BF2S Forums California declared doa

Mekstizzle wrote:

There's no way you can get through to someone with a view like that (like lowings), especially if that guy is also profiteering off all the high military spending (and wouldn't off spending within the country) so it's kinda pointless.

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

Gee I served as well, and I also was over in Iraq in 07 and 08 dodging rockets and mortars, I was a civilian over there. I assume you were a low ranking enlisted man filling sandbags somewhere. This does not make you anymore aware of the big picture than it does me. Being in Iraq does not automatically give you some special knoweldge of foreign policy and world vision. So please give your speech about how much more you know about the world because you were in Iraq, a rest. You were a soldier and you did what you were told to do, you have no greater knowledge because of it.



I believe in peace through deterrance, if you think we have no reason to project power and military might to the world to keep the peace, we will just have to agree to disagree. However, I have history on my side.

You're right. I was low ranking. I was an E-4 running the communications team for Prime Minister Alawi in the Green Zone. We were the only Americans allowed inside of his compound except for his Navy SEAL bodyguards and a small detachment of MI people who briefed him. I got to meet Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell and I picked the brains of the two MI majors assigned to him. I was kept VERY well up to date on what was going on while I was there.

Since getting back I've read a ton of books on the situation there which just added onto the knowledge of history I already had. I was reading tomes on Civil War and WWII battles starting in 1st grade. I've read more war history than most of the people working in the Pentagon today. So yes, I'm a total noob who doesn't know what he's talking about at all.

What you fail at is world history. We have the exact same advantage that Russia has maintained throughout the centuries. Our vast size. No one, and I repeat no one has the resources capable of invading our country and winning. It's just not feasible. So please tell me why we need 1 million people on active duty to prevent an impossibility. Could it be that every single talking head ex-general you see on Fox News and other networks yelling and screaming that we need more troops or a certain armament system is on the board of a defense contractor? Could it be!?

Reagan did good things. He updated the military equipment across the board that has given us our current edge. We still use the Hummer, M1A1, Bradley, Apache etc that he approved. No denying that. And nowhere in my rant did I say that we should stop designing weapons systems. We just don't need a million people on active duty wasting our money. Make them all reservists.

lowing wrote:

Gee you mingled with world leaders and yet only an e-4. I am sure most world leaders would open up to an e-4 about all the behind the scenes events and tactics going on. Happened all the time. I bet they even asked for advice.

Because you do not need an invasion force during a time of nuclear missles and dirty bombs, or even civilian aircraft as it turns out.

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

Gee you mingled with world leaders and yet only an e-4. I am sure most world leaders would open up to an e-4 about all the behind the scenes events and tactics going on. Happened all the time. I bet they even asked for advice.

Because you do not need an invasion force during a time of nuclear missles and dirty bombs, or even civilian aircraft as it turns out.

I give up. People like you are why I'm not a Republican. It's supposed to be the party of economic conservatives but you're all blinded by fear and the desire for a world beating military. Small government means small everything, including a small military force, no matter what Hannity might preach.

Last edited by lowing (2009-10-05 12:56:09)

lowing wrote:

cpt.fass1 wrote:

But How could California be DOA? They have the largest income from the U.S, does that mean the trickle down effect doesn't work?

The money is leaving CA along with those that possess it. Leaving that liberal cesspool to go to a more tax friendly state. Ya see, most people still believe that their money belongs to them and not to "US". They leave to protect themselves.

cpt.fass1 wrote:

lowing wrote:

cpt.fass1 wrote:

But How could California be DOA? They have the largest income from the U.S, does that mean the trickle down effect doesn't work?

The money is leaving CA along with those that possess it. Leaving that liberal cesspool to go to a more tax friendly state. Ya see, most people still believe that their money belongs to them and not to "US". They leave to protect themselves.

B.S. It's pure greed, those folks making millions in movies would rather pay an illegal alien 200 a week to work on there yard instead of a U.S. Citizen 400 so they could live off it?

They aren't leaving, they're just greedy and making the bottom fall off.

JohnG@lt wrote:

cpt.fass1 wrote:

B.S. It's pure greed, those folks making millions in movies would rather pay an illegal alien 200 a week to work on there yard instead of a U.S. Citizen 400 so they could live off it?

They aren't leaving, they're just greedy and making the bottom fall off.

It has more to do with Americans not wanting to degrade themselves by working at the jobs you mention. Everyone wants to be a rock star, a rapper or a ball player instead of a landscaper, a garbageman or whatever else. Those jobs have ALWAYS been filled by immigrants in this country because the rest of us feel we're too good to fill them. Hell, I worked at Taco Bell in high school and got made fun of all the time by other kids because I was working a job for 'Mexicans'.

It's our own prejudices as Americans and our need to feel upwardly mobile that causes those jobs to be spurned. Even our poor people living in Section 8 housing and living on food stamps drive BMWs so they don't 'appear' to be poor. It won't change without a societal change. It's just the way it is.

lowing wrote:

lets review the arguments.

You say no need for a strong military because we could never be invaded. I mention nukes, Cuban missle crisis, dirty bombs and you "give up", because I am an "idiot" and you were an e-4. ( never mind e-4 's are a dime a dozen in Iraq) so you know.

I provide a link that shows the rich are fleeing CA after being told my opinion was "bullshit" and I have yet to hear back from that person.

I do not think I am "superior" at all, I just notice whwn a good argument is provide, most of you leave.

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

lets review the arguments.

You say no need for a strong military because we could never be invaded. I mention nukes, Cuban missle crisis, dirty bombs and you "give up", because I am an "idiot" and you were an e-4. ( never mind e-4 's are a dime a dozen in Iraq) so you know.

I provide a link that shows the rich are fleeing CA after being told my opinion was "bullshit" and I have yet to hear back from that person.

I do not think I am "superior" at all, I just notice whwn a good argument is provide, most of you leave.

Cool. Keep mentioning my former rank in a disparaging way. It will surely win me over to your way of thinking.

Could it be that your argument has no merit and you've been reduced to the role of the thugs you worship?

lowing wrote:

I am not using my profession in this argument. I am using history.

Also he was not even an NCO unless he was a corporal. I am guessing he was a specialist. Which is not an NCO.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-10-05 15:48:03)