What has Dubya Landed the US in?

a_unique_person · 17th February 2004, 10:17 PM

Fom Slate.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2095671/

It all sounds spot on to me. My tip is he will lose the election, as the deep doo-doo he has landed the US becomes more and more apparent. With that many people in the armed forces, the word will already be spreading that they are taking on something that is not working.

Quote:

In the March 2004 Atlantic, James Fallows writes that it's only "a slight exaggeration to say that the entire U.S. military is either in Iraq, returning from Iraq, or getting ready to go." More than one-third of the Army's active-duty troops are right now stationed in or near Iraq, and nearly half are "officially in the two lowest readiness categories." The National Guard and the Reserves are expected to provide close to 40 percent of our troops in Iraq this year. This commitment is more than most guardsmen and reservists bargained for. The Iraq deployment is probably the main reason the Guard and the Reserves are starting to experience some difficulty with recruiting and re-enlisting; if the economy continues to strengthen those trends will likely accelerate. Simply put, the Pentagon doesn't have enough bodies available to fight another major war.

Being able to blast the cr@p out of someone doesn't mean you can achieve something positive.

Mr Manifesto · 17th February 2004, 10:56 PM

So if a country like Pakistan did want to continue selling nuclear tech to rogue nations, or if a country like North Korea did want to build a nuclear arsenal, now would be a good time to do it because the US is to tied up with a country that wasn't a threat. Oh, and Al-Qaeda will have a bit more breathing room.

corplinx · 17th February 2004, 11:40 PM

Yes, we all know that if the US wants to fight a war it requires ground troops.

Stop thinking in WW2 terms. If we wanted to level North Korea, we could do it without a single infantrymen.

Now, if we wanted to sieze North Korea and turn it into the 51st state; that would be a pita with current troop deployments.

AUP, don't worry man, we can still just push a button and deal with most of the world. Thanks for thinking of us though.

a_unique_person · 17th February 2004, 11:56 PM

The point is not that the US doesn't have the biggest firepower, but that there is more to war and peace than just being the most powerful force.

Grammatron · 18th February 2004, 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The point is not that the US doesn't have the biggest firepower, but that there is more to war and peace than just being the most powerful force.

That makes no sense.

Jon_in_london · 18th February 2004, 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Grammatron

That makes no sense.

The failure of Americans to realise that there is more to war and peace than blowing stuff up is the reason you lost in Vietnam and the reason hundreds of your troops are coming home feet-first.

Grammatron · 18th February 2004, 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jon_in_london

The failure of Americans to realise that there is more to war and peace than blowing stuff up is the reason you lost in Vietnam and the reason hundreds of your troops are coming home feet-first.

That's not why we lost Vietnam.

The whole point of this thread is to be one giant flame-bate by AUP. First he says how USA doesn't have enough troops to fight another major war like he really wants to see us fight one. Then when a response is given to show that we do not need troops to defend ourselves or fight another war he responds with how Americans don't know what war and peace is about. To sum it up, he basically just wants to tell Americans how wrong they and their government is. I guess he wants to feel special or something.

a_unique_person · 18th February 2004, 01:28 AM

No, I wasn't after the US to start another war. I was just pointing out how wrong headed the strategists who started the war were. They didn't understand what a military occupation entails, although I would suggest they are learning now.

shuize · 18th February 2004, 02:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
No, I wasn't after the US to start another war. I was just pointing out how wrong headed the strategists who started the war were. They didn't understand what a military occupation entails, although I would suggest they are learning now.

I'll bet Saddam has had a few lessons by now himself....

a_unique_person · 18th February 2004, 02:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by shuize

I'll bet Saddam has had a few lessons by now himself....

So....what has that got to do with what the US has landed in?

Some Friggin Guy · 18th February 2004, 03:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person

So....what has that got to do with what the US has landed in?

I suppose it may have to do with it, since the US landed in Iraq, which was run by Hussein.

Granted, I think it's a bit of a stretch, but maybe.

a_unique_person · 18th February 2004, 03:12 AM

As I pointed out earlier, overwhelming firepower gets you somethings, like Saddam out the way, but it doesn't seem to be much use with the current situation, the point of the thread.

Kodiak · 18th February 2004, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
As I pointed out earlier, overwhelming firepower gets you somethings, like Saddam out the way, but it doesn't seem to be much use with the current situation, the point of the thread.

What is the point of this thread a_u_p??

We've lost only what, fewer than 600 American lives, in Iraq so far?

Saddam and the Baathists are out of power (we just recently captured the Baathist party president).

The only continuing conflict in Iraq is with Saddam loyalists (a huge minority) and foreign jihadists who are attacking Iraqi citizens more than occupation forces.

A democratically elected replacement government is expected to be in place some time this summer, which is supposed to be the signal for the removal of US and British forces from Iraq.

Where's the "deep doo-doo" we supposedly landed in??

Grammatron · 18th February 2004, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kodiak
Where's the "deep doo-doo" we supposedly landed in??

That would be this thread.

Tmy · 18th February 2004, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kodiak

We've lost only what, fewer than 600 American lives, in Iraq so far?

Saddam and the Baathists are out of power (we just recently captured the Baathist party president).

The only continuing conflict in Iraq is with Saddam loyalists (a huge minority) and foreign jihadists who are attacking Iraqi citizens more than occupation forces.

ONLY 600!!!? How many troops did we lose in Germany this year? Japan? Afganistan even????

We took out Saddam n the army almost at the start. The "war" part was over, mission accomplished. So why is it that we have troops being killed every damn day considering we were suppsoed to be "welcomed as heros".

Its a clusterfudge. Dont kid yourself that the July change over is going to really change much.

back to the point. Are we spread too thin?? What if those canadadians get out of line?

subgenius · 18th February 2004, 10:22 AM

The old "we can push a button" theory doesn't hold up when your enemy is dispersed throughout the world as al Queda is.

Grammatron · 18th February 2004, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tmy
back to the point. Are we spread too thin?? What if those canadadians get out of line?

Spread to thin for what? If you mean defense than no.

Luke T. · 18th February 2004, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Fom Slate.

"The Iraq deployment is probably the main reason the Guard and the Reserves are starting to experience some difficulty with recruiting and re-enlisting;"

I would like to see evidence of that, please. The last available figures I can find on the net are from last September, and they show the armed services are meeting their reenlistment needs, and then some.

Just to be fair, in the future if you want to know how bad things are, look at how much reenlistment bonuses are. If they are going up, then things are getting tough for the armed services in the retention area.

Anyway, I can't find anything but predictions on the net that reenlistments will suffer as a result of Iraq.

dsm · 18th February 2004, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Grammatron
Spread to thin for what? If you mean defense than no.

Explain. How do you arrive at such a black and white answer?

If North Korea starts to make rumblings about attacking Japan or the US West Coast with nuclear weapons, do we "preemptively" nuke 'em?
If Iran's nuclear power plants are found to be nuclear weapons facilities, do we "preemptively" nuke 'em?

In short, if most of our forces are tied up in Iraq, what capabilities do we have left to defend ourselves with? AND, after we employ those facilities, will we be in a better or worse long-term position in the world?

After you "push the button", there is an aftermath to deal with that may not be very pretty (and I am not talking about nuclear contamination).

Luke T. · 18th February 2004, 11:14 AM

In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan did his best to build up our armed forces. For those of us in the Navy, that meant pretty close to a 600 ship Navy. Life was good.

During the 1991 Gulf War, we were still hard pressed to meet our obligations. Many stateside bases were stripped of personnel to augment the troops in the Persian Gulf. Norfolk, Virginia was a ghost town during that period.

After the collapse of the USSR, a new phrase entered our vocabulary. "Peace dividend." This was a code-word used to gut the armed forces. By the time I retired in 2000, I think we were down to a less-than-300 ship Navy.

And that's just the Navy, folks.

I can't imagine the strain the armed services are experiencing right now. I'm just glad I ain't in it.

Grammatron · 18th February 2004, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dsm

Explain. How do you arrive at such a black and white answer?

If North Korea starts to make rumblings about attacking Japan or the US West Coast with nuclear weapons, do we "preemptively" nuke 'em?

If Iran's nuclear power plants are found to be nuclear weapons facilities, do we "preemptively" nuke 'em?

In short, if most of our forces are tied up in Iraq, what capabilities do we have left to defend ourselves with? AND, after we employ those facilities, will we be in a better or worse long-term position in the world?

After you "push the button", there is an aftermath to deal with that may not be very pretty (and I am not talking about nuclear contamination).

Is that what nuclear war means, because I had no idea

North Koreas has been rumbling for some time now and I would be more worried about them leveling Seoul with artillery than nuking Japan. We have a sizable amount of troops in South Korea that handle North if need be, but the location of the majority of US forces does not change that much if North Korea decided to attack the South.

Who else is there? What country is waiting to start some major conflict that we can't handle because our troops are in Iraq instead of USA? Why doesn't UN handle Iran if they have nukes? And why do you assume "blow stuff up" can only mean nukes?

dsm · 18th February 2004, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kodiak
The only continuing conflict in Iraq is with Saddam loyalists (a huge minority) and foreign jihadists who are attacking Iraqi citizens more than occupation forces.

But how much of our available forces are currently required to "maintain the peace" in Iraq?

Quote:

A democratically elected replacement government is expected to be in place some time this summer, which is supposed to be the signal for the removal of US and British forces from Iraq.

Really, says who? Bremer was specifically saying on the news shows over the weekend that implementation of the Iraqi gov't does not necessarily mean removal of US forces.

Quote:

Where's the "deep doo-doo" we supposedly landed in??

We landed in it after the 2000 election...

Luke T. · 18th February 2004, 11:19 AM

Don't underestimate the patriotism and pride of our men and women in uniform. I'm sure they are all very tired right now, but feeling very good. And this kind of stuff really, really sucks while you are in it, but the memory fades quickly after you are out of it, and the pride of accomplishment remains.

Voice of experience.

Luke T. · 18th February 2004, 11:20 AM

Sorry. One more thing, then I'll shut up.

Wives. They don't get that feeling of accomplishment and pride. And they are the biggest threat to reenlistments. I could tell you a lot of sad stories.

c0rbin · 18th February 2004, 11:22 AM

So much easier to muster an army 100 years ago.

Every lad with his dad, bring your musket. Ride a horse? Join the cavalry.

No need to worry about armor, or aircraft.

Tmy · 18th February 2004, 11:23 AM

What of the unexpected? We should know by now that the dangers are not so obvious.

What if there was a terror attcak from south america? Could we handle that? What if Cuba went all crazy, woudl we stand by and do nothing.

What if there was a giant natural disaster? Earthquake, meteor whatever.

I coudlve sworn that I heard recruitemnt ads saying that you woudlnt be shipped to the mideast f you joined up. Anyone here this?

Segnosaur · 18th February 2004, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by subgenius
The old "we can push a button" theory doesn't hold up when your enemy is dispersed throughout the world as al Queda is.

The problem is, al Qaeda isn't an organization that is necessarily handled by military force. Better intelligence is what's needed to get rid of terrorist organizations. Using troops in a large scale military attack shouldn't be taking resources away from fighting al Qaeda.

Wrath of the Swarm · 18th February 2004, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Luke T.
Don't underestimate the patriotism and pride of our men and women in uniform. I'm sure they are all very tired right now, but feeling very good. And this kind of stuff really, really sucks while you are in it, but the memory fades quickly after you are out of it, and the pride of accomplishment remains.

But accomplished what, exactly?

As pleased as I am that Hussein is out of the picture, not only are there lunatic dictators just as bad as he was all over the place, but Iraq itself doesn't seem to be doing all that well.

People have a hard time even considering that they made major sacrifices for nothing -- they'll convince themselves that they're victorious one way or another. That doesn't mean that they actually won, or that their sacrifices purchased anything of value.

Hutch · 18th February 2004, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Grammatron
Is that what nuclear war means, because I had no idea

What he meant was with the troop committment to Iraq we lack other options other than nukes. If N. Korea does something now, we do not have the capability to reinforce quickly, and a nuclear option may be considered earlier in the game. During the 50's, when our troop strength was low after the De-Mob of WWII, the nuclear option was considered more than once.

We have a sizable amount of troops in South Korea that handle North if need be, but the location of the majority of US forces does not change that much if North Korea decided to attack the South.

I disagree. We have about 37,000 troops in Korea and may draw some of them down. N. Korea has approximately 1,000,000 men under arms, and can probably break though the initial line at the 38th Parallel, albeit with high casulties. We have no major ground forces near the area to reinforce, that would have to come from US Bases that are now concentrating on the Iraq mission.

Who else is there? What country is waiting to start some major conflict that we can't handle because our troops are in Iraq instead of USA?

I think the more proper question is what country would we consider invading next in our "self-interest" via the doctrine of pre-emptive war.

TillEulenspiegel · 18th February 2004, 12:20 PM

AUP I disagree with your apparent assessment of the condition of the US in the title.: "What has Dubya Landed the US in?"

The hard fact is that the consequences are so wide and far flung and the pieces haven't landed yet. So while your pessimism may be understandable it is not complete.

Hutch · 18th February 2004, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kodiak

What is the point of this thread a_u_p??

We've lost only what, fewer than 600 American lives, in Iraq so far?

Saddam and the Baathists are out of power (we just recently captured the Baathist party president).

The only continuing conflict in Iraq is with Saddam loyalists (a huge minority) and foreign jihadists who are attacking Iraqi citizens more than occupation forces.

A democratically elected replacement government is expected to be in place some time this summer, which is supposed to be the signal for the removal of US and British forces from Iraq.

Where's the "deep doo-doo" we supposedly landed in??

Hmmmm....a species of Ursus postus dumbs***. Rare but not unknown in these parts

AUP and the article he quoted made a valid point. It takes time to train, prepare and move troops, not to mention the logistics of relocating families, planning and support for the returning troops, changing command and support structures, it is a massive job and it is keeping the readiness of the remaining units at a low level (because critical parts and equipment needed by units in say, Germany or Ft. Campbell, are diverted to Iraq--thus less operational readiness, less training, less ready to go. So even if there is a clear threat (say, N. Korea masses troops at the border, launches missiles over Japan again) we do not have the manpower "on the bounce" that are completely ready to respond.

Now if...and that is a BIG If...the Iraqi Government settles in and we can pull out our troops and the death toll stops and all is sweetness and light, then you will be right. But I'd bet a tattered Egyptian Pound that either (1) we will still have a substantial-say 50,000+ troops--in Iraq by Jan 05 or (2) We'll be completely out and the provisional Government will be near collapse.

We shall see.

Grammatron · 18th February 2004, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hutch

What he meant was with the troop committment to Iraq we lack other options other than nukes. If N. Korea does something now, we do not have the capability to reinforce quickly, and a nuclear option may be considered earlier in the game. During the 50's, when our troop strength was low after the De-Mob of WWII, the nuclear option was considered more than once.

We can bomb them enough to stop anything they are doing militarily.

Quote:

I disagree. We have about 37,000 troops in Korea and may draw some of them down. N. Korea has approximately 1,000,000 men under arms, and can probably break though the initial line at the 38th Parallel, albeit with high casulties. We have no major ground forces near the area to reinforce, that would have to come from US Bases that are now concentrating on the Iraq mission.

We have reinforcement, they are called South Koreans. I am sure they will fight for their country. If not, why the heck should we even bother?

Quote:

I think the more proper question is what country would we consider invading next in our "self-interest" via the doctrine of pre-emptive war.

Right...

Kodiak · 18th February 2004, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tmy
ONLY 600!!!? How many troops did we lose in Germany this year? Japan? Afganistan even????

Are you sure that is the intellectual yardstick you wish to use?

Are you seriously comparing the invasion and occupation of Iraq with peacetime Germany and Japan, and even Afganistan where the majority of the Afghani forces "in country" were our allies??

Try being a little less biased and instead compare Iraq to Vietnam or Korea.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tmy
We took out Saddam n the army almost at the start. The "war" part was over, mission accomplished. So why is it that we have troops being killed every damn day considering we were suppsoed to be "welcomed as heros".

The vast majority of Iraqis are thankful for the ending of Saddam's regime, and the deaths occurring daily are due to a radical few.

Why is it that we have jews and palestinians being killed every damn day? A radical minority willing to use deadly force.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tmy
Its a clusterfudge. Dont kid yourself that the July change over is going to really change much.

Is that a prediction, Silvia?

Kodiak · 18th February 2004, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hutch

Hmmmm....a species of Ursus postus dumbs***. Rare but not unknown in these parts

Attack the points I'm making and lose the petty name-calling...

Kodiak · 18th February 2004, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by subgenius
The old "we can push a button" theory doesn't hold up when your enemy is dispersed throughout the world as al Queda is.

No one was proposing that technique for Al Queda...

Kodiak · 18th February 2004, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dsm
But how much of our available forces are currently required to "maintain the peace" in Iraq?

I don't pretend to know, but experts in the Pentagon answered that question long ago.

Quote:

Originally posted by dsm
Really, says who? Bremer was specifically saying on the news shows over the weekend that implementation of the Iraqi gov't does not necessarily mean removal of US forces.

That's always been the administrations "exit strategy". Of course, being a strategy means that conditions change and thus methods and plans change with them. An inflexible strategy is a strategy doomed to failure.

Mr Manifesto · 18th February 2004, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Luke T.
In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan did his best to build up our armed forces. For those of us in the Navy, that meant pretty close to a 600 ship Navy. Life was good.

During the 1991 Gulf War, we were still hard pressed to meet our obligations. Many stateside bases were stripped of personnel to augment the troops in the Persian Gulf. Norfolk, Virginia was a ghost town during that period.

After the collapse of the USSR, a new phrase entered our vocabulary. "Peace dividend." This was a code-word used to gut the armed forces. By the time I retired in 2000, I think we were down to a less-than-300 ship Navy.

And that's just the Navy, folks.

I can't imagine the strain the armed services are experiencing right now. I'm just glad I ain't in it.

Now you only have enough military power to destroy the world ten times over instead of twenty. I feel for you.

Kodiak · 18th February 2004, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tmy
What of the unexpected? We should know by now that the dangers are not so obvious.

What if there was a terror attcak from south america? Could we handle that? What if Cuba went all crazy, woudl we stand by and do nothing.

What if there was a giant natural disaster? Earthquake, meteor whatever.

I coudlve sworn that I heard recruitemnt ads saying that you woudlnt be shipped to the mideast f you joined up. Anyone here this?

If I'm not mistaken, the Marine Q.R.F. is not in Iraq, and can be anywhere in the world in under 72 hours...

Hutch · 18th February 2004, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kodiak

Attack the points I'm making and lose the petty name-calling...

As a matter of fact, I did post two full paragraphs supporting AUP's thesis and considering the future based on the "deep doo-doo" we may or may not be in per your post. Guess you missed that.

And I put a

there deliberately, to let you know that I was picking up on the Latin species and giving you a little nudge but nothing personal (BTW, I can, if need be, nudge way harder than that). But you took it so seriously you didn't even respond to the rest of my comments.

My misinterpertation--I figured a big bear to have a thicker skin....

hgc · 18th February 2004, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Grammatron:

We have reinforcement, they are called South Koreans. I am sure they will fight for their country. If not, why the heck should we even bother?[/b]

It's more like we're their reinforcement. The main reason we have 37K troops there is symbolic -- a message to N.Korea that an invasion of S.Korea means war with U.S. The S.Korean military is plenty powerful, but what real deterrence does the U.S. offer against of N.Korea invasion of the south? If we don't have 2-500K men, with equipment, ready to land on the penninsula in a matter of days or weeks, they can do a lot of damage. Then there's nuclear...

17th February 2004, 10:17 PM	#1
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Mt Disappointment Posts: 33,335	What has Dubya Landed the US in? Fom Slate. http://slate.msn.com/id/2095671/ It all sounds spot on to me. My tip is he will lose the election, as the deep doo-doo he has landed the US becomes more and more apparent. With that many people in the armed forces, the word will already be spreading that they are taking on something that is not working. Quote: In the March 2004 Atlantic, James Fallows writes that it's only "a slight exaggeration to say that the entire U.S. military is either in Iraq, returning from Iraq, or getting ready to go." More than one-third of the Army's active-duty troops are right now stationed in or near Iraq, and nearly half are "officially in the two lowest readiness categories." The National Guard and the Reserves are expected to provide close to 40 percent of our troops in Iraq this year. This commitment is more than most guardsmen and reservists bargained for. The Iraq deployment is probably the main reason the Guard and the Reserves are starting to experience some difficulty with recruiting and re-enlisting; if the economy continues to strengthen those trends will likely accelerate. Simply put, the Pentagon doesn't have enough bodies available to fight another major war. Being able to blast the cr@p out of someone doesn't mean you can achieve something positive.
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

17th February 2004, 11:40 PM	#3
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	Yes, we all know that if the US wants to fight a war it requires ground troops. Stop thinking in WW2 terms. If we wanted to level North Korea, we could do it without a single infantrymen. Now, if we wanted to sieze North Korea and turn it into the 51st state; that would be a pita with current troop deployments. AUP, don't worry man, we can still just push a button and deal with most of the world. Thanks for thinking of us though.
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	__________________ In the tradition of "Stop Silvia!" Stop Hal Bidlack: http://skepticalcommunity.com/forums...hp?f=1&t=28671

17th February 2004, 11:56 PM	#4
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Mt Disappointment Posts: 33,335	The point is not that the US doesn't have the biggest firepower, but that there is more to war and peace than just being the most powerful force.
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

18th February 2004, 12:13 AM	#5
Grammatron Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 5,446	Quote: Originally posted by a_unique_person The point is not that the US doesn't have the biggest firepower, but that there is more to war and peace than just being the most powerful force. That makes no sense.
Grammatron Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 5,446	__________________ Private Information, Do not read this!

18th February 2004, 12:39 AM	#6
Jon_in_london Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 4,994	Quote: Originally posted by Grammatron That makes no sense. The failure of Americans to realise that there is more to war and peace than blowing stuff up is the reason you lost in Vietnam and the reason hundreds of your troops are coming home feet-first.
	__________________ Radicals and Racists Don't point your finger at me I'm a small town white boy Just tryin' to make ends meet Don't need your religion Don't watch that much T.V. Just makin' my livin', baby Well that's enough for me

17th February 2004, 10:56 PM	#2
Mr Manifesto Hierophant Walrus of the Secret Clique Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 4,824	So if a country like Pakistan did want to continue selling nuclear tech to rogue nations, or if a country like North Korea did want to build a nuclear arsenal, now would be a good time to do it because the US is to tied up with a country that wasn't a threat. Oh, and Al-Qaeda will have a bit more breathing room.

18th February 2004, 12:48 AM	#7
Grammatron Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 5,446	Quote: Originally posted by Jon_in_london The failure of Americans to realise that there is more to war and peace than blowing stuff up is the reason you lost in Vietnam and the reason hundreds of your troops are coming home feet-first. That's not why we lost Vietnam. The whole point of this thread is to be one giant flame-bate by AUP. First he says how USA doesn't have enough troops to fight another major war like he really wants to see us fight one. Then when a response is given to show that we do not need troops to defend ourselves or fight another war he responds with how Americans don't know what war and peace is about. To sum it up, he basically just wants to tell Americans how wrong they and their government is. I guess he wants to feel special or something.
Grammatron Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 5,446	__________________ Private Information, Do not read this!

18th February 2004, 01:28 AM	#8
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Mt Disappointment Posts: 33,335	No, I wasn't after the US to start another war. I was just pointing out how wrong headed the strategists who started the war were. They didn't understand what a military occupation entails, although I would suggest they are learning now.
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

18th February 2004, 02:35 AM	#9
shuize Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Location: Japan Posts: 2,311	Quote: Originally posted by a_unique_person No, I wasn't after the US to start another war. I was just pointing out how wrong headed the strategists who started the war were. They didn't understand what a military occupation entails, although I would suggest they are learning now. I'll bet Saddam has had a few lessons by now himself....

18th February 2004, 02:46 AM	#10
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Mt Disappointment Posts: 33,335	Quote: Originally posted by shuize I'll bet Saddam has had a few lessons by now himself.... So....what has that got to do with what the US has landed in?
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

18th February 2004, 03:06 AM	#11
Some Friggin Guy Muse Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 860	Quote: Originally posted by a_unique_person So....what has that got to do with what the US has landed in? I suppose it may have to do with it, since the US landed in Iraq, which was run by Hussein. Granted, I think it's a bit of a stretch, but maybe.
Some Friggin Guy Muse Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 860	__________________ You think, therefore I am. "There is no hope for humanity. Reason is dead and we dance on the corpse. Tra la la la la! " - c4ts "What is the meaning of life? Monkey!" - c4ts

18th February 2004, 03:12 AM	#12
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Mt Disappointment Posts: 33,335	As I pointed out earlier, overwhelming firepower gets you somethings, like Saddam out the way, but it doesn't seem to be much use with the current situation, the point of the thread.
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

18th February 2004, 07:30 AM	#13
Kodiak Ursus arctos middendorffi Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Eastpointe Posts: 3,279	Quote: Originally posted by a_unique_person As I pointed out earlier, overwhelming firepower gets you somethings, like Saddam out the way, but it doesn't seem to be much use with the current situation, the point of the thread. What is the point of this thread a_u_p?? We've lost only what, fewer than 600 American lives, in Iraq so far? Saddam and the Baathists are out of power (we just recently captured the Baathist party president). The only continuing conflict in Iraq is with Saddam loyalists (a huge minority) and foreign jihadists who are attacking Iraqi citizens more than occupation forces. A democratically elected replacement government is expected to be in place some time this summer, which is supposed to be the signal for the removal of US and British forces from Iraq. Where's the "deep doo-doo" we supposedly landed in??
	__________________ "The path you take is not as important as the way you travel it. Science and logic are man's best tools when walking the path of truth because, unlike religion, science and logic have no stake in the destination." c0rbin: "All those waging fingers from the sideline might mean something if the hands behind them did more than moralize." They say the meek shall inherit the Earth. They're wrong. The resilient and versatile will...

18th February 2004, 09:37 AM	#14
Grammatron Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 5,446	Quote: Originally posted by Kodiak Where's the "deep doo-doo" we supposedly landed in?? That would be this thread.
Grammatron Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 5,446	__________________ Private Information, Do not read this!

