 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Patroklos
That of course would be the suffering of Americans, not foriegn nationals. To you apparently a very differnt thing.
|
Huh? The murder and torture in Afghanistan was about suffering Americans? What the hell are you talking about? Or do you even know anymore?
quote:
Not my fault that you post links that have nothing relevent to add to the debate. The fact is there is no significant difference between the resistance of 2003 to 2004 to 2005 except they are now killing more Iraqis. Horray for them !!! What adaptivness!!!!  |
Lord, you are stupid. As the article I linked shows, the Iraqi resistance has been very capable of adapting to changing situations. Just as fast as the coalition forces catch on, they change tactics. Maybe you're dumb enough to think that stopped when the article was written, but anyone with an ounce of common sense would realize it's still happening. Otherwise, gee, the Iraqi resistance wouldn't be much of a problem today, would it?
quote:
If your concept of those countries is that they are militarily inept and backwards thats your bag. I happen to think, and know by the way  , that they have quite a bit to offer. |
Yet you've made no effort to provide any numbers of their available military resources. Be my guest to do so, because you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
That France and Germany don't have the resources to contribute 100,000+ troops to Iraq isn't calling their military inept, dumbass. It's just a statement as to their current ability to deploy troops.
Hey, if we suddenly had to deploy 100,000 troops to, say, Taiwan, we wouldn't be able to do it. Does that mean we're inept and backwards?
quote:
I have long felt being called wrong by you simply validates ANY position I might take. |
That's a nice, insular world you've built, but it certainly has no bearing on reality. See, I think your positions are invalidated by your flagrantly stupid reasoning, not just because it's you. Which is the wiser course, I wonder?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Patroklos
|
 |
Back home in good ole Norfolk VA
Dec 2001
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
Huh? The murder and torture in Afghanistan was about suffering Americans? |
You think we went to Afghanistan because of the suffering of them. Rich, now I know the calibre of the intellect, or lack there of, I am talking too. Perhaps you haven't been listening byt libs like you don't go to war for such altruistic things
quote:
As the article I linked shows.... |
The article you linked was an amatureish peice of pop fiction written for people, well for people like you. No pertenent information for acutal military people. I supose changing the color of their bandanas rates "adaptability" to you. Meanwhile the resistanc continues as before, then dieing in larger numbers than us, but not their fellow citizens that the murder.
quote:
That France and Germany don't have the resources to contribute 100,000+ troops to Iraq isn't calling their military inept |
Reading comprehension, its good for you, trust me. I did not say Germany and France, I said them AND whoever was not recruited do to their smear campaign. Lost you yet? Good. And by the way, France and Germany are capable of such troop depolyment, x4 that acutally, but obviously not for this.
quote:
Hey, if we suddenly had to deploy 100,000 troops to, say, Taiwan, we wouldn't be able to do it. Does that mean we're inept and backwards? |
What are you talking about? We could do this in a few weeks. Of course we would have to actually go to war, which we haven't as of yet. Something libs forget when talking about troop deployments. I bet you really suffering because of the gas ration right?
quote:
See, I think your positions are invalidated by your flagrantly stupid reasoning |
Which apparently trumps your flagreantly stupid responces en masse. Its like watching lemmings, sad really.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Patroklos
You think we went to Afghanistan because of the suffering of them. Rich, now I know the calibre of the intellect, or lack there of, I am talking too. |
What? Wow, you're reading comprehension is preschool level. Where did I ever suggest such a thing. Since you're too clueless to grasp it, I'll repeat: I supported going into Afghanistan because of the suffering there, as did oodles of liberal groups for years prior to the war. It was conservatives who didn't care. In no way was I talking about what our actual reasons were. How could you not get that?
quote:
Perhaps you haven't been listening byt libs like you don't go to war for such altruistic things |
Perhaps you haven't been thinking (well, obviously), but that's precisely what I was refuting, dumbass. 
quote:
The article you linked was an amatureish peice of pop fiction written for people, well for people like you. No pertenent information for acutal military people. |
 I suppose you have something to back that up besides your hand-waving dismissal. Let's see what I'll believe--your bald ass assertions, or an article from an intelligence-oriented journal written by military experts. Hmmm, let me guess...
Of course, that's beside the fact that you've utterly failed to challenge or even discuss a single point raised in the article. I suspect you didn't even bother to read it.
quote:
I supose changing the color of their bandanas rates "adaptability" to you. Meanwhile the resistanc continues as before, then dieing in larger numbers than us, but not their fellow citizens that the murder. |
I wonder if it's people who think like you who run our military. If so, it's no wonder the resistance is still a major problem for us.
quote:
Reading comprehension, its good for you, trust me. I did not say Germany and France, I said them AND whoever was not recruited do to their smear campaign. |
So tell me, good sir--outside of the U.S. and Britain, how many troops were committed by other nations to the coalition? And then we can extrapolate from there how many additional might have been put forth by other nations.
quote:
Lost you yet? Good. And by the way, France and Germany are capable of such troop depolyment, x4 that acutally, but obviously not for this. |
Again, I suspect you'll attempt to back this up. I'd love to see some evidence that Germany could easily deploy 80,000 troops.
quote:
What are you talking about? We could do this in a few weeks. |
Yeah, right. We're overstretched as it is, and don't have enough troops on the ground in Iraq to do the job. There's a big infantry shortage. And you think we could get 100,000 troops to Taiwan in a few weeks? Man, did Rumsfeld ask you for advice before the war, because if so, it would explain the ineptitude so far.
quote:
Of course we would have to actually go to war, which we haven't as of yet. Something libs forget when talking about troop deployments. I bet you really suffering because of the gas ration right? |
It was a hypothetical. I'd guess, based on your responses, that cons have no ability for conceptial thinking, eh?
quote:
Which apparently trumps your flagreantly stupid responces en masse. Its like watching lemmings, sad really. |
I wish you actually had coherent responses to things, it would be even funnier.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Pekka, all you have to do is read Spiffor's and Agathon's posts to know that the presence or absence of WMDs in Iraq was secondary to most Europeans. |
Indeed, since most Euros would have preferred a diplomatic resolution of the WMD problem, even at the time that it was believed Saddam had WMDs, only very well hidden.
By contrast, the Yanks wanted to rush a war for a reason that had apparently nothing to do with WMDs: why was it such an emergency to attack before the summer of 2003. The fact that Powell presented weak evidence at the UN only confirmed their suspicions. Why it is such an emergency to attack? Why is there no time to try diplomacy, now that Saddam shakes in his boots? The "evidence" presented by Powell didn't reply to these questions. That's why most people here didn't buy the line that war was the only option.
quote:
The primary problem to them was Yankee imperialism that had to be stopped. (This gets back to the leftist theories about the "real" reason for the war. It's the OIL, stupid.) |
The real reason for the European's public opinion's position is the European strong disgust for war. Europeans in general would be supportive of a war only if all other possible solutions have been exhausted, which was not the case in Iraq. Remember that, to Europeans, wars are not seen as a positive force that achieves something, but as mindless destruction during which everybody loses. That may have to do with Europe being a theatre of WW2.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
We have learned that suffering has no end
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sandman
|
 |
Sinister Penguin
Aug 2001
time: 05:36
|
|
I have learned:
Nukes are more acceptable than ever, whilst chemical and biological weapons are still seen as evil, ultra-powerful weapons. I have argued many times that gas and germs are awkward and ineffective weapons systems, and that nukes are the only true WMD. This remains, unfortunately, a fringe view. People are still running scared.
Gassing tens of thousands of Kurds is more noteworthy than shooting hundreds of thousands of Kurds.
The Americans can still defeat most countries quite easily. Another Vietnam, this isn't. Even against a tougher target like Iran or Syria, they'd probably not even lose 10,000.
The current American government thinks nothing of combining nation-building with ill-conceived libertarian social engineering.
American conservatives have a really nasty thing going with their anti-French views.
The Bush admin's followers can accuse the UN of being a corrupt shambles, but the Bush admin won't demand Kofi Annan's resignation.
The 'it's all about oil' argument has fallen out of favour. I think it has a bit of merit, to be honest.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Patroklos
|
|
Back home in good ole Norfolk VA
Dec 2001
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
What? Wow, you're reading comprehension is preschool level. Where did I ever suggest such a thing. Since you're too clueless to grasp it, I'll repeat: I supported going into Afghanistan because of the suffering there, as did oodles of liberal groups for years prior to the war. It was conservatives who didn't care. In no way was I talking about what our actual reasons were. How could you not get that? |
HAHA, look at you squirm!!! We went to war in Afgahistan for one reason alone, 9/11. While I do lump you with the libs because that is what you are, your personal views are irrelevant when talking about group behavior (sort of like you lumping me with the cons). American libs, which is who we are talking about NEVER advocated invading Afghanistan before 9/11. So don't pretend that human suffering, other than American, had anything to do with it.
You sure like tangents.
quote:
Perhaps you haven't been thinking (well, obviously), but that's precisely what I was refuting |
And thats what makes you a retard.
quote:
So tell me, good sir--outside of the U.S. and Britain, how many troops were committed by other nations to the coalition? And then we can extrapolate from there how many additional might have been put forth by other nations. |
The answer is 28,500 in theatre, 23,900 within Iraqi territory, LINK . And why exclude Britain, we are talking about the avalaible none US troop pool, and last time I checked it Britian was not the US. But I understand you want to cook your numbers.
Now lets see how German and French particicaption and their lack of smear campaign could add to that number...
FRANCE
"Alternatively the army should be able (in concert with the other armed services) to project elsewhere in the world, either independently or as part of a multinational coalition, a 30,000-strong force for one year... LINK, In "concert" of course meaning they would need logistics help, which the US is happy to provide.
Note this is just the Army, the French have a significant Navy as well, But I don't need their numbers to prove you incompotent.
GERMANY
Wikopedia lists the Bundeswehr as a whole at 250,000 thousand, with an army larger than the French (who are lower than usually, transfroming from conscript to volunteer). Less data on deployment status, I don't speak German, but I will assume parity to France. LINK
It lists Germany as having about 8,000 military and civilan personal deployed around the world currently (they do in fact beat four digits), and no B their KFOR obligation is nowhere near your guess.
So between Germany and France alone thats 60,000, plus 28,000 for other already participating non-US forces, and the hypothetical from my original posts said 12 other nations...
Boris schooled.
quote:
Again, I suspect you'll attempt to back this up. I'd love to see some evidence that Germany could easily deploy 80,000 troops. |
Reading comprehension, again, would aid you and your fellow retards. Who mentioned eaisly? Who even said deployed orignially, I just said pool of non American man power that could be drawn on. The link above puts German total military strength at 250,000, but with manpower resources of 17,000,000. So if on a war footing (there is that lib mental speedbump again), in a hypothetical 80,000 is a drop in the bucket compared to the capability. I accept that tangent as my fault, but you are still wrong
quote:
Yeah, right. We're overstretched as it is, and don't have enough troops on the ground in Iraq to do the job. There's a big infantry shortage. And you think we could get 100,000 troops to Taiwan in a few weeks? Man, did Rumsfeld ask you for advice before the war, because if so, it would explain the ineptitude so far. |
And once again your intellect bottoms out.
A la Wikipedia, LINK, the US army has 1,000,000 men to draw on right now. So if by overstretched you mean at 20% capacity for peace time operations (caution: speedbump) then sure.
As for Taiwan, well, bad example for you because that would mean fighting China which would mean all out war. Care to guess what the American man pool is? Not that it matters, it would be a naval/air war anyways.
All a two front war like that would require would be a war footing, which is what I have repeatedly said we should be at now, and who I blame BOTH cons and libs for.
Your understanding of our militaries actiual capabilities, is amatuer at best.
Oh yeah, and we still have the Marines
quote:
It was a hypothetical. I'd guess, based on your responses, that cons have no ability for conceptial thinking, eh? |
If by hypothetical you mean diliberatly expanding and contracting the scope of the debate for no good reason then yes, I don't play like that.
But your right then, if we do absolutely nothing to support a troop deployment thn yes, it will fail 
quote:
I wish you actually had coherent responses to things, it would be even funnier. |
You can only help a broken horse so much, but I think it is about time to put you down. Sorry B, everyones mind goes eventually, I will get the shotgun.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lightblue
|
|
L'Boro, UK
Oct 2001
time: 05:36
|
|
Ok can't say I've read through all the personal attacks and general claptrap by the usual suspects in this thread but a few things.
- Why should Germany or France help you guys invade another country? AFAIK the NATO agreement is to help one another in the case of a direct attack, thus the help against the Taliban. Iraq has not attacked any NATO member directly (or indirectly really discounting one or two small training camps), so that treaty does not force them to join. If there had been a solid UN mandate, based on solid proof and not evidence fabricated and enhanced by the respective press offices, then you mgiht have point. No UN mandate = no legal case to go to war for reasons you used (breaking the sanctions etc). Also keep in mind that the populations were predominantly against action, and last I checked France and Germany were democracies, and the governments are elected to carry out the will of their people not some foreign government of a country that still feels they're owed favours for something that happened 60 years ago. Get over it, I mean if you keep looking at historical ***-for-tat, you owe the French a favour as well for helping in the War of Independence etc etc.
- If there were any WMD to be found they would've been trotted out in front of TV cameras by now, as it'd be a PR boost. They're not there, so now the best thing people can do is make up conspiracy theories.
Now a few things we've learnt:
- Iraq (and most of the rest of the ME) is a mess created by colonial slapping together of radically different tribes who can't stand eachother, thus explaining all the agro there since then.
- A power vacuum is an attractive envrionment for terrorists.
- Last I checked Spain, Italy, the UK and the Netherlands were also part of "old europe", and last I checked they helped out as well, be it against the will of their people's.
- The only reason Bush didn't get voted out, or Blair won't either in 2 weeks, is that the opposition parties filthied themselves by going with the government on the case for war. Oh, and because people are stupid and believe everything they read.
- Currently there's no country that can touch the US militarily and its projection power, however with increased overstretching and internal morale grumbling this might change.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
What have we learned from Iraq?
We allowed the President to con us into permitting him to initiate a war for a non-existant reason based upon flimsy evidence and his assurance that more solid evidence existed. We should have demanded more solid evidence that Iraq had WMD.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Patroklos
|
|
Back home in good ole Norfolk VA
Dec 2001
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
AFAIK the NATO agreement is to help one another in the case of a direct attack{/quote]
Absolutely right, though nobody is actually adovcating using that alliace for Iraq.
[quote]Iraq has not attacked any NATO member directly |
Not true at all, but the forces attacked were under UN mandate, so NATO need not be enacted.
quote:
If there had been a solid UN mandate |
There are a few UN Mandates that Iraq was in violation of, even without WMD. France, Germany and Russia were also in violation.
quote:
No UN mandate = no legal case to go to war for reasons you used |
Patently false. There is question of letter of the law legality of the invasion, simple the perception of legitimacy.
quote:
owed favours for something that happened 60 years ago |
If you say so, though who has seriously maintained that position? And the Cold War was 15 years ago
quote:
mean if you keep looking at historical ***-for-tat, you owe the French a favour as well for helping in the War of Independence etc etc. |
Again, besides trolling on Apolyton who seriously mantains this. And it is probobly not a good thing for France to to tic for tac with favors owed if you insist on believing in that French bashing line
quote:
Oh, and because people are stupid and believe everything they read. |
Interesting, 90% of what I read is not in support of Bush or Blair...
quote:
Currently there's no country that can touch the US militarily and its projection power, however with increased overstretching and internal morale grumbling this might change. |
Hell, we could go back to conscription and still steamroll every convetional military out there. Morale goes through its ups and downs, but at the worst of downs combat effectivness is not reduced, so far anways. It is possibel this could change, but not likely.
Last edited by Patroklos on 24-04-2005 at 22:08
|
|
| |
|
|
|
kronic
|
|
Germany
Mar 2002
time: 06:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Patroklos
GERMANY
Wikopedia lists the Bundeswehr as a whole at 250,000 thousand, with an army larger than the French (who are lower than usually, transfroming from conscript to volunteer). Less data on deployment status, I don't speak German, but I will assume parity to France. LINK
It lists Germany as having about 8,000 military and civilan personal deployed around the world currently (they do in fact beat four digits), and no B their KFOR obligation is nowhere near your guess.
So between Germany and France alone thats 60,000, plus 28,000 for other already participating non-US forces, and the hypothetical from my original posts said 12 other nations... |
I'm pretty sure, we couldn't send 30,000 troops there. But, even if we could, what do you think would happen in Germany? I guarantee you, there'd be riots. And the government wouldn't have the parliamentary support (no party would support such a huge mission, even those that were pro-war) anyway and would likely be overthrown.
Please face the fact, that 80 %+ were against the war. And most people (including me) were as well convinced, that Saddam had WMD. But just having WMD is not enough reason to go to war. No one thought that Saddam was a threat to the US or to Germany.
Despite that, note that we can't send conscripts against their will to Iraq or anywhere else outside Germany.
Anyway, I fail to see, why we should send troops in a war, that we don't approve. You can't just come up and say: "Give us your troops/your money!" and then feel insulted when we refuse to do so. That doesn't work anymore.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-04-2005 10:26
).
Talk about political suicide, it might have (somewhat) worked in the slightly more authority respecting 60's-70's, no way now.
|