U.S. Forces "Incompetent"

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by howmuchisthedoggy
Yes, Japanese Kanji script comes from Chinese script. So they do share that aspect of their language. You were mocking me? Why?


Because it is laughable to say they "share language". The US and England share language, China and Japan do not.



Oh Lordy. Someone explain this to him. Next.


Again, the Taliban formed in the early 90's...Please show me proof that WE backed them, not we backed Pakistan and they in turn backed the Taliban.




Even if you did? I thought a second ago you were pretty sure you didn't? You never took Afghanistan over, duuuuude. Why are they talking of sending troops back if the job hasn't been done yet? Oh wait a second, the US did remember to secure the pipelines and the poppy fields though. Get your priorities straight anyway.


We didn't take it over? Excuse me?

Is that why Afghanistan has US forces all over it which are enforcing their new freely elected government?




Nope. Can't say I have. Is it famous in America? Is it like one of those "send in your money - get a degree" type colleges or one of those frat party type affairs?


Niether... It's more like a "come here and run a fortune 500 company before you turn 40" type of schools.

For those that know of buisiness schools, it is usually considered the best, or at the very least one of the top 5 business schools in the world. It is "famous" not only in America, but the whole world.

Look it up, and see if you can or could get in.



Hooray for you! Pity about the karmic debt, though......


Now I have karmic debt?


As if you know me?

And if you are speaking of the US in general, well, I would opine that the US in it's history has comitted far less "wrongs" then most other nations, seeing as how we are a nation of only 200 years.



Yep, never let the facts get in the way of a good rant.


Show me. Put up the facts. I am not arguing the point, I am just expressing my doubt. Show me the figures.



I'll concede you this excellent point. But I put this back to you. Why are you afraid of nuclear terrorism when no terrorist organisation has ever detonated a nuclear device either? Do you really need to detonate a device to become a nuclear power?


The reasons are two fold.

1) Terrorists would not build the device themselves. They would obtain them from either a middle east nuclear power (Pakistan, Iran if they build them, Iraq had we not invaded and allowed their nuclear program to continue). The other option for them would be on the black market after the collapse of the USSR.

2) Nations are bound by the reality of nuclear retaliation and MAD. Terrorists do not have these concerns.

As for needing to detonate a nuclear device... Yes, if it is a home grown program.

Nations such as Isreal have Brittish, American, and or French made weapons, not home grown ones. Thus, they have proven systems.



There is a Weaponry Forum for these types of questions. I would rather not get into a debate about jets and missiles and crap with people clutching the latest Janes Defence Weekly in their sweaty mitts, ready to jump on my back if I get the thrust pressure wrong or something.

But since you asked so earnestly, I will give you this. China is a big country. It has a well defended coastline. It can spread things around enough to make the missions too costly and dangerous. It doesn't matter if you have the latest fandangled aircraft if they can't hit anything.

By the way you didn't answer my friendly fire question. Quid pro quo.


The extent of their land means nothing with the near limitless flight time that mid air refueling allows. Beyond that, air missions can be among the most cost effective strikes you can make. A few hundred (or is it thousand?) dollars of fuel, and a bomb that costs 20,000 or so to take out a million dollar+ building which supports other aspects of the enemies military.

In addition, US air strikes would not be very dangerous. As any honest knowledgeable person will tell you, the Chinese air force poses almost no threat to the USAF. They have a lot of vintage 30 year old aircraft and not much else. They have little training. They have little in the way of advanced detection systems.

The USAF would wipe the floor with them.

Then you have SAMs and AAA, which I am hoping you are refering to. I would like to point out two things.

First, in GWI, Iraq had one of the strongest air defence systems in the world - probably better then china on a time relative basis. How many aircraft did the US lose then? And remember, our two best aircraft (B-2 and F/A-22) were not used in that war.

Second, have you ever heard of the Jivet Joint? It is one of the most highly classified and important strategical assets in the whole world, yet most people have never heard of it. These things really cut down on the effectiveness of ground based air defences. In fact, they make it nearly impossible to even use them, as it exposes their position, and they just get blown up by cruise missles.

