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.

 

If you think America can cope with another war, read this and weep

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Wow this says it all. America is way way too overstretched and overburdened with this extended war on terror.
What the terror war has got them is an army of combat veterans...and not much else...shocking read. I actually feel sorry for the US troops after reading this.

www.globalsecurity.org...

An eye opener.




posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Did you see who put the document together? These are also the same people you will find on all of the news channels discreditting the administration and saying all the things that are wrong with our "War on Terror". They have been doing this since we went into Afghanistan



posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Not only that it depends on what kind of war you're talking about. We can devastate nations without ever setting foot on them.



posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 02:34 PM
link   
I wonder how many pro-bushies are willing to be drafted?

I wonder if all the sabre rattling over Iran is just a lot of blow hard bluffing?

Those are just a couple of things I wonder about.

Oh yeah, and all those parts for war-aged vehicles and equipment, I'm sure the need for new parts is gradually accelerating. Lotto-bux for those who supply the military. War is $$$. I wonder how much the US military pays for brake shoes and tank treads or tires?



posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 02:55 PM
link   
The only resolution that comes to mind would be for every war supporter to enlist. Every argument I ever have with a pro-war person end with me asking them politely to join up. I firmly believe in doing your duty as an American, but in the present cases I have to decline. I refuse to believe that we are "in the know."

Matter of fact, I am pretty sure just the opposite is true. I firmly think we are being lied to. If we are invaded, or directly attacked by a clear and definable enemy, I will be first in line to defend the country I love. I just dont think this was the case with 9/11.

I started a thread a few weeks ago asking Bush supporters why they werent serving in their war. The mods deemed it unnoteworthy apparantly and it is now rotting @ BTS. So maybe I can ask that question here.

If you think that Islamic Terrorists are truely trying to kill us, not because of currupt politics and currupt leaders, but because they "are jealous of our freedom," why the hell arent you fighting for your FREEDOM? Why arent your kids fighting? Over 3/4ths of the nascar fans and wife beaters in this country voted for these blood/oil thirsty policies so gays couldnt marry, and abortions wouldnt continue, and the Arabs would pay, yet they refuse to fight for these same beliefs? Or send their children?

Make up your minds...I have made up mine.



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 10:00 AM
link   
This thread seems to be like a disease to 'right' minded people.
They are staying away in droves.
I'd like to know why some of these Bush supporters aren't in Iraq?
Or if they got their hair buzzed and bags packed yet?



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toadmund
This thread seems to be like a disease to 'right' minded people.
They are staying away in droves.


There could be a number of reasons why little controversial attention is paid to this particular report at this time. Some of the wording is ‘built’ for spin, but it is fairly straightforward.

This Democratic Party organized senatorial panel is singing close to the same song as the ‘right’, beef-up the military, increase the size and scope of capabilities and equip and train them fully for future operations.

Recommendations (from the source):


As our forces draw down in Iraq, the nation must pursue five courses of action to prepare for future military requirements:

1. Fully fund the recovery and transformation of our nation’s ground forces.
2. Adapt the roles, missions, organization, training and equipment of the National Guard and Reserves for the future.
3. Increase the deployable capacity of the Army over time by at least 30,000 personnel.
4. Rebalance the mix of capabilities within the U.S. military for 21st century missions.
5. Enhance support for recruiting and retention efforts.


The report also reinforces there is no ‘strain’ felt by the US Air Force and US Navy.


mg



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 12:20 PM
link   
What comes to mind is how I see the same things from the "other" side.
I also love the "war supporter" phrase. A war supporter. Very brilliant.

The greatest advocates for peace are those who will die so that both armchair quarterbacks and mindless jelly-spines can make dull comments in public and in safety.

There is not a penny's worth of difference between some blow-hard demanding the destruction of Iran or some other nation and some mush-for-mind from the Flower Power side demanding we give peace a chance, when the enemy wants us in pieces.

I say, give cheesecake a chance.



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaFunk13
The only resolution that comes to mind would be for every war supporter to enlist. Every argument I ever have with a pro-war person end with me asking them politely to join up. I firmly believe in doing your duty as an American, but in the present cases I have to decline. I refuse to believe that we are "in the know."

Matter of fact, I am pretty sure just the opposite is true. I firmly think we are being lied to. If we are invaded, or directly attacked by a clear and definable enemy, I will be first in line to defend the country I love. I just dont think this was the case with 9/11.

I started a thread a few weeks ago asking Bush supporters why they werent serving in their war. The mods deemed it unnoteworthy apparantly and it is now rotting @ BTS. So maybe I can ask that question here.

If you think that Islamic Terrorists are truely trying to kill us, not because of currupt politics and currupt leaders, but because they "are jealous of our freedom," why the hell arent you fighting for your FREEDOM? Why arent your kids fighting? Over 3/4ths of the nascar fans and wife beaters in this country voted for these blood/oil thirsty policies so gays couldnt marry, and abortions wouldnt continue, and the Arabs would pay, yet they refuse to fight for these same beliefs? Or send their children?

Make up your minds...I have made up mine.

There are many reasons why the terrorists are trying to kill us. And yes there are terrorists. They have been active against the US for the past 3-4 decades. Does that make me a Bush supporter?
**** no!
That's just reality.


If we are invaded, or directly attacked by a clear and definable enemy, I will be first in line to defend the country I love. I just dont think this was the case with 9/11.

As would most people. But, terrorists and their habitats aren't clear and definable. So what do you do?

The WOT - I have yet to be given a reason not to support it (Iraq war is NOT part of the war on terror IMO)
We are in Afghanistan with about 20 other countries right now. If you have information that these countries don't have, please share it!

Is the WOT "winnable." It's probably about as winnable as the war on drugs. But, if done right...you can put a dent in terror. Hopefully is shows them that the consequences of their actions in not beneficial to them, their families, their countries, and the way they're viewed in the world. Also having them constantly moving around could disrupt their planning and finances.

Why am I not fighting? Because I don't have to and I don't want to. That's the beauty of a all volunteer army.
And there's no need to join and fight. We have close to 1.5 million Americans who have volunteered for our military (not including the reserves). We have ~20,000 troops out of that 1.4-1.5 million fighting in the WOT (again, not including Iraq in this). That ~20,000 number really hasn't changed since 2001, meaning at the present there's no need for more. If they did need more, I'm pretty sure they'd take from the other 1.4-1.5 million volunteers.



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 03:29 PM
link   
ThatsJustWeird:

Is the WOT "winnable." It's probably about as winnable as the war on drugs.


Well said. Except the War On Terror kills more people than it saves.


Hopefully is shows them that the consequences of their actions in not beneficial to them, their families, their countries, and the way they're viewed in the world.


Actually, so many people are so incredibly angry at the United States that more and more terrorists are being recruited every day. These people are seen by some as heroes and treated as such. So unfortunately the opposite is happening.


Why am I not fighting? Because I don't have to and I don't want to. That's the beauty of a all volunteer army.
And there's no need to join and fight.


Yes, far better to let other people fight and die for what you believe in than to actually grow cojones and do it yourself. I’m sure there are many soldiers right now who are looking at their shattered bodies and are very sympathetic to your total inaction.

If you’re able-bodied and you support the war but don’t want to go fight, it means you are

a) afraid
b) underage
c) yellow

So which are you?



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 04:35 PM
link   
I always get the chills, when I see dubyah holding his speeches, on the behalf of his administration. -Talking about how to make/create peace.

I always find it awkwardly amusing, in a distorted way, to exchange every 'peace' with the word 'war'. -Lo and behold. The meaning of his speeches are the same. -And people cheer! I wish a Master Bachelor degree-something, in 'dualism', was bestowed upon every mind on the planet, preferrably the US of A for starters.



[edit on 17-2-2006 by Ulvetann]



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
Yes, far better to let other people fight and die for what you believe in than to actually grow cojones and do it yourself. I’m sure there are many soldiers right now who are looking at their shattered bodies and are very sympathetic to your total inaction.

If you’re able-bodied and you support the war but don’t want to go fight, it means you are

a) afraid
b) underage
c) yellow

So which are you?

d) excercising my constitutional right to do whatever the **** I want to.

You don't seem to understand the concept of a volunteer army.
You also don't seem to comprehend that we have well over a million soldiers out there fighting or waiting to fight so you won't have to.


So why are you not fighting and/or don't support the war on terror?
And what do you suggest we do with terrorists? Not sure how complaining on the internet about other people who support the WOT helps but hey...maybe you know something I don't



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaFunk13
If you think that Islamic Terrorists are truely trying to kill us, not because of currupt politics and currupt leaders, but because they "are jealous of our freedom," why the hell arent you fighting for your FREEDOM? Why arent your kids fighting? Over 3/4ths of the nascar fans and wife beaters in this country voted for these blood/oil thirsty policies so gays couldnt marry, and abortions wouldnt continue, and the Arabs would pay, yet they refuse to fight for these same beliefs? Or send their children?
Make up your minds...I have made up mine.


I tried but they don't take back crippled vets. I even volunteered to go as a GS worker (without a gun no less). No dice. You are asking the wrong crowds, if they are true patriots we don't fight because we "LOVE BUSH SOOOO MUCH" AS YOU THINK. We do it because we don't want that junk ending up here again because we didn't do our part.

If you get some who won't go then they aren't patriots anyway. I'd ask a more pointed question to them, "do you think that the founding fathers had it really good rebelling against tryany?" most were hunted down and killed or run out of business, had thier families killed or imprisoned. They didn't live high on the hog so to speak. They sacrificed for the IDEA of freedom and liberty.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. American people are lazy. Republican, Democrate or any other party, makes no difference. It all comes down to the populace. If you aren't hurt you won't react. The we have this really bad habit of short term memory loss in America. If I had it my way, I'd show the towers going down every day. We are a lazy, stupid, acting like sheep group in America. Until we get slapped, then watch out....for 30 seconds we'll whoop you up one side and down the other. The we'll forget why we started whooping in the first place. Then we'll start being critical of why we started whooping. Then we'll let the world start being critical and not reacting, because we forgot why we were mad at all. Then we'll patch up whomever it was that we whooped on.

Kinda sux if you ask me. and that is my .02



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Yes, if it was primarily another conventional war and the draft wasn't reinstated. But, many sources I've read say they've been contemplating using, "safe for civilians," 'tactical' nukes (still 6x more powerful than those used in Japan) on Iran. If they don't do this in a suprise first strike, I think Iran can lay a world of hurt on the US Navy and shipping through the Persian Gulf with those Sunburn missiles (which we've tried to buy from Russia in the past, because we have nothing like them), and then picking off our isolated, unsupplied (other than by air), and surrounded troops in Iraq.



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaFunk13

Over 3/4ths of the nascar fans and wife beaters in this country voted


There is no excuse for not knowing that while the voting may continue, since it is done with blackbox electronics, that can't be independently verified, you can't blame America for voting a certain way, when it is likely they didn't.



Originally posted by DaFunk13

for these blood/oil thirsty policies


Let me quess, they were supposed to vote for the Bonesman Kerry's "blood/oil thirsty policies" instead?

www.pressaction.com...





www.washingtonpost.com...

In his most extensive remarks on the future of the American military, Sen. John F. Kerry said here Thursday that he would expand the active-duty Army by 40,000 soldiers, including a doubling of U.S. Special Forces; speed development of new technologies and equipment to meet threats posed by terrorist networks; and better integrate the National Guard into the nation's homeland security strategy.


That isn't a call for peace, that would be escalation of the war. How hypocritical, or stupid, are liberals to complain about "Nascar fans and wife beaters" backing Bush, when their candidate was only offering more war, more loss of civil liberties, than the incumbent?



Originally posted by DaFunk13

so gays couldnt marry





washingtontimes.com...

President Bush broke with the Republican Party platform in supporting states' rights to permit same-sex civil unions.

"I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's what a state chooses to do so. ...

[...]

"So the Republican platform on that point, as far as you're concerned, is wrong?" Gibson asked the president, to which Bush replied: "Right."





www.washingtonpost.com...

President Bush has signed a bill allowing death benefits to be paid to the domestic partners of firefighters and police officers who die in the line of duty, permanently extending a federal death benefit to same-sex couples for the first time.


[edit on 17-2-2006 by Paul of Nisbis]



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Many of those 'rightes' as you call then have children fighting in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or any other number of countries. Some protest Political views do not protect anyone. There are also the same number of lefties whose children do not follow their beliefs who are also in the service. Go figure.

(Also, trying to state that 3/4 of the US wears wife beaters and watches NAscar would be like me stating every black in Africa has a bone in his nose and throws spears to catch his dinner... back off the race card and stay on target..stay on target....)

It scares me to have a 6 y/o son who is growing up in a world where he could be drafted in the future. All I can do now is make sure he gets a good education and show him tactics playing Ghost Recon or FSW on an Xbox.

Also, They are changing entire structure of SOCOM, big deal, however it is amazing the Kerry said that..hmmmmmm

and as far as gay marriage, or gays in the military, they ahve every right to die and pay alimony as heteros...



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Why would i be sad that the US couldn't support another war? I am more inclined to celebrate the fact but you could argue it means bringing in the draft.



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Let's look at this from a slightly more balanced perspective than can be offered by the authors of that report: every one of whom served the Clinton Administration or worked on the Kerry campaign as far as I can tell.

For this purpose, I will not be indulging in dramatic speculations of what recruiting numbers may or may not do in the next few years, unlike the writers of that report.

I will also not be using ambiguous phrasings that technically tell the truth while implying dramatic lies. For example I will not say "Every Combat Unit in the Marine Corps has been deployed", if I feel that such phrasing may indicate that they are all over there at once and we have no more to send; instead I will indicate the present situation as clearly as possible.

So here we go:
1. Can America handle another war?
That depends on the size, location, and cause of the war.

Iran
There is very little likelihood that Iran could successfully launch an a major incursion into Iraq against us, and we probably could pull off limited operations inside of Iran. We would not be financially or strategically wise to invade, much less try an occupation, but that is not immediately necessary in any forseeable scenario.

Most other potential conflicts are not significantly affected by the deployment in Iraq because they are not managable by conventional force, at least not in any respect that is diminished by our deployment in Iraq.

We were never in any position to fight over Taiwan or South Korea in a conventional war anyway because of the potential nuclear and economic consequences. If there were a revolution in Pakistan our Navy is still in fine shape to eliminate their nukes if necessary. Russia isn't in a position to attack anything worth defending. Israel can take care of itself and we have no business defending them in most cases anyway, so anything that may happen via Syria or Hamas isn't our problem.


2. Is the volunteer military in grave danger?
In the next 2-5 years, if troop levels in Iraq don't come down with no adjustments or additional enlistment incentives? Yes.
In the next 1-2 years, if our political leaders start pulling troops out for the elections and authorizing new incentives as necessary? No, we'll be stressed, but we'll be OK.

3. Is Iraq winnable?
News flash, we already won. We won a couple of years ago. Granted that if we leave things in that country could get uglier and the oil flow could either be interrupted or simply directed away from us, but any potential that Iraq had to become an threat in the future is gone for years to come.

4. Is the War on Terror winnable?
Depends what you consider winning. How do you win? Have all the Muslims gotta be dead? Have we gotta conquer the whole Middle East? No, we can't win if that's what people consider winning.
Kill Osama? Maybe doable, maybe not, although I don't see what that does to magically "win".
Severely damage the abilities of Al Qaida and prevent them from hitting us again? Gee, I'd say we're doing pretty dang good at that, and I believe we can continue to do that indefinitely without having to sustain the pattern of invasions and occupations that we began with.

5. Is DaFunk right about hawks?
I earned my Eagle Globe and Anchor. Where's yours?

I believe in fighting our enemies when necessary, I was for the war when it started, I feel like it was mishandled, I feel like it needs to be fixed and then ended as soon as possible, and after that I believe we need to remain willing to defend ourselves rather than getting scared and giving up on that option no matter what may happen in the future, as some doves might prefer.

Let's get something straight about what a nation is. A nation is a common effort for the things a group of people cannot accomplish as individuals, and this includes defense against potential threats abroad. "If you want it done, you go do it" is completely contrary to the whole idea of having a nation.

A standing volunteer military force exists even in peace time, with the understanding that they are paid to fight when the nation deems necessary. This is done precisely so that not everyone has to drop everything and go fight.

If we're young, able, and willing, we give a few years before we move on to get tied up in a life that we can't leave for war, and in return we get additional opportunities later in life.

I did it; I got injured in training and then got the big green weenie on top of that but such is life.

I don't have any problem with ThatsJustWierd for not joining, so what right do people like Jakomo and Da Funk have to hold it against him?

If ThatsJustWierd is a coward for not enlisting, then I say Jakomo and Da Funk are murders for funding this war, and their cowards for not having the courage to stop paying their taxes, which fund this war which they are so opposed to. You know that if you had the spine to back your beliefs, you anti-war people could pull us out of Iraq by the purse strings with civil disobedience. Ouch; not liking our own medicine now, are we?



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 09:07 PM
link   
The Iraq war has not been won, wars that are won are wars that are no longer fought.
If you say it was won because Iraq has a 'de-mock-racy' now, I would say try again.
If you say the US won because they caught Saddam, I'd say, guess again.
As far as I'm concerned, the war has just barely started.
The draft is a real possibility.

As far as Iran is concerned if the US uses tactical nukes, that would look incredibly bad on the US, super hippocrates if you will, do as I say, not as I do.
We can use nukes, but you can't make nuclear power, to possibly make your own. Here the ends do not justify the means.

You can't win a war by throwing gasoline on a fire, especially with gas that isn't yours to take.



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 09:12 PM
link   
I'm not weeping.
streched...maybe.
but don't think for 1 second we won't throw everyone else to the wind to protect the home.
We try and help or interfere, whatever side your on, but if homeland is a problem, all come home.

-DT



new topics




 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join