WTF?!! Every war has differences, but if someone who dodged service in WW I got all patriotic and started telling people they should go off to die in WW II, he'd be a hypocrite.
"If one day you walk down the street and avoid looking at a crime problem because you "don't want to get involved" but later, when you get older and are no longer able to get involved, how is it bad if you ask others to get involved?" It'd be bad because I would be hypocritical and I would be encouraging others to undertake action that might result in harm to one or more parties.
"call to win the war"? What's winning? "call to lose the war"? What's losing? AND I NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT EITHER! GOT-DAMN!
"Call to win the war" -> when what you do and say is designed to win a battle or campaign.
"Call to lose the war" -> when what you do and say is designed to end the battle or campaign with no regard to what happens next or what it costs.
GWB is invested heavily in winning the war, Democrats in Congress have invested themselves in seeing GWB lose the war. GWB's loss is their gain, if he wins they lose. They see this as a zero-sum game. What they do not realise is that they can also win when GWB wins. Republicans never figured it out when Clinton was in office so I'm not much surprised Democrats haven't figured it out either.
So how do we know when we've "won"? When there is a stable Sunni government? When there is a stable Shia government? When there is a stable Kurd government? When there is nothing left alive in the region except the oil dudes?
How would we know if we "lost"? When there is a stable Sunni government? When there is a stable Shia government? When there is a stable Kurd government? When there is nothing left alive in the region except the oil dudes?
Here's an alternative: GWB has ALREADY said "Mission Accomplished". Let's just call that a "win" and get out.
When questioned directly, Petraeus said he would not be able to do his job as commander of MNFI without the additional 21,000 troops President Bush has pledged to Iraq
Is this supposed to be in support of what you said in that other thread?
If it is, you said "The new general went before a congressional committee and stated that if he does not get these extra troops he will fail. Now congress is trying to stop the extra troops! They are trying to guarantee failure!" I see where your dealies report that Petraeus said he would not be able to do his job without extra troops. Not being able to do your job and failure can be different things. I don't see where he said he would "fail". Further, there is no support whatsoever for your statement that "Now congress is trying to stop the extra troops! They are trying to guarantee failure!"
BUT EVEN IF I WERE TO SAY RIGHT NOW, "YOU'RE RIGHT STEVE. GOT-DAMN, THE COUNTRY IS BEING RUN BY SUPER-GENIUSES AND WE SHOULD ALWAYS SUPPORT THEM IN WHATEVER DECISIONS THEY MAKE", IT'S NOT RELEVANT TO WHAT'S BEEN SAID IN THIS THREAD.
Seen it, taped it. Got pretty good reading comprehension skills but don't see where it says "Now congress is trying to stop the extra troops! They are trying to guarantee failure!"
However, passing such a proposal still "gives hope to the enemy" as the general stated before the committee. Passage of the non-binding proposal will lead to a binding proposal of some sort. It will also cause any Republicans who go along with it to be tagged as "flip-floppers" and other nasty things.
Main Entry: fail·ure Function: noun 1 : omission of occurrence or performance; specifically : a failing to perform a duty or expected action [a failure to mitigate damages] [failure to prosecute] 2 : a lack of success or adequacy [failure of a suit] 3 : a failing in business
So how do we know when we've "won"? When there is a stable Sunni government? When there is a stable Shia government? When there is a stable Kurd government? When there is nothing left alive in the region except the oil dudes?
How would we know if we "lost"? When there is a stable Sunni government? When there is a stable Shia government? When there is a stable Kurd government? When there is nothing left alive in the region except the oil dudes?
Here's an alternative: GWB has ALREADY said "Mission Accomplished". Let's just call that a "win" and get out.
You are falling for the trap. Iraq is not the war, it is one battleground in the war.
When do we win? When the terrorists are unable to freely operate in Iraq. That is how I judge victory in the Iraq battleground. It may be years before such a win can be declared.
How do we lose? We lose by altering our lifestyle to suit the end goals of the terrorists. We lose when the terrorists are able to freely walk the streets of a nation and kill with impunity. We lose when we are no longer willing to fight.
When did World War 2 end? Do we still have troops in Germany and Japan? It's been over 50 years yet there are still Nazis in Germany!
So it's like Joe Haldeman's The Forever War? Count me out.
One last thing before I'm out: Are you suggesting that the reason there are U.S. troops in Germany is to keep the Nazis down? kiwi_bird, do you think that's why U.S. troops are there? Are we in Japan to make sure Hirohito's followers don't take over?
But Seriously. Count me out. I'm moving to Sealand.
I hate this three-way thing. Are there no other participants? I think I must be in the wrong forum again. I don't want to be known as "you know, those three crazy fuckers who won't shut up and fight clean." *Disassociates to reconstitute.
So it's like Joe Haldeman'sThe Forever War? Count me out.
One last thing: Are you suggesting that the reason there are U.S. troops in Germany is to keep the Nazis down? Are we in Japan to make sure Hirohito followers don't take over?
Seriously. Count me out. I'm moving to Sealand.
No, I am suggesting that even after winning the "war" we were never able to totally stamp out the losers (Nazis). My statement has no other hidden meaning in it. We keep bases in foreign countries because it benefits us.
I am not familiar with this "Forever War" perhaps you could provide a link? Not knowing what this is I have to ask, "at what point in a fight do you give up?" If you had a court case drag on and on and you were losing money everyday would you just quit saying, "I tried but, this is just costing me too much time and money" or would you see it through?
Steve: I'm not Jan Schlichtmann. I'd be an idiot if I stayed in court when I was losing money. That's one of the many reasons cases settle before and during trial. I'd be even more likely to quit if I was spending lives instead of money.
Just like I quit this. If you're blind enough to be happy with eternal war, then I hope that works out good for your kids. I'm not having any part of it. I'm moving to Sealand.
I hate this three-way thing. Are there no other participants? I think I must be in the wrong forum again. I don't want to be known as "you know, those three crazy fuckers who won't shut up and fight clean." *Disassociates to reconstitute.
I already won my fight in the Socialization/Universal Healthcare thread. It's actually quite amusing to see Joe and Steve go at it.
Then just tell me one thing. How would you "settle" this (war on terror: Iraq battleground) without losing?
With the goals you describe in your posts, the war has already been lost. There have always been terrorists and there always will be terrorists. Terrorism is not even an ideology. It's a system of strategy and tactics. It will always be here. You're never going to realize your stated goal of keeping "the terrorists" from freely operating in Iraq.
That's all I have to say about it. I declare a win based on points, content, logic, style, and not being a batshit-crazy neocon douchebag.
Dude, nothing has failed. You've staked out a position advocating eternal war. It's useless to argue against something so silly. It'd be like arguing with the Mad Hatter.
Dude, nothing has failed. You've staked out a position advocating eternal war. It's useless to argue against something so silly. It'd be like arguing with the Mad Hatter.
Just for the record, I found HMTK's argument more convincing. Both for content and tone.
Plant. Stamina FTW!
Back on topic: Kiwi, since your original rational for not wanting to go is that you're a pacifist, getting drafted isn't that bad? It doesn't sound like you're going to have to hurt anyone any more than you would at home. If it's just that you don't like getting forced... Well, consider just putting up with it? If no harm comes for it and you get money (always useful - got damn are textbooks expensive) it actually sounds like a pretty good deal to me. Maybe you'll make some friends. I'd worry a little if I became a Reservist afterwards since I wouldn't like having a sleeping commitment like that but that's just me. Moot for me, anyway.
It sounds easy enough to get out of. If you do decide to miss it, you'll get an extra 6 months in college or doing whatever you're doing next. You might want to find out if your college/university/whatever actually has classes scheduled for that half year it expects new undergraduates to be drafted, else you might be wasting your time.
The American bases were a main part of the NATO plan to hold back the Soviets, or fight them off if they decided to attack. Most of those bases house token forces now.
When I was there in the early 90's I worked on a lot of tanks that were going back to the states because bases were being closed and handed back to the German government all over the country.
I went on a few join exercises with the German army, don't ask me to spell it cause I'll probably end up spelling out the name of the post office) and things were good. Do they still wear the red berets?
Military service is not just digging a hole and shooting a gun. Today's armies need support staff, can you pick a job before going in?
kiwi_bird, do you think that's why U.S. troops are there?
No, I think the US troops are here to have a military base in Europe (I could be wrong). The German police could stop the Nazis....
From what I've seen, a motivated girl scout troop could stop the Nazis, but you make an excellent point. If there are any Nazis causng problems in Germany, then it's Germany's problem to sort out. The real reason the U.S. had any presence in Germany had to do with U.S. natonal interests arising from the Cold War. Ah, the Cold War, how I miss it.
Similarly, the "terrorists" in Iraq are Iraq's problem to sort out. Oh yeah - there weren't any terrorists in Iraq before the U.S. invaded.
We,, that used to be true in Peru, until 1996. Military service was mandatory for every male. Unless you went to a military school during the secondary.
Comments
Every war has differences, but if someone who dodged service in WW I got all patriotic and started telling people they should go off to die in WW II, he'd be a hypocrite.
"If one day you walk down the street and avoid looking at a crime problem because you "don't want to get involved" but later, when you get older and are no longer able to get involved, how is it bad if you ask others to get involved?" It'd be bad because I would be hypocritical and I would be encouraging others to undertake action that might result in harm to one or more parties.
"call to win the war"? What's winning? "call to lose the war"? What's losing? AND I NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT EITHER! GOT-DAMN!
"Call to lose the war" -> when what you do and say is designed to end the battle or campaign with no regard to what happens next or what it costs.
GWB is invested heavily in winning the war, Democrats in Congress have invested themselves in seeing GWB lose the war. GWB's loss is their gain, if he wins they lose. They see this as a zero-sum game. What they do not realise is that they can also win when GWB wins. Republicans never figured it out when Clinton was in office so I'm not much surprised Democrats haven't figured it out either.
So how do we know when we've "won"? When there is a stable Sunni government? When there is a stable Shia government? When there is a stable Kurd government? When there is nothing left alive in the region except the oil dudes?
How would we know if we "lost"? When there is a stable Sunni government? When there is a stable Shia government? When there is a stable Kurd government? When there is nothing left alive in the region except the oil dudes?
Here's an alternative: GWB has ALREADY said "Mission Accomplished". Let's just call that a "win" and get out.
YouTube video
Report from CENTCOM
If it is, you said "The new general went before a congressional committee and stated that if he does not get these extra troops he will fail. Now congress is trying to stop the extra troops! They are trying to guarantee failure!" I see where your dealies report that Petraeus said he would not be able to do his job without extra troops. Not being able to do your job and failure can be different things. I don't see where he said he would "fail". Further, there is no support whatsoever for your statement that "Now congress is trying to stop the extra troops! They are trying to guarantee failure!"
BUT EVEN IF I WERE TO SAY RIGHT NOW, "YOU'RE RIGHT STEVE. GOT-DAMN, THE COUNTRY IS BEING RUN BY SUPER-GENIUSES AND WE SHOULD ALWAYS SUPPORT THEM IN WHATEVER DECISIONS THEY MAKE", IT'S NOT RELEVANT TO WHAT'S BEEN SAID IN THIS THREAD.
However, passing such a proposal still "gives hope to the enemy" as the general stated before the committee. Passage of the non-binding proposal will lead to a binding proposal of some sort. It will also cause any Republicans who go along with it to be tagged as "flip-floppers" and other nasty things.
Main Entry: fail·ure
Function: noun
1 : omission of occurrence or performance; specifically : a failing to perform a duty or expected action [a failure to mitigate damages] [failure to prosecute]
2 : a lack of success or adequacy [failure of a suit]
3 : a failing in business
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
What was this thread about again?
When do we win? When the terrorists are unable to freely operate in Iraq. That is how I judge victory in the Iraq battleground. It may be years before such a win can be declared.
How do we lose? We lose by altering our lifestyle to suit the end goals of the terrorists. We lose when the terrorists are able to freely walk the streets of a nation and kill with impunity. We lose when we are no longer willing to fight.
When did World War 2 end? Do we still have troops in Germany and Japan? It's been over 50 years yet there are still Nazis in Germany!
One last thing before I'm out: Are you suggesting that the reason there are U.S. troops in Germany is to keep the Nazis down? kiwi_bird, do you think that's why U.S. troops are there? Are we in Japan to make sure Hirohito's followers don't take over?
But Seriously. Count me out. I'm moving to Sealand.
*Disassociates to reconstitute.
I am not familiar with this "Forever War" perhaps you could provide a link? Not knowing what this is I have to ask, "at what point in a fight do you give up?" If you had a court case drag on and on and you were losing money everyday would you just quit saying, "I tried but, this is just costing me too much time and money" or would you see it through?
Just like I quit this. If you're blind enough to be happy with eternal war, then I hope that works out good for your kids. I'm not having any part of it. I'm moving to Sealand.
The Forever War is a good book. You should read it.
That's all I have to say about it. I declare a win based on points, content, logic, style, and not being a batshit-crazy neocon douchebag.
Plant. Stamina FTW!
Back on topic: Kiwi, since your original rational for not wanting to go is that you're a pacifist, getting drafted isn't that bad? It doesn't sound like you're going to have to hurt anyone any more than you would at home. If it's just that you don't like getting forced... Well, consider just putting up with it? If no harm comes for it and you get money (always useful - got damn are textbooks expensive) it actually sounds like a pretty good deal to me. Maybe you'll make some friends.
It sounds easy enough to get out of. If you do decide to miss it, you'll get an extra 6 months in college or doing whatever you're doing next. You might want to find out if your college/university/whatever actually has classes scheduled for that half year it expects new undergraduates to be drafted, else you might be wasting your time.
I am going to go into service, but I still don't like the idea of HAVING to.
When I was there in the early 90's I worked on a lot of tanks that were going back to the states because bases were being closed and handed back to the German government all over the country.
I went on a few join exercises with the German army, don't ask me to spell it cause I'll probably end up spelling out the name of the post office) and things were good. Do they still wear the red berets?
Military service is not just digging a hole and shooting a gun. Today's armies need support staff, can you pick a job before going in?
Similarly, the "terrorists" in Iraq are Iraq's problem to sort out. Oh yeah - there weren't any terrorists in Iraq before the U.S. invaded.
Unless you went to a military school during the secondary.