Be all you can be.


PDA






Pocket.38
October 6, 2005, 09:36 PM
A Grand Adventure

Except That it isn't




September 18, 2005



The Army at work. Be all you can be.

A friend recently asked me what I would tell a young man thinking about enlisting in the military. (He had in mind his son.) I would tell him this, which I wish someone had told me:

Kid, you are being suckered. You are being used. You need to think carefully before signing that enlistment contract.

First, notice that the men who want to send you to die were draft-dodgers. President Bush was of military age during Vietnam, but he sat out the war in the Air National Guard. The Guard was then a common way of avoiding combat. Bush could do it because he was a rich kid who went to Yale, and his family had connections.

He dodged, but he wants you to go.

Vice President Cheney, also of military age during Vietnam, also didn’t go. Why? When asked by the press, he said, “I had other priorities.” In other words, he was too important to risk his precious self overseas. He dodged, but wants you to go.

If you take the time to investigate, you will always find this pattern. The rich and influential avoid combat. Harvard, Yale, and Princeton do not send young men to Iraq. The editors at magazines that support the war, National Review for example, didn’t fight. They are happy to let you go, though. The reason for the All Volunteer military was to let the smart and rich avoid service and instead send kids from middle-class and blue-collar families. It works.

In talking to recruiters, you need to understand what you are up against. You are probably nineteen or twenty years old, full of piss and vinegar as we used to say, just starting to know the world. Which means that you don’t yet know it. (Do you know, for example, what countries border Iraq?)

You are up against a government that hires high-powered ad agencies and psychologists to figure out how to lure you into the military. Over many years they have done surveys and studies on the weaknesses of young males to find out what will get them to join. They know that young men, the ones that are worth anything anyway, want to prove themselves, want adventure, want to show what they can do. Everything a recruiter does is carefully calculated to play on this. They go to recruiting school to learn how.

“The Few. The Proud.” You don’t think that came out of the Marine Corps, do you? These phrases—“An Army of One,” “Be All You Can Be"--come from ad agencies in New York. Nobody in those ad agencies, I promise you, was ever in the Marine Corps. New York sells the military the way it sells soap. It has no interest in you at all.

Recruiters know exactly what they are doing. They are manly, which appeals to gutsy young guys who don’t want to be mall rats. They are confident. They have a physical fitness, a clean-cut appearance that looks good compared to all those wussy lawyers in business suits. They invite you to come into a man’s world. They promise you college funds. (Check and see how many actually ever get those funds. Read the small print.)

And of course the military is a man’s world, and it is an adventure, and it does beat being a mall rat—until they put you in combat. Driving a tank beats stocking parts in the local NAPA outlet—until they put you in combat. Days on the rifle range, running the bars of San Diego far from home and parents, going across the border into Mexico—all of this appeals powerfully to a young man. It did to me. It beats hell out of getting some silly associate degree in biz-admin at the community college.

Until they put you in combat. Then it’s too late. You can’t change your mind. They send you to jail for a long time if you do.

Combat is not the adventure you think it is. Know what happens when an RPG hits a tank? Nothing good. The cherry juice—hydraulic fluid that turns the turret—can vaporize and then blow. I saw the results in the Naval Support Activity hospital in Danang in 1967. A tank has a crew of four. Two burned to death, screaming as they tried to get out. The other two were scalded pink, under a plastic sheet that was always foggy with serum evaporating from burns where the skin had sloughed off. They probably lived. Know what burn scars look like?

The recruiters won’t tell you this. They know, but they won’t tell you. Ever seen a guy who just took a round through the face? He’s a bloody mess with his eyes gone, nasty hole where his nose was, funny white cartilage things sticking out of dripping meat. Suppose he’ll ever have another girlfriend? Not freaking likely. He’ll spend the next fifty years as a horror in some forsaken VA hospital.

But the recruiters won’t tell you this. They want you to think that it’s an adventure.

Other things happen that, depending on your head, may or may not bother you. Iraq means combat in cities. Ordinary people live there. You pop a grenade through a window, or hit a building with a burst from the Chain gun, or maybe put a tank round through it. Then you find the little girl with her bowels hanging out, not quite dead yet, with her mother screaming over what’s left. You’d be surprised how much blood a small kid has.

You get to live with that picture for the rest of your life. And you will live with it. The recruiter will tell you that it doesn’t happen, that it’s the exception, that I’m a commy journalist. Believe him if you want. Believe him now, while you can. When you get back, you’ll believe me.

A lot of things in America aren’t what they used to be. The military is one of them. The army didn’t always use girl soldiers to torture prisoners. For that they had specialists in the intelligence agencies. You won’t get assigned torture duty, almost certainly, because the Army got caught. Ask your recruiter about it, just to be sure.

Don’t expect thanks from a grateful nation. Somebody might buy you a drink in a bar. That’s about all you get. Many will regard you as a criminal or a fool.

Wars seem important at the time, but they usually aren’t. Five years later, they are history. About sixty thousand GIs died in Vietnam. We lost. Nothing happened. It was a stupid war for nothing. Today the guys who lost faces and legs and internal organs back then are just freaks. Nobody gives a damn about them, and nobody will give a damn about you. A war is a politician’s toy, but your wheelchair is forever. If you want adventure, try the fishing fleet in Alaska.

Think about it.


Encourage your sister to enlist. She can be a leader of men.

If you enjoyed reading about "Be all you can be." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Sistema1927
October 6, 2005, 09:44 PM
Don't feed the troll.....

jrfoxx
October 6, 2005, 09:50 PM
agreed Sistema...... :barf:

Chris Rhines
October 6, 2005, 10:12 PM
I think that Fred would probably appreciate it if you credited his article...

- Chris

pax
October 6, 2005, 10:25 PM
It's a bad argument.

Not that it's inaccurate or anything like that.

It's just that Fred set out to persuade young, brave men at the peak of their testosterone-laden prowess that 1) they can die or get maimed (a thing which no one under the age of 30 really believes is possible), and 2) that fear of dying or being maimed should keep those brave young men from doing what they believe is The Right Thing.

Appealling to the cowardice of young men is an argument that's doomed to fail, no matter how vivid the prose.

pax

I detest life-insurance agents; they always argue that I shall some day die, which is not so. --Stephen Leacock

NCP24
October 6, 2005, 11:57 PM
Prevented WW2 by killing a few bankers and other war profiteers? Never mind. . .

JohnBT
October 7, 2005, 12:03 AM
"Be all you can be."

Be all you can be.

Be all you can be.

Be all you can be.



Hey, look, I can cut and paste, too. :o

Pilgrim
October 7, 2005, 12:16 AM
We could have prevented the Civil War, the Spanish American War, WW!, the Depression, WW2, Korea, Nam, all of them, by killing a few bankers and other war profiteers.
Sounds like a failure in marketing and public relations.

Pilgrim

Standing Wolf
October 7, 2005, 12:17 AM
We could have prevented the Civil War, the Spanish American War, WW!, the Depression, WW2, Korea, Nam, all of them, by killing a few bankers and other war profiteers.

Sacrificial slaghter of bankers and war profiteers? Why didn't somebody tell us that's how to ward off wars? Oh, if only we'd known!

Desertdog
October 7, 2005, 12:25 AM
I believe all kids, male/female should enlist when they are 18. That is the best way to protect this country, 100% military trained force on the ground, in uniform or out. No foreign country would dare touch us.

I spent my time in the military, my brothers spent their time, my son is spending his time, and my Dad spent his time. No, my daughters did not spend their time, but I wish they had.

It does not matter what the leaders of the country did with their time, it is still the best damned country this earth has at this time.

If you don't like who is leading the country now you have several choices, leave it, try to improve it or bitch about it.

I see you have chosen the 3rd choice.

GOD BLESS AMERICA
LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT

ID_shooting
October 7, 2005, 12:51 AM
Here, let me toss a scrap or two...

I never, not once, regreted any minute of the 8 years I spent in uniform.

gc70
October 7, 2005, 12:59 AM
Don't be so tough on Pocket.38; he probably has not realized that THR is not a left-wing, anti-American, political discussion forum.

Pilgrim
October 7, 2005, 01:11 AM
I never, not once, regreted any minute of the 8 years I spent in uniform.
Twenty here.

Pilgrim

CentralTexas
October 7, 2005, 01:26 AM
Depends on what you are looking for, speaking for the Air Force there is little chance of seeing combat unless as a pilot. Our special forces are small, the rest are mainly tech & support jobs.
Score high on ASVAB test and the Air Force can train you into a ton of jobs that will make what a lot of college grads dont in a year. Air Traffic control, Radiology & MRI tech, Precision Measurement tech, medical equipment repair etc.
Other branches can do it also and even infantry probably beats a career in fast food in a small Iowa town anyway...
CT

Deavis
October 7, 2005, 01:54 AM
Did I miss something or did the American Military suddenly become a non-volunteer outfit that doesn't fight wars? Isn't the military a place where you go to get in shape and then go to college? I mean, who in the heck fights these days anyhow? People are too civilized for war.

Do posts on trolling threads count for our total? :D

Buck Snort
October 7, 2005, 05:43 AM
Truth of the matter is the recruiters are absolutely DESPERATE for guys to sign up and they'll tell any lie, pull off any deception, to get another warm body into boot camp. I'm as patriotic as anybody here but lets be realistic, recruiters lie and they always have. They are experts at leading young guys to draw the conculsions they want them to draw. Testosterone driven young men want to PROVE THEMSELVES and the recruiters know how to play their emotions like a country fiddler plays a violen. Its no contest, its Mike Tyson in the ring with a Cub Scout. Our big mistake was eliminating the draft. At least then there was some degree of probability that the guy who came home in a box was not fed a crock of brown stinky bovine gravy to get him into uniform, not that it's much consolation to his family. War is a horrid, ugly thing and there is really no good answer as to how it should be manned. The ultimate problem is, if we are not willing to pay the price, what can we expect from our enemies? Mercy? No, they'll cut us to ribbons and feed our remains to the dogs. There are no good answers. As long as there are people in the world who want to destroy us we'll have to pay the price. Don't expect things to get better soon.

XLMiguel
October 7, 2005, 08:49 AM
What part of "Armed Forces" is ambiguous? Anyone who signs up in an organization in that category can rightly infer that there's a good change of seeing combat (though pragmatically, it depends on you MOS and the ratio of support to combat troops :neener: ).

Some things are worth fighting for, and the rights we cherish also come with responsibilities. 'Nuff said.

CentralTexas
October 7, 2005, 10:05 AM
"Truth of the matter is the recruiters are absolutely DESPERATE for guys to sign up and they'll tell any lie, pull off any deception, to get another warm body into boot camp"

Because the system is so screwed up many may resort to being dishonest to avoid losing a career 14-16 years into their 20, but by no means is this the majority of recruiters. An recruiter in San Antonio may work 36 hours a week and have so many applicants they can be very picky and not have to "fraud" anyone in wheras a recruiter in San Jose Ca. may work 60-80 hours a week and not make it.There is a lot more selective listening on the part of the enlistees that account for this reputation in my experience than anything.
Want to know how bad it is? Want to know why NCO's go AWOL from it? Read about the nightmare here-
http://milnewstbay.pbwiki.com/index.php?wiki=45106
CT

Glock-A-Roo
October 7, 2005, 10:21 AM
The recruiter will tell you that it doesn’t happen, that it’s the exception, that I’m a commy journalist.

He spelled "commie" wrong.

Having to explain that combat could involve death or disfigurement is like having labels on clothing that say "do not iron while wearing". Ridiculous.

wingman
October 7, 2005, 10:31 AM
[/QUOTE]I believe all kids, male/female should enlist when they are 18. That is the best way to protect this country, 100% military trained force on the ground, in uniform or out. No foreign country would dare touch us.
Quote:


Agreed, better this happen now then too late.

cuchulainn
October 7, 2005, 10:33 AM
Our big mistake was eliminating the draft. At least then there was some degree of probability that the guy who came home in a box was not fed a crock of brown stinky bovine gravy to get him into uniform Yeah, because doing it by offering him the choice of a military uniform or a prison uniform is so much better. "Hey, he was forcibly ripped away from his life and sent to die, but at least he wasn't lied to!"

These are adults. They are volunteers. The idea that they were unaware of the risks is just silly, no matter how much the recruiter lied or painted rosy pictures.

And if we are producing adults so naive and stupid that they're unware of the risks of joining the military, then we've got bigger problems than the worries in this essay.

rbernie
October 7, 2005, 10:37 AM
Truth of the matter is the recruiters are absolutely DESPERATE for guys to sign up and they'll tell any lie, pull off any deception, to get another warm body into boot camp. And what are your direct background and experiences with this? Here are mine:


I was raised in a staunchly middle-class household in the Washington DC suburbs
I am the son of a internationally-reknown research physicist, and have a measured IQ arguably 50% better than the national average on my worst day
I had the opportunity to go to virtually any college in the nation that I wanted
At age 19, I walked in the door to the recruiting office under my own power
I was not drunk on otherwise impaired
I was given a relatively no BS description of what I could expect
I was not promised wealth, fame, booty, simple respect, or abs of steel
I was warned that I probably wouldn't like some of the experiences I would have
I was offered the chance to work hard
I chose to sign on the dotted line
At the end of my hitch, I chose not to re-up for personal reasons unrelated to the military itself

End of story. I view my military experience (US Army Signal Corp, in a combat support MOS) as a key component in my personal growth and maturation. It's a shame that more of us can't say that.

wingnutx
October 7, 2005, 04:38 PM
Imagine my suprise when they issued me a rifle instead of the basket of kittens that the recruiter had promised me.

torpid
October 7, 2005, 04:49 PM
Imagine my suprise when they issued me a rifle instead of the basket of kittens that the recruiter had promised me.

They don't hand out kitten baskets to recruits, you have to prove yourself first.

(And yes, I do know all the posters in the recruiting office show steely-eyed Rangers hefting huge baskets brimming with little kittens, but that's something to aim toward, not a promise.)

.

Oleg Volk
October 7, 2005, 04:50 PM
The description of the joys of the service isn't unreasonable, though I agree that few people have to be told that this is what might happen to them personally.

What I find interesting is that people play the lottery though their chance of winning is smaller than their chance of getting maimed in combat...they believe in that slim chance. The same people do not believe in the relatively greater chance of getting maimed if they join the army...because they just can't envision themselves torn to shreds.

I see nothing wrong with risking your hide for your family, but I see plenty wrong with winding up as a cog in the instrument of foreign policy and not having the ability to second-guess the commander-in-chief. Going into harm's way for bad reasons invented by Clinton, Bush or LBJ isn't glamorous, it is tragic.

wingnutx
October 7, 2005, 04:58 PM
I found my own kitten in Baghdad. The ungrateful little furball crawled down to the foot of my sleeping bag at 3am and peed on my feet.

Colt
October 7, 2005, 05:02 PM
Yeah, the military sucks.

After it suckered me in, by providing accurate information and answering any questions I had, it did nothing but train me, house me, feed me, pay me, and turn me into a man. I guess I fooled them, because they never got me on the front lines, and instead taught me computer networking. Then, when I finally managed to sneak out after 4 years of this hideous torture, they provided me with money to pay for college.

What a bunch of jerks. I hate those guys!

Zundfolge
October 7, 2005, 05:03 PM
/me buys Colt a beer

Colt
October 7, 2005, 05:07 PM
/me buys Colt a beer

Thank you, sir! May I have another!

Ian
October 7, 2005, 05:13 PM
If I had a friend who was considering joining up, I'd do my best to convince them not to. There's lot's of great rhetoric about standing up and doing your part to preserve freedom, democracy, and the American Way, but I fail to see how occupying Iraq has the slightest bit to do with freedom.

I'm 22; why on earth should I risk my life to help put/keep some Iraqi politician in power? :scrutiny:

Colt
October 7, 2005, 05:16 PM
I'm 22; why on earth should I risk my life to help put/keep some Iraqi politician in power?

So that Al Qaida doesn't have a safe haven to train and develop tactics to use against US civilians on American soil.

It's really not a complex concept.

wingnutx
October 7, 2005, 05:32 PM
Basically the same reason we wanted to keep some British politicians in power 60+ years ago.

MTMilitiaman
October 7, 2005, 05:38 PM
They're getting a lot of live fire exercise right now dude. It really isn't a difficult concept.

It's easy to support this war until it stands to cost you more than you are willing to pay to believe the rhetoric. A year ago if you had asked me, I would have told you "hell yeah Suddam needs to go." That was all I needed because it was other people's friends and sons and brothers that were over there. Now I have friends over there. My brother shipped out last Tuesday. I talked to him on the phone until his Seargant came to check him out of his room. Nobody has heard from him since. It has only been a week and already I find myself scanning the paper looking for news, dreading I'll see my brother's name and know things will never be the same for any of us. Every IED and RPG in that country has new meaning when someone you love is in a position to be at the receiving end. And if you ask me now, I'll tell you I'd rather still have Saddam in power. Let him kill, rape, burn, and torture his entire country. Line them up against a wall and shoot them. Drag them kicking and screaming to mass graves outside Baghdad and shoot them in the back of the head. Throw them off a bridge into the Euphrates. I don't care. Because that entire f-ing country 12000 miles away in the sand isn't worth one hair on my brother's head.
Every time I talk to my brother on the phone he tells me not to join the Army. I wanted to be a soldier until my brother joined and I saw what it did to my family. Yes, we are proud of him. And it has made him a better person. He's never before addressed other people, like waiters, as "sir" or "mam." But being a better person is of little use to us if his legs get blown off or some camel jockey gets lucky and my brother zigs when he should have zagged. "Don't join the Army." He says, "It's a trap. It's boring as hell, no where near what they show on TV, and when you are doing something, it sucks too." For Christ's sakes he actually calculated the number of seconds he had left to help him get through it. "Think about how short a second is." He told me. The fact that he has over 30 million of them left in a war zone, and we have over 30 million of them to spend waiting for him to come back...

My brother is the most precious thing in the world to me. To hell with Iraq. Nuke the place for all I care. As long as my brother comes home. Because I swear to God, nothing will ever feel right again if the last time I saw him was this Fourth of July.

bountyhunter
October 7, 2005, 05:48 PM
Truth of the matter is the recruiters are absolutely DESPERATE for guys to sign up and they'll tell any lie, pull off any deception, to get another warm body into boot camp. Up to and including telling them how to beat the drug tests and driving them to the pharmacy to get the stuff to do it (documented).

The problem is 18 year olds are not competent to make such decisions. We don't let them drink at that age, and it is documented their brains are not fully developed.

Yet, we allow recruiters to use fraudulent recruiting, full scale blitzes at high schools, glamor ads at stock car races and similar....

and claim they are all "volunteers".

IMHO, being a true volunteer requires:

1) truthfully informed consent

2) full adult congnizance to process that information.

18 year olds are not getting the first and do not have the second.

CentralTexas
October 7, 2005, 06:04 PM
With that blanket statement logic we should not allow until the age of brain formation (whatever that is)-
any legal prosecution of them for law violations as they have "unformed brains" and can't tell right from wrong
any of them to hold any position of trust involving the public policy
allow them to touch anything dangerous or hunt etc.
be drafted when the Chinese etc invade as they will do more harm than good

"IMHO, being a true volunteer requires:

1) truthfully informed consent
-Have you seen a modern recruiting contract???

2) full adult congnizance to process that information.
-I know 18 year olds that run circles around 45 year olds mentally

as far as advertising, now there are so few military bases most kids never realize they have the option. I don't find the ads false either-
Marines are selling HooRah aren't they?
See a Marine recruiter they talk being a Marine not jobs
NAVY ships underway- not a suprise when they get on a ship is it?
Air Force shows flightlines and air crew stuff
Army shows infantry life
Not sure what you feel is concealed

It's either this or bring the draft back and while that sounds good you really don't want to work with forced labor Vs. volunteers.
WWII folks joined out of patriotism in droves then, it's a different world now.
Ask most kids coming into a recruiter why they are interested in joining and they say college, many just say that and want out of their current existence in reality.
CT

charby
October 7, 2005, 06:19 PM
Other branches can do it also and even infantry probably beats a career in fast food in a small Iowa town anyway...

Hey don't pick on Iowa...

miko
October 7, 2005, 06:19 PM
If you don't like who is leading the country now you have several choices, leave it, try to improve it or bitch about it.

Yes, the Fabian plan worked. Make the idiots ask the wrong questions, and you do not ever have to worry about the answers.
It is not important who wields the state power – but that the state has too much power.


GOD BLESS AMERICA. LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT

It must be obvious that you and your ancestors hated and still hate America – because you certainly changed it a whole lot from the way it was when you first became politically-active.

I sure wish the America-haters like you took your own advice and got the heck out, instead of screwing beyong all recognition what was once – long ago – a decent country.

miko

AZ Jeff
October 7, 2005, 06:26 PM
Q: I'm 22; why on earth should I risk my life to help put/keep some Iraqi politician in power?

A:So that Al Qaida doesn't have a safe haven to train and develop tactics to use against US civilians on American soil.

This is probably the most succinct explanation I have ever heard as to why we have (and need to have) a military presence in the middle east.

Oleg Volk
October 7, 2005, 06:28 PM
Keep this civil, please.

miko
October 7, 2005, 06:30 PM
Actually, the socialist, secular Saddam Hussein was the greatest - and closest - enemy the Al-Qaeda ever had. Only Iran compares to him in active hostility to Al-Qaeda and Taliban - even at the time when US was financing/training both.


Reminds me of a saying - for every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, elegant - and wrong.

miko

CAPTAIN MIKE
October 7, 2005, 06:45 PM
I am proud of the 30 years I spent in the military. Our military personnel today are ALL VOLUNTEERS and we should be DAMN PROUD of their patriotism and courage. The above crapola is worthless.

CentralTexas
October 7, 2005, 06:52 PM
Didn't mean to bang on Iowa, there are plenty of places in Texas where the excitment is watching paint peel also! ;)
CT

wingnutx
October 7, 2005, 07:04 PM
It's easy to support this war until it stands to cost you more than you are willing to pay ...

If you aren't willing to pay, then don't enlist.

miko
October 7, 2005, 07:13 PM
I am proud of the 30 years I spent in the military. Our military personnel today are ALL VOLUNTEERS and we should be DAMN PROUD of their patriotism and courage. The above crapola is worthless.

Many people are too dumb and unable to learn and do not know any more at 60 than they knew at 15. So they never realise the diffeence the age, experience and knowlege makes.

But for the rest of us it is pretty clear that a person at the age of 18 can know very little to form a rational, educated opinion on most matters. Even if they were busy educating themsleves and acquiring experience the previous years. Which most nobody does.
Male's brain is not even fully-formed until 25 or so.

Patriotism of 18-year olds and people who enlisted at 18, especially if he spent the following years without reading a decent book or forming a decent critical thought is as worthless as a patriotism of a 5-year old child.
Their bravery is also worthless because they rarely have an idea what they are risking - even if hormones allowed any idea to take root in their heads.

Don't you guys remember yourself at 18? How dumb, ignorant and hormone-driven we were?


I would deeply respect a mature man (30-35 years?) with nice family, good life and steady income sacrificing that all and risking that all in an informed decision to fight for some worthy cause. Don't see many of those.


Fred Reed, by the way, is a very intelligent, experienced and learned man who served in Vietnam and then was a reporter around the world and a police reporter. He saw plenty of examples of true bravery by people whos brains are not muddled and has no problem respecting it.

miko

Vern Humphrey
October 7, 2005, 07:25 PM
Sacrificial slaghter of bankers and war profiteers? Why didn't somebody tell us that's how to ward off wars? Oh, if only we'd known!


Yeah, that worked great in the USSR. Once they had the Communist Revolution, they never fought any more wars. :p

No_Brakes23
October 7, 2005, 07:30 PM
I believe all kids, male/female should enlist when they are 18. That is the best way to protect this country, 100% military trained force on the ground, in uniform or out. Hell no. Conscripts are crap. I would never want to work in that environment. I am so glad that my fellow Marines were all volunteers.

So that Al Qaida doesn't have a safe haven to train and develop tactics to use against US civilians on American soil. I would love to buy into that, but Bush is cozy with the Saudis, and until that stops, then the "War on Terrorism" is a sham. We are talking about stopping terrorists, but we are still buddy-buddy with their backers. And anyway, the poster had a good point. Our youth should not be forced to go fight some bored rich man's war. I proudly served 8 years in the Corps, with two extended combat deployments. But if I were around during 'Nam I would not have wanted to be involved in that abortion. Cleaning up after Frenchmen? No thanks.

Don't you guys remember yourself at 18? How dumb, ignorant and hormone-driven we were? Ignorant perhaps, but not dumb or hormone driven. Then again, I was almost 23 when I enlisted, (Someting I would NOT reccomend.)

If you aren't willing to pay, then don't enlist. +1 That's pretty much how I feel about it.

MikeyBee
October 7, 2005, 07:30 PM
I would deeply respect a mature man (30-35 years?) with nice family, good life and steady income sacrificing that all and risking that all in an informed decision to fight for some worthy cause. Don't see many of those.My best friend joined the Army National Guard immediately following 9/11. Years ago, we almost joined the Marines together (I went, he didn't). He graduated bootcamp at the ripe age of 34. He graduated OCS at the top of his class a year later. And guess what?... He makes a very good living working for one of NY's top advertising agencies.

Kind of puts the lie to THIS little nugget, doesn't it? “The Few. The Proud.” You don’t think that came out of the Marine Corps, do you? These phrases—“An Army of One,” “Be All You Can Be"--come from ad agencies in New York. Nobody in those ad agencies, I promise you, was ever in the Marine Corps. New York sells the military the way it sells soap. It has no interest in you at all.
EDIT: Almost forgot... His wife just had a beautiful little girl last month.

Sam
October 7, 2005, 07:47 PM
That recruiter lied and lied and lied and lied.
Thats why I only Re-enlisted 6 times. :D


Sam

Grey54956
October 7, 2005, 08:06 PM
Our military personnel today are ALL VOLUNTEERS and we should be DAMN PROUD of their patriotism and courage.

There is another way of looking at this. Our military personnel may be comprised of volunteers, but you could just as easily say that our military is also comprised entirely of mercenaries. All of them are paid for the job they do. How many of them do it so they can pay for college? How many of them do it because they thought they could make some money?

It's not like Iraq up and attacked the US, and that our young citizens signed up to prtoect us and take the fight to Iraq. No, they did it for the money.

I wounder if the recruiter told everyone coming through the door that they would be sent to another land, where anybody at any time could try to kill them because they are Americans, and that for this they wouldn't receive one red cent, I wonder how many would sign up.

While I do agree that patriotism may be a motivating factor, the most important motivation is money.

CentralTexas
October 7, 2005, 09:01 PM
you quoted me for something someone else said in your post -just to be accurate...
CT

bountyhunter
October 7, 2005, 09:04 PM
With that blanket statement logic we should not allow until the age of brain formation (whatever that is)-
any legal prosecution of them for law violations as they have "unformed brains" and can't tell right from wrong
any of them to hold any position of trust involving the public policy
allow them to touch anything dangerous or hunt etc. I never said or implied any such idiocy, nor did I say they have no brain function or culpability.

What I did say is that 18 year olds are not mature, and they are easily gullible. Also, last time I checked:

dead was forever.

IMHO, it is not at all unreasonable that restrictions be placed on recruiting or advertising aimed at getting 18 year olds to go into a profession where they can be killed or maimed. And given about 2000 have been killed and 16,000 wounded in Iraq, that is not hyperbole: it's a real possibility and not a remote one.


1) truthfully informed consent
-Have you seen a modern recruiting contract??? That is pointless to argue because I am handicapped in that I must live in the real world. Yes, I know exactly what recruiters have been doing and so do you. They recently had a one day "stand down" where they were collectively counseled for inappropriate method and tactics. Hidden camera reports have been shown documenting the lying and subverting of the law.

I know exactly what the mindset is and I don't want it aimed at 18 year olds. By 25, they can believe all the BS they want.... but at least give them a chance to see reality and decide.

bountyhunter
October 7, 2005, 09:09 PM
I wounder if the recruiter told everyone coming through the door that they would be sent to another land, where anybody at any time could try to kill them because they are Americans, and that for this they wouldn't receive one red cent, I wonder how many would sign up. And what about those foolish National Guard who enlisted believeing their job was to Guard our Nation?

Where could they have gotten such a stupid idea? maybe from the name of their organization?

To be fair, maybe the NG should be re named the: discount priced troops we can activate for just 6 months at a time so we don't have to pay for a full hitch........ and send off to do any stupid job where we need military bodies in any hell hole 10,000 miles from home.

Not a catchy title, but at least it's truthful.

Gannet
October 7, 2005, 09:10 PM
I thought this place was supposed to be "The High Road"?

Not in this thread, it isn't.

jeff-10
October 7, 2005, 09:23 PM
I love those arguments about 18 year olds who can't form an opinion. I agree, the majority of 18 year olds vote Democrat and that is clearly a sign of poor judgement and immaturity. As far as being a soldier it just so happens that physically and mentally ~18 year olds make very effective soldiers. Effective soldiers make an effective army and a nation needs an effective army because the world is a nasty place. It has nothing to do with whats best for the 18 year old and has everything to do with the survival of the nation.

GoRon
October 7, 2005, 09:26 PM
I thought this place was supposed to be "The High Road"?

Not in this thread, it isn't.

The Bush haters and malcontents are out in full force in many threads.

I read their screeds, argue my points and rethink my positions if nescessary.

Those that are against the Iraq war won't be convinced at this point. They are isolationists, peaceniks or against anything the GOP does, right or wrong.

At some point you either trust those in government when they say we need to use military force or you don't.

The peaceniks, anarchists and libertarians hate our government so much that nothing short of a 9/11 pt2 will convince them of the need to use our military.

Alex45ACP
October 7, 2005, 09:43 PM
The peaceniks, anarchists and libertarians hate our government so much that nothing short of a 9/11 pt2 will convince them of the need to use our military.

I wouldn't have a problem with using it against those who were actually behind the attacks.

Deavis
October 7, 2005, 09:44 PM
But for the rest of us it is pretty clear that a person at the age of 18 can know very little to form a rational, educated opinion on most matters. Even if they were busy educating themsleves and acquiring experience the previous years. Which most nobody does.
Male's brain is not even fully-formed until 25 or so.

Speak for yourself, not everyone else. You might have been immature and irrational at 18 but not all of us were. I knew I wanted to be an engineer when I was 15, made the choice to focus on that, went to college on a scholarship, got two degrees, and now enjoy my career immensely.

Just because you lacked the capability to make life-altering decisions when you were 18 doesn't mean the rest of us did. If, when I am 60, I look back I can't fault my choice at 15 because I made the best decision based on the information I had at the time. What you describe is a case of regret, not an immature brain.

We need to quit coddling teenagers and force them to make decisions and they will learn to make them in a mature manner. When you coddle them and do everything for them, how can you expect them to mature. There is no reason that good decisions cannot be made at 18. Sure, good parental input helps, but heaven forbid someone be a real parent these days.. :rolleyes:

GlenJ
October 7, 2005, 10:22 PM
I'm also one who proudly served for twenty years (Navy) and it did me a lot of good. I learned a trade that brings in top dollar that along with my military retirement pay earns me a great living, I have very cheap health care for the rest of my life (and my wife's) and if you want a goverment job like I have being a vet gets you head of the line in the door at an advanced pay grade. Was it all fun and what my recruiter told me it would be?? Not hardly. But anything worth having is hardly easy. As far as a draft or a go to the military besides jail deal the military would waste way to much time and money dealing with derelics.

roo_ster
October 7, 2005, 10:46 PM
Imagine my suprise when they issued me a rifle instead of the basket of kittens that the recruiter had promised me.

(And yes, I do know all the posters in the recruiting office show steely-eyed Rangers hefting huge baskets brimming with little kittens, but that's something to aim toward, not a promise.)


Luckily, by the time I read the second snippet, I was plum outta beverage to blow over my laptop.

MTMilitiaman
October 7, 2005, 11:58 PM
I haven't enlisted. I wouldn't enlist for my brother and couldn't even if I wanted to. That is the price I am unwilling to pay--losing my brother. I'd rather die than lose my brother.

I do love my country and would gladly enlist if I knew a) it wasn't going to put my parents through what I know it will and b) I knew if I actually died, I was actually dying for my country instead of some 2nd world sand box I didn't give a rat's rear end about.

As for why he joined. He's just turned 20. He's always been spontaneous and this decision was no different. What would people expect him to do? They offer him $14000 in sign on bonuses, plus pay, make it sound like all he will be doing is running around shooting guns--which is all he does anyways--and then the recruiter personally pays off an MIP my brother had. That's pretty enticing if you don't think it all the way through--$14000+ a job in one hand or -$250 in the other. He should have looked before he leaped cause I am sure the possibility or even the promise of Iraq didn't seem as real to him in an air conditioned recruiting station in Kalispell, Montana as it does now north of Baghdad.

Tokugawa
October 8, 2005, 12:32 AM
I lucked out- was an 18 year old high school dropout the year the draft ended. Had two brothers in Vietnam. So I never went in the military.
So take all this commentary with some salt. BUT- the purpose of the military is to fight. When you go in, you are joining a combat service. You are not expected to make political decisions about what, where, and why to fight. This is where the service part comes in. You are doing your countrys dirty work. I don't understand why there is even a question about this.

And to put two things into perspective- If we were not fighting al-queda at the start of this Iraq conflict, we sure are now. And altho I am sure that the impact of losing a son or daughter is burned into a soul forever, the fact is that by historical standards our casualties have been very low.

And one more- I am no big fan of Bush, but consider this- Saddam hates the US. Saddam had a nuke program at one time, FOR SURE. After 9/11, the
concern about a terrorist nuke attack here HAD to be taken into account.
Would any of us like to have been the ones who decided not to depose Saddam and find out he slipped a nuke into the hands of a terrorist organisation? Hindsight is 20/20. Bush had to make some very difficult decisions. I am not tryng to be an apologist for him, just trying to emphasis the enormity of the choices that had to be made.

1911 guy
October 8, 2005, 01:36 AM
These "clueless" 18 year olds are some of the most professional you will ever see. To those of you who have never served, you really don't understand, no offense meant. We as americans have no real responsibility until we hit our 20's. The military gives that responsibility a few years earlier and these "kids" rise to the challenge and inspire respect even from the "adults" who lead them. I'm very proud to have served and while it admittedly isn' for everyone, many people come out the better for the experience. No, it isn't all good, but neither is life in general. As for the comment about our people in uniform being mercenaries, it may technically be true as they get a paycheck for doing violence, but I resent the connotation which I am sure was intentional. So, in short, it isn't all peache an cream, bu it also isn't a sure thing to be killed or wounded. Sure, it happens, but little old ladies walk out in front of busses, too. just because there is risk involved doesn't make it bad.

My final thought before I start to rant too badly is you can dissagree about the politics of the war, I'm not sure I buy into all the spin either, but quite bashing the folks who saw fit to sign up. And please stop thinking of them as incompetent in any way. You innadequacies at 18 do not apply to most others.

MTMilitiaman
October 8, 2005, 01:58 AM
My final thought before I start to rant too badly is you can dissagree about the politics of the war, I'm not sure I buy into all the spin either, but quite bashing the folks who saw fit to sign up. And please stop thinking of them as incompetent in any way. You innadequacies at 18 do not apply to most others.

I am not sure if that was directed at me but regardless I would like to make it clear that I fully support America's finest in harm's way. I wish them a job well done and a swift and safe return and I admire them for the sacrifices they make. My grandpa was in Korea in 53, and of his three son's, two of them were in the Army. My dad was afraid he was going to miss most of my early childhood because of Beirut. I also respect my brother for his decision and sacrifices, regardless of his motivation or how ill informed I think his decision was made. There have been some good changes in him. But war changes people in bad ways too. I am one of the few people close enough to my brother for him to actually open up to and it is a rare occassion to hear him cry, but I know once in particular we got to talking about him going to Iraq and he was close. He told me he was scared that even if he returned with all his body parts in tact, he'd never be the same person again. Anyways, I don't believe I ever said anything to the contrary but I would like to avoid being called a Fonda or a pacificist. I believe there are times when war is necessary, inevitable, and even beneficial. I also believe this is not one of those times. I used to support the war but certain events have a way of changing your perspective. Having a relative or someone you love very much go into harm's way makes it really difficult to support who or whatever put him/her there. I don't think Bush is a criminal but I do think he is in error, even if he did make the best possible decision with the information available to him at the time. And even if he isn't in error, I still don't care because no possible benefit of this war that I can perceive could ever make up for or replace the loss of my brother.

DRZinn
October 8, 2005, 02:01 AM
The peaceniks, anarchists and libertarians hate our government so much that nothing short of a 9/11 pt2 will convince them of the need to use our military.I hate government in general (I'm in the third category), based on its immense capacity for evil. I also see the need to use our military power, sometimes even pre-emptively.

Spare me the false generalized statements based on what you think I think.

Jammer Six
October 8, 2005, 04:14 AM
Spare me the false generalized statements based on what you think I think.
Doc, I, for one, base what I think you think on what you say here.

Have you made a mistake in your statements?

Were any of them false?

If not, then it's what we have to go on.

Have a nice day. :cool:

JohnBT
October 8, 2005, 09:51 AM
"And what about those foolish National Guard who enlisted believeing their job was to Guard our Nation?

Where could they have gotten such a stupid idea? maybe from the name of their organization?"

That's a bit of a stretch. No, it's more than a stretch, it's silly. You are constructing arguments out of thin air.

Five seconds on Google (or in any library) will show extensive listings of state NG units serving in WWI and WWII. Try typing in National Guard WWII and hitting Enter.

John

Thin Black Line
October 8, 2005, 11:33 AM
Colt:
"So that Al Qaida doesn't have a safe haven to train and develop tactics to use against US civilians on American soil."
--------------

Iraq has become an Al Qaeda training ground. And, while we try to
secure Iraq's border, the US southern border remains wide open.

--------------
MTM:
"To hell with Iraq. Nuke the place for all I care. "
--------------

This would destroy the infrastructure and contaminate the oil we need.

--------------
Grey:
"It's not like Iraq up and attacked the US, and that our young citizens signed up to prtoect us and take the fight to Iraq. No, they did it for the money."
--------------

Give people credit who signed up for pure idealistic patriotism. How about
those people who heard the "imminent danger" speeches after 9-11 and
signed up because they did really wanted to protect America? Should they
do it for free?

--------------
MTM:
"I do love my country and would gladly enlist if I knew a) it wasn't going to put my parents through what I know it will and b) I knew if I actually died, I was actually dying for my country instead of some 2nd world sand box I didn't give a rat's rear end about."
---------------

A) It will bother your parents even if it's for a good cause. Plenty of moms
and dads worried about their kids in WWII, etc. B) You would be dying
for your own interests and national security. As long as America needs
gasoline to live its suburban driving S-Mart shopping existence, then this
country will need to be guarding the world's gas pump. Everybody who
drives a car to work, goes through a drive thru bank/fast food place
on the way to picking up another plastic trinket in China, needs to realise
how important our soliders are right now. The US citizens' common
collective economic interest is resting on the IBA-clad shouldiers of every
soldier in Iraq right now.

DRZinn
October 8, 2005, 11:53 AM
Doc, I, for one, base what I think you think on what you say here.OK, show me where what said I said expressed or implied anything in the following statement:libertarians hate our government so much that nothing short of a 9/11 pt2 will convince them of the need to use our military.

Have you made a mistake in your statements?

Were any of them false?No, and no. Try again.

Jammer Six
October 8, 2005, 07:01 PM
OK, show me where what said I said expressed or implied anything in the following statement:
Honey, I didn't make a specific claim.

I told you what I based my beliefs on.

The rest is yours.

"Walk into a crowded bar, yell 'Hey, STUPID', and at least two people will jump up, and demand to know if you're calling them stupid."--George Irvine III, circa 1997

wingnutx
October 8, 2005, 07:49 PM
Some of us take huge pay-cuts when we deploy. If I was after money I'd get a second job delivering pizzas instead of staying in the reserves.

our military is also comprised entirely of mercenaries. All of them are paid for the job they do. How many of them do it so they can pay for college? How many of them do it because they thought they could make some money?

It's not like Iraq up and attacked the US, and that our young citizens signed up to prtoect us and take the fight to Iraq. No, they did it for the money.

Yes, I get paid. My family does have to eat. So did Alvin York's family, George Washington's family, etc...

That doesn't make us mercenaries. Mercenaries would offer their services to the highest bidder.

Maybe you don't understand what motivates thosse in uniform, so please do us all a favor and quit speculating and assuming the worst motive.

Vern Humphrey
October 8, 2005, 08:58 PM
I went into a public-'ouse to get a pint o'beer,
The publican 'e up an' sez, "We serve no red-coats here."
The girls be'ind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die,
I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I:

O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, go away";
But it's ``Thank you, Mister Atkins,'' when the band begins to play,
The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
O it's ``Thank you, Mr. Atkins,'' when the band begins to play.

I went into a theatre as sober as could be,
They gave a drunk civilian room, but 'adn't none for me;
They sent me to the gallery or round the music-'alls,
But when it comes to fightin', Lord! they'll shove me in the stalls!

For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, wait outside";
But it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide,
The troopship's on the tide, my boys, the troopship's on the tide,
O it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide.

Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;
An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit
Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit.

Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy how's yer soul?"
But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll,
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
O it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll.

We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too,
But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints:
Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints;

While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, fall be'ind,"
But it's "Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind,
There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind,
O it's "Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind.

You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires an' all:
We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.

For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country," when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
But Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees!

rbernie
October 8, 2005, 09:14 PM
the purpose of the military is to fight. When you go in, you are joining a combat service. You are not expected to make political decisions about what, where, and why to fight. This is where the service part comes in. You are doing your countrys dirty work. I don't understand why there is even a question about this.+1.

It is simply beyond my comprehension that some folks cannot understand what the words 'armed services' mean.

Vern Humphrey
October 8, 2005, 10:09 PM
It is simply beyond my comprehension that some folks cannot understand what the words 'armed services' mean.


Probably because they have never served.

I could say several things about such people, but in the spirit of gentlemanly debate, I will refrain.

DRZinn
October 9, 2005, 02:41 AM
Honey, I didn't make a specific claim.Bull????, of course you did. You said that you made this statement:...libertarians hate our government so much that nothing short of a 9/11 pt2 will convince them of the need to use our military.based on what I say here. Pretty damn specific to me.

This is getting boring.

javafiend
October 9, 2005, 03:07 AM
Those that are against the Iraq war won't be convinced at this point. They are isolationists, peaceniks or against anything the GOP does, right or wrong.

That is merely something that you want to believe, just as you wanted to believe that Iraq had stockpiles of WMD. Wishing doesn't make it so.

Retired general: Iraq invasion was 'strategic disaster' (http://www.lowellsun.com/ci_3072005)
WASHINGTON -- The invasion of Iraq was the “greatest strategic disaster in United States history,” a retired Army general said yesterday, strengthening an effort in Congress to force an American withdrawal beginning next year., Retired Army Lt. Gen. William Odom, a Vietnam veteran, said the invasion of Iraq alienated America's Middle East allies, making it harder to prosecute a war against terrorists.

General William E. Odom, U.S. Army (Ret.), is a Senior Fellow with Hudson Institute and a professor at Yale University. As Director of the National Security Agency from 1985 to 1988, he was responsible for the nation's signals intelligence and communications security. From 1981 to 1985, he served as Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, the Army's senior intelligence officer.

From 1977 to 1981, General Odom was Military Assistant to the President's Assistant for National Security Affairs, Zbigniew Brzezinski. As a member of the National Security Council staff, he worked upon strategic planning, Soviet affairs, nuclear weapons policy, telecommunications policy, and Persian Gulf security issues. He graduated from the United States Military Academy in 1954, and received a Ph.D. from Columbia University in 1970.

Saddam had a nuke program at one time, FOR SURE.

Said program was terminated after Gulf War I.
How to Stop Nuclear Terror (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040101faessay83107-p0/graham-allison/how-to-stop-nuclear-terror.html) by Gen. Grahm Allison, Douglas Dillon Professor of Government and Director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. From 1993 to 1994 he was Assistant Secretary of Defense for Policy and Plans.

It is impossible to avoid mentioning Iraq. The Bush administration used the danger that Saddam might supply WMD to terrorists as its decisive argument for war. The subsequent failure to find evidence of these weapons has compromised the administration's credibility on the general subject of WMD, as well as the perceived competence of the U.S. intelligence community. Moreover, during the year and a half in which the United States sought to get other countries to support its Iraq policy, North Korea and Iran were able to accelerate their own programs. Mounting a serious campaign now to prevent nuclear terrorism will thus be more challenging than it would have been before the Iraq war.

Ezekiel
October 9, 2005, 11:18 AM
So that Al Qaida doesn't have a safe haven to train and develop tactics to use against US civilians on American soil.

With the extension of this argument to other countries -- Yay! (sarcasm) -- we're going to require more recruits: making the problem worse...

Eighteen-year-olds, with a chance to avoid such issues, should do so unless they enjoy the Kool Aid...

GoRon
October 9, 2005, 12:11 PM
Once again, pissin and moaning about the war on terror. Once again NO alternative solutions are posited.

What should we have done with Afghanistan?

How should we have dealt with Saddam?

What could we do differently with SA? Iran? Syria?

Where is the libertarian treatise with SPECIFIC real world policies that can be implemented? Not theorys of how things should be but what concrete action would they take?

The same could be said for the Dems, what is the alternative vision?

Vern Humphrey
October 9, 2005, 03:35 PM
Once again, pissin and moaning about the war on terror. Once again NO alternative solutions are posited.


I was going to say "whining bed-wetters." You said it more eloquently.

wingnutx
October 9, 2005, 04:16 PM
That whole region needs an enema, and Iraq was a good place to stick the nozzle.

Vern Humphrey
October 9, 2005, 04:31 PM
Amen. And let's not forget we may need to clean out a couple of other orifices while we're at it.

"Anti-war" protestors killed tens of thousands of Americans in Viet Nam, by giving the enemy leave to hope he could win in the streets of the US what he could not win on the battlefields in Southeast Asia,

They're at it again. Don't let them do to this generation of American soldiers what they did to mine.

ebd10
October 9, 2005, 04:53 PM
I've read this thread with great interest, both as a former paratrooper in a support unit, and the father of 2 boys. In my opinion, trusting the government with the lives of my children is akin to allowing Bill Clinton to coach a girls' volleyball team. In both cases, those that trust the person in charge to make the right choice end up getting f--ked.

In raising my sons, I will counsel them to avoid military service unless this country is attacked by a foreign power. Spare me the platitudes about 9/11 because the group that did that were Saudis that belonged to an organization headed by a member of the Royal House of Saud. The sponsoring nation was invaded, the government toppled, and the remnants of the radical Islamist government is currently being chased across the hills of Afghanistan, near the Pakistani border.

Iraq is the sideshow that stole center stage. Bush the Elder capitulated to Saudi wishes to keep a buffer between them and Radically Muslim Iran. Billy Jeff was too busy selling the farm to China to give a damn, and Baby Bush needed a cause to distract the nation away from the fact that the election was a close call and Bush had no mandate. Al Qaeda shot themselves in the foot when they crashed into the WTC. Had they not done so, Bush could never have consolidated power the way that he has, The Patriot Act would have been laughed out of history, and the Homeland Security Agency would never have existed. Now, he has carte blanche to do anything, and the neo-conservatives will sing his praises, even as our Constitution is flushed down the toilet.

To me, the "War on Terror" sounds like it uses the same methodology as the wars on crime, drugs poverty, inflation, and racism. In each case, the result was the further elimination of liberty, greater encroachment on our Constitutional rights, more redistribution of wealth and in some cases, the exact opposite effect of what the government was trying to combat.

As a father, I will caution my sons that to surrender control of your life to the government is the same as selling yourself into slavery. If they elect to enlist anyway, then I will spend my days in prayer, hoping every day that they return safe and sound.

Vern Humphrey
October 9, 2005, 05:03 PM
As a father, I will caution my sons that to surrender control of your life to the government is the same as selling yourself into slavery. If they elect to enlist anyway, then I will spend my days in prayer, hoping every day that they return safe and sound.

If you and your sons are not willing to fight for this country, you are perfectly free to move to some other country more to your liking.

wahsben
October 9, 2005, 05:20 PM
When I went in the ad line for the Navy was its not just a job its an adventure and it was. It wasn't always the adventure I wanted but alot of times it was and I wish I had stayed in.

ebd10
October 9, 2005, 05:22 PM
If you and your sons are not willing to fight for this country, you are perfectly free to move to some other country more to your liking.

You should endeavor to read an entire post, not just the parts you disagree with. If you had read the whole thing, you would see that I have served, and was perfectly willing to defend this nation. If this nation were attacked by a foreign power (saaaay, like China? In a few years?) I would encourage them to defend this nation and would do so myself, if called up. But to sacrifice my sons to the whim of some politician who wishes to engage in Imperialism is a price I am unwilling to pay.


Bush, at best, is a greedy expansionist with delusions of being the next Abe Lincoln and, at worst, is more evil than Clinton ever thought about being.

MTMilitiaman
October 9, 2005, 05:29 PM
If you and your sons are not willing to fight for this country, you are perfectly free to move to some other country more to your liking.

Nevermind the fact that he has some valid points and his refusal to allow his sons to die for his country came with a qualifier that you obviously ignored. Let's just tell him to leave the country because anyone with an opinion decenting yours is un-American. Of course there isn't another amendment guaranteeing the right to protest government and free speech :rolleyes:

Alex45ACP
October 9, 2005, 05:51 PM
"If'n ya don' like it, ya can git out!"

:rolleyes:

greg700
October 9, 2005, 05:55 PM
The part about recruiters is accurate and a good warning. People need to know what they are getting into and the job of a recruiter is not to dissuade you from your romantic notions about the military.

However, anyone who signs up without expecting to actually soldier during their enlistment is just deluding themselves, and they have no room to complain when they find themselves in a foreign country.

Vern Humphrey
October 9, 2005, 06:22 PM
You should endeavor to read an entire post, not just the parts you disagree with. If you had read the whole thing, you would see that I have served, and was perfectly willing to defend this nation. If this nation were attacked by a foreign power (saaaay, like China? In a few years?) I would encourage them to defend this nation and would do so myself, if called up. But to sacrifice my sons to the whim of some politician who wishes to engage in Imperialism is a price I am unwilling to pay.


I read it all -- you've decided, all by yourself that the United States is wrong.

No different from draft dodgers in the Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea and Viet Nam -- "I'd fight if I thought the country was right."

As I said, you're perfectly free to move to a country you like.

Leatherneck
October 9, 2005, 06:30 PM
I'm saddened by the extent of anti-America opinion expressed here by mostly people who have not been there or done that. STFU please.

TC

Vern Humphrey
October 9, 2005, 06:34 PM
I'm saddened by the extent of anti-America opinion expressed here by mostly people who have not been there or done that. STFU please.


I agree. This kind of crap kills American soldiers -- the enemy has his ear to the ground, and it gives him hope he can win politically what he cannot win in battle.

As I say, those who don't like this country are free to find another one.

Amusetec
October 9, 2005, 06:42 PM
Those of you who say love it or leave it. I like the Dems. Lefties, Libs what ever you call them. For one thing they get a discussion up and going they make you think, research to make sure your are correct on your point (talking to no PCers here becuse we know PCers hate to research anything becuse it usually defeats there point.) And every once in a great while there is a little something to what they say.
Debate is great but when most of the time when one side loses the argument they start name calling. I learned a while ago that when someone starts to call me names I just smile and say well I guess I won this argument. :D
But the number one reason I think they should stay is they are just so darn entertaining I crack up reading most of this stuff.

As for the military I did not enlist and now years later I wish I had. I see boys go in and less than a year later I see very mature men come out. I was one in my younger years that was anti military and when I saw what was comming out I understood how wrong I was.

One of the reason the military is having problems recruiting has noting to do with people not wanting to join it has everything to do with there requirements.
The Army is lowering its reg. to what the rest of the armed services req. You see the Army wich has had low sign ups is becuse they had some of the highest req. they are now going to allow GED in had to be High school grad. and lowering the score to the rest of the military.
so not everyone gets in my daughter wanted in the NAVY but failed the phy. becuse of astma well now she is second mate on an MSC ship that delivers supplies to the NAVY go figure. not one astma attack in 5 years. But that is the regs of the NAVY and I have to say they know best.
Of course she makes 5 to 6 times more than if she was in the NAVY but she tried 3 times and so as she say they had there chance.
Oh by the way she is one of the fastest to go from AB to 2nd Mate.

Vern Humphrey
October 9, 2005, 06:49 PM
Those of you who say love it or leave it. I like the Dems. Lefties, Libs what ever you call them. For one thing they get a discussion up and going they make you think, research to make sure your are correct on your point (talking to no PCers here becuse we know PCers hate to research anything becuse it usually defeats there point.) And every once in a great while there is a little something to what they say.


We've been through it all before. The same tired old arguments that helped the enemy in Viet Nam and killed so many of my generation.

To those who hate this country, I say, find one you like -- and wash the sheets before you leave.

Fastlane
October 9, 2005, 06:54 PM
I love keyboard warriors, the war in Veitnam was wrong the Iraq war is wrong. Both were started by politicans who had no sons or daughters in either war. I am a Veitnam veteran, let all of the keyboard warriors tell me to STFU..

Vern Humphrey
October 9, 2005, 07:03 PM
I love keyboard warriors,

I agree.

"Well, I was so in the Army . . . during peace time" or "I wasn't in the Army, but my sister was."

I don't see any of these guys in the Military Order of the Purple Heart!!

GoRon
October 9, 2005, 07:04 PM
I love keyboard warriors, the war in Veitnam was wrong the Iraq war is wrong. Both were started by politicans who had no sons or daughters in either war. I am a Veitnam veteran, let all of the keyboard warriors tell me to STFU.

Thank you for your service.

Where is your alternative solution to dealing with Saddam?

Should only active and former military have a say when the application of force can be used?

Do we only let families of military have a say?
("This is the president, get Cindy Sheehan on the phone, I need her to sign off on the deployment of troops")

My opinion holds no weight because I didn't serve?

Vern Humphrey
October 9, 2005, 07:18 PM
Those who have served in combat know the sacrifices that must be made by troops in combat. Those who served in Viet Nam know how irresponsible and self-serving people aided the enemy and caused those sacrifices to be immeasurably worse.

They say freedom isn't free -- but most of us got our freedom with no pain or sacrifice. Someone else paid the price. We therefore don't really realize how precious their gift to us is.

Be responsible in your speech and actions, and do not add to the price those now in service are paying.

Fastlane
October 9, 2005, 07:26 PM
Our problem was not Saddam/Iraq. My problem with this war is in the loss of American lifes. The billions of dollars being spent that could be used here. Our military can destory any country but after that we can not walk among them in peace for decades to come. Remember what happened in Nam after we pulled out?

Oldnamvet
October 9, 2005, 07:30 PM
I remember Hanoi Hanna pumping BS from Jane Fonda at us. The only reason we listened was for the entertainment value and they had the latest tunes. But at home, that stuff from movie stars who have never had it bad yet still managed to screw up their lives, had a bad effect. I got spit on in the SF airport by one of our great unwashed citizens when I arrived back in the US and just wanted to go home to see my family.
I will never understand why people think because a person has money, fame, or noteriety that their opinion is somehow better than ours. Take a close look at the skills a movie star has to have to be great. They have to be great liars - making you believe they are someone they are not and in a plot that only exists in someones mind. Entertaining - and that is what they do best.
Sorry this is disjointed but it is still a hot button for me even though I am a senior citizen now, not the young soldier of so many years ago.

Vern Humphrey
October 9, 2005, 07:34 PM
Our problem was not Saddam/Iraq. My problem with this war is in the loss of American lifes. The billions of dollars being spent that could be used here. Our military can destory any country but after that we can not walk among them in peace for decades to come. Remember what happened in Nam after we pulled out?


The anti-war people can take full credit for that -- they created the enemy victory in Viet Nam.

And they will give the victory to terrorists in this war, if they can.

Be responsible in your speech and actions, and do not add to the price those now in service are paying.

Derek Zeanah
October 9, 2005, 07:47 PM
Hrmmm.

I joined up at 20, and drank the kool-aid. I was a hu-ah MoFo for a while. I won't comment on my IQ (other than to say I think life might be easier if I didn't think so damn much), but when I went in I did so because I wanted to do something hard. I wanted to be one of those gun-carrying guys who jumps out of planes, so I was (except my high ASVAB meant I was levelling bubbles rather than playing gunbunny, but there you go.)

Here's my take on it:

RECRUITERS: I liked mine. My opening line was "I'm going to join the Marines unless you can get me an Airborne Infantry slot with a two year commitment and more money for college than they're offering," I knew what I was getting into, and my ASVAB score helped him satisfy some criteria. I was never lied to. However, every other soldier I served with was pissed at his recruiter because he had been lied to.

THE DRAFT: It's wrong to kidnap some kid, make him endure something like Basic/AIT, and then throw him into a combat zone to die for some cause he doesn't care about or (worse) is opposed to. It's not right.

You want to talk about defense of the homeland? That's different -- if we're invaded, we'll have no problem getting plenty of recruits (see 9/11). But I don't see the wars this nation has chosen to get involved in over the last 50 years as worth fighting, much less forcing John Doe (age 17) stright from high school into combat to get his legs blown off. The government doesn't have the legitimacy to do that, thanks.

GROWTH: Yep. Ain't nothing like Uncle Sam to make you grow up in a hurry. Much different experience than going straight from high school to college and grad school and getting caught up in all the nonsensical ideological crap. It's still crap, but the sort that makes you a better person.

THE IRAQ WAR: Iraq was an enemy of Al Quaida. Bin Ladin hated Saddam more than us.

Now, we're there, and it's a cause for Jihad, bringing people to the fight who'd never been interested in Bin Ladin's outfit, because it's so easy to slant this as the US being an "invader." Hell, the numbers I've seen state that the number of tortures and government sponsored killings in Iraq is higher now under the provisional government than it was under Saddam.

But that's OK, because we're there to make the place better.

Hint: those that are dying to fight us aren't getting their news from CNN. You should take a look at what they're being fed -- it's not any less accurate than what we're being fed, but it's got a different slant. Remember Bush's "crusade" comments?

LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT: Dude, don't even go there. I'm allowed to say I think our foreign policy is 90% detrimental to the security and well being of this nation. We're terrible at meddling in other nations' problems and making things worse. We always mean well, but the law of unintended consequences always seems to bite us in the butt.

I love my country -- no doubt. I have some very serious reservations about those who have led it for the last half century though, and I have the feeling that I'm being walled in -- that more of my "inalienable rights" will disappear with each passing decade.

I don't trust those that seek to increase the power of government domestically. T.H.E.P.A.T.R.I.O.T Act, eliminating the information sharing rules between CIA and FBI, the TSA, the department of Homeland Defense, TIA, government required spying on all ISPs and telephone systems, the new driver license requirements, the use of torture to gather intelligence (though wee have the decency to deport them to another nation first), the arrest and incarceration of US Citizens to be held without trial forever if the feds require it, the Kelo and Raich (sp?) decisions, ...

It goes on. My country is turning into something I don't recognize, and those that are doing it are also asking me to support a war that they won't tell the truth about (WMDs my ass, Tora Bora fortifications my ass, Iraq involved in 9/11 my ass, ...).

They don't get a pass when it comes to sending good soldiers into harm's way. This looks to be another Vietnam, where the mission never gets completed, and we've got tens of thousands of permanently injured soldiers who got that way for nothing.

I won't support it.

And you're wrong to tell me to "get out" for saying so.

THE REAL PROBLEM: The problem is that we don't learn. I wish we'd take Washington's advice (http://blogs.utiligeek.com/towardpeace.php/2005/02/21/washington) regarding foreign entanglements. Our charter says:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governedIt's government's role to work for us. We don't need to play world cop. We don't need to meddle in the affairs of others.

Yeah, Saddam was a bad dude. You know who should have fixed that problem? The Iraqi People. Not us. The reason we've got so many problems in the middle east right now is because we meddle rather than keeping to ourselves. If we were simply "the land of the free," where we worked to live better lives, make better stuff, play harder and better than the rest of the world, keep most of what we make, and defend to the death against anyone who would intrude, then we'd be the envy of the world. No-one would take issue with whatever we do, because it wouldn't involve them.

Mullahs in the Middle East might not like Britney Spears, but MTV is pretty easy to turn off. If they don't like the tyrants in charge in Saudi Arabia, however, then they've got to go up against US trained troops flying F16's...

Vern Humphrey
October 9, 2005, 07:55 PM
You want to talk about defense of the homeland? That's different -- if we're invaded, we'll have no problem getting plenty of recruits (see 9/11)

The same whining complaint used by shirkers in every way -- the Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Viet Nam. "Well, I'd fight a different war, but not this war."

Fastlane
October 9, 2005, 07:59 PM
I am not anti-war if my country needs me I will go, even to Iraq. I'm not saying that just because I know the military would have little use of a 55 year old man. :) Iraq was the wrong country to invade, it has cost us to much in many ways.

Old Vet, I understand. I was told to take my uniform off before going home.


please remember a disagreement dose not mean disrespect..

benewton
October 9, 2005, 08:01 PM
"Hell no. Conscripts are crap. I would never want to work in that environment. I am so glad that my fellow Marines were all volunteers."

Certainly now, but, in 1971, having been told I was responsible for my own actions, then getting a draft lot number around 125, I "enlisted" in the Army, taking three years and the medic MOS.

While on the final line at the medical outprocessing station, I, along with five or six others, was told that I was now a Marine!

Lucky that I had a COPY of the original document along to prove that not to be the case...


Still got screwed, of course, but later did 4 NG years, since sometimes I never learn, and some things, while painful, are at least partially fun.

By the way, for you herd guys, what this "Army of one" crap?

Vern Humphrey
October 9, 2005, 08:08 PM
Iraq was the wrong country to invade, it has cost us to much in many ways.


The men who are fighting there, who see what goes on first hand, and don't get their news strained through the MSM disagree.

They are proud of what they are doing. Who are we to call them wrong?

akluvr
October 9, 2005, 08:27 PM
Late to the fray gentlemen, let me say this to all of you who have served, THANK YOU. WELCOME HOME. JOB WELL DONE. All of our military boys (and girls) make me extremely proud. I attempted to join and was given a no thank you from Uncle Sam due to a high frequency hearing loss (birth defect). I however now feel that I can help by being the best supporter of the men and women that are able to serve and do so, willingly or reluctantly. I tell anyone that asks what they should do after high school to join the military, learn a trade if possible, get some money for school and learn discipline. The new generation could use a little of all of the above.

Oleg Volk
October 9, 2005, 08:51 PM
So what are the ethics of coercing someone into dangerous conduct (killing others and being exposed to death or injury in return) for "a good cause"?

GoRon
October 9, 2005, 08:56 PM
So what are the ethics of coercing someone into dangerous conduct

Are you referring to our soldiers now or under a draft?

bogie
October 9, 2005, 08:58 PM
Oh, ferchrissake.

How many of you speak German?

How many speak Japanese?

How many speak Russian? (besides Oleg?)

I'm sick of people saying that "all war is bad." Sometimes they're necessary, and we've thankfully got one of the best trained/equipped forces out there.

Of course, I think that there are more than a few people who could deal with Hitler being in power, as long as there was cable TV, professional sports, and they lived upwind of the processing plants...

ebd10
October 9, 2005, 08:58 PM
You want to talk about defense of the homeland? That's different -- if we're invaded, we'll have no problem getting plenty of recruits (see 9/11) The same whining complaint used by shirkers in every way -- the Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Viet Nam. "Well, I'd fight a different war, but not this war."

Y'know Vern, this post would be funny if it weren't so tragically prevalent in America today. I mean, first you indict anyone who disagrees with you or the war in Iraq as "shirkers" and then you proceed to list the very reasons that parents and young people should avoid blindly following the government.
Civil War? Lincoln practically suspended the Constitution to continue the war. He lied to the general public about the great Cause of emancipating slaves. If he was serious, why didn't he emancipate the slaves in the North? Political expediency. If he freed northern slaves, he would have lost the support of slave owning Union states. Emancipation had nothing to do with it, Lincoln knew the war was unpopular and was losing political support.

WWI: Wilson runs on a platform of promising not to get us involved in what was largely viewed as another in a string of endless European conflict, and by 1917, when the SOLDIERS of the belligerents were beginning to mutiny and refuse to fight, we show up and it's "game on" again. Our presence, inspired by the fact that big business was afraid of taking the huge losses they faced if Germany won, prolonged that war. And young men died.

WWII: Largely an extension of WWI, it was well-known that American businesses had lobbied for the military to avoid bombing certain targets within Hitler's Europe because they held huge financial interests in those areas. Had we gone ahead and bombed them, the war may have been shortened considerably. Yet, the politicians caved to pressure from big business and young men died.

Korea: This one hits home for me because my father served in this one. A UN debacle that resulted in what amounted to a "die for a tie" war. This would be the initial conflict whichg would highlight the hallmarks of the UN: corruption, incompetence, and lack of resolve.

Vietnam: A war predicated on the Gulf of Tonkin incident. An incident which never took place, yet was sold to the American public as the reason for jumping into SE Asia, and feeding young men and women into the military until eleven years and 57000 lives later, we decide to settle for "peace with honor".

THESE are the examples of the noble causes that you say we should use as reasons to support our current foreign policy? I see them as examples of why we should never again trust politicians with such important decisions as where to send our military.

But instead, we get a bunch of 60's retread slogans like "Love it or Leave it" spewed by a bunch of sycophants who are unable to come up with valid repudiations for arguments against the war, but continue worshipping at the Altar of Bush.

But don't take my word for it, take the words of a man who was twice awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor:

General Smedley Butler (http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm)

akluvr
October 9, 2005, 09:02 PM
Uh-oh, not the ethics thing. I don't believe that placing ones self or others in harms way is ever a good cause. But there is a duty to ones country that needs to be. Unfortunately, politics has invaded the definition of good cause and probably will never be taken out of the equation. This makes it very hard to agree what a good cause is or is not. Too many times, personal interests get in the way of sound judgement. Very good question Oleg. Any help on the answer? Maybe there isn't really a good answer to be had?

Vern Humphrey
October 9, 2005, 09:04 PM
Y'know Vern, this post would be funny if it weren't so tragically prevalent in America today.

It's prevalent because so many of us remember how that kind of crap killed so many of our generation. We remember what it was like to come home wounded and be treated like dirt. We remember fighting and winning a war, and having the victory given to the enemy by a bunch of self-serving shirkers.

In other words, it's prevalent because it's true -- and I have the bullet holes to prove it.

GoRon
October 9, 2005, 09:10 PM
THESE are the examples of the noble causes that you say we should use as reasons to support our current foreign policy? I see them as examples of why we should never again trust politicians with such important decisions as where to send our military.


It appears you are against all of our military engagements from the past until present.

But instead, we get a bunch of 60's retread slogans like "Love it or Leave it" spewed by a bunch of sycophants who are unable to come up with valid repudiations for arguments against the war, but continue worshipping at the Altar of Bush

I see ad hominum and name calling but no alternative solution. Unless you mean do nothing as a solution, wait for the threat to reach our shores.

Vern Humphrey
October 9, 2005, 09:12 PM
I see ad hominum and name calling but no alternative solution. Unless you mean do nothing as a solution, wait for the threat to reach our shores.


That's exactly right. And when the threat is here, they'll blame everyone but themselves for it -- 'cause they sure as heck won't fight! :barf:

ebd10
October 9, 2005, 09:19 PM
We remember fighting and winning a war, and having the victory given to the enemy by a bunch of self-serving shirkers.

Yeah, and if you check, those "self-serving shirkers" were probably your elected officials. Yet you think that we should just blindly follow people of that ilk into another war just because the symbol of their party happens to be an elephant instead of an ass?

and I have the bullet holes to prove it.

That's what makes your attitude so astonishing. You went, you fought in what was sold to you as a noble cause, and you came home to scorn and derision. Then the president, a member of the same party as our current C in C, basically walks away from the whole mess, and leaves thousands to be slaughtered by the Commies. Yes, I know that the political pressure came from the left, but the question remains; Why should we trust ANY of them? It won't be their kids doing the fighting and the dying.

There's something we had better consider before the next election; no matter which party takes power, no matter how many of or rights are eliminated, no matter how many onerous laws they enact, they don't care because the system isn't broke for them . They have set themselves up as the new royalty. They aren't subject to the same laws, punishments, or infringements on their rights as the average citizen.

And these are the people that I am supposed to encourage my children to serve under?

Vern Humphrey
October 9, 2005, 09:24 PM
Yeah, and if you check, those "self-serving shirkers" were probably your elected officials.

A good many are right here, posting on this thread -- and using that for cover.

That's what makes your attitude so astonishing.

Only to those who weren't there. I saw what people like that did to many of my friends -- most of whom are now dead or badly cripped because of lazy Jane Fonda types.

No_Brakes23
October 9, 2005, 09:32 PM
As a father, I will caution my sons that to surrender control of your life to the government is the same as selling yourself into slavery. +1. If my son or daughter choose to enlist or receive a commision, I will support them. But I will discourage them from doing so until they make that decision.

Vern Humphrey, I respect your service in 'Nam, but I don't know why you can't accept that some folks are patriots, willing to serve, that disagree with some of the things we do.

Vern Humphrey
October 9, 2005, 09:45 PM
I don't know why you can't accept that some folks are patriots, willing to serve, that disagree with some of the things we do.


Because I have seen how they have killed American soldiers.

ebd10
October 9, 2005, 09:47 PM
It appears you are against all of our military engagements from the past until present.

Not totally. Our actions in WWI made our inviolvement in WWII inevitable. Hitler was an evil that needed to be stomped out, as were the Japanese. I question whether it was a good idea to abandon the men on Bataan and Correigidor in favor of supporting Europe, but that's a subject for another thread. Stemming the tide of Communism is always a noble cause. However, history shows that anytime we enter into a war with the intention of holding the line instead of total annihilation of the enemy, it turns into a political football that divides the country.

The current conflict is a perfect example. The reasons for invading Iraq kept changing. That in itself indicates weakness on the part of the administration. Add to that that we spent 4 months telegraphing our move, giving Hussein time to eliminate or move anything that might have justified invasion, and top it off with the fact that, whether coincidentally or on purpose, the Bush administration seems to be populated with a lot of people that have ties to those companies that stand to profit from this action, and the whole thing starts to smell funny.

GoRon
October 9, 2005, 10:02 PM
The reasons for invading Iraq kept changing

All the reasons stated all along are in the Iraq War Resolution (http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686)

Revisionist history has hit a torrid pace.

Just about every intelligence agency on the planet believed Iraq had and was developing WMDs. That is the primary reason it was talked up so much leading up to the war, it was considered a "slam dunk".

If you read the text above there is litany of reasons above and beyond WMDs.

Vern Humphrey
October 9, 2005, 10:10 PM
Revisionist history has hit a torrid pace.


And the purpose is to enable the leftists to recapture the Congress and the Presidency, and get their agenda back on track -- including gun confiscation.

bjbarron
October 9, 2005, 10:35 PM
About sixty thousand GIs died in Vietnam. We lost. Nothing happened. It was a stupid war for nothing.

Hmmm. Except the 3 million+ people (excluding war dead) who died after we pulled out. Good job Cronkite. Nicely done MSM. WooHoo Hanoi Jane...nice pictures.

I got out in '72. My dad got out in '45. Granddad got out in '20. Great Uncle got out in 1898. My oldest got out in '94 and my middle son got out in '96. All of us, except my boys, came home with scars.

BJ Clinton or curious George don't mean nothin'. I didn't enlist for LBJ...and the oath I swore was to the constitution. Doing nothing is an option that always comes back to bite you on the a$$.

EmGeeGeorge
October 9, 2005, 10:41 PM
Join the Navy... Go in as a BM, or GM... travel, go whoring in foreign lands... Work on a gun crew once and a while... Do your service. I spent a bit of time in the gulf, mostly sea-side, thankfully, and I met alot of army and marine folks who I think would re-think their choices after seeing some of the madness they encountered... Urban warfare is nasty. I think that going to Iraq was wrong and ill-considered, but now the country must be stabilized to prevent it from becoming another Afganistan. The Gov't needs to start being more honest about the whys, whats, whos, and wheres of the conflict... I think the scary part comes when Iran comes into the picture; If they decide that Iran is the next country that needs democracy, standby for a world war, in my opinion. The idea of giving democracy to Iraq's long-suffering people is a joke. We go to bed every night with Saudi Tyrants, Pakistani dictators, and Kuwaiti extortionists. We need to start approaching things as a surgeon would. Stop the hemmoraging and fix the immediate damage; don't start digging in other places...
The mid-east is not europe, it isn't asia, and it certainly isn't America. It is the closest thing to another planet you will find... It is pretty from the water side though.
Coasties have a pretty good life too, though.

Gewehr98
October 9, 2005, 11:05 PM
So what are the ethics of coercing someone into dangerous conduct (killing others and being exposed to death or injury in return) for "a good cause"?

Oleg, what did your family do during the Great Patriotic War, pray tell? I'd wager they were somewhat engaged in the struggle, right?

I've spent 20+ years in the USAF. I'm proud of every one of those years. I got an advanced degree, excellent health care, and experience which will probably keep me in 6-figures later next year when I transition to the civilian sector. I've seen things that people shouldn't and were never meant to see. (Mass graves in Serbia, for one) I've flown through Chernobyl's radioactive cloud and tracked it to prevent unprotected commercial airliners from flying through it. I've been to Iraq, and unlike what's reported Daily Kos, Democratic Underground, and (unfortunately) THR, I've met many, many Iraqis who were tickled pink with the changes in their country. I'll give you a hint, they know now they aren't going to be fed into a paper shredder head-first.

I wish I'd known that the stuff my recruiter told me was a big lie, and I wish I'd contacted Oleg before I joined up so I wouldn't become a cog in a big political propoganda machine. All this time, I thought the unit citations and thank-you letters from national policy makers were because my agency was doing something to make a difference since 1947. Silly me, I could just kick myself now.

Sometimes, this forum just plain disgusts me. Now is one of those times. :(

GoRon
October 9, 2005, 11:07 PM
The mid-east is not europe, it isn't asia, and it certainly isn't America. It is the closest thing to another planet you will find...

True enough.

But human nature is human nature. If democracy takes root in Iraq it will be an object lesson to all in the middle east.

It is one thing for them to envy the prosperity and freedom of western nations. If a nieghbor becomes prosperous and free from tyranny they will say "why not us also"?

No doubt it hasn't been and will not be easy establishing a functioning "democracy" in Iraq. The pay off will be huge if we persevere.

At least up till this point "free" nations don't have much of a track record of going to war with one another. The more people are freed from despots the better off we are. Especially when they control the life blood of our economies.

A free people will act in their own self interest. Going to war against the relatively benign lone superpower with the most powerful military in the history of mankind is not in their self interest.

No_Brakes23
October 9, 2005, 11:09 PM
Because I have seen how they have killed American soldiers. I am a patriot, I DID serve, but I have not killed any American soldiers. Your argument doesn't even make sense.

Your "My country right or wrong" argument would have made you a Torry during the American revolution and a Nazi in WW2 era Germany.

Are you seriously suggesting that the U.S. Govt is incapable of doing anything wrong ever?

Vern Humphrey
October 9, 2005, 11:13 PM
I am a patriot, I DID serve, but I have not killed any American soldiers. Your argument doesn't even make sense.


It would make sense if you'd been there -- and seen how encouraging the enemy kills American soldiers.

Derek Zeanah
October 9, 2005, 11:17 PM
The same whining complaint used by shirkers in every way -- the Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Viet Nam. "Well, I'd fight a different war, but not this war."Calling those with different points of view who volunteered to serve in the infantry (rather than being drafted, or running the risk of a draft if they didn't "volunteer") isn't the best way to convince others.

Lemme see if I understand your point of view on this:

1) The current idiot (choose whoever makes you happy) gets us involved in a war. Maybe that should be "war" since we seem to like police actions now.

2) It's pretty clear that the idiot in charge really is an idiot, and is likely a lying bastard as well.

3) Calling him on being a lying bastard, and suggesting that the "war" he got us involved in is idiocy, is wrong.

4) It's wrong because, well, it's not supporting the idiot. And because sometime, more people might see the idiocy for what it is, and decide we've had enough idiocy.

5) If that happens, it "gets people killed." Or, it makes the sacrifice of those who fell worthless, as their lives wouldn't be if we dragged things on another decade and tripled their numbers.

That about right, Vern?

GoRon
October 9, 2005, 11:20 PM
Sometimes, this forum just plain disgusts me. Now is one of those times.

Persevere, this forum is much like the country. The loudest don't necessarily represent the majority.

Those opposed to miltary action in Iraq are left to entrusting our security to the UN.

An Iraqi regiem without sanctions and Saddam still in charge would have been an unacceptable risk in a post 9/11 world. The sanctions were going to come down and the oil for food debacle showed us where our "allies" were on the subject.

Vern Humphrey
October 9, 2005, 11:25 PM
That about right, Vern?


As opposed to those who give aid and comfort to the enemy? Who encourage him to hang on, telling him that if he kills enough Americans, he can win in the streets of the United States what he cannot win in battle?

Spitting on returning soldiers? That's your idea of patriotism?

(And yes, I've heard the argument, "Well, I didn't spit on anyone." But you encourage those who do.)

No_Brakes23
October 9, 2005, 11:29 PM
It would make sense if you'd been there -- and seen how encouraging the enemy kills American soldiers. You still have made a statement accusing me indirectly of killing American soldiers. I have not done this.

A lack of support for the war is not the same as supporting our enemies.

Neither one of those pulls the trigger on a hajji's AK.

The Hajji ain't gonna go away just cause we support the war.

I actually supported taking out Saddam and his Cronies. I didn't support doing it at a time in which we were already in Afghanistan, or going over there before getting the right gear, (Like getting the right armor, etc)

Rumsfield doesn't give a rat's ass about our military, he closed a bunch of commisaries in North Carolina and made the families have to drive an hour or more to get groceries, because "we're not in the grocery business." Quality of life went significantly downhill from my first enlistment to my second.

And somehow, because I object to that nonsense, I am "killing American soldiers?" :rolleyes:

Ludicrous.

GoRon
October 9, 2005, 11:30 PM
Gee Derek, lets not make any points other than calling people idiots and lying bastards.

The current idiot (choose whoever makes you happy) gets us involved in a war. Maybe that should be "war" since we seem to like police actions now.
Make that our entire congress that voted in favor of the Iraq War Resolution

It's pretty clear that the idiot in charge really is an idiot, and is likely a lying bastard as well.Did you cut and paste that remark from the DU?

Calling him on being a lying bastard, and suggesting that the "war" he got us involved in is idiocy, is wrong.
No, it is your opinion however misguided you may be.

It's wrong because, well, it's not supporting the idiot. And because sometime, more people might see the idiocy for what it is, and decide we've had enough idiocy.Maybe if you and those that believed like you could compete in the marketplace of ideas you would see that reflected in government policy.

Derek Zeanah
October 9, 2005, 11:45 PM
GoRon:

Reread what I wrote. Now, understand that this applies to Bush Jr (Iraq 2), Clinton (Yugoslavia -- I would have stayed in if we could guarantee my unit would go -- glad I didn't as I don't like the way it's run), Bush Sr (Iraq 1 -- I feel cheated because I fell for the hype where our embassador's daughter donned a veil and started talking about "throwing premature babies out of incubators" so they could take incubators from Kuwait -- damn liar), and on into times before I was paying attention. Think Kennedy's Bay of Pigs worked well? How about Vietnam -- in hindsight, was it worthwhile?

Not slamming your boy -- just slamming the idea that we have some patriotic duty to support the commander in chief, regardless of the idiocy he engages in.

Vern:
As opposed to those who give aid and comfort to the enemy? Who encourage him to hang on, telling him that if he kills enough Americans, he can win in the streets of the United States what he cannot win in battle?

Spitting on returning soldiers? That's your idea of patriotism?

(And yes, I've heard the argument, "Well, I didn't spit on anyone." But you encourage those who do.)I think there's a disconnect here. You're not hearing what I'm saying, or where I'm coming from.

I never spit on you (couldn't even walk yet -- young enough I missed the moon landings). I never gave "aid and comfort" to your enemy, nor have I conveyed any messages from him. Remember: Mao did his doctoral thesis on George Washington and the insurgency we call the Revolutionary War" -- he knew that if you hold on long enough, even a superpower will give up. The brits did, and we did. it's the way politics works.

My idea of patriotism is doing what's right for the country. In this country, we have a history of open discussions regarding important issues -- since before we revolted, even.

Blind obedience to the idiot in charge is something your history should warn you about. There's something to be said for supporting the troops who are over there dying while they do their best to do the best. There's more to be said for making sure that if they die, they die for something meaningful. If we back out of Iraq for whatever reason (lack of will, China invades Taiwan and we need the troops, the "legitimate" government we set up goes all theocratic on us and kicks us out while being a bigger threat than Saddam ever was), then they died for nothing.

As a combat vet I'd think you'd get that.

ebd10
October 9, 2005, 11:56 PM
Someone here mentioned solutions. After some thought, I have some solutions that I think are plausible.

1) Determine an acceptable outcome in Iraq, and work towards it. If we pull out before Iraq is stable, we may as well hand it over to the Iranians. Whether we like it or not, we're there, so reality dictates that we finish what we started.
2) End this stop-loss nonsense. If troops ETS-ing and going home leaves the military short, start pulling troops from the other hundred-odd places we have them. The Berlin Wall is gone, the USSR is no more, do we really need that big of a presence in Europe?
3) If we're going to ever end dependence on Middle East oil, we have to get serious about an energy policy. That means doing what this country can do like no other nation; research and development. The only reason we haven't found a suitable substitute for oil is because we haven't really tried. This is the nation that sent a man to the moon, surely we can figure a way to make pig poop (or whatever) useful.
4) Nuke power plants. Want to continue to be an industrialized nation? Start giving serious thought to where and when we build these. They're cleaner, more efficient, and safer than just about anything else. We can take a lesson from France in this. ALL of their nuke plants are designed exactly the same, with the same failsafes and the same layout. Personnel from any power plant can go to any other power plant and the transfer is seamless. The French haven't ever had an accident that I'm aware of.
5) Work towards a law that eliminates special privileges for those serving in government. Make them live with the same medical benefits, social security benefits, and pay structure that the average Ame4rican does. Throw in that they cannot work for a lobbying group for 5 years after their time in office is over.
6) Stay in the UN, but only to be able to exercise veto power. Cut the amount of funds we give them by 75%. What we DO give, make it in manufactured goods or food, no cash.

That's my list of solutions. Anyone have any others?

javafiend
October 10, 2005, 12:37 AM
They're at it again.

Who specifically are you referring to?

When Iraq Veterans Against the War (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/031805A.shtml) calls upon the President and the Congress "to immediately and unconditionally withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq and the Middle East," are they "helping the enemy"?

When Gen. William Odom (http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Gen-William-E-Odom28apr04.htm) states that "we have failed" in Iraq and that we should remove U.S. forces "from that shattered country as rapidly as possible," (http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040429-113745-2828r) is he "killing our soldiers"?

The anti-war people can take full credit for that -- they created the enemy victory in Viet Nam.

Another question for you. When Daniel Ellsberg released the Pentagon Papers (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00025BN7M/qid=1128915241/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-3955097-8377720?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) to the newspapers, he proved once and for all that the Kennedy and Johnson administrations had systematically lied to the American people at every step of the way. Did his leaking the secret history of US intervention in Indochina "create the enemy victory in Viet Nam"?

Who's really killing our soldiers? Those calling for the troops to come home, or those who insist on sending more young men and women over to the Iraqi quagmire?

bogie
October 10, 2005, 12:59 AM
2) End this stop-loss nonsense. If troops ETS-ing and going home leaves the military short, start pulling troops from the other hundred-odd places we have them. The Berlin Wall is gone, the USSR is no more, do we really need that big of a presence in Europe?

We need a presence anywhere we can get a presence. Iraq is one heckuva presence, and will eventually modify the entire region. That's why we're there - not Hussein. Long-term, we'll have a stable middle east, which will help maintain a stable world.

As far as "stop loss" - I wish they'd allow former service fat cripples to re-up for non-combat slots... Yeah, I know, I know... "on today's battlefield, there is no rear area...."

MTMilitiaman
October 10, 2005, 01:08 AM
Vern, your ignorant stereotypes and BS are quite annoying and prove from the get go that you aren't even paying attention to what is being said. Your mind is rusted shut like a steel trap. Nobody is advocating spitting on soldiers. I know I haven't and I dare you to show otherwise. I'll send you $50 if you can quote me to the contrary. Everyone I have met so far very much supports the soldiers in harm's way. I have friends and family over there and I'd like to see all of them return home. I am not even really against Bush--I just think this war was an unnecessary and irresponsible use of resources that would be better used in say...Afghanistan. I don't even hate Bush. I don't know if his intent was malacious or if he made a decision with the information on hand and it all went to crap. Some soldiers may agree with why they are over there. Other's do not. Not all of them share your blind patriotism. Some of them just want to do their job and come home. They don't agree with why they are over there but they know that with their name on the dotted line, their opinion doesn't matter. My brother made a spontaneous decision based on, among other things, money and adventure. He will get both but regrets his decision and doesn't agree with why he is there. He now finds himself north of Baghdad fighting with the 101st but eagerly awaits his return to "freedom." And if what he says he true, there are a lot of people in his unit with similar feelings. Stereotypes are rarely true and yours are no exception.

The thing about blind patriotism is that you may be a patriot, but you are still blind...

For the rest of us, there is always critically evaluating the environment around you are forming an opinion capable of changing. I am not an automaton. I will not grin and nod. And I will not sign my name on a line promising to die if need be for a cause I believe to be in error. That is the point of volunatary service. And I love my country for giving me the choice and the ability to voice an opinion contrary to that of our elected leader. I pity that you lack to foresight and open-mindedness of our forefathers.

Some wars are necessary. This one isn't. That doesn't mean I don't love my country or support my brother and others in harm's way. It also doesn't qualify me to be exported. You may ask whose right it is to question the morality of their country. But quite simply, it is mine. The Constitution guarantees this...

ebd10
October 10, 2005, 01:13 AM
We need a presence anywhere we can get a presence.

The Cold War is over. Europe is as stable as it's ever going to be, and the troops and equipment could be used elsewhere.

DRZinn
October 10, 2005, 02:16 AM
the Army wich has had low sign ups is becuse they had some of the highest req. HA!

Thin Black Line
October 10, 2005, 04:24 AM
ebd wrote:
"3) If we're going to ever end dependence on Middle East oil, we have to egt serious about an energy policy. That means doing what this country can do like no other nation; research and development. The only reason we haven't found a suitable substitute for oil is because we haven't really tried. This is the nation that sent a man to the moon, surely we can figure a way to make pig poop (or whatever) useful."
---------------------------

Wow, finally after so many more pages since I last looked at this thread
there's someone who homes in on what our presence in the ME is all about!

Yes, this is about access to a dwindling strategic and economic resource
that powers our entire country from top to bottom. It made the computer
you're using right now, is providing the electricity either directly or
indirectly (coal and nuke fuel doesn't get to the power plant on its own),
and will get you to work, grocery shopping, and the video store today
where you can rent some multimedia product made out of oil.

Being in Iraq has many benefits: immediate access to the world's 2nd
largest oil reserve, keeping Iran in check (look at a map sometime and
where we have troops and notice that we have Iran surrounded), and
denying access to our potential rivals in the ME. If this was about stopping
tyranny and genocide where it's the worst, we'd be in the Sudan now.

It would be nice if we had a <equal> alternative, but we don't and we won't.
At this point there's nothing on the horizon that will power our economy
like oil --even if it's $150/bbl. Americans are not prepared to make hard
choices that would reduce their standard of living. This is evident by the
usual amount of whining both on this thread, the mass media, and any
given coffee shop or office watering hole on any day of the week.

Would more Americans be willing to use urban mass transit and trains for
longer trips? Not at this point. They haven't in the past either which has
resulted in our transportation infrastructure being neglected and even
removed. Don't blame the politicians because it's you and your fellow
citizens who wanted to gas and go out of their own garages in the morning
rather than wait. Would Americans be willing to go 1/2 a day without
electricity? Hah!

For the people who don't want to send their kids to fight OUR resource wars
or complain this was a "diversion" (from what? the ME is the point), please
turn off your computer, trade it in for a horse and start churning your own
butter. Otherwise, you're consuming the oil as well. If YOU are not willing to
sacrifice for it, but have no problem letting OTHER people sacrifice so YOU
can maintain YOUR standard of living, then you're a hypocrite. Yeah, go
ahead and try flaming me on that. :fire: If you're reading this, you're not
Amish and therefore you're living off our Oil society. Those of you who
have past service, hey, thanks, but that was the past and here we are
still using oil in the present. Are you going to keep using it? Are your kids?
Yes? Then they need to pony up as well. I had the ancestors who fought
in the Revolution --does that mean I get to rest on their accomplishments
and say "It's someone else's turn to take care of American"?

Yes, I've been to Iraq in uniform. I've BTDT and seen all the BS both in the
military and civilian government. The people who have the hardest time
accepting collective sacrifices, but even moreso for themselves, is Jane
and John "It's All About Me" Citizen. And let's face it, keeping J&J "happy" IS
the national interest. That seems to be the ONLY thing people remember
from our country's founding --something about "pursuit of happiness" and
they have taken it to the most comfortable hedonistic extreme in world
history. King Solomon's exploits would pale in comparison to the average
Hollywood star. Even our Middle Class live far better than a Senator living
in his villa outside of ancient Rome. And, like Rome we have our Legions.

Finally, there has never been a good war. Not the Revolution nor WWII
which I had ancestors fight in as well. War is always the result of a
human failure. It shows a failure to communicate, live together or at least
co-exist with a neighbor. I'm not boiling this down to "it takes two to
fight" but when was the last time that the US really engaged in a war of
self-defense? How about any other country? We see a lot of modern civil
wars which show once peaceful societies that have broken down. Ask a
soldier who served in the Balkans or East Timor. People can fall into hatred
even when there is no limited resource involved.

Want some solutions other than look in the mirror and :banghead: ?
How about changing the way you live? :scrutiny:
How about putting that forbidden fruit back on the tree and
living in the Garden? :uhoh:

MTMilitiaman
October 10, 2005, 06:17 AM
For having access or control of so much oil, the prices sure are high.

At least you don't try to disguise it as some greater or more noble cause.

GoRon
October 10, 2005, 09:18 AM
At least you don't try to disguise it as some greater or more noble cause.

Keeping open the supply of oil to the free world is a great and noble cause.

Art Eatman
October 10, 2005, 10:01 AM
What I hate about threads like this is that first, the subject is way too complex for an Internet site. Next, folks base judgements on snapshots in time, without looking back through--quite often--the decades of prior decisions which have led to present circumstances.

Stipulate for the moment that we were wrong to invade Iraq. Problem: If we pull out now, the militant cultures will assume that we're all hat and no cattle, and will be encouraged to continue or accelerate hostility against us. Remember that bin Laden said that our retreat from Somalia encouraged him in his efforts.

We know from the Vietnam era that public hostility against the administration, with parades and name-calling, does in fact provide encouragement to our enemy. Again, right or wrong about administration policy doesn't matter. The encouragement is fact. That encouragement does in fact, then, lead to more deaths of our men in combat zones.

We know that after 1989, Bush I and then Clinton allowed or encouraged the drawdown of the numbers in our military, relying more on the Reserves and the National Guard. "Peace Dividend", remember? Bush II has basically done nothing to change this. And so we have a 16-year policy of minimum numbers--and the men subject to callup are paying the price for what our entire society has condoned. Hawks and Doves together...

And so it goes...

Art

RealGun
October 10, 2005, 10:08 AM
Until I am sure I have superior information, I have to support "the idiot". I helped elect him, and now it's my job to be supportive. It's also my job to try to be well enough informed to make a judgment in the next election. Unless I am fundamentally an isolationist who mostly wants to redistribute wealth at home and has no real understanding of economics, a spoiled brat, I understand that military operations will occur occasionally. I am not anti-war. I am anti-wasting soldiers lives. Finish what you start as long as it remains a worthy mission.

The war in Iraq is mainly an effort to have a stable world economy. The US cannot build a wall around itself, maintaining the country like a nursing home for dependent citizens. The Iraq war is the first of a number of attempts to deal with governments that threaten the world economy...a bitter pill but quite necessary. A myopic view will not explain it.

Vern Humphrey
October 10, 2005, 11:46 AM
Vern, your ignorant stereotypes and BS are quite annoying

I'm glad you're annoyed.

The "anti-war movement" gave aid and comfort to the enemy in Viet Nam, and that killed literally tens of thousands of soldiers. They did spit on returning wounded -- and soldiers returning from this war have been spit on, too.

During the Viet Nam war, they also combed newspapers and clipped stories mentioning people in the military. These were sent to North Viet Nam via the Soviet Embassy and used to identify key speciaties -- such as Electronic Weapons Officers on B52s.

They clipped stories about families which were used to break down POWs -- Colonel Floyd James Thompson (who was my boss for a couple of years after the war) was confronted with a newspaper picture of his wife at a social event with another man.

Now you may say, "I would never do that" -- but your words and actions encourage those who did.

You may have noted stores prior to the Iraq invasion that Saddam was looking for asylum in other countries. And then he changed tactics -- and at about the same time the Canadian government informed the United States that the Iraqi government was sending money to "anti war groups" in the United States. You think that was a coincidence?

Have you see the pictures of the "anti-war protest" in Washington? Did you see the signs and flags of the Communist Party, USA and many other left-wing groups at that rally?

If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and associates with ducks -- it's a duck.

Byron Quick
October 10, 2005, 12:08 PM
and soldiers returning from this war have been spit on, too.

Vern,

Sources, please?


Oleg,

You mentioned coercion in recruitment earlier in this thread. What coercion?
Trying to convince a young man to enlist is coercion? If so, we have radically different definitions of the word. The last time coercion was used to induct recruits into the US military was over thirty years ago.

Vern Humphrey
October 10, 2005, 12:23 PM
Sources, please?


I personally spoke to two soldiers of the 39th Brigade, Arkansas National Guard, in Batesville, Arkansas who had been spit on.

My sources for what happened to Colonel Floyd James Thompson came from the man himself, a POW for 9 years.

When I worked for Colonel Thompson, I attended many intelligence meetings aimed at putting together a picture of what happened to our POWs and spoke personally to many of them.

My sources for the outing of EWOs (who were turned over to the Soviets, tortured and drugged, and finally liquidated) come from a B52 pilot who was shot down during Operation Linebacker. His story was confirmed by other sources -- his own EWO, like several others, survived the shoot-down, was pulled out of ranks and shown the clipping -- a "Home Town News Release" that identified the Air Force school he attended.

That officer -- and every other EWO shot down -- never returned to the US.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, and associates with ducks -- it's a duck.

goosegunner
October 10, 2005, 12:31 PM
And what does helping the enemy have to do with 'anti-war'???

Vern Humphrey
October 10, 2005, 12:37 PM
And what does helping the enemy have to do with 'anti-war'???

It encourages the enemy to believe he can win in the United States, on the streets, what he cannot win on the battlefield. It sends him a message, "Hang on and keep killing Americans, because there are people in the United States on your side."

I note that not a single combat veteran has spoken up to disagree with me.

goosegunner
October 10, 2005, 01:08 PM
You read it the wrong way: beeing antiwar migth help the enemy, but helping the enemy is definitly not antiwar! And there are also a difference between 'anti-war' and 'war protestor'. Anyway, it was ment as a critical coment to the 'anti-war movement', lost in language problems.

Paco
October 10, 2005, 01:09 PM
Dear Art and Vern,

I must admit, despite myself, I'm intensely interested in this thread. Both sides got me thinking.

-Now my uncles were both in 'Nam for three tours each. They signed up, and asked to go back: they believed they were doing right. Now, for the whole spitting thing: it would be a deathwish to spit on my uncles one 6'8" and the other 6'5" and both with a look that would wither steel. So, yes they had friends spat on, but they weren't spat on.

Anyway...

-Guess what? They hate the Iraq war. They now think the Vietnam 'Conflict' was a joke and a waste of good mens lives. They at first hated the protesters in 'Nam but then saw the light (as they said). My one uncle is a Lieutenant Colonel and had literally dozens of his own men killed leading them in combat.

-What he realized, is that those protesters, made the war so unpopular that it ended the conflict sooner. This saved lives, because the politicians were to chicken-sh** to let the dog off the lease and use ALL our resources to win the war, so this "conflict" would have kept going on, if not for the protesters. He now protests the Iraq War.

***all of what I just said DOESN'T MATTER. What does matter is our rights as citizens and our duty as such to our country.

Here's my questions, and believe me, you've put me on the fence, I'm truly undecided about this, so please, if it's within you, SWAY ME:

1. Do you believe the Bill of Rights Flawed, outdated, perfect, divine, just-about-right, in need of revision?

2. Do you believe a citizen should excersize his rights, when motivated by laudible intentions, for the good of his country?

3. If so, how should he go about it.

See, I believe it's the DUTY of every citizen to act as the watch dog of the government, specifically because once a kid signs up, he's revoked his say in the matter, and has to follow orders. In my opinion, when he kills for a good cause, I too can sip from the cup of victory, but when he kills for an unjust cause, or DIES for an unjust cause, I'm gonna have some blood on my hands to wash off.

-We're in this together.

-I hope you write back soon

-Paco

ebd10
October 10, 2005, 01:15 PM
To those that have made statements, or sympathize with the opinion that those who are not as enthusiastic about fighting this war should either be silent or leave the country: You would deny me the right to voice an opinion to the point of exiling me from my home. What makes you better than any tyrant that has ever existed?

Vern Humphrey
October 10, 2005, 01:17 PM
You read it the wrong way: beeing antiwar migth help the enemy, but helping the enemy is definitly not antiwar! And there are also a difference between 'anti-war' and 'war protestor'. Anyway, it was ment as a critical coment to the 'anti-war movement', lost in language problems.

We've heard it all before. "I support the troops, but I oppose the war."

No matter how you slice it, this kind of thing killed tens of thousands of American soldiers in my generation. And the same kind of people are trying to do the same thing to this generation.

goosegunner
October 10, 2005, 01:28 PM
We've heard it all before. "I support the troops, but I oppose the war."

Aperantly the point was lost once again; the point was: why do they call themself 'anti-war movement' when they actually supports the war, they only want the other side to win.

Vern Humphrey
October 10, 2005, 01:33 PM
To those that have made statements, or sympathize with the opinion that those who are not as enthusiastic about fighting this war should either be silent or leave the country: You would deny me the right to voice an opinion to the point of exiling me from my home.

Ah, the old "If you disagree with me, you're infringing on my rights."

Well, guess what? The rest of us have rights too -- and that includes the right to say what we think about your opinions.

Vern Humphrey
October 10, 2005, 01:34 PM
Aperantly the point was lost once again; the point was: why do they call themself 'anti-war movement' when they actually supports the war, they only want the other side to win.

They won't admit that -- and if you say it, they'll accuse you of somehow violating their rights.

No_Brakes23
October 10, 2005, 01:39 PM
You mentioned coercion in recruitment earlier in this thread. What coercion? I am pretty sure Oleg was speaking in the context of a draft, which at that point in the thread had been put forward as a good idea. It was stated that anyone who thought that a draft was unfair, was unpatriotic.

I believe Oleg's response was to that, not recruitment.

But I could be wrong.

Art Eatman, well said.

Vern Humphrey, you are a broken record, your entire response to any challenge can be summed up with "this kind of thing killed tens of thousands of American soldiers in my generation", which is a cop-out. Your lack of response to my suggestion that your position would have made you a Torry in the American Revolution leads me to believe it is true and that you agree. I have no interest in the opinion of King George's men.

ebd10
October 10, 2005, 01:40 PM
Ah, the old "If you disagree with me, you're infringing on my rights."

"Oh kettle, thou art black" sayeth the pot.

Well, guess what? The rest of us have rights too -- and that includes the right to say what we think about your opinions.

Never said anything different. I would defend your rights to the death, regardless of whether I agreed with you or not. And it would never occur to me to silence you or to exile you for having an opinion that differs from mine.

Oh, and not to put too fine a point on it, the war is over. What we are doing now is occupation.

Vern Humphrey
October 10, 2005, 01:43 PM
Vern Humphrey, you are a broken record, your entire response to any challenge can be summed up with "this kind of thing killed tens of thousands of American soldiers in my generation"

I'm so sorry you're tired of hearing about the deaths of tens of thousands of American soldiers. It must be quite an ordeal for you to read these posts.

ebd10
October 10, 2005, 02:12 PM
I'm so sorry you're tired of hearing about the deaths of tens of thousands of American soldiers. It must be quite an ordeal for you to read these posts.

You keep on about the "tens of thousands of American soldiers" that you say were killed as a result of the anti-war movement supplying propoganda to the enemy, but you failed to acknowledge, or perhaps just ignored the fact that the Vietnam War was the result of the politicians LIES. If you want to blame someone for those deaths, how about blaming the people that got us involved in the first place? The Gulf of Tonkin incident, the very reason we sent our military to the region, NEVER HAPPENED. 57000 Americans died for a lie.

Vern Humphrey
October 10, 2005, 02:17 PM
You keep on about the "tens of thousands of American soldiers" that you say were killed as a result of the anti-war movement supplying propoganda to the enemy, but you failed to acknowledge, or perhaps just ignored the fact that the Vietnam War was the result of the politicians LIES.

Don't parrot the old propaganda back at me -- I was there, remember?

ebd10
October 10, 2005, 02:20 PM
Don't parrot the old propaganda back at me -- I was there, remember?

Nice way to avoid addressing the issue. Do you have anything substantive to add?

MTMilitiaman
October 10, 2005, 02:20 PM
Vern. That's all your posts are is annoying. They aren't insightful or intelligent. Just annoying. Like an alarm clock in the room next to you that won't shut off. It's loud but that is about the best thing that can be said of it. Actually, that is a bad analogy because I haven't lost any sleep over your trifling. If you intend to frustrate your opposition into silence, I am afraid you're going to lose.

Just because I think my country should have a damn good reason to send my brother and brothers everywhere into combat does not mean I want the enemy to win or that I am giving aid or comfort to the enemy. I am not spitting on soliders or sending newspaper clippings. What happened to your friends and fellow soldiers is disgraceful, but it is simply wrong to say that all people who remain skeptical of the war are in the same boat. It is akin to a black man saying that all white men are in the KKK because he had a friend that was lynched--obviously and proposterously asinine. Remember I voted for Bush, twice. I helped put him into office and because of this, I will accept the decisions he makes in office. That doesn't mean I necessarily agree with all of them even if I am not parading through the streets with a sign.
Common sense dictates that all endevors involving such a massive use of resources as war should be viewed critically and that sensible mean should be skeptical. It is in the founding spirit of this country to question government and I'll be damned if I'll be exported or called a traitor without sounding off because I do so.

Paco
October 10, 2005, 02:24 PM
Gentlemen, sometimes the bitterness from a single act or season of pain can stain a soul for the rest of its time on the earth.

-All you can do is pray for those with such scars and thank God you don't have them.

-Paco

bountyhunter
October 10, 2005, 02:28 PM
The Gulf of Tonkin incident, the very reason we sent our military to the region, NEVER HAPPENED. 57000 Americans died for a lie. Best information says that something did indeed happen at the Gulf of Tonkin, although many have surmised it was staged to provide provocation for the military to wage war.

On July 31, 1964, the American destroyer USS Maddox, was in international waters conducting a reconnaissance mission in the Gulf of Tonkin. Critics of President Johnson have suggested that the purpose of the mission was to provoke a reaction from North Vietnamese coastal defense forces as a pretext for a wider war. North Vietnamese torpedo boats attacked the Maddox and in response, with the help of air support from the nearby carrier USS Ticonderoga, she destroyed one of the torpedo boats, damaging two others. The Maddox suffered only superficial damage and retired to South Vietnamese waters where she was joined by USS C. Turner Joy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viet_Nam_War#The_War_Begins

ebd10
October 10, 2005, 02:35 PM
I have no reason to doubt this guy:

Squadron commander James Stockdale was one of the U.S. pilots flying overhead August 4. In the 1990s Stockdale stated: "[I] had the best seat in the house to watch that event, and our destroyers were just shooting at phantom targets — there were no PT boats there… There was nothing there but black water and American fire power.[I]"

Gulf of Tonkin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Resolution)

Carl N. Brown
October 10, 2005, 02:49 PM
Am I correct in assuming that "Pocket.38" posted a cut-and-paste
of an article by one "Fred" or "Fred Reed" and has not answered
any of the responses in 7 pages?

So Hitler invaded Poland and the Imperial Japanese Navy bombed
Pearl Harbor because we had too many bankers and war profiteers?

Whatsgoingonhere?

[You know, if you say "Vichy-Quisling-Stockholm Syndrome"
fast enough it sounds like a Chinese curse from Firefly?]

No_Brakes23
October 10, 2005, 04:42 PM
Gentlemen, sometimes the bitterness from a single act or season of pain can stain a soul for the rest of its time on the earth. Paco, I think you hit the nail on the head. Vern ain't gonna see things my way, and I ain't gonna see things his way, on this issue.

So Hitler invaded Poland and the Imperial Japanese Navy bombed I must agree that our involvement in WWII was more "noble" than some other wars, but there must be some balance between the isolationists, and the "World Police" folks.

PaulV
October 10, 2005, 05:48 PM
I wish I'd known that the stuff my recruiter told me was a big lie, and I wish I'd contacted Oleg before I joined up so I wouldn't become a cog in a big political propoganda machine. All this time, I thought the unit citations and thank-you letters from national policy makers were because my agency was doing something to make a difference since 1947. Silly me, I could just kick myself now.

Sometimes, this forum just plain disgusts me. Now is one of those times.

Amen brother! The world would be a much better place if we just packed up our toys and went home. I bet no one would see fit to bother us here either. :rolleyes:


The case for war:

1. Numerous violations of the 1991 cease-fire agreement. Gulf War I was not finished properly.
-Multiple attacks on aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone.
-Keeping of weapons prohibited by the agreement. (Long range rockets, explosives for nuke tests (Remember the big flap about missing explosives just before the election? They were supposed to get rid of that stuff.) and WMD (read the Duelfer report, a few were found.)
-Weapons development programs prohibited by the agreement. (Longer range rockets and bio-weapons (Again, read the Duelfer report, no agents were found but the program was kept ready to be made active.)
-Hampering weapons inspections. (It was not the UN's job to play scavenger hunt. The defeated power was to provide ready access and proof of destruction of the weapons they admitted having.) By the way what happened to those weapons?
-Acquiring prohibited foreign weaponry through the oil for food scandal. Sanctions were a joke. Countries that opposed our action (France, Germany, and Russia) were benefitting through illegal weapons sales to Saddam. Sanctions never would have forced compliance due to corruption.

2. Support for terrorism.
-Providing refuge to the Abu Nidal group.
-Contracts from the oil for food scandal went to organizations that have been recognized as Al-Qaeda fronts.
-Reward payments to families of Palestinian suicide bombers
-Assasination attempt on a U.S. President.
-Hijacking training complex.

3. Genocide.

4. Iraq is right in the center of the problem area. It was a good strategic move. Asserting our presence here drives a stake through the heart of Islamic fundamentalist movement. I think we are beginning to see the walls of oppression cracking in the middle east. Look at what is happening in Lebanon and even amongst the populace of Iran.

5. Geopolitics. The nations in the world most likely to create problems for the U.S. that would make the War on Terror pale in comparison are China (Taiwan) and North Korea (South Korea). The only thing preventing those nations from making the territorial grab is the concept that we would intervene on behalf of our allies. How does our political will to enforce agreements look to governments that only respect strength if we let a third rate power like Iraq thumb its nose at a cease fire agreement we are enforcing?

miko
October 10, 2005, 05:53 PM
Ignorant perhaps, but not dumb or hormone driven. Then again, I was almost 23 when I enlisted, (Someting I would NOT reccomend.)


If we (charitably) assume that a person starts thinking and accumulating wisdom/understanding, at around 13, than 23 is DOUBLE the mental age of 18 – 10 years of thinking as compared to 5. And that assuming that the rate at which one accumulates wisdom is the same at 14 as it is at 22.
In my squad, 23 was “old man” – a person of incomprehensible life experience.


Kind of puts the lie to THIS little nugget, doesn't it?

Err. He knew what he was doing at 35 while he did not necessarily at 18. Even if he was doing the same thing. Doesn’t put anything to lie. Just an amusing anecdote.
Plenty of people regretted at 35 having served at 18, others regretted not having served. If you would put more stock in a decision/sentiment of 18-year old as compared to a person twice that age, you are not of much opinion about acquired wisdom….


With that blanket statement logic we should not allow until the age of brain formation (whatever that is)-
any legal prosecution of them for law violations as they have "unformed brains" and can't tell right from wrong
any of them to hold any position of trust involving the public policy
allow them to touch anything dangerous or hunt etc.

Err… They are not allowed to drink, nor to smoke in some municipalities until they are 21, nor eligible to be elected to some offices until they 25 or even 35 years old.


Speak for yourself, not everyone else. You might have been immature and irrational at 18 but not all of us were. I knew I wanted to be an engineer when I was 15, made the choice to focus on that, went to college on a scholarship, got two degrees, and now enjoy my career immensely.

Not everyone else, but certainly most of us.


I look back I can't fault my choice at 15 because I made the best decision based on the information I had at the time.

Ahh.. On the information you had at the time. Surely you do not believe that a human is incapable of acquiring information after that age or after 18.


There is no reason that good decisions cannot be made at 18. Sure, good parental input helps, but heaven forbid someone be a real parent these days..

By your logic, why not at 15? Or 12? Let’s allow the 12-year olds sign binding contracts with the recruiters, enough coddling them.
With all due respect to your accomplished career, if you have not noticed that human males undergo serious amount of maturation from 18 to 25-30, then you are freaking ignorant of what normal humans are. Better stick to your engines then.


That's a bit of a stretch. No, it's more than a stretch, it's silly. You are constructing arguments out of thin air.
Five seconds on Google (or in any library) will show extensive listings of state NG units serving in WWI and WWII. Try typing in National Guard WWII and hitting Enter.

Actually, employing the NG beyond this nation’s borders is clearly unconstitutional.
According to Article I, Section 8, Clause 15, Congress has three constitutional grounds for calling up the militia – 'to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrection and repel invasions.'.


It is simply beyond my comprehension that some folks cannot understand what the words 'armed services' mean.

One thinks one does until he hits the statistics on pregnancies and the ratio of single mothers. Then one gets really confused….


Where is the libertarian treatise with SPECIFIC real world policies that can be implemented?

The problems that American empire experiences would not have not arisen for a (more) libertarian American republic in the first place. Specific problem of japanese in 1941 were not necessarily Americans but their own government. Inducing them to attack America earlier and harder was hardly the best advice for them.



Where is your alternative solution to dealing with Saddam?

Keep supporting him. Buy his oil, sell him stuff, watch him fight muslim fundamentalists, maintain peace and order, westernize and secularize Iraq even more.
Oh, yes – let him have that backward feudal theocracy of Kuwait.

miko

GoRon
October 10, 2005, 06:06 PM
The problems that American empire experiences would not have not arisen for a (more) libertarian American republic in the first place. Specific problem of japanese in 1941 were not necessarily Americans but their own government. Inducing them to attack America earlier and harder was hardly the best advice for them.


libertarians are Monday morning quarterbacks. They sit around and critique what the government does and bemoan that nobody will listen to them. For such advocates of free markets they sure haven't done a very good job of selling their philosophy in the free market of ideas.

Vern Humphrey
October 10, 2005, 06:10 PM
libertarians are Monday morning quarterbacks. They sit around and critique what the government does and bemoan that nobody will listen to them.

And when the enemy is on our shores, and the time comes for them to "defend to the death" our rights, they'll still be squabbling among themselves when the enemy walks up the Capitol steps. :D

PaulV
October 10, 2005, 06:24 PM
Actually, employing the NG beyond this nation’s borders is clearly unconstitutional.
According to Article I, Section 8, Clause 15, Congress has three constitutional grounds for calling up the militia – 'to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrection and repel invasions.'.

The National Guard is not the militia.

Carl N. Brown
October 10, 2005, 06:37 PM
The Act of 1905 that created the National Guard states
specificly that the National Guard is based on the Power
of Congress to raise the army, and not under the Power
of Congress to arm, organize and discipline the militia,
specificaly because Article I, Section 8, Clause 15
limits the uses of the militia.
National Guard is not the constitutional militia, never has
been; it was created as an army reserve.

javafiend
October 10, 2005, 10:53 PM
-Multiple attacks on aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone.

That's what happens when you violate the airspace of a sovereign nation. Don't want your planes shot at? Don't fly them through the airspace of hostile nations.

MTMilitiaman
October 10, 2005, 11:07 PM
Paul, would you happen to know of any place online I can find and access this report you speak of? I would like to read it...

GoRon
October 10, 2005, 11:10 PM
That's what happens when you violate the airspace of a sovereign nation.

A defeated sovereign nation in material breach of the cease fire agreement.

Amusetec
October 11, 2005, 12:04 AM
Quote:
-Multiple attacks on aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone.


That's what happens when you violate the airspace of a sovereign nation. Don't want your planes shot at? Don't fly them through the airspace of hostile nation

javafiend-They did not violate airspace of a sovereign nation. Just one that we had a cease fire with and in the cease fire we had fly rights.
CHECK THE FACTS. there was a no fly zone in north and south. that was since the end of the Gulf war. Which this is just the continuation of the Gulf War.
so you see this is not a new war with IRAQ just a start up and finish of the 1991 war.
Jr. Just finishing up what Sr. Started

Strings
October 11, 2005, 12:53 AM
*sigh*

This thread almost makes me ashamed of my grandfather. Grandad was lost saving France's bacon from Hitler...

The sacrifices were made so that our freedoms would be preserved. One of those is the freedom of speech: to say what we feel like, without serious worry that government will "come down on us" because we don't agree with it. Yet there are those here, screaming about their patriotism, and demanding that anyone who doesn't agree with the givernment should leave the country? Is THAT REALLY what my grandad died for?

As for this:

>but you failed to acknowledge, or perhaps just ignored the fact that the Vietnam War was the result of the politicians LIES. If you want to blame someone for those deaths, how about blaming the people that got us involved in the first place? The Gulf of Tonkin incident, the very reason we sent our military to the region, NEVER HAPPENED.<

Wether Tonkin happened or not, the saddest thing about 'Nam was that it was unnesessary. According to my understanding, at the close of WWII, Ho Chi Minh BEGGED the US to take Vietnam as a protectorate. We didn't, to avoid offending (drum roll)... the French... :rolleyes: So regardless or the oucome, the deaths of servicemen there was pointless (even had we won)...

Balog
October 11, 2005, 01:23 AM
Ok, I don't have time to read all 8 freakin pages (what with being in Iraq and all) but I'll just lay out my reasons for the choices I've made.

I really, really hate people who are willing to destroy innocents to achieve their own political/ideological goals. Joining the Marine Corps infantry gives me a chance to kill lots of these kind of people in a relatively short time. Makes all the stupid stuff, time away from my wife, and danger seem worthwhile. Because these bastards need killing. And I want to take care of that need.

I don't give a f*** about Iraq or Iraqis. I don't care why I'm here. All I care about is getting the chance to wax these sub-humans. I'd join the freakin Animal Liberation Front if it let me kill more of them. Sorta like Finns during WW2. They weren't Nazi's, they just wanted to kill Russians.

DRZinn
October 11, 2005, 01:36 AM
I really, really hate people who are willing to destroy innocents to achieve their own political/ideological goals. Joining the Marine Corps infantry gives me a chance to kill lots of these kind of people in a relatively short time. Makes all the stupid stuff, time away from my wife, and danger seem worthwhile. Because these bastards need killing. And I want to take care of that need.

I don't give a f*** about Iraq or Iraqis. I don't care why I'm here. All I care about is getting the chance to wax these sub-humans. I'd join the freakin Animal Liberation Front if it let me kill more of them.Oo-rah!

No_Brakes23
October 11, 2005, 01:52 AM
Joining the Marine Corps infantry gives me a chance to kill lots of these kind of people in a relatively short time. Semper Fi.

PdxVet
October 11, 2005, 02:39 AM
We lost in Vietnam for many reasons, large among them the fact that we interjected ourselves in another country's affairs on bogus pretenses. When you are between sides in an internal dispute, you BETTER understand every nuance of what's happening if you want to intercede effectively. Killing, in such situations, creates many more enemies than it eliminates.

I have more respect for the people who spit on us when we came home from Vietnam than I do, the creeps who avoided all personal commitment but "supported the war." It was an eye-opening day in Cambodia when I realized that I was there because draft dodgers and jerks who were taking advantage of our absence to get ahead were more my enemy than the people who wanted us out. I was not raised to be a murderer for rotten causes, but I'll live with the guilt of it for however long I have.

For example, although I haven't spoken to my brother in years, if someone else shot him, they'd be looking up my sights narrow end first. You'd do the same, and that's what the Vietnamese and now Iraqis are doing.

As many of us have discovered, that is impossible even when the dispute is among members of our own families. To pretend that we could do so effectively in an alien culture, where we understood (or understand) virtually nothing of what had gone on before, or what happened in front of us.

Our current leaders are sleazy, profiteering cowards, bullies and incompetents, and I'm probably being too kind. And don't tell me to get out; I'm Cherokee, I volunteered for both tours in Vietnam, and this is my country.

I am perplexed and astonished by my fellow vets, or people who claim to be vets, who seem to have learned what they know about Vietnam from Rambo movies...another enterprise of another exploitive draft dodger.

When we withdraw, as we will, from Iraq, it will be seen as a "bad war," which it certainly is, and Bush, who has never taken a single stand that caused him any pain, will shaft Iraq vets just as we of previous wars have been shafted. Meanwhile, Iraq will fight its civil war and nobody knows how that's going to affect things.

There are obviously a lot of really good people on this forum, on both sides of the issues. But gentlemen, and presumably ladies, reality does not fit on a bumper sticker, and it does not intrude into the contemplations of most of our "leaders."

Please don't waste our time with your slogans, no matter how blindly you adhere to them. Our country has blown it, in a series of the worst, most corrupt blunders in our history. From the sacrifice of our military, among the best of our best, they are extracting hideous profit. They do not care who wins, as long as they keep raking in billions of our hard-earned dollars, and those of our children and grandchildren. The damage they have done, both in the US and to our standing in the world, is incalculably larger than anything Al Qaeda could have dreamed of.

If only it hadn't all been so thoroughly predicted, and ignored or suppressed. Remember, nobody fits an ambush as well as a fool.

Gentleman Jim

GoRon
October 11, 2005, 09:32 AM
When we withdraw, as we will, from Iraq, it will be seen as a "bad war," which it certainly is, and Bush, who has never taken a single stand that caused him any pain, will shaft Iraq vets just as we of previous wars have been shafted. Meanwhile, Iraq will fight its civil war and nobody knows how that's going to affect things.


What was/is the alternate plan? Do nothing? Sanctions?

What about Iran,Syria,SA and the rest? We just let them or elements of their government plot our destruction while we do nothing?

Confusing Vietnam with Iraq is a big mistake.

DRZinn
October 11, 2005, 10:38 AM
They do not care who wins, as long as they keep raking in billions of our hard-earned dollars,Why does that sound so familiar? Oh yeah. "It's a war for oil, so Bush's friends can get rich."

Paco
October 11, 2005, 10:41 AM
PdxVet,

Welcome.

-Paco

PaulV
October 11, 2005, 12:29 PM
Duelfer Report (http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/)

Summary: No pile of chemical munitions with signs reading "WMD here" found (just a few shells and rockets, a little Sarin never hurt anyone, right?), but plenty of indication that there was something big in the works for the future.

ebd10
October 11, 2005, 01:01 PM
What about Iran,Syria,SA and the rest? We just let them or elements of their government plot our destruction while we do nothing?

First, they would probably be less inclined to plot our destruction if we just bought their oil and went home.

Second, instead of bringing the level of military readiness up and down like a yo-yo, we should at all times be prepared to drop the hammer on those that seek harm for us.

Finally, we should elevate the capability of our intelligence community to be able to warn us when something is going to happen.

Most importantly, we should elect leaders, not managers. The Lawyers and business school grads that we've put in government have done nothing but set themselves up as the new royalty in this country, passing out 'get out of jail free' cards to their cronies, while destroying our sovereignty and our economy.

Unfortunately, I don't think any of the above will happen. We're on our fourth generation of Joe Sixpacks that have been taught to think that we are subordinate to the government.

bountyhunter
October 11, 2005, 03:33 PM
I really, really hate people who are willing to destroy innocents to achieve their own political/ideological goals. The problem facing the US is that at the present time, because of the actions of the last three years, about 1 billion Muslims believe the sentence above describes the US foreign policy both in objective and action.... and ultimately, a stable peace will require we can at least co-exist with those people.

It defines how and why there is a generation of young people standing in line for a chance to blow themselves up.

And we can debate the relative "wisdom" of it all day long, but the ultimate truth is:

No war in history has ever been won by killing enough of "them", wars are only won by completely destroying your enemy's willingness to fight on.

Period.

And the foreign policy the US is currently on is having the opposite effect against our enemies in the WOT.

Vern Humphrey
October 11, 2005, 03:48 PM
The problem facing the US is that at the present time, because of the actions of the last three years, about 1 billion Muslims believe the sentence above describes the US foreign policy both in objective and action

If that's true, explain how most of the people killed fighting on our side in this war are Muslims?

jeff-10
October 11, 2005, 04:59 PM
The problem facing the US is that at the present time, because of the actions of the last three years

First, they would probably be less inclined to plot our destruction if we just bought their oil and went home.

It defines how and why there is a generation of young people standing in line for a chance to blow themselves up

Yeah and before the war on terror the Muslims just left us alone. US Embassy in Iran, Beirut, Pam AM FLight 103, Khobar Towers, Kenya and Tanzinia Embassies, USS Cole were all just a big misunderstanding. They used to love us.

Liberals are so realistic, I just love there great rallying cry, "can't we all just get along!"

ebd10
October 11, 2005, 05:40 PM
Yeah and before the war on terror the Muslims just left us alone. US Embassy in Iran, Beirut, Pam AM FLight 103, Khobar Towers, Kenya and Tanzinia Embassies, USS Cole were all just a big misunderstanding.

No, they were terrorist attacks perpetrated by an elusive and fanatic enemy. Unfortunately, we can't point to a particular country and say, "They are the ones that committed this act. If we do a, b, and c, it will stop this type of incident." A lot of these groups hate each other as much as they hate us, but only therir attacks against us gets publicity. Al Qaeda is the current favorite enemy, but before them was Hamas, Hezbollah, the Abu Nidal faction, Carlos the Jackal's bunch, the Red Brigades, Baader-Meinhoff, the PLO, and on, and on, and on. The only thing that makes the current situation unique is that we have responded with brute force. Afghanistan was their base, we eliminated that base, now they are on the run.

Iraq is a sideshow. Hussein was bottled up for 13 years. If he was such a threat to us, we should have eliminated him in '91. Unfortunately, once again a sitting president put political expediency before the security of our nation.

PaulV
October 11, 2005, 05:40 PM
The problem facing the US is that at the present time, because of the actions of the last three years

Yeah our imperialist aggression against the peaceful Islamic republic of Iraq in 2003 caused all of this.

Attack on the Munich Airport, February 10, 1970:
Munich Olympic Massacre, September 5, 1972:
Ambassador to Sudan Assassinated, March 2, 1973:
Attack and Hijacking at the Rome Airport, December 17, 1973:
Entebbe Hostage Crisis, June 27, 1976:
Ambassador to Afghanistan Assassinated, February 14, 1979:
Iran Hostage Crisis, November 4, 1979:
Grand Mosque Seizure, November 20, 1979: 200 Islamic terrorists seized the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, taking hundreds of pilgrims hostage.

Assassination of Egyptian President, October 6, 1981:
Assassination of Lebanese President, September 14, 1982:
Bombing of U.S. Embassy in Beirut, April 18, 1983: Sixty-three people, including the CIA’s Middle East director, were killed and 120 were injured.

The Bombing of Marine Barracks, Beirut, October 23, 1983: Simultaneous suicide truck-bomb attacks were made on American and French compounds in Beirut, Lebanon. A 12,000-pound bomb destroyed the U.S. compound, killing 242 Americans, while 58 French troops were killed when a 400-pound device destroyed a French base.

Naval Officer Assassinated in Greece, November 15, 1983:

Kidnapping of Embassy Official, March 16, 1984: The Islamic Jihad kidnapped and later murdered Political Officer William Buckley in Beirut.

TWA Hijacking, June 14, 1985: A Trans-World Airlines flight was hijacked en route to Rome from Athens by two Lebanese Hizballah terrorists.

Soviet Diplomats Kidnapped, September 30, 1985: In Beirut, Lebanon, Sunni terrorists kidnapped four Soviet diplomats.

Achille Lauro Hijacking, October 7, 1985: Four Palestinian Liberation Front terrorists seized the Italian cruise liner in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, taking more than 700 hostages.

Egyptian Airliner Hijacking, November 23, 1985: An EgyptAir airplane bound from Athens to Malta and carrying several U.S. citizens was hijacked by the Abu Nidal Group.

Airport Attacks in Rome and Vienna, December 27, 1985: Four gunmen belonging to the Abu Nidal Organization attacked the El Al and Trans World Airlines ticket counters at Rome’s Leonardo da Vinci Airport with grenades and automatic rifles.

Aircraft Bombing in Greece, March 30, 1986: A Palestinian splinter group detonated a bomb as TWA Flight 840 approached Athens airport, killing four U.S. citizens.

Berlin Discothèque Bombing, April 5, 1986: Two U.S. soldiers were killed and 79 American servicemen were injured in a Libyan bomb attack on a nightclub in West Berlin, West Germany.

Kidnapping of William Higgins, February 17, 1988: U.S. Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel W. Higgins was kidnapped and murdered by the Hizballah group.

Naples USO Attack, April 14, 1988: The Organization of Jihad Brigades exploded a car-bomb outside a USO Club in Naples, Italy, killing one U.S. sailor.

Attack on U.S. Diplomat in Greece, June 28, 1988: The Defense Attaché of the U.S. Embassy in Greece was killed when a car-bomb was detonated outside his home in Athens.

Pan Am 103 Bombing, December 21, 1988: Pan American Airlines Flight 103 was blown up over Lockerbie, Scotland, by a bomb believed to have been placed on the aircraft by Libyan terrorists in Frankfurt, West Germany. All 259 people on board were killed.

Bombing of UTA Flight 772, September 19, 1989: A bomb explosion destroyed UTA Flight 772 over the Sahara Desert in southern Niger during a flight from Brazzaville to Paris. All 170 persons aboard were killed.

Attempted Iraqi Attacks on U.S. Posts, January 18-19, 1991:

Bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Argentina, March 17, 1992: Hizballah claimed responsibility for a blast that leveled the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires, Argentina, causing the deaths of 29 and wounding 242.

World Trade Center Bombing, February 26, 1993:

Attempted Assassination of President Bush by Iraqi Agents, April 14, 1993: The Iraqi intelligence service attempted to assassinate former U.S. President George Bush during a visit to Kuwait.

Air France Hijacking, December 24, 1994: Members of the Armed Islamic Group seized an Air France Flight to Algeria.

Attack on U.S. Diplomats in Pakistan, March 8, 1995: Two unidentified gunmen killed two U.S. diplomats and wounded a third in Karachi, Pakistan.

Kashmiri Hostage-taking, July 4, 1995:

Jerusalem Bus Attack, August 21, 1995: HAMAS claimed responsibility for the detonation of a bomb that killed 6 and injured over 100 persons, including several U.S. citizens.

Saudi Military Installation Attack, November 13, 1995: The Islamic Movement of Change planted a bomb in a Riyadh military compound that killed one U.S. citizen, several foreign national employees of the U.S. government, and over 40 others.

Egyptian Embassy Attack, November 19, 1995: A suicide bomber drove a vehicle into the Egyptian Embassy compound in Islamabad, Pakistan, killing at least 16 and injuring 60 persons.

HAMAS Bus Attack, February 26, 1996: In Jerusalem, a suicide bomber blew up a bus, killing 26 persons, including three U.S. citizens, and injuring some 80 persons, including three other US citizens.

Dizengoff Center Bombing, March 4, 1996: HAMAS and the Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ) both claimed responsibility for a bombing outside of Tel Aviv's largest shopping mall that killed 20 persons and injured 75 others, including 2 U.S. citizens.

West Bank Attack, May 13, 1996:

Zekharya Attack, June 9, 1996:

Khobar Towers Bombing, June 25, 1996: A fuel truck carrying a bomb exploded outside the US military's Khobar Towers housing facility in Dhahran, killing 19 U.S. military personnel and wounding 515 persons, including 240 U.S. personnel.

Bombing of Archbishop of Oran, August 1, 1996: A bomb exploded at the home of the French Archbishop of Oran, killing him and his chauffeur.

Sudanese Rebel Kidnapping, August 17, 1996:

Red Cross Worker Kidnappings, November 1, 1996:

Paris Subway Explosion, December 3, 1996: A bomb exploded aboard a Paris subway train as it arrived at the Port Royal station.

Egyptian Letter Bombs, January 2-13, 1997: A series of letter bombs with Alexandria, Egypt, postmarks were discovered at Al-Hayat newspaper bureaus in Washington, New York City, London, and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Tajik Hostage Abductions, February 4-17, 1997:

Empire State Building Sniper Attack, February 23, 1997: A Palestinian gunman opened fire on tourists at an observation deck atop the Empire State Building in New York City, killing a Danish national and wounding visitors from the United States, Argentina, Switzerland, and France before turning the gun on himself.

Israeli Shopping Mall Bombing, September 4, 1997: Three suicide bombers of HAMAS detonated bombs in the Ben Yehuda shopping mall in Jerusalem, killing eight persons, including the bombers, and wounding nearly 200 others.

Yemeni Kidnappings, October 30, 1997: Al-Sha'if tribesmen kidnapped a U.S. businessman near Sanaa.

Murder of U.S. Businessmen in Pakistan, November 12, 1997: Two unidentified gunmen shot to death four U.S. auditors from Union Texas Petroleum Corporation and their Pakistani driver.

Tourist Killings in Egypt, November 17, 1997: Al-Gama'at al-Islamiyya (IG) gunmen shot and killed 58 tourists and four Egyptians and wounded 26 others at the Hatshepsut Temple in the Valley of the Kings near Luxor.

Somali Hostage-takings, April 15, 1998: Somali militiamen abducted nine Red Cross and Red Crescent workers at an airstrip north of Mogadishu.

U.S. Embassy Bombings in East Africa, August 7, 1998: A bomb exploded at the rear entrance of the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya, killing 12 U.S. citizens, 32 Foreign Service Nationals (FSNs), and 247 Kenyan citizens. Approximately 5,000 Kenyans, 6 U.S. citizens, and 13 FSNs were injured.

Kidnappings in Kyrgyzstan, August 12, 2000: In the Kara-Su Valley, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan took four U.S. citizens hostage.

Church Bombing in Tajikistan, October 1, 2000: Unidentified militants detonated two bombs in a Christian church in Dushanbe, killing seven persons and injuring 70 others. The church was founded by a Korean-born U.S. citizen, and most of those killed and wounded were Korean.

Attack on U.S.S. Cole, October 12, 2000: In Aden, Yemen, a small dingy carrying explosives rammed the destroyer U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 sailors and injuring 39 others. Supporters of Usama Bin Laden were suspected.

Manila Bombing, December 30, 2000: A bomb exploded in a plaza across the street from the U.S. Embassy in Manila, injuring nine persons. The Moro Islamic Liberation Front was likely responsible.

Suicide Bombing in Israel, March 4, 2001:

Airliner Hijacking in Istanbul, March 15, 2001: Three Chechens hijacked a Russian airliner during a flight from Istanbul to Moscow and forced it to fly to Medina, Saudi Arabia.

Bus Stop Bombing, April 22, 2001: A member of HAMAS detonated a bomb he was carrying near a bus stop in Kfar Siva, Israel, killing one person and injuring 60.

Philippines Hostage Incident, May 27, 2001: Muslim Abu Sayyaf guerrillas seized 13 tourists and 3 staff members at a resort on Palawan Island and took their captives to Basilan Island.

Tel-Aviv Nightclub Bombing, June 1, 2001: HAMAS claimed responsibility for the suicide bombing of a popular Israeli nightclub that caused over 140 casualties.

HAMAS Restaurant Bombing, August 9, 2001: A HAMAS-planted bomb detonated in a Jerusalem pizza restaurant, killing 15 people and wounding more than 90.

Suicide Bombing in Israel, September 9, 2001:

Death of "the Lion of the Panjshir", September 9, 2001: Two suicide bombers fatally wounded Ahmed Shah Massoud, a leader of Afghanistan’s Northern Alliance, which had opposed both the Soviet occupation and the post-Soviet Taliban government. The bombers were apparently linked to al-Qaida.

Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Homeland, September 11, 2001:

Attack on the Jammu and Kashmir Legislature, October 1, 2001: After a suicide car bomber forced the gate of the state legislature in Srinagar, two gunmen entered the building and held off police for seven hours before being killed. Forty persons died in the incident.

Assassination of an Israeli Cabinet Minister, October 17, 2001: A Palestinian gunman assassinated Israeli Minister of Tourism Rehavam Zeevi in the Jerusalem hotel where he was staying. .

Attack on a Church in Pakistan, October 28, 2001: Six masked gunmen shot up a church in Bahawalpur, Pakistan, killing 15 Pakistani Christians.

Suicide Bombings in Jerusalem, December 1, 2001: Two suicide bombers attacked a Jerusalem shopping mall, killing 10 persons and wounding 170.

Suicide Bombing in Haifa, December 2, 2001: A suicide bomb attack aboard a bus in Haifa, Israel, killed 15 persons and wounded 40.

Attack on the Indian Parliament, December 13, 2001: Five gunmen attacked the Indian Parliament in New Delhi shortly after it had adjourned. Before security forces killed them, the attackers killed 6 security personnel and a gardener.

Ambush on the West Bank, January 15, 2002: Palestinian militants fired on a vehicle in Beit Sahur, killing one passenger and wounding the other. The dead passenger claimed U.S. and Israeli citizenship.

Shooting Incident in Israel, January 17, 2002: A Palestinian gunman killed 6 persons and wounded 25 in Hadera, Israel, before being killed by Israeli police.

Drive-By Shooting at a U.S. Consulate, January 22, 2002: Armed militants on motorcycles fired on the U.S. Consulate in Calcutta, India, killing 5 Indian security personnel and wounding 13 others.

Kidnapping of Daniel Pearl, January 23, 2002: Armed militants kidnapped Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in Karachi, Pakistan. Pakistani authorities received a videotape on February 20 depicting Pearl’s murder. His grave was found near Karachi on May 16. Pakistani authorities arrested four suspects.

Suicide Bombing in Jerusalem, January 27, 2002: A suicide bomb attack in Jerusalem killed one other person and wounded 100.

Suicide Bombing in the West Bank, February 16, 2002: A suicide bombing in an outdoor food court in Karmei Shomron killed 4 persons and wounded 27. Two of the dead and two of the wounded were U.S. citizens.

Suicide Bombing in the West Bank, March 7, 2002: A suicide bombing in a supermarket in the settlement of Ariel wounded 10 persons, one of whom was a U.S. citizen.

Suicide Bombing in Jerusalem, March 9, 2002: A suicide bombing in a Jerusalem restaurant killed 11 persons and wounded 52, one of whom was a U.S. citizen.

Grenade Attack on a Church in Pakistan, March 17, 2002: Militants threw grenades into the Protestant International Church in Islamabad, Pakistan, during a service attended by diplomatic and local personnel. Five persons, two of them U.S. citizens, were killed and 46 were wounded. The dead Americans were State Department employee Barbara Green and her daughter Kristen Wormsley. Thirteen U.S. citizens were among the wounded.

Suicide Bombing in Jerusalem, March 21, 2002: A suicide bombing in Jerusalem killed 3 persons and wounded 86 more, including 2 U.S. citizens.

Suicide Bombing in Israel, March 27, 2002: A suicide bombing in a noted restaurant in Netanya, Israel, killed 22 persons and wounded 140. One of the dead was a U.S. citizen.

Temple Bombing in Kashmir, March 30, 2002: A bomb explosion at a Hindu temple in Jammu, Kashmir, killed 10 persons.

Suicide Bombing in the West Bank, March 31, 2002: A suicide bombing near an ambulance station in Efrat wounded four persons, including a U.S. citizen.

Synagogue Bombing in Tunisia, April 11, 2002: A suicide bomber detonated a truck loaded with propane gas outside a historic synagogue in Djerba, Tunisia. The 16 dead included 11 Germans, one French citizen, and three Tunisians. Twenty-six German tourists were injured. The Islamic Army for the Liberation of the Holy Sites claimed responsibility.

Suicide Bombing in Jerusalem, April 12, 2002: A female suicide bomber killed 6 persons in Jerusalem and wounded 90 others.

Car Bombing in Pakistan, May 8, 2002: A car bomb exploded near a Pakistani navy shuttle bus in Karachi, killing 12 persons and wounding 19. Eleven of the dead and 11 of the wounded were French nationals. Al-Qaida was suspected of the attack.

Parade Bombing in Russia, May 9, 2002: A remotely-controlled bomb exploded near a May Day parade in Kaspiisk, Dagestan, killing 42 persons and wounding 150. Fourteen of the dead and 50 of the wounded were soldiers. Islamists linked to al-Qaida were suspected.

Attack on a Bus in India, May 14, 2002: Militants fired on a passenger bus in Kaluchak, Jammu, killing 7 persons. They then entered a military housing complex and killed 3 soldiers and 7 military dependents before they were killed.

Bomb Attacks in Kashmir, May 17, 2002: A bomb explosion near a civil secretariat area in Srinagar, Kashmir, wounded 6 persons. In Jammu, a bomb exploded at a fire services headquarters, killing two and wounding 16.

Car Bombing in Pakistan, June 14, 2002: A car bomb exploded near the U.S. Consulate and the Marriott Hotel in Karachi, Pakistan. Eleven persons were killed and 51 were sounded, including one U.S. and one Japanese citizen. Al Qaida and al-Qanin were suspected.

Suicide Bombing in Jerusalem, June 19, 2002: A suicide bombing at a bus stop in Jerusalem killed 6 persons and wounded 43, including 2 U.S. citizens.

Suicide Bombing in Tel Aviv, July 17, 2002: Two suicide bombers attacked the old bus station in Tel Aviv, Israel, killing 5 persons and wounding 38.

Bombing at the Hebrew University, July 31, 2002: A bomb hidden in a bag in the Frank Sinatra International Student Center of Jerusalem’s Hebrew University killed 9 persons and wounded 87. The dead included 5 U.S. citizens and 4 Israelis. The wounded included 4 U.S. citizens, 2 Japanese, and 3 South Koreans.

Suicide Bombing in Israel, August 4, 2002: A suicide bomb attack on a bus in Safed, Israel, killed 9 persons and wounded 50. Two of the dead were Philippine citizens; many of the wounded were soldiers returning from leave.

Attack on a School in Pakistan, August 5, 2002: Gunmen attacked a Christian school attended by children of missionaries from around the world. Six persons (two security guards, a cook, a carpenter, a receptionist, and a private citizen) were killed and a Philippine citizen was wounded.

Attack on Pilgrims in Kashmir, August 6, 2002: Armed militants attacked a group of Hindu pilgrims with guns and grenades in Pahalgam, Kashmir. Nine persons were killed and 32 were wounded.

Assassination in Kashmir, September 11, 2002: Gunmen killed Kashmir’s Law Minister Mushtaq Ahmed Lone and six security guards in Tikipora. Other militants attacked the residence of the Minister of Tourism with grenades, injuring four persons.

Ambush on the West Bank, September 18, 2002: Gunmen ambushed a vehicle on a road near Yahad, killing an Israeli and wounding a Romanian worker.

Suicide Bomb Attack in Israel, September 19, 2002: A suicide bomb attack on a bus in Tel Aviv killed 6 persons and wounded 52.

Attack on a French Tanker, October 6, 2002: An explosive-laden boat rammed the French oil tanker Limburg, which was anchored about 5 miles off al-Dhabbah, Yemen. One person was killed and 4 were wounded.

Car Bomb Explosion in Bali, October 12, 2002: A car bomb exploded outside the Sari Club Discotheque in Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia, killing 202 persons and wounding 300 more. Most of the casualties, including 88 of the dead, were Australian tourists. Seven Americans were among the dead.

Chechen Rebels Seize a Moscow Theater, October 23-26, 2002: Fifty Chechen rebels led by Movsar Barayev seized the Palace of Culture Theater in Moscow, Russia, to demand an end to the war in Chechnya. They seized more than 800 hostages from 13 countries and threatened to blow up the theater. During a three-day siege, they killed a Russian policeman and five Russian hostages.

Assassination of an AID Official, October 28, 2002:

Suicide Bombing in Jerusalem, November 21, 2002: A suicide bomb attack on a bus on Mexico Street in Jerusalem killed 11 persons and wounded 50 more.

Attack on Temples in Kashmir, November 24, 2002: Armed militants attacked the Reghunath and Shiv temples in Jammu, Kashmir, killing 13 persons and wounding 50.

Attacks on Israeli Tourists in Kenya, November 28, 2002: A three-person suicide car bomb attack on the Paradise Hotel in Mombasa, Kenya, killed 15 persons and wounded 40. Three of the dead and 18 of the wounded were Israeli tourists; the others were Kenyans. Near Mombasa’s airport, two SA-7 shoulder-fired missiles were fired as an Arkia Airlines Boeing 757 that was carrying 261 passengers back to Israel. Both missiles missed.

Attack on a Bus in the Philippines, December 26, 2002: Armed militants ambushed a bus carrying Filipino workers. Thirteen persons were killed and 10 wounded.

Bombing of a Government Building in Chechnya, December 27, 2002: A suicide bomb attack involving two explosives-laden trucks destroyed the offices of the pro-Russian Chechen government in Grozny. The attack killed over 80 people and wounded 210.

Suicide Bombings in Tel Aviv, January 5, 2003: Two suicide bomb attacks killed 22 and wounded at least 100 persons in Tel Aviv, Israel. Six of the victims were foreign workers.

Assasination of a Kurdish Leader, February 8, 2003: Members of Ansar al-Islam assassinated Kurdish legislator Shawkat Haji Mushir in northern Iraq. (Thus you can see that no radical Islamic groups operated in Iraq before we invaded.)

ebd10
October 11, 2005, 05:50 PM
PaulV:
Good post. Where did you find that List?

bountyhunter
October 11, 2005, 06:06 PM
Yeah our imperialist aggression against the peaceful Islamic republic of Iraq in 2003 caused all of this. Actually, what the invasion of Iraq did was remove any hope of us ever winning over the lion's share of the mainstream of Islam which is where the WOT will ultimately be won and lost.

It is idiotic to post lists of what terrorists have done since that is not what I referred to in my post. There always have been and always will be terrorists who are (by definition) extremists. The problem comes in when the mainstream views the actions of an entire nation in a similar way because then they believe we are "state terrorists"... which is simply terrorism with a bigger budget. Al Qada, hamas, the IRA and every other terror group exist only as long as they maintain popular support. Eliminating it is the way to kill them.

I never excused any acts of terrorism against us, what I pointed out is that to ever win the WOT we will need a world where Islamic states believe we respect them and their religion and do not seek to depose them and install our own regimes. Further, we need to help them get strong enough that they are capable of standing up to the Islamofascists in their own countries.

I assume it would be a total waste of time to point out we will never defeat terrorism by adopting it as a defensive tactic.

The absolute lunacy of Bush's policy is to assume Al Qaeda (or any terror group) is identified with a single country and we can "get them" by attacking that country..... even if he had attacked the CORRECT home of Al Qaeda (which is Saudi Arabia) it is still the last resort we should use in fighting terrorism, not the first step. The roaches have no national allegiance and will just move somewhere else.

The point so often missed is that we have POTENTIAL allies in the WOT throughout the Middle east. Bin laden publicly stated he would eventually topple and depose all secular regimes (including monarchies) so Al Qaeda ultimately threatens nearly all ME countries (except for Syria and Iran).

We could cultivate those allies if we had not made it impossible for them to give us any support because of our "crusade". Nearly every ME country has a sizeable Islamic population and their leaders are scared to death of a revolt (which is exactly what Bin laden fomented in SA and got kicked out for).

The bottom line, this invasion has alienated and isolated every potential ally we have in this war from our side and, most ironically of all: destroyed the strongest regime in the region which was dead set against Islamofascism and created an Al qaeda training ground in it's place.

Yeah.... that's a winning strategy.

PaulV
October 11, 2005, 07:17 PM
Good post. Where did you find that List?

Complete list here. I had to trim it down in my post to get it to fit.
Terrorist Incidents (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/5902.htm)

It is idiotic to post lists of what terrorists have done since that is not what I referred to in my post.

Why? It shows an escalation in the boldness and frequency of attacks even though we weren't in Iraq. Obviously our previous response of ignore them and they will go away didn't work.

we will need a world where Islamic states believe we respect them and their religion

Begs the question whether a religion that preaches the slavery, forcible conversion, or murder of non-adherents is worthy of our respect.

I assume it would be a total waste of time to point out we will never defeat terrorism by adopting it as a defensive tactic.

There you go again. Comparing the US military to organizations like the PLO or al Qaeda.

The absolute lunacy of Bush's policy is to assume Al Qaeda (or any terror group) is identified with a single country and we can "get them" by attacking that country.....

Was that the administration's assumption or your assumption of their assumption? Regardless, it's drawing them out of the woodwork for action in Iraq. This has to be detracting from the resources they have to strike other countries.

The bottom line, this invasion has alienated and isolated every potential ally we have in this war from our side and,

Who have we alienated who would have really helped us? Don't make me laugh by listing France.

most ironically of all: destroyed the strongest regime in the region which was dead set against Islamofascism and created an Al qaeda training ground in it's place.

Ansar al Islam and Abu Nidal Group seemed to be doing pretty well in Iraq before the war (both received Iraqi government financial support). They were pretty fond of Hamas too, offering financial rewards for suicide bombers' families. Also I doubt Hussein would have shoveled oil for food contracts to organizations that were al Qaeda fronts unless he thought their actions were beneficial to him. Doesn't sound to me like they were at all abject to having Islamofacists in their midst.

Remember the Iraqi government was the only government that officially applauded the Sept. 11 attacks. I'd be willing to bet Hussein swore by this statement "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

bountyhunter
October 11, 2005, 07:27 PM
Why? It shows an escalation in the boldness and frequency of attacks even though we weren't in Iraq. Obviously our previous response of ignore them and they will go away didn't work. The previous policy which failed was not ingnoring them.... it was meddling in the region with gunboat diplomacy. It was a policy of long standing where we ignored the mass killing of civilains and played kissy face with the murderers we backed.

Remember the Shah of Iran, a murdering dictator we kept in power to have a "stable" source of oil? Sound familiar?

Another murdering dictator we armed and kept in power to have an "enforcer" in the region (Hussein).

What has failed is a policy which has stretched over decades where we interfere in affairs where we don't belong..... arm and defend murderers of a massive scale (including reagan who kept eyes tightly closed when Saddam gassed 5000 Kurds). We allowed countries like saudi Arabia to use us like hired goons whenever they needed muscle and then treat us like beggars when they didn't need our protection.

The policy that has led to the disaster we see today has many fathers. The point is, invading Iraq was an insane and totally ineffective step towards assembling a policy which will work. In reality, it cut us off from the countries we need on our side to win the WOT.

Ansar al Islam and Abu Nidal Group seemed to be doing pretty well in Iraq before the war (both received Iraqi government financial support). They were pretty fond of Hamas too, offering financial rewards for suicide bombers' families. I generally don't waste time responding to urban myths so thoroughly discredited, so I will just ask one question:

If you or anybody else can provide one shred of credible evidence that Iraq provided any material support to a terror organization, explain to me:

Why have Bush and Cheney never offered up such proof on any of the occasions they were humiliated by questions demanding proof of their assertions along those lines?

Why have Bush and Cheney stopped making any such claims entirely?

Bush needs only ONE shred of proof linking Iraq and terror to wave over his head to say "I told you so!" and permanently silence his critics.

You would have us believe such proof exists.....

So, where is it and why has the admin stayed so FAR away from the BS urban myth sightings you refer to?

Amusetec
October 11, 2005, 07:32 PM
I love how people love to throw out the Crusade line this is not a Crusade.
We are not trying to change them into christians quite the opp.
From what I hear most of the attacks are from outside of Iraq with a sunnis thrown in. Sunni was Saddams faction and they are the minority.
Did you hear about LIBIYA they fessed up becuse they knew they wher next, SA did not do anything about there problem until affter IRAQ. We now have IRAN almost surrounded. We have troops on the boarder of SYRIA. Did they not leave LEBANON? yea they did it becuse the people wanted it :rolleyes: No becuse we where on the boarder with a lose cannon in the white house who would drop a bomb on ya fer the fun of it and didn't care what anyone said.
Wasn't Saddam paying homicide bombers family money?
Wasn't He supporting the terroists that where striking isreal?
There is more than enough evidence That he had the means to restart alot of the programs.

Vern Humphrey
October 11, 2005, 07:43 PM
I have been told several times that the "anti-war" people here are not against the military. And then one posts this:
I assume it would be a total waste of time to point out we will never defeat terrorism by adopting it as a defensive tactic.

GoRon
October 11, 2005, 07:48 PM
The policy that has led to the disaster we see today has many fathers. The point is, invading Iraq was an insane and totally ineffective step towards assembling a policy which will work.

I think it was a very good object lesson to our "friends" over there as to what happens when you are not on our side.

Bush has stated that we will push for more "freedom" for the people of the ME. He has also spoke to them in a language they understand, brute force US style. This is the new policy that replaces the old backroom dealing policy. The people of the ME were never part of the equation before, now they are.

PaulV
October 11, 2005, 07:55 PM
I generally don't waste time responding to urban myths so thoroughly discredited, so I will just ask one question:

Saddam's aide to Ansar al Islam (http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0402/p01s03-wome.html)

Iraq news (http://www.iraqinews.com/org_ansar_al-islam.shtml)

Ansar al Islam (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=5571)

Abu Nidal Group (http://cfrterrorism.org/groups/abunidal.html)

He really hates al Qaeda (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/08/25/wnidal25.xml)

Hussein and Nidal allies (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=16863)

javafiend
October 12, 2005, 12:44 AM
Amusetec wrote:
javafiend-They did not violate airspace of a sovereign nation. Just one that we had a cease fire with and in the cease fire we had fly rights.

Goron wrote:
A defeated sovereign nation in material breach of the cease fire agreement.

Neither of you guys know what you are talking about here.

The truth is that a "no-fly zone" over Iraq was proclaimed by the US, UK and France after the 1991 Gulf War, but it was NOT part of any cease-fire agreement, it was NEVER agreed to by the Iraqi government, and it was NOT authorized by any UN resolution.

CHECK THE FACTS.

YOU guys are the ones who need to go back and check the facts.

I challenge you to prove me wrong. If the establishment of a no-fly zone over Iraq was ever part of a cease-fire agreement or UN resolution, then find the specific portion and cite it to me and I will publicly eat my words here on The High Road.

/throw_down_gauntlet

;)

jeff-10
October 12, 2005, 03:38 AM
The truth is that a "no-fly zone" over Iraq was proclaimed by the US, UK and France after the 1991 Gulf War,


They lost a war and were told there was a no-fly zone by the nations to whom they lost the war to. Abide by it or lose another.

and it was NOT authorized by any UN resolution.

The UN is an irrelevant, anti-liberty, corrupt organization. Why would they have any say on US policy and security?

GoRon
October 12, 2005, 08:03 AM
They lost a war and were told there was a no-fly zone by the nations to whom they lost the war to. Abide by it or lose another.

The US, UK and France declared the no fly zones to protect the Kurds in the north and the Shiites in the south.

The UN eventually declared there was no authorization for the no fly zones and France stopped participating. Why would you want to harass such a lucrative business partner?

Javafiend once again in lockstep with the currupt UN.

roo_ster
October 12, 2005, 11:20 AM
The anti-war crowd is anything but. They are just rooting for the other side.

Supporting our troops means supporting their mission. Poll after poll of the troops over there shows that the vast majority* of them agree with their mission. Not supporting their mission is a defensible position, but then saying that, "I support the troops" is hogwash.

In the era when television ruled the information universe, televised protests and video of "dissenters" did, indeed, give heart to the enemy in Viet Nam. If you don't believe me, perhaps you will find General Vo Nguyen Giap more credible:
There will be plenty of postmortems to come on how and why the U.S. lost Indo-China. It might be more interesting to think about how the people won Indo-China -- and how the anti-war movement helped them do it.
(from the book, How We Won the War, by General Vo Nguyen Giap)

Given contemporary menas of communication, does anyone really believe that anti-war protesting & "dissent" has a lesser effect?

* Of course, some can be found who do not support the mission. Promoting them as representative is dishonest.

PaulV
October 12, 2005, 12:05 PM
This guy was really a dedicated enemy of Islamofacism:

Oil for Osama (http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/oil_for_osama.htm)

Oil for Terror (http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110005011)

Saddam and al Qaeda (http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/cRosett/?id=110006953)

He loves Palestinian terror groups too (http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/middleeastreports/s_273762.html)

Many Americans are going to have a lot to be ashamed of several years down the road. In particular how they were so willing to give the benefit of the doubt to a bloody tyrant because of their blind hatred of one man while readily pissing on their fellow countrymen because they believe the country is engaged in a noble cause.

Paco
October 12, 2005, 12:40 PM
jFruser,

My goodness, how is not supporting a war one believes to be a waste of American lives translated into supporting the other side. What kind of leap of logic is that.

So ANY war once impelled by the POTUS must be followed and supported without dissent?

Have you read any history on the revolutionary war or what our forefathers felt about such compelled silence?

Why has this thread become more about 'the right to voice dissent' and 'America-haters'. My God, if ever I've heard anti-American talk, it's to tell an American trying to get our boys home safe that they are CHEERING for the deaths of American soldiers just because they believe those same soldiers shouldn't be deployed where they are.

-Are you gonna say that to a mother or father who has a son/daughter over there? That if they, and there are many, dissent to this war, that they wish their children dead??????

bountyhunter
October 12, 2005, 02:00 PM
My goodness, how is not supporting a war one believes to be a waste of American lives translated into supporting the other side. What kind of leap of logic is that.

The same kind they used back in the 60's on the people who opposed the Viet nam war. Anybody who spoke out against that war was a "commie lover".

The bumper sticker's back then read:

"My country, right or wrong."

Things never really change.

bountyhunter
October 12, 2005, 02:09 PM
Many Americans are going to have a lot to be ashamed of several years down the road. Agreed.

In particular how they were so willing to give the benefit of the doubt to a bloody tyrant because of their blind hatred of one man Actually, most who oppose this war knew Saddam for what he was and knew what a disasterous and shortsighted policy it was when Reagan armed and supported him so he could pound Iran into the turf as revenge for taking our hostages. We should have stayed the hell out of that because Hussein was getting his ass kicked and he would have eventually been overthrown from within. Arabs handling Arab problems is always better than the US forcing a "solution", just check the pages of history.

Nobody had any doubt what Hussein was, because he was a carbon copy of every murdering thug the US government has backed in the last hundred years from Alliende, "Baby Doc" Duvallier, Taco Samoza, Shah of Uran, yadda, yadda, yadda. We knew exactly who he was and what he was for (a surrogate enforcer).

But none of that is relevant to the war we are in because we are at war with Islamofascism and Hussein never supported that in any material way... in fact, Hussein's regime was singled out for overthrow and publicly called an "infidel regime" by Osama Bin laden.

Did you conveniently forget that?

The bottom line is we destroyed the only regime in the region with that particular interest aligned with ours. And Iraq had done a good job of keeping Al Qaeda out of it's region and also suppressing the gathering strength of Islamofascism. That has left us isolated and friendless in that region... except of course for the great support we get from our ally saudi Arabia who funds both Al Qaeda and the Iraq insurgency and whose clerics extoll the young men to go to Iraq to kill Americans.

With allies like them, who needs enemies?

while readily pissing on their fellow countrymen because they believe the country is engaged in a noble cause. The only "pissing" that is going on is loud objection to a failed policy with no exit plan and no end in sight. And exactly what is the noble cause? When we gave the Iraqi's the "right to choose", they immediately rejected the candidates who supported US interets and voted in a pack of Islamic radicals closely aligned with Iran.

Is creating a new satellite state for Iran "noble" in your mind?

because, to me it seems like a worst case scenario. It not only strengthens Iran's hold in the region, it completely refutes the ridiculous assumption that Bush used to justify his war: that they would choose a democracy if given the chance. They chose a THEOCRACY and they did it all by themselves.....Theocracy: A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.

The only thing everybody in Iraq agrees on is that the new laws governing it will be derived from the Quaran.

Colt
October 12, 2005, 02:47 PM
1 - The liberation of Iraq didn't "turn it into an Al Qaeda training ground." The increase in insurgent activity is the clearest of all indicators that a stable, free Iraq is the gravest of all threats to radical islam. The flak is always heaviest when you're over the target. The fundamentalists are coming out of the woodwork because they can see that the US is going to be successful in establishing order. The cowards are no longer able to train for 8 months in the desert, buy a ticket to the US, and put the hurt on our civilian population. These cowards are being shaken from their hidey-holes by A) their leaders who see a free Iraq as the kiss of death for their plans, and B) the US & Iraqi military. The insurgents are coming face-to-face with the most highly motivated, well trained, and formidably equipped military the world has ever known. That beats the hell out of "fighting them" with office buildings full of defensless civilians and wishful "peacenik" ideology.

2 - For those that claim we're establishing a Theocracy in Iraq, you might want to take a look at how the US came into being. Remember, it's freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Our government is the envy of the world because it was built by outstanding citizens with strong religious convictions who weren't afraid to base the rule of law and the governing ideals on those very same beliefs.

PaulV
October 12, 2005, 02:48 PM
But none of that is relevant to the war we are in because we are at war with Islamofascism and Hussein never supported that in any material way... And Iraq had done a good job of keeping Al Qaeda out of it's region and also suppressing the gathering strength of Islamofascism.

Blatantly untrue. I know it's useless to point out that I posted links to a few articles with specific claims about his support. You'll dismiss them as propoganda.

So many are blinded by hatred for Bush that short of videotape of Hussein smooching bin Laden you won't believe any source that links Hussein to Islamic terrorism.

PaulV
October 12, 2005, 02:51 PM
Al Qaida knows they can count on help from the anti-war crowd (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/12/D8D6GP801.html)

Vern Humphrey
October 12, 2005, 03:02 PM
Al Qaida knows they can count on help from the anti-war crowd

Exactly right -- just as Ho Chi Minh knew he could count on help from the anti-war crowd.

Everyone has the right to an opinion, but those who recklessly attack the United States in this effort are contributing to the deaths of American soldiers, just as they did during the Viet Nam War.

Do not do to this generation of American soldiers what the Jane Fondas did to my generation.

Colt
October 12, 2005, 03:33 PM
But none of that is relevant to the war we are in because we are at war with Islamofascism and Hussein never supported that in any material way

In support of PaulV's well-founded contention that the above statement is patently false:

Those who try to whitewash Saddam's record don't dispute this evidence; they just ignore it. So let's review the evidence, all of it on the public record for months or years:
* Abdul Rahman Yasin was the only member of the al Qaeda cell that detonated the 1993 World Trade Center bomb to remain at large in the Clinton years. He fled to Iraq. U.S. forces recently discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit, Saddam's hometown, that show that Iraq gave Mr. Yasin both a house and monthly salary.
* Bin Laden met at least eight times with officers of Iraq's Special Security Organization, a secret police agency run by Saddam's son Qusay, and met with officials from Saddam's mukhabarat, its external intelligence service, according to intelligence made public by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was speaking before the United Nations Security Council on February 6, 2003.
* Sudanese intelligence officials told me that their agents had observed meetings between Iraqi intelligence agents and bin Laden starting in 1994, when bin Laden lived in Khartoum.
* Bin Laden met the director of the Iraqi mukhabarat in 1996 in Khartoum, according to Mr. Powell.
* An al Qaeda operative now held by the U.S. confessed that in the mid-1990s, bin Laden had forged an agreement with Saddam's men to cease all terrorist activities against the Iraqi dictator, Mr. Powell told the United Nations.
* In 1999 the Guardian, a British newspaper, reported that Farouk Hijazi, a senior officer in Iraq's mukhabarat, had journeyed deep into the icy mountains near Kandahar, Afghanistan, in December 1998 to meet with al Qaeda men. Mr. Hijazi is "thought to have offered bin Laden asylum in Iraq," the Guardian reported.
* In October 2000, another Iraqi intelligence operative, Salah Suleiman, was arrested near the Afghan border by Pakistani authorities, according to Jane's Foreign Report, a respected international newsletter. Jane's reported that Suleiman was shuttling between Iraqi intelligence and Ayman al Zawahiri, now al Qaeda's No. 2 man.
(Why are all of those meetings significant? The London Observer reports that FBI investigators cite a captured al Qaeda field manual in Afghanistan, which "emphasizes the value of conducting discussions about pending terrorist attacks face to face, rather than by electronic means.")
* As recently as 2001, Iraq's embassy in Pakistan was used as a "liaison" between the Iraqi dictator and al Qaeda, Mr. Powell told the United Nations.
* Spanish investigators have uncovered documents seized from Yusuf Galan -- who is charged by a Spanish court with being "directly involved with the preparation and planning" of the Sept. 11 attacks -- that show the terrorist was invited to a party at the Iraqi embassy in Madrid. The invitation used his "al Qaeda nom de guerre," London's Independent reports.
* An Iraqi defector to Turkey, known by his cover name as "Abu Mohammed," told Gwynne Roberts of the Sunday Times of London that he saw bin Laden's fighters in camps in Iraq in 1997. At the time, Mohammed was a colonel in Saddam's Fedayeen. He described an encounter at Salman Pak, the training facility southeast of Baghdad. At that vast compound run by Iraqi intelligence, Muslim militants trained to hijack planes with knives -- on a full-size Boeing 707. Col. Mohammed recalls his first visit to Salman Pak this way: "We were met by Colonel Jamil Kamil, the camp manager, and Major Ali Hawas. I noticed that a lot of people were queuing for food. (The major) said to me: 'You'll have nothing to do with these people. They are Osama bin Laden's group and the PKK and Mojahedin-e Khalq.'"
* In 1998, Abbas al-Janabi, a longtime aide to Saddam's son Uday, defected to the West. At the time, he repeatedly told reporters that there was a direct connection between Iraq and al Qaeda.
*The Sunday Times found a Saddam loyalist in a Kurdish prison who claims to have been Dr. Zawahiri's bodyguard during his 1992 visit with Saddam in Baghdad. Dr. Zawahiri was a close associate of bin Laden at the time and was present at the founding of al Qaeda in 1989.
* Following the defeat of the Taliban, almost two dozen bin Laden associates "converged on Baghdad and established a base of operations there," Mr. Powell told the United Nations in February 2003. From their Baghdad base, the secretary said, they supervised the movement of men, materiel and money for al Qaeda's global network.
* In 2001, an al Qaeda member "bragged that the situation in Iraq was 'good,'" according to intelligence made public by Mr. Powell.
* That same year, Saudi Arabian border guards arrested two al Qaeda members entering the kingdom from Iraq.
* Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi oversaw an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan, Mr. Powell told the United Nations. His specialty was poisons. Wounded in fighting with U.S. forces, he sought medical treatment in Baghdad in May 2002. When Zarqawi recovered, he restarted a training camp in northern Iraq. Zarqawi's Iraq cell was later tied to the October 2002 murder of Lawrence Foley, an official of the U.S. Agency for International Development, in Amman, Jordan. The captured assassin confessed that he received orders and funds from Zarqawi's cell in Iraq, Mr. Powell said. His accomplice escaped to Iraq.
*Zarqawi met with military chief of al Qaeda, Mohammed Ibrahim Makwai (aka Saif al-Adel) in Iran in February 2003, according to intelligence sources cited by the Washington Post.
* Mohammad Atef, the head of al Qaeda's military wing until the U.S. killed him in Afghanistan in November 2001, told a senior al Qaeda member now in U.S. custody that the terror network needed labs outside of Afghanistan to manufacture chemical weapons, Mr. Powell said. "Where did they go, where did they look?" said the secretary. "They went to Iraq."
* Abu Abdullah al-Iraqi was sent to Iraq by bin Laden to purchase poison gases several times between 1997 and 2000. He called his relationship with Saddam's regime "successful," Mr. Powell told the United Nations.
* Mohamed Mansour Shahab, a smuggler hired by Iraq to transport weapons to bin Laden in Afghanistan, was arrested by anti-Hussein Kurdish forces in May, 2000. He later told his story to American intelligence and a reporter for the New Yorker magazine.
* Documents found among the debris of the Iraqi Intelligence Center show that Baghdad funded the Allied Democratic Forces, a Ugandan terror group led by an Islamist cleric linked to bin Laden. According to a London's Daily Telegraph, the organization offered to recruit "youth to train for the jihad" at a "headquarters for international holy warrior network" to be established in Baghdad.
* Mullah Melan Krekar, ran a terror group (the Ansar al-Islam) linked to both bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Mr. Krekar admitted to a Kurdish newspaper that he met bin Laden in Afghanistan and other senior al Qaeda officials. His acknowledged meetings with bin Laden go back to 1988. When he organized Ansar al Islam in 2001 to conduct suicide attacks on Americans, "three bin Laden operatives showed up with a gift of $300,000 'to undertake jihad,'" Newsday reported. Mr. Krekar is now in custody in the Netherlands. His group operated in portion of northern Iraq loyal to Saddam Hussein -- and attacked independent Kurdish groups hostile to Saddam. A spokesman for the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan told a United Press International correspondent that Mr. Krekar's group was funded by "Saddam Hussein's regime in Baghdad."
* After October 2001, hundreds of al Qaeda fighters are believed to have holed up in the Ansar al-Islam's strongholds inside northern Iraq.

Edited for article credit: This was pulled from the Weekly Standard website about 2 years ago.

RealGun
October 12, 2005, 03:52 PM
So ANY war once impelled by the POTUS must be followed and supported without dissent? - Paco

Yes, pretty much, especially with bipartisan cooperation from Congress. Otherwise you get in the way and work against the military effort.

MTMilitiaman
October 12, 2005, 07:00 PM
Okay. So let me get this right...

Being skeptical of the war that might kill my brother because I love my brother means that I want to see my brother die with his fellow soldiers? And this is the logic some of you suscribe too?

That is so outrageous and appallingly stupid. Seriously. Some of you guys like to sound really hot on your soap boxes but anyone with a brain and the ability to use it can see you're full of s---.

Vern Humphrey
October 12, 2005, 07:08 PM
Being skeptical of the war that might kill my brother because I love my brother means that I want to see my brother die with his fellow soldiers? And this is the logic some of you suscribe too?


The logic I subscribe to is the logic of the battlefield. The logic of looking into a man's face before you zip him up into the bodybag, so you can check the box marked "positive identification." The logic of being wounded and still having to fight on.

I was there -- and I know how this encourages the enemy and kills American soldiers.

That is so outrageous and appallingly stupid.

What is outrageous and appallingly stupid is the willingness to irresponsibly encourage the enemy while our troops are in battle.

Carl N. Brown
October 12, 2005, 07:21 PM
If there had been no No-Fly zones, Saddam Hussein
would have exterminated the Kurds in the north and
the Shias in the south.

We are where we are today because we cut and ran in
Vietnam, cut and ran in Lebanon, cut and ran in Somalia,
and Ossam Bin Ladin has written that he is counting on
that happening in Iraq and Afghanistan.

When the Daily Show makes fun of the war protest.....

Ezekiel
October 12, 2005, 07:22 PM
I was there -- and I know how this encourages the enemy and kills American soldiers.

Respectfully, are you sure it wasn't that whole "lack of cohesive stategy or exit plan" thing? I'm fairly certain -- as now -- that bumbling executive lunacy was in the recipe for mayhem.

Merely a thought. :banghead:

Mongo the Mutterer
October 12, 2005, 07:33 PM
What is outrageous and appallingly stupid is the willingness to irresponsibly encourage the enemy while our troops are in battle.Yep Vern, I remember something about a "winter soldier" a few years back.

Perhaps a few folks might want to review the US Constitution -- ARTICLE III. Section. 3. Clause 1

Vern Humphrey
October 12, 2005, 07:45 PM
Respectfully, are you sure it wasn't that whole "lack of cohesive stategy or exit plan" thing? I'm fairly certain -- as now -- that bumbling executive lunacy was in the recipe for mayhem.


I was there.

After the war I worked with people who were POWs.

I know what went on from my own experience and personal conversations with others who had experience. I didn't rely on TV and self-serving accounts written afterwards to justify what some of these people did.

Vern Humphrey
October 12, 2005, 07:48 PM
Yep Vern, I remember something about a "winter soldier" a few years back.

That's a good example of what happened -- people who were not soldiers and pretending they were.

Perhaps a few folks might want to review the US Constitution -- ARTICLE III. Section. 3. Clause 1


My old boss, Colonel Thompson, who was a POW for 9 years called Jane Fonda a traitor on national television -- and I agree with him.

KriegHund
October 12, 2005, 07:51 PM
I love it how people diss the armed forces nowadays. Its pathetic.

Yeah, lets see what happens when we have no military. Its despicable!

These people made a conscious choice to join, to protect you

The way they disrespect the armed forces is...disguisting.

*edit*

and you know what, i dont give a flying....frigate if recruiters lie. I dont think many other people do either, because these men and woman fight and die and victor.

bountyhunter
October 12, 2005, 07:53 PM
I generally don't waste time responding to urban myths so thoroughly discredited, so I will just ask one question: Still waiting for the unanswered question:

If there is a shred of credible evidence showing Iraq provided ANY material support for terrorists (which was Bush's claim to justify the war), then exactly why has the Bush admin gone dead silent on that subject after being publicly humiliated for not being able to back up those claims?

Please answer the question.

You throw up (literally) a bunch of crap the admin wouldn't touch with a fishing pole as if it were the smoking gun, yet run from an obvious fact:

If the admin could back up EVEN ONE claim of showing Iraq was supporting terrorism, when will the press conference be where Bush waves the proof and yells: "I told you so?"

NO?

That's what I thought you said.


And for the record, I am so sick of rehashing anecdotal BS garbage our own intel services have debunked about "sightings" and "meetings" yadda, yadda, yadda, I would just say the smart move is to join Bush and Cheney and stop going back to it. It's as dead as roadkill and smells similar.



http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2002/isept/26_bush.html

The administration had begun deemphasizing claims of links between Hussein and global terrorism. Senior intelligence officials told The Washington Post this month that the CIA had not found convincing proof, despite efforts that included surveillance photos and communications intercepts.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-06-26-iraq-alqaeda_x.htm

U.N. committee: No Iraq-al-Qaeda link
UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The U.N. terrorism committee has found no evidence to support Bush administration claims of a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda, and the United States has provided the committee with no proof, officials said Thursday.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/no-saddam-qaeda.htm

Bush Flatly Declares No Connection Between
Saddam and al Qaeda

The occasion was a press conference with UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, which took place in the White House on 31 January 2003. Here's the key portion:


[Adam Boulton, Sky News (London):] One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?

THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.

THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question.



Under any circumstances, these answers are remarkable for their brevity and directness. No politician answers clearly and in just one sentence. Yet on this crucial matter, Bush and Blair did just that. (True, Blair then launched into his standard speech about how we need to attack Iraq anyway, but his direct answer is brief and to the point.)

What they unambiguously admitted is that there is no connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden/al Qaeda. You may recall that bin Laden and al Qaeda are officially blamed for hatching, plotting, and carrying out the 9/11 attacks. That's who the British reporter was referring to. Now the President and Prime Minister have said there is no link between them and the government of Iraq. Could it be any simpler?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed

By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 17, 2004; Page A01


The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.


http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/11/Iraq.Qaeda.link/

Bin Laden recently declared solidarity with the Iraqi people, but he lashed out at Saddam's government. In the latest audiotaped message purported to be recorded by the al Qaeda leader, bin Laden denounced Saddam's socialist Baath party as "infidels."





http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0303-01.htm

Doubts Cast on Efforts to Link Saddam, al-Qaida
by Warren P. Strobel, Jonathan S. Landay and John Walcott


WASHINGTON - The Bush administration's claim that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had ties to al-Qaida - one of the administration's central arguments for a pre-emptive war - appears to have been based on even less solid intelligence than the administration's claims that Iraq had hidden stocks of chemical and biological weapons.

Nearly a year after U.S. and British troops invaded Iraq, no evidence has turned up to verify allegations of Saddam's links with al-Qaida, and several key parts of the administration's case have either proved false or seem increasingly doubtful.



http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/16/cheney_link_of_iraq_911_challenged/

Cheney link of Iraq, 9/11 challenged
By Anne E. Kornblut and Bryan Bender , Globe Staff and Globe Correspondent, 9/16/2003

WASHINGTON -- Vice President Dick Cheney, anxious to defend the White House foreign policy amid ongoing violence in Iraq, stunned intelligence analysts and even members of his own administration this week by failing to dismiss a widely discredited claim: that Saddam Hussein might have played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks.

Evidence of a connection, if any exists, has never been made public. Details that Cheney cited to make the case that the Iraqi dictator had ties to Al Qaeda have been dismissed by the CIA as having no basis, according to analysts and officials.



Even Rummy blurted out the truth once:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1005/dailyUpdate.html?s=ent

US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was forced to go into damage control mode Monday hours after a statement he made began to spread through the media.
Mr. Rumsfeld "attempted to distance himself from his earlier comments that there were no links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda," reports The Guardian.

In a statement issued several hours after he had told the Council on Foreign Relations in New York that "to my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two",



http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=92288

There was no connection between al Qaeda and Iraq. The bipartisan 9/11 Commission reported yesterday that, "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on the attacks against the United States." David Kay, the Bush administration's weapons inspector in Iraq earlier concluded, "[W]e simply did not find any evidence of extensive links with al Qaeda, or for that matter any real links at all," and called a speech where Cheney made the claim, "evidence free." The supposed meeting between Osama bin Laden associate Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer in Praque – one of the administration's key bits of evidence – never occurred. The FBI now believes Atta was in the United States at the time.




http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2003/6/27/1s.html

Threat Assessment: U.N. Panel Finds No Iraq-Al-Qaeda Link, But Warns of Al-Qaeda WMD Ambitions
By Jim Wurst
Global Security Newswire

UNITED NATIONS — The chairman of the Security Council group monitoring sanctions against al-Qaeda and the Taliban said yesterday that while al-Qaeda is still able to function in many countries, the group has seen no evidence of a link between the terrorist organization and the former government Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein (see GSN, May 23, 2002).




No proof of Iraq, al-Qaeda links: analysts
By Julian Borger, Michael Howard and Richard Norton-Taylor
January 31 2003



http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/30/1043804465839.html

President George Bush used his State of the Union address to paint a terrifying picture for the American people of another attack like September 11 - but this time with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

The British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, reinforced the message, telling the House of Commons: "We do know of links between al-Qaeda and Iraq. We cannot be sure of the exact extent of those links."

However, a number of well-placed sources in the British public service insisted there is no intelligence suggesting such a link. "While we have said there may possibly be individuals in the country [Iraq] we have never said anything to suggest specific links between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein," said one.



http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2004/06/16/bush_backs_cheney_on_assertion_linking_hussein_al_qaeda?pg=full

However, a former top weapons inspector said yesterday he and other investigators have not found evidence of a Hussein-Al Qaeda link.

''At various times Al Qaeda people came through Baghdad and in some cases resided there," said David Kay, former head of the CIA's Iraq Survey Group, which searched for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and links to terrorism. ''But we simply did not find any evidence of extensive links with Al Qaeda, or for that matter any real links at all."


http://www.twf.org/News/Y2004/0616-911report.html

Panel Says No Signs of Iraq, Qaeda Link
Deborah Charles
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Investigators have found no evidence Iraq aided al Qaeda attempts to attack the United States, a commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 hijackings said on Wednesday, undermining Bush administration arguments for war. . . .

President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney this week reiterated pre-war arguments that an Iraqi connection to al Qaeda, which is blamed for the Sept. 11 attacks, represented an unacceptable threat to the United States.

However, the commission said in a staff report, "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

"There is no convincing evidence that any government financially supported al Qaeda before 9/11 -- other than limited support provided by the Taliban after bin Laden first arrived in Afghanistan," it added. . . .

The report stood in contrast to comments this week by Vice President Dick Cheney, who said that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam had "long-established ties" to al Qaeda.


http://www.coalitionforworldpeace.org/news/040617wpost.html

But the report of the commission's staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation. In yesterday's hearing of the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, a senior FBI official and a senior CIA analyst concurred with the finding.

The staff report said that bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq" while in Sudan through 1996, but that "Iraq apparently never responded" to a bin Laden request for help in 1994. The commission cited reports of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda after bin Laden went to Afghanistan in 1996, adding, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."



http://www.dawn.com/2004/10/06/top12.htm
Rummy said it:


WASHINGTON, Oct 5: US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said on Monday he knew of no "strong, hard evidence" linking Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Al Qaeda, despite describing extensive contacts between the two before the Iraq invasion.

Mr Rumsfeld, during a question-and-answer session before the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, was asked to explain the connection between Saddam and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network, blamed for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on America.

"I have seen the answer to that question migrate in the intelligence community over a period of a year in the most amazing way. Second, there are differences in the intelligence community as to what the relationship was," Rumsfeld said.

"To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two," Rumsfeld added. "I just read an intelligence report recently about one person who's connected to al Qaeda who was in and out of Iraq. And it is the most tortured description of why he might have had a relationship and why he might not have had a relationship. It may have been something that was not representative of a hard linkage."


http://www.fpleadership.org/exec/content/108-181-184-index.htm

The President’s claim remains unsubstantiated. As a bipartisan and independent inquiry concluded there was no collaborative relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.


The 9/11 Commission stated: “[T]o date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.”
“The 9/11 Commission Report," p. 61.


The 9/11 Commission reported that as early as September 18, 2001 National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice received a memo on Iraqi involvement in 9/11. “The memo found no 'compelling case' that Iraq had either planned or perpetrated the attacks… Finally, the memo said, there was 'no confirmed reporting on Saddam cooperating with Bin Laden on unconventional weapons'.”
“The 9/11 Commission Report,” p. 335.


The 9/11 Commission did find some evidence of contact between Iraq and al Qaeda during the 1990’s but concluded that nothing resulted from their meetings.
“The 9/11 Commission Report," p. 61.

Ezekiel
October 12, 2005, 08:11 PM
I know what went on from my own experience and personal conversations with others who had experience.

I won't even TRY to dispute that, it would be a discredit to you and those who served: but is it not possible that -- at the time -- none of you were terribly objective?

“Has further analysis failed to make you question, ‘what the Hell happened’, other then to blame a reluctant citizenry for the failings of our leadership?”

“Has your initial conclusion changed not at all?”

Personally, my conclusions are readily modified with additional information… :scrutiny:

Vern Humphrey
October 12, 2005, 08:15 PM
I won't even TRY to dispute that, it would be a discredit to you and those who served: but is it not possible that -- at the time -- none of you were terribly objective?


Is it possible that none of you are being terribly objective?

Have you gone to Iraq? Have you talked with troops and officers there?

What is your source of information?

What training and experience do you have that you can bring to bear on the raw information you have gathered yourself to make a rational, objective judgement?

Ezekiel
October 12, 2005, 08:17 PM
Is it possible that none of you are being terribly objective?

Have you gone to Iraq? Have you talked with troops and officers there?

What is your source of information?

What training and experience do you have that you can bring to bear on the raw information you have gathered yourself to make a rational, objective judgement?

That's fair, I'm just trying to have some intelligent discourse in order to GET some information so that I CAN make some improved conclusions.

"I presume you have more to add?"

GoRon
October 12, 2005, 08:31 PM
If there is a shred of credible evidence showing Iraq provided ANY material support for terrorists (which was Bush's claim to justify the war)

The reason for going to war is clearly spelled out in the Iraq War Resolution (http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686)

The left wing is involved in revisionist history. Many reasons to depose Saddam, the ones that didn't pan out are the ones the left wing focuses on.

Vern Humphrey
October 12, 2005, 09:00 PM
That's fair, I'm just trying to have some intelligent discourse in order to GET some information so that I CAN make some improved conclusions.

"I presume you have more to add?"

Why don't we start with a recent development? A recent letter from Al Waziri just surfaced in which he tells Al Qaida elements that, although they are having difficulties, they shouldn't dispair -- because the Americans will cut and run like they did in Viet Nam.

In other words, the anti-war movement of that era is still being used against us.

I listed earlier things done by the anti-war movement -- including collecting intelligence to aid the enemy in identifying key personnel (specifically B52 Electronic Warfare Officers) and breaking down our POWs. I cited Colonel Thompson's experience.

Look back through news accounts of the era -- note how any effective action against the enemy was denounced as "widening the war" or "seeking military victory" and note how this increasingly hampered our forces on the battlefield while encouraging the enemy.

igor
October 12, 2005, 09:45 PM
One word: DRAFT.

It'll do wonders to a government's ability to wage war to support a fleeting political agenda.

Plus the added benefit of all those young men from all echelons of the society growing to men together and learning to respect and defend their homeland.

IMO, any society led by a government that relies on mercenaries or "volunteers" for its safety (note the attribution here) is, well, not well.

Ezekiel
October 12, 2005, 10:22 PM
Look back through news accounts of the era -- note how any effective action against the enemy was denounced as "widening the war" or "seeking military victory" and note how this increasingly hampered our forces on the battlefield while encouraging the enemy.

I think that would be because effective military action WAS "widening the war" and "seeking military victory". To be honest, I'm not certain I have any difficulties with such pronouncements, then or now. (Now that we've willingly stepped into the rabbit hole, aren't we trying for a military victory?)

In terms of hampering our forces, I don't personally believe -- although I admit a possible demoralizing effect -- this was/is anywhere near as problematic as dispatching troops to a foreign land with an agenda originally set by Charlemagne. The moment we have to re-initiate conscription to make this work, things will go crazy... :(

A recent letter from Al Waziri just surfaced in which he tells Al Qaida elements that, although they are having difficulties, they shouldn't dispair -- because the Americans will cut and run like they did in Viet Nam.

Clearly this is disturbing, and likely: most folks stop investing in "junk bonds" once it is obvious there will be no significant return. The only reason such hasn't, deservedly, happened now is the desperate and singular focus of a lame-duck Commander-in-Chief. Recent polls indicate he's running out of time (<40% approval!) to convince anyone this was a "sound idea".

To go back to the thread, I'd suggest today's 18-year-old look at IHOP before IRAQ.

"I appreciate your input."

Vern Humphrey
October 12, 2005, 10:47 PM
I think that would be because effective military action WAS "widening the war" and "seeking military victory".

And of course we should never try to do that!!

No sir! When we use the military we shouldn't try for anything as crass as a victory.

Now wake up and face reality. When the lead is flying, you have only two choices -- victory or defeat.

And you don't get victory by allowing the enemy free sanctuaries -- but if you attack those sanctuaries, suddenly you're "widening the war!!"

And that cost us 58,000 lives in a war we should have won in the first two years!

Ezekiel
October 12, 2005, 11:06 PM
And of course we should never try to do that!!

I merely wish to attach my quote:

"To be honest, I'm not certain I have any difficulties with such pronouncements, then or now. (Now that we've willingly stepped into the rabbit hole, aren't we trying for a military victory?)"

I presumed that by reporting "no difficulties" with said pronouncements, such would directly imply personal support of a military victory, when using the military. "Perhaps not."

And that cost us 58,000 lives in a war we should have won in the first two years!

Merely because I'm curious, how do you define "win"? I think we'd be 58,000 lives richer if we hadn't gotten into a land war in Asia... :uhoh:

Vern Humphrey
October 12, 2005, 11:18 PM
Merely because I'm curious, how do you define "win"? I think we'd be 58,000 lives richer if we hadn't gotten into a land war in Asia...

The normal defination of "win" is the destruction of the enemy's capability to wage war.

And if we hadn't fought WWII, we'd be a couple of hundred thousand lives richer, right?

We could have won in Viet Nam with a tenth of the casualties. And by doing that, brought the end of the Cold War much closer. In the process we'd have saved about three million lives -- people who perished after the collapse of South Viet Nam.

Ezekiel
October 12, 2005, 11:29 PM
And if we hadn't fought WWII, we'd be a couple of hundred thousand lives richer, right?

Do you think the price -- in lives -- was worth paying in WWII? What about 'Nam? Iraq?

That's the entire gist of this thread when applied to 18-year-olds. There's nothing happening in Iraq worth a single American dying for, unless we're just honest about our ongoing Imperialism. Was Vietnam worth even the ~6,000 lives you suggest? "I think not". WWII is different, almost romantic in a way, because an actual Nation-state with an ability to wage full-scale mechanized war (potentially on our shore) was our enemy. Such is not the case now...

IHOP = "yes", IRAQ = "no", if they are my only choices...

Vern Humphrey
October 12, 2005, 11:34 PM
Do you think the price -- in lives -- was worth paying in WWII? What about 'Nam? Iraq?

Do you think a world ruled by Hitler would be a place you'd like to live?

Have you ever been to Korea? I was Deputy Operations Officer of the 2nd Infantry Division in Korea -- and what I saw and learned about the North Koreans makes me eternally thankful we stopped them.

And a victory in Viet Nam would have been worth the casualties.

That's the entire gist of this thread when applied to 18-year-olds. There's nothing happening in Iraq worth a single American dying for, unless we're just honest about our ongoing Imperialism.

You think America is an Imperialst nation?

If you hate us that much, why would you bother to live here?

Ezekiel
October 12, 2005, 11:49 PM
Do you think a world ruled by Hitler would be a place you'd like to live?

Was Saddam a similar threat as Hitler? "Not even CLOSE." Treating them as even potentially similar threats was ridiculous policy. :banghead:

You think America is an Imperialst nation?

If you hate us that much, why would you bother to live here?

Oh yeah, we're Imperialist based upon the ideals of Charlemagne and the remnants of the holy Roman Empire: but that's okay. (We should just be honest about it.)

As for hating us, that's quite a leap. I merely have difficulties with brainwashed uber-patriots who believe that everything -- by mere virture of us being the good ole' U. S. of A. -- we do is morally correct or superior. (Such includes our CIC.)

That doesn't make me un-American, but it DOES lead me to believe that anyone who feels as such has links to McCarthy.

roo_ster
October 12, 2005, 11:52 PM
WWII is different, almost romantic in a way
...because it is a war Steven Spielberg made a sympathetic movie about.

...because we, right now, do not have to make any weighty decisions about it...decisions that will get men killed whichever decision is made.

...because the Nazis also attacked the Soviet Union, then the focus of all hopes for lefties at the time.

...because we are ignorant of most of the tough calls made back then.

...because we choose not to recall what sort of mindset and ruthless action was necessary to defeat the Nazi German and the Imperial Japanese war machines and the vast populations that supported them.

roo_ster
October 13, 2005, 12:08 AM
Oh yeah, we're Imperialist based upon the ideals of Charlemagne and the remnants of the holy Roman Empire: but that's okay. (We should just be honest about it.)

Lemme see if I can recall from my university course on the Carolingians and my delving into primary sources (Notker the Stammerer comes to mind) something about Charlemagne?

If I look at it cross-eyed, I'm I sure can find analogies for Chuck's:
1. Raids against the slavs in the east to capture non-Christian slaves.
2. Wars on the Saxons which included murdering thousands of captured enemy soldiers.
3. Capturing the pagan Saxon's most sacred holy place and utterly destroying it.
4. Murdering domestic political opposition. (Actual murder, not just an electoral pasting.)

I could go on, but by now it is clear that the USA is so similar to the Carolingian dynasty that further examples are not needed by right-thinking anti-americans.

MTMilitiaman
October 13, 2005, 12:10 AM
Vern, ol buddy. I offered you $50 if you could show one place where I encouraged spitting on soldiers or subverting our war efforts with notes or other such nonsense. Since you declined this challenge everything you say sounds like a broken record. I am not parading in the streets with a sign, calling the administration criminal, sending intelligence to al Quida, nor am I suggesting we withdraw before we get what we came for. I am merely suggesting our leaders be responisble with the lives of those sworn to protect our country and that the American populace remain skeptical of government in general. Our forefathers would expect nothing less. My brother and those fighting along side him have my full support regardless of why they are there. I wish them a job well done and a safe return home to what I believe to be a very grateful country. What you need to do is quit grouping everyone who doesn't agree with you in the same bucket. If you continue to try and group me with the likes of Jane Fonda, you're going to have to give evidence to support it. Such accusations require proof which you have as of yet failed to offer. Until you do this, you lack substance and your posts aren't even worth the time it takes to read them. I won't tell you to STFU or leave the country, but I will ask you to put something in your posts worth reading because right now they are monotonous and repetitive--all ringing of the same hollow arguments and hot air.

Vern Humphrey
October 13, 2005, 01:22 AM
Vern, ol buddy. I offered you $50 if you could show one place where I encouraged spitting on soldiers or subverting our war efforts with notes or other such nonsense. Since you declined this challenge everything you say sounds like a broken record.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and associates with ducks, it is a duck.

You owe me $50.

javafiend
October 13, 2005, 01:24 AM
* Bin Laden met at least eight times with officers of Iraq's Special Security Organization, a secret police agency run by Saddam's son Qusay, and met with officials from Saddam's mukhabarat, its external intelligence service, according to intelligence made public by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was speaking before the United Nations Security Council on February 6, 2003.

Colin Powell? LOL! He is such a damned confirmed liar! (http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/000639.html)

And you are still citing Powell's BS speech to the UN as "proof"?
:barf:

javafiend
October 13, 2005, 01:32 AM
If you hate us that much, why would you bother to live here?

As Anthony Gregory (http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory59.html) observed, "Even today, America is certainly among the best places to live inside, despite its many troubles. For one thing, we still have many freedoms, at least tacitly, that most other countries do not. For another, living in America, we have much less a chance of being bombed by the U.S. government than do foreigners."
:neener:

ebd10
October 13, 2005, 02:41 AM
You think America is an Imperialst nation?

If you hate us that much, why would you bother to live here?

Because the alternative is to leave the country I love in the hands of a bunch of kool-aid drinking, Bushies.

pax
October 13, 2005, 03:25 AM
Closed, for sadly obvious reasons.

Click here (http://www.thehighroad.org/code-of-conduct.html).

pax

If you enjoyed reading about "Be all you can be." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!