Do You Support the Troops?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]PGJ wrote:
harris447 wrote:
Maybe–just maybe–this topic goes beyond the whole “good guys” and “bad guys” thing.

Just thinking…

And…how EXACTLY was invading Iraq defending our country?

You are right. Saddam was a guy who didn’t support terrorism. Just a peace-loving dictator who would never harm a fly. Just forget about the terrorist training camps inside Iraq. No biggie. No weapons were found so we were wrong. No way he could have smuggled them out of the country in the two years there were no inspectors. Syria and Jordan would never allow illegal WMD’s to be transported across their boarders. You think you know everything because you watch CNN. Why were Iraqi soldiers captured carrying gasmasks? I guess we should have just let him be and continue to disobey all UN sanctions and shoot at allied aircraft patroling the no-fly zone. Man, doing nothing while a mad-man strengthens his power is exactly how Hitler came to power. Never again.

[/quote]

Funny how this argument comes back around.

Saudia Arabia has a massive list of human rights abuses, not too mention that 3/4 of the hijackers were from there. Why didn’t we go there?

Syria is another human rights violater, and most likely ‘harboring terrorists’, as you all love to say. Hell, they were alot more likely to have ties to Al-Queda then the secular Iraq. Why did’t we go in there?

You all know about Darfur by now. Why aren’t we in there? Its been going on for quite a while.

There’s a 27 year old Civil War in Angola that’s destroyed the country. We aren’t seen in there.

The list can go on and on of shitty places with corrupt brutal leaders. The White House, however, didn’t have information made up in order to attack them. There are many madmen, some far more danerous than Hussein. Look at North Korea.

Your argument does not work.

142

[quote]TrainerinDC wrote:
Wrong. Wrong as always Orion. America and England are joined at the hip. England owns a significant percentage of our gold standard. By attacking us its as if they are attacking their own source of income. Armed Forces can’t fight without money. English money is invested all over America. America and England are brothers. We may fight like brothers at times, but we are brothers.

France!?!?!? Are you out of your mind? Do they not teach history in your country? Look at history and tell me what France has won. Or forget history and look at the current affairs. France has no respectable military, other than the Foreign Legion, which is Foreign! Hate to be the bearer of bad news here but you seriously need a reality check. You seem to forget that America has the most elite, best trained, best equipped, and most professional military ever created.

You should worry about China. Everyone on this planet with a brain should worry about china. Throughout history bad things happen with a culture that has a surplus of males. Whats the ratio in China again? You’d be amazed. Look it up. [/quote]

THAT is a very interesting point I’d not thought of. Because of their one-child policy, the baby girls are often killed or abandoned (my daughter, from China, was abandoned in a ghetto that makes Cleveland look like heaven!) Aren’t they now at about 115 males/ 100 females? I will research this.

Since they are going to have a very male society with this ratio, will they be more warlike? Man, this is a good point I’m going to research!

Thanks, Trainer!

HH

143

[quote]JeffR wrote:
dirty-harry,

I wanted to say that you’ve been the unwilling participant of the most effective T-forum ass beating ever.

JeffR

[/quote]

I second that. I also want to say how much fun it is to watch the libs squirm when coming under the eyes of guys who’ve been there and know the facts.

HH

144

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
PGJ wrote:
harris447 wrote:
Maybe–just maybe–this topic goes beyond the whole “good guys” and “bad guys” thing.

Just thinking…

And…how EXACTLY was invading Iraq defending our country?

You are right. Saddam was a guy who didn’t support terrorism. Just a peace-loving dictator who would never harm a fly. Just forget about the terrorist training camps inside Iraq. No biggie. No weapons were found so we were wrong. No way he could have smuggled them out of the country in the two years there were no inspectors. Syria and Jordan would never allow illegal WMD’s to be transported across their boarders. You think you know everything because you watch CNN. Why were Iraqi soldiers captured carrying gasmasks? I guess we should have just let him be and continue to disobey all UN sanctions and shoot at allied aircraft patroling the no-fly zone. Man, doing nothing while a mad-man strengthens his power is exactly how Hitler came to power. Never again.

Funny how this argument comes back around.

Saudia Arabia has a massive list of human rights abuses, not too mention that 3/4 of the hijackers were from there. Why didn’t we go there?

Syria is another human rights violater, and most likely ‘harboring terrorists’, as you all love to say. Hell, they were alot more likely to have ties to Al-Queda then the secular Iraq. Why did’t we go in there?

You all know about Darfur by now. Why aren’t we in there? Its been going on for quite a while.

There’s a 27 year old Civil War in Angola that’s destroyed the country. We aren’t seen in there.

