Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

America is the most powerful nation EVER!!!

page: 25
8
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Ok,questions/comments on the thread topic which seem to have been ignored.


If America has such superior weapons how come they didn't stop 9/11?
If the hijacking of 2 planes can bring the country to a standstill,how will you fare against (possibly) 1000's of terrorists??
If the wars come to your home turf,what will you do? Will use all these weapons against your own country?
Do you understand that there are different kinds of warfare,some that need brute force and others that need stealth tactics?
If the US wants peace why are they planning yet another war?
When the amount of weapons outstrip the manpower,what will you do?
(Think,China and India can arm over/almost half a million men & women.With Russia not far behind that number.The weapons may not be state of the art,but they're weapons none the less.)
Why is it the US (amongst many other countries.) says this;KOREA-no nukes,your evil! IRAN/IRAQ-no nukes,your just as evil! PAKISTAN/INDIA-no nukes.your not yet evil,but you might soon be! ISRAEL-errr,yeah go right ahead.nukes for you,threaten who you want we honestly don't mind?



Iran is bordered by 8 countries,we are only in 2 and,as any good military leader knows,you don't start a battle when there is another going on behind you.Which is exactly what will happen if Iran is invaded before Iraq is brought under control.The same will happen if we decide to attack from Afghanistan as well.Also,we leave ourselves open to Iran's new ally,China.
China shares a border with Afghanistan.Its tiny,but its still a way in.


Do you see how attacking Iran would actually put us in the worst kinda position? And not just in military terms!




aaa2500.


Do you even know anything about Afghanistan? Communism wasn't forced on them. The monarchy was abolished in a peaceful coup, and the new US supported 'president' then started to kill his political opponents. He was then overthrown by Afghan socialists and communists who set about changing Afghanistan into a modern democratic society, allowing freedom of religion, giving women equal rights and began a landreform programme to distribute wealth and curb the influence of the tribes.


Yeah,the US backed the rebels because they were anti-communism,and look what happened.If you see pictures of Afghanistan before and after the Taliban took power its like looking at 2 completely different countries!

Some links about the US involvement during the Soviet-Afghan war for those interested.
www.northstarcompass.org...
wsarch.ucr.edu...




posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by jkrog08
 





You do realize Vietnam was nothing more than a "satellite"war right?Meaning it was the Soviets and Americans fighting eachother-without actually fighting eachother,do you understand?There was never supposed to be a true winner.



aaa2500 is right about the hows and whys of the Vietnam war.I will also add that it started out as a French colonial conflict that involved 2 Vietmanese political parties fighting for power too.




n 1950,the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the People's Republic of China (PRC) recognized each other diplomatically.The Soviet Union quickly followed suit. U.S. President Harry S.Truman countered by recognizing the French puppet government of Vietnam.Washington, seemingly ignorant of the long historical antipathy between Vietnam and China,feared that Hanoi was a pawn of the PRC and, by extension,Moscow.As historian and former Hanoi foreign minister Luu Doan Huynh has commented, “Vietnam a part of the Chinese expansionist game in Asia? For anyone who knows the history of Indochina, this is incomprehensible.” Nevertheless,Chinese support was very important to the Viet Minh's success, and China largely supported the Vietnamese Communists through the end of the war.

The outbreak of the Korean War in 1950 marked a decisive turning point. From the perspective of many in Washington, what had been a colonial war in Indochina was transformed into another example of communist expansionism directed by the Kremlin.

In 1950, the U.S. Military Assistance and Advisory Group (MAAG) arrived to screen French requests for aid, advise on strategy, and train Vietnamese soldiers.By 1954, the U.S. had supplied 300,000 small arms and spent one billion dollars in support of the French military effort. The Eisenhower administration was shouldering 80 percent of the cost of the war.The Viet Minh received crucial support from the Soviet Union and the PRC. Chinese support in the Border Campaign of 1950 allowed supplies to come from China into Vietnam. Throughout the conflict, U.S. intelligence estimates remained skeptical of French chances of success.

