Niagara Falls!

Awww. (checks terrorists list).
/no payout

NutWrench:
Same old shiat, different century. We had the Viet Cong "on the run" and they ran all the way to Saigon.

That's because we had no goal. In Iraq, the goal WAS clear. Take out Saddam. In Afghanistan, the goal WAS clear. Take out the Taliban. We did both of those very quickly and with almost no casualties. The entire toll of those wars on our military was less than ONE skirmish in the Hundred Year's War.

Now, we've just been occupying. There's no way to "win" an occupation. Either you stay or you leave. When you leave, the other side can claim victory.

You know, one positive outcome from the wars in Iraq and Backasswardstan is that we have real-life and recent experience in the logistics involved in actually fielding and supplying large bodies of troops. This will give us a definite edge over any other world power we become involved in a major conflict with, say, China or Russia.

Jakevol2: Official: Missile Strike Kills Top Al Qaeda Leader


Let me guess, he was Second in Command.

Of course. It's the only job they actually have in al-Qaeda.

The counterterrorism official said al-Yemeni was in his late 20s or early 30s and was a conduit in Pakistan for funds, messages, and recruiting but that he specialized in suicide operations.

Presumably they do not mean that he personally specialized in them.

Deacon Blue: You know, one positive outcome from the wars in Iraq and Backasswardstan is that we have real-life and recent experience in the logistics involved in actually fielding and supplying large bodies of troops. This will give us a definite edge over any other world power we become involved in a major conflict with, say, China or Russia.

As opposed I guess to China, which has to field & supply large bodies of troops just because it has huge armies and enormous land masses to cover; and Russia which has huge armies and enormous land masses to cover.

Not to mention that if for some reason we were to become involved in a major conflict with China (which has no reason to be involved in a major conflict with us) or Russia (which would lose) we would be transporting troops and materiel all the way over there, while they would be fielding armies within their own borders, where transport and deployment would be in their favor regardless of how much "real-life and recent experience" we might have.

Since, you know, China and Russia have real armies, with highly trained soldiers and hardware at least equivalent to ours; unlike the 3d world armies we've been fighting lately.

Gyrfalcon: Deacon Blue: You know, one positive outcome from the wars in Iraq and Backasswardstan is that we have real-life and recent experience in the logistics involved in actually fielding and supplying large bodies of troops. This will give us a definite edge over any other world power we become involved in a major conflict with, say, China or Russia.

As opposed I guess to China, which has to field & supply large bodies of troops just because it has huge armies and enormous land masses to cover; and Russia which has huge armies and enormous land masses to cover.

Not to mention that if for some reason we were to become involved in a major conflict with China (which has no reason to be involved in a major conflict with us) or Russia (which would lose) we would be transporting troops and materiel all the way over there, while they would be fielding armies within their own borders, where transport and deployment would be in their favor regardless of how much "real-life and recent experience" we might have.

Since, you know, China and Russia have real armies, with highly trained soldiers and hardware at least equivalent to ours; unlike the 3d world armies we've been fighting lately.

Neither Russia nor China has moved hundreds of thousands of troops half a world away, and kept them supplied and operating for years on end. I'm not trying to say that reason alone justifies our Arabian adventures, but it is something to consider. Read up on our invasion of Grenada. It was a clusterfark.