Jump to content

US Commander warns Syria and Russia


Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Zambroski said:

:lol:I always liked him.  He actually gave me the one infraction I have over there.  :lmao:  We get along well.  I joke all the time about his fucking modified "Ban Hammer"...that mother fucker would misfire and shoot up the whole god damn street and ban people that weren't even on HCS!  O.o  He was quick with that thing!  There were times a thread would start to heat up and by the time I submitted my little dig responses half the thread would be banned!  :lmao:

He's a good guy though...at least with me.  I know he likes Cappy a lot too.  :stirthepot:

just seen this:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
24 minutes ago, The Troll said:

Worst mod ever barr none on hcs was tomcat.

I get along with him good, and I'm a Yamaha guy, he hates us with a passion beyond belief..lol.. I have never had a problem with any of the mods on HCS, I have gotten out of line a couple times, have gotten a few pm's from some and they have always been spot on. But then again I am an odd breed and can admit when i'm wrong, self analyze, ect. I think they do a good job over there and are good peeps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rigid1 said:

I get along with him good, and I'm a Yamaha guy, he hates us with a passion beyond belief..lol.. I have never had a problem with any of the mods on HCS, I have gotten out of line a couple times, have gotten a few pm's from some and they have always been spot on. But then again I am an odd breed and can admit when i'm wrong, self analyze, ect. I think they do a good job over there and are good peeps.

Tomcat was never a mod when i was on the site....everyday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
On ‎8‎/‎22‎/‎2016 at 11:10 AM, Zambroski said:

JESUS!  Did you just make those numbers up for "dramatic effect"?  Yes, let's go with that.  Are you insane or just really giddy abut something this morning?  I'm not going to do some math for you to show you the level of "kooky" those numbers really are...you can do that.  Kill ratios have been officially "nixed" as a reasonable means of measuring success after Vietnam (for obvious reasons).  It still a macho thing for Americans to boast about....but pretty irrelevant.  Those numbers are always gonna be high since we own the air in any conflict.  And 50% is super duper relative. Our enemy over there is not a traditional massive force.

Don't get me wrong either...the amount of soldiers there doesn't belie their quality.  The percentage and quality of highly trained soldiers left (and rotating) there now is way better than the massive buildups of years past which in a large part were basically trained forces and support troops.  My point was, whatever "mission" these guys are trying to accomplish is being hindered by a poor supporting cast here in DC.  And now that the "Ruskies" are digging in...we should leave it to them.  It's their "backyard" and they don't have near the "Tom Fuckery" going on there as we do here.  They are better lead and don't allow liberal "twattery" to inflict damage internally.

 

Here's the original start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Zambroski said:

Great....now, let's do this properly.  What's your debate narrative?

As stated before, look at the kill ratio against isis, compare to the Iraq war, compare the number of ME countries fighting and the total number of ME troops deployed,  to the number of US Troops deployed.

So you were wrong about my statement of 45,000 to one and that you got back to me.

My opinion if every isis member is killed it matters little in a few days some other group will pop up and it will be rinse and repeat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 1jkw said:

As stated before, look at the kill ratio against isis, compare to the Iraq war, compare the number of ME countries fighting and the total number of ME troops deployed,  to the number of US Troops deployed.

So you were wrong about my statement of 45,000 to one and that you got back to me.

My opinion if every isis member is killed it matters little in a few days some other group will pop up and it will be rinse and repeat.

:dunno:  I'm starting to realize the reason I may have never gotten back to you.

On 8/22/2016 at 10:28 AM, 1jkw said:

Actually the number is near 45,000, I went with the lowest number I found.

 On Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace debunked the one arm tied behind the back meme, he said they investigated and found that the generals agreed with the ROI.

I have no problem if we pulled out lock stock and barrel tomorrow, maybe the congress  should pass a resolution to remove all troops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Zambroski said:

:dunno:  I'm starting to realize the reason I may have never gotten back to you.

I never said the kill ratio was 45,000 to one, I gave the number of US Troops killed and the number of isis fighters that were claimed to have been killed, I also offered what if it was 10,000 isis that even at that number it was far better then the 35 to one.

Given the difference in losses between foes it sure beats 35 to one doesn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, 1jkw said:

As stated before, look at the kill ratio against isis, compare to the Iraq war, compare the number of ME countries fighting and the total number of ME troops deployed,  to the number of US Troops deployed.

So you were wrong about my statement of 45,000 to one and that you got back to me.

My opinion if every isis member is killed it matters little in a few days some other group will pop up and it will be rinse and repeat.

1st Bold: OK...I'm not sure what you are asking here I guess.  Are you saying....hell, maybe I'm drunk...what are you asking here? Are you saying the "kill ratios" are greater against ISIS than they were in the IRAQ war?  Because...of course they are.  This operation is far less conventional.  And which Iraq war?  For how long? I guess i need to know where you are getting these "kill ratios"?  I need to see that first.  because I think you are just taking estimated enemy dead and using our forces as the main cause and since the military doesn't really use "kill ratios" anymore, well.....I'm perplexed.

I agree with the bold...we are just looking at a less radical "replacement".  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Zambroski said:

1st Bold: OK...I'm not sure what you are asking here I guess.  Are you saying....hell, maybe I'm drunk...what are you asking here? Are you saying the "kill ratios" are greater against ISIS than they were in the IRAQ war?  Because...of course they are.  This operation is far less conventional.  And which Iraq war?  For how long? I guess i need to know where you are getting these "kill ratios"?  I need to see that first.  because I think you are just taking estimated enemy dead and using our forces as the main cause and since the military doesn't really use "kill ratios" anymore, well.....I'm perplexed.

I agree with the bold...we are just looking at a less radical "replacement".  

It's simple we are in a conflict that is killing a huge number of enemy while not losing many of our troops, and pushing the enemy out of territories they once held, and the ME countries in the region are helping, and with larger numbers of troops than we have there, conventional or not the enemy is taking heavy losses and we are not, and that is a good thing and if we are going to be there at all this route is far more acceptable than having heavy losses while the countries in the region stand by and watch.

I hope the commas are in the right place so xlt doesn't have a shit fit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 1jkw said:

It's simple we are in a conflict that is killing a huge number of enemy while not losing many of our troops, and pushing the enemy out of territories they once held, and the ME countries in the region are helping, and with larger numbers of troops than we have there, conventional or not the enemy is taking heavy losses and we are not, and that is a good thing and if we are going to be there at all this route is far more acceptable than having heavy losses while the countries in the region stand by and watch.

I hope the commas are in the right place so xlt doesn't have a shit fit.

Ok...I can agree with all this but I don't think that was our original debate.  And seeing as how I don't think you know what it was either, let's call it a draw.

Now, you'll have to take the comma thing up with XLT.

:lol:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Zambroski said:

Ok...I can agree with all this but I don't think that was our original debate.  And seeing as how I don't think you know what it was either, let's call it a draw.

Now, you'll have to take the comma thing up with XLT.

:lol:

 

 

Our original debate was about kill ratio, and the numbers are amazingly in our favor.

 

He's too young, when I was in school you were taught no comma if the word and was used, but that was almost 40 years ago.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 1jkw said:

As stated before, look at the kill ratio against isis, compare to the Iraq war, compare the number of ME countries fighting and the total number of ME troops deployed,  to the number of US Troops deployed.

So you were wrong about my statement of 45,000 to one and that you got back to me.

My opinion if every isis member is killed it matters little in a few days some other group will pop up and it will be rinse and repeat.

Armies do that too.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, 1jkw said:

It's simple we are in a conflict that is killing a huge number of enemy while not losing many of our troops, and pushing the enemy out of territories they once held, and the ME countries in the region are helping, and with larger numbers of troops than we have there, conventional or not the enemy is taking heavy losses and we are not, and that is a good thing and if we are going to be there at all this route is far more acceptable than having heavy losses while the countries in the region stand by and watch.

I hope the commas are in the right place so xlt doesn't have a shit fit.

This can't be possible. "Obama hates the troops" "He has no respect for soldiers" "He is the worst POTUS ever"

So why would he engage the enemy in a way that keeps soldiers from harm while inflicting the maximum damage to the enemy?

The proper way to do it, is the way Bush and Cheney did it. You give your own soldiers lots of opportunities to die. You know, be heroes. Don't get me wrong, it's not the same as martyrs. That's the other religion. 

Also it's way better if you manage conflicts in a way to make them last years. Job security is a great thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, revkevsdi said:

This can't be possible. "Obama hates the troops" "He has no respect for soldiers" "He is the worst POTUS ever"

So why would he engage the enemy in a way that keeps soldiers from harm while inflicting the maximum damage to the enemy?

The proper way to do it, is the way Bush and Cheney did it. You give your own soldiers lots of opportunities to die. You know, be heroes. Don't get me wrong, it's not the same as martyrs. That's the other religion. 

Also it's way better if you manage conflicts in a way to make them last years. Job security is a great thing.

Ewww...you grabbed onto one of what you see as a winning talking point with ZERO war knowledge at all.  GOOD LITTLE LIBERAL TWAT!  

Go away little man....I got all day and nothing better to do......wake up your faggot friend SR, get some "protein" in your system, then get back to me with some good (and hopefully new) material.

I'll leave the door open.......:news:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, revkevsdi said:

This can't be possible. "Obama hates the troops" "He has no respect for soldiers" "He is the worst POTUS ever"

So why would he engage the enemy in a way that keeps soldiers from harm while inflicting the maximum damage to the enemy?

The proper way to do it, is the way Bush and Cheney did it. You give your own soldiers lots of opportunities to die. You know, be heroes. Don't get me wrong, it's not the same as martyrs. That's the other religion. 

Also it's way better if you manage conflicts in a way to make them last years. Job security is a great thing.

trump is gonna give johnny lots of opportunities to die for his country. it's about god damn time!!! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2016-11-19 at 10:09 AM, Zambroski said:

Ewww...you grabbed onto one of what you see as a winning talking point with ZERO war knowledge at all.  GOOD LITTLE LIBERAL TWAT!  

Go away little man....I got all day and nothing better to do......wake up your faggot friend SR, get some "protein" in your system, then get back to me with some good (and hopefully new) material.

I'll leave the door open.......:news:

I've suspected that about you. No wonder you're such an angry asshole. Nothing better to do on a Saturday. 

On 2016-11-19 at 6:47 PM, spin_dry said:

trump is gonna give johnny lots of opportunities to die for his country. it's about god damn time!!! 

I'm sure the same people who turned a blind eye to all the wasted soldier lives during the Bush/Cheney show won't mind losing more with their new leader. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, revkevsdi said:

I've suspected that about you. No wonder you're such an angry asshole. Nothing better to do on a Saturday. 

I'm sure the same people who turned a blind eye to all the wasted soldier lives during the Bush/Cheney show won't mind losing more with their new leader. 

15181401_1151707291532502_5773884806627578259_n.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...
On ‎8‎/‎22‎/‎2016 at 10:38 AM, 1jkw said:

The woefully inadequate and paltry number there now has a kill ratio of over 10,000 to 1, and has pushed isis out of 50% of the territory it once held.

TTT for derpo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎8‎/‎22‎/‎2016 at 11:10 AM, Zambroski said:

JESUS!  Did you just make those numbers up for "dramatic effect"?  Yes, let's go with that.  Are you insane or just really giddy abut something this morning?  I'm not going to do some math for you to show you the level of "kooky" those numbers really are...you can do that.  Kill ratios have been officially "nixed" as a reasonable means of measuring success after Vietnam (for obvious reasons).  It still a macho thing for Americans to boast about....but pretty irrelevant.  Those numbers are always gonna be high since we own the air in any conflict.  And 50% is super duper relative. Our enemy over there is not a traditional massive force.

Don't get me wrong either...the amount of soldiers there doesn't belie their quality.  The percentage and quality of highly trained soldiers left (and rotating) there now is way better than the massive buildups of years past which in a large part were basically trained forces and support troops.  My point was, whatever "mission" these guys are trying to accomplish is being hindered by a poor supporting cast here in DC.  And now that the "Ruskies" are digging in...we should leave it to them.  It's their "backyard" and they don't have near the "Tom Fuckery" going on there as we do here.  They are better lead and don't allow liberal "twattery" to inflict damage internally.

 

There you go derpski, that's your reply to 10,000 to 1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, steve from amherst said:

What was the rate about , words?

Once again he was blathering on that I claimed a 45,000 to  1 kill ratio of US against isis, I clearly stated 10,000 to 1, I also clearly stated that I used the lowest number I found,  and the highest number I found was 45,000.  He claimed as you can read yourself that we don't even use kill ratio numbers any more. A simple search will show that the claimed number is 15,000 for every US soldier killed. 

On July 24 2017 General Raymond Thomas claimed that 60,000 to 70,000 thousand isis fighters have been killed since 2014, now Google the number of US troops killed and see what the ratio is.

Just one more example of his long winded, no nothing, say nothing bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...