Current Events Thread: You know shit is bad when even we aren't joking.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Internet VFW > Current Events Thread: You know shit is bad when even we aren't joking.

«‹›97 »

Zeroisanumber: Oct 23, 2010; Nap Ghost

Genocide Tendency posted:

Soooo..

Someone just said that Sherman's Atlanta antics weren't that bloodthirsty.

I don't want to go back in there anymore.

Or maybe I got caught by Poe's law.

He smashed the poo poo out of Georgia and South Carolina, and I'm sure that his Bummers weren't gentle when they went out on foraging raids, but I don't recall there being a lot of cold blooded slaughter.

Edit: By comparison, read up on what Bedford Forrest's people did at Fort Pillow, or what Republic of Texas forces did after the Battle of San Jacinto.

Zeroisanumber fucked around with this message at 06:37 on Jun 15, 2014

# ? Jun 15, 2014 06:33

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 19, 2024 11:14

Snowdens Secret: Dec 29, 2008; Someone got you a obnoxiously racist av.

Briefly interrupting talk of the current events of smashing the Confederacy, here's a few-weeks-old article that's a good summary of the political side of the mess in Iraq. It's worth reading in its entirety but here's the relevant part:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/04/28/140428fa_fact_filkins?currentPage=all

quote:

September, 2010, with the Iraqi government stalled by inconclusive parliamentary elections, a group of political leaders was invited to the Iranian holy city of Qom for a celebration of the Eid al Fitr holiday. Once there, they were quietly summoned to a meeting of another sort. Their host was Qassem Suleimani, the head of the Quds Force, the Iranian paramilitary corps. For nearly a decade, Suleimani had loomed over Iraq as a powerful, shadowy influence: he had flooded the country with agents, brokered political deals, and smuggled in sophisticated bombs to kill American soldiers. Iran�s goals in Iraq were twofold: to bleed the Americans and to bolster the power of its Shiite clients.

In parliamentary elections the previous March, Maliki�s Shiite Islamist alliance, the State of Law, had suffered an embarrassing loss. The greatest share of votes went to a secular, pro-Western coalition called Iraqiya, led by Ayad Allawi, a persistent enemy of the Iranians. �These were election results we could only have dreamed of,� a former American diplomat told me. �The surge had worked. The war was winding down. And, for the first time in the history of the Arab world, a secular, Western-leaning alliance won a free and fair election.�

But even though Allawi�s group had won the most votes, it had not captured a majority, leaving both him and Maliki scrambling for coalition partners. And despite the gratifying election results, American officials said, the Obama Administration concluded that backing Allawi would be too difficult if he was opposed by Shiites and by their supporters in Iran. �There was no way that the Shia were not going to provide the next Prime Minister,� James Jeffrey, the American Ambassador at the time, told me. �Iraq will not work if they don�t. Allawi was a goner.�

Shortly after the elections, an Iraqi judge, under pressure from the Prime Minister, awarded Maliki the first chance to form a government. The ruling directly contradicted the Iraqi constitution, but American officials did not contest it. �The intent of the constitution was clear, and we had the notes of the people who drafted it,� Sky, the civilian adviser, said. �The Americans had already weighed in for Maliki.�

But it was the meeting with Suleimani that was ultimately decisive. According to American officials, he broke the Iraqi deadlock by leaning on Sadr to support Maliki, in exchange for control of several government ministries. Suleimani�s conditions for the new government were sweeping. Maliki agreed to make Jalal Talabani, the pro-Iranian Kurdish leader, the new President, and to neutralize the Iraqi National Intelligence Service, which was backed by the C.I.A. Most dramatic, he agreed to expel all American forces from the country by the end of 2011.

The U.S. obtained a transcript of the meeting, and knew the exact terms of the agreement. Yet it decided not to contest Iran�s interference. At a meeting of the National Security Council a month later, the White House signed off on the new regime. Officials who had spent much of the previous decade trying to secure American interests in the country were outraged. �We lost four thousand five hundred Americans only to let the Iranians dictate the outcome of the war? To result in strategic defeat?� the former American diplomat told me. �gently caress that.� At least one U.S. diplomat in Baghdad resigned in protest. And Ayad Allawi, the secular Iraqi leader who captured the most votes, was deeply embittered. �I needed American support,� he told me last summer. �But they wanted to leave, and they handed the country to the Iranians. Iraq is a failed state now, an Iranian colony.�

American diplomats made one last effort to preserve their influence. In a meeting, Jeffrey asked Maliki to commit to several goals in his second term: granting amnesty to thousands of Sunnis who had been detained without charges; dismantling prisons where American officials believed that Iraqis were being tortured; and signing an agreement that would allow American troops to stay in the country. Later that year, the U.S. brokered a deal to bring Allawi and other members of his coalition into the government. In time, Maliki either ignored or jettisoned every promise. �He looked us straight in the eyes and lied,� the former diplomat told me.

The consequences became clear when negotiations began over the crucial question of withdrawing American troops after 2011. The leaders of all the major Iraqi parties had privately told American commanders that they wanted several thousand military personnel to remain, to train Iraqi forces and to help track down insurgents. The commanders told me that Maliki, too, said that he wanted to keep troops in Iraq. But he argued that the long-standing agreement that gave American soldiers immunity from Iraqi courts was increasingly unpopular; parliament would forbid the troops to stay unless they were subject to local law.

