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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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"
Click to expand...

(sigh) "Wrong again."

As the military representative of my duly-elected government, you serve me, got it? You volunteered. Unfair complaining about the constraints that you VOLUNTEERED for.

I get a vote just like anyone else. We'll all try to do better, next time.
 
Members of the military are only under obligation to obey a lawful order.

If the order is not lawful, not only is the member under no obligation to obey, but he/she can be prosecuted if they do follow it.

and thats from Article 90, 91 and specifically Article 92 of the UCMJ.


I'm not taking a stance on the stupid order comment, merely letting everyone know what orders you are under obligation to follow.
 
Ezekiel and Clean97GTI ... when the President has authorization from the Congress to send troops to a foreign country, that is a lawful order.

This is from Chapter 9 of the Investigations Manual:
Violations of lawful general orders are punishable under Article 92, UCMJ. The maximum punishment that may be imposed includes dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for two years.
Click to expand...
 
Ezekiel and Clean97GTI ... when the President has authorization from the Congress to send troops to a foreign country, that is a lawful order.

This is from Chapter 9 of the Investigations Manual:

"Violations of lawful general orders are punishable under Article 92, UCMJ. The maximum punishment that may be imposed includes dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for two years."
Click to expand...

Understood: good info.

I admit to significant thread veer, so I'll digress, but there certainly are orders -- lawful or no -- that I would immediately disobey to spend two years in DB. There are choices and there are prices.
 
echo5tango

I wasn't taking a stance on what I feel to be a lawful order, simply clarifying what members of the armed services are required to obey.

I am not in the armed services, therefore, I can call the president names and tell him that his war is a load of crap. :D
 
The bottom line is that our military is meant to defend our nation. I can see this in afghanistan, but not Iraq.
Click to expand...

Why can't the liberals, dems, and the antis understand that their REACTIVE polices led to numerous terrorist attacks. Being REACTIVE is the wrong way to approach the terrorist problem. The important lesson that should be taken from 9/11 is that ignoring the growing threat is the recipe for us to receive an attack. Iraq was a clear threat with an unstable evil dictator seeking (the WORLD believed he had already possessed for a number of valid reasons) WMDs. If he didn't have WMDs, why isn't it up to HIM to prove it? We we to just take another 'wait and see' approach until he is assured of getting them and using or selling them?

I'd like an answer to this question from the blatant anti's here.
 
In order to be reactive, you've got to have something to react to. In this case, its a terrorist threat against the USA. Fine, but what created that threat? The west is certainly not blameless in the matter.

Iraq wasn't a threat to anybody save for maybe Israel and the Kurds. Iraq was economically broken and in a state of unrest. The vast majority of weapons in Iraq were conventional in nature and the chemical agents he did have were old and seriously degraded (and weren't the ones the Bush administration said he had)

If you're going to make a claim, its up to you to prove it. Remember that whole innocent till proven guilty thing? While it may go by other names elsewhere, the simple truth behind it remains. We said he had weapons and we had no proof. Now, we can look at other nations and have actual proof that they are in possession of certain weapons. North Korea and Iran are an actual threat, yet they remain untouched by anything but sanctions. Sanctions which only make life difficult on the people of a nation and further anger them. Congratulations, you're creating more terrorists.

I'm an anti, sure. Anti-sensationalist.
 
It used to be Iran, Iraq and north korea were the actual threats. If take out one of three then the odds are much better then if all three take us on. Actually 9/11 was carried out with box-cutters so any nation led by a ruler crazy enough to try to take us on is a threat.

I got this from http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/STR407A.html
its at the end of the article

"If it is the case that the war in Iraq is only one element in a broader elite strategy, the antiwar movement must have much more ambitious goals than just military disengagement from Iraq. It must challenge the rationale and motive force behind the Iraq war: the war on terror. Our goals must be to shut down the war on terror with mass popular action, dismantle the worldwide phalanx of US military bases, and bring about a day of reckoning for the war criminals responsible for these policies."
People have a habit of hearing ideas, thinking there a good idea and then repeating them. Many are suspicious of the war on terror. Not much of a problem there. I do worry about those that are thinking of "a day of reckoning". What exactly are they thinking of?
 
It's the Jihadist view of Islam that's the cause of the terrorism. Not the Muslims at large; they are not "The Enemy". There is a minor problem with some of the non-Jihadists about wanting to make Sharia part of a legal requirement in some mostly-Muslim communities in the western world, but it is indeed minor. It's the Jihadists who are preaching violence and acting violently.

Maybe some folks who've disagreed with me weren't around when the Iranians captured the US Embassy in Tehran. Didn't see it live on TV, "Marbar* Amerika!" and read what the Ayotollah Khomeini stated was the root cause of all that's evil in the world--us in the U.S. That was 1979.

But you can go back to even earlier years, when various spokesmen for the various groups like the PLO, Hamas, Black September and others were stating the same views about all allies of Israel and anybody who did business with Israel.

As long as oil is the lifeblood of industrialized societies, we will have a national interest in the Middle East. We will be militarily involved there, projecting force as seen to be needed. (That doesn't mean I think we've always done it correctly in the past or are doing so in the present. That's another subject entirely.)

Purely my opinion, but those who disbelieve that we have no choice but to remain involved in the Middle East are fooling themselves that oil will never be used as a means of blackmail, or that our retreat back to our own shores would end Jihadist violence.

Art

* Farsi for "Death to", according to the translators.
 
Why can't the liberals, dems, and the antis understand that their REACTIVE polices led to numerous terrorist attacks. Being REACTIVE is the wrong way to approach the terrorist problem. The important lesson that should be taken from 9/11 is that ignoring the growing threat is the recipe for us to receive an attack. Iraq was a clear threat with an unstable evil dictator seeking (the WORLD believed he had already possessed for a number of valid reasons) WMDs. If he didn't have WMDs, why isn't it up to HIM to prove it? We we to just take another 'wait and see' approach until he is assured of getting them and using or selling them?
Click to expand...

Two words. WHERE'S OSAMA?

It's been five years. He sucker-punched us, we turned around and punched the guy standing three people down in line. Not him.

He's LAUGHING at us.

And he's got more recruits than he could ever have dreamed. BECAUSE of us.

We're making enemies exponentially faster than we can kill them. When someone loses their entire family and their town becomes a post-civilization warzone, what else do they have left? They have no reason to live....but revenge. And there's plenty of terrorist recruiters telling them who their target for revenge is. Us.

People who have other reasons to live are not as likely to listen to crazy imams who urge them to go blow themselves up in public places. There will always be fanatical leaders, you need to eliminate the leaders. But all we're doing is creating endless RECRUITS who run to those fanatical leaders to be made into AK-toting pawns and exploding human bombs.

Maybe some people think it's brilliant strategy to fight a fire by spraying it with gasoline. I don't.
 
"The only mystery to me is how these people manage to see themselves as different from their enemy?"

In many respects I am just like my enemy. I want to live. I want my children to be free. I want my wife to be safe when I'm away.
Where we differ though is in how we will go about trying to make those things come true.
I worked (I'm retired now) to bring the standard of living for my family up. The Jihadist works to bring my family's standard of living down to his.
I teach my children that freedom is worth dying for. The Muslim teaches his kids that Islam is worth dying for.
I give my wife the tools and training to fight for her life if I cannot do it for her. The Muslim extremists kill their wives if they go out without a headscarf. Indeed, a few years ago in Saudi Arabia, a group of girls were killed in a fire at a school when they weren't permitted to escape without being properly dressed.
Considering the word "genocide" didn't even exist prior to 1945, it sure gets a lot of work. What was it called when Joshua defeated Jerico? What fancy name did the Romans use to describe their eventual victory over Carthage? Why is it that some here seem to believe that their own survival is less important than how it's accomplished? As for me... After my children, my survival is paramount. I will use any subterfuge, any tactic, any dirty trick to survive. If that means making a glass parking lot out of Iran... So be it. I can drill through glass ... if I survive.
If I cannot survive though, I cannot provide for my family, nor can I teach them to provide for themselves.
Most of all though, if I do not survive I cannot provide hard truth to brain-dead blissninny zombies. I don't guess it makes much difference though, since they don't seem to understand what I'm saying.
They will... Yes indeed, they will.
 
I will use any subterfuge, any tactic, any dirty trick to survive. If that means making a glass parking lot out of Iran...
Click to expand...

And this makes you better than "them", how?

Funny, I thought the point of being a human being was to have some honor, not to be on the level of vicious survival of an...animal. Eat, reproduce, sleep, kill, eat. Is that it?

I thought America was better than that, too. When Tiannamen happened, people ran past the camera shouting "Tell the United States what is happening here!"...we were a higher standard, a symbol of freedom and justice.

What you're saying equates us to the raw, vicious survival instinct of base creatures. Animals.

And that's not the America I know. It STANDS FOR SOMETHING MORE. We dropped atomic bombs on Japan to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of allied troops and also millions of Japanese who would have otherwise died in the invasion desparation, not to make their nation into "glass". We really didn't have more, it was a gambit to scare them into surrendering. It worked. Then we accepted their surrender like civilized people.

I also hope you don't participate in any form of western religions, because that attitude is completely incompatible with ALL of them.
 
oldfart, IMO it's a continuation of what I saw during the Cold War: It only takes one to start a fight. It takes two to end a fight. Too many people believe that if we stop, our opponent will stop. I don't believe that.

I fully believed that it was Kruschev's intent that he make true his, "Your grandchildren will live under Communism." He was not fooling around. We resisted that idea. I believe that it is the intent of the Jihadists that at some future time the world will live under Sharia. IMO, that's another idea to resist.

The Moscovian idea of negotiation was, "What's mine is mine; what's yours is negotiable." Looking at the history of negotiations about peace in Israel, that concept is still a functioning method. It has just now happened in Lebanon. Why am I supposed to expect differently in other arenas involving "those people"?

Art
 
The fact remains, the moslem exists to kill an infidel, the more the merrier and die.

The track record in Moslem countries is quite clear. If they can't kill infidels they will kill each other. If they can't find anyone else to kill, they will kill their own children. Cross reference the "Honor" killings of girls in all western countries where Moslems exist. Including the US of A.

BTW, most Moslem casulties in Iraq are caused by other Moslems.

BTW, with 1% of the ammo dumps left over from the Saddam era, inspected 500 chemical weapon rounds have been found. Let's see multiply by 100, that's only 50,000 weapons. OOOPPS! They don't count because they were already supposed to have been destroyed.

We went in to Iraq, because a Moslem doesn't believe in promises made to an infidel. It's right there in the Koran.

Geoff
Who notes he has been on terrorist alert for over 20 years now.
 
Now, it seems to me that the only thing these people have to sell is oil. What would happen if there was no longer a market for oil? How would they buy weapons, equip and maintain an army (ies)? Think they'd go back to killing each other?
Just a thought...

Biker
 
Jeff, I'd love to see the parts of the Quran where the muslim only exists to kill others. I distinctly remember the parts that say

5:32 For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty), but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth.

and

17:33 And slay not the life which Allah hath forbidden save with right. Whoso is slain wrongfully, We have given power unto his heir, but let him not commit excess in slaying. Lo! he will be helped.

Seems that you should probably do a little more reading.
You should also note that those 500 weapons we've found were specifically mentioned among those that were not the ones we went to war over and had significantly degraded.
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."
 
Now, it seems to me that the only thing these people have to sell is oil. What would happen if there was no longer a market for oil? How would they buy weapons, equip and maintain an army (ies)? Think they'd go back to killing each other?
Just a thought...
Click to expand...

Now, to me, that'd be the ultimate and best solution. They'd have no source of wealth.

We can "win" this war by going rapidly to nuclear and clean-coal and conversion of organic waste to oil (ConAgra turns all their turkey offal into fuel oil and carbon already, massive plant) and going to plant-derived oils for plastics.

Remove the demand.

Unfortunately...China is growing so fast that there'd still be a market. But if the Chinese economy imploded for some reason, there wouldn't be.
 
(sigh)
We really need to get off this "sheep" and "blissninny" thing.
I am very concerned about our education system. It seems to be a haven for the left and, like it or not, our kids are at their mercy.
Some kids just don't seem to stand for anything. And if they do, it is for some radical view.
Guns are bad, evil!
Guns represent freedom!
A gun in itself is just a gun. The hand that wields it with intent is the issue.
 
Maybe some folks who've disagreed with me weren't around when the Iranians captured the US Embassy in Tehran. Didn't see it live on TV, "Marbar* Amerika!" and read what the Ayotollah Khomeini stated was the root cause of all that's evil in the world--us in the U.S. That was 1979.
Click to expand...

This is a good example of the situation we're in today. Did the Student revolution spring up out of the blue, solely because of religious zeal?

No. It followed decades of brutal repression at the hands of a US backed dictator, and when he was finally defeated...Carter offered him safe haven in the US.

And did the Iranians go around forcing all non-Muslims to convert in their theocracy? No again...there are still thousands of Jews and Zoroastrians there, who got recognition in the constitution.

But you can go back to even earlier years, when various spokesmen for the various groups like the PLO, Hamas, Black September and others were stating the same views about all allies of Israel and anybody who did business with Israel.
Click to expand...

Well, the PLO and Black September were both non-Muslim groups, both attacked Israel over an essentially non-religious dispute, and Black September especially had large Christian figures. I don't think you can find me a single "forced conversion" connected to either of those groups.

Hamas didn't exist until the late 80's...a good 40 years after the creation of the state of Israel.

These are good examples of what we face now, but they aren't examples of people waging jihad just for the sake of religion. There are underlying causes that used to motivate leftists in the Arab the world (like the PLO), that today motivate religious groups, and tomorrow will motivate someone else.

As long as we are seen as foreign occupiers, we won't be accepted, and anyone who takes help from us will be seen as a stooge. I saw that list of assassination victims back there....seriously, it's a pretty sad day in America when Rafik Hariri is something of "a martyr for democracy." Hariri and Sadat were well involved with terror tactics and repression long before different terror groups came back to get them.
 
"And this makes you better than "them", how? "

By being alive to repent my sins.

Increasingly, I find myself surrounded by people described by H.G. Wells thus:
"Now, if only he pitch his standard low enough and keep free from pride, almost anyone can achieve a sort of excess. You can go through contemporary life fudging and evading, indulging and slacking, never really hungry nor frightened nor passionately stirred, your highest moment a mere sentimental orgasm, and your first real contact with primary and elemental necessities the sweat of your deathbed."

Some people just need to get a life that doesn't include a television, a classroom or a main-stream media newspaper. Instead of bragging about how little they've done for their country they need to get down on their knees and beg forgiveness from those who have served in their stead.

I quit. This is like teaching a pig to sing.

May your chains bear lightly on your necks.
 
Saudi Arabia supports far more terrorists, including Bin Laden, and Pakistan states they will not arrest Bin Laden if they find him.

Why do we keep insisting SA and Pakistan are our friends? They should have been addressed prior to anything with Iraq.
 
Last edited:
Oldfart...

The Wells quote was truly poignant. I don't recall ever reading that one, but I won't forget it.

Biker
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Doug444
  • Locked
The 'Nuge opposes war in Iraq?
2 3
Replies
74
Views
3K
LawDog
L
P
  • Locked
Michael Moore Sued by Iraq War Vet
Replies
15
Views
911
Crosshair
C
T
  • Locked
Dossier shows France briefed Iraq on U.S. plans
Replies
4
Views
514
PATH
P
2
  • Locked
Looming Iraq war divides U.S. vets
Replies
2
Views
536
Thumper
Thumper
3
  • Locked
C.Powell quote
Replies
6
Views
2K
twoblink
T
Back
Top