StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Ted wrote:

anarchistbunny wrote:

Ted wrote: Look you asshole, would you want a country that is infinately more powerful than you to come in, bomb the entire infastructure, cause 100,000's of civilian casualties,

First of all, what fantasy world do you live in, ALL WARS HAVE CIVILIAN CASUALTIES! ALL! War isn't some pretty little thing like you see in the movies, people die.
Second, alot of those will be because Saddams using them like friggin' human shields.

No one wants a war to happen in their own back yard.

So if you were under the rule of a dictator, who doesn't allow you to speak out for what you believe in, staves you while he builds palaces for him self, and kills your family and friends, you wouldn't want someone to come in and forcibly take him from power.

A reason why they dont want war is because of those self-same civilian casualties.

There were casualties in Afganistan as well, yet they were dancing in the streets at the death of the Taliban.

That is well known to logical thinkers, and intelligent people, which category, it seems, you do not fall into.

That may be so, but niether do you.

No wonder the personell in the USAF are so ridiculed and made fun of, you actually DO live up to the jokes about you.

Charming, did you not notice the other two people that posted against you? No, you just chose the one that didn't support themselves, create some bullshit, and flame him.

1) You didn't reply to my post, you went off in a tangent, by dealing with liberation, I just said war.

You said that the Iraq people didn't want to go to war, I said that we don't know if the Iraqis don't want to go to war, the cost of speaking out is death, I didn't click the quote button, but I was responding to your claims.
EDIT: cleaned up the quotes a little, also a war with Iraq was Desert Storm, what Bush wants is a liberation, but thats not going to come without force.

2) Only you and Wicked Pilot replied to my post.

1: 1)

You didn't reply to my post, you went off in a tangent, by dealing with liberation, I just said war.

2: Montcalm also supported my reply to you.

No one wants a war to happen in their own back yard.

Yeah, the French were REALLY pissed when Allied troops marched through Paris, and you should have seen how horrified southern slaves were as the Union armies forced Confederate capitulation....

Thirdfain wrote:

No one wants a war to happen in their own back yard.

Yeah, the French were REALLY pissed when Allied troops marched through Paris, and you should have seen how horrified southern slaves were as the Union armies forced Confederate capitulation....

Don't forget the Jews in the liberated concetration camps.

Thirdfain wrote:

No one wants a war to happen in their own back yard.

Yeah, the French were REALLY pissed when Allied troops marched through Paris, and you should have seen how horrified southern slaves were as the Union armies forced Confederate capitulation....

The French, by your statement, were then also happy, joyously so, when the Germans goose-stepped through the arc de triumphe and set up a puppet government in Vichy France.

Thirdfain wrote:

No one wants a war to happen in their own back yard.

Yeah, the French were REALLY pissed when Allied troops marched through Paris

Also something i heard recently when the allied invaded France on June 6th 1944 apparently some French assholes were shooting at us, i guess they did`nt want to be helped.

The French, by your statement, were then also happy, joyously so, when the Germans goose-stepped through the arc de triumphe and set up a puppet government in Vichy France.

Were you born stupid, or did it take a little blunt trauma to get you where you are today? The Nazi invasion intended to subsume the French nation into the Third Reich and turn large portions of the French populace into slaves or small piles of ashes. The allied armies intended to return France to home rule and ensure democratic government. If you haven't figured it out thus far, there are huge differences between invasion with intent to conquer, and invasion with intent to emancipate.

Please, consider carefully before posting. You sound like a dumbass.

Don't forget the Jews in the liberated concetration camps.

And the South Koreans, back in the early 50s.

Ted wrote:...cause 100,000's of civilian casualties...

HAHAHAHAHAH!

Hundreds of thousands? This isn't Dresden.

I keep hearing that number, but I am unsure where they get that. I mean, we have surgical strikes now, not carpet bombing, and collateral damage isnt as bad as it used to be.

Enforcer Talen wrote:I keep hearing that number, but I am unsure where they get that. I mean, we have surgical strikes now, not carpet bombing, and collateral damage isnt as bad as it used to be.

But isn't Saddam camping civilians around likely bombing targets?

hundreds of thousands?

I keep hearing that number, but I am unsure where they get that.

-hmmph.- Traditional number-twisting, the art of manipulating statistics. there isn't a political organization in the world which doesn't come up with shaky numbers and then toute them across the media as being from God's own mouth.

In any case, 100,000 thousand deaths is a pretty small price to pay to put an end to opression which, if unchecked, may last for decades into the future. Saddam's oppressive regime may cause all too many people to become mere numbers in some coroner's notebook if it is given more time to assert it's will over Iraq and the Middle East.

yeah, kid in my law class said stuff like that. 500k dead? fine. it gets a psycho away from power.

it sounds brutal, but I suppose thats how the game is played.

Wicked Pilot wrote:And unlike you, we actually contribute to the world. We liberate countries, we keep dictators at bay, we airlift food and medicine to devestated countries, we rescue civilians in harsh terrain, we contribute to the advancement of science, we provide GPS to all the world's travelers, and etc.

....Repeatedly prove that allied troops are in more danger from the USAF than from the enemy....

....Send cablecars full of tourists to their doom while giving the guilty flight crew nothing more than a slap on the wrist....


The British lost more troops to the USAF than to the Iraqis during DS. Similarly the Canadians lost more troops to the USAF than to the Afghan locals during the Great Taliban Renaming.

Enlightenment wrote:

Wicked Pilot wrote:And unlike you, we actually contribute to the world. We liberate countries, we keep dictators at bay, we airlift food and medicine to devestated countries, we rescue civilians in harsh terrain, we contribute to the advancement of science, we provide GPS to all the world's travelers, and etc.

....Repeatedly prove that allied troops are in more danger from the USAF than from the enemy....

....Send cablecars full of tourists to their doom while giving the guilty flight crew nothing more than a slap on the wrist....


The British lost more troops to the USAF than to the Iraqis during DS. Similarly the Canadians lost more troops to the USAF than to the Afghan locals during the Great Taliban Renaming.

And if what they said on the news is true that would the USAF administration guilty of everyone of these event,giving drugs to the pilots

Enlightenment wrote: ....Send cablecars full of tourists to their doom while giving the guilty flight crew nothing more than a slap on the wrist....

The fucking cable car WASN'T ON THE PILOT'S MAP! How the fuck do
you expect the pilots to be able to see a 2 inch cable strung across
a valley when they're moving at 600 MPH?

Enlightenment wrote:

Wicked Pilot wrote:And unlike you, we actually contribute to the world. We liberate countries, we keep dictators at bay, we airlift food and medicine to devestated countries, we rescue civilians in harsh terrain, we contribute to the advancement of science, we provide GPS to all the world's travelers, and etc.

....Repeatedly prove that allied troops are in more danger from the USAF than from the enemy....


The British lost more troops to the USAF than to the Iraqis during DS. Similarly the Canadians lost more troops to the USAF than to the Afghan locals during the Great Taliban Renaming.

It's called volume of shoots fired. The reason why USAF causes more military causualties then the enemy is:

1 The technological superiorty of the troops aganist shitty enemy foces.

2 The USAF releases more bombs and thus will the same error rate but larger amounts amounts of casualties due a larger amount of bombs released.

Enlightenment wrote:

Wicked Pilot wrote:And unlike you, we actually contribute to the world. We liberate countries, we keep dictators at bay, we airlift food and medicine to devestated countries, we rescue civilians in harsh terrain, we contribute to the advancement of science, we provide GPS to all the world's travelers, and etc.

....Repeatedly prove that allied troops are in more danger from the USAF than from the enemy....

....Send cablecars full of tourists to their doom while giving the guilty flight crew nothing more than a slap on the wrist....


The British lost more troops to the USAF than to the Iraqis during DS. Similarly the Canadians lost more troops to the USAF than to the Afghan locals during the Great Taliban Renaming.

And if it wasn't for American air attacks destroying and shattering Iraqi and Afghan units, British Armor would have suffered ten times the losses, while the Canadian forces would have been wiped out as they landed.

MKSheppard wrote:

Enlightenment wrote: ....Send cablecars full of tourists to their doom while giving the guilty flight crew nothing more than a slap on the wrist....

The fucking cable car WASN'T ON THE PILOT'S MAP! How the fuck do
you expect the pilots to be able to see a 2 inch cable strung across
a valley when they're moving at 600 MPH?

Its funny when it happened they said on the news they knew the cable was there and they were playing top gun under it,so don`t say they did not know it was there.

MKSheppard wrote:The fucking cable car WASN'T ON THE PILOT'S MAP! How the fuck do you expect the pilots to be able to see a 2 inch cable strung across
a valley when they're moving at 600 MPH?

The minimum allowed flight altitude in that area was 300 meters. The aircraft hit the cable (unfortunately, not killing the crew) at an altitude of 360 feet. The presense or absense of the cable on the charts is quite irrelevant as the plane shouln't have been flying that low in the first place.

The fact that American forces are literally allowed to get away with murder--and worse, that many if not most Americans view this as perfectly acceptable--is one of the reasons that much of the world now regard Americans as imperialist scum.

Sea Skimmer wrote:And if it wasn't for American air attacks destroying and shattering Iraqi and Afghan units, British Armor would have suffered ten times the losses, while the Canadian forces would have been wiped out as they landed.

If not for the US we wouldn't have bothered to show up in the first place. We tend to have enough sense not to fight wars that can't be won.

Got any more stupid things to say?

Enlightenment wrote: If not for the US we wouldn't have bothered to show up in the first place. We tend to have enough sense not to fight wars that can't be won.

Got any more stupid things to say?

No, you've done that enough, thank you.

Do I see the Taliban in charge of Afghanistan right now?

Wow, where is this secret Taliban underground government?

Captain Lennox wrote:It's called volume of shoots fired. The reason why USAF causes more military causualties then the enemy is:

1. That they send out information-overloaded, hotdogging, pilots doped up on speed who just want to shoot without paying much attention to what they're shooting at.

2. There is no reason for the pilots to give a damn what they hit because the punishments for friendly-fire against foreigners--and even the US Army--are so slight that they can be ignored.

MKSheppard wrote:Do I see the Taliban in charge of Afghanistan right now?

Are you even going to attempt to address my points or are you just going to sit there like a busted sewer pipe and spew irrelevancies all over the place?

Enlightenment wrote: Are you even going to attempt to address my points or are you just going to sit there like a busted sewer pipe and spew irrelevancies all over the place?

Your fucking point, UNenlightened was that you said:

We tend to have enough sense not to fight wars that can't be won.

[sarcasm]Wow, we really lost big time in Afghanistan![/sarcasm]

Enlightenment wrote:

MKSheppard wrote:Do I see the Taliban in charge of Afghanistan right now?

Are you even going to attempt to address my points or are you just going to sit there like a busted sewer pipe and spew irrelevancies all over the place?

Enlightenment: We tend to have enough sense not to fight wars that can't be won.

Sheppard: Do I see the Taliban in charge of Afghanistan right now?


How does this not address your point?