Can the US win a war ? ...

Originally posted by spy66


Well it has to do with Oil and the value of your dollar. The US control everything when it comes to corporations getting contracts in Iraq.

Right. We just weren't happy enough paying $30 a barrel for oil, so we went to war to push the price of oil up to, at one time $140 a barrel, so that we could spend BILLIONS on a war, and STILL pay $70 dollars a barrel on top of that for what we were paying $30 a barrel for before.

Makes perfect sense to me.

You went in there to find WMD and to kill Saddam. You did both. You killed Saddam and found out that he was telling the truth all a long. He had no WMD.

Right. All along. I guess you missed all the newscasts where he was claiming that he DID have WMDs. You might have been tuned into some sort of "Idol" broadcast during that time slot. I guess I can forgive that.

And it has nothing to do with anybody else's freedom but only your own/USA.

Now you're getting it. Look to your own freedom, and we'll look to ours.

Originally posted by Lonestar24

Originally posted by nenothtu
...
The very fact that you are able to speak your mind without fear of jail time and torture confirms the fact that wars are "won". ...

Nope. It confirms that society develops. War only happened when a powerful/large enough part of the society was resisting that development.

Nope. Wars have nothing to do with "resisting" development of society. They have everything to do with influencing the DIRECTION of that development. When a large enough segment of society decide that direction is heading the wrong way, and pleas don't work, a war develops.

The majority of the "free" states has never had to fight a war for their freedoms, which makes something like the Independence War a rather sad footnote of history in the big picture.

Correct. Because someone else fought it for them, the ingrates.

Not a single war has ever set anyone free, it merely eliminated the opposition.

That was the funniest part of the post. What do you think set them free? The elimination of the opposition, of course!

[edit on 2009/7/2 by nenothtu]

reply to post by Skelkie3


Well in Market Garden the 101st were ordered to take and hold the bridge...

They took and held the bridge....

Then when TPTB realized Montgomery's plan was a mistake they ordered the 101st to retreat. I dont see that as a defeat.

reply to post by Skelkie3


This question was examined in the context of a few narrow but detailed scenarios in Col John Antal's tactical decision game books (you make decisions after each chapter and proceed to different chapters depending on those decisions (and sometimes random chance)). I remember two of them were Infantry Combat: The Rifle Platoon, and The Combat Team.

Infantry Combat examines a situation similar to the gulf war: hostile forces invade a mid eastern US ally and a thin line of light infantry is immediately deployed to the border while forces are still being gathered for a counter-invasion. The reader is placed in the position of an army platoon leader guarding a small pass on his batallion's flank. Because the US line is stretched thin and undersupplied this early in the war, and your superiors expect the enemy to be stupid and undisciplined, they give your platoon the short shrift on AT-4s, Javelins, and the artillery priority of fire, and just hope that all the enemy tanks come hey diddle diddle, right up the middle.

The book concludes that these circumstances are plausible, and that there would be no way to hold the position- the enemy would gain the rear of the American unit and probably destroy most of the company. The reader's job is to make sure that his unit lives to fight again when reinforcements arrive.

The book allows this to be accomplished only if the reader sets himself up to get lucky- you have to identify orders that will get you killed and disobey them, you have to smooth out problems with your NCOs to make sure they'll take the time to convince you when you're making a mistake, you have to anticipate that you might lose the battle and designate alternate lines of defense as well as rally points, and you have to send out patrols to find any snipers or artillery spotters watching your position, and even then there are a couple of points in the book where you have to roll dice to decide key factors (such as whether a lucky tank round takes out both the platoon leader and platoon sergeant, turning a fighting retreat into a disorganized run for dear life that costs the life of every man in the company.)

If you do that, the way the book plays out is that you are driven out of the pass, and simultaneously an enemy air assault overruns your company headquarters, leaving it up to you to fire and retire through several backup positions, allowing survivors to reform the company under your command and lead a counterattack several days later.

Antal ignores the fact that Operation Desert Shield was partially insulated against an Iraqi armored attack by the desert. Iraq didn't even want to punch it out with Saudi ground troops alone over the Hama oil fields because of it was a lot of miles over a lot of sand and not a lot of roads to move an army in the face of the Saudi Airforce and two US carriers, (and similar situations exist on many mid-eastern borders) but his point would be valid at points on the Iraq-Iran border and for most of Israel.

I think Antal tends to overestimate the abilities of both sides at different points, and almost constantly underestimates both the amount and the potency of "friction" (summed up in the original murphy's law, and proven to be nearly infinite by the ever-growing collection of "murphy's laws of combat") but since these are neutral forces it is possible that his point still stands and that yes, the US could get a bloody nose if it made its characteristic mistakes at a crucial moment and against a very technically and tactically proficient foe.

2. The US military uses lots of high technology that can be easily defeated by a sophisticated enemy. Guided weapons, drones, etc.- rely on secure communications to operate. Jamming is as old as radio... ' nuff said.

As is ECCM.

Nuff said,

Let me reiterate - you don't know what you're talking about.

[edit on 2/7/2009 by C0bzz]

Originally posted by mattifikation
I was under the impression that Saddam Hussein, who once fielded the 7th largest army in the world, was defeated not only once, but twice by U.S. led forces.

I was also under the impression that after his second defeat, he was executed by hanging. And furthermore, I was lead to believe that the country he once controlled was handed over to a pro-U.S. government. It was my understanding that the country in question is now an ally of the United States.

And it can't help to escape my notice that we have withdrew from all Iraqi cities, having achieved great success in training Iraq's own army to defend itself. It appears to me that we will meet all future deadlines for complete withdrawal from the entire country, as we achieve the last remaining objectives.

Your question needs to be specific. "Against an enemy that can fight back" doesn't explain much. Do you mean against an enemy that can defend its own soil really well? Or do you mean against an enemy that launches a counter offensive against U.S. soil? Because those idiots would be doomed. There are more armed Americans than there are soldiers in the entire rest of the world's militaries combined.

And second, on what terms would you want this hypothetical war to be fought? Is this a "nation building" war like Iraq and Afghanistan, or is this a "bomb the crap out of them until there's nothing left, and then roll in the tanks to shoot the corspes" war?

Is the public behind it? Are we growing victory gardens and donating our waste metals to the war effort? Are we sitting at home eagerly awaiting our draft notices so that we can serve our country and defeat whatever threat we've come to face?

The simple truth is that every war we've "lost" or been depicted as "losing in" has been due to political defeat, not being beaten on the battlefield. You'd think people would credit us for not having an appetite for senseless war... But no, they call us warmongers and then they call our military weak when they fight handicapped because nobody back home wants them to fight at all.

The initial post indicated a hypothetical situation in which :

1. The enemy may have very very good intel all the way to the top, perhaps sold to them by unscrupulous ' allies ' who have their own agenda,
a condition of internationalising ( corporatizing ) the defense dept. Some persons may act in downright traiterous ways because of ' multiple loyalties ' . I don 't mean some tambourine - whacker on the street.

2.The hypothetical enemy has the ability to render most tactical and probably most strategic real-time recon non-existant. At least in their own backyard.

3.Our lines of communication and supply are considered ( for the sake of argument and coincedentally mimicking decades of history now ) longer.

The hypothetical situation doesn 't take public support into consideration. It may not ( hypothetically speaking ) be required.

Originally posted by C0bzz

2. The US military uses lots of high technology that can be easily defeated by a sophisticated enemy. Guided weapons, drones, etc.- rely on secure communications to operate. Jamming is as old as radio... ' nuff said.

As is ECCM.

Nuff said,

Let me reiterate - you don't know what you're talking about.

[edit on 2/7/2009 by C0bzz]

Well, that's the question... even given the fact that I don't know what I'm talking about... what happens to these lines off comm., when somebody who knows what they are doing wants to take them out ?
ECM ( electronic countermeasures ) have been around since WW2.

Are you ( thank God ! ) the only one who knows about this stuff ?
I was worried there for a moment !

Originally posted by Skelkie3

One or another empire has always backed one or another tribe.

