RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

xBullx -> RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story (2/24/2008 12:36:22 PM)

Hello Thompson,

Please note that I said I wasn't nuts about McCain. In fat when all these primary elections started I said surely this isn't the best that America has to offer is it?

I'm not impressed with either party to be honest; I'm just less impressed with what the Dems have to offer. A man can be pissed about the establishment all he wants, but having experience in the world at work or choosing a man that makes even more outlandish statements than Bush did scares the shit out of me. Or are we ok with up and invading Pakistan?

McCain is certainly not Eisenhower, and I doubt I'd find any comfort in him leading my Recon Team  into the frey, but since this thread is about Obama I'll stress that I find his ability to even communicate and garner the respect of our Military to be even more in question. For me if this was a time in our history or our future where war and an enemy was not such a chief concern I think Obama would be someone to at least consider. As I said in an ealier post we just had an inexperienced man as President that fumbled his way through a world crisis and followed the adivse of professional advisors and that cost us more than it was worth. But WE started this and it is our honorable place as men to clean up our mess; and I really believe OUR boys are making gains. I just don't believe that pulling out will do anything to help American credibility, we have cut and run, and allowed politics to deface the American image entirely to many times in our past. Hell using people for our economic and political gains in the past is what has spawned this chaos in the Middle-East.

But that's just my opinion,

Bull



quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Bull:
My opinions about elections and politicians is pretty well documented on these boards.
I just wanted to have you clarify or perhaps rethink your assessment of "Ace McCain" as a warrior.  From what I have read(his autobiography "Faith of my Fathers") he had about thirty days on station  and claims 22 combat missions (possible but not probable).  For his five minutes over Hanoi he collected 28 medals including a silver star three bronze stars and a distinguished flying cross.  He signed a confession to being a war criminal and gave tactical military information to his captors.  This does not rise to the level of warrior in my book but then each of us has his own criteria.




philosophy -> RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story (2/24/2008 12:39:22 PM)

FR

...hope people don't see this a hijack, but it seems to me that a lot of attention is being put on the idea that any potential presidential candidate has to have the respect of the military. Firstly, have i read that right? And secondly, i don't know of any other first world nation where military support in the political arena is even thought of as desirable.......now, Pakistan maybe......



LadyEllen -> RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story (2/24/2008 12:39:51 PM)

What I think is interesting, is if we assumed that the £150k the Dutch spent was about the right figure required, then it would explain why our lot need to borrow say £75k worth of stuff from your lot. Taking £75k from the £240k for a US soldier would leave the US soldier with £175k worth of supplies - ie £25k more than is required.

Whilst I honestly dont believe we borrow that much, it does start becoming interesting even using that oversimplified approach; £25k per soldier x (how many soldiers)?

And given we borrow a lot less I should think - maybe £5k per soldier as an absolute upper limit - the "profit" for someone rises to nearly £100k per soldier x (how many soldiers)?

Dirty business war, but profitable

E



Sinergy -> RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story (2/24/2008 12:40:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wkdshadow

I still don't understand, what's your point? As history has shown time and time again, a regulated army vs. a guerilla group of irregular insurgents that don't wear uniforms is going to have a hell of a time winning, despite the number of troops you put on the ground. That's why guerilla war exists: it's a force multiplier, unless you're going to issue a blanket shoot to kill order and slaughter the civilians too.

It seems to me you're suggesting if the bombing runs don't get 'em all in the first run, we somehow fail by default. I suppose it would just be easier for us to drop a few FAEs onto Iraq, killing all civilians along with the guerillas.... but that's a fucked up form of politics to be advocating man.



Bombing doesnt work because we need people on the ground.

People on the ground doesnt work because of insurgencies.

Therefore (drumroll)

Bombing doesnt work.

Im saying what I have been saying all along.

We have no business killing people in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, Panama, Cuba, etc.

I dont believe the founding fathers would support the US supporting Saudi Arabia, Colombia, Israel, or any other dictatorship or government that oppresses their own people.

And I object to the Neo-Cons wanting to rewrite our givernment according to the tenets of National Socialism.

I just want to be free to ride my machine and not be hassled by the Man.

Sinergy



wkdshadow -> RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story (2/24/2008 12:56:17 PM)

Objection to the politics of the war have nothing to do with the effectiveness of air campaigns. Regarding air campaigns, I'll say it one last time, in bold this time so maybe you might get it. It's a really simple concept to grasp, to the point that I feel like I'm being trolled here.

The purpose of an air campaign is not to win the war outright. The purpose of an air campaign is to compliment the infantry efforts. Your comments would have a point if the purpose of an air campaign was to replace instead of compliment the infantry movement...

But that is not the purpose of air campaigns, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be, regardless of style of opposition, be it a regular or irregular militia.




caitlyn -> RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story (2/24/2008 1:01:02 PM)

I'm not all that smart Ron, I just save my comments for topics I know something about ... music, dating, clothes, football (from the perspective of someone that has never succesfully caught a football), and history.
 
Yes, I looked it up, but only to make sure I spelled the man's name correctly. [;)]



caitlyn -> RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story (2/24/2008 1:06:35 PM)

As you are a relatively new poster here ... I feel the need to inform you of the way of things.
 
Sinergy has never actually been wrong about anything. Just ask him.
 
When proven wrong, or if he actually says something that makes no sense, he will make every attempt to spin his way out of it.
 
If you persist in pointing out his errors, he will tell you to stop watching Faux and reading Wikipedia.
 
I hope this has been helpful. [;)]



Hippiekinkster -> RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story (2/24/2008 1:13:57 PM)

Somebody always brings up Clinton when talking about the military the Bushzis inherited.

OK, well, how long was the gap between 9/11 and "shock and awe"? (what a stupid, childish... oh, never mind) A year and a half? They had 18 months to ramp up and stockpile supplies?

Or did it take Shrub that long to finish "My Pet Goat" and then turn his attention to arming the soldiers?



Sinergy -> RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story (2/24/2008 1:35:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

Sinergy has never actually been wrong about anything. Just ask him.



If you dont remember the multitude of postings where I admitted I was incorrect (on this thread, even) then I
cannot help you.  This might help.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~kwanten/links.htm

As far as my point in this thread, the military is really good at two things, kiilling people and blowing things up.

I dont know about you, but this is not how I define victory at arms or good diplomacy.  To me, this is closer to how I define the words genocide and vandalism.

I dont support groups (neo-cons, Nazis, Khmer Rouge, etc) that espouse either of those things.

Sinergy






wkdshadow -> RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story (2/24/2008 1:45:02 PM)

"Shock and awe" was simply political bullshit meant for mass consumption about the war in Iraq(March 2003). It's well known that Sadaam and his reigime had nothing to do with 9/11, or al-Quaida. The 9/11 panel openly admitted this. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/

The war in Afghanistan(October 2001) and the Taliban is a different story, though - not to say that they have direct involvement with 9/11 and the war is justified in the hunt for Osama, but they do publically maintain links with al-Quaida. Funny how people forget we're still there, and that timeline of events.



caitlyn -> RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story (2/24/2008 1:45:54 PM)

Now we are discussing what the military is good at, victory and diplomacy? I didn't contest you on any of these points.
 
Answer this question though. When you claimed that Vietnam proved that aerial bombing doesn't work ... was that a) a well thought out, and supportable position based on wide analysis of several conflicts, or b) just some shit you through out there, and are now spinning your way around?
 
Sorry if I seem to be going after you ... but you spend so much time going after everyone else ... I just can't help myself. [;)]



Sinergy -> RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story (2/24/2008 1:57:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn


Answer this question though. When you claimed that Vietnam proved that aerial bombing doesn't work ... was that a) a well thought out, and supportable position based on wide analysis of several conflicts, or b) just some shit you through out there, and are now spinning your way around?




We dropped more explosives on Vietnam than had been blown up combined in human history.

Then we admitted the war could not be won, and left.

We blew up Saddams army in a week or two.

McCain is running on a platform of being in Iraq for 100 years.

We blew up the Taliban with bombardment.

We are still  in Afghanistan.

We blew up Al Qaida training camps

Several years prior to 9/11.

Am I the only one who sees a pattern?

quote:



Sorry if I seem to be going after you ... but you spend so much time going after everyone else ... I just can't help myself. [;)]



Apology accepted.

Feel free to go after something specific of mine, but that post of yours was simply caustic, obtuse, and inarticulate.

I keep saying the same thing over and over again on this thread, and most responding to me seem to be attacking a position I am not espousing.

Sinergy



Alumbrado -> RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story (2/24/2008 2:03:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

Now we are discussing what the military is good at, victory and diplomacy? I didn't contest you on any of these points.
 
Answer this question though. When you claimed that Vietnam proved that aerial bombing doesn't work ... was that a) a well thought out, and supportable position based on wide analysis of several conflicts, or b) just some shit you through out there, and are now spinning your way around?
 
Sorry if I seem to be going after you ... but you spend so much time going after everyone else ... I just can't help myself. [;)]


Maybe he has a problem with women who actually know how to fight back effectively?[:D]



xBullx -> RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story (2/24/2008 2:05:24 PM)

I was doing my best to stay somewhat on topic. I think the topic at hand related to his comments about things military. But I also believe he has other shortcomings do to inexperience and young or not, new to the scene or not, he seems to be full of the same old political telling you what you want to hear BS.

But that's just me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

FR

...hope people don't see this a hijack, but it seems to me that a lot of attention is being put on the idea that any potential presidential candidate has to have the respect of the military. Firstly, have i read that right? And secondly, i don't know of any other first world nation where military support in the political arena is even thought of as desirable.......now, Pakistan maybe......



bipolarber -> RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story (2/24/2008 2:10:32 PM)

Just to inject a little bit of "fairness and balance" (to reclaim a much abused term) into this thread, I'd like to point out that the changes Bill Clinton made to the military during his eight years in office were done in cojuction with the joint chiefs. The idea was that with the Soviet Union in shambles, we didn't need to maintain a vast standing army, but rather start putting our money and our efforts into creating a high tech military that could take out an enemy in a traditional battle. Considering that we pretty much routed the Bathists in under three weeks once the war began, I'd say that the policy worked. (I still play the tape of a single multi-warhead bomb targeting and taking out a road full of staggered tanks and get a proud chill.)

The problems started when we decided to become occupiers, rather than liberators. Had we just packed up either when the statue came down, or when we pulled Hussien out of his spider hole, we would have been much farther ahead.

As much as Bush & Co. like to say that we are in "the fight of our lives" in the region, his actions tend to NOT back that statement up. Our industry has not been tapped to supply the war with the equipment and supplies we need. The draft has not been brought back to supply the manpower required for the job. (Instead, we keep the same troops over there, far beyond their contracted obligations.)

Bush and his cronies are liars. They started this thing on a lie, and they lied to us all throughout our prsence there, and they lie to us to this very day.

Yes, we need someone in the white house who can change things. I don't think it's "we'll stay there 100 years if we have to" McCain, and Obama's lack of experience worries me. (But then, President Junior wasn't exactly a seasoned warrior either... having strings pulled for him to stay in the US during 'Nam and going AWOL when it suited him.) Which leaves us with either Hillary, or (as of this morning) Ralph.

I want this war to end, guys. I don't think there's any shame in saying that. We've been there longer than we were in WWII, and we've achieved damn little. If we want the Iraqis to stand up for themselves, then we'd better help "the awakening" along and let 'em push the insurgents out on their own. The only way to do that is to start pulling our guys out, while arming the people we support to the teeth.




Alumbrado -> RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story (2/24/2008 2:11:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

FR

...hope people don't see this a hijack, but it seems to me that a lot of attention is being put on the idea that any potential presidential candidate has to have the respect of the military. Firstly, have i read that right? And secondly, i don't know of any other first world nation where military support in the political arena is even thought of as desirable.......now, Pakistan maybe......



That is a good point, since any military person learns early on that you respect the rank, if not the person wearing it...
The notion that the US military would just walk away if a black man, or a woman, or a gay person, or an extreme liberal, or a power hungry megalomaniac were put in charge, has been thoroughly debunked by real life. 



Sinergy -> RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story (2/24/2008 2:11:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: xBullx

But I also believe he has other shortcomings do to inexperience and young or not, new to the scene or not, he seems to be full of the same old political telling you what you want to hear BS.



Which would distinguish him from any other candidate how?

All the Republicans seem to be fighting over is who can torture the most people, stay in Iraq the longest, put the most people in prison, and criminalize women's health care.

Most of the time, I think Billary belongs in that group.

Sinergy



wkdshadow -> RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story (2/24/2008 2:15:28 PM)

Er, dropped more explosives in vietnam than in all history combined? Can you cite a source please? You can be quiet now.

As for blowing things up, people relocate and rebuild... what's that got to do with the effectiveness of a bombing run in it's task to compliment infantry efforts? Were those targets that were struck not destroyed? Would using a whole platoon and several soldiers lives somehow magically stop others from rebuilding what has been destroyed? Did we not destroy the Iraqi regular forces targets, now seeing a completely different foe that does not wear uniform and that does not conform to any uniform military law(not that the regulars did) or regular tactics?

Am I the only one that sees a pattern of you not addressing reality?



wkdshadow -> RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story (2/24/2008 2:26:17 PM)

quote:

I want this war to end, guys. I don't think there's any shame in saying that. We've been there longer than we were in WWII, and we've achieved damn little. If we want the Iraqis to stand up for themselves, then we'd better help "the awakening" along and let 'em push the insurgents out on their own. The only way to do that is to start pulling our guys out, while arming the people we support to the teeth.
Everyone wants this war to end. The problem is if we established a true democracy, the first vote in Iraq would be to restore the old reigime, or likely even stricter Islamic law than was established before. We are attempting to establish a democracy where it is not wanted.

Also, look at who we've established as the resident regulars. Really, watch these two links and figure out for yourself what would happen if we left there.

Volunteer using AK as an EOD tool:
http://www.liveleak.com/player2.swf?token=18f_1201000704

The attempted training of Iraqi soldiers...
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=29c_1181548597




Sinergy -> RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story (2/24/2008 2:26:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wkdshadow

Er, dropped more explosives in vietnam than in all history combined? Can you cite a source please?



Here are a list of links.  I think I first read it in Charnow's work "Vietnam."  Was not the only place I read it, but I seem to recall similar quotes in "Fire In The Lake."

http://books.google.com/books?id=SVtNalqmYgAC&pg=PA462&lpg=PA462&dq=combined+tonnage+of+bombs+dropped+on+vietnam&source=web&ots=rMqvdNA8Hr&sig=LzwnT2es0vSY4ZLdHjOGBS_GWqM

quote:



You can be quiet now.



I always love it when the obtuse turn nasty.

It is usually a symptom of blood flow to the face and a feeling of embarassment that one appears stupid to other people, and the only recourse is to turn bellicose.

quote:



As for blowing things up, people relocate and rebuild... what's that got to do with the effectiveness of a bombing run in it's task to compliment infantry efforts? Were those targets that were struck not destroyed? Would using a whole platoon and several soldiers lives somehow magically stop others from rebuilding what has been destroyed? Did we not destroy the Iraqi regular forces targets, now seeing a completely different foe that does not wear uniform and that does not conform to any uniform military law(not that the regulars did) or regular tactics?



I dont know.  What does your post have to do with the point I am making?

quote:



Am I the only one that sees a pattern of you not addressing reality?



Must suck when the point you think you are arguing ends up being completely irrelevant to the discussion.

How is that working for you?

DrPhilergy



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125