»US military can only fight against weak«
|
|||
 Consider this: Bush attacked Afghanistan (which is one of the most underdeveloped countried) Then Bush attacked Iraq (which had no WMDs and which was disarming in front of the eyes of the world) and went to Baghdad within a few days. In other words: Bush attacked some of the weakest countries in the world. And already now the military is weakend. If, say, China decided to attack the US (for whatever preemptive reason), the US could be finished. See also IMO → Why Bush is a menace and doesn't deserve a second term#18490 posted by knn |
|||
|
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgPoliticsBush, Kerry, IraqUS military can only fight against weak |
|
|||
 Either of those could kick America's ass...actually i don't see why they haven't already? capitalist pigs!  posted by Crossfade |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 there's a difference between weak and being spread out over the entire world...you forget we have troops in germany, south korea, japan, iraq, afganistan and many else where...these are only the ones i could think of off the top of m head... posted by The ONEder Man |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 The ONEder Man: we have troops in germany, south korea, japan, iraq, afganistan and many else where Boy, it's strange how we military bases in countries that we've gone to war with isn't it? If anyone's looking for a reason why we "liberated" Iraq, that's it. posted by GP |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
The thought of you people being my fellow countrymen makes me sick ! The commander in chief PRESIDENT BUSH, as he is known by respectfull and patriotic people, is acting in the best intrest of our country. The blood shed and loss of life by our countries finest is a voletary sacrafice and a deed of patriots who understand the cost of freedom and have paied that price for YOU to be able to call them names and abuse that freeom. You need to re-think who you are dogin' out. It is YOU that the freaks on this earth use as propaganda to ballance out this "Unfair war" and turn our people against our Government. We have a right to defend ourselves from anybody that wants to harm us. And we HAVE, do not mistake our restraint as weekness. We are free people and if you respect that freedom you should put another piece of pie in the hole of yours and thank those who have given the ultimat sacrafice,their LIFE FOR YOU. GET A GRIP!  posted by Denmar |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 I never asked for Bush to send us into this battle. I used to argue that it was good. I still believe going after al quida in afghanistan was the right thing to do. It made sense to me going into Iraq, but since we have been there, we have not really done anything that worth celebrating. Sure one of the worst dicatators is dead. But since that, more bloodshed and fighting. Im at a loss on how to even begin to leave that country. We don't pick on the weak though. I believe what KNN says is true. if China attacked us, we could be over. Heck, if canada attacked us we...oh no...that would be a huge mistake! haha but seriously, I used to back Bush, but im not so sure anymore he knows what he is doing. posted by Agent Zero |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
To not ask the commander in Chief to REACT to a direct attack on our country would have sent the message of weekness. Reaction to the possibilities of a potential thret is an act of defense. To do nothing is an act of a coward. What should we expect our President to do when a situation arrises that appears as though we have ignored all potential thret (9-11) and an axis of evil stands out and boasts bad intention? He (President Bush) reacted in a maner that was expected ,I agree that the act of war should have more clear lines of intention ,but when there isn't a clear "front Line" or defined force to appose. The act of war will be very confusing... unless you are the one being shot at, then you know who the enemy is. To defend ourself from an enemy that is more or less invisible is like fist fighting under water. We as Americans need to allow the act of war to be just what it is, inhumane, violent and deadly. To be REACTIVE will only prolong the pain and promote more blood shed. We need to flood the area with all of our military force, turn up the heat untill our enemy has no place to hide, find them kill them then, KEEP IT SAFE untill all the bad are gone or dead. We need to stop the redicule and start to support our troops. Let our comander in cheif do the job he is being paid to do. The politiicial fight is the one that we are loosing and that is here not there.If we allow the propaganda to change the agenda than we have give the enemy the upper hand. If we are going to win this war against evil, we need to fight it without concern of the political effect wether it be ok with the politicly correct or not. The exit stradagy has been the only thing that has remained the same, TO WIN ! Then we can leave... As far as nothing to celibrate, I haven't seen any of them in my backyard, keeping tham out is a victory all by itself. Keeping them occupied is like giving the dog a bone to chew on.The more they talk the more we can listen. God bless our Country and the rest of the free world, keep us safe from all that is evil and protect those who have CHOSEN to defend us. This is a war that they started, do not give up or it will be the one that THEY will end. Do you like the way that THEY propose the world should be?  posted by Denmar |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 Well keep in mind that China would not just decide to attack us. Besides, even if they did, exactly how would they do it? Our Navy is bigger then the rest of the top 5 Navies combined. Goodluck getting those troop transports or supplies anywhere close to U.S. shores. Chinas military is mostly made up of it's huge number of infantry. Our military is very different. The U.S. military is more of an air and sea power then a groundpounding force, since we are all volunteer, keeping the morale of a huge ground force is tough (which is why they are trying to double the size of the U.S. Special Forces). Not to mention that at this years Red Flag, the British and U.S. opfor team expressed extreme fustration about their inability to "down" a single F-22, despite being close enough to see them in the canopy. There is no nation in the world today that could mount any kind of non-nuclear, large scale assault on the U.S., not to mention the fact that every modern industrial nation would collapse economically if the U.S. was to stop working tomorrow. Also remember that in 1990 Iraq fielded the fourth largest army in the world, and although its size had decreased by 2001, it was still significantly large. I'm also not sure where you get this idea that Saddam was "disarming", when U.N. inspectors where constently being thrown out. Maybe you got it from the same CNN reporters that agreed to treat the regime nicley if they where allowed to remain in the country? posted by Rainsford |
|||
|
|||
 Register Log in |
The time now is 22 August 2008, 04:46 php B.B. |