Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Now imagine a war in Venezuela, where is no open desert and the enemy numbers in the millions.That is a propaganda hoax that apparently applied for a small minority only. The Iraqi defense was very stiff! Almost all of the 40.000 sorties were A-10 CAS missions. The Americans had to move in another 130.000 Troops, most of them armored divisions and mechanized units. The coalition casualties were 4,815 while the Iraqi 7,600–10,800 (both KIA). The Americans took the desert and besieged the cities (while pushing into them and retreat sometimes).Saddams forces offered more resistance then you might think in 2003 and one third of the entire US military had to come to beat him and his outdated stuff. There were 40.000 US sorties.Funny, all but one Japanese said the same thing in 1941. You would be surprised at how quickly an American can get in fighting shape when push comes to shove. Saddam said something g similar and found out that a US Grunt could fight with only one small MRE a day, short on water and go for 6 weeks at a time like that. That is how long it took to completely defeat his forces. The Mindset of the American is different than what you are used to. We fight with each other but don't even think about getting in between us. That would be a lesson you won't survive.
Saddam had the 4th largest Army, 300 combat Planes. Here are some highlights
The T-72 tanks lacked night vision and had short ranged targeting. The Abrams were hitting the T-72s from at least 1.9 miles away well out of range of the T-72 both day and night. While the Iraqis had the advantage in numbers it ended up, largely, being a turkey shoot.
Hardly any Combat Sorties were flown by the Iraqis. The handful that were flown were shot down quickly. The rest of Saddam's Air Force elected to either stay on the ground or defect to Iran.
The Air to Ground AA and Missiles of Iraq numbered about 15,000 but were largely ineffective. An A-10 was lost, a couple of others were lost and an AH-64 was lost to ground fire. Those 15,000 mostly operated as munitions magnets.
It was so bad on the regular Iraqi troops that they were trying to surrender to anyone wearing green that wasn't an Iraqi. There were news stories of them trying to surrender to News People.
Something new was tried with the Buffs. Carpet bomb a corridor of Iraqi Armor, skip a corridor, bomb another corridor, skip a corridor, and so on. The Hatches from the armor that was not bombed were flying open and troops were piling out with raised hands.
The resistance was so weak after the first few days that the supply lines couldn't keep up. The ground troops had to learn to ration their MREs to sometimes one a day and to be careful with their water supplies. And to grab sleep whenever and wherever they could get it.
The only unit that was very stubborn and extremely professional and dangerous was the Revolutionary Guard. There was no throw up hands and just give up in those boys. They were well trained and well equipped. The Army tried to take them on with their Apaches and all it got them was the loss of one Apache and not a single one got back in serviceable condition. The Air Force cut lose with their F-16s, softened them up and the Ground forces moved in and cleaned them up.
You say that the US used 1/3 of it's forces? Well, that would be a smaller force than the Iraqis had to defend. What you see today is the US forces not being given a clear and concise objective. They fight one way. But in 2003, they had a clear and concise objective and fought the way they know how and there is NO other military on the face of the Earth that can withstand the US Military when that comes to pass.
That's not PR, that's just fact. It was a fact during the Revolutionary War, the war of 1812, the Civil War, The war with Mexico, The Spanish American War, WWI, WWII. It's the ones that a clear and concise objective were not given that the US has had trouble with. But when the Russian Mercs attacked, the smaller force of US Troops had a clear and concise objective and carried out their objective hard. 300 dead Russians later, they Russians learned a very valuable lesson about taking on the US Military head on. One word comes to mind, Don't.
CNN.com - More U.S. troops, armor head to Iraq - Mar. 28, 2003
Iraq War - Wikipedia
You give a little and take it all. That's how war works for the winner. The loser takes a little and loses it all.
I am not with the aggressor. Why can´t you leave the countries alone?What ? Imagine America losing, is that what you want us to imagine in your little words spoken ??Now imagine a war in Venezuela, where is no open desert and the enemy numbers in the millions.That is a propaganda hoax that apparently applied for a small minority only. The Iraqi defense was very stiff! Almost all of the 40.000 sorties were A-10 CAS missions. The Americans had to move in another 130.000 Troops, most of them armored divisions and mechanized units. The coalition casualties were 4,815 while the Iraqi 7,600–10,800 (both KIA). The Americans took the desert and besieged the cities (while pushing into them and retreat sometimes).Saddams forces offered more resistance then you might think in 2003 and one third of the entire US military had to come to beat him and his outdated stuff. There were 40.000 US sorties.
Saddam had the 4th largest Army, 300 combat Planes. Here are some highlights
The T-72 tanks lacked night vision and had short ranged targeting. The Abrams were hitting the T-72s from at least 1.9 miles away well out of range of the T-72 both day and night. While the Iraqis had the advantage in numbers it ended up, largely, being a turkey shoot.
Hardly any Combat Sorties were flown by the Iraqis. The handful that were flown were shot down quickly. The rest of Saddam's Air Force elected to either stay on the ground or defect to Iran.
The Air to Ground AA and Missiles of Iraq numbered about 15,000 but were largely ineffective. An A-10 was lost, a couple of others were lost and an AH-64 was lost to ground fire. Those 15,000 mostly operated as munitions magnets.
It was so bad on the regular Iraqi troops that they were trying to surrender to anyone wearing green that wasn't an Iraqi. There were news stories of them trying to surrender to News People.
Something new was tried with the Buffs. Carpet bomb a corridor of Iraqi Armor, skip a corridor, bomb another corridor, skip a corridor, and so on. The Hatches from the armor that was not bombed were flying open and troops were piling out with raised hands.
The resistance was so weak after the first few days that the supply lines couldn't keep up. The ground troops had to learn to ration their MREs to sometimes one a day and to be careful with their water supplies. And to grab sleep whenever and wherever they could get it.
The only unit that was very stubborn and extremely professional and dangerous was the Revolutionary Guard. There was no throw up hands and just give up in those boys. They were well trained and well equipped. The Army tried to take them on with their Apaches and all it got them was the loss of one Apache and not a single one got back in serviceable condition. The Air Force cut lose with their F-16s, softened them up and the Ground forces moved in and cleaned them up.
You say that the US used 1/3 of it's forces? Well, that would be a smaller force than the Iraqis had to defend. What you see today is the US forces not being given a clear and concise objective. They fight one way. But in 2003, they had a clear and concise objective and fought the way they know how and there is NO other military on the face of the Earth that can withstand the US Military when that comes to pass.
That's not PR, that's just fact. It was a fact during the Revolutionary War, the war of 1812, the Civil War, The war with Mexico, The Spanish American War, WWI, WWII. It's the ones that a clear and concise objective were not given that the US has had trouble with. But when the Russian Mercs attacked, the smaller force of US Troops had a clear and concise objective and carried out their objective hard. 300 dead Russians later, they Russians learned a very valuable lesson about taking on the US Military head on. One word comes to mind, Don't.
CNN.com - More U.S. troops, armor head to Iraq - Mar. 28, 2003
Iraq War - Wikipedia
You give a little and take it all. That's how war works for the winner. The loser takes a little and loses it all.
That is what your gov wants you to believe. But the 2,8 million ground troops don´t need to fear Maduro, they support him. There are also 2 million militiamen, now growing to 3 million. And the Republican Guard.Now imagine a war in Venezuela, where is no open desert and the enemy numbers in the millions.That is a propaganda hoax that apparently applied for a small minority only. The Iraqi defense was very stiff! Almost all of the 40.000 sorties were A-10 CAS missions. The Americans had to move in another 130.000 Troops, most of them armored divisions and mechanized units. The coalition casualties were 4,815 while the Iraqi 7,600–10,800 (both KIA). The Americans took the desert and besieged the cities (while pushing into them and retreat sometimes).Saddams forces offered more resistance then you might think in 2003 and one third of the entire US military had to come to beat him and his outdated stuff. There were 40.000 US sorties.
Saddam had the 4th largest Army, 300 combat Planes. Here are some highlights
The T-72 tanks lacked night vision and had short ranged targeting. The Abrams were hitting the T-72s from at least 1.9 miles away well out of range of the T-72 both day and night. While the Iraqis had the advantage in numbers it ended up, largely, being a turkey shoot.
Hardly any Combat Sorties were flown by the Iraqis. The handful that were flown were shot down quickly. The rest of Saddam's Air Force elected to either stay on the ground or defect to Iran.
The Air to Ground AA and Missiles of Iraq numbered about 15,000 but were largely ineffective. An A-10 was lost, a couple of others were lost and an AH-64 was lost to ground fire. Those 15,000 mostly operated as munitions magnets.
It was so bad on the regular Iraqi troops that they were trying to surrender to anyone wearing green that wasn't an Iraqi. There were news stories of them trying to surrender to News People.
Something new was tried with the Buffs. Carpet bomb a corridor of Iraqi Armor, skip a corridor, bomb another corridor, skip a corridor, and so on. The Hatches from the armor that was not bombed were flying open and troops were piling out with raised hands.
The resistance was so weak after the first few days that the supply lines couldn't keep up. The ground troops had to learn to ration their MREs to sometimes one a day and to be careful with their water supplies. And to grab sleep whenever and wherever they could get it.
The only unit that was very stubborn and extremely professional and dangerous was the Revolutionary Guard. There was no throw up hands and just give up in those boys. They were well trained and well equipped. The Army tried to take them on with their Apaches and all it got them was the loss of one Apache and not a single one got back in serviceable condition. The Air Force cut lose with their F-16s, softened them up and the Ground forces moved in and cleaned them up.
You say that the US used 1/3 of it's forces? Well, that would be a smaller force than the Iraqis had to defend. What you see today is the US forces not being given a clear and concise objective. They fight one way. But in 2003, they had a clear and concise objective and fought the way they know how and there is NO other military on the face of the Earth that can withstand the US Military when that comes to pass.
That's not PR, that's just fact. It was a fact during the Revolutionary War, the war of 1812, the Civil War, The war with Mexico, The Spanish American War, WWI, WWII. It's the ones that a clear and concise objective were not given that the US has had trouble with. But when the Russian Mercs attacked, the smaller force of US Troops had a clear and concise objective and carried out their objective hard. 300 dead Russians later, they Russians learned a very valuable lesson about taking on the US Military head on. One word comes to mind, Don't.
CNN.com - More U.S. troops, armor head to Iraq - Mar. 28, 2003
Iraq War - Wikipedia
You give a little and take it all. That's how war works for the winner. The loser takes a little and loses it all.
Imagine the same war where the desertion rate is close to 90% for the Mannies Army. The only thing holding his military together is fear. And when the shit hits the fan, that fear is going to turn into something else and the majority won't feel the need to stick around. Mannies Army isn't serving for Loyalty sake, they are serving out of fear.
West Germany.What ? Imagine America losing, is that what you want us to imagine in your little words spoken ??Now imagine a war in Venezuela, where is no open desert and the enemy numbers in the millions.That is a propaganda hoax that apparently applied for a small minority only. The Iraqi defense was very stiff! Almost all of the 40.000 sorties were A-10 CAS missions. The Americans had to move in another 130.000 Troops, most of them armored divisions and mechanized units. The coalition casualties were 4,815 while the Iraqi 7,600–10,800 (both KIA). The Americans took the desert and besieged the cities (while pushing into them and retreat sometimes).Saddam had the 4th largest Army, 300 combat Planes. Here are some highlights
The T-72 tanks lacked night vision and had short ranged targeting. The Abrams were hitting the T-72s from at least 1.9 miles away well out of range of the T-72 both day and night. While the Iraqis had the advantage in numbers it ended up, largely, being a turkey shoot.
