Bush's War

[darthtang aw]

STOP!!!!
The personal attacks are getting ridiculous. I can sit here and pick on spelling and who name called all day. But this does not further the discussion any at all. Take a breather.
Rude, I get what you are saying and to an extent I even agree with you when it comes to getting involved. But where I differ is from this angle. Your whole point stems on had we never got involved. The problem is we are involved. we have been for the last 60 some years. So to pull out and ignore the region now would not affect things in regards to hatred toward the U.S. This region has had wars for past wrong doings for milleniums. I agree we should not have dipped our laddle in the poy and partook. But we did. so to pull out now would not erase the the past that has brought us to where we are. I feel doing that would only compound the problem.we are now trying to fix somethings and deal with others. doing nothing would not change anyones mind I feel. How do you erase "meddling" for the last 60 years from the minds of those that dislike our "meddling" and want to attack us for it. You can't. The fanatics hold grudges forever over there and they pass it on to their children. It is no different than a family of KKK. We still have white supremasits and KKK memebr, not in the quantities there were or as open, but as many have said they are still there and do the occasional hate crime....why?
Give you an example. Germans hated us after world war 2. It took our involvement and "goodwill" to change this. Had we just left Germany alone after world war 2 they may have gone down the road for world war 3 which is what history shows happenned between world war 1 and 2.

 

[oscardeuce]

Originally Posted by rudedog40
http:///forum/post/2570366
The question had nothing to do about how many American soldiers died during the invasion of small Pacific Islands during WW2. I asked when the last time any American soil had a full scale invasion. Apparently I had to be specific in my question, and meant an invasion on the contiguous 48 states. Somebody yet again misconstrued what I was asking, and went off on this tangent bringing up how many soldiers died simply because I said it was a minor invasion, small island or whatever I said.
The War of 1812, that should fit your criteria. Heck the Brits even burned the White House. Dolly Madison saved our heritage.

 

[darthtang aw]

to take that further, Rude, aren't Alaska, Hawaii, Phillipines, and Puerto Rico worthy to be included in your 48 states, or is it just the mainland that matters? Not trying to start anything but trying to see where you are coming from.

 

[1journeyman]

Rudedog's larger point is that the Middle East is incapable of launching an invasion on the Continetal US and therefore we should withdraw from the Mideast and let them happily kill each other.
Let's focus on debating that point.
As I've pointed out Germany in 1941 didn't have the capacity to invade North America. Nor did they have the capacity in WW1. We still went to war with them both times.
North Korea certainly didn't have the capacity to go invade our homeland in 1950.
Grenada, Panama, Libya...

 

[crashbandicoot]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2570897
Rudedog's larger point is that the Middle East is incapable of launching an invasion on the Continetal US and therefore we should withdraw from the Mideast and let them happily kill each other.
Let's focus on debating that point.

The Terrorist are not interested in the ocupation of mainland american soil at this point in time .Their objective is to disrupt the daily lives of any western civilization (US, Europe, Isreal). In doing so they make us live in fear . When you live in fear your likely to be swayed to see the world in a diferent way . You no longer go about your daily routines you start to live a life not your own . no longer is a trip to the market /work safe . No longer do you feel safe to go to worship or even ride a train across town , YOur afraid to go out to a club for a night of dancing , Let alone turn out for any kind of political action that the terrorists disagree with . Out of fear that terrorists will attack you based on your beliefs . You start to hide who you are and you live in abiguity . That is the new face of the enemy . They want to use this kind of psychological warfare to control people out of fear not out of ocupation. Its a very effective way for a small force to control a larger mass of civilians . You can break down their moral and turn them into mindless shells filled with fear .

 

[oscardeuce]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2570897
Rudedog's larger point is that the Middle East is incapable of launching an invasion on the Continetal US and therefore we should withdraw from the Mideast and let them happily kill each other.
Let's focus on debating that point.
As I've pointed out Germany in 1941 didn't have the capacity to invade North America. Nor did they have the capacity in WW1. We still went to war with them both times.
North Korea certainly didn't have the capacity to go invade our homeland in 1950.
Grenada, Panama, Libya...

Germany did invade the East Coast of the USA with small submarine delivered forces. German subs attempted to blockade the East Coast. Many ships were sunk within sight of land.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/2571167
Germany did invade the East Coast of the USA with small submarine delivered forces. German subs attempted to blockade the East Coast. Many ships were sunk within sight of land.
All true.
They did not, however, have the naval power neccessary to ship troops or supplies over for a full scale assault. That would have only been feasible once the airfields in Britain were netralized.
LOL, ya'll don't get me wrong. I'm arguing against Rudedog's position, I just tried to clarify it. I'm as opposed to the Isolationism philosphy as possible.

 

[rudedog40]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2570474
We have a full scale invasion happening right now. Ol Poncho's grand kids are trying to finish the job for him.
Now that's something I can totally agree with!

 

[seagoblin333]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2571340
All true.
They did not, however, have the naval power neccessary to ship troops or supplies over for a full scale assault. That would have only been feasible once the airfields in Britain were netralized.
LOL, ya'll don't get me wrong. I'm arguing against Rudedog's position, I just tried to clarify it. I'm as opposed to the Isolationism philosphy as possible.
Imperialism it is!

btw they were truly the best generation. The story about your grandfather sounds incredible. That was almost the same way mine first talked to me about it too. Imagine that, 10th grade though.

 

[rudedog40]

Originally Posted by Crashbandicoot
http:///forum/post/2570544

So you would rather spend our money rebuilding some foreign land over fixing American soil? Just because New Orleans is in a natural floodplane, and California is prone to earthquakes, you want to just say "Ah, they shouldn't have built there anyways. Let them move out." And you call me Un-American? You want to go make Iraq a better place to live, why don't YOU move over there and do it, since you could care less what happens to your own country and the people who live here.
As far as your other statement - As I said when I ended my comment about benefitting Iraq, if you want to succeed in what you propose, we will have to continue to occupy that region until the dawn of time. That's not something I'm willing to do.

 

[rudedog40]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2570621
STOP!!!!
The personal attacks are getting ridiculous. I can sit here and pick on spelling and who name called all day. But this does not further the discussion any at all. Take a breather.
Rude, I get what you are saying and to an extent I even agree with you when it comes to getting involved. But where I differ is from this angle. Your whole point stems on had we never got involved. The problem is we are involved. we have been for the last 60 some years. So to pull out and ignore the region now would not affect things in regards to hatred toward the U.S. This region has had wars for past wrong doings for milleniums. I agree we should not have dipped our laddle in the poy and partook. But we did. so to pull out now would not erase the the past that has brought us to where we are. I feel doing that would only compound the problem.we are now trying to fix somethings and deal with others. doing nothing would not change anyones mind I feel. How do you erase "meddling" for the last 60 years from the minds of those that dislike our "meddling" and want to attack us for it. You can't. The fanatics hold grudges forever over there and they pass it on to their children. It is no different than a family of KKK. We still have white supremasits and KKK memebr, not in the quantities there were or as open, but as many have said they are still there and do the occasional hate crime....why?
Give you an example. Germans hated us after world war 2. It took our involvement and "goodwill" to change this. Had we just left Germany alone after world war 2 they may have gone down the road for world war 3 which is what history shows happenned between world war 1 and 2.
Germany is a good example. However, we're not living in the 40's or 50's any longer. The world has changed dramatically since the last true World War. Would Germany have tried to stir up another war after they saw what we did to Japan with The Bomb? Look at the last four major conflicts the US has been involved in since WW2. They all were fought within specific borders and regions. They didn't cross multiple countries or continents (And I'm talking like EUROPE. I don't mean Iraq to Afghanistan or Iraq to Kuwait). Why would you think the war we're in now would be any different? Again, I have no problems with trying to assist with changing things over there. If that can be accomplished, great. But history has shown that region will always be volatile, and as hard as we try to convince them to change, someone over there will disagree with it. You yourself stated they been fighting one another over there for milleniums. You actually think keeping our troops over there for an indeterminal amount of time is going to completely change the attitudes of every single militant group or other country, whereby they put down their arms and NEVER fight one another again?

 

[rudedog40]

Originally Posted by Crashbandicoot
http:///forum/post/2571071
The Terrorist are not interested in the ocupation of mainland american soil at this point in time .Their objective is to disrupt the daily lives of any western civilization (US, Europe, Isreal). In doing so they make us live in fear . When you live in fear your likely to be swayed to see the world in a diferent way . You no longer go about your daily routines you start to live a life not your own . no longer is a trip to the market /work safe . No longer do you feel safe to go to worship or even ride a train across town , YOur afraid to go out to a club for a night of dancing , Let alone turn out for any kind of political action that the terrorists disagree with . Out of fear that terrorists will attack you based on your beliefs . You start to hide who you are and you live in abiguity . That is the new face of the enemy . They want to use this kind of psychological warfare to control people out of fear not out of ocupation. Its a very effective way for a small force to control a larger mass of civilians . You can break down their moral and turn them into mindless shells filled with fear .
Well Crash, it appears they've already suceeded doing that to you. You sound like you are truly living in fear that one day we'll be attacked again by Muslim terrorists. I'm sorry for you if that's the case. I personally don't look at it that way. As I said, I'm a Realist. I believe that no matter how hard you try, there will always be some sort of 'terrorist' lurking in the shadows. I mean, Americans have caused more terror in this country than any Jihad or Al-Qaeda group has in the last 7 years (Columbine, Virginia Tech, whatever other mass killings by some maniac). I live in more fear that my kids may go to school tomorrow, and some deranged and depressed kid decides to pull another Columbine.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by rudedog40
http:///forum/post/2571420
Germany is a good example. However, we're not living in the 40's or 50's any longer. The world has changed dramatically since the last true World War. Would Germany have tried to stir up another war after they saw what we did to Japan with The Bomb? Look at the last four major conflicts the US has been involved in since WW2. They all were fought within specific borders and regions. They didn't cross multiple countries or continents (And I'm talking like EUROPE. I don't mean Iraq to Afghanistan or Iraq to Kuwait). Why would you think the war we're in now would be any different? Again, I have no problems with trying to assist with changing things over there. If that can be accomplished, great. But history has shown that region will always be volatile, and as hard as we try to convince them to change, someone over there will disagree with it. You yourself stated they been fighting one another over there for milleniums. You actually think keeping our troops over there for an indeterminal amount of time is going to completely change the attitudes of every single militant group or other country, whereby they put down their arms and NEVER fight one another again?
Rudedog, you left out a couple of key ingredients...
First, after WW2 we established many more Democracies.
Second, we fought a "Cold War" with the Soviet Union for 40+ years, which included actual wars in the Middle East and Asia (x3) as well as minor conflicts in the Caribbean and central America.
Third, History does not show that region has always been volatile. It is not until recently with the establishment of Israel and the need for oil that the Middle East has become a hotbed. More wars have been fought in Europe the last 500 years than in the Middle East.
I don't think anyone is arguing we can change the minds of every militant. I do think, however, we can change the minds of some. This has actually been proven in Iraq. Further, according to Al Qaeda, they are losing the recruiting war. Finally, those we can't "convert" to our way of thinking can more easily be killed by our military.
We know terrorists are going to attack the USA. That's a given. So why not let them do so in Iraq against our military?
Once we withdraw from Iraq where will the terrorists attack next?

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by rudedog40
http:///forum/post/2571420
But history has shown that region will always be volatile, and as hard as we try to convince them to change, someone over there will disagree with it. You yourself stated they been fighting one another over there for milleniums.
And until WWII they hadn't been warring in Europe for the last 1500 years? Since the Roman empire fell it was war after war after war. Heck in Japan we convinced them that their Emperor wasn't a god! How is this case all that different?

 

[crashbandicoot]

Originally Posted by rudedog40
http:///forum/post/2571394
So you would rather spend our money rebuilding some foreign land over fixing American soil? Just because New Orleans is in a natural floodplane, and California is prone to earthquakes, you want to just say "Ah, they shouldn't have built there anyways. Let them move out." And you call me Un-American? You want to go make Iraq a better place to live, why don't YOU move over there and do it, since you could care less what happens to your own country and the people who live here.
As far as your other statement - As I said when I ended my comment about benefitting Iraq, if you want to succeed in what you propose, we will have to continue to occupy that region until the dawn of time. That's not something I'm willing to do.

Originally Posted by rudedog40
http:///forum/post/2571428
Well Crash, it appears they've already suceeded doing that to you. You sound like you are truly living in fear that one day we'll be attacked again by Muslim terrorists. I'm sorry for you if that's the case. I personally don't look at it that way. As I said, I'm a Realist. I believe that no matter how hard you try, there will always be some sort of 'terrorist' lurking in the shadows. I mean, Americans have caused more terror in this country than any Jihad or Al-Qaeda group has in the last 7 years (Columbine, Virginia Tech, whatever other mass killings by some maniac). I live in more fear that my kids may go to school tomorrow, and some deranged and depressed kid decides to pull another Columbine.

I get it your right and I am wrong. YOU WIN .

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by rudedog40
http:///forum/post/2571420
Germany is a good example. However, we're not living in the 40's or 50's any longer. The world has changed dramatically since the last true World War. Would Germany have tried to stir up another war after they saw what we did to Japan with The Bomb? Look at the last four major conflicts the US has been involved in since WW2. They all were fought within specific borders and regions. They didn't cross multiple countries or continents (And I'm talking like EUROPE. I don't mean Iraq to Afghanistan or Iraq to Kuwait). Why would you think the war we're in now would be any different? Again, I have no problems with trying to assist with changing things over there. If that can be accomplished, great. But history has shown that region will always be volatile, and as hard as we try to convince them to change, someone over there will disagree with it. You yourself stated they been fighting one another over there for milleniums. You actually think keeping our troops over there for an indeterminal amount of time is going to completely change the attitudes of every single militant group or other country, whereby they put down their arms and NEVER fight one another again?
I see what you are saying and to a degree I see why you view things this way, there are days I have your view point (it was early on in the Iraq war after sadaam capture). And I did mis speak, meant centuries, not milleniums...but that is semantics. However the key thing I look at id Europe itself. For Centuries Europe has fought each other on a regular basis...the countries and ethnic groups hated each other with the same passion. Now after WW2 Europe has changed into a solid and friendly neighbors where diplomacy is used before artillery and bombs (The IRA and wolverines were an exception but even they came around).
True the threat of a Nuke did possibly aid in keeping Germany in line afterwards, but it doesn't seem to matter for the Middle eastern countries which leads me to believe it was something else. I believe it was our effort after the war and our goodwill we "imposed" on them. But there is one key ingredient I see missing from the middle east that was not missing from Europe. Education and "refinement" (as I call it).
The middle east is for the most part still 30-40 years behind the rest of the western world when it comes to the average person understand and knowing about things in general....Europe was pretty much on par with the U.S. in these regards. That is the key issue and what makes this so hard and will be why it takes so long.

 

[rudedog40]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2571959
I see what you are saying and to a degree I see why you view things this way, there are days I have your view point (it was early on in the Iraq war after sadaam capture). And I did mis speak, meant centuries, not milleniums...but that is semantics. However the key thing I look at id Europe itself. For Centuries Europe has fought each other on a regular basis...the countries and ethnic groups hated each other with the same passion. Now after WW2 Europe has changed into a solid and friendly neighbors where diplomacy is used before artillery and bombs (The IRA and wolverines were an exception but even they came around).
True the threat of a Nuke did possibly aid in keeping Germany in line afterwards, but it doesn't seem to matter for the Middle eastern countries which leads me to believe it was something else. I believe it was our effort after the war and our goodwill we "imposed" on them. But there is one key ingredient I see missing from the middle east that was not missing from Europe. Education and "refinement" (as I call it).
The middle east is for the most part still 30-40 years behind the rest of the western world when it comes to the average person understand and knowing about things in general....Europe was pretty much on par with the U.S. in these regards. That is the key issue and what makes this so hard and will be why it takes so long.
My biggest frustration is figuring out the 'takes too long' part. There has to be closure sometime for the American troops. I posted the one article where there's already close to 300,000 troops that are dealing with post-war depression. Many of them are getting tired of being cycled back and forth to Iraq for 2,3, or 4 tours. Bush just announced he'll limit the tours to 12 months, instead of 15.. Whoopee! How about limiting the number of tours period one soldier is required to perform? Journey keeps touting the recruiting and retention numbers are up. If so, why do these soldiers have to spend 2 to 5 years of their lives over in a war zone? That's why half the soldiers are doing multiple tours. There's not enough new personnel to backfill the spots of the one's that have been over there so many times.
Now on top of that, you have this Muqtada al-Sadr starting up the threats. He sounds like the next Bin Ladin, Saddam, Ayatolah, ... pick one. If he starts to band the various Islam tribes together against the US, be prepared to be there for MORE than a long time...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24216134/

 

[1journeyman]

Rudedog, Al-Sadr is not new... he's been one of the key players since the beginning (which is why he is currently hiding in Iran).
Soldiers serve multiple tours as they are rotated in and out. Unless you are advocating we triple the size of our military (which I'm all for btw) soldiers will have ot serve multiple tours.
They know this, and retention rates and enlistment rates are still on target...

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2571429
Rudedog, you left out a couple of key ingredients...
First, after WW2 we established many more Democracies.
Second, we fought a "Cold War" with the Soviet Union for 40+ years, which included actual wars in the Middle East and Asia (x3) as well as minor conflicts in the Caribbean and central America.
Third, History does not show that region has always been volatile. It is not until recently with the establishment of Israel and the need for oil that the Middle East has become a hotbed. More wars have been fought in Europe the last 500 years than in the Middle East.
I don't think anyone is arguing we can change the minds of every militant. I do think, however, we can change the minds of some. This has actually been proven in Iraq. Further, according to Al Qaeda, they are losing the recruiting war. Finally, those we can't "convert" to our way of thinking can more easily be killed by our military.
We know terrorists are going to attack the USA. That's a given. So why not let them do so in Iraq against our military?
Once we withdraw from Iraq where will the terrorists attack next?
One of the thing you must consider when advocating a position is the alternative. And "diplomacy" is the other option, because we can't allow countries to be breeding grounds for terrorists. We did that during clinton and we see the results of such action. Do you really believe that we just need to talk with them some more and that would overcome the history of violence they've had in the Middle East? How long do we sit back and watch while they breed more fanatical terrorists. How many more terrorist attacks? You guys moan about the length of the war, but the sad thing about war is there is no other alternative. Unless you want to sit back and watch them breed more and more terrorists. And ship them over to attack us.

 

[reefraff]

My one and only son is over there right now, due home in July. I'd love to know he wont be going back BUT. There are over 4000 dads out there who aren't getting their kid back. Would hate to have them deal with the fact their child was killed for a lost cause if it isn't neccessary. It would be really stupid to walk away if there is a chance the Iraqis can make this work. We have got to stay long enough for them to at least have a shot at controlling their own destiny.
It isn't getting reported but the Iraqis are meeting more and more of the benchmarks. More of them are waking up to the fact that they are going to have to fight for their own country. The polling shows they dont want use there BUT they also don't want us to leave yet. Go figure. Who would want a foriegn force in their country? At least it shows they don't want to become another Lebanon.