The answer to our troop shortages is here!

[Infohawk]

Hey guys, did you hear the President? Apparently we're able to remove troops from Europe because of more effective equipment! Isn't that great? They can go home to their families. And same with Korea. Never mind North Korea has nukes unlike Iraq, we can pull troops from there too! 🙂 Isn't this great? Oh wait, they have to go to Iraq for a while before they go home.

Wait? Whu... whu .. why can't we just use more effective equipment in Iraq? :roll:

 

[cwjerome]

We have had tens of thousands of soldiers in SK and Europe for decades. Some people may not know it, but the Soviet Union is no longer a threat, and there is no good reason to continue. They will be redeployed. This is not controversial, it's not political, and once again infohawk exposes his ratbrain partisanship.

South Korea: Well, considering our troops are there as sacrificial fodder, just to let NK know that any attack on SK is an attack on us. We don't need so many troops to do that, and besides, SK is much stronger now and there is some pressure over there to reduce our troop levels anyways.

I don't know if you're saying we should be massing forces there, or if we should attack NK or something... what exactly is your point other than another lame attempt to bash Bush. Every hour you post something meaningless, put a nice liberal spin on it, and act like your accomplishing something. You have this idea that you are changing minds and helping Kerry or something... you've been on this zealous quest to say anything to hurt Bush and it's quite fascinating, it's like this is your single purpose in life to be a partisan automon who posts rhetoric over and over and over again. I'm actually a little worried about you... what's going to happen to you if Bush does win? Seriously.

 

[DealMonkey]

Battle droids are the key. 🙂

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
We have had tens of thousands of soldiers in SK and Europe for decades. Some people may not know it, but the Soviet Union is no longer a threat, and there is no good reason to continue. They will be redeployed. This is not controversial, it's not political, and once again infohawk exposes his ratbrain partisanship.

Never said I still think we need troops in Europe. Read closer, "ratbrain." 😉

South Korea: Well, considering our troops are there as sacrificial fodder, just to let NK know that any attack on SK is an attack on us.

Nice try. We don't need sacrificial fodder to let NK know that an attack on SK is an attack on us.

We don't need so many troops to do that, and besides, SK is much stronger now and there is some pressure over there to reduce our troop levels anyways.

This has been the case for a while now. The fact that this is happening now is simply because of the wasting of troop usage in Iraq. If you have some alternative explanation of why Bush is doing it now, I'd love to hear it. And if you want to add some personal flames, go for it if it makes you feel better. 😉

Every hour you post something meaningless, put a nice liberal spin on it, and act like your accomplishing something. You have this idea that you are changing minds and helping Kerry or something... you've been on this zealous quest to say anything to hurt Bush and it's quite fascinating, it's like this is your single purpose in life to be a partisan automon who posts rhetoric over and over and over again. I'm actually a little worried about you... what's going to happen to you if Bush does win? Seriously.

Thank you for your off-topic garbage. 🙂

 

[cwjerome]

Since 9/11 the United States military has been going through the most significant changes in 50 years, with major re-structuring, organizational changes, strategy and logistical changes, and much more. The announcement to reduce overseas troop levels was almost two years ago, and we have been prepping/starting that for some time.

Pointing out the boring facts to dispute your mindless comments does not make me happy. But it's something I will do on occasion to remind everyone that you're a partisan monkey who has never had an original thought and will do and say thing do get your man elected. This is such a non-issue, and trying to joke with it in a very weak attempt to belittle Bush is just another example of how you operate.

I am serious about what happens to you if Bush wins, and I wish you would answer. You are putting so much time and effort into it, I can't help but be worried. I am not being sarcastic... please tell me what you'd do if he was re-elected (there was a topic similar to this recently)

 

[daveshel]

My goodness, infohawk, you seem to have for this new member all riled up. He has obviously spent a great deal of time lurking before speaking, so as to get such extensive knowledge of the way you operate.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Since 9/11 the United States military has been going through the most significant changes in 50 years, with major re-structuring, organizational changes, strategy and logistical changes, and much more. The announcement to reduce overseas troop levels was almost two years ago, and we have been prepping/starting that for some time.

Is this guy for real? Anyone else notice he's parroting Bush's garbage about "9/11" "9/11" "9/11"? Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11. Moreover, I'm more curious in Bush's rationale. He discussed "more effective equipment."

My point was to show what a clown Bush is by him arguing that we are reducing troop levels in Europe and NK because of "more effective equipment." Tell me, if "more effective equipment" was the solution in Europe and NK (where they actually have WMDs), why don't we just let the troops go home on schedule and implement some nice new equipment?

