Call up retired troops, or re-institute a draft? [Archive]

username

06-29-2004, 06:12 PM

come on kbasa, i think we can all agree that saddam hussein personally planned the 9/11 attacks and was only about 48 hours away from deploying nuke-u-lar weapons when we invaded. we saved humanity! and what the hell is wrong with you, boy? you arent listening to NPR again are you?! somebody get that guy a radio with no numbers below 92FM! in fact, without FM - you can hear everything you need to hear on AM talk radio.

ahem.

anyway, yeah, no draft, no call up. we dont need more troops, we need:

a) fewer wars.
b) necessary/remotely justifiable wars.
c) international support for large wars/nation building.
d) ummm, anyone remember the powell doctrine?

this unilateral thing is dangerous. it's great for small/precision operations (dropping bombs on ghaddafi comes to mind) but for really big things like taking down entire countries, we need some help. we need to admit that right or wrong, we really, really suck at this. while we are inventing new ways to step on our d!ck in iraq, both strategically and tactically, we're flushing our national credibility down the drain.

i respect those that serve, and am grateful that they are willing to risk their lives for the freedoms we all enjoy and i hate to see those people risked unneccessarily.

chasman

06-29-2004, 06:27 PM

gambrinus,

Thank you for the time you spent serving the U.S. of A. Now, every chance you get, ride like the wind...

Riding Like the Wind (to Spokane)...

CHASMAN
Black '02 K12RS

kbasa

06-29-2004, 07:33 PM

Originally posted by username

i respect those that serve, and am grateful that they are willing to risk their lives for the freedoms we all enjoy and i hate to see those people risked unneccessarily.

Totally with ya, there, mang.

:thumb

R75_7

06-29-2004, 10:04 PM

Airborne Daddy gonna take a little trip? Not likely. I am lucky enough to have served most of my time active with little time in IRR. Unfortunately for some this serious situation in Iraq is going to be there unexpected future. I read the fine print and did the deal in a big way. But I can tell you from firsthand experience that IRR is not the way out. They are fat, undisciplined, and untrained. In Gulf War part 1 we had a guy who was out of the U.S. Army(Uncle Sam Aint Released Me Yet) for a little over a two years. He had a wife and kids and was driving longhaul tractor-trailer rigs across the U.S. for about $80,000/year. So he didn't work for a company to reimburse him or his lost salaries and no one to reassure him he would have a job, house, wife, or life when he got home. He HATED being there and those guys were extremely resentful. Very unecessary for two more additional people in our Platoon. I think that when we activated the Reserve and National Guard that the HUGE red flag should have gone up. Because they were not activated to back us up here but actually sent over to Iraq in large numbers. That tells me that we were not prepared and did not plan well enough for the task at hand which are just a few of the "P's" of great leadership. My best friend in the world(closer than family) is there right now(National Guard). And I respect him and everyone else who risks there lives to defend this country. And that's what I and a lot of other people I know thought we were signing up for. To do the right thing. But once you've signed your civil rights away they will send you to any dump around the world and put you into compromising situations and then not finish what you started. We as a country are now officially screwed! Here's to the hearts and minds! But who's? I very muc agree with Kbasa. Let the U.N. and the other Nations who now have contracts there absorb some of the hurt. I guess I'll just enjoy this beer and thank those that always give first. To CPT James Eubanks!

Rhino

06-29-2004, 10:07 PM

I'd be fine with throwing my 37yr old ass out of a plane again and shooting some bad guys. I'd NOT be fine with sitting around on a sandbag someplace playing policeman... just a thought.

gambrinus - I agree with you 100%. I just retired from the USMC after 22 yrs on active duty. I left SWA last year and really would prefer to shoot and move instead of standing around.

the country would call me up, I'd sit by the phone and wait for the call.

tinboatcapt - I think I am in line first for that call :bliss

In general, and of course just my .02, if you were to ask retirees about being recalled they would probably treat it as part of their duty. My obligation is long gone as well but I recognize my responsibility.

Anyhow, like I said just my .02!

Rhino

06-29-2004, 10:16 PM

So he didn't work for a company to reimburse him or his lost salaries and no one to reassure him he would have a job, house, wife, or life when he got home. He HATED being there and those guys were extremely resentful. Very unecessary for two more additional people in our Platoon. I think that when we activated the Reserve and National Guard that the HUGE red flag should have one up.

WOW!:idea It just so happened I was in the very situation as well. It drove morale into the ground. We tried everything to help a few IRR folks adjust and it was constant complaining. Last year full Reserve Battalions showed up in country without any weapons! :dunno

R75_7

06-29-2004, 10:30 PM

Rhino6207, I was hoping you would comment on this topic. You are soo coolheaded compared to my heated rants. If you are going to the National Rally in Spokane I'd like to buy you a beer. I'd like to personally thank all those who serve this country and ride a BMW(and a few that don't).

BradfordBenn

06-29-2004, 11:07 PM

I respect and support the people who are serving our country. However I do not respect the decision made to send people over to Iraq.

One of the oaths of the President and most services is to "defend the Constitution". One of the tenants of that is the First Amendment, freedom of speech. So the fact that we are having this discussion shows that we are defending something good.

Me, I think we should not have gotten involved and I feel less safe when travelling. Going to Europe in March was quite an interesting experience with the security checks and the like. I do not feel any safer at all, in fact I think we made people madder.

Of course your right to your opinion is just that, your right. So if you disagree with me, I will defend your right to say what you want to.

BMWBeauty

06-29-2004, 11:11 PM

Originally posted by BradfordBenn
I respect and support the people who are serving our country. However I do not respect the decision made to send people over to Iraq.

One of the oaths of the President and most services is to "defend the Constitution". One of the tenants of that is the First Amendment, freedom of speech. So the fact that we are having this discussion shows that we are defending something good.

Me, I think we should not have gotten involved and I feel less safe when travelling. Going to Europe in March was quite an interesting experience with the security checks and the like. I do not feel any safer at all, in fact I think we made people madder.

Of course your right to your opinion is just that, your right. So if you disagree with me, I will defend your right to say what you want to.

I could not agree with you more.......

BradfordBenn

06-29-2004, 11:16 PM

Originally posted by BMW Beauty
I could not agree with you more.......

Beauty-

Don't forget the acetometaphine for the Rally.

oldcarkook

07-01-2004, 06:24 PM

I think that if we do anything with the draft, then we should require everyone to serve for a period of time at a certain age...no exceptions.

Either go all volunteer, or all mandatory, but anything in the middle will be rife with trouble.

As far as reaching back and calling up retirees, the original contract, like any contract, is a binding agreement and even though at the time it was signed the likelihood of all the fine print being enforced was slim, the fine print is there nonetheless and that's the deal that they accepted and agreed to. I also believe that at least a good portion of those being called back up to active duty are service members that got an early out deal...or so the articles I'm reading lead me to believe.

It seems that most think being drafted means that you are instantly a combat soldier and obviously that's not the case. I think it's very possible to provide a volunteer combat force, while maintaining a mandatory service requirement and placing those who oppose serving in combat roles in positions that are not combat. Perhaps serving in combat positions should automatically cut your service requirement in half. That might be enough incentive to create more than sufficient volunteers for combat positions.

As an example of the imbalance of the previous draft system, when I was 18 Viet Nam was going strong and I was prime meat for the draft. I was not in college and not really doing anything to prevent me from being drafted but I drew 326 as a lottery number. Many of my friends who drew numbers below 200 agonized about being drafted versus going down to the recruiter to enlist and then trying to choose an overseas duty station (duty choice was not an option for those drafted). As most of us in our fifties and up remember, 180 and down was a virtual guarantee you were in. So I agree that the previous system of lottery numbers and student deferments was unfair and I do not think it should be used again.

Rhino

07-01-2004, 10:46 PM

R75/7 - Trust me, I can get very heated about this subject. It took me awhile to write the little I did. It is a subject that is near and dear to my heart. It is also one that nearly got some people killed. I will take a rain check on the beer; I can't make it this year. Next year however is definitely in the cards. Thanks for your service as well. :clap

oldcarkook -
I think that if we do anything with the draft, then we should require everyone to serve for a period of time at a certain age...no exceptions.

If we require all to serve at a certain age for a specific time we risk having any continuity among the ranks. Look at most European countries. Not to bash any country or military branch, but take Italy, Turkey, Spain and some former Eastern Block countries. When I trained with the Italians they had mandatory conscription. It was a total mess. Those who chose to make it a career were very professional but few and far between; those who were there just to do the time were untrained, uncaring and utterly unprofessional and unfortunately the majority of the unit.

The flip side of that would be Israel. They have a totally different mindset about their military. In Beruit my encounters with them were utterly amazing. They were some of the most professional soldiers I have ever met. They believed in their military so it made a difference.

