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.

 

The Coward War of a Nation

page: 1
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   
September 11, 2001 As our eyes watch in horror the falling of the Twin Towers we also saw
the fabric of Lady Liberty come down. On that day we were stripped naked and vulnerable to the world and to our selves. As quick as we could ask why, the answer machine was in full operational mode. The United States of America was under attack on its own soil.

By 2003 George Bush and Tony Blair were standing in front of the world shoulder to shoulder.Absolute to the world. Absolute to make War. Clandestinely to make Money.

None other than Vice President Dick Cheney's Halliburton Corporation ( how conviently to the
rescue ) geared up the efforts of the Iraqi war.Everything from soup to nuts, Halliburton was on the job. Feed the Armys, call Dick.Need more ammo, call Dick. Empty the Port-a-Johns, yep, call Dick. Need a little more muscle from the likes of the BlackWater boys, you're getting the picture, Call Dick.

Billions of dollars paid to Halliburton and thousands of Life Insurance policies paid out at the expense of the american tax payer and also the expense of lives lost by wives and mothers and fathers and for the first time really felt here in the land of the brave, Husbands. Women not in combat roles are getting hit hard mostly as truck drivers in the convoy operations of troop movements and logistics.

Are you feeling where I'm going with this? This isn't your ordinary Anti-War peice, its the conclusion of a nation as it looks on to the expense of tax dollars and lives in the Afghanistan
war. A war with Cowards. What I would hope to do here is expose the real Coward.

We have grown to except the Vietnam war as escentual. It would take some digging to find that
Linden B. Johnson had a corporation of his own much like Halliburton. I dont know, but seems now as we get smarter and see through the smoke and mirrors that it is the greed of man that fights these Coward Wars. Engauging battle with dirt poor farmers and in the mix making money hand over fist.

Fighting the likes over the years of Napolian, Hitler, Yamamoto left men like Truman with grave decisions that cost and save lives. Lately its the names of Gen.McCristal and Col.Tony Shaffer
(no relation) exposing the realities of the Afghan war as a squander. Dollars made by uncle Dick. Lives paid by mothers and daughters fathers and sons. Our generation of a Cowardly War.

E-5 Sgt. U S Army sep. Operation Southern Watch Jan.2000 - July 2000 I am conservative and tend to vote republican




posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Translation: war is a business. Government have learned, as predicted by Orwell, that skirmishes with "terrorists" in obscure locations such as mountains and caves and wars with third world countries keep the money flowing to them and corporations. And what makes it even less alarming is the few (American) lives lost. Since America isn't losing thousands of soldiers' lives, no one bothers to say " Enough is enough" unlike Vietnam. Of course the hardship of Afghanis, the suffering of their people and Iraqis as well does not matter to the West so long as there are "terrorists" - gotta kill as many as you can. Thousands upon thousands of their bodies could create a vast wasteland and the Western media will exploit it later instead of calling attention to it now. Maybe Wikileaks can help.

To quote Orwell

"But in a physical sense war involves very small numbers of people, mostly highly-trained specialists, and causes comparatively few casualties. The fighting, when there is any, takes place on the vague frontiers whose whereabouts the average man can only guess at, or round the Floating Fortresses which guard strategic spots on the sea lanes. In the centres of civilization war means no more than a continuous shortage of consumption goods, and the occasional crash of a rocket bomb which may cause a few scores of deaths."

Sounds familiar? Keep the war small and vague, it will going on forever... No one will question it until a few generations in the future. Large-scale wars are always questioned and when large number of casualties are lost, THEN the war will end.

edit on 1-1-2011 by DevilJin because: no reason



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   
You may be a buck sergeant, but your scope of reality is apparently somewhat limited.

It's gotta be fun to curse outfits such as Haliburton.

But here's the one calculation no one ever really thinks about. Capacity.

Capacity.

If you want to build a 400-passenger aircraft, you don't go to Cessna.

If you must have an aircraft carrier, you don't approach a jon-boat builder.

Haliburton is huge, with huge capacities. International capacities. Huge international capacities.

THAT'S why Haliburton was called. Since it's so very large, it's only natural that some in politics have or have had in the past - some connection or familiarity with Haliburton.

It's always a good idea to know who can do what.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by FarArcher
 


I made my point just fine,thankyou very little. The little wars as the poster before you called them cost this nation's tax payers dollars and lives....not just sons and more but daughters also some of them are mothers. All for the war machine.

Farpoacher,,, stick to your favrite frase..."aim small miss small"



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   
Cowards war? 3000 civilians were slaughtered on 9/11, if that aint a reason to go to war then what is!!!



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   
War costs money?

And lives? Had you only spoken up earlier, we could have avoided this whole ordeal.

How about a look at the other side of the equation?

Name one country - one military - who like the US has hundreds of thousands of combat hardened, combat experienced, combat trained soldiers either currently active duty or back in civilian life.

Just one.

Name one nation who has equivalent combat proven weapons systems, logistics management systems, cutting edge technology that has been combat tweaked, and multi-force coordination/battle management experience.

Just one.

Here's the secret: We lost a ton of men early in WWI and WWII because our combat experienced men were nil when we encountered combat experienced enemies.

That inexperience cost us hundreds of thousands of lives. Yeah, some women and of course every man was someone's son.

It was said almost 2400 years ago - and forgive me if I paraphrase - all men being more or less the same, but who will prevail was trained in the severest school.

If war and fighting are such a burden, you may wish to take up cooking school.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by FarArcher

Name one country - one military - who like the US has hundreds of thousands of combat hardened, combat experienced, combat trained soldiers either currently active duty or back in civilian life.

Just one.



The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Italy, France, Australia, Canada, Germany, Estonia, Poland, Russia, Georgia. You Americans really do need to get out of the mindset that you are the only people who are worth talking about.


Name one nation who has equivalent combat proven weapons systems, logistics management systems, cutting edge technology that has been combat tweaked, and multi-force coordination/battle management experience.

Just one.


The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, The Republic of France, Australia, Italy, Germany, Australia, Canada. What a shame the US Armed Forces can't use such "cutting edge technology" to recognise their allies or hostages in rescue missions.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Constantlysilenced
 

My apologies, but I've never run across the carrier battle groups of UK. I've never seen reference to the carrier battle groups of Northern Ireland, nor of any of the nations you've mentioned. Estonia? Canada?

I've never seen the advanced Air Forces of these nations equal up to the US. Nor the advanced electronics in the same numbers. Nor the tanks in the same numbers. Nor the UAV advancements and sheer numbers that match up.

I specifically want you to match a nation with the numbers, man for man, tank for tank, carrier for carrier of combat experienced troops that the US has.

You can't.

No one said that other nations didn't have numbers as does China or Russia, nor advanced technologies in smaller numbers such as some of those you mentioned.

I mean toe to toe - of combat experienced men.

For you to suggest that Estonia has the same number of combat hardened veterans is just a bit dumb, don't you think?

Same for Germany. Combat experienced troops/combat tested weapons platforms/organizations.

I love Poland and Polish people, but as a stand-alone national military power, they just don't seem to have the volume of combat systems/personnel as do the US.

I don't know which of these nations you come from, and I really don't give a rat's fuzzy anus, but you need to get over the tier that your nation resides in.

France? You gotta be stoned! As Patton said, "I rather face a German division in front of me than have a French division behind me." One must realize that since the Franks took over that territory, they haven't won a war since.

Are these nations good friends? Some more than others.

I specifically was speaking to an American about American forces, and even if you throw in these nations, you still don't come up with the same number of battle tested and experience combat veterans.

Even if you toss all those other nations in together and take the total number of combat hardened, combat tested weapons systems, and combat tested logistics, you won't match what the US has.

If you don't like it, tough.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by FarArcher
 


ok fartomahawk thrower, answer me this. At best the weaponry of the Afghan rebels is 30yrs old at best. As well armed and combat vested as the U.S. is, why can't our Hi powered, Hi moral & motivated,Hi fed, Hi speed advanced more than anybody, can't in a number of days or months woop these talibaners asses? Its not just my question, its the question of the year. Why does it have to take so long? Anthony Shaffer had all of the then bad guys in one place. Talk about " Fire mission over. Send one Copperhead, troops in the shed, OVER " He had to let them go. It was all over with right there and then. But Oh No, we can't do that, there is too much money to be made and how can we also harvest the Orr under the ground and make some real money.The answer is too damned much money is being made off of it.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 07:53 PM
link   
So many questions from one who knows so little - thus my dilemma - where to start?

I'll keep it simple.

We simply aren't destroying our opponents when and where we find them.

With your obvious grasp of history - especially military history - you know what is required to win any war.

One must be more ruthless than your opponents, cut off and destroy him where you find him, as well as those assets that support him, with EVERY weapon in your control.

Right now, we're just testing hardware for another event.

In the meantime, we're gaining thousands of additional combat experienced personnel.

And I am overwhelmed by your ability to call others names, schittferbranes.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by FarArcher
 


so FarArrowchucker,what event are we ramping up for that it make Dickie Cheney so much money that the US Government must barrow from a devout Communist Nation multiple stacks of $1 bills that reach the moon and also a body count of which include stateside deaths (soldiers that cant cope and kill them selves stateside and ones that die from blood dissorders or injurys combat aquired) a count that nearly rivals the bodycount of the war you claim to have fought. Why do YOU feel it necessary to practice filling body bags? What fantastic weapons are we taking our time practicing with that full body bags are concidered an acceptabe casualty risk?



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by FarArcher
 


Right now, we're just testing hardware for another event.

Can you please explain in more detail what you mean by this statement? I want to know because my only brother is on his way to Afghanistan and this statement struck me as being odd, deserving of a more detailed answer....



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by kennylee
 


Yeah, I'd like to hear the answer too. He claimed to have so many.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by FarArcher
reply to post by Constantlysilenced
 

My apologies, but I've never run across the carrier battle groups of UK. I've never seen reference to the carrier battle groups of Northern Ireland, nor of any of the nations you've mentioned. Estonia? Canada?

I've never seen the advanced Air Forces of these nations equal up to the US. Nor the advanced electronics in the same numbers. Nor the tanks in the same numbers. Nor the UAV advancements and sheer numbers that match up.

I specifically want you to match a nation with the numbers, man for man, tank for tank, carrier for carrier of combat experienced troops that the US has.

You can't.

No one said that other nations didn't have numbers as does China or Russia, nor advanced technologies in smaller numbers such as some of those you mentioned.

I mean toe to toe - of combat experienced men.

For you to suggest that Estonia has the same number of combat hardened veterans is just a bit dumb, don't you think?

Same for Germany. Combat experienced troops/combat tested weapons platforms/organizations.

I love Poland and Polish people, but as a stand-alone national military power, they just don't seem to have the volume of combat systems/personnel as do the US.

I don't know which of these nations you come from, and I really don't give a rat's fuzzy anus, but you need to get over the tier that your nation resides in.

France? You gotta be stoned! As Patton said, "I rather face a German division in front of me than have a French division behind me." One must realize that since the Franks took over that territory, they haven't won a war since.

Are these nations good friends? Some more than others.

I specifically was speaking to an American about American forces, and even if you throw in these nations, you still don't come up with the same number of battle tested and experience combat veterans.

Even if you toss all those other nations in together and take the total number of combat hardened, combat tested weapons systems, and combat tested logistics, you won't match what the US has.

If you don't like it, tough.



Your ignorance is astounding. Italy has two carrier battle groups, the UK has two carrier battle groups (and two supercarriers being built), France has one carrier battle group and has ordered one supercarrier from the uk, in addition, the Eurofighter Typhoon is as advanced, if not more advanced than most mainstream US fighter jets (excluding the F22), the Challenger 2 tank used by the UK has had NO losses to enemy action, unlike your "high tech we're better than else" tanks. Just face it, your armed forces are all the gear, no idea. And you may think numbers are everything, but look at this:

en.wikipedia.org...

The Russians had three times as many soldiers as the Finns, 30 times as many aircraft, and a hundred times as many tanks. The Finns defeated them. It's about training, and from what I have seen, heard and read, your training is nowhere near as intensive as most major European nations. All the gear, no idea.

Sorry, but once again your ignorance is sickening, you say that even if we put all the European nations together, we wouldn't have as much as the US? If the EU's separate militaries were combined, we would have 6,884,296 active personnel, 6,895 tanks, 3,523 fighter jets, 1,349 transport planes and 7 carriers. I think you will find that these numbers are more than the US. It's time to face it, you're nothing more than a second rate Great Power now, move over, your show is finished.

I rest my case.
edit on 2-1-2011 by Constantlysilenced because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 06:49 AM
link   
reply to post by FarArcher
 


"Name one country... Just one. "

Ok, ok.. the US military has the biggest, baddest, meanest, fattest dick in the world.. not to mention most macho best dressed. 3 cheers, hip, hip, hooray and all that...

Romes forces packed the most hefty junk of the day.. didn't stop the empire from crumbling.

Name an empire that ruled forever... Just one.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 07:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by GovtFlu
reply to post by FarArcher
 


"Name one country... Just one. "

Ok, ok.. the US military has the biggest, baddest, meanest, fattest dick in the world.. not to mention most macho best dressed. 3 cheers, hip, hip, hooray and all that...

Romes forces packed the most hefty junk of the day.. didn't stop the empire from crumbling.

Name an empire that ruled forever... Just one.


A prerequisite of having the biggest, baddest, meanest, fattest dick in the world is the ability to defeat basically equipped, badly trained locals with improvised weapons, which you failed to do in Vietnam and Afghanistan.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Constantlysilenced

Originally posted by GovtFlu
reply to post by FarArcher
 


"Name one country... Just one. "

Ok, ok.. the US military has the biggest, baddest, meanest, fattest dick in the world.. not to mention most macho best dressed. 3 cheers, hip, hip, hooray and all that...

Romes forces packed the most hefty junk of the day.. didn't stop the empire from crumbling.

Name an empire that ruled forever... Just one.


exactly my point, this war has cost, safe to say a trillion dollars, ( I have no idea just how much money that is or what riches it could buy) and thousands of lives and souls too. Yet it is faught in against dirt poor farmers with ages old weapons..Russians lost...we are loosing..maybe that is the point? why are the PTB so determined to reduce this Once Great Nation to another dirt poor 3rd world country. The war against the Japanese, Germans, those wars were not Cowardly wars.
]
edit on 2-1-2011 by mike184ever because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-1-2011 by mike184ever because: sorry I still havent figured how too navigate these pages yet bear with me

edit on 2-1-2011 by mike184ever because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by kennylee
 

kenny, I appreciate your brother and what he's doing. It's not nearly as hard on him as it is on you and his family. After all, he knows every minute what he's doing, but family members worry most of the time.

The testing and tweaking of new hardware is an ongoing endeavor. I can give you a simple, older development: We had muj in caves and we targeted some of them with bombs using conventional explosives, and while they are good general purpose explosives, when it comes to caves and tunnels, you need more of an overpressure event to concuss those inside.

So we were able to replace some of these explosives with a newly (at the time) thermobaric explosive which vastly increased the overpressure effect in these caves and tunnels.

We're replacing our overhead RPV's. Initially, they were only used for reconnaisance, but one day, a company man decided to rig one with a Hellfire missile, and we realized that they could also become kill vehicles.

Time over target was a limiting factor, so now we're replacing the early models with larger, more efficient models that not only have greater time over target, but carry much more ordinance.

All of which helps keep American soldiers, such as your brother alive and well.

The farther you get to stand off and kill your enemy, the safer you remain, and the greater your chance to go home to your loved ones.

We're also testing some developments in microwave technology, active camouflage, night detection, movement pattern discernment for finding concentrations through traffic patterns, advanced electronic eavesdropping, chip tracing, high-energy pulse weapons, and scores of others.

The more we can kill the faster, the better we can do in the present as well as the future. Thanks to the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, we've already developed scores of new technologies, and we are able to improve them through our continued operations.

Something NO other nation can claim, as they aren't present and doing the same thing.

Which was the original premise of my claim.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Constantlysilenced
 

Constantly, ignorance, contrary to what you've apparently been taught, is not a virtue.

Let's take just one of your points - Vietnam.

At no time did the US lose a battle in Vietnam.
At no time did the US become responsible for South Vietnam.
At no time did the "peasants" defeat the US.

The only time your "peasant" rose up to fight was in 1968, at the direction of the North, and they were so completely wiped out, that they never again could constitute any force worthy of battle.

There was an outright invasion by North Vietnamese Regulars in 1972, and they too, in spite of multiple divisions and armor, were slaughtered. By the way, we only had about 1500 combat troops in South Vietnam when we slaughtered all those North Vietnamese.

In Cambodia and Laos, our forces enjoyed a 100-150:1 kill ratio.

The Presidential election of 1968 promised a complete withdrawal of American troops, which was accomplished.

All US combat troops were gone by the Summer of 1972.

South Vietnam fell in 1975.

So before you go on repeating crap learned by rote from another retard, you'll look a lot less stupid if you can get a few facts straight before having diahrrea of the mouth.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Constantlysilenced
 

Constantly, you're right, I completely forgot about the French Navy! And I should have remembered, especially after their spectacular performance in WWII, right up to the moment the French navy was sunk by the British navy. Something about the French/Nazi/Collaborator navy sitting in the Mediterranean.

That Italian military was a terror too!

The one outfit that has my utmost respect was the Finns. They absolutely slaughtered the Russian army that came to invade. In fact, Hitler saw what happened, and figured if the Finns could slaughter the Russians in such large numbers with so little, that Germany could do no less, thus his invasion of Russia.

Swiss too. No one messes with the Swiss. Because they used to hire out as mercenaries, whichever side had the Swiss used to slaughter their enemies, so all Europe agreed that no one could hire the Swiss - giving smaller or less wealthy nations a shot at war.

The fact that you mentioned the EU combined forces proves my initial point, and I thank you. No one, not even me said any EU nations weren't efficient or well outfitted.

I said no one could field as many combat hardened, combat experienced troops as the US.

Is everyone so stupid as to not understand the words I just said once again?

Name another nation that currently has 200,000 combat hardened, combat experienced troops. We've acquired ours over the last couple decades.

Britain is likely #2 of all armies in the world with combat hardened, combat experience troops, although it's not the second largest army in the world.

Starting to soak in?



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join