Killing 170 Servicemen

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Dustin wrote:
It looks like our military is committing “acts of war” as well.

I would suggest enlisting before the draft occurs. That way you can pick a job instead of being drafted as bullet catcher.
Dustin

I’ve said this before and gotten flamed, why I’ll never know. Who wants to sit in some cubicle all day, when you could be out hunting down evil? If I wasn’t too damn old (and asthmatic besides), it’d definitely be a choice for me. You young guys are seriously missing out, if you don’t enlist. Defending the most moral, most noble country in the history of this planet is AN HONOR.

Damn, wish I hadn’t missed my chance.

(Wreckless is now salivating to respond, so go ahead, bugwit.)

[/quote]

I’ll ignore your cough and your age.

But please, enlighten me. Since Iraq was not a threat to the US in the first place, how do you get to “Defending the most moral, most noble country in the history of this planet is AN HONOR.”

Where’s the morality? Where’s the nobility? Where’s the defending. If anything, this war is an agressive war, not a defensive war.
And please, don’t give me that crap abouw how you were attacked first. Everybody know Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. And a forgotten cache of stale chemicals is not proof of wmd either.

Also, you didn’t answer my points in a previous post.

So if the military really took over, they wouldn’t take over from Al Gore or Hillary, they would be taking over from Bush and Cheney, wouldn’t they?

and

After nearly 7 years of Bush pretending to lead the US, you find yourself in a mess and you blame the dems. tss, tss, tss.

So how about you try to answer some pertinent questions instead of daydreaming what could have been.

[quote]Dustin wrote:
Varqanir wrote:

Funny how very simple techniques, like indenting a piece of explosive to focus the energy (which is all you have to do to make a “shaped charge”), are given a kind of mystique though the use of these dumb acronyms.

That’s so typical of the Army/military: to take a simple word or phrase and make it difficult to remember by referring to said word or phrase as an acronym.

Shaped charge is not hard to say, or remember.

Dustin[/quote]

Oh really? Try reading it out loud.

Shaped charge.

Then repeat a couple of times.

Quicker.

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Dustin wrote:

Shaped charge is not hard to say, or remember.

Oh really? Try reading it out loud.

Shaped charge.

Then repeat a couple of times.

Quicker.[/quote]

That’s nothing. Try “toy boat” and “purple pickle.”

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I miss the good old days…if some country, like Iran, killed American soldiers, we’d be blasting the bastards.[/quote]

Provided our helicopters didn’t crash.

[quote]Wreckless wrote:

I’ll ignore your cough and your age.

But please, enlighten me. Since Iraq was not a threat to the US in the first place, how do you get to “Defending the most moral, most noble country in the history of this planet is AN HONOR.”

Where’s the morality? Where’s the nobility? Where’s the defending. If anything, this war is an agressive war, not a defensive war.
And please, don’t give me that crap abouw how you were attacked first. Everybody know Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. And a forgotten cache of stale chemicals is not proof of wmd either.

Also, you didn’t answer my points in a previous post.

So if the military really took over, they wouldn’t take over from Al Gore or Hillary, they would be taking over from Bush and Cheney, wouldn’t they?

and

After nearly 7 years of Bush pretending to lead the US, you find yourself in a mess and you blame the dems. tss, tss, tss.

So how about you try to answer some pertinent questions instead of daydreaming what could have been.[/quote]

Didn’t you get the memo? The libs prevented Bush and company from actually winning. Why do you think Rummy went in there with so few troops? To keep the soccer moms and the Kennedy-lovers happy. We Republicans have said all along that not enough troops were put there. The Republicans let the libs dictate policy…and it was a disaster.
Can you imagine Iraq if we had 500,000 troops there and had flattened every pesthole (as in Nazi Germany)? Bush made the libs happy, now they bitch about HIS fuckup—which was actually in him listening to them.

I’ve said this several times before. Pas auf!!

Now you answer a question: How likely is a nation likely to survive if they run and hide at the first hint of danger? How long did France survive by hiding behind the Maginot Line?

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

Didn’t you get the memo? The libs prevented Bush and company from actually winning. Why do you think Rummy went in there with so few troops? To keep the
[/quote]

Really?

Since it was called Rumsfeld doctrine I was under the impression, you know, like the Monroe doctrine…

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

Can you imagine Iraq if we had 500,000 troops there and had flattened every pesthole (as in Nazi Germany)? Bush made the libs happy, now they bitch about HIS fuckup—which was actually in him listening to them.

[/quote]

Still wouldn’t be enough. How many troops did the Nazis have in Yugoslavia?

This war has to be fought and won by the Iraqis.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Wreckless wrote:

I’ll ignore your cough and your age.

But please, enlighten me. Since Iraq was not a threat to the US in the first place, how do you get to “Defending the most moral, most noble country in the history of this planet is AN HONOR.”

Where’s the morality? Where’s the nobility? Where’s the defending. If anything, this war is an agressive war, not a defensive war.
And please, don’t give me that crap abouw how you were attacked first. Everybody know Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. And a forgotten cache of stale chemicals is not proof of wmd either.

Also, you didn’t answer my points in a previous post.

So if the military really took over, they wouldn’t take over from Al Gore or Hillary, they would be taking over from Bush and Cheney, wouldn’t they?

and

After nearly 7 years of Bush pretending to lead the US, you find yourself in a mess and you blame the dems. tss, tss, tss.

So how about you try to answer some pertinent questions instead of daydreaming what could have been.

Didn’t you get the memo? The libs prevented Bush and company from actually winning. Why do you think Rummy went in there with so few troops? To keep the soccer moms and the Kennedy-lovers happy. We Republicans have said all along that not enough troops were put there. The Republicans let the libs dictate policy…and it was a disaster.
Can you imagine Iraq if we had 500,000 troops there and had flattened every pesthole (as in Nazi Germany)? Bush made the libs happy, now they bitch about HIS fuckup—which was actually in him listening to them.

I’ve said this several times before. Pas auf!!

Now you answer a question: How likely is a nation likely to survive if they run and hide at the first hint of danger? How long did France survive by hiding behind the Maginot Line?

[/quote]

The libs had nothing to do with the number of troops sent into Iraq. Rumsfeld advocated the low number, Bush agreed with him.

Quit blaming the dems for the neo-cons colossal fuckup.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Dustin wrote:
It looks like our military is committing “acts of war” as well.

I would suggest enlisting before the draft occurs. That way you can pick a job instead of being drafted as bullet catcher.
Dustin

I’ve said this before and gotten flamed, why I’ll never know. Who wants to sit in some cubicle all day, when you could be out hunting down evil? If I wasn’t too damn old (and asthmatic besides), it’d definitely be a choice for me. You young guys are seriously missing out, if you don’t enlist. Defending the most moral, most noble country in the history of this planet is AN HONOR.

Damn, wish I hadn’t missed my chance.

(Wreckless is now salivating to respond, so go ahead, bugwit.)

[/quote]

You missed the part about being shot at, being in mortal danger, on the very good chance that you get injured, you get to come back to subpar post-combat recovery. so on and so forth.

And last I checked we are invading other countries, a far cry from defending anything.

[quote]derek wrote:
Dustin wrote:
Convenient you ignored the other article.

Just because I thought one article you linked to was moronic does not mean I ignored the other. But whatever.

[/quote]

I apologize then. What did you think of the other article?

Dustin

[quote]Ren wrote:

You missed the part about being shot at, being in mortal danger, on the very good chance that you get injured, you get to come back to subpar post-combat recovery. so on and so forth.

And last I checked we are invading other countries, a far cry from defending anything.[/quote]

Careful! You’ll probably get flamed for saying such honest things.

Dustin

[quote]Dustin wrote:
derek wrote:
Dustin wrote:
Convenient you ignored the other article.

Just because I thought one article you linked to was moronic does not mean I ignored the other. But whatever.

I apologize then. What did you think of the other article?

Dustin[/quote]

“Creating divisions amongst the different sectarian, religious, and ethno-cultural groups of the Middle East is part of the Anglo-American strategy to balkanize and control the region. The violence in Iraq and the tensions in Lebanon are the direct work of the United States and its partners, which aim to redraw the map of the Middle East in various aspects and ways.”

I don’t know… sounds a bit conspiratorial to me.

Now if there was a MIC, would it advocate something like the Rumsfeld doctrine that needs fewer men and lots and lots of high tech toys?

Because where?s the money really at for defense contractors?

Training grunts or develop the F22 and its amazing technicolor dreamcoat?

[quote]orion wrote:
Now if there was a MIC, would it advocate something like the Rumsfeld doctrine that needs fewer men and lots and lots of high tech toys?

Because where?s the money really at for defense contractors?

Training grunts or develop the F22 and its amazing technicolor dreamcoat?

[/quote]

I think that warfare should quickly evolve from troops on the ground to unmanned machines in the air.

[quote]derek wrote:
I think that warfare should quickly evolve from troops on the ground to unmanned machines in the air.
[/quote]

Something like this?

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
derek wrote:
I think that warfare should quickly evolve from troops on the ground to unmanned machines in the air.

Something like this?[/quote]

More likely, this.

[quote]derek wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
derek wrote:
I think that warfare should quickly evolve from troops on the ground to unmanned machines in the air.

Something like this?

More likely, this.[/quote]

Bah. Killing by remote control has never appealed to me.

Reminds me of that company in Texas, “Live-Shot” where they have a rifle mounted on a tripod with a video camera and electric servos controlled by a user over the internet, and some fatass “mighty hunter” in Iowa could shoot a mouflon sheep or an antelope with a single mouse click, from the comfort of his little swivel chair. Same principle.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
derek wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
derek wrote:
I think that warfare should quickly evolve from troops on the ground to unmanned machines in the air.

Something like this?

More likely, this.

Bah. Killing by remote control has never appealed to me.

Reminds me of that company in Texas, “Live-Shot” where they have a rifle mounted on a tripod with a video camera and electric servos controlled by a user over the internet, and some fatass “mighty hunter” in Iowa could shoot a mouflon sheep or an antelope with a single mouse click, from the comfort of his little swivel chair. Same principle.[/quote]

So fighting a war with unmanned weapons thereby saving many soldier’s lives is like a fat guy who’s too lazy to stalk his harmless prey?

Makes sense.

[quote]derek wrote:

So fighting a war with unmanned weapons thereby saving many soldier’s lives is like a fat guy who’s too lazy to stalk his harmless prey?

Makes sense.
[/quote]

Glad you agree.

[quote]derek wrote:
orion wrote:
Now if there was a MIC, would it advocate something like the Rumsfeld doctrine that needs fewer men and lots and lots of high tech toys?

Because where?s the money really at for defense contractors?

Training grunts or develop the F22 and its amazing technicolor dreamcoat?

I think that warfare should quickly evolve from troops on the ground to unmanned machines in the air.
[/quote]

I have no problem with this because it probably is the most efficient way for the US to fight, but not to occupy.

Because, after having “accomplished the mission”, what then?