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

There was definite political motive when writing this piece. The numbers dont add up with the claims that we are overstretched because very simply, we are not! The US army has 485,500 soldiers on active duty, with 591,000 in reserve. The Marine Corps. have 175,000 on active with another 40,000 on reserve. The Air Force has 358,000 on active duty with 74,000 on reserve and over 7,500 aircraft commissioned. The Navy has 375,500 on active duty, with another 125,000 on reserve duty, over 281 ships and 6,000 aircraft commissioned. You mind telling me how many we have over in Iraq, what is it around 230,000. So how exactly are we overstretched? The Marines sent appx. 26,000 of theirs to Iraq. Not exctly their full numbers of active is it. The Army had appx. 114,000 personnel sent into Iraq. Once again, not exactly near the breaking point. I have been unable to find the number of Air Force and Naval deployments to Iraq, but those numbers would make up the rest of US deployments. Once again another under researched claim that the US is overstretched, I'm getting sick of proving these people who claim this wrong.

SOrry forgot to include my links.

US Army
USMC
USAF
US Navy

Originally posted by Toadmund
The Iraq war has not been won, wars that are won are wars that are no longer fought.

Sorry, but that's just not true. When did the US win WWII? 1945, right? When did the last US soldier leave Germany? The occupation lasted for years, and then we remained in a non-combat capacity till present. Lest we forget, the only reason the Nazis made a proper surrender instead of carrying out their plans to do exactly what the Fedayeen have done is that they were afraid of the Russians and wanted the Western allies to be the ones occupying their country.

A few so-called scholars like to argue that no Americans were killed by the German "Wehrwolves", but they forget that in the Russian zones of occupation there were substantial civilian massacres and significant attacks on Russian troops; the only reason we didn't face the same is because they saw it as a choice between occupiers, and we were their choice.

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.

Well, General Toadmund, why don't you explain war for this Marine, since my rather impressive knowledge of history and my military service have apparently taught me nothing.
What would constitute winning in Iraq, if the fact that they are no longer a threat does not?
Is the war only just getting started because we haven't pacified the civilians? It's not a conquest; we don't have to pacify them. We've got to train their troops and get out (which would basically be done already if the war planners had planned for every contingency), and they can sort out their own domestic problems.

If this were a conquest it would be easy: we'd go Genghis Kahn on their butt and be home by Christmas. I know this better than most, because that's how I came to exist. My Choctaw great grandmother never could have met my Texan great grandfather if her people hadn't been forced down the Trail of Tears by Americans out for conquest.

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.

Who said nuke Iran? We don't have to. They can't take us in a conventional fight.

Anything else general?

My .02

1. The military could be in much better shape. Op tempos have hurt, but it isn't near as bad as the report makes it out to be. As long as we can start to reduce the amount of troops in Iraq this year I think the military will be ok. By the way I don't expect us to get completely out of Iraq in the next 10 years. We will likely arrange with the government to at least have a contingent of about 15,000-20,000 personnel their to help prop up the new govt. They may be in compounds garrisoned up and unseen but they will be there. And additional troops will likely be in Kuwait, the UAE, Saudi, etc.

2. I support the WOT and Iraq, but there has been some horrible mismanagment unfortunately.

3. While a registered republican and a Bush voter I consider myself an independent with largely conservative values. Had there been another option to Bush besides Kerry in 04' I likely would have voted for them. I agree with the admin alot, but disagree with alot too. The Bush Administration's largest problem is their P.R. just down right sucks. They could be gliding through a ton of this, but apparently they are just straight up lacking in the P.R. and image dept. My degree is in Poli Sci, and I just cringe at the way stuff is presented (whether I agree with it or not).

4. Other scenario's like Iran, Korea, Venezula, Tiawan or who knows where would be difficult if they came up, but could be handled although you would probably see full mobilization (but probably not a draft at least at first).

5. Service to my country.....I was in Army ROTC in college for a short time (bout a year) but had a retnal hemorrage that left some moderate scarring in my eye that brings my vision to about 20/25 in my right eye and 20/70 in my left, which along with my nearsightedness makes me not eligable for military service. That was in 94. Tried after that to join AFROTC, NROTC, the California, Nevada, and Oklahoma National Guard, the Air Force Reserve and the Naval Reserve. None of them would give me a vision waiver (came close once actually had orders to Ft Benning for Basic AND OCS for OK Guard, in Sept 2000, but they got pulled at the last, no waiver). So no active service, but I humped my ruck and slept in the mud and hauled my M-16 and ate cold MRE's on ROTC exercises so I figured that counts for something even if it was just here stateside. With the recruitment down I might be able to get in the Guard, but I am 32 now, have had some minor to moderate additional injuries (and due to that not in the shape I was in 10 years ago) and am married with 2 kids. Would I fight if they were crossing the Rio Grand, sure.....but right now i think my better contrabution to the country is being here to raise a couple of fine young citizens. Not enough people doing that these days. I figure I can support the war without "having been in the service".

Only my second post, look forward to some interesting conversations.
My grammer and spelling probably suck, i've been up about 20 hours and am on some pain meds for an ankle injury

[edit on 17-2-2006 by sr wing commaner]

The Vagabond, how are your opinions more valid than mine?
How many on this board would agree with you that the Iraq war is over?
It's not over, it's simply not, to think otherwise can be considered delusional.

Captain Vagabond

It's not a matter of opinion my friend. The war that the American people authorized their nation to fight for them is over. We control the opposing nation, the president went over and had the big "mission accomplished" banner, the Iraqi army only exists anymore because we're training it now, etc etc.

The war is over and we are in a post war occupation. We can only be in danger of failing in our occupation, which is no as vital, and which should be fixed and accelerated with a view towards accomplishing the goals of the occupation and getting out ASAP.

Wow, I post something that elicits a response and then I have to be away for days. Bummer. I can't possibly reply to everyone, but heres my summary.

If you support this prez, his policies... his WARS... and you arent serving, you are either unable physically, or you are a coward. Any other excuse you have is a lie to me, your country, and most importantly YOURSELF. I am not here to make any of you search your souls, but I have good friends over there trying to "liberate" a huge group of people that would rather die, and take a few yanks with 'em than try our way of life. They dont buy this "defending Freedom" crap, and neither should anyone actually looking down those sights with more than USMC programmed eyes...or brain.

So please folks, explain to me why my friends are killing people, and nearly getting killed for a war you support, yet don't feel like fighting in? They dont make excuses. They joined the ARMED FORCES. It may have been during peace-time, but they all knew what they were doing. Your resume, and GI bill, and life long skills mean # when you have to kill another human being for reasons that disagree with basic human principals, but they signed the line. They made the choice. Not one will ever ask anyone to feel bad for them.

I have no more questions to you war supporters that replied. It will never get a realistic, or heartfelt answer. But, deep down in your hearts you will know that if you can truely support, and condone the killing of a fellow human being for reasons that have been spoon-fed to you by a gov't that only seeks to control you in every aspect for their good and not your own...you are ignorant...blinded...and lost...

Originally posted by The Vagabond

Sorry, but that's just not true. When did the US win WWII? 1945, right?

ignorance



[edit on 19-2-2006 by st3ve_o]

Originally posted by DaFunk13
If you support this prez, his policies... his WARS... and you arent serving, you are either unable physically, or you are a coward.

I already answered that nonsense. Four fingers back at you for funding this war instead of taking a stand for what you believe in and going to jail for not paying your taxes.

Any other excuse you have is a lie to me, your country, and most importantly YOURSELF.

Feel free to substantiate that. You're not the pope; you can't just say something and have it automatically be true. (come to think of it, not even the pope can do that as far as I'm concerned)

I have good friends over there (snip) They dont buy this "defending Freedom" crap, and neither should anyone actually looking down those sights with more than USMC programmed eyes...or brain.

So let me get this straight, any serviceman who agrees with you is a free thinker, and anyone who doesn't is brainwashed? How convenient. Since you know so much more about the Marine Corps than I do (hey, what the hell would a Marine know about life in the Marine Corps?) why don't you tell me how they programmed my eyes and brain.

I'm glad to see that your heart bleeds for your friends in the service, but you see the irony don't you?
Beyond that, there is no substance to anything you said in that paragraph. It does nothing to say that any of my civilian counterparts are morally obligated to join the service.

As for your hollow accusations of ignorance; the only thing deep down in my heart is a reliance on reason and complete and total friggin rage at the busted pickup truck I'm about to go outside and start wrenching on again.

Until you can bring a substantive arguement, you'll have no luck getting me to question myself or my conclusions.

And to our other poster, mr one-liner, you might want to review T&C, then come back and say something.

I pay taxes because I also like my money to pave roads and build schools.

The programmed marine line is fact. You should know that. The MC wants soldiers, not political scientists, and not activists. They want your brain following orders and your heart beating...nothing more.

If you agree with the war then what is your justification for that? I already said how I feel about able bodied not fighting, especially a former marine that wouldn't waste so much of my tax money learning to kill people more efficiently.

Do you honestly believe that they are "Jealous of our Freedom?"
You seem way smarter than that. Lemme play shrink for a minute and enlighten me....

