![]() |
Life in other worlds...
My buddy who relocated to Costa Rica sent me the following as part of
his holiday greetings email: "internet sessions and the "noticias" from el EEUU are depressing. I spent my afternoon in a national park that contains public schools, conservation programs, computer literacy, and foreign language--very impressive. Languages, conservation, culture, national pride--all because they have no military. This would make Dick Cheney crawl with hate. I've split for the south and the beaches. No time for downloads today. Desde Cafe de Internet Uvita, Puntarenas, CR. Pura Vida |
Life in other worlds...
Harry, do you honestly mean that we (the U.S.) would be better off with no
military? Are you serious? If not, then why did you post this? Move to Costa Rica if life is so miserable for you here... your friend did.... You are one seriously scary Democrat..... --Mike "HK" wrote in message . .. My buddy who relocated to Costa Rica sent me the following as part of his holiday greetings email: "internet sessions and the "noticias" from el EEUU are depressing. I spent my afternoon in a national park that contains public schools, conservation programs, computer literacy, and foreign language--very impressive. Languages, conservation, culture, national pride--all because they have no military. This would make Dick Cheney crawl with hate. I've split for the south and the beaches. No time for downloads today. Desde Cafe de Internet Uvita, Puntarenas, CR. Pura Vida |
Life in other worlds...
On 21-Dec-2007, "Mike" wrote: Harry, do you honestly mean that we (the U.S.) would be better off with no military? What's the difference? - we have a great military and no country. |
Life in other worlds...
Steve wrote:
On 21-Dec-2007, "Mike" wrote: Harry, do you honestly mean that we (the U.S.) would be better off with no military? What's the difference? - we have a great military and no country. No military no country. |
Life in other worlds...
Steve wrote:
On 21-Dec-2007, "Mike" wrote: Harry, do you honestly mean that we (the U.S.) would be better off with no military? What's the difference? - we have a great military and no country. Actually, all we have is a military that can take on and defeat some third, fourth or fifth-rate countries in the world. We do not have a military that could take on the Red Chinese or, in a few years, the Russians. What we don't have is the ability to defeat *some* third, fourth, or fifth-rate countries and then rebuild them into something we like, which was the fantasy of the idiots in the Bush Administration. We got our butts handed to us in Vietnam by a practically non-country armed with little more than the determination of its leaders and followers. We fought to no better than a draw in Korea. The last serious, bigtime war our military won was WW II, and that only with the help of many allies around the world. Our most successful military activity of the last 50 years was George H.W. Bush's repulsion of Iraq from Kuwait. He, unlike his son, was smart enough to know what to do, how to do it, who to involve and when to get out. |
Life in other worlds...
On Dec 22, 10:00*am, HK wrote:
Steve wrote: On 21-Dec-2007, "Mike" wrote: Harry, do you honestly mean that we (the U.S.) would be better off with no military? What's the difference? - we have a great military and no country. Actually, all we have is a military that can take on and defeat some third, fourth or fifth-rate countries in the world. We do not have a military that could take on the Red Chinese or, in a few years, the Russians. What we don't have is the ability to defeat *some* third, fourth, or fifth-rate countries and then rebuild them into something we like, which was the fantasy of the idiots in the Bush Administration. We got our butts handed to us in Vietnam by a practically non-country armed with little more than the determination of its leaders and followers. We fought to no better than a draw in Korea. The last serious, bigtime war our military won was WW II, and that only with the help of many allies around the world. Our most successful military activity of the last 50 years was George H.W. Bush's repulsion of Iraq from Kuwait. He, unlike his son, was smart enough to know what to do, how to do it, who to involve and when to get out. Oh, our military could win almost any war if lunatics like you would just let them shoot back;) |
Life in other worlds...
|
Life in other worlds...
On Dec 22, 10:17*am, HK wrote:
wrote: On Dec 22, 10:00 am, HK wrote: Steve wrote: On 21-Dec-2007, "Mike" wrote: Harry, do you honestly mean that we (the U.S.) would be better off with no military? What's the difference? - we have a great military and no country. Actually, all we have is a military that can take on and defeat some third, fourth or fifth-rate countries in the world. We do not have a military that could take on the Red Chinese or, in a few years, the Russians. What we don't have is the ability to defeat *some* third, fourth, or fifth-rate countries and then rebuild them into something we like, which was the fantasy of the idiots in the Bush Administration. We got our butts handed to us in Vietnam by a practically non-country armed with little more than the determination of its leaders and followers. We fought to no better than a draw in Korea. The last serious, bigtime war our military won was WW II, and that only with the help of many allies around the world. Our most successful military activity of the last 50 years was George H.W. Bush's repulsion of Iraq from Kuwait. He, unlike his son, was smart enough to know what to do, how to do it, who to involve and when to get out. Oh, our military could win almost any war if lunatics like you would just let them shoot back;) Yeah, that's the fantasy, you got it. There was plenty of "shooting back" in Iraq and Vietnam. Our military defeated Iraq's military. Big deal..- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Iraq is free, the surge is working, they are passing laws at least as effectively as the current congress, oh yeah, and there has been less individual attacks against innocent Americans during this administration than there was in the last... 1 + 1 is still 2. |
Life in other worlds...
On Dec 22, 10:28*am, wrote:
On Dec 22, 10:17*am, HK wrote: wrote: On Dec 22, 10:00 am, HK wrote: Steve wrote: On 21-Dec-2007, "Mike" wrote: Harry, do you honestly mean that we (the U.S.) would be better off with no military? What's the difference? - we have a great military and no country. Actually, all we have is a military that can take on and defeat some third, fourth or fifth-rate countries in the world. We do not have a military that could take on the Red Chinese or, in a few years, the Russians. What we don't have is the ability to defeat *some* third, fourth, or fifth-rate countries and then rebuild them into something we like, which was the fantasy of the idiots in the Bush Administration. We got our butts handed to us in Vietnam by a practically non-country armed with little more than the determination of its leaders and followers. We fought to no better than a draw in Korea. The last serious, bigtime war our military won was WW II, and that only with the help of many allies around the world. Our most successful military activity of the last 50 years was George H.W. Bush's repulsion of Iraq from Kuwait. He, unlike his son, was smart enough to know what to do, how to do it, who to involve and when to get out. Oh, our military could win almost any war if lunatics like you would just let them shoot back;) Yeah, that's the fantasy, you got it. There was plenty of "shooting back" in Iraq and Vietnam. Our military defeated Iraq's military. Big deal.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Iraq is free, the surge is working, they are passing laws at least as effectively as the current congress, oh yeah, and there has been less individual attacks against innocent Americans during this administration than there was in the last... 1 + 1 is still 2.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Oh yeah, the Taliban did not have a predicted "surge" this summer, they were much too busy dodging special forces to do much of anything else, and we are addressing other threats like Iran and Korea, instead of selling them our technology like the last admin... oh well, we all know how that went;) |
Life in other worlds...
|
Life in other worlds...
"HK" wrote in message . .. We got our butts handed to us in Vietnam by a practically non-country armed with little more than the determination of its leaders and followers. We fought to no better than a draw in Korea. Both were limited wars. We weren't out to "win" either one. Eisboch |
Life in other worlds...
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message . .. We got our butts handed to us in Vietnam by a practically non-country armed with little more than the determination of its leaders and followers. We fought to no better than a draw in Korea. Both were limited wars. We weren't out to "win" either one. Eisboch Yes, well, we weren't about to use nuclear weapons. That's all that was left. |
Life in other worlds...
"HK" wrote in message . .. Steve wrote: On 21-Dec-2007, "Mike" wrote: Harry, do you honestly mean that we (the U.S.) would be better off with no military? What's the difference? - we have a great military and no country. Actually, all we have is a military that can take on and defeat some third, fourth or fifth-rate countries in the world. We do not have a military that could take on the Red Chinese or, in a few years, the Russians. What we don't have is the ability to defeat *some* third, fourth, or fifth-rate countries and then rebuild them into something we like, which was the fantasy of the idiots in the Bush Administration. We got our butts handed to us in Vietnam by a practically non-country armed with little more than the determination of its leaders and followers. We fought to no better than a draw in Korea. The last serious, bigtime war our military won was WW II, and that only with the help of many allies around the world. Our most successful military activity of the last 50 years was George H.W. Bush's repulsion of Iraq from Kuwait. He, unlike his son, was smart enough to know what to do, how to do it, who to involve and when to get out. Actually the military did not lose Vietnam. Was a Democrat POTUS and a Democrat Congress that lost Vietnam. |
Life in other worlds...
|
Life in other worlds...
On Dec 22, 1:42*pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"HK" wrote in message . .. wrote: On Dec 22, 10:17 am, HK wrote: wrote: On Dec 22, 10:00 am, HK wrote: Steve wrote: On 21-Dec-2007, "Mike" wrote: Harry, do you honestly mean that we (the U.S.) would be better off with no military? What's the difference? - we have a great military and no country. Actually, all we have is a military that can take on and defeat some third, fourth or fifth-rate countries in the world. We do not have a military that could take on the Red Chinese or, in a few years, the Russians. What we don't have is the ability to defeat *some* third, fourth, or fifth-rate countries and then rebuild them into something we like, which was the fantasy of the idiots in the Bush Administration. We got our butts handed to us in Vietnam by a practically non-country armed with little more than the determination of its leaders and followers. We fought to no better than a draw in Korea. The last serious, bigtime war our military won was WW II, and that only with the help of many allies around the world. Our most successful military activity of the last 50 years was George H.W. Bush's repulsion of Iraq from Kuwait. He, unlike his son, was smart enough to know what to do, how to do it, who to involve and when to get out. Oh, our military could win almost any war if lunatics like you would just let them shoot back;) Yeah, that's the fantasy, you got it. There was plenty of "shooting back" in Iraq and Vietnam. Our military defeated Iraq's military. Big deal.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Iraq is free, the surge is working, they are passing laws at least as effectively as the current congress, oh yeah, and there has been less individual attacks against innocent Americans during this administration than there was in the last... 1 + 1 is still 2. Cripes. You sound like one of the Bush Admin apologists. This line of yours is incredible: " less individual attacks against innocent Americans during this *administration than there was in the last... 1 + 1 is still 2." 3000+ innocent Americans died on 9-11. That was during *this* administration. Lets count 9/11 as one attack. *The last one had an attack on the WTC, the USS Cole, a bunch of embassies, and probably a few others I can not recall at the moment.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Harry has comprehension problems when it comes to ideology, and he calls me simple...;) |
Life in other worlds...
Calif Bill wrote:
"HK" wrote in message . .. Steve wrote: On 21-Dec-2007, "Mike" wrote: Harry, do you honestly mean that we (the U.S.) would be better off with no military? What's the difference? - we have a great military and no country. Actually, all we have is a military that can take on and defeat some third, fourth or fifth-rate countries in the world. We do not have a military that could take on the Red Chinese or, in a few years, the Russians. What we don't have is the ability to defeat *some* third, fourth, or fifth-rate countries and then rebuild them into something we like, which was the fantasy of the idiots in the Bush Administration. We got our butts handed to us in Vietnam by a practically non-country armed with little more than the determination of its leaders and followers. We fought to no better than a draw in Korea. The last serious, bigtime war our military won was WW II, and that only with the help of many allies around the world. Our most successful military activity of the last 50 years was George H.W. Bush's repulsion of Iraq from Kuwait. He, unlike his son, was smart enough to know what to do, how to do it, who to involve and when to get out. Actually the military did not lose Vietnam. Was a Democrat POTUS and a Democrat Congress that lost Vietnam. The serious part of the war in Vietnam lasted from 1965 to April 1975. There was a Democratic president until January 1969, and a Republican president until the end of the war. Despite the hundreds of thousands of troops we had in Vietnam, and the 55,000 deaths our nation and their families suffered, we had our butts handed to us militarily and politically. Perhaps if we hadn't been so eager to support a corrupt, right-wing dictatorship in South Vietnam, it might have turned out differently. Of course, we support a corrupt, right-wing dictatorship in Cuba, too. And in Iran, too - remember the Shah? And of course, we supported a right-wing dictator in Iraq, aka Saddam. Maybe in the future we'll support the people somewhere against the right-wing dictators... :} |
Life in other worlds...
On 22-Dec-2007, HK wrote: Cripes. You sound like one of the Bush Admin apologists. This line of yours is incredible: " less individual attacks against innocent Americans during this administration than there was in the last... 1 + 1 is still 2." 3000+ innocent Americans died on 9-11. That was during *this* administration. It isn't Bush's fault alone - it's the soft belly bedwetting "American" public that demands gentle battle. You hear the same kind of crap from the scum in congress, daily. The Iraq war, which never should have happened, was nevertheless over in 3-1/2 weeks. What has been going on for the subsequent 4 years is attempting to civilize the savages while ****ing hundreds of billions of dollars down the ****ter so the enemy will have better infrastrucre when the US leaves in 2090. By then, the average Walmart voter will not remember all the excuses about why we went there in the first place. |
Life in other worlds...
