PDA

View Full Version : History repeats itself



Trooper Graham
01-27-2007, 11:47 PM
I saw that on TV today...:mad:

Sgt_Pepper
01-28-2007, 12:23 AM
Mr. Graham, I take it you're referring to today's anti-war demonstration in front of the Capitol? If so, as this is the Whine Cellar, it may be allowed to be discussed, insofar, of course, as it stays within the rules of the forum.

Oh, by the way, let me add an ad hoc rule for the aging hippies among us: No doobies. :cool:

Big Brother is watching.

MStuart
01-28-2007, 12:36 AM
Mr. Graham, I take it you're referring to today's anti-war demonstration in front of the Capitol? If so, as this is the Whine Cellar, it may be allowed to be discussed, insofar, of course, as it stays within the rules of the forum.

Oh, by the way, let me add an ad hoc rule for the aging hippies among us: No doobies. :cool:

Big Brother is watching.

Duuuuuuuuuude!!!!!

Mark

Sorry.......slapping myself as we speak :-)

Trooper Graham
01-28-2007, 12:39 AM
today's anti-war demonstration in front of the Capitol?


Big Brother is watching.


and who took part......and I know you're always around. ;) which is why I never stated anything further.

flattop32355
01-28-2007, 12:28 PM
Same old same old.
Same song, same suspects, dating back as far as Vietnam.

Is it going to take a protracted ground campaign on our own soil to show that we're not doing what we are doing over there just to bully the world, or that it's just because we can?

I thought we were in a war; one different from most others of the past, for a variety of reasons, but a real war none the less.

Frenchie
01-28-2007, 01:29 PM
Oh, by the way, let me add an ad hoc rule for the aging hippies among us: No doobies. :cool:

Aw, come on, Sarge! Nothing wrong with trying to make a few bucks sellng loose joints... :D

I think we shouldn't worry about it. The demonstrations and riots of the 1960s and 1970s were driven chiefly by fear of the military draft. Today's demonstration was not their equal in any way. It was, more than anything else, an attempt by "aging hippies" to recapture their glory days. It was given extensive coverage by a news media which is controlled by more aging hippies. The noise generated was far greater than any real influence it will have on national security.

On the other hand, I'd like to see that new "active denial" heat ray tried out on some of these losers :twisted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System

tompritchett
01-28-2007, 01:52 PM
Big Brother is watching.

Given the subject, possibly even the original Big Brother as envisioned by Orwell. Remember, some prominent members of my party have labelled anyone who opposing the Iraq War as "terrorists" while very senior members of the current adminstration have strongly implied that if you oppose the war, you are a "supporter of terrorism". Unfortunately by law if either label is attached to you, many of your Constitutional Rights can be severely curtailed.

Robert A Mosher
01-28-2007, 01:52 PM
Thanks for sharing Frenchie -

I hear Tom Paxton is rewriting one of his classics -

"Georgie Bush he told the nation, have no fear of escalation,
I am trying everyone to please -
Though I'd really won the war, I'm sending 20,000 more
to help save Baghdad from the Iraqis"

Robert A. Mosher
aging, former wannabe hippy -
who doesn't own a tv network or a newspaper -
and isn't really sure who's right on this one (though I've got a pretty good idea of who's wrong)

Trooper Graham
01-28-2007, 03:29 PM
A bit surprised to log on and read additional postings to this thread.

My interputation of history repeating itself didn't involve just what happened yesterday. You could almost ask what war?

the president goes to Congress

Congress approves

the president commits troops

the Sec of Defense causes a deep quagmire

the president commits more troops

anti-war rallies across the nation led by the same old you know who.

History repeats itself. Proof in the pudding. ;)

sbl
01-28-2007, 03:38 PM
...but I have an 18 year old son and a great nephew on a vessel in the gulf waiting to pre-empt Iran.

Three folks from my area, my daughter's doctor, my mom's tenant's husband, and my brothers yacht club friend, were killed on 9/11. Nice people and I don't think they would have asked for this mess in Iraq.

Frenchie
01-28-2007, 03:50 PM
"Stayin' outta this..."

Um, no, obviously you're not.

Tom, the whining about loss of rights and freedoms is old. No one I've spoken to about it has lost a single one since the GOP got back in power. The politicians on both sides don't give a rip about our rights and will gladly take them away if they can to make establishing their power easier, but that's why the Founders gave us the tools to guard and defend them. This idea that someone in power can just call you a terrorist and strip you of all rights and freedoms is nonsense. This is still the USA. Are we as free as we should be? No. Are we a lot freer than the doomsayers say we are? Yes.

And if the federal government's controls over things it has no business even speaking about isn't a curtailment of your rights, I want to know what is. Read the Constitution and ask yourself if it gives the feds have any power to do most of the things they do. Beyond defending the country, negotiating international treaties, controlling interstate commerce in a reasonable way and punishing treason, the feds have no Constitutional power.

I ask people how often they write to their senators and representatives. Mine don't even bother answering any more, they know they'll hear from me again soon.

I wish those idiots at the demonstration were forced to sit and watch the 9/11 videos and hear the calls for help, see the movie Flight 93, and get an education about the history of Islam. Then they'd see why we're doing what we're doing, how good things really are here, and why this nation is truly Ronald Reagan's "shining city on the hill". And why it's worth fighting and dying for.

Disgust over leftist lunacy reiterated. Love of country expressed. My job is done. Reply however you like, tell yourselves you're really doing the right thing. Rant over. I'm out of here, and not pretending to be, either.

Trooper Graham
01-28-2007, 04:10 PM
"Stayin' outta this..."

Um, no, obviously you're not.

.

I'm always up for a good fracker....;)

sbl
01-28-2007, 04:29 PM
I'm always up for a good fracker....;)


Fracker from the Urban Dictionary

"a substitute for the word "f*&ker" as not to get into trouble around authority figures rhymes with "cracker"

"Why would you do that? God, you are such a mother- *adult approaches* fracker..."

Trooper Graham
01-28-2007, 04:52 PM
Fracker from the Urban Dictionary

"a substitute for the word "f*&ker" as not to get into trouble around authority figures rhymes with "cracker"

"Why would you do that? God, you are such a mother- *adult approaches* fracker..."

Sorry but my british upbringing comes out sometimes. A fracker is slang in britian is a good debate, arguement, disagreement etc etc. Nothing else.

MStuart
01-28-2007, 05:03 PM
Fracker from the Urban Dictionary

"a substitute for the word "f*&ker" as not to get into trouble around authority figures rhymes with "cracker"

"Why would you do that? God, you are such a mother- *adult approaches* fracker..."

You guys are watching too much Battlestar Gallactica.!!

My 2 cents.....Think what you want about the war, why we're there, and why we went.......that's your right. We may not agree, but at least we can disagree.

What I see differently "these days" is an almost 180 degree change (by some folks) in the support of the troops. You know, the one's on the ground, air, sea who are doing the dirty work we're sitting around talking about. I don't see the disdain for the serviceman/woman that I saw many years ago, and, quite frankly, that's refreshing and about G-D freakin' time.

Think what you want of the war, but don't take it out on the soldier, sailor, airman, or marine who's busting their ass on the front (and rear) lines so that you can have your opinion. You wanna talk about havin' "a set of stones"? Do what they do for a week and then tell me they don't deserve our thanks.

End of sermon

Mark

sbl
01-28-2007, 05:24 PM
...thanks, cause I've been called a lot of things before.

sbl
01-28-2007, 05:36 PM
"..Think what you want of the war, but don't take it out on the soldier, sailor, airman, or marine who's busting their ass on the front (and rear) lines so that you can have your opinion. You wanna talk about havin' "a set of stones"? Do what they do for a week and then tell me they don't deserve our thanks."

No argument from me on that!

I just don't like the framing of any opposition to the mess in Iraq as "why do hate our troops?" I just don't hear or read any disrespect for our military from opponents of the Iraq war.

Trooper Graham
01-28-2007, 05:45 PM
"..Think what you want of the war, but don't take it out on the soldier, sailor, airman, or marine who's busting their ass on the front (and rear) lines so that you can have your opinion.



You wanna talk about havin' "a set of stones"? Do what they do for a week and then tell me they don't deserve our thanks."




I just don't like the framing of any opposition to the mess in Iraq as "why do hate our troops?" I just don't hear or read any disrespect for our military from opponents of the Iraq war.



I'm lost here or I missed a post but where did any of the above come into the subject of the thread?

MStuart
01-28-2007, 05:50 PM
I'm lost here or I missed a post but where did any of the above come into the subject of the thread?

Sam:

Unrequested sermon on the foolhardiness of blaming servicemembers for anything to do with the war, much like the hippie protesters of yore did.

Mark

MargaretO'Grady
01-28-2007, 05:59 PM
I wish those idiots at the demonstration were forced to sit and watch the 9/11 videos and hear the calls for help, see the movie Flight 93, and get an education about the history of Islam. Then they'd see why we're doing what we're doing, how good things really are here, and why this nation is truly Ronald Reagan's "shining city on the hill". And why it's worth fighting and dying for.



I'm taking the option to reply, if you please. Because if I read that post correctly, the writer was insinuating that what happened that day is the something that Islam supports, both historically and in the current religious and political spheres. I really don't want to start an offtopic-debate here, but the record needs to be set straight. Additionally, and more importantly, I do not mean to offend anyone with what I'm about to type.

Every religion has their fanatics, ours just happen to get publicized more. Have you actually studied Islamic history? Actually read the Quran, even an accepted translation? But maybe those are all a bit too far east. What about European and Northern African history? While other areas were sitting about diddling in the Middle Ages, Islamic philosophers and scientists were bringing knowledge to the world. I can find and quote religious text and history on Islamic rules of military engagement from reputable sources themselves. The stuff they write in textbooks here isn't exactly the truth on the matter, I've actually had to bring in my own textbooks for college professors to supplement their own collections. If people were better educated about world religions, then the world could be a heck of a lot happier place to live in.

The events of 9/11 weren't supported by Islam, in fact they were condemned by several of the most influential clerics, and yet the normal everyday Muslim was the one that experienced the worst backlash. Have you been physically threatened at school or at work because of your religion? As a parent, did you feel your heart break every morning as your child begged and pleaded with you not to make them go? Did you have to hang up on your child when they called home at lunch asking you to pick them up? The sad effect of any war is that there are people who needlessly victimized solely based on their beliefs and orientation.

I am American, I was born here. I am also Irani-Pakistani. My mom and I frequently speak in Persian, couldn't begin to tell you the english names of half the stuff in my kitchen cabinets, and I have been known to wear hijab on the street. I go to the mosque during holy months and on Monday night will be sleeping at the mosque to observe Ashura. I volunteer my free time with the Air Force Auxilary because I have pride in my country. I have lived in Karachi and experienced life on the other side, and yes, things are better here.

In a really strange and slightly skewed way, I can understand why the government feels as they do, and but more than that, I can sympathize with the demonstrators. What we have is worth fighting for, but you need to know who the enemy is and how to effectively fight them in order to win. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see that happening. I've supported the troops from day one of this fight, and will continue to support the armed forces, but can't say I'd support much else at the moment. Should the impression given by the earlier remark prove to be false, I'll certainly be woman enough to apologize.

Not even going to get started on the Iran crisis, but the BBC gives a much report on Iranian politics than any American news ever could. It's actually really quite ironic

Respectfully,
Syedani Rizwan Mahmoodi Oskoui
2Lt, United States Air Force Auxiliary
MD-071, Administration Officer Aide
NJ-001, NJ Wing Emer. Svcs Training Aide

*~Proud American Shia Muslim~*

Trooper Graham
01-28-2007, 06:11 PM
Sam:

Unrequested sermon on the foolhardiness of blaming servicemembers for anything to do with the war, much like the hippie protesters of yore did.

Mark

I read your post Mark but really I didn't want to start a political debate or more. I just thought how ironic it is that 37 years ago would be happening again from a visit to Congress to almost the same speech by the same person in the same spot on the same subject. I was glad to hear the troops that were interviewed about last saturday had the same opinions as I did back then. Time might move on but in reality it doesn't change.

sbl
01-28-2007, 06:49 PM
I'm lost here or I missed a post but where did any of the above come into the subject of the thread?

I'm just quoting the end of MStuart's post, agreeing with him and adding my thought.

bob 125th nysvi
01-28-2007, 07:07 PM
that we live in country where we are allowed to have this debate without having the dogs set on us.

And I'll keep my opinion to myself as to whether or not we should be doing what we are doing now.

However I will point out that during ALL wars we have had the 'issue' of dissenters telling the public that the war is wrong (we actually had ONE member of congress vote AGAINST the resolution to go to war with Japan after Pearl Harbor), being fought wrong, unwinnable or none of our business.

That we have as a nation tried isolationism (didn't work), decided not to have a Navy so no one would attack us (ever hear of the Quasi War?), forgiven a nation's any debt they owed us (Germany prior to WWII) and then been accused of being against them.

Pretending the world DOESN'T need a policeman (whether or not we should be it now) is just plain ole hiding your head in the sand.

The only thing I ask is that you talk to a veteran of the Iraq, not one seeking the limelight or having an agenda one trying to go back to a normal life, and ask them what they think of what we are doing in Iraq, what the Iraqi people think of us and if the war as portrayed in the media is the one they just got home from.

The ones I talk to have different views from what either side talking on teh nightly news seem to have.

JBW
01-28-2007, 07:48 PM
Aw, come on, Sarge! Nothing wrong with trying to make a few bucks sellng loose joints... :D

With this crowd, you might make more money selling joint replacements........:rolleyes:

road_apple1861
01-28-2007, 08:57 PM
I have but one question, If the congres does not support this war and the President (I do 110%) then why did they agree to send 20,000 odd more troops into Iraq? They are a little Confusing.:neutral:(I saw some one earlier in this Topic post that subject)

Trooper Graham
01-28-2007, 09:07 PM
I have but one question, If the congres does not support this war and the President (I do 110%) then why did they agree to send 20,000 odd more troops into Iraq? They are a little Confusing.:neutral:(I saw some one earlier in this Topic post that subject)

The president, Commander in Chief, has the power to commit troops without Congress but no CinC can commit without money to support it and that comes from Congress. Either way it's the troops, always the troops, that's always in the middle.

tenfed1861
01-28-2007, 09:43 PM
When I was in high school,I was the only person at the school who was against the war from the start.Everyone else was in favor,but I wasn't.Oneday,as a senior,a friend of mine and I were talking about the war.He was,and still is,in the National Guard,and just got back recently.He told me that he may not agree with what I have to say,but he is serving so I can say what I wish to say.I give him the up-most respect because of that.
Whether you are for or against the war.For or against the president.Look at it like this.Military personal serve so we can express our views.We are lucky enough that we are born in a place that will allow us to express our views and not have to worry about the KGB,Gestopo,or whatever,coming after us.We are fortunate enough to live in a land that will let us think what we wish.Is it the president who gives us that right?Is it Congress?Is it even the generals?No.It's the average groundpounder,seadog,and flyboy who gives us that right.Without them,the president who be nothing,same as Congress.The generals would be commanding nothing.
Just my two cents.I know it sounds like a rant,but I enjoy it every once in a while.
Cullen

tompritchett
01-28-2007, 09:49 PM
"Stayin' outta this..."

Um, no, obviously you're not.

Tom, the whining about loss of rights and freedoms is old. No one I've spoken to about it has lost a single one since the GOP got back in power. The politicians on both sides don't give a rip about our rights and will gladly take them away if they can to make establishing their power easier, but that's why the Founders gave us the tools to guard and defend them. This idea that someone in power can just call you a terrorist and strip you of all rights and freedoms is nonsense. This is still the USA. Are we as free as we should be? No. Are we a lot freer than the doomsayers say we are? Yes.

And if the federal government's controls over things it has no business even speaking about isn't a curtailment of your rights, I want to know what is. Read the Constitution and ask yourself if it gives the feds have any power to do most of the things they do. Beyond defending the country, negotiating international treaties, controlling interstate commerce in a reasonable way and punishing treason, the feds have no Constitutional power.

I ask people how often they write to their senators and representatives. Mine don't even bother answering any more, they know they'll hear from me again soon.

I wish those idiots at the demonstration were forced to sit and watch the 9/11 videos and hear the calls for help, see the movie Flight 93, and get an education about the history of Islam. Then they'd see why we're doing what we're doing, how good things really are here, and why this nation is truly Ronald Reagan's "shining city on the hill". And why it's worth fighting and dying for.

Disgust over leftist lunacy reiterated. Love of country expressed. My job is done. Reply however you like, tell yourselves you're really doing the right thing. Rant over. I'm out of here, and not pretending to be, either.


For the record, I have served my country both as an officer in the National Guard during the Cold War (during my first two years, my units mobilization station was WEst Berlin) and as a member or the U.S. EPA. In both cases I swore an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States and the nation which stands upon it from enemies foreign and domestic. Yes, the terrorists hit us hard and, worse, still have the potential to hit us even harder (well before 9/11 at the EPA we wargamed some terrorist scenarios that make 9/11 look like a cake walk) but I am currently more worried about the domestic threats to our Constitutional government than the external ones now. IMHO, our founding fathers never wanted to have a situation where we were forced to rely on the character of our national leaders not to abuse the power that we had given them. Rather, they preferred that we never gave our leadership that much power in the first place so that someone of less noble character would not be tempted to use that power inappropriately. As far as reading the Constitution, I have, especially the Bill of Rights and, instead, I challenge people to read the Patriot Act and portions of the most recent Defense Funding Authorization. I have not read either act all the way through primarily because the portions that I have read have scared the living daylights out of me.

I fully support our soldiers and my greatest criticisms of the war are towards the way that this goivernment has treated them. First, they were sent with to do only half the mission (overthrow Saddam) without this administration having any clue on how to then the second half - stabilize the country afterwards - even after Collen Powell warned them of the fact. Second, once they were given the authorization and mission to stablize the country, our troops were given inadequate equipment which resulted in the loss of needless U.S. lives and the permanent disabling of others. Also, read Army Times about the refusal of the Pentagon to support the in-field diagnosis of concussion injuries to our soldiers because it would apparently affect effective combat strength of the units over there. Because of this short sightedness, thousands of returning soldiers may have permanent brain damage that will affect them for the rest of their lives - damage that may take several years to become fully manifest.

When we seriously delayed serious efforts to stablize Iraq after Saddam's overthrouw even more U.S. lives have been lost because we threw away the most important victory in a counter-intersurgency - the support of the common people. And all this for the supported goal of defeating Islamic terrorism. Last I heard, most intelligence analysts within the government have reported that the Islamic terrorist organizations have actually increased their numbers world-wide far beyond the numbers that we have killed in Iraq. All Iraq is doing is giving them a specific location that they can actively engage U.S. troops rather than seek U.S. targets elsewhere. Unfortunately, we are also giving them valuable combat experience as well as a chance to develop and refine tactics that they can use elsewhere. In other words, if the goal of Iraq is to make U.S. interests safer from the threat of terrorism, then the lives of U.S. troops are being needlessly lost because, over the long-term, that objective is not being accomplished (no fault of the troops on the ground) and, in fact, the opposite may actually be occurring. I am afraid 5 - 10 years from now all those troops who have so bravely fought in Iraq will see a world-wide terrorist threat far greater than the one before we invaded and, like the Vietnam vets, will be asking themselves what the h*ll they were doing over there. Personally, I applaud the bravery that our troops have displayed over there but I am extremely angry that their blood that their sacrifices may not be fully appreciated by the senior civilian leadership of this country and, in the long view of history, may have been all for nothing.

reb64
01-28-2007, 09:58 PM
Whenever we hand off this to the Iraq gov't I sure won't shed a tear to be leaving there but I support my pres until we do. What gets me is that many here on this forum wanted change (dems in power) who kept whining over and over how not enought roops were there. Now Bush wants to send more troops and theyre whining again, only now not to send them. Also many here think Lincoln the greatest etc. but derail Bush. I say Lincoln was by far more war like, restrictive/ rights infringing and intrusive than Bush ever was or will be likely.

Trooper Graham
01-28-2007, 10:10 PM
For the record, I have served my country both as an officer in the National Guard during the Cold War (during my first two years, my units mobilization station was WEst Berlin) and as a member or the U.S. EPA. In both cases I swore an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States and the nation on which stands upon it from enemies foreign and domestic. Yes, the terrorists hit us hard and still have the potential to hit us even harder (well before 9/11 at the EPA we wargamed some terrorist scenarios that make 9/11 look like a cake walk) but I am currently more worried about the domestic threats to our Constitutional government than the external ones now.

I fully support our soldiers and my greatest criticisms of the war are towards the way that this goivernment has treated them. First, they were sent with to do only half the mission (overthrow Saddam) without this administration having any clue on how to then stabilize the country afterwards. Second, in this second phase, they were given inadequate equipment which resulted in the loss of needless U.S. lives. Also, read Army Times about the refusal of the Pentagon to support the in-field diagnosis of concussion injuries to our soldiers because it would affect effective combat strength of the units over there. Because of this short sightedness, thousands of returning soldiers may have permanent brain damage that will affect them for the rest of their lives - damage that may take several years to become fully manifest.

Because of the first failure, even more U.S. lives have been lost because we threw away the most important victory in a counter-intersurgency - the support of the common people. And all this for the supported goal of defeating Islamic terrorism. Last I heard, most intelligence analysts within the government have reported that the Islamic terrorist organizations have actually increased their numbers world-wide far beyond the numbers that we have killed in Iraq. All Iraq is doing is giving them a specific location that they can actively engage U.S. troops rather than seek U.S. targets elsewhere. Unfortunately, we are also giving them valuable combat experience as well as a chance to develop and refine tactics that they can use elsewhere. In other words, if the goal of Iraq is to make U.S. interests safer from the threat of terrorism, then the lives of U.S. troops are being needlessly lost because, over the long-term, that objective is not being accomplished (no fault of the troops on the ground) and, in fact, the opposite may actually be occurring. I am afraid 5 - 10 years from now all those troops who have so bravely fought in Iraq will see a world-wide terrorist threat far greater than the one before we invaded and, like the Vietnam vets, will be asking themselves what the h*ll they were doing over there. Personally, I applaud the bravery that our troops have displayed over there but I am extremely angry that their blood that their sacrifices may not be fully appreciated by the senior civilian leadership of this country.

In time of war the soldier righted
In time of peace the soldier slighted.

I tend to disagree now with the first part where our leaders are involved but the people have a changed attitude towards the troops...this time and I'd be very angry to see it had repeated itself also.

reb64
01-29-2007, 12:45 AM
[QUOTE=tompritchett]When we seriously delayed serious efforts to stablize Iraq after Saddam's overthrouw even more U.S. lives have been lost because we threw away the most important victory in a counter-intersurgency - the support of the common people. And all this for the supported goal of defeating Islamic terrorism. Last I heard, most intelligence analysts within the government have reported that the Islamic terrorist organizations have actually increased their numbers world-wide far beyond the numbers that we have killed in Iraq. All Iraq is doing is giving them a specific location that they can actively engage U.S. troops rather than seek U.S. targets elsewhere. Unfortunately, we are also giving them valuable combat experience as well as a chance to develop and refine tactics that they can use elsewhere. In other words, if the goal of Iraq is to make U.S. interests safer from the threat of terrorism, then the lives of U.S. troops are being needlessly lost because, over the long-term, that objective is not being accomplished (no fault of the troops on the ground) and, in fact, the opposite may actually be occurring. end quote"

Hindsight is 20/20, all these "we should have done this or should have done that". no one knows, especially some desk general wanna be monday morning qb in congress. Our soldiers kicked but and still are. They are the ones who have gained experience, badly needed. This war has its ups to you know. Experience, equipment upgrades, budget and for some i have talked too --bank! I know of the suffering and wounded and kia, but I see many everyday who go back again and again because they are getting thousands in tax breaks and extra pay. One guy bragged to me about the 50 grand he made there. Man and the jobs on base near here are growing.We also have a better army today and better equipment is on the way . You also make it sound like for example, if a guy kills someone, we shouldn't do anything about it because it might make more killers. thats ridiculous. So lets ignore terrorists like clinton did, that works. right, we got hit over and over with him in office. So far Bush's policies are a success in my opinion.

Malingerer
01-29-2007, 10:04 AM
[QUOTE=tompritchett] So far Bush's policies are a success in my opinion.

Does the term "Mission Accomplished" ring a bell?

bob 125th nysvi
01-29-2007, 01:23 PM
[QUOTE=reb64]

Does the term "Mission Accomplished" ring a bell?

was the war to end all wars.

And Munich was 'Peace in out Time.'

And I can go on and on about statements made by politicians which may even had rung true at the time that lasted as reality for about 30 seconds.

The other reality is that we never know how effective our actions as a nation will be until many years down the road. We thought the destruction of Nazi Germany meant the end to Nazism. It didn't.

People thought Regan's 'Star Wars' was an old man's delusions. Technology today is almost ready to make it a reality.

There are no absolutes in history. Radicals hidding behind the veil of Islam have existed almost since the religion was founded. The Aga Khan is the ruler desended from those fanatics. We won't know if what America is doing today will or will not be effective until 20 years from now. And then 20 years from then some other looney tune will twist some religious passages somewhere and the threat will start all over again.

There have been Christian and Jewish and name any religion you'd like (with the possible exception of Buddhism), fanatics who have seized power and then have to have been FORCED out.

Can terrorism exist (longterm) without state sponsor ship? No it can't. Will it leave you alone if you leave it alone? No it won't because everytime it accomplishes one objective it will move to the next one and sooner or later you will be the next one.

If the British and French had dealt with Hitler in 1935-36 instead of waiting until 1939, could they avoided war. No probably not but it might have been of much shorter duration and at smaller cost. They didn't and WWII happened.

If some one a plan for dealing with the problem I'd love to hear it. But so far, while Bush's isn't going along as well as any of us would like, it is not a "I'll pretend it doesn't exist and maybe it will go away" strategy.

It is cheaper to deal with international problems sooner than later.

Could it have been done better? Maybe. Were mistakes made? Sure.

But then Union could have won the war in a year if they had really tried and gotten their act together too.

sbl
01-29-2007, 02:12 PM
Bob,
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1030-06.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Accomplished




Our troops deserve better.

Malingerer
01-29-2007, 02:56 PM
[QUOTE=Malingerer]Could it have been done better? Maybe. Were mistakes made? Sure.

But then Union could have won the war in a year if they had really tried and gotten their act together too.
"Maybe"? Are you kidding? These idiots aren't fit to pack the lunches of our boys over there. And do you really want to compare the current occupant of the white house to President Lincoln?
Peter Julius,
Bryson City, NC

Cornfedrat
01-29-2007, 04:26 PM
To quote from the lyrics of a song from the era we all are very familiar with, "Just Before the Battle Mother"..."...Tell the traitors all around you, that their cruel words we know, in every battle kill our soldiers, by the help they give the foe..." the boys in blue then knew of the growing war-weariness in the North and this is what they thought of it.
We must understand that we fight a completely different enemy today. the negative mainstream press and voices of dissension are considered victories by our enemy. You want to bring our troops home sooner? Show the enemy a unified and vengeful United States that squashed the Axis powers. One that will not give up or retreat until their utter and complete destruction. Where is the "sleeping giant" that Yamamato was terrified of? I saw a bumper sticker the other day that in my opinion sums it up pretty well, "If you can't back our troops, get in front of them".

just my .02

Mitch Halcomb

road_apple1861
01-29-2007, 05:17 PM
I agree with that what you said there Mitch, Where is that Sleeping Giant? Trapped under neagative news and a "UNUNITED" support for the War, Troops, the President

sbl
01-29-2007, 05:22 PM
Mitch,

The Prez told us to go shopping.

"I saw a bumper sticker the other day that in my opinion sums it up pretty well, "If you can't back our troops, get in front of them"."

If the car didn't have one of these stickers, the owner wasn't serious.

http://www.crwflags.com/art/mil/pins/14240.jpg

Robert A Mosher
01-29-2007, 06:36 PM
I am sorry to see that a number of posters have taken the view that anyone who disagrees with them is a fool, or a traitor, or an idiot - or whatever phrase they choose to use. I would have thought that a group of 'historians' would have learned more from history. It is impossible to have an effective dialogue about anything if you have already devalued the other person. If there is no dialogue, then you cannot teach anyone and they cannot learn - or for those still open to the idea, no one else can teach you anything and you cannot learn.

The worst conflicts in history are those in which the two sides have succeeded in dehumanizing the other side - declared them subhuman, unworthy of humane treatement or human consideration, and it is also thus impossible to make peace with them.

Or do you have so little faith in your knowledge and understanding of an issue that you fear to really hear what the other guy has to say? Or fear that you cannot adequately explain your thinking?

Robert A. Mosher

Cornfedrat
01-29-2007, 06:38 PM
Judging from the USMC license plate, NRA stickers and the pro linebacker looking driver of that truck, I would say he was deadly serious. :) You gotta love a military town!

Mitch Halcomb

sbl
01-29-2007, 08:06 PM
Robert,

I wasn't in the Civil War either but I read about the it. As for Iraq, I've read about it, listened ,and watched it which is as close as this 54 year old is gonna get.


The SHUT THE #### UP! response is pretty low. I'm sure most people on this forum have "skin in the game" in this war, maybe their own skin and have a right to their views as Americans and people who study history.

SHUT THE #### UP! is what we're supposed to be fighting.

GaWildcat
01-29-2007, 08:26 PM
Sir,

I have deleted what I said, and admit, yes, It was a bit low. I posted that in a bit of a rage.

Let me say this,

I amtired of hearing nothing of late but people b----ing about the Presidents decisions, about the war, and about the casualties.

In our study of the Civil War, we learn that 300,000+ US soldiers died in four years of war to liberate some few million african american slaves. Lets reflect on the current operation, and that in four years, only 3,000+ have died in one of the most successful operations in military history, and liberate several million in two countries. Has it been a hard road, yes. Will it be a hard road, yes.

It is an unfortunate truth that we live in a McSociety.

We want everything right away, and cry when we dont get it.

We want a McWar, extra results, hold the casualties. Well (and I dont address this to you sir personally), its war, people die. As Gen SHerman said, War is killing, and you can not refine it.

How often do you see the news stories of Car Bombs, of IEDs and of dead and wounded Iraqis and Americans? Now balance that with the stories you hear or read about the Americans and fellow coalition troops who give of themselves everyday to make life just a little easier for some one who they will never see again? Do you hear of Operation Caring Hands, where Coalition forces give away trailers full of toys, coats, school supplies and food? Of the seed give aways to farm communities? do your hear or read stories of the schools built and children who go absolutly ape for not candy or chocolate, but pens, pencils and paper?? Of a medic who treated an Iraqi child in the MIDDLE of a firefight? The answer to most of these is more than likely no.

SO, please forgive the outburst. Just to much talk on to many channels, and I guess the fuse just got short.

tompritchett
01-29-2007, 08:35 PM
Sopunds like dem talking points

Actually I am a registered Republican. However, I do not allow my party to do my thinking for me. Rather, I study all sides of the issue and then make my own decisions, including who I vote for. I personally do not believe that any one political party has a lock on the truth nor all the answers for the world's problems and those inflicting our nation.


You also make it sound like for example, if a guy kills someone, we shouldn't do anything about it because it might make more killers. thats ridiculous. So lets ignore terrorists like clinton did, that works. right, we got hit over and over with him in office. So far Bush's policies are a success in my opinion.

No, I don't believe that. However, I also believe that Saddam had little connection with the terrorists when we pulled key assets from the hunt for Ben Laden in preparation for protecting the oil fields once we invaded Iraq. We also polarized much of the Arab world which, at that time, was mostly outraged by the carnage and senselessness of the 9/11 attacks, and we alienated many of our allies. And, as Richard Clark pointed out, we proved Ben Laden right in my Muslim eyes because we indeed invaded an oil rich Persian Gulf nation just as he had predicted years earlier. IMHO, our invasion of Iraq only added gasoline to the fire of radical Islamic terrorism rather than helping put it out. But then, that is my opinion - one that I reached independent of any influence of either party.

reb64
01-30-2007, 01:17 AM
Actually I am a registered Republican.

( Not trying to pick a fight but I think your a liberal dem in disguise, you have almost quoted the dems word for word-and you know if if quacks like a duck it must be a duck)

IMHO, our invasion of Iraq only added gasoline to the fire of radical Islamic terrorism rather than helping put it out. But then, that is my opinion - one that I reached independent of any influence of either party.

(another dem point-actually the fire was raging =ever since bombing of ferdinand to the the 1st world trade tower/un attack, scotland plane bombing,embassy bombings, kobar towers, uss cole- dems just don't get it, it doesn't matter if there are 1 or 1 million radical islamists, they want us dead, gone and their version of society in place. Clintons pacifism didn't work, a tleast Bush is doing something to strike back. aslo this would be their agenda with no Iraq, no Bush. everyone likes to make excuses for the terrorists-just like some socialologists excuse criminals on the grounds of external things-the police the economy etc. -Its all Bush's fault! give me a break)

tompritchett
01-30-2007, 08:21 AM
Not trying to pick a fight but I think your a liberal dem in disguise

Nope, I am one of a dieing species - a moderate Republican. Was raised a Dixiecrat (Southern Conservative Democrats) but my views on strong defense and fiscal responsibility as well as the take over of the Democratic Party by its far left extreme drove me to the Republicans. Now that the Republican Party is being taken over by it far-right extremests and has apparently lost all sense of fiscal responsibility, I am starting to wish that the U.S. had more than 2 viable political parties. I also believe in fairly strict interpretation of the Constitution in the manner that our Founding Fathers wished it to be interpreted, especially in terms of the balance of power within the government as well as in the strict and equal interpretation of the Bill of Rights. Oh, I am also one of those swing-voters who candidates on both sides try to court because we often determine who ultimately wins the election.


Its all Bush's fault! give me a break

Never said that. I said the fire was already going. I just stated that Bush poured gasoline on it when he invaded Iraq, especially for what ended up being trumped up reasons. I fully supported the invasion of Afganistan. My regret was that some Special Forces units had to pulled from Afganistan when the Taliban was on the ropes in order to be redeployed to protect Iraq's oil fields during the invasion. Unfortunately, it seems now that the Taliban has regained much of its military strength and is becoming more and more of a threat. Before we turned operations in some areas of Afganistan over to NATO, the Taliban was starting to give us fits as they were hitting us with battalion sized units - sometimes, according to troop reports, severely outgunning us.


Clintons pacifism didn't work, a tleast Bush is doing something to strike back.

Under Clinton, I seem to remember Ben Laden being driven out of Somolia and then a cruise missile strike at an Afganistan base he was believed to be staying at. BTW, North Korea did not restart its nuclear weapons until after Bush was elected, broke off direct diplomatic relations, and then labeled them one of the axises of evil. I am sure that Japan and China are well pleased with an atomic North Korea with medium range ballistic missiles that easily can hit any of their major cities - all in the control of an egotistical madman.

Robert A Mosher
01-30-2007, 08:32 AM
Hmm, so it's a Dems vs Republicans - us vs them issue?

So, Joe Lieberman must be a Republican and Chuck Hagel must be a democrat?

As to the suggestion that there is a hard and fast line between civilian views and those of the uniformed services - I see in the Washington Post yet the latest reference to the views expressed by Army Captain Brian Freeman, West Point Class of 1999. If you don't like the Washington Post, you should be able to just Google his name and find his name mentioned in any number of other news stories - and, by the way, he was killed in Iraq recently.

When I worked at the Pentagon, the uniformed guys taught me that "where you stand depends on where you sit" and there's a lot of truth to that - but it does have its limits. As I just tried to point out, there are critics of this war wearing uniforms and there are supporters of the war wearing suits (I will resist running down the list of those supporters who have never ever worn a uniform).

In a sense, the problem is just like the ones facing the reenacting community. We won't get anywhere if we just sit around and throw labels at each other - what we really need is to sit around and throw ideas around.

Robert A Mosher

Malingerer
01-30-2007, 09:08 AM
Sir,

I have deleted what I said, and admit, yes, It was a bit low. I posted that in a bit of a rage.

Let me say this,

I amtired of hearing nothing of late but people b----ing about the Presidents decisions, about the war, and about the casualties.

In our study of the Civil War, we learn that 300,000+ US soldiers died in four years of war to liberate some few million african american slaves. Lets reflect on the current operation, and that in four years, only 3,000+ have died in one of the most successful operations in military history, and liberate several million in two countries. Has it been a hard road, yes. Will it be a hard road, yes.

It is an unfortunate truth that we live in a McSociety.

We want everything right away, and cry when we dont get it.

We want a McWar, extra results, hold the casualties. Well (and I dont address this to you sir personally), its war, people die. As Gen SHerman said, War is killing, and you can not refine it.

How often do you see the news stories of Car Bombs, of IEDs and of dead and wounded Iraqis and Americans? Now balance that with the stories you hear or read about the Americans and fellow coalition troops who give of themselves everyday to make life just a little easier for some one who they will never see again? Do you hear of Operation Caring Hands, where Coalition forces give away trailers full of toys, coats, school supplies and food? Of the seed give aways to farm communities? do your hear or read stories of the schools built and children who go absolutly ape for not candy or chocolate, but pens, pencils and paper?? Of a medic who treated an Iraqi child in the MIDDLE of a firefight? The answer to most of these is more than likely no.

SO, please forgive the outburst. Just to much talk on to many channels, and I guess the fuse just got short.
So, just to make sure I understand the essence of your post - it's the media's fault that Americans are overwhelmingly against the war? Dang! Once again I've fallen victim to the fiendish machinations of the "Liberal Elite Media". So, I'm guessing the media has lied to us about the war costing us the lives of over three thousand of our finest young people, over one hundred thousand iraqi civilians, 23,000 American soldiers wounded, and 360 billion dollars (so far). Somehow these evil media types convinced Bush to tell us that: 1. Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and was getting ready to use them; 2. Saddam was behind the 9/11 bombings; 3. We would be greeted as liberators; 4. The war would take somewhere from 60 days to six months tops; 5. Iraqi oil would pay for the whole thing; 6. We would bring a democracy to a country that had known only tyranny and this democracy would spread throughout the middle east; 7. After a very brief occupation we would hand over the job of defending this fledgling democracy to the new (and presumably loyal to the U.S.) Iraqi army; 8. The best thing we can do to support our troops is to "go shopping" (truely inspiring leadership). 9. Back in May of last year we had "reached a turning point in the war" (maybe not the one he had in mind); and comming in at number 10 (and my personal favorite) anyone who opposes Bush's prosecution of this war is giving aid and comfort to our enemies (the very definition of treason).
Wow! I have to admit, it is a cabal of breathtaking dimensions. Come to think of it, the media has implied that some American companies have made out like bandits (Halliburton comes to mind) in no-bid contracts with the Pentagon. And (is there no limit to their chicanery?), now they would have us believe that some leading Republican senators are against the administration's competency to prosecute this war. Normally, I would assume any Rebublican who declared the mission a failure must be some sort of spineless coward but now the media have lied again and are trying to convince a naieve public that Chuck Hagel (decorated Vietnam vet) is calling for an end to the war. I wonder why the media hate our troops so much? Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
Best regards,
Peter Julius,
Bryson City, NC

Trooper Graham
01-30-2007, 10:10 AM
Where is the best place to place the muzzle to the head???:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

sbl
01-30-2007, 10:15 AM
Robert,

I knew you Southern guys alway have the best manners.

Malingerer
01-30-2007, 10:27 AM
Where is the best place to place the muzzle to the head???:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
I don't blame you. The thought of how much more Bush and his cronies can screw things up leaves me feeling a teensy bit hopeless too. Time to up the prozac dose.
Best regards,
Peter Julius,
Bryson City, NC

Trooper Graham
01-30-2007, 11:13 AM
Can anyone else remember a time where history repeated itself besides the similarity between the assassination of Lincoln and Kennedy?

(my attempt from loading a chamber) :rolleyes:

Malingerer
01-30-2007, 11:22 AM
I assume you mean the uncanny similarity between Vietnam and our current debacle? Here's one: a well intentioned imbecile who never saw a day of combat (Johnson) decides to escalate an unnecessary war further increasing our involvement and casualties in a brutal quagmire. Is that one of the similarities you had in mind?
All the best,
Peter Julius,
Bryson City, NC

MStuart
01-30-2007, 11:30 AM
I assume you mean the uncanny similarity between Vietnam and our current debacle? Here's one: a well intentioned imbecile who never saw a day of combat (Johnson) decides to escalate an unnecessary war further increasing our involvement and casualties in a brutal quagmire. Is that one of the similarities you had in mind?
All the best,
Peter Julius,
Bryson City, NC

Remember, back then, the world evil was "Communism".....that great red menace that was the threat to the entire civilized world. Remember them?

Mark

toptimlrd
01-30-2007, 11:35 AM
I think the amount of vitreol and mischaracterization of things said is disheartening. Here's how I see it:

We were attacked on 9/11 which needed response

We took out the Taliban which was the strongest backer of Bin Laden

Intelligence showed that Sadam did have WMDs and connections to the Taliban not only our intelligence mind you but the intelligence of our allies which the opposition politicians also saw and agreed to the war.

Sadam acted suspiciously when dealing with the weapons inspectors by forbiding access to potential sites.

Convoys were seen leaving Iraq for Syria just before the invasion (I do not have the reference handy but could probably find it if necessary)

Evidence that Sadam used chemical and biological weapons were discovered during Operation Iraqi freedom. Also some weapons were found but not reported, they were old but still possibly deadly.

Sadam had violated numerous UN resolutions which specifically gave us the authority to do what we did.

The insurgents did have an American Civil War counterpart, we called them outlaws.

Iraq now has an elected government which is still working through the difficulties of setting up a new government.

Mistakes were made, especially in the rules of engagement; sorry but if you are our enemy and you hide in a Mosque, that Mosque just became a target.

Now when Bush said to go shopping, I think it is important to recall the entire speech and what he was conveying was to continue life as normal so as to show the terrorists they did not succeed in changing our way of life.

I also look at the fact that we have not had any attacks in this country since 9/11 but several we know of and probably many more have been stopped.

Countries that decided to stay out of the fight such as Spain have not been spared the ire of the extremists.

What needs to be done now is to let the new Iraq government know that they must be self sustaining within a legitimate time frome and we must help them to train their police and military to accomplish that goal.

And finally I do know that this has absolutely nothing to do with the hobby.

Trooper Graham
01-30-2007, 12:06 PM
I assume you mean the uncanny similarity between Vietnam and our current debacle? Here's one: a well intentioned imbecile who never saw a day of combat (Johnson) decides to escalate an unnecessary war further increasing our involvement and casualties in a brutal quagmire. Is that one of the similarities you had in mind?
All the best,
Peter Julius,
Bryson City, NC

Good similiarity but living through those years, as an adult, Johnson was a pawn controled by his cabinet and military contractors. Kennedy saw things coming and had really no intentions of getting further involved past military advisors.

Trooper Graham
01-30-2007, 12:10 PM
I think the amount of vitreol and mischaracterization of things said is disheartening. Here's how I see it:

We were attacked on 9/11 which needed response

We took out the Taliban which was the strongest backer of Bin Laden

Intelligence showed that Sadam did have WMDs and connections to the Taliban not only our intelligence mind you but the intelligence of our allies which the opposition politicians also saw and agreed to the war.

Sadam acted suspiciously when dealing with the weapons inspectors by forbiding access to potential sites.

Convoys were seen leaving Iraq for Syria just before the invasion (I do not have the reference handy but could probably find it if necessary)

Evidence that Sadam used chemical and biological weapons were discovered during Operation Iraqi freedom. Also some weapons were found but not reported, they were old but still possibly deadly.

Sadam had violated numerous UN resolutions which specifically gave us the authority to do what we did.

The insurgents did have an American Civil War counterpart, we called them outlaws.

Iraq now has an elected government which is still working through the difficulties of setting up a new government.

Mistakes were made, especially in the rules of engagement; sorry but if you are our enemy and you hide in a Mosque, that Mosque just became a target.

Now when Bush said to go shopping, I think it is important to recall the entire speech and what he was conveying was to continue life as normal so as to show the terrorists they did not succeed in changing our way of life.

I also look at the fact that we have not had any attacks in this country since 9/11 but several we know of and probably many more have been stopped.

Countries that decided to stay out of the fight such as Spain have not been spared the ire of the extremists.

What needs to be done now is to let the new Iraq government know that they must be self sustaining within a legitimate time frome and we must help them to train their police and military to accomplish that goal.

And finally I do know that this has absolutely nothing to do with the hobby.

I like to think that we went into Irag to stop the atrocities being committed against minorities. By thinking this it has comforted my thoughts regardless. But to be honest with my real thoughts I think we went into Irag because of a family vendetta.

MStuart
01-30-2007, 12:15 PM
But to be honest with my real thoughts I think we went into Irag because of a family vendetta.

And here I thought that I was the only one who suspected that.

Mark

Malingerer
01-30-2007, 12:20 PM
I think the amount of vitreol and mischaracterization of things said is disheartening. Here's how I see it:

We were attacked on 9/11 which needed response

We took out the Taliban which was the strongest backer of Bin Laden

Intelligence showed that Sadam did have WMDs and connections to the Taliban not only our intelligence mind you but the intelligence of our allies which the opposition politicians also saw and agreed to the war.

Sadam acted suspiciously when dealing with the weapons inspectors by forbiding access to potential sites.

Convoys were seen leaving Iraq for Syria just before the invasion (I do not have the reference handy but could probably find it if necessary)

Evidence that Sadam used chemical and biological weapons were discovered during Operation Iraqi freedom. Also some weapons were found but not reported, they were old but still possibly deadly.

Sadam had violated numerous UN resolutions which specifically gave us the authority to do what we did.

The insurgents did have an American Civil War counterpart, we called them outlaws.

Iraq now has an elected government which is still working through the difficulties of setting up a new government.

Mistakes were made, especially in the rules of engagement; sorry but if you are our enemy and you hide in a Mosque, that Mosque just became a target.

Now when Bush said to go shopping, I think it is important to recall the entire speech and what he was conveying was to continue life as normal so as to show the terrorists they did not succeed in changing our way of life.

I also look at the fact that we have not had any attacks in this country since 9/11 but several we know of and probably many more have been stopped.

Countries that decided to stay out of the fight such as Spain have not been spared the ire of the extremists.

What needs to be done now is to let the new Iraq government know that they must be self sustaining within a legitimate time frome and we must help them to train their police and military to accomplish that goal.

And finally I do know that this has absolutely nothing to do with the hobby.
Robert,
The only vitriole I've seen spewed in this 'fracker' has come from the conservative wing of our hobby.

Yep, 9/11 required a response. No argument here. And, the taliban was the appropriate target. ****, we had the entire world on our side for that one.
Bush and company 'cooked the books' on the whole WMD story and knowingly spread false stories (ask Colin Powell about that one) regarding Iraq's current ability to make things look like we were on emergency footing. If you'll check the record, Cheney was advocating war with Iraq as far back as 1997 - 9/11 gave him his big opportunity. All he had to do was link 9/11 with Iraq (which he did) and voila instopresto war.

There is no credible evidence that Iraq moved WMD's to Syria or anywhere else for that matter.

Yes, Iraq has an elected government - of radical shias who would like us out of their country asap.

When Bush told us to go shopping he let us all off the participation hook. If he believes we are in a real war with a deadly foe (as I believe) then we should all be sharing the burden, not just our troops. During WWII my mother bought rationed commodities, carpooled, worked at the Red Cross, helped with scrap drives, and held down a full time job at the shipyard while my father fought at the front. And we are told to go shopping oh, and be sure to put your yellow ribbon on your SUV.

Yep, noone has attacked us since 9/11 - they havent had to, weve saved them the airfare. Weve now lost more folks in Iraq than died in the towers. Also, we went exactly getting loads of attacks on the USA before 9/11.

Yep, Spain and England have been attacked too - by AlQuieda not Iraq.

One of the greatest contributions of the conservative movement has been their insistance that people take responsibilities for their actions - accountability. I'm just not seeing any of that with this administrations. And (here's your Civil War connection), at least Lincoln held his subornates responsible- by 1862 Cameron was gone.

with respect,
Peter Julius,
Bryson City, NC

toptimlrd
01-30-2007, 12:25 PM
I like to think that we went into Irag to stop the atrocities being committed against minorities. By thinking this it has comforted my thoughts regardless. But to be honest with my real thoughts I think we went into Irag because of a family vendetta.


Sam,

To be honest that hand was dealt long before Bush or even Clinton was in office. I truly believe that had it not been for UN interference we would have gone straight into Baghdad in 91. We were basically told by the UN to stop at the Iraqi border which we did. The UN then posed sanctions and resolutions which Sadam continually violated and refused. The fact that we were in Afghanistan with the Taliban admittedly gave us opportunity to go into Iraq, but the right to do so was already established long before. Add to that mix the Intelligence we received from numerous sourses (flawed or not) it seemed to me and (it would appear) almost everyone from both sides of the aisle that we were doing the right thing when we went in. Sitting back now and "monday quarterbacking" this is not fair to those who had the hard decisions to make nor is it practical.

Call me insensitive if you will, but after four years of war against an enemy we have difficulty in identifying, to only have 3000 casualties is quite amazing in my book. We need to remember though that the job of the military is to kill people and break things, war is and always be ugly when war is necessary.

To be honest the way I look at Iraq is as a huge diversion for the terrorists. We keep them busy in the big sandbox and it keeps them off our continent. This would never be reported or admitted to, but I truly believe that is what's really happening and it really is sound strategy. I know some have said they remember Bush saying it would be a quick war, but I recall him saying it would be long and protracted. If memory serves me right, it was a Pentagon official who touted the quick war.

Malingerer
01-30-2007, 12:33 PM
Sam,

To be honest that hand was dealt long before Bush or even Clinton was in office. I truly believe that had it not been for UN interference we would have gone straight into Baghdad in 91. We were basically told by the UN to stop at the Iraqi border which we did. The UN then posed sanctions and resolutions which Sadam continually violated and refused. The fact that we were in Afghanistan with the Taliban admittedly gave us opportunity to go into Iraq, but the right to do so was already established long before. Add to that mix the Intelligence we received from numerous sourses (flawed or not) it seemed to me and (it would appear) almost everyone from both sides of the aisle that we were doing the right thing when we went in. Sitting back now and "monday quarterbacking" this is not fair to those who had the hard decisions to make nor is it practical.

Call me insensitive if you will, but after four years of war against an enemy we have difficulty in identifying, to only have 3000 casualties is quite amazing in my book. We need to remember though that the job of the military is to kill people and break things, war is and always be ugly when war is necessary.

To be honest the way I look at Iraq is as a huge diversion for the terrorists. We keep them busy in the big sandbox and it keeps them off our continent. This would never be reported or admitted to, but I truly believe that is what's really happening and it really is sound strategy. I know some have said they remember Bush saying it would be a quick war, but I recall him saying it would be long and protracted. If memory serves me right, it was a Pentagon official who touted the quick war.
Robet,
The number is closer to 26,000 US causalties -3000+ dead.
The quick war was touted by Rumsfeld and Cheney who, last time I checked worked for the president.I guess we remember what we want to remember.
regards,
Peter Julius,
Bryson City, NC

Trooper Graham
01-30-2007, 12:48 PM
Sam,

To be honest that hand was dealt long before Bush or even Clinton was in office. I truly believe that had it not been for UN interference we would have gone straight into Baghdad in 91. We were basically told by the UN to stop at the Iraqi border which we did. The UN then posed sanctions and resolutions which Sadam continually violated and refused. The fact that we were in Afghanistan with the Taliban admittedly gave us opportunity to go into Iraq, but the right to do so was already established long before. Add to that mix the Intelligence we received from numerous sourses (flawed or not) it seemed to me and (it would appear) almost everyone from both sides of the aisle that we were doing the right thing when we went in. Sitting back now and "monday quarterbacking" this is not fair to those who had the hard decisions to make nor is it practical.

Call me insensitive if you will, but after four years of war against an enemy we have difficulty in identifying, to only have 3000 casualties is quite amazing in my book. We need to remember though that the job of the military is to kill people and break things, war is and always be ugly when war is necessary.

To be honest the way I look at Iraq is as a huge diversion for the terrorists. We keep them busy in the big sandbox and it keeps them off our continent. This would never be reported or admitted to, but I truly believe that is what's really happening and it really is sound strategy. I know some have said they remember Bush saying it would be a quick war, but I recall him saying it would be long and protracted. If memory serves me right, it was a Pentagon official who touted the quick war.

It is well documented how Saddam controled things. What dictator doesn't? I really don't know that the UN had anything to do with it but after hearing Bush's speach at the UN there might be truth in that which could be also related in family buisness. If the UN held George Sr back then I understand Bush Jr's speech. But....according to my entellegence reports...we stopped when we did because it was prearranged that internal forces would take over and overthrow Saddam. They tried and failed and paid the price. The military restrictions put on Saddamm upon surrendering was suppose to restrict him so much that the internal forces would have the advantage but....one thing was allowed and in doing so it was overlooked the capabilities of the use of rotor-wing aircraft which Saddamm was allowed to keep and operate. It was with these aircraft he was able to subdue the internal forces that set out to overthrow him after hostilities ended. It just didn't go as thought by the Bush Sr civilian stategists. They had the Rep Guard encircled and could have wiped them out. Schwartzkoff wanted to take them out but was overuled. Who surpressed the internal uprising...the Rep Guards. The biggest mistake was created by Bush Sr and "like father...like son" making it in my mind a "Family Affair".

Trooper Graham
01-30-2007, 12:52 PM
To be honest the way I look at Iraq is as a huge diversion for the terrorists. We keep them busy in the big sandbox and it keeps them off our continent.
.

I do agree with you there. Since the beginning of the war the only terrorist that has tried anything has been the so called "home-grown" fanatics.

toptimlrd
01-30-2007, 01:08 PM
Robet,
The number is closer to 26,000 US causalties -3000+ dead.
The quick war was touted by Rumsfeld and Cheney who, last time I checked worked for the president.I guess we remember what we want to remember.
regards,
Peter Julius,
Bryson City, NC

Peter,

I did mean dead instead of casualties, typing faster than I was thinking.

I can also accept that it was Rumsfeld and / or Cheny who argued for a quick war as I do not remember but did remember the President saying it would be long and protracted. Is it possible that Rumsfield and Cheny were referring to the War against Sadam? If so it was a quick war, the war on terrorism is what continues.

Anyway, I hat talking politics in a forum with my hobby as I like to keep the two separate. It's all to often that politics have destroyed friendships.

Malingerer
01-30-2007, 01:14 PM
Peter,

I did mean dead instead of casualties, typing faster than I was thinking.

I can also accept that it was Rumsfeld and / or Cheny who argued for a quick war as I do not remember but did remember the President saying it would be long and protracted. Is it possible that Rumsfield and Cheny were referring to the War against Sadam? If so it was a quick war, the war on terrorism is what continues.

Anyway, I hat talking politics in a forum with my hobby as I like to keep the two separate. It's all to often that politics have destroyed friendships.

Robert,
Disagreements in a strong, open democracy like ours are the life's blood of the system - and they will never get in the way of my respect for you.
Best regards,
Peter Julius
Bryson City, NC

Trooper Graham
01-30-2007, 01:26 PM
Politics and Religion is the cursed evil of any forum and here we have the "us vs them" too. The latter is enough to cause the mods to pull their hair off their heads or face. :D :D :D

How the heck are ya Tom.....;)

tompritchett
01-30-2007, 04:49 PM
Here's one: a well intentioned imbecile who never saw a day of combat (Johnson) decides to escalate an unnecessary war further increasing our involvement and casualties in a brutal quagmire.

In Johnson's defense, he was following the advice of McNamara and Wesmoreland. Unfortunately, we now know just how bad that advice was.

tompritchett
01-30-2007, 04:52 PM
If memory serves me right, it was a Pentagon official who touted the quick war.

As well as a Secretary of Defense and a Vice President.

tompritchett
01-30-2007, 04:54 PM
They tried and failed and paid the price.

After we pulled promised support (sound familar).

tompritchett
01-30-2007, 05:00 PM
But to be honest with my real thoughts I think we went into Irag because of a family vendetta.

I have been arguing that for a long time. However, I can remember getting forwarded emails from my sister-in-law but written by members about the Republican Right about how Clinton was not taking a hard enough stance about Saddam and advocating military intervention - all before 9/11 and before the "laundried" intelligence about WMDs. Unfortunately, when interpreting raw data, it can be very easy to allow one's personal feelings to highly influence how that data is interpreted, especially when there are apparent contradictions in the data and major uncertainties about some of its validity.

Trooper Graham
01-30-2007, 05:02 PM
In Johnson's defense, he was following the advice of McNamara and Wesmoreland. Unfortunately, we now know just how bad that advice was.

As I said, Johnson was a puppet and those two were the main ones contolling the strings. Not so with todays repeat of history. The Sec of Defense knew exactly what the CinC wanted. The strings had reversed.

People can say what they want about Tricky **** but because of him I didn't have to go back for a third tour. Shame he got caught doing what so many others did and still do.

tompritchett
01-30-2007, 05:04 PM
To be honest the way I look at Iraq is as a huge diversion for the terrorists. We keep them busy in the big sandbox and it keeps them off our continent.

On that we do agree. However, worldwide the number of radical islamics that hate the U.S. have increased and what is going to happen when the Iraq diversion is over - regardless of how that ultimately plays out? Will we truly be safer then?

Trooper Graham
01-30-2007, 05:05 PM
After we pulled promised support (sound familar).

Actually they were supported in arms and ammo along with the Kurds but everywhere they put up a fight Saddam had his helos right there bringing in the Rep Guards and stopped them in their tracks.

Trooper Graham
01-30-2007, 05:07 PM
On that we do agree. However, worldwide the number of radical islamics that hate the U.S. have increased and what is going to happen when the Iraq diversion is over - regardless of how that ultimately plays out? Will we truly be safer then?


Remember the movie "The Ugly American"? Came out in the early 60s I think.

Trooper Graham
01-30-2007, 05:12 PM
Actually they were supported in arms and ammo along with the Kurds but everywhere they put up a fight Saddam had his helos right there bringing in the Rep Guards and stopped them in their tracks.

I forgot to add that they had a few camo faced advisors also. They had everything except tanks, artillery and aircraft. Neither did Saddam. We destroyed almost everything to give the internals an advantage. I believe if the Rep Guards had been destroyed things would have gone differant.

tompritchett
01-30-2007, 05:12 PM
People can say what they want about Tricky **** but because of him I didn't have to go back for a third tour. Shame he got caught doing what so many others did and still do.

Personally I do not like Tricky because of his blatant attempts to tip the balance of government in his favor as well as for using his office to fix the Democratic primary so that he would have to run against the candidate he, Ehlrichman (sp?) and Halderman (sp?) felt he would have the easiest time defeating (the true issue of Watergate). As for Vietnam, he and Kissinger very early in his first term determined that we could not win there and started looking for way out ("peace with honor"). Unfortunately, almost as many more American soldiers would die after that decision was made as had died in all the years before.

Having said that about Nixon, I do give him high marks on foreign policy and even more high marks on the Environment (he was the first President to make protecting the environment a matter of national policy).

tompritchett
01-30-2007, 05:16 PM
Actually they were supported in arms and ammo along with the Kurds but everywhere they put up a fight Saddam had his helos right there bringing in the Rep Guards and stopped them in their tracks.

Actually the CIA operatives had been promising even more support (e.g. air strikes and such) but at the last minute the White House pulled the rug out from under the CIA. Have a book at home written by one of the CIA operatives working on the coup at the time.

Trooper Graham
01-30-2007, 05:27 PM
Personally I do not like Tricky because of his blatant attempts to tip the balance of government in his favor as well as for using his office to fix the Democratic primary so that he would have to run against the candidate he, Ehlrichman (sp?) and Halderman (sp?) felt he would have the easiest time defeating (the true issue of Watergate). As for Vietnam, he and Kissinger very early in his first term determined that we could not win there and started looking for way out ("peace with honor"). Unfortunately, almost as many more American soldiers would die after that decision was made as had died in all the years before.

Having said that about Nixon, I do give him high marks on foreign policy and even more high marks on the Environment (he was the first President to make protecting the environment a matter of national policy).

Didn't Tricky **** arrive in 72? Two years later we were all but gone after being there since 58. The first casualty happened in 61.

MStuart
01-30-2007, 05:31 PM
Didn't Tricky **** arrive in 72? Two years later we were all but gone after being there since 58. The first casualty happened in 61.

Sam:

You lost a few years when your hippieness was outa control.....the Dickster was first elected in 68.

Mark

tompritchett
01-30-2007, 05:33 PM
Didn't Tricky **** arrive in 72?

He was re-elected in 72. He was first voted into office in 68 when he beat Hubbert Humphreys (sp?), Johnson's VP.

tompritchett
01-30-2007, 05:34 PM
You lost a few years when your hippieness was outa control.....the Dickster was first elected in 68.


At his age it is acute CRS. :D

Trooper Graham
01-30-2007, 05:36 PM
At his age it is acute CRS. :D

AH Yes...1968...I remember it well. :evil: At that time my mind was not on what was happening stateside.

Trooper Graham
01-30-2007, 05:44 PM
AH Yes...1968...I remember it well. :evil: At that time my mind was not on what was happening stateside.

Even still today when I have the opportunity to fondle a woman's breast the visions of ...'TeT' return. Unforturnetly at my age I don't have too many flashbacks anymore... :D :D

GaWildcat
01-30-2007, 06:53 PM
Sir,

I was not attempting to blame the "liberal Media" I was just relaying what I saw and took part in as a member of an Engineer Battalion in Baghdad. I am not a mouthpiece for either the President, the DOD, The Republican or Democratic Parties, or any other entity.. I am just a guy, who did a job, saw his friends get wounded, was blessed that none were KIA, had the blessing to have a loving fiance and family at home that prayed for me, and had the luck to return home alive and in one piece, and still supports the mission because of the things I saw.

I gave kids candy, clothes that people sent me, toys and baseballs, pens pencils and paper. I didnt humiliate people or rape and kill. I was fortunate not to have to fire my weapon, but was ready to in defense of myself or my comrades. I didnt fight for Haliburton, Shell Oil, Mobil, Texaco, or Exxon. I fought because my President, and my Country asked me to, and as a soldier who took an oath, I did as I freely volunteered to do when I was 17. I fought for the Country I love, for the Constitution and for the Declaration of Independance, the wonderful document that begins,

We hold these truths to be self evident, that ALL men are created equal. These words apply just as well to the Arabs as to Americans.

I also fought for the freedoms of you, my fellow countrymen, for my family, and for those who want the freedoms we enjoy. Would you, who enjoy those freedoms hold them so jealously that you would deny them to others? I was also, and although I have ETSd, would still willing lay down my life that you, my fellow Americans, can enjoy those freedoms.

Any other conclusions are those of the reader.

I apologize that my service has possibly offended you. I will immediatly try to flush said memories, as soon as I can stop jumping at sudden noises, fearing overpasses, and hating fireworks.


Robert W. Hughes
A Co, 411th Engineer Combat Battalion (Heavy)
1st Cavalry Division
OIF II

road_apple1861
01-30-2007, 07:08 PM
Didint Theodore Roosevelt make it National policy to protect wildlife, before Nixon did?

Trooper Graham
01-30-2007, 07:11 PM
Didint Theodore Roosevelt make it National policy to protect wildlife, before Nixon did?

I think it was the National Parks that Teddy established, Yellowstone being the first and of course hunting in National Parks is prohibited.

sbl
01-30-2007, 07:12 PM
Robert,


"I apologize that my service has possibly offended you."

Nobody said anything like that.

Until you posted this, I didn't know you'd been there.

Mojo1842
01-30-2007, 07:17 PM
[QUOTE=Trooper Graham]Can anyone else remember a time where history repeated itself besides the similarity between the assassination of Lincoln and Kennedy?

QUOTE]
I can think of a couple of them- the overthrow of Kerensky's weak goverment by the Bolsheviks in Russia; Germany handing over the reins of the country to he who shall remain nameless after suffering spiralling inflation; lawfully (or not so...) elected leaders running roughshod over the checks and balances designed to protect the citizens from the government; Broken treaties; Sen. McCarthy branding anyone that didnt agree with his tactics or ideas as traitors....history repeats itself all the time

MStuart
01-30-2007, 07:53 PM
I apologize that my service has possibly offended you.

Robert:

Take this with a grain of salt.....but that is the most ridiculous statement I've ever read on this forum. There are many veterans on this board, and some of us have sons that have been to the desert, also. If there's any "internet forum" that supports the American serviceman and servicewoman more than those here, I'd like to see it.

You're confusing debate with doubt.......discussion with demonization. I can say with confidence that, to a man, everyone who has contributed to this little "debate" has an unqualifed respect and admiration for ANYONE who wears or has worn the uniform of the United States.

We discuss things here, and debate issues. If we were any good at it, or highly qualified, we'd be at the Pentagon making decisions. As you can see, we aren't. So bear with us and our opinions. But never think that the statement you made carries any weight here.

Mark
US Veteran
Son Brian (and sometimes reenactor)- Currently Serving

Trooper Graham
01-30-2007, 08:05 PM
If we were any good at it, or highly qualified, we'd be at the Pentagon making decisions. As you can see, we aren't.




YO!!!!!! Mark! I happen to work at the Pentagon as a runner. My specialty is troop movements. When the generals give me the details I read them before delivery. It was suppose to be an all army war and I said the heck with that and changed it. I'm the reason all those jarheads are over there. :D :D

(just a little of inter-service humour so don't be getting too upset you marines. If you do I'll call in the Swabbies to take care of you. :D ) (more inter-service humour) :D

Rob
01-30-2007, 08:08 PM
I assume you mean the uncanny similarity between Vietnam and our current debacle?

And Vietnam was a repeat of the Philippine Insurrection, which was a mirror of the Boer War (both occurring nearly simultaneously), which was a repeat of the Spanish campaign in Cuba, which was a repeat of... well, you get the idea.

We don't seem to learn from history very well, but as long as the arms dealers are happy, then I guess it's all good...

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

MStuart
01-30-2007, 08:12 PM
YO!!!!!! Mark! I happen to work at the Pentagon as a runner. My specialty is troop movements. When the generals give me the details I read them before delivery. It was suppose to be an all army war and I said the heck with that and changed it. I'm the reason all those jarheads are over there.
(just a little of inter-service humour so don't be getting too upset you marines. If you do I'll call in the Navy to take care of you. :D ) (more inter-service humour) :D

Is that why you let the USAF soften everyone up beforehand? :-)

Mark

flattop32355
01-30-2007, 08:17 PM
On that we do agree. However, worldwide the number of radical islamics that hate the U.S. have increased and what is going to happen when the Iraq diversion is over - regardless of how that ultimately plays out? Will we truly be safer then?

That leads to speculating about what would have transpired were we not in Iraq. Would the number of radical Islamics be less, more, or about the same now? You can probably find support for any of the three views.

In general, since we, the USA, represent all that is wrong with the world to these individuals, I can't help but think it wouldn't make a bit of difference. They're going to hate us no matter what we do, and even if we "give in" to some or even all of their demands and desires, it will be seen as a sign of weakness, not as a sign of compromise or understanding or reconciliation or anything else.

The ideologs behind their movement are no less committed to turning things their way than the Japanese were in WW2, and are just as tied to a form of the Bushido code: No surrender, no compromise, and anyone who softens is not worthy of mercy from us.

Also, look at the parallels between the Christians of the Crusader period and the Islamists now. Some interesting similarities in motives and zealotry. Some of them think it's their turn, now.

A harsh view? Yup. History teaches harsh lessons, and at some point, we may well learn that there really is no good, viable alternative to a declared, all-out war on them if we are to survive as we choose to be.

We can hope for the best, and be willing and prepared to accept a reasonable solution, but we'd better plan for the worst. That's another harsh lesson history has taught us.

Robert A Mosher
01-30-2007, 08:17 PM
Is that why you let the USAF soften everyone up beforehand? :-)

Mark

Hey, let's just stick to the military, why drag the Air Force into this, that's almost as bad as depending on Yankee cavalry to get you out of a jam! ;>

Robert A. Mosher

Trooper Graham
01-30-2007, 08:19 PM
Is that why you let the USAF soften everyone up beforehand? :-)

Mark

I always loved those fly boys. They had class and napalm when ever we called for it. ;)

MStuart
01-30-2007, 08:22 PM
Hey, let's just stick to the military, why drag the Air Force into this, that's almost as bad as depending on Yankee cavalry to get you out of a jam! ;> Robert A. Mosher

That hurt! You're just mad 'cause we had better chow halls!!

Mark

Trooper Graham
01-30-2007, 08:32 PM
That hurt! You're just mad 'cause we had better chow halls!!

Mark

Now that is an understatement. I was always in awe when I walked onto an airbase. Not just better chowhalls but served better food, billets where with so much room, better hospitals and staff. Yip! the AF spent their money well.
The only thing bad about the airforce was the rank and the time envolved moving up the ladder. Things might be better now.

MStuart
01-30-2007, 08:38 PM
Now that is an understatement. I was always in awe when I walked onto an airbase. Not just better chowhalls but served better food, billets where with so much room, better hospitals and staff. Yip! the AF spent their money well.
The only thing bad about the airforce was the rank and the time envolved moving up the ladder. Things might be better now.

Sam:

You're right, rank was tough, especially when I was in (73-93). I think it's getting a little better as the fruit of my loins made E-5 at the four year point. A feat unheard of in my day. "Course he says now the prospects for a quick E-6 ain't all that great. USAF has decided to downsize while the others plan to increase, I understand. The new F-22 Raptor is all the rage with the "hot sticks".

Mark

Trooper Graham
01-30-2007, 08:42 PM
Sam:

You're right, rank was tough, especially when I was in (73-93). I think it's getting a little better as the fruit of my loins made E-5 at the four year point. A feat unheard of in my day. "Course he says now the prospects for a quick E-6 ain't all that great. USAF has decided to downsize while the others plan to increase, I understand. The new F-22 Raptor is all the rage with the "hot sticks".

Mark

From my resources the F-22 has problems.

MStuart
01-30-2007, 08:48 PM
From my resources the F-22 has problems.

Figures as much. I think it's operational at only one location..Nellis, but I could be wrong. I don't keep up with my aircraft the way I used to.

Mark

Trooper Graham
01-30-2007, 09:01 PM
. I don't keep up with my aircraft the way I used to.

Mark

Sorta like me with the ladies. :rolleyes: :D but I still keep abreast of things military. Ya never know when they'd call up an ex-Ranger to rescue some stranded Seals. :D

(same as before) ;)

tompritchett
01-31-2007, 12:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trooper Graham
AH Yes...1968...I remember it well. At that time my mind was not on what was happening stateside.

Even still today when I have the opportunity to fondle a woman's breast the visions of ...'TeT' return. Unforturnetly at my age I don't have too many flashbacks anymore...

I noticed that you have started replying to your own posts more and more lately. Trying to be another Bragg and carry on debates with yourself?

Trooper Graham
01-31-2007, 12:23 AM
I noticed that you have started replying to your own posts more and more lately. Trying to be another Bragg and carry on debates with yourself?

Braxton Bragg? The loser of the West? The general who Forrest hated the most? Never heard of him. ;)

tompritchett
01-31-2007, 01:01 AM
Braxton Bragg? The loser of the West? The general who Forrest hated the most? Never heard of him.

Yep him. Supposedly he was known to publish articles and letters under various pen names and then have the various pen names get into debates with each other. Guess it gave him plenty of practice for arguing with his subordinate commanders.

Trooper Graham
01-31-2007, 01:11 AM
Yep him. Supposedly he was known to publish articles and letters under various pen names and then have the various pen names get into debates with each other. Guess it gave him plenty of practice for arguing with his subordinate commanders.


...and to think they named Ft Bragg after him and it's the home of the 82nd, the All American Div, or as we called them in the 101st, All A$$holes. Sorta fits Forrest's thoughts about Bragg too. :D

Longbranch 1
01-31-2007, 02:02 PM
I don't remember where I read this about Bragg, but it stuck with me.

Reportedly while acting as both Co Commander and Quartermaster ,He could not resolve a conflict between the two offices. He eventually called in the POST Commander to resolve his dilemma. The exasperated Commander is reported to have said,

" My God, Mr Bragg, you have quarreled with every officer in the Army, and now you are quarreling with yourself! "



K. Ellis
26th NCT

toptimlrd
02-04-2007, 07:21 PM
Hey, let's just stick to the military, why drag the Air Force into this, that's almost as bad as depending on Yankee cavalry to get you out of a jam! ;>

Robert A. Mosher

Hey, easy on us flyboys or we'll remember that the next time you need air support.

tompritchett
02-05-2007, 12:33 AM
Hey, easy on us flyboys or we'll remember that the next time you need air support.

Yeah, and if is wasn't for the fierce lobbying by the Army, you fly-boys would totally rid yourselves of one of the best, if not the best, air support aircraft ever built, the A10.

Robert A Mosher
02-05-2007, 09:36 AM
Okay guys, in order to make it up to the flyboys, let's sing them a chorus -
I learned this one from an old movie -

"Up in the air, junior birdmen,
Up in the air, upside down ..."



Hmm, don't know that one? Okay, perhaps you know this one -I got it from Seamus Kennedy -

"Off we go into the wild blue yonder,
lost again, @$#%^&&*())_)+= - "

Hmm, don't know that one either. Guess I better get my songbooks out and see what I can find.

Sorry, guys - not enough welshmen on the forum today, but it's the thought that counts, right?

Robert A. Mosher

Trooper Graham
02-05-2007, 09:43 AM
one of the best, if not the best, air support aircraft ever built, the A10.

You can say that again. ;) Perhaps the USAF should had stayed as the AAF the A10 wouldn't had been retrieved from the boneyard for Iraq.

tompritchett
02-05-2007, 10:26 AM
the USAF should had stayed as the AAF

I think you meant to say the AAC, the Army Air Corps.

MStuart
02-05-2007, 10:46 AM
You can say that again. ;) Perhaps the USAF should had stayed as the AAF

And wear those funky green uniforms? Nah!!!!!!!!!!

Mark

Trooper Graham
02-05-2007, 11:44 AM
And wear those funky green uniforms? Nah!!!!!!!!!!

Mark

What I could never understand is why the AF had to adopt their own service song when the rebel rousing AAF "Wild Blue Yonder" was traded for 'the blue of pretty girls eyes'. :rolleyes: It's not like AF blue out did Ranger green in the art of seducing the ladies. :D

toptimlrd
02-05-2007, 01:30 PM
I think you meant to say the AAC, the Army Air Corps.


Looks like I'm about to have a 3rd generation flyboy. My dad was AAC in WWII, I spent my high school and college days preparing for an Army career before I volunteered for the AF in Desert Storm (washed out not long after joining thanks to a bum knee I didn't know I had in all honesty), now my son is trying to get into Colorodo Springs.

Trooper Graham
02-05-2007, 02:41 PM
I think you meant to say the AAC, the Army Air Corps.



US Army Air Corps 1926-1941 (AAC)
US Army Air Force 1941-1947 (AAF)
US Air Force 1947-to present (USAF)

and all three came from loin of the US Army Signal Corps.

tompritchett
02-05-2007, 06:35 PM
US Army Air Corps 1926-1941 (AAC)
US Army Air Force 1941-1947 (AAF)
US Air Force 1947-to present (USAF)

I stand corrected. Had two brothers in the Air Force - one a navigator in SAC and the other a logistics officer. The latter got Riff'd because his eyes prevented him from ever becoming a flyboy. But, being a cold-war Armor officer, I loved the A-10. Each one of those was probably worth 3 or 4 Minutemen when it came to preventing us and the USSR from ultimately squaring off in what would have quickly escalated into a nuclear exchange.

Trooper Graham
02-05-2007, 07:37 PM
I stand corrected. Had two brothers in the Air Force - one a navigator in SAC and the other a logistics officer. The latter got Riff'd because his eyes prevented him from ever becoming a flyboy. But, being a cold-war Armor officer, I loved the A-10. Each one of those was probably worth 3 or 4 Minutemen when it came to preventing us and the USSR from ultimately squaring off in what would have quickly escalated into a nuclear exchange.

My unit in the 101st use to work closely with both the A-10s and the Cobra gunships. We couldn't get over the A-10s silence when approaching about 150 feet above and the sound of their 30mm gatlin gun shooting out almost 4000 rounds a minute didn't get to our ears until the rounds were on their target and when the sound finally reached the ground it was deafening. Do you know Tom that when it was being tested the AF brought the famous german tank buster Hans Ulrich Rudel over for his opinions? The AF got in a bit of hot water over that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Ulrich_Rudel

Doug Cooper
02-05-2007, 07:54 PM
The A-10 is flown by warriors, most of whom would gladly transfer to the Army or Marines where they would be more appreciated.

But it goes deeper than one airplane. CAS is not sexy and is very difficult...maybe that is why the Marines, Army and even Navy love the mission...and why they work so hard at it, and rarely make friendly fire mistakes. "Speed is life" is a USAF mantra that resonated throughout the budget and the procurement process for years. I saw it up close and personal in the Pentagon and the War College at the highest levels.

At the end of the Gulf War CoS McPeak broke ranks with the Chiefs and declared that the USAF had won the war...and we listened for a bit as an ever larger share of the budget pie went to high tech space and airborne systems. Rumsfeld continued the trend until reality once again got in the way. Does not look too smart in the reality of 21st century warfare...but Fighter Pilots usually run the show.

Wonder what the Raptor/Warthog cost ratio is these days?

I hope attitudes are changing...

Trooper Graham
02-05-2007, 08:39 PM
The A-10 is flown by warriors, most of whom would gladly transfer to the Army or Marines where they would be more appreciated.

But it goes deeper than one airplane. CAS is not sexy and is very difficult...maybe that is why the Marines, Army and even Navy love the mission...and why they work so hard at it, and rarely make friendly fire mistakes. "Speed is life" is a USAF mantra that resonated throughout the budget and the procurement process for years. I saw it up close and personal in the Pentagon and the War College at the highest levels.

At the end of the Gulf War CoS McPeak broke ranks with the Chiefs and declared that the USAF had won the war...and we listened for a bit as an ever larger share of the budget pie went to high tech space and airborne systems. Rumsfeld continued the trend until reality once again got in the way. Does not look too smart in the reality of 21st century warfare...but Fighter Pilots usually run the show.

Wonder what the Raptor/Warthog cost ratio is these days?

I hope attitudes are changing...

Doug, I seen on the TV just a few weeks ago about the use of the A-10 in Iraq. In short, "We need close air ground suport like those A-10 there once was" So the AF sends people out to the boneyard to get them servicable again. BUT!!! only two could come up servicable. So the AF goes back to the manufacturer and they say, sorry, all the molds are long gone but in steps a little known private manufacturer and says, sure, we'll build them for you but it will cost you. Just give us the two servicable ones to go from and we'll have them to you in no time at 1 million a piece and that's the 'rest of the story'. ;)

bob 125th nysvi
02-07-2007, 02:37 PM
[QUOTE=bob 125th nysvi]
"Maybe"? Are you kidding? These idiots aren't fit to pack the lunches of our boys over there. And do you really want to compare the current occupant of the white house to President Lincoln?
Peter Julius,
Bryson City, NC

That despite vastly superior resources it took the North the better part of three years to find a war winning combination of strategy and commanders.

That Lincoln was one of the "On to Richmond" gang until he had learned enough to realize that territory was not the real issue in sustaining the rebellion.

No I am not ready to declare G. Bush Lincoln's equal in anything but I am enough of a Historian to realize that it will be YEARS before we know if his strategy works or how effective it is.

People laughed at Regan for years and then low and behold the pressure he put on the Soviets was the final piece to the puzzle and we have no more cold war.

I prefer something to nothing, and while George may not be right it is better than nothing. And so far the other side in the argument has offered nothing but running away and putting their heads in the sand.

As Billy did when the Somalis had Osama at the airport in handcuffs begging us to pick him up. If he had we might not be in the bind we are in today. But he had Monica sitting on his hands and did NOTHING.

Look how well that turned out.

The problem with America today is we are no longer willing to do the hard things, take the time necessary to do them right and tough out the hard times. If we had that kind of attitude in 1776 we might still be part of the Commonwealth. If the Union had that attitude 1861 we might not be one nation today. If we had that attitude 1941 they might still be putting people in ovens in Europe.

The hard things the RIGHT things never come easy.

What's the line out of "A League of Their Own": "It's supposed to be hard. The hard is what makes it great."

bob 125th nysvi
02-07-2007, 02:44 PM
Good similiarity but living through those years, as an adult, Johnson was a pawn controled by his cabinet and military contractors. Kennedy saw things coming and had really no intentions of getting further involved past military advisors.

Nobody's pawn.

And Kennedy was the man who initiated the plans to commit combat troops not Johnson.

Funny how we remmeber history as we want to. Especially with John Kennedy.

We credit John with being a great liberal. Yet he is the man who called Nixon soft on Communism, developed the plans to put in ground troops and is the originator of the special forces and JOHNSON is the architec of the Great Society program.

Kennedy is also one of the few men in history to LOSE his command without damaging the enemy. Have the survivors rescued through the efforts of someone else AND get a medal for it.

Pays to have good press.

bob 125th nysvi
02-07-2007, 02:53 PM
Hey, let's just stick to the military, why drag the Air Force into this, that's almost as bad as depending on Yankee cavalry to get you out of a jam! ;>

Robert A. Mosher

the job from a distance with bombs, rockets and etc you're a lot smarter military commander than the one that yells: "Hey Diddle Diddle, let's charge right up the middle!"

Sounds great in the history books but it is literally murder for the ground pounders.

What did George C Scott say in Patton: "Make the other poor dumb son of a b(female dog) die for his country."

The infantry has a had enough job (no war has ever been won without boots on the ground) without making it harder on them.

Besides if we call in the cavalry, the rebs will have less bullets left for us when we show up to do the job right.

Trooper Graham
02-07-2007, 05:57 PM
Nobody's pawn.

And Kennedy was the man who initiated the plans to commit combat troops not Johnson.

Funny how we remmeber history as we want to. Especially with John Kennedy.

We credit John with being a great liberal. Yet he is the man who called Nixon soft on Communism, developed the plans to put in ground troops and is the originator of the special forces and JOHNSON is the architec of the Great Society program.

Kennedy is also one of the few men in history to LOSE his command without damaging the enemy. Have the survivors rescued through the efforts of someone else AND get a medal for it.

Pays to have good press.

Johnson started commiting ground troops in 65. Before that there were only advisors there. Kennedy saw what was coming in 63 and started to reduce the advisors. There were many out for Kennedy especially big business and believe me, if the SgtMaj of the Army got caught taking kickbacks, big business had a stake in Southeast Asia bigtime. We had advisors there under Kennedy. We had combat divisions there under Johnson.

tompritchett
02-08-2007, 06:06 PM
We had advisors there under Kennedy. We had combat divisions there under Johnson.

Actually, if I remember correctly, we had advisors as early as Ike.

Trooper Graham
02-08-2007, 06:39 PM
Actually, if I remember correctly, we had advisors as early as Ike.

That's true Tom as early as 1955. After the french defeat in 1954, the southern part of Vietnam had restored democracy with the help of the british and then they left and the french surrendered in the north. Thus began our involvement. The first casuality was in 1961. We have a member in our local VFW that was there in 1958. By the time Kennedy was dead there were 500 advisors.

tompritchett
02-08-2007, 06:46 PM
The big question is when did we really get out of Laos. I know of one LTC who, after the signing of the Paris Peace Accord and our official withdrawal from Vietnam, retired rather than be assigned to the bureau that was actually a front for the unoffocial continued staffing of adviser positions for the Loation government forces.

Trooper Graham
02-08-2007, 07:02 PM
The big question is when did we really get out of Laos. I know of one LTC who, after the signing of the Paris Peace Accord and our official withdrawal from Vietnam, retired rather than be assigned to the bureau that was actually a front for the unoffocial continued staffing of adviser positions for the Loation government forces.

I watched on the HS some time ago of the hilltop listening and spying units in Laos. One was over ran and all killed. I think we got out soon after that. These hilltop compounds were Air Force manned.