You can go strangle yourself with that yellow ribbon

[Just Me]

Provocative title, but I hope you will read this today. Veteran's Day. I can't say I agree with everything he wrote but he does make many good points.

http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/post..._yellow_ribbon_or_here_is_what_i_want_you_to_

 

[mynameisbob84]

I'm tired and I skimmed so I may have completely misread that, but what I took away from it was:

1. Poverty means that some kids have no choice but to enlist in the army
2. A draft would not necessarily mean a less effective army
3. I chose to join the army so now you should feel obliged to consider compulsory national service

Point 1. - I can't help but feel is hyperbole. While I have no doubt that poverty naturally guides a lot of young people towards the army, to suggest that it's their only way to claw themselves out of the financial mire is ridiculous.

Point 2. - I suppose it wouldn't and there may be some historical precedent for that being the case.

Point 3. - Sit down, mate. While choosing to risk your life in order to preserve the freedoms of your country is admirable (heroic, even), it's just that; a choice. I'm of the opnion it should stay that way. Being forced to go and kill people over an issue that you potentially don't even agree with is all kinds of shit.

:twocents-02cents:

 

[southsamurai]

I'm tired and I skimmed so I may have completely misread that, but what I took away from it was:

1. Poverty means that some kids have no choice but to enlist in the army
2. A draft would not necessarily mean a less effective army
3. I chose to join the army so now you should feel obliged to consider compulsory national service

Point 1. - I can't help but feel is hyperbole. While I have no doubt that poverty naturally guides a lot of young people towards the army, to suggest that it's their only way to claw themselves out of the financial mire is ridiculous.

Point 2. - I suppose it wouldn't and there may be some historical precedent for that being the case.

Point 3. - Sit down, mate. While choosing to risk your life in order to preserve the freedoms of your country is admirable (heroic, even), it's just that; a choice. I'm of the opnion it should stay that way. Being forced to go and kill people over an issue that you potentially don't even agree with is all kinds of shit.

:twocents-02cents:

i read the whole thing and its a subject ive been torn on for a long time. can compulsory service work? sure... look at the swiss. will it work properly here in america? much more doubtful. the writer brought up vietnam but missed one of the major reasons why going back to the draft is very diffcult in a post vietnam war era. our country lived through that. a war too long and too nasty to be supported by any but a minority. would a draft work for something like ww2 if it ever happened again? probably. but that kind of war isnt very likely to occur any time soon. the world learned many lessons for the big one, the biggest being that standing together as a unit keeps single nation despots from reaching outside their borders. most individuals can ignore or forget about smaller scale mass murders and genocides when they dont leak outside of one small nation. thus the chances of a multi national widely supported war happening at all is very slim. our military now functions as a quasi police action group. urban warfare is more common than open battlefields.

convincing the majority of the voting populace to get behind a draft isnt going to work very well, and honestly its not a good idea on the big scale. does an all volunteer military have its problems? absolutely. but what might be fixed by a draft would just open up different ones

 

[Red7227]

Draft is the only way to build an effective army, but it depends on the concept of "the good war". People will put up with the draft if they know its in a good cause.

Iraq and Afghanistan are not good wars and so dubious practices are used to fill the ranks to support these giant sinkholes in the US budget. The US tendency to invade first and make up an excuse later would be greatly diminished if little conscript kids were being sent off to war instead of poor latino kids no one cares about.

Conscription would have been 18 months of hell for me, but i'm not sure that it would not have been a good thing in the end. I will leave it to those of us who have been conscripted to explain their views on the subject.

 

[Mirra]

Iraq and Afghanistan are not good wars and so dubious practices are used to fill the ranks to support these giant sinkholes in the US budget. The US tendency to invade first and make up an excuse later would be greatly diminished if little conscript kids were being sent off to war instead of poor latino kids no one cares about.

First I will say I agree with regards to the Iraq war. There was no good reason to be there. TECHNICALLY we did have an excuse before invading though. The fact that the WMDs did not exist just made it a rather poor excuse and is the reason new excuses were created.

