Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 75
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    6,208
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Randy West View Post
    Would you like comparing service jackets or something? Eight years in the USMC and sent to kill in two different countries for nothing. It all changed nothing but me, my life will never be the same because of it. I don't want that for my kids, everyone I know that has seen the horrors of war wouldn't want that for their kids or any kids for that matter either.

    I don't mind the hit first and keep hitting until the fight is over BS the corp's fills you're head with. You need a reason to hit and imo a bunch of bs grandstanding isn't reason enough at this point.

    Iran has been running their mouth and Israel has been putting words in their mouths for almost twenty five years and for what? To drag us all into another pointless war. I don't say this lightly having an uncle that served in the IDF and family I never see and probably won't again still residing there.

    What would you expect Iran to do? I know I would try arming myself as a deterrent to any aggression from Israel. I don't believe a nuclear Iran is a good thing the Israeli's with American and British help started this arms race not Iran. Imo the only good solution is no nukes in the middle east period no matter whose side you are on.

    I also don't care about some speech some clown in hollywierd came up with in the script department. It means nothing in the real world, it's just crap. Until Iran tries pulling some Red Dawn movie BS here I could careless what they "talk" about doing. If something changes and there is actual reason to confront actual aggression from them that would be a different story.

    You want to send kids off to war all I can say is yours first. I am doing all I can to make sure mine go to college.
    the refrerence to the ficticious speech is to convey the sentiment that however well meaning anyone is there is a time when all the words in the world mean nothing.

    In all my time in the Middle east the only consistent message I heard was why dont you people leave us alone.It was too late for that.
    when the sh.. goes down you are on one side or the other, who was right or wrong is irrelevant,that is for scholars to debate 100 years from now.
    My responsibility is to defend this country,even when we are the aggressor.

    I wont abandon my post out of principle,or allow the deaths of Americans based an a philosophical concern.
    Life is a battle for resources,In the context of determining how we treat each other within our Borders, Im all for the touchy feely approach, but at somepoint,as has always happened, people find themselves in conflict with other people. once again, I DONT KNOW WHY!,
    but when it comes to the task of securing our Future I would just as soon eliminate any possible threat and let history judge me harshly.

    that is exactly what we did to the american Indians, it was a Genocide.It was almost a Complete ethnic cleansing of an entire continent!!!

    People dissmiss it as necessary now and that is so far from the truth its funny.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    6,854
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Patsfan56 View Post
    Bring our folks home. When we find a terrorist cell, let the Special Ops and OGA guys handle it. They are better suited for that kind of mission anyway. That, and the Afghans we train are more and more frequently just turning their guns on the US and British soldiers training them.

    This is not worth one more flagged drapped coffin.
    That's how the war was run when we first invaded and it was actually pretty successful. However, that mission should have ended about 10 years ago. I honestly don't even know what our mission is over there now. It seems like we are just over there for the war to run its course.

    lol, really?
    Considering there have been 33 green-on-blue attacks so far this year causing 53 ISAF deaths I believe that's a pretty valid statement.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    6,105
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by stephkyle7 View Post
    Personally,i would tend to err on the side of caution, that is to say Id have already kicked the sh out of Iran, for no other reason then to make sure they understand I will not tolerate any hostility from anyone.
    I know that is reactionary ,but Im a soilder.
    Kicking the **** out of a country who has done little or nothing to you is acting on the side of caution? Since when? Pre-emptive wars are a war crime for a reason, and it's not because they're too cautious.
    “We learn from history that we do not learn from history”
    ― Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    6,208
    vCash
    1500
    You are approaching the question from a philosophical perspective and i apperciate that.

    But in the study of the history, not only of mankind ,but the world as a whole, you see the Darwinistic reality of the nature of life.

    There is no right or wrong, those are constructs of Humanity.Spiders feed on their mates and their offspring,once a species encroaches on another the result often is the extinction of the indigenous species in its entirety.

    there is an underlying conflict of interest between Christianity and Muslim faiths.The need to control the Minds and hearts of the world cannot be placated with words of tolerance for many religious zealots.
    They believe that ultimately it can only be one or the other.Where as we have kept a lid on Racists who feel the same way within our borders,We have little control over the rantings of Mad men in other places.

    with the proliferation of technology,and the global economy, the 9/11 attacks were inevitable.The risk of a similar incident grows everyday.

    Is it right to hold a nation accountable for the decisions of a few individuals weilding power? Obviously Not,if we could perform a surgical strike to eliminate collateral damage that would be preferable, but if it would have taken an unprovoked bombardment of Berlin,to preempt the entire 2nd world war, then Im afraid that is exactly what I would have done.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Asheville, NC
    Posts
    29,125
    vCash
    1500
    This is pretty much the standard after a war isn't it? Just about every war we have had troops stay to help run bases and/or supply ongoing support. We still have people in Japan BTW. In 2014 the war will be over. Combat troops will be removed and and formal turnover of all security would be in the hands of the Afghans.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    queens, ny
    Posts
    2,112
    vCash
    1500
    been mentioned before but thats why we risk young people's lives staying in that dump.

    M-O-N-E-Y

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/wo...anted=all&_r=0

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    The Land Beyond the Wall, VT
    Posts
    7,119
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by nastynice View Post
    1

    lol, really?
    Yes, look it up. I believe the number of fatalities for this year alone is between 50 and 60.

    I also don't understand where the "LOL" fits into the conversation.
    Last edited by Patsfan56; 10-21-2012 at 09:21 AM.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    6,208
    vCash
    1500
    i will reiterate this for anyone who didnt catch my original post, but IMO the truth of the matter has nothing to do with Afghanstan being a winnable war.

    It is simply increasing our presence in a part of the world that is a potential problem for us.

    We are tightening the noose on pakistan and Iran. we are inching closer like a galcier.
    Anywhere where we can move strategic assets to be in a more tactical position has always been our M.O. we live on an Island in a sense.We have no overroad access to any "beat downs" We might want to administer so any piece of real estate we can get closer to our "hot spots" we will always try to stay as long as we can and effect as much as we can.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    9/13/14: #Mayhem (While Pacman fights Algieri in China. lol)
    Posts
    28,834
    vCash
    11507
    Quote Originally Posted by Havoc_Wr3aker View Post
    I bet if Romney wins, he will bring everyone back....amirite?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Schmooze View Post
    People people...

    Neither Obama nor Romney will pull troops out until at least after 2014. Our foreign policy never changes, no matter who is president. We will remain on the same course regardless
    This.


    Barry Lamar Bonds. .393/.967/1.054....on 3-0 counts.

    lol, Please' top 10 p4p: Mayweather/Marquez/Pacquiao/Bradley/Cotto/Wlad/Rigondeaux/Froch/Canelo/Maidana


    Boxing Fan? Come Discuss Boxing!

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    16,215
    vCash
    1500
    These negotiations have been planned for some time. It's an opportunity for senior uniformed leaders in the Department of Defense to make a formal case for war. They won't get the extra years of combat, so they'll then lobby for a residual force.

    There were similar negotiations when Operation Iraqi Freedom/New Dawn was winding down. The Joint Chiefs of Staff were pushing for 16,000 troops to stay in country for training, air support and counterterrorism. Tom Donilon then proposed reducing the number of troops to 10,000. Adm. Mike Mullen sent a classified letter to Obama warning that 16,000 were needed; the secret proposal was endorsed by the U.S. commander in Iraq and the head of Central Command. Hillary Clinton and Leon Panetta backed the proposal for 10,000.

    Obama rejected the 10,000 figure and then rejected a lower proposal of 7,000 troops. Obama's proposal was that there could be a rotating presence of between 1,500-3,000 U.S. troops. After more discussion, the agreed upon number was eventually zero combat troops in Iraq.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    6,105
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Yagyu View Post
    These negotiations have been planned for some time. It's an opportunity for senior uniformed leaders in the Department of Defense to make a formal case for war. They won't get the extra years of combat, so they'll then lobby for a residual force.
    Just have to say that I misread that to say "our senior uninformed leaders," which I found quite amusing.
    “We learn from history that we do not learn from history”
    ― Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    16,215
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Labgrownmangoat View Post
    Just have to say that I misread that to say "our senior uninformed leaders," which I found quite amusing.
    I actually just had to go back and read what I posted to make sure that's not what I typed.

    If anything, they're probably among the most well informed. How selective they are with their agenda, and what they acknowledge and take into consideration is an entirely different story.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NOR CAL
    Posts
    8,784
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by stephkyle7 View Post
    You are approaching the question from a philosophical perspective and i apperciate that.

    But in the study of the history, not only of mankind ,but the world as a whole, you see the Darwinistic reality of the nature of life.

    There is no right or wrong, those are constructs of Humanity.Spiders feed on their mates and their offspring,once a species encroaches on another the result often is the extinction of the indigenous species in its entirety.

    there is an underlying conflict of interest between Christianity and Muslim faiths.The need to control the Minds and hearts of the world cannot be placated with words of tolerance for many religious zealots.
    They believe that ultimately it can only be one or the other.Where as we have kept a lid on Racists who feel the same way within our borders,We have little control over the rantings of Mad men in other places.

    with the proliferation of technology,and the global economy, the 9/11 attacks were inevitable.The risk of a similar incident grows everyday.

    Is it right to hold a nation accountable for the decisions of a few individuals weilding power? Obviously Not,if we could perform a surgical strike to eliminate collateral damage that would be preferable, but if it would have taken an unprovoked bombardment of Berlin,to preempt the entire 2nd world war, then Im afraid that is exactly what I would have done.
    You can't compare Iran and Germany. It's apples and watermelons even though I get the point you are trying to make.

    Germany was the power in Europe at the time. No one could even come close to the military might Germany could muster in the region. Iran does not have that same power even if a nation like Syria would side with them.

    You need something more concrete then "Iran may do something" to get me on board. I am not against a hostile action but there needs to be sufficient reason and talking a bunch of smack for twenty plus years isn't reason enough imo.
    Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government, owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.-Theodore Roosevelt


    There's no country on Earth that would tolerate missiles raining down on its citizens from outside its borders.
    -Barack "drone" Obama, 11/18/2012

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    6,105
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by stephkyle7 View Post
    You are approaching the question from a philosophical perspective and i apperciate that.

    But in the study of the history, not only of mankind ,but the world as a whole, you see the Darwinistic reality of the nature of life.

    There is no right or wrong, those are constructs of Humanity.Spiders feed on their mates and their offspring,once a species encroaches on another the result often is the extinction of the indigenous species in its entirety.
    WTF? There is no right or wrong? So if you decided on a whim to kill and eat your whole family, that would be just fine? C'mon man. You know better.

    Is it right to hold a nation accountable for the decisions of a few individuals weilding power? Obviously Not,if we could perform a surgical strike to eliminate collateral damage that would be preferable, but if it would have taken an unprovoked bombardment of Berlin,to preempt the entire 2nd world war, then Im afraid that is exactly what I would have done.
    Exactly what actions should hold Iran accountable for? You seem to want to attack them for what they may do in the future. You realize that is a horrific slippery slope, and the attempted justification for just bout every aggressive war in history, right?
    “We learn from history that we do not learn from history”
    ― Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    16,215
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Yagyu+ View Post
    These negotiations have been planned for some time. It's an opportunity for senior uniformed leaders in the Department of Defense to make a formal case for war. They won't get the extra years of combat, so they'll then lobby for a residual force.

    There were similar negotiations when Operation Iraqi Freedom/New Dawn was winding down. The Joint Chiefs of Staff were pushing for 16,000 troops to stay in country for training, air support and counterterrorism. Tom Donilon then proposed reducing the number of troops to 10,000. Adm. Mike Mullen sent a classified letter to Obama warning that 16,000 were needed; the secret proposal was endorsed by the U.S. commander in Iraq and the head of Central Command. Hillary Clinton and Leon Panetta backed the proposal for 10,000.

    Obama rejected the 10,000 figure and then rejected a lower proposal of 7,000 troops. Obama's proposal was that there could be a rotating presence of between 1,500-3,000 U.S. troops. After more discussion, the agreed upon number was eventually zero combat troops in Iraq.
    I just wanted to point out that in mirroring the above post and the Iraq withdrawal, discussions concerning a residual force in Afghanistan have now ebbed and flowed from: 25,000 U.S. troops originally mentioned back in October; the Joint Chiefs of Staff wanting to retain a presence of as many as 15,000 U.S. troops; Defense Secretary Leon Panetta favoring an option that would see about 9,000 troops remain in country; President Obama at one point reportedly considering between 6,000 to 9,000 U.S. troops, including a counterterrorism unit, to be stationed in fortified garrisons near Kabul; administration officials mentioning 3,000 U.S. troops as a possibility; and Ben Rhodes -- a White House deputy national security adviser -- saying that zero is also an option.
    Last edited by Yagyu+; 01-09-2013 at 04:25 PM. Reason: Forgot to include the original number of 25,000.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •