0
funks

Is Bush responsible for the deaths?

Recommended Posts

Quote

i'm not disagreeing that war is sometimes necessary. However treating your assets, your soldiers as if they are simply material that is to be traded away in exchange for your enemies is a piss poor way to conduct it. If you have little or no pieces left at the end of the game you might have won that engagement, but you have nothing left with which to fight the next.

US military doctrine has long since evolved beyond such primitive thought.



How do you think generals would get a war won if every death of an enlisted man caused them to break down emotionally and start thinking, "Oh, the humanity!"?!

I think that the ONLY way they can get a war won when it realistically will cost thousands of lives is to detach from the humanity of those troops, to a certain degree. It's the old, "Some of you won't be here tomorrow" speech. You don't relish the idea of it, but you accept it as the reality. You think of the dead as a "life," but not as "so-and-so's life." I mean, I'm no general, but I can't imagine that they mourn every individual life lost the way the family would. It'd be pretty impossible to carry on, and carrying on is one thing that must be done if the enemy will be defeated.

Blue skies,
-Jeffrey
-
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
accepting that some of your soldiers will lose their lives in combat is a far different thing from treating them as pawns simply to be traded in exchange for enemy soldiers.

In war you make the enemy pay dearly for every single soldier you have. Every soldier who survives a battle can fight in the next and gains practical knowledge from each engagement, which increases their value as combatants. Trading thousands of troops in exchange for thousands of troops of your opponents is simply stupid. Particularly when in you never start out with exactly equal forces in the real world. In fact not bringing over whelming force to bear against the enemy is also stupid. In chess its cheating. In war there is not such thing.

In chess you gladly trade pieces evenly (or even unevenly if it achieves a winning strategic advantage to do so) so long as you have a superior position, because in the end game, how many pieces you have left isn’t as important as where they are on the board.

Perhaps you should spend ALOT more time studying the practical applications of modern strategic theory before you open your mouth to insert another foot, do you even know the definition of ‘asynchronous warfare’? Can you explain why it is significantly more effective than ‘traditional’ methods of warfare? Do you have any military experience (in theory or practice) at all?

War is not chess, chess certainly teaches basic strategic concepts, but it is extremely limited in its relation to the scope and conduct of modern warfare.
____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

... No offense but perhaps that is one reason why a woman may never be president. She would be to concerned with making sure the soldiers were tucked in properly every evening before going nighty night.



Margaret Thatcher? The Falklands? Ring any bells?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


So, would the distraught, irate mom of a soldier whose life was "spent" serving as a decoy so that some other squad could accomplish an objective be reasonable or unreasonable to go and blame anyone up the chain of command (all the way to the President, who didn't necessarily give that specific order in the first place)?
-



I don't think it would be reasonable for the mother to blame the chain of command in this case. You have to look at the big picture. The military may use a soldier/group of soldiers as a 'sacrificial lamb' in order to draw enemy attention/fire so that another group can accomplish the mission. The sacrificial lamb group may be all killed but they may have saved the other group more deaths. Or, accomplishing the mission objective may have saved many more lives. It is a hard decision to make, one I would not want to be in a position to do. Sacrificing 10 lives to save 100? All of the soldier are doing their duty, serving their country. A job that doesn't get enough respect

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The problem is that:

"This ladies son chose to join the military knowing damn well that he could be shipped off to war if the situation called for it. "

Many people don't believe the situation called for it.



That changes nothing....I know you never got to this point, but the oath you take says, "support and defend....Obey the lawful orders of the CiC and the Officers above me."

If you think for one second that when you join the military that you might not be put into harms way...you are an idiot.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No where did I say it was unexpected. But first of all, his mom didn't take the oath, so I don't know what that has to do with her opinion. And second, saying that you'll obey orders and thinking they are right are two different things.

Are you telling me that in the history of the world, no military leader has ever made any error in judgment and ordered troops to do something for which he should share in the responsibility for their deaths?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

No where did I say it was unexpected. But first of all, his mom didn't take the oath, so I don't know what that has to do with her opinion.



If the person was over the age of 18....Then her opinion does not matter in this situation.

It is quite clear she is just blaming who she can in her grief....That does not make her right...It just makes Bush the scape goat....Need I remind you that the US Congress is just at fault for this military action?

They (Including Kerry) did NOT have to vote for it. It would have made them unpopular, but if they really thought it was wrong, THAT was the chance they had, not after the fact.

Quote

And second, saying that you'll obey orders and thinking they are right are two different things.



True. But you do what you swore to do.

Quote

Are you telling me that in the history of the world, no military leader has ever made any error in judgment and ordered troops to do something for which he should share in the responsibility for their deaths?



A Commander that KNOWINGLY makes a bad choice is culpable.....And like I said Congress (Including Kerry) is as responsible for military action.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

No offense but perhaps that is one reason why a woman may never be president. She would be to concerned with making sure the soldiers were tucked in properly every evening before going nighty night.



That's blatantly sexist. Maggie Thatcher's sex never prevented her from engaging the Argintinians in the Falklands.

t
It's the year of the Pig.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote



There is nothing "caring" about a war. No offense but perhaps that is one reason why a woman may never be president. She would be to concerned with making sure the soldiers were tucked in properly every evening before going nighty night.

.




Bollocks!

"It's no time to go wobbly George", Margaret Thatcher to Bush (41) when he was wavering about the Gulf War.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

No offense but perhaps that is one reason why a woman may never be president. She would be to concerned with making sure the soldiers were tucked in properly every evening before going nighty night.



That's blatantly sexist. Maggie Thatcher's sex never prevented her from engaging the Argintinians in the Falklands.

t



"Maggie, Maggie what have we done?!"
-Pink Floyd "The Final Cut"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote



There is nothing "caring" about a war. No offense but perhaps that is one reason why a woman may never be president. She would be to concerned with making sure the soldiers were tucked in properly every evening before going nighty night.

.




Bollocks!

"It's no time to go wobbly George", Margaret Thatcher to Bush (41) when he was wavering about the Gulf War.



You very consistently "quote" people but never offer documentation that the quotes you reproduce were ever said by those you accuse of having said them.

i.e. where the fuck does this come from, that I should believe it and not think you just made it up on the spot?!

-
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>that I should believe it and not think you just made it up on the spot?!

If in the future you wonder about quotes, here's a good way to check them out.

1. Go to www.google.com.

2. At the google search page, enter:

"no time to go wobbly" margaret thatcher

3. Choose any reference (that one will return about 550 hits) and read it; decide for yourself if he (and those other 550 websites) made up the quote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

there you go, asking for people to think (and research) for themselves again.... ;)



Is it too much to ask that people document their claims?

I don't think you'd dare try telling a college professor or maybe a publisher that all of your claims are real, but that they need to do some research to figure it out. Right?

-
Jim
"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Is it too much to ask that people document their claims?



You know, I used to make sure to reference everything. But there's so many people on here that will then blast your source as being the "liberal media" or some other such nonsense that it's not worth it.

If I post something people can believe it or not. I don't give a shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote



There is nothing "caring" about a war. No offense but perhaps that is one reason why a woman may never be president. She would be to concerned with making sure the soldiers were tucked in properly every evening before going nighty night.

.




Bollocks!

"It's no time to go wobbly George", Margaret Thatcher to Bush (41) when he was wavering about the Gulf War.



You very consistently "quote" people but never offer documentation that the quotes you reproduce were ever said by those you accuse of having said them.

i.e. where the fuck does this come from, that I should believe it and not think you just made it up on the spot?!

-



I can't be responsible for your ignorance. It was all over the papers when it happened, were you asleep?

You can also use Google.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0