T1B

17,000 men and women are offered up for sacrifice. Thanks BO.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/wor ... istan.html

Jerkovich wrote:17,000 men and women are offered up for sacrifice. Thanks BO.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/wor ... istan.html

You are lucky Obama is still giving Americans the right to arm chair General while their fat fucking asses sit at home watching Fox News and stealing oxygen. If I had my way, we would have allied with India and beat Pakistan's mistepping asses anytime they whined about us crossing their border to find Bin Laden.

What is your problem with actually fighting the war on terror? The one Bush fucked up so severly on that he should be in jail for incompetence.

88 wrote: The rusting hulks of innumerable Soviet military machines out front should have been a clue.

The likes of which were brought down by American supplied rocket launchers.

The irony is rich.

What a bunch of pussies.

Fight, you faggots.

Yet if Obama had reduced the troop levels Jerkoff would have been complaining about him being soft on terror.

Typical panty wringing from Jerkoff.

mvscal wrote:I don't really know why anybody is wringing their hands over this. It isn't going to happen. 17,000 will become 10,000 which will become 5,000 which will be quietly shelved when nobody is paying attention.

I am actually surprised. Do you really think that the 17,000 aren't set to go...with more will follow? Of course it's a guaranteed disaster--with absolutely no strategy or end game scenario in place--but once again you're probably dead wrong.

My brother has spent significant time in both Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001. Politics aside... he has always been of the position that we needed more troops in Afghanistan. The Iraqi theater of operations has received the lion's share of the resources. The troops in Afghanistan have kind of been red-headed stepchildren.

mvscal wrote:

Rack Fu wrote:we needed more troops in Afghanistan.

To do what...exactly?

The Taliban has regained much of the control they had lost after the invasion because we do not have the resources over there to stop them from doing so. Much of what was accomplished after 9/11 has been undone in Afghanistan. Then there's that Osama guy who still lingers like an 8,000 lb. gorilla.

mvscal wrote:I don't really know why anybody is wringing their hands over this. It isn't going to happen. 17,000 will become 10,000 which will become 5,000 which will be quietly shelved when nobody is paying attention.

Forsooth.

Buddy of mine at work is National Guard and he'd been scheduled to go to Ft. Leonard Wood for 30 days training on handling IED's two months ago, and then one month ago, and then today... for an eventual August deployment to Afghanistan.

So he shows up at work today about 3 hours late, when we weren't expecting him to be there at all. They didn't have his orders cut.

Poor guy. He's bummed he missed out of action during Desert Storm and just wanted a piece. He's right at the age limit.

mvscal wrote: I think we've killed enough of them to make our point.

I don't.

The job's not done. And when we do get that job done, the next job is Pakistan.

They're cockroaches, filthy vermin that need to be eradicated. By any means.

War Wagon wrote:

mvscal wrote: I think we've killed enough of them to make our point.

I don't.

The job's not done. And when we do get that job done, the next job is Pakistan.

They're cockroaches, filthy vermin that need to be eradicated. By any means.

Why, exactly?

Why is Pakistan's problems supposed to be my financial burden?

mvscal wrote: I think we've killed enough of them to make our point. We are certainly never going to take over their country or have the slightest bit of social influence over them. So that begs the question of just what the fuck are we doing there...exactly. Playing whack a mole in the mountains is a losing proposition.

Back on the "peace train"? Nice.

Plenty of room. Hope aboard.

mvscal wrote:

War Wagon wrote:The job's not done.

And what job is that...exactly? What is it that you think we should and are able to accomplish through military force in Afghanistan? Please no vague, arm wavy generalities.

Eliminating the Taliban and Al Qaeda, by any and all means necessary. That was the job from Day One after 9/11, and it still is.

Clear enough?

mvscal wrote:We need to have a very clear understanding of the limitations of military power especially in a place as difficult to get to as Afghanistan. We are not omnipotent.

What more can we reasonably accomplish?

I see you playing devils advocate.

Ok, Iwo Jima was hard to get to.

He's spot on though, comrade WW. NATO secretary general says all US cares about is permanent bases in a country that borders Iran, China, Pakistan etc. etc.

How do you supply them?

Russia is forcing US bases out of former northern socialist republics and Pakistan is a temporary, tenuous suppy line at best. There is a reason NATO hasn't sent anything other than few half strength regiments with rusty trucks, the writings been on the wall for ages.

Dr_Phibes wrote:He's spot on though, comrade WW. NATO secretary general says all US cares about is permanent bases in a country that borders Iran, China, Pakistan etc. etc.

How do you supply them?

Russia is forcing US bases out of former northern socialist republics and Pakistan is a temporary, tenuous suppy line at best. There is a reason NATO hasn't sent anything other than few half strength regiments with rusty trucks, the writings been on the wall for ages.

Try again, Feebs.

Russia is allowing supplies to flow thru their border with Afghanistan after the Kyber pass thru Pakistan wasn't so passable.

Don't professors read the fucking papers?

"Vague, arm wavy generalities" is a very apt way of describing it. The visual there is spot on.

read it again, War Wagon and pay attention to the wording of those articles - the headline doesn't always match the substance. I've seen them, it was a cynical offer and it was politely declined.

mvscal wrote:

War Wagon wrote:Eliminating the Taliban and Al Qaeda, by any and all means necessary.

At what cost? Save the "any and all means" dick stroking. We aren't going to to do that.

Why not?

Because Obama is a pussy? He'll cave.

It needs to be done, pure and simple. They are implacable enemies of the United States. You, of all people, know how we deal with our enemies.

You, of all people, know how we deal with our enemies.

I'm not Mvscal but I still have a pretty thorough understanding of how we deal with our enemies, at least post WWII...

Mollify, placate, wheedle, plead, negotiate, bribe, surgically strike and otherwise do everything we can to minimize collateral damage while making sure to effectively neuter our own efforts.

There's also the pussyfooting and obfuscating and the overriding worry about offending people rather than getting the job done so that we don't have to do it again.

We also delight in commiting limited war without declaring actual war. We win battles but make no attempt to thoroughly prosecute wars, because toes might get stepped on should we be so untoward as that.

We fight our own media more than our armed enemies...

In effect, we use our military like a Meatgrinder coach putting together his OOC schedule.

Any of this ring a bell?

Van wrote: In effect, we use our military like a Meatgrinder coach putting together his OOC schedule.

Sig material.

Sleep easy tonight, Van.

I will.

Our military is the best fighting force ever assembled on this planet, and will continue to be so thru the forseeable future.

War Wagon wrote:

Van wrote: In effect, we use our military like a Meatgrinder coach putting together his OOC schedule.

Sig material.

Maybe, but not really a very apt comparison.

After all, our military hasn't played a home game since 1865.

1865? That's when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor, right?

Van wrote:1865? That's when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor, right?

I thought they were Mexicans.

War Wagon wrote:
Our military is the best fighting force ever assembled on this planet, and will continue to be so thru the forseeable future.

Your so fucking stupid.... you'd think you live in Kansas City on purpose.



You don't think this Israeli soldier would rip the eyeballs out of some "white trash" 18 year old kid from Missouri in a heartbeat ???




This is why Darwin has you living in Missouri.... you stupid fucking piece of shit.







the truth

Jesus is back and he's a chain smoking israeli private?

Yes, our military is quite capable. Problem is, as van points out we keep it on such a tight leash.

As for one on ones with israeli kids, I'd say it depends on the kid. Doesn't matter though since, as a force, we would roll them rather badly. We are just slightly bigger.

Rack Fu wrote: The Taliban has regained much of the control they had lost after the invasion because we do not have the resources over there to stop them from doing so. Much of what was accomplished after 9/11 has been undone in Afghanistan. Then there's that Osama guy who still lingers like an 8,000 lb. gorilla.

Control of what? Dust factories?

Ever since 9/11, unfukking the middle east has been job 1. Getting rid of Saddam was a good start.

Taking out Osama would be nice, just for a little vengeance, but, if he is still alive cowering in a cave somewhere, unable to do shit, he is as good as dead. If he was an 8,000 lb gorilla, he'd be a dead onein short order.

Afghanistan is a worthless shithole in central asia. They have no wealth which can be used to fukk us. Ought to just leave it to the locals or rich saudi expats to do with as they please. Maybe let the chairforce use it as a bombing range.

"The French fight very well; I'd be happy to see them there," adds Kagan.

I laughed.

Blueblood wrote:

Had I not right clicked that picture I would have thought you were pimping a Tom Cruise movie.

Blueblood wrote:

War Wagon wrote: Our military is the best fighting force ever assembled on this planet, and will continue to be so thru the forseeable future.

Your so fucking stupid.... you'd think you live in Kansas City on purpose.

You don't think this Israeli soldier would rip the eyeballs out of some "white trash" 18 year old kid from Missouri in a heartbeat ???



the truth

I understand your point but don't underestimate the "white trash" 18 year old either.

Blueblood wrote:

War Wagon wrote:
Our military is the best fighting force ever assembled on this planet, and will continue to be so thru the forseeable future.

Your so fucking stupid.... you'd think you live in Kansas City on purpose.



You don't think this Israeli soldier would rip the eyeballs out of some "white trash" 18 year old kid from Missouri in a heartbeat ???



the truth

Who is this hippy, anyhoo? What do you base this statement on? Is it because he looks pissed off? Is it the smoke hanging out of his piehole? Is it simply because he's Israeli? Or did this dude whip your ass, so now you figure he can whip anybody's ass?

Yet another c&p job by mstool with no apparent point, other than he has access to the internet and has a functioning Cntrl , C, V and enter key.

Oh, and when you wanna call somebody stupid, it's a good idea to spell the sentence correctly. Trust me on that one, dumbass.

smackaholic wrote:

Blueblood wrote:

War Wagon wrote:
Our military is the best fighting force ever assembled on this planet, and will continue to be so thru the forseeable future.

Your so fucking stupid.... you'd think you live in Kansas City on purpose.



You don't think this Israeli soldier would rip the eyeballs out of some "white trash" 18 year old kid from Missouri in a heartbeat ???



the truth

Who is this hippy, anyhoo? What do you base this statement on? Is it because he looks pissed off? Is it the smoke hanging out of his piehole? Is it simply because he's Israeli? Or did this dude whip your ass, so now you figure he can whip anybody's ass?

Yet another c&p job by mstool with no apparent point, other than he has access to the internet and has a functioning Cntrl , C, V and enter key.

Oh, and when you wanna call somebody stupid, it's a good idea to spell the sentence correctly. Trust me on that one, dumbass.

Why would anyone think this guy is tough? Obviously neither he nor his fellow IDF members are going anywhere near a fight without first starving the "enemy" by cutting off all supplies, then bombing from jets and attack helicopters, and only then rolling in with a ten-to-one advantage in weaponry and protection. Total fucking cowards. That they're fighting on behalf of a demented apartheid state experiment makes sense, I suppose.

first starving the "enemy" by cutting off all supplies, then bombing from jets and attack helicopters, and only then rolling in with a ten-to-one advantage in weaponry and protection.

Sounds about right. It ain't cowardly. It's just plain smart. Overwhelming force saves lives.

Sincerely,
Every General In The History Of Warfare

Van wrote:

first starving the "enemy" by cutting off all supplies, then bombing from jets and attack helicopters, and only then rolling in with a ten-to-one advantage in weaponry and protection.

Sounds about right. It ain't cowardly. It's just plain smart. Overwhelming force saves lives.

Sincerely,
Every General In The History Of Warfare

By Nicky's logic, every person on this board should drive 4 fucking nails through their skull and do some heroin before smacking him.

Van wrote:

first starving the "enemy" by cutting off all supplies, then bombing from jets and attack helicopters, and only then rolling in with a ten-to-one advantage in weaponry and protection.

Sounds about right. It ain't cowardly. It's just plain smart. Overwhelming force saves lives.

Sincerely,
Every General In The History Of Warfare

Oh sure, Van, but we're talking about starving millions of civilians. And then ruthlessly attacking civilians--hospitals, schools, police stations, etc. As for a general that would attack a sealed prison/concentration camp in the first place--just to slake the public's blood lust before an election--well this a genuinely depraved piece of shit. Notice that NONE of the Israeli generals have any actual warfare experience besides this grotesque abuse of an occupied population. And look at the leaders...Netanyahu is a fucking furniture salesman! The notion that these racist gangsters get to play international statesmen on the world stage at all is a ludicrous sham.

Wake the fuck up!

Nick, there's absolutely nothing stopping the rest of the Arab world from stepping up and feeding those people. Nothing. There's also nothing stopping the rest of the Arab world from stepping up and housing them in their own countries. Nothing.

The fact that the Arab world sees no reason for their existence except as human shields is on the Arabs, not the Israelis.

In terms of "ruthlessly attacking," well, that's also on the Arabs. We can forever debate what happened before 1948 but once Israel was established the Israelis have not been the initial aggressors.

Don't lob rockets into Israel, Israel won't crush the areas from whence those rockets came. Don't hide amongst the civilians and the Israelis won't attack civilian areas whenever you force them to respond.

The Arab response to 1948 is a nearly continual litany of barbarism and cowardice masquerading as moral outrage.

mvscal wrote:I don't really know why anybody is wringing their hands over this. It isn't going to happen. 17,000 will become 10,000 which will become 5,000 which will be quietly shelved when nobody is paying attention.

This from an avowed Racist who has never been right about anything.

I laughed.

Blueblood wrote:


You don't think this Israeli soldier would rip the eyeballs out of some "white trash" 18 year old kid from Missouri in a heartbeat ???



the truth

I get it. Your people are tougher than our people. Even your faggots are tougher than our people.

The contempt you fucking rat heebs have historically shown for your hosts is astounding. Only trumped by the ass-raping America currently begs for from modern Jewry.

RACK your people and the never ending "wet spot" that Americans keep offering up for your cocks.

Mikey wrote:

Van wrote:1865? That's when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor, right?

I thought they were Mexicans.

Don't stop him, he's on a roll.