Originally posted by dr.strangelove
Not sure what that has to do with the competency of the US military, which was the point of my post. Like I said, it's always okay to enter a war as long as it's okay with Europe when they need something (for example, if Sadaam Hussein had committed genocide against a European nation, or contributed money to bombers who were blowing up British citizens, or had invaded a country Europe actually gave a **** about...). My point is that if the US is perceived as not being good at fighting wars anymore, it's because it's now our responsiblity to pacify the rest of the world, most of which we're subsidizing one way or another, whenever we do something that's in our own interest, and not in the interest of the UN, NOT because America's military "doesn't fight wars very well". Believe it or not, even with the sanitized military operations we have to conduct, overthrowing a totalitarian regime and installing a new democratic government to people who haven't governed themselves for three decades with 2,000 casualties over the course of three years would ordinarily be considered a great military accomplishment.
And FYI, our country's leader hasn't profited at all from our war in Iraq, being that since we invaded, we decided that Iraq's oil refineries weren't in good enough condition to keep running and we have actually been subsidizing gasoline for Iraqi citizens because they aren't pumping much if any oil. Bad news for Vladmir Putin and Jacques Chirac, since they were buying oil from Iraq behind the back of the UN. Of course, who are they to judge, since the Secretary General was receiving millions of dollars a year under the table from the Oil For Food program. Hard to believe why the UN wasn't behind the war in Iraq eh? Of course, even if that wasn't the case, Bush hasn't had a stake in an oil company for something like 18 years, and when he did, it wasn't making much money for him (in fact, it was a piss poor performing company that he quickly bailed from). He actually made the majority of his money selling the American baseball team he owned a stake in. Not your fault, I'm sure the BBC forgot to mention that.
Actually, I think that's a pretty good definition for war. If you were somewhere where your enemy welcomed you and took you down to the pub for a drink it would certainly be a lot harder to call a war. What would be your ideal definition? Actually, a lot of the world calls that an average day at work. Of course you'll write it off as propoganda, but the citizens of Iraq, according to most of the personnel over there, frequently walk up out of nowhere crying and thanking their "occupiers" (I guess they're okay with having people with guns walking around their streets, so long as they're not dragging their children out of their homes to rape and kill them like it used to be under Sadaam Hussein's utopian society). I'm inclined to think it's true, since I've never heard it reported on in any newspaper or TV program, American or otherwise, but I'm sure it's all lies from Bush. He's probably paid off a lot of the guys over there to say stuff like that with all the oil money he's making.
I don't know what the **** I'm arguing with you for though. It's pointless. You can regurgitate your typical Euro-rhetoric and I can say otherwise until we're both blue in the face, and as soon as we recover, you're still going to regurgitate and I'm still going to tell you it's bull****, and we're both going to end up where we were. Not to mention that this thread was originally started with absolutely no intention to argue politics. In fact, I apologize for replying to your post at all.
In an attempt to justify this post with something on topic, I'll restate my opinion that airsoft is for morons and bow out.