PD take the time and read this peice http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=200404...06-032203-3282r

there is a difference between people who signed up to learn, gain skills, pay for college *and* do so knowing they possibly will have to defend their country and the notion that *because* they joined up, it makes it quite alright to send them to a meat grinder.

its a two way street. the Army does not exactly run ads saying "hey, how would you like to get ambushed, shot and killed, decapitated and hung from a street post to be seen on global news networks while you are fighting in a war started under questionable pretenses with little to no world support"

in fact, the army paints quite a different picture of what it is like to join up.

this whole Iraq issue has changed my perspectives on a lot of things and i said a lot of things before this started that i sincerely wish i had not.[/b][/quote]
Anyone who is too stupid to know what the Army does deserves whatever he/she gets when the Army does it.

My girlfriend's son is a Captain in the U.S. Marine Corps. He will be a Marine until they kill him or force them to retire after 30 years. I have not heard one single complaint from him about what he's being asked to do.

So this talk of the Peace Corps is bullshit. If you are too fucking stupid to figure out that there is a certain amount of anguish when it's YOURS that has his ass on the line, regardless of how well you understand the concepts of duty, honor, and sacrifice - then I pray to god you get a vasectomy before you ever have children. That will both spare you this possible source of anguish in the future, and eliminate the possibility that the "stupid" gene you have in overabundence will get passed on to future generations.

Now ... armed with the knowledge that you are in possession of an overabundance of stupid, I can understand how you might not grasp the idea that someone might object to a war as unwinable, irrelevant to and even counterproductive to the national interest of the United States, and therefore not worth the potential sacrifice of someone close to me. That kind of thing can add to the natural anguish.

I know you understand at least part of the idea that something might not be worth the sacrifice. The last time you tried to construe my personal objections to the folly of this war as evidence that her son was a pussy, I asked you why you weren't still in and over there - and your response was that "we" - the people of the United States - were not worth fighting for.[/b][/quote]
I he is not objecting to fighting, then why are you trying to humiliate him?

Kindly explain to this public school graduate how I am trying to humiliate him?

Kindly explain to this public school graduate how I am trying to humiliate him?[/b][/quote]
He is over there fighting with honor and dignity and courage like a man, and you sit back here and whine about the fact that he is serving over there. You're like an overprotective mother embarrassing her child.

He is over there fighting with honor and dignity and courage like a man, and you sit back here and whine about the fact that he is serving over there. You're like an overprotective mother embarrassing her child.[/b][/quote]
Well, we're just going to have to disagree on this one, Buff.

I expect him to do what he's ordered to do. I'm proud of him for doing what he's ordered to do - and I'm proud of every last soldier, sailor, airman or Marine who are over there doing that. My feelings about this are not going to change substainally when he does get sent home from this clusterfuck.

I would gladly force him to come home - probably over his objections - and let him be replaced with someone else who was in favor of this boondoggle.

My arguement is not with him, his men, or even most of his Chain of Command. It's the foolhardy policies of the cocksuckers at the top of that chain that I disagree with.

I read the article, Mike. Didn't think much of it, actually. It's based on the traditional right-wing misconception that the war in Vietnam was "winnable", and followed by a well-honed right wing trick of blaming the defeat on a lack of political will which was sapped by back-stabbers at home.

It's not (until you get to Anne Coulter country, at least) as onerous as the German right's post WWI blaming the "Jews" for their defeat - but it's close.

Serge ... just out of curiousity - do you know who like-minded Russians blame for the defeat in Afghanistan? Besides the CIA, is it Menshoviks , Trotskites, reactionary elements, and sabateurs?

I do not believe that the war in Vietnam was ever "winnable." What Ted Kennedy realizes today - something which seems to escape the author - is that when his brother "...saw the conflict in the larger framework of the Cold War and Nikita Khrushchev's threats against West Berlin..." he was just flat-ouy wrong. The assumption of hegemony between all Arabs, er, Communists, combined with the refusal to recognize the nationalism that underpinned the entire conflict made him wrong.

If Jane Fonda and Ramsey Clark had stayed home; if millions of Americans had stayed off the streets - Lyndon Johnson still would have found himself faced with the endless cycle of escalation. If we'd listened to the hawks back then at the very least we would have gotten ourselves into a land war with China; and the possibility of a nuclear war was very, very real.

And if we'd "won" in Vietnam - then the news today could have included the death of Marines at Hue or Siagon or Hanoi in addition to those in Falujah.

