I'm amazingly curious .....

[f7ben]

My position is that playing our trillion dollar game of whack a mole in the ME and dropping countless bomb and bomb after bomb has only made us less safe. There is no way to prevent lone wolf attacks and we have made our own bed by involving ourselves in the imperialist policy over there.

If we were serious about preventing attacks we would have gone after the Saudi's that funded 9/11 ......instead the Bush admin the Obama admin sought tirelessly to prevent the public from seeing the 9/11 commission report.

The war on terror is about removing our rights , funneling money to the MIC and keeping a boogeyman alive in our minds

Nothing more

[Jimmy Snacks]

21 minutes ago, Snake said:

We have NGOs working on that. The American Cancer Society ain't gonna stop terrorism.

Ask Obama.

More accurately, doesn't think like WE do. Eh?

You only wish you knew me.

Ask anyone in the leadership the readiness of our military.

But you know that.

Ask anyone in the military leadership......seriously? What do you expect them to say and you are the one that brought up the issue of not caring about our fellow citizens....Cancer>Terrorism.

Edited February 28, 2017 by Biggie Smails

[f7ben]

2 minutes ago, Biggie Smails said:

Ask anyone in the military leadership......seriously? What do you expect them to say?

Yah , just ask that deep fryer oil company exec if eating fried foods is really that bad for you .....ask him !!!!!!!!!!!11

[Jimmy Snacks]

1 minute ago, f7ben said:

Yah , just ask that deep fryer oil company exec if eating fried foods is really that bad for you .....ask him !!!!!!!!!!!11

Hahaha....no Shit!

[SSFB]

39 minutes ago, Snake said:

Ask anyone in the leadership the readiness of our military.

But you know that.

http://fortune.com/2012/05/10/adm-mike-mullen-debt-is-still-biggest-threat-to-u-s-security/

Quote

Adm. Mike Mullen: Debt is still biggest threat to U.S. security

 

 

 

[Snake]

1 minute ago, SSFB said:

http://fortune.com/2012/05/10/adm-mike-mullen-debt-is-still-biggest-threat-to-u-s-security/

 

We'll send the debt to fight?

[Snake]

Start with the Army. The benchmark of U.S. military readiness has long been the ability to fight two major wars at once. (Think about the Cold War, when we were able to fight when and where needed — Korea, Vietnam and Desert Storm — while also maintaining substantial forces in Europe and Asia capable of deterring the Soviet Union and China from destructive opportunism.) To do so, history has repeatedly shown we'd need to have 50 brigade combat teams. Today's level: 32.

How about the Navy? Its mandate is "to be where it matters, when it matters." Its flexibility, enabling it to project U.S. military might around the globe as circumstances warrant, undergirds much of the peace that exists in the world today. The baseline number of Navy ships that enable it to do that: 350. The number we have today: 272. Things are a bit better in the submarine department, but the number of surface combatant ships is way down.

Next up — quite literally — is the Air Force. Of course, it's hard to go up when you're losing aircraft and the ones you have left are rapidly aging. Unlike some other branches, the Air Force didn't grow in the wake of Sept. 11, 2001. It got older as 14 years of continuous operations used up the life of its aircraft without their timely replacement.

Thanks to the Budget Control Act, the Air Force is set to shrink to 26 tactical aircraft squadrons, compared to 133 active fighter squadrons during Operation Desert Storm. And there's not enough money to keep even those 26 at acceptable levels of readiness.

And then we have the Marines, which also play a crucial role in U.S. military engagements. Even with force levels declining in Afghanistan, for example, we'll be maintaining 9,800 troops there this year to support our mission, and the Marines will make up a portion of those troops.

Under the two-war benchmark, we should have 36 battalions of Marines. Instead, we have 23. And the Marines that make up those battalions are in a near-constant state of deployment.

There are many more details in the 2016 Index of Military Strength. Particularly valuable is the section on "Threats to U.S. Vital Interests." Broken out by region, the editors examine the military capabilities of Russia, Iran and China, among others.

What is the state of Middle East oil transit chokepoints? What missiles does Iraq have, and what's their range? How many nuclear arsenals are there today, and where are they located? The index has well-documented answers to these and many other questions.

"The consistent decline in funding and the consequent shrinking of the force have placed it under significant pressure," the editors conclude. "The cumulative effect of these factors has resulted in a U.S. military that is marginally able to meet the demands of defending America's vital national interests."

"Marginally able"? This is unacceptable. Every concerned citizen should ask Congress, the president and those running for office, "What are you doing to rebuild our military and make us fully capable of defending our country?"

http://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/commentary/the-declining-state-the-us-military

[SSFB]

5 minutes ago, Snake said:

We'll send the debt to fight?

No Mainecat, we won't.

[Snoslinger]

we don't need more fighter jets, we don't need more aircraft carriers, we don't need more nuke weapons. we have more than enough fire power to wipe out anyone we want, at any time. trump and his crony warhawks are full of shit when they say our military is decimated. 

[revkevsdi]

1 hour ago, Snoslinger said:

so, in your opinion, what do you think noggin and analer are trying to say SSFB? in mine, they're saying the chances of getting hit by terrorists are slim to none so why bother with all this anti-terror activity. they could mean they're content with what we have now and not want an increase, but then they'd be admitting they're OK with things bush and Obama have done. which, they're not. so, let's read your opinion.

 

Noggin and Analer make great points. Take that a step further. Take all the money that was spent on extra staff and equipment at all the airports and put that into education or research. How much better would we be?

I was in a tiny airport in the BC mountains last week. They had so much unnecesary staff and machinery. I asked the security person if all that money would have been better spent on education rather than stopping non-existant threats. 

It the US had cut ties with the Saudis after 9/11 you'd be safer today than you are for killing civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq.

What would your opinion be of the US if your family had died in one of those errant bombing runs that hit hospitals or schools?

You create more Terrorists with every bombing run than you kill.

[Snoslinger]

2 minutes ago, revkevsdi said:

Noggin and Analer make great points. Take that a step further. Take all the money that was spent on extra staff and equipment at all the airports and put that into education or research. How much better would we be?

I was in a tiny airport in the BC mountains last week. They had so much unnecesary staff and machinery. I asked the security person if all that money would have been better spent on education rather than stopping non-existant threats. 

It the US had cut ties with the Saudis after 9/11 you'd be safer today than you are for killing civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq.

What would your opinion be of the US if your family had died in one of those errant bombing runs that hit hospitals or schools?

You create more Terrorists with every bombing run than you kill.

i didn't say we're doing everything correctly and there isn't any waste. i'm saying we need to stay vigilant and when we see a terror cell, or a terrorist camp, we wipe them out. it's my belief we do everything in our power to limit collateral losses but unfortunately sometimes things go wrong. my answer to your question depends on the scenario. if a family member was killed in a hospital, or a school, obviously i'd be irate as hell at the US. if a member was killed "hanging out" at a terrorist camp, then not so irate. finally, i think there's alot of natural hate for us, but i do agree that we can go way overboard and create many more terrorists. like invading and occupying iraq and killing alot of civilians. 

[revkevsdi]

8 minutes ago, Snoslinger said:

i didn't say we're doing everything correctly and there isn't any waste. i'm saying we need to stay vigilant and when we see a terror cell, or a terrorist camp, we wipe them out. it's my belief we do everything in our power to limit collateral losses but unfortunately sometimes things go wrong. my answer to your question depends on the scenario. if a family member was killed in a hospital, or a school, obviously i'd be irate as hell at the US. if a member was killed "hanging out" at a terrorist camp, then not so irate. finally, i think there's alot of natural hate for us, but i do agree that we can go way overboard and create many more terrorists. like invading and occupying iraq and killing alot of civilians. 

I think the US will have to cut their losses at some point. They shouldn't have put the Shah in power in Iran, They shouldn't have put Saddam in power in the Iraq. Coming into modern times when have you improved a Country? When have you made friends for your sacrifices? You prop up a Dictatorship in UAE. You support Israel that has a shit load of UN resolutions against it. Which makes you an enemy of many ME countries. It's like trying to break up a fight in a bar between a drunk white trash couple. They'll both end up taking a swing at you for trying to help. 

The cost and expense only makes sense if you follow the money. The arms makers in the US want this shit to keep going. Just like the private security firms wanted Iraq and Afghanistan to keep going.

[Zambroski]

  and 

You two imbeciles should do these skits a lot more!  Because....holy moly!

[Anler]

2 hours ago, Snake said:

 

You only wish you knew me.

True

[Anler]

1 hour ago, Snake said:

Start with the Army. The benchmark of U.S. military readiness has long been the ability to fight two major wars at once. (Think about the Cold War, when we were able to fight when and where needed — Korea, Vietnam and Desert Storm — while also maintaining substantial forces in Europe and Asia capable of deterring the Soviet Union and China from destructive opportunism.) To do so, history has repeatedly shown we'd need to have 50 brigade combat teams. Today's level: 32.

How about the Navy? Its mandate is "to be where it matters, when it matters." Its flexibility, enabling it to project U.S. military might around the globe as circumstances warrant, undergirds much of the peace that exists in the world today. The baseline number of Navy ships that enable it to do that: 350. The number we have today: 272. Things are a bit better in the submarine department, but the number of surface combatant ships is way down.

