jdhill 0 #1 November 22, 2005 OK, so there is a poll out that says something to the effect that 65% of Americans disapprove of the way the war is being handled. I hear some of the talking heads saing that 65% of Americans disapprove of the war, which I have not seen a poll to support, and there is a difference, IMO... So, lets see how it falls out here... JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #2 November 22, 2005 hmmm its a bit more complicated than just those choices. 1) I disagree with the invasion 2) But since we did it, we gotta slog through it now. 3) It sucks in Iraq, but I don't blame the Americans & Brits (& others) who are out there doing the fighting. 4) I disagree with just giving up & coming home right now. We've got the Iraqi elections in late December & then we'll need about a year to get the Iraqi forces up & running. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #3 November 22, 2005 I said I disapproved of the way the war is being fought because I don't think we are doing enough. I would like to see the number of troops increased substancially so we can get the Iraqis trained quicker and then get out once the country is stabile. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ViperPilot 0 #4 November 23, 2005 I like the choice of: "It doesn't matter what the reasons are for going in, we're there now, so lets stop arguing about it, finish what we started, and then get out." It's that simple. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterblaster72 0 #6 November 24, 2005 QuoteI said I disapproved of the way the war is being fought because I don't think we are doing enough. I would like to see the number of troops increased substancially so we can get the Iraqis trained quicker and then get out once the country is stabile. I echo that sentiment, and I'm glad we can agree on something. However, if the f.ckwads running this war would have listened to the generals in the first place, there would be no need to have such an opinion. Something tells me they like it this way, and unfortunately things probably won't change anytime soon. Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dustin19d 0 #7 November 24, 2005 The total number of americans in country has nothing to do with how fast the Iraqis will be ready to take over. So thoes of you that say increase the # of americans there so we can train up the Iraqis faster (Gravitymater, masterblaster72) You have no Idea what you are talking about! But yeah it does sound like a great solution coming from an Armchair Quarterback Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #8 November 24, 2005 QuoteThe total number of americans in country has nothing to do with how fast the Iraqis will be ready to take over. So thoes of you that say increase the # of americans there so we can train up the Iraqis faster (Gravitymater, masterblaster72) You have no Idea what you are talking about! I didn't mean more troops only to help train the Iraqis faster. Obviously, we need more troops to fight the insurgents, and help provide better security too. I'd like to see more operations like "Steel Curtain", which by all measures was a success. I think one of the main reasons we don't have more troops is because it would require either reducing levels in places like Korea etc.... or instituting a draft, which I don't think Americans are willing to support. I think had we gone in with 200,000 plus troops at the beginning, this would have been over by now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dustin19d 0 #9 November 24, 2005 QuoteI think had we gone in with 200,000 plus troops at the beginning, this would have been over by now. I think you are way off! As long as there is an American in Iraq there is going to be an Iraqi that wants to kill him. There is no happy ending to this even with hingsight. QuoteI think one of the main reasons we don't have more troops is because it would require either reducing levels in places like Korea My brigade came out of Korea Now I know that you REALLY don't know what your talking about. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dustin19d 0 #10 November 24, 2005 QuoteI think one of the main reasons we don't have more troops is because it would require either reducing levels in places like Korea etc In fact not only have we (the Army) deployed a Brigade out of Korea we have also deployed a brigade out of NTC (National Training Center) a unit that has historicly since the conception on NTC been Non-Deployable. With that said I believe that the draft shoul be reinstated. We are obviously short on men/weomen to fight the war. And Id love nothing more than to get a bunch of war hating colege kids in my platoon. I'd show them the definition of respect Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #11 November 24, 2005 QuoteQuoteI think had we gone in with 200,000 plus troops at the beginning, this would have been over by now. QuoteI think you are way off! As long as there is an American in Iraq there is going to be an Iraqi that wants to kill him. There is no happy ending to this even with hingsight. If we had more military in the beginning, there would be fewer insurgent to kill Americans and perhaps we could have secured more of the ammo bunkers later raided by the Iraqis. We also would have been better prepared to secure the borders, particularly the Syrian and Iranian borders, where many of the weapons being used against our troops are coming from. By your logic, the fewer troops we went in with, the quicker the war would have been won. QuoteI think one of the main reasons we don't have more troops is because it would require either reducing levels in places like Korea QuoteMy brigade came out of Korea Now I know that you REALLY don't know what your talking about. **sigh** I wasn't refering to just Korea, I only used it as an example of one place we would have to draw troops from, which by the way I don't think was such a great idea. Have a Happy Thanksgiving and thanks for your service. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dustin19d 0 #12 November 24, 2005 QuoteIf we had more military in the beginning, there would be fewer insurgent to kill Americans and perhaps we could have secured more of the ammo bunkers later raided by the Iraqis Look at Iraq, its surounded by Middle-eastern countries. The vast majority of the guys I and my men killed where not Iraqi. It would take Hundred upon thousands of men to secure the thousands of miles of boarders, not to mention the cities within. QuoteBy your logic, the fewer troops we went in with, the quicker the war would have been won Where the fuck did you come up with that! I said 200,000 would make little differance in the training of Iraqi police compared to the 130,000 we have now. BTW: every time I got into a shit storm it never failed that the Iraqi pilice would be hidding up the nearest alley. I almost shot a couple of Iraqi Police officers because the refused to help us. I should have, no one would have missed them! Happy Thanksgiving Gravity, I hope you don't spent it in front of the TV like I will. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #13 November 24, 2005 QuoteQuoteI think one of the main reasons we don't have more troops is because it would require either reducing levels in places like Korea etc In fact not only have we (the Army) deployed a Brigade out of Korea we have also deployed a brigade out of NTC (National Training Center) a unit that has historicly since the conception on NTC been Non-Deployable. With that said I believe that the draft shoul be reinstated. We are obviously short on men/weomen to fight the war. And Id love nothing more than to get a bunch of war hating colege kids in my platoon. I'd show them the definition of respect I agree with you on the draft. I think all Americans should have to serve at least 2 years in the Military or equivalant. I only mentioned drawing down troops from other areas because I know the American public would not support a draft and it is the only place I'm aware of where we could increase our troop strength. Do you think it would have been wiser to send N.G. units to Germany, Korea etc... instead of Iraq and then have re-deployed regular military into Afghanistan and Iraq instead of sending N.G.? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dustin19d 0 #14 November 24, 2005 QuoteDo you think it would have been wiser to send N.G. units to Germany, Korea etc... instead of Iraq and then have re-deployed regular military into Afghanistan and Iraq instead of sending N.G.? Man thats a touchy subject I can not comment on. I was in the NG my Junior and Senior year in High school and thoes guys where dedicated to civilian jobs and family and considered the military a part time slacker job (My perspective). I think that move would have been to large a logistical effort, when do the NG guys get relieved in GE and Korea? Thats just beyond me. Another problem to that is the NG and Army Reserve has MOS's that the regular army is lacking in. Therefore we need to call up NG and Army Reserve to perform thies jobs because the Regular Army doesn't have the capacity to perform them.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #15 November 24, 2005 QuoteQuoteDo you think it would have been wiser to send N.G. units to Germany, Korea etc... instead of Iraq and then have re-deployed regular military into Afghanistan and Iraq instead of sending N.G.? Man thats a touchy subject I can not comment on. I was in the NG my Junior and Senior year in High school and thoes guys where dedicated to civilian jobs and family and considered the military a part time slacker job (My perspective). I think that move would have been to large a logistical effort, when do the NG guys get relieved in GE and Korea? Thats just beyond me. I only ask is because it always seemed to me that I would rather have regular military in Iraq instead of the NG we sent. NG would be better suited to non-combat deployments. Just wondered what your thoughts were. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dustin19d 0 #16 November 24, 2005 QuoteI only ask is because it always seemed to me that I would rather have regular military in Iraq instead of the NG we sent. NG would be better suited to non-combat deployments. Just wondered what your thoughts were. The majority of the NG soldiers sent over do combat service and combat service and support jobs. The exeption being the NG Infantry Brigades that have been sent over. My Infantry Battalion was replaced with a NG Infantry batallion. I trained up the squad that was going to take over the mission my squad was doing at the time, I had 1 week. I told them about the area, the do's and dont's and took them out several times so they new how WE did things. Unfortunately most of thoes guys I trained up are dead now. Quoteit always seemed to me that I would rather have regular military in Iraq instead of the NG I agree! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,648 #17 November 24, 2005 Quote I think had we gone in with 200,000 plus troops at the beginning, this would have been over by now. It is indeed good that you finally acknowledge that this war has been mismanaged. "The truth will set you free"... 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 Gravitymaster 0 #18 November 24, 2005 QuoteQuote I think had we gone in with 200,000 plus troops at the beginning, this would have been over by now. It is indeed good that you finally acknowledge that this war has been mismanaged. "The truth will set you free" This has been my contention for a long time. Apparently, you have been blind to much of the criticisms I have made. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites tbrown 26 #19 November 24, 2005 Support the troops - bring them home. Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites matthewcline 0 #20 November 24, 2005 Ah the draft. That is a wjole different thread. But as a 19 year veteran and mutliple trips over seas I do not see having people who do not want to be there (there being in the military) being the best answer. Train, equip, pay and support the troops we have. You will find we can do any mission set before us if the politicians will listen to us and support us. Happy Thanksgiving all! I give Special Thanks to my brothers and sisters over seas right now!An Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jloirsdaan 0 #21 November 24, 2005 HA! I love this suggestion. Hey, I raised my right hand....joined of my own free will, etc, etc. But I have been deployed twice within 18 months. This is my 2nd one year rotation. Have you been watching any of the news over the summer? The Army, who has the majority of the troop strength out here, wasn't able to meet its recruiting goals. They are meeting them now...because they lowered the goals....and are allowing people with lower ASVAB scores into the military. So since you think we should increase troop strength here....where do you propose we get the people? Should we just stick soldiers out here for 2 maybe 3 years at a time? Or, go to the MANY countries who are oh so willing to send troops out here....and ask them to send more?? This might sound like I am flaming you or what not. I'm not....I just get annoyed that some of the public doesn't seem to understand how far we really are stretched out here! We are really, pretty much at, maximum capacity. IMHO.....have to add that....as I am not a General....and do not speak for the army as a whole...just from my point of view! The lowly soldiers here on the ground. Oh yeah...happy thanksgiving everyone! edit to add: opps....should have read on a little....But I'll echo what the other guys been saying...Korea....all ready pulling them out of there....as well as Germany. So have to go look somewhere else.... Jordan Go Fast, Dock Soft. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,648 #22 November 25, 2005 QuoteHA! I love this suggestion. Hey, I raised my right hand....joined of my own free will, etc, etc. But I have been deployed twice within 18 months. This is my 2nd one year rotation. Have you been watching any of the news over the summer? The Army, who has the majority of the troop strength out here, wasn't able to meet its recruiting goals. They are meeting them now...because they lowered the goals....and are allowing people with lower ASVAB scores into the military. So since you think we should increase troop strength here....where do you propose we get the people? Should we just stick soldiers out here for 2 maybe 3 years at a time? Or, go to the MANY countries who are oh so willing to send troops out here....and ask them to send more?? This might sound like I am flaming you or what not. I'm not....I just get annoyed that some of the public doesn't seem to understand how far we really are stretched out here! We are really, pretty much at, maximum capacity. IMHO.....have to add that....as I am not a General....and do not speak for the army as a whole...just from my point of view! The lowly soldiers here on the ground. Oh yeah...happy thanksgiving everyone! edit to add: opps....should have read on a little....But I'll echo what the other guys been saying...Korea....all ready pulling them out of there....as well as Germany. So have to go look somewhere else.... My son was pulled out of Korea, and went to Iraq with zero desert training. Seems like a desperation move to me.... 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 Mike111 0 #23 November 25, 2005 I agree. i think the guys on the ground are doing a fantastic job, but more troops would be necessary. Unfortunately easier said than done Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites matthewcline 0 #24 November 25, 2005 It was anounced prior to the Operations in Iraq that our forces in Korea would reduce strength. The decision to send them to Iraq in route back to the US, hmm, I don't htink I would totally agree on "desperation" but it is a tough call. The same was being done with the US' European forces. Most of the public doesn't know these things since at the time, 12 to 18 months before Iraq, it had no relavence. And of course there are tons of "what if" papers in the DOD that never got looked at do to the "rush" to get the Iraq Operation moving (the politicians, not the soldiers ruch). GEN. Tommy Franks book has a pretty good amount of insight leading to the Iraq Operation. It should be part of a group of books to read for all of us who want to discuss this situation. I think it (along with many other books) is required reading for the West Pointers and Officer Candidate Scool attendies.An Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites CanuckInUSA 0 #25 November 25, 2005 World War II was a just war. This war was not. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 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
dustin19d 0 #12 November 24, 2005 QuoteIf we had more military in the beginning, there would be fewer insurgent to kill Americans and perhaps we could have secured more of the ammo bunkers later raided by the Iraqis Look at Iraq, its surounded by Middle-eastern countries. The vast majority of the guys I and my men killed where not Iraqi. It would take Hundred upon thousands of men to secure the thousands of miles of boarders, not to mention the cities within. QuoteBy your logic, the fewer troops we went in with, the quicker the war would have been won Where the fuck did you come up with that! I said 200,000 would make little differance in the training of Iraqi police compared to the 130,000 we have now. BTW: every time I got into a shit storm it never failed that the Iraqi pilice would be hidding up the nearest alley. I almost shot a couple of Iraqi Police officers because the refused to help us. I should have, no one would have missed them! Happy Thanksgiving Gravity, I hope you don't spent it in front of the TV like I will. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #13 November 24, 2005 QuoteQuoteI think one of the main reasons we don't have more troops is because it would require either reducing levels in places like Korea etc In fact not only have we (the Army) deployed a Brigade out of Korea we have also deployed a brigade out of NTC (National Training Center) a unit that has historicly since the conception on NTC been Non-Deployable. With that said I believe that the draft shoul be reinstated. We are obviously short on men/weomen to fight the war. And Id love nothing more than to get a bunch of war hating colege kids in my platoon. I'd show them the definition of respect I agree with you on the draft. I think all Americans should have to serve at least 2 years in the Military or equivalant. I only mentioned drawing down troops from other areas because I know the American public would not support a draft and it is the only place I'm aware of where we could increase our troop strength. Do you think it would have been wiser to send N.G. units to Germany, Korea etc... instead of Iraq and then have re-deployed regular military into Afghanistan and Iraq instead of sending N.G.? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dustin19d 0 #14 November 24, 2005 QuoteDo you think it would have been wiser to send N.G. units to Germany, Korea etc... instead of Iraq and then have re-deployed regular military into Afghanistan and Iraq instead of sending N.G.? Man thats a touchy subject I can not comment on. I was in the NG my Junior and Senior year in High school and thoes guys where dedicated to civilian jobs and family and considered the military a part time slacker job (My perspective). I think that move would have been to large a logistical effort, when do the NG guys get relieved in GE and Korea? Thats just beyond me. Another problem to that is the NG and Army Reserve has MOS's that the regular army is lacking in. Therefore we need to call up NG and Army Reserve to perform thies jobs because the Regular Army doesn't have the capacity to perform them.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #15 November 24, 2005 QuoteQuoteDo you think it would have been wiser to send N.G. units to Germany, Korea etc... instead of Iraq and then have re-deployed regular military into Afghanistan and Iraq instead of sending N.G.? Man thats a touchy subject I can not comment on. I was in the NG my Junior and Senior year in High school and thoes guys where dedicated to civilian jobs and family and considered the military a part time slacker job (My perspective). I think that move would have been to large a logistical effort, when do the NG guys get relieved in GE and Korea? Thats just beyond me. I only ask is because it always seemed to me that I would rather have regular military in Iraq instead of the NG we sent. NG would be better suited to non-combat deployments. Just wondered what your thoughts were. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dustin19d 0 #16 November 24, 2005 QuoteI only ask is because it always seemed to me that I would rather have regular military in Iraq instead of the NG we sent. NG would be better suited to non-combat deployments. Just wondered what your thoughts were. The majority of the NG soldiers sent over do combat service and combat service and support jobs. The exeption being the NG Infantry Brigades that have been sent over. My Infantry Battalion was replaced with a NG Infantry batallion. I trained up the squad that was going to take over the mission my squad was doing at the time, I had 1 week. I told them about the area, the do's and dont's and took them out several times so they new how WE did things. Unfortunately most of thoes guys I trained up are dead now. Quoteit always seemed to me that I would rather have regular military in Iraq instead of the NG I agree! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,648 #17 November 24, 2005 Quote I think had we gone in with 200,000 plus troops at the beginning, this would have been over by now. It is indeed good that you finally acknowledge that this war has been mismanaged. "The truth will set you free"... 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
Gravitymaster 0 #18 November 24, 2005 QuoteQuote I think had we gone in with 200,000 plus troops at the beginning, this would have been over by now. It is indeed good that you finally acknowledge that this war has been mismanaged. "The truth will set you free" This has been my contention for a long time. Apparently, you have been blind to much of the criticisms I have made. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tbrown 26 #19 November 24, 2005 Support the troops - bring them home. Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #20 November 24, 2005 Ah the draft. That is a wjole different thread. But as a 19 year veteran and mutliple trips over seas I do not see having people who do not want to be there (there being in the military) being the best answer. Train, equip, pay and support the troops we have. You will find we can do any mission set before us if the politicians will listen to us and support us. Happy Thanksgiving all! I give Special Thanks to my brothers and sisters over seas right now!An Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jloirsdaan 0 #21 November 24, 2005 HA! I love this suggestion. Hey, I raised my right hand....joined of my own free will, etc, etc. But I have been deployed twice within 18 months. This is my 2nd one year rotation. Have you been watching any of the news over the summer? The Army, who has the majority of the troop strength out here, wasn't able to meet its recruiting goals. They are meeting them now...because they lowered the goals....and are allowing people with lower ASVAB scores into the military. So since you think we should increase troop strength here....where do you propose we get the people? Should we just stick soldiers out here for 2 maybe 3 years at a time? Or, go to the MANY countries who are oh so willing to send troops out here....and ask them to send more?? This might sound like I am flaming you or what not. I'm not....I just get annoyed that some of the public doesn't seem to understand how far we really are stretched out here! We are really, pretty much at, maximum capacity. IMHO.....have to add that....as I am not a General....and do not speak for the army as a whole...just from my point of view! The lowly soldiers here on the ground. Oh yeah...happy thanksgiving everyone! edit to add: opps....should have read on a little....But I'll echo what the other guys been saying...Korea....all ready pulling them out of there....as well as Germany. So have to go look somewhere else.... Jordan Go Fast, Dock Soft. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,648 #22 November 25, 2005 QuoteHA! I love this suggestion. Hey, I raised my right hand....joined of my own free will, etc, etc. But I have been deployed twice within 18 months. This is my 2nd one year rotation. Have you been watching any of the news over the summer? The Army, who has the majority of the troop strength out here, wasn't able to meet its recruiting goals. They are meeting them now...because they lowered the goals....and are allowing people with lower ASVAB scores into the military. So since you think we should increase troop strength here....where do you propose we get the people? Should we just stick soldiers out here for 2 maybe 3 years at a time? Or, go to the MANY countries who are oh so willing to send troops out here....and ask them to send more?? This might sound like I am flaming you or what not. I'm not....I just get annoyed that some of the public doesn't seem to understand how far we really are stretched out here! We are really, pretty much at, maximum capacity. IMHO.....have to add that....as I am not a General....and do not speak for the army as a whole...just from my point of view! The lowly soldiers here on the ground. Oh yeah...happy thanksgiving everyone! edit to add: opps....should have read on a little....But I'll echo what the other guys been saying...Korea....all ready pulling them out of there....as well as Germany. So have to go look somewhere else.... My son was pulled out of Korea, and went to Iraq with zero desert training. Seems like a desperation move to me.... 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
Mike111 0 #23 November 25, 2005 I agree. i think the guys on the ground are doing a fantastic job, but more troops would be necessary. Unfortunately easier said than done Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #24 November 25, 2005 It was anounced prior to the Operations in Iraq that our forces in Korea would reduce strength. The decision to send them to Iraq in route back to the US, hmm, I don't htink I would totally agree on "desperation" but it is a tough call. The same was being done with the US' European forces. Most of the public doesn't know these things since at the time, 12 to 18 months before Iraq, it had no relavence. And of course there are tons of "what if" papers in the DOD that never got looked at do to the "rush" to get the Iraq Operation moving (the politicians, not the soldiers ruch). GEN. Tommy Franks book has a pretty good amount of insight leading to the Iraq Operation. It should be part of a group of books to read for all of us who want to discuss this situation. I think it (along with many other books) is required reading for the West Pointers and Officer Candidate Scool attendies.An Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #25 November 25, 2005 World War II was a just war. This war was not. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
