subject changing liberal (read: sarcasm).
You got it wrong. The countries around Sadaam didn't like him because he was experimenting on his neighboring nations with nerve gases and biological weapons.
As far as Iraq not having WMD's when we invaded; numerous sources reported multiple convoys of heavy axle cargo trucks fleeing Iraq into Syria at the start of the war. Not exactly troop transport, and if it was they were heading in the wrong direction. One of Sadaam's generals appeared on national television not too long ago verifying this. (of course he is lying though(read:Sarcasm)) Sadaam agreed to let UN inspectors enter Iraq so we would end Desert Storm. Peace treaties are a bitch. Clinton lied on national tv, to your face, and under oath. Yes, that is a good one. Clinton selling our information on production nuclear bombs to the Chinese could have a very real effect on your life or the lives of your children in the future. Prepping for Katrina wasn't in my argument. Even still, you can't exactly "pick up" an oil rig(sp) and move it. If Bush's administration could do ANYTHING to bring down gas prices(other than investigating price gouging, which they're doing) then I am all ears. Keep in mind. OIL IS PRODUCED AND SOLD OVER SEAS. WE IMPORT OIL BASED ON HOW MUCH THEY WANT TO SELL IT TO US FOR. Katrina response had much left to be desired I agree with you there. Then again, that was the most destructive natural dissaster(sp) in our nation's history. Noone really knew what to expect and I HIGHLY doubt repsonse would have been any better with Kerry in office. It may have gone smoother if the rescue teams weren't having to dodge gang bullets, but that's another issue. Rescue teams wouldn't have been necessary if everyone would have gotten out in the first place. The bus rides were free(So I've heard from someone in NO) so why they didn't is beyond me.
Thanks for welcoming me to the boards by the way. Glad to be here.
i don't see how i have it wrong? just because the countries around him didn't like him, at what point did it make it our problem and our duty to protect these countries? last i checked most of these countries don't pay taxes to the US? and for the "numerous" sources that said there were mass convoys leaving iraq shortly before the war/invasion, did i just completely miss this story? (please if you can, just give me like 3 sources, that'll be plenty) and as for saddam's former generals speaking out against him on wmds, would it be the first time ever in history that someone else has tried to shift the blame with hopes maybe of gettin their own ass out of the fire? doesn't seem such a shocking idea to me.
clinton lying on national tv, obviously we were on different pgs on that one. regardless, i would find it hard to believe that he's the first president ever to have ever leaked out secrets (or at least had a hand in it). if he is the first and only president to do so, then shame on him, but hey, good thing china doesn't harbor many terrorists eh?
correct, bush is not quite powerful enough to pick up oil rigs (or cities for tha matter) and move them out of katrinas way. however, how can u argue the possibility that if he hadn't blown so much money on defense and the war, there would potentially be at least a little more money to have bolstered the levees around NO? as for its citizens not leaving, i'm not arguing that at all, i personally think as well that its ridiculous ppl stayed behind.
and finally, i'm liberal, i think bush is inept (to put it kindly) but nowhere in any argument have i said kerry would've done better. however, i do not leave out the huge possibility that he would've been the lesser of 2 evils.
It became our problem and duty when Sadaam began funding terrorist factions. As for the convoys and WMD movement, check CNN's website. I would, but I don't feel like it. The Cargo vehicles I heard from my uncle(He's in the marines and saw them with his own eyes. Not how credible you might think that is, but I don't see why he would lie) The Liberal Propaganda machine known as "the news" is probably why you never heard about the guy who spoke out about the WMD movements(It was aired once and only because it was live). China is our ally for now, but things change and shit happens. own the road that could come back to bite us in the ass. As for not having the man power and resources for Katrina rebuild. You can't deny that our taking the war over seas and the lack of terrorist attacks(Zero by my calculations) we've had since 9/11 aren't DIRECTLY related. Furthermore, had the president and joint chiefs known the devastation that would be left in Katrina's wake, I think they would've sent more people in. Sadly, technology hasn't progressed to the point of predicting the future.(It would be cool though). Bolstering the levee system around NO wouldn't have kept it above sea-level. Maybe Ray Nagen should send some of his campaign contributions that way. Everyone knows NO's is/was the dirtiest, most corrupt city in the country(especially after the literal shit-bath it just took. I'm still having trouble figuring out why the hell we are rebuilding it.
I'm going to end on this. Since Bush is "inept" and makes stupid mistakes all the time; how should he have handled Katrina and the War on terror? What should he do to prevent rising gas prices? Nothing personal against any of you, but hear alot of bitching and no alternatives.
what became our duty and when at this point boils down to a matter of belief and opinion, we've argued both points and i don't see why one is more valid than the other so i'm going to end that.
as far as the convoys of wmds being moved to syria, i have looked it up and indeed there are some articles stating/speculating when they might have moved and how russia might have helped blah blah blah. my point on that is, if indeed they were moved, why wouldn't the bush administration try to chase down every possible lead to recover them to prove that one of the major points on which he went to war with in the first place was valid, as opposed to just having to concede on national television that he/they were wrong? just doesn't make sense to me why he wouldn't go for the "cool" points on that (especially since we all know that he is in need of more support, not less).
you are right, things can change down the road, but does that mean we need to take an aggressive defense approach to all of our allies? i mean france and germany disagreed pretty wholeheartedly on our decision to go to war...i know likelihood is small, but if you're going to be paranoid about countries turning on you then everyone is a suspect no? (ok fine we'll leave out the british since they've been kissing our ass for a record period of history)
0 terrorist attacks in 9/11 is impressive yes, and i'm sure the war on terror (even though i still don't see how you can declare war on a noun) has had something to do with this. however, i don't see enough direct evidence that it is because we're in a war in afghanistan and iraq. i personally feel that all this homeland security and tsa bullshit aside, we've just been lucky. after all, it's not like other countries haven't been targeted during this time. and still, more than one study has shown just how much exactly is being done at airports and such (and how easily it still is to sneak weapons on board). argue that til your face is blue, it is your prerogative, but that's just how it breaks down for me.
just because you can't predict the future doesn't give an excuse as to the piss poor job of preparing for this storm. you're right, the levees wouldn't have caused NO to NOT be under sea level, but more than 1 expert source have agreed that it would've prevented some MAJOR flooding to some of the surrounding parishes. and dragging nagin (as much of a dumbfuck as he is) into this is rather irrelevant, the same can be asked of why president bush didn't send some of his campaign funds that way (lest you argue that they're not as great as nagin's funds?). as far as NO being dirty and corrupt? dirty i agree, corrupt i agree, but then again, how many politicians aren't corrupt? lest you forget what bush has done for the big businesses and how it just so happens some of these fortune 500 companies happens to donate or have donated in the past to his campaign? and for the record, i don't understand why NO is being rebuilt either.
well, imho, i don't think bush should've declared war on iraq, pure and simple. plenty of people have on here have suggested the best method for dealing with iran is to use airstrikes or whatever, but no physical invasion. i would've done that, along with using economic sanctions to fuck with that country as much and as long as ABSOLUTELY possible before sending in our troops to fight in an urban war for which the army is not suited for anyway. obviously, if we had not committed so much of our resources to a fullout war, it would seem to me (since all this is just hypothetical anyway) that there'd be more funds to go around for other things, oh say disaster preparation and relief?
and gas relief? well at the moment i guess all that can be done is the great gesture of temporarily seizing to add to the strategic reserve (read: no effect whatsoever on the prices at the pump). realistically these new guidelines on cleaner burning fuels could've been eased into effect with a longer range of time, as opposed to the 6 months time (i think) that the refineries have to comply. oh yeah and one more thing, do you know how much diesel/oil it takes to run ONE abrams m1 tank for ONE day? or hell maybe toss in a couple of bradley fighting vehicles, a few hummers, convoy trucks, helicopters......i think you get the drift
Sadaam was harboring terrorists. That doesn't mean every Iraqi(sp) citizen is a terrorist. Carpet bombing for as long as possible would result in record civilian cazualties not to mention even worse publicity. The same goes for Iran. Last I checked, an M1 requires 55 gals just to crank or something ungodly like that, let alone stay running. The fact of the matter is, THEY ATTACKED US. The war on terror is a hypothetical term. "declaring war on terrorist factions and the nations that harbor them" is more accurate. We didn't chase down the fleeing WMD's because we wouldn't be able to link them back to Sadaam and his gang. Russia provides close to all arms being used in the Middle East conflicts on the insurgency side. What country over there is going to turn down free WMDs? Entering another country without permission could be misconstrued(sp) as an act of war. Wars faught on multiple fronts are strategically unsound and even harder to conduct. Look at WWII and Germany. The strategic reserve isn't going to effect pump prices, but it's still gas and it's all we can do for now. If we pulled out of Iraq without completing our mission(Which was/is freeing the Iraqi people, establishing a national government, and granting them a means to defend themselves) all lose faith. Throwing the Iraqi people to the wolves isn't going to end this conflict. In-fact, it could very well worsen it. Abandoning Iraq now would cause the Iraqi people to lose faith. That produces another enemy for the US. Iraq is also the front for this war. Fighting over there keeps the fighting from coming over here. IMHO I think we were too soft. You bring a good point to the table as to why Bush couldn't donate funds. I'm not sure I can answer that. As for luck being the deciding factor on the halt of terrorist attacks on US soil. I wonder how we caught that guy at GATech? Airport security could be tighter. Liberals arguing for the rights of terrorists doesn't help that situation at all though. There are those that say we should protect ourselves and our allies at any and all costs. There are also those that say we should do it in the realm of legality so as to retain the values and freedoms our nation was founded on. My problem with that is that we are fighting a guerilla war with open war concepts. Make no mistake. we are going through the crucible. I only wonder if we will still be here when it's over.what became our duty and when at this point boils down to a matter of belief and opinion, we've argued both points and i don't see why one is more valid than the other so i'm going to end that.
as far as the convoys of wmds being moved to syria, i have looked it up and indeed there are some articles stating/speculating when they might have moved and how russia might have helped blah blah blah. my point on that is, if indeed they were moved, why wouldn't the bush administration try to chase down every possible lead to recover them to prove that one of the major points on which he went to war with in the first place was valid, as opposed to just having to concede on national television that he/they were wrong? just doesn't make sense to me why he wouldn't go for the "cool" points on that (especially since we all know that he is in need of more support, not less).
you are right, things can change down the road, but does that mean we need to take an aggressive defense approach to all of our allies? i mean france and germany disagreed pretty wholeheartedly on our decision to go to war...i know likelihood is small, but if you're going to be paranoid about countries turning on you then everyone is a suspect no? (ok fine we'll leave out the british since they've been kissing our ass for a record period of history)
0 terrorist attacks in 9/11 is impressive yes, and i'm sure the war on terror (even though i still don't see how you can declare war on a noun) has had something to do with this. however, i don't see enough direct evidence that it is because we're in a war in afghanistan and iraq. i personally feel that all this homeland security and tsa bullshit aside, we've just been lucky. after all, it's not like other countries haven't been targeted during this time. and still, more than one study has shown just how much exactly is being done at airports and such (and how easily it still is to sneak weapons on board). argue that til your face is blue, it is your prerogative, but that's just how it breaks down for me.
just because you can't predict the future doesn't give an excuse as to the piss poor job of preparing for this storm. you're right, the levees wouldn't have caused NO to NOT be under sea level, but more than 1 expert source have agreed that it would've prevented some MAJOR flooding to some of the surrounding parishes. and dragging nagin (as much of a dumbfuck as he is) into this is rather irrelevant, the same can be asked of why president bush didn't send some of his campaign funds that way (lest you argue that they're not as great as nagin's funds?). as far as NO being dirty and corrupt? dirty i agree, corrupt i agree, but then again, how many politicians aren't corrupt? lest you forget what bush has done for the big businesses and how it just so happens some of these fortune 500 companies happens to donate or have donated in the past to his campaign? and for the record, i don't understand why NO is being rebuilt either.
well, imho, i don't think bush should've declared war on iraq, pure and simple. plenty of people have on here have suggested the best method for dealing with iran is to use airstrikes or whatever, but no physical invasion. i would've done that, along with using economic sanctions to fuck with that country as much and as long as ABSOLUTELY possible before sending in our troops to fight in an urban war for which the army is not suited for anyway. obviously, if we had not committed so much of our resources to a fullout war, it would seem to me (since all this is just hypothetical anyway) that there'd be more funds to go around for other things, oh say disaster preparation and relief?
and gas relief? well at the moment i guess all that can be done is the great gesture of temporarily seizing to add to the strategic reserve (read: no effect whatsoever on the prices at the pump). realistically these new guidelines on cleaner burning fuels could've been eased into effect with a longer range of time, as opposed to the 6 months time (i think) that the refineries have to comply. oh yeah and one more thing, do you know how much diesel/oil it takes to run ONE abrams m1 tank for ONE day? or hell maybe toss in a couple of bradley fighting vehicles, a few hummers, convoy trucks, helicopters......i think you get the drift
For those of you who keep saying it's not our place to "police the world", the US isn't policing the world, it is simply protecting the US and our intrests. If we were policing the world, we'd take more action in all this crazy shit goin' on in Africa. But no, they aren't truely threatening US, so we don't put as much emphasis on them. But if you think an Iran with nuclear weapons isn't a threat to America/Israel/England, then your just flat out in denial.
and ignorant
well first off, africa is a lost cause, and i think just about every developed nation out there knows it.
now onto the US policing the world, u can argue all day we're only "protecting" our interests but seriously, if u look at it like that then our interest is the whole world (except africa once again, and maybe antarctica too), and of course we're goin to get involved in everything.
i'm not saying iran is not a threat, but for once u would think we could just let some of the european countries handle it? i mean if they are inept (which they proved to be in ww2), then we can jump in and help, but there's no point in always pre-emptively goin ou there and flexing our muscles (at the expense of our citizens lives and $$$).
Thank you, finally someone see's whats going on in the world. Yes, Iran might be a threat to the US, but thats years from now and I dont doubt that. All im saying is that why is it our job or duty to go out to the rest of the world and tell them what they can and can't do. Isreal has nuclear weapons and no one is pissed at them, as well as India and Pakistan. And what about North Korea and China, ever thought of them seeing they already have nuclear weapons and increadible armies. I mean you could probably go and find something wrong with every country in the world but thats no reason to go and stick our nose in the middle of it. Our country has made too many miltary mistakes in the past and we need start thinking and planning things better or else we are going to run into a world war in which we shouldnt have been near in the first place.
1991 Black Accord Coupe
Neuspeed Race Lowering Springs
KYB AGX Adjustables
Progress Technology Camber Kit
17" Motegi DP6 with Bridgestone Potenzas
http://www.cardomain.com/id/sthrnba711
Isreal's not going to shoot them at us!!! China has little/no reason to use them on US! No one said N.Korea having Nukes was a good idea either!
Don't sit here and try and justify wrong doing with other wrong doing. that's foolish
Im not trying to justify anything. All im trying to say is why is it our responsilbilty to say who can and can't have nukes. I know Isreal is not going to use them on us but China has always had bad blood for the US and is helping Iran and just becames Irans largest country that they export oil to. And North Korea is run by a crazy man who would probably love a war. The Isreal situation has been going on since the beginning of time and will never end till world war and then its going to be a big area of nothing cause of complete distruction using nuclear weapons.
1991 Black Accord Coupe
Neuspeed Race Lowering Springs
KYB AGX Adjustables
Progress Technology Camber Kit
17" Motegi DP6 with Bridgestone Potenzas
http://www.cardomain.com/id/sthrnba711
Anyone who believes that Iran is years and years away from nuclear bombs is either nieve, or retarted. The US gov't keeps alot from the people but in the intrest of our safety. WMD in iraq...they were discovered. My sgt's have pics of them takin tank after tank filled with mustard gas from buildins in the box. There's a reason the UN was denied access to so many places.
And bout all the other countries...there are many troops freezin their ass off controlin the DMZ. China? We have troops on the border. Africa...yalls lost cause, we have troops all thru Africa.
And this reasonin one of yall used that we should let Irans nuclear progam get to where they'll come out and say "we're gonna bomb you know because we have enough to blow yu into oblivion"...real smart. Cut the problem off at the knees. Im not lettin the kids I'll one day have be the aftermath of a nuc attack. But of course, that's why I enlisted.
If you ain't Cav, you ain't shit!
i believe myself to be neither naive nor retarded so i'm going to have to disagree with you on your opening statement. unless the IAEA and the UN is trying to lie to us (not saying they wouldn't, but someone would have to give me a really good reason why they would about this), iran, even with new uranium enrichment technology, is at least a few yrs away from being able to build a real bomb (key word real, i'm sure they already have enough or will soon have enough for a dirty bomb).
that's why action is needed now! a country sitting on 1 of the biggest known oil deposits dosen't need Nuclear power for their 3 TV's and 53 radios.
Amhadenajad or however you say his name has openly declared multiple times that he wishes the destruction of Israel as well as the US. Under no circumstances whatsoever should he be allowed to build, experiment, or even think about having a nuclear program. Primary reason is that the bastards are crazy enough to use it. He beds with terrorists. Simple as that.
^exactally^ what more do people want?
absoludely, if you think todays Army isn't able to fight in an urban enviornment, you are wrong. We train many times weekly for urban enviornments. Room clearin and dismounted movement is part of the Army's trainin. We train for any enviornment.
If you ain't Cav, you ain't shit!
mitsu, u obviously didn't understand what i was goin for. i did not say today's army is incapable of fighting in urban environments, but if i give u the option of fighting a real war on a battlefield, where u know exactly who ur enemies are, or to fight in a city where u have no idea if the kid walkin down the street is a suicide bomber, or if the next car that stops at the checkpoint has in ied, what would u honestly prefer? my point was that it's a shitty thing to make our army have to fight this type of a war.
your right, I was not understandin whst you wrote. However, the days of seein your enemy are over. The world realizes the US's military power and see that gaurilla tactics are what works. At the beginin of the war, they were dressed in uniforms or wore colors as identification, but they abandoned that as soon as they saw how they had no power to stand toe to toe with us.
If you ain't Cav, you ain't shit!
absolutely, but you still did not respond as to which you would prefer if were given the choice. i never once stated you didn't train for it and wouldn't be able to deal with it, just that it's obviously more difficult and results in more casualties then you would otherwise sustain, am i wrong?
ya'll write way to much shit in your posts
and as well as they should investigate. to me though part of what pisses me off is the fact that bush's administration has been giving nothing but one break after another to all big companies, not just the oil ones, and it's hurt our economy (there's plenty of facts out there to prove this). i just hope it's not another one of those investigations that turn up no real results/solutions and just becomes another waste of taxpayers money.
you're right, africa is just fuckin themselves right now and every developed nation out there knows it's potential suicide to send in real help and real troops.
and i can't agree more with your notion that liberating iraq was not a primary objective, that's what makes this invasion in my mind so ludicrous and unnecessary. in fact i don't think in this case, the ends can ever justify the means.
It's kind of like we went in and busted everything up. Now we are obligated to help out with the reconstruction. Hmm. I relapse...
yes, i'd rather have a war where they all line up, and we smart bomb the piss outta them, but that aint gonna happen. I'm almost sure nobody will go back to that kind of war after seein the way the attacks on US troops in iraq have been successful. Sucks, but its true. And yes, we still have soldiers in Afgan
If you ain't Cav, you ain't shit!
7 pages of bullshit and I can count the smart posters in this thread in one hand.
sad..sad...sad.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
(lol)