AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin--Spooge+Feb 7 2003, 07:42 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Spooge @ Feb 7 2003, 07:42 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--AllUrHiveRBelong2Us+Feb 6 2003, 10:26 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRBelong2Us @ Feb 6 2003, 10:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Think about it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Next Memorial Day go ahead and curl up in a blanket and consider how many men and women have given their lives to you can sit around and call them idiots. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I do believe that for someone to die defending freedom, there has to be a threat to freedom, and the fact is, the world hasn't produced a legitimate one of those since the stabilisation of post WW2 Europe. This war is a sham war. Just as all wars teh US has been involved in post-WW2 have been.
And technically, we haven't been in any wars since W.W. II. That's right folks, the South-East Asia conflict (aka Vietnam), the Northeast Asia conflict (aka Korea) and numerous peace-keeping incursions but no true wars.
and to the guy who said something about us curlin up and appreciating those who died for our freedoms and how we call them idiots, get a grip.
We haven't said anything to call them idiots. Some people have differing views on war. I don't believe in the concept of a traditional military but that's my opinion.
Think about the millions we've killed pursuing our "freedoms and liberties". We lost about 56,000 soldiers in Vietnam. We killed well over 3 million VietCong and vietnamese civilians. I saw Bowling for Columbine recently (great movie, a must-see for anyone who has the slightest sense of humor) and we've deposed democratically elected leaders so we can get our own puppets in place.
Referring back to the SEAC, We promised the vietnamese people we'd hold an unbiased election. Instead we rig the votes to get our puppet in place. the Vietnamese people hated Ngo Vinh Diem and they deposed him. Good for them.
We won't be having a draft anytime soon, 150k soldiers in the Gulf alone, not to mention the armor and planes we have their.
Argh, I just wish people would remember the true horrors of war and not be so gung-ho about it. We haven't had a real conflict/war for so long because all CNN shows is "Glory to the Americans! We win". They neglect to mention that so far the after-effects of Desert Storm have killed well over 2 million Iraqi's. They are human too, do they not deserve to live?
And I respect people who enlist. It is their choice. If they are racist/sexist/creedist or anything like that, then they lose my respect.
Society always needs the military. Inevitably humans will turn against one another and a military reminds us that we have a higher-power other then self-formed militia's to take care of us.
<!--QuoteBegin--AllUrHiveRBelong2Us+Feb 7 2003, 03:00 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRBelong2Us @ Feb 7 2003, 03:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I do believe that for someone to die defending freedom, there has to be a threat to freedom, and the fact is, the world hasn't produced a legitimate one of those since the stabilisation of post WW2 Europe. This war is a sham war. Just as all wars teh US has been involved in post-WW2 have been. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The stabaliztation of post world war II only includes just about every war after world war II to date.
Every sociologist will show you how much more instable the current system of numerous small conflict herds and powers is compared to the two-power conflict between US and SU.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And technically, we haven't been in any wars since W.W. II. That's right folks, the South-East Asia conflict (aka Vietnam), the Northeast Asia conflict (aka Korea) and numerous peace-keeping incursions but no true wars.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've heard this statement numerous times, and always wondered about it. Out of real interest, how do you define war then?
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Feb 8 2003, 10:22 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Feb 8 2003, 10:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I've heard this statement numerous times, and always wondered about it. Out of real interest, how do you define war then? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> he's just illustrating how america has gone into numerous conflicts and military excursions without declaring war. meaning bush can do wwhatever he wants. he doesnt have to declare war. he just has to give the orders to commit acts of war.
As of right now, with the Gulf of Tonkin resolution (1960's, forgot exact year) the president, after 48 hours of military conflict, has to get congressional approval to continue military support. And the 2001/2002 Patriot Act allows the Commander In Chief to initiate military action against any sovereignty that threatens (actively or passively) without getting congressional approvement. Bush's big speech to the senate and as of late his likening Iraq to a terror state means that his speech was pointless. He could go anytime he wants, just he knows that he will lose support if he doesn't get all the support.
Iraq is not going to be a walk in the park as some of you might think. Almost 25 million Iraqis and most of them are willing to defend their country. Now lets see some military tactics, what would happen if and when US attacks Iraq:
US takes quickly over smaller camps and bases until they start attacking major cities. Bombing is out of the question because densily populated cities with armed Iraqis and civilians mixed. I know Bush wouldn't have trouble sleeping after killing few hundred thousand civilians but it would be political suicide so they are probably not going to bomb the cities. The only way is to go in with infantry covered by helicopters and armored vehicles. Helicopters can do some damage but its still quite easy for defenders to hide and even drop few birds. Vechicles will be rather useless in small alleys and streets barricated where a guy with bazooka can popup from any house. It will be a hell for infantry. They have to clear every single house and watch for roof tops, windows and small alleys. And I can gurrantee that there will be a _lot_ of persistive defenders; snipers, suicide bombers and people willing to die for their homes. Even if US would manage in its task thousands of Americans would die and the rest would suffer from heavy mental problems because they shot a 14 year old Iraqi girl who had an ak in her hands.
