Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Here is your war on Terrorism ! America !

page: 38
28
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 04:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by FarArcher
The US has literally a hundred thousand COMBAT VETERANS who've seen the varmit, met him, and busted his ass.

The US has literally 30,000,000 gun owners, many with multiple weapons, and piles and boxes and crates of ammunition.

The UN couldn't put together enough troops to take Miami.


You really have no idea. You think that just because an American owns a gun, that makes him combat worthy? Most of your population live in cities and play video games or watch movies all day; they don't know the first thing about survival or hardship first hand.

All you gun-touting population will become is targets and experience points for invaders. Do you really think your population is going to rise up as a paramilitary when they realize how quickly they are getting mowed down by professional soldiers?

And what makes you think an invading force is just going to walk into your gang and mafia infested cities? They will bomb the crap out of them first until the local population is broken. Sure, some willful insurgents may still persist, but how long will they last without training, organization, logistics, etc? Not too long.

I think it's funny when Americans proclaim that their people are a trained military. They aren't. All over the world, you can find populations loaded with guns, a lot of them trained and experienced too (paramilitary, drug cartels, insurgencies, rebels, etc). What do American civilians have? Some government-approved weaponry and a lot of television under their belt, with the possibility of some target shooting.

Come to think of it, a foreign invader could just stock up on weaponry from the cold, dead hands of Rambo wannabes.




posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 04:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 



And what makes you think an invading force is just going to walk into your gang and mafia infested cities? They will bomb the crap out of them first until the local population is broken. Sure, some willful insurgents may still persist, but how long will they last without training, organization, logistics, etc? Not too long.


And where will the US military be while these cities are being bombed??
You really don't think US soldiers would bomb their own do you??
Because I doubt that would happen....



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 04:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by FarArcher
reply to post by MrAnnunaki
 

That's just about what I figured.

I know every day you make your momma proud.


comments like that just show how idiotic thinking you got.

i know every day you make your boss proud.

you see that?! it wasnt hard for me to mock you..

edit on 17-1-2011 by MrAnnunaki because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 



And what makes you think an invading force is just going to walk into your gang and mafia infested cities? They will bomb the crap out of them first until the local population is broken. Sure, some willful insurgents may still persist, but how long will they last without training, organization, logistics, etc? Not too long.


And where will the US military be while these cities are being bombed??
You really don't think US soldiers would bomb their own do you??
Because I doubt that would happen....



The US military will be protecting key military, political and economic interests. Reserve forces will occupy most American cities but they will be less capable than regulars.

Would US forces bomb their own cities to ward off invaders? My honest reply is yes, after they calculate the value of such an action. Collateral damage is described as attacking a target more valuable than the civilian population/infrastructure around it, and the Americans always stick true to this meaning.

If an American city is outright invaded my a conventional army, then I have little doubt that the US will bomb it. If we're talking about unconventional forces, like drug cartels/special forces/rebels etc, then the US would respond by sending in troops to combat the invading forces. However in the event of an outright conventional invasion, US forces would not have that fighting capacity, and it would be more valuable to them to bomb then fight on the streets.

But my original point was if a force invades the US, they would bomb a US city before invading it. They would not just walk in and fight building to building. In bombing a US city, the psychological impact on the civilian population would be enormous, and media coverage would affect the entire country. In such an event, many cities would be invaded simultaniously also and the resources to combat this invasion would be stretched significantly (especially when vanguard American forces are halfway around the world).



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 05:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


Odd scenario with no real merit..
Where will the bombers come from?
US has air defences and a fair size navy...



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 05:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


Odd scenario with no real merit..
Where will the bombers come from?
US has air defences and a fair size navy...


US isn't invincible.

However I really don't want to get into a big discussion about the who/what/where/when/why of invading the US. It's off topic. Sorry if you were expecting more from me.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by FarArcher
The US has literally a hundred thousand COMBAT VETERANS who've seen the varmit, met him, and busted his ass.

The US has literally 30,000,000 gun owners, many with multiple weapons, and piles and boxes and crates of ammunition.

The UN couldn't put together enough troops to take Miami.


You really have no idea. You think that just because an American owns a gun, that makes him combat worthy? Most of your population live in cities and play video games or watch movies all day; they don't know the first thing about survival or hardship first hand.

All you gun-touting population will become is targets and experience points for invaders. Do you really think your population is going to rise up as a paramilitary when they realize how quickly they are getting mowed down by professional soldiers?

And what makes you think an invading force is just going to walk into your gang and mafia infested cities? They will bomb the crap out of them first until the local population is broken. Sure, some willful insurgents may still persist, but how long will they last without training, organization, logistics, etc? Not too long.

I think it's funny when Americans proclaim that their people are a trained military. They aren't. All over the world, you can find populations loaded with guns, a lot of them trained and experienced too (paramilitary, drug cartels, insurgencies, rebels, etc). What do American civilians have? Some government-approved weaponry and a lot of television under their belt, with the possibility of some target shooting.

Come to think of it, a foreign invader could just stock up on weaponry from the cold, dead hands of Rambo wannabes.


Sorry but why is it that most Canadians think that they hold some superior intellect in manners of US affairs?
The US has more battle proven veterans then any other country. Your BS comment about the masses just playing video games is true, but those are not the people that FarArcher is referring to. He is referring to people like me and those like me.
The UN would not stand a chance and neither would a putz like you.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by FarArcher
The US has literally a hundred thousand COMBAT VETERANS who've seen the varmit, met him, and busted his ass.

The US has literally 30,000,000 gun owners, many with multiple weapons, and piles and boxes and crates of ammunition.

The UN couldn't put together enough troops to take Miami.


You really have no idea. You think that just because an American owns a gun, that makes him combat worthy? Most of your population live in cities and play video games or watch movies all day; they don't know the first thing about survival or hardship first hand.

All you gun-touting population will become is targets and experience points for invaders. Do you really think your population is going to rise up as a paramilitary when they realize how quickly they are getting mowed down by professional soldiers?

And what makes you think an invading force is just going to walk into your gang and mafia infested cities? They will bomb the crap out of them first until the local population is broken. Sure, some willful insurgents may still persist, but how long will they last without training, organization, logistics, etc? Not too long.

I think it's funny when Americans proclaim that their people are a trained military. They aren't. All over the world, you can find populations loaded with guns, a lot of them trained and experienced too (paramilitary, drug cartels, insurgencies, rebels, etc). What do American civilians have? Some government-approved weaponry and a lot of television under their belt, with the possibility of some target shooting.

Come to think of it, a foreign invader could just stock up on weaponry from the cold, dead hands of Rambo wannabes.


I had a fairly long, involved reply typed out to this, and my computer ate it in transfer (damn script blockers!). Anyhow, I'm not going to type it all over again. I'll just say you'll likely be surprised in that eventuality, and I encourage you to continue fostering and spreading that viewpoint. I wholeheartedly want any potential invaders to have PRECISELY the views you state here.

Everybody likes surprises, right?



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


Again, Dimitri, please continue to foster and spread that view. I like the concentration you place on cities. Current military thinking does much the same, and I wholeheartedly hope they continue that urban concentration in planning.

Point targets are ALWAYS more vulnerable than area targets. Always have been, always will be.

Please continue to encourage the waste of effort in urban areas.

Edit to add: I went back and starred all of your posts in this matter, because I REALLY want that view to prevail among the unknowing. It'll make my job SO much easier!

edit on 2011/1/17 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


I only concentrate strategic value on urban areas and populations because they represent the top targets of economic, political and cultural value.

Obviously I understand rural importance. I am from a very rural location (20 years there). I understand that rural warfare is where guerellas and conventional forces alike fight the hardest.

But if you want to take over a country, you need to dominate the cities first to control as much as the population as possible. It's that simple.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
reply to post by nenothtu
 


I only concentrate strategic value on urban areas and populations because they represent the top targets of economic, political and cultural value.

Obviously I understand rural importance. I am from a very rural location (20 years there). I understand that rural warfare is where guerellas and conventional forces alike fight the hardest.

But if you want to take over a country, you need to dominate the cities first to control as much as the population as possible. It's that simple.

Nope, you don't need to dominate. If you can contain them through applications of fear, then you can focus on the rural area.

Using guerrilla tactics would be to win the hearts and minds of those in the cities, not to battle them. That is guerrilla tactics 101. Then you have ground to hide and regroup.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
reply to post by nenothtu
 


I only concentrate strategic value on urban areas and populations because they represent the top targets of economic, political and cultural value.

Obviously I understand rural importance. I am from a very rural location (20 years there). I understand that rural warfare is where guerellas and conventional forces alike fight the hardest.

But if you want to take over a country, you need to dominate the cities first to control as much as the population as possible. It's that simple.


That's just my point - it's not only you over-emphasizing the impact of urban areas, it's THEIR strategists and planners, too.

There are ways to work with that notion, and work with it successfully, especially in America. The rural areas have one key advantage that would render control of the cities not only moot, but in fact a real liability.

And it's not only the American urban areas that will suffer for that blunder in planning.

In guerrilla warfare, it's better to wound than to kill, because of the burden that places on the enemy. Yes, the cities would be lost in the beginning, but think of them more as wounded than dead.

Burdens on the occupation.

Similar to what happened in Iraq, but with vastly different results, because of attendant differences in circumstance.


edit on 2011/1/17 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 

Computer/Posting screw up????
edit on 17-1-2011 by FarArcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by FarArcher
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 

Dimitri, I apologize for being away and neglecting your sorely lacking education. I have no idea where you get some of these ideas from - possibly movies - so let me clue you in just a bit.

I was in SF, and let's just say it's a triple volunteer type military job. Unlike the typical soldier who has one MOS, (give you something to look up), I carried four MOS's.

The documented kill ratio for SF is 100:1 to 150:1. That's not bad.

Here's where your assumption falls apart.

We were able to take illiterate, primitive villagers, who weren't even American, and got their kill ratio to 30:1.

What we do is rapidly teach others how to effectively kill their enemies and survive the process.

During the identical same period, the typical US combat soldier kill ratio was 8:1.

The problem is our Generals, not the soldiers. Our generals put our soldiers at a distinct disadvantage.

So your concept that the typical armed American will fall apart in combat under stress when attacked by some nebulous invader is total, utter BS. No one kills like Americans when we get started, and history will verify that.

You would, but it's because you obviously have zero knowledge or experience in the military skills or arts, you don't have the understanding necessary to thrive in that element, your understanding of tactical and strategical elements is non-existent, and your blindness to your own unawareness borders on being suicidal.

In case you wonder at the current level of determination and professionalism of our current forces, I've been the keynote speaker at several Special Operations functions, and I can tell you that I've even seen some of those I met BEFORE they went to combat - have the story of their unequaled battlefield success documented and shown on television.

So you keep dreaming up irrational scenarios.

It's what you seem to do best.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by FarArcher
 


Keep insulting me with your crap. I really don't care if you're on the internet claiming to be special forces. You don't know me in real life and I would really like to see you keep up with me or my people out in the mountains, because I guarentee you and your special forces "150:1 kill" ratio isn't going to save your ass from freezing or other forms of exposure while being hunted down at the same time by people born on and in tune with the land.

Seriously, typical American assumption that they know everything and everyone else is stupid or uneducated.

EDIT: I don't even know why people give you stars, dude. All you do is insult people you don't agree with and talk as if you're better than them. You're better than nobody.
edit on 17-1-2011 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by FarArcher
 



In case you wonder at the current level of determination and professionalism of our current forces, I've been the keynote speaker at several Special Operations functions, and I can tell you that I've even seen some of those I met BEFORE they went to combat - have the story of their unequaled battlefield success documented and shown on television.


Laying it on a little thick there mate..

"unequalled battlefield success ?"..
I think that deserves a little proof..Quite the call...

edit on 17-1-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


Actually were trained in extreme climates in many different places as well as experienced in all different climates around the globe from deployments. That is the least of our worries. The 150:1 was used in referance to combat against semi trained to fully trained armed combatants, not a group of canadians who have zero combat experience as that would be alot closer to 300:1. Btw it seems he gets stars because he speaks on behalf of actual combat experience, unlike some who speak about military tactics without any experience in them first hand.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by MarineSniper12Kills
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


Actually were trained in extreme climates in many different places as well as experienced in all different climates around the globe from deployments. That is the least of our worries. The 150:1 was used in referance to combat against semi trained to fully trained armed combatants, not a group of canadians who have zero combat experience as that would be alot closer to 300:1. Btw it seems he gets stars because he speaks on behalf of actual combat experience, unlike some who speak about military tactics without any experience in them first hand.


I know spec ops are good but 300-1.??
Factually it's a little unrealistic..
I doubt there's many soldiers that have killed 300 to prove the point..
Unless of course that includes air support etc...



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by MarineSniper12Kills
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


Actually were trained in extreme climates in many different places as well as experienced in all different climates around the globe from deployments. That is the least of our worries. The 150:1 was used in referance to combat against semi trained to fully trained armed combatants, not a group of canadians who have zero combat experience as that would be alot closer to 300:1. Btw it seems he gets stars because he speaks on behalf of actual combat experience, unlike some who speak about military tactics without any experience in them first hand.


Now you're just trolling. Personally, I think you're full of sh!t and I really have no idea why people on here support what you say.

I have no futher interest in taking part in a discussion with a troll like you.
edit on 18-1-2011 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 06:52 AM
link   
reply to post by FarArcher
 



In case you wonder at the current level of determination and professionalism of our current forces, I've been the keynote speaker at several Special Operations functions, and I can tell you that I've even seen some of those I met BEFORE they went to combat - have the story of their unequaled battlefield success documented and shown on television.


Hey, I read up a bit..
The Aussie SAS had a 500-1 ratio in vietnam..
Your battlefield boys must have done good to beat them kind of figures..
Can't wait for your proof..





new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join