Russian intelligence sees U.S. military buildup on Iran border

I don't disagree with that at all, just disagree with those saying we don't have the troop strength needed to handle Iran when no ground troops are even needed.

 

This was a good response to my post. I did not realize the F-22 had become operational. And you were right about the TFC being implimented during the Reagan administration. But that was not what I was speaking of when I put the blame on the Bush-Clinton-Bush administrations. The downsizing of the military began under the first President Bush and continues to this day. Had the downsizing not occurred the active forces would still have to rely on the reserves and the National Guard but not to the extent that they currently do.

I also disagree with your explaination of why the TFC was implimented. It was not implimented in order to make it more difficult to deploy forces into a hostile situation. It was implimented to maximize total force capabilities including all aspects of planning, equipping, manning and employing U.S. military forces.

Thirdly, the mistake was not going into Vietnam; it was the cockeyed way it was fought. That war could have been over - and should have been over - in less than two years. But the incompetence of the Johnson administration insured it would be a long, drawn-out war with virtually no hope of victory.

 

BS. If the stinking politicians would have kept their noses out of the military's business, vietnam would have been an easy affair.

The problem is that we, the American people, learned nothing from that experience. We let the north vietnamese train and operate out of laos and cambodia. We allowed the russians and chinese to supply them with an endless amount of weapons and ammunition. We (politicians) established "No Fire Zones", basically tying one hand and a leg behind our backs. We are falling into the same scenario here. Iran, syria, and anyone else helping, and training, the insurgents need to be taken out. The war needs to go completely global.

You are right in one regard red, we didn't learn a lesson from the french. We, like them, walked away from a conflict that was easily winnable because we lacked the resolve to see it through to the end. We allowed politicians to direct a war instead of the warriors on the ground. We're doing it all over again now. At what cost red? At what ****ing cost?

 

This reminds me of a cartoon I saw in the Marine Corps Times last week:

The caption reads: "Alright, if we're going to win this thing, I need ideas! I think we're all well aware of 'General' Pelosi's position..."

 

My dad was there red, along with all but two of many uncles. Dad was with the 1st Battalion 5th Marines. Shot in Nov '68. One uncle spent 3 tours over there, also a Marine infantryman. Grandfather was at Pearl Harbor...I spent almost ten years in the Marine Corps Infantry....I'd say I know a thing or two about what happened, and why. My entire life has revolved in and around military circles. One of my close friends from the Corps father served in the NVA at the same time my father was in country. I bunked with him for 10 months. We talked regularly about the war. It was very interesting, and informative, to hear his perspective of the war.

Ask the people of the former south vietnam who really won the war red. We turned our back on them..abandoned them. We took a big huge bite of the steak, sacrificed almost 60,000 young American men, then decided we didn't like the way the steak tasted and spat it out. There was no honor in the way we left. There was no victory.

You're right about the hole....there comes a point when you stop digging...and fight. You repel the enemies assault by fire and close combat, then you climb your sorry ass out of the hole and locate, close with, and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver.

When the first American serviceman touched the ground over there, we made it our fight. We had a moral obligation to see it through to the end, to win, but we didn't.

 

Their is no finer soldier than a motivated US soldier.

We have the heart and the tech. and weapons.

Where we lose out is our politicians try to manage the war with diplomacy.

Get diplomacy out of war and have it where it should be when the war is over.

Let the military take all means to end the war. If that means bombing a masque or hospital because that is where the enemy is located then blow the freaking thing up.

Take no prisoners!!!

If we had left our troops strong over their at 500,000 and taken complete control of their borders in the beginning and controlled every street then we could have installed their gov. and given it time to take hold.

But we brought too many troops home and we let the borders be open to insurgents and weapons and now we have a quagmire.

Policing a freakin civil war.

And with our inept strategy we let the liberals get control at home and now we are doomed.

Liberals trample the memory of our fallen soldiers because their thinking is that nothing is worth fighting for.

Well i for one believe that the freedom in this country depends on us being involved in other parts of the world to insure that the safety of Americans anywhere are protected.

John F. Kennedy said i quote " Peace at the expense of Freedom , Is neither Peace or Freedom"

I have asked my Liberal Dem. wife what she is willing to have us fight for.

Her response was Iraq is not attacking us. Why should we care what happens there. That was Clintons attitude during the problems in Serbia and elsewhere and how many hundreds of thousands of people were the victim of genicide.

But yet she loves to talk about human rights.

It drives me crazy.