DrunkMonkey 0 #51 December 15, 2004 QuoteDon't forget about the time you owe to the IRR. Medical Discharge(eww that sounds bad)--no IRR time, Full VA bennies... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,426 #52 December 15, 2004 >Well you can keep spinning it like that . . . I'm not. The government is. >You also ignore the overt publically announced geopolitical strategy of > bringing some form of representative democracy and civilization to the > Middle East. Not at all! That was, I believe, one of the primary motivations behind the war (the PNAC plan.) It is ironic that you are now announcing this as if everyone knew it; I can recall several conservatives telling me "your claim is bullshit!" when I said Bush was following the PNAC doctrine. "We're disarming Saddam, Bill! What, don't you believe the CIA? Do you want him to use his chemical weapons against us?" Good to see conservatives admitting that it wasn't "all about the WMD's" and that we had ulterior motives, though. As I mentioned before, being honest with people about the war is the best way to maintain support for it. >I've already listed many differences between Iraq and Vietnam. There are many. Vietnam was a jungle and Iraq isn't. There is more news coverage. There is no USSR supporting the insurgency. But there are a lot of similiarities as well, and I think it would behoove us to stop doing our best to repeat the mistakes of Vietnam in Iraq. >To sit back and say we'll lose a war because some irrelevant lie about the > Maddox is somehow similar to a lie about WMDs is pure fantasy. It reeks > of the kind of political science conceit you see from your average > journalist at work in the USA today. I think it's hilarious that you accused me of "pure fantasy" in the same sentence that you used the WMD justification for war! You're right, there is a lot of fantasy out there - and it is a big problem. But if you think we can't lose this war, you are sorely mistaken. We can - and the time we are most vulnerable is the time we convince ourselves that we are really invulnerable, that we can't possibly lose. Such conceits have doomed wars in the past. We should not make those mistakes. We CAN win the war in Iraq, but we will do it by making smart decisions, not by turning it into a Disney movie and pretending that the mighty US cannot possibly lose. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,426 #53 December 15, 2004 >Medical Discharge(eww that sounds bad)--no IRR time, Full VA bennies.. At least for now. Let's hope it stays that way. Given that they're pulling 55 year old women with arthritis back into the armed forces, I could see them getting a little more flexible on what medical problems they'll accept. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zenister 0 #54 December 15, 2004 QuoteQuoteDon't forget about the time you owe to the IRR. Medical Discharge(eww that sounds bad)--no IRR time, Full VA bennies... if you are an officer, make sure you resign your commission... i'll be interested to know if they accept that resignation as well.... ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DrunkMonkey 0 #55 December 15, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteDon't forget about the time you owe to the IRR. Medical Discharge(eww that sounds bad)--no IRR time, Full VA bennies... if you are an officer, make sure you resign your commission... i'll be interested to know if they accept that resignation as well.... Am an Officer. Resignation letter gets filed after separation is complete. Still have a reserve commission, so dunno if same rules as those w/regular commissions apply. Will see... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,644 #56 December 15, 2004 History revisionism is getting more difficult, when the government keeps the records on its own web site. www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,146 #57 December 15, 2004 QuoteThe Shah ruled for 25 years. Yes, he did. But looking at the end result of his rule, was it the right thing? A self-sustaining political system which has internal legitimacy is always going to beat one that's imposed. For that matter, a non-self-sustaining political system is probably going to beat one that's imposed, simply because the people don't support it. Look at Eastern Europe -- you could also say that the whole Eastern bloc was well-handled because the Soviet Union controlled them. Oops. You have to KEEP controlling them. Much better to help folks have a system that controls itself. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,426 #58 December 15, 2004 >A self-sustaining political system which has internal legitimacy is always >going to beat one that's imposed. "Democracy imposed from without is the severest form of tyranny." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites slug 1 #59 December 15, 2004 QuoteQuoteThe old stuff at Ft lewis is mostly gone. The WW2 barracks with the open bays and a commen head. wood frame with asbestos sideing were about gone and replaced with nice new Brick 1-2 3 story barracks 1-2 guy's to a room about 10yr's ago (North Fort). . A lot of the old WW2 barracks are still standing and still in use...I used them a little over a year ago You talking about fort lewis Damn Don't worry be happy R.I.P. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AdD 1 #60 December 15, 2004 QuoteAmerica lost Vietnam because it allowed the enemy to retreat into Laos without pursuing them and made other disasterous decisions Lol, that's bullshit dude, America dropped 2.1 million tons of bombs on Laos in the largest air bombing campaign EVER. The war in Laos was faught through proxies supported by US air power.Life is ez On the dz Every jumper's dream 3 rigs and an airstream Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites happythoughts 0 #61 December 15, 2004 QuoteYes, he did. But looking at the end result of his rule, was it the right thing? A self-sustaining political system which has internal legitimacy is always going to beat one that's imposed. For that matter, a non-self-sustaining political system is probably going to beat one that's imposed, simply because the people don't support it. End result? He was in charge for 25 years. That is not a bad track record for the area. Time isn't necessarily a good measure of "good" govt. How do you do measure the success of the govt when dissidents are killed? In Iran, both the current theocracy and the previous govt (the Shah) are well known for their treatment of dissidents. My point was, it made a better case for comparison because it is in the Middle East. Basically, westerners need to let M.E. govts be run by people who are part of the culture. Westerners view parts of the culture as more brutal than they are willing to accept. Not our call. My point was that the Iranian govt was changed and it did exist for quite some time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites EBSB52 0 #62 December 15, 2004 QuoteThis is why my discharge date is 1 Feb 05. I'm not gonna be Dubya's stooge anymore. How long with involuntary extensions? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DrunkMonkey 0 #63 December 15, 2004 QuoteQuoteThis is why my discharge date is 1 Feb 05. I'm not gonna be Dubya's stooge anymore. How long with involuntary extensions? AF is not doing that to my particular AFSC... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dorbie 0 #64 December 15, 2004 Quote I think it's hilarious that you accused me of "pure fantasy" in the same sentence that you used the WMD justification for war! You're right, there is a lot of fantasy out there - and it is a big problem. I didn't you read what you wanted to read from what I wrote. I never cited WMD's as a justification post facto, I was citing it purely as a political issue w.r.t. none being found (you did realize I used the word "lie" in there albeit purely for comparrison) . Once again you have ignored the numerous big issues I mentioned and gone back to your favorite single issue. The WMD one which everyone in the USA knows about but you pretend is a stealth issue. It's old dude, it's like listening to a broken record, and it wasn't the only issue going in, its main purpose was in getting the UN to tag along. Bill you've used specious comparrisons and refuse to admit it. The graph you posted showing casualties ignored little things like troop deployments. It's pure propaganda and pretty indefensible. The rest of your comparrisons remain irrelevent, just some Political Science fantasy fed to you by moveon.org & the blog sites. There are *vast differences* between Iraq and Vietnam, all the comparrisons points you mentioned just ignored most of what actually went wrong in Vietnam as I have pointed out. As I have said applying the Vietnam lesson to every war the US gets involved in is not illuminating. There have been numerous wars throughout the ages, won, lost or drawn, continually citing a single conflict that the USA withdrew from as the one that applies to whatever conflict the US is engaged at the moment in is a cynical attempt to influence public opinion. It's pure politics based on biased analysis. Your graph of casualties demonstrates that, it cynically exploits the ignorance of most Americans when it comes to the actual events and troop dispositions in these conflicts, and you posted it anyway. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #65 December 15, 2004 "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the results." --Ben FranklinMath tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,426 #66 December 15, 2004 >Once again you have ignored the numerous big issues I mentioned >and gone back to your favorite single issue. Actually I listed a bunch of issues; you keep returning to "but . . . but . . . . Vietnam isn't exactly the same as Iraq!" which I readily admit to. There are, however, a large number of similarities, and we ignore them at our peril - even if ignoring them is politically expedient. >There have been numerous wars throughout the ages, won, lost or drawn, >continually citing a single conflict that the USA withdrew from as the one > that applies to whatever conflict the US is engaged at the moment in is a > cynical attempt to influence public opinion. And ignoring a recent war that we lost partly due to an inability to pacify local populations will result in a lot of dead US soldiers. History has shown what happens to countries who are no longer able to learn from their mistakes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dorbie 0 #67 December 15, 2004 Quote>Once again you have ignored the numerous big issues I mentioned >and gone back to your favorite single issue. Actually I listed a bunch of issues; you keep returning to "but . . . but . . . . Vietnam isn't exactly the same as Iraq!" which I readily admit to. There are, however, a large number of similarities, and we ignore them at our peril - even if ignoring them is politically expedient. >There have been numerous wars throughout the ages, won, lost or drawn, >continually citing a single conflict that the USA withdrew from as the one > that applies to whatever conflict the US is engaged at the moment in is a > cynical attempt to influence public opinion. And ignoring a recent war that we lost partly due to an inability to pacify local populations will result in a lot of dead US soldiers. History has shown what happens to countries who are no longer able to learn from their mistakes. I've already explained what's wrong with this. It's not that these conflicts weren't exactly alike. It's that they were profoundly different, I've listed the ways, and not just opinion, e.g. division strength opposition in untouchable territory, air support and opposing superpowers. Your final assertion is based on the same false premise. It is worth pointing out that we were told Gulf War I would be a Vietnam, and that Afghanistan would be a Vietnam. Applying a single ill formed lesson to every problem does not make a nation smarter, it does the opposite. You still refuse to aknowledge that the only data you posted to support your claims was a flawed comparrison as anyone can see if they look at troop deployments. This is important stuff Bill, if you post misleading data and keep throwing out claims refusing to admit your graph was misleading then where does that leave us? Will you at least acknowledge that the graph you posted was a politically motivated cynical manipulation of the data? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #68 December 15, 2004 QuoteIt's not that these conflicts weren't exactly alike. It's that they were profoundly different, Yes, but they are simultaneously profoundly similar. Naturally, no war is going to be exactly like the last one, but it would be foolish to believe that there are no similarities from one war to another.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dorbie 0 #69 December 15, 2004 QuoteQuoteIt's not that these conflicts weren't exactly alike. It's that they were profoundly different, Yes, but they are simultaneously profoundly similar. Naturally, no war is going to be exactly like the last one, but it would be foolish to believe that there are no similarities from one war to another. When the debate is over why we lost a war then differences like division strength armies in untouchable territory infiltrating in dense jungle and superpowers funneling arms to the ememy and providing air support and air defenses and an administration not willing to prosecute the war effectively matter a lot. They matter sufficiently that they make comparrisons w.r.t. less relevant and even fancifull issues impossible. Even comparrisons over local ethnicity are flawed, the situation is almost reversed in Iraq on some metrics. The one constant that is relevant is a political left doing their utmost to convince everyone that the war is unwinnable. It is a political strategy that has nothing to do with the facts on the ground. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #70 December 15, 2004 QuotePost: In Reply To Quote It's not that these conflicts weren't exactly alike. It's that they were profoundly different, Yes, but they are simultaneously profoundly similar. Naturally, no war is going to be exactly like the last one, but it would be foolish to believe that there are no similarities from one war to another. When the debate is over why we lost a war then differences like division strength armies in untouchable territory infiltrating in dense jungle and superpowers funneling arms to the ememy and providing air support and air defenses and an administration not willing to prosecute the war effectively matter a lot. They matter sufficiently that they make comparrisons w.r.t. less relevant and even fancifull issues impossible. Even comparrisons over local ethnicity are flawed, the situation is almost reversed in Iraq on some metrics. The one constant that is relevant is a political left doing their utmost to convince everyone that the war is unwinnable. It is a political strategy that has nothing to do with the facts on the ground. I have two words for you: Troop Morale.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dorbie 0 #71 December 15, 2004 Quote I have two words for you: Troop Morale. Conscription. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #72 December 15, 2004 QuoteConscription. Would that be conscription as in a new draft? Or conscription as in the government commandeering assets of citizens in order to finance the war? I don't see either fixing the problem of low morale.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dorbie 0 #73 December 15, 2004 QuoteQuoteConscription. Would that be conscription as in a new draft? Or conscription as in the government commandeering assets of citizens in order to finance the war? I don't see either fixing the problem of low morale. No that would be conscription as in, during Vietnam we had a conscripted army and morale was much lower then. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #74 December 15, 2004 QuoteThe old stuff at Ft lewis is mostly gone. The WW2 barracks with the open bays and a commen head. wood frame with asbestos sideing were about gone and replaced with nice new Brick 1-2 3 story barracks 1-2 guy's to a room about 10yr's ago (North Fort). There's still some old brick building left for Historic reasons on main post but had to be upgraded for fire, earthquake, and stuff. Family housing has been Upgraded (Bandaid) and some replaced with new.Hopefully once the new stuff is completed the troops in the old stuff will be able to move into the new ones. Congressional funding moves slow.I suspect what your seeing under constuction was approved 3-5 yr's ago WAG. R.I.P. As I'm not at Ft. Lewis, I can't really comment on it. However, the 25th is expanding. The 101st is expanding (I'm in 1/4th). A lot of the old barracks at Campbell are still being used. 20th Replacement is in some of the oldest buildings on the post I think.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #75 December 16, 2004 QuoteNo that would be conscription as in, during Vietnam we had a conscripted army and morale was much lower then. I know that even in peace time soldiers look forward to their ETS (end time in service) date like six year old anticipates Christmas morning during December. Soldiers are suing over stop loss. That is not a sign of high morale. Nor is it a good sign when units refuse support missions because they are not adequately supplied. That is to say nothing of the high rates of malignant growth for some returning units due to the depleted uranium ammunition that has (still?) been used in Iraq. Cancer is not the best incentive to motivate troops, or local populations.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 3 of 7 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. 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. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
billvon 2,426 #52 December 15, 2004 >Well you can keep spinning it like that . . . I'm not. The government is. >You also ignore the overt publically announced geopolitical strategy of > bringing some form of representative democracy and civilization to the > Middle East. Not at all! That was, I believe, one of the primary motivations behind the war (the PNAC plan.) It is ironic that you are now announcing this as if everyone knew it; I can recall several conservatives telling me "your claim is bullshit!" when I said Bush was following the PNAC doctrine. "We're disarming Saddam, Bill! What, don't you believe the CIA? Do you want him to use his chemical weapons against us?" Good to see conservatives admitting that it wasn't "all about the WMD's" and that we had ulterior motives, though. As I mentioned before, being honest with people about the war is the best way to maintain support for it. >I've already listed many differences between Iraq and Vietnam. There are many. Vietnam was a jungle and Iraq isn't. There is more news coverage. There is no USSR supporting the insurgency. But there are a lot of similiarities as well, and I think it would behoove us to stop doing our best to repeat the mistakes of Vietnam in Iraq. >To sit back and say we'll lose a war because some irrelevant lie about the > Maddox is somehow similar to a lie about WMDs is pure fantasy. It reeks > of the kind of political science conceit you see from your average > journalist at work in the USA today. I think it's hilarious that you accused me of "pure fantasy" in the same sentence that you used the WMD justification for war! You're right, there is a lot of fantasy out there - and it is a big problem. But if you think we can't lose this war, you are sorely mistaken. We can - and the time we are most vulnerable is the time we convince ourselves that we are really invulnerable, that we can't possibly lose. Such conceits have doomed wars in the past. We should not make those mistakes. We CAN win the war in Iraq, but we will do it by making smart decisions, not by turning it into a Disney movie and pretending that the mighty US cannot possibly lose. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,426 #53 December 15, 2004 >Medical Discharge(eww that sounds bad)--no IRR time, Full VA bennies.. At least for now. Let's hope it stays that way. Given that they're pulling 55 year old women with arthritis back into the armed forces, I could see them getting a little more flexible on what medical problems they'll accept. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #54 December 15, 2004 QuoteQuoteDon't forget about the time you owe to the IRR. Medical Discharge(eww that sounds bad)--no IRR time, Full VA bennies... if you are an officer, make sure you resign your commission... i'll be interested to know if they accept that resignation as well.... ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrunkMonkey 0 #55 December 15, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteDon't forget about the time you owe to the IRR. Medical Discharge(eww that sounds bad)--no IRR time, Full VA bennies... if you are an officer, make sure you resign your commission... i'll be interested to know if they accept that resignation as well.... Am an Officer. Resignation letter gets filed after separation is complete. Still have a reserve commission, so dunno if same rules as those w/regular commissions apply. Will see... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,644 #56 December 15, 2004 History revisionism is getting more difficult, when the government keeps the records on its own web site. www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,146 #57 December 15, 2004 QuoteThe Shah ruled for 25 years. Yes, he did. But looking at the end result of his rule, was it the right thing? A self-sustaining political system which has internal legitimacy is always going to beat one that's imposed. For that matter, a non-self-sustaining political system is probably going to beat one that's imposed, simply because the people don't support it. Look at Eastern Europe -- you could also say that the whole Eastern bloc was well-handled because the Soviet Union controlled them. Oops. You have to KEEP controlling them. Much better to help folks have a system that controls itself. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,426 #58 December 15, 2004 >A self-sustaining political system which has internal legitimacy is always >going to beat one that's imposed. "Democracy imposed from without is the severest form of tyranny." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
slug 1 #59 December 15, 2004 QuoteQuoteThe old stuff at Ft lewis is mostly gone. The WW2 barracks with the open bays and a commen head. wood frame with asbestos sideing were about gone and replaced with nice new Brick 1-2 3 story barracks 1-2 guy's to a room about 10yr's ago (North Fort). . A lot of the old WW2 barracks are still standing and still in use...I used them a little over a year ago You talking about fort lewis Damn Don't worry be happy R.I.P. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AdD 1 #60 December 15, 2004 QuoteAmerica lost Vietnam because it allowed the enemy to retreat into Laos without pursuing them and made other disasterous decisions Lol, that's bullshit dude, America dropped 2.1 million tons of bombs on Laos in the largest air bombing campaign EVER. The war in Laos was faught through proxies supported by US air power.Life is ez On the dz Every jumper's dream 3 rigs and an airstream Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #61 December 15, 2004 QuoteYes, he did. But looking at the end result of his rule, was it the right thing? A self-sustaining political system which has internal legitimacy is always going to beat one that's imposed. For that matter, a non-self-sustaining political system is probably going to beat one that's imposed, simply because the people don't support it. End result? He was in charge for 25 years. That is not a bad track record for the area. Time isn't necessarily a good measure of "good" govt. How do you do measure the success of the govt when dissidents are killed? In Iran, both the current theocracy and the previous govt (the Shah) are well known for their treatment of dissidents. My point was, it made a better case for comparison because it is in the Middle East. Basically, westerners need to let M.E. govts be run by people who are part of the culture. Westerners view parts of the culture as more brutal than they are willing to accept. Not our call. My point was that the Iranian govt was changed and it did exist for quite some time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #62 December 15, 2004 QuoteThis is why my discharge date is 1 Feb 05. I'm not gonna be Dubya's stooge anymore. How long with involuntary extensions? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrunkMonkey 0 #63 December 15, 2004 QuoteQuoteThis is why my discharge date is 1 Feb 05. I'm not gonna be Dubya's stooge anymore. How long with involuntary extensions? AF is not doing that to my particular AFSC... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #64 December 15, 2004 Quote I think it's hilarious that you accused me of "pure fantasy" in the same sentence that you used the WMD justification for war! You're right, there is a lot of fantasy out there - and it is a big problem. I didn't you read what you wanted to read from what I wrote. I never cited WMD's as a justification post facto, I was citing it purely as a political issue w.r.t. none being found (you did realize I used the word "lie" in there albeit purely for comparrison) . Once again you have ignored the numerous big issues I mentioned and gone back to your favorite single issue. The WMD one which everyone in the USA knows about but you pretend is a stealth issue. It's old dude, it's like listening to a broken record, and it wasn't the only issue going in, its main purpose was in getting the UN to tag along. Bill you've used specious comparrisons and refuse to admit it. The graph you posted showing casualties ignored little things like troop deployments. It's pure propaganda and pretty indefensible. The rest of your comparrisons remain irrelevent, just some Political Science fantasy fed to you by moveon.org & the blog sites. There are *vast differences* between Iraq and Vietnam, all the comparrisons points you mentioned just ignored most of what actually went wrong in Vietnam as I have pointed out. As I have said applying the Vietnam lesson to every war the US gets involved in is not illuminating. There have been numerous wars throughout the ages, won, lost or drawn, continually citing a single conflict that the USA withdrew from as the one that applies to whatever conflict the US is engaged at the moment in is a cynical attempt to influence public opinion. It's pure politics based on biased analysis. Your graph of casualties demonstrates that, it cynically exploits the ignorance of most Americans when it comes to the actual events and troop dispositions in these conflicts, and you posted it anyway. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #65 December 15, 2004 "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the results." --Ben FranklinMath tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,426 #66 December 15, 2004 >Once again you have ignored the numerous big issues I mentioned >and gone back to your favorite single issue. Actually I listed a bunch of issues; you keep returning to "but . . . but . . . . Vietnam isn't exactly the same as Iraq!" which I readily admit to. There are, however, a large number of similarities, and we ignore them at our peril - even if ignoring them is politically expedient. >There have been numerous wars throughout the ages, won, lost or drawn, >continually citing a single conflict that the USA withdrew from as the one > that applies to whatever conflict the US is engaged at the moment in is a > cynical attempt to influence public opinion. And ignoring a recent war that we lost partly due to an inability to pacify local populations will result in a lot of dead US soldiers. History has shown what happens to countries who are no longer able to learn from their mistakes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #67 December 15, 2004 Quote>Once again you have ignored the numerous big issues I mentioned >and gone back to your favorite single issue. Actually I listed a bunch of issues; you keep returning to "but . . . but . . . . Vietnam isn't exactly the same as Iraq!" which I readily admit to. There are, however, a large number of similarities, and we ignore them at our peril - even if ignoring them is politically expedient. >There have been numerous wars throughout the ages, won, lost or drawn, >continually citing a single conflict that the USA withdrew from as the one > that applies to whatever conflict the US is engaged at the moment in is a > cynical attempt to influence public opinion. And ignoring a recent war that we lost partly due to an inability to pacify local populations will result in a lot of dead US soldiers. History has shown what happens to countries who are no longer able to learn from their mistakes. I've already explained what's wrong with this. It's not that these conflicts weren't exactly alike. It's that they were profoundly different, I've listed the ways, and not just opinion, e.g. division strength opposition in untouchable territory, air support and opposing superpowers. Your final assertion is based on the same false premise. It is worth pointing out that we were told Gulf War I would be a Vietnam, and that Afghanistan would be a Vietnam. Applying a single ill formed lesson to every problem does not make a nation smarter, it does the opposite. You still refuse to aknowledge that the only data you posted to support your claims was a flawed comparrison as anyone can see if they look at troop deployments. This is important stuff Bill, if you post misleading data and keep throwing out claims refusing to admit your graph was misleading then where does that leave us? Will you at least acknowledge that the graph you posted was a politically motivated cynical manipulation of the data? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #68 December 15, 2004 QuoteIt's not that these conflicts weren't exactly alike. It's that they were profoundly different, Yes, but they are simultaneously profoundly similar. Naturally, no war is going to be exactly like the last one, but it would be foolish to believe that there are no similarities from one war to another.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #69 December 15, 2004 QuoteQuoteIt's not that these conflicts weren't exactly alike. It's that they were profoundly different, Yes, but they are simultaneously profoundly similar. Naturally, no war is going to be exactly like the last one, but it would be foolish to believe that there are no similarities from one war to another. When the debate is over why we lost a war then differences like division strength armies in untouchable territory infiltrating in dense jungle and superpowers funneling arms to the ememy and providing air support and air defenses and an administration not willing to prosecute the war effectively matter a lot. They matter sufficiently that they make comparrisons w.r.t. less relevant and even fancifull issues impossible. Even comparrisons over local ethnicity are flawed, the situation is almost reversed in Iraq on some metrics. The one constant that is relevant is a political left doing their utmost to convince everyone that the war is unwinnable. It is a political strategy that has nothing to do with the facts on the ground. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #70 December 15, 2004 QuotePost: In Reply To Quote It's not that these conflicts weren't exactly alike. It's that they were profoundly different, Yes, but they are simultaneously profoundly similar. Naturally, no war is going to be exactly like the last one, but it would be foolish to believe that there are no similarities from one war to another. When the debate is over why we lost a war then differences like division strength armies in untouchable territory infiltrating in dense jungle and superpowers funneling arms to the ememy and providing air support and air defenses and an administration not willing to prosecute the war effectively matter a lot. They matter sufficiently that they make comparrisons w.r.t. less relevant and even fancifull issues impossible. Even comparrisons over local ethnicity are flawed, the situation is almost reversed in Iraq on some metrics. The one constant that is relevant is a political left doing their utmost to convince everyone that the war is unwinnable. It is a political strategy that has nothing to do with the facts on the ground. I have two words for you: Troop Morale.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #71 December 15, 2004 Quote I have two words for you: Troop Morale. Conscription. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #72 December 15, 2004 QuoteConscription. Would that be conscription as in a new draft? Or conscription as in the government commandeering assets of citizens in order to finance the war? I don't see either fixing the problem of low morale.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #73 December 15, 2004 QuoteQuoteConscription. Would that be conscription as in a new draft? Or conscription as in the government commandeering assets of citizens in order to finance the war? I don't see either fixing the problem of low morale. No that would be conscription as in, during Vietnam we had a conscripted army and morale was much lower then. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #74 December 15, 2004 QuoteThe old stuff at Ft lewis is mostly gone. The WW2 barracks with the open bays and a commen head. wood frame with asbestos sideing were about gone and replaced with nice new Brick 1-2 3 story barracks 1-2 guy's to a room about 10yr's ago (North Fort). There's still some old brick building left for Historic reasons on main post but had to be upgraded for fire, earthquake, and stuff. Family housing has been Upgraded (Bandaid) and some replaced with new.Hopefully once the new stuff is completed the troops in the old stuff will be able to move into the new ones. Congressional funding moves slow.I suspect what your seeing under constuction was approved 3-5 yr's ago WAG. R.I.P. As I'm not at Ft. Lewis, I can't really comment on it. However, the 25th is expanding. The 101st is expanding (I'm in 1/4th). A lot of the old barracks at Campbell are still being used. 20th Replacement is in some of the oldest buildings on the post I think.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #75 December 16, 2004 QuoteNo that would be conscription as in, during Vietnam we had a conscripted army and morale was much lower then. I know that even in peace time soldiers look forward to their ETS (end time in service) date like six year old anticipates Christmas morning during December. Soldiers are suing over stop loss. That is not a sign of high morale. Nor is it a good sign when units refuse support missions because they are not adequately supplied. That is to say nothing of the high rates of malignant growth for some returning units due to the depleted uranium ammunition that has (still?) been used in Iraq. Cancer is not the best incentive to motivate troops, or local populations.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)