The list can go on and on of shitty places with corrupt brutal leaders. The White House, however, didn’t have information made up in order to attack them. There are many madmen, some far more danerous than Hussein. Look at North Korea.

Your argument does not work.[/quote]

I guar-ran-tee that if we went after Syria, Saudi or whatever, you guys would be crying about the evil SOB Saddam and why we didn’t go after him. Iraq is just the beginning, my friend. Give it time. We’ll get around to the other places. What we did was absolutely destroy the most militarily powerful nation in the region. Believe me, the other nations took notice. Did you see how fast Lybia came around and coughed up their illegal wepons?

145

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
TrainerinDC wrote:
Wrong. Wrong as always Orion. America and England are joined at the hip. England owns a significant percentage of our gold standard. By attacking us its as if they are attacking their own source of income. Armed Forces can’t fight without money. English money is invested all over America. America and England are brothers. We may fight like brothers at times, but we are brothers.

France!?!?!? Are you out of your mind? Do they not teach history in your country? Look at history and tell me what France has won. Or forget history and look at the current affairs. France has no respectable military, other than the Foreign Legion, which is Foreign! Hate to be the bearer of bad news here but you seriously need a reality check. You seem to forget that America has the most elite, best trained, best equipped, and most professional military ever created.

You should worry about China. Everyone on this planet with a brain should worry about china. Throughout history bad things happen with a culture that has a surplus of males. Whats the ratio in China again? You’d be amazed. Look it up.

THAT is a very interesting point I’d not thought of. Because of their one-child policy, the baby girls are often killed or abandoned (my daughter, from China, was abandoned in a ghetto that makes Cleveland look like heaven!) Aren’t they now at about 115 males/ 100 females? I will research this.

Since they are going to have a very male society with this ratio, will they be more warlike? Man, this is a good point I’m going to research!

Thanks, Trainer!

HH

[/quote]

Be very affraid of China. Way too many people in a small place with a HUGE bone to pick with Japan. Imagine if China invaded Japan…who would have to come to the rescue?

146

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
One of the older guys at my church was a Master Chief (Navy) and a Swifty. He could never say, ‘Kerry’ — he always said, “That son-of-a-bitch…”. He honestly couldn’t say Kerry! It was hilarious![/quote]

Being a ‘swifty’ is not a positive trait.

147

[quote]ExNole wrote:
TrainerinDC wrote:
Its funny how things come full circle. I can only repeat what I have already said. IN EVERY CONFLICT THE LIBERALS SIDE WITH THE ENEMY. Point blank.

There was no choice. Tell me something Harris, if you are so smart.

Say a madman, were to bury all his WMD’s in the sand under his country. How would people thousands of miles away ever find them?

Supporting the troops is not saying come home. The only way the troops will come home is when their job is done. You want them home, help them finish their job. This job is to clear the insurgents and terrorists. Soon as its done, they will come home.

What will you bloody liberals bitch about when they come home? Ever think of that? You should be screaming stay so you have something to bitch about. That is the liberal way. Complain but do not act. Pretty soon you guys will be like the french military. Their battle plan is capitulate and cooperate.

I know there are some intellectually respectable people on this site that support the war that know this “liberals support the enemy” thing is total bullshit and I’d wish they’d call people on it.

If victory hinged on shooting more people than we would be in a great spot. We’re really good at that. But the problems in Iraq are independent of any success we have in military engagements.

It doesn’t matter if we are liberators or occupiers, it matters how we are perceived. And if peple believe we are occupiers and they are freedom fighters we are in trouble.

The ethnic tensions in Iraq are getting anything but better and the government is ineffectual at best. We don’t have enough troops to give any sort of security to people outside of the green zone. In every measureable standard of living (electricity, unemployment, terror attacks, sewage etc.) things are worse than pre invasion.

The Sunnis won’t settle for anything but control of the government and neither will the Shi’ites. The Kurds have wanted their own country for who knows how long.

It doesn’t matter how well we fight, or how long we stay, the Army is not going to be the decisive factor in whether or not Iraq becomes a stable democratic country. [/quote]

ExNole is spot on correct!!!

Everything thing else is right wingnut/left wingnut BS.

148

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
One of the older guys at my church was a Master Chief (Navy) and a Swifty. He could never say, ‘Kerry’ — he always said, “That son-of-a-bitch…”. He honestly couldn’t say Kerry! It was hilarious!

Being a ‘swifty’ is not a positive trait.[/quote]

I thought the Swift boat thing was pretty silly, but I tell you what, many, many Vietnam vets absolutely hate his guts for his whole “Winter Soldier” project. At least 2 of his Purple Hearts are bogus. The Swift-boat of cheesie, but the sentiment is genuine.

