10-09-2009, 04:23 PM
|
 |
CC Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2006
Cobra Make, Engine:
Posts: 4,926
|
|
Not Ranked
Saddam WAS a LOCAL threat only. We lost over 4500 troops for no real reason, other than to make Iran stronger (with one less enemy on their border.)
Bush apparently didnt learn ANYTHING from fighting in Vietnam, where we were fighting non-uniformed enemies. SAME thing in Iraq. We need better INTEL, go in with drones or small Seal teams, do our damage, and get the phuck out. But NO, dumbass Bush and now dumbass Obama want to put more troops in that quicksand pit of the Middle East.
The USSR, as strong as they were in the 80's, could not win a damn thing in Afghanistan; now here WE go, not able to win a damn thing there 25 years later.
We should just buy their oil, and lob the occasional cruise missile at certain targets.
__________________
Of course it's REAL! You are NOT imagining it!
We don't want a bigger government; We want a government that does a few BIG things, and does them right.
If you think that you can cut it, if you think you got the time, they'll only give you one chance, better get it right first time. 'Cause in this game you're playin, if you lose you got to pay. And if you make just ONE wrong move, you'll get BLOWN AWAY!
|
It is/was.... and it's not working effectively. Why you ask? Because everytime there is a civilian casualty, the news is all over us! The only thing that has been effective thus far is like we did last month where we dropped a few thousand Marines off outside of a Taliban stronghold of Helmand and pushed through, eliminating ALOT of the enemy and driving the rest out. Now theres the task of HOLDING that area for a time until the locals feel safe again and begin to trust in what we are doing. This is where it get's dangerous.... Often times we are left with teams of 5-15 soldiers manning areas getting attacked by 50-100 insurgents... are we seeing the problem yet? 
Bagram AF Afghanistan
Hybrid Mode