The Battle of Dien Bien Phu marked the end of French involvement in Indochina. The Viet Minh and their mercurial commander Vo Nguyen Giap handed the French a stunning military defeat. On May 7, 1954, the French Union garrison surrendered. At the Geneva Conference the French negotiated a ceasefire agreement with the Viet Minh. Independence was granted to Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam. As a U.S. Army study noted, France lost the war primarily because it “neglected to cultivate the loyalty and support of the Vietnamese people.”More than 400,000 civilians and soldiers had died during the nine year conflict.

Vietnam was temporarily partitioned at the 17th parallel, and under the terms of the Geneva Convention, civilians were to be given the opportunity to freely move between the two provisional states. Elections throughout the country were to be held, according to the Geneva accords, but never took place. Nearly one million northerners (mainly Catholics) fled south in “understandable terror” of Ho Chi Minh's new regime. It is estimated that as many as two million more would have left had they not been stopped by the Viet Minh.In the north, the Viet Minh established a socialist state—the Democratic Republic of Vietnam—and engaged in a land reform program in which the mass killing of perceived “class enemies” occurred. Ho Chi Minh later apologized. In the south a non-communist state was established under the Emperor Bao Dai, a former puppet of the French and the Japanese. Ngo Dinh Diem became his Prime Minister. In addition to the Catholics flowing south, up to 90,000 Viet Minh fighters went north for “regroupment” as envisioned by the Geneva Accords. However, in contravention of the Accords, the Viet Minh left roughly 5,000 to 10,000 cadres in South Vietnam as a “politico-military substructure within the object of its irredentism.”

As dictated by the Geneva Conference of 1954, the partition of Vietnam was meant to be only temporary, pending national elections on July 20, 1956. Much as in Korea, the agreement stipulated that the two military zones were to be separated by a temporary demarcation line (known as the Demilitarized Zone or DMZ). The United States, alone among the great powers, refused to sign the Geneva agreement. The president of South Vietnam, Ngo Dinh Diem, declined to hold elections. This called into question the United States' commitment to democracy in the region, but also raised questions about the legitimacy of any election held in the communist-run North.President Dwight D. Eisenhower expressed U.S. fears when he wrote that, in 1954, “80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh” over Emperor Bao Dai.However,this wide popularity was expressed before Ho's disastrous land reform program and a peasant revolt in Ho's home province which had to be bloodily suppressed.

The cornerstone of U.S. policy was the Domino Theory.This argued that if South Vietnam fell to communist forces, then all of South East Asia would follow. Popularized by the Eisenhower Administration,some argued that if communism spread unchecked, it would follow them home by first reaching Hawaii and follow to the West Coast of the United States.It was better to fight communism in Asia,rather than on American soil.






I've said many times to friends that i think the US government is treating Islam as the new Communism.
And,as with Communism,its only sharing lies and half truths about Muslims to their own people.

Americas fear of Communism plunged the world into the Cold War.Should we let the same happen again,especially when this time around that fear has helped to create 2 wars? (and counting)






[edit on 29-4-2008 by jakyll]



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by aaa2500


There is absolutely no truth to what you say. An insurgent who wears camo pants, does not make a soldier.



Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War:
Article 4.

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

...2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
www.unhchr.ch...

So when you write 'There is absolutely no truth to what you say', you really mean that I am right, but you just don't want to admit it.


What does the Geneva Convention Laws have to do with anything?What does the fact that the Iraqi's are fighting in a militia have do do with anything?If anything it proves we(the US)are pushing them along so they can govern and protect themselves soon.I just don't see why you brought up a bunch of irrelevant information,maybe cause it makes you look smart?



I suppose it is to certain factions (typical uniformed fifth columnist) who would like to see a weak America,



You really shouldn't use terms you don't understand. In order for me to be 'fith column', I would have to be in the US.
en.wikipedia.org...


