Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'News' started by AbeWallard, Feb 14, 2018.
Small arms fire + shit like ieds and sabotage coupled with a disillusioned populace.
>150,000 dead afghans
>3400 coalition dead
>lack of commitment
This is commitment.
Wow that looks like ass
You're actually retarded if you're trying to compare WWII, where entire countries were flattened, to Afghanistsn
if the guy who makes dilbert were black dogbert would be called dawgbert
Anyways, the US has 11,000 troops in Afghanistan right now. Out of the 2 million active duty and reserve personnel in the US military that's less than .5% of our total strength.
I'm not trying to compare Afghanistan to shit lol you guys keep bringing it up. Afghanistan is not the US, like I've been saying for the last half a page.
Disillusioned populace? These ppl are actual weekend warriors, meaning by the end of their work week, they grab a machine gun and go up defend some shitty valley. That's not disillusion, that's fucking fanaticism.
Ummm... is that supposed to be a good thing?
I'm just pointing out that we're not nearly as committed as we could be
And before the allies got their shit together alot of the fighting in areas like Scandinavia looked like the insurgency action in Afghanistan.
The axis powers (especially Germany) were tech superior and better equipped/trained. The small European nations they rolled thru had their governments crumble pretty quickly, but they were still incessantly dogged by small, determined groups of guerilla fighters.
There's more to winning a war than just the big n louds crashing down n dropping bombs. Look at Iwo Jima.
That's it exactly though, they are willing to live and die for some tiny strip of dirt you can't even grow fucking potatos on.
Gotta ask yourself what led to that thought process and can it be undone? Or do you just glass the entire region and hope no one's got really really deep bunkers.
That's what nearly everyone does, including Americunts.
Wars, wars, wars, for over 200 years. These cunts are warriors, like Moro people, for example. It's their culture. They'll have to change it themselves, if there will ever be will.
Heh, Russians been there, no go.
Well, the wars are to become even even more of a sterile point and click thing. You will have to spice it up a bit, bring back the trannies and BDSM.
You still don't get that a show of force doesn't win a guerrilla war. We've had plenty of troop surges and we completely leveled Afghanistan after 9/11.
The way you beat a govt =/= the way you beat an insurgency
You're completely missing the big picture here
Also torturing prisoners who were listening to Mu'adhins and smoking hash all their lives with Metallica and Deiceide records.
In fact a huge show of force is more likely to turn more against you
Such as how the Iraqis now absolutely hate the US and wish they had Saddam back
I don't even know what we're talking about any more.
More guns = less gun violence
We're explaining that everyone needs an assault rifle and the solution to school shootings is to close public schools.
I'd probably shoot myself if I owned a gun
Bullied NFL lineman posts shotgun photo, forces high school to close
You should buy a gun
This thread convinced me.
This is a perfect example of a typical "gun control" debate. A clusterfuck turned circle jerk on both sides.
The issues are:
Armed security guard/deputy not responding to a shooting. Therefore "proof" which a "good guy with a gun will stop a bad guy with a gun." LOL no. The exception does not prove the rule. However, if the coach was armed we might have read about a vastly different type of story. Again, it's the individual and not the item.
The "less guns = less gun violence" argument. Heavily gun restricted areas of the US have an elevated rate of crime and "gun" and other types of violence. Period. Whereas these same areas when draconian gun laws are relaxed the rate does go down. This is not absolute proof which it works because -- fucknuts. (and this is what you anti-gun people celebrate) However, it does illustrate why the choice of a place to rob is far more often a Quickie-Mart and not a bank.
Lastly, it makes no sense to take away something from the majority because one person did something heinous with it. Mass punishment is patently unfair, and in Merica, unconstitutional. Again, the individual is at fault and not the object.
Nearly all mass shooters the "authorities" knew about. Some were even in psychological treatment at that time prior to the mass murder they committed (Gabby Gifford, Colorado Moviehouse, Dylan Roof, Boston Marathon, Washington Navy Yard, etc., etc., etc.) . It's time to actually put the authorities on the spot and make them accountable for their lack of action. BUT, THE LEFT BLAMES THE GUN.
tl;dr "assault rifle" is a meaningless buzzword and a poor definition which will lead to more confiscation.
from same article.
Lol this is their reasoning for declaring that a shooting happened in a "gun free zone"
So an uber driver shoots a bunch of people and because the company doesn't allow drivers to carry guns this happened in a "gun free zone"
Gee, how you you argue with that logic
No thats just one thing you chose to point out