 |
| |
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lancer
MM, sure, but in the face of public support for the policy that is his cause? America BELIEVES in this mission... |
You do, but you don't speak for "America." This "mission" has yet to even be defined. Guess what? If you count Iraq as a war situation, even though the shooting hasn't started yet, and count the 2nd Infantry as tied to deterring the DPRK, we now have active combat deployments for all or a major portion of every single division of the US Army and USMC. Every one of 'em. The friggin' cupboard's bare, and if anything hits the fan anywhere else in the world, or if things deteriorate where we're already deployed, we're running out of reinforcements.
The most undeployed large ground unit in the US is the 25th Inf. (Light) - the good ol' jungle fighting Tropic Lightning. They can reinforce their buddies deployed on "training exercises" in the Phils, but that's about it. We could rotate some of the 10th Mountain back to Afghanistan, to free up the 82nd Airborne, but that's about all we've got. We're going to have an occupation of Iraq for "as long as it takes, but not one day longer."  Gee, that's convincing. We're overcommitting and overdeploying, in a war that is not yet essential, that barely has majority support in the US, and has little popular or political support anywhere else in the world.
quote:
This guy threw it all away, sure...but maybe he didn't have what it took to begin with. Maybe he went to a euro capitol ready to be influenced by an anti American philosophy...the same philosophy that turns so many... |
Get off the high horse. "Ein Reich, ein Volk, ein Fuhrer?" - is that your idea of "American philosophy" - blind obedience to authority and refusal to question policy, no matter what?
quote:
I guess I'm just sick of it. This guy had a job, that job was to serve America. |
His job was to act as a salesman for American policy. He decided he couldn't do that job effectively due to his disagreement with that policy, so he resigned, so that someone else could be appointed who would do that job better. Hell, we'd be a lot better off if we had more people with that degree of honesty and integrity in government, regardless of their ideological leanings. Right now we have people so caught up in their world view that they're unable to comprehend that the rest of the world doesn't see things the same way, or that the rest of the world even matters.
The stupidity of making a remark (by Bush) that "this is a war for the future of the Muslim world" is just astounding. Our enemies couldn't come up with better propaganda if they tried.
quote:
America is its people, its people support the president and the invasion of Iraq, this guy activly undermined that... |
If one man's opinion can undermine the will or the policy preference of 280 million, that policy is pretty marginal to begin with. If this country, or it's so-called leadership can only function with no questions asked, and no dissent, then we're screwed already.
"Its people support the president" - less and less of them, in fact less than at any time since 9/11/2001. People are beginning to question this President's leadership, and for good reason. Where's OBL? How're things in Afghanistan? How's the economy doing?
quote:
I'm just sick of it. I'm angry. I want to serve again.
|
Soldiers are called upon to obey the lawful orders of their superiors, or the officers appointed above them (depending on whether you work for a living or not. Civilians and government officials are not subject to oaths of obedience to the High Command. Thank God, and our Founding Fathers, for that.
quote:
I'd guess many an old legionaire wantef to serve Rome before the fall, watched the decay...hated it. It's moral decay. |
Moral decay occurs when you have a political system so sick that marginal or unsound policies can not be questioned or challenged. It's fear of debate or dissent that signifies moral decay, because sound policy choices and a sound political or social environment can tolerate dissent and compromise.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Comrade Tribune
|
 |
Vienna, Austria
Nov 1999
time: 06:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
This "mission" has yet to even be defined. Guess what? If you count Iraq as a war situation, even though the shooting hasn't started yet, and count the 2nd Infantry as tied to deterring the DPRK, we now have active combat deployments for all or a major portion of every single division of the US Army and USMC. Every one of 'em. The friggin' cupboard's bare, and if anything hits the fan anywhere else in the world, or if things deteriorate where we're already deployed, we're running out of reinforcements. |
You do some good thinking. 
The above is the main reason why I am not so unhappy about all of this as I might otherwise be. 
Though, probably, no one will use the priceless opportunity, but the possibility is there, yes,... 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
if we need to deploy elsewhere, we will break out the robots
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
It's better to resign than to pretend that you believe something you do not. If I served under Clinton I would have had to write a similar letter. The world is full of hypocrites, I assume this guy is not another one. As far as the war goes, the opinions are like *ssholes. Everyone has one...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
I think Lancer should be banned
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
More likely we break out (what's left of) the national guard and recall the I.R.R. like we did in Korea. |
Which are like tits on a bull in terms of combat effectiveness. Plus we may need them anyway, since we have to rotate forces home at some point.
Simple fact is that for what Bush and the chickenhawks say they want to do, we need more regular Army and Marines - a lot more, like a 50-60% augmentation of current force levels. The ten division Army was sheer insanity - great so long as you didn't have to commit anything anywhere, but years ago (when Clinton was still around), the weenies finally conceded "Win-hold-win" was a stinking pile of horseshit - but Clinton (and now Bush) have kept the same ground force levels. It's a different world, and we need to suck it up and admit we need a force level adequate to deal with that different world. And we need to limit our commitment of forces until we have that force level.
BTW, CT, you need to do some good thinking of your own. If the US got pushed to the wall, and was limited in ground forces, we have other tools in the toolbox. The body counts could get real nasty.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Comrade Tribune
|
|
Vienna, Austria
Nov 1999
time: 06:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
And we need to limit our commitment of forces until we have that force level. |
[Sigh] And I thought you were arguing against the idea of One World Empire.
Now it seems, you are arguing for 'We-need-a-bit-more-time-and-less-mistakes-so-when-we-finally-take-over-we-donīt-fail'. Reminds me of the more intelligent generals of the Third Reich. 
