United States Ground Forces

[Bleipriester]

If you have any questions, ask the responsible source.

Which you've shown time and time again is clearly not you.

No. Those are government stats, right?

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"

The US military’s real problem: Fewer Americans are joining

"While Congress is unlikely to consider reimplementing a draft, the Army can still make sure it has the forces required for modern military engagements"

So it's an article saying that while recruiting is down this year, gives solutions to solve that.

Hmmm, how about them Russian Mercs liar?

This thread is not about modern military engagements. You where caught lying again, Russian mercs liar.

 

[Bleipriester]

If you have any questions, ask the responsible source.

Which you've shown time and time again is clearly not you.

No. Those are government stats, right?

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"

The US military’s real problem: Fewer Americans are joining

This is a skewed article. He's trying to push Women in all Army MOSs. We already know that in some, only a very small percentage of women can ever qualify. Yes, allowing women in the Military is a good thing but not the panacea he presents. Nor does it support your BS either. Remember, in 1941, every General and Admiral in Japan called America the Paper Tiger and said we wouldn't fight because we were too fat and our bellies are too full with only one exception.

Those western politicians cannot draw more than three people to their rallies. How many can they draw to their wars?

 

[SandSquid]

Which you've shown time and time again is clearly not you.

No. Those are government stats, right?

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"

The US military’s real problem: Fewer Americans are joining

"While Congress is unlikely to consider reimplementing a draft, the Army can still make sure it has the forces required for modern military engagements"

So it's an article saying that while recruiting is down this year, gives solutions to solve that.

Hmmm, how about them Russian Mercs liar?

This thread is not about modern military engagements. You where caught lying again, Russian mercs liar.

Hahahaha.. you literally opened with "what if the Russians are coming", then by your 2nd post were lying about it for multiple pages. But caught in your lie where you spend pages talking about it, now the thread can't be about that.

You are ******* priceless kiddo. Thanks, I needed a good laugh today.

 

[Bleipriester]

"Caught lying"

Well, yeah:

The Iraqi defense was very stiff! Almost all of the 40.000 sorties were A-10 CAS missions.

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.

Almost all is not correct, still almost all were CAS missions.

"The vast majority of targets struck—15,592 of them, or 82 percent of the total—were Iraqi troops, tanks, and other weapons concentrated on the battlefield.

Just as close-air support dominated the Air Force task orders, so the A-10 Warthog—the only Air Force plane ever built for the dedicated mission of close-air support—dominated the skies."
The Iraqi air war wasn't as modern as it looked.

 

[SandSquid]

Which you've shown time and time again is clearly not you.

No. Those are government stats, right?

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"

The US military’s real problem: Fewer Americans are joining

This is a skewed article. He's trying to push Women in all Army MOSs. We already know that in some, only a very small percentage of women can ever qualify. Yes, allowing women in the Military is a good thing but not the panacea he presents. Nor does it support your BS either. Remember, in 1941, every General and Admiral in Japan called America the Paper Tiger and said we wouldn't fight because we were too fat and our bellies are too full with only one exception.

Those western politicians cannot draw more than three people to their rallies. How many can they draw to their wars?

Honest question. When you spout something like this you know is clearly and inherently false and easily disproven, do you think you are making a point?

Is that how your brain works, that if you lie and become actively ignorant on topics, it makes you sound like you have a real point there?

Just curious if that is what you truly think... or if you know you are just full of crap.

 

[Bleipriester]

No. Those are government stats, right?

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"

The US military’s real problem: Fewer Americans are joining

"While Congress is unlikely to consider reimplementing a draft, the Army can still make sure it has the forces required for modern military engagements"

So it's an article saying that while recruiting is down this year, gives solutions to solve that.

Hmmm, how about them Russian Mercs liar?

This thread is not about modern military engagements. You where caught lying again, Russian mercs liar.

Hahahaha.. you literally opened with "what if the Russians are coming", then by your 2nd post were lying about it for multiple pages. But caught in your lie where you spend pages talking about it, now the thread can't be about that.

You are ******* priceless kiddo. Thanks, I needed a good laugh today.

Now you are going insane.

 

[Bleipriester]

No. Those are government stats, right?

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"

The US military’s real problem: Fewer Americans are joining

This is a skewed article. He's trying to push Women in all Army MOSs. We already know that in some, only a very small percentage of women can ever qualify. Yes, allowing women in the Military is a good thing but not the panacea he presents. Nor does it support your BS either. Remember, in 1941, every General and Admiral in Japan called America the Paper Tiger and said we wouldn't fight because we were too fat and our bellies are too full with only one exception.

Those western politicians cannot draw more than three people to their rallies. How many can they draw to their wars?

Honest question. When you spout something like this you know is clearly and inherently false and easily disproven, do you think you are making a point?

Is that how your brain works, that if you lie and become actively ignorant on topics, it makes you sound like you have a real point there?

Just curious if that is what you truly think... or if you know you are just full of crap.

More "lies":

 

[DrainBamage]

Almost all is not correct, still almost all were CAS missions

Ahhh the usual pattern of the Bleipriester lie. Let's walk through this step by step, since it's same format as all your other lies.

1. The lie. Bleipriester claims "Almost all of the 40.000 sorties were A-10 CAS missions"
2. The catch. Others know this is bullshit and call him out.
3. The twist. Bleipriester is now trying to prove something entirely different.
4. Bleipriester will now act all offended that others call him a liar
5. Bleipriester will attempt to distract by changing the subject

It's yet another glaring example that you don't know what you're talking about, CAS is performed by everything from drones to A-10s to F-22s to F-16s to B-1s. The majority of sorties being used against Iraqi ground equipment isn't a surprise since it was a war involving an active combat front. Even those sorties aren't necessarily CAS, a SEAD or interdiction missions is a sortie against Iraqi ground units, yet it's not a CAS mission.

Let's look at this source you just posted in a feeble attempt to validate your A-10 flew almost all missions claim. It breaks out sorties by service branch, country, and aircraft type:

Total Sorties Flown 41,404
USAF 24,196
Fighters 8,828
Bombers 505
Tankers 6,193
(etc.)

So of those 41,404 sorties only about 21% were USAF fighter aircraft, which is where all A-10 sorties would fall. In other words, even if there were zero missions flown by F-16s or F-15s you'd still be at 21% for A-10s, which clearly is quite different than your initial lie that almost all sorties were flown by A-10s. To take that further, F-16s flew far more sorties than A-10s, so you're probably looking at single digits for A-10s, again far different than the "almost all" lie you threw out there.

Again that is YOUR OWN source. You're such a poor liar you've managed to prove yourself a liar with your own sources as much as others have.

Lied. Busted. Rinse, repeat.

 

[DrainBamage]

More "lies":

Step 5 as listed in previous post.

Having been caught lying again, will attempt to change the subject completely.

 

[DrainBamage]

Honest question. When you spout something like this you know is clearly and inherently false and easily disproven, do you think you are making a point?

Is that how your brain works, that if you lie and become actively ignorant on topics, it makes you sound like you have a real point there?

Just curious if that is what you truly think... or if you know you are just full of crap.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that he usually posts in politics types forums where he can lie about whatever he wants related to military and get away with it. He quickly ends up in over his head when he does it in here, but the habit is too hard to break so he just piles lies on top of lies and looks more and more foolish doing so.

 

[SandSquid]

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"

The US military’s real problem: Fewer Americans are joining

This is a skewed article. He's trying to push Women in all Army MOSs. We already know that in some, only a very small percentage of women can ever qualify. Yes, allowing women in the Military is a good thing but not the panacea he presents. Nor does it support your BS either. Remember, in 1941, every General and Admiral in Japan called America the Paper Tiger and said we wouldn't fight because we were too fat and our bellies are too full with only one exception.

Those western politicians cannot draw more than three people to their rallies. How many can they draw to their wars?

Honest question. When you spout something like this you know is clearly and inherently false and easily disproven, do you think you are making a point?

Is that how your brain works, that if you lie and become actively ignorant on topics, it makes you sound like you have a real point there?

Just curious if that is what you truly think... or if you know you are just full of crap.

More "lies":

Yes. Your proof that they weren't Russian mercenaries. Lol.

You have completely lost it kiddo. Not that you ever had it.

 

[SandSquid]

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"

The US military’s real problem: Fewer Americans are joining

"While Congress is unlikely to consider reimplementing a draft, the Army can still make sure it has the forces required for modern military engagements"

So it's an article saying that while recruiting is down this year, gives solutions to solve that.

Hmmm, how about them Russian Mercs liar?

This thread is not about modern military engagements. You where caught lying again, Russian mercs liar.

Hahahaha.. you literally opened with "what if the Russians are coming", then by your 2nd post were lying about it for multiple pages. But caught in your lie where you spend pages talking about it, now the thread can't be about that.

You are ******* priceless kiddo. Thanks, I needed a good laugh today.

Now you are going insane.

I call you out about your mercenary lie which you spent multiple pages on, and I get train schedules in DC. Lol

 

[SandSquid]

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"

The US military’s real problem: Fewer Americans are joining

This is a skewed article. He's trying to push Women in all Army MOSs. We already know that in some, only a very small percentage of women can ever qualify. Yes, allowing women in the Military is a good thing but not the panacea he presents. Nor does it support your BS either. Remember, in 1941, every General and Admiral in Japan called America the Paper Tiger and said we wouldn't fight because we were too fat and our bellies are too full with only one exception.

Those western politicians cannot draw more than three people to their rallies. How many can they draw to their wars?

Honest question. When you spout something like this you know is clearly and inherently false and easily disproven, do you think you are making a point?

Is that how your brain works, that if you lie and become actively ignorant on topics, it makes you sound like you have a real point there?

Just curious if that is what you truly think... or if you know you are just full of crap.

More "lies":

Bleprester: Here's 5 posts about how Russian Merc's weren't in Syria.
Me: That's a lie and here are the facts to prove it.
Bleprester: Can't talk about that, that's off topic even though the majority of my content here was about that.
Me: doesn't change that it's a lie.
Bleprester: here's a train schedule in Washington, see I am not lying about Russian Merc's.

The deeper you dig your lying deceit hole, the farther your lying ass will have to climb out of it.

 

[DrainBamage]

The Iraqi defense was very stiff! Almost all of the 40.000 sorties were A-10 CAS missions.

Hello Bleipriester!

Here is source that shows F-16s flew far more sorties than A-10s in the Gulf War:
CSAF Misrepresents A-10 Combat Record in First Gulf War

This source says A-10s flew 8775 sorties, obviously far less than "almost all":
2951st CLSS A-10 ABDR

Please explain why you stated almost all Gulf War sorties were A-10 CAS missions, when clearly they were not.

 

[Bleipriester]

Almost all is not correct, still almost all were CAS missions

Ahhh the usual pattern of the Bleipriester lie. Let's walk through this step by step, since it's same format as all your other lies.

1. The lie. Bleipriester claims "Almost all of the 40.000 sorties were A-10 CAS missions"
2. The catch. Others know this is bullshit and call him out.
3. The twist. Bleipriester is now trying to prove something entirely different.
4. Bleipriester will now act all offended that others call him a liar
5. Bleipriester will attempt to distract by changing the subject

It's yet another glaring example that you don't know what you're talking about, CAS is performed by everything from drones to A-10s to F-22s to F-16s to B-1s. The majority of sorties being used against Iraqi ground equipment isn't a surprise since it was a war involving an active combat front. Even those sorties aren't necessarily CAS, a SEAD or interdiction missions is a sortie against Iraqi ground units, yet it's not a CAS mission.