Granted. And I never quite understood how they booted all those empires out with all the infighting. My experience of the Afghans in the 80's was that they were fighting each other whenever there wasn't a Russian around to fight.

I will say on the subject that as an American- I 'm disgusted by the fact that our guys are trying to combat Reagan's freedom fighters.
What disgraces our ' leaders ' are !

I won't argue about our leaders being a disgrace, because I agree. They are. However, the "Taliban" are only connected wit the mujahideen of the 80's in a peripheral sense. They are a later development of one of those "factions" from the 80's, not a representation of the muj as a whole. There really IS no representation of the muj as a whole. What later became "The Northern Alliance" under Masud was also another faction, and they were/are our allies today, when they aren't busy infighting with one another. The faction under Gulbuddin Hekmatyar was another muj faction from the 80's. I guess it takes all kinds.

I think there is a possibility of a much wider and more destructive war in that region. One where you trade that baret and smg in for a brain bucket and a shovel.

Are you speaking of Iran, perhaps, getting involved overtly rather than covertly? A distinct possibility, since they are flanked on 2 sides, and have demonstrated a proclivity for meddling in the affairs of other middle eastern countries covertly. IMO, for Iran to go overt at this time would only serve to draw Pakistan tighter to the US, as most Paks that I've met absolutely detest Iranians. The old Shia/Sunni rift, with most Pakistanis being Sunni, and viewing Iranian Shia as apostates. That would be a strategic error on the part of Iran, because it would assist in mending a developing rift between the US and Pakistan.



[edit on 2009/7/2 by nenothtu]

Originally posted by Reading

In Iraq, British special forces aim to merge into the background, driving battered local cars and wearing cheap clothes bought in markets. They looked on aghast at their US colleagues who initially drove around in new Dodge pickups.

“We used to laugh when we saw the Americans around the green zone,” one source said. “They would be wearing designer jeans, heavy boots and T-shirts - that was their idea of local dress. To a man they would all have pistols strapped to each leg with black plastic holster and webbing, and of course they would be wearing the latest shades. We called it ‘living the dream’.”

But it was far from a joke. If the Americans were spotted for what they were, then any British forces operating alongside them would be at risk as well. Even more seriously, if US forces applied their doctrine of shooting first and asking questions later, the British risked being dragged into the same dangerous territory.


one British source said
“I saw a lot of things in Baghdad that were illegal or just wrong,” he said. “The Americans had a well deserved reputation for being trigger-happy.”

i think that says it all really

What a crock of BULL, the only ones running around looking all cool wearing wrap around shades capped cuff tee shirts to show off how buff their arms are were the Blackwater Brats. Trigger Happy? what the hell is that? The RAF? Ha ha ha ha Trigger Happy? No wonder why we always thought the Brits didn't have any ammo. They were to skeered to shoot and yeah when ya know your so called ally is gun shy, that tends to make us a little trigger happy.

We sure couldn't afford a bunch of gun shyness and british timidity being drawn into the same territory.

This is a story I got in an email from my Father, It rings true and covers several areas already mentioned in this thread.


How Politics can get in the way of successfull missions


How well trained our US special forces actually are


How an unbridalled U.S Military could wreak havoc on ANY country including Russia which has not fought any formidable armies since WWII and China which has relatively no experience in a war the likes of those Russia and the US have had. They did interfere with many of the wars we have been in like Viet nam and Korea.

I read this and I can just see Obimbo doing this crap

Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 10:29 AM

To: Terry C Smith

Subject: FW: US Navy vs. Pirates, Version Number 3



Vadm "Bobby" Harwood

Details below. 4 shots




Your "Real" story is not exactly the way I heard it, and

probably has a few political twists thrown in to stir the pot. Rather

than me trying to correct it, I'll just tell you what I found out from

my contacts at NSWC Norfolk and at SOCOM Tampa.





First though, let me orient you to familiarize you with

the "terrain."




In Africa from Djibouti at the southern end of the Red

Sea eastward through the Gulf of Aden to round Cape Guardafui at the

easternmost tip of Africa (also known as "The Horn of Africa") is about

a 600 nm transit before you stand out into the Indian Ocean. That

transit is comparable in distance to that from the mouth of the

Mississippi at New Orleans to the tip of Florida at Key West-- except

that 600 nm over there is infested with Somalia pirates.






Ships turning southward at the Horn of Africa transit

the SLOC (Sea Lane of Commerce) along the east coast of Somalia because

of the prevailing southerly currents there. It's about 1,500 nm on to

Mombassa, which is just south of the equator in Kenya. Comparably,

that's about the transit distance from Portland Maine down the east

coast of the US to Miami Florida. In other words, the ocean area being

patrolled by our naval forces off the coast of Somalia is comparable to

that in the Gulf of Mexico from the Mississippi River east to Miami then

up the eastern seaboard to Maine.






Second, let me globally orient you from our Naval

Operating Base in Norfolk, VA, east across the Atlantic to North Africa,

thence across the Med to Suez in Egypt, thence southward down the Red

Sea to Djibouti at the Gulf of Aden, thence eastward to round Cape

Guardafui at the easternmost tip of Africa, and thence southerly some

300 miles down the east cost of Somali out into the high seas of the

Indian Ocean to the position of MV ALABAMA is a little more than 7,000

nm, and plus-nine time-zones ahead of EST.






Hold that thought, in that, a C-17 transport averaging a

little better than 400 kts (SOG) takes the best part of 18 hours to make

that trip. In the evening darkness late Thursday night, a team of Navy

SEALs from NSWC (Naval Surface Warfare Center) Norfolk parachuted from

such a C-17 into the black waters (no refraction of light) of the Indian

Ocean-- close-aboard to our 40,000 ton amphibious assault ship, USS

BOXER (LHD 4), the flagship of our ESG (Expeditionary Strike Group) in

the AOR (Area Of Responsibility, the Gulf of Aden). They not only

parachuted in with all of their "equipment," they had their own

inflatable boats, RHIB's (Rigid Hull, Inflatable Boats) with them for

over-water transport. They went into BOXER's landing dock, debarked,

and staged for the rescue-- Thursday night.






And, let me comment on time-late: In that the SEAL's

quick response-- departing ready-alert in less than 4 hours from

Norfolk-- supposedly surprised POTUS's staff, whereas President Obama

was miffed not to get his "cops" there before the Navy. He reportedly

questioned his staff, "Will 'my' FBI people get there before the Navy

does?" It took the FBI almost 12 hours to put together a team and get

them packed-up-- for an "at sea" rescue. The FBI was trying to tell him

that they are not practiced to do this-- Navy SEALs are. But, BHO

wanted the FBI there "to help," that is, carry out the Attorney

General's (his) orders to negotiate the release of Captain Phillips

peacefully-- because apparently he doesn't trust GW's military to carry

out his "political guidance."







The flight of the FBI's passenger jet took a little less

than 14 hours at 500-some knots to get to Djibouti. BOXER'S helos picked

them up and transported them out to the ship. The Navy SEALs were

already there, staged, and ready to act by the time POTUS's FBI arrived

on board latter that evening. Notably, the first request by the OSC (On

Scene Commander) that early Friday morning to take them out and save

Captain Phillips was denied, to wit: "No, wait until 'my' FBI people

get there."







Third, please consider a candid assessment of ability

that finds that the FBI snipers had never practiced shooting from a

rolling, pitching, yawing, surging, swaying, heaving platform-- and,

target-- such as a ship and a lifeboat on the high seas. Navies have

been doing since Admiral Nelson who had trained "Marines" to shoot

muskets from the ship's rigging-- ironically, he was killed at sea in

HMS VICTORY at the Battle of Trafalgar by a French Marine rifleman that

shot him from the rigging of the French ship that they were grappling

alongside.







Notably, when I was first training at USNA in 1955, the

Navy was doing it with a SATU, Small Arms Training Unit, based at our

Little Creek amphib base. Now, Navy SEAL's, in particular SEAL Team SIX

(The "DevGru") based at NSWC (Naval Surface Warfare Center) at Little

Creek do that training now, and hone their skills professionally--

daily. Shooting small arms from a ship is more of an accomplished "Art

Form" than it is a practiced skill. When you are "in the bubble" and

"in tune" with the harmonic motion you find, through practice, that you

are "able to put three .308 slugs inside the head of a quarter at 100

meters, in day or night-- or, behind a camouflaged net or a thin

enclosure, such as a superstructure bulkhead. Yes, we have the

monocular scopes that can "see" heat-- and, draw a bead on it. SEALs

are absolutely expert at it-- with the movie clips to prove it.







Okay, now try to imagine patrolling among the boats

fishing everyday out on the Grand Banks off our New England coast, and

then responding to a distress call from down around the waters between

Florida and the Bahamas. Three points for you to consider here: (1)

Time-Distance-Speed relationships for ships on the high seas, for

instance, at a 25-knot SOA (Speed Of Advance) it takes 24 hours to make

good 600 nm-- BAINBRIDGE did. (2) Fishermen work on the high seas, and

(3) The best place to hide as a "fisherman" pirate is among other

fishermen






Early Wednesday morning, 4/8/2009, MV ALABAMA is at sea

in the IO about 300 miles off the (east) coast of Somalia en route to

Mombassa Kenya. Pirates in small boat start harassing her, and

threatening her with weapons. MV ALABAMA's captain sent out the

distress call by radio, and ordered his Engineer to shut down the

engines as well as the ship-service electrical generators-- in our

lingo, "Go dark and cold." He informed his crew by radio what was

happening, and ordered them to go to an out-of-the-way compartment and

lock themselves in it-- from the inside. He would stay in the pilot

house to "negotiate" with the pirates.






The pirates boarded, captured the Captain, and ordered

him to start the engines. He said he would order his Engineer to do so,

and he called down to Engine Control on the internal communication

system, but got no answer. The lead pirate ordered two of his four men

to go down and find him and get the engines started.







Inside a ship without any lights is like the definition

of dark. The advantage goes to the people who work and live there.

They jumped the two pirates in a dark passageway. Both pirates lost

their weapons, but one managed to scramble and get away. The other they

tied up, put tape over his mouth and a knife at his throat.







Other members of the crew opened the drain cocks on the

pirates boat and cast it adrift. It foundered and sunk. The scrambling

pirate made it back to the pilot house and told of his demise. The

pirates took the Captain at gun point, and told him to launch one of his

rescue boats (not a life boat, per se). As he was lowering the boat for

them, the crew appeared with the other pirate to negotiate a trade. The

crew let their hostage go to soon, and the pirates kept the captain.

But, he purposefully had lowered the boat so it would jam.









With the rescue boat jammed, the pirates jumped over to

a lifeboat and released it as the captain jumped in the water. They

fired at him, made him stop, and grabbed him out of the water. Now, as

night falls in the vastness of the Indian Ocean, we have the classic

"Mexican" standoff, to wit: A life-boat that is just that, a life-boat

adrift without any means of propulsion except oars and paddles; and, a

huge (by comparison) Motor Vessel Container Ship adrift with a crew that

is not going to leave their captain behind. The pirates are enclosed

under its shelter-covering, holding the captain as their hostage. The

crew is hunkered down in their ship waiting for the "posse" to arrive.





After receiving MV ALABAMA'S distress call, USS

BAINBRIDGE (DDG 96) was dispatched by the ESG commander to respond to

ALABAMA's distress call. At best sustainable speed, she arrived on

scene the day after-- that is, in the dark of that early Thursday

morning. As BAINBRIDGE quietly and slowly, at darkened-ship without any

lights to give her away, arrived on scene, please consider a recorded

interview with the Chief Engineer of MV ALABAMA describing BAINBRIDGE's

arrival. He said it was something else "... to see the Navy slide in

there like a greyhound!" He then said as she slipped in closer he could

see the "Stars and Stripes" flying from her masthead. He got choked up

saying it was the "...proudest moment of my life."





Phew! Let that sink in.





Earlier in the day, one of the U.S. Navy's Maritime

Patrol Aircraft, a fixed wing P3C, flew over to recon the scene. They

dropped a buoy with a radio to the pirates so that the Navy's

interpreter could talk with the pirates. When BAINBRIDGE arrived, the

pirates thought the radio to be a beaconing device, and threw it

overboard. They wanted a satellite telephone so that they could call

home for help. Remember now, they are fishermen, not "Rocket

Scientists," in that, they don't know that we can intercept the phone

transmission also.





MV ALABAMA provided them with a satellite phone. They

called home back to "somebody" in Eyl Somalia (so that we now know where

you live) to come out and get them. The "somebody" in Eyl said they

would be out right away with other hostages, like 54 of them from other

countries, and that they would be coming out in two of their pirated

ships. Right-- and, the tooth fairy will let you have sex with her.

Yea, in paradise. The "somebody" in Eyl just chalked up four more

expendables as overhead for "the cost of operation."





Anyway, ESG will continue to "watch" Eyl for any ships

standing out.






The Navy SEAL team, SEAL TEAM SIX, from NSWC briefed the

OSC (Commander Castellano, CO BAINBRIDGE) on how they could rescue the

captain from the life boat with swimmers-- "Combat Swimmers," per se.

That plan was denied by POTUS because it put the captain in danger--

and, involved killing the pirates.





The FBI negotiators arrived on scene, and talked the

pirates into sending their wounded man over for treatment Saturday

morning. Later that afternoon, the SEAL's sent over their RHIB with

food and water to recon the life boat but the pirates shot at it. They

could have taken them out then (from being fired upon) but were denied

again being told that the captain was not in "imminent danger." The FBI

negotiators calmed the situation by informing the pirates of threatening

weather as they could see storm clouds closing from the horizon, and

offered to tow the life boat. The pirates agreed, and BAINBRIDGE took

them under tow in their wake at 30 meters-- exactly 30 meters, which is

exactly the distance the SEALs practice their shooting skills.






With the lifeboat under tow, riding comfortably bow-down

on BAINBRIDGE's wake-wave ("rooster tail"), had a 17-second period of

harmonic motion, and at the end of every half-period (8.5 seconds) was

steady on. The light-enhanced (infra-red heat) monocular scopes on the

SEAL's .308 caliber Mark 11 Mod 0 H&K suppressor-fitted sniper rifles

easily imaged their target very clearly. Pirates in a life boat at

30-meters could be compared to fish in a barrel. All that was necessary

was to take out the plexiglass window so that it would not deflect the

trajectory of the high velocity .308 round. So, a sniper (one of four)

with a wad-cutter round (a flaxen sabot) would take out the window a

split second before the kill-shot-- no change in sight-picture, just the

window blowing out, clean.









Now, here's the part BHO's "whiz kids" knew as well as

the Navy hierarchy, including CO BAINBRIDGE and CO SEAL TEAM SIX. It's

the law in Article 19 of Appendix L in the "Convention of the High Seas"

that the Commanding Officer of a US Ship on the high seas is obligated

to respond to distress signals from any flagged ship (US or otherwise),

and protect the life and property thereof when deemed to be in IMMINENT

DANGER. So, in the final analysis, it would be Captain Castellano call

as to "Imminent Danger," and that he alone was obligated (duty bound) to

act accordingly.






Got the picture?






After medically attending to the wounded pirated, and

feeding him, come first light (from the east) on Easter Sunday morning

and the pirates saw they were being towed further out to sea (instead of

westward toward land), the wounded pirate demanded to be returned to the

lifeboat. There would BE NO more negotiations-- and, the four Navy SEAL

snipers "in the bubble" went "Unlock." The pirate holding Captain

Philips raised the gun to his head, and IMMINENT DANGER was so observed

and noted in the Log as CO BAINBRIDGE gave the classic order: WEAPONS

RELEASED! I can hear the echo in my earpiece now, "On my count (from

8.5 seconds), 3, 2, 1, !" POP, BANG! Out went the window, followed by

three simultaneous shots.



The scoreboard flashed: "GAME OVER, GAME OVER--

NAVY 3, PIRATES 0!"