Also, you expressed your concern over Chinas vastness, yet fail to take into account the difficulties that come with defending such a great area. This favors the US, not China, as it simply spreads China thin and creates gaps in their defences (which are further multiplied by US stealth technology.

As for friendly fire, it happens in the fog of war, and since the US always sends in the most troops, it is usually going to be the US that commits blue on blue.

Now take into account the vastly superior communications systems the US has and ask your self:

If the US has this much friendly fire with out superior training and equipment, how much would China commit with such poorly trained and equiped men?



Yes, good point. However you banded together like a flock of sheep and have been running around hither and thither wherever the sheepdog media barked at you to make you go ever since. I wouldn't be very proud of that.


You and I see things a bit differently.



Now they might not put too much emphasis on reading in that University you go to, but I will refer you to the cliff notes of this discussion where I pointed out the futility and improbability of a Chinese invasion of the US. Someone else brought it up and I reacted in a similar fashion to you, i.e. greeting it with incredulity and derision.


Yeah, my Ivy league world renowned University doesn't put an emphasis on reading.


None the less, you made an argument for a chinese invasion - even with a footnote about how you didn't think it was likely, and thus I made a counter argument.



Yes, I'm so lucky. Rainbows and chocolate rivers, gum drop trees. Common sense and a sense of humour, so take the ad hominem down a notch, okay bud?


Why?

You are making rediculous statements and more over taking every opertunity to insult my nation with snide remarks about how evil the US is and how greedy Americans are.

If you want to joke around and have a nice discussion without any hostility from me, you are going to have to cut that out.




posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by howmuchisthedoggy
In a real life situation just saying you are superior is setting yourself up for a fall. Just because you say it doesn't make it so.


Real life?

Correct me if I am wrong, but the US is the nation with the MOST real life experience.

The US is recognized as the most powerfull military i nthe wrold byevery single nation, but somehow you think they are incompotent?



If they were competent they would have been finished in Iraq a long time ago, never mind the mess they are in now. If what the media had told them was true the Iraqi people would have been showering their saviours with flower petals to bless the passage home of their liberators.


Mess? Dude, you really need a history lesson. The US has lost 2000 men in just under 3 years.

Spin it how ever you want, but the death rate for US service men in Iraq (never mind in general) is less then 1%.

A lot of militaries have higher death rates in peace time. I wouldn't call that a mess or incompetence.

[edit on 11-11-2005 by American Mad Man]



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Correct me if I am wrong, but the US is the nation with the MOST real life experience.


Care to quantify that? The US is only a couple of hundred years old. The UK is four hundred years old. Scotland is older than that and England and China are over a thousand years old.



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 04:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

Agreed. About Nukes. But Japan have a very healthy aerospace sector. Remember that only one country has suffered nuclear attack. That kinda makes them virulently anti-nuke.


Healthy aerospace? What home grown missles capable of delivering a nuclear war head do they have?


If you can put a satellite in space, you can give a nuke to your neighbour without too much difficulty.




They'd probably shoot the slow, lumbering beasts out of the sky with impunity and far more ease than the Vietnamese did. And they didn't exactly find it hard. Do you know how many combat jets the PLAAF has? Let alone SAMs.


Ohhh yeah - they have plenty of aircraft, the problem is that the vast majority of them are completely obsolete. The US Navy alone could take their air force, never mind the USAF.


Their Shenyang jets are newer than the Mig 21s and 23s the Viets shot your F4s down with. Their SAMs are newer than the ones the Viets shot your B52s down with.

You spoke about B52s. Unless you have already completely destroyed, not degraded, the enemy's air and anti-air assets, you'd better enjoy writing "Dear Martha, your son Johnny died yesterday" letters.

You don't have enough Raptors to protect B52s on carpet-bombing raids. Not against the Su 30 Flankers, J11 Flankers, J10s, J8 Finbacks and J7 Fishbeds.




I love how you denigrate all forces but your own. The US are not the best military in the world.




Name me a better one.


IDF.

UK.

There's two.



They cannot fight asymmetric conflicts, that has been proven twice before and is being proven at the moment.


Excuse me?

The US has lost less then 1% of the service men that have fought in Iraq. LESS THEN 1%!


Really, then the country should be completely stable, with a growing economy and improving infrastructure, an increasing life expectancy, decreasing child mortality rate and improving school enrollments and higher education graduation levels.

Oh, it looks like US casualties are not a measure of US success after all.


I challange you to find me any other conflict with less then 10% casualties that the US has not fought in.


Try the Falklands. Try Malaya. Try the Indonesian Confrontation.

Asymetric conflicts the US has lost:

Vietnam.

Somalia.

Assymetric conflicts the US is currently deployed to and has not won:

Afghanistan.

Iraq.

Asymmetric conflicts the US is currently deployed to and is not winning:

Iraq.



In the event of war China can mobilise and arm 100% of its adult population of military age. That's what the People's Auxilliary Forces are for.


That is a completely false statement.

They have nearly 700 million people that are of military age. You think they have 700 million AKs?


Ever heard of the Simonov, the Degtyarev, the PPS, the PPSh? How about the RPG 3 and RPG 7? The DsHK? These are not AK 47s.


Their air force is decades behind the US. They have no blue water Navy. No modern armor...


You're coming to them, they don't need a blue water navy, just a bunch of FACs.

Type 98 tanks, anybody? They may not have that many of them, but then, they don't have to wade ashore first, either.


And Chinas numerical advantage would be more then made up for by US air superiority.


Soviet General of Artillery to Soviet General of Cavalry after meeting in Paris:

"By the way, who won the air war?"

Do you remember how long Serbia held out against your air superiority? And that was Serbia, not 1.6 billion Chinese.

By the end of the Serbian/Kosovo air war, the US had almost run out of servicable aircraft stores. The Air Staff had to do a massive re-think of everything.



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
If you can put a satellite in space, you can give a nuke to your neighbour without too much difficulty.


I dissagree.

There are vast differences in the technology. Vast differences.



Their Shenyang jets are newer than the Mig 21s and 23s the Viets shot your F4s down with. Their SAMs are newer than the ones the Viets shot your B52s down with.


Their jets aren't even an issue.

As for sams, I would point to aircraft such as Rivet Joint in addition to stealth technology neutralizing SAMs.



You don't have enough Raptors to protect B52s on carpet-bombing raids. Not against the Su 30 Flankers, J11 Flankers, J10s, J8 Finbacks and J7 Fishbeds.


Who said anything about Raptors being needed for their air force?

We could take them with F-15s, 16s, and 18s.

On top of that, it would be a matter of days before every single air strip was destroyed by cruise missles. That is the part everyone seems to be forgetting.

The US would go in there with it's navy and fore off several thousand druise missles at high value strategic targets. We's cut their supplies, cut their power, destroy their coordination and communication ability, etc before we'd put our guys on the line.




IDF.

UK.

There's two.


OK, who wins, head to head?

US vs Isreal.

US vs UK.

US both times, and it's not even close. If you can't beat us, your not as good.



Really, then the country should be completely stable, with a growing economy and improving infrastructure, an increasing life expectancy, decreasing child mortality rate and improving school enrollments and higher education graduation levels.

Oh, it looks like US casualties are not a measure of US success after all.


Things come in time. Talk to me in 15-20 years, because that is when you are going to be able to make an informed judgement.

[quote
Try the Falklands. Try Malaya. Try the Indonesian Confrontation.


Wow. 3 other ones in the history of man.


Asymetric conflicts the US has lost:

Vietnam.

Somalia.


I don't want to get into a lengthy discussion on this, but the reasons for both of these has absolutely nothing to do with our military, but rather our unwillingness politically to win the war.

In 'Nam, the US has over a 20:1 kill ratio. In Somalia it was over 50:1.

In 'nam, all we needed to do was attack the north. We handi capped our selves from attacking our enemy.

In Somalia, Clinton did everything he could to get our guys killed between refusing our soldiers air support to refusing them heavy armour. Again, this was lost politically not militarily.



Asymmetric conflicts the US is currently deployed to and is not winning:

Iraq.


