It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Military opinions and war experience

page: 12
1
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 08:05 PM
link   
Knowing the WAHABBI like we do, can you imagine if we would have got along with Hussein and rolled over Saudi instead?

Here's how I think Skadi would have put it:

That's your bleepin cakewalk.

Peace.




posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Knowing the WAHABBI like we do, can you imagine if we would have got along with Hussein and rolled over Saudi instead?

Here's how I think Skadi would have put it:

That's your bleepin cakewalk.

Peace.


In a nutshell, yes.


Sending the military into any country to fight terrorism is like hitting a fly on the wall with a sledge hammer. Not only do you end up ruining the wall and end u with a costly repair bill, but that fly has already bred thousands more of its kind. You will not win.

To effectively get rid of the fly problem, you get something that will kill them on their terms, like good bug spray. Kill their larvae, add it to your trash so they will not feed off of it.

Enter the CIA. Or name your agency. You have to fight terrorism in its element, the shadows. Thus, you send cold blooded spooks into the shadows to fight them. You car bomb them. You find their training camps and poison their wells. You get all these hard core cold blooded assasins the CIA has laying around, and you send them to inflict upon them the scourge they want to unleash on you. You spray their larvae with bug spray. You dont send tanks after them. Terrorists hide in the shadows, something armies by their natures cannot do. Thus, military intervention to fight terrorism is fruitless. Ask the British, the Russians, the Germans, ect.

As far as oil and world economy goes, if we spent half the effort finding new energy sources that we do defending oil feields, we would have by now been able to tell the Saudi oil pimps where to shove their filthy oil and blood money. It is because we spend so much time licking their rumps and feathering the nests of the oil Barons that we are still enslaved to this vile, filthy black poison that pollutes our planet and requires the blood of alot of American kids to hold onto.



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

In a nutshell, yes.


Enter the CIA. Or name your agency. You have to fight terrorism in its element, the shadows. Thus, you send cold blooded spooks into the shadows to fight them. You car bomb them. You find their training camps and poison their wells. You get all these hard core cold blooded assasins the CIA has laying around, and you send them to inflict upon them the scourge they want to unleash on you. You spray their larvae with bug spray. You dont send tanks after them. Terrorists hide in the shadows, something armies by their natures cannot do. Thus, military intervention to fight terrorism is fruitless. Ask the British, the Russians, the Germans, ect.



Way above vote for you! You nailed it, its a shame that Clinton and that Rhode Island Senator gutted the HumIntel ranks in the 90's.



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger


Way above vote for you! You nailed it, its a shame that Clinton and that Rhode Island Senator gutted the HumIntel ranks in the 90's.



Youll get no arguement from me there, Ed. Clinton was as big a menace to the Defense of this country as any spy could be. Having served damn near my whole term under his, I could go on and on about his destruction to the function and morale of the US military, and this destruction I can see the fruits of it in Iraq, where I see signs of command failures, lack of discipline, and lack of proper training. The whole reason I left the service was because of his New Army was simply intolerable for people such as myself who prefered a disciplined, effective, and focused military, not "kinder, gentler, more politically correct" army. He did cut our forces drastically, without cutting our committments, engagements, and conflicts.

When the whole Bosnia conflict broke out, in our military community, Hanau, President Clinton was greeted with protests from his own military families. That should tell you something there.

Bush's crime was in taking this army, still suffering from the Clinton years, and sending them ill prepared into a conflict that is still not understood. At the very least, there should have been a clean up of the military, a snap back into proper military bearing and focus, but this was not done.

And we see the results.



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf


Bush's crime was in taking this army, still suffering from the Clinton years, and sending them ill prepared into a conflict that is still not understood. At the very least, there should have been a clean up of the military, a snap back into proper military bearing and focus, but this was not done.



Clinton did cut waaaay back. Much more than what should have been done. It really makes you wonder how much that administration really knew about world affairs and future plans.

I will have to agree that Bush sent in a military that was not well equiped(Flak Jackets and body armor) and IMO, from the war footage I have seen, a military force with little self dicipline. Its not the same armed forces it was 15 years ago, thats for sure.



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Knowing the WAHABBI like we do, can you imagine if we would have got along with Hussein and rolled over Saudi instead?

That's your bleepin cakewalk.


This is not an option anymore. AFter the Gulf War, US plans for invading the Kingdom (for whatever reasons) were leaked and the House of Saud devised their own doomsday plan in the event this happened (any invader with the intent on seizing oil fields/means of production). The Saudis plan is called Petro SE (scorched earth). If anyone invades with the intention of seizing those facilities, Petro SE will kick in and render those sites useless (as Chernobyl useless) for the foreseeable future. It is brilliant and it is diabolical. It is worse than a nuclear weapon.