We are an all volunteer force at this time. The problem is we are reaching into the barrel to find more monkeys so to speak. The active force is tired. The Reagan days are long gone and the military has suffered under ALL of the administrations since. As a nation we are all over the world. I know I have been there. Please, I do not want to debate why we are there or who sent us there. I’m only saying we need a breather. The reserves and IRR are there to provide it or help the situation by augmenting the active folks. That is one of the reasons they exist. Our problem is that we don’t train them! I take that back, we do now after 9/11, but before that the majority of the units were undermanned and sat around the drill halls learning about first aid and the code of conduct.

We need the reserves but they need training and restructuring. Now with that out of the way, please remember this is just my opinion, I have no intention of stepping on any toes.

BradfordBenn –

Me, I think we should not have gotten involved and I feel less safe when travelling. Going to Europe in March was quite an interesting experience with the security checks and the like. I do not feel any safer at all, in fact I think we made people madder.

Are you talking about feeling less safe when you travel here in the US or overseas? Europe has always had tighter security standards.

Just gotta ask this one, why do we care if we make other countries mad? Maybe it is about time we did take a stand and quit worrying what the other guy thinks of us. Heck, that’s what got a lot of people killed in the last 30 years.

R75/7- Make that 2 beers!

BradfordBenn

07-01-2004, 11:07 PM

Originally posted by Rhino6207
Are you talking about feeling less safe when you travel here in the US or overseas? Europe has always had tighter security standards.

Just gotta ask this one, why do we care if we make other countries mad? Maybe it is about time we did take a stand and quit worrying what the other guy thinks of us. Heck, that’s what got a lot of people killed in the last 30 years.

I felt less safe both travelling here and abroad. I travelled abroad both before and after the war started and well it was much more stressful after the war. I was even on one of the first civilian flights departing from Los Angeles after 9/11 and that was less stressful.

The reason I do not think we should make other countries anger mad is kind of the good neighbor policy. We all have to live in the same neighborhood (Earth) and even if we don't get along, and we build fences... we should try not to create a situation where people are willing to die for their beliefs. No matter what beliefs they maybe.

Live and let live.

R75_7

07-02-2004, 12:19 AM

Those people were willing to die for their beliefs long before we were even a country. And, oddly enough, I think that's the only honorable thing that they have done. I don't agree with those beliefs. But, without people willing to die for their beliefs there would be no United States of America(cue music). Are we traveling or drafting? We have been lucky and spoiled to have the ease of travel that we have experienced until now. It's just to bad we have joined therest of the world we felt so distant to, as far as threats and security issues are concerned. On a postive note. Compared with our own historical(hysterical)reactins in the past. I feel pretty good about the way we have handled ourselves here in the U.S. regarding the treatment of each other and understanding the soldiers role. In the past we often would alienate, or even arrest and put into camps, those who were from the countries we were fighting. Even though they may have risked their lives to become Americans. 'm not saing wee perfect in this respect, just better.

R75_7

07-02-2004, 12:21 AM

One more litle bit. I'm really proud and happy that nobody has voted on this poll. Pat ourselves on the back.

basketcase

07-02-2004, 10:56 PM

Hmm.

Brad, I once heard a very wise man say that "if what we believe is not worth dying for, it is not worth living for, either."

Hearing such coming from a man who had survived a communist coup attempt in a third world country, and who had lived for years on the edge of hardship, I took it to heart back then, and it still rings true -- at least for me.

R75, last I looked, a bunch of people had voted on the poll. Did you click "View Results?"

Rick ... drifting back off to lurker status for the evening.

JetDoc

07-03-2004, 05:16 PM

I have no problem with people who are willing to die for their beliefs, although I tend to side with General Patton (or George C Scott), who told his troops "Our job is not to die for our country, Our job is to make the other poor S.O.B. die for his country!"

If Abdul or Jamal or whoever has such a strong religious belief that he feels the necessity to strap a bomb around his waist and blow himself up, then fine! Go for it! I applaud his commitment! But leave the bus load of innocent woman and children out of it!

Those who commit murder in the name of religion deserve a special place in the deepest, darkest, hottest pit of hell.

oldcarkook

07-05-2004, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by Rhino6207
...The flip side of that would be Israel. They have a totally different mindset about their military. That's precisely who I was thinking of when I made my comment about mandatory service.

Gnome

07-05-2004, 04:05 PM

I was there for the first Gulf War. I still have bad dreams about it sometimes. If called I'll gladly smoke a refer right in front of the Officer in charge(and I don't even touch that stuff) and ask if they'll let me fire the rockets this time around. I may just bring a hash pipe full of the stuff,and offer everyone a toot on it. They can seriously kiss my ass!
Iraq has done nothing that any other arab camel screwing country hasn't done. A threat? Better look closer at North Korea.
Now there is a concern.

