Surge or Surrender by Hero

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
For my own part, I'd like our enemies to coagulate into a fightable force again. We can bomb a Headquarters and we can shoot a tank. It's much nicer than this amorphous blob of random resistance.

I know. You said. But when we go back in to bomb the HQ and shoot the tank, it’s going to last about a month, then it will become the amorphous blob again. It sounds good because it achieves the only goal most Americans care about in this case, which is getting out of the mess in Iraq. But beyond that it’s really not much more then the standard practice of relying solely on American airpower, which we employed throughout the 90's. And maybe that is the best solutions for Iraq, I don't know.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 15, 2007 4:31 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Well,

In the old days, when you fought a war, you took over the country.

You occupied the country entirely. It became a part of your country. All of the assets of the country became yours. The assets of the country helped to pay for the costs of your war.

Then you moved colonists into the country in large numbers. The colonists intermixed with the native population to some degree. Acclimation of cultures occurred. If you were lucky, then in 2-4 generations, you became basically one people. If you weren't lucky, then some kind of revolution kicked you out of there.

It was a long-term and dedicated process, but since the process was partially funded by the conquered people, then (assuming they have valuable resources) it was an affordable process in some cases.

But wars haven't been fought like that in a LONG time.

So I have no idea what you're supposed to do with an enemy that really is never going to like you or submit to you.

You can't kill them all. You can't police them forever. If you leave, they'll regroup and rearm and attack you later.

So I guess the new method of war is you blow them up every ten or twelve years until one of you gets tired.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 15, 2007 6:37 PM

PHOENIXSHIP

I know some see this as horrible naive, but I truly believe that Iraqis are just like everybody else. Give a guy a house to live in, a job to work at, a school for his kids, etc., and I do not believe he will readily blow himself up for anyone or anything.

Now, here's the role that we play: Big Bad America, coming into occupy Iraq and smash Islam on a "Crusade" (GWB's Freudian slip). We solidify resistance and nurture distrust - we're a convenient target. The vast majority of Iraqis, just regular folks, are drawn to the 1% of darksiders because they become certain that we are evil invaders - they aren't working, so they have a lot of time on their hands to sit around and stew. The ingroup always unites against the outgroup - it's been proven time and time again.

Things weren't better for Iraqis before, but they were stable - this makes for some rose-colored memories.

What if we weren't there to be the target? What if we left and forced them to solve their own problems?

I know it's been said before, but I must finish with this... President Bush has openly lied. His policies and statements have been disastrous failures over and over again. Why would anyone propose supporting yet another (more of the same) course of action?

Americans aren't stupid, we're just locked out of the running of our own country by the children of privilege who think they know better.

If anyone disagrees with me, I'd ask this question: would you give your son or daughter's life today in this fight? And of course: why aren't you in the Marines right now?

Hero, I know you like having a conservative President, and that's really okay - it's better than okay - it's the beauty of our system. Unfortunately, this conservative president is also a moron and a liar who can't string together a thought half as coherent as most of what gets said on our little FFF.net. He's stupid and a slow, slow learner.

I'd have to say that the 95%/5% ratio of anti-Bush comments in this here thread should tell you something.

He's just a bad, bad person. That's it.

"Why're you arguin' what's already been decided?"
Mal to Jayne, "Jaynestown"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 15, 2007 7:13 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by Phoenixship:
would you give your son or daughter's life today in this fight? And of course: why aren't you in the Marines right now?

This isn't directed at me, but I'll answer it. I'll answer it because I HATE this argument whenever I see it.

I would completely support my son's decision if he wanted to join the military, even if it was a time of war. I'd sit down and explain to him that there's a chance he could die horribly or experience grotesque horrors the likes of which modern humans aren't conditioned to see. Then, if he said he still wanted to join, I'd give him a hug, tell him I was proud that he'd found some direction for his life, and give him my every support.

The decision do join the military or not isn't based on your love or hate for the 'war of the moment.' It's based on what you wish to do with your life, and where your priorities lay.

As to part II of that question, "Why aren't I in the Marines?"

Well, because I'm out of shape and lazy. There was a time I considered joining the military. I have a lot of respect for their mission. Namely, protecting and serving the United States of America. But I just couldn't see myself getting through boot camp. Honestly. I've promised myself that if we're ever invaded I'll join the militia and do the best I can with my SKS rifle.

But anyway, here's what ticks me off.

If you support a particular war, are you required to sign up and join the military to fight that war? Is it possible to have a fcuking opinion without having to join the Marines? Is it possible to support an effort with something other than blood and steel?

If we had a popular war, and everyone who supported the war was required to join the Marines, wouldn't that make the country grind to a halt? You wouldn't expect 300 million recruits during a popular war, would you?

So why do you ask the supporters of an unpopular war to join the Marines, and then chastise them for not doing it?

It's bad arguing. I'm tired of hearing it.

Plus, it's not needed. You can argue against this war all day long without chastising supporters with, "Why aren't you joining the Marines? Why aren't you throwing your children at Iraqi insurgents like hand grenades irrespective of their free will? Didn't you know that if you don't do these things you can't have an affirmative fcuking opinion?"

