Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 15 Jul '09 16:07
    Is it over? Just wondering where all of the anti-Iraq war naysayers are. We are still over there killing innocent Iraqis....aren't we?
  2. 15 Jul '09 16:13
    Originally posted by torch71
    Is it over? Just wondering where all of the anti-Iraq war naysayers are. We are still over there killing innocent Iraqis....aren't we?
    Preparations are already being made for a pullout. How do I know? I'm IN Iraq right at this moment.
  3. 15 Jul '09 16:14
    Originally posted by torch71
    Is it over? Just wondering where all of the anti-Iraq war naysayers are. We are still over there killing innocent Iraqis....aren't we?
    the anti-war people?

    well, they've gone silent, they're waiting for Obama to stop the war.
  4. 15 Jul '09 16:19
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    Preparations are already being made for a pullout. How do I know? I'm IN Iraq right at this moment.
    I would think if you can convince 300 congressman to vote a 800 billion dollar spending package in a short 3 days you could pull the troops out a hell of alot earlier, also what about the poor souls at Gitmo, surely in 6 months he could have closed down Gitmo.
  5. 15 Jul '09 16:28
    Originally posted by torch71
    I would think if you can convince 300 congressman to vote a 800 billion dollar spending package in a short 3 days you could pull the troops out a hell of alot earlier, also what about the poor souls at Gitmo, surely in 6 months he could have closed down Gitmo.
    Yes, because moving troops out on a large scale and signing a bill are remotely similar.

    Obama stated during the elections that his goal was to have most of our forces out in 16 months. He took office January 20th.
  6. 15 Jul '09 16:37
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    Yes, because moving troops out on a large scale and signing a bill are remotely similar.

    Obama stated during the elections that his goal was to have most of our forces out in 16 months. He took office January 20th.
    Yes I would think 3 days for congress to move, and 6 month to move 100s of thousand of troops and equipment is a bit off on my part. So do you think it should actually take 16 months to remove you guys and gals out of there or are we trying to finish the job first?
  7. 15 Jul '09 17:06
    Originally posted by torch71
    Yes I would think 3 days for congress to move, and 6 month to move 100s of thousand of troops and equipment is a bit off on my part. So do you think it should actually take 16 months to remove you guys and gals out of there or are we trying to finish the job first?
    What job exactly is there to finish? If you mean when rival tribes and religious sects stop trying to off each other and us that's never going to happen.

    A great deal of it was curbed after the Anbar Awakening and we reconciled with Suni militants who had been fighting against us. The formed the "Sons of Iraq" and ended up literally on our payroll.

    But really that was just a bandaid.

    It seems to me culture is set up so that the only thing that keeps the "peace" is when one group maintains brutal dominance over the rest of the groups. It's rather sad because they're a lot of good people in Iraq, and I know some of them.

    Nothing we do and no "benchmarks" we reach is going to guarantee stability after we leave. It's just going to do what it's going to do.

    Now that doesn't mean you don't pullout slow and methodical. But you have to keep in mind the US military (and all militaries for that matter) are designed to destroy enemy forces, not nation build.
  8. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    17 Jul '09 12:26 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    Preparations are already being made for a pullout. How do I know? I'm IN Iraq right at this moment.
    That's good news; I wish you and all of your fellow soldiers a safe and speedy return. And, when you get back, I hope they don't just throw you a big parade on day 1 and then leave you to your own devices from day 2 on. I hope the politicians keep their promises to take care of you when you get back.

    By the way, just how hot is it there this time of year? Kind of like Death Valley on steroids?
  9. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    17 Jul '09 12:35
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    you have to keep in mind the US military (and all militaries for that matter) are designed to destroy enemy forces, not nation build.
    Sorry. I don't want to keep in mind the idea that armies are what armies are and the world needs to adapt to that 'fact'. The U.S. military - and militaries all round the word - should be designed to do what their civilian masters and nations require them to do.
  10. 17 Jul '09 13:02
    Originally posted by sh76
    That's good news; I wish you and all of your fellow soldiers a safe and speedy return. And, when you get back, I hope they don't just throw you a big parade on day 1 and then leave you to your own devices from day 2 on. I hope the politicians keep their promises to take care of you when you get back.

    By the way, just how hot is it there this time of year? Kind of like Death Valley on steroids?
    Thank you. This year I used my VA loan to buy my first home. Kind of ironic that my first home purchase is in the middle of a housing crisis.

    The new GI Bill is fricking awesome. I definately plan to use that one or pass it on to my step daughter.

    I can't speak from the perspective of wounded warriors but was in the civilian sector for a good, long while. The benefits are great in the military, but there are also draw backs as well. I guess with everything in life you take the good with the bad.

    My first tour when we landed in Main (coming home) the American Legion was there with a red carpet, lined up and applaudind us as we got off the plane. I was really moved by that because most of these guys had fought in Vietnam, the Korean war and many from WW2. It just baffled me that one gentleman who faught in Normandy was thanking ME for my service. The crap I've had to go through was nothing compared to this guy.
  11. 17 Jul '09 13:08
    Originally posted by FMF
    Sorry. I don't want to keep in mind the idea that armies are what armies are and the world needs to adapt to that 'fact'. The U.S. military - and militaries all round the word - should be designed to do what their civilian masters and nations require them to do.
    Of course. And we also have our military used to give aid during natural disasters, feeding the poor in 3rd world countries, etc.

    That being said every military's primary design and function is to fight wars. People often wonder why the "war" is going badly in Iraq, but the war (in conventional terms) literally lasted days. The part that went badly was nation building in one of the most divided, violent and volatile places in the world. That's a hell of a task, don't you think?
  12. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    17 Jul '09 13:21
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    That being said every military's primary design and function is to fight wars. People often wonder why the "war" is going badly in Iraq, but the war (in conventional terms) literally lasted days. The part that went badly was nation building in one of the most divided, violent and volatile places in the world. That's a hell of a task, don't you think?
    Yes it's a hell of a task. But this has been discussed before here. "Conventional" wars were a thing of the 20thC. Your military costs about $700,000,000,000 a year, actually doing stuff not included. And for that I think your nation can expect you to adapt to what it is you're now called on to do in the 21stC. If that's facing insurgencies, nation building, whatever, so be it. It's not for the military to define what "war" now is, in self-serving terms, and then say 'we don't do other stuff'. That is surely not the way forward.
  13. 17 Jul '09 13:41 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by FMF
    Yes it's a hell of a task. But this has been discussed before here. "Conventional" wars were a thing of the 20thC. Your military costs about $700,000,000,000 a year, actually doing stuff not included. And for that I think your nation can expect you to adapt to what it is you're now called on to do in the 21stC. If that's facing insurgencies, nation buildi ng terms, and then say 'we don't do other stuff'. That is surely not the way forward.
    I think your 700 Billion stand alone cost is a bit inflated, but I do agree the cost is massive.

    Conventional wars are NOT a thing of the past. For starters, phase 1 of the Iraq war itself was conventional. Plus you do not soley structure a military toward current operations because you have to deal with potential threats, many of which are conventional in nature. North Korea is a prime example.

    Now should we and are we adapting to unconventional tactics as well? Certainly and Iraq is not the only example, Afghanistan is another one. But that's not what I'm speaking about, which is nation building.

    There are a great many factors and complicated dynamics to what's going on in Iraq. You speak about money and funding as if it's some magic cure all, and it's not. Tell Chevron Corp to design and implement a new PC based Operating system and draw up plans to take market share from Microsoft and Apple. Can they do it successfully? Of course not, and yet some of their quarterly profits have broken world records. Edit: and this point isn't even strong enough, because successful nation building in such a volatile, divided place doesn't even have precedence

    I am NOT the military defining anything. I'm an individual with an indivudal opinion on the matter. I also don't need to be lectured about "self serving" terms since I freely offered up my own services to my country and to the entity of which we are speaking. Have you heard one single complaint as it pertains to myself or my own involvement? No.

    Just like everyone else in this discussion I'm presenting my own points and opinions.
  14. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    17 Jul '09 13:59
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    phase 1 of the Iraq war itself was conventional.
    Not really. It was a pale impression of conventional warfare. I think it's the kind virtually unopposed turkey shoot - rather like the first Gulf War - that unfortunately has had the effect of retarding the rethinking process vis a vis carrying out the military tasks that militaries might realistically have to carry out in the modern world.
  15. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    17 Jul '09 14:02
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    I also don't need to be lectured about "self serving" terms since I freely offered up my own services to my country and to the entity of which we are speaking. Have you heard one single complaint as it pertains to myself or my own involvement? No.
    You have clearly misunderstood what I meant by the words "self-serving". It had absolutely nothing to do with as an individual. And I get the vague impression that you're fishing - ever so slightly indignantly - for an expression of gratitude or some kind of deferrence here. Well, it's not going to happen.