Current/Recent World Conflicts thread.

[SOCL]

Jahled and I share nearly identical views, if not completely identical. I have, like most of you know, opposed this war from the onset, and when our boys and gals crossed the border into Kuwait, I prayed all the prayers I could that they'd be well. When my boys at home--because I was living at Fort Campbell, home of the 101st Airborne Division, at the time--were ordered to go, it killed me. Every night I heard the whine and scream of airplanes leaving the airfield as one by one they left to fight. I talked to a lot of them: most of them seemed certain in what was to be done, but I could sense among some of the blokes, especially among the older officers, a sense of cynical realization that things were a little odd and uncalled for. A few even talked to me about it, but they knew better than to scream their objections and just went about doing their job.

 

Now...

I have known more than twelve Soldiers and officers to die, and dozens more to be wounded, my father among them. Fellows I went to high school with are bloodied in Walter Reed Army Hospital, and two of them died on that burning sand halfway on the other side of the planet. I always told them to take care themselves and come back safe, that I'd be praying for them and I appreciated every minute of service they'd given. I even gave a try out at being in the Army, but damaged by back pretty damn bad that now...well, forget about it. I feel almost inadequete when I talk to them.

 

I have a hard time hugging my brothers and kissing my girls and letting them go off to die for a war I don't agree with.

 

Jahled and John McCain put it best, namely that we at least owe it to the Iraqi people to try and stabalize and secure the nation, especially after such a mess we made of everything. A few of my dad's old friends, one of them now with angels, said that there were too many mistakes from the beginning. Militarily, the invasion had been amazing, to make Eisenhower, Churchill, and the fellows at Normandy sit in awe, but it had been too good. The grumbled about how they'd knocked out not just the military, but everything: government, services...damn bloody near waged a total war of annihilation. The problem was that they'd strike one town or city, take out Saddam's friends, and then move to the next place. What did this do? It destroyed the initial, military enemy, but created a power vaccuum in which terrorism and anger bred and festered. All those civilian and even some military planners who expected Iraq to be like Belgium in World War II couldn't have been more wrong. Sure, they were happy to see us, but there was nothing in place to pick up the slack and stop the infection that started the moment coalition troops moved from one place to another.

 

Every day I hear about another fellow dead here and another dozen wounded there, and can't help but wonder if it's one of mine. My father is actually slated to return soon, and I will never forgive the Administration or any of these planners if he dies in this damn illegal war.

 

Sorry, perhaps that was too emotional.

 

Indeed, we owe it to the Iraqi people to stabalize what chaos we've created, but truth be told, it's not going to happen. John McCain wants to send in more troops to, as he said, "secure and hold" the ground, and I agree with him, but this should have been done at the onset. Doing it now is just too little too damn late. We ought to be ashamed of what has happened and do everything we can to help them clean up, but even the government doesn't want us in there. If they are a sovereign nation, then it's time to leave; otherwise, end the facade and say "we'll do as we damn well please."

 

In any event, I can't say I am totally in favour of a complete withdrawal because of the chaos it will cause, but then...

 

A civil war is going to happen in Iraq whether coalition forces are there not. The only question is whether coalition troops die in it or leave. There is no "good side" to this; rather, we have to choose between the lesser of two incredibly awful evils.

 

[SOCL]

Damnit! I hope I didn't kill yet another topic!

[DarthTex]

Damnit! I hope I didn't kill yet another topic!

(*** the sounds of the wind, and rustling leaves drift off and disappear. A lone dog howls low and long, then fades. Not a single bird or keyboard can be heard for miles around ... The silence is deafening ***)

[Jahled]

Damnit! I hope I didn't kill yet another topic!

(*** the sounds of the wind, and rustling leaves drift off and disappear. A lone dog howls low and long, then fades. Not a single bird or keyboard can be heard for miles around ... The silence is deafening ***)

 

...

