If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Finally some good news about Syria - the invasion planning is complete   (security.blogs.cnn.com) divider line 109
    More: Scary, arms trafficking, u.s. special forces, biological weapons, reconnaissance, sectarian, Joint Chiefs of Staff  
•       •       •

11352 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Jun 2012 at 1:12 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



109 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-15 04:06:07 AM

fusillade762: Void_Beavis: Never mind that during Pearl, our Navy was like totally pwnd.

The ships they sank there were all on the verge of being decommissioned. And clear warnings of the attack were ignored. Roosevelt just wanted an excuse to enter the war. Plus farking with Japan's access to rubber, oil and steel was viewed as aggression by *us*.

In any event Hawaii was illegally annexed by the US.


"On the verge of being decommissioned?" Source please!
 
2012-06-15 04:31:24 AM
How about we just irradiate the entire region and be done with it. They're never going to stop murdering each other for a few square miles of desert they keep calling a holy land, turn it into a radioactive ruin and then no one will want it and they'll stop.

Wasting all of our time, money, and people in a hellhole while our own country slowly crumbles away. Let's fix our own home before we try remodeling other people's homes.
 
2012-06-15 04:33:42 AM

DrPainMD: Piestar: fusillade762: Piestar: fusillade762: DrPainMD: dave1y: Oh, and the US has 3 contingency plans for invading every country in the world.

And yet, Americans still don't see the parallels between the US and Nazi Germany.

hint: if you're fighting a war, and your national sovereignty hasn't been challenged, you are the aggressor; you are the bad guy.

Was our sovereignty threatened during WWII?

Perhaps a tad, on December seventh...

Hawaii wasn't a state until 1959.

Doesn't have to be a state to be sovereign territory.

Oh, right. We just have to send a ship full of Marines there and threaten to kill every man, woman and child in the country if they don't hand it over to us.


I'm sorry, have you switched conversations? I find people who know they are in the wrong often do that.
 
2012-06-15 04:41:59 AM

Medic Zero: fusillade762: Void_Beavis: Never mind that during Pearl, our Navy was like totally pwnd.

The ships they sank there were all on the verge of being decommissioned. And clear warnings of the attack were ignored. Roosevelt just wanted an excuse to enter the war. Plus farking with Japan's access to rubber, oil and steel was viewed as aggression by *us*.

In any event Hawaii was illegally annexed by the US.

"On the verge of being decommissioned?" Source please!


Both the Arizona and the Oklahoma were commissioned in 1916. And they were the only two battleships that weren't repaired and returned to service. Also none of the aircraft carriers at Pearl were even touched (they would prove crucial) and Japan neglected to attack the submarine base there (subs also played a major role in starving Japan of resources).

We could argue how much life those ships had left, but it's safe to say the damage to the US navy is being overstated.
 
2012-06-15 04:57:30 AM

fusillade762: Medic Zero: Also none of the aircraft carriers at Pearl were even touched (they would prove crucial) ...


I was under the impression that there were no carriers present at Pearl Harbor at the time of the attack?

/could be wrong
//well before my time
 
2012-06-15 05:08:41 AM
 
2012-06-15 05:09:51 AM
This thread has me wanting to play some Axis & Allies now. Off to start a game.
 
2012-06-15 05:50:30 AM
fusillade762: Void_Beavis: Never mind that during Pearl, our Navy was like totally pwnd.

The ships they sank there were all on the verge of being decommissioned. And clear warnings of the attack were ignored. Roosevelt just wanted an excuse to enter the war. Plus farking with Japan's access to rubber, oil and steel was viewed as aggression by *us*.

In any event Hawaii was illegally annexed by the US.


Me: "On the verge of being decommissioned?" Source please!

Both the Arizona and the Oklahoma were commissioned in 1916. And they were the only two battleships that weren't repaired and returned to service. Also none of the aircraft carriers at Pearl were even touched (they would prove crucial) and Japan neglected to attack the submarine base there (subs also played a major role in starving Japan of resources).

We could argue how much life those ships had left, but it's safe to say the damage to the US navy is being overstated.


Okay, those are very different statements from:

"The ships they sank there were all on the verge of being decommissioned."

Several more ships were sunk other than the Arizona and the Oklahoma that day.

"And clear warnings of the attack were ignored. Roosevelt just wanted an excuse to enter the war."

Please tell me you aren't one of those "Roosevelt knew and let Pearl Harbor happen" conspiracy theorists.
 
2012-06-15 06:21:48 AM
Our military plans for damn near every scenario. It seems that every so often that some idiot misinterprets that as meaningful.
 
2012-06-15 07:10:10 AM

fusillade762: DrPainMD: dave1y: Oh, and the US has 3 contingency plans for invading every country in the world.

And yet, Americans still don't see the parallels between the US and Nazi Germany.

hint: if you're fighting a war, and your national sovereignty hasn't been challenged, you are the aggressor; you are the bad guy.

Was our sovereignty threatened during WWII?


Advantage, "fusillade762"
 
2012-06-15 07:34:42 AM
How about we stay out of other countries internal maters for a change?
 
2012-06-15 07:39:48 AM

fusillade762: DrPainMD: dave1y: Oh, and the US has 3 contingency plans for invading every country in the world.

And yet, Americans still don't see the parallels between the US and Nazi Germany.

hint: if you're fighting a war, and your national sovereignty hasn't been challenged, you are the aggressor; you are the bad guy.

Was our sovereignty threatened during WWII?


Little known fact, Japan invaded the US during WWII. Not to mention the German U-Boats that sailed from our coast up a few rivers to unload spy's.
 
2012-06-15 07:40:26 AM

fusillade762: Piestar: fusillade762: DrPainMD: dave1y: Oh, and the US has 3 contingency plans for invading every country in the world.

And yet, Americans still don't see the parallels between the US and Nazi Germany.

hint: if you're fighting a war, and your national sovereignty hasn't been challenged, you are the aggressor; you are the bad guy.

Was our sovereignty threatened during WWII?

Perhaps a tad, on December seventh...

Hawaii wasn't a state until 1959.


However it was a territory.
 
2012-06-15 07:42:37 AM
Big deal. Nobody cares about those poor sand monkeys in Syria. I dobut we or the world will do anything.
 
2012-06-15 08:04:29 AM

zamboni: Eh... big deal. The list of scenarios looks pretty harmless.


That's a real WOPR of a list.
 
2012-06-15 08:15:16 AM

fusillade762: Also none of the aircraft carriers at Pearl were even touched


Which carriers were at Pearl Harbor, specifically? Enterprise was en route back to Pearl, Lexington was on the way to Midway Island, and Saratoga was in San Diego Harbor at the time of the attack.
 
2012-06-15 08:30:58 AM

fusillade762: Chicken Fried Internets: fusillade762: Medic Zero: Also none of the aircraft carriers at Pearl were even touched (they would prove crucial) ...

I was under the impression that there were no carriers present at Pearl Harbor at the time of the attack?

/could be wrong
//well before my time

Fortunately for the United States, the American aircraft carriers were untouched by the Japanese attack, otherwise the Pacific Fleet's ability to conduct offensive operations would have been crippled for a year or so (given no diversions from the Atlantic Fleet). As it was, the elimination of the battleships left the U.S. Navy with no choice but to rely on its aircraft carriers and submarines-the very weapons with which the U.S. Navy halted and eventually reversed the Japanese advance.


From the wiki article that you linked to:

"Striking the Pacific Fleet at anchor in Pearl Harbor carried two distinct disadvantages: the targeted ships would be in very shallow water, so it would be relatively easy to salvage and possibly repair them; and most of the crews would survive the attack, since many would be on shore leave or would be rescued from the harbor. A further important disadvantage-this of timing, and known to the Japanese-was the absence from Pearl Harbor of all three of the U.S. Pacific Fleet's aircraft carriers (Enterprise, Lexington, and Saratoga). Ironically, the IJN top command was so imbued with Admiral Mahan's "decisive battle" doctrine-especially that of destroying the maximum number of battleships-that, despite these concerns, Yamamoto decided to press ahead"
 
2012-06-15 08:44:14 AM
According to fussilade, anyone can invade and take over Washington, D.C. and we couldn't consider it an attack on the U.S. because, after all, it's not a state.
 
2012-06-15 09:13:51 AM
This years Bilderberg showed us three things :

1) Mittbot will win
2) We will go to war in Syria basing our troops in Turkey
3) The trigger will be a submarine attack of some sort - perhaps on Israel - or the threat of such an attack will be used as justification to attack.

No tin foil hat here, take the time, look at the participants, do some research on them and ask yourself objectively why would they be there ? There are a number of interesting "outliers" that don't fit.. unless the above is a real possibility.
 
2012-06-15 09:51:55 AM
Contigency planning is a big part of Pentagon operations. Its good policy to be prepared if you are an army. It allows for long term planning and budgeting; how many brigades do we need to have ready at all times, ships, aircraft? Certain treaty obligations may require us to be ready to defend an ally. Gives junior officers something to do (and allows senior officers to judge who the smart ones are). Every time we make a new friend or enemy, or a new technology is developed, or a troop unit is deactivated or whatever, plans needs to be updated

There were plans in a file drawer that were drawn up to deal with various Japanese conflict scenarios long before 1941, See War Plan Orange.

More people died on 9/11 than 12/7.

4 battleships were sunk but two were raised and returned to battle.

The power station, shipyard, maintenance, and fuel and torpedo storage facilities, as well as the submarine piers and headquarters building (also home of the intelligence section) were not attacked. OOPS.

Japan declared war on us. First.

The only member of Congress to vote AGAINST the declaration of war on December 8th was a REPUBLICAN. HA.
 
2012-06-15 09:57:57 AM

fusillade762: Medic Zero: fusillade762: Void_Beavis: Never mind that during Pearl, our Navy was like totally pwnd.

The ships they sank there were all on the verge of being decommissioned. And clear warnings of the attack were ignored. Roosevelt just wanted an excuse to enter the war. Plus farking with Japan's access to rubber, oil and steel was viewed as aggression by *us*.

In any event Hawaii was illegally annexed by the US.

"On the verge of being decommissioned?" Source please!

Both the Arizona and the Oklahoma were commissioned in 1916. And they were the only two battleships that weren't repaired and returned to service. Also none of the aircraft carriers at Pearl were even touched (they would prove crucial) and Japan neglected to attack the submarine base there (subs also played a major role in starving Japan of resources).

We could argue how much life those ships had left, but it's safe to say the damage to the US navy is being overstated.


It's not. The US Navy at the time was doctrinally prepared and trained to use battleships as the center piece of their operations. When the majority of those battleships were sunk, there was a scramble to study submarine and carrier operations because that's what was left. Both arms had been ignored for a while and the best officers usually went to the battleships. Carriers and subs did play a large role, but only because the Navy lost so much of it's preferred capacity to the Pearl Harbor attack.
 
2012-06-15 10:11:06 AM

zamboni: Eh... big deal. The list of scenarios looks pretty harmless.

U.S. First Strike
U.S.S.R. First Strike
NATO / Warsaw Pact
Far East Strategy
U.S. / U.S.S.R. escalation
Middle East War
U.S.S.R. / China Attack
India / Pakistan War
Mediterranean War
Hong Kong Variant
SEATO Decapitating
Cuban Provocation
Inadvertent
Atlantic Heavy
Cuban Paramilitary
Nicaraguan Pre-emptive
Pacific Territorial
Burmese Theaterwide
Turkish Decoy
Argentina Escalation
Iceland Maximum
Arabian Theaterwide
U.S. Subversion
Australian Maneuver
Sudan Surprise
NATO Territorial
Zaire Alliance
Iceland Incident
English Escalation
Zaire Screen
Middle East Heavy
Mexican Takeover
Chad Alert
Saudi Maneuver
African Territorial
Ethiopian Calamity
Canadian (obstructed)
Turkish Heavy
NATO Incursion
U.S. Defense
Cambodian Heavy
Warsaw Pact Medium
Arctic Minimal
Mexican Domestic
Taiwanese Theaterwide
Pacific Maneuver
Portugal Revolution
Albanian Decoy
Palestinian Local
Moroccan Minimal
Czech Option
French Alliance
Arabian Clandestine
Gabon Rebellion
Northern Maximum
SEATO Takeover
Hawaiian Escalation
Iranian Maneuver
NATO Containment
Swiss Incident
Cuba Minimal
Iceland Escalation
Vietnamese Retaliation
Syrian Provocation
Libyan Local
Gabon Takeover
Romanian War
Middle East Offensive
Denmark Massive
Chile Confrontation
South African Subversion
U.S.S.R. Alert
Nicaraguan Thrust
Greenland Domestic
Iceland Heavy
Kenya Option
Pacific Defense
Uganda Maximum
Thai Subversion
Romanian Strike
Pakistan Sovereignty
Afghan Misdirection
Thai Variation
Northern Territorial
Polish Paramilitary
South African Offensive
Panama Misdirection
Scandinavian Domestic
Jordan Pre-emptive
English Thrust
Burmese Manuever
Spain Counter
Arabian Offensive
Chad Interdiction
Taiwan Misdirection
Bangladesh Theaterwide
Ethiopian Local
Italian Takeover
Vietnamese Incident
English Pre-emptive
Denmark Alternate
Thai Confrontation
Taiwan Surprise
Brazilian Strike
Venezuela Sudden
Malaysian Alert
Israel Discretionary
Libyan Action
Palestinian Tactical
NAT ...


These would either be great names for bands or mixed drinks.
 
2012-06-15 10:15:10 AM

Freakman: Carriers and subs did play a large role, but only because the Navy lost so much of it's preferred capacity to the Pearl Harbor attack.


Sort of, but not really. The attacked itself proved the immediate impotence of battleships. Policy and plans shifted to naval air power because of that fact, not the lack of ships. And we did build more battleships during the war, but none since. The battleships stuck around to help 'defend' the carriers (if they were fast enough) or bombard costal defences of beaches we were landing on. I know, I know, Leyte Gulf, blah blah.
 
2012-06-15 10:23:35 AM

dave1y: Freakman: Carriers and subs did play a large role, but only because the Navy lost so much of it's preferred capacity to the Pearl Harbor attack.

Sort of, but not really. The attacked itself proved the immediate impotence of battleships. Policy and plans shifted to naval air power because of that fact, not the lack of ships. And we did build more battleships during the war, but none since. The battleships stuck around to help 'defend' the carriers (if they were fast enough) or bombard costal defences of beaches we were landing on. I know, I know, Leyte Gulf, blah blah.


No, really it didn't. The "battleship" mafia in the Navy advocated for a battleship-centric Navy even after the war. The carrier issue still isn't settled, it's just shifted to supercarriers versus amphibs. Our military never pivots to new concepts on a dime, and they sure as shiat didn't then. See manned aircraft versus unmanned aircraft today. Fighter pilots are fighting a UAV-centric Air Force tooth and nail.
 
2012-06-15 10:23:49 AM

jack_o_the_hills: This years Bilderberg showed us...


And that's where I stopped paying attention. Are you going to tell us about the chemtrails next?
 
2012-06-15 10:30:46 AM

cman: CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN


OBAMA 2012

Endless War
 
2012-06-15 10:37:58 AM

Freakman: fusillade762: Medic Zero: fusillade762: Void_Beavis: Never mind that during Pearl, our Navy was like totally pwnd.

The ships they sank there were all on the verge of being decommissioned. And clear warnings of the attack were ignored. Roosevelt just wanted an excuse to enter the war. Plus farking with Japan's access to rubber, oil and steel was viewed as aggression by *us*.

In any event Hawaii was illegally annexed by the US.

"On the verge of being decommissioned?" Source please!

Both the Arizona and the Oklahoma were commissioned in 1916. And they were the only two battleships that weren't repaired and returned to service. Also none of the aircraft carriers at Pearl were even touched (they would prove crucial) and Japan neglected to attack the submarine base there (subs also played a major role in starving Japan of resources).

We could argue how much life those ships had left, but it's safe to say the damage to the US navy is being overstated.

It's not. The US Navy at the time was doctrinally prepared and trained to use battleships as the center piece of their operations. When the majority of those battleships were sunk, there was a scramble to study submarine and carrier operations because that's what was left. Both arms had been ignored for a while and the best officers usually went to the battleships. Carriers and subs did play a large role, but only because the Navy lost so much of it's preferred capacity to the Pearl Harbor attack.


you are full of crap. The people in the Submarine Command had been studying the use of submarines in war for decades. The same thing goes for aircraft carriers.

The Navy built lots of ships during the war. They built a lot more aircraft carriers than they did battleships.

Do you get all of your "information" from the Military Channel?
 
2012-06-15 10:40:47 AM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: cman: CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN

OBAMA 2012

Endless War


It is called planning. There is an entire organization devoted to planning. They plan for all sorts of stuff. 99% are never implemented. Obama had nothing to do with it. That is the mandate of this organization.

Nothing wrong with being prepared, just in case.
 
2012-06-15 10:41:55 AM

redlegrick: zamboni: Eh... big deal. The list of scenarios looks pretty harmless.

U.S. First Strike
U.S.S.R. First Strike
NATO / Warsaw Pact
Far East Strategy
U.S. / U.S.S.R. escalation
Middle East War
U.S.S.R. / China Attack
India / Pakistan War
Mediterranean War
Hong Kong Variant
SEATO Decapitating
Cuban Provocation
Inadvertent
Atlantic Heavy
Cuban Paramilitary
Nicaraguan Pre-emptive
Pacific Territorial
Burmese Theaterwide
Turkish Decoy
Argentina Escalation
Iceland Maximum
Arabian Theaterwide
U.S. Subversion
Australian Maneuver
Sudan Surprise
NATO Territorial
Zaire Alliance
Iceland Incident
English Escalation
Zaire Screen
Middle East Heavy
Mexican Takeover
Chad Alert
Saudi Maneuver
African Territorial
Ethiopian Calamity
Canadian (obstructed)
Turkish Heavy
NATO Incursion
U.S. Defense
Cambodian Heavy
Warsaw Pact Medium
Arctic Minimal
Mexican Domestic
Taiwanese Theaterwide
Pacific Maneuver
Portugal Revolution
Albanian Decoy
Palestinian Local
Moroccan Minimal
Czech Option
French Alliance
Arabian Clandestine
Gabon Rebellion
Northern Maximum
SEATO Takeover
Hawaiian Escalation
Iranian Maneuver
NATO Containment
Swiss Incident
Cuba Minimal
Iceland Escalation
Vietnamese Retaliation
Syrian Provocation
Libyan Local
Gabon Takeover
Romanian War
Middle East Offensive
Denmark Massive
Chile Confrontation
South African Subversion
U.S.S.R. Alert
Nicaraguan Thrust
Greenland Domestic
Iceland Heavy
Kenya Option
Pacific Defense
Uganda Maximum
Thai Subversion
Romanian Strike
Pakistan Sovereignty
Afghan Misdirection
Thai Variation
Northern Territorial
Polish Paramilitary
South African Offensive
Panama Misdirection
Scandinavian Domestic
Jordan Pre-emptive
English Thrust
Burmese Manuever
Spain Counter
Arabian Offensive
Chad Interdiction
Taiwan Misdirection
Bangladesh Theaterwide
Ethiopian Local
Italian Takeover
Vietnamese Incident
English Pre-emptive
Denmark Alternate
Thai Confrontation
Taiwan Surprise
Brazilian Strike
Venezuela Sudden
Malaysian Alert
Israel Discretionary
Libyan Action
Palestinian Tac ...


Actually, it would make a for a great game of Mad Libs. "All of a Venezuela sudden, the Denmark Alternate stuck his Taiwan Surprise in the Ethiopian Local.
 
2012-06-15 10:52:06 AM

chuckufarlie: Do you get all of your "information" from the Military Channel?


Aren't they playing music videos now?

I think you need to watch the Golf Channel more military shows now.
 
2012-06-15 10:53:26 AM
Oh, Goody! Now We can cash in all these 'this is not the DREAM act' passes Obama is passing out to illegal aliens between 16 and 30.

1. Create need for more military.
2. Create a mini DREAM Act for young illegal aliens.
3. Profit!
 
2012-06-15 10:54:16 AM

Happy Hours: chuckufarlie: Do you get all of your "information" from the Military Channel?

Aren't they playing music videos now?

I think you need to watch the Golf Channel more military shows now.


Come back when you learn how to properly construct a sentence.

FYI, I never said that I watch the Military Channel, moron.
 
2012-06-15 10:57:07 AM

fusillade762: DrPainMD: dave1y: Oh, and the US has 3 contingency plans for invading every country in the world.

And yet, Americans still don't see the parallels between the US and Nazi Germany.

hint: if you're fighting a war, and your national sovereignty hasn't been challenged, you are the aggressor; you are the bad guy.

Was our sovereignty threatened during WWII?


FWIW, you do know that Germany declared war on the US first, right?

FDR's December 8th speech to congress asked for a declaration of war against Japan, not all the axis nations. We didn't declare war on Germany and Italy until December 11th, and it was done in response to their declarations.
 
2012-06-15 11:00:42 AM

Freakman: Our military never pivots to new concepts on a dime, and they sure as shiat didn't then.


I would disagree with this statement. We had no battleships (for a while) after Pearl Harbor, yet fought at the Coral Sea, Midway, et al. The pivot happened right away. Maybe were discussing different things...you're speaking of people's ideas, I'm looking at the reality-after the fact. But remember, the main objctive of Pearl (for the Japs), was to destroy our carriers. Our carriers were at sea for their protection, not the battleships...why? .

.
 
2012-06-15 11:02:13 AM
Void_Beavis: Never mind that during Pearl, our Navy was like totally pwnd

Except for those little cigar shaped boats down on the other end of the harbor. US submarines were ready to go almost immediately. Problems with torpedoes kept them from being fully effective at first but that got fixed and they played Hell with Japanese shipping and Naval vessels.

/Uncle was in Pearl Harbor on Dec 7, 41
//I Served aboard some old WWII diesel boats in the '60s.
/// Ahhh-oogas and hand salute to the Fleet
 
2012-06-15 11:19:45 AM
So, the domino effect of democracy starting with the ousting of Saddam was actually a euphemism for a domino effect of middle east wars in the hopes of a new regime creating democracy? Nice end-around!
 
2012-06-15 11:44:06 AM

chuckufarlie: Happy Hours: chuckufarlie: Do you get all of your "information" from the Military Channel?

Aren't they playing music videos now?

I think you need to watch the Golf Channel more military shows now.

Come back when you learn how to properly construct a sentence.

FYI, I never said that I watch the Military Channel, moron.


Lighten up, Francis.

And learn to spell moran properly!
 
2012-06-15 11:53:54 AM

Enemabag Jones: No matter what action Obama takes, I am quite sure Republicans will be able to point out how he screwed it up.

/If this can be handled discreetly like Libya, it would be idea.

//Bye bye Michael Corleone, you know this wasn't your calling anyway.


you need to look up the word discreetly.
 
2012-06-15 12:13:49 PM
zamboni: Eh... big deal. The list of scenarios looks pretty harmless.

U.S. First Strike
U.S.S.R. First Strike
NATO / Warsaw Pact
Far East Strategy
U.S. / U.S.S.R. escalation
Middle East War
U.S.S.R. / China Attack
India / Pakistan War
Mediterranean War
Hong Kong Variant
SEATO Decapitating
Cuban Provocation
Inadvertent
Atlantic Heavy
Cuban Paramilitary
Nicaraguan Pre-emptive
Pacific Territorial
Burmese Theaterwide
Turkish Decoy
Argentina Escalation
Iceland Maximum
Arabian Theaterwide
U.S. Subversion
Australian Maneuver
Sudan Surprise
NATO Territorial
Zaire Alliance
Iceland Incident
English Escalation
Zaire Screen
Middle East Heavy
Mexican Takeover
Chad Alert
Saudi Maneuver
African Territorial
Ethiopian Calamity
Canadian (obstructed)
Turkish Heavy
NATO Incursion
U.S. Defense
Cambodian Heavy
Warsaw Pact Medium
Arctic Minimal
Mexican Domestic
Taiwanese Theaterwide
Pacific Maneuver
Portugal Revolution
Albanian Decoy
Palestinian Local
Moroccan Minimal
Czech Option
French Alliance
Arabian Clandestine
Gabon Rebellion
Northern Maximum
SEATO Takeover
Hawaiian Escalation
Iranian Maneuver
NATO Containment
Swiss Incident
Cuba Minimal
Iceland Escalation
Vietnamese Retaliation
Syrian Provocation
Libyan Local
Gabon Takeover
Romanian War
Middle East Offensive
Denmark Massive
Chile Confrontation
South African Subversion
U.S.S.R. Alert
Nicaraguan Thrust
Greenland Domestic
Iceland Heavy
Kenya Option
Pacific Defense
Uganda Maximum
Thai Subversion
Romanian Strike
Pakistan Sovereignty
Afghan Misdirection
Thai Variation
Northern Territorial
Polish Paramilitary
South African Offensive
Panama Misdirection
Scandinavian Domestic
Jordan Pre-emptive
...


Is that a list of dirty Sex acts? they all sound like the most mind blowingly disturbing acts you can think of from Urban Dictionary.

I'll bet you a Rusty Venture at least a couple of those are also sex acts.
 
2012-06-15 12:19:24 PM
Lets invade and occupy the Moon instead. It would cost almost as much and it might just benefit the human race to establish a base there.
 
2012-06-15 12:36:16 PM
Allow my two cents. The point of the Pearl Harbor attacks was not about occupation or a threat to the sovereignty of the US. It was to eliminate the US as a player in the Pacific. They assumed that the US was soft and that without it's navy would not be a threat. What they didn't plan on was that the carriers would be at sea. That was the fatal flaw as would be manifest at Midway. Germany also planned on US neutrality and had no concerns for occupation. Now let me offer fuel for a flame-war. All the bumper stickers that acclaim the Armed Forces for having fought for our freedom or being the reason I speak English are bunk. We have only fought other people's wars. Right or wrong. Our sovereignty has never been threatened.
And yes I know this thread is about Syria.
 
kgf
2012-06-15 12:52:55 PM

DrPainMD: dave1y: Oh, and the US has 3 contingency plans for invading every country in the world.

And yet, Americans still don't see the parallels between the US and Nazi Germany.

hint: if you're fighting a war, and your national sovereignty hasn't been challenged, you are the aggressor; you are the bad guy.


Really? You haven't thought this through have you?
 
2012-06-15 12:57:11 PM

dave1y: Freakman: Our military never pivots to new concepts on a dime, and they sure as shiat didn't then.

I would disagree with this statement. We had no battleships (for a while) after Pearl Harbor, yet fought at the Coral Sea, Midway, et al. The pivot happened right away. Maybe were discussing different things...you're speaking of people's ideas, I'm looking at the reality-after the fact. But remember, the main objctive of Pearl (for the Japs), was to destroy our carriers. Our carriers were at sea for their protection, not the battleships...why? .

.


Two of the carriers were at sea because they were delivering aircraft to island outposts. The third was on the west coast undergoing maintenance. They were not at sea for their protection.
 
2012-06-15 01:02:44 PM

ADDDAddy: Allow my two cents. The point of the Pearl Harbor attacks was not about occupation or a threat to the sovereignty of the US. It was to eliminate the US as a player in the Pacific. They assumed that the US was soft and that without it's navy would not be a threat. What they didn't plan on was that the carriers would be at sea. That was the fatal flaw as would be manifest at Midway. Germany also planned on US neutrality and had no concerns for occupation. Now let me offer fuel for a flame-war. All the bumper stickers that acclaim the Armed Forces for having fought for our freedom or being the reason I speak English are bunk. We have only fought other people's wars. Right or wrong. Our sovereignty has never been threatened.
And yes I know this thread is about Syria.

Only fought other people's wars? What do you propose that our response should have been after the attack on Pearl Harbor? How in any logically sense can you call that somebody else's war? Would you have just sent a strongly worded message to the Emperor?

What should our response have been to Germany and Italy declaring war on the USA?

There are valid reasons for going to war besides protecting our sovereignty/
 
2012-06-15 01:04:30 PM

Happy Hours: chuckufarlie: Happy Hours: chuckufarlie: Do you get all of your "information" from the Military Channel?

Aren't they playing music videos now?

I think you need to watch the Golf Channel more military shows now.

Come back when you learn how to properly construct a sentence.

FYI, I never said that I watch the Military Channel, moron.

Lighten up, Francis.

And learn to spell moran properly!


excellent response, dumbass.
 
kgf
2012-06-15 01:07:12 PM

fusillade762: Chicken Fried Internets: fusillade762: Medic Zero: Also none of the aircraft carriers at Pearl were even touched (they would prove crucial) ...

I was under the impression that there were no carriers present at Pearl Harbor at the time of the attack?

/could be wrong
//well before my time

Fortunately for the United States, the American aircraft carriers were untouched by the Japanese attack, otherwise the Pacific Fleet's ability to conduct offensive operations would have been crippled for a year or so (given no diversions from the Atlantic Fleet). As it was, the elimination of the battleships left the U.S. Navy with no choice but to rely on its aircraft carriers and submarines-the very weapons with which the U.S. Navy halted and eventually reversed the Japanese advance.


OMG, quoting a source without understanding it is priceless! The carriers were untouched because they weren't there, not because the Japanese didn't attack them.

The Arizona wasn't repaired and returned to service because it was too heavily damaged.

Show me any solid evidence that Roosevelt KNEW about the impending attack. That's just another conspiracy theory that's been bandied about for 70 years.

Hawaii was a Territory of the US and therefore was part of the US, just as Puerto Rico and Guam are today. The attack was a clear challenge to our sovereignty.
 
2012-06-15 01:16:59 PM

JaCiNto: fusillade762: Chicken Fried Internets: fusillade762: Medic Zero: Also none of the aircraft carriers at Pearl were even touched (they would prove crucial) ...

I was under the impression that there were no carriers present at Pearl Harbor at the time of the attack?

/could be wrong
//well before my time

Fortunately for the United States, the American aircraft carriers were untouched by the Japanese attack, otherwise the Pacific Fleet's ability to conduct offensive operations would have been crippled for a year or so (given no diversions from the Atlantic Fleet). As it was, the elimination of the battleships left the U.S. Navy with no choice but to rely on its aircraft carriers and submarines-the very weapons with which the U.S. Navy halted and eventually reversed the Japanese advance.

From the wiki article that you linked to:

"Striking the Pacific Fleet at anchor in Pearl Harbor carried two distinct disadvantages: the targeted ships would be in very shallow water, so it would be relatively easy to salvage and possibly repair them; and most of the crews would survive the attack, since many would be on shore leave or would be rescued from the harbor. A further important disadvantage-this of timing, and known to the Japanese-was the absence from Pearl Harbor of all three of the U.S. Pacific Fleet's aircraft carriers (Enterprise, Lexington, and Saratoga). Ironically, the IJN top command was so imbued with Admiral Mahan's "decisive battle" doctrine-especially that of destroying the maximum number of battleships-that, despite these concerns, Yamamoto decided to press ahead"


sorry, but the Japanese attack fleet did not know that the carriers were at sea.

The big advantage of attacking the fleet while in harbor is that you know where they are, Trying to locate them while they are at sea might result in the US fleet discovering the Japanese fleet first - eliminating any surprise and offering the US Navy a better chance for an effective defense.

Another advantage is that the ships in harbor would be standing still and not at a defensive posture.
 
kgf
2012-06-15 01:18:16 PM

ADDDAddy: Allow my two cents. The point of the Pearl Harbor attacks was not about occupation or a threat to the sovereignty of the US. It was to eliminate the US as a player in the Pacific. They assumed that the US was soft and that without it's navy would not be a threat. What they didn't plan on was that the carriers would be at sea. That was the fatal flaw as would be manifest at Midway. Germany also planned on US neutrality and had no concerns for occupation. Now let me offer fuel for a flame-war. All the bumper stickers that acclaim the Armed Forces for having fought for our freedom or being the reason I speak English are bunk. We have only fought other people's wars. Right or wrong. Our sovereignty has never been threatened.
And yes I know this thread is about Syria.


Well, I've been enjoying my time in your fantasy land. Now back to reality. The countries of the world are a tightly interwoven mesh of conflicting needs and desires. Anything that happens anywhere affects everywhere. And attacks aren't always done with guns. Attacks can also be economic. It could be through withholding resources, playing games with markets, or flooding your enemy's country with counterfeit cash.

It's time for you to grow up and realize that our country's friends are nothing more than enemies who for the time being share a common interest. So when you say we've only fought other people's wars, you need to understand that even IF that's true, it's because we thought we would gain from every one of them.
 
2012-06-15 01:48:26 PM

chuckufarlie: ADDDAddy: Allow my two cents. The point of the Pearl Harbor attacks was not about occupation or a threat to the sovereignty of the US. It was to eliminate the US as a player in the Pacific. They assumed that the US was soft and that without it's navy would not be a threat. What they didn't plan on was that the carriers would be at sea. That was the fatal flaw as would be manifest at Midway. Germany also planned on US neutrality and had no concerns for occupation. Now let me offer fuel for a flame-war. All the bumper stickers that acclaim the Armed Forces for having fought for our freedom or being the reason I speak English are bunk. We have only fought other people's wars. Right or wrong. Our sovereignty has never been threatened.
And yes I know this thread is about Syria.
Only fought other people's wars? What do you propose that our response should have been after the attack on Pearl Harbor? How in any logically sense can you call that somebody else's war? Would you have just sent a strongly worded message to the Emperor?

What should our response have been to Germany and Italy declaring war on the USA?

There are valid reasons for going to war besides protecting our sovereignty/


We absolutely should have gone to war. Japan didn't expect the response they got. Her/his(?) Axis allies declared war on us and we declared war on them. We already had picked our fight by assisting England. But there again, Hitler didn't want England. He just wanted to neutralize it. He wanted Europe, Japan wanted Asia, Italy....well, fark Italy.
And to kgf's point I know the world is meshed. I know there is economic warfare. The US has been farked by that one. Again, that wasn't my point. Alliances are always shifting. "We have always been at war with Eastasia" or "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". No IF, it is true and yes we had something to gain. Either materially or politically.
This is all my fault, I digressed from the pertinent subject and mumble, mumble...going to stand against the wall again.
 
2012-06-15 01:49:04 PM

kgf: So when you say we've only fought other people's wars, you need to understand that even IF that's true, it's because we thought we would gain from every one of them.


Really? We did, eh? Care to name a few of the benefits we've received from some of these wars? I'm not a defense contractor, so I don't consider building the current leviathan one of our former Presidents referred to as "the military-industrial complex" a benefit. So are there any others?
 
Displayed 50 of 109 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report