posted
Great. Except that would mean required pregnancy tests, I assume? And presumably required birth control and/or abstinence while serving? Those are the parts I have problems with.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: A Panther commander shot up 21 shermans in 44' he shot the first and then the last one the shermans couldnt break out fo the column so he shot up the remaining ones.
You don't think that had more to do with the fact that the Sherman was a piece of crap?
I doubt they would have had the same success if the Pershing had entered service four years earlier than it did.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stan the man: Mighty Cow, I'm failing to see your connection. The military doesn't kill everyone. Despite what you might think. But you have your mind set to that the military is just a bunch of genocidal murderers, so I'm not going to go further than this. It makes my head hurt.
Stan, I don't literally think that the military kills everyone, nor do I think the military is a bunch of murders. I object to the commercial, and the way the US Government seems to believe that might makes right. The commercial seems to me like a warning to the rest of the world. Nobody can stop the US Army. Be afraid.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Great. Except that would mean required pregnancy tests, I assume? And presumably required birth control and/or abstinence while serving? Those are the parts I have problems with.
What's wrong with a pregnancy test? Both men and women in the service have to take a battery of tests before being medically cleared. Doesn't seem like that big of a deal at all.
I don't really know about the sex part, I'd imagine there'd be rules equal to what we have now, which are accepted. If it comes to a draft, you aren't going willingly, I wouldn't be either, so choice in the matter is really an interesting thing to argue about.
I suppose the most fair thing to do, would be to give women the same sexual rules that men get. To be honest, I don't really know rules regarding sexual relations in the military, especially for the enlisted ranks, someone would have to fill me in on that. But I think it's a little ridiculous for perfectly capable to women to say they want to be equal in every way possible to men in society, oh, except when it comes to something dangerous. Women are just as capable as men in performing service. Maybe the women are behind the lines, driving trucks, doing maintenance, doing whatever, but they most certainly have a place in the military.
They don't have to be frontline grunts, but the fact that they are biologically able to become pregnant isn't good enough to exempt them.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stan the man: Mighty Cow, I'm failing to see your connection. The military doesn't kill everyone. Despite what you might think. But you have your mind set to that the military is just a bunch of genocidal murderers, so I'm not going to go further than this. It makes my head hurt.
The commercial seems to me like a warning to the rest of the world. Nobody can stop the US Army. Be afraid.
This jumped out at me for some reason. Personally, I don't see it that way, at least not for our allies.
Look at it this way. If Britain released an ad saying they had the most powerful military in the world, I'd be pleased as punch. We're Britain's stalwart ally, which means their army is on our side. If Iran released the same ad, I'd be nervous.
America is the best friend you can have, or the deadliest enemy, I have zero problem with that message. So if people who've done things to piss us off are afraid of that ad, it really doesn't bother me. It's a cheap price to pay for deterrence.
Beyond that, there's something to be said for trying to create pride in the youth of the nation. The military, beyond a place to serve, to get ahead through education or discipline, or whatever you might want to get out of the military, is a huge source of pride. When they say we have the most powerful military in the world, it's a source of pride. They aren't saying "Beware," to anyone, and I'm not even entirely sure such a message is implied. They're saying, "you should feel proud to serve in such an organization."
Pride, and a pledge to defend our allies. There's nothing wrong with that.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Beyond that, there's something to be said for trying to create pride in the youth of the nation. The military, beyond a place to serve, to get ahead through education or discipline, or whatever you might want to get out of the military, is a huge source of pride. When they say we have the most powerful military in the world, it's a source of pride.
It's quite understandable for them to appeal to a person's sense of pride, but this borders on arrogance. They're telling you to join the Army, not so that you can have the power to make a difference in someone's life, but so that you can have more power than anyone else. And of course, people in the Army are not only more powerful than everyone else, they have more inner strength too. I would have no problem with this ad if it didn't seem so arrogant to me.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But there is a truth to it. There is a lot of pride felt in being part of something much bigger than yourself. To do something that you believe in, or to just play with some cool toys. They have to appeal to something. It is an advertisement.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The rule for sex in the military is: enlisted don't have sex with officers or people in their chain of command. The rule for officers is the same, but flipped.
I've heard pretty gross stories about Iraq and what a serious shortage of females can do to both genders of soldier. Ugh.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stan the man: But there is a truth to it. There is a lot of pride felt in being part of something much bigger than yourself. To do something that you believe in, or to just play with some cool toys. They have to appeal to something. It is an advertisement.
Obviously if the army did ads where they took stock footage and pictures of soldiers throughout history being killed in gruesome ways it would not really make for an effective recruitment protocol.
But nor would it be entirely honest, thousands of men and women have gained much from joining the army even in peace time. Should war come, they can step up and use their talents, if war does not come (even better) they can still modify their talents and use them when they work their next job. I know lots of people who joined the army and later utilized what they learned there to be successful in their own business.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour: I've heard pretty gross stories about Iraq and what a serious shortage of females can do to both genders of soldier. Ugh.
I don't even want to know.
However, I think women as a source of sexual sustenance for the men of the army probably isn't going to be the best argument for their use in the armed forces.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see the commercials as not only daring for so boldly showing our pride and our strength, but as over due.
I can say that it plays very well to the youth I have asked about it. It is also very good at sorting out those who "support the troops but not the war" (Kerry and Co.) from the real patriots.
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: But I think it's a little ridiculous for perfectly capable to women to say they want to be equal in every way possible to men in society, oh, except when it comes to something dangerous.
I don't believe men and women are equal. Not if by equal you mean "same."
quote:Women are just as capable as men in performing service. Maybe the women are behind the lines, driving trucks, doing maintenance, doing whatever, but they most certainly have a place in the military.
If women are drafted into support positions only, then I have no problem. In Israel, women often do other types of service (known as Sherut Leumi, national service) in lieu of serving in the army. Some choose to serve in the army, but I'm pretty sure they are the minority. (I'll have to ask one of my cousins who did.) That sort of thing I have no problem with.
Sending a woman who might become pregnant (and given that some women have religious or other objections to BC, requiring it is not an acceptable alternative) to the front lines is what I was objecting to.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Caught the ad on youtube. Good production values, certainly. Nice heroic heavy-brass sountrack.
It's kind of funny to think about what the different army slogans reflect. "Army of One" never stuck me as a particularly effective or accurate slogan, as it seemed engineered to appeal to loners, not people who were willing to work as part of a team, take orders or sacrifice aspects of their individuality. The "strength to get yourself over/get over yourself" segment reflects nicely on that apsect.
The "strength to obey" still draws question marks over my head. I understand it in principle, of course, but part of me insists that if obediance is a virtue, it's a virtue of discipline, not strength. Of course, it's one of the aspects of the job that strongly suggests to me I'd be poorly suited for the armed forces.
I still think "be all that you can be" was a better slogan, in some ways, twisting together the notions of being part of a greater whole and self-improvement.
Still, I suppose if I was a young person without much idea what to do with my life after high school and no particular fear of being sent to Iraq, the advertisement would probably do the job.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Everyone in the military hated the Army of One campaign, it was patterned after the Marine Corps adds that were filling the ranks with the 'few and the proud' never taking into account the fact that the marines need a fraction of the man power.
This one is much more Army friendly/realistic.
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: But I think it's a little ridiculous for perfectly capable to women to say they want to be equal in every way possible to men in society, oh, except when it comes to something dangerous.
I don't believe men and women are equal. Not if by equal you mean "same."
quote:Women are just as capable as men in performing service. Maybe the women are behind the lines, driving trucks, doing maintenance, doing whatever, but they most certainly have a place in the military.
If women are drafted into support positions only, then I have no problem. In Israel, women often do other types of service (known as Sherut Leumi, national service) in lieu of serving in the army. Some choose to serve in the army, but I'm pretty sure they are the minority. (I'll have to ask one of my cousins who did.) That sort of thing I have no problem with.
Sending a woman who might become pregnant (and given that some women have religious or other objections to BC, requiring it is not an acceptable alternative) to the front lines is what I was objecting to.
I don't agree with women as shock troops, they just aren't built for it. They aren't grunts.
But there are an infinite array of support positions they could do, sure. Other than that, women in same ways make better pilots than men, as their bodies handle G Force stress better than ours. Women could serve easily on naval vessels. I don't see a problem with female tank drivers or helicopter pilots. The only thing I think there'd be a real issue with is making women frontline combat grunts.
I really don't get what you mean by "sending a woman who might become pregnant." Do you mean that you don't think any women who might have sex should serve in any position that might be dangerous?
Why not? And a separate question I'd like answered: Why is it, that in a military, where self control and adherence to regulations is mandatory and necessary, that women or men, shouldn't be expected to abstain from sex, were it required of them?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: I know I'm late to the party, but:
Holy carp!
Now kiddies, this is what war ISN'T like.
Really? What gave you that idea?
Only a couple of the clips in the commercial dealt with Iraq. The rest are training exercises, basic training, the coming home, or other. There really aren't any lies in the pictures. Maybe some shots that could be better left out (rivka's part of the conversation).
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Two obvious things, First: Pregnancy equal vacancy, the Army cannot risk babies in a combat zone and a woman can and often does skip deployment by becoming pregnant. Leaving a vacancy that needs to be filled.
Second: While soldiers can be expected to abstain from the most powerful urge in their nature left unfulfilled (breathing and eating being first) Why add the stress? What is the gain? Soldiers are fighting enough inner turmoil.
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: I can say that it plays very well to the youth I have asked about it. It is also very good at sorting out those who "support the troops but not the war" (Kerry and Co.) from the real patriots.
How so? Has John Kerry issued a statement about this ad?
It seems to me that various litmus tests for "true patriotism" have failed dismally in recent days.
If this ad is one, perhaps that fact should be brought to the attention of the people so we can all line up and express our undying support for it to show what good Americans we all are.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Army Strong" doesn't work for me; even in the best light, it's like a monosyllabic automobile ad. But I suppose "Army: you get to ride in vehicles when you aren't walking" isn't as compelling. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't agree with women as shock troops, they just aren't built for it. They aren't grunts.
Lyrhawn, you clearly haven't seen any anime.
"There is no force greater on this green Earth then the US Army"
Gravity/nukes. I believe those are pretty basic powers of attraction, yet I don't see any soldiers floating away.
The music isn't the greatest out of context, but it holds its own. It could easily be a decent film score. Reminds me of music from Batman Begins a little.
I believe the vid gets most of its power from combination of elements, the sepia text drifting in (suggesting heritage), the flag being the first image (although, who's flag is that?!), with the slow motion sepia and BW clips, the beautiful BW sky shots of the parachuter, the exagerated colors, the *many* attractive female shots ("We dont' discrimiate! Honest! And the girls here are cute!"), etc.
However, change the text to "Loyal Dogs", "Defending your home", "Loyal at the risk of their lives" and splice in videos of dogs barking, chasing their tails, catching frisbees, and tenderly helping a poor kitty cat swim ashore in a violent river and it will convince cats everywhere to hold still while the doggies slober all over them. And droves of people would go buy a puppy.
So yeah, the composition is very well done.
But to criticize the military as being some out of control monster out to destroy the world because of the video is premature. Since when has military not been full of propaganda? Do you know about Flags of Our Fathers? I've seen enough propaganda movies made by Holywood during the second world war, and they are... wow. Thick with it.
People didn't know about the Jewish concentration camps then, and of course the bombs hadn't been dropped yet, so I don't think everyone believed we should be in the war (where now it is understood that it "had to happen" and there was no way out). The movies appealed to an audience that viewed the war as if it were an unwelcome intrusion into their life and US didn't need to be there. Perhaps they could talk the wars away with diplomacy (sound familiar?). And so the movies were thick with anything geared to generate patriotism and to stiffle critisim of the war. (Lyrhawn would be a better expert on the validity of this paragraph, but I think I'm accurate.)
But how much can we fault them? It is easy to fault them after the enemy is gone and if you aren't accountable for current state of the military. But for the military, it is their job to be strong. They have to do something.
I'm glad they were able to come up with this ad. I'd rather have kids joining because of this ad then the Army of One ads. For one, it means the kid is more feeling oriented and isn't as much a thril seeker or egomaniac as the other ads appealed to.
This ad is perfect for promoting the Army's cause. Whether or not you agree with that cause is a totally different matter.
The ad obviously isn't an accurate portrayal of day to day events in the Army. Where is the screaming boot camp trainers, the incompetence that creeps into all large organizations, the crappy housing? And get real, how many Army vets work in suits in high rises? It is like science fiction movies. Nobody really expects the things they show to be real, only vaguely accurate. The sepia tones and exagerated colors say it loud and clear: "daydream".
But what have they done wrong? Not pushed recruits away? "No, you can't join the army!" Is that what we expect our army to do? Or do we want them recruiting only people who like to shoot things?
So, I'm not against it. But that isn't saying anything about how cheesy it is. If I were to make the commercial, I don't know if I would go that route. I would go for something to try to attract people who were a bit less feeling oriented and more brainy, hackers and tinkers who like to build things.
In fact, I don't like my feelings being manipulated this much by people I know are just pushing a cause, so I watch it with a very critical and analyzing eye. Try listening to it without the video. Then watch it without the music. Try watching it out of the corner of your eye while you post to a forum... It will do wonders.
In fact, watch all commercials without audio. The creapiest commecials on the planet are the depression drug commercials with the little bouncing "sad" thingy. The audio makes it less creapy and actually palatable. But if you watch it with no audio, you will wonder why people aren't screaming in agony and demanding the FCC ban it.
Well, there went a few hours. I really put effort into this post, I hope you read it!
Edit to add: the one thing I think they botched composition wise is "because there is nothing on this green earth that is stronger than a US army soldier." Logic flies out the window and gets eaten by an earthworm with that statement.
quote:Originally posted by human_2.0: [QUOTE] The ad obviously isn't an accurate portrayal of day to day events in the Army. Where is the screaming boot camp trainers, the incompetence that creeps into all large organizations, the crappy housing? And get real, how many Army vets work in suits in high rises? It is like science fiction movies. Nobody really expects the things they show to be real, only vaguely accurate. The sepia tones and exagerated colors say it loud and clear: "daydream".
Well, they are only showing that you can have a job like that. Only thing is that you have to want it. I know a guy that used to work for me that is a civilian now who is making $120,000 a year. Not bad for a conventional mechanic. In fact, he's doing pretty dang good. I've been offered jobs that have a competetive package of benefits. Starting pay (starting) is no where near being under 50 grand. Just to have a desk jockey QA job is 85 grand starting pay.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I wasn't saying it wasn't possible. My brother was in the Air Force and he got a high paying job afterwards. Just that it may not be the most typical outcome.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't agree with women as shock troops, they just aren't built for it. They aren't grunts.
