Many people believe that if Bush would just let the Army do its

[heidler1]

thing we would have already have the Iraqi war under control. However, these people overlook the fact that if the Generals in the Army would not bow to the Bush notions they would be fired and he would find some kiss ass to do his bidding. For instance Colin Powell knew better but went along. Mc Cather wanted to cross the Yalow River so as to bring China into the Korean War Truman fired him and rightly so. This chain of command with the politicians getting the last word is better than the other way of doing it, but it causes wars to end up being political.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. I get what you're saying, but...

this war didn't wind up being political.

It started political. The only reason we're over there is because of politics.

The same happened with Vietnam. And the same bunch of rubes said the same thing about Vietnam being over quickly if you let the military do its job. They were wrong then too.

[heidler1]

3. I should of added OBVIOUSLY political.

[lectrobyte]

17. We dropped 5 million tons of bombs on Vietnam, more than WW2.

I never understood what those "not letting the military do its job" comments were talking about, maybe there was a lot more restraint that I'm just not seeing.

[Virginia Dare]

2. The GOP/Freeper spin for the upcoming elections will be..

that if the DEMOCRATS had not gotten in the way, the war would be won by now.

:crazy:

[heidler1]

5. I keep wondering, just what would be a WIN?

The fantacy seems to be: kill Saddam and the Shia, Sunni and the Kurds will all kiss and make up. Then all that's left is to steal their oil.

[smoogatz]

8. Other way around.

The insurgency is mostly Sunni. The sectarian death squads are mostly U.S.-trained Shi'a who deserted from the (new) Iraqi army/police and went back to their neighborhood militias, taking their uniforms and weapons with them. Saddam is Sunni. The country is majority Shi'a.

[smoogatz]

13. Those damn RATS won't hold their mouth right.

They don't believe in their heart that our fine Chirstian President is a good and honorable man and that's like a drop-kick in Jesus's Holy Gonads, and that's why we're losing and the terrorists are going to make us all read the Ko-ran or chop our heads off. Never mind that those damn RATS don't control any of the three branches of government or much of the broadcast media--IT"S THEIR FAULT, because if it's NOT their fault then it's, um, uh--ackkkkkk! My head!!!--SPLLLLLLOOOOORRRRTTTTTTT!!!!!!

[Minnesota Libra]

4. Also, what a lot of people don't remember is the Army is NOT a............

....democracy. It was NEVER designed to be a democracy and never will be a democracy. You DO NOT get to decide what order you do or do not agree with and what order you will and will not carry out. If that ever becomes an issue there is a not so little thing called a COURT MARSHAL. They are no fun and they can absolutely ruin a soldier's life by landing the poor soul in military prison for years, if not life.

[atreides1]

6. The military isn't a Democracy

But the military swore allegiance to the Constitution of the United States, each man and woman swore to defend and support the Constitution against all enemies. Therefore their first loyalty is to that document, and as long as they refuse to keep their word to defend it, they have the same credibility as Bush and his cronies do.

Or, maybe I'm wrong, maybe it's just a ritual, something that is done to get a paycheck and free college tuition!!!!

It's not about democracy, it's about integrity, so far it doesn't look good!!!!

[Minnesota Libra]

9. Ok, then how about..............

....you going into the military and show everyone how it's done?:hi:

[reichstag911]

11. Technically, according to the UCMJ,...

...you have an obligation to disobey illegal orders. But that's just, ya know, the law, and we know how much weight the actual law carries in this nation. :eyes:

[Minnesota Libra]

15. Who would be determining what was or wasn't "illegal orders"?? nt

[heidler1]

12. I enlisted in the Coast Guard in 1943 and right off I saw that they

thought they owned me. My method of survival was they had a fake test game in place before you could get a promotion so my secret passive resistance was never take any tests. All of the more dangerous jobs like driving a landing craft were done by Petty Officers. They never caught on to this or they didn't want the cat out of the bag. The moral is: never let your ego put your life on the line.

[smoogatz]

7. A couple of points:

1.The wingnuts said the same thing during Vietnam: "if the politicans would just take our boys off the leash, we'd end this thing in a month!" The argument was absurd on its face--we killed 5 million people in Vietnam, around 15 percent of the population. The only military option we didn't try was the nuclear bomb. How many more Vietnamese should we have killed in order to convince the Vietnamese that the Americans were only there to help them? The analogy is clear: in Vietnam, we were fighting a popular, nationalist insurgency that was indistinguishable from the non-combatant population. The same is now true in Iraq. Why should what didn't work in Vietnam work any better in Iraq? How many more Iraqis should we kill in order to demonstrate the benefits of Democracy to the Iraqi people? (Those that survive the bloodbath, that is.) Frankly, at this point defeating the Sunni insurgency actually works against our broader interests in the region, because it would end up strengthening the Shi'a clerics and by extension the Iranian mullahs who influence them.

2.It's really a case of selective memory, isn't it? The same wingnut jackasses who jeered when Shinsecki said it would take a minimum of 300,000 troops to control the country post-invasion now want to "take the gloves off." But they don't say how, or with what army. In short, they're morons.

[heidler1]

14. I agree and I also believe that it would save the US a whole

lot of trouble if politicians hands were mostly tied by fear of rebellion in the armed services. The way it is they tend to think all they need do is say siccum and our troops will be willing to die over any bull shit cause that they dream up. Russia has a history of this type of rebellion and it seems to me their teeth have been pulled, which is good. At the same time The Russian people were willing to die to stop Hitler because he was an obvious real threat.

[smoogatz]

16. Well, the entire U.S. military is under oath to uphold the Constitution

so there's that. But I don't think you necessarily want a military coup d'etat every five minutes in this country--that ain't exactly the path to an enlightened, liberal democracy. What you hope for are brave generals who will speak truth to power, even if it means their careers. Unfortunately, it has--for a lot of them, anyway. And now what's left are careerist ass-kissers like Pace (Westmoreland all over again). Generally speaking, the framers wanted the military to obey civilian authority, not the other way around.

[atreides1]

10. To late the ass kissers are doing his bidding

The German generals follwed orders too, and we all know how that turned out.

Colin Powell wasn't a general, he was the Secretary of State, but that was his problem, he never made the transition from loyal general to diplomat.

As for MacArthur he was always arrogant, but he was a good military commander. What was needed was diplomacy and that was something MacArthur didn't have very much of.