Current wars deserve a general ranking with best from WWII - Petraeus may get a 5th star - Polidicks

I'v never heard of the guy, but he'll get a tank named after him in a few years or so probably. And i have to say, it would be a pretty badass name for a tank.

ITT: Successful trolling

[QUOTE=Scar;27454764]ITT: Successful trolling[/QUOTE] Lachz0r is the only possible troll. Pvtcupcakes really genuinely believes what he is saying. Its almost pathetic.

[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;27451120]You confuse me JDK. You're usually more anti-war than I am.[/QUOTE] I am, but I respect military members (for the most part) bush and the republicans are to blame for this mess we got into

I say we promote him to a six star general. (And yes that rank exists but only 2 people have obtained it.)

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;27447067]Given how long we've been at war, I would say he needs one less star.[/QUOTE] General stars aren't goddamn prizes. Generals are made 5 stars in order to give the person centralized command over a conflict.

Most of the Taliban leaders are men who we supported during the soviet invasion of the 80s. They betrayed our support. It also doesn't help that 89% of all Afghanis are ignorant farmers. (Of opium)

[QUOTE=Fuhrer;27458162]I say we promote him to a six star general. (And yes that rank exists but only 2 people have obtained it.)[/QUOTE] Isn't Washington permanently the highest ranking general ever?

[QUOTE=Moose;27453892]we gave afghanistan a billion dollars worth of military tech to repel the soviets in the 80s, and remained strong allies from there on out but we fucked up in the end and now we're over there searching for 'terrorists' and trying to isolate the taliban cell activity or at least hand the problem of the taliban over to the afghan military so we can pull out our troops and focus our money on more important things [/quote] You're already proving my point that America's foreign policy is equivalent to that of a Neanderthal. [quote] second of all, canada is not the US. we did not 'invade' canada because britain invaded canada first so i dont fucking understand how you think we're related to americas hat when they all speak oui oui oui up there (canada are also in afghanistan, as well as germany and britain) [/quote] I honestly don't know what you are saying here. I never said Canada was the US. I said the US invaded Canada (which was technically still a part of Britain at the time). Also yeah ok Canada is in Afghanistan but just from a quick Google search they have a maximum of 2300 troops there. The US has hundreds of thousands of troops deployed. And I'm guessing the only reason Canada is involved at all is because of a considerable amount of arm twisting by the US; which we do a lot of. [quote] and no we are not the only country to have invaded mexico, see the 'battle of puebla' where the french attacked mexico before the alamo (at least i think it was before the alamo) [/quote] Ok, so we're one of two countries to have invaded Mexico. People seem to think that if cut our military we're going to be invaded instantly. I'm just trying to point out that there are other countries with more modest militaries that aren't being invaded; especially in the modern era. [quote] you made some terrible points man, too eager to pin the US as the bad guy. your history is like 8th grade level[/QUOTE] Lol. You don't even know what history is about son. [editline]16th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Mr_Razzums;27456995]Lachz0r is the only possible troll. Pvtcupcakes really genuinely believes what he is saying. Its almost pathetic.[/QUOTE] I've been refuted. Try coming up with an actual argument before going straight to ad hominem.

[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;27459214]You're already proving my point that America's foreign policy is equivalent to that of a Neanderthal. I honestly don't know what you are saying here. I never said Canada was the US. I said the US invaded Canada (which was technically still a part of Britain at the time). Also yeah ok Canada is in Afghanistan but just from a quick Google search they have a maximum of 2300 troops there and a total of 6 death. The US has hundreds of thousands of troops deployed. And I'm guessing the only reason Canada is involved at all is because of a considerable amount of arm twisting by the US; which we do a lot of. Ok, so we're one of two countries to have invaded Mexico. People seem to think that if cut our military we're going to be invaded instantly. I'm just trying to point out that there are other countries with more modest militaries that aren't being invaded; especially in the modern era. Lol. You don't even know what history is about son. [editline]16th January 2011[/editline] I've been refuted. Try coming up with an actual argument before going straight to ad hominem.[/QUOTE] Muhahahahahaha America is an evil empire destroy all infidels God Bless America

[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;27459214]You're already proving my point that America's foreign policy is equivalent to that of a Neanderthal. I honestly don't know what you are saying here. I never said Canada was the US. I said the US invaded Canada (which was technically still a part of Britain at the time). Also yeah ok Canada is in Afghanistan but just from a quick Google search they have a maximum of 2300 troops there and a total of 6 death. The US has hundreds of thousands of troops deployed. And I'm guessing the only reason Canada is involved at all is because of a considerable amount of arm twisting by the US; which we do a lot of. Ok, so we're one of two countries to have invaded Mexico. People seem to think that if cut our military we're going to be invaded instantly. I'm just trying to point out that there are other countries with more modest militaries that aren't being invaded; especially in the modern era. Lol. You don't even know what history is about son. [editline]16th January 2011[/editline] I've been refuted. Try coming up with an actual argument before going straight to ad hominem.[/QUOTE] Canada is there because they are a commonwealth nation and Britain is involved in the fighting.

[QUOTE=bravehat;27459316]Canada is there because they are a commonwealth nation and Britain is involved in the fighting.[/QUOTE] Canada being a Commonwealth nation has nothing to do with our government's decision to be in Afghanistan. The Chrétien and Harper governments decided that on their own accord. This isn't WWI when we had an obligation to join the UK in fighting as a Dominion.

[QUOTE=bravehat;27459316]Canada is there because they are a commonwealth nation and Britain is involved in the fighting.[/QUOTE] How does that work exactly? Where are Australia and India?

[QUOTE=bravehat;27459316]Canada is there because they are a commonwealth nation and Britain is involved in the fighting.[/QUOTE] Britain no longer has any control over Canada whatsoever. Canada is completely sovereign. They don't do shit just because Britain does.

[url]http://www.sajaforum.org/2008/01/media-indian-so.html[/url] [url]http://www.defence.gov.au/op/afghanistan/index.htm[/url] There they are.

[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;27459447]Britain no longer has any control over Canada whatsoever. Canada is completely sovereign. They don't do shit just because Britain does.[/QUOTE] Pvt. Cupcakes you spelled Illinois wrong on your profile.

[QUOTE=Uberman77883;27458455]Most of the Taliban leaders are men who we supported during the soviet invasion of the 80s. They betrayed our support. It also doesn't help that 89% of all Afghanis are ignorant farmers. (Of opium)[/QUOTE] Except the U.S. knew exactly what they'd do with that money. I'm not sure what planet you live on but giving billions for arms to Muslim fundamentalists who've been economically repressed by British since the 19th Centuary doesn't really sound sustainable. There was no trust, they were simply given money and guns and told that infidels were attacking that need to be killed. Also that's a brilliant generalization.

[QUOTE=BANNED USER;27446554]We were fighting a war we didn't need to and we pretty much lost, I'd say his performance was horrid.[/QUOTE] Tisk, tisk. Operation Iraqi Freedom was completed in excellent time with excellent performance on the allied behalf. Most of the insurgent operations in Iraq have for the most part ended. We won a long time ago, time to get out.

[QUOTE=Derubermensch;27463639]time to get out.[/QUOTE] And that's why Iraqis who support Democracy and Americans are still being killed? Because it was a success? We have not won, and we will not win. You cannot fight ideas.

why did this happen

[QUOTE=Explosions;27459402]How does that work exactly? Where are Australia and India?[/QUOTE] Australia is/was there. Their Special Forces task groups play a vital role in the war when they are allowed off their leash. India offered limited support in the form of advisory staff. [editline]17th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=DrMonumbo;27471262]And that's why Iraqis who support Democracy and Americans are still being killed? Because it was a success? We have not won, and we will not win. [B]You cannot fight ideas[/B].[/QUOTE] I really hate that saying because it is baseless and incredibly stupid. Do you know how many attempted insurgencies have been absolutely crushed through force in history? It might not have been the case with Iraq, but people on this forum need to stop chucking out catch phrases like those when they can't form a proper argument.

Didn't they kept mentioning to win hearts and minds? How is it now?

[QUOTE=ASmellyOgre;27447604][highlight]THE WAR ON TERROR CANNOT POSSIBLY BE WON[/highlight] I'm dead serious. [b]This is literally a war against an idea--the idea that the threat of force can bend someone to your will.[/b] Sure, there are some true landmarks by which you could call victory. In Iraq, Saddam Hussein, a genocidal man, was killed and the US stayed until there was peace again under the new government. That was a victory. And given enough time, you could also route the terrorist cells out of Afghanistan, stabilize the government, and return the nation to a state of peace. The thing is, there are terrorist cells all over the world. There are cells in Yemen, The UAE, Pakistan, Ireland, The USA, etc. This idea will not die because this idea works. Unstable countries create desperation. And unstable countries can't stop desperate people. Even if the entire world were stable, there would always be dissent. People will fight. That being said, if we can make Afghanistan a better place than when we entered, maybe it will be worth it. I wouldn't say it would be an overall victory. Too much has been lost for that. But some large good must come out of this for it to have been alright.[/QUOTE] Should we....[i][b]Go deeper?[/b][/i]

[QUOTE=Goberfish;27445317]I don't think Petraeus was the one who decided to have the war. The 5th star should be judged solely by his performance.[/QUOTE] Which is terrible. Anyway the US doesn't want to leave, so I guess he is a good general for this purpose. [editline]17th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Explosions;27446579]The type of war back then is a near impossibility now.[/QUOTE] Aliens.

Somewhat related, but Gen. Omar Bradley is my cousin or my granduncle or something like that. I've done 30000000000000000000000 projects on him, it's a shame he didn't do much during WWII.

Salvation War much? He was a five star in that book series too.

[QUOTE=Madman_Andre;27479284]Salvation War much? He was a five star in that book series too.[/QUOTE] Incidentally that book was the fucking shit. Any Idea if the one about the war against heaven is finished yet?