|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 9:06 pm
Silvrtide Capt. Confusticus we could, if necessary, do a long term bombing campaign. target power plants, farms (all 5), military facilities, government building, and other infrastructure however, that wont solve the whole problem. look ath the big picture: 1. you have nuclear silos, most likely 50 or more feet under solid concrete. if my calculations are correct, thats a hell of a lot of concrete for a f*cling bunker buster to penetrate. 2. there is such things as underground generators, most likely the same scenario as the silos. 3. "shock and awe" worked well for immediate problems. how are we going to beat them out afterwards? The question isn't how we defeat them afterwords, it is can we beat them at all? You guys think we can easily take them over, but reality is, we might be able to win against them. Can we kick their asses, or will we be kissing it?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 1:53 pm
srgt. Sosuke Sagara Silvrtide Capt. Confusticus we could, if necessary, do a long term bombing campaign. target power plants, farms (all 5), military facilities, government building, and other infrastructure however, that wont solve the whole problem. look ath the big picture: 1. you have nuclear silos, most likely 50 or more feet under solid concrete. if my calculations are correct, thats a hell of a lot of concrete for a f*cling bunker buster to penetrate. 2. there is such things as underground generators, most likely the same scenario as the silos. 3. "shock and awe" worked well for immediate problems. how are we going to beat them out afterwards? The question isn't how we defeat them afterwords, it is can we beat them at all? You guys think we can easily take them over, but reality is, we might be able to win against them. Can we kick their asses, or will we be kissing it? *SLAP* youre out, b***h! blaugh
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 2:53 pm
Silvrtide srgt. Sosuke Sagara Silvrtide Capt. Confusticus we could, if necessary, do a long term bombing campaign. target power plants, farms (all 5), military facilities, government building, and other infrastructure however, that wont solve the whole problem. look ath the big picture: 1. you have nuclear silos, most likely 50 or more feet under solid concrete. if my calculations are correct, thats a hell of a lot of concrete for a f*cling bunker buster to penetrate. 2. there is such things as underground generators, most likely the same scenario as the silos. 3. "shock and awe" worked well for immediate problems. how are we going to beat them out afterwards? The question isn't how we defeat them afterwords, it is can we beat them at all? You guys think we can easily take them over, but reality is, we might be able to win against them. Can we kick their asses, or will we be kissing it? *SLAP* youre out, b***h! blaugh Harharhar! But he did have somewhat of a point, just because we are the strongest military nation doesnt mean we'll win, there are many many other factors that roll along with warfare.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 4:16 pm
Bossman Joe Silvrtide srgt. Sosuke Sagara Silvrtide Capt. Confusticus we could, if necessary, do a long term bombing campaign. target power plants, farms (all 5), military facilities, government building, and other infrastructure however, that wont solve the whole problem. look ath the big picture: 1. you have nuclear silos, most likely 50 or more feet under solid concrete. if my calculations are correct, thats a hell of a lot of concrete for a f*cling bunker buster to penetrate. 2. there is such things as underground generators, most likely the same scenario as the silos. 3. "shock and awe" worked well for immediate problems. how are we going to beat them out afterwards? The question isn't how we defeat them afterwords, it is can we beat them at all? You guys think we can easily take them over, but reality is, we might be able to win against them. Can we kick their asses, or will we be kissing it? *SLAP* youre out, b***h! blaugh Harharhar! But he did have somewhat of a point, just because we are the strongest military nation doesnt mean we'll win, there are many many other factors that roll along with warfare. True. Having the strongest military doesn't esure victory. Sure helps though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 5:02 pm
This topic might be dried out, why wont people post on oher ones? 0_o
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:19 pm
Bossman Joe This topic might be dried out, why wont people post on oher ones? 0_o I think it might have to do with the fact that this is all happening right now, sir.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:21 pm
shifty_842 Bossman Joe Silvrtide srgt. Sosuke Sagara Silvrtide Capt. Confusticus we could, if necessary, do a long term bombing campaign. target power plants, farms (all 5), military facilities, government building, and other infrastructure however, that wont solve the whole problem. look ath the big picture: 1. you have nuclear silos, most likely 50 or more feet under solid concrete. if my calculations are correct, thats a hell of a lot of concrete for a f*cling bunker buster to penetrate. 2. there is such things as underground generators, most likely the same scenario as the silos. 3. "shock and awe" worked well for immediate problems. how are we going to beat them out afterwards? The question isn't how we defeat them afterwords, it is can we beat them at all? You guys think we can easily take them over, but reality is, we might be able to win against them. Can we kick their asses, or will we be kissing it? *SLAP* youre out, b***h! blaugh Harharhar! But he did have somewhat of a point, just because we are the strongest military nation doesnt mean we'll win, there are many many other factors that roll along with warfare. True. Having the strongest military doesn't esure victory. Sure helps though. I agree, like the American Revolution, Britan was the strongest country in the world, and they lost.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:26 pm