President Obama, too, was ambivalent about retaining even a small force in Iraq. For several months, American officials told me, they were unable to answer basic questions in meetings with Iraqis�like how many troops they wanted to leave behind�because the Administration had not decided. �We got no guidance from the White House,� Jeffrey told me. �We didn�t know where the President was. Maliki kept saying, �I don�t know what I have to sell.� � At one meeting, Maliki said that he was willing to sign an executive agreement granting the soldiers permission to stay, if he didn�t have to persuade the parliament to accept immunity. The Obama Administration quickly rejected the idea. �The American attitude was: Let�s get out of here as quickly as possible,� Sami al-Askari, the Iraqi member of parliament, said.

# ? Jun 15, 2014 07:08

psydude: Apr 1, 2008; Heartache is powerful, but democracy is *subtle*.

GENDERWEIRD GREEDO posted:

Haha I think shortly afterward someone tried to make the point that the US has simply become more bloodthirsty in the past few years which is why we never took prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan (apparently).

Must be why we aren't even allowed to drop munitions on confirmed Taliban compounds anymore.

# ? Jun 15, 2014 09:16

Flaky: Feb 14, 2011; Can't post for 3 years!

I was watching an interview by frontline with Robert Fisk from at least before 2006 where he reads an excerpt of one of his books which I will transcribe here, as it seems relevant to the current discussion:

"Well I was giving a lecture in the States, Valdosta, I'd never heard of it before, it's in Georgia, and a very smart guy came up to me, he was a Vietnam veteran, a very eloquent guy, and his son is leftenant-colonel, a medical officer, in Baghdad. It's very sad in fact because his other son is a doctor, who is totally against the war, and the two sons no longer talk to each other. And in fact when I met him he said he had just got a phone call from his leftenant-colonel son who is in Kuwait, just going to be sent up into Iraq, and I said "How is he?" and he said "He's frightened." But anyway, what he pointed out to me was that the military code in the United States, has been changed, or was changed, by Rumsfeld, and this is the little piece I wrote about him, and it is the words that chill me."

"In the week that George Bush took to fantasizing that his blood soaked War on Terror would lead the twenty first century into a shining age of human liberty, I went through my mailbag to find a frightening letter addressed to me by an American veteran who's son is serving as a leftenant-colonel with American forces in Baghdad. Put simply my american friend believes the change in military creed under the Bush administration [which I had no idea of by the way] from that of soldier to that of warrior is encouraging American troops to commit atrocities. So, first, here's the official US army's soldiers creed, originally drawn up to prevent any more Vietnam atrocities, any more My Lais.

I am an American soldier, I am a member of the United States army, a protector of the greatest nation on Earth. Because I am proud of my uniform I wear, I will always act in ways creditable to the military service and the nation that it is sworn to guard. No matter what situation I am in, I will never do anything for pleasure, profit or personal safety, which will disgrace my uniform, my unit or my country. I will use every means I have, even beyond the line of duty, to restrain my army comrades from actions disgraceful to themselves and the uniform. I am proud of my country and its flag, I will try to make the people of this nation proud of the service I represent for I am an American soldier.

And here is the new version of what is now called the Warrior Ethos, that's what the Pentagon calls it.

I am an American soldier. I am a warrior, and a member of a team. I serve the people of the United States, and live the army values. I will always place the mission first, I will never accept defeat. I will never quit, I will never leave a fallen comrade. I am disciplined, physically and mentally tough, trained and proficient in my warrior tasks and drills. I always maintain my arms, my equipment and myself. I am an expert, and I am a professional, ready to deploy, engage and destroy the enemies of the United States in close combat. I am a guardian of freedom and the American way of life. I am an American soldier.

Like most Europeans and an awful lot of Americans I was quite unaware of this new and ferocious code for US armed forces, although it's not hard to see how it fits in with Bush's rantings. I am tempted to point this out in detail but my American veteran did so with such eloquence in his letter to me that a response should come in his words. "The warrior creed", he wrote "allows no end to any conflict except total destruction of the enemy. It allows no defeat, and does not allow one ever to stop fighting, lending itself to the idea of the long war. It says nothing about following orders, it says nothing about obeying laws, or showing restraint. It says nothing about dishonorable actions.""

I think this is symptomatic though perhaps not explicitly what people in the other thread were referring to. I haven't read much of Robert Fisk so I can't easily decide whether it is a realistic interpretation or somewhat overinflated and sensationalist.

Ed. I'll include some of his commendations while I am at it seeing as people seem to be just as unaware of him as I am.

"Bestselling author and journalist who has lived in the middle east for three decades. He is currently the middle-east correspondent for the Independent and lives in Beirut. He has covered 11 major wars and countless insurgencies including the 1979 Iranian Revolution, 80-88 Iran-Iraq war, 91 Persian Gulf war and was one of the first journalists to visit the scene of the Sabra and Shatila massacre. He has received numerous awards including Amnesty International's UK press award in 1998 for his reports from Algeria, and again in 2000 for his articles on the NATO air campaign against Yugoslavia in 1999. In addition he has also been named British Press Awards International Journalist of the Year 7 times."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_fisk

Flaky fucked around with this message at 14:30 on Jun 15, 2014

# ? Jun 15, 2014 13:51

vains: May 26, 2004; A Big Ten institution offering distance education catering to adult learners

Flaky posted:

I was watching an interview by frontline with Robert Fisk from at least before 2006 where he reads an excerpt of one of his books which I will transcribe here, as it seems relevant to the current discussion:

"Well I was giving a lecture in the States, Valdosta, I'd never heard of it before, it's in Georgia, and a very smart guy came up to me, he was a Vietnam veteran, a very eloquent guy, and his son is leftenant-colonel, a medical officer, in Baghdad. It's very sad in fact because his other son is a doctor, who is totally against the war, and the two sons no longer talk to each other. And in fact when I met him he said he had just got a phone call from his leftenant-colonel son who is in Kuwait, just going to be sent up into Iraq, and I said "How is he?" and he said "He's frightened." But anyway, what he pointed out to me was that the military code in the United States, has been changed, or was changed, by Rumsfeld, and this is the little piece I wrote about him, and it is the words that chill me."

"In the week that George Bush took to fantasizing that his blood soaked War on Terror would lead the twenty first century into a shining age of human liberty, I went through my mailbag to find a frightening letter addressed to me by an American veteran who's son is serving as a leftenant-colonel with American forces in Baghdad. Put simply my american friend believes the change in military creed under the Bush administration [which I had no idea of by the way] from that of soldier to that of warrior is encouraging American troops to commit atrocities. So, first, here's the official US army's soldiers creed, originally drawn up to prevent any more Vietnam atrocities, any more My Lais.

I am an American soldier, I am a member of the United States army, a protector of the greatest nation on Earth. Because I am proud of my uniform I wear, I will always act in ways creditable to the military service and the nation that it is sworn to guard. No matter what situation I am in, I will never do anything for pleasure, profit or personal safety, which will disgrace my uniform, my unit or my country. I will use every means I have, even beyond the line of duty, to restrain my army comrades from actions disgraceful to themselves and the uniform. I am proud of my country and its flag, I will try to make the people of this nation proud of the service I represent for I am an American soldier.

And here is the new version of what is now called the Warrior Ethos, that's what the Pentagon calls it.

I am an American soldier. I am a warrior, and a member of a team. I serve the people of the United States, and live the army values. I will always place the mission first, I will never accept defeat. I will never quit, I will never leave a fallen comrade. I am disciplined, physically and mentally tough, trained and proficient in my warrior tasks and drills. I always maintain my arms, my equipment and myself. I am an expert, and I am a professional, ready to deploy, engage and destroy the enemies of the United States in close combat. I am a guardian of freedom and the American way of life. I am an American soldier.

Like most Europeans and an awful lot of Americans I was quite unaware of this new and ferocious code for US armed forces, although it's not hard to see how it fits in with Bush's rantings. I am tempted to point this out in detail but my American veteran did so with such eloquence in his letter to me that a response should come in his words. "The warrior creed", he wrote "allows no end to any conflict except total destruction of the enemy. It allows no defeat, and does not allow one ever to stop fighting, lending itself to the idea of the long war. It says nothing about following orders, it says nothing about obeying laws, or showing restraint. It says nothing about dishonorable actions.""

I think this is tendency, although not made explicit, is what people in the other thread were referring to. I haven't read much of Robert Fisk so I can't easily decide whether it is a realistic interpretation or somewhat overinflated and sensationalist.

1-Nobody who is actually out there doing the shooting/killing could recite the warrior ethos if asked.
2-Words like disciplined, professional, 'army values' and the like indicate that obeying the laws governing armed conflict are important.

Its cool that D&D fags think they know anything about anything because they read some article written by an ultra-leftwing dicksuck or saw it on Vice.

# ? Jun 15, 2014 14:01

Nostalgia4ColdWar: May 7, 2007; Good people deserve good things.

Till someone lets the winter in and the dying begins, because Old Dark Places attract Old Dark Things.

I couldn't have recited the soldier's creed if you held a loving gun to my balls and I was high loving speed.

Hell, I didn't even know that wordy self-fellating loving 'creed' was out there, because it's eye rolling as poo poo. I'd heard the NCO Creed in PLDC (and promptly loving forgot it), but even in goddamn old rear end Basic we never heard the soldier's creed.

# ? Jun 15, 2014 14:54

Flaky: Feb 14, 2011; Can't post for 3 years!

Is it really necessary to point out that the various creeds say more about the desired messaging of the leadership than of individual soldiers? I mean this is basically explicitly stated in the article.

VVV

Obviously not. But the rewording permitting the crime of omission is equally obvious. Natch you don't actually write those type of orders down anywhere.

Ed. it seems this is an established principle of international law since Nuremberg, IANAL though.

Flaky fucked around with this message at 15:38 on Jun 15, 2014

# ? Jun 15, 2014 15:07

vains: May 26, 2004; A Big Ten institution offering distance education catering to adult learners

Flaky posted:

Is it really necessary to point out that the various creeds say more about the desired messaging of the leadership than of individual soldiers? I mean this is basically explicitly stated in the article.

Can you quote the creed and bold the sections that encourage the commission of war crimes(as defined by the Laws of Armed Conflict and not your homo dnd circle jerk)?

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Jun 15, 2014 15:25

Fart Sandwiches: Apr 4, 2006; i never asked for this

"I will engage and destroy the enemies of the United States in close combat" is metal as gently caress and I think the army is better for it.

Fart Sandwiches fucked around with this message at 15:32 on Jun 15, 2014

# ? Jun 15, 2014 15:28

vains: May 26, 2004; A Big Ten institution offering distance education catering to adult learners

Please hurry before I commit some atrocities. I wasn't familiar with the warrior's ethos previously and I feel myself growing more bloodthirsty by the second. Thanks in advance.

# ? Jun 15, 2014 15:28

Larry Parrish: Jul 9, 2012; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

the air force makes everyone memorize the airman's creed, but its super loving homo

# ? Jun 15, 2014 16:20

maffew buildings: Apr 29, 2009; too dumb to be probated; not too dumb to be autobanned

what the gently caress you guys have doctrine around committing atrocities? I loving wasted my twenties so terribly

# ? Jun 15, 2014 17:17

Victor Vermis: Dec 21, 2004; WOKE UP IN THE DESERT AGAIN

Flaky posted:

Is it really necessary to point out that the various creeds say more about the desired messaging of the leadership than of individual soldiers? I mean this is basically explicitly stated in the article.

VVV

Obviously not. But the rewording permitting the crime of omission is equally obvious. Natch you don't actually write those type of orders down anywhere.

Ed. it seems this is an established principle of international law since Nuremberg, IANAL though.

"Hey troops you all are WARRIORS. MODERN DAY SPARTANS. You represent an ELITE CLASS in American society! ...(now go kill civilians)."

Amazing.

# ? Jun 15, 2014 17:18

chemosh6969

Jul 3, 2004

code:
cat /dev/null > /etc/professionalism

_{_{I am in fact a massive asswagon.

Do not let me touch computer.}}

Best Friends posted:

Also, in our society every agenda leaks to someone about everything, so I am very curious why there is such a lack of documentation or off the record talks about what you are saying.

I hear that a lot but then having actually served, I know it's wrong. Some things actually are kept secret.

Speaking of which, what are some good sources of news because all the places I run across are poo poo? If anyone wants to suggests Huffington Post, just shoot yourself before you do.

# ? Jun 15, 2014 17:33

maffew buildings: Apr 29, 2009; too dumb to be probated; not too dumb to be autobanned

Really glad we're re-establishing who the true monsters are US service members and their child skull gently caress implied ethos and not ISIL who literally posts videos of them slaughtering and beheading teenagers and old men

# ? Jun 15, 2014 17:33

maffew buildings: Apr 29, 2009; too dumb to be probated; not too dumb to be autobanned

chemosh6969 posted:

I hear that a lot but then having actually served, I know it's wrong. Some things actually are kept secret.

Speaking of which, what are some good sources of news because all the places I run across are poo poo? If anyone wants to suggests Huffington Post, just shoot yourself before you do.

I get my news from this thread. So basically there's none

# ? Jun 15, 2014 17:34

Whip Slagcheek: Sep 21, 2008; Finally
The Gasoline And Dynamite
Will Light The Sky
For The Night

Flaky posted:

Judging by the responses you're getting, no one cares about the ~warrior creed~ and its some hooah bullshit that people in charge came up with to motivate their troops. I'm not seeing anything in it that encourages atrocities, either.

Also this is all coming from Robert Fisk, so he probably made it up.

# ? Jun 15, 2014 17:35

chemosh6969

Jul 3, 2004

code:
cat /dev/null > /etc/professionalism

_{_{I am in fact a massive asswagon.

Do not let me touch computer.}}

powerful weedlock posted:

the air force makes everyone memorize the airman's creed, but its super loving homo

I don't think they did when I was in but if I had to, it would have been forgotten by the time basic was over.

maffew buildings posted:

I get my news from this thread. So basically there's none

I know and that's why I like this place

# ? Jun 15, 2014 17:37

RichieHimself: May 27, 2004; No way dude, she looks like Gargamel.

The only shouting words thing I remember from army is The Law.

quote:

The Law! This is our domain! Are we not men? NO! We are BEASTS! And you have made us Beasts! We will not walk, we will not talk, we will not gather in the night! We will only dress-right, dress-right, dress...Ready! FRONT! And as a last resort, with cold blue steel, we will stab between the second and third rib and TWIST! AHHHHHHHHHHH! KILL!

# ? Jun 15, 2014 18:15

Snowdens Secret: Dec 29, 2008; Someone got you a obnoxiously racist av.

The trick with news is to get it from a lot of different places and try to sift them together so you can pick the facts out of the biases. If you find someone who sounds informed, google them and see where else they post, they may have their own site.

With Iraq and to some degree Afghanistan you used to have a lot of bloggers and embeds. I read Michael Totten, Michael Yon, Pat Dollard (not linking 'cuz he's gotten seriously weird lately), couple other guys I've forgotten. Totten's a good one for guys here because at heart he's a frou-frou leftie but he walks around with open eyes and doesn't mince words about what he sees - he just got back from Cuba and holy crap his report is brutal - and he's got a couple books on his experiences in Iraq, including a lot away from American soldiers, that are worth a read. Early in the war there was a blog called Iraq The Model by two Iraqi locals, that was pretty good, but it's stopped updating; there's probably newer ones but I haven't kept up. Obviously there used to be a lot more on the US in the Mideast but with our withdrawal and the elimination of Bushitler a lot of those writers and blogs vanished or repurposed.

You can kind of tell what I read from what I link, but for GWOT news there's the Long War Journal which also has a blog with pretty much daily updates on who's attacking who, who claimed what, who got dronestruck, some background on how groups are related, etc etc. (Did you know terrorists knocked out the entire Yemeni power grid this week?) It really shows there's a lot more activity (including that by US combat troops, still) and in a lot more places than you'd think watching the evening news.

It also links a lot to first-source social media (i.e. Al Qaeda's Twitter feeds and such), and you could always follow them directly, but I prefer human to machine translations (for now) and the accounts tend to get whacked with ToS violations pretty quickly anyway - and really I don't want my Twitter feed full of AQ and other crazies when the NSA comes sniffing by anyway. Translated local media is pretty useful though, especially as people will often say very different things in their native languages than makes it to English-language press releases; there's MEMRI which translates a lot of local TV stuff. And of course you've got Brown Moses and his warporn.

The thing with places like HuffPo is that their news content is almost entirely just wire feeds - Reuters, AFP, etc. You can get those from pretty much anywhere off Google News if you don't like the other stuff on the sidebar. On sites like that (news aggregators with editorials, which goes as far as NYT, WSJ etc) make sure to take a look at the bylines as it usually gives a quick idea of the writer's bias, and for god's sake stay away from the comments section or any user submitted content. People don't realize the big papers and TV guys don't have anything like the news staffs they used to, there's pretty much never a 'Baghdad correspondent' or anyone on staff with a more than fleeting understanding of the local area/culture/zeitgeist/whatever of where they're writing about from their NYC highrise, so a lot of the content that looks original is either wirefeed (which also, honestly, is pretty bad a lot) or something submitted by a guy from The Council On Handing The Mideast To Iran On a Platter, or the Institute For Bathing The World In Fusion Fire, or something (they're usually a touch sneakier with the naming.)

A lot of times I'm just lazy and check Instapundit in the morning before heading to work or something, because I'm a Ron Paul-loving libtard who wishes I got paid in buttcoins blah blah

# ? Jun 15, 2014 18:26

Snowdens Secret: Dec 29, 2008; Someone got you a obnoxiously racist av.

Also the Navy Creed has a line about being fair to everybody and it's a good thing that's in there otherwise we might have sexual assault and rape problems

# ? Jun 15, 2014 18:28

Kung Fu Fist Fuck: Aug 9, 2009

Flaky posted:

Is it really necessary to point out that the various creeds say more about the desired messaging of the leadership than of individual soldiers? I mean this is basically explicitly stated in the article.

VVV

Obviously not. But the rewording permitting the crime of omission is equally obvious. Natch you don't actually write those type of orders down anywhere.

Ed. it seems this is an established principle of international law since Nuremberg, IANAL though.

what about the marine riflemans creed? its been around since ww2 and it talks about shooting people :wth:

# ? Jun 15, 2014 18:38

OMFG PTSD LOL PBUH: Sep 9, 2001

Honestly if you don't spend your prime physical years as a man perfecting the art of killing both your enemies and that pussy, you were a cliff baby.

# ? Jun 15, 2014 19:39

Best Friends: Nov 4, 2011

chemosh6969 posted:

I hear that a lot but then having actually served, I know it's wrong. Some things actually are kept secret.

I learned what we were actually doing in Diyala when I was from the New York times online

Snowdens Secret posted:

Because you're talking 6-7 years ago and if you're not the NYT your archives probably don't last that long. Here's a direct quote from an Aswat al-Iraq article from '07 that's no longer online:

http://fleetingperusal.blogspot.com/2007/09/breaking-iraq-to-formally-seek-long.html

Hopefully that's clear enough but there's certainly still plenty of articles in the 07-08 timeframe talking about how shitless scared the American Left was that Bushitler was going to get this deal closed and lock us in Iraq forever before a real president could be elected to fix everything:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-dreyfuss/maliki-bush-trample-iraqs_b_77903.html

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18368586

Note they also mention the idea/plan of Maliki 'end-running' around his Parliament so politicians wouldn't have to be put on the spot and could tut-tut the SOFA with appropriate cover.

E: Hell, Zebari even lobbied for us to stay in a Wapo editorial:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/03/AR2007050301548.html

Man almost sounds like he was right

This is super interesting, thanks. I missed all that at the time.

Based on my experience there helping tear down a village school so the corrupt and useless Iraqi army could have a barracks, loving with people all day, hearing the people we were loving with complain to us about banditry from the Iraqi Army and Iraqi Police, and threatening to kill them if they were not paying attention to traffic, I don't think our stay there actually did anything positive. And all this stuff we are seeing now was still under the surface, and would still be under the surface if we were still there. Also:

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Iraq-Cleric-al-Sadr-calls-for-peaceful-protests

quote:

Iraqi Shi'ite leader Muqtada al-Sadr called for peaceful protests after the passage of a security pact that will let US forces stay in Iraq through 2011. The cleric's spokesman said al-Sadr also wants his followers to close his offices and affiliated institutions for three days "to show the tragedy that has befallen us." Sheik Salah al-Obeidi read al-Sadr's statement to reporters in the holy city of Najaf on Friday, a day after lawmakers approved the deal. Iraq's presidential council still needs to ratify it. Al-Sadr's statement called for "peaceful public protests" and the display of black banners as a sign of mourning. But it didn't repeat his threat to unleash militia fighters to attack US forces if they don't leave immediately.

I think there is a good chance if we were still there, we'd be fighting Iran/Shiites openly.

# ? Jun 15, 2014 20:10

Snowdens Secret: Dec 29, 2008; Someone got you a obnoxiously racist av.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gfe5d8AeG98

"Our intelligence has failed us miserably" could be the tagline for the US's history of Iraq and the greater Mideast for at least the last 25 years.

Also, 'stiffen their backbones' must be some talking point because it's making the rounds of the Sunday shows, I guess Iraqis would be doing much better against, uh, themselves, if they didn't suffer from such crippling scoliosis

# ? Jun 15, 2014 20:11

Nostalgia4ColdWar: May 7, 2007; Good people deserve good things.

Till someone lets the winter in and the dying begins, because Old Dark Places attract Old Dark Things.

Wait, at one point wasn't the Soldier's Creed that poo poo that started with "I am an American fighting man" and it was changed in the 1990's to "I am American fighting soldier"?

Or was that some other bullshit that command thought that we lived by and nobody who did actual work gave a gently caress about?

Nostalgia4ColdWar fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Jun 15, 2014

# ? Jun 15, 2014 20:20

Lazy Reservist: Nov 30, 2005; FUBIJAR

Snowdens Secret posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gfe5d8AeG98

"Our intelligence has failed us miserably" could be the tagline for the US's history of Iraq and the greater Mideast for at least the last 25 years.

Also, 'stiffen their backbones' must be some talking point because it's making the rounds of the Sunday shows, I guess Iraqis would be doing much better against, uh, themselves, if they didn't suffer from such crippling scoliosis

It should be "We only used the intelligence that matched our narrative (i.e. Chalabi), and disregarded everything else."

# ? Jun 15, 2014 21:21

Nostalgia4Infinity: Feb 27, 2007; 10,000 YEARS WASN'T ENOUGH LURKING

Manning says US public lied to about Iraq from the start. Also declares water is wet and sky is blue.

# ? Jun 15, 2014 21:58

Casimir Radon: Aug 2, 2008

Nostalgia4Infinity posted:

Manning says US public lied to about Iraq from the start. Also declares water is wet and sky is blue.

Probably started to realize the Obama isn't going to give him a fauxgina for Christmas, or a pardon.

# ? Jun 15, 2014 23:33

Liquid Communism: Mar 9, 2004; Out here, everything hurts.

50 Foot Ant posted:

Holy poo poo. They really don't loving get it, do they? They think that poo poo just follows the AI programming of their favorite video game, don't they?

'just a lot bloodthirstier'? loving really?

These guys have seen movies/read books about the Vietnam War, right? They've studied history, right? They're familiar with World War I and World War II, right?

poo poo, they're familiar with the Iran/Iraq War and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, right?

Or are they so goddamn naive they think that Patton or Grant or Sherman wouldn't have left the Middle East a smoking goddamn crater?

They're not familiar with history, that's the problem. Heavy on the Pol Sci theory and a lot of Battlefield on X-box, no real understanding of actual history or what a war where we aren't following strict ROE looks like. Chances are their idea of what D-day looked like includes a lot of respawning and getting frustrated because the players on the German side have better camping points.

Liquid Communism fucked around with this message at 00:24 on Jun 16, 2014

# ? Jun 16, 2014 00:15

Bolow: Feb 27, 2007

Fart Sandwiches posted:

"I will engage and destroy the enemies of the United States in close combat" is metal as gently caress and I think the army is better for it.

IIRC The Marine Corps Rifleman's creed is some poo poo like "Locate, close in and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver or close combat"

It might also be the Objective of a Marine Corps Fireteam. I can't loving remember I was some dumb pog airwing gently caress

# ? Jun 16, 2014 01:03

Lazy Reservist: Nov 30, 2005; FUBIJAR

50 Foot Ant posted:

Wait, at one point wasn't the Soldier's Creed that poo poo that started with "I am an American fighting man" and it was changed in the 1990's to "I am American fighting soldier"?

Or was that some other bullshit that command thought that we lived by and nobody who did actual work gave a gently caress about?

The Code of Conduct started with "I am an American fighting man." It was changed to "I am an American, fighting in the forces..." in 1988.

# ? Jun 16, 2014 01:25

Kung Fu Fist Fuck: Aug 9, 2009

Bolow posted:

IIRC The Marine Corps Rifleman's creed is some poo poo like "Locate, close in and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver or close combat"

It might also be the Objective of a Marine Corps Fireteam. I can't loving remember I was some dumb pog airwing gently caress

job of a rifle squad. locate close with and destroy the enemy with fire and manuver, and repel the enemy assault with fire and close combat

# ? Jun 16, 2014 01:48

Godholio: Aug 28, 2002; Does a bear split in the woods near Zheleznogorsk?

Nostalgia4Infinity posted:

Manning says US public lied to about Iraq from the start. Also declares water is wet and sky is blue.

He was in high school at the time.

# ? Jun 16, 2014 07:17

Nostalgia4ColdWar: May 7, 2007; Good people deserve good things.

Till someone lets the winter in and the dying begins, because Old Dark Places attract Old Dark Things.

Lazy Reservist posted:

The Code of Conduct started with "I am an American fighting man." It was changed to "I am an American, fighting in the forces..." in 1988.

I couldn't remember. Anyone who could recite that poo poo you wouldn't trust with an ammo box full of rocks because that motherfucker was going to lose it.

I knew some guys who could quote the loving Ranger's Creed by heart, which was funny, because they weren't Rangers, would never qualify for Ranger, and were fat lazy fucks.

What kind of gets me, about the whole thing, is the whole "It makes the leadership bloodthirsty!" which, when you get down to it, is something you want when you're going into a war.

Despite what a lot of people seem to think, the whole "YOU'RE THE BEST, ROCK! YOU EAT LIGHTNING AND poo poo THUNDER, ROCK!" is to keep you pumped up, keep you focused, and make you better able to handle the bullshit.

Seriously, think about how hard dicked you were when you first got in. If they told you that you'd have to ride of the top of the truck in a pink tutu to man the M-240, even if you wouldn't do it there was like a dozen guys who would be all "gently caress YEAH!" about it. You need that poo poo. You always need the dude who thinks it's a great idea to have him charge the machinegun.

That bullshit old Soldier's Creed looks more like politics and dude's with degrees or some loving REMF officer designed it, because that loving thing sure as poo poo doesn't feel like victory to me. It looks like some poo poo where we're expected to go around the battlefield and hand out loving bandaids or some poo poo. It wasn't like we didn't get briefings and classes to remind us what was and wasn't a war crime. (LOLOLOLOL, teach guys with NBC weapons about war crimes. Seriously? You expect us to paste the poo poo out of everything in sight and you want me to worry about whether or not some tanker from 1/68th Armor is going to shoot a loving church with his main gun?) Christ, during Desert Shield, before Operation Crescent Saber (or whatever the gently caress that cluster gently caress was called) I must have attended a half-dozen war crimes briefings.

It's like the dipshits in D&D claiming that we're more bloodthirsty now. That new creed didn't make everyone all bloodthirsty, if anything they (command) probably figured it would focus the troops better. Honor Code, Warrior Code, don't pick on civvies, don't be a dick, kill the enemy not farmers, all good poo poo. The whole "Oh, I guess we're more bloodthirsty now then 30 years ago" sounds like they've never met, you know, human beings. They're like the opposite of those idiots on Facebook talking about how kids nowadays are such pussies because they don't get beat with a belt or smacked around till their mouths bleed.

Some poo poo like that creed didn't make everyone wanna run out and commit loving war crimes. It was just some poo poo you heard once or twice, or maybe that loving douche in HHC could recite and thought it made his fat rear end into Billy Badass, and then ignored. Leadership probably didn't pay attention to it either. I know that some people were claiming it showed a certain mindset of the leadership, but that's retarded too. Most of the leadership I knew had a hard enough controlling the loving half-wit animals that DoA saddled them with, I really doubted they were worried about something creed that he knew good and well none of those retarded gravel chewing apes could even read. And leadership above that? No General gave a gently caress about that creed. They were trying to figure out how to finish their 30/40 without stepping on their dicks, getting shot by some retard, having a loving E-1 flip a M113 on them, and being able to bail out with a golden parachute into sweet civvy job screaming "SUCK MY BALLS!" and waving his dick at everyone else.

NOBODY cared about some "more bloodthirsty creed that doesn't talk about honor", everyone just wanted to spend the least amount of time without Uncle Sam probing their back teeth for cavities with a huge green dick. Leadership didn't care, they had enough problems dealing with the drunk and stupid enlisted men, the jaded and apathetic NCO's, the retarded hard chargers that ruined everyone's vibe, and the goddamn retarded civvies up at the Pentagon who didn't understand poo poo but cost effectiveness metrics.

poo poo, I knew motherfuckers that couldn't recite the unit motto. Not E-1's and E-2's, either, because you're lucky if those dumb motherfuckers can remember their room number and not to choke on their loving dogtags. I'm talking O-3's and above that couldn't tell you the unit motto if you offered them free blowjobs for life by supermodels. Even in the bullshit rear end peacetime Army I was in, where SGM's would run up on you to scream about your boots being scuffed when he didn't even know what unit you were in, nobody gave a flying gently caress about mottos, creeds, or any of that poo poo.

You know why?

Because that poo poo's gay as hell and anyone who can recite it is either going to get himself killed chasing a loving medal, or get you killed chasing that medal.

So, in closing of this rambling bunch of bullshit from crazy Grampa Ant, mottos are gay, creeds are gay, and the motherfuckers who think they matter are gayer than either.

Nostalgia4ColdWar fucked around with this message at 07:27 on Jun 16, 2014

# ? Jun 16, 2014 07:24

orange juche: Mar 14, 2012

50 Foot Ant posted:

I couldn't remember. Anyone who could recite that poo poo you wouldn't trust with an ammo box full of rocks because that motherfucker was going to lose it.

I knew some guys who could quote the loving Ranger's Creed by heart, which was funny, because they weren't Rangers, would never qualify for Ranger, and were fat lazy fucks.

What kind of gets me, about the whole thing, is the whole "It makes the leadership bloodthirsty!" which, when you get down to it, is something you want when you're going into a war.

Despite what a lot of people seem to think, the whole "YOU'RE THE BEST, ROCK! YOU EAT LIGHTNING AND poo poo THUNDER, ROCK!" is to keep you pumped up, keep you focused, and make you better able to handle the bullshit.

Seriously, think about how hard dicked you were when you first got in. If they told you that you'd have to ride of the top of the truck in a pink tutu to man the M-240, even if you wouldn't do it there was like a dozen guys who would be all "gently caress YEAH!" about it. You need that poo poo. You always need the dude who thinks it's a great idea to have him charge the machinegun.

That bullshit old Soldier's Creed looks more like politics and dude's with degrees or some loving REMF officer designed it, because that loving thing sure as poo poo doesn't feel like victory to me. It looks like some poo poo where we're expected to go around the battlefield and hand out loving bandaids or some poo poo. It wasn't like we didn't get briefings and classes to remind us what was and wasn't a war crime. (LOLOLOLOL, teach guys with NBC weapons about war crimes. Seriously? You expect us to paste the poo poo out of everything in sight and you want me to worry about whether or not some tanker from 1/68th Armor is going to shoot a loving church with his main gun?) Christ, during Desert Shield, before Operation Crescent Saber (or whatever the gently caress that cluster gently caress was called) I must have attended a half-dozen war crimes briefings.

It's like the dipshits in D&D claiming that we're more bloodthirsty now. That new creed didn't make everyone all bloodthirsty, if anything they (command) probably figured it would focus the troops better. Honor Code, Warrior Code, don't pick on civvies, don't be a dick, kill the enemy not farmers, all good poo poo. The whole "Oh, I guess we're more bloodthirsty now then 30 years ago" sounds like they've never met, you know, human beings. They're like the opposite of those idiots on Facebook talking about how kids nowadays are such pussies because they don't get beat with a belt or smacked around till their mouths bleed.

Some poo poo like that creed didn't make everyone wanna run out and commit loving war crimes. It was just some poo poo you heard once or twice, or maybe that loving douche in HHC could recite and thought it made his fat rear end into Billy Badass, and then ignored. Leadership probably didn't pay attention to it either. I know that some people were claiming it showed a certain mindset of the leadership, but that's retarded too. Most of the leadership I knew had a hard enough controlling the loving half-wit animals that DoA saddled them with, I really doubted they were worried about something creed that he knew good and well none of those retarded gravel chewing apes could even read. And leadership above that? No General gave a gently caress about that creed. They were trying to figure out how to finish their 30/40 without stepping on their dicks, getting shot by some retard, having a loving E-1 flip a M113 on them, and being able to bail out with a golden parachute into sweet civvy job screaming "SUCK MY BALLS!" and waving his dick at everyone else.

NOBODY cared about some "more bloodthirsty creed that doesn't talk about honor", everyone just wanted to spend the least amount of time without Uncle Sam probing their back teeth for cavities with a huge green dick. Leadership didn't care, they had enough problems dealing with the drunk and stupid enlisted men, the jaded and apathetic NCO's, the retarded hard chargers that ruined everyone's vibe, and the goddamn retarded civvies up at the Pentagon who didn't understand poo poo but cost effectiveness metrics.

poo poo, I knew motherfuckers that couldn't recite the unit motto. Not E-1's and E-2's, either, because you're lucky if those dumb motherfuckers can remember their room number and not to choke on their loving dogtags. I'm talking O-3's and above that couldn't tell you the unit motto if you offered them free blowjobs for life by supermodels. Even in the bullshit rear end peacetime Army I was in, where SGM's would run up on you to scream about your boots being scuffed when he didn't even know what unit you were in, nobody gave a flying gently caress about mottos, creeds, or any of that poo poo.

You know why?

Because that poo poo's gay as hell and anyone who can recite it is either going to get himself killed chasing a loving medal, or get you killed chasing that medal.

So, in closing of this rambling bunch of bullshit from crazy Grampa Ant, mottos are gay, creeds are gay, and the motherfuckers who think they matter are gayer than either.