Poll: Should Geneva conventions be scrapped or revised?
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
Yes
0%
0 0%
No
0%
0 0%
Yes
0%
0 0%
No
0%
0 0%
Total 0 vote(s) 0%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Are Geneva Conventions outdated?
#41
Wow - that was good Jeff, very insightful even for you. Any other bits of wisdom you can conjure up about troops and our over stressed military?
Reply
#42
Military is not over stressed its as strong as ever if not stronger. If you mean stress as in changing its strategic nature from cold war styles to something new or different, then I suppose stress as a part of change happens. It seems to me Murdok you talk a good fight, but that may be a hold over from a mispent youth. I would suggest you attempt to give some intelligence to your claims by showing how rather than acting the town fool and simply repeating yourself.

Here is what you need to learn and try to read carefully.

1-Let us know how the military is stressed.

2-Tell us how you came to your conclusion (try to do it in your own words rather than someone elses).

3-To what extent was the stress due to military action now versus military action in previous combat periods.

4-How do you measure military stress now versus military stress in the Korean engagement or the WWII or Vietnam?

If you can answer these questions then maybe you might get something akin to credibility, otherwise its really so much babbling isn't it?
"I detest the man who hides one thing in the depths of his heart and speaks forth another"
-Homer
Reply
#43
Well - I'd like to the see the same supporting your contention that we are stronger now during this transition. I'd like to see facts and figures and some explinations as to why reserve units are being asked to stay longer and why the new and huge push towards Stop-Loss that the Military is nowengaged in. but of course those are just inconvienient facts you choose to ignore.

But here - just for you from the Atlantic Monthly - using the Army War College as it's source:

Quote:the United States still has some 75,000 soldiers in Germany, 41,000 in Japan, 41,000 in Korea, 13,000 in Italy, 12,000 in the United Kingdom, and so on, down through a list of more than a hundred countries—plus some 26,000 sailors and Marines deployed afloat. The new jobs keep coming, and the old ones don't go away. Several times I have heard officers on Army bases refer mordantly to the current recruiting slogan: "An Army of One." The usual punch line is, "That's how many soldiers are left for new assignments now."

And:
Quote:The third problem involves national strategy. Our stated ambitions are wholly out of sync with the resources America can bring to bear. Even now, despite solemn promises, we do not have enough soldiers to occupy and democratize Iraq while also fulfilling previous commitments in many other places around the globe. Soon even fewer U.S. troops will be available to enter any other necessary engagement

As for more and why - I've stated why numerous times above - and have listed sources. This is just one of hundreds of hits on Google and Lexus Nexus - and many of the sources are military sourced.

I have to run - the Tony's are on and being a huge fan of Broadway who can miss this spectacal!

I'll have more soon. Enough babbling.
Reply
#44
Atlantic monthly? I would have to see the whole article to judge how accurate the author is. Atlantic monthly isn't exactly known for its military analysis. What military sources have you found?

Does the fact that we defeated Afghanistan quickly and decisively have an impact on the opinion expressed? What about Iraq?

How does occupation differ from conquest?

Why aren't enlistment quotas higher then? Especially since enlistment quotas are being met?

It doesn't jibe with reality?
"I detest the man who hides one thing in the depths of his heart and speaks forth another"
-Homer
Reply
#45
Look it up yourself Jeff. You know how to use Google - try to find some information that is not handed to you on silver platter and is in or on something that is not keyed into the federailist mindset.

Search for "Atlantic Monthly and US military under stress" for starters.

Their source was the Army War College - But I suppose that is not good enough for you? If not then find some other topic to rag on.
Reply
#46
Quote:I feel that Bush has damaged our military in a way that will take years to fix...all politics aside - we are in trouble with our very stressed out military and it is a direct effect from Bush's policies. We should have finished the job in Afghanistan and then if we really needed to invade Iraq, do it once we had more intelligence and enough reserve troops to get the job done correctly