Maybe you don't understand the English language and metaphors and other types of comparisons.He wasn't saying you WERE a "fifth columnist"but rather LIKE a "fifth columnist".



however, that is not supported by fact.




So neither the F-22 or the F-35 are overweight, overbudget, under spec and delayed. Wow, you certainly know how to tell a lie with a straight face.


The number of F15s affected by this structural defect were small, and did not involve the F15E strike eagles.


It's not about about any specific defect, but about the fact that F-15's are old airframes with lot's of hours of flying time, lot's of G's, who are already flying with restrictions. The F-15 Eagle is an air superiority fighter whereas the F-15 strike eagle is a strike aircraft.


Kinda like you lie about things that serve your purpose right?I guess if you have to resort to stating obvious and non-important facts of warfare technology development issues(which happen to everyone,esspecially when creating a super modern fighting system).Tell me ONE program from ANY country in the MODERN era that has't been over budget and have development issues BEFORE being successfully developed.Also you do do realize we ALREADY have numerous F-22's in ACTIVE DUTY right?I don't think those are "under specs,over weight,etc"They work JUST FINE,and the F-35 will SOON follow.



It has actually grown in scope, size, with more added systems.



Actually the system has gone from about 20 systems to less than 15 and from electric tanks, lasers, majorily UAV to existing tanks, existing UAV's and still using kinetic weapons. The original FCS was science fiction, but the new improved FCS is just a gradual improvement of the current forces, with a longer timeframe.


Science fiction?So just cause your country can't develop it themselves it is sci-fi?Sounds pretty ignorant to me,and actually the systems got CONSOLIDATED,not cut-had you done research you would be aware of the "1+1+14"basis for the system-meaning multiple systems functioning together as one major system.Maybe you should look up "consolidation" and learn about what exactly "FCS"is.Oh and it will be ready by 2012.



According to whom?


I said that. You and others talk of systems which aren't finalized, systems that doesn't exist yet, lasers, railguns, Air superiority UAV's, unmanned tanks etc. and talk of them as if they are in production and being fielded as we speak, but even the manufacturers say that even though these weapons can be built, they won't be if there is no money for it. And where is that money supposed to come from. With tax cuts and more spending, the interest the US has to pay is increasing every month, and at some point someone has to put the shoe down and say 'we have to stop living above our means' and pay this debt down, the interest is killing us! Clinton did that in the 90's, and then GWB began implementing voodoo economics again.



Again-this is why it's called the FUTURE COMBAT SYSTEM-the key word being FUTURE,and alot of the technology is already availabe,and the rest(which is in test phase will be available by 2020 at the latest.)Also you act like the US doesn't have an income of it's own,like we can't pay for these things-which we can,somethings just cost money-especially things of the magnitude of "FCS".So that isn't an argument,trust me WE WILL pay for it,and our economy will get better,this is just a natural "20 year cyclical recession".



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 11:17 AM
link   


It's not about about any specific defect, but about the fact that F-15's are old airframes with lot's of hours of flying time, lot's of G's, who are already flying with restrictions. The F-15 Eagle is an air superiority fighter whereas the F-15 strike eagle is a strike aircraft.


The F15 is still a very capable aircraft that still holds time to climb records, even though im sure the F22 could break those records and maybe already has unofficially. Still though, very impressive aircraft, especially considering its age.

Awesome plane!



[edit on 4/29/2008 by Kr0n0s]



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by aaa2500


Also it appears you don't have any comment for your invalid "f-15's"are aging argument-since I totally destroyed that one.


I didn't respond as I thought you might see yourself why you were wrong. I'm talking about the fighter, you are refering to the strike aircraft. F-15's are ageing, and the fact that F-15's are flying under restrictions should make you see that.

