Re: Real Naval - agressors

On Mar 16, 12:02 am, Gernot Hassenpflug <ger...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"a425couple" <a425cou...@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
"Weatherlawyer" <Weatherlaw...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote ...
Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"a425couple" <a425cou...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote ...
The principle of the jammed IED
Going a different direction:
lots of snips
We (or the general public) often like to criticise the size
(and thus expense) of our military in "staff" positions,
or in "not direct" support units, and generally in huge
expenses in technology.
Turn "pure research" into practical usefulness.

If we value the lives of our military volunteers
(and I think the vast majority of us do),
then we must often reject the easy "knee-jerk" reaction
of anger at $1,200 toilet seats.
Pushing the technology forward, can save lives.

Having grown up on a diet of Rin Tin Tin and Roy Rogers, it was hard
for me to realise that the aggressors in VietNam were in the US army.
Nowadays I try hard not to think "SS" when I see Iraq and Afghanistan
on the news.
And if not pleased by any means at the butcher's bill, I have no
feelings of regret for those invaders hurt or killed in this illegal
war.
If I were an Iraqi I'd feel entitled, in view of the random murders
and stories of tortures ongoing by Saddam's replacements, to set up
and if need be sacrifice myself detonating a roadside bomb.

Just to check to see if I understand your internal consistency:
Would I be correct in thinking that you were opposed to:
1. POTUS Truman sending troops and ships into combat to
prevent the elimination of the then 'emerging' democracy
in South Korea? (that has in years since - flourished)

The problems facing the orient after the colonist were drummed out by
the Japanese is that the colonists insisted on keeping the status quo
in far flung places until the Japanese could be released.

Naturally, one would expect the local incumbents to have a differing
point of view to that ideal.

As for Mr Truman's attempts to conserve democracy abroad, can you
explain his lack of activity in the US and A?

How was the ideal of democracy according to Truman capable of handling
the rights of its citizens to profess an unconventional political
persuasion?

How did the niggers get to vote in the good old days? For that matter
what was that particular POTUS' own considerations measure up? Was the
word *** still used in his era?

2. POTUS Clinton sending troops into Bosnia (etc.) to
prevent genocide?

I rather believe his testicular abilities had a knock on effect within
the Chimp's regime. Once he had shown that US forces could be used to
gain a measure of success the moron that followed him was able to
bull*** the morons who accepted if not exactly voted for him was more
easily able to get his stupidit enacted.

Since than of course his course has mirrored that of Mussolini. And I
believe that stringing him up by the ankles, once he is shot down from
the chandeliers would be a very good thing.

So yes, the use of force can be said to have some positive effects.

3. Talk of Hillary Clinton about her contemplating sending
our troops into Africa to prevent massacre/genocide?

It isn't any of my business but you still have a crippled Nixonesque
health system. Clean that up and get the US economy straightened up
and honest and by then if she was the Presidunce, her time to wage war
anywhere more than a few days drive from Washington would be short.

I think you need to get some brain cells into your head there.

Want to give him some of the ones you have never used?

.

Loading