Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Move America Forward

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ok...., Now that I have some of the bleeding staunched after the shredding I just Took.


    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
    Ancient Chinese proverb (others call it a curse) - Be careful what you wish for ... she can be awefully expensive..
    Been There done that Got the cashed checks to prove it.

    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
    If we contained a much more powerful USSR with a Cold War,.
    Yep cold war worked...., Ninety percent of our problems today come from the policies and tactics used to fight the cold war. Tsun Tsu Had a few thing to say about a protracted war..., basicly he said "Bad Idea Bub".
    we and the USSR scared the hell out of each other for fifty years. ran our economies into the dirt and ruined a few fairly nice places in the world fighting proxy wars...., great idea love it let's do it some more.

    Sorry got a little side tracked there. sometimes I think we hurt the world more with the cold war than we would have by listening to Patton and the germans.

    also While I have no real love For commies atleast they were a rational enemy. they realised that if you want to rule the world it has to still be there after the war.


    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
    why couldn't we do it to weakling with a semi-active war? Now, I will qualify myself ... because Saddam was stupid enough to think he could survive a shot at point blank range. .
    Since the VN war the US had followed a policy that allowed small problems fester, nt willing Socialy or politicly to use a little muscle to end a problem before it grew into a big one. Saddam was convinced maybe correctly that the world would not stand up to him. Historicly he was right. he was a major fan of Hitlers and may have properly realised that if he played political games long enough he could get his weapons and then the US would be unable to do anything to stop him Not even I would be insane enough to go up against a nuke armed Psychopath.

    Saddams Stupidity was impressive but the Us had shown it's willingness to allow him to play games and lack of resolve in enforcing the provissions of a cease fire treaty that he signed.

    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
    But the fact remained that we sent our people into a war based upon a lie ..,that Saddam was a clear and present danger. He was not. ..
    And never will be. If the world had moved decisivley after the Spanish civil war, the Sudatenland or the annexation of Austria.
    Hitler may have ended his carreer as a minor Footnote in a history book.

    I'm Not Claiming that Saddam was the next hitler but the pattern was getting pretty scary. Germany was an economic wreck it had an obsolete, shambles of an army. it developed The Stuka, The Meschersmidt and the first of the Panzers in direct contrivention of treaties and The League of nations. Lax enforcement and containment led to him having years to develop his army revive his economy and motivate his people.

    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
    Subsequent actions proved his danger to be a lie...
    He was totaly outclassed in men machines and Technology.., Thats the point of being a superpower. Bush Tok the initiative away from him, we chose the timing and methods of war to strongly favor our forces. How much longer should we have waited Five years Ten Years, till he was a significant threat. then what. let him take the oil field Saudi Arabia. maybe he would have been satisfied then. None of the local powers except for Turkey could riegn him in if he was allowed to reequip. The French and Russians were more than willing to sell him weapon.., anyone remember the Migs That were sold to him after the weapons embargo, the were still buried under the Airfield In Bagdad when some local clue us in to where they were buried.
    No where is it written that you have to let your enemy get the first shot. or develop the means to take that shot. If my nieghbor starts loading his gun and threatening me You can bet Either I won't be there when he's done or the Cops will be..., He had better hope the cops get there quick.


    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
    My point is that we have to do better next time. I want the spooks to do a hell of alot more soul searching before he tells me I have to send my people against the November Kilos or the Persian Hordes..
    Here we agree I do not advocate immeadiate action against Iran or NK
    I would rather let the Persians settle their own problems. And If the Iranians I know are right the day of the Mullahs And Ayotollahs are getting fewer every day.
    NK At least That Nutjob understands negotiation and will behaive himself. I think economic and political pressure might be more effective against NK I have no real desire to see us going to war on China's border they made themselves VERY clear about the subject last time round.


    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
    Actually, no. He stole them ... from the Czechs ... when we gave him Sudetenland..


    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
    Having gone to war to help a people, I strongly disagree. It's their war. I will make the fight fair but I will not fight it for them while they're sipping coffee at the local cafe..
    Niether would I but if they are willing to fight then someone should be willing to help.

    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
    There was alot of soul searching within the Canadian Forces vis-a-vi Lieutenant-General Romeo Dallaire's experiences in Rwanda. To stop the butchering, you will have to ask us to kill those doing the butchering. Can you ask a 22 year old kid to shoot a pregnant teenage mother with a baby on her back? Can you ask that 22 year old kid to live with that nightmare for the rest of his life? ..
    No I would really prefer not to. I'm not able to do it myself though
    if I could I would. Pregnat and baby on back anyone chopping up the niegbors with a machette needs stopped.

    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
    Those were the butchers in Rwanda - pregnant teenage mothers with a baby on her back..
    Evil has a way of making it hard to deal with, Rwanda was an aberation i hope never repeats itself. I cant imagine what would motivate that kind of brutality, except evil pure and simple.

    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
    Obviously, we analyzed that thing to death and there were several critical junctions that decisive military actions would have limited the damage to the specific leadership but by and large, we came down to the worst case scenario and the worst case scenario is that I will order that 22 year old kid to shoot that pregnant teenage mother. Note I didn't say that I will shoot her myself. I said I will order that kid to do so..
    Even If The target is a 45 year old man, Drunk on drugs and pointing a gun at you. no one should ever have to decide to kill. and I would not want to be the fella giving the orders to do the killing either.


    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
    No, experience speaking. The majority of Canadian, French, and British post WWII military experience is trying to establish peace in post-war environments which at times is some of the heaviest combat on earth. I was with UNPROFOR in the Balkans and we're still there today. The exit strategy was clearly lacking..
    What is your exit strategy how would you get us out. Please Im totaly at a loss on that. The situation is muddied by Homeland politics, local politics and international Politics. Iran is sending in Mercs and Money, so are Syria Egyot an Palestine. We cant hit targets because of Their "Holy" status. The enemy hides in among civilians, Holy Sites and in every rat hole they can find. The situation is not an easy one. if some other countries would get there ass off there heads and help a little. (France, Russia, Spain,)

    You might want to start a new thread for this one



    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
    On that, I strongly disagree. NATO is perhaps the greatest Western influence on earth, controlling everything from Afghanistan to North America. Perhaps, the greatest event in the Alliance history is 11 Sept. Within a matter of hours, NATO planes training in Labrador, Canada were in the air defending Canadian and American airspace. Canadian planes as part of NORAD were in the air in a matter of minutes. There was a hell of alot of soul searching in that there was a strong possibility that a non-American may be ordered by the POTUS to shoot down an American airline, perhaps even in American airspace..
    [QUOTE=Officer of Engineers]British SAS were in Afghanistan one week after 11 Sept, long before American troops arrive on the scene. EVERY country in NATO sent SOF under American command to Afghanistan. The US commanded perhaps the largest SOF campaign in history of which she did not even have the numbers to man that campaign. While no doubt, the US could have done the job in Afghanistan without NATO help, there is absolutely no question that she did the job better and faster with NATO help than without. 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia Canadian Light Infantry Battle Group most certainly enhanced the 187th Brigade Combat Team (Rakkasans), 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) with capabilities and assets the Americans were lacking but most certainly were used in Operations ANNACONDA and HARPOON.

    [QUOTE=Officer of Engineers]On top of that, only Germany, France, and Belgium actively voted against NATO help for the US (ie protecting Turkey and backfilling). France was told to take a hike and the other members strongarmed Germany and Belgium into reversing their stand.

    [QUOTE=Officer of Engineers]Also, alot of forces assigned to the War on Terror were used in the Iraq War ... without their national gov't's expressed permission. Canada was officially not in the Iraq War but her naval taskforce was closer to Iraq than the carriers it was protecting was and those carriers were launching strikes.

    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
    It may interest you to know that combat wise, the Canadians were the 4th largest force contributor to the Iraq War without Ottawa's expressed permission..
    Point Engineer I was talking out my arse on that one,
    My patience for most other countries is running thin, I respect most of our allies and appreciate there help. but results are getting pretty scarce. Playing games has gotten the world into a huge mess. Most of the Aggressors have no interest in being civilized or becoming Good world citezens. My perception is that many Europeans reduse to accept the fact that some problems and People cant be negotiate or Chatted out of ther plans. There are some people that Sooner or later you have to hit between the eyes.

    [



    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
    I'm sorry that I was not clear. Tet was a military disaster for the NVA/VC. After Tet, the Americans could have walked to Hanoi with maybe litterally boyscouts in the way (the Young Communists were hastily given weapons)..
    My point maybe I wasn't clear was That only our shock and The, Ill advised comments of politicians and Newsmen.

    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
    My point was that Tet shocked the hell out of the American public. Gen Westmoreland told them they were winning. Tet proved him wrong. And the slide towards retreat began (it didn't help when Gen Vo Nyguen Gap lied to the world his intent wasn't to win but to prove the undefeatable Vietnamese spirit)..
    Ah the US was winning, The Same Thing happened at the battle of the bulge, But our leaders were resolute enough to keep fighting and The Press was not on the enemies side saying we were losing and could never win. Also The communist funded and led Peace protests, and Lying Ex soldiers.(Thank you John Kerry) caused the public turn against the war.


    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
    He was unrealistic. The current committements prove it..
    He may Have Been I don't pretend to Have enough Military experience to judge. but Political considerations radicaly altered the mix. Even If he said okay I goofed I'm going to send more men. The focus would switch from getting the troops and money need to getting us out of there because The war was a mistake. I have seen enough Americian politics to predict that Our ever popular and patriotic demecrats would swarm like sharks ad use every admission of error to try and destroy Bush and the entire Party. and abandon anoter country to murdering psychos.
    As long as carreer politicians are willing to sell out the iraqi's to get ellected admitting error is not a real good option.


    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
    From a purely military PoV, there's insufficent mass to accomplish the most basic of military requirements. The roads and the pipelines have yet to be secured - insufficient troops..
    Point cnceeded



    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
    We're not Mongols..
    Clarification We should flatten the enemies strongpoints and either dis arm or render the Militias unable to continue fighting. If they want to surrender, okay, if they want to run screaming into the night never to be seen again Fine..., Maybe if they want to get involved in building a country and become part of the country that would be best.



    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
    It was a military defeat. Just because you gave the bad guys the upper hand does not reduce this reality any. I rather learn the lessons of defeat than try to shift the blame. Those lessons are extremely valuable and should not be diminished any..
    The lesson is a little differant from my point of view. The US never lost a major battle. The VC were largely a non issue by the end of the affair. the entire ware was being fought by a president who got the job by killing his boss. who wanted to run the war from the whitehouse. when Nixon Turned the bombers loose and flattened the Hanoi and cut the countries supply lines by destroying it's hub did the NV come to the table. a straight forward military campaign against the NV instead of setting in the south providing target practice for snipers and sappers would have ended the war and signaled to the Commies That we were serious. instead communist policy became the Politics of delay stall and negotiate. Americains dont have the stomach or backbone for war so all we have to do is lie decieve and pretend to be civilized and they will give us what we want.


    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
    Sorry, this is Rumsfeld's fault pure and simple. The original plan calls for 200,000 troops. Rumsfeld, without listening, slashed that to 60,000 SOF and no heavies. Gen Franks had to argue (some said begged) to push it up to 100,000..

    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
    The US did pull troops out of Germany and Europe. V Corps, for all practical purposes was USAREUR, and belonged to EURCOM. CENTCOM took V Corps without adding in a replacement, forcing CENTCOM to scramble to meet American treaty committements with non-American troops (ie, the rest of NATO backfilling). The US, like the rest of NATO, has treaty obligations that she cannot abandon at whim..
    Then Maybe It's Time The US renegotiate those treaties, There is no need for US troop strengths to be what they are outsideof korea and Japan. The USSR is dead, Warsaw Pact countries are coming on board and the Other member nations Have long ago recovered enough to defend themselves.
    Honestly Im petty tired of the European Countries bad mouthing and Critisizing when americians have been guarding there countries for fifty years.
    If they don't want us we can always go home. Not that I want "Fortress Americia" but if those countries want to use us as a merc army while they practice socialism and welfare they couldn't afford if they had to pay the total bill for an army then they better not bite the hand feeding them.



    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
    I am a Canadian, not American. I am sitting on the outside, waiting to react to your actions. I cannot and will not judge your votes. I only ask that you think before you vote..
    I hope you have realised that I do consider my opinions and positions carefully. I understand how serious my vote is. I don't like Bushs policies in total I don't dissagree with kerry totaly but the balance of my Personal Beliefes and Positions dictates that I vote for Bush, until someone gives me a GOoD canidate to vote for.


    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
    We're not Mongols..
    Okay once again a clarification I simpley believe that in several cases talking and negotiation only favor the Hostiles. rather than let them gain advantage it might be advisable to tell our commanders in the field to take care of the problem, give them the guns and manpower they need and get out of the way. once it's obvious the hostiles are no longer hostile or capable of acting on that hostility then we can try to talk to them again.
    War is not a substitue for Diplomacy, It is sometimes a legitimate part of it though.


    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
    You're it.
    Your turn,

    Dragoon
    Last edited by Dragoon; 02 Sep 04,, 22:56.
    Yes..,You have the right To Speak, however I have the right not to listen

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Confed999
      Then it should be no problem to quote the original source that tells you so.

      Originally posted by feynman
      Choosing When to Give Credit

      Need to Document
      ---------------------
      * When you are using or referring to somebody elseís words or ideas from a magazine, book, newspaper, song, TV program, movie, Web page, computer program, letter, advertisement, or any other medium
      * When you use information gained through interviewing another person
      * When you copy the exact words or a "unique phrase" from somewhere
      * When you reprint any diagrams, illustrations, charts, and pictures
      * When you use ideas that others have given you in conversations or over email


      No Need to Document
      -------------------------
      * When you are writing your own experiences, your own observations, your own insights, your own thoughts, your own conclusions about a subject
      * When you are using "common knowledge" ó folklore, common sense observations, shared information within your field of study or cultural group
      * When you are compiling generally accepted facts
      * When you are writing up your own experimental results

      http://owl.english.purdue.edu/hando.../r_plagiar.html
      Originally posted by Confed999
      This isn't a contest, we're just talking here.
      ;)
      Last edited by feynman; 03 Sep 04,, 01:09.
      "Security is an illusion. Life is either a daring adventure or it is nothing at all."
      ó Helen Keller

      Comment


      • My wife is going to kill me.

        Originally posted by Dragoon
        Yep cold war worked...., Ninety percent of our problems today come from the policies and tactics used to fight the cold war. Tsun Tsu Had a few thing to say about a protracted war..., basicly he said "Bad Idea Bub".
        The General also had another saying. The best way to win is to win without fighting. If you can accomplish your objectives by threats, coercion, bribes, it's a hell of alot easier than sending people into harm's way. I don't know if the old axiom "the best way to take a castle is a donkey loaded with gold" still works but it should be considered before I had to start burying my people.

        Originally posted by Dragoon
        we and the USSR scared the hell out of each other for fifty years. ran our economies into the dirt and ruined a few fairly nice places in the world fighting proxy wars...., great idea love it let's do it some more.
        Yeah, but we didn't burn babies in mushroom clouds and gave penquins new homes. For that, I am eternally grateful.

        Originally posted by Dragoon
        Sorry got a little side tracked there. sometimes I think we hurt the world more with the cold war than we would have by listening to Patton and the germans.
        I am not about to fight the Nazi's war for them. And Patton was as much of a meatgrinder as Soviet Field Marshalls.

        Originally posted by Dragoon
        also While I have no real love For commies atleast they were a rational enemy. they realised that if you want to rule the world it has to still be there after the war.
        I don't ask why. I'm just grateful that we won without firing a shot.

        Originally posted by Dragoon
        Since the VN war the US had followed a policy that allowed small problems fester, nt willing Socialy or politicly to use a little muscle to end a problem before it grew into a big one. Saddam was convinced maybe correctly that the world would not stand up to him. Historicly he was right. he was a major fan of Hitlers and may have properly realised that if he played political games long enough he could get his weapons and then the US would be unable to do anything to stop him Not even I would be insane enough to go up against a nuke armed Psychopath.
        Historically, it's the opposite. The Iraq War, in historic terms, is a brush war. Major powers had always went to war to punish those who would transgress into their domains. The Americans lacking an imperial experience would think this is new.

        Originally posted by Dragoon
        And never will be. If the world had moved decisivley after the Spanish civil war, the Sudatenland or the annexation of Austria.
        Hitler may have ended his carreer as a minor Footnote in a history book.

        I'm Not Claiming that Saddam was the next hitler but the pattern was getting pretty scary. Germany was an economic wreck it had an obsolete, shambles of an army. it developed The Stuka, The Meschersmidt and the first of the Panzers in direct contrivention of treaties and The League of nations. Lax enforcement and containment led to him having years to develop his army revive his economy and motivate his people.
        I was of the same view until my RSM reminded me of the age. What happenned? People rushed headstrong unblinking into WWI. Would you want to repeat those mistakes? Appeasement was the other extreme that also did not prevent war.

        Originally posted by Dragoon
        He was totaly outclassed in men machines and Technology.., Thats the point of being a superpower. Bush Tok the initiative away from him, we chose the timing and methods of war to strongly favor our forces. How much longer should we have waited Five years Ten Years, till he was a significant threat. then what. let him take the oil field Saudi Arabia. maybe he would have been satisfied then. None of the local powers except for Turkey could riegn him in if he was allowed to reequip. The French and Russians were more than willing to sell him weapon.., anyone remember the Migs That were sold to him after the weapons embargo, the were still buried under the Airfield In Bagdad when some local clue us in to where they were buried.
        No where is it written that you have to let your enemy get the first shot. or develop the means to take that shot. If my nieghbor starts loading his gun and threatening me You can bet Either I won't be there when he's done or the Cops will be..., He had better hope the cops get there quick.
        Which again comes back to the point that he was contained. I am playing my own devil's advocate here. I was convinced he was a clear and present danger. Looking back, I cannot see how I would have changed my mind. Even looking at this with today's evidence, I would still be convinced that he was a clear and present danger ... but he's not.

        I guess I'm doing some soul searching here. Fortunately, I am not the one who decided on war and therefore, I do not have the guilt to live with but the nagging doubt is there. Why was I so wrong? What could I have done not to be so wrong? And the most scariest part of this is ... there was nothing I could have done to have changed my mind.

        Originally posted by Dragoon
        Niether would I but if they are willing to fight then someone should be willing to help.

        No I would really prefer not to. I'm not able to do it myself though
        if I could I would. Pregnat and baby on back anyone chopping up the niegbors with a machette needs stopped.

        Evil has a way of making it hard to deal with, Rwanda was an aberation i hope never repeats itself. I cant imagine what would motivate that kind of brutality, except evil pure and simple.

        Even If The target is a 45 year old man, Drunk on drugs and pointing a gun at you. no one should ever have to decide to kill. and I would not want to be the fella giving the orders to do the killing either.
        I was not in Rwanda but I've seen man's inhumanity to man. I cannot say I grew numb but I did grew indifferent. I didn't care who was on the side of angels and who was listenning to the devil. At some point, I just want the killing to stop ... even if that means giving the bad guys what they want.

        Originally posted by Dragoon
        What is your exit strategy how would you get us out. Please Im totaly at a loss on that. The situation is muddied by Homeland politics, local politics and international Politics. Iran is sending in Mercs and Money, so are Syria Egyot an Palestine. We cant hit targets because of Their "Holy" status. The enemy hides in among civilians, Holy Sites and in every rat hole they can find. The situation is not an easy one. if some other countries would get there ass off there heads and help a little. (France, Russia, Spain,)

        You might want to start a new thread for this one
        I don't have an exit strategy (we're still in Yugoslavia remember?) but I do have stablization ideas. It's basically out of sight, out of mind, but not out of touch. Have the Iraqis start taking up the visible enforcement roles but back them up with well placed RRF and sniper teams.

        Originally posted by Dragoon
        Point Engineer I was talking out my arse on that one,
        My patience for most other countries is running thin, I respect most of our allies and appreciate there help. but results are getting pretty scarce. Playing games has gotten the world into a huge mess. Most of the Aggressors have no interest in being civilized or becoming Good world citezens. My perception is that many Europeans reduse to accept the fact that some problems and People cant be negotiate or Chatted out of ther plans. There are some people that Sooner or later you have to hit between the eyes.
        We've been at this longer than you have. The British and the Canadians are by far the most deployed army in NATO. The three largest force contributors to UNPROFOR were the British, Canadians, and French. Cyperus was enforced through Canadian battle groups. We've done our share far more than the Americans did in dealing with aggressors. So, it is kind of annoying saying that only Americans have stood up to aggressors. We did it alot longer without American help (and in the case of UNPROFOR, we even had the CIA acted against us).

        Originally posted by Dragoon
        My point maybe I wasn't clear was That only our shock and The, Ill advised comments of politicians and Newsmen.

        Ah the US was winning, The Same Thing happened at the battle of the bulge, But our leaders were resolute enough to keep fighting and The Press was not on the enemies side saying we were losing and could never win. Also The communist funded and led Peace protests, and Lying Ex soldiers.(Thank you John Kerry) caused the public turn against the war.
        EXACTLY! All it takes to turn a rosy picture of victory is one big debacle. Al Nafja ain't it but it's very, very well within the relm of possibility.

        Also, we Canadians have the opposite happenned to us. The Dieppe Raid was initially trounced as a military victory ... until the list of the dead start coming in.

        Originally posted by Dragoon
        He may Have Been I don't pretend to Have enough Military experience to judge. but Political considerations radicaly altered the mix. Even If he said okay I goofed I'm going to send more men. The focus would switch from getting the troops and money need to getting us out of there because The war was a mistake. I have seen enough Americian politics to predict that Our ever popular and patriotic demecrats would swarm like sharks ad use every admission of error to try and destroy Bush and the entire Party. and abandon anoter country to murdering psychos.
        As long as carreer politicians are willing to sell out the iraqi's to get ellected admitting error is not a real good option.
        I am not a politician. I am a soldier. My job is to get the people and the equipment needed to do the mission and as far as I can tell, that ain't it in Iraq. If Bush or Rumsfeld cannot do the job, then get the hell out of the way and let someone who can do it. That's the way I was trained and that's the way I expect.

        Originally posted by Dragoon
        Clarification We should flatten the enemies strongpoints and either dis arm or render the Militias unable to continue fighting. If they want to surrender, okay, if they want to run screaming into the night never to be seen again Fine..., Maybe if they want to get involved in building a country and become part of the country that would be best.
        And give the bad guys time to do their thing?

        Originally posted by Dragoon
        The lesson is a little differant from my point of view. The US never lost a major battle. The VC were largely a non issue by the end of the affair. the entire ware was being fought by a president who got the job by killing his boss. who wanted to run the war from the whitehouse. when Nixon Turned the bombers loose and flattened the Hanoi and cut the countries supply lines by destroying it's hub did the NV come to the table. a straight forward military campaign against the NV instead of setting in the south providing target practice for snipers and sappers would have ended the war and signaled to the Commies That we were serious. instead communist policy became the Politics of delay stall and negotiate. Americains dont have the stomach or backbone for war so all we have to do is lie decieve and pretend to be civilized and they will give us what we want.
        Great Britain never yielded to bombing and neither did the Vietnamese. There was one and only one way to end that war in the US's favour. An ARVN tank raising Saigon's flag over Hanoi. However, that nasty issue of the Chinese threat again.

        Originally posted by Dragoon
        Then Maybe It's Time The US renegotiate those treaties, There is no need for US troop strengths to be what they are outsideof korea and Japan. The USSR is dead, Warsaw Pact countries are coming on board and the Other member nations Have long ago recovered enough to defend themselves.
        Honestly Im petty tired of the European Countries bad mouthing and Critisizing when americians have been guarding there countries for fifty years.
        If they don't want us we can always go home. Not that I want "Fortress Americia" but if those countries want to use us as a merc army while they practice socialism and welfare they couldn't afford if they had to pay the total bill for an army then they better not bite the hand feeding them.
        The original intent of the NATO alliance was to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down. IE, the WWII Western allies dictated the terms ... meaning the US. The US is now caught with backing up its own words. There's still alot of clout and American say in NATO and not just American power. The military commander of NATO is ALWAYS an American and the Secretary General is ALWAYS an European. That means that the US has a direct command over 16 national armed forces ... doesn't always run smoothly (ie Generals Wesley Clarke and Michael Jackson).

        Sidenote ... where does that leave us Canadians?

        Originally posted by Dragoon
        I hope you have realised that I do consider my opinions and positions carefully. I understand how serious my vote is. I don't like Bushs policies in total I don't dissagree with kerry totaly but the balance of my Personal Beliefes and Positions dictates that I vote for Bush, until someone gives me a GOoD canidate to vote for.
        Gee, really??????

        Your positions are very well thought out and reasonned. We may not agree on everything but I'll be damned if I can find fault with your thinking.

        [/quote]Okay once again a clarification I simpley believe that in several cases talking and negotiation only favor the Hostiles. rather than let them gain advantage it might be advisable to tell our commanders in the field to take care of the problem, give them the guns and manpower they need and get out of the way. once it's obvious the hostiles are no longer hostile or capable of acting on that hostility then we can try to talk to them again.
        War is not a substitue for Diplomacy, It is sometimes a legitimate part of it though.[/quote]

        You're talking to an UNPROFOR member. My job is ALWAYS to talk first ... but that doesn't mean that I'm obliged to give the bad guy what he wants.

        Are you going to surrender? No? Fine, we talked. Blast the motherfucks!


        Originally posted by Dragoon
        Your turn,

        Dragoon

        Ball is in your court.

        Comment


        • Sorry it took me a while to reply Work and vacation..., Alaska is a great place Every body should go there if the can


          Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
          My wife is going to kill me..



          Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
          The General also had another saying. The best way to win is to win without fighting. If you can accomplish your objectives by threats, coercion, bribes, it's a hell of alot easier than sending people into harm's way. I don't know if the old axiom "the best way to take a castle is a donkey loaded with gold" still works but it should be considered before I had to start burying my people..
          I can see the logic there, I tend to base my descisions on one on one encounters. I do remember a section of Tsu Tsu that advised the feeding of vices and the paying of tributes if it was to your advantage. I should re read Him more often



          Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
          Yeah, but we didn't burn babies in mushroom clouds and gave penquins new homes. For that, I am eternally grateful..
          Don't ask me how I do remember the last few years of the cold war well.




          Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
          I am not about to fight the Nazi's war for them. And Patton was as much of a meatgrinder as Soviet Field Marshalls..
          Oh I wouldn't fight it either. But they were right about the communist though. My Grandfather lost his brother under Patton, I have no illusions of his "Greatness" he did however have some valid concerns about the USSR.




          Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
          I was of the same view until my RSM reminded me of the age. What happenned? People rushed headstrong unblinking into WWI. Would you want to repeat those mistakes? Appeasement was the other extreme that also did not prevent war..
          I think the best strategy may be somewhere between "Kill em all"
          and "Please Don't Hurt me" In recent years it seems to me that people have forgotten that some people not only don't want to be friends but want to kill everybody but their chosen group.



          Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
          I don't have an exit strategy (we're still in Yugoslavia remember?) but I do have stablization ideas. It's basically out of sight, out of mind, but not out of touch. Have the Iraqis start taking up the visible enforcement roles but back them up with well placed RRF and sniper teams..
          Nice Plan, I suppose it might have a chance of taking some of the steam out of the Militants if they don't have GI's to point at and yell "Invader!, Infedel, Etc...,


          Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
          Your positions are very well thought out and reasonned. We may not agree on everything but I'll be damned if I can find fault with your thinking..
          Anyone who agrees with everything you say is either a salesman, an idiot. or a liar. an if I were totaly in charge the world would be a wreck fortunately there are people around to calm me down when i need it. And occasionaly people who are a little over aggressive help keep the peace at all cost crowd from calling all the shots.


          Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
          You're talking to an UNPROFOR member. My job is ALWAYS to talk first ... but that doesn't mean that I'm obliged to give the bad guy what he wants..
          Not a bad idea, as long as you remember that it's other people that have to pay the bill for "Peace" some wise fellow once cautioned all things in moderation. this includes being reasonable.


          Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
          Are you going to surrender? No? Fine, we talked. Blast the motherfucks!.
          Not exactly, if someone shows signs of wanting to honestly work out the problem, I'm sane enough, (contrary to my psychologists' opinion ;) )
          to accept reasonable comprimises when it prevents bloodshed.


          Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
          Ball is in your court.
          Back to you


          Dragoon

          Three reasons other People want to talk.

          1. To solve a problem
          2. To hide a problem
          3. To stall while there friends sneak up behind you.

          Three reasons Why I Talk.

          1. To solve a problem
          2. To hide a problem.
          3. to buy time while I clear a Jam. ;)
          Yes..,You have the right To Speak, however I have the right not to listen

          Comment


          • My apologies. I've read your reply and then forgot about it when #1 Daughter started her morning hissy fits.

            Originally posted by Dragoon
            Not a bad idea, as long as you remember that it's other people that have to pay the bill for "Peace" some wise fellow once cautioned all things in moderation. this includes being reasonable.

            Not exactly, if someone shows signs of wanting to honestly work out the problem, I'm sane enough, (contrary to my psychologists' opinion ;) ) to accept reasonable comprimises when it prevents bloodshed.
            I had written a reply about the incident but it was somewhat painful. I just wanted to say they didn't want to surrender and we didn't want them to surrender.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
              #1 Daughter started her morning hissy fits.
              You'll miss them, when they stop. :)
              No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
              I agree completely with this Administrationís goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
              even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
              He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. Itís the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

              Comment

              Working...
              X