Discuss.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
In reference to 3k dead in 2k6, or 3000 died on New years and my news services didn't pick it up?
Goodbye Callisto & Skaši, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
1,000 yard stare at GAM ..
and for an even better 2007 there gonna send more fodder to the flogging.
although no word of this has really come out yet , you can't re-tour troops the
way they are and expect a good percentage will still have good morale .
I think this kills just as many troops by making them more prone to mistakes.
So Happy F*ckin New Years !?!
At best... I just wish that things could get done over there instead of throwing more bodies into the breech, create a real plan and figure out WTF to do over there.
Honour the fallen, make the future a little better.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
my friend is going back for a 2nd 1 yr tour in march, it sux and its bull@!#$
if you make it out of there alive you shouldnt have to go back, @!#$ we shouldnt have to be there anyway
People have the most bizarre reaction to war. They always act as if today's war is the first one the world has seen. One quick glance at history will show that war is an everconstant presence in the world. There's never been a time without war. And if not war, then there was always the threat of it.
Let's just take the United States for example... and only the major wars:
1775-1783 American Revolutionary War
1812-1815 War of 1812
1846-1848 Mexican-American War
1861-1865 American Civil War
1898 Spanish-American War
1917-1918 World War I
1941-1945 World War II
1950-1953 Korean War
1959-1975 Vietnam War
1991 Persian Gulf War
2003- ???? Second Persian Gulf War
That's not counting all the skirmishes, conflicts, interventions, armed insurrections, Indian battles, slave revolts, range wars, secession attempts and peacekeeping operations. Not to mention the Cold War with the Soviets.
So, where I take a big detour from popular opinion is that I consider war to be a constant rather than a "terrible occurence". The children of people fighting in Iraq today are going to go to war too, and maybe they'll die there; and guess what? Their grandkids are going to do exactly the same. This is just reality. The war dead are a fact of life. It's as inevitable as traffic accidents.
We will never have peace, and once we accept that we'll be better off.
Just because you say there will never be peace doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive to achieve it.
Seriously, there is war that you can clearly, and concisely see where the problem is. World War II: Germany invaded Poland in 1939, Korea: Pro-Communist forces began marching toward Seoul in a bid to overtake the country... etc.
This particular war was waged to combat... what? Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction program? His 15 year old human rights abuses? He was no prince, no question. and something needed to be done about him.... and something WAS.. in 1991-1992. After that, there was a problem: removing Hussein would have caused more problems than it would have solved, ie, the brewing ethnic violence that is beginning to embroil US forces.
The war in Iraq was also undertaken at a time where there was already a bonafide war happening, where there was a clear and concise enemy who had taken clear and concise enemy actions by attacking Americans, not once (Sept 11), not twice (USS Cole) but 4 times (US embassy bombings). To more or less drop that mission, which was clearly higher priority, and chase after a person that had quite literally NOTHING to do with any of the 4 other actions seems pretty futile (to be kind), It's like dumping a university graduate program to go after your GED. It's a bad choice either way.
Maybe it would have been a better idea to focus on one problem at time. I mean, simply put, Hussein was an after thought... He had nothing to do with the war on terror other than a little bluster, yet, Bush decided to drop the full weight of the US military on him... this was such a monumentally poor decision that people started wondering if he'd pick a fight with Iran or North Korea next.
The war on Terror is going as well as the war on Drugs: You've given the President, Government and Military carte blanche to spend your tax dollars on something that you really can't be made safe from, not that you're likely to die from it. You might feel more secure, but really, if 10% of what has been spent on the war on terror had been re-invested into social programs, you'd see a real decrease in crime... the same amount into international aid organizations or NGOs and Darfur refugees would not die needlessly... the list goes on... hell, dump that 10% into decreasing your deficit and what not.
War may be a fact of life, but why pursue a futile and ultimately a pointless course of action that will only leave good men and women dead, a hole in your pocket, and not really accomplish anything substantially positive?
I would venture: Accept that we're flawed as a people and know war, yet we should contemplate war as a final avenue of resolution, and we'll be better off for long term.. Peace is our goal, but the journey to the goal is where we become better humans.
.
.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
^ ^ ^ And its gone on since the dawn of time.
Its a shame they died but look at the deaths that happened in this country due to crime. People die every day....when your # comes up you can't do anything about regardless of where you are.
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
They are over there preventing war. the more things get out of control over there, the more terror will spread and eventually work its way back to the USA. If kerry would have been president we would have had a major terrorist attack within a year of him being president. atleast bush is using God to help make his decisions and i stand behind that.
My point though Jack was that while you can't ultimately choose the way you die (unless by suicide), throwing service men and women at the problem without a real plan of action, and without a clear cause is wasting their lives. I'm not even going to start about the civillians: they wanted a way out from under Hussein, but they deserved to do it themselves.
I'd rather see them honoured by using their brethren when it is necessary and when there is clear and present danger.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
In Canada's situation, we're suffering about the same.
I'm not on top of this at all. I read about it and see the headlines and all I can think is that it's utterly pointless. Traditional war, it is not. There are no two opposing forces clearly fighting for their country. Terrorist cells hidden amongst public domains are not a branded enemy. They hide, they disguise and they use innocents for acts of random violence. How is a military force supposed to deal with such a situation while trying to prevent civilian casualties? Utterly impossible.
I have a good friend of mine, a coloured guy. He laughs and says "Of course I get your guys names mixed up. All white people look alike to me." The same can be said for our forces towards the people in those areas. Distinction between terrorist or a supporter of them and an innocent is the toughest hurdle.
What should they do? They've removed the warlord. They've broken up a fair group of the terrorist organization. It's about time to back the hell off and stop getting hit by suicide bombers. It's an ethical paradox.. either move out and let the countries people deal with their own civil war or stay commited to try and rebuild the country. Either way.. lives are being wasted. And just because we have the collective might, does not mean this conflict should be blamed on Mr. G W Bush. Can't say he's my favourite US president, but a peacekeeping Kerry would have been a disaster. Superpowers are not Red Cross organizations. They are military powers.
Vincent Morris wrote:At least bush is using God to help make his decisions and i stand behind that.
You know what's kinda funny? So was Osama Bin Laden. Maybe that's why we haven't caught him yet and why his plan to kill thousands succeeded. Saddam was a secular leader who didn't put much faith in God, maybe that's why he lost the war and is dead now. And don't tell me the that God wants us all to live in peace. I quote Exodus 15:3
15:2 The LORD is my strength and song, and he is become my salvation: he is my God, and I will prepare him an habitation; my father's God, and I will exalt him.
15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
Amen
kidduntradishunal wrote:I have a good friend of mine, a coloured guy.
Is he a Negro? Perhaps an Afro-American?
Dude... seriously... I'm not thrashing you or anything. Hell, I'm not even mad or offended or anything like that. But if you're gonna use antiquitated racial terms from the 50's you ARE going to be made fun or and thrashed on web boards because we're in the year 2000 man. Live in the now.
My $.02.
This is starting to turn into another Vietnam. We basically have a political war over there (read: George Carlin's Bigger Dick Foreign Policy). We're sending troops there to fight a war with no real clear goals under the red herring of Terrorism, kinda like the red herring of Communism back in 'nam. What happens when we get short on troops? Draft more? That will make it a lot like 'nam. What's worse, this isn't a popular war with the people, which is a sure way to have more domestic unrest.
If this situation gets any worse, MY only hope is that the troops are treated better than they were after 'nam. It's not them you should get upset at, it's the piece-of-@!#$ politicians that sent them over there to line their pockets with green.
Goodbye Callisto & Skaši, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
Ok, I've come out of lurking GAM, are you happy?
Heres a little tidbit of info for you guys- while the active duty may be required to do multiple tours, the Reserve/National Guard soldiers aren't. We only have to do a total of something like 729 out of 1824 days (2 out of 5 years) active before we can be involuntarily activated again. So, if you know a Reserve/Guard soldier whos here for the second time since 2003, they either volunteered for it, or had a certain amount of days left of active duty and said "Ok, I'll finish out the tour even if it puts me past 2 years". No ifs ands or buts.
With that said, I would estimate about 45-55% of the Reserve/Guard force currently in country since 2004 has volunteered to extend while here. There are so many volunteers for extension that probably 30% gets turned down. There are some soldiers who have done 3 tours since 2003. Why? Most of us have done it because it gives us a feeling we can't get in civilian life. A feeling of accomplishment, like we've done something. The media makes it seem like we all hate being here and were forced by the government to be here. I personally don't know anyone who feels like that.
I'm not going to say the soldiers that paid the ultimate sacrifice died for a reason or not (since politics are not my storng suit, and as a professional soldier, I won't openly voice my opinions about my leaders, which is entirely
my choice), but I will say that the United States Army is a volunteer organization. No one forces you to sign the contract when you enlist. Most of the soldiers under me enlisted
after 2001, and several enlisted after the start of this war. I always like to ask soldiers why they joined the Army (since the college money sucks) and almost all the newest soldiers joined for the honor of serving their country and defending their families.
Taking into account all that I wrote, I'll sum it up. When a soldier enlists, they know what they are getting into, and they have their reasons. If they don't want to fight, then don't join. Simple. When they are activated and/or mobilized, they understand its their duty to deploy, if they don't understand that, they never learned to be a soldier in the first place. If they pay the ultimate sacrifice, their families should understand that the soldier died for his/her beliefs (since it was his/her decision to join in the first palce right?). The American public needs to understand this as well. I've often told my family that if I should die, it would be a disgrace not only to me, but to
every soldier who has died in this war (I would say every war, but service used to be mandatory, and thats another topic altogether). Is 3000 soldiers dead a bad thing? Yes. Should they be mourned? Absolutely. Were their deaths in vain? No, since this is a volunteer Army and everyone has their reasons for joining.
Nice to see you back James.
I understand what you're saying, and I'm not doubting the commitment of the troops at all. I'm talking about your leaders. I'm not trying to drag them through the mud, because I really don't HAVE to, they're already there.
Seriously, I'm just wondering what the political leaders are thinking and were thinking when they started this mess. I'm not a fan of the Bush Regime, it's pretty evident, however, when Clinton committed troops to the Balkans, there was a plan. In the first Gulf war, there was a plan. In Somalia there was a plan. In WWII, there was a plan... Even in Vietnam, there was somewhat of a plan. Iraq is basically not trying to make a peaceful and productive country (I'm no idiot, I know it's not going to happen in 3-4 years, it took Germany 20 years after WWII before it became really productive) while troops are there stamping out fires. I'm no socio/political science major, I don't know how to make a plan to synthesize real harmony between factions in Iraq, but I do know that what's happening now is only just keeping wraps on things.
I can't reconcile that the these things are happening and basically there is no plan or even forethought given to these things.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Again, i'm with GAM. I know that most, if niot all of the deceased soldiers there did not die in vain; further, i know the military is voluntary.
Even further, for those soldiers/marines/seamen/airmen over there because they believe the cause over there is valid, more power to them.
As long as the military stays voluntary, Things won't spiral out worse. If they reinstate the draft, expect backlash that would put Vietnam to shame.
Again, i admire the fact that you and your comrades have chosen to stick up for something greater than you, and enlist. I personally wish it was for, in my opinion, a better cause than what Iraq is being fed to us Civillians as.
Goodbye Callisto & Skaši, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
Vincent Morris wrote:They are over there preventing war. the more things get out of control over there, the more terror will spread and eventually work its way back to the USA. If kerry would have been president we would have had a major terrorist attack within a year of him being president. atleast bush is using God to help make his decisions and i stand behind that.
You must be kidding...
Quote:
They are over there preventing war.Quote:
I'm gonna go prevent rape - by raping someone. Next.
the more things get out of control over there, the more terror will spread and eventually work its way back to the USA.
The only true thing you out of what you just said, however... Do you realize that things where actually much, much more stable before we invaded? Apparantly you didn't, because this war is in no way, shape, or form making anything more stable in Iraq or the Middle East as a whole. It is making things worse. That much is pretty evident in Iraq right now(if you pay attention from day to day you'll see this), and just as soon as the sunni vs shiite fighting gets worse(it is already pretty bad), then watch the rest of the Middle East follow suit like falling dominos. You'd better pray that our soldiers can get this under control - cause it may take a miracle from God at this point.
Quote:
If kerry would have been president we would have had a major terrorist attack within a year of him being president.
Why? Because you say so? Because your friends say so? Or because some Fox news host says so? The main problem with Kerry is that he is an idiot, but then again we've had a much bigger idiot in office since 2001, and have only had one terrorist attack in that time. I can't see where putting a lessor idiot in office would put us more at risk. But if you have ANYTHING at all to back up that claim(you know - stuff like facts rather than baseless opinion) - that shows that Kerry would make us less safe than the current glorified village idiot has, I'd like to see it.
Don't get me wrong, I don't like or support Kerry, but I can't see him as anything but better than what we have now as president. Luckily we'll never need to choose between him and GWB again. Thank God it looks like we will have real choices this next election.
Quote:
atleast bush is using God to help make his decisions.
No he isn't. I'd ask you nicely not to slander God in this fashion. Thank you.
