USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[Baff2 0]

Quote[/b] ]Arty works just the same.

I'm not really an expert on artillery, but I'd say it's a fair guess that artillery into the vietnamese jungle is far less effective than artillery into a flat, open area...The simple fact that the shells would quite likely hit trees and blow up before they hit the ground would cause artillery into thick jungle to be less effective...

I'd say it is less effective, since by the time you have spotted the enemy in a jungle, they have already overrun your lines. An artillery fired at theat range will have equal effect upon your own troops.

[Garcia 0]

Quote[/b] ]Arty works just the same.

I'm not really an expert on artillery, but I'd say it's a fair guess that artillery into the vietnamese jungle is far less effective than artillery into a flat, open area...The simple fact that the shells would quite likely hit trees and blow up before they hit the ground would cause artillery into thick jungle to be less effective...

I'd say it is less effective, since by the time you have spotted the enemy in a jungle, they have already overrun your lines. An artillery fired at theat range will have equal effect upon your own troops.

Well indeed. If you can spot the enemy while they are far enough from you for artillery to be effective, you're probably not in what could be called a vietnamese jungle...

[denoir 0]

But let me tell you something, there is nothing more powerful than an American Servicemen and his weapon!

Well, apparently an Iraqi rebel with his weapon.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]They feel they're winning? Do you have something to back that statement up? Some statistics, an opinion poll perhaps?

You know, for a discussion to be meaningful, you're not allowed to make stuff up.

primary sources:

PFC David Whelms, USMC

LCPL Jessie Whoebach, USMC

SGT Justin Davidson, USMC

PFC Steven Cornet, US Army

Ah, I see. When opinion polls are made for simple questions the pollsters ask thousands of people. Do you think that they do that because they enjoy phoning people?

That four of your friends think that the Iraq war is going well isn't enough to draw any general conclusions. For any form of statistics being possible a large sample is required.

I'm not aware of any such opinion poll of the support for the war by US military personnel. The majority of the American population in large is (now) against the war and I suspect that the people actually doing the dying are even more against it. The military brass have as we know expressed their opinion about the chance of this ending well.

[Lateflip 0]

No doubt the war in Iraq have not turned out the way the world wanted it to. But it's still been for the better. I say either bring in more troops to stabilize, or send everybody home and let the new democratic government deal with it.

[martinovic 0]

Quote[/b] ]No doubt the war in Iraq have not turned out the way the world wanted it to.

Hey, hey. Don't drag "the world" into this. The USA went in there practically alone, with the brits just tagging along.

The US can't just simply pull out of Iraq, it's like knocking up a girl and then leaving town in a hurry. Oh no you don't! You take care of the mess you've made mister... :/

So go out there! Buy your new wife (the iraqi government) some new fancy weapons, and educate the baby that is the iraqi populace until they can finally take care of themselves, then you can carry on with your life where you left it off in 2003, but until then Iraq is the responsiblity of the USA.

[Baff2 0]

I say either bring in more troops to stabilize, or send everybody home and let the new democratic government deal with it.

This to me is the "I can't crack a nut with this sledgehammer" dilemma.

solution is not, "use a bigger hammer".

The troops are the problem.

All the people in Iraq capable of running a government have been barred from standing. (It seems no one learned any of the lessons from the de-Nazification of Germany and the resultant back-pedalling from that position when Germany instantly dissolved into anarchy).

Anarchy in Iraq has been guarenteed by the de-Baathification program. Iraq's fate has been sealed.

U.S. troops (apart from all the usual stuff about being a symbol of foreign occupation, being poorly disciplined and inexperienced in peacekeeping methods, cowardly ROE bla bla bla.), are maintaining the instability by enforceing current U.S. foreign policy.

No government in any country has ever had it's political institutions artificially created from scratch and succeeded.

Democratic institutions come last in a countries political development, not first.

First comes feudalism. Local tribal warlords and militia leaders. Until one man the baddest of them all unites the place into a country. His systems of governance become institutionaised and gradually accrue more power of their own, until a constitutional system is born. This kind of stuff takes a long time. Usually measured in centuries.

It does not help, of course,  that every time a local militiaman capable of dominating an area shows up, that American soldiers all try and kill him.

U.S. intervention actively exacerbates Iraqi instability.

The Iraqi government wasn't freely elected and is composed of a bunch of traitors and cowards, (many of them foreign residents rootless in the local communities) wholly dependant on U.S. military power for their personal survival.

Any time we withdraw, the Iraqi people will kill them and they know it. A U.S. withdrawl is 100% against their intrests.

Listen to them and we will never leave.