To the US military: Read up on the Battle of Stalingrad. Then start ordering very large quantities of body bags. Because you are going to recieve a lesson in nationalism and urban warfare first-hand. Wow Dread, I've found someone else whom appreciates the grueling bloody nature of urban warfare. THe city fighting in Iraq will be a living hell, clearing an entire city house by house means a lot of casualties and bad morale. Even if Bush did bomb the cities, and I wouldn't put it past him, usually all it does is create more defenses for the defenders and block more streets so vehicles can't get through. Although in urban warfare tank = slow moving mobile bbq. Molotovs and cheap and beans RPGs will bust up even modern tanks if you hit them in the flanks or behind, which you can do with ease in urban situations. To all you naive Americans who think Iraqi civilans will welcome you with open arms, kindly read up on other aspects of World War 2, namely the invasion of Russia and the final defeat of Germany. It's hard to imagine a harsher leader than Stalin, heaps of Russians hated him and were brutally oppressed (Saddam has NOTHING on this bloke). And yet when the germans invaded the Russians defended their nation like demons. Same in Germany. Even when defeat was obvious, at the very gates of Berlin the Russians took 2 million casualities taking Berlin in their final 3 week campaign. The Germans knew they couldn't win, but by Flayra they fought. Now why did these people in Russia and Germany fight? They could have not bothered, in both cases the government was often too disorgainised to force them to and they could have just defected over to the winning side. They fought for their country. They didn't care who was in power; what was important to them was their country. A lot of Iraqis don't like Saddam, that's for sure. But they'll fight. They'll fight for their very survival and the survival of their country. I really feel sorry for the families of American servicemen and women. There's going to be a lot of grieveing before this war is finally brought to it's bloody conclusion. And there's one man to blame. His name starts with "B" and ends in "ush". Just think America. Your sons and daughters are going to die so your SUVs will have cheeper fuel. God Bless America <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif'><!--endemo-->
<span style='color:white'>[edit]</span>Oh yeah, and on the actual topic, the mandatory draft is bloody useless in most countries. You end up with a force that isn't effective in wars, especially today, and you also train your citizenry in warfare and unarmed combat. Dangerous combo in nations, especially in the US where guns are everywhere. If you send your half-trained reservist citizens into a war-zone they get chewed to peices by vetern troops on the other side. Look at WWII. Allied generals sent their green forces in KNOWING that every platoon was going to suffer 50% losses. It's just the way it worked. Far more effective is smaller armies of dedicated and well trained voleenteers. THey have both the inclination and the training to produce an effective fighting force.<span style='color:white'>[/edit]</span>
Ryo, Im with you allmost in every point you made. You just made you points better <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
And I've read enough about wars in general, that I know urban warfare is much nastier than normal fighting in open spaces. Atleast you know from which direction you just got shot in "normal" fighting situations(although i think fighting in cities normal nowadays).
Edit: Actually urban-warfare is hell only for the attackers. Its perfect for the defenders.
Comments
Next Memorial Day go ahead and curl up in a blanket and consider how many men and women have given their lives to you can sit around and call them idiots. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I do believe that for someone to die defending freedom, there has to be a threat to freedom, and the fact is, the world hasn't produced a legitimate one of those since the stabilisation of post WW2 Europe. This war is a sham war. Just as all wars teh US has been involved in post-WW2 have been.
and to the guy who said something about us curlin up and appreciating those who died for our freedoms and how we call them idiots, get a grip.
We haven't said anything to call them idiots. Some people have differing views on war. I don't believe in the concept of a traditional military but that's my opinion.
Think about the millions we've killed pursuing our "freedoms and liberties". We lost about 56,000 soldiers in Vietnam. We killed well over 3 million VietCong and vietnamese civilians. I saw Bowling for Columbine recently (great movie, a must-see for anyone who has the slightest sense of humor) and we've deposed democratically elected leaders so we can get our own puppets in place.
Referring back to the SEAC, We promised the vietnamese people we'd hold an unbiased election. Instead we rig the votes to get our puppet in place. the Vietnamese people hated Ngo Vinh Diem and they deposed him. Good for them.
We won't be having a draft anytime soon, 150k soldiers in the Gulf alone, not to mention the armor and planes we have their.
Argh, I just wish people would remember the true horrors of war and not be so gung-ho about it. We haven't had a real conflict/war for so long because all CNN shows is "Glory to the Americans! We win". They neglect to mention that so far the after-effects of Desert Storm have killed well over 2 million Iraqi's. They are human too, do they not deserve to live?
And I respect people who enlist. It is their choice. If they are racist/sexist/creedist or anything like that, then they lose my respect.
Society always needs the military. Inevitably humans will turn against one another and a military reminds us that we have a higher-power other then self-formed militia's to take care of us.
I do believe that for someone to die defending freedom, there has to be a threat to freedom, and the fact is, the world hasn't produced a legitimate one of those since the stabilisation of post WW2 Europe. This war is a sham war. Just as all wars teh US has been involved in post-WW2 have been. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The stabaliztation of post world war II only includes just about every war after world war II to date.
Every sociologist will show you how much more instable the current system of numerous small conflict herds and powers is compared to the two-power conflict between US and SU.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And technically, we haven't been in any wars since W.W. II. That's right folks, the South-East Asia conflict (aka Vietnam), the Northeast Asia conflict (aka Korea) and numerous peace-keeping incursions but no true wars.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've heard this statement numerous times, and always wondered about it. Out of real interest, how do you define war then?
he's just illustrating how america has gone into numerous conflicts and military excursions without declaring war. meaning bush can do wwhatever he wants. he doesnt have to declare war. he just has to give the orders to commit acts of war.
As of right now, with the Gulf of Tonkin resolution (1960's, forgot exact year) the president, after 48 hours of military conflict, has to get congressional approval to continue military support. And the 2001/2002 Patriot Act allows the Commander In Chief to initiate military action against any sovereignty that threatens (actively or passively) without getting congressional approvement. Bush's big speech to the senate and as of late his likening Iraq to a terror state means that his speech was pointless. He could go anytime he wants, just he knows that he will lose support if he doesn't get all the support.
US takes quickly over smaller camps and bases until they start attacking major cities. Bombing is out of the question because densily populated cities with armed Iraqis and civilians mixed. I know Bush wouldn't have trouble sleeping after killing few hundred thousand civilians but it would be political suicide so they are probably not going to bomb the cities. The only way is to go in with infantry covered by helicopters and armored vehicles. Helicopters can do some damage but its still quite easy for defenders to hide and even drop few birds. Vechicles will be rather useless in small alleys and streets barricated where a guy with bazooka can popup from any house. It will be a hell for infantry. They have to clear every single house and watch for roof tops, windows and small alleys. And I can gurrantee that there will be a _lot_ of persistive defenders; snipers, suicide bombers and people willing to die for their homes. Even if US would manage in its task thousands of Americans would die and the rest would suffer from heavy mental problems because they shot a 14 year old Iraqi girl who had an ak in her hands.
I feel sorry for you already.
Wow Dread, I've found someone else whom appreciates the grueling bloody nature of urban warfare. THe city fighting in Iraq will be a living hell, clearing an entire city house by house means a lot of casualties and bad morale. Even if Bush did bomb the cities, and I wouldn't put it past him, usually all it does is create more defenses for the defenders and block more streets so vehicles can't get through. Although in urban warfare tank = slow moving mobile bbq. Molotovs and cheap and beans RPGs will bust up even modern tanks if you hit them in the flanks or behind, which you can do with ease in urban situations.
To all you naive Americans who think Iraqi civilans will welcome you with open arms, kindly read up on other aspects of World War 2, namely the invasion of Russia and the final defeat of Germany. It's hard to imagine a harsher leader than Stalin, heaps of Russians hated him and were brutally oppressed (Saddam has NOTHING on this bloke). And yet when the germans invaded the Russians defended their nation like demons. Same in Germany. Even when defeat was obvious, at the very gates of Berlin the Russians took 2 million casualities taking Berlin in their final 3 week campaign. The Germans knew they couldn't win, but by Flayra they fought. Now why did these people in Russia and Germany fight? They could have not bothered, in both cases the government was often too disorgainised to force them to and they could have just defected over to the winning side. They fought for their country. They didn't care who was in power; what was important to them was their country. A lot of Iraqis don't like Saddam, that's for sure. But they'll fight. They'll fight for their very survival and the survival of their country. I really feel sorry for the families of American servicemen and women. There's going to be a lot of grieveing before this war is finally brought to it's bloody conclusion. And there's one man to blame. His name starts with "B" and ends in "ush". Just think America. Your sons and daughters are going to die so your SUVs will have cheeper fuel. God Bless America <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif'><!--endemo-->
<span style='color:white'>[edit]</span>Oh yeah, and on the actual topic, the mandatory draft is bloody useless in most countries. You end up with a force that isn't effective in wars, especially today, and you also train your citizenry in warfare and unarmed combat. Dangerous combo in nations, especially in the US where guns are everywhere. If you send your half-trained reservist citizens into a war-zone they get chewed to peices by vetern troops on the other side. Look at WWII. Allied generals sent their green forces in KNOWING that every platoon was going to suffer 50% losses. It's just the way it worked. Far more effective is smaller armies of dedicated and well trained voleenteers. THey have both the inclination and the training to produce an effective fighting force.<span style='color:white'>[/edit]</span>
<span style='color:white'>Don't doublepost, please.</span>
And I've read enough about wars in general, that I know urban warfare is much nastier than normal fighting in open spaces. Atleast you know from which direction you just got shot in "normal" fighting situations(although i think fighting in cities normal nowadays).
Edit: Actually urban-warfare is hell only for the attackers. Its perfect for the defenders.