Surge or Surrender
POSTED BY: Hero
UPDATED: Saturday, January 20, 2007 17:03
VIEWED: 15139
PAGE 12 of 21
Quote:Um... pretty much everyone except the Kurds and al Qaida I mean, whatever happend to "dead or alive"? 9-11? Does this mean you favor attacking Iran and Syria too? And what about Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, the home base and bank (respectively) of al Qaida and the 9-11 terrorists?
In Iraq? I'd say a mixed bag of former Bathists, Syrian Bathists, Syrian terrorists (there are several large and small groups to choose from), Iranian special forces, Iranian Pasdaran, Iranian Shiites, Iranian supported Iraqi Shiites, Iraqi Sunni militia (the non-Kurdish ones) and a few stragglers from around the Gulf who got on the wrong bus.
BTW- there very damn few Iranians or Syrians in Iraq. I like how you swallow the latest bait, hook, line, and sinker.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
But anyway, here's what ticks me off.
If you support a particular war, are you required to sign up and join the military to fight that war? Is it possible to have a fcuking opinion without having to join the Marines? Is it possible to support an effort with something other than blood and steel?
An interesting point you make there, one that I was thinkin on for a while after telling some of our boardies to go fekkin fight it, if they support it so much.
Yes, if you support it that much, if you believe in it that strongly, YOU go fight it, sure - but as you say, what about those unable to serve ?
I'd say you're morally obligated to find some use of your respective talents to materially support it in a useful fashion, dependant on what those talents are.
And if you have nothing useful to bring, then I say slap a camera in your hand and embed you with a patrol unit.
imop - straight up, if you support a war wholeheartedly as long as it costs you nothing, as long as you have to expend no effort of your own beyond taking a larger tax bite (an effort shared with the unwilling, mind you!) and only as long as someone ELSE pays the cost in blood and sorrow...
Then you damn well DESERVE to be drafted, rocketed through training and shipped to the front... have a good firsthand look at what you are foisting on others without putting forth any effort of your own for.
And that brings me to something I wanted to propose to Zero when he pointed out that he was not physically capable of serving.
You know, given their structure and foul reputation, now that they are serving as more or less mercenaries in an active warzone, Blackwater could probably benefit from the services of a a Provost Marshall and CID team to keep the excesses to a minimum.
Yer certainly bloodthirsty enough, and if you've been honest with us about your employment then you're probably qualified - not to mention it'd probably pay a nice chunk of change.
So how about it, put your money where your mouth is ? or not ?
As for this..
Quote:
In Iraq? I'd say a mixed bag of former Bathists, Syrian Bathists, Syrian terrorists (there are several large and small groups to choose from), Iranian special forces, Iranian Pasdaran, Iranian Shiites, Iranian supported Iraqi Shiites, Iraqi Sunni militia (the non-Kurdish ones) and a few stragglers from around the Gulf who got on the wrong bus.
I suspect your list would not include any of the above groups but would include the United States Military.
So what, they're not, repeat NOT, realistically any threat to me, none, zero, zilch, nada - they're over THERE ------->
<------- and I'm over HERE
Beyond the random chance of being bombed by some crazy, which could just as easily be some homegrown loon like Krar or McVeigh, and that bein the cost of bein a free country, such as it is, those folk are no significant threat to me personally and likely never will be.
For mine own, until someone lands an invasion force, fuck em.
Should that happen, I wouldn't give even odds on them reaching the nearest walmart, but even so, try to save some for when me and the boys from cass corridor get there, we'll give em the drive-by of their lives.
The US Army now, they ARE a threat, ask any resident of NOLA disarmed by the 82nd and thus left unprotected while armed looters and rioters ran wild how they felt about that, ask any WACO survivor for that matter.
But the primary threat to me, personally, from the US Army is felt every day, right in my WALLET, damn yer eyes - someone hasta pay for all those shiny toys, all that ammo, training costs, food and what have you, and that's us, you and me, and I am damned sick and tired of supporting a massive standing army so that imperialist morons can play world police.
And if we hadn't thrown down Mossedeigh and propped up the Shah, thus destabilizing the region and making them despise us in the first place, we would not likely have these problems, it's our damned meddling that causes them in the first fucking place - we propped up the Shah, an
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Frem,
Have you ever been in support of any conflict anywhere in the world at any time in your life?
Since your position is that anyone who supports any conflict for any reason must personally and materially support the fighting of that conflict, I guess that every conflict that you've supported has resulted in you joining UN Peacekeepers, Marines, becoming imbedded as a reporter, or working at a bomb-making plant.
You can not make someone's opinion or vote contingent upon personal involvement in a war.
It's a rediculous position.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Can I call it, or what?
-----------------
U.S. and Iraqis Are Wrangling Over War Plans
...First among the American concerns is a Shiite-led government that has been so dogmatic in its attitude that the Americans worry that they will be frustrated in their aim of cracking down equally on Shiite and Sunni extremists, a strategy President Bush has declared central to the plan.
“We are implementing a strategy to embolden a government that is actually part of the problem,” said an American military official in Baghdad involved in talks over the plan. “We are being played like a pawn.”
Compounding American doubts about the government’s willingness to go after Shiite extremists has been a behind-the-scenes struggle over the appointment of the Iraqi officer to fill the key post of operational commander for the Baghdad operation. In face of strong American skepticism, the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, has selected an officer from the Shiite heartland of southern Iraq who was virtually unknown to the Americans, and whose hard-edged demands for Iraqi primacy in the effort has deepened American anxieties.
The Iraqi commander, Lt. Gen. Aboud Qanbar, will be part of what the Americans have described as a partnership between the two armies, with an American general, Maj. Gen. Joseph F. Fil Jr., commander of the First Cavalry Division, working with General Aboud, and American and Iraqi officers twinned down the operational chain.
--------------------------
In order for this to work, the USA has to whole-heartedly occupy Baghdad. In theory, I'm in favor of getting tid of Maliki and creating more of a power balance in Iraq. In practice... unless the Bush administration has some deep plans to scratch up Sunni allies in the area and redeploy all troops to Baghdad... I just don't see how this is going to work.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Since military counterinsurgency manuals says about 1 solider for each civilian,"
Wow, that sucks. Imagine if we had to occupy a big city like Miami or New York someday.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That was a typo. OOPS!
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
AnthonyT
I'd suggest that the difference between this war and a popular war is that our military is stretched thin, has to keep changing its recruitment goals and standards, is stop-lossing the soldiers who are over there and want to come home - has just recently changed its policy on tours of duty!
You are throwing your vote behind somehting that you won't support with your own sacrifice. Being out of shape is a really embarassing excuse in my opinion, to allow others to shoulder the burden for something you believe in. Saying that you are lazy is really disgusting in that context as well.
To be fair though...I'm out of shape, and I'm lazy..and I firmly believe that this war is wrong, and I'm not out there joining protests, and I'm not doing much more than donating a very little bit of the money I have to causes I think could change the conflict, or typing on this computer. I'd be willing to accept tht this condition is both embarassing and disgusting as well.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"You are throwing your vote behind somehting that you won't support with your own sacrifice."
I don't support this war. I'm not voting to support this war. I just object to bad arguments.
There are lots of good arguments against this bad war. Telling people that they have to join the military if they support the war isn't one of them.
I know we wouldn't want to hear pro-war people saying, "If you don't support this war, then you should give up citizenship and stop paying taxes, because every dollar collected contributes materially to the war effort."
Such an argument would be equally idiotic.
I want to see a day come when all fallacious arguments, regardless of position, are discarded in favor of logical ones.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
double
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
fine points...
under the circumstances though, considering the state of our military and the disproportionate burden placed on the soldiers we have on the ground today, wouldn't that make the question somewhat more valid?
A person who doesn't support the war could still support American democracy, and wish to end it by democratic means...thus continuing to pay taxes.
A person who supports the war but doesn't fight, knowing full well that young men and women have already served their country to the extent that they signed up for, and are being forced into longer terms of absolute risk is not a supporter of the troops. Maybe that should be the distinction we make.
You can support the war but not the troops. That seems fair. If that's your stance, then you should not be required to answer for why you don't serve.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME