cc wrote:

> "Eric Takabayashi" <etakajp@yahoo.co.jp> wrote in message
>
> > They don't think it means them, any more than volunteers who joined the
> armies
> > of France or Germany, or the JSDF, thinks they joined up to fight or die
> in
> > wars.
>
> European  "volunteers" or "not volunteers" know it can mean *them*.

Care to try backing that up? Is that what surveys of current soldiers show? Is
the opportunity to fight and die overseas what the recruiters are offering?

It is simple enough to show through the military's own survey, that the
soldiers and other Americans are not happy about the situation.

> > No, the military does. Peruse their home pages even now. Do you see, join
> up
> > and prepare to ship off for a year long tour of the Middle East, anywhere?
>
> > http://www.usmc.mil/
>
> I see Rambo the Warrior on the first recruitment page,

Do you see him in the Middle East, perspiring, surrounded by distrustful and
resentful locals, with guerrillas trying to kill him? Do you see his family who
are worried about him? Do you see pictures of coffins and honorably discharged
injured coming home?

The best you will get is "News from the front":

http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/mcn2000.nsf/deployed

Alright, there is some news, like "Mortuary Affairs: We Take Care of Our Own",
August 25, 2003

Do you notice such news is a little different from what other Americans are
getting? Do you notice the US recruitment pages are different from what you say
European sites are like? How many deaths do you see reported there?

> Ken Kasugi on the
> second, that sounds like a TV game...well, I didn't imagine that. The youth
> that sign after seeing that page probably expect to fight and become the
> talento of the year. Sorry for your country.

Yes, I feel sorry for the people serving in the Middle East, the nearly half
who do not understand why they are there, because their leaders have no good
explanation and they did not think deeply enough before signing.

> I come from another planet :
> http://www.recrutement.terre.defense.gouv.fr/
> If you check the page of the Etat-Major, you'll see the number of deaths in
> recent operations. That's only 2 in Cote d'Ivoire, but that's enough to
> scare a number of
> wannabe warriors.

Sorry, I don't read that language. Care to explain how they promote themselves
to potential recruits? Are they offering the chance to ship overseas, fight and
maybe die? Or are there other reasons to join the European military, when
voluntary?

>
> > Yes, but fighting in wars halfway around the world is not what the US
> military
> > is normally about.
>
> ?

Read the US recruitment pages, watch a few recruiting commercials, and you
would know. People tried to recruit me for years, calling me on the telephone
at home, or sending me pamphlets and form letters. No one ever mentioned
fighting, and note that I was still a student when the first Gulf war occurred.

> > >  IRAN 1980
> ....
> > >  AFGHANISTAN 2001
> >
> > NIce list. How many of those are wars?
>
> OK, none are wars, like there is no war in Iraq now.

It was a war until some low ranking Iraqi signed a piece of paper, and the
President announced otherwise. Actually, it was an invasion.

Now it's an occupation. Looking back at 20th century history, you'd think US
leaders would understand what "Occupation" meant. Tens of thousands of
Americans are still in and around Asia.

I knew before it started, that Americans would realize their mistake in Iraq.

> Someday you'll explain me in what the guys that die during military
> interventions are less dead that those killed 'at war'.

Look at how many troops are involved, look at the level of casualties, and you
will understand the difference between most US military actions, overseas
stations, and what the US calls "war". There were more casualties in the one
suicide bombing in Lebanon before the US pulled out (and note that after the
Vietnam War, such levels of resistance DID used to get Americans out), but that
was a much smaller operation than the nearly 200,000 US troops who went over to
the Middle East this year, and the nearly half million allied troops that went
over last time.

http://tinyurl.com/udgx

America's first encounter with a suicide bomb

Thursday, October 23, 2003 Posted: 11:33 AM EDT (1533 GMT)

BEIRUT, Lebanon (AP) -- Twenty years ago the United States had its first
experience with the suicide bomb -- initially its embassy, then its Marine
barracks, blasted to shreds by a truckload of explosives that killed 241
servicemen and launched a new era in the Middle East. The reverberations are
still being felt.

Today the 19-year-old soldier on duty at Beirut airport's Parking C lot shrugs
indifferently when told that this was where the doomed barracks stood. He
wasn't even born when the bomb went off on October 23, 1983. For many like him,
it's a distant memory, one of scores of atrocities committed during Lebanon's
1975-1990 civil war.

But for Washington it was a watershed. It ultimately drove the U.S. military
out of Lebanon. A decade later American forces pulled out of Somalia, their
mission again wrecked by violence.

[end]

Many of today's soldiers have not learned, or do not recall such lessons, and
the military recruiters aren't telling them.

Despite having the superior military force, Americans used to learn when they
weren't wanted after some highly publicized casualties, and they left the
unstable regions despite any loose ends and accusations of shirking
responsibility.

The second President Bush has not learned this lesson, but I am afraid he will
learn the hard way. Perhaps during next year's election, if not sooner.

And I feel sorry for the people who have paid and will pay the price of his
lesson.

> BTW, why do you complain those guys in post in Irak ? That's an interesting
> place, not further from home than Okinawa.

Iraq is an interesting place with a rich culture and history, a worthy place to
visit and study.

That is not what the Americans are enjoying now.

Compare that to what US soldiers can get in Okinawa, and notice the difference.