Hardly any Combat Sorties were flown by the Iraqis. The handful that were flown were shot down quickly. The rest of Saddam's Air Force elected to either stay on the ground or defect to Iran.
The Air to Ground AA and Missiles of Iraq numbered about 15,000 but were largely ineffective. An A-10 was lost, a couple of others were lost and an AH-64 was lost to ground fire. Those 15,000 mostly operated as munitions magnets.
It was so bad on the regular Iraqi troops that they were trying to surrender to anyone wearing green that wasn't an Iraqi. There were news stories of them trying to surrender to News People.
Something new was tried with the Buffs. Carpet bomb a corridor of Iraqi Armor, skip a corridor, bomb another corridor, skip a corridor, and so on. The Hatches from the armor that was not bombed were flying open and troops were piling out with raised hands.
The resistance was so weak after the first few days that the supply lines couldn't keep up. The ground troops had to learn to ration their MREs to sometimes one a day and to be careful with their water supplies. And to grab sleep whenever and wherever they could get it.
The only unit that was very stubborn and extremely professional and dangerous was the Revolutionary Guard. There was no throw up hands and just give up in those boys. They were well trained and well equipped. The Army tried to take them on with their Apaches and all it got them was the loss of one Apache and not a single one got back in serviceable condition. The Air Force cut lose with their F-16s, softened them up and the Ground forces moved in and cleaned them up.
You say that the US used 1/3 of it's forces? Well, that would be a smaller force than the Iraqis had to defend. What you see today is the US forces not being given a clear and concise objective. They fight one way. But in 2003, they had a clear and concise objective and fought the way they know how and there is NO other military on the face of the Earth that can withstand the US Military when that comes to pass.
That's not PR, that's just fact. It was a fact during the Revolutionary War, the war of 1812, the Civil War, The war with Mexico, The Spanish American War, WWI, WWII. It's the ones that a clear and concise objective were not given that the US has had trouble with. But when the Russian Mercs attacked, the smaller force of US Troops had a clear and concise objective and carried out their objective hard. 300 dead Russians later, they Russians learned a very valuable lesson about taking on the US Military head on. One word comes to mind, Don't.
CNN.com - More U.S. troops, armor head to Iraq - Mar. 28, 2003
Iraq War - Wikipedia
You give a little and take it all. That's how war works for the winner. The loser takes a little and loses it all.
bluechild isn't American. I don't know if he is Eastern German or from one of the Slavic Countries. But he's not from a traditional Western country.
I am not with the aggressor. Why can´t you leave the countries alone?What ? Imagine America losing, is that what you want us to imagine in your little words spoken ??Now imagine a war in Venezuela, where is no open desert and the enemy numbers in the millions.That is a propaganda hoax that apparently applied for a small minority only. The Iraqi defense was very stiff! Almost all of the 40.000 sorties were A-10 CAS missions. The Americans had to move in another 130.000 Troops, most of them armored divisions and mechanized units. The coalition casualties were 4,815 while the Iraqi 7,600–10,800 (both KIA). The Americans took the desert and besieged the cities (while pushing into them and retreat sometimes).Saddam had the 4th largest Army, 300 combat Planes. Here are some highlights
The T-72 tanks lacked night vision and had short ranged targeting. The Abrams were hitting the T-72s from at least 1.9 miles away well out of range of the T-72 both day and night. While the Iraqis had the advantage in numbers it ended up, largely, being a turkey shoot.
Hardly any Combat Sorties were flown by the Iraqis. The handful that were flown were shot down quickly. The rest of Saddam's Air Force elected to either stay on the ground or defect to Iran.
The Air to Ground AA and Missiles of Iraq numbered about 15,000 but were largely ineffective. An A-10 was lost, a couple of others were lost and an AH-64 was lost to ground fire. Those 15,000 mostly operated as munitions magnets.
It was so bad on the regular Iraqi troops that they were trying to surrender to anyone wearing green that wasn't an Iraqi. There were news stories of them trying to surrender to News People.
Something new was tried with the Buffs. Carpet bomb a corridor of Iraqi Armor, skip a corridor, bomb another corridor, skip a corridor, and so on. The Hatches from the armor that was not bombed were flying open and troops were piling out with raised hands.
The resistance was so weak after the first few days that the supply lines couldn't keep up. The ground troops had to learn to ration their MREs to sometimes one a day and to be careful with their water supplies. And to grab sleep whenever and wherever they could get it.
The only unit that was very stubborn and extremely professional and dangerous was the Revolutionary Guard. There was no throw up hands and just give up in those boys. They were well trained and well equipped. The Army tried to take them on with their Apaches and all it got them was the loss of one Apache and not a single one got back in serviceable condition. The Air Force cut lose with their F-16s, softened them up and the Ground forces moved in and cleaned them up.
You say that the US used 1/3 of it's forces? Well, that would be a smaller force than the Iraqis had to defend. What you see today is the US forces not being given a clear and concise objective. They fight one way. But in 2003, they had a clear and concise objective and fought the way they know how and there is NO other military on the face of the Earth that can withstand the US Military when that comes to pass.
That's not PR, that's just fact. It was a fact during the Revolutionary War, the war of 1812, the Civil War, The war with Mexico, The Spanish American War, WWI, WWII. It's the ones that a clear and concise objective were not given that the US has had trouble with. But when the Russian Mercs attacked, the smaller force of US Troops had a clear and concise objective and carried out their objective hard. 300 dead Russians later, they Russians learned a very valuable lesson about taking on the US Military head on. One word comes to mind, Don't.
CNN.com - More U.S. troops, armor head to Iraq - Mar. 28, 2003
Iraq War - Wikipedia
You give a little and take it all. That's how war works for the winner. The loser takes a little and loses it all.
No, they don´t have the military to do this. The Lima group rejected a military intervention days ago. Trump is now training "rebels" in Colombia and the Brazilian military is fighting in the Favelas against criminal gangs.I am not with the aggressor. Why can´t you leave the countries alone?What ? Imagine America losing, is that what you want us to imagine in your little words spoken ??Now imagine a war in Venezuela, where is no open desert and the enemy numbers in the millions.That is a propaganda hoax that apparently applied for a small minority only. The Iraqi defense was very stiff! Almost all of the 40.000 sorties were A-10 CAS missions. The Americans had to move in another 130.000 Troops, most of them armored divisions and mechanized units. The coalition casualties were 4,815 while the Iraqi 7,600–10,800 (both KIA). The Americans took the desert and besieged the cities (while pushing into them and retreat sometimes).
CNN.com - More U.S. troops, armor head to Iraq - Mar. 28, 2003
Iraq War - Wikipedia
You give a little and take it all. That's how war works for the winner. The loser takes a little and loses it all.
And neither is America. But if I were you, I would pay attention to Columbia and Brazil who is just about fed up with the situation and they have the military to put a stop to it.
No, they don´t have the military to do this. The Lima group rejected a military intervention days ago. Trump is now training "rebels" in Colombia and the Brazilian military is fighting in the Favelas against criminal gangs.I am not with the aggressor. Why can´t you leave the countries alone?What ? Imagine America losing, is that what you want us to imagine in your little words spoken ??Now imagine a war in Venezuela, where is no open desert and the enemy numbers in the millions.You give a little and take it all. That's how war works for the winner. The loser takes a little and loses it all.
And neither is America. But if I were you, I would pay attention to Columbia and Brazil who is just about fed up with the situation and they have the military to put a stop to it.
You don't know how to read a chart, it doesn't say anything of the sort.No. The chart says the army gets less selective
Stop. Lying.That is a propaganda hoax that apparently applied for a small minority only. The Iraqi defense was very stiff! Almost all of the 40.000 sorties were A-10 CAS missions.
It is a GRU message.No, they don´t have the military to do this. The Lima group rejected a military intervention days ago. Trump is now training "rebels" in Colombia and the Brazilian military is fighting in the Favelas against criminal gangs.I am not with the aggressor. Why can´t you leave the countries alone?What ? Imagine America losing, is that what you want us to imagine in your little words spoken ??Now imagine a war in Venezuela, where is no open desert and the enemy numbers in the millions.
And neither is America. But if I were you, I would pay attention to Columbia and Brazil who is just about fed up with the situation and they have the military to put a stop to it.
You been listening to Manny boy again trying to keep his "Follower' stirred up. The US isn't training anything other than anti drug agents in Columbia. Manduro and Trump have some things in common when it comes to spinning tales.
So you are saying you are ignorant on the subject you are speaking on...Dunno. Ask them.Okay let's run with this. How many Americans are eligible to serve in the military versus, say, ten years ago?"The number of Americans eligible to serve in the military is dramatically shrinking"
If you have any questions, ask the responsible source.So you are saying you are ignorant on the subject you are speaking on...Dunno. Ask them.Okay let's run with this. How many Americans are eligible to serve in the military versus, say, ten years ago?"The number of Americans eligible to serve in the military is dramatically shrinking"
Makes sense.
If you have any questions, ask the responsible source.So you are saying you are ignorant on the subject you are speaking on...Dunno. Ask them.Okay let's run with this. How many Americans are eligible to serve in the military versus, say, ten years ago?"The number of Americans eligible to serve in the military is dramatically shrinking"
Makes sense.
No. Those are government stats, right?If you have any questions, ask the responsible source.So you are saying you are ignorant on the subject you are speaking on...Dunno. Ask them.Okay let's run with this. How many Americans are eligible to serve in the military versus, say, ten years ago?"The number of Americans eligible to serve in the military is dramatically shrinking"
Makes sense.
Which you've shown time and time again is clearly not you.
No. Those are government stats, right?If you have any questions, ask the responsible source.So you are saying you are ignorant on the subject you are speaking on...Dunno. Ask them.Okay let's run with this. How many Americans are eligible to serve in the military versus, say, ten years ago?
Makes sense.
Which you've shown time and time again is clearly not you.
"Caught lying"No. Those are government stats, right?If you have any questions, ask the responsible source.So you are saying you are ignorant on the subject you are speaking on...Dunno. Ask them.
Makes sense.
Which you've shown time and time again is clearly not you.
Dude you've been lying for a week straight, counted by actual facts multiple times. Even been going so far as to post that a program cancelled over a year ago is the reason to submit to Russia somehow. Lol
"Caught lying"No. Those are government stats, right?If you have any questions, ask the responsible source.So you are saying you are ignorant on the subject you are speaking on...
Makes sense.
Which you've shown time and time again is clearly not you.
Dude you've been lying for a week straight, counted by actual facts multiple times. Even been going so far as to post that a program cancelled over a year ago is the reason to submit to Russia somehow. Lol
The US military’s real problem: Fewer Americans are joining
"Caught lying"No. Those are government stats, right?If you have any questions, ask the responsible source.So you are saying you are ignorant on the subject you are speaking on...
Makes sense.
Which you've shown time and time again is clearly not you.
Dude you've been lying for a week straight, counted by actual facts multiple times. Even been going so far as to post that a program cancelled over a year ago is the reason to submit to Russia somehow. Lol
The US military’s real problem: Fewer Americans are joining
Yeah, caught lying.
Well, yeah:"Caught lying"
This is a perfect example, just manufacturing a fact on the fly because your thinks it suits your argument. You're a liar, plan and simple.The Iraqi defense was very stiff! Almost all of the 40.000 sorties were A-10 CAS missions.
