USMC the Almighty
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2007
- Messages
- 2,070
Very thoughtful post, Mark. One thing -- I'm not currently stationed in Iraq. I'm actually in Quantico, Va.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Very thoughtful post, Mark. One thing -- I'm not currently stationed in Iraq. I'm actually in Quantico, Va.
Werbung:
MarkVI
Well-Known Member
oh, I thought I had previously read that you were.
My fault
My fault
USMC the Almighty
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2007
- Messages
- 2,070
oh, I thought I had previously read that you were.
My fault
I have completed two tours in the sandbox and am preparing for another.
InterestedParty
Well-Known Member
USMC....
Please let us know when you get ready to leave... I have a candle waiting to be lit for you my friend.
Please let us know when you get ready to leave... I have a candle waiting to be lit for you my friend.
Y
yoder
Guest
Our military and civilian population have very different duties and responsibilities.
Our military does not make policy, nor should they, unless we want to end up with a military dictatorship. Our military is there to follow the orders of the civilian leadership, no matter who that may be. Our boys and girls in Iraq are doing the best job they are capable of doing under the circumstances. They need to feel that their efforts are not in vain or else they will lose out of despair and depression. Morale does not suck over there because we are debating the validity of the war over here. Morale sucks over there because they have been put into an impossible situation by our civilian leaders, who then tried to short change them and do the war on the cheap.
On the civilian side our responsibilities are very different. We are here to protect our boys and girls in the military by keeping our civilian leaders in check. It is our duty to make sure our civilian leaders do not use our boys and girls in an immoral, illegal, or ill-conceived war. It is our duty as American citizens to make sure the civilian leadership does not put our boys and girls into harms way for any of those reasons, and if they do, it is our duty and our responsibility to impeach and discipline those who dare misuse and abuse our children that way.
These two different duties and responsibilities are not in conflict with each other, but rather complement each other, as it allows each to do their duty and trust that the other is doing theirs as well. Our boys and girls are there to defend our country from foreign threat to our freedoms. We are here to defend our boys and girls in the military by keeping our civilian leadership in check.
--
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act!"
-- George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair)
Our military does not make policy, nor should they, unless we want to end up with a military dictatorship. Our military is there to follow the orders of the civilian leadership, no matter who that may be. Our boys and girls in Iraq are doing the best job they are capable of doing under the circumstances. They need to feel that their efforts are not in vain or else they will lose out of despair and depression. Morale does not suck over there because we are debating the validity of the war over here. Morale sucks over there because they have been put into an impossible situation by our civilian leaders, who then tried to short change them and do the war on the cheap.
On the civilian side our responsibilities are very different. We are here to protect our boys and girls in the military by keeping our civilian leaders in check. It is our duty to make sure our civilian leaders do not use our boys and girls in an immoral, illegal, or ill-conceived war. It is our duty as American citizens to make sure the civilian leadership does not put our boys and girls into harms way for any of those reasons, and if they do, it is our duty and our responsibility to impeach and discipline those who dare misuse and abuse our children that way.
These two different duties and responsibilities are not in conflict with each other, but rather complement each other, as it allows each to do their duty and trust that the other is doing theirs as well. Our boys and girls are there to defend our country from foreign threat to our freedoms. We are here to defend our boys and girls in the military by keeping our civilian leadership in check.
--
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act!"
-- George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair)
If you believe, as I do, that the war is illegal in terms of international law, then the troops are acting illegally and ought to stand trial for war crimes. Guantanamo bay and Abu Ghraid are just the most public examples of atrocities.
Ofcourse America does not recognise the international court. It reserves the right to conduct its own trials in its own military court, far from the public view.
I regret that many brave young Americans are being put to this task, but I do not support them. Perhaps they have been misled, perhaps they have bought all the talk about 'freedom' and 'democracy', whatever their own personal motives for being there I cannot support them.
I have to take question with an America that currently describes its own foreign policy as 'full spectrum dominance'. This is not the syntax of a peaceful nation. This describes a country who wishes to control the rest of the world and is ready to use its strong and powerful military to ensure that goal. I cannot support that goal. It's not good for our planet, it's not good for the internaitonal community and ultimately it will not be good for America.
Ofcourse America does not recognise the international court. It reserves the right to conduct its own trials in its own military court, far from the public view.
I regret that many brave young Americans are being put to this task, but I do not support them. Perhaps they have been misled, perhaps they have bought all the talk about 'freedom' and 'democracy', whatever their own personal motives for being there I cannot support them.
I have to take question with an America that currently describes its own foreign policy as 'full spectrum dominance'. This is not the syntax of a peaceful nation. This describes a country who wishes to control the rest of the world and is ready to use its strong and powerful military to ensure that goal. I cannot support that goal. It's not good for our planet, it's not good for the internaitonal community and ultimately it will not be good for America.
USMC the Almighty
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2007
- Messages
- 2,070
I'm curious why you describe it as an "illegal" war, considering: https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1333&postcount=3
InterestedParty
Well-Known Member
Full spectrum dominance? This is a new one.
Now where is this coming from? Could you please supply evidence that this is true? Or is this a unsubstantiated accusation on your part?
Full Spectrum Dominance.
Have a listen to harold Pineters acceptance speech of the nobel prize for literature in 2005. You can find it on youtube or read a transcript on the nobel website.
Or you could go a little closer to home. Here's an intersting article:
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2000/n06022000_20006025.html
Have a listen to harold Pineters acceptance speech of the nobel prize for literature in 2005. You can find it on youtube or read a transcript on the nobel website.
Or you could go a little closer to home. Here's an intersting article:
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2000/n06022000_20006025.html
InterestedParty
Well-Known Member
Kiyomori...
You have intentionally mischaracterized what 'full spectrum dominance' is for your own political purposes. It may be a bit harsh of me to say that, but had you read the news article from the DoD that you supplied to me you would have known that for yourself. So I have to conclude that you want to twist the truth to suit your way of thinking.
It has nothing to do with foreign policy.
Full spectrum dominance is the goal of the Department of Defense and is related to military campaigns.
Full-spectrum dominance means the ability of U.S. forces, operating alone or with allies, to defeat any adversary and control any situation across the range of military operations. The four capabilities at the heart of full-spectrum dominance are dominant maneuver, precision engagement, focused logistics and full-dimensional protection.
You have intentionally mischaracterized what 'full spectrum dominance' is for your own political purposes. It may be a bit harsh of me to say that, but had you read the news article from the DoD that you supplied to me you would have known that for yourself. So I have to conclude that you want to twist the truth to suit your way of thinking.
It has nothing to do with foreign policy.
Full spectrum dominance is the goal of the Department of Defense and is related to military campaigns.
Full-spectrum dominance means the ability of U.S. forces, operating alone or with allies, to defeat any adversary and control any situation across the range of military operations. The four capabilities at the heart of full-spectrum dominance are dominant maneuver, precision engagement, focused logistics and full-dimensional protection.
rebuttal...
"who cares what the rest of the world thinks? I don't elect my President to makes up popular to the rest of the world. I elect him to protect and preserve the interests of this country. Screw France, Russia, China, Germany, and the entire Middle East."
Well one thing I can say to that is that 'the rest of the world' cares what 'the rest of the world thinks.' If America stamps on enough toes 'the rest of the world' will turn against it and then it will have a real problem on its hands. The interests of the American people are not that different from the intersts of 'the rest of the world'. They involve, I would assume, a world where trade continues fluidly, with as little disruption, ie. war, as possible and that world is one that will be habitable for the human species for lifetimes to come. Squandering money on this environmentally damaging (for the whole world) and politically damaging (for the US and UK) war is not a positive step by anyones measure. If America tries to 'screw' France, Russia, China, Germany and the entire Middle East, simultaneously they will, no doubt, join forces and bite back.
Let me compare this, if I may (and I'm sure you'll object, but what the hell, it's a loaded argument already) to a certain German administration who did not succeed with their **** 'the rest of the world' attitude, but managed to cause themselves, and admittedly 'the rest of the world' a lot of strife in the process.
1) what was Saddam's violation of the ceasefire agreement exactly?
2 + 3) as Britain and the US put Saddam in power and sold him all of the weapons he was later tried and executed for using, they would have known perfectly well what his arsenal contained. If we trusted our intel we would have prevented 911, surely. It was all there on a plate.
4) Palestinans are now terroists for resisting the illegal occupation of their land by the Isreali's?
5) We sold Saddam the WMD's. We saw him use them. We knew the 'usel by dates'
6) Surely America has its own training camps on US soil. Presumably these are to counter terroism. Training soldiers to defend your country when it is under threat form a hostile nation must be a soveriegn right, but one the US is prepared to deny any country it feels threatenend by.
7) Calling these nations terroris sponsors is a bit like the the pot calling the kettle black. Especially when you consider the actions of American contra forces in Central America.
8) If that was true why are the US sending surge troops in now... what was it 125,000 extra soldiers? How many years ago did US governement declare this war over? Why are they still fighting then? Really the brilliance of the invasion plan has little to no bearing on the legality of the action.
"the terrorist joined forces with the Sunnis to create the insurgency...they should have seen it coming"
No lets read this article about how America acted illegally according to international law:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm
Coincidentally if you type the word 'illegal' and 'war' into google. This is just the first article to come up. I didn't even have to make it specific to Iraq. The internaitonal community views this action as an illegal one. Nobody is particularly happy with US foreign policy right now and that's why you're now seeing things like America agreeing to sit at the table with Iran over talks about the furutre of the region.
"who cares what the rest of the world thinks? I don't elect my President to makes up popular to the rest of the world. I elect him to protect and preserve the interests of this country. Screw France, Russia, China, Germany, and the entire Middle East."
Well one thing I can say to that is that 'the rest of the world' cares what 'the rest of the world thinks.' If America stamps on enough toes 'the rest of the world' will turn against it and then it will have a real problem on its hands. The interests of the American people are not that different from the intersts of 'the rest of the world'. They involve, I would assume, a world where trade continues fluidly, with as little disruption, ie. war, as possible and that world is one that will be habitable for the human species for lifetimes to come. Squandering money on this environmentally damaging (for the whole world) and politically damaging (for the US and UK) war is not a positive step by anyones measure. If America tries to 'screw' France, Russia, China, Germany and the entire Middle East, simultaneously they will, no doubt, join forces and bite back.
Let me compare this, if I may (and I'm sure you'll object, but what the hell, it's a loaded argument already) to a certain German administration who did not succeed with their **** 'the rest of the world' attitude, but managed to cause themselves, and admittedly 'the rest of the world' a lot of strife in the process.
1) what was Saddam's violation of the ceasefire agreement exactly?
2 + 3) as Britain and the US put Saddam in power and sold him all of the weapons he was later tried and executed for using, they would have known perfectly well what his arsenal contained. If we trusted our intel we would have prevented 911, surely. It was all there on a plate.
4) Palestinans are now terroists for resisting the illegal occupation of their land by the Isreali's?
5) We sold Saddam the WMD's. We saw him use them. We knew the 'usel by dates'
6) Surely America has its own training camps on US soil. Presumably these are to counter terroism. Training soldiers to defend your country when it is under threat form a hostile nation must be a soveriegn right, but one the US is prepared to deny any country it feels threatenend by.
7) Calling these nations terroris sponsors is a bit like the the pot calling the kettle black. Especially when you consider the actions of American contra forces in Central America.
8) If that was true why are the US sending surge troops in now... what was it 125,000 extra soldiers? How many years ago did US governement declare this war over? Why are they still fighting then? Really the brilliance of the invasion plan has little to no bearing on the legality of the action.
"the terrorist joined forces with the Sunnis to create the insurgency...they should have seen it coming"
No lets read this article about how America acted illegally according to international law:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm
Coincidentally if you type the word 'illegal' and 'war' into google. This is just the first article to come up. I didn't even have to make it specific to Iraq. The internaitonal community views this action as an illegal one. Nobody is particularly happy with US foreign policy right now and that's why you're now seeing things like America agreeing to sit at the table with Iran over talks about the furutre of the region.
actually...
seeing as you don't care what the 'rest of the world' thinks best to read the views of an American expert in international law:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6917.htm
seeing as you don't care what the 'rest of the world' thinks best to read the views of an American expert in international law:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6917.htm
Read outside the box here: "defeat ANY adversary" "ALONE or with allies"
The implication here is that it is the goal of the military is to be able to stand alone in combat against a 'full spectrum' of opponents. It is a plan to increase military power to ensure dominance, to have such a large military that they can repel any attack from any opponent using any method.
The actions of the US military during the last fifty or so years shows that the most commonly utilised method is that of pre-emptive strike. Toppling goernments they suspect will not be friendly to their economic interests. These strikes were previously covert in the majority. Now such action is made overtly to preserve Americas interests, and to secure resources, overseas.
The International community is wary about acting against such threatening behaviour because of America's massive nuclear arsenal and because nobody wants to see another conflict like the second world war. At the moment America faces opponents with very little military power and with limited technoligical resources. Nobody wants to see what war will look like between equally matched opponents in the 21st Century. It would be horrific.
InterestedParty
Well-Known Member
Finish the sentence Kiyomori...
I choose not to read outside of the box. I am not attempting to create my own interpretation of what it says to justify my political beliefs. Which is exactly what you are doing. Stop trying to twist the meaning. The implication, as you call it, is that Joint Vision 2020 is a plan to insure that the mission of the U.S. military today and tomorrow is to fight and win the nation's wars.
This is absolutely not true. Until the invasion of Iraq in 2003 the United States has not been the aggressor in armed conflicts. Exactly which armed conflicts has the United States taken part in where they instigated the fighting?
I choose not to read outside of the box. I am not attempting to create my own interpretation of what it says to justify my political beliefs. Which is exactly what you are doing. Stop trying to twist the meaning. The implication, as you call it, is that Joint Vision 2020 is a plan to insure that the mission of the U.S. military today and tomorrow is to fight and win the nation's wars.
This is absolutely not true. Until the invasion of Iraq in 2003 the United States has not been the aggressor in armed conflicts. Exactly which armed conflicts has the United States taken part in where they instigated the fighting?
Werbung:
saggyjones
Well-Known Member
You make absolutely no sense. I am not bringing turmoil to troops with my quote, and there's no point in arguing it more because that's what I believe and I won't be changed.
InterestedParty said:
Like I've said numerous times, the Iraqi insurgents aren't terrorists. I support directing our attacks toward Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, but fighting the insurgents is simply wasting lives and not really doing anything.
Similar threads
