Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk > Middle East


Thanks Tree87Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old May 26th, 2015, 07:20 PM   #21
Banned
 
Generaloberst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: United States
Posts: 2,702
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood View Post
Sure you do.
We've talked on this before and I don't think I've ever given the impression that I'm not 100% serious about joining.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Castle Doctrine View Post
Chosen a branch? I would suggest that the Navy is a good choice. They have hot food, hot water, warm beds, interesting places to go and see and cute uniforms. Additionally, if you get close enough to the enemy to need a gun a baseball bat will do as well as a firearm. It is a really nice package. Stay away from the USAF...top heavy because of pilots and really tight for enlisted promotions. You would end up 1 or 2 pay grades lower than any other service.
I was initially considering the Army but after some talking with my father, friends, and even a discussion (or lackthereof) from the Army recruiters, I decided that I'd go with the Navy. I figure if I don't do something like Engineman or Machinist's Mate, as I do what something that even if I get the boot early (I do want a 20 year career) I'll still have an employable skill, I'll do Damage Controlman, as that sounds both fun and something employable as a firefighter or such after the Navy.

My grandfather was also in the Navy during the War, so I figured it was part of that family trade that I could carry along.
Thanks from coke
Generaloberst is offline  
Old May 26th, 2015, 07:46 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
Hollywood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Memphis, Tn.
Posts: 15,915
Quote:
Originally Posted by Generaloberst View Post
We've talked on this before and I don't think I've ever given the impression that I'm not 100% serious about joining.

I was initially considering the Army but after some talking with my father, friends, and even a discussion (or lackthereof) from the Army recruiters, I decided that I'd go with the Navy. I figure if I don't do something like Engineman or Machinist's Mate, as I do what something that even if I get the boot early (I do want a 20 year career) I'll still have an employable skill, I'll do Damage Controlman, as that sounds both fun and something employable as a firefighter or such after the Navy.

My grandfather was also in the Navy during the War, so I figured it was part of that family trade that I could carry along.
You are assuming that I was being sarcastic. Had that been the case I would not have offered my input into your choice on branch of service. As you say, we have talked about this previously.
Thanks from coke
Hollywood is offline  
Old May 27th, 2015, 02:10 AM   #23
Banned
 
Generaloberst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: United States
Posts: 2,702
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood View Post
You are assuming that I was being sarcastic. Had that been the case I would not have offered my input into your choice on branch of service. As you say, we have talked about this previously.
That is true. I do recall last time we talked I talked extensively about joining the Army instead. What do you think of my change?
Thanks from coke
Generaloberst is offline  
Old May 27th, 2015, 06:50 AM   #24
Senior Member
 
Hollywood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Memphis, Tn.
Posts: 15,915
Quote:
Originally Posted by Generaloberst View Post
That is true. I do recall last time we talked I talked extensively about joining the Army instead. What do you think of my change?
I think it is probably a good choice for you. For the reasons myself and others have talked about. Do you not plan to get a college degree and try to become an officer? You're in HS now, right?
Thanks from coke
Hollywood is offline  
Old May 27th, 2015, 07:47 AM   #25
The Token Black Guy
 
Gordy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: MD
Posts: 2,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Generaloberst View Post
Wars cannot be fought with weak open-handed punches and slap-boxes. Wars are won by decisive action, and the leadership of men and women who are willing to do whatever is necessary to a) kill as many of the sons of bitches as possible, b) destroy the enemy's will to even look a gun, and c) triumph over all. You punch with a steady closed fist, not a limp-wristed attempt at a slap.
If the people in the region don't even have the will to defend their own countries, sadly, then why should we?
Thanks from coke
Gordy is offline  
Old May 27th, 2015, 07:56 AM   #26
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: USA TN
Posts: 10,182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camelot View Post
Listen to me very closely.

We cannot win a war of security and independence that Iraq's own citizens refuse to fight themselves. That has never been achieved in the history of the world !!!!!
this may be a dumb question but why won't the Iraqi's fight for themselves?? is it a religious thing? no weapons? are they just cowards? what?
Thanks from coke
kbear is offline  
Old May 27th, 2015, 08:07 AM   #27
Senior Member
 
roastpork's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 8,082
In my HO, the Middle East, Arabia, etc. are not really countries as we perceive countries. Most are or were ruled by individuals or families, which ruled through intimidation and force, tribal and religious sects play a much more important role in determining loyalty than the country one resides in. I doubt that patriotism is very rampant in most of them. Three exceptions may be Israel, Iran, and Afghanistan.
Thanks from imaginethat, RNG, coke and 1 others
roastpork is offline  
Old May 27th, 2015, 08:58 AM   #28
Talent on loan from god
 
Camelot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Ohio
Posts: 23,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbear View Post
this may be a dumb question but why won't the Iraqi's fight for themselves?? is it a religious thing? no weapons? are they just cowards? what?
The Shia, Sunnis and Kurds of Iraq do not look at Iraq as their country like we look at the U.S. At the conclusion of WW I, the victorious powers met in Paris to divide the spoils of war. Great Britain and France wanted to create the countries of Iraq and Iran in order to colonize their oil resources. Woodrow Wilson argued bitterly and unsuccessfully that, if you pen up three distinct groups like the Sunnis, Shia and Kurds within the same border, the results would be disasterous. Wilson was correct.

