So How Are Things Going In Iraq?

[MasterChief]

A show of force does NOT automatically result in use of force. Matter of fact, the US's track record shows just the opposite. We've had strong Naval presence in the Gulf since 1990. Nothing new here.

GunnyL,
We've had a strong naval presence in the Gulf before 1990. I can recall monitoring the Iran/Iraq War while cruising up and down the Persian Gulf at 3 knots. Boring stuff. It's just that we did not talk about it much.

 

[Gunny]

GunnyL,
We've had a strong naval presence in the Gulf before 1990. I can recall monitoring the Iran/Iraq War while cruising up and down the Persian Gulf at 3 knots. Boring stuff. It's just that we did not talk about it much.

Well, that's the problem with thinking like a grunt, MChief. Naval presence to me is Marines on the ground and I was in "deployment think" mode.

You are of course correct. We just used to ride by instead of having to get off.

 

[Annie]

Did either of you see this today?

A DANGEROUS WORLD
Why We're in the Gulf
The world would be a much more dangerous place without America as a policeman.

BY WALTER RUSSELL MEAD
Tuesday, January 1, 2008 12:01 a.m.

Few subjects matter as much as oil, the Persian Gulf and American foreign policy. But few subjects are less well understood. Even relatively sophisticated observers will attribute American interest in the Persian Gulf to Uncle Sam's insatiable thirst for crude, combined with an effort to gain lucrative contracts for American oil firms. The U.S. on this view is something like a global Count Dracula, roaming the earth in search of fresh bodies, hoping to suck them dry.

True, the security of America's oil supply has been an element in national strategic thinking at least since Franklin Roosevelt met with King Abdul Aziz in the waning days of World War II. And true, the U.S. government has never been indifferent to the concerns of the major oil concerns. But the security of our domestic energy supplies plays a relatively small role in America's Persian Gulf policy, and the purely commercial interests of American companies do not drive American grand strategy.

...

 

[MasterChief]

Kathianne,
No, I have not seen that particular article, but I have seen claims like that before. However, it does not jive with import/export data. Yes, we get oil out of the Persian Gulf but our export from the Gulf is less than twenty percent of our total import--but my numbers are over twenty years old. The big thing is the countries who's oil supply is highly dependant on Gulf oil are the Dutch, Germans, Japanese and now the Chinese. From what I remember, their import was between sixty to eighty percent. Now the interesting twist is in the 1980's our national debt was financed mostly by the Dutch. That is probably still the case. If someone owns you, financially speaking, their interests are your interests.

It is an easy and common tactic to say everything concerning the Middle East problems is due to America's gigantic appetite for Middle East oil but the data says a vast majority of Middle East oil goes to Europe and the Far East. The fact is the world economy runs on oil. Unless folks want a huge world financial melt down, the United States keeping the sea lanes open is a good thing. There is no way anyone can imagine the amount of oil coming out of the Middle East unless you've seen it--a huge super tanker leaving the gulf every fifteen minutes, every day and night, 365 days a year is just unbelievable.

So that article is just regurgitating the same old liberal nonsense that does not jive with the data or with what I saw while on patrol in the Gulf. The reality is a little more complex than the article assumes.

 

[Annie]

Kathianne,
No, I have not seen that particular article, but I have seen claims like that before. However, it does not jive with import/export data. Yes, we get oil out of the Persian Gulf but our export from the Gulf is less than twenty percent of our total import--but my numbers are over twenty years old. The big thing is the countries who's oil supply is highly dependant on Gulf oil are the Dutch, Germans, Japanese and now the Chinese. From what I remember, their import was between sixty to eighty percent. Now the interesting twist is in the 1980's our national debt was financed mostly by the Dutch. That is probably still the case. If someone owns you, financially speaking, their interests are your interests.

It is an easy and common tactic to say everything concerning the Middle East problems is due to America's gigantic appetite for Middle East oil but the data says a vast majority of Middle East oil goes to Europe and the Far East. The fact is the world economy runs on oil. Unless folks want a huge world financial melt down, the United States keeping the sea lanes open is a good thing. There is no way anyone can imagine the amount of oil coming out of the Middle East unless you've seen it--a huge super tanker leaving the gulf every fifteen minutes, every day and night, 365 days a year is just unbelievable.

So that article is just regurgitating the same old liberal nonsense that does not jive with the data or with what I saw while on patrol in the Gulf. The reality is a little more complex than the article assumes.

Did you read it? It's backing up your old stats, which are still operable.

 

[MasterChief]

Kathianne,
Hey, I know, but my point is our national debt and who finances it is often over looked as a factor to our foreign policy. And now with Presidential candidates making greater promises--universal health care, government financed higher education--we've got to get that money from somewhere. Thus far, we gotten that money from European banks. If those European economies are threatened, we shoulder the military burden for them which just doesn't feel very fair to me. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Annie]

Kathianne,
Hey, I know, but my point is our national debt and who finances it is often over looked as a factor to our foreign policy. And now with Presidential candidates making greater promises--universal health care, government financed higher education--we've got to get that money from somewhere. Thus far, we gotten that money from European banks. If those European economies are threatened, we shoulder the military burden for them which just doesn't feel very fair to me. That's all I'm saying.

Not being disrespectful, but when was it since at least 1917 that Europe has pulled it's weight, militarily?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Not being disrespectful, but when was it since at least 1917 that Europe has pulled it's weight, militarily?

Europe , Britain anyway and free French, pulled their weight in WW2 as well as free Poles. I think there was even a Jewish Brigade in the Allied armies.

 

[Annie]

Europe , Britain anyway and free French, pulled their weight in WW2 as well as free Poles. I think there was even a Jewish Brigade in the Allied armies.

Seriously, Britain put up a mighty resistance, but they couldn't have without Lend/Lease and later outright gimmees, (agreed that was FDR's way of making sure they could no longer have an empire). The French has let their military collapse after WWI, placing all their eggs on the Maginot Line, which collapsed quicker than a hooker's drawers.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Seriously, Britain put up a mighty resistance, but they couldn't have without Lend/Lease and later outright gimmees, (agreed that was FDR's way of making sure they could no longer have an empire). The French has let their military collapse after WWI, placing all their eggs on the Maginot Line, which collapsed quicker than a hooker's drawers.

Simply not true, the Maginot line was not attacked at all and the French military was first rate, it had better tanks and more trucks, what it did not have was effective leaders, the General Staff and the General Corps were incompetent boobs.

 

[Annie]

Simply not true, the Maginot line was not attacked at all and the French military was first rate, it had better tanks and more trucks, what it did not have was effective leaders, the General Staff and the General Corps were incompetent boobs.

I put 'collapse' when I should have said old tactics 'based upon' Maginot Line and Schlieffen plan. I'm not going to put up the PowerPoint, so instead check here:

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach...edu&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&client=firefox-a

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I put 'collapse' when I should have said old tactics 'based upon' Maginot Line and Schlieffen plan. I'm not going to put up the PowerPoint, so instead check here:

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach...edu&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Their army was fine, their equipment was fine, their Generals were retards, but even that got better just before they surrendered. They fought.

 

[Annie]

Their army was fine, their equipment was fine, their Generals were retards, but even that got better just before they surrendered. They fought.

So why Dunkirk? They couldn't protect Paris, much less any other cities. I agree with the generals, but truth has come out that they fudged their expenditures on military, even back then.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So why Dunkirk? They couldn't protect Paris, much less any other cities. I agree with the generals, but truth has come out that they fudged their expenditures on military, even back then.

Dunkirk happened because they fucked it up and let the Germans split their forces. The British and French Forces were surrounded and had no means of real supply. They were unable to break out and the decision was made to save men and leave equipment behind, to fight later.

The loss of Paris should NOT have caused a Governmental collapse. Colonial and remaining regular forces rallied and were doing well along the rivers beyond Paris. The Politicians and the Generals failed, not the French troops.

 

[Annie]

Dunkirk happened because they fucked it up and let the Germans split their forces. The British and French Forces were surrounded and had no means of real supply. They were unable to break out and the decision was made to save men and leave equipment behind, to fight later.

The loss of Paris should NOT have caused a Governmental collapse. Colonial and remaining regular forces rallied and were doing well along the rivers beyond Paris. The Politicians and the Generals failed, not the French troops.

