Marine Life

Alright.

A war assumes that we could lose and the other side could win. Which, as of now, is simply impossible. They couldn't even force a nuclear stalemate, we are too large of a company to take out with a small amount of nukes, and we have our anti-nuke coming on in what? 2012?

They can kill a few civilians, sure, but they cannot win. At least not unless someone else helps them.

TNine wrote:A war assumes that we could lose and the other side could win. Which, as of now, is simply impossible. They couldn't even force a nuclear stalemate, we are too large of a company to take out with a small amount of nukes, and we have our anti-nuke coming on in what? 2012?

They can kill a few civilians, sure, but they cannot win. At least not unless someone else helps them.

Now that depends on what you mean by "winning".

If you mean "Complete annihilation of the Enemy" then yes, you are correct.

On the other hand, we could still pull a Vietnam, and declare victory (which Mr. Bush technically already did, about 7 years ago) and leave the country, only to have the force we were fighting come back into power immediately.

Iraq and Afganistan can still (and for Iraq, almost certainly will) be lost, which is why people shouldn't fall into a comfortable state of mind on the war, as you have.

All the moneymakers want is Iran... We tried to screw them over *cough*assassination*cough* and they resisted. So, the U.S. wanted control of Afghanistan so they could take Iran (and also cuz we wanted to get rid of the Taliban and help Afghan out).

Then how do you explain invading Iraq instead?

Nocbl2 wrote:All the moneymakers want is Iran... We tried to screw them over *cough*assassination*cough* and they resisted. So, the U.S. wanted control of Afghanistan so they could take Iran (and also cuz we wanted to get rid of the Taliban and help Afghan out).

And what exactly does this have to do with the war in IRAQ?

*sigh* Wasn't this thread supposed to be about NT's life as a marine?

Doesn't he have a different thread every weeks for his life?

CivBase wrote:*sigh* Wasn't this thread supposed to be about NT's life as a marine?

Good point.

On topic: So, NT, what's it like being a Marine and sleeping in a ditch?

Felix wrote:Home life:

TV
Computer
Sleep

Yah, who really has it rough here?

Sounds just the life Felix. If only it could be that simple for everyone.

Nocbl2 wrote:

CivBase wrote:*sigh* Wasn't this thread supposed to be about NT's life as a marine?

Good point.

On topic: So, NT, what's it like being a Marine and sleeping in a ditch?

wasn't that bad.

but now i have a room thats meant for 4 people and only one roommate. its pretty tight. We actually slept in today haha since our job has no formations or revelry, plus its the weekend anyway.

KristallNacht wrote:

Nocbl2 wrote:

CivBase wrote:*sigh* Wasn't this thread supposed to be about NT's life as a marine?

Good point.

On topic: So, NT, what's it like being a Marine and sleeping in a ditch?

wasn't that bad.

but now i have a room thats meant for 4 people and only one roommate. its pretty tight. We actually slept in today haha since our job has no formations or revelry, plus its the weekend anyway.

lulz.

PiEdude wrote:

TNine wrote:A war assumes that we could lose and the other side could win. Which, as of now, is simply impossible. They couldn't even force a nuclear stalemate, we are too large of a company to take out with a small amount of nukes, and we have our anti-nuke coming on in what? 2012?

They can kill a few civilians, sure, but they cannot win. At least not unless someone else helps them.

Now that depends on what you mean by "winning".

If you mean "Complete annihilation of the Enemy" then yes, you are correct.

On the other hand, we could still pull a Vietnam, and declare victory (which Mr. Bush technically already did, about 7 years ago) and leave the country, only to have the force we were fighting come back into power immediately.

Iraq and Afganistan can still (and for Iraq, almost certainly will) be lost, which is why people shouldn't fall into a comfortable state of mind on the war, as you have.

I'm not saying we will be succesful, i'm just saying that i don't see it as a war cause there isn't two obvious sides fighting eachother. The Taliban and Al'Queda are hiding in the hills, using suicide bombs and roadside bombs almost exclusively. Every time they get a full "base" up and running, we immediately wipe it out. Look at the Gulf War, Iraq had a fairly large and fully functional army that got wiped off the map in 72 hours.

The thing with Vietnam was (from what i've heard, which is fairly little) the Vietcong had a pretty good sized army (they had tanks for instance) that they hid in the jungles, and set up ambushes that destroyed us, while we tried to have a straight march right through the forest and rely on artilery. Now, we have better soldiers who are willing to do this, rather than the hardly trained and drafted ones at Vietnam, and we have all new kinds of fancy technology to decimate any opposition (Predator drones). Sure, they can still use ambushes, and kill a few marines, but the ambushing forces will be hunted down and destroyed, and any base will be infiltrated and decimated.

I wouldn't consider Vietnam a full war, as there wasn't really a regimented army on the other side, but the other side had much more resources and America much less resources, not to mention the opposition that we faced at home that is so much smaller now.

If that's the only thing you consider to be war, then war is dead.

Most of the forces we fought in Vietnam weren't even attached to the North Vietnamese. Many VietCong were villagers who didn't like the Americans, and knew little of the North Vietnamese or their goals.

They were partially supplied by North Vietnam (which in turn, was supplied by The Soviets), but that was about it. They shot at Americans and killed them, and Americans shot back and killed too. There were also sappers, who set mines and other IEDs, as well as non-explosive booby traps (pangee traps were piles of shit that covered spikes, so that anyone who stepped on them would get monsterous infections).

Meanwhile the real North Vietnamese army sat back, occasionally launched professional raids and ambushes, and then the Tet Offensive (which, contrary to popular belief, was actually a failure because of the losses received, and the fact that every base and city taken was lost soon after).

Again, this is getting off topic, guys...

PiEdude wrote:If that's the only thing you consider to be war, then war is dead.

Most of the forces we fought in Vietnam weren't even attached to the North Vietnamese. Many VietCong were villagers who didn't like the Americans, and knew little of the North Vietnamese or their goals.

They were partially supplied by North Vietnam (which in turn, was supplied by The Soviets), but that was about it. They shot at Americans and killed them, and Americans shot back and killed too. There were also sappers, who set mines and other IEDs, as well as non-explosive booby traps (pangee traps were piles of shit that covered spikes, so that anyone who stepped on them would get monsterous infections).

Meanwhile the real North Vietnamese army sat back, occasionally launched professional raids and ambushes, and then the Tet Offensive (which, contrary to popular belief, was actually a failure because of the losses received, and the fact that every base and city taken was lost soon after).

Well thats quite understandable why the Vietnamese didn't like Americans because Americans are pigheads especially with the way they treat people at times so it was probably well deserved.

I think that's a bad generalization to make


Americans are pig heads


Some americans can be assholes, but not all are, thank you.

Spartan15 wrote:

PiEdude wrote:If that's the only thing you consider to be war, then war is dead.

Most of the forces we fought in Vietnam weren't even attached to the North Vietnamese. Many VietCong were villagers who didn't like the Americans, and knew little of the North Vietnamese or their goals.

They were partially supplied by North Vietnam (which in turn, was supplied by The Soviets), but that was about it. They shot at Americans and killed them, and Americans shot back and killed too. There were also sappers, who set mines and other IEDs, as well as non-explosive booby traps (pangee traps were piles of shit that covered spikes, so that anyone who stepped on them would get monsterous infections).

Meanwhile the real North Vietnamese army sat back, occasionally launched professional raids and ambushes, and then the Tet Offensive (which, contrary to popular belief, was actually a failure because of the losses received, and the fact that every base and city taken was lost soon after).

Well thats quite understandable why the Vietnamese didn't like Americans because Americans are pigheads especially with the way they treat people at times so it was probably well deserved.

Excellent rebuttal sir, and very intelligent. Good form!


On a serious note, the British did much worse things in the Boer war, including placing people in concentration camps.

Remember, Pie, we put Japs in concentration camps during WWII. It wasn't abusive, but they pretty much lost all their previous lives after the war, cuz their houses got hijacked...

Okay, there's a difference between a death camp, and an internment camp.

During the Second Boer War, wives and children of suspected insurgents were rounded up and placed in concentration camps, where they were fed poor food, and lived with very poor hygiene, where many of them died.

During World War II, all Japanese citizens and immigrants were placed in Internment camps, where they were adequately fed and given decent living quarters.

While neither was truly justified, they were still done for different reasons:
The Japanese were placed in Internment camps due to a racial fear that they may conspire to weaken the American war effort due to their heritage.

The Boers were placed in camps so that the rebels would be broken. It was a counterinsurgency tactic that was more closely related to the Vietnam war than WWII.

Gauz wrote:I think that's a bad generalization to make


Americans are pig heads


Some americans can be assholes, but not all are, thank you.

Unfortunatly, most of them are. Seriously, is there anywhere in this world without cons? Go to America and you are surrounded by idiots, go to Aulstralia you have censorship, go to the UK and, well, then you're in the UK.

How do you know most Americans are assholes?

To be honest, I'm not even sure what TNine is.

British? Aussie? Canadian?

I'm pretty sure he's Australian.

anyway, I got paid roughly $6 an hour to sit around and do absolutely nothing......literally...for 8 hours.....