149

[quote]
It doesn’t matter if we are liberators or occupiers, it matters how we are perceived. And if peple believe we are occupiers and they are freedom fighters we are in trouble.

The ethnic tensions in Iraq are getting anything but better and the government is ineffectual at best. We don’t have enough troops to give any sort of security to people outside of the green zone. In every measureable standard of living (electricity, unemployment, terror attacks, sewage etc.) things are worse than pre invasion.

The Sunnis won’t settle for anything but control of the government and neither will the Shi’ites. The Kurds have wanted their own country for who knows how long.

It doesn’t matter how well we fight, or how long we stay, the Army is not going to be the decisive factor in whether or not Iraq becomes a stable democratic country. [/quote]

Very good points. The Army isn’t going to bring peace. The Army didn’t bring peace to Europe or Japan either. It eliminated the cancer that disturbed the peace and ended a war. The local governments bring peace. Iraq has to stand up on it’s own, but it won’t be able to do it without our help. The big problem is the tribal conflict. That is something we Americans don’t understand. We don’t have that problem here.

Then add a huge helping of foreign jihadists who could care less about Iraq as long as they get to kill somebody, man, woman or child, who they believe to be an infedel (Muslims who do not believe their brand of Islam are infedels also). Europe and Japan were aboslute disasters after WWII. It took many years to get them back on their feet. And that is without having foreigners blowing themselves up all the time.

We are not fighting Iraqi’s. There are over 25 million Iraqi’s and only 100,000+ American troops. If the Iraqi’s wanted us out, we’d be out. Our own democracy is a bit screwed up, even after 227 years of practice, why do we expect democracy to spring forth fully developed overnight in a nation that has been ruled by dictators, emperors and tyrants since the beginning of time?

150

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
One of the older guys at my church was a Master Chief (Navy) and a Swifty. He could never say, ‘Kerry’ — he always said, “That son-of-a-bitch…”. He honestly couldn’t say Kerry! It was hilarious!

Being a ‘swifty’ is not a positive trait.[/quote]

Are you disparaging all the fine men that served on Swift Boats? If not you should try to be more precise.

151

[quote]PGJ wrote:

The Army didn’t bring peace to Europe or Japan either. It eliminated the cancer that disturbed the peace and ended a war. [/quote]

The Army did bring peace in WW2 though, when we defeated the Germans and Japanese militarilly, that ended the war.

The fighting in Iraq is not conventional warfare and winning battles doesn’t translate to winning the war, unlike WW2.

We won every major military engagement in Vietnam. The insurgents are no match for us on the battlefield. But they know that too and fight accordingly.

Our democracy is screwed up, but we still want to be a democratic country. The warring factions seem to want different versions of Islamic states. Not that there aren’t lots of normal, non fundamentalists who would like a secular state, but that the factions that are vying for control are not interested one bit in being a Western Democracy.

152

[quote]ExNole wrote:
PGJ wrote:

The Army didn’t bring peace to Europe or Japan either. It eliminated the cancer that disturbed the peace and ended a war.

The Army did bring peace in WW2 though, when we defeated the Germans and Japanese militarilly, that ended the war.

The fighting in Iraq is not conventional warfare and winning battles doesn’t translate to winning the war, unlike WW2.

We won every major military engagement in Vietnam. The insurgents are no match for us on the battlefield. But they know that too and fight accordingly.

We are not fighting Iraqi’s. There are over 25 million Iraqi’s and only 100,000+ American troops. If the Iraqi’s wanted us out, we’d be out.

But Iraqi’s aren’t for the most part turning over insurgents pointing out IED’s or making life harder on the insurgents either.

To win we’re going to have to convince the population to abandon the insurgents. To do that we need to give them a reason to think life will be better for them if they do, and to make them feel safe if they do it.

Our own democracy is a bit screwed up, even after 227 years of practice, why do we expect democracy to spring forth fully developed overnight in a nation that has been ruled by dictators, emperors and tyrants since the beginning of time?

Our democracy is screwed up, but we still want to be a democratic country. The warring factions seem to want different versions of Islamic states. Not that there aren’t lots of normal, non fundamentalists who would like a secular state, but that the factions that are vying for control are not interested one bit in being a Western Democracy.

[/quote]

We brought peace by ending a war, but a government had to be establishe to maintain the peace. Point conceeded.

