Now, the truth starts to emerge from some of the veterans..

[SteelCitySouth]

(09-22-2015, 03:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm surprised folks got caught up on the number given 


 

I'm surprised you think people are actually caught up on it...People tend to joke when presented with absurdity. 

No I'm not.

[*bfine32*]

(09-22-2015, 03:57 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: We could nitpick this to death, but it wasn't a country that did that, it was a terrorist organization. We trampled on the sovereignty of a few countries to get to that organization. I freely admit ignorance in what could/should have been done, though. I just don't see the issue as clearly as you apparently do.

As I have said many times before: The theme of this forum should be "I don't know what the answer is, I just know yours is wrong".

[Rotobeast]

(09-22-2015, 03:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm surprised folks got caught up on the number given rather than the point that it is a very small presence when compared to the forces we left in Asia and Europe.


No I'm not. 


 

The forces in Asia and Europe have more to do with NATO obligations and what was perceived as needing protected from Communism.
Our obligations to the middle eastern nations are minimal.
Furthermore, it is my belief that our Gov't wants instability in the region.
If the sects there are fighting amongst themselves, it is less likely they will be worried about targeting the US and it's direct allies.
Again, that is just my own belief.

[*bfine32*]

(09-22-2015, 03:59 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: I'm surprised you think people are actually caught up on it...People tend to joke when presented with absurdity. 

No I'm not.

No, people tend to joke when the have no legitimate answer. 

My answer was "about 5", clearly a reference to a small force. But the simple retort is:

"Nu uh, it's more than 5"?

I do appreciate that you imitated me though, it is the greatest form of flattery. 

[Belsnickel]

(09-22-2015, 04:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As I have said many times before: The theme of this forum should be "I don't know what the answer is, I just know yours is wrong".

Hope you're comfy in your glass house.

[*bfine32*]

(09-22-2015, 04:07 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Hope you're comfy in your glass house.

Where have I excluded myself from the equation? 

[SteelCitySouth]

(09-22-2015, 04:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No, people tend to joke when the have no legitimate answer. 

My answer was "about 5", clearly a reference to a small force. But the simple retort is:

"Nu uh, it's more than 5"?

I do appreciate that you imitated me though, it is the greatest form of flattery. 

No people like to mock absurdity.  Especially when it is thrust into a perfectly amicable conversation.  People tend to use the absurdity when they have no legitimate answer.  

More absurdity to mock I see.  Thanks.

What get's me is that our difference of opinion is so small as to leave me wondering why you felt your need to go to the absurd.  

What's funny though is that the use of the absurd in a discussion is a form of joking...and since we all know how you feel about that.

[Rotobeast]

(09-22-2015, 04:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No, people tend to joke when the have no legitimate answer. 

My answer was "about 5", clearly a reference to a small force. But the simple retort is:

"Nu uh, it's more than 5"?

I do appreciate that you imitated me though, it is the greatest form of flattery. 

So, "5" was sarcasm, by grossly underestimating ?
Sorry I missed it, as I do enjoy sarcasm.
Please use the " " from now on, so I might not seem a "Nu uh" rube.

[*bfine32*]

(09-22-2015, 04:13 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: No people like to mock absurdity.  Especially when it is thrust into a perfectly amicable conversation.  People tend to use the absurdity when they have no legitimate answer.  

More absurdity to mock I see.  Thanks.

What get's me is that our difference of opinion is so small as to leave me wondering why you felt your need to go to the absurd.  

What's funny though is that the use of the absurd in a discussion is a form of joking...and since we all know how you feel about that.

I suppose the difference is you saw the words "about 5" to represent a relatively small force; especially in comparison to the forces left behind in Europe and Asia as Absurd.

With that, I am done with the current back and forth. 

[SteelCitySouth]

(09-22-2015, 04:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I suppose the difference is you saw the words "about 5" to represent a relatively small force; especially in comparison to the forces left behind in Europe and Asia as Absurd.

With that, I am done with the current back and forth. 

[Benton]

(09-22-2015, 03:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: How many of those 25 countries give women equal rights?

www.google.com

[GMDino]

(09-22-2015, 03:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: How many of those 25 countries give women equal rights?

(09-22-2015, 05:03 PM)Benton Wrote: www.google.com

Here you go...

[SteelCitySouth]

(09-22-2015, 02:45 PM)Benton Wrote: It's one of the 25ish countries where by law the heads of state have to be Muslim. It's as much a system as it is a religion.

And if by "forced to assimilate" you mean follow the laws here, yes. If you mean convert their religion, no. If that had been the case, we'd still be burning those suspected of witchcraft.

(09-22-2015, 03:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: How many of those 25 countries give women equal rights?

(09-22-2015, 05:03 PM)Benton Wrote: www.google.com

It's actually 1 of 17 countries.

I don't know what bfine32's requirement for women's rights are so I can only provide one of the staples of such a thing.  Voting rights.

Of the 17 countries that require a Muslim head of state 11 of them, women have the right to vote.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-22-2015, 01:04 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: This is a difficult topic.

We need to protect our interests as well the interests of our allies wherever they may be in the world.  Those interests may be tactical, political, or resource driven.  The issue we run into often is the fact, and it has been said already, is that policing the world is not the mission of the US military.  Occupation of a country indefinitely is incredibly expensive whether you consider the financial aspect or the soldier himself.  It becomes draining in all aspects, as well it has yet to prove effective, nation building that is.

Additionally, as the military has been reduced in size the service and support of war fighting has been out sourced to civilian contractors at x-times the cost of a soldier doing the same job. The military has sent forensic accountants overseas to conduct audits to account for missing hundreds of millions of dollars which have disappeared.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-22-2015, 01:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: And I would love for the presence we have in Europe and Asia to be shifted to the Middle East. 

Why? What do you think we will change which hasn't in the last two millennia?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-22-2015, 01:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: We did pretty good work in Germany while occupying it. Hell we're still there.

We fought and defeated a government. How do you fight and defeat terrorism?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-22-2015, 01:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The question is not redundant, the point is If you suggest we shouldn't try to make things better over there then you must be willing to accept them over here. So you either get to be the "World's Police" or the "World's Housing project".

The military's purpose is national security, not world police force. We aren't the world' housing authority because our military isn't a police force. Everything you wrote is wrong.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-22-2015, 03:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: How many building do you suggest we let them bomb and Americans kill before we go hunt them out?

Regardless, we are there so you agree we should work to correct the atrocities we witness? Because that is the point of the OP

We most likely had no business in Iraq the 2nd time, but we definitely should have went to the breeding ground of terrorism. 

By going into Iraq under false pretenses in 2003, we created a second breeding ground. Not only a breeding ground, but a training ground, as well.

[*bfine32*]

http://allenbwest.com/2015/09/what-u-s-soldiers-are-being-forced-to-do-by-their-own-commanders-is-despicable/

Quote:“In his last phone call home, Lance Cpl. Gregory Buckley Jr. told his father what was troubling him: From his bunk in southern Afghanistan, he could hear Afghan police officers sexually abusing boys they had brought to the base.

“At night we can hear them screaming, but we’re not allowed to do anything about it,” the Marine’s father, Gregory Buckley Sr., recalled his son telling him before he was shot to death at the base in 2012. He urged his son to tell his superiors. “My son said that his officers told him to look the other way because it’s their culture.”

I'm sure we all know who killed CPL Buckley

[xxlt]

(09-22-2015, 01:17 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I brought this subject up, "Chai boys", on the old board.  Sadly it was almost entirely ignored.  A friend of mine informed me of the abuse of these chai boys by Afghan police while they were on patrol.  They would get these kids high on heroin and then abuse them all night.  Aside from the horrific abuse of these children it gave the impression to many Afghani citizens that the US advocated or tolerated such child rape.  The Pashtun pastime of raping boys was outlawed by the Taliban, therefore it's return once they were overthrown, by those opposing our "ultimate" enemies, is seen by many in the country as an approval of pedophilia by the United States.  When my friend informed me of this I googled the term chai boy and found an article that quoted an Afghani police official stating the following; 



http://www.theamericanconservative.com/2013/07/10/routine-child-rape-by-afghan-police/

The misogynistic view of this region, propagated by Islamic monotheism, is that women's vaginas are dirty things fit only for procreation.  The common term being that, "women are for children and boys are for pleasure."  Sadly, Sunset, this is not new, only new to those who tried to hide it until now.  The truth has been available to those who cared to look for over a decade.  The fact that this is only now gaining traction tells us more than we'd probably like to admit. 

Note the phrase in bold above. Click this link: http://www.bishop-accountability.org/

Spend a few hours on the site if you have time. I suggest breaking it up because it can be very difficult content to process. But, if you dig around that website it is hard to avoid the conclusion we advocate or tolerate child rape.