Comments on: Media and the way we wage war

By: GI Korea

GI Korea — Sat, 19 May 2007 20:45:41 +0000

ut videam,

LOL, that explains a lot.

By: Ut videam

Ut videam — Sat, 19 May 2007 16:31:37 +0000

#83 & 84: I hereby nominate yann for the (newly-created) Most Blatant Use of Maier’s Law in a Discussion award.

By: snow

snow — Sat, 19 May 2007 09:46:47 +0000

“The purpose is to protect itself and its economic interest, and Korea is a good exemple, but that is another story.”

Yann, it’s amazing how the US, supposedly only acting in its own interests, has nonetheless enabled Japan, Germany and Korea to become some of the largest economies in the world arising despite devastation. If this is what happens when the US acts only in its own interests, it would be great if more countries could enjoy such an arrangement (Iraq unfortunately will problably not go this route, as the US is no longer able to make such a serious and all-out commitment to its allies or those it sees as being important to national security).

By: GI Korea

GI Korea — Sat, 19 May 2007 08:38:07 +0000

yann,

You clearly cannot handle facts. Did you bother reading the link to the recruiting numbers provided by the Pentagon?:

http://www.defenselink.mil/new.....thfact.pdf

Also the link on Milblogs is to an Atlantic Monthly article hardly a bastion of the neo-cons that clearly supports what I have been saying for the past year about US military recruiting:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc.....army?pt=-1

You also make this unsubstantiate claim:

“the US army has had since 2005 a decreasing number of new enrollments.”

You are passing off disinformation once again. Here are the numbers from the Pentagon:

http://www.defenselink.mil/rel.....seid=10723

The active military has more than made their recruiting mission once again and have been making their recruiting mission for well over a year. The National Guard even hit 105% with their recruiting numbers.

When the military was not meeting its recruiting numbers back in 2005 it was because the military started an expansion of 30,000 soldiers. The recruiters had to not only meet the normal mission but also bring in more people. They found it hard to do thus pay was increased for recruits along with great bonuses and other benefits. This allowed the military to get the new soldiers for the 30,000 expansion. Once the expansion was complete the military has been making mission ever since.

The military is about to expand by another 60,000 soldiers once again this will be a tough job to do but once it is complete it will be easier to maintain.

Please quit passing off innuendo and rumor as facts because the US military recruiters are unfairly demonized by people like yourself who have no clue about the great work they do.

Additionally I get tired of people trying to slime the new recruits coming into the army as being uneducated low life criminals when the ones coming in now I respect even more than the recruits that were joining up 10 years ago. These recruits today join up knowing they are going to be deployed to combat and are doing unbelievable work in challenging circumstances with little support from many in America and abroad who are commited to labeling them as uneducated low lives. I find this repulsive and disgusting and I’m proud to serve with all the fine new men and women coming into the service today.

I can shoot down many of your other assertions on this thread but I don’t have time, but clearly I have exposed you as not knowing what you are talking about.

By: yann

yann — Sat, 19 May 2007 04:19:39 +0000

In response to No 76, 77 and 78, the numbers that are listed in the article from the link are hard to believe, and thus without even taking into account the fact they are coming from US army blogs
The truth is
1)the US army has had since 2005 a decreasing number of new enrollments. Giving that all US forces around the world are now serving at full gear (irak, afghanistan…) and that the job market in the US is not particularly bad, i wonder how the US army can improve the quality of its people…
2)the war in irak has cost many lives and has become clearly impopular. Americans see that they have not managed to bring in democracy as their president had promised. In that respect, i doubt that the best of young americans are willing to enroll in the army to sacrifice their lives for the errors of an incompetent administration…

Therefore, the US army no has other choice than to do its shopping in the “sub prime” category. In that sense, the US army has lost its capacity to difuse the (good) values of the american society (as it did in Europe in 1945), and reversely, generate hate towards the west.
That is clearly a pity.

As far as my country of origin is concerned (not Germany), it is free from any foreign troop since the 60s… My personal view is that it is a naive myth to believe that the US station troops abroad to protect their allies. The purpose is to protect itself and its economic interest, and Korea is a good exemple, but that is another story.

But, GIs, could you tell me honestly how are selected those who are coming in Korea, because what i always heard is that Korea was always coming at the end of the choices of soldiers, and that the best were heading elsewhere…

By: snow

snow — Sat, 19 May 2007 01:47:01 +0000

“Where do you draw the line and who draws that line?”

Yes, Maddlew, that is a difficult one and poses many dilemmas.

And I also have a family, so don’t worry about finding links. It’s all a very complex and interesting set of topics. If I lived in the US and were an American, I might have a better idea of exactly what’s been going on there.

By: Maddlew

Maddlew — Sat, 19 May 2007 01:31:47 +0000

Snow, you seem sincere. Alot of what I spew is omnidirectional. No specific target.
There’s some guy, I forget his name, who’s an ex-torturer who wrote a book. I think it was written about in Time magazine. He couldn’t live the life anymore and has obvious psychological problems. Quite candid.
There are those who are being held without habeas corpus, not just in Iraq but in the US. Fear that they might do something is not a good enough reason. Where do you draw the line and who draws that line?
I’m sorry, I have a wife and daughter who I spend too little time with. My weekends are too fleeting or I’d look it up for you.
You said we don’t do beheadings. True enough. I said we are more and more resembling them, we haven’t yet become them. Not all our enemies behead their detainees. It is not the measure in which we define enemy.

By: snow

snow — Fri, 18 May 2007 16:19:46 +0000

Where is your proof that people are held on mere suspicion? That is mere speculation. I think it was Tenet that said that it’s ridiculous to claim otherwise, after all, these are professional organizations. Nobody wants to do things that they could get in trouble with so they must do all they can to cover their actions including getting plenty of legal advice. Is he lying? Of course that is always possible, but I look at many of these issues from a position of rationality and common sense. Tenets claim makes sense, whether it’s true or not, I can’t say.

What did the White House authorize exactly? I read something about water boarding but I can’t remember exactly where this was approved or where it occured. Was it official? As far as I heard, the only real torture was water boarding, which I would have a problem with, if it’s true (I’ve only heard speculation) that it was authorized and used by US personnel. At the same time, water boarding is minor compared to what is possible and likely by terrorists. You are the one conflating American actions with those of the terrorists. I’m not necessarily saying that its ok to torture, but I am criticizing your claims of equivalence. Should we be doing any torturing at all, no matter how our enemies act? I’m not comfortable with the idea of using torture, as I’m not sure it is effective anyway. And of course, it’s nasty, and very distasteful.

And talk about overreacting to my comments. What did I say about left-wing media or not caring about torture or any of your ridiculous rant?

My arguments make plenty of sense, whether you like them or not. I’m not saying that torture is ok, in fact, maybe you missed it, but I said that I do believe that they should ‘allow for representation of those detained’. I am pointing out that everything is not so simple as you seem to think it is.

By: Maddlew

Maddlew — Fri, 18 May 2007 15:43:08 +0000

You doubt it? No, you highly doubt it. Can’t fight that kind of argument.
No torture? Give you proof? The whole freakin White House endorsed it. Where have you been the last four years?
Tell you what. You’re right. We’re all just skin draped over vacuous skulls sitting slack-jawed in front of the tube waiting for our marching orders from the left-wing media.
Who cares how we treat these people. Let’s build real pyramids out of them. We’ll use their feces for mortar.
Boy, where do they get all those suicide bombers? Why are they so angry?
And where did all those left-wing kool-aid drinkers come from? The damn media somehow got democrats control of both houses. A country full of sheep for voters.

By: Paul H.

Paul H. — Fri, 18 May 2007 09:22:04 +0000

#75 Yann:

“…That ends up with teenagers shooting civilians while listening to hard core music, and more problematic, to the worsening image of the US in the world.”

I imagine you’re of Korean extraction, living in Germany, Yann? Since there’s a German flag by your “handle”.

Since you’re so concerned with our US soldiers being the current incarnation of the “wild bunch”, I urge you to solicit the elected representatives of whatever country you are a citizen to expel all US troops from its territory. That way you can feel safe from their depredations, not to mention there’s quite a few of us Americans who would be equally delighted to see them leave.