 

http://bitrot.net/images/blog/tumbleweed.jpg

 

Elsewhere..

[SOCL]

Well, gee, thanks, Jahled. I thought you would back me up on this one.

[Jahled]

Well, gee, thanks, Jahled. I thought you would back me up on this one.

 

I thought your last main post more or less summed it all up, and in a very thoughtful manor as well, so didn't bother to add the same words.

 

Edit: about right

[Eagle]

Edit: about right

OMG! http://www.cosgan.de/images/midi/frech/c045.gif

Edited February 12, 2007 by Eagle

[malarkie]

Okay, does anyone else find it funny that Mexico has two governments right now? The loser of the last election set up a shadow government because he claims the elections were corrupt (which is true) and now has his own congress and cabinet and everything except the military.

[Defender_16]

The silence is now Defending.

 

So there was a suicide attack in Afghanistan last week or something, 2 soldiers killed. Other than that it's been fairly quiet casulty wise for the past 6 or 7 weeks.

 

EDIT: That Rumsfeld piece kicked ass.

[Jahled]

MORE LIES:

 

http://www.sayagain.co.uk/b3tapix/images/rockpaperscissors.gif

 

[SOCL]

The Department of Defense just confirmed: 3000 total United States deaths since the beginning of the war in Iraq.

[Defender_16]

Taliban makes public their New Year's resolution that they're going to try to inflict heavy casulties on NATO troops this year.

 

Hey J, what was the image in your last post here? It looks a tad broken now.

 

(Watching much Gundam lately SOCL? )

[Jahled]

I can't even remember D16 dude, probably something to do with Rumsfeld's antics. This is why I hate leeching pictures, no control over them. It can't have been that funny though otherwise I would have seen this comming and hosted it myself. Oh well.

[SOCL]

It was Saddam Hussein and Rumsfeld playing Rock-Paper-Scissors.

[Jahled]

It was Saddam Hussein and Rumsfeld playing Rock-Paper-Scissors.

 

So it was!

 

On a more serious note, your 'commander-in-chief,' wants to send yet more of you guys to the disaster zone, as if it's going to stabilize a civil war.

 

Our respective countries seem to have liberated all the religious lunatics a tyrant's regime kept under control as was evident in the execution videos on Google with all the Shia religious chanting for that fruitcake who said it was religiously acceptable to enslave our service women if captured as one of his 'enlightened preachings.'

 

Weird, freedom isn't it?

 

Oh, forgive.. for a sec I forgot it was all about oil.

[SOCL]

On a more serious note, your 'commander-in-chief,' wants to send yet more of you guys to the disaster zone, as if it's going to stabilize a civil war.

 

Our respective countries seem to have liberated all the religious lunatics a tyrant's regime kept under control as was evident in the execution videos on Google with all the Shia religious chanting for that fruitcake who said it was religiously acceptable to enslave our service women if captured as one of his 'enlightened preachings.'

 

Weird, freedom isn't it?

 

Oh, forgive.. for a sec I forgot it was all about oil.

The plan is a disaster in the making. The Army is overworked, over-deployed, and over-strained--hence why they gave over command of operations in Afghanistan to a greater NATO force and are slowly drawing back deployment numbers to just under a division-sized task force. Where they'll find the new troops necessary is beyond anyone's comprehension, though a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs from 1993 (that is, the senior military adviser to the president) is backing a movement to have the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" rule taken out and in favour of allowing homosexuals to openly serve in the military. It's really the only pool of available troops besides of an all-out conscription of the general populace.

 

The man is asking for troop numbers that are ridiculous. We're talking about three to four brigade's worth of soldiers--that's another whole division. Rumour has it they're going to do something very stupid and decrease the number of troops per unit to form more units to have more slots to fill overall. This doesn't solve anything, of course, just makes each unit smaller and weaker in hopes that patriotism for the cause will drive recruiting numbers up--since that's been working so well these last three years.

 

Dear, God, I hope it doesn't come down to a draft.

[DarthTofu]

A rather witty newspaper heading: Sadam will not be joining us for tonight's New Years celebration. He's still hung over from yesterday.

[DarthTex]

Dear, God, I hope it doesn't come down to a draft.

If it does, you can blame the newly elected (liberal?) Democrats who are already pushing for it!

 

As for the negative media hype mentioned earlier about the 3,000th US soldier fatality; compare this conflict with about any other major conflict in the past US history (history for most) and you'd be surprised by the opposite . For the US on June 6, 1944 (the Battle of Normandy) had approximately over 29,000 dead over a period of a month or two; quite the difference between 29,000 vs 3,000, and two months vs ~3.75 years. It's not exactly comparing duplicate situations; it's probably closer to comparing apples-to-oranges. I personally think the coalition forces are doing an outstanding job, and are doing lots of positive things the (negative lefty) media doesn't report on (you know ... bad news sells papers, good news doesn't). Check out the "other side of the coin"

 

 

Interesting tidbit there Tofu

[JediHunter]

You make a good point Tex.. 3000 is a good relatively low number in comparison to our history... even more recent would be the casualties in Vietnam.. i think that was around 60,000... that's 4000 a year!.. so.. 3000 over almost 4 years.. is pretty good.. IMO..

[Eagle]

I don´t see your point! The invasion of the Normandie had a quite different reason as the invasion of Iraq! The 3rd Reich was a much much bigger Threat to any free country in the world! Especially because they were close to invent the A-Bomb!!! Which would have been fatal for Great Brittain and Russia and maybe a couple of years later for North America!

 

On the other side, there was no real threat going out from the Iraq! Do you remember? They told us that he´s (Saddam) got ABC-Weapons, which never have been found throughout the years! Therefor people still see no reason about fighting in Iraq, that´s why they complain about all these useless losses of human lifes! And 3000 dead soldiers are still 3000 too much!

[Defender_16]

That's NBC weapons not ABC. You've got the wrong TV network.

 

Ok Eagle, we get the fact that you're EXCLAIMING (!)

 

So here we are back to looking behind us again with the 20/20 hindsight. Yes, the US should have waited until they had about 500,000 troops before invading the country, we know about that.

 

For all we know that many troops could have made the insurgents come out of the wood-work even sooner and there still might have been 3000 deaths total. We don't know, we don't happen to have a time machine handy to find out.

*Shrug*

 

I've been listening to this idea about putting a surge of troops into the country, and it's one of the better ideas I've heard in awhile. I'm thinking the idea is that with the increased numbers they can stabilize Baghdad and the immediate surrounding area and buy some time. With a little time to piece things together they can build up what they need for when they pull those extra troops out, and hopefully sort out the Iraqi military in such a way that sectarian violence perpetrated by government forces is kept to a minimum in the future.

 

That's being optimistic, I don't think it's going to work nearly that well in practice.

This is a two front war, insurgency and civil war. If it was just one or the other it could be fought much more easily and this planned Zerg rush would take care of it. I don't know about both at the same time.

 

And 3000 dead soldiers are still 3000 too much!

I haven't heard that 50 - 100k civillians is too much so often.

 

 

++++Page break+++++

 

Moving on to Somalia.

[Eagle]

That's NBC weapons not ABC. You've got the wrong TV network.

I´m sorry for that. As a german I don´t know all words in english. We here in german call it ABC-Weapons (Atomic-, Biological-, Chemical-weapons).

 

I'm thinking the idea is that with the increased numbers they can stabilize Baghdad and the immediate surrounding area and buy some time.

It´s just a helpless trial. You need much more troops for that. Because you have to fight all these warlords, like El Sadr, first or the Iraq will never become a democracy like one of the western hemisphere, if this is really wished.

 

I haven't heard that 50 - 100k civillians is too much so often.

Ur so right!

 

Moving on to Somalia.

Link doesn´t work. The site is loading and loading and loading and loading and loading...

[DarthTofu]

Link works for me, Eagle. *Shrugs*

 

So far as Iraq goes: I really don't want to pull out; we got these people into this situation, and by the same token we need to get them out of it. That having been said, it's eating up a tremendous amount of our resources, and is still killing soldiers daily. While that may not be as high as the fatality rates in places where it rained bullets, it's still a son, daughter, mother, or father dead every day half-way around the world.

 

I really have no idea what the correct course of action should be- I see the points presented by both sides, and I don't really agree with either one fully. We need to pull out eventually, but when we do we run the risk of a huge civil war.

 

BTW Tex: I believe a grand total of two senators were in support of a draft. Just saying Oh, and conspiracy theories are for the "Left wing hippies." I'm terribly sorry, but "Right wing nut-jobs" are not allowed to use them. (It's a joke, don't take offense.)

[Eagle]

Link works for me, Eagle. *Shrugs*

Ok, it works now if I use the Iexplorer.

[DarthTex]

I don´t see your point! The invasion of the Normandie had a quite different reason as the invasion of Iraq! The 3rd Reich was a much much bigger Threat to any free country in the world! Especially because they were close to invent the A-Bomb!!! Which would have been fatal for Great Brittain and Russia and maybe a couple of years later for North America!

Actually, Nazi Germany was no where near as far along developing the A-bomb as the Allies thought. The main German focus of using "heavy water" from Norway was actually taking them down the wrong path to developing the A-bomb. So, technically (in hindsight, after going through German papers after the war), Nazi Germany would have needed a dozen more years to get the A-bomb (if they ever got back on the right track).

 

On the other side, there was no real threat going out from the Iraq! Do you remember? They told us that he´s (Saddam) got ABC-Weapons, which never have been found throughout the years! Therefor people still see no reason about fighting in Iraq, that´s why they complain about all these useless losses of human lifes! And 3000 dead soldiers are still 3000 too much!

Saddam DID have weapons of "mass destruction". What do you think killed all of those Kurds (Iraqi citizens mind you)? Just because he used VX nerve gas or mustard gas on his own people, instead of an A-bomb doesn't change the signifcance. Oh, and he did use gas weapons (weapons of mass destruction) on Iran during their little 10 year war.

 

So, he's used gas weapons at least twice before in his past, and then says "I don't have weapons of mass destruction". Are you really naive enough to believe him? Even if he did destroy them all (which he wouldn't let the UN verify), I still wouldn't believe him for a plug nickel. Now, what about the munitions that were recovered that were still loaded with mustard gas (a weapon of mass destruction)? What, you maybe didn't hear about this? Now why is that? Maybe the media didn't give it top notch billing like "ANOTHER SOLDIER DIED! Oh my, Bush is leading the world to oblivion! (** boo who, boo who I'm crying with fear **)". And what about the Russian convoy that left Iraq going to Syria days before the invasion began? Maybe a Russian somebody spilled the beans to Saddam that the US is coming and doesn't believe anything he's saying anymore; that invasion is imminent. Well you better get your crap (weapons of mass destruction) out of the country ASAP, so that in the future (should you survive) you can throw this in their face and try to get some support from your people (Sunni that is). I'm sure with the Billions of dollars Saddam scammed from the UN Food-for-Oil folly, he paid off the Ruskies to "help him out". Hell, the insurgents are doing a better job in the last 4 years, than Saddam's entire military power over the last 15 years against the US (and most of them have to sneak into the country from Syria and Iran; fanatics).

 

"Oil", that's all a big hype thrown out by cry babies. If it was all about "oil", then why the hell isn't the price of gas in the US down to about 25 cents a gallon instead of a couple of bucks ($2+)? If the US wanted, it would be pumping Iraq dry quicker than snot to get that oil ASAP and hiding it all over America to use in the future, wouldn't you think?

 

Rant's over, gotta go ...