Lyrhawn, you clearly haven't seen any anime.
.....
But to criticize the military as being some out of control monster out to destroy the world because of the video is premature. Since when has military not been full of propaganda? Do you know about Flags of Our Fathers? I've seen enough propaganda movies made by Holywood during the second world war, and they are... wow. Thick with it.
People didn't know about the Jewish concentration camps then, and of course the bombs hadn't been dropped yet, so I don't think everyone believed we should be in the war (where now it is understood that it "had to happen" and there was no way out). The movies appealed to an audience that viewed the war as if it were an unwelcome intrusion into their life and US didn't need to be there. Perhaps they could talk the wars away with diplomacy (sound familiar?). And so the movies were thick with anything geared to generate patriotism and to stiffle critisim of the war. (Lyrhawn would be a better expert on the validity of this paragraph, but I think I'm accurate.)
But how much can we fault them? It is easy to fault them after the enemy is gone and if you aren't accountable for current state of the military. But for the military, it is their job to be strong. They have to do something.
I've seen a lot of anime. While I think there are a ton of strong female characters in anime, I've yet to see (which by NO means there aren't any) a strong female character that was fit for grunt duty. Gundam Wing's strong female characters were pilots. Lieutenant Noin was strong, skilled, and brave in battle, but she was a pilot of a Mobile Suit, she didn't have a fifty pound pack on, twenty pounds of armor, and ten pounds of ammo/weaponry. And she didn't have to hike dozens of miles every day with that on. Trigun had strong female characters in Millie and Meryl, but they weren't frontline soldiers, they were cops at best. To say nothing of the fact that anime isn't exactly approaching an accurate portrayal of reality
As for Flags of Our Fathers as propaganda, meh. While I don't disagree that there are propaganda movies out there (Rocky IV anyone? Midway, Tora Tora Tora, The Longest Day), the majority of the ones we think of today were made after the war was over. Which isn't to say there weren't tons of pro-war movies during WW2, there were.
Flags of Our Fathers the book was published well before the war even started, and regardless of that, James Bradley has been researching it for years and years. It's not even a particularly good propaganda book. Iwo Jima isn't the story you want to tell if you're trying to convince someone to join the military. You want to tell a story where the hero and his buddies live, not where thousands die in a brutal slaughter. I've read the book, haven't seen the movie yet, but I imagine it's gruesome, and very good at showing the "war is hell" truism. I think it would have been made even if there wasn't a war going on.
As for your comments regarding the homefront and WW2: Not even close to being similar to this war. There was a smallish vocal minority that protested the war. But they were by far and away outvoiced by those clamoring to support it, and this even before Pearl Harbor. Dissent didn't have to be quashed by the government, the people saw to it themselves. But FDR did speak to the concerns of those that didn't want to be in this conflict:
quote: Some of our people like to believe that wars in Europe and in Asia are of no concern to us. But it is a matter of most vital concern to us that European and Asiatic war-makers should not gain control of the oceans which lead to this hemisphere. One hundred and seventeen years ago the Monroe Doctrine was conceived by our government as a measure of defense in the face of a threat against this hemisphere by an alliance in Continental Europe. Thereafter, we stood guard in the Atlantic, with the British as neighbors. There was no treaty. There was no "unwritten agreement." And yet there was the feeling, proven correct by history, that we as neighbors could settle any disputes in peaceful fashion. And the fact is that during the whole of this time the Western Hemisphere has remained free from aggression from Europe or from Asia.
Does anyone seriously believe that we need to fear attack anywhere in the Americas while a free Britain remains our most powerful naval neighbor in the Atlantic? And does anyone seriously believe, on the other hand, that we could rest easy if the Axis powers were our neighbors there? If Great Britain goes down, the Axis powers will control the Continents of Europe, Asia, Africa, Austral-Asia, and the high seas. And they will be in a position to bring enormous military and naval resources against this hemisphere. It is no exaggeration to say that all of us in all the Americas would be living at the point of a gun -- a gun loaded with explosive bullets, economic as well as military. We should enter upon a new and terrible era in which the whole world, our hemisphere included, would be run by threats of brute force. And to survive in such a world, we would have to convert ourselves permanently into a militaristic power on the basis of war economy.
Some of us like to believe that even if Britain falls, we are still safe, because of the broad expanse of the Atlantic and of the Pacific. But the width of those oceans is not what it was in the days of clipper ships. At one point between Africa and Brazil the distance is less than it is from Washington to Denver, Colorado, five hours for the latest type of bomber. And at the north end of the Pacific Ocean, America and Asia almost touch each other. Why, even today we have planes that could fly from the British Isles to New England and back again without refueling. And remember that the range of the modern bomber is ever being increased.
During the past week many people in all parts of the nation have told me what they wanted me to say tonight. Almost all of them expressed a courageous desire to hear the plain truth about the gravity of the situation. One telegram, however, expressed the attitude of the small minority who want to see no evil and hear no evil, even though they know in their hearts that evil exists. That telegram begged me not to tell again of the ease with which our American cities could be bombed by any hostile power which had gained bases in this Western Hemisphere. The gist of that telegram was: "Please, Mr. President, don't frighten us by telling us the facts." Frankly and definitely there is danger ahead -- danger against which we must prepare. But we well know that we cannot escape danger, or the fear of danger, by crawling into bed and pulling the covers over our heads.
And that speech was BEFORE Pearl Harbor. They were gung ho after it.
I actually talked about this with my grandpa the other day, before he went south for the winter (old folks are like geese ). I asked him flat out what he thought when he knew he was going, and if they knew about the Jews and concentration camps. He said they didn't know anything about it, and didn't know until well after they got there. All they knew was that the British were in trouble, they were our buddies, and we had to go help them out, and so he, and his four brothers, all serving in the army in Europe, did just that.
No one had to be convinced, in the way Bush is always trying to, that it was a war for freedom, they KNEW it was. And they knew what complacency would bring them. They'd watch Europe break into war during the first world war, and they'd stood idly by until the end, doing nothing. The wake of pacifism and avoidance that sprung up after that conflict is what allowed Germany to grow into a looming, unchecked threat. They knew that appeasement and diplomacy led to the invasions of Poland, and the invasion of Czechoslovakia. It was time for action, the enemy was knocking on Britain's front door, and we'd better get our butts over there. The Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor and Hitler's subsequent declaration of war against the US, combined with an emphatically powerful leader like FDR (sometimes words CAN move nations, even from a man in a wheelchair), meant that everyone was willing to sacrifice for the war. Women went to work in factories, companies actively competed with each other to see who could turn out ships the fastest. People rationed food, and rubber, and steel for the war effort, and planted victory gardens.
The man, whose name escapes me at the moment, who controlled two of the biggest shipyards, the ones that made Liberty Ships, cheap, insanely fast to produce cargo ships that Uboats couldn't sink fast enough even when they were unprotected, that supplied Germany during the Battle of Britain and beyond, held a contest between his two main yards. There was no reward involved, it was all about the pride of being the best, and serving their troops and their nation. The crews kept besting each other, building a Liberty Ship in a month, then 2 weeks, then one week, then 72 hours, and finally, using three crews and non-stop work, completing a ship the size of a destroyer or a baby flattop in 24 hours.
Movies were entertaining sure, but they didn't need to be convinced. Trouble was knocking at their door, and their President asked everything that they could give, and more, and they complied.
Now if you want to make that claim about World War ONE, then you've got a lot of weight to throw around. World War II saw an EXPLOSION of patriotism, and unlike what happened here in 2001, it wasn't temporary, and it wasn't just created that day. It was already there, and it never wavered until years after the war, at the prospect of a never ending cold war and dampening spirits prevailed. Little kids saw their daddies go off to war and they wanted to grow up and be just like them. Wives worried about their husbands, but many joined the service as nurses, and those that didn't stayed home and held down the fort, or they made tanks, or planes, or ships.
I honestly believe that half the problem with support for this war is that Bush more or less continues to give us the impression that it isn't a big deal, and that we shouldn't disrupt our lives for it. Ridiculous. It's expensive, and it's the first war in our history that we haven't raised taxes to pay for, on the contrary, the man has cut billions from our national income. There's been no rationing (not that any is necessary), no war bonds that people flocked to buy, no massive volunteering (certainly not on the order of the millions, literally millions, who volunteered for, and lied their war into WW2). We aren't being involved, and when the President looks all aloof and frankly, unconcerned about the situation over there, and everyone else painting a VERY different picture, we feel powerless, and the only thing we might have the power to do is end the war entirely.
Stick with WW1 James, it cements your argument much better . Woodrow Wilson ran on the "he kept us out of war" platform. We REALLY didn't want to be in that one.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So to get the patriotism we need we have to wait for the culmination of our fears about the Middle East to turn into a war machine that does threaten us and our allies. Then we can discover the truth too late again, and millions of Jews will be dead... Are we so foolish that we have to repeat history even though we see it coming?
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is that even close to a reasonable expectation though? The people of Iraq can't even work together within their single country.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I don't think it is a reasonable expectation at all.
Islamic extremism isn't Nazi Germany slowly creeping up on Poland, on Silesia, across the Rhine, over into Czechoslovakia...
That was a declared threat, by a foremost power in the world, by multiple foremost powers in the world. Though maybe FDR was right about OUR situation when he said of his own:
quote:they would unite in ultimate action against the United States. The Nazi Masters of Germany have made it clear that they intend not only to dominate all life and thought in their own country, but also to enslave the whole of Europe, and then to use the resources of Europe to dominate the rest of the world. It was only three weeks ago that their leader stated this: "There are two worlds that stand opposed to each other." And then in defiant reply to his opponents he said this: "Within this world we cannot ever reconcile ourselves."
So maybe there are more parallels between that war and this one than we might like to think. Certainly the rhetoric is the same. The difference is that this war is insidious. Without tanks rolling into Paris, we don't SEE what is coming at us. But we AREN'T at war. We support moderates in the Middle East that themselves support Wahhabist schools of fundamentalist Islam. If we were WW2 serious, we'd cut off ALL purchasing of oil from the Middle East, ALL of it. But we aren't. If we were serious, we'd cut off ALL arms sales to the Middle East, but we don't.
Truth of the matter is, it isn't that the people aren't serious, it's that their government isn't really giving them enough proof that they need to be. This half-assed war isn't good enough.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This war has been run very well, the goal is simply to break up the possibility of a new Caliphate dedicated to Islamic Fascisms.
Religious intolerance, sexual inequality, racial intolerance, child abuse, institutionalized corruption from judges to department nepotism, the list of inequities institutional in Islamic rule is so long that the litany become surreal. George Bush knows this and has known from the beginning that we need to raise this generation of Iraqi children from scratch to change the country.
The EU is trying to do the same thing with this generation of Turks. We all agree that the rising tide of numbers and discontent in the region is a threat not only to Israel, but to Europe and India and south east Asia. If we based policy on giving a real damn about black Africa we would already be at war with Islam.
The problem is that we will give them this generation. Developments in energy production and conservation, utilization of electricity in personal transportation and UN sanctions will put a strangle hold on wealth going into the middle east, exacerbating matters rather then helping. Poverty will breed discontent and hatred, the immigration that we will generously allow into Europe and America will create hostile enclaves in our own nations with representatives in our governments.
There is no population check, there is no incentive to reform and there is no love of fellow man to build on. The only think that held this problem back in the last century was internal strife, the two victories by Israel and Ronald Reagan pitting the Soviets against Afghanistan and Iraq against Iran and encouraging a stalemate as a matter of policy. (incidentally bankrupting the Soviet Union and so depleting the manpower of Iraq and Iran that we handled Iraq like a tiger mauling a kitten twice without having to worry about Iran mounting a military campaign of any significance.
Now Turkey, Iraq and Afghanistan all set on the tipping point, Syria and Iran are our enemies and even the Saudis certainly will change once we invent the cure for oil.
Our leadership sees all this shaping up, with Al Queada in Pakistan, the only Arab country we know has Nukes, with a coupe in Thailand and in Somalia, and Iran faking a nuclear program to cover the ones they want to buy from North Korea, we have new domino effect in play that has tentacles in France, Germany and Russia from bribery of officials to violent minorities.
Yet we cannot point to Islamic Jihad and call it a force for global evil. Not yet, not until Tel Aviv is in ruins, and Buddhists and Christians and Hindus all start dying by the hundreds and thousands at the hands of Muslims.
Then we may be allowed to call it evil and bring forth the will to stop it. That is the hell we are heading towards, that is the hell we are trying to stop now, that is the history we are trying not to repeat.
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
If this was our intention, invading Iraq was one of the stupidest things we could have done.
It tempered one of the most divisive conflicts among Islamic states in the middle east -- between Iran and Iraq.
It gave Iran a huge foothold in Iraq for after our withdrawal or effective withdrawal (which even Bush sees hurrying near, sadly -- we are far from done with the responsibilities we took on, there).
It gave Iran a huge foothold (by being able to point at US aggression) with smaller nations, and Iran is using this quite successfully to block attempts to oppose them on the international stage.
It greatly agitated Turkey, what with the problem of the Kurds.
Of course, handing Afghanistan back to the druglords and other militant forces after we justly toppled the government is hardly a great piece of strategy, too. We hold a few cities, but most of Afghanistan is not under our control. However, it pales in comparison to amount we have increased the power and influence of Iran by invading Iraq, when before the presence of Iraq had been a huge negative for Iran.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: A Panther commander shot up 21 shermans in 44' he shot the first and then the last one the shermans couldnt break out fo the column so he shot up the remaining ones.
You don't think that had more to do with the fact that the Sherman was a piece of crap?
I doubt they would have had the same success if the Pershing had entered service four years earlier than it did.
While this is eminently true, it kind of misses the point. The discussion is 'who had the best army, man for man', and that includes the equipment. If the good American equipment was late to the dance, then it's quite irrelevant. In any case, if you're going to move the American equipment up by four years, you'd have to do the same for the Germans; I doubt Eisenhower would much have cared for invading a Normandy defended by the King Tiger and jet aircraft.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I meant Flags of Our Fathers as showing propaganda back then. Ok, I haven't seen the movie or read the book, only heard about it. The idea is that the picture of the soldiers raising the flag become a powerful propaganda force, and the actual soldiers in the picture were treated badly by the government. Or something.
On the other stuff. I've been very afraid of extremist terrorist nuclear attack and that last quote by FDR speaks straight to why I am for the war in Iraq. However, I readily admit my support is based on fear or something invisible and not logic. I have no idea if my fears are based in anything other than fantasy.
