I was always against the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan should have been a quick and brutal bombing of the country and not America taking residence there.



So the Russians aren't the most powerful force in Syria. Thank you for educating me.

Muslims killing non-Muslims is something they've been doing for centuries. Selling them the tools seems like a good idea. It's not as if no one else will sell them.

Are you now in favour of going to war over oil? Just like Bush did.

Sanders was very popular with young voters and less so with older voters. Biden would actually be the best choice when it comes to foreign policy.

Sarn you're a smart person you can't really believe anyone can predict 30 years into the future?

Please no. That ancient prick is the last thing we need. He's lost 2 times already! He would be 78 when he TOOK office - He's actually OLDER than Trump. If he were going to win he would already have. The presidency isn't a lifetime oscar.

I REALLY hope you do run Biden. He's a real hands on type of guy :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

https://www.insideedition.com/sites/...?itok=iKBHsDd_

But a "quick and brutal bombing" doesn't work. Even less so with Middle Eastern countries where the population is spread out, and the government isn't always in country in all areas.

With Iraq, we removed their government and destroyed their military. Calling Iraq a military zone isn't correct. We aren't engaged in combat in Iraq. We've had seventeen deaths in Iraq in 2018, fifteen of which was "non hostile". The two "hostile" deaths were IEDs. That's not combat.

With Afghanistan, we removed their military and their government, but that doesn't say much. It's not like they ever had a strong military to begin with. Keep in mind our original target was Al-Qaeda, and in order to get to Al-Qaeda we had to remove the Northern Alliance government / military. When talking about Al-Qaeda, you need to remember we are talking small groups of men who live in huts. We bombed the shit out of Afghanistan and quickly defeated them, but small groups continue on. Bombing them and then walking away wouldn't have solved the original problem.

I honestly do not care. If the United States goes to war, we need stay there until the end of time. We need to send a strong message that says "If we go to war will stay there until the end of time". Don't think that's possible? We still have US military bases in Germany and Japan. We always will.

By the way, we had less deaths in Afghanistan than we did in Iraq in 2018.

We can't see the future, of course, future in dynamic.
But i show how it count.

UNITED STATES $19,390,000,000,000 2017 EST
https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...01rank.html#rs

USA gdp growth 2,3% per year

30 year * 2.3% = 69% per 30 years it not rigth counting because

requred (1year * 2.3%) + (1year * 2.3%) * 2.3 + ((1year * 2.3%) * 2.3%)2.3% etc... and in the end sum will be bigest than in my example but we in gfy ))

GDP $19 + (19 * 69%) = 32

GDP in 2050 ~ $ 32 000,000,000,000 moni )

So you're in favour of the US occupying foreign lands until the end of time. And will you pay for it through your taxes?

Yes. We are still in Germany, and still in Japan.

We have two sides of war. We have what we did in WWII, and then what we have done ever since.

During WWII, we had complete warfare. We bombed the shit out of everything. "Oh, ten percent of the population of this town is involved in munitions manufacturing? We'll have to firebomb it". Over night we send one hundred bombers to firebomb a town, killing tens of thousand of people, in some cases over one hundred thousand people, destroying entire towns in the process. In Japan the United States nuked two entire cities. Over the course of the war over sixty million people died - mostly civilians. Everyone lost everything. Everyone lost family members, in some cases entire families; Everyone lost their businesses, their jobs, their houses, everything they owned, and went hungry for years at a time.

Since WWII the nature of warfare has changed. The larger countries are extremely reluctant to engage each other in open war (which is why we have proxy wars). We wanted to accomplish our goals without complete destruction, and avoid unnecessary deaths as much as possible. This is a great idea - we shouldn't kill each other - but it just doesn't work. We tested this with Korea, and here we are fifty years later technically still at war, a country divided, people still dying, and war can break out again at any time. We did this with Vietnam also. The United States never lost a battle in Vietnam, but we failed to go all out to win the war. We did the same thing with Iraq - the goal was to remove Iraq from Kuwait, and we quickly did this, but it failed to fix the problem and we had to go back a second time but still do not engage all out warfare.

Let me give you another great example.... During the Six Day War Israel bitch smacked most of the Middle East - Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq. It was quick and brutal; Egypt lost it's entire air force. It was a clear win for Israel, but the losers do not consider it a loss at all. In fact, they call it something completely different - they call it "The Setback". To this very day this is still unresolved, and people are dying.