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 15, 2007 9:09 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Regardless of why we went to Iraq, the enemy is in Iraq today

Hero, just out of curiosity WHO is "the enemy"? Saudi al Qaida (sunni)? pro-Iranian Shiites lie al Sadr? Iraqi Sunni insurgents? Saddam and his henchmen? All of the above? None of the above?

Whne ppl stat talking about"they" and "them" and "the enemy" w/o any specificity I kind of wonder about their lack of mental clarity.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 15, 2007 9:35 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Yes, they did. And then Khmer Rouge, backed by the North Vietnam government and advantaged by US disengagement in 1973, took control and systematically murdered ~2 million people in a genocidal campaign between 1975 and 1979. Indochina would continue to be destabilized by regional wars for many years culminating in the collapse of all US allies in the region. Was that an acceptable result for US disengagement? Most Americans think it is, but then again most Americans keep the Khmer Rouge and US withdraw from Vietnam intentionally separate in their minds. They don’t like to compare the two. Even more troubling is that in hindsight we realize that Vietnam may not have been a lost cause, but rather we lost because of a lack of political will at home, both in government, the populace and the media.

First, you mustn't make any argument about Vietnam / Cambodia / etc. without considering the fact that the Prez went there last year ( 2006, remember), to finalizte the deal and make them trade partners. So they, them evil commie VeetKong terrorists and genocidal types, done been rehabilitated, they're now former ex-" axis of evil" folks, and our good buddies now. Maybe if that war had ended earlier, they'd 'a been our ALLIES in 2003, part of the dreaded "worldwide coalition in the global war against terror."

Secondly, I/we bear no responsibility for the Khymer/ NorthViet genocides, slaughters, re-educations, whatever. Those happened after we left, and while they are tragic, the USA has no right to stick its big snoot into everything that happenns everywhere on the whole gorram planet, especially if the locals don't want us there.

Nobody died and left us the job of bein' the local cops for the entire world.

"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 4:56 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Regardless of why we went to Iraq, the enemy is in Iraq today
Hero, just out of curiosity WHO is "the enemy"? Saudi al Qaida (sunni)? pro-Iranian Shiites lie al Sadr? Iraqi Sunni insurgents? Saddam and his henchmen? All of the above? None of the above?

In Iraq? I'd say a mixed bag of former Bathists, Syrian Bathists, Syrian terrorists (there are several large and small groups to choose from), Iranian special forces, Iranian Pasdaran, Iranian Shiites, Iranian supported Iraqi Shiites, Iraqi Sunni militia (the non-Kurdish ones) and a few stragglers from around the Gulf who got on the wrong bus.

I suspect your list would not include any of the above groups but would include the United States Military.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 4:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
First, you mustn't make any argument about Vietnam / Cambodia / etc. without considering the fact that the Prez went there last year ( 2006, remember), to finalizte the deal and make them trade partners.

Okay, 33 years after we crap out on an ally we can regain normal relations with the region.

Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Secondly, I/we bear no responsibility for the Khymer/ NorthViet genocides, slaughters, re-educations, whatever.

Whatever you need to tell yourself.

Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Nobody died and left us the job of bein' the local cops for the entire world.

There are no world cops. International politics relies on vigilantes in white hats to save the day. The nations most capable of operating in that regard are the rich Western powers, of which America more then most has been willing to put itself on the line.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 6:35 AM

Hero,

the enemy is in Iraq today? that's why we should stay?

I've got news for you, we have enemies everywhere, and we are making new ones every day.

Iraq is a recruitment engine that isn't going to just peter out. Why? because we have not given anybody reason to trust us...we have not proven to the world that we can make things better there,nor that our interests are benevolent. We have not proven it to the iraqis.

90 percent of iraqis believe that Iraq is worse of now than it was under Saddam. 60 percent of them think its okay to kill Americans.

So which Iraqis are the bad guys? The 90 percent who think they were better off under Saddam, or just the 60 percent who think its fair and reasonable if somebody should happen to blow up an American?

If we need to kill 60 percent of the Iraqi population in order to win this war, then I applaud us for our excellent start, but at what point are you advocating more of a genocide than a liberation? And if that is truly what you believe is "winning", then could you please come out and say it already.

People in that country are having a hard time staying neutral because that leaves them with no protection. I wonder how many of them could not be connected to any of those groups you've determined to be the enemies.

Maybe you could define who fits your definition of the good guys we're fighting for in this conflict. That would help me out alot. thank you.

And vague titleslike the iraqi citizens isn't really going to cut it.

This fact really shouldn't need repeating every time you guys start talking about Iraq, but I guess I'll have to repeat it anyway. The Pentagon admits that this war creates terrorists faster than it kills them.

that means that this war has self sustaining reasons for the conflict. It's a never ending loop...a fatal error. We're really going to have to step up how we kill people over there if we want to fill that hole in with manfill, faster than we are digging it.
.........................

on edit

Just to clarify with you----

kurds definitely not our enemy then? that's good to know. I'm sure we don't have any documentation of killing any kurds, because after all, we only kill terrorists over there.

Now that we've identified the good guys, which are 20 percent of the population, we can proceed with a much cleaner and more efficient method of extermination. Thank you for your help.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 7:14 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
In Iraq? I'd say a mixed bag of former Bathists, Syrian Bathists, Syrian terrorists (there are several large and small groups to choose from), Iranian special forces, Iranian Pasdaran, Iranian Shiites, Iranian supported Iraqi Shiites, Iraqi Sunni militia (the non-Kurdish ones) and a few stragglers from around the Gulf who got on the wrong bus.

Um... pretty much everyone except the Kurds and al Qaida I mean, whatever happend to "dead or alive"? 9-11? Does this mean you favor attacking Iran and Syria too? And what about Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, the home base and bank (respectively) of al Qaida and the 9-11 terrorists?

BTW- there very damn few Iranians or Syrians in Iraq. I like how you swallow the latest bait, hook, line, and sinker.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 7:18 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
But anyway, here's what ticks me off.

If you support a particular war, are you required to sign up and join the military to fight that war? Is it possible to have a fcuking opinion without having to join the Marines? Is it possible to support an effort with something other than blood and steel?

An interesting point you make there, one that I was thinkin on for a while after telling some of our boardies to go fekkin fight it, if they support it so much.

Yes, if you support it that much, if you believe in it that strongly, YOU go fight it, sure - but as you say, what about those unable to serve ?

I'd say you're morally obligated to find some use of your respective talents to materially support it in a useful fashion, dependant on what those talents are.

And if you have nothing useful to bring, then I say slap a camera in your hand and embed you with a patrol unit.

imop - straight up, if you support a war wholeheartedly as long as it costs you nothing, as long as you have to expend no effort of your own beyond taking a larger tax bite (an effort shared with the unwilling, mind you!) and only as long as someone ELSE pays the cost in blood and sorrow...

Then you damn well DESERVE to be drafted, rocketed through training and shipped to the front... have a good firsthand look at what you are foisting on others without putting forth any effort of your own for.

And that brings me to something I wanted to propose to Zero when he pointed out that he was not physically capable of serving.

You know, given their structure and foul reputation, now that they are serving as more or less mercenaries in an active warzone, Blackwater could probably benefit from the services of a a Provost Marshall and CID team to keep the excesses to a minimum.

Yer certainly bloodthirsty enough, and if you've been honest with us about your employment then you're probably qualified - not to mention it'd probably pay a nice chunk of change.

So how about it, put your money where your mouth is ? or not ?

As for this..

Quote:
In Iraq? I'd say a mixed bag of former Bathists, Syrian Bathists, Syrian terrorists (there are several large and small groups to choose from), Iranian special forces, Iranian Pasdaran, Iranian Shiites, Iranian supported Iraqi Shiites, Iraqi Sunni militia (the non-Kurdish ones) and a few stragglers from around the Gulf who got on the wrong bus.

I suspect your list would not include any of the above groups but would include the United States Military.

So what, they're not, repeat NOT, realistically any threat to me, none, zero, zilch, nada - they're over THERE ------->
<------- and I'm over HERE
Beyond the random chance of being bombed by some crazy, which could just as easily be some homegrown loon like Krar or McVeigh, and that bein the cost of bein a free country, such as it is, those folk are no significant threat to me personally and likely never will be.

For mine own, until someone lands an invasion force, fuck em.
Should that happen, I wouldn't give even odds on them reaching the nearest walmart, but even so, try to save some for when me and the boys from cass corridor get there, we'll give em the drive-by of their lives.

The US Army now, they ARE a threat, ask any resident of NOLA disarmed by the 82nd and thus left unprotected while armed looters and rioters ran wild how they felt about that, ask any WACO survivor for that matter.

But the primary threat to me, personally, from the US Army is felt every day, right in my WALLET, damn yer eyes - someone hasta pay for all those shiny toys, all that ammo, training costs, food and what have you, and that's us, you and me, and I am damned sick and tired of supporting a massive standing army so that imperialist morons can play world police.

And if we hadn't thrown down Mossedeigh and propped up the Shah, thus destabilizing the region and making them despise us in the first place, we would not likely have these problems, it's our damned meddling that causes them in the first fucking place - we propped up the Shah, and then when the Iranians threw him down, propped up Saddam, and we practically built Osama to what he was meddling again in order to get the Soviets out of Afghanistan, and whatever we do, now matter what we do, it's gonna bite us in the ass for many a year when we leave, whether we leave it the wreck it is now, or build another monster and prop him up only to have him thrown down or turn on us eventually.

There's a merit to leaving the hell alone, and it's time we freakin learned it.

Out. Now.
Not my damn problem.
Didn't want it in the first place.
Not on my dime.

Clear enough?

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 7:32 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Frem,

Have you ever been in support of any conflict anywhere in the world at any time in your life?

Since your position is that anyone who supports any conflict for any reason must personally and materially support the fighting of that conflict, I guess that every conflict that you've supported has resulted in you joining UN Peacekeepers, Marines, becoming imbedded as a reporter, or working at a bomb-making plant.

You can not make someone's opinion or vote contingent upon personal involvement in a war.

It's a rediculous position.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 7:47 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Can I call it, or what?

-----------------
U.S. and Iraqis Are Wrangling Over War Plans

...First among the American concerns is a Shiite-led government that has been so dogmatic in its attitude that the Americans worry that they will be frustrated in their aim of cracking down equally on Shiite and Sunni extremists, a strategy President Bush has declared central to the plan.

“We are implementing a strategy to embolden a government that is actually part of the problem,” said an American military official in Baghdad involved in talks over the plan. “We are being played like a pawn.”

Compounding American doubts about the government’s willingness to go after Shiite extremists has been a behind-the-scenes struggle over the appointment of the Iraqi officer to fill the key post of operational commander for the Baghdad operation. In face of strong American skepticism, the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, has selected an officer from the Shiite heartland of southern Iraq who was virtually unknown to the Americans, and whose hard-edged demands for Iraqi primacy in the effort has deepened American anxieties.

The Iraqi commander, Lt. Gen. Aboud Qanbar, will be part of what the Americans have described as a partnership between the two armies, with an American general, Maj. Gen. Joseph F. Fil Jr., commander of the First Cavalry Division, working with General Aboud, and American and Iraqi officers twinned down the operational chain.

--------------------------

In order for this to work, the USA has to whole-heartedly occupy Baghdad. In theory, I'm in favor of getting tid of Maliki and creating more of a power balance in Iraq. In practice... unless the Bush administration has some deep plans to scratch up Sunni allies in the area and redeploy all troops to Baghdad... I just don't see how this is going to work.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 7:54 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Since military counterinsurgency manuals says about 1 solider for each civilian,"

Wow, that sucks. Imagine if we had to occupy a big city like Miami or New York someday.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 7:59 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

That was a typo. OOPS!

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 8:10 AM

AnthonyT

I'd suggest that the difference between this war and a popular war is that our military is stretched thin, has to keep changing its recruitment goals and standards, is stop-lossing the soldiers who are over there and want to come home - has just recently changed its policy on tours of duty!

You are throwing your vote behind somehting that you won't support with your own sacrifice. Being out of shape is a really embarassing excuse in my opinion, to allow others to shoulder the burden for something you believe in. Saying that you are lazy is really disgusting in that context as well.

To be fair though...I'm out of shape, and I'm lazy..and I firmly believe that this war is wrong, and I'm not out there joining protests, and I'm not doing much more than donating a very little bit of the money I have to causes I think could change the conflict, or typing on this computer. I'd be willing to accept tht this condition is both embarassing and disgusting as well.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 8:20 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"You are throwing your vote behind somehting that you won't support with your own sacrifice."

I don't support this war. I'm not voting to support this war. I just object to bad arguments.

There are lots of good arguments against this bad war. Telling people that they have to join the military if they support the war isn't one of them.

I know we wouldn't want to hear pro-war people saying, "If you don't support this war, then you should give up citizenship and stop paying taxes, because every dollar collected contributes materially to the war effort."

Such an argument would be equally idiotic.

I want to see a day come when all fallacious arguments, regardless of position, are discarded in favor of logical ones.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 8:26 AM

double

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 8:26 AM

fine points...

under the circumstances though, considering the state of our military and the disproportionate burden placed on the soldiers we have on the ground today, wouldn't that make the question somewhat more valid?

A person who doesn't support the war could still support American democracy, and wish to end it by democratic means...thus continuing to pay taxes.

A person who supports the war but doesn't fight, knowing full well that young men and women have already served their country to the extent that they signed up for, and are being forced into longer terms of absolute risk is not a supporter of the troops. Maybe that should be the distinction we make.

You can support the war but not the troops. That seems fair. If that's your stance, then you should not be required to answer for why you don't serve.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 8:43 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"You can support the war but not the troops. That seems fair. If that's your stance, then you should not be required to answer for why you don't serve."

Naw, that's another fallacious argument.

Let me see if I can get a good example going here.

Afghanistan. A huge helping of american citizens were in favor of invading Afghanistan after 9/11. In fact, I'm still in favor of invading Afghanistan. Our enemy had a massive support infrastructure there that was actually attackable.

What was the approval rating for Afghanistan? I think it was in the vicinity of 85%. Eighty-five friggin percent! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/6038436.stm
(click on October 7th, 2001)

No-one (in their right mind) would argue that 85% of the US voting public should therefore be required to join the Marines, work at an ammunition plant, or imbed as a field reporter.

You see, people still need to get home equity loans, buy groceries, grab a burger at macdonalds, have their car repaired, get gas, get their trash picked up, have working utilities, etc.

It is retarded to imagine that 85% of the United States that supports a popular war (which Afghanistan was at its inception) should stop what they are doing and pack up and get a war job.

No one even imagines suggesting this during a popular war. But as soon as the war becomes unpopular (Iraq) then suddenly supporters are told that they should join the marines and sign up their children. (As though it was possible to sign up your children!)

That's just crap.

How do supporters support a war? By saying "I support that war." That's called support.

Now, I will provide a singular counterexample.

If a Draft is instituted, and a war-supporter is drafted, I don't expect him to run to Canada. That would make him 'full of excrement.'

Until then, he can work at any job he likes, and STILL have his opinion!

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 8:45 AM

but again, the difference is that we didn't have a recruitment crisis....correct?

.....

on edit -

It can be completely patriotic to support a war and to go about living your life, paying your bills keeping america going. I never said differently. But when most people are doing that anyway, wouldn't it be a more patriotic choice for mister war supporter to support the troops in a way that is most needed under the current circumstances of a stressed military...by joining up? When that is the need...when soldiers are paying the price for that need, and you can fill that role, and you believe in that mission, isn't it your duty?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 8:51 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

To my knowledge, we still don't have a recruitment crisis.

It's easy to tell when there is a recruitment crisis.

The government says, "We are instituting a draft. If you get picked, then we need you to support this war by changing your job."

It will be blindingly clear when/if that occurs.

Then, if I get picked, I will take my lazy, comfortable, out of shape ass and get myself to boot camp. Not because I support the war, incidentally. Rather because I support my country.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 8:55 AM

then what do you make of stop lossing and sending injured and mentally traumatized soldiers back to the front lines? What do you make of our lowering of recruitment standards or the Pentagon's abandonment of its own active-duty time limits?

our government has found a temprorary solution to the draft. It's not a good one and it indicates a problem to me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 8:56 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"wouldn't it be a more patriotic choice for mister war supporter to support the troops in a way that is most needed under the current circumstances of a stressed military...by joining up? When that is the need...when soldiers are paying the price for that need, and you can fill that role, and you believe in that mission, isn't it your duty?"

When the government decides that they need my fat, lazy ass in this conflict, they will write me a letter that says, "You've been drafted."

At that moment, changing my job becomes part of my support for this government. At that moment, I change my job.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 8:58 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"then what do you make of stop lossing and sending injured and mentally traumatized soldiers back to the front lines? What do you make of our lowering of recruitment standards or the Pentagon's abandonment of its own active-duty time limits?

our government has found a temprorary solution to the draft. It's not a good one and it indicates a problem to me."

Sounds like recruitment is low. When it's in 'CRISIS' as you like to call it, they will send me a letter to let me know.

What part of this is complicated?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 9:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"Since military counterinsurgency manuals says about 1 solider for each civilian,"

Wow, that sucks. Imagine if we had to occupy a big city like Miami or New York someday.

From my understanding the optimal troop strength ratio in Baghdad is really much closer to 1:50.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 9:01 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"Since military counterinsurgency manuals says about 1 solider for each civilian,"

Wow, that sucks. Imagine if we had to occupy a big city like Miami or New York someday.
From my understanding the optimal troop strength ratio in Baghdad is really much closer to 1:50.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

Yeah, Sig said he mis-typed.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 9:02 AM

I call it a crisis because of who is paying for the low recruitment.

You don't think any of those things I named are a crisis?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 9:03 AM

FLETCH2

If your point is that people are not being asked to make significant sacrifices at home to support the war then you are right. However your making a pigs ear out of expressing that view.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 9:05 AM

ooh...what's that?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 9:07 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"If your point is that people are not being asked to make significant sacrifices at home to support the war then you are right. However your making a pigs ear out of expressing that view."

My point is this (And how did I become a pro-war supporter by advocating good arguments?)

If someone says "I support the war"

it is NOT a good argument to say,

"If you support the war you must sign up for the Marines and sign up your children, too."

My point is: that response is idiotic.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 9:12 AM

FLETCH2

I should have been clear, the previous comment was directed at Rightous.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 9:15 AM

I personally am not accusing you of being a pro war supporter. I may have thought that's what your earlier post suggested because you said you don't sign up because you're lazy and out of shape, which I inferred to mean you have no other reason not to be part of this war.

I think there's a valid reason for asking somebody why they don't serve in this conflict as it stands currently.

I don't disagree with you entirely though. And to ask somebody why if they believe in a war their children aren't over there is kind of a weird quesion. You'd have to ask them if their kids believe in the war and if so then why aren't they over there, and quite frankly you'd have to ask the kids...and while you could certainly look to the kids answers to make some judgement about the parent, the argument is so far removed at that point that it is really kind of weak.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 9:20 AM

I looked it up.

what part of my argument do you disagree with fletch?

Pig's ear is a nice insult and all but adds nothing to what I actually consider to be a converstation, and not a battle of ideologies.

It enlightens me in no way. but, i'll admit, it does sting.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 9:32 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"I think there's a valid reason for asking somebody why they don't serve in this conflict as it stands currently."

No, it's only a valid reason if it is asked ALWAYS.

In other words, If it was a popular war, you'd have to ask the same question of 85% of the population. And therein lies the logical fallacy.

The answer, of course, is that the Government does not want 85% of the population to join a war effort. It would devastate the country.

The answer, incidentally, is the exactly the same right now. The government does not want fat, lazy armchair warriors in their military right now. There is no active recruiting campaign that says, "Fat, Lazy? Were you a nerd who never played sports? Are you likely to pull a muscle if you sprint 100 feet? Does climbing a single flight of stairs make you winded? WE WANT YOU!"

Now, in a recruiting crisis, the government does not care anymore. They will take everyone they can. 30 something armchair nerds included. When there is a recruiting crisis, they are no longer picky. They won't just ask you to join, they'll tell you that you have to join because they need you. They will put your fat ass through six months of boot camp if that's what it takes to get you into fighting trim. They will reject only the most obviously flawed individuals. That's what a recruiting crisis looks like. That's when the government sends you a letter in the mail asking you to change jobs.

When I graduated from High School, I had no obvious job prospects. I was working at Radio Shack. I also believed in the mission of the US Armed Forces. I almost joined. I spent a long time seriously considering it. I had extremely serious doubts about my ability to make it through boot camp, and that is the only reason I didn't join. It could have been a rewarding career.

As it is, things have turned out all right for me. I got a good job working for a bank. I can make my mortgage payments and support my family.

But if they did send that letter, if they were desperate enough to want me, I'd sign up. Irrespective of my disdain for the current conflict.

Serving in the military should have nothing to do with your opinion on the war of the moment. Likewise your opinion on the war of the moment shouldn't force your joining of the military.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 9:52 AM

FLETCH2

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:

I looked it up.

what part of my argument do you disagree with fletch?

Pig's ear is a nice insult and all but adds nothing to what I actually consider to be a converstation, and not a battle of ideologies.

It enlightens me in no way. but, i'll admit, it does sting.

Essentially I agree that not everyone is making an equal contribution to the war effort which I think is your point. The problem I have is this weird idea that you should only be allowed to support a war if your or your children are willing to pick up an M16. That's insulting and stupid.

I had 2 uncles that served in WW2. One joined the Royal Navy and was assigned to cuisers. The other was a merchant sailor before the war and as that was a "protected" profession he wasn't drafted. He spent the war mainly in the north Atlantic convoys. After the war my Navy uncle would always say that my merchant marine uncle had the harder time. You don't need to be in the military to fight a war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 10:07 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

There's a merit to leaving the hell alone, and it's time we freakin learned it.

Out. Now.
Not my damn problem.
Didn't want it in the first place.
Not on my dime.

Clear enough?

-Frem

Jeez, Frem , you cut right to the chase , don't ya?
Where can I sign on?
Frem for Prez in '08?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 10:14 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
To my knowledge, we still don't have a recruitment crisis.

It's easy to tell when there is a recruitment crisis.

How 'bout, " all you National Guardsmen, we're upping your active duty committement to 24 months at a time. So tell your civilian boss, at your civilian job, that we're gonna take you away for 2 years, and then we can call you back again and again, if we need you, as often as we want."

That's the new policy, announced just the other day.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 10:16 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

At 50:1 civilians to soldiers (it's 30:1 in Kosovo) that brings the required Baghdad force (population approximately 6 million) to 120,000.

BTW, Iraq has had three Prime Ministers since 2005: Allawi, Jaafari, and al-Maliki. Almost as changeable as Italy. I wonder if they'll get a fourth in the very near future?

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 10:35 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
To my knowledge, we still don't have a recruitment crisis.

It's easy to tell when there is a recruitment crisis.

How 'bout, " all you National Guardsmen, we're upping your active duty committement to 24 months at a time. So tell your civilian boss, at your civilian job, that we're gonna take you away for 2 years, and then we can call you back again and again, if we need you, as often as we want."

That's the new policy, announced just the other day.

And when it all isn't enough, and there's a war still to fight, and they send letters to people like me... that'll be the neon sign that says "Crisis."

I guess we just have a different 'crisis' threshold.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 10:38 AM

double

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 10:39 AM

I'm sorry to beat a dead horse here anthonyt,

but the situations are vastly different between a popular war and an unpopular war.

I've dilineated them. It's a matter of need, and its a matter of the treatment of the currently serving soldiers.

You want to say they are the same. I've said they are different based on the above reasons. If you're going to say they are the same again, then please adress the above reasons.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 10:48 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"AnthonyT

I'd suggest that the difference between this war and a popular war is that our military is stretched thin, has to keep changing its recruitment goals and standards, is stop-lossing the soldiers who are over there and want to come home - has just recently changed its policy on tours of duty!"

Your argument then, is that the difference between a popular war and an unpopular war is how thin our military is stretched? That's the criteria that should make war supporters have to join the military?

Well, I can ALMOST see some logic in that.

And I say again that when the military really IS stretched too thinly to do its job, there WILL be mandatory service in the military.

Not based on an opinion.

Rather based on a country of residence.

I will never advocate military service becoming mandatory based on the expression of an opinion. That is, and continues to be, ludicrous. (Perhaps even Plaid!)

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 11:34 AM

PHOENIXSHIP

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Quote:
Originally posted by Phoenixship:
would you give your son or daughter's life today in this fight? And of course: why aren't you in the Marines right now?