So easy to pop off the old blame Bush rhetoric and play monday morning quarterback.
Undermining our leadership does'nt serve a very usefull purpose. (this is also a goal of the terrorists)
Sure I also think Reagan should have engaged the terrorist after the Beirut bombing. He did pledge to go after terrorists before that.
But that was then.
What you are saying about our military being stretched thin probably is true. But so quick to blame Bush and make political hash out of it.
It seems like your focus is like Micheal Moores: "to take out Bush"
Not on fighting terrorism. I think that is wrong.
It is a painfull truth that alot of political football is being played with this with elections coming.
This is a very nasty business and the US has been confronted with it in such a way that we can never turn our back on it again. We are learning and adapting to how to deal with it as we go. Mistakes will be made but our conviction to do the job must be resolute. GWB displays the conviction and resoluteness we need right now. That is why his detractors are so exited. He is in danger of getting the job done. gotta run
The good traveler doesn't know where he is going.
The great traveler doesn't know where he has been. Chuang Tzu
Reply
#47
Bob - no Monday morning quarterbacking here - why? Because it's still Sunday and the game is still being played. Stop Loss is not something that anyone in here should be happy to see happening. It indicates the most serous of threats to our military - not enough active troops to do the job - or do you deny this as well?

Just ask anyone who is in the military - if they think they have enough troops to do the job? And then ask how they like their extended tours of duty...and ask those who were set to leave their required service if they are thrilled to have their release date indefinately postponed.

Come on guys - use some common sense for once. You don't stop the bleeding unless there is a serious wound. Stop loss is the tournequet to keep more troops available - do you think they engaged it for tea parties or just for the hell of it? Come on - use your heads. Stop loss is the canary in the coal mine - and it just died.

I know some of you can actually think, so let's see some of it in here.
Reply
#48
Since I'm new in here I'm going to bite my tongue on this little bit of incoherence. S6
The good traveler doesn't know where he is going.
The great traveler doesn't know where he has been. Chuang Tzu
Reply
#49
Okay Bob - no one here expects you to bite your tounge, especially in AI. Using logic, tell me why stop loss does not show that we are in need of more troops.

Is not stop loss a drastic measure to keep experienced troops available for national security emergencies and for when the US is under a serious external threat? And if stop loss is not being used due to finding ourselves short of military personel - then why use it at all, especially if the military is not stressed for more troops?

Please Bob - enlighten me.
Reply
#50
If I was to follow your logic to its illogical conclusion the US should just pack up right now because we lost the war before we even set foot in Iraq. That is a looser mentality. That mentality only serves one purpose: to undermine the leadership of your country.
I missed the part where you said you were a french socialist. But you sure exhibit all those nice qualities.
Sure the military is stressed. But you forget a key element. The USA is a "can do" kind of place. When motivated (and I assure you this country is motivated) the USA will accomplish the job against the odds. And the odds are'nt nearly as bleak as you and the Arab media are trying to make out.
The good traveler doesn't know where he is going.
The great traveler doesn't know where he has been. Chuang Tzu
Reply
#51
Quote:If I was to follow your logic to its illogical conclusion the US should just pack up right now because we lost the war before we even set foot in Iraq. That is a looser mentality. That mentality only serves one purpose: to undermine the leadership of your country.
I missed the part where you said you were a french socialist. But you sure exhibit all those nice qualities.
Sure the military is stressed. But you forget a key element. The USA is a "can do" kind of place. When motivated (and I assure you this country is motivated) the USA will accomplish the job against the odds. And the odds are'nt nearly as bleak as you and the Arab media are trying to make out

Bob, Bob, Bob....man, you sure like putting words in peoples mouths. Ask anyone in here if I ever said we should withdraw. Tisk tisk - such shallow assumptions from a man (or woman?) who uses Homer Simpson pointing a gun at you with an avatar.

So please - don't assume anything about my opinions. Because I think we should put more troops in Iraq, not less and think the idiot Shrub made a fatal mistake of listening to Rumsfeld and invading with too small a force to begin with and with too little long term analysis - actually now it seems there was no long term analysis.

We did not have a plan for the peace.

The fact they are now in trouble with trying to stop the loss of active duty personel is revealing that they underestimated the long term implications of invading a foreign country where more people hate us now then when we invaded.

Shrub has indeed weakend the military.

Undermining leadership - hmmm...everyone take notice. Here is yet another example of the right telling us to shut up if we disagree with the GOP and Bush. Thank you for that shining example Bob. Very typical I might add. If you are GOP and support Bush - you are a patriot - if not - you are a french socialist it seems...what is a french socialist? So if I'm a french socialist Bob - does that make you a German Nazi? You do have a gun in your avatar after all. S1

And IN the LAST PART OF YOUR INSIGHTFUL POST -

You said and I quote:
Sure the military is stressed.

Thank you for AGREEING with my assertion. That was THE POINT I was making after all. All the other crap you just put in there to try to insult my intellegence - the limited thing that it is.

Now be careful with that gun, son. Don't shoot yourself in the foot.
Reply
#52
Murdok you can convolute my statement all you want.
When you claim the US military is stressed to point of imminent collapse the logical conclusion would be to cut and run before all is lost.
You play the typical liberal hocus pocus by saying something which has certain implications then turning it so you can claim "I never really said that at all" .

You say we did'nt have a plan for peace when in fact the plan it being implemented as we speak.

Having an argument with you is like trying to argue will a bowl of jello. Your position lacks any consistency and you jiggle too much!

You think we should be nice to the terrorists while we get tough on terror.

you claim our military is in extreme dire staights yet you think the should stay?

I'm sure the other members of the board are chuckling over this thread.

Implying that a Bush supporter is a nazi cute! Now why dont you compare Bush with Hitler so you can put the icing on your leftist extremist cake. How Micheal Moorish!
The good traveler doesn't know where he is going.
The great traveler doesn't know where he has been. Chuang Tzu
Reply
#53
LOL! Bob - you love putting words into peoples mouths. But hey - you called me a French socialist! So whats so implausable when I refered to you as a German Nazi since you are condeming everyone who disagrees with Bush as a socialist? You paint me and liberals with a wide brush - and since I'm an artist - I paint you in a similar fashion. Simple.

If you want to talk like adults...treat me with respect instead of resorting to personal name calling. Refute my ideas instead of telling me everyone who does not support Bush and the war in Iraq is a socialist.

Quote:When you claim the US military is stressed to point of imminent collapse the logical conclusion would be to cut and run before all is lost.

Okay Bob - please tell me where I said "imminent collpase". SHOW ME WHERE I SAID THAT...PLEASE - ENLIGHTEN ME.

Since you have trouble comprehending my words, I'll say it once again.

No cut and run. Bush has made a huge mess in a pointless invasion in Iraq and we have to clean up our mess. It's the least we can do for the Iraqis and now, unfortunately, for our future security.

Stop loss and active duty extentions for reservists and regular military indicate we are having problems with application of forces in many areas, not just Iraq - in fact we are about to reduce the numbers of troops in South Korea to make up for the lack of troops we have available world wide...in other words we are coming up short. Logic dictates that this is damaging to the over all picture of our military readiness in that we are now shuffling around troops because of the problems in Iraq.

And since North Korea will most likely consider the troop reductions in the South as weakness, this is potentially a dangerous situation Bush is putting us in.

So please - read my whole posts instead of simply shooting yourself in the foot.
Reply
#54
Well all snide little quips asside. To me all you are saying is that the US military is in serious deep doodoo. Which I dont necessarily agree with. I acknowledge the fact that they are understandably stressed and engaged in a very tough job.
What you dont make clear is whether you wish well and hope for the best for our personel over there.
What you do make clear is that you are highly critical of the current administration and their efforts. Draw your own conclusion from that!


On another thread I noticed how you heaped praise upon the likes of Micheal Moore. (remember the 25 minute standing ovation in Cannes?).
Anyway that carries a certain one sided meaning too if I may be so bold as to come to that conclusion.
The good traveler doesn't know where he is going.
The great traveler doesn't know where he has been. Chuang Tzu
Reply
#55
Bob - I have a serious stake that they do well over there. My son is now in the Marines. He enters bootcamp in July and has been working out with the local reserve unit for the past 6 months. He wants to go to Afghanistan and has no qualmes about going to Iraq. I want this mission over there to succeed more than you can imagine.

So yes - I wish them well. Also I wish them well as I am fomer military. So I have nothing but respect for the men and women who serve our country.

What I do not like is how Bush has endangered each and every one of them with reckless policies that are spreading all of our troops too thin. this is dangerous. Yes - I know we are in a transition period but honestly I think the extent of the transition Rumsfeld is calling for has been a failure in light of Iraq - meaning we are not properly prepared to do long term occupations and the job of nation building of any country until we beef up the numbers of troops and plan realistically on how we will use them.

