Bollucks. I wasn't TORTURED in basic and neither was your Marine. Second, I'm not demeaning anybody. I was pointing out the difference between humiliation and insult, which is HUGE. If I call you a p*ssy I'm insulting you. If I brutally rape your wife and while my buddy holds a gun to your head and makes you watch is that torturing you? Now tell me that all torture must be physical. Have I tortured your wife and merely hurt your feelings? Bullshit, you'd carry that with you to the grave and it would haunt you the rest of your life. That's torture plain and simple. Now, am I saying that's what's going on in Iraq? Absolutely not! Our soldiers are FAR TOO PROFESSIONAL. We have the best military in the world and it's not the weapons. It's the men and women that make up the military. More than that it's the culture that raised them and instilled in them the sense of right and wrong. The fact remains that deep humiliation is a great motivator. Obviously someone in charge doesn't understand that.
1. I have read, and comprehended the "art of war" 2. Name one person in the military who is in against their will. Honest recruiter? :lol: How honest to they need to be? If you're stupid enough to believe that signing up for the MILITARY will somehow keep you off the battlefield, then you're simply an idiot for which there is no one to blame but yourself.
Oh? and how do you, or anyone else here know this? who's to say we might be hearing of a hostage beheading every day, as opposed to one every few weeks?
Well said, I was never tortured in boot camp or at any time in the Marines...we do have the finest Military in the world..you must expience it I guess to understand it. but what you said is correct and to the point
Appearently not. I'll direct you to the passage that I have in mind when I get home. That's not what I was implying. Still, there are many who disagree with what's going on and our involvement there. You just sound like you're ready to go support your president. That's all I was suggesting. You'd be surprised how many there are. I served with perhaps the best example of that for almost a year. He just wanted college money and was the most self-centered, selfish person that I've ever met.
See, this is one of the arguments I'm not going to get into. I believe there are only a handful of people that can TRULY, and accurately, estimate the size of the insurgency. There's probably a good chance they don't post on PC...
Of course, this all assumes that Sun Tzu is an infallable authority on war... As for how suprised I'd be, probably. But does that change anything or excuse anyone? Again, if anyone thinks by joining the MILITARY, which, by obvious definition is a career in which the primary theme is warfare, there's no chance of you ending up on a battlefield, you're simply a fool.
Well then getting back to the topic then... If you're implying that those people include higher ups in the administration, then one disappointment that I have is that the administration isn't leveling to us about the measures of success... If the number of insurgents go down, i'm sure they'll come out and report it, and maybe even exaggerate, but if it hasn't changed or is growing, I expect them to say not a word and speak only in vagaries with respect to the state of the insurgency... like they have been doing.
Well, there may very well be good reasons for which they aren't leveling with us regarding success, or the lackthereof, for which I do agree the possibility exists.
I seriously doubt that anyone knows the size. As for the insurgents they'd be fools to even try to keep track. The more low tech their operation the more likely they are to be successful.
Not infallable but filled with good advice. Treatment of prisoners, in fact, is one of the major reasons that the Wehrmacht lost on the Eastern Front. While literally true you're missing the point. If you had chosen to serve would you blindly fight in any war? How about a war you considered foolish, counter productive, stupid?
Please... don't go all "anyone who criticizes the war is unpatriotic and is supporting the terrorists" on us... Critics here have legitimate gripes with the way the administration has proceeded with the war, and while they may not know what the best way to win the war is, they would assert that neither does the president or his cronies. People who are calling for a troop pullout may not have the answers, but they are voicing a serious concern that can't just be ignored. People seem to think that "supporting the troops" means "support the president and his policy at all costs." but it means something completely different.
No way, not major. They lost because they were stupid enough to pro-actively attack the Russians, faced heavier resistance than expected (which one could argue as partly due to treatment, but by no means primary), and got bogged down in the winter, in addition to being spread out. Plus, Goering was an absolute FOOL with the Luftwaffen. And no, I'm not missing the point, you're interjecting your own concept of a military for which perhaps fighting should be an option. For which what good is a military force then, if the average soldier suddenly decides, "Nah, I don't think this war is right" en masse? I'm sure you understand there are many levels of war time intelligence for which that average soldier is not aware, and in many cases, should NOT be aware of, hence the concept of an "order". That's a total BS excuse, you willingly signed a contract with the US Gov./Military, should you fear a war might break out for which you don't believe in, the answer is very simple: don't sign up.
The information that has surfaced about the White House's misinformation campaign to mislead us into war means that I HAVE to vote for the impeachment option.
Who said or even implied that? I was merely making a point that some could agrue the insurgency has been effective in that the voices for pull out have seemed to suddenly get louder. Not saying there is anything wrong with that at all. If there's one thing I WILL fault the administration on, is for not, for whatever reason, convincing the vast majority. Now there may in fact be a very good reason for this, or there may not.
Let's not forget that people said much of the same about Harry Truman when he was in office & shortly after. History has greatly elevated Old Harry. We shall see about GW. Let's face it, the best & the brightest don't go into politics. Also, no generalization is true, including this one. B)
Considering that entire Corps of Russian units were surrendering and Ukrainians were treating the Germans as liberators until the slaughter of those peoples began I'd say that it played a major role. It was the brutal treatment that convinced the masses that "Stalin is better than these guys". Once it became common knownlege what happened to those that were captured the enmasse surrendering came to an end. If it's to that point then the cause is lost. The military isn't going to work. So you've just shown that wars must be chosen carefully. It's not a fickle thing, especially in this day and age when the illusion of glory has long since been shattered. Particularly true in a military that values thoughtful and well educated soldiers. No shit. However, it's pretty obvious when the basic premise is misguided. It's not for a lack of trying. They spent a considerable amount of time and effort trying to convince the American public and the rest of the world. They did have the American public convinced. Polls consistently showed strong support for the war prior to march 2003. However, the American public didn't really believe this would be difficult. They probably figured that it would be like '91 all over again. Unfortunately they didn't understand that this effort would, by its nature, be much more difficult.
OK lets see, GWB is a Yale and Harvard graduate, flew a jet plane for the National Guard, made millions in business, was a hugely succesful governor of Texas and a twice elected POTUS, beat the pants off the (intellectual) traitor John kerry in the debates and election. Beat the Democrats at every turn. Kicked out the sadistic Sadam. Liberated two countries and 30 million people. Not to mention what he did for the economy, which is nothing short of spectacular in the face of the tax'em to death Democrats. Who among you critics or even Democrats can come close to these achievements? GWB will go down in history as one of the greatest presidents ever! I know there will be a lot of buts.. out there. But he didn't go to Vietnam, but the ivy league schools took him because of his family, but the war is illegal (or some such nonsense), but, but, but.. But He still did it!!! Just a few thoughts from a Vietnam veteran.