I was hoping that it wouldn’t come to this, but the latest JDW online has a detailed report of the DoD’s plans for reconstruction of Iraq after everything is blown up and done. I guess it’s a sure thing now, and funny, Bush still hasn’t shown the public any evidence.
By: Arabella-Cox - 23rd January 2003 at 06:21
RE: Why not a new thread?
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 23-01-03 AT 06:22 AM (GMT)]”Sauron, I vote that the United States totally gets out of ALL foreign affairs. “
That is one option but if you like having plenty of money and power then it is not really a viable option.
If you actually did stop getting involved in foreign current affairs then it would be the US getting screwed all the time and getting the short end of the stick and you would be whining about us not playing fair.
If the b!tching annoys you why not try the truth…
US State department press release:
Today we have put heavy sanctions on a country in xyz region.
Not for peace or stability… but because we can make more money if we do this, or we want to shore up a failing ally in the region, or because the offending nation refused to buy the surplus weapons we offered and actually had the balls to buy something from someone else that we don’t control yet, or because they have oil and were actually asking a reasonable rate for it instead of the controlled rate we are used to. etc etc.
Speech by US president:
We are not really interested in spreading democracy around the world unless the resulting democracy results in us making more money than we are now.
Despite the “bring us your poor, your downtrodden etc etc” we have 6m fences between Mexico andthe US and nothing between Canada and the US… is it because we don’t like mexicans or because we don’t like poor people?
Damn… I’ve changed subject… I must have run out of bad things to say about the US and the West on that last subject thread…. }> Never! }>
By: PhantomII - 23rd January 2003 at 05:54
RE: Why not a new thread?
Sauron, I vote that the United States totally gets out of ALL foreign affairs. Simply put, when our assistance is asked for we give it, and then get blamed for things that happen. Then we are criticized for doing nothing in some cases. I’m tired of the Middle East, I’m tired of Europe, I’m tired of East Asia. If I were in Bush’s shoes I might consider becoming an isolationist nation. That way we wouldn’t be blamed for so many things.
Let Saddam do as he pleases. Iraqi’s aren’t U.S. citizens and Israel and Turkey (the only two nations in West Asia I care anything for) can easily defend themselves. Let the Middle East sort out its own problems. God knows they don’t know how to, but who cares?
And the way our “friends” in Europe talk, I assume they’d like this idea.
We don’t agree with them and they don’t agree with us so why not just part ways?
Our money can be much better spent taking care of Americans.
By: Sauron - 23rd January 2003 at 04:06
RE: Why not a new thread?
Now, now Steve. Don’t get touchy just because you didn’t have anything to say about the subject at hand but I am sure Garry appreciated it.
It would appear you are the one who resents opinions contrary to your own.
I enjoy a good debate with Garry about the merits of action against Sadam Insane, the reason for the downfall of the good old USSR or any other subject and he never seems to mind that I have contrary veiws and he has never whined to me about it nor I to him. He is a good skater.
With respect to article you posted, I thought we were talking about Iraq and not US military salary levels. They may indeed be low but at least they are made. I hear that in the former Russian socialist republic that military salaries are sometime not paid at all. Perhaps the US has had to divert funds from it’s military to paying for the distruction of Russian weapons program.
Regards
Sauron
By: Steve Touchdown - 22nd January 2003 at 18:38
RE: Why not a new thread?
Well guys I guess when you have no valid point to make its easier to change the subject.
So, let me just see if I’ve got this straight: if we disagree with your simplistic opinions then we have “no vaild point” or, as you so eloquently put it in an earlier string, it’s “hogwash”?
What plans have you got for those who continue to disagree with your stance, Sauron; grab us by the balls so our hearts and minds will follow!? :7
Garry B didn’t need the new string explaining. Strangely, I assumed that the personnel who were the subject of that article would be the ones fighting to liberate the down-trodden, suffering masses in Iraq. Maybe you just didn’t like the content of the journalist’s piece?
Pece, Man…..and chill
Steve ~ Touchdown-News
By: Sauron - 22nd January 2003 at 17:26
RE: Why not a new thread?
Well guys I guess when you have no valid point to make its easier to change the subject.
