Obama's Military Cutbacks

[Sasquatch]

Ok ill give you North Korea, but them being a threat to the US? Having trouble to believe..

Whether or not they are a threat directly to us is irrelevant. They are a threat to United States allies and interests.

Regardless, you went to Iraq, bombed the shit out of Baghdad, killed over 100 thousand innocent civilians.

I'm not sure where you're getting your statistics (most likely, from your own ass), but the civilian deaths in the Persian Gulf War totaled less than 5,000.

If you're referring to the civilian death toll from Operation Iraqi Freedom, which has reached over 100,000, you would do well to do a bit more research, as less than 15% of those civilian deaths have been caused by Coalition Forces. The United States has snipers, drones, satellite imagery, and bombs that can go through windows ... our enemies have old artillery rounds buried in the ground with pressure plates that set them off when they get driven or stepped on, they have notoriously inaccurate rifles that they haven't maintained or been trained on, and they have a knack for executing anybody and everybody they disagree with. Use some common sense, here.

And you killed a fraction of enemy troops in comparison to the innocents lost (which your country armed btw) all to get one man??? Which you failed to do that time around.

Wait ... you're still talking about the Persian Gulf War? Oh, then you're even more wrong.

See, the United States and Coalition Forces killed about 30,000 Iraqi troops. Now, I'm not sure how good or bad at math you are, but 30,000 is in no way "a fraction" of 5,000, unless you want to put it in terms of 6/1. Yes, that's right -- as I'm sure any Google search can tell you, out of all Iraqi deaths during the Gulf War, there were six times as many military deaths as civilian deaths.

And yes, we helped arm Saddam. Because as dangerous as Islamic extremism is, it's still not as dangerous as Communism, and we did what we had to to stop the spread of the most murderous government type this planet has ever known.

But no, the goal of the Persian Gulf War was not to kill Saddam. To claim such is ignorant at best. If we had wanted to take out Saddam, we would have waged a conflict that lasted more than 40 days.

And in regards to your quote "So the United States has the best military in the world ... does that mean it should stop trying to be better still?" My answer is yes, atleast until some countries start nearly catching up.

Then you're wrong. You don't say, "well if we went to war, we would be hurt pretty equally with our enemies, and we're happy with that." You say, "if we go to war, we will crush our enemies while taking minimal losses."

You could do better for your country by putting the funding elsewhere, which is exactly what Obama is trying to do.

The places Obama is redirecting that tax money to will do nothing but purchase votes and breed dependency. He's already done it for three and a half years, why stop now?

And you may arm countries to defend themselves, but you have armed countries and then gone on to blow the shit out of them too.

Rarely has that happened, and then only when their motives have changed.

The logical step would have been to not arm countries but to disarm the opposing country (not by carpet bombing them) Y'know actually use your army and not have them sit back and enjoy the very expensive fireworks shows put on..

Disarm how? Ask politely? Arming one side of a conflict is a way to contribute without direct involvement -- getting directly involved kind of negates that.

Thanks for the response Sas, im sorry if im coming off as cheeky, I'm just going with what ive learned over the years.

Might want to check up on that, then. I'm not sure how you got certain ideas, especially concerning the Persian Gulf War and its objectives and military/civilian casualty ratio, but they are nowhere near factual.

And i was civil until order flamed and backseat modded me

You did post two extremely short posts, which is technically against the rules. Are you going to get mad at somebody for telling you about the rules you're breaking, then bypass the profanity filter to insult them? You're more mature than that, aren't you?

[nix]

I got most of the stats from wiki, they didnt state the stats were spread out over the entire 2 bullshit gulf "wars". or tarket practice i should refer to them as...

And i wasnt crying over some member telling me of the forum rules, i was meerley pointing out the irony of some member pointing out that im breaking rules, when the very thing he is doing is breaking the rules. No backseat modding

[Order]

Wikipedia is not a reliable source for information, statistics, historical fact or polling.
Since anyone can write anything on that site, it is best to assume all information contained there was submitted from a biased source.
Nix, you clearly have been misled.
Stop listening to what everyone else tells you and do your own research and form your own oppinions.
Moreover, your knowladge of US military history seems limited to just two incidents in the same country and your facts are all wrong about both. How can you believe strongly, one way or another, with almost nothing to build those beliefs from?
You should either hit the books or stop stating opinions about the subject. Nothing you have said has contributed to the debate, no facts you have stated are true to any degree of accuracy, your oppinions were clearly hand fed to you and you have exactly zero historical knowladge to draw back on to support yourself.
"Thing's you learned over the years..."? What is that supposed to mean? That you've accidentally absorbed everything you know on the topic?
knowladge doesn't work that way, gullability does. When you agree with someone else's opinion blindly and never follow up on any of their claims, thats called being misled, being gullable.

Also, what is "backseat modding" and how have I broken any forum rules?
Does my strong tone, broad knowladge base of US military history and confidence offend you, nix?