You operate under the assumption that physics can be worked around by simply ignoring it. There is a reason that all aircraft have an airframe lifespan measured in hours. It can't be made clearer than that, and if you don't understand that, then there is nothing that I or anyone else can say that will help you.


Again,the F-15E is more than capable of filling the role of the aging superiority fighters against any possible enemy right now,and let's not forget the F-16,F-18 either,not to mention the F-22 is rocketing ahead in numbers produced.

The Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptor is a fighter aircraft that uses stealth technology. It is primarily an air superiority fighter, but has multiple capabilities that include ground attack, electronic warfare, and signals intelligence roles. The United States Air Force considers the F-22 a critical component of the U.S. strike force.[1]

Faced with a protracted development period, the aircraft was variously designated F-22 and F/A-22 during the three years before formally entering US Air Force service in December 2005, as the F-22A. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics is the prime contractor and is responsible for the majority of the airframe, weapon systems and final assembly of the F-22. Program partner Boeing Integrated Defense Systems provides the wings, aft fuselage, avionics integration, and all of the pilot and maintenance training systems.

The F-22 is claimed by multiple sources to be the world’s most effective air superiority fighter. The US Air Force claims that the F-22 cannot be matched by any known or projected fighter aircraft.[1] Chief of the Australian Defence Force, then-Air Marshal Angus Houston, said in 2004 that the "F-22 will be the most outstanding fighter plane ever built."[5]






And no I don't call people names when they disagree,I call them names when they continue to demonstrate ignorance and will not listen to facts,but state false claims(ridiculous)themselves.


I have simply demonstrated superior understanding and knowledge of the systems you refer to and that makes you angry. You don't seem to realize that a system doesn't nessesarily work as well or even at all, as the army or airforce is claiming, you just accept anything they spoonfeed you and call it fact.

Physics are real.

Yes,physics are real and you seem to not get the "physics"of the F-22 and are bent on the idea that because we are in the middle of changing our primary fighter we are weak,which is not true.I guess you and other anti-Americans like to grab ahold of any sign of weakness-however false it is and try and stretch it out beyond fantasy.The FACT is that no country is a threat to us right now and thus your idea that "our f-15's are aging"is mute due to the fact that it doesn't matter since no country is a threat and these"weak"F-15's are more than a match for anyone.By the time a country does try and match us(if) the F-22 will be all over the skies and the F-15 retired...........those are the FACTS.So you continue to believe that our upgrading our military is a sign of weakness.



If you want to make it look like the US is the only country to ever get involved in foreign affairs and have some negative outcomes you can,but you and me both know that is not true.


It's not, but it is the country which have interfered the most in other countries, to benefit everything from presidents egos to Corporate interests.
The US does it, not because it has to, but because it can.

If you believe that the US has never had good intentions, fine,I can't change your mind..........you are still side stepping the fact I posted and ONLY talking about the US in other countries,while "airbrushing"as you like to say,the other nations of the world out.



Also I guess in your opinion we should have let the Soviets just continue to massacre the multitudes of unarmed Afghanis?


The USSR didn't 'slaughter multitudes of unarmed Afghans'. The TV images you've seen on TV was staged footage from the Mujahedeen. The fact is that throughout the entire conflict, the Soviet forces operated under specific orders not to use force unless fired upon.


I can't argue with you,how can I when you claim all my information is false and yours is true?In your eyes everything the US does is evil,and everything everyone else does is good.



Like I said,sure after the Afghans won their country went to sh*t, but it was have been better than a forced Communism........yea the Taliban took over-that was unfortunate,but that just shows how unstable that country is.


Do you even know anything about Afghanistan? Communism wasn't forced on them. The monarchy was abolished in a peaceful coup, and the new US supported 'president' then started to kill his political opponents. He was then overthrown by Afghan socialists and communists who set about changing Afghanistan into a modern democratic society, allowing freedom of religion, giving women equal rights and began a landreform programme to distribute wealth and curb the influence of the tribes. This was something the USSR liked to see, and they began offering aid. This angered the US, so they sent in the CIA and in response the USSR invaded Afghanistan in order to support the Afghan government

The afghans didn't win their country when the soviets left. They were occupied by pakistanis and arabs in the guise of the Taleban. The pakistanis and arabs then sat in the background and paid afghans to fight other afghans.
Only one comment on this-did you say the "Communist"wanted to see "Democracy"develop??Again,I guess your diluted fanatical news source is right and mine is wrong.



You do realize Vietnam was nothing more than a "satellite"war right?Meaning it was the Soviets and Americans fighting eachother-without actually fighting eachother,do you understand?There was never supposed to be a true winner.


Actually it was the north vietnamese fighting the foreign forces, just as they had fought the french. They wanted independence and sovereignty. Ho Chi Minh even referenced the US proclamation of independence in his own independence proclamation. The south was mostly fighting itself. The US had the CIA working in Vietnam since the 50's, and as the US increased attention to the south, the soviets decided to help the north.

[edit on 29-4-2008 by aaa2500]


I think you should learn to read in between the lines,I know who it TECHNIALLY was,but as I said all it was was Russia and USA fighting eachother and testing war technologies on each other without actually FIGHTING eachother-in other words they pick a small a** country to fight it out on instead of fighting eachother on their own country.The US sent troops,money,and supplies while Russia sent weapons,money,and supplies.

F22

[edit on 4/29/2008 by jkrog08]



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 04:17 PM
link   
Jakyll-Great post,starred.........I never agreed with Vietnam(I wasn't alive anyways),I also don't think we should go to war with Iran unless WE KNOW they have nukes and have COALITION SUPPORT.I think Eisenhower was a good President but way to paranoid,as was Truman before him.Our post ww2 fears exaggerated the Cold War and anti-Communisim fears.But you have to remember when two major ideals (Communisim and Democracy)exsist at the same time they will always battle eachother out and one will win out(Democracy).It has happened time and time again throughout history,it is just a fact of life.It may not always be for the right reasons or be fought the right way,or should be fought at all for that matter-I dunno,I can't make that call,although I like to think Democracy is much better than Communism.

I never said I agree with my leader now,and I definitely don't agree with past leaders and their paranoid warmongering ways,I think the US would be much better off today without the decisions they made,but again I can't judge cause the world we live in today might be bad in some ways-but it's not that bad and we are all still here not destroyed by nuclear war or Fascisim.Some good things can be said of the last world war-the fact that all nations that were for good formed together and fought for a single purpose against total evil disregarding personal and cultural bias,if even temporarly,and that gives me hope that we can change for the better in this world.I for one believe this is the final "wave"of the storm and soon it will pass and we will be in a much better world,we have passed through the front,and the "eye",now we are going through the final "backend"of the proverbial "storm",which is generally likened to a Hurricane.

I use this thread for example as proof that we are changing-rather than in the past go to arms over difference of opinions and beliefs,and national pride-we intelligently discuse and debate on a global scale presenting eachother with information whilst trying to achieve and usually do achieve the purpose of nullifying the disagreement and teaching eachother about our cultures and coming to peaceful resolutions to resolve our conflicts with eachother-we try to obtain an "happy medium"so to say.It is a shame that as of yet-our nations leaders fail to be able to do the dame on a large scale,but I do hold out hope.



aaa-I want you to know,if I havn't already made myself clear that I do NOT,and don't think for a second I do-think the US is in a period of Greatness right now,nor do I think we are invincible.I do,however,think we are still the most powerful nation by our actions in the past,but I agree we are slowly losing that satus and will if we do not change our ways.I do not think we are immune to a unjust defeat-but rather I think we are immune to retreat,surrendor,and cowerdess,and because of that ,if the cause is just-we can not be defeated,even if the enemy is the world,we the United States of America will find a way to win if we should ever be hostilely and unjustly invaded or have to defend the freedom of life once again-like we did in World War Two,I believe that the world Allies would be with us,but if they wern't or couldn't be than we would still prevail.


I do not agree with unjust wars-like Iraq or Vietnam,andthat is why we will lose in the long run,as far as our secondary goals of establishing a productive Democracy is concerned.Unjust wars lead to problems-which I as an proud American citizen am furious with.Gas and food prices are at a all time high,while the economy is approaching a all time low in my opinion,I do not believe it will recover soon-but it will recover.

I posted this statement to make it clear to some who would say I ignore the facts-no Sirs,I do NOT........I am well aware of the problems,I went to the store today and filled up my car today,so yes,I am aware and sick of it-it is depressing to see such a great nation fall to it's knees because of the action of a few greedy and ignorant mis-informed leaders.

But by all means lets further this wonderful discussion so as we might continue to educate eachother,I truly love you all,regardless of what you may think from some of my statements-I want nothing more than to live in a one world peace without grumblings of culture, wars,and money.I feel that one day we will have have this,if not than we are all truly doomed.



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 04:59 PM
link   
I cant believe this thread is still going.

Maybe i should just make a post saying "I am The Greatest Human Ever!!!!"

It would pretty much be the same thing.

Im surprised that you dont see how disrespectful this thread is.

[edit on 29-4-2008 by Grock]



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by jkrog08
 





But by all means lets further this wonderful discussion so as we might continue to educate each other,I truly love you all,regardless of what you may think from some of my statements-I want nothing more than to live in a one world peace without grumblings of culture, wars,and money.I feel that one day we will have have this,if not than we are all truly doomed.



I think Jimi Hendrix said this 1st,but i'm not 100% sure.


"When the power of love overcomes the love of power,there will be peace in the world."


A small statement with a big message.

Unfortnatly,most politicians know that war not only equals power but also equals vast wealth.Those that suffer and die because of it are just collateral damage.






I also don't think we should go to war with Iran unless WE KNOW they have nukes and have COALITION SUPPORT.


But how will we ever know the truth?
The same was said about Iraq and these WMD still haven't been found.

When you see pictures of uranium mines from Iran,can you tell that there in Iran? I know i can't! These pictures could be in any country,even America.





Some good things can be said of the last world war-the fact that all nations that were for good formed together and fought for a single purpose against total evil disregarding personal and cultural bias,if even temporarly,and that gives me hope that we can change for the better in this world.



Bubble bursting coming up right about.....

Now,you know that WW2 could've been avoided don't you?
After WW1 Germany was made to sign documents (Treaty of Versailles) saying that they were only allowed so many weapons,so much land etc.

Which they stuck to,until Hitler came along.

The allies from WW1 sat by while Hitler rearmed the country and retook (peacefully) land Germany had been thrown out of,like the Rhineland for example.

Many members of the British government agreed to Hitlers actions of reoccupying the Rhineland,Lord Lothian even said,"The Germans are after all only going into their own back garden"


That was in 1936,2yrs after the Nazi's had control of everything;police,politics and the military,by force.

And if you think WW1 wasn't instigated either,just look at the catalyst that set it off;the murder of Archduke Franz Ferdinand.The manner of his assassination has erriee parallels with the murder of JKF.The open top car,the different route taken than the one planned,the triangle of crossfire....




[edit on 29-4-2008 by jakyll]



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 05:05 PM
link   
You DO know that BTS is what back and forth discussions like this are for right?

Just thought you should know.



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Grock
 


Are you a MOD?????????


No,your not.............so either put something intelligent into this thread or stop whining and get off of my thread.



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Grock
 





Im surprised that you dont see how disrespectful this thread is.


Disrespectful to who?

Who doesn't think their country is the greatest in the world!!



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Hey guys,

Please lets keep on to the topic at hand,



Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 05:31 PM
link   
My interest in the Viet Nam war started as a child because my Dad is a Veteran of the war and he constantly talked about it when I was younger.
Now in the past few years I've watched several documentaries and movies about the war, why is was fought, what our interests were and why we entered it and I've came to the opinion that we really had no business being there, its a shame that over 50,000 Americans and no telling how many thousands of Viet Namese lost their lives in that 10 or so years.

People have been pointing out the similarities between that war and our current war in the M.E. but I dont agree that Iraq is another VN war.
VN was at that time, two distinctive countries and two Governments, the North and the South.
Iraq on the other hand has one government and one professional military who are fighting along side of the US. The majority of the problems there are due to the two different branches of Islam, sunni and shiite and some could argue that it was Al Queda that came in and drove a wedge between the two causing them to start fighting one another.
I think the one person that has caused the most harm to Iraq was Zarqawi, the late Al Queda in Iraq Leader.
His torture and beheadings of people had no boundaries, journalists, contractors and ordinary Iraqi citizens had even allegedly irked Bin Laden who let him know that this type of treatment of Muslims was not the way he wanted things done.
What can be done now though, even with my misgivings about the war from the start, I think it may be a huge mistake if we withdrew our forces before Iraq has become more stabilized.
I had hoped that the citizens would get their "s**t" together and become a functioning member of the world by now. Then they could say to the US, hey we got it together, now get the hell out.
Thats easier for me to say though because I've never had another army occupy my city, kick down my door at 3 am and hold my family hostage or worse, while they search for "contraband."
I'm not a blind patriot, I am fully aware of my Governments corrupt members and I can only hope that a change in the administration will put us back on course.
That doesnt make me un-american, if anything it makes me more of an American and despite all of what I said, I am still a proud American and would fight to defend its lands, as Im sure anybody else would do for their country.

"End patriotic background music now"


[edit on 4/29/2008 by Kr0n0s]



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by jkrog08
Are you a MOD?????????


He's not, and - oddly - neither are you, BUT I am, and I just thought I'd pop along and put in a timely reminder that Courtesy is Mandatory because you wrote this;



No,your not.............so either put something intelligent into this thread or stop whining and get off of my thread.


This is a discussion board and ALL opinions are valid providing they don't contravene the ATS : Terms and Conditions. Last time I checked the Amigo's didn't grant people specific exclusivity clauses to threads, so my suggestion is that you step away from the keyboard for a while and cool your heels a bit. Take a few deep breaths, a walk round the block or listen to some soothing music.

Trust me, its good advice and it works. You'll feel much better if you listen to Dr.Neformore



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


Fair enough....but did you really need to come in after a "super mod"already did?

Anyways I apologize for not maintaining proper educate,how would you suggest I respond to that comment by Grock?



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by jkrog08
 


You don't respond at all.



if it bothers you that much, alert the post or U2U a staff member.


We're done with this for now, back on topic please.

Have a good evening.



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Not God save America! God d**n America!

Rev. Wright



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by aaa2500
So when you write 'There is absolutely no truth to what you say', you really mean that I am right, but you just don't want to admit it.


The Geneva convention does not apply to terrorist.
tee hee



You really shouldn't use terms you don't understand. In order for me to be 'fith column', I would have to be in the US.


You subscribe to the same type of thinking.
Which makes you anti-American.



So neither the F-22 or the F-35 are overweight, overbudget, under spec and delayed.


This is the reason why I labeled you as a fifth columnist, you subscribe to the same diatribe. I am sure you read what you wanted to hear without questioning the validity of the source. Yet you have not provided a source that validates such a claim.

Over budget? R&D costs, mixed with the amount of aircraft being produced, make up for much of that cost.

Overweight? That is quite irrelevant as the F22 has greater PWR. (The F22 actually weighs less than the supposed "PAK-FA", russians 5th gen fighter)

Underspec? How so? Please, lets further that argument.


Wow, you certainly know how to tell a lie with a straight face.


Ditto.



It's not about about any specific defect, but about the fact that F-15's are old airframes with lot's of hours of flying time, lot's of G's, who are already flying with restrictions. The F-15 Eagle is an air superiority fighter whereas the F-15 strike eagle is a strike aircraft.


I agree, they are getting older, which is why there is an F22 program.




Actually the system has gone from about 20 systems to less than 15 and from electric tanks, lasers, majorily UAV to existing tanks, existing UAV's and still using kinetic weapons. The original FCS was science fiction, but the new improved FCS is just a gradual improvement of the current forces, with a longer timeframe.


It is a rebuilding of the US military. You really are having a hard time grasping the FCS concept. I think you ignorantly underestimate the scope and size of just how big this program is. The most important part to FCS capabilities, is the software code (67 million lines of software code) being developed by boeing. With 25 prime contractors and 600 more sub-primes this is the largest project in United states Military history.


Indeed, U.S. joint forces are teaming with industry, largely because of the enormity of the project. FCS involves nine different types of manned ground vehicles, ranging from mounted cannons to surveillance systems. It includes two classes of robotic aerial vehicles, from the saucer-like hovering vehicle to an unmanned mini-helicopter. It also includes two classes of unmanned ground vehicles, four kinds of tactical sensors, three types of urban sensors, centralized controllers for soldiers and an all-encompassing network built on approximately 67 million lines of software code.


Additionally, FCS is "open ended" meaning that the system will continuously see the latest upgrades/updates, and will constantly be expanding. This is one of the basic fundamentals of FCS. Your argument of cancellations holds no water within these basic fundamentals.


I said that. You and others talk of systems which aren't finalized, systems that doesn't exist yet, lasers, railguns, Air superiority UAV's, unmanned tanks etc. and talk of them as if they are in production and being fielded as we speak,


The US Navy has already test fired the worlds most powerful railgun, and could have a rail gun adorning the brand new, all electric DDX destroyers by as early as 2015 (coincidently the same year that the first FCS brigade is due to roll out.)

The US already has capable lasers, the AB laser comes to mind. As well as the C130 laser that can take out tanks 5 miles away. These are but only a few examples.


Below is a picture of boeings IED hunter, which is a laser that can destroy IEDs. It is currently being fielded in Iraq.


This does nothing to even mention what the USAF space command is doing, or is planning on doing, which is even more drastic.


but even the manufacturers say that even though these weapons can be built, they won't be if there is no money for it.


And they have a valid argument.


And where is that money supposed to come from. With tax cuts and more spending, the interest the US has to pay is increasing every month, and at some point someone has to put the shoe down and say 'we have to stop living above our means' and pay this debt down, the interest is killing us!


FCS accounts for a very small amount of yearly military expenditures.

As for the current deficit, what is its impact as a PERCENTAGE OF GDP?



Clinton did that in the 90's, and then GWB began implementing voodoo economics again.


The budget was balanced on paper only. And that was only done by stealing from Social Security, retroactively over-taxing us and destroying the Military and Intelligence budgets which brought about 9-11.

So, taking money from Social Security (as Bill Clinton did) to spend on other things, counts as a true surplus?




[edit on 30-4-2008 by West Coast]



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by aaa2500
 





Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War:article 4.


At this moment in time terrorists are not protected by the GC.
There has been a debate raging for the 5yrs or so on whether changes should be made,but its unlikely that it will seen as America opposes changes that will stop them from arresting anyone they want when they want,and be able to hold them for an undisclosed amount of time.





WestCoast.



Which makes you anti-American.



Just out of curiosity,is everyone who doesn't agree with the US government anti-American??






[edit on 29-4-2008 by jakyll]



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by jakyll
WestCoast.
Just out of curiosity,is everyone who doesn't agree with the US government anti-American??


The misrepresentation of facts, by using false, uncorrborated ones, paints a pretty biased picture.





new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join