Iraq, G. dub, and the long arm of the Army Reserve

Bad bye is an interesting thread but lists too many points to reply to.

Iraq:
While I'm not a Saddam sympathizer, I am against U.S. occupation of a foreign country. We as a nation do NOT have the right to decide what is best for another countries people. How can you "liberate" via "shock and awe bombing"? How can you "liberate" by destroying the infrastructure of a country, and removing the things we consider to be basic human rights? Who is more evil? One group of people Saddam gassed had formed a militia to fight against him, do you think George bush would do any less if he could get away with it. The figures I have heard about hoe many people Saddam killed include his war with Iran. Do acts of war count as murder?

G. Dub (George W. Bush):
George is the president, and thereby IS responsible for the war. Bill Clinton (may have) coined the phrase WMD but he said "to attack his neighbors". George W. said Saddam would attack us. Why does nobody consider that while the Bush family is in the oil business, they are also in the war business? (I cant recall the name of the company) but they build implements of war. It seems to me they are profiting twice from the same immoral act. Lets look at the Patriot act, systematicly removing rights we are guaranteed by our constitution. What would this man be capable of if he didn't have congress to answer to? How can people try to put the blame on his "inner circle" "the powers that be" but the fact is whenever someone disagrees with his agenda he replaces them. Why are some people so blind to the fact that this is an evil man?


The Army Reserve:
Am I the only person who thinks the U.S. military has become a sissified Brady Bunch version of itself? Its like they want to fight via playstation. We don't have the guts to pull off something like D-day anymore. I mean, we started a war, and I'm getting tired of people whining because our troops are dieing. Its the price you pay. I Know thats not what they thought they would have to do for some collage money, but its in the contract. I'mgetting tired of hearing "I was in Iraq to protect american freedom." B.S. Iraq or Saddam posed no threat to american freedom. Don't get me wrong I don't think they should die, I think they should be here. I think they should be helping get people out of hurricane zones. They should be helping to keep the levies in New Orleans from collapsing. They should only be called upon to fight if America is in genuine danger.




Just my $.02
Wurm

Don't forget Bush Jr. is also responsible for hurricane Katrina, global warming, outsourcing, dinosaur extinction, constipation, the pot hole in front of my house and the horrible music of the 1980's.

Quote:

---

I am against U.S. occupation of a foreign country.

---

I am still waiting for them to leave Virginia.

Quote:

---

and the horrible music of the 1980's.

---

If you said the 1970s I would agree

There will be a presidential election in Nov. of 2008. George jr
gets a pension, and someone else will have to be the scapegoat
for a while. I know it's a tough job, but if the people insist, I would
consider it. Mind you, I have a lot of other things going on, but...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rcgreen

I am still waiting for them to leave Virginia.

---

The "Northern War Of Economic Aggression" is not over my friend ;)

Go for it mate!..........at the least you will get a PI/75 and five free AOL e-mail accounts?

:p:D

Well, I certainly agree with your first point about US occupations of foriegn lands. It certainly goes against the grain of our Founding Father's desire to avoid foriegn entanglements (I believe that was the term they used).

As for your second point, it might behoove you to check the short and not-so-sweet history of Bill Clinton's regime change in Serbia (1999). Clinton's action was altogether unilateral, done without either UN support, or even NATO support in the end. Shock and awe was not GWB's invention. And Bill Clinton certainly set a legal and moral precedent for GWB. Remember, these boys all play golf together, and never forget, the world is run from golf courses these days.

And as for your third point, don't go calling any Iraq/Afghan vets the "Brady Bunch" unless you've got a good orthodontist. I know a number of young vets, and to the man, or woman, they will likely tell you the money we've dumped in Iraq would've been better spent here in the States. Many have neen thru Hell, and back, and my heart goes out to them...

Second point:
I believe you are pointing at Kosovo? I think Clinton did have NATO support. the UN was in charge of the NATO forces that took control at the end of the conflict. The UN also didn't support Bush, as I recall they wanted to allow Saddam more time to comply.

Third Point:
That statement was about the military "machine" more than the troops themselves. Where I live is a hotbed of military bases, hell you can see NORAD out my window. I know a lot of vets myself, and my statements hold true. There is no way they would storm a protected beach, on foot, from the sea, while people are dieing all around. Most of them would lay down and cry until they were shot!!! Its a whole different military, thats all.

Even if a psychopathic, mass murdering, power-mongering, despot were in the middle of invading neighboring countries to plunder them (or destroying them on his way out), or was shooting off missles at innocent unprovoked nations, or in the process of tossing sarin gas around like baseballs....


The UN would still give him more time...

...and I believe they did. So, I think that says a lot.

The U.N. had nothing to do with attacking Serbia and Kosovo. It
began strictly as a NATO op, under the auspices of President Clinton
and Gen. Clark, in bombing and occupying Kosovo. But the 40 night
bombing of Belgrade, a major European city, was strictly an American
op. Funny how we never saw the pics on US television. And all this
was done unilaterally without U.N. support.

As for US troops laying down and crying, this does indeed occur in
any given war among any given group of soldiers. So what? Combat
is probably the craziest thing that can happen to a person. US troops
in Iraq and Afghanistan have a very aggressive rep.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by webwurm99

There is no way they would storm a protected beach, on foot, from the sea, while people are dieing all around. Most of them would lay down and cry until they were shot!!! Its a whole different military, thats all.

---

Your right, but it's a different type of battle/war, this stuff is as close to hand to hand as you can get, warfare on a large scale is what happened at first, the door to door stuff is now, to me that's scarier, also the enemy is not wearing a uniform, try deciphering whether the person walking towards you is actually foe or ally....it's a realm of intense paranoia, and unless your head is screwed on tight, any matter of things can set you off, so shitting in one's drawers is to be expected, and if you think those "saving private ryan types" storming the beaches of Juno weren't shitting their's then well....you and I weren't there, but an honest vet will tell you that for the most part they were just as terrified or "bored"...boredom kills by the way...or it's idle minds....and that's what these guy's and gal's have to contend with...for the 3rd or 4th time......it's also why their bonds are so tight as a group, fear is a very motivational tool, and in a group or mob can lead to disastrous results....I personally have never experienced this myself, but I have read enough letters from the line to read between the lines or what isn't censored out....

If they don't soon resolve this issue, you are going to have possible 5th tours of duty for some of these units, and guess what, maybe not right away but possibly a few yrs down the road, some of these people are going to explode, it happened to a lot of Vietnam Vets, it happened to a lot of WWII vets and Korea...and if the US takes on Iran, be prepared for the draft...:eek:

Quote:

---

and if the US takes on Iran, be prepared for the draft...

---

well, then Canada better be prepared for me :) ... don't get me wrong, I fully support the troops, but not the war.

Quote:

---

Well, I certainly agree with your first point about US occupations of foriegn lands. It certainly goes against the grain of our Founding Father's desire to avoid foriegn entanglements (I believe that was the term they used).

---

I think brokencrow hit the nail on the head right here... but we are in the war, and there isn't much we can do about that right now... we will just have to ride this crazy torpedo to the end. which may not come anytime soon.

I only said the UN took over peacekeeping iat the end of the conflict.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/836708.stm says NATO not U.S. is being sued for bombing Belgrade. It was on CNN too.



It is a different kind of war, I agree. However, I disagree with this war being as close to hand to hand as you can get. I haven't heard of our troops fixing bayonets and charging an enemy. While a guerilla enemy with no uniform does cause stress, I don't think our current military could handle a conflict like Vietnam now. The way I see it our troops have a degree of comfort never before seen in warfare. They always seem to out man and out gun the enemy. That is what I was saying, If they cant sit in a safe area and lob shells at the enemy they start to complain. If they cant be comfortable they wont engage. It reminds me of a high school bully, if they don't know they will win, they're too scared to fight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by webwurm99

However, I disagree with this war being as close to hand to hand as you can get. I haven't heard of our troops fixing bayonets and charging an enemy.

---

Hmmm the recent kidnapping and execution of 4 marines, required the use of "hands", can't get any closer then that unless their married...as for fixing bayonets, so okay they don't require them, but kicking in doors in a house to house search is still pretty much foot's on...(hand to hand)I somewhat agree they can seem to be a bit comfortable, but no more so then the guy's who fly bombing missions, during the second world war, they would fire from away as well, as for Vietnam, sure it was dirty but if you look at the footage, you will see they almost in all cases placed their rifle over the hedge or wall and fired blindly, the reasoning was if they fired enough bullets, they might hit something, and I am sure they did this in all the wars, with the exception of the Civil War, now that was a brutal war...

I think what you are getting at, and I can see this anology, it's the same as Pro Sports, as long as the equipment gets better and better the player's feel like they are invincible and so get careless and wham they get injuries..can you blame the troopers though, I would like to know the tin can I'm riding in has the defenses to stop most rounds fired at it...I mean after all the primary mission of all of the troops, other then their objectives is to stay alive right?

I see your point Dalek, and you cant really blame the troops. The soldiers should be kept alive if possible. The point I was trying to make is the degree of the "comfort factor". In the house to house raids for example, there is usually a large group of well equipped soldiers kicking in someones door, while they eat dinner. This IMO is not hand to hand, and the comfort level is still huge. The troops in Vietnam may have shot blindly over bunkers, but they didn't whine that jeeps didn't have enough armor. While I don't blame the "troopers" I do blame the whole of the military. Imagine in 10 years if we have to fight China. They are growing quickly into a superpower, so I cant see it being avoided. How do you think our troops will fare against a LARGE, well equipped army? I don't see it going well for our guys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by webwurm99

I see your point Dalek, and you cant really blame the troops. The soldiers should be kept alive if possible. The point I was trying to make is the degree of the "comfort factor". In the house to house raids for example, there is usually a large group of well equipped soldiers kicking in someones door, while they eat dinner. This IMO is not hand to hand, and the comfort level is still huge. The troops in Vietnam may have shot blindly over bunkers, but they didn't whine that jeeps didn't have enough armor. While I don't blame the "troopers" I do blame the whole of the military. Imagine in 10 years if we have to fight China. They are growing quickly into a superpower, so I cant see it being avoided. How do you think our troops will fare against a LARGE, well equipped army? I don't see it going well for our guys.

---

I do actually, quite well. Even in 10 years, I strongly doubt the Chinese Navy/Airforce/Missle Systems will be on parr with the United States of America. That will certainly be where any conflict between the two nations occurs if it ever will (extremely doubtful). China is growing rapidly, but growing economically is (oddly enough) not directly communicable to parrallel military growth. I find it doubtful that too many western countries are going to make it easy for China to purchase the latest weaponry. On that note, R&D takes a very long time.

Besides, if it came to a ground war with China (assuming that it would be on their soil), it simply wouldn't happen until the numbers looked feasible. Regardless of that, why do you think the United States is being so friendly with India? Also, I'm very certain that the troops in Vietnam had lots of problems with how/why the war was being fought. There isn't a doubt in my mind about soliders complaining about inadequate training/equipment. However, the media that existed then is not the media that exists today, nor was the military (in terms of dissention being permissible).

And yet again the point is missed and by such a wide margin that it seems you all are speaking different languages.

You know what? If I were the enemy, be it Iran, Syria, North Korea, *cough* Europe *cough*, I would take pleasure in watching the major news outlets in the U.S. for the simple fact that the "sit in a circle and hold hands" crowd has come of age. They survived their "conscientious college objector" stage (aka) cowards who run from any discomfort. They have now got themselves elected into official office which means they can make cowardice a national policy and as far as I can see our own senators and representatives will do most of the work for the enemy. There was never any fight in them to begin with (John Kerry), so open the borders, because if you don't it'll make us look bad. And certainly don't fight against what we think is wrong, because that'll make us look bad. I'd rather look bad and have my family safe and happy than be a footnote in the history of the modern world which is the direction of this country.

Remember when the U.S. used to fight for what was right?

Between 1940 and 1945 the U.S. lost in battle 291,560 heroes, other "non-theater" deaths were around 113,800, let's count those because todays media counts a stubbed toe as a casualty. It seems to me that saving Europe in the 40's cost us keeping the U.S. in the 21st century...

Hell, even if we saved the 33,000 or so that were lost in the Korean war this country would be better off. They'd still be around to run for office.

America, as far as I see in "the media" has lost it's will to sacrifice what needs to sacrificed for the betterment of the next generation.

So thank you Hillary Clinton, Charles Wrangel, Harry Reid, Dumbass Edwards, Nancy Pelosi, et al, for riding the wind of political correctness and never standing too firmly on the solid ground of conviction and holding on to the belief that we fight the good fight for the sake of a vote. Thank you for showing the American people that we can be more like the U.N. with it's " non-binding resolutions" and stalwart hatred toward Israel, hell, while we are at it, lets just all vote that all the world's injustices are wrong but never do a damn thing about them. Except for Darfur, and only because Sean Penn and all the other "wise and sage" hollywierdos think that's the flavor of the month.

Sway with the wind you cowards because thats the only way the you and your families will survive the war that's coming if you get your way. The U.S. is knocking on the gates and sooner rather than later we will have to survive a horrible blast from the lungs of hell.

webwurm99: did you actualy pay attention to the end of nam. troops didn't complain???are you on crack? we had high desertion rates, heavy complaints about the equpmint (mainyl the eraly m16's they tended to mealt) and lots of combat rufusals..not to mention the fragging's ect. If we had better jeeps (with armor) availible at the time I am sure the troops would have demanded them...

korpdeath...how big was teh army then...we are dealign with a force that is ~1/10 the size it was in WWII, sure less troops have been lost total...but its a large precentage of our total force, it has a massive effect on our militaries ability to do its job...we have airmen and seammen acting as infantry right now...thats a big problem. more importantly there was a poitn ot us being in eourpe (even a tiny reason to be in korea, and at leats in nam there was 1 side of the conflit that wanted us their) in our current mess we are attacked by all sides. where the hell is the good fight in iraq???? amazingly the americna public has little will for colonial adventures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil Moo

I do actually, quite well. Even in 10 years, I strongly doubt the Chinese Navy/Airforce/Missle Systems will be on parr with the United States of America. That will certainly be where any conflict between the two nations occurs if it ever will (extremely doubtful). China is growing rapidly, but growing economically is (oddly enough) not directly communicable to parrallel military growth. I find it doubtful that too many western countries are going to make it easy for China to purchase the latest weaponry. On that note, R&D takes a very long time.

Besides, if it came to a ground war with China (assuming that it would be on their soil), it simply wouldn't happen until the numbers looked feasible. Regardless of that, why do you think the United States is being so friendly with India? Also, I'm very certain that the troops in Vietnam had lots of problems with how/why the war was being fought. There isn't a doubt in my mind about soliders complaining about inadequate training/equipment. However, the media that existed then is not the media that exists today, nor was the military (in terms of dissention being permissible).

---

study your military history, wars are not won by the side with the coolist toys, they are won by the side wit hthe most troops to lose, we figth china, we lose. they have more troops then we have people, they have antiship missles that cn take out a carrer that we have no counters for, they can cripile our econamy at a whim(the single largest holder of us dollars is china, we piss them off the flood the market). China has the latest weaponry (they have vectored thurst migs from russia that are on par with anythign we have. they helped the serbs devlop radar systems that can detect are stealth units). they also have subs capable of hitting our fleets (one of the chinese subs "accidently" surfaced in the middle of one of our carrier groups a few months back....we didn't know it was there till it surfaced). china may be slightly behind us on the tech sace, but not that far, they also have very effective ground based anti satalite devices so we would be basicly fighting blind(all of our smart weapons work on either GPS or laser based targeting...we have to get troops close for the lasers to work, if the satalites are gone so is gps)


i wouldn't be in too much of a hurry to antagonize china, its not a fight we could win over there

However the USA have gained the technology of striking any location in the world within 60 minutes. The test will be done in 2008. So you are saying that if the USA can do this, chinese will lose men yes, more men yes, and even more. I disagree with your statement of more troops = a win. This isnt 20th century warfare, I.E World war 2 when men fought men. This is the 21th century with technology that doesnt mean men must be on the enemys soil to bomb it , whatever. America can knock out chinas army production, supply lines, whatever.

If it was storm the beach and die @ Normandy then I would say yes, but weapons are too advanced for that kind of thinking.

My Ol' Man was a WWII vet. A Coastguardsman manning an LCI
landing craft in the ETO (European Theater of Operations). Hit the
beaches at Sicily, Salerno and Normandy (he always said Salerno
was the worst, but that's a whole other story). Anyway, as a kid,
I was utterly fascinated by war and always asking him about it.

One day, he finally told me: "No one ever wins a war."

He was right. No one really won WWII, we just got a new, cold war.
Vietnam? Millions dead in a land laced with dioxins. Korea, more dead,
forever divided. Iraq? Does anyone really think ANYONE will win in
Iraq?

Like Krishnamurti once asked, what is the fate of a nation that prepares for war? The end of the Kaliyug just gets uglier and uglier...

Indeed no one wins a war. Everyone loses, just some more than others.

I should've expected it but most of you have missed the point, but there's nothing new there. Just goes to prove you can't have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

i am an RM reservist for the uk (royal marine commando) and i feel what you are saying is very vaild korpdeath but i dont agree on the more people theory as every modern day officer knows that throughout history army sizes have been playing less and less of a role in milatary strength.

as we in particular (the UK royal marines) were outgunned by a modern army in argentina before our main forces could arrive, we managed to hold them off and stage many succesfull counterattacks. this is proof that it is not just size.

Korp,

If you argue on the same point, you will not convince anyone of your viewpoint.

While you bash senators and congresspeople I notice you dis only democrats. You don't seem to dis the chickenhawk president, (remember when the National Guard stayed at home out of harms way), you also ignore the draft dodging vice president. I find it ironic that the only true military person on the cabinet, General Powell, wasn't invited for the second term.

Why is ok for Bush and co to keep promoting this engagement, even though have little human investment (if any) involved? Nixon had a son in law in theater during Viet Nam. Nixon had the sense to pull the plug. I know, republican mindset, kill other peoples kids

Going around the world, toppling dictators isn't "right". Usually we wound up putting in our own puppet governments which would then turn on us. The only dictators who seemed to have lifetime jobs were Franco, Castro and Tito.

What will be Cheney's sign on bonus to go back to Halliburton after his term?

Fight for whats right, they really sucked you in.

I would have thought that by now people would be asking if a military solution is really feasible?

Possibly partitioning the place is the only compromise that will work? That is what had to happen in the former Yugoslavia? At least that way each faction would have something to hang on to, and it would make the foreign $h1tstirrers redundant, as they are really only there to take a pop at the allies.

My premise is that it is a lot easier keeping people apart than making them live in harmony together.

just my £0.02

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nihil

Possibly partitioning the place is the only compromise that will work? That is what had to happen in the former Yugoslavia? At least that way each faction would have something to hang on to, and it would make the foreign $h1tstirrers redundant, as they are really only there to take a pop at the allies.

---

This may very well be the solution to everyone's problem, the only possible sticking point or speedbump is the oil fields in Kurdish territory, otherwise having three camps is what is going to happen...these people are not ready for western democracy, they are very much still tribal.If anything if they do split into three little zones/territories, this may actually make them stronger against the influence of Syria and Iran.

As for the problems with the politicians....woulda, shoulda,coulda....wouldn't be prudent...no sir..."hindsight" is always 20-20.The blame game is always going to detract from the problems in hand, it's perfect dis-information or sleight of hand, smoke and mirrors tactics....by the time the general public clues in, the smoke will have cleared and those responsible will have long gone...:rolleyes:

Howdy,

I personally dont think we could win the war in iraq. Is there not like some 28million people who live in that country( i know all are not fighting). But even if we were to defeat 100enemies a day that would still take a lot of time. I think the only way we could win is start fresh there in the middles east meaning nuke the country(i hope it doesnt happen but realistically i think that is the only way that anyone could win.

Up here and to the west a bit(vancouver, canada) When we hear about the war and president bush you always hear stuff like "illuminati" "skull&bones" what is your guys take on that?

Well, Natasha69, the concept of "nuke the lot and let God sort them out" or perhaps better expressed on a US Marine's T-shirt I once saw: "Nuke their a$$, and take their gas" :D has a certain Je ne sais quois, but is quite unrealistic.

What we basically have is an "invented" country............ like many in the World today, they are actually a legacy of Western imperialism and colonialism. No account taken of ethnic, linguistic, cultural or religious groupings.

It is hardly surprising that when the imperialists/colonialists pull out of these situations, all hell breaks loose? after all they are only a dictatorship by a foreign power are they not?

That is why I was suggesting the concept of "partitioning" as I only see that as a redrawing of lines that were drawn in the wrong place to begin with? :)

The war in Iraq has been a great distraction while our civil liberties are being taken away!
Here come the Fascists. Here are something that describe a fascist state.

1. a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond reach of traditional solutions
2. belief one’s group is the victim, justifying any action without legal or moral limits
3. need for authority by a natural leader above the law, relying on the superiority of his instincts
4. right of the chosen people to dominate others without legal or moral restraint
5. fear of foreign "contamination."

I hope I don't get a warrent-less wire tap for posting this. :)

Hmmm,

I just got a tin of 50 depleted uranium rounds and a first class air ticket :eek:

See ya in Maine............... but not if ya don't see me first :D:p

I would rather die free than be trapped in a safe prison.

Quote:

---

1. a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond reach of traditional solutions
2. belief one’s group is the victim, justifying any action without legal or moral limits
3. need for authority by a natural leader above the law, relying on the superiority of his instincts
4. right of the chosen people to dominate others without legal or moral restraint
5. fear of foreign "contamination."

---

Hey, are you talking about Global Warming?

Naw Road global Warming isn't happening in the US.
ALso to go back to another point - I agree that the number of men in an army isn't always the most important factor. There have been many battles where a smaller force has defeated a larger or much larger army.

Global warming exists in the US. We just argue over what why where how and when we are going to do something about it. We haven't even reached the apex of past warming cycles. It's a comming and "we'll grow oranges in Alaska (Dale Gribble).

I can't stand to hear the term global warming. Is the globe warming? Yes. Is it caused by human action? Maybe. Is there any point in arguing over it? No.

The fact remains that the burning of fossil fuels has many confirmable negative consequences that reach beyond the global warming debate. This very threads subject is one of many negative geopolitical effects. Also plenty of undeniable environmental and health effects exist that support the cause of alternative fuels.

Don't be sidetracked by fruitless debates.

--double post--


nihil, if you would be so kind as to help me out with a delete. Thanks.

I get a big kick out of the "STOP GLOBAL WARMING" drones. If they did any research on the subject at all they would realise that the planet has been on a cooling/warming cycle since the beginning of time.

Do a wikipedia on interglacial or glacial period, its happenned at least 5 times before. Puny, insignificant man couldn't stop it if we wanted to. It happenned before without our intervention.

Now if they want to start a discussion about not accelerating the phenom, conservation of finite resources etc I'll participate. In the meantime they are displaying their ignorance.

yeah, I generally stay clear of global warming. I have yet to see anyone put forward enough proof to even suggest it is caused by man, but equally noone has come close to proving to me that man has no effect. and as fourdc suggests, there are plenty of concrete reasons to go for environemntally friendly, starting with the fact that all those fumes we kick out go into the air we breathe and moving on to the fact that resources are finite.

Global Warming? huh................. it is the mythology of political bullcrap and the source of a US$ 4 billion a year research grant "industry":rolleyes:

The climate of planet Earth is dictated by its energy source............The Sun (that's the one without Page Three Aard~ :D)

CO2 is an insignificant greenhouse gas.................. the major greenhouse gas is H2O in the form of water vapour...............over 75% of the total as it happens.

Man contributes less than 1% of CO2............. the majority of it comes from the oceans/water masses. CO2 is an interesting gas, it becomes less soluble as water warms up, so it is released...............then the icecaps melt and cool the oceans........... then the CO2 is reabsorbed, the Earth cools and the icecaps reform. Of course there are other factors involved such as the Sun, the Earth's erratic orbit etc.

The real issues should be:

1. Pollution (that covers land, sea and air)
2. Sustainable resources
3. Conservation

;)

Actually, there was that TV program recently that more convincingly linked earth's temperature not to gases in the atmosphere but to activity of the sun. (yes, the ball of fusing hydrogen not the entertaining work of fiction with interesting pictures ;) ) Some times the sun burns a little hotter, so the earth warms up. Other times it burns a little colder and the earth cools down. Then you have to think that our orbit is not a perfect circle set in stone, sometimes we are close to the sun sometimes we are a little further away.

This is what happens when threads collide.
http://antionline.com/showthread.php?p=918768