When we invaded and took control of Iraq in 2003, the Bush Administration kicked the Sunnis and Kurds out of the government and military. This left the Iranian influenced Shia in charge of the whole show. The Shia exacted their revenge on the old Saddam Sunni loyalists and the Sunnis are essentially enemies of the Shia controlled government. When ISIS rolled into town, the Sunnis either sided with this extreme Sunni sect or were indifferent. They feel that, if they fight ISIS, then only their Shia enemies in Baghdad would benefit and they, the Sunnis, would continue to be abused by the Shia controlled government.

The second problem has to do with Iran. Since the Shia Iraqis are too cowardly to confront ISIS, the Iranian Shia have entered Iraq and attacked and destroyed Sunni neighborhoods while attacking ISIS. Once the Iranian Shia remove ISIS from Sunni territory, they rape, plunder and murder the Sunni population. I think you can see now Kbear why the Sunnis refuse to fight ISIS. For Isis is the only thing standing between the Sunnis and their Shia oppressors. When Joe Biden, as a Senator, suggested splitting Iraq into three countries, one Shia, one Sunni and one Kurd, he was channeling Woodrow Wilson's wisdom. Sunnis see themselves as Sunnis. Shia see themselves as Shia and the Kurds see themselves as Kurds. None see themselves as Iraqis first. To waste more American blood and treasure on such irreconcilable differences is a fools game. It might be beneficial to our Military Industrial Complex, Saudi Arabia and Israel but offers little benefit to the American people.
Thanks from kbear and coke

Last edited by Camelot; May 27th, 2015 at 09:01 AM.
Camelot is offline  
Old May 27th, 2015, 09:02 AM   #29
Senior Member
 
Hollywood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Memphis, Tn.
Posts: 15,915
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camelot View Post
The Shia, Sunnis and Kurds of Iraq do not look at Iraq as their country like we look at the U.S. At the conclusion of WW I, the victorious powers met in Paris to divide the spoils of war. Great Britain and France wanted to create the countries of Iraq and Iran in order to colonize their oil resources. Woodrow Wilson argued bitterly and unsuccessfully that, if you pen up three distinct groups like the Sunnis, Shia and Kurds within the same border, the results would be disasterous. Wilson was correct.

When we invaded and took control of Iraq in 2003, the Bush Administration kicked the Sunnis and Kurds out of the government and military. This left the Iranian influenced Shia in charge of the whole show. The Shia exacted their revenge on the old Saddam Sunni loyalists and the Sunnis are essentially enemies of the Shia controlled government. When ISIS rolled into town, the Sunnis either sided with this extreme Sunni sect or were indifferent. They feel that, if they fight ISIS, then only their Shia enemies in Baghdad would benefit and they, the Sunnis, would continue to be abused by the Shia controlled government.

The second problem has to do with Iran. Since the Shia Iraqis are too cowardly to confront ISIS, the Iranian Shia have entered Iraq and attacked and destroyed Sunni neighborhoods while attacking ISIS. Once the Iranian Shia remove ISIS from Sunni territory, they rape, plunder and murder the Sunni population. I think you can see now Kbear why the Sunnis refuse to fight ISIS. For Isis is the only thing standing between the Sunnis and their Shia oppressors. When Joe Biden, as a Senator, suggested splitting Iraq into three countries, one Shia, one Sunni and one Kurd, he was channeling Woidrow Wilson's wisdom. Sunnis see themselves as Sunnis. Shia see themselves as Shia and the Kurds see themselves as Kurds. None see themselves as Iraqis first. That's wasting more American blood and treasure on such irreconcilable differences is a fools game. It might be beneficial to our Military Industrial Complex, Saudi Arabia and Israel but offers little benefit to the American people.
EXACTLY. All of this crap can be traced back to the fall of the Ottoman Empire at the close of WWI and the western powers arbitrarily carving up the ME east to suit their perceived needs at the time.
Thanks from Camelot and coke
Hollywood is offline  
Old May 27th, 2015, 09:06 AM   #30
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: LA LA Land North
Posts: 23,817
Quote:
Originally Posted by roastpork View Post
In my HO, the Middle East, Arabia, etc. are not really countries as we perceive countries. Most are or were ruled by individuals or families, which ruled through intimidation and force, tribal and religious sects play a much more important role in determining loyalty than the country one resides in. I doubt that patriotism is very rampant in most of them. Three exceptions may be Israel, Iran, and Afghanistan.
Afghanistan is very tribal also. The Taliban is not a fixed group as we think of them, it too is an ever shifting alliance of tribes.

They use "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". They used it against the Russians and against the US. If/when you leave, they will go back to fighting between themselves again.
Thanks from Camelot and coke
RNG is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk > Middle East

Tags
ground, isis, war



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
GOP gains ground? roastpork Current Events 2 October 28th, 2014 03:20 PM
Stand Your Ground! roastpork Gun Control 54 January 29th, 2014 07:40 PM
God pulled to the ground! intangible child Religion 1 December 25th, 2009 10:29 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.