Conquer Club

Posted: **Thu Mar 20, 2008 12:45 pm**

suggs wrote:who are you

your mum

Posted: **Thu Mar 20, 2008 12:53 pm**

Snorri1234 wrote:Also, you guys lost the Iraq war too.

no we didn't. i specifically remember the ticker tape parade down Broadway in Manhattan, we all lauded Gen. Schwarzkopf for a job well done!

Posted: **Thu Mar 20, 2008 12:55 pm**

Snorri1234 wrote:
muy_thaiguy wrote:
sam_levi_11 wrote:
muy_thaiguy wrote:
sam_levi_11 wrote:oh the one war you still harp on about....geeze youd think youd change the record considering we have the best military history in the civilised world
Depends on how you look at it.
no it doesnt, its fact

Fact: in a little over 200 years, the US has been involved in what, 50 odd wars? And only 2 of them weren't straight up victories. Those being Korea (still not technically over) and Vietnam (you can thank the media for this one, lugging huge cameras out into the battlefield and making US troops easy targets for the Viet Cong).

Yeah, I'm sure vietnam was lost because of the media and not because of the fact the soldiers didn't actually know a lot about fighting in the jungle or that the leaders made bad decisions....

Also, you guys lost the Iraq war too.

The US won the Viet-Nam war. Only when Congress forbade any further involvment did the NVA launch their assault and overwhelm ARVN. The consensus amongst historians is that had the US increased troop numbers after the post-Tet annhiliation of Victor Charlie, or had US air power remained as a threat to the North, in 1973, there is no way that the South would have collapsed.

Iraq is being won by the Petraeus-Odierno surge strategy.

Posted: **Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:03 pm**

Napoleon Ier wrote:Iraq is being won by the Petraeus-Odierno surge strategy.

what, you mean the brilliant and novel idea of sending enough fucking troops to get the job done?

Gen. Shinseki was saying that back in motherfucking 2003. don't be such a Bush Administration cheerleader.

hell, even little old ME said we needed to send 500,000 troops to take Iraq. it was in a paper i wrote in college, as a net assessment of an invasion of Iraq for the purpose of staging protracted conflict with Iran, the real threat to US interests.

and i wrote that in 2001. if this wasn't an interweb forum, and actually counted for something, i could prove that.

of course, proving that doesn't accomplish much, except to prove that i'm smarter than the administration, and at least as smart as the Joint Chiefs were before Bush dismantled the brains at the Pentagon.

Posted: **Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:07 pm**

also, we lost Iraq before the battle to topple Saddam's gov't was even finished.

i knew this as soon as i saw people looting in Baghdad.

it reminded me of other images of people looting... the riots in LA after the Rodney King verdict.

and how did we stop those riots? (and they were vicious as hell... the "insurgents" may not have had RPGs, but you best believe they had fully automatic weapons)

BOOTS ON THE GROUND.

i knew from the start we couldn't provide the kind of law and order necessary to secure the nation. fucking idiot administration.

look, Napoleon, as much as i despise your thoughts on racism and your supporting the subjugation of entire peoples, i have to try and engage you on an intellectual level here. there's something else you need to consider...

all of the good people have LEFT Iraq. why would you STAY in a lawless, hyper violent nation?

we already lost Iraq. at this point we're just grasping at straws.... juking the stats to make the leaders look good.

sorry, but that's just how it is.

Posted: **Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:09 pm**

reminisco wrote:
Snorri1234 wrote:Also, you guys lost the Iraq war too.

no we didn't. i specifically remember the ticker tape parade down Broadway in Manhattan, we all lauded Gen. Schwarzkopf for a job well done!

Very few people will get that joke. :wink:

Posted: **Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:14 pm**

Funny thing I have noticed.

The topic I put up was So what does it mean to be British

The thread has turned into a discussion about the merits of American war history.

Funny thing really, as quite often, that is actually what it is to be British.

Posted: **Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:17 pm**

Fruitcake wrote:Funny thing I have noticed.

The topic I put up was So what does it mean to be British

The thread has turned into a discussion about the merits of American war history.

Funny thing really, as quite often, that is actually what it is to be British.

Anyone here ever take a Zogby poll?

One of the concluding questions they always ask you is: "Do you feel you are mostly a citizen of: a) your town/city b) your country c) the planet Earth."

Posted: **Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:18 pm**

reminisco wrote:
Napoleon Ier wrote:Iraq is being won by the Petraeus-Odierno surge strategy.

what, you mean the brilliant and novel idea of sending enough fucking troops to get the job done?

Gen. Shinseki was saying that back in motherfucking 2003. don't be such a Bush Administration cheerleader.

hell, even little old ME said we needed to send 500,000 troops to take Iraq. it was in a paper i wrote in college, as a net assessment of an invasion of Iraq for the purpose of staging protracted conflict with Iran, the real threat to US interests.

and i wrote that in 2001. if this wasn't an interweb forum, and actually counted for something, i could prove that.

of course, proving that doesn't accomplish much, except to prove that i'm smarter than the administration, and at least as smart as the Joint Chiefs were before Bush dismantled the brains at the Pentagon.

Oh...sure, there were people making it clear that more troops were needed as early as '03. Prolem was, no one listened to them until now.

And Iraq has yet to actually be lost. So the US had not lost a single armed conflixt in all it's history.

Posted: **Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:20 pm**

Napoleon Ier wrote:And Iraq has yet to actually be lost. So the US had not lost a single armed conflixt in all it's history.

and that, old chum, is as stupid and ignorant as claiming the Dixie Flag doesn't symbolize slavery.

lets see.... single armed conflicts where we've lost...

Pearl Harbor. we lost that one.

the Battle of the Coral Sea -- Japanese Victory there.

there are more, but i'm bored of this now.

Posted: **Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:21 pm**

5 years ago today the war on Iraq was started.

Posted: **Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:23 pm**

reminisco wrote:
Napoleon Ier wrote:And Iraq has yet to actually be lost. So the US had not lost a single armed conflixt in all it's history.

and that, old chum, is as stupid and ignorant as claiming the Dixie Flag doesn't symbolize slavery.

So, it's neither.

Posted: **Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:23 pm**

reminisco wrote:
Napoleon Ier wrote:And Iraq has yet to actually be lost. So the US had not lost a single armed conflixt in all it's history.

and that, old chum, is as stupid and ignorant as claiming the Dixie Flag doesn't symbolize slavery.

Im going to assume you were being clever here because im pretty sure napoleon would argue it doesnt.

If you werent being clever, your use of analogies leaves a smidge to be desired.

Posted: **Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:26 pm**

got tonkaed wrote:
reminisco wrote:
Napoleon Ier wrote:And Iraq has yet to actually be lost. So the US had not lost a single armed conflixt in all it's history.

and that, old chum, is as stupid and ignorant as claiming the Dixie Flag doesn't symbolize slavery.

Im going to assume you were being clever here because im pretty sure napoleon would argue it doesnt.

If you werent being clever, your use of analogies leaves a smidge to be desired.

yeah, good point. wasn't trying to be clever, and i don't really want to get into it again with that fucking racist waste of life Napoleon ShitBird Ier.

because the Dixie Flag does symbolize what i said it does. and anyone who claims otherwise really should do as i've suggested before... go to Harlem, or North Philly, wave your flag proudly, and see how long you keep your teeth.

Posted: **Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:26 pm**

got tonkaed wrote:
reminisco wrote:
Napoleon Ier wrote:And Iraq has yet to actually be lost. So the US had not lost a single armed conflixt in all it's history.

and that, old chum, is as stupid and ignorant as claiming the Dixie Flag doesn't symbolize slavery.

Hang on then, so the Dixie Flag represents slavery. Right....despite it being the star-and-stripes under which slave ships always sailed?

Posted: **Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:29 pm**

Napoleon Ier wrote:Hang on then, so the Dixie Flag represents slavery. Right....despite it being the star-and-stripes under which slave ships always sailed?

Nearly all slave ships were Dutch and Portuguese.

Posted: **Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:30 pm**

ANYWAY, back on topic.

i think this video sums up what it means to be British:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waWK53ZMwng

Posted: **Thu Mar 20, 2008 2:03 pm**

I suppose another couple of aspects to add to the list of what it is to be British should be an understanding of irony, and the facility for limitless Self-deprecation.

Posted: **Thu Mar 20, 2008 2:06 pm**

Queueing.

Posted: **Thu Mar 20, 2008 2:10 pm**

Guiscard wrote:Queueing.

This.
Yes.

Posted: **Thu Mar 20, 2008 2:14 pm**

Little Britain wrote:Britain, Britain, Britain. Everybody is welcome in Britain. We are open 'til six. No foreign gentlemen please

Posted: **Thu Mar 20, 2008 2:15 pm**

Balsiefen wrote:
Little Britain wrote:Britain, Britain, Britain. Everybody is welcome in Britain. We are open 'til six. No foreign gentlemen please

Posted: **Thu Mar 20, 2008 2:33 pm**

Having no understanding of the needs of johnny foreigner...

Posted: **Thu Mar 20, 2008 2:36 pm**

the idea of a foreigner taking your money to pay for their children, glorious, glorious britain!!!glad i'm not british....

Posted: **Thu Mar 20, 2008 2:37 pm**

It means we get to eat fried egg sandwiches.
God Save The Egg.

Conquer Club

So what does it mean to be British!