Odyssey Dawn... odyssey gone wrong.

[aristotle]

Humanitarian crisis? More like an unadvised, ill-informed plunge into military adventurism. But, there is good news: we have a Nobel Peace Prize winner in the White House providing strong leadership. Surely, this warmonger has earned his place on Mount Rushmore. In fact, let us petition the US Treasury to bump Alexander Hamilton off the $10 bill and immortalize the likeness of The One.

 

[greg334]

You need to understand the liberal mindset, they need a war of some type to secure their legacy.

 

[layoutshooter]

You need to understand the liberal mindset, they need a war of some type to secure their legacy.

Liberals are just kill crazy.

 

[greg334]

Seriously, every serious war we have been in that we did not start, it has been a liberal involved us.

The real issue that someone mentioned at lunch was the idea that we have had a track record of uplifting people out of oppression when we never did that in the past, not once. Our success, even with a UN backed multilateral force has been zero.

 

[layoutshooter]

Seriously, every serious war we have been in that we did not start, it has been a liberal involved us.

The real issue that someone mentioned at lunch was the idea that we have had a track record of uplifting people out of oppression when we never did that in the past, not once. Our success, even with a UN backed multilateral force has been zero.

It is SO funny how the ReBumLiCans are always blamed for the wars, but it is ALWAYS the Dumb-O-Crats that get us into them.

I honestly cannot remember the last time a ReBumLiCan president started a war for us. ( I can't WAIT to get jumped on for that statement)

 

[bludragon13]

It is SO funny how the ReBumLiCans are always blamed for the wars, but it is ALWAYS the Dumb-O-Crats that get us into them.

I honestly cannot remember the last time a ReBumLiCan president started a war for us. ( I can't WAIT to get jumped on for that statement)

L.O.L. memory loss caused by age and fox?

 

[layoutshooter]

It is SO funny how the ReBumLiCans are always blamed for the wars, but it is ALWAYS the Dumb-O-Crats that get us into them.

I honestly cannot remember the last time a ReBumLiCan president started a war for us. ( I can't WAIT to get jumped on for that statement)

L.O.L. memory loss caused by age and fox?

What fox? What memory loss? What did I forget?

 

[witness23]

It is SO funny how the ReBumLiCans are always blamed for the wars, but it is ALWAYS the Dumb-O-Crats that get us into them.

I honestly cannot remember the last time a ReBumLiCan president started a war for us. ( I can't WAIT to get jumped on for that statement)

Didn't get anyone to bite on that one did ya?

I really like the part where you start your post by saying how it's always the Democrats (or, as you say it, "Dumb-O-Crats) ALWAYS get us into wars. Why don't you explain to everyone what you mean?

 

[layoutshooter]

Didn't get anyone to bite on that one did ya?

I really like the part where you start your post by saying how it's always the Democrats (or, as you say it, "Dumb-O-Crats) ALWAYS get us into wars. Why don't you explain to everyone what you mean?

LOL!! No problem, this one, Libya, is just a continuation of the mess that Carter gave us when he totally messed up in Iran. Iraq, Afghanistan, and the rest of the CURRENT middle east can be traced back to that foolishness. The Cold War, which included Korea, Vietnam, the first mess in Afghanistan, the stupidity in Cuba, Central and South America, not to mention China, was Truman. WWII, Roosevelt. WWI, Wilson. The Spanish-American war MIGHT just be that last time that a ReBumLiCan was in office when a war started.

You see, I don't go back 8 or 10 years when looking at things. I go back 50 to 100 years, sometimes longer, because every problem we face today has been around AT LEAST that long.

Nothing ever happens in a vacuum. There is no such thing as the "isolated" wars like they want to teach in school. Like Korea and Vietnam not connected to each other or the Cold War.

The "communist" involvement in Asia started as far back as the mid 1830's. ETC ETC ETC.

Look at history as a chain, not a line, everything linked together.

 

[greg334]

Libya is about the same thing Bush was blamed for by invading Iraq - OIL.

