StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Flagg, there will be no flaming in this thread.

Then please tell TheHammer either to ignore my "off-topic posts" (which aren't, he's lying, you know breaking a board rule) or actually address their content. It's kind of hard to carry on a discussion when you have a vendettopath following you around and responding to every post with "waa, it's not relevant". I'm sick and tired of being singled out as the bad guy.

There will also be no mod questioning in this thread. Either trust me to do my job or don't, but do not derail this thread.

Is there anybody disagreeing with the argument Zinegata made in this post?. If so, please do post it now.

Thanas wrote:

TheHammer wrote:

Thanas wrote:If the standards for "no military campaign" are "the civilians are in charge on the ground", then neither the occupation of Europe/Japan qualify as a military operation. Nor would most wars.

I'd view an occupation of a defeated enemy to be a "post war" operation. While the military is still certainly present, they are actively transitioning to a support rather than combat role.

I don't get this. It would be one thing if there would be a civilian in command on the ground integrated in the military structures, but Paul Bremer certainly wasn't the CiC of Iraq. And as soon as the shooting started and largescale operations were pulled off, this really is not a civilian operation anymore.

Well are we talking about Europe/Japan occupations or Iraq? Regarding Iraq, it depends upon what stage of the occupation you're talking about. There was a time during the Iraqi occupation that you still saw active resistance, rather than merely random attacks. At that point I'd still consider it to be significantly a military operation, at least in those areas that were still resisting. However, that resistance was dealt with and I'd say the occupation became more like Europe/Japan around 2007/2008. The real struggles were in creation of a viable civilian government, which was certainly being handled by the civilians.

Despite the assertions of someone I won't bother to name, I'm not defending any decisions made regarding Iraq. My point is to try and explain why people are quick to back the military. It's because it's the one aspect of government that seemingly without fail does its job, despite the absurd and historically inaccurate statements made by some in this thread. For better or worse, they do what is asked of them. For all of America's foreign ventures, not one of them has failed because "the military couldn't get the job done" (you can argue whether or not we would have been better off if they had, but I digress). So of course it's going to be a point of pride for Americans. In short, you can support the troops even if you don't support (the decision to go to) war.

Flagg wrote: Then please tell TheHammer either to ignore my "off-topic posts"...

I accept the offer to ignore you.

Hammer, I already told Flagg to stop. I didn't think I would have to explain it to you as well. Stop being a shithead.

Well are we talking about Europe/Japan occupations or Iraq? Regarding Iraq, it depends upon what stage of the occupation you're talking about. There was a time during the Iraqi occupation that you still saw active resistance, rather than merely random attacks. At that point I'd still consider it to be significantly a military operation, at least in those areas that were still resisting. However, that resistance was dealt with and I'd say the occupation became more like Europe/Japan around 2007/2008. The real struggles were in creation of a viable civilian government, which was certainly being handled by the civilians.

No, that is kinda ignoring the history and not answering any of my points.

Thanas wrote:

Well are we talking about Europe/Japan occupations or Iraq? Regarding Iraq, it depends upon what stage of the occupation you're talking about. There was a time during the Iraqi occupation that you still saw active resistance, rather than merely random attacks. At that point I'd still consider it to be significantly a military operation, at least in those areas that were still resisting. However, that resistance was dealt with and I'd say the occupation became more like Europe/Japan around 2007/2008. The real struggles were in creation of a viable civilian government, which was certainly being handled by the civilians.

No, that is kinda ignoring the history and not answering any of my points.

Then I guess I'm not clear on what you're asking...

Are we discussing on whether or not to classify the Iraqi occupation as a "military" or "civilian" endeavor? Because there are certainly elements of both to some degree at various points in the occupation. The military's job was to make sure that the new Iraqi government didn't topple due to violent overthrow, while the civilian politicians were responsible for setting up a new government. The military handled it's end of the bargain. The failure to achieve the over-arching goals of creating a stable Iraqi democracy were due to civilian failures, both foreign and domestic. Granted, the history of the region probably made the civilian task nigh impossible, but never the less they bear the burden for not achieving the goals set.

No. We're discussing wether or not Kyle is full of shit.

When I first heard of him and his exploits a while back, it sounded beyond ridiculous. I'm honestly staggered that a movie was made about him.

This guy claims:

• He punched Jesse Ventura in the face, knocking him to the ground.
• He killed dozens of looters during Hurricane Katrina from atop the Super Dome.
• He shot two guys who were trying to steal his truck.
• Protesters called him a “baby killer.”
• He found chemical weapons in Iraq that came from France and Germany.
• Was called the "Devil of Ramadi"

... like come the fuck on.

madd0ct0r wrote:No. We're discussing wether or not Kyle is full of shit.

I don't think that needs to be discussed. It's as obvious as the steaming cowpies marking TheHammerShill's passing.

TheHammerShill wrote:The military's job was to make sure that the new Iraqi government didn't topple due to violent overthrow, while the civilian politicians were responsible for setting up a new government. The military handled it's end of the bargain.

No, I'm pretty sure the military's goals were all those other things (WMDs, Al-Quaeda, stable Iraq) I mentioned and which it didn't achieve, not a single one of them before they retreated. I mean was it part of the bargain for the military to leave the place in a worse condition than it was before?

Who's commander-in-chief of the US military? The POTUS. That makes his failure's the military's.

bobalot wrote:... like come the fuck on.

Y'know what's actually funny? Look at this thread, the parting shot entry of that Super Space Marine Tough Guy Avianmosquito:

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 0&t=142917

I can only say, separated at birth!

Metahive wrote: No, I'm pretty sure the military's goals were all those other things (WMDs, Al-Quaeda, stable Iraq) I mentioned and which it didn't achieve, not a single one of them before they retreated. I mean was it part of the bargain for the military to leave the place in a worse condition than it was before?

Who's commander-in-chief of the US military? The POTUS. That makes his failure's the military's.

I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about what TheHammer is trying to say - these goals were set by the elected civilian government of the United States, and some of these goals were to be acomplished by the use of military force, and others by political and civilian agencies - and some of them were indeed impossible (you can't find WMDs that don't exist, obviously)

In the purely military parts of the bargain, the destruction of the Iraqi military and the occupation of the country so that a new government could be established, it would be a terrific stretch to assert that the military did not suceed - in keeping the government stable and ensuring security against an insurgency, yes, the miliary failed - because the civilian government continued to use the wrong tool for the wrong job.

Your POTUS example doesn;t even make sense - what it shows is that the military's failure is ultimately that of the american civilian government and electorate. The military is merely an instrument of that.

Question, was the occupation of Iraq a military operation? If you say no, then explain why so many US troops were stationed there for years after the Iraqi army surrendered and why they were fighting and suffering casualties for years after the Iraqi army surrendered. Also, why did they have to resort to hiring excessive amounts of mercenerais an bribing local chieftains to even keep their heads up?

Also, for the nth time, the goal of the Iraq War wasn't "curbstomp Iraqi army", it was that whole WMD/Al-Quaeda/Democratic Iraq -thing I mentioned several times now. None of the objectives were met, so how can the war be called a military success? The US military didn't deliver its end of the bargain because it couldn't. You could say the leadership set it up to fail, but that doesn't make it magically not a failure.

Metahive wrote:Question, was the occupation of Iraq a military operation? If you say no, then explain why so many US troops were stationed there for years after the Iraqi army surrendered and why they were fighting and suffering casualties for years after the Iraqi army surrendered. Also, why did they have to resort to hiring excessive amounts of mercenerais an bribing local chieftains to even keep their heads up?

OK yes, the US military was tasked with occupying a hostile country and pacifying it. You already know why they continously fight and sustain casualties and had to rely on mercenaries and bribary of local chieftains. Turning a hostile population to your side without exterminating them is again, not something you can achieve with military force. And I'm certain there were no pitched battles of scale that the military lost in Iraq, last I checked. That the american military was given a job that was impossible to do by it's civilian masters should really be obvious at this point.

Also, for the nth time, the goal of the Iraq War wasn't "curbstomp Iraqi army", it was that whole WMD/Al-Quaeda/Democratic Iraq -thing I mentioned several times now. None of the objectives were met, so how can the war be called a military success? The US military didn't deliver its end of the bargain because it couldn't. You could say the leadership set it up to fail, but that doesn't make it magically not a failure.

It doesn't make it not a failure - but the failure lies firmly at the hands of the civilian government that wielded this military and gave it either missions that are impossible or are not solvable by military force. The only mission that the army was designed to and capable of winning was the military destruction of the Iraqi army and the occupation of the capital and other key areas. And in that they succeeded.

Let's look at these other goals one by one:

WMD - it is impossible for the military to succeed in finding WMD's that do not exist, and last I checked the intelligence agency responsible for asserting they did exist is not military - the CIA.

Defeating AQ: Making the Iraq war about defeating AQ is again, the decision of the american civilian government. It is also, again, not the sort of problem military force solves. I suppose you could say the military convinced the government it could do it - can you show that was what happened, rather than the government directing the military to make it so even if it was stupid and ill conceieved?

Democracy in Iraq: The military destroyed the Iraqi military and facilitated the formation of a new Iraqi government - again, there is no clear way a military can force stable democracy on a country that is too militarized and factionalized to support it. Who decided on this goal? The american civilian government. The rest of it was up to the new civilian iraqi government and its security forces. That they could barely do it and only with american backing again raises the question of if it was ever something the military alone could have done.

It's like the guy in the video I posted said:

The US used their military in Iraq to do two jobs, while they were only trained to do one - to curbstomp an opponent.
Then people decided that the 19year old grunt who you trained well to kill every hostile, and just fought a war should now act as a police officer (You know, a job people have to be trained for) for the people he just went to war with.

Of course they couldn't do that job.

The obvious solution is having two forces - a military force to get shit done, which the US militay is great at. Uncontested. Nobody is better in fucking things up. But if you are an expert in a certain thing, you usually suck in other areas.

Which is why this "Offense" team should pack their stuff and sit and wait in camps all over the place as soon as stuff is properly blown up, and sit low until they might be needed again because things flared up, somewhere.

In comes the "Defense" team - an occupation&rebuilding force, which sweeps in after the all-destroying moloch of war, and immediately starts to get "things" up and working, again, and does the policing, with people trained how to police an occupied territory and how to prop up a civil government. Someone great at winning hearts and unfuck things, thus keeping onto what was won by the Offense, and preventing it all fall apart.

This is why the Iraq war wa a resounding military success. A textbook example of how it is done, with people dancing in the streets and topping statues all over the place.
The Iraq occupation, which started when the war was declared over... Well, not so much. Wrong tool for wrong job, and stuff.

Metahive wrote:Question, was the occupation of Iraq a military operation? If you say no, then explain why so many US troops were stationed there for years after the Iraqi army surrendered and why they were fighting and suffering casualties for years after the Iraqi army surrendered. Also, why did they have to resort to hiring excessive amounts of mercenerais an bribing local chieftains to even keep their heads up?

Also, for the nth time, the goal of the Iraq War wasn't "curbstomp Iraqi army", it was that whole WMD/Al-Quaeda/Democratic Iraq -thing I mentioned several times now. None of the objectives were met, so how can the war be called a military success? The US military didn't deliver its end of the bargain because it couldn't. You could say the leadership set it up to fail, but that doesn't make it magically not a failure.

Your "was it a military operation or not?" question is a flawed premise to begin with. As I've said repeatedly, there were military and civilian aspects to the Iraqi War/Occupation. In the first phase, the military's job was to remove the Iraqi military, and as a result the existing regime's ability to govern. In the second phase it's job was to ensure security so that the civilians in charge of establishing the new Iraqi democracy could do their job. Creating a stable democracy was NEVER the goal of the military, nor should it be.

Other then (allegedly) smacking around Jesse Ventura everything about Kyle sounds scummy as all hell.

From the gist of what I've read about him by his own words he was putting rounds downrange at anything that moved. Thats beyond messed up.

