Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 66
  1. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    How's that whole bullyism thing working out for us?
    I don't know...you tell me.

    Oh and did the world see us as pansies when we spanked the Taliban in Afghanistan or is it possible they knew we meant "business"?
    The job in Afghanistan is over? That is news to me.
  2.    #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    I believe America would rise to the occassion. You don't think they have the stomach for it quite the way they did during WWII. Let's leave it at that.
    My original question was: What sort of event will result in the nation mobilizing the way we did after Pearl Harbor, sustaining that for 4 years, and the public and the leaders accepting the level of casualty the way we did in WW2?

    I can't think of any.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  3. #43  
    After reading some of the Iran articles that came out yesterday and today (that I posted in the Iran thread).....Iran launching a nuke from their country with a long range missile onto our soil and wiping out a whole city I think would do it.
  4.    #44  
    I think that attack on Iran will look more like the initial battles in Iraq/Afghanistan: Massive air attack followed by quick ground war with few troops and casualties, compared to WW2.

    Maybe WW2-level of casualty could happen if we fought Russia. But I'm afraid that will be due to something else (atomic weapons).

    Maybe my question is not relevant in this day and age. The nature of war has changed. We'll won't have battles like in WW2. Our air superiority has changed that.

    I'm rambling a bit here. But I was really awestruck by the TV series on what we had to go through, worldwide, in WW2. I could not help wondering every episode whether we have the stomach for something like that now.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  5. #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    I don't know...you tell me.
    Are you too blind to see for yourself?

    The job in Afghanistan is over? That is news to me.
    A little late now...you should have told Bush, Cheney, Rummy and Condi that it wasn't over before they went into Iraq.

    But since you've asked, I don't think I said it was "over" at all - you seem to be putting words in my mouth (again). I did say, "The outcome of an Afghanistan had we maintained troop levels and not went into Iraq will never be known" earlier in the thread as well my comments about us having "spanked the Taliban".

    Translation for those that see only in black and white: we successfully kicked the Taliban out and then severely reduced our troop levels and let them reconstitute.
  6. #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    After reading some of the Iran articles that came out yesterday and today (that I posted in the Iran thread).....Iran launching a nuke from their country with a long range missile onto our soil and wiping out a whole city I think would do it.
    Agreed.
  7. #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad View Post
    Maybe my question is not relevant in this day and age. The nature of war has changed. We'll won't have battles like in WW2. Our air superiority has changed that.
    My point exactly. It's simply not fair to condemn America for not reacting the way we did in WWII. I think the significant increase in enlistments after 9/11 coupled with our move on Afghanistan are evidence of American's today rising to the occassion. But if that reaction wasn't enough to convince you then I fear it will take something like Hobbes has described above to achieve a reaction that is commensurate with that of WWII.
  8. #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad View Post
    I think that attack on Iran will look more like the initial battles in Iraq/Afghanistan: Massive air attack followed by quick ground war with few troops and casualties, compared to WW2.
    I am not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I think a strong argument could be made in opposition to that scenario.

    I think what you laid out is certainly the tactic we would take in the hopes your scenario would prove true, but I don't think with the current political atmosphere it would be. Iran is a much larger military foe when compared to Iraq/Afghanistan with more financial resources and stronger political alliances. If we attacked Iran (or Iran attacked us), there is little doubt others would join in on their side like Syria and other Arab nations. Russia has historically been closely tied to Iran economically, with resources (oil, nuclear, etc...), and even politically aligned with Iran in many situations. There is a possibility that Russia could take their side, even if it was just in the role of support financially and with supplies.

    There is little doubt that Israel would be drawn into an Iran war, whether by their own initiative or attacked. This would be the spark to blow the situation into a major world confrontation with those with Israel on one side and those against it across the front lines.

    This is all "What If..." scenarios but very feasible ones give the current political, religious, and financial alliances that stand today.

    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad View Post
    Maybe WW2-level of casualty could happen if we fought Russia. But I'm afraid that will be due to something else (atomic weapons).
    I would certainly have to add China to that list.

    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad View Post
    Maybe my question is not relevant in this day and age. The nature of war has changed. We'll won't have battles like in WW2. Our air superiority has changed that.

    I'm rambling a bit here. But I was really awestruck by the TV series on what we had to go through, worldwide, in WW2. I could not help wondering every episode whether we have the stomach for something like that now.
    I would have to agree that the state of warfare has drastically changed already and is on the brink of major developments to further push that change along.

    Have you ever watched the Future Weapon series on one of the Documentary channels? Nearly everything that they show is bottom line developing remote warfare vs. face to face combat. They have working all terrain robots that can travel up to 30 mph in desert conditions that are only about 3 feet high with guns that are remote controlled via video / GPS / infrared visuals and are nearly indestructible by normal guns carried by soldiers. They have guns that shoot up to 1 million bullets a minute via remote stations and can be set to fire automatically via radar / infrared detections. They have plane drones that can take off / refuel / target / and return automatically and remote control. They have soldier-ware that will identify friendly vs. everyone else via goggles’ that can be used at night, in smoke, etc... And this is what is made public via TV series. I couldn't imagine what is not made public and I wonder what could go into mass production if a major WWII war came along to push the need.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 10/04/2007 at 09:07 PM.
  9. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #49  
    But since you've asked, I don't think I said it was "over" at all - you seem to be putting words in my mouth (again).
    You did say "spanked the Taliban". That implies the Taliban were defeated, unless you are just trying to be deliberately misleading.

    Translation for those that see only in black and white: we successfully kicked the Taliban out and then severely reduced our troop levels and let them reconstitute.
    Your history is quite confused and, in fact, exactly the opposite of what has happened.

    -When Tora Bora took place, US troops numbered 4,000.
    -By the summer of 2003, the number rose to 14,000.
    -In the summer of 2004, there were 19,000.
    -In 2005, the number remained the same and it was at this time that there was talk about reducing numbers by about 2500 troops. In reality, the reduction ended up being around 1,000 troops.
    -In 2006, the numbers went back up dramatically due to increased fighting in the South. There were 23,000 US troops in the latter half of 2006.
    -In 2007, US troop levels went up again to 26,000 - which is roughly where we are today.

    So I am not sure where you got this mythical "severe" reduction in US troops.

    The Taliban might have gotten their asses kicked, but they were not defeated - and the reason is more likely that there were not enough troops from the get-go, which is exactly the opposite of what you were saying above.
  10.    #50  
    The other impressive thing about The War was how US got mobilized in a hurry. When Pearl Harbor occurred, the soldiers were training with bolt-action rifles! Soon, the industry was totally mobilized to produce the war necessities (at the cost of domestic consumption..). In the 4 years after PH, something like 120 cars were produced in the US!!

    Not "Please go shopping in the malls. That's how you can support the war effort".

    I think Bush should have levied a token war tax even if he felt that we did not need the $$.. just to make everyone feel involved and to make the war _feel_ needed and important, needing shared sacrifice. As a side effect, that would also have reduced the $ we are borrowing from our grandchildren.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  11. #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad View Post
    The other impressive thing about The War was how US got mobilized in a hurry. When Pearl Harbor occurred, the soldiers were training with bolt-action rifles! Soon, the industry was totally mobilized to produce the war necessities (at the cost of domestic consumption..). In the 4 years after PH, something like 120 cars were produced in the US!!
    Fully agree. The credit goes to housewives taking factory jobs, military volunteers, many companies taking action with substantial financial investment and even profit loss, etc... The sacrifices at so many levels has no comparison today.

    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad View Post
    Not "Please go shopping in the malls. That's how you can support the war effort".
    A lot of this had to do with keeping the economy moving with the fear of 9/11 triggering a bigger recession than occured due to fear of travel and lack of consumer spending.

