Politics before troops...

Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by CamelPepper, Jul 11, 2007.

  1. CamelPepper

    CamelPepper Registered Member

    I don't know how any American can vote against this. "Support the Troops" my ass. When it comes time to step up to the plate and do the right thing, why does it seem that these Republicans are all talk and no action? First is was getting the troop body armor and helmet liners, then it was up armored Humvee now it's giving them time with their families before they throw them back into the heat of action for yet another 15 month tour.

    Normal text size please. -Kaz

  2. JimServo

    JimServo Guest

    I would vote against it. Senator Webb maneuvering has been designed all along to eventually force a withdraw. It also seems to me that requiring "intervals" is not an effective for acquiring victory, and in a war one the goal is victory.

    The body armor thing is a myth. From what I understand about armored vehicles, they have been adjusting to the situation as it develops. The initial vehicles did not suit the environment because of the IEDs. However, if you make the vehicles too heavy then they can't move around fast enough.
  3. Gavik

    Gavik Registered Member

    The war has already been lost by Bush. Iraq is hopeless, and if you think that throwing in kids for their 4th 15 month tour in a row is going to get the job done, than you don't have a clue.

    Bullshit. Can you get a link from a reputable news source?

    You can't move if you're dead either. Ever hear of a Stryker? They're the vehicles that can stand up to IEDs, but Bush is too cheap to buy them for the troops.
  4. SuiGeneris

    SuiGeneris blue 3

    Gavik, read your own evidence. It states that Strykers are already being deployed in Iraq. It's true there was a hesitation at producing them, 3 years ago, however, mass production has already been started, and we're seeing the results.

    http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/files/dragon_skin_release_000121may07.pdf -Page 3 if you're lazy

    Show me where his "bullshit" has been proven incorrect. Show me where NBC has been able to provide proof for their claims, aside from "Independent testing" that they clearly had holes in. What about the 20 pound difference between the two armors?

    Do some research before you call someone else's claims bullshit.
  5. Gavik

    Gavik Registered Member

    Yes, it's true that they've been deployed, but not nearly in the numbers of the easily targeted Hummers.

    As for the rest, does anyone else remember the soldier standing up to Rumsfeld at a speech he made to the troops asking him why they had to scrounge in junkyards for scrap metal to armor their hummers with?
  6. tneedles

    tneedles Guest

    Ignore the headlines and read the text of the Webb Amendment: http://webb.senate.gov/pdf/2012amdt.pdf

    This amendment is a good example of politics as normal. Nothing but spin. The headlines make it sound like it is a great idea. After reading the text, it becomes clear that this is a camouflaged attempt to withdrawl the troops The Webb Amendment is not feasible because we do not have the manpower.

    For members or units of the reserve components, a period of 3 years must pass after the end of their deployment until they can be redeployed.

    For members of the regular Armed Forces, if they were deployed for one year, they cannot be redeployed for at least one year.

    Who is going to fill the slots for those periods? Our troop strengths would actually decrease and would make our troops remaining in those areas to be more vulnerable to insurgents.

    Or, it could backfire and our troop deployment periods could be extended.
  7. Badfish

    Badfish Guest

    You say the goal is victory, but what would you consider a victory in Iraq? Nothing is a victory because we're not fighting for anything worthwhile. Not to mention that our 'enemy' in this war is such a broad and vague group of people that it's like having gun battles in a thick fog. The only 'victories' we have are when our soldiers don't die, and well they'd be pretty damn safe at home. But I can't have too much pity for them, they're stupid for having signed up. If they were drafted I would feel much more strongly for them.

    But we need to get out of Iraq, and so yes this is a good bill. Nothing productive is going to come out of Iraq, it's only getting worse.
  8. Kazmarov

    Kazmarov For a Free Scotland

    This may well be superficially true. However, until the reporter got the soldier to get up and tell Rumsfeld off on the issue, there was little effort to supply real armor (thus the creation of 'hillbilly armor'). Your reasoning sounds like an administration-fed explanation to deal with the corollary off of "you go to the army you have, not the one that you want"-that the war was rushed.

    What are our requirments? The casus belli for the Iraq War has already been proven to be wrong. If we had no valid reason to going to war in 2003, then our war is null and void and there is no concept of victory or defeat.

    What did the 2 million dead North Vietnemese and million or so dead South Vietnemese get us? Not victory, we'd have to had killed more for that. Our pride isn't worth human life.
  9. JimServo

    JimServo Guest

    I must differ. The goal of preventing a genocidal civil war in Iraq is worthwhile, as is the goal of establishing a moderate Muslim state in the Middle East.

    What do you mean? Why do you put the words "enemy" in quotation marks? You would acknowledge, I presume, that Al-Qaida (including al-Qaida in Iraq) is an enemy of the United States, and the civilized world? They certainly have targeted the Iraqi people (which is part of what has resulted in other insurgency groups turning against them).

    From what I understand "the enemy" in Iraq would also be those who attempt to overthrow the Iraqi government. I don't see that in any way vague. Now, it is true that certain insurgents as late have (at least temporarily) switched sides and are backing us against even more extremist groups. However, this is occurs often in wartime. There is no reason to apologize for making tactical decisions that further strategic goals.

    This is a pacifist notion that I do cannot buy into. Soldiers fight and die in wars, it is inevitable, and cannot be avoided. They may be "pretty damn safe at home" but that isn't the point. The question, one that we disagree on, is whether the war is worth the costs.

    Shame on you.

    This would be much like the Vietnam war. The massive public demonstrations died off immediately* after Richard Nixon signed into law the end of the draft. In retrospect, it appears that most protesters were not principled but rather just cowardly.

    *Protests continued in far-left enclaves, but never reached former levels.

    The situation on the ground in Iraq is not "worse," unless your view is that fighting in Iraq by default gets worse every minute we are in. The surge strategy of General Petrias has so far proven effective in increasing stability in Iraq. Things are not ideal, as the Iraqi legislature remains slow to proceed with political reforms, however the situation is not "worse."

    First off, it was not the Iraqi vehicles were unarmored (ie: "real armor"). The question is how much armor was and is appropriate. It has often been stated that in warfare plans do not survive contact with the enemy. This would be seem to be such a case.

    I'm not just some adminstration puppet. Clearly, the Defense Department was lax (Representative Duncan Hunter called it "a case of the slows") which the deployment of armor, and ultimately "the buck" does stop with the adminstration.

    I don't think really agree there was a rush to war. President Bush spent months of times in a fruitless and probably unwise effort to try to get a second U.N. resolution. Now, it may be true that the force that invaded Iraq, while being large enough to swamp Saddam's armed forces, was too small to effectively take control of the country. However, that seems to be a military mistake rather then a "rush to war."

    What would not, in your opinion, have constituted a rush to war?

    What are the requirements of victory (in Iraq)? I think the goal in Iraq is to root out extremists, and an establishment a functional plural(ish) democratic(ish) society that is compable of preventing internal strife by extremist groups. One that can survive without the presence of huge amounts of American forces. We have, obviously, not reached that point yet.

    What was the cassus belli? WMDs? Connections to anti-American terrorists? Failure to live up to the terms of the Gulf War treaty?

    I disagree. Even assuming George W. Bush lied to the nation (I do not think he didi) about the causes for the war, that does not by default mean "there is no concept for victory or defeat."

    The Spanish-American war was largely set-off by tensions resulting from the explosion of the U.S.S. Main (thought to be a mine). However, as further investigation after the conflict revealed the Maine might have been destroyed as a result of a boiler explosion. This does not mean there was no victory or defeat for the United States in civil war in the Phillippines. Now, the US may have been wrong to be there in the first place, but the strategic, and ethical question is different. In that case it was likely a withdrawal would result in colonization by another, more brutal, power. In addition, there was the ethical question of what is best for the Fillipinos of the time, since the islands were more disunited, unable to defend themselves, and possibly unable of effective government and practices such as slavery were still remained in existence.

    A U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would damage U.S. prestige to a degree not seen since the U.S. abandoment of Southeast Asia to the Communists. It would also increase the chances of Iran (an long affirmed enemy of the United States) turning portions of Iraq into a puppet state. Turkey has been vocal that a U.S. withdrawal could result in Turkish intervention in Kurdistan. I believe the United States has ethical responsibilities not to just abandon Iraq to far more bloodshed then that which is currently taking place.

    The Vietnam War resulted in the (not inevitable) annexation of South Vietnam to North Vietnam and the spread of communism to Cambodia and Laos. Now, the war itself would have been quicker if the US had not intervened, although in that case the lchances of countries like Thailand, Malyasia, and Indonesia falling to the Communists increase many fold.

    I'm not sure why the fact that many people died during the war makes it wrong. Millions died in the Korean war, but I think it was worth it to prevent the South from falling into the hands of Kim Sung Il totalitarian regime. Now, North Vietnam proved less brutal to the South then some anticipated (a million or more where sent to education camps, a 100,000+ were executed, 2+ million fleeing the country), however the Khmer Rogue (who they sponsored and were later forced to invade and overthrow) killed off between 1/5 and 1/3 of the Cambodian population.

    On this I agree. However, it is worth considering that pride goes both ways. Many who oppose the current U.S. presence in Iraq war do it under the false platitude that they are fighting to "end the war," when in fact that are merely fighting for American disengagement.
  10. SuiGeneris

    SuiGeneris blue 3

    The very fact that we have to sit here and question the goals in Iraq should tell us something. No one can tell you, straight out, what our defintion of victory is in Iraq. Ask a thousand people you'll likely get a thousand different answers. There is no focus in the war on Iraq, we're playing tag with insurgents and "terrorists." Granted they technically arn't terrorists until they attack civilians, which not all the groups do. Interesting...

    Regardless, there can be no victory without a focus. We need to set a goal system, what we want done. It shouldn't be "wait for something good to happen then spin it as a political and military victory." IE: The "votes"

    Yet again, an example of how unfocused this war is.

Share This Page