Is the current size of the US military too small?


  • @CommissarYarric:

    We are using their oil to pay engineers and firms who are rebuilding the country…so we are using their oil to rebuild the country. They wont do it for free, you know.

    Why is there a need for rebuilding it?

    The companies in the best position were American companies becuase of that block. Most of our allies do nto have alot fo large companies, so out of the coalition the best companies were American.

    hubris:
    There exist no large companies outside the US.
    Sorry if it sounds harsh, but that is laughable.

    We spent money on the war and lost people in the war, so we are going to try to benefit from it. … Foriegn companies would lose money doing such projects unless they were subsidized by a government or organization.

    Again, you shall not benefit from an illegal war. I’ll explain later.
    The second line i don’t understand. Why would a foreign company lose money?

    the war was illegal. You should not benefit from anything illegal.

    http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html Read that. Sadaam violated about 16 of those articles pratically every day.

    The US violates about 13 of these every day. Where is the threshold that makes an invasion to bring the human rights to the US legal?

    Not to mention genocide, which justifies a war against any nations commiting it. … shows that any such leaders shall be punsihed byt he interantional tribunal. Since those acts are illegal, I fail to see how bringing him to justice is an illegal war.

    Well, i don’t see him being brought in front of an international tribunal.
    And of course… how comes that US soldiers are excempt from this laws ?


  • @CommissarYarric:

    … I just think that most of the hatred towards America is unfounded. Anger over certain policies, sure, but not general hatred for the country.

    Just looking at how you started this part of the thread:

    To clear up why we hate the french,

    That is (a) hatred and not anger, and (b) expressed over an entire population and not only the parts of the government.
    You have said it wasn’t meant like this, but the impression that a large number of USies feels that way remains. Allow us what you allow them.

    No country is a benevolent angel that just rights wrongs all over the place.

    So, excepting from ousting SH from power, another reason was that it would boost US economy?
    That is the newest and most inhumane branch of taking economy more important than humanity then.

    The Iraqi’s are not being hurt by any real extent by allowing only American and allied companies to work their

    they do get killed though by rogues (and the occasional USie soldier). And the US as occupational force is responsible for that.

    As for the oil belonging to our government…well, yes. What other government does it belong to? … so until an Iraqi government can be set up, we have to administer it. No one else will.

    How many did you ask wether they would?

    Well, his random arrests and oppression fo Kurd and Shiite rights were continuing untill his removal, so it was not just 1990ish. A minor point, but still.

    That is no genocide, that is racism. The genocide was 1990ish.

    … As for the car bombing and destorying infastructure, those are nto relevant to the debate.

    Why not?
    Because you are making a lot of mistakes that you have been warned of … again?
    You were not prepared to the time after the war, and this was known and a main accusation point agains thte US gov’t before the war even started. It is relevant that you fail as occupational force, but still want to “benefit”.

    …If we had declared war on Nazi Germany, but … lost, … would the war have been unjust? I would say no.

    Oh sure it would have been unjust, as the winner writes the history, and if the US had lost, they would not have access to writing the history books.

    By the same token, if we had invaded, stabilized the situation, and created a secure, growing Iraq almost immeadiatly, would you be in support of the war?

    I would support it more, yes. I would have admired you for pulling such a stunt without any preparation. But i still would say that the war itself was illegal, but the end looks too good to critizise the means. So, i would never support the war, but the occupation.


  • That is (a) hatred and not anger, and (b) expressed over an entire population and not only the parts of the government.
    You have said it wasn’t meant like this, but the impression that a large number of USies feels that way remains. Allow us what you allow them.

    If you read my posts, though, you will discover that I think hatred of the French is unfounded as well. I do not hate the french, and am angered when people express such hatred. Just ebcuase it is not right, does nto mean it does not exist.

    So, excepting from ousting SH from power, another reason was that it would boost US economy?
    That is the newest and most inhumane branch of taking economy more important than humanity then.

    It is not boosting the US economy at all, in general the war has been damaging to our country, costing us alot of money and resources. This is justy a way to help subsidize the cost. IF thier are emthods to alleviate our sacrifce that do no real harm to the Iraqi’s, then we will do it.

    they do get killed though by rogues (and the occasional USie soldier). And the US as occupational force is responsible for that.

    So, if we let foreign companies in, that would stop? How is this relevant to the company situation? Also, I would think that would be the fault of the Rogue, not the US.

    How many did you ask wether they would?

    What do you mean, how could they? no infasture existed to run it after the collapse. We are building one. You cant just give someone and oil well and say help people, it takes time to organize the economy. Also, America is the only instituttion that is garuanteed to sue the oil for reconstruction, since we HAVE to pay for it somehow. It’s either that or tax dollars.

    That is no genocide, that is racism. The genocide was 1990ish.

    Im aware, that was in reference to the human rights violations, not the genocide. Sorry for the confusion.

    Why not?
    Because you are making a lot of mistakes that you have been warned of … again?
    You were not prepared to the time after the war, and this was known and a main accusation point agains thte US gov’t before the war even started. It is relevant that you fail as occupational force, but still want to “benefit”.

    No, it is not relevant to the debate of wether the war is justified or not, since justification is set when the war begins, but failure or success is not. However, in that context it only helps my side, since it shows that we currently dont have the resources to secrue the situation, so we need all the help we can get. As all the “benefits” are goign to reconstructing Iraq, the more we “benefit” the better Iraq is. If we were failing becuase we were not trying, then you would have a point, but we are failing becuase we made mistakes, and we need resources to recitfy them. Punish us even more for our mistakes, and oyu will amke it worse for the Iraqi’s.

    Oh sure it would have been unjust, as the winner writes the history, and if the US had lost, they would not have access to writing the history books.

    Well, that would depend on where you live. America would never have been conquered by the Axis, as Axis and Allies players we should know this 😉 . So if you lived in America, you would get an American viewpoint, and it would view the war as just. If you lived in Europe or Asia, well then yes, you would veiw the war as unjust.

    Why is there a need for rebuilding it?

    Becuase the standard of living was abysmall for the Shiites and Kurds under Sadaam, and he deprived them of many services, such as sanitation and electricity. He also destroyed mcuh of Iraq’s agricultural production during the war against the Kurds in the early 1990’s. Also, terrorist attacks further damage the infastructure. Furthermore, UN sanctions hurt the problem alot.
    Nice try 😉 .

    hubris:
    There exist no large companies outside the US.
    Sorry if it sounds harsh, but that is laughable.

    It sounds harsh because it is not what i said. MOST of our ALLIES do not have large companies, nations like poland and Ukraine. The only nations that have companies of similar size to American companies are Britian and Japan, coutnries that we are allowign to help rebuild.

    Again, you shall not benefit from an illegal war. I’ll explain later.
    The second line i don’t understand. Why would a foreign company lose money?

    If the American government has to pay the companies to build their, then that means they would not do it for free, like they do other institutions. That means that thye would not make money in the long run from building such structures.

    The US violates about 13 of these every day. Where is the threshold that makes an invasion to bring the human rights to the US legal?

    Show me where the American government has a set policy to violate those intentionally.

    Well, i don’t see him being brought in front of an international tribunal.
    And of course… how comes that US soldiers are excempt from this laws ?

    Thats becuase the UN did not want him. Besides, it is more fitting that he should be prosceuted by those he hurt.
    need to wirte these with more time.


  • falk, im going to ask nicely, please do not call us USies, i prefer to be called an american. would you like me to start calling you a kraut? so please stop.

  • Moderator

    F_alk, 6 soldiers in a prison does not determine the action of the US Army!!!

    GG


  • First for GG:
    I didn’t mention the six soldiers and made no reference to the army. I guess you go for the “about 13 breaches of human rights”. Well, one alone is that women are paid less for the same work compared to men.
    (for Yarric: And it does not matter wether it is an intentional breach or or breach by not acting but watching when the breach occurs. Who is silent, seems to agree!)

    Second for Marine:
    I will call you USie, as American is reserved for the total of Canadians, USies, Mexicans, Cubans, Brasilians, Argentinians, Chileans etc.
    You are American, yes, but there are more Americans who are not citizens of the US than the other way round. Find another short way to express your citizenship, and i will think of it, but don’t use terms that definitely have another meaning.


  • hmm, Falk, being technical about terms much? not like when talking about vietnam, and whether or not it was a war.

    selectivity much?


  • Yes, i like to be “technical” about terms, though i prefer to use the word “precise”. Here on the board the expressions are limited to words and the occasional smiley, that’s why i like to be as precise with the words as possible.
    For the Vietnam conflict being a war or not, look at the USA, society etc. thread.


  • Im simply tying to save you the trouble of making a different name for all the people on our continent. But since you insist, ill call you a Kraut. 😉


  • @marine36:

    Im simply tying to save you the trouble of making a different name for all the people on our continent. But since you insist, ill call you a Kraut. 😉

    You are not simply trying to save me work. If you did, you would have noticed that i don’t insist on being called a Kraut. The problem is only, if i call USies Americans, how do i call Americans if i want to express i mean all of them?
    You still have not come up with an alternative for calling you USie that is not exchangable with another term….

  • Moderator

    You could call us Morth Americans… 😉


  • That is rather long, and still includes Canadians and at least Mexicans.
    I think you wouldn’t like to be called NAms over USie, right? … Anyway not precise enough.


  • @CommissarYarric:

    I do not hate the french, and am angered when people express such hatred.

    So, you are angry at many of your fellow countrymen?

    So, if we let foreign companies in, that would stop? How is this relevant to the company situation? Also, I would think that would be the fault of the Rogue, not the US.

    True, i missed that part in your sentence above, it wouldn’t matter whose companies (except Iraqis) would work there.
    For the second point: it is not the rogues fault, it is the occupational forces job.

    How many did you ask wether they would?

    What do you mean, how could they? no infasture existed to run it after the collapse.

    Trying as hard as i can, i can’t follow this logic. The point probably is that i do not see why only USie companies can work withour a prior infrastructure …. or do they have more experience at that?

    You were not prepared to the time after the war, and this was known and a main accusation point agains thte US gov’t before the war even started. It is relevant that you fail as occupational force, but still want to “benefit”.

    No, it is not relevant to the debate of wether the war is justified or not, since justification is set when the war begins, but failure or success is not.

    I am not sure wether the “war was/ wasn’t justified” was more than a minor point of our discussion here. And for this war, the success was pretty clear to anyone in the world.
    The relevance comes from the situation after the war. Only after the war it matters which companies you let in, and only after the war it matters wheter you do your job as occupational force well. It seems that more emphasize is put on the oil and then on the people (as it was done during the war already, with the Brits near Basra).

    However, in that context it only helps my side, since it shows that we currently dont have the resources to secrue the situation …… but we are failing becuase we made mistakes, and we need resources to recitfy them.

    Just burning resources is no good plan (look at eastern germany for example). What you need is a proper plan in advance. You didn’t have that, and it doesn’t seem that you have a lot of plan now.

    Why is there a need for rebuilding it?

    Becuase the standard of living was abysmall for the Shiites and Kurds under Sadaam, and he deprived them of many services, such as sanitation and electricity.

    We were talking of the infrastructure, especially the one you need to sell oil (that is more taken from the direction the argument evolved).

    He also destroyed mcuh of Iraq’s agricultural production during the war against the Kurds in the early 1990’s. Also, terrorist attacks further damage the infastructure. Furthermore, UN sanctions hurt the problem alot.

    The terrorist attacks are the US’ problem. The US sanctions did hurt, but the oil production was always running nicely. Otherwise an “food for oil” prgram never would have worked, and othwerwise the Iraq never would ahve had the ressources to buy pharmaceuticvals (which they were not allowed to buy because of the embargo: they could have otherwise).

    If the American government has to pay the companies to build their, then that means they would not do it for free, like they do other institutions. That means that thye would not make money in the long run from building such structures.

    I still don’t see why this makes a US company more qualified than any other.

    Show me where the American government has a set policy to violate those (human rights) intentionally.

    Does it matter wether it is intentionally? And for some of those: I think i just read the news that Rumsfeld actually gave an order to emply the torture (an order that was later withdrawn by GWB).
    A crime stays a crime regardless of your inentions. You might get “parole” if the purposes were “nice”, but still you commited a crime.

    Thats becuase the UN did not want him (SH). Besides, it is more fitting that he should be prosceuted by those he hurt.

    Those he hurt are not the international tribunal that is required and was brought by you as a reason to go in. And i am not sure that the UN has not expressed that they want him .
    Or, with WMD-logic: Of course they said they wanted him. Prove me wrong !


  • So, you are angry at many of your fellow countrymen?

    Yes, and for more reasons than French Hating.

    For the second point: it is not the rogues fault, it is the occupational forces job.

    This is more sematical, i guess, but it is the rouge’s fault becuase they are doing it. They are the ones to blame. We can be critized for having poor security, maybe we should be critized, but is not our “fault”. The ones to blame are the rogues. We can be blamed for not solving the problem, or letting it happen, but not the problem itself.

    Trying as hard as i can, i can’t follow this logic. The point probably is that i do not see why only USie companies can work withour a prior infrastructure …. or do they have more experience at that?

    Its not that we are working without an infastructure, we are buidling one. no iraq organization has the resources to repair the wells, take over the management and guard the pipelines and such. Hell, we cant even guard the pipelines effectively, but i doubt the Iraqi’s have a stronger security force to guard it. It would be a mess if it werent for our control over it. American companies are using their infasture and resources to build a new one, and thenw e are going to give it over to the Iraqi’s.

    The relevance comes from the situation after the war. Only after the war it matters which companies you let in, and only after the war it matters wheter you do your job as occupational force well. It seems that more emphasize is put on the oil and then on the people (as it was done during the war already, with the Brits near Basra).

    Well, yes, if you want to talk about in that context, then it is relevant. I thought it was brought up in the section about justifying the war, and in that context it was not relevant. First, though, i disagree that more attention is being payed to the oil than to the people. We are pouring lots of money into development unrelated to Oil, such as education and social services. Only a relatively comparitivelyamount of money if being placed into oil development, when compared to security costs and other combied infastruture totals. Second, paying attention to the oil IS paying attention to the people. Oil is the life blood of the Iraqi economy, their oil industry has to be developed for them to survive. We certainly are not exploiting them for oil, as our oil prices have gone up since the war began, not down, and any profits form oil have not matched the security and reconstruction costs. We cant ignore other aspects in favour of it, and we arent, but paying attention to it is important.

    Just burning resources is no good plan (look at eastern germany for example). What you need is a proper plan in advance. You didn’t have that, and it doesn’t seem that you have a lot of plan now.

    Yes, but a proper plan needs resources. For example, rbinging back the old Iraqii armies and training large amounts of Iraqi’s to be police costs alot of money, so taking away some of our sources of income would be counterproductive. We are doing those things right now, and we are short of money anyway. If anything, we need to “exploit” the iraqis mroe in order to ensure thier saftey.

    We were talking of the infrastructure, especially the one you need to sell oil (that is more taken from the direction the argument evolved).

    If you want specifically the oil industry, that is becuase Sadaam destoyed them as we invaded, like he did in the gulf war. Terrorist attacks have further complicated the problem. Like I have said before, though, not a whole ton of money is being put into rebuilding the oil industry, we are putting alot of moeny in rebuilding the education system, water system, electricty system, roads, housing, etc. Alot fo money is going to oil, btu alot is going to other places as well.

    Does it matter wether it is intentionally? And for some of those: I think i just read the news that Rumsfeld actually gave an order to emply the torture (an order that was later withdrawn by GWB).
    A crime stays a crime regardless of your inentions. You might get “parole” if the purposes were “nice”, but still you commited a crime.

    Yes, but it greatly affects who and what you punish. If individuals violate those on their own initaitive, then you punish individuals. If a whole government has a set policy to violate those rights, and does so at every level, then the whole government needs to be punished and removed to ensure the saftey of it’s citizens. Often, the only way to do this is war.
    As in your example, that is pending investigation, and if it is revealed that our president authorized such acts, then he should be removed. but we will remove him, as our govenrment calls such acts illegeal. We will do our best to ensure that those crimes dont happen again. Sadaam would have done the opposite.

    Those he hurt are not the international tribunal that is required and was brought by you as a reason to go in. And i am not sure that the UN has not expressed that they want him .
    Or, with WMD-logic: Of course they said they wanted him. Prove me wrong !

    What i was trying to show was that genocide was a crime that should be punished, whether or not the international tribuanl tried him was not really pertinent. However, ill concede the point, since punishment attempts have to be conducted under UN approval. I guess technically, it could be considered “illegal”, but i still stand by my arguement that a war against nations like Rwanda and Indonesia would have been “illegal” too. We are removing a mass murderer who invaded other nations, sponsered terrorism, shot at our planes, and abused the UN’s “oil for food” program. I guess I just think vigilante justice is acceptable in certain circumstances.

    Oh, in case you wanted to know, a trial for genocide can be held by either an international tribunal or the nation in which the genocide occurred, accoring to the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. Even if the war was UN sanctioned, the trial would most likely have been an Iraqi one.


  • since the population has little fear of war compared to Europe, the people would undoubtedly support such a war by a majority or at least 50/50.

    i didnt read every post but this comment just makes me laugh.
    Japan doesnt want to go to war. The state in their constitution that they will never attack only out of selve defense. The 100 Japanese military are there just to do reconstruction and are portected by the dutch in the region. Only This has caused an criticism. I dont know why you think Japan would gladly go into a war and double their army? Yes some politicians want to lose that law. but i dont see this happening any time soon. They may alter it to assist in peacekeepers, but joining a war i dont think so.

    They can withdraw men from S-Korea, Germany, Japan but i think this is already done.
    oh and if the US doesnt attack unilateral all the time it wont need this much troops.

Suggested Topics

I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

52
Online

15.1k
Users

35.9k
Topics

1.5m
Posts