The "War on Terror" - is it real?
- Thread starter egoprofit
- Start date
Desert Heat
New member
Hate to tell you, but that was a terrorist attack. Alarmed you don't know the difference.
Just because it wasn't on as large a scale as 9/11 doesn't mean that VT wasn't a terrorist attack. There was no difference it what Timothy McVeigh did and what happened in Virginia Tech except for the scale of the attacks. OC bombing was a terrorist attack right.Joliet Jake
Moderator
Slugthrower
New member
terrorism
noun
the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear
WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
Any act of violence or the threat thereof is terrorism. On 9/11 we were subjected to a terrorist act. The US acted out of fear. Anytime that a government/group or individual acts out of fear, you can be sure that their judgement is clouded. We are trading liberty for security. This is a recipe for disaster. What good does it do to attack a perceived threat that is ill defined at best.
The US is as guilty of engaging in terrorism as the perpetrators of 9/11. The government of the US has for a very long time maintained peace through threat of violence. What we face today is a group of people that believe they are doing the work of God. They have no fear of death and in fact invite it. This makes the concept of MAD ineffectual on them. The USSR was economically and militarily defeated, simply because the people of the USSR believed that they had only this life to live. In turn this caused them to avoid a war that would destroy the world. These modern terrorists live in poverty and believe in a afterlife. We have a very difficult, if not impossible, task in this attempt to defeat a tactic of a fanatical group, whose ideology stems from a religious perspective. Clarification of this enemy is required, in order to defeat it. A war on a tactic is foolishness.
This new war will eventually come home to roost, unless we define the enemy in concrete terms. When Americans find their liberty waning, with their government becoming oppressive, they will revolt against the government. When Americans revolt they will be called terrorists and the war will have turned upon them.
Once this happens the world will have a darkness descend upon it. A darkness that hasn't been seen in many centuries.
Welcome to the New World Order.
Don't let fear govern our actions and this can be prevented or at least delayed for a time. If we continue to act out of fear it will consume our reason and leave us in chaos. We cannot allow a relatively small group of radicals dictate the future through the use of fear, wether they are foreign or domestic in nature.
noun
the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear
WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
Any act of violence or the threat thereof is terrorism. On 9/11 we were subjected to a terrorist act. The US acted out of fear. Anytime that a government/group or individual acts out of fear, you can be sure that their judgement is clouded. We are trading liberty for security. This is a recipe for disaster. What good does it do to attack a perceived threat that is ill defined at best.
The US is as guilty of engaging in terrorism as the perpetrators of 9/11. The government of the US has for a very long time maintained peace through threat of violence. What we face today is a group of people that believe they are doing the work of God. They have no fear of death and in fact invite it. This makes the concept of MAD ineffectual on them. The USSR was economically and militarily defeated, simply because the people of the USSR believed that they had only this life to live. In turn this caused them to avoid a war that would destroy the world. These modern terrorists live in poverty and believe in a afterlife. We have a very difficult, if not impossible, task in this attempt to defeat a tactic of a fanatical group, whose ideology stems from a religious perspective. Clarification of this enemy is required, in order to defeat it. A war on a tactic is foolishness.
This new war will eventually come home to roost, unless we define the enemy in concrete terms. When Americans find their liberty waning, with their government becoming oppressive, they will revolt against the government. When Americans revolt they will be called terrorists and the war will have turned upon them.
Once this happens the world will have a darkness descend upon it. A darkness that hasn't been seen in many centuries.
Welcome to the New World Order.
Don't let fear govern our actions and this can be prevented or at least delayed for a time. If we continue to act out of fear it will consume our reason and leave us in chaos. We cannot allow a relatively small group of radicals dictate the future through the use of fear, wether they are foreign or domestic in nature.
Joliet Jake
Moderator
Any?
So some protesters that violently knock down a fence can be classified as terrorists?
Slugthrower
New member
Opps... For the purpose of coercion or to inspire fear to facilitate a goal.
Well, maybe partially, but the real reason we're in Iraq is to fight an Israeli proxy war and establish a regime friendly to them on their behalf without the appearance of THEIR fingerprints on it. It's based on a plan called "Operation Clean Break".
Yeah, our intel system screwed up, but the likes of Doug Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle exploited it to promote the invasion of Iraq. And the last time I checked there weren't an Israelis spilling their blood or paying out their treasure to fund it. Hell, we can't even use ammo they've manufactured for us under contract except for training.
:barf: Those three need their heads on sticks for what they've done.
Don't just take my word for it or flame me until you read "A Pretext For War: Iraq, 9/11 and the abuse of America's Intellegence Agencies" by James Bamford.
Joliet Jake
Moderator
To the original question. Of course terrorism is real. It has been around for a long, long time but just because we got a bloody nose from it and the government comes up with a catchy phrase to scare people into submission to increase gov power and take liberty from the people doesn't mean there is any winning or losing against an ideal or evil and it's a "war" because that's what the terrorists and those that would rule us want. Remember "they" thrive on our fear. We must also be conscious of who "they" are that instill the fear from all sides.
I will live my life as always without fear because if I give in, they win. I will always remember the Brit "I am not afraid" grassroots picture campaign. Everyone sent in pictures of themselves and their families relating that they were NOT afraid anymore and will not live their lives in fear because terrorism will always be here but they won't tolerate a never ending war of fear essentially on themselves.
Don't confuse this with pacifisim just because you use a flyswatter on a fly instead of a baseball bat. The baseball bat is for a real war.ie gulf war 1, ww2. Too bad President Bush doesn't know how to swat a fly and he practices scaring his own people. btw, is the terror alert level red, orange or yellow this week?
I will live my life as always without fear because if I give in, they win. I will always remember the Brit "I am not afraid" grassroots picture campaign. Everyone sent in pictures of themselves and their families relating that they were NOT afraid anymore and will not live their lives in fear because terrorism will always be here but they won't tolerate a never ending war of fear essentially on themselves.
Don't confuse this with pacifisim just because you use a flyswatter on a fly instead of a baseball bat. The baseball bat is for a real war.ie gulf war 1, ww2. Too bad President Bush doesn't know how to swat a fly and he practices scaring his own people. btw, is the terror alert level red, orange or yellow this week?
cloudcroft
New member
Creature,
I'd have to go to Iraq and demonstrate it.
You could come with me.
-- John D.
I'd have to go to Iraq and demonstrate it.
You could come with me.
-- John D.
I have been there...multiple times. And I have been in other hostile middle eastern countries as well, not just Iraq. I will be shipping out again soon enough. Please do not assume that I do not speak from personal experience. I know what war is and I assure you that there are well equipped enemy combatants (aka terrorists) taking orders from honchos who are considered commanders in every sense of the word, with a strategy and a ideology to back it up, just waiting for me and my brothers to show again.
So, I am to assume that you too have smelled the stink of war? Yes? No? If not, I bet there are multiple recruiter stations within 25 miles of your keyboard. Saddle up, John D. I am prepared to go again. Are you?
Last edited:
cloudcroft
New member
Had my "war," but boy, are you brainwashed.
As for your "honchos," they're not any better than the sorry brass we had almost 40 years ago. The generals today are a complete disgrace. I really feel sorry for you guys having to serve under them. All you guys are over there are revolving ducks in an old-time shooting gallery. I really hate Bush for that crap.
No offense meant from one old soldier to another young one, but really, wise up, dude.
-- John D.
As for your "honchos," they're not any better than the sorry brass we had almost 40 years ago. The generals today are a complete disgrace. I really feel sorry for you guys having to serve under them. All you guys are over there are revolving ducks in an old-time shooting gallery. I really hate Bush for that crap.
No offense meant from one old soldier to another young one, but really, wise up, dude.
-- John D.
LightningJoe
New member
The "war on terror" seems real enough. But the terminology might be improved. One problem is that you need a simple name for it that people who aren't geopolitical wonks can feel like they understand. We're Americans; we're lucky if we can locate Canada on a map.
The Islamic Republic in Iran has been fighting us since 1979. Saudi Arabia has been financing the radicalization of Islam for decades. Ultra-violent Muslims who learned their stuff against the Soviets in Afganistan want to take us down, too. Regional strongmen and warlords control territories where anti-Western NGOs can base themselves and which (in the cases of Iraq, Iran, Lybia, and Pakistan) carry on or have carried on WMD programs that could put very powerful weapons into the hands of anti-Western NGOs.
Iraq was put out of the WMD business by the Gulf War, ensuing internal problems, and finally the invasion. Lybia subsequently renounced its WMD development. Pakistan has the bomb and Iran soon will. GWOT (past and present) scratched two potential suppliers of WMDs to terrorists off the list. Worth doing? Who knows.
Afganistan was a base for anti-Western NGOs (like Osama bin Laden's gang). The invasion has had a good effect there. Other similar holes in the wall exist. Where's bin Laden now? Pakistan?
The Saudis continue to enjoy the extraordinarily enthusiastic support of America's political elites. They continue to fund the radicalization of Islamic teaching. They've got their own problems and don't care about ours. We'll never fight them and may soon fight for them (again), this time against Iran.
Somehow, it all seems to come back to Iran. That's where a lot of it's coming from. We've never fought them. Maybe we never will. They'll have the bomb soon. If they then move against our good friends the Saudis, we may have the opportunity to meet the Iranians on the battlefield.
Then the War on Terror would get even more real.
The Islamic Republic in Iran has been fighting us since 1979. Saudi Arabia has been financing the radicalization of Islam for decades. Ultra-violent Muslims who learned their stuff against the Soviets in Afganistan want to take us down, too. Regional strongmen and warlords control territories where anti-Western NGOs can base themselves and which (in the cases of Iraq, Iran, Lybia, and Pakistan) carry on or have carried on WMD programs that could put very powerful weapons into the hands of anti-Western NGOs.
Iraq was put out of the WMD business by the Gulf War, ensuing internal problems, and finally the invasion. Lybia subsequently renounced its WMD development. Pakistan has the bomb and Iran soon will. GWOT (past and present) scratched two potential suppliers of WMDs to terrorists off the list. Worth doing? Who knows.
Afganistan was a base for anti-Western NGOs (like Osama bin Laden's gang). The invasion has had a good effect there. Other similar holes in the wall exist. Where's bin Laden now? Pakistan?
The Saudis continue to enjoy the extraordinarily enthusiastic support of America's political elites. They continue to fund the radicalization of Islamic teaching. They've got their own problems and don't care about ours. We'll never fight them and may soon fight for them (again), this time against Iran.
Somehow, it all seems to come back to Iran. That's where a lot of it's coming from. We've never fought them. Maybe we never will. They'll have the bomb soon. If they then move against our good friends the Saudis, we may have the opportunity to meet the Iranians on the battlefield.
Then the War on Terror would get even more real.
Oh, the war itself is very real... it's just that we're choosing not to fight it effectively. While our opponents are actively seeking our destruction, everyone at home seems more interested in making political points off each other.
Most importantly, You cannot win a war if you are not willing to name your enemy. We're presently too saddled with political correctness to name our enemy - militant Islam. So the powers that be decided to brand it as a "War on Terror."
This was I believe the foundational misstep that led to all the others.
First, it presents the strategic difficulty of mission focus. Were we willing from the start to say publically "radical nutjobs claiming to speak for Islam are killing people all over the world, and just brought the fight to our doorsteps, ergo we will make it very very painful to be a militant Islamicist" and proceeded to cripple states, level madrasses and kill religious leaders leading and funding the "death to America" violence, I daresay we'd have made a great deal more progress by now in stemming the threat.
Secondly, as we see here it makes it too easy to be misled by silly propoganda. "Terrorist" is such a vague term it gets hung on everything these days from true murderous barbarians to spoiled yuppie kids trashing construction equipment or even just idgits waving stupid signs. It leads one side to claim looking at your library books and taking off your shoes at the airport is critical to national security, and the other to stick their head in the sand and pretend it's all a power grab by The Evil Administration or similar "Loose Change" nonsense. Worse, it leads people to assume that if your opponent is "terror" then every "self immolating goatherd" who explodes a car in a market somewhere is evidence that we're "losing the war on terror" or similar nonsense.
So to sum up -
1. The war is real. Pulling everyone home now won't make it go away, whether you agree with any specific engagement or not. Neither will blame slinging.
2. The war is not being fought to win, because at present we are not even willing to say loudly and publicly who it is we're fighting.
3. Until (1) and (2) are more generally understood and acted on, it is only a matter of time before something else happens to make 9/11 look like a nice day at the beach.
4. If we're lucky, if/when (3) happens, we'll finally wake up to (1) and (2). More likely we'll just continue the blame game and shout "I told you so" louder than ever.
Crap.
-K
Most importantly, You cannot win a war if you are not willing to name your enemy. We're presently too saddled with political correctness to name our enemy - militant Islam. So the powers that be decided to brand it as a "War on Terror."
This was I believe the foundational misstep that led to all the others.
First, it presents the strategic difficulty of mission focus. Were we willing from the start to say publically "radical nutjobs claiming to speak for Islam are killing people all over the world, and just brought the fight to our doorsteps, ergo we will make it very very painful to be a militant Islamicist" and proceeded to cripple states, level madrasses and kill religious leaders leading and funding the "death to America" violence, I daresay we'd have made a great deal more progress by now in stemming the threat.
Secondly, as we see here it makes it too easy to be misled by silly propoganda. "Terrorist" is such a vague term it gets hung on everything these days from true murderous barbarians to spoiled yuppie kids trashing construction equipment or even just idgits waving stupid signs. It leads one side to claim looking at your library books and taking off your shoes at the airport is critical to national security, and the other to stick their head in the sand and pretend it's all a power grab by The Evil Administration or similar "Loose Change" nonsense. Worse, it leads people to assume that if your opponent is "terror" then every "self immolating goatherd" who explodes a car in a market somewhere is evidence that we're "losing the war on terror" or similar nonsense.
So to sum up -
1. The war is real. Pulling everyone home now won't make it go away, whether you agree with any specific engagement or not. Neither will blame slinging.
2. The war is not being fought to win, because at present we are not even willing to say loudly and publicly who it is we're fighting.
3. Until (1) and (2) are more generally understood and acted on, it is only a matter of time before something else happens to make 9/11 look like a nice day at the beach.
4. If we're lucky, if/when (3) happens, we'll finally wake up to (1) and (2). More likely we'll just continue the blame game and shout "I told you so" louder than ever.
Crap.
-K
Wars on our freedom
When tyranny and oppression come, it will be in the Guise of fighting a foreign enemy. James Madison.
They have done this time and again to gradually drag down this country and put us in heavy debt and kill of the "cream of the crop" of our young people willing to fight . The war on drugs was to get rid of their competition. It is more plentiful now than ever. Look at Afghanistan's poppy fields.
The war on terror is fed by contractors killing Both Sunnis and Shiites to en-flame civil war so Halliburton can keep sucking out the oil. They keep every race divided so we can't join together and take these corrupt politicians out. They entertain us with Celebrity arrests and missing children and non important stuff.
When people speak the truth in a time of universal deceit, it is a revolutionary act. George Orwell.
Just abuse of the war powers act to become a Dictator that's all. Just mass corruption unrestrained by massive collusion.
When tyranny and oppression come, it will be in the Guise of fighting a foreign enemy. James Madison.
They have done this time and again to gradually drag down this country and put us in heavy debt and kill of the "cream of the crop" of our young people willing to fight . The war on drugs was to get rid of their competition. It is more plentiful now than ever. Look at Afghanistan's poppy fields.
The war on terror is fed by contractors killing Both Sunnis and Shiites to en-flame civil war so Halliburton can keep sucking out the oil. They keep every race divided so we can't join together and take these corrupt politicians out. They entertain us with Celebrity arrests and missing children and non important stuff.
When people speak the truth in a time of universal deceit, it is a revolutionary act. George Orwell.
Just abuse of the war powers act to become a Dictator that's all. Just mass corruption unrestrained by massive collusion.
Dust Monkey
New member
Very true. Another misstep was the name change. Infinite Justice to Enduring Freedom. All because it offended some members of a faith. Cant let your enemies define how you fight a war.
I hope the War on Terror is Real. I just got my bumper sticker put on my truck
LightningJoe
New member
Eh. It's a B board. That's how they work.
First of all, I was refering to the terrorist "honchos". Perhaps you should have read my post more carefully...dude.
Secondly, I took your usage of "young" to mean unknowing and inexperienced. I am not young. I was a week from finishing my second enlistment with ten years under my belt when 9/11 happen. Instead of getting out as planned, after consulting my wife, I went back and reenlisted for a third time. I am working on my fifth re-enlistment later this year. Now I am a career military. And I didn't join up at 17...I enlisted when I was 24. So don't think I am a greenhorn, mister. I also don't follow my commanders as blindly and as mindlessly as you think.
Wise up? So far, you have not given any of us one iota of fact to base your opinions on. Everything you have given us is the opinion of so called experts who never looked into the eyes of a 20 year old college educated kid in the middle east who hates America because we are "too secular" for his taste and have women who wear clothes that are "too revealing" and skimpy..and wants nothing more than to kill us (and/or himself) in order to gain the respect of his local warlord or tribal elders.
Go figure. Makes one wonder where that comes from.
The generals/admirals of today are not much different than their predecessors of yesteryear. The only difference is that the history books haven't been written by the winners of this war yet. Sure, there may be problems with veterans hospitals back stateside and a plethora of other issues, but I assure you there are many in my chain of command that would like to see the firing squad reinstated for that group of bureaucrats responsible because of the dishonor they did to our wounded.
Those serving today have the same sense of valor and duty that the Greatest Generation had back in 1941-45. I know that because I have seen that courage and dedication with my own eyes and I saw it almost daily...in fact, on some days, I saw it almost hourly.
Because of your statement that you think "the generals of today are a disgrace"...I see that as a personal attack on someone who is not present to respond. My personal experience with flag officers is quite the contrary to your observation. Most flag officer's that I have met have "been there, done that" right along with the rest of us.
Furthermore, as much as the Congress would like to say otherwise, it is their war (read that as OUR war) as much as President Bush's. Congress was (and remains) the final approving authority.
I know it is my place to shut up and take orders,...that is what I am paid to do. But don't think that because you are older that you are wiser, sir. It is comforting that you know what fighting in a war is truly like and about the sacrifice that our brothers have made in this age of uncertainty and religious fanaticism...voluntarily I might add.
But I suggest that all those doubters among us get your nose out of the commercial political media outlets and take a trip as a unbiased observer to the countries of the middle east. Go interview the population to see for yourself if the Bush conspiracy views are founded on fact or misconception. It is my observation that many will not open their eyes to see that this war today is a war of natural resources and ideology...much the same as it was when we fought against fascism, tyranny, and annexation in WW2. It is different in that it just gets faster press coverage today and "spun" by all involved quicker than yesterday. If I am brainwashed and misguided, then please by all means, save me with tangibles and facts....show me!
That said, in my opinion, the only way to get out of this predicament is too nullify the entire middle east's primary source of income. Make oil obsolete. Find an alternative fuel source. As quickly as we can. Remove the revenue from the single resource the middle east has...and the gulf states will revert back to it's pre-oil stature: dust and warring tribes.
If we do that, America as a nation will no longer become the target of terrorism...the Chinese and/or Russians will fulfill that role.
Last edited:
cloudcroft
New member
I don't have to time nor inclination to argue or debate with you. But I will say a few things.
I meant "younger" to mean what it simply is: Younger than I...it has nothing to do with inexperiance, who is better, whatever. Lose the bravado and don't read into it what isn't there. I'm not challenging your experience or dedication...or any of the rest of the guys there. And you shouldn't challenge mine. No, I'm no tough-guy or hero -- didn't say I was -- I just did my job in my "war" like everyone else so I'm not saying I was anything special or better than you (and I don't like it when vets of one war put down vets of other wars...as does happen I hear at local VFWs, DAVs, etc.). Regardless, and whether you like it or not, by nature of my past service and your present service, we're still brothers in combat regardless of disagreements...IMO, anyway. And one day, YOU will be a vet, and maybe a real old vet if you live long enough.
As for your "leadership" over there AND here, it wasn't until almost 20 years later I found out more about MY "leadership" back then -- in history classes when I went back to school to get a couple of degrees (partly on the GI Bill, BTW) -- how much of an enemy our then President LBJ was to us (and the Press, but they are another story). And the generals Westmoreland and Abrams...almost carbon copies re: how they said the RVN "war" was going THEN as Iraq generals say how the Iraq "war" is going TODAY. Incredible. And McNamara/LBJ 40+ years ago have their identical counterparts in Rumsfeld/Bush today. Disgraceful.
History sometimes DOES repeat itself.
I'm just saying that some day you may find at least Bush to be the VERY SAME enemy for you guys -- from Desert Shield up to the present, Daddy Bush and Sonny Bush -- like LBJ was for us. I can see that'll take a while for you to wise up to that but when you do, think back and remember this thread.
Generals? Powell and Schwartzkopf were nobodies in the RVN and they are nobodies today. Schwartzkpof was a poor excuse for a "general" in Desert Storm..he should have insisted on going all the way to Baghdad instead of that pathetic 100-hour blitz...he should have resigned in protest, like a man. He didn't. So we had to go back there to that sorry country AGAIN to clean up the earlier mess. Tommy Franks? You've got to be kidding...he was "surprsed" by just about everything that happened over there. HTH did these people ever get promoted? [a rhetorical question only, no answer needed]
The current generals (today) aren't any better, they are just busboys for the President...after all, HE is the real "general," isn't he, and he is the ultimate disgrace. No general wants to rock the boat and confront the President, do they...but a lot of the cowards sure do sound off when they retire, don't they...like that fool Wesley Clark.
But any REAL general worth that rank would resign in protest for Bush's sorry handling of the "war" and tell the American public in no uncertain terms the way it's being done now is a complete disgrace and said general(s) don't want to have any part in it. And if the generals actually AGREE with the way Bush is handling the "war," then they are wosre than I thought. And as for noncoms, as in all wars, THEY are the backbone of the military...and I have no quarrel with and harbor no disrespect for them or their performance, or with the privates/spec 4s, either. I'm talking about higher up the chain.
Where is a McArthur or Patton today? There aren't any.
Eccentrics/egotists they were, yes, but they were good aggressive generals...that's what we need.
As for what to do there now, it's too damn screwed-up now to save anything...I could list several important military actions that should have been done FROM DAY ONE. They weren't.
Solution?
I think Bush should make a speech to the nation and world, telling all that we TRIED to improve things in Iraq at great cost to ourselves in blood and treasure, but the Iraqis (yes, even the "good ones" (BS) who won't help us because we're infidel Christians) are such short-sighted religious fanatic animals they are not worth any further effort. They are pathetic as a people, a country and a religion and just not worth it.
SAY ALL THAT and and then pull out, taking all our stuff and destroying anything we leave, including all the buildings...AND the mass of looters when they come as they surely will by carpet bombing our former compounds/bases after the looters swarm over them. A final hurrah, if you will; a spit-in-the-face of that black hole.
Then, just sit back and watch that whole sorry country go to hell as it will.
If you're going to fight, then fight, no Rules of Engagement crap, no "humane" war, just annihilate the enemy and any of their sympathizers who get in the way. Men, women, children, dogs, rodents, anything...a non-discriminatory (no consideration of age, sex, religion, creed, color, national origian, or pervert sexual orientation) policy that would be sure to please liberals' anti-discrimination sensibilities. It's the concept of Total War, nothing less. That's how wars are done, that's how it's always been done until 1945. And it works.
Since then, PC "wars" have been jokes. Mine was a joke, too.
Still, and to restate my point, there is no "war" being fought against terror...nor is there any "war" going on in Iraq or Afghanistan. There never has been. Just you guys being sent over to get wasted...and held back from doing anything about it.
I hope you make it out alive.
EOT
-- John D.
I meant "younger" to mean what it simply is: Younger than I...it has nothing to do with inexperiance, who is better, whatever. Lose the bravado and don't read into it what isn't there. I'm not challenging your experience or dedication...or any of the rest of the guys there. And you shouldn't challenge mine. No, I'm no tough-guy or hero -- didn't say I was -- I just did my job in my "war" like everyone else so I'm not saying I was anything special or better than you (and I don't like it when vets of one war put down vets of other wars...as does happen I hear at local VFWs, DAVs, etc.). Regardless, and whether you like it or not, by nature of my past service and your present service, we're still brothers in combat regardless of disagreements...IMO, anyway. And one day, YOU will be a vet, and maybe a real old vet if you live long enough.