Your grouping of the Afghanistan stuff with the rest is a bit upsetting. That could have been a "good war" (by your definition since I don't like the idea of describing a war as anything positive). The original cause for that conflict, if you recall, was an attack by al-Qaeda on US civilians and the Taliban's resistance towards cooperating with the capture of those suspected of terrorism. The biggest issue is we have now been there too long. The support for it from the world has been gone for some time and has been dwindling in the US as well. If we had focused on Afghanistan and not wasted time in Iraq, the perspective on it may be quite different.

I don't particularly like the idea of a draft but if one were instituted and my number was called, I would not seek a deferment or otherwise try to avoid being drafted. It's a bit easier for me to say that knowing my physical limitations make it likely I would end up in a non-combat role though it would not be guaranteed of course. I believe our forces are doing sufficiently in their current state.

I do believe it's a bit messed up that the poorest Americans tend to make up a large portion of our military but at the same time I am glad that with things like the GI Bill, it is an opportunity for those to ultimately get an opportunity to improve their lives provided they survive their years of military service. I'll admit that it's no mystery to me why things tend to be the way they are. As I was finishing high school, I remember having the opinion that I was far too intelligent to wind up in the military. I suspect it's not a rare opinion among those who have had the opportunities for a good education though there are certainly exceptions.

In the long run, with how the volunteer armed services go, I may have been turned down if I had tried to enlist since my right elbow never healed properly after breaking it when I was 16. In the event they accepted me anyway, I suspect that limitation combined with my performance on the ASVAB would have set me up for some technical non-combat role. I didn't enlist though and never would have done anything differently though I sometimes wonder if it would have done me some good. Dude's opinion doesn't matter to me now and wouldn't have 10 years ago when I was making the choices that led me to my failed attempt at higher education.

 

[Red7227]

Your grouping of the Afghanistan stuff with the rest is a bit upsetting. That could have been a "good war" (by your definition since I don't like the idea of describing a war as anything positive). The original cause for that conflict, if you recall, was an attack by al-Qaeda on US civilians and the Taliban's resistance towards cooperating with the capture of those suspected of terrorism. The biggest issue is we have now been there too long. The support for it from the world has been gone for some time and has been dwindling in the US as well. If we had focused on Afghanistan and not wasted time in Iraq, the perspective on it may be quite different.

Whatever. A few thousand Americans were killed by a badly designed building that had a bunch of planes crash into it. The rest of the world would have said we would really like to speak to this guy about it and and pursued him though legal channels. The US goes off and invades Afghanistan because the local government doesn't want to play nice. 2 years later dubya is still there with his dick in a ringer because they haven't caught bin laden, so he invents a reason to attack Iraq to get a quick win. He is working on the principle that all the Shiites that asked the US to support them in their 1991 revolution would be happy for the US to just knock over the government and they can then take over the country, the way the Northern Alliance did in Afghanistan. Unfortunately they had all been tortured and murdered by Saddam for trying to start a revolution, so dubya missed out again, and is stuck in another pointless war for another 5 years.

In the end these two pointless wars amount to nothing, because Bin Laden is finally found living in Pakistan and is killed by small team of special forces - without having to invade Pakistan. Of course Pakistan has a real military, so a gutless bully like the US would never consider picking a fight with them anyway.

 

[bob]

Provocative title, but I hope you will read this today. Veteran's Day. I can't say I agree with everything he wrote but he does make many good points.

http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/post..._yellow_ribbon_or_here_is_what_i_want_you_to_

Definitely worth the read....the one thing I took away from it was the attitude of "elitism" in the military that disturbed this vet. While some of our national celebration of soldiers is certainly warranted (it was an ugly moment in american history when we lumped the folks who served in Vietnam into the same anger and outrage that surrounded our policies regarding it), the guy's right, imo, to question if the pendulum hasn't swung to much in the other direction after 911.

An individual's choice to defend freedom as a member of the military should really be above reproach. Whether it be to take advantage of the benefits or to serve some higher purpose, the time served is ultimately an act of self sacrifice and deserves our respect. But our social attitude towards the purpose of military intervention should always be open to question: I like this four tour vet because he had the balls to voice his concerns. :thumbleft:

 

[Mirra]

Whatever. A few thousand Americans were killed by a badly designed building that had a bunch of planes crash into it. The rest of the world would have said we would really like to speak to this guy about it and and pursued him though legal channels. The US goes off and invades Afghanistan because the local government doesn't want to play nice. 2 years later dubya is still there with his dick in a ringer because they haven't caught bin laden, so he invents a reason to attack Iraq to get a quick win. He is working on the principle that all the Shiites that asked the US to support them in their 1991 revolution would be happy for the US to just knock over the government and they can then take over the country, the way the Northern Alliance did in Afghanistan. Unfortunately they had all been tortured and murdered by Saddam for trying to start a revolution, so dubya missed out again, and is stuck in another pointless war for another 5 years.

In the end these two pointless wars amount to nothing, because Bin Laden is finally found living in Pakistan and is killed by small team of special forces - without having to invade Pakistan. Of course Pakistan has a real military, so a gutless bully like the US would never consider picking a fight with them anyway.

Your stance on the 9/11/2001 attacks is a pretty terrible and inaccurate trivialization of what happened and makes me want to break things... and I'm NOT one of the war mongering types compared to most of the country. What we've done in other countries doesn't make me happy but it also doesn't make what happened to the people on those planes and in those towers any less of an atrocity.

The rest of the world would have said we would really like to speak to this guy about it and and pursued him though legal channels. The US goes off and invades Afghanistan because the local government doesn't want to play nice.

I pulled this out specifically because I find it hilarious. "We would have tried diplomacy. You went and invaded when diplomacy failed." That's what I read from that. We were definitely after al-Qaeda. We gave the Taliban a bit of time to cooperate. It wasn't a lot, I'll admit, but they had the chance and decided against it.

As for the "gutless bully" quip, I hate to break it to you but you're wrong. If some of the people in this country got their way, we'd have already invaded a couple other fairly militarized countries. We are bullies and act a bit like the world police but I assure you that your observations of gutlessness are largely due to those of us who aren't warmongers doing everything we can to keep us from fucking with Iran, Syria, or North Korea. It would likely be a very different campaign than what people saw in Afghanistan because, luckily (given the strengths of our military) there are a lot more hard targets in a couple of those countries.

You astound me, Red. You give America crap for how you perceive the country to be but you emulate all the abrasive, hate-filled speech of those responsible for the actions that paint such a picture in your own rants. You seem intent on fighting everyone with anger and contempt.

 

[Red7227]

You astound me, Red. You give America crap for how you perceive the country to be but you emulate all the abrasive, hate-filled speech of those responsible for the actions that paint such a picture in your own rants. You seem intent on fighting everyone with anger and contempt.

Doing something because they can makes the US a bully. Doing something about Pakistan would at least make the US something other than a gutless bully. And in case you missed it, the world hates and despises you. Anger and contempt is a natural state of someone when dealing with US foreign policy.

 

[Shaun__]

You astound me, Red. You give America crap for how you perceive the country to be but you emulate all the abrasive, hate-filled speech of those responsible for the actions that paint such a picture in your own rants. You seem intent on fighting everyone with anger and contempt.

Doing something because they can makes the US a bully. Doing something about Pakistan would at least make the US something other than a gutless bully. And in case you missed it, the world hates and despises you. Anger and contempt is a natural state of someone when dealing with US foreign policy.

You seem like the foreign equivalent of a Fox news viewer. Always angry and misinformed. Most of the world is actually somewhat indifferent to us.

 

[Red7227]

You seem like the foreign equivalent of a Fox news viewer. Always angry and misinformed. Most of the world is actually somewhat indifferent to us.

A popularity of 28% to 57% is indifferent? Would you pass in school if they were your grades?