Regards
Sauron
By: Steve Touchdown - 22nd January 2003 at 11:40
RE: Thousands of US Military Families Live in Poverty
Q.E.D. Garry 😉
Best regards
Steve ~ Touchdown-News
By: google - 22nd January 2003 at 07:07
RE: So I guess it’s just a matter of ‘when’ the US is going to war
Well, you originally said that the Chinese government has not released any official figures, and I’m telling you the contrary. If you don’t want to read them, then that’s your problem. If your source, the supposed “my friend’s cousing’ brother’s uncle” who served as general of the such and such, I suppose he went to count every single Chinese body? The war in 1979 and the war in Korea are two very different wars; can’t use one to estimate the number of casualties in the other.
You said that the CCF Army suffered ~ 2.2 million casualties- heck, their army that deployed to Korea didn’t even number that much. How did they suffer over 100% casualties? I think the analogy is similar to the US war in the Balkans- we said that we destroyed hundreds of Serbian tanks, when in reality, it was a few dozen.
By: Arabella-Cox - 22nd January 2003 at 05:59
RE: So I guess it’s just a matter of ‘when’ the US is going to war
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 22-01-03 AT 06:03 AM (GMT)]playdaily…haha..i’m sold. There’s still isn’t an inquiry on the Tienammen Square massacre, and you expect the truth? My source is from people that are actually related to soldiers from the Vietnam invasion in 79 if that didn’t tell you much. The truth is that people warfare is always a part of the Chinese and mostly Communist doctrine. Mao was quoted on record that he wished to provoke the US enough so Shanghai can be nuke which will then turn the world around against the US. McArthur took the bait, luckily Truman and Ike didn’t.
I should add that of course no Army expects to be wiped out….why bother then? But, sometimes that’s not under your control especially if you’re losing. Sun Tze has a phrase, winning and losing battles are a warrior’s routine…unfortunately, some doctrines lack total respect for human life and ways of warfare and insist on hitting a stone with eggs until all eggs are destroyed.
By: Arabella-Cox - 22nd January 2003 at 03:18
RE: Thousands of US Military Families Live in Poverty
“Why the artical on the US military in this thread? If you are serious about that subject, we can deal with it but why put it in here?”
Perhaps to suggest that the US military has more important things to spend it money on than going half way around the world to play with SH.
Certainly fun when the Russians can’t afford to house their men and women, but a bit embarrasing when the worlds richest and most powerful country can’t even look after its own.
By: Arabella-Cox - 22nd January 2003 at 03:12
RE: So I guess it’s just a matter of ‘when’ the US is going to war
“Many countries during WWII remained neutral. Yet, they get a free pass?”
Those neutral countries and even the countries that changed sides never go on international forums and claim to have singlehandedly won WWII.
“The US on the other hand either started too late or did only so for profit etc. etc.”
If I was trying to suggest the only motive for the US was profit then why would I start my reply with:
“Actually as a New Zealander I can relate better to the US’s WWII experience better than that of Europe. WWII was a boom time for New Zealand. “
“5 or 5 million……Well, maybe the US didn’t loose 5 million but, 5? “
What I meant here was that while many americans go on about their sacrifice they never even seem to acknowledge the sacrifice of others.
America lost less than half a million soldiers aviators and sailors. The British lost about 50% more, yet they brag a lot less.
Compared to the 50 odd million killed… mostly Soviet and Chinese it sounds rather hollow when you state that you supplied spam and trucks and boats and planes.
“What Garry is trying to say is “people” warfare is what he views as most heroic…”
I am not talking about heroism, I am talking about loss.
Do you think the Russians go into Vietnam and say… we supplied weapons… we won the war for you… we pulled your chestnuts out of the fire… blah blah blah.
The Vietnamese fought hard an long against foreign powers and finally won… not because of weapons and food supplied to them by their friends, but because of their people.
“I see you haven’t lost your touch for throwing curve balls.”
A baseball term?
Amusing that you think having a different perspective on history equates with an attempt to get someone “out” or trick them.
By: google - 21st January 2003 at 23:25
RE: So I guess it’s just a matter of ‘when’ the US is going to war
Use some logic Vortex- they didn’t suffer 100% casualties, I don’t think any nation has sent in their entire army only to have it wiped out. What is your source?
Mine are from the official casualty list released by the PRC, which has always been open source for anyone who bothered to look. try www.pladaily.com.cn for example.
By: Arabella-Cox - 21st January 2003 at 18:26
RE: So I guess it’s just a matter of ‘when’ the US is going to war
right Google, and where did this statistics come from. To this date the PRC has still refuse to reveal records of their wars…and to put things into perspective, a much smaller scale and shorter time invasion of Vietnam in 79 resulted in over 100,000 KIA from the PLA. Even if that figure of yours is true, it’s still over 2x more dead than Americans, what about the North Korean casualty? They were pushed back from Pusan area all the way back to the Chinese border. Clearly nothing to be proud of. Here’s another perspective, Mao was ready to take the KMTs on Taiwan when N.Korea attacked the south. Kim really spoiled Mao’s plan. But, if what you’re saying is true, then that still leave plenty of troops for the invasion of Taiwan. That didn’t happen because the casualty of Chinese in Korea was horrendous.
By: kev35 - 21st January 2003 at 17:46
RE: So I guess it’s just a matter of ‘when’ the US is going to war
Scooter.
Just noticed this in one of your posts.
“As for your relatives plight. I’d sure wouldn’t want to wish that on anyone and I am sure it was quite a hardship!”
Glad to hear it. So, why are you so damned adamant about inflicting exactly that kind of hardship on the people of Afghanistan or Iraq?
“That said many of my fathers and grand fathers generation fought and died in both World Wars. My Father fought in the Pacific and my Grand Father in France. My father has told me many stories of his friends that did not make it back from the war.”
That is something you and I should be eternally grateful for and in the case of your family, something of which you can be justifiably proud.
“Really it doesn’t matter what I say? Its a double standard either way you look at it.”
Reread the above statement in context. It doen’t matter what you or I say to each other as I think neither of us is likely, or willing, to change our point of view.
“Then one day am I going to talk to some young Iraqi that is bitter at America because we waited to long! Why didn’t we help?”
But you obviously don’t mind explaining to a Rwandan or Somali why you didn’t help?
“Next you will be telling me that WWII was Americas fault and not the Nazis……”
🙂
regards,
kev35
By: google - 21st January 2003 at 16:18
RE: So I guess it’s just a matter of ‘when’ the US is going to war
Those are wildly inflated casulaty statistics; considering that the PVA only sent several million troops into Korea, it is unlikely that their entire army was killed there.
Official PVA statistics: 392,600 casualties total
I forget the exact statistics, but here’s the rough breakdown:
KIA ~ 132,000
WIA ~ 238,400
MIA ~ 8,000
Captured ~ 21,400
US KIA ~ 54,229 (inculdes accidental deaths)
WIA ~ 103,248
MIA ~ 8,142
Captured ~ 3,746
Total ~ 169,365
By: Arabella-Cox - 21st January 2003 at 15:50
RE: So I guess it’s just a matter of ‘when’ the US is going to war
What Garry is trying to say is “people” warfare is what he views as most heroic…i view it as lack of concern for human lives even from your own side. So what if the US lost the least, that’s because we actually care about our soldiers as a whole. The Chinese lost quite a few millions in Korean War and the US only a few ten thousands. Are you saying that the US didn’t do too much there? That shows much about intellegence here. Please, the onslaught reached all the way down to the peripherial of Pusan…and if you know any geography, that’s a tiny corner in the south east Korea. This is pretty much a contained warfare where the US does the bulk (yes yes there’s UN and such, but nowhere near the level of US involvements) of the fighting for the South and the N.K. and Chinese fight as the North. If your “theories” of fighting holdes true then the US would loose equally won’t they? How about Vietnam, again the loss of human life is huge from the North and VC, but don’t tell me its from the bombings, because it’s not. The communistic countries never take human life seriously and their tactics reflects that. They would rush human troops toward their enemies hopping that eventually the other side runs out of bullets. Yes, that works a few times, but at what cost? And then you’ll have people like Garry worshipping them? Then again, Garry doesn’t live in a communist country and of course he can hype it up all he wants because again it’s not going to affect him.
By: Sauron - 21st January 2003 at 15:46
RE: Thousands of US Military Families Live in Poverty
Steve
Why the artical on the US military in this thread? If you are serious about that subject, we can deal with it but why put it in here?
Do you have personnal views or opinion about anything or do you just post articals?
Garry
I see you haven’t lost your touch for throwing curve balls.:-) Kev and others are catching on as well.:-)
Regards
Sauron
By: kev35 - 21st January 2003 at 12:26
RE: So I guess it’s just a matter of ‘when’ the US is going to war
Scooter.
“5 or 5 million……Well, maybe the US didn’t loose 5 million but, 5? I guess that shouldn’t surprise me! I should except your bias by now?”
Don’t be silly. You know full well what Garry means and his comment about 5 being a tragedy is correct. When you’re talking about the millions who died in World War II it is just a statistic. The mind cannot comprehend or individualise those millions. Go to the Vietnam memorial and look at those fifty odd thousand names, I defy you to individualise more than a few.
“The US on the other hand either started too late or did only so for profit etc. etc.”
Yes, the US did enter the war too late but no-one has said they did so for profit. However, you cannot deny that American industry profited greatly from the conflict.
“Well, all I have to say is the next war and history has a way of repeating itself.”
So now you readily admit that Gulf War II (the sequel) will be a repeat of the first where no consideration will be given to the Iraqis other than a promise of help which will never materialise.
“You can handle it on your own! I’ll be one the first war protesters for any future conflicts in Europe!”
Don’t think that will worry Garry too much, he’s a New Zealander and last time I checked New Zealand wasn’t a part of Europe.
“I don’t think your worth it………..”
Somehow, that doesn’t come across as an insult when it comes from you. And you still haven’t answered my question. Which unit will you be going into action with during Bush’s great crusade?
Regards,
kev35
By: Arabella-Cox - 21st January 2003 at 11:21
RE: So I guess it’s just a matter of ‘when’ the US is going to war
5 or 5 million……Well, maybe the US didn’t loose 5 million but, 5? I guess that shouldn’t surprise me! I should except your bias by now? Many countries during WWII remained neutral. Yet, they get a free pass? The US on the other hand either started too late or did only so for profit etc. etc. Well, all I have to say is the next war and history has a way of repeating itself. You can handle it on your own! I’ll be one the first war protesters for any future conflicts in Europe! I don’t think your worth it………..I can see why many people have left this site. Good Luck!Your bais and double standard make me sick!
By: Arabella-Cox - 21st January 2003 at 06:15
RE: So I guess it’s just a matter of ‘when’ the US is going to war
“Then one day am I going to talk to some young Iraqi that is bitter at America because we waited to long! Why didn’t we help? “
If that is your fear then you really have two problems to contemplate.
One is that this has already happened in the early 90s when at US instigation some Iraqis did rise up… but don’t worry, they won’t bother you… most were killed.
The second problem is that if you fear the guilt of all the people you failed to save but didn’t then the list will exent rather further than just Iraq.
“The US was just in it for money and really didn’t contribute much. “
If it was really about contribution why do you want all the credit for saving everyone in WWII? I believe it was Poland that per capita lost the most people, and the Soviet Union that lost the most in total (followed very closely by China… which many ignore).
But no they get no credit… they would have all failed without your F’ing Spam.
” The US didn’t have thousands of troops to send to Europe in 1939. Hello? If, you don’t believe me do some research! “
The only side “ready for WWII” was Germany, why should the US be any different?
When the germans moved into areas of the Soviet union where there were no troops it was fishermen and hunters that fought… you had those didn’t you?
Sure casualties might have been much higher and there might not have been as much icecream for all the US troops but at least your allies might have felt you were there for them rather than pissed off at the Japanese for daring to touch US soil.
Perhaps if you had lost more troops you might have a better understanding of what some of the countries involved in the war had to go through… 5 dead is a tragedy 5 million dead is a statistic.
By: Arabella-Cox - 21st January 2003 at 04:27
RE: So I guess it’s just a matter of ‘when’ the US is going to war
Well, the next war you can handle by yourself! As most Americans are getting tried of the double standard…….I am sure the New Zeland Armed Forces could have defended itself without any help from the United States during World War II. Let me see you had a couple of destroyers against the Imperial Japanese Navy! Don’t forget Japanese Army with all those battle harden troops that fought for years in China. You guys are right. The US was just in it for money and really didn’t contribute much. You guys could have easily did it without us! Don’t worry the next war will probably be with China and they only have a billion people and nuclear weapons. Good Luck!
Sign In
January 15, 2003 at 5:53 am