Alienating Our Military

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]PGJ wrote:
One of the main problems, and cause of the huge disconnect, is the media portrayal of every single American fatality as a massive military failure, and clear evidence that we are loosing.

Does America really believe you can have war without casualties? News flash: people die in war. It’s a sad reality. It goes back to my theroy that liberals have nothing worth fighting for.
[/quote]

Agree with you completely here.

We are? How do casualty counts give more than the most marginal evidence of success or failure in Iraq? The violence is as bad as it has ever been, the central government barely exists, domestic US consensus on the war has evaporated…and we’re winning? I’d hate to see what losing looks like. I’m sure they teach Vietnam at TBS. We never lost a battle there either.

42

[quote]JeffR wrote:
I agree with you 100%. I have been very careful to limit the discussion to pookie’s erroneous statement that the Roman legionnaires were neither voluntary nor were they paid.[/quote]

Ok, on that particular point, you are right and I was wrong.

Happy now?

43

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
When the values of the Soldiers and Marines begin to vary markedly from those of the people they’re protecting, when the fighting men and women begin to perceive that their blood and sacrifice is unappreciated and/or used for a political agenda, then WE’VE GOT A PROBLEM!

How long will America’s Finest continue to protect us if they are spat upon, ridiculed, and humiliated when they come home? Those who do such things dishonor themselves and their country. They attack their protectors!? That is clinically insane.

This is an excellent point! Many of the American public, including myself, never felt that this war is protecting or defending American freedom or liberty.

Twenty Terrorists attacking two cities and killing a handful of people, while tragic, does not threaten American values or independence. We may be less safe than we were 100 years ago but that is the reality of living in the modern world. America in no way, shape, or form is ever going to fall because a few people “hate” us.

We need to get over ourselves and realize we aren’t as special as we make ourselves out to be.[/quote]

Yet, if it were your family members dying, you’d sing a vastly different tune.

Don’t try to deny it.

Sad.

It’s the “America deserves it crap.”

That line of “reasoning” makes me angry.

JeffR

44

[quote]pookie wrote:
JeffR wrote:
I agree with you 100%. I have been very careful to limit the discussion to pookie’s erroneous statement that the Roman legionnaires were neither voluntary nor were they paid.

Ok, on that particular point, you are right and I was wrong.

Happy now?[/quote]

Yes. Thanks, and I’m surprised.

No need to make such a fuss next time.

I get lucky every now and then ):

JeffR

45

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
PGJ wrote:
Does America really believe you can have war without casualties? News flash: people die in war. It’s a sad reality. It goes back to my theroy that liberals have nothing worth fighting for.

You live in a much larger and opinionated world than existed 250 years ago. Now becasue of instant information you get to be informed about people’s opinions more readily. Do not be surprised by this fact.

Liberals do think there are things worth fighting for just not all of the same things that conservatives value so dearly. This war doesn’t protect American interests becasue American interests were never at stake–unless maybe it was about the oil.

If ever American independence were threatened conservatives and liberals would no longer exist.
[/quote]

What action by an enemy would constitute a threat to “American Independence” using the parameters
you set forth above? What “things” are worth fighting for from your perspective? Just curious?

46

[quote]lm wrote:

We need to get over ourselves and realize we aren’t as special as we make ourselves out to be.[/quote]

I couldn’t possibly disagree more.

The United States is the shining beacon of humanity. Our art, literature, science, and military are the glory of the human race.

Think about how many people die trying to reach our shores EVERY DAY.

Even if you are caught up in negative propaganda, I can assure you that plenty of people feel quite differently.

Don’t believe me? Spend some quality time in somalia, cuba, or venezuala.

JeffR

47

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
PGJ wrote:
One of the main problems, and cause of the huge disconnect, is the media portrayal of every single American fatality as a massive military failure, and clear evidence that we are loosing.

Does America really believe you can have war without casualties? News flash: people die in war. It’s a sad reality. It goes back to my theroy that liberals have nothing worth fighting for.