Let's look at this source you just posted in a feeble attempt to validate your A-10 flew almost all missions claim. It breaks out sorties by service branch, country, and aircraft type:

Total Sorties Flown 41,404
USAF 24,196
Fighters 8,828
Bombers 505
Tankers 6,193
(etc.)

So of those 41,404 sorties only about 21% were USAF fighter aircraft, which is where all A-10 sorties would fall. In other words, even if there were zero missions flown by F-16s or F-15s you'd still be at 21% for A-10s, which clearly is quite different than your initial lie that almost all sorties were flown by A-10s. To take that further, F-16s flew far more sorties than A-10s, so you're probably looking at single digits for A-10s, again far different than the "almost all" lie you threw out there.

Again that is YOUR OWN source. You're such a poor liar you've managed to prove yourself a liar with your own sources as much as others have.

Lied. Busted. Rinse, repeat.

I have proven that there was strong Iraqi resistance.

 

[SandSquid]

Almost all is not correct, still almost all were CAS missions

Ahhh the usual pattern of the Bleipriester lie. Let's walk through this step by step, since it's same format as all your other lies.

1. The lie. Bleipriester claims "Almost all of the 40.000 sorties were A-10 CAS missions"
2. The catch. Others know this is bullshit and call him out.
3. The twist. Bleipriester is now trying to prove something entirely different.
4. Bleipriester will now act all offended that others call him a liar
5. Bleipriester will attempt to distract by changing the subject

It's yet another glaring example that you don't know what you're talking about, CAS is performed by everything from drones to A-10s to F-22s to F-16s to B-1s. The majority of sorties being used against Iraqi ground equipment isn't a surprise since it was a war involving an active combat front. Even those sorties aren't necessarily CAS, a SEAD or interdiction missions is a sortie against Iraqi ground units, yet it's not a CAS mission.

Let's look at this source you just posted in a feeble attempt to validate your A-10 flew almost all missions claim. It breaks out sorties by service branch, country, and aircraft type:

Total Sorties Flown 41,404
USAF 24,196
Fighters 8,828
Bombers 505
Tankers 6,193
(etc.)

So of those 41,404 sorties only about 21% were USAF fighter aircraft, which is where all A-10 sorties would fall. In other words, even if there were zero missions flown by F-16s or F-15s you'd still be at 21% for A-10s, which clearly is quite different than your initial lie that almost all sorties were flown by A-10s. To take that further, F-16s flew far more sorties than A-10s, so you're probably looking at single digits for A-10s, again far different than the "almost all" lie you threw out there.

Again that is YOUR OWN source. You're such a poor liar you've managed to prove yourself a liar with your own sources as much as others have.

Lied. Busted. Rinse, repeat.

I have proven that there was strong Iraqi resistance.

Unfortunately you said "Almost all of the 40.000 sorties were A-10 CAS missions"

Which is still a lie, no matter how you want to distract from it.

Do you really work that way. Does your mind actually say to you "well I got caught lying, rather than admit I lied and move on, lets throw out more lies and distractions"..

But I am curious. Of major wars, when talking resistance one obvious and rather simple way would be comparing casualties by side. Looking at the US wars vs. Iraq and comparing them to other wars of the past 75 years, where does that resistance rank? Like WWII Axis powers killed about 2 allied for every Axis soldier lost. A strong resistance for sure there.

For the Iraqi armies, how did their resistance work out? How well did the 4th largest army in the world fight back? How well did they resist with their air power? How strong was their opposition to the US navy bombardments? How did their massive armored division hold up in resistance?

 

[Bleipriester]

Almost all is not correct, still almost all were CAS missions

Ahhh the usual pattern of the Bleipriester lie. Let's walk through this step by step, since it's same format as all your other lies.

1. The lie. Bleipriester claims "Almost all of the 40.000 sorties were A-10 CAS missions"
2. The catch. Others know this is bullshit and call him out.
3. The twist. Bleipriester is now trying to prove something entirely different.
4. Bleipriester will now act all offended that others call him a liar
5. Bleipriester will attempt to distract by changing the subject

It's yet another glaring example that you don't know what you're talking about, CAS is performed by everything from drones to A-10s to F-22s to F-16s to B-1s. The majority of sorties being used against Iraqi ground equipment isn't a surprise since it was a war involving an active combat front. Even those sorties aren't necessarily CAS, a SEAD or interdiction missions is a sortie against Iraqi ground units, yet it's not a CAS mission.

Let's look at this source you just posted in a feeble attempt to validate your A-10 flew almost all missions claim. It breaks out sorties by service branch, country, and aircraft type:

Total Sorties Flown 41,404
USAF 24,196
Fighters 8,828
Bombers 505
Tankers 6,193
(etc.)

So of those 41,404 sorties only about 21% were USAF fighter aircraft, which is where all A-10 sorties would fall. In other words, even if there were zero missions flown by F-16s or F-15s you'd still be at 21% for A-10s, which clearly is quite different than your initial lie that almost all sorties were flown by A-10s. To take that further, F-16s flew far more sorties than A-10s, so you're probably looking at single digits for A-10s, again far different than the "almost all" lie you threw out there.

Again that is YOUR OWN source. You're such a poor liar you've managed to prove yourself a liar with your own sources as much as others have.

Lied. Busted. Rinse, repeat.

I have proven that there was strong Iraqi resistance.

Unfortunately you said "Almost all of the 40.000 sorties were A-10 CAS missions"

Which is still a lie, no matter how you want to distract from it.

Do you really work that way. Does your mind actually say to you "well I got caught lying, rather than admit I lied and move on, lets throw out more lies and distractions"..

But I am curious. Of major wars, when talking resistance one obvious and rather simple way would be comparing casualties by side. Looking at the US wars vs. Iraq and comparing them to other wars of the past 75 years, where does that resistance rank? Like WWII Axis powers killed about 2 allied for every Axis soldier lost. A strong resistance for sure there.

For the Iraqi armies, how did their resistance work out? How well did the 4th largest army in the world fight back? How well did they resist with their air power? How strong was their opposition to the US navy bombardments? How did their massive armored division hold up in resistance?

It was in one of your sources. Now you got the correct ones. There was no reason to jump around like an angry ape.

Will you now deny these figures?

 

[SandSquid]

Almost all is not correct, still almost all were CAS missions

Ahhh the usual pattern of the Bleipriester lie. Let's walk through this step by step, since it's same format as all your other lies.

1. The lie. Bleipriester claims "Almost all of the 40.000 sorties were A-10 CAS missions"
2. The catch. Others know this is bullshit and call him out.
3. The twist. Bleipriester is now trying to prove something entirely different.
4. Bleipriester will now act all offended that others call him a liar
5. Bleipriester will attempt to distract by changing the subject

It's yet another glaring example that you don't know what you're talking about, CAS is performed by everything from drones to A-10s to F-22s to F-16s to B-1s. The majority of sorties being used against Iraqi ground equipment isn't a surprise since it was a war involving an active combat front. Even those sorties aren't necessarily CAS, a SEAD or interdiction missions is a sortie against Iraqi ground units, yet it's not a CAS mission.

Let's look at this source you just posted in a feeble attempt to validate your A-10 flew almost all missions claim. It breaks out sorties by service branch, country, and aircraft type:

Total Sorties Flown 41,404
USAF 24,196
Fighters 8,828
Bombers 505
Tankers 6,193
(etc.)

So of those 41,404 sorties only about 21% were USAF fighter aircraft, which is where all A-10 sorties would fall. In other words, even if there were zero missions flown by F-16s or F-15s you'd still be at 21% for A-10s, which clearly is quite different than your initial lie that almost all sorties were flown by A-10s. To take that further, F-16s flew far more sorties than A-10s, so you're probably looking at single digits for A-10s, again far different than the "almost all" lie you threw out there.

Again that is YOUR OWN source. You're such a poor liar you've managed to prove yourself a liar with your own sources as much as others have.

Lied. Busted. Rinse, repeat.

I have proven that there was strong Iraqi resistance.

Unfortunately you said "Almost all of the 40.000 sorties were A-10 CAS missions"

Which is still a lie, no matter how you want to distract from it.

Do you really work that way. Does your mind actually say to you "well I got caught lying, rather than admit I lied and move on, lets throw out more lies and distractions"..

But I am curious. Of major wars, when talking resistance one obvious and rather simple way would be comparing casualties by side. Looking at the US wars vs. Iraq and comparing them to other wars of the past 75 years, where does that resistance rank? Like WWII Axis powers killed about 2 allied for every Axis soldier lost. A strong resistance for sure there.

For the Iraqi armies, how did their resistance work out? How well did the 4th largest army in the world fight back? How well did they resist with their air power? How strong was their opposition to the US navy bombardments? How did their massive armored division hold up in resistance?

It was in one of your sources. Now you got the correct ones. There was no reason to jump around like an angry ape.

Will you now deny these figures?

You are not defending your lie. Again. Thanks.

And what source are you claiming I used about world war II deaths earlier? Please post that. otherwise I will just assume that you believe that lying to defend a lie is acceptable.

I never made any other claim about WWII deaths outside of the 2:1.

But now that we're both on the same page for what constitutes a strong resistance, what were those in the wars against the Iraq government.

 

[Bleipriester]

Almost all is not correct, still almost all were CAS missions

Ahhh the usual pattern of the Bleipriester lie. Let's walk through this step by step, since it's same format as all your other lies.

1. The lie. Bleipriester claims "Almost all of the 40.000 sorties were A-10 CAS missions"
2. The catch. Others know this is bullshit and call him out.
3. The twist. Bleipriester is now trying to prove something entirely different.
4. Bleipriester will now act all offended that others call him a liar
5. Bleipriester will attempt to distract by changing the subject

It's yet another glaring example that you don't know what you're talking about, CAS is performed by everything from drones to A-10s to F-22s to F-16s to B-1s. The majority of sorties being used against Iraqi ground equipment isn't a surprise since it was a war involving an active combat front. Even those sorties aren't necessarily CAS, a SEAD or interdiction missions is a sortie against Iraqi ground units, yet it's not a CAS mission.

Let's look at this source you just posted in a feeble attempt to validate your A-10 flew almost all missions claim. It breaks out sorties by service branch, country, and aircraft type:

Total Sorties Flown 41,404
USAF 24,196
Fighters 8,828
Bombers 505
Tankers 6,193
(etc.)

So of those 41,404 sorties only about 21% were USAF fighter aircraft, which is where all A-10 sorties would fall. In other words, even if there were zero missions flown by F-16s or F-15s you'd still be at 21% for A-10s, which clearly is quite different than your initial lie that almost all sorties were flown by A-10s. To take that further, F-16s flew far more sorties than A-10s, so you're probably looking at single digits for A-10s, again far different than the "almost all" lie you threw out there.

Again that is YOUR OWN source. You're such a poor liar you've managed to prove yourself a liar with your own sources as much as others have.

Lied. Busted. Rinse, repeat.

I have proven that there was strong Iraqi resistance.

Unfortunately you said "Almost all of the 40.000 sorties were A-10 CAS missions"

Which is still a lie, no matter how you want to distract from it.

Do you really work that way. Does your mind actually say to you "well I got caught lying, rather than admit I lied and move on, lets throw out more lies and distractions"..

But I am curious. Of major wars, when talking resistance one obvious and rather simple way would be comparing casualties by side. Looking at the US wars vs. Iraq and comparing them to other wars of the past 75 years, where does that resistance rank? Like WWII Axis powers killed about 2 allied for every Axis soldier lost. A strong resistance for sure there.

For the Iraqi armies, how did their resistance work out? How well did the 4th largest army in the world fight back? How well did they resist with their air power? How strong was their opposition to the US navy bombardments? How did their massive armored division hold up in resistance?

It was in one of your sources. Now you got the correct ones. There was no reason to jump around like an angry ape.

Will you now deny these figures?

You are not defending your lie. Again. Thanks.

And what source are you claiming I used about world war II deaths earlier? Please post that. otherwise I will just assume that you believe that lying to defend a lie is acceptable.

I never made any other claim about WWII deaths outside of the 2:1.

But now that we're both on the same page for what constitutes a strong resistance, what were those in the wars against the Iraq government.

Its already somewhere in the thread.

 

[SandSquid]

Ahhh the usual pattern of the Bleipriester lie. Let's walk through this step by step, since it's same format as all your other lies.

1. The lie. Bleipriester claims "Almost all of the 40.000 sorties were A-10 CAS missions"
2. The catch. Others know this is bullshit and call him out.
3. The twist. Bleipriester is now trying to prove something entirely different.
4. Bleipriester will now act all offended that others call him a liar
5. Bleipriester will attempt to distract by changing the subject

It's yet another glaring example that you don't know what you're talking about, CAS is performed by everything from drones to A-10s to F-22s to F-16s to B-1s. The majority of sorties being used against Iraqi ground equipment isn't a surprise since it was a war involving an active combat front. Even those sorties aren't necessarily CAS, a SEAD or interdiction missions is a sortie against Iraqi ground units, yet it's not a CAS mission.

Let's look at this source you just posted in a feeble attempt to validate your A-10 flew almost all missions claim. It breaks out sorties by service branch, country, and aircraft type:

Total Sorties Flown 41,404
USAF 24,196
Fighters 8,828
Bombers 505
Tankers 6,193
(etc.)

So of those 41,404 sorties only about 21% were USAF fighter aircraft, which is where all A-10 sorties would fall. In other words, even if there were zero missions flown by F-16s or F-15s you'd still be at 21% for A-10s, which clearly is quite different than your initial lie that almost all sorties were flown by A-10s. To take that further, F-16s flew far more sorties than A-10s, so you're probably looking at single digits for A-10s, again far different than the "almost all" lie you threw out there.

Again that is YOUR OWN source. You're such a poor liar you've managed to prove yourself a liar with your own sources as much as others have.

Lied. Busted. Rinse, repeat.

I have proven that there was strong Iraqi resistance.

Unfortunately you said "Almost all of the 40.000 sorties were A-10 CAS missions"

Which is still a lie, no matter how you want to distract from it.

Do you really work that way. Does your mind actually say to you "well I got caught lying, rather than admit I lied and move on, lets throw out more lies and distractions"..

But I am curious. Of major wars, when talking resistance one obvious and rather simple way would be comparing casualties by side. Looking at the US wars vs. Iraq and comparing them to other wars of the past 75 years, where does that resistance rank? Like WWII Axis powers killed about 2 allied for every Axis soldier lost. A strong resistance for sure there.

For the Iraqi armies, how did their resistance work out? How well did the 4th largest army in the world fight back? How well did they resist with their air power? How strong was their opposition to the US navy bombardments? How did their massive armored division hold up in resistance?

It was in one of your sources. Now you got the correct ones. There was no reason to jump around like an angry ape.

Will you now deny these figures?

You are not defending your lie. Again. Thanks.

And what source are you claiming I used about world war II deaths earlier? Please post that. otherwise I will just assume that you believe that lying to defend a lie is acceptable.

I never made any other claim about WWII deaths outside of the 2:1.

But now that we're both on the same page for what constitutes a strong resistance, what were those in the wars against the Iraq government.

Its already somewhere in the thread.

Checked every post I made on the thread. Not there.

I think I am getting a picture... Not so much lies but hallucinations and possibly schizophrenia. Definitely some sort of delusion. I am sorry for your sickness and hope you find the help you need.