    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad View Post
    I think Bush should have levied a token war tax even if he felt that we did not need the $$.. just to make everyone feel involved and to make the war _feel_ needed and important, needing shared sacrifice. As a side effect, that would also have reduced the $ we are borrowing from our grandchildren.
    There are many different ways something like this could have been brought about, mandatory vs voluntary, income based, etc... but I could follow a line of dicussion for this.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 10/05/2007 at 09:18 PM.
  12. #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    You did say "spanked the Taliban". That implies the Taliban were defeated, unless you are just trying to be deliberately misleading.
    Deliberately? You really need to get a life. We bombed the crap out of them and killed a lot of them and then we chased the rest into the hills. Call it whatever you want, but I'd bet most that served there would think they spanked them if you asked them pre-Iraq.

    Oh and do you really want me to quote members of the Bush administration as to what they claimed we did to the Taliban back then?

    Your history is quite confused and, in fact, exactly the opposite of what has happened.

    -When Tora Bora took place, US troops numbered 4,000.
    -By the summer of 2003, the number rose to 14,000.
    -In the summer of 2004, there were 19,000.
    -In 2005, the number remained the same and it was at this time that there was talk about reducing numbers by about 2500 troops. In reality, the reduction ended up being around 1,000 troops.
    -In 2006, the numbers went back up dramatically due to increased fighting in the South. There were 23,000 US troops in the latter half of 2006.
    -In 2007, US troop levels went up again to 26,000 - which is roughly where we are today.

    So I am not sure where you got this mythical "severe" reduction in US troops.

    The Taliban might have gotten their asses kicked, but they were not defeated - and the reason is more likely that there were not enough troops from the get-go, which is exactly the opposite of what you were saying above.
    Oh for christs sakes neo you know darn well what I meant. OK fine, there was a significant reduction in "military resources" in Afghanistan diverted to fight the war in Iraq.

    Here are some snippets from an interesting article in the Washington Post back in 2004. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

    "At the peak of the hunt for bin Laden and his lieutenants, in early 2002, about 150 commandos operated along Afghanistan's borders with Pakistan and Iran in a top-secret team known as Task Force 5. Task Force 5 dropped in strength at times to as few as 30 men. Its counterpart in Iraq, by early 2003, burgeoned to more than 200 as an insurgency grew and Hussein proved difficult to find.

    These elite forces, along with the battlefield intelligence technology of Predator and Global Hawk drone aircraft, were the scarcest tools of the hunt for jihadists along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. With Bush's shift of focus to Iraq, the special mission units called most of their troops home to prepare for a new set of high-value targets in Baghdad.

    "I support the decision to go into Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein's regime but in fact it was a gamble of sorts because Iraq did take focus and energy away from the Afghanistan campaign." Retired Army Gen. Wayne A. Downing
    ".
  13. #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    great video!
    thanks Cell !!!

    (I think you're only one who watched it ... )
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  14. #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    thanks Cell !!!

    (I think you're only one who watched it ... )
    I thought it was interesting. I kept looking for Michael Moore.
    I just don’t know about people...it’s like the thought of personal sacrifice never occurred to them until the question is posed. “Why aren’t you serving.” Then they get this deer in the headlights look “Who me?” You would think a philosophy major would be a bet more articulate and critical in his thinking. I think a year or two of mandatory service would be good for the country, on so many different levels.
    Iago

    "Good name in man and woman, dear my lord, Is the immediate jewel of their souls: Who steals my purse steals trash . . . But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him
    And makes me poor indeed."


    Criminal: A person with predatory instincts who has not sufficient capital to form a corporation.
    - Howard Scott
  15. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Deliberately? You really need to get a life. We bombed the crap out of them and killed a lot of them and then we chased the rest into the hills. Call it whatever you want, but I'd bet most that served there would think they spanked them if you asked them pre-Iraq.
    Well if you mean, "dislodged them from power", then from that standpoint, I supposed you can call it a spanked them.

    Oh and do you really want me to quote members of the Bush administration as to what they claimed we did to the Taliban back then?
    The Bush Administration can say whatever they want, but the fact is that the Taliban has not been defeated yet.

    Oh for christs sakes neo you know darn well what I meant. OK fine, there was a significant reduction in "military resources" in Afghanistan diverted to fight the war in Iraq.
    The numbers don't quite say that.

    Here are some snippets from an interesting article in the Washington Post back in 2004. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

    "At the peak of the hunt for bin Laden and his lieutenants, in early 2002, about 150 commandos operated along Afghanistan's borders with Pakistan and Iran in a top-secret team known as Task Force 5. Task Force 5 dropped in strength at times to as few as 30 men. Its counterpart in Iraq, by early 2003, burgeoned to more than 200 as an insurgency grew and Hussein proved difficult to find.

    These elite forces, along with the battlefield intelligence technology of Predator and Global Hawk drone aircraft, were the scarcest tools of the hunt for jihadists along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. With Bush's shift of focus to Iraq, the special mission units called most of their troops home to prepare for a new set of high-value targets in Baghdad.


    "I support the decision to go into Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein's regime but in fact it was a gamble of sorts because Iraq did take focus and energy away from the Afghanistan campaign." Retired Army Gen. Wayne A. Downing
    ".[/QUOTE]

    Indeed, but you were not talking about "elite forces". You were talking about troops, as in regular troops, as in non-elite units.

    Elite forces are always being moved, taken out, and re-inserted into the field of battle mainly because their numbers are quite small (compared to regular troops) and their mission is generally limited in scope.

    The fact that they were taken out of Afghanistan and put into Iraq (and most likely, they are being shuttled back and forth) is nothing particularly new for the armed forces and nothing they "cannot handle".
  16. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Deliberately? You really need to get a life. We bombed the crap out of them and killed a lot of them and then we chased the rest into the hills. Call it whatever you want, but I'd bet most that served there would think they spanked them if you asked them pre-Iraq.
    Well if you mean, "dislodged them from power", then from that standpoint, I supposed you can call it a spanked them.

    Oh and do you really want me to quote members of the Bush administration as to what they claimed we did to the Taliban back then?
    The Bush Administration can say whatever they want, but the fact is that the Taliban has not been defeated yet.

    Oh for christs sakes neo you know darn well what I meant. OK fine, there was a significant reduction in "military resources" in Afghanistan diverted to fight the war in Iraq.
    The numbers don't quite say that.

    Here are some snippets from an interesting article in the Washington Post back in 2004. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

    "At the peak of the hunt for bin Laden and his lieutenants, in early 2002, about 150 commandos operated along Afghanistan's borders with Pakistan and Iran in a top-secret team known as Task Force 5. Task Force 5 dropped in strength at times to as few as 30 men. Its counterpart in Iraq, by early 2003, burgeoned to more than 200 as an insurgency grew and Hussein proved difficult to find.

    These elite forces, along with the battlefield intelligence technology of Predator and Global Hawk drone aircraft, were the scarcest tools of the hunt for jihadists along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. With Bush's shift of focus to Iraq, the special mission units called most of their troops home to prepare for a new set of high-value targets in Baghdad.

    "I support the decision to go into Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein's regime but in fact it was a gamble of sorts because Iraq did take focus and energy away from the Afghanistan campaign." Retired Army Gen. Wayne A. Downing
    ".
    Indeed, but you were not talking about "elite forces". You were talking about troops, as in regular troops, as in non-elite units.

    Elite forces are always being moved, taken out, and re-inserted into the field of battle mainly because their numbers are quite small (compared to regular troops) and their mission is generally limited in scope.

    The fact that they were taken out of Afghanistan and put into Iraq (and most likely, they are being shuttled back and forth) is nothing particularly new for the armed forces and nothing they "cannot handle".
  17. #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    thanks Cell !!!

