should we pull out of chicago

#30
#30
joevol320 said:
cbs2chicago.com - Nearly 125 Shot Dead In Chicago Over Summer

125 people shot dead over the summer. double than soldier killed in iraq over the summer..

do we need to pull out of chicago?
Click to expand...

Hmm.....I'm not following. So you are saying because there is murderous crime in Chicago that it mirrors the government's choice to sacrifice soldiers for oil in Iraq (oh yeah, I know that's a loaded statement)?

I would argue the people killed in Chicago have a choice about whether or not to live there. Not much choice in Iraq.
 
#31
#31
VolByBirth said:
Hmm.....I'm not following. So you are saying because there is murderous crime in Chicago that it mirrors the government's choice to sacrifice soldiers for oil in Iraq (oh yeah, I know that's a loaded statement)?

I would argue the people killed in Chicago have a choice about whether or not to live there. Not much choice in Iraq.
Click to expand...

Where is this oil you speak of?
 
#32
#32
VolDad said:
Where is this oil you speak of?
Click to expand...

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/19/africa/19iraq.php

Another quote:

Iraq has the world’s second largest proven oil reserves. According to oil industry experts, new exploration will probably raise Iraq’s reserves to 200+ billion barrels of high-grade crude, extraordinarily cheap to produce. The four giant firms located in the US and the UK have been keen to get back into Iraq, from which they were excluded with the nationalization of 1972. During the final years of the Saddam era, they envied companies from France, Russia, China, and elsewhere, who had obtained major contracts. But UN sanctions (kept in place by the US and the UK) kept those contracts inoperable. Since the invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003, much has changed. In the new setting, with Washington running the show, "friendly" companies expect to gain most of the lucrative oil deals that will be worth hundreds of billions of dollars in profits in the coming decades. The Iraqi constitution of 2005, greatly influenced by US advisors, contains language that guarantees a major role for foreign companies. Negotiators hope soon to complete deals on Production Sharing Agreements that will give the companies control over dozens of fields, including the fabled super-giant Majnoon. But first the Parliament must pass a new oil sector investment law allowing foreign companies to assume a major role in the country. The US has threatened to withhold funding as well as financial and military support if the law does not soon pass. Although the Iraqi cabinet endorsed the draft law in July 2007, Parliament has balked at the legislation. Most Iraqis favor continued control by a national company and the powerful oil workers union strongly opposes de-nationalization. Iraq's political future is very much in flux, but oil remains the central feature of the political landscape.
 
#33
#33
VolByBirth said:
Hmm.....I'm not following. So you are saying because there is murderous crime in Chicago that it mirrors the government's choice to sacrifice soldiers for oil in Iraq (oh yeah, I know that's a loaded statement)?

I would argue the people killed in Chicago have a choice about whether or not to live there. Not much choice in Iraq.
Click to expand...

so the soldiers don't have a choice to join the military? And don't they understand that the point of the military is to fight?
 
#34
#34
utvolpj said:
so the soldiers don't have a choice to join the military? And don't they understand that the point of the military is to fight?
Click to expand...

I will agree with the first sentence -- but I still think the parallel between Chicago and Iraq is weak at best.

However, many of the soldiers I know absolutely hate the idea of going back to Iraq - -which many have done multiple times.

I'm actually going to disagree with the last sentence. The point of the military is not to fight. In fact, the whole Cold War military build up was just that -- "peace through superior fire power".
 
#35
#35
VolByBirth said:
I will agree with the first sentence -- but I still think the parallel between Chicago and Iraq is weak at best.

However, many of the soldiers I know absolutely hate the idea of going back to Iraq - -which many have done multiple times.

I'm actually going to disagree with the last sentence. The point of the military is not to fight. In fact, the whole Cold War military build up was just that -- "peace through superior fire power".
Click to expand...
I don't know much about the military so take this with a grain of salt, but the only prayer that the armed forces have of being a true policy tool is to be capble of fighting well and enemies believe we are absolutely willing to use it. Otherwise, the military is only a defensive force and ill prepared to do that job.

You're buildup argument is purely a strategic debate, when we absolutely have to have forces prepared, willing and able to fight at the tactical level. The threat of force has regularly proven hollow and eventually worthless without COL Jessup standing on his wall and dusting the bad guys.

The vast majority of soldiers do not want to go fight, but understand that's their function, killing enemies and breaking their stuff, lest they do same to us.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#36
#36
VolByBirth said:
However, many of the soldiers I know absolutely hate the idea of going back to Iraq - -which many have done multiple times.
Click to expand...

many of my friends, who have been over more than once, did it willingly. Granted, one of them had some crazy reasons but they knew what was at stake

VolByBirth said:
I'm actually going to disagree with the last sentence. The point of the military is not to fight. In fact, the whole Cold War military build up was just that -- "peace through superior fire power".
Click to expand...

that's great and all but one should never join the military without ever recognizing that it's a possibility. That free college money is a debt that might have to be paid one day.
 
#38
#38
volmanbill said:
Sounds like the cops already have.
Click to expand...

Spoken like a true lib. It's the cop's fault they kill each other. Or it's the guns fault. Or it's the school they went to..

And btw if you were joking I was too.
 
#39
#39
Totally off the cuff. When I was typing I was thinking of the irony. I want less "outside interference".
 
#40
#40
BigPapaVol said:
I don't know much about the military so take this with a grain of salt, but the only prayer that the armed forces have of being a true policy tool is to be capble of fighting well and enemies believe we are absolutely willing to use it. Otherwise, the military is only a defensive force and ill prepared to do that job.

You're buildup argument is purely a strategic debate, when we absolutely have to have forces prepared, willing and able to fight at the tactical level. The threat of force has regularly proven hollow and eventually worthless without COL Jessup standing on his wall and dusting the bad guys.

The vast majority of soldiers do not want to go fight, but understand that's their function, killing enemies and breaking their stuff, lest they do same to us.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...



My buildup comment was more a statement to say that the sole purpose of military is not to go fight. When you leave out a word in a post, it can take on a whole new meaning. I should know that by now.

In total agreement with the last part -- they should understand this. I'm not convinced all do.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top