Besides, Mike - you've admitted that you are an imperialist who thinks we should be in Iraq for oil and strategic purposes. If it is of neither interest nor importance to you, what possible value could an article that includes language such as "[i]t would behoove Kennedy to see Iraq in the larger context of the struggle to bring democracy, not only to Iraq, but the entire Middle East..." have?



Last edited by PornoDoggy at Apr 7 2004, 05:35 PM

PD I do not think they guy who wrote the article is a Conservative.

I do not agree with all of his points, however I do beleive the left is undermining the war effort in Iraq. The Vietnamese general makes the point very well.

I know you have a hard time beleiving this, but our enemies know they cannot defeat us in battle, so they target the home front. Then the weak-kneed amoung us start refering to Vietnman. What is worst is that politics gets invovled, leading democrats to say outlandish things about the President and the war....

For the record, I do beleive Vietnam was winnable, even with the poor condition of our military, and poor leadership. We lost on the home front. We lost because of people like John Kerry who lied about abuses he saw in Vietnam. The left anti-war movment undermined this country. They are the true enemies, and the only people who can lead to the defeat of this country.

In Iraq, you are an unabashed imperialist - you believe we are there in order to secure oil and bases. Now, off the top of my head, Britian, Portugal, Belguim and France all found their imperialistic endeavors crushed in the last century. Were all of those powers also stabbed in the back by the leftists back home, Mikey?

I suspect that what you know about Vietnam is comprable to what I know about nuclear physics - which is to say, absolutely nothing. How, precisely, would you have won the war? Would you have gone nuclear? Would you have risked a war with China? Would you have weakened our strength in Europe where there really was a Soviet Union that could be tempted to take advantage of that weakness?

I am idly curious to know what the fuck you are talking about when you say the "poor condition of our military" during Vietnam. Are you going to do a Rumsfeld, and blame the folks who fought, too? The brass did the monkey dance their political masters ordered them too ... the grunts just went and died, but took one hell of a lot of the enemy with them.

Continue to recite the catechism of the right, Mike ... it was the Jews that did it, or the liberals, or the niggers, or whatever your brand of facist is blaming today.

You'd have made a great German, Mike - if you'd lived about 75 years ago.

Machiavelli was on to something :)

[quote]Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Apr 7 2004, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buff,Apr 7 2004, 01:39 PM PD: I know you understand at least part of the idea that something might not be worth the sacrifice. The last time you tried to construe my personal objections to the folly of this war as evidence that her son was a pussy, I asked you why you weren't still in and over there - and your response was that "we" - the people of the United States - were not worth fighting for.

Yes, I remember that. It's very easy to make sacrifices when we are not the ones paying the price. Soldiers know they may have to fight and possibly die for their countries one day. I don't recall ANYWHERE where it's written that they or their families have to LIKE it, especially when it's potentially needless loss.

He is over there fighting with honor and dignity and courage like a man, and you sit back here and whine about the fact that he is serving over there. You're like an overprotective mother embarrassing her child.[/b][/quote]
Please do not breed.. I like you, Buff, but parenthood involves more than instilling foolish pride. NO parent's child's life is worth nothing.... And tell me this.... you said before you weren't in the service anymore because you don't think Americans are worth fighting for.... But you would send a child like a lamb to the slaughter over HONOR? And you expect OTHERS to just suck it up when THEIR children may die for a cause they can't bring themselves to believe in? Unless you're willing to put your OWN 'courageous" ass on the line again, you have NO room to beak off without smacking strongly of hypocrisy and bullshit.



Last edited by LadyMischief at Apr 7 2004, 05:31 PM

Ok PD I can see your point but what is the answer?

What would you do if you had to be in command? Not in command militarily but politically?

Maybe you'll say we shouldn't have went there are all, too late for that. We are there now

Me, I'm a hawk.

Personally I believe the US fighting forces are holding back way too much. We should really do shock and awe like the campaign started out trying to do. A war from the air raining down destruction until there is little to no resistance left.

If we're going to be there we should do it and not halfway do it and in the process spare American Soldiers lives

Furthermore as I've stated we should totally control the country of Iraq, take their oil, set up a puppet government that we dictate

You as well as I remember the oil crisis of the 70's, the resulting spiraling inflation, double digit mortgage interest rates, high unemployment rates and so on

Do you want to do that again?