Pointing out the boring facts to dispute your mindless comments does not make me happy. But it's something I will do on occasion to remind everyone that you're a partisan monkey who has never had an original thought and will do and say thing do get your man elected. This is such a non-issue, and trying to joke with it in a very weak attempt to belittle Bush is just another example of how you operate. I am serious about what happens to you if Bush wins, and I wish you would answer. You are putting so much time and effort into it, I can't help but be worried. I am not being sarcastic... please tell me what you'd do if he was re-elected (there was a topic similar to this recently)

Again, thank you for the off-topic garbage. 🙂 If you're interested in what I or others will do during and after the election, I suggest you look for the thread which yours truly started and inquire in there. 😉

 

[cwjerome]

You're the one with the parrot icon 🙂

The only thing about Bush I have ever said on this website is that I agree with him on Iraq, and I think his foreign policy is on the right track. I rarely mention him by name, and I never gloat about how good he is. For that matter I have very rarely mentioned Kerry and I can't remember a time when I attacked him at all on this site. All I'm saying is anyone fairly honest and/or objective can see that some people here are mindless DNC hacks who chant the party mantra.

gotta go for now, can't wait for our little debate.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
You're the one with the parrot icon 🙂

The only thing about Bush I have ever said on this website is that I agree with him on Iraq, and I think his foreign policy is on the right track. I rarely mention him by name, and I never gloat about how good he is. For that matter I have very rarely mentioned Kerry and I can't remember a time when I attacked him at all on this site. All I'm saying is anyone fairly honest and/or objective can see that some people here are mindless DNC hacks who chant the party mantra.

gotta go for now, can't wait for our little debate.

Of course you'll be honest and/or objective and say the same about some members here being mindless GOP hacks.


Of course, it took prodding from me (if you do admit it) for you to say it...does that, by itself, say anything about you?

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
You're the one with the parrot icon 🙂

Ummm... okay. What does that have to do with anything except you being angry and needed to come up with lame attacks?

The only thing about Bush I have ever said on this website is that I agree with him on Iraq, and I think his foreign policy is on the right track. I rarely mention him by name, and I never gloat about how good he is. For that matter I have very rarely mentioned Kerry and I can't remember a time when I attacked him at all on this site. All I'm saying is anyone fairly honest and/or objective can see that some people here are mindless DNC hacks who chant the party mantra.

I could care less what you think of Bush or Kerry (although you seem to be obsessed with my views on the two). You came into this thread, a parody of Bush, and apparently defended his positions. I'm attacking his views. Now you're are chickening out without answering my question. Fine.

gotta go for now, can't wait for our little debate.

What debate? All you're doing is critizing me and not addressing the issues. :roll: That's hardly a debate.

 

[slyedog]

if infohawk knows so much abt how great kerry is, maybe he can tell us what is in all these plans
that kerry has. he must be up to about a dozen plans now, but he is yet to tell us what is in
these plans. is it possible there is no substance in them?

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: slyedog
if infohawk knows so much abt how great kerry is, maybe he can tell us what is in all these plans
that kerry has. he must be up to about a dozen plans now, but he is yet to tell us what is in
these plans. is it possible there is no substance in them?

Please take your stuff about Kerry out of here. There's threads on your topic and I've posted in them. Troll. :thumbsdown:

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Since 9/11 the United States military has been going through the most significant changes in 50 years, with major re-structuring, organizational changes, strategy and logistical changes, and much more. The announcement to reduce overseas troop levels was almost two years ago, and we have been prepping/starting that for some time.

Is this guy for real? Anyone else notice he's parroting Bush's garbage about "9/11" "9/11" "9/11"? Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11. Moreover, I'm more curious in Bush's rationale. He discussed "more effective equipment."

My point was to show what a clown Bush is by him arguing that we are reducing troop levels in Europe and NK because of "more effective equipment." Tell me, if "more effective equipment" was the solution in Europe and NK (where they actually have WMDs), why don't we just let the troops go home on schedule and implement some nice new equipment?

