high anxiety

[James T Thomas]

Four more Marines killed today in Iraq. Does anything about that seem odd?
I thought Marines were trained and equipped for amphibous warfare. Now, Iraq is a land locked nation isn't it?
Does it seem strange then, that we are engaged in a "war," and the vast majority of our soldiers are either Reservists or National Guardsmen even!

This is not an anti Bush or Republican post at all. I simply see a mighty nation; the USA, fighting / defending itself while relying on middle aged family men, without the army of young, lean, and regular troops that are required for the defense of our nation. The prime function of our government, above all the social programs and others that are being funded by tax revenue.

It makes me anxious. I think I'll curl up and read a good book tonight, like
At Dawn We Slept.

Jim Thomas

 

[PATH]

The Marine Corps goes anywhere at anytime and faces off with whomever they are told to face off with, period! Truth be told, if you have to go and fight, these are the guys you want with you, period!

As for the rest of it.....well.....you have to wonder at times........

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

I wouldn't write the old dudes off just yet. There are a lot of experienced soldiers and contractors in Iraq doing a hell of a job, even if they aren't as lean as they might have been 20 years ago. Who among us is? Like the marines, I'd rather have them for me than against me.

I just hope that every last one of them --old contractor, national guardsman, and young marine alike--comes home safe and sound, but I know that's not going to happen.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

For that matter, why is it that you think that the majority of our soldiers are Reservists or National Guardsmen?

 

[xd9fan]

The empire is getting streched......

 

[grampster]

No it's not. The Sleeping Giant still sleeps. It's been prodded a couple times in a new time. It stirs, but it is still asleep. America is almost undefinable, but yet transcends the status quo. America's destiny is yet to be.

Wait...America will define itself once again, and most will approve.

 

[xd9fan]

great.....home of the sleeping giant. You give me hope that my three boys will not die for somebody elses "conflict" in some foriegn land.

If they die for this land....ON this land...thats different.

 

[Maxwell]

If they die for this land....ON this land...thats different.

Sometimes a death in a far away land will help to prevent many more deaths on this land. Being isolationist has never been insurance against conflict.

 

[SolaScriptura139]

If they die for this land....ON this land...thats different.

World War II wasn't fought on this land. Are you saying that it was a waste for us to send soldiers, many of which died, over there?

 

[crucible]

The USMC is the finest fighting force in the world; they can and do fight in "every clime and place" as thier illustrious history depicts, and of course, are masters of amphibious warfare.

Your inference that they only do amphibious is to make a political point at best, and purposefully ignorant at worst.

C-

 

[StopTheGrays]

Now, Iraq is a land locked nation isn't it?

No. Almost but not entirely.

 

[tulsamal]

For that matter, why is it that you think that the majority of our soldiers are Reservists or National Guardsmen?

I wondered why he said that myself. The ratios aren't even close. And even they are misleading. The Active US Army and Marines tend to be in the hottest locations. Sure, plenty of Reservist and Guard troops have been killed but they TRY to put them where they are less likely to come under daily attack. Our local Guard unit has been over there and just got back a few months ago. Infantry unit. They said they rarely came under any kind of fire whatsoever. No deaths and I don't even think they had any serious injuries.

Gregg

 

[HankB]

Interesting that we just don't see any stats on losses from the other side.

Not that I think we should get into a Vietnam-era "body count" push, but aside from one often-reprinted letter (of unverified origin) that's circulated on the Internet, or the Lefties' claims of "hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis" I just haven't seen any numbers on total bad guys dead.

 

[Maxwell]

Interesting that we just don't see any stats on losses from the other side.

Good geurilla fighters know to drag their dead and wounded with them, as not to leave an accurate count for the enemy to know how they did in a battle.
The guys we're fighting are not that forward thinking... but fortunatly the media is here to help. They often add insurgents in with the civilian casualties to help pad the numbers.
As they say, no good deed goes un punished

 

[Leatherneck]

Good geurilla fighters know to drag their dead and wounded with them

Well, the insurgents are not classic guerillas, nor are they waging classic guerilla warfare. They're fighting assymetric warfare, which we're just beginning to figure out.

Stop to think: how much evidence does a 1,000-lb JDAM leave behind?

TC

 

[xd9fan]

Somebody please tell me what we have gained by the Korean and Vietnam wars.......anybody. How many boys died....and for what? God and Country?? give me a break. Those adminastrations(reguardless of party) should be held criminally responsible for the abuse of that power.

Maxwell that line of "logic" is so wide open for abuse that I just dont trust our presidents with this power. WW2 was the exception to the rule. (even then I have my moments with europe.......after 2000 years maybe they have taken a break from war for about a month)

I want presidents to have the balls to openly declare war.....this is a standard that forces responsibility.

Just a father of 3 small boys that does not want some damn president have them killed on foriegn land in a conflict that everybody forgets in 10 years in which no lessons are learned.

If you are truely fighting for the homeland ON the Homeland (extension of self defence) thats the highroad.

 

[redbearde]

xd9fan,

Presidents can't declare war. Congress can...a vote is required. For what it's worth, war was declared on Iraq during the Elder Bush's reign. The Iraqis broke the ceasefire agreement several times. We escalated the situation a couple years ago. Finally.

...regarding Vietnam, consider communist dictatorships swept through the region soon after we left paving the way for the likes of pol pot, perhaps fighting in Vietnam wasn't entirely useless. Perhaps had our troops not been hogtied by ludicrous rules of engagement, we would have won and representative governments more friendly to us might have been established bringing with them economic growth and usefulness to the world markets (especially ours) like Japan and South Korea have.

Regarding Korea. Compare North Korea to South Korea. We fought for South Korea's governing style and against North Korea's. Is it really *that* hard to see a good reason? S. Korea's industrial complex is impressive. The most impressive thing about N Korea is the death camps.

I personally think there are an inordinate number of people in the region surrounding Iraq that desire to kill Americans. They are currently flocking to Iraq for their big chance. I prefer them trying to kill fully armed and armored Americans in Iraq than a busload of nuns or schoolchildren in the Bronx. I'm sorry for the soldiers who die in this, but I firmly believe terrorists trying to kill Americans in Iraq would otherwise somehow try to kill us here. In my mind, that *is* defending the USA and its citizens. And I thank them for it on behalf of me and my son.

and if it's not clear, I thank the fellows who did the same in Korea and Vietnam. I appreciate you guys, and so do a lot of other Americans.

 

['Card]

Somebody please tell me what we have gained by the Korean and Vietnam wars.

The Korean and Vietnam wars have to be understood in the context of the global struggle that was going on at the time.

Communism was the greatest evil the world has ever known. Communism had the potential to engulf the entire planet - America included. Nowadays, communism is (for the most part) seen as a joke. The Korean war and the Vietnam war are a big part of the reason why we can laugh about it now. You shouldn't dismiss them as being meaningless wars just because you don't understand the greater context.

 

[xd9fan]

To my knowledge (which itnt much) presidents can declare war and send troops for 90 days at which Congress kick in and checks him.

Those are not the orginal reasons why the U.S. went into each of those "conflicts".

"I firmly believe terrorists trying to kill Americans in Iraq would otherwise somehow try to kill us here. In my mind, that *is* defending the USA and its citizens."

This is your feeling, not fact. And its a major strech at that. Talk about the definition of the word "is". Using this "logic" we can march into each and every "hot spot" on the planet. Because the EU, UN and the African Union are jokes at best. All in the name of "its for your security". I just do not trust our Govt that they know what the hell they are doing.

I guess I want us to start helping people that try to fight it out on their own first.


Economics killed Comminism.

 

[redbearde]

Those are not the orginal reasons why the U.S. went into each of those "conflicts".

You didn't ask what the orinigial reasons were. You asked what we gained from from fighting those conflicts. In Korea, we gained a somewhat like-minded ally in the region with whom we do extensive business. Same thing with Japan, now. Had we not pissed away the Vietnam war, we might have another like-minded ally. As to why we fought them, ostensibly it was to stop the spread of communism. I say again, compare North Korea to South Korea, and tell me the South Koreans would be better off under North Korean rule. Tell me the world isn't a better place for having the incredible South Korean industrial complex producing massive ships, shipping, and an unimaginable variance of products. How is the freedom and economic prosperity found in S. Korea *not* worth fighting for when compared to the abject evil that exists for N. Koreans?

Economics seems to be killing communism in China - it will be interesting to see how that goes. But in the Soviet Union it took a combination of things including stopping the spread of their power and influence over territory and resources. In North Korea, the communism is still strong even if it's choking the life out of its subjects.

This is your feeling, not fact. And its a major strech at that. Talk about the definition of the word "is". Using this "logic" we can march into each and every "hot spot" on the planet.

It is not a major stretch to suggest that we in America might be targeted for terrorist attacks by Islamic terrorists funded by states like Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. It is also not a stretch to think Islamic terrorists form the region are flocking there. The Islamic terrorists themselves have *said* they are doing so. I don't know why you're comparing what I said to Clinton hu-ha about the word is, but that analogy is patently absurd. In any event, it doesn't give us free license to invade anywhere and everywhere. For instance, I think France, Russia, China, and India are fairly safe from us. Iran and Syria.....not so much.

You are more than welcome to believe we should be isolationists, and I can even understand some arguments for it (such as that these foreign wars are horrendous monetary expenditures we cannot afford), but in this case I think it's the right move positionally and strategically. ...though it definitely poses significant tactical problems for our troops.

I guess I want us to start helping people that try to fight it out on their own first.

I don't think I understand what you mean. I would prefer we either stay out of it or really get into the thick of it whatever the thick is.

peace bro. I think we agree on more than this conversation is letting on. Perhaps I'm just far more afraid of militant terrorist Islamics than you are.

 

[xd9fan]

"You are more than welcome to believe we should be isolationists" HUH????
who said anything about isolatation. Love that miss-understood label. I'm more free market than anything the GOP has to offer. In fact I think the free market would do more than just using the military to march all over the globe.

"Perhaps I'm just far more afraid of militant terrorist Islamics than you are."

Yes you are. I have more of a fear of our Govt than any terrorist. How many have I seen today??????? none. I deal with what is right in front of me. And I/we have waaaaay tooo much Govt in the way!! The Federal Govt uses any saftey reason in the book to grow and take away more freedoms. And yes its still a strech to link my freedom with a problem country half way around the world. The Govt will justify anything to grow.

I still dont think the two "conflicts" were worth it. We did not gain a thing.... at best those countries where tertiary in the communism struggle.

 

[the Juggernaut]

The Marines: FIRST TO FIGHT!

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Oh, what fools, we mortals be.

Isolationism is not a bad word. There is skullduggery afoot.

If we had not been "isolationist" we would never have been able to defeat the axis in WWII. Japan needed foriegn supplies (Oil, aluminum, whatever) and we embargoed them. Thus Pearl Harbor. By our own self sufficiency, we were able to supply the rest of the allies in WWII with the war materials and we did it just fine.

The good ol' US of A could be potentially self sufficient. Yes, self sufficient is a synonym for isolationist.

We had and have to buy our chips from Japan to put in our cruise missles so that we can whack aspirin factories in Sudan and goat herders in Iraq. What if the nips refuse?

What?

Yes, self sufficient is synonimous to isolationist. We have been conditioned to believe that we have to have globalism so that we can buy cheap sneakers, TVs and computers.

We are simple.

Oh, what fools we mortals be.

The war mongers will never admit it. They will tell us that we are fighting in Iraq to make "the world safe for democracy".

My butt.

We invaded Iraq so that we could control oil prices.

So........

HOW ARE WE DOING?

What fools we be.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

We invaded Iraq so that we could control oil prices.

So........

HOW ARE WE DOING?

I'd say pretty darn good... if you are looking at this through the eyes of someone in the energy industry, like President Bush. Since the price of oil has been rising, the oil companies have been recording profits higher than any in the history of the world. Bush's foreign policies might be devestating for the rest of us, but for his cronies in BP Amoco, Exxon, and Phillips Conoco they have been unqualified successes.

But I have to tell you that I think using the word "nip" crossed a line that shouldn't have been crossed. If you offended me you're probably in a bit of trouble because I'm not easily offended.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

But I have to tell you that I think using the word "nip" crossed a line that shouldn't have been crossed. If you offended me you're probably in a bit of trouble because I'm not easily offended.

PC raises it ugly head.

Please do not call persons from Britian - Brits.
Persons from Sweden - Swedes
From Denmark - Danes
From Hungaria - Hung
From Nippon - Nips

Then we got the Krauts, Russkies, Norskis, the Chi Coms, kiwis, Aussies, Canucks and even yes, Yanks.

Sorry, I guess I will go shoot my .303 Brit and my 7.7 Jap now.