A few military comparisons

[jimnyc]

Seems like the Syria thing, and NK.... some think the USA is not as strong as she used to be. We even cut back on the budget a bit for awhile. But IMO, we still have MORE than enough to beat anyone one on one, with EASE. We could easily defeat most countries with our air superiority. Hell, many we could beat with attack copters alone. Compare troop numbers if need be, all aircrafts, helos and attack helos, fighter jets and more. Of course there is more to power than just this, but this is a glimpse into just how much we dominate the rest of the world with our firepower. Of course some foreign folks will deny or whatever, but we're used to that. This is why I have stated since forever, stop putting our soldiers lives at risk unless absolutely 100% necessary. We can defeat these places with airpower alone. But the PC crap gets in the way, and we must lose tons of lives, so that we can worry about things that these other military countries don't care about - and that's innocents.

---

Let's compare a few, starting with Russia:

http://i.imgur.com/MCaDYbl.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/CrQZpsM.jpg

---

Iran

http://i.imgur.com/hDhOyAd.jpg

---

North Korea

http://i.imgur.com/PozYsOO.jpg

---

And of course Syria

http://i.imgur.com/WhnJT8H.jpg

[Gunny]

Seems like the Syria thing, and NK.... some think the USA is not as strong as she used to be. We even cut back on the budget a bit for awhile. But IMO, we still have MORE than enough to beat anyone one on one, with EASE. We could easily defeat most countries with our air superiority. Hell, many we could beat with attack copters alone. Compare troop numbers if need be, all aircrafts, helos and attack helos, fighter jets and more. Of course there is more to power than just this, but this is a glimpse into just how much we dominate the rest of the world with our firepower. Of course some foreign folks will deny or whatever, but we're used to that. This is why I have stated since forever, stop putting our soldiers lives at risk unless absolutely 100% necessary. We can defeat these places with airpower alone. But the PC crap gets in the way, and we must lose tons of lives, so that we can worry about things that these other military countries don't care about - and that's innocents.

---

Let's compare a few, starting with Russia:

http://i.imgur.com/MCaDYbl.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/CrQZpsM.jpg

---

Iran

http://i.imgur.com/hDhOyAd.jpg

---

North Korea

http://i.imgur.com/PozYsOO.jpg

---

And of course Syria

http://i.imgur.com/WhnJT8H.jpgInteresting numbers. They only work in a game of one-on-one.

[jimnyc]

But IMO, we still have MORE than enough to beat anyone one on one, with EASE.


Interesting numbers. They only work in a game of one-on-one.

The point I was making though, contrary to what 'some' may say or think, the USA still easily has the most dominant military in the world, and by FAR in air superiority. So while some may soy their royal oats in Syria, they just wouldn't stand a chance.

[Balu]

Seems like the Syria thing, and NK.... some think the USA is not as strong as she used to be. We even cut back on the budget a bit for awhile. But IMO, we still have MORE than enough to beat anyone one on one, with EASE. We could easily defeat most countries with our air superiority. Hell, many we could beat with attack copters alone. Compare troop numbers if need be, all aircrafts, helos and attack helos, fighter jets and more. Of course there is more to power than just this, but this is a glimpse into just how much we dominate the rest of the world with our firepower. Of course some foreign folks will deny or whatever, but we're used to that. This is why I have stated since forever, stop putting our soldiers lives at risk unless absolutely 100% necessary. We can defeat these places with airpower alone. But the PC crap gets in the way, and we must lose tons of lives, so that we can worry about things that these other military countries don't care about - and that's innocents.


Only one question - Can Americans use now the sextant and chronometer to determine the location of the ship and the Morse code to communicate? Or they believe in and rely on GPS?

[Gunny]

The point I was making though, contrary to what 'some' may say or think, the USA still easily has the most dominant military in the world, and by FAR in air superiority. So while some may soy their royal oats in Syria, they just wouldn't stand a chance.Sure. But if you compare their collective numbers against ours, trying to control the World", how does THAT add up? Not to mention we've turned into a modern version of Greece or Rome. There's no collective will in this country.

We can't take on the world.

[sear]

"... some think the USA is not as strong as she used to be." jc

Yes.
Planet Earth is infested with pinheads.

But it is not merely a gross mistake, but a grotesque mistake to equate the capacity for power only with the manifest ostentatious sustained use of that power. What ever happened to "walk softly but carry a big stick"?

"Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet." Gen. James 'Mad Dog' Mattis


"I hope our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us, that the less we use our power the greater it will be." Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), U.S. president. Letter, 12 June 1815


"... a tight grip is actually a sign of a weak hand." President William Jefferson Clinton 99/04/07 C-SPAN


We don't have anything to prove.
What we want to accomplish is to keep the peace. It is not necessary that we impress anybody in the process.

"We even cut back on the budget a bit for awhile." jc

The "peace dividend"? During the Bush (elder) administration?

Why should military spending continue at wartime levels, after the war has been won, the wartime enemy defeated, and that former enemy candidly flat broke?