Agree with you completely here.

I believe this war has been overwhelmingly successful. Yes, there are still pockets of resistance in Iraq, but looking at the big picture 3000 KIA is pretty bloodless for a war of this length. We lost 10,000 on the beaches of Normany in a matter of days. What would libs say about that? They’d call it the biggest military blunder in history. 6,000 dead Marines on Iwo Jima in 30 days. How many American aircrew lost their lives fire-bombing the holy-hell out of Germany and Japan? Thousands. Not to mention that more Japanese civilians died from American fire-bobming than from the A-bombs.

From a cold, hard strategic point of view, we are winning.

We are? How do casualty counts give more than the most marginal evidence of success or failure in Iraq? The violence is as bad as it has ever been, the central government barely exists, domestic US consensus on the war has evaporated…and we’re winning? I’d hate to see what losing looks like. I’m sure they teach Vietnam at TBS. We never lost a battle there either.
[/quote]

If America is going to believe that every single American fatality in war is failure, we might as well disband the entire military. The Vietnam analogy is great. We NEVER lost a battle, but we lost the war because we were never allowed to take the gloves off and do those things necessary to secure a victory due to political decisions. Same in Iraq. We have never lost an engagement with the enemy. They don’t even bother anymore. They just plant bombs all over the place. And the troops’ hands are tied due to rules of engagement.

Domestic concensus has evaporated because that’s what the news feeds us every day. Doom and gloom. It wears you down after a while. Luckily I know many, many people who have been there. It’s not that bad.

You guys want a nice, neat, clean little war where nobody dies and there is a great big peace/surrender ceremony at the end and we all hug and act like friends. Aint gonna’ happen. The President has told us that. We are not fighting a national uniformed military that has clear leaders. It’s going to be messy and long. If we don’t do this right now, there will be more 9/11’s. These terrorist guys don’t just want us out of Iraq, they want us off the planet.

Loosing looks like New York City on September 12th, 2001.

Why is all this so hard to understand.?

48

[quote]Ren wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
The point of the thread is: a DISCONNECT is being established between our military and our populace. The Dem victory looks (IMO) to our military as if the American people are not supporting them. They see people who want to cut and run, something that is a polar opposite to how our military men and women think, and we voted the cut-and-run crowd into office.

How long would any one here fight to defend cowards, who want to run and hide at the first hint of danger? How many here would defend people who spit on wounded veterans, like those scum at the peace rally?

Not long, I’d bet…

Its always interesting how you make a broad generalization, “our populace” then ratify that a few sentences later damning liberals.

How about this, where was the support needed when the Republicans were in office? Where were the adequate supplies and body armor that saves lives? How many “liberals” spent their own money to sent body armor to their sons and daughters over there? I can tell you, a helluva lot more than your precious republicans.

You say the populace has a disconnect with the military, shit, it looks like you have a disconnect with reality.[/quote]

Too many soccer balls to the head, eh Ren?

You honestly mean to sit there and say that cutting funding for the troops, calling our nation a ‘pariah’ (shit-eater Kerry), and calling our men terrorists endears the troops to the people who vote for these scum?

Yeah, keep voting for Nancy, Howard, Barack, Murtha, Reid, and all the rest. Watch what happens…

49

[quote]JeffR wrote:
lm wrote:

We need to get over ourselves and realize we aren’t as special as we make ourselves out to be.

I couldn’t possibly disagree more.

The United States is the shining beacon of humanity. Our art, literature, science, and military are the glory of the human race.

Think about how many people die trying to reach our shores EVERY DAY.

Even if you are caught up in negative propaganda, I can assure you that plenty of people feel quite differently.

Don’t believe me? Spend some quality time in somalia, cuba, or venezuala.

JeffR
[/quote]

Very well said. You don’t see a bunch of guys in a little cardboard boat trying to escape to France or Mexico or Canada. Americans need to get their swagger back and quit feeling bad about being a superpower. I don’t give a flying F about what Germany or Italy or Japan or Etheopia or Iceland or Panama, or Morrocco thinks about us. America is the land of the free. Sure, we’re a little screwed up, but compared to the rest of the the world we are the shining beacon of hope and possibility. We tend to take that for granted and get wrapped up in the exoticness of romantic far away lands like France, Brazil, Japan, Sweeden. Believe me, you wouldn’t like to live there. Nice places to visit.

As bad as it may seem here, it’s paradise compared to the rest of the world.

50

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Yet, if it were your family members dying, you’d sing a vastly different tune.

Don’t try to deny it.

Sad.

It’s the “America deserves it crap.”

That line of “reasoning” makes me angry.

JeffR

[/quote]

No. I would demand that my governemnt actually go to Afghanistan and find and kill bin Laden…not try and devert my attention with WOT WMD BS. This is what I mean by being sheep and easily distracted by fear.

I am not arguing that the US deserved anything. Just that the US is not under the threat of losing it’s independence becasue of a few religious nuts.

51

[quote]hedo wrote:
What action by an enemy would constitute a threat to “American Independence” using the parameters
you set forth above? What “things” are worth fighting for from your perspective? Just curious?

[/quote]
An amphibious, naval, and or air attack by a group larger than 1/2 a platoon…a Perl Harbor type situation. When the values and lives of my country are directly threatened. Not becasue a retarded president wants to exact revenge on a country that had nothing to do with our situation.

52

[quote]PGJ wrote:
Very well said. You don’t see a bunch of guys in a little cardboard boat trying to escape to France or Mexico or Canada. Americans need to get their swagger back and quit feeling bad about being a superpower. I don’t give a flying F about what Germany or Italy or Japan or Etheopia or Iceland or Panama, or Morrocco thinks about us. America is the land of the free. Sure, we’re a little screwed up, but compared to the rest of the the world we are the shining beacon of hope and possibility. We tend to take that for granted and get wrapped up in the exoticness of romantic far away lands like France, Brazil, Japan, Sweeden. Believe me, you wouldn’t like to live there. Nice places to visit.

As bad as it may seem here, it’s paradise compared to the rest of the world.

[/quote]
France is being completely inundated by “refugees” from Africa and the Middle East…what do you think all the rioting is going on over there. They hate foreigners.

53

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
hedo wrote:
What action by an enemy would constitute a threat to “American Independence” using the parameters
you set forth above? What “things” are worth fighting for from your perspective? Just curious?

An amphibious, naval, and or air attack by a group larger than 1/2 a platoon…a Perl Harbor type situation. When the values and lives of my country are directly threatened. Not becasue a retarded president wants to exact revenge on a country that had nothing to do with our situation.[/quote]

Who is president is and whether you think he is bright enough to represent you is not relevant. He was elected and is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.

You are also projecting values you have on what is good for the rest of the country. That’s nothing more then a desire for anarchy.

Under your scenario no war was worth it since 1812. Since the Japanese didn’t seek to occupy Pearl Harbor they were really no threat to our way of life right? Simply by comparing loss of life, 9/11 was worse and therefore acceptable as a reason to fight under the parameters you set. You sound like your against the details of how to fight as opposed to the need to fight.

Common sense in military matters would dictate that when the enemy has launched an amphibious assauly against the continetal US, it’s probably too late. Fixed fortifications are monuments to man’s stupidity. The modern battlefield is dynamic and quick. It’s better to attack the enemy at a time and place of your choosing not his and certainly not on our beaches.

Public opinion shouldn’t guide military tactics. That’s why the military feels aliented now. Most in the military are all too familiar with the threat. They may argue the details of fighting it but the reason is clear.

54

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Yet, if it were your family members dying, you’d sing a vastly different tune.

Don’t try to deny it.

Sad.

It’s the “America deserves it crap.”

That line of “reasoning” makes me angry.

JeffR

No. I would demand that my governemnt actually go to Afghanistan and find and kill bin Laden…not try and devert my attention with WOT WMD BS. This is what I mean by being sheep and easily distracted by fear.

I am not arguing that the US deserved anything. Just that the US is not under the threat of losing it’s independence becasue of a few religious nuts.[/quote]

Ok, let me get this straight: if your mother/sister were killed in a brutal attack, you would demand attacking al qaeda only in Afghanistan? bin laden the only al qaeda leader?

No. You would want to attack and destroy terrorists everywhere. If you thought terrorists were in Iraq and were being supported by Iraq, you’d be all for removing that intransigent regime.

You would be all for sending a strong message to all supporters of terrorism in any form. You would seek deterrance.

Unfortunately, your argument is hyper-partisan. It doesn’t pass the sniff test. You’ve convinced yourself that there is no reason to have attacked Iraq other than selfish, political advantage seeking. It’s all about your hatred of one man.

I know full well you’d be the number one hawk on the planet if your family was killed. It would mean far more to you than “winning” an argument with a bunch of “sheep.” It would be personal.

You’d drop the “sheep” crap and would be more interested killing and capturing terrorists.

Just open your mind to other lines of thought. See what happens.

JeffR

55

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Yet, if it were your family members dying, you’d sing a vastly different tune.

Don’t try to deny it.

Sad.

It’s the “America deserves it crap.”

That line of “reasoning” makes me angry.

JeffR

No. I would demand that my governemnt actually go to Afghanistan and find and kill bin Laden…not try and devert my attention with WOT WMD BS. This is what I mean by being sheep and easily distracted by fear.

I am not arguing that the US deserved anything. Just that the US is not under the threat of losing it’s independence becasue of a few religious nuts.[/quote]

No, but the safety of it’s citizens was threatened.

56

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Yes. Thanks, and I’m surprised.

No need to make such a fuss next time.

I get lucky every now and then ):

JeffR
[/quote]

I still stand by my initial, albeit poorly worded, assertion that comparing the modern US Army to the legionnaires of ancient Rome is an apples to orange comparison.

And what fun would it be without a little arguing back and forth?

57

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
hedo wrote:
What action by an enemy would constitute a threat to “American Independence” using the parameters
you set forth above? What “things” are worth fighting for from your perspective? Just curious?

An amphibious, naval, and or air attack by a group larger than 1/2 a platoon…a Perl Harbor type situation. When the values and lives of my country are directly threatened. Not becasue a retarded president wants to exact revenge on a country that had nothing to do with our situation.[/quote]

That is truly frightening. You’d wait until the enemy masses it’s forces and actually launches an attack on it’s own terms before you would do anything about it. That is liberal national defense policy in a nut-shell. Stupidity. I guess we have to wait for a “Red Dawn” scenario before you would justify war. Thank God we have a President that has a policy of preemtive strike. Hit them before they even get close to us.

The fact that 12 Arab dudes could kill over 3000 Americans in a matter of minutes, on our own turf, doesn’t frighten you?

The fact that nobody has bombed us in years is reason enough to drop our guard, right?

Stick to lifting weights and let the military professionals take care of national defense. You have no clue about modern warfare.

58

[quote]hedo wrote:
…
Read the following article I linked below. The WAPO columnist refers to the troops as Mercs and makes a few comments that frankly speak more to his agenda then anything else. The Arkin piece is gettin a lot of play on the internet. He apparently wrote the peace in response to comments from the troops about how they percieve the home front these days.

[/quote]
Everyone should read the post Hedo linked from the Washington Post’s beat journalist who write their national defense stories. It’s quite revealing as to what a lot of journalists think about the soldiers.

After you read the “original” (see http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzZjNWE3YzIwZmM2ZmQzMzJhODk4ZWVjZWQyODUzODk= ), read this piece: ProfessorBainbridge.com

ADDENDUM

One thing that struck me about this attitude evinced in Arkin’s post is how neatly it sandwiches with what we’ve been hearing for a long time now: If you’re a supporter of the war but you don’t enlist your opinion is worthless. I suppose there are a few people who can remember that position being taken a few times around here.

Now Arkin is saying that if you’re a soldier but a supporter of the war you should just shut up and appreciate the opinions of the anti-war folks back home.

Gee, who’s left that gets to have and voice an opinion? Two guesses, and the first two don’t count.

59

[quote]hedo wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
hedo wrote:
What action by an enemy would constitute a threat to “American Independence” using the parameters
you set forth above? What “things” are worth fighting for from your perspective? Just curious?

An amphibious, naval, and or air attack by a group larger than 1/2 a platoon…a Perl Harbor type situation. When the values and lives of my country are directly threatened. Not becasue a retarded president wants to exact revenge on a country that had nothing to do with our situation.

Who is president is and whether you think he is bright enough to represent you is not relevant. He was elected and is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.

You are also projecting values you have on what is good for the rest of the country. That’s nothing more then a desire for anarchy.

Under your scenario no war was worth it since 1812. Since the Japanese didn’t seek to occupy Pearl Harbor they were really no threat to our way of life right? Simply by comparing loss of life, 9/11 was worse and therefore acceptable as a reason to fight under the parameters you set. You sound like your against the details of how to fight as opposed to the need to fight.

Common sense in military matters would dictate that when the enemy has launched an amphibious assauly against the continetal US, it’s probably too late. Fixed fortifications are monuments to man’s stupidity. The modern battlefield is dynamic and quick. It’s better to attack the enemy at a time and place of your choosing not his and certainly not on our beaches.

Public opinion shouldn’t guide military tactics. That’s why the military feels aliented now. Most in the military are all too familiar with the threat. They may argue the details of fighting it but the reason is clear.

[/quote]
You asked what I would agree to go to war on and those are my terms. All else is extraneous, to me. Create a good defense and war is unnecessary unless we are being directly attacted. 911 was not a military attack;not only that its hard to wage war against ideas.

60

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
hedo wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
hedo wrote:
What action by an enemy would constitute a threat to “American Independence” using the parameters
you set forth above? What “things” are worth fighting for from your perspective? Just curious?

An amphibious, naval, and or air attack by a group larger than 1/2 a platoon…a Perl Harbor type situation. When the values and lives of my country are directly threatened. Not becasue a retarded president wants to exact revenge on a country that had nothing to do with our situation.

Who is president is and whether you think he is bright enough to represent you is not relevant. He was elected and is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.

You are also projecting values you have on what is good for the rest of the country. That’s nothing more then a desire for anarchy.

Under your scenario no war was worth it since 1812. Since the Japanese didn’t seek to occupy Pearl Harbor they were really no threat to our way of life right? Simply by comparing loss of life, 9/11 was worse and therefore acceptable as a reason to fight under the parameters you set. You sound like your against the details of how to fight as opposed to the need to fight.

Common sense in military matters would dictate that when the enemy has launched an amphibious assauly against the continetal US, it’s probably too late. Fixed fortifications are monuments to man’s stupidity. The modern battlefield is dynamic and quick. It’s better to attack the enemy at a time and place of your choosing not his and certainly not on our beaches.

Public opinion shouldn’t guide military tactics. That’s why the military feels aliented now. Most in the military are all too familiar with the threat. They may argue the details of fighting it but the reason is clear.

You asked what I would agree to go to war on and those are my terms. All else is extraneous, to me. Create a good defense and war is unnecessary unless we are being directly attacted. 911 was not a military attack;not only that its hard to wage war against ideas.[/quote]

Lift

Of course you are entitled your opinion and the terms to which you feel warrant fighting.

I simply pointed out they are not realistic in the modern era and unrealistic in terms of a rational defense policy. Idealistic yes but practical no.