Polls on how the world view the US.

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » October 21, 2004, 12:26 am

The most successful war in our history? Isn't that overdoing the Bush felation a little? Hell, I am struggling to come up with a war that went WORSE than this one. Veitnam is the only one, and has many parellels (limited engagement, undertrained and underequipped troops, major corperations making shitloads of money off of the conflict) to this conflict. I think if this war continues for the duration that Vietnam did, it will pile up far more casualties and financial burdens. The only thing this war succeeded in was getting Hussein out of power (which isn't much when you consider we put him there in the first place and the country is now actually worse off, infastructure and crime wise, that hes out) and lining Ws Texas pals wallets with tax money that will take us decades to recover. If making rich white men from texas richer was the goal, then Mission Accomplished!

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » October 21, 2004, 12:39 am

Rekaar. wrote:This is the most successful war in our history on many levels.

You took not just the government's hook, but the line and sinker as well.. wowza. You truly are a lost cause.

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » October 21, 2004, 2:07 am

Jice: case and point.

Maybe I should've used caps more liberally to illustrate the ON MANY LEVELS phrase. By definition, that excludes some levels - giving you room to bitch by ignoring what would thus fall under the rest of the all encompassing picture.

Granted, arguing with you is the second biggest waste of time in the world so I'll gladly not bother anymore!

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » October 21, 2004, 2:21 am

ITs only a waste of time because you ignore cold hard facts. You made the ridiculous claim with no evidence to support it. I provided an opposing argument with examples. If you want to play the "I am above all of this partisan bickering card", you first need to take GWs cock out of your mouth for a little bit to see whats actually going on and then you need to provide specific examples of how this war was "the most successful war in out history". I could claim that the Lord Christ came down from heaven and fucked me in the ass, personally to punish me for mocking him and it would have about as much credibility and plausability as your ridiculous claim.

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » October 21, 2004, 4:09 am

Jice Virago wrote:The most successful war in our history? Isn't that overdoing the Bush felation a little? Hell, I am struggling to come up with a war that went WORSE than this one. Veitnam is the only one, and has many parellels (limited engagement, undertrained and underequipped troops, major corperations making shitloads of money off of the conflict) to this conflict.

Undertrained Reservists and National Guardsman you mean...

Under equipped troops? We have the best equipped military in the world. Just because some people don't have body armor that isn't standard issue to their unit... There are reasons some units don't get issued/wear body armor like that.

Corporations making money during wartime... this is from other wars in what way?

Nick · Post by **Nick** » October 21, 2004, 6:23 am

It's sad to see people incapable of determining truth from fiction.

miir · Post by **miir** » October 21, 2004, 10:33 am

This is the most successful war in our history on many levels.

Would you care to explain how the invasion and occupation has been so successful?

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » October 21, 2004, 11:14 am

Aruman wrote:
Jice Virago wrote:The most successful war in our history? Isn't that overdoing the Bush felation a little? Hell, I am struggling to come up with a war that went WORSE than this one. Veitnam is the only one, and has many parellels (limited engagement, undertrained and underequipped troops, major corperations making shitloads of money off of the conflict) to this conflict.
Undertrained Reservists and National Guardsman you mean...

Under equipped troops? We have the best equipped military in the world. Just because some people don't have body armor that isn't standard issue to their unit... There are reasons some units don't get issued/wear body armor like that.

Corporations making money during wartime... this is from other wars in what way?

Dig a little deeper Aruman. We are undermanned and out convoys are insufficiently armored for the job we are doing there. There have been plenty of accounts of this. Also, I would rate having no body armor a pretty serious lapse of propper outfitting, considering that our troops have had the most contemporary body armor in every modern conflict preceeding this. When you are a daily target occupying a hostile nation, you wear the fucking armor and helmet at all times or you get your ass shot. Anyone who has been on active duty can tell you this.

As for corps making money, this has happened in every war of the post industrial era. However, this is the first war in American history where a company has been granted a contract with no competing bids (by its former CEO now VP still having stock options in closed door meetings) and is paying workers 4-5x what a trained US soldier would get for doing the exact same job. And they have still managed to overbill to the point where they got caught red handed beyond that. That is probably as corrosive to troop morale as GW extending their tours of duty.

Tenuvil · Post by **Tenuvil** » October 21, 2004, 11:34 am

noel wrote:
Sylvus wrote:I talk a lot of shit about Bush and it has absolutely nothing to do with me being anti-republican. In fact, I may sound like a total Democrat this election but I have never in my life supported a Democratic candidate, in the past it has been Republican or Perot every time. It has to do with me worrying for the first time in my life that the President is hurting our country.
This is exactly how I feel as well.

Wow, uncanny but this describes my political feelings right now as well...and my past voting patterns also.