Bruce Scheier speaks a lot about perceived risk vs real risk. Parents are afraid to send their children to homes where there are guns, but have no fear of sending them to a house with a swimming pool, even though swimming pools have killed far more children than gun accidents. And adults are afraid to fly but don't fear driving on highways, even though highways kill far more people than commercial flight.
I also agree about what we would do if we were serious. I know OSC said this last election was about the war, and that we shouldn't have voted for anyone who wanted to set a timetable. But now that the Demos have control of congress, I get the impression the Republican congress was part of the Iraq problem. Just an impression, and I'm not sure what I'm pointing at, but it seems like they have been completely out of touch with reality. Sort of like they had too much to loose by being practical, so they refused to be, and lost everything anyway. The Demos have too much to loose by ignoring reality, so we are going to be better off no matter what. I hope.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Shermans and their drivers were excellent for the role they were meant for and filled -- using their smaller need of logistics to cripple German ability to keep their military supplied, particularly their part and fuel hungry tanks.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the Air Force and Navy might dispute that claim. An M-16 is scarry, but a Nuclear Sub or a smart bomb are even scarier.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is a bit foolish to speak of Iran having increased its power when they are now neighbors with 225,000 troops from the US and around the world. Dropping artillery shells in hasty roadside holes and whining and posturing on the world stage is only effective if you are addicted to CNN, soldiers think it is weakness so great that their own country is becoming hard to hold onto.
They try to posture on the gulf, claim to have torpedoes they do not, claim to have a nuclear weapons program, try to win hearts and minds in Afghanistan, try to make progress in Iraq. In other words they have the kind of schizophrenic policy that a cornered rat might develop.
We hear a great deal about how we do not have enough troops in Iraq, but it takes far fewer troops to crush an army and demolish a regime like Iran then it takes to patrol an entire country as a police force, do logistical support, construction and secure a half dozen airfields. We could destroy the ability of Iran to rule a large city block let alone a country. The question would be what is going to replace the Iranian government after we neutralize it and decimate its military and send them scurrying out of there uniforms and home to bury their weapons. If we wanted to be really irresponsible we could go back to Iraq and Afghanistan and then watch the civil war to follow and roast marshmallows while the the oil wells burned.
That is Iranian reality now that we are in the Gulf, I hope that it helps you understand the advantages of the Bush policy in Iraq. The part that is badly managed is that we have run out of quick interim goals that can give us optimistic news every few months. Creating artificial goals is a stop gap, what we need is five years for the economy to grow and stabilize, for the infrastructure to be repaired and for the security situation to settle into a steady state and the oil checks to start to flow to those who jump through the hoops of becoming registered citizens with home addresses and official standing.
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ummm, you have obviously not seen what Iran has. They just tested some weapons systems not too long ago. They are not cavemen over there. They do have stuff that can do some damage. I don't recall any touting of a nuke weapon program. We thought they were (and they actually might). However, they have stated that it is for electrical power means. Don't get the who's who mixed up here.
They do have a navy, but it's quite different than any other. Actually, their navy is a joke, but I've read some stuff that kinda delineates that one just a bit.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
GS: how long do you think we're going to be in Iraq? One or two years in the future isn't all that matters.
As for Iran being like a cornered rat, keep in mind that they're getting almost exactly what they want, currently: ability to pursue their nuclear weapons program (which is rather more advanced than Iraq's ever was, coincidentally, though still in its infancy) and no significant increase in sanctions. The US has been able to get almost nothing they want in relation to Iran.
As for your scenario of an invasion of Iran, the Iranian army has over 350k men. And you are quite mistaken about the number of coalition forces in Iraq, current numbers are 150k to 170k. Many of these are from the national guard. We could likely do incredibly damage in Iran with a conventional force deployed from Iraq, but it would hardly be a cakewalk. Heck, at minimum they have and have used chemical weapons, though if we were lucky they would refrain from those in the hope we would not use tactical nuclear weapons.
This would, of course, involve removing our forces from nearly every position in Iraq, which would take a good bit of time and given Iran plenty of warning, not to mention conceding most of Iraq to militants.
We will be out of Iraq well within five years, sadly. Even if we are technically present then, we will have conceded all but central cities to militant control, just as we have in Afghanistan, another of our failed occupations. Of course, this administration will have little to contribute over the first two of those years even if we stay in for five years. The horrible failure of most of the major civil projects in Iraq -- reopening oil production, preparing a national police force, et cetera, and in many cases in ways directly traceable to the appointment of politically connected incompetents -- has amply demonstrated this administrations inability to fulfill the responsibility we took on to the Iraqi people.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you are failing to count the 75,000 in Afghanistan, they also are 'next to' Iran, but I forgive you for thinking I had miscounted. Just look at a map next time.
As for the responsibility we have to the Iraqi people... I do not see it as extending to managing their government for them, incompetent corrupt government and construction is their own fault, not ours, they are not children to be forgiven while their parents are blamed, it is time we tried them as adults.
