Last edited by ATG (2006-12-08 22:49:24)
usmarine2007 wrote:
Sorry, but Rumfuck can lick my ass.
You know nothing about warfare do you?Bubbalo wrote:
Wow, under his command you didn't lose a single battle against poorly trained, ill-equiped, technologically inferior militia? Good job!
Iraq had the 4th largest army in the world.Bubbalo wrote:
Wow, under his command you didn't lose a single battle against poorly trained, ill-equiped, technologically inferior militia? Good job!
Ender2309 wrote:
usmarine2007 wrote:
Sorry, but Rumfuck can lick my ass.
Ive learned to ignore him, the stupidity starts to really piss me off otherwise.usmarine2007 wrote:
You know nothing about warfare do you?Bubbalo wrote:
Wow, under his command you didn't lose a single battle against poorly trained, ill-equiped, technologically inferior militia? Good job!
I wish it was like the old school yahoo message boards, when you could just click ignore and not see anything he types.Commie Killer wrote:
Ive learned to ignore him, the stupidity starts to really piss me off otherwise.usmarine2007 wrote:
You know nothing about warfare do you?Bubbalo wrote:
Wow, under his command you didn't lose a single battle against poorly trained, ill-equiped, technologically inferior militia? Good job!
With soldiers who lacked training, motivation, and proper equipment.ATG wrote:
Iraq had the 4th largest army in the world.Bubbalo wrote:
Wow, under his command you didn't lose a single battle against poorly trained, ill-equiped, technologically inferior militia? Good job!
Do you have a problem with my statement?usmarine2007 wrote:
You know nothing about warfare do you?
I second that, and Salute the Secretary of Defense in his second tour, and also the longest running term in the position's history. Thank you, Sir! It has been a job that went through a lot of peaks and valleys. Again Thanks for the post ATG.Executiator wrote:
When someone tries to post something good, all the idiots come and shit all over the place...
Thank you OP for that bit of info that I would have otherwise gone overlooked by me. +1
yeah, and they had satellites, aircraft carriers, DU armored tanks, heavy bombers. It's amazing that we even got to Baghdad.ATG wrote:
Iraq had the 4th largest army in the world.Bubbalo wrote:
Wow, under his command you didn't lose a single battle against poorly trained, ill-equiped, technologically inferior militia? Good job!
Trying to start argument again I see. He's posting something GOOD about the Secretary of Defense, which makes it a GOOD post. Not a bad one, or a flame. And like you said, stating a view, which is opinion. My opinion is there are plenty of idiots to fill the time gaps with useless posts.Bubbalo wrote:
Firstly, I'm the only idiot to arrive so far.
Secondly, he isn't trying to post something good. He's trying to state his view that the leaving defense secretary did an excellent job, which is a very contentious statement.
Id like to see a source about that. Ive heard that Iraq had 4th largest army in the world, when the first Gulf war was fought, but nothing close to that in 2003.ATG wrote:
Iraq had the 4th largest army in the world.Bubbalo wrote:
Wow, under his command you didn't lose a single battle against poorly trained, ill-equiped, technologically inferior militia? Good job!
I love how some people respond to a different point of view by saying their opponent is just trying to start an argument. It's like being childish in an adult manner. Reminds me of Victorian England, or an argument in parliament.Executiator wrote:
Trying to start argument again I see.
Last edited by oug (2006-12-09 03:41:54)
Hardly, the Iraqi insurgents are former Iraqi army/republican guard/fedayeen soldiers. They simply shed their uniforms for terrorist ones. These arent your poor little Iraqi peasents running around with guns. They are well funded, and well trained in the art of guerilla warfare. Get your facts straight before you spew your liberal diatribe. . . . . or better yet STFU!!Bubbalo wrote:
Wow, under his command you didn't lose a single battle against poorly trained, ill-equiped, technologically inferior militia? Good job!
Size doesn't matter when you surrender en mass to the nearest possible enemy soldier because you never really supported Saddam in the first place.ATG wrote:
Iraq had the 4th largest army in the world.Bubbalo wrote:
Wow, under his command you didn't lose a single battle against poorly trained, ill-equiped, technologically inferior militia? Good job!
Try proving your own points before making accusations. Tell us about these "terrorist uniforms" for example... lolfadedsteve wrote:
Hardly, the Iraqi insurgents are former Iraqi army/republican guard/fedayeen soldiers. They simply shed their uniforms for terrorist ones. These arent your poor little Iraqi peasents running around with guns. They are well funded, and well trained in the art of guerilla warfare. Get your facts straight before you spew your liberal diatribe. . . . . or better yet STFU!!
Why do people consider the attack on Pearl Harbor to be an act of terror?fadedsteve wrote:
Rumsfeld dealt with the worst terrorist attack since Pearl Harbor