As for your "leadership" over there AND here, it wasn't until almost 20 years later I found out more about MY "leadership" back then -- in history classes when I went back to school to get a couple of degrees (partly on the GI Bill, BTW) -- how much of an enemy our then President LBJ was to us (and the Press, but they are another story). And the generals Westmoreland and Abrams...almost carbon copies re: how they said the RVN "war" was going THEN as Iraq generals say how the Iraq "war" is going TODAY. Incredible. And McNamara/LBJ 40+ years ago have their identical counterparts in Rumsfeld/Bush today. Disgraceful.
History sometimes DOES repeat itself.
I'm just saying that some day you may find at least Bush to be the VERY SAME enemy for you guys -- from Desert Shield up to the present, Daddy Bush and Sonny Bush -- like LBJ was for us. I can see that'll take a while for you to wise up to that but when you do, think back and remember this thread.
Generals? Powell and Schwartzkopf were nobodies in the RVN and they are nobodies today. Schwartzkpof was a poor excuse for a "general" in Desert Storm..he should have insisted on going all the way to Baghdad instead of that pathetic 100-hour blitz...he should have resigned in protest, like a man. He didn't. So we had to go back there to that sorry country AGAIN to clean up the earlier mess. Tommy Franks? You've got to be kidding...he was "surprsed" by just about everything that happened over there. HTH did these people ever get promoted? [a rhetorical question only, no answer needed]
The current generals (today) aren't any better, they are just busboys for the President...after all, HE is the real "general," isn't he, and he is the ultimate disgrace. No general wants to rock the boat and confront the President, do they...but a lot of the cowards sure do sound off when they retire, don't they...like that fool Wesley Clark.
But any REAL general worth that rank would resign in protest for Bush's sorry handling of the "war" and tell the American public in no uncertain terms the way it's being done now is a complete disgrace and said general(s) don't want to have any part in it. And if the generals actually AGREE with the way Bush is handling the "war," then they are wosre than I thought. And as for noncoms, as in all wars, THEY are the backbone of the military...and I have no quarrel with and harbor no disrespect for them or their performance, or with the privates/spec 4s, either. I'm talking about higher up the chain.
Where is a McArthur or Patton today? There aren't any.
Eccentrics/egotists they were, yes, but they were good aggressive generals...that's what we need.
As for what to do there now, it's too damn screwed-up now to save anything...I could list several important military actions that should have been done FROM DAY ONE. They weren't.
Solution?
I think Bush should make a speech to the nation and world, telling all that we TRIED to improve things in Iraq at great cost to ourselves in blood and treasure, but the Iraqis (yes, even the "good ones" (BS) who won't help us because we're infidel Christians) are such short-sighted religious fanatic animals they are not worth any further effort. They are pathetic as a people, a country and a religion and just not worth it.
SAY ALL THAT and and then pull out, taking all our stuff and destroying anything we leave, including all the buildings...AND the mass of looters when they come as they surely will by carpet bombing our former compounds/bases after the looters swarm over them. A final hurrah, if you will; a spit-in-the-face of that black hole.
Then, just sit back and watch that whole sorry country go to hell as it will.
If you're going to fight, then fight, no Rules of Engagement crap, no "humane" war, just annihilate the enemy and any of their sympathizers who get in the way. Men, women, children, dogs, rodents, anything...a non-discriminatory (no consideration of age, sex, religion, creed, color, national origian, or pervert sexual orientation) policy that would be sure to please liberals' anti-discrimination sensibilities. It's the concept of Total War, nothing less. That's how wars are done, that's how it's always been done until 1945. And it works.
Since then, PC "wars" have been jokes. Mine was a joke, too.
Still, and to restate my point, there is no "war" being fought against terror...nor is there any "war" going on in Iraq or Afghanistan. There never has been. Just you guys being sent over to get wasted...and held back from doing anything about it.
I hope you make it out alive.
EOT
-- John D.
Last edited: