Who Here Supports a Draft?

[rayboyusmc]

And, as every military person knows, counterinsurgency warfare is the toughest type of war to fight. The main problem is patience, which dumbass civilians seems to lack. People tend to think of this type of warfare in the terms of a hour long tv show where everything is taken care at the end of the hour. Reality is different, but then again, a military person would know that. Obviously, Goodshithead knows squat about the military and less about counterinsurgency warfare and should therefore shut his fucking piehole.

This was supposed to be a a war against terrorism, not against an insurgency that only arose because Bush invaded Iraq. Now we have a long haul in front of US if we want to defeat the insurgents in Iraq who are primarily Iraqis. If the US was invaded by China because they thought Bush was a war criminal, would you just say thank you? No you would resist just like the Iraqis who believe they were invaded not liberated. No fucking roses and parades, Dick. Just a great boot camp for future terrorists.

Better we just let them fight it out themself. We can stay another ten years and you aren't going to change a thousand years of religious history and hatred.

The world is not safer and a hell of a lot of good American miltary and Iraqi civilians have died for a war that never needed fighting.

If the real objective was to get rid of Saddam, why didn't we just assasinate him? For the trillion dollars we have spent so far, I think we could have accomplished this much.

 

[rayboyusmc]

PS: I forgot to mention that it was Dumbass civilians who got US into this. NeoCons all with dreams of empire as they played rocking chair warriors.

 

[Gunny]

Let's face it, the all volunteer army has been a disaster.

Conjecture

By now, you've heard the report by some army officials requesting a surge for the surge. I don't think it's fair that on an issue as serious as the Iraq war only a tiny majority of American households absorb its misery.

When aren't "some Army officials" requesting more troops, war or no? Be specific as to your claim and support it with some fact.

Democrats and Republicans alike say they "support the troops," but is that merely a copout excusing them from aiding their nation?

?

For the first time ever in U.S. history, the people who clean the armies plates, do the laundry, cook the food etc are contract workers. In fact, there are 165,000 contract workers supplementing American soldiers in Iraq.

These American workers make more money than soldiers in combat and have also absorbed 1,000 deaths and thousands wounded.

Hiring contract civilians is a smoke and mirror job to give the appearance of carrying out military downsizing. It started in the late 80s under Gramm-Rudman-Hollings and is in no way a result of current events.

If the war continues, that means soldiers currently in Iraq will have tours beyond, according to internal armed forces assesments, what the human mind can take.

Link to these "interbal armed forces assessments" please.

I think these unique attributes to the Iraq war has made it almost make believe to most American households. It's 'something that happens to other families.'

I don't think it's fair. A Democrat or Republican can never be serious when he or she says "they support the troops" and not also support a draft.

Every American household should realize war is not make believe. This is a lesson that cannot be told, but rather only shown: by way of a notice from the defense department ordering your attendance at a military base.

War is a serious matter and when your nation gets involved, so do you

Plain and simple ... the draft forces people to be in the military and it should be avoided at all costs. It's hard enough training people who WANT to be there, and I damned sure don't need some psycho-numbnuts who hates the world because he was drafted carrying a loaded weapon behind me.

Then there's the "one size fits all" part of your little theory. There are people who just don't belong in the military just as I know damned-well I don't belong on a car lot selling cars. I can see it now ... "C'Mere and buy this f-ing car."

And in case you've missed it, as evidenced by this message board and others like it if nothing else, some people don't support the war. Some, like you, are on their second thread after joining this board bashing the capabilities of the US military without any real clue what they're talking about.

Why would I want someone like YOU in my company destroying the morale of my Marines and half-assing everything you do when it only takes the time of you questioning an order to get most of those Marines DEAD?

Feel free to explain.

 

[dread]

Since when has FORCING someone to do something they dont want to do EVER been a good thing?

 

[dread]

Apparently the army hasn't taught you reading comprehension. Measuring the success of the army mission statement, and determining their stated mission is two very different things. And suffice to say, a mission statement found on an army website does not qualify as evidence that "politicians seeing money signs for pet projects and social programs," is the reason for the cuts.

Back up your claim with hard empirical evidence citing internal documents, or have your argument thrown out with this week's latest political garbage.

On another note. I do not care, nor is it relevant whether or not you, or your kin have served. It is not pertinent to the discussion and does not substantiate the claims you have made. Like I said, the all volunteer army has been a dismal failure.

Do you think you would ever have seen Eisenhower riding around Europe with private security watching his back? It's an insult to all Americans. Current Washington politicians protect themselves with security companies like Blackwater rather than members of US armed forces.

