• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Tomahawk Cruise Missiles Hit Targets in Libya


You did notice that article was done on 6 March? How are the rebs doing, two weeks later? They're getting their asses handed to them. It takes months to train a soldier is basic soldier skills and years to turn him into an elite war fighter. The rebs have neither the time, nor the resources to bring these guys up to where they need to be, now.
 
So Wiki claims that Ronald Reagan assisted in the genocide of the Kurds?

Wikipedia and "The National Security Archive at George Washington University has published a series of declassified U.S. documents detailing the U.S. embrace of Saddam Hussein"

What do you think his motive might have been? In fact what do you feel the motive of any Americans was in committing genocide in Iraq?

The US energy program - Middle East oil. That's what its always been about.



But whatever their reason you must have been pleased when George Bush out an end to all of it and finally freed the Iraqi people from the evil that was Saddam Hussein, and compensated in some small way for the sins of his predecessors.

If our concern had been for the Iraqi people and not the oil we would have done something about the genocide when we learned about. We just ****ing killed the Iraqi's that resisted our invasion and occupation and called them terrorists. It was all about making Iraq safe again for big oil for the first time since Saddam outlawed it 35 years ago.
 
You did notice that article was done on 6 March? How are the rebs doing, two weeks later? They're getting their asses handed to them. It takes months to train a soldier is basic soldier skills and years to turn him into an elite war fighter. The rebs have neither the time, nor the resources to bring these guys up to where they need to be, now.

Thus, foreign air power comes in to help out (at least somewhat) and SF.
 
Are they training them, too? Without the training, the weapons are almost useless.

Agreed

If you have the tech, the numbers, the choice of where and when you fight, sufficient logistical support, good execution and a good handle of contingencies, no amount of dedication will help your foe. They WILL lose; lose hopelessly, and in detail.
 
Yeah, yeah, yeah and Bush orchestrated 9/11...whatever.

They were Saudi's, all but one.


Giving up on your, "but the Russians did it too defense?"
 
Last edited:
Very few times, except through extra-ordinary luck, with all other things being equal, does a smaller force beat a larger one on the battlefield.

Again - you lose the political objectives - you lose the war

Success on the battlefield comes from soldiers, leadership, firepower, maneuver and an ability to communicate. The Confederate Army with inferior weapons and inferior numbers beat the **** out of the Federals for two years, with superior soldiers and superior leadership.
 
They were Saudi's, all but one.

And, you're going to tell us how they were working for Bush. Yes? I bet you even believe that Obama was born in Kenya.
 
They were Saudi's, all but one.


Giving up on your, "but the Russians did it too defense?"

I never said that. On your way to look for Obama's Kenyan BC, you can re-read my post.
 
Agreed

If you have the tech, the numbers, the choice of where and when you fight, sufficient logistical support, good execution and a good handle of contingencies, no amount of dedication will help your foe. They WILL lose; lose hopelessly, and in detail.

I believe you're right. The Hollywood version just isn't going to happen, here.
 
I'ma just gonna say one thing here.

This is a brick wall but here goes anyway.

Tomahawk missiles and air strikes < Full fledged invasion and regime change. 5000 American deaths. 32 500 American wounded.

Just saying.

A Geo Metro < Ford Expedition

But they're both still automobiles.

Just saying.
 
Last edited:
Success on the battlefield comes from soldiers, leadership, firepower, maneuver and an ability to communicate. The Confederate Army with inferior weapons and inferior numbers beat the **** out of the Federals for two years, with superior soldiers and superior leadership.

The Spartans were massacred at Thermopylae. They achieved nothing other than dying in place - albeit in a very spectacular manner.

One does not preclude the other. It is best to have both.

That said - Our society has forgotten that combat means casualties and that war is a dirty business. We have come to believe that no war will last longer than a week and we should never take more than 100 casualties.
 
And, you're going to tell us how they were working for Bush. Yes? I bet you even believe that Obama was born in Kenya.

I have never said 9/11 was an inside job, but it is an nice attempt to change the subject when you were stiil trying your best with the Russians did it too defense.

Are you giving up on that one?
 
The Spartans were massacred at Thermopylae. They achieved nothing other than dying in place - albeit in a very spectacular manner.

One does not preclude the other. It is best to have both.

That said - Our society has forgotten that combat means casualties and that war is a dirty business. We have come to believe that no war will last longer than a week and we should never take more than 100 casualties.

The Spartans couldn't maneuver.
 
I have never said 9/11 was an inside job, but it is an nice attempt to change the subject when you were stiil trying your best with the Russians did it too defense.

Are you giving up on that one?

No matter how many times you claim that I made that comment, it'll still be a ****ing lie.
 
And? You can't win a war with air assets and combat multipliers, alone.

Well, when we first went into Afghanistan, the Taliban were defeated (initially) due to our allies in the NA and our main weapons were air assets and SF

Edit: Added the word intially
 
I never said that.

If that is not what you were saying, than what is your response to these facts:

Still sticking with the Russia did it too defense I see.

"On May 25, 1994, the U.S. Senate Banking Committee released a report in which it was stated that "pathogenic (meaning 'disease producing'), toxigenic (meaning 'poisonous'), and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce." It added: "These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction."[30]

The report then detailed 70 shipments (including Bacillus anthracis) from the United States to Iraqi government agencies over three years, concluding "It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the UN inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program."
United States support for Iraq during the Iran

"On June 9, 1992, Ted Koppel reported on ABC's Nightline, "It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush, operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into" the power it became",[5] and "Reagan/Bush administrations permitted—and frequently encouraged—the flow of money, agricultural credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons to Iraq."

United States support for Iraq during the Iran

"The National Security Archive at George Washington University has published a series of declassified U.S. documents detailing the U.S. embrace of Saddam Hussein in the early 1980’s. The collection of documents, published on the Web, include briefing materials, diplomatic reports of two Rumsfeld trips to Baghdad, reports on Iraqi chemical weapons use during the Reagan administration and presidential directives that ensure U.S. access to the region's oil and military expansion."

"the documents we recently posted on the Internet demonstrate that the administration had U.S. intelligence reports indicating that Iraq was using chemical weapons, both against Iran and against Iraqi Kurdish insurgents, in the early 1980s, at the same time that it decided to support Iraq in the war. So U.S. awareness of Iraq's chemical warfare did not deter it from initiating the policy of providing intelligence and military assistance to Iraq. There were shipments of chemical weapons precursors from several U.S. companies to Iraq during the 1980s, but the U.S. government would deny that it was aware that these exports were intended to be used in the production of chemical weapons."

"I believe that when the U.S. became aware of Iraq's chemical weapons use it should have used what influence it had to stop it. Doing so was actually incumbent upon the U.S. under international law. I believe the U.S. should have used its international influence, which is enormous, to do everything it could to end this war. It was an atrocity, resulting in hundreds of thousands of casualties."

"The U.S., which followed developments in the Iran-Iraq war with extraordinary intensity, had intelligence confirming Iran's accusations, and describing Iraq's "almost daily" use of chemical weapons, concurrent with its policy review and decision to support Iraq in the war [Document 24]. The intelligence indicated that Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian forces, and, according to a November 1983 memo, against "Kurdish insurgents" as well [Document 25].

Washingtonpost.com: Live Online
 
The Spartans couldn't maneuver.

Morale shifts quickly. Usually, the underdog who shows uncommon valor and does exceptionally well is the exception, not the rule, which is why we admire and sometimes immortalize these cases. I think technological advantage is a natural evolution for a superior foe. Technology gives you the luxury of pulling back and arial-bombing for another week before resuming the advance if the foe is extremely determined.

But then again, the alert, aggressive, well-trained guy with the .38 snubbie has a good chance of killing the less-trained predator with a cutting-edge glock with all the bells and whistles.
 
ROTFLOL... I guess these folks just fail to understand the technicalities

LMAO. An opinion piece is how you define something...? That's quite a stretch, even for a conservative.
 
Last edited:
This thing is just getting started. I expect we will see boots on the ground and regime change. More American blood and treasure in Obamas war for oil. Obama the warmonger. Obama lied and people died.
 
Last edited:
This thing is just getting started. I expect we will see boots on the ground and regime change. More American blood and treasure in Obamas war for oil. Obama the warmonger.

The UN started this one, not Obama. Wasn't he being criticised for not starting it in the first place anyway?
 
Dude, what you are saying is just plain wrong. War is nothing more than armed hostilities between two distinct groups. The Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor was war. Had both sides left it at that the war would have been over. People do not like to use a term as strong as war in such cases, but the term is still correct.
No, it's an attack. Not war. With that logic, Israel was at war with the US when it attacked the USS Liberty during the Six Day War. You are either being disingenuous or purposefully obtuse to play a moronic semantic game that proves absolutely nothing. Good work! :roll:

LMAO. Anyone who think America was at war with Iran during the Iran-Iraq War cannot be taken seriously. Anything they say is purely devoid of reality.
 
The UN started this one, not Obama. Wasn't he being criticised for not starting it in the first place anyway?

He should've already had forces deployed to that region before any of the uprisings in the Middle East started. In fact, he should've done that before his presidency started.

But that still won't please any conservatives.
 
Back
Top Bottom