What are we to think of the allegations of "traitors"?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Andrew1975**

That's mindbogglingly stupid.

Shurma we've already had Frazzled come, why do you keep making remarks like this. I say your wrong, try to play by rule 1 or this thread will get shut down.

They are also people living in country that have significant influence on the state of affairs there. As such, we should absolutely care about what they feel, and what they might do.

Sorry, war is complicated.

It doesn't have to be. By letting warlords and even regular civilians keep their weapons this is supposed to make it less complicated?

Are you seriously arguing that less restraint on the use of force would be less detrimental to the physical state of any given nation?

Yes, more resources usually help in situations where being understaffed is a major issue. When you don't even have enough soldiers and equipment to keep Iran from sending a steady supply of weapons and insurgents to your battle field than yes. However when you drag a conflict out for a decade where stuff is exploding every day you are being very detrimental.

If, as you propose, the Russian example be used as a good example you are suggesting the murder of civilians.

It's going to take a generation for us to know exactly how bad the Russians have been in Chechnya, but I suspect it's a lot worse then we think.

So those of us who have looked at that conflict in even a passing manner know you lack even a basic understanding of reality.

I see your point. But it's hard to say who's heads the Russians were knocking around. I think it would be hard to say in any case that they were just shooting at random. I There have been many cases where two ethnic groups were fighting and all the Russians had to do was roll their tanks in and get sides to talk without even firing a shot or killing random civilians. Ossectia is a good example. Russians roll in with overwhelming force, shoot up the Georgian military units and the south Ossecian militia. They didn't go around just randomly shooting. everyone.

I'm not going to claim naivety, like some people do. There are of course stories of Russian conflicts where they shot up whole villages because they were enemy strongholds. Most of these were tribal villages where support for the enemy was endorsed by the village leaders and all people within. Sorry about that, maybe you shouldn't be there mixing in with the enemy army. You hear battle coming maybe you should get out of the way. If your husband is willing to put you and his children basically on the front lines where there are other armed women and children....not my fault if they get hit by a shell, maybe you should not have put them and the village in harms way. If you are providing material support to the enemy, sorry you could have left the village. It sucks....but so does war. Don't fight unless you are willing to pay the consequences.

There are cases in the caucuses where the Russians were called to an area because many of the local villages were being terrorized. They found out which village the terrorists were coming from, ran it over (now the accounts never said who was all killed in the raid, but we can guess, maybe they leveled the place maybe not). The terrorist activity stopped. The rest of the villages got on with their lives. Sucked for that village, but saved the lives of everyone else.

**LordofHats**

dogma wrote:Either way, what if our hypothetical deserter was faced with a military bureaucracy that made a habit of endorsing illegal orders?

That's when you go whistle blower. I'm not objected to the idea of a whistleblower when there's actually something to whistle blow. A military bureaucracy that violated the rules of war needs to be dealt with but you don't need to desert to do it.

**ShumaGorath**

Shurma we've already had Frazzled come, why do you keep making remarks like this. I say your wrong, try to play by rule 1 or this thread will get shut down.

That uhh... That wasn't me bub. You're quoting Dogma there.

I'm not going to claim naivety, like some people do. There are of course stories of Russian conflicts where they shot up whole villages because they were enemy strongholds. Most of these were tribal villages where support for the enemy was endorsed by the village leaders and all people within.

I think other people are saying that you are nieve. At least insofar as logical theory and warfare are concerned together.

**Andrew1975**

opps sorry Shurma my bad. See I can admit when I am wrong.

I think other people are saying that you are nieve. At least insofar as logical theory and warfare are concerned together.

That's fine. But I hope these people are up for another 10 years of quagmire. What I really hope for is they don't have to see their children being turned into cannon fodder because they believe in spreading truth justice and the American way to people that don't want it and have no use for it. All the while the our own infrastructure is failing, we can't afford our houses, we can't afford to watch our borders, and China is coming.

Yeah our excursions into the middle east has been worth it.

**ShumaGorath**

Andrew1975 wrote:opps sorry Shurma my bad. See I can admit when I am wrong.

I'm not sure thats the best place to claim that sort of thing

.

**Monster Rain**

ShumaGorath wrote:
Andrew1975 wrote:opps sorry Shurma my bad. See I can admit when I am wrong.

I'm not sure thats the best place to claim that sort of thing .

Never budge!

**Andrew1975**

Never budge!

No it's ok he put the little Ork thing next to it.

Look I'm willing to listen. Hell I even gave someone the better comparison to Afghanistan which was much better for their argument. I'm not doing this because I know I'm right. I'm doing this because I think I'm right. I don't type to see my own words. Im just sick of the U.S. standing up for other peoples rights, that they don't want, when it costs us our own. Building peoples infrastructure and houses, when ours are falling apart.

I'm not perfect. I have some awful motivations

If the war for Iraq was about oil, I'd be up for it, whats the point of being a superpower if you can't enforce your political will here and there, not ten years of the thing. But it hasn't changed the cost of oil. We have only hurt Iraq's oil production since we got there.

If it was to help an ally that didn't instigate the attack,I'd be up for it. Gotta save our friends.

But to stop terrorism, and to spread democracy. We only incite more terrorism by being there. And people can earn democracy on their own IF they want it.

**ShumaGorath**

Andrew1975 wrote:opps sorry Shurma my bad. See I can admit when I am wrong.

I think other people are saying that you are nieve. At least insofar as logical theory and warfare are concerned together.

That's fine. But I hope these people are up for another 10 years of quagmire. What I really hope for is they don't have to see their children being turned into cannon fodder because they believe in spreading truth justice and the American way to people that don't want it and have no use for it. All the while the our own infrastructure is failing, we can't afford our houses, we can't afford to watch our borders, and China is coming.

Yeah our excursions into the middle east has been worth it.

Thats the thing. People aren't really arguing that it's been worth it. They are stating that your reasons for believing that it wasn't are bunk and illogical and that your grasp of the history and reality of the conflicts is tenuous at best. Both appear to be true. People can agree with what you said but disagree with how you found your opinions. It's a basic tenet of political discussion. Being right isn't always all that important, especially in subjects where there is common consensus but an irrelevant overall opinion (it's not like it helps that you think we shouldn't be there. We are.)

**Andrew1975**

it's not like it helps that you think we shouldn't be there. We are.

But if it was handled correctly we wouldn't be there anymore. The soft methods of fighting that you are advocating and these whistle blowers get bent out of shape about only seam to extend wars especially against a hard unforgiving populous that only sees these niceties as weakness. Have these methods ever worked? Limited engagement didn't work in Korea, it didn't work in Vietnam, It hasn't worked in Iraq. You don't go with half your army and the half you bring has to fight by making everyone happy. Wanna make everyone happy send the peace corps.

They are stating that your reasons for believing that it wasn't are bunk and illogical and that your grasp of the history and reality of the conflicts is tenuous at best

There is the insulting tone, jeez wonder why I had you confused with dogma? Just say you think I'm wrong an back it up with reason, calling things bunk,illogical and my grasp tenuous is so easy. Coming up with case studies and histories to prove your ideas though seams to be difficult.

Not sure what you mean. I've given my examples of how and where my methodology has worked to great effect and where your have failed. I would have to know my history just to bring these up. Whereas you have given very little proof as to how, when, where or why your tactics appear to be working if they ever have. You bring up a lot of theories. But show me where they have been tested in real world situation successfully, instead of just trying to debunk mine.

All I've heard from anybody is "Oh the humanity" well maybe that's what the average person should say when they see a war. They should know it's better to avoid such things, rather than thinking they are some kind of easy tool to use to spread some ideology that works well for us, but maybe not everybody else.

**ShumaGorath**

Not sure what you mean. I've given my examples of how and where my methodology has worked to great effect and where your have failed.

If you did it wasn't in this thread.

I would have to know my history just to bring these up.

No, not really.

Whereas you have given very little proof as to how, when, where or why your tactics appear to be working if they ever have.

German reunification? Postwar Vietnam? Your methods lost us vietnam, mine won us the country.

Limited engagement didn't work in Korea, it didn't work in Vietnam, It hasn't worked in Iraq.

We didn't engage in "limited engagements" in either of those wars. Hell, carpet bombing and napalm were still in vogue during vietnam. Are you saying because we didn't nuke the country into a crater we were holding back? We instituted a draft, how the hell were we holding back?

You don't go with half your army and the half you bring has to fight by making everyone happy.

You send half your army and keep the other half around for national defense. Thats... Thats actually what everyone does. It's how it works.

Wanna make everyone happy send the peace corps.

So you don't know what the peace corps does either..?

**dogma**

Andrew1975 wrote:
It doesn't have to be. By letting warlords and even regular civilians keep their weapons this is supposed to make it less complicated?

Do you understand the logistical problems inherent in stripping weapons from a population?

Andrew1975 wrote:
Yes, more resources usually help in situations where being understaffed is a major issue. When you don't even have enough soldiers and equipment to keep Iran from sending a steady supply of weapons and insurgents to your battle field than yes. However when you drag a conflict out for a decade where stuff is exploding every day you are being very detrimental.

