Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Who has strongest armies of world's area ??!!

KristaBoy
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2016 6:54:06 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Here it's both in Defense and attack and with both reserve and ordinary forces.

1.Israel
2.Iran
3.N.Korea
4.Japan
5.China
6.USA
7.Russia
8.Brazil
9.S.Korea
10.Saudi Arabia
11.UK
12.France
13.Turkey
14.Mexico
15.Greece

My list.

N.Koreas reserve is 4,000,000 troops and can wars in whole Asia if they wanted to.

No nuclears involved in top ranks.

With nuclears are Russia and USA strongest.

Sign you're list right here.
KristaBoy
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2016 7:25:24 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
I will Sweden takes down their 38,800(with 650 more soldier are news) and out with Navy and only Army and Air Force bring down to 13,500 how are central and eastern Europe forms. Czech, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuiana, Slovakia, Montenegro, Bosnia, Macedonia with under 20,000 troops and Sweden needed to the same.

13,500 Armed Forces is great stuff for Sweden. 10,000 troops in Army and 3500 personnal in Air Force.

23 F-35 fighters is right or 63 Jas Gripen E/F how is Swedish productions. Big strenght is right to.

6000 soldiers in reserves.
KristaBoy
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2016 7:56:05 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
6000 soldiers in reserves. Right buisness.

7000 in Army. 3000+2450 in Air Force and Navy.

12,450 in total for Swedish Armed Forces.

Just what I respond to Sweden.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2016 9:25:45 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
The US has the 6th strongest military in the world? Who would've thought?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
KristaBoy
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2016 9:29:27 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/8/2016 9:25:45 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
The US has the 6th strongest military in the world? Who would've thought?

Stronger in Defense than attack way America.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2016 9:59:15 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/8/2016 9:29:27 PM, KristaBoy wrote:
At 5/8/2016 9:25:45 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
The US has the 6th strongest military in the world? Who would've thought?

Stronger in Defense than attack way America.

The US has a larger air force than the countries in 2nd and 3rd place combined. US military aircraft are either state-of-the-art or really old aircraft which were state-of-the-art in their day and have been modernised in recent years. The F-22 is the best fighter aircraft on the planet and the F-35's avionics reportedly detected a missile launch 1,200 miles away. The USAF is more or less the only air force on the plane with serious stealth capabilities.
On the "World Naval Heirarchy" the United States is listed as the only country in Category 1, which means that a country has capabilities for "multiple and sustained power projection missions globally". The US Navy does not have the most ships of any navy, but in terms of sheer tonnage it is #1. Out of the 37 active aircraft carriers in the world, 10 belong to the US Navy. The USS Zumwalt is the most stealthy surface ship of its size in the world; it has a radar cross section of a small fishing boat despite being the size of a battleship; it also will soon be able to field railguns (that is, guns whose ammunition is propelled by electricity instead of chemical explosives). The US Navy has already fielded a ship with a working laser weapon system.
The Department of Defense has a military budget larger than the countries in 2nd and 3rd place combined.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2016 10:14:56 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Israel has God on its side, but in terms of military might it is far from the strongest country in the world. Not even close.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
KristaBoy
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2016 9:01:45 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Sweden needs to break away Naval Power and then have 9500 in south half and 10,000 man in north half and then 2500 in Air Force. And total they will force 22,000 like Georgia in Asia before Russia go till them and fight war and with NATO Georgia won the war > > Russia with 30,000 troops and 8000 special forces and NATO given 3000 troops in service to Georgia and they won to Georgia 25,000 vs 38,000 man. 63 Jas Gripen E/F is enough to 22,000 armies. Plan A are 60-70 E/F so I maybe right with 63 pcs.
MasonicSlayer
Posts: 2,386
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2016 10:54:31 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Funny list for funny guy make laugh more with North Korea no doubt big numbers but no money no gas means no kimchi go across the border Kim's u mid a
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 10:12:19 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/8/2016 6:54:06 PM, KristaBoy wrote:
Here it's both in Defense and attack and with both reserve and ordinary forces.

1.Israel
2.Iran
3.N.Korea
4.Japan
5.China
6.USA
7.Russia
8.Brazil
9.S.Korea
10.Saudi Arabia
11.UK
12.France
13.Turkey
14.Mexico
15.Greece

My list.

N.Koreas reserve is 4,000,000 troops and can wars in whole Asia if they wanted to.

No nuclears involved in top ranks.

With nuclears are Russia and USA strongest.

Sign you're list right here.

The United States army is the 3rd largest in numbers and we spend the most amount of money on our military by a long shot, and somehow we are placed below a nation that is not even allowed to have an army larger than a few hundred thousand soldiers that can only be used for defense? What kind of ranking system is this?
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,385
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 10:25:41 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/8/2016 6:54:06 PM, KristaBoy wrote:
Here it's both in Defense and attack and with both reserve and ordinary forces.

1.Israel
2.Iran
3.N.Korea
4.Japan
5.China
6.USA
7.Russia
8.Brazil
9.S.Korea
10.Saudi Arabia
11.UK
12.France
13.Turkey
14.Mexico
15.Greece

My list.

N.Koreas reserve is 4,000,000 troops and can wars in whole Asia if they wanted to.

No nuclears involved in top ranks.

With nuclears are Russia and USA strongest.

Sign you're list right here.

How does Iran have a better army than America?
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2016 6:21:35 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
The strongest army is the one that doesn't have rules of engagement and fights to win unconditionaly
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Hiu
Posts: 1,015
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 12:41:06 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 5/8/2016 6:54:06 PM, KristaBoy wrote:
Here it's both in Defense and attack and with both reserve and ordinary forces.

1.Israel
2.Iran
3.N.Korea
4.Japan
5.China
6.USA
7.Russia
8.Brazil
9.S.Korea
10.Saudi Arabia
11.UK
12.France
13.Turkey
14.Mexico
15.Greece

My list.

N.Koreas reserve is 4,000,000 troops and can wars in whole Asia if they wanted to.

No nuclears involved in top ranks.

With nuclears are Russia and USA strongest.

Sign you're list right here.

Your list is bogus....

U.S. has the strongest military in the world.....We spend more on military and defense than aerospace. Israel cannot hold a candle to us hell, they barely can handle the Palestinians....Let us put it this way, if the U.S wanted to invade and take over Israel we could.
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 9:12:07 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Having the largest most equipped military in the world is utterly helpless and weak if the leadership wont use it. A smaller military that doesn't tie its hands with ridiculous impediments and rules could destroy a larger military in an instant. A fighting force is only as good as the people who lead it. End of story.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Hiu
Posts: 1,015
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2016 12:34:46 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 9:12:07 PM, sadolite wrote:
Having the largest most equipped military in the world is utterly helpless and weak if the leadership wont use it. A smaller military that doesn't tie its hands with ridiculous impediments and rules could destroy a larger military in an instant. A fighting force is only as good as the people who lead it. End of story.

Because the U.S. does not see itself as an imperialistic country as it has once did. Again, if the U.S. wanted to take over Israel we could despite them using the same weapons as U.S.
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2016 4:15:12 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/17/2016 12:34:46 AM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/16/2016 9:12:07 PM, sadolite wrote:
Having the largest most equipped military in the world is utterly helpless and weak if the leadership wont use it. A smaller military that doesn't tie its hands with ridiculous impediments and rules could destroy a larger military in an instant. A fighting force is only as good as the people who lead it. End of story.

Because the U.S. does not see itself as an imperialistic country as it has once did. Again, if the U.S. wanted to take over Israel we could despite them using the same weapons as U.S.

Woulda coulda shoulda. A smaller army could to. I seriously doubt the current leadership could stomach the loss of life. Isreal would hand us our asses with the current leadership. It's to afraid of civilian casualties and mired in rules of engagement.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Hiu
Posts: 1,015
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2016 10:30:45 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/17/2016 4:15:12 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/17/2016 12:34:46 AM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/16/2016 9:12:07 PM, sadolite wrote:
Having the largest most equipped military in the world is utterly helpless and weak if the leadership wont use it. A smaller military that doesn't tie its hands with ridiculous impediments and rules could destroy a larger military in an instant. A fighting force is only as good as the people who lead it. End of story.

Because the U.S. does not see itself as an imperialistic country as it has once did. Again, if the U.S. wanted to take over Israel we could despite them using the same weapons as U.S.

Woulda coulda shoulda. A smaller army could to. I seriously doubt the current leadership could stomach the loss of life. Isreal would hand us our asses with the current leadership. It's to afraid of civilian casualties and mired in rules of engagement.

If Israel posed an imminent threat yes I believe this administration would. The Cowboy attitude of Bush would probably react the same way, however innocent lives being killed is something we should avoid. This is why the world hates us is because we have taken innocent lives.
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2016 3:00:01 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/17/2016 10:30:45 PM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/17/2016 4:15:12 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/17/2016 12:34:46 AM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/16/2016 9:12:07 PM, sadolite wrote:
Having the largest most equipped military in the world is utterly helpless and weak if the leadership wont use it. A smaller military that doesn't tie its hands with ridiculous impediments and rules could destroy a larger military in an instant. A fighting force is only as good as the people who lead it. End of story.

Because the U.S. does not see itself as an imperialistic country as it has once did. Again, if the U.S. wanted to take over Israel we could despite them using the same weapons as U.S.

Woulda coulda shoulda. A smaller army could to. I seriously doubt the current leadership could stomach the loss of life. Isreal would hand us our asses with the current leadership. It's to afraid of civilian casualties and mired in rules of engagement.

If Israel posed an imminent threat yes I believe this administration would. The Cowboy attitude of Bush would probably react the same way, however innocent lives being killed is something we should avoid. This is why the world hates us is because we have taken innocent lives.

The key to winning any war is killing the civilian.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Hiu
Posts: 1,015
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2016 5:07:01 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/18/2016 3:00:01 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/17/2016 10:30:45 PM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/17/2016 4:15:12 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/17/2016 12:34:46 AM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/16/2016 9:12:07 PM, sadolite wrote:
Having the largest most equipped military in the world is utterly helpless and weak if the leadership wont use it. A smaller military that doesn't tie its hands with ridiculous impediments and rules could destroy a larger military in an instant. A fighting force is only as good as the people who lead it. End of story.

Because the U.S. does not see itself as an imperialistic country as it has once did. Again, if the U.S. wanted to take over Israel we could despite them using the same weapons as U.S.

Woulda coulda shoulda. A smaller army could to. I seriously doubt the current leadership could stomach the loss of life. Isreal would hand us our asses with the current leadership. It's to afraid of civilian casualties and mired in rules of engagement.

If Israel posed an imminent threat yes I believe this administration would. The Cowboy attitude of Bush would probably react the same way, however innocent lives being killed is something we should avoid. This is why the world hates us is because we have taken innocent lives.