 

[bob]

You astound me, Red. You give America crap for how you perceive the country to be but you emulate all the abrasive, hate-filled speech of those responsible for the actions that paint such a picture in your own rants. You seem intent on fighting everyone with anger and contempt.

Doing something because they can makes the US a bully. Doing something about Pakistan would at least make the US something other than a gutless bully. And in case you missed it, the world hates and despises you. Anger and contempt is a natural state of someone when dealing with US foreign policy.

red...with all due respect, mirra's observation that you rant like the same american political sentiments that anger you the most is right on the money.....

as you say, just because someone can do something doesn't make it the right thing to do.....and fwiw, what i've seen about "the rest of the world" is that they neither hate america, nor are indifferent to it....we are a big, diverse, and complex idea-of-a-nation, remembered fondly and with some respect by older generations abroad, and confusing as hell to younger ones, because we are an inconsistent, noisy presence on the planet....emulated not because we offer anything fulfilling, but because we're good at marketing fulfillment....we seem to be viewed by many like one of those dreams that makes you wish you'd never wake up, even while it turns and traps you in it.

folks like yourself remind me of someone who has just woken up from a dream like that, in a cold "thank god that's over" kinda sweat

 

[Bocefish]

I wish everybody did hate America, it would reduce the average rate of 1.8 million immigrants migrating here annually. Red sounds a bit confused though, perhaps even a little senile. He blames the U.S. for invading Iraq and Afghanistan, but calls the U.S. gutless bullies for not invading Pakistan because they have a military?

Pakistan is an ally to the U.S., they also play a key role on the war on terrorism and perhaps some possible peace agreements in the region. Unfortunately, they also like to play both sides for their own advantage.

 

[Shaun__]

You seem like the foreign equivalent of a Fox news viewer. Always angry and misinformed. Most of the world is actually somewhat indifferent to us.

A popularity of 28% to 57% is indifferent? Would you pass in school if they were your grades?

I see I have to explain the chart to you. The top of the chart is like, and the bottom of the chart is dislike. The middle is neutral, and if you count the little dots on the upper side of neutral you will see they outnumber the dots in other locations. That translates to indifference with no negative connotations.

 

[LadyLuna]

I see I have to explain the chart to you. The top of the chart is like, and the bottom of the chart is dislike. The middle is neutral, and if you count the little dots on the upper side of neutral you will see they outnumber the dots in other locations. That translates to indifference with no negative connotations.

x.x I had it backwards. I thought the bottom was like, and the top was dislike. And I couldn't help but wonder what the UK had done to make so many Americans mad at them.

Makes a lot more sense now.

 

[Red7227]

Pakistan is an ally to the U.S., they also play a key role on the war on terrorism and perhaps some possible peace agreements in the region. Unfortunately, they also like to play both sides for their own advantage.

Given that that ally funds the Taliban who are killing your troops, hid Bin Laden for most of the 10 years you were looking for him and you launch missiles into Pakistan every day to kill terrorists, you need a better ally.

 

[Red7227]

red...with all due respect, mirra's observation that you rant like the same american political sentiments that anger you the most is right on the money.....

So, isn't someone allowed to be angry and offended by a country that murders with impunity and destroys countries for political ends? A country which treats China as a hostile power on one hand, but borrows 2 trillion dollars from China to offset their own debt?

As for US popularity, it varies from year to year and region to region
http://www.pewglobal.org/database/?indi ... mode=chart

Muslim countries are not fans of the US and don't trust their foreign policy.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... ab-po.html

 

[Red7227]

[
You seem like the foreign equivalent of a Fox news viewer. Always angry and misinformed. Most of the world is actually somewhat indifferent to us.

And you sound like an american politician. Stupid and lie about everything

 

[bob]

red...with all due respect, mirra's observation that you rant like the same american political sentiments that anger you the most is right on the money.....

So, isn't someone allowed to be angry and offended by a country that murders with impunity and destroys countries for political ends? A country which treats China as a hostile power on one hand, but borrows 2 trillion dollars from China to offset their own debt?

you betcha...doesn't change the truth of mirra's observation, tho....you sound like an american politician

As for US popularity, it varies from year to year and region to region
http://www.pewglobal.org/database/?indi ... mode=chart

good chart :thumbleft:

Muslim countries are not fans of the US and don't trust their foreign policy.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... ab-po.html

yeah....i know.....but there's american who feel the same way....we're a tough bunch to generalize about, too

 

[Shaun__]

[
You seem like the foreign equivalent of a Fox news viewer. Always angry and misinformed. Most of the world is actually somewhat indifferent to us.

And you sound like an american politician. Stupid and lie about everything

How can someone be so angry all the time? Hatred takes effort, why do you put so much work into hating another country?

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

Pakistan is an ally to the U.S., they also play a key role on the war on terrorism and perhaps some possible peace agreements in the region. Unfortunately, they also like to play both sides for their own advantage.

Given that that ally funds the Taliban who are killing your troops, hid Bin Laden for most of the 10 years you were looking for him and you launch missiles into Pakistan every day to kill terrorists, you need a better ally.

All I can say is Australia is fortunate that majority of its citizen don't share your views. Since Australia has been a long and very loyal ally to the US, you can count on the US fleet to protect you in the event that China decide, that it needs more land and all those wonderful mineral your country possess and it would be cheaper to take them rather than buy them.

But we will protect you from being bullied by other countries, the same way that 70 years ago this week, 1732 of our parents and grandparents, uncles and great uncles died in the water off Guadalcanal, in order to keep the supply lines open between the US and Australia and prevent Japan from invading.

Australia is a democracy and people are entitled to have their own opinion no matter how ill informed they are. Americans will spend a ton of money to deter other countries from acts of war, and when deterrence fails like it did on 9/11, yes we will send troops to far away lands. But unlike past invaders, we don't loot, we also send in aid workers, and teachers, and engineers to build things. Whatever our failures in Afghanistan, and there are many, when we leave little girls will be able to go to school, and soccer stadiums will host football games, and not the stoning of woman who showed their faces in public. But if you think the US acts bad as bully, you really ought to study some history and see the behavior of other superpowers. I get people don't like cops, but try living in a world without them, but please wait until I am buried.


You are right Pakistan is a shitty ally, and yet despite their many failure we still try and help them root out the extremist elements. Why because the alternative to a corrupt, incompetent, cruel Pakistan filled with Islamist extremists is the Taliban and they are far far worse.

 

[Bocefish]

Bin Laden is finally found living in Pakistan and is killed by small team of special forces - without having to invade Pakistan. Of course Pakistan has a real military, so a gutless bully like the US would never consider picking a fight with them anyway.

Pakistan is an ally to the U.S., they also play a key role on the war on terrorism and perhaps some possible peace agreements in the region. Unfortunately, they also like to play both sides for their own advantage.

Given that that ally funds the Taliban who are killing your troops, hid Bin Laden for most of the 10 years you were looking for him and you launch missiles into Pakistan every day to kill terrorists, you need a better ally.

So now we're not a gutless bully for not invading Pakistan, we just need a better ally? You should at least have some idea of wtf you're talking about before exposing yourself as a complete moron.

 

[Red7227]

So now we're not a gutless bully for not invading Pakistan, we just need a better ally? You should at least have some idea of wtf you're talking about before exposing yourself as a complete moron.

The two aren't exclusive. You are a gutless bully, and you are also a moron for treating such a hostile country as a an ally.

 

[LadyLuna]

[media=youtube]YZdJRDpLHbw[/media]

:thumbleft:

 

[Red7227]

OK now i have to apologise to Boce. I went out of my way to be offensive in the last post. As a rule I quite like Americans, and I usually go to the trouble of separating out US foreign policy from individuals. I'm sure you and I will never agree on anything, but I should not have directed all that vitriol at you.

 

[Shaun__]

So now we're not a gutless bully for not invading Pakistan, we just need a better ally? You should at least have some idea of wtf you're talking about before exposing yourself as a complete moron.

The two aren't exclusive. You are a gutless bully, and you are also a moron for treating such a hostile country as a an ally.

The only country in the world with a larger military than the US is China, and they only have one used aircraft carrier with no planes that can land on it. It would take some kind of world wide coalition of several major countries to slow our armed forces, and the coalition would have to include Russia to have any hope of keeping us from going nuclear near the end if successful. I have no idea why you think Pakistan would scare us.

 

[Red7227]

The only country in the world with a larger military than the US is China, and they only have one used aircraft carrier with no planes that can land on it. It would take some kind of world wide coalition of several major countries to slow our armed forces, and the coalition would have to include Russia to have any hope of keeping us from going nuclear near the end if successful. I have no idea why you think Pakistan would scare us.

Because the US is a gutless bully?

If Pakistan has an airforce and can take air superiority away from you. Their navy will limit your operations and if they land a nuke on a carrier group you guys will be fucked, 10,000+ dead and a trillion dollars in hardware destroyed. You have no close naval bases so the whole thing will have to be lunched from the sea, and their is always the possibility of another nuke on any landing site that kills 20,000 and another few hundred billion dollars in equipment. Its too hard, that's why Pakistan and North Korea are safe. The US only attacks countries that don't pose any threat of retaliation.

 

[Shaun__]

The only country in the world with a larger military than the US is China, and they only have one used aircraft carrier with no planes that can land on it. It would take some kind of world wide coalition of several major countries to slow our armed forces, and the coalition would have to include Russia to have any hope of keeping us from going nuclear near the end if successful. I have no idea why you think Pakistan would scare us.

Because the US is a gutless bully?

If Pakistan has an airforce and can take air superiority away from you. Their navy will limit your operations and if they land a nuke on a carrier group you guys will be fucked, 10,000+ dead and a trillion dollars in hardware destroyed. You have no close naval bases so the whole thing will have to be lunched from the sea, and their is always the possibility of another nuke on any landing site that kills 20,000 and another few hundred billion dollars in equipment. Its too hard, that's why Pakistan and North Korea are safe. The US only attacks countries that don't pose any threat of retaliation.

And if your aunt had balls she would be your uncle.

 

[bob]

The only country in the world with a larger military than the US is China, and they only have one used aircraft carrier with no planes that can land on it. It would take some kind of world wide coalition of several major countries to slow our armed forces, and the coalition would have to include Russia to have any hope of keeping us from going nuclear near the end if successful. I have no idea why you think Pakistan would scare us.

Because the US is a gutless bully?

If Pakistan has an airforce and can take air superiority away from you. Their navy will limit your operations and if they land a nuke on a carrier group you guys will be fucked, 10,000+ dead and a trillion dollars in hardware destroyed. You have no close naval bases so the whole thing will have to be lunched from the sea, and their is always the possibility of another nuke on any landing site that kills 20,000 and another few hundred billion dollars in equipment. Its too hard, that's why Pakistan and North Korea are safe. The US only attacks countries that don't pose any threat of retaliation.

hmmm....you have an interesting take on military prowess around the world, red....you never noticed how -with few exceptions- countries we want to collaborate with have the advantage of purchasing american weapons?

like hussein, when we considered him a buddy

the current ability of pakistan to maintain superiority in its air space is because we tenuously consider them to be allies: they just bought another expensive shipment of aircraft from lockeed http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/51b-proposed-in-sales-upgrades-weapons-for-pakistans-f16s-02396/

whether you agree with the strategy and the way it plays out or not, that's the way it's been since the beginning of the cold war....a giant game of chess in a sense, aimed to create and maintain a balance of power in various regions around the world....it could be considered a form of military colonialism geared towards keeping our hand in the natural resource pie.....and while i agree that's not created the best image of america (and the emergence of global capitalism has both made the chess game 3 dimensional and given the world a voice to express its weariness about the rules of the game), i'll take issue with the word "gutless"