"But IMO, we still have MORE than enough to beat anyone one on one, with EASE. We could easily defeat most countries with our air superiority."

"and by FAR in air superiority." jc #3

"Superiority"?
"Supremacy", I would hope.

But among madmen with 11 X global overkill nuclear arsenals at their disposal, all of that is rather beside the point.

[Elessar]

Only one question - Can Americans use now the sextant and chronometer to determine the location of the ship and the Morse code to communicate? Or they believe in and rely on GPS?

Yes. That is all still taught and practiced, as well as a few other things. It is stupid
to rely on electronics alone. Electronics can fail in the blink of an eye.

[Balu]

Yes. That is all still taught and practiced, as well as a few other things. It is stupid
to rely on electronics alone. Electronics can fail in the blink of an eye.
Thanks. Once I've heard somewhere that they stopped and was greatly surprised as it seemed ridiculous to me. :slap:

[sear]

B #8

I understand that both components, and systems can fail.
Is there any persuasive evidence that electronics is more failure prone than non-electronic systems?

In any case, redundancy can be built into just about any system (except human-powered aircraft).

And cut to the chase:

The silicon chip / microelectronics revolution has transformed our world! It's responsible for putting what decades ago would have been a "super-computer" into our shirt pockets, in the form of "smart-phones".

Electronics are GARGANTUAN force-multipiers.
Instead having brigades of scouts / recon-rangers, we have satellites, UAV's, front-line / pilot on the ground aerial drones, FLIR vision, 2 way comm, and much more. "We own the night".

The U.S. military couldn't operate successfully without it.
The United States of America couldn't compete successfully without it.
We are stuck with it. "Batteries not included".

[Elessar]

Thanks. Once I've heard somewhere that they stopped and was greatly surprised as it seemed ridiculous to me. :slap:

It is not wise to pull out and be solely dependent on electronics; thus the tried and true (or close to it)
old methods are still taught and practiced.

Every operational unit has a copy of "Bowditch" available: The American Practical Navigator: Bowditch

[Elessar]

B #8

I understand that both components, and systems can fail.
Is there any persuasive evidence that electronics is more failure prone than non-electronic systems?

In any case, redundancy can be built into just about any system (except human-powered aircraft).

Snipped for brevity.

The U.S. military couldn't operate successfully without it.
The United States of America couldn't compete successfully without it.
We are stuck with it. "Batteries not included".

Quite a few assets do have redundant systems in case of a problem. It really
depends on the size of the asset. Our small boat crews are still taught how to plot
fixes on paper charts. In fact, they begin navigation training with paper carts, as
do even the larger cutters. Aircraft are a whole different animal. They learn off
aviation charts then apply that as well. Redundancy in an aircraft is very vital.

[sear]

#11 E

Yes BUT !!

There's more to the U.S. military than vehicles, boats, planes, etc.

The obvious example is GPS-guided munitions.

That GPS triangulation navigation is communicated via radio waves. And radio waves can be jammed.

The reason we sent squadrons of bombers over Germany and Japan in WWII is because the bombs were stupid then.
We flew our sorties high, to minimize hits from enemy AAA.

So we might have had to drop over a hundred stupid-bombs so that one of them would deactivate the target (the "ball-bearing factory").

With smart bombs, we can leave the squadrons on the tarmac, and just send one F-16 out with a smartypants bomb.

We are more efficient at killing than ever before. http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9836&stc=1

[Kathianne]

It is not wise to pull out and be solely dependent on electronics; thus the tried and true (or close to it)
old methods are still taught and practiced.

Every operational unit has a copy of "Bowditch" available: The American Practical Navigator: Bowditch

I've yet to be at a school that didn't keep their mimeograph machines. Same principle, one never knows when the electronics will fail. This seems especially true with hacking and adversaries that are as capable of targeting our grids and sats as we are theirs.

[Black Diamond]

I've yet to be at a school that didn't keep their mimeograph machines. Same principle, one never knows when the electronics will fail. This seems especially true with hacking and adversaries that are as capable of targeting our grids and sats as we are theirs.
What about microfiche? :)

[Kathianne]

What about microfiche? :)
The high schools still have the readers, not sure about the microfiche themselves.

[sear]

"What about microfiche? :) BD #14

You mean sardines?

Don't forget the tartar sauce!

[Black Diamond]

"What about microfiche? :) BD #14

You mean sardines?

Don't forget the tartar sauce!
Ok that was funny.

[revelarts]

Sure. But if you compare their collective numbers against ours, trying to control the World", how does THAT add up? Not to mention we've turned into a modern version of Greece or Rome. There's no collective will in this country.

We can't take on the world.


Why do we want to take on the world again?
and
Who says the U.S. has to "control " the world?
Is that in the constitution?

[Elessar]

I do NOT see anyone here suggesting that the USA is intent on
controlling the world.

[Gunny]

Why do we want to take on the world again?
and
Who says the U.S. has to "control " the world?
Is that in the constitution?Do you read threads? I didn't start this one. I will also point out that I pointed out the flaws to the numbers in my first post in this thread.

Your bone head just don't get it. You cherrypick info and have the memory of a gnat. The LAST people that want a war are the ones that have to fight them. Feel free to break down that sentence.

And don't play stupid when you're trying to play smart. We're the most arrogant and the most powerful nation in the world and got plenty of people that will let you know. So "Who says?" is rhetorical.

[aboutime]

Why do we want to take on the world again?
and
Who says the U.S. has to "control " the world?
Is that in the constitution?


rev. Why do you always sound like Obama, blaming the USA for everything, such as wanting to TAKE ON THE WORLD?
Nobody in this country, nor any Veterans, Active, Retired, or Reserves, with the National Guard WANT to take on the REST OF THE WORLD.

OUR purpose. Our Only purpose, along with our President's is TO PROTECT PEOPLE LIKE YOU, and ALL AMERICANS, whether you appreciate being defended, or not.
STOP playing your word games from the DNC talking points manual. Grow a set of your own Gonads, and become a thinking MAN for a change. Unless, of course...being responsible, and caring for your nation, family, and friends is BENEATH you.

Something you probably don't want to know. I'd bet 95% of American Veterans in Uniform believe in GOD, just as you pretend to do. And That GOD, would want us to PROTECT our nation, even if it means some of the enemies must die.

[sear]

"I'd bet 95% of American Veterans in Uniform believe in GOD" at #21

"95%"?
I suspect that would substantially exceed the ratio in the broader national population. If you agree on that, what do you think would account for the disparity?

"GOD, would want us to PROTECT our nation, even if it means some of the enemies must die." at #21

When our Holy Bible was written, the United States did not exit.

I'm sure it's comforting to believe god approves of us so thoroughly.
But we are all god's creatures.
Thinking that god would approve of U.S. killing them (god's creatures) to protect our own invention (United States) places ours ahead of his, a non-sentient entity ahead of the sentient.

Maybe so.
But possibly not.

Eskimo: 'If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to Hell?'
Priest: 'No, not if you did not know.'

Eskimo: 'Then why did you tell me?'

Annie Dillard

[Gunny]

"I'd bet 95% of American Veterans in Uniform believe in GOD" at #21

"95%"?
I suspect that would substantially exceed the ratio in the broader national population. If you agree on that, what do you think would account for the disparity?

"GOD, would want us to PROTECT our nation, even if it means some of the enemies must die." at #21

When our Holy Bible was written, the United States did not exit.

I'm sure it's comforting to believe god approves of us so thoroughly.
But we are all god's creatures.
Thinking that god would approve of U.S. killing them (god's creatures) to protect our own invention (United States) places ours ahead of his, a non-sentient entity ahead of the sentient.

Maybe so.
But possibly not.
[/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]I'm going outside to see if there's a full moon. You and Rev are off your rockers tonight.

[sear]

G #23

Thanks G.
Please let us know.

If it's not, I suspect it's close. But my 2017 calendar does not list the moon phases.

[jimnyc]

Sure. But if you compare their collective numbers against ours, trying to control the World", how does THAT add up? Not to mention we've turned into a modern version of Greece or Rome. There's no collective will in this country.

We can't take on the world.

I know that, I wasn't meaning that we could somehow take on the world. Just that - one on one - no one matches up with our hardware, not even close.

[Abbey Marie]

rev. Why do you always sound like Obama, blaming the USA for everything, such as wanting to TAKE ON THE WORLD?
Nobody in this country, nor any Veterans, Active, Retired, or Reserves, with the National Guard WANT to take on the REST OF THE WORLD.

OUR purpose. Our Only purpose, along with our President's is TO PROTECT PEOPLE LIKE YOU, and ALL AMERICANS, whether you appreciate being defended, or not.
STOP playing your word games from the DNC talking points manual. Grow a set of your own Gonads, and become a thinking MAN for a change. Unless, of course...being responsible, and caring for your nation, family, and friends is BENEATH you.

Something you probably don't want to know. I'd bet 95% of American Veterans in Uniform believe in GOD, just as you pretend to do. And That GOD, would want us to PROTECT our nation, even if it means some of the enemies must die.

AT, I don't think it's right to say that Rev pretends to believe in God. Especially since he clearly does believe.

[Balu]

They also compared and were convinced they are the strongest, unique and could establish a "New Order".
And were they are now?

http://images.aif.ru/004/124/fd627ae6b6a2cd0c9abf93ead07c528c.jpg

[Gunny]

I know that, I wasn't meaning that we could somehow take on the world. Just that - one on one - no one matches up with our hardware, not even close.One on one no one has a chance. I agree with that. I was merely pointing out there isn't a one on one. Our military is spread out everywhere. We still have to maintain presence even if we go to war. If you pulled our entire military in and used on one thing it would be like Michael Jordan vs a 2nd grader.:laugh:

[sear]

"And were they are now?" B #27

Ask Merkel.
Technically Merkel doesn't run the E.U.

BUT !!

She wrestles above her own actual weight.

And in some sense, she's a powerful, if not the most powerful European leader.
Who has more power than Merkel?
Pope Francis?

[jimnyc]

One on one no one has a chance. I agree with that. I was merely pointing out there isn't a one on one. Our military is spread out everywhere. We still have to maintain presence even if we go to war. If you pulled our entire military in and used on one thing it would be like Michael Jordan vs a 2nd grader.:laugh:

Agreed. :)

I don't want to go to war with the world anyway. But sometimes we have folks, here and elsewhere, talking about how great other military's are and how we aren't good anymore. I don't think there's a single country in the world that could even come close. Now sure, Russia could use nukes, and we do, and that's the end of that comparison. But I'm talking about better military without nukes of course.

[Balu]

"And were they are now?" B #27

Ask Merkel.
Technically Merkel doesn't run the E.U.


I would prefer to ask not Merkel but you about "Sunrise", "Crossword" and "Rat Line", if you understand what I am speaking about.

[Kathianne]

I would prefer to ask not Merkel but you about "Sunrise", "Crossword" and "Rat Line", if you understand what I am speaking about.

How about you just state whatever your point is. Your demand that others go and find certain information just to make you feel so grand is a waste of time. Perhaps you are starting to notice that few are impressed with your propaganda and braggadocio?

You could use the forum to share your knowledge of your country, perhaps find out a bit more about ours. We could share some commonalities, such as grandchildren and such. However when it comes to country, you're not going to win.

Both of our countries have their strengths and weaknesses. Both have made mistakes and both have had successes.

If you continue to spout off the propaganda, you can expect more of what you've been getting.

[Gunny]

Agreed. :)

I don't want to go to war with the world anyway. But sometimes we have folks, here and elsewhere, talking about how great other military's are and how we aren't good anymore. I don't think there's a single country in the world that could even come close. Now sure, Russia could use nukes, and we do, and that's the end of that comparison. But I'm talking about better military without nukes of course.The capability is there. Unfortunately, its use is determined by politics. Bill Clinton drove me nuts. I will say however, Reagan, the demi-god, wasn't much better when it came to actual use of military assets. Beirut in 83 is on him. Politicians with no military experience blow. As much I hated most of his policies, FDR was the last President we had that was worth a crap when it came to war. And look ... we won. He was a former Navy officer.

[pete311]

Given these stats, why do we need more nukes and boost military $80B?

[Elessar]

Given these stats, why do we need more nukes and boost military $80B?

We still need to maintain and service the vehicles, aircraft, and fleets.

Some are over-aged and cutting a budget is NOT the answer.

[Gunny]

Given these stats, why do we need more nukes and boost military $80B?Don't need more. Need to make sure the ones we have work. The military budget is broken down a LOT of ways. We don't train and equip ourselves. For us, we enter with certain expectations based on a contract. Just like anyone else that does any other job. Last 2 years Obama threw us under the bus. No pay raise. While cost of living kept rising. Maintaining and equipping the military costs more than actual combat personnel. We make up less than a 3rd of the force. The rest is support.

[aboutime]

AT, I don't think it's right to say that Rev pretends to believe in God. Especially since he clearly does believe.


Abbey. I agree. I apologize for making that statement in that way. Perhaps I should have included "IT APPEARS" to qualify my words.

At this date, and time. WE as Americans must find reality sometimes must outweigh our beliefs, and opinions. WAR in any form is NOT what Veterans, or Active Duty Americans ever want. Problem is. If WE THE PEOPLE want to continue pretending ALL IS GOOD around the world, as Obama did for 8 years. We stand to lose everything we have to the new SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE, LIBERALLY SANCTIONED...Political Correctness that has torn us all apart.
Reality is. We need our military to PRESERVE, and PROTECT Our Constitution, and every American. WAR is always the LAST choice. But when pushed into a corner that threatens us all. Our Military, and our Police are the only protections we have.

[Kathianne]

Speaking of comparisons and braggadocio:

http://nypost.com/2017/04/09/trumps-syria-airstrike-was-a-huge-loss-for-putin/


Trump’s Syria airstrike was a huge loss for Putin (http://nypost.com/2017/04/09/trumps-syria-airstrike-was-a-huge-loss-for-putin/)By Ralph Peters (http://nypost.com/author/ralph-peters/)

April 9, 2017


The biggest loser from last week’s cruise-missile strikes (http://nypost.com/2017/04/06/us-launches-airstrike-against-assad-after-syria-chemical-attack/) on a Syrian air base wasn’t “President” Bashar al-Assad. It was Vladimir Putin. The Syrian leader was punished, but Russia’s new czar was humiliated.


