BF2S Forums Why we fight

will be?  It's already infected us beyond repair.  I have no problem with immigrants, I have an issue with immigrants (of any nation) coming here and expecting our existing culture to bend to theirs and accomodate ignorance.  While in Rome ...

ghettoperson wrote:

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.

Wow sorry, Im a dumbass.

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).

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.

37F PsyOps.  Fort Bragg in January, for train up.

Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2006-07-11 17:34:09)

hearts and minds

As to why we are like the way we are...this country was built on war, and it shows itself in the very fabric of society.  We're not raised like little Ghandi's thinking that peace can save the day because every life is precious, and combatting violence with violence solves nothing ("two wrongs don't make a right")...we're raised to believe in right and wrong, and to stand up for what we feel is right, even if that means you have to hurt somebody to make a point. 

You can see it in the action heroes of our television shows and movies, and in videogames, where heroes will take courses of action that are unapproved because they know its for the ultimate "good"...killing becomes a tool to reach a goal of "rightness", and no longer is looked upon as one of the ultimate no-no's a man can commit ("Thou shalt not kill...").  Every fat 12 year old Xbox junkie in America is a conditioned killer, he just doesn't know it yet...and given the proper motivating factors (Chinese airstrike to a nearby powerplant = no more Halo? or lights?), even the current generations of Americans could and would form into a deadly fighting machine as we have time and time before.

I can't imagine anyone attacking US soil for a long time to come.  The US military was a joke when Pearl Harbor occurred, and look what a shitstorm that caused for enemies of the Red, White and Blue when the US industrial base swung into full war mode...we were producing fucking battleships in WEEKS.

Although we might not meet recruitment goals, and don't always have equipment at 100% in Iraq due to funding issues, a lack of public and political support, etc., woe to the country that attacks American soil under a national flag.  Right now I think the main issue our military is struggling with is fighting an enemy that sticks to guerilla tactics and tries to remain invisible, as well as a lack of support from the public. 

But I guaranfuckingtee you that if another nation were to try another Pearl Harbor, all the chemical weapons in the world would not win them a war against a United States in a warlike fervor as was the case prior to WW2.  The US is like a 150-car train, it takes a while to get up to speed, but when it does it's not stopping til we put on the brakes.  Call me arrogant, but we're blessed with the natural resources to have staying power, are logistically hard to even attempt to attack due to the massive amount of water on either side of us, and have a production base that, in full wartime mode, makes other countries its bitch.

In 20, 30, maybe 50 years China may have advanced enough economically to rival our production base, but they struggle mightily with growing enough crops to feed their massive nation.  While some look at that as a potential reason FOR them to attack, I think it would be their downfall.   Fuel would be another big issue to contend with for both sides, but would ultimately be a bigger factor for China as aggressor in this situation, which ties back into the logistics of attacking over the Pacific ocean.

China may indeed become our principal rival superpower, and hell they may even take the number one spot some day...but aside from cowardly acts of terrororism, I think American soil should be safe from attack for quite some time.

-CARNIFEX-[LOC] wrote:

.

Nice post

If that article on the chinese general is true and china did attack the US in such a manner, my anti-nuclear views would quickly be replaced by anti-china views...if there was anything left of china to hate!

Bubbalo wrote:

Alexanderthegrape wrote:

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

Except that we've had discussion on topics very similar to this before, we haven't had one on that.

Various permutations of it have been done, and you know it.
When I see a topic of yours and I don't have anything usefull to add I just don't add anything. Maybe you should try that.


http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=34152
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=26808
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=9158

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.

Yet many people refer to clinton as " The Black mans President "

You know, as much as I hate to admit it, all the reasons for going to Iraq given to the people of the US by their leaders, were just half truths to cover up the main reason. Iraq is the perfect staging area to commence war with the entire Middle East.

There were no Al-Qaida members in Iraq during the Saddam regime. The only terrorists Saddam had were those he employed in his Fedahyeen shock troops (not counting his late offspring). Were the chemical weapons in Iraq at the time of the initial US attack? Very few if any. Was Saddam in cahoots with Bin Laden? Saddam would never lower himself, he was too maniacal and enjoyed governing by separating church and state. Did Saddam hate America? Only because he was envious of the power that America wields within the rest of the world.

There is a reason why we are not officially calling this Desert Storm II. It has nothing to do with removing any one regime from power. The war is simply to send a message to terrorists world wide that the events of 9/11 that acts of cowardice aggression will be persecuted to the extreme, with death being the only resolve for those who dare harm the United States.

While the current Commander-in-Chief may appear to be somewhat slow in some areas, but he has done the right thing in Afghanistan and Iraq. I may not have agreed with his reasoning while I was in Iraq. Now that I am home and a civilian (YES I WAS HONORABLY DISCHARGED) and had time to reflect and look at the larger picture. I commend the 43rd President of the US for his actions abroad.

Alexanderthegrape wrote:

When I see a topic of yours and I don't have anything usefull to add I just don't add anything. Maybe you should try that.

I've only ever started one topic.  I have, however, not added to a topic when I had nothing appropriate to say.

whittsend wrote:

Gunlinger:  Hope you enjoy it (new MOS)  Be sure to check back in and let us know how it goes.

Spumantiii wrote:

It is a noble cause but sadly if that were true there are and were so many places that deserved the good fight but were ignored, amidst the slaughter of millions of citizens.  There was no reason not to go into Rwanda.  Where was the good fight then?  There are people living under worse governments than Saddam's was.

Comical.  If the US had gone into Rwanda, I strongly suspect you would have been among the first to cite it as an example of US imperialism.  Like so many have said: It doesn't actually matter what the US does; to folks like you we will always be doing the wrong thing.

I guess the main criticism is about the way the US does what it does. Acting unilaterally. Without the support by the proper Institutions.
For example, no one would have objected if the US had been part of a UN peace force in Iraq, should the SC have decided to put one in place.

But the US decided that the UN wasn't moving forward as fast as the US would have wanted them to, and then acted unilaterally. That's when the criticism errupted.

I have no problems with nations taking all the precautions to preserve their national security. That's every nation's basic right. But IMHO, america will continue to lose international respect and support if they keep disrespecting and ignoring the concerns of their fellow UN members / allies, like they did in Iraq.

just my 2c...

Kmarion wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

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

a) quite some oil reserves

Why did the US pull out then in the first Gulf war when we were standing right outside of Baghdad ? You know if it was about oil ?

Do you think the US would have protected the pifflingly tiny state of Kuwait if it wasn't packed to the gills with oil?