It has been rather a sad footnote in our history that many in our military have pointed out the facts about how we got involved and by who while this administration, the democrats AND republicans all say it was for humanitarian reasons.

The fact seems to sit that we are fighting not for our national interests but those of Italy, France and other European countries who get their oil from Libya. It isn't about saving the poor rebels from the mean old government or feeding those who are trapped.

NOW there is serious talk about arming the rebels but at this point we have to start asking ourselves why?

Already there is justification for attacking the Libyan military who are not fighting the rebels, which brings into question why isn't this a declared war through our constitutional process?

I mean outside of the president, who claims these people were "properly vetted before any discussions took place" leaves a big informational gap into who were the ones who vetted them and were is the information about this.

This time we need to actually step up and demand that our involvement ends, and we should take congress to task for allowing it to happen in the first place.

I think this is one of these things where our military can't claim to be doing the right thing for any reason, there is no national interest with Libya, there is a great chance of leaving a vacuum where terrorist (not just Al Queda to worry about) will be part of the government and where if we have to intervene for those "rebels" in a civil war, we will end up losing more than just our soldiers.

 

[layoutshooter]

IF our elected officials, lawmakers, what ever you want to call them, were people of honor that would resign. Obama should leave the country and stay gone. Most of the military people I know are NOT going to stay in. They see NO point in risking their lives under the current conditions. I don't blame them. It is just no longer worth the effort.

 

[greg334]

IF our elected officials, lawmakers, what ever you want to call them, were people of honor that would resign. Obama should leave the country and stay gone.

AND why don't the people stop messing around and fight to get others involved and into those offices?

Obama leave the country?

Seriously?

I can think of a lot of others who should leave first.

WE enable the guy to do what he gets away with, WE are the bigger part of the problem and WE are too d*mn lazy to change because WE get something out of the way the system works.

IF you want change, start with your own stuff. Start by fighting to change the BIGGEST issue in OUR country - out of control Social Security and Medicare. REFUSE TO take it if you and others are in such a beleif that Obama and congress are ruining the country. GET rid of the entitlement idea that you have - I paid into it, so I deserve.

Remember that OUR congress is not doing its obligation by passing a budget, have you demanded from your senators and representative to do their duty yet? Have you made an appointment for you to see them to ask them why are they screwing with their obligation?

Most of the military people I know are NOT going to stay in. They see NO point in risking their lives under the current conditions. I don't blame them. It is just no longer worth the effort.

See you brought up a very valid point that reinforces my problem with a few in and out of the military, they are not there to decide what they can and can't risk their lives for, they forsaken that 'right' when they took on the obligation to defend the country. Look closely what I just said but I repeat it in a different form - they forsaken the right to decide what fights they involve themselves in when they volunteered to defend our country.

I feel that if they can not take their oath seriously enough to overlook who is in the whitehouse every 4/8 years, then they are not worthy enough to be in uniform. It isn't their choice to make that decision, it is the people's choice and if we continue to think that they are more important to make decisions of what they are to do, then we have to seriously think about where we are heading as a country.

See Layout, the one thing I seem to stand for is the idea that the military should not be treated as an insider institution which many seem to think has to happen. I stand for the original intent that the military has a single purpose - to defend the country. THIS means not defending Europe, not providing humanitarian aid to some country and not to provide mercenaries for the UN to go about mucking in other countries business. I strongly feel that they are to be controlled only by the US congress and the president who represent the people, nothing else.

Libya is for oil, we now have the CIA involved which no one seems to mind. THIS president seems to be taking on too much without congressional approval and we have to consider a repeal of the war powers act and closing loop holes for the UN to just pass a resolution and we are at war.

 

[witness23]

LOL!! No problem, this one, Libya, is just a continuation of the mess that Carter gave us when he totally messed up in Iran. Iraq, Afghanistan, and the rest of the CURRENT middle east can be traced back to that foolishness. The Cold War, which included Korea, Vietnam, the first mess in Afghanistan, the stupidity in Cuba, Central and South America, not to mention China, was Truman. WWII, Roosevelt. WWI, Wilson. The Spanish-American war MIGHT just be that last time that a ReBumLiCan was in office when a war started.

