Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

Go Back   Dallas-Mavs.com Forums > Everything Else > Political Arena

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-10-2007, 06:27 PM   #1
Janett_Reno
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,150
Janett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to all
Default Bush War Adviser Supports Considering a Military Draft

Bush War Adviser Supports Considering a Military Draft

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292949,00.html

Frequent tours for U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan have stressed the all-volunteer force and made it worth considering a return to a military draft, President Bush's new war adviser said Friday.

"I think it makes sense to certainly consider it," Army Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute said in an interview with National Public Radio's "All Things Considered."

"And I can tell you, this has always been an option on the table. But ultimately, this is a policy matter between meeting the demands for the nation's security by one means or another," Lute added in his first interview since he was confirmed by the Senate in June.

President Nixon abolished the draft in 1973. Restoring it, Lute said, would be a "major policy shift" and Bush has made it clear that he doesn't think it's necessary.

The repeated deployments affect not only the troops but their families, who can influence whether a service member decides to stay in the military, Lute said.

"There's both a personal dimension of this, where this kind of stress plays out across dinner tables and in living room conversations within these families," he said. "And ultimately, the health of the all-volunteer force is going to rest on those sorts of personal family decisions."

The military conducted a draft during the Civil War and both world wars and between 1948 and 1973. The Selective Service System, re-established in 1980, maintains a registry of 18-year-old men.

Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., has called for reinstating the draft as a way to end the Iraq war.

Bush picked Lute in mid-May as a deputy national security adviser with responsibility for ensuring efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are coordinated with policymakers in Washington. Lute, an active-duty general, was chosen after several retired generals turned down the job.
Janett_Reno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2007, 08:34 PM   #2
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

But only a democrat has actually proposed a bill for one. To score political points obviously.

For the record, I'd like to see a draft, because not nearly enough americans.

a. Get in shape.
b. Can defend themselves or the country.
c. Do a damn thing for anyone but themselves.
d. Haven't belonged to any group as tight-knit as the military.
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2007, 08:36 PM   #3
MavsWiLLHaVeRinGs
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,082
MavsWiLLHaVeRinGs has a brilliant futureMavsWiLLHaVeRinGs has a brilliant futureMavsWiLLHaVeRinGs has a brilliant futureMavsWiLLHaVeRinGs has a brilliant futureMavsWiLLHaVeRinGs has a brilliant futureMavsWiLLHaVeRinGs has a brilliant futureMavsWiLLHaVeRinGs has a brilliant futureMavsWiLLHaVeRinGs has a brilliant futureMavsWiLLHaVeRinGs has a brilliant futureMavsWiLLHaVeRinGs has a brilliant futureMavsWiLLHaVeRinGs has a brilliant future
Default

Give me a war worth fighting and I'll go. Don't draft me into this crap. I'll go to jail first.
MavsWiLLHaVeRinGs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2007, 08:42 PM   #4
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

So which one would you say was worth it?

Korean?
Iraq 1?
Grenada?
WW1, 2..
Kosovo?
'Nam?
Afghanistan?
Civil War?
Mexican-American
French-Canadian?
Comanche?, Kiowa? Texas Independence?

Just trying to get a feel for it.
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’

Last edited by dude1394; 08-10-2007 at 08:43 PM.
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2007, 11:54 AM   #5
DevinFuture
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 617
DevinFuture is a glorious beacon of lightDevinFuture is a glorious beacon of lightDevinFuture is a glorious beacon of lightDevinFuture is a glorious beacon of lightDevinFuture is a glorious beacon of lightDevinFuture is a glorious beacon of lightDevinFuture is a glorious beacon of light
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dude1394
But only a democrat has actually proposed a bill for one. To score political points obviously.

For the record, I'd like to see a draft, because not nearly enough americans.

a. Get in shape.
b. Can defend themselves or the country.
c. Do a damn thing for anyone but themselves.
d. Haven't belonged to any group as tight-knit as the military.
Can I opt out by playing for a sports team?
__________________
Harris is no stranger to the first team, having started 61 times last year. “I want that full 82,” he said.
--NBA.com, 9/12/07
DevinFuture is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2007, 07:29 PM   #6
rmacomic
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: La Porte de l'Enfer
Posts: 2,335
rmacomic has a reputation beyond reputermacomic has a reputation beyond reputermacomic has a reputation beyond reputermacomic has a reputation beyond reputermacomic has a reputation beyond reputermacomic has a reputation beyond reputermacomic has a reputation beyond reputermacomic has a reputation beyond reputermacomic has a reputation beyond reputermacomic has a reputation beyond reputermacomic has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dude1394
But only a democrat has actually proposed a bill for one. To score political points obviously.

For the record, I'd like to see a draft, because not nearly enough Americans.

a. Get in shape.
b. Can defend themselves or the country.
c. Do a damn thing for anyone but themselves.
d. Haven't belonged to any group as tight-knit as the military.
Dude 1394,
Some times I agree with you, some times I don't. Either way I usually keep my mouth shut. As you usually do your research well.
But this time I can not.
You are wishing to see Americans drafted so they can get in shape and join a group???? Is this a joke I'm missing?

I grew up in a military family, my father was in for 30 years and just recently retired a Colonel. There were many times we were worried we would never see him again, there were times when we saw him bear the heaviest burdens. [Having to remove a wedding ring from a soldiers finger (the only part they found of him after his Tomahawk went down) to give to the man's widow.] Waiting for months and years for him to come home. This is the life any military family, and don't get me wrong I am grateful to the army for the opportunities it provided my family.

But for you to even suggest a draft for the reasons you've given is deplorable, tasteless, and shows you haven't the first clue about military life.

You are the worst kind of war-hawk. One who is willing to sacrifice others without risking anything yourself.

You disgust me!!!

p.s. This is not a knee jerk reaction. I debated this post for a long time before sending it.
__________________
rmacomic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2007, 10:27 PM   #7
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rmacomic
Dude 1394,
Some times I agree with you, some times I don't. Either way I usually keep my mouth shut. As you usually do your research well.
But this time I can not.
You are wishing to see Americans drafted so they can get in shape and join a group???? Is this a joke I'm missing?

I grew up in a military family, my father was in for 30 years and just recently retired a Colonel. There were many times we were worried we would never see him again, there were times when we saw him bear the heaviest burdens. [Having to remove a wedding ring from a soldiers finger (the only part they found of him after his Tomahawk went down) to give to the man's widow.] Waiting for months and years for him to come home. This is the life any military family, and don't get me wrong I am grateful to the army for the opportunities it provided my family.

But for you to even suggest a draft for the reasons you've given is deplorable, tasteless, and shows you haven't the first clue about military life.

You are the worst kind of war-hawk. One who is willing to sacrifice others without risking anything yourself.

You disgust me!!!

p.s. This is not a knee jerk reaction. I debated this post for a long time before sending it.
Your opinion and I'll take it as given. You can be disgusted if you want. Too bad.

I don't quite understand why you say something about not willing to risk something, etc. I volunteered for the military when I was 18 and got turned down for a silly reason to be honest. Probably because they had a draft actually. I have family that has served in Iraq, multiple tours.

Sorry about your "disgust", but I don't really give a shit about it.

My point in the posting was that I feel that EVERY PERSON should serve the country. The lack of a draft in this country, IMO weakens this country. We'll have multiple generations that won't have done a damn thing to support this country, risking nothing, all the while calling those who do , stupid people who only go because they can't get a better job.

Those were some of the reasons and I still think they are valid, no matter your "disgust".

I'm not quite sure where the vitriol came from to be honest. You could think it "stupid" etc. but disgusting makes me think that's it's yourself that has the issues on this.

Again tough shit.

It is funny that you only posted the first free-thought and not the others. I could easily add one.

e. Be willing to serve your country when called.

There are lots of good reasons imo for a draft, more than my free-flow came with.
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’

Last edited by dude1394; 08-12-2007 at 10:29 PM.
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2007, 09:44 PM   #8
Kirobaito
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 2,012
Kirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dude1394
But only a democrat has actually proposed a bill for one. To score political points obviously.

For the record, I'd like to see a draft, because not nearly enough americans.

a. Get in shape.
b. Can defend themselves or the country.
c. Do a damn thing for anyone but themselves.
d. Haven't belonged to any group as tight-knit as the military.
As a person of drafting age, I absolutely abhor that you would say anything like that. You don't have the slightest clue.
Kirobaito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2007, 07:36 PM   #9
Flacolaco
Rooting for the laundry
 
Flacolaco's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 21,342
Flacolaco has a reputation beyond reputeFlacolaco has a reputation beyond reputeFlacolaco has a reputation beyond reputeFlacolaco has a reputation beyond reputeFlacolaco has a reputation beyond reputeFlacolaco has a reputation beyond reputeFlacolaco has a reputation beyond reputeFlacolaco has a reputation beyond reputeFlacolaco has a reputation beyond reputeFlacolaco has a reputation beyond reputeFlacolaco has a reputation beyond repute
Default

I love how the article is titled "Bush advisor supports draft" and not "Bush opposes draft"

"Bush War advisor" just gives the connotation to Bush, and not the advisor himself. Why not just use the advisors name, instead of using Bush's name. The article isn't about Bush.
__________________
Flacolaco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2007, 12:09 AM   #10
rmacomic
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: La Porte de l'Enfer
Posts: 2,335
rmacomic has a reputation beyond reputermacomic has a reputation beyond reputermacomic has a reputation beyond reputermacomic has a reputation beyond reputermacomic has a reputation beyond reputermacomic has a reputation beyond reputermacomic has a reputation beyond reputermacomic has a reputation beyond reputermacomic has a reputation beyond reputermacomic has a reputation beyond reputermacomic has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Dude
You haven't the first clue. To be willing to serve when called is one thing, but that is not what you said. If you think that you're going to back track now good luck. I have always respected your opinion because it was well researched, but you have obviously never had any life experience with the military, if you had you would never wish the draft on anyone.
And your idea for a mandatory service smacks of communism. Way to show your true colors, Comrade.
__________________
rmacomic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2007, 12:17 AM   #11
Kirobaito
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 2,012
Kirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rmacomic
Dude
You haven't the first clue. To be willing to serve when called is one thing, but that is not what you said. If you think that you're going to back track now good luck. I have always respected your opinion because it was well researched, but you have obviously never had any life experience with the military, if you had you would never wish the draft on anyone.
And your idea for a mandatory service smacks of communism. Way to show your true colors, Comrade.
That's funny, because I was thinking it sounded much more fascist. I think definitions strictly speaking, it is more fascist, because communism in its strictest and most theoretical sense has no national unity that compulsory military service would involve.
Kirobaito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2007, 12:30 AM   #12
rmacomic
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: La Porte de l'Enfer
Posts: 2,335
rmacomic has a reputation beyond reputermacomic has a reputation beyond reputermacomic has a reputation beyond reputermacomic has a reputation beyond reputermacomic has a reputation beyond reputermacomic has a reputation beyond reputermacomic has a reputation beyond reputermacomic has a reputation beyond reputermacomic has a reputation beyond reputermacomic has a reputation beyond reputermacomic has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirobaito
That's funny, because I was thinking it sounded much more fascist. I think definitions strictly speaking, it is more fascist, because communism in its strictest and most theoretical sense has no national unity that compulsory military service would involve.
Semantics
__________________
rmacomic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2007, 03:37 AM   #13
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rmacomic
Dude
You haven't the first clue. To be willing to serve when called is one thing, but that is not what you said. If you think that you're going to back track now good luck. I have always respected your opinion because it was well researched, but you have obviously never had any life experience with the military, if you had you would never wish the draft on anyone.
And your idea for a mandatory service smacks of communism. Way to show your true colors, Comrade.
Guess then that there will continue to be less and less of our well-heeled class in this country who will never have that experience either.

And fyi, I'm not trying to backtrack a bit. I was trying to elaborate on reasons why I felt military service a good thing for citizens to do in general and being willing to do in particular. As some posters have shown, I don't think they'd be signing up anytime soon.

Having a country where only ~90% servce in the military imo is not a positive long-term trend. You would call a draft communism, railing against it smacks of elitism to me.

Military service is good enough for those guys but not for me, is that how it goes?
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2007, 01:11 AM   #14
chumdawg
Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Cowboys Country
Posts: 23,336
chumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond repute
Default

What a joke. A draft will never fly because there is no imminent threat. We have the wherewithal to obliterate any of our enemies if we choose to, so why should we sacrifice young American men who don't want to be part of the conflict?
chumdawg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2007, 01:18 AM   #15
Kirobaito
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 2,012
Kirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chumdawg
What a joke. A draft will never fly because there is no imminent threat. We have the wherewithal to obliterate any of our enemies if we choose to, so why should we sacrifice young American men who don't want to be part of the conflict?
Didn't you hear? So they can get toned for the summer!
Kirobaito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2007, 03:36 AM   #16
rmacomic
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: La Porte de l'Enfer
Posts: 2,335
rmacomic has a reputation beyond reputermacomic has a reputation beyond reputermacomic has a reputation beyond reputermacomic has a reputation beyond reputermacomic has a reputation beyond reputermacomic has a reputation beyond reputermacomic has a reputation beyond reputermacomic has a reputation beyond reputermacomic has a reputation beyond reputermacomic has a reputation beyond reputermacomic has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirobaito
Didn't you hear? So they can get toned for the summer!
Perfect. Close thread!!!
__________________
rmacomic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2007, 05:07 AM   #17
rmacomic
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: La Porte de l'Enfer
Posts: 2,335
rmacomic has a reputation beyond reputermacomic has a reputation beyond reputermacomic has a reputation beyond reputermacomic has a reputation beyond reputermacomic has a reputation beyond reputermacomic has a reputation beyond reputermacomic has a reputation beyond reputermacomic has a reputation beyond reputermacomic has a reputation beyond reputermacomic has a reputation beyond reputermacomic has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Dude.
What were your "silly little" reasons for not serving?
In Vietnam?
I'm not Knocking your patriotism, my man, just your reasoning for Americas youth to die.

Let me put this to ya.
My best friend, Marco the Fish (his real name is Marc Williams http://www.myspace.com/marcothefish) is serving his second sentence in Iraq. And I mean sentence. He is going back over a dispute about his politics. And this is something most of the public doesn't know. If you voted against Bush and you serve, you get to go back in the "surge."

I trust the opinion of my father far more than yours and he is disgusted by the way the common soldier is being treated. If you have kids you don't go back, if you are an active republican you don't go back. If you have a Kerry/Edwards sticker on your car you ARE DEFINITELY going back. This is no longer a war, more a punishment for military who don't agree with the current administration.

Maybe you don't know, but the guys going back are the ones who have been vocal against the war. In the last year I have done over a dozen USO/Military base gigs, and the general consensus is that there are two camps in the Military right now. The guys who support the war (and aren't going over) and the guys who don't (and are going back for their second and third tour)

And for your elitism argument . My Grand Father served in the Battle of the Bulge, My father served for 30 years, are you saying that when they didn't want me to serve they were being elitists? I see it as they felt the family served enough.

For someone who doesn't have a personal perspective you sure seem to to have an opinion.

And forget your new arguments, my beef with you is the war hawk attitude of your first post.

And if it was free form, why did you edit it?
__________________
rmacomic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2007, 09:00 AM   #18
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rmacomic
Dude.
What were your "silly little" reasons for not serving?
In Vietnam?
Well as I said in my second post, I tried to enlist but was not accepted. Failed the physical.
As far as Vietnam it was before my time. This was right after I believe...lesseee...I was about 18-20, so that would be say 1970ish I guess.

Quote:
I'm not Knocking your patriotism, my man, just your reasoning for Americas youth to die.
Are you advocating for no military service? Your question seems funny. You either have no army, have a volunteer army or draft people it would seem to me. Unless you are advocating disbanding the military your question makes no sense in this argument of how you create that army. If there is one, someone's in it.

Quote:
Let me put this to ya.
My best friend, Marco the Fish (his real name is Marc Williams http://www.myspace.com/marcothefish) is serving his second sentence in Iraq. And I mean sentence. He is going back over a dispute about his politics. And this is something most of the public doesn't know. If you voted against Bush and you serve, you get to go back in the "surge."
So his voting records were checked (as were all soldiers) and if you voted against bush then you go back, if not you don't. I'm sorry that sounds like hogwash. If we cannot keep a top secret wire-tapping program from the public, I don't expect this could be either.

Quote:
I trust the opinion of my father far more than yours and he is disgusted by the way the common soldier is being treated. If you have kids you don't go back, if you are an active republican you don't go back. If you have a Kerry/Edwards sticker on your car you ARE DEFINITELY going back. This is no longer a war, more a punishment for military who don't agree with the current administration.
You should listen to you fathers opinion over mine. However he sounds wrong to me, flat out wrong. Your father sounds like a great man, even great men are wrong and in this case, this sounds like a fantasy. Michael Moore and the koskids might have come up with it.

Quote:
Maybe you don't know, but the guys going back are the ones who have been vocal against the war. In the last year I have done over a dozen USO/Military base gigs, and the general consensus is that there are two camps in the Military right now. The guys who support the war (and aren't going over) and the guys who don't (and are going back for their second and third tour)
No I don't know that and nor do you. I think it great that you've done the USO shows and I know that the soldiers are really having it tough over there. But again, you'll have to give me a lot more than your opinion or the opinion of folks who are repeating what sounds like an urban myth for me to believe that.

Quote:
And for your elitism argument . My Grand Father served in the Battle of the Bulge, My father served for 30 years, are you saying that when they didn't want me to serve they were being elitists? I see it as they felt the family served enough.
They did and that's to be commended. In some respects you are making my point for me. Some desire to enlist and in general it's made up of a particular sort of person. But in this society, I believe it's in our best interests to have a cross-section (of all classes) in the military. ESPECIALLY those who will probably wind up being the elite of the society, those people in particular I think would be well-served by serving their country. Those folks are not doing that today.

Quote:
For someone who doesn't have a personal perspective you sure seem to to have an opinion.
For someone who does have a personal perspective, your opinion about stop-loss seems fanciful at best. With respect to my personal opinion the only one I have is my son-in-law who is slated to go back for his third tour in december. And he's trying to find a way out of it which I support he on. He is at the mercy of his 8 year committment.

What's your point?

Quote:
And forget your new arguments, my beef with you is the war hawk attitude of your first post.
What's a war-hawk? Nowhere in that first post was there even anything about going/not going to war. The post was about the benefits to society (and people) in serving in the armed forces.

Quote:
And if it was free form, why did you edit it?
I didn't.
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2007, 08:55 AM   #19
Flacolaco
Rooting for the laundry
 
Flacolaco's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 21,342
Flacolaco has a reputation beyond reputeFlacolaco has a reputation beyond reputeFlacolaco has a reputation beyond reputeFlacolaco has a reputation beyond reputeFlacolaco has a reputation beyond reputeFlacolaco has a reputation beyond reputeFlacolaco has a reputation beyond reputeFlacolaco has a reputation beyond reputeFlacolaco has a reputation beyond reputeFlacolaco has a reputation beyond reputeFlacolaco has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
If you have kids you don't go back, if you are an active republican you don't go back. If you have a Kerry/Edwards sticker on your car you ARE DEFINITELY going back. This is no longer a war, more a punishment for military who don't agree with the current administration.
No offense rma, but I really hope that is your fathers perception, rather than verifiable fact.
__________________
Flacolaco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2007, 09:29 AM   #20
Flacolaco
Rooting for the laundry
 
Flacolaco's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 21,342
Flacolaco has a reputation beyond reputeFlacolaco has a reputation beyond reputeFlacolaco has a reputation beyond reputeFlacolaco has a reputation beyond reputeFlacolaco has a reputation beyond reputeFlacolaco has a reputation beyond reputeFlacolaco has a reputation beyond reputeFlacolaco has a reputation beyond reputeFlacolaco has a reputation beyond reputeFlacolaco has a reputation beyond reputeFlacolaco has a reputation beyond repute
Default

A little off topic.... but speaking of the draft....

I wonder if the hipocrisy of feminists extends to this area as well. Or do they believe that females age 18-25 should have to register with the Selective Service System, the same as us boys do?
__________________
Flacolaco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2007, 10:57 AM   #21
mcsluggo
Golden Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: McLean, VA
Posts: 1,970
mcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant future
Default

I support the idea of reinstituting the draft.

I admit that i have zero practical experience in the matter (my father and uncles and grandparent's all served during various wartimes, and my mom was an "army-brat" of a careerist, but all the service had ended before my memory), but I don't think that is the only basis on which to have a valid point of view.

That said, my view is not very firm or researched, and it is quite open to be swayed by constructive arguements... but it is my current view.

I agree with Dude, I think it is dangerous to have a large portion of the country isolated from both the experience and the costs of serving in the military. There are MANY different ways to serve the country, and I'm not going to argue that a USAID worker on the ground in DR-Congo is any less worthy of respect and admiration than a soldier on the ground in DR-Congo serving in our UN mission or defending our embasies. (other I believe OTHERS might...) But the military IS crucial and it IS unique. To have it be completely voluntary serves to isolate it to a degree from the rest of our society. By self selection bias there is a danger that the people that serve in the military will become more and more insolar and like each other, and less and less like the greater society on the whole (I am not saying that this HAS happened..yet, just that it is a very real danger). Also, the reverse of this is that the portion of society that does NOT have a military connection will also become more and more isolated from what military actually means, both in terms of experience and real COSTS of serving (you know, little things like missing extremeties, death, and night terrors).

Our military is an intregal part of our society, and NEED to be both representative of it and well represented by it. Otherwise it becomes a mercenary force, and the thinking both within a mercenary force, and how to USE a mercenary force are VASTLY different than the thinking that takes place when your own sons or brothers and sisters (not to mention yourselves) are moving in and out of the equation.

the other factors Dude mentioned are, to varying degrees, anciliary benefits... but equivelent to choosing a job based on whether or not you get MLK day off-- nice to have, but neither a deal maker nor a deal breaker.
mcsluggo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2007, 11:05 AM   #22
Henry_VIII
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Waking up from a long sleep
Posts: 626
Henry_VIII is a name known to allHenry_VIII is a name known to allHenry_VIII is a name known to allHenry_VIII is a name known to allHenry_VIII is a name known to allHenry_VIII is a name known to allHenry_VIII is a name known to allHenry_VIII is a name known to allHenry_VIII is a name known to allHenry_VIII is a name known to all
Default

I see this subject as two separate issues:
General preparedness of the American fighting public.
Specific deployment in times of conflict/war.

For small scale conflicts or wars, volunteer based armies are best. The reason is simple. People who volunteer are already motivated (financially, educationally, patriotically, etc.) and tend to produce higher quality troops for a proportionally small army.
For large scale wars/invasions, having a well trained population becomes increasingly important. Obviously, if a significant percentage of the population is needed to fight then training the entire country is a monumental task to undertake at the time of war. The training must be done in advance.
One question that remains is what is small-scale and what is large-scale. I'm not sure I have a ready answer for that as it would have to take in lots of factors.
I do have concerns about the general preparedness of the country, though. Mandatory service would definitely help there, but I wouldn't want that to take the place of our volunteer army.
Henry_VIII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2007, 08:15 PM   #23
Fidel
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,283
Fidel is a splendid one to beholdFidel is a splendid one to beholdFidel is a splendid one to beholdFidel is a splendid one to beholdFidel is a splendid one to beholdFidel is a splendid one to beholdFidel is a splendid one to beholdFidel is a splendid one to beholdFidel is a splendid one to beholdFidel is a splendid one to beholdFidel is a splendid one to behold
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry_VIII
I see this subject as two separate issues:
General preparedness of the American fighting public.
Specific deployment in times of conflict/war.

For small scale conflicts or wars, volunteer based armies are best. The reason is simple. People who volunteer are already motivated (financially, educationally, patriotically, etc.) and tend to produce higher quality troops for a proportionally small army.
For large scale wars/invasions, having a well trained population becomes increasingly important. Obviously, if a significant percentage of the population is needed to fight then training the entire country is a monumental task to undertake at the time of war. The training must be done in advance.
One question that remains is what is small-scale and what is large-scale. I'm not sure I have a ready answer for that as it would have to take in lots of factors.
I do have concerns about the general preparedness of the country, though. Mandatory service would definitely help there, but I wouldn't want that to take the place of our volunteer army.
That´s basicly what we have in Germany. We do have a draft and almost everyone either has to do a couple months of military service or as an alternative a couple months of civil service (at hospitals for example). People who do well at the draft can become lifers with specialized training and a military career. All the soldiers engaged in Afghanistan and elsewhere around the world are either lifers or volunteers (with better then normal training). I think it´s a good formula. We have a professional, standing army but also a huge portion of people has at least some military expirience if it should be necessary to defend the country in an all out war.
Fidel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2007, 08:57 PM   #24
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fidel
That´s basicly what we have in Germany. We do have a draft and almost everyone either has to do a couple months of military service or as an alternative a couple months of civil service (at hospitals for example). People who do well at the draft can become lifers with specialized training and a military career. All the soldiers engaged in Afghanistan and elsewhere around the world are either lifers or volunteers (with better then normal training). I think it´s a good formula. We have a professional, standing army but also a huge portion of people has at least some military expirience if it should be necessary to defend the country in an all out war.
It does sound like a good formula. Are females included in the mandatory service? Just curious about it. I think people of Taiwan also have to have mandatory military service. As you can imagine I also think it a good solution.
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2007, 11:30 PM   #25
rmacomic
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: La Porte de l'Enfer
Posts: 2,335
rmacomic has a reputation beyond reputermacomic has a reputation beyond reputermacomic has a reputation beyond reputermacomic has a reputation beyond reputermacomic has a reputation beyond reputermacomic has a reputation beyond reputermacomic has a reputation beyond reputermacomic has a reputation beyond reputermacomic has a reputation beyond reputermacomic has a reputation beyond reputermacomic has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Dude,
You seem a bit confused or at least out of touch.
If you were 18 in 1970 that would make you around 55 so I'm going to assume it's the latter.
Let me help you with that.

1.war hawk
noun
an advocate of an aggressive policy on foreign relations.

(initial capital letters) U.S. History. any of the congressmen from the South and West, led by Henry Clay and John Calhoun, who wanted war against Britain in the period leading up to the War of 1812.

2. The Urban Myth, well you can hide your head in the sand and believe there are no politics inside the military if you want, but maybe these articles will at least help you see there are some people who would disagree with you.

http://www.unmarriedamerica.org/colu...ry-singles.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3600934.stm

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1025-06.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1230-06.htm


But this doesn't change the fact you are still back tracking.

You said you wanted to see the Draft (A system for selecting young men for compulsory military service) enacted because Americas youth are out of shape and in need of the bond of tight group.

These are deplorable reasons for the Draft.

If Americas youth is out of shape it has far more to do with health care and the schools than lack of military.

And the bond of a tight group, you're right the military will provide a much greater sense of belonging than the families these kids will be taken from.

Again I'm not doubting your patriotism, just your touch with reality.

But please continue to tell me how mandatory service will benifit the country, especialy as how at your age it would never require you to be involved.
__________________
rmacomic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2007, 11:58 PM   #26
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

I've enumerated some of the reasons that I believe a draft would be a good thing. If you want me to say the biggest benefit is NOT getting in shape, okay, I thought that obvious. If that's your accusation of back-tracking, so be it. But in all honesty I'm not backtracking on my opinion of the bigger issue here, you are grabbing hold of minutia.

As I said, i listed some, the BIG one is that a people of a country need to be willing to be called by that country when needed to defend it. And the military needs to cut across all classes of people, south, north, rich, poor, etc.

Your links. You were saying (at least I think you are) that people who didn't vote republican are being sent back to iraq in lieu of others who did. I'm hoping one of these links has some data to back up that fantasy. Let's look shall we..

Hmm...nope this one is bitching that singles don't get as good housing/pay as married folks. Okay..life sucks, eh.

Well that one doesn't say it either. It talks about the 8 year service committment of which my son-in-law whom I mentioned is being caught with. Might suck, but nothing to do with voting it seems. Strike 2.

Another one talking about how tough it is to be away from family. True, my daughter married her husband, then 1 month later he was gone for a year, then another year. So 3 years married they've spent 1 together, it's been very tough. But nothing in this story that I see talks about deployments due to political stances. Strike 3 it seems.

Another article about stop-loss. I have to assume this is the 8 year term that folks have signed up for. Again nothing here about deployments due to political positions. Strike 4 it seems. As I said, fantasy, better look for better links.

War Hawk..Yea I guess so. I believed that Iraq 1 for example was in our strategic interests and I supported it. I did not support Bosnia as I did not think it was in our strategic interests. As far as supporting a draft when I'm too old to be called, what's your point? As I mentioned about 90% of the country aren't going to have the right to call anyone to military service since so few serve. Kinda silly to wave that one out there when it essentially cannot be met.

I supported IraqII because it seemed that that Sadaam had WMDs, was a very dangerous character who would break free of sanctions soon. I also understood the reasoning behind transforming the Middle East.

You can make the arguement that we created Al Queda there, I don't believe it. Al queda is not going anywhere until they are defeated and the islamic states determine that their brand of radicalism isn't really all that it's cracked up to be. After 9/11 I would have liked to have heard a proposal for dealing with international terrorism in an aggressive manner. Americans in general like to fix problems and we are aggressive about it, it was in our nature to at least contemplate doing what we've done. Not to mention that it is and was a noble endeavor.
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’

Last edited by dude1394; 08-14-2007 at 12:00 AM.
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2007, 11:59 PM   #27
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Looking at one of your links a statement jumped out at me.

Quote:
The "stop-loss" provisions are not a new thing in America. They were first introduced in World War II when serving soldiers were told they could not leave until the fighting was over, plus 90 more days. They were also used in the Vietnam War to prevent slippage in force numbers, and again in the first Gulf War.

With the US now engaged on so many fronts around the world, it may simply be that the 480,000 ceiling on the size of the Army is too low.

"It reflects the fact that the military is too small, which nobody wants to admit," commented Charles Mokos, a leading military sociologist at Northwestern University.
Seems a military draft might make this not nearly as common.
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2007, 12:09 AM   #28
chumdawg
Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Cowboys Country
Posts: 23,336
chumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dude1394
I believed that Iraq 1 for example was in our strategic interests and I supported it.

I did not support Bosnia as I did not think it was in our strategic interests.

I supported IraqII because it seemed that that Sadaam had WMDs, was a very dangerous character who would break free of sanctions soon.
I am sensing a clear trend here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dude1934
Americans in general like to fix problems and we are aggressive about it.
Care to cite some examples? Or do you just mean *our* problems? Why aren't we waging war in the Sudan, for example?
chumdawg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2007, 08:55 AM   #29
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chumdawg
I am sensing a clear trend here.
You might think so but you would be wrong. The "trend" is when our strategic interests are at stake.

Quote:
Care to cite some examples? Or do you just mean *our* problems? Why aren't we waging war in the Sudan, for example?
What are our strategic interests in the Sudan? And if so what do you want to do there? I need a little more info on it.

Our problems again are where we feel our interests are at stake, militarily and economically.
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2007, 02:42 AM   #30
Janett_Reno
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,150
Janett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to all
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dude1394
I also understood the reasoning behind transforming the Middle East.
Could you share more about transforming the middle east? Who should transform the middle east? Should the middle east be transformed thru force or thru talk?
Janett_Reno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2007, 09:01 AM   #31
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janett_Reno
Could you share more about transforming the middle east? Who should transform the middle east? Should the middle east be transformed thru force or thru talk?
The thinking is that the middle east (even though awash in oil wealth) was devoid of modernity. Both political, human and economically. The thinking was that another vital democratic country (iraq) would have a transforming effect within the middle east.

In quite a few ways this has been the case. Political discussion and the discussion of once verbotten topics has arisen. Other more liberal political groups have stepped up to challenge the despots where possible.

Just with respect to discussing the role of islam in terrorism, this most essential dialogue has been forced by the action in Iraq.

So at the end of the day, the transforming effect of removing an aggressive dictator who threatened the region, having a democracy within the heart of the middle east is the transforming agent that was intended.

The idea is that this transformation is required for the middle-eastern arabic people to achieve along with the rest of the world. Not only politically but economically. That the way that we had dealt with the middle east (only support dictators and not try and press for democratic reforms) needed to stop. We still have to support moderate societies but we should push for liberal reform where possible.
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2007, 05:10 PM   #32
Janett_Reno
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,150
Janett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to all
Default

I just do not see how we can transform the world or the middle east to our way's. Sadam kept Iran in check. Iran is the one with wmd's, not Iraq. Aren't they more a threat to us than Sadam?

How do we transform Saudi Arabia? Remember we are closely in bed with them and that is where most of the bombers came from.

How do we transform Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Pakistan and it is more. All the differ stan's that are muslim that has broke away from Russia.

I feel we should have been in Afganistan and we should be and we do need to transform this place because we chased Al Queda out. W did good here. I am disapointed he didn't get Bin Laden but even Clinton had the chance and didn't get him. I think our administration did good going in here. We had every right going into here.

When you say "the idea that this transformation is required for the middle-eastern arabic people to achieve along the rest of the world". How can they? We can't turn them into dems and repubs, we can't turn them into Southern Baptist, we can't make alot of them treat women as an equal to a man, we can't make them love the jew's and them consider a jew as a human being.

This is like me telling you to convert to Catholic and an Independent. When someone messes with us and does what they did at 9/11, you better bet we have a right to go after them to the ends of the earth and hunt each one down but for us to say we can transform the middle east where everyone lives by the same rules, laws, and likes each other. This won't happen.

Did you know if we left tomorrow, they would fight amonst themselfs. These people fight, as to where we talk things over, alot of these countries talk by a gun or sword to get their point across. I think you need to read up on how alot of these people live and notice their laws is way differ than ours.

I am throwing oil out now and not even having this in the picture. You can not make Iraq a country club or vacation spot. It is to many people inside and comming across that will never let it be a country club or vacation spot and even if it was this, alot of the countries would destroy it because they do not live that way.

If the middle east want's to be transformed it has to be with the people from within that area, country, those same religions and get tired of living the way they are and being treated.

I feel we are not living in reality to think we can go change the middle east to what we want it to be and what we preceive it should be like. Iraq is not the only country in the middle east, living under conditions we do not aprove of.

How do you think Israel would feel if those Muslim countries transformed them to the way, they think Israel should be? That won't happen, Israel won't let it. How do you think Iran and Syria and other's would feel if Israel transformed them to what they thought the middle east should be? Again, this won't happen as all muslim nations would rise up.

Everyone needs to protect their mother land and homeland. I just do not feel we can transform them, nor can other outsider's as i feel it has to be transformed wityhin, with their on people that is willing to die for what they believe in and their own country.
Janett_Reno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2007, 07:55 PM   #33
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janett_Reno
I just do not see how we can transform the world or the middle east to our way's. Sadam kept Iran in check. Iran is the one with wmd's, not Iraq. Aren't they more a threat to us than Sadam?
So the middle east is doomed to be ruled by sadistic maniac dictators? Transforming the middle east isn't to "our" way, it's to their peoples way.

Quote:
How do we transform Saudi Arabia? Remember we are closely in bed with them and that is where most of the bombers came from.
You are thinking too linearly imo. What happens to the people of egypt, saudia arabia, etc. when they see Iraqi's ruling themselves as they see fit? You also aren't thinking nearly long-term enough here. This is a multi-decades endeavor, not somethign that gets done in 5 or even 10 years. If AlQueda hadn't attaced in Iraq it might have gotten done quicker, but they did.

Quote:
How do we transform Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Pakistan and it is more. All the differ stan's that are muslim that has broke away from Russia.
Again see above, it IS a hearts and minds kind of thing. There is no way you can or should transform the entire middle east by invasion, however in this one instance with a sadistic aggressive lunatic who supported terrorism, had wmd, have oil revenue and a relatively secular populace, Iraq was a good candidate. Of course if we didn't think WMDs were there and Sadaam had opened up and proved it we wouldn't have gone in there either. But I see the reasoning.

Quote:
I feel we should have been in Afganistan and we should be and we do need to transform this place because we chased Al Queda out. W did good here. I am disapointed he didn't get Bin Laden but even Clinton had the chance and didn't get him. I think our administration did good going in here. We had every right going into here.
Afghanistan was entered to get bin laden and remove a haven for terrorists. Afghanistan has much less of a chance to be a change-agent than Iraq does because it's relatively backward and poor. If you are thinking of transformation being a change agent throughout the middle-east, afghanistan really isn't it. Iraq will be. And of course there were many other reasons for overthrowing Saddamm.

Quote:
When you say "the idea that this transformation is required for the middle-eastern arabic people to achieve along the rest of the world". How can they? We can't turn them into dems and repubs, we can't turn them into Southern Baptist, we can't make alot of them treat women as an equal to a man, we can't make them love the jew's and them consider a jew as a human being.
Again too linear. And I don't really understand the relgious connotation at all. No one is talking about them not being muslims. There are muslims in this country that respect women, treat them as relatively equal. No one has to force them to "love" the jews, they just have to make decisions that they want versus what a strongman wants. That's the transformation. Dems/republicans...silly comment. What are the british, candadian, etc. equivalents?

Quote:
This is like me telling you to convert to Catholic and an Independent. When someone messes with us and does what they did at 9/11, you better bet we have a right to go after them to the ends of the earth and hunt each one down but for us to say we can transform the middle east where everyone lives by the same rules, laws, and likes each other. This won't happen.
No, this is like me telling you to do what you want once I've removed the jailer who beats you when you do not do what they say. If they want to be ruled by a dictator then they will and it will mean that the whole region is fubar. But you see the folks in lebanon, the students in Iran wanting more than being ruled by a dictator or religious nuts. That's the transformation that needs to occur. The islamic people who come here or go to other western/free countries.

Quote:
Did you know if we left tomorrow, they would fight amonst themselfs. These people fight, as to where we talk things over, alot of these countries talk by a gun or sword to get their point across. I think you need to read up on how alot of these people live and notice their laws is way differ than ours.
IMO this is a racist comment. They fight just like anyone else fights. What do you see happening in the poor sections of our own country. Are those people "talking". Folks who have nothing but pride will kill for that pride.

Quote:
I am throwing oil out now and not even having this in the picture. You can not make Iraq a country club or vacation spot. It is to many people inside and comming across that will never let it be a country club or vacation spot and even if it was this, alot of the countries would destroy it because they do not live that way.
No one EVER said it would be a country club and we couldn't make it so, but the people of Iraq could. I would say that a liberal arab government with wealth and the US backing them up wouldn't be destroyed anytime soon imo.

Quote:
If the middle east want's to be transformed it has to be with the people from within that area, country, those same religions and get tired of living the way they are and being treated.
How were the people of germany/japan transformed? It does have to be from the people from within. Do you recall the bloody,bloody battles that occurred in europe before liberal governement was institued? Those people didn't just "throw" off their shackles. In fact it's quite rare for a people to overthrow a tyrant. I'd welcome you naming a few, especially in modern time with all of the firepower a government has.

It certainly does have to be from within and it probably would have occurred in another 100 years or so, all the while we continue to get blown up and heaven forbid the terrorists get ahold of wmd. But the people of Iraq were given the opportunity to do this. Unfortunately they've had to suffer the tender mercies of Al Queda as well.

Quote:
I feel we are not living in reality to think we can go change the middle east to what we want it to be and what we preceive it should be like. Iraq is not the only country in the middle east, living under conditions we do not aprove of.
Again you do what you can. It would be silly to go around attacking anyone if it is not in our best interests. In the case of Iraq there were many intersecting interests.

Quote:
How do you think Israel would feel if those Muslim countries transformed them to the way, they think Israel should be? That won't happen, Israel won't let it. How do you think Iran and Syria and other's would feel if Israel transformed them to what they thought the middle east should be? Again, this won't happen as all muslim nations would rise up.
Do you mean overthrew a dictator that was killing them and their children, give them billions and billions of dollars to re-build their country and infrastructure and then tell them that as soon as they can stand up, we leave. Pretty damn good I'd say. Again you really are caught up in this religious deal, it's not that, never has been.

Quote:
Everyone needs to protect their mother land and homeland. I just do not feel we can transform them, nor can other outsider's as i feel it has to be transformed wityhin, with their on people that is willing to die for what they believe in and their own country.
Agreed, but it's your opnion that they are not worth saving or that they are too "something" to ever rule themselves without a dictator doing it. I disagree with that.
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2007, 09:09 PM   #34
Janett_Reno
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,150
Janett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to all
Default

Alot what you and i just talked about is what i feel alot of this middle east boils down to. I honestly do not think, many, many countries will not let us achieve what you are talking about. You will never hear of alot of the countries causing havoc. They can cause havoc many way's. Arming one's that shouldn't be. Funding one's we wished they didn't but them keep it under the table where we would never know.

I am talking some non muslim nations. I also feel it will be many Arabic and Muslim nations that also would like us to fail and for us out. To not let us get a foothold in the region because they are scarred of why are we there and what are we up to? We can say we are there to help them all but do they all believe this and want this? They are all proud we got rid of Sadam because many want to move in now and run Iraq.

I think Germany and Japan was a totally different situation than Iraq and even Vietnam. I do not feel Vietnam was a threat to world domination, nor do i think Sadam and Iraq was. I feel Japan and Germany was trying to achieve this in WWII and Hitler would not stop and just kept marching thru country after country with no end in site.

Look at things like this daily and i feel we need to be trying to show the world, the children and all people we are not bullies, we try to do the right and just thing, we are not trying to take sides and dominate but help other's. I do not alway's feel this can be done with a gun. Do not get me wrong, i believe we need to go to battle when we should and never back down from just things and the right things. Like 9-11, i feel we did the right thing going after Bin Laden and Afganistan.

This is where you and i differ, i do not see us doing what you are saying and the middle east living in peace and harmony. I am sorry, i don't see it and i do not feel Iraq was the right move. Look at this dude.

Hamas TV's child star says she's ready for martyrdom

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20...POBF24hrUDW7oF

Now this is what is being taught and this is not the same religion you and i was taught that is right. You might say none of this has anything to do with religion but i beg to differ. I would go out on a limb and say why alot of Muslim nations have a problem with jewish people because of there religion. I would say that also with jewish people with the Muslims. They both believe that piece of land is theres of Israel.

I was told more than once by both faiths that the trouble starts in the bible dude. His name was Abraham and he had two sons but go read of the women that he had these two sons with. This is where the problems start and i know many do not want to tie the middle east into religion but go ask a Muslim person or Jewish person. Ask them about two people, Ishmael(his mom Hager) and Isaac(his mom Sarah). Go ask muslim people and jewish people both about those two men. See if those two men have anything to do with the middle east and even in the days back then brother against brother fought against one another because of religion. It is still going on. Brother against brother on differ sides.

Go read this

Four suicide bombings kill 175 in Iraq

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070814/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

Now if they can get the Kurds also in this civil religious war, in which maybe today they did, it is even more fighting and havoc. These are not even Jewish against Muslim but differ sects of same types religion. This civil war is alot religion also dude.

This is why i say it is going to be hard to create a peaceful loving midle east, unless they both read out of the same book of rules and if they treat each other as a human being. On both sides. I hope i am wrong and peace comes very soon because now we are in the middle of all it.
Janett_Reno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2007, 09:32 PM   #35
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janett_Reno
I think Germany and Japan was a totally different situation than Iraq and even Vietnam. I do not feel Vietnam was a threat to world domination, nor do i think Sadam and Iraq was. I feel Japan and Germany was trying to achieve this in WWII and Hitler would not stop and just kept marching thru country after country with no end in site.
Your question was about reforming the people, not about their respective threats.

Quote:
This is where you and i differ, i do not see us doing what you are saying and the middle east living in peace and harmony. I am sorry, i don't see it and i do not feel Iraq was the right move. Look at this dude.

Hamas TV's child star says she's ready for martyrdom

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20...POBF24hrUDW7oF

Now this is what is being taught and this is not the same religion you and i was taught that is right. You might say none of this has anything to do with religion but i beg to differ. I would go out on a limb and say why alot of Muslim nations have a problem with jewish people because of there religion. I would say that also with jewish people with the Muslims. They both believe that piece of land is theres of Israel.
IMO you cannot necessarily compare palestinians to the whole of the middle east. The palestinians have a very sick culture of death that they have promoted (and been rewarded for) for decades.

Quote:
Four suicide bombings kill 175 in Iraq

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070814/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
And who is this that did this??? Al Queda terrorists did this, not the people of iraq. In fact most suicide bombs in Iraq are Al Queda and foreign, not internal. Al Queda continues to try and instigate civil war there. That's why IF we leave it will be because Al Queda defeated us.
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2007, 10:23 AM   #36
mcsluggo
Golden Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: McLean, VA
Posts: 1,970
mcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dude1394
Your question was about reforming the people, not about their respective threats.
yes, this is true. BUt look at the countries that HAVE reformed drastically and successfully in recent years:

Japan
Germany
Korea
Taiwan
<<a bunch of East Bloc countries>>
Malaysia
Thailand
South Africa
Chile

All of these countries shifted from autocratic regimes to successful democracies with vibrant economies.

Some transformed after a war (Japan, Germany) but in ALL of the cases (except perhaps arguably Japan) the transformation was completely locally generated. And in all of those cases, the transformation occurred as economic efficiency and freedom FOLLOWED by democratic progress (Germany is the one possible exception-- had a long history of economic efficiency, the Weimar years collapse not withstanding).

To think that we could blithely chose a country, move in and FORCE this sort of transformation, is, well --arogant-- if you want to put it nicely (idiotic is probably much more appropriate). Add to the fact that we chose a country whose population is culturally at odds with ours (as you point out continuosly) AND we consistantly crapped on and stomped over most potential international support for the exercise... it was a bad gamble.



I am not sure if I buy the premise that Libya is "next", but still, an interesting read:

Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...081401328.html

Gaddafi's Libya: An Ally for America?

By Benjamin R. Barber
Wednesday, August 15, 2007; Page A11

The Benghazi Six -- five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor condemned to death for allegedly spreading HIV among children in a Libyan hospital -- were finally released last month. The media, looking for an explanation that grabs credit for the West, have fixed on Cécilia Sarkozy, wife of the new French president and a late presence in the negotiations. After holding the nurses for eight years, Moammar Gaddafi was supposedly unable to resist Sarkozy's come-hither eyes and allowed her to walk away with his prisoners.

But the real drama is not in Sarkozy's agile grandstanding (the French did get a lucrative arms deal) or in the protracted negotiations involving Bulgaria, the European Commission and Gaddafi's gifted son, Saif al-Islam. Rather, the release points to deep changes in the Libyan regime that began in 2003, when Libya gave up its nuclear program voluntarily, and that continue today with gradual shifts in Libyan governance, its economy and civil society that have been largely ignored by the West.

The real architect of the release was Libya's leader. Written off not long ago as an implacable despot, Gaddafi is a complex and adaptive thinker as well as an efficient, if laid-back, autocrat. Unlike almost any other Arab ruler, he has exhibited an extraordinary capacity to rethink his country's role in a changed and changing world.

I say this from experience. In several one-on-one conversations over the past year, Gaddafi repeatedly told me that Libya sought a genuine rapprochement with the United States and that the issues of the Benghazi Six -- along with the still-outstanding final payment from Libya to families of the Lockerbie, Scotland, bombing victims -- would be resolved. And behold: The nurses are free.

In all my public and private conversations with Gaddafi, including a roundtable moderated by David Frost and televised by BBC in March during which Gaddafi responded to unrehearsed questions, Gaddafi acknowledged his history of enmity with the West and did not deny Libya's erstwhile involvement in terrorism. But he spoke of a new chapter for Libya and backed it up with a commitment to societal change. He insisted that in the Libya that comes after him there would be no new Gaddafi but self-governance.

This isn't mere bluster. Gaddafi has taken grave risks in the name of change: offending the Benghazi clans that engineered the nurses' arrest; giving up his nuclear program while rogue nations such as Iran and North Korea use theirs to blackmail the West; holding open conversations over the past year with Western intellectuals, not just progressives such as Robert Putnam of Harvard and me but neocon pundit Francis Fukuyama and the tough New Democrat defense expert Joseph N. Nye. Moreover, in seeking to modify the banking industry and economy, he has rattled the existing elite who benefit from the status quo.

Surprisingly flexible and pragmatic, Gaddafi was once an ardent socialist who now acknowledges private property and capital as sometimes appropriate elements in developing societies. Once an opponent of representative central government, he is wrestling with the need to delegate substantial authority to competent public officials if Libya is to join the global system. Once fearful of outside media, he has permitted satellite dishes throughout his country, and he himself surfs the Internet.

Libya under Gaddafi has embarked on a journey that could make it the first Arab state to transition peacefully and without overt Western intervention to a stable, non-autocratic government and, in time, to an indigenous mixed constitution favoring direct democracy locally and efficient government centrally.

