Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: US Foreign Policy


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: US Foreign Policy Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: US Foreign Policy - 8/31/2006 3:34:12 PM   
CrappyDom


Posts: 1883
Joined: 4/11/2006
From: Sacramento
Status: offline 		Caitlyn,

I don't talk down to everyone, I have not only complimented you but said your knowledge of ancient Rome was vastly better than mine.   Yes at times I am snotty but people say some pretty stupid ignorant shit here also and I don't hesitate to point it out, regardless of which "side" they are on. 

As for me and my "inside" information, I have less than none.  I read a bit, try and do so from widely different sources,  say the WSJ and The Guardian.

So Caitlyn, what do you find funny in how I painted our position vs Iran's?

(in reply to caitlyn)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: US Foreign Policy - 8/31/2006 10:08:48 PM   
caitlyn


Posts: 3473
Joined: 12/22/2004
Status: offline 		Actually Crappy, the "compliment" you gave me was:
 
"For someone with such an amazing grasp of history you seem rather blind to things."
 
Even your compliments are hidden within talking down to people.
 
On point, you then followed that up by telling us that Rome was largely built on alliances, which is flatly untrue. Rome's method of alliance was to subjugate you first, then tell you what agreement you were going to agree to. The one exception to this was Egypt, who was actually given a chance to play nice  before being subjugated and told what agreement they were going to agree to.
 
As far as your post goes ... you have said several times on this board that the United States military is "spent." What exactly do you base that on? Certainly not performance. The United States military, as it exists today, is nearly invincible in this terrain. I agree with you that war with Iran is inevitable. When it happens, the army will rest and refit, while air and naval assets blows the shit out of everything that moves ... probably for about two months. By the time the army moves, the Iran military will be isolated, out of supply and shell shocked. The ground war will last a months.
 
Now, you can certainly argue this point, but if you do so, please bring something besides your usual talk down tactics. What exactly have you seen militarily, that would lead to any conclusion other than Iran being a poor match for the Texas State Militia, much less the United States Army and all of its force multipliers?
 
If you have some real data, then bring it ... otherwise, you are just saying funny shit.

< Message edited by caitlyn -- 8/31/2006 10:12:55 PM >

(in reply to CrappyDom)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: US Foreign Policy - 9/1/2006 4:56:24 AM   
philosophy


Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline 		"As far as your post goes ... you have said several times on this board that the United States military is "spent." What exactly do you base that on? Certainly not performance. The United States military, as it exists today, is nearly invincible in this terrain. I agree with you that war with Iran is inevitable. When it happens, the army will rest and refit, while air and naval assets blows the shit out of everything that moves ... probably for about two months. By the time the army moves, the Iran military will be isolated, out of supply and shell shocked. The ground war will last a months."
 
...and then what? Another attack on a middle eastern country and no idea of what to do when you've stopped shooting their troops? And, given recent history, it wont be the Iranian army that has the shit blown out of it, it'll be civilians. After all, it's a lot easier to phosphor bomb a city than go house to house.......cos then your soldiers may have to fight only other soldiers.........collateral damage is largely irrelevant to too many americans, which in a large part explains 9/11 and why america was so baffled by it.......


(in reply to caitlyn)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: US Foreign Policy - 9/1/2006 5:08:11 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline 		The US over estimates its military. It has military equipement second to none and can blast any country into extinction but the US military has not proved very good at guerilla warfare. Although America seems to think a lot of its elite forces, their reputation doesn't travel and they haven't proved that good in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam or anywhere else apart from Hollywood. Attacking Iran might bring home to the US a few surprises. History is littered with powerful armies defeated by poorly equiped, smaller but better led forces.

(in reply to caitlyn)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: US Foreign Policy - 9/1/2006 5:09:03 AM   
Dtesmoac


Posts: 565
Joined: 6/22/2006
Status: offline 		All societies are steeped in self interest especially socilaist ones.
 
I know you've been on holiday but no need to take leave of your senses :-)

"...... your local-community centred US. You compare with Britain - I honestly think in terms of politics our societies are not that dissimilar - we both have an active left but unfortunately the majority of our populations are attracted to materialism and as long as we're alright financially then we're not that bothered about anything else. Sad but true.

NG - I never had the sense I was born with in the first place!!!   :)

Whist socialist parties, politicians & countries claim to be egalitarian and not looking at self interest in reality they play to their constiutents at the expense of others just as much as Capitalist ones, are the French social laws about helping everyone or just a ceretain proportion of the voters at the expense of younger people. Extending the number of people going to UK university at the expense of lowering the quality, making a lot more indebtied individuals and giving a false sense of "your all equal". The Beast of Bolsover (Skinard!!!) and Ken Livingstone are perhaps real Socialists most others are self centered feather my nest types e.g. the PMs wife (your self excepted of course :)   !! : )

I compare and contrast US & UK because I find they are far more disimilar than I and most people in the UK think. The right in the UK is about mid centre of the Democrats. There is probably 50 : 50 Love Hate of Bush amongst eveyday normal yanks that you meet. Consumerism here is fueled by the fact that Luxuries are really , really cheap - Cars, electronics, eating out, vids, sports equipment, semi automatic killing machines etc where as good quality basics are quite expensive : decent bread, standard fruit and veg, non industrial food, medical treatment, medicine, etc.

In the smaller local communities there seems to be a genuine "community spirit" which except for small villages in the UK has largely disapeared from Britain e.g. they have the annual Festival which is 2 days to a week of activities which has active involvement and participation in by the local population and a lot of people from a wider catchment area and gernerally are of a size and scale that greatly out ways the size of the local population. (2 hour parade for a 1500 populatio town)

One thing about US foreign policy,  I think it is fuelled by the Plegde of Allegiance - many Americans really do believe that no where on earth could be as wonderful as even the most "hell on earth" parts of the US and that in effect the US is  the new "chosen people". Effect being if the US does it, it must be right.

D

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: US Foreign Policy - 9/1/2006 8:20:28 AM   
CrappyDom


Posts: 1883
Joined: 4/11/2006
From: Sacramento
Status: offline 		Caitlyn,

Worn out Army - I have included a few relevent sections.  There is plenty more where this came from.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-07-27-army-readiness_x.htm?csp=34

quote:

  Up to two-thirds of the Army's combat brigades are not ready for wartime missions, largely because they are hampered by equipment shortfalls, Democratic lawmakers said Wednesday, citing unclassified documents.

In a letter to President Bush, Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, said that "nearly every non-deployed combat brigade in the active Army is reporting that they are not ready" for combat. The figures, he said, represent an unacceptable risk to the nation.

In a statement released late Wednesday, the Army chief of staff, Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, said much has been asked of the Army during the nearly five years the U.S. has been at war.

In recent testimony, Schoomaker said that in 2004 it cost $4 billion to repair or replace war equipment, but now it has reached $12 billion to $13 billion. "And in my view, we will continue to see this escalate," he said, adding that the Army is using up equipment at four times the rate for which it was designed.

The Army managed the situation by rotating in fresh units while keeping the same equipment in Iraq. Over time, he said, the equipment has worn out without sufficient investment in replacements.


As to Iran
68 million of almost all one race and religion
Iraq
26 million, two major religions and at least two major ethnic groups, plenty to play divide and conquer with.

So explain to me how we are going to do a better job of fixing Iran, a country more than twice as big with twice the population, all united by religion and ethnicity?

To make it easier, pretend our army hasn't been worn out.  Pretend that we are not also trying to occupy two other countries.  Pretend that we are not facing growing insurgencies in two other countries.  Pretend that winter isn't the time for combat in those countries and that summer is the "slow" time.  You can also ignore the fact that North Korea is allied with Iran and could easily start rattling sabers against South Korea as a distraction. 

One caveat, you can't pretend we will be greeted with flowers and hailed as liberators.