The "democratic governments" ministers don't have the know how to manage governments. It doesn't control anything, and it is actively hindered from negotiating with the people who do by us.

Sending more troops will not stabilise the country.

The situation in Iraq cannot be changed by foreign intervention, until foreign leadership changes. No matter how many Democrats get elected, Bush and Blair have too much personally invested in the way this war has been run to ever back down.

There will be no change in Iraq policy before the next government. Bush has locked himself into a fantasy he has no ability to make real, but cannot afford to stop living the dream.

He just can't come out and say. OMG, it's a total disaster. It was my plan right from the beginning that hasn't worked as intended and currently I'm only making it worse.

The blood of a million people is on my hands.

I have driven my country further into debt and the only thing I have to show for it is the total disrespect of America by nine out of every ten people on the planet, where previously we were thought of as benefactors.

The best thing I can do at this point is give up my job and let someone else try and fix it.

Not going to happen.

He will continue with his Iraqi democracy routine. The troops will stay. Instability in Iraq will stay. Nothing much is going to change by our hands over the next two years.

[Lateflip 0]

Quote[/b] ]No doubt the war in Iraq have not turned out the way the world wanted it to.

Hey, hey. Don't drag "the world" into this. The USA went in there practically alone, with the brits just tagging along.

The US can't just simply pull out of Iraq, it's like knocking up a girl and then leaving town in a hurry. Oh no you don't! You take care of the mess you've made mister... :/

So go out there! Buy your new wife (the iraqi government) some new fancy weapons, and educate the baby that is the iraqi populace until they can finally take care of themselves, then you can carry on with your life where you left it off in 2003, but until then Iraq is the responsiblity of the USA.

Volunteers from my country have done a good job in Iraq, so I feel pretty free with saying the world thank you. And our neighbor nation sent troops with the initial Allied invasion.

The problem is that some muslims see this as a chance for a holy Jihad, it's like those people haven't evolved mentally in 800 years, back when europe had Crusades.

[Donnervogel 0]

The problem is that some muslims see this as a chance for a holy Jihad, it's like those people haven't evolved mentally in 800 years, back when europe had Crusades.

You mean that they haven't adopted a better reasoning for wars like national prestige, racial superiority and forcing our own political ideology on others? Like the superior western countries did in the meantime?

[Garcia 0]

Quote[/b] ]No doubt the war in Iraq have not turned out the way the world wanted it to.

Hey, hey. Don't drag "the world" into this. The USA went in there practically alone, with the brits just tagging along.

The US can't just simply pull out of Iraq, it's like knocking up a girl and then leaving town in a hurry. Oh no you don't! You take care of the mess you've made mister... :/

So go out there! Buy your new wife (the iraqi government) some new fancy weapons, and educate the baby that is the iraqi populace until they can finally take care of themselves, then you can carry on with your life where you left it off in 2003, but until then Iraq is the responsiblity of the USA.

Volunteers from my country have done a good job in Iraq, so I feel pretty free with saying the world thank you. And our neighbor nation sent troops with the initial Allied invasion.

The problem is that some muslims see this as a chance for a holy Jihad, it's like those people haven't evolved mentally in 800 years, back when europe had Crusades.

"The world" said no to the invasion when UN did not support any such war...Big parts of "the world" did, and still doesn't, support the war, neither military, economically or politically...

And the big bad muslim, Keith Ellison, wants to swear his oath on the Koran instead of the bible...bad boy! I wouldn't be suprised if someone somehow sees this as another proof that he is a terrorist... And honestly, I agree with the guy. Him swearing an oath on the bible is worth as much as my fart...

[Sophion-Black 0]

Quote[/b] ]The "democratic government" doesn't rule any provinces. It doesn't even rule 5 blocks away from it's own headquarters. Of the two (not three) provinces that have so far been handed over by the British and withdrawing Italians, each fell to the local militia's on the same day.

Well, they're still part of Iraq now.

Quote[/b] ]I'd say it is less effective, since by the time you have spotted the enemy in a jungle, they have already overrun your lines. An artillery fired at theat range will have equal effect upon your own troops.

you forget about observation posts, aerial observation (with help of modern technology), forward observers/recon elements.

Quote[/b] ]That four of your friends think that the Iraq war is going well isn't enough to draw any general conclusions. For any form of statistics being possible a large sample is required.

you know, they are part of a team. then part of a squad, and on to a platoon. that's up to around 50 men... for each person listed. speaking on behalf of their fellow men... that comes up to a total of 200 man. Not to mention other men they have come in contact with that isn't in their unit. however, there are men against the war; but they are very few.

Quote[/b] ]Hey, hey. Don't drag "the world" into this. The USA went in there practically alone, with the brits just tagging along.

lets just look at the list:

Afghanistan

Albania

Angola

Australia

Azerbaijan

Bulgaria

Colombia

Costa Rica

Czech Republic

Denmark

Dominican Republic

El Salvador

Eritrea

Estonia

Ethiopia

Georgia

Honduras

Hungary

Iceland

Italy

Japan

Kuwait

Latvia

Lithuania

Macedonia

Marshall Islands

Micronesia

Mongolia

Netherlands

Nicaragua

Palau

Panama

Philippines

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Rwanda

Singapore

Slovakia

Solomon Islands

South Korea

Spain

Tonga

Turkey

Uganda

Ukraine

United Kingdom

United States

Uzbekistan

nope, don't look so alone.

Quote[/b] ]All the people in Iraq capable of running a government have been barred from standing. (It seems no one learned any of the lessons from the de-Nazification of Germany and the resultant back-pedalling from that position when Germany instantly dissolved into anarchy).

Huh, never really heard anything like this... you have any links i can use to read up on it?

Quote[/b] ]The problem is that some muslims see this as a chance for a holy Jihad, it's like those people haven't evolved mentally in 800 years, back when europe had Crusades.

They have evolved... now they blame the US for anything that goes wrong.

[EiZei 0]

Afghanistan

Albania

Angola

Australia

Azerbaijan

Bulgaria

Colombia

Costa Rica

Czech Republic

Denmark

Dominican Republic

El Salvador

Eritrea

Estonia

Ethiopia

Georgia

Honduras

Hungary

Iceland

Italy

Japan

Kuwait

Latvia

Lithuania

Macedonia

Marshall Islands

Micronesia

Mongolia

Netherlands

Nicaragua

Palau

Panama

Philippines

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Rwanda

Singapore

Slovakia

Solomon Islands

South Korea

Spain

Tonga

Turkey

Uganda

Ukraine

United Kingdom

United States

Uzbekistan

How about making a list that includes countries that have sent more than 10 people to Iraq?

EDIT:

To put this grand coalition into a more reasonable perspective..

Quote[/b] ]

ll the people in Iraq capable of running a government have been barred from standing. (It seems no one learned any of the lessons from the de-Nazification of Germany and the resultant back-pedalling from that position when Germany instantly dissolved into anarchy).

Not that there can be that much backpedalling anymore, lot of the more educated and richer iraqis just ran when they realized they lost their livelihoods and became kidnapper and militia magnets.

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]Hey, hey. Don't drag "the world" into this. The USA went in there practically alone, with the brits just tagging along.

lets just look at the list:

Afghanistan

Albania

.. <snip>

Uzbekistan

nope, don't look so alone.

I know that debating is easier if you ignore reality and make things up. These were the countries that participated in the invasion of Iraq [wikipedia]:

Quote[/b] ]

> 1000 tropps:

[*]United States: 250,000 invasion--145,000 current (10/06)

[*]United Kingdom: 45,000 invasion--7,200 current (9/06)

[*]South Korea: 3,300 invasion--2,600 PLANNED (12/06)

[*]Poland: 2,400 troops--WITHDRAWAL PLANNED (12/06)

[*]Australia: 2,000 invasion--1,400 current (11/06)

[*]Italy: 1,800 troops--WITHDRAWN (9/06)

[*]Ukraine: 1,650 troops--WITHDRAWN (12/05)

[*] Netherlands : 1,345 troops--WITHDRAWN (3/05)

[*]Spain : 1,300 troops--WITHDRAWN (4/04)

100-1000 troops

[*]Romania: 865 troops

[*]Japan: 600 troops--WITHDRAWN (7/06)

[*]Denmark: 515 invasion--515 current (9/06)

[*]Georgia: 500 invasion--300 current (8/06)

[*]Bulgaria : 462 troops--WITHDRAWN (4/06)

[*]Thailand: 423 troops--WITHDRAWN (9/04)

[*]El Salvador: 380 troops

[*]Honduras: 368 troops--WITHDRAWN (5/04)

[*]Dominican Republic: 302 troops--WITHDRAWN (5/04)

[*]Czech Republic: 300 troops

[*]Hungary: 300 troops--WITHDRAWN (12/04)

[*]Nicaragua: 230 troops--WITHDRAWN (2/04)

[*]Singapore: 192 troops--WITHDRAWN (1/04)

[*]Azerbaijan: 150 troops

[*]Norway: 150 troops--WITHDRAWN (8/06)

[*]Latvia: 136 troops

[*]Mongolia: 131 troops

[*]Portugal: 128 troops--WITHDRAWN (2/05)

