Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Oops, hit submit before typing a reply. I believe that 10% number includes all you described. I think our total number of military service personnel is 1.4 million, so the 140,000 or so in Iraq is 10%.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj << They [The Navy] aren't serving in front-line combat roles. >> They are. They are getting a few weeks of training stateside and then being shipped off to do the patrols in Baghdad alongside the Army. I know folks personally who are serving in these roles from ships, subs, and aviation communities. It was part of a big initiative that started last Spring to help the Army out with their personnel shortfalls.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer So, of that 1.4 million, what percentage are ground combat troops? How many of those are currently in Iraq or are rebuilding from/preparing for deployment?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <So, of that 1.4 million, what percentage are ground combat troops? How many of those are currently in Iraq or are rebuilding from/preparing for deployment?> I assume you're asking me, so I'll answer. I don't know, and I'm not sure why it matters. As I said earlier, I don't believe we will use a large ground force if we carry out any military action against Iran or North Korea.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer But what if they use large ground forces to carry out actions against us?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I don't believe we will use a large ground force if we carry out any military action against Iran or North Korea.> Yeah, because we'll, you know, be greeted as liberators. Once a neocon, always a neocon, I guess. The average Iranian may not like the ruling mullahs any more than the average Iraqi liked Saddam. But one thing I've seen right-wingers and left-wingers alike agree upon is that the one thing that would united Iranians would be a U.S. invasion. I can only imagine the far more brainwashed North Koreans would be even less likely to be waiting with flowers.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Yeah, because we'll, you know, be greeted as liberators.> Maybe, but that wasn't my argument. <But one thing I've seen right-wingers and left-wingers alike agree upon is that the one thing that would united Iranians would be a U.S. invasion.> Which is why I don't think we'll see one. It would make a lot more sense foment civil war or decapitate the Iranian government, along with destroying Iran's ability to make war, and let the Iranian people put back the pieces. Same for North Korea.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>We bomb the hell out of them from air and sea.<< That doesn't work. It's one tool to use, but it doesn't work by itself.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip What Bush and all other politicians need to get out of their heads is the thought that all other countries would like to be like the United States because for the most part they don't.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <It's one tool to use, but it doesn't work by itself.> It worked in Bosnia.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer It was one tool, but not the only one. It didn't work by itself - there was still a lot of ground fighting going on even if the US didn't have troops involved.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Yeah, because we'll, you know, be greeted as liberators.>> <Maybe, but that wasn't my argument.> We wouldn't be. But let's see what your argument is, then... <<But one thing I've seen right-wingers and left-wingers alike agree upon is that the one thing that would united Iranians would be a U.S. invasion.>> <Which is why I don't think we'll see one. It would make a lot more sense foment civil war or decapitate the Iranian government, along with destroying Iran's ability to make war, and let the Iranian people put back the pieces. Same for North Korea.> Ah, well okay then. Simple as that. Lovely. Honestly, considering how utterly wrong neocons got Iraq, it's amazing they have the arrogance to think they can get anything right.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>It would make a lot more sense foment civil war or decapitate the Iranian government, along with destroying Iran's ability to make war, and let the Iranian people put back the pieces. Same for North Korea<< That's really naive.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Honestly, considering how utterly wrong neocons got Iraq, it's amazing they have the arrogance to think they can get anything right.> I haven't noticed where the liberals ever got anything right.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <That's really naive.> Why is it more naive then believing we need a draft to deal with Iran or North Korea?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Honestly, considering how utterly wrong neocons got Iraq, it's amazing they have the arrogance to think they can get anything right.>> <I haven't noticed where the liberals ever got anything right.> Ooooh! What a comeback! LOL.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer <I haven't noticed where the liberals ever got anything right.> I suppose you'd prefer it if we were still part of England?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I suppose you'd prefer it if we were still part of England?> I meant modern liberals. Say, since the mid-70's. I noticed you didn't answer the question I asked in post 72.
