Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Report from all 16 intel. agencies concludes Iraq War has made US less safe (Page 7)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   
Author Topic: Report from all 16 intel. agencies concludes Iraq War has made US less safe
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
DD, I apologize if I over-interpreted your intention here.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"For crying out aloud, of course,..... America going to war, causes problems with safety at home, that goes without saying!.

When you go and fight someone, they can either fight you on thier ground or on yours. Yours is easier, and causes less damaage to their ground."

Good point. Some people have suggested that invading Iraq was good on the grounds that we AREN'T fighting the war at home; we're fighting it on their ground, and it causes a lot less damage to our ground. [Smile]


"Plus you already told everyone that America can't keep track of airplanes,cars,trucks, tanks or anything else big that comes into your country (and maybe hit or blow buildings/things up,[9/11])"

Because until we announced we had certain legal and practical limitations, people who dedicate their lives to exploiting America's weakness's didn't know about this.


"All your troups are overseas, nobody is at home looking after America, Ummmm ,yes you will be attacked,.... and huge,... and soon."

By China, again? Get real.


"The sad fact is, I doubt you're gonna do anything about it. - my recomendation - get rid of Bush as soon as you can. !!"

Yes we are. We're going to bomb the hell out of anybody that looks at us crooked.

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Naomi, I don't believe you understand just how strong the United States Armed Forces actually are. The US Armed Forces have around 1,400,000 active service personel, of which only 140, 000 are deployed in Iraq, or around 10%. (That is slightly misleading, as the 1,400,000 does not include reservists and national gaurd, and some of the units deployed in Iraq are national gaurd). The US Air Force is the largest Air Force in the World, and the US Navy ranks in the top five most powerfull airforces. In fact, the US Navy has twelve carriers, each of which operating approximately the same number of Aircraft as the RAAF.

Although China outnumbers the US by 2 to 1 in active service troops, and 3.5 to 1 when you include reservists, such is the superiority of technology, the US would easilly win a conventional war with China. What is more, as China has no cruisers, and most importantly, no Air Craft Carriers, it would not be able to mount an effective naval invasion against Australia, let alone against the US.

The only reason the US is having military difficulties in Iraq and Afghanistan is because they sent in too few troops, and they are fighting insurgencies rather than conventional forces. That does not translate into any inability to defend themselves from any conventinal attack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_active_troops
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat.htm

Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Plus you already told everyone that America can't keep track of airplanes,cars,trucks, tanks or anything else big that comes into your country (and maybe hit or blow buildings/things up,[9/11])

All your troups are overseas, nobody is at home looking after America, Ummmm ,yes you will be attacked,.... and huge,... and soon."

i believe naomi refers to attacks by unconventional means, althugh if thi IS her meaning, she segued poorly from the 'troops abroad' theme to attacks at home via domestic items.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
On another thread she explicitly mentioned a threat from China.

Of course, if she means attack by non-conventional means, ie, terrorists, the relevant question isn't whether all the troops are overseas, but whether the FBI and customs are, and of course, they are not.

Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I agree with Tom and was going to make the same post about our troop levels and ability to defend American soil.

We have plenty of troops at home. And God pity the foreigners that attack US here at home. A gun, or ten, in every home. And hell, our National Guard, police forces, and gangs could kick the **** out of of most countries armies. (It's not like we're talking about the USSR or China)

Might even be a good way to bring the Crips and Bloods together for an afternoon. An afternoon of killing Koreans. They're definitely better armed than the Koreans. And the rednecks down here in Texas and the Bible belts would like nothing more than to be able to blow the **** out of those cowardly terrorists. Bring it on, bitches.

In fact, I think we should send more troops to Iraq. Either that or get out. Crush the resistance or get out. We need to stop half-assing it, and hoping the Iraqis will do the job for us. With 4,000 Iraqi policemen dead, so far, we're just giving them more untrained, thus unprotected, targets. And many of the Iraqi policemen are loyal to the religious sects causing the violence.

KE

[ October 07, 2006, 07:36 PM: Message edited by: KnightEnder ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I wonder if we'll ever get a number on the total numbers of Iraqi security forces, including Iraqi soldiers, killed so far.

Aren't they supposed to be part of the coalition now?

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
More than 12,000 Iraqi police casualties in last two years
quote:
Since September 2004, about 4,000 officers have been killed and 8,000 injured, said Maj. Gen. Joseph Paterson in a teleconference from Baghdad with Pentagon reporters. The police have "paid a great price," he said.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
report
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1