Hybrid Military

Discussion in 'Politics' started by betterthanideserve, Aug 20, 2007.

  1. betterthanideserve

    betterthanideserve
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Messages:
    319
    Likes Received:
    0
    What did Guillianni mean when he said the US needs a hybrid Military?able to be nation builders?
     
  2. Rufus_1611

    Rufus_1611
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    Perhaps, he desires that everyone in the military drive a Toyota Prius?;)


    I suspect that he is suggesting we need a dual function military. One to blow stuff up and another to put stuff back together again and remade in the likeness and image of the USA.

    "It will be difficult,” he said, “and will require a new organization of our military and civilian components that are needed to do this — some kind of hybrid we’re going to have to create.”- Rudy Giuliani​
     
    #2 Rufus_1611, Aug 20, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 20, 2007
  3. UnchartedSpirit

    UnchartedSpirit
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2005
    Messages:
    1,176
    Likes Received:
    0
    not bad actually...that would mean that the civillians would have to be more powerful than the military because it always takes more stregnth and effort to repair anything....
     
  4. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    To try to avoid the chaos that has ravaged Iraq, Mr. Giuliani called for a hybrid force whose role would be to provide stabilization and help rebuilding.

    “We also have to think about the constructive role that America plays in combat zones when the fighting is over,” he said. “The reality is that America is sometimes faced with a difficult choice. After defeating the enemy as we did in Iraq, after a sudden victory in deposing Saddam Hussein, we have a choice.”

    It was clear, he said, that America had an obligation to stay and work to rebuild countries where it has engaged in military conflict, as opposed to President Bush, who, in the 2000 election, railed against what he called “nation building.”

    “It will be difficult,” he said, “and will require a new organization of our military and civilian components that are needed to do this — some kind of hybrid we’re going to have to create.”

    - www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/politics/06giuliani.html?ex=1187755200&en=2a46dd7d2f9c06fe&ei=5070

    More neo-"conservative" gobbledy-gook from the Mayor of 9/11.
     
  5. hillclimber1

    hillclimber1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2006
    Messages:
    2,447
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why should we be required to rebuild any nation we've had to war against?
     
  6. hillclimber1

    hillclimber1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2006
    Messages:
    2,447
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why should we be required to rebuild any nation we've had to war against? I know that in some cases, it is in our best interest. In the middle east if we rebuild a country, use their oil profits to pay for it.

    What is the value of war?
     
  7. Rufus_1611

    Rufus_1611
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    The only value of war is to the money changers and money makers. They profit off of the devices which are built to destroy these nations and they profit off of the devices and material used to rebuild these nations. The ones who lose are the people as their nations go into debt to fund these wars, they and their posterity go deeper into servitude and their children's blood gets spilled on the sand of foreign lands.

    "From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not. " - James 4:1-2
     
  8. Don

    Don
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    10,549
    Likes Received:
    212
    Boy, are you wrong (not your verse, but your over-generalization of what war is all about).

    There are two types of war: the kind initiated by the kind of people you reference, and the kind that is an instrument of diplomacy.

    Yes, that's right: Diplomacy. The ultimate goal of diplomacy is to have two differing nations come to an agreement. When all other means of diplomacy have failed, the military is (supposed to be) the last resort. A primary function is to defend a country's best interests and security.

    The real value of war is to protect your freedoms and rights to continue living in a country that allows you to exercise those freedoms and rights.

    To say that the only value of war is for the money-changers, is to ignore what many of the American forefathers bled and died for in America: the ability to worship God, rather than a king, or Allah, or some self-proclaimed god-emporer.

    The only value, indeed. Pfah.

    Why should we be required to rebuild a nation we've won against? Because we who are the stronger have a responsibility to take care of the weaker (Romans 15:1).
     
  9. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    And what country might that be? Not America for sure we have no rights here anymore only priviledges that can be taken away by the word of one man. That's right, there is no habeas corpus, if the decider says so. There is no due process if the decider says so. There is no court dates, no appeals, no contact with legal council or the outside world if the decider decides it to be so. We are no longer ruled by law but rather men in this day and age.

    If the real value of war is to protect our freedoms and rights then someone should tell our leaders that because it's getting to be quite apparent and even obvious that they wage war along the lines Rufus has pointed out.

    Let me rephrase that, they send others to wage their wars now as they have done all in their power to steer clear of and avoid such nasty and dangerous business themselves. That's why they are known as "chicken hawks".
     
    #9 poncho, Aug 21, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 21, 2007
  10. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    When did the government become the church and assume her responsibilities?
     
  11. UnchartedSpirit

    UnchartedSpirit
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2005
    Messages:
    1,176
    Likes Received:
    0
    I haven't heard of your church assuming any shuch responsibilities....
     
  12. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Huh? I thought that the book of Romans was addressed to the church in Rome? Silly me. I didn't understand that it was addressed to the government in Rome. My bad.

    By the way, I don't have a church. However, Christ Jesus does.
     
  13. UnchartedSpirit

    UnchartedSpirit
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2005
    Messages:
    1,176
    Likes Received:
    0
    If our government was as bad as Rome's I can take a position that we shouldn't be involved with any other country but our own including no immigration forwards or backwards and no trade whatsoever! Seeing though that the maj. of the current gov claims to be on Christ's side then they too should be following the way Christ told them to. The leaders, soldiers, and lawmakers of any Nation aren't exempt from following any other truth or policy than God's...
     
  14. Don

    Don
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    10,549
    Likes Received:
    212
    Government has such a role; not as the church. When a group of people come together, they form a society. They determine sets of rules that define that society, usually with the intent of defining what's best for that society.

    On a global scale, different societies interact. Some societies are better off than others; e.g., the U.S. as opposed to Niger. In such cases, the society that is better off has a choice: To be a good neighbor, and assist the weaker society; leave it alone; or to exercise their muscle and co-opt the weaker society.

    While not espousing it as being from a biblical principle (Romans 15:1), the principle is there, and means the same.
     
  15. Don

    Don
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    10,549
    Likes Received:
    212
    Please allow me to say: That's the role of the military. To be ready when the "chicken hawks" tell them to wage war. The military is a tool, made up of people and machines.

    Whatever Rudy is thinking about the military, he's mistaken on 2 counts:
    1) Our military is already waging war differently than at any other time in history; we now rely on information in ways never before available to provide near real-time intelligence data, which allows us to utilize small units for precision strikes, while utilizing local nationals and/or coalition forces for additional presence (which we're not fully utilizing in Iraq);
    2) He needs to brush up on his history, identify the Bradley Plan from the end of World War II, and modify & implement it for what's happening today.
     
  16. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey, here is a different idea. Why not as a nation think about what we are doing before ever getting into a war? How about the idea of fighting a war that threatens our nation interests for a change?
     
  17. Don

    Don
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    10,549
    Likes Received:
    212
    Funny; I thought that taking out a terrorist group that killed thousands of Americans was fighting a war that threatens our nation's interests....

    (We're not at war with Iraq; we're at war in Iraq. There's a difference)
     
  18. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Iraq was not involved in the attacks on our nation on 9/11/2001, and al Qaeda was not in Iraq prior to our invasion in March 2003.
     
  19. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    We will not agree that commands given to Christians and churches are applicable to secular governmental units.
     
  20. Don

    Don
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    10,549
    Likes Received:
    212
    I didn't explain myself well, at all. Although commands given to Christians and churches are applicable to secular governmental units (pardon my basic fundamentalism, that the Bible should apply to everybody), many of the commands issued by secular governments are derived (knowingly or unknowingly) from biblical principles.

    For example, the Air Force used to have a list of priorities that every airman was expected to internalize: God, country, family, self. That list of priorities is *almost* similar to the list you can find in Ephesians 5 and 6. They simply put country above family, and left out employers and employees.
     

Share This Page

Loading...