Thread: U.S. Military - heartbreaking losses

Originally Posted by Theseus

There's one big problem with using nuclear weaponry today; namely other nations have nukes. If we were to drop a nuke on Iraq, what's to say that Isreal won't get trigger happy and start launching them. You also have Pakistan and India who have been itching to launch againt each other for years. And with all of the alliances between different nations, one simple nuke could domino into full scale global nuclear war.

the above countrys nukes cannot reach us,screw them all,they want to fight and destroy each other,so be it.
I am a firm believer that what this country once known as the the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA needs to do is back OFF, and tottally Isolate ourselves from the rest of the world until our Country,The U.S.A can get our crap together for our people,that live on American soil,the rest of the world can go pound sand up there Butts until we get our own house in order,JMO

Originally Posted by pixelfixed

the above countrys nukes cannot reach us,screw them all,they want to fight and destroy each other,so be it.
I am a firm believer that what this country once known as the the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA needs to do is back OFF, and tottally Isolate ourselves from the rest of the world until our Country,The U.S.A can get our crap together for our people,that live on American soil,the rest of the world can go pound sand up there Butts until we get our own house in order,JMO

I see no problem with reeling back. Our men and women in uniform have been used and abused as the world police force for far too long! What right do we have to attempt to force our way of life onto another country especially when we can't seem to make it work here at home. I don't think the families of the fallen would disagree one little bit.
I didn't mean to get you upset earlier.

Originally Posted by Bruno

With WW2, there was a clear understanding with every single soldier that they were fighting for their country. And either they'd win, or they'd lose. Losing meant more misery for their loved ones. Winning meant going home. And there was a massive backing by the populace. WW2 vets are still considered heroes.

That must be true. At WW2 they were fighting their back against the wall. Had they given up, we had shared the faith of the eastern Europe that fell under the iron curtain.

Nowadays it's bit different with the military. We have army, navy and AF that are solely for homeland defense. Then we have international forces that are used on deployments. Everyone is a volunteer and not even politicians try to lie that they are serving the defense of their country but just a tool for international politics. Those who are fighting in Afganistan or sailing outside Somalian coast are not helping in defending our country.

Most folks are recruited from the regular forces and the rest are volunteer reservists. Tests to recruit into internationals are tight and only about 1 out of 5 will pass. That is why those who've served on deployments cannot get a veteran status and veteran services. Only those from WW2 are veterans. We are rather mercenaries who were volunteer to recruit into international service that has absolutely nuthing to do with defending our country.

I know this from personal experiences. I've been in 3 deployments, but i wouldn't want to keep big noise about it here. It would only make people look at me strangely. Even my wife told me that she wouldn't want to tell anyone that her husband has been humming around in foreign forces. I do not carry those medals i got from those years. They are not deserved but automatic, so i gave them to my kids back then and i guess they are lost somewhere. Same thing with most people i know. You carry only medals that are deserved for something you've done.

Maybe it's just a cultural thing, i do not know. My son-in-law just got back from Afganistan, quit the service and got back to his studies. He also got his place from A-soccer team. While he was doing his time out there, my daughter was mad at me. She told me that she was already pissed of for his father doing foreign service back then, and now even her dear. Probably she just had no-one else to be angry.

What it comes to 'Germany's court...' thread, it is almost impossible idea to imagine that army would go into the streets against people. Of most people i know, they would tell the generals to f*** off. Things seem to be ok and people are somewhat happy about the society. Of course there's always a lot to improve as the world and our country is not ready yet. But there seems to be a consensus that you cannot improve things by making big noise but rather working hard and behaving decently.

Originally Posted by Theseus

There's one big problem with using nuclear weaponry today; namely other nations have nukes. If we were to drop a nuke on Iraq, what's to say that Isreal won't get trigger happy and start launching them. You also have Pakistan and India who have been itching to launch againt each other for years. And with all of the alliances between different nations, one simple nuke could domino into full scale global nuclear war.

I think that any release of nuclear weapons, regardless of who pulls the trigger, would pretty much ensure a chain reaction the world would not survive. While the weapons that the 'Stans currently have (that the public know about) will not reach our soil, what happens when N Korea and China decide to get in the picture? Just the idea of it makes me want to start digging a hole. I'm glad cooler heads than mine hold the keys, I would not want the responsibility of making the decision even though I was in a nuclear missile unit waaaaay back in the 80s.

Originally Posted by Theseus

There's one big problem with using nuclear weaponry today; namely other nations have nukes. If we were to drop a nuke on Iraq, what's to say that Isreal won't get trigger happy and start launching them. You also have Pakistan and India who have been itching to launch againt each other for years. And with all of the alliances between different nations, one simple nuke could domino into full scale global nuclear war.

That is the problem with nukes. The first 2 were given a pass because they were new, the circumstance required it, and noone really knew how the world would react.
As soon as anyone fires the first nuke, it's not going to be the last.

But that is neither here nor there.
You don't need them. The 2nd war in Iraq was won as soon as you went in. The mopping up took a bit longer but even that was manageable.
The problem is you're still there, and as such you are sitting ducks for everyone with an axe to grind. Let's be realistic about this. If the US was being occupied by Iraqi forces (or Russians if you are older) then a large percentage of the US population would try to get them out by any and all means, even if they were not terrorists to begin with.

