Army recruits shortfall blamed on Iraq war critics

[theotherjohn]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050630/pl_nm/iraq_congress_dc_1


In the above article the following was said:



Army Chief of Staff Peter Schoomaker urged members of Congress to use "your considerable influence to explain to the American people and to those that are influencers out there how important it is for our young people to serve this nation at a time like this."

Fucking hypocrites

No better way to show support than to have your own family members join the military.

Starting with you Mr. Bush

[peam]

I've a question... When they refer to military shortcomings in recruiting, are they just referring to the Army or the armed forces as a whole?

[theotherjohn]

Originally posted by peam
I've a question... When they refer to military shortcomings in recruiting, are they just referring to the Army or the armed forces as a whole?

I know all forces except Coast Guard, which I have no clue about, are having a short fall

[Arqueto]

Yep... I know that the Marine Corps has missed their recruiting quotas for the last four months, I believe. I think part of the problem is that the retention rates have gone done because of the frequent (and longer) deployments, which in turn caused them to raise the quotas.

I know that there are lots of us who were thinking about re-enlistment at one point but are thinking twice with the deployment schedules. The two companies in my squadron have been doing six on, six off since the war started.

[Anebriated]

I heard the army was hit the hardest but most branches are suffering. The army lowered their quota last month by about 2500(dropped to around 5,000) and still fell short. I read this morning that the army was back up to par this month though.

[Soulpieced]

Psh, good thing I'd waiver out of any sort of draft.

I've said it before and I'll say it again... Make the pay more worthwhile and then you'll have more soldiers. Pay is terrible compared to what you can get as a civilian.

- Arkans

[Artha]

I read this morning that the army was back up to par this month though.
That's kind of interesting. Maybe because school just got out?

[Back]

I’m curious what recruitment numbers are like from 2003 to now and if there is any congruence with public opinion polls about our president and the war [unlawful regime change] in Iraq.

[Soulpieced]

Make the pay more worthwhile and then you'll have more soldiers. Pay is terrible compared to what you can get as a civilian.

.

And the civilian pay ain't so hot.

[Warriorbird]

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that there's a war and people are dying.

[ElanthianSiren]

I know someone who was in the military who had a very very very very hard time getting a job once he came back to the states from three tours. He swore up and down that employers looked down on ME on job applications because it wasn't tech enough.

I know there was a big stink about returning vets not having their jobs after touring, so I'd imagine that's a factor as well.

-Melissa

[ElanthianSiren]

Also, blaming the system's failures on the system's critics is a bit ignorant. This is not a dictatorship; US citizens are still permitted to make their own decisions.

You want more recruits? -Entice people to join your service branches. You function under a capitalistic system. Stop whining about it.

-Melissa

[Back]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
Also, blaming the system's failures on the system's critics is a bit ignorant. This is not a dictatorship; US citizens are still permitted to make their own decisions.

You want more recruits? -Entice people to join your service branches. You function under a capitalistic system. Stop whining about it.

-Melissa

A very good post and much less acerbic than what my original response was.

My original response echoed TOJ’s. If people are so for this war [illegal occupation of a sovereign nation], you ought to sign up.

Eh, backlash most people are pussies. Too many people dont join for that reason. It makes me sad.

[Back]

Yeah, the blame for low recruitment should not be blamed on critics. It should be blamed on the people who are so for it.

Originally posted by Soulpieced
Make the pay more worthwhile and then you'll have more soldiers. Pay is terrible compared to what you can get as a civilian.

.

And the civilian pay ain't so hot.

I make 14k a year for a job in the civilian world that would pay 60-150k depending at what level, and government/private.

Originally posted by Backlash
Yeah, the blame for low recruitment should not be blamed on critics. It should be blamed on the people who are so for it.

Eh, well as silly as the logic is, if there were not critics then more people would be fore it. He is right in that sense, but wrong in the grand scheme.

[Back]

Not everyone who agrees the war in Iraq should be fought has the conviction you have. That says a lot.

but there are those that have that conviction.

When I think of this i think of one of my favorit quotes, and it puts me at ease about everything.

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
john stuart mill

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Dave
but there are those that have that conviction.

When I think of this i think of one of my favorit quotes, and it puts me at ease about everything.

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
john stuart mill

I very much agree with that quote; however, I don't agree that this war has any sound principle behind it, thus no reason for my support.

-Melissa

would you fight in it if it did?

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Dave
would you fight in it if it did?

Absolutely.

you supported the war in afghanistan did you not?

[Artha]

Not everyone who agrees the war in Iraq should be fought has the conviction you have. That says a lot.

Not everyone who disagrees the war in Iraq should be fought has the conviction you have. That says a lot.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Dave
you supported the war in afghanistan did you not?

Yes, I supported deployment of troops to afghanistan to capture Bin Laden.

[Anebriated]

Thats a totally different war IMO. We went to afghanistan to basically show that we wouldn't let a terrorist attack go without retaliation. The war on Iraq was to "find and stop the production of nuclear weapons". Which is a load of BS as we found nothing. It was an attempt to take the american eyes off of the Bin Ladin search since all of our outstanding and unparalleled technology couldn't find him.

edit: Just reread it and was wondering if the question about supporting of the afghanistan war was intended to find out why they didn't enlist then...

[Edited on 7-1-2005 by Elrodin]

Then why didnt you join up to fight. It is easy to say you would join to fight a war you support, on the other hand it is not so easy to follow your convictions and put your life on the line.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Dave
Then why didnt you join up to fight. It is easy to say you would join to fight a war you support, on the other hand it is not so easy to follow your convictions and put your life on the line.

Not elligable. I have brittle diabetes.

Im not trying to be mean, but it is even easier to say when you know you are not elligable.

I am not saying you would not join, but I hope you can see where I am coming from

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Dave
Im not trying to be mean, but it is even easier to say when you know you are not elligable.

I am not saying you would not join, but I hope you can see where I am coming from

Yes, but it's truly as simple as knowing where you stand on an issue.

[ElanthianSiren]

Clarification: I know what I would and would not kill for, diabetes or not.

[Edaarin]

So everyone not in the Armed Forces is a pussy?

Well shit, SIGN ME UP.

[Artha]

That should be the ad campaign. "Join the army! See many exotic countries! Experience a multitude of foreign cultures! Don't be a pussy!"

[Arqueto]

Originally posted by Dave
I make 14k a year for a job in the civilian world that would pay 60-150k depending at what level, and government/private.
Did you just enlist, or something? According to the pay charts for FY 2005 the only way you're making that little is if you're an E-1 with less than 4 months of service. If this is the case, how was boot camp? :) Just kidding...

Seriously though, telling people you only make $14k a year is really misleading. If you're a bachelor, you're staying in the BEQ for free. No rent. If you're single, they're also taking the Basic Discount Meal Rate out of your check, which is $200-something a month. You might even still be paying $100 a month for the GI Bill. Then there's payments for the SGLI, and god knows what else.

I'm not saying we make the most money in the world, but it's definitely enough to live on if you have some sense of financial responsibility. I'm sorry, but I kinda get frustrated when I hear people whining about how much money we get payed in the military. If it's about the money, you joined for the complete wrong reason.

Originally posted by Edaarin
So everyone not in the Armed Forces is a pussy?

Well shit, SIGN ME UP.

Good, go to your local recruiter.

I'd say go army, but I'm biased.

[Edited on 7-1-2005 by Dave]

Arqueto, you're right its more like 17k. Eh, its lost pay, if you don't live in the barracks in this area at e-3 pay you get 900 a month in BAH, 260 for food. Get a few roommates and you do great. But us lowly privates don't get that option, and being a private I am inclined to bitch about it some.

and considering I have 90 square feet of living space you betcha i'm gonna bitch.



If it's about the money, you joined for the complete wrong reason.

:clap:

P.S. I apologize in advance for the jarhead jokes that are sure to follow. Blame Anticor.

[Edited on 7-1-2005 by Dave]

Anyone who joins the Service and does not consider money and standards of living seriously, really needs to reconsider making any type of life choices at all. It's silly just blindly join. You need to consider what you are going to get out of the deal or you're just going to get used. C'mon, people. Be more normal about this.

- Arkans

We all had different reasons to join, living conditions didnt matter to me, (in the end still don't).
We know you joined so you would have a little extra money for your prada shoes.
We all have our own reasons. :)

[Arqueto]

Originally posted by Dave
Arqueto, you're right its more like 17k. Eh, its lost pay, if you don't live in the barracks in this area at e-3 pay you get 900 a month in BAH, 260 for food. Get a few roommates and you do great. But us lowly privates don't get that option, and being a private I am inclined to bitch about it some.

and considering I have 90 square feet of living space you betcha i'm gonna bitch.

Damn. I guess I'm used to all of my married friends out here who are getting San Diego BAH and COLA. I think they get somewhere around $1300 in allowance a month, but don't quote me on that. Where are you stationed, outta curiosity?

Fort Lewis

[Arqueto]

Originally posted by Arkans
Anyone who joins the Service and does not consider money and standards of living seriously, really needs to reconsider making any type of life choices at all. It's silly just blindly join. You need to consider what you are going to get out of the deal or you're just going to get used. C'mon, people. Be more normal about this.

- Arkans
No one is disagreeing with you. All I'm saying is that it's stupid to join knowing what kind of money you're going to make, then bitch about it. It's the same as taking any kind of job knowing what the salary is going to be, then bitching about it when you get your first check. It just doesn't work like that.

I'm curious as to how you think someone who is experiencing it first hand can possibly be more "normal" about it.

Eh, I didn't join in for the money at all. I've always been lucky enough to have a good amount of cash in my bank account (Hey, I can afford Pradas can't I?), so it really wasn't that.

My main concern is people just joining blindly, getting used by the service, becoming completely reliant on it, and then having a difficult job transitioning to the civilian world.

I understand of being proud of the uniform. I am, believe me, but I also understand that I can't have an extremely narrow view on something or I"ll end up regretting it later on.

- Arkans

[Arqueto]

I do think that there are way too many who join the military without doing any homework and are surprised when they realize they aren't going to get very much out of it unless they make it work for them somehow.

I used my deployment overseas to set myself up pretty well financially, but I know lots of people who came back and bought Jordans and jerseys and have absolutely dick to show for the seven months we spent there. But damn, they sure do look good.

The transition back to the civilian world is one of those things that has always bothered me. IMHO, the people that have trouble transitioning back to the real world are those people that would be better off staying in for 20 years and making the system work for them. I strongly feel that the people who have no problem making it when they get out are the people who do their four years for whatever reason or another and already got what they needed from it.

[Back]

Good thing its only Prada. If it were Versace (http://www.versace.com/flash.html), I’d be a bit more worried.

[Edited on 7-1-2005 by Backlash]

[Drew2]

Yes. It was necessary to link Versace since no one else has ever heard of it.

On topic: The reasons for not joining the military are just as valid as the reasons for joining it, in most cases.

Joining the military doesn't make you cool, interesting, nor your penis bigger. Let's just clear that right up for those who seem to not get that.

I am not, by any means, saying that the armed forces don't deserve any gratitude for what they do. I'm just saying it WAS (for now) their choice. No one asked them to, so they shouldn't EXPECT gratitude, special privilages, fanfare, etc.

[Arqueto]

Originally posted by Tayre
Joining the military doesn't make you cool, interesting, nor your penis bigger. Let's just clear that right up for those who seem to not get that.

I am not, by any means, saying that the armed forces don't deserve any gratitude for what they do. I'm just saying it WAS (for now) their choice. No one asked them to, so they shouldn't EXPECT gratitude, special privilages, fanfare, etc.
Spot on. The only time I've genuinely been offended was the time I was called a baby killer by the Arabic woman working at a convenient store back when I was on post-deployment leave in Texas. I tried to buy a pack of smokes and didn't have my license on me, so I just used my military ID. She refused to sell them to me because "You Marines kill babies." and then told me to leave her store. Ignorant bitch.

[Edited on 7-1-2005 by Arqueto]

Even with your 20 years in, you still need to transition into the civilian work force. You cannot survive off the military pention, no matter how you slice it. Unfortunately, the military really takes care of you. It's sort of like a "club" that when you get in, you're more or less all set. Once you get out though, beat it. They want nothing to do with you. This is what really kills those that put in their 20.

The problem with the military, as it stands right now, is that you can do everything in the military outside of it and also do in ways that are easier and better. For instance, health insurance? Civilian health insurance is leaps and bounds over military. Pay? Don't get me started. Even with BAH you're still on the lower end of the pay scale as far as the civilian sector is concerned.

You couple that with danger, heavy moving, and difficult times with family and you have people really reconisdering the military. I mean, college is becoming more and more of a norm in today's society and with that comes a much more competitve market for todays youth over the military. The military really needs to get with the times as far as compensation is concerned. You get that correct and you'll have strong, professional, and patriotic individuals lining up, but as it stands now, few people want to shoot themselves in the foot for an ideology, and can we really blame them?

- Arkans

[Sean]

Originally posted by Edaarin
So everyone not in the Armed Forces is a pussy?

Well shit, SIGN ME UP.

Don't foget to put on your alpha male how dare someone question my manliness and sexuality boots on before you run down to the recruiters office.

[Edaarin]

You mean my Timbs...?

[Landrion]

My original response echoed TOJ’s. If people are so for this war [illegal occupation of a sovereign nation], you ought to sign up.

What an interesting point of view. So if you agree something needs to be done you should drop your life and go do it yourself immediately. Im very in favor of trash collection - should I quit my job and do that? Im also in favor of nuclear power - but Im a lot underqualified to do that. Im in favor of feeding the hungry but Im not about to drop my entire life to go become a missionary either.

You can be in favor of an action [removing the regime of a brutal dictator] and be even more in favor of the life path you happen to be already taking.

[TheEschaton]

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
john stuart mill

John Stuart Mill sounds like an asshole. He, like most people who can't think, seem to think that pacifism equates to passivism. Again, there are causes I would die for - but none I would kill for.

You can fight without killing. You can stand for something without violence. You can be strong without lifting a finger against someone else, in fact, I think the choice not to lift arms against someone else is the even stronger decision.

(cf. Jesus Christ, MLK Jr, Gandhi, et al)

-TheE-

[Edaarin]

Originally posted by TheEschaton

[see above]

-TheE-

Pussy.

I'm sure if we all started a protest in 1939 Hitler would have been like.. "Shit, I was wrong all along. What was I thinking? Time to turn my panzers into lawn decorations!"

- Arkans

[Arqueto]

Originally posted by Arkans
I'm sure if we all started a protest in 1939 Hitler would have been like.. "Shit, I was wrong all along. What was I thinking? Time to turn my panzers into lawn decorations!"

- Arkans
:lol:

[Edited on 7-1-2005 by Arqueto]

[Warriorbird]

But if the bomb under his desk had exploded properly, he'd have been dead. If the Brownshirts had been prosecuted correctly, he'd have lost tools....and so on. If Gandhi would've been a German revolutionary figure, things might've been different. Second guessing history can make for good fiction, but there are many things that can or could've changed a nations destiny apart from war.

[Edited on 7-1-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Back]

Originally posted by Landrion


My original response echoed TOJ’s. If people are so for this war [illegal occupation of a sovereign nation], you ought to sign up.

What an interesting point of view. So if you agree something needs to be done you should drop your life and go do it yourself immediately. Im very in favor of trash collection - should I quit my job and do that? Im also in favor of nuclear power - but Im a lot underqualified to do that. Im in favor of feeding the hungry but Im not about to drop my entire life to go become a missionary either.

You can be in favor of an action [removing the regime of a brutal dictator] and be even more in favor of the life path you happen to be already taking.

True. This brings up an old existential question. What motivates people to do what they do? I’m a hypocrite because I feel strongly about certain things and do not put my entire life into those causes. Its wrong of me to expect that of anyone else.

But my reaction is just that. A reaction to a statement that condemns me for disagreement. That somehow, because I don’t agree with the invasion of Iraq, its my fault its going badly. Even me saying its going badly makes it my fault to some people.

I learned awhile ago that no matter how right you think you may be, you can still get hurt. An ideology is not an invulnerable shield in this world.

War is never something a people should ever try to attain. In defense it is a necessity.

If the bomb exploded, he would have died, and thus it would have resulted in killing. If the brownshirts were prosecuted then there would be other ways for him to carry out his goals. Too simplistic of a view point when dealing with Hitler. Sometimes violence is needed.

- Arkans

[Warriorbird]

But a killing executed by a soldier in one's own army or a civilian really isn't an act of war. If the German people had been engaged in sit-in tactics, ala King or Gandhi, that certainly wouldn't have involved killing. If the Weimer Republic would've had more balls and kept Hitler locked up that wouldn't have been war. My point was there were non war related things that could've been effective.

As in 'Maus', spreading that he was related to a Jew could've been very powerful as well if handled correctly.

Sometimes violence is the answer, but it isn't the only answer.

[Edited on 7-1-2005 by Warriorbird]

That's like saying if every tyrant wasn't allowed do anything to get into power it would be great. It's almost ludicrious to think that it is a possibility, expecially in the state that Germany was in.

- Arkans

[Edaarin]

Originally posted by Arkans
If the bomb exploded, he would have died, and thus it would have resulted in killing. If the brownshirts were prosecuted then there would be other ways for him to carry out his goals. Too simplistic of a view point when dealing with Hitler. Sometimes violence is needed.

- Arkans

Very true. But I think what TheE took issue with was Dave's "I'm better than you" attitude.

[Warriorbird]

I commented that second guessing history was ridiculous except for fiction a bit earlier, Arkans. You were trying to dismiss peaceful means of action entirely and earlier the notion was being put forth by others that if you weren't in the military, you couldn't do anything.

[Edited on 7-1-2005 by Warriorbird]

I'm not dismissing peaceful resolutions, I'm just saying it is idealistic and fairytale thinking that it is always a possibility for it to happen. We need to stand strong and be ready to fight when the need arises or next think we know some unnaned dictator from an undisclosed banana republic off the coast of some random state with a lot of eldery is going to march into Washington while we are all trying to give him a firm /nostorm.

- Arkans

[Warriorbird]

Don't talk about Martha's Vineyard like that!

:snickers:

[Back]

I think he meant Florida.

Insert PB age wisecrack here.

Castro just arrived.
>
Castro exclaimes, "VIVA LA CUBA!!"
>
Parkbandit says, "/no /no /no /no /no /no /no /no /no /no /no."
>
Suddenly, Parkbandit is shackled and thrown into a makeshift prison as a band of invaders steal his minivan and drive towards DC!
>
Parkbandit mutters.
>
Parkbandit exclaimes, "FUCKING ZERG!!!"

- Arkans

Originally posted by Edaarin

Originally posted by Arkans
If the bomb exploded, he would have died, and thus it would have resulted in killing. If the brownshirts were prosecuted then there would be other ways for him to carry out his goals. Too simplistic of a view point when dealing with Hitler. Sometimes violence is needed.

- Arkans

Very true. But I think what TheE took issue with was Dave's "I'm better than you" attitude.

Better, no hardly. More willing to put everything I have into what I believe in, liike TheE, yes.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Arkans
If the bomb exploded, he would have died, and thus it would have resulted in killing. If the brownshirts were prosecuted then there would be other ways for him to carry out his goals. Too simplistic of a view point when dealing with Hitler. Sometimes violence is needed.

- Arkans

I agree, but evidence must be overwhelming that war is the last recourse. IMO war should never be entered premature to an exodus date and time; after all, in such case, why allow for one? It should further never be entered lightly or without proper evidence.

In WW2, we had Germany bombing Britain unmercifully and *some* evidence of death camps. You had persecution on whole groups of people all over Europe -- Jews, Catholics, the Handicapped, the Sick, the Disabled, the insane, children etc. With the advent of the internet, some of these abuses, especially the death camps, would be hard to mask (note -- I did not say impossible).

Comparing WW2 to the Iraq conflict is a slap in the face to anyone who served in WW2 and the sacrifices overwhelmingly made by everyone in this country to supply the troops during WW2. One can argue that dying is dying, war is war, but again, it comes back to the causal case evidence, which has from the beginning of this war, opposed the idea of Iraq having vast stockpiles of WMDs.

Like most people, I believe Saddam was a bad man, yes. He was not on par with Hitler though. Hitler was a drug addicted figurehead lead by the nose of others. Saddam was a dictator, a very cruel one, but still in possession of his faculties. If it was announced that this was a humanitarian war and that the goal was to remove him from office and cease ethnic cleansing, more power. From the start, however, this has not been treated as a humanitarian war.

The flip-flopping on the reasons for this war by this administration only degrades their case to go to war, and that is why we see recruitment numbers dropping dramatically IMO. It has nothing to do with pussy or non-pussy or Hitler or past "mistakes" of not blowing his drug-infested carcass up fast enough. It has everything to do with hasty, easily-recognized mistakes made by this administration, their decision to cut funding to military families, extend tours, double tours, and a source funding that was already below par vis-à-vis the rest of the American workforce (with inherently a helluva lot higher risk) to begin with.

-Melissa

edit: friggin trading: sacrificates is NOT a word. Also, friggin verb agreement -- I know, little things, but I am picky.

[Edited on Fri, July st, 2005 by ElanthianSiren]

[Back]

And thats just it. This war involves people. Real people. Real Americans and real Iraqis. Bush did not go punch out Saddam, the working class of this country did.

This war is going badly, and I don’t think that makes Bush a loser. Those who have died for it, on both sides, the real people, are the losers.

His role in all this is criminal in the world theatre.

[Warriorbird]

Here's an offensive link related to Army recruiting, courtesy of http://www.byroncrawford.com .

http://www.petitiononline.com/tards/petition.html

[Edited on 7-1-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Back]

Wow, that web designer knows his css.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Backlash
And thats just it. This war involves people. Real people. Real Americans and real Iraqis. Bush did not go punch out Saddam, the working class of this country did.
I was watching a documentary from inside Iraq during the time the soldiers took Baghdad and they(US military) claimed Iraqi's pulled down the statue of Saddam. They(Iraqi's in Baghdad at the time) were saying that it was not true; that they were Kurds whom the soldiers brought in while their tanks rolled through the city. Looking at the footage, there was not a woman or child in the bunch, only younger looking guys, half with shirts off and half with them on.
The up close action video of the statue being destroyed is broadcast around the world as proof of a massive uprising. What uprising says the REAL people of Iraq?

They were also looting the museum directly after as those of us who watched the taking of Baghdad could see and our military was actually saying to the press there that the Iraqi people should have protected their own museums, and this was AFTER we(Americans) had just taken Baghdad! We told them they should have protected their own historical artifacts. :( It was very sickening to watch.

Just my two cents, and my bad for going off topic a bit.

Backlash, I am really sick and tired of people saying that this war is going "bad." Show me in the past where we have invaded a country even near the size of Iraq, destroyed the military, occupied a nation for over three years (not to mention the political gains) and lost less than 1,760 lives?

Yes the loss of life sucks, but when people shoot at each other somebody tends to die. 1760 lives is a small price to pay... How many lives were lost when America fought for its freedom? France?

War costs lives, and I am sorry, we are kicking their ass, not losing. To think you could tell a soldier who just ran though an ambush getting every last one out alive and killing 50 of their attackers, BEFORE any quick reactionary force arrives(Mind you they only have 18 people in their platoon, and 4 stryker vehicals) that they are losing is retarded at best.



