Gunco Forums banner

1 - 20 of 27 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,341 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
[AClay47 begins daydreaming.]​

:sleep:

I supported the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but I'm opposed to any more overseas interventions. I was opposed to US involvement in Kosovo/Yugoslavia, and frankly I can think of other wars we shouldn't have been in - WWI, War against Spain, and a host of wars in Latin America. Maybe, we shouldn't have sent our boys into that Vietnam thing, and I'm still not sure about Korea. Then again, hindsight is always best.

There is talk about Iran, or Syria, being the next military theater. I say NO. There are other ways. During the Cold War, Reagan used proxies, as did the Soviets. That's one way. The Afghan model is pretty good - buy allies, direct them with Special forces, then let the different interests seek your favor.

Iraq has been executed well by our military. People cry about the number of deaths and injured, and rightfully so! Yes, the figures are low in terms of military campaigns. Maybe, there are many Iraqis thankful for our sacrifices? Maybe democracy would cure the Muslim world of repression? But - it is not our business. Our military's business is to protect America and defeat our enemies. It is not to spread democracy. The generation fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan are our country's future. Let's treat them as the treasure they are.
:troops:​
If Iran wishes to become a nuclear threat, I say paint "Iran" on enough nukes to turn Iran into an ashtray. Shoot first and ask questions later. I can hear the news conference now.

"Mr. President, it now appears your first strike against Iran, which turned that country into a sheet of glass, was a mistake. Will you apologize?"
:blowup:​

The President - "Hey, it was an accident. I was eatin' a pretzel. It went down the wrong way, and I bumped into the red button. Hurt like hell, too! Besides, who would I apologize to? There are no Iranians anymore!"

Maybe you should apologize to the international community?

The President - "Not till I start eatin' pretzels again. next question."

Mr. President, we just got reports that France's growing muslim population has begun a civil war against that important American ally. Paris has been overrun by Shiias and the Cathedral of Notre Dame has been turned into a mosque! Will you send American troops to defend the beleagured government of Prime Minister Jaques Chirac?

The President - "Heh heh heh! Jaques Chirac - the scuba diver? Somebody hand me a pretzel, quick! Heh heh heh!"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
508 Posts
You're kidding, right?

So had we, the mightiest nation on earth, not intervened in WWI would we be the mightiest nation on earth today?

Sure, we could line our shores and borders with troops waiting for evil to come. And as thousands of innocents were laid to waste abroad, those who wish us harm would strengthen their ability to penetrate our defenses by aquiring more land, more troops, more weaponry, more capitol, more commodities and basically put a stranglehold on our democratic society by restricting our ability to engage in free trade.

Their evil wouldn't have to come directly to us, we would probably do their dirty work for them as our society crumbled beneath our own feet.

I'm not a war monger but the simple fact remains that world history of what we claim to be civilization is rooted in war. It's a sad fact and perhaps someday the human race will overcome but I'm not terribly optimistic. I believe we're at a fortunate point in world history given our military, despite it's losses, is gaining what all successful militaries throughout history have used to their full benefit, experience. I couldn't help but feel utter disgust every time the Kerry campaign and media outlet referred to the campaign in Iraq as a "quagmire" when nothing could be further from the truth. I predict that years from now Operation Iraqi Freedom will be known as one of the best conceived and executed wars ever. The current scirmishes with the insurgents aside, we went in decisively and toppled the reigning regime and took their leader alive in less time than it has taken many wars to truly begin.

But that's just my ever so humble opinion in a somewhat condensed version. :smoke:

Personally I wish it all would go away. All the wars. All the hunger and strife, et cetera, et cetera. (Hmm, then again it seems sometimes war is the only alternative when working to achieve such lofty goals...) I recently read "The First World War: A Complete History" by Martin Gilbert and feel compelled to read his previous work on WWII. And just what would have become of the United States of America had the Japanese not attacked Pearl Harbor? Hitler was on a roll...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,341 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
SangRun Hunter said:
What kind of meds are you on today clay?
LOL, Sang! No meds, just pretzels!

For the record, I didn't mention WWII. We had no choice. We did not intervene there. War was declared on us by the Empire of Japan and then it's Axis ally Germany. Still, Evil_WalksII posed an interesting question. What would have happened if Japan not drawn the US into WWII?* That would make a great topic in itself.

Likewise, the question of WWI. In that case, Britain, France, and Germany were stalemated, exhausted, and nearly bankrupt. Had the US remained neutral, instead of intervening in 1917, most historians believe the three countries would have negotiated a practical peace, much different than the infamous Treaty of Versailles. So, America's military involvement in WWI probably contributed to the conditions which led to the Third Reich and Hitler's genocide.

But - the topic wasn't about those Wars. It's more about our choice of military involvement in the near future. As I wrote, the United States has used proxies in the past, such as the Contras. In Afghanistan, we used local militias against the USSR, and then against ther Taliban - money does talk. We stopped the 1956 War between Egypt, France, Great Britain, and Israel without firing a shot - we threatened to ruin currencies through market speculation. So, I wasn't suggesting isolationism - just using different means.

If military action is required in Iran, or Syria, I'm against sending Divisions of American military there. There are factions in each country which would turn on their own governments, if able, but would defend their country from a foreign/Christian invasion. Occupying Syria and Iran would be more costly to our servicemen than I would support. I don't care if they are Democratic. If they were, they might elect an Ayatollah Kerry! I prefer the Afghan model of military action instead, and we do have a nuclear option. Would you use nukes to remove an enemy and save thousands of servicemen? Truman made that choice twice.

_______________

* It's odd that Hitler declared War on the US. The Axis Treaty did not require it. By attacking the US, Japan had ignored Hitler's demands they attack the USSR, which would have opened a second front for Stalin to fight. After Pearl Harbor, Soviet troops were sent to the "Eastern Front," turning back Hitlers armies at Stalingrad and Moscow. Another odd thing about Hitler's decision to declare war on the US was he had not declared war on France or Britain. Hitler attacked those countries months after they declared War on Germany! The question Evil_WalksII posed is one which has intrigued historians for decades.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,413 Posts
I higly doubt boots will be on the ground in Iran. From rumors there are proxies at work in Iran and outside as well. There have been numerous reports of young people rioting against the Mullahs as well. About 3 weeks ago I saw pics of people who were hung on street corners there by the theocracy. The young there do not belive in the revolution any more. Iran will topple very soon from what many analyst are saying.

In Syria, we can get them to come online. Turkey was able to do a few years ago when they were harboring terrorists.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,341 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Then again, there is N Korea. I'm against an American invasion. It is South Korea's problem, more than ours. And - China doesn't need a mad man with nukes on their border, nor does the USSR. I'm all for lending a hand, but not our ground troops. Japan has already threatened to build their own nukes is Korea persists, so why should we commit ground pounders into the forzen Korean peninsula again?

When all else fails, push the red button.

Agree that Syrian and Iran are being approached differently than Iraq. Pakistan was turned without a single shot, and Syria must know we can cause them BIG problems without invading en masse. Iran is different, their leaders actually believe they are divine rulers fulfilling their religion. What they have yet to comprehend is once they have nukes, ever nuclear power in the world will target them with nukes. They may as well adopt one of the following for their national flag:


France has the "Tri-Color."
Iran can have the "Tre-Foil."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
508 Posts
I was gonna edit my post and clean up a little but it was getting late. (wishing I had been able to get a flu shot in recent days..)


I agree with you on several points (if not most) AClay. Ground troops are a risky option in this day and age, even with all of our technological advances they're highly vulnerable. It didn't seem to catch much press from what I saw last week but Iran announced they had mass produced their Shahab-3 medium range ballistic missiles which are reportedly capable of hitting Israel or U.S. targets in the Gulf region. (Of course they deny possesing or developing nuclear warheads for the Shahab-3...) It's probably been posted already but there's an interesting read here:http://http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/420414%7Ctop%7C08-11-2004::10:05%7Creuters.html The quotes from Iran are quite disturbing. Sure, they want to be able to defend themselves as any nation would but the slogans on the missiles mentioned don't sound defensive to me. In regard to the smaller nations in the region we do have superior intelligence and firepower but once the nuke ball is rolling, where it stops nobody knows.

I agree the operation in Afghanistan has been on the right track and Iraq was an easier target than it would have been had we not had troops there previously. Iraq offers a great strategic stronghold provided nukes don't come into play. Enter N. Korea and that tyranical madman Kim Jong-il. Things could get really dicey in the blink of an eye. I think Saudia Arabia is yet another "loose cannon" that could backfire on U.S. efforts in this War on Terror. Ally? Well, so we're told...I'd prefer to see more solid effort on their part, they seem a bit arrogant and aloof from my biased point of view. Unless we can prove without arguement that a nation is 100% in bed with a terrorist organization a ground offensive anywhere could be the biggest mistake this country ever made.

Operation Iraqi Freedom has been a novel approach. Not only are we "liberating a repressed society" it seems to me that it's more like we're "pissing on the porch" of the Arab/Muslim world. More a display of power than an all out ass-kicking. Kinda like when a little guy mouths off to a big guy in a bar. If the big guy completely pummels the little guy he looks like a fool, if he merely knocks him down and stands back awaiting retaliation he gets a little more respect. (of course that's all circumstantial...) Just the same we now have alot more of something we didn't have prior to 9/11 and or subsequent invasions, we have battle hardened soldiers who've seen the face of death. Not exactly something we would want in an ideal society but our world is far from ideal.

The War on Terror is most certainly one of the post problematic wars ever. Since the Muslim extremists can't be identified as a nation the war could wage on long past our generation. With the assets and asylum afforded to Bin Laden and his ilk, the prospects of winning completely appear desperately slim. With the nuke factor potentially being more a "when" than an "if" I can only hope I'm six feet under when it happens. ( I really don't want to see the live feeds of the carnage on CNN or FOX) There are many a day I hate the human race as a whole for our overall ignorance, that said I still don't want to see WWIII.

Of course, these are just some of my thoughts and opinions. I hope my first reply didn't come off as an attempt to flame your post. With so many morons in power and on the loose across the globe war and U.S.involvement seem inevitable. Power struggles at this day and age seem to be futile and ignorant but they're probably here to stay as long as there's a place to stay. From what I've read WWI was a war on terror in it's own right with thousands of unarmed, inncocent men being lined up and executed in the name of greed from a power hungry madman prior to all out war. The WWII question is indeed a toughie. We certainly wouldn't have the alliance with Israel we have today had we not been drawn in by the Japanese. Something in my gut tells me we would be at war with someone at this point in time regardless...

Personally I wish it all would go away, I prefer to enjoy the simple things in life and the beauty of the world unencumbered.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,413 Posts
Evil,

We are in WW3 for what it's worth. It doesn't exactly look like 1 or 2, but it rings true as a global battle going on in so many places and different things. Even the internet is playing it's part. Some say this is actually WW4 and the Cold war is now categorized as WW3. I don't know, but it could be right.

Personally I think the stratgey of pulling in Jihadi's to Iraq and slugging it our there as well as Afghanistan is pretty good considering if we had not done anything after 9-11 we would probably have all kinds of attacks in the US. I bought FahrenHYPE 911 and in there Dick Morris and Rudy Guliani give all the examples with a map to show how many terrorits attacks were stopped here. Many of which I remember seeing articles about in the press or blurbs on TV. It amazed me that so many had been stopped. I wonder how it would be if we had not gone on the offensive.

Hopefully I'm not pissing anyone off with my view. In my gut Iraq was damned if we do and damned if don't. With Saddam shooting at our planes everyday, the UN sucking off oil money, Saddam paying homicide bomber famlies, his past record of invasion, his ability to make and engineer WMD, the evidence that there were terrorist training camps, his atempt to kill Bush 41, the mass graves, the use of WMD on Kurds and Iraqi's. It makes me feel okay we went in there. Too bad we can't do a few more countries to and too bad so many other countries in the world cannot see the depth of evil these dictators go to. And the reason we are there? It is the oil, but it's more about the world econmy that oil. If we had that much oil here those people would still be riding camels. They need to rid themselves of dictators and theocrats before it will get any better.

Hard to belive that part of Europe could forget what happend 60 years with the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and Tojo.

I dunno, just me rambling on about stuff.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
508 Posts
Sang Run, I tend to agree with your lines of thinking. It's absurd that thwarted terrorist attacks tend to slide right past the media as not being newsworthy or praise-worthy while they feed us crap like the Peterson trial.

I honestly didn't see why Bush's Presidential campaign didn't highlight more of the good that's come from our War on Terror. Apparently the media needs graphic photos to push their agenda, something the Jihadists figured out well enough on their own.

Personally I've been saving the WWIII moniker back for nuclear war as opposed to The Cold War or current war but as of now anything goes, it could happen as we type. 9/11 taught us just how quickly change can come in our modern society. It seems alot of Americans (and foreigners) have simply gone forward ignoring the lesson learned. Ignorance is as much an enemy as the Jihadists or rogue nation.

Sometimes I can't help but laugh at little things that anger me. I live in a predominantly rural area with just a few new neighbors. My new liberal neighbor across the road lowered Old Glory to half-mast at the onset of the invasion of Iraq in protest. His flag, his right? Not really according to U.S. flag code...I tolerated it for days, then weeks. As more and more troops were killed my tolerance level dissipated and I did what I felt was right. (Hey, Ohio law requires a no trespassing sign...) After Kerry's concession speech I went out and cut a 31 round salute of folding stock glee into the creekbank behind my house. Meanwhile my neighbor was retiring Old Glory all-together. Wonder if he'll fly his flag when Hitlery goes for it in '08?

Oops, more meandering and rambling on my part...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,341 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Excellent reads. I did say I supported the War in Iraq, so none of us disagree with that. I was especially impressed by something Evil_Walks wrote. It is probably an ultimate truth:

Something in my gut tells me we would be at war with someone at this point in time regardless...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,413 Posts
I agree on that Clay and Evil's comments are most likely right. We probably should have done all this in 93 when they tried to take the towers down.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
72 Posts
there are some lengthy posts here. i am 30 mi from iran, and my job takes me within meters of iranian border. crossing it would not be a problem...
with that said i admit to not knowing why i am here now, other than to fulfill my oath, however the thought of WMD's in the hands of fanatics eliminates all doubt from my mind. we can walk in and put an end to it, and if the price tag mimics that of this war/occupation, so be it.
i want to thank aclay and everyone else on this thread for expressing your opinions and supporting the troops, that IS the reason we are here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
72 Posts
furthermore, doesn't armed conflict perpetuate our economy?:boxing:

one final note:
non-violent intervention worked for us in the past indeed, but back then we were not the only global super power, now we are. in the orwellian universe our chance of survival diminished when the wall fell, so aggressive inaction could be misinterpreted for weakness- hense 9/11 and OIF.
i know aclay is just dreaming so i will share my dream:
bush builds up to astronomical levels only to be usurped by his successor, a democrat who will budget cut the by-then huge military, and i will get the 15 year early out retirement option!:cheers:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,341 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
maxim.semyonov said:
there are some lengthy posts here. i am 30 mi from iran, and my job takes me within meters of iranian border. crossing it would not be a problem...
God bless you. Should our troops be called into Iran, they will have my unquestioned support. However, I do not now support sending our servicemen into another country, whether it be Iran, Syria, or North Korea. France might be another question! LOL!

I would rather nuke Iran or North Korea than shed a drop of American blood. You and your generation, particularly those who volunteered to serve and defend, are our country's greatest hope of fulfilling the dreams of our founding fathers. I want you home when possible.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
72 Posts
again thank you, but..



AClay47 said:
Maybe democracy would cure the Muslim world of repression? But - it is not our business. Our military's business is to protect America and defeat our enemies. It is not to spread democracy.​


:rant:​
what is our enemy if not the lack of democracy? forget nukes. why do you guys think the marines are killing wounded prisoners in Falujah?​
if they are not americans they cannot protest us, burn our flag, crash our planes, and cut off our heads without pissing someone off in this country. religion aside the middle eastern man is mostly uneducated and ignorant, but well armed and with nothing to do. the local farmers turn to smuggling during the winters; most of the ambushes are carried out by unemployed men for as little as $100 us per incident, and the suicide bomber can rest assured that his family will be well taken care of curtesy of muslim aid societies (partially supported by corporate america). the anti israeli/american jihad is real, do not i pray forget 9/11.​
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,413 Posts
maxim.semyonov

I'm with you on you sentiments and I differ with Clay on spreading democracy. Offense is the best defense. My feeling and opinion is the only way to stop these fanatics in the middle east is through intervention. Much like WWII we are up against idealogues and fanatics. If we go into a few of these countries and help them be free it will spread and the whole world will be better for it. That might be naive of me to think, but if we stay the course there are people in those countries that wish to govern themselves.

I'm truely sad about the young men who have lost their lives and been maimed, but do we wait for these fanatics to hold the world hostage? I can think of about 10 major terrorist acts since 1979 that say they started a war with us and the west.
No one stopped Hitler until it was way to late and we had to give a lot more lives than if we would have stood up to him in 1936 when he took the Saar and Sudetenland.

By all accounts Saddam was the worst apple in the region and we had an open ended war with him since 1991. It's not the end all solution to the problem, but it's a good start.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
72 Posts
Evil_WalksII said:
...I agree the operation in Afghanistan has been on the right track and Iraq was an easier target ... I think Saudia Arabia is yet another "loose cannon"... Personally I wish it all would go away, I prefer to enjoy the simple things in life and the beauty of the world unencumbered...
true enough, and if we stop our dependency on fossil fuel our involvement in middle east politics would end. we would no longer send troops or engage in lengthy campaigns there, and our embassadors won't have to bow in front of their sheikhs. with alternate fuels the world can turn away from third world oil producers and in that way help nurture better relations with those countries based on "good will" instead.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,341 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
maxim, I heard a radio program about a contest between colleges to see which could create the ar with best gas mileage. One American school had a car which got over 1600 mpg! It weighed less than 200 pounds, and I doubt I would want to drive it on the interstate. A Canadian school did better with a car which looked like the Batmobile and got over 1700 mpg! Don't know specifics, but if colleges can do it, Detroit should do better. My wife's 97 Oldsmobile Aurora has a 4 litre V-8 and automatic transmission, and it gets 25 mpg+ in town. My '91 Isuzu PU gets only 23 mpg with a 2.2 litre 4 cylinder and 5 speed straight transmission! So, maybe relief is in sight so far as America's dependence on foreign oil?

I'm for spreading democracy, but I prefer other means than commiting America's military forces. Instead of feeding a corrupt UN with billions, I would rather spend the money on insurgency campaigns where needed. Just my opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,341 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
God Bless you Cephus, and you family. You have my deepest appreciation.
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Top