RE: This just in re 0bama0Care

RE: This just in re 0bama0Care (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Knightwalker -> RE: This just in re 0bama0Care (2/3/2011 6:51:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey MM didn't you say the worlds largest did you mis-speak meaning the most powerful. That being the case it is probablly russia with all their nukes (more than us) Don't go being logical. Remember, he's not talking about "boots." He's talking about those vehicles that can't drive or even operate without those "boots" -- of which we have far less than other countries. Don't vex the guy, he's too busy quibbling over a hastily chosen word to comprehend that he was actually wrong about whose military is largest. Now that we've shown he was wrong about that, he's taking the stance that we should just "give up" because we weren't the largest. Man, I'm sure glad our founding fathers didn't have that attitude. We'd all be Brits right now. (Or German, since England was having a bit of trouble in WWII.) Yep, if our ancestors thought like this guy, we'd have swapped flags a couple of times by now.

Musicmystery -> RE: This just in re 0bama0Care (2/3/2011 7:02:25 PM)
What a dickhead. Show me any assessment to support your claims. I have. Guess you guys didn't know we have an air force or a navy. Or that they're actually pretty good. So far, you've been wrong on every point, intent on a pissing contest---despite the fact that I agree we spend too much. Except for the places where you think we don't. Or the "hastily chosen" word you went all out to defend. Keep misreading and misquoting. It's the only weapon in your arsenal.

Knightwalker -> RE: This just in re 0bama0Care (2/3/2011 7:39:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery What a dickhead. Funny, I was just thinking the same thing about you, Mr. Nitpick. quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Show me any assessment to support your claims. I have. Are you serious? More people than just me have SHOWN you that we, in fact, do NOT have the largest military. And you yourself have admitted that other nations have more "boots." Yet you still stick to your point about ours being largest? You're sad. Funny, but sad. quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Guess you guys didn't know we have an air force or a navy. Or that they're actually pretty good. Guess no one told you that the air force and navy are INCLUDED in our overall strength numbers. And still we're smaller than some of our enemies' militaries. It doesn't matter how "good" you are. If, for example, the other side has 100 pilots. And we have 10. And if our 10 shoot down 5 each before getting shot down themselves. Guess what? We now have zero and they still have 50. If they have more "boots" (which means people) and we don't, eventually in a full-scale war, we're going to run out. Then washed up, nitpickers like you get drafted into a military you think we spend too much money on. Good luck with that one. quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery So far, you've been wrong on every point, intent on a pissing contest---despite the fact that I agree we spend too much. I'm intent? You're the one who harped for two pages over a single word in a much larger post. You totally ignored a point to pick on one word. The irony in this is your own stupidity. For that post, did seem to be on your side (however briefly).Yet instead of just agreeing with the sentiment of the post, you chose to start a bullshit debate over a single fucking word. You're a twit, dude. And one of the main reasons I usually avoid message boards like this. Half the time they're a waste of time. The other half includes debates with twits like you...which is an even bigger and less productive waste of time. quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Keep misreading and misquoting. It's the only weapon in your arsenal. Misquoting, Mr. Nitpick? Are you seriously trying to go there? Let's see if this is a mis-quote, shall we? quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Our military is larger than the rest of the world's combined. Is that.....heeeeeey..... that's your name at the top of that quote. Hmmmm. So you say you were misquoted. Hmmm. Seems like you were quoted correctly. Oh sure, you tried to go back and claim you were talking about expense. But that's not what you said. What you said is pretty clearly in black and white right there above. You said "our military is larger than the rest of the world's combined." That would seem to indicate you feel that if you took the rest of the world's militaries and added them all up, we still come out on top. In other words, you were blatantly fucking wrong. And still you can't admit it. I've already admitted I choose my words poorly to make a quick point while I was at work. You, so far, have refused to admit you were wrong and instead blamed being 'misquoted' or claimed you were talking about something else. You're pathetic. And as I said before, you're dismissed. I have far better uses for my time than to debate with someone who can't even admit when he's wrong....all while harping on one word from someone else's post.

tazzygirl -> RE: This just in re 0bama0Care (2/3/2011 7:47:39 PM)
Jesus Christ! It doesnt matter who has the biggest! They only have to push a button once... and it doesnt require that many people to do so.

Musicmystery -> RE: This just in re 0bama0Care (2/3/2011 7:53:54 PM)
quote: If, for example, the other side has 100 pilots. And we have 10. Sigh. Other way around. I can see it now.... Commander: You had far superior equipment and firepower! They had spitballs and slingshots! How did you lose????? You: Well, Commander....there were ten of them. If equipment doesn't matter, then WHY are we spending money on it? Whoever has the largest population wins, right? What is this, the middle ages?

Knightwalker -> RE: This just in re 0bama0Care (2/3/2011 9:02:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: If, for example, the other side has 100 pilots. And we have 10. Sigh. Other way around. I can see it now.... Commander: You had far superior equipment and firepower! They had spitballs and slingshots! How did you lose????? You: Well, Commander....there were ten of them. If equipment doesn't matter, then WHY are we spending money on it? Whoever has the largest population wins, right? What is this, the middle ages? You can't possibly be this stupid. Can you? Equipment is not robotic. A person must operate it. If they have MiGs (and they do) and we have the F-35 (and we do) SOMEONE has to fly those planes. The MiG fighter isn't exactly spitwads and slingshots. It's a fairly sophisticated fighter plane. But someone must fly it. If they have more people to fly their "equipment" than we do to fly ours, they have a better chance for success. I don't give a damn how badass the F-35 or the F-22 fighter planes are. If you send one of those up against 20 MiG fighters....the MiGs will win every time. Honestly, are you really this stupid or are you just screwing around? I have to know. You do know that human beings must operate equipment, no matter how sophisticated that equipment is.....right? Even our "unmanned" drones are manned. Just not by a pilot sitting inside them. They are remote-controlled by a human being from somewhere.

Musicmystery -> RE: This just in re 0bama0Care (2/3/2011 9:26:10 PM)
Look, if you want to equate one GI marching along as equivalent to one fighter jet, with a pilot, this is only going to get sillier and sillier. One archer = one guy firing a ballistic missile. Got it.

Knightwalker -> RE: This just in re 0bama0Care (2/3/2011 9:28:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Look, if you want to equate one GI marching along as equivalent to one fighter jet, this is only going to get sillier and sillier. You're the silly one. You know the numbers of forces include EVERYONE, right? To get a plane into the air takes a pilot (one person) a ground crew (of anywhere from 3 to 5 or more people) not to mention all the admin folks that are in the military. If that plane doesn't have everyone necessary to get off the ground, it sits on the ground, motionless as a giant paperweight while the enemy tears it to shreds with its planes. You are the one who seem to be equating the two and it's blindingly evident you've never served a day in your life or you wouldn't be making such asinine statements. You really have no clue about the nature of this country's military or how its run. quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery One archer = one guy firing a ballistic missile. Got it. No, dumbfuck, you don't "got" anything. No one here is talking about archers except for you. You do realize that America has enemies with sophisticated weapons too, right? You do know that China has missiles too, right? In fact, they just unveiled a missile that can hit and sink an American aircraft carrier in one shot. (In case you're counting a carrier has 6,000 pairs of "boots" on it. That's one Chinese guy pushing one button and killing 6,000 of our men and women in the military. You want to keep this up? You want to continue showing how stupid you truly are? Be my guest.

Musicmystery -> RE: This just in re 0bama0Care (2/3/2011 9:31:18 PM)
Then clearly our poor military, so bogged down by all that air and sea capacity, is just inferior to all those infantry rich places. Gosh. Who knew.

Knightwalker -> RE: This just in re 0bama0Care (2/3/2011 9:34:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Then clearly our poor military, so bogged down by all that air and sea capacity, is just inferior to all those infantry rich places. Gosh. Who knew. Dumb fuck, "boots" doesn't just cover infantry. You halfwit. We've got planes, so do our enemies. We have tanks, so do our enemies. We have missiles, SO DO OUR ENEMIES! You illiterate halfwit. Why is it you think we're the only nation on the planet with expensive equipment? How you can operate a computer while being so blindingly stupid is beyond me.

Musicmystery -> RE: This just in re 0bama0Care (2/3/2011 9:36:44 PM)
Perhaps you'd understand better if you learned how to read links. We've got a shit load more of those things than our enemies. It's where the money goes. Perhaps if you found some support--other than insults.

Knightwalker -> RE: This just in re 0bama0Care (2/3/2011 9:40:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Perhaps you'd understand better if you learned how to read links. We've got a shit load more of those things than our enemies. It's where the money goes. Perhaps if you found some support--other than insults. Dude, I....and others on this board, have already shown you the information. You are the one who keeps talking about archers like some illiterate moron. I'll say it again. We have planes, so do our enemies. We have tanks, so do our enemies. We have missiles SO DO OUR FUCKING ENEMIES. In addition to that truth. They have more people to OPERATE their machinery than we do. Would you like to see the article that talks about how 70% or more of our nations young men and women do not qualify to even ENTER the armed forces? Other countries CONSCRIPT their militaries. Every man and woman of a certain age must serve a minimum number of years in the military. In our country, most can't even QUALIFY. And you think we have the largest military?

Musicmystery -> RE: This just in re 0bama0Care (2/3/2011 9:44:58 PM)
quote: I'll say it again. We have planes, so do our enemies. We have tanks, so do our enemies. We have missiles SO DO OUR FUCKING ENEMIES. We've got a shit load more of those things than our enemies. It's where the money goes. I even gave you a link where you can see how many, side by side. A lot more. Way fucking more. We even have people who operate them. Imagine. If you want to convince yourself that we're a weak nation, that we need even more, go ahead. Maybe they'll give you your own Apache. Who knows. They're probably just sitting around with no one to run them anyway.

Knightwalker -> RE: This just in re 0bama0Care (2/3/2011 9:49:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery We've got a shit load more of those things than our enemies. It's where the money goes. It only takes ONE of China's missiles to take down an entire aircraft carrier...of which we have a very limited number. On those limited numbered carries are MANY planes, and THOUSANDS of "boots." If they hit us with those, it's bye-bye carriers (which are the mainstay of our vast fleets you kept mentioning). Oh, and those missiles are fired from ranges that outside ours. Sure, we have ballistic missiles, but thanks to liberal retards like you, this country lost the balls to use those decades ago. So they are just giant paperweights now. China's missiles, on the other hand, are in the control of someone who has no qualms whatsoever about using them. They don't have people like you whining about war and such. If war broke out tomorrow with China, they'd have one goal -- our destruction. Whereas the sentiment in this country would be greatly divided (again because of fucktards like you). A small group would want to win the war, but a group of nutless, crybaby fucktards like yourself would protest even being in the war to begin with (regardless of who started it) and so, we'd probably lose.

Musicmystery -> RE: This just in re 0bama0Care (2/3/2011 9:55:05 PM)
quote: It only takes ONE of China's missiles to take down an entire aircraft carrier...of which we have a very limited number. Guess what....China has only one aircraft carrier. One. Total Air-Based Weapons US -- 18,169 China -- 1,900 Total Naval Units US--1,559 China -- 760 Aircraft Carriers US -- 11 China -- 1 Destroyers US -- 50 China -- 21 Frigates US -- 92 China -- 42 Submarines US -- 75 China -- 68 And that's China, the second most powerful military. As for a missile destroying one---you idiot, that's the whole point, that those personnel tell only a part of the story. You know...the story you keep changing. About time you got it. And then you have to resort to making up reactions and views for me? What a putz.

dcnovice -> RE: This just in re 0bama0Care (2/3/2011 9:55:16 PM)
nm

Knightwalker -> RE: This just in re 0bama0Care (2/3/2011 10:00:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: It only takes ONE of China's missiles to take down an entire aircraft carrier...of which we have a very limited number. Guess what....China has only one aircraft carrier. One. Total Air-Based Weapons US -- 18,169 China -- 1,900 Total Naval Units US--1,559 China -- 760 Aircraft Carriers US -- 11 China -- 1 Destroyers US -- 50 China -- 21 Frigates US -- 92 China -- 42 Submarines US -- 75 China -- 68 And that's China, the second most powerful military. As for a missile destroying one---you idiot, that's the whole point, that those personnel tell only a part of the story. You know...the story you keep changing. About time you got it. And then you have to resort to making up reactions and views for me? What a putz. Guess what, retard. All those units need people to use them. They. Have. More. Do you know that 20% or less of the people in the Air Force actually fly planes? The rest are support personnel, cops, medics, etc. 20% or less of the total force are pilots or in flying fields. Wanna know what happens when we're involved in one conflict (like we are now) and have another one start somewhere else? I'll give you a hint, it also happened in WWII. We fought on two fronts....had to draft. It was in the papers. You might have read something about it. If we slacked off on our defense budgeting, they wouldn't have less "equipment" than us for long. And since they have a much greater will to use it (again, due to many liberal crybabies here in this country) we'd not stand a fucking chance. So go ahead. Continue crying about how much we spend on that "equipment." It's clear you've never served (probably were never qualified to). So your crying is just that...crying. And as I've said before, (but didn't stick to until now) I'm done with you. You're dismissed.

Musicmystery -> RE: This just in re 0bama0Care (2/3/2011 10:03:40 PM)
Active Military Personnel US -- 1,385,122 China -- 2,255,000 Active Military Reserves US -- 1,458,500 China -- 800,000 You sure? Looks pretty close. Again, as for support personnel....I'm pretty sure our military knows about that. Did you know that sources work better in arguments than made up positions and insults? Bye. Have a nice night. Enjoy your Apache.

chubbysubbyguy -> RE: This just in re 0bama0Care (2/3/2011 10:05:25 PM)
You seem to be a big fan of technology..yet its not the technology that wins the war. It is the infantryman on the ground with his rifle. Granted One U.S. Marine = 20+ of other peoples troops and yes that is my ego as a former Marine infantryman talking. Now I should mention, and I have no real links to send you or proof other than my own experience our 20% of the budget for defense has to be split 3 ways between the Army Navy and Air force, and then the Navy splits it again to pay for the Marines. In that budget there are costs such as feeding the troops, putting them in uniforms, paying them for their service, keeping the lights on and the heat working at the barracks..look at your own budget for groceries and utilities..that doesn't leave a whole lot of money left over for toys. We may have more of em, but the last brand new tank was built in the early 90's, and when the last time a majority of our aircraft and ships were built I have no idea. When we were moved around by helicopter we actually rode in aircraft that saw service resupplying the Marines during the Siege of Khe Sahn during the tet offensive, its amazing how pretty the Military can make their toys look with some duct tape and a can of paint I'm sorry I kind of rambled here and totally lost site of the original post but I'll try and behave better in the future..just to get back on track what were we talking about before getting in a discussion on the military anyway?

Musicmystery -> RE: This just in re 0bama0Care (2/3/2011 10:11:22 PM)
Here's the thing. Everyone else has those expenses too. Yet our (apparently to some) far inadequate in number personnel need half the money spent on military globally. So given what you've said--why do you think? Where's THAT money go? Just where are we buying that super-expensive food and energy? Either there's a problem with that assessment.....or we're getting strength for our buck. Which is it? We're that powerful, or we're spending far too much money?

Page: << < prev 4 5 6 [7] 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625