Such a thought may seem absurd to Western observers who remember only Gaddafi's insurgent past and the heinous terrorist act over Lockerbie. Yet Gaddafi also wrote a direct democratic manifesto ("The Green Book") in the 1970s and convened hundreds of "People's Conferences" where women and men have met regularly for the past 30 years. Have they wielded much actual power? No. Could they be built upon? Yes.

Completely off the radar, without spending a dollar or posting a single soldier, the United States has a potential partner in what could become an emerging Arab democracy smack in the middle of Africa's north coast. This partner possesses vital sulfur-free gas and oil resources, a pristine Mediterranean shoreline, a non-Islamist Muslim population, and intelligence capacities crucial to the war on terrorism. Gaddafi, for example, ardently opposes the al-Qaeda brand of Wahhabist fundamentalism that Saudi Arabia sponsors.

Cynics will disregard all this; but after America's "realist" experiences in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, this may actually turn out to be a recipe for peace and partnership in the unlikeliest of places.

Benjamin R. Barber, the author of "Jihad vs. McWorld" and "Consumed," is a senior fellow at Demos, a New York-based think tank focused on the theory and practice of democracy.

Quote:
IMO you cannot necessarily compare palestinians to the whole of the middle east. The palestinians have a very sick culture of death that they have promoted (and been rewarded for) for decades.
that is too easy of an answer. The palestinians are not to blame alone. They shoulder the blame of nt making things any better, and yes of making things wors. But they have also been crapped on by all sides for a damn long time now. No pathway out of this mess can fail to recognize and account for this fact.

Quote:
And who is this that did this??? Al Queda terrorists did this, not the people of iraq. In fact most suicide bombs in Iraq are Al Queda and foreign, not internal. Al Queda continues to try and instigate civil war there. That's why IF we leave it will be because Al Queda defeated us.
this one is too damn easy...

questions:
When did al Queda move into Iraq?
Why were they (and like minds) able to gain traction there?
Does direct military intervention strengthen or weaken their position?
mcsluggo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2007, 08:47 PM   #37
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcsluggo
When did al Queda move into Iraq?
Initially they moved into iraq once we invaded Afghanistan. If you recall the most notorious butcher of iraq was Zarqawi. I haven't tried to back up hitchens here but I expect him correct.
http://www.slate.com/id/2172152/
Quote:
The founder of al-Qaida in Mesopotamia was Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who we can now gratefully describe as "the late." The first thing to notice about him is that he was in Iraq before we were. The second thing to notice is that he fled to Iraq only because he, and many others like him, had been driven out of Afghanistan. Thus, by the logic of those who say that Afghanistan is the "real" war, he would have been better left as he was. Without the overthrow of the Taliban, he and his collaborators would not have moved to take advantage of the next failed/rogue state. I hope you can spot the simple error of reasoning that is involved in this belief. It also involves the defeatist suggestion—which was very salient in the opposition to the intervention in Afghanistan—that it's pointless to try to crush such people because "others will spring up in their place." Those who take this view should have the courage to stand by it and not invent a straw-man argument.
Quote:
Why were they (and like minds) able to gain traction there?
Al Queda's strategy hasn't been to gain traction so much as it's been to foment a civil war by suicide bombing shia. Their plan was evil and brilliant. Here is a graph of the amount of sectarian violence before/after the bombing of the golden mosque. Their plans have worked to perfection. So it's Al Queda that we are fighting there.

http://engram-backtalk.blogspot.com/...h-of-july.html



Quote:
Does direct military intervention strengthen or weaken their position?
Direct military intervention has definitely been weakening al queda. That's why they've been pushed to the outer suburbs as well as killing a remote religious sect. Their barbaric tactics seem to be backfiring on them, thank the lord.
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2007, 09:58 PM   #38
Janett_Reno
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,150
Janett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to all
Default

Yes Al Queda terrorist did do this. Can you see what is happening? They are trying to do what Bin Laden said he would do. To make it a holly war. Brother against brother or radical beliefs vs non radical.

Each one of those countries favors each one of the three differ types of people living there. I am not sure who likes the Kurds or backs the, but seems to me that Iran backs one and Saudia Arabia backs another. Everyone is jocking for control. This is sad to say but probably true.

In the long run, see what destruction it could be if it turns out to be a religious war crossing all the middle east and even around all the world?

This is a short read but tells alot why and about this civil war.

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQ..._IraqIndex.htm

It is more than religion as you can see one was treated worse than the other when Sadam was in power and the other is fighting back now. It is also religion playing a part. See why Syria, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudia Arabia and all the middle east needs to be in harmony? A Sunni, Shia and a Kurd should all be equal and treated good by each mother and all. If differ countries keep backing differ groups and then you throw Al Queda in and all they care is havoc and destruction, see what happens?

You need these other countries around Iraq to help all in all this. Not for them to back a certain people or group with money, weapons and etc. I feel it is a hard thing to stop.
Janett_Reno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2007, 10:43 PM   #39
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janett_Reno
Yes Al Queda terrorist did do this. Can you see what is happening? They are trying to do what Bin Laden said he would do. To make it a holly war. Brother against brother or radical beliefs vs non radical.
They are doing what Zawahiri said they would do. Not make it a holey war, but a civil war. It's tribe against tribe, not necessarily religion against religion. They kill shia and the shia kill the sunni who are harboring terrorists. Sunnis have been harboring terrorists stupidly, they are just now realizing that the terrorists are not that great of a deal.
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2007, 03:39 PM   #40
Janett_Reno
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,150
Janett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to all
Default

I think you said alot when you said "Does direct military intervention strengthen or weaken their position"?

It seems if they are stronger today than before. What if alot of schools and people are teaching kids and even adults to hate us and say look what they are doing. They won't tell the children we are helping but attacking the mother land and the religion. We know better than this but this is what i am trying to say, sometimes it is best to win people over by good will and them see you are sincere. That we do not like force and destruction. I am afraid some are trying to teach this to children and adults about us.

I also feel it was a big gamble.

Our guys in Vietnam was put in a hell hole and they could not fight a convential war. They had to walk around and try to kick up the enemy. This is bad dangerous. We had to try to guard and hold our positions. If the enemy ran across certain lines, we was not allowed to cross certain borders and lines. We could not stop the ant's, hornets and moles as they poured in and was in and yes they also lived underground.

This war in Iraq is taking on similar charteristics. Don't we all feel like that to stop the war and the enemy, that you must go to the root of the problem and where they are? Not us just wait on them to come to us, to hit and run or to suicide bomb and sit and wait for another.

If you go to the root and where alot of the enemy are and comming from, then you run into a big huge war spread over many countries. Are we willing to do this and for the long haul? Is it worth it to free people from dictators. Not our people or country but others. I feel all this is a big sticky situation. I do not have the answers, nor do i claim to, i like listening but i don't like the policy of just scout around and walk around and try to kick up the bad guys and be shot at. Run them out of fields and towns one day and us leave and they are back the next day.

This is not a football field but a big huge country they can be in the north one week, south next week, middle Iraq next week. Bascially raising hell and creating havoc. I just hope we find a better way to help lessing the killing, the suicide bombers and get this country back on track and let them live again and our guys and girls have a break.
Janett_Reno is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.