How powerful is the U.S. military? Are they underestimated?

Originally posted by mwm1331
No johnny it was not. The simple fact is that Vietnam was not a war we lost, it was a war we were never allowed to fight.
Had the politicians stayed out of it and let the military do its thing, Vietnam would be a US protectorate right now.

I'm afraid the world does not deal with 'what ifs’; the fact is the American people could no longer stand for the continual loss of innocent life, and thus pressured the government to accept a withdrawal without victory. The reason people with the same mind frame as you were 'never allowed to really fight' is simply because they are a dying breed, one that relies on the archaic benefits of victory over the weak, which in turn only serves to extinguish what is left of their morality.

I am thankful for the fact that people today are also standing up against such violence, and I believe eventually that same pressure will come down on the US government once more to halt its actions, regardless of its military might.
You stated about Vietnam that "it was a war we were never allowed to fight", so I will pose a question to you, what makes you think your military will be allowed to this time?

Originally posted by mwm1331
No johnny it was not. The simple fact is that Vietnam was not a war we lost, it was a war we were never allowed to fight.
Had the politicians stayed out of it and let the military do its thing, Vietnam would be a US protectorate right now.

no, you didnt loose the war,
you just "pulled the troops out" right?

anyway,
what do you mean by "we were never allowed to fight"?
i belive the american army used just about every weapon in its arsenal on the people of vietnam, and that didnt work then.
i ment every CONVENTIONAL weapon.

and its really nice to be a u.s. protectorat,
just like iraq today huh?
people die everyday and so called "democracy" is in full effect right?
great job!

so, did you mean:
u.s. protectorat
or
u.s. colony?

Originally posted by Johnny Redburn
The reason people with the same mind frame as you were 'never allowed to really fight' is simply because they are a dying breed, one that relies on the archaic benefits of victory over the weak, which in turn only serves to extinguish what is left of their morality.

I'm afraid that doesn't make any sense. You're saying the reason something happened way back then, is because a breed is dying today? And victory over the weak is the way of things, always has been, what planet do you live on? Planet hippie? Take a look at mother nature as a prime example, what happens to the peaceful animals? They get eaten. Not that it should be the way we as humans live, however to survive we must evolve. Which is why I cannot wrap my mind around the fact that so many of our civilized "friends" have turned their backs on us, in favor of uncivilized nations who really do subscribe to the archaic beliefs you speak of that extinguish morality. If those you choose to defend obtain their objectives, and destroy the U.S., guess who will be the next "Great Satan". As wrong as it feels to determine the path a nation must take, it is necessary to ensure our survival as a species. We must not allow ancient, extreme religious laws to be used as a reason for governments to brutally oppress entire populations, to sentence people to death for the most minor and ridiculous infractions. And we certainly cannot allow those governments to obtain nuclear weapons. It seems our civilized "friends" are just as brainwashed as those who blindly support Bush are, brainwashed into hating the U.S., brainwashed into severing a meaningful friendship for the sake of barbarians, brainwashed into passive appeasement. Personally, I make my own decisions and opinions, I am not liberal or conservative, I'm a human being who chooses my own destiny. I hate war, and I hate the death of innocents, I truly do. And there would not be nearly as much of either if the civilized world came together and demanded that these brutal, oppressive societies evolve, for the sake of humanity. Instead we are forced to go alone (with the help of a few allies), emboldening those extremist regimes with the knowledge that you support them, causing them to fight evolution that much harder, which in turn causes innocents to be caught in the crossfire.



[edit on 17-2-2005 by 27jd]

Originally posted by Johnny Redburn
The reason people with the same mind frame as you were 'never allowed to really fight' is simply because they are a dying breed, one that relies on the archaic benefits of victory over the weak, which in turn only serves to extinguish what is left of their morality.

Originally posted by 27jd
I'm afraid that doesn't make any sense. You're saying the reason something happened way back then, is because a breed is dying today?

No I was not, maybe I was not clear enough. I was talking about the people during the Vietnam era that had similar ways of thinking as mwm has today. The ones that wanted to continue fighting even harder and think that problems can be solved by just 'killing even more of em'. I suggested that the people who maintained this type of thinking were a dying breed back then, and in my mind, present day people that think like this are still losing influence now.

And victory over the weak is the way of things, always has been,

In our un-civilized past maybe, however I would think we have somewhat evolved from that, but maybe I am wrong.

what planet do you live on? Planet hippie?

You come to this conclusion simply because I do not want strong nations to bully weaker ones?

Take a look at mother nature as a prime example, what happens to the peaceful animals? They get eaten. Not that it should be the way we as humans live,

Exactly, with how far we have come, it shouldn't be the way we live.

As wrong as it feels to determine the path a nation must take, it is necessary to ensure our survival as a species.

Why does you're country alone get to make that decision?

We must not allow ancient, extreme religious laws to be used as a reason for governments to brutally oppress entire populations, to sentence people to death for the most minor and ridiculous infractions.

Again, what right does one single nation have to decide how other nations should live?

And we certainly cannot allow those governments to obtain nuclear weapons.

Do you not stop to think you're countries aggressive stance might be what causes these nations to try and obtain such weapons?

You re-iterated it yourself that 'victory over the weak' is the way of things, so is it so hard to fathom that these nations are trying to become stronger?

I hate war, and I hate the death of innocents, I truly do.

Now do I get to reply with a snappy remark too? "What planet do you live on, planet hippie?"




[edit on 17-2-2005 by Johnny Redburn]

Originally posted by Johnny Redburn
No I was not, maybe I was not clear enough. I was talking about the people during the Vietnam era that had similar ways of thinking as mwm has today. The ones that wanted to continue fighting even harder and think that problems can be solved by just 'killing even more of em'. I suggested that the people who maintained this type of thinking were a dying breed back then, and in my mind, present day people that think like this are still losing influence now.

I see. I misunderstood.

In our un-civilized past maybe, however I would think we have somewhat evolved from that, but maybe I am wrong.

No you're right, however to ensure our survival as a species we must evolve as a whole. We cannot allow people to be mistreated grossly, like they are in many parts of the world, just because they were born in the wrong place.

You come to this conclusion simply because I do not want strong nations to bully weaker ones?

I was just kidding.

Exactly, with how far we have come, it shouldn't be the way we live.

Right. And it shouldn't be the way anyone lives, anywhere.

Why does you're country alone get to make that decision?

Our country alone shouldn't make that decision, I stated that I think the entire free, civilized world should be united, if it were, these governments would have no choice but to conform to humanity. Any attempt to continue their way of life would be so swiftly and decisively stopped, there would be no insurgencies, and alot less innocent life lost. The entire free world would be quite an overwhelming force. Don't you think?

Do you not stop to think you're countries aggressive stance might be what causes these nations to try and obtain such weapons?

Aggresive to countries who, if allowed to obtain these weapons, would be far more aggresive than us. Honestly, do you truly see us as a threat to you're country? Although we may have a few political differences, it's idealogical differences that have caused the most death and destruction in the world. And the countries we're being aggresive towards, for the most part, do not find different idealogies other than their brutal, oppressive ones acceptable.

You re-iterated it yourself that 'victory over the weak' is the way of things, so is it so hard to fathom that these nations are trying to become stronger?

It's not hard to fathom at all, that's the problem. If the U.S. and Israel were destroyed tomorrow, who would those fanatical regimes redirect the blame towards for their peoples' hardships? Any countries that don't treat their people the same, that's who. Any country in which the people who are oppressed can look to and see how much better life could be. These two idealogies, IMHO, are not able to co-exist, so arming them with nuclear weapons is ensuring they will be used, somewhere, sometime.

Now do I get to reply with a snappy remark too? "What planet do you live on, planet hippie?"

Yes, you do. I deserve that.






[edit on 17-2-2005 by 27jd]

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Iran and Syria better think twice about getting tough with the lone military super power. We might lose more men then Iraq but they would both lose.

This is funny. America is the one getting tough with Iran and Syria, not the another way around. Why you all keep making this up escapes me.

I think it's way to early to say what the outcome of such a war would be. War is war.

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
This is funny. America is the one getting tough with Iran and Syria, not the another way around. Why you all keep making this up escapes me.

Yeah, our government must have thrown the names of all the countries around the world in a hat, and just pulled out a few names out to determine who we would get tough with. Iran and Syria both have top notch governments who are only concerned with making sure the Middle East is a peaceful, wonderful place for all who live there, or who may visit. Just the luck of the draw for them I guess.

What are we all making up? This:

Syria's support for myriad terrorist groups, its chemical weapons programs, the promotion of anti-Americanism in its state-run media, and its facilitation of foreign fighters into Iraq to attack American servicemen are all diametrically opposed to Washington's interests for stability in both Iraq and in Israel. Syrian nationals, it should be noted, currently constitute the largest number of foreign fighters held in coalition custody in Iraq and are a threat to both the lives of American servicemen and to American success in nation building.

The revelations of espionage at Guantanamo Bay only bolster the case against Damascus. The detained Islamic chaplain accusing of breaching security, Yousef Yee, studied Islam in Syria in the 1990s, while Ahmad al-Halabi, the Syrian-born airman charged with espionage, has been accused of failing to report unauthorized contacts with the Syrian Embassy and of planning to pass military secrets to Syria or to a group operating out of Syria. This has prompted Washington to investigate whether Syria is actively involved in espionage against the United States.

Syria's support for Palestinian terrorist organizations and for Hezbollah is completely antithetical to American policy. Damascus realizes that a continuation of Israeli-Palestinian violence and the lack of a viable peace process will further anti-American sentiment in the region, particularly when a terrorist attack leads to an Israeli retaliatory strike. Islamic Jihad, the most violent and implacably anti-Zionist of the Palestinian militias, directs Palestinian attacks from Damascus and deliberately hampers any effort toward a two-state solution. It is for this reason that, following the suicide bombing by Islamic Jihad on October 4, that the Israeli military retaliated against a terrorist training base in Syria. Hezbollah's continual provocations against northern Israel, on the other hand, serve to perpetuate a constant state of potential crisis in the Levant.

www.capmag.com...

Or this:

While most of our attention is fixed on Iraq and the difficult process of instituting a democratic government there (and in Afghanistan), the news out of Iran is largely erroneous and does not focus on the fact that, along with Saudi Arabia, it is the leading supporter of Islamic terrorism in the world.

It is Iran that still identifies the United States of America as "the Great Satan."

It is Iran that has been systematically seeking to develop a nuclear arms program since the 1980s and lying about it. It is Iran that will not only be able to destroy an American city with a nuclear device, but it is also Iran's leaders who are the most likely to do so.

The mainstream American press has not been well served by reporters for major news services who, for example, continue to refer to recent elections in Iran as having been between "reformers" and "conservatives" - as if to suggest that there is a real chance of reform in Iran. There hasn't been any such opportunity since Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini seized power on Feb. 1, 1979, after Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi had fled the country.

The Islamic Revolution that began then is now 25 years old and Iran has long since sunk into the Dark Ages of the same Islamic Revolution being pursued by al Qaeda and other Islamic terror organizations would impose on the entire world. To look at Iran today is to see what the future would be if this violent revolution should ever succeed.

"The reality is our situation is like a nightmare," said one prominent Iranian intellectual. The demographics of Iran are interesting. Two-thirds of Iranians are under 30. They are a generation of well-educated men and women. Fully 60 percent of university students are women. They can see the outside world via satellite television and have access to the Internet. They want good jobs and opportunities, but so long as the ayatollahs remain in control, they have few of either. A recent report on Iran by Borzou Daragahi notes, "The economy remains in the control of conservative clerics and their allies who seized businesses at the beginning of the revolution."

The record is there for anyone to examine. First came the 1979 taking of U.S. diplomats as hostages for 444 days. This is unprecedented in modern history. Other American hostages were those taken in Lebanon in the 1980s. Iran provides the funding for Hezbollah, the terrorist organization that has staged so many terror bombings in Israel (along with Hamas, the Palestinian organization). It was Iran that funded the truck bombing of 241 U.S. Marines in Beirut on Oct. 23, 1983.

Intelligence sources, according to a recent issue of Insight on the News told the magazine that Iran "supplied the explosives" for the 1998 al Qaeda bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa.

It was Iran that funded the attack in 1996 on the Khobar Towers barracks for U.S. military personnel in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, that killed nineteen soldiers and injured 400 others. Former FBI Director Louis Freeh testified the attack was "planned, funded, and sponsored by the senior leadership of the government of Iran."

It can and should be argued that we have been in a state of war with Iran since 1979. At the very least, it is obvious that Iran sees itself as being in a state of war with America.

www.military.com...

[edit on 17-2-2005 by 27jd]

Its difficult to know how "powerful" the US military is in terms of projecting firepower you cant go past the yanks. The US Military is great at winning convental wars but useless at fighting Guerilla warfare.
The fact remains that the yanks havnt won a war since WW2.
When was the last time America air & sea power was challenged ? In both gulf wars American airpower was unchallenged thus american capablitys werent tested.

American Special forces are as good as any if they have a fault its that there are two many of them thus there capablitys are spread thou out differnt units.

27jd,

I never said Iran and Syria had top-notch government who are only concerned with making sure the Middle East is a peaceful, wonderful place for all who live there, or who may visit.

Some advice. When arguing, challenge what is said, not what wasn't said.

sweatmonicaIdo,

I never implied that you said that. I was responding, using sarcasm, to your implication that we were making up hostilities directed toward our country by these nations. That's all. But thanks for the advice anyways. And I wouldn't really call it arguing, as neither one of us is angry, I'm not at least.

Originally posted by 27jd
sweatmonicaIdo,

I never implied that you said that. I was responding, using sarcasm, to your implication that we were making up hostilities directed toward our country by these nations. That's all. But thanks for the advice anyways. And I wouldn't really call it arguing, as neither one of us is angry, I'm not at least.

Another one. I did not say we were making up hostilities. There is obviously hostility between nations. What I was saying was that the U.S. government and their lovers are making up the notion that Syria and Iran are "challenging" us. If anything, their so-called "challenges" were a response to ours. So logically, that would mean that the U.S. was the one doing the challenging, not them. Even if they were "challenging" us, Iran, at least, has a legtimate reason to do so.

Arguing doesn't have to be angry.

Originally posted by mwm1331
No johnny it was not. The simple fact is that Vietnam was not a war we lost, it was a war we were never allowed to fight.
Had the politicians stayed out of it and let the military do its thing, Vietnam would be a US protectorate right now.

Reminder: Victory comes when one side gets what it wants. Loss comes when that side does not get what it wants.

The U.S. fought North Vietnam. The U.S. did not get anything it wanted in the Vietnam War. Therefore, the U.S. lost the Vietnam War.

Make sense? Good.

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
Russia don't need nukes man U.S. only has 650,000 active duty troops and 200,000 reservist, Russia has 988,100 actve duty troops and 20 Million reservists, so if U.S. ain't gonna have a draft right now 2005 you can't defeat us conventionally.

I dont know if you know this, but Russia's population has been steadily declining for the last 100 years, and is actually smaller now than it was in 1890, i believe that was the year. I dont know how you think you can win a war vs. the US when you can't match the US in terms of military funding, and any draft the US had would easily whipe out russia's army. You forget, that although the Russian military may be bigger they aren't necessarily as well equiped. Look at WWII and Stalin, were those soldiers well equiped, and what country had the highest lose of soldiers in that war? Yes that was 60 years ago but are you really better off economically, and your population again is much smaller. You are saying that America couldn't hold off your troops in time for us to train our 60 million soldiers we drafted, according to who ever said it, which btw... is just under half the size of your countries population. I think you are greatly overestimating Russia's abilities. Oh, and btw... to who ever said that the Iraqi's hate us now is dead wrong. Go to Iraq and see the pro-US sentiment. And it seems to me that any war with Iran, and Syria won't be the US alone, as it was said the International community is with the US on this one.

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Another one. I did not say we were making up hostilities.

I must have misunderstood this:

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
This is funny. America is the one getting tough with Iran and Syria, not the another way around. Why you all keep making this up escapes me.

What I was saying was that the U.S. government and their lovers are making up the notion that Syria and Iran are "challenging" us.

That's almost exactly the thing that you just said you weren't saying, only you replace hostility with "challenge" (whom you are quoting I have know idea).

If anything, their so-called "challenges" were a response to ours. So logically, that would mean that the U.S. was the one doing the challenging, not them. Even if they were "challenging" us, Iran, at least, has a legtimate reason to do so.

That's amusing, you are trying to say we provoked them first, and that they had no animosity toward us until Bush was elected and started threatening them. Let me guess, you never said that.
Read the articles I posted above, this goes back a bit further than 2000. You think Iran has a legitimate reason to challenge us. That says enough right there, you would probably defend them, just to spite your own government, right until they severed your vocal chords.

Arguing doesn't have to be angry.

I guess not by definition, but when I think of arguing, I think of anger. I call it a debate.

Originally posted by 27jd
That's almost exactly the thing that you just said you weren't saying, only you replace hostility with "challenge" (whom you are quoting I have know idea).

I was differentiating challenge with hostilities. As I said before, hostilities between the nations existed before Bush was elected into office. However, just because there are hostilities does not mean there cannot be challenges made. In fact, challenges are always made between hostile nations!

That's amusing, you are trying to say we provoked them first, and that they had no animosity toward us until Bush was elected and started threatening them. Let me guess, you never said that.
Read the articles I posted above, this goes back a bit further than 2000. You think Iran has a legitimate reason to challenge us. That says enough right there, you would probably defend them, just to spite your own government, right until they severed your vocal chords.

Think back to why the events in 1979 took place. That's legit enough.

And yes, as an American, I would defend Iran's wish to be free of out government's negative influence, until they actually attack us. I am well aware of Iran's problems, BTW, but dealing with it would mean we would probably have to end the world as we know it. So it's not gonna happen, and for the sake of world stability and economy, we won't.

I didn't realize the U.S. government severed vocal chords for speaking out against them.

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
I was differentiating challenge with hostilities. As I said before, hostilities between the nations existed before Bush was elected into office. However, just because there are hostilities does not mean there cannot be challenges made. In fact, challenges are always made between hostile nations!

That makes no sense.

I was differentiating challenge with hostilities.

In fact, challenges are always made between hostile nations!

Think back to why the events in 1979 took place. That's legit enough.

So, you think terrorism is legitimate? As long as you think the reason is "legit enough"?

And yes, as an American, I would defend Iran's wish to be free of out government's negative influence, until they actually attack us.

They did attack us, on several occasions, once again, read the articles I posted before you respond.

I am well aware of Iran's problems, BTW, but dealing with it would mean we would probably have to end the world as we know it. So it's not gonna happen, and for the sake of world stability and economy, we won't.

End the world as we know it? How would that be? Let me guess, you're one of those paranoid folks who think Russia is so loyal to the radical Islamic government in Iran, that they would watch their country be destroyed to defend them. Sorry, Russia is only in it for the $, if it comes down to it, Russia will protest it politically, maybe sell Iran weapons we will destroy, and that's about all.

I didn't realize the U.S. government severed vocal chords for speaking out against them.

I wasn't referring to the U.S. government, but you knew that, it was way too obvious for you not to have. Just in case you really can't grasp the obvious, which I'm beginning to think may be the case, I was referring to the jihadists severing your vocal chords during your hypathetical taped beheading. But they wouldn't do that to you, they would welcome you with open arms. Perhaps you should go there and express your support for them, we haven't had any new taped executions floating around the net lately.

A few posts have mentioned a "draft".... while I agree that if we go to war "again" our forces will need to be replenished. Perhaps the draft ends up being the only means in which to do this "quickly".