The reasons Iraqi’s aren’t exactly organizing neighborhood watches and turning in the bad guys is because 1.) they aren’t accustomed to turning in their “fellow Muslim”. 2.)There are still enough bad guys out there who will kill their families for cooperating with infedels. 3.) With all the political protest and crap coming out of Washington, they aren’t actually sure we’re going to stick around much longer and see this thing through. They don’t want to side with the loosers, especially when the winners just might torture and kill your entire family for associating with infidels.

<<To win we’re going to have to convince the population to abandon the insurgents.>>

I absolutely agree. But they have to be confident in our committment. If Hillary or Kerry or any Democrat gets in office in 2008, we WILL pull out and the terrorist will take over. I am completely confident in our military’s commitment. Not so sure of some politicians and most of America’s voters.

153

[quote]PGJ wrote:

You can’t be serious. Well then, who did? It wasn’t the guys from the 700 Club. Islamic jihadists in every attack. Every Muslim is not a terrorist, but every terrorist in the above examples (and many more…remember Lebanon? 200+ Marines killed by a car bomb) has been a Muslim extremist. We were at war long before 9/11. This stuff goes back to the Barbary Pirates and the Crusades and even the very founding of Islam.
[/quote]

My problem is that I agree with you on almost anything you wrote above, yes Islam, not fundamental Islam, Islam is the problem.

One of the reasons this whole Iraq thing might be a good idea is the experiment of an Arabic, semi-secular Democracy in the Middle East.

That could help fight terrorism, by undermining Islam the same way Christianity and Judaism had their teeth pulled by the Enlightenment.

I only disagree with you with this whole , had to go to war because of 9-11. If that had been the reason you would have had to invade Saudi-Arabia.

154

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Since they are going to have a very male society with this ratio, will they be more warlike? Man, this is a good point I’m going to research!

Thanks, Trainer!

HH
[/quote]

You might also want to look into monogamous vs polygynous societies and how monogamy enforced via religious doctrine helped tame societies.

155

This is the crux of the issue. We’re never going to be able to fight the insurgency to the last man. Time favors the insurgency here. It is their country, the waiting game is on their side.

It’s much easier to destablize a country than make it functioning.

Saying we need to convince the country to give up the insurgency entails a lot. We need to overcome the perception as occupiers, the hatred towards America, ethnic tensions, an ineffectual government, security on a day to day basis, improving infrastructure. We also need to take into account Abu Ghraib and the like on the public perception there.

The severity of these and the ability to overcome them is up for debate. But any reasonable defense of continuing in Iraq is going to have to account for them by more than staying the course or beating the insurgency.

157

[quote]

No, No we won’t get around to it. You can’t launch wars on countries just because you don’t agree with how they are run. When you do, they all come back after you.

Besides this, your policemen routine runs up the debt, and destroys national morale. This is how empires fall- from the inside. When did America go from the protector of freedom in this country to the invading army of soverign countries?

You are a fool if you think we can police the world.[/quote]

I don’t like being the world’s police, but it’s a job that needs to be done and nobody but America and the UK seem to be willing to do anything. The freakin’ UN is supposed to be the world’s police. What a piece of crap that organization is. I wish the US would pull out of that kangaroo court.

<<You can’t launch wars on countries just because you don’t agree with how they are run. >>

If they threaten us, why not? France and Germany could care less if we get attacked, so why should we wait for international permission to take care of our enemies? I’d like this nation to get back to the old Teddy Roosevelt “don’t even think of screwing with the USA” attitude and start flexing some muscle. I’m sick of two-bit, piss-ant, thug dictators pushing the world around. When Islamic pirates captured a US Navy ship in Tripoli in the late 1800’s and held it’s crew as prisoners, the US didn’t back down and try to negotiate…it sent in the Marines who marched 1000 miles across the N.African desert and captured Tripoli (Lybia), rescued the sailors and raised the Stars and Stripes over the city as a symbol of occupation. I’m so tired of pussy politicians and liberal hippies who want to just put two fingers in the air and say “peace, man” and hope the extremist will go away. Iraq wants peace and they want America there to help get rid of the “insurgents”.

I have a theory that the USA could be invaded by the freakin Soviets, or Cubans, or whoever and some group of pacifist idiots would be completely against defending this nation with force.

158

[quote]PGJ wrote:
I have a theory that the USA could be invaded by the freakin Soviets, or Cubans, or whoever and some group of pacifist idiots would be completely against defending this nation with force.
[/quote]

This is no theory. This is practice. Look at the gun control and self defense laws in America. 50 years ago, if you broke into my house, I could shoot you without a second thought. You violently entered my home, I was allowed to respond with violence. Now if you break into my home, and I shoot you, I become a murderer. If a burglar falls and breaks his arm robbing my house, he can sue me. If someone is beating your friend/wife/whatever and you react with violence, you can be charged criminally.

HH, I have done my research about that and every society throughout history that has had an excess of males has started some tremendous issues for the world. I think the difference in male to female was male up 20%. That is one in five men, in a pretty strict culture who will never be married. Those who are, the women can always trade up, because with a 20% surplus they will not run out of choices in a mate. This will lead to a lot of extra testosterone, anger, and has all the beginnings to something bigger than this world has seen thus far.

159

[quote]PGJ wrote:
You obviously have never been in a position of leadership. Sometime you have to make tough decisions. Sometimes those decisions make you very unpopular, but you still have to make them. Leadership is not a popularity contest. It is physically impossible to make everyone happy, and some people will never be happy no matter what.
[/quote]

This is 100% correct. When you are in the leadership role, you duty is to complete the task to the best of your ability. It is not to be popular, or achieve benefits for yourself, or to even look for your next job. It is to accomplish the task for which you have been given the leadership role to the best of your ability. When you are the one in charge, things assume a totally different light.

160

[quote]Dr. Stig wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
vroom wrote:
Without the American Fighting Man (or woman), Europe would be Germany.

How long, do you figure, should Europe worship at your feet for WWII?

Forever and ever!

It fact – Canada should worship us as well.

There needs to be a time limit. Perhaps when all the veterans and all the people that remember the soldiers fighting in their land have died?

When?

Anyone young enough to be fighting online here is too young to have been in Europe fighting in WWII. It’s not your bravery or heroism that saved the day, I think your bragging rights are expiring.

It’s time to move forward… instead of focusing on how great the US was, howabout you focus on how it sets higher standards and upholds higher principles that the rest of the world would do well to emulate.

Oh, yeah, we’ll have to wait for a different administration.

However, the troops themselves, those in Iraq or Afghanistan, those men I’m happy to heap praise on. They actually deserve it… but don’t think you can magically take credit for past actions indefinitely because of them.

I dunno if someone else has said this, but mate you are a fucking grade 1 nobcheese. I bet you ain’t even religous, you are just trying jack everyone off. Someone should ban you, you aren’t even amusing.[/quote]

Is that how someone greets people in Belgium. Oh, how very nice you are!

And smart too – in fact you seem to know all about me, when you don’t know me at all.

I happen to be a born-again Christian that loves MY COUNTRY very much and I am very proud to be an American.

I am also proud of our troops that have gone overseas to protect my way of life here.

I am also proud of our storied history - [b] which includes America – the U.S.A. saving your sorry behinds from the Nazis during WWII. Too bad that people like you seem to forget that.

By the way – here in America we don’t “ban” people when the make statements that we don’t like.

That called “freedom,” mate! Get used to it…

161

[quote]PGJ wrote:

No, No we won’t get around to it. You can’t launch wars on countries just because you don’t agree with how they are run. When you do, they all come back after you.

Besides this, your policemen routine runs up the debt, and destroys national morale. This is how empires fall- from the inside. When did America go from the protector of freedom in this country to the invading army of soverign countries?

You are a fool if you think we can police the world.

I don’t like being the world’s police, but it’s a job that needs to be done and nobody but America and the UK seem to be willing to do anything. The freakin’ UN is supposed to be the world’s police. What a piece of crap that organization is. I wish the US would pull out of that kangaroo court.

<<You can’t launch wars on countries just because you don’t agree with how they are run. >>

If they threaten us, why not? France and Germany could care less if we get attacked, so why should we wait for international permission to take care of our enemies? I’d like this nation to get back to the old Teddy Roosevelt “don’t even think of screwing with the USA” attitude and start flexing some muscle. I’m sick of two-bit, piss-ant, thug dictators pushing the world around. When Islamic pirates captured a US Navy ship in Tripoli in the late 1800’s and held it’s crew as prisoners, the US didn’t back down and try to negotiate…it sent in the Marines who marched 1000 miles across the N.African desert and captured Tripoli (Lybia), rescued the sailors and raised the Stars and Stripes over the city as a symbol of occupation. I’m so tired of pussy politicians and liberal hippies who want to just put two fingers in the air and say “peace, man” and hope the extremist will go away. Iraq wants peace and they want America there to help get rid of the “insurgents”.

I have a theory that the USA could be invaded by the freakin Soviets, or Cubans, or whoever and some group of pacifist idiots would be completely against defending this nation with force.

[/quote]

Yeah, I’m so sick of piss-ant thugs pushing the world around, too.

Thank god in two years, at least one will be out of office.