PDA

View Full Version : My Open Letter...


badlandsrox
12-09-2007, 12:03 AM
The following is not meant to be a slant towards the U.S. nor to ignite a political debate, just an outsiders view, and Please dont turn this into an argument, i spent a long time writing this, so read it, and discuss (but not argue) the points of it. Ok, so...


Lately (well not even lately now, more like for the last few years) the George W. Bush administration has been under lots of fire (and not just from cheney...) over many issues, most specifically the wars in Iraq and Afganistan, which is almost entirely what this is about. Many have argued over the "non-existant exit strategy" and the fact that there was no "concrete evidence" as to any of bush's claims that ultimaly led the United States into war. I for one beleive that the exit strategy is a non issue, as this is not a war on a nation, rather a war on ideology... political ideology. In past american wars, the enemy has been an aggressor nation (Japan, USSR, etc) so the war was more or less fought equally by both sides, on equal grounds. However, the "war on terror" is anything but on equal terms, between nations, Clear and defined objectives, Rather a "Police Presense" much like the vietnam war was classified as. Rather than having a more or less defined battlefield, the present war is fought mostly through improvisation, hiding, and propaganda on the part of the Taliban, so the reality of war has changed from that of a standoffish type to more of an inteligence type (giving the taliban an advantage over the american forces, as it can be easy for a taliban to weasel themselves into the american intelligence circles, but for the americans it is more of a challange as for the most part the afganistanian citizens are a little weary of the american presense. Even with the Numerous Billion Dollar Technologies that the USA has at its disposal, it can be useless if the enemy can not be clearly determined from the average citizens they may walk around with, making the process that much more difficult. The Taliban forces however can easily spot the american convoys that go across the country side, with for the most part predictable routes, making it easier for them to plant "Booby Traps", such as IED's or anything else that may slow down progress of the americans. To Pull out now just because of hardships facing the army is possibly the worst possible choice, as this would directly result in a victory for the taliban, and before we know it, all progress made in afganistan (not only militarily, but politically, economically, and socailly) would soon be all for nothing as things would return to the old ways in as little as a couple of years. Were the lives lost in 9/11 not worth the costs of bringing justice to those who brought it upon them? according to many americans, No. well there may be a high death toll, would it not be better for a few VERY, and i stress the VERY Patriotic Soldiers willing to make the ultimate sacrifice and put their country before themselves, rather than having a repeat of 9/11, possibly on a bigger scale? As for the evidence issue, Even if there was no WMD's found, its known that heussin has commitied horrendous crimes against humanity, so there is a very real chance that he was a major financial supporter of the Taliban led insurgency of afganistan. Favourable outcomes dont just happen, they take time, look at WW2, six years of fighting in some of the worst conditions known to man, also, this happened due to the shortcomings of a previous war (world war 1 anybody?) These two world wars resulted in the death of Millions of soldiers, destruction of untold amounts, environmental obliteration, i could go on and on, but the main point is that it wasn't in and out before christmas as had originally been the plan, It could not have been predicted in post 9/11 2001that in 2008 we would still be looking for Osama, nor could it have been told that thousands would lose their lives, family members, loved ones, cherished friends, significant others, dads, mothers, children, the list goes on. The changing conditions mean changing realities. Granted it could have been handled better, but for a guy who everyone seems to be against right now, i think he is doing a mighty fine job, especially in that he has gone against bills giving a set date of military pullout, as he knows the consequenses of doing such a thing could spell disaster for the american public, as well as international disasters, leaving the canadian forces in afganistan alone wouldnt be a very good idea (ive meet them once, there quite a nice couple of people... jokes aside though, america has the intelligence and major firepower, and canada has it's soldiers too, however nothing remotley close to the man power, fire power, or funding that the american army has, meaning we would almost be forced into a withdrawal (due to the citizens of out country, as well as the outnumberment we would face). This is were im going to stop, as im tired and thoughts are running into one another, so bad i cant even write a proper conclusion. I am however going to point this out, theres all these videos circulating of George Bush bloopers, compared to these well known speaches of the past (Tear Down this wall, Ask not what you can do for your country... the likes), but Bush has had his fair share of truley genuinely good speaches, but in the day of the ever present Camera, Bloopers are easily picked up, and immediatly put on youtube, further bringing down his popularity because of his "lack of intelligence" Most of what this is is media "propoganda" (i say that in "s because it isnt really propaganda, i just have no better word for it at 2 am after spending teh last hour writing this. And one last thing... If you want to complain about your government, you have to vote, and according to one website, only 61% of eligable voters excersized this right that many have given their life to upold, meaning close to 40% figured that past sacrifices, and future struggles weren't there problem, So next year when it comes time to vote for you guys, Please Vote, and do a little research so you know what you are voting for, so 2 years down the road your not thinking "wow" i really hate this guy, who voted him in? well, if you didnt vote, you voted him in.

Thats the end of my rant

TL;DR- Wow, i actually have something long enough that i can put a TL;DR in it. But if your looking for a synopsis of it, to bad, read it for yourself, and please PLEASE dont turn this into an argument over who/what is right, mkay? ;)

LostCause
12-09-2007, 06:05 AM
very good ?rant? i agree with a lot said in there. well done.

shunut
12-09-2007, 06:50 AM
Please dont turn this into an argument, i spent a long time writing this, so read it, and discuss (but not argue) the points of it. Ok, so...

I want to reinforce this. The second it turns into an argument, this thread will be closed and the person who starts the argument will get a vacation. So this is everyone's warning.

HelpDeskHustler
12-09-2007, 06:57 AM
I've always been sympathetic to how difficult it is over there, but what I'm really worried about is government here. There is a line we're walking on the front at home that is becoming very concerning, especially after seeing that the government not only has a lot more control, but a lot of them know nothing about rights. People complain about Bush too much, I think congress is where the problem is. Presidents aren't supposed to know everything, if they did, they would be backed up to their eyes. Not to mention the media is heavily slanted liberally and has been for the past 20-30 years, so of course they will make GWB look completely stupid.

If any of that seemed argumentative, it wasn't... I'm actually pretty easy to get along with, just ask for a clarification before you start yelling... If it pissed you off you probably didn't read it the way I meant it.

shunut
12-09-2007, 07:04 AM
You're good HDH. Just so everyone knows ^ that is an acceptable reply.

My biggest problem is that we haven't been able to catch Osama. In actuality he is the mastermind behind the 9/11 bombings, not Hussein. Hussein was a tyrant and he needed to be dealt with but I'm quite certain they proved that he had no connection with Osama and the 9/11 tragedy. There are many issues I have with the war, there are many issues I have with our political parties, on both sides of the rope. I however did not vote and have little to no interest in politics so for the most part I will keep my mouth shut when it comes to saying anybody is right or wrong.

HelpDeskHustler
12-09-2007, 08:03 AM
You're good HDH. Just so everyone knows ^ that is an acceptable reply.

My biggest problem is that we haven't been able to catch Osama. In actuality he is the mastermind behind the 9/11 bombings, not Hussein. Hussein was a tyrant and he needed to be dealt with but I'm quite certain they proved that he had no connection with Osama and the 9/11 tragedy. There are many issues I have with the war, there are many issues I have with our political parties, on both sides of the rope. I however did not vote and have little to no interest in politics so for the most part I will keep my mouth shut when it comes to saying anybody is right or wrong.

The question is... do we really WANT to catch Osama, I mean, he's in power now, and we KNOW what he looks like and who his contacts are, If he dies someone else could take control and we have to gain that intel all over again. I think there is a side of the argument that would say it would be better for him to be rid of (in the words of T.S. Eliot) "Not with a bang, but a whimper". I mean think about it, if all of the power was in the PERSON, not the idea, how many people would have been assassinated to "prevent war"? I can count 3 right now. I think we're to the stage where the military understands that the person is just a puppet for the idea, and that you can't kill that with a gun unless the gun carries with it some method of reversing the mentality on the situation. Really the key to it is, that if we stop a monster with monstrous acts we've done nothing to solve the problem as the monstrosity has merely changed hands. We've got a new kind of war on our hands, one of misconceptions and propaganda. We can see in our own country how long it takes to change these ideas about people that are wrong through the civil rights movements and the lasting racism that some people still have. The same goes for Iraq and Afghanistan, people have been told that we are the monsters, and I think if you talk to soldiers they'll tell you that the people really do hate us a lot, but our presence there is helping the situation as the citizens learn that we aren't like the insurgents say, and that although we're there with guns, it's only for us to protect ourselves and help them gain freedom from a forceful oppression that they realize has lied to them. I know a few groups of soldiers have talked about their relationships with a group of elders in Iraq and how after the soldiers had shown that they would help protect the people that the elders really did see them in a completely different way.


On a note with what shu said earlier, guys if you think it could get you b& (banned) don't say it, and if you think it could get you v& (vanned -- It's what the FBI does when they've come to get you) then uh... tell the FBI directly, it will save us the trouble.

DFSniper
12-09-2007, 08:54 AM
wow, thanks for writing that. i agree with that 100%. my response may be a little long, so i'll part it into sections.

some saw the war on terror as retaliation to a personal attack on the US, but if you look at it, its been escalating for a while. the 1993 WTC bombings, the USS Cole, and then 9/11. if we hadn't done anything about it, who knows what would have happened next. if they could hijack 4-5 planes, imagine what else they could be capable of.

even if there was an ulterior motive for invading iraq, the president made it clear that it was going to be a "global war on terror." in my eyes killing off entire villages because they are of a different religious sect (among many other things) is terrorism. the US has always been against dictators, be it in Europe, Latin America, or Asia, so what makes it so different that they decide to after Saddam?

the war won't be over any time soon. when they first went in, they thought they would have perfect cooperation from the locals, but it didn't turn out that way. most of these places are small villages where everyone knows everyone, and many are related, so at first they were very reluctant to turn their neighbors in. it was a completely different war. the last war the US was actively involved in was Desert Storm, which was for the most part mechanized combat between our and Saddam's tanks. the last time the US had seen true urban warfare was in WWII, because before Desert Storm there was Korea and Vietnam, the era of Jungle Warfare. it took the army a few years to come up with very good ways of dealing with the locals, and thats when all the progress was made. my friend's dad, who happened to be my dad's brigade colonel, brought together all the local leaders in the Ar Ramadi region of Iraq. i'm trying to find out the newscast on it, but here's a quick summary: the local leaders were asked to have a meeting with Col. MacFarland, but only one showed up. The next time they were asked to have a meeting, almost all of them showed up. they showed up because one of the tribal leaders was killed by Al-Qaida and they realized that if their own country isn't going to protect them, they needed to turn to someone else.
here's an article on it, its lengthy, but does a good job explaining it: http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20070501/1a_bottomstrip01.art.htm

my history teacher once put it this way, pulling out of iraq too soon would result in another event like the post-reconstruction South. the former officials would regain control, and things would revert to how it had been before the war (racial/religious segregation, corrupt officials, etc.). before anyone goes into how many soldiers have died (which is a very touchy subject for me) remember this: they are the 1% that fight for the ideals of their country. they may have to obey the officers appointed over them, but they have sworn to uphold the Constitution, no matter what political party is involved. this is the oath they take before graduating from basic training:
I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC; THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME; AND THAT I WILL OBEY THE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE ORDERS OF THE OFFICERS APPOINTED OVER ME, ACCORDING TO REGULATIONS AND THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE. SO HELP ME GOD.
they know what they are getting themselves into, and it is their choice to live and die for their country.

ok, i think i'm done for now.

calebh
12-09-2007, 10:01 AM
i think in the original letter, badlands, you're putting both wars into one basket. one war is justified with the war on terror, one was not. shunut is right in saying that hussein had no connections to al qaeda. a republican led congress determined that. i'd post a link, but it happend several years ago, and i've lost it. the war in afghanistan was a war to bring down a government aiding terrorists who wanted us dead. we brought down the government and were searching for the man responsible for the thousands of deaths on 9/11. then we got sidetracked.

what worries me most about the war on terror is that it is a war on an abstraction.

badlandsrox
12-09-2007, 11:16 AM
i think in the original letter, badlands, you're putting both wars into one basket. one war is justified with the war on terror, one was not. shunut is right in saying that hussein had no connections to al qaeda. a republican led congress determined that. i'd post a link, but it happend several years ago, and i've lost it. the war in afghanistan was a war to bring down a government aiding terrorists who wanted us dead. we brought down the government and were searching for the man responsible for the thousands of deaths on 9/11. then we got sidetracked.

what worries me most about the war on terror is that it is a war on an abstraction.


That wasn't really the intent, it was more to show that Bush isn't the war monster/stupid person that everyone makes him out to be. I was only trying to show common ground between the two wars, as they are mostly what is in the news right now, and that they were both to fight the war on terror, and although iraq hasnt had any aggresive terrorist actions of late, they have in the past, and in my opinion bush probably wanted to invade iraq, seeing as how they were already in afganistan, so rather than possibly saddam agressing again, take care of him while they were already in a war, than possibly after winning the war on terror have it only start again under saddams control this time.


Another thing, this is tottally a theory, so dont take it as i am stupid, or anything against anyone,i think that Osama is not in very good condition right now, his communication tapes are far and few between, with no video, as was the case in the beggining of the war, maybe he was injured and is now paralyzed, or something and thats why he isnt in videos, and doesn't want to show this, as it will give the americans a raise in spirits knowing that they must have at least injured him at one point. Again, very un-researched etc theory, nothing else.

badlandsrox
12-09-2007, 04:07 PM
http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/TopStories/ContentPosting.aspx?feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V2&showbyline=True&newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20071209%2fmusa_qala_071209

Thought this may go along well with that, and also about how it talks about their "limitless" supply of recruits

cyberthrasher_706
12-09-2007, 05:06 PM
I don't really have a problem with justified battle. Afghanistan was obviously justified and Saddam, well, I would've done that one myself because of my abundant beliefs in the rights of all beings. There's a couple of things here that do bother me now.

1.) I understand that we can't just back off but it worries me that America has become the world's police force. It really shouldn't be our job to patrol the planet. It's also wrong to try forcing democracy on any nation, no matter how great it is. It was wrong for countries to try forcing communism and it's wrong for us to force democracy.

2.)This is a touchy one so please don't take offense. I don't know for a fact that any of this happened, but, it bothers me that there are reports of our soldiers performing inhumane acts on people who have not been PROVEN guilty. Even if they are proven guilty, there is no call for abuse and torture to the extent of what has been reported. Again, I don't know what's true or not these days but if it is it needs to stop.

Bottom line is this: These regions of the middle east have been at war over their different beliefs for over 1000 years. We are not going to sweep in and change the history of their beliefs by sitting down to talk, or even wiping them all out.
I'm tired and I lost my train of thought.

HelpDeskHustler
12-09-2007, 06:44 PM
Wow, just like as a forum regular I think it's amazing how long this has gone on in a civilized manner (knock on wood), you all make good points, I'm still reading them over (AD.....uh.......D) Keep it up.

durrell
12-09-2007, 08:40 PM
I'm actually really surprised to see that coming from a Canadian. No offense, but it seems a majority of Canadians really disagree with a lot going on over here.

That being said, I believe an exit strategy is necessary, and I'll explain why. We went over there with clear strategies: take care of Hussein, search for WMD's, take down the Taliban regime, and find Osama. We took care of Hussein fairly quickly. The WMD's I'm not sure of. I say that because I live in a huge military community, and we know several higher-ups in the military who have said WMD's were there but never found because of the United Nations. The Taliban we have done a good job of crippling, notice how little we have heard from them lately. They're on the run and they have no solid infrastructure in place. Osama is a whole different story, but who knows if he's even alive? He's obvious so scared that he can't make public appearances and he surely can't run any kind of regime from there.

Now, why should we leave you're probably asking? We have troops dying for people who don't even appreciate them. We have accomplished what we set out to do and now it's time to come home. Another reasoning to leave in my opinion is that the longer we stay, the longer Iraq and their government depends on us the worse off they're going to me. They seem to have no desire to have legit elections. We can't be "world police" any more. We can't sit in Iraq and try to stave off a civil war between Sunnis and Shiites anymore. We need to know what they're going to do, i.e. are they capable of making a government? Are they capable of keeping a stable government? Anything? Too many questions that we shouldn't have to wait for answers.

If we are to stay over there, we need full authorization to do what we need to do. That means if we see someone suspicious or a suspicious car, we take them out. We lose troops to cowards everyday because it's not politically correct to shoot them if we don't "know" that they're a danger. It's just such a mess. I support our troops 110 percent, and if they want to stay, then I'll back them. I just hate to see kids lose fathers and parents lose sons over something that's essentially out of our control. By out of control I mean, is there even a way to win this "war"?

deano 177
12-09-2007, 09:07 PM
I think the whole ordeal over there was not thought out very well. 'merica was still pissed from the whole "blow-up-3K+-innocent-people" thing. I don't think there were long term goals. A war on terror could turn into a lifetime job. Not that terrorists shouldn't be aprehended and punished. But where does it end? Do we go after the IRA? What about gangs here in america? Shouldn't we be taking care of our self first? Saddam sucked. He needed to be removed as dictator. He was a mass murderer. WMD? Maybe. There is a lot of sand over there.

I have discussions at work with some of my Demacrat friends( I'm a dem too). I'll give you guys the short version: You live in a neighborhood. You know every one that lives there. You have the best house, with the biggest yard, the nicest cars and the biggest guns on the block. Your best friend who lives beside you is just a few notches below you. You two run the neighborhood. One day, the guy that lives across the street makes it known to everyone in the 'hood that he has made his self a gun. Its a pretty crappy gun, but a gun none the less. This makes you uneasy because before long he will figure out repeaters and semiauto stuff. You get with your buddy and you guys go to the neighbors and tell him that you don't like him having a gun. And if he decides that he wants to keep his gun then he wont be able to shop at the local grocery. There are no other grocerys for hundreds of miles around. What will the neighbor do?

This is the same thing America is doing to other countrys around the world in concerns with nuclear testing.

I don't want terrorists getting their hands on nuke material just as much as the next guy(especially since I live close to mayport naval station and naval air station of jacksonville and kings bay naval base! I'm a goner in a nuke attack!) but where do we draw the line? Food for thought.

badlandsrox
12-09-2007, 09:27 PM
I'm actually really surprised to see that coming from a Canadian. No offense, but it seems a majority of Canadians really disagree with a lot going on over here.

Haha, from my POV, it seems that its not a majority that disagree, its more of like a 50/50 split, depending on what side of the country your on (eastern canada is more liberal, quebec... is french, and western canada is pretty hardcore conservative.

bigred76
12-09-2007, 10:36 PM
Wow, just as a forum regular I think it's amazing how long this has gone on in a civilized manner (knock on wood), you all make good points, I'm still reading them over (AD.....uh.......D) Keep it up.
:yeahthat:... To the word!

I even forgot what I was going to post after reading a quarter of it. :(

There really isn't a point to this war now, other than the moment we withdraw the whole situation will implode in the region, then the fallout from it will reach us. Lord only knows what will happen, but with that crazy *** in power in Iran, it could turn ugly really fast. A lot of that region shares his opinion (that America should stop what we're doing over there) as well. I'll equate what Deano said to an animal behavior: dominate dogs. The dominate dog (in this case, the USA) doesn't like being challenged in it's authority. When it feels threatened (like Iran asking to make nukes, or Korea actually testing them), then the dominate dog will attempt to roll over the other dog and put it into a submissive pose, on it's back baring its belly. But how long until that subordinate dog says: "**** you, dominate dog, I'm not taking this **** anymore," and doesn't go submissive anymore? What will happen then? We're coming to that point, and have been on the track to it for several years now. It's a crapshoot to when it will actually happen, but when it does, I know I personally am making a bomb shelter.

BadLands, I didn't know that you had it in you for a rant like this, mad props! :applause:

Hey Josh, is that vacation to Cancun, or Miami? :dodgy: Sorry, I've always wanted to say that.

durrell
12-10-2007, 08:41 AM
I think you're right that eventually the crap will hit the fan. But you also have to realize that whatever Iran, North Korea, or whoever else has..we have something that's probably 10 years ahead of their technology. Iran can't even enrich Uranium, when we have nukes on standby. I hate to sound big headed, but I wish those idiots would give us a reason to send them all to where they belong.

But like you said, when we leave there, the entire region is likely to implode. So..why not leave? We can't stay and keep saying "Well, if we leave they'll kill each other.." That isn't our problem. We've done what we could, it's time to give them back their country and call it a war.

Edit: And I applaud you guys for making solid points without going for each others' throats. I really do. :)

calebh
12-10-2007, 10:04 AM
quebec... is french
lol

bigred, the only ones in power in iran are the religious conservatives. my memory fails me at the moment, so i don't remember the name of the group. i'm thinking guardian council in english... but the president of iran is little more than a figurehead in reality.

Critical
12-10-2007, 11:10 AM
Interesting thread...hope I don't screw it up. I'm coming from a fairly conservative background here, not Republican, conservative, so take that for what it is. I had friends in the area at the Pentagon on 9/11, and family that has fought in both Afghanistan and Iraq. I support both wars, even as I look at the civilian leadership and wonder how it got so screwed up. Both sides of the aisle in Congress, as well as the lifers in the executive branch have done everything possible to undermine the success in the war on terror. For those who have said that Saddam, and Iraq, are not part of the war on terror, think on this: Saddam tried to organize a plot to assassinate George H W Bush; he paid $25,000 to the family of each suicide bomber in Israel (so does Saudi Arabia, but let's not get into that); the body of an airliner was found in northern Iraq, at a terrorist training camp; the official report that Joe Wilson, as well as others, made, stated that Iraq was in fact trying to get ahold of uranium; and as far as WMDs, if the United Dictators, I mean Nations hadn't given Saddam 14 months to get rid of them, we would have found them.

Plus, many agree that Iran is the real problem. Having troops, and airbases in Iraq gives us an excellent staging area in the region, and gives the Israelis nearly clear flight paths, since they will probably get tired of it quicker than the US.

For those who feel strongly about exit stategies, I would humbly ask you to summon the spirits of Roosevelt and Truman. Ask them what our exit strategy was for Germany and Japan, seeing as how we maintain such a presence in those countries that they spend almost nothing in terms of GDP on their own defense, and WWII ended 60 years ago.

Finally, in terms of terror, it might sound harsh, but I much prefer all these neanderthal-with-a-gun types getting killed by our troops over there, than our friends and family not knowing if we're coming home because Outback Steakhouse got bombed. I refer back to the Israeli example of what they have to deal with because the whole world tells them "restraint"

durrell
12-10-2007, 11:21 AM
For those who feel strongly about exit stategies, I would humbly ask you to summon the spirits of Roosevelt and Truman. Ask them what our exit strategy was for Germany and Japan, seeing as how we maintain such a presence in those countries that they spend almost nothing in terms of GDP on their own defense, and WWII ended 60 years ago.

Finally, in terms of terror, it might sound harsh, but I much prefer all these neanderthal-with-a-gun types getting killed by our troops over there, than our friends and family not knowing if we're coming home because Outback Steakhouse got bombed. I refer back to the Israeli example of what they have to deal with because the whole world tells them "restraint"

I support the wars, and I have always. But I don't really see how we can compare WWII with Iraq. Germany occupied most of eastern Europe at the time. Japan bombed our military base at Pearl Harbor. We went to Iraq and to Afghanistan with clear intentions of taking out Sadaam, which we did. I guess what I'm saying is I have no problem with staying over there if we can get the authorization that the troops need to protect themselves and lay down the law. We can't stay over there and continue to allow Washington, D.C. to dictate what goes on, because they're not there. They can preach their Liberal or Conservative ideas all day long, but it's not their family that is over there dying.

I'm not disagreeing with you, because I see what you mean, but I'm not totally agreeing either.

bigred76
12-10-2007, 01:08 PM
Right on, Doc! I have to fully agree with that, it's my thoughts exactly. However, when those troops signed up, they knew that they were signing their lives away to fight whatever people the government sent them in to kill. I'm not trying to start an arguement, but that's exactly what they did. Whether they were conscious of it or not at the time, it's sure obvious that they should now. Friend of mine just got back from Iraq, more of a general specialist than anything. He rode tanks, Humvee's, bomb disposal trucks, everything. His Humvee he was riding about 6 months ago got hit with an RPG they didn't see coming in an ambush, and he now has minimal hearing and a stiff leg. Guess what? He can't wait to go back to Iraq, and is PISSED that the Army won't let him right now. From what I've seen of most of my friends that have come back from Iraq, although not all for the same reason, they want to go back to help their "brothers" survive this war.

I can equate Iraq/Afganistan to WWII on some points, but not enough to make sense of it. I can, however relate a lot of it to when the Russians went into Afganistan and had their "Vietnam." Heck, I could relate it a lot to Vietnam itself. Political bull**** pulled our country in, we went in, and killed people. In the end though, the nation still imploded, no matter how many troops, supplies, or guns we sent in.

Caleb, it doesn't matter what the "leaders" say when the country follows the President. If the President says for them to kill Americans, they'd do it. No hesitations, or regard to those "leaders." That's what I've seen and read, though. As Doc said, they are looking for nukes. I pray to God that I am not still around when they finally get their hands on some enriched uranium, as it would be either the Cold War all over or a WWIII. I don't like the idea of either very much!

DFSniper
12-10-2007, 02:40 PM
I guess what I'm saying is I have no problem with staying over there if we can get the authorization that the troops need to protect themselves and lay down the law. We can't stay over there and continue to allow Washington, D.C. to dictate what goes on, because they're not there.

thats one of the biggest problems that they're facing right now. they can't act when they need to, at the risk of their own security, and that could cost needless lives. heres an example, and you all be the judge if it was the right thing to do:

some of my dad's guys were bringing the tank back to their operating post. before they could get back, a man ran out into the middle of the street and sat down and started drawing in the sand. at first my dads guys thought that this was just the village idiot, but they couldn't get him to move out of the way. this went on for a while and then the guys noticed that everyone else was staying as far away from the man as possible. they radioed in and asked my dad what they should do. after a lot of thought, my dad went ahead and told them to take him out, since he posed a possible threat. well, after word got to the higher-ups, my dad got a general letter of reprimand from the General in charge and lost his company command (he had overstayed his command anyway, but no one immediately above him wanted him to change).

so the question is, did he do the right thing? when the choice between life and death lays in your hands, do you risk your own men to avoid making the wrong move?

cyberthrasher_706
12-10-2007, 04:35 PM
so the question is, did he do the right thing? when the choice between life and death lays in your hands, do you risk your own men to avoid making the wrong move?

I can't say much since I obviously wasn't there and didn't have the same view of the situation. Aside from the possibility of the guy being a suicide bomber, there might have been a chance that a 2 man unit or something could've been sent over to forceably search and detain the man. I know that's touchy though due to the risk of explosion or ambush.


...when they finally get their hands on some enriched uranium, as it would be either the Cold War all over or a WWIII. I don't like the idea of either very much!

Aren't we pretty much at the point of turning this into WWIII already? Think of how many countries have been involved to date. We're not exactly fighting on all sides of the planet, but units from all sides of the planet have been involved.

DFSniper
12-10-2007, 05:03 PM
sure, lots of countries are involved, but a lot of them only send a handful of troops to iraq. a lot more are cooperating in afghanistan because that was kind of a UN decision, but (i dont know the exact number) countries like canada, australia, denmark, and japan (among others) only sent in a few thousand troops. france and germany, two of the big 5 refuse to fight in iraq because they dont see why they should be involved (im not even going to bring the russians into this...). i dont think it will become a full-scaled world war until a lot more first-world countries join the fight. and there are no clear alliances like there were in WWI and WWII. korea has their own issues to deal with, and even china, their closest ally, puts them in place every once in a while.

cyberthrasher_706
12-10-2007, 06:03 PM
sure, lots of countries are involved, but a lot of them only send a handful of troops to iraq. a lot more are cooperating in afghanistan because that was kind of a UN decision, but (i dont know the exact number) countries like canada, australia, denmark, and japan (among others) only sent in a few thousand troops. france and germany, two of the big 5 refuse to fight in iraq because they dont see why they should be involved (im not even going to bring the russians into this...). i dont think it will become a full-scaled world war until a lot more first-world countries join the fight. and there are no clear alliances like there were in WWI and WWII. korea has their own issues to deal with, and even china, their closest ally, puts them in place every once in a while.
yeah, but think about the close relationships some countries have. Even though they're not involved now, how long will it take them to enter the fight if things were to heat up to the right point? I see your point but it's something that has to be considered.

badlandsrox
12-10-2007, 08:11 PM
sure, lots of countries are involved, but a lot of them only send a handful of troops to iraq. a lot more are cooperating in afghanistan because that was kind of a UN decision, but (i dont know the exact number) countries like canada, australia, denmark, and japan (among others) only sent in a few thousand troops. france and germany, two of the big 5 refuse to fight in iraq because they dont see why they should be involved (im not even going to bring the russians into this...). i dont think it will become a full-scaled world war until a lot more first-world countries join the fight. and there are no clear alliances like there were in WWI and WWII. korea has their own issues to deal with, and even china, their closest ally, puts them in place every once in a while.



yeah uhh, we sent like 3/4 of our army... but our army is pretty small, so what seems like only a few to americans is alot in terms of our military power :caflag:

Critical
12-11-2007, 08:29 AM
Yeah, but the average ratio is one riot = one Mountie. Canadian military is nothing to sneeze at either. I believe the longest recorded sniper kill is by a Canadian in Afghanistan, something over 7000ft, IIRC.

Earlier, I was in no was comparing Iraq to WWII, only that we obviously didn't have an exit strategy then either because we are still in both countries, long after the need to be there existed, except as a staging area to the places we needed to bomb, which, I believe, Iraq will become.

durrell
12-11-2007, 08:46 AM
The reason we stayed in Japan was because of an agreement to make them a protectorate of America due to dropping two nukes. Iraq is in better shape economically and overall now than it was when we went in. That's my only point.

shunut
12-11-2007, 08:51 AM
I was thinking today, there is one thing I really like about Iraq. Their swift justice system. Saddam was tried, convicted and executed in less than a year. In the US we let our convicted felons sit on death road for 20+ years. We could save the tax payers lots of money if we adopted Iraq's justice system. Just thought I'd throw that in there.

bigred76
12-11-2007, 12:49 PM
Haha, I was thinking that as well, Josh. It's due to all the appeals and such that they're entitled to, as well as the sheer quantity that there is that slows us down here in California. I don't know for sure what the other states' excuses are, but I'd assume it's pretty much the same.

calebh
12-11-2007, 03:22 PM
i'm pretty sure it's the same all over the US. we have the highest incarceration rate on the planet, with 750 prisoners per 100,000 people, according to the university of san francisco school of law. but that's off topic...

and D, i seriously doubt iraq is in better shape now... maybe in some places, but overall? are you sure? economically, it's recovering from the damage we caused. the iraqi currency (the danari, i think?) completely crashed after we went in. it was virtually worthless. i should have invested in it after the invasion...

Critical
12-11-2007, 03:41 PM
I just had a conversation with a close friend of mine, who makes cynics look like they have positive mental outlooks. He brought up a theory that, while out there in black helicopter land, I could not discount the possibility. He says Osama Bin Laden is hiding out back home in Saudi Arabia.

calebh
12-11-2007, 04:42 PM
who makes cynics look like they have positive mental outlooks
oh, we do. :cool:

actually, the pessimists have it the best. they're always either right or pleasantly surprised. (i forget who said that)

cyberthrasher_706
12-12-2007, 04:43 PM
I just had a conversation with a close friend of mine, who makes cynics look like they have positive mental outlooks. He brought up a theory that, while out there in black helicopter land, I could not discount the possibility. He says Osama Bin Laden is hiding out back home in Saudi Arabia.
I might like to hear some more about this theory, like supporting facts and stuff. Not to get back to the WWII stuff, but I can kind of liken it to Hitler. I was talking to an old vet who was a special op of some kind, I can't remember now, and they were on a mission through the catacombs of Germany like a year and a half before Hitler's death. As they were going they found the tombs of many of Hitlers top men and at the end of the line there was a fresh casket with all the flowers and everything that had Adolph's name on it, giving some insight to the theory that towards the end "Hitler" was purely actors. Maybe that's what's going on with Osama right now. That's my theory, but if he's in Saudi Arabia.........Who has some vacation time saved up?

HelpDeskHustler
12-12-2007, 05:51 PM
nobody is that good at photoshop.

SoldierzHonor
12-12-2007, 09:13 PM
Hi guys. I supported the war from the onset. I volunteered to goto Iraq and did my duty. I pray for all my brothers and sisters over there, but also know that if an exit strategy is to be devised we'll need the Iraqi govt to be able to stand on their own feet. Both financially and militarily. Financially is a major play for the insurgents. They have 3 plans of action.

First is to upset the oil pipelines which are Iraqs major revenue. I was stationed in Tikrit and can tell you where Beiji is located due to the smoke that was seen on a constant basis from the pipeline attacks. Those need to be secured for Iraq to stand financially.

Second, cause as much mayhem as possible by killing and destroying to threaten the security situation there. I heard explosions on a daily basis, some were too close for comfort (IED's beside my humvee or other vehicles in our convoys). Whether they were incoming mortars, rockets, IED's, or controlled blasts. If the security is threatened people will be more afraid. Thats a major turn on for terrorists...causing terror.

Third would be doing everything in their power to have Coalition death tolls for the soldiers home countries to want to pull out.

After being there and returning home, one of my biggest concerns is something I've went through personally. We spend billions upon billions helping those countries and our returning soldiers are recieving less than adequate health care for injuries whether physical or mental. If I was called to go back, I wouldn't think twice about going. I would however like to know that if wounded or other problems arise, I'd be well taken care of. The dreams I had upon returning home have stopped, and the "reactions" to common everyday happenings have for the most part subsided (i.e. I still can't shoot off fireworks for celebration of July 4th, and I still can't stand with my back to a road that has traffic, the "1000 yard stare" of events that took place, etc). It has however killed my bank account due to not being able to hold a job until now and the Veterans Administration have stalled now for 2 years to compensate my savings because of them trying to associate my PTSD with anything but Iraq. I'm still fighting them over that but if you'd like to hear a true rant, goto the VA and listen, you will hear pride of serving, but contempt after returning for the way combat veterans are being misled.

I suppose what I'm trying to get across is before we put all our eggs in one basket for an exit strategy, how about a "return strategy" until that does happen. My $.02

cyberthrasher_706
12-13-2007, 11:07 PM
Hi guys. I supported the war from the onset. I volunteered to goto Iraq and did my duty. I pray for all my brothers and sisters over there, but also know that if an exit strategy is to be devised we'll need the Iraqi govt to be able to stand on their own feet. Both financially and militarily. Financially is a major play for the insurgents. They have 3 plans of action.

First is to upset the oil pipelines which are Iraqs major revenue. I was stationed in Tikrit and can tell you where Beiji is located due to the smoke that was seen on a constant basis from the pipeline attacks. Those need to be secured for Iraq to stand financially.

Second, cause as much mayhem as possible by killing and destroying to threaten the security situation there. I heard explosions on a daily basis, some were too close for comfort (IED's beside my humvee or other vehicles in our convoys). Whether they were incoming mortars, rockets, IED's, or controlled blasts. If the security is threatened people will be more afraid. Thats a major turn on for terrorists...causing terror.

Third would be doing everything in their power to have Coalition death tolls for the soldiers home countries to want to pull out.

After being there and returning home, one of my biggest concerns is something I've went through personally. We spend billions upon billions helping those countries and our returning soldiers are recieving less than adequate health care for injuries whether physical or mental. If I was called to go back, I wouldn't think twice about going. I would however like to know that if wounded or other problems arise, I'd be well taken care of. The dreams I had upon returning home have stopped, and the "reactions" to common everyday happenings have for the most part subsided (i.e. I still can't shoot off fireworks for celebration of July 4th, and I still can't stand with my back to a road that has traffic, the "1000 yard stare" of events that took place, etc). It has however killed my bank account due to not being able to hold a job until now and the Veterans Administration have stalled now for 2 years to compensate my savings because of them trying to associate my PTSD with anything but Iraq. I'm still fighting them over that but if you'd like to hear a true rant, goto the VA and listen, you will hear pride of serving, but contempt after returning for the way combat veterans are being misled.

I suppose what I'm trying to get across is before we put all our eggs in one basket for an exit strategy, how about a "return strategy" until that does happen. My $.02
I don't think any of us here could have said it better. I guess that's one of the things that's always gotten me the most. We spend so much money on other countries to try to keep our name as the "top" nation but there are so many people right here, soldier and civilian alike, that suffer on a daily basis. This isn't the same, but it puts it in perspective; I actually had to go take out more student loans just so I could get a tooth pulled that exploded 2 years ago because it was stopping me from working. My wife got kicked off of medicaid with absolutely no notice because they said I made enough over the summer to pay for her medical care, if that's the case then why did I need a loan to pay for a $150 tooth extraction? Than they tried keeping her off after realizing that I don't make any money by saying that her citizenship has come under question!!! My wife is Irish Catholic born 3 blocks from our apartment and her family has lived in this town for at least 4 generations. Besides that, She's married to me, they have her birth certificate on record, and she was just granted social security. How could she not be a citizen all of a sudden. OK, excuse that rant but I was just trying to prove a point that, like us, a good percentage of our country is well below the poverty mark and many of our children and their parents can't get proper healthcare. Hell, I just recently moved out of my van before we got married. There is so much more we can do here on homeground with the billions of dollars that we just toss out to other countries like it's change found on the sidewalk. I'm all for helping people as long as their not getting better care from it than our children here at home.