[nix]

I do read books and occasionally listen to people who are more informed than i discuss the matter, I cant quote em on the net can i, seeing as im not referring to it for medical advice, wikipedia is easiest and accurate enough when dealing with people who try to rationalise the continued support of the murder of countless innocence

How about we take a step back and approach war differently? Like when we go and blow the shit out of our enemies we then cloth/feed/educate the rest that we dont blow the shit out of?

As the way it is now, its just gonna keep on looping over and over, could prob take a pool on when you guys head back to Baghdad, or i mean blow the shit out of Bahdad and then head in

And I'm not offended Order, but you pointing out rules in an effort to reinforce them is deemed as backseat modding and in itself against the rules, i was just meerley pointing that out as i found it humorous

You should either hit the books,Your oppinions were clearly hand fed to you

Is reading a book not the same thing? Is there an almighty book of credible information? Does one mans published opinion outweigh anothers unpublished work?

[Sasquatch]

... people who try to rationalise the continued support of the murder of countless innocence

Who's trying to rationalize the murder of innocents, other than you?

I mean, that is what you're doing, after all -- trying to claim that we should have continued letting Saddam brutally slaughter millions of innocent people, including women and children, because you don't like war.

How about we take a step back and approach war differently? Like when we go and blow the shit out of our enemies we then cloth/feed/educate the rest that we dont blow the shit out of?

... Are you saying that you don't like that we clothe/feed/educate people, or are you claiming that we don't do that, but should? Either way, we do clothe/feed/educate people, we do send billions to stabilize their economy, we do train their security forces, we do rebuild their infrastructure to a point of superiority over pre-war conditions. This is why Iraq now has more clean water, more education, more hospital access, more electricity, more trash and sewage collection, and more women's rights than at any point in the last four decades.

As the way it is now, its just gonna keep on looping over and over, could prob take a pool on when you guys head back to Baghdad, or i mean blow the shit out of Bahdad and then head in

It will keep looping, if we obey cowards who don't have the courage to stand and fight and would rather cut and run.

Look at Vietnam. We went to Vietnam to stop Communist North Vietnam from taking over free South Vietnam. And we did. Until politicians and protesters put enough pressure on the government to pull the rug out from under South Vietnam -- and what happened? As soon as we declared a plan, North Vietnam slowed down their attacks. A bunch of morons shouted, "look, they just wanted us out -- now that they know we're leaving, they're not attacking as much! Us leaving will solve all the problems!" Then what? As soon as we left, the North invaded again, brutally slaughtering hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese noncombatants. The exact same thing would have happened in Iraq and Afghanistan, if we had let people like you get your way.

And I'm not offended Order, but you pointing out rules in an effort to reinforce them is deemed as backseat modding and in itself against the rules, i was just meerley pointing that out as i found it humorous

And you pointing that out is backseat modding. And me pointing that out is backseat modding. So really, is it that important?

Does one mans published opinion outweigh anothers unpublished work?

In a word ... yes. Internet blogs and such are not credible sources of information -- that includes Wikipedia. If you look through Wiki for information, you should try going through the links at the bottom of the page.

And I highly doubt that even Wikipedia has anything that even remotely hints at civilian deaths in the Persian Gulf war totaling into the hundreds of thousands. In fact, Wikipedia links here, which states that Iraqi civilian casualties numbered 3,664, compared to 20,000-35,000 Iraqi military casualties. So the idea that the Baghdad campaign "killed over 100 thousand innocent civilians", or that the United States "killed a fraction of enemy troops in comparison to the innocents lost", is complete and utter bullshit. Anybody making either of those claims is severely lacking in either intelligence or honesty.

“But war, in a good cause, is not the greatest evil which a nation can suffer. War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people. A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice – a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice – is often the means of their regeneration. A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever-renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other.”

John Stuart Mill

[Order]

Nix,
The US already DOES automatically provide food, clothes, education, infastructure and trains police and military forces in Iraq amd Afghanistan... As Sasquach said up there, as I have stated before, as has been in the news, as has been recorded in several documentaries and as is common knowladge among americans.
The reason we do that is to "win hearts and minds", meaning hopefully when we leave, Iraqi people will like the US more than they did before. Maybe we won't need to help them tear down another dictator.

You are defending the fact that you refuse to form your own opinions using facts and resources from credible institutions?
You're trying to tell me that my military is bad and you know ABSOLUTELY nothing about it.
Much like the guy who originally started this thread.

If you are going to take a stance on a subject, you had better learn a little bit about it before you start talking. Your opinions are not your own, you know nothing of the world outside your little sheltered corner.
You have not been,
You have not done,
You have not seen,
Anything.

You're the type of person who would go to Japan and think all the people there are polite because they smile while they say racist things about you in japanese, using a friendly tone.
You would go to the Phillipines and see children in the street without clothes on and you would talk about how they have terrible parents.
You are the type of person who sees North Korea as a far away country which isn't a threat to you.
You think China is an ally because they joined the UN.

You are oblivious to the true workings of countries and cultures outside you own.