The American Army is broken - OFFICIAL

Post Reply New Topic

If you have posted in this thread more than three times your a sadomasochist.

The following is a partial list of U.S. military interventions from 1890 to 2006
http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossma ... tions.html

The rest of the twaddle you mention is nothing but lies and propoganda that you have suckered up like a sponge.

What a bogus list. Thats 115 years, not 50. (You Iraqis can count, can't you?) Most of those so-called "interventions" are alerts, threats and other "saber-rattling." Anytime America even sneezes with it's military, you're counting it as an "invasion." Some of those events were even on US soil! Los Angeles? Detroit? WTF? And some are during joint NATO or UN peacekeeping missions, rescue operations, or US cooperation with other countries in battling drug-runners. Some of them are even attacks by others on US troops, not the other way around! (The USS Cole? Hello??!) If you narrow it down to actual full-scale invasions, it comes down to a maximum of about 7. A couple of which I'll admit I'm not so proud of.

The invasions of Iran and Kuwait by Iraq, lies and propaganda? What rock are you living under? And I noticed from your list, it wasn't the first time we'd warned Saddam's "peaceful" Iraq not to invade its neighbors.

And you're right, TheMachine1... I better quit while I'm ahead. lol

Oh... one last thing. I noticed Guam on this list. Two weeks ago, I was at a nightclub singing, and a young Asian man came up to me after my performance and said that my music reminded him of his father. I asked him where he was from, and he said Guam. I told him my dad was at Pearl Harbor, and then went on to participate in the invasion and liberation of Guam from the Japanese. He instantly shot his hand out to me, and earnestly thanked my dad for his service and for liberating his people. I'm proud my father participated in an invasion, and proud to shake the hand of a grateful young man who's father was liberated from oppression by mine.

I think saying its broken is a bit harsh.

The Iraq invasion in 2003 shows the US military is pretty effective as a military machine. However its now been in Iraq longer than the US was at war with Japan (WW2), which may suggest that US soldiers are not so good in a policing role, but neither are the Brits and our contribution of 500 or so doesn't really count.

The use of the word "OFFICIAL" in the title suggests some sort of major government announcement. For example, newspapers during the Civil War, or World War II would splash the word OFFICIAL before a statement from the war department or the Secretary of State. However, the only piece from anti-war.com makes reference to is a leaked internal document, which perhaps is correct or perhaps is from some department that is a rival to the current dominant trend (there is much internal policy disputes within the Defense Department). The rest is devoted primarily to quotes from war critics, including Barry McCaffrey, who also said (and this not mentioned) with some seeming reluctance it is worth giving the current policy a chance of working.

It is also worth noting that the word "broken" is misleading. The army/marines are certainly not on the verge of some kind of general collapse at least when one bothers to read impressions from average person who is serving on the ground.

Also worth noting is that only a minority of troops for the surge have actually been sent. Violence is down 46% in Baghdad (admittedly, not the 80% reported from before which does indicate a counter-response has mounted), while violence is up in much of the rest of the country. Sending the rest of the planned troop surge would likely do much to pacify, at least in the short run, that violence. Regardless of past mistakes, Iraq is not served well by rampant suicide bombings and murderous shootings, and a withdraw will almost certainly increase sectarian violence.

It is important and worth noting that al-Qaida itself that Iraq is the central battlefield of the war. The idea that such an organization, or it's allies, or that the Iranian mullahs would simply stand-by as a comparatively liberal state rises makes no logical sense.

The primary argument for a withdraw seems to be that we are talking about some general "popular" resistance against the United States. In so much that different fringe groups, Shi'a and Sunni have worked together to an extent (despite the predictions of the CIA and western intellectuals) this is true. But the simple fact is despite the admitted fact the United States isn't particular popular in Iraq (far less popular among Sunnis, although still popular among Kurds, most of the sectarian violence is Shi'a verus Sunni, and much of was initiated by terrorists desiring to cause instability to force a U.S. withdraw. The vast majority, and we are talking vast, of Iraqis have not been killed by Americans but by either fellow Iraqis, Arabs, and in rare cases Iranians. Of course, American losses pale in comparison to Iraqi civilian losses, and this is not to say I don't mourn American dead.

Let's say the invasion was a mistake, let's even stipulate that Bush lied about the WMDs which I found ludicrous. Question: Will withdrawing from Iraq by coalition troops mean more good for America/the world and more good for Iraq. Not more good for George Bush, that is a less important question, that's like saying we should leave Vietnam because Richard Nixon is bad.

Let's say 1,000,000 Iraqis would die if the Coalition, what is left of it leaves. Would that be worth it? How about 500,000 How about 300,000? 200,000? All individuals like you and me. Now you might think this absurd, but the U.S. left Vietnam and cut off all aid and it's possible for them 100,000 died, and a million went into reeducation camps. I'm pretty sure it will be worse them that in Iraq. Remember, unlike Vietnam Iraq has two major religious groups each which has many extremists that feel have some "right" to rule the country. Now, it may be somewhat absurd for the Sunni's to think this now, but they had dominance under Saddam so they are pretty proud, plus they have Saudi Arabia, and everything else except Iran, why should they give in? Oh, course the Shi'a have numbers. Oh, and the Kurds? While very advanced and basically are now a democracy with autonomy they also have citizens who send money to a Kurdish terrorist group in Turkey who want to create a Kurdish homeland.

http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossma ... tions.html [/quote]

There is a lot of highly misleading stuff here. Of course, the United States is not perfect and I am not going to defend using the army to crush strikers (although presumably there are examples of the army crushes rioting strikers, in which doubtlessly the army used excessive tactics, but the rioting is not mentioned). Cambodia, where 2.5 million people where murdered by the Khmer Rouge is mentioned. Perhaps this might have something to do with the Communists who actually murdered them? Also perhaps North Vietnam who sent the Khmer Rouge into Cambodia into the first place (credit where credit is due for taking them out). Also Congress who cut funds off to both South Vietnam and the previous Camdodian government assuring that it would fall to the Khmer Rouge (there are op-eds from respected liberals of the era assuring Americans that the Khmer Rouge were moderates and were just saving the country from unending war).

Somewhat related.



The Prince was executed by the Khmer Rouge on April 21, 1975.

A debate is a debate, 10 or 11 people having a huge brawl with eachother over who's anti-Bush enough isn't really anything aside from a circle-jerk, yes - group masturbation, and kinda falls more under the Mature/Sexuality folder since it tends to work more like an erotic fetish. Intelligent debate where viewpoints are taken, debated, and shot down with fact rather than pure emotion - one thing, trying to emotionally rub one out with the next person's help by talking politics - its smut and probably sadder than an out of date 70's porn that tries too hard to have a plot.

Hey watch it !

some of us might like 70's porn

True, with some good cheesy funk and extreme enough bad acting to where you can tell the actors themselves are making fun of what they're doing - its not bad after a few bowls. I'd guess that'll be Quintin Tarentino's next move after Grind House, the ultimate 70's porn self-parody (maybe with "Satanic Republicans from Outer Space" as an entertainment trailer)

didn't see it.

Ever see Flesh Gordon?

Not porn, but includes a scene where they are making porn, did you see The Big Lebowski? One of my all time favourite movies.

.... this is a better subject than Iraq

Hehe, you know, its rare but taking a thread way off topic if the context is right can be so refreshing...

Have any good instant coffee lately?

Have any of you ever seen Orgazmo. That's a classic!

Actually, the original claim was that we were going in there to find weapons of mass destruction. Since none were found, the Bush administration spinned it into the U.S. & Allies removing a despotic murderous leader and establishing Democracy (actually, the establishing of Democracy was only tacked on after we realized we couldn't leave due to political instability and let all those precious oil fields be sabotaged). So we decided to hang out for a while and give some no-bid contracts to Haliburton.

Anyway, the idea of removing Saddam because he's a murderous despot is another load of crap. I'm not debating that he's murderous or despotic, but I think that if the U.S. wants to be the human rights police for the world, Saddam was a bad place to start. How about the genocide in Darfur if we want a nice human rights project for the military? The U.S. has never meddled in the affairs of murderous despots in the world (Saddam couldn't hold a match to Stalin or Pol Pot).

I've maintained from day 1 that the situation in Iraq would end up like this. Iran is a much bigger threat than Iraq ever was - yet we destabilized Iran's regional strategic counterbalance (Iraq). Consequently, Iraq is in a civil war, Iran's nuclear program is growing unchecked, Israel is much less safe than when Bush first took office (and these Neocon's claim to be pro-Israel - LOL), and Iraq is a hotbed of Al Quaida activity. The irony of this situation is that in 2003, I was considered dangerously unpatriotic, a year later I was on the outer fringes of the Left wing, after October 2006 I was in the mainstream, and now my views on the situation in Iraq are pretty much the popular view. I have NOT ONCE changed my views about the U.S. in Iraq. We should have never gone in.

It was anticipated that we would find stocks of weapons of mass destruction (chemical, biological, as well as a nuclear program), however no such stocks have been located. The Hussein regime, was, at a minimum, in active violation of WMD restrictions and internal documents reveal was still engaged in active deception with U.N. inspectors. The regime was also more then capable of rapid restart of WMD programs once sanctions were lifted, and inspections ended, the latter which was inevitable.



Since no WMDs were found, what should the United States and it's allies have done? Left? What is wrong with the promotion of liberal democracy? During World War II we fought tyranny and afterwards we promoted liberal democracy to replace the tyrants we had defeated (including in Germany where American and British intelligence about the Nazi's nuclear bomb program were faulty).

Here is what President Bush said in a speech urging congress to authorize the invasion:



(source)

Clearly, this is something that the President had in mind before the invasion was initiated.



It was only tacked on? Then why the rapid handover back to Iraqi sovereignty, and the decision to have multiple elections?

The US invaded in March of 2003. Baghdad fell on April 23. The first Civil Administrator, Jay Garner, was installed on the 21st of April. He was replaced by Paul Bremer on May 12. Sovereignty was restored on June 28, 2004 after a period of little more then a year. Elections were held in January and December of 2005.

By way of comparison, the allied occupation of Japan under Supreme Commander General Douglas McCarthur and later General Mathew Ridgway lasted from 1945 to 1952. During this time, the United States rewrote the Japanese constitution and the U.S. military had the final say on Japanese affairs.

Germany was occupied by the Allied Powers from 1945 to 1955, with the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) being formed in 1949.

One of the reasons that the United States is proceeding with such a rapid handover is to prevent the idea that the the U.S. is informally annexing Iraq from spreading out. Unfortunately, this obviously has not been prevented. I also think that such quick hand overs are highly naive and may be caused by undue idealism.

It is worth noting that the United States still has troops in South Korea and we are not are not not trying to overthrow that government despite it's appeasement of it's northern neighbor.




Re: the no-bid contract, from the CEO of Haliburton himself



The original L.A. Times link has vanished however here is some more analysis:

(source)



(source)



Not primarily, but even if everything else turns out to have been false, the removal of Saddam in itself (assuming we don't end of causing more misery in the process then Saddam would have likely don) will have been worth the sacrifice of men/women and material the US and it's allies have made. Murderous Communist Vietnam did not topple the much more murderous Khmer Rouge so much because there were the latter were murderers but because their former allies were conducting border raids into Vietnam. Still, the ultimate effect of the toppling of the Khmer Reds was worth it.



If the U.S. was basing it's policies solely on human rights like Jimmy Carter pretended he was going to (many real neoconservatives actual had hopes for Carter because of this, BTW), then you might have a point here, but of course that isn't what the U.S. is doing. The United States has to consider principle and effects, as well as it's available resources well making decisions.



Darfur is not simple. The more I think about it the more I support an intervention in Darfur, however if you are prepared to intrvene to stop the genocide in Darfur you must be prepared to go to war with Sudan proper and the suicide bombers who will declare jihad on America and whoever else joins America. Let's say the U.S. sends 10,000 troops in? Would it be fair to expect Europe to send a similar detachment with similar rules of engagement? What happens when we start to see American/European bodies savagely pulled through the streets? Will this cause a war-weary public to, like with Somalia, demand a immediate withdraw? What happens when the death toll hits 100? 500? 1,000? 3,000? What about Reuters correspondents on the grounds saying we bombed civilians?

Through all of this, I would be willing to support the troops on the ground and support their mission (because it is just). I have serious doubts about whether the average American would.





Tyrant mass murderers Ho Chi Minh and Kim Il Sung, two great despots that the United States has made war on.



Good for you. Like the Central Intelligence Agency, I did not predict the situation was going to be like this.



Iran as well as Saudi Arabia are not pleased to have a more moderate country in the regime (this is understandable since the Mullahs do not desire to appease a at least somewhat more liberal younger generation. If Iraq were able to build a successful moderate state (a real moderate state, not another Jordan) then it would also be likely reduce the radicalism of neighboring Kuwait, which is currently the closest thing the Arab world has to a functioning democracy.



Not in the traditional sense.



Unfortunately, this is increasingly true. Although to be honest, the idea that we were ever in a position to invade Iran is rather doubtful (especially considering that an occupation of Iran is made almost impossible due to it's sheer size). Something is going to have to be done to prevent Iran to get nuclear weapons, although what that is, and if that will happen is an open question. Air strikes may be impossible as Iran probably learned from Iraq not to keep their nuclear sites limited to one location. The rather disturbing current President of Iran, who's powers are limited as a practical matter, has grown unpopular.

If Saddam Hussein was in power now, I have little doubt that he would be engaged in a nuclear arms race with Iran. Considering the fact the other Arab (non-Arab Pakistan being spoken for) already have quietly signaled that they very well may go for the nuclear option in view of the Iranian threat, it would be highly unlikely for someone of Saddam's character to decline join the fray.



But is this because the United States invaded Iraq? The best association I can make it that since Syria left Lebanon was sort of related to what happened in Iraq, but Hezbollah stayed and started firing rockets over the Israeli border (thus trying to cement their own position in the same way that Saddam fired rockets at Israel during the first Gulf War), and thus basically forcing Israel to invade southern Syria in a rather ineptly run campaign before rather ineptly withdrawing...Yes, I suppose you could make a indirect connection. The primary problem I think though is Hezbollah dominating Lebanon and a Israeli Prime Minister (Olmert) who is incapable of doing his job.

Conservatives (not just neocons, a word I hate because it is so misused) are generally more supportive of Israel then Liberals (or liberals of today; Harry Truman was plenty supportive of Israel). This is because conservatives don't view the Palestinians, in general, as victims of Israel, but as victims of themselves and of the Arabs, and the United Nations. Also, I like Israel because it's the only real democracy in the region (although it's Supreme Court is terrible, much like our's often is). A lot of Christian, and of course Jewish conservatives have reasons to like Israels which (well the former) mocked (JUDGMENT DAYS!! !) but seldom understood.



I don't think your unpatriotic. I think you are wrong, as you no doubt think I am wrong.



I don't know about the particulars but numbers don't lie:



I general you are correct.



OK. If someone can demonstrate to me that by staying will will make things worse in the long term, then you can change my view. I suppose this probably includes that we are simply unable to win (although one could find a theoretical way for us to stay for a certain length of time and thus do some good), then I would then be almost certainly forced to support a withdraw.

It was an all time dumb move.

Everyone was against it, except Bush, and his owners.

When forced, the millitary said twice as many troops.

The second biggest error was disbanding the government and army.

The next was not winning the peace, there was a claim we were freeing the oppressed.

Convoys of food and water in the first few days, mass employment, very cheap.

There was no resistance, a better deal was hoped for, so we made their money worthless and starved their children.

Saddam did not let the people have weapons of mass destruction.

All armies keep secret stockpiles of weapons. Those who knew where they were were fired.

The resistance does not need outside weapons. They are set for a hundred years.

Forming a democracy, but excluding the majority who supported Saddam?

