Ezekiel
Member
That's fair, I'm just trying to have some intelligent discourse in order to GET some information so that I CAN make some improved conclusions.
"I presume you have more to add?"
Be all you can be.
- Thread starter Pocket.38
- Start date
- Status
That's fair, I'm just trying to have some intelligent discourse in order to GET some information so that I CAN make some improved conclusions.
"I presume you have more to add?"
GoRon
Member
The reason for going to war is clearly spelled out in the Iraq War Resolution
The left wing is involved in revisionist history. Many reasons to depose Saddam, the ones that didn't pan out are the ones the left wing focuses on.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Why don't we start with a recent development? A recent letter from Al Waziri just surfaced in which he tells Al Qaida elements that, although they are having difficulties, they shouldn't dispair -- because the Americans will cut and run like they did in Viet Nam.
In other words, the anti-war movement of that era is still being used against us.
I listed earlier things done by the anti-war movement -- including collecting intelligence to aid the enemy in identifying key personnel (specifically B52 Electronic Warfare Officers) and breaking down our POWs. I cited Colonel Thompson's experience.
Look back through news accounts of the era -- note how any effective action against the enemy was denounced as "widening the war" or "seeking military victory" and note how this increasingly hampered our forces on the battlefield while encouraging the enemy.
igor
Member
One word: DRAFT.
It'll do wonders to a government's ability to wage war to support a fleeting political agenda.
Plus the added benefit of all those young men from all echelons of the society growing to men together and learning to respect and defend their homeland.
IMO, any society led by a government that relies on mercenaries or "volunteers" for its safety (note the attribution here) is, well, not well.
It'll do wonders to a government's ability to wage war to support a fleeting political agenda.
Plus the added benefit of all those young men from all echelons of the society growing to men together and learning to respect and defend their homeland.
IMO, any society led by a government that relies on mercenaries or "volunteers" for its safety (note the attribution here) is, well, not well.
Ezekiel
Member
I think that would be because effective military action WAS "widening the war" and "seeking military victory". To be honest, I'm not certain I have any difficulties with such pronouncements, then or now. (Now that we've willingly stepped into the rabbit hole, aren't we trying for a military victory?)
In terms of hampering our forces, I don't personally believe -- although I admit a possible demoralizing effect -- this was/is anywhere near as problematic as dispatching troops to a foreign land with an agenda originally set by Charlemagne. The moment we have to re-initiate conscription to make this work, things will go crazy...
Clearly this is disturbing, and likely: most folks stop investing in "junk bonds" once it is obvious there will be no significant return. The only reason such hasn't, deservedly, happened now is the desperate and singular focus of a lame-duck Commander-in-Chief. Recent polls indicate he's running out of time (<40% approval!) to convince anyone this was a "sound idea".
To go back to the thread, I'd suggest today's 18-year-old look at IHOP before IRAQ.
"I appreciate your input."
Vern Humphrey
Member
And of course we should never try to do that!!
No sir! When we use the military we shouldn't try for anything as crass as a victory.
Now wake up and face reality. When the lead is flying, you have only two choices -- victory or defeat.
And you don't get victory by allowing the enemy free sanctuaries -- but if you attack those sanctuaries, suddenly you're "widening the war!!"
And that cost us 58,000 lives in a war we should have won in the first two years!
Ezekiel
Member
I merely wish to attach my quote:
"To be honest, I'm not certain I have any difficulties with such pronouncements, then or now. (Now that we've willingly stepped into the rabbit hole, aren't we trying for a military victory?)"
I presumed that by reporting "no difficulties" with said pronouncements, such would directly imply personal support of a military victory, when using the military. "Perhaps not."
Merely because I'm curious, how do you define "win"? I think we'd be 58,000 lives richer if we hadn't gotten into a land war in Asia...
Vern Humphrey
Member
The normal defination of "win" is the destruction of the enemy's capability to wage war.
And if we hadn't fought WWII, we'd be a couple of hundred thousand lives richer, right?
We could have won in Viet Nam with a tenth of the casualties. And by doing that, brought the end of the Cold War much closer. In the process we'd have saved about three million lives -- people who perished after the collapse of South Viet Nam.
Ezekiel
Member
Do you think the price -- in lives -- was worth paying in WWII? What about 'Nam? Iraq?
That's the entire gist of this thread when applied to 18-year-olds. There's nothing happening in Iraq worth a single American dying for, unless we're just honest about our ongoing Imperialism. Was Vietnam worth even the ~6,000 lives you suggest? "I think not". WWII is different, almost romantic in a way, because an actual Nation-state with an ability to wage full-scale mechanized war (potentially on our shore) was our enemy. Such is not the case now...