Do you see the difference? In all out war everyone suffered, everyone lost everything, everyone lost their houses, their business, their jobs, everything they owned, family members, every one starved, and no matter what they would never ever allow this to happen again. Without all out war the losing side is like "meh" and "we are still not happy".

Limited warfare doesn't work. It accomplishes limited objectives without fixing the over all problem.

What American wouldn't be Paul?

Dominate or be dominated.

What the fuck is wrong with you Paul?

Yes we know, you feel Russia would be the best world power despite their proven history of nazi loving failure.

At least in Germany the US troops are not stationed there to control or protect the country though, it's because air bases like Ramstein are needed for access to Iraq/Afghanistan.

Most of the regular troops have been withdrawn long time ago.

PS: If history has taught us something, then that it is nearly impossible to win a war against people that don't value individual life and have nothing else to lose.

Unless you are willing to drop nuclear bombs on them.

So you're saying him wanting Hilary locked up for emails isn't the same? Oh you know, the same thing him and his family did.

The confirmation bias is so laughably present in your way of thinking and you can't seem to realize it.

Oh... and calling it now: The Squealer or one of his fake nicks will come along with a "No You!" argument anytime soon. He thinks he's brilliant with those.

Paul doesn't read. He just types. Why waste your time?

A) It amuses me.
B) It's a Sunday on a holiday week and I'm utterly borded.
C) I am giving a lecture to a Marine Corps org a week from Monday on this very subject.

:1orglaugh
https://s16.stc.all.kpcdn.net/share/...inx960x640.jpg
no one not works, where trillions moni?
:1orglaugh

Yes and no.

Originally the US built bases in Germany and Japan to continue to exert influence over them, and help during the rebuilding. At the same time, very quickly the primary mission was to counter the Russian threat in Europe (and China in Japan).

The end result was that a friendship between Germany and United States (as well as the Allied countries) was established. The same happened in Japan. Society today cannot imagine a world where Germany and Japan was not a friend.

One of the things I have not learned yet is how the Germans in East Germany thought of the Russians during the cold war. Perhaps you could fill me in on that.

complex topic...

in short: There was a gap between what was offical policy and what was reality - but as usual it wasn't all black or white.

Official policy was that Russians are friends, there were even organized friendship evenings where they put Russian soldiers together with normal people and sometimes it even ended up with Russian soldiers marrying German women.

And if you - as an Eastern German - were a believer of the GDR system, you probably had no problem.

Then again if you were not, you had a problem. That started with Russians bringing out the tanks in 1953 against an uprise of Eastern German workers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uprisi...n_East_Germany

And of course their support in putting up the wall.

It is still unknown how many Eastern Germans were deported and/or executed in the 1950ties to 70ties because they were considered opposition.

you´ve got it !

Yes, and my friend 30 years ago we were told Japan would outrank the US by looking at the charts. Things can change very rapidly.

Pretty much this is what I thought.... There was official policy, and then reality.

Then again that is usually the way.

education also helps to read and understand stats.
complain putin about the school.

btw: i met a russin tonight here in thailand and he asked me if i am from the soviet or the american germany.
your information system there seems to have some issues.

and for what bomb them ???
for not having chemical weapons and not being involved in 9/11 ?

they are NOW the most powerful FOREIGN nation there

muslims are killing muslims, moron.
is that not reason enough to difference that word?

where did you read that in my statements?
up to here i was talking to you like with a 10 year old. but if that is too much just tell me - i will try to explain to a 5 year old - maybe you get it easier.

just keep after his wife and kids, that will help

don't worry. He'll figure out in his second term.

So you're in favour of American troops using the tactics required to subdue any resistance.

Don't know where you get the Russian BS from.

Confirmation Thommy is supports all out war. Not such a hippy liberal after all.

Is he in favour of allowing more Muslims into Europe?

You misread what I wrote. The US should have bombed and invaded Afghanistan. It should have never invaded Iraq.



The Russian Defense Ministry released a video Wednesday which said that the country has sent up to 63,012 servicemen to help battle rebels and jihadis trying to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, whose request for military assistance from Moscow was answered in September 2015.

Talking out of your ass again.

Not sure what you mean here. I'll put it down to your poor English.

Your mistake was thinking Germans are the same as Muslims. Go do some research. Japanese do have a culture of suicide in support of the Emperor, but after bombing them twice the Emperor decided to give in. So the people followed his orders.

Whether bombing civilians or industry was right is now something historians debate. Dropping Atom bombs on Japan saved more lives than it cost.

True enough, would Americans be willing to support the tactics used by the Marines in Vietnam in your scenario.

So you are in favour of adopting the same methods Israel uses.

So will you support American troops carrying out your tactics after the "war" is won to quell any uprising?

Quote:

Originally Posted by StefanG (Post 22388579) PS: If history has taught us something, then that it is nearly impossible to win a war against people that don't value individual life and have nothing else to lose. Unless you are willing to drop nuclear bombs on them.

Seems some here are in favour of American troops occupying foreign countries and will support them using tactics we're associate the Nazis with.

Or delusional enough to believe they can rule these countries using soft tactics.

Look Paul the colonal immigrant talking shit about other countries..

can you please elaborate? not entirely sure what you are trying to say here...

He's miserable in Czechoslovakia. He must focus outward for mental survival. He must blame America and the UK for his current demise & all the world's problems. Russia is Paul Markham's savior.

Some posters are now saying the US should be occupying these countries on a permanent basis. I't's not yet decided the tactics the troops should use, softly softly isn't ever going to work against religious fanatics. So the option are the tactics used by Muslim leaders.

Sending suicide bomber? I think they have plenty already

PS: would you call Vietnamese or Koreans religious fanatics?

Were the Afghani religious fanatics when Russia tried to win a war against them?

The one thing that unites Islam is foreign troops occupying their lands. It will stop them killing each other and directing their efforts towards the Americans. And yes you are right they have lots of suicide bombers occupying their lands will just add more.

Do you understand the difference between Buddhism and Islam?

However there were some Vietnamese who were willing to die in order to deal a blow against the Americans.

In WW2 Japanese were flying planes into American warships knowing they would die. They did it to defend their country and emperor. If the emperor had not surrendered they would have happily died in order to defend their country and emperor even if they knew they would lose.

Do you see how strong belief is?

Considering your very limited and one dimensional knowledge of Islam I can safely say: better than you

Some? lol

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonderkommando_Elbe

Do you see how little it has to do with religion?

Fact is: you can brainwash people into almost anything given time and opportunity (and lack of other sources of information - hence Trump and his symbiotic relationship with Fox News while discredting all other press are a danger)

But no religion in itself is a danger when practiced by rational people.

In your opinion, was the wall effective?

Then you will know that Islam says aplace is reserved in heaven and loads of virgins for those who give their lives killing infidels.



Yes some and the majority unable or unwilling to do anything about it/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamikaze

Future doesn't repeat past, not always )).
We do not touch here probability theory and game theory becouse it will be large and difficult for gfy.
PS:Believe or not believe it is "religious" qestion)
http://www.naturalnews.com/wp-conten...01/muslims.jpg
Yes, comrade, USSR stopped occupation Germany and not have its part now.

63,012 servicemen - it during all years of the war

focus here :1orglaugh
https://i.redd.it/w0qm6a68ogiz.jpg

for mental survival :1orglaugh

absolutely, no western German ever got into Eastern Germany by climbing that wall.

:upsidedow

Yes, so if you come to the eastern US ever, you let me know and we'll have a drink and talk.

I am a US Marine, and the Marine line of thinking is to overwhelm and destroy the enemy. Not prick them and piss them off and call it a win and go home. If you go in, you have to go all in - not do the bare minimum.

This is where the problem has been for decades - the politicians call the shots, not the military. Politicians are worried about what the public is going to think, if their party will win the next election, and what their legacy will be. These three things have nothing to do with winning a war.

Fuck yeah stud!

So Trump needs to add snipers to the budget?

There is a retirement home you can afford. Keep searching

Well, not sure if shooting Americans trying to get to Mexico goes well with the public but then again he said he could shoot people right in the middle of 5th avenue, so I suppose it doesn't make a difference.

Retirement homes are fucking expensive.

So you support the use of tactics the liberals will disagree with after the war is won. Controlling the peace has proved to be the problem, not winning a war against conventional troops.