I dissagree. This war is being won, and that is the opinion of every person I know who has served there, bar none.



Ever heard of the Simonov, the Degtyarev, the PPS, the PPSh? How about the RPG 3 and RPG 7? The DsHK? These are not AK 47s.




The AK was the most heavilly manufactured fire arm in history. Less then 60 million were made. Again, you think they have 700 million weapons?





You're coming to them, they don't need a blue water navy, just a bunch of FACs.

Type 98 tanks, anybody? They may not have that many of them, but then, they don't have to wade ashore first, either.


Who said anything about putting US soldiers on Chinese soil?

The US could sit back indefinatly and just bomb China into the stone age if it chose.

In any case, the 98 isn't a match for the Abrams.

You think the US would need to land by water?


Take a look at a map of Asia, and then look at what nations that share a boarder have US bases in them. Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Afghanistan all have or will have in the next year, US military bases.



Soviet General of Artillery to Soviet General of Cavalry after meeting in Paris:

"By the way, who won the air war?"

Do you remember how long Serbia held out against your air superiority? And that was Serbia, not 1.6 billion Chinese.

By the end of the Serbian/Kosovo air war, the US had almost run out of servicable aircraft stores. The Air Staff had to do a massive re-think of everything.


Different situation.

In a full scale war with China, different ROE would be used and the US industrial capacity would be mobalized for war.



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Care to quantify that? The US is only a couple of hundred years old. The UK is four hundred years old. Scotland is older than that and England and China are over a thousand years old.


How many people actually alive in each military have combat experience. Obviously some from the UK...

When was the last time China was in a war?How much experience does their military have?

The fact is, the US has the most battle hardened, experienced military in the world.



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
If you can put a satellite in space, you can give a nuke to your neighbour without too much difficulty.


I dissagree.

There are vast differences in the technology. Vast differences.


Really? If the Germans hadn't hit London with V2s you wouldn't have gone to the moon.




Their jets aren't even an issue.


Little bouncy smileys!


As for sams, I would point to aircraft such as Rivet Joint in addition to stealth technology neutralizing SAMs.


How many Rivet Joints you got? How many SAMS they got?


We could take them with F-15s, 16s, and 18s.


Uh-huh. We're talking Flankers here. Not Fitters and Farmers. These aren't pushovers.


On top of that, it would be a matter of days before every single air strip was destroyed by cruise missles. That is the part everyone seems to be forgetting.


I really doubt the PLAAF are forgetting that. I really doubt you have enough Tomahawks to do that. Can you also take out every straight piece of highway in the country?




IDF.

UK.

There's two.


OK, who wins, head to head?

US vs Isreal.

US vs UK.

US both times, and it's not even close. If you can't beat us, your not as good.


Yes, who wins head to head. Lets put a regiment of UK soldiers up against a regiment of US troops.

Lets put the IDF Paras up against the 82nd Airborne.

Or Israeli cavalry up against US cavalry.

How many wars have the UK lost in the 20th century?

How many wars have the Israelis lost in their entire history?




Try the Falklands. Try Malaya. Try the Indonesian Confrontation.


Wow. 3 other ones in the history of man.


You only said to name one.


The US could sit back indefinatly and just bomb China into the stone age if it chose.


You might want to check how many aircraft you've got versus how many aircraft they've got, coupled with how many SAMS they've got, not to mention AAA before you go making these claims. This isn't Iraq you're talking about.


You think the US would need to land by water?


Take a look at a map of Asia, and then look at what nations that share a boarder have US bases in them. Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Afghanistan all have or will have in the next year, US military bases.


Really, I'll just tell the commander of the 10th Mountain that your brilliant plan is he hike all the way to Beijing from Bishkek.

If you want to take China's industrial heartland you'd better start counting your LSTs.




Soviet General of Artillery to Soviet General of Cavalry after meeting in Paris:

"By the way, who won the air war?"

Do you remember how long Serbia held out against your air superiority? And that was Serbia, not 1.6 billion Chinese.

By the end of the Serbian/Kosovo air war, the US had almost run out of servicable aircraft stores. The Air Staff had to do a massive re-think of everything.


Different situation.

In a full scale war with China, different ROE would be used and the US industrial capacity would be mobalized for war.


Did you read the bit about all stores used up? Doesn't matter what your ROE are if you have no bullets left to shoot. You can't switch from civilian, peacetime economy to war production that quickly.



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Really? If the Germans hadn't hit London with V2s you wouldn't have gone to the moon.


Yes, really!




How many Rivet Joints you got? How many SAMS they got?


The problem is, RJs wouldn't get close enough for SAMs to hit them. That's what makes them great!



Uh-huh. We're talking Flankers here. Not Fitters and Farmers. These aren't pushovers.


As an airframe, they are very good. Unfortunately (for China) their electronics equipment and support of their aircraft is piss poor and obsolete compares to US systems such as AESA radar and Hawkeyes



I really doubt the PLAAF are forgetting that. I really doubt you have enough Tomahawks to do that. Can you also take out every straight piece of highway in the country?


I am sure they have thought of that. How many Tomahawks? I can't find official figures, but I know for a fact that the US brought 1,000 to Iraq for that war alone.

So I would guess in the 3-5 thousand range...

As for highway...How do you refuel the aircraft? How does china continue to fly aircraft after all of their oil depots have been destroyed by airstrikes? How do they import oil with a US blockade?




Yes, who wins head to head. Lets put a regiment of UK soldiers up against a regiment of US troops.

Lets put the IDF Paras up against the 82nd Airborne.


Factor in the support that both would get and the US wins.


Or Israeli cavalry up against US cavalry.


Again, with the support that the US has they would win decisively.

Yes, if you take 1 US soldier and 1 from another nation, everyone has a chance to win, but that aint the real world.

In the real world, you have the US with 5 times the man power and 20-30 times the air power. The US won't even engage an enemy untill it has pounded them from the air for a while.

Again, compare the whole military.

Who can beat the US Air Force, the US Navy, and the US Army all at once?

No one.



You only said to name one.


And that was my point. You can count the number of times on one hand.



You might want to check how many aircraft you've got versus how many aircraft they've got, coupled with how many SAMS they've got, not to mention AAA before you go making these claims. This isn't Iraq you're talking about.


Yeah, they have numbers with low technology and low training, and poor support systems.

It would be a turkey shoot for the US.



Really, I'll just tell the commander of the 10th Mountain that your brilliant plan is he hike all the way to Beijing from Bishkek.

If you want to take China's industrial heartland you'd better start counting your LSTs.


Again, who said anything about an invasion? The US wouldn't need to. With Chinas cities and military devistated, the US could just sit back and keep up the pressure.



Did you read the bit about all stores used up? Doesn't matter what your ROE are if you have no bullets left to shoot. You can't switch from civilian, peacetime economy to war production that quickly.


So now the US doesn't have any weapons?



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Incompetant?

Yeah right, our brave soldiers, sailors and airmen are the best trained and best equipped in the world. Who cares what this little Chihuahua says about our troops.

He is a little barking dog who is free and alive today because of the protection America provided Japan. It amazes me that he has risen so high on sheer rhetoric, IMO he is good for scrubbing urinals and nothing more.

Maximu§



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by LA_Maximus
Incompetant?

Yeah right, our brave soldiers, sailors and airmen are the best trained and best equipped in the world. Who cares what this little Chihuahua says about our troops.


And LA Maximus should know, having spent 4 years scrubbing the heads in Germany!!! Whatever rocks your boat Maximus!!! LOL!

By the way, from what I read on ATS, any of the posters who have any real military experience as oppossed to LA's walk in the park, think a whole lot differently!!!



He is a little barking dog who is free and alive today because of the protection America provided Japan.


I am free and alive today thanks to the brave and stalworth effort of 16 Irish heroes. The only protection America provided Japan is the illusion of competence. Japan wants you gone, so why don't you just go?



It amazes me that he has risen so high on sheer rhetoric, IMO he is good for scrubbing urinals and nothing more.


I will proudly scrub the ATS urinals from any amount of rubbish you wish to post LA Minimus.



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 11:17 AM
link   
Im proud of the service I preformed for my country serving the US Army for 4 years.

My unit in Germany (3/11 ACR) was in charge of guarding the Fulda Gap against any Soviet aggression. I served proudly....and in a small way, I know I helped make the world a better place.

Can you say the same?

Maximu§



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by LA_Maximus
Incompetant?

Yeah right, our brave soldiers, sailors and airmen are the best trained and best equipped in the world. Who cares what this little Chihuahua says about our troops.

He is a little barking dog who is free and alive today because of the protection America provided Japan. It amazes me that he has risen so high on sheer rhetoric, IMO he is good for scrubbing urinals and nothing more.

Maximu§


Every country says they have the "the best" troops.

Frankly there is no best.



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by howmuchisthedoggy
The only protection America provided Japan is the illusion of competence. Japan wants you gone, so why don't you just go?


Yeah, we were so incompetent that we kicked their asses all over the Pacific without even using our army.

It's pretty clear that you have an agenda to insult the US military here.

I ask you this:

If the US is so incompetent, surely you can name a single military that could beat us 1 on 1, with all resources available.



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
If the US is so incompetent, surely you can name a single military that could beat us 1 on 1, with all resources available.


English football fans.....

The single most disruptive and destructive force on this earth with out a doubt.



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
English football fans.....

The single most disruptive and destructive force on this earth with out a doubt.




Yeah, they have a rep even here in the states...Though from what I have seen the Italians give your fans some compitition.



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by American Mad Man
If the US is so incompetent, surely you can name a single military that could beat us 1 on 1, with all resources available.


English football fans.....

The single most disruptive and destructive force on this earth with out a doubt.


take it on the Mexican fans. they seem to be on Osama's side. no doubt it would be a good battle. ill cheer for the Brits.

[edit on 11-11-2005 by deltaboy]



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
English football fans.....

The single most disruptive and destructive force on this earth with out a doubt.



and thats why what happened in France could never happen in England, but thats another thread.

Max



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by LA_Maximus
and thats why what happened in France could never happen in England, but thats another thread.

Max

Because we would all be too drunk to actually start a riot over those conditions or?



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man

It's pretty clear that you have an agenda to insult the US military here.



I have no such agenda. The thread was originally suppossed to be commenting on Japan's possible shift in loyalties.

My stance on the competence of the US military is not meant to be an insult. I dislike the attitude, quite prevalent on ATS that they posess God-like invincibility. It reeks of "My Dad could beat up your Dad", which is an attitude I left behind when I was 6 years old.

Having said that, whenever I hear talk of the US military being so incrdible I always laugh. I have heard stories regards their basic training and fieldcraft that we used to use to instruct new recruits to show the wrong way to do things. Wearing bling-bling on tactics and stuff like that, hilarious.

I also was witness to a shooting cometition where the US came last. They failed to knock all the steel plates over and they got such a mocking from all the other countries' militaries. When asked what they would do if it had been a real world situation, they replied that they would of course just call in an airstrike!!!!

That about sums about my attitude to the competence of the US military. You have the lovely toys but you need the smart boys to use them. You can argue until the cows come home on how brilliant you think they are, but I have witnessed otherwise.



I ask you this:

If the US is so incompetent, surely you can name a single military that could beat us 1 on 1, with all resources available.



Well, Vietnam and Somalia both had no real military and they handed your butt back to you on a plate. I wouldn't say you are winning in Iraq right now and I see you running away from that as soon as you have a good excuse.



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by howmuchisthedoggy
Well, Vietnam and Somalia both had no real military and they handed your butt back to you on a plate. I wouldn't say you are winning in Iraq right now and I see you running away from that as soon as you have a good excuse.


Even a broken clock gives the correct time twice a day, as such, your statistical analysis and number documentation used were what, exactly, to constitute "they handed your butt back to you on a plate" were?

Handing someones butt back on a plate would be more like what Gen. Gates or Gen. Washington did to a couple British armies or what the Vietnamese did to the French at Dien Bien Phu, etc, etc.





seekerof

[edit on 11-11-2005 by Seekerof]





new topics
top topics
 
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join