More Than 75% Of Americans Aged 17-24 Aren’t Fit For Military Service: DOD

[Mushroom]

Not important enough for me to give a shit. Either escort the ship or tell the owner to go a different route. Perhaps send a couple ships to find and kill the pirates.

That is why we have a naval presence off the Horn of Africa.

 

[Doug1943]

Uh-huh.

And I guess Al-Qaeda in your mind had nothing to do with Afghanistan. Nor did the UN in Iraq.

The longer you go on, the less and less sense your rants make.

I probably know ten times as much as you do about both conflicts.

You assert: we invaded Iraq to deal with Al Queda. Yes, that was the initial reason, or excuse. But we stayed to "bring democracy" to the place. Did you miss that? Did you miss the glowing reports of progress, year after year? You probably missed the episode where it turned out that our gallant allies kept ten year old boys chained to their beds for sex. Some of our men had their careers in the military terminated for protesting. (They were lucky: the way the Left's takeover of the military is going, protesting about sexualizing children will soon become grounds for termination, if it's not already.)

I'll helpfully post a link so you can inform yourself: (It's from National Review, anti-Trump conservatives who supported the Iraq and Afghan fiascos. [ Where American Boots Are on the Ground, American Justice Must Prevail | National Review ] It's especially useful, because it also exposes the bullshit our troops were told about Afghan culture, how wondeful it was -- a form of Political Correctness substituting for reality. Of course, Lefties will probably call the reality that the author reveals about Afghan culture, "Islamophobic".

And of course Al Quaeda's leader was hiding-in-the-open in Pakistan, another gallant ally, which we poured billions of dollars into.

As for the "UN in Iraq"... I'm afraid that makes no sense to me whatsoever. Please explain. (Unless by "UN" you mean the atom bomb building program that Saddam Hussein supposedly had, which, ha ha, vanished into thin air a few seconds before we got there. I guess it was "UNexistent".)

 

[Jarlaxle]

Already been answered, shot down, and repeated several thousand times on this board. If you had a memory you would have noted this over time but apparently you don't have one.

Your concession is accepted.

 

[DudleySmith]

Your concession is accepted.

Your dumbassery is accepted.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Your dumbassery is accepted.

Speak, Fido! Good boy!

 

[Mushroom]

You assert: we invaded Iraq to deal with Al Queda.

No, that would be the assertion of a complete and total moron. We were in Iraq because Saddam refused to comply with the requirements of the UN ceasefire from 1991 and continued aggressive actions against not only his people but the nations monitoring the no fly zones.

Only complete and utter morons even try to make the claim you just did. Well, morons and people who are essentially lying as AQ was not in Iraq at that time. Nobody in the administration ever made that claim, that was something people made up afterwards.

And after opening with that, you went on about President Trump. Once again, just as nonsensical as we had already pulled out of Iraq before he became President.

Once again, you vomit up a soup sandwich, and it has not a damned thing to do with the topic or anything else. Other than point out that you really do not know what you are talking about, and simply attacking over and over even if your attacks make no sense at all.

Have a nice day.

 

[Doug1943]

No, that would be the assertion of a complete and total moron. We were in Iraq because Saddam refused to comply with the requirements of the UN ceasefire from 1991 and continued aggressive actions against not only his people but the nations monitoring the no fly zones.

Only complete and utter morons even try to make the claim you just did. Well, morons and people who are essentially lying as AQ was not in Iraq at that time. Nobody in the administration ever made that claim, that was something people made up afterwards.

And after opening with that, you went on about President Trump. Once again, just as nonsensical as we had already pulled out of Iraq before he became President.

Once again, you vomit up a soup sandwich, and it has not a damned thing to do with the topic or anything else. Other than point out that you really do not know what you are talking about, and simply attacking over and over even if your attacks make no sense at all.

Have a nice day.

Thank you, have a nice day yourself.

It's very surprising to read your post. You literally don't seem to know about the justification for our invasion. Perhaps you were not around at the time. (I was, and was initially skeptical, and quoted Robespierre's observation that "People do not love missionaries with bayonets," but once the invasion occurred, of course I wanted our side to win, and for a while, believed that a critical mass of Iraqis would support us, transforming Iraq into a fledging liberal democracy. Wrong, wrong, wrong. I debated online with lots of liberals on this issue, me supporting the invasion, them against. They were right -- maybe for the wrong reasons -- and I was wrong.)

