W's war

Fly Rod

Commander
Joined
Oct 31, 2002
Messages
2,622
Re: W's war

:) It's the price we pay for freedom!!! It saddens me that it takes a young life to keep you and I safe!!! :mad: <br /><br />TX, maybe we can send the "FEEBLE" to protect us, they have nothing to gain!!!
 

NOSLEEP

Commander
Joined
Oct 30, 2002
Messages
2,442
Re: W's war

txswinner, The war ended 30 years ago, <br />They didn't recruit large numbers of kids still<br />in high school. There was no inscription in Canada.<br />Whether I could serve, or couldn't serve, or did<br />serve is not the topic of this dialog.<br />You have expressed your disdain for the War as<br />well as the current administration presiding over<br />it. <br />I am not judging your service. I am judging you<br />by your rhetoric. Your anti war stance at any<br />cost is alarming. If participating in a war allows you <br />to spew the crap you profess, than ,<br />I would certainly be entitled to counter you with<br />some rational rebuttal shared by those that have<br />served and those that have not.<br />I am closing in on 50. The army wants young men<br />they can turn into real men. <br />I don't know you. I do not dislike you.<br />Obviously you carry scars from your service that<br />cloud your thinking.<br />Like it or not the free world has a conflict and<br />it wont be going away by talking about past service<br />or experiences.<br />One doesn't have to die to understand the cost of<br />war. But it does appear one can be deeply scarred <br />by witnessing it.
 

--GQ--

Chief Petty Officer
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
516
Re: W's war

Originally posted by Haut Medoc:<br /> Dave, you are wrong....Germany declared war on U.S. first.....I think that lots of bombs doesn't really fit into what is widely accepted criteria for WMD...Sorry!.......JK
Inaddition, German U-boats were sinking American merchant ships in the hundreds and plotted plans for Mexico to invade the U. S. even before War was declared. Could that be the cause of going to war?
 

rodbolt

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Sep 1, 2003
Messages
20,066
Re: W's war

nosleep<br /> thanks for reminding me how some of my cousins were "Recuited" in 60's and early seventies. why they got a gen u wine RSVP to a walk on part in a war. a few are still not home, well they are back on the banks, we vist the graves periodically.<br /> W wanted this war, the trained proffesional war planners that spend many years and courses at the war college in VA and DC training on how to plan various war scenario's got fired, Rumsfeld planned this debacale and W backed him.<br /> I was gonna buy stock in rose petal suppliers as we were gonna walk in to rose petals and hosesannas.<br />I told my dad way back in 02 we were going in, but the going in plan presented and executed insures a no win situation. sadly its come to pass.<br /> last week both the ambassador to Iraq and John Negroponte told the Iraqis if they could not get together the US would withdraw support, funny thing 5 days later a major blast threatens to be the final push into a civil war and no one KNOWS who bombed the mosque.<br /> But as Nosleep has many years of training in the military maybe Nosleep can answer who is our enemy ? cant answer terrorists or evildoes. I would like to know who "they" are.<br />like names,command structures,logistical supply line and where is the financeing comeing from to support the "enemy".<br /> so I am not "anti-war" I was involved with the first gulf war as an FC2, however there we kinda had a plan and stuck with it.<br /> we did not change plans 3 times in a month nor declared the end of major combat until it had actually ended.<br />so far the US reports to congress and the senate findings had shown terror connections and threats to the US from Egypt,Jordan, UAE, saudi arabia and Iran, no where is Iraq mentioned for terrorist training and attacks on the west.<br />so why did we attack Iraq? <br />this morning some generals in Iraq were interviewed, to a man they said the only thing they can do now is hunker down and not be a target in a civil war, they said it was all due to lack of troop force to insure security at the onset of ops in 03.<br /> so I am not so much cut and run nor anti-war, I am if your gonna jump jump. dont hop. ya either go in with overwhelming forces and take absolute control immediatly,like the plan was, or ya stay out and use insiders to destabilize, like we usually do.<br /> however Negroponte and the ambassodor, sorry I cant spell or pronounce his name, has stated that US support will be withdrawn if the Iraqis cannot get rid of the sectarian politics, thats our out, watch and see.<br />those folks have been fighting for hundreds of years, now they have western cash,weapons and training so they are more effective,<br /> but like Powell said, if ya break it ya own it.<br /> but in May it will be 3 years from the day W flew onto the carrier among much fru fru and whoohaaa and declared the end of major combat ops. we still have seen no security plans, the law enforcement in the metro DC area still cant communicate, the W plan for national disaster was a flop, the homeland security is rather much a joke, we are no safer now than on 9/10. it took them 15 years to catch two domestic terrorists in the states much less a 6'5" dude with a beard suspected of being in the desert.<br /> now the spin is OSL is no longer a threat.
 

62_Kiwi

Lieutenant Junior Grade
Joined
Jan 20, 2002
Messages
1,159
Re: W's war

Here's my 2 cents worth... :rolleyes: <br /><br />This war started long before W was president, but it became truely visible to all of us on 9/11.<br /><br />At that time the war had shifted to mainland USA, however it has now located itself in Iraq and Afganistan. The reason for this is that your own military forces (with some help from friends) took it there. <br /><br />Under a lesser president, the war of terror may well still be rolling out in the civilised cities of the western world.<br /><br />Nobody I know of has yet come up with a better plan than W in my opinion. Certainly the job has been tougher than most of us expected.<br /><br />W has my support and so do all the troops serving or have served in this godawful war.<br /><br />We should focus on victory rather than second guessing decisions made in the past.
 

POINTER94

Vice Admiral
Joined
Oct 12, 2003
Messages
5,031
Re: W's war

I'm with Hillary. I support the war. She is after all the smartest woman in the world. Heck, she voted to support the war before she voted to support the war.<br /><br />I guess the fear of committment manifests itself in so many ways. See JFK. Look under Bay of Pigs. Or try vietnam. Funny how a lack of committment results in defeat. But half in nothing out. We can always rewrite the history.<br /><br />Wasn't Muhammad Ali a lying draft dodger? Now he is a liberal icon. No more Cheney cracks. What a neat thread, W's war. Anyone know what it takes to go to war? Can the president declare war on his own? How do you become president? Something about votes? Shallow tactics and topic.<br /><br />Well put, Kiwi.
 

NOSLEEP

Commander
Joined
Oct 30, 2002
Messages
2,442
Re: W's war

Rodbolt, If you haven't figured out who your <br />enemy is by now. Anything I have to say wont<br />be very enlightening. <br />If you bought into the liberal spin at the start of<br />the invasion of Iraq. Then we don't have any common<br />ground, and debating is pointless.
 

Kalian

Chief Petty Officer
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
598
Re: W's war

Well put Kiwi. I think you said a mouthful there. Hopefuly Texaswinner will ponder that before the next reply.
 

JB

Honorary Moderator Emeritus
Joined
Mar 25, 2001
Messages
45,907
Re: W's war

Dave, I don't want to sound like I agree with TXS, but if you will check you will find that Germany declared war on the USA 12/11/41.<br /><br />However, I have to point out that this is THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA's war. If TXS doesn't want to be included in that it is his right to disinclude himself, but not to surrender to the enemy.
 

Reel Poor

Vice Admiral
Joined
Jan 29, 2005
Messages
5,522
Re: W's war

Originally posted by txswinner:<br /> <br />Dogsdad, You are a simple name caller and your comments always bleat the same blind mindset. To you there is no hope.
TX I have never seen a better example of the "pot calling the kettle black" in my entire life. :rolleyes:
 

cpj

Ensign
Joined
Jun 14, 2005
Messages
958
Re: W's war

Im not gonna comment. All I can say or post is this, pay close attention to the last three lines of this.<br /><br />
troll.jpg
 

rodbolt

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Sep 1, 2003
Messages
20,066
Re: W's war

just as I thought.<br /> Nosleep cannot answer that question either.<br />at least in the Vietnam unplesantness a certain amount of rules were followed and there as a chain of command on both sides.<br /> even the W camp is admitting the mistake of not enough troops to secure the borders in the initial invasion and the influx of foriegn agitators occured as predicted.<br /> but the fact is we are there now, but we are neither advaning nor retreating, and one of the most basic tenants of warfare from the centuries is if you cannot advance you must retreat or be beaten by your logistics chain.<br /> something must be done to break the stalemate. either add another 250K troops or withdraw to a more defensible position.<br />if you study and analyze any major conflict, from the mongols and alexander to WWII you will see what I am talking about.<br /> to conquer you MUST occupy, anything less means certain defeat.<br />its just a basic fact of war,<br /> shock and awe is great for CNN but does not work for occupations.<br />the warfare rules in this conflict dont seem to apply. the problem is about 14 different groups/countries that dont follow any chain of command, have local support and can cooperate with each other when not fighting one another.<br />the 1 Iraqi force ,about 700, that can marginally operate on its own is rather top heavy with hostile factions and therefore not really trustworthy.<br />the rest the trainers say are years away from being capeable of operating without US assistance.<br />some they say will most likly never be.<br />I worry a bit about training potentially future hostiles, we did it with the taliban, the current Iraqis in the 80's and Al queada in afghanistan and its coming back to bite us.<br />once the knowledge is passed to another the application of it is impossible to control. these folks may be fanatics or crazies but they are clever.
 

Bondo

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 17, 2002
Messages
71,430
Re: W's war

Originally posted by 62_Kiwi:<br /> Here's my 2 cents worth... :rolleyes: <br /><br />This war started long before W was president, but it became truely visible to all of us on 9/11.<br /><br />At that time the war had shifted to mainland USA, however it has now located itself in Iraq and Afganistan. The reason for this is that your own military forces (with some help from friends) took it there. <br /><br />Under a lesser president, the war of terror may well still be rolling out in the civilised cities of the western world.<br /><br />Nobody I know of has yet come up with a better plan than W in my opinion. Certainly the job has been tougher than most of us expected.<br /><br />W has my support and so do all the troops serving or have served in this godawful war.<br /><br />We should focus on victory rather than second guessing decisions made in the past.
How True,........<br /><br />If another Liberal had been elected,.......<br /><br />We would Still be fighting this War, with the FBI,......<br />After All,.......<br />It was Clinton that deemed this a "Police Issue",......<br />Without National Security Concerns............ :rolleyes: <br /><br /><br />Another Note to Self,...........<br />Quit clicking on Anything posted by txwHiner............. :rolleyes:
 

NOSLEEP

Commander
Joined
Oct 30, 2002
Messages
2,442
Re: W's war

I have a good idea who it is you are fighting<br />Rodbolt, You are fighting an ideology held by<br />muslim radical extremists. <br />They dont wear uniforms! They disappear into the<br />population after performing acts of Terrorism.<br />They are controlled by clerics and religious <br />figures. They are financed by totalitarian governments<br /> who have denied their involvement.<br />It is much different war fair than they teach at<br />war school. The U.S. has little past experience<br />engaging this type of enemy.<br />Ask Israel how to engage them. They have much<br />first hand knowledge.
 

demsvmejm

Master Chief Petty Officer
Joined
Jul 4, 2004
Messages
831
Re: W's war

Originally posted by CJY:<br />
I'm not a fan of doing things half-a**.
I can agree with you on this point EE. However, W has been going about the war half a22ed since the beginning, otherwise it would have been ended long ago.<br /><br />This war cannot be won, only lost. The difference between all of you with the belief we must stay and myself believing we must get out is our belief in the "plan." <br /><br />Even though none of us have ever heard of the "plan" to end this and get out, you believe one exists while I do not.<br /><br />As far as being politically correct with death vs casualty. I wonder if they call it a casualty while the eulogy is being given. I wonder if it is less painful when the casket is being lowered into the Earth. I wonder if looking at your "casualty" for the final time before closing the casket is any less painful. What I really wonder is if these "casualties" will all be worth it when we pull out while having accomplished nothing more than we accomplished after the first month or so.<br /><br />
The sitcom mentality where everything should be done in 30 minutes and it should have a happy ending is running rampant.<br />
What confuses me is the mentality that we can fix things for everybody around the world while we cannot fix issues in out own back yard.<br /><br />I seem to remember W standing in front of the camera shortly after the attack making the declaration of "the war is over." Just more bull. <br /><br />
If I had to make the choice between us going over there to fight, and them coming over here to fight - I think we should go over there, as we did.<br />
Iraq did not bring the war to us, we brought it to them. The person responsible for attacking us here is sitting on a beach drinking a margarita somewhere with little concern from our almighty W.<br /><br />
Why don't you want us to FINISH what we started?<br />
Emphasis on the "what we started" part. I think this says a great deal.<br /><br />
but from every account I have heard or read about people say we didn't pull out of that country right. Why would you want to do that again
Did we win in Vietnam? They raised the white flag and became a Democracy? All of Vietnam?<br /><br /><br />I'm not sure that we all understand death and its finality. As EE stated, this is not a sit-com and things are not ok after 30 minutes. We entered with no plan, have no plan today, and will have no plan tomorrow. It's tough to draw up a plan when you don't know when it is won.<br /><br />Many victories have been claimed; the statue of Sadaam being toppled, purple fingered voters, etc. But it still appears today in Iraq as it did shortly after Sadaam was removed.<br /><br />We will end up pulling out with little accomplished. The difference of later vs. sooner is more death.
Unlike the blindly-following-bush bunch, CJY and tx, you folks really think and ask questions. With the exception of JB who admitted he voted for the idiot and who said he served when he was called on to do so and therefore has credentials to comment, the rest of you are simply spewing the party line again, and that truly shows the intelligence level. When you can't stand on the facts and values of the situation the party followers fall back on the tried and true, try to put the dissenters on the defensive. Accuse them of refusing to answer your question, when in reality you are avoiding the questions posed by those who are actually thinking for themselves.<br /><br />This war is baby bush's war. Afghanistan was possibly part of the war on terror and therefore was America's war. Intelligence available to the idiot-in-chief cast doubts on WMD's in Iraq. For those baby bush backers with poor long-term memory that was the reason we invaded Iraq. Later the bush administration had to try and fleece the American people and ran damage control telling us it was to bring democracy to the Iraqi people. I don't ever recall the Iraqi people ask for democracy.<br /><br />If this Iraq war was to be America's war, they would have had real terrorist ties, like Iran, among other countries. Instead baby bush had a bug for Saddam and nothing would stop w from satisfying his fetish.<br /><br />As for half-a**ed ways of doing things, please demonstrate with fact and no party cr*p how baby bush has been anything but that way with this war. He sent in personnel with little or no equipment properly designed and intended for the service it was required to perform. We had soldiers over there with poor and inadequate personal protective equipment, even more poorly protected vehicles and insufficient numbers of troops to begin with. When reports from the front come back saying the military leaders are asking for more troops but baby bush isn't interested in listening, that's certainly not full-a**ed. This is w's war. Robin Williams was right...
 

NOSLEEP

Commander
Joined
Oct 30, 2002
Messages
2,442
Re: W's war

No. David L.Moore its Americas war.<br />Its not hard to tell things aren't going the way<br />you would like. You not sure were terrorism comes<br />from? Its not a Country you can put your finger on<br /> a map and point too. It encompasses a entire<br />region. Namely the Middle East. What better place<br />to set up shop if you are going to confront a<br />an assault from a ideology like you are witnessing<br />today.<br /><br />Instead Baby Bush has rained on everyones parade.<br />I guess It must put you out.<br />Clinton new how to handle it better. Right! <br />I wounder what Bush invaded Afghanistan for!<br />That must of been Bush's first baby!
 

Haut Medoc

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Jun 29, 2004
Messages
10,645
Re: W's war

Nosleep, get some sleep! You are obviously too delerious to have read & comprehended any of the above post.......JK
 

NOSLEEP

Commander
Joined
Oct 30, 2002
Messages
2,442
Re: W's war

HM,<br />You can come up with something better than that.<br />Thats less than half an effort.
 

Haut Medoc

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Jun 29, 2004
Messages
10,645
Re: W's war

Read & try to comprehend the post.....I can't waste time on ya, if'n you cain't respond clearly<br /> to the statements therein.....
This war is baby bush's war. Afghanistan was possibly part of the war on terror and therefore was America's war. Intelligence available to the idiot-in-chief cast doubts on WMD's in Iraq. For those baby bush backers with poor long-term memory that was the reason we invaded Iraq. Later the bush administration had to try and fleece the American people and ran damage control telling us it was to bring democracy to the Iraqi people. I don't ever recall the Iraqi people ask for democracy.<br /><br />
....JK
 
Top