2
   

DEAD BROTHERS . . .

 
 
williamhenry3
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jul, 2003 08:46 pm
[quote="au1929 I should remind them that while they sit in the confront of their homes criticizing, these Americans, whether you agree with the action in Iraq or not, are putting their lives on the line in the service of their country and I might add are being killed and wounded on a daily basis.[/quote]

Death is the ultimate sacrifice made by a soldier. It is indeed a sad one.
Nevertheless, these soldiers know their lives might be on the line when they sign up.

If people refuse to sign up for service in the armed forces, our country would shortly be out of the war and death business.

Peace.
0 Replies
 
angie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jul, 2003 09:04 pm
Most people agree that the Iraqi people are better off without the Husseins, dead or alive.

There are, however, plenty of other places in the world where the same can be said of oppressive rulers and their long-suffering people. The truth remains that, in spite of the efforts of Bush et al to portray themselves as concerned liberators, the US went in to Iraq for reasons other than the welfare of the Iraqi people, and the Iraqi people know this, as does most (if not all) of the rest of the world. (We had decades to express of "concern" prior to this invasion. Instead, we ignored the oppression and, as it suited out purposes, we both armed and supported Hussein.)

For this reason, the deaths of the Hussein sons will probably have no lasting effect in terms of generating real support for US efforts in Iraq. The Iraqi people and people all over the world may be no match for the military power of the US, but they're not stupid. This fraudulent invasion, this in-your-face arrogance and disregard for the international community will, I fear, generate anti-American sentiment for years and perhaps decades to come.
0 Replies
 
Olen
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jul, 2003 09:56 pm
Dead brothers.
I guess angie and others will continue to downgrade our efforts to bring peace to the Iraq region. They will quit only when they see a peaceful Iraq, which will be running their own country. They will see ( I hope ), that our only motive to force the Saddam Regime out of business was to give the peple the freedoms that we enjoy. The ulterior motive of our final success in Iraq will be more safety for America from terrorist acts supported by Saddam type governments. Other countries will follow suit with Iraq as a model.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jul, 2003 10:05 pm
williamhenry3
Quote:
If people refuse to sign up for service in the armed forces, our country would shortly be out of the war and death business.


, Are you suggesting we disband our military, what dream world are you living in? Who would defend this nation in time of strife. That attitude prevailed before Pearl Harbor and we were totally unprepared and took an ass kicking until we were. At that time our oceans protected us and we had time to gain our strength. In the next war should there be one nothing but a strong military will protect this nation. Everyone should refuse to serve indeed.
0 Replies
 
Olen
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jul, 2003 10:24 pm
Dead brothers.
Disbanding our military, would be like taking the glass out of a fish tank full of fish. No more fish, no more country.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jul, 2003 05:21 am
au1929 wrote:
williamhenry3
Quote:
If people refuse to sign up for service in the armed forces, our country would shortly be out of the war and death business.


, Are you suggesting we disband our military, what dream world are you living in? ...Everyone should refuse to serve indeed.


Don't see where bill said 'disband'. DO see where au and Olen leaped to that conclusion.

I might ask, since our military is staffed by the lower-middle-class and poor on a voluntary basis, how long before they choose NOT to fight and die for Bush and the other chickenhawks?

An excellent suggestion is posed by Tom Marcinko,
full text here:

Quote:
Jefferson Davis, future president of the Confederacy, was elected to the U.S. Congress in 1845. He left office two years later to fight in the Mexican War. He suffered serious wounds but emerged a hero, as Jay Winik points out in his excellent Civil War history" April 1865: The Month That Saved America." Davis was 38 years old.

Let's remember, too, that at 38 Davis was already a grand old man. The average lifespan for a male born in the U.S. was only 40 as late as 1900, according to the Merck Manual, but a boy born in 2000 can expect to clock out at 72.

Raising the question: No matter what you think of Jefferson, how many of our hawks in today's Congress have the courage of Davis's convictions?

You see where I'm going with this.

It's long been known that the list of conservative politicians, bureaucrats, and talking heads who avoided military service reads like a who's who of hawkdom.

If Iraq II was so essential to the survival of the republic, then why did so many relatively young senators and congressmen stay home instead of trying desert fatigues on for size?
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jul, 2003 05:44 am
PDiddie
Quote:
If people refuse to sign up for service in the armed forces, our country would shortly be out of the war and death business.


You interpret it the way you want to and I will read what it says. No recruits and no military. Of course there is always the draft.
Regarding who serves and who does not that is an entirely different subject. In my opinion they should never have discontinued the draft. Everyone should serve this nation for a period of 1 to 2 years either in the military or some other form volunteer civil service. There should be no deferments except for a physical handicap.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jul, 2003 05:56 am
See, I knew we were moving toward a discussion about conscription. :wink:
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jul, 2003 06:01 am
au1929 wrote:
Had you read the reports you would have known that they refused to surrender and preferred to fight to the finish. Three US soldiers were wounded before the army went after them full bore.


I agree (and if you've read me you know that there is precious little I agree with about this invasion).

Those nasty bastards had their chance to walk out.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jul, 2003 06:08 am
PDiddie
Quote:
See, I knew we were moving toward a discussion about conscription.


Not really there was one on that not too long ago. However, there is no doubt that if the ranks could not be filled by volunteers we would be forced to resort to the draft. One way or the other we will fill our needs. IMO it would be just what our youth needs
0 Replies
 
Olen
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jul, 2003 06:24 am
Dead brothers.
I don't know what else would result in the cessation of military sign-ups except disbandment. Another thing, our soldiers are not lower class people. They are high quality and dedicated to saving our skins from the Saddams of the world. I couldn't call a soldier inferior that advances into deadly fire, in spite of the possible outcome.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jul, 2003 06:35 am
I didn't say they were lower-class people. Rolling Eyes

I said they were from the lower-middle class (an economic stratification) and from families who qualify according to federal guidelines as 'poor.'

A military career is about the only choice some of them have, let alone the best choice.

The generals used to call that 'cannon fodder'.

Why don't one of you fellows start a thread on the future of the military and the draft? There's a lot to talk about there.

Here's some of what's being discussed elsewhere about the demise of the Husseins:

Quote:
What say you say Uday and Qusay dead say?

If there was anyone in Iraq that would have known the whereabouts of Saddam, it would probably have been the sons, Uday and Qusay. But they are dead now - turned in by their cousin for 30 million pieces of silver. This validates George W Bush' religion once again - there is nothing that money cannot buy.

If their cousin turned in Uday and Qusay, would he also have had knowledge about Saddam? More than likely, he turned that information over also. If so, the US military is hot on the trail of Saddam as we speak. If Saddam got the word of his sons' deaths, he may have had time to escape. Otherwise, I would venture that we know where Saddam is at this moment. That is, if the cousin knew?

=======================

If they do know where he is you can bet that he will be assassinated just like his sons were. They can't afford to have saddam tell what he knows. bush the elder, rummy and other neanderthal resurrections from the ronnie years were too intimately involved in the atrocities committed by the saddam regime.

========================

"The whole operation was a cockup," said a British intelligence officer. "There was no need to go after four lightly armed men with such overwhelming firepower. They would have been much more useful alive."

...

"Bollocks," said one former Special Forces soldier. "A SWAT team could have taken them. It didn't need a company."

http://www.msnbc.com/news/943255.asp?0cl=c1

Frontier justice plays better in the media. It's all about making the pinhead "look presidential."
0 Replies
 
Olen
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jul, 2003 06:58 am
Dead Brothers.
I think a person could do a lot worse than go into the military, when the future seems to be a dead end road. They could have gone in a lot of other directions. For instance, drugs, crime and a drag on society. Where do you think the Audie Murphys and the Sgt. Yorks came from. Some generals themselves started out as "cannon fodder", and took advantage of the opportunities offered by the military. Another thing that should be corrected is the reference to the extermination of vermin as assassination.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jul, 2003 07:01 am
Re: Dead Brothers.
Olen wrote:
I think a person could do a lot worse than go into the military, when the future seems to be a dead end road. They could have gone in a lot of other directions. For instance, drugs, crime and a drag on society.


Let's start with the Bush twins... :wink:

At this moment I am reminded of those bracelets that have WWJD inscribed on them...

What Would Jenna Drink?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jul, 2003 07:09 am
They were given more than ample opportunity to come out alive.

Quote:
(CNN) -- Wednesday morning a U.S. military leader detailed the four-hour operation that ended in the deaths of Saddam Hussein's sons Uday and Qusay on Tuesday.

During a briefing, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, who leads ground forces in Iraq, described the assault that spanned four hours in a crowded neighborhood in northeastern Mosul.

Below are details from that briefing describing the equipment, troops, plans and execution related to the battle:

The informant:
An Iraqi gave U.S. forces information that Uday and Qusay Hussein were in a house in northeast Mosul. The informant is in protective custody and will receive two $15 million rewards for the Hussein brothers. The officer said the informant was being protected because "People...know who owned the house," but he would not confirm that the informant was the owner.

The place:
A three-story house in a close-quartered northeast neighborhood of Mosul. The crowded nature of the area limits the type of weapons U.S. forces can use in the assault. The target was the house's second floor, which had been fortified.

The equipment:
Delta Kiowa attack helicopters equipped with 2.75-inch rockets and machine guns.

Humvees equipped with TOW. anti-tank systems.

Humvees with mounted machine guns.

On stand-by: AH-64 Apache Helicopters and U.S. Air Force A-10s.

The forces:
U.S. Army 101st Airborne Division

U.S. Army Infantry

Iraqi police

The attack:
10 a.m.: Weapons squads and anti-tank platoons of the U.S. Army 101st Airborne Divisions establish a cordon and isolate the area. Iraqi police establish the outer cordon.

An Iraqi interpreter uses a bullhorn outside the house to urge its occupants to come out.

10:10 a.m.: U.S. troops enter the house and a firefight ensues. Three soldiers are wounded on the stairs to the second floor, where the occupants are barricaded. Sanchez said he believes the suspects fired on the soldiers with AK-47s.

The coalition troops retreat.

10:45 a.m.: U.S. military begins a preparatory attack, using Mark-19 grenade launchers, AT-4 rockets and 50-caliber machine guns mounted on Humvees.

11:45 a.m.: A coalition commander decides to add rocket and machine gun fire from Delta Kiowa helicopters.

11:50 a.m.: The commander adds an anti-tank platoon to the assault team.

11:55 a.m.: The Kiowa helicopter finishes its preparatory gunfire and U.S. troops attempt to enter the house a second time five minutes later. Once again, they receive more gunfire from the barricaded second floor and retreat.

1 p.m.: U.S. commanders employ more rockets, machine guns and Humvee-mounted TOW missiles, firing 10 missiles into the house. Commanders decide not to use Apache helicopters, fearing civilian deaths.

Military officials said they believe that assault killed three of the four people in the house.

1:21 p.m.: Coalition troops enter the house for the third time, receiving no gunfire as they climb stairs to the second floor. Once on the second floor, the surviving male shoots at them and troops kill him.

2 p.m.: Coalition forces secure the building and find four bodies. They search the site for pertinent intelligence information.





Link
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jul, 2003 07:11 am
PDiddie
I would suggest you read the account of what actually happened.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jul, 2003 07:14 am
I have, au. Have you read here that I'm in agreement with you?

I would suggest that you find someone else to talk down to.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jul, 2003 07:14 am
Fortunately, the Iraqi Army has been a manifestation of the Germanic ranks where the decisions are made at the highest level, leaving the troops to merely carry out the orders. This is great because , if you knock off enough "high value targets" you remove the brain. Going all out to remove the Iraqi brain is only good military strategy. Since when does going in with a minimum amount of troops make sense. As Powell said in Desert Storm, we are going in with an overwhelming force to do the job needed. I have no argument if we showed up with a regiment to take out the "highest value targets" we had at the moment.

This aint polo.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jul, 2003 07:24 am
Un huh. I questioned that minimum amount of troops at the beginning of the war and still do. They won the war, but possibly in spite of the stratagy - certainly not because of it.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jul, 2003 07:30 am
PDiddie
My error I misread. Sorry.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/07/2022 at 12:43:36