[*]Albania: 120 troops

[*]Slovakia: 104 troops

< 100 troops

[*]New Zealand: 61 troops--WITHDRAWN (9/04)

[*]Philippines: 51 troops--WITHDRAWN (7/04)

[*]Lithuania: 50 troops

[*]Armenia: 46 troops

[*]Tonga: 45 troops--WITHDRAWN (12/04)

[*]Bosnia and Herzegovina: 36 troops

[*]Estonia: 35 troops

[*]Macedonia: 33 troops

[*]Kazakhstan: 29 troops

[*]Moldova: 24 invasion--12 current (9/06)

[*]Iceland: 2 troops--WITHDRAWN

Note that most of the countries that sent < 1000 troops only sent medical personel.

[Donnervogel 0]

lets just look at the list:

Afghanistan

[...]

Uzbekistan

nope, don't look so alone.

haha I would not use such a list to get my point across... unless you're trying to make me laugh (wich you did btw)

I mean besides that half of those countries don't even have troops in Iraq and that a majority of the population in those countries was against the war most of those countries don't have the economical or military power to make a difference. Also some countries "subscribed" to the "coalition of the willing" after they got some financial benefits for it witch doesn't make the trustworthy allies in my definition.

[Sophion-Black 0]

Sending troops isn't the only way to help, enter the ones not listed in wikipedia (an encyclopedia anyone can edit)

Observe <<< link (click it, it's the source)

Does that list look familiar? IT SHOULD! I JUST COPIED AND PASTED THAT LIST...

Quote[/b] ]I know that debating is easier if you ignore reality and make things up.

I demand an apology, that was uncalled for.

(That is why my research isn't limited to just wikipedia, which is mostly hearsay btw)

[martinovic 0]

Well, first off, most countries on that list went into it to have the visa requirements lifted by the US. That didn't happen, so almost everyone withdrew their more or less symbolic contributions to the war.

For example the ukraine has around 500 000 soldiers and they sent less then 2000, how serious is that commitment?

Another thing is that the USA was the leader of this whole thing, the US military was the one who decided that it's better to disolve the iraqi military, effectively making them all go home with their AKs and RPGs that they are now selling to militias/using themselves. Another stupid manouver was not securing the borders, eventhough the british said it would be wise to do so.

Totally disolving Saddams established control network wasn't too bright either and don't you dare bring up the immorality of said network with stuff like haditha/abu ghraib being done by US soldiers, that's saddams tactics right there.

So the fault for this whole thing rests at the feet of the USA. And not just simply the Bush administration either, cause they are simply representatives of the people, they do what the majority of the people want, that's what a democracy means - just incase you guys forgot among all the fascist legislation like the "violence against women" and "patriot" acts (oh what pretty names).

[SPQR 0]

Quote[/b] ]The population of Coalition countries is approximately 1.23 billion people

First hand, according to your highly valuable american democratic ideas, it leaves 4.77 billion people telling you you're loosers

So, the majority should be right, shouldn't it ?

Second hand, many of your allies' decision to send in the troops are governemental ones, inspite of their own people opinion, which wasn't, everywhere, friendly with the TBA politics.

The consequence of their unilateral decision was that some of your allied governments were fired when democratic elections occur soon after (exemples : Spain, Italy)

[Garcia 0]

Indeed. The norwegian PM at the time (which, btw, somehow became PM even though his party had virtually no support...still wondering how that happened) was a sucker who had his head so far up Bush's ass. He sent, with extremly limited support in the norwegian people, troops to Iraq. Thankfully our new goverment elected last year pulled them out

[denoir 0]

Sending troops isn't the only way to help, enter the ones not listed in wikipedia (an encyclopedia anyone can edit)

Observe <<< link (click it, it's the source)

Does that list look familiar? IT SHOULD! I JUST COPIED AND PASTED THAT LIST...

Quote[/b] ]I know that debating is easier if you ignore reality and make things up.

I demand an apology, that was uncalled for.

(That is why my research isn't limited to just wikipedia, which is mostly hearsay btw)

Hehe, good joke, linking to the white house. If there is one biased source to rule all other biased source on this issue it is the white house. My statement stand for the white house as well as for you: debating is easier if you ignore reality and make shit up.

As for the reliability of wikipedia, testing has shown it to be roughly as reliable as Britannica. Not that such accuracy is needed to beat the white house press office - just making things up will put you on that level.

Incidentally, that's what you are consistently doing. You need new role models.

Quote[/b] ]Sending troops isn't the only way to help

And claiming that somebody is part of your coalition just because they aren't actively opposing you is fundamentally dishonest. Incidentally, after the white house released that list there were strong denials from some of the countries. This is the list of the 30 countries that agreed to be associated with the US on this one:

Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and Uzbekistan.

Source: us state department via BBC

Anyway the only meaningful contributions to the US led coalition were made by the UK. Money and troops, that's all that counts and in the invasion only the US and the UK provided that in meaningful quantities.

[Garcia 0]

Sending troops isn't the only way to help, enter the ones not listed in wikipedia (an encyclopedia anyone can edit)

Observe <<< link (click it, it's the source)

Does that list look familiar? IT SHOULD! I JUST COPIED AND PASTED THAT LIST...

Quote[/b] ]I know that debating is easier if you ignore reality and make things up.

I demand an apology, that was uncalled for.

(That is why my research isn't limited to just wikipedia, which is mostly hearsay btw)

Hehe, good joke, linking to the white house. If there is one biased source to rule all other biased source on this issue it is the white house. My statement stand for the white house as well as for you: debating is easier if you ignore reality and make shit up.

As for the reliability of wikipedia, testing has shown it to be roughly as reliable as Britannica. Not that such accuracy is needed to beat the white house press office - just making things up will put you on that level.

Incidentally, that's what you are consistently doing. You need new role models.

Quote[/b] ]Sending troops isn't the only way to help

The only meaningful contributions to the US led coalition were made by the UK. Money and troops, that's all that counts and in the invasion only the US and the UK provided that in meaningful quantities.

I remember I saw a interview with a US scientist studying the climate changes and such. The research he and his colleges did was every now and then presented to US officials and such so they could decide the US politics on these matters...only problem was that all the places were the scientists had pointed out that USA most likely is fucking up the climate with it's policy, the white house had changed those parts, or simply removed them from the report...

White house truth...change or remove facts that you don't like

[EiZei 0]

Anyway the only meaningful contributions to the US led coalition were made by the UK. Money and troops, that's all that counts and in the invasion only the US and the UK provided that in meaningful quantities.

Well.. im sure Kuwait allowing the US to use their country as a staging area for their attack was pretty valuable too.

[denoir 0]

Anyway the only meaningful contributions to the US led coalition were made by the UK. Money and troops, that's all that counts and in the invasion only the US and the UK provided that in meaningful quantities.

Well.. im sure Kuwait allowing the US to use their country as a staging area for their attack was pretty valuable too.

True. Which brings me to a good example why the list on the white house site is completely bogus. They list Turkey - the same Turkey that refused to allow the 'coallition' to use it as a staging area for an attack on Iraq from the north. Nobody screwed up the invasion plans as much as Turkey did.

[scary 0]

LMAO. Foreign terrorists.

All twenty of them. Best send more troops.

Are you stupid or just full of democratic bull sh!t?

Its been three years! do you think Iraq will be left if all the terrorists were domestic? NO! You honestly think that Iraqi people are picking up guns off dead terrorists to fight American and allied troops?

For someone that alledgedly loves democracy, you sure do hate democrats. All those Democrat voting troops out there would be so happy to know you detest them so. Perhaps you should leave the rhetoric out of the discussion, like others are managing. "BUT HE'S A DEMOCRAT!!!!111!!1" is a poor debating tactic.

Iraqi people have no need to take guns from dead terrorists when more Iraqis have guns than have microwaves. Also, they're primarily fighting each other, not the coalition.

Quote[/b] ]political move, the terrorists know that if Iran gets a foot in the door the US will be powerless to stop them. After all look who is standing behind them, Russia and the PRC. That is one of the reasons the US doesn't want Iran to get nukes. Another being Israel will use theirs to blast Iran off the map... and we don't want to play "duck, duck, who's-- (Boom)" in Iraq!

Iran does not like Iraq, they are not friends. Iran wanted the Ba'athists overthrown, but it has nothing to gain and plenty to lose from insurgency nextdoor. The cold war is over, Russia and China are not enemies of the West, they are trading partners, bringing down the West is not in their interest. Neither one of them trusts Iran any more than the West does.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Don't you think the japanese felt they were kicking some serious US ass after Pearl Harbor? Don't you think the Germans felt they were winning against the Soviets up to the battle in Stalingrad? The fact that they probably felt so doesn't make it a universal truth...

All against well-trained-battle-hardened troops. this is different, this is militiamen.

Well-trained-battle-hardened militiamen. The only difference is that a large proportion of them have no fear of death.

Quote[/b] ]primary sources:

PFC David Whelms, USMC

LCPL Jessie Whoebach, USMC

SGT Justin Davidson, USMC

PFC Steven Cornet, US Army

Great, one SNCO and three from the bottom of the ladder.

My primary sources:

Sgt. scary RM

Thousands of my oppos.

Do I win a prize?

Quote[/b] ]The Battle of Sacramento (Mexican-American War).

US Strength:

924 Soldiers

Mexican Strength:

1,500 infantry, 1,200 calvary and 119 artillery (2,819 total).

Result: US Victory

US Casualties: 9 (1 KIA, 8 WIA)

Mexican Casualties: 600 (300 KIA, 300 WIA)

There are more than one instances of "lopsided" results like this. and not just in the Mexican War either, it shows up through US history.

I notice that you left out the fact that it was a surprise flank-attack against a force equipped with ancient muskets by Americans equipped with modern rifles.

Events like this show up through most nations' histories, the US doesn't have a monopoly on this kind of thing. Other nations, however, don't base current policy on past achievements.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]World War I... Remind me, how important was the US contribution to that scuffle?

Money is a big thing... something the US provided.

Neither Britain or France were poor, this was at the height of empire and either country could fart more money than the US had access to. All the artillery, tanks and other heavy equipment used by the Americans were provided by the British and French free of charge.

When you're in a hole, stop digging. The American contribution to WWI was minimal at best.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]1) It lasted 16 years. That is prolonged.

2) Open does not refer to strategy and tactics, it means not clandestine. It was not clandestine.

3) I've never seen the NYPD fighting in the jungle, or trying to stop an invading army. You cannot use more explosive than was used in WWI and WWII combined and say it wasn't a war.

4) Not every contact was a battle. All battles can be won and a war lost.

@1) I never knew the US was in engagement from the time it landed

@2) "Open" means two large forces opposing each other.

@3) Action in Vietnam was used to stop northern aggression, therefore it was a police action.

@4) If your referring to base insurgency then that was a battle won too, they repulsed the VC.

1) The first American combat deaths were on July 8th 1959 at Bien Hoa Billets. The last were at the fall of Saigon, April 29-30 1975. There were American combat deaths in the first Indo-China War too, the first being Major(Lt. Col.) A.P. Dewey.

2) "Open" means two or more forces of indeterminate size opposing each other - openly.

3) Action in WWII was used to stop German aggression. Its status as a war is unaffected. Arlington Cemetary refer to Vietnam as "America's longest and most controversial war". Perhaps you would like to argue with them.

4) The US lost, you will not change that fact. The US went there to stop the North invading the South and failed. Not achieving your war aims while the opposition achieves theirs is a loss.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]The only way Americans were involved is if there was some use of time travel.

The men involved there were Americans, yes they were under British "rule" but they were still living, breathing, and walking America.

They were not Americans, nor were they under British rule as neither country existed in 1637. They were English colonists, born and raised in England, they considered themselves English, were wholly dependant on supplies from England and were bankrolled by England. They were there to set up colonies for England. They were no more American than Christopher Columbus. They were not American in the same way as Julius Caesar was not Italian.

Quote[/b] ]WRONG! When a ship goes to sea it is sovereign territory the British were INVADING US SOVERNINTY, INVADING US BOARDERS AT LAND, AND INVADING US WATERS! Now, if the US did that now to the British how would you feel?

Quite frankly, I wouldn't give a toss - it was 200 years ago. It really is quite pointless trying to transplant 21st century international law onto the early 19th century. Of course, you do realise one of the things the RN were doing in US waters was stopping ships transporting slaves from the British empire. What do you think a suitable response should have been for Americans illegaly taking British subjects as slaves?

Quote[/b] ]Besides, the criteria they used to determine that the sailor was "British" fit nearly all Americans (look, acted and spoke English, and/or had an English name). basically they stole US sailors off US ships!

Should I spell it out, or do you get the point?

No need to spell anything out, I get the point quite clearly: you're making it up as you go along.

Impressment is just another word for conscription. The captains of American ships were complicit in assisting draft dodgers and deserters and they were most likely being paid by the French to do it.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]The best ships the US had were its super-frigates which were fourth/fifth rate.

Try one of the best in the world, since America had different species of trees and an abundance of them, it was safe to say they were "top notch." Do i have to pull in the example of "Old Ironsides" to put you in your place about American Frigates?

You've changed tack more often than the Chesapeake ever did. First of all you claimed that the HMS Shannon didn't have superior firepower, which it did, you also claimed that US frigates were 'the best in the world' because of their superior firepower, now you've changed that to 'one of the best' because of the timber used.

The fact is that the best ships the US had were the 44 gunners it refered to as 'super-frigates'. It makes no difference if they were "top-notch", they were still only borderline fourth rates built to fight fifth rate and lesser vessels. The US had nothing that could match a RN fourth rate or a ship of the line. You just don't seem to have any concept of how overwhelmingly powerful the RN was.

