What would people say if this happened?

[Decker]

I disagree with u over this and we have spoken about this many time..I see it more as indifference.....then u had a draft....now people have no stek in it. If they don't ever plan on serving they have nothing to worry about. I would like think that if there was a draft that folks would be more inclined to pressure Bush to WIN and pull out instead of pull out. I don't see the spiting or the hate..but if there was a draft u would..people just don't care as much either way.

I don't understand this line of reasoning.  The US invaded a sovereign Iraq illegally.  The UN authorization that Bush violated was predicated on Iraq's possession of WMDs.  

What in god's green earth gives the US the right to decimate that country--some 66,000 civilians with whom the US has no beef are dead.  

Now we are supposed to win?  Win what?  This is a 5000 year old tribal culture.  We are going to change that with daily violence and a straw government?

A military excursion of this type in Iraq doesn't fight terrorism--it fuels it.  

Since Bush's illegal war on terror started, worldwide terrorist attacks have grown exponentially some 600%, terrorist caused deaths are up 237%.
http://www.securitymanagement.com/library/001978.html

Fighting terrorism is a police problem not a military one.

[militarymuscle69]

How could people support the troops better? 

I'm just curious.

Because i don;t see a change in the support domestically changing anything going on in Iraq.  But i could be blind to something.

The biggest thing is how public opinion affect ROE and I'm sure HH6 could comment more on that. It does affect morale like it or not when you are in Iraq at the chow hall and the news is on with nothing but bashing going on. I know 240 will say we shouldn't need coddling, but when it is day after day it wears on a person. Especially being thousands of miles away, without family. I don't expect people to run around praising Bush and the average Joe doesn't really bother me. It is mostly the politicians that drag on us, with all of these non binding resolutions and WASTING time passing bills that will be vetoed. 

[ieffinhatecardio]

I don't understand this line of reasoning.  The US invaded a sovereign Iraq illegally.  The UN authorization that Bush violated was predicated on Iraq's possession of WMDs. 

What in god's green earth gives the US the right to decimate that country--some 66,000 civilians with whom the US has no beef are dead. 

Now we are supposed to win?  Win what?  This is a 5000 year old tribal culture.  We are going to change that with daily violence and a straw government?

A military excursion of this type in Iraq doesn't fight terrorism--it fuels it.

Since Bush's illegal war on terror started, worldwide terrorist attacks have grown exponentially some 600%, terrorist caused deaths are up 237%.
http://www.securitymanagement.com/library/001978.html

Fighting terrorism is a police problem not a military one.

Unfortunately I think that point is absolutely correct. Our actions are helping to fuel hatred.

How long before Iraq could be a viable country able to sustain it's own democracy without any help from the US? Will it ever happen? I don't think so. This battle to make Iraq a democratic nation is a losing one, without outside support the democracy would never succeed.

Outside of the major cities of Iraq I'm guessing the mind set of the people will never change. I'd also guess that it won't change for many in the major cities as well. Democracy is fighting one hell of a battle.

[OzmO]

This kind of thing seems to be pretty much common knowledge.

Although there are still a great many that think our invasion helped us in the war on terror.

I like Decker's assertion:   Fighting terrorism is a police problem not a military one.

The model that has been created in the Middle East because of Iraq will plague any military force who doesn't have the hearts and minds of the people.

[Deadpool]

are we following our "success"in Iraq with another "success" in Iran?  hope not

[The Enigma]

we pay our taxes.  we follow the law.

you really should stop playing the "i serve my country so i'm better than you" card.  Kinda takes away your hero status and replaces it with self-righteous glory hound.  Like the firefighter who makes fun of the accountant at a party to try to show him up to get laid.  Your position loses all inherent respect when you try to use it as leverage in an argument.  you're at your job, you're paid for it.  you don't "deserve" add'l props, even tho you get plenty.  You've been doing this a lot lately, and it cheapens the honor the military deserves, when you demand/expect it.

240, I'm beginning to wonder about MM69.......he really sounds more like administration propaganda, Bush has people who roam the internet and their sole job is "selling minds"

I'm beginning to wonder...............

[Dos Equis]

This kind of thing seems to be pretty much common knowledge.

Although there are still a great many that think our invasion helped us in the war on terror.

I like Decker's assertion:   Fighting terrorism is a police problem not a military one.

It's both.  Wiping out the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan was a necessary military operation. 

[OzmO]

It's both.  Wiping out the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan was a necessary military operation. 

Yep,  i was going to add special forces as part of that.  Quick strike rapid deployment brigades.

[240 is Back]

$200 million a day to haliburton that my kids have to repay.

Yes, I do have a stake in this when that money is being borrowed from chinese banks on US land collateral.

[240 is Back]

It does affect morale like it or not when you are in Iraq at the chow hall and the news is on with nothing but bashing going on. I know 240 will say we shouldn't need coddling, but when it is day after day it wears on a person. Especially being thousands of miles away, without family. I don't expect people to run around praising Bush and the average Joe doesn't really bother me. It is mostly the politicians that drag on us, with all of these non binding resolutions and WASTING time passing bills that will be vetoed. 

We want you guys home.  We are tired of seeing you die.  And, when you have Bush/Snow using your deaths for political capital, it turns our stomach.

[OzmO]

We want you guys home.  We are tired of seeing you die.  And, when you have Bush/Snow using your deaths for political capital, it turns our stomach.

In my opinion, this is far removed from the lack of support US service men had in 1970

I think for the most part you don;t see anything near that here.

[Decker]

It's both.  Wiping out the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan was a necessary military operation. 

I disagree.  It flies in the face of the fact that the mass death and destruction creates more terrorists than it eliminates. 

In fact terrorism is on the rise in Afghanistan. http://securityinnovator.com/index.php?articleID=10732&sectionID=27
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16666549/
The Taliban is still intact and under Pakistani protection as is Al Qaeda.  The Taliban is still attacking the US installed gov. of Afghanistan.  http://www.saag.org/papers12/paper1172.html

[Dos Equis]

I disagree.  It flies in the face of the fact that the mass death and destruction creates more terrorists than it eliminates. 

In fact terrorism is on the rise in Afghanistan. http://securityinnovator.com/index.php?articleID=10732&sectionID=27
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16666549/
The Taliban is still intact and under Pakistani protection as is Al Qaeda.  The Taliban is still attacking the US installed gov. of Afghanistan.  http://www.saag.org/papers12/paper1172.html

Are you saying we should not have bombed the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan? 

[Decker]

Are you saying we should not have bombed the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan? 

I think that's fairly obvious from my response.

Look at the pages and pages of terrorist attacks in Afghanistan:
http://www.terrorismknowledgebase.org/MoreCountryIncidents.jsp?countryCd=AF

Do those results look like terrorism has been contained in that country?

Here's a quote from the Afghani summary for 2005:  "Proactive arrests of presumed terrorists have continued, probably preventing many bombings.Despite this progress, Afghanistan saw an increasing number of violent incidents in 2005."  There is no summary for 2006, just pages and pages of incidents.

The problem with your straw argument of "bombing the terrorist camps" is that collateral damage does not exist in that universe.

[Dos Equis]

I think that's fairly obvious from my response.

Look at the pages and pages of terrorist attacks in Afghanistan:
http://www.terrorismknowledgebase.org/MoreCountryIncidents.jsp?countryCd=AF

Do those results look like terrorism has been contained in that country?

Here's a quote from the Afghani summary for 2005:  "Proactive arrests of presumed terrorists have continued, probably preventing many bombings.Despite this progress, Afghanistan saw an increasing number of violent incidents in 2005."  There is no summary for 2006, just pages and pages of incidents.

The problem with your straw argument of "bombing the terrorist camps" is that collateral damage does not exist in that universe.

I looked at one of the links.  Not sure what it has to do with whether or not we should have bombed Al Qaeda and their host the Taliban in 2001?

And what straw man argument did I make?  Also don't understand what you mean by "collateral damage does not exist in that universe"?   

I'm confident we did the right by going into Afghanistan.  In your opinion, what was the alternative? 

[Decker]

I looked at one of the links.  Not sure what it has to do with whether or not we should have bombed Al Qaeda and their host the Taliban in 2001?

And what straw man argument did I make?  Also don't understand what you mean by "collateral damage does not exist in that universe"?   

I'm confident we did the right by going into Afghanistan.  In your opinion, what was the alternative? 

We attacked cities: Kandahar, Jalalabad, the capitol Kabul.  I think it is a stretch to say we bombed terrorist camps.  That's where the collateral damage comes in.

This is a very interesting topic.  I will not be able to answer more today b/c I gotta go home.  It's well past 4:30 here in the great city of Milwaukee and I'm off to home.  I don't want an upset wife.

Have a great weekend BeachBum

[Dos Equis]

We attacked cities: Kandahar, Jalalabad, the capitol Kabul.  I think it is a stretch to say we bombed terrorist camps.  That's where the collateral damage comes in.

This is a very interesting topic.  I will not be able to answer more today b/c I gotta go home.  It's well past 4:30 here in the great city of Milwaukee and I'm off to home.  I don't want an upset wife.

Have a great weekend BeachBum

Some of the camps and/or terrorists were in the cities, no?  Collateral damage is always a concern.  This is the reason why our men and women are dying in Iraq.  We could end this thing by wiping out areas, grid by grid, but because of our ROE and concern for collateral damage, we do the house-to-house thing.  We're not trained to do this. 

We can discuss later.  Even though we are probably pretty far apart politically, you are a good addition to the board.  Have a good weekend.  Last thing you need is an upset wife.  They are no fun.     Have a great weekend.  It's Aloha Friday.   

[The Enigma]

Unfortunately I think that point is absolutely correct. Our actions are helping to fuel hatred.

How long before Iraq could be a viable country able to sustain it's own democracy without any help from the US? Will it ever happen? I don't think so. This battle to make Iraq a democratic nation is a losing one, without outside support the democracy would never succeed.

Outside of the major cities of Iraq I'm guessing the mind set of the people will never change. I'd also guess that it won't change for many in the major cities as well. Democracy is fighting one hell of a battle.

Jeff, no offense, but could you possibly pick a less graphic pic..... for your avatar.

I thank you in advance.

[Hugo Chavez]

We take 50% of the B-52s from Barksdale, 50% of the B-2s from Whiteman, 50% of the B-1s from Dyess, load them to the gills, fly over to Iran/Iraq/NK (take your pick) and bomb the living shit out of it until they give up. What would all the Libs have to say about that?

You're such a freaking moron Of course in your mind this would make the world much safer   What you would have is terrorism on a scale massively greater than we have now.  Listen to your bullshit, you sound like a wannabe sith lord.  Put down you Darth Maul action figure you goofball.

[OzmO]

We attacked cities: Kandahar, Jalalabad, the capitol Kabul.  I think it is a stretch to say we bombed terrorist camps.  That's where the collateral damage comes in.

This is a very interesting topic.  I will not be able to answer more today b/c I gotta go home.  It's well past 4:30 here in the great city of Milwaukee and I'm off to home.  I don't want an upset wife.

Have a great weekend BeachBum

Question:   You have a terrorist camp in Iraq or some place.  There's 200 occupants and they are heavily armed.  Do the police handle this or does rapid deployment brigade handle this?

[Hedgehog]

We take 50% of the B-52s from Barksdale, 50% of the B-2s from Whiteman, 50% of the B-1s from Dyess, load them to the gills, fly over to Iran/Iraq/NK (take your pick) and bomb the living shit out of it until they give up. What would all the Libs have to say about that?

What about the millions of civilians who would be killed?

All those people who are suffering under the terrible dictator Kim Jong-Il, why do you want to kill all of them?

-Hedge

[240 is Back]

What about the millions of civilians who would be killed?

All those people who are suffering under the terrible dictator Kim Jong-Il, why do you want to kill all of them?

-Hedge

mm69 isn't capable of understanding the longterm ramifications of an oil-rich land with zero infrastructure or ogranized leadership/enforcement capability.  He doesn't understand that he'd be fueling the US' own demise by allowing bad guys to move into the decimated area and grab the oil and use that money to hurt America.

Chances are, he is as morally bankrupt as he is intellectually, and could care less.

It's funny - his way would leave millions of civilians dead and terror groups/nations moving in to take over the land we destoryed and train all the orphans to be suicide bombers.  His way would create terrorists and make them rich. 

[Hugo Chavez]

MM69

[OzmO]

What about the millions of civilians who would be killed?

All those people who are suffering under the terrible dictator Kim Jong-Il, why do you want to kill all of them?

-Hedge

I believe the point he's trying to make is that if you kill lots of civilians they will capitulate to your wishes.  He uses Japan as an example.

Pretty barbaric huh?

It's only partially true, but until you render a country's fighting force incapable of defending it's self it will still want to fight.   What caused Japan to surrender was they thought we had plenty of these nukes combined the fact their military was in shambles.  Also we don;t take into account the fire bombing in Tokyo that killed much more people.  Even then they weren't wiling to surrender.   

[ieffinhatecardio]

MM69

LOL

Excellent work.

Jeff, no offense, but could you possibly pick a less graphic pic..... for your avatar.

I thank you in advance.

No problem, that's my little tribute to MM since he thinks those of us that aren't fans of torture are pussies and fucking fags. It's run it's course anyway. Since we're getting closer to the Primary it's back to a Hillary avatar.