I don't give a Flying Fruitcake Fuck about anyone in Iraq,
I do care about America and Americans and most importantly my standard of living (which in turn effects my son's way of life)

Colin in answer to your statement starting this thread
I disagree
It's time to step up the war, end the nonsense

Well, now, there's a problem with that - it is inconsistent with the latest rationalization for why we are there. The problem with disguishing a war with imperialistic objectives as a liberation effort is that you just can't do that. I don't think that a lot of the support the President has now

The first think I would do if I was in charge politcally right now is send anyone who even nodded in agreement with this sort of bravado off to some insignificant post in Figi. While, after recent events, it has a certain emotional appeal, tactically it has never proven to work - whether it was the saturation bombing tactics of WWII or the ten year long Rolling Thunder campaigns of Vietnam - not to mention that the technique did not work for the British, the French, the Dutch, the Belguins, nor the Portugese.

In addition to alienating the rest of the Iraqi population - which you may not care about, but have to admit we need - it would be the absolute best recruting campaign imaginable for the likes of alQaida. It could topple our new buddy in Pakistan, destroy what we've accomplished in Afghanistan, and further strengthen the bad guys in a number of the the other bumfuckistans that we need right now.

Short term? I'd get SERIOUS about the need to treat post-Saddam Iraq like post-Hitler Germany. At the risk of seeming to emulate Ribbentrop and Molotov, I'd get the foreign ministers of the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council together, carve the sucker up into zones, and REALLY occupy Iraq. Oh, the concessions that would be necessary to make that happen would probably cost the Haliburtons some money - but it would be well worth it.

When we occupied Germany a former Nazi couldn't fart without it being within earshot of the Allied occupation forces. In Vietnam in the 60s & 70s, like in Iraq today, the enemy can operate with impunity unless we happen to be in their face - and if we are they can simply wait ten minutes. "Occupation-lite" does not work. It failed in Vietnam for us twice (the first time it was American dollars and French lives); it failed for the other powers listed above; and it failed for the Soviets in Afghanistan. The smoke and mirrors fantasy that we can turn power back over to the Iraqis in June has got to end.

That's a pretty good call PD

and I think to some degree you and I agree on (part of) the end objective -
stabilization of the region
But we look at different means to do it

My thought is it's best in the hands of the US and if I understand correctly you'd prefer a multinational force.

Not certain we need the Iraqis - if we occupy the country and dictate the terms it's our game. Where is the difference between treating post-Saddam Iraq like post-Hitler Germany and American occupation?

Because it's done by one country with their best interests solely in mind
(Isn't that why the France opposed the war, their own interests)

The other side of the coin with regards to Pakistan, Afghanistan and the other bumfuckistans
If they see a real shock and awe campaign and know what the US is capable of and will do don't you think that will help um ... keep them in line
Basically we better be buddies and play ball or we could be next

Does fear go a long way with extremest or are they so far gone they don't give a flying fig about their own lives?

My major concern is American interests (read oil)

As far as why we're are there or our stated reasons (latest rationalization if you will) no longer matters from my perspective
We're there .........

Let me mull this over the second glass of scotch :stout: <_<

and yes my ideas and opinions may be brash, crude and even ignorant but they are honest, no candy coated liberation bullshit here

the support of the overwhelming majority of the people. one united people (not 3-4 major islamic groups with 1000's of years of killing each other). the lack of a religion that demands you die killing the enemy. a society based on a religion that demands that non believers be killed and that their presence on thier land is the ultimate sin. the desire of the German people to rebuild and rejoin the european and world community, exhaustion of years of war and devistation and lives lost, the horror of a nation realizing what crimes the Nazis perpetrated etc etc etc.

the two cannot possibly compare in any way. the list of differences is impossibly long.

you cannot instill democracy in a place that does not want it. you cannot control a murderous mob by democracy. you can only do it the way Saddam did, Stalin did, Hitler did and other similar powers.

i think the whole issue of invading Iraq was a horrible mistake and i fear that the near future (1-2 years of struggle and loss of life) will prove that to be an undeniable fact.



Last edited by JR at Apr 7 2004, 09:17 PM

My preference for an international force are based on practicalities and realism, before I come close to anything idealogical. I do not believe that America has the manpower to do the job alone if we are to do it properly. We can do a sham job - that's what Bush seems intent on doing, with the turnover of power in June. That will NOT, however, do anything to ensure the long term stability of the region, nor will finding ourselves a puppet leader- a Shah of Iraq, perhaps?

Gee ... more tonnage dropped on "that pissant country" Vietnam during Nixon's part of that war than was dropped on either Japan or Germany during WWII, and it really scared them into submission, didn't it? The Russians awed the Afghanis, the French awed the Algerians, the Belgins awed the Congolese and others, the Portugese awed the Angolans ... terror will begat nothing more and nothing less than terror in return. Show me an example where it worked, and I'll consider it.