Your only difference to the Hurrah! crowd may actually be that you are more dangerous.
But I still prefer your posts a lot to the posts of the [censored], the [censored], and the seriously [censored]. 
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
BTW, CT, you need to do some good thinking of your own. If the US got pushed to the wall, and was limited in ground forces, we have other tools in the toolbox. The body counts could get real nasty. |
I know; but there is a grey zone where you couldnīt use ground troops, and wouldnīt use WMDs, so there may be a window of opportunity for anybody/state clever enough to use it.
North Korea is already proving my point, sort of.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
 |
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000
time: 07:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DinoDoc
The title is starting to irritate me. |
You mean the reference to realism? Read the letter again. He's not saying that the war is bad, or that saddam should be left in power, or that he's secretly french. He's saying that the fundamental goal of foreign policy should be to pursue US interests, even at th expense of ideology. That's a classic realist position. His argument with the Administratioin is that their method of dealing with Iraq (and our allies) is putting ideology ahead of national interests; that they are willing to do long-term damage to US power and prestige, to say nothing of destabilizing a key world region, all for purposes that are largely partisan and political. Even his reference to wilson is not a reference to Wilsonian idealism, but instead to Wilson's internationalism -- a point-of-view now so mainstream that it seems strange that it was "new" within living memory, and to which realists subscribe. (Isolationists, by contrast, tend to be ideologues.)
Last edited by Rufus T. Firefly on 02-03-2003 at 11:43
|
|
| |
|
|
|
About damn time too!
If the USA acted more out of idealism than 'interests', then perhaps some of the critism could not be justified.
It seems there are many more people on this board that like idealism over the money grubbing of interests.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
Now it seems, you are arguing for 'We-need-a-bit-more-time-and-less-mistakes-so-when-we-finally-take-over-we-donīt-fail'. Reminds me of the more intelligent generals of the Third Reich.
|
Danke. 
quote:
Your only difference to the Hurrah! crowd may actually be that you are more dangerous. |
I focus a lot more on long-term goals, which are mostly non-military; the military being simply a tool for removal of er, um, roadblocks on the way to achieving those goals.
Seriously, for example, right now I'd have a much larger military and financial commitment in Afghanistan, with a real emphasis on nation-building and trust building with as broad a segment as possible of the population. Some *******s like Hekmatyar you just can't deal with, so they'd need to be hunted down, but I'd rather contain him with US force, and accelerate training of Afghan forces so they reach a point of being able to secure their own country. We need to do that to find an exit point in Afghanistan, and we need the combination of nation-building and physical departure to gain credibility in the Islamic world.
With Iraq, for the time being, I'm willing to rely on a combination of military deterrence and the current inspection regime. For the time being. 
quote:
I know; but there is a grey zone where you couldnīt use ground troops, and wouldnīt use WMDs, so there may be a window of opportunity for anybody/state clever enough to use it. |
I wasn't thinking WMDs (yet) - we have enough airpower, where we could really pound any major threat to hell, if we used it to it's maximum capability. The big difference is that the higher the sense of a threat to our security, the more Americans will tolerate more aggressive and heavy-handed responses to those threats.
quote:
North Korea is already proving my point, sort of. |
Yeah, Dear ******* Kim is the biggest reason I don't want to see a decisive commitment of US forces in Iraq right now. The whole "win-hold-win" strategy based around 12 Army divisions (we now have only ten) was based on an Iraq-Korea scenario, and was abandoned as unworkable. We can't commit enough to win in one area (especially with the requirement of occupation and administration), and have enough to hold in the other. The RoKs could certainly hold their own with the US forces in place, but it would be bloody, and Seoul would likely be trashed, with a horrifying level of civilian casualties.
Last edited by MichaeltheGreat on 03-03-2003 at 03:04
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Comrade Tribune
|
|
Vienna, Austria
Nov 1999
time: 06:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Some *******s like Hekmatyar you just can't deal with,...
***
I wasn't thinking WMDs (yet) - we have enough airpower, where we could really pound any major threat to hell, if we used it to it's maximum capability.
***
The whole "win-hold-win" strategy based around 12 Army divisions (we now have only ten) was based on an Iraq-Korea scenario, and was abandoned as unworkable. We can't commit enough to win in one area (especially with the requirement of occupation and administration), and have enough to hold in the other. |
When I told you that Hekmatyar is back (about half a year ago), people said they donīt believe me, and that I am trolling.
About the air power: Dunno. You need a staging ground for a major air campaign, and, against an entrenched enemy, efficiency is in doubt. You killed many Serb civilians, but only 13 Serb tanks...
About the only ten divisions: I didnīt know your plight is that bad. My condolences!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oerdin
|
 |
of Internet Music.
Sep 2001
time: 21:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
What's the I.R.R.? |
The Inactive Ready Reserve (IRR) they are people who have recently left the serves but to whom the Governmnet reserves the right to recall to military service should there be a war. Everyone who leaves the military is enrolled (even if they don't want to) into the IRR and can legally be forced back into the service if the president signs the correct paper work.
Normally your in the IRR for 2 years after seporation from the service but this number can also be changed when ever it suits the President. That's why Eisenhower could force a recall of WW2 vets to fight in Korea even though most of them had been out for 4 or more years. Sucks, huh?
Last edited by Oerdin on 03-03-2003 at 12:34
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-03-2003 07:12
Oh, my god! That is the first time I have ever seen this happen on 'poly. Did a person change his stand on an issue due to debate? 
|