Man, that was even before my time.. Funny thing was seeing all those white guys! , even playing basket ball..
That was then, this is now-
Our Prez has done / said, everything except the words, (We're Sorry) to ***an, for the way we ended WW2( the Atomic Bomb). It's a Disgrace what he has done and said on the world stage.
Our Military deserves better than the way they are presented these days!
__________________
GOD COUNTRY AND FAMILY
A TRUE AMERICAN
Little remembered that ***an and Germany were given a pass after WWI because we decided wars were a thing of the past and the way to ensure that was to disarm and we did. That show of weakness is what brought on WWII.
Our disarming caused the world to use an atomic bomb.
We will never learn. Our show of weakness today in the Asia will bring on a world war. When a country gets up in arms over some guy who wants to burn a book our enemies become emboldened. When a General makes a fuse about it they make plans to attack. This video is a good example of what the military s role is and it is not for peace keeping or diplomatic relations. Their role is to beat the enemy into submission or be beaten. To kill or be killed. We have people who's jobs are peace keeping and diplomatic in nature, they represent our government and our military is supposed to be the threat behind a break down of a diplomatic peaceful solution. The military is to kill or be killed and then come home, period. If a guy back home burning a book brings out the rats all the better and the sooner the job is done.
The US took on a role after WWI, Leader of the world, it didn't know how to handle it then and it doesn't today. When it refuses to lead it's enemy's view that as weakness and prepare to dethrone this weakling who doesn't know how to rule. Reagan knew this and for a time we had a leader.
Do not confuse leadership with cruel dictatorship.
Our boys are actually pretty damned good at killing, nodog, even if the politicians don't want to make the most of our global power. Politics has certainly changed, but I don't think the men on the front lines have quite that much.
Anyway, I disagree with you about the military's role and the necessity to use force in "Asia". We're not fighting organized armies in Europe or the Pacific Rim. Counter-insurgency is a whole new ball game. Actually, we've been doing it since at least the Philippine Insurrection over a century ago, but it's only come to the fore in recent years.
Terrorists don't run out in the open in a cow pasture like some Kraut running home to Mutti. They leech off of the civilian populace, and use them for cover when necessary. You can't just spray down an entire village with fire. You'll kill a handful of armed enemies and create dozens, if not hundreds, of widowers, widows, orphans, and wounded. I used to believe in total warfare, but the more I studied how things are going today, the less I indentified with past strategy and tactics.
Also, the more we beat the drum around the world, the more insecure we make our coming enemies. Yeah, it would be nice to clean China's clock today so we don't have to tomorrow, but the British, Commonwealth nations, and our other allies would avoid us like the plague after that. It'll also cause third party observers to realize that they could be next, and that creates more pressure to nuke up or fall on other drastic measures.
There is a time for force, and a time for diplomacy. It's a hard and costly job balancing the two, but our boys have been used to hard work as long as they've worn our country's uniforms. I'm proud that we leveled Nazi Germany and Imperial ***an. Unfortunately, though, that's not going to get us where we want to be today.
And one more thing. Our gear and equipment is in some pretty sad shape after the past ten years of fighting. It's tough to maintain a strong global military presence when your stuff's falling apart. The state of federal spending and debt doesn't leave us with enough cash to build up as fast as many of us would prefer.
And one more thing. Our gear and equipment is in some pretty sad shape after the past ten years of fighting. It's tough to maintain a strong global military presence when your stuff's falling apart.
What Aught Six said. Additionally, large numbers of troops have been detailed to jobs outside of their MOS and their skills have deteriorated.
The US military is tired, very tired. US troops have been run into the ground fighting two wars. i know Soldiers and Marines who have pulled five and six tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. Military suicide rates are at an all time high. The VA is unable to provide adequate and timely care for veterans with service connected disabilities.
Sec'y of Defense Gates recently made an issue of military personnel costs. In order to get folks to enlist and re-enlist it is necessary to offer big perks and bonuses; that costs money. It will cost even more money when the economy improves and enlistments drop.
I spent 4 years as an Army Ranger 1966-1970 and ten more years in the reserves, it has always been my take that the government seeing our servicemen and women as expendables.
There is a time for force, and a time for diplomacy. .
Exactly, when it's time for force that's when the military is called upon.
You have to understand the time after WWI when the world looked to us to lead. Until that time we were isolationist and ill prepared to step up. Wilson's answer was the UN. Our great step as leader was to announce to the world we would disarm. The defeated mocked us and soon started WWII. If these middle eastern countries are who people think they are, and when one of them comes here and insults us to our face, something he would be stoned for there, and walks away scott free, you couldn't pump those people up more. Why should they fear us, they'll just point to another book burner and get the country to bend over and kiss his ... again. The General should've answered with spill one drop of American blood and your streets will be turned red. It's a kindness they aren't already. That's war and it's terrible. That's what supposed to happen when negotiations break down and why nations should be very sure they want it that way. Look how they handle hostage negotiations, the hostage is advised to do what they can because the outcome is likely to be the same anyway you slice it.
I think the vid was clear on how the military is to carry out it's role in diplomatic relations, to kill or be killed. We declare war on countries, we don't go through there streets looking for the bad guys, that's that nations job or else the military that has one job will come. That's Roman law and it sent fear through out the world they ruled. When they left a city that rebelled it was nothing but a scraped rock. That military's job was the same as ours. Nations should not want to see our military. Cities that rebelled against Rome knew their fate and the leaders were responsible for what happened, not stand by and say they live among us and we can't find them. Sorting things out more than who gets sent on to the next world isn't the military's job. That's the leaders of other cities who don't want to see our military at their gates job.
We are being consumed from within and mocked outside. That has never been a recipe for survival. In that bowl those that consumed the nation from within always had their military outside fighting battles they weren't supported to win. In fact the leaders often tried to have some of those military leaders removed for speaking against them. The smart Generals had those diplomates sent back a little worse for wear. Now we get paid to go on tv and complain about how the war is being handled. Our enimies laugh.
Butt hey, at least the country is being handed over to homosexuals. Most people won't even care as long as they can either have relations or watch it. Why is one acceptable and the other not acceptable? That kid believed a lie and the sexual predators that fed it to him should be prosecuted as such.
Come on, both the military and the Foreign Service are professional in nature. Presidents and cabinets come and go, but soldiers and others in the combat zone do the job regardless. There is a time for armed diplomacy, something that the Special Forces have learned to do particularly well, and it works to our advantage. I'm trying to say that you can't partition the two spheres of force and diplomacy, and the State Department simply doesn't have the capability of reaching some of the people the military can, especially in places like Afghanistan or the Philippines. It's 20% killing the enemy and 80% securing civilians' basic needs, and it buys loyalty as long as we can pull it off.
Probably Won't See Anything Like This in the Army Today
, even playing basket ball..
