Nothing to do with Bush but common sense. If you were a cockend insurgent in the ass end of Iraq what would you rather do. Kill some infidels 20 miles away or organise another large scale terrorist attack on the west?ghettoperson wrote:
Oh please Jord, don't tell me you're buying into that Bush admin BS.jord wrote:
Soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq are taking the fight to terrorists before they take the fight to us. How many more lives on the British mainland would be lost if it wasn't for our soldiers fighting overseas?
I gotta say, that's pretty low.
Take your beef up with the politicians, not the brave men and women who put their lives at risk voluntarily to serve their country.
Take your beef up with the politicians, not the brave men and women who put their lives at risk voluntarily to serve their country.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
what a nice spam bot this "jord" is. if only they could load it with something less banal, it might actually accompish something.jord wrote:
If you think America, a country that has more enemies than any other country doesn't need an extremely large military because of it's neighbours then you are the ignoramus. Now we can both carry on making points then ending them with the word "ignoramus" or we can drop that word. There is only one here, and it is neither you or I.
I won't name the strong militaries that would walk all over America should it drop a large part of it's military budget. I'm sure you can think of a few...
Soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq are taking the fight to terrorists before they take the fight to us. How many more lives on the British mainland would be lost if it wasn't for our soldiers fighting overseas?
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
Ummm yeah cause we all know killing ones family, will stop terrorism.. OH yeah lets see If I were a terrorist, I can attack tanks and people with guns 20 miles away or try to attack civilians that aren't preparred for me..
That's the greatest plan ever, it's got some very large holes in it but hey as long as my family will starve before we get attacked again, I"m happy.
The strong militaries that would walk all over America? Actually please do name a few of those militaries..
That's the greatest plan ever, it's got some very large holes in it but hey as long as my family will starve before we get attacked again, I"m happy.
The strong militaries that would walk all over America? Actually please do name a few of those militaries..
Last edited by cpt.fass1 (2008-12-22 11:40:21)
Firstly. Like who seriously. What are they gunna do. How would they mount this invasion? Coz they sure as hell wouldn't be able to group up any kind of naval groups or form large concentrations of men. The only way anyone would be able to bring down America would be with nukes (resulting in MAD) or economic strength.jord wrote:
If you think America, a country that has more enemies than any other country doesn't need an extremely large military because of it's neighbours then you are the ignoramus. Now we can both carry on making points then ending them with the word "ignoramus" or we can drop that word. There is only one here, and it is neither you or I.Vilham wrote:
Sorry Jord but if you think Americas army needs to be anywhere near as large as it is when its only two neighbouring countries are a. an ally. b. Mexico a poor as country that would never be able to stage an invasion then yes. You are an ignoramus.
Naval born landings on America soil would be IMPOSSIBLE. A tactical nuke would destroy an navy sent against the US.
As much as i respect soldiers for being willing to fight in the defence of their nation, soldiers in Iraq etc do not get extra brownie points over people who actually do a service in the name of MY country, ie firemen etc, yet where is the respect they get?
I won't name the strong militaries that would walk all over America should it drop a large part of it's military budget. I'm sure you can think of a few...
Soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq are taking the fight to terrorists before they take the fight to us. How many more lives on the British mainland would be lost if it wasn't for our soldiers fighting overseas?
Secondly. Please for the love of god don't pull the "How many more lives on the British mainland would be lost if it wasn't for our soldiers fighting overseas?" argument, it doesn't work like that. Its such an illogical argument that totally ignores the way terrorist organisations work. Did the soldiers in NI make any difference in the "fight" against the IRA? No they only made things worse.
cpt.fass has some valid points although i dont agree with his main statement.
Who are you again? Oh yeah that guy that got pissy because I called him out on his sig.Shahter wrote:
what a nice spam bot this "jord" is. if only they could load it with something less banal, it might actually accompish something.jord wrote:
If you think America, a country that has more enemies than any other country doesn't need an extremely large military because of it's neighbours then you are the ignoramus. Now we can both carry on making points then ending them with the word "ignoramus" or we can drop that word. There is only one here, and it is neither you or I.
I won't name the strong militaries that would walk all over America should it drop a large part of it's military budget. I'm sure you can think of a few...
Soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq are taking the fight to terrorists before they take the fight to us. How many more lives on the British mainland would be lost if it wasn't for our soldiers fighting overseas?
You've got a big misconception between the economy and the war.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Ummm yeah cause we all know killing ones family, will stop terrorism.. OH yeah lets see If I were a terrorist, I can attack tanks and people with guns 20 miles away or try to attack civilians that aren't preparred for me..
That's the greatest plan ever, it's got some very large holes in it but hey as long as my family will starve before we get attacked again, I"m happy.
The strong militaries that would walk all over America? Actually please do name a few of those militaries..
We're assuming a large part of the military budget has been cut going by this tools plan are we not? So can we assume a lot of now unneeded equipment would be sold off to the highest bidder, since the US now has 50% of it's man power? Why would China, or Russia, or even Korea not attack the US where there is so much to gain and so little in the way? Do you know think Generals that have been in the military for 30 years now a tad more about military budgets and spending than me or you does? They don't just suggest pointless shit to congress and it gets passed. Though I admit, the West does waste a fair bit of money. However that's my inexperienced opinion...Vilham wrote:
Firstly. Like who seriously. What are they gunna do. How would they mount this invasion? Coz they sure as hell wouldn't be able to group up any kind of naval groups or form large concentrations of men. The only way anyone would be able to bring down America would be with nukes (resulting in MAD) or economic strength.jord wrote:
If you think America, a country that has more enemies than any other country doesn't need an extremely large military because of it's neighbours then you are the ignoramus. Now we can both carry on making points then ending them with the word "ignoramus" or we can drop that word. There is only one here, and it is neither you or I.Vilham wrote:
Sorry Jord but if you think Americas army needs to be anywhere near as large as it is when its only two neighbouring countries are a. an ally. b. Mexico a poor as country that would never be able to stage an invasion then yes. You are an ignoramus.
Naval born landings on America soil would be IMPOSSIBLE. A tactical nuke would destroy an navy sent against the US.
As much as i respect soldiers for being willing to fight in the defence of their nation, soldiers in Iraq etc do not get extra brownie points over people who actually do a service in the name of MY country, ie firemen etc, yet where is the respect they get?
I won't name the strong militaries that would walk all over America should it drop a large part of it's military budget. I'm sure you can think of a few...
Soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq are taking the fight to terrorists before they take the fight to us. How many more lives on the British mainland would be lost if it wasn't for our soldiers fighting overseas?
Secondly. Please for the love of god don't pull the "How many more lives on the British mainland would be lost if it wasn't for our soldiers fighting overseas?" argument, it doesn't work like that. Its such an illogical argument that totally ignores the way terrorist organisations work. Did the soldiers in NI make any difference in the "fight" against the IRA? No they only made things worse.
cpt.fass has some valid points although i dont agree with his main statement.
Oh and Northern Ireland is a bit closer to Britain than Iraq. It's a different situation when the terrorists are inside the country they're attacking...
I support soldiers because they deserve it, its the least anyone can do for them.
If I was a cockend insurgent in the ass end of Iraq, I'd be in the ass end of Iraq with nothing to do.And were the Bush admin not so full of shit, I'd be unable to attack Westerners because they'd all be safe in their own countries thousands of miles away.jord wrote:
Nothing to do with Bush but common sense. If you were a cockend insurgent in the ass end of Iraq what would you rather do. Kill some infidels 20 miles away or organise another large scale terrorist attack on the west?ghettoperson wrote:
Oh please Jord, don't tell me you're buying into that Bush admin BS.jord wrote:
Soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq are taking the fight to terrorists before they take the fight to us. How many more lives on the British mainland would be lost if it wasn't for our soldiers fighting overseas?
And that differs from the londom bombs because? Those guys where british.jord wrote:
Oh and Northern Ireland is a bit closer to Britain than Iraq. It's a different situation when the terrorists are inside the country they're attacking...
somebody call an ambulance already.jord wrote:
So can we assume a lot of now unneeded equipment would be sold off to the highest bidder, since the US now has 50% of it's man power? Why would China, or Russia, or even Korea not attack the US where there is so much to gain and so little in the way?