Now I don't subscribe to the whole Micheal Moore "snipers are cowards" bullshit, snipers are an important part of warfare and can save lives of their fellow soldiers dudes one seven point six two at a time. Kyle however didn't sound like he was protecting grunts from hostile bitches but playing Charles Whitman.

Though even that is up in the air. Kyle is such a braggart that by sources in this own thread the places where he supposedly was laying down lead like an IRL game of duck hunter nobody fucking heard of him. Thats not even getting into his boasts to his buddies of murdering black people.

One wonders whether he even killed anyone. I don't say that to defend that piece of shit but literally he sounds like a internet Navy Seal. You know the type, the idiots that say they got dozens of kills but you've never heard of it because its classified (which is clearly why no reporters on the ground in the areas Kyle fought heard of him), will say the most outlandish shit when they start drinking, and just fucking lie. If Kyle said he had killed some insurgents with a Desert Eagle I really would think he was just an IRL internet Seal. Read the Gorilla warfare copypasta and you can practically see Kyle saying shit like that.

But whatever he did or didn't do, just what he says is fucking disgusting and makes me shudder that people consider him a hero. At best he is a lying blowhard who makes up horrifically stupid shit but more likely he is a mass murderer of both unimportant brown people and slightly more important black people. Considering we aren't all having goatees that doesn't strike me as fitting the definition of a hero in our world.

Dude is such a fucking asshole he is is making me halfway agree with fucking Micheal Moore and Jesse Ventura like Donald Trump badmouthing Rosie O'Donnell but worse.

Joun_Lord wrote:Though even that is up in the air. Kyle is such a braggart that by sources in this own thread the places where he supposedly was laying down lead like an IRL game of duck hunter nobody fucking heard of him. Thats not even getting into his boasts to his buddies of murdering black people.

One wonders whether he even killed anyone. I don't say that to defend that piece of shit but literally he sounds like a internet Navy Seal. You know the type, the idiots that say they got dozens of kills but you've never heard of it because its classified (which is clearly why no reporters on the ground in the areas Kyle fought heard of him), will say the most outlandish shit when they start drinking, and just fucking lie. If Kyle said he had killed some insurgents with a Desert Eagle I really would think he was just an IRL internet Seal. Read the Gorilla warfare copypasta and you can practically see Kyle saying shit like that.

Well, some people who actually are Navy SEALs probably have the same bizarre "I'M A SUPER BADASS KILLER" attitude as the Internet fake-SEALs. The only difference is that unlike the Internet toughguys they have the physique to make it into actual commando training.

In Kyle's case, if he had not actually been a SEAL he would certainly have been called out on it by now- but he's not really different in mindset or spirit from the wannabes who didn't make the cut and just drool over their violence fantasies.

As to Jesse Ventura- say what you will about him, slander is slander and libel is libel, and I'll take the side of a libel victim over that of the libeller any day.

To be honest that kind bragging is fairly typical in military units. When I was serving we called those "torni huhu"(translation: tower rumor) after the the insignia in the property of the Finnish Defense Force (like uniforms and such) and it was said that if you belived even half of the stuff said in those you were really gullible.

A good example was that female enlisted members of marine monitoring branch of the arrival batch before mine were giving sexual favors to the male members during monitoring duty with the implication that officers either didn't know about that or allowed it, neither of which is very likely.

Only difference with Lt Kyle and his ilk is that they demand their bragging to be taken seriously.

There's bragging in the sense of random bullshit stories thrown around, and there's bragging in the sense of crazy psychopaths trying to make up stories about how they fulfilled all their mass murder fantasies.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/ ... ed-sniper/

Late, but I found an article by Michael Fumento, the embed with the SEALs, which confirms a lot of Kyle's problematic record.

Yet none of the contested stuff, indeed this article has been linked here before.

Thanas wrote:Yet none of the contested stuff, indeed this article has been linked here before.

Yeah, I just linked it because in my original post I could only find Fumento's Amazon review. And I missed that someone else also linked it. Sorry.