An Iraq War vet speaks at a D.C High school.....Mind blowing response

[leadcounsel]

.41Dave said:

Iraq was no threat. And if you want to argue that it was, then explain why we are not in North Korea, where they have an insane dictator and ACTUAL nuclear weapons, not pie-in-the-sky nukes that might happen in a few years or decades?

I'll give you several reasons:

1: China - as a nuclear power with the largest standing Army in the world boardering and supporting the N. Koreans, with a signficantly larger population than America. We have tense relationship with China, particularly in light of the race for the last of the resources like oil.

2: It's better to proactively rid a nation of it's nuclear interests than to wait until they have nukes to take action. Military action against an unstable government possessing nukes is fruitless. Imagine that we never invaded Iraq but allowed Saddam to build nukes and have a nuclear stranglehold on the region, anything within 1,000 miles. It would be impossible to A: negotiation with him - so that removes any diplomatic option; and B: impossible to put troops on the ground in the region because large groups of troops and equipment can be vaporized with a nuke. Say he were to get nukes and we parked 50,000 troops in the region. Suddendly he fires a nuke at them and they are vaporized. Not a good situation. But it's the situation we are going to be facing in other nations that are acquiring nukes or have them.

3: We can only commit to a limited number of military actions. The world is watching the outcome. If it's a successful removal of a dictator with nuclear interests, this sends a clear message to other rogue nations and terrorists to stand down or suffer US and UN military action and removel. For example, Libya and the IRA have stood down since 9/11 and our committment to destroying terrorism. However, many nations see that Americans don't have the heart for war and once the war gets alittle difficult, they want to cut and run and leave the war unfinished. N. Korea and Iran are watching that unfold right now and the necessity to go to war in the future is determined on the success and our resolve to finish this one. IF we do it right, we can avoid future war. If we drop the ball and cut and run in Iraq, other nations think our military policies and resolve for war is a joke and that removes our military threat from the negotiating table which removes any and all leverage we might have to avoid war.

 

[PinnedAndRecessed]

one junior asked if I thought I would regret, when I get older, that I killed so many innocent Iraqi militants as we invaded their sovereign nation. And how I felt about America's thirst for land and imperialism

Smart mouthed punk. And you know what really frosts me? In a few years he'll be old enough to vote.

We need to scrap the public school system. It's become nothing but a propaganda tool for the commies and perverts.

 

[iocane]

Lets see fight then there versus fight them here.
Fight them here literally means the war is fought in the streets of New York, Houston, Los Angelas. Over there means in Iraq.
Stating that we will fight them here is really just assuming they won't come here. I don't see anyone saying they want to fight them in there own living room. That is how we are living the day before 9/11. It didn't work. Even if this country was to turn into a total police state there is still ways for terrorist to get in. So its better no police state and the enemy is fought over seas. No we do not live in a police state now. Police state is having to show your papers to do your grocery shopping. In a police state people say they love the goverment because to say otherwise is to dissappear. In a police state your neighbors, priest, mailman, teacher, etc or spying on your for the goverment. And if they don't they dissappear. That is the kind of security that stops terrorist here and I don't see anyone saying they want it. Neither do I.
I know its keeps getting repeated we need no defense theres no threat. That doesn't work either, remeber 9/11. Yes we could try just being sitting ducks like before 9/11. Theres the little problem of who gets killed next time. I don't mind if you want to see if you get killed. I don't like my safety being put at risk because others think "lets see what happens."

Also if the president did end the war in Iraq and did everything else his distractors said, I figure then if a nuke got set off in New York they would claim Bush did it. If the president got killed theres probably plenty that would claim somehow he did it to himself.
If a terrorist blew up my home town theres probably people who would claim that we deserved to get bombed. Well all those people who think like that are not good for our safety.

 

[Ezekiel]

Questions are not bad.

why give SOLDIERS a hard time for doing their job that POLITICIANS tell them to do?

Because they don't have to do it. :banghead:

1. I think the kid was courageous.
2. I think it is a valid question.
3. Such is the "danger" of an open, public, forum.

The taking of a single life, even if deemed righteous, is a terrible thing. The problem inherent is that the United States is -- decidedly -- not righteous or blameless in its ongoing (1803?), Imperialistic, endeavours.

That being said, I think you merely answer the kid's query in any manner seen fit and move on. Anyone who thinks such is evil or traitorous was clearly brainwashed at some point in their lives, likely Boot Camp. "Get over being threatened."

Never work with animals or kids.

 

[Dmack_901]

First lets agree that all but 2 of the 9/11 terrorist were from Saudi Arabia, not Iraq.

Second lets agree that there were no WMD.

Third lets agree that our troups were not met with hugs, kisses and flower strewn streets in Iraq.

Fourth we should agree with some recent testimonials that most of the citizens of Iraq would rather have Saddan back, as bad as he was, than what they have now, especially the thousands of families who have lost their members.

Finally we must agree that none of the muslin countries can launch a missile accross the street, much less half way around the world. Hell their method of delivery has to be suicide bombers.

Most the points are mostly true. Two and three are argueable either way. The fourth is merely anecdotal, and suicide bombers are more insidious than missles as they create distrust between the races. But my deconstruction doesn't address the topic...

what do you reccomend instead?

 

[thefitzvh]

The bottom line is that our military is meant to defend our nation. I can see this in afghanistan, but not Iraq.

I used to think that Iraq was about our security, but I don't believe so anymore.

The only reason I showed up to come here is that I believe in honoring my commitments, and it's certainly lame to give soldiers a hard time about Iraq. We're just doing what we promised to do.


James

 

[Ezekiel]

1: China - [edit] We have tense relationship with China, particularly in light of the race for the last of the resources like oil.

So we've taken pro-active steps to preserve vast resources of oil by invading a sovereign nation and maintaining a "staging ground" in the Middle East? Yay!

2: It's better to proactively rid a nation of it's nuclear interests than to wait until they have nukes to take action.

Does this mean I should support disallowing my neighbors to have guns for my protection? (That's going to go over well...) Or, is this just about maintaining our World Police status as the biggest boy on the block? Did Iraq even have a viable nuclear program in recent memory?

3: We can only commit to a limited number of military actions.

And we've chosen the wrong one, on many levels, to our detriment. (sigh)

-----------------------------------

Honestly? I am not suprised by any ad hoc action undertaken by my government. I am surprised at the significant -- but growing smaller! -- percentage of folks on this board who feel personally threatened by the questioning of our governemnt and its actions.

"Traitorous?" "Makes me ill that he'll (student) be able to vote soon?" "[Public schools are a] propaganda tool for the commies and perverts?"

It was just a question asked in a public forum. If the argument is that the mere asking of such a question represents an America not desired, the USA has officially become Orwellian.

 

[orangelo]

I believe the proper response to that punk would be:

"I'm mean, nasty, and tired. I eat concertina wire and piss napalm and I can put a round through a flea’s ass at 200 meters, so you go hump somebody else’s leg mutt-face before I push yours in."

 

[Ivy Mike]

Despite what many keep claiming, we still haven't found the weapons we were looking for in Iraq.
While we did find some weapons, they aren't the ones we went in after.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."

please note the second paragraph as it contains the sad truth that apologists love to skip. Folks, we know Hussein had weapons, we still had the receipts. There are other things to worry about than degraded weapons that may have been approaching 20 years old. Of course mustard gas and sarin could still be hazardous, but not nearly to the extent they are when fresh.

His connections to terrorists were limited and were in no way as extensive or as worrisome as those in say Iran or Afghanistan.
The important questions in my mind are as follows.

Why haven't we found Osama Bin Laden yet?
Why are we in Iraq and ignoring North Korea and Iran?
most importantly, Why aren't we demanding these answers from our administration?

 

[bowfin]

I realized I just missed the obvious.

We needed to ask this high school junior to explain the term "innocent Iraqi militant". Isn't that an oxymoron?

How can you shoot bound up people in the back of the head, set up and detonate a roadside bomb, or kidnap a police officer for execution, and then be shot by a U.S. soldier or Marine as an "innocent Iraqi militant".

That's like taking a WWII vet to task for shooting down "an innocent kamikaze pilot" diving on his destroyer off the coast of Okinawa in 1945.

 

[Ezekiel]

We needed to ask this high school junior to explain the term "innocent Iraqi militant".

That merely begs the question of whether this particular Iraqi was militant before we invaded his country. :banghead:

For example:

"Regardless of what your justification is, if you invade my country, I am going to become quite militant."

 

[oldfart]

Dang! How'd I get to DU?

According to some here, history started in November 2000, when Bush was elected. All our problems began then. Prior to that date, everything was just peachy, with no armed terrorists hurting anybody, anywhere.
Sorry folks, there was a time before Bush and there were terrorist acts perpetrated against Americans too. The list has been published too many times to bother again now, but most believe the beginning of this modern spate of bloodletting was the Leon Klinghoffer incident.
Whatever.
Others here seem to think that nothing good can come from this war. Moreover, they say that nothing good can come from any war. According to their line of thought, we should all join hands and think kind thoughts and all our troubles will melt away.
How many here own guns? Why? If differences of opinion will evaporate with exposure to reason and logic, why not melt your guns down and just talk to the next guy who wants your wallet - or your wife or daughter?
No, you keep guns to defend yourself and your loved ones from the dregs of society. Do you sit idly by while those dregs get their acts together and attack you or do you hire a police force to try to keep them off balance enough so that you won't really have to defend yourself? Does that police force actively look for bad guys in bad places or does it just sit in the station house, drinking coffee until notice comes in that the BGs are starting something?

Well folks, there are some hard truths that need to be stated here and I know full well that many will cover their eyes, ears (not their mouths) and swear I'm the worst sort of jackbooted Nazi imaginable. But here goes anyway.
First: The Muslim religion is our enemy. Yep. That includes the nice lady waiting in line at the checkout counter - the one with the long dress and tight-fitting headscarf. She just wants a loaf of bread and a gallon of milk, but her son who can't get a job because he won't learn english or stop calling American high-school girls "whores" because they don't dress like his mother - IS! If he doesn't commit some act of terrorism he'll have sons of his own who will grow up hearing stories from 'dear old dad' about how downtrodden he has been, all because of those infidel Americans. Islam is the religion that calls for submission or death for infidels. Not Christianity. Not Judahism. Not even Shintoism. Only Islam. For anybody with two neurons within shouting distance of each other, that should say something.
But I'm dealing with DU transplants here, aren't I?
Second: Islam is an idea and as such it is extremely difficult to wipe out. Islam is especially difficult because, unlike nearly any other religion, death is a reward. Perhaps that's why most of the muslims in the world live in abject poverty. For them, death might well be better than life but for us "infidel" Christians and Jews life is a reward in and of itself and - if lived properly, can be a path to eternal reward after death.
Since we can't eliminate the idea of Islam, and since it refuses to get along with us, our only - ONLY - choices are to submit or to kill so many of the believers they no longer pose a threat to us.
(Assume high, falsetto voice here)
Oh horrors! That would be ... GENOCIDE!! We can't do anything like that! Why, we'd be just like - like - them!
(Okay, back to normal voice now.)
Television has really screwed the pooch for those who work at war. Every war from the beginning of time has been a bloody stinking mess but until the advent of televised 'real-time' action, the folks back home were insulated from the real horror, seeing only sanitized accounts, mostly of heroic actions by common men. Now that we get to see muddy holes in the ground strewn with arms, legs and intestines, our insulation breaks down and we want to stop the war. And not just this one but all wars.
Well, it ain't gonna happen. War is as necessary to the health of humanity as sex, and I don't see very many of you blissninneys calling for an end to that!
All forms of life engage in war. From the lowliest mold to the greatest human, all forms of life fight for a place in life. If they don't ... Well, ever hear of 'survival of the fittest?' Those that don't fight - and win! - die!! Those that let their enemy choose the field of battle generally lose the war too.
Let's not forget that war comes in different shapes too. Most large countries, us included, are best prepared to fight the last war, only hurrying to catch up on technology when forced to. That's what happened to France with the Magginot Line. They got ready for Germany to attack directly at them but Hitler did an end-run through Belgium instead. Now we are busily getting caught up to fight a new style of war. This one isn't being fought with tanks and planes necessarily, but with that nice lady we saw in the checkout line. She's popping out good Muslim babies faster than our Christian women who are intent on getting a higher paying job. In two or three generations there'll be more Muslims in America than Christians and Jews together and just who do you think will be running the show in Washington then? Can anybody say "Sharia Law"?
The War on Terror is a difficult one and it isn't ever going to be easy, nice or sterile. Little old ladies are going to die. So will kids and puppies. I will feel remorse for all of them but I will be eternally grateful to God if it is their kids and women rather than ours.
Flame away!

 

[Ivy Mike]

Hey oldfart, Islam isn't the only religion that promises rewards after death for living your life the way a holy book says.
If christianity didn't offer the same retirement benefits, it would have died out a long time ago. The difference is that the vast majority of christians have learned to live at peace. In fact, there really isn't much of a difference. The vast majority of muslims wish to live at peace.
You're blaming the masses for the actions of a few.

I don't think you're a jackbooted Nazi, but don't forget that Hitler blamed the jews for his nation's ills.
You seem to have shortened the list of ills and swapped jew for muslim.

I may not be the most educated person ever, but I do like to think that what I do possess and the common sense I was raised with still works.
My common sense tells me that there has to be a reason so many people hate us and it goes on to say that its probably not because they read it in a book.
At least be open to the possibility that our foreign policy may have actually had something to do with creating our current situation.
As you so eloquently put it, history didn't begin in November of 2000, but I think you should probably be looking a little further back than you are.

 

[Frandy]

Well folks, there are some hard truths that need to be stated here... The Muslim religion is our enemy.

Well, I have Muslim friends and business associates, and none of them are what you claim them to be. Sorry, oldfart, but your characterization of Islam and all Muslims is narrower than you realize.

 

[echo5tango]

Ezekiel said:

Quote:
why give SOLDIERS a hard time for doing their job that POLITICIANS tell them to do?

Because they don't have to do it.

ummm, being in Iraq is a lawful order; therefore, they DO have to follow it. Not doing so is both a strike against the Uniformed Code of Military Justice and their own honor.

oldfart said:

Dang! How'd I get to DU?

I was wondering the same thing and honestly have been extremely disappointed to here so many skewed viewpoints

Clean97GTI said:

Hey oldfart, Islam isn't the only religion that promises rewards after death for living your life the way a holy book says.
If christianity didn't offer the same retirement benefits, it would have died out a long time ago. The difference is that the vast majority of christians have learned to live at peace. In fact, there really isn't much of a difference. The vast majority of muslims wish to live at peace.
You're blaming the masses for the actions of a few.

I don't think you're a jackbooted Nazi, but don't forget that Hitler blamed the jews for his nation's ills.
You seem to have shortened the list of ills and swapped jew for muslim.

I may not be the most educated person ever, but I do like to think that what I do possess and the common sense I was raised with still works.
My common sense tells me that there has to be a reason so many people hate us and it goes on to say that its probably not because they read it in a book.
At least be open to the possibility that our foreign policy may have actually had something to do with creating our current situation.
As you so eloquently put it, history didn't begin in November of 2000, but I think you should probably be looking a little further back than you are.

and Frandy said:

Well, I have Muslim friends and business associates, and none of them are what you claim them to be. Sorry, oldfart, but your characterization of Islam and all Muslims is narrower than you realize.

you both need to realize ... all the terrorists, no matter where they came from, WERE MUSLIM

and Clean97GTI, as to this comment:

My common sense tells me that there has to be a reason so many people hate us and it goes on to say that its probably not because they read it in a book.

what was it that "we did" to "provoke" 9/11? in fact, they did read it in a book ...

 

[JohnBT]

I too know Muslims who do not profess the desire to bring about the extermination of the U.S.

OTOH, could it be possible that their religious leaders holds a different view?

By way of a related example of how the organized differs from the daily practice of individuals...

I also know Catholics who use birth control, but the last I heard the Pope was still against it - and so therefore was the organization of the Church.

"In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Latin, "Human Life"), which reemphasized the Church’s constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence."

 

[Ezekiel]

ummm, being in Iraq is a lawful order; therefore, they DO have to follow it.

Blatently incorrect. Blindly following orders makes you a lemming, not "disciplined." (More Boot Camp, brainwashing, hogwash.) Sure, there are prices to be paid, but folks in the military decidedly do not have to follow orders. Especially stupid ones.

you both need to realize ... all the terrorists, no matter where they came from, WERE MUSLIM

And you need to realize that not all Muslims, no matter where they come from, ARE TERRORISTS.

Try thinking outside the box.

 

[iocane]

Theres also somehow this notion that everything was happy in Iraq. Since Iraq ia not a happy place now America deserves whatever happens to is.


For one thing Saddam wouldn't actually let the Gulf war really end. He kept shooting missles at our planes. He claimed he won the war and drove are troops out.Theres that pesky assasination plot on Bush elder the Kuwaitis stopped. The Kurds had partially broken away and the war between Saddams forces and the Kurds continued with some pretty big battles throughout the 1990's. Turkey sent their troops into Northern Iraq for awhile after the war spilled over into Turkey. Which was getting Turks in their own country killed.
Saddam had the entire marshland by Basra drained and the population slaughtered. That took most of the 90's. Plus he even did some skirmishes with the kuwaities again. Paid money to suicide bombers families in Israel etc. There were a number of purges in Iraq too. Basically Iraq spent the whole 1990's at war in a bloodbath. As for the suicide bombers of today, get a old national geograpgic magazine from the 1980's. It will mention the big problem they had back then with Iran sending suicide bombers in to blow up the public markets.
Basically we here in America have a population used to a level of peace and prosperity unknown to much of the world. Now theres those who when they hear of trouble in the world want to solve it. Especially if its resulting in a threat here. Now theres others who if they hear anything bad is happenning in the world blame America. Just like they get mad and scream at someone if there is too much traffic or whatever. Some idea of what the world is really like would sure result in there not being so much division.

 

[Ivy Mike]

you both need to realize ... all the terrorists, no matter where they came from, WERE MUSLIM

You're dangerously close to a logical fallacy here.
again, just because those terrorists happen to be muslim doesn't mean that all muslims are terrorists. The reason the terrorists are muslim has more to do with their location than anything.
Attacking Islam and its followers because a few radicals take a hard line interpretation is ignorant and very narrow.

what was it that "we did" to "provoke" 9/11? in fact, they did read it in a book ...

What book might that be? I'll bet you've never even read anything from the Quran. The interpretation that these radical cleric's hand out is more politically motivated than religious. More moderate, sane muslim teachers don't agree with the radical interpretation being thrown around by the terrorist "spiritual" leaders.

As far as what we did to provoke things, you can't sit there and tell me that backing the Shah of Iran against the Ayatollah didn't piss people off. The Shah was very wealthy and was seen as corrupt when he and his people lived a life far above the standards of the majority of Iranians.
Backing Iraq while selling weapons to Iran (Iran Contra scandal) certainly set a lot of people against us. Our continued support of Israel (whether you agree with it or not) has upset many people and turned them against us.

9/11 didn't come out of no where, but the USA is certainly not blameless. Our foreign policy is simply one point in a long history of unrest and distrust.

 

[.41Dave]

First: The Muslim religion is our enemy. Yep. That includes the nice lady waiting in line at the checkout counter - the one with the long dress and tight-fitting headscarf. She just wants a loaf of bread and a gallon of milk, but her son who can't get a job because he won't learn english or stop calling American high-school girls "whores" because they don't dress like his mother - IS! If he doesn't commit some act of terrorism he'll have sons of his own who will grow up hearing stories from 'dear old dad' about how downtrodden he has been, all because of those infidel Americans. Islam is the religion that calls for submission or death for infidels. Not Christianity. Not Judahism. Not even Shintoism. Only Islam. For anybody with two neurons within shouting distance of each other, that should say something.
But I'm dealing with DU transplants here, aren't I?
Second: Islam is an idea and as such it is extremely difficult to wipe out. Islam is especially difficult because, unlike nearly any other religion, death is a reward. Perhaps that's why most of the muslims in the world live in abject poverty. For them, death might well be better than life but for us "infidel" Christians and Jews life is a reward in and of itself and - if lived properly, can be a path to eternal reward after death.
Since we can't eliminate the idea of Islam, and since it refuses to get along with us, our only - ONLY - choices are to submit or to kill so many of the believers they no longer pose a threat to us.

Wow. There is just so much falsehood, arrogance, and blatant ignorance rolled into this screed that words fail me. Interestingly, oldfart (whom I assume is NOT a Muslim) refutes his own point. He states:

Islam is the religion that calls for submission or death for infidels. Not Christianity. Not Judahism. Not even Shintoism. Only Islam.

But then he calls for the submission or death (death preferred, apparently) of Muslims, neatly disproving himself:

Since we can't eliminate the idea of Islam, and since it refuses to get along with us, our only - ONLY - choices are to submit or to kill so many of the believers they no longer pose a threat to us.

Hate filled raving like this, calling for the genocide (in a "high, falsetto voice", which I guess is supposed to mean that those of us who think genocide and the murder of large numbers of innocent people is, umm, evil, are just girly-men) and people wonder how atrocities happen? The only mystery to me is how these people manage to see themselves as different from their enemy?

 

[Ezekiel]

The only mystery to me is how these people manage to see themselves as different from their enemy?

Hubris and the majesty of having the bomb.

I can just see Slim Pickens riding that thing out the bay doors...

 

[progunner1957]

How'd I get to DU?

I was wondering the same.

folks in the military decidedly do not have to follow orders. Especially stupid ones.

What a staggering display of ignorance about how the military works.

So all you soldiers, sailors, marines and airmmen out there take note: Next time your CO issues an order that has anything to do with fighting the war on terror, just tell him/her, "Ezekiel says your order is stupid and I'm not going to do it."

He/she will turn red in the face, run back to his/her office and sulk - they won't throw you in the brig and cout-martial you; after all, you have the "right" (ha, ha) to pick and choose the orders you want to follow.

 

[echo5tango]

Blatently incorrect. Blindly following orders makes you a lemming, not "disciplined." (More Boot Camp, brainwashing, hogwash.) Sure, there are prices to be paid, but folks in the military decidedly do not have to follow orders. Especially stupid ones.

i call BS ... read the Uniform Code of Military Justice ... look into failing to follow a direct order. obviously, you've never put on a uniform, and until you do, until you wear my uniform and have to follow the same rules and regulations i do on a daily basis, you have 100 percent NO right to tell me about discipline or boot camp or anything else you want to try to label as "hogwash"

 

[Ezekiel]

He/she will turn red in the face, run back to his/her office and sulk - they won't throw you in the brig and cout-martial you; after all, you have the "right" (ha, ha) to pick and choose the orders you want to follow.

I said there were consequences.

However, individuals absolutely reserve the right to refuse any order from any sanctioning body.

To do otherwise makes you worse then a lemming, it makes you a slave.

"This isn't complex."

 

[progunner1957]

obviously, you've never put on a uniform, and until you do, until you wear my uniform and have to follow the same rules and regulations i do on a daily basis, you have 100 percent NO right to tell me about discipline or boot camp or anything else you want to try to label as "hogwash"

Amen, brother!