Are you under the impression that the presence of more soldiers will somehow negate free will?

Andrew1975 wrote:
Sucked for that village, but saved the lives of everyone else.

You first have to presume that all others were under a disproportionate amount of threat.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:
dogma wrote:Either way, what if our hypothetical deserter was faced with a military bureaucracy that made a habit of endorsing illegal orders?

That's when you go whistle blower. I'm not objected to the idea of a whistleblower when there's actually something to whistle blow. A military bureaucracy that violated the rules of war needs to be dealt with but you don't need to desert to do it.

You're still dodging the question.

**Andrew1975**

German reunification? Postwar Vietnam? Your methods lost us vietnam, mine won us the country.

We lost Vietnam and you say I don't know my history....not sure what you meant buy that. As for the tactics that cost us Vietnam how about not actually sending armies into north Vietnam or securing the borders with Cambodia or Laos.

German Unification was not an armed conflict as far as I know.I'll have to check the history books on that one. What? The Russians with their brutality however took down the third Reich and had no problem going where they had to to fight.

You send half your army and keep the other half around for national defense. Thats... Thats actually what everyone does. It's how it works

.

Yeah when you play an rts maybe.

It's called a level of commitment. I don't think we had half our army in country during WWI or WWII. Who are we defending ourselves against Mexico? What are half our troops still doing in Europe? Zaving us from ze Germanz, no doubt.

You first have to presume that all others were under a disproportionate amount of threat.

Why is everyone so concerned with disproportional threats? A threat is a threat. Don't attack me if you are afraid of what might come back. Small weak people hide behind disproportional attacks because small attacks is all they can manage. They would do more if they could. They can't so they cry foul when someone smacks them hard. Don't start none won't be none.

Do you understand the logistical problems inherent in stripping weapons from a population?

Do you understand the dire consequences of not disarming a population? It's been done before, many times. Sounds like a logistical problem that might be handled better if there were more boots on the ground. Oh yeah I advocated that. Oh but I forgot they are still at home defending the U.S. against the Mexicans and in europe in case Stalin comes out of his tomb to spread the red menace across Europe.

**LordofHats**

The Russians with their brutality however took down the third Reich and had no problem going where they had to to fight.

We should act like the Russians in the Eastern War of WWII? Are you sure you know your history? Go check some casualty figures for the Eastern Front, military and civilian. Let me know how that math adds up.

**dogma**

Andrew1975 wrote:
Why is everyone so concerned with disproportional threats? A threat is a threat.

Really? If I threaten you with a hug, am I doing the same thing as threatening you wit a gun?

Andrew1975 wrote:
Don't attack me if you are afraid of what might come back. Small weak people hide behind disproportional attacks because small attacks is all they can manage. They would do more if they could. They can't so they cry foul when someone smacks them hard. Don't start none won't be none.

The implication that follows from the presence of proportionality is that more could be done, but was not.

If you cannot even keep your terminology consistent, then this is a waste of my time.

Andrew1975 wrote:

dogma wrote:
Do you understand the logistical problems inherent in stripping weapons from a population?

Do you understand the dire consequences of not disarming a population? It's been done before, many times.

No, it actually hasn't. That was the rhetorical point of the question.

**Andrew1975**

Really? If I threaten you with a hug, am I doing the same thing as threatening you wit a gun?

Is a hug a threat where you come from. I'm beginning to see why people have issues here.

No disproportionate response is when Palestinian terrorists shoot rockets into Israel killing a few innocent people(because what else can they do), then Israel sends in fighters and blows up 3 terrorist camps killing hundreds of terrorists. See it's disproportionate because the Palestinian terrorists killed like 3 people and the Israelis used it as an excuse to kill hundreds of terrorists. I have no problem with it. Maybe you should not be lobbing rockets at people.

No, it actually hasn't. That was the rhetorical point of the question.

Really? I'm pretty sure the allies disarmed the germans and the Japanese people to the point where they were even turning in hunting weapons.
Maybe you called it rhetorical because you didn't want an answer that proved you wrong....but here it is anyway.
Oh and when you want a question to be rhetorical you might want to inform someone before they answer it.

We should act like the Russians in the Eastern War of WWII? Are you sure you know your history? Go check some casualty figures for the Eastern Front, military and civilian. Let me know how that math adds up.