Charles Mikolajczyk shifty_842 Bossman Joe Silvrtide srgt. Sosuke Sagara The question isn't how we defeat them afterwords, it is can we beat them at all? You guys think we can easily take them over, but reality is, we might be able to win against them. Can we kick their asses, or will we be kissing it? *SLAP* youre out, b***h! blaugh Harharhar! But he did have somewhat of a point, just because we are the strongest military nation doesnt mean we'll win, there are many many other factors that roll along with warfare. True. Having the strongest military doesn't esure victory. Sure helps though. I agree, like the American Revolution, Britan was the strongest country in the world, and they lost. And now we're the strongest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:56 pm
shifty_842 Charles Mikolajczyk shifty_842 Bossman Joe Silvrtide srgt. Sosuke Sagara The question isn't how we defeat them afterwords, it is can we beat them at all? You guys think we can easily take them over, but reality is, we might be able to win against them. Can we kick their asses, or will we be kissing it? *SLAP* youre out, b***h! blaugh Harharhar! But he did have somewhat of a point, just because we are the strongest military nation doesnt mean we'll win, there are many many other factors that roll along with warfare. True. Having the strongest military doesn't esure victory. Sure helps though. I agree, like the American Revolution, Britan was the strongest country in the world, and they lost. And now we're the strongest. We still could end up like Britan though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:17 pm
shifty_842 Charles Mikolajczyk shifty_842 Bossman Joe Silvrtide srgt. Sosuke Sagara The question isn't how we defeat them afterwords, it is can we beat them at all? You guys think we can easily take them over, but reality is, we might be able to win against them. Can we kick their asses, or will we be kissing it? *SLAP* youre out, b***h! blaugh Harharhar! But he did have somewhat of a point, just because we are the strongest military nation doesnt mean we'll win, there are many many other factors that roll along with warfare. True. Having the strongest military doesn't esure victory. Sure helps though. I agree, like the American Revolution, Britan was the strongest country in the world, and they lost. And now we're the strongest. think back to 'Nam. we were the strongest then, also. that's quite possibly the only war we can even consider saying we lost.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 4:10 pm
shifty_842 Bossman Joe Silvrtide srgt. Sosuke Sagara Silvrtide Capt. Confusticus we could, if necessary, do a long term bombing campaign. target power plants, farms (all 5), military facilities, government building, and other infrastructure however, that wont solve the whole problem. look ath the big picture: 1. you have nuclear silos, most likely 50 or more feet under solid concrete. if my calculations are correct, thats a hell of a lot of concrete for a f*cling bunker buster to penetrate. 2. there is such things as underground generators, most likely the same scenario as the silos. 3. "shock and awe" worked well for immediate problems. how are we going to beat them out afterwards? The question isn't how we defeat them afterwords, it is can we beat them at all? You guys think we can easily take them over, but reality is, we might be able to win against them. Can we kick their asses, or will we be kissing it? *SLAP* youre out, b***h! blaugh Harharhar! But he did have somewhat of a point, just because we are the strongest military nation doesnt mean we'll win, there are many many other factors that roll along with warfare. True. Having the strongest military doesn't esure victory. Sure helps though. they don't even have working missles, let alone silos! for pete's sake, are they gonna row the nuke to us! and besides, the campaign might turn the people to the point of revolt, or we could just bomb and let the s. koreans handle the land campaign
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 6:58 pm
Silvrtide shifty_842 Charles Mikolajczyk shifty_842 Bossman Joe Harharhar! But he did have somewhat of a point, just because we are the strongest military nation doesnt mean we'll win, there are many many other factors that roll along with warfare. True. Having the strongest military doesn't esure victory. Sure helps though. I agree, like the American Revolution, Britan was the strongest country in the world, and they lost. And now we're the strongest. think back to 'Nam. we were the strongest then, also. that's quite possibly the only war we can even consider saying we lost. Being in Vietnam War, I'm actually suprised we got that far. We couldn't win the war if we're at war with it's people to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 4:33 pm
We should go in and liberate their butts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 4:46 pm
Silvrtide shifty_842 Charles Mikolajczyk shifty_842 Bossman Joe Harharhar! But he did have somewhat of a point, just because we are the strongest military nation doesnt mean we'll win, there are many many other factors that roll along with warfare. True. Having the strongest military doesn't esure victory. Sure helps though. I agree, like the American Revolution, Britan was the strongest country in the world, and they lost. And now we're the strongest. think back to 'Nam. we were the strongest then, also. that's quite possibly the only war we can even consider saying we lost. I don't think of Nam as a loss, sir. It was more like we decided to let the South Vietnameese fight their own war because it wasn't worth it for us and they failed. That's how I see it, sir.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 6:18 pm
Charles Mikolajczyk Silvrtide shifty_842 Charles Mikolajczyk shifty_842 Bossman Joe Harharhar! But he did have somewhat of a point, just because we are the strongest military nation doesnt mean we'll win, there are many many other factors that roll along with warfare. True. Having the strongest military doesn't esure victory. Sure helps though. I agree, like the American Revolution, Britan was the strongest country in the world, and they lost. And now we're the strongest. think back to 'Nam. we were the strongest then, also. that's quite possibly the only war we can even consider saying we lost. Being in Vietnam War, I'm actually suprised we got that far. We couldn't win the war if we're at war with it's people to. we werent. the south vietnamese loved us--the north vietnamese just had a combination of overwhelming force AND underground (litterally, actually) warfare. you cant beat that unless your people have the same capabilities, and even then it's hard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