The key to winning any war is killing the civilian.

But it's unethical. We don't live in a society where imperialism and land grabbing is a common thing. That was a thing of the past. Of course, indiscriminate killing worked for generals like Genghis Khan who thought brute force by the sword and bow would be an effective tool to land grab. Indeed it worked because he was brilliant, however history remembers the great Khan as a tyrant. However we live in a different time where we need to be ethical, even in war. Indiscriminate killing just to get to the enemy not only is counter-productive, it makes us go from being the protagonist, to the antagonist.
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2016 10:21:46 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/18/2016 5:07:01 AM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/18/2016 3:00:01 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/17/2016 10:30:45 PM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/17/2016 4:15:12 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/17/2016 12:34:46 AM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/16/2016 9:12:07 PM, sadolite wrote:
Having the largest most equipped military in the world is utterly helpless and weak if the leadership wont use it. A smaller military that doesn't tie its hands with ridiculous impediments and rules could destroy a larger military in an instant. A fighting force is only as good as the people who lead it. End of story.

Because the U.S. does not see itself as an imperialistic country as it has once did. Again, if the U.S. wanted to take over Israel we could despite them using the same weapons as U.S.

Woulda coulda shoulda. A smaller army could to. I seriously doubt the current leadership could stomach the loss of life. Isreal would hand us our asses with the current leadership. It's to afraid of civilian casualties and mired in rules of engagement.

If Israel posed an imminent threat yes I believe this administration would. The Cowboy attitude of Bush would probably react the same way, however innocent lives being killed is something we should avoid. This is why the world hates us is because we have taken innocent lives.

The key to winning any war is killing the civilian.

But it's unethical. We don't live in a society where imperialism and land grabbing is a common thing. That was a thing of the past. Of course, indiscriminate killing worked for generals like Genghis Khan who thought brute force by the sword and bow would be an effective tool to land grab. Indeed it worked because he was brilliant, however history remembers the great Khan as a tyrant. However we live in a different time where we need to be ethical, even in war. Indiscriminate killing just to get to the enemy not only is counter-productive, it makes us go from being the protagonist, to the antagonist.

Since when was war ethical? You either fight to win by any means necessary or don't waste good mens lives fighting a war that can never be won by tying their hands with dumb azz rules of engagement like ethics and collateral damage. War is for doing only two things, killing people and destroying infrastructure to demoralize and make the fighting enemy and the civilian population that supports it give up and surrender unconditionally. You worry about ethics after they surrender.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Hiu
Posts: 1,015
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2016 4:28:24 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/18/2016 10:21:46 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/18/2016 5:07:01 AM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/18/2016 3:00:01 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/17/2016 10:30:45 PM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/17/2016 4:15:12 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/17/2016 12:34:46 AM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/16/2016 9:12:07 PM, sadolite wrote:
Having the largest most equipped military in the world is utterly helpless and weak if the leadership wont use it. A smaller military that doesn't tie its hands with ridiculous impediments and rules could destroy a larger military in an instant. A fighting force is only as good as the people who lead it. End of story.

Because the U.S. does not see itself as an imperialistic country as it has once did. Again, if the U.S. wanted to take over Israel we could despite them using the same weapons as U.S.

Woulda coulda shoulda. A smaller army could to. I seriously doubt the current leadership could stomach the loss of life. Isreal would hand us our asses with the current leadership. It's to afraid of civilian casualties and mired in rules of engagement.

If Israel posed an imminent threat yes I believe this administration would. The Cowboy attitude of Bush would probably react the same way, however innocent lives being killed is something we should avoid. This is why the world hates us is because we have taken innocent lives.

The key to winning any war is killing the civilian.

But it's unethical. We don't live in a society where imperialism and land grabbing is a common thing. That was a thing of the past. Of course, indiscriminate killing worked for generals like Genghis Khan who thought brute force by the sword and bow would be an effective tool to land grab. Indeed it worked because he was brilliant, however history remembers the great Khan as a tyrant. However we live in a different time where we need to be ethical, even in war. Indiscriminate killing just to get to the enemy not only is counter-productive, it makes us go from being the protagonist, to the antagonist.

Since when was war ethical? You either fight to win by any means necessary or don't waste good mens lives fighting a war that can never be won by tying their hands with dumb azz rules of engagement like ethics and collateral damage. War is for doing only two things, killing people and destroying infrastructure to demoralize and make the fighting enemy and the civilian population that supports it give up and surrender unconditionally. You worry about ethics after they surrender.

War can be used in terms of defense. Take the Islamic concept of Jihad for instance. Militarily, the only time generals like Salah Al-Din took Jerusalem back was because of the Saracens being expelled from Jerusalem. Was it brutal? Yes. Did the Salah-Al-Din kill innocents such as the non-combatants of the Jihad? No. In fact he allowed the people to either stay or be expelled peacefully and many were safely guarded by the new occupiers. My point is, you do not need to destroy everything in the infrastructure.

Once you start killing innocent people to destroy your enemy, you're only going to create more enemies because of you indiscriminate killings.
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2016 11:18:11 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/19/2016 4:28:24 PM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/18/2016 10:21:46 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/18/2016 5:07:01 AM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/18/2016 3:00:01 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/17/2016 10:30:45 PM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/17/2016 4:15:12 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/17/2016 12:34:46 AM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/16/2016 9:12:07 PM, sadolite wrote:
Having the largest most equipped military in the world is utterly helpless and weak if the leadership wont use it. A smaller military that doesn't tie its hands with ridiculous impediments and rules could destroy a larger military in an instant. A fighting force is only as good as the people who lead it. End of story.

Because the U.S. does not see itself as an imperialistic country as it has once did. Again, if the U.S. wanted to take over Israel we could despite them using the same weapons as U.S.

Woulda coulda shoulda. A smaller army could to. I seriously doubt the current leadership could stomach the loss of life. Isreal would hand us our asses with the current leadership. It's to afraid of civilian casualties and mired in rules of engagement.

If Israel posed an imminent threat yes I believe this administration would. The Cowboy attitude of Bush would probably react the same way, however innocent lives being killed is something we should avoid. This is why the world hates us is because we have taken innocent lives.

The key to winning any war is killing the civilian.

But it's unethical. We don't live in a society where imperialism and land grabbing is a common thing. That was a thing of the past. Of course, indiscriminate killing worked for generals like Genghis Khan who thought brute force by the sword and bow would be an effective tool to land grab. Indeed it worked because he was brilliant, however history remembers the great Khan as a tyrant. However we live in a different time where we need to be ethical, even in war. Indiscriminate killing just to get to the enemy not only is counter-productive, it makes us go from being the protagonist, to the antagonist.

Since when was war ethical? You either fight to win by any means necessary or don't waste good mens lives fighting a war that can never be won by tying their hands with dumb azz rules of engagement like ethics and collateral damage. War is for doing only two things, killing people and destroying infrastructure to demoralize and make the fighting enemy and the civilian population that supports it give up and surrender unconditionally. You worry about ethics after they surrender.

War can be used in terms of defense. Take the Islamic concept of Jihad for instance. Militarily, the only time generals like Salah Al-Din took Jerusalem back was because of the Saracens being expelled from Jerusalem. Was it brutal? Yes. Did the Salah-Al-Din kill innocents such as the non-combatants of the Jihad? No. In fact he allowed the people to either stay or be expelled peacefully and many were safely guarded by the new occupiers. My point is, you do not need to destroy everything in the infrastructure.

Once you start killing innocent people to destroy your enemy, you're only going to create more enemies because of you indiscriminate killings.

Oh you mean like now with the middle east and all those wars where we tried to limit civilian deaths and they hate us more now than ever.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Hiu
Posts: 1,015
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2016 11:59:36 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/19/2016 11:18:11 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/19/2016 4:28:24 PM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/18/2016 10:21:46 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/18/2016 5:07:01 AM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/18/2016 3:00:01 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/17/2016 10:30:45 PM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/17/2016 4:15:12 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/17/2016 12:34:46 AM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/16/2016 9:12:07 PM, sadolite wrote:
Having the largest most equipped military in the world is utterly helpless and weak if the leadership wont use it. A smaller military that doesn't tie its hands with ridiculous impediments and rules could destroy a larger military in an instant. A fighting force is only as good as the people who lead it. End of story.

Because the U.S. does not see itself as an imperialistic country as it has once did. Again, if the U.S. wanted to take over Israel we could despite them using the same weapons as U.S.

Woulda coulda shoulda. A smaller army could to. I seriously doubt the current leadership could stomach the loss of life. Isreal would hand us our asses with the current leadership. It's to afraid of civilian casualties and mired in rules of engagement.

If Israel posed an imminent threat yes I believe this administration would. The Cowboy attitude of Bush would probably react the same way, however innocent lives being killed is something we should avoid. This is why the world hates us is because we have taken innocent lives.

The key to winning any war is killing the civilian.

But it's unethical. We don't live in a society where imperialism and land grabbing is a common thing. That was a thing of the past. Of course, indiscriminate killing worked for generals like Genghis Khan who thought brute force by the sword and bow would be an effective tool to land grab. Indeed it worked because he was brilliant, however history remembers the great Khan as a tyrant. However we live in a different time where we need to be ethical, even in war. Indiscriminate killing just to get to the enemy not only is counter-productive, it makes us go from being the protagonist, to the antagonist.

Since when was war ethical? You either fight to win by any means necessary or don't waste good mens lives fighting a war that can never be won by tying their hands with dumb azz rules of engagement like ethics and collateral damage. War is for doing only two things, killing people and destroying infrastructure to demoralize and make the fighting enemy and the civilian population that supports it give up and surrender unconditionally. You worry about ethics after they surrender.

War can be used in terms of defense. Take the Islamic concept of Jihad for instance. Militarily, the only time generals like Salah Al-Din took Jerusalem back was because of the Saracens being expelled from Jerusalem. Was it brutal? Yes. Did the Salah-Al-Din kill innocents such as the non-combatants of the Jihad? No. In fact he allowed the people to either stay or be expelled peacefully and many were safely guarded by the new occupiers. My point is, you do not need to destroy everything in the infrastructure.

Once you start killing innocent people to destroy your enemy, you're only going to create more enemies because of you indiscriminate killings.

Oh you mean like now with the middle east and all those wars where we tried to limit civilian deaths and they hate us more now than ever.