Thanks for the history lesson, but I really didn't need it. That's why I said, "Didn't get anyone to bite on that one did ya?" I only say that because it sounded like you were speaking to me, and not those that may have not noticed what you were implying. I was actually hoping that you would expound on the official Declaration of War. If anyone is curious, here is a link: Declaration of war by the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You see, I don't go back 8 or 10 years when looking at things. I go back 50 to 100 years, sometimes longer, because every problem we face today has been around AT LEAST that long.

Be careful, you are starting to sound Elitist. Are you implying that others do not do this as well? You are so wise.

Nothing ever happens in a vacuum. There is no such thing as the "isolated" wars like they want to teach in school. Like Korea and Vietnam not connected to each other or the Cold War.

Boy do you have a "dim" view of our countries education(not really surprising). You honestly believe that the majority of class rooms in America do not teach about the full spectrum of the different wars you mentioned?

Look at history as a chain, not a line, everything linked together.

Really? You just explained why they teach history in our schools and colleges.

From Merriam-Webster:

History - a chronological record of significant events (as affecting a nation or institution) often including an explanation of their causes.
Your analogy may have been better served by using a tree branch instead of chain, in my opinion.

 

[witness23]

Seriously, every serious war we have been in that we did not start, it has been a liberal involved us.

Out of curiosity, which wars "that we didn't start", that we have been in, that a liberal involved us, are you speaking of?

The real issue that someone mentioned at lunch was the idea that we have had a track record of uplifting people out of oppression when we never did that in the past, not once. Our success, even with a UN backed multilateral force has been zero.

What would be your definition of success?

 

[layoutshooter]

"Boy do you have a "dim" view of our countries education(not really surprising). You honestly believe that the majority of class rooms in America do not teach about the full spectrum of the different wars you mentioned?"


Yeas I DO honestly believe that the majority of American students are NOT taught history. I meet people on a regular basis who have NO idea what the Cold War was, had not even heard of if. I have talked to many who have NO idea what the Baatan Death March was or how horrible it was. Who did NO know that U.S. soldiers fought in China, Burma or India in WWII. I have met people who had NO idea the the Chicoms were ACTIVELY killing American and other Chinese troops during WWII. Shoot my wife once talked to a person who had NO idea that England was an island.


Greg, when a person puts their life on the line that ABSOLUTELY have EVERY right to decide when it is no longer worth the risk. It is THEIR life!

You also got it wrong. They are NOT getting out JUST because Obama is in office, they are getting out because they are NOT being used for what they are there for. To protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Everyone of them that I have spoken with who are getting out has said the EXACT same thing. They believe that our government is NOT adhering to the Constitution, that it is being trashed. They are correct. They believe that a large percentage of the people of this Nation no longer CARE that the Constitution is being trashed, They are correct. They therefore believe that it would be a waste of their lives to serve under this government. They are correct. Those are the EXACT reasons that I quit my job when I did. I could NO longer support the government or follow the orders from the government in place since that government no longer had the best interest of this nation in mind and was actively trying to destroy our Constitution. So I left. So will they. They, as I, took that oath seriously. To Protect and Defend the Constitution, not the oil supply to Italy or the governments takeover of the people.

 

[Ragman]

Boy do you have a "dim" view of our countries education(not really surprising). You honestly believe that the majority of class rooms in America do not teach about the full spectrum of the different wars you mentioned?

I don't know LOS view on this, but , I have a dim view on how history is taught in our schools.

My 23yo nephew did not know it was Kennedy that first sent "advisors" to Viet Nam. He swore to me that he was taught it was LBJ that got us involved there. He did not know about Ho Chi Minn asking the U.S. fo help against the French.

Even WW2 is not really discussed in depth. He is under the impression the Japaneese attack on Pearl Habor was just out of the blue. The schools don't teach about the events leadng up to the attack.

I could go on and on.

 

[layoutshooter]

I don't know LOS view on this, but , I have a dim view on how history is taught in our schools.

My 23yo nephew did not know it was Kennedy that first sent "advisors" to Viet Nam. He swore to me that he was taught it was LBJ that got us involved there. He did now know about Ho Chi Minn asking the U.S. fo help against the French.

Even WW2 is not really discussed in depth. He is under the impression the Japaneese attack on Pearl Habor was just out of the blue. The schools don't teach about the events leadng up to the attack.

I could go on and on.

I could go on and on as well. Those first two "advisors" killed in Vietnam were from my unit, The Army Security Agency. History is NOT taught in our schools. I would LOVE to sit in on a high school or college lecture/class on the Cold War. My nephew used to tell me the most unbelievable BS he was taught about the time. He was going to challenge the prof in class with things that I corrected but I told him not too. I explained that he should just worry about his grade. The prof would never listen, few students would believe him and he would just get at lower grade. Since you only go to school for grades, no use messing it up.

 

[greg334]

Out of curiosity, which wars "that we didn't start", that we have been in, that a liberal involved us, are you speaking of?

Well everything after Philippine–American War to date because we have yet to have a true conservative or Jacksonian president in office since TR got into it.

What would be your definition of success?

NOT being there as an occupying force, stabilizing force or a protection force within 3 years after hostilities stop. We are still in Germany, France, Korea, and other places either as ourselves or as part of NATO or the UN which is not success at all.

Greg, when a person puts their life on the line that ABSOLUTELY have EVERY right to decide when it is no longer worth the risk. It is THEIR life!

So I must assume that taking an oath is absolutely meaningless?

Along with that, you're telling me that our country in their eyes is not worth defending because they have some grievance with some politician?

Taking an oath to defend the country is making a commitment to the defense of the country. There is no time limit or limitations for that oath that says "OK your job is done, go home and forget what you said", it is not involuntary nor is it something that should be taken lightly when the commitment is made.

Does this means is that if they don't want to follow orders, then they can just decide not to follow orders and desert?

Again it is a problem with the institution that we have been warned about over and over. Once we

 

[layoutshooter]

Well everything after Philippine–American War to date because we have yet to have a true conservative or Jacksonian president in office since TR got into it.




NOT being there as an occupying force, stabilizing force or a protection force within 3 years after hostilities stop. We are still in Germany, France, Korea, and other places either as ourselves or as part of NATO or the UN which is not success at all.



So I must assume that taking an oath is absolutely meaningless?

Along with that, you're telling me that our country in their eyes is not worth defending because they have some grievance with some politician?

Taking an oath to defend the country is making a commitment to the defense of the country. There is no time limit or limitations for that oath that says "OK your job is done, go home and forget what you said", it is not involuntary nor is it something that should be taken lightly when the commitment is made.

Does this means is that if they don't want to follow orders, then they can just decide not to follow orders and desert?

Again it is a problem with the institution that we have been warned about over and over. Once we

Nope, they will follow orders, IF they are legal. They will serve until their current enlistment is up. They took NO oath to defend the country, their oath is to Protect and Defend the Constitution of the United States, from all enemies both foreign AND domestic.

It is NO a beef or disagreement with a "politician". It is the belief that MOST politicians in this country are opposed to the Constitution which they are sworn to defend. You know, domestic enemy. IF a person is trashing our Constitution, to force health care, whatever, they very well could be an enemy of the Constitution. A domestic enemy. They are sworn to defend the Constitution from them.

It IS THEIR lives. They have an ABSOLUTE right to use it as they please. They will not reenlist. Neither would I. I quit for that very reason.

 

[greg334]

Again I will argue the point that it is wrong from my point of view. Your service doesn't end at the time of separation but some time after that according to the commitment you made.

BUT I wonder about the Oath itself, it is about defending the constitution so what action does one take when there isn't a declared war but a police action when an outside force tells us to attack a country?

Shouldn't there be a concern with the possible circumventing of the constitutionally mandated system to declare war against another country and the violation of the oath of enlistment (office)?