    (I think you're only one who watched it ... )
    I started watching it, but didn't have time to watch much more than 30 seconds. It'll have to wait until the weekend.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  18. #58  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    Well if you mean, "dislodged them from power", then from that standpoint, I supposed you can call it a spanked them.
    LOL. Whatever neo. Did the Taliban inflict heavy casualties on our forces or did we inflict more casualties on them? Didn't we tell them we'd bomb them back to the stone ages and then did so?

    The Bush Administration can say whatever they want, but the fact is that the Taliban has not been defeated yet.
    We spanked them. My position is the same as yours in that we both agree they have not been defeated.

    But again if you'd like me to post some quotes from the Bushies when they were selling the war in Iraq as to how wonderfully things were going in Afghanistan I'll be happy to do so.

    Indeed, but you were not talking about "elite forces". You were talking about troops, as in regular troops, as in non-elite units.

    Elite forces are always being moved, taken out, and re-inserted into the field of battle mainly because their numbers are quite small (compared to regular troops) and their mission is generally limited in scope.

    The fact that they were taken out of Afghanistan and put into Iraq (and most likely, they are being shuttled back and forth) is nothing particularly new for the armed forces and nothing they "cannot handle".
    There was a shift in resources, not just elite forces. It's widely known from ex-Generals and many others that served there that once we started ramping for Iraq we shifted vital resources away from Aghanistan. You're focusing too much on boots in the field and missing the obvious decline in command & control, air power, etc.

    But back to the point - we did kick their a$$ when we went in. We did not anticipate them to reconstitute after we shifted away vital military resources. We do have more to do in Afghanistan. Period.
  19.    #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad View Post
    I think Bush should have levied a token war tax even if he felt that we did not need the $$.. just to make everyone feel involved and to make the war _feel_ needed and important, needing shared sacrifice. As a side effect, that would also have reduced the $ we are borrowing from our grandchildren.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...100401920.html

    A Tax Test for the War

    "Would conservatives and Republicans support the war in Iraq if they had to pay for it?

    That is the immensely useful question that Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, put on the table this week by calling for a temporary war tax to cover President Bush's request for $145 billion in supplemental spending for Iraq.

    The proposal is a magnificent way to test the seriousness of those who claim that the Iraq war is an essential part of the "global war on terror." If the war's backers believe in it so much, it should be easy for them to ask taxpayers to put up the money for such an important endeavor.

    Obey makes the case pointedly. "Some people are being asked to pay with their lives or their faces or their hands or their arms or their legs," he said in an interview this week. "If you're going to ask for that, it doesn't seem too much to ask an average taxpayer to pay 30 bucks for the cost of the war so we don't have to shove it off on our kids."

    Or as Obey said in a statement, "I'm tired of seeing that only military families are asked to sacrifice in this war."

    Unfortunately, the Democratic leadership ran away from this idea as fast as you can say the words "Republican majority." That, of course, is what Democrats are afraid of. "Just as I have opposed the war from the outset," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, "I am opposed to a war surtax." ...."
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  20. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    LOL. Whatever neo. Did the Taliban inflict heavy casualties on our forces or did we inflict more casualties on them? Didn't we tell them we'd bomb them back to the stone ages and then did so?
    No, the Taliban did what they had to do in order to weather storm, which is what they clearly did.

    Again, spanking implies defeat. Spanking implies that they were made irrelevant. That has not happened and that makes yoiur choice of words rather poor.

    But again if you'd like me to post some quotes from the Bushies when they were selling the war in Iraq as to how wonderfully things were going in Afghanistan I'll be happy to do so.
    Well things were going well in Afghanistan, and I would argue that things are not going badly there today. That is not to say, of course, that the job is not done.

    There was a shift in resources, not just elite forces. It's widely known from ex-Generals and many others that served there that once we started ramping for Iraq we shifted vital resources away from Aghanistan. You're focusing too much on boots in the field and missing the obvious decline in command & control, air power, etc.
    So you have gone from "troops" to "elite forces" and now the generic "resources".

    Do you always change the parameters of your central theme when the facts slap you around a bit?
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions