Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

 

2006-07-10 20:42:05
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6957

Capt. Foley wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

I wouldnt worry about china right now, we got MAD with them (Mutually Assured DOLLARS)  India will become a HUGE powerhouse in about 50 years and they love their democracy.  I think that will keep China in balance.  but then again, im just a dumb private.
Thats what the article is about, they are going to keep up the alliance with us for 5-10 years and keep getting the money out of us(kinda) and then attack the US, Canada, and Australia because they need more growing room. And the scary part is the guy thinks that as long as they dont use nukes we wont use nukes. But he thinks that biological weapons are ok to use to kill of the US population. The reason the article got released is because the guy that leaked it feared for China.
sad that china doesnt know the US has tons of biological and chemical weapons...
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2006-07-10 20:45:35
Colfax
PR Only
+70|6885|United States - Illinois
Even if they attacked us nothing would stop our military installations from firing nukes at mainland china.  And a direct attack on mainland US would result in nukes in the air i promise you that. <---(in the manner that the article states)

Last edited by Colfax (2006-07-10 20:49:01)

2006-07-10 20:51:47
mpsmith
Member
+5|6913
I have to disagree about the initial statement about the war in Iraq. I'm pretty damn sure it had nothing to do with liberating the Iraqi people per se. I'm not sure what it was about- maybe oil maybe something else, but definitely not the people. There are too many other countries throughout the world with worse human rights records that we don't give a shit about. Maybe it was about getting a strong foot-hold in the region. The largest US embasy in the world is going to be right in the middle of  Baghdad.
2006-07-10 20:57:14
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|6885
Why we fight


because a child is a child no matter what religion, nationality or ethnic group.  because people who dont carry rifles shouldnt have them pointing there way.  because Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness go beyond borders or republican or democrat.  Because everybody in the world should have a chance to voice their opinions without worrying about jail or death.  because women need to be treated equally in society.  because the oppurtunity for a persons success in life shouldnt be decided before they are born.
2006-07-10 21:23:10
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6770|Global Command

mpsmith wrote:

I have to disagree about the initial statement about the war in Iraq. I'm pretty damn sure it had nothing to do with liberating the Iraqi people per se. .
I don't think the average U.S. soldier would share your view.
Ask Gunslinga
2006-07-11 01:07:04
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7082|Cologne, Germany

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Why we fight


because a child is a child no matter what religion, nationality or ethnic group.  because people who dont carry rifles shouldnt have them pointing there way.  because Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness go beyond borders or republican or democrat.  Because everybody in the world should have a chance to voice their opinions without worrying about jail or death.  because women need to be treated equally in society.  because the oppurtunity for a persons success in life shouldnt be decided before they are born.
nicely put. still, I wonder why GWB didn't bother to tell that to the american people.

Moreover, I wonder if GWB had pushed for a military action in Iraq if that country didn't have

a) quite some oil reserves
b) the strategic importance it has in the middle east.

clearly, there is more to the issue than the noble, altruistic reasons Gunslinger has listed above. All of it is part of it, but I bet my ass when Bush first brought up the topic in a cabinet meeting, his prime argument wasn't "let's do this for the children"....
2006-07-11 01:09:22
Major Payne
Member
+18|7021|Netherlands

Alexanderthegrape wrote:

So that people like this will have a chance at a decent life. Don't tell me she doesn't want a decent life.
ma-by she had one before you came there they didn't asked for it
2006-07-11 01:40:34
VspyVspy
Sniper
+183|6914|A sunburnt country
If you want to know why we fight, read this true story.

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/gates-of-fire.htm

Here's the last 3 paragraph's for those that don't want to read the whole story:

Iraqi Army and Police officers see many Americans as too soft, especially when it comes to dealing with terrorists. The Iraqis who seethe over the shooting of Kurilla know that the cunning fury of Jihadists is congenite. Three months of air-conditioned reflection will not transform terrorists into citizens.

Over lunch with Chaplain Wilson and our two battalion surgeons, Major Brown and Captain Warr, there was much discussion about the “ethics” of war, and contention about why we afford top-notch medical treatment to terrorists. The treatment terrorists get here is better and more expensive than what many Americans or Europeans can get.

“That’s the difference between the terrorists and us,” Chaplain Wilson kept saying. “Don’t you understand? That’s the difference.”
2006-07-11 02:06:30
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6803

Colfax wrote:

Even if they attacked us nothing would stop our military installations from firing nukes at mainland china.  And a direct attack on mainland US would result in nukes in the air i promise you that. <---(in the manner that the article states)
Aren't you one of the ones who was arguing that America could be trusted w/ nukes?

As for the original post:  Why?  It's just the same as millions of discussions we've had before, everyone knows what everyone thinks already.  And throwing that picture in was an obvious appeal to emotion, rather than a valid argument.

Vspy:  I think you'll find it has more to do with intel gathering.

Last edited by Bubbalo (2006-07-11 02:11:03)

2006-07-11 03:15:22
VspyVspy
Sniper
+183|6914|A sunburnt country

Bubbalo wrote:

Vspy:  I think you'll find it has more to do with intel gathering.
Bubbalo: I think you have no idea.
2006-07-11 03:18:41
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6803
Hm, right.  So, if it is just how goddamn kind you are, how come Guantanamo prisoners are regularly questioned?
2006-07-11 03:58:51
PekkaA
Member
+36|6906|Finland

Alexanderthegrape wrote:

mpsmith wrote:

I have to disagree about the initial statement about the war in Iraq. I'm pretty damn sure it had nothing to do with liberating the Iraqi people per se. .
I don't think the average U.S. soldier would share your view.
Ask Gunslinga
It doesn't really matter what average soldier thinks. They go where they've told to and do what orders are. But of course it's essential to keep morals high back there. And soldiers propably want to feel they are fighting for something more elevated reason than oil.
2006-07-11 04:03:21
pers0nah
Waste Kid
+271|6823|MANCHESTERRR
a good man does good things and a bad man will do bad things, but for a good man to do bad things it takes religion.
2006-07-11 04:06:22
PekkaA
Member
+36|6906|Finland

PoP wrote:

a good man does good things and a bad man will do bad things, but for a good man to do bad things it takes religion.
Or a superior officer telling to do...
2006-07-11 04:37:18
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7082|Cologne, Germany

well, I think we should differentiate between two levels of "why we fight"

1. Political Level - We fight because the administration we serve has made the decision that we must. As soldiers, it our duty to follow orders if they are legal. That was the case in Iraq ( congress authorized it ) and so the fighting started. Wether the war was justified morally is nothing that should concern the soldiers on the ground. They get a lawful order, and they follow it.

2. Personal Level - As has been talked about a lot by former and active servicemen and -women, once you're on the ground, the shit hits the fan and the bullets are flying, you are no longer concerned with the "big picture". All you think about is staying alive and keeping the man next to you alive. It's about comraderie, about sticking together, about fighting for the man next to you as much as he fights for you.
During those moments, the higher reasons for the conflict don't concern you much.

In the end, wether the reasons america as a nation ( the people that GWB is talking about when he is saying "We" ) fights for are sufficient enough will be determined by history. Those on the ground have the luxury not having to worry about the reasons behind their orders.
2006-07-11 07:36:00
whittsend
PV1 Joe Snuffy
+78|6999|MA, USA

Alexanderthegrape wrote:

Sir yes sir!
I met a guy on a jobsite once who was with the rangers in the mog. He was part of the rescue convoy of hummers that went to the blackhawk site. He said that the outside of the hummer had to be hosed off because the Skinnies just wouldn't get out of the way, and they weren't stopping for nothing.
     There was an estimated 1100 somalis killed in that battle with an estimated 3500 wounded compared to our 18 dead and 75 or so wounded.
Carnage, blood bath. I wouldn't wanna be there.
More than 75 were wounded.  If your buddy was a Ranger, he wasn't with the rescue convoy.  The only guys with the rescue convoy were the Ranger's support guys, and thier wounded soldiers (so, I guess he could have been a Ranger if he had been previously wounded).

Gunslinger:  Sounds like you are re-living my history.  What MOS did you choose?  PLEASE tell me it wasn't 31B.  That was what I switched to.  Big mistake.  Everyone fucks you over on a deployment.  As I noted in the other thread: No longer Sergeant Whittsend:  Now Mr. Whittsend.  Echo Tango Foxtrot; 3 July.

Capt. Foley wrote:

Thats what the article is about, they are going to keep up the alliance with us for 5-10 years and keep getting the money out of us(kinda) and then attack the US, Canada, and Australia because they need more growing room. And the scary part is the guy thinks that as long as they dont use nukes we wont use nukes. But he thinks that biological weapons are ok to use to kill of the US population. The reason the article got released is because the guy that leaked it feared for China.
I don't think that guy will be around in 5-10 years.  He looks like he is ready to kick now.  The Chinese know, as do we, that their population will peak in around 50 years.  They have plenty of room (they are one of the larges countries around), so I suspect this is BS.  Even if the guy said it and meant it, I doubt the Chinese government agrees.  One thing that he is dead wrong about:  If someone used Bio weapons on us, US policy is to respond with Nukes.

Alexanderthegrape wrote:

mpsmith wrote:

I have to disagree about the initial statement about the war in Iraq. I'm pretty damn sure it had nothing to do with liberating the Iraqi people per se. .
I don't think the average U.S. soldier would share your view.
Ask Gunslinga
I agree with this view.  I respect Gunslinger, but reasonable soldiers can disagree.  We are people too, and we don't all agree on everything.  What B.Schuss said is absolutely correct.  The reasons I joined up and served for 12.5 years have nothing to do with policy.
2006-07-11 07:42:46
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6770|Global Command

Bubbalo wrote:

Hm, right.  So, if it is just how goddamn kind you are, how come Guantanamo prisoners are regularly questioned?
Whats with the cussing? They are questioned because they are prisoners.

Bubbalo wrote:

Colfax wrote:

Even if they attacked us nothing would stop our military installations from firing nukes at mainland china.  And a direct attack on mainland US would result in nukes in the air i promise you that. <---(in the manner that the article states)
Aren't you one of the ones who was arguing that America could be trusted w/ nukes?

As for the original post:  Why?  It's just the same as millions of discussions we've had before, everyone knows what everyone thinks already.  And throwing that picture in was an obvious appeal to emotion, rather than a valid argument.

Vspy:  I think you'll find it has more to do with intel gathering.
For the same reasons you posted this, I could say pretty much the same thing about how we all know what you think.
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=34229

whittsend wrote:

Alexanderthegrape wrote:

Sir yes sir!
I met a guy on a jobsite once who was with the rangers in the mog. He was part of the rescue convoy of hummers that went to the blackhawk site. He said that the outside of the hummer had to be hosed off because the Skinnies just wouldn't get out of the way, and they weren't stopping for nothing.
     There was an estimated 1100 somalis killed in that battle with an estimated 3500 wounded compared to our 18 dead and 75 or so wounded.
Carnage, blood bath. I wouldn't wanna be there.
More than 75 were wounded.  If your buddy was a Ranger, he wasn't with the rescue convoy.  The only guys with the rescue convoy were the Ranger's support guys, and thier wounded soldiers (so, I guess he could have been a Ranger if he had been previously wounded).
He was with Captain Steel ( I believe ). It was a year after it happened, I don't remember every detail of everything he said.
2006-07-11 07:57:11
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6797

Alexanderthegrape wrote:

It wasn't for oil. It wasn't for WMD's. It wasn't for  9-11 although our fumbling leaders have cited all of those things.

     A free people are a happy people. Happy people don't go around blowing themselves up and flying passenger jets into buildings.

     The idea was, if we assist the people in Iraq gain their freedom, the other oppressed peoples in the region would look at them and demand their own freedom. It needed a sales pitch and our guys picked some duds as selling points. I don't think the world would have looked kindly on our invasion if it was just about freedom. The President took a gamble on the WMD thing and it obviously hasn't panned out like we thought it would.

     Despite all this the cause remains a noble one.
     What would have happened to the Kurds if we hadn't protected them? Mass murder is what WAS happening. If we abandoned the Kurds in Iraq now they will be slaughtered by the Turks. Look for them to be the first to invade when we pull out, I'm calling it now.

The palestinians have had in rough but they've been mislead by this evil bunch into hating the West and Israel.

     I believe we fight to share the gift of liberty.

     So that people like this will have a chance at a decent life. Don't tell me she doesn't want a decent life.
     http://i6.tinypic.com/1zme8o3.jpg
I bet a lot of you wish you could leave me negative karma right now.
I think that the vast majority of US soldiers do fight in a noble manner and with noble intentions. What I don't believe is that the US government fight wars for noble reasons, in general. History has proven that a lot of the overt and clandestine military actions taken by the US in the recent past were to atone for US errors of juudgement or to subvert the true choice of the people of a particular country (prime examples: Venezuela, Nicaragua). They are far from selfless and I hardly think that Alexander qualifies as White House spokesperson on the true reason the US went to war. The war in Afghanistan could be justified but the war in Iraq is just a conquest and a staging point for further conquest (aimed at securing resources and strengthening their buddies Israel).
I also find the disparaging remarks about the Palestinians extremely distasteful but then I do see the Israeli government as a fascist mono-race state terrorist so I can hardly criticise him on that point. I would urge him to consider how he would feel if the state in which he lived in was taken over by some influx of immigrants and he himself was cast out into the desert without compensation.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-07-11 07:59:12)

2006-07-11 08:10:50
whittsend
PV1 Joe Snuffy
+78|6999|MA, USA

Alexanderthegrape wrote:

He was with Captain Steel ( I believe ). It was a year after it happened, I don't remember every detail of everything he said.
Captain Steele was their company commander.  All of them were with him, as the Ranger element was a reinforced company.  Steele was kind of a shithead.  He argued with our CO about who was in charge when we got there to get them out.  They also had a Ranger LTC (can't remember his name) who was thier task force commander (although I'm not sure if he was in command of the D guys).  He was pretty cool; told Steele to back off and let us do our job.  Their whole purpose in the country was to capture 'Elvis', which was the code name for Aideed.

Bummed me out that some of those guys talked shit about 10th Mtn afterwards.  Like they didn't need the help.  Whatever.  I think Steele was given a Battalion in 10th Mtn when he made LTC.  Poetic Justice if it's true.
2006-07-11 08:25:09
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6770|Global Command

CameronPoe wrote:

I would urge him to consider how he would feel if the state in which he lived in was taken over by some influx of immigrants and he himself was cast out into the desert without compensation.
What do you think is happening to California?
2006-07-11 08:34:00
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6797

Alexanderthegrape wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

I would urge him to consider how he would feel if the state in which he lived in was taken over by some influx of immigrants and he himself was cast out into the desert without compensation.
What do you think is happening to California?
The people I think you're referring to are illegal - as the jewish immigrants were back then.
2006-07-11 08:35:31
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6770|Global Command
Yes.
It's a full scall invasion, with everything except armed combatants.
2006-07-11 08:36:57
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6890

Capt. Foley wrote:

I know who Chavez is, he was in the Jack Ryan Series. But I never got to finish them. I'm on "Sum of All Fears" now. But who is Pat Robertson. I don't exactly understand what you mean by that example. But I do understand what you mean about the PLA, its kinda like the Japanese would of been if we had invaded there home islands.
No no no. You're thinking of Ding Chavez. Hugo Chavez is the president(?) or some other name for leader of Venezuela. I could be wrong, but I think Pat Robertson is one of those TV preacher people. Not too sure though.
2006-07-11 08:41:44
whittsend
PV1 Joe Snuffy
+78|6999|MA, USA

ghettoperson wrote:

No no no. You're thinking of Ding Chavez. Hugo Chavez is the president(?) or some other name for leader of Venezuela. I could be wrong, but I think Pat Robertson is one of those TV preacher people. Not too sure though.
Yes, that's right.  And Robertson went on TV and said we should assassinate Chavez.  Then he retracted it when he realized that he screwed up badly, as Chavez just used it for propaganda: Claimed it was proof the CIA was trying to kill him.
2006-07-11 08:57:59
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6797

Alexanderthegrape wrote:

Yes.
It's a full scall invasion, with everything except armed combatants.
If Americans don't watch out there'll be a de facto latin american state within the USA!!! Sort out your borders man!

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard