I have a question for the war supporters..
- Thread starter Danzig
- Start date
- Status
We fought WW1 and then had to turn around and fight WW2. Sounds like wars propogate more wars sometimes. We even ended back up in Europe after Communism fell.
We then fought in Korea and Vietnam to squash Communism. North Korea is still in Communist hands and we still have problems with them. We withdrew from Vietnam and it fell into Communist hands. Communism fell without a great war. Now we are doing business with Vietnam.
We had Gulf War I and over a decade later find ourselves emeshed in another war in the Gulf.
Does anybody see a pattern there? Going to war isnt always the best solution. The time to strike is while the anvil is hot before the war starts.
threegun one of your quotes:
.#3 To plant the seeds of capitalism in the middle east (the thing that many expert believe will ultimately be the end of the war on terror).
I think when you said capitalism, I think you might have meant Democray. Just wanted to check before someone flamed you.
.#3 To plant the seeds of capitalism in the middle east (the thing that many expert believe will ultimately be the end of the war on terror).
I think when you said capitalism, I think you might have meant Democray. Just wanted to check before someone flamed you.
dutchgunsmoke
New member
I just read all the replies after Danzig threw -as we say it the Netherlands- the bat in the henhouse.
It's a fine mess we've ( the Netherlands is supporting the war on Iraq) made of Iraq.
This war only has had one good outcome, the overthrowing of the dictatorial regime of Saddam Hussein. But the reason for starting this war was all wrong. There were no weapons of massdestruction. That lie will always be the first thing related to this war. It would be better when the Bush-administration would have told the world the same thing as they have done with Afghanistan. You (red. Saddam Hussein) are a dictator and support terrorrists, that's why we are going to invade and oust you.
The war itself was a well performed operation which was ended quickly.
But what the U.S. administration absolutely ignored, was the question: what's next with Iraq?
And there is a bloody price to pay for that. By destroying Iraq's infrastructure and society, it became a breeding ground for ethic and fundamental extrimists who are not short of enemies and parties willing to support them with the means to fight the coalition forces and eachother. Suuni and Shiites are tribes with a very strong sense of independency, the U.S,administration should have provided immediately after the overthrowing of the Baath-regime
for a joint form of governing body in which Suuni and Shiites would have been regarded as equals. they did absolutely the oppsit, favoring the other before the first....
This has resulted in more then 3,400 loss of live and thousands of wounded U.S. and British and other coalition forces personal and God know's how many wounded, let alone the loss of hundreds of thousands (!!!) of innocent Iraqi civilians. That's the cost of overthrowing Hussein's regime. And the count goes on...
I blame the U.S. administration for this groose error. One executes the war in perfection, but looses the war in the aftermath. Simply by not understanding the culture or the people one wants to "liberate". If one takes away the powervacuum, one can expect a void which will almost certainly can only end in blood and violence.
Now, as the end of the Bush-administration comes nearer it is crystalclear to me: This administration is only interested to look for an honourable way out of the White House -mind you- not out of Iraq, and this will happen at the cost of the loss of lives of another hundreds of thousands of Irqicivilian lives and hundreds of U.S. and coalition troops.
Bush will leave it up to his heir to clean up the mess, hoping that history will blame the next President of the United States of America for the disaster of the war on Iraq.
It's a fine mess we've ( the Netherlands is supporting the war on Iraq) made of Iraq.
This war only has had one good outcome, the overthrowing of the dictatorial regime of Saddam Hussein. But the reason for starting this war was all wrong. There were no weapons of massdestruction. That lie will always be the first thing related to this war. It would be better when the Bush-administration would have told the world the same thing as they have done with Afghanistan. You (red. Saddam Hussein) are a dictator and support terrorrists, that's why we are going to invade and oust you.
The war itself was a well performed operation which was ended quickly.
But what the U.S. administration absolutely ignored, was the question: what's next with Iraq?
And there is a bloody price to pay for that. By destroying Iraq's infrastructure and society, it became a breeding ground for ethic and fundamental extrimists who are not short of enemies and parties willing to support them with the means to fight the coalition forces and eachother. Suuni and Shiites are tribes with a very strong sense of independency, the U.S,administration should have provided immediately after the overthrowing of the Baath-regime
for a joint form of governing body in which Suuni and Shiites would have been regarded as equals. they did absolutely the oppsit, favoring the other before the first....
This has resulted in more then 3,400 loss of live and thousands of wounded U.S. and British and other coalition forces personal and God know's how many wounded, let alone the loss of hundreds of thousands (!!!) of innocent Iraqi civilians. That's the cost of overthrowing Hussein's regime. And the count goes on...
I blame the U.S. administration for this groose error. One executes the war in perfection, but looses the war in the aftermath. Simply by not understanding the culture or the people one wants to "liberate". If one takes away the powervacuum, one can expect a void which will almost certainly can only end in blood and violence.
Now, as the end of the Bush-administration comes nearer it is crystalclear to me: This administration is only interested to look for an honourable way out of the White House -mind you- not out of Iraq, and this will happen at the cost of the loss of lives of another hundreds of thousands of Irqicivilian lives and hundreds of U.S. and coalition troops.
Bush will leave it up to his heir to clean up the mess, hoping that history will blame the next President of the United States of America for the disaster of the war on Iraq.
TwoXForr said:
Not that I think it will work in this case because the religious indoctrination is too great there but I believe Capitalism is more likely to bring about the change than Democracy.
Capitalsim goes to the people's base desire to "own stuff." It was Capitalism that drove out Communism in Europe because were tired of having nothing and wanted stuff. The system in place could not supply it so people brought about change.
An increased standard of living brought about through capitalism will cause people to be less willing to strap bombs to themselves and blow up those they hate. The problem in the Gulf is the religion factor is HUGE compared to Eastern Europe in the 80s and 90s. Just being there we are considerred Crusaders.
The principal of Capitalism bringing about positive change is valid but I don't think it can work while we are there as an occupying force.
Not that I think it will work in this case because the religious indoctrination is too great there but I believe Capitalism is more likely to bring about the change than Democracy.
Capitalsim goes to the people's base desire to "own stuff." It was Capitalism that drove out Communism in Europe because were tired of having nothing and wanted stuff. The system in place could not supply it so people brought about change.
An increased standard of living brought about through capitalism will cause people to be less willing to strap bombs to themselves and blow up those they hate. The problem in the Gulf is the religion factor is HUGE compared to Eastern Europe in the 80s and 90s. Just being there we are considerred Crusaders.
The principal of Capitalism bringing about positive change is valid but I don't think it can work while we are there as an occupying force.
Former Soldier
I am actually surprised this post received so many responses. As a former soldier with the 1st Cav (4 yrs active) & 15th Psyops (10 yrs reserve) it sounds like the gentleman who started this post has either never served the country or did not serve with any honor.
While I did not vote for President Clinton and did not agree with his lack of support for the armed forces I did respect him as President and he was my President. I have numerous friends serving and I can tell you this peron does not speak for us...
I am actually surprised this post received so many responses. As a former soldier with the 1st Cav (4 yrs active) & 15th Psyops (10 yrs reserve) it sounds like the gentleman who started this post has either never served the country or did not serve with any honor.
While I did not vote for President Clinton and did not agree with his lack of support for the armed forces I did respect him as President and he was my President. I have numerous friends serving and I can tell you this peron does not speak for us...
JuanCarlos
New member
If he's given time out of his life and followed the orders given to him, he has served his country. And if you simply cannot believe that a current/former soldier could feel this way and choose to express it, I'll tell you you are very wrong.
As far as serving "with honor," you know nothing of his service. You have no idea how he carries himself while in uniform, the job he's done for his branch, or the dedication he's shown to his country or fellow soldiers. If choosing to air his concerns and gripes in a relatively anonymous forum is all it takes to make his service dishonorable...well, all I'll say is I disagree with that. But whatever.
I have numerous friends serving, and I'm serving myself, and I can tell you that US servicemembers are not a monolithic group and nobody speaks for all of us. Nobody even speaks for a majority of us. Not him, not me, not you. But I do know plenty of servicemembers who have no idea why the heck they're still being asked to risk their lives over there, and who wonder how the heck anybody like our current president ever made it into office. I do know that as a reservist I'll show our current president whatever respect is legally necessary while activated or on a training status...outside that, he gets none whatsoever.
That's about a nonsensical statement. Just as likely to be true, following that, was that we just should have stayed in Europe and other places we've returned to, and ruled them. When you deal with people, you never guarantee that we won't fight again in the same place.
By the way, South Korea is now one of the stronger economies around. Think it would be so if we hadn't fought the North, and China, to a standstill? Vietnam has certainly become an economic force to be reckoned with since 1975, under the communists, hasn't it?
Now, that's rich. If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bull!
Yes, it's that there are multiple sides to any arguement. None of the sides will agree to budge an inch, and, instead of a discussion, we're just restating what is dogma, over and over.
Thank you for the kind words JuanCarlos. I serve my country the best I can. I follow the orders I am given quickly and efficiently. I do them without complaint. I do them because I am told to. I do not let my personal feeling interfere with the accomplishment of the task that I am given.
But once that mission is complete there is no reason why I should not voice my opinion about it. My complaints may or may not mean anything to anybody but me but the person who is silent neither accomplishes nor affects change.
I'm proud to serve my country. That does not mean that I have to be proud of the CiC or the mission to which we have been tasked.
But once that mission is complete there is no reason why I should not voice my opinion about it. My complaints may or may not mean anything to anybody but me but the person who is silent neither accomplishes nor affects change.
I'm proud to serve my country. That does not mean that I have to be proud of the CiC or the mission to which we have been tasked.
Wildalaska
Moderator
I dont have time to read all.
Im think the war in Iraq is a good one geopolitically and in light of the way nation states work.
It has been mishandled politically and militarily, although my version ow how it has been mishandled is different from many folks.
WildthatsmystoryAlaska
Im think the war in Iraq is a good one geopolitically and in light of the way nation states work.
It has been mishandled politically and militarily, although my version ow how it has been mishandled is different from many folks.
WildthatsmystoryAlaska
JuanCarlos,
I’ve read your posts as well as the posts you were responding to. I didn’t take you out of context and I didn’t misinterpret what you said (perhaps I did misinterpret what you meant). For the sake of argument, I’ll give you that thwarted attacks prior to 9/11 don’t count. Even so, my point remains; we were attacked on many occasions prior to 9/11, subsequent to that, attacks against us have plummeted.
Here is your original full quote:
Attacks against America at home or abroad are significant in that al Qaeda has shown that when they are unable to attack us at home, they attack us abroad. I ask again, how many attacks have been carried out against America at home or abroad since 9/11? Simplifying the issue to only include WTC attacks is misleading. I’ll not go so far as to say it was intentional, but misleading it was. I’m not going to get into a debate with you about whether our military engagements have allowed us to minimize the terrorist’s ability to attack us. The fact is it has. I know, I’ve seen it.
I’ve read your posts as well as the posts you were responding to. I didn’t take you out of context and I didn’t misinterpret what you said (perhaps I did misinterpret what you meant). For the sake of argument, I’ll give you that thwarted attacks prior to 9/11 don’t count. Even so, my point remains; we were attacked on many occasions prior to 9/11, subsequent to that, attacks against us have plummeted.
Here is your original full quote:
You specifically stated that terrorists attacks were fairly uncommon, and added the clause about foreign terrorists on US soil, implying that your overall statement included attacks on US interests both at home and abroad. Either way, you implied that the way we are waging the war on terror has not significantly impacted the terrorist’s ability to attack us, or at least that the time that has elapsed since the last attack against America is not evidence that we have been successful at doing so.
Attacks against America at home or abroad are significant in that al Qaeda has shown that when they are unable to attack us at home, they attack us abroad. I ask again, how many attacks have been carried out against America at home or abroad since 9/11? Simplifying the issue to only include WTC attacks is misleading. I’ll not go so far as to say it was intentional, but misleading it was. I’m not going to get into a debate with you about whether our military engagements have allowed us to minimize the terrorist’s ability to attack us. The fact is it has. I know, I’ve seen it.
