T1B

BSmack wrote:I see mv and Mike are still comparing battles to wars. Keep on Googling "WWII battles". It's really helping.

Some of us actually know our nation's history very well. It's a shame you don't.

I do use google, but only to provide extra details to head off the invevitable and "Link?" statement provided by the ignorant reader.

I know quite a bit about the Italian Campaign in WWII and have read many books on the subject, including Kesselring's biography, the Anzio Landing, Monte Cassino, the Gustav Line and the Gothic Line (aka The Hitler Line). What do you want to know? :D

mvscal wrote:I define a disaster as operation with no discernible military purpose that could have been clearly identified as such with the information available at the time.

So, Iraq is a "disaster"?

mvscal wrote:Clark didn't have the political cover that guys like Nimitz and Bradley had.

Especially later on when Nimitz had an aircraft carrier, and Bradley had a shitload of tank like fighting vehicles. All Clark ever got was a candy bar.

mvscal wrote:but.. but.. but...

Congrats, join every other army in history that failed in it's objectives. People tend to ignore all the 'but, if we only...' when all's said and done.

You were an infantryman and it shows, every example you give is on a tactical level - you should consider that there are fundamental flaws and crippling contradictions in the foreign policy/grand strategy as a whole. It swings wildly between 'American style democracy is a natural human desire' for countries operating outside the American sphere of influence (assuming that everyone will shower troops with rose petals) and 'they're animals that only understand brute force'. If you think that sort of conflict/shit isn't going to filtre down to an operational level, you're out of your mind. Propaganda and practicality have been blended into a fucking mess that no-one has been able to separate.

Propaganda and practicality have been blended into a fucking mess that no-one has been able to separate.

Good God.... Irony shows no mercy here.

You fuckwits in the Hammer and Sickle crowd should be happy the American Democracy Crew are giving you extra innings to figure in Allah's Jihadist's and the "Mr Martyr and family" strapped with explosives thing" into the Grand Utopian Society. It seems the Manifesto is missing a few chapters here and there like...

"Praise Allah or Die"

"Exploding Children and the Society of Infadel's"

Ya know, the little things Karl forgot......

Well, Y2K, a lot of these tards seem to have forgotten Afghanistan from 1979-89.

Err, it was "imperialist dogs" who lost that war for us, comrad.

Well I'm not awake at night waiting for Jihadist landing craft to arrive, unlike you.

I'm operating on the premise that there is a grand strategy involved and it's a game of twenty-first century pole positioning, it's literally spelled out in the national security strategy - everything else is window dressing.

And Karl didn't forget anything, he understood that religious distress is simply a manifestation of real world distress.

Dr_Phibes wrote:

mvscal wrote:but.. but.. but...

Congrats, join every other army in history that failed in it's objectives. People tend to ignore all the 'but, if we only...' when all's said and done.

You were an infantryman and it shows, every example you give is on a tactical level - you should consider that there are fundamental flaws and crippling contradictions in the foreign policy/grand strategy as a whole. It swings wildly between 'American style democracy is a natural human desire' for countries operating outside the American sphere of influence (assuming that everyone will shower troops with rose petals) and 'they're animals that only understand brute force'. If you think that sort of conflict/shit isn't going to filtre down to an operational level, you're out of your mind. Propaganda and practicality have been blended into a fucking mess that no-one has been able to separate.

Ever been in combat you fucking little twat? Didn't think so.

While I understand your cowardly rants against the US machine, you have no cred bashing a fellow combatant. You have never served nor put up with the bullshit. Why didn'y you fight for your country? It's because you disagree with the fuck ups like Bush or any other politician that sent men into that environment? You are wired like a female that cowers when troubled. Yet you flail when you want to hide behind the shit troll you are and take shots at combatants. You are like the IED laying cowards that can't fight straight up. No honor with you uber tards world wide. Shit trolls like you hide behind the keyboard. You tards never disclose yourselves, but always have critical thoughts to the real posters.

