BF2S Forums California declared doa

lowing wrote:

No Cam, actually I served as well if you want to count military experience as proof of knoweldge of world affairs. personall y I don't lend it much credence.

We do not defend only America Cam, if you haddn't noticed. Also NK, Iran, China, all have nukes now, please do not tell me deterrance is not an issue. Besides, based on your logic, you have not spent one second in the military, what do you know about it?

You think North Korea, Iran or China are going to fire nukes at you? Are you mentally handicapped? Why would they commit suicide like that? Are you fucking dumb? Do you understand what DETERRENCE is? You do realise that these countries develop these weapons to preserve the incumbent despots from outside intervention? They have no real interest in firing them, they have an interest in being kings of their own little castles. You think tiny little blotches on the globe like Iran and North Korea are going to go on some Hitlerian global expansion that wouldn't be squashed underfoot by NATO and the gigantic nuclear arsenal that that entails within a matter of hours? Now that is illogical...

I'm applying plain and basic logic just like Mr. G@lt, as you said yourself 'no military experience required'. Did you miss the Cold War period where no direct military conflict occurred between the USSR and the US or something....

Where did you serve, in what armed service and what rank did you achieve? Just out of interest. I never had you down as a military man.

PS Actually the Cuban missile crisis was resovled by Kennedy agreeing to withdraw missiles from Turkey in exchange for a like gesture from the USSR in Cuba. But then again you did say you weren't much of a military major....

Oh and your PS actually is the very definition of deterrency. What a numskull.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-10-05 15:59:45)

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

No Cam, actually I served as well if you want to count military experience as proof of knoweldge of world affairs. personall y I don't lend it much credence.

We do not defend only America Cam, if you haddn't noticed. Also NK, Iran, China, all have nukes now, please do not tell me deterrance is not an issue. Besides, based on your logic, you have not spent one second in the military, what do you know about it?

You think North Korea, Iran or China are going to fire nukes at you? Are you mentally handicapped? Why would they commit suicide like that? Are you fucking dumb? Do you understand what DETERRENCE is? You do realise that these countries develop these weapons to preserve the incumbent despots from outside intervention? They have no real interest in firing them, they have an interest in being kings of their own little castles. You think tiny little blotches on the globe like Iran and North Korea are going to go on some Hitlerian global expansion that wouldn't be squashed underfoot by NATO and the gigantic nuclear arsenal that that entails within a matter of hours? Now that is illogical...

I'm applying plain and basic logic just like Mr. G@lt, as you said yourself 'no military experience required'. Did you miss the Cold War period where no direct military conflict occurred between the USSR and the US or something....

Where did you serve, in what armed service and what rank did you achieve? Just out of interest. I never had you down as a military man.

PS Actually the Cuban missile crisis was resovled by Kennedy agreeing to withdraw missiles from Turkey in exchange for a like gesture from the USSR in Cuba. But then again you did say you weren't much of a military major....

Oh and your PS actually is the very definition of deterrency. What a numskull.

Nope they will not, due to mutual destruction. DO you think, that without a strong military our country would be left alone to flourish? Are YOU mentally handicapped?


I served in the USAF under Reagan at the height of the cold war. I achieved the rank of Sergeant. Yeah, that one is an NCO, and still I do not lend credence to that fact as proof that I am right about my opinions.


How about you keep the name calling to yourself.

lowing wrote:

Nope they will not, due to mutual destruction. DO you think, that without a strong military our country would be left alone to flourish? Are YOU mentally handicapped?

I served in the USAF under Reagan at the height of the cold war. I achieved the rank of Sergeant. Yeah, that one is an NCO, and still I do not lend credence to that fact as proof that I am right about my opinions.

How about you keep the name calling to yourself.

So basically you agree with me - a strong nuclear arsenal will deter practically all conventional enemies from attacking your nation. Thank you very much. A strong military is also necessary to defend your borders - that generally shouldn't cost $663bn annually when you are the incumbent military superpower by a country mile, especially in technological terms. Pouring money down the shitter is what that is. As is 'nation building' in places like stone age Afghanistan.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-10-05 16:10:55)

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

Nope they will not, due to mutual destruction. DO you think, that without a strong military our country would be left alone to flourish? Are YOU mentally handicapped?

