Coito ergo sum wrote:A few? 4,000 lost in Iraq is considered a devastating loss, by some folks. 55,000 were killed in Vietnam.Azathoth wrote:I will agree with you there. The political point was made. At the cost of a few lives but acceptable to the powers that be.Gawdzilla wrote:Vietnam was not a military defeat.
Code: Select all
// Replaces with spaces the braces in cases where braces in places cause stasis
$str = str_replace(array("\{","\}")," ",$str);Of course not but to the bunkered general it is peripheralGawdzilla wrote:Including fifteen of my friends up front and four more later on. Not acceptable to me.Azathoth wrote:I will agree with you there. The political point was made. At the cost of a few lives but acceptable to the powers that be.Gawdzilla wrote:Vietnam was not a military defeat.
Code: Select all
// Replaces with spaces the braces in cases where braces in places cause stasis
$str = str_replace(array("\{","\}")," ",$str);
Yep, the REMFs were quite safe.Azathoth wrote:Of course not but to the bunkered general it is peripheralGawdzilla wrote:Including fifteen of my friends up front and four more later on. Not acceptable to me.Azathoth wrote:I will agree with you there. The political point was made. At the cost of a few lives but acceptable to the powers that be.Gawdzilla wrote:Vietnam was not a military defeat.
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”
Yawn.Azathoth wrote:Coito ergo sum wrote:A few? 4,000 lost in Iraq is considered a devastating loss, by some folks. 55,000 were killed in Vietnam.Azathoth wrote:I will agree with you there. The political point was made. At the cost of a few lives but acceptable to the powers that be.Gawdzilla wrote:Vietnam was not a military defeat.
different times. Try a draft now for afghanistan. The war is about as popular
And mandatory Selective Service registration at 18yo for males.Coito ergo sum wrote:Yawn.Azathoth wrote:Coito ergo sum wrote:A few? 4,000 lost in Iraq is considered a devastating loss, by some folks. 55,000 were killed in Vietnam.Azathoth wrote:I will agree with you there. The political point was made. At the cost of a few lives but acceptable to the powers that be.Gawdzilla wrote:Vietnam was not a military defeat.
different times. Try a draft now for afghanistan. The war is about as popular
We don't need a draft. We have an all volunteer army.
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”
The problem is that the vast majority of youth who have registered are in violation of the law because they failed to keep the government apprised of their location within 30 days of moving, so the records are only minimally useful to begin with.Gawdzilla wrote:The registration is a good idea. If we need troops quick, we get them quick.
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”
Males.Gawdzilla wrote:The registration is a good idea. If we need troops quick, we get them quick.
I'd have been good with you in the line.Gallstones wrote:Males.Gawdzilla wrote:The registration is a good idea. If we need troops quick, we get them quick.
I'd have gone.
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”
China. and they haven't even needed to fire a shotCoito ergo sum wrote: Military doomed to fail.
List of US military defeats in the past 40 years.
Vietnam (arguably).
.......for the Chinese will be cheaper to lose a few trillion in IOU's than fight a hot war. and with an empty treasury (and no means refill) the military is doomed to fail - just a matter of time.
Coito ergo sum wrote: This is a staggeringly idiotic post. No offense.
With respect to "iran might not be able to cope in a head to head conflict with the USA," I mean - "might" not? "Might?" That is, you assess Iran's military capabilities as potentially having the ability to cope with the US in head to head conflict? Just want to get that straight...
You doubt if the Americans have the "balls" to go ashore. The US had the balls to go to Afghanistan, had the balls to go to Iraq, but we don't have the balls with respect to Iran?
The US would "yet again" be a loser in the Middle East? I mean - what the fuck, dude? We SUCCEEDED in Iraq. We SUCCEEDED in Afghanistan (which is technically central Asia, but whatever). What fucking definition of the words "win" and "lose" are you using? Overwhelming victory in two theaters of conflict is somehow "losing?"
).....but in a more limited conflict (i.e. no boots on the ground) the USA will find that the Iran is no Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq......or Grenada ) involved nailing every man, woman and child to a cross - until the locals accepted they were defeated. and acted accordingly. Same would work with the Iranians - if people no longer exist, ain't gonna come back and bite yer on the bum 
Quite right. The only reason these countries get any attention is because of the oil. If Libia vs Syria does not demonstrate this nothing can. The 'West' should be spending its money developing fusion power as fast as it possibly can. It does not because too any people make too much money out of oil. And as oil gets more scarce they stand to make even more money.amused wrote:"Winning" in the middle east means propping up a rotating series of governments that can issue oil contracts, preferably with about half of them hating the other half enough to undercut each other. And then selling them weapons and bad real estate investments too so the petrodollars come back. Seems to be working...
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests