Video of run-down barracks

LadyT said:
1) Stop projecting. I said its stupid to join now. Not once have I said that I hated our military or its troops.

2) I can't think of one initiative dedicated to taking care of their well being and education that I've never supported.

3) Not supporting war initiatives does not equate to not supporting their well being. Stop being obtuse.
Click to expand...
1: You did NOT say it is stupid to join "NOW". You said it is stupid to join.
I would say signing up for indentured servitude is stupid - particularly if you have other means of education and opportunity.
Click to expand...

First, equating military service to indentured servitude is insulting and demeaning. There is no way you are not aware of that.

Second, it is demeaning to indicate the only possible reason for joining the military is for educational benefits or opportunity. There are those who use the benefits, yes. But if you think they are not aware of what earning those educational benefits involves, you are the one being "obtuse". But then you slap those who did not join for the educational benefits. They are the "stupid" ones since a jump start on opportunity or education is the only possible reason for serving. Your comment also ignores and demeans those who choose to make the military their career.

When one can show such total contempt and disdain for military service and those who choose to serve, there is little doubt how you truly feel toward the military. Hate is a very accurate description.

2: Every time you support cutbacks in military expenditures, you support the continued decay of long neglected military infrastructure and second rate equipment. For instance, the decision in 1993 to go with the unarmored version of the HMMVV was a budget decision made by Congress. Then you wonder why we don't have adequately armored vehicles when they are needed?

3: Very true. One can be against the way the military is deployed but still be supportive of the military. But your other rhetoric makes that claim doubtful.
 
what is funny to me is I was told years ago by a marine near and dear to my heart who now works with the pentagon as a civilian that the people at the pentagon Hate Bush. This was not long after he started the fricking war.
 
Socrtease said:
This is arguing in the abstract. There is NOTHING to show that the Iraqi government has done ANYTHING substantial to meet the milestones and we don't even really talk about them anymore. Instead we talk about We can stand down when they stand up, we can stay there for 100 years if they were just stable and not shooting at us, knowing full well that as long as we are there they will be shooting at us. Christ, the Arabs got their asses handed to them by the Israelis and the death by a thousand cuts keeps on going. Do you really think that we are going to be any more successful than the Israeli's are? If so you are kidding yourself. The Arabs hate us in the ME for the same reason they hate the Israeli's and because we support the Israeli's. As for pulling out saving lives, it will save American lives and I don't a fuck about the Iraqi's. But I KNOW we broke it so we bought it. When asked after the first Gulf War why we didn't invade Iraq, Cheney said that we could not be involved in occupying Iraq and that it would become "A Quagmire", his words not mine. Nothing has changed and he was right then.
Click to expand...
There is nothing abstract about the statement that the stability and strength of the Iraqi government is an important factor in our ability to pull out. As you said, we broke it, we bought it. That precludes a unilateral with drawl at this time. Yes we have abandoned the milestones because Bush has neither the personal gumption nor the international support needed to push the Iraqi government into taking up the reigns. But that does not mean we should not work out a new set of goals with the Iraqi government and then HOLD THEM TO IT.

As for not invading in '91, I believe it was a mistake. The quagmire we see today is as much as much a result of little to no international support as it is due to the power vacuum left by Saddam. While there is no doubt things would have been sticky had we taken Saddam out in '91, due to the circumstances we would have had much more international support both at the beginning and long term, which could and would have made a significant difference in the results. Leaving a regime in power who invaded a neighboring country, after defeating them, was, at the time, unprecedented. IMO it was not a good precedent to set.
 
Good god dont you even KNOW why OBL attacked us????/

It was because of our presence in Saudi Arabia during the first gulf war.

We no good reason to invade Iraq back then and it wuold have been a mess then too.

I wish like hell you people would get to KNOW the enemy instead acting like its germany we are occupying instead of an Islamic country with a completetly different dynamic.
 
Desh said:
what is funny to me is I was told years ago by a marine near and dear to my heart who now works with the pentagon as a civilian that the people at the pentagon Hate Bush. This was not long after he started the fricking war.
Click to expand...
There is not a lot of admiration for President Bush, and that attitude is not limited to those in the Pentagon. His understanding of military matters is worse than pathetic. His fiasco with the "Mission Accomplished" sign was ridiculous. At that point the BEST he could have claimed was "Round One to the U.S. on points." When it comes to military, he is an imbecile studying to be a moron.
 
He has never listened to the military. He has pushed out any commander who did not do it his way.

So my suggestion is to stop telling people you speak for all the military.

When you watch what these assholes have done to the people serving in our national guard as well as all our services can you be surprized young Americans would think it was stupid to join the military now?

Their contracts have been extended without their consent, they go in poorly armed, treated like shit by the contractors who are supposed to provide services and care for them, treated like shit when wounded, are having to serve with criminals and have the people who voted to send then to war vote against benifits for them.

Realize its not anyones fault but the people who voted this half wit into office twice. Now your party puts up an assclown who agrees with these same ideas.
 
Desh said:
Good god dont you even KNOW why OBL attacked us????/

It was because of our presence in Saudi Arabia during the first gulf war.

We no good reason to invade Iraq back then and it wuold have been a mess then too.

I wish like hell you people would get to KNOW the enemy instead acting like its germany we are occupying instead of an Islamic country with a completetly different dynamic.
Click to expand...
I strongly suggest that YOU could do with a little less democratic party bullshit and replace it with a little study on the area, the mandates of extremist Muslim fundamentalism, and the character of Osama Bin Laden.

I know it is difficult for some to understand, but in 1991 an economic ALLY of the United States was the victim of a war of conquest. You may believe it is the moral high road to let allies be invaded by a foreign government, but that is not the way the real world works. The Saudi government understood the situation well enough to allow U.S. troops to be stationed there. That pissed of Bin Laden, but TOO FUCKING BAD! His REASONS for objecting to U.S. presence in Saudi was due to his extremism, not because of some high level principle. He was mad because we are not fundamentalist Islam, not because he thought it was wrong to come defend Kuwait. If we were an Islamic nation, you can bet he would have had no objections to the U.S kicking Saddam out of Kuwait. The Saudi government kicked Bin Laden's ass out of the country.

Another thing to understand about people like Bin Laden: they maintain their power by instilling fear and hatred against some specified target of opportunity. Being it has been popular to hate the U.S. for several decades, we were a natural target. Had we stayed out of Saudi, he undoubtedly would have found other reasons to attack the U.S.

And sorry to bust your little rose colored bubble, but when one country invades an ally, it IS reason to invade the offensive country and depose the regime that started the war of conquest. Leaving such people in power is only asking for more trouble at a later date.

Also, Iraq had NOTHING to do with Bin Laden. I do not give a rat's testicles what the media claims people believe was going on between Iraq and Al Queda. The two had, at the most, talked with each other. There was no collusion or support from Iraq that can possibly be tied to the attacks on 9/11/01.

Iraq had to do with a tyrannical despot with delusions of grandeur. I do not think it was wise to invade Iraq in '03. We should have done it in '91, but since we did not, going in 2003 was too late to take advantage of any international anti-Saddam sentiment. We had intelligence estimates that determined Saddam to be a threat in supplying chemical weapons and other nastiness to terrorist organizations. (NOT Al Queda - they hated each other.) IMO that threat could have been better handled with a series of tightly selective bombing missions aimed at taking out those sights suspected of manufacturing and/or storing chemical weapons.

Then again, I also believe that either Saddam or one of his sons would have eventually caused some significant trouble along the lines of what they did to Kuwait or worse, leading to a need for further, possibly even more expensive military intervention. I am happy his regime is gone. Just wish we hadn't screwed the pooch getting there.
 
Desh said:
He has never listened to the military. He has pushed out any commander who did not do it his way.

So my suggestion is to stop telling people you speak for all the military.

When you watch what these assholes have done to the people serving in our national guard as well as all our services can you be surprized young Americans would think it was stupid to join the military now?

Their contracts have been extended without their consent, they go in poorly armed, treated like shit by the contractors who are supposed to provide services and care for them, treated like shit when wounded, are having to serve with criminals and have the people who voted to send then to war vote against benifits for them.

Realize its not anyones fault but the people who voted this half wit into office twice. Now your party puts up an assclown who agrees with these same ideas.
Click to expand...
Give it a fucking rest. Can you come up with ONE thing not printed in bold by the democratic national party? While I have not once claimed to speak for ALL the military, I do believe that 40 years service has given me some significant insight how the military works.

No one's contract has been extended against their will. EVERY enlistment contract includes a period of inactive reserve service, during which one can be called to active duty. The most common division is 4 years active duty and 4 years inactive reserve. It is part of the contract, and is very carefully explained to incoming recruits. Activating the reserve clause is NOT extending a contract.

As for going in poorly armed, look to your precious democratic party for that fiasco. Both the Army and the Marine Corps pushed hard for armored personnel vehicles instead of the HMMVV. But the PTBs in congress decided they know more about military matters, and determined that vehicles intended for rear area use did not have to be armored. So that is what we went to war with. Personal armor was considered by the budget people to be low priority in "peacetime", so we didn't have enough in 2003. These situations all stem from the series of military cutbacks congress made in 1990, 1992 and 1993.

Those same cuts decimated the ready reserve, cutting ready reservist personnel by 38% nation wide and active duty personnel by 14%. So once again, look to the democrats for the reason our National Guard finds itself over extended and doing multiple tours of duty.

The conditions of veteran hospitals is nothing new, though the democratic party sure as hell likes to pretend it is. the democratic party has been sweeping their anti-military shit under the rug for decades, then act all surprised when it is revealed. The hospitals and level of medical care were just as bad, in some cases worse, when the democrats were in power as they are now. I know, I spent enough time in the damned places. I have a stainless steel ass because they were too fucking ignorant and cheap to remove a bullet fragment before it destroyed my hip socket.

And just MAYBE people would not be so reluctant to join if they did not see what you modern liberals think of them. ie: calling them "stupid" for volunteering for military service. And let's not mention how certain democratic politicians refer to them as terrorists. It is the typical anti-military bullshit that took place during Viet Nam, only today it is topped with the hypocritical LIE that you support the troops. If you supported the military, your party would not have cut the military to the bone and then act surprised at the condition of the military infrastructure.
 
where the FUCK did I say it was wrong to defend Kuwait?

I said it was American military presence in SA that he mainly objected to.

He did not say us protecting Kuwiat either.

It would have been a mess to go into Iraq at any time.

The same damned thing would have happened.


KNOW your enemy.

Know your enemy.

Know your enemy.

The right refuses to admitt what they know caused this reaction by the right wing of the Muslim religion. It was what I said earlier.

Pretending I am saying they were right to be mad is bullshit.

Its just what motivated them. I pretty much hate all organized religion for just these stupid reasons. Its designed to allow nut bags to manipulate people into killing each ohter for god.

I defended Bush 41 for going into kuwait and defended him for NOT taking Iraq at the time. I am so sick of people backing anything for party purpose. Anyone who knew anything about the Iraq peoples history knew it would be a mess.

It is NOT fixable with tanks and guns. the WOT is NOT fixable with tanks and guns.

You cant fight ideas (even bad ones) with tanks and guns. You cant force democracy at the point of a gun.


we won the war and now we are losing the occupation. Do you know how you "win" an occupation? YOU LEAVE!
 
Good Luck said:
Give it a fucking rest. Can you come up with ONE thing not printed in bold by the democratic national party? While I have not once claimed to speak for ALL the military, I do believe that 40 years service has given me some significant insight how the military works.

No one's contract has been extended against their will. EVERY enlistment contract includes a period of inactive reserve service, during which one can be called to active duty. The most common division is 4 years active duty and 4 years inactive reserve. It is part of the contract, and is very carefully explained to incoming recruits. Activating the reserve clause is NOT extending a contract.

As for going in poorly armed, look to your precious democratic party for that fiasco. Both the Army and the Marine Corps pushed hard for armored personnel vehicles instead of the HMMVV. But the PTBs in congress decided they know more about military matters, and determined that vehicles intended for rear area use did not have to be armored. So that is what we went to war with. Personal armor was considered by the budget people to be low priority in "peacetime", so we didn't have enough in 2003. These situations all stem from the series of military cutbacks congress made in 1990, 1992 and 1993.

Those same cuts decimated the ready reserve, cutting ready reservist personnel by 38% nation wide and active duty personnel by 14%. So once again, look to the democrats for the reason our National Guard finds itself over extended and doing multiple tours of duty.

The conditions of veteran hospitals is nothing new, though the democratic party sure as hell likes to pretend it is. the democratic party has been sweeping their anti-military shit under the rug for decades, then act all surprised when it is revealed. The hospitals and level of medical care were just as bad, in some cases worse, when the democrats were in power as they are now. I know, I spent enough time in the damned places. I have a stainless steel ass because they were too fucking ignorant and cheap to remove a bullet fragment before it destroyed my hip socket.

And just MAYBE people would not be so reluctant to join if they did not see what you modern liberals think of them. ie: calling them "stupid" for volunteering for military service. And let's not mention how certain democratic politicians refer to them as terrorists. It is the typical anti-military bullshit that took place during Viet Nam, only today it is topped with the hypocritical LIE that you support the troops. If you supported the military, your party would not have cut the military to the bone and then act surprised at the condition of the military infrastructure.
Click to expand...

I don't know your politics and I don't care. Where I come from what you just did is called dropping knowledge.
 
Desh said:
where the FUCK did I say it was wrong to defend Kuwait?

I said it was American military presence in SA that he mainly objected to.

He did not say us protecting Kuwiat either.

It would have been a mess to go into Iraq at any time.

The same damned thing would have happened.


KNOW your enemy.

Know your enemy.

Know your enemy.

The right refuses to admitt what they know caused this reaction by the right wing of the Muslim religion. It was what I said earlier.

Pretending I am saying they were right to be mad is bullshit.

Its just what motivated them. I pretty much hate all organized religion for just these stupid reasons. Its designed to allow nut bags to manipulate people into killing each ohter for god.

I defended Bush 41 for going into kuwait and defended him for NOT taking Iraq at the time. I am so sick of people backing anything for party purpose. Anyone who knew anything about the Iraq peoples history knew it would be a mess.

It is NOT fixable with tanks and guns. the WOT is NOT fixable with tanks and guns.

You cant fight ideas (even bad ones) with tanks and guns. You cant force democracy at the point of a gun.


we won the war and now we are losing the occupation. Do you know how you "win" an occupation? YOU LEAVE!
Click to expand...
How, exactly, were we supposed to deal with the Kuwait situation without someplace to harbor our troops?

Also, it is wise to allow ONE radical fundamentalist rich boy angry with the U.S. for pulling support in Afghanistan prior to the So who was not even part of the government we were dealing with to set our international or military policy? Get fucking real.

Point three: Kuwait was NOT part of the war on terror. It was a reaction to a war of aggression against an economic ally started by Saddam Hussein. By all international doctrine at the time, occupying a country guilty of a war of aggression and removing the regime responsible was an acceptable response. Being such, the international reaction would have been far different, and the resulting occupation would have been different. Going in unilaterally 12 years later was a mistake.

And don't even APPROACH me about blindly supporting anything party. I fucking left the democratic party - essentially was kicked out by a little twerp running a democratic campaign office - because I did NOT blindly support all things of the democratic party.

I voted primarily republican the last couple elections because the democratic party no longer even pretends to hold to the ideals I joined the democratic party for. But I am not registered republican, nor do I blindly support anything coming from the republicans.

Believe it or not, one CAN actually have the unmitigated GALL to (gasp) DISAGREE (:shock:) with the prevailing democratic party line of shit and not be some puppet of the republican party.
 
Good Luck said:
I am not familiar with that term. Care to explain?
Click to expand...

It was kind of a playground/slang term for you educated someone one. Ultimately it was a compliment to your post. You really described what was going on and what happened with the U.S. and the Middle East and did so in a way that was not partisan driven which is appreciated. We all have the ability to read party talking points. I liked your answer.

(ok, I'll get off my knees now)
 
uscitizen said:
seems like OBL used to be our buddy too.
didn't we pretty much create AQ ?
Click to expand...
That is a myth.

Bin Laden was part of the Afghan rebel movement, which we did support both directly with food and medical supplies, and under-the-table with military equipment. The withdrawl of the military support in late 1988 as part of an agreement we made with the Soviet Union was one reason Bin Laden was pissed at the U.S.

The only relationship, other than Bin Laden himself, between the Afghan rebels as an organization and Al Queda comes from Bin Laden setting up an organization for veterans of the Afghan war. That was in 1989 after Bin Laden had returned to Saudi Arabia. There was no support from the U.S involved.
 
AGIAN I never said we should not have done Kuwait.

Why do you keep playing that one?

I also said its UNDERSTANDING your enemy NOT agreeing with them or thinking they are right.

why do you pretend Im saying what I am not saying?

You see staying in Iraq gains us nothing. It gains the oil companies though.

We need to leave and have it monitored by the UN and an international force so that the blowback is not owned just by us.

You may think its smart to cause more terror but I and many dont think its wise to repete fucking mistakes.
 
cawacko said:
It was kind of a playground/slang term for you educated someone one. Ultimately it was a compliment to your post. You really described what was going on and what happened with the U.S. and the Middle East and did so in a way that was not partisan driven which is appreciated. We all have the ability to read party talking points. I liked your answer.

(ok, I'll get off my knees now)
Click to expand...
Well, thanks for the compliment. I can hope someone is educated by it. Kinda has an anti-democratic flavor, but not from being republican. Its from spending 40 years in the military and watching every democratic administration and every democratic-majority congress "push it up the tail pipe" of the military.

But republicans have not been a great deal better with respect to the issue that started this thread. To their credit the better pay increases over the years came from republicans. And the republican party does like to give us fancy new (and expensive) toys to do our job with - many of which have saved many, many lives. They also believe in a well manned ALL VOLUNTEER military.

But republicans have been sadly lacking when it comes to allocating expenditures for upkeep of basic infrastructure like barracks, mess halls, and hospitals.
 
Oh you really sound like a guy who used to be a democrat, not.

You have pretty much your entire time here done nothing but defend these idiots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top