As for this different trees nonsense, Britain owned Canada. Any trees the US had access to Britain had a lot more of them, as well as its pick of South American, African, Asian, Indian, Australasian and European trees.

Out of all these new superhero trees the US had, 'Old Ironsides' was made of oak. Trying to put me in my place could backfire especially if its the urban myth or the no holes, but you're welcome to try.

Quote[/b] ]BS    Arty works just the same. And hippies do affect wars 9,000 miles away:

1) Lowers US morale

2) Raises VC morale

3) Politicians control money to fund the war.

Aside from issue of shells hitting the trees, as others have mentioned, how exactly do you think one can deploy field guns, self-propelled guns or tanks in an area no vehicle can access? Mortars can't be used with an overhead obstruction, before you mention them.

So you're saying all it takes to defeat the US military is a college girl with a placard. Not very good then are they?

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Quote

The US economy is in such dire condition as to need a war to stop it from collapsing

You think was is a solution to raise an economy? well hell! lets all pick up the boxing gloves

No. I know it was a solution to protect an economy. Saddam had the dollar by its reproductives. Iran is trying to do the same thing, only better.

Quote[/b] ]In that case, the brits are damned good...there was this battle in Africa during the colonization where quite few brits killed quite many Zulu warriors...(I'm quite sure they were brits). Of course, we're ignoring the fact that the brits had rifles and such, while the Zulus mostly had...axes and spears...

Rorke's Drift. 139 British, of which 104 were fit to fight, vs. 4-5000 Zulus. Along with their assegais, the Zulus did actually have a few thousand firearms, mostly 20-30 year old rifles and flintlocks purchased from white traders. Contrary to the film it is highly unlikely they had any Martini-Henrys at that time, although they did use them at Khambula two months later.

[ralphwiggum 6]

I thought this was USA politics thread,not Iraq thread.

[Sophion-Black 0]

Edit: Duplicate post

[Sophion-Black 0]

Wow i really have put myself between a rock and a hard place... trust a common person or trust something that has in their job description to protect me from foreign aggressors. but that's not all, they know about every military actions that has happened, is happening now, or is going to happen in the near future... who should i trust  

Do you know what military actions are  going to happen in the near future?

Besides, I'm quite sure some random person could not identify all intelligence organizations contributed to the invasion of Iraq. Or what specific NBC response teams were put on alert to assist if the need arises.

Quote[/b] ]As for the reliability of wikipedia, testing has shown it to be roughly as reliable as Britannica.

wow, thanks for telling the world a murder is just as bad a a homicide. The reason why many US schools don't have britannica in them, surprise.

Quote[/b] ]Not that such accuracy is needed to beat the white house press office - just making things up will put you on that level.

OK then, why don't i ask you how many American civilians were killed in WWII. Or should I ask how many Intelligence offices sent in information about Iraq before the invasion?

Quote[/b] ]Incidentally, that's what you are consistently doing. You need new role models.

maybe i should use you as one, an egotistic self-centered dumb*ss that has no respect of other human beings. thank you for opening my eye oh great jack*ss of the year!

Quote[/b] ]Anyway the only meaningful contributions to the US led coalition were made by the UK. Money and troops, that's all that counts and in the invasion only the US and the UK provided that in meaningful quantities.

so we didn't need to know any bits of information or intelligence that could help the "US-led" invasion of Iraq. [shakes head] look there is more to war than just show up and blast the guy on the other side.

1) You need logistics, supplies, ammunition, food, fuel, and spare parts for when you stop and rest.

2) You need intelligence to know what the enemy is doing, with what, and how many of them are doing it.

3) You need protection of the main forces, surrounding areas, innocent civilians, and political targets from any unconventional warfare.

4) you need the money to fund the war, its not free to shoot a gun. the bullet costs money.

and not recognizing someone for helping is just as bad as not recognizing their sovereignty at all. they made sacrifices, and I respect them for that.

Quote[/b] ]Nobody screwed up the invasion plans as much as Turkey did.

we still got into Iraq kicked a*s and took Saddam out of power, whats the difference? fly from the north and drop bombs or fly from the south and drop bombs?

Quote[/b] ]For someone that alledgedly loves democracy, you sure do hate democrats.

The United States is a Republic. Pulse, the Democrats are the ones blasting the pres for anything that goes wrong. I'm sure it would have been better off like the old days and put a democrat in charge of the army to shut those b*****ds up. But democratic Generals are becoming extinct now.

Quote[/b] ]but it has nothing to gain and plenty to lose from insurgency nextdoor.

