- Joined
- Jun 10, 2005
- Messages
- 26,879
- Reaction score
- 12,684
- Location
- Highlands Ranch, CO
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
In my opinions IEDs defined the combat environment in Iraq, primarily because it slowed everything down so much for US forces. As well as being a transporter, IEDs define my operations in so many ways. Where I can go, how I get there, when I leave, how fast do I drive, how far apart the trucks are, etc etc.
And if we consider IEDs as part of a wider guerrilla warfare strategy, than it also defined our conflict to win over the locals. They also had to put up with that constant fear and being asked to trust US forces for security while at the same time knowing the US couldnt protect them from everything was very difficult.
Now as for your 2nd paragraph, you're are talking about something completely different. I don't disagree in the least that drama sells, in fact that in my opinion is what the primary motivator was for many news outlets to talk about the war, along with with the fact that the war was also actual news.
HOWEVER, apdst was arguing the media was anti-war, not that they were drama loving or that they wanted to use the war for profit to sell papers and newstime. No, he said they were anti war and broadcast-ed so much news about IEDs because they had a topic "could blow out of proportion, so as to undermine the American war effort."
See the difference? Perhaps you should take a bit of time out of your self-righteous textual vomit figure out what people are talking about.
And lastly about Justbubba thanking me, I'm glad to see you two still believe in guilt by association.
My emotions?
You maybe have been through a few too many **** measuring contests with your fellow meat heads.......
Maybe if these think tanks weren't staffed head to toe with UN type career libs, and we weren't paid for by NK's big brother China we could exhibit a little backbone.
My solution? I have the luxury of not having to have a solution..... , especially one where I am not privy to everything surrounding the situation, oh BTW neither do you have these facts Sarge. But I do know this, If I still awoke every morning to don the uniform of this great nation, I would not be posting such weak kneed pap.
So...you have no solution. Merely criticizing others for not having one? Are we "great" or are we lacking a backbone?
Your "luxury" of not having a solution doesn't stop you from imagining that there is one that nobody's tried over the last couple decades. What I have is common sense and the ability to see a situation for what it is. It has nothing to do with defeatism or weak knees. Of course, you also have the luxury of not having to rush into North Korean nuclear blasts don't you? With half our military dead under a cloud you can have the satisfaction that we at least showed some backbone under our stupidity. And then you can pop a cold one and flip the channel.
At least then the USSR knew we had strong leaders, not like today.
Well, this is an opinion that doesn't address the North Korean situation. You still dismiss the difference between a rational Soviet Union and an irrational North Korea. North Koreans have nothig to slose. They would call our bluff in front of the whole world and then we would look weak for not launching. You aren't thinking any of this through, which is why you are relying on your emotions to merely criticize.
Maybe you should retire.
In 17 months. Got a year stint in Afghanistan to do first. Of course, retirement won't stop me from reading and understanding global situations and applying a bit of sense to it.
Of course you considered that photo; especially, since those people are mostly Vietnamese nationals and not the U.S. military and it was taken in 1975, three years after all US forces had withdrawn from Vietnam; in an orderly, phased withdrawel.
But, hey; let's not let historical facts get in our way. Right?
What's all this hooplah about South Korea being our "ally" and we must do anything and everything to protect them?
Glad you got that right... Though, it isn't like the US and USSR were on good terms when it happened...
Care to point out where the mainstream media made any effort, other than to pronounce the war a massive failure, from the git-go?
Just like Walter Kronkite, during Vietnam, when he did everything he could undermine the war effort.
Not a conspiracy, just a fact.
What's all this hooplah about South Korea being our "ally" and we must do anything and everything to protect them? Last I recall, no South Korean forces came to assist when after we lost 3,000 citizens in 9/11 and went into Afghanistan and Iraq in response to it. They loose two Marines and now they are our best friend and we must all take up arms and die for them? That seems like a very one sided alliance to me. Back in high school we used to call that a 68.
South Korea sent troops to Iraq. The third largest number of foreign troops at 3600.
I didn't know that. The argument that always comes up here is that 3600 is nothing. But if we consider that most of our allies are surrounded or bordered with enemies and rely upon us to back them up, they can't really afford to send mass amount of troops abroad.
What do you think the ramifications will be of the United States being involved in three different wars simultaneously? Or are you one of those posters on this forum who argue adamantly about the necessity of keeping troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and then in light of the North Korea situation all of a sudden thinks Iraq and Afghanistan aren't important anymore and military efforts should be focused on North Korea?
1.) Whether Iraq is or isn't in a secure place to control its own destiny is very debatable.
2.) If I'm not mistaken, weren't you one of the many posters on here criticizing Obama for planning to pull out of Afghanistan in 2011, regardless of if the surge worked or not? Now it seems like you support it.
3.) It is certainly no myth that overextension of armies can be detrimental to a nations war efforts.
I certainly think there are some legitimate reasons to use military force against North Korea. However, I think that your opinions on policies of war are not valid because they are biased, and rightfully so. One of my favorite quotes "Eagerness for combat is an asset for a soldier, dangerous for a general, and criminal for a politician." ~Anonymous. Being a soldier, you should be eager for combat and justifying it by any means necessary.....
What a bunch of malarky.
That was a different American people. Americans today are not capable of united action against foreign powers. One side or the other will use a foreign war for domestic political purposes. That means America can no longer win wars.
What do domestic politics have anything to do with fighting and beating an enemy? I assure you, if North Korea killed an American citizen, or soldier, the crap would hit the fan, and China and the DPRK are going to get hit with a ton of flying sh*t. If anything, the American people have less tolerance towards acts of violence against us.
What do domestic politics have anything to do with fighting and beating an enemy? I assure you, if North Korea killed an American citizen, or soldier, the crap would hit the fan, and China and the DPRK are going to get hit with a ton of flying sh*t. If anything, the American people have less tolerance towards acts of violence against us.
There would absolutely be hand to hand combat when you're dealing with brain washed fanatics and human waves.
Don't communicate with me if you don't have anything to say.
Really?
What about when the took those American journalists as hostages? Or when Iran took those hikers as hostages and has yet to release most of them?
Iran is murdering Americans as I write this post. It's happened in Iraq and Afghanistan. America does nothing about it.
Same with NK. The DPRK is under China's protection. That means America dare not attack NK, or the Chinese will pull the plug on America. America needs to come home and get it's head right.
If Obama tries to fight in NE Asia, we will sandbag him. NK is not my enemy. Leftism is. We will use uncertain military conflict against Obama when he runs for reelection in two years.
And where would that take place??
If Obama tries to fight in NE Asia, we will sandbag him. NK is not my enemy. Leftism is. We will use uncertain military conflict against Obama when he runs for reelection in two years.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?