Besides the fact that they raped and pillaged across Europe which was unnecessary and not a part of their brutality towards the Germans. The math adds up that they were effective and got the job done. They also made the prospect of war with them so terrifying that the superpowers had to rely on proxy wars just to get their kicks.

**ShumaGorath**

Really? I'm pretty sure the allies disarmed the germans and the Japanese people to the point where they were even turning in hunting weapons.

That was voluntary demilitarization of a peaceful civilian group post war. Thats a far cry from demilitarizing a resistive population in a counterinsurgent occupation. In fact they are so dissimilar it shows bad on you for even thinking to think about comparing them.

The math adds up that they were effective and got the job done. They also made the prospect of war with them so terrifying that the superpowers had to rely on proxy wars just to get their kicks.

They also lost something like fifteen men for every german killed and the war devastated their male population.

**Andrew1975**

That was voluntary demilitarization of a peaceful civilian group post war. Thats a far cry from demilitarizing a resistive population in a counterinsurgent occupation. In fact they are so dissimilar it shows bad on you for even thinking to think about comparing them.

Oh yeah right and all of your examples have been spot on. Between you saying we won the Vietnam war and dogma considering a hug a threat...I may just be done with this.

If you find yourself arguing with a fool he is usually doing the same thing. I think i am in this situation.

**ShumaGorath**

Oh yeah right and all of your examples have been spot on. Between you saying we won the Vietnam war and dogma considering a hug a threat...I may just be done with this.

I said we lost the vietnam war but won vietnam. That is explicitly what I said. The country is a strong ally now. But we lost the war via use of force.

Read the posts you're going to rant at before ranting. You'll save yourself the indignity of people thinking you can't.

**dogma**

Andrew1975 wrote:
Is a hug a threat where you come from. I'm beginning to see why people have issues here.

Do you know what 'threat' means?

Andrew1975 wrote:
No disproportionate response is when Palestinian terrorists shoot rockets into Israel killing a few innocent people(because what else can they do), then Israel sends in fighters and blows up 3 terrorist camps killing hundreds of terrorists.

That doesn't happen, but ok.

Andrew1975 wrote:
See it's disproportionate because the Palestinian terrorists killed like 3 people and the Israelis used it as an excuse to kill hundreds of terrorists. I have no problem with it. Maybe you should not be lobbing rockets at people.

I'm quite confident that you have no problems with your own fantasies.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Really? I'm pretty sure the allies disarmed the germans and the Japanese people to the point where they were even turning in hunting weapons.

Both were carried out according to internal policies. They were not force, external disarmaments of the sort you're referencing.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Maybe you called it rhetorical because you didn't want an answer that proved you wrong....but here it is anyway.
Oh and when you want a question to be rhetorical you might want to inform someone before they answer it.

I called it rhetorical because it was intended to further a rhetorical argument.

It would be best if you tried to produce correct answers from now on.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Besides the fact that they raped and pillaged across Europe which was unnecessary and not a part of their brutality towards the Germans. The math adds up that they were effective and got the job done. They also made the prospect of war with them so terrifying that the superpowers had to rely on proxy wars just to get their kicks.

So you're basically arguing that we should be better at war, not that we should be more brutal, or less restrained.

**Stormrider**

Andrew, the Russians that invaded Afgahnistan weren't scrubs. They sent Spetnaz, along with Army and Air Force. The reasons they lost were the reasons we are dealing with now. A war dealing with loose irregulars, militias and tribal leaders. Plus we have these guys hiding out in Pakistan. The only reason we are doing better is the superiority of our technology and vastly superior medical capabilities. The Russians lost 2,556 of their 14,453 dead to disease. I haven't heard about any of our dead being from disease.

Of note: the Mujahadeen in the 10 year conflict lost over 500,000 men killed.

**youbedead**

ShumaGorath wrote:
We didn't engage in "limited engagements" in either of those wars. Hell, carpet bombing and napalm were still in vogue during vietnam. Are you saying because we didn't nuke the country into a crater we were holding back? We instituted a draft, how the hell were we holding back?

To be fair many scholars feel we went to piecemeal into Vietnam and didn't hit them hard enough we should have initiated a massive push into N. Vietnam immediately, thats why current american strategy is to start any campaign with overwhelming force, the 'shock and awe' strategy.
The rest of your argument is spot on how ever

**Andrew1975**

Stormrider wrote:Andrew, the Russians that invaded Afgahnistan weren't scrubs. They sent Spetnaz, along with Army and Air Force. The reasons they lost were the reasons we are dealing with now. A war dealing with loose irregulars, militias and tribal leaders. Plus we have these guys hiding out in Pakistan. The only reason we are doing better is the superiority of our technology and vastly superior medical capabilities. The Russians lost 2,556 of their 14,453 dead to disease. I haven't heard about any of our dead being from disease.