My point is what Bush is doing hurts morale, troop readiness and our commitments in other places in the world...this is damaging.

But we will adapt. We always do. But if we had not gone into Iraq - or waited until we could do the job properly with the larger force inisted on by many Generals including General Zinni and many others - we would not be in this mess we find ourselves in now. And this is a shame - too many people are dying on both sides and this damages our reputation and hurts realtions with the very countries we are trying to influence.

As for Michael Moore - a real American character with something valuable to add to any conversation about politics. We need many more of him - both left and right. Because when some republicans call out for silence from the opposition - we need more voices to drown them out of the picture. Republcians are not the only patriots - And I sincerely think Moore is a bigger and more important patriot than say a Tom Delay or Rush Limbaugh or even a Dick Cheney. Among others.

Just my 2 bits.
Reply
#56
Micheal Moore: Not exactly a very reputable documentor of facts. More like an opportunistic misrepresentor of half truths.

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
The good traveler doesn't know where he is going.
The great traveler doesn't know where he has been. Chuang Tzu
Reply
#57
Quote:Murdok posted: My point is what Bush is doing hurts morale, troop readiness and our commitments in other places in the world...this is damaging.
I've been giving this some thought - especially after reading so many tearful testimonials and gleeful rants celebrating Reagan's passing. The parallels are quite evident. Reagan was smeared as being stupid, limited, too easy-going, too reliant on his staff - who supposedly actually ran him and told him what to think. Al Martin actually wet himself on the air, he was so happy that Reagan died. Ted Rall is sure that he is turning a "crispy brown," but he thought the same thing about Pat Tillman. "...Anyone who voluntarily goes to Afghanistan or Iraq [as a soldier] is fighting for an evil cause under an evil commander in chief."

It occurs to me that the people who actually knew Ronald Reagan loved him with a passion. It is also true that almost all political opponents underestimated him. Almost every politician of his era made statements about Reagan that were flat-out wrong. You can't listen to any of them without the obligatory remarks about a doddering old man who needed to take naps during the day, and never had a clue what was going on. They never realized Reagan was a tough negotiator from his days as President of the Screen Actor's Guild, right up through Governor of California and President. If he was never prepared and couldn't make up his own mind without help, why did he win all those negotiations? And his history is one of constant wins at every negotiation he was ever in. I recall specific University professors who were so stupid and egotistical they could never comprehend losing a debate with him. But they lost - yet never figured out how. They assumed not having or taking notes meant he wasn't prepared, and said so to their friend in order to save face. They also thought that gave them license to lie and sex up their reports, because he had no apparent way to know they were lying, or ability to call them to account for lying later. What they didn't know was he had a photographic memory - and by constant agreement by his staff - he was always prepared. How did they get it so wrong? And why were they so self-involved that they couldn't equate their own lying in meetings to the meetings being shut down and them getting thrown out? Patti Davis was estranged after one of her favorite ultra-liberal professors went to such a meeting with plans of out-debating a doddering old fool who was unprepared - but when Reagan caught her in a series of lies she was tossed out on her ear. She told Patti her old man was too stupid to argue with, and Patti chose to believe her new elitist friends rather than her own father. It's funny that her step-brother Michael saw the same father, but understood what the liars were trying to do against him. He had the same stack of facts that Patti had, but came up with a whole different stack of conclusions than she did. Now, they were the ulimate insiders. Makes you wonder why "useful idiots" make such assinine statements as if they were insiders when they have no way of knowing what they are sure is true - and especially when their statement is designed to hurt the country and the man running it.

Same thing with Bush. The ones who are constantly belittling him don't understand they only diminsh themselves. The downright meanness of their constant tirades against him are at best based only on opinion. And not from their own opinion, but from the incorrect egotisitical rants of those political opponents who are flat-out wrong and don't know it.

Just like John Kerry, Walter Cronkite, and Jane Fonda during the Vietnam War - if they hadn't been "useful idiots" and said untrue things, the war would have been over after the Tet Offensive when General Giap wanted to surrender. That is not conjecture on my part. It is the admission of General Giap, himself, and for the life of me, I cannot understand anyone who argues against it. The anti-war protestrors may have had the best intentions - but they caused the deaths of all those who died after the proposed Giap surrender when only 10,000 had died. Lay those 48,000 additional deaths directly on the altar of their egos.