I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?
ok lets just sit here and wait for terrorist to come to America AGAIN and blow up some more of out stuff or wait we can just watch on CNN that maybe they decided to kill some high profile politician or kidnapped innocent people because they believe that Christianity and the USA are wron hahahahahahahah, yeah I don't think that any of you trying to dispute them being over there know really why we are there we are the backbone of the UN and Bush Jr is trying to finish what daddy started I say yeah get them out of there cause you will not conquer a county that will not be conquered
96 CAVALIER Z24 UNDER CONSTRUCTION
MATTY B FROM JC wrote:ok lets just sit here and wait for terrorist to come to America AGAIN and blow up some more of out stuff or wait we can just watch on CNN that maybe they decided to kill some high profile politician or kidnapped innocent people because they believe that Christianity and the USA are wron
Who said anything about waiting for them to attack us again? Remember Afghanistan? We're still there - MISSION NOT ACCOMPLISHED. There are terrorist still there and we don't have a sufficient troop count there to just drop the hammer on them - but why not? Because our troops are in Iraq, that's why. The troop count that is in Iraq now should have been the troop count in Afghanistan from the word go and left there until the job is done.
Then Osama wouldn't have gotten away into Pakistan for one thing. Sure everyone has a buzz about Saddam's hanging but I'd take one executed Osama Bin Lauden over 1,000,000 executed Saddam Husseins anyday. Another thing is that now we are starting to loose our grip on Afghanistan. The Taliban is making a good comeback unfortunately. Although it's no where near the cluster-@!#$ that Iraq is right now - it could be better - and would be better if we kept out of Iraq and concentrated on getting the job done and fighting terrorism rather than personal grudges and defiant regimes.
Even before Invading Iraq we weren't limited to Afghanistan when it came to fighting terrorists. We launched operations against Al Queda operatives and senior members all the time in other countries - but without invading them. Now we have to pour most all our resources into Iraq. Al Queda has taken a back seat.
If you want to talk about a country where Al Queda was weak with almost no presence - then lets talk about
pre-invasion Iraq. Sure Al Zarqawi was there but he was busy hiding from Saddam's men. Yes Saddam considered Al Queda to be a threat - in fact there was to be one power in Iraq - Saddam's power. We all know what it meant to oppose that philosophy. Al Zarqawi had no real power back then and if we never invaded - he never would have had it.
Yes Saddam was a brutal dictator who deserved a far more painful, prolonged death than he got - but those dictators are a dime a dozen in this world and they are just as bad as he was - and we sure aren't going after all the rest. He was a worthless piece of @!#$ but he did keep the Iraqi people in line(terrible methods or not - effective is effective). Now if you
only care about keeping America safe then that is actually a good thing.
Lets be honest here - for all the people who talk of "liberating the Iraqi people" - do you really care more about the Iraqi people's freedom or America's safely? We both know the answer for most of you is - America's safety. Talking about helping Iraq etc etc - is just talk from most of you to feel better about the whole affair but at the end of the day what you really give a rat's ass about is your own. Plus I think most of us would much rather seen our men and women in uniform return safe rather than see Iraq voting. I'd rather bring back those 3000 soldiers to life and restore the many more who have been wounded - both physically and mentally - rather than see Saddam's statue falling. Too many Iraqis have been killed by this thing as well(sadly alot faster under our watch that even under Saddam's watch). The juice is not worth the squeeze.
Well now we're there and we can't leave until either - the job is done or it gets so bad we're forced into retreat. The clock is ticking and the latter does look more likely than the former unfortunately and the consequences of failure are huge - so lets hope and pray that we can fix this mess.
I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?
Okay, let me take this one at a time...or attempt to. I'll admit my grammar my be horrible but there is guesswork in omitting punctuation..
ok lets just sit here and wait for terrorist to come to America AGAIN and blow up some more of out stuff
The issue as I see it is that the american people aren't taking matters into their own hands and relying on the government to do the work for them. Imagine how much "manifest destiny" would have worked if the average pioneer family chose to waif for government troop support aganst outlaws and native raids. We wouldn't have gotten any further than the Mississippi IMHO. Not that i backed Manifest Destiny, but using it as an example.
Personally, I feel more threat form any form of government trying to tell me what to say and not say, think and not think, then i do for some political or religious whackjob. In fact, i think the odds of dying bya terorist are less than that of being struck by lightning. So what next? War against Mother Nature? Last I checked, She's got a body count that puts Hitler and Stalin to shame, and we haven't even scored on her.
or wait we can just watch on CNN that maybe they decided to kill some high profile politician or kidnapped innocent people because they believe that Christianity and the USA are wron hahahahahahahah,
I can think of MANY ways the U.S. is wrong. One way: Patriot act. They should have handed out constitutional doormats with it so We the People could walk all over the Constitution just like the government did...in the name of "Security." Further, I will say this to not piss off any of the christians I find decent people on this website. No religion taken by itself is wrong--it's an inanimate entity; a concept. Like all concepts or ideas, it's merely a way of explaning the unexplained parts of existance. That being said, be it Christianty, Islam, Buddhism, Shinto, Taoism, Hinduism, Any branch of Paganism, Wicca, Satanism, Agnosticism, Gnostisicm, Atheims, Antitheism, Polytheism, et al, NONE of them in and of themselves are wrong.