Post by **Sylvus** » October 21, 2004, 11:43 am

Rekaar. wrote:
Sylvus wrote:Well, the war is going badly. We may disagree on the level to which it is going badly, but it certainly is not going as well as people initially predicted. Even members of the current administration have said as much.
Not going as well as predicted != losing/bad

Not going as well as predicted != winning/good. In fact, "not going as well as predicted" just supports the following statement I made. You and I disagree on the level at which the war is going badly.

I really don't think this is one of the most successful wars ever. Just because it has one of the lowest death ratios of troops doesn't mean it it is going well. If we were to fight the 18th century British with the equipment and training that we have today, I think the body count would also be a lot lower. Successful is measured based on how well you perform based on how well you were expected to perform. In that light, the war hasn't been very successful. That's not a slight against the men and women that are over there fighting in the war, it's a comment on the expectation level that their superiors set and their failure to achieve some of the goals that they had set for the troops.

Aruman wrote:
Jice Virago wrote:limited engagement, undertrained and underequipped troops, major corperations making shitloads of money off of the conflict
Undertrained Reservists and National Guardsman you mean...

So they don't fall under the category of troops? And aren't they undertrained because they are being used in a capacity that they weren't originally intended for?

Nick · Post by **Nick** » October 21, 2004, 11:49 am

Edit: Cant touch this~

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » October 21, 2004, 1:08 pm

Jice Virago wrote: Dig a little deeper Aruman. We are undermanned and out convoys are insufficiently armored for the job we are doing there. There have been plenty of accounts of this. Also, I would rate having no body armor a pretty serious lapse of propper outfitting, considering that our troops have had the most contemporary body armor in every modern conflict preceeding this. When you are a daily target occupying a hostile nation, you wear the fucking armor and helmet at all times or you get your ass shot. Anyone who has been on active duty can tell you this.

I'm sure that if you were on active duty in the US army you are familiar with the 82nd Airborne Division.

I spent the majority of my time in infantry units in the 82nd Airborne.

No one in any unit that I am aware of was ever issued the type of body armor that people are talking about in the news and so on. They aren't talking about flak vests, they are talking about the Second Chance type of body armor, at least that is my impression.

The issued kevlar vests are not bullet proof, although they may afford some minor protection.

I just don't see myself wearing both a flak vest and a bulletproof vest. The kevlar vests were a pain, and most of the time we wore them because we were ordered to, not because we wanted to.

Try wearing that stuff on long forced marches or during offensive operations and people will see how much of a pain they are.

As far as vehicle armor goes... there is only so much armor you can put on a HMMWV, and regardless of how much armor you put on it, any basic shaped charge weapon such as a LAW, RPG, or whatever is going to penetrate the armor quite easily. Sucky situation, but there is only so much that can be done to armor a HMMWV.

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » October 21, 2004, 1:19 pm

Sylvus wrote: So they don't fall under the category of troops? And aren't they undertrained because they are being used in a capacity that they weren't originally intended for?

Interesting that you should bring that up.

National Guard and Reserve enlistees both attend Basic Training and AIT along with Active Duty enlistees.

A National Guard or Reserve unit in whatever capacity goes to the same schools and take the same tests as Active Duty soldiers. They use the same MoS related materials as Active Duty uses.

So other than the fact that these types of units only 'do their job' one weekend a month, how are they different?

It's because in general they are lazy and their leadership sucks. They are civilianized soldiers, and act like it.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 21, 2004, 1:30 pm

Teenybloke wrote:Edit: Cant touch this~

Avestan · Post by **Avestan** » October 21, 2004, 1:33 pm

Xzion wrote:
Rekaar. wrote:
Sylvus wrote:So you're claiming that GWB's actions have not had any effect on adding to the global dislike of the United States?
I'd say of course our actions have effected the perceptions of the world. It was unpopular to go after Iraq. Because it was unpopular doesn't mean Kyoukan should be running the country now, so she can fix all of our PR issues. Honestly I'd contend the absolute garbage being said about the President (in his own country) finds a welcome resonance among other countries whose populace are jealous of America's success. Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, Al Gore, Michael Moore and more saying the things they did contributed greatly to the fall of the US in the world's eyes.

That said, I could care less what the masses of any nation think of us. The only reason they have an opinion about us at all is because they have to affix the blame for their shitty stations in life on something. It's no surprise that labor/democratic party type groups are the ones who internationally hold the same ill opinion of the President. Or as I like to think of them, the "blame someone else and give me something for nothing" parties.
You have the stereotypical attitude of a neocon, your essentially saying
"fuck what the world thinks, fuck the world hell they hate us because there jealous (i love when people use that excuse, most people in europe and Canada are NOT JELOUS of the U.S), bush rules and if you talk bad about our president (1st amendment) then your an un-american osama loving basterd"
That kind of attitude is why people dislike America and why there are terrorist willing to end there lives (out of jealousy ) to change our fundamental way of life and hopefully instill fear and take away some of our freedoms as bush has so conveniently allowed with the patriot act and trying to make Americans fear change.

spelling and grammar iz gud.