---DEV I personally know people who were there when they pulled down the statue, people who were right down the street watching it all happen. I work with them.

What responsibility do we have to protect their museums? Who the fuck cares.

We did after a while when the ROE was shoot looters on site. It put a end to it quick. That is how the military works, its not nice, its not sunny and when you let them do their jobs they are very effective. Sadly because of a public outcry we can not treat Iraq as we did Germany post ww2. We could destroy the insurgency in a matter of days, but can'tdue to the media culture we now live in. People don't need to know what goes on during war, Just that we won We also had more important things to deal with than protecting old pieces of stone, like oh I don't know NOT GETTING BLOWN THE FUCK UP.

[Edited on 7-1-2005 by Dave]

[Edaarin]

For someone so loathe to approve of sending aid (in the form of money) to other countries, you sure care a lot about giving them aid through combat (which probably costs a shitload more).

[Sean]

We don't live in a vaccum asking for an impossible comparision to make is pretty dumb. No past conflict has been done in the same time period, with the same technology, with the same information, etc. It would be pretty dumb to attempt to create a parallel. Then again it's pretty dumb to even ask for one.

[Back]

http://www.zendada.com/images/sown3d.jpg

[Back]

Originally posted by Dave
Backlash, I am really sick and tired of people saying that this war is going "bad." Show me in the past where we have invaded a country even near the size of Iraq, destroyed the military, occupied a nation for over three years (not to mention the political gains) and lost less than 1,760 lives?

Yes the loss of life sucks, but when people shoot at each other somebody tends to die. 1760 lives is a small price to pay... How many lives were lost when America fought for its freedom? France?

War costs lives, and I am sorry, we are kicking their ass, not losing. To think you could tell a soldier who just ran though an ambush getting every last one out alive and killing 50 of their attackers, BEFORE any quick reactionary force arrives(Mind you they only have 18 people in their platoon, and 4 stryker vehicals) that they are losing is retarded at best.



---DEV I personally know people who were there when they pulled down the statue, people who were right down the street watching it all happen. I work with them.

What responsibility do we have to protect their museums? Who the fuck cares.

We did after a while when the ROE was shoot looters on site. It put a end to it quick. That is how the military works, its not nice, its not sunny and when you let them do their jobs they are very effective. Sadly because of a public outcry we can not treat Iraq as we did Germany post ww2. We could destroy the insurgency in a matter of days, but can'tdue to the media culture we now live in. People don't need to know what goes on during war, Just that we won We also had more important things to deal with than protecting old pieces of stone, like oh I don't know NOT GETTING BLOWN THE FUCK UP.

[Edited on 7-1-2005 by Dave]

I left your response to Dev in because I think it is very relevant AND revealing.

But to address you, war is fine with me, if you want to storm my house. Its fine with me if you want to take my wallet. Your goddam right its on if you accuse me of something I did not do.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Dave
---DEV I personally know people who were there when they pulled down the statue, people who were right down the street watching it all happen. I work with them.

What responsibility do we have to protect their museums? Who the fuck cares. If you don't care, then do yourself a favor and don't bother to respond. I care motherfucker. That's who.


We did after a while when the ROE was shoot looters on site. Good, those Kurds got what they deserved then. What I said is still factual.
It put a end to it quick. That is how the military works, its not nice, its not sunny and when you let them do their jobs they are very effective. Good, which is why they shouldn't have pushed the blame on the people of a city that our forces had just rolled through. The fucking looters came in with the soldiers, which makes it THAT MUCH WORSE.
Sadly because of a public outcry we can not treat Iraq as we did Germany post ww2. Sadly, you didn't read what ElanthianSiren said about comparing WW2 to Iraq. Try Vietnam, maybe you'll be a little more on target. Though, not really right.
We could destroy the insurgency in a matter of days, but due to the media culture we now live in. Bull fucking shit.
People don't need to know what goes on during war, Just that we won Obviously, ignorance is bliss for people like you. I'm not happy living that way, even in a time of war.
We also had more important things to deal with than protecting old pieces of stone, like oh I don't know NOT GETTING BLOWN THE FUCK UP. Again, bull fucking shit. Let me also add to it, A U.S. mechanized vehicle was used to pull the statue of Saddam from it's base, along with the Kurds who were brought in. I guess they weren't too busy after all, now were they.

Originally posted by Edaarin
For someone so loathe to approve of sending aid (in the form of money) to other countries, you sure care a lot about giving them aid through combat (which probably costs a shitload more).

When it is for our own benefit, I am all for it. I am not under some delusion that we are doing this for selfless means. A stable Iraq = a more stable middle east= spread of western influence= a large decline in the influence of radical Islam on the Arabic community= security for the United States.

So for selfish means, I am all for aiding another country.

[Warriorbird]

Well, at least that takes care of what would happen in Iraq if we left right now.

It'd be a pro-Iran lovefest within weeks.

Yes the Americans brought in Kurds to loot Baghdad! propaganda at its finest.

You do understand that we did not attack baghdad from the north, the Turks wouldn't let us enter, remember. So these Kurds, thousands and thousands of of them, drove all the way down to baghdad on their own to steal and appear on camera. You realize how foolish that sounds to an informed person right?


Not to mention this was just after the thunderruns though Baghdad where they would send a unit and just have it drive though to get shot at so they could shoot back (since we cant use useful tools like artillery due to civilian casualties) And those tunderruns were getting shot the hell up.

OMG a engineer vehicle pulled the statue down! I am sure you could have pulled a bronze statue down with your bare hands...

[Back]

The looting of the jewel of creation is a sad thing for humanity. Thats right the fuck up there with the burning of Alexandria.

What makes you think the Arabian Knights will lay down for a fight?

[Warriorbird]

If good news was coming out of Iraq there would be no recruiting problem.

The right has a major television network/magazine/newspaper conglomerate, a vast series of minor ones, and nearly all of talk radio.

It is pointless to blame anything on people who are against the war with that kind of power.

When did you last visit the museum in baghdad?
50 years from now some rich guy who bought it will die and it will be returned to Iraq in some big ceremony.

Attrition Backlash, since we can not do it right, we will have to wait them out, eventually we will win by attrition. 10-20-50 years from now, just like the civil rights movement in America, every year things get a bit better.

Originally posted by Warriorbird
If good news was coming out of Iraq there would be no recruiting problem.

The right has a major television network/magazine/newspaper conglomerate, a vast series of minor ones, and nearly all of talk radio.

It is pointless to blame anything on people who are against the war with that kind of power.

Um when did the right have anything but Fox News?
the new york times, largest newspaper in the world is extremely conservative :lol:

[Edited on 7-1-2005 by Dave]

[Back]

Rationalization is mans greatest defeat.

[Warriorbird]

Uhh. Rupert Murdoch is a huge conservative. Just because he's not an American does not make him not "part of the right." Countless hordes of conservative hacks work for that company.

I'm not quite getting how there isn't a connection or saying something flat out incorrect about the Times (it being extremely liberal) is making a point. The news outlets are MORE than out there.

http://oldamericancentury.org/mommy_stupid.jpg

[Edited on 7-1-2005 by Warriorbird]

[DeV]

Originally posted by Dave
propaganda at its finest.This is the only thing you have said that has any bit of accuracy to describe that day.


You do understand that we did not attack baghdad from the north, the Turks wouldn't let us enter, remember. So these Kurds, thousands and thousands of of Iraqi's, like we claimed, more like 200 or so people drove all the way down to baghdad on their own to steal and appear on camera. You realize how foolish that sounds to an informed person right?You do realize that Turks and Kurds are not one in the same? And since you have friends that were in the square at the time the statue was pulled down, you'd know there weren't thousands and thousands of anything let alone people.

The 200 or so people milling about were U.S. Marines, international press and "Iraqis". Great coverage.

The Kurdish population is just south of the Turkish border. Kurds mostly inhabit norther Iraq, Baghdad is not in norther Iraq.
I was being sarcastic with the thousands and thousands comment referring to your complaint about only Kurds doing looting.

[Warriorbird]

Just because Kurds live in "norther" Iraq doesn't mean that they couldn't have been driven to Baghdad.

http://old.krg.org/saddam-statue-before-downed.jpg

See all those mariens in civilian clothing!

[DeV]

Originally posted by Dave
I was being sarcastic with the thousands and thousands comment referring to your complaint about only Kurds doing looting. It wasn't a complaint about only Kurds doing the looting. It was a realization that it was not only Iraqi's as was falsley claimed and initially reported. God, you are not quick.

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Just because Kurds live in "norther" Iraq doesn't mean that they couldn't have been driven to Baghdad. \

On the back of American armored vehicles, Yeah it does mean they were not driven to baghdad in that case.

[Back]

So what is the big picture here? What are we doing there and how does that help us?

[Warriorbird]

See a non 360 degree picture?

:shrugs:

Admittedly, I hadn't heard anything about what DeV was discussing. I just know that something like Kurds not being from around Baghdad wouldn't stop a fine "filming effort."

[Warriorbird]

http://oldamericancentury.org/crusade1.jpg

There you go, Backlash.

[Edited on 7-1-2005 by Warriorbird]

Originally posted by DeV

Originally posted by Dave
I was being sarcastic with the thousands and thousands comment referring to your complaint about only Kurds doing looting. It wasn't a complaint about only Kurds doing the looting. It was a realization that it was not only Iraqi's as was falsley claimed and initially reported. God, you are not quick.

Shit I guess Kurds don't live in Iraq, (because northern Iraq is not Iraq afterall) But you're right we went into Iran and turkey to pick them up and bring them to baghdad. I wonder how much we wasted in gas for those cross country trips.

[Back]

I am familiar with that artist. Brilliant.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Dave
http://old.krg.org/saddam-statue-before-downed.jpg

See all those mariens in civilian clothing! It's Marines.

Originally posted by Backlash
So what is the big picture here? What are we doing there and how does that help us?
IMO
"10-20-50 years from now, just like the civil rights movement in America, every year things get a bit better. " no more radical islam to blow up innocent people.

[Warriorbird]

I'm sorry you can't grasp the idea of shipping a bunch of people in for propaganda purpouses, Dave.

While I've seen no evidence of it, you know the military is more than capable of putting on a show like that or you are less intelligent than I thought.

[Back]

So you are saying this a war against Islam?

Originally posted by DeV

Originally posted by Dave
http://old.krg.org/saddam-statue-before-downed.jpg

See all those mariens in civilian clothing! It's Marines.

ya know what was meant, but pictures speak a thousand words don't they, kinda ruins your argument.

[Warriorbird]

Yep. We have to protect Israel, the Holy Land, in preparation for the End of Days.

[Sean]

Originally posted by Dave

Originally posted by Edaarin
For someone so loathe to approve of sending aid (in the form of money) to other countries, you sure care a lot about giving them aid through combat (which probably costs a shitload more).

When it is for our own benefit, I am all for it. I am not under some delusion that we are doing this for selfless means. A stable Iraq = a more stable middle east= spread of western influence= a large decline in the influence of radical Islam on the Arabic community= security for the United States.

So for selfish means, I am all for aiding another country.

You can use this style of debate to validate anything...

We need to send money and all kinds of aid to Africa, because we might save some people, some of the people we save might hold within them the cure to aids, I would like a cure to aids are you saying we shouldn't offer them aid because you don't want to cure aids?!

Originally posted by Dave

Originally posted by Backlash
So what is the big picture here? What are we doing there and how does that help us?
IMO
"10-20-50 years from now, just like the civil rights movement in America, every year things get a bit better. " no more >>>>>>>>>radical<<<<<<<<< islam to blow up innocent people.

[DeV]

How does it ruin my argument, Dave? Please explain.

[Warriorbird]

Once again... the Army is MORE than capable of setting something like that up, Dave....and then, y'know...moving out of camera range?

Originally posted by Warriorbird
I'm sorry you can't grasp the idea of shipping a bunch of people in for propaganda purpouses, Dave.

While I've seen no evidence of it, you know the military is more than capable of putting on a show like that or you are less intelligent than I thought.

No I am saying it is extremely impractical due to logistics and stability reasons.

At the time it was difficult to get food and fuel to the troops because of the surprising speed of the assault and the long and undefended supply lines.

[Edited on 7-1-2005 by Dave]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Once again... the Army is MORE than capable of setting something like that up, Dave....and then, y'know...moving out of camera range?
Heh, if you knew the military you would understand its not as easy as you think, (that is for my own amusement though)

Just because there were us military there does not a conspiracy make. You see when one soldier goes somewhere there are going to be a ton of others with them, so it is little surprise that there is going to be more military guys around, and surprisingly off camera. When a vehicle stops, you pull security in a war zone ALWAYS, that means make a perimeter, 360 degrees so if you are attacked from any side you will be able to return fire and destroy the attackers/withdrawal depending on the size of the enemy force.

That is just how things work, When I get off of a stryker to talk with somebody the sole job of the soldiers with me is to protect me and the person I am talking to, they surround us and pull security, its tactics, its common, its expected.

[DeV]

1st Battalion of Free Iraqi Forces. Ahmed Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress. Wonder what he was doing there.

A US soldier draped a flag over the Saddam statue's face that was supposedly from the Pentagon on 9/11. Coincidence. :rolleyes:

The media braodcasts on TV and in the papers what is a closely-cropped tight shot that made it appear to be a dense and large crowd.

A wide shot reveals the actual sparseness and small size of the crowd that's assembled, heavily populated with Army and media.
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-6/240424/2PHOTO.gif

[Back]

ITS A CONSPIRACY!

[Warriorbird]

:coughs:

And look military vehicals pulling security, 360 degrees around the area... Staged!

[Back]

I posted in proxy of SHM. I’m sure he wouldn’t mind.

[ElanthianSiren]

...not to seem like a bitch, but are we officially off topic yet?

-M

No, not really. DEV is giving the perfect example as to why the general said what he said.

[Back]

If you want to go off-topic, AIM me at zendadaism. :lol:

[DeV]

Originally posted by Dave
And look military vehicals pulling security, 360 degrees around the area... Staged! Oh, great point. I left that one off purposely just in case you brought it up.

Comprehend with me? Hmmmm

It was a small group; they were in front of the press hotel where Western press had been holed up all day; this is all while fighting was actively going on elsewhere in the city before, during and after.

In fact this area was not safe, hence the military vehicles actually blocking off the section with armored tanks. Duh.


Which photo should we believe; yours or mine? Oh wait, their the same, mines just a wider shot! ... :grin:

[DeV]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
...not to seem like a bitch, but are we officially off topic yet?

-M It wasn't my intent, but since Dave considers himself the official spokesman for military operations, well, ya know, shit happens.

My bad though, we can get back on topic any time now.

Originally posted by DeV

Originally posted by Dave
And look military vehicals pulling security, 360 degrees around the area... Staged! Oh, great point. I left that one off purposely just in case you brought it up.

Comprehend with me? Hmmmm

It was a small group; they were in front of the press hotel where Western press had been holed up all day; this is all while fighting was actively going on elsewhere in the city before, during and after.

In fact this area was not safe, hence the military vehicles actually blocking off the section with armored tanks. Duh.


Which photo should we believe; yours or mine? Oh wait, their the same, mines just a wider shot! ... :grin:

I am not disputing the photos DEV, I never did. I called bullshit on your "theory" that we trucked Kurds in on armored vehicles to tear down the statue, and then they looted.

(notice how even the conspiracy twins (basklash and warriorbird [sorry guys it just sounded really good] didnt come running in to back you up, they even havent heard about it before. Which might tell you something, if it happened the way you said it did it would have been a big deal a lot sooner)


As to me being a "military spokesman" I never claim to be. I speak from my opinion and experiences. We all have different lives and lead them different ways. I live a life of a soldier now, so I speak about that often. I deal with it 24/7/365. That is my life, so its going to be brought up fairly often especially at the frequency ignorant comments about the military are made on the boards.

You wake up, go to work, work, come home.

I wake up, go to work, learn new things everyday about the world, my job, and being a Cavalry Scout.

Therefor does it surprise you that I might know a bit more about the military than the average civilian?

[DeV]

Originally posted by Dave
I am not disputing the photos DEV, I never did. I called bullshit on your "theory" that we trucked Kurds in on armored vehicles to tear down the statue, and then they looted. Dave, did I say they were trucked in? The press footage only showed a dozen or so young men running into the city ALONG WITH some tanks. Where in my posting did I say they were trucked in? Did I even say it was to specifically tear down the statue? No. The initial claims of exactly who tore down the statue were false, lies.

I also didn't specify a time line of the entire day. So, if in your mind you felt I said they were carried into the city by US tanks so they could tear down the statue and then run over to loot the museums, then you got it wrong.


(notice how even the conspiracy twins (basklash and warriorbird [sorry guys it just sounded really good] didnt come running in to back you up, they even havent heard about it before. Notice how I am rarely if ever backed up unless the subject is widely known and discussed. Sorry, I don't post in political threads relying squarly on backup. That's dumb. You heard it hear first. I'm also not stopping you from doing some additional research to call me on my bullshit. :) I'll be waiting, actually, I'm still waiting from the last time you were supposed to be calling me on bullshit.

Which might tell you something, if it happened the way you said it did it would have been a big deal a lot sooner) It was a big deal, just not in our country.



Therefor does it surprise you that I might know a bit more about the military than the average civilian? Actually, it surprises me how little you know compared to the average citizen.

[TheEschaton]

I'm not dismissing peaceful resolutions, I'm just saying it is idealistic and fairytale thinking that it is always a possibility for it to happen.


To get kind of back on topic - I think its cynical and counterproductive to think that violence is sometimes the only answer. Positive thinking you see....;-)

By the way, as to what DeV and Dave are posting about - I heard it was staged, I never heard anything about Kurdish involvement. It seems pretty obvious to me that it was staged, but I agree with Dave in that it would be pretty fucking illogical to go past Bagdhad to the north, and bring some Kurds down when I'm sure there's enough Iraqis in the city itself to do the job. But then again, this administration does some pretty fucking illogical things.

As to Dave's argument that we should be ignorant of what the military ACTUALLY does so as to let them do their job "effectively", that strikes me as absurdly asinine. To me, that exposure to the real tactics of military action and war evokes disgust and horror is a sign that: A) humans aren't supposed to kill fellow humans, especially in a premeditated, ruthless way like this, and B) the people who orchestrate wars have realized this, and, to the best of their ability, they try to hide, obfuscate, and spin what actually happens in war, so as to keep the people supportive. cf the propoganda films of WWII on both sides.

-TheE-

[Artha]

Nah, if it was staged, that one soldier wouldn't have goofed it up by putting the american flag over the statue's head first.

[4a6c1]

Originally posted by Dave
What responsibility do we have to protect their museums? Who the fuck cares.


OMG

.....:rock:......

Saddam hoarded the worlds oldest and most treasured artifacts in that museum. He spent millions adding them to his collection.

7,000 years worth of archaeological history, Dave. Not just Iraqi history. Human history.

I'm talking proof of the biblical. The story of civilization through artifacts. You really should care. And every human being really really should feel the need to protect such things.

That said....

On topic - I believe that politicians and media alike have a responsibility to support our troops and encourage service. Yes, I know. Freedom of speech. Yada yada. You have that freedom because you are American. And you have the responsiblity to support the troops because you are American.

:)

[Sean]

Theres a pretty big difference between supporting troops and enlisting to fight a war you may or may not believe in.

[Ravenstorm]

Encouraging service in a war that should never have started and that most Americans no longer believe in doesn't support the troops. It says 'hey, we don't care if you die needlessly'. it also says to the politicians 'do whatever you want and we'll be good little sheep'.

Raven

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Tijay
Theres a pretty big difference between supporting troops and enlisting to fight a war you may or may not believe in.

:yes:

I don't think I can word it any more clearly.

[Back]

Originally posted by JihnasSpirit
Saddam hoarded the worlds oldest and most treasured artifacts in that museum. He spent millions adding them to his collection.

He did? I know he built palaces and had bad art in his bedrooms... but from what I’ve heard, the treasures of Bagdad were stolen from public museums, not his palaces.

[DeV]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
It seems pretty obvious to me that it was staged,I would have never believed it for a minute until I saw a documentary and started doing additional research. I should have had my facts together but didn't expect that tidbit to be dragged out the way it was. Glad I'm not the only one to have heard of it being staged though.
but I agree with Dave in that it would be pretty fucking illogical to go past Bagdhad to the north, and bring some Kurds down when I'm sure there's enough Iraqis in the city itself to do the job. Agreed...

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/NYI304A.html

[Skirmisher]

Wow, i'll admit to never having thought it was staged.

Rather naive of me.

:rant:

[4a6c1]

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by JihnasSpirit
Saddam hoarded the worlds oldest and most treasured artifacts in that museum. He spent millions adding them to his collection.

He did? I know he built palaces and had bad art in his bedrooms... but from what I’ve heard, the treasures of Bagdad were stolen from public museums, not his palaces.

Oh yes. He hoarded them like a blackbird does shiny trinkets.

The mans operations regarding many Mesopotamian and Babylonian theories were retardedly secretive. Sometimes all the international community got was rumors. UNESCO was forced to speculate often as to the worth of it all. They are still speculating.

He was thought to have funded nearly 10,000 dig sites. The results of which sometimes never saw the light of an exhibit hall or recieved a preservation process for that matter. Not to mention the years he was most active on his crazy little 'hunt for the tower of babylon' he closed the museum to the public entirely.

Still, I would rather see all of it back in that place under his rule than being smuggled off of the continent with a 1/3 survival ratio only to be sold to the highest paying American millionaire.

Anyhoo. Bad me to get off topic. This subject makes me rabid. :-/

American High school students would rather go chase fat bitches and consume gluttonous amounts of drugs and alcohol then visit a hot ass desert to possibly die or be horribly maimed.

Imagine that.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by RangerD1
American High school students would rather go chase fat bitches and consume gluttonous amounts of drugs and alcohol then visit a hot ass desert to possibly die or be horribly maimed.

Note: I've taken the above post to be serious, though I realize it could have been an attempt at sarcasm.


The larger question is "for what" at this point, and I'm sure that's what a lot of kids are asking. I doubt it has much to do with women or substances, more to do with a lack of conviction toward this war, which has been bungled with propaganda since its inception.

When it's not about WMDs anymore, it's about humanitarianism. When we can't claim humanitarianism because of our actions, it's about Iraqii security, though we invaded Iraq and didn't do crap to protect their international treasures, as Jihna pointed out. Weapons of Mass Distraction is a better term.

Claiming recruitment opposition stands solely on fear of death, women, substances, and laziness IMO over-simplifies the problem. I agree, given the choice, most people would rather start a family/career than go to war, but it is also about "Do I believe in this war? Are the benefits worth it? Does the potential gain outweigh the risk?" Both recruitment numbers and polling responses have undeniably answered "No" to that question.

If we want to blame low recruitment on anything, we can blame it on the difficulty of spreading propaganda in the 21st century (the internet and snopes and fact checkers etc are a large part of this as Dev pointed out) and an administration that can't sell its war.

-M

[Hulkein]

I didn't know Jazuela had another name.

[Edited on 7-3-2005 by Hulkein]

[Back]

Originally posted by JihnasSpirit
Oh yes. He hoarded them like a blackbird does shiny trinkets.

The mans operations regarding many Mesopotamian and Babylonian theories were retardedly secretive. Sometimes all the international community got was rumors. UNESCO was forced to speculate often as to the worth of it all. They are still speculating.

He was thought to have funded nearly 10,000 dig sites. The results of which sometimes never saw the light of an exhibit hall or recieved a preservation process for that matter. Not to mention the years he was most active on his crazy little 'hunt for the tower of babylon' he closed the museum to the public entirely.

Still, I would rather see all of it back in that place under his rule than being smuggled off of the continent with a 1/3 survival ratio only to be sold to the highest paying American millionaire.

Anyhoo. Bad me to get off topic. This subject makes me rabid. :-/

Well, I didn’t know that, so shame on me. Maybe not as bad as the fires of Alexandria as these items appear to still exist at the very least.

The importance of these items are significant to the global community, not just Iraqis.

Thanks for the info there Laura Croft.

[Artha]

Agreed...

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/NYI304A.html
I'm going to assume that the text and edited pictures are the ones (c) to Indymedia. Hardly an objective or believable source (http://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml). Basically just another outlet for America hating commies.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Artha

Agreed...

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/NYI304A.html
I'm going to assume that the text and edited pictures are the ones (c) to Indymedia. Hardly an objective or believable source (http://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml). Basically just another outlet for America hating commies.

Actually, the photographs supposedly come from Reuters news. I'm looking for the originals now. Found reproductions on several blogs.

-M

[Artha]

The AFP tags their pictures, I guess it's the Reuters ones that weren't loading. By edited, I mean like this one

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/ddww.jpg

When we can't claim humanitarianism because of our actions,

Before I respond fully.

What actions?

[DeV]

Originally posted by Artha

Agreed...

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/NYI304A.html
I'm going to assume that the text and edited pictures are the ones (c) to Indymedia. Hardly an objective or believable source (http://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml). Basically just another outlet for America hating commies. To be honest with you, I'd love someone to disprove those photos as well as the information accopmpanying with an objective or believable source. I've been looking ever since I heard any mention and rumor of the event being staged. (note: I'd never heard of anything like it until a couple of days ago.) The information just became known to me and I brought it up in this thread literally the day after I watched a separate documentary.

[Artha]

I can't really prove or disprove with a certainty. But I'd take it with a grain of salt.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Artha
I can't really prove or disprove with a certainty. I've tried as well, to disprove that is. It makes me completely reconsider the intial reports from American media, lib and conserv.

I figured if the photos were that much of a lie I'd be able to disprove them by at least reading some conservative or pro-administration web-blogs or anything else I could find. Unsuccessful. I couldn't even find anything to refute the claims from Fox or CNN.

[Artha]

Like you, I hadn't heard of them until a few days ago (when they were brought up here). I'd say it's a possibility that the people best equipped to refute the claims haven't even heard them.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Artha
I'd say it's a possibility that the people best equipped to refute the claims haven't even heard them. Possibly, though I highly doubit it.

This story has been circling the net since April of 2003. Ample time and opportunity.

[Back]

It doesn’t seem far fetched to me. Show me a pic with 1000s of people around the statue.

Marketing, PR events and advertising are very real tools used to sway opinion. Its known that the White House, State Department and any other agency will use them.

[Artha]

Show me a pic with 1000s of people around the statue.
Your city's being taken by another country's army. Tanks roll through the streets. The sounds of gun fire and mortars still ring through the air. Are you going outside?

[Back]

Originally posted by Artha

Show me a pic with 1000s of people around the statue.
Your city's being taken by another country's army. Tanks roll through the streets. The sounds of gun fire and mortars still ring through the air. Are you going outside?

That depends. Right now, yes, carefully, because I am single and have no one else to worry about and want them the fuck out. Married and/or with kids I’d be finding shelter, grouping, then maybe moving out. So you may have a point there.

But consider how it was presented to us on TV. Clearly, those sites and pictures paint a very different view. And what my post was about was saying that media events are staged. Its no secret and used by everyone.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by RangerD1

When we can't claim humanitarianism because of our actions,

Before I respond fully.

What actions?


I've included a link to an entire report (http://www.hrw.org/wr2k4/3.htm
), but those who do not care to read it, can read the sum up here and follow any relevent links (it is rather long).

Iraq does not meet the requirements of a humanitarian war for the following reasons:

1. Looting and civil unrest were not curbed; in fact, they were exacerbated, as Jihna pointed out.

2. the size of our post-war ground force in Iraq has NEVER reflected a humanitarian effort bent on peace keeping operations; in fact, it is about HALF of what it was in the First Middle Eastern War.

Our reliance on high tech toys further indicates that civilian lives were not the main consideration. Finally, the dissolve of the Iraq army that allowed private looting to continue also support a deliberate prioritization of cost over civilian lives. I would find it difficult to call a war humanitarian when such practices are widespread.

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101030331/wgw1.html

3. Occupation in general is not humanitarian, however, it still must abide by the Geneva Convention against unusual torture and the assault of weaponless individuals. According to the Geneva convention, every effort should be made to ensure that international and human rights of soldiers and civilians are respected.

Geneva convention NOT respected. ie: Abu Ghraib; also, there's that case of that individual who shot an unarmed Iraqi civilian (on camera). That looked rather grim for the humanitarian case as well.


4. As you pointed out in another thread bombing for minimal civilian casualties wasn't an issue ie; this campaign has utilized cluster ammunition.

http://hrw.org/reports/2003/usa1203/usa1203_sumrecs.pdf

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0305/15/i_qaa.01.html

"There is also the use of cluster bombs and cluster ammunition in areas where inevitably civilians had to be injured and hit by these cluster bombs --"
-- From the above CNN link.

5. Despite the administration's claims, there was NOT ongoing genocite in Iraq. Estimates are that Saddam killed 50,000 civilians from the early 90s until now. Civilian life cost in this war is estimated around 23,000-26,000 (depending on the source) since 2003.

http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Saddam_was_killing_his_subjects

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june04/civilians_04-26.html

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/


6. In addition, little effort has been made by our administration to stop a real source of genocide in Sudan (Darfur), so it seems silly to claim that we invaded Iraq due to humanitarian interests. Iraq had law and order up until its invasion, while a larger, mass scale humanitarian crisis loomed that the U.S. turned a blind eye to.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/07/02/rwanda-050702.html?ref=rss


7. War was not the last option tried. It comes back to this discussion, to the exodus timetable that was violated etc.

This is reported in the March 31, 2003 issue of Time magazine. All I can get you is a preview link if you don't have a subscription, but I highly, highly recommend picking it up -- if for nothing else than the pictures.

http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1004568,00.html


-M

[DeV]

Originally posted by Artha

Show me a pic with 1000s of people around the statue.
Your city's being taken by another country's army. Tanks roll through the streets. The sounds of gun fire and mortars still ring through the air. Are you going outside? Kinda makes you wonder why they thought it a good idea to have a rally in the center of town while cheering the toppling of a very large ugly statue, with news media coincidently milling about no less. Odd.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/09/sprj.irq.statue/

[Artha]

Our reliance on high tech toys further indicates that civilian lives were not the main consideration.
The same 'high tech toys' which can fly a bomb through the window of a building instead of having to carpet or even fire bomb a city a la WWII Dresden? Come on, these things make it easier to take out the enemy without getting the 10 civilians around him, not harder.

[Back]

I don’t see more than 200 in any of these pics (http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/pictures/galleries/newsid_2933000/2933567.stm) from BBC Live. You can see the streets clear.

[Edited on 7-3-2005 by Backlash]

1. Looting and civil unrest were not curbed; in fact, they were exacerbated, as Jihna pointed out.

My mother is a religious historian and an ordained minister. All I've heard since I came over here is PLZ PLZ TAKE PICTURES OF THINGS FOR ME. However, even shes not stupid enough to believe that we promoted the looting of objects. That shit happens all by itself and just because we may not have done anything --I'd ask you what you think we could have done to stop looting outside of shooting abunch of people, as last time I checked my combat load I don't have riot gear but I doubt you could answer that without some trite general comment-- does not mean that we "excaberated" the situation.

If we were so selfish when it came to the looting of objects why did we let people we have no connection to do the looting when we could have easily done it ourselves?


the size of our post-war ground force in Iraq has NEVER reflected a humanitarian effort bent on peace keeping operations; in fact, it is about HALF of what it was in the First Middle Eastern War.

You're going off what people thought was neccessary. There were numerous debates in the administration over how much was neccessary to *win* the war and yet everyone was surprised at how quick it truly was.

Remember, it takes time, money and effort to mobilize a few hundred thousand troops.


Our reliance on high tech toys further indicates that civilian lives were not the main consideration.

Are you on crack? Without those high tech toys Iraq would probably be a smoldering crater right now. The fact that we used only these sorts of weapons shows that we had the consideration of Iraqi's in mind as we could have easily obliberated the place and not exposed the ground troops (i.e Myself) to a ton of the risks that we face now.


Geneva convention NOT respected

Show me an instance where it has been by anyone. The geneva conventions is a farce and always has been.


also, there's that case of that individual who shot an unarmed Iraqi civilian (on camera

Last time I checked a "Civilian" didn't fight which was what that guy was doing prior to being "disarmed"


As you pointed out in another thread bombing for minimal civilian casualties wasn't an issue ie;

I guess a couple of tactical nukes would have been in order then.


Despite the administration's claims, there was NOT ongoing genocite in Iraq.

By "administration" do you mean the World health organization, Amnesty International and other such organizations?


In addition, little effort has been made by our administration to stop a real source of genocide in Sudan (Darfur),

Which has absolutely nothing to do with Iraq. There are hundreds of countries in the world we can and should help out, but participating in one and not the other doesn't automaticly negate the former.

This is the most retarded argument ever. We've been through this before.

[quote]7.{/quote]

I guess next time we should give them an exact time, location and order of battle so they can better prepare themselves. You act as if Saddam had any intentions of backing down.

[Parkbandit]

I was going to respond to Melissa's post.. but Ranger did a great job of posting everything and more of what I was going to say.

Best quote:

"Our reliance on high tech toys further indicates that civilian lives were not the main consideration."

Talk about trying to spin something for your own viewpoint.. only not knowing what the fuck you are talking about.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by RangerD1
That shit happens all by itself and just because we may not have done anything --

Our presence there exacerbated the situation; ie, it never would have happened without the War itself. -Or are you proposing that looting of stockpiles of national treasures happened all the time during Saddam Hussein's reign?

I'd also like to point out that I don't agree with the statement that the US military helped loot, as you seem to think or gotten defensive about. This thread is about recruitment going down. You asked me how the US administration has failed in its approach to the war, and I answered you. The administration has failed by putting their hands in a war they never had evidence to enter in the first place. This fact IMO is what's eating recruitment alive.


You're going off what people thought was neccessary. There were numerous debates in the administration over how much was neccessary to *win* the war and yet everyone was surprised at how quick it truly was.

No, I am going off the numbers from the last Middle Eastern War where we were never even an extended occupying force. Occupation of an unwilling country would seem to me to require more troops than a brief stay in a first one as a means of defense.

Also, please define Win because the US has not won the war in Iraq by a long stretch...unless the only goal was to capture Saddam Hussein and that whole thing about curbing terrorism there was just a farce. Did you miss the quote that said it will take over 12 years and a constant military occupation akin to N/S Korea?

I don't think that's sitting well with potential service people either.


Remember, it takes time, money and effort to mobilize a few hundred thousand troops.

I'm aware of this; troops should never be mobilized without proper evidence.


Without those high tech toys Iraq would probably be a smoldering crater right now. The fact that we used only these sorts of weapons shows that we had the consideration of Iraqi's in mind as we could have easily obliberated the place and not exposed the ground troops (i.e Myself) to a ton of the risks that we face now.

The US military could NOT have obliterated Iraq without US citizens calling bullshit on US using the very types of weapons we accussed Saddam of having, especially once we found none.

That said, as you've pointed out that you're in the military, I do assume you know what cluster ammunition is, what cluster bombs are, and that they were used -- in civilian areas. In addition, "dual use facilities" were bombed. I doubt the US military phoned ahead to make sure all the civilians were out of the hospitals and mosques before they exploded or as nearby civilian structures took collateral damage.


Show me an instance where it has been by anyone. The geneva conventions is a farce and always has been.

Show me an instance where any army holds itself to the standard of the U.S. army in terms of fairness, righteousness, ruggedness, and pride. Show me an instance where children are taught from grade school that the military would never harm the innocent or an instance where the very honor of a country depends so completely upon its military. Show me an instance where each of these fundamental principles of a population’s view on its military has been violated (very much in the public spotlight) and recruitment numbers remain steady.


Last time I checked a "Civilian" didn't fight which was what that guy was doing prior to being "disarmed"

I think I'd fight too if a foreign army suddenly decided to occupy Pennsylvania.

Actually though, I think he was laying there in a pool of blood prior to being shot. He was wounded and disarmed. I see how those kinds of images and expectations -- especially Abu Grahab could hurt recruitment numbers given the sentiments expressed prior to your last quote.


I guess a couple of tactical nukes would have been in order then.

Hell no; though, I don't think anyone should chock up low recruitment to laziness or sex when the flip-flopping on this war by the administration, its tactics, and its own spin, once examined, clearly show the failure it has been. People don't want to be on the losing side. It's unamerican.


By "administration" do you mean the World health organization, Amnesty International and other such organizations?

No, I mean numbers quoted as coming out of Iraq that show, in total, our occupation of Iraq has killed more than 1/2 of the total amount of Civilians Saddam Hussein killed in more than his last decade in office. I doubt that sits well with potential recruits either, or do you think they don't keep themselves informed?

[Sudan]

Which has absolutely nothing to do with Iraq.

It has everything to do with Iraq. Sticking your hands in another country's business for "humanitarian" reasons, as you ignore another country on the verge of civil implosion, makes me wonder. I think potential recruits would wonder as well what Iraq has that Sudan doesn't.


I guess next time we should give them an exact time, location and order of battle so they can better prepare themselves. You act as if Saddam had any intentions of backing down.

I act as if the United States set a time table for him to exit and should have honored that. I don't pretend to think Saddam was a great man. I do pretend to think that our leaders should be people who can honor their word especially with regard to something as serious as war.

Further, I can see how that oversight, as well as many other broken promises, (double tours, longer tours, losing benefits etc) would hurt recruitment.


-M

[Parkbandit]

Holy shit.. I think I'm having an aneurism.

I'll be much more to the point than you were in your previous post.

"Our presence there exacerbated the situation; ie, it never would have happened without the War itself. "

I didn't realize you can see different timelines now. Thing is you have zero idea what would have been happening in Iraq had things been done differently. That's the reality that we faced at the time.

"That said, as you've pointed out that you're in the military, I do assume you know what cluster ammunition is, what cluster bombs are, and that they were used -- in civilian areas. In addition, "dual use facilities" were bombed. I doubt the US military phoned ahead to make sure all the civilians were out of the hospitals and mosques before they exploded or as nearby civilian structures took collateral damage. "

It's a fucking war. No one ever said there was not going to be any civilian casualties. I believe the US has gone OUT OF IT'S WAY to ensure minimal collateral damage.. which is WHY they were using their most expensive munitions in this war. If we didn't give a shit.. we have TONS and TONS of dumb bombs that we could have saved billions of dollars on by dumping them in the different Iraqi towns and cities.

"I think I'd fight too if a foreign army suddenly decided to occupy Pennsylvania.

Actually though, I think he was laying there in a pool of blood prior to being shot. He was wounded and disarmed. I see how those kinds of images and expectations -- especially Abu Grahab could hurt recruitment numbers given the sentiments expressed prior to your last quote."

It's easy to play armchair QB from the safety of your own home. Your life isn't on the line. You know the outcome already, so your hindsite is perfect. You have super slow motion film, you have CNN, you have expert opionions...

If memory serves, this unit took some casualties from bodies that were rigged to explode when moved. Tensions are already at max.. they entered a room where there are injured iraqis on the floor. One that they believed was dead begins to move. It's kill or be killed there.

You make it sound like this poor innocent Iraqi 'citizen' just dropped his kids off at daycare when he was shot.

"It has everything to do with Iraq. Sticking your hands in another country's business for "humanitarian" reasons, as you ignore another country on the verge of civil implosion, makes me wonder. I think potential recruits would wonder as well what Iraq has that Sudan doesn't. "

We didn't go into Iraq for humanitarian reasons. We went into Iraq to force them to comply with the UN Resolutions.

[Hulkein]

<< Our presence there exacerbated the situation; ie, it never would have happened without the War itself. -Or are you proposing that looting of stockpiles of national treasures happened all the time during Saddam Hussein's reign? >>

That means absolutely nothing. When a government is overthrown, be it good or bad, looting will happen.

I've seen looting during power outages in the United States, what makes you think at a time of total anarchy no Iraqi will loot anything?

It will happen no matter what.

<< No, I am going off the numbers from the last Middle Eastern War where we were never even an extended occupying force. Occupation of an unwilling country would seem to me to require more troops than a brief stay in a first one as a means of defense. >>

Why don't you check out the size of Saddam's army at that time. Iraq had the 4th largest army in the world at that time (It may have actually been 3rd, I saw it on the History channel a couple weeks ago). Of course our army is going to be larger...

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Hulkein
<< Our presence there exacerbated the situation; ie, it never would have happened without the War itself. -Or are you proposing that looting of stockpiles of national treasures happened all the time during Saddam Hussein's reign? >>

That means absolutely nothing. When a government is overthrown, be it good or bad, looting will happen.

I've seen looting during power outages in the United States, what makes you think at a time of total anarchy no Iraqi will loot anything?

It will happen no matter what.

<< No, I am going off the numbers from the last Middle Eastern War where we were never even an extended occupying force. Occupation of an unwilling country would seem to me to require more troops than a brief stay in a first one as a means of defense. >>

Why don't you check out the size of Saddam's army at that time. Iraq had the 4th largest army in the world at that time (It may have actually been 3rd, I saw it on the History channel a couple weeks ago). Of course our army is going to be larger...

Umm... our army was smaller than the size of the US force used in the first Gulph war against Iraq, (about half), but good try. Recruitment is down because the size of the force is NOT adequate for the job that we are/were doing in Iraq,which only makes a circular problem.



Originally posted by Hulkein
That means absolutely nothing. When a government is overthrown, be it good or bad, looting will happen.

It will happen no matter what.

First, the situation in Iraq isn't total anarchy, as anarchy is the most ideal form of government. Anarchy is an ideal state where no government is necessary.

The question remains, if the US never invaded Iraq, do you feel that that looting would have occurred under Hussein?

-M

[Hulkein]

<< Umm... our army was smaller than the size of the US force used in the first Gulph war against Iraq, (about half), but good try. >>

I know.

First Gulph War, Saddam had an army that was 3rd or 4th largest in the world. Thus, our army was bigger.

This Iraq War, Saddams army was not as large, nor as equipped, so our army was smaller.

Good try.

<< First, the situation in Iraq isn't total anarchy, as anarchy is the most ideal form of government. Anarchy is an ideal state where no government is necessary. >>

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v423/dawkins/anarchy.jpg

Again, good try.

[Edited on 7-4-2005 by Hulkein]

ElanthianSiren, please don’t speak for the people who serve in the military, you not being in it can not come close to understanding the motives people have to fight or have to join.

RangerD, aside from being in the military, is in Iraq at the moment. He sees the real side of the war, not just what is shown on TV. The violence, the bombings, he deals with it on a day to day basis. He speaks from experience, unlike you who only knows what she reads from the internet and watches on TV.


The US military could NOT have obliterated Iraq without US citizens calling bullshit on US using the very types of weapons we accused Saddam of having, especially once we found none.

Heh, this made me giggle. The U.S. could have easily obliterated Iraq with conventional weapons. Airpower alone, not to mention artillery (BOOM!)



all in all, it takes a different type of person to join the military during a time of war. Sadly many of the younger people in today’s military do not have the balls to do what must be done. It is easy for people to sit here and say “if I supported the war I would join.” That goes back to the good old saying, “actions speak louder than words.” I call bullshit on that until I see it.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

We didn't go into Iraq for humanitarian reasons. We went into Iraq to force them to comply with the UN Resolutions.


Actually, according to the link below, we went into Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein's regime, which would include Hussein himself. The Major General goes further to state that the war's objective is to liberate the Iraqi people, sounds humanitarian to me or just plain flip-flopping.

I can turn almost every one of your arguments back on you, (that's why they're spin); it's very easy to play backyard QB when it's not your country hosting a war. It's easy to be gung ho! as Dave pointed out when you're not there.

The fact remains that US soldiers shot an unarmed man on camera and tortured, (physically and psychologically), several unarmed people in prisons in response to a war that we never had the evidence to enter. Unjustified wars are not popular in recruitment offices.


http://fpc.state.gov/19326.htm


from above link
First is, the target of the operation that is ongoing now is the regime of Saddam Hussein. It's not the Iraqi people. And so, we believe that it's important that our targeting reflect that same objective, and that is to liberate the Iraqi people by eliminating that regime.

Second is, we have an unprecedented capability now with technology to achieve precision in our targeting. We have the ability to hit, in most cases, exactly what we try to hit, and scale the munitions appropriately to the task. We also believe that that capability comes with it a responsibility. Because we can be more discriminating in the use of force, it gives us a responsibility to be more discriminating.

As you know, international law draws a clear distinction between combatants and civilians in any war. The principle that civilians are protected during operations lies at the heart of the international law of armed conflict. And it's that distinction that we believe is important.


-M

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Dave
ElanthianSiren, please don’t speak for the people who serve in the military, you not being in it can not come close to understanding the motives people have to fight or have to join.

Actually, I spoke for the people who did not join Dave. The question of why recruitment numbers are low was posted. I have no desire to speak for individuals in the military, but I can hypothesize why individuals would choose not to join that organization.

-M

Umm... our army was smaller than the size of the US force used in the first Gulph war against Iraq, (about half), but good try. Recruitment is down because the size of the force is NOT adequate for the job that we are/were doing in Iraq,which only makes a circular problem.

The army is the size that the COMMANDERS on the ground in Iraq have decided is needed. They are the people who have worked their entire lives planning and executing military operations.

Please decide which way you want it. Do we have more troops there and then extend tours, call up more national guard and reserves, and "break promises" (which in its own right amuses me, the military promises nothing to the people in it, except pay), and bring in another 100,000 troops spending billions and billons of dollars more? Or do we keep the troop level as it is and allow the Iraqi military to continue to train and improve so they can take their country back.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Hulkein

First Gulph War, Saddam had an army that was 3rd or 4th largest in the world. Thus, our army was bigger.

This Iraq War, Saddams army was not as large, nor as equipped, so our army was smaller.

So wait... with all these low tech weapons and a devestated army, Hussein was a major threat? Administration knew the size of the army and its limitations and still sent a huge force? Sort of sounds like an elephant stepping on an ant.

-M

Low tech weapons are very effective at killing people.
All you need to do is get a 120mm mortar round within 100 meaters of somebody and they are dead.

Oh btw elephant stepping on a ant comment. Um The U.S. ALWAYS sends in more power than is needed. I think its something like an average of 4x the expected amount needed. (correct me if I am wrong military people) You're damn right its a elephant stepping on a ant. I would not have it any other way.

Our presence there exacerbated the situation; ie, it never would have happened without the War itself.

So in other words there is absolutely nothing the United States could have done good in the first place as it is inherently evil.


Gotcha.


In all reality I doubt you give a fuck about what happens to Iraqi's either way.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by RangerD1

Our presence there exacerbated the situation; ie, it never would have happened without the War itself.

So in other words there is absolutely nothing the United States could have done good in the first place as it is inherently evil.


Gotcha.


In all reality I doubt you give a fuck about what happens to Iraqi's either way.

I never once said that the US couldn't have done anything or that it was inherently evil.

-M

[DeV]

Originally posted by Dave
all in all, it takes a different type of person to join the military during a time of war. Sadly many of the younger people in today’s military do not have the balls to do what must be done. Please stop using this weak ass argument. What can be said of those who join the military during times of war and their reasons... lots, but we won't go there. It's gotten old.

It is not a weak ass argument. It is the truth. Do you want to go and get shot at? Nope. That tends to be the sentiment of most people.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Dave
It is not a weak ass argument. It is the truth. Do you want to go and get shot at? Nope. That tends to be the sentiment of most people. Oh please. There are places in the heart of the ghetto that would make you think twice about ever entering, soldier or not. There are places in our very own country that resemble war zones and the communities within behave accordingly.

Your argument is weak because you act as if being in the military is the only way a person risks being shot, maimed, or killed on a daily basis. Please, get a clue, because it certainly is not.

Just because you joined the army doesn't mean you own an extra set of balls. Do you want to actually go out and get shot at and was that one of your reasons for joining the military? If so, seek help.

[Edited on 7-5-2005 by DeV]

[Sean]

Originally posted by Dave
It is not a weak ass argument. It is the truth. Do you want to go and get shot at? Nope. That tends to be the sentiment of most people.

Do you want to get shot at? I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say unless you have some strong sociopathic tendancies the answer is no also so how exactly does that support your arguement that those of us who don't join like you don't have the 'balls' to do so.

The people who join today know that they are going to war. The people who joined 5 years ago didn't.

I dont really care to get shot at, but I know that I will, many times over.

[Sean]

Originally posted by Dave
The people who join today know that they are going to war. The people who joined 5 years ago didn't.

I dont really care to get shot at, but I know that I will, many times over.

When?

When I deploy. I do the exact same thing that RangerD does + a perversion of my job.

[Edited on 7-5-2005 by Dave]

[Sean]

Originally posted by Dave
When I deploy. I do the exact same thing that RangerD does + a perversion of my job.

[Edited on 7-5-2005 by Dave]

The point being you talk a lot of shit about people who don't join yet what have you done? You get bitchy when people talk for the combat troops yet you do it and still havn't been to combat.. You made yourself out to be some hero for saving some guy from being deployed and sacrificing yourself to do it yet you're still here.. You say you join now and know your going to get shot at yet a year later it still hasn't happened..

Basically for someone who talks so much shit you still really havn't done shit now have you?

[CrystalTears]

The people who join today know that they are going to war. The people who joined 5 years ago didn't.

You know, I really hate this answer. People who join the military should ALWAYS know that at any given time they could be sent off to war. Joining for anything but knowing you can and will serve your country at any given time is only misleading yourself.

I think most people did know they would be sent to war and accepted that. Saying that today's enlistees are somewhat better than those in the 80's in that regard is rather misleading if you ask me, if not completely and utterly false.

- Arkans

[Warriorbird]

To the initial topic... I found a few quotes.

"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it.
-Edward R. Murrow

Dissent is the highest form of patriotism
-Thomas Jefferson

May we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion
-Dwight David Eisenhower."

Originally posted by Tijay

Originally posted by Dave
When I deploy. I do the exact same thing that RangerD does + a perversion of my job.

[Edited on 7-5-2005 by Dave]

The point being you talk a lot of shit about people who don't join yet what have you done? You get bitchy when people talk for the combat troops yet you do it and still havn't been to combat.. You made yourself out to be some hero for saving some guy from being deployed and sacrificing yourself to do it yet you're still here.. You say you join now and know your going to get shot at yet a year later it still hasn't happened..

Basically for someone who talks so much shit you still really havn't done shit now have you?

I'm no hero; I just made an offer that was accepted. It is not up to me when I deploy, my unit is slotted and we go when we go. You're right I have been in for a year, 8 months of which was training.

In the end it is the luck of the draw. If I had the choice originally I would have gone with those I went though school with who are already there. Now I have a responsibility to those in my Platoon, my Troop, my Brigade, my Corps, my Army, my Country, to be as skilled and proficient in the tasks assigned to me as is possible before we deploy. I have a lot to learn yet about being a Scout, and the other aspects of my job that I was not trained to do prior to my arriving at Fort Lewis. So any time I get to train and learn I am more than accepting of.

So, as much as I would rather get my deployment over with, I am content where I am now so I can become a better soldier and keep more people alive and safe while we are there.


That is what my job is now. That is the "shit" I have done.

[Edited on 7-5-2005 by Dave]

[AnticorRifling]

I hate the Army for having commercials in spanish. I don't want troops I can't talk to.

Originally posted by CrystalTears

The people who join today know that they are going to war. The people who joined 5 years ago didn't.

You know, I really hate this answer. People who join the military should ALWAYS know that at any given time they could be sent off to war. Joining for anything but knowing you can and will serve your country at any given time is only misleading yourself.

I wish it was that way CT. But sadly it is not.

Originally posted by Arkans
I think most people did know they would be sent to war and accepted that. Saying that today's enlistees are somewhat better than those in the 80's in that regard is rather misleading if you ask me, if not completely and utterly false.

- Arkans

It took a different person to be in the military in the 80's. The standard of soldier was far lower than is required by todays army. There was a VERY large drug and gang problem on most if not all of the bases, which does not exist anywhere near the same numbers today. People who have little to live for but their next high make great targets but are not soldiers IMO.

[CrystalTears]

You assume way too much.

What is it that I am assuming?

Give me a break, Dave. Unless you have some official statistic saying this, I can't believe one iota of that. We arn't talking about the conscripts of Vietnam that are being forced to fight. We are already talking about an all volunteer Army. The only thing that may have changed is Army policy, some training, and maybe an easier work day, but overall, the people remain the same.

There was drug testing and large and random scales as well as random room searches. Those that burned a piss test or got found out with some weed in their rooms were processed for seperation same as they are now.

As far as drug use in the Army? It's here now as much as it was back then, the only exception is that are now more help centers available to soldiers. The person needed to serve in the 80's is pretty much the same person that is needed now. Both knew that war was a possibility and both joined for other reasons to get rich. Simple as that.

- Arkans

[Sean]

Originally posted by Dave

That is what my job is now. That is the "shit" I have done.

[Edited on 7-5-2005 by Dave]

Which amounts to above zilch when it comes to questioning the integrity of those who didn't make the same life decision you made.

And that doesn't even begin to touch on the fact that it's a pretty big lie that people who joined 5 years ago shouldn't have expected that they may have to serve in a combat situation... that is unless things like Panama, Mogadishu, Bosnia, Gulf War 1, etc. never happened.

[Edited on 7-5-2005 by Tijay]

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Dave
What is it that I am assuming?

That you know what you're talking about.

Originally posted by Tijay

Originally posted by Dave

That is what my job is now. That is the "shit" I have done.

[Edited on 7-5-2005 by Dave]

Which amounts to above zilch when it comes to questioning the integrity of those who didn't make the same life decision you made.

And that doesn't even begin to touch on the fact that it's a pretty big lie that people who joined 5 years ago shouldn't have expected that they may have to serve in a combat situation... that is unless things like Panama, Mogadishu, Bosnia, Gulf War 1, etc. never happened.

[Edited on 7-5-2005 by Tijay]

I said shouldent? No I said Didnt, please no putting words in my mouth.
Panama, Mogadishu, Bosnia very small number of forces used for SASO operations.
gulf war 1 was 15 years go not 5. ;)

Originally posted by CrystalTears

Originally posted by Dave
What is it that I am assuming?

That you know what you're talking about.

About? at least give specifics.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Dave
About? at least give specifics.
Originally posted by Dave
It is not a weak ass argument. It is the truth. Do you want to go and get shot at? Nope. That tends to be the sentiment of most people. That... for one.

[CrystalTears]

Um. This thread? :rolleyes: Nevermind Dave.

People who joined the military 5 years ago still remember wars, yes even the small apparently insignificant ones to you. An 18 year old would have known about a war that ended in 1991.

If they go in with the wrong mentality, that's their problem, but it doesn't change the fact that you join to serve your country, and any other selfish motives are afterthoughts and misleading if felt to be the main reasons.

[Hulkein]

Not that I agree with Dave saying people who joined in the 80s are any less of a soldier or whatever, but it's hard to say that no one was joining for college money when Clinton was in office because it appeared very unlikely that they would have to see any combat.

[Edited on 7-5-2005 by Hulkein]

[CrystalTears]

You're right, there are always people going into the military with the wrong mentality, mostly for college benefits. But it has no indication on whether the people of today are "better" soldiers than they were. It's a bold ass, ignorant comment.

et into the military have increased since the 80's. There is consistent random drug testing which helps to limit the major problem that the military was running into in the 80's drug abuse. Enlistees are required to finish more schooling, and are expected to continue their education in the military if they have any desire to advance up the ranks, just like any civilian job. Which was not the case in the 80's. So today's military member is more educated, and is required to think more on a day to day basis due to the influx of technology that a soldier is required to deal with on a day to day basis, as well as having clean veins.

Which in my opinion makes those in today's military better soldiers than that of the 80's

[CrystalTears]

Considering how young you are, if not just a glimmer in your mother's eye, that you would even know about the 80's, let alone the soldiers and their mentality to join the military, to compare them to today's. Which is why I'm saying you're assuming too much (aside from the know it all attitude lately).

Personally I think the soldiers of today have less of an idea of what they are getting into because of the advertising and media making it sound like it's so easy, so quick to finish with little to no commitment later on. I'm sure it's hard work to be in the military, but they plug the hero stance along with the college benefits so much that they don't state how difficult it really will be. Just my opinion, anyway. :shrug:

[Edited on 7/5/2005 by CrystalTears]

Hate to break it to you, but in the Army, after E-6 it's more of a matter of who you know and not what you know. You better damn well know people on the board or people that have influence in the board or you will get consistently passed up for advancement.

Also, you do not really need to go overboard with schooling to advance. You can get to a decent rank and retire just with time and grade. Sure, it'll take longer, but saying it is a MUST is a little bit of a stretch.

The random drug testing was alive and well in the 80's even to the extent we have now. Also, as far as knowing more as far as the influx of technology, do you honestly believe that the technology is complex or hard to use? Please, the armed forces need easy to use technology that is reliable and dependable. No one is giving enlisted members anything that resembles close to brain surgery. We leave that to the civilian contractors.

- Arkans

[Sean]

Originally posted by Dave

I said shouldent? No I said Didnt, please no putting words in my mouth.
Panama, Mogadishu, Bosnia very small number of forces used for SASO operations.
gulf war 1 was 15 years go not 5. ;)

Didn't expect, shouldn't expet, whatever it doesn't change the nature of the arguement.

I'm not going to debate with you that some people enlisted thinking they'd never see armed conflict because that would be naive. However I don't think it's an excuse either. All of the above mentioned conflicts occured during the life of any potential enlistee's. I can't speak for everyone but I know they are all events that I learned about in school either as they happened (Bosnia and the Persian Gulf War) or studied after the fact (Panama). For me to say I was unaware of the potential during the time I was being recruited would be a falacy. If others are claiming the contrary that they were unaware then they are, in my opinion, either chosing to ignore it (and that's their perogative it's not inanyway a judgement on the choice they made just that they made it inspite of being aware of the fact that they may potentially be called upon to fight) or and again this is my opinion speaks volumes about where the military was recruiting if they were so unaware of the potential. And that being said if recruitment numbers are down because more members of society are now reaware of the potentials of joining I don't have a problem with that. As a society we should always do our best to be educated about or atleast aware of the potentials of any situation we place ourselves in.

As for using 5 years ago as a benchmark (I'm assuming it was some sort of arbitrary date) the year 2000 wasn't void of global issues that the US could very well have been drawn into. Disrest in the Congo, uneasiness in the West Bank, Rwanda and Cambodian genocides, Russia's dealings with Chechnya, etc. I'm not saying I expect everyone to keep tabs on the specifics of each situation, but being aware of the broadstrokes of whats going on outside of our country is what I feel being part of the global community is about. Being aware that there was a potential in any of these sitautions should they have errupted for US involvement isn't too much of a reach. But hindsight is 20/20 so you can look back now on your arbitrary date and say but nothing happened but at the time I don't think you could with any sort of accuracy make that statement. Oh I'm not sure I'd lump Panama in with Bosnia and Somalia the way you did. As Panama was actually a sizeable invasion of a country to install a new gov't (sound familiar doesn't it?) and not a peacekeeping op. Although they are still all conflicts where.. someone might get shot ;)

Originally posted by Arkans
Hate to break it to you, but in the Army, after E-6 it's more of a matter of who you know and not what you know. You better damn well know people on the board or people that have influence in the board or you will get consistently passed up for advancement.

Also, you do not really need to go overboard with schooling to advance. You can get to a decent rank and retire just with time and grade. Sure, it'll take longer, but saying it is a MUST is a little bit of a stretch.

The random drug testing was alive and well in the 80's even to the extent we have now. Also, as far as knowing more as far as the influx of technology, do you honestly believe that the technology is complex or hard to use? Please, the armed forces need easy to use technology that is reliable and dependable. No one is giving enlisted members anything that resembles close to brain surgery. We leave that to the civilian contractors.

- Arkans
kans, you need to remember though I do a lot different work than you. I don’t pretend to know what it is you deal with on a daily basis.

As to promotions, I’m not sure how it works for you guys, but in the RA E-7 and above is a DA selection, not boards as the e-5 and e-6 promotions go. Your service record has to speak for itself before you are considered. We also are required to get promotion points, (which I am sure you know about) and depending on the MOS they can be very high (being in a staff position i have little doubt you understand this as well). The 100 points received form a civilian degree is very helpful and allows you to advance much quicker through the e-5 and e-6 ranks. I dont know about you, but if I put in my 20 I dont want to retire as a e-6.



[Edited on 7-5-2005 by Dave]

[CrystalTears]

Heh, where are you copying/pasting your posts from that you keep missing the first few letters?

I'm staying out of the rest of the military debacle because there's just no debating with certain people.

come on Tijay, how many 17 and 18 year olds pay attention to world current events. How many even vote in the first place. You are putting to much value on the younger generation.

[Warriorbird]

Just because someone doesn't vote doesn't mean they don't watch TV.

The first Iraq war featured one of the most intense media blitzes ever.

[Sean]

Originally posted by Dave
come on Tijay, how many 17 and 18 year olds pay attention to world current events. How many even vote in the first place. You are putting to much value on the younger generation.

I don't think you give them enough credit. I don't think the youth is dumb. Again I don't expect them to know the specifics or exact details of the worlds political climate but a basic understanding of events is more than enough to formulate your own opinion of risk assessment. And I could be wrong as well but I know my peers when I was around or 18 were atleast aware of the issues in the west bank and the US involvement in negotiations to some degree. I know that doesn't apply to everyone but as an example of the circa 2000 recruitment class I don't think it's really fair either to say they didn't know at that time that they might be in risk.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Dave
How many even vote in the first place. You are putting to much value on the younger generation. And you are putting too little value on the younger generation, including yourself. The Vietnam War is a great example of this ideology working both ways, for and against and just how much and how little value placed can be a powerful thing given time and circumstance.

I have no idea what your job entails, Dave, but I do know the Army is the Army and always will be the Army. It all has a very similiar mold that anyone can understand (promotions) and it is not job specific. Some might not want to retire at e-6, but it is a very viable options and "good enough" for some.

- Arkans

[Terminator X]

Players' Corner Forums » Off-Topic » Army recruits shortfall blamed on Iraq

aw snap, i fixed the title for you <ducks>

[Forged]

Title should read:

Recruiting shortfalls blamed on parents no longer buying into the neo-con spin machine.

[Hulkein]

I think recruitment dropped during Vietnam too. Was that the result of neocon spin being unraveled too Forged?

:baa:

[Edited on 7-5-2005 by Hulkein]

[Warriorbird]

Actually... curiously enough... spin unravelling definitely had a lot to do with it. Halliburton's first big political backer was Lyndon Johnson.



[Edited on 7-5-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Hulkein]

Yeah, it had nothing to do with people not wanting to join the army at the time when they'll definitely be put in harms way.

It's just neocon spin running out.

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Hulkein
I think recruitment dropped during Vietnam too. Was that the result of neocon spin being unraveled too Forged?

:baa:

[Edited on 7-5-2005 by Hulkein]

Cause it couldn't possibly because they were in the middle of a war and there was more risk in death. It's all about the war haters!

[Forged]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Yeah, it had nothing to do with people not wanting to join the army at the time when they'll definitely be put in harms way.

It's just neocon spin running out.

Look at the recruiting numbers after 9/11/01 and come back and tell me that bullshit.

It's because more and more people don't think Iraq is worth their sons and daughters anymore, as much as the hard right wants the public to believe everything is hunky-dory.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Hulkein
I think recruitment dropped during Vietnam too. Was that the result of neocon spin being unraveled too Forged?
You mean the avoidance of the military by the affluent and privileged? Many people only became aware and more apprehensive of that war when it started hitting close to home---the draft.

All the service branches including the Army and Marines still had a number of volunteers signing up, on top of what they obtained by way of the draft. And recruitment standards were pretty low compared to now as well.

[Forged]

Originally posted by DeV

Originally posted by Hulkein
I think recruitment dropped during Vietnam too. Was that the result of neocon spin being unraveled too Forged?
You mean the avoidance of the military by the affluent and privileged? Many people only became aware and more apprehensive of that war when it started hitting close to home---the draft.

All the service branches including the Army and Marines still had a number of volunteers signing up, on top of what they obtained by way of the draft. And recruitment standards were pretty low compared to now as well.

Agreed, DeV. It's plain to see by looking at the statistics that a good majority of the new recruits are those on the lower end of the monetary scale. It is "good money", "free education", and "world travel" after all.

If Bush has his girls enroll in the Marines, I will head down to the recruitment office tomorrow.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Forged
It's because more and more people don't think Iraq is worth their sons and daughters anymoreAs we all know, if there is any demographic that follows their parents' wishes blindly, it is the teenagers.

[Forged]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Forged
It's because more and more people don't think Iraq is worth their sons and daughters anymoreAs we all know, if there is any demographic that follows their parents' wishes blindly, it is the teenagers.

I agree. After all, no one who joins the military makes it a family decision.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Forged
It's because more and more people don't think Iraq is worth their sons and daughters anymoreAs we all know, if there is any demographic that follows their parents' wishes blindly, it is the teenagers. You better believe when it comes to enlisting in the military, the concerns of family members are at least listened to assuming they have a solid connection with their family. An enlisted man/woman may have to reassure their mother or father that this is the choice for them, but its a decision that is not only effecting the life of that soldier and in times of war, it becomes an even bigger deal.

Originally posted by CrystalTears

Originally posted by Hulkein
I think recruitment dropped during Vietnam too. Was that the result of neocon spin being unraveled too Forged?

:baa:

[Edited on 7-5-2005 by Hulkein]

Cause it couldn't possibly because they were in the middle of a war and there was more risk in death. It's all about the war haters!

wow, thats what I have said from the start of this thread...

Originally posted by Forged


Agreed, DeV. It's plain to see by looking at the statistics that a good majority of the new recruits are those on the lower end of the monetary scale. It is "good money", "free education", and "world travel" after all.


It's not good money, education benifits are good if you take advantage of them; as to world travel, well if you consider the Mideast where you want to travel in the world it could be considered.

Ironically enough why is it those who are traditionally considered "low income" read (that as minorities) not joining up in numbers anywhere near compared to these "rich white folk"

I would like to see where you get your statistics from, since I was never asked how rich my parents are or I am before during or after my enlistment process.

[Edited on 7-5-2005 by Dave]

[CrystalTears]

It was more sarcasm than anything.

However no, that's not what you have been saying. You're been spouting that people don't join because they don't have the balls to do it simply because they're afraid of getting shot.

There are LOTS of reasons for people not to join. Apparently none of them are good enough because anyone who is for the war and not fighting are pussies. I beg to differ.

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
john stuart mill

[CrystalTears]

Quotations now? Fine.

Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime. Ernest Hemingway

War is too serious a matter to entrust to military men. Georges Clemenceau

Once and for all the idea of glorious victories won by the glorious army must be wiped out. Neither side is glorious. On either side they're just frightened men messing their pants and they all want the same thing - not to lie under the earth, but to walk upon it - without crutches. Peter Weiss

Only the dead have seen the end of war. Plato

History teaches that war begins when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap. Ronald Reagan

[Ravenstorm]

"Well Golly!" - Gomer Pyle

[DeV]

Dave, stop speaking in circles before you make yourself dizzy.

[CrystalTears]

The pioneers of a warless world are the youth that refuse military service. Albert Einstein

I'm on a roll.

"Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime." Ernest Hemingway
Taking of any mans life, no matter how noble the reasons, is wrong, but sometimes must be done. A justified war, however right it may be, is still wrong in the end.


"War is too serious a matter to entrust to military men." Georges Clemenceau
Those in office decide when and where in our country.


"Once and for all the idea of glorious victories won by the glorious army must be wiped out. Neither side is glorious. On either side they're just frightened men messing their pants and they all want the same thing - not to lie under the earth, but to walk upon it - without crutches." Peter Weiss
Ever so true. The act of war is a barbaric thing. The pain it causes on those involved and those who watch from the sidelines is inexcusable. I would be lying to say that I am not afraid of the fact that I may not come home, at least not in the shape I am today, but I accept it and am willing to give what I necessary of me.


"Only the dead have seen the end of war." Plato
He said it in his time, and as we can see it has held true though today. People always want what they do not have, be it at the small scale on the streets, or be it in full scale war. In this case we want stability and safety for our country, and "some"are willing to fight for it.

"History teaches that war begins when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap." Ronald Reagan

How true, especially when we think back to 9/11. Those who attacked us did not fathom a response from the U.S. they have received. To bad for them, cause now they are fucked. As long as the American public is strong enough to do what is needed.

I agree with every quote there. The words of smart men able to put things far more eloquently than I. :)

[CrystalTears]

A justified war, however right it may be, is still wrong in the end.

You state this, yet you've been saying that people should fight in the war or they're pussies. WTF Dave.

I give up. I try and I try and I try to not get involved in these political threads, but do I listen to myself?! No! *stomps off muttering to herself*

[Edited on 7/5/2005 by CrystalTears]

Justified and necessary does not make it right.

sometime the wrong thing must be done to allow for the good that will follow

[Edited on 7-5-2005 by Dave]

[Sean]

Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.
~John Stuart Mill

[Edaarin]

I sat here typing, deleting, and retyping several responses.

In the interest of not sounding like a craven, soldier hating douche bag, I'll just settle for saying that when you've done as much as RangerD1, then you can justify the high horse you're sitting on, every single post if you want.

[Forged]

I only have one (well several) thing to say:

Bush said Jesus is his idol, his philosopher as it was.

I wonder if he ever even read the Bible, or anything Jesus taught.

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God" (Matthew 5:9)

Matthew 5:5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

An unjust war of aggression...that pretty much takes care of both.

In the end, Bush and his cronies will lose their power.

This is why I can sleep at night.