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
fuck the troops with cherries on top.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
dude 13000 nukes. seriously no one is going to invade the US. Wrong the generals ask for money because that is what their job is. To ensure the US military is incredibly strong. That doesnt mean it needs to be that strong.jord wrote:
We're assuming a large part of the military budget has been cut going by this tools plan are we not? So can we assume a lot of now unneeded equipment would be sold off to the highest bidder, since the US now has 50% of it's man power? Why would China, or Russia, or even Korea not attack the US where there is so much to gain and so little in the way? Do you know think Generals that have been in the military for 30 years now a tad more about military budgets and spending than me or you does? They don't just suggest pointless shit to congress and it gets passed. Though I admit, the West does waste a fair bit of money. However that's my inexperienced opinion...Vilham wrote:
Firstly. Like who seriously. What are they gunna do. How would they mount this invasion? Coz they sure as hell wouldn't be able to group up any kind of naval groups or form large concentrations of men. The only way anyone would be able to bring down America would be with nukes (resulting in MAD) or economic strength.jord wrote:
If you think America, a country that has more enemies than any other country doesn't need an extremely large military because of it's neighbours then you are the ignoramus. Now we can both carry on making points then ending them with the word "ignoramus" or we can drop that word. There is only one here, and it is neither you or I.
I won't name the strong militaries that would walk all over America should it drop a large part of it's military budget. I'm sure you can think of a few...
Soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq are taking the fight to terrorists before they take the fight to us. How many more lives on the British mainland would be lost if it wasn't for our soldiers fighting overseas?
Secondly. Please for the love of god don't pull the "How many more lives on the British mainland would be lost if it wasn't for our soldiers fighting overseas?" argument, it doesn't work like that. Its such an illogical argument that totally ignores the way terrorist organisations work. Did the soldiers in NI make any difference in the "fight" against the IRA? No they only made things worse.
cpt.fass has some valid points although i dont agree with his main statement.
Oh and Northern Ireland is a bit closer to Britain than Iraq. It's a different situation when the terrorists are inside the country they're attacking...
No really its not. Have u not learnt anything from all the recent terrorist attempts. Nearly all of them were committed by people living in the UK. Seriously please drop that fail argument.
And because the west spends so much on counter intel and the military it hasn't happened 20 times. How many news stories have you seen about foiled terrorist attacks here? Now times that by 4 as they won't release a lot of info and that's how many times it would have happened had we cut our spending because of the economy. Which in comparison to the last 3 "recessions" is fucking nothing. It would be something if you cut the military budget and 200 people died this year though.Bell wrote:
And that differs from the londom bombs because? Those guys where british.jord wrote:
Oh and Northern Ireland is a bit closer to Britain than Iraq. It's a different situation when the terrorists are inside the country they're attacking...
I think everyone agrees more needs to be spent on intel, as that's actually how they're stopping terrorist attacks, not by occupying sovereign nations.jord wrote:
And because the west spends so much on counter intel and the military it hasn't happened 20 times. How many news stories have you seen about foiled terrorist attacks here? Now times that by 4 as they won't release a lot of info and that's how many times it would have happened had we cut our spending because of the economy. Which in comparison to the last 3 "recessions" is fucking nothing. It would be something if you cut the military budget and 200 people died this year though.Bell wrote:
And that differs from the londom bombs because? Those guys where british.jord wrote:
Oh and Northern Ireland is a bit closer to Britain than Iraq. It's a different situation when the terrorists are inside the country they're attacking...
jord the intelligence agencies budget is not the same as the military's. The military has done NOTHING to stop terrorist attacks, the credit for finding and foiling those attacks is thanks to intelligence agencies.
Invasion isn't only the only threat, or yes it would be a fail argument. And there would be no reason not to cut spending as we can all live happily ever after under a rainbow with sunshine and ponies...Vilham wrote:
dude 13000 nukes. seriously no one is going to invade the US. Wrong the generals ask for money because that is what their job is. To ensure the US military is incredibly strong. That doesnt mean it needs to be that strong.jord wrote:
We're assuming a large part of the military budget has been cut going by this tools plan are we not? So can we assume a lot of now unneeded equipment would be sold off to the highest bidder, since the US now has 50% of it's man power? Why would China, or Russia, or even Korea not attack the US where there is so much to gain and so little in the way? Do you know think Generals that have been in the military for 30 years now a tad more about military budgets and spending than me or you does? They don't just suggest pointless shit to congress and it gets passed. Though I admit, the West does waste a fair bit of money. However that's my inexperienced opinion...Vilham wrote:
Firstly. Like who seriously. What are they gunna do. How would they mount this invasion? Coz they sure as hell wouldn't be able to group up any kind of naval groups or form large concentrations of men. The only way anyone would be able to bring down America would be with nukes (resulting in MAD) or economic strength.
Secondly. Please for the love of god don't pull the "How many more lives on the British mainland would be lost if it wasn't for our soldiers fighting overseas?" argument, it doesn't work like that. Its such an illogical argument that totally ignores the way terrorist organisations work. Did the soldiers in NI make any difference in the "fight" against the IRA? No they only made things worse.
cpt.fass has some valid points although i dont agree with his main statement.
Oh and Northern Ireland is a bit closer to Britain than Iraq. It's a different situation when the terrorists are inside the country they're attacking...
No really its not. Have u not learnt anything from all the recent terrorist attempts. Nearly all of them were committed by people living in the UK. Seriously please drop that fail argument.
Should the US cut military spending terrorist attacks would increase dramatically, but it's okay. Mr Teacher is getting 300 dollars a year extra on their pension...
So why is our military recession proof? Also I understand that right now majority of our troops over seas are reservist, which means they didn't really want full time military service. So the new problem which is going to arise from bringing our troops back is that they might not have jobs..
Oh and if things keep going this way, I will be joining the military as it might be my only way to survive.
Oh and if things keep going this way, I will be joining the military as it might be my only way to survive.
Because you are in 2 wars, right or wrong. You also have to maintain a proper defence. Is that simple enough for you to comprehend?cpt.fass1 wrote:
So why is our military recession proof? Also I understand that right now majority of our troops over seas are reservist, which means they didn't really want full time military service. So the new problem which is going to arise from bringing our troops back is that they might not have jobs..
Oh and if things keep going this way, I will be joining the military as it might be my only way to survive.
Oh and go for it, I'm sure you'll get along super with other soldiers when you start to debate with them about how they deserve nothing. I'm sure you will maintain your opinion in real life, won't you?
I can agree with some of what fass is saying. We really do spend too much on the military and enter too many conflicts. There are a few people in the military that I've known that are serious douchebags (I can think of one recently permabanned member here in particular).
Still, I wouldn't go so far as to assume that assholes are the norm. While it is true that a lot of people join the military out of financial need, I can respect this choice because of the danger they're putting themselves in for a pretty low pay and low benefits.
The main reason I'd never join the military myself though is that I don't trust this government. So, on the one hand, I think we should support people who put their lives at risk with the intention of protecting us, but on the other hand, we should recognize that the government they work for is far more interested in profiting off of their deaths than in protecting us.
That's how I see it anyway.
The troops are mostly honorable, but the politicians leading them should be the ones getting blown up instead.
Still, I wouldn't go so far as to assume that assholes are the norm. While it is true that a lot of people join the military out of financial need, I can respect this choice because of the danger they're putting themselves in for a pretty low pay and low benefits.
The main reason I'd never join the military myself though is that I don't trust this government. So, on the one hand, I think we should support people who put their lives at risk with the intention of protecting us, but on the other hand, we should recognize that the government they work for is far more interested in profiting off of their deaths than in protecting us.
That's how I see it anyway.
The troops are mostly honorable, but the politicians leading them should be the ones getting blown up instead.
"Invasion isn't the only threat" then please explain what the army is meant to do against these threats.
Sorry but no. Just gunna have to agree to disagree.
Sorry but no. Just gunna have to agree to disagree.
Invasion suggests occupation. The extremist threat do not want to occupy but destroy.Vilham wrote:
"Invasion isn't the only threat" then please explain what the army is meant to do against these threats.
Sorry but no. Just gunna have to agree to disagree.
And yep, when is anyones mind ever changed in d&st
I'm going to have to say it's a 50/50 on that.. Where as alot of people might be joining the armed forces with the intention of protecting the country, I"m sure a good 50% of them are joining so they might legally kill someone or that they have fuck all else to do..
Or you know, they couldn't take 4 years out of their life to study because their families where struggling and they needed to support them.cpt.fass1 wrote:
I'm going to have to say it's a 50/50 on that.. Where as alot of people might be joining the armed forces with the intention of protecting the country, I"m sure a good 50% of them are joining so they might legally kill someone or that they have fuck all else to do..
Or the other 5000 good reasons.