Anyway, here's Wikipedia's summary of the rationale for the invasion:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"According to U.S. President George W. Bush and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, the coalition aimed "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction [WMD], to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people", even though the UN inspection team led by Hans Blix had declared it had found absolutely no evidence of the existence of WMDs just before the start of the invasion. Others place a much greater emphasis on the impact of the September 11 attacks, on the role this played in changing U.S. strategic calculations, and the rise of the freedom agenda. According to Blair, the trigger was Iraq's failure to take a "final opportunity" to disarm itself of alleged nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons that U.S. and British officials called an immediate and intolerable threat to world peace.

In a January 2003 CBS poll, 64% of Americans had approved of military action against Iraq; however, 63% wanted Bush to find a diplomatic solution rather than go to war, and 62% believed the threat of terrorism directed against the U.S. would increase due to war. The invasion of Iraq was strongly opposed by some long-standing U.S. allies, including the governments of France, Germany, and New Zealand. Their leaders argued that there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that invading that country was not justified in the context of UNMOVIC's 12 February 2003 report. About 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs were discovered during the Iraq War, but these had been built and abandoned earlier in Saddam Hussein's rule before the 1991 Gulf War. The discoveries of these chemical weapons did not support the government's invasion rationale. In September 2004, Kofi Annan, United Nations Secretary-General at the time, called the invasion illegal under international law and said it was a breach of the UN Charter. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I recall Condoleeza Rica, formerly a foreign policy 'realist', talking about taking action before there was "a mushroom cloud over Chicago". Colin Powell called the justification for the invasion a "slam dunk".
[Anyone interested in reading about the thinking behind the invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan, and also the background to what's happening in Ukraine, should read these Wiki articles:
[ Wolfowitz Doctrine - Wikipedia ]
[ 2003 invasion of Iraq - Wikipedia ]
Wiki is not an infallible source, but these articles are about as objective as you'll find.]

What really happened was that Mr Bush -- not a man of deep understanding -- got captured by the neocons. They have a vision of the world in which the US must use its military superiority to spread democracy everywhere and do 'nation-building'. And this became the Bush foreign policy. It's not a dishonorable motive, it's just wildly unrealistic.

Nations are grown, organically, not 'built'. We can encourage the growth of an educated world-knowledgeable middle class -- the key to undermining dictatorships -- in many ways, but bombing and invading is not one of them.

The base of the American Right are reflexively patriotic. They send their sons and daughters to the military in much greater proportions than the liberal/Left intelligentsia do. They were taken advantage of by the neo-cons. But they've learned something after twenty years: don't trust the foreign policy 'blob' in Washington. Unfortunately, a lot of liberals don't seem to have learned that lesson.

Finally, a piece of advice for you, Mushroom: Whenever I see people on debate forums responding to their opponents with personal insults, I assume that these insults are in place of good arguments. The insulter doesn't feel he can support his position with facts, so he reverts to the methods of a kindergarten child.

This behavior can be seen on both sides of the political barricades. I'm sorry when my side (the Right) does it. But your side shouldn't do it either. If you've got a good case, good reasons for thinking a certain way, give the rest of us those reasons. That's the way to change people's minds.

 

[Mushroom]

You literally don't seem to know about the justification for our invasion.

Yet, you are the one that insisted it was about Al Qaeda.

Show me anywhere in your post where it even mentioned the organization.

All I see you doing is making stupid claims, being able to confirm nothing, and spinning all over the place.

And as so many do that know little to nothing, simply ranting completely off topic because you have to vent the hate in your spleen somewhere. We got it, you hate President Bush.

That is not the topic here. If you want to rant at a President that has been out of office for 15 years, feel free to go to the political area and rant and rave all you like.

 

[Doug1943]

Yet, you are the one that insisted it was about Al Qaeda.

Show me anywhere in your post where it even mentioned the organization.

All I see you doing is making stupid claims, being able to confirm nothing, and spinning all over the place.

And as so many do that know little to nothing, simply ranting completely off topic because you have to vent the hate in your spleen somewhere. We got it, you hate President Bush.

That is not the topic here. If you want to rant at a President that has been out of office for 15 years, feel free to go to the political area and rant and rave all you like.

No, I'm afraid you don't know much about this topic.
About half, sometimes more, of Americans at the time thought that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks.
A lot of lies were told: that Saddam Hussein was working on nuclear weapons, that he was linked with Al Queda. All lies. Anyone interested in this subject should click on the links I provided.

But .. you said something about 'UN' and Iraq. What did you mean by that? And why do you think Mr Bush said we had to invade Iraq?

And I assume you think invading Iraq was a good idea? And that staying in Afghanistan to 'nation build' was a good idea? And that in similar circumstances we should do it again?

As for Mr Bush - his intentions were good. I'm sure he was sincere. But he got conned by the neo-cons, and did immense damage to us by his foreign policy.

Of course, as a supporter of Mr Bush and his 'invade the world, invite the world' (in practice, his open borders policy), you will not like Mr Trump (as Mr Bush certainly does not).

Mr Trump, who also has a very shallow understanding of what needs to be done in foreign policy but whose heart at least is in the right place, arose in reaction to the Republican business-as-usual, send-our-soliders-and-our-jobs-and-our-money-abroad policy.

So: do you think the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were good ideas, and that this approach to foreign policy is one we should continue? (And what did you mean by 'UN' in Iraq?)

 

[Mushroom]

About half, sometimes more, of Americans at the time thought that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks.

The government never said that. That came about from anti-war activists.

And there were chemical weapons in Iraq. That is a proven fact.

And "Nation Building", that was the State Department, not the Department of Defense.

As I said, you are just spinning around in circles flinging poo wherever you like.

 

[Doug1943]

The government never said that. That came about from anti-war activists.

And there were chemical weapons in Iraq. That is a proven fact.

And "Nation Building", that was the State Department, not the Department of Defense.

As I said, you are just spinning around in circles flinging poo wherever you like.

Did you click on the links I provided? All the references are there, including the 'chemical weapons' supposedly discovered in Iraq.

I'll have to post large excerpts from them if you won't look at them and comment.

I think almost all patriots nowadays realize we made a terrible blunder back then ... good riddance to the neo-cons who are now advising the Democrats and dragging towards a war with Russia. But you seem to want them back!

State Dept vs Dept of Defense. I've never heard that one before! I'm talking about the government, Mr Bush's government. The Defense Dept carries out the aims of the government, by force. The State Dept articulates the govenment's aims.

And, since you evidently think that the invasion was a wise action, likewise our 'nation-building' efforts in Afghanistan ... then you must think that it would be a good idea to do more of the same in similar circumstances.

Is that right?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Doug 1943, you are aware that 3 of 4 Americans had to get remedial protocols and oral surgery on recruits into the US Armed Services 1940 to 1943.

Our youth are of out of shape, not deformed. That can be addressed.

And why are you quoting a shamnist propgranda rag like the Epoch Time? Shame on you.

 

[Mushroom]

Doug 1943, you are aware that 3 of 4 Americans had to get remedial protocols and oral surgery on recruits into the US Armed Services 1940 to 1943.

Hell, before July 1942 a hell of a lot were rejected for dental reasons. It was only when they lowered requirements to having at least 12 natural teeth (and counting those on bridges as "natural teeth") that they were finally able to start filling the ranks they needed. Prior to that over 30% were rejected for dental alone. And there were a huge number of dental officers in the military that spent a lot of time simply fixing teeth so people could be accepted or stay in.

The same with fitness. Even in the 1980s, one could join the military so long as they were only a certain percent over the body fat requirement. It was simply accepted that any excess would be burned off of them in training so not an issue. But by 2007 that was no longer the case, and being a single percent over the allowed would prevent somebody from being shipped off to boot camp.

If we needed to resume a WWII type draft in the future, you can guarantee those kinds of standards would return again. As even those 10% over body fat would either have that burned off of them in sweat, or assigned to positions so it was not an issue.

 

[The Duke]

Hell, before July 1942 a hell of a lot were rejected for dental reasons. It was only when they lowered requirements to having at least 12 natural teeth (and counting those on bridges as "natural teeth") that they were finally able to start filling the ranks they needed. Prior to that over 30% were rejected for dental alone. And there were a huge number of dental officers in the military that spent a lot of time simply fixing teeth so people could be accepted or stay in.

The same with fitness. Even in the 1980s, one could join the military so long as they were only a certain percent over the body fat requirement. It was simply accepted that any excess would be burned off of them in training so not an issue. But by 2007 that was no longer the case, and being a single percent over the allowed would prevent somebody from being shipped off to boot camp.

If we needed to resume a WWII type draft in the future, you can guarantee those kinds of standards would return again. As even those 10% over body fat would either have that burned off of them in sweat, or assigned to positions so it was not an issue.

40% of it is iPhones and Androids. That's my theory.