Even with an hour’s warning of the attacks, Putin’s military in Syria did nothing to defend its ally. For all of the Russian bluster in recent years, Putin couldn’t stop our strikes. His military lacked the means to do so. And any attempt to interfere with our operation would only have revealed the inferior quality of Russian armaments — including their much-ballyhooed air defense systems.


This is vitally important, because Putin used his military leap into Syria to show that Russia was a reliable ally at a time when US policy was timid, incompetent and flighty under President Barack Obama. Russia looked strong. We didn’t.


But the wave of cruise missiles unleashed on Syria early Friday called Putin’s bluff. And Russia didn’t dare to lift a finger.

...

It gets better. Faced with recent defense budget cuts — thanks to our sanctions and low oil prices — Russia’s defense industry is desperate to sell late-model weapons abroad.


It’s the only way for Russia’s death merchants to stay alive and the only way Putin can continue his military renewal, which is essential to his strategy of strategic blackmail.

Suddenly, Russian weaponry, which has never had a great reputation, doesn’t look much like a bargain. If Russia’s “cutting-edge” S-400 system merely stayed idle and Russian aircraft stayed on the ground while we hit Assad’s air base with impunity, global observers will conclude either that Putin was scared or that his military was incapable. Or both.


The truth is that Putin, who terrified Obama and whose minions (including bought-off Americans) shaped the chronic state of alarm in Washington to Moscow’s advantage, has always been a braggart and a bully. All it took to back him down was resolute behavior by President Trump.


The Russian post-attack response was telling. All but one of the 59 cruise missiles we launched hit their targets. Moscow’s generals immediately insisted that half of our missiles had gone astray.


Why? Because Russia’s own cruise-missile attack in Syria last year was a mess, with over half of their weapons failing. Note that Russia’s first response was a frantic attempt to defend the quality of its weapons, not to defend Assad.


Complicating matters for the mangy bear, Putin has begun to regret his Syrian entanglement. The Syrian opposition proved more tenacious than his advisers predicted and his military couldn’t afford to continue to use expensive guided munitions, so his air force had to resort to dumb bombs and the consequent atrocities.


Russian casualties have been notably higher that the Kremlin admits. And there is no end in sight, even as Assad proves an ever-more-difficult ally.


And no, Russia has not been fighting ISIS. Putin has been waging war on the Syrian people, while letting our superior targeting and more-advanced weapons take on the terrorists — we’ve been his tools and patsies on that count.


Russia’s pathetic response also included dispatching a rust-bucket destroyer to the eastern Mediterranean and his defense ministry announced that it will deploy more air defense weapons to Syria. But the damage to his reputation is done.


Of course, we can’t rule out a staged confrontation with our pilots in Syrian airspace. Putin needs to recover the enormous amount of face he lost — but he’ll seek to do so as cheaply as possible. He can’t afford another embarrassment. And he’s not facing Obama anymore.


Putin wasn’t the target when our president ordered our cruise-missile attack. The operation was a one-time blow delivered to teach Assad we’ll no longer tolerate his use of chemical weapons. But Putin was the not-so-innocent bystander caught in the blast, and that may prove to be even more important than our strike’s core purpose.


All it took to disarm Putin was to call his bluff. Trump deserves applause for this one.

[sear]

"We still need to maintain and service the vehicles, aircraft, and fleets.
Some are over-aged and cutting a budget is NOT the answer." E #35

B-52's for obvious example, in later decades were often older than the pilots that flew them.



But military spending is a peril-laden bell-curve.

The peril of not spending enough? Loss of sovereignty:


There's no more extravagant waste than a 2nd rate military. Gen. Horner

The peril of spending too much? Reduced standard of living / quality of life:


"Every gun that is made, every warship that is launched, every rocket that is fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children ..." President Dwight D. Eisenhower

So setting military spending at a level that is sufficient, but not excessive; it's what doctors call a "narrow therapeutic index", known to laymen as the "Goldilocks range".

There are indications that we're handling it HORRIBLY!!

For one:
The U.S. $tax $payer will spend $Billions on developing an air-supriority or air-supremacy jet aircraft, and then the contractor will sell them abroad,
reducing our titanic investment to military parity.

Thus resulting in a new round of spending yet more $Billions on developing a superior aircraft, and the cycle repeats.
Why congress hasn't put a stop to that I do not know.

Perhaps the most obvious indication of U.S. military over-spending is the proportion the U.S. spends on military, compared to our NATO allies.

"... today there are over 320,000 [U.S.] Army troops alone, deployed in 120 countries overseas. That's more than 60% of the entire [U.S.] Army." NBC-TV Nightly News March 9, '04.
One of two things is true.

a) Either there is a genuine need among the civilized nations of the world for the global security services the U.S. has provided since WWII, or there isn't.

b) Or there isn't.

If there isn't, then we should knock it off, and save the U.S. tax payer hundreds of $Billions.

If there is, then the U.N., E.U., N.A.T.O., or some other organization should define the planet's needs, and then fund those designated to tend to it.

PS
Right now, the U.S. provides global services like patrolling the Persian Gulf / Strait of Hormuz for free, the sexual equivalent of sluttery.

