Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Zippatuh on July 14, 2003, 10:30:40 AM
-
I remember sitting in my living room talking it over with the wife what was going on and the reasons for a war with Iraq. What it all came down to was this…
I can only assume and have faith in the fact that the leader of my country is privy to more information on the situation at hand than I do. I can also only assume that the information being provided is correct and indeed has implications of national security.
I myself didn’t really want war with Iraq because I was more concerned with whose son or daughter wouldn’t be coming home. Having spent some time in the Army I still have a place in my heart for all of those that serve their country and risk their lives. It came down to my wife and me coming to the same conclusion. We will support and believe what is being told to us but they had better find the damn things (WMD) and had better find a crap pot load of them. I half heartedly hoped that they would be used in the war so there would be no question.
Now, a few months later after and what do we have, nothing. Yeah a few trucks have been found and an empty artillery shell or two but that’s it. There can only be one of two things that has happened here. There was never a large stock pile to begin with and the little that they did have was scrubbed, or the large stock pile was completely scrubbed before the war and/or removed from the country.
The later is possible but I believe to be highly unlikely. We were told “tons” correct? I get the vision of massive warehouses with thousands of containers. There is no way that it was all moved out of the country or destroyed with no evidence. I find that utterly impossible to believe.
Was Saddam a bad man? Yes, I believe that without any question. Without having his rotting corpse or handcuffed symbol though we couldn’t be in a worse situation. I’m not even sure that having that would change the current situation. The armed forces are meant to attack or defend. Hold or destroy. They are not policemen. That is not their training and they shouldn’t be asked to perform that role.
They did an excellent job on the war, that’s what there job and training is. Now they are expected to keep the peace with a people who apparently don’t want it. I think that whole region is like my mother-in-law. They have to have something to fight about. Removing one dictator only allows the 1000 or so other’s that were quashed by Saddam to crawl out of the wood work. Not to mention that democracy in itself promotes organized crime. There is something to be said about “peace” and a dictatorship.
If we (the USA) had been able to show the Iraqi people as well as the world where and how much WMD’s they had I believe even the Iraqi people may be more on our side. I argued that it had nothing to do with oil or personal vendettas on the part of our president. Now, I’m not so sure. I think it’s looking more and more like we stepped in a big pile of dog crap and there isn’t a big enough stick to get it all out of the treads.
Being an employee of Sprint I was somewhat upset, hell mad even, that MCI (Worldcom) gets the wireless contract for Iraq. A company that has never built a network before in its history. After the way things are working out. Good luck with that. How the hell can you restore basic services when there is a high probability that either the technician will get killed or the work destroyed before it can be completed?
We can’t pull out either. If we leave now the cost in Iraqi lives will be enormous. If we don’t leave the cost in American lives will be continuous and unrelenting. How many Iraqi soldiers and civilians have been killed to date? I don’t know the number but I would venture to say that it is several times greater than the world trade center, which was also used as an additional reason for toppling Saddam.
I don’t know what the answer is and I for one like Bush a whole hell of a lot better than Clinton but I am increasingly reminded of the Dead Zone with Christopher Walkin. “Praise God and let the missiles fly brother”.
I’ll continue to be a good soldier and give the administration the rest of the year to get things straight and secure in Iraq and to provide some evidence of WMD’s. I’m not even sure I can really wait that long with the casualty rate the way it’s been going. After that, write a big check to the Iraqi people trust fund account and hand the keys over to the UN. Then I want to see all of our people come home.
And yes it will be embarrassing and I for one will feel ashamed. It will take the next 30-50 years to undo what has been done in the last few months.
That’s my opinion and I do not believe that it is mine alone. I can only hope and pray for our service men and women to be safe in their current role. As for the Iraqi civilians, I’m sorry how things are working out. I hope our children will learn from our mistakes but I can see as how your children are going to hold a grudge for generations to come.
-
A thoughtful thread, I appreciate it
Unfortunately I'm afraid it wont stay long like that over here..
I'd like to comment few last lines in response, about giving the job over to UN..
Alot of europeans are in the mood that the coalition (mainly US) needs to deal with Iraq themselves, instead of always "letting" UN take care of the rest, after they do the war. (Ie. Kosovo/Serbia as an example)
No pun intented
-
How do you know the cost in American lives will be continuos and unrelenting?
Do the fedayeen get 10 new fighters every time they put a quarter in a slot?
When did 6 months of guerilla combat become an eternity?
You don't think we can hunt down the people behind the attacks and put them out of business?
Have some faith dude. And as to WMD not being located yet...with those attacks going on we're going to send teams of WMD experts driving all over Iraq before the Nation is secure?
Spare me - the complaint of 'no WMD' is purely a political ploy. The same people complaining now are on record as being concerned about Iraq and the spread of WMD before our current President was ever in the White House.
And, like the pink 700 lb. gorilla in the living room that no one talks about - never, EVER in the context of one of the blatantly political 'WE WERE LIED TO ABOUT WMD! IRAQGATE!' articles/posts/reports is there any mention of "If there were no WMD in Iraq then:
1. WHY IN THE HELL DID HE SCREW WITH THE UN INSPECTORS FOR 10 YEARS? Why the communications intercepts of Iraqi intel types actively rerouting or preempting the Blix led inspectors. Answer me - give me ANY reason - WHY?
2. Why did Iraq spend hundreds of millions of dollars on activites where the sole purpose of such activites was to hide a WMD program (example: multiple resurfacing of a compound far from any civilian inhabitiation, etc., etc., etc.).
I could go on, and on, and on, and on, and on - but why - anyone proposing this argument only a few months after the end of formal hostilities is on a political mission and thus incapable of any honest discussion.
It's a simple question - a dictator in total power in his regime could have remained in power by simply allowed an almost friendly UN led team of WMD inspectors unrestricted access to the Nation of Iraq. If there was nothing to hide, then why such actions? Give me one plausible explanation other than 'there was something to hide'.
It won't take 30-50 years. Once they have an army and a group of leaders that is close to elected the majority of U.S. forces will be gone.
“Praise God and let the missiles fly brother” - give me a break dude. I find it hilarious that U.S. citizens are more afraid of our President, due to political bull****, than alot of civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq. Funny how those people never get interviewed by the New York Post or the Guardian. There's alot of them around - I've met a couple of them myself.
Mike/wulfie
-
Originally posted by Zippatuh
I myself didn’t really want war with Iraq because I was more concerned with whose son or daughter wouldn’t be coming home.
they had better find the damn things (WMD) and had better find a crap pot load of them. I half heartedly hoped that they would be used in the war so there would be no question.
so you were "concerned' about the sons and daughters, but you hoped saddam would use WMD's?????
-
You’re right, it’s not going to have the legs of the other thread but after reading it my opinion was greater than a response to the topic.
I understand how the European community would take that position. The problem with using Kosovo and Serbia as examples is I will always go back to the memory of seeing people carted away on rail cars. The number of mass graves and “genocide” reports, which had foundation, I believed justified that. Those are things I thought I would never see in my lifetime.
I think it was the job of the UN to go there in the first place but were unwilling to deal with the situation at hand.
As to letting the UN take it now… It might be looked upon better by the Iraqi people to see several different nations in blue barrettes as policeman than the kid that rolled in on his tank a few months ago still sitting on the same corner. It would also be better than just leaving which will happen if things continue on this course.
-
Wulfie,
I don’t know that it will but based on the history of the region I would wager good money on it. Especially when someone can be killed at point blank range getting a coke and yet there be no witnesses to the crime.
How do you know it is the fedayeen? Why couldn’t it be Joe Bob Iraqi until now had no other way to vent frustrations? Was Somalia the fedayeen or was it a bunch of kids with guns that had nothing better to do but kill the invaders of there country?
6 months of guerilla combat is an eternity, ask the soldiers in Baghdad. Rumsfeld himself has said the attacks will continue. He did not give a time when they would end.
As to number 1 and why? Why not screw with them, it was his country. You’ve never messed with someone before. Hell it may have been some perverted game for him. As to the intercepts, I’m starting to question our intelligence as well.
As to number 2, I don’t have an answer. Why didn’t he give some of the “oil for food” program to the actual people in the first place?
I’m not on a political mission, just voicing my opinion. I’m a libertarian actually.
Why hide them, or play the hiding game. Well, something has to pass the time doesn’t it. For all we know that’s how he was approaching it.
I’m not sure we’ll make it to the point of “electing leaders” and “organizing an army”. It doesn’t appear to me that we are in control of anything. The anything meaning normal civil services.
I’m not afraid of our president because of political bull, I’m afraid of him because he uses God entirely too much in his speeches.
-
John,
You are correct, I was concerned and in a sadistic way hoping they would be used. Basically for the reason we are in right now. We said they were there and have yet to find them. I am glad that they didn’t but the situation would be different now if they were.
In the immortal words of Spoc, “the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few”. If several hundred Americans had died because of a bio attack everyone would have a different opinion. Everyone meaning those others that live outside the USA.
-
Originally posted by Zippatuh
You’re right, it’s not going to have the legs of the other thread but after reading it my opinion was greater than a response to the topic.
I understand how the European community would take that position. The problem with using Kosovo and Serbia as examples is I will always go back to the memory of seeing people carted away on rail cars. The number of mass graves and “genocide” reports, which had foundation, I believed justified that. Those are things I thought I would never see in my lifetime.
I think it was the job of the UN to go there in the first place but were unwilling to deal with the situation at hand.
As to letting the UN take it now… It might be looked upon better by the Iraqi people to see several different nations in blue barrettes as policeman than the kid that rolled in on his tank a few months ago still sitting on the same corner. It would also be better than just leaving which will happen if things continue on this course.
The UN won't help us...they're spineless. Also, you've forgotten that we are the Bad Guys.
-
Originally posted by Zippatuh
John,
You are correct, I was concerned and in a sadistic way hoping they would be used. Basically for the reason we are in right now. We said they were there and have yet to find them. I am glad that they didn’t but the situation would be different now if they were.
In the immortal words of Spoc, “the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few”. If several hundred Americans had died because of a bio attack everyone would have a different opinion. Everyone meaning those others that live outside the USA.
Don't kid yourself Zip....the same folks would find a way to blame us.
-
I'm still bitter over Iran, 1979, and the Ayatollah Khomeini. I can still remember one of the kids in my neighborhood singing "Bomb Iran" to the tune of the Beach Boys' "Barbara Ann".
-
Originally posted by Zippatuh
I’m not afraid of our president because of political bull, I’m afraid of him because he uses God entirely too much in his speeches.
*Newsflash*
Dubya hires God as speechwriter.
-
this war was justified on grounds that (as you put correctly) saddam had wmd (a whole lot of em too) and that he was after nuclear weapons which he would use against the US without hesitation. nothing is a better casus belli then self defense.
yet in my opinion, if saddam had em, he would have used them. I have no doubt about it. Even if he didnt use em despite having em (for whatever illogical reason) US troops would have found at least a trace of those weapons.
The pathetic explanation that "he moved em all elsewhere" is outrageous. Who, on this earth of God, would have accepted those things, seeing what happened to saddam? Besides, with all the hi tech sci fi equipment that CIA has, is there a chance the US wouldnt know where they are shipped to?
Let me state the obvious: there were not any wmds left in Iraq after the weapon inspectors left iraq in 98 (?) they destroyed every single one of em.
now the bitter question is: what are the "coalition" (US and UK) gonna do now? Apologise? "Hey sorry dude, we leveled your country to the ground, killed your women and children, destroyed your life, but hey, it was all just a big foul up" This is plain evil. Worst of all, the US public opinion was deliberately (its still goin on too) manipulated to agree with and support this unjust war on manufactured "evidence", which even CIA admits they were all BS.
now lets think. What would YOU do, if some foreigners (heathens even) come and kill your people, invade your land and appoint one of theirs as a dictator (whatever that guys name is, the US admin there in Iraq). I tell you what I'd do: with every means available to me, I'd kill every single one of em until they all are dead or they all leave.
we should not fall into the mistake of assuming other peoples on this earth are incapable of being patriots and act accordingly. Even criminals with no morals who just kill for the joy of it (read saddam supporters) will now become heros who fight off invaders. Moral superiority is with them. Besides, what do they have to lose anymore? Having lost families, friends, and all their belongings, dont expect this terrible guerilla war will end in our lifetimes (unless invasion ends). (if you think they'd worry about losing their lives, how can you explain suicide bombings. for some people, certain things are holier than life)
Blair is paying for his mistake with his career and reputation. So will his party. Yet in the US, it seems the public needs more time to analyze the situation and draw the proper conclusions from it.
those who live shall see.
-
Wulfie - we spent millions of pounds trying to eradicate the terrorist groups in Northern Ireland. Did we succeed? If people are driven to hate they will never be truly defeated, if you are concerned about collateral damage.
Every case is different, but an army is always vulnerable in the face of the guerilleros. It's a big target. In 1811, during Bonaparte's foray into Spain and Portugal (via his Marshals) one messenger needed 400 cavalry to move around the country. That was the depth of the hate engendered in the Spanish and Portuguese people. A French general, en route to Paris had to be escorted by 2000 men. Even though the French raped, murdered and plundered everywhere they went, they never curbed the guerrileros. They lost more people to partisans than they did in action to Wellington's British forces who eventually won the battles that threw France out of Spain.
Now, I'm not suggesting a Peninsular war from 200 years ago is directly comparable to Iraq today. But I think there are some parallels. This is going to be a continuous grind for quite some time.
-
Rude,
I understand that literally anything we do will be seen as wrong in the eyes of the world. Spineless? It may be that there is more bureaucracy between the members of the UN that anything and everything gets bogged down in endless debate that leads to no action is better than any action.
I think in the end they believe it is better for them to wait and blame the failures, any failures, on whoever proceeds rather than take responsibility for any action that doesn’t have a rosy result. Of course the “whoever” here is the USA.
I’m not so sure they could have blamed us if we had already found mass bio or chem. weapons or if they had been used on us during the war. I do not disagree though that regardless of any outcome we will be picked at by certain other countries on something, regardless of what it is, they will find something.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Dubya hires God as speechwriter.
Sometimes I think so.
When he came out the other day and said he was in favor of amending the constitution to make same sex marriages illegal. Well, that concerned me a bit. Going straight for your stapler and pin based on a religious view is disconcerting at a federal level.
-
Zonta,
I’m not sure that I agree here completely. I’m talking more from a perception issue.
I think that it is possible, indeed probable, that there were some WMD’s during and after the weapons inspections. I’m just not sure that it was to the extent that was portrayed to us.
Given that the amounts may have been drastically smaller than were reported it may be entirely possible to have been able to move small quantities without detection and possibly destroy them during or before the initial invasion. In either way it gives the impression to the Iraqi people and the world that we picked a fight for false reasons.
You are correct though about the people. I don’t care if the guy that used to be my ruler was a sadistic bastige. If I see the “liberators” as invaders I’ll start capping soldiers while they stand in line to get a coke as well. Especially if I know the other people around are going to let me get away with it.
-
I know for a fact that a significant % of them are fedayeen or hardcore pro-Sadaam types - not 'Joe Iraqi who is pissed at the U.S.A.' Do a little research and you'll come up with similar results.
As for 'if Sadaam had them he would have used them' it isn't that simple - not even close to that simple. I've posted why in another thread in great detail. I'm not going to waste 10 min. of my time repeating myself. Do some research on WMD, how they are deployed, how they are used, etc. and also look into the terms C3I and C4I to learn why Sadaam didn't have a fool-proof red 'launch all my WMD right now this very instant' button.
Dowding in all honesty you guys had a far more difficult situation to deal with. The IRA had almost perfect and total 'internal support' (in COIN terms) for a long time. Which meant that your guys had huge problems in terms of operational security and a host of other areas. The average Iraqi does not hate the U.S. Most 'uprisings' have been when 'the guys behind the scenes' (fedayeen, Sadaam loyalists, foreign terrorists working with the other 2 groups) have started a moderate march, demonstration, etc. and then fired on Coalition forces from the back of the crowd and used the innocent casualties caught in the middle as a rallying point for further 'unrest'.
The people of N. Ireland, even if they did have positive attitudes about the U.K. - they were already in a secure society for the most part. They had water, power, and didn't live under repression like your average Iraqi did. The U.K. did have the opportunity to 'save' them from anything to win the people over who were 'on the fence' over the issues causing all the problems. In other words, your average citizen of N. Ireland probably didn't feel that their day to day lives were going to change radically for the better because the U.K. was involved (the same can be said for plenty of people who probably kept quiet about the fact that they didn't care if Ireland was completely self-ruled).
Add in that in Iraq urban areas can be isolated far easier than in N. Ireland, etc. and I think the job of zapping the terrorists is going to be alot easier than in N. Ireland. Regardless of the level of difficulty 6 months or even a year is far too early to issue a 'final report card' on the situation (not saying you're doing this - others - particularly certain people thinking about the upcoming presidential campaign in the U.S. - are).
"if you think they'd worry about losing their lives, how can you explain suicide bombings"
I'd explain them like this - you can teach a young kid to do almost anything regardless of stupidity. Have you ever read the accounts of the parents of Palestinian suicide bombers and how pissed they are at the terrorists that indoctrinate them? You don't have 42 year old combat hardened terrorists strapping bombs on themselves. They make the bombs and recruit young misguided idealists for the real hard part of the job. I guess you were unaware of this.
"we should not fall into the mistake of assuming other peoples on this earth are incapable of being patriots and act accordingly. Even criminals with no morals who just kill for the joy of it (read saddam supporters) will now become heros who fight off invaders. Moral superiority is with them. Besides, what do they have to lose anymore? Having lost families, friends, and all their belongings, dont expect this terrible guerilla war will end in our lifetimes"
Where do you get this from? The Sadaam loyalists were feared by the average Iraqi. Show me a single case where there has been a legitimate rally by Iraqis since Sadaam disappeared where Sadaam loyalists are considered 'martyrs' or considered to have 'moral superiority'. Lost families and friends? It happened I'm sure. But you seem to think that the average Iraqi is incapable of comparison or rational thought. What's worse - killed during a war but now the killing is over, or rounded up in the dark for 'crimes against the regime of Sadaam Hussein' and never heard from again?
Where does this perception come from that the average Iraqi hates the U.S. There was a New York Times report that said such a thing - until they were forced to reveal that they talked to a total of 4 Iraqis over a period ofa couple of weeks to get their '50% want the U.S. gone' report. No - I'm *sure* 4 people in 2 weeks doesn't mean they were looking for people who were likely to say what they wanted to report.
Overall there's a massive level of information being 'discussed' about the situation and 99% of the people doing the discussing are very uninformed.
I am confident that 'mainstream' U.S. forces will be out of Iraq within a couple of years, with specialized forces remaining to aid the Iraqi army on COIN operations. Time is on the side of the U.S. If there's no 'controversy' (innocents killed in a rally where the fedayeen start shooting first, etc.) then people will get more and more used to the 'norm'. Everytime the bad guys make a move to foment unrest they expose someone. We can control the borders. Eventually they will run out of people to conduct operations, or the people available will lose the will to do so. There's already an Iraqi government forming, and the contracts for the training of the Iraqi army are being awarded as we speak. Just because Ted Rall doesn't see any progress doesn't mean it isn't there.
Mike/wulfie
-
Originally posted by Pongo
they get 20 new fighters every time they kill an american.
I disagree. Al-Q for instance is having problems recruiting since Afghanistan. The lack of a sucessful operation against a primarily American target is one reason.
Look at the reaction of the average Iraqi when the British MPs were killed. The 'man on the street' (not the ones in the mob - the ones who lived in the area where the murders took place) seemed to view the British MPs as the 'martyrs'.
-
Wulfie,
Do a little research huh? I would wager to say that under the current situation we have no idea what’s actually happening. Didn’t they expect to be able to drive clear to Baghdad without a fight because of intelligence reports on how the people would react?
The only facts that I am aware of are… An average of one soldier a day is dieing. Attacks are throughout the country. American technicians are being targeted. Civil services have not been restored and there is no work for the people.
Why he didn’t use them? I guess I’m not as well versed as you on the mechanics of chemical weapons deployment, but I never considered that. My assumption has always been that if they were not used it would be in conjunction of not finding any either. In the end working the plan that when the war was “won” the world would see there was no reason for it. Pretty good plan on his part I think.
I really hope you’re right wulfie. Everything is great, the people love us, all the world news reports coming out of Iraq are false and this is all being done to remove Bush from office. I think its wishful thinking though. I also think that the people of Iraq may have the battered wife syndrome.
They call the cops but then attack them when they try and haul off their husband.
-
Originally posted by Zippatuh
Wulfie,
Do a little research huh? I would wager to say that under the current situation we have no idea what’s actually happening. Didn’t they expect to be able to drive clear to Baghdad without a fight because of intelligence reports on how the people would react?
I have a very good idea of what's happening. But I can't really go into any detail why I do have a good idea. So I'm in an impossible situation when it comes to discussions like this.
My 'do some research' comment was not in any way intended to be along the lines of 'read a book handsomehunk' or something like that. I'm sorry if it was taken that way. But I do know that several of those damn cursed evil tool-of-the-enemy open-source intelligence websites have reports that you are never going to see on CNN.com that point to the fact that fedayeen shooters are causing alot of problems. When I said 'do some research' I meant that you'd probably pretty quickly see what I was talking about and then I'd be 'off the hook' for not being able to detail how I know or even what I specifically do know.
You were in the Army - a pissed off Iraqi car salesman isn't going to conduct an RPG attack on a convoy alone and disappear into the desert. 5 guys springing an ambush on a convoy are not going to have a 'who am I?' bio list that reads:
Iraqi Joe - pissed off car salesman
Iraqi Sam - pissed off sanitation worker
Iraqi Steve - pissed off window cleaner
Iraqi Bill - sales seminar speaker
Etc. Even if the untrained locals have a motive or a gripe severe enough to rebel against an occupying armed force (which I don't think the majority of Iraqis do), they still need some leadership and organization from military types trained in fomenting insurgency. I.e. if you were correct that it's a popular uprising (I disagree), there would still be fedayeen or diehard Iraqi military types who were serious Sadaam loyalists behind the operations.
Because you seem sincere I'll repeat myself a little.
He may have wanted to use them - but you need to understand that within 2 hours, maybe 4 hours of the beginning of the attack his communications were in a shambles. I doubt that individual companies could even try to coordinate with other companies in their battalion. This is why you had entire companies of Iraqi vehicles and infantry coming into an unfamiliar area and driving right into the guns of Coalition forces unawares. The Iraqi units that had been in the area for some time knew the operational and tactical situation, but they had no way to relay such intel to the people who needed it. This also explains alot of the surrendering Iraqi units - once the unit commanders were convinced they were 'cut off' from senior Iraqi leadership in terms of C3I, they gave up. Sadaam isn't going to order some Col.'s family executed if he isn't aware the unit surrendered.
Now take WMD - only the most trusted officers are going to be in charge of these assets. Otherwise we would have just 'bought' them before the war (and you can bet that it was tried on more than one occasion) - i.e. Checmical General Bob gets a call on his supposedly secure SATPhone from an American telling him that if he packs the entire battery up - checmical weapons and all and drives to coordinate X he'll be in the U.S.A. with his Family in a couple of months and set for life...and his Family will be in the U.S.A. in 3 days just tell us where they are staying and what the security is like.
But even preparing to launch WMD requires some very specific and very peculiar steps. The kind of steps that are guranteed to be spotted by a satellite - or now to scew the bad guys even more - a predator or something bigger which doesn't have specific overflight times - and Chemical General Bob *knows* that when (not if) a predator spots his artillery crews prepping the rounds in NBC suits that every JDAM and howitzer shell within effective range is going to hit *him* - as in General Bob himself - in about 7, maybe 10 minutes (a full 20 before they can start chucking gas)...well - the war is lost already. Bob can fire the weapons and die, or he can not fire the weapons and be a hero to the new Nation of Iraq for not following the orders of a madman in his final hours in power.
And chemical weapons aren't really expected to cause massive casualties against military units. The Sovs and the US would have fired them at rail hubs, other transport hubs, supply depots, etc. - the point of them was to force the enemy troops to constantly operate in NBC gear, which would significantly reduce their effectiveness, endurance, etc. So he maybe opted to not launch them because he knew he wouldn't have killed many troops by doing so - especially because the weather and other atmospheric conditions were not very often ideal for using them. They hammered the Iranians because they caught them packed together in a swamp (low terrain) with absolutely no protective gear and almost perfect weather for use - and the result was horrible - fatality rates among the Iranian infantry in that swamp were over 80%.
Everything isn't great, and not everyone loves us but the news coming out of the area isn't nearly as bad as certain unbiased reporters *allude* it to be. As far as the daily casualties - it's a heartbreaker. I know more guys personally than I can count on both hands that have been killed since 9/11/2001. But you were in the Army and the fact is better you or me or someone who has fighting wars as a job than 46 kids and 27 Moms at Disney Orlando, or 141 civilians at a soccer match in Spain, or the people being tortured and executed or the kids dying of lack of food and medicine while the top guys in the government of Iraq were hoarding hundreds of millions of USD in cash in Iraq.
Certain political and media types have been chanting 'doom' over every move since 9/11/2001. Remember Afghanistan and how it was going to be a quagmire and no one could topple the Taliban without incurring thousands of casualties? Remember the assurances of more major attacks on U.S. soil in retaliation for the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq? Remember the predictions that an invasion of Iraq would spark a mass Arab/Islamic uprising against the U.S.? The people saying those things are the same people implying that WMD will never be found, that data was falsified (which is very insidious - they know very well that 'proof' can't be readily shown as it would compromise sources & methods in many cases), that U.S. troops will be victims of terrorist attacks in Iraq for 30 years to come, etc. I'm not saying that they will always be wrong - but too many seem to think that they have never been wrong and the exact opposite is true.
I'll tell you one thing - in 5, or 7, maybe 10 years when a really informed book on the campaign in Iraq comes out it's going to blow military history types away - there was some very impressive things done and in terms of technology usage and joing operations between special operations and 'line' military units there has yet to be anything remotely like it. People are going to be impressed.
I have Nieces and Nephews living in the U.S.A. I feel they are safer every day.
Mike/wulfie
-
Zipp! That was a very nice wall-o-text up there -
- I like reading long posts. :)
About Iraq - I was in favour of the allies going in - if only to finish what was started in 1991. The biggest mistake was not finishing the job back then.
But going back later gave Saddam months or even years to achieve a preferential distribution of his WMD. Knowing Saddam, he probably figured he could not win a war against the allied forces of the US and UK, so destroyed/moved/hid/sold the WMD knowing that when Iraq was invaded, followed by a fruitless search for WMD, he could inflict incalculable political damage upon Messrs. Bush and Blair. In that, he has succeeded.
As for what happened to the WMD: We know he had them. He used them against his own people (Kurds) in 1988. So he had the capability. How can his WMD development labs just disappear? It's entirely possible that Saddam was planning for just such an allied invasion since shortly after 911. I think it was on 912 that Bush declared war on terror - a war that would not be restricted to Afghanistan, but would include Iraq as a potential target.
Some people have queried why he should want to kick the weapons inspectorate out of Iraq. Indeed. Something to hide?
The whole debacle does seem to call into question the authenticity of reports supplied by the CIA to Bush. If WMD were being moved around, the CIA should have known about it - they would have seen the convoys via space satellite.
One almost wonders if the Iraq showdown was not merely a show of Allied military might - to deter the terrorist organisations of the future. If AQ is now having problems recruiting, then we can at least claim a partial success.
-
Originally posted by wulfie
I have a very good idea of what's happening. But I can't really go into any detail why I do have a good idea. So I'm in an impossible situation when it comes to discussions like this.
Sorry, Wulfie, but your keyboard marathon was for naught. You lost all credibility with the above statement. If the implications therein were true you wouldn't touch this discussion with a ten foot modem.
-
Zippathu, that is a great post, very well worded and coming from the heart. Well above the average IQ/temper comtrol of the BBS poster.
-
Originally posted by Arfann
Sorry, Wulfie, but your keyboard marathon was for naught. You lost all credibility with the above statement. If the implications therein were true you wouldn't touch this discussion with a ten foot modem.
Why?
Mike/wulfie
-
About your pissed off car salesman, well I think most Irakies are pretty familliar with war and war equipments. It's not like USA a peacefull country, it's more like Libanon where bullets are flying since those guys were kids.
Myself for example, I'm a roofer, but gime a RPG and I will blow up a truck. I did some time in the military. or i can explain my neighbor how to use a RPG once I figured it what's the big red button is for.
My grand father was in the resistance in France. Well ... all he cared for with his friends was pissing off the Germans. Blowing a truck, stealing food supplies, puncturing a tire, even passing in front of a local German HQ in a FFL marked car drinking wine ... little things, not something u win a war with, but things that "break the moral" of the invading troops.
The fact that Allies went thru Iraq like butter, make me believe they were more against those isolated cells than a regular army with a commander. Those isolated cells is all what remains right now. Those guys have no supervision like you think, they just go shoot bullets as a sign of defiance on Friday night and come back to their wifes/friends who see them as "The man with 6" balls".
That's the way I see it.
-
Wulfie,
I can certainly understand not repeating secure information and now you definitely have me intrigued as to what your occupation is. It is also hard to read tone from type so I appreciate your comments.
That is exactly what concerns/worries me that it is not an organized attempt at insurrection but merely locals with a beef. It’s hard to bring order to that type of chaos. With organization you can target specifics.
Thanks for the explanation but, if the elements for chemical weapons were deployed but not used shouldn’t we have expected to run across them in some way. Would the Iraqi’s have had enough time to remove them from the battle field and dispose of or hide them while taking fire? If so did they just get lucky that we didn’t spot them on the move?
I agree that it is better for the military to take the casualties than civilians and that is something that had better be known going into the service. I just don’t like the idea that some may think of the normal grunt as expendable at any cost or situation. In the end I would hope that our leaders are as concerned about that as I am. I’m still holding on to the belief that they are.
Oh I think without question the military war was done well. I myself was impressed that we were able to pull it off in the time frame we did without a mechanized unit in the north. I’m worried about the political war. We have in the past had the habit of doing what is right for the USA at the time and then leaving when it doesn’t suit us anymore. That is more a repercussion of a constant changing government though.
I think it was the right thing to do, I just have problems with the reasons that we were given to do it. If we were going for a stated reason then show me that reason when it’s all over and done with and I know this is far from being over. If they indeed are or were there then we, the USA, needs to put up some proof and pretty quickly.
Like AHII, they need to throw us a bone or two.
-
Originally posted by wulfie
Why?
Mike/wulfie
SOP may have changed since my experiences 35 years ago, but the rule then was that if you know more than you can say you avoid the subject completely. "I know, but I can't tell you" were words of a wannabe.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Zipp! That was a very nice wall-o-text up there - - I like reading long posts. :)
One almost wonders if the Iraq showdown was not merely a show of Allied military might - to deter the terrorist organisations of the future. If AQ is now having problems recruiting, then we can at least claim a partial success.
Thanks beetle, it was actually longer before I trimmed it down ;).
I don’t have a problem with that. If that was the reason then I can handle that. Just be up front with it.
Bush has very distinct leadership style that I happen to like. I’m the boss, this is your job, go do your job and let me know. I hate micromanagers. I only wonder if his management style is coming back to bite him because someone wasn’t doing there job.
-
Originally posted by SFRT - Frenchy
Zippathu, that is a great post, very well worded and coming from the heart. Well above the average IQ/temper comtrol of the BBS poster.
Wow, thanks Frenchy.
-
Originally posted by Zippatuh
Sometimes I think so.
When he came out the other day and said he was in favor of amending the constitution to make same sex marriages illegal. Well, that concerned me a bit. Going straight for your stapler and pin based on a religious view is disconcerting at a federal level.
I really don't care one way or the other about Gay marriages, but I am under the impression it is a Religious ceremony that the state has taken up. So I cant see any reason why religion cant be mentioned while discussing it.
-
At one time I had TS/SI/EBI/SCI and some other gobbledegook clearances.
Doesn't mean you can't talk at all. Means there's some things you can't talk about.
-
Originally posted by Arfann
SOP may have changed since my experiences 35 years ago, but the rule then was that if you know more than you can say you avoid the subject completely. "I know, but I can't tell you" were words of a wannabe.
A valid concern but don't worry in this case. I take any possible security breach caused by my actions very seriously (figured you'd want to know that, having served and such). I made no mention of anything classified or even sensitive. Had I gone into detail, as opposed to saying 'check around for who is ambushing our guys', etc. I might have which is why I said what I said. To give you an idea of how (overly) cautious I was being - I know that the topic isn't classified at all (I've read numerous news reports on it, all from different sources). But even then I wasn't willing to possibly be the person to 'officially' verify it. Does that make sense? In other words you are cautioning someone who gets told all the time that he's 'overly paranoid'. :)
And I'm not a 'wannabe', unless it's a 'wannabe a Playboy Talent Scout'. :)
But you can call me on stuff like that all day and anytime you want. I'd rather get reminded (even if not necessary sometimes) than screw up even once.
Mike/wulfie
p.s. There are conversations on this and other BBSs I have avoided before due to what you were implying. So I don't think you're crazy in the least. Please understand that I agree and act responsibly in such matters.
-
Originally posted by Toad
At one time I had TS/SI/EBI/SCI and some other gobbledegook clearances.
Doesn't mean you can't talk at all. Means there's some things you can't talk about.
My point exactly. When a subject you can't talk about comes up you don't play "I know but I can't tell you". You just don't join the discussion.
-
There's been some interesting reading in thise thread. Thanks for kicking it off in a way that would promote it Zippatuh. I wish I had that kind of tact.
-
Originally posted by SFRT - Frenchy
About your pissed off car salesman, well I think most Irakies are pretty familliar with war and war equipments. It's not like USA a peacefull country, it's more like Libanon where bullets are flying since those guys were kids.
That is a very true statement. Guys I know have been surprised at the difference in 'default battlefield awareness' between people who have grown up in war zones and people who haven't. One buddy of mine noted that a group of fairly young locals pinpointed the general location of some 'sniper' (I say 'sniper' because it was someone sniping with a regular rifle,l and they weren't a trained sniper) fire several seconds before some Coalition personnel came to the same conclusion. This involved choosing one area out of several possible areas. It was simply a matter of being exposed to those types of sounds and that type of environment to a much greater degree.
Mike/wulfie
-
Arfann, if you've been there, then you must have had guys with higher clearances tell you something like "you're wrong".
And when you asked how they KNEW you were wrong, they just said "Because I know." and left it there.
Now, you have a choice; you can believe them or not. But what you believe really has no bearing on whether they actually know or not.
I know this doesn't seem to make sense. But my old Ops Officer was famous for his "look".
He'd say "you're wrong", "because I know" with "that look" on his face.
And months or even years later, you'd either realize or be shown that you had indeed been wrong.
Now wulfie may or may not have "that look" to you. But after reading his stuff a while, he "looks" that way to me and I'm more than willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Far more so than say... the wizards of CNN or the New York Times.
Just my .02
-
Originally posted by Toad
Arfann, if you've been there, then you must have had guys with higher clearances tell you something like "you're wrong"...
Hey I understand why he said what he said. I think that's maybe the only time I've put myself in such a position on the AH BBS. But I just wanted to clarify the reason I did so - it was to explain to someone that I wasn't calling him stupid. The point that we were discussing - that military holdouts, Sadaam loyalists, etc. were behind the attacks as opposed to disgruntled 'average' Iraqis - that can be verified via a number of public sources.
Same phrase which is why I can see him reacting that way, but a much different motive. I could (should) have gone and found links for a bunch of reports but as I mentioned elsewhere I'm kind of short on free time lately.
Mike/wulfie
-
Wulfie, thanks for taking the time to write these posts. I always appreciate reading your views on the how's and why's on the current situation.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Arfann, if you've been there, then you must have had guys with higher clearances tell you something like "you're wrong".
And when you asked how they KNEW you were wrong, they just said "Because I know." and left it there.
Now, you have a choice; you can believe them or not. But what you believe really has no bearing on whether they actually know or not.
I know this doesn't seem to make sense. But my old Ops Officer was famous for his "look".
He'd say "you're wrong", "because I know" with "that look" on his face.
And months or even years later, you'd either realize or be shown that you had indeed been wrong.
Now wulfie may or may not have "that look" to you. But after reading his stuff a while, he "looks" that way to me and I'm more than willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Far more so than say... the wizards of CNN or the New York Times.
Just my .02
Where I was: Vietnam, mid to late sixties.
My response to the remainder of your post: What in the world are you talking about?
-
Originally posted by wulfie
Spare me - the complaint of 'no WMD' is purely a political ploy. The same people complaining now are on record as being concerned about Iraq and the spread of WMD before our current President was ever in the White House.
When Congress was debating use of force earlier this year, I heard Diane Feinstein speaking on the radio. This was going to be interesting, was she going to oppose the war? No, she said she was in favor of military action, based on evidence she heard during Senate intelligence breifings that Saddam was still developing WMDs.
If it turns out that the secret briefings the adminstration gave Congress were deliberatly false, then I think representatives have a right to be upset.
-
Absolutely. If their vote was based on faulty information given them, how could they be held to it? It's no longer good to say "They approved and voted for the use of force".
-
Originally posted by Montezuma
When Congress was debating use of force earlier this year, I heard Diane Feinstein speaking on the radio. This was going to be interesting, was she going to oppose the war? No, she said she was in favor of military action, based on evidence she heard during Senate intelligence breifings that Saddam was still developing WMDs.
If it turns out that the secret briefings the adminstration gave Congress were deliberatly false, then I think representatives have a right to be upset.
I agree with you. But the specific evidence and briefings that are being questioned all took place/were revealed a few months after alot of the 'doubters' voted in favor of military action.
From http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/ (Monday's page):
"How many Americans found the case for regime change otherwise unpersuasive but were won over by the part about uranium in Africa? It seems likely the answer is very few; and it's surely implausible that three of the four leading Democratic candidates for president fall into this group (especially since they voted for the war 3 1/2 months before Bush mentioned the allegation)."
Don't get me wrong some of the writing that shows up here is the 'republican' version of the fact-bending rhetoric that I hate. But in this case the people claiming 'falsified data' can't say that's why they voted for military action.
In all honesty the thing that people should not be able to 'breeze around' is the 'guitly' behavior of Iraq's leadership when it comes to the deception(s) that took place in their dealings with the UN WMD inspection teams. When the first team got booted I could understand the rationale from a National pride standpoint - *if* the team was loaded with pure intelligence officers posing as WMD specialists, then I could see the Iraqi leadership getting pissed and demanding another team - a sort of variation of Nations declaring foreign embassy personnel 'PNG' when they get caught being too aggressive in terms of intelligence work.
But the team led by Blix - they had a golden opportunity to go along with the UN, get the sanctions lifted, and start raking in some serious $$$ - all which would have been a big slap in the face to the U.S.A., U.K. and others after defying the cease fire for 10+ years.
Look at the intercepts quoted by Powell in the UN session - the ones where an Iraqi superior is telling one of his senior officers to 'delete all references to chemical weapons' in his unit's SOP/CA. In my opinion there's too much 'guilty' behavior for no WMD to exist - which is a cause for concern.
Hey maybe in 10 years we'll all have beers together and look back and say 'who would have thought that the National Inquirer was right all along about the location of the WMD'. :)
Mike/wulfie
-
Originally posted by Arfann
Where I was: Vietnam, mid to late sixties.
That must have been 'interesting' to say the least. I get the feeling you were in the field. Have you read any books by Vietnam veterans? If so, which do you think give the most accurate portrayal?
My Dad was over there when I was 2-3 years old. There was a little 'picture movie' (i.e. a series of photographs displayed one after the other, each for about 4 seconds) that was on TV before the morning news came on. The music that played to the pictures was that song 'What's Goin On' I think. One of my earliest memories is sitting by my Mom while she ironed clothes in the living room and when the still picture of the black soldier or marine playing a guitar behind some sandbags came on the TV my Mom would tell me "That's where you Daddy is right now".
Mike/wulfie
p.s. I may be offline for a couple of weeks before you reply to this. If you have a book recommendation send it to me via personal message on the AH BBS please.
-
Originally posted by Arfann
Where I was: Vietnam, mid to late sixties.
My response to the remainder of your post: What in the world are you talking about?
Talking about people who have higher clearances that know stuff they can tell you but can't tell you how they know.
In some cases the fact itself is unclassified. How the fact was discovered and verified is highly classified.
You can either believe them or not. But you simply don't know what they know or how they discovered and verified it.
-
If memory serves (and a BBS search may verify) Toad, you referred to just such a scenario in much the same way (your friends in high places) as bolstering your confidence in WMDs (along with a well developed nuke program) in Iraq. They may give you a knowing look, but it doesn't mean they're right. ;)
Of course... I could be remembering this all wrong. :)
-
As wulfie points out Nash, the search for WMD is a long way from over.
Today's news organizations foster a "short attention span theater" approach to affairs.
"Jeez it's been three whole MONTHS already!"
;)
-
Originally posted by Toad
Talking about people who have higher clearances that know stuff they can tell you but can't tell you how they know.
In some cases the fact itself is unclassified. How the fact was discovered and verified is highly classified.
You can either believe them or not. But you simply don't know what they know or how they discovered and verified it.
There is a tremendous difference between someone with rank or higher clearance giving orders and instructions to subordinates and someone discussing issues on a public forum.
-
Thanks Dowding.
As far as Uranium, that was always speculation as far as I am concerned. That was an issue to be dealt with but not the main one.
So, did we go because of the WMD program? Or did we go because of the amount of WMD’s they possessed? It’s my impression that it was the amount but now since none have been found yet we want to say “well it was the program that we were after, not the quantity”. One may be the same.
Toad, yes three months isn’t that long and as I said I’ll hold out until the end of the year to see how it all plays out. What I have problems understanding is the level to which we were told, or rather the amount of chemical and biological weapons that were in their direct possession.
It seems logical to me that if the quantities were that large we would have run across at least an 8oz can somewhere.
The problem as I see it is in the end if we don’t find anything but have proof, documents and statements, that yes they indeed existed but were completely destroyed and scrubbed before or during the invasion that’s not going to help us at all with the political war. It will immediately start with the evidence being somehow invented or falsified by us. What’s the saying, possession is nine-tenths the law? Well so is perception.
It will make no difference if in the end we cannot justify the statements made about the quantities and magnitude of the program if we are unable to show the physical evidence in the form of 1000’s of gallons of something.
Krusher, as far as the marriage thing, you’re right it was religious but picked up by the state. So now actually it is no longer a religious process but a tax status. I do not believe that the federal government should be that involved in how the state’s run their business from day to day. The farther I can keep them out of my pocket the better. It needs to be worked out in the justice system not the executive branch. Let one state pass it and another ban it. Let’s roll it up through the court system and let the Supremes finally hash it out if need be. He should not have the power to dictate his own religious beliefs on the nation though. That is my problem with it.
-
Hey there Zipp,
I for one appreciate the open hearted approach to your post.
Here's how I feel about it... Saddam may be a maniacal murdering piece of dog dung, but he isn't stupid.
No country in the Middle East is particularly fond of Iraq. Saddam gained his support by playing the America vs. Middle East card. Had he used WMD's, much of the support and sympathy he garnered would have been lost, and also would have justified the United States decision to wage war.
By hiding any WMD's, the failure of the United States to find these weapons paints us as lying fools. I myself believe that Iraq had these weapons. I also believe that he had plenty of time to hide them. It's a big desert out there, and all it would take is a few bulldozers in the middle of the night to bury tons of drums containing chemicals out in the middle of nowhere.
This is of course only my opinion, and I could obviously be wrong about it. But the smartest thing Saddam could have done would be to hide the WMD's. If he did this, the outcome is obvious because we're seeing it in action right now. We look like fools.
-
Well, IMO, Wulfie's history here with respect to the accuracy of what he says is well above standard vis-a-vis the rest of the board.
So, I give his words a lot of weight.
You may choose to react differently.
-
Zip, as I 've also said many times, I'm willing to wait but there will come a time when responsibility and accountability come to the fore.
He's Commander In Chief. In the end it was his call that sent us to war. In the end, he should be judged on the accuracy of that call (amongst other things).
Now, we really can't do a thing about it until the next elections, can we?
So I can easily relax and see what develops between now and then. 90 days? It can be an eternity or a mere moment, depending on personal choice and attitude. For me in this case, it's a moment.
-
Originally posted by wulfie
That must have been 'interesting' to say the least. I get the feeling you were in the field. Have you read any books by Vietnam veterans? If so, which do you think give the most accurate portrayal?
Mike/wulfie
p.s. I may be offline for a couple of weeks before you reply to this. If you have a book recommendation send it to me via personal message on the AH BBS please.
It is hard to reccommend one book over another on this subject. The problem is that there were so many different experiences. One might have flown close air support, another FAC, another helicopter ops, another in the mud for a year, another in an air conditioned office in Saigon. All you can do to get the overall picture is read all you can find that are written by vets. Even then, a remf office weenie might write a "historical novel" about ground pounders and be totally off the mark. Also, many times the up-front participant actually knows very little about "the big picture", and what he does know is what he's told by "the man".
P.S. The private message function seems to be disabled.
-
Originally posted by Zippatuh
So, did we go because of the WMD program? Or did we go because of the amount of WMD’s they possessed? It’s my impression that it was the amount but now since none have been found yet we want to say “well it was the program that we were after, not the quantity”. One may be the same.
Toad, yes three months isn’t that long and as I said I’ll hold out until the end of the year to see how it all plays out. What I have problems understanding is the level to which we were told, or rather the amount of chemical and biological weapons that were in their direct possession.
It seems logical to me that if the quantities were that large we would have run across at least an 8oz can somewhere.
The problem as I see it is in the end if we don’t find anything but have proof, documents and statements, that yes they indeed existed but were completely destroyed and scrubbed before or during the invasion that’s not going to help us at all with the political war. It will immediately start with the evidence being somehow invented or falsified by us. What’s the saying, possession is nine-tenths the law? Well so is perception.
It will make no difference if in the end we cannot justify the statements made about the quantities and magnitude of the program if we are unable to show the physical evidence in the form of 1000’s of gallons of something.
Have any of you guys listened to the Scott Ritter interview (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4101.htm) linked in another thread? I'm still not sure if he's telling the truth or not - but he claims that by 1996 Iraq's WMD manufacturing capability was totally destroyed. An interesting bit in the interview, which can I'm sure be verified by someone on this BBS, was when he claimed that Iraq's VX agent has a viability of 1-8 days (I've seen estimates of 14 days on the net) and the liquid bulk anthrax - the last documented batch was 1991 - has a shelf life (in optimal storage conditions) of 3 years.
He further reckons the much vaunted missing WMDs may actually never have been produced - the Iraqi's never claimed they had produced as much as the US claims they did, but their production facilities were capable of producing that amount and UNSCOM had to assume that they had produced much more than the Iraqis claimed - to be on the safe side. After all - politicians do have a habit of indulging in "terminological inexactitudes" a lot. ;)
He does also present a plausible reason for why the Iraq blocked UN Inspectors:
According to Ritter, the 2% of inspections blocked by the Iraqis were not places where weapons could be stored - they were presidential palaces and C3 and Intelligence facilities. UNSCOM weren't even looking for weapons there - they were looking for documentation to clear up where the missing WMDs were or if they actually existed. The Iraqi government alledgedly refused only until UNSCOM provided them with a reason why they wanted to search those facilities and guarantees that the information gathered there would not be used to attempt to kill Hussein. Certainly the Iraqis were proved not to be being paranoid when they claimed (correctly) that UNSCOM was packed with US & UK spies. Ritter argues that they may also have been more than justified in questioning UNSCOM's motives in searching these non-WMD facilities: According to Ritter, in the December 1998 bombing campaign of the 112 targets bombed - 96 were "intelligence targets related to the security of Saddam Husein" and directly derived from UNSCOM inspections. Of course, verifying those bombing stats would be an enormous pain - and probably unfeasible without some sort of security clearance, so to all intents and purposes this may be uncheckable. Which is why I still can't fully believe him, but he makes for an interesting and plausible-sounding alternative to the Whitehouse's version.
-
forwarded to me by an old superior that held a much higher clearance than mine.
Just a differing view of what's going on, something to compare and contrast to the daily news.
I hope all will understand it's not my intent to offend. I'm sure some of what is said here will raise some hackles. I'd hope though that it is viewed rather as a "report from the front" and as such will carry some non politically correct personal views from the writer. A person that perhaps HAS a much different view due to being in the action rather than 3000 miles away behind a TV tube.
(I edited out the proanity and the personal details)
******
Subject:Message From Iraq.
It Ain't Necessarily So.
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003, 11:09:09 GMT
Hey Guys, sorry it's been so long since I've sent anything but a quick note to you individually. However things have been pretty hectic since the end of hostilities and the start of the real war. Despite what the *******s in the press like to say over and over:
1) We did expect some armed resistance from the Ba'ath Party and Feydaheen;
2) It isn't any worse than expected;
3) Things are getting better each day, and
4) The morale of the troops is A-1, except for the normal squeaking and griping.
My brief love affair with the press, especially the guys who had the cajones to be embedded with the troops during the fighting, is probably over, especially since we are back being criticized by the same Roland Headly types that used to hang around the Palestine Hotel drinking Baghdad Bob's whiskey and parroting his ridiculous B.S.
I'm in Baghdad now, since SpOpComm 5 relocated here from Qatar. It looks, sounds and smells about the same but at least you can get Maker's Mark at the local OC. We came up in mid-June to help set up operation Scorpion and Sidewinder. It represents a major (and long overdue) shift in tactics.
Instead of being sitting ducks for the ragheads we now are going after the worthless pieces of fecal matter. [O.D. NOTE: VERY understated!] I'm no longer baby-sitting the pukes from CNN and the canned hams from the networks, but have a combat mission coordinating a bunch of A teams, seeking, finding and rooting out the mostly non-Iraqis that are well-armed, well-paid (in U.S. dollars) and always waiting to wail for the press and then shoot some GI in the back in the midst of a crowd.
The only reason the GIs are pissed (not demoralized) is that they cannot touch, must less waste, those taunting bags of gas that scream in their faces and riot on cue when they spot a camera man from ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN or NBC. If they did, then they know the next nightly news will be about how chaotic things are and how much the Iraqi people hate us.
Some do. But the vast majority don't and more and more see that the GIs don't start anything, are by-and-large friendly, and very compassionate, especially to kids and old people. I saw a bunch of 19 year-olds from the 82nd Airborne not return fire coming from a mosque until they got a group of elderly civilians out of harm’s way. So did the Iraqis.
A bunch of bad guys used a group of women and children as human shields. The GIs surrounded them and negotiated their surrender fifteen hours later and when they discovered a three year-old girl had been injured by the big tough guys throwing her down a flight of stairs, the GIs called in a MedVac helicopter to take her and her mother to the nearest field hospital. The Iraqis watched it all, and there hasn't been a problem in that neighborhood since. How many such stories, and there are hundreds of them, ever get reported in the fair and balanced press? You know, nada.
The civilians who have figured it out faster than anyone are the local teenagers. They watch the GIs and try to talk to them and ask questions about America and now wear wrap-around sunglasses, GAP T-shirts, Dockers (or even better Levis with the red tags) and Nikes (or Egyptian knock-offs, but with the "swoosh") and love to listen to AFN when the GIs play it on their radios.They participate less and less in the demonstrations and help keep us informed when a wannabe bad-ass shows up in the neighborhood.
The younger kids are going back to school again, don't have to listen to some mullah rant about the Koran ten hours a day, and they get a hot meal.
They see the same GIs who man the corner checkpoint, helping clear the playground, install new swingsets and create soccer fields. I watched a bunch of kids playing baseball in one playground, under the supervision of a couple of GIs from Oklahoma. They weren't very good but were having fun, probably more than most Little Leaguers.
The place is still a mess but most of it has been for years. But the Hospitals are open and are in the process of being brought into the 21st Century. The MOs and visiting surgeons from home are teaching their docs new techniques and one American pharmaceutical company (you know, the kind that all the hippies like to scream about as greedy) donated enough medicine to stock 45 hospital pharmacies for a year.
Safe water is more available.
Electricity has been restored to pre-war levels but saboteurs keep cutting the lines. And the old Ba'ath big shots are upset because they can't get fuel for their private generators. One actually complained to General McKeirnan, who told him it was a rough world.
The MPs are screening the 80,000 Iraqi police force and rehabbing the ones that weren't goons, shake-down artists or torturers like they did in East Berlin, Kosovo and Afghanistan. There are dual patrols of Iraqi cops and U.S./U.K./Polish MPs now in most of the larger cities.
Basra has 3.5 million inhabitants.
Mosul is a city of 2 million.
Kirkuk has 1 million.
How many and hundreds of other small towns have not had riots or shootings?
The vast majority.
The six U.K. cops were killed in a small Shiite town by the ex-cops they were re-habbing. According to a Royal Marine colonel I talked to, the town now has about twenty permanent vacancies in its police force.
Mick, he's a big potato eater from Belfast named Huggins and knows how to handle terrorists after twenty years fighting with the IRA. He sends his regards and says he'd love to have you here. Thinks you'd make a great police chief, even though the cops would be more frightened of you than the local hoods (then he laughed) I heard one doofus on MSNBC the other night talk about how "nearly 60" Gis have been killed since 01 May.
The truth is that 21 GIs have been killed in combat, mostly from ambush, from 01 May through 30 June, Another 29 have been killed by accidents or other causes (two drowned while swimming in the Tigris).
The MSNBC turd is the same jerk who reported on the air that "dozens of GIs" were badly burned when two RPGs hit a truck belonging to an Engineer Battalion that was parked by a construction site. The truck was hit and burned, three GIs received minor injuries (including the driver who burnt his hand) and three warriors of Allah were promptly sent to enjoy their 72 slave girls in Paradise. Hell of a way to get laid.
A mosque in that ******** Fallujah blew up this morning while the local imam, a creep named Fahlil (who was one of the biggest local loudmouths that frequently appeared on CNN) was helping a Syrian Hamas member teach eight teenagers how to make belt bombs. Right away the local Feyhadeen propaganda group started wailing that the Americans hit it with a TOW missile (If they had there wouldn't have been any mosque left!) and the usual suspects took to the streets for CNN and BBC. One fool was dragging around a piece of tin with blood on it, claiming it was part of the missile.
The cameras rolled and the idiot started repeating his story, then one of my guys asked him in Arabic where he had left the rag he usually wore around his face that made him look like a girl. He was a local leader of the Feyhadeen. We took the clown in custody and were asked rather indignantly by the twit from BBC if we were trying to shut up "the poor man who had seen his mosque and friends blown up." I told the airy-fairy who the raghead was and if he knew Arabic (which he obviously didn't) he'd know he was a Palestinian. I suggested we take him down to the local jail and we'd lock him and his cameraman in a cell with the "poor man" and they could interview him until we took him to headquarters. They declined the invitation.
Guess what played on the Bull**** Broadcasting System that evening? Did the Americans blow up a mosque? See the poor man who is still in a state of shock over losing his mosque and relatives? Yep. Our friend the Palestinian.
Our search and destroy missions are largely at night, free of reporters and generally terrifying to those brave warriors of Allah.
The only thing that frightens them more is hearing the word "Gitmo". The word is out that a trip to “Gitmo” is not a Caribbean vacation and they usually start squealing like the little mice they are, when an interrogator mentions "Gitmo". No wonder the International Red Cross, the National Council of Churches and the French keep protesting about the place.
They know it has proven to be very effective in keeping several hundred real fanatical psychopaths in check and very frankly would rather see them cut loose to go kill some more GIs or innocent Americans, just to make W. look bad.
We have about 200 really bad guys in custody now and probably will park them in the desert behind a triple roll of razor wire, backed up by a couple of Bradleys pointed their way, if they decide to riot. Maybe a few will get to Gitmo but most are human garbage that wouldn't take on your five-year old grandson face-to-face. The more we go after them and not vice-versa I think we will see the sniper attacks go down. Yeah, they'll get lucky now and then, but it's showtime, fellows.
-
Our first objective is to get the die-hards off the street (or make them too scared to come out in them) and destroy their caches of weapons (we have collected more than 227,000 AK-47s and that is only the tip of the iceburg; Curly bought nearly a million of them from our pal Vladimir), then cut off their money supply, mostly from Syria and Lebanon. We must continue to get public services up and running, so the local families can get water, sewage and garbage service; electricity, public transportation; oil fields and
refineries working and a dinar that won't halve in value every month.
It's going to be a long haul (remember it took 10-15 years in Japan and West Germany) but if we don't stick with it, nobody else will, and we'll have some other looney running the place again.
This place has greater potential than Saudi Arabia (bunch of ******** who struck black gold) or Iran (weird dudes who can't run a rug bazaar much less a major country).
Armageddon, here we come. Remember, it's located on the outskirts of Jerusalem.
Enough of that cheery speculation. The good news is that General Schoonmaker is going to appointed ChiefArmy and the old man is coming to Tampa to run the SpOps desk at CentComm. He's tops and will be getting his second star.
To me it means that SpOps will be more predominant in future operations and after 18 years as a GB maybe I'll have a shot at a bird-level combat command.The old man asked me to come to MacDill and be his ACS but I told him after I spent four months changing the diapers of the media types, I wanted to go back to action. Hence, my current gig.
As the movie quoted old General Patton, "God help me, I love it." I do. Nothing more satisfying than working with the BEST damn soldiers in the world, flushing real human poop down the drain and giving some folks a chance at trying freedom for a change.
They may learn to like it and then my great-great-grandson won't have to worry about some maniac trying to destroy the planet.
My tour is over at the end of August, and I plan to return to ******, brief the old man, then head to ************ and see my two sweethearts. I'd like to visit my parents in ******** and my brother in ************, before taking on a trip across the country. Just like any other family. It will charge my
batteries before I end up back in some other ********* ... er, interesting and challenging location. I hope to see most of you and ask for some advice, no support. I know I've had that all along. Thanks.
Now about that Maker's Mark.
God Bless America.
"War doesn't determine who wins, war determines who is left"
-
An big to you Zippatuh!
Seeing Americans think like this gives me hope!
-
Basically Zip, it came down to two choices .
1. Containment. Keep the gun to his head (an armored division) while UN inspections go on permenantly, and Saddam continues to show the world how peacefull western countries can be manipulated and played for the rest of his life, and maybe his sons' .
2. Removal and reconstruction. Expensive in both economic terms and humanity . But cheaper in the long run imo, in both economic terms and humanity .
Analyze the situation over and over and you will keep coming back to these choices. We made the right one .
-
Originally posted by Toad Blah, blah, blah. . . . raghead. . . . . . .fecal matter . . . . . . . . blah.
Yeah, right. Sounds like it's written by someone who reads too much Soldier of Fortune. Never seen actual battle, but did stay at a Holiday Inn Express once. If real, it is obviously written for who it was sent to and not for distribution on a public forum.
-
Actually, I was encouraged to distribute it widely.
While you were in VN, did you ever use the word "gook"?
But obviously, it couldn't possibly be true. After all, it doesn't fit your idea of what's going on there. You've been closely watching CNN after all.
-
4) The morale of the troops is A-1, except for the normal squeaking and griping.
Yesterday on Swedish TV they showed U.S troops complaining about the situation in Irak, and wanting to go home allredy...
Dont want to start an fight here, i dunno wich news agency interviewed the troops...
-
Toad,
I know the elections are coming up and regardless of what “inconsistencies” surface I understand that you can only act on what information is being given. I also happen to believe that he may be the best leader for the current situation. Don’t get me wrong, I like the guy, he just scares the crap out of me sometimes. There’s probably a 90% chance I’ll vote for the guy again.
I like people that make decisions and then stick to it. Even if the decision is later found to be wrong and I’m not saying that I think this whole situation was wrong. I’m arguing perception.
I sincerely hope that what you have posted from a friend and what wulfie has to say is accurate and correct. If the people are truly being won over and it is just the few bad guys left trying to stir the pot then that can be taken care of. What’s being portrayed by the press though is different. And I know sex and violence sell ad time.
I still believe though that, even if you are correct, if we do not find some type of hard, strong, and believable evidence of WMD program, meaning containers for bio or chem. weapons we will have won the battles but ultimately lost the war.
The Iraqi people can love us, which would be tremendous. It looks like they need help; I want to help them but the world community will only look at us as opportunists. Doing what’s right, believing what’s right, and knowing what’s right in the end will get us no where if the rest of the world thinks we did this for nothing other than vengeance or money.
I know our new foreign policy is basically we do not need your approval, far different from the Clinton days. We really can’t snub everybody all the time though. Sooner or later that will come back to bite us in the arse.
How many times has someone accused you of lying when you were telling the truth but had no way to back it up? Have you ever done something that was right before but seen by others as a mistake or an error? I think this is very similar but on a much grander scale.
I really kind of see myself as an isolationist when it comes to our foreign affairs but if we’re going to play with the other children… Well, we need to show the knife Bobby had after we beat him up on the playground otherwise we’ll end up in detention instead of Bobby.
-
Originally posted by Toad
1 Actually, I was encouraged to distribute it widely.
2While you were in VN, did you ever use the word "gook"?
3 But obviously, it couldn't possibly be true. After all, it doesn't fit your idea of what's going on there. You've been closely watching CNN after all.
1. Proof that it is not authentic.
2. Of course not. We always said, "Here come those silly old Vietnamese insurgents again!" and "It just really is inconvenient when they mortar the NCO club!" Twit! Of course you use that kind of language troop to troop.
3. I've no idea "what's going on there", since I'm not there. I just believe that whatever Dubya's fanboys say is going on is pure BS and I question the veracity of your "on sight" report. I don't watch CNN, Fox, or MSNBC. They're all just talking heads looking for ratings, preaching to the choir.
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Yesterday on Swedish TV they showed U.S troops complaining about the situation in Irak, and wanting to go home allredy...
Dont want to start an fight here, i dunno wich news agency interviewed the troops...
They’re talking about the mechanized units that were there from the very beginning which has been about 10 months.
They’ve been in normal combat and had to then deal with the current situation. Everyone wants to come back home from the field. Hell, I had troops that cried after 7 days in a 3 week exercise. Absence of showers, regular cable TV, a soft mattress, sex, and a McDonalds, I would say they want to come home but that’s not really an indication of their morale.
When they start questioning orders, not complaining or griping, but questioning then you’ll know morale is down.
-
Zip, I essentially agree with all you posted there. No major differences, except that IF it becomes clear the WMD issue was a "put up job" I won't vote for him again.
-
1. Comes to me from the best commander I ever had or even met in the service, flag rank.
2. So what you pick out of the article to quote and use to disprove it... a lack of political correctness... is something you yourself did?
3. So, you admit you have no clue what's going on, but you know what you want to believe?
-
Originally posted by Toad
1. Comes to me from the best commander I ever had or even met in the service, flag rank.
2. So what you pick out of the article to quote and use to disprove it... a lack of political correctness... is something you yourself did?
3. So, you admit you have no clue what's going on, but you know what you want to believe?
Having reduced the opposition to nervous twitches and giggles GronK returned to the lair to await the next poseur.
-
Originally posted by Zippatuh
They’re talking about the mechanized units that were there from the very beginning which has been about 10 months.
They’ve been in normal combat and had to then deal with the current situation. Everyone wants to come back home from the field. Hell, I had troops that cried after 7 days in a 3 week exercise. Absence of showers, regular cable TV, a soft mattress, sex, and a McDonalds, I would say they want to come home but that’s not really an indication of their morale.
When they start questioning orders, not complaining or griping, but questioning then you’ll know morale is down.
The US army, from what I've seen, is extremely professional - I doubt if it will ever question orders - unless those orders are seen to be illegal. I do think though that they are beginning to feel badly used.
Having said that what does puzzle me is why the US don't hand over the whole thing to the UN - most countries have said they are quite willing to give troops but only under a UN mandate - why not do so and get out of the briar patch?
-
Toad, that email seems way less like an email to an old friend as it does a pretty slick work of public relations. It raises and swats away basically every single talking point of the war... the entire laundry list of issues... almost all of them making an apearance on this BBS. Not sure why you'd need to be lectured how this occupation in Iraq is different than that of Germany and Japan...
That kind of thing...
But it turns out you were encouraged to distribute this widely. May I ask what that guy's particular job is? Did he write that personally or attach the personal stuff to you at the end? It's a pretty good peice of writing, considering the intent...
... I had no idea things were quite that rosey. ;)
-
Gronk, what time's your next stand-up appearance? Booked by Leno as yet?
:D
-
Nash, it came to me from my last commander (retired, flag rank).
Came to him from one of his Active Duty compatriots. Was not written to either of these people but was passed around to some by the initial recipient.
I asked if it was OK to distribute it on a BBS, my commander said "sure, that's a good thing".
I consider that WIDE distribution, don't you?
Now, if you and Gronk want to believe I sat down and made it all up, addressing AH BBS comments point by point. Well, go ahead and believe that. There's nothing I can say to convince you, obviously.
That's how I got it and I posted it verbatim except for profanity and people/place names that could be used to track the writer. Seems to me the original writer may not have meant for the cities where his family lives to be posted on a world-wide BBS. If I were serving in Iraq even at a lower command level, I wouldn't want my name and family locations broadcast in a way that could be used by the folks I'm fighting to get to me. Paranoia? Maybe.. but I figure I owe him that small precaution, even if it is paranoid.
-
Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
The US army, from what I've seen, is extremely professional - I doubt if it will ever question orders - unless those orders are seen to be illegal. I do think though that they are beginning to feel badly used.
Having said that what does puzzle me is why the US don't hand over the whole thing to the UN - most countries have said they are quite willing to give troops but only under a UN mandate - why not do so and get out of the briar patch?
Used? I’m not sure about. I do think they believe their job is done. They battled the other military and won. Now it’s time to come home and let the politicians deal with it. Soldiers are usually straight forward. “Blow it up or don’t blow it up. Call me when you want it blown up.”
From what I understand the French have still vowed to veto any resolution that would put UN troops in Iraq. That’s probably what is stopping the mandate from even being proposed on the floor. For them I think it does come down to money. I think they want certain assurances of contracts before they’ll agree in the UN.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Gronk, what time's your next stand-up appearance? Booked by Leno as yet?
:D
Gronk quietly accepts the victory trophy and shuffles modestly back to the lair.
-
Now, if you and Gronk want to believe I sat down and made it all up, addressing AH BBS comments point by point. Well, go ahead and believe that. There's nothing I can say to convince you, obviously.
[/B]
It's that nervous little laugh, man. Gives you away every time. Gotta find a way to control that iffen yer gonna bamboozle the wary.
-
It's not a nervous laugh, it's the good old fashioned full out laugh.
The same kind that comes out when somebody refers to themselves in the mythical third person singular.
:D
-
Originally posted by Zippatuh
Used? I’m not sure about. I do think they believe their job is done. They battled the other military and won. Now it’s time to come home and let the politicians deal with it. Soldiers are usually straight forward. “Blow it up or don’t blow it up. Call me when you want it blown up.”
From what I understand the French have still vowed to veto any resolution that would put UN troops in Iraq. That’s probably what is stopping the mandate from even being proposed on the floor. For them I think it does come down to money. I think they want certain assurances of contracts before they’ll agree in the UN.
I suspect most countries are going to say, " You made the mess, you clean it up!"
-
Originally posted by Toad
It's not a nervous laugh, it's the good old fashioned full out laugh.
The same kind that comes out when somebody refers to themselves in the mythical third person singular.
:D
GronK wouldn't do a thing like that!!
-
Aw, why shouldn't Gronk have a good laugh himself once in a while instead of just being the object of merriment for others?
-
Would those be the same countries that cry so hard their mascara runs when the "clean up" contracts go to US companies?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Aw, why shouldn't Gronk have a good laugh himself once in a while instead of just being the object of merriment for others?
Actually, you were right. Leno did want me. The problem was, it would have involved posing nude on a Harley Davidson. There are some things that even I wouldn't do in pursuit of the filthy lucra, and sitting on a Harley is one.
My apologies to my squaddies and any others who actually know me for the nightmares caused by the mental image the preceding paragraph created.
-
Would those be the same countries that cry so hard their mascara runs when the "clean up" contracts go to US companies?
Sure. I don't think it's particularly unreasonable to expect the clean up contracts to go to US, but neither is it particularly reasonable to expect other countries do the peace-keeping duties. Afterall, the UN is a joke, right?
BTW, how are British companies fairing in the contract allocation process? Or Australian ones? Last I heard, they weren't doing too well and they had people fighting the good fight. Didn't Um Qasr reconstruction go to a US company with no prior experience instead of the multitude of British marine contractors?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Would those be the same countries that cry so hard their mascara runs when the "clean up" contracts go to US companies?
No, they're the ones that refuse to send security forces to die in the interest of US companies making a nice profit on the cleanup. No problem, really, since Dubya's more than willing to sacrifice US troops for the job.
BTW, I finally figured out the meaning of "Iraqi Freedom". It's a reference to the old song, "Me and Bobby McGee".
-
What a bunch of whiners.
If the UN would have acted in the first place, we would not have had to take on this size of operation. The UN has the stones of a field mouse...their more interested in self promotion than they are doing what's right. Paper pushing revenuers.
As to US firms being awarded contracts...get over it. There is a group of you who have complained about every step taken since before the war. The point is to help bring Iraq to a place where they can be truly independent.
Europe had their contracts for the past 25 years with Saddam...now the US will do it right....ooops...I forgot...you malcontents want us to fail.
And you wonder why our stomachs turn at your every spineless statement.
So many of you are ungrateful....you have never earned a thing in your lives and can't grasp what it takes to stand up for what's right. Thirty days had not passed since we entered Iraq before you whiners started your "where are all the WMD's?"
Some of you just plain piss me off.
-
Originally posted by Rude
What a bunch of whiners.
If the UN would have acted in the first place, we would not have had to take on this size of operation. The UN has the stones of a field mouse...their more interested in self promotion than they are doing what's right. Paper pushing revenuers.
As to US firms being awarded contracts...get over it. There is a group of you who have complained about every step taken since before the war. The point is to help bring Iraq to a place where they can be truly independent.
Europe had their contracts for the past 25 years with Saddam...now the US will do it right....ooops...I forgot...you malcontents want us to fail.
And you wonder why our stomachs turn at your every spineless statement.
So many of you are ungrateful....you have never earned a thing in your lives and can't grasp what it takes to stand up for what's right. Thirty days had not passed since we entered Iraq before you whiners started your "where are all the WMD's?"
Some of you just plain piss me off.
Oh my goodness! Come on, everyone, let's get together and make a pact not to piss off Rude or (heaven forbid) make his tummy turn. Tell yer neighbors to tell their kids in Iraq to find those WMD RIGHT NOW so Rude can rest easy.
-
Originally posted by Arfann
No, they're the ones that refuse to send security forces to die in the interest of US companies making a nice profit on the cleanup. No problem, really, since Dubya's more than willing to sacrifice US troops for the job.
Ah! So the whole Iraq War was just to get some clean up contracts for Bush's Big Business Buddies?
Wow! What a revelation!
Tell, me.... what's your source for that one? Can you share the top secret insider intel with us?
Or was that just off CNN?
And this "refuse to send security forces" thing.. how does that tie into it being "not fair" that the refuseniks aren't getting the contracts?
-
BTW, Dowding. I haven't seen or looked for anything on the contracts awarded, so I couldn't comment.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Ah! So the whole Iraq War was just to get some clean up contracts for Bush's Big Business Buddies?
Wow! What a revelation!
Tell, me.... what's your source for that one? Can you share the top secret insider intel with us?
Or was that just off CNN?
And this "refuse to send security forces" thing.. how does that tie into it being "not fair" that the refuseniks aren't getting the contracts?
Careful you don't sprain something with that illogical leap of logic. You finish yer class in Rush Rhetoric 101 yet?
-
Wow... you're a thoughtful man, Zippatuh.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Or was that just off CNN?
Funny you should mention. You and others keep referring to CNN so I flicked through the cable news channels tonight to find out what you were talking about. You're right, they don't agree with the spewage from the conservatives on this board.
1. General in charge in Iraq now calling it a "Classic Guerilla Action".
2. They're going to a 1 year tour of duty.
Isn't that interesting (church lady voice). Does this remind you of something? Oh, , , , , ,let's say . . . . . .
VIETNAM!!!
-
Originally posted by Arfann
Careful you don't sprain something with that illogical leap of logic. You finish yer class in Rush Rhetoric 101 yet?
Aw, that's cute!
You impugn Wulfie's post but evade every question on the unsupported stuff you toss out.
-
Ah! Now Iraq is a Vietnam like quagmire that the US won't be able to deal with!
Wow! I'll write this down because you are certainly the first guy to make that prediction!
-
As to US firms being awarded contracts...get over it.
You mean gold ol' British troops are good enough to die in the sand, but when it comes to making money, the US gets a bona fide monopoly? That's what we like to see - fair handedness all the way.
Europe had their contracts for the past 25 years with Saddam...now the US will do it right....ooops...I forgot...you malcontents want us to fail.
lol What are you saying? The US had absolutely nothing to do with Saddam, the support and development of his regime? That was all Europe's fault and now the US will do the right thing and rectify a problem solely created by Europe?
And you wonder why our stomachs turn at your every spineless statement.
Our? Oh my.
So many of you are ungrateful....you have never earned a thing in your lives...
I would say that is completely inaccurate on so many levels, based on so much ignorance and assumption as to be laughable - but I wouldn't want to interrupt your two minute hate. Carry on!
Thirty days had not passed since we entered Iraq before you whiners started your "where are all the WMD's?"
Many people are expecting a little too much at this stage, true. But considering the controversy about intelligence veracity, particularly over here, it is understandable IMO. The continuous switching of the casus belli throughout the affair hasn't really filled people with confidence about this war.
Some of you just plain piss me off.
It happens.
-
It's a pure waste of virtual ink Downding :)
-
.
-
Toad you're an intelligent man, why do you bother here ? Next time you get the itch to reply here, imagine yourself trying to sit comfortably in a first grader's chair .
-
Originally posted by Suave
Toad you're an intelligent man, why do you bother here ? Next time you get the itch to reply here, imagine yourself trying to sit comfortably in a first grader's chair .
Oh, now I understand! Once we elevate ourselves past juvenile thinking we will accept conservative un-think as the only reasonable way to look at things and the Lord God Bush as Christ incarnate. Thank you ever so much for clearing that up for me.
-
See . Serious discorse is not an option .
-
So arrogantly likening people to children is serious discourse? I see, thanks for clearing that up.
-
This is obviously going to be a subject of much debate for some considerable time. I’m not sure though that I would liken this to Vietnam. I was born during that conflict so I have no first hand knowledge of it but the social, economic, and political situations during that time I believe had a large influence over that whole ordeal. I would like to think, and believe, that we learned and evolved since then.
I can’t speak to contracts or money either as I really do not have any information on that at all. Knowing people though there is going to be a bit of animosity between countries because there will be some between their leaders. I would like to think though that countries that were willing to spill blood with us will get taken care of in the end.
Those that didn’t, in the interest of trying to play nice with the other children, should probably get a snow cone or two but they can’t expect to end up with a drumstick. That’s all going to come down to setting aside our differences in opinion and trying to work towards the big win. Personalities being what they are though mean this isn’t going to happen smoothly and possibly not at all for some countries.
Through all this the Iraqi civilians are being caught in the middle. What it all boils down to is a bad life for the normal Iraqi equates to a bad tour for any service personnel in the region. Reconstruction takes time, both mentally and physically, I think we all understand this. Being from Missouri though, someone needs to Show Me the WMD’s and do it PDQ.
Thanks for all the discussion, some more heated than others but the theme still seems to be true regardless of which side you’re on. Present the “reason” for war and there will be no need for this discussion, neither here, across both ponds, or in Iraq. In my book, they have until January 1, 2004 to provide some proof to us all and stabilize the civilian infrastructure.
-
Originally posted by Suave
Toad you're an intelligent man, why do you bother here ? Next time you get the itch to reply here, imagine yourself trying to sit comfortably in a first grader's chair .
Well put
-
Dowding.....
The truth of the matter is really a difference in opinions, covering a wide variety of life issues.
I'll try and simplify....I personally am not happy about our presence in Iraq, still I believe when someone is given a job to acccomplish, I let them do their job and offer as much support thru the process as possible.
Now, if they show me they are incompetent, they are replaced.
I've taken the same position with Bush....until this thing proves unfruitful for the US and it's citizens, he has my support. Now I know that may annoy many of you, but again, it's about opinions.
I truthfully lack the intelligence assets or connections thru the NSA, CIA or the State Dept. to actually know what the truth really is. So, again I'm left with continuing to offer my support to my president.
I suppose the reason I get caught up in this tripe, is that I hate typing and email....I cannot really judge the intent and make up of an individual unless I can look them in the eye or at least speak with them on the phone. Here in this forum, I'm left with only text as my barometer....some here would no sooner support the US or Bush, only becuase he's Bush.
That, I find weak at best....add to that anything remotely presented as a "hey look what I know" attiude about a topic that really none of us have the entire truth to and I tend to get irritated.
My apologies please....in the future, I'll simplify my comments here...less said in this place by me, the better.
-
Enough said on the matter, I think.