Vladimir Putin................

[o_soundchaser]

Originally Posted by YoMamasHouse

I don't despise the US, it got to be wealthy and powerful through hard work but unfortunately that wealth and power has lead to a bunch of ass hats being appointed to various positions in it's government because they want to take advantage of it.

Agreed!!! Bush sucks!!! WHY???? Because he will be known as THE President of the United States that lost the South West Territory to another country.

Bush is not a true American...he's committed treason and should go to prison for what he's done.
The crime - Openly letting another country to frolic into the U.S. and do as they please, while spitting on the American
citizen.

[o_sta_sirtiger]

We're not leaving until we win the war on the terrorist. Bush is Gold, fuck off.

[o_frenchtoast]

Erm, if I could just chime in here and not get flamed for where I'm from for a second...

Innoc, I think the point is that regardless of whether or not US Troops are actually spread thin, if the media portrays US troops as being spread thin, it'll be what people believe, thus giving other peoples a soapbox.

Y'know what I mean?

[o_soundchaser]

Originally Posted by STA_SirTiger

We're not leaving until we win the war on the terrorist. Bush is Gold, fuck off.

And he fails on domestic isssues. But yea...nuke Iraq, Iran and all those freaks that kill/suicide bomb in the name of Allah.

[o_sta_sirtiger]

Allah is fake, so why not.

[o_own3r]

The paranoia inspired by the media both in the UK and the USA never ceases to amaze me, also the fact people are influenced by it still suprises me. Its like people have never heard of propaganda and the fact governments pull the strings of the media. Free press is a blatent lie to cover up an obvious truth.

[o_|404|innoc-tpf-]

Originally Posted by FrenchToast

Erm, if I could just chime in here and not get flamed for where I'm from for a second...

Innoc, I think the point is that regardless of whether or not US Troops are actually spread thin, if the media portrays US troops as being spread thin, it'll be what people believe, thus giving other peoples a soapbox.

Y'know what I mean?

Well that was the point. I think people take what they hear at face value and form their opinion without researching it to determine whether they reach the same conclusion based on the information. That's why I asked if, based on what I posted, Jinx still thinks that they're spread thin.

Originally Posted by ()))Crayola))_>

Hey jackass, you asked this

'So who thinks that the possible re-emergence of the Soviet Union is not a bad thing?'

And I gave you my reply. Don't bitch when you get what you ask for.

EDIT: This at Innoc

I assumed that your comment was in line with the anti-Canada anti-US nonsense. My mistake...sorry about that. Slow your roll and save your vitriol for people who actually deserve it.

Exactly what place do you think a revived Soviet Union would put the US in since the US "needs" to be put there? The Soviet Union was unsustainable before and I can't see it being sustainable again in the manner suggested by the topic.

[o_soundchaser]

Originally Posted by ()))Crayola))_>

I don't care. Someone needs to stand up to the US and put them in their place.

Start flaming now.

OK...thanks for this post. Now I know never to take you seriously.

Your true colors have shown it all. I wouldn't wish something like what you just said on any democracy, no matter how powerful they may or may not be.

Are you pro terrorist?

Do you have sympathy for those terrorist thugs?

Did you jump up and down in glee and do a cheer when the World Trade Center Towers were knocked down by the terrorists??

Do you realise that, that same terrorist organisation wouldn't think twice about killing you and your family with a meschede or other means??

The terrorists will not stop until they kill you and me and everybody else
they consider infidels.

You keep calling me an idiot...Sounds like the table has turned to YOU as being a total dolt.

Think before you speak Oh HATER of the U.S. for whatever reason you deem
necessary to hate so much.

[o_luminous]

Originally Posted by STA_SirTiger

Allah is fake, so why not.

so is "god"

[o_soundchaser]

Originally Posted by luminous

so is "god"

god is a bunch of space aliens checking up on us from a distant galaxy by remote viewing...nothing more.