I hope you found the above informative as best I know

it-- and, please excuse me in that after more than 50 years the Navy is

still in me. I submit that AMERICA is going to make a comeback, and

more than likely it'll be on the back of our cherished youth serving

with honor in Our military.

If it's Monaco or Tuvalu, I'm feeling lucky.

The problem isn't our military.

Our damned Generals don't know (fill in the blank) from strawberries.

The United States CAN win any war.

the problem isnt the military, its the Stupid People back home. From the Protestors, to the Senator that wants to win an election.

Everybody has lost their stomach. It's gotten soo bad that people will cry foul when the US legitly defends itself.

We could have won Vietnam, the people at home, the people who didnt fight, got cold feet.

I also find it hysterical that after all the worlds CRYING about IRAQ we are finnally starting to leave and we get called pansies now. Real mature.

Nobody wins a war.

You might defeat the enemy on the field of battle... but you still lost.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by spy66
In my eyes they are fools who will kill in war based on a lie. A lie they should stand up and fight against instead of fighting for it.

I dont know if you understand what i mean!

Which lie would that be? The WMD "lie" that progressives here keep hapring about? Let's see now... 5000 kurds killed by Saddam using poison gas (classified as a "WMD"). Poison gas used by Saddam against Iran during their border war.

Do you reckon Saddam just used it all up, and decided to not get any more, because killing off 5000 folks at a whack just wasn't efficient enough killing for him?

Hmm... it WAS there, at least at one time, so what do YOU think happened to it? If it was there, how is the WMD issue a "lie"?

Let's not forget about the VX gas cannisters rigged into roadside bombs in Iraq, and defused by US explosive Ordinance Disposal personnel. If it wasn't "there", how was it "there"?

Bet you'd be surprised if some of the classified stuff were to suddenly become declassified.

[edit on 2009/7/2 by nenothtu]

You are talking about A GAS that was given to him by the West in the first place. With the US support. They even gave Saddam Mirages. All this was given to Saddam by us when Iraq was fighting Iran. We even built his bunkers.

Its a lame excuse to say that you "invaded" Iraq because Saddam gassed civilians. Because that is a lie. Your just trying to justify a lie with an excuse.

Originally posted by fooffstarr
Nobody wins a war.

You might defeat the enemy on the field of battle... but you still lost.

And the reasoning for that is...?

Not good to put out a rash statement without a defense of it. You could get called on it.

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by spy66
In my eyes they are fools who will kill in war based on a lie. A lie they should stand up and fight against instead of fighting for it.

I dont know if you understand what i mean!

Which lie would that be? The WMD "lie" that progressives here keep hapring about? Let's see now... 5000 kurds killed by Saddam using poison gas (classified as a "WMD"). Poison gas used by Saddam against Iran during their border war.

Do you reckon Saddam just used it all up, and decided to not get any more, because killing off 5000 folks at a whack just wasn't efficient enough killing for him?

Hmm... it WAS there, at least at one time, so what do YOU think happened to it? If it was there, how is the WMD issue a "lie"?

Let's not forget about the VX gas cannisters rigged into roadside bombs in Iraq, and defused by US explosive Ordinance Disposal personnel. If it wasn't "there", how was it "there"?

Bet you'd be surprised if some of the classified stuff were to suddenly become declassified.

[edit on 2009/7/2 by nenothtu]

You are talking about A GAS that was given to him by the West in the first place. With the US support. They even gave Saddam Mirages. All this was given to Saddam by us when Iraq was fighting Iran. We even built his bunkers.

Its a lame excuse to say that you "invaded" Iraq because Saddam gassed civilians. Because that is a lie. Your just trying to justify a lie with an excuse.

Please re-read my post. Slower this time, so you can comprehend. Where did I say that we invaded Iraq because Saddam gassed civilians? I THINK I said WMDs were present at some time, and that was the evidence for it.

Poison gasses are classed as WNDs. You admit to the gas deaths yourself, in your post. I guess it was ok for Saddam to kill civilians, eh?

Who then is lame? The one who makes a rational argument, or the one who throws out wild accusations of "lies" while himself providing the evidence that it wasn't a lie?

Emotional much?

[edit on 2009/7/3 by nenothtu]