If The US spends over $600 billion on their military...

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

/---- What countries are we fighting? I don't mean Jihadist that have no country I mean countries (Like Germany, Japan, Italy)
View attachment 131064

The US has troops in Germany and Japan still, a total waste of resources. But the US couldn't beat Viet Nam where they were fighting in flip-flops!!! Nor Iraq or Afghanistan, and even got its ass kicked by Somalia. SOMALIA!!!!!!

That's a lie. Liberal politicians micro-managed Vietnam and did the troops an extreme disservice by putting them in harm's way and tying their hands. Trump is letting the military micro-manage his orders. Libs don't like military spending, we get it, starving babies, granny over the cliff and all that...

it is more about, cutting taxes for rich and cutting food stamps for the poor; so we can create more terrorists with our exorbitantly expensive, superpower.

Obozo spent 9 trillion dollars and couldn't get the job done.

Ok, but WHY can't the US army ever win?

Do you realize that in Vietnam, we never lost a battle? Yet, we lost the war because liberals here in the US did not have a stomach for what needed to be done.

 

[Mr Natural]

Not talking partisan-ly, just in general, with a $600 billion+ budget, we can't take Afghanistan? Why?

Probably left over guilt from nuking Japan at the end of WWII.

 

[JakeStarkey]

... and can't get the job done against countries that spend 100 times less that they need to inject another $50 billion, isn't there something fundamentally wrong with the military and the way it's set up and operates?

The extra $50 billion is to bribe the Tramp Crime Family so they keep the $600 billion coming to the Establishment Military Industrial Complex. Tramp has to get HIS cut!!!

Why do you liberals think that Trump wants more money? He spent millions of his own money to get elected!

His great, great grandchildren will never have to worry about money now, so why is he trying to make more?

9 TRILLION$$$ deficit?

1 TRILLION$$$ infrastructure?

600 BILLION$$$ military increase?

 

[Mudda]

So we spend over $600 billion/year and can't get the job done in Afghanistan, who don't have any planes, tanks, or heavy artillery... How do you explain that?

I don't recall lefties wringing their hands over it the previous 8 years so I have to dismiss it for what it is.

Not talking partisan-ly, just in general, with a $600 billion+ budget, we can't take Afghanistan? Why?

Where is at issue?

Can someone please translate this in English for me?

It's that complicated?

Your question wasn't real English. Please try again.

 

[Mudda]

... and can't get the job done against countries that spend 100 times less that they need to inject another $50 billion, isn't there something fundamentally wrong with the military and the way it's set up and operates?

/---- What countries are we fighting? I don't mean Jihadist that have no country I mean countries (Like Germany, Japan, Italy)
View attachment 131064

The US has troops in Germany and Japan still, a total waste of resources. But the US couldn't beat Viet Nam where they were fighting in flip-flops!!! Nor Iraq or Afghanistan, and even got its ass kicked by Somalia. SOMALIA!!!!!!

Rules of Engagement put in place by liberals!

Couldn't win in Iraq or Afghanistan under GW Bush.

 

[Mudda]

... and can't get the job done against countries that spend 100 times less that they need to inject another $50 billion, isn't there something fundamentally wrong with the military and the way it's set up and operates?

/---- What countries are we fighting? I don't mean Jihadist that have no country I mean countries (Like Germany, Japan, Italy)
View attachment 131064

The US has troops in Germany and Japan still, a total waste of resources. But the US couldn't beat Viet Nam where they were fighting in flip-flops!!! Nor Iraq or Afghanistan, and even got its ass kicked by Somalia. SOMALIA!!!!!!

That's a lie. Liberal politicians micro-managed Vietnam and did the troops an extreme disservice by putting them in harm's way and tying their hands. Trump is letting the military micro-manage his orders. Libs don't like military spending, we get it, starving babies, granny over the cliff and all that...

So we spend over $600 billion/year and can't get the job done in Afghanistan, who don't have any planes, tanks, or heavy artillery... How do you explain that?

You don't know much about counter-insurgency warfare, do you?

Those planes we have often fly too high and too fast. The roads and villages cannot handle the tanks. How do you use artillery without taking a chance on collateral damage.

The best thing to take out a Taliban fighter with an AK-47 is a American soldier, sailor or Marine with an M-4/M-16, face-to face.

I have helped train them do that for years.

Then you suck at training soldiers because we're not winning in Afghanistan.

