I have a question for the war supporters..

[Boats]

IF Danzig is really serving in the Army, and IF he is a man of principle, he would get out at his next available opportunity.

He speaks like no "lifer" I ever heard, or heard about, so I count myself among those that doubt he is legit.

But, on the off chance that he is, he has a lot of unmitigated gall in castigating one of his alleged fellows for how the guy might want to make mortgage payments with his combat pay as he publically whines about how he can't take a stand consistent with his own caterwauling because his own financial interests would take a hit.

Hell, I'd even excuse a 20 something E-6 a little bitching, and chalk it up to unexpended youthful angst, but a 41 year old? Grow the hell up! You should have been disillusioned by life a long time before 2003.

Who is the mercenary again?

Powderman's got you dialed in, IF you are not IRL a poser.

Middle level enlisted men don't make policy, they make it happen. If you can't deal with your lot, get out rather than have your subordinates wonder how you ever got, or manage to keep, stripes.

 

[JuanCarlos]

Danzig, I appreciate and respect your service to our country. My brother is currently over there and is expecting to come home in August. My only point is that it wasn't just Bush who sent troops over there. Both Democrats and Republicans authorized the use of force in Iraq. In fact, just about every prominent Democrat is "on record" stating why it was necessary to use military force against Iraq in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

Well, if you go back to his OP Danzig doesn't lay all the blame on Bush...in fact it seems as though he lays the blame on every last person in this country, politician or private citizen, who still supports the war.

While you may not agree with Bush he at least has the guts to stand-up for his decision and not change his policy so that it mirrors public opinion.

Or reality. ZING!

You don't belittle their effort and say that they have lost the war(Reid) while they are still fighting.

What if they have?

Of course, they didn't anyway...and I don't think anybody is suggesting that our soldiers have lost the war. They've done the best they could with the manpower, equipment, and leadership provided. The people at the top doing all the planning and decisionmaking are the ones who lost the war, and I don't remember the last time I heard anybody suggest otherwise.

 

[threegun]

How can anyone here believe that a job as dangerous and life threatening as being a soldier can be performed to the best of ones ability by someone filled with so much negativity to mission and leader? The professionalism shown by todays soldier over those drafted during Vietnam should be a prime example that such negativity effects performance and moral of the whole. We may not like how Powerman vented on Danzig but much of what he said history has proven correct.

 

[cje1980]

Juan Carlos, this just doesn't fly. Going to war and sacrificing human lives isn't a business decision. Your typical accounting formulas don't work in this instance. Loss of human life is not calculable. The bottom line is that if the conflict is worth sacrificing 1 human life then it is worth sacrificing more. Saying anything but this extremely belittles the first soldiers to fall in a conflict. You will also never win a war this way. You can't use a military strategy that states, this is our objective but if we lose x amount of lives we are pulling out. Have you ever heard of anything called an enemy? They have ears you know and will be even more motivated to inflict harm on our soldiers. Putting death limits or time-tables only emboldens the enemy and motivates them to kill more troops.

Left out your starred portion, because it's not pertinent to the question...and this isn't necessarily directed directly to you.

Is it possible that, at some point mid-mission, the cost:benefit ratio can change such that while the first lives were deemed to be worth it (because the full cost wasn't known) future lives would no longer be? That an increased cost or reduced prospective benefit might fundamentally alter the equation?

Also one thing I've noted from many war supporters is a complete failure to acknowledge the possibility of...well, failure. Do some people here really not believe that there may be tasks that even the US cannot necessarily accomplish? That no matter how many lives and how much money is spent, somethings simply aren't necessarily possible? Even more so once you've spent so long screwing up the task by the numbers?

 

[cje1980]

How can you possibly not support the war. To not support the war is to not support the troops that are currently in harms way. What is your proposed solution to the conflict in Iraq. Simply leaving is not an option. Only a fool would think that we could simply leave the country and experience no fallout. He did mention the phrase "your president" as if Bush isn't his own President. The guy who ran against Bush also supported miltary action against Iraq so where does that leave us.

Well, if you go back to his OP Danzig doesn't lay all the blame on Bush...in fact it seems as though he lays the blame on every last person in this country, politician or private citizen, who still supports the war.

 

[JR47]

It's the same politicians who want us out of Iraq that also want us IN the Sudan. Sounds plausible to me. Here we are in Iraq, preventing what is supposedly a Civil War, by MSM standards. In the Sudan, they've had an active civil war going for decades. I'm certain that they'll receive us with open arms.:barf:

My name is Donald Rumsfeld. Of course I haven't served. . . I'm the freakin' SecDef! I send others to put their butts on the line. But why do you hate the troops.

That was a useless comment to a proper question, sir. Running low on logic?

The rest of your post after what I quoted should best be edited or deleted. You are making Danzig out as if he is not doing his job, or is incapable of doing his job with the convictions he has. That is an obviously asinine position to take.

Really? How is it any more assinine a position than yours? You've obviously decided the opposite is true, with JUST as much proof as anyone else has. None.

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.

Prove that statement. Otherwise, you are engaging in exactly the same style of opining that you accuse others of.

You do not know who Danzig is. You have no idea how he carries himself while in uniform, or how dedicated he is to his job or his men. You are speaking directly out of your third point of contact, and I recommend you stop.
Seriously, I've never seen somebody appear so passionate about being entirely and utterly wrong.

I have. You, defending your racist remarks in WA's thread. JuanCarlos, you find it troublesome as to how people react to Danzig, but you have no additional knowledge about him. You stand to be just as wrong as anyone else. I recommend that You, sir, take your own advice.

Danzig is Danzig. I know little about him, except what his statements portray of him. He has no trouble attacking the president, whom none of us actually know. He obviously is mistaken in his beliefs that one man is responsible for the conflict in Iraq. Based on that fundamental a mistake, I'm a bit leery of his further pronouncements, and would have to treat them as what they truly are, poorly informed opinions. He's in pretty good company with a couple of you, isn't he? Try bringing your A-game next time.

 

[JuanCarlos]

Juan Carlos, this just doesn't fly. Going to war and sacrificing human lives isn't a business decision. Your typical accounting formulas don't work in this instance. Loss of human life is not calculable. The bottom line is that if the conflict is worth sacrificing 1 human life then it is worth sacrificing more.

One might suggest that since human lives are so invaluable that we should be even more conservative when spending them than dollars. Either way, I disagree with your final assertion. Believe it or not, there may come a time when the US takes on a mission it simply cannot complete. We are not infallible. If such a situation were to arise, where no further loss of lives would complete it but where the first had already been sacrificed, how many should we go ahead and allow to die? Fifty thousand? A million?

You're failing to acknowledge even the possibility of failure with that statement, and that's how lots of people get killed for absolutely nothing.

Saying anything but this extremely belittles the first soldiers to fall in a conflict. You will also never win a war this way. You can't use a military strategy that states, this is our objective but if we lose x amount of lives we are pulling out.

I don't think anybody is saying that there should be some sort of "spending limit." But it may be wise to re-evaluate at some point in the future just what future benefits and costs we can expect if we continue. If the likely future benefits in no way outweigh the almost definite future costs, perhaps it's time to cut our losses. It's almost as if some people have never heard of a sunk cost.

Have you ever heard of anything called an enemy?

Heard of them. Seen them. Had them try to kill me. Thanks, though.

They have ears you know and will be even more motivated to inflict harm on our soldiers. Putting death limits or time-tables only emboldens the enemy and motivates them to kill more troops.

Blah, Blah, Blah. They don't need the additional emboldening or motivation. They seem plenty motivated and bold already.


EDIT: @JR47

You stand to be just as wrong as anyone else. I recommend that You, sir, take your own advice.

I don't see how I stand to be wrong, here. I've not made any claims as to Danzig's worth as a soldier or NCO.

Also, if you want to continue arguments from other threads, feel free to do it by PM.

 

[threegun]

JuanC,

How can you say the war is lost when it isn't over? That is what we are complaining about with Reid. The war isn't over and we are Americans the greatest fighting men and women on earth and you say we've lost before the end. Perhaps if those claiming defeat would offer support and motivation.........like an NCO does for his unit, this war would turn around. Imagine if we had surrendered after the first few battles during WWII or after the first hundred thousands deaths. A war needs to be fought with utter support from home and with a we can't afford to lose attitude. It just stinks that folks fold up tent early with so much on the line.........feels un American to me......feels dirty.

 

[JuanCarlos]

How can you say the war is lost when it isn't over?

Because I don't honestly see any way, regardless of how much more we sacrifice, to achieve anything resembling a "victory" in that country. I mean, I suppose if we stick it out long enough and keep moving the bar low enough, we may manage to achieve something....but it will end up costing us way more than it will be worth or we even intended to give.

I guess we can wait until the war is over to declare defeat...or to declare "victory" that's anything but. But any men we lose from here out (or actually, from a little while ago out) are on you.

Well, actually all of them are on you guys. I thought this whole Iraq debacle was a bad idea from the start.

And Iraq is not WWII, no matter how much you or anybody else wish it could be.

 

[gb_in_ga]

So how many American lives are you and your president willing to sacrifice for your cause?

I happen to believe that, for good or bad, we are committed to the place and intend to see the job done.

I happen to believe that this conflict/war is but one theater in a wider, more general war between mutually incompatible civilizations (western liberal freedom vs a barbaric death cult) and that in the end there can be but only 1 in existence, the other relegated to the dust bin of history. Yes, it is an existential war, one vital to the survival of us all.

And now for my answer to your question:

As few as possible and yet as many as are necessary for victory. I am neither bloodthirsty nor am I going to renege on our commitments. I'm no coward and I resent those who would make us into a nation of cowards, relegating us to defeat in humiliation. I committed to seeing this thing through to the victorious end way back when it started. Way Back then, even when we were promised that this would be a long, difficult fight.

 

[JuanCarlos]

I happen to believe that this conflict/war is but one theater in a wider, more general war between mutually incompatible civilizations (western liberal freedom vs a barbaric death cult) and that in the end there can be but only 1 in existence, the other relegated to the dust bin of history. Yes, it is an existential war, one vital to the survival of us all.

Christianity?

EDIT: Also, on an incredibly tangential note, when he said the whole "your President" thing he may well have been referring to the fact that more people voted for Gore than Bush, and thus Bush was never the rightful president or some such. No, I don't support any such assertion nor do I feel like discussing it further in this thread. But I do think it's entirely possible that had Gore taken the White House we'd never have invaded Iraq.

Either way, I don't like the kind of polarization that such a statement supports, and I think overall it's an attitude that's somewhat harmful to our country. I don't think it's necessarily more harmful to our country than our President has been, but still harmful and best avoided.

 

[threegun]

JuanC,

We are in the battle of our time, the war on radical islamo facists and you think fighting this battle was a bad idea. How soon you forget 9-11. Let me remind you that on Sept 11th radical muslims attacked our civilians and tried to attack our leadership. They have sworn to kill us or die trying. They are like the terminator in that they cannot be negotiated with and will not stop until we are dead. We are killing them in Afganistan and Iraq as we speak. If you think that fighting a sworn enemy to our wives and children is a bad idea I pity you. Thanks to our soldiers we will win the war so that your children your family will be safe. Please get behind them. Urge our leaders to do what needs to be done to win. Don't give up early. I may be responsible for the lives of many of our soldiers through support of the war however if you force an early pull out through political pressure and we are attacked again (which will happen) you are then responsible for our dead men, women, and children.

We must win or we all will lose here at home. I support our guys and feel if everyone gets going we can get this turned around.

 

[gb_in_ga]

Christianity?

Hoo boy, another Christianity basher.

Nope. AQ and the other like-minded Islamic extremist groups of whatever sub-persuasion and their sponsors, both state and private. Even the most radical fringe pseudo-Christians (I maintain that REAL Christians are no threat at all) don't hold a candle to those genocidal lunatics.

 

[DonR101395]

Also, on an incredibly tangential note, when he said the whole "your President" thing he may well have been referring to the fact that more people voted for Gore than Bush, and thus Bush was never the rightful president or some such.

I think he was pretty clear about what he meant when he said "your president"

From Danzig post number 7

No Vito..He's not my president. I had no hand in his election. In fact, I opposed it twice. He's presidency has been imposed upon me. He is merely the elected leader of the country in which I was born and live. I await the time when a true supporter of the Constitution will once again sit in the White House.

 

[JuanCarlos]

We are in the battle of our time, the war on radical islamo facists and you think fighting this battle was a bad idea.

Ah, Islamofascism. I probably shouldn't bother replying at this point, but I will anyway.

How soon you forget 9-11. Let me remind you that on Sept 11th radical muslims attacked our civilians and tried to attack our leadership.

O rly? I had forgotten all about that.

They have sworn to kill us or die trying. They are like the terminator in that they cannot be negotiated with and will not stop until we are dead.

And yet look, that guy turned himself around and got elected to public office!

We are killing them in Afganistan and Iraq as we speak. If you think that fighting a sworn enemy to our wives and children is a bad idea I pity you.

Or maybe, just maybe, I don't think that fighting them in Iraq has been constructive to that end. I think that makes a little more sense than saying I want to see our wives and children killed by our sworn enemy, or whatever.

What do you think? Is it possible that that's how I feel?

Thanks to our soldiers we will win the war so that your children your family will be safe. Please get behind them.

Don't need to get behind them, I'm one of them sparky. At least for now. Did my time in Iraq.

Of course, if I think the men and women dying over in Iraq are doing so for little good reason it's also possible that "getting behind them" would entail bringing them home. In fact, some of them might even agree. Or are you suggesting that all of our men and women in uniform support continuing this war?

Hint: they don't.

Urge our leaders to do what needs to be done to win. Don't give up early. I may be responsible for the lives of many of our soldiers through support of the war however if you force an early pull out through political pressure and we are attacked again (which will happen) you are then responsible for our dead men, women, and children.

We'll be attacked again anyway. Whether we stay or go, win or lose. Terrorism happens. Especially when you're in the position we're in. Trying to pin any success or failure in Iraq on some arbitrary future terrorist attack is beyond illogical.

We must win or we all will lose here at home. I support our guys and feel if everyone gets going we can get this turned around.

And I believe I can fly. I believe I can touch the sky.

I think about it every night and day. Spread my wings and fly away.

I think he was pretty clear about what he meant when he said "your president"

Ah, my bad. Forgot about that post.

 

[threegun]

GB,

You sir are dead on the money. It is a shame that more Americans are unable to deduce from the mountain of evident that some folks want to kill us and in fact have killed 3000 of us already. For me 1 plus 1 equals 2.

1. Muslim Extremists have vowed to kill us for nothing more than our cultural differences.

plus

1. Said Muslim Extremists have already drawn a large amount of innocent American civilian blood.

equals

2. They must be eliminated before they can carry out their intentions.

Iraq is but a gathering ground for the necessary elimination of the evil threat to our innocents.

 

[gb_in_ga]

We are in the battle of our time, the war on radical islamo facists and you think fighting this battle was a bad idea. How soon you forget 9-11. Let me remind you that on Sept 11th radical muslims attacked our civilians and tried to attack our leadership. They have sworn to kill us or die trying. They are like the terminator in that they cannot be negotiated with and will not stop until we are dead. We are killing them in Afganistan and Iraq as we speak. If you think that fighting a sworn enemy to our wives and children is a bad idea I pity you. Thanks to our soldiers we will win the war so that your children your family will be safe. Please get behind them. Urge our leaders to do what needs to be done to win. Don't give up early. I may be responsible for the lives of many of our soldiers through support of the war however if you force an early pull out through political pressure and we are attacked again (which will happen) you are then responsible for our dead men, women, and children.

We must win or we all will lose here at home. I support our guys and feel if everyone gets going we can get this turned around.

I hate to cheapen this by just saying "+1". But, what threegun is saying here is the honest to God truth. I wish I would have said it, but threegun has said it and I wholeheartedly concur.

 

[JR47]

I don't see how I stand to be wrong, here. I've not made any claims as to Danzig's worth as a soldier or NCO.

Yep, I said it to dyoun06 and I'll say it to you Powderman.
You do not know who Danzig is. You have no idea how he carries himself while in uniform, or how dedicated he is to his job or his men. You are speaking directly out of your third point of contact, and I recommend you stop.

Yet, in the manner that you defend him, it certainly appears as though you feel him to be quite competent. Either your grasp of the English language is spotty, or you deliberatly write as you do to be able to "deny claims".

I guess we can wait until the war is over to declare defeat...or to declare "victory" that's anything but. But any men we lose from here out (or actually, from a little while ago out) are on you.
Well, actually all of them are on you guys. I thought this whole Iraq debacle was a bad idea from the start.

Pathetic. If you actually believe that, then you've said everything you have to say? Right? Good-bye.

Also, if you want to continue arguments from other threads, feel free to do it by PM.

You didn't do so well in that one, did you? Would THAT be the reason for PMs? No thank you, you posted it, you live with it.

Blah, Blah, Blah.

Now that's an enlightening and positive comment. Typical.

Iraq was invaded 'to protect Israel' - US official

That's the usual ignorance of issues that sends everyone off on a tangent. What US Offivial, Congressman Reid? Useless.

Or reality. ZING!

Who's reality? The MSM? The Iraqi people? The Immans of Iraq? I see a lot of useless drivel being paraded forth. What exactly was the ultimate goal in Iraq? Was it the establishment of a democracy? No. Was it to provide the Iraqi people with a stable government of their choosing? Why, yes, it was. The Americans are turning more and more combat over to the newly formed Iraqi military and police. We were never supposed to leave a little America where Iraq once stood, and those who whine and posture about how long it's taken are either the biggest fools in the world, or have ulterior motives.

I guess we can wait until the war is over to declare defeat...or to declare "victory" that's anything but. But any men we lose from here out (or actually, from a little while ago out) are on you.
Well, actually all of them are on you guys. I thought this whole Iraq debacle was a bad idea from the start.
And Iraq is not WWII, no matter how much you or anybody else wish it could be.

I, for one, am no more responsible for the deaths of American servicemen in Iraq than the most fetid war protestor. To even imply such an ignorant responsibility shows more the depths to which some of our less intelligent posters will happily plumb, than any sort of actual moral capability. Such disgusting ploys are for the Hollywood thrillers, and they always stink up that part of the movie just as much as they do this thread.

You really need to stop. At this point, ad hominum attacks of an anyone who opposes your OPINIONs, even in such a childish manner, are violations of the Rules.

 

[JuanCarlos]

1. Muslim Extremists have vowed to kill us for nothing more than our cultural differences.

Well, that and the fact that we enjoy meddling in the affairs of their part of the world often to their detriment. But yeah, cultural differences to play a role as well and at this point simply no longer meddling probably wouldn't change their minds anymore.

plus

1. Said Muslim Extremists have already drawn a large amount of innocent American civilian blood.

Very true. Believe it or not, nobody has actually forgotten 9/11...we just draw different conclusions on some issues than you. Who knew?

equals

2. They must be eliminated before they can carry out their intentions.

Okay, I'll agree here. Though I really didn't agree totally with your first one. So right now I'm at 1.1 + 1 = Something Close to 2, which is accurate.

Iraq is but a gathering ground for the necessary elimination of the evil threat to our innocents.

DOH!! You really should have stuck to one-digit addition. I fail to see how this necessarily follows from the rest. Hint, it's going to take a lot more than adding one and one to get there.

 

[JuanCarlos]

You didn't do so well in that one, did you? Would THAT be the reason for PMs? No thank you, you posted it, you live with it.

No, I recommended taking it to PMs because it doesn't relate to this thread.

Yet, in the manner that you defend him, it certainly appears as though you feel him to be quite competent. Either your grasp of the English language is spotty, or you deliberatly write as you do to be able to "deny claims"

No, again (as I already told you by PM) I make no claim to his competence or dedication as an NCO. Telling somebody they shouldn't call somebody incompetent when they have no way of knowing their level of competence is not the same as calling them competent.