But that's what happens when the military takes on a "modern" Enron style business model.

The decision to cut the army divisions had nothing to do with "social services" or "pet projects." Americans and many high ranking officers just aren't willing to spend more than the highly accepted 1 per cent of GDP the military has historically been allotted.

And you're wrong about it being "your army". This line of reasoning is akin to a rowdy pre-teen declaring the house he lives in belongs to him/her - even though it's his parents who pay the mortgage, put food on the table and slap the clothes on his/her back.

It is not your army. The army is taxpayer property, period.

Make sure you always remember that the next time you make a ridiculous statement of ownership to an entity you do not solely foot the bill for.

Funny how you are too dumb to realize that RGS was NOT in the Army. Had YOU been in the military you MAY have understood that. Although I doubt it seeing as you know NOTHING about the military.


And that brings me to another thing. You talk bullshit about the military and yet YOU have never experienced it. So how can YOU know the eternal workings that surround it? You DEMAND empirical evidence from others yet have provided NONE thus far.

You are a liar and a fuckin hack who just spews hate about military people and gets all butt hurt when others call you on it.

 

[dread]

I wholeheartedly disagree. Why? Because beating up on a severely weakened country in 2003 (Iraq) is not an example of this power, nor a true test of it's effectiveness. In 2003, the US military proved what every credible military analyst already knew - that it could destroy a handicapped nation carrying the battle flags of an already mortally wounded conventional force.

One of the reasons why the Iraq invasion was possible was prescisely because Iraq was weak from the sanctions and conditions from the first Gulf War imposed by the Western powers (mainly Washington). Iraq in 2003 could be invaded because it was weak, and had virtually no deterrent capability.

It's been five years and the US military is bogged down in an engagement with an enemy whose sole weapon is glorified pipe bombs. This is just the reality.

Where is your empirical evidence for this?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

PS: I forgot to mention that it was Dumbass civilians who got US into this. NeoCons all with dreams of empire as they played rocking chair warriors.

SO you are all for having the military NOT be under civilian rule? Be sure to let your liberal buddies know that is how you think, I am sure they will love you when the Military just does what ever the hell it wants.

 

[dread]

This was supposed to be a a war against terrorism, not against an insurgency that only arose because Bush invaded Iraq. Now we have a long haul in front of US if we want to defeat the insurgents in Iraq who are primarily Iraqis. If the US was invaded by China because they thought Bush was a war criminal, would you just say thank you? No you would resist just like the Iraqis who believe they were invaded not liberated. No fucking roses and parades, Dick. Just a great boot camp for future terrorists.

Better we just let them fight it out themself. We can stay another ten years and you aren't going to change a thousand years of religious history and hatred.

The world is not safer and a hell of a lot of good American miltary and Iraqi civilians have died for a war that never needed fighting.

If the real objective was to get rid of Saddam, why didn't we just assasinate him? For the trillion dollars we have spent so far, I think we could have accomplished this much.

Sounds like you agree with Good Shepard...

This must mean that you personally are a failure and that the Marines in general are failures.

 

[mattskramer]

I would not say that it has been a disaster, but I think that it is common knowledge that as this Iraq war has waged on, the military, for a brief time, had failed to meet its quota. It had to “cut corners and become more lenient so that it could let prospective recruits in who otherwise not qualify. It other words, it had to “dumb down” its requirements just a little bit.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

You talk bullshit about the military and yet YOU have never experienced it. So how can YOU know the eternal workings that surround it? You DEMAND empirical evidence from others yet have provided NONE thus far.

You are a liar and a fuckin hack who just spews hate about military people and gets all butt hurt when others call you on it.

I'm talking about the military on a message board. Last time I checked, that is the precise reason for posting on a message board.

Listen here Cyber-Rambo. I know displaying internet bravado remains an entertaining way of venting for the layman. It's a quality I'm sure wins the hearts of many an internet troll. But it doesn't work with me. Not in the slightest.

What you have done, and the style you bring to the table is emblematic of a person better suited for prefect duty in a Siberian Gulag.

Tossing out personal accusations like "liar" or "hack" is a tactic of the desperate. Those devoid of offering substantive comments to the discussion often find themselves relegated to the outskirts of civilized discussion.

Either get serious, or get out of my thread.

 

[Swamp Fox]

This was supposed to be a a war against terrorism, not against an insurgency that only arose because Bush invaded Iraq. Now we have a long haul in front of US if we want to defeat the insurgents in Iraq who are primarily Iraqis. If the US was invaded by China because they thought Bush was a war criminal, would you just say thank you? No you would resist just like the Iraqis who believe they were invaded not liberated. No fucking roses and parades, Dick. Just a great boot camp for future terrorists.

Last information I saw showed that a majority of insurgents are foreigners. And there is a difference between standing up for freedom and fighting because you want to be able to torture people at your pleasure. Anyone who equates the Iraqi insurgents to freedom fighters is an idiot.

Better we just let them fight it out themself. We can stay another ten years and you aren't going to change a thousand years of religious history and hatred.

We already have. Sunnis and Shias are working together in the government. Is it perfect? No, but it's always improving.

The world is not safer and a hell of a lot of good American miltary and Iraqi civilians have died for a war that never needed fighting.

So freedom isn't worth fighting for, what kind of Marine are you????

If the real objective was to get rid of Saddam, why didn't we just assasinate him? For the trillion dollars we have spent so far, I think we could have accomplished this much.

Why didn't we just get rid of him in 1991 and save ourselves the problems? Because dumbass liberals such as yourself seem to thrive on keeping pissant dictators in power.

 

[Swamp Fox]

I'm talking about the military on a message board. Last time I checked, that is the precise reason for posting on a message board.

Listen here Cyber-Rambo. I know displaying internet bravado remains an entertaining way of venting for the layman. It's a quality I'm sure wins the hearts of many an internet troll. But it doesn't work with me. Not in the slightest.

What you have done, and the style you bring to the table is emblematic of a person better suited for prefect duty in a Siberian Gulag.

Tossing out personal accusations like "liar" or "hack" is a tactic of the desperate. Those devoid of offering substantive comments to the discussion often find themselves relegated to the outskirts of civilized discussion.

Either get serious, or get out of my thread.

You preach on here like you know everything and yet you talk out of your ass, because you don't know jackshit. Then, when you get called on it, you run and hide or start talking shit about other people's writing and tell them to shut up.

 

[Swamp Fox]

I'm talking about the military on a message board. Last time I checked, that is the precise reason for posting on a message board.

Listen here Cyber-Rambo. I know displaying internet bravado remains an entertaining way of venting for the layman. It's a quality I'm sure wins the hearts of many an internet troll. But it doesn't work with me. Not in the slightest.

What you have done, and the style you bring to the table is emblematic of a person better suited for prefect duty in a Siberian Gulag.

Tossing out personal accusations like "liar" or "hack" is a tactic of the desperate. Those devoid of offering substantive comments to the discussion often find themselves relegated to the outskirts of civilized discussion.

Either get serious, or get out of my thread.

Why don't you post some evidence you're always whining about wanting from us to support your views??????????


Probably because none exists!

 

[Swamp Fox]

PS: I forgot to mention that it was Dumbass civilians who got US into this. NeoCons all with dreams of empire as they played rocking chair warriors.

Last time I checked, it was the dumbass civilians that got the military into every war, conflict or police action. Clinton deployed the military to more places then any other US president and no one calls him on the carpet for getting us involved in places like Kosovo (where we still are) or Somalia.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

Last information I saw showed that a majority of insurgents are foreigners. And there is a difference between standing up for freedom and fighting because you want to be able to torture people at your pleasure. Anyone who equates the Iraqi insurgents to freedom fighters is an idiot.

We already have. Sunnis and Shias are working together in the government. Is it perfect? No, but it's always improving.

So freedom isn't worth fighting for, what kind of Marine are you????

Why didn't we just get rid of him in 1991 and save ourselves the problems? Because dumbass liberals such as yourself seem to thrive on keeping pissant dictators in power.

I've never read a post with so many basic factual errors. An objective observer you are not. Gross misrepresentations of the complexities involving events currently unfolding in Iraq riddle your entire post. What you are offering is political dogma and nothing more.

Here's a hint and a correction to just one of your claims. Most insurgents are not foreigners.

According to a 2005 report (the last time a credible study by an authoritative body on the issue was conducted) from the Washington-based Center for Strategic International Studies (CSIS), they make up only about 4 to 10 percent of the estimated 30,000 insurgents.

Like I said, get your facts straights. Its embarrassing to know people like you who base their conclusions of off myths still exist.

 

[Swamp Fox]

I've never read a post with so many basic factual errors. An objective observer you are not. Gross misrepresentations of the complexities involving events currently unfolding in Iraq riddle your entire post. What you are offering is political dogma and nothing more.

Here's a hint and a correction to just one of your claims. Most insurgents are not foreigners.

According to a 2005 report from the Washington-based Center for Strategic International Studies (CSIS), they make up only about 4 to 10 percent of the estimated 30,000 insurgents.

Okay, and the rest are just Saddam supporters mad because they don't get to kill and maim any more.

Shahwani said the Baath, with a core fighting strength of more than 20,000, had split into three factions. The main one, still owing allegiance to jailed dictator Saddam Hussein, is operating out of Syria. It is led by Saddam's half-brother Sabawi Ibrahim al-Hassan and former aide Mohamed Yunis al-Ahmed, who provide funding to their connections in Mosul, Samarra, Baquba, Kirkuk and Tikrit. Izzat Ibrahim al-Duri is still in Iraq. Two other factions have broken from Saddam, but have yet to mount any attacks. Islamist factions range from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's al-Qaeda affiliate to Ansar al-Sunna and Ansar al-Islam.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_insurgency.htm

And you just ignored the rest of the post about how the government is working together and improving. Must be because it doesn't fit into the "reality" you have created for yourself and therefore must be ignored.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

Last time I checked, it was the dumbass civilians that got the military into every war, conflict or police action. Clinton deployed the military to more places then any other US president and no one calls him on the carpet for getting us involved in places like Kosovo (where we still are) or Somalia.

More political garbage from you. In fact, there has been mountains of academic studies from the world's leading intellectuals on US foreign policy.

Just because one is too lazy to get his ass to a library and do some research does not mean papers researching Clinton's executive decisions regarding military deployment exist.

 

[Gunny]

I would not say that it has been a disaster, but I think that it is common knowledge that as this Iraq war has waged on, the military, for a brief time, had failed to meet its quota. It had to “cut corners and become more lenient so that it could let prospective recruits in who otherwise not qualify. It other words, it had to “dumb down” its requirements just a little bit.

Yes and no. The requirements have not changed in 30 years. The number of There has always been a preferred line to meet, as well as a lower, acceptable one that may or may not require one or more waivers. How the numbers fluctuate between those lines is dependent on more factors that just a war. The outside economy is one. How military service in general is perceived is another.

When I joined in 1980 at the end of the Carter Administration and post-Vietnam War period, we were not at war, but the military was so hard up for bodies you could join if you could spell your name correctly. The post-Vietnam War era perception of the military, and Carter's overall neglect of it made it less than a desireable place to be.

I recall if you were a LCpl (E-3) or Cpl (E-4), you could reenlist for the next higher rank in the Marine Corps.

From about late 83-85 to around 93-94, it was a completely reversed. We had plenty of new gear, weapons, and were WAY over on manpower. Beginning in the mid 90s, it cycled back the other way. Our OpTempo was increased while our manpower was decreased and we were again using duct tape and bailing wire to keep things working.

As far as war goes, who wants to fight a so-called war politics won't allow you to win? That's not fighting a war. It's being a target.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

Okay, and the rest are just Saddam supporters mad because they don't get to kill and maim any more.

Shahwani said the Baath, with a core fighting strength of more than 20,000, had split into three factions. The main one, still owing allegiance to jailed dictator Saddam Hussein, is operating out of Syria. It is led by Saddam's half-brother Sabawi Ibrahim al-Hassan and former aide Mohamed Yunis al-Ahmed, who provide funding to their connections in Mosul, Samarra, Baquba, Kirkuk and Tikrit. Izzat Ibrahim al-Duri is still in Iraq. Two other factions have broken from Saddam, but have yet to mount any attacks. Islamist factions range from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's al-Qaeda affiliate to Ansar al-Sunna and Ansar al-Islam.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_insurgency.htm

And you just ignored the rest of the post about how the government is working together and improving. Must be because it doesn't fit into the "reality" you have created for yourself and therefore must be ignored.

You made a claim that "most insurgents are foreign". In fact, that claim is not true, even the link you provided does not reinforce your original claim. In a twist of irony it actually strengthens my claim, while destroying yours. There's that reading comprehension problem creeping up again.

The argument that the majority of insurgents in Iraq are foreign fighters is a myth and you made the mistake of repeating it. It is a mistake of your own making, not anyone else's.

As for me ignoring parts of your post. The reason for that is simple. The rest of your post had nothing - I repeat nothing - to do with the validity of your original claim.

 

[Gunny]

I've never read a post with so many basic factual errors. An objective observer you are not. Gross misrepresentations of the complexities involving events currently unfolding in Iraq riddle your entire post. What you are offering is political dogma and nothing more.

Like I said, get your facts straights. Its embarrassing to know people like you who base their conclusions of off myths still exist.

The EXACT same conclusion can be reached regarding your intial post and premise of this thread.