One of the worlds largest oil reserve and better control of the middle east to turn against the US.

I.E. Iraq goes to Iran for help against the terrorists, Iran turns around and stops funding the terrorists and tells them to go home. Iran looks big and bad and Iraq turns to Iran for more help in the future. in return Iran get Oil rights.

Quote[/b] ]Well-trained-battle-hardened militiamen. The only difference is that a large proportion of them have no fear of death.

Militiamen initially have no proper training, or discipline. They can go home or leave when they please. And they certainly lack proper leadership. Not to mention effective weapons and a constant supply of ammunition. When it comes down to it, Militiamen have a big disadvantage against a trained army. being a royal marine, you should have learned something to this effect.

Quote[/b] ]Great, one SNCO and three from the bottom of the ladder.

They certainly know the common soldier in Iraq, the opinion I'm trying to convey.

Quote[/b] ]I notice that you left out the fact that it was a surprise flank-attack against a force equipped with ancient muskets by Americans equipped with modern rifles.

Yet they go into a fortified city, and misidentify where the main attack is coming from. Because there is "no way they [the Americans] can get there so fast and without us knowing it"... Surprise!  

Quote[/b] ]The American contribution to WWI was minimal at best.

dude, progress in WWI was minimal at best.

Quote[/b] ]1) The first American combat deaths were on July 8th 1959 at Bien Hoa Billets. The last were at the fall of Saigon, April 29-30 1975. There were American combat deaths in the first Indo-China War too, the first being Major(Lt. Col.) A.P. Dewey.

2) "Open" means two or more forces of indeterminate size opposing each other - openly.

3) Action in WWII was used to stop German aggression. Its status as a war is unaffected. Arlington Cemetary refer to Vietnam as "America's longest and most controversial war". Perhaps you would like to argue with them.

4) The US lost, you will not change that fact. The US went there to stop the North invading the South and failed. Not achieving your war aims while the opposition achieves theirs is a loss.

1) combat deaths could be the same as self defence deaths. Engagements were not made until after a few years later the US landed.

2) You see, i try not to use the word in the definition

3) What if i said the US Civil War is the longest war in US history. Does it make its true, no. is it true? yes... its still going on to this day. the CS government didn't sign a surrender. technically the longest US war to date.

4) The effects of Democrats getting their way, cut and run.

Quote[/b] ]They were English colonists, born and raised in England, they considered themselves English

Just like the Canadians were English colonists, but yet they were still Canadian. Fact of the matter is, these men and women were Americans, they were the earliest record of it. granted they didn't have a country until more than 100 years later, but their spirit is the same spirit of America. If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck and acts like a duck...

Quote[/b] ]Of course, you do realise one of the things the RN were doing in US waters was stopping ships transporting slaves from the British empire.

that still doesn't give them the right to invade US waters. justice should be done by judges not sailors.

Quote[/b] ]No need to spell anything out, I get the point quite clearly: you're making it up as you go along.

Look, I'm getting the information from a US history book. Your getting your information from a British history book. They're two very different things. One says good old Washington was the best man for the job as the first US president. One says Washington was the worlds biggest traitor. What keeps me from accusing you of making things up? Knowing the above.

Quote[/b] ]First of all you claimed that the HMS Shannon didn't have superior firepower, which it did, you also claimed that US frigates were 'the best in the world' because of their superior firepower, now you've changed that to 'one of the best' because of the timber used.

I don't recall saying the US frigates were the best because of firepower. This is actually the first time i have said why the US had better frigates.

Quote[/b] ]As for this different trees nonsense, Britain owned Canada. Any trees the US had access to Britain had a lot more of them.

as you said, the RN and Britain was busy being in war. They had little regard for Canada and its resources of timber. besides they had their own "South American, African, Asian, Indian, Australasian and European trees." Why come all the way over here to get southern live oak?

Quote[/b] ]how exactly do you think one can deploy field guns, self-propelled guns or tanks in an area no vehicle can access?

cut an LZ and drop it in using a chopper

Quote[/b] ]So you're saying all it takes to defeat the US military is a college girl with a placard.

All it takes is a Jane Fonda siting in north Vietnam arty to get us troops to stop firing at an "American." Not exactly defeat, but it really hurts to hear about something like that.

Quote[/b] ]In that case, the brits are damned good...there was this battle in Africa during the colonization where quite few brits killed quite many Zulu warriors...(I'm quite sure they were brits). Of course, we're ignoring the fact that the brits had rifles and such, while the Zulus mostly had...axes and spears...

try another example. But know this, by putting the British higher you consiquently bring the Americans along. after all, they did pop a few black eyes into the British ranks.