cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Samnospam
Advisor

but the thing is jackass

You and your ilk are the only ones I've seen talk about how great it would be to see some people killed.

hardnox604008
Advisor

Re: the case for Stinger missiles

I've never gotten a lot of traction here in regards to my horror at the militarization of police forces. In fact, I'd kinda suspect that many are 100% in favor of militarizing their Shurf and deppities who are going to support and lead their own local militia. It's those other fellows, the alphabet soup outfits that are overarmed.

 

And while I really don't enjoy seeing some young dude with tats and a shaven head strutting gown the street in Hooterville like its Fallujah wearing a flak jacket and a Big Sig on his hip, I do have to accept that scaling down the armament of police forces isn't even remotely likely given what is going on on the private side of the arms race.

 

It's a big circle jerk, full of internal contradictions.

Faust100F
Advisor

Re: the case for Stinger missiles

Personally, I give a rats ass about how many islamics our government "smokes" in the Middle East.  They all want the Infidel dead. ( and boys and girls that mean us)  

 

The problem is we should have taken out Saudi Arabia first, then take the rest of those islamic nations down one at a time.   When a nation goes to war, it should never hold back on using the best weapons available.

 

A neutron bomb  dropped on each one of those countries, would have left the infra structure in tact, and all life extinguished. We should be practicing war like those who lived i Biblical times.

 

   We should stop fighting half assed wars and get back to complete extingushment of our enemies.  I wonder if we could put one of those neutron bombs down the smokestack of our congressmen in Washington.   Yesterday we lost one Green Beret and another to these SOB's. Adois Amigo. John  

hardnox604008
Advisor

Re: the case for Stinger missiles

As spring draws near a young man's heart naturally turns to mass genocide. Craig favors biological WMD so you guys will need to get together and work it out.

Samnospam
Advisor

Re: the case for Stinger missiles

You should get to it, killing those infidels. You could find a bunch in dearborne Michigan, everyone of them hates you.
jput
Senior Contributor

Re: the case for Stinger missiles

Faust is correct.    The US should be slow to get involved in war.   But in those cases where we must,  we should open every can of whoop a$$ in our arsenal.  

 

We've made the error of limited warfare from N. Korea during President Truman to present.    There is absolutely zero justification for the Amateur In Chief's escalating troop numbers in Afghanistan back in 2009.   Our soldiers should have packed up,  left nothing and allowed the Afghans to resume killing each other as they have for centuries. 

 

Our one and only message upon departure should have been,  "We're leaving your chithole nation.   If you give us any excuse by harboring terrorists,  our next visit will turn you into a glass parking lot.  Don't muck with us,  EVER."

 

And that would it it.   Since that escalation mistake in 2009,  we've squandered our tax dollars,  our soldiers suffered major injuries and even death,  for absolutely nothing.  

 

Wars should be rare.  Wars should be all in and get out once the enemy is completely devastated.   No more phony,  patty cake wars.

 

 

Samnospam
Advisor

Re: the case for Stinger missiles

I don't disagree with anything in your post. The fact is most of the demons the us government faces in the world it created and its solutions are just creating more.
hardnox604008
Advisor

Re: the case for Stinger missiles

Ahem.

 

That is why our enemies fight wth terrorism/asymmetrical tactics- they take a nick out of us which provokes a disproportionate response from us and assures we lose.

 

 

 

jput
Senior Contributor

Re: the case for Stinger missiles

The claim that US policy makes more enemies is very weak.  

 

US policy in WW2 was full can of whoopa$$ until there was unconditional surrender by Germany, Japan and Italy.    If we continued the same policies post 1945:

 

A.  We wouldn't be "making more enemies" because they'd be dead.

 

B.  99.9% of the world's troublemakers would fear experiencing the full can of whoopa$$ that they'd never muck with US in the first place.

 

Unfortunately, we've chosen policies are are mostly carrot,   very little stick.  Following Bill Clinton's weak response in Somalia, bin Laden described USA as a "weak paper tiger"   which gave him license to mastermind 9-11,  embassy and other attacks.    obama just sent the same message when our Libya ambassador and others were massacred.   It's open season on Americans as a result.

 

 

This will not end well.

hardnox604008
Advisor

Re: the case for Stinger missiles

Good luck with that one, just throw in with George **bleep**, Donnie and the rest of the "History Boys." That kind of hubris led us to the most catastrohic series of mistakes in American history.

 

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/08/halberstam200708

 

"In the twilight of his presidency, George W. Bush and his inner circle have been feeding the press with historical parallels: he is Harry Truman—unpopular, besieged, yet ultimately to be vindicated—while Iraq under Saddam was Europe held by Hitler. To a serious student of the past, that's preposterous. Writing just before his untimely death, David Halberstam asserts that Bush's "history," like his war, is based on wishful thinking, arrogance, and a total disdain for the facts."