Debates
24 Sep 05
25 Sep 05
Originally posted by iamrootNo offense, but you obviously don't know much about certain military leaders. Read the biographies of General George Patton, George Custer, Julius Ceaser, Alexander the Great, Nathan Bedford Forrest (CSA), all hell-bent on reputation.....not sure about Napolean Bonaparte, but he could have had a few screws loose....
Delmer, no one wants to live in a combat zone. Not the military men, not Bush, and not the innocent Iraqis either. I guarantee you no sane person goes to war to make rank and reputation.
25 Sep 05
Originally posted by chancremechanicYou obviously do not know much about military in general. Most soldiers to not want to be famous for killing people.
No offense, but you obviously don't know much about certain military leaders. Read the biographies of General George Patton, George Custer, Julius Ceaser, Alexander the Great, Nathan Bedford Forrest (CSA), all hell-bent on reputation.....not sure about Napolean Bonaparte, but he could have had a few screws loose....
BTW, you forgot a few people:
Joseph Stalin
Adolf Hitler
Emperor Showa
25 Sep 05
Originally posted by iamrootThanks, iamroot. I want you to know that your guarantee means a lot to me.
Delmer, no one wants to live in a combat zone. Not the military men, not Bush, and not the innocent Iraqis either. I guarantee you no sane person goes to war to make rank and reputation.
25 Sep 05
Originally posted by socialist1917Yes, it is a very sticky situation.
It seems that the Iraqi people's views in many opinions are in direct conflict with their (provisional) government. I wonder, how can the government of Iraq, elected by its people, have views so divergent than its populace? If Iraq were to have a deomocratic election without the U.S. (or any) influence, like a democracy is supposed to be, there wou ...[text shortened]... ey would most certainly elect Iran-like political figures. Exactly what the U.S. doesn't want.
The irony is that Bush and co have drummed up an attack against Saddam when the real enemy (911 instigators) was Islaamic fundamentalism.
Having got rid of daddy's enemy, Dubya has now created a void which will be filled by ... Islaamic fundamentalists.
Indeed, these are the same fundees whom Saddam was oppressing.
Ohh...the irony!!!
26 Sep 05
Originally posted by iamrootLook, stick your chess, video games, and computers and I'll stick to Military History as I've studied it for years and have served for 19 years. General Patton was all about going to war before he got too old, George Custer wanted noteriety, and that's why he was slaughterd at Little Big Horn, Ceaser wanted Rome to stretch from Asia to Africa to the British Isles, and he succeeded...no indication that any of these men were "insane"...now, on the other hand, the idiots you listed: Stalin, Hitler and probably the Emperor Showa were certifiably insane....and these were SOLDIERS...if you're talking about the individula private, you may have a point, but you must be specific and not generalize
You obviously do not know much about military in general. Most soldiers to not want to be famous for killing people.
BTW, you forgot a few people:
Joseph Stalin
Adolf Hitler
Emperor Showa
26 Sep 05
Originally posted by sasquatch672Exactly.
This thread raises an issue that I'm deeply conflicted about. Staying almost assures a second Vietnam. In a war where a country's been misled about the motives by its political leadership, where the goals and expectations are ill-defined, and where the administration did not send enough troops to win the peace, I certainly understand how people have ...[text shortened]... There's no viable solution for a lasting peace. This was a fuckup on every conceivable level.
Recc'ed.
26 Sep 05
Originally posted by sasquatch672I kind of agree with you. I would like to think it would be possible to withdraw, and the power vaccuum would be filled by the UN (preferably including Islamic nations as peacekeepers and trainers of security forces.).
This thread raises an issue that I'm deeply conflicted about. Staying almost assures a second Vietnam. In a war where a country's been misled about the motives by its political leadership, where the goals and expectations are ill-defined, and where the administration did not send enough troops to win the peace, I certainly understand how people have ...[text shortened]... There's no viable solution for a lasting peace. This was a fuckup on every conceivable level.
The other option is to define targets (no. of police, trained soldiers, stand off in insurgency activity etc)that must be reached to achieve a withdrawl over a longer period of time. I understand that Bush/Blair will be seen as failures if these targets aren't met, but if we don't try we will never know.
The road will be rocky and uncomfortable.
26 Sep 05
Originally posted by sasquatch672I can't beleve the UN will be of any help in the Middle East, at least not the UN we've all come to know and love. Once committed we, and the UK and Poland, should have gone into Iraq with an overwhelming land force and a front that left everything behind it secure as it moved across the country. But we don't have an overwhelming land force anymore, and we don't fight wars that way anymore. Now it's a matter of deciding what a stable Middle East is worth in the context of world affairs, and is anyone willing to pay the price.
Well, I don't see the UN rushing in to commit troops, so I think it unlikely that they will do it if the US leaves. I think that the philosophy of a lighter and more mobile force may work well for warfighting, but the rules regarding occupation - that you need boots in the mud to hold a piece of ground - do not change. I'll also note that Gen. Eric ...[text shortened]... upying" - gimme a break. War is war and while its instruments may change, its nature does not.
26 Sep 05
Originally posted by sasquatch672LOL! Ah, the Italians and their amusement parks. BTW, SQ, have they figured out who's running Germany yet? I see that the last election seemed to leave things a bit confused.
Problem is, when we're as weak as we are, opportunistic countries and groups may seize the moment to press some strategic agenda that we're too weak, economically, politically, and militarily, to respond to. And no matter how we respond to Iraq - either by committing large numbers of new troops or by withdrawing our forces - our ability and will to r ...[text shortened]... and the woman began...ahm...pleasuring herself electronically. So Europe's loosening up a bit.