R75_7

07-06-2004, 02:50 AM

I'm so retarded. Usually I vote on these poll's. When you do, the results show automatically every time you view the new post.

Rhino

07-06-2004, 12:35 PM

The reason I do not think we should make other countries anger mad is kind of the good neighbor policy. We all have to live in the same neighborhood (Earth) and even if we don't get along, and we build fences... we should try not to create a situation where people are willing to die for their beliefs. No matter what beliefs they maybe.

Come on Brad… Do I hear Kumbaya in the background? When you say we, I believe you are talking about the US. These folks have been participating in the sport of martyrdom longer than we have existed as a country.

Gnome- I respect your stance. I too have bad dreams, it is part of our past profession. In retrospect, with your last post I am also glad you are not on my right watching my flank. I really do not mean anything personal by that either.

knary

07-06-2004, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by RickM
Hmm.

Brad, I once heard a very wise man say that "if what we believe is not worth dying for, it is not worth living for, either."

A worthy quote, but is it applicable to the war in Iraq? We aren't defending out nation, our land, our people in this war.

basketcase

07-08-2004, 08:39 AM

To note the context, I was responding to Brad's comment as regards the Iraqis and the present war:

We should try not to create a situation where people are willing to die for their beliefs. No matter what beliefs they maybe.

Live and let live.

Well, we can't just live and let live, because their "beliefs" tell them that anyone who does not believe as they do is worthy to die by the sword.

So each time I have a fleeting thought that drawing our own sword is unnecessary, I replay the events of 9-11 in my mind.

I turned on the television just in time to see the second plane hit the second tower.

And my vivid memory of that day tells me we can take the iniative and fight the terrorists over there, or we can sit by and wait until we have no choice but fight them here.

Which would you prefer?

kbasa

07-08-2004, 09:41 AM

Rick, I agree with you, but I don't think we are or ever have been fighting terrorists in Iraq. THE terrorist was in Afghanistan and I don't know why we didn't send 150K troops over there to root his sorry ass out.

That's my big beef with the whole middle eastern mess right now.

We're in the wrong spot. The bad guy, the guy that really, really hurt us, is elsewhere. Saddam was a lot of things, but I don't think he had any ambition to bring the fight to us. Nor, from what I understand, did he have any real ties to Al-Qaeda.

Going to Iraq was a bad idea. Kicking Osama's ass is a great idea. But, now that we're so heavily invested in Iraq (and probably will be for the next generation or so - hello draft), we're going to have a hard time getting back to finding Osama.

Best,

dave

Visian

07-08-2004, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by KBasa
THE terrorist was in Afghanistan and I don't know why we didn't send 150K troops over there to root his sorry ass out.

We are searching for UBL. (http://www1.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/753027.cms) (note: consider the source of this report... the Indians have a small axe to grind with the Pakis...)

We can walk and chew gum at the same time. And skip rope.

Using your argument, why don't we send 150K troops into Iran to find the nukes? Oh wait... we're working through the UN to do that. For a minute there I thought we didn't cooperate with international efforts.

;)

Ian

basketcase

07-08-2004, 01:03 PM

Dave, while I do think Saddam needed to be shelved for good, I see the quandry of the mess in Iraq. That said, my mind is not yet made up on whether we goofed by going in.

I have a couple of thoughts.

First, a large number of terrorists and self-appointed martyrs who would have gladly paid their own plane fare to come here and set off a bomb in a mall have instead used up their life over there. In that light, we are better off for having gone in.

But on the other hand, it has cost us big time -- and it ways we probably don't yet fully understand, IMO.

Meanwhile, I anticipate (like many others) an attempt to throw our elections by some type of high profile attack. So the die is cast for a long term conflict any way we go.

And UBL's head has not yet been posted on a stake on the White House lawn.

What a mess.

Visian

07-08-2004, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by RickM
But on the other hand, it has cost us big time -- and it ways we probably don't yet fully understand, IMO.

Rick -- please watch this DVD (http://shopping.discovery.com/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10000&storeId=10000&langId=-1&productId=36753&rel_productId=45053) that was produced by NT Times television.

It is a pretty darned balanced piece of journalism by a guy named Thomas Friedman. The upshot: What drove 19 young, middle-class Muslim men to give up their lives to murder almost 3,000 people? And – perhaps more important – why does their violent act elicit so much support from millions of ordinary Muslims throughout the world?

If you watch it, you will see that there is an extremely powerful argument for the approach being taken by our country. You will also see that, while the approach is not perfect, it's a helluva lot better than the approach we have been pursuing for the past 50-100 years.

Ian

Visian

07-08-2004, 03:54 PM

Originally posted by KBasa
...I don't think we are or ever have been fighting terrorists in Iraq.

Dave -- here are some facts (http://www.worldhistory.com/zarqawi.htm) that would indicate otherwise.

There are terrorists in Iraq. They were there before 9/11. And there are more infiltrating from Syria, (http://www.meib.org/articles/0404_iraq2.htm) Iran and other countries. Better than infiltrating here, IMO.

Ian

username

07-08-2004, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by Visian
Dave -- here are some facts (http://www.worldhistory.com/zarqawi.htm) that would indicate otherwise.

There are terrorists in Iraq. They were there before 9/11. And there are more infiltrating from Syria, (http://www.meib.org/articles/0404_iraq2.htm) Iran and other countries. Better than infiltrating here, IMO.

Ian

i followed the 'facts' link and it says he went to iraq in may 2002? i dont get it. thats not before 9/11/01?

also, we had terrorists living and planning attacks here for years. the dipwads who flew the planes into the world trade center were openly living and being trained to fly jets in floriduh. why didnt we invade floriduh? shouldnt we punish floridians for harboring them? am i just supposed to sit over here in texas and TRUST that florida isnt training more terrorists?

and i think the strategy for the attacks was masterminded when atta was in germany? (i may be wrong here) why the heck didnt we invade germany? maybe those germans need to be taught another lesson, and we shouldnt be trusting them. first the holocaust, then they let terrorists rent an apartment and plan the attacks? traitors!

i think the only way to make the world safe for americans is to invade, invade, invade. we need more war, more violence. we need less of all the sissy talking and more of the manly bomb dropping! we need more erudite folks talking about 'nuking the place to glass' or 'back into the stone age' or some other well-thought out analysis. yeah. war, what is it good for? absolutely everything.

basketcase

07-08-2004, 05:47 PM

What to say?

I'm certainly not for invading everything and everyone, or for nuking any place without grave justification.

However, I must confess to seeing the world in rather simplistic terms. To wit: I subscribe to the neighborhood bully theory of fraternal relations, both in the good old US of A, and on the international scene.

For example, back in elementary school, I recall a guy who was the bully of the school yard -- name of Robert, to my recollection. He was aggressive, and quick to push and punch. So most people steered clear of him. Then he pushed a guy named John Jamison.

John was a quiet, unassuming type who got along with everyone. But he uncorked on Robert, and popped him with a right and left roundhouse punch quicker than we could all imagine. "Don't put your hands on me again," was his word to Robert. And Robert never bothered him again. Strange, don't you think?

Fast forward a few years to high school. The alleged bad guy was named Charles, and Charles was reputed to always win his fights, and to be willing to fight anyone. One day, someone said to him, "Charles, you only pick fights with people you know you can whip."

"So who do you want me to punch?" Charles retorted.

An innocent fellow walked out of the lunchroom about that time, and the guy told Charles, "Okay - hit him."

Charles did, and the s**t hit the fan. More pointedly, Charles got it stomped out of him right in front of his cronies and detractors. He never bothered that guy again. Fascinating ...

Fast forward one more time to a bar-room in Bogalusa, Louisiana. Two long-haired, hippy looking, peace loving dudes were passing through town, and stopped for a brew. The local crowd of factory workers had begun to filter in, and one of them began ragging the two strangers.

Egged on by the locals, Billy bad-a** upped the ante, and grabbed one of the strangers by the shoulder. "Time to show you long hairs to the door," he said.

The long haired stranger cleaned up the floor with "Billy." Interestingly, the other stranger continued sipping his beer, and never got off his bar stool.

Suddenly, the crowd was friendly as it could be. If Rodney King had been there, I can well imagine him saying, "Can't we just all be friends."

The whole thing kind of reminds me of my (late) Father, a title boxer in his weight class, and veteran of WWII. "Son," he would say, "you only have to put up with what you want to." And, "As long as you give in to them, they will dish it out."

Here's the point.

Bullies are all moral cowards, and often, physical cowards when confronted with someone who stands up to them. The Islamic criminals perpetrating the bombing and insurrection are cowardly criminals, pure and simple.

Next, we can talk and conjole and dicker with and basically give in to these perverted scum, and they will bring their hatred to our soil in ever increasing terms of violence. Or we can take the fight to them and rid the world if their sick presence.

Yeah -- I know the economic and legal ramifications are complex and take a lot of work to sort out. But in very real, relational and political terms, it's as simple as dealing with the school yard bully.

IMHO

kbasa

07-08-2004, 07:11 PM

Except that the schoolyard bully we're dealing with has several billion brothers.

basketcase

07-08-2004, 07:44 PM

The schoolyard bully we're dealing with has several billion brothers.

Which leads me to my next point.

In every society, there are opinion leaders, and opinion followers.

Or, if you will, bully leaders, and bully followers.

How many of Charles' cronies do you think opted to jump the guy who cleaned his plow for him?

That's right: zero.

Put in other terms, I think there are:

- A few committed radicals who will fight to the death either way.

- Another group of completely apathetic observers on the other end of the spectrum,

- And a large group of mainstream, "only get involved if I have to" people in the middle.

Human nature is the same in any person.

These people have lived in subjection to a tyrant for years. My take on it is that (like people I have met in abuse recovery groups), the mainstreamers will be encouraged speak out when (and if) it become evident that they can do so without fear of a midnight knock on the door.

Since you work with lawyers a lot, have you read "Crossroads" by the late Leon Jarworski'? He noted in that book that the KKK faded into the woodwork in America when the good people stood up to them.

By any other name, that bunch qualifies as terrorists. And when their leaders began to be prosecuted for their domestic terror activities in our country, no body came forward to protest.

Same difference, and parallel point, IMHO.

R75_7

07-08-2004, 10:53 PM

Rick M,
I would have to agree with you 100%. I know from first hand knowledge that Saddam is a bad man and did very bad things. He also screwed us and the U.N. on the treaty agreement. We should have taken him out when he refused the U.N. and broke the treaty. We didn't and he grew more powerful in that time. But now is also not the time. Because we did not complete our first mission, which was to take care of Afghanistan. To take UBL out of comission. And restore THAT country to a peaceful democracy. Then to take on Saddam and Iraq to me would be a progressional step. But instead we reached very far out to make the Iraq war happen. Spreading our troops too thin. With no mission. Only small, incomplete goals. Our tactics right now suck. And our leadership is worse. I speak with my friends over there weekly and get a real account of what's going on. We are doing the right thing, just the wrong way at the wrong time. We did not follow our own rules of combat and we did not use our own tested technics of engagement. WE have lost ourselves and I hope it does not get deeper because we could be in a heap of trouble. If John/John win the next election it could be even worse. What do those two know about war and foreign policy. At least Bush has got a lot of experience guiding him. If we tay the course a little longer. So the Iraqi's can have a chance to support themselves. And we let the U.N. take a much bigger portion of the policing job. Then that would be a better soluton. But I don't think Bush will have that.

Visian

07-09-2004, 05:34 AM

Originally posted by username
i followed the 'facts' link and it says he went to iraq in may 2002? i dont get it. thats not before 9/11/01?

Jordan, Afghanistan, Russia, Iran, Turkey, Lebanon... the guy gets around. To ignore this fact ignores the root of the problem... the bulk of these people are stateless, and states are supporting them and using them as surrogates to attack us and other people in free societies.

why didnt we invade floriduh?

By the same token, why don't we attack North Korea? Because it isn't the right strategy, in the current situation. Multilateral talks seem to be making some progress. At least we're not appeasing them with bribes of free oil (a strategy that Clinton and Saddam Hussein had in common...)

i think the only way to make the world safe for americans is to invade, invade, invade.

Good thing you're not our leader. :p

Seriously, I appreciate your point, and the only way to counter it is to observe that state-sponsored terrorism is a highly complex problem that can't be solved with a blanket approach. Or by attempting to restrict our efforts to little boxes defined by national borders. Or by building convoluted proofs of deception by our leaders.

What happened on 9/11 is just one example of a global problem. What happened in Jakarta is another. What happened in Madrid is another. What happened in... well, you get it.

Maybe if we are just nicer to these people, they won't do bad things anymore. After all, it's always our fault, right? ;)

Ian

username

07-09-2004, 09:49 AM

im not proposing that we give in to anyone. however, i am proposing that we use much more prudence when deciding to wage war, spend tons of money that could be used here at home, and kill lots of people.

go read uncle remus' story about the tar baby, and then see if that was a worthwhile fight. i think it's a better analogy than a lunchroom fight between kids.

and, if we were truly serious about reducing our dependence on foreign oil, then iraq, or saudi arabia, or whomever would be of NO strategic importance, and we'd just ignore those people and let them slaughter each other. for proof of my theory see sudan, cambodia, angola, oh hell, all of sub-saharan africa.

JetDoc

07-09-2004, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by username

and, if we were truly serious about reducing our dependence on foreign oil, then iraq, or saudi arabia, or whomever would be of NO strategic importance, and we'd just ignore those people and let them slaughter each other. for proof of my theory see sudan, cambodia, angola, oh hell, all of sub-saharan africa.

I think that most of us agree that it'd be great if this whole thing would just go away, but unfortunately UBL and his friends have demonstrated the willingness and the capacity to attack our homeland and murder innocent American civilians on a large scale.

What happens if the next time instead of a jetliner crashing into a building in New York, it's a nuke in the middle of your home town? We can't afford to just sit and wait and hope that they will self-destruct, because they won't.

Maybe we haven't used the best possible tactics, and we've spent a great deal of money for limited results, but I still think what we're doing is better than hiding under our blankets and hoping the monster will go away.

username

07-09-2004, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by JetDoc
I think that most of us agree that it'd be great if this whole thing would just go away, but unfortunately UBL and his friends have demonstrated the willingness and the capacity to attack our homeland and murder innocent American civilians on a large scale.

What happens if the next time instead of a jetliner crashing into a building in New York, it's a nuke in the middle of your home town? We can't afford to just sit and wait and hope that they will self-destruct, because they won't.

so you think that invading iraq somehow reduced the likelihood of a nuclear bomb exploding in my hometown? how? or maybe youre now talking about iran or pakistan (which is one bullet away from a non-US-friendly regime with nukes) or north korea or india? iraq was *maybe* years away from building a nuke, and given the sanctions, the UN intervention, and the surveillance they were under, they weren't going to be building one. when i worry about a renegade nuke showing up in the US, i think of the above list of nations, and of the instability in the former soviet union, where there are tons of fissile material that is unaccounted for.

and how exactly does that nuke get to my hometown? i live inland, so it has to cross a border. do you think we've done a good job with our borders and our port security? my town is swarming with people that are illegally in this country. meanwhile, people who could be searching for and securing fissile material are standing on a street corner in baghdad wondering if that car over there is packed with TNT.

Maybe we haven't used the best possible tactics, and we've spent a great deal of money for limited results, but I still think what we're doing is better than hiding under our blankets and hoping the monster will go away.

you should hold yourself and your government to a higher standard. i agree that saddam was bad. even so, iraq wasnt an imminent threat. we did not have to invade last april. we couldve waited till this april. what was the rush? seriously, what do you think the world would be like today if we didnt invade in 2003?

listen, we weren't hiding under our blanket, we were actively hunting OBL, and taliban/al quaeda folks in afghanistan/pakistan. we were doing a lot. and we've moved personnel, resources, and the nation's attention away from that and distraqted ourselves. and we were doing good work with our allies to hunt terrorists. and we had the backing of lots of people on earth to go after al quaeda and take them out. there was tremendous sympathy for america and an understanding that we had to do what we had to do. we invaded afghanistan and nobody said 'boo.' we've pissed all that away with this iraq business. our credibility, should we need to go after an actual state that actually threatens our way of life in some sort of demonstrable way is shot. we're hosed, we've cried wolf. these idiotic 'tactics' are a symptom of the real problem - that maybe we dont even have a cogent STRATEGY for all this. whats the exit plan for iraq? when have we 'won?' when is it 'over?' has your government told you what that is? is it measurable? is it when all terrorists are dead? is it when we march into baghdad, and the people throw tulips at us and cheer, and then next week they set up voting booths and adopt the bill of rights? you didnt actually think that would happen, did you? i agree, let's get rid of the terrorists. im even in favor of just outright killing them, assuming we can be sure they are terrorists. but we didnt 'take the fight to them' in iraq.

speaking of scary people with nukes you think north korea or iran is worried about us attacking or invading them? no way, they know we're stretched too thin. we're right next door to iran, and they can tell that we dont know jack about properly invading and oppressing a population, and they know it isnt really a threat. we've overplayed our hand. we screwed up. we've little credibility, little leverage, and as a result of the iraq fiasco, decreased support of our own citizens.

JetDoc

07-09-2004, 08:00 PM

Some good points, username. I can sympathize with your point of view, but I doubt seriously that your extensive rants on this motorcycle-related special interest web site will do much to change anyone elses' point of view. Perhaps your energy would be better directed at talking with your elected representatives in Washington, DC.

When was the last time you expended as much energy and passion on a letter to your Congressman or Senator? Did you vote in the last elections? Your profile says you live in Austin, which I believe is still the state capitol of Texas. Have you talked with your state government representatives about the illegals "swarming" in your town and state?

You have some legitimite complaints and concerns, but getting all worked up about them on this forum isn't going to solve anything. If you don't like what your government is doing, then talk to your elected officials. Tell them what you want and what you expect them to do about it. If they don't listen, then vote for someone who will. Get your friends and neighbors to do the same. If you don't have anyone you want to vote for, then run for office yourself!

We all have the Government we deserve. If you won't work to make it better, you have no right to complain about it.

lorazepam

07-09-2004, 10:36 PM

I personally am tired of having to take off my shoes or be subject to a search every time I go to the airport. I used to be able to take a leatherman on my belt, and tools in my carryon.

The Chinese New Year was Feb 12, 2002. It happened to be my birthday. I was finishing a business trip between Korea, China, and Taiwan. On New Year's Eve I travelled from China to Taiwan, spent 3 hours on a repair, then took a Plane to Korea, and catch the return leg of my flight from home. During this time I was searched 8 times, one of them being behind closed doors.

If taking the fight to them stops this paranoia, and lets them become martyrs at the expense or their own innocent people every time they set off another car bomb, than so be it.

I feel a deep respect for the troops protecting us in this fight, and I hope we have the good sense to equip them properly, and let them use their training. There are hospitals, water treatment plants, reliable electricity, and new schools being created for people who have had none of this for years.

As far as the self governing of Iraq goes, I see two sides to this:

1. They truly unite as a nation once they see that if they do so, we will leave.

2. This will be the first time this region will not have a foot on it's throat in about 100 years. They have the freedom now to settle old scores, and I imagine that is happening right now.
It becomes the offical destination for martyrdom, and there will be years of violence and instability.

I hope it is number one, but I am not holding my breath.

username

07-10-2004, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by JetDoc
Some good points, username. I can sympathize with your point of view, but I doubt seriously that your extensive rants on this motorcycle-related special interest web site will do much to change anyone elses' point of view. Perhaps your energy would be better directed at talking with your elected representatives in Washington, DC.

on the contrary, i heard that george bush reads this site and even as you read this, is changing his mind on a wide range of things. har har, just kidding, we know he doesnt like to read. but youre right, i have no goals for any sort of social change as a result of airing my opinions or challenging those that others hold on this cute little motorcycle board. crap, it's hard enough to have this board influence the BMWMOA, let alone the whole country. ive got no illuisions about any of that.

When was the last time you expended as much energy and passion on a letter to your Congressman or Senator? Did you vote in the last elections? Your profile says you live in Austin, which I believe is still the state capitol of Texas. Have you talked with your state government representatives about the illegals "swarming" in your town and state?

i vote. it seems like everyone i vote for loses by less than 100 votes, but i keep doing it in the hopes that someday my guy will win. ;) i havent written to a congressman because im still trying to sort all this out in my head. my opinions and thoughts are not perfectly formed, as can be seen on this board. i engage in this discussion because i enjoy the near-realtime interaction with people that i have a common interest with - BMWs - but have a wider geographic and age spread than i might ordinarily have access too. if i write to the congressman, i get a form letter in response. i like that people on this board digest each other's comments and then agree/rebut them. it's fun and good for our brains. so im less about trying to convince somebody, and more about trying to develop rigorous thinking in myself, and you guys are a means to that end. ;)

actually, im ok with illegals being here and im happy for them. i'd like it if we made them 'legal.' they have been propping up our housing market for decades with their low labor costs and excellent work ethic. reminds me of some of my ancestors who came here with nothing, and worked hard to build something. i'd like to see these folks naturalized. my comments were more to the point that the borders arent secure.

You have some legitimite complaints and concerns, but getting all worked up about them on this forum isn't going to solve anything. If you don't like what your government is doing, then talk to your elected officials. Tell them what you want and what you expect them to do about it. If they don't listen, then vote for someone who will. Get your friends and neighbors to do the same. If you don't have anyone you want to vote for, then run for office yourself!

We all have the Government we deserve. If you won't work to make it better, you have no right to complain about it.

you say 'get your friends and neighbors to do the same.' but that i shouldnt expend energy on a board like this? that confuses me. arent we friends and neighbors here? and like i said, these discussions help me forge my thoughts into something that can be wielded verbally, and i do have these discussions outside the forum, rest assured.

thanks for your thoughts.