Thousands of Marines face involuntary recalls because of Iraqi Civil War

[7960]

Originally Posted by motivez

With current circumstances, I have almost no problem with it.

If this war was actually about defense of our country, and they weren't over there dying for nothing, I'd feel differently.

You feel they're dying for nothing..... ok. Don't join the military when we're sending people to "die for nothing." Actually you shouldn't join the military no matter what because someone somewhere will always believe we're sending boys to "die for nothing" no matter where we go or what we do.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by 7960

He signed up in 2003 after we were already well established in iraq. He had to be either a)a fucking moran, or b)wanting to grandstand.

Can it be any other way?

Perhaps he wanted to serve in the other actually justifable war that we have going on that we've somewhat cut and run from? You know, Afghanistan?



I'm not saying he's not somewhat stupid for not considering the consequences, but I don't think it means he's grandstanding.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by 7960

You feel they're dying for nothing..... ok. Don't join the military when we're sending people to "die for nothing." Actually you shouldn't join the military no matter what because someone somewhere will always believe we're sending boys to "die for nothing" no matter where we go or what we do.

Not really. They're dying for nothing because there's no plan for success in Iraq. There never has been. There's never been adequate planning for post-invasion Iraq, and now that the circumstances have proven to be dramatically different from the "they'll toss roses at our feet and offer us their women as a sign of gratitude".. and there's a civil war, there's STILL no fucking plan.

Sure, there's always going to be someone out there who thinks that something is 'for nothing', but in this case it's pretty apparent to a wide range of people, and it's really a sad fact.

And, I have no plans to join the military. If we were actually faced with a threat to the nation here at home I'd probably enlist, but I have no desire to be used as a pawn by people who've never had the courage to serve yet have no problem sending thousands to their death without adequate preparation for their clusterfuck.

[7960]

Originally Posted by motivez

Perhaps he wanted to serve in the other actually justifable war that we have going on that we've somewhat cut and run from? You know, Afghanistan?

I'll tell my cousin who's in afghanistan and who says they have the right number of guys for the job that he's wrong.

I'm not saying he's not somewhat stupid for not considering the consequences, but I don't think it means he's grandstanding.

Maybe not.......but maybe he is. A trial will be a good way to figure that out.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

Perhaps he wanted to serve in the other actually justifable war that we have going on that we've somewhat cut and run from? You know, Afghanistan?

Perhaps he knew better than to think he could choose which wars he was going to fight? I dunno.. he seems pretty well educated to me.

You're dealing with opinions again.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by 7960

I'll tell my cousin who's in afghanistan and who says they have the right number of guys for the job that he's wrong.

Alright, but something tells me he's not in a position to change anything.

He's wrong though, based on the fact that

a) The Taliban is having a resurgence
b) The profits from the opium fields are helping fund terrorism
c) Where's Osama?! I don't see him in custody

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by motivez

Perhaps he wanted to serve in the other actually justifable war that we have going on that we've somewhat cut and run from? You know, Afghanistan?

by signing up for the military you give up the right to decide where and when you get to go places, you do what you are told.

[7960]

Originally Posted by motivez

Alright, but something tells me he's not in a position to change anything.

I don't know exactly what he does but I do know he's one of the ones who decides how many men they need in afghanistan. He's been in the service for a lot of years and has significant responsibility.

He's wrong though, .....

Interesting, and you've been there so you know, right?

[motivez]

I can look at the results of what he's (the military is) doing in Afghanistan and see it.

No Osama. Mission failed.
Taliban are back. Mission failed.
Largest produced product funding terrorism. Mission failed.

Mission not accomplished. Seems pretty simple.

And yet, instead of finishing the job there we took a diversion into Iraq, and are now having to deal with the ensuing clusterfuck.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

I can look at the results of what he's (the military is) doing in Afghanistan and see it.

No Osama. Mission failed.
Taliban are back. Mission failed.
Largest produced product funding terrorism. Mission failed.

Mission not accomplished. Seems pretty simple.

And yet, instead of finishing the job there we took a diversion into Iraq, and are now having to deal with the ensuing clusterfuck.

You can't just occupy Afghanistan. They have a government and their own military. They're allowing us to conduct operations there. Are you suggesting we do what we did in Iraq in Afghanistan? A country that for the most part listens to the UN and has been an ally of ours?

Doesn't sound too logical to me.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

by signing up for the military you give up the right to decide where and when you get to go places, you do what you are told.

Not if you are an officer...

Your general/commander in chief/whatever can not order you to go to temporary Camp Capital Hill to execute every Congressman

He has the right to say he would breaking his oath as an US officer he made to the Constitution

Now, its the right of the military to say "you're not interpreting the Constitution correctly" and stick him in jail, but thats it

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Not if you are an officer...

Your general/commander in chief/whatever can not order you to go to temporary Camp Capital Hill to execute every Congressman

He has the right to say he would breaking his oath as an US officer he made to the Constitution

Now, its the right of the military to say "you're not interpreting the Constitution correctly" and stick him in jail, but thats it

that is the difference between a lawful order and an unlawful order.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

For him worst case....getting out of prison at 35 years old and living the rest of your life > dying for a useless cause imho.

because everyone wants to hire a felon

Originally Posted by motivez

Uh.. he took the spot of someone? Really? Because The National Guard, Marines, Army are at their recruitment caps?

For officer training YES.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by JaJae

You can't just occupy Afghanistan. They have a government and their own military. They're allowing us to conduct operations there. Are you suggesting we do what we did in Iraq in Afghanistan? A country that for the most part listens to the UN and has been an ally of ours?

Doesn't sound too logical to me.

Dude, there was plenty of time to get the job done and deploy enough time to get the job done before the Karzai government was installed.

I think that, yes. If we asked to deploy more to to search the mountains of Afghanistan, they would let us.

[7960]

Originally Posted by motivez

If we asked to deploy more to to search the mountains of Afghanistan, they would let us.

They're allowing us to do what we want in afghanistan. As many or as few troops as we want, go where we want...afghanistan is not blocking anything we do.

[motivez]

So, again, why don't we use the force required to find and capture Osama or at least be 100% sure that he's not there.. and then focus our attention elsewhere? Like Pakistan or wherever we think he may be hiding?

Osama should have never escaped. There was a special on NGO about how he managed to escape, and it's because orders for 6-700 rangers to help scout the mountains were denied by Centcom in favor of letting the Afghan Warlords handle it... and their priority wasn't Osama.

[7960]

Originally Posted by motivez

So, again, why don't we use the force required to find and capture Osama or at least be 100% sure that he's not there.. and then focus our attention elsewhere? Like Pakistan or wherever we think he may be hiding?

So, again, we have the amount of troops in afghanistan we think are necessary to find osama. I know the standard comeback is "that can't be true because we haven't found him"....if you have 1,000 people fishing for a certain fish in a huge lake you don't significantly increase your chances of catching it if you bring in 1,000 more fishermen. They have the amount they think necessary to find him. Sending more wouldn't help and may actually hinder progress.

Osama should have never escaped.

You're right. But he did...if we could go back in time life would be so much easier.

[motivez]

Yeah, and we thought what, the initial 10 special forces that we had on the ground at the time was enough to stop him because we were going to rely on the Afghani Warlords.

Guess we were wrong about that too!

I think your fishing analogy is pretty interesting.

If you have a choice between one fisherman out there hangin out drinking some beer, or you have a team of boats out there with a bunch of large nets, who do you think is going to net the most fish?

Who do you think has a better chance of catching the "big one"?

Statistically, the more fish you catch, the better chance one of those fish knows where the big one likes to hang out.

And yeah, while we can't go back in time to fix mistakes, it's my belief that we should learn from them instead of continuing to make the same mistakes over and over and over again like we are right now.