[ices]

Originally Posted by FNAL ↗

I'm truly at a loss of words for your naivety. We have yet another armchair general that seems to be a master of war.

Oh you mean the rules of war?

I dont do armchair general stuff, you're a tryhard for even suggesting the FACTS are not real.

Here are the facts.

1: You will not dislodge the taliban without genocide and/or removal of Pakistan by means of nuclear weapons

2: These people know their land better than you. Your soldiers can learn the lay of the land but they are foreign soldiers in a hostile land.

3: You've dropped how many tonnes of ordnance, killed thousands of them, tried to cripple their leadership and still they persist.

Again, what means except full-on pacification of the area will remove the taliban?


Come on armchair general! You should know the answer by now!

Fucking genius.

Lets for one minute put aside the rules of war, the US launches a full scale all out attack on every living thing. You want to tell me the outcome of such an attack?

Something tells me WW3 would be the end result.

I have an interest in military history, you're telling me that by looking at the past conflicts the US has engaged in with guerrilla warfare as the main theatre, the US has won 100%?

I cannot recollect any conflict they won on such grounds.

You're weak, your argument is pathetic and your attempts at labelling me as an armchair general just solidifies your inability to poke holes in the truth I tell.

[K9Grip]

Originally Posted by ices ↗

Oh you mean the rules of war?

I dont do armchair general stuff, you're a tryhard for even suggesting the FACTS are not real.

Here are the facts.

1: You will not dislodge the taliban without genocide and/or removal of Pakistan by means of nuclear weapons

2: These people know their land better than you. Your soldiers can learn the lay of the land but they are foreign soldiers in a hostile land.

3: You've dropped how many tonnes of ordnance, killed thousands of them, tried to cripple their leadership and still they persist.

Again, what means except full-on pacification of the area will remove the taliban?


Come on armchair general! You should know the answer by now!

Fucking genius.

Lets for one minute put aside the rules of war, the US launches a full scale all out attack on every living thing. You want to tell me the outcome of such an attack?

Something tells me WW3 would be the end result.

I have an interest in military history, you're telling me that by looking at the past conflicts the US has engaged in with guerrilla warfare as the main theatre, the US has won 100%?

I cannot recollect any conflict they won on such grounds.

You're weak, your argument is pathetic and your attempts at labelling me as an armchair general just solidifies your inability to poke holes in the truth I tell.

1. ROE aka Rules of Engagement. If you are caught not following orders, you will be thrown into the bring. The Taliban has zero ROE and therefore they have to recruit idiots from all around the world to die for them. Pussy fucks.


2. "You've dropped how many tonnes of ordnance, killed thousands of them, tried to cripple their leadership and still they persist."
Little mistakes like that can often lead people to believe you are talking out of your ass. FNAL has no control on what is fired and what is not. Just as I've said before if you're going to act like every American has blood on their hands, you've got blood on your wee hands, too. The UK was fully involved in Afghanistan and Iraq and so were many NATO troops.

3. I highly doubt Russia or China would give two flying fucks about Iran. We aren't the only country to want to dismantle their government. I see China and Russia sitting back while the Iranian government is taken out. Then they and the other military powers who dismantled the government, can enjoy the spoils.

[Zambini]

Originally Posted by ices ↗

Oh you mean the rules of war?

I dont do armchair general stuff, you're a tryhard for even suggesting the FACTS are not real.

Here are the facts.

1: You will not dislodge the taliban without genocide and/or removal of Pakistan by means of nuclear weapons

2: These people know their land better than you. Your soldiers can learn the lay of the land but they are foreign soldiers in a hostile land.

3: You've dropped how many tonnes of ordnance, killed thousands of them, tried to cripple their leadership and still they persist.

Again, what means except full-on pacification of the area will remove the taliban?


Come on armchair general! You should know the answer by now!

Fucking genius.

Lets for one minute put aside the rules of war, the US launches a full scale all out attack on every living thing. You want to tell me the outcome of such an attack?

Something tells me WW3 would be the end result.

I have an interest in military history, you're telling me that by looking at the past conflicts the US has engaged in with guerrilla warfare as the main theatre, the US has won 100%?

I cannot recollect any conflict they won on such grounds.

You're weak, your argument is pathetic and your attempts at labelling me as an armchair general just solidifies your inability to poke holes in the truth I tell.

I don't know if you've noticed, but ever since the oil embargo of 1973 and the Iranian "crisis" of 1979 the USA has built a chain of military bases through out the Middle Eastern oil producing countries.

It has been a total shift from Cold War Europe (bases are still in Italy and Germany BTW) to protecting the oil supply.