It could have gone different if there had been an exit strategy. The problem was not winning the war. That was a given. The problem was figuring out what to do once you did.
Dick Cheney thought that it would not be a problem, because he assumed that the entire country would welcome you as liberators, which just goes to show that as far as political planning (and a sense of reality) goes.... there was none. And the people at the front line are still paying for it.

You know, that said... it's been a long time since our last 'Candy for the troops' initiative.
Would there be interest in doing another one?

I'd need to know
a) if there are people willing to donate some money, and
b) if one of our members is still on active duty in Iraq

Sailor

Do not ever think that if a government thinks a threat is serious enough that they would not use armed troops against their own people. It has happened twice in my lifetime in Canada, 1970 during the FLQ crisis and again in 1990 during the OKA standoff. Virtually every government in the west has the legal means to do so regardless of it ever having been used. Dissent is only allowed to a certain point and the government is the legal arbitrator of what that point is. Like I said before, Germany is just bringing parts of her constitution into line with most other western countries.

Bruno

It has always been the case that an invading army of "liberation" has a short "honeymoon" period where they are viewed as liberators. If you overstay your welcome you quickly become an army of foreign invaders that must be ousted. I agree the an exit strategy in these types of wars is probably even more important to a successful outcome than the decision to invade in the first place.

Bob

Originally Posted by BobH

Sailor

Do not ever think that if a government thinks a threat is serious enough that they would not use armed troops against their own people. It has happened twice in my lifetime in Canada, 1970 during the FLQ crisis and again in 1990 during the OKA standoff. Virtually every government in the west has the legal means to do so regardless of it ever having been used. Dissent is only allowed to a certain point and the government is the legal arbitrator of what that point is. Like I said before, Germany is just bringing parts of her constitution into line with most other western countries.

Bruno

It has always been the case that an invading army of "liberation" has a short "honeymoon" period where they are viewed as liberators. If you overstay your welcome you quickly become an army of foreign invaders that must be ousted. I agree the an exit strategy in these types of wars is probably even more important to a successful outcome than the decision to invade in the first place.

Bob

Bob,
I knew before I ever left Iraq in '04 that we would not even begin to drawn down until at least 2010, which was long before John Q. Public ever did. The plan for "Iraqinization" was laid out in the fall of '03 by the master nation-builder himself; General David Petraus. When I sat through that briefing I was not in the least little bit surprised to the proposed end date of Operation Iraqi Freedom, which was approximately 01 OCT 2010. Why wasn't I surprised? Because of the massive build-up being undertaken by KBR; brick and mortar buildings, the ever popular CHUs or Containerized Housing Units for soldiers to live in, and the massive build-up of civilian support personnel. LSA Diamondback, formerly known as the Mosul International Airport was fast becoming a medium sized Army post, all that was missing was the rifle ranges and training ranges. Wait a minute, we had all that right outside the gates!
When I got home I told my wife we wouldn't be leaving Iraq until at least 2010 and told her about the briefing. She wasn't surprised either because while I was doing my thing and she was back here watching the news every night she never once heard anything about an exit strategy. I told her nothing would be announced until at least '09 and that would depend on how things were going. But the plan was to get out in 2010 regardless. You can only hold people by the hand for so long before you have to make them do it on their own.
I could write a book... Once we started SASO I was assigned as a trainer/ mentor/ liaison for the New Iraqi Army; I had my own Infantry company after I did Basic training for 8 weeks. I'm boring you and tooting my own horn so I'll stop there.
Regardless of your personal feelings for the man, was perhaps the best CG I have ever served throughout my 21+ year career. I felt honored to when he handed me our "excellence In Combat" coin, which he personally awarded to each soldier in the division or at least di his very best to do so. That speaks volumes about the man, in my book anyway.
When it comes to nation-building the US government could not have chosen a better person to lay out the plan. I don't know how many people are aware of this little fact but GEN D Petraus spent a great deal of time studying that very subject in college and is considered one of the Army's and America's very best on the subject. I honestly believe that if the military had kept the invasion forces in place for a year like they said they were going to do things would have been different. The 12 months BOG (Boots On the Ground) only applied to guard and reserve personnel, the active duty Soldiers started rotating out as early as OCT '03. No big deal and I'm not whining, just my opinion about how I think things would have been different.
God Bless America and
Godspeed to ALL our service people around the world

Old Soldier

You are not boring me at all. The best of plans can sometimes go sideways for any number of reasons. I know I would personally be upset if I were liberated and a decade later there were still foreign troops in my country. It is just human nature I suppose.

Canada has had no large involvement with Iraq but we have had a long involvement in Afghanistan. Never personally been there but had a very close relative who was. Talking to him and hearing certain catch phrases jolted me into thinking he was talking about the Vietnam war. Had to wonder why what did not work then was going to work now?

Never had any quibbles with service personnel and supported them even though I thought we should have been out of there a lot sooner. They are/were trying to do a difficult and dangerous job under very trying circumstances. I am not hopeful that their efforts have not been in vain and this both saddens and angers me.

Bob

Originally Posted by Bruno

You know, that said... it's been a long time since our last 'Candy for the troops' initiative.
Would there be interest in doing another one?

I'd need to know
a) if there are people willing to donate some money, and
b) if one of our members is still on active duty in Iraq

I would be happy to help out. I send cigars every three months when the 101st Airborne is in country.