No more cakewalk there.



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

Enter the CIA. Or name your agency. You have to fight terrorism in its element, the shadows. Thus, you send cold blooded spooks into the shadows to fight them.


To me, this is our best bet in handling the Iranian problem. There is enough discontent within to justify it. If they could overthrow the mullahs from within, with our quiet, DISCREET help, we would all be winners in the end.



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger
Clinton did cut waaaay back. Much more than what should have been done. It really makes you wonder how much that administration really knew about world affairs and future plans.


They dint know jak, and frankly, they dint care to. The political correctness they brought into the military was TERRIBLE. After 9-11, I once again went round and round over whether I should try and go back in. A good friend of mine from my Ft. Campbell days, who was still in, told me I'd be crazy to go there. She said the new Army Skadi speaks of would drive me mad, considering I'm old school all the way. She told me NOT to do it. She said I'd wind killing somebody for being lazy and disrespectful!
Sorry, that's not even funny. She's probly right though. I wouldn't have put up any of that silly crybaby sh**.


I will have to agree that Bush sent in a military that was not well equiped(Flak Jackets and body armor) and IMO, from the war footage I have seen, a military force with little self dicipline. Its not the same armed forces it was 15 years ago, thats for sure.


Y'all know I disagreed with the whole thing from the get-go, but I have to say this.. my fundamental beef with the Bush admin. and Rumsfeld's Pentagon is that fact that they failed our troops MISERABLY in the way they sent them to war. Too FEW troops. NOT enough back-up. THAT is how to get a lot of fine people killed. For that Rumsfeld and his crew of NAIFS should answer.



posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
For that Rumsfeld and his crew of NAIFS should answer.




True enough ECK. Too bad Bush has said all culpability of his administration is null and void after the last elections. Im still trying to figure that line of thought out. 'You elected me so me and my buddies cannot answer to you for mistakes we have made.' What a joke.

Hey ECK, you got a link or something I can read about the Saudi SE plan? I cant find much of anything other than a mention or two. Nothing in depth.



posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 07:18 AM
link   
So much for the buck stops here.


No responsibility.
No responsibility = WEAK.

You can find it discussed in the book Secrets of the Kingdom, by Gerald Posner. It's a fascinating read.



posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid


You can find it discussed in the book Secrets of the Kingdom, by Gerald Posner. It's a fascinating read.


Thats the book that you reccommended earlier. I think I will have to visit my local bookstore today



posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger
Thats the book that you reccommended earlier. I think I will have to visit my local bookstore today


It's fascinating from the very start. It's hard to put down and not that long (191 pages).

I know this is off-topic, but... I just realized, I registered at ATS on September 19. That was the day my group landed in Saudi Arabia.



posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Think about it...

a nationwide self-destruct system

rubidium, cesium, strontium

generous and selective placements of RDD's (Radioactive Dispersal Devices)

They've put a helluva lot into this. For anyone who thought Saddam was scary.. these guys have far outdone him.

I would not wanna be anywhere near Saudi Arabia, considering this. Pity the many foreign nationals and non-Saud indiginous peoples who would be trapped within that doomsday scenario.



posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger

Clinton did cut waaaay back. Much more than what should have been done. It really makes you wonder how much that administration really knew about world affairs and future plans.

I will have to agree that Bush sent in a military that was not well equiped(Flak Jackets and body armor) and IMO, from the war footage I have seen, a military force with little self dicipline. Its not the same armed forces it was 15 years ago, thats for sure.



Clinton didn't just shave the forces down, the majority of people he got rid of were the old timers, the ones with the years behind them and invaluable experience to pass on you us greener folk. I cant begin to tell you that when I arrived at my unit, how many experienced, knowldgeable older veteran soldiers I saw get the early boot. They were replaced by a younger corps of troops who went threw the new "stress free" (I am not kidding you on this, I friggin swear. Thats right. STRESS FREE) basic training. So we were left with a large fresh malleable body of undisciplined kids with no one to properly guide them. We are seeing the fruits of Clintons mistakes today.

I often speculated the reason Clinton kicked out the old dogs was because they would have violenty resisted his leftist politics and policies. The oldtimers were alot more hardcore, and would not have tolerated the c rap that came down from the DOD. Without the old timers, it would have been alot easier to instil the new army policies, which I can tell you, were an utter disaster. During the cutbacks in Europe, morale was so low, and intermilitary crime skyrocketed. I remeber the case at Fulda, as it was closing down, where some dude flipped out and cut off one of his unit buddy's head with a samurai sword. Such stories were every day news in USAREUR. Morale, discipline, and order were quickly crumbling. i couldnt believe how quick it had slid downhill at my 3rd year anniversary.

Youre right, Kid, this aint the army it was 15 years ago. It all started really not long after I got out of AIT, but really went full force about a year and a half later. Example: a newby, just out of Ft Bliss, not even an E-2, walks into the orderly room, addresses an LT as "Yo" and asks, "wheres my 2404 for my truck, dawg?" I was in the room at the time, turning in my maintanence logs, and before the LT could say a thing, I grabbed the little bastard, spun him around, and basically proceeded to "explain" proper military courtesy and bearing. Only to be chewed out by the LT for roughly handling and yeling at the newby. Can you believe that #? If that had been me but two years prior, the LT would have mopped the walls with me before the corporal standing next to me could turn around.

Its that atmosphere is why Clinton should hang along side Bush. Clinton for creating the situation, Bush for ignoring it and aggravating it.



posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 10:50 AM
link   
I totally agree w/your view onnit Skadi.

Hell, I was surprised that boot camp wasn't any harder than it was in '89.

My friend & brother both told me (regarding Clinton's Army) that in boot camp, recruits are given cards with the number of Chaplain, or hot line, to COMPLAIN about rough or unfair treatment.

You know what I say about that? BOO FU**ING HOO!

If you can't take the soft torture, which boot camp used to be, you have NO business serving in the military, let alone going to WAR!


CRY ME A RIVER!



posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 10:53 AM
link   
I'll go one further, in training we hadta sit through Soviet training films.. talk about torture
.. those guys are hardcore. People DIE during their basic training. You think anyone's giving them any hotline to dry their tears? Hellno. They either deal with it or they get ran over...



posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid


My friend & brother both told me (regarding Clinton's Army) that in boot camp, recruits are given cards with the number of Chaplain, or hot line, to COMPLAIN about rough or unfair treatment.



I have heard of this. When I went to boot camp. The only thing we had was a TTO. Or for those who are unfamilliar with it, a Technical Time Out. You could only use it if you felt your life was in danger. Getting roughed up by the Company Commander was no excuse for it. Mainly it was used due to heat related issues. Heat exhaustion and heat stroke.

Its hard to believe that todays military requires a card to baby its recruits. Im sure the training is still top notch, but only the physical part. The mental aspect of boot camp has been seriously undermined. The military mentality used to make or break a soldier in boot camp. It appears it is no longer a requirment


I wondered if this pampered recruit mentality might be partially responsible for the original thoughts of this thread, but since vets from all eras are both opposed and in support of the war in Iraq, it seems that theory may be out the window.



BTW, I went to Booksamillion today and they didnt have a copy of the book avaliable so I orderd it. It should be in in about 2 or 3 weeks.


[edit on 6/6/05 by Kidfinger]



posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger
BTW, I went to Booksamillion today and they didnt have a copy of the book avaliable so I orderd it. It should be in in about 2 or 3 weeks.



Excellent.
You won't be sorry.

We never had any kind of technical time out (I knew I shoulda gone NAVY!
) You either fell out, (and I do mean passing out at THE POSITION OF ATTENTION!) or you kept going. They dint baby anyone. If anything, we'd havta pitch in and literally drag each other through the shyte, 'cos we weren't gonna let our buddies fall out.



posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid


We never had any kind of technical time out (I knew I shoulda gone NAVY!
) You either fell out, (and I do mean passing out at THE POSITION OF ATTENTION!) or you kept going. They dint baby anyone. If anything, we'd havta pitch in and literally drag each other through the shyte, 'cos we weren't gonna let our buddies fall out.


Oh, dont get me wrong, we had TTO's, but if anyone every used one before falling out, it was like a black mark you could never escape. Furthermore, if you DID happen to use one, you were usually taking the long bus ride home shortly after. After boot camp, I went on to my A-school, and then through more 'training' after A-school on Treasure Island in California. Its in the SF Bay area. T.I. was DEFINATELY no cakewalk



posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 05:14 PM
link   
You know, it's funny.. We had to march everywhere. All these people in boot camp got these massive blisters. Ungodly things, unlike anything I'd ever seen. They'd havta get 'em lanced in the field.

I never got a single one. Until Air Assault school - much later. I got this nasty blister on the in-side of my ankle - right below it, at about the 7th mile into our 12-mile forced march. (You had to practically run it, in full combat load, and make it under two hours to graduate.) Every damn step felt like a bayonet was jabbing into it. It hurt like a MOFO but their wasn't anyway I was NOT gonna graduate ON THAT DAY!




[edit on 6/6/05 by EastCoastKid]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join