Pointing out the boring facts to dispute your mindless comments does not make me happy. But it's something I will do on occasion to remind everyone that you're a partisan monkey who has never had an original thought and will do and say thing do get your man elected. This is such a non-issue, and trying to joke with it in a very weak attempt to belittle Bush is just another example of how you operate. I am serious about what happens to you if Bush wins, and I wish you would answer. You are putting so much time and effort into it, I can't help but be worried. I am not being sarcastic... please tell me what you'd do if he was re-elected (there was a topic similar to this recently)

Again, thank you for the off-topic garbage. 🙂 If you're interested in what I or others will do during and after the election, I suggest you look for the thread which yours truly started and inquire in there. 😉

Ok, I'll explain it for you, Poster Child for Ignorance.

Ever hear of something called "logistics"? No, let me explain then. It's been said (I'm paraphrasing) that military amateurs talk about tactics while military experts talk about logistics. The movement of personnel and equipment is the key to the successful prosecution of a conflict, both inter- and intra-theater.

The "better equipment" which the President was referring to involves the movement of troops and equipment from the US to the sites of conflicts or contingencies. There's a new catamaran cargo ship that is ridiculously fast, built in Australia and now owned or leased by the US military (and some are in the civilian merchant marine that can be used when needed). Better, more capable, and more reliable cargo aircraft (read: C-17 primarily) enable the very fast movement of forces up to and including the M-1 tank.

More importantly, however, the pre-positioning of equipment, either on land or sea, such as tanks and APCs reduces the need for forward positioning of forces because Stateside troops can be linked up with their gear at remote locations. Basing them in the States and allowing them to meet their equipment elsewhere makes their deployments more flexible and prevents the expense and danger of maintaining forces in a foreign country with the force protection concerns inherent in a 24/7 presence abroad. Costs are also reduced from reducing overseas moves of military personnel and their families, both to and from the foreign country -- from personal experience, it's quite expensive.

Therefore, your questions regarding the "better equipment" in Iraq are nonsensical. Par for the course from you, I've seen, but I felt the need to correct it regardless. Certainly, logistical improvements have made the intratheater movement of equipment and supplies much better within Iraq, and the troops are enjoying a quality of life that would have been paradise to troops in WWII, for instance. Those logistical improvements, however, do nothing to obviate the need for boots on the ground, which you so fantastically failed to understand.

Admit it -- the President knows more than you.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Ok, I'll explain it for you, Poster Child for Ignorance.

...

Therefore, your questions regarding the "better equipment" in Iraq are nonsensical. Par for the course from you, I've seen, but I felt the need to correct it regardless.

Admit it -- the President knows more than you.

You are a troll.

EDIT: and you failed to address the issue in question.

 

[Mockery]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Ok, I'll explain it for you, Poster Child for Ignorance.

...

Therefore, your questions regarding the "better equipment" in Iraq are nonsensical. Par for the course from you, I've seen, but I felt the need to correct it regardless.

Admit it -- the President knows more than you.

You are a troll.

EDIT: and you failed to address the issue in question.

Which specific issue would that be.....? There were a half dozen question marks in your original post.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Mockery
Which specific issue would that be.....? There were a half dozen question marks in your original post.

Fair question. The original post was a parody and they were rhetorical questions. The real question / statement is this: Bush says we can get rid of troops in NK / Eur because of new equipment. There is a troop shortage in Iraq. Can't we just use "new equipment" in Iraq to get rid of the need for troops? My answer of course, is no, because I think Bush was just saying nonsense. I think his statement was absurd. That said, I think it's a good idea to move troops from Europe. I think the NK decision is bad. But I still think his excuse was absurd.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Ok, I'll explain it for you, Poster Child for Ignorance.

...

Therefore, your questions regarding the "better equipment" in Iraq are nonsensical. Par for the course from you, I've seen, but I felt the need to correct it regardless.

Admit it -- the President knows more than you.

You are a troll.

EDIT: and you failed to address the issue in question.

I think he hit the nail on the head, and your just pissed your wrong and can not admit it.

If you know anything about logistics, youd know that they are the most important factor in military operations, the advancement in this area over the past few years have allowed non-combat roles to be phased out while more combat/ground troops are trained, thus making the military stronger without the need to increase congressionally mandated troop levels. Just look at how much computers and communication equipment have developed recently. A battalion used to have truck loads of radio and computer equipment to effectively communicate. Now these roles can be done using laptops in the hands of the command officers. Now you need less truck drivers to move, and those personnel can be used elsewhere, you also have less trucks, so you need less fuel, etc. The US is also contracting out a lot of jobs that used to be strictly US personell, such as cooking in the garrison chow halls, even in Iraq, Kuwaiti caterers are feeding more of our tropps than we are. Another major component of logistics is the "beans, bullets, and bandaids" support unit, aka "S4" Ive already discussed examples of the "beans", and as for ammunition, we are just plain better at moving it further and faster (thanks to aviation). As for the bandaids, the current MASH units are much more mobile compared to the older ones, and major peices of medical equipment such as x-ray machines, ekg's, vital signs monitors (think crt's replaced by flat screens for one) are much smaller not to mention we have much faster, more reliable medivac solutions.

South Korea: Well, considering our troops are there as sacrificial fodder, just to let NK know that any attack on SK is an attack on us.

Nice try. We don't need sacrificial fodder to let NK know that an attack on SK is an attack on us.

unfortunately this is true, the low number of troops we had there even before the reduction would not have stopped a NK invasion, thier entire military is local, and is the same size (roughly 1.2 Million) as the US Armed forces, which are deployed all over the world. If you had paid any attention to the NK talks with Powell, youd know that one of thier major gripes is the effective "trip wire" that the US has set up by having troops convieniently placed near the DMZ. This would instantly bring the US into war with NK. Think about it, if NK attacked SK, and no US troops got hurt, americans would be like "not our business, dont get us involved" and you know it. However if NK rolled into SK and knowingly took out the US detachment, we'd be up in arms and ready to kick tail.

Equipment does not however decrease the required troop levels for urban occupation/operations such as in Iraq, thus the answer to your question as to why troop levels are decreased in some areas is because they are NOT urban operations, whereas you cant use a peice of equipment to replace a grunt on the ground patrolling the neighborhoods of Baghdad. And just because you can feed, resupply, and medivac him faster, it wont remove the need for him to be there.

What an intelligent non-hack person would say now is "oh, ok, I get it, thanks for explaining that one guys"

But I have a feeling InfoHawak still feels like the expert on this one, and will tell me that I have no clue what I am talking about.


Hapiness is a belt fed weapon.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Train
I think he hit the nail on the head, and your just pissed your wrong and can not admit it.

If you know anything about logistics, youd know that they are the most important factor in military operations, the advancement in this area over the past few years have allowed non-combat roles to be phased out while more combat/ground troops are trained, thus making the military stronger without the need to increase congressionally mandated troop levels. Just look at how much computers and communication equipment have developed recently. A battalion used to have truck loads of radio and computer equipment to effectively communicate. Now these roles can be done using laptops in the hands of the command officers. Now you need less truck drivers to move, and those personnel can be used elsewhere, you also have less trucks, so you need less fuel, etc. The US is also contracting out a lot of jobs that used to be strictly US personell, such as cooking in the garrison chow halls, even in Iraq, Kuwaiti caterers are feeding more of our tropps than we are. Another major component of logistics is the "beans, bullets, and bandaids" support unit, aka "S4" Ive already discussed examples of the "beans", and as for ammunition, we are just plain better at moving it further and faster (thanks to aviation). As for the bandaids, the current MASH units are much more mobile compared to the older ones, and major peices of medical equipment such as x-ray machines, ekg's, vital signs monitors (think crt's replaced by flat screens for one) are much smaller not to mention we have much faster, more reliable medivac solutions.

unfortunately this is true, the low number of troops we had there even before the reduction would not have stopped a NK invasion, thier entire military is local, and is the same size (roughly 1.2 Million) as the US Armed forces, which are deployed all over the world. If you had paid any attention to the NK talks with Powell, youd know that one of thier major gripes is the effective "trip wire" that the US has set up by having troops convieniently placed near the DMZ. This would instantly bring the US into war with NK. Think about it, if NK attacked SK, and no US troops got hurt, americans would be like "not our business, dont get us involved" and you know it. However if NK rolled into SK and knowingly took out the US detachment, we'd be up in arms and ready to kick tail.

Equipment does not however decrease the required troop levels for urban occupation/operations such as in Iraq, thus the answer to your question as to why troop levels are decreased in some areas is because they are NOT urban operations, whereas you cant use a peice of equipment to replace a grunt on the ground patrolling the neighborhoods of Baghdad. And just because you can feed, resupply, and medivac him faster, it wont remove the need for him to be there.

What an intelligent non-hack person would say now is "oh, ok, I get it, thanks for explaining that one guys"

But I have a feeling InfoHawak still feels like the expert on this one, and will tell me that I have no clue what I am talking about.

Hapiness is a belt fed weapon.

You make the assumption that in Europe and Korea we wouldn't need troops for urban operations. Given that they are more cities in both areas, it seems more likely. You just assume we wouldn't need to occupy areas there. Deploying troops still takes time. Sure light forces can come in quickly but the heavy stuff you'd need in Europe and Korea would take time and if we wanted to occupy areas there quickly we'd need to keep troops there.

Take a look at the bold portions, train. They reflect more on you than on me. Why should I take you seriously when you troll like that? It's pathetic. Control your anger. And of course

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: slyedog
if infohawk knows so much abt how great kerry is, maybe he can tell us what is in all these plans
that kerry has. he must be up to about a dozen plans now, but he is yet to tell us what is in
these plans. is it possible there is no substance in them?

Kerry's plan for the economy was published today. It is all now clear. He wants to court a rich nation as President and we can marry it. it worked twice for him!

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
You're the one with the parrot icon

Infohawk: Ummm... okay. What does that have to do with anything except you being angry and needed to come up with lame attacks?



Dude, it was a joke because you said I was "parroting" Bush about 9/11. Parrot... see? How come I always have to go back and explain my posts. Doing so demonstrates you have zero clue as to what I'm saying... no wonder you can't understand anything.


Originally posted by: cwjerome
The only thing about Bush I have ever said on this website is that I agree with him on Iraq, and I think his foreign policy is on the right track. I rarely mention him by name, and I never gloat about how good he is. For that matter I have very rarely mentioned Kerry and I can't remember a time when I attacked him at all on this site. All I'm saying is anyone fairly honest and/or objective can see that some people here are mindless DNC hacks who chant the party mantra.

Infohawk: I could care less what you think of Bush or Kerry (although you seem to be obsessed with my views on the two). You came into this thread, a parody of Bush, and apparently defended his positions. I'm attacking his views. Now you're are chickening out without answering my question. Fine.



How Orwellian that you think I'm obsessed about your views on Kerry and Bush, considering all we get is a constant barrage of pro-Kerry and anti-Bush rhetoric daily from you. I guess in your mind we have to be "obsessed" with your views if we are to respond.


Originally posted by: cwjerome
gotta go for now, can't wait for our little debate.

Infohawk: What debate? All you're doing is critizing me and not addressing the issues. That's hardly a debate.



Well I thought we were supposed to do some Iraq debate thing... you like challenged me or something a few days ago. Forget it then.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Since 9/11 the United States military has been going through the most significant changes in 50 years, with major re-structuring, organizational changes, strategy and logistical changes, and much more. The announcement to reduce overseas troop levels was almost two years ago, and we have been prepping/starting that for some time.

Is this guy for real? Anyone else notice he's parroting Bush's garbage about "9/11" "9/11" "9/11"? Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11. Moreover, I'm more curious in Bush's rationale. He discussed "more effective equipment."

My point was to show what a clown Bush is by him arguing that we are reducing troop levels in Europe and NK because of "more effective equipment." Tell me, if "more effective equipment" was the solution in Europe and NK (where they actually have WMDs), why don't we just let the troops go home on schedule and implement some nice new equipment?

Pointing out the boring facts to dispute your mindless comments does not make me happy. But it's something I will do on occasion to remind everyone that you're a partisan monkey who has never had an original thought and will do and say thing do get your man elected. This is such a non-issue, and trying to joke with it in a very weak attempt to belittle Bush is just another example of how you operate. I am serious about what happens to you if Bush wins, and I wish you would answer. You are putting so much time and effort into it, I can't help but be worried. I am not being sarcastic... please tell me what you'd do if he was re-elected (there was a topic similar to this recently)

Again, thank you for the off-topic garbage. 🙂 If you're interested in what I or others will do during and after the election, I suggest you look for the thread which yours truly started and inquire in there. 😉

Because Kerry voted against the $89bil to buy troops in iraq more equipment?

Miss the last debates? Youre so political, i thought you mightve noticed that.

 

[ReiAyanami]

the Soviet Union is no longer a threat

$400 billion/year military budget says otherwise. the same way we took out the USSR will happen to us.

$10 trillion in 10 years. Vote Republican You Traitors!!

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Since 9/11 the United States military has been going through the most significant changes in 50 years, with major re-structuring, organizational changes, strategy and logistical changes, and much more. The announcement to reduce overseas troop levels was almost two years ago, and we have been prepping/starting that for some time.

Is this guy for real? Anyone else notice he's parroting Bush's garbage about "9/11" "9/11" "9/11"? Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11. Moreover, I'm more curious in Bush's rationale. He discussed "more effective equipment."

My point was to show what a clown Bush is by him arguing that we are reducing troop levels in Europe and NK because of "more effective equipment." Tell me, if "more effective equipment" was the solution in Europe and NK (where they actually have WMDs), why don't we just let the troops go home on schedule and implement some nice new equipment?

Pointing out the boring facts to dispute your mindless comments does not make me happy. But it's something I will do on occasion to remind everyone that you're a partisan monkey who has never had an original thought and will do and say thing do get your man elected. This is such a non-issue, and trying to joke with it in a very weak attempt to belittle Bush is just another example of how you operate. I am serious about what happens to you if Bush wins, and I wish you would answer. You are putting so much time and effort into it, I can't help but be worried. I am not being sarcastic... please tell me what you'd do if he was re-elected (there was a topic similar to this recently)

Again, thank you for the off-topic garbage. 🙂 If you're interested in what I or others will do during and after the election, I suggest you look for the thread which yours truly started and inquire in there. 😉

Because Kerry voted against the $89bil to buy troops in iraq more equipment?

Miss the last debates? Youre so political, i thought you mightve noticed that.

It amazes me (and scares me a bit) that *I* a German know more about this than some American voters do.

If you don't want to appear totally ignorant on these issues you should read up on them, Kerry voted against the bill for a reason, do you know why?

Do you know why Bush threatened to veto the bill to buy troops in Iraq more equipment?

You don't know the answer to either of those questions, do you? How very sad.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Since 9/11 the United States military has been going through the most significant changes in 50 years, with major re-structuring, organizational changes, strategy and logistical changes, and much more. The announcement to reduce overseas troop levels was almost two years ago, and we have been prepping/starting that for some time.

Is this guy for real? Anyone else notice he's parroting Bush's garbage about "9/11" "9/11" "9/11"? Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11. Moreover, I'm more curious in Bush's rationale. He discussed "more effective equipment."

My point was to show what a clown Bush is by him arguing that we are reducing troop levels in Europe and NK because of "more effective equipment." Tell me, if "more effective equipment" was the solution in Europe and NK (where they actually have WMDs), why don't we just let the troops go home on schedule and implement some nice new equipment?

Pointing out the boring facts to dispute your mindless comments does not make me happy. But it's something I will do on occasion to remind everyone that you're a partisan monkey who has never had an original thought and will do and say thing do get your man elected. This is such a non-issue, and trying to joke with it in a very weak attempt to belittle Bush is just another example of how you operate. I am serious about what happens to you if Bush wins, and I wish you would answer. You are putting so much time and effort into it, I can't help but be worried. I am not being sarcastic... please tell me what you'd do if he was re-elected (there was a topic similar to this recently)

Again, thank you for the off-topic garbage. 🙂 If you're interested in what I or others will do during and after the election, I suggest you look for the thread which yours truly started and inquire in there. 😉

Because Kerry voted against the $89bil to buy troops in iraq more equipment?

Miss the last debates? Youre so political, i thought you mightve noticed that.

It amazes me (and scares me a bit) that *I* a German know more about this than some American voters do.

If you don't want to appear totally ignorant on these issues you should read up on them, Kerry voted against the bill for a reason, do you know why?

Do you know why Bush threatened to veto the bill to buy troops in Iraq more equipment?

You don't know the answer to either of those questions, do you? How very sad.

You dont seem to care about the way i feel about my govt. For all i care we could tell the truth and say this "we are removing saddam from power, you cant stop us, tough sh!t, deal with it". Instead we made up some lame story the world is all ranting and raving about.

And once again, we dont care.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
You make the assumption that in Europe and Korea we wouldn't need troops for urban operations.

no I didnt. your putting words in my mouth.

Given that they are more cities in both areas, it seems more likely.

thats arguable in a whole different thread

You just assume we wouldn't need to occupy areas there.

again, something I didnt say.

Deploying troops still takes time.

now your mising something I DID say, improved logistics decreases this time.

Sure light forces can come in quickly but the heavy stuff you'd need in Europe and Korea would take time and if we wanted to occupy areas there quickly we'd need to keep troops there.

except theres one major difference, we arent occupying Korea or Europe.

Take a look at the bold portions, train. They reflect more on you than on me.

yes they refelct that I can easily predict your thick headedness on this topis, youve been proven to know nothing, yet continue to wrestle with what you dont know, trying to one up.

Why should I take you seriously when you troll like that?

hardly a troll, my posts were filled with facts, yours werent.

It's pathetic. Control your anger. And of course

so basically, you have nothing else to say?