It's because of the foreign policies along with our indiscriminate killings of innocents labeling them as "collateral damage." I blame this on Bush.
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2016 1:51:08 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/19/2016 11:59:36 PM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/19/2016 11:18:11 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/19/2016 4:28:24 PM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/18/2016 10:21:46 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/18/2016 5:07:01 AM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/18/2016 3:00:01 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/17/2016 10:30:45 PM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/17/2016 4:15:12 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/17/2016 12:34:46 AM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/16/2016 9:12:07 PM, sadolite wrote:
Having the largest most equipped military in the world is utterly helpless and weak if the leadership wont use it. A smaller military that doesn't tie its hands with ridiculous impediments and rules could destroy a larger military in an instant. A fighting force is only as good as the people who lead it. End of story.

Because the U.S. does not see itself as an imperialistic country as it has once did. Again, if the U.S. wanted to take over Israel we could despite them using the same weapons as U.S.

Woulda coulda shoulda. A smaller army could to. I seriously doubt the current leadership could stomach the loss of life. Isreal would hand us our asses with the current leadership. It's to afraid of civilian casualties and mired in rules of engagement.

If Israel posed an imminent threat yes I believe this administration would. The Cowboy attitude of Bush would probably react the same way, however innocent lives being killed is something we should avoid. This is why the world hates us is because we have taken innocent lives.

The key to winning any war is killing the civilian.

But it's unethical. We don't live in a society where imperialism and land grabbing is a common thing. That was a thing of the past. Of course, indiscriminate killing worked for generals like Genghis Khan who thought brute force by the sword and bow would be an effective tool to land grab. Indeed it worked because he was brilliant, however history remembers the great Khan as a tyrant. However we live in a different time where we need to be ethical, even in war. Indiscriminate killing just to get to the enemy not only is counter-productive, it makes us go from being the protagonist, to the antagonist.

Since when was war ethical? You either fight to win by any means necessary or don't waste good mens lives fighting a war that can never be won by tying their hands with dumb azz rules of engagement like ethics and collateral damage. War is for doing only two things, killing people and destroying infrastructure to demoralize and make the fighting enemy and the civilian population that supports it give up and surrender unconditionally. You worry about ethics after they surrender.

War can be used in terms of defense. Take the Islamic concept of Jihad for instance. Militarily, the only time generals like Salah Al-Din took Jerusalem back was because of the Saracens being expelled from Jerusalem. Was it brutal? Yes. Did the Salah-Al-Din kill innocents such as the non-combatants of the Jihad? No. In fact he allowed the people to either stay or be expelled peacefully and many were safely guarded by the new occupiers. My point is, you do not need to destroy everything in the infrastructure.

Once you start killing innocent people to destroy your enemy, you're only going to create more enemies because of you indiscriminate killings.

Oh you mean like now with the middle east and all those wars where we tried to limit civilian deaths and they hate us more now than ever.


It's because of the foreign policies along with our indiscriminate killings of innocents labeling them as "collateral damage." I blame this on Bush.

"It's Bush's fault" BwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahah
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Hiu
Posts: 1,015
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2016 3:35:45 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/20/2016 1:51:08 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/19/2016 11:59:36 PM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/19/2016 11:18:11 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/19/2016 4:28:24 PM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/18/2016 10:21:46 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/18/2016 5:07:01 AM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/18/2016 3:00:01 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/17/2016 10:30:45 PM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/17/2016 4:15:12 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/17/2016 12:34:46 AM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/16/2016 9:12:07 PM, sadolite wrote:
Having the largest most equipped military in the world is utterly helpless and weak if the leadership wont use it. A smaller military that doesn't tie its hands with ridiculous impediments and rules could destroy a larger military in an instant. A fighting force is only as good as the people who lead it. End of story.

Because the U.S. does not see itself as an imperialistic country as it has once did. Again, if the U.S. wanted to take over Israel we could despite them using the same weapons as U.S.

Woulda coulda shoulda. A smaller army could to. I seriously doubt the current leadership could stomach the loss of life. Isreal would hand us our asses with the current leadership. It's to afraid of civilian casualties and mired in rules of engagement.

If Israel posed an imminent threat yes I believe this administration would. The Cowboy attitude of Bush would probably react the same way, however innocent lives being killed is something we should avoid. This is why the world hates us is because we have taken innocent lives.

The key to winning any war is killing the civilian.

But it's unethical. We don't live in a society where imperialism and land grabbing is a common thing. That was a thing of the past. Of course, indiscriminate killing worked for generals like Genghis Khan who thought brute force by the sword and bow would be an effective tool to land grab. Indeed it worked because he was brilliant, however history remembers the great Khan as a tyrant. However we live in a different time where we need to be ethical, even in war. Indiscriminate killing just to get to the enemy not only is counter-productive, it makes us go from being the protagonist, to the antagonist.

Since when was war ethical? You either fight to win by any means necessary or don't waste good mens lives fighting a war that can never be won by tying their hands with dumb azz rules of engagement like ethics and collateral damage. War is for doing only two things, killing people and destroying infrastructure to demoralize and make the fighting enemy and the civilian population that supports it give up and surrender unconditionally. You worry about ethics after they surrender.

War can be used in terms of defense. Take the Islamic concept of Jihad for instance. Militarily, the only time generals like Salah Al-Din took Jerusalem back was because of the Saracens being expelled from Jerusalem. Was it brutal? Yes. Did the Salah-Al-Din kill innocents such as the non-combatants of the Jihad? No. In fact he allowed the people to either stay or be expelled peacefully and many were safely guarded by the new occupiers. My point is, you do not need to destroy everything in the infrastructure.

Once you start killing innocent people to destroy your enemy, you're only going to create more enemies because of you indiscriminate killings.

Oh you mean like now with the middle east and all those wars where we tried to limit civilian deaths and they hate us more now than ever.


It's because of the foreign policies along with our indiscriminate killings of innocents labeling them as "collateral damage." I blame this on Bush.

"It's Bush's fault" BwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahah

http://www.cnn.com...
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2016 11:15:48 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/20/2016 3:35:45 AM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/20/2016 1:51:08 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/19/2016 11:59:36 PM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/19/2016 11:18:11 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/19/2016 4:28:24 PM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/18/2016 10:21:46 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/18/2016 5:07:01 AM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/18/2016 3:00:01 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/17/2016 10:30:45 PM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/17/2016 4:15:12 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/17/2016 12:34:46 AM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/16/2016 9:12:07 PM, sadolite wrote:
Having the largest most equipped military in the world is utterly helpless and weak if the leadership wont use it. A smaller military that doesn't tie its hands with ridiculous impediments and rules could destroy a larger military in an instant. A fighting force is only as good as the people who lead it. End of story.

Because the U.S. does not see itself as an imperialistic country as it has once did. Again, if the U.S. wanted to take over Israel we could despite them using the same weapons as U.S.

Woulda coulda shoulda. A smaller army could to. I seriously doubt the current leadership could stomach the loss of life. Isreal would hand us our asses with the current leadership. It's to afraid of civilian casualties and mired in rules of engagement.

If Israel posed an imminent threat yes I believe this administration would. The Cowboy attitude of Bush would probably react the same way, however innocent lives being killed is something we should avoid. This is why the world hates us is because we have taken innocent lives.

The key to winning any war is killing the civilian.

But it's unethical. We don't live in a society where imperialism and land grabbing is a common thing. That was a thing of the past. Of course, indiscriminate killing worked for generals like Genghis Khan who thought brute force by the sword and bow would be an effective tool to land grab. Indeed it worked because he was brilliant, however history remembers the great Khan as a tyrant. However we live in a different time where we need to be ethical, even in war. Indiscriminate killing just to get to the enemy not only is counter-productive, it makes us go from being the protagonist, to the antagonist.

Since when was war ethical? You either fight to win by any means necessary or don't waste good mens lives fighting a war that can never be won by tying their hands with dumb azz rules of engagement like ethics and collateral damage. War is for doing only two things, killing people and destroying infrastructure to demoralize and make the fighting enemy and the civilian population that supports it give up and surrender unconditionally. You worry about ethics after they surrender.

War can be used in terms of defense. Take the Islamic concept of Jihad for instance. Militarily, the only time generals like Salah Al-Din took Jerusalem back was because of the Saracens being expelled from Jerusalem. Was it brutal? Yes. Did the Salah-Al-Din kill innocents such as the non-combatants of the Jihad? No. In fact he allowed the people to either stay or be expelled peacefully and many were safely guarded by the new occupiers. My point is, you do not need to destroy everything in the infrastructure.

Once you start killing innocent people to destroy your enemy, you're only going to create more enemies because of you indiscriminate killings.

Oh you mean like now with the middle east and all those wars where we tried to limit civilian deaths and they hate us more now than ever.


It's because of the foreign policies along with our indiscriminate killings of innocents labeling them as "collateral damage." I blame this on Bush.

"It's Bush's fault" BwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahah


http://www.cnn.com...

ah yes a CNN report
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Hiu
Posts: 1,015
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2016 11:06:25 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/20/2016 11:15:48 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/20/2016 3:35:45 AM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/20/2016 1:51:08 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/19/2016 11:59:36 PM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/19/2016 11:18:11 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/19/2016 4:28:24 PM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/18/2016 10:21:46 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/18/2016 5:07:01 AM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/18/2016 3:00:01 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/17/2016 10:30:45 PM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/17/2016 4:15:12 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/17/2016 12:34:46 AM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/16/2016 9:12:07 PM, sadolite wrote:
Having the largest most equipped military in the world is utterly helpless and weak if the leadership wont use it. A smaller military that doesn't tie its hands with ridiculous impediments and rules could destroy a larger military in an instant. A fighting force is only as good as the people who lead it. End of story.

Because the U.S. does not see itself as an imperialistic country as it has once did. Again, if the U.S. wanted to take over Israel we could despite them using the same weapons as U.S.

Woulda coulda shoulda. A smaller army could to. I seriously doubt the current leadership could stomach the loss of life. Isreal would hand us our asses with the current leadership. It's to afraid of civilian casualties and mired in rules of engagement.

If Israel posed an imminent threat yes I believe this administration would. The Cowboy attitude of Bush would probably react the same way, however innocent lives being killed is something we should avoid. This is why the world hates us is because we have taken innocent lives.

The key to winning any war is killing the civilian.

But it's unethical. We don't live in a society where imperialism and land grabbing is a common thing. That was a thing of the past. Of course, indiscriminate killing worked for generals like Genghis Khan who thought brute force by the sword and bow would be an effective tool to land grab. Indeed it worked because he was brilliant, however history remembers the great Khan as a tyrant. However we live in a different time where we need to be ethical, even in war. Indiscriminate killing just to get to the enemy not only is counter-productive, it makes us go from being the protagonist, to the antagonist.

Since when was war ethical? You either fight to win by any means necessary or don't waste good mens lives fighting a war that can never be won by tying their hands with dumb azz rules of engagement like ethics and collateral damage. War is for doing only two things, killing people and destroying infrastructure to demoralize and make the fighting enemy and the civilian population that supports it give up and surrender unconditionally. You worry about ethics after they surrender.

War can be used in terms of defense. Take the Islamic concept of Jihad for instance. Militarily, the only time generals like Salah Al-Din took Jerusalem back was because of the Saracens being expelled from Jerusalem. Was it brutal? Yes. Did the Salah-Al-Din kill innocents such as the non-combatants of the Jihad? No. In fact he allowed the people to either stay or be expelled peacefully and many were safely guarded by the new occupiers. My point is, you do not need to destroy everything in the infrastructure.

Once you start killing innocent people to destroy your enemy, you're only going to create more enemies because of you indiscriminate killings.

Oh you mean like now with the middle east and all those wars where we tried to limit civilian deaths and they hate us more now than ever.


It's because of the foreign policies along with our indiscriminate killings of innocents labeling them as "collateral damage." I blame this on Bush.

"It's Bush's fault" BwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahah


http://www.cnn.com...

ah yes a CNN report

you have nothing better
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 4:50:06 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/20/2016 11:06:25 PM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/20/2016 11:15:48 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/20/2016 3:35:45 AM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/20/2016 1:51:08 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/19/2016 11:59:36 PM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/19/2016 11:18:11 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/19/2016 4:28:24 PM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/18/2016 10:21:46 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/18/2016 5:07:01 AM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/18/2016 3:00:01 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/17/2016 10:30:45 PM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/17/2016 4:15:12 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/17/2016 12:34:46 AM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/16/2016 9:12:07 PM, sadolite wrote:
Having the largest most equipped military in the world is utterly helpless and weak if the leadership wont use it. A smaller military that doesn't tie its hands with ridiculous impediments and rules could destroy a larger military in an instant. A fighting force is only as good as the people who lead it. End of story.

Because the U.S. does not see itself as an imperialistic country as it has once did. Again, if the U.S. wanted to take over Israel we could despite them using the same weapons as U.S.

Woulda coulda shoulda. A smaller army could to. I seriously doubt the current leadership could stomach the loss of life. Isreal would hand us our asses with the current leadership. It's to afraid of civilian casualties and mired in rules of engagement.

If Israel posed an imminent threat yes I believe this administration would. The Cowboy attitude of Bush would probably react the same way, however innocent lives being killed is something we should avoid. This is why the world hates us is because we have taken innocent lives.

The key to winning any war is killing the civilian.

But it's unethical. We don't live in a society where imperialism and land grabbing is a common thing. That was a thing of the past. Of course, indiscriminate killing worked for generals like Genghis Khan who thought brute force by the sword and bow would be an effective tool to land grab. Indeed it worked because he was brilliant, however history remembers the great Khan as a tyrant. However we live in a different time where we need to be ethical, even in war. Indiscriminate killing just to get to the enemy not only is counter-productive, it makes us go from being the protagonist, to the antagonist.

Since when was war ethical? You either fight to win by any means necessary or don't waste good mens lives fighting a war that can never be won by tying their hands with dumb azz rules of engagement like ethics and collateral damage. War is for doing only two things, killing people and destroying infrastructure to demoralize and make the fighting enemy and the civilian population that supports it give up and surrender unconditionally. You worry about ethics after they surrender.

War can be used in terms of defense. Take the Islamic concept of Jihad for instance. Militarily, the only time generals like Salah Al-Din took Jerusalem back was because of the Saracens being expelled from Jerusalem. Was it brutal? Yes. Did the Salah-Al-Din kill innocents such as the non-combatants of the Jihad? No. In fact he allowed the people to either stay or be expelled peacefully and many were safely guarded by the new occupiers. My point is, you do not need to destroy everything in the infrastructure.

Once you start killing innocent people to destroy your enemy, you're only going to create more enemies because of you indiscriminate killings.

Oh you mean like now with the middle east and all those wars where we tried to limit civilian deaths and they hate us more now than ever.


It's because of the foreign policies along with our indiscriminate killings of innocents labeling them as "collateral damage." I blame this on Bush.

"It's Bush's fault" BwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahah


http://www.cnn.com...

ah yes a CNN report

you have nothing better

Ya I do it's called history books and how wars were won.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Hiu
Posts: 1,015
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 9:47:54 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 4:50:06 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/20/2016 11:06:25 PM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/20/2016 11:15:48 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/20/2016 3:35:45 AM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/20/2016 1:51:08 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/19/2016 11:59:36 PM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/19/2016 11:18:11 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/19/2016 4:28:24 PM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/18/2016 10:21:46 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/18/2016 5:07:01 AM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/18/2016 3:00:01 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/17/2016 10:30:45 PM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/17/2016 4:15:12 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/17/2016 12:34:46 AM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/16/2016 9:12:07 PM, sadolite wrote:
Having the largest most equipped military in the world is utterly helpless and weak if the leadership wont use it. A smaller military that doesn't tie its hands with ridiculous impediments and rules could destroy a larger military in an instant. A fighting force is only as good as the people who lead it. End of story.

Because the U.S. does not see itself as an imperialistic country as it has once did. Again, if the U.S. wanted to take over Israel we could despite them using the same weapons as U.S.

Woulda coulda shoulda. A smaller army could to. I seriously doubt the current leadership could stomach the loss of life. Isreal would hand us our asses with the current leadership. It's to afraid of civilian casualties and mired in rules of engagement.

If Israel posed an imminent threat yes I believe this administration would. The Cowboy attitude of Bush would probably react the same way, however innocent lives being killed is something we should avoid. This is why the world hates us is because we have taken innocent lives.

The key to winning any war is killing the civilian.

But it's unethical. We don't live in a society where imperialism and land grabbing is a common thing. That was a thing of the past. Of course, indiscriminate killing worked for generals like Genghis Khan who thought brute force by the sword and bow would be an effective tool to land grab. Indeed it worked because he was brilliant, however history remembers the great Khan as a tyrant. However we live in a different time where we need to be ethical, even in war. Indiscriminate killing just to get to the enemy not only is counter-productive, it makes us go from being the protagonist, to the antagonist.

Since when was war ethical? You either fight to win by any means necessary or don't waste good mens lives fighting a war that can never be won by tying their hands with dumb azz rules of engagement like ethics and collateral damage. War is for doing only two things, killing people and destroying infrastructure to demoralize and make the fighting enemy and the civilian population that supports it give up and surrender unconditionally. You worry about ethics after they surrender.

War can be used in terms of defense. Take the Islamic concept of Jihad for instance. Militarily, the only time generals like Salah Al-Din took Jerusalem back was because of the Saracens being expelled from Jerusalem. Was it brutal? Yes. Did the Salah-Al-Din kill innocents such as the non-combatants of the Jihad? No. In fact he allowed the people to either stay or be expelled peacefully and many were safely guarded by the new occupiers. My point is, you do not need to destroy everything in the infrastructure.

Once you start killing innocent people to destroy your enemy, you're only going to create more enemies because of you indiscriminate killings.

Oh you mean like now with the middle east and all those wars where we tried to limit civilian deaths and they hate us more now than ever.


It's because of the foreign policies along with our indiscriminate killings of innocents labeling them as "collateral damage." I blame this on Bush.

"It's Bush's fault" BwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahah


http://www.cnn.com...

ah yes a CNN report

you have nothing better

Ya I do it's called history books and how wars were won.

History books written by whom and according to whom? Aren't we discussing contemporary war?
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 3:16:12 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 9:47:54 AM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/21/2016 4:50:06 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/20/2016 11:06:25 PM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/20/2016 11:15:48 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/20/2016 3:35:45 AM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/20/2016 1:51:08 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/19/2016 11:59:36 PM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/19/2016 11:18:11 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/19/2016 4:28:24 PM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/18/2016 10:21:46 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/18/2016 5:07:01 AM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/18/2016 3:00:01 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/17/2016 10:30:45 PM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/17/2016 4:15:12 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/17/2016 12:34:46 AM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/16/2016 9:12:07 PM, sadolite wrote:
Having the largest most equipped military in the world is utterly helpless and weak if the leadership wont use it. A smaller military that doesn't tie its hands with ridiculous impediments and rules could destroy a larger military in an instant. A fighting force is only as good as the people who lead it. End of story.

Because the U.S. does not see itself as an imperialistic country as it has once did. Again, if the U.S. wanted to take over Israel we could despite them using the same weapons as U.S.

Woulda coulda shoulda. A smaller army could to. I seriously doubt the current leadership could stomach the loss of life. Isreal would hand us our asses with the current leadership. It's to afraid of civilian casualties and mired in rules of engagement.

If Israel posed an imminent threat yes I believe this administration would. The Cowboy attitude of Bush would probably react the same way, however innocent lives being killed is something we should avoid. This is why the world hates us is because we have taken innocent lives.

The key to winning any war is killing the civilian.

But it's unethical. We don't live in a society where imperialism and land grabbing is a common thing. That was a thing of the past. Of course, indiscriminate killing worked for generals like Genghis Khan who thought brute force by the sword and bow would be an effective tool to land grab. Indeed it worked because he was brilliant, however history remembers the great Khan as a tyrant. However we live in a different time where we need to be ethical, even in war. Indiscriminate killing just to get to the enemy not only is counter-productive, it makes us go from being the protagonist, to the antagonist.

Since when was war ethical? You either fight to win by any means necessary or don't waste good mens lives fighting a war that can never be won by tying their hands with dumb azz rules of engagement like ethics and collateral damage. War is for doing only two things, killing people and destroying infrastructure to demoralize and make the fighting enemy and the civilian population that supports it give up and surrender unconditionally. You worry about ethics after they surrender.

War can be used in terms of defense. Take the Islamic concept of Jihad for instance. Militarily, the only time generals like Salah Al-Din took Jerusalem back was because of the Saracens being expelled from Jerusalem. Was it brutal? Yes. Did the Salah-Al-Din kill innocents such as the non-combatants of the Jihad? No. In fact he allowed the people to either stay or be expelled peacefully and many were safely guarded by the new occupiers. My point is, you do not need to destroy everything in the infrastructure.

Once you start killing innocent people to destroy your enemy, you're only going to create more enemies because of you indiscriminate killings.

Oh you mean like now with the middle east and all those wars where we tried to limit civilian deaths and they hate us more now than ever.


It's because of the foreign policies along with our indiscriminate killings of innocents labeling them as "collateral damage." I blame this on Bush.

"It's Bush's fault" BwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahahBwahahahahahahahahahahah


http://www.cnn.com...

ah yes a CNN report

you have nothing better

Ya I do it's called history books and how wars were won.


History books written by whom and according to whom? Aren't we discussing contemporary war?

"contemporary war" Bwahahahahahahaha War is stylish, Bwahahahahahaha
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%