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:42:39 -0800, Calif Bill wrote:
Lets count 9/11 as one attack. The last one had an attack on the WTC, the USS Cole, a bunch of embassies, and probably a few others I can not recall at the moment. Well, if we are talking embassies, let's not forget the 2002 bombing in Karachi. Then there's: The 2003 bombings Riyadh. The 2004 kidnapping of Paul Johnson (an American). Again, in 2004, the storming of the consulate in Jeddah. In 2005, bombings of the Radisson, Grand Hyatt and the Days Inn all in Amman. Comparing terrorist attacks under Bush or Clinton's watch, really is silly. We all know, or should know, Reagan holds the record. |
Life in other worlds...
On Dec 22, 3:51*pm, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:42:39 -0800, Calif Bill wrote: Lets count 9/11 as one attack. *The last one had an attack on the WTC, the USS Cole, a bunch of embassies, and probably a few others I can not recall at the moment. Well, if we are talking embassies, let's not forget the 2002 bombing in Karachi. Then there's: The 2003 bombings Riyadh. The 2004 kidnapping of Paul Johnson (an American). Again, in 2004, the storming of the consulate in Jeddah. In 2005, bombings of the Radisson, Grand Hyatt and the Days Inn all in Amman. Comparing terrorist attacks under Bush or Clinton's watch, really is silly. *We all know, or should know, Reagan holds the record. Who do you suppose holds the record for threads based on imaginary communications?? |
Life in other worlds...
On 22-Dec-2007, HK wrote: Yes, well, we weren't about to use nuclear weapons. That's all that was left. There is a broad range of offensive options between Meals-on-wheels and nukes. What's wrong with nukes, anyway - the Japs got the message real fast............... |
Life in other worlds...
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 21:33:54 +0000, Steve wrote:
There is a broad range of offensive options between Meals-on-wheels and nukes. What's wrong with nukes, anyway - the Japs got the message real fast............... Nukes in a guerrilla war? Yup, that would work. |
Life in other worlds...
JG2U wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:35:04 -0500, HK wrote: 3000+ innocent Americans died on 9-11. That was during *this* administration. That blood is not on GW's hands. You know who wears it. It happened on Bush's watch, and we still don't know what he was told, intel-wise. We know what he did, and that was nothing. For better or for worse, and obviously for worse, Bush has been captain of the ship of state since January 2001. When something goes horribly wrong on a ship, who do you think is held responsible? I do believe Bush should take some responsibility for the 9-11 attacks, but he never will. He has been an absentee president since the day he took office. |
Life in other worlds...
Steve wrote:
On 22-Dec-2007, HK wrote: Cripes. You sound like one of the Bush Admin apologists. This line of yours is incredible: " less individual attacks against innocent Americans during this administration than there was in the last... 1 + 1 is still 2." 3000+ innocent Americans died on 9-11. That was during *this* administration. It isn't Bush's fault alone - it's the soft belly bedwetting "American" public that demands gentle battle. You hear the same kind of crap from the scum in congress, daily. The Iraq war, which never should have happened, was nevertheless over in 3-1/2 weeks. What has been going on for the subsequent 4 years is attempting to civilize the savages while ****ing hundreds of billions of dollars down the ****ter so the enemy will have better infrastrucre when the US leaves in 2090. By then, the average Walmart voter will not remember all the excuses about why we went there in the first place. The war against Iraq and its aftermath is squarely the fault of Bush. |
Life in other worlds...
On Dec 22, 3:57*pm, wrote:
Who do you suppose holds the record for threads based on imaginary communications??- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Ask me, I know. Is it the same person who lives an imaginary life in rec.boats? |
Life in other worlds...
On Dec 23, 7:35*am, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote: On Dec 22, 3:57*pm, wrote: Who do you suppose holds the record for threads based on imaginary communications??- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Ask me, I know. Is it the same person who lives an imaginary life in rec.boats? And constantly spews insults and trolls on the level of an 8 yo. I think the last time I misspelled someones name to insult them, I still had recess and nap at school. I get the feeling that this is a very scared little man... |
Life in other worlds...
"HK" wrote in message . .. Calif Bill wrote: "HK" wrote in message . .. Steve wrote: On 21-Dec-2007, "Mike" wrote: Harry, do you honestly mean that we (the U.S.) would be better off with no military? What's the difference? - we have a great military and no country. Actually, all we have is a military that can take on and defeat some third, fourth or fifth-rate countries in the world. We do not have a military that could take on the Red Chinese or, in a few years, the Russians. What we don't have is the ability to defeat *some* third, fourth, or fifth-rate countries and then rebuild them into something we like, which was the fantasy of the idiots in the Bush Administration. We got our butts handed to us in Vietnam by a practically non-country armed with little more than the determination of its leaders and followers. We fought to no better than a draw in Korea. The last serious, bigtime war our military won was WW II, and that only with the help of many allies around the world. Our most successful military activity of the last 50 years was George H.W. Bush's repulsion of Iraq from Kuwait. He, unlike his son, was smart enough to know what to do, how to do it, who to involve and when to get out. Actually the military did not lose Vietnam. Was a Democrat POTUS and a Democrat Congress that lost Vietnam. The serious part of the war in Vietnam lasted from 1965 to April 1975. There was a Democratic president until January 1969, and a Republican president until the end of the war. Despite the hundreds of thousands of troops we had in Vietnam, and the 55,000 deaths our nation and their families suffered, we had our butts handed to us militarily and politically. Perhaps if we hadn't been so eager to support a corrupt, right-wing dictatorship in South Vietnam, it might have turned out differently. We never last a major battle. Was the politicos micro managing the war into a no win situation. We were not allowed to be the aggressors, only defenders. And by the time Nixon got in, we had politically lost the war. And which party was the one setting up the right-wingers? And which party use to be a party of the working people, the blue collar workers? |
Life in other worlds...
Calif Bill wrote:
We never last a major battle. Was the politicos micro managing the war into a no win situation. We were not allowed to be the aggressors, only defenders. And by the time Nixon got in, we had politically lost the war. And which party was the one setting up the right-wingers? And which party use to be a party of the working people, the blue collar workers? The north vietnamese whipped our butts. Stop rationalizing. |
Life in other worlds...
"HK" wrote in message . .. Calif Bill wrote: We never last a major battle. Was the politicos micro managing the war into a no win situation. We were not allowed to be the aggressors, only defenders. And by the time Nixon got in, we had politically lost the war. And which party was the one setting up the right-wingers? And which party use to be a party of the working people, the blue collar workers? The north vietnamese whipped our butts. Stop rationalizing. That's simply not true Harry. Not to open old wounds, but virtually every combat vet that survived Vietnam came home frustrated that we fought a limited, restricted war and were not allowed to "win". Like the Korean Conflict, a tightrope was walked with fear of starting WWIII and Armageddon. South Korea was invaded by the North and the UN had a mandate to respond. The US bore the major responsibility. Vietnam was a similar situation. Invaded by the North, we were obligated to defend without triggering a full scale war with China or the Soviet Union. Interestingly it was a lesson future POTUS's didn't forget. Warfare fought by the US since Vietnam has been no holds bared and the results are evident. The US military and the technology it possesses is second to none in the world. It just isn't designed to be a police force or nation builder. I just watched the Charlie Wilson story on the History Channel last night. Interesting guy and details of his activities that were never made public were presented. Talk about having your ass handed to you .... the Soviet Union was stomping on Afghanistan big time, slaughtering over a million defenseless people until we provided US made weapons (Stinger missile) instead of giving them surplus Russian made equipment. Once the Stingers arrived, the Soviets went home with their tail between their legs, and they finally dissolved completely as a government. That hasn't happened to us. Eisboch |
Life in other worlds...
Eisboch wrote:
Interestingly it was a lesson future POTUS's didn't forget. Warfare fought by the US since Vietnam has been no holds bared and the results are evident. The US military and the technology it possesses is second to none in the world. It just isn't designed to be a police force or nation builder. The military forces of the United States have not faced a serious adversary in more than 30 years. We may have the most expensive technology, but there is at least one country on this earth that would fight us to a draw in a war on or near its turf, and we wouldn't be able to throw nukes, because they could toss them right back. |
Life in other worlds...
JimH wrote:
"HK" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: Interestingly it was a lesson future POTUS's didn't forget. Warfare fought by the US since Vietnam has been no holds bared and the results are evident. The US military and the technology it possesses is second to none in the world. It just isn't designed to be a police force or nation builder. The military forces of the United States have not faced a serious adversary in more than 30 years. And that is a bad thing? No, of course not, but in the fact of that, making outrageous claims about the abilities of forces not tested against serious adversaries seems a bit absurd. |
Life in other worlds...
"HK" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: Interestingly it was a lesson future POTUS's didn't forget. Warfare fought by the US since Vietnam has been no holds bared and the results are evident. The US military and the technology it possesses is second to none in the world. It just isn't designed to be a police force or nation builder. The military forces of the United States have not faced a serious adversary in more than 30 years. We may have the most expensive technology, but there is at least one country on this earth that would fight us to a draw in a war on or near its turf, and we wouldn't be able to throw nukes, because they could toss them right back. Fortunately for all of us, cool heads have prevailed. The closest we came was the Cuban Missile Crisis. Eisboch |
Life in other worlds...
"HK" wrote in message . .. JimH wrote: "HK" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: Interestingly it was a lesson future POTUS's didn't forget. Warfare fought by the US since Vietnam has been no holds bared and the results are evident. The US military and the technology it possesses is second to none in the world. It just isn't designed to be a police force or nation builder. The military forces of the United States have not faced a serious adversary in more than 30 years. And that is a bad thing? No, of course not, but in the fact of that, making outrageous claims about the abilities of forces not tested against serious adversaries seems a bit absurd. Fortunately, there are many gainfully employed people making sure that any contest won't be one. Technology has been tested in the hands of respective allies of major powers. US war making technology always wins, hands down. And, believe me, we haven't shown our full hand. Eisboch |
Life in other worlds...
"JimH" wrote in message ... "HK" wrote in message . .. JimH wrote: "HK" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: Interestingly it was a lesson future POTUS's didn't forget. Warfare fought by the US since Vietnam has been no holds bared and the results are evident. The US military and the technology it possesses is second to none in the world. It just isn't designed to be a police force or nation builder. The military forces of the United States have not faced a serious adversary in more than 30 years. And that is a bad thing? No, of course not, but in the fact of that, making outrageous claims about the abilities of forces not tested against serious adversaries seems a bit absurd. I am not an expert on this subject and neither are you. However, I have no problem relying on the strength of our military regardless of the opponent. I am not an expert either but I've had the opportunity to witness some of the yet to be used technology and future capabilities being developed that is not readily available to the public. I have a lot of faith in our ability to defend ourselves against anyone, unless it's one of Tom's relatives from wherever. Eisboch |
Life in other worlds...
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 17:16:49 -0500, Eisboch wrote:
Technology has been tested in the hands of respective allies of major powers. US war making technology always wins, hands down. You know, I'm not sure about that. It wasn't our technology that won WWII. It was our incredible industrial strength. For the most part, the Germans had better weapons systems, just not enough of them. I'll agree our technology is amazing, but, personally, I hope we never have to find out if it's enough. |
Life in other worlds...
wrote in message ... On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 17:16:49 -0500, Eisboch wrote: Technology has been tested in the hands of respective allies of major powers. US war making technology always wins, hands down. You know, I'm not sure about that. It wasn't our technology that won WWII. It was our incredible industrial strength. For the most part, the Germans had better weapons systems, just not enough of them. I'll agree our technology is amazing, but, personally, I hope we never have to find out if it's enough. I agree. The Germans were more technically advanced. But that was 60 something years ago. Things have changed. Eisboch |
Life in other worlds...
|
Life in other worlds...
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 11:14:17 -0500, BAR wrote:
wrote: On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 17:16:49 -0500, Eisboch wrote: Technology has been tested in the hands of respective allies of major powers. US war making technology always wins, hands down. You know, I'm not sure about that. It wasn't our technology that won WWII. It was our incredible industrial strength. For the most part, the Germans had better weapons systems, just not enough of them. I'll agree our technology is amazing, but, personally, I hope we never have to find out if it's enough. Our ability to pick a target, a shed, a tent, an individual vehicle moving or standing still and destroy it puts fear into the enemy and breaks their will to fight. Especially when we can take out a tank from 3000 meters, at night. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:18 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com