Should our expenses be fully paid by the nations that benefit from these U.S. military services, it would elevate the U.S. from global military slut, to whoredom *.

Neither flatters us particularly.
That's why it may be better for these global security details to be left to regional powers; with Uncle Sam waiting in the wings, should back-up become necessary.

* We invest both blood & treasure. This formula addresses the $treasure half of the equation, but not the important part, the "blood" part. We've spilled enough of our own blood around the world. It's time to end the free ride.

[revelarts]

Speaking of comparisons and braggadocio:

....And no, Russia has not been fighting ISIS. Putin has been waging war on the Syrian people, while letting our superior targeting and more-advanced weapons take on the terrorists — we’ve been his tools and patsies on that count.....
http://nypost.com/2017/04/09/trumps-syria-airstrike-was-a-huge-loss-for-putin/
WTH?
....(I've noticed this repeated by other Neo-con/lib reporters) ... Russia "Isn't" fighting terrorist?

that's just a lie.
Many here praised Putin for targeting the Terrorist supply lines, blowing up Isis oil money shipments, and several terrorist .(as opposed to bad ol weak Obama doing nothin')

I'm not sure why people's memories have faded and this writer is trying to do an Orwellian Newspeak number in claiming that it never happened and that Putin is REALLY fighting the "Syrian people". Does it even make sense that Assad would invite Putin in to kill his own people?
Balu even posted reports of Russian soldiers clearing mines out of cities retaken FROM Isis/"rebels"/AQ.


Look Putin is a Bad guy
Assad is a bad guy
But Isis/AQ/Al Nusra/... and the imported "Syrian Rebels" are WORSE.
they use gas as well, rape boys and girls, chop off heads of anyone that doesn't bow to their form of Shria.

I'm with Tyr on this one, the crazy muslims their should ALWAYS be our our target, not the crazy Secular dictator.
IF we're going to MEDDLE in a 'civil war' an ocean away AT ALL.

I know many here are like to measure the members of Trump Vs Putin Vs Obama etc...
and like anything that puts Trump an inch up. but i mean maybe we need put the beer down and sober up.

the U.S. has Been TRAINING the terrorist, directly and indirectly.

[sear]

"the crazy muslims their should ALWAYS be our our target, not the crazy Secular dictator." r #40

"Perception is reality".

If you'll pardon a modified Bushism: Never misunderestimate your enemy.

To think:

"the crazy muslims their should ALWAYS be our our target, not the crazy Secular dictator." r #40

is a sensible, or even viable approach would be to misapprehend humanity, psychology, and human perception.

If it was U.S. policy, They'd know!

If you want a full-blown war with Islam, that's an excellent way to get it in a hurry.

[Gunny]

WTH?
....(I've noticed this repeated by other Neo-con/lib reporters) ... Russia "Isn't" fighting terrorist?

that's just a lie.
Many here praised Putin for targeting the Terrorist supply lines, blowing up Isis oil money shipments, and several terrorist .(as opposed to bad ol weak Obama doing nothin')

I'm not sure why people's memories have faded and this writer is trying to do an Orwellian Newspeak number in claiming that it never happened and that Putin is REALLY fighting the "Syrian people". Does it even make sense that Assad would invite Putin in to kill his own people?
Balu even posted reports of Russian soldiers clearing mines out of cities retaken FROM Isis/"rebels"/AQ.


Look Putin is a Bad guy
Assad is a bad guy
But Isis/AQ/Al Nusra/... and the imported "Syrian Rebels" are WORSE.
they use gas as well, rape boys and girls, chop off heads of anyone that doesn't bow to their form of Shria.

I'm with Tyr on this one, the crazy muslims their should ALWAYS be our our target, not the crazy Secular dictator.
IF we're going to MEDDLE in a 'civil war' an ocean away AT ALL.

I know many here are like to measure the members of Trump Vs Putin Vs Obama etc...
and like anything that puts Trump an inch up. but i mean maybe we need put the beer down and sober up.

the U.S. has Been TRAINING the terrorist, directly and indirectly.Do you have to kill every thread you touch, Tolstoy?

[revelarts]

"the crazy muslims their should ALWAYS be our our target, not the crazy Secular dictator." r #40
"Perception is reality".
If you'll pardon a modified Bushism: Never misunderestimate your enemy.
To think:
"the crazy muslims their should ALWAYS be our our target, not the crazy Secular dictator." r #40
is a sensible, or even viable approach would be to misapprehend humanity, psychology, and human perception.
If it was U.S. policy, They'd know!
If you want a full-blown war with Islam, that's an excellent way to get it in a hurry.
Sear I'm not sure what exactly you're saying in that 2nd bit, please rephrase in a more strait forward way.

But what i briefly implied was not "Full Blown" war. But i did say TARGET "CRAZY" Islamic terrorist. obviously not a technical definition, but Assad is a muslim as well but Christians of all stripes and muslims lived in peace in Syria without the threat of heads being cut off.
So i'm not talking about armed conflict with all of islam. That's where i get off of Tyr's bus.
Making distinctions between Wahabist clerics and their followers and other muslims that lived VERY secular lifestyles 40 years ago in Iran, Syria, Egpyt and elsewhere and would return to it now if the "CRAZY" extremist were marginalized and out of power.

the U.S. gov' is well aware of the Difference and since the 1970's have been STIRRING up (supplying, training, financing) the CRAZY muslims to fight wars as surrogates against Empire Americas enemies. From the Muhajeed to AQ to Hamoz to Isil... all propped up by the U.S., Nato and even Israel at times. All have come to bite in us in the arse.

one simple move from the west to accelerate the die off of Crazy islamist power is for the western powers to stop feeding them. Cut off the financing, military supplies and logistics. but that'd be to much like winning the war on terror.

[Gunny]

Just great . A thread between Rev and Sear. Does anyone have that single shot pistol I can play Russian roulette with? :rolleyes:

[sear]

"please rephrase in a more strait forward way." r #43

If the U.S. wages war on Islam,
Islam will fight back, and win.

[sear]

"Just great . A thread between Rev and Sear. Does anyone have that single shot pistol I can play Russian roulette with? :rolleyes: " G #44

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooHHHHHHHHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhh !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So THAT'S why they call you GUNny!

[revelarts]

"please rephrase in a more strait forward way." r #43

If the U.S. wages war on Islam,
Islam will fight back, and win.

Ok, Yeah, i hope my reply clarified what i meant.
and IMO Armed conflict against a Religion as broad a islam is frankly stupid.
the idealogical conflict, the truth and influence conflict is real and should be ON going ,
but armed conflict should only be with the "crazy" arm factions of islam IMO.

I'm not a Bush fan in general but I more or less agree with the general posture he took on islam after 911


I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world. We respect your faith. It's practiced freely by many millions of Americans and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah. The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself. The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends. It is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists and every government that supports them.


...the American people were appalled and outraged at last Tuesday's attacks. And so were Muslims all across the world. Both Americans and Muslim friends and citizens, tax-paying citizens, and Muslims in nations were just appalled and could not believe what we saw on our TV screens.
These acts of violence against innocents violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith. And it's important for my fellow Americans to understand that.....
America counts millions of Muslims amongst our citizens, and Muslims make an incredibly valuable contribution to our country. Muslims are doctors, lawyers, law professors, members of the military, entrepreneurs, shopkeepers, moms and dads. And they need to be treated with respect. In our anger and emotion, our fellow Americans must treat each other with respect.
Women who cover their heads in this country must feel comfortable going outside their homes. Moms who wear cover must be not intimidated in America. That's not the America I know. That's not the America I value....

While I don't agree that Islam .. in the final analysis... is "peace".
I know that not all muslims want America, christians or the west dead, and many LOVE the western lifestyle and freedoms.

But the ideological and religious war of the mind and hearts of muslims must be won.
A purely secular west will lose to Islam, Christianity is the only ideology that will overwhelm it.
But that's not a physical armed conflict.

[Balu]

"Just great . A thread between Rev and Sear. Does anyone have that single shot pistol I can play Russian roulette with? :rolleyes: " G #44

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooHHHHHHHHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhh !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So THAT'S why they call you GUNny!
It seems that he played this roulette once and didn't miss. :laugh:

[Gunny]

It seems that he played this roulette once and didn't miss. :laugh:What it seems is you are both verbose, wandering and could make a hawk looking at prey fall off a tree limb. I can get through the novels Dracula and Frankenstein easier then weeding through y'all's sh*t. Who taught y'all how to communicate? Beavis or Butthead?

[sear]

"I'm not a Bush fan in general but I more or less agree with the general posture he took on islam after 911" r #47

I liked JEB! from the moment I met him.
My dislike of GWB was just as quick.

I dislike GWB

BUT !!

a) I supported Bush's casus belli against Afghanistan.

b) I enthusiastically supported GWB's stated distinction, that the U.S. was against radical religious terrorist murderers, not all of Islam. I may not like it on an emotional level. But I respect and support it on a logical level. It is the correct position.

[sear]

G #49

Doesn't quite jive with reality.

If G genuinely avoided my (our) posts, the criticisms & insults (and frustration that generate them) would have tapered to zero by now. He'd simply skip over them as if they weren't there.

But s/he keeps whining like a kindergarten student. In my experience, that's often because their comprehension deficiency. Perhaps not in the G-man's case. But I haven't ruled it out.

The style of whining in #49 is a confession of impotence, inadequacy. Anyone equal or superior to my posts would step over them the way I step over steaming turds.

G #49 remains entrained, for whatever reason.

A mature adult would long ago have gotten over it.

[aboutime]

G #49

Doesn't quite jive with reality.

If G genuinely avoided my (our) posts, the criticisms & insults (and frustration that generate them) would have tapered to zero by now. He'd simply skip over them as if they weren't there.

But s/he keeps whining like a kindergarten student. In my experience, that's often because their comprehension deficiency. Perhaps not in the G-man's case. But I haven't ruled it out.

The style of whining in #49 is a confession of impotence, inadequacy. Anyone equal or superior to my posts would step over them the way I step over steaming turds.

G #49 remains entrained, for whatever reason.

A mature adult would long ago have gotten over it.

sear. Please share with us how you STEP OVER YOURSELF without the steam burning your eyes, and ears. Is that your favorite meal...STEAMING TURDS Liberality???

[aboutime]

G #49

Doesn't quite jive with reality.

If G genuinely avoided my (our) posts, the criticisms & insults (and frustration that generate them) would have tapered to zero by now. He'd simply skip over them as if they weren't there.

But s/he keeps whining like a kindergarten student. In my experience, that's often because their comprehension deficiency. Perhaps not in the G-man's case. But I haven't ruled it out.

The style of whining in #49 is a confession of impotence, inadequacy. Anyone equal or superior to my posts would step over them the way I step over steaming turds.

G #49 remains entrained, for whatever reason.

A mature adult would long ago have gotten over it.

sear. Please share with us how you STEP OVER YOURSELF without the steam burning your eyes, and ears. Is that your favorite meal...STEAMING TURDS AW GRATEN Liberality???

[Gunny]

G #49

Doesn't quite jive with reality.

If G genuinely avoided my (our) posts, the criticisms & insults (and frustration that generate them) would have tapered to zero by now. He'd simply skip over them as if they weren't there.

But s/he keeps whining like a kindergarten student. In my experience, that's often because their comprehension deficiency. Perhaps not in the G-man's case. But I haven't ruled it out.

The style of whining in #49 is a confession of impotence, inadequacy. Anyone equal or superior to my posts would step over them the way I step over steaming turds.

G #49 remains entrained, for whatever reason.

A mature adult would long ago have gotten over it.Au contraire ... Note that green color on my ID? I might be trying to persuade you to post like a functioning human being? THERE's an idea ..... If I read your crap? I'm bored to tears. My ID does NOT say "G" and my posts are NOT numbers.

Learn to use the quote function like all the other adults here do instead of that toddler crap you stick out.

[sear]

Thread: A few military comparisons (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?58812-A-few-military-comparisons/page4)

I don't mean to be perceived as undermining the theme of this topic. I intend to not do that.

Instead, what I'd like to do is call attention to the fact that not every military battle is a simple contest of attrition. The squad with 101 bullets beats the squad with 100 bullets.

NOPE!!

The textbook example of this is Hank5, The Battle of Agincourt.

My intended point of this post:

A comparison of hardware may be interesting, it may even be relevant, but it is not determinative.

[Balu]

Thread: A few military comparisons (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?58812-A-few-military-comparisons/page4)

I don't mean to be perceived as undermining the theme of this topic. I intend to not do that.

Instead, what I'd like to do is call attention to the fact that not every military battle is a simple contest of attrition. The squad with 101 bullets beats the squad with 100 bullets.

NOPE!!

The textbook example of this is Hank5, The Battle of Agincourt.

My intended point of this post:

A comparison of hardware may be interesting, it may even be relevant, but it is not determinative.
Warrant officer - If you are so clever, why you are not marching? (Russian joke about servicemen)

[sear]

B #56

Military jokes?

The military policeman at the main gate saw a troop strutting onto the base one cold morning, hands in pockets.
The policeman called out:

"Your hands cold?!"

"No officer!" the troop relied. "I've got 'em in my pockets."

note: hands in pockets a violation of military protocol when not in combat. In combat, anything goes.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx PS xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Want one on the commander in chief?

President Clinton arrives in D.C. after a trip to his home state of Arkansas.
He steps off the plane, carrying two pigs, one under each arm. When he reaches the bottom of the stairs, the marine guard salutes him sharply.
The President smiles and says, "I'd like to salute you back son, but as you can see, my hands are full."
"Yes, sir!" says the marine. "Mighty fine pigs, sir!"
Clinton replies, "These aren't pigs, son; they're pure Arkansas razorbacks."
"Yes, sir!" says the marine. "Mighty fine razorbacks, sir!"
Clinton says, "I got one for Hilary and one for Chelsea."
"Yes, sir!" the marine says again. "Good trade, sir!"

[aboutime]

Au contraire ... Note that green color on my ID? I might be trying to persuade you to post like a functioning human being? THERE's an idea ..... If I read your crap? I'm bored to tears. My ID does NOT say "G" and my posts are NOT numbers.

Learn to use the quote function like all the other adults here do instead of that toddler crap you stick out.


Gunny. Ignore his childishness. That's what comes from him being lazy, and unwilling to follow instructions he doesn't agree with, or like. Typical liberal tactic to distract from his ignorance....is all that is.

[sear]

-

[sear]

-