Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Mr Big on May 29, 2006, 04:30:29 PM
-
I think we can all agree that military might and the will power to use it are the main reasons this country, and many others have remained free and prosperous.
It might be ugly, but the fact is that the world is governed by force and/or the threat of force. Always has been, and always will be.
The US needs to keep a strong military and also needs to use it with full force in situations like Iraq. I'm pissed that we have not been taking the Iraq war seriously.
When we take on a job like Iraq, we need to do it right and make a good example. All we have done in Iraq is made people think we are weak.
War is war. Either you go in to win at any cost with overwelming force, or you shouldn't go in at all.
I don't care about WMD, we needed to get Iraq settled down. I'm just pissed that we didn't knock them into tomorrow with overwelming force.
Instead we are just playing games and hoping for the best, and that sucks!
The US has the most powerful, capable military that the world has ever seen, yet we are screwing around with stupid Iraq. It's made us look like a soft pile of horse-chit once again, ala Vietnam.
Oh well, thought I'd rant.
-
Well absolutly not related but :)
http://www.checksix-forums.com/showthread.php?t=124800&page=3&pp=10
-
Nuke,
Assuming this is not just a troll, and that is a HUGE assumption on my part, exactly how do you intend to prosecute the war??
IIRC organized resistance by the nations armend forces did collapse. How are you going to end those infiltrating into the country and continuing the combat?
Please enlighten me.
-
Mr Big wrote
War is war. Either you go in to win at any cost with overwelming force, or you shouldn't go in at all.
And therein lies the problem.
Rumsfeld over-ruled the professionals at every stage. He negotiated an agreement to deploy half as many boots as they requested, and then only delivered half of that.
The executive administration lied to congress, lied to the people and even lied to the pentagon. To make it worse, they stacked the pentagon with civilian staff like Richard Perle, Doug Feith and Paul Wolfowitz, who probably even lie to themselves.
War is war. Either you go in to win at any cost with overwelming force, or you shouldn't go in at all.
I'm amazed that they still get volunteers. But then since they've handled the economy as poorly as they did everything else, it's not a big surprise that young people don't have any other choices.
Oh, and Iraq isn't the only place they've screwed the pooch. Afghanistan is falling apart too. The Taliban have retaken almost half of the country, and the capital is slipping into anarchy.
Since Iraq and Afghanistan would likely be the jumping off points for any action in Iran, chaos at the rear doesn't do much for the credibility of our force projection.
http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/ap/2006/05/29/ap2779186.html
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Nuke,
Assuming this is not just a troll, and that is a HUGE assumption on my part, exactly how do you intend to prosecute the war??
IIRC organized resistance by the nations armend forces did collapse. How are you going to end those infiltrating into the country and continuing the combat?
Please enlighten me.
From the very beginging we should have brought more manpower in order to ensure that we could occupy Iraq, not just defeat it's worthless military.
Those infiltrating the country could have been delt with had we truely taken the scope of this war into consideration. We should have prepaired for WWIII, not gulf war II.
Iran should have been a consideration from the beginning. We need to do whatever it takes to win in an overwelming fashion, but we are not. We are playing games and looking like idiots.
Iran is now emboldened because of it all.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Well absolutly not related but :)
http://www.checksix-forums.com/showthread.php?t=124800&page=3&pp=10
Well, Im a stupid American, so I can't read French.....but those models are AWESOME!
-
I thought you would appreciate the work :)
the same guy made a thread about the F18 you can see : http://www.checksix-forums.com/showthread.php?t=96252&page=1&pp=10
It's 64 pages long but you can see his technique
check pages 9,13,14
-
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. :rolleyes:
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.
-
from your linked article Beet1e:
"We have found that the main reason for troops going Awol is for domestic reasons rather than our operational commitments overseas," said an MoD spokesman. "A vast majority of the absentees return to their unit after a few weeks away and are usually disciplined with a fine or other minor punishment. "
-
HMcG - that comment refers to the British deserters, not the American deserters.
Of the whole situation, the article also comments thus - Ben Griffin, an SAS trooper who left the Army after witnessing "illegal acts" by American troops, said: "I can't speak for others, but there's a lot of dissent in the Army about the legality of the war and concerns that they're spending too much time there." Hundreds of US servicemen have also deserted.
The MoD does not record reasons for people absconding. But one reason is thought to concern troops faced with a second or third tour to Iraq and under pressure families fearing for their safety.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
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.
No Chit?
Christ, you are a dim soul @ times.
Nobody thinks that these men and women are non-human robots.
America made was right to go into Iraq. The planning was idiotic.
-
Don't confuse war with occupation. I sincerely doubt that any number of troops could un**** the mess that Rumsfeld has made.
-
Originally posted by AlGorithm
I'm amazed that they still get volunteers. But then since they've handled the economy as poorly as they did everything else, it's not a big surprise that young people don't have any other choices.
Data show US economy in good health (http://www.kuwaittimes.net/Navariednews.asp?dismode=article&artid=619155174)
The US economy grew at a blistering 5.3% in the first three month of the year, the fastest rate in two-and-a-half years and up from initial estimate of 4.8%. Economists had been expecting an upward revision to growth in the first quarter following an unexpected narrowing of the America's trade deficit. Forecasts came as high as 6%, but the final number was slightly lower at 5.3%. Corporate profits had climbed by 23.8% compared to last year, a fact that we have been witnessing since the end of the first quarter, with record earnings across the board....
....On the housing market, we have seen a drop by 6.0% in mortgage applications compared to a prior increase by 4.6%; while new and existing home sales came slightly higher than expected with readings at 1.198 million 6.76 million, respectively.
Durable goods orders came out low with a considerable drop of 4.8%, versus an expected 0.5% and a previous rise of 6.6%.
Initial jobless claims for last week came out higher than expected, but dropped by 40,000 compared to the prior reading, with 329,000 applications. The personal income index came out slightly lower than the expected 0.7% with a reading of 0.5%, while personal spending came in line with expectation at 0.6%.
The core price consumption expenditure (PCE) also came in line with expectation for the month of April with a reading at 0.2%, lower by 0.1% than last month's number. The annual reading was also in line with expectation at 2.1%, and higher by 0.1% for the first time for six months.
Finally, the University of Michigan Confidence for the month of May was constant with a reading of 79.0.
Liquidity contraction feeds bloodbath (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/HE27Dj01.html)
Since the fourth quarter of 2003, real quarterly GDP growth in the US has been between 3.6% and 4.7%, measured by comparing quarterly GDP to the same quarter the previous year. Only in the fourth quarter of 2005, following the devastating hurricanes along the US gulf coast, did quarterly GDP growth dip toward 3%. Quarterly GDP growth reaccelerated in the first quarter of 2006 to 3.6% compared to the same quarter in 2005.
This prolonged period of above-trend economic growth, coupled with relentlessly rising energy prices will feed higher core inflation in the US.
Apparently, the US economy has had too long a period of "above-trend economic growth".
That must be what you mean by "handled the economy as poorly as they did everything else."
Lastly, Better than Clinton? (http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/carter200402260852.asp)
Compared with the "exceptional" years of 1993, 1994, and 1995, the first three years of George W. Bush's presidency featured:
lower inflation
lower unemployment
faster productivity growth
faster labor compensation growth (i.e., wages and benefits)
29.4 percent ($6.9 trillion) more economic output
45 percent ($960 billion) more exports; and
an economic growth rate 81.2 percent as fast as that under Clinton
....Considering the circumstances under which the U.S. economy has labored for the past few years, President Bush's record is all the more impressive. When George W. Bush moved into the White House, the economy was on the verge of recession. The largest stock market bubble in U.S. history had recently burst, exports were declining, manufacturing employment had been falling for half a year, and people were finding it harder and harder to find work. And that was before 9/11, the war on terror, and the revelations of the corporate-governance scandals that grew out of the late 1990s.
(http://www.nationalreview.com/images/chart_carter2-25.gif)
:)
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Don't confuse war with occupation. I sincerely doubt that any number of troops could un**** the mess that Rumsfeld has made.
Nice try.
The war was not his call. He advised. He gave watermelon advice, but it wasn't his call.
And if we had taken care of business with a full force, we could have occupied Iraq with a lot less problems.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Data show US economy in good health (http://www.kuwaittimes.net/Navariednews.asp?dismode=article&artid=619155174)
Liquidity contraction feeds bloodbath (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/HE27Dj01.html)
Apparently, the US economy has had too long a period of "above-trend economic growth".
That must be what you mean by "handled the economy as poorly as they did everything else."
Lastly, Better than Clinton? (http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/carter200402260852.asp)
(http://www.nationalreview.com/images/chart_carter2-25.gif)
:)
Remember when Bush was running for President and warning that we were heading into a recession? The press lambasted him for "talking down" the economy.
Now that the Bush economy has been kicking arse it's these same moronic Bush critics that want to "talk down the economy"
Liberals are mostly complete morons.
-
Not talking about the war. That was over three weeks after it started.
I'm talking about the occupation.
-
There was never a plan for occupation.
-
Originally posted by Mr Big
There was never a plan for occupation.
Throwing more troops at that particular problem isn't a solution. ;)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :rolleyes:
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?
-
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.
-
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 (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/a/desertionrates.htm)
-
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?
-
Just a point of clarification here. Do not confuse desertion with a case of AWOL. They are not the same offense.
-
See Rule #5