 

[Mudda]

The US has troops in Germany and Japan still, a total waste of resources. But the US couldn't beat Viet Nam where they were fighting in flip-flops!!! Nor Iraq or Afghanistan, and even got its ass kicked by Somalia. SOMALIA!!!!!!

That's a lie. Liberal politicians micro-managed Vietnam and did the troops an extreme disservice by putting them in harm's way and tying their hands. Trump is letting the military micro-manage his orders. Libs don't like military spending, we get it, starving babies, granny over the cliff and all that...

it is more about, cutting taxes for rich and cutting food stamps for the poor; so we can create more terrorists with our exorbitantly expensive, superpower.

Obozo spent 9 trillion dollars and couldn't get the job done.

Ok, but WHY can't the US army ever win?

Do you realize that in Vietnam, we never lost a battle? Yet, we lost the war because liberals here in the US did not have a stomach for what needed to be done.

So we lost in Nam. To people wearing flip-flops. Agreed.

 

[Mudda]

Not talking partisan-ly, just in general, with a $600 billion+ budget, we can't take Afghanistan? Why?

Probably left over guilt from nuking Japan at the end of WWII.

But tactically, we have $600 billion and the Taliban have no billions. So how can we be losing? It makes no sense.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

That's a lie. Liberal politicians micro-managed Vietnam and did the troops an extreme disservice by putting them in harm's way and tying their hands. Trump is letting the military micro-manage his orders. Libs don't like military spending, we get it, starving babies, granny over the cliff and all that...

it is more about, cutting taxes for rich and cutting food stamps for the poor; so we can create more terrorists with our exorbitantly expensive, superpower.

Obozo spent 9 trillion dollars and couldn't get the job done.

Ok, but WHY can't the US army ever win?

Do you realize that in Vietnam, we never lost a battle? Yet, we lost the war because liberals here in the US did not have a stomach for what needed to be done.

So we lost in Nam. To people wearing flip-flops. Agreed.

Your ignorance on this topic appears to be unequaled. Congratulations!

 

[Wyatt earp]

... and can't get the job done against countries that spend 100 times less that they need to inject another $50 billion, isn't there something fundamentally wrong with the military and the way it's set up and operates?

/---- What countries are we fighting? I don't mean Jihadist that have no country I mean countries (Like Germany, Japan, Italy)
View attachment 131064

The US has troops in Germany and Japan still, a total waste of resources. But the US couldn't beat Viet Nam where they were fighting in flip-flops!!! Nor Iraq or Afghanistan, and even got its ass kicked by Somalia. SOMALIA!!!!!!

Rules of Engagement put in place by liberals!

Couldn't win in Iraq or Afghanistan under GW Bush.

The war was over in Iraq ..the idiot started it back up

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

/---- What countries are we fighting? I don't mean Jihadist that have no country I mean countries (Like Germany, Japan, Italy)
View attachment 131064

The US has troops in Germany and Japan still, a total waste of resources. But the US couldn't beat Viet Nam where they were fighting in flip-flops!!! Nor Iraq or Afghanistan, and even got its ass kicked by Somalia. SOMALIA!!!!!!

That's a lie. Liberal politicians micro-managed Vietnam and did the troops an extreme disservice by putting them in harm's way and tying their hands. Trump is letting the military micro-manage his orders. Libs don't like military spending, we get it, starving babies, granny over the cliff and all that...

So we spend over $600 billion/year and can't get the job done in Afghanistan, who don't have any planes, tanks, or heavy artillery... How do you explain that?

You don't know much about counter-insurgency warfare, do you?

Those planes we have often fly too high and too fast. The roads and villages cannot handle the tanks. How do you use artillery without taking a chance on collateral damage.

The best thing to take out a Taliban fighter with an AK-47 is a American soldier, sailor or Marine with an M-4/M-16, face-to face.

I have helped train them do that for years.

Then you suck at training soldiers because we're not winning in Afghanistan.

You can't win a fight with your hands tied behind your back.

 

[Mudda]

it is more about, cutting taxes for rich and cutting food stamps for the poor; so we can create more terrorists with our exorbitantly expensive, superpower.

Obozo spent 9 trillion dollars and couldn't get the job done.

Ok, but WHY can't the US army ever win?

Do you realize that in Vietnam, we never lost a battle? Yet, we lost the war because liberals here in the US did not have a stomach for what needed to be done.

So we lost in Nam. To people wearing flip-flops. Agreed.

Your ignorance on this topic appears to be unequaled. Congratulations!

We also couldn't beat North Korea, and they're starving!

 

[Wyatt earp]

Not talking partisan-ly, just in general, with a $600 billion+ budget, we can't take Afghanistan? Why?

Probably left over guilt from nuking Japan at the end of WWII.

But tactically, we have $600 billion and the Taliban have no billions. So how can we be losing? It makes no sense.

No standing army to kill in Afghanistan.. Now is their?

.

 

[Mr Natural]

But tactically, we have $600 billion and the Taliban have no billions. So how can we be losing? It makes no sense.

Because there's big money to be made off war.

Why shut down the gravy train early with overwhelming military superiority?

 

[Mudda]

... and can't get the job done against countries that spend 100 times less that they need to inject another $50 billion, isn't there something fundamentally wrong with the military and the way it's set up and operates?

/---- What countries are we fighting? I don't mean Jihadist that have no country I mean countries (Like Germany, Japan, Italy)
View attachment 131064

The US has troops in Germany and Japan still, a total waste of resources. But the US couldn't beat Viet Nam where they were fighting in flip-flops!!! Nor Iraq or Afghanistan, and even got its ass kicked by Somalia. SOMALIA!!!!!!

Rules of Engagement put in place by liberals!

Couldn't win in Iraq or Afghanistan under GW Bush.

The war was over in Iraq ..the idiot started it back up

The war we lost in Iraq was over. Agreed.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Obozo spent 9 trillion dollars and couldn't get the job done.

Ok, but WHY can't the US army ever win?

Do you realize that in Vietnam, we never lost a battle? Yet, we lost the war because liberals here in the US did not have a stomach for what needed to be done.

So we lost in Nam. To people wearing flip-flops. Agreed.

Your ignorance on this topic appears to be unequaled. Congratulations!

We also couldn't beat North Korea, and they're starving!

South Korea is free.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The US has troops in Germany and Japan still, a total waste of resources. But the US couldn't beat Viet Nam where they were fighting in flip-flops!!! Nor Iraq or Afghanistan, and even got its ass kicked by Somalia. SOMALIA!!!!!!

Hands Tied Leads to Hands Up

Rules of Engagement. The Geneva Convention mandated defeat and surrender.[/QUOTE]

 

[Wyatt earp]

/---- What countries are we fighting? I don't mean Jihadist that have no country I mean countries (Like Germany, Japan, Italy)
View attachment 131064

The US has troops in Germany and Japan still, a total waste of resources. But the US couldn't beat Viet Nam where they were fighting in flip-flops!!! Nor Iraq or Afghanistan, and even got its ass kicked by Somalia. SOMALIA!!!!!!

Rules of Engagement put in place by liberals!

Couldn't win in Iraq or Afghanistan under GW Bush.

The war was over in Iraq ..the idiot started it back up

The war we lost in Iraq was over. Agreed.

Obama tried to lose the war


No?

 

[Mudda]

The US has troops in Germany and Japan still, a total waste of resources. But the US couldn't beat Viet Nam where they were fighting in flip-flops!!! Nor Iraq or Afghanistan, and even got its ass kicked by Somalia. SOMALIA!!!!!!

That's a lie. Liberal politicians micro-managed Vietnam and did the troops an extreme disservice by putting them in harm's way and tying their hands. Trump is letting the military micro-manage his orders. Libs don't like military spending, we get it, starving babies, granny over the cliff and all that...

So we spend over $600 billion/year and can't get the job done in Afghanistan, who don't have any planes, tanks, or heavy artillery... How do you explain that?

You don't know much about counter-insurgency warfare, do you?

Those planes we have often fly too high and too fast. The roads and villages cannot handle the tanks. How do you use artillery without taking a chance on collateral damage.

The best thing to take out a Taliban fighter with an AK-47 is a American soldier, sailor or Marine with an M-4/M-16, face-to face.

I have helped train them do that for years.

Then you suck at training soldiers because we're not winning in Afghanistan.

You can't win a fight with your hands tied behind your back.

Excuses don't win wars either.

 

[Mudda]

Not talking partisan-ly, just in general, with a $600 billion+ budget, we can't take Afghanistan? Why?

Probably left over guilt from nuking Japan at the end of WWII.

But tactically, we have $600 billion and the Taliban have no billions. So how can we be losing? It makes no sense.

No standing army to kill in Afghanistan.. Now is their?

.

So unless there is an identifiable opponent who is easy to spot and kill, we lose. Got it.