I have to disagree with the opinion that "if you support Bush's policies but aren't serving, you are a coward, yada yada, etc...." The United States of America is a great country, with many ways to serve it. For some people, soldiering just isn't their thing. You could become an engineer or scientist and work for the national defense in terms of designing new weapons systems and so forth. You could work in teaching to teach kids properly, and get them away from all that liberal crap that they teach in schools these days.

Military service is always good, though. Very honorable. What's really great is if you do both. Like the oen guy, he graduated West Point, served as a helicopterp ilot in the Army, and flew little Birds with the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment for 10 years, then got out and became a medical doctor.

You don't have to dodge bombs and bullets to serve the country, though. What's more appropriate I think is if you support the war, and know that you could really be an aid to the military if you joined up, but just don't, then you might want to question your motives.

Originally posted by WheelsRCool
You could work in teaching to teach kids properly, and get them away from all that liberal crap that they teach in schools these days.

Wow, now we have to make sure that our kids don't learn anything that might be liberal? What would that be may I ask?

WheelsRcool said:

I have to disagree with the opinion that "if you support Bush's policies but aren't serving, you are a coward, yada yada, etc...." The United States of America is a great country, with many ways to serve it.

How would you change your tune if you were going to be drafted?

Originally posted by DaFunk13
I pay taxes because I also like my money to pave roads and build schools.

Ok great, but you're also funding the war. So by your rationale, if some bad is going to be part of the package with greater good, and is unavoidable, you just do the best you can, right? Well, the gents who are not in the military are making more money and paying more taxes to fund more schools and roads. Some of them, as a matter of fact, are actually doing the work to build them, teaching in them, etc. So poof, there goes your contention that they must be cowards, unless you're willing to welcome the application of the principle to yourself as well.

The programmed marine line is fact.

The purple elephant line is a fact too.
Saying it doesn't making it so. Facts can be demonstrated with evidence. Where is yours? You're up against the testimony of a first hand witness and all you can say is "it's a fact".

The MC wants soldiers, not political scientists, and not activists. They want your brain following orders and your heart beating...nothing more.

At no point did I observe anything in the USMC that represented an attempt to taint a Marine's critical thinking process. Nobody asked about or tried to influence my political views. I often talked with my fellow Marines about my view on the strategic aspects of the War on Terror; how it was basically just a revisitation of the Great Game and had many motives beyond 9/11- nobody gave me any trouble about it, because it wasn't stopping me from following orders.

The only expectation was that I follow my orders when push came to shove, and if you ask me, that is the most democratic thing about the Marine Corps, because in a democracy it is not the place of one man with a rifle to veto the decisions of the elected government.

If you agree with the war then what is your justification for that?

1. Strategic positioning vital to the maintenance of the relative security Americans have enjoyed for so long.
2. The elimination of the potential for an avowed enemy to ever become a significant threat.
3. Removing a source of support for groups whos actions undermine the diplomatic and economic interests of the United States.

I already said how I feel about able bodied not fighting, especially a former marine that wouldn't waste so much of my tax money learning to kill people more efficiently.

Get your story straight general. I enlisted specifically to fight this war and I ASKED to be an infantryman; that's how I became a Marine. I sustained a back injury in training or I'd be over there with my friends, where I wanted to be.

Do you honestly believe that they are "Jealous of our Freedom?"
You seem way smarter than that.

I am smarter than that; you put those words in my mouth, which you seem too smart for.
Every war, just or otherwise, sees its share of propaganda, and the "jealous of our freedom" bit is exactly that.
The average person is does not have the historical or strategic understanding to appreciate the justifications for the war itself, not even to mention the utter lack of justification for the length of this occupation, hence the propaganda.

In a nut shell, Iraq was a threat of debatable severity, and certainly not an imminent one, but beyond their direct actions, they were in the way of our strategic positioning relative to other, more dangerous rivals.

Think of it in terms of a chess board; some times you've gotta go out of your way to rub out a pawn; not because that pawn is going to checkmate you, but because something more important is being protected or obstructed by that pawn.

And I'll save you the trouble of having to accuse me; yes I'm cold, calculating nationalist. Just keep in mind that this doesn't mean I like the idea of hurting people; if you have that impression you should really talk to me about the state of things in East Africa. I've got some well-hidden morals somewhere.

Originally posted by WheelsRCool
I have to disagree with the opinion that "if you support Bush's policies but aren't serving, you are a coward, yada yada, etc...."

Wheels is right here, and he can't be defeated on the "draft" proposition because you're positing an alternate reality which has nothing to do with the present situation. We've got an all volunteer military and the adoption of a draft would have to be weighed against the merit of the war and the possibility of simply ending it. Only in the event that those who favor the war flex their political muscle to send those who disagree into that war against their will can such an attack have any merit.

At such a time, I would be inclined to agree that it is wrong to support the draft while abstaining from service or discouraging able family members from joining, but that debate has not yet arrived and is consequently irrelevant. For now, the proper topic of discussion, and one on which I believe both sides would likely agree, is that we need to find a way to accelerate progress towards a self-sufficient Iraq so that we can get our finest back home.

You could work in teaching to teach kids properly, and get them away from all that liberal crap that they teach in schools these days.

I wasn't aware that any liberal crap was being taught in most schools these days. Progressivism is heavily covered in history and government classes because this has been a fairly progressive nation for a good part of its history. I hope you're not suggesting that our schools should villify America's progressive history, but if so, what should we be expunging from the books exactly? The common school movement? Women's sufferage? Trust busting? The Hoover Dam or the TVA?

It's not as if our schools are preaching redistribution of wealth or abject pacifism; their simply teaching the history and working of our nation and government. Or maybe you were talking about English class. Is To Kill a Mocking Bird turning kids into black militants or something? If so, I never noticed.

What's more appropriate I think is if you support the war, and know that you could really be an aid to the military if you joined up, but just don't, then you might want to question your motives.

Honestly, I'm cool with those who favor the war but can't drop their lives to go fight. As Rommel said, "If we judged everyone by his qualities as a solider, we'd have no civlization". Take my little brother for example. He's a carpenter, he has a wife and kid to support, and he's doing valuable work. Good on him; I never held it against him while I was humping a pack.

You know what always did bother me though? The number of "support our troops" bumper stickers I used to see. I hope all of those people either had a loved one in the service, or had actually done something for the troops. I don't expect everyone to fight, but they dang well should do what they can. Send a friggin "Any Marine" letter, give 10 bucks to the USO, don't teach your 19 year old daughter any chastity... however small a gesture of support you're able to make is fine, as long as it's not just a bumper sticker.

So I guess I see where the other side is coming from, but let's face it, not everyone is a warrior, and we'd be in deep trouble as a society if everyone was. As long as you walk your talk somehow though, I don't see that the unwillingness to be shot at should restrict one's freedom to choose his political views as he sees fit.

You have voted The Vagabond for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

That goes for just about every post you've made in this thread pal.

I think that's what we lack, that sort of middle-ground thinking. As either Trey Parker or Matt Stone said, it seems like we're in a situation where you're either this or that. But as you've pointed out, Vagabond, there are so many different ways of looking at things. But there is a truth here, and that whether you agree with America's current foreign policy, Iraq WAS an obstacle to whatever goals and aspirations our government will ever have. Its not good, its not evil, its reality. Reality of the world. We gotta deal with it and/or hope someone or something becomes the catalyst for change, for better.

Trey Parker said something that I will make a spin on. I hate Democrats, but I really f**king hate Republicans!!! I guess you could call me a "South Park Democrat."

Technically the US led invasion of Iraq is over, what we have now is the new Iraqi Civil War, with many of those opposing the US "occupation" beign Iranian special forces or radical Islamists trained in Iran by Iranian military offciers and Russian and Chinese advisors.
I did try to serve my country, the Navy wanted me for ONI: but am pre-diabetic. This means thate very two hours my blood sugar has to be regulated by ingesting at least 20 grams of protein. If I miss this timetable, I can passout and always become dizzy, light headed, blurred vision, and nauseated. (Not to mention I become a complete a@#hole)
I also tried the Marines (Thery wanted me in ONI too), the Army (They wanted me to work for the Pentagon as an intelligence anylyst), the air force (same) and...okay I skipped the pansy Coast Gaurd. (no offense to any Coasties out there)
Now....I'm a pro-wrestler. Sure, the military can't take me becasue my condition precludes me from exercises at night and long patrols etc... but wreastling is a perfect fit. I lift weights constantly anyway and I eat every two hours as I go. Plus I like to hurt people.

My only question is Why are Bushes' girls not fighting or any other pro war politicians children/ grandchildren?

Once again, I am not posting to induce any soul-searching, or to change any minds. We obviously disagree, but both sides are based on reason. I can appreciate that you believe what you do based on your own cognition, and not some brainwashing. I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree.

And now that the draft can of worms has been opened...
What is your stance if our military is indeed stretched thin, and a draft may be in our future to continue to win our war on terror? Would you still stand firm that not every supporters can be a soldier? Or at least the able bodied? Should people who dont believe in this conflict be forced to fight while you so called "patriots" stay home and support the troops by working 9-5, drinking milwaukees best, and watching football?

Originally posted by boudreaux
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

The above dosent even matter. What does is even bush admits we are overstrecthed, and i saw one day saw he isnt worried about us being overstrecthed. he said we have enough missles to take care of whatever. Like that is so great more misguided missle for collateral damage. lol