Truant · Post by **Truant** » October 21, 2004, 2:02 pm

You quoted that whole thing just to blast his spelling and grammar?

what a fucking waste.

miir · Post by **miir** » October 21, 2004, 2:05 pm

Truant wrote:You quoted that whole thing just to blast his spelling and grammar?

what a fucking waste.

Everyone knows that xzion's spelling and grammar is pitiful.

THANK YOU CAPTAIN OBVIOUS FOR POINTING THAT OUT TO US!!!!

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » October 21, 2004, 5:52 pm

I wish he hadn't, ignore blocks him for a reason =p

Jice it's a waste to argue with you because you are more concerned with being right than knowing what right is. Any "cold hard facts" are spinnable to favor your point or mine.

Sylvus I measure success based on the achievement of objectives, of which there are several in this war. We are achieving them and will ultimately achieve them all. That is why I call it winning. When moving forward, you can look forward or you can trip while looking back.

The road ahead is brighter than ever as these struggles have brought the world closer by making it smaller. All the contention has made people care about global politics on an unprecedented scale in this generation. That's a good thing as it stimulates so much more. Like trade.

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » October 21, 2004, 6:38 pm

No, you just can't back up your bullshit at all. You also have a flawed understanding of the concepts of debate and argument. When you make an assertation, especially one as patently ludicrous as "Best War Evah!", you had better be able to back it up with examples of why you have that opinion (in cases of opinion) or actual empyrical date (in the cases of claiming something to be a fact). Clearly, you were unable to do this. Don't feel too bad, Carl Rove is having a hard time doing the same thing and its his job.

If you want to ignore the key examples that myself, as well as other posters, have provided and give yourself the big W, well then feel free. Don't pull this "This person who is owning my ass doesn't count because I said he is not worth arguing with" bullshit, though. Weak and patently false statements will ALWAYS get shot down like that. Given your bullheaded Winnowesque refusal to aknowledge well constructed arguments and blindly cling to the GOPenis, I am sure this sort of thing happens to you a lot. It just happened to be me doing the debunking this time around.

noel · Post by **noel** » October 21, 2004, 6:44 pm

I thought Israel's 7-day war was much better.

The war for America's independence was also pretty good.

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » October 21, 2004, 6:45 pm

Rekaar. wrote:The road ahead is brighter than ever as these struggles have brought the world closer by making it smaller. All the contention has made people care about global politics on an unprecedented scale in this generation. That's a good thing as it stimulates so much more. Like trade.

So it is your belief that GW pissing off the entire world at us to invade a sovreign nation halfway around the globe was good because it makes people aware of global politics?

Christ, I don't even know where to begin on that one.

Perhaps people are more aware of global politics because we were attacked on 9/11, we have willfully and repeatedly violated the UN laws, outsourcing (with GW approved corperate tax incentives) has destroyed entire sectors of the american job market, and/or we stuck ourselves into a nation building project in Iraq thats managed to actually make Terrorism worse?

Thanks GW, your incompetance has made me afraid of how fucked we are for the couple decades because of you. Hell, we are still feeling the last of the repercussions of the Vietnam War. How long do you think the backlash from this debacle will last?

masteen · Post by **masteen** » October 21, 2004, 6:48 pm

The Peloponnesian War was the best war evar!

noel · Post by **noel** » October 21, 2004, 6:48 pm

The first Iraqi War was a lot better than this one too.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » October 21, 2004, 6:57 pm

This thread makes me want to invade Thrace.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 21, 2004, 7:39 pm

masteen wrote:The Peloponnesian War was the best war evar!

Hell yes it was! History of the Peloponnesian War HIS/394 was a great class!

I remember writing a paper on Proxies and their influence during the war. The paper was supposed to be 10-15 pages long. I wrote it the night before. I set the spacing like 3 lines wide and made the margins like 2.5 inches on both sides and it still came up about 9.5 pages in length. My professor returned the paper with the remarks:

This paper is actually about 5 pages long. (B)

lol. Dude had no sense of humor but at least he appreciated the content.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » October 22, 2004, 12:14 am

masteen wrote:This thread makes me want to invade Thrace.

those fuckers were easy, but now the godamn scippii have all of northern africa, but at least i drove the britons who drove everyone else out of europe

Those last 3 cities to conquer for victory are a real bitch, guessi can take out the last 2 julii strongholds...the AI on the scippi was fucking moronic, they'd build huge armys only to pace back and fourth and jack eachother off

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » October 22, 2004, 4:56 pm

I have posted many times in many ways on this topic, I just have no interest in defending myself to someone like you. I certainly didn't call it the greatest achievement of our time to invade Iraq, but I also don't take the eternally pessimistic view you favor. I simply agree that you disagree.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » October 22, 2004, 5:29 pm

Rekaar. wrote:The road ahead is brighter than ever as these struggles have brought the world closer by making it smaller. All the contention has made people care about global politics on an unprecedented scale in this generation. That's a good thing as it stimulates so much more. Like trade.

The Bush campaign called, they wanted their campaign speech back.