Obama's Military Cutbacks

[Sasquatch]

Reason im asking questions and not issuing statements you absolute cunt

Now now children, let's keep it civil.

Also the war was over 60 years ago, alot has changed since then and nethier countries are making threats towards the USA, so again i ask, what ENEMIES do the US have that have an army?

First, North Korea has made many threats to many countries, including the United States. And second, just because a country doesn't have a huge military doesn't mean that it cannot possibly pose a threat to anybody.

The only reason Iraq are committing terrorist attacks on the US is because you have invaded them twice and blew the shit out of their country and killed thousands of innocent civilians, you then pack up and leave the country in ruins and expect them to not bare a grudge and do the same thing again in a decade or so...

Iraq isn't committing terrorist attacks, first of all. Foreigners are coming into Iraq to fight against Americans. And Iraq was not "invaded" in the Persian Gulf war, they were simply chased -- in fact, one of the reasons the Kurds didn't care for us was because we DIDN'T fully invade like they had believed, so their revolution was brutally crushed.

Oh, yeah -- and both Iraq Wars involved a very large Coalition of troops from dozens of different countries. Maybe you forgot about that.

I see America as the bullies of the world, making speeches about love and peace and all your army is good for is invading and destroying

I guess the millions upon millions (likely, billions) of people that have been freed by the United States military aren't as important as the thousands that have been killed by it.

Peace keeping is the right approach for a better world, not investing billions into more weapons you don't even need, nobody in the world can counter the US's weaponry.

So the United States has the best military in the world ... does that mean it should stop trying to be better still?

Also if you want less threats in the world, how about the US stop arming other countries?

Yeah, all those other countries that want to defend themselves ... **** them, they don't need to defend themselves!

[nix]

Now now children, let's keep it civil.

First, North Korea has made many threats to many countries, including the United States. And second, just because a country doesn't have a huge military doesn't mean that it cannot possibly pose a threat to anybody.

Iraq isn't committing terrorist attacks, first of all. Foreigners are coming into Iraq to fight against Americans. And Iraq was not "invaded" in the Persian Gulf war, they were simply chased -- in fact, one of the reasons the Kurds didn't care for us was because we DIDN'T fully invade like they had believed, so their revolution was brutally crushed.

Oh, yeah -- and both Iraq Wars involved a very large Coalition of troops from dozens of different countries. Maybe you forgot about that.

I guess the millions upon millions (likely, billions) of people that have been freed by the United States military aren't as important as the thousands that have been killed by it.

So the United States has the best military in the world ... does that mean it should stop trying to be better still?

Yeah, all those other countries that want to defend themselves ... **** them, they don't need to defend themselves!

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

In regards to the gulf, not invaded? C'mon! Chased? wtf does that even mean in your terms? Regardless, you went to Iraq, bombed the shit out of Baghdad, killed over 100 thousand innocent civilians.
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.

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

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.

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..

Thanks for the response Sas, im sorry if im coming off as cheeky, I'm just going with what ive learned over the years. And i was civil until order flamed and backseat modded me

[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