I'm Faler.
In the past few days, I've heard much of combat and action of the middle east. Many of these people who have spoken have never actually held an assault weapon in their hands. I'm currently serving in the U.S. Army, I've been in for two years. I could type for hours on war and combat, but there is only one thing I really want to tell to all of you civilians.
I am in no way a Veteran, but my unique position forces me to do much studying. One of the most simplistic notions in war is, you don't fight unless you have to. This was originally stated by General Sung Tzu, in his famouse book, "The Art of War." It was written when the sword and arrow was still the deadliest of man's machines.
Those weapons of yesterday, have been replace by assault rifle and artillery but the same basics still hold true. In combat, your unit is like a sharp knife. The more you use it, the duller it gets. Even when you are victoriouse, you still have lost lives, and expended suplies and ammunition. This is why you always fight for the least amount of time possible.
And this is why we did not kill Saddam Hussein many years ago. It is easy for those who do not fight to say that we were wrong, when they look at our actions with hindsight. But at the time our mission was to repel the invasion of Kuwait. We did that, and then some. We had over fifty thousand body bags ordered to take guys like me home in. A body bag has only one use. I'm very thankful that these fifty thousand body bags are still sitting in supply.
And for the reason that soldiers should only fight when we have to I absolutely advocate that we go and kill in Iraq like there's no tommorrow. They have clearly stated that if they had nuclear munitions they would attack the tribe that calls itself American. There is no point in waiting for them to smash a city for us to move. They would infact have nuclear devices by now if Isreal didn't blow up the plant that they were manufacturing the U238 in so many years ago.
And for the record, I may be a military man but, I'm freaky looking enough to fit in any goth circle.

You have my respect for serving our country. I hope all goes well. Seems to me so many people (Fellow Americans) think this war will be similar to the last conflict in Iraq. I don't think so. Last time, we encountered their forces in the desert, and they were tired and hungry, and surrendered in droves. This time, I expect the Iraqi army to stay close to the city (Baghdad). Black Hawk Down comes to mind. While the Iraqi soldiers were alone in the desert, on the battle lines last time, this time they will be in the city, protecting their families. It will be a lot worse for us.

I hope the best planning is involved before this undertaking begins, for the sake of all of our troops.

Good luck.

I know it's not going to be easy, but neither was Normandy. You have to do what you have to do. My rifle's zeroed. I have steady hands, and a taste for blood.

Give 'em hell, Faler.

It's good to see we Texans will be represented by the best. Good luck.

A few things Faler,

The difference between what people want and what Bush is peddling is simply that the removal of a nulcear threat does not neccessitate the removal of Hussein form power.

I'm all for going in and blowing his weapons facilitiies to the next millenium, but not for going in and removing him form power. This would cause a political vaccum in the middle-east which would run to the detriment of the rest of the World.

Neon

Saddam Hussien has many enemies in his own country.

If I were the president, I would be rid of Saddam by having the CIA give some covert support to these anti-Saddam Iraqi factions.

Hell, I could (and would) have Saddam die of an induced heart attack or from some other seemingly natural cause if I had the CIA to order about.

Wasn't the attack on Afghanistan to root out Osama bin Laden? Yes... Was that achieved? No... is the country in the most severe desperate state post American attack? Yes... Is the same going to happen in Iraq? More than bloody likely.
Boys and their toys....

Exactly Lilith.

My thing on Iraq; is it the US's business to go around choosing the world's leaders? What if... no... could we possibly?... we are wrong?

Hussein is an Evil amn who has committed attrocities on scales Exceeding Yugolsavia and I would cheer to see him out of power.

But there is tension within the U.N. and this would weaken it's position if it didn't accept those tensions and hold off until a ratified unified action by the Security council could be agreed upon.

Neon

http://www.darkforum.com/darkforum/s...287#post683287 - 3rd post.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/16/cf.00.html

Worrying indeed. It looks like They're gearing up with no specific mandate.

I doubt they'll go in against U.N. recomendations. It is political suidice for any leader to piss of the U.N. How would the u.S. like to find itself at the centre of trades sanctions?

Neon

Actually, every known fact indicates that the Afghan people are much happier now that the Taliban has been destroyed...take the people who lived around Bin Laden's base. Laden's soldiers forced the peasants off their farmland, taking it for their own uses. Now that Bin Laden is gone, those farmers can use their own land again to feed their families.

Now that the Taliban is gone, the warlords have the freedom to exert their power once again. This will be another Vietnam. We must either squash all opposing forces, or get the hell out of the country. The opium trade has flourished, and anarchy is in the air. Put up, or shut up. We need to conquer the entire country now, or pull out, and let the chips fall. When the war started, the U.S. assigned special forces to each of the opposing warlords, but now, they are gaining strength, and we are still "just watching". The Afghani president is visiting America next week, and what will our troops do then...I smell a coup...smash the country, or flee, our only options.

The point here is not about in-house politics, sure it should be the concern of the entire world when a country is at the hands of a maniac. But the point here is the manner in which the U.S went into Afghanistan. And no matter the damned motivation, have you seen just how many children are mamed for life? Have you seen the refugee camps in Pakistan with people, mostly women and children of Afghanistan? The country is anything but in a better state since the attack from the U.S. If the sole purpose of America's involvement in other countries' politics is to relieve them from tyranny then why the hell does Bush not involve himself with the state of Zimbabwe? Mugabe is a bloody madman. But what does Zimbabwe have to offer the States? Sweet blue all!! Of course Saddam is insane... But he's always been insane. What is the sudden urge now? Bush has carefully crafted his timing of all of this, and I do not for one moment believe his motivation to get rid of Saddam is because he poses a threat to his own country. Bush wants access to the Middle East for one bloody reason only. Money.... Oil.

Not Just Oil, He also gains a platform for striking at other oil producing terrorist sympathisers in the East (it should actually be Near East as middle east is in the Sczheuan Province of China Geographicaly speaking)

Neon

Attempts to discern politicians' motives aside, I agree that the way we went into Afghanistan was stupid. All the big publicity wars the US gets into lately have been stupid, because we've developed this God-forsaken strategy of "Bomb things from the air instead of actually sending in a large number of ground troops", which involves, in the average engagement, saving twenty American lives in exchange for eight hundred innocent civilian lives of whoever we're bombing. It's stupid, and it stems from the American Public's stupidity and need to play the World's Policeman while not actually putting yourself in danger. If you're going to play cop, play cop. When's the last time your neighborhood cop dropped bombs on an entire city block because a druglord had an apartment there?

That's a damn brilliant analogy, DM.

I for one would not worry about the "political vacuum" left by removing Hussein from power. There is always another who'll take up the position of leadership. I'd worry more about the American "Frankenstein Effect". We depose political powers, set up puppet governments, then leave. Years later, those we set into power come back to bite us in the ass, and we go off and call them evil regimes that need to be brought down in the name of freedom. Never mind the fact that we set them up, only to knock them down when they no longer fit into our political equation.

We need to leave the war to the warriors, and the decision-making about when to go to war should be left to those thinking about long-term consequences and responsibility, not the ones thinking about their popularity ratings in the polls and their re-election campaign...

The thing is only tyrants gain power in a tyranical state and only the ruthless gain power to counter them. You neeed to wipe out all the opposing parties and start from scratch, however you;re seen as interfereng and hated accordingly.

The only way to get involved is to stauch agression betwene countries but let countries make their own deicisions internally and do nothing about it, otherwise you risk another Afghanistan or Iraq where people given covert American support turn around and bite you in the behind

Neon

Welcome back to the US Faler....