I doubt it.
Truer words were never spoken.
Danzig, you mentioned that you are a SSG/E6. You did not mention what MOS, but that's immaterial.
You, by virtue of your rank, are a leader of soldiers. You know that you have an awesome responsibility on your shoulders.
You took an Oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic.....and that (you) I will obey the orders of the President of the United States..."
Danzig, I'll give it to you right between the eyes....
As long as you wear the uniform and hold the rank of a Non-Commissioned Officer in the United States Army, SHUT YOUR MOUTH, AND DO YOUR JOB.
YOU MUST MOTIVATE YOUR SOLDIERS TO ACCOMPLISH THE MISSION, WHICH, AS ITS MOST BASIC FUNCTION, IS TO CLOSE WITH AND DESTROY THE ENEMY BY MEANS OF FIRE, MANEUVER AND SHOCK EFFECT. You CANNOT motivate your soldiers or provide a proper example with your attitude.
You mention that many soldiers, sailors, Airmen and Marines have died in Iraq. Wars kill soldiers; it's a fact of life. HOWEVER, IT IS NOT YOUR PLACE TO VOICE YOUR PERSONAL VIEWS IN SUCH A MANNER THAT YOUR TROOPS--OR YOUR LEADERSHIP--IS AFFECTED OR CALLED INTO QUESTION.
When you ETS, kvetch all you want about politics and current events. For now, you are a SOLDIER, and a LEADER. ACT LIKE ONE!!!
Words of advice, from one Staff Sergeant to another.
Yours,
Powderman
Powderman, I think you are way off base.
Let me explain why in simple terms. Humans are complicated. Soldiers sign up to be cogs in a gigantic machine. However, they still maintain their humanity. If Danzig feels the need to vent and complain about his commander in Chief, why would you deny him that outlet?
Without some escape valve, he would be less effective as a soldier.
I have absolutely no problem with what he is saying here on the boards. He is not saying them to his peers or underlings, nor failing to follow orders. I would rather a man in his position understand his role than perform it as an automaton.
Let me explain why in simple terms. Humans are complicated. Soldiers sign up to be cogs in a gigantic machine. However, they still maintain their humanity. If Danzig feels the need to vent and complain about his commander in Chief, why would you deny him that outlet?
Without some escape valve, he would be less effective as a soldier.
I have absolutely no problem with what he is saying here on the boards. He is not saying them to his peers or underlings, nor failing to follow orders. I would rather a man in his position understand his role than perform it as an automaton.
ahenry, are you ignoring attacks on our allies and foreign embassies since 9/11?
Additionally, delaying an attack is not the same as preventing one. Cool, we have certain terrorists on the run. However, we are also in the process creating more.
Terrorist attacks were up 30% in 2006. Is that making us safer?
Additionally, delaying an attack is not the same as preventing one. Cool, we have certain terrorists on the run. However, we are also in the process creating more.
Terrorist attacks were up 30% in 2006. Is that making us safer?
Well, unfortunately they are, and these aren't attacks against soldiers.
2002
June 14, Karachi, Pakistan: bomb exploded outside American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12. Linked to al-Qaeda.
2003
May 12, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: suicide bombers killed 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners. Al-Qaeda suspected.
2004
May 29–31, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists attack the offices of a Saudi oil company in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, take foreign oil workers hostage in a nearby residential compound, leaving 22 people dead including one American.
June 11–19, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists kidnap and execute Paul Johnson Jr., an American, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2 other Americans and BBC cameraman killed by gun attacks.
Dec. 6, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: terrorists storm the U.S. consulate, killing 5 consulate employees. 4 terrorists were killed by Saudi security.
2005
Nov. 9, Amman, Jordan: Suicide bombers hit 3 American hotels, Radisson, Grand Hyatt, and Days Inn, in Amman, Jordan, killing 57. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility.
2006
Sept. 13, Damascus, Syria: an attack by four gunman on the American embassy was foiled.
2007
Jan. 12, Athens, Greece: the U.S. embassy was fired on by an anti-tank missile causing damage but no injuries.
- Status