It's only a movie but...
- Thread starter LDB
- Start date
You got that right. Had I been ordered to fight under another command I would have refused. I took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. No where does that say that I am required to serve under other than U.S. commanders and their civilian commanders. Any U.S. president that would order U. S. military personal to do other wise should be removed from office that very day. Once a CIC did that then they would no be living up to the oath that they themselves took.
Clinton was a joke, as is Obama. Both of them never served and both have zero respect for the military or it's members.
Clinton's election was the last straw for me. It was the primary reason I got out of the service of the Nation. One, because any country that would elect a pig like him was not deserving of the sacrifice that is needed to protect this Nation. Two, I refused to serve under a man who's character was so bad that he never who have been able to get the needed security clearances. Three, Clinton, as Obama, believe in the very things that I fought against. Socialism and control of the People by a few leftist elitists.
Clinton was a joke, as is Obama. Both of them never served and both have zero respect for the military or it's members.
Clinton's election was the last straw for me. It was the primary reason I got out of the service of the Nation. One, because any country that would elect a pig like him was not deserving of the sacrifice that is needed to protect this Nation. Two, I refused to serve under a man who's character was so bad that he never who have been able to get the needed security clearances. Three, Clinton, as Obama, believe in the very things that I fought against. Socialism and control of the People by a few leftist elitists.
It happened in WW2 I believe......
greg334
Veteran Expediter
No Man's Land is a far better movie than Behind Enemy Lines.
First thing that makes it a better movie is the fact that it is actually about the UN peace keeping command structure focused on one event between two soldiers who were enemies, not NATO or the problems we didn't have there.
Second it perfectly illustrates the need for the UN not to be involved in any operation.
Where Behind Enemy Lines is a vehicle for two Hollywood stars with some action involved, it touches on a few issues about the actual war that are exagerated for effect and seems to take artistic license from two seperate airmen's experiences who were shot down at different times.
We are sort of under the control of NATO in Afghanistan the last I heard. In WW1 it was the same situation, we were under the control of the French. In WW2 we took our lead from Eisenhower who reported to a multinational leadership. We were under the UN flag in Korea.
It seems that no one is b*tching about Haiti, where we are in control but taking our orders from somewhere else, maybe the UN?
First thing that makes it a better movie is the fact that it is actually about the UN peace keeping command structure focused on one event between two soldiers who were enemies, not NATO or the problems we didn't have there.
Second it perfectly illustrates the need for the UN not to be involved in any operation.
Where Behind Enemy Lines is a vehicle for two Hollywood stars with some action involved, it touches on a few issues about the actual war that are exagerated for effect and seems to take artistic license from two seperate airmen's experiences who were shot down at different times.
We are sort of under the control of NATO in Afghanistan the last I heard. In WW1 it was the same situation, we were under the control of the French. In WW2 we took our lead from Eisenhower who reported to a multinational leadership. We were under the UN flag in Korea.
It seems that no one is b*tching about Haiti, where we are in control but taking our orders from somewhere else, maybe the UN?
The price when asking for help...everyone wants a piece of the action....
If the US would fight a REAL war they wouldn't need the help.
If the US would fight a REAL war they wouldn't need the help.
regardless of the fact that most in here don't want us to be part of the UN....we are...so there is international usage.
And as far as Iraq and Afphgan....we asked for a coalition to help and we know the military is just as political..so they share the responsibilities...someone has to be in charge of the whole picture because ya can't have 8 different countries running around all with different plans...in all likelyhood the US is running the big show...
I had to have read that wrong...what scenerio are we talking here Leo?
U.S. troops should never be under the command of the U.N. or any other countries command. Our soldiers take an oath to protect and defend this nation and our Constitution.
According to my son, we are under overall U.S. command in Afghanistan, but, fighting with NATO. It does happen that U.S. troops will find themselves on a NATO base, as my son is. He is under the command of American commanders, but, the base in under control of a Canadian commander.
Our troops are subject to the standards of the Canadian military when on base but, when off that base, are always under control of the U.S. chain of command.
From what my son has told me I would have been filing every official type of protest I could considering the conditions that they are forced to live in there.
I have no idea if open cesspools are standard in the Canadian army, but they are not in the U.S. Army. I have no idea if that Canadian commander is a good one or a bad one. I have no idea if that commander just does not like Americans so he stuck them out by the cesspool. All I know is that it is wrong.
Also, OVM, as long as the U.S. is funding most of this war, most of NATO's and a large portion of the U.N. involvement, we should be in overall command.
According to my son, we are under overall U.S. command in Afghanistan, but, fighting with NATO. It does happen that U.S. troops will find themselves on a NATO base, as my son is. He is under the command of American commanders, but, the base in under control of a Canadian commander.
Our troops are subject to the standards of the Canadian military when on base but, when off that base, are always under control of the U.S. chain of command.
From what my son has told me I would have been filing every official type of protest I could considering the conditions that they are forced to live in there.
I have no idea if open cesspools are standard in the Canadian army, but they are not in the U.S. Army. I have no idea if that Canadian commander is a good one or a bad one. I have no idea if that commander just does not like Americans so he stuck them out by the cesspool. All I know is that it is wrong.
Also, OVM, as long as the U.S. is funding most of this war, most of NATO's and a large portion of the U.N. involvement, we should be in overall command.
I am talking about any situation at any time involving American forces. American forces should at all times be in operational command if they are involved. If there are any other forces involved they should be down the chain of command from the American commanders.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
I understand what you are getting at OVM, the political nature of the world stage has us not doing anything alone, unilateral talks to unilateral operations are the thing of the past. Even the Iran and NK thing, we have our toilet paper SoS making threats and cooments while not knowing which is the proper fork for frog legs or snails.
BUT here's the thing as people rightfully use the concept that the military is there to uphold the constitution and to protect and defend our nation, I do not see defend or protect as part of an invasion force from the War with Spain to the present day war in Afghanistan. Ever war we have fought since the war between the states has been outside our borders, no one has invaded us (unless you count the invasion of the US by Mexico) since the brits decided to force to eat kippers and bangers in 1814.
I mean where does it say that they will go and attack another country?
Offensive operations like say Bosnia was not really needed, it should have been handled by European nations, not NATO, not the UN but by Germany, France, England and other countries. For that fact, we should have been out of NATO when the soviet union fell - that was the only purpose for it and since we dumped Billions into it.
The same holds true with WW2, we were attacked by Japan but Germany just declared war on us, they didn't attack us so we needed to defend ourselves by liberating Europe?
I know this all sounds twisted but the problem is most of the time since the end of Vietnam it seems that our troops are ordered by our chain of command, and like WW1 which was a mess, we have still a lot of latitude to say no.
On the political front, we lack strong foreign policy making in the white house since 1938, we have had people like Davies and Dawes who were in effect sympthisers for an enemy while serving in the state department, our congress is lost and has been for some 70 years and the people want to be accepted by the Euro-trash who openly speak and pass judgment in public while sitting sipping coffee in the open thanks to our liberating them or conqoring them with our blood.
So what to do?
Change the way of thinking in this country. Get rid of our mental dependance of the world and let us think on our own without the need for approval from someone else.
It isn't arrogance that would be an outcome but a stronger member of the world community.
BUT here's the thing as people rightfully use the concept that the military is there to uphold the constitution and to protect and defend our nation, I do not see defend or protect as part of an invasion force from the War with Spain to the present day war in Afghanistan. Ever war we have fought since the war between the states has been outside our borders, no one has invaded us (unless you count the invasion of the US by Mexico) since the brits decided to force to eat kippers and bangers in 1814.
I mean where does it say that they will go and attack another country?
Offensive operations like say Bosnia was not really needed, it should have been handled by European nations, not NATO, not the UN but by Germany, France, England and other countries. For that fact, we should have been out of NATO when the soviet union fell - that was the only purpose for it and since we dumped Billions into it.
The same holds true with WW2, we were attacked by Japan but Germany just declared war on us, they didn't attack us so we needed to defend ourselves by liberating Europe?
I know this all sounds twisted but the problem is most of the time since the end of Vietnam it seems that our troops are ordered by our chain of command, and like WW1 which was a mess, we have still a lot of latitude to say no.
On the political front, we lack strong foreign policy making in the white house since 1938, we have had people like Davies and Dawes who were in effect sympthisers for an enemy while serving in the state department, our congress is lost and has been for some 70 years and the people want to be accepted by the Euro-trash who openly speak and pass judgment in public while sitting sipping coffee in the open thanks to our liberating them or conqoring them with our blood.
So what to do?
Change the way of thinking in this country. Get rid of our mental dependance of the world and let us think on our own without the need for approval from someone else.
It isn't arrogance that would be an outcome but a stronger member of the world community.
I have a different perspective Greg. Defending this Nations does not just mean fighting back when attacked. It means doing what we can to prevent being attacked. It means stopping potential problems, like those nukes in Pakistan for example. Stopping those terrorist countries from attacking by taking the fight to them.
The military has always been used to protect the Nations economy as well. I don't know if that is a good idea, but it is reality.
VietNam was part of the Cold War, and despite what was reported about it, we were fighting the Soviets. Just as we were in Korea, Angola etc. They were attacking our way of life. It was just much harder to see.
I do think that we worry far too much about what the rest of the world thinks about us. They are not my worry.
What our military should NEVER be used for are things like, U.N. peacekeeping, like in Bosnia. There was no U.S interest there. We should not be using the military for relief efforts anywhere outside of the U.S. or even in the U.S. for that matter. It is not their job. Let the "Peace Corps" do that work in Haiti and there are more than enough un-employed in this country to do the work here.
The military is there to break things and kill people in defense of this Nation and it's Constitution. End of Sked. Sorry if that offends some, but that is why we have a military.
The military has always been used to protect the Nations economy as well. I don't know if that is a good idea, but it is reality.
VietNam was part of the Cold War, and despite what was reported about it, we were fighting the Soviets. Just as we were in Korea, Angola etc. They were attacking our way of life. It was just much harder to see.
I do think that we worry far too much about what the rest of the world thinks about us. They are not my worry.
What our military should NEVER be used for are things like, U.N. peacekeeping, like in Bosnia. There was no U.S interest there. We should not be using the military for relief efforts anywhere outside of the U.S. or even in the U.S. for that matter. It is not their job. Let the "Peace Corps" do that work in Haiti and there are more than enough un-employed in this country to do the work here.
The military is there to break things and kill people in defense of this Nation and it's Constitution. End of Sked. Sorry if that offends some, but that is why we have a military.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
So Layout, I got all that and agree but when we go down the path of internationalist and "want to be like them because they are enlightened", we get into a lot of trouble.
The funny thing is we are far more enlightened than any other culture. We never had to go to war with our neighbors since we became industrialized, we never had to force our people to take oaths to individuals up until now and we never apologized until now. If you want me to post why, I can but it is a long and involved thing - just think elitism and institutes of higher learning.
We should not be in Haiti, we should not have had our ships moved there, as much as we should not have deployed troops to Africa. The peace corps is not equipped to help in a disaster and is not the right organization - it is too slow. Private charities and organizations should be there, and if the military is needed, it should only be in a transportation capacity. You will always get the argument that it helps train the solider to deal with on the ground issues but I don't buy that for a number of reasons.
Peacekeeping only comes after we defeat an enemy, not as mediators between factions.
But when you look at the bigger picture, like Vietnam, we fight two wars there and in WW2, both had to do with economics and ideologies and both were fought hard. I have no doubt we were fighting the Soviets but again I have no doubt that Hitler was a socialist as much as Stalin - you understand what I'm getting at. The economic end of WW2 had little to do with getting out of the depression, it had to do with controlling the people.
The landscape today has changed, not because of just the international community but because of the international press. If one examines the Haiti closely, you will see what's really going on.
So like Pakistan, what can we do?
I say leave it alone and help them when they ask. Let's not take the Obama ignorant approach of "I will invade Pakistan to find Bin Laden" but instead put some faith in the people and show them that.
Afghanistan is another situation where we can do a lot better by telling the population people will die, we will not compensate you but if you want us to leave, we will and then you will have to deal with the Taliban all over again - we tried to help you.
Africa, let's get the h*ll out of there, Bosnia too for that matter. Africa needs to grow up a bit and this idea that we need to be there at all seems to be opposite of what the AU wants to happen, so let ousth africa and the ANC deal with the mess - they have done well so far.
The funny thing is we are far more enlightened than any other culture. We never had to go to war with our neighbors since we became industrialized, we never had to force our people to take oaths to individuals up until now and we never apologized until now. If you want me to post why, I can but it is a long and involved thing - just think elitism and institutes of higher learning.
We should not be in Haiti, we should not have had our ships moved there, as much as we should not have deployed troops to Africa. The peace corps is not equipped to help in a disaster and is not the right organization - it is too slow. Private charities and organizations should be there, and if the military is needed, it should only be in a transportation capacity. You will always get the argument that it helps train the solider to deal with on the ground issues but I don't buy that for a number of reasons.
Peacekeeping only comes after we defeat an enemy, not as mediators between factions.
But when you look at the bigger picture, like Vietnam, we fight two wars there and in WW2, both had to do with economics and ideologies and both were fought hard. I have no doubt we were fighting the Soviets but again I have no doubt that Hitler was a socialist as much as Stalin - you understand what I'm getting at. The economic end of WW2 had little to do with getting out of the depression, it had to do with controlling the people.
The landscape today has changed, not because of just the international community but because of the international press. If one examines the Haiti closely, you will see what's really going on.
So like Pakistan, what can we do?
I say leave it alone and help them when they ask. Let's not take the Obama ignorant approach of "I will invade Pakistan to find Bin Laden" but instead put some faith in the people and show them that.
Afghanistan is another situation where we can do a lot better by telling the population people will die, we will not compensate you but if you want us to leave, we will and then you will have to deal with the Taliban all over again - we tried to help you.
Africa, let's get the h*ll out of there, Bosnia too for that matter. Africa needs to grow up a bit and this idea that we need to be there at all seems to be opposite of what the AU wants to happen, so let ousth africa and the ANC deal with the mess - they have done well so far.
No problem with anything you say. I just look at it from a different angle do to my prior employment. Nothing more.
As to Pakistan, the ONLY reason to keep it safe, and therefor Afghanistan as well, is those nukes. If they fall into the wrong hands they will be used against our homeland. Of that there can be no doubt. The "bad guys" already posses the means of delievery. It does not have to be accurate. It does not even have to be intercontenental. All it will have to do is go to a altitude of about 200 miles and explode up at that point. We are then TOAST.
If the "Peace Corps" can't handle it, tough. It is not the job of the military. Even in just a transport role. Let the anti-military people handle it.
I do agree that the private charities can do a much better job than the government(s) can.
As to Pakistan, the ONLY reason to keep it safe, and therefor Afghanistan as well, is those nukes. If they fall into the wrong hands they will be used against our homeland. Of that there can be no doubt. The "bad guys" already posses the means of delievery. It does not have to be accurate. It does not even have to be intercontenental. All it will have to do is go to a altitude of about 200 miles and explode up at that point. We are then TOAST.
If the "Peace Corps" can't handle it, tough. It is not the job of the military. Even in just a transport role. Let the anti-military people handle it.
I do agree that the private charities can do a much better job than the government(s) can.
What I am getting at is Iraq and Afgan is not just a US war...many of the helping countries had to declare a state of war also to get the funding for the operation....so there is a logistics problem tight there...maybe too many cooks in the kitchen..
Well, there may be other involved, not to any great extent, but there are. ALL U.S. troops should be under U.S. command. Since we are footing the bulk of the bill and the bulk of the troops and the bulk of everything else, the U.S. should also be in overall command. When I bring the football, I get to make the rules.