Thread: would the US invade?

you must have me confused with someone else...but considering how you've been bitch slapped all across the issues forum these last couple of days, i suppose it's understandable.

but let's get back on topic.....

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

When Castro croaks, Chavez will have lost his socialistic support and he'll be even further marginalized.

Originally Posted by raycarey

how so? if anything a leftist revival has taken place in south and central america over the last few years....and chavez is castro's likely successor in terms of identifying and standing up to the heavy handed and duplicitous foreign policy out of washington.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez today said he plans to buy 5000 Dragunov sniper rifles from Russia to protect the oil-rich nation from a possible US invasion.

Yep 5000 sniper rifles will really help against these:

Did I just hear someone say, "Major combat operations have ended"?

How many times do you have to be taught the same lesson before you learn?

and what exactly is earl proposing....bombing venezuela?

and what about you boon mee, are you ever going to explain this statement?

Originally Posted by boon mee

When Castro croaks, Chavez will have lost his socialistic support and he'll be even further marginalized.

Why bother defending ones self against America when 'friendly fire' will do more harm than a load of sniper rifles. Venezuela would be better defended itself if it were to sponser flght training for a few more, Drop Shorts, American pilots.

The U.S. has no plans for Venezuela.

Absolutely stupid to even think so.

The US has nor military interest there. Nor even economic.

And also....the U.S. army is broken.

Originally Posted by Milkman

The U.S. has no plans for Venezuela.

Absolutely stupid to even think so.

The US has nor military interest there. Nor even economic.

And also....the U.S. army is broken.

Chavez is in the process of self destruction. Invasion is moot.

The US army never was perfect never will be. But they still have the best toys on the planet!

Originally Posted by Milkman

It's a weak and hollow force.

Not if you're looking at the business end of one of these:

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

Originally Posted by Milkman

It's a weak and hollow force.

Not if you're looking at the business end of one of these:

Cute, Earle.

But you get the drift.

And BTW, the machinery is wearing out and isn't able to be maintained in the desert because of the heat, sand, and length of time, etc.

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

Originally Posted by Milkman

It's a weak and hollow force.

Not if you're looking at the business end of one of these:

Yes I'd imagine enemies and allies alike are terrified of the business end of one of those.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Yes I'd imagine enemies and allies alike are terrified of the business end of one of those.

That's right genius! The US army makes a point of laying down a certain percentage of friendly fire incidents.

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

That's right genius! The US army makes a point of laying down a certain percentage of friendly fire incidents.

No they don't, they're just stupid and incompetent.

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Yes I'd imagine enemies and allies alike are terrified of the business end of one of those.

That's right genius! The US army makes a point of laying down a certain percentage of friendly fire incidents.

No , but they get far too much of a hard on when they think about their "air power" and are a bit gung ho when using it.

Originally Posted by NathairCeann

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Yes I'd imagine enemies and allies alike are terrified of the business end of one of those.

That's right genius! The US army makes a point of laying down a certain percentage of friendly fire incidents.

No , but they get far too much of a hard on when they think about their "air power" and are a bit gung ho when using it.

^ I agree with you there. I suppose it's not bad to have the destructive capacity, but it should be used more sparingly.

^ and ^^ and ^^^,

For some of military machisimo displayed, it's worth noting that the U.S. military has come to the realization that military power alone cannot get the US what it wants.

Vietnam, and now Iraq.

And also, Gen. Abrams (whom the Abrams tank is named after) made a new rule after Vietnam for the military.

Any military action would require mobilizing the Nation Guard and Reserves.

This way, a deeper spread of the demographics of the U.S. population would be sent to foreign nations in foreign wars: middle-aged banker with kids and a mortgage, carpenters, teachers, etc.

Not just young 18 and 19 year old from small towns.

The American Army (to say this again) is broken: Iran knows it, and the world knows it.

^
You may know this Milkman, who was it who (infamously now I guess) who issued the 'we have the capabilities to wage war on two fronts' statement?

I've been racking my brains trying to remember but am drawing blanks.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

^
You may know this Milkman, who was it who (infamously now I guess) who issued the 'we have the capabilities to wage war on two fronts' statement?

I've been racking my brains trying to remember but am drawing blanks.

Donald Rumsfeld said that at a press conference with regard to North Korea (after they were already in Iraq).

Originally Posted by Milkman

Donald Rumsfeld said that at a press conference with regard to North Korea

Bollocks! Should've known, pretty obvious really. Good picking on the actual circumstances as well.

Cheers.

^^ Well lucky they had to get rid of him (Rumpypumpy) before he did some REAL damage. Last time they had a war in Korea McArthur managed to provoke the Chinese into joining in and it took some effort to recover the situation. Only now the PRC have some bigger guns.

Originally Posted by NathairCeann

^^ Well lucky they had to get rid of him (Rumpypumpy) before he did some REAL damage.

Rumsfeld already did major damage - his Iraq strategy for a smaller, lighter, faster military force, was and still is a disaster. The U.S. needed a minimum of 330,000 troops, but sent far less. Unarmored humvees, etc.

As for North Korea, the U.S. was never intending to do anything, IMO.

Last time they had a war in Korea McArthur managed to provoke the Chinese into joining in and it took some effort to recover the situation. Only now the PRC have some bigger guns.

Yes, there was hand-to-hand combat between U.S. and Chinese forces in this conflict from 1950 to 1953. A different era, however.