IHOP = "yes", IRAQ = "no", if they are my only choices...
Vern Humphrey
Member
Do you think a world ruled by Hitler would be a place you'd like to live?
Have you ever been to Korea? I was Deputy Operations Officer of the 2nd Infantry Division in Korea -- and what I saw and learned about the North Koreans makes me eternally thankful we stopped them.
And a victory in Viet Nam would have been worth the casualties.
You think America is an Imperialst nation?
If you hate us that much, why would you bother to live here?
Ezekiel
Member
Was Saddam a similar threat as Hitler? "Not even CLOSE." Treating them as even potentially similar threats was ridiculous policy. :banghead:
Oh yeah, we're Imperialist based upon the ideals of Charlemagne and the remnants of the holy Roman Empire: but that's okay. (We should just be honest about it.)
As for hating us, that's quite a leap. I merely have difficulties with brainwashed uber-patriots who believe that everything -- by mere virture of us being the good ole' U. S. of A. -- we do is morally correct or superior. (Such includes our CIC.)
That doesn't make me un-American, but it DOES lead me to believe that anyone who feels as such has links to McCarthy.
WW2 Was Different, Let Me Count the Ways...
...because we, right now, do not have to make any weighty decisions about it...decisions that will get men killed whichever decision is made.
...because the Nazis also attacked the Soviet Union, then the focus of all hopes for lefties at the time.
...because we are ignorant of most of the tough calls made back then.
...because we choose not to recall what sort of mindset and ruthless action was necessary to defeat the Nazi German and the Imperial Japanese war machines and the vast populations that supported them.
...because it is a war Steven Spielberg made a sympathetic movie about.
...because we, right now, do not have to make any weighty decisions about it...decisions that will get men killed whichever decision is made.
...because the Nazis also attacked the Soviet Union, then the focus of all hopes for lefties at the time.
...because we are ignorant of most of the tough calls made back then.
...because we choose not to recall what sort of mindset and ruthless action was necessary to defeat the Nazi German and the Imperial Japanese war machines and the vast populations that supported them.
Lemme see if I can recall from my university course on the Carolingians and my delving into primary sources (Notker the Stammerer comes to mind) something about Charlemagne?
If I look at it cross-eyed, I'm I sure can find analogies for Chuck's:
1. Raids against the slavs in the east to capture non-Christian slaves.
2. Wars on the Saxons which included murdering thousands of captured enemy soldiers.
3. Capturing the pagan Saxon's most sacred holy place and utterly destroying it.
4. Murdering domestic political opposition. (Actual murder, not just an electoral pasting.)
I could go on, but by now it is clear that the USA is so similar to the Carolingian dynasty that further examples are not needed by right-thinking anti-americans.
MTMilitiaman
Member
Vern, ol buddy. I offered you $50 if you could show one place where I encouraged spitting on soldiers or subverting our war efforts with notes or other such nonsense. Since you declined this challenge everything you say sounds like a broken record. I am not parading in the streets with a sign, calling the administration criminal, sending intelligence to al Quida, nor am I suggesting we withdraw before we get what we came for. I am merely suggesting our leaders be responisble with the lives of those sworn to protect our country and that the American populace remain skeptical of government in general. Our forefathers would expect nothing less. My brother and those fighting along side him have my full support regardless of why they are there. I wish them a job well done and a safe return home to what I believe to be a very grateful country. What you need to do is quit grouping everyone who doesn't agree with you in the same bucket. If you continue to try and group me with the likes of Jane Fonda, you're going to have to give evidence to support it. Such accusations require proof which you have as of yet failed to offer. Until you do this, you lack substance and your posts aren't even worth the time it takes to read them. I won't tell you to **** or leave the country, but I will ask you to put something in your posts worth reading because right now they are monotonous and repetitive--all ringing of the same hollow arguments and hot air.
Vern Humphrey
Member
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and associates with ducks, it is a duck.
You owe me $50.
Colin Powell? LOL! He is such a damned confirmed liar!
And you are still citing Powell's BS speech to the UN as "proof"?
As Anthony Gregory observed, "Even today, America is certainly among the best places to live inside, despite its many troubles. For one thing, we still have many freedoms, at least tacitly, that most other countries do not. For another, living in America, we have much less a chance of being bombed by the U.S. government than do foreigners."
ebd10
Member
Because the alternative is to leave the country I love in the hands of a bunch of kool-aid drinking, Bushies.
- Status