Next up — quite literally — is the Air Force. Of course, it's hard to go up when you're losing aircraft and the ones you have left are rapidly aging. Unlike some other branches, the Air Force didn't grow in the wake of Sept. 11, 2001. It got older as 14 years of continuous operations used up the life of its aircraft without their timely replacement.

Thanks to the Budget Control Act, the Air Force is set to shrink to 26 tactical aircraft squadrons, compared to 133 active fighter squadrons during Operation Desert Storm. And there's not enough money to keep even those 26 at acceptable levels of readiness.

And then we have the Marines, which also play a crucial role in U.S. military engagements. Even with force levels declining in Afghanistan, for example, we'll be maintaining 9,800 troops there this year to support our mission, and the Marines will make up a portion of those troops.

Under the two-war benchmark, we should have 36 battalions of Marines. Instead, we have 23. And the Marines that make up those battalions are in a near-constant state of deployment.

There are many more details in the 2016 Index of Military Strength. Particularly valuable is the section on "Threats to U.S. Vital Interests." Broken out by region, the editors examine the military capabilities of Russia, Iran and China, among others.

What is the state of Middle East oil transit chokepoints? What missiles does Iraq have, and what's their range? How many nuclear arsenals are there today, and where are they located? The index has well-documented answers to these and many other questions.

"The consistent decline in funding and the consequent shrinking of the force have placed it under significant pressure," the editors conclude. "The cumulative effect of these factors has resulted in a U.S. military that is marginally able to meet the demands of defending America's vital national interests."

"Marginally able"? This is unacceptable. Every concerned citizen should ask Congress, the president and those running for office, "What are you doing to rebuild our military and make us fully capable of defending our country?"

http://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/commentary/the-declining-state-the-us-military

Ever ask yourself what all of these Americans died for? Was it freedom? We're they defending our rights? Or was it some bullshit that they never should have been involved in?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war

[Angry ginger]

4 hours ago, Snoslinger said:

you are all fine with taking some terror hits as long as it's not your family. I'm actually surprised at some of the people that seem OK with that. are any of you going to sit here and say you wouldn't be mad as hell if a terrorist wiped out your family, and you later found it could have easily been prevented? hell, why do anything to prevent major crime? I mean after all, what are the chances of a serial killer getting ahold of one of your kids? there's a happy medium here folks. we monitor things and take out bad guys that we know are planning to attack us.

i'm fine with accepting a certain amount of deaths from terrorist,  can't live in a bubble and can;t destroy all rights in the name of security.  

[SSFB]

5 minutes ago, Angry ginger said:

i'm fine with accepting a certain amount of deaths from terrorist,  can't live in a bubble and can;t destroy all rights in the name of security.  

Freedom isn't free.

[f7ben]

You wanna march around the world creating terrorists with your imperialism? Expect to be attacked from time to time

[Anler]

1 minute ago, f7ben said:

You wanna march around the world creating terrorists with your imperialism? Expect to be attacked from time to time

Somebody always wants to punch the bully in the nose...

[f7ben]

1 minute ago, Anler said:

Somebody always wants to punch the bully in the nose...

And the bully deserves it 99 out of 100

[Anler]

5 hours ago, Snake said:

 

If your fellow countrymen mean so little to you, why do you bother hanging around them.

I love this argument. Because I don't like seeing my countrymen being killed or maimed over a lie or some imperialist bullshit I should leave the country. Makes total sense...

[motonoggin]

The war on terror is a positive feedback loop. The more you try to fight it, the stronger it gets. It's like quicksand.

Will we have to endure some reprisals after we leave? Probably. 16 years is a pretty long murdering spree. Even if we stopped making new terrorists tomorrow, you can't honestly believe that we will stop everyone we've pissed off, can you? 

Now, I'm not saying we shouldn't try, but we certainly need to abandon the notion that we can bomb and kill our way to safety.

[Anler]

6 minutes ago, motonoggin said:

The war on terror is a positive feedback loop. The more you try to fight it, the stronger it gets. It's like quicksand.

Will we have to endure some reprisals after we leave? Probably. 16 years is a pretty long murdering spree. Even if we stopped making new terrorists tomorrow, you can't honestly believe that we will stop everyone we've pissed off, can you? 

Now, I'm not saying we shouldn't try, but we certainly need to abandon the notion that we can bomb and kill our way to safety.

Everything and everywhere we have declared war on in the last 40 has ended up in complete failure. 

[motonoggin]

1 minute ago, Anler said:

Everything and everywhere we have declared war on in the last 40 has ended up in complete failure. 

Yup. From Korea on it was one huge debacle after another. 

 

[Anler]

6 minutes ago, motonoggin said:

Yup. From Korea on it was one huge debacle after another. 

 

If it wasn't for snowmobiling I might consider taking snakes advice...