This isn't directed at me, but I'll answer it. I'll answer it because I HATE this argument whenever I see it.

I would completely support my son's decision if he wanted to join the military, even if it was a time of war. I'd sit down and explain to him that there's a chance he could die horribly or experience grotesque horrors the likes of which modern humans aren't conditioned to see. Then, if he said he still wanted to join, I'd give him a hug, tell him I was proud that he'd found some direction for his life, and give him my every support.

The decision do join the military or not isn't based on your love or hate for the 'war of the moment.' It's based on what you wish to do with your life, and where your priorities lay.

As to part II of that question, "Why aren't I in the Marines?"

Well, because I'm out of shape and lazy. There was a time I considered joining the military. I have a lot of respect for their mission. Namely, protecting and serving the United States of America. But I just couldn't see myself getting through boot camp. Honestly. I've promised myself that if we're ever invaded I'll join the militia and do the best I can with my SKS rifle.

But anyway, here's what ticks me off.

If you support a particular war, are you required to sign up and join the military to fight that war? Is it possible to have a fcuking opinion without having to join the Marines? Is it possible to support an effort with something other than blood and steel?

If we had a popular war, and everyone who supported the war was required to join the Marines, wouldn't that make the country grind to a halt? You wouldn't expect 300 million recruits during a popular war, would you?

So why do you ask the supporters of an unpopular war to join the Marines, and then chastise them for not doing it?

It's bad arguing. I'm tired of hearing it.

Plus, it's not needed. You can argue against this war all day long without chastising supporters with, "Why aren't you joining the Marines? Why aren't you throwing your children at Iraqi insurgents like hand grenades irrespective of their free will? Didn't you know that if you don't do these things you can't have an affirmative fcuking opinion?"

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

Looks like I struck a nerve...

Your response is bullshit to anyone who has kids - my apologies to you if you do, but your attitude is inexplicable. This kind of 19th century thinking is what makes war possible. Parents who allow their children to fight for leaders who send them on suicide missions make "wars" like Iraq possible. My country, right or wrong, indeed.

Nice try at a switcheroo, by the way. I would never dispespect my child's decision to join the military. That's not the question. The question is: would you sacrifice a loved ones' life for a meaningless mission. If our country were invaded by a true enemy tomorrow, I would support my child, and I'd be there right beside them. I imagine you'd still be sitting at your computer.

It is a valid argument, and it exposes the hypocrisy of this war.

Finally, why don't you get off your ass, get in shape, and join up? I'm sure they're all super glad that you "respect the mission." You talk big for somebody sitting stateside. Your excuses fall flat.

And in answer to your next question, yes I did serve in the US Army. I am a veteran and proud of it. I ask you respectfully not to denigrate our armed forces again.

Since there are other valid arguments against the war, this one isn't needed? Bullshit. It just hits too close to home for you.

Your other "arguments" don't merit response.

"Why're you arguin' what's already been decided?"
Mal to Jayne, "Jaynestown"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 1:14 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by Phoenixship:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Looks like I struck a nerve...

Your response is bullshit to anyone who has kids - my apologies to you if you do, but your attitude is inexplicable. This kind of 19th century thinking is what makes war possible. Parents who allow their children to fight for leaders who send them on suicide missions make "wars" like Iraq possible. My country, right or wrong, indeed.

Nice try at a switcheroo, by the way. I would never dispespect my child's decision to join the military. That's not the question. The question is: would you sacrifice a loved ones' life for a meaningless mission. If our country were invaded by a true enemy tomorrow, I would support my child, and I'd be there right beside them. I imagine you'd still be sitting at your computer.

It is a valid argument, and it exposes the hypocrisy of this war.

Finally, why don't you get off your ass, get in shape, and join up? I'm sure they're all super glad that you "respect the mission." You talk big for somebody sitting stateside. Your excuses fall flat.

And in answer to your next question, yes I did serve in the US Army. I am a veteran and proud of it. I ask you respectfully not to denigrate our armed forces again.

Since there are other valid arguments against the war, this one isn't needed? Bullshit. It just hits too close to home for you.

Your other "arguments" don't merit response.

"Why're you arguin' what's already been decided?"
Mal to Jayne, "Jaynestown"

Hey there Phoenix,

You sure did strike a nerve, and thank you for noticing. Fallacious arguments always strike a nerve with me.

Here is your fallacious argument:

"That's not the question. The question is: would you sacrifice a loved ones' life for a meaningless mission."

The argument equates to, "Would you kill your son for no reason?"

Well, when you put it that way, no, I wouldn't. I don't think anyone would. But if you ask someone, "Would you allow your son to serve in the military, fight in wars he doesn't choose, and risk his life for his country?"

Well, that's a lot closer to the truth. Even though I can't make anyone serve, nor make anyone not serve, I would completely support my son's decision if that's what he wanted to do. And I'd be proud of him.

As to the other question, "Why don't you get in shape/join up?" The answer is, if I haven't made it abundantly clear: I don't think I've got what it takes.

If the government ever gets to a point that they don't care, and they draft me, I'll go where I'm sent.

