Author Topic: Liberals and Conservatives...unite! (Read 494 times)

Sandman · « **Reply #15 on:** May 29, 2006, 06:06:41 PM »

Not talking about the war. That was over three weeks after it started.

I'm talking about the occupation.

Mr Big · « **Reply #16 on:** May 29, 2006, 06:10:06 PM »

There was never a plan for occupation.

Sandman · « **Reply #17 on:** May 29, 2006, 06:12:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mr Big
There was never a plan for occupation.

Throwing more troops at that particular problem isn't a solution.

Mr Big · « **Reply #18 on:** May 29, 2006, 06:17:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
Throwing more troops at that particular problem isn't a solution.

Sure it is.

We put 500k troops there, plus attack supplies from and in Iran, and we have a different game.

Maverick · « **Reply #19 on:** May 29, 2006, 06:29:14 PM »

Nuke,

You have tossed out a term, occupation, but not a strategy for how this should have been done. Please explain how the "occupation" would have changed it. Perhaps you should also explain exactly in tactical terms what the hell you mean by occupation and force and how this would not have resulted in the situation we have now.

Dago · « **Reply #20 on:** May 29, 2006, 06:31:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by beet1e
I read today that military desertions have tripled since Iraq. Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/05/29/nawol29.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/05/29/ixuknews.html According to this report, hundreds of American servicemen have deserted. I wonder why that is.

Thing is, Mr. Big, that the servicemen that are sent in to prosecute the war are not simply expendable robots, but are living, breathing people. For this reason, the ends need to justify the means.

Funny, I just read that desertions in the British military are actually down slightly from peacetime. But that wouldnt fit someones agenda for posting now would it?

uvwpvW · « **Reply #21 on:** May 29, 2006, 06:33:38 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mr Big
Sure it is.

We put 500k troops there, plus attack supplies from and in Iran, and we have a different game.

Yes. A much bigger war spanning even more countries.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #22 on:** May 29, 2006, 06:38:22 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by beet1e
HMcG - that comment refers to the British deserters, not the American deserters.

Of the whole situation, the article also comments thus -

Here you go Beet1e...

Army only:

year Number No/1000

1997 2,218 4.58
1998 2,520 5.20
1999 2,966 6.13
2000 3,949 8.16
2001 4,597 9.50
2002 4,483 9.26
2003 3,678 7.60
2004 2,376 4.91

Looks like war is good for morale.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/a/desertionrates.htm

Mr Big · « **Reply #23 on:** May 29, 2006, 06:45:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Maverick
Nuke,

You have tossed out a term, occupation, but not a strategy for how this should have been done. Please explain how the "occupation" would have changed it. Perhaps you should also explain exactly in tactical terms what the hell you mean by occupation and force and how this would not have resulted in the situation we have now.

Hey Mav, we are occuping Iraq, or do you think we are not?

Maverick · « **Reply #24 on:** May 29, 2006, 06:46:10 PM »

Just a point of clarification here. Do not confuse desertion with a case of AWOL. They are not the same offense.

AlGorithm · « **Reply #25 on:** May 29, 2006, 10:22:40 PM »

See Rule #5