and that would be???Originally Posted by The Yousef
and that would be???
EF SQUAD FTMFW!!!!
WRONG where do you think countries like England got their weapons from. And Germany paid its war debts?
theres weapons in england???? LOLOLOLOLOL
rocks dont count
EF SQUAD FTMFW!!!!
the US had a hard time with IRAQ..
The US wont be able to handle Korea... there is going to be a lot of dead soldiers when the time comes.. just imagine against China if it ever happens.
i dont think that the war itself was particularly difficuly, its just the colossal amount of asinine rules and regulations(red tape) that our beloved government operates under that we cannot get anything done efficiently.
if our generals were allowed to make decisions for our military( since they know whats best because they ARE the military) and not have to run it by some paper-pushing ***** ass politician that knows nothing about how the military works, much less what would be the best tactical decision, we might be a bit more effective.
EF SQUAD FTMFW!!!!
I'm sorry Julio but I have to disagree with you on this fully. We absolutely dominated Iraq. The term of shock and Awe is a understatement. There was zero casualties in the overtaking of the country and for you to say we had a hard time with them is just ignorant. Precision guided bombs dropped by stealth fighters and bomber made the overtaking of the country almost to easy. People were able to roam the streets while we dropped bombs on key structures not even harming the building next to it. I guess you have never heard of all the Iraqis that would fight for a short period then would quickly surrender or not fight at all. Iraq had the fourth strongest military when we kicked there asses out of Kuwait.
If we were as weak as you say don't you think we would of had another country come and take over our country? But that will never happen, were feared because of our military strength. The cold war was stopped because of the development of the US military. I could go on proving you wrong but I'll just say go read a history book.
Yes and there also one of our most reliable allies.
You sir are retarded. IED/ RPG's ring a bell? I'd love for you to say that in front of a loved one of a deceased soldier.
Surely the damage inflicted on the IRAQI people (no not the "insurgents") But the ACTUAL PEOPLE is vast...but regardless its straight up ignorant to deny that there were any casualties...
We aren't playing command and conquer, the age of conquest is over.
I want to see what kind of history books you've been reading.
Must be some sort of watered down childrens novel slightly pertaining to war (in terms of fallen candy warriors and twizzler tanks)
I said overtaking the country before all this lets rebuild it diplomatic bs. And yes us investing tons and tons of money into our military has nothing to do with us being a world power. Oh and you got me on that one, nothing but toddler books and below for me.
this is by far the dumbest post I have ever seen on IA.
First of all define dominated? Did the United States achieve its "goal" for lack of a better word. The country invaded Iraq under false pretenses (proven)... And demolished a semi-orderly country into hurricane-katrina like ruins, killed MANY innocent men, women and children in the process. Why? Who knows. There are many motives out there, but this isn't what the thread is about. In the process, the US plunged the national debt even further than before, killed/injured our troops, created even more hostility in the region (everything has a domino effect) but yeah.... Dominated? Hardly. If we dominated, why are we still there? Continuing to lose soldiers. If you're talking about initial contact then whoa that really proves something?
no you said 0 casualties. (verbatim) Sources, plz?
I believe it was:
I do not like green eggs and weapons of mass destruction?
since wars don't require resources.
Yes during the shock and awe campaign. After that of course. War is war and nobody wins no matter the outcome. And as in dominated I mean they put up little resistance. Can you find a source saying we didn't during that time only? I do like debating and I think your views are very good.
I think by dominate we was refering to the fact that our troops were in the capital of the country in the royal palace within 2 weeks with minimal civilian casualties due to the weapons guidance systems. I have a question about the "goal" that the wise George W. Bush has placed on the war on Iraq. WHAT IS IT ? He doesn't even know. That is the reason that we are still there....we don't know what the hell to do next b/c no one knows what the end "goal" really is....Do we set up a democracy for them for certain peoples profits while still sending our country further and further into debt or do we just cut bait and run out and let them figure out what to do for themselves ?....This is also costing many families there sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters (after the initial contact due to haveing our soldiers on the ground and in the line of fire of the extremist) while we sit in idle waiting on our "elected" trained monkey decide what the hell to do all the while he lies directly to the public....exactly what Bill Clinton was "kicked out" for. The only way we are going to be thrown over is if the people of America decide that our government isn't governing to the best intrests of its people...sound familiar...I say if the government keeps the current policies and procedures then we are in a world of hurt due to the government overthrow. I also agree with the idea of giving our generals more power but it would have to be limited due to the example of rebel generals directing there troops to overthrow there government to put themselves into power...enter many examples. I don't know everything but I do have opinions and I hope I don't piss anyone off.
There is was no Domination of Iraq or its military.
First off when the US came everyone in the military said f u c k Sadam, and ran home to defend their families.
What do you think Insurgents are? Terrorists?
How about defenders of their own Country?
There is no other way to strike against the US other than terroristic like tactics. Iraq would never be able to Declare war on the US, why because then the US would not have to follow with all that red tape if another country declared war.
Remember this the US attacked, they found Sadam in no time flat, great, if the Bush family was smart they should of withdrawn as soon as Sadam was captured, but because the Bush family put him in power, then tried to setup a puppet government that didnt work out, and they got really mad at Sadam for not listening to US demands and not letting Iraq become the Middle eastern bastard child satellite country they decide and ago and try to Conquer.
Hasan is right the Age of conquest has passed, but the US is only Some 200+ years old, and it thinks that it can gloat its fat bellied over filled consumeristic idealogy anywhere it sees fit. Vietnam wasnt enough, now they think they can evangelize Corporitarianism to the middle east and expect those people give up the only hopes of them fully industrializing.
If the US really wanted to do some damage to the Middle east they should of put a Mcdonalds, KFC, Taco Bell, and Pizza hut on every desert corner.
Everything else aside and I really hope people agree, the US went way wrong with Iraq, it was a retarded strategy for an attempt at political conquest, the decision to lie to the American People was even worse. We were betrayed as a nation, first the government never gave us justice for 911, then they lied to us saying Iraq is to blame with the WMDs and all, now they continue to throw away American lives and in the process make more enemies then the US could ever wish for.
If all the money that went to Iraq was put into Alternative Resource research, we would of been laughing at every country who was still Dependant on oil.
I know you guys have been hearing the word "Trillion" alot lately but, by 2010, thats what the cost of Iraq will be, that is a little more than 2 years.
rant end.
i dont agree with this entirely. the opportunity for conquest is always there, we as well as most of the world are not actively trying to overtake other countries.
just because it is not happening at this moment, do not rule its possibility out entirely
EF SQUAD FTMFW!!!!
China: is a threat, no matter how you look at it. anyone remember when it blew up one of its own dilapidated satellites with a missile? The now have a very good space program, are orbiting the moon with a satellite probe following Japan. $50 says they'll have something back on the moon before the US does.
India: Believe it or not could be one of our greatest allies should China become an enemy in a war
The age of conquest is always present, look at the political turmoil in Africa. All a nation has to do is seat itself properly in a sub-saharan african country and they got it made
̿' ̿'\̵͇̿̿\з=(•̪●)=ε/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿ ̿
Asians scare me
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