[o_backstaber]

If there was a hell beneath hell, thats where this topic has gone.

[o_yomamashouse]

Haven't you already withdrawn yourself from this thread about a page ago?

[o_deadly furby]

Originally Posted by soundchaser

god is a bunch of space aliens checking up on us from a distant galaxy by remote viewing...nothing more.

Message From The True Designers

[o_puppychow]

Originally Posted by STA_SirTiger

We're not leaving until we win the war on the terrorist. Bush is Gold, fuck off.

it's not a war that can be "won". somewhat reduced perhaps but never won. as long as ideology and technology continue to rise, game over.

[o_backstaber]

Originally Posted by YoMamasHouse

Haven't you already withdrawn yourself from this thread about a page ago?

And?

Am I not allowed to comment on the insanity?

Originally Posted by puppychow

it's not a war that can be "won". somewhat reduced perhaps but never won. as long as ideology and technology continue to rise, game over.

Yeah, everything is hopeless, let's not even try. Hell, let's all suicide since we'll all die anyway.

*cough cough*

[o_uber]

It's unbecoming to see people commit blatant and brainless trolling, but more unbecoming to see people become dissuaded and succumb to this simple and boorish trolling, whereas a simple ignore suffices.

[o_jinx]

Originally Posted by |404|Innoc-TPF-

Well that was the point. I think people take what they hear at face value and form their opinion without researching it to determine whether they reach the same conclusion based on the information. That's why I asked if, based on what I posted, Jinx still thinks that they're spread thin.

Well I did look it up, the numbers just didn't match

To provide Americans with the highest level of
national security, the Department employs nearly
1.4 million men and women on Active Duty, almost
826,000 in the Reserve and National Guard, and
approximately 720,000 civilians. Together, these men
and women work daily to protect U.S. interests around
the world.

I think the key word here is employs Innoc- not everyone in the military is an actual combat trooper. I think these numbers combine combat troops with bureaucratic, intelligence, support, and other non-combat units under military employ who are nonetheless not "civilian". Also, in the Navy, Air Force, etc. the number of support people to actual combat troops is a pretty steep ratio. Takes a lot of guys to keep run an aircraft carrier, and none of them are setting foot in Iraq. When it comes down to it, there are probably more guys pushing pens than holding guns. And I don't mean that as a criticism; those people are important. But we're talking available boots on the ground here.

Maybe we should poke around some more? I'm genuinely curious about this issue. The other thing we need to know, in addition to the total number of troops, is how many are "committed" elsewhere- how many are stationed at permanent bases around the world and in the US, and not available to be shipped out somewhere else.

Many generals and analysts have been saying this is an issue for the last couple years, I don't see why they would be making it up. Also, a lot of the troops sent out are reserve and national guard who are not meant for this kind of prolonged deployment. This is another issue that article I linked addresses.

[edit] Found some more stats on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militar...onnel_deployed

Finding it difficult to get what I'm looking for, though. :/

[o_|404|innoc-tpf-]

Originally Posted by Jinx

Well I did look it up, the numbers just didn't match

To provide Americans with the highest level of
national security, the Department employs nearly
1.4 million men and women on Active Duty, almost
826,000 in the Reserve and National Guard, and
approximately 720,000 civilians. Together, these men
and women work daily to protect U.S. interests around
the world.

I think the key word here is employs Innoc- not everyone in the military is an actual combat trooper. I think these numbers combine combat troops with bureaucratic, intelligence, support, and other non-combat units under military employ who are nonetheless not "civilian". Also, in the Navy, Air Force, etc. the number of support people to actual combat troops is a pretty steep ratio. Takes a lot of guys to keep run an aircraft carrier, and none of them are setting foot in Iraq. When it comes down to it, there are probably more guys pushing pens than holding guns. And I don't mean that as a criticism; those people are important. But we're talking available boots on the ground here.