Now, Phoenix, if you're still reading, which I doubt, I will explain (again) why I think the argument is a bad one.

You can't make or expect someone to serve in the military for having an opinion.

In other words, it's okay to think the war is a good idea and not sign up to join the military.

There was a book written by Heinlein, a popular Science Fiction writer. It was called Starship Troopers.

In Starship Troopers, only military veterans were allowed to vote. The idea was that only people who were willing to put their lives on the line in armed conflict for their country should have the right to express an opinion that mattered.

We do not live in the Heinlein novel. We live in the real world. In the United States. And in this country, and in this reality, EVERYONE gets an opinion. And they don't have to sign up for military service to have an opinion.

So if someone says, "I believe in this war" it's stupid to counter with, "Why aren't you in the military?"

I believe in putting out fires, but I'm sure not a Firefighter.

I believe in the importance of sanitation, but I don't work in the Sewers.

I have never denigrated our armed forces.

I don't believe that the war in Iraq is a good idea.

I do believe in arguments that work.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 1:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Phoenixship:
Looks like I struck a nerve...

Your response is bullshit to anyone who has kids - my apologies to you if you do, but your attitude is inexplicable. This kind of 19th century thinking is what makes war possible. Parents who allow their children to fight for leaders who send them on suicide missions make "wars" like Iraq possible. My country, right or wrong, indeed.

Nice try at a switcheroo, by the way. I would never dispespect my child's decision to join the military. That's not the question. The question is: would you sacrifice a loved ones' life for a meaningless mission. If our country were invaded by a true enemy tomorrow, I would support my child, and I'd be there right beside them. I imagine you'd still be sitting at your computer.

It is a valid argument, and it exposes the hypocrisy of this war.

If you don’t agree with this countries decision to go to war, then leave. If you don’t like this government, then go find a country with a government you do agree with, but stop bitching about it. You certainly have as much or more of a choice to get the hell out, as Anthony has to join the military.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 1:36 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Have you ever been in support of any conflict anywhere in the world at any time in your life?

That we have been involved in? no.

I did serve a stint, and a further in the reserve - till the army actually violated the terms of my enlistment contract, something we abitrated rather than handling via lawsuit, and still remain on the IRR rolls, although physically too messed up to serve in an active conflict, I can still be called to serve in cases of invasion, civil disorder or natural disaster, which if need be I would do, sure... someone hasta fill sandbags during a flood, might as well be me.

As for invading some other country in clear violation of the Constitution I swore to uphold and protect ? - I would have responded just as I did on two rather notorious occasions before when illegal orders were issued to me, "With respect sir, go to hell!".
(Both times command fully supported such a refusal)

See, when I took that oath, I had a clear understanding of the Constitution, and one of the reasons we went to arbitration was due to the moral crisis of serving a government that was rapidly becoming an enemy of the very things I swore to protect, in a standing army that in and of itself violated those very principles, thus leading to service in the reserves and finally IRR when phsyically mangled (auto accident) beyond the ability to serve actively.

I don't feel it's a ridiculous position at all, if you believe in a cause so strongly you should support it, staunch religous folk pay a tithe and attend church, unless their own principles are in conflict with those things, yes ?

I am not askin someone to do so to voice an opinion, an opinion is just that, but if someone feels so very strongly supportive of something, it's an honest, logical question WHY they're not physically supporting it.

I think this war is asinine, myself, and a disaster, and having served have utmost sympathy if not respect for our guys on the ground - screw politics, most of them don't wanna be there either and have a better appreciation of what a disaster this is, you see.

And so I send em care packages, a lot of the younger guys with no close family especially, without discussion cause there ain't no point to bitchin at THEM, and ride the hell out of my representatives to get em outta there in the meantime.

And so the question is both valid and logical, if someone supports it, then how are they supporting it ?

Quote:
I know we wouldn't want to hear pro-war people saying, "If you don't support this war, then you should give up citizenship and stop paying taxes, because every dollar collected contributes materially to the war effort."

I don't see where the citizenship thing fits in, since the IRS won't accept that anyhow, unless you know of a case where they have, which I don't... but the taxes now, what do you see me throwin a fit ABOUT, eh?

Being forced via threat of violence/incarceration to finance this lunacy.
The problem comes from not getting to choose where that money goes, cause having grown up in some VERY poor neighborhoods, I do wholeheartedly support AFDC and most social services, and if we cut em off those things would suffer long before military spending would, grr

As for a popular war, hell yes, if it's so popular raise some civvie militia and get over there and help, durn it, more boots on the ground don't hurt, and if they've not the training for line service, drive trucks and cook and what have you, freeing more line troops up for the front.

Not a bad idea at all honestly and one that has a great deal of merit.

Still, as I said quite clearly, it's a logical question to ask someone who supports a war in what significant material fashion that they do, that's not screechin at them to 'send their kids off' that's just askin them to put some stakes on the table, is all.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 1:47 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
If you don’t agree with this countries decision to go to war, then leave. If you don’t like this government, then go find a country with a government you do agree with, but stop bitching about it.

So sayeth King George. God save the King.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 1:57 PM