There is not a war to win, but bases to be built

[TheVrist]

Ships will never be a thing of the past. infantry and land based artil will phase out before the navy.

We are already shifted to fully unmanned ops.

AND now this.

http://blogs.militarytimes.com/scoop...anned-warship/

[FNAL]

Originally Posted by ices ↗

Oh you mean the rules of war?

I dont do armchair general stuff, you're a tryhard for even suggesting the FACTS are not real.

Here are the facts.

1: You will not dislodge the taliban without genocide and/or removal of Pakistan by means of nuclear weapons

2: These people know their land better than you. Your soldiers can learn the lay of the land but they are foreign soldiers in a hostile land.

3: You've dropped how many tonnes of ordnance, killed thousands of them, tried to cripple their leadership and still they persist.

Again, what means except full-on pacification of the area will remove the taliban?


Come on armchair general! You should know the answer by now!

1) No shit, it's extremely difficult to fight an enemy with such versatility in recruitment, location, and tactics. We have certainly weakened their forces and terrorist networks, which is better than them planning another attack of whoever.

2) Oh god, if you think we just walk into their country without a clue you are so horribly mistaken. It is called intelligence and there are many many branches of it. We have HUMINT and send a human to talk with the people there, GEOINT with satellites and aerial photography and people to analyze the data, OSINT or open source intelligence IE the internet, and SIGINT which is signals intelligence, cell phones or other electronic signals. We gather all this intel and it gets disseminated throughout the commands so when boots hit the ground, we have a fucking clue where we are going and who we are looking for.

3) Refer to answer #1. From your questions, I am seriously doubting you study military history.

And I never said we would ever fully destroy the Taliban. They are a somewhat unorganized and unsanctioned armed group that wouldn't just wave the white flag. Terrorism is defined as the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to instill fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.

If all it takes to eliminate this threat, in your perspective, is dropping a few more thousands bombs then Jesus Christ, you should join the commissioned ranks and lead us to a terror free world!

[commondenom]

Originally Posted by shoelessjojackson ↗

With the way technology is progressing, warships, heavy crusiers or any kind of combat ship is a thing of the past.

are enemies just going to byte each other in the future??

[petedeamon]

This should be rather amusing.

[TwistedSisterr]

dont they know we can kill them? Oh wait, our president is muslim.... they just might have a chance to pull it off while Obama prays to Allah (? spelling?) for "guidance" on how to handle his "brothers".

[ices]

Originally Posted by K9Grip ↗

1. ROE aka Rules of Engagement. If you are caught not following orders, you will be thrown into the bring. The Taliban has zero ROE and therefore they have to recruit idiots from all around the world to die for them. Pussy fucks.

Where did I say they had ROE? I laid out the facts about the Taliban.

They persist, they recruit and they engage in guerilla warfare. Thanks for nitpicking little things that I didn't need to include.

2. "You've dropped how many tonnes of ordnance, killed thousands of them, tried to cripple their leadership and still they persist."
Little mistakes like that can often lead people to believe you are talking out of your ass. FNAL has no control on what is fired and what is not. Just as I've said before if you're going to act like every American has blood on their hands, you've got blood on your wee hands, too. The UK was fully involved in Afghanistan and Iraq and so were many NATO troops.

What is fired? Jesus christ are you on a roll in nitpicking my post because you dont like how I tell it as it is?

You dropped god knows how much ordnance, developed how many sniper kill teams and still, they are nowhere near defeated. I dont need some guy in logistics to tell me how much they've dropped, the fact of the matter is the airforce drops a lot of ordnance, you're telling me its not in the high numbers range?

3. I highly doubt Russia or China would give two flying fucks about Iran. We aren't the only country to want to dismantle their government. I see China and Russia sitting back while the Iranian government is taken out. Then they and the other military powers who dismantled the government, can enjoy the spoils.

I'm sorry but where did I mention the Russians or Chinese? Nitpicking again?

I see you Americans trying to dislodge the Iranians with the jews of israel and the Russians putting their armed forces on full alert.

Want to see where that goes? Just push along with your ignorance. NATO may be aggressive but only with American politicians calling the shots.

Just keep believing your attempts to remove Iran from the playground will not be met with aggression at a level you'd not be able to contain.

Vote Hillary for 2016 if you want to see the scenario play out. Something tells me Putin will eat your president alive.

[Shadedwill]

Do you listen to yourself when you talk? You mentioned the 'rules of war' but claimed you're not talking about the ROE, but something different. Without ROE's or Geneva Convention there are no 'Rules of War'. It's war...
I frankly stopped reading after that.
Though if I'm misconstruing your intentions you can repeat yourself in a more intelligible manner.