With that being said. I ask what is better quality or quantity? Just today I was at my daughters High School (we live in suburbia). Walking down the halls, looking around, observing.... no offence but is that the generation we want on our front lines? Are these the kids that will be drafted?

Does anyone have any idea what this generation is all about? No? I advise you to go onto one of those "live journal sites"... read... read what REALLY matters to these kids.... and then they (gov) are going to ask them to put down the robotussin bottles and pick up a gun?

What kinda force would that be!? Seriously, if you dont know what this generation is all about ... please do the leg work and come to your own conclusions. If you get a chance, go find one, anyone, and ask them what the first admendment is? You'll see...


So again I ask, which is better quantity or quality?
[edit on 18-2-2005 by Serum39]

[edit on 18-2-2005 by Serum39]

Serum39,

I think what you experienced is the generation gap that occurs between all generations. I don't think every young person is guzzling OTC cough meds regularly. I'm 27, I did alot of those things as a teenager, but I grew out of it. They will too. And don't forget, it's those same kids who are fighting in Iraq today. Just like the difference between the soldiers of WWII, the soldiers of Vietnam, and the soldiers today, older people will never comprehend what younger people think is cool, and that's exactly what they want at that age, not to be like their parents. Too bad it's a losing battle.

Originally posted by 27jd
That makes no sense.

Then at this point, I have no idea what to say to that. I've explained it as good as anybody can. Your foul if you don't understand it.

So, you think terrorism is legitimate? As long as you think the reason is "legit enough"?

That's the same as asking if you think a war is legitimate.

End the world as we know it? How would that be? Let me guess, you're one of those paranoid folks who think Russia is so loyal to the radical Islamic government in Iran, that they would watch their country be destroyed to defend them. Sorry, Russia is only in it for the $, if it comes down to it, Russia will protest it politically, maybe sell Iran weapons we will destroy, and that's about all.

You guessed wrong. To go to Iran for "human rights" and "democracy" means we would also have to go to every other country in the world that has even worse human rights records or does not have democracy. That would mean we would have to go to war with close to 40% of the world. That would disrupt the economy and world stability to the point things would just collapse on itself.

Perhaps you should go there and express your support for them, we haven't had any new taped executions floating around the net lately.

Whoa... now that is a pretty low thing to say. Sounds like you could've easily instigated a school shooting back in your day.

BTW Iranians don't hate you, you just hate them.

Originally posted by Serum39
A few posts have mentioned a "draft".... while I agree that if we go to war "again" our forces will need to be replenished. Perhaps the draft ends up being the only means in which to do this "quickly".

With that being said. I ask what is better quality or quantity? Just today I was at my daughters High School (we live in suburbia). Walking down the halls, looking around, observing.... no offence but is that the generation we want on our front lines? Are these the kids that will be drafted?

Does anyone have any idea what this generation is all about? No? I advise you to go onto one of those "live journal sites"... read... read what REALLY matters to these kids.... and then they (gov) are going to ask them to put down the robotussin bottles and pick up a gun?

What kinda force would that be!? Seriously, if you dont know what this generation is all about ... please do the leg work and come to your own conclusions. If you get a chance, go find one, anyone, and ask them what the first admendment is? You'll see...


So again I ask, which is better quantity or quality?

I am part of that generation you speak of, and even I'll say I'm quite disappointed at what most of us are and have become. I've taken a very strong interest in the subject recently and I can say Gen. Y is the MOST catered-to and watched-over generation in history. They are also by far the most naive. With all the trophies on their shelves and windows, they almost expect to get a leg up in everything, that someone will always be there to pick them up. Boy are they wrong! Then the media and society in general makes the outsiders and kids in more unfortunate setting rather than suburbia look like losers and bad people, when suburbia is actually more twisted than any other place in the country!

I do take some pride in that I am what you consider and outsider to Gen. Y. I feel so out of place, I feel like I belong in Generation X.

To answer your question, quality is always better, but if they can afford it, quantity can help as well. But that's assuming we have an unstoppable war machine with unlimited resources. Which, unlike Hitler, we do not have.

[edit on 18-2-2005 by sweatmonicaIdo]