It's what the practitioners do in the name of said systems that make it right or wrong. Muslims going about their lives are not wrong. Muslims killing anyone because they don't believe in Allah, or because Allah tells them to is wrong Ditto on any religion, Christianity, Judaism, or otherwise.
Now, before anyone comes in here blathering, "But KOTL, people who kill in the name of a religion aren't that religion!!!" I say, "Yes they are!" Either get someone that heads your religion to fomally denounce them publicly and with great fanfare, or consider them a bad egg in your religion and DO something about it.
yeah I don't think that any of you trying to dispute them being over there
Umm, yes I am. I'm nottaking this unto the soldiers, or even their reasons for being there, but as a taxpaying, VOTING American, and by the rights guarenteed to me by the Constitution, i have every legal right to dispute this--as long as I'm not breaking the law, which i'm not. As such, i will dispute this to my hearts content and try to vote the political asswipes out of office that, in my opinion, are risking american soldiers lives for little more than political or monetary gain.
know really why we are there we are the backbone of the UN and Bush Jr is trying to finish what daddy started
If we are the backbone of the UN, and the UN resisted us going in, then why are we in? It appears to me that this action was completely unilateral.
Rant off.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Wednesday, January 03, 2007 5:20 AM
Goodbye Callisto & Skaši, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
Vincent Morris wrote:They are over there preventing war.
Really? There was no war there before the invasion. Seems the logic is lost.
Vincnet Morris wrote:the more things get out of control over there, the more terror will spread and eventually work its way back to the USA.
There was no terrorist link in Iraq in the first place. Terrorism isn't going to land on your doorstep for no reason. Given the fact that the USA has been the biggest agitator in the Mid-East (with the possible exception of Israel), the term is called "reaping what you sow."
Vincent Morris wrote: If kerry would have been president we would have had a major terrorist attack within a year of him being president.
Really? Your neo-historical crystal ball that good? Look, stop playing "What If?" It's a futile game, especially when you say something like:
Vincent Morris wrote: atleast bush is using God to help make his decisions and i stand behind that.
And totally ignoring good sense, planning and advice from people that have experience in the field... like... his own Father. You stand behind that? I can't get behind someone that is using greed as the prime motivator. Sorry.
MATTY B FROM JC wrote:ok lets just sit here and wait for terrorist to come to America AGAIN and blow up some more of out stuff or wait we can just watch on CNN that maybe they decided to kill some high profile politician or kidnapped innocent people because they believe that Christianity and the USA are wron hahahahahahahah, yeah I don't think that any of you trying to dispute them being over there know really why we are there we are the backbone of the UN and Bush Jr is trying to finish what daddy started I say yeah get them out of there cause you will not conquer a county that will not be conquered
Number 1: learn to spell, punctuate, and use proper sentences.
Number 2: have a complete thought
before you make a post.
Number 3: Have a sound ideological base that you can defend
before you post.
Now the fun stuff, Americans were attacked in America ONCE. 3000 people died, and it's a tragedy. What is a bigger tragedy: this is being justified to kill people that had nothing to do with this in their home country, and for no good reason. Let's recap:
Iraq had NO CONNECTION TO 9/11. As awful and depraved as 9/11 was, how do you justify 50,000 estimated dead in a country that had nothing to with a terrorist attack?
This begs the question: Who is the terrorist in Iraq today? Look at what happened in NYC, and then just transpose that to Iraq. You're invaded by a foreign group, but instead of 19 (supposed) hijackers, there's 100,000 uniformed troops.
Also, you think that this is a holy Crusade? Do you remember what happened when a logistically superior force went in and tried to wipe away a whole people on the basis of a belief system? The last set of Crusades, the Cold War, Vietnam... hell, Afghanistan by the Russians. It's one thing to make it about regime change, and stabilizing a country (which the US is batting .500 on, in Iraq), it's quite another getting payback and making an entire region unstable and culling any possibility of a lasting peace.
As far as being the back bone of the UN, possibly, but as long as Dubya is at the helm, there's no chance of being the brain.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