Reagan weathered his "useful idiots," and his legacy will far outlive them.

Bush's "useful idiuots" are following the exact same game plan. Right or wrong, their only goal is to win power for themselves and their party. They screamed about the thoudsands of body bags that would be needed if we went after the Republican Guard on their own turf. Didn't happen. Every report of the shooting war that was made to sound like disaster was right around the corner was wrong. They screamed that Bush used the term "imminent threat" as a come-on to brainwash them - yet, he never did. They said he was after oil price concessions to help his candidacy, yet when prices went up, they blamed him for not trying to broker any deals. These hate-filled ideas tend to originate with the leaders of the Democrat party, then percolate through Gore, Dean, Pelosi, and all their talking heads. If you pay attention, you can track the carefully crafted clichés and spin terms as they come from the spin doctors and make their way across the Sunday morning magazine shows.

It really makes me laugh when these lemmings call Conservatives, "Dittoheads!" They don't even know the term refers to a woman who thanked Rush for voicing some of the thoughts and convictions she had held for so many years. The next speaker up said, "Ditto what that lady said, thanks for voicing what we already think." It was strictly a short-hand way of minimizing gratuitous compliments. The person says. "Dittos from New Jersey," and launches immediately into their reason for calling. Nothing to do with mind-numbed aquiescence. By contrast, when Terry McAulliffe or James Carville takes a focus group and crafts an attack strategy based on pure speculation and disinformation - these liberals repeat their emotionally-laden agenda blindly and act exactly like the lemmings they try to portray others as being.

So when you say, "[Bush] hurts morale, troop readiness and our commitments in other places in the world," it is not Bush who has done that. Without the McAulliffe/Dean/Kennedy/Kerry-incited rants against him, there would be little discord.

Put the blame where it lies. Those who are "useful idiots" deserve the full blame. Not Reagan. Not Bush.
Reply
#58
thanks mr henky! That was some good stuff. Some I had'nt heard before. Like the general Giap wanting to surrender and the patti davis's proffessor anecdote.
The good traveler doesn't know where he is going.
The great traveler doesn't know where he has been. Chuang Tzu
Reply
#59
Quote:So when you say, "[Bush] hurts morale, troop readiness and our commitments in other places in the world," it is not Bush who has done that. Without the McAulliffe/Dean/Kennedy/Kerry-incited rants against him, there would be little discord.

Well Bill - I guess we just goose step to a different Ideaology. Where were you when Tom Delay and Dick Army and other conservatives were blasting Clinton for invading Bosnia while we had troops fighting in the country?

So unless you can honeslty say you were against that outburst too by the right during Clintons time - and thought what they were saying hurt the US troops fighting at that time - you are no better than McAulliffe/Dean/Kennedy/Kerry - in fact you would be a real hypocrite.

As for Dittoheads being something to be proud of - in prior times some could argue they were called Brown Shirts. Mindlessly following an ideaolgy with no original thoughts to call their own. You forget - I listen to Rush too - and let me say this about his followers that call in on the show - they are as big a bunch of numbskulls as you'll find anywhere.

My opnion of course.

And as for supporting the rants of McAulliffe/Dean/Kennedy/Kerry- this is America. Not some right wing dictatorship. And when you say that someone who expresses their honest feelings for an issue or presidential policy whether we are at war or not - is somehow unamerican - maybe you need to find the Amerika you really want to live in.

No one on the right gave Clinton any quarter - so don't expect it on the left Bill. At the very least Clinton could complete a coherent sentence even if he had trouble with lying about sex.

And I don't think whining about people saying negative things about Bush advances anything since you all started this kind of discord in the last administration. You let the hog out of the truck and it's going to take years to put him back.

We reap what we sow.
Reply
#60
Quote:Where were you when Tom Delay and Dick Army and other conservatives were blasting Clinton for invading Bosnia while we had troops fighting in the country?
Could someone remind me why we were in Bosnia than? Or in Kosovo now? And why we bombed Serbia? There must have been a great national interest to do all of that. I just never managed to figure it out.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Geneva Conventions and 2006 USA Palladin 3 1,701 09-16-2006, 10:13 AM
Last Post: Palladin

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)