+- The Lurker Lounge Forums (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums)
+-- Forum: The Lurker Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Two wars at once? (/thread-11931.html)
Two wars at once? - Jester - 03-05-2003
"I guess anti Semitism is not dead"
Occhi, while I'm sure this is a true statement, it's not good form to go crying anti-semitism every time Israel is in question. It's absurd. There's the idea, based on hatred and xenophobia, that holds other races as scapegoats. It exists, yes, and it is loathsome.
But it is entirely possible (and increasingly common) to be anti-Israel without being anti-semitic. Israel is a state. The Jews are not. I get along fine with Jews, since they are a nice people generally, along with every other racial group I've encountered. It's Israel that I often disagree with.
Jester
Two wars at once? - keenduck - 03-05-2003
Quote:If war with Iraq happens, then I'm sure it'll be over in a rather short period of time at which point a good portion of the forces centered there will likely just go right back over to the Pacific. The reason that such overwhelming numbers are centered around Iraq right now would be to proceed with an overwhelming attack that effectively wins the war in as short a period as possible so that they can get out of there quickly.
That's true enough, but my concern is that Iraq will descend into civil war/strife while we're dashing back and forth between North Korea. In a real war, fighting North Korea will require a massive land war, and we'll probably need most of our reserves there (assuming North Korea goes all out with everything they've got). That leaves Iraq uncontrolled, which would probably descend into Afghanistan-style chaos. We haven't even really helped Afghanistan, past setting up a central government that just controls the capital. I've got several articles from various newspapers and from former military men who all agree that occupying Iraq could take from 100000 to 600000 troops, for roughly ten years. It's quite a lot.
Of course, if NK folds rather quickly, the whole point is moot. (SK can handle the occupation of NK.)
Two wars at once? - dwa - 03-05-2003
Quote: Yet NK actually has a somewhat capable air force
You mean large. NK has very few fighters that were not made in the '60's (and by very few I mean can be counted on two hands), and have been suffering from major supply shortfalls for quite some time. I can't remember the last time there was a significant training exercise involving their air force.
Quote: Yet again, NK has much larger (effective) army
Once again, the two terms are not interchangable. The only capable parts of the North Korean ground forces are their longe-range artillery systems, namely the 170 SP gun and 240 MRL system. Which are certainly nothing to laugh at, but are not enough in and of themselves to succeed in a conflict.
A telling point: there is nothing their ground forces have aside from heavy artillery systems that can penetrate the armor of an M-1 or K-1 (Korean version of the M-1, about 85% of the size) tank. Nothing. Not anti-tank missles, recoiless rifles, tank munitions, nothing.
Quote:Furthermore, if there will be war in NK, it is quite possible that it will be a lengthy one.
I would say "replace quite possible with a minute possibility", but even that is going too far. The North simply does not have the resources to sustain a protracted conflict. Only if there is Chinese military intervention again can there be a protracted conflict. If the North Koreans do not cross the Han river in less than 30 days, or completely annihilates CFC forces in on fell swoop, it's over.
At least you got the last point correct, I'll give you that.
Two wars at once? - Dani - 03-05-2003
Quote:NK has very few fighters that were not made in the '60's (and by very few I mean can be counted on two hands),
F-16s still in service in USAAF are just upgraded 60s technology. Point is, that unlike the Iraqi airforce in 91, the NK one would not run away. There would be US planes dropped.
Quote:A telling point: there is nothing their ground forces have aside from heavy artillery systems that can penetrate the armor of an M-1 or K-1 (Korean version of the M-1, about 85% of the size) tank. Nothing. Not anti-tank missles, recoiless rifles, tank munitions, nothing.
The terrain in NK doesn't favor large armored concentrations. It would be very much like Afghanistan, only the opposition is organized, and has fifty times as much troops.
They do have rocket launchers, mines and other infantry weapons that are effective against any modern armor. And effective doesn't mean you stand in front of the tank and aim at it's strongest armor.
Two wars at once? - Occhidiangela - 03-05-2003
As I am sure you are aware, males are still required to register with selective service. All it takes is a vote in Congress to re institute conscription. Sec Def Rumsfeld addressed that issue rather recently when queried by a reporter on "should we re institute the draft" however, his answer is consistent with the last 25 years of policy regarding how the Armed Forces of U.S. are recruited and made up.
I would be careful in assuming that the Draft will never be resorted to. However, Pres Bush faces a possible revisit of the problem that Pres Johnson faced with regard to trying to successfully pursue a war (presently in Korea) if he does not have the backing of Congress. The activation of larger numbers of reserves will send shockwaves through various sectors of society. Reinstituting the draft would be an enormous political risk that we fall into the same trap as we did in Viet Nam of creating internal social backlash to how the draft is implemented, or how it is appeared to be implemented.
The decision to go for an all-volunteer force and to fully integrate the Reserves into the force structure was a move driven by the Army. The purpose was to ensure that when America chose to go to war, it was not all happening "to some one else>' and that the politicians who made the decisions would be forced to call for reserve mobilization, and thus get the political support to successfully conduct the war.
This structure has allegedly backfired a bit. Most operations of the past 10 + years have been "Operations Other Than War" such as Bosnia et al, wherein massive numbers of Reserves are mobilized to provide capability that once resided in the active force. Pres Clinton's inelegant use of the military arm as a band aid to the world's problems, all of which grew frm his sincere desire to be a very active partner in UN, multinational, peacekeeping operations as we entered the full reality of the multi polar world, beat up the Reserves quite a bit. The fact that he was doing this deployment frenzy while at the same time cutting the active force, i.e. creating a no fooling More With Less environment, created severe readiness problems and particularly material / spare parts shortfalls that were exacerbated by increased operational tempo.
In a word, going to the well for two fights will require a huge Reserve call up. These folks don't come to the fight "ready to wear" save for some of the Air National Guard units. The mobilization time flow can become OBE at a time where, like in Korea, the Battle of the First Salvo may be the only battle that there is.
Two wars at once? - Occhidiangela - 03-05-2003
Bad form is it? Folks who wish to America bash may well be repaid in kind. But America bashing is not bad form? Nice double standard.
But let's look at antisemitism for a moment, shall we, that tried and true cultural norm of European culture since about the time of . . . Constantine? Charlemagne? A variety of Medeival Popes? King Ferdinand of Spain? Pick when you want it to start, it is older than most of the present nation states of Europe, and certainly older than U.S. and Canada.
How was it that Europe resolved their complex relationship with the Jewish members of its population? While some engaged in pogroms, and in one case, genocide, they all exported quite a few of them to Isreal to make them the Arab's problem. Is it any surprise that so many Jews post WW II left Europe? It was no secret to them that they were unwelcome. (In a related area, see the issues of Russian Jewry between US and USSR for about thirty years of the Cold War.)
That is one way to see how the UN mandate that created Israel was so well supported. It was a passive attempt at ethnic cleansing in action without gas chambers. "Give them their own country so that they wont clutter up ours." This was not a new idea. Turkey and Greece post WW I conducted extensive "population changes" that uprooted hundreds of thousands of people from one place to another to better fit "the lines on the map." The bitterness over that sustains to this day.
Yeah, that' it, how about sending those troublesome Jewish folks to 'where they belong.' Sounds an awful lot like some of the nasty sentiments in my own country back in the 1960's. "Send the blacks back to Africa if they don't like it here." So let's not have our dear European pots call the American kettle black, shall we?
Any European, or American, who is anti-Israel borders on a profound historical hypocrisy. It is the West, the US, Europe, and assorted allied nations, who built that modern Jewish Homeland via the UN. Rather than repatriate the Jews within their own countries, Europe was glad to see them "go away." Funny that, since in America -- all problems with country club membership aside -- they found a way to fit in, and indeed become powerful and effective members of society.
"Cry havoc and let loose the dogs of XX bashing." Who wants to play?
Full disclosure: I am not Jewish. I have been to Israel. I have lived nine years of my life in Europe.
Two wars at once? - TaMeOlta - 03-05-2003
The effect on civilian employers when their civilian/reserve employee gets activated to fill a 90-180 day tour is immense , and I am so glad for the Soldiers and Sailors Act to keep me from losing my job when these events pop up. Though , very shortly after 9-11 happened I was 'let-go' ( I had informed my supervisor that we were be activated) but it had to do w/ lack of work.
Being activated totally messes up your schedule if you have a family , unlike being on an active duty base where your family can 'share the experience' with their neighbors as well as utilise base facilities, Reservists may have to travel 2-4 hours to get to their assigned base and their dependants are seperated from base facilities and their neighbors are civilians.
Be aware , I myself am not complaining - I just wasn't sure if everyone was aware of the hardships involved (the effects on both employees and employers and family members) when relying on guard and reserve units being used during long engagements.
Two wars at once? - Brimstone - 03-05-2003
Oh, don't get me wrong, I don't think a draft is out of the realm of possibility. Hell, I've even started picking at my g/f that I'm gona be a perfect fit, "once they start the draft":a healthy, unmarried, childless, 23-year-old male college grad who is not an only child. No exemptions here! :P (I know, this is going on the assumptions that there would be exemptions, or that they would be the same as in earlier drafts, etc. It does not matter, anyway, since I would not claim such an exemption even if it existed.) I support a draft, if the situation calls for it. I'm only saying that this is not likely to be that kind of situation. (key phrase: not likely.)
I don't think I made myself clear before wandering off into the 'reserves are still waiting in the wings' portion of my no-draft paragraph: to actually pass a draft law would be near political suicide for lawmakers, unless by some sublime stroke of idiocy Iraq or NK managed to nuke/bomb/gas an American city (and claimed responsiblity for it, especially in the Iraqi case, as they have no way of doing so outside of 'terrorist' methodology [that we know of]), AND we didn't resond with a nuke or nukes of our own...then the American populace would rise as one massive beast, much as we did after 9/11, ad support most any means necessary to deal with said attack. Vengeful? Yes. American? Damn right. Truth hurts.
However, this scenario is extremely, EXTREMELY unlikely, and most Americans won't support drafting our young people to fight a war which we, in public opinion, started. (With or without cause - don't jump me for that. I support going to war with Saddam, but in the grand old "he who hits first started the fight" sense, well...you decide.) Put yourself in a politicain's (slippery, slimy, forked-tongued) shoes: would YOU want to be the poor Rep. from, say, Iowa or Pennsylvania, who proposed (and helped pass) an unpopular draft bill?
lol...in other words: I agree.
Two wars at once? - Dani - 03-05-2003
Occhidiangela,Mar 5 2003, 05:10 PM Wrote:Funny that, since in America -- all problems with country club membership aside -- they found a way to fit in, and indeed become powerful and effective members of society.So much so, that the cries of the somewhat whacked-in-the-head right-wing extremists actually have some basis from which to wring their tales of horror.
Ie. Comparing to the size of the American jewry, it has grossly inflated effect on not only the policies of the country, but also the society (at least as seen abroad).
It often sounds like "jew can do no wrong". And any criticism of Israel or jews is indeed met with cries of "EV0L ANTISEMITE!".
Two wars at once? - Jester - 03-05-2003
"Bad form is it? Folks who wish to America bash may well be repaid in kind. But America bashing is not bad form? Nice double standard."
Israel is a state. The Jews are not.
America is a state. Americans are not.
"Bashing" America is perfectly fair game. As is "bashing" Israel. Or Iraq. Or Egypt. Or Burkina Faso, or Andorra, or French Guiana. They are states. They are responsible for their own actions. It is in the public arena, and open to criticism, even total disapproval. Entire races of people, on the other hand, who are hated by racists as individuals for prejudicial reasons, are not.
How is that a double standard? Sounds like two separate standards to me, one for states and one for races. Since one has a tangible existence, and the other is just a theoretical abstraction comprised of vaguely related individuals, I think that's pretty appropriate.
Anti-semitism is old. Very old. And very real. And I admitted that. I just think it's erroneous to believe that this is the basis for the vast majority of criticism of the state of Israel. It's not about the Jews. It's about Israel.
I'm not European or American, but I doubt that lets me off the hook. Except... that the state was created back before I was born. How far back does hypocrisy extend, exactly? To people who never held such a position in the first place? Hypocrisy is for individual people, Occhi, it's not for whole nations throughout history. I'm sure, at some point, one of my ancestors owned slaves, abused women and killed Jews. I'm equally sure this happened in my country. What I know is that it does not apply to me. Hence, I feel fairly confident refuting that I am a hypocrite.
What would be hypocritical, however, would be honestly believing that Israel is in the wrong, yet throwing your support behind it just because your country or ancestors did.
Or are people not allowed to believe things that contradict decisions made by their ancestors or nations?
Jester
Two wars at once? - Jester - 03-05-2003
"It often sounds like "jew can do no wrong". And any criticism of Israel or jews is indeed met with cries of "EV0L ANTISEMITE!"."
And possibly with enormous justification.T here is no problem with criticizing a Jew. Nor do I have a problem criticizing an African, or a Korean, or an Australian. The key here is the accusative singular. One jew. An individual, on his or her merits or lack thereof.
The idea of criticizing "the jews" as one single group is absurd and anti-semitic. The Jewish religion is fair game, Jewish cuisine is fair game, Jews (the group comprised of non-consenting individuals) are NOT. Very much not. Any generalization, be it a criticism or a compliment, could not possibly apply to every last one of them individually, and hence discriminates for no better reason than sloppy or hateful thinking.
That is what is unacceptable. That's the road of classic anti-semitism. If individual Jews irk you, fine. If you don't like Klesmer, they're your ears. If you don't like their religious conception of Monotheism to be weak, go ahead, make their day. If you start thinking about them as "the other" (collective noun), you've started down a very dangerous and loathsome path.
Jester
Two wars at once? - Dani - 03-06-2003
Jester,Mar 5 2003, 10:18 PM Wrote:And possibly with enormous justification.T here is no problem with criticizing a Jew. Nor do I have a problem criticizing an African, or a Korean, or an Australian. The key here is the accusative singular. One jew. An individual, on his or her merits or lack thereof.etc...
I think you get too hung up on semantics. Actually you sound like a PC hawk. For example, you could read an article criticising the influence of jews on US politics. You'd probably encounter terms like "American Jews" or "American Jewish community", when in actuality the article is speaking about the Jewish lobby.
But feh, I really don't care about PC, and frankly whenever I hear the word anti-semitism, I feel a chuckle coming up my throat. ;)
If we would all open our eyes, we could see that anti-semitism ie. "irrational gentile hatred of jews" is not a problem in the present world. Rather a wholly other kind of anti-semitism is. (of a different semite group...guess who they could be)
Guess how hard I laugh when I hear Arabs being accused of anti-semitism. ;)
Two wars at once? - Jester - 03-06-2003
Yes, I spend most of my days worrying about political correctness. It's a big hobby of mine.
"If we would all open our eyes, we could see that anti-semitism ie. "irrational gentile hatred of jews" is not a problem in the present world. Rather a wholly other kind of anti-semitism is. (of a different semite group...guess who they could be) "
What? How many groups of Semites are there? I count one.
"Guess how hard I laugh when I hear Arabs being accused of anti-semitism."
Uh... very? I'm not sure why. Anti-semitism is anywhere from festering to rampant in most Arab nations. But, then, that's probably just me being politically correct. I wouldn't want to think any Arab would be irrational or hateful, as opposed to simply voicing a reasonable dislike for the state of Israel.
Jester
Two wars at once? - Rhydderch Hael - 03-06-2003
Dani,Mar 5 2003, 07:25 AM Wrote:F-16s still in service in USAAF are just upgraded 60s technology. Point is, that unlike the Iraqi airforce in 91, the NK one would not run away. There would be US planes dropped. ...In attack of your statement, the F-16 is 1970's-based technology, though undergone major computer and electronics upgrades in the late 80's and 90's.
In defense of your statement, the NORKOMs have some MiG-29s, so the technological gap between the two sides are not as disparate as one may assume.
The intercept of the U.S. RC-135 a few days ago by the North Koreans was done by two Mig-27s and two Mig-29s.
However, one should note that the first F-22 unit (the 27th, 37th, or 47th FS, I forget which) was activated late last year, though they are merely activated for the purposes of training and not actual combat operations.
Two wars at once? - Dani - 03-06-2003
Jester,Mar 6 2003, 08:25 AM Wrote:What? How many groups of Semites are there? I count one.Ah, so you don't know. Jews are but one of the semitic groups. Arabs are another. Hence it is hilarious than an Arab (a semite) is accused of anti-semitism. ;)
Two wars at once? - Dani - 03-06-2003
Rhydderch Hael,Mar 6 2003, 09:01 AM Wrote:In attack of your statement, the F-16 is 1970's-based technology, though undergone major computer and electronics upgrades in the late 80's and 90's.Yes, you are correct. The design was started in early 70s to fix the failings of the aircraft used in Vietnam. Damn, my memory isn't what it used to be.
Two wars at once? - Rhydderch Hael - 03-06-2003
Actually, the F-15 was built off the lessons learned from the Vietnam era. The trouble is, the F-15 turned out to be a damned expensive and needy machine. So the Air Force began asking for a lighter, shorter-ranged, and cheaper aircraft to fly alongside it, to do some of the same stuff the F-15 was meant to do, but in a "junior varsity" capacity.
The Air Force chose the F-16 (over the F-17) because, among other things, the bird uses the same GE F-100 engine as the F-15. This way they could take advantage of the common supply chain and spare parts.
Two wars at once? - Occhidiangela - 03-06-2003
Quote:If we would all open our eyes, we could see that anti-semitism ie. "irrational gentile hatred of jews" is not a problem in the present world.
Really? You call the stated goal of the Arab League, going back to 1948, as being the obliteration of the State of Israel, a state expressly founded as a homeland to Jews, as not being a problem in the modern world?
Many of the Jews in Israel have plenty of "other Caucasian blood" mixed into such pure 'Semite' blood as the Israelites of the Roman era possessed.
Being anti Arab is a contemporary form of cultural and ethnic antipathy. The Arabs do not generally include themselves as Semites, rather they refer to themselves as, you guessed it, Arabs. They even go so far as to propose UN resolutions that "pro Zionism" is racism when they are of, in your words, of the same race.
Loose language certainly does add to the confusion, however, your assertion of "not a problem" is a load of rot.
Two wars at once? - Occhidiangela - 03-06-2003
. . . existed in exile for nearly two millenia. By most definitions, the Jews are a nation in a way that many other peoples can only hope to aspire to. By a similar logic, such luminaries as Slobadan Milosevic pointed out that 'wherever there are Serbs, there is Serbia.' He was aiming that comment at the Balkan area, however, that sentiment goes to the very heart of what a nation is: a people whose common cultural assumptions, ethnicity, language and religion are how they define themselves.
Nation and race were once considered synonymous, and you could read such brilliant concepts as 18th century commentary about the 'French race.' Nowadays, I would suggest that only Japan, of the modern industrial nations, approaches that sort of fidelity to the old idea. Everyone else's pot has melted a bit too much for such a homogeneous structure to be in place.
Insofar as hypocrisy, as regards the existence of the state of Israel: for or against. THere is no middle ground, and not much bloody acreage in the first place. The West was for it, as The West recreated it after WW II via the U.N. To then support its dissolution is a profound hyprocisy, and a decision to ignore history, and the whole point of why the Jews were provided a homeland in the first place via a multinational decision to do so. The Palestinian question has been raised as a red herring within my lifetime. The Ottoman Turks hardly gave two hoots about either of them, so long as they obeyed the law and paid their taxes. Of course, The West aided substantiallyl in liberating the Arabs from under the Turkish boot in the course of WW II, a point all too often ignored in modern discourse altogether. (Drat, I forget the British Field Marshall who led the advance into Palestine, for some reason I think Allenby, who Lawrence's and Faisal's guerilla movement supported.)
To disagree with the current government's methods is a matter of the usual discourse of getting into someone else's sovereign affairs. Just as valid for me to poo poo Canadian public medicine policies, which I don't waste my time doing as that is an internal Canadian matter. Nor do I arrogate to myself the right to second guess Isreals measures for their own security when they are surrounded by enemies whose goal is their annihilation.
Try walking a mile in an Israeli's shoes.
Two wars at once? - Albion Child - 03-06-2003
Service in the US military has been my goal for all of my life. Therefore I have sought to learn as very much as possible about our capabilities, strengths, weaknesses, etc.
So, would the US be able to handle 2 major wars at one time?
Almost certainly, yes.
The US now posses 12 Aircraft carriers, each with it's own separate full battle group, including cruisers, light carriers, destroyers etc. This force includes capabilities for almost any mission, including bombing, air superiority, cruise missile launching capability, as well as amphibious and helicopter insertions of US Marines (Each battle group has at minimum 10,000). In the previous war in Iraq, only 3 carrier groups took part in the entire operation, with one group (I forget which ) Never releasing it's marines to combat (They were a diversion.)
War in Iraq, IMHO would play out much the same as the first war. It would be a quick, decisive victory.
Granted, Korea would most likely prove to be a tougher opponent due to the overwhelming devotion displayed by its soldiers. However, they still use outdated equipment and weapons, and therefore, I believe would be defeated.
However, the use of nukes pretty much screws all plans.
Any country possesing nukes is a huge threat to the US, as there is simply no good way to protect an army from nucleur attack.
As for Jarulfs accusations that the US is the most likely to use nukes....very much untrue. Although nucleur strategies have certainly been discussed for possible war with Iraq, they have been discussed for every major war since WW2. US nucleur power is one big deterrent that basically says this...."If you nuke us, we will turn your country into a huge glass parking lots for all to see."
More to come....I must go to class....If you are gonna reply to me, please hold off for about an hour....thanks.