Bottom line coward, you are a sack of shit and you are like all the other Canatards. Just hide behind a troll and take shots like the insurgents. You can't fight on your own as a man. Neither can your fucked up country"men." I predict Justaheel will have your lovingly smooth back as he sticks his 2 inch penis into your ball sack thinking it's your asshole.

And Karl didn't forget anything, he understood that religious distress is simply a manifestation of real world distress.

Well obviously the best way to correct it is build a Gulag! "A really really BIG one", a couple million Mass Executions along with homelessness and starvation and the Earth's people will come around to all the "practicality" and "human desires" directed and strictly enforced by select Utopian Ubermasters.

OCmike wrote:Some of us actually know our nation's history very well. It's a shame you don't.

I not only know my country's history, I know the difference between a fucking battle and a war. When somebody repeatedly continues to draw unfounded comparisons between WWII battles and Iraq, as if that somehow makes the Iraqi debacle somehow more palatable, I start to wonder if they know the difference between a straitjacket and a drool cup.

I do use google, but only to provide extra details to head off the invevitable and "Link?" statement provided by the ignorant reader.

I know quite a bit about the Italian Campaign in WWII and have read many books on the subject, including Kesselring's biography, the Anzio Landing, Monte Cassino, the Gustav Line and the Gothic Line (aka The Hitler Line). What do you want to know? :D

That's OK. I've seen enough text on WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam for one lifetime. My history degree out front could have told you that. Yea, I concentrated on 20th Century American history. Maybe that's why I'm looking at things with strategic perspective while you toil over the usual "history buff" material whilst making horrible analogies. .

Atomic Punk wrote:You are like the IED laying cowards that can't fight straight up.

British Officer During the Revolutionary War wrote:You are like the hit and run colonial cowards that can't fight straight up.

Irony abounds.

BSmack wrote:

Atomic Punk wrote:You are like the IED laying cowards that can't fight straight up.

British Officer During the Revolutionary War wrote:You are like the hit and run colonial cowards that can't fight straight up.

Irony abounds.

So you are equating the American revolutionary militia with Al Queda and the radical religious factions in Iraq?

Are you seriously nuts?

...Yep. I'd definitely rather keep the Meskins and deport a bunch of you guys.

RACK me for being right and RACK those of you who are proving my point.

Mister Bushice wrote:

BSmack wrote:

Atomic Punk wrote:You are like the IED laying cowards that can't fight straight up.

British Officer During the Revolutionary War wrote:You are like the hit and run colonial cowards that can't fight straight up.

Irony abounds.

So you are equating the American revolutionary militia with Al Queda and the radical religious factions in Iraq?

Are you seriously nuts?

It's a valid and very limited comparison. Don't make it more than what it is. You'll only look foolish.

"very limited" about sums it up.

Rich Fader wrote:...Yep. I'd definitely rather keep the Meskins and deport a bunch of you guys.

No you wouldn't. You'd be pissing your pants, worried about them vandalizing something.

OCmike wrote: But I, along with billions assumed he still had stockpiles of sarin and mustard gas left over from the first gulf war.

So what? You said "very few" thought he had WMD's when that is just not true.

Try using an inference instead of an assumption next time you braindead fuck.

If you thought differently then you're saying that you believed Tariq Aziz and Saddam Hussein on an issue that they gave their word on.

I didn't give a flying fuck about what they said. Nice Strawman though you fucking tard.

BSmack wrote: I not only know my country's history, I know the difference between a fucking battle and a war. When somebody repeatedly continues to draw unfounded comparisons between WWII battles and Iraq, as if that somehow makes the Iraqi debacle somehow more palatable, I start to wonder if they know the difference between a straitjacket and a drool cup.

I've been drawing comparisons of clusterfucks to clusterfucks, not battles to wars. So now the entire Iraq war is a clusterfuck and no progress has been made on any front? Yup, you're a moron.

BSmack wrote:That's OK. I've seen enough text on WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam for one lifetime. My history degree out front could have told you that. Yea, I concentrated on 20th Century American history. Maybe that's why I'm looking at things with strategic perspective while you toil over the usual "history buff" material whilst making horrible analogies. .

History buffs tend to focus on one area more heavily than those who are passed out Xeroxed diplomas from SUNY with the President's rubber-stamped signature on it.

Moving Sale wrote: Try using an inference instead of an assumption next time you braindead fuck.

Semantics games? Why not just type "I've got nothing" and eject. At least then you might have some pride left.

mvscal wrote:Hey c'mon. Don't you remember all the American suicide bombers in the Revolutionary War? Remember how American militias used hospitals, schools and occupied civilian homes as fighting positions in order to maximize civilian casualties?

We were just like Al Qaeda!

--A Dumbfuck

You're not very familiar with the history of the Revolution I see. Frontier warfare during the Revolutionary War was exceptionally brutal and paid very little mind to the welfare of women and children. Read up on the Clinton-Sullivan Campaign or the history of the Mohawk Valley someday.

I have and you're right. There have been flaws in the approach. Serious ones. The worst was the fact that we failed to understand the power structure in Iraq. Fundamentally, it is a tribal society and the tribal sheiks are the ones with the power. We stumbled in, elbowed them aside and installed powerless Euro-style technocrats and alienated the key people we needed to run the country.

A weak central government run by an ineffectual parliament is not going to work in the long term in Iraq or anywhere else. If we are a lucky this will be analogous to our experience under the Articles of Confederation and we'll get it right the second time. If we are not lucky it will be analogous to Weimar Germany and again, we'll get it right the second time but at a much higher cost.

I believe Iraq would function better as some sort of tribal confederacy like the United Arab Emirates. It might not be democracy per se, but it would be a stable society that isn't too repressive. The experiment with parliamentary democracy is clearly a failure and we should cut our losses on that political front.

excellent

A second RACK for mvscal. However, this is already the second time (Gulf War I). Hopefully we'll get it right the third time, this time around.

During the first Gulf War (and it was indeed packaged as a WAR), our "deciders" were wise enough to understand that they shouldn't start things that they didn't want to finish.

Watching this approach, the second tier chumps like Wolfowitz and Feith and Rumsfeld sat in the background, simmering, and waiting.

They failed to understand that to push forward into regime change in Iraq was to necessitate our intimate involvement for several decades. They thought it was going to be a tea party. That's why they were second-tier chumps then, and also why they were revealed as such subsequently.

The old guard knew that this would happen. It remains that they were too cowardly or too powerless to stop the President from making some pretty bad mistakes.

If you think Wolfowitz is a "second'tier chump," then you know very little about the power structure of this country.

Wolfowitz is very much in favor of a decades-long occupation of anywhere in the Mideast. People For The New American Century out front should have told you (you know... the PNAC that Wolfowitz used to be the figurehead of, until he was put in a position to do even more damage? THAT Wolfowitz?)

I think if you did a little looking into certain people's portfolio's, you'd find that Wolfy and crew are very into the US being in overseas occupations for a very long time. You might wanna check the portfolios of a bunch of people named Bin Laden while you're at it... I think you'll find their investments to be similar.

Well, exactly. They were cognizant of the fact that they didn't want to finish things. They were also more comfortable with Saddam in power than they were with a Shiite theocracy, so they weren't going to support the insurrection.

May not agree with you for the same reasons jack but I agree. Close the fucking border for these reasons.

1 Nobody should be entering the country without the governments knowledge.

2 A bunch of immigrants comming drives down wages for American citizens.

3 Potential for Weapons coming in.

4 Drugs coming in, if they aren't here people can't use them.

Now on to enforcement. Serious fucking fines and or Jail for employers of illegals. Last, if you're an illegal alien and you recieve free medical treatment or public assistance, get ready for your return to your home country. Coming and busting your ass is one thing, coming here and sponging is quite different.