kengs333

Neither do you.

Before I commence with that, remind me who won the war, again...?

I'm talking Vietnam in general. What else would you call what they did there?

Funny, I don't see anything in the definition of "conventional war" that suggests "invasion of..." is a necessary component. If you care to actually read something about the Vietnam war you'd learn that there was something called the NVA. Yes, there was some fighting against irregulars, but that often was not the case.

So because it was fought in a jungle, it's not a conventional war? Nice excuse. You should try reading up on the Vietnam war before you make such retarded assertions. Yeah, and look at who controls Vietnam. Again, bodycounts me nothing if the ultimate objective isn't achieved. It was invaded, it wasn't conquered. Sorry, where's this "knife fight nonsense coming from? I never said anything about a knife fight. But whatever the case, Vietnam is a perfect example of the Americans not being able to win a war in a straight up combat situation--even though they did have the advantage in terms of air superiority. I really don't think you're in a position to be giving me "news flash[es]" on this topic.

It's not exactly a big secret that the military is producing many of these videos. Maybe you'd like to find me a video where the enemy is actually visible, or where there is indisputable evidence that incoming fire is actually directed towards Canadian soldiers. I've watched many, many videos, but all I've seen is Canadians shooting, or what sounds to be enemy fire. Like I said, it's possible that they could be staged--I never said that they were--because the videos were being produced for a specific purpose. The fact that you have to resort to this kind of nonsense just goes to show how incapable you are of making a reasoned argument. Am I to assume you are or were in the military? Is that why you have to resort to petty taunts? Why exactly would I feel envious about people in the military? I have better things to do than associate with (or wish to be a) subpar-IQed state-sanctioned killer. It's interesting that people in the military feel that they need to pat themselves on the back, congratulate themselves for being part of an institution that nobody really cares about.

Need we really engage in this kind of hostility? I'm aware of something like this being the case, but I think I was postulating hypothetically. Chile could easily field a 250,000+ of highly trained and professional soldiers and because of its military tradition, I believe that it would make a better fighting force. Europe isn't a country. I'd say that Germany, France, Great Britain, maybe even Poland could easily have taken down Iraq. Of course China would have no problem, and they'd probably have done it right with a force large enough to occupy conquered regions. But what does it matter, there is no legitimate reason for the Iraq war, none of those countries would be stupid enough to do what the Americans did.

First off, who cares what David Frum thinks? It's obvious why he thinks that way, so what makes his opinions legitimate in this matter? I doubt his creationist beliefs would come into play in his presidential decision-making, just like religious beliefs wouldn't be much of a factor for Rudy or McCain (who happens to be a Baptist) or who ever gets in. Hate to tell you, there are a lot of "creationist evangelicals" out there, or people who simply want a more seemingly honest, Christian person as president.

The problem with McCain, though, is that he's TOO OLD. He would have been what the country needed in 2000, but if he gets the nomination and wins the election, he'll be 72 years-old. As it stands he looks like his health is beginning to fail him; whether that's really the case, I don't know. Personally, I think Huckabee is the best choice for the Republicans, although his name is somewhat unpresidential. As for the Democrats, Obama should get it. Clinton is just sooooo dull and lacking in charisma it's not funny. And that forced-sobby confessional talk she gave the other day has weakness written all over it. In reality, no candidate from either of these parties should be elected. American two-party politics is a joke. It's time for a change. Real change. Not the kind of change that media and spindoctors make to look real. Because as it stands the electoral process is just a means of assuring the perpetuation of the status quo.

Please elaborate.

The proble was that the Americans were running out of cruise missles after a couple of weeks, among other things. Unless the Americans can dominate an opponent and defeat them in the short term before stockpiles run out and men and material begin to strain and breakdown faster than they can be replaced, then they've got problems.

Ding ding ding! Newer candidate for most ridiculous statement right here. Oh, yeah, I've seen those videos; many of those were produced by the CF and are little more than propaganda; absolutely no evidence of any enemy aside from gunfire which could be easily staged. You don't really believe those videos, do you? Just goes to show hoe gullible people still are when it comes to propaganda.

I'm not a 100% on what you're talking about here. I never said anything about a "knife fight". I'm talking about combat where the American technological advantage is mitigated or a non-factor, and there have been instances in the war in Afghanistan and Iraq this has occurred and the Americans didn't do all that well. Reliance on technology necessitates a loss of more fundamental combat skills, and in all likelihood, if the Americans had to engage in a protracted conventional war with a country like Russia or China, it would eventually boil down who has more men and how good fighters they would make. My guess is that the Chinese and Russians would have an edge in this respect seeing that half the American population is spoiled, pampered and obese.

There once was a war in a country called Vietnam where the Americans placed so much importance in "bodycounts". And the Americans lost. So I'm not sure you're proving anything here. Ultimately, victory or defeat will be measured in what becomes of Iraq and the Middle East, and I think history will show that this war is another loss for the Americans.

So what? Any major European country, Russia, China, India, Japan or probably even Chile could have done the same if they had the political desire to do so, and if the Americans wouldn't bully and threaten them into not doing so. Defeating the Iraqi armed forces is proof of little, which is why I'm still skeptical about the Americans being able to do all that well in a real conventional war. They seem to know it too which is why they always seem to go after petty dictatorships and failed states when in fact the greatest threats to their future global supremacy are clearly China and possibly Russia. The problem with the insurgency is not how fast they took out the Iraqi army, rather how the remnants were treated afterwards. I don't know what you're talking about. I simply have my perspective on how things are and post accordingly. If you find them "bizarre and non-sensicle" that's your problem--I tend not to understand everything political anylists with more knowledge and experience than I do have to say. That's only natural, we all can't be on the same level when it comes to knowledge and understanding. Besides, there's not one person who holds opinions that doesn't contradict themselves at times. It's so irrelevant that I'm not even sure why you'd make a point of something like that.

If they would, do you think I'd waste my time posting here? Besides, neither would yours--so what's your point?

Waning, or they're smart enough to realize that if they tone it down the Americans will leave...

I'm not sure where "ideology" factors into this. My opinion is based on what I've seen and read. Sure the American's have some of the most advanced military technology, but that can only give them the advantage in certain respects. In straight up combat, the Americans would not fare near as well as people like you would like to believe. Remember, many of the insurgents that they engage in firefights consist of men and boys who wear no body armour and have substandard weaponry. Whatever the case, the greatest deficiency is the quality of the American soldier--they are not what they used to be, that's for sure. These are people taken out of highschools from impoverished parts of the country, people who have difficulty finding work, people who need money and don't know what they want to do in life. Once they get in combat, they can't hack it, and once they finally get out of the military they have a slew of mental illnesses/emotional disorders. The whole concept of citizen soldiers may have been realistic back in 1776 or 1861, but things have changed, and expecting men from a consumeristic, liberal-democratic society to make good soldiers is ridiculous. Note, I stated that China and Russia could give the Americans a run for their money, not Iran.

So what's become of that general who was shuffled of to some remote post after he claimed that the Americans would need way more troops than they were committing? The US military seems to have problems with respecting people who know what they're talking about.

Yeah, I guess if they're dumb enough to use nukes, but in reality, I think the Russkies and Chinese could give them a good run for their money. The US hasn't fought a real war for quite some time, and lost the last one that they did. Until this fact changes, I'm of the opinion that they're all bluff.

Ron Paul can say what he want, but should he for some inexplicable reason get elected president, the reality of having to run a government and a country will basically nullify all of his "outside-the-box" thinking. It'll just be more of the same, just as it will be for whoever does get elected. It boggles the mind that Americans get so convinced every time there is an election that their electoral process will get it right this time.

This is such a non-issue, just like that hostage situation with the Royal Navy. Even if there was some shooting, neither side would use it as a pretext for war since neither side really wants a war at this point. The Americans are all bluff; their military isn't half as good as they make it out to be--one of the few things that the war in Iraq has proven.

Sun Tzu would be proud...

Yeah, just like with Iraq...

I think your posts on this subject have gone well beyond simply trying to sincerely clarify or prove a point. Call it what you will, but in the end suggesting that a few "balloon bombs" is even remotely legitimate towards proving that North Americans have been subjected to modern warfare as other regions of the world have been is pretty pathetic.