Can the US win a war ? ..., page 5
Pages: <<  2    3    4    5    6    7    8  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 6 times


reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 12:28 AM by spy66
reply to post by nenothtu



LoL again your trying to build up an excuse to cover your lies. He did say he had bacterial weapons because we gave it to him. He gassed the Kurds for crying out loud lol with the gas that we gave him. But that's not why you when to war on Iraq. That's just an excuse you use now. The other excuse is that Saddam was a tyrant against his people. And that to is a excuse you use now to cover up a lie. Because we supported Saddam when he was a tyrant fighting Iran. How do you explain that lol.

Its called trying to justify a invitation. By using innocent civilians as a excuse.
I bet your invitation cost the Iraq people more civilian deaths then the Gas that Saddam used to kill Kurds with.
Is that how you like to justify your invitation?


[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]


reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 12:31 AM by nenothtu
Originally posted by spy66
reply to
post by nenothtu



LoL again your trying to build up an excuse to cover your lies. He did say he had bacterial weapons because we gave it to him. He gassed the Kurds for crying out loud lol with the gas that we gave him. But that's not why you when to war on Iraq. That's just an excuse you use now. The other excuse is that Saddam was a tyrant against his people. And that to is a excuse you use now to cover up a lie.

Its called trying to justify a invitation. By using innocent civilians as a excuse.
I bet your invitation cost the Iraq people more civilian deaths then the Gas that Saddam used to kill Kurds with.
Is that what how you like to justify your invitation?





Please re-read my post above, and even MORE slowly this time. Get back to me when you're ready to discuss things, and back up your allegations, instead of just wildly throwing them around.

At no point did I say that was WHY we went to war against Saddam. I merely pointed out that the allegations of "lies" about WMDs were false, which you valiantly confirmed. I really don't think we should have gone to war with Iraq when we did, but it was coming at some point anyhow. I just think later would have been better.

It helps rationality to leave the emotions out of it.

I'll not respond again until you have something worth responding to.

[edit on 2009/7/3 by nenothtu]



reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 12:33 AM by spy66
Originally posted by nenothtu
Originally posted by spy66
reply to
post by nenothtu



LoL again your trying to build up an excuse to cover your lies. He did say he had bacterial weapons because we gave it to him. He gassed the Kurds for crying out loud lol with the gas that we gave him. But that's not why you when to war on Iraq. That's just an excuse you use now. The other excuse is that Saddam was a tyrant against his people. And that to is a excuse you use now to cover up a lie.

Its called trying to justify a invitation. By using innocent civilians as a excuse.
I bet your invitation cost the Iraq people more civilian deaths then the Gas that Saddam used to kill Kurds with.
Is that what how you like to justify your invitation?





Please re-read my post above, and even MORE slowly this time. Get back to me when you're ready to discuss things, and back up your allegations, instead of just wildly throwing them around.

It helps rationality to leave the emotions out of it.

I'll not respond again until you have something worth responding to.


Well i didn't have to read the much to see that your trying to cover up a lie with an excuse.


reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 12:33 AM by dooper
reply to post by fooffstarr



Man, I hate to disagree with anyone on ATS, but when I defeated my guys on the battlefield, I won.

My presence indicates I won.

I'm not sure of what happened to the losers.

And I doubt they buried themselves.

Now the men at the Alamo weren't defeated. They were only killed.


reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 01:44 AM by Zosynspiracy
reply to post by TheCoffinman





They are not as well funded or as well organized as a conventional army of Russia or China. They have no airforce, no navy, very little artillery, no major bombs, no missiles, no tanks, no armored vehicles, etc. And I have no clue what I'm taking about? You're funny bud.


reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 03:07 AM by spy66
reply to post by nenothtu



Take a good lok at this. They did tell you all a great big lie. And you saw it on TV just like me and every one else did.

www.youtube.com...


reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 08:28 AM by Unknown Perpetrator
America ability to win a war on all fronts has been disabled, both against a massive conventional force and the assymetric ones too.

Starting with the latter, no clear objectives: The US is a force of occupation, securing forward facing bases in or around actual 'energy/resource interest' countires. History tells us going back 4000 years, all occupying forces will be repulsed or withdraw under stalemate/defeat.

Secondly, the US couldn't fund or fuel a 'major conflict' for more than two or three weeks. Firstly, the USA as a country is broke.... any major war would see BRIC countries stop buying US treasuries and they'd go broke within a month. Secondly, Russian, Chinese or Indian subs would take out the ant trail of oil tankers crossing the atlantic and the war machine would dry up and idle within weeks. America is only self sufficient in generating hot air and bull#

Russia has plenty of oil/gas to fuel a successful defensive war in eurassia.....China doesn't and is in a similar energy position to the US. I'm sure all those Ipod Factorys though could quickly retool to churn out 1 million AK-47s a week and billions of round of ammunition.

The America of today is very different of that of the mid 40's early 50's ... all this high tech gadgetry, the bits/chips come from Asia... the US couldn't retool for sustained combat, they've lost all the plant, technicalskills and finance to do so.

Looking at who's got the biggest gun or exotic stealth bomber doesn't even come into it anymore

The money numbers to fund the USA military against the Chinese Peoples Army or Russians who can field fighters at a fraction of the cost & at high effectivity levels equal to that of US combat troops.

The complexity and cost means the US have a defunct Military doctrine... even thought the Pentagon has had a Decade to change the structure, the top brass still go for Star Wars type programs with massive budgets, pork barrelling, and cronyism on defence contract and equipment procurement.

For example: Who would have thought that artillery shells and tanks rounds turned into massive roadside bombs would have taken out more tanks and APCs than the Iraqi army during invasion as the munnions were intended. One dimensional outlook, some cheap but insightful lateral thinking, unconventional tactics and the US war systems breakdown. It can't adapt quickly enough and complex systems will collapse due to chaos theory.
Pages: <<  2    3    4    5    6    7    8  >>    ^^TOP^^



Nano Drones Flying in Formation
  Posted 8 days ago with 15 member flags
FPS RUSSIA
  Posted 14 days ago with 7 member flags
Spinel Thin Transparent Ceramic Armor defeats Barrett .50 Cal BMG
  Posted 12 days ago with 6 member flags
Self-steering Bullet Researched
  Posted 10 days ago with 5 member flags
Shockrounds take out three of your five senses.
  Posted 2 days ago with 5 member flags
Defective Ammunition Warning
  Posted 2 days ago with 5 member flags