I served in the USAF under Reagan at the height of the cold war. I achieved the rank of Sergeant. Yeah, that one is an NCO, and still I do not lend credence to that fact as proof that I am right about my opinions.

How about you keep the name calling to yourself.

So basically you agree with me - a strong nuclear arsenal will deter practically all conventional enemies from attacking your nation. Thank you very much. A strong military is also necessary to defend your borders - that generally shouldn't cost $663bn annually when you are the incumbent military superpower by a country mile, especially in technological terms. Pouring money down the shitter is what that is. As is 'nation building' in places like stone age Afghanistan.

We do not only protect our borders, we protect Europe as well.

JohnG@lt wrote:

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.


To be clear I appreciate his service to our country, but I refuse to accept  that is service as an e-4 in the green zone is all the proof needed that he is right in his opinion that we do not need a strong military, and deterrance does not and did not work to keep the peace.

My rank in the military makes absolutely no difference to the argument. I could've been a civilian my entire life and my opinion would be the same. We don't need a big military. The fact that you keep harping on my low rank while I served a single enlistment in the military just proves to me that your argument has no merit.

Please, tell me why we need one million people on active duty. Is it because you like playing the bully? From your arguments in this thread and in the private messages you have sent me it is what I have gathered about your personality. Bullying is always the refuge for small men with smaller intellect.

I didn't mention your military service as proof you were right, you did. All I did was challenge it.

As for the rest, you are more than welcome to your opininon about me.

nlsme1 wrote:

It could be said europe protects us as well!!

not hardly. We are the ones with the bases in Europe, contributing to their local economies. They are not here in the US doing any such thing.

lowing wrote:

nlsme1 wrote:

It could be said europe protects us as well!!

not hardly. We are the ones with the bases in Europe, contributing to their local economies. They are not here in the US doing any such thing.

Are you besmirching those Europeans who have died in Afghanistan in retribution for Afghani crimes against the US on 9/11?

As if the European military establishment couldn't look after itself. Europe provides perfect logistical support for the US' global machinations.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-10-05 16:20:10)

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

We do not only protect our borders, we protect Europe as well.

We actually have our own nuclear arsenals and armies over here too. We collectively spend over $300bn annually ourselves in the EU. We are militarily superior to all of the nations one might deem a threat in our own right. And NATO is actually a two-way thing, in case you hadn't noticed...

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/09/2 … ml?ref=rss

lol, no I haddn't noticed.

lowing wrote:

Nope, but do you wanna compare casualities really? I mena since this is not a fight to protect the US only.

This is pretty much a retaliation for the attack on the US, plain and simple.

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

Nope, but do you wanna compare casualities really? I mena since this is not a fight to protect the US only.

This is pretty much a retaliation for the attack on the US, plain and simple.

Well it is a good thing that Bali, London and Spain have got absolutley nothing to do with it then huh?

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

sorry Cam, but if think your collective contribute is as much or greater than that of the US alone, you are wrong I think. Not to even mention most of you in Eueopr has fought more against the war and the US than to support the US or the effort.

lolling at six dead Italians, classy.

Not laughing at them, I am laughing at your assumption the world emvolvment mirror the efforts amd sacrifices by the US. It doesn't. I didn'r even open your link

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

This is pretty much a retaliation for the attack on the US, plain and simple.

Well it is a good thing that Bali, London and Spain have got absolutley nothing to do with it then huh?

All direct consequences of having intervened in Iraq. Hooray!

I notice you did n't actually, argue against my point. Just tried to excuse the reason

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

sorry Cam, but if think your collective contribute is as much or greater than that of the US alone, you are wrong I think. Not to even mention most of you in Eueopr has fought more against the war and the US than to support the US or the effort.

lolling at six dead Italians, classy.

Not laughing at them, I am laughing at your assumption the world emvolvment mirror the efforts amd sacrifices by the US. It doesn't. I didn'r even open your link

How about because it wasn't their fight in the first place? They didn't have towers flown into, we did. They were just honoring our alliance by helping out and sending troops.