Maybe we should poke around some more? I'm genuinely curious about this issue. The other thing we need to know, in addition to the total number of troops, is how many are "committed" elsewhere- how many are stationed at permanent bases around the world and in the US, and not available to be shipped out somewhere else.

Many generals and analysts have been saying this is an issue for the last couple years, I don't see why they would be making it up. Also, a lot of the troops sent out are reserve and national guard who are not meant for this kind of prolonged deployment. This is another issue that article I linked addresses.

Jinx, not everyone in Iraq is a combat trooper either though more are issued and are carrying weapons because they're in a combat zone. Just a reminder, I am retired military as are a few others here so I have some personal experience from which I speak relative to the military. Even in Iraq they need administrative people, supply people, and people involved with the various logistic points. The forces on aircraft carriers may not set foot on the ground in Iraq but they are involved with maintaining control of the airspace and assist with various operations supporting the ground.

I also know that troops stationed all around the world are involved with mission support in Iraq even if they are not included in the count of those actually stationed in Iraq.

With the Generals and Analysts that comment you have to be very guarded in taking what they say at face value and you also have to be clear about the context in which their comment should be placed. I think you're going to find that some of those analysts who say we're stretched thin are referring to the thin number of troops actually in Iraq expected to accomplish the assigned mission. This is related, I believe, to the surge that Bush has ordered recently.

Don't get me wrong, I think the manner in which this conflict has been prosecuted has been absolutely retarded...but then you would have screamed alot louder had I been the one calling the shots.

[o_jinx]

Originally Posted by |404|Innoc-TPF-

Jinx, not everyone in Iraq is a combat trooper either though more are issued and are carrying weapons because they're in a combat zone. Just a reminder, I am retired military as are a few others here so I have some personal experience from which I speak relative to the military. Even in Iraq they need administrative people, supply people, and people involved with the various logistic points. The forces on aircraft carriers may not set foot on the ground in Iraq but they are involved with maintaining control of the airspace and assist with various operations supporting the ground.

I also know that troops stationed all around the world are involved with mission support in Iraq even if they are not included in the count of those actually stationed in Iraq.

With the Generals and Analysts that comment you have to be very guarded in taking what they say at face value and you also have to be clear about the context in which their comment should be placed. I think you're going to find that some of those analysts who say we're stretched thin are referring to the thin number of troops actually in Iraq expected to accomplish the assigned mission. This is related, I believe, to the surge that Bush has ordered recently.

Don't get me wrong, I think the manner in which this conflict has been prosecuted has been absolutely retarded...but then you would have screamed alot louder had I been the one calling the shots.

I've heard people saying this was an issue long before Bush's "troop surge" came around.

And I finally found the stats we are looking for, I believe, on the DoD's website:
http://siadapp.dior.whs.mil/personne...ARY/Miltop.htm

It lays out not just numbers, but locations as well. Most up-to-date is Sept 2006 I think.

Total Worldwide: 1,384,96

Of that about 1,100 are deployed in the US & its territories. Add in those stationed around the globe, and it starts to look pretty "thin".

The real question, I suppose, is how many of those troops in the US and other posts are "available" for deployment to Iraq or elsewhere. Given the number of reserve and national guard troops we've had to send and keep in Iraq, I'm thinking not many...?

"Don't get me wrong, I think the manner in which this conflict has been prosecuted has been absolutely retarded...but then you would have screamed alot louder had I been the one calling the shots."
Yeah, even if you think we should be there, I don't see how anyone could deny how badly it was (or wasn't) planned out. The general in charge now is actually one of the better guys, and is trained in counter-insurgency tactics (they talk a lot about how well he did in Fiasco, he was one of the few bright spots). I'm worried that it's too little too late, though... :/ And that bit about me screaming louder if it was you in charge I don't get...?!

[o_kenny]

Originally Posted by soundchaser

god is a bunch of space aliens checking up on us from a distant galaxy by remote viewing...nothing more.

fucking aliens and their fucking cameras!!! STOP WATCHIN ME!!!!!!