As for leaving Iraq in the hands of insurgents, I think we might find Iraq to be a fine ally if we were in the process of thrashing Iran.
As for the effectiveness of the Iranian military, well we have air superiority, naval superiority and the ability crush their armor, navy and infrastructure. Their Oil industry is fantastically vulnerable, their power grid, ports of entry, truly we could lay siege to the nation and paralyze it, and stop anything they want to throw at the Iraqi or Afghan border, so where does that leave the Iran? Burning and starving in the dark. Do it in the winter and the soldiers would be burning the citizens to stay warm. (the parts the were not eating)
Okay so Iran would have food but how much fight will they have left.
As for staying, I think the job will take a generation. Five more years is just the start.
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: As for the responsibility we have to the Iraqi people... I do not see it as extending to managing their government for them, incompetent corrupt government and construction is their own fault, not ours, they are not children to be forgiven while their parents are blamed, it is time we tried them as adults.
We came in and disrupted everything they knew. They didn't make an overthrow mind you. We have to make sure they have a stable government in hand before leaving. It is a responsibility of ours.
quote: As for leaving Iraq in the hands of insurgents, I think we might find Iraq to be a fine ally if we were in the process of thrashing Iran
Don't you think after us, their country has had enough war? I wouldn't want to drag them into Iran.
quote: As for the effectiveness of the Iranian military, well we have air superiority, naval superiority and the ability crush their armor, navy and infrastructure. Their Oil industry is fantastically vulnerable, their power grid, ports of entry, truly we could lay siege to the nation and paralyze it, and stop anything they want to throw at the Iraqi or Afghan border, so where does that leave the Iran? Burning and starving in the dark. Do it in the winter and the soldiers would be burning the citizens to stay warm. (the parts the were not eating)
This does not paint a good picture of you. I know some of my ideals are sick (compared to most), but this takes the cake. you definately could have kept your fingers off the keyboard for the last part of this.
quote:Okay so Iran would have food but how much fight will they have left.
More than you can ever know. We are fighting an enemy who will never give up. We are fighting an enemy that honestly believes that God is on his side. In fact, they believe they are doing the work of God (Allah). Their is no logic here. It is beyond that.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: A Panther commander shot up 21 shermans in 44' he shot the first and then the last one the shermans couldnt break out fo the column so he shot up the remaining ones.
You don't think that had more to do with the fact that the Sherman was a piece of crap?
I doubt they would have had the same success if the Pershing had entered service four years earlier than it did.
While this is eminently true, it kind of misses the point. The discussion is 'who had the best army, man for man', and that includes the equipment. If the good American equipment was late to the dance, then it's quite irrelevant. In any case, if you're going to move the American equipment up by four years, you'd have to do the same for the Germans; I doubt Eisenhower would much have cared for invading a Normandy defended by the King Tiger and jet aircraft.
To be fair, Pershings and other American heavy tanks would have been on the field to deal with the King Tiger, which was plagued with technical problems, and consumed fuel like the French consume perfume, and both for good reason, they stink.
But both of those matter even less. If you advance the toys by four years, the the US gets F-80 Shooting Stars, which beat the Russian MiG in air-to-air kills in Korea, and we get the B-36 Peacemaker jet bomber. If we had those kinds of assets, to say nothing of missiles, Dday, I daresay, would have been easier, not harder.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: I think the Air Force and Navy might dispute that claim. An M-16 is scarry, but a Nuclear Sub or a smart bomb are even scarier.
I can't imagine fighting in a war where you've heard stories of combatants on your side exploding for no apparent reason. At least IEDs are semi-expectable and not all that accurate. Air strikes come out of nowhere, and don't miss all that much.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
I think OSC war right in one thing in his last world watch. All of that isn't necessary. We can strategically bomb Iran's oil assets, and blockade their ports. We don't NEED to invade them. Oil is their blood, we block it off, they die.
We then ask for Europe to help pay for food drops if they need them, we aren't murderers, besides we want their people on our side. Not that I'm recommending we do this, but if we do, our first step is to cripple their economy for the short term, and that's easily done. The price of oil will skyrocket, but we won't really have supply problems. We already don't buy from them.
If we're serious about combating fanatics and hostile governments in the Middle East then let's GET SERIOUS. Like fugu has suggested in the past, send more troops to Iraq. If we're not serious, let's leave, if we ARE serious, then let's do it right dammit. Stop buying oil from the Middle East, or any nation that has ties to the Middle East and terrorist organizations, which mostly leaves us with Mexico and Canada probably, which is nothing to shake a stick at, but it's not enough at the moment.
If we're serious then let's stop dealing with governments that REALLY aren't our friends. Let's stop propping up dictators. Playing kingmaker and picking our choice of US friendly evils has NOT served us well historically. If we oppose extremism and terrorism everywhere then let's really oppose it EVERYWHERE.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
would have helped make that clear.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Really? What gave you that idea? ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
