Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Downed Chinook Helicopter
Topic Started: Nov 3 2003, 07:10 PM (502 Views)
jjtrek
Lieutenant Commander
Quote:
 
almost ened up going, to Bagdad but flat feet kept me out.


Uh, Gabe, you can't be kept out of the military with flat feet. The last war that happened in was WWII. Since then it was discovered that flat feet are NOT a disability and don't keep you from being drafted.

Julia
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
ANOVA
Nov 4 2003, 12:52 PM
Quote:
 
My recommendation? Steamroll over Fallujah. Maybe it is time to level one of their cities, like that one. Round up the men and teen boys, evacuate the females, and completely obliterate the town. Leave no two bricks connected, burn everything. Erase it from the next series of maps.


From the "Let us win your hearts and mind or I'll burn your f*****g huts down" school of diplomacy.

Not quite...

I'm tired of our inability to get more done because we tiptoe around everything.

Maybe I should have elaborated by saying, "Round up the men and boys for questioning..."

Sorry, I thought that was implicit.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
polarslam
Nov 4 2003, 12:18 PM
But the whole reason America invaded Iraq was to save the Iraqi people from a murderous tyrant, so I fail to see how trying to outdo Saddam at genocide is going to help the situation unless your just trying to prove to the Iraqi people that they just have new murderous tyrnats in charge of them now.

I said nothing about killing or genocide. I DID say that we should level Fallujah. Please read the entire post, Mister Knee-jerk Reactionary.

By the way, what is wrong with being idealistic? Or is that too close to being moralistic for those on the left?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
24thcenstfan
Member Avatar
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
desainte
Nov 3 2003, 07:10 PM
Where do these fools come from, and why, as a tax payer, am I expected to hand over so much of my salary each month so these vermin can camp outside Parliament?


Well the alternative is exactly what our troops in Iraq, Afghanistan and in a dozen other countries (past 50 years) have been fighting to eradicate… despotism and corrupt theocracies that impose strict life threatening rules/laws/cultural norms on their populations to prevent free speech and protest.

And really, how much of your salary is actually going towards paying for the one or two policemen patrolling the protest area? If the protest was in front of your Parliament, then most likely there are already regular patrols of Parliament (around the clock). If AU is like the US, they will have a special Parliamentary Police (we have the Capitol Police) and their only purpose is to protect the Parliament/Capitol grounds, the buildings and the politicians. You as the taxpayer have to pay for their presence regardless of who is or isn’t protesting in front of Parliament.

Quote:
 
he was cheering the fact that the US military Chinook Helicopter had been shot down in Iraq and actually had the balls to be stopping passers-by with the news.


As distasteful as I find one human being celebrating the death of another, it is certainly their right to express that sentiment in the form of protest. And as saddened as I am of the death of the men and I believe one woman on the Chinook Helicopter, they lost their lives fighting for that very right to freedom of speech.

IMHO, to deny these people the right to protest is an insult to the memories of all that have died in the service of our respective nations. Even if the protestors are nut jobs and choose to wrongfully celebrate the death of those same people. Because for every nut job who wants to protest on a distasteful topic there are probably a 100 other protestors that have more positive legitimate gripes. The system has to protect them all. Otherwise, we are all nothing more than hypocrites.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
jjtrek
Nov 4 2003, 03:40 PM
Quote:
 
almost ened up going, to Bagdad but flat feet kept me out.


Uh, Gabe, you can't be kept out of the military with flat feet. The last war that happened in was WWII. Since then it was discovered that flat feet are NOT a disability and don't keep you from being drafted.

Julia

I'm not so sure about that. During my last physical, I had my feet checked to see if they were flat. Luckily they weren't but I wonder what happens to individuals who have no arch in their dogs.

Remember, the military is one of the fastest groups to change in technology but one of the slowest to change in policy. We are a beaurocracy and have enough red tape to barricade all the buildings in Iraq thick enough to withstand a nuclear strike.

On the topic at hand, when you get stressed by these individuals who speak for the deaths of soldiers and our failure in Iraq, you play right into their plan. They of course have the right to spew out this garbage, no matter how offensive it is. On the other hand, you are under no obligation to pay attention to them. People like this thrive on attention. Being ignored is the best way to irritate them.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
Don't they just classify beaurocracy as tradition in the Army? :lol:

Seriously, the military is about the only thing that our government does well. ;)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
That is because the government is topheavy, the military for the most part isn't. The federal government will allways stick its knows in affairs that would be more efficiently handled by the states. Any Platoon Leader worth his bars knows that you let the Platoon Sergeant handle the enlisted men. If you micromanage, expect to be bucked by your subordinates. The whole concept of a strict chain of command enables the Army to run smoothly, but slowly. This is because each act must be passed up and down each rung of the command ladder. Still, the slowness is practically nonexistant in combat and only really rears its ugly head when the Army stops moving.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ANOVA
Vice Admiral
Quote:
 
Maybe I should have elaborated by saying, "Round up the men and boys for questioning..."

Sorry, I thought that was implicit.


Not the way I was reading it. Maybe taking them out in the desert so that other groups thought we had pulled a Sadam would be benefical at this junture.

I think everyone is tired of asymetrical warfare with groups that don't subscribe to the rulse of land warfare.

Maybe the Geneva convention should be modified to exempt groups who violate it.

ANOVA
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Interesting idea, A!

I think that would put the fear of God (or Allah) in 'em!




Oh, jumping two steps back to the flat feet thing... wouldn't flat feet be a detriment to units that do a lot of marching and/or running? It wouldn't be a problem in the air force or navy, but army and marine units (infantry units) would be different circumstances. Oh well, I don't make the rules (nor do I enforce them any more) :)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
polarslam
Member Avatar
Lieutenant Junior Grade
Admiralbill_gomec
Nov 4 2003, 03:48 PM


By the way, what is wrong with being idealistic? Or is that too close to being moralistic for those on the left?

You can be as idealistic as want in foregin realtions (I guess your a member of the Jimym Carter school of interantional politcs), I on the other hand think that it was pretty dumb to go around thinking occupying a middle eastern nation would be all peachs and creame and anyone in the adminstration that thought that way were either stupid or deluded.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
polarslam
Nov 12 2003, 11:25 PM
anyone in the adminstration that thought that way were either stupid or deluded.

Again I ask you who in the administration said this action would be peaches and cream?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
polarslam
Member Avatar
Lieutenant Junior Grade
Dandandat
Nov 12 2003, 10:41 PM
polarslam
Nov 12 2003, 11:25 PM
anyone in the adminstration that thought that way were either stupid or deluded.

Again I ask you who in the administration said this action would be peaches and cream?

And again I'll direct you further up to wear I pointed out the pre-war Assistent Defense secertary Paul Wolfiwitz made dozens of media apperance talking about how America would be greeted as libartors and an irqai democracy would be built within two years. And again I'll say that this was not a consensus view as people much smarter than Wolfitiwitz in te C.I.A wrote detalied reports outlining just how difficult it would be, plus to his credit Rusmfeild last week admitted tihngs are going to be "hard slog" in that leaked memo.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
polarslam
Nov 12 2003, 10:25 PM
Admiralbill_gomec
Nov 4 2003, 03:48 PM


By the way, what is wrong with being idealistic? Or is that too close to being moralistic for those on the left?

You can be as idealistic as want in foregin realtions (I guess your a member of the Jimym Carter school of interantional politcs), I on the other hand think that it was pretty dumb to go around thinking occupying a middle eastern nation would be all peachs and creame and anyone in the adminstration that thought that way were either stupid or deluded.

But at least they could spell.

You never answered my question: WHAT IS WRONG WITH BEING IDEALISTIC?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
polarslam
Member Avatar
Lieutenant Junior Grade
Admiralbill_gomec
Nov 12 2003, 10:47 PM


You never answered my question: WHAT IS WRONG WITH BEING IDEALISTIC?

Well nothing really, as long as you also balance that idealism with a focus on reality.

So I take you are a fan of Jimmy Carter and his idealistic foregin policy, or maybe Wilson is your hero? I never would have taken you for such a naive liberal view of foreign policy.

I on the other hand take a more Realpolitik visoin of international politcs like Nixion and think that those that were idealistic in thinking Iraq would welcome the occupation of their country with flowers and smiles were just plain dumb and should spend time reading history books and learning about the Middle East. At least to their credit now, the are now heeding the C.I.A's advice and relaizing that the occupation of Iraq is going to cost hundreds of billions and no doubt take decades and cost thosands of American lives. Ideally this would have been outlined earlier, because those that thought otherwise were stupid.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
polarslam
Nov 12 2003, 11:46 PM
And again I'll direct you further up to wear I pointed out the pre-war Assistent Defense secertary Paul Wolfiwitz made dozens of media apperance talking about how America would be greeted as libartors.

where they not? even if some Iraqis want America to leave, they do see themselves as being liberated form under Sadoms rule.


Quote:
 
and an Iraqi democracy would be built within two years.
- how is this saying the whole job will be done in two years? We might very well see the beginnings of democracy biult in two years, even if the whole rebuild is not finished. Also they had planned to turn over power to an interim government sooner, yet changed their mind after the comment was made. "Saying that a democracy would be built with in two years" is not saying "our job will be done in two years"

Quote:
 
And again I'll say that this was not a consensus view as people much smarter than Wolfitiwitz in te C.I.A wrote detalied reports outlining just how difficult it would be,  plus to his credit Rusmfeild last week admitted tihngs are going to be "hard slog" in that leaked memo
well there you go one persons opinion on how things are going to turn out is no reason to make comment that make it sound as if it was a large part of the administration that thought this action would be peaches and cream.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus