Go home John McCain..
- Thread starter Drop.Tine
- Start date
He's more liberal.. He's a deadbeat GOPer.
And McCain is owned by zionists and the military industrial complex. He's a dangerous man.
But frankly, he's last soldier the GOP will ever consider running. That party has turned into the party of 'better things to do but i'll gladly send your kids into the meatgrinder'. Cowards.
S
Stevedangos
Guest
Nobody is sending anyones kids anywhere they dont want to go. Military is all voluntary, if they dont want to go fight they shouldnt sign up and take the money.
Besides its kind of funny that liberals cry about sending our kids off to war, and almost all military people I know (a lot) are all republican hawks. I would like to see the number of ballots came in from deployed troops who voted for McCain as opposed to Obama
Besides its kind of funny that liberals cry about sending our kids off to war, and almost all military people I know (a lot) are all republican hawks. I would like to see the number of ballots came in from deployed troops who voted for McCain as opposed to Obama
I have the exact opposite opinion from this. Yes, they are getting paid, and they signed up to do a dangerous job, but that doesn't mean you wantonly waste their lives.
Also, the people who made the decision to send people wastefully to Iraq generally weren't military hawks; they're people like GWB who never fought in a war and had their daddies pull strings so they never would have to fire.
I think the volunteer approach is the right way to go, but I think it has caused a lot of the powerful people in America to lose touch with the military and to not think hard enough about putting sons and daughters in harm's way. When I look around my white collar office, I can't think of anyone whose kids are serving or have recently served. If they did, they probably went to a service academy or they did it to get their law school or med school paid for. It's a different world from 50 years ago.
There are MANY valid criticisms of GW Bush! The millitary families and servicemen LOVED him though. Backing the millitary personel and their missions was not a weakness of his.
The fact that military people vote Republican doesn't mean that we should consider GWB to have been good for the military. He was a great President if you were a defense contractor and a very lousy one if you were in the military.
The #2 most valid criticism of GWB is Iraq. He put the military in harm's way to produce a Middle East that was worse than before he went there.
The most important part of the commander in chief role is using the military correctly. He failed miserably at this. He was the worst CINC since Johnson.
Whether the millitary was or is being used correctly is a matter of goals and opinions. I think the millitary personel and their families are most qualified to determine that.
No. Just no.
Being an enlisted soldier in the military doesn't mean you have a grasp on foreign relations or military policy. We don't train our military on that. We train them how to be soldiers.
What on earth would make you think otherwise?
It is not a matter of "goals" or "opinions" that the military was used correctly. The fact is that Bush set impossibly idealistic goals and failed to achieve them. The second set of facts are that we spent trillions of dollars and tens of thousands of casualties to create a sectarian cesspool that manages to be both Iran's #1 most natural ally and created the basis for ISIS. That is a disaster.
And, the way he initially used the military in Iraq was wrong - against the advice of the military commanders, Bush sent in a force far too small to control the country post-war.
These aren't really disputable ideas; the truth is that Bush was a terrible President to the people that served under him in Iraq. The real problem is that his team didn't get what a military is for. He pretended the military could be used to nation build and could overcome sectarian tensions. That's not what the military is set up to do. Military personnel with critical thinking skills should recognize this folly; he put them into an unwinnable war based upon faulty goals and assumptions.
Any honest person with a brain knows Neutron's excellent explanation is true. But Miller, Dango, and company are unschoolable.
S
Stevedangos
Guest
How do you figure the war was not won? Our military kicked the crap out of the Iraq military . Thats pretty much the war part.
Agree with you 100% we didnt send in nearly enough troops to secure and police Iraq after the war was over. BUT the country was pretty much stable before Obama pulled US forces out and left it to deteriate into the shape its in. We should have left 30,000 or so troops there like we have in South Korea and none of this mess would have ever happened. Soldiers have to be somewhere they might as well be in Iraq doing something as setting on their butts on a base stateside.
We are going to end up with another decent size force in there anyway might as well send them now. The 4000 we have there are of little or no use. You cant train the will to fight into soldiers and Iraq front line troops dont want any part of it.
Agree with you 100% we didnt send in nearly enough troops to secure and police Iraq after the war was over. BUT the country was pretty much stable before Obama pulled US forces out and left it to deteriate into the shape its in. We should have left 30,000 or so troops there like we have in South Korea and none of this mess would have ever happened. Soldiers have to be somewhere they might as well be in Iraq doing something as setting on their butts on a base stateside.
We are going to end up with another decent size force in there anyway might as well send them now. The 4000 we have there are of little or no use. You cant train the will to fight into soldiers and Iraq front line troops dont want any part of it.
So, do you think that the American soldier is less qualified than you to have a grasp on foreign relations or military policy?
I have 2 nephews who have both served time in Iraq under Bush. One is in special forces and the other is in the regular army and both will tell you that Iraq was a terrible idea and Bush got it terribly wrong. Now this is only two soldiers that have first hand knowledge, but it's probably more than what you are basing your opinion on.
S
Stevedangos
Guest
Well I had dinner last night with nephew who just got back from Africa. Young man is a private security contractor but spent many years in 3rd SFG deployed numerouse times Afghanistan,,, best friend growing up and to this day was captain with 5th group out of Ft Cambell in Desert Storm. Dad btw 82nd Airborne WWII with two Bronze Stars. I get pretty good first hand inforation.
None of thats the point, soldiers job is to go fight where and when he is told to fight. Wars are political decisions not military decisions. Sadam invaded a sovereign nation , were we supposed to let him take Kuwait then move through the rest of the middle east?
None of thats the point, soldiers job is to go fight where and when he is told to fight. Wars are political decisions not military decisions. Sadam invaded a sovereign nation , were we supposed to let him take Kuwait then move through the rest of the middle east?
I'd rephrase that to "the average enlisted military member is not more qualified than the average American."
We don't pretend bank tellers should be running the Fed; we shouldn't pretend someone who served for four years in Iraq knows how to run a war or how to run foreign policy.
This post was edited on 4/9 12:35 PM by Neutron Monster
Not a matter of intelligence but someone who went to West Point or through other training programs likely has a higher level of education on military theory.
Yes, war is a political decision, but it has to account for whether the military can achieve the desired political objectives.
As you note, the first Gulf War had objectives which could be managed militarily (free Kuwait and send a message about aggression in the region) as well as goals which were managed well diplomatically (we had buy-in from most of the world that this was the right course of action.) That's why it succeeded.
This is why Bush II's war in Iraq was a disaster - the goals were not achievable militarily beyond "overthrow Saddam." America's military succeeded greatly at completing that mission. But, it was then asked to occupy and build up a country - an impossible goal in Iraq in 2003 given the underlying religious and ethnic conflicts as well as the lack of regional support for the action.
Bush also didn't make it easier for the military with the dreadful job his team did of setting up the new Iraqi government. De-Baathification was a huge mistake.
S
Stevedangos
Guest
It was all THE SAME WAR,,,,,,,,,,,at the end of the Gulf war Iraq agreed to terms and conditions to cease hostilities. They broke them on numerouse ocasions and the hot war started again the first time Iraq fired surface to air missiles at Untited States and coalition aircraft. They started shooting first we didnt.
Then in 1998 President Bill Clinton attacked Iraq heavily for 4 days which actually started "Bush's War",,,,,Wild Bill and Monica started shooting again not Bush, Bush just had the job of making th edecision of how to clean up Clintons mess
Click the link and Listen what President Clinton had to say about justificatioin of the attack on Iraq. Exactly the same thing Bush said but everyone thinks CLinton is a god and Bush is a devil.
Both guys had tough decisions to make, glad i dont have to make decisions where young soldiers and civilians die
Clinton
Then in 1998 President Bill Clinton attacked Iraq heavily for 4 days which actually started "Bush's War",,,,,Wild Bill and Monica started shooting again not Bush, Bush just had the job of making th edecision of how to clean up Clintons mess
Click the link and Listen what President Clinton had to say about justificatioin of the attack on Iraq. Exactly the same thing Bush said but everyone thinks CLinton is a god and Bush is a devil.
Both guys had tough decisions to make, glad i dont have to make decisions where young soldiers and civilians die
Clinton
Reality check. Clinton never tried to change the regime in Iraq. Yes, he continued the no fly zone and bombed Iraq, but he never substantively pushed for anything more than what Bush I had achieved.
Bush II scrapped that idea and decided we had to change the regime when the conditions on the ground were not substantively different than they had been from 1991-2003.
Bush I and Clinton set realistic goals that reflected the limits of military power. Bush II did not.
The idea that Bush II was cleaning up some mess of Clinton's is laughable. Iraq was substantively the same place in 2002 that it was in 1991 or 1996.
I would gladly trade the trillions we spent and the tens of thousands of casualties we incurred to be able to return Iraq to the "mess" it was when Bush II took over in 2001. And you're crazy if you feel otherwise.
This post was edited on 4/9 2:29 PM by Neutron Monster
Bush II scrapped that idea and decided we had to change the regime when the conditions on the ground were not substantively different than they had been from 1991-2003.
Bush I and Clinton set realistic goals that reflected the limits of military power. Bush II did not.
The idea that Bush II was cleaning up some mess of Clinton's is laughable. Iraq was substantively the same place in 2002 that it was in 1991 or 1996.
I would gladly trade the trillions we spent and the tens of thousands of casualties we incurred to be able to return Iraq to the "mess" it was when Bush II took over in 2001. And you're crazy if you feel otherwise.
This post was edited on 4/9 2:29 PM by Neutron Monster
Oh, but it does the people on this board?? Just because they chose the military doesn't mean they're not just as intelligent as you or anyone else on this board.
See, it just shows that different people have different opinions. Even the ones that were there. I have two nephews that served, one in the MP's and one in the spec ops. and they both said we needed to be there. That is kind of what I base my opinion on. Although, I realize they are not "qualified" to have an opinion.
The problem with the oscars analogy is that what a good film is is entirely subjective.
You should consider the inherent bias in the opinions of your acquaintances. You join the military because you believe in its mission. That means you have a bias towards saying fighting the war you were in made sense.
Think about it - acknowledging you went to war for no good reason is a pretty depressing thing.
Also lol at the mission and goals being cleared under bush. The military spent 2004-2006 in a bad spot trying to fight two wars and trying to come up without a strategy that was working in either place.
This gets back to bias - the bush years were a disaster from a military management perspective. But, it can be hard to see this from the inside when your built in biases suggest the course of action in place is not a bad idea even though it eventually fails.
Plus the political bias from the people you know is likely huge.
You should consider the inherent bias in the opinions of your acquaintances. You join the military because you believe in its mission. That means you have a bias towards saying fighting the war you were in made sense.
Think about it - acknowledging you went to war for no good reason is a pretty depressing thing.
Also lol at the mission and goals being cleared under bush. The military spent 2004-2006 in a bad spot trying to fight two wars and trying to come up without a strategy that was working in either place.
This gets back to bias - the bush years were a disaster from a military management perspective. But, it can be hard to see this from the inside when your built in biases suggest the course of action in place is not a bad idea even though it eventually fails.
Plus the political bias from the people you know is likely huge.
The Oscars aren't the only thing subjective! Just because you are positive doesn't mean it's absolute.
Believing in the mission equals dissagreeing with you.
Never said anything about anything being "cleared". Another strawman.
Opinion. Opinion that many dissagree with.
The point that was origionally made.......the military LOVED Bush and voted Republican likely.
PS.....I've not said I think the wars were warranted or successful.
You say about 90 percent of the things you claim are straw men. You say that afterwards when others point out how stupid your arguments are.
I recognize there is some blurring of fact and opinion on an issue like this but the facts are pretty damning that Iraq was a boondoggle from a military policy perspective and that bush misused the military badly from 2003-2006.
I recognize there is some blurring of fact and opinion on an issue like this but the facts are pretty damning that Iraq was a boondoggle from a military policy perspective and that bush misused the military badly from 2003-2006.
No, facts are facts. How you interpret those facts is opinion.
It's a fact that people are killed by other people who have guns. It's not a fact that having a gun means you will kill someone. It's a fact that having a gun makes you much more likely to kill someone with a gun than someone who doesn't have a gun. It's not a fact that we would be better off as a country with less guns though, it's an opinion based on an interpretation of facts.
Similar threads