They did, and so did the minorities. There was a power sharing.

Saddam headed a truely representive government.

It was not a two party dictatorship, Chaldeans had more of a say than blacks do in America.

When the Americans leave, and they will, if it takes a hundred years,

the first thing that will happen is the government they formed will be slaughtered.

Just like the government the Russians left in Afganistan.

Chaldeans, Kurds, Shia, Sunni, Turkoman, will come together to do it.

The Kurds might have a problem, their autonamus region, is going to wiped off the map by Turkey or Iran. Everyone in the region sees them as mountain bandits, and Kurdistan has been cut in three, and will never be. They want part of Turkey, and part of Iran. With Iraq, all have worked to keep them unarmed, and divided. Now they have been armed, control land, have a flag, and that means war.

Ask the Armenians how Turks deal with people who try to take their land. They are Mongolians from the Golden Horde. It will be sudden, and then it will be over. They are still the Ottoman Empire.

Taking down Iraq and Afganistan frees the Persians of enemies, to their east is Baluchistan, the main trade route to the Pashtun. It is the Pashtun who are dominating southern Afganistan. The Parsi are not arab, they speak Farci. Persia was an Empire for a long time. They are a very smart people.

Iraq may just vanish, cut up by the Persians, Ottomans, and Syrians.

Afganistan is becoming a Pashtun dominated area. They are the people fleeing the 150 million strong Pakistan with it's western puppet government. The first atomic power government to fall, soon.

The current situation will continue as long as Bush is in office. He does not care that he is killing the Republican Party, leaving the Democrats to take the fall. The next election will be all about Iraq. The resistance will make a major push, their vote. The Democrats will be tricked into continuing the occupation.

Staying becomes endless, and without purpose, leaving gives a major victory to anti-western forces everywhere. This has cost more and taken longer than WWII.

There was no war, but now that it has been started, there is no end in sight. This show of weakness and stupidity will bring war on other fronts. NATO wants out of Afganistan, they talk of a coalition government, because they are losing more men now than when they fought the Taliban. No one else want peace talks.

I know many Islamic people, fine folk. Many of the ones I repair computers for work for some Chaldian Christians. After Katrina they were our only source of gas and water. The US ignored us, sent in men with guns, Haliburton contracters for FEMA, and did nothing. New Orleans is still as it was after the flood.

We lost 1570 people, most died of dehydration, no relief came for a week. Most of the dead were white women of 70 and 80.

The Chaldians, Islamic people, and the Chinese were the first back, and supplied us with food, water, gas, and ran extra long hours because they are good humans, and they did everything they could.

While I was out living under a pine tree it was the millitary that came with truckloads of bottle water and MREs. They left their guns behind. I would not open an MRE restaurent, but they were good when nothing else was available. Good guys, I think they should be home with their wives, children, and parents.

In general I do not relate to country christians, but knowing the area, I gassed up my car, loaded it with bottled water, and went where the power was out, no wells working, no Red Cross, and left a dozen flats of bottled water at a church that had 12 bottles left and fifty people. They were bible thumpers, David Duke supporters, Klansmen, but their children had no water.

If you can stop being human because of your politics, you were never human in the first place.

The path to the least suffering, bloodshed, death, is to just leave.

Only the Bathist can restore regional stability.

IF YOU ARE A READER AND ARE INTERESTED IN THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENTAL POLICY AND WAR AS IT RELATES TO PROFITS, YOU SHOULD READ:

CONFESSIONS OF AN ECONOMIC HITMAN by JOHN PERKINS

Very telling..

And if you research and know your history behind what they tell you on FOX NEWS, our country has been at war almost the entire 200 year span of our country's history. Most were and still are secret wars, and the public ones are full of disinformation as they always say it is in the name of spreading democracy.

But saying you're spreading democracy with BOMBS AND GUNS is a complete oxymoron. I don't see how most people don't see through that. Most of the rest of the world knows and sees this, but as Americans most are oblivious.

I can't agree with alot of the judgemental, prejudiced biases that are floating through this thread. I don't judge groups of people, only individuals: but these are facts.