Well that is one of those 'if only' scenarios. They did and it was. And then there was Petain to lead France to the Vichy regime. He died on an island, as proscribed.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Well that is one of those 'if only' scenarios. They did and it was. And then there was Petain to lead France to the Vichy regime. He died on an island, as proscribed.

The French returned to the fight in 1942 as the Free French forces, when Vichy Forces changed sides in North Africa, as well as the numerous French troops and citizens that fought before that date with the British. A Polish Brigade also existed as did one for Belgium and the Netherlands.

Claiming the Europeans did not pull their share in WW2 is a slap in the face to all those brave souls that did JUST that. Need I remind you the British were alone from mid 1940 till mid 1942 when American troops finally started to arrive?

Further your claim could be used to insist WE did not fight all we could either, as the Soviets bore the Brunt of Ground Combat and lost MILLIONS of citizens and troops.

I am glad my children didn't get history lessons from you.

 

[Annie]

The French returned to the fight in 1942 as the Free French forces, when Vichy Forces changed sides in North Africa, as well as the numerous French troops and citizens that fought before that date with the British. A Polish Brigade also existed as did one for Belgium and the Netherlands.

Claiming the Europeans did not pull their share in WW2 is a slap in the face to all those brave souls that did JUST that. Need I remind you the British were alone from mid 1940 till mid 1942 when American troops finally started to arrive?

Further your claim could be used to insist WE did not fight all we could either, as the Soviets bore the Brunt of Ground Combat and lost MILLIONS of citizens and troops.

I am glad my children didn't get history lessons from you.

True, it could be argued that we didn't fight as soon or hard as we could have, letting the Soviets bear the brunt. Yep. Sort of like making Britain pay until they couldn't, then giving them what they needed. FDR was crafty, for sure. (It's here that I like him alot, not so much so on New Deal.)

 

[Warner]

People just don't understand WWII. There are many myths.

First among them (by date) is that Hitler should have waited until 1941 to begin the war as was planned. In fact he had no choice. Due to massive expenditures on the military the German economy was facing hyper-inflation in the summer of 1939. The pilfering of the wealth of the Jews had staved this off for about 18 months already, and there was no similar way out so Hitler's only option was to go to war.

Second is that France should have fought better. Well perhaps so, but the real failing was the British and French not going on the offensive the moment Germany invaded Poland. Both the British and the French were just to timid given their WWI experience. The entire French strategy was based upon the "impenetrable" Maginot line, which ignored the idea that the German's might simply do an end around (just like they did in WWI) to avoid a frontal attack though that area. Pure foolishness! Beyond that, the French just didn't seem to have the stomach for battle. Yes there were a small number who participated in the resistance, and we should not forget this. But most French seemed all too willing to live under the German boot.

Third is that Hitler should have waited until late Spring 1942 or even 1943 to attack the Russians. In fact, Hitler knew the Russians were withdrawing their means of production East at a staggering rate, and furthermore that had he waited until late summer 1942 he'd probably not have had to attack Russia since Stalin would probably have attacked him. There is no doubt that Stalin would have attacked Germany in either late Summer 1942 or for sure in early
Spring 1943. Every day that passed the Russians became more able to sustain such a war.

Forth is that the British fought alone for the first 2 years of the war. The USA supplied Britain and this is part of warfare. Had the British ever truly been on the Brink of defeat FDR would have done what was necessary to prevent it, despite the political consequences. The Great depression was brought about mostly because of US involvement in WWI, and this was a major concern in involving ourselves in WWII. Therefore, the Japanese were pushed into war and it was believed this would allow the USA to also involve itself in Europe - and then Hitler made the incredible blunder of Declaring war on the USA a few says after Perl Harbor - sealing its fate.

Fifth is that the Soviets fought alone against German. This is not true. Without US lend lease (never paid back btw) the Soviets would surely have fallen.

I could go on but just wanted to make some comments.

 

[Psychoblues]

So, how are things going in Iraq? Ask the troops.

Good Americans are still meeting their waterloo there. Living conditions are worse than they have been in centuries. Disease is rampant and the hospitals can't keep up with the casualties of American firepower.

What else do you want to know?