Reply With Quote
You are flip flopping.
You challenged my initial definition, so I get the US military and you challenge that one too.
So show me your definition of conventional warfare or shut the up.
You brought it up.
Show your proof.
Then I will decide if I challenge your statement or not.
You are flip flopping.
You challenged my initial definition, so I get the US military and you challenge that one too.
So show me your definition of conventional warfare or shut the up.
No I'm not.
No I didn't. Though the use of "conventional weapons" is vagueYou challenged my initial definition
No I didn't. Unless I missed the part about chemical weapons., so I get the US military and you challenge that one too.
I don't see how that's relevant given the cir stances. You think World War 1 was an unconventional war.So show me your definition of conventional warfare or shut the up.
You never answer questions. ANd you always get your cronies Chump and GGAfro. All yall do is gang up, load the topic with nonsense and quips. Why can you not answer his question?
Here is my proof from your definition:
So in some cases, conventional warfare can indeed involve chemical weapons.Conventional warfare is a form of warfare conducted by using conventional military weapons and battlefield tactics between two or more states in open confrontation. The forces on each side are well-defined, and fight using weapons that primarily target the opposing army. It is normally fought using conventional weapons, not chemical, biological, nor nuclear weapons.
WWI was such a case.
DING
and DONG
So you don't know what conventional warfare means.
So please exit the thread and stop wasting people's time.
Fallujah = unconventional warfare.
Show me why I am wrong.
Just did.So you don't know what conventional warfare means.
So please exit the thread and stop wasting people's time.
Fallujah = unconventional warfare.
Show me why I am wrong.
So now you are using the wikipedia definiton which you laughed at before?
That's your source?
sad little man
It also says
between two or more states in open confrontation. The forces on each side are well-defined, and fight using weapons that primarily target the opposing army
The iraqi insurgency is NOT well defined and I don't think anyone recognizes them as a legitimate 'state'
Didn't say that. It's just not relevant.
I'm only wasting my time really.So please exit the thread and stop wasting people's time.
already didFallujah = unconventional warfare.
Show me why I am wrong.
And here's where you show your ignorance on the battle of Fallujah and Fallujah in general.
That's YOUR source.So now you are using the wikipedia definiton which you laughed at before?
That's your source?
sad little man
Is it not good enough for you now?
Sad little girl.
You used the source you ridiculed earlier.
So now we are back to square one, since you apparently feel adequate in using it as proof for yourself.
between two or more states in open confrontation. The forces on each side are well-defined, and fight using weapons that primarily target the opposing army
The iraqi insurgency hides among the populace and is not well defined. they are also not recognized as a legitimate state.
enlighten me o wise one
show me why the forces are well defined and that they are a legitimate acknowledge state en y?
i will await your response.
I was in combat asshole. Stationed in the Traingle of Death in Mahmudiyah. We (the Army with its greatest fighters-Cavalry Scout) went in Fallujah for the Surge to help the Marines and wooped their(terrorists but you refer to them as freedom fighters) ass. You probably have no idea what a Battalion is? You are right though, The whole operation was larger than a BN. It was a BN size of ground troops though and that is what I meant.
We're talking about WWI now.
Why are you flip-flopping?
Are you saying WWI was an unconventional war?
Yes or no.
Thank you for your service.
ha ha ha
chumpdumper is just a troll. he is lucky he is on the internet like this
if this was real life in front of people, he would be ridiculed and he probably would not even have behaved like that in the first place.
The people around me in real life aren't as stupid or cowardly as you.
They are brave enough to answer questions like "Do you think WWI was an unconventional war?"
between two or more states in open confrontation. The forces on each side are well-defined, and fight using weapons that primarily target the opposing army
The iraqi insurgency hides among the populace, does not fight in open confrontation, and is not well defined. they are also not recognized as a legitimate state.
We are not past that one, chumpy.
You are talking about WW1. No one else. Why? Why would you leave out information from a quote? You have less credibility than Bill Clinton.
We're not past WWI.
Do you think it was an unconventional war?
Yes or no.
I think a conventional strategy were used by the US in Fallujah because they didn't use the unconventional one the Marines proposed.
You can't count.You are talking about WW1. No one else. Why? Why would you leave out information from a quote? You have less credibility than Bill Clinton.
Sounds pretty conventional to me.The first U.S. siege of Fallujah began on April 4, 2004, the day of the Blackwater firefight at Najaf....That night more than a thousand Marines and two Iraqi battalions surrounded Fallujah, a city of about 350,000 people. U.S. forces positioned tanks, heavy machine guns, and armored Humvees at the major routes running in and out of the city....
The next morning, the U.S. forces made their first incursions into Fallujah - first sending in special operations to hunt "high value targets". Then came the full-on assault carried out by twenty-five hundred Marines and three battalions, backed up by tanks. U.S. forces soon found themselves in fierce gun battles with resistance fighters. As the fighting raged on, the Marines called in for air support.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
