Military - October 2006

If so, what is it exactly ? I don't see one.

2006-10-28 11:36:13 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous

Will the USA make the people turn in their guns?

2006-10-28 11:33:47 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous

Selfridge Air Base here in Michigan have hundreds of troops who beg to never go back to Iraq. They state the war is wrong and we will not win. Much like Vietnam.

2006-10-28 11:28:12 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous

Hint: higher than a LTG

2006-10-28 11:04:20 · 23 answers · asked by boxinfan2005 2

2006-10-28 10:58:25 · 2 answers · asked by FRANK K 1

So sense I encounted these sorry excuses for Americans protesting at one of my unit members funerals....I began to research them...They believe god is punishing my fellow brothers in arms because gender and sex issues....How can we stop them from from protesting at funerals...we had to surround his mother all in uniform and escort her to the car.....she was a single mom that raised J by herself she didnt need to have her only sons funeral broken into like that .....Any ideas on hoqw we can stop this?....Cause I want my family to have closure at mine ....if the day ever comes

2006-10-28 10:16:20 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-10-28 09:45:05 · 5 answers · asked by tender loving care 1

do you think women should engage in ground combat? why?or why not?

2006-10-28 09:29:30 · 15 answers · asked by flaviopartida 1

2006-10-28 09:29:30 · 29 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-10-28 09:22:12 · 32 answers · asked by pollyanne 1

I know a lot of troops over there are being made to stay longer, instead of 6months some stay 12-18months whether they are about to go insane or not..I heard a few are commiting suicide b/c thats there only way out and they can't take it anymore. IN ur opinion do you think they are going to make everyone single military persons stay longer? or do you think some will come home when they are suppose to? my b/f is suppose to stay 6months and i'm afraid he will have to stay longer only to come home for a month or 2 then leave again for his 4th and 5th time. Im glad he is doing it but he needs a break sometime...

2006-10-28 09:16:35 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-10-28 09:14:19 · 17 answers · asked by mike 2

Why would a 6'5" retired Military Officer with training in anti-terrorism, give up his airplane (flight 77) to 5 foot tall, very slim man named Hani Hanjour holding a small knife so it could be flown into the Pentagon

(Source : http://www.Pilotsfor911truth.org)

2006-10-28 09:10:05 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous

Here are summaries starting with Kennedy and ending with Bush:

The Kennedy Doctrine refers to foreign policy initiatives of the 35th President of the United States, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, towards Latin America during his term in office between 1961 and 1963. Kennedy voiced support for the containment of Communism and the reversal of Communist progress in the Western Hemisphere.
Inaugural address: "Pay any price, bear any burden"
In his Inaugural address on January 20, 1961, President Kennedy presented the American public with a blueprint upon which the future foreign policy initiatives of his administration would later follow and come to represent. In this Address, Kennedy warned “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”1 He also called upon the public to assist in “a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself.”1 It is in this address that one begins to see the Cold War, us-versus-them mentality that came to dominate the Kennedy administration.
A dominant premise during the Kennedy years was the need to contain communism at any cost. In this Cold War environment, Kennedy’s “calls for military strength and unity in the struggle against communism were balanced with hopes for disarmament and global cooperation.”2 Another common theme in Kennedy’s foreign policy was the belief that because the United States had the ability and power to control events in the international system, they should. Kennedy expressed this idea in his address when he stated, “In the long history of the world only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom from its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility – I welcome it.”


The Johnson Doctrine, enunciated by U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson after the United States' intervention in the Dominican Republic in 1965, declared that domestic revolution in the Western Hemisphere would no longer be a local matter when "the object is the establishment of a Communist dictatorship".


The Nixon Doctrine was put forth in a press conference in Guam on July 25, 1969 by Richard Nixon. He stated that the United States henceforth expected its allies to take care of their own military defense. This was the start of the "Vietnamization" of the Vietnam War. The Doctrine argued for the pursuit of peace through a partnership with American allies.
In Nixon's own words (Address to the Nation on the War in Vietnam November 3, 1969)
•First, the United States will keep all of its treaty commitments.
•Second, we shall provide a shield if a nuclear power threatens the freedom of a nation allied with us or of a nation whose survival we consider vital to our security.
•Third, in cases involving other types of aggression, we shall furnish military and economic assistance when requested in accordance with our treaty commitments. But we shall look to the nation directly threatened to assume the primary responsibility of providing the manpower for its defense.
The doctrine was also applied by the Nixon administration in the Persian Gulf region, with military aid to Iran and Saudi Arabia, so that these U.S. allies could undertake the responsibility of ensuring peace and stability in the region. According to Michael Klare, author of Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Petroleum Dependency (New York: Henry Holt, 2004), application of the Nixon Doctrine "opened the floodgates" of U.S. military aid to allies in the Persian Gulf, and helped set the stage for the Carter Doctrine and for the subsequent direct U.S. military involvement of the Gulf War and the Iraq War.

The Carter Doctrine was a policy proclaimed by President of the United States Jimmy Carter in his State of the Union Address on 23 January 1980, which stated that the United States would use military force if necessary to defend its national interests in the Persian Gulf region. The doctrine was a response to the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union, and was intended to deter the Soviet Union—the Cold War adversary of the United States—from seeking hegemony in the Gulf. After stating that Soviet troops in Afghanistan posed "a grave threat to the free movement of Middle East oil," Carter proclaimed:
Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force. (full speech)
This, the key sentence of the Carter Doctrine, was written by Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter's National Security Adviser. Brzezinski modeled the wording of the Carter Doctrine on the Truman Doctrine, and insisted that the sentence be included in the speech "to make it very clear that the Soviets should stay away from the Persian Gulf." ([1])
In The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power, author Daniel Yergin notes that the Carter Doctrine "bore striking similarities" to a 1903 British declaration, in which British Foreign Secretary Lord Landsdowne warned Russia and Germany that the British would "regard the establishment of a naval base or of a fortified port in the Persian Gulf by any other power as a very grave menace to British interests, and we should certainly resist it with all the means at our disposal."
The Reagan Doctrine was an important strategy orchestrated and implemented by the United States to oppose the global influence of the Soviet Union during the final years of the Cold War. While the doctrine lasted less than a decade, it was a centerpiece of American foreign policy from the mid-1980s until the end of the Cold War in 1991.
Under the Reagan Doctrine, the U.S. provided overt and covert aid to anti-communist resistance movements in an effort to "rollback" Soviet-backed communist governments in Africa, Asia and Latin America. The doctrine was designed to serve the dual purposes of diminishing Soviet influence in these regions of the world, while also potentially opening the door for democracy in nations that were largely being governed by Soviet-supported autocrats.
The Clinton Doctrine is not a clear statement in the way that many other doctrines were. However, in a February 26, 1999 speech, President Bill Clinton said the following, which was considered the Clinton Doctrine:
It's easy ... to say that we really have no interests in who lives in this or that valley in Bosnia, or who owns a strip of brushland in the Horn of Africa, or some piece of parched earth by the Jordan River. But the true measure of our interests lies not in how small or distant these places are, or in whether we have trouble pronouncing their names. The question we must ask is, what are the consequences to our security of letting conflicts fester and spread. We cannot, indeed, we should not, do everything or be everywhere. But where our values and our interests are at stake, and where we can make a difference, we must be prepared to do so.
Later statements "genocide is in and of itself a national interest where we should act" and "we can say to the people of the world, whether you live in Africa, or Central Europe, or any other place, if somebody comes after innocent civilians and tries to kill them en masse because of their race, their ethnic background or their religion, and it's within our power to stop it, we will stop it" augmented the doctrine of interventionism.
The Clinton Doctrine was used to justify the American involvement in the war in Yugoslavia. However, President Clinton did not intervene to stop the genocide in Rwanda in 1994.

The Bush Doctrine is a set of foreign policy guidelines first unveiled by President George W. Bush in his commencement speech to the graduating class of West Point given on June 1, 2002. The policies, taken together, outlined a broad new phase in US policy that would place greater emphasis on military pre-emption, military superiority ("strength beyond challenge"), unilateral action, and a commitment to "extending democracy, liberty, and security to all regions". The policy was formalized in a document titled The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, published on September 20, 2002. The Bush Doctrine is a marked departure from the policies of deterrence and containment that generally characterized American foreign policy during the Cold War and the decade between the collapse of the Soviet Union and 9/11.
The Bush Doctrine provided the policy framework for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.


Initial formulation: No distinction between terrorists and those who harbor them
The term "Bush Doctrine" initially referred to the policy formulation stated by President Bush immediately after the September 11, 2001 attacks that the U.S. would "make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them". The immediate application of this policy was the invasion of Afghanistan in early October 2001. Although the Taliban-controlled government of Afghanistan offered to hand over al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden if they were shown proof that he was responsible for September 11 attacks and also offered to extradite bin Laden to Pakistan where he would be tried under Islamic law, their refusal to extradite him to the U.S. with no preconditions was considered justification for invasion. This policy implies that any nation that does not take a pro-active stance against terrorism would be seen as supporting it. On September 20, 2001, in a televised address to a joint session of Congress, Bush summed up this policy with the words, "Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
[edit] Broader formulation: a muscular foreign policy
Unlike the initial "harboring terrorist" formulation of September 2001, which clarified rather than altered long-standing U.S. policy, the new statements marked a major shift in U.S. foreign policy. The new policy was fully delineated in a National Security Council text entitled the National Security Strategy of the United States issued on September 20, 2002 [1]. It included these elements:
[edit] Preemption
•A policy of preventive war, should the US or its allies be threatened by terrorists or by rogue states that are engaged in the production of weapons of mass destruction
•The right of self-defense should be extended in order to authorize pre-emptive attacks against potential aggressors cutting them off before they are able to launch strikes against the US.
[edit] Unilateralism
•The duty of the US to pursue unilateral military action when acceptable multilateral solutions cannot be found.
[edit] Strength Beyond Challenge
•The policy that "United States has, and intends to keep, military strength beyond challenge", indicating the US intends to take actions as necessary to continue its status as the world's sole military superpower. This resembles a British Empire policy before World War I that their navy must be larger than the world's next two largest navies put together.
[edit] Extending Democracy, Liberty, and Security to All Regions
•A policy of actively promoting democracy and freedom in all regions of the world. Bush declared at West Point, "America has no empire to extend or utopia to establish. We wish for others only what we wish for ourselves -- safety from violence, the rewards of liberty, and the hope for a better life."

2006-10-28 08:29:13 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous

Did I miss somthing? what happened to them?

2006-10-28 08:14:24 · 5 answers · asked by vaulene2000 1

2006-10-28 08:00:54 · 19 answers · asked by drz9kid 2

Didn't get her maiden name. Is there someone out there who knows her?

2006-10-28 07:55:10 · 2 answers · asked by Anonymous

I am 17 years old and ever since I was a little girl I've wanted to enlist in the military. I took the ASVAB (i think that's what it's called) and passed it. I want to be a CRNA but I need a lot of money for college, lets face it I have nothing. If I join in the military they could help me with the money and I'll serve my country. I don't know into what branch I want to go in, either the navy, army or air force. The Air Force really gets my attention but i don't know. I would like to hear what you guys think. Oh, and my bf is in marine boot camp right now. I don't know what he'll say. Please help me.

2006-10-28 07:20:45 · 30 answers · asked by Mystic Wolf 2

2006-10-28 07:11:02 · 10 answers · asked by Jig 1

Prince harry has joined the britsh army and his unit is to be deployed to iraq in 2007, should he be placed in combat situations like any other officer like prince andrew was in the falklands? and does his presence create danger for his unit (the blues and royals).

2006-10-28 06:33:59 · 7 answers · asked by cokie_999 2

2006-10-28 06:02:19 · 11 answers · asked by richard e 1

Won't it be a great day when our schools get all the money they need and the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber?

2006-10-28 05:37:26 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous

Especially for you americans out there. All we ever see is your citizens is glorifying your country and condeming "evil" like north korea. but at the same time all we hear is complaining about iraq and your leaders who send you there. I believe that if war is neccisary to stop a regime from claiming power with nukes, then that is what needs to happen. What do you think?

2006-10-28 05:33:17 · 12 answers · asked by cokie_999 2

Like most of us around the world, I've been bombarded with images of the twin-tower come tumbling down; the screaming Yanks running along the street; the cries of how hardly-done-by they were...and all the rest of it.

But also like many around the world I've watched as that country played their own political games in other countries backyards; the total lack of respect shown for anything not American; the arrogance; the global bullying. I've also had to watch the voting in of one after another President who has sanctioned such methods.

I'm no supporter of terrorist tactics, but after the actions of America following 9/11; after the way they had the audacity to re-elect Bush (the very epitome of all that is to be despised in that country) - am I the only left wondering if the US got off way too lightly??

2006-10-28 05:31:01 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

A. Gettsyburg
B. Chancellorsville
C. Antietam
D. Bull Run

2006-10-28 05:30:49 · 10 answers · asked by dolly 2

2006-10-28 05:26:20 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

I'm looking for online communites, forum, social networking sites, that have info for veterans of iraq and afghanistan. A place where they can talk amongst one another, help each other out and do on. Is there anything like that yet?

2006-10-28 05:15:10 · 3 answers · asked by Rob 2

tell me why he did that

2006-10-28 05:14:21 · 5 answers · asked by ASMA M 1

I wrote a question today about the confusion between the party we have for my son's birthday and the party we have for 9/11. People were kind of rude when they heard that was what we did. My husband is in the military and has been to Iraq as have his friends. Why can't we celebrate 9/11 as a day of remembrance? Why can't we throw a party and have a few beers for the lives lost and saved? It's pretty somber as most of the people who come have and/or are going to Iraq--and even though it's a party it's done in remembrance. It’s a celebration more for the lives saved and the lives coming to and from, NOT “it’s great that 9/11 happened.” I guess I just don't understand why someone would have a problem with remembering people lost on and since 9/11. Most people don't even do anything. Does anyone understand the point of having a party or am I just crazy?

2006-10-28 04:47:16 · 16 answers · asked by .vato. 6

2006-10-28 04:34:01 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous