It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Countries think the United States military is weak

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


The party of JFK and FDR is not the Democrat party of today.

It does no good to speak of the Democrat party of more than fifty years ago, when we are dealing with problems of today and the Democrat response to those problem.

In FDR's day, the South was almost completely Democrat, now the South is strongly Republican.

The part you miss is the influence of Marxist ideology on the Democrat Party of today.

You might recall that JFK was staunchly anti-Marxist and he was assassinated by the hand of a Marixist.

You might recall that LBJ was staunchly anti-Marxist and he left office a thoroughly demoralized and defeated man because of the Marxist movement's war in our streets and on our campuses.

Why bring up FDR and JFK when both are dead and their party bears almost no resemblance to the party of today, except in name?

If FDR had been in charge of America on 9/11, the Marixists would have crucified him just as they did LBJ, RMN, and GWB, because his response to the attack would have been no less extreme than it was in WWII. He would have reinstituted the draft, retooled American industry to provide weaponry, he would have introduced rationing and in all likelihood, he would have interned all Muslims.

Except for FDR, I've lived through the changes and have witnessed and lived the effects. I was once deluded by the rhetoric of the left, but I learned my lesson the hard way.

FDR and JFK are irrelevant to the current dangers that America faces, if for no other reason than they are dead and their party has been high-jacked and no longer represents their values.


[edit on 2008/6/16 by GradyPhilpott]




posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by GradyPhilpott
 



You made the points I thought of when I read neformore's post but I would like to add one thing to that: JFK and FDR were WARRIORS. They were gunslingers, fighting men who knew where to draw the line in the sand.

You cant compare any prominent figure alive today with JFK. A certain brand of warrior culture died with him that has not been demonstrated in any politician since.

Those men were special, gifts from the Lord given at a time when we needed them most. We lost one before his time, before his job was even started almost, and look at the mess we are in.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by alienstar
 


Would this be the same military that got confused and lost on 9/11?



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by mOOmOO
 


On 9/11 the US Air Force was not really set up to track and down airliners and for a long time Air Traffic Controllers could not decide if the Air Force was needed, so by the Air Force was called in, it was basically too late.

These facts have been documented and the tapes of the conversations between ATC and USAF are available.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRepublic
then why havnt we won yet against a bunch of galabeyah wearing dudes with ak47's and homemade bombs?

victory is elusive and the definition of winning changes with every war.
defenders always have an advantage. believe me if all our troops were back here in the US and china or russia tried to attack us i believe you... wed totally destroy them.

but being spread over 150 countries launching wars of aggression that our own troops dont even believe in... the camel farmers with ak47's and homemede bombs will win no matter how many unnmaned drones or heat seaking missles we use.


You know why? Because this President and his bunch of unexperienced cabinet members have created a carbon copy of Vietnam.The reason I say this is we have yet another war that is run by politicians instead of letting the military run the war.Keeping soldiers from moving into certain areas and clearing them out,not aloud to shoot unless shot at first,no clear objective is demoralizing to the troops.This was proven during Vietnam, which to a large extent proved to be a large money maker for Johnson as he was one of the largest stock holders of bell helicopters. It is almost as if they dusted off the old plans from Vietnam.Hope I don't get flamed for this as this is purely my opinion.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 04:06 PM
link   
The disaster in Iraq is due to politicians presenting the military with an impossible mission, not because the military itself is failing to do its job.

The fact is that the US military exists in order to protect the United States from foreign aggression, a mission it is way more than adequate for.

The problem is that the military is not being asked to do that, it is in fact being used in an attempt to force a Pax Americana on the world and build a global Empire.

This is not the mission the US military was intended for, it's not what the soldiers who have volunteered to defend their country signed up for, it's not a goal the population of the US supports, etc... not to mention it's essentially an impossible task, a nation of three hundred million cannot rule a world of six billion in an age of nuclear weapons.

If we thought 911 was bad, it is nothing compared to what will happen if we continue on our current course.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Sorry ...the us army is just one of 5 branches of military service.Its called a recession not a depression if any.Don't worry our military is many moons ahead in others countries technology.



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 01:14 AM
link   
It's not that our military is weak, it's that it's often used the wrong way. Over expansion and politics.. DESTROYER OF MILITARY



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 01:44 AM
link   
You want to know why we're not "winning" in Iraq? It's because our leaders — the people committing to war one week and then renouncing their commitment the next week, the fat hypocrites in Congress — are spineless jellyfish who won't allow us to win.

As soon as America announced its intent to invade Afghanistan in retaliation for 911, I remember thinking we should also hit Iraq, Iran and Syria, and take out the heart of the fanatical Muslim terrorists in one fell swoop. Just eviscerate the Middle East and scatter radical Islam to the wind.

That's what we should have done. That's what we should still do.

The weaklings in our Congress are to blame for the mess in Iraq, because they won't set the hounds loose to do their job. And, yes, I blame Bush, too, but not for the reasons that the sniveling liberals have fabricated — I blame Bush for not being aggressive enough in the Middle East, for pandering to the snot-nosed liberals in our Congress, and I blame Bush for backing down from his cowboy rhetoric which scared the hell out of the entire world, including the Muslim terrorists.

When you're fighting madmen, you need a madman at the helm, not a whimpering, simpering negotiator bending over backwards to appease Islam.



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 01:53 AM
link   
Send their arses to DISNEYLAND and we will see who is bleeping who.

No really, do their children get as programmed as ours in public places just curious?



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 05:36 AM
link   
When you hire civilian contractors without limit who are paid maybe 10 times as much, and who fire at everything just to keep the war going are you are weak or are you strong? Cui bono? Is a country that pays anything on a price tag through "no bid contracts," strong or weak?

Yes "friendly fire," is only friendly to prolonging a useless war that is for all practical purposes a cap of concrete over cheap oil. Follow the money will you? Is forcing Iraqi farmers to buy GM seeds only, and forbidding seed replanting used for thousands of years a social advancement into democracy, where the Iraqi people decide nothing? Are Potemkin tours for diplomats and Senators really indicating of what is happening on the ground?

If you were a military and nation that had any sense and cared about the people you were allegedly defending, wouldn't you have an Army Corps of Engineers, or Seabees produce and refine oil for $2 dollars a barrel rather than $140 dollars a barrel at least for its own uses? Does the military that squanders $138 dollars and even more when you add up no bid transportation costs show weakness, or strength?

Trillions are missing from the Pentagon, while our troops do not get the equipment they need. Dragon skin armor would be indicated, but our troops are forbidden from having it even when they would buy it themselves. Armor plating is not there, while roadside attacks from suspicious sources, not Iraqi, not Iranian, keep injuring our troops while this country gets into more and more debt. Do we have both a weak military and a weak country with parasites on its carcass?


Reading this post has proven to me how specialized focus is no longer a division of labor but blinders on everyone's eyes.

[edit on 17-6-2008 by SkipShipman]



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 05:50 AM
link   
Actually we have the strongest military on the planet, and every one knows it and that is why no one wages conventional war with us. Their (successful) strategy is mount a counter insurgency until the females and liberals of this country cry ouch and demand we withdraw.



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 07:07 AM
link   
Ive said this before in another thread..the USA hasn't won a war since WW2 ( forget Granada thats not a war ) if you look at Korea..its still 2 separate countries with the North Being Communist, Vietnam was a catastrophic failure with a complete withdrawl, Iraq...Afghanistan do you see what Im trying to say ?

The bottom line is agressor countries cannot win and will always eventually be defeated.



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by mazzroth
 


What would you call desert storm?That was the bigger assault since ww2.



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by alienstar
 


desert storm was a police action. there was no capture of baghdad or saddam. it wasnt the goal, the goal was to keep saddam from getting too powerful had he taken over kuwaits oil wells.

we have not won a war since ww2, but technically we have not declared war since ww2. so in reality all these "police actions" korea, vietnam, gulf 1, bosnia, gulf 2 are all unconstitutional and illegal. so we got that goin for us.

but i completely agree with all those that said our military is the best if used in the right way. our military was not meant to do police actions. its designed to kick names and take ass.

what we are trying to do in iraq is thread a needle with a sledgehammer. and then give all the profits to haliburton and KBR. wars of aggression normally dont work out well for the aggressor. time is on the side of the defenders.



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Who cares??

Sorry no offence by this, but this thread appears kind of childish, my military is better than yours!! lol



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by alienstar
reply to post by mazzroth
 


What would you call desert storm?That was the bigger assault since ww2.


Meh...the assault that took back Kuwait and left Saddam still in power ?



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by alienstar
reply to post by mazzroth
 


What would you call desert storm?That was the bigger assault since ww2.


Meh...the assault that took back Kuwait and left Saddam still in power ?



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join