Of note: the Mujahadeen in the 10 year conflict lost over 500,000 men killed.

They did send a small contingent of Spetznaz, however...

The force that entered Afghanistan, in addition to the 103rd Guards Airborne Division, was under command of the 40th Army and consisted of the 108th and 5th Guards Motor Rifle Divisions, the 860th Separate Motor Rifle Regiment, the 56th Separate Airborne Assault Brigade, the 36th Mixed Air Corps. Later on the 201st and 58th Motor Rifle Divisions also entered the country, along with other smaller units.[38] In all, the initial Soviet force was around 1,800 tanks, 80,000 soldiers and 2,000 AFVs. In the second week alone, Soviet aircraft had made a total of 4,000 flights into Kabul.[39] With the arrival of the two later divisions, the total Soviet force rose to over 100,000 personnel.

They had only over 100,000 troops most of these were reserve units taken from the fringes of the empire such as Turkistan and Kazikatan. A small, and poorly equipped and trained army, less than one tenth the size of Russia's fighting strength at the time.

Soviet generals pleaded for more troops. The head of the army, Nikolai Ogarkov, said the planned ceiling on troops numbers of 115,000 was “reckless” – he wanted five times as many. But he was denied.And just like the US, Russia first entered Afghanistan with a small force and limited aims, and became embroiled in a conflict that spiraled beyond their control.

Thanks. Should have learned the lesson from the Rusky's, Commit to war or don't

**Henners91**

LordofHats wrote:I think I misread the bit with Arendt and how you were using it.

Henners91 wrote:Literally defend freedom and country? There's no telling what you could be asked to do... the military literally asks you to suspend your choice to say no.

Hyperbole isn't an argument. No where do you not have a choice. You CHOOSE to sign that document and join the military. You are not being conscripted. Once you're in, it's like any other job. When you are asked to do your job you can't refuse and expect your boss to say "oh, okay then." Refuse to do your job and there are consequences.

LordofHats wrote:Sassoon didn't "hate war"... he simply hated what he witnessed, a war being incompetently fought with hundreds of thousands of men dying as they were thrown against an impenetrable bulwark.

An improperly run war is not the same thing as an immoral war or action. Sassoon is a horrible example of what you're trying to express. What was he whistle blowing? By your description, he was whistle blowing soldiers dying and incompetence. Those aren't war crimes, nor are they unlawful. There was nothing to whistle blow. He simply refused to serve. That's not deserving of praise in my eyes. Plenty of men probably saw all the same thing he did. Some probably felt the same way. They still served.

With another job, you can hand in your notice... It's fair enough to say that you sign the contract and I'd agree with you since I also view the signing of that document willingly as a representation of the fact that people either choose to not consider or willingly disregard some of the moral "qualms" that military service can lead to. But at the end of the day it's regrettable that one can't just realise the mistake one's made and have an institutionalised way to say "game over man, game over." I suppose the counter to that is "tough-cookie, the state's made an investment in you, chum..." But even if you can justify the need to surrender your freedom of choice after having signed that document, it doesn't eliminate the fact that people find themselves in this moral dilemma.

Perhaps this all boils down to the fact that I can't envisage myself ever willingly parting with my right to choose... throw in general leftist hostility toward the military establishment (you see a submarine, I see a lost hospital), and I guess that's why I'm quite firm on this issue.

**Stormrider**

Andrew1975 wrote:
Stormrider wrote:Andrew, the Russians that invaded Afgahnistan weren't scrubs. They sent Spetnaz, along with Army and Air Force. The reasons they lost were the reasons we are dealing with now. A war dealing with loose irregulars, militias and tribal leaders. Plus we have these guys hiding out in Pakistan. The only reason we are doing better is the superiority of our technology and vastly superior medical capabilities. The Russians lost 2,556 of their 14,453 dead to disease. I haven't heard about any of our dead being from disease.

Of note: the Mujahadeen in the 10 year conflict lost over 500,000 men killed.

They did send a small contingent of Spetznaz, however...

The force that entered Afghanistan, in addition to the 103rd Guards Airborne Division, was under command of the 40th Army and consisted of the 108th and 5th Guards Motor Rifle Divisions, the 860th Separate Motor Rifle Regiment, the 56th Separate Airborne Assault Brigade, the 36th Mixed Air Corps. Later on the 201st and 58th Motor Rifle Divisions also entered the country, along with other smaller units.[38] In all, the initial Soviet force was around 1,800 tanks, 80,000 soldiers and 2,000 AFVs. In the second week alone, Soviet aircraft had made a total of 4,000 flights into Kabul.[39] With the arrival of the two later divisions, the total Soviet force rose to over 100,000 personnel.

