Sure Signs That Your Empire Is Crumbling

[BRUCE]

I'm trying to get you to define which positions in society demand instant respect, and which do not.

Why would you respect lawyers (who defend the constitution) on a case-by-case basis, yet respect soldiers universally (also defending the constitution)?

It's this blind labeling in society which is bullshit, and used selectively to win arguments.  Labeling anyone anti-"anything" to discredit them is a bitch move.

Oh okay, so will you be emailing me a list of professions so I can clarify for you?  Quit playing the fool, Rob, what I've written isn't that opaque.

Here, this should help you:

I give my highest degree of respect to any individual that gives up his, or her, own safety for the benefit of others, and the greater good.  This is regardless of title or remuneration.

Better now?

[24KT]

Oh okay, so will you be emailing me a list of professions so I can clarify for you?  Quit playing the fool, Rob, what I've written isn't that opaque.

Here, this should help you:

I give my highest degree of respect to any individual that gives up his, or her, own safety for the benefit of others, and the greater good.  This is regardless of title or remuneration.

Better now?

So why are you giving 240 such a hard time? Show the man a little respect!

[Dos Equis]

*cough* *chuckle*   

[BRUCE]

So why are you giving 240 such a hard time? Show the man a little respect!

No, he's a big boy, and can defend himself just fine.

[24KT]

*cough* *chuckle*   

Isn't that what you do doing a proctology exam? Hey Beachbum, is there something up your... 

   

[24KT]

No, he's a big boy, and can defend himself just fine.

Whether or not he can defend himself is irrelevant.
By your own criteria, he's worthy of your respect, ...so show it to him.

[240 is Back]

Oh okay, so will you be emailing me a list of professions so I can clarify for you?  Quit playing the fool, Rob, what I've written isn't that opaque.

Here, this should help you:

I give my highest degree of respect to any individual that gives up his, or her, own safety for the benefit of others, and the greater good.  This is regardless of title or remuneration.

Better now?

I'm all for that.  

Which is why I am dropping the argument with military and the other guy.  they went from debates to namecalling and "I give you freedom.  I keep you safe, virgin!

I'll let them represent themselves how they choose.  I respect the military too much to keep at it with a few of them like this.

[BRUCE]

I'm all for that.  

Which is why I am dropping the argument with military and the other guy.  they went from debates to namecalling and "I give you freedom.  I keep you safe, virgin!

I'll let them represent themselves how they choose.  I respect the military too much to keep at it with a few of them like this.

Okay, good - I'm glad we can see eye-to-eye in terms of respecting such people.

[240 is Back]

Okay, good - I'm glad we can see eye-to-eye in terms of respecting such people.

Yeah.  Originally, I tried to avoid debating them altogether.  Obviously I appreciate the job they're doing and I hate to debate, for the chance the "see my point" and start to self-doubt, which is dangerous.

It gets hard though, when soldiers use their position as currency in an argument, and make attacks.  To attack them back is to attack our troops.  yet they throw it in my face that I'm a virgin who they give freedom too, etc. 

Obviously I'm an emotional guy, and I'm starting to come to terms with what the US is doing over there.  I know the war might be morally wrong on some levels, but for US interests, it's probably right.  But to hear people say oil has nothing to do with it, I still get irritated and respond. 

Anyway, I don't plan on debating them on the war anymore.  I mean it this time

[Dos Equis]

Isn't that what you do doing a proctology exam? Hey Beachbum, is there something up your... 

   

Bwahahahahaha!!!    O.K.  That was funny.    I've already had this debate with my mother, but I am forgoing the prostate exam.  I'm almost at that age when they are "required."  Butt   I have decided that I will die a virgin.  No doctor is sticking no hand up Beach Bum's big bun.  Uh uh.  Nope.  Not gonna happen. . . . .  

[headhuntersix]

Yeah.  Originally, I tried to avoid debating them altogether.  Obviously I appreciate the job they're doing and I hate to debate, for the chance the "see my point" and start to self-doubt, which is dangerous.

It gets hard though, when soldiers use their position as currency in an argument, and make attacks.  To attack them back is to attack our troops.  yet they throw it in my face that I'm a virgin who they give freedom too, etc. 

Obviously I'm an emotional guy, and I'm starting to come to terms with what the US is doing over there.  I know the war might be morally wrong on some levels, but for US interests, it's probably right.  But to hear people say oil has nothing to do with it, I still get irritated and respond. 

Anyway, I don't plan on debating them on the war anymore.  I mean it this time

Yeah u really kept to that..bro debate the war..but Ribo started all this crap anyway. Based on recent history..if the public does not back the war..the soldiers suffer. We become isolated. It happened in Algeria, with the counter insurgency by the French in the early 60's. The damm Legion plotted to drop on Paris and take over the government. Look at Vietnam. We had destroyed the VC by 1969. Tet was launched to crush the VC and turn public opnion in the States. THe NVA knew that they would have a problem with the VC should they win and they knew that opinion on the war in the states was waivering and they could nudge it in their favor. We had them bottled up pretty good through 1973 and then we left. 2 years later Saigon fell. The same thing is happening in Iraq. We crush these guys in every major pitched battle but getting bled little by little, the pictures on the news etc. Its sends a bad mention to the guys fighting and heartens the insurgents. Further if Iran, Syria and even Al Queda said they had little hope of winnning in Iraq and were pulling out or issueing a fatwa calling for arab fighters to leave Iraq..how would we view that. We'd say we're winning.

[240 is Back]

See HH6,

I just want the US troops out of the iraqi cities.  let maliki do his job.  let the police do their job.

we can guard the border and we can guard the pipeline. 

i'm not wanting to leave iraq and the resources we're there for.

but i do want americans to stop dying.

[BRUCE]

See HH6,

I just want the US troops out of the iraqi cities.  let maliki do his job.  let the police do their job.

we can guard the border and we can guard the pipeline. 

i'm not wanting to leave iraq and the resources we're there for.

but i do want americans to stop dying.

But not Iraqis.

[240 is Back]

But not Iraqis.

I believe that if any group is going to take risks and yes, die in action, in order to remove the crime and insurgency from Iraq... IT SHOULD BE IRAQIS!

[BRUCE]

I believe that if any group is going to take risks and yes, die in action, in order to remove the crime and insurgency from Iraq... IT SHOULD BE IRAQIS!

How about we give them a little help getting on their feet first, okay?

[240 is Back]

How about we give them a little help getting on their feet first, okay?

We've been there 4 years so far.

Been training their police for what, almost 2.5 years now?

how many more do you want to give them?  The guys from the Police Academy movies could have secured baghdad by now.

[BRUCE]

We've been there 4 years so far.

Been training their police for what, almost 2.5 years now?

how many more do you want to give them?  The guys from the Police Academy movies could have secured baghdad by now.

Why treat the allied forces with such disdain? You do realise people are actually losing their lives while you chuckle at their apparent clumsiness?

[240 is Back]

Why treat the allied forces with such disdain? You do realise people are actually losing their lives while you chuckle at their apparent clumsiness?

The forces are fighting very hard.

They are being cuffed by their bosses, IMO.

The situation in baghdad should have been resolved long ago.

We have to wonder why standards and expectations are so low. 

Does it have anything to do with the fact that when we finally win - we lose control of the oil?

[BRUCE]

The forces are fighting very hard.

They are being cuffed by their bosses, IMO.

The situation in baghdad should have been resolved long ago.

We have to wonder why standards and expectations are so low. 

Does it have anything to do with the fact that when we finally win - we lose control of the oil?

There's no need to portray our forces as bumbling fools, Rob.  I imagine things are far more difficult in Iraq than what you give credit for.

[240 is Back]

There's no need to portray our forces as bumbling fools, Rob.  I imagine things are far more difficult in Iraq than what you give credit for.

Dude, I was really discouraged when I saw Bush wanted 15% this year, and 15% troop incease for the next 5 years.

Does that sounds like a strategy to WIN, or to STALEMATE?

The insurgency grows too.  And we're going to just keep up. 

If you combine the same troop:enemy ratios, with the generals'  inability to give any timeline for victory or quantifiable goals, and the only strategy they're telling us for this 7th different initiative is "more troops!"...

Well it doesn' tlook like they're trying to win the thing.  Looks like they're stalling.

[BRUCE]

Well it doesn' tlook like they're trying to win the thing.  Looks like they're stalling.

Actually, it looks to me like they're doing the best they can, given the opposition a whole lot of people domestically are giving them.  I disagree the 'insurgency' is growing, and I take offence to you labelling them as such.  They are terrorists, nothing more, nothing less.

[240 is Back]

Actually, it looks to me like they're doing the best they can, given the opposition a whole lot of people domestically are giving them.  I disagree the 'insurgency' is growing, and I take offence to you labelling them as such.  They are terrorists, nothing more, nothing less.

The US mainstream media calls them insurgency.  I was using it so people here wouild follow.  personally, I consider them jihadists and yes, terrorists.  However, the warrning factions who wish to kill for their sunni/'shiite battle - I guess they are jihadists or religious fanatics?

I guess we can ask the soldiers here if the 'terrorist movement' is growing. They (the terrorists) have learned to take down aircraft now (4 last week I believe), and it really sucks because we lose that advantage and it becomes a ground game where we lose some of our advantage. 

[BRUCE]

The US mainstream media calls them insurgency.  I was using it so people here wouild follow.  personally, I consider them jihadists and yes, terrorists.  However, the warrning factions who wish to kill for their sunni/'shiite battle - I guess they are jihadists or religious fanatics?

I guess we can ask the soldiers here if the 'terrorist movement' is growing. They (the terrorists) have learned to take down aircraft now (4 last week I believe), and it really sucks because we lose that advantage and it becomes a ground game where we lose some of our advantage. 

That's a pretty sensible post, Rob.

[headhuntersix]

It depends on where u are. U guys think that these guys are all lumps of clay ready to be molded into uber commando's or something. I don't have experience with the Iraqi militray except the old one we kicked the shit outa. Its a cultural thing. I have watched the ANA/ANP fight. (Afghans) The Afghan SF folks are pretty good but they are usually drawn from guys who fought against the Sov's and Taliban. Most also served with our SF during the war. The ANA guys are learning but unlike shoving uniforms at the Japs or Germans and pointing them toward Russia, the cultural differences are vast. Training guys who have tribal rivalries we don't understand are almost impossible. They leave when they want..they won't serve in certain area's etc.

[ribonucleic]

They are being cuffed by their bosses, IMO.

In a previous post, you stated as a given that American forces should be able to beat anyone. I disagreed with you then - but didn't think it worth mentioning.

But this kind of statement - which I've heard many times from that gasbag Michael Reagan while driving home from work [there was nothing else on!  ] - is not only an echo of the discreditable right-wing grumbling we've been hearing for decades since Vietnam, I think it's morally irresponsible.

Our "handcuffed" fighting has already killed tens of thousands of civilians - with the attendant rise of murderous anti-American sentiment that will make us significantly less safe for the foreseeable future. When the frustrated commanders decide "F#ck it, we're going to shoot first and (maybe) ask questions later", that dynamic will become 10 times worse.

And you know what? It still won't work. Because a lumbering technology-based army like ours can not win against a fluid native guerrilla resistance without resorting to open genocide. You might as well try to scoop up water with a sieve. There are plenty of command minds in the military who understand this. But they all resigned in frustration or were fired so they could be replaced with generals who would parrot the insane ambitions of the Supreme Leader.

Which leads me to suspect that the "let's take the gloves off" sentiment really has nothing to do with prevailing. Ultimately, it's the tantrum of a frustrated child who pulls the head off its doll when the voicebox stops working. The insurgency demonstrates every day that we are not as powerful as our national myth insists. So let's just lash out blindly at every brown face we see. That will teach them!

As Orwell told us: The point of torture is torture.

The point of indiscriminate killing is indiscriminate killing.