18th February 2004, 09:46 AM	#15
Tmy Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Republic of Massachusetts Posts: 6,489	Quote: Originally posted by Kodiak We've lost only what, fewer than 600 American lives, in Iraq so far? Saddam and the Baathists are out of power (we just recently captured the Baathist party president). The only continuing conflict in Iraq is with Saddam loyalists (a huge minority) and foreign jihadists who are attacking Iraqi citizens more than occupation forces. ONLY 600!!!? How many troops did we lose in Germany this year? Japan? Afganistan even???? We took out Saddam n the army almost at the start. The "war" part was over, mission accomplished. So why is it that we have troops being killed every damn day considering we were suppsoed to be "welcomed as heros". Its a clusterfudge. Dont kid yourself that the July change over is going to really change much. back to the point. Are we spread too thin?? What if those canadadians get out of line?
	__________________ "Common sense is something that skeptics can and should do without." -shanek

18th February 2004, 10:22 AM	#16
subgenius Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 4,788	The old "we can push a button" theory doesn't hold up when your enemy is dispersed throughout the world as al Queda is.
subgenius Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 4,788	__________________ "The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any controlling private power."---Franklin D. Roosevelt Proud to be Liberal

18th February 2004, 10:26 AM	#17
Grammatron Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 5,446	Quote: Originally posted by Tmy back to the point. Are we spread too thin?? What if those canadadians get out of line? Spread to thin for what? If you mean defense than no.
Grammatron Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 5,446	__________________ Private Information, Do not read this!

18th February 2004, 10:50 AM	#18
Luke T. Guest Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 14,759	Re: What has Dubya Landed the US in? Quote: Originally posted by a_unique_person Fom Slate. "The Iraq deployment is probably the main reason the Guard and the Reserves are starting to experience some difficulty with recruiting and re-enlisting;" I would like to see evidence of that, please. The last available figures I can find on the net are from last September, and they show the armed services are meeting their reenlistment needs, and then some. Just to be fair, in the future if you want to know how bad things are, look at how much reenlistment bonuses are. If they are going up, then things are getting tough for the armed services in the retention area. Anyway, I can't find anything but predictions on the net that reenlistments will suffer as a result of Iraq.
Luke T. Guest Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 14,759

18th February 2004, 11:07 AM	#19
dsm Muse Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Silicon Valley Posts: 970	Quote: Originally posted by Grammatron Spread to thin for what? If you mean defense than no. Explain. How do you arrive at such a black and white answer? If North Korea starts to make rumblings about attacking Japan or the US West Coast with nuclear weapons, do we "preemptively" nuke 'em? If Iran's nuclear power plants are found to be nuclear weapons facilities, do we "preemptively" nuke 'em? In short, if most of our forces are tied up in Iraq, what capabilities do we have left to defend ourselves with? AND, after we employ those facilities, will we be in a better or worse long-term position in the world? After you "push the button", there is an aftermath to deal with that may not be very pretty (and I am not talking about nuclear contamination).
	__________________ DSM

18th February 2004, 11:14 AM	#20
Luke T. Guest Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 14,759	In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan did his best to build up our armed forces. For those of us in the Navy, that meant pretty close to a 600 ship Navy. Life was good. During the 1991 Gulf War, we were still hard pressed to meet our obligations. Many stateside bases were stripped of personnel to augment the troops in the Persian Gulf. Norfolk, Virginia was a ghost town during that period. After the collapse of the USSR, a new phrase entered our vocabulary. "Peace dividend." This was a code-word used to gut the armed forces. By the time I retired in 2000, I think we were down to a less-than-300 ship Navy. And that's just the Navy, folks. I can't imagine the strain the armed services are experiencing right now. I'm just glad I ain't in it.
Luke T. Guest Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 14,759

18th February 2004, 11:15 AM	#21
Grammatron Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 5,446	Quote: Originally posted by dsm Explain. How do you arrive at such a black and white answer? If North Korea starts to make rumblings about attacking Japan or the US West Coast with nuclear weapons, do we "preemptively" nuke 'em? If Iran's nuclear power plants are found to be nuclear weapons facilities, do we "preemptively" nuke 'em? In short, if most of our forces are tied up in Iraq, what capabilities do we have left to defend ourselves with? AND, after we employ those facilities, will we be in a better or worse long-term position in the world? After you "push the button", there is an aftermath to deal with that may not be very pretty (and I am not talking about nuclear contamination). Is that what nuclear war means, because I had no idea North Koreas has been rumbling for some time now and I would be more worried about them leveling Seoul with artillery than nuking Japan. We have a sizable amount of troops in South Korea that handle North if need be, but the location of the majority of US forces does not change that much if North Korea decided to attack the South. Who else is there? What country is waiting to start some major conflict that we can't handle because our troops are in Iraq instead of USA? Why doesn't UN handle Iran if they have nukes? And why do you assume "blow stuff up" can only mean nukes?
Grammatron Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 5,446	__________________ Private Information, Do not read this!

18th February 2004, 11:18 AM	#22
dsm Muse Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Silicon Valley Posts: 970	Quote: Originally posted by Kodiak The only continuing conflict in Iraq is with Saddam loyalists (a huge minority) and foreign jihadists who are attacking Iraqi citizens more than occupation forces. But how much of our available forces are currently required to "maintain the peace" in Iraq? Quote: A democratically elected replacement government is expected to be in place some time this summer, which is supposed to be the signal for the removal of US and British forces from Iraq. Really, says who? Bremer was specifically saying on the news shows over the weekend that implementation of the Iraqi gov't does not necessarily mean removal of US forces. Quote: Where's the "deep doo-doo" we supposedly landed in?? We landed in it after the 2000 election...
	__________________ DSM

18th February 2004, 11:19 AM	#23
Luke T. Guest Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 14,759	Don't underestimate the patriotism and pride of our men and women in uniform. I'm sure they are all very tired right now, but feeling very good. And this kind of stuff really, really sucks while you are in it, but the memory fades quickly after you are out of it, and the pride of accomplishment remains. Voice of experience.
Luke T. Guest Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 14,759

18th February 2004, 11:20 AM	#24
Luke T. Guest Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 14,759	Sorry. One more thing, then I'll shut up. Wives. They don't get that feeling of accomplishment and pride. And they are the biggest threat to reenlistments. I could tell you a lot of sad stories.
Luke T. Guest Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 14,759

18th February 2004, 11:22 AM	#25
c0rbin Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,806	So much easier to muster an army 100 years ago. Every lad with his dad, bring your musket. Ride a horse? Join the cavalry. No need to worry about armor, or aircraft.
c0rbin Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,806	__________________ By convention there is color, By convention sweetness, By convention bitterness, But in reality there are atoms and space. --Democritus (c. 400 BCE)

18th February 2004, 11:23 AM	#26
Tmy Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Republic of Massachusetts Posts: 6,489	What of the unexpected? We should know by now that the dangers are not so obvious. What if there was a terror attcak from south america? Could we handle that? What if Cuba went all crazy, woudl we stand by and do nothing. What if there was a giant natural disaster? Earthquake, meteor whatever. I coudlve sworn that I heard recruitemnt ads saying that you woudlnt be shipped to the mideast f you joined up. Anyone here this?
	__________________ "Common sense is something that skeptics can and should do without." -shanek

18th February 2004, 11:41 AM	#27
Segnosaur Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Canada, eh? Posts: 6,071	Quote: Originally posted by subgenius The old "we can push a button" theory doesn't hold up when your enemy is dispersed throughout the world as al Queda is. The problem is, al Qaeda isn't an organization that is necessarily handled by military force. Better intelligence is what's needed to get rid of terrorist organizations. Using troops in a large scale military attack shouldn't be taking resources away from fighting al Qaeda.
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I cheered when then the WTC came down. - UndercoverElephant (a.k.a. JustGeoff) I cheer Bin Laden... - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant) Bin Laden delivered justice - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant) Men shop for lingerie the way kids shop for breakfast cereal... they will buy something they know nothing about, just to get the prize inside. - Jeff Foxworthy

18th February 2004, 11:55 AM	#28
Wrath of the Swarm Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 1,862	Quote: Originally posted by Luke T. Don't underestimate the patriotism and pride of our men and women in uniform. I'm sure they are all very tired right now, but feeling very good. And this kind of stuff really, really sucks while you are in it, but the memory fades quickly after you are out of it, and the pride of accomplishment remains. But accomplished what, exactly? As pleased as I am that Hussein is out of the picture, not only are there lunatic dictators just as bad as he was all over the place, but Iraq itself doesn't seem to be doing all that well. People have a hard time even considering that they made major sacrifices for nothing -- they'll convince themselves that they're victorious one way or another. That doesn't mean that they actually won, or that their sacrifices purchased anything of value.
	__________________ A truth that's told with bad intent beats all the lies you can invent. -- William Blake

18th February 2004, 12:13 PM	#29
Hutch A broken man on a Halifax pier, the last of Barrett's Privateers Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: About 7 Miles from the Saturn 5B Posts: 6,539	Quote: Originally posted by Grammatron Is that what nuclear war means, because I had no idea What he meant was with the troop committment to Iraq we lack other options other than nukes. If N. Korea does something now, we do not have the capability to reinforce quickly, and a nuclear option may be considered earlier in the game. During the 50's, when our troop strength was low after the De-Mob of WWII, the nuclear option was considered more than once. We have a sizable amount of troops in South Korea that handle North if need be, but the location of the majority of US forces does not change that much if North Korea decided to attack the South. I disagree. We have about 37,000 troops in Korea and may draw some of them down. N. Korea has approximately 1,000,000 men under arms, and can probably break though the initial line at the 38th Parallel, albeit with high casulties. We have no major ground forces near the area to reinforce, that would have to come from US Bases that are now concentrating on the Iraq mission. Who else is there? What country is waiting to start some major conflict that we can't handle because our troops are in Iraq instead of USA? I think the more proper question is what country would we consider invading next in our "self-interest" via the doctrine of pre-emptive war.
	__________________ If sheer righteous fury could accomplish anything worthwhile, Wolverines would have inherited the Galaxy long ago." -Web DuHavel, David Weber's "Honorverse" Series

18th February 2004, 12:20 PM	#30
TillEulenspiegel Master Poster Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 2,310	AUP I disagree with your apparent assessment of the condition of the US in the title.: "What has Dubya Landed the US in?" The hard fact is that the consequences are so wide and far flung and the pieces haven't landed yet. So while your pessimism may be understandable it is not complete.

18th February 2004, 12:26 PM	#31
Hutch A broken man on a Halifax pier, the last of Barrett's Privateers Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: About 7 Miles from the Saturn 5B Posts: 6,539	Quote: Originally posted by Kodiak What is the point of this thread a_u_p?? We've lost only what, fewer than 600 American lives, in Iraq so far? Saddam and the Baathists are out of power (we just recently captured the Baathist party president). The only continuing conflict in Iraq is with Saddam loyalists (a huge minority) and foreign jihadists who are attacking Iraqi citizens more than occupation forces. A democratically elected replacement government is expected to be in place some time this summer, which is supposed to be the signal for the removal of US and British forces from Iraq. Where's the "deep doo-doo" we supposedly landed in?? Hmmmm....a species of Ursus postus dumbs***. Rare but not unknown in these parts AUP and the article he quoted made a valid point. It takes time to train, prepare and move troops, not to mention the logistics of relocating families, planning and support for the returning troops, changing command and support structures, it is a massive job and it is keeping the readiness of the remaining units at a low level (because critical parts and equipment needed by units in say, Germany or Ft. Campbell, are diverted to Iraq--thus less operational readiness, less training, less ready to go. So even if there is a clear threat (say, N. Korea masses troops at the border, launches missiles over Japan again) we do not have the manpower "on the bounce" that are completely ready to respond. Now if...and that is a BIG If...the Iraqi Government settles in and we can pull out our troops and the death toll stops and all is sweetness and light, then you will be right. But I'd bet a tattered Egyptian Pound that either (1) we will still have a substantial-say 50,000+ troops--in Iraq by Jan 05 or (2) We'll be completely out and the provisional Government will be near collapse. We shall see.
	__________________ If sheer righteous fury could accomplish anything worthwhile, Wolverines would have inherited the Galaxy long ago." -Web DuHavel, David Weber's "Honorverse" Series

18th February 2004, 12:45 PM	#32
Grammatron Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 5,446	Quote: Originally posted by Hutch What he meant was with the troop committment to Iraq we lack other options other than nukes. If N. Korea does something now, we do not have the capability to reinforce quickly, and a nuclear option may be considered earlier in the game. During the 50's, when our troop strength was low after the De-Mob of WWII, the nuclear option was considered more than once. We can bomb them enough to stop anything they are doing militarily. Quote: I disagree. We have about 37,000 troops in Korea and may draw some of them down. N. Korea has approximately 1,000,000 men under arms, and can probably break though the initial line at the 38th Parallel, albeit with high casulties. We have no major ground forces near the area to reinforce, that would have to come from US Bases that are now concentrating on the Iraq mission. We have reinforcement, they are called South Koreans. I am sure they will fight for their country. If not, why the heck should we even bother? Quote: I think the more proper question is what country would we consider invading next in our "self-interest" via the doctrine of pre-emptive war. Right...
Grammatron Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 5,446	__________________ Private Information, Do not read this!

18th February 2004, 12:48 PM	#33
Kodiak Ursus arctos middendorffi Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Eastpointe Posts: 3,279	Quote: Originally posted by Tmy ONLY 600!!!? How many troops did we lose in Germany this year? Japan? Afganistan even???? Are you sure that is the intellectual yardstick you wish to use? Are you seriously comparing the invasion and occupation of Iraq with peacetime Germany and Japan, and even Afganistan where the majority of the Afghani forces "in country" were our allies?? Try being a little less biased and instead compare Iraq to Vietnam or Korea. Quote: Originally posted by Tmy We took out Saddam n the army almost at the start. The "war" part was over, mission accomplished. So why is it that we have troops being killed every damn day considering we were suppsoed to be "welcomed as heros". The vast majority of Iraqis are thankful for the ending of Saddam's regime, and the deaths occurring daily are due to a radical few. Why is it that we have jews and palestinians being killed every damn day? A radical minority willing to use deadly force. Quote: Originally posted by Tmy Its a clusterfudge. Dont kid yourself that the July change over is going to really change much. Is that a prediction, Silvia?
	__________________ "The path you take is not as important as the way you travel it. Science and logic are man's best tools when walking the path of truth because, unlike religion, science and logic have no stake in the destination." c0rbin: "All those waging fingers from the sideline might mean something if the hands behind them did more than moralize." They say the meek shall inherit the Earth. They're wrong. The resilient and versatile will...

18th February 2004, 12:51 PM	#34
Kodiak Ursus arctos middendorffi Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Eastpointe Posts: 3,279	Quote: Originally posted by Hutch Hmmmm....a species of Ursus postus dumbs. Rare but not unknown in these parts* Attack the points I'm making and lose the petty name-calling...
	__________________ "The path you take is not as important as the way you travel it. Science and logic are man's best tools when walking the path of truth because, unlike religion, science and logic have no stake in the destination." c0rbin: "All those waging fingers from the sideline might mean something if the hands behind them did more than moralize." They say the meek shall inherit the Earth. They're wrong. The resilient and versatile will...

18th February 2004, 12:52 PM	#35
Kodiak Ursus arctos middendorffi Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Eastpointe Posts: 3,279	Quote: Originally posted by subgenius The old "we can push a button" theory doesn't hold up when your enemy is dispersed throughout the world as al Queda is. No one was proposing that technique for Al Queda...
	__________________ "The path you take is not as important as the way you travel it. Science and logic are man's best tools when walking the path of truth because, unlike religion, science and logic have no stake in the destination." c0rbin: "All those waging fingers from the sideline might mean something if the hands behind them did more than moralize." They say the meek shall inherit the Earth. They're wrong. The resilient and versatile will...