They had only over 100,000 troops most of these were reserve units taken from the fringes of the empire such as Turkistan and Kazikatan. A small, and poorly equipped army, less than one tenth the size of Russia's fighting strength at the time.

Soviet generals pleaded for more troops. The head of the army, Nikolai Ogarkov, said the planned ceiling on troops numbers of 115,000 was “reckless” – he wanted five times as many. But he was denied.And just like the US, Russia first entered Afghanistan with a small force and limited aims, and became embroiled in a conflict that spiraled beyond their control.

Thanks. Should have learned the lesson from the Rusky's, Commit to war or don't

The contingent of soldiers they sent was a much smaller fraction of their standing military strength than or current strength in the theater.

Our troop strength is 78,430, our current overall active military personell is 1,473,900 with 1,458,500 in reserve. So about 18% of active.

The peak Soviet numbers at the time were around 5 million soldiers. So really it was a miniscule fraction of their army at the time. Much smaller proportionally to the force we sent to Afghanistan.

Soviets: 2% of their standing army.

I would absolutely agree that if you go to war, be overwhelming about it.

**Henners91**

Andrew1975 wrote:
Exactly when facing insurgency you have to options kill everyone but you( which is is generally frowned upon) or convince the local populace that it is a better idea to side with you

I think that is social studies question. Some people need to be subjugated in order to win their respect and allegiance. Iraq is a culture that does not respect any weakness. After decades under the harsh regime under Saddam the U.S. rules of engagement are a joke in comparison and in many ways have encouraged the insurgents.

Do you really think the English would have ever gotten the allegiance of the Gurkha, by not showing strength? Why can't the U.S. just get weapons out of the hands of everyone there? No more personal weapons for anyone. Put enough boots and technology on the to keep weapons out of the country. If you are caught with weapons it should be open season. If you surrender, trial and execution. Do people really think there was no insurgency in Germany or Japan? Its actually documented.The U.S. disarmed the public, including hunting weapons. Any insurgency was dealt with quickly, brutally and effectively. (yes i know Europe post world war 2 was different, I know a million reasons why it was different. But the tactics worked and have not been used because now war must be humane)

You can either rule thought love or fear. These people knew only the harsh discipline of fear. Anything else is weakness. Love can come later.

Instead the U.S plays patty cake, and we are over there for the better part of a decade. The cost in soldiers, equipment, sanity, and PR had been horrible. You think people would frown upon being brutal and leaving? Well they are not smiling now either. It may appear worse in the beginning but its better for all involved in the end.

Where do you think Iraq/the U.S./the world would be if we just left after Saddam was taken out?

Wow we have really hijacked this thread

You're really walking a fine-line between half-truth and open-patronisation imho.

If it was so easy to remove weapon caches and stashes... then I'm sure it would have been done in Iraq and in other modern conflicts (I'm thinking Vietnam but I guess one can't cite it what with the fact that there was a whole communist bloc shipping weapons into South Vietnam...). Once you've disarmed the populace how are they going to fight insurgents (who will remain armed); even if you got their caches I'm sure the Iranians would find some way ;&gt

?

When it comes to occupation policy for the now, I just assume that the doves know what they're doing... We need to wait for hindsight before we can make any real judgements, just like how now looking back at 'Nam we can see there was a complete inability to understand Vietnamese culture.

I think a good question to ask would be "what would have happened if we'd scorched the country to gak and then just left?" Hatred, resentment and likely a toppled ally within the next five years...

LordWynne wrote:Ok this does not belong on Dakka, why because I was there in Iraq on 2 tours and have seen what goes on in the dark rooms and not seen by the public. I can say this guy as a US soldier took an oath as he was taked into the US Army of not doing what he just did, talk about his battle field / unit experiance to the public without the official permission of the US Government is guilty of Treason of other charges. Penalty is 25 yrs imprisionment or death depending on the circumstances. This man says things have been done by his unit, well it seems to me that he....like myself were involved with the CIA or Black Ops and took that very Oath. So anything he says without proper documentation is heresay at the most. Not to say things like this ever happened we say the news of Iraqi prisoners being tortured and humiliated on TV News. That is something of a need to know basis, why well have you heard what these Iraqi military personel did to the entire Kuwaiti populace? Rape of every mother and child under the age of 12 yrs old, murder of every male 16 yrs or older, stealing of everything of value in the country by these troops. The United States along with many other counties rallied together to stop this madness. And we pushed the Iraqi Army half way back into their own country, and were stopped by are own Politions because of Death Ally. An area were most of the invading Iraqi Army was fleeing Kuiat with their stolen loot. Yes 10,000 Iraqi troops died in a very bad way but they were crushed as thieves and murders. 10 yrs latter we went back into Iraq because a failed attempt by Iraqi civilians to unseat Sudam Hussain for gassing 100,000 of his own people to death with chemical weapons. Now if you knew the reason behind all this is because the Muslim / Islamic people believe in a 15th century Religion called the Korran. It calls for every Muslim/Islamic person to kill the Non-Beleiver....Christians any way thay can and get a great reward in their Heaven....72 Vigrins and live forever happy. Well sorry to burst anyones bubble, this old world religion is out dated and racist to the point. If your not of Islamic blood you must die is their belief, Its the local law there harshly inforced by the government. As evicting families from homes, yes it happens but the US Government does give them money to compensate these families, I have been there and seen the money pass hands. This guy that is saying this stuff in a public forum should be put in jail unless he has proff anything he has stated is true. I as a Vet think he is a coward, because I have lost buddies to sniper, IED's, mortor attacks, missile attacks and just assults by people in Iraq dressed in civilian clothing, that is the truth because the hostiles in Iraq fight a cowardly war that is already over and let the civilians take the blame and punishment of their own actions attacking US/Allied personel. I have even seen a 5 yr old girl walk up to a US marine with a hand grenade and blow herself up because her father told her to and it was good that she take an enemy with her. Its how their old regilgion is and will be unless their eyes become open that death is a choice and its not worth your life to kill yourself to kill an enemy. A lot of work is still going on in Iraq and Afganistan to open the eyes of the people that the fighting thats going on by the the local warlords for power and weapon and drug trade is no longer the way, it will kill to many innocent people. Thw world has no true idea as to what goes on in Iraq the people fear retabution more from the warlords than from the US/Allied forces, as long as politics control the military command this war in Iraq and Afganistain will keep going for 20+ yrs. A money drain for sure, If the US had any intention of ending this war they would invade Pakistain and get Bin Ladin, taking the sting from terrorists everywere. Untill then we have a bypass and nothing really gets done until a strong leader gives the order. If it were up to me I would build up troops in Iraq and Afganistain from all Allied countries and move like in Europe in WW2 town to town city to city and take back these countries with brute force like it should be. Then peace will come, I am so damn tired of people blaming the military....we did not start this conflict....Terrorists did, put the focus back on them and off the Allied leaders Terrorists murdered almost 5,000 people at the Trade Center, Terrorists should be given no quarter and shot were they stand.We is they are willing to murder based on Religion. Enough said, I have proven my point of fighting those who wish to murder on Religious beliefs and why the UnitedStates fights against such things!

...

Wonder if you'd say the same thing about the Jews and their belief that they're the chosen race of God?

My point's not to start any fights but really, I think religion makews an awesome excuse for people... ultimately it is our material concerns that motivate us toward violence.

I also highly doubt your awareness of the situation if you're suggesting "invading" a US-ally...

Frankly, if they are guilty of hatred as Muslims, you're just as guilty for saying it's so... indiscriminate tarring can go both-ways, y'know.

I wonder, how many Muslims do Americans even tend to meet? We're quite shoulder-to-shoulder over here in places and I really have no complaints... I'll be living in a Muslim neighbourhood next year.

**Andrew1975**

Our troop strength is 78,430, our current overall active military personell is 1,473,900 with 1,458,500 in reserve. So about 18% of active.

They are not all soldiers though. The U.S. army is about 80% support,(yes I'm exaggerating but not my that much). But still we are far from having a massive commitment to Iraq or Afghanistan.

Besides as noted before we have to keep half back to defend against the Mexican and Canadian armies, and another third to stop Stalin or Hitler (or both) from coming out of their coffins and taking Europe.

**Henners91**

Andrew1975 wrote:
I think you'd have to look at Chechnya for an example of Russian tanks driving into town and using maximum force to stop resistance. It really, really didn't save lives or money

Who run's Chechnya now? Did the Chechen war last the better part of a decade? Is Chechnya in a better situation than Iraq is right now? The fact that you probably never even heard of places like Chechnya, Georgia or Ossetia until after the fall of the Soviet Union speaks volumes about what I was saying.

Would you not attribute the lack of dissidence in Soviet Chechnya as being due to ideological reasons? Ethnic tensions only really surfaced in the USSR after the fall... I mean, here was a nation that technically guaranteed 100% employment and encouraged the previously repressed cultures of the Russian Empire to be expressed locally, coupled with the suppression of religion and good ol' curfew, that sounds like a harmonious society to me.

Also, @Andrew1975, sorry I can't find the quote... but haven't there been examples of soldiers who've feared refusing to take part in war crimes because the rest of the unit is "doing it" (ironically, I imagine in that kind of situation a lot of people don't want to follow through with those actions but go along with it... because they see their likely-equally upset comrades doing the same)?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andrew1975 wrote:
You first have to presume that all others were under a disproportionate amount of threat.

Why is everyone so concerned with disproportional threats? A threat is a threat. Don't attack me if you are afraid of what might come back. Small weak people hide behind disproportional attacks because small attacks is all they can manage. They would do more if they could. They can't so they cry foul when someone smacks them hard. Don't start none won't be none.

Israeli invasion of Lebanon...

80 civilians killed in a year by disparate mortar attacks... and then THAT happened...

I can remember being quite upset... if you need a caste study of where threat can quite clearly be "OTT", that's it.

**Stormrider**

Andrew1975 wrote:
Our troop strength is 78,430, our current overall active military personell is 1,473,900 with 1,458,500 in reserve. So about 18% of active.

They are not all soldiers though. The U.S. army is about 80% support,(yes I'm exaggerating but not my that much). But still we are far from having a massive commitment to Iraq or Afghanistan.

Besides as noted before we have to keep half back to defend against the Mexican and Canadian armies, and another third to stop Stalin or Hitler (or both) from coming out of their coffins and taking Europe.

Yes, the Canadians are sharpening their ice skates, preparing to slit our throats in our sleep.

**dogma**

Andrew1975 wrote:
The force that entered Afghanistan, in addition to the 103rd Guards Airborne Division, was under command of the 40th Army and consisted of the 108th and 5th Guards Motor Rifle Divisions, the 860th Separate Motor Rifle Regiment, the 56th Separate Airborne Assault Brigade, the 36th Mixed Air Corps. Later on the 201st and 58th Motor Rifle Divisions also entered the country, along with other smaller units.[38] In all, the initial Soviet force was around 1,800 tanks, 80,000 soldiers and 2,000 AFVs. In the second week alone, Soviet aircraft had made a total of 4,000 flights into Kabul.[39] With the arrival of the two later divisions, the total Soviet force rose to over 100,000 personnel.

Excellent copypasta. Perhaps you should start deleting citations before repeating that gesture.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Soviet generals pleaded for more troops. The head of the army, Nikolai Ogarkov, said the planned ceiling on troops numbers of 115,000 was “reckless” – he wanted five times as many. But he was denied.And just like the US, Russia first entered Afghanistan with a small force and limited aims, and became embroiled in a conflict that spiraled beyond their control.

Thanks. Should have learned the lesson from the Rusky's, Commit to war or don't

!00,000 isn't a small force. Regime change is not a limited aim.

Your point is nonsense. There are many problems with the Afghan conflict, but insufficient manpower is not one of them.

**Andrew1975**

Would you not attribute the lack of dissidence in Soviet Chechnya as being due to ideological reasons? Ethnic tensions only really surfaced in the USSR after the fall... I mean, here was a nation that technically guaranteed 100% employment and encouraged the previously repressed cultures of the Russian Empire to be expressed locally, coupled with the suppression of religion and good ol' curfew, that sounds like a harmonious society to me.

This is western propaganda at it's best. There was plenty of ethnic hate in the Soviet Union, always was. They just feared the red army more but there were plenty of uprisings. People in the soviet union were free on a different level than we understand. When I was there for a year I could do basically whatever I wanted as long as I didn't hurt anyone. Here in the good old U.S.A. I can't even have a bonfire at the beach or walk down the street with a beer in my hand. Don't fall for the cold war rhetoric about the average soviets life, it was much better than you think. There are so many beautiful churches, synagogues and mosques in Russia you'd be amazed.

but haven't there been examples of soldiers who've feared refusing to take part in war crimes because the rest of the unit is "doing it"

I'm sure there have, there are many types of war crimes. Raping is a big no no. But any mistreatment of known terrorists I have no issue with. These peoples goal is to kill women and children, I don't believe anything is too harsh for them. Just shut the door and turn off the camera when you are doing it. It's also one thing to go through military channels with your problems...It's another to go to CNN