|
|
| Post Number: 11
|
minnow 
Group: Members
Posts: 2243
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
 |
Posted on: Sep. 08 2003,7:35 pm |
|
   |
We are now officially "The United States of America plus Iraq" from now on...forever and ever...
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 12
|
Bubba
Unregistered
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 08 2003,7:49 pm |
|
 |
Iraq the 51st state. Boy I know some PR's that are going to be upset.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 13
|
Warbux
Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 08 2003,9:02 pm |
|
|
Hat's off to you, Jim on your 2:59 PM post of 9/8. I applaud you. I could not agree with you more. I printed it and I am reading it to two groups tomorrow AM at coffee. You know, we had a plan back there in 1945 from the git-go. We dumped a bomb. That wasnk't enough, so we dumped another one. That did it. A few days later, on 9/2/45 they stood before General McCarthur on the deck of the USS Missouri and signed where they were told. They respected and obeyed McCarthur. They ended up liking him. Today, some nearly 60 years laater they still like him and respect him and are grateful to him for his leadership. Who the HELL has got ahold of the reins on the ponies in Iraq? We need help, Jim.
Warren Jensen
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 14
|
Bubba
Unregistered
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 08 2003,9:28 pm |
|
|
Remember that some of our country men have objected to having our soldiers serve under a United Nations command, but it was alright for our soldiers to serve under US command in an United Nations opperation.
Isn't it odd that we can not see that other counties might have objections to sending thier troops into Iraq to serve under US command because we can't keep the peace (O excuse me, the end of hostillities) we declaired back in May. Warbux, this isn't Japan 1945.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 15
|
Ole1kanobe
Group: Members
Posts: 1360
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 08 2003,11:47 pm |
|
|
Frankly, and I mean no offense to anyone, but the last real 'war' we had (in my opinion) is WWII.
Every other 'conflict', 'police action', 'liberation', whatever they want to call it; was nothing but politically motivated and supported while delivering one hell of a bill of sale to the public. The only aggressive action that I can recall that I really think was necessary was Milosivich ( sp?? ) when he was committing genocide, and even then I think they should have settled for nothing less than death for him, people like that seriously have zero to contribute to society and should be gotten rid of.
Now I’m not trying to belittle any conflict after WWII, I just don’t think any of them were done for the right reasons. The public was given half truths and propaganda to rally support.
While every American should bee 100% behind our troops, they are just like you and me, the only difference is that for most of us each member of the armed service is taking our place in whatever may be happening, Korea, Viet Nam, Dessert Storm & Dessert Shield the list goes on, it could be you or I that would be in Iraq, waiting for the next bombing and hoping that no one we know ends up dead. We should really be thankful…
--------------
The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it.
-Albert Einstein-
Some of what is said here (myself included) is about as tolerable as listening to someone vacuum a cat.
-nphilbro-
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 16
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 09 2003,10:07 am |
|
|
Fighting under a foreign command hasn't worked well anywhere in the history of warfare. Even troops of the British Commonwealth didn't fight well under British leadership--and THEY had standardized practices and tactics. Consider the Canadians in WW I--completely ineffective--the British denigrated their capabilities. The Canadians revolted when asked to take Vimy Ridge--where the British had been stalemated for over 6 months. The Canadians agreed--IF they could fight under their own command--and took it in 9 days. After that, Canadians fought ONLY under their own command--and Canada developed a national pride and identity. It has been said that Canada became a nation at Vimy Ridge.
Consider the awful waste of life of Australian and New Zealand troops at Gallipoli--not only was leadership flawed, but they had no effective means of communication for covering fire--the only tactic available to the commanders was suicidal attacks from the trenches--into the face of massed artillery and machine gun fire. The result was predictable.
The Allied Powers recoginized the inability to effectively utilize foreign troops during WW II, so they assigned "theatres of operation" to effectively separate them. The ONLY example of troops fighting effectively under foreign command that I can think of is the Ghurka--and that is probably because they were conditioned to do exactly what they were told to do, fight ferociously and with no quarter--and they were fighting with primitive weapons.
In more modern times, Russia couldn't control the troops of the rest of the USSR, and as recently as Grenada, the Army couldn't even talk on common frequencies with the Air Force, Marines, or Navy. Imagine trying to meld different weapons and tactics, let alone communications, with foreign languages--it's bad enough trying to understand a Louisiana accent over a radio!
Where the U.S. may elect to use a precision weapon to take out an enemy position--a foreign commander, untrained in the use of such weapons, may order a frontal assault--at a terrible waste of lives.
Because of these coordination problems, if you talk to the troops in the field, they want no part of multinational operations, let alone multinational command. Much as some would like to believe in the superiority of "one world order"--the truth is that when playing with deadly munitions, this is no time for social experimentation.
Edited by jimhanson on Sep. 09 2003,10:12 am
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 17
|
hoosier
Group: Members
Posts: 1476
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 09 2003,10:23 am |
|
|
Jim, I agree with what you say, also liked the same post that Warbux did. But I have a question. Who is it, in the case of Iraq, that we are going to get to surrender? There are to many different groups of fighters, with only one objective, get the U.S. out. I just dont think any one person is going to be able to say, ok, enough, uncle, lay down your arms and stop fighting. I dont even believe Bin Laden could stop it. Like I said, I agree with you, just dont see it happening in Iraq, I dont believe you or I will see all of our troops leave that country in our lifetime.
--------------
The power of accurate obsvervation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.
George Bernard Shaw
The devil begins with froth on the lips of an angel entering into battle for a holy and just cause. Grigory Pomerants
We have crossed the boundary that lies between Republic and Empire. Garet Garrett
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 18
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 09 2003,12:12 pm |
|
|
The problem is these "non-victories"--declare the "end of hostilities" and go home. As I said in my earlier post--the CIVIL WAR was a "non-victory"--though the North obviously won, schoolkids as late as the 1960s in the South were taught "people just were tired of fighting, so everybody went home"--the result--the Civil War is STILL being refought.
Korea--first of the "conflicts" run by Congress, and not the military. First of the conflicts to have "do not pass" lines, off-limits "sanctuaries", and "rules of engagement". With all of the restrictions, the war was unwinnable--so "everybody got tired of fighting and went home"--except for 50,000 casualties.
Vietnam--anybody that served in THAT "conflict" did their duty whether or not they believed in the "correctness" of the war. Most will tell you "WE didn't lose the war, CONGRESS AND THE WHITE HOUSE LOST THE WAR. Most troops resented the hell out of winning a battle, taking ground, then giving it back. They resented "off limits" areas in Laos and Cambodia, where they could not destroy the enemy. They resented the buildup in North Vietnam, but the targets were off limits. They resented bringing North Vietnam to its knees, only to have the bombing called off (according to the book The 10,000 Day War, North Vietnam was within 3 days of suing for peace). The result of such micromanagement, indecision, and, it could be said, Command of the troops by someone the troops had no faith in? EVERYBODY GOT TIRED AND WENT HOME.
Somalia--things started to go badly for us--after we took the first casualties--everybody got tired and went home.
No wonder the U.S., in modern times, is viewed as weak-willed, indecisive, and easily swayed by the polls (Saddam was COUNTING on the U.S. distaste for war--much as Yamamoto incorrectly calculated that the U.S. would recoil in horror after getting bloodied at Pearl Harbor).
The U.S. should quit these "end of hostilities" wars, and demand UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER. No more quick victories--make that victories that LAST. That means martial law, an occupying force that practices OFFENSE instead of DEFENSIVE posturing--where every action taken by the citizenry must be approved--and they soon learn that their well-being counts on courting OUR favor rather than the insurgents. Along with the "stick", we need to offer the "carrot" of a Marshall Plan--IF THEY BEHAVE.
The Moslem community, nearly as much as the Far Eastern nations, has a tradition of "face" or family pride. This manifests itself in ways that are strange to us, like stoning to death a daughter that may have been too "loose", or taking pride in a son "martyring" himself by becoming a suicide bomb. What is needed is to disgrace anyone who rises up against us--a quick trial, and a public flogging or hanging--the same thing they do to their own disgraced criminals.
We erred in not requiring that UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER document in Iraq. If not Saddam, the highest military officials will do. (side note--in WW II, the surrender of Italy, Germany, and Japan were made by MILITARY representatives, not the CIVIL heads of government--the civil representative seen in photos aboard the MISSOURI, dressed in formal attire, was a mid-level government representative). This has the effect of telling the populace "NO MORE ARMED RESISTANCE!".
I can't think of a single instance where this "negotiated settlement" has ever worked, and it's time to go back to something that does. Think about this--nobody under the age of about 75 in the U.S. has ever known WINNING a war--only the "cessation of hostilites".
Edited by jimhanson on Sep. 09 2003,12:46 pm
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 19
|
Bubba
Group: Members
Posts: 94
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 09 2003,5:29 pm |
|
|
Jim, I don't claim to have any answers on Iraq, but I am upset that a bunch of flat head ideologist got us into a war with this country under false pretenses, and deception. There objective was Sadam, Sadam, Sadam. Outside of failing this objective so far, they have further reduced a third world country into ruin, and have been unable to protect the people who were willing to support us with their harts and minds. They have been unable to affect an economic plan to have Iraqi oil fund the rebuilding of the country we blew apart for a second time in less than 12 years. Now one of the more outspoken members of this administration wants us to believe how detailed their planning for postwar Iraq was, and all that is needed is a little adjustment.
Having called many of our past allies names because those nations doubted the stories our administration had been telling, our administration now has the balls to ask the UN for help in controlling this mess. I say this request is arrogant because they have set the conditions that military help provided by the UN must be given under the US command.
It appears that someone has awaken our leaders to the fact that we don't have any more armies we can commit, and although we are technically superior, we lack the depth of soldiers to fight multiple protracted conflicts. We are stuck and help is not coming because of our leaders did not have the patience to be diplomatic. In fact, back in May when Powell attempted to be diplomatic over postwar Iraq, others in the administration went after him.
Well Jim, like it or not, all the history on past wars does not change the facts that our leaders have screwed up, and we the citizens will end up paying with lives, debt and taxes for their failings. You are right in say we cannot declare victory and leave. Everyone knows that we must stabilize Afghanistan, and Iraq. By turning our backs on these obligations, there is a good chance that other governments in the region could be destabilized leaving a situation worse than the problem we originally confronted in Afghanistan.
The solution has got to be in diplomacy. Do you think that the leader of the free world could learn to stop speaking like the star in a Clint Eastwood movie? I think it has to start with him!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 20
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 10 2003,8:57 am |
|
|
I won't debate whether going into Iraq was right or not, nobody is going to change their mind on that. What IS important is:
We don't make these mistakes again.
We have SOME KIND of consistent foreign policy.
We have a consistent way of ending conflicts.
Let's face it, the U.N., much as people would LIKE it to work, hasn't been able to enforce peace in any of its "peacekeeping" roles since its inception in 1947. Other than the abberation of the Korean War, when the Communist delegates walked out, and the U.S.-led coalition in Gulf War I, the U.N. hasn't INITIATED a "peacekeeping" mission. Asking this corrupt, ineffective, and demonstratably unwilling "organization" for "legitimacy" in peacekeeping efforts is absurd.
As demonstrated in my last post, multinational forces haven't been effective any time in the history of the world, so let's rule that out.
When do we go into a conflict? The present system seems to work well--the President can authorize it, but the War Powers act requires consent from the Senate. I think that is adequate checks and balances.
How do we achieve a consistent foreign policy? The Monroe Doctrine worked well, and we weren't even a superpower yet, just a regional player. John Kennedy's inaugural address also has meaning here--"let it be known, that we will bear any burden, pay any price......to insure freedom". Like it or not, the U.S. IS the "cop on the beat" (or your parents, if you would rather use that metaphor)--and people need to know what the law is, and where the line is drawn. Finally, foreign policy needs to be consistent in its application, not vary at the whim of the sitting president. Much like "shopping" for permission between Mom and Dad, knowing that one is more permissive than the other, nations continually "test the waters" of U.S. presidents for their resolve--or lack thereof. A "Monroe Doctrine" foreign policy lets EVERYBODY know where they stand, that it is NOT open to interpretation, and that it will survive changing administrations. That's Statesmanship.
How do we get out? By letting nations know that IF WE GO IN, WE WILL SEEK UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER. No "power sharing", no "negotiated settlement"--nothing less than inflicting enough pain on the enemy to cause them to capitulate. While not "proper" in today's "PC" world, THAT IS WHAT ARMIES DO--it's the only way you WIN wars. They need to know that we will be in for the long haul--no "100 hours and out" wars--there WILL be an occupation.
This consistency of action, this doctrine, also has benefits for the American people, the President, the Congress, and the troops. If the President knows that to commit troops means that we will be in for the long haul, he will not take that action lightly. Congress, knowing we are in for the long haul, can budget appropriately from year to year, and stop the political posturing. The American people can become involved in foreign affairs--sharing the victories and the pain. During WW II, EVERYBODY was involved--production, rationing, support of our troops. The biggest lament in our military services in the last 50 years--even more than the abysmal pay, is the lack of support for our troops--people enjoying the good life at home, while the troops act as our surrogates abroad. Having a consistent foreign policy would be good for troop morale.
"Multinational peacekeeping forces" and "international consensus" (demonstratably unachievable) hasn't worked since the end of WW II--58 years! It has been said that the definition of idiocy is "doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results". Time to go back to something we KNOW works!
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