(in reply to caitlyn)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: US Foreign Policy - 9/1/2006 8:33:08 AM   
CrappyDom


Posts: 1883
Joined: 4/11/2006
From: Sacramento
Status: offline 		Cleaver,

I beg to differ with your assessment of our special ops troops as well as our ability to combat an insurgency.

The
quote:

The US over estimates its military. It has military equipment second to none and can blast any country into extinction but the US military has not proved very good at guerilla warfare...History is littered with powerful armies defeated by poorly equipped, smaller but better led forces. 


I put the two above quotes together because they counter each other.  There were many many voices in the military screaming that the plan for Iraq was deeply flawed, it wasn't Garner, an ex military man who disbanded the Iraqi army and embarked on de-Baathification, it was a civilian appointed by Bush.  Those two things almost guaranteed an insurgency, it has been the leadership of the Bush administration that took on an exceedingly difficult task and proceeded to make it almost impossible by fuckup after fuckup.  The Bush administration has resisted all calls to increase the size of the military so that we can "clear and hold" a classic anti-guerilla tactic and instead we are busy repeating the mistakes of Vietnam.  It isn't the military which has failed us, it is quite clearly the Bush administrations repeated refusal to listen to outside voices, to quickly recognize failed polities and change them, and in general they have consistently snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

quote:

Although America seems to think a lot of its elite forces, their reputation doesn't travel and they haven't proved that good in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam 


The SAS may perhaps be the finest in the world but ours are at least a close second.  We took Afghanistan, a country the Brits had trouble with, using only special forces troops, not a bad feat.  I am curious, what exactly are you basing this statement on?


(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: US Foreign Policy - 9/1/2006 1:26:52 PM   
caitlyn


Posts: 3473
Joined: 12/22/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CrappyDom
So explain to me how we are going to do a better job of fixing Iran, a country more than twice as big with twice the population, all united by religion and ethnicity?


Actually, I never said this, so you will have to go to the person that said it, in order to get an answer. I don't think we should even be in Iraq. It was foolish to go, and accomplished nothing. That said, we are there now, and the only question that really matters now, is what to do about it.
 
Honestly, as far as military performance, I was actually expecting a bit more substance than an article in USA Today, a possibly politically motivated quote by a Democrat, and a statement by a General that seems aimed towards the CBO.
 
Perhaps you have some pictures you can share ... pictures of American warships beached on the sand ... or row after row of jet fighters, unable to fly because of broken wings, or perhaps even a scap or two from those poor rusty tanks we are driving around. You know ... something, anything ... anything at all that we can see, touch and feel that will help us understand what an "spent" military we are supporting. You mentioned that the military was recalling old men, and seemed pretty confident in that statement. Any chance we could find out who these men are? Perhaps you could contact the AARP ... I'm sure they could help you out.
 
Or ... perhaps the folks you mentioned above, just graduated from that highly intelligent opinion that one U.S. Army division, one British division, and two U.S. Marine brigades, were not close to enough troops to defeat the Iraqi Army in the last war.

< Message edited by caitlyn -- 9/1/2006 1:28:20 PM >

(in reply to CrappyDom)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: US Foreign Policy - 9/1/2006 1:42:01 PM   
CrappyDom


Posts: 1883
Joined: 4/11/2006
From: Sacramento
Status: offline 		Caitlyn,

If you want to dance around, fine but that is boring.  You said
quote:

I agree with you that war with Iran is inevitable.
and I mistakenly took you at your word and went on to discuss said "inevitable" war.  My mistake.

As for the military being "spent",  you can dance around it all you want.  If you want to dismiss anything a Democrat says as politically motivated, anything a general says as geared toward increasing budgets, and anything submitted to congress and reported in the media as uncredibible, I guess you would only take Rumsfelds word? 

So, what exactly IS your point about Iran then?  I wasn't saying we couldn't sweep aside Iran's formal military.  However, defeating Iran's formal military is the easy part, just like defeating Saddam's formal military was the easy part.

What I and many others are worried about is what happens AFTER we "win" the war with Iran.  We are losing over 50 soldiers a month NOW, if they are spread thinner, almost by half against a nation united against us, how many do you think we will lose THEN?  I can see the victory parade now, helicopters lifting men and woman off of rooptops all while people cheer below.

(in reply to caitlyn)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: US Foreign Policy - 9/1/2006 2:11:22 PM   
philosophy


Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline 		Caitlyn.....overwhelming military power does not win wars.....has Vietnam taught you nothing?

(in reply to CrappyDom)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: US Foreign Policy - 9/1/2006 2:13:14 PM   
WyrdRich


Posts: 1733
Joined: 1/3/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CrappyDom

Caitlyn,

Worn out Army - I have included a few relevent sections.  There is plenty more where this came from.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-07-27-army-readiness_x.htm?csp=34

quote:

  Up to two-thirds of the Army's combat brigades are not ready for wartime missions, largely because they are hampered by equipment shortfalls, Democratic lawmakers said Wednesday, citing unclassified documents.

In a letter to President Bush, Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, said that "nearly every non-deployed combat brigade in the active Army is reporting that they are not ready" for combat. The figures, he said, represent an unacceptable risk to the nation.

In a statement released late Wednesday, the Army chief of staff, Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, said much has been asked of the Army during the nearly five years the U.S. has been at war.

In recent testimony, Schoomaker said that in 2004 it cost $4 billion to repair or replace war equipment, but now it has reached $12 billion to $13 billion. "And in my view, we will continue to see this escalate," he said, adding that the Army is using up equipment at four times the rate for which it was designed.

The Army managed the situation by rotating in fresh units while keeping the same equipment in Iraq. Over time, he said, the equipment has worn out without sufficient investment in replacements.



        Crappy, (nice to see your face again)

        Thank you for this.  You have now proved my point that Democrats/Liberals/the Left are willing to throw away every value they have ever espoused, every position they have ever taken,
if they think they can hurt Bush by doing it.  Democrats for defense...   I love it.

(in reply to CrappyDom)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: US Foreign Policy - 9/1/2006 2:24:06 PM   
CrappyDom


Posts: 1883
Joined: 4/11/2006
From: Sacramento
Status: offline 		Rich,

What is your beef about the Democrats screaming about what Bush has done to the military?  Do you really believe the Iranians are too dumb to see this?  The only ones too dumb to see this are the idiots in this administration.

I am trying to figure out what your issue is.  Do you believe the right wing propaganda that Democrats are anti-military?  Considering who has more combat vets, that is ridiculous.  Democrats are all for a strong military and using it wisely.  

< Message edited by CrappyDom -- 9/1/2006 2:26:43 PM >

(in reply to WyrdRich)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: US Foreign Policy - 9/1/2006 2:36:39 PM   
WyrdRich


Posts: 1733
Joined: 1/3/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

Caitlyn.....overwhelming military power does not win wars.....has Vietnam taught you nothing?


      It does when you use it.  The lesson of Vietnam that seems to have gone unlearned is that when you let slip the dogs of war, you can't leave them muzzled.

      I've never heard a Vietnam veteran talk about the war at length without some mention of what they weren't allowed to do.  My brother tells of watching an armed Iraqi climb to a snipers position in a water tower through the sights of his SAW, and not being allowed to fire.  They had to call the police (who somehow let him escape).

       I have a sneaking suspicion I'm going to hear all about Abu Graib etc.  These stories break into the news when the military starts prosecuting the offenders.

(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: US Foreign Policy - 9/1/2006 2:42:59 PM   
philosophy


Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline 		"It does when you use it.  The lesson of Vietnam that seems to have gone unlearned is that when you let slip the dogs of war, you can't leave them muzzled.

     I've never heard a Vietnam veteran talk about the war at length without some mention of what they weren't allowed to do.  My brother tells of watching an armed Iraqi climb to a snipers position in a water tower through the sights of his SAW, and not being allowed to fire.  They had to call the police (who somehow let him escape).

      I have a sneaking suspicion I'm going to hear all about Abu Graib etc.  These stories break into the news when the military starts prosecuting the offenders."

nawwwww, not abu Ghraib, or however it is spelled..........was thinking more mai lai, or napalming children....that kind of thing. Because lets be honest, to cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war is to say that collateral damage doesn't matter. If you do that then there is no moral or ethical dimension to your behaviour........you  have literally no limits. Now this, philosophically, may be pure Nietzche, but it doesn't work when civilians are around.......


(in reply to WyrdRich)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: US Foreign Policy - 9/1/2006 2:50:16 PM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CrappyDom

quote:



Although America seems to think a lot of its elite forces, their reputation doesn't travel and they haven't proved that good in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam 


The SAS may perhaps be the finest in the world but ours are at least a close second.  We took Afghanistan, a country the Brits had trouble with, using only special forces troops, not a bad feat.  I am curious, what exactly are you basing this statement on?



My brother and his friends have had exercises and witnessed training and ops. They say US troops over rely on back up and fire power which is fine when there is back up but were unimpressed when there wasn't.

Afghanistan had twenty years of war and civil war and had a hated regime, it wasn't as if there was a war against a united country as Iran will be. Still the country has not been taken, Kabul is the only place of relative peace. As the British command in Helmond province said. It will take ten years to tame Afghanistan and introduce law and order. Conquering an army is not conquering a country as Iraq has proven.

(in reply to CrappyDom)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: US Foreign Policy - 9/1/2006 2:55:40 PM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: WyrdRich

My brother tells of watching an armed Iraqi climb to a snipers position in a water tower through the sights of his SAW, and not being allowed to fire.  They had to call the police (who somehow let him escape).



One of the biggest complaints from none American forces in Iraq is that American troops are trigger happy and don't care who gets in the way of their bullets. British troops have regularly been fired on, even when they have been driving in columns with a British flag clearly showing, so much so it has prompted a lot of jokes.

< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 9/1/2006 2:56:11 PM >

(in reply to WyrdRich)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: US Foreign Policy - 9/1/2006 3:21:33 PM   
WyrdRich


Posts: 1733
Joined: 1/3/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CrappyDom

Rich,
I am trying to figure out what your issue is. 



       It's easy.  I am personally offended by hypocrisy at a very deep level.  As long as they are consistent in their values, and honest about what they stand for, I can and do respect people with any point of view out there (even when I'm telling them they are totally wrong). I love that I have good friends I don't agree with on anything except that BBQ tastes good.  

      Demonstrate your proclaimed values are a lie,  give your friends a different set of rules to play by...   My respect goes right out the window and takes my vote with it.  I'm slightly more offended by the Dems than I am the Republicans these days. 

      

(in reply to CrappyDom)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: US Foreign Policy - 9/1/2006 3:34:48 PM   
WyrdRich


Posts: 1733
Joined: 1/3/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy
    Because lets be honest, to cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war is to say that collateral damage doesn't matter. If you do that then there is no moral or ethical dimension to your behaviour........you  have literally no limits. Now this, philosophically, may be pure Nietzche, but it doesn't work when civilians are around.......




      Yet these are the rules of engagement our enemy has declared. 

(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: US Foreign Policy - 9/1/2006 3:54:58 PM   
CrappyDom


Posts: 1883
Joined: 4/11/2006
From: Sacramento
Status: offline 		Rich,

Okay, we get hypocracy bothers you.  What do you see hypocritical about Democrats? 

Can you state it clearly for me?


(in reply to WyrdRich)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: US Foreign Policy - 9/1/2006 4:07:34 PM   
WyrdRich


Posts: 1733
Joined: 1/3/2005
Status: offline 		      On a hot Friday afternoon with errands still to run....  Can't make it happen at the moment.  For now, let me refer you back to my "most idiotic OP in the history of the internet"  (I'm reserving the right to quote you on that in perpetuity btw).

      The highest value I see demonstrated is blind hate. 

(in reply to CrappyDom)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: US Foreign Policy Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




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

0.109