Your extremist is their patriot. Fear of arguably the greatest power in the world did not seem to deter a ragtag bunch of colonists in 1776 at Lexington and Concord, did it? B52s didn't deter the gooks from humping field pieces 1000 miles down jungle trails, did it? Fear of one of the two greatest powers in the world didn't stop the Mujahadeen from taking on the Russians (who were hardly as encumbered as a democracy might be in the tactics they employed), did it? Fear of absolutely overwhelming odds did not deter the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto from rising up, did it? I say again - show me an example where your theory has worked, and I'll listen.

You are standing there pointing at a bright yellow Yugo painted with Sunkist labels all over it, attempting to convince me that maybe this one really IS a Cadillac - and I ain't buying it.

We didn't finish the war with the Germans and immediately begin a gurilla war, did we? The only place we encountered ongoing reisistance after the surrender in either theater of war was in the 454 square miles of Okinawa, and we probably had damn close to the same number of troops there that we now have in the 171,599 square miles of Iraq - and it took us 3 (?) years to finally crush the resistance.

I point out to you again - we are not occupying Iraq like we occupied Germany. We have not defeated the Iraqis in the way we defeated the Germans.

In one of the few things Mike's said all day that I agree with, he pointed out that "they don't think like us." The Iraqis are not Germans - they are not Westerners. They are a disparte group of tribes and clans who want noting more than to (with apologies to Ray Stevens) hop on their camel named Clyde and go kill some of the other guys in the name of Allah. Sunni and Shiite have scores to settle with each other, unless of course there are infidels to kill; both want to exterminate the Kurds who really want nothing more than to be left alone and blow up Turks, Shiite, Sunni, Syrians, Iranians - anyone will do.

If you are following Mike AI off into the past - the glorious days of imperialism - you aren't just attempting to reinvent the wheel. You are trying to revitalize that early version of the wheel that had four eqally flat edges. It will not work, and an attempt to make it work will, far from ensuring your son's future lifestyle, almost guarantee him a harder battle agaist "evildoers" than he is going to encounter anyway.

I was. Am still. Actually, when I wrote "It's time to leave Iraq", I basically meant "let's hurry up, hang Saddam in Baghdad Central Square, declare victory, hoist the American flag and bring the boys home".

I just fell out of my chair.....[/b][/quote]
You're not the only one.

No Idea. But I thinkwe should hurry up, tidy up, and leave. I know it can't be done today but soon it would be good. Get that whole transfer of power thing going on.

The natives are restless.

Aren't they already?

This is an easy war to win. Just come home. The sooner the better. Saddam is out of power. The war goal is complete. Easy to declare victory.

US army did great on the battlefield in Iraq, where there were real targets. However after "the war" Bush made a major mistake (IMHO) not getting the whole of EU to help with rebuilding Iraq and install Democracy. Why was this important? Well - there are MILLIONS of refugees from Iraq in Europe - they all hate Saddam, they all have families in Iraq, and they all understand western culture to some degree.

EU would benefit greatly from a democratic Iraq, because it could send home refugees, which would save money and make the right wing movement in Europe less powerful. EU would probably have spend billions in Iraq - not only by rebuilding infrastructure, but also by giving direct economic help to refugees returning home. This money would create jobs, and stability. And with refugees returning home to Iraq, then real links to the rest of the world would be established - and not like today when some Mullah is the only person with "connections".

Now today most Iraqis still think that getting rid of Saddam was a good thing, however like all people then their "basic" needs (food, housing, security, jobs, electricity etc.) come before any "idealistic" ideas (religion, politics, democracy, freedom etc.). The western democratic world should have massively supported these basic needs, then Iragis would have time to take care of the more idealistic needs. Instead Mullahs are giving these basic needs to people, and western politicians are throwing away valuable
time talking about, if there were any WMD or Terror connection in Iraq, when they should talk about how to solve basic problems in Iraq.

We got Mullahs one side backed by one of the poorest nations in the world (Iran), and we got the riches part of the world (the west) who should have been massively investing in Iraq, but instead they are using their time talking about unimportant things.

I understand why some of you think the Mullahs are winning, when we are not even talking about the real issue... the future of Iraq.

Should we leave them to the faith of Mullahs, or should we give them Democracry (and yes, people in Iraq want democracy - not a Taliban ruled goverment).

Hmmmm
Very interesting reading and thanks to everyone for sharing their insights and opinions

Rolo - I'm not to keen on throwing money (and other resources) at the problems of the middle east (The western democratic world should have massively supported these basic needs) unless we are getting something material and immediate back in return (gratitude has a damn short shelf life)


PD - Guess I'm tying 2 problems together, I see rising oil prices as a HUGE problem

As for a puppet I mean a long term solution not another Shah

As for military might being a deterrent I'm going to go apples to oranges here and say military might of the USA (and the USSR) kept the world from being annihilated from oh about 1960-1995 or so
MAD - mutually assured destruction


I'll go on record again by saying that I'm not sure we even should have went into Iraq
But now we are there I believe we can't just walk away and should work for an acceptable and favorable (to the US) resolution

Very good post!!

Serge you join to fight for what you believe it
this is a bullshit war idiot
and ask the troops
no doubt 70% think its bullshit and want out
so shove that up your boca ass

Here's a new one from today.

"We're facing an enemy that's unafraid to fight from behind women and children, from occupied apartment buildings, from protected sites," said a Marine officer in Fallujah.

Battlefield decisions are now clearly being made for political reasons.

"The U.S. military today halted its offensive against anti-coalition forces inside the city of Fallujah to allow talks that could lead to a cease-fire and to allow humanitarian aid, civilian administrator Paul Bremer said."

That's this morning's news and it is alarming. I won't spell out the comparisons. They are obvious. PD's bells are going off and for good reason. All wars are political but in the "political war" equation, the word war should play a larger role than the word political.

This war was pretty much over after 21 days when armored columns drove right into Baghdad opposed by nothing more than the Iraqi equivalent of the American redneck. Towel headed guys driving Ford pickup trucks with old Iraqi flag bumper stickers armed with militia-styled weapons. Hell, they even believe the South will rise again. I saw it on TV. Where were the tanks? Incinerated with airpower. I saw it on TV.

The war was REALLY over when Saddam was captured. We've achieved our goals. It's amazing that we've captured Saddam. Bush should gloat more.

The path to Democracy has started in Iraq. No more Saddam! I don't agree with putting more troops in Iraq. I don't agree with putting EU troops in Iraq. That's just more targets. The goals of the war were achieved quickly and efficiently with a historically small operation. That part of the war was run as well as any way has ever been run. If you disagree, go ahead and cite counterexamples.

But a war can't be won if you are still fighting it. It's in the rules.

If I were president this is what I would say,

"700 of our bravest died to free you 25 million Iraqis from the savage Saddam. Now, you 25 million get your shit together and run your country. You have 90 days. If you fuck it up, too bad. We're going home!

Now theres a thought :okthumb:

Meat, you need to go on Larry King Live with that.
Nice post.[/b][/quote]
I'm not sure Larry is ready for "Ahh, Saddam was a focking cunt, but if those fockers want to focking fight each other, let 'em do it! Stupid cunts, all of 'em..." :P

if a load of muslims invaded the usa to liberate you of George Bush then hung around setting up a muslim government you'd probably get pissed after a while and start shooting at them too

hmmm...another one I thought left for good not to torture us with his "wisdom"

Like the idea of doing a reinactment of Dresden or Tokyo on a couple of Iraqi cities, "You have 90 days. If you fuck it up, too bad. We're going home!" has a certain emotional appeal.

We can't do that. Like what I've referred to as "occupation lite", we've tried it before and it cost us dearly. It's a lot easier to conduct military operations if you've already got boots on the ground, however - so from a logistics point, it makes no sense to bring the boys home if you're going to have to put them right back.

About 20 years ago we contributed to the destruction of much of the infrastructure and virtually all of what passed for civil authority in Afghanistan. Now, there was a war going on and those things happen in war. After the war, we went home. It led to the Taliban, who provided safe haven to alQaida.

Not "IF you fuck it up THEN too bad we're going home" but .. "We're going home, if you fuck it up after that, too bad". There is no more occupation in my 90 day plan. The end.

Maybe we'll go back in 20 years? Maybe, maybe not. Sometimes you fight the enemy more than once. That's why wars have numbers. ;-)

hmmm...another one I thought left for good not to torture us with his "wisdom"[/b][/quote]
>> hmmm...another one I thought left for good not to torture us with his "wisdom"

I quit my day job so I could come back to oprano and annoy you serge :o)

:rokk:

you guys keep using the word "occupation"

i thought the buzzword of the day was "liberation"

I heard Nas's "made you look" is gonna be the new American National Anthem

When I want to go, it's called liberation. When I want to come home, it's called occupation.

Liberation is just occupation after it has been through the spin cycle. Same thing, people come from outside, get rid of yoru leaders, and try to make your government be like theirs.

US calls it liberation because they are bringing "freedom"... whatever the fuck that is.

Alex

"freedom" Alex, is when you attack someone and then force them to be just like you.

:o