Iraq War

[Junior]

As for carl's point about there being innocent people in Iraq. Yes, I think we all realize that. Problem is, guilty and innocent alike let their country be controlled and put in that situation by a madman. If they would have taken care of him, the way it should be handled through revolution or uprising, it's doubtful we ever darken their doorstep. So, innocent yes in many ways but the citizens of a country are all responsible to some degree for what their leaders do. It may not be fair that some of those people had to pay the price but that is how the world works. Don't blame me, I don't make the rules.

@#$@ the oppressed?

I said what I meant and I meant what I said. It's called reality. Nothing I said resembles @#$@ the oppressed. I feel sorry for the innocents that got screwed over by SH. Leave a guy like that in charge long enough and things will go wrong. Could the innocents really have prevented it? I don't know but they didn't. It's kind of like feeling sorry for dog that gets run over on the highway. You feel sorry but what can ya do.

 

I remember helping out the oppressed in Afghanistan back in the early 80's. That sure paid dividends for us. Sometimes you just can't avoid these types of things no matter what ya do.

 

Wow. "It's kind of like feeling sorry for dog that gets run over on the highway. You feel sorry but what can ya do." You do realize these are people we are talking about, right? Not dogs?

[JJ Husker]

[That's quite a flip flop from saying "not one spec (sic) of sympathy" is "very well said."

 

It's possible that expecting some semblance of consistency in a roughly 15 minute period is expecting too much.

You caught me. I'm found out. I'm a heartless scumbag who just lives for the chance to see innocent and oppressed people get theirs.

 

Maybe you wouldn't struggle so much with "consistency" issues if you would pull your head out of your ass and not read waaaaaaaay too much into the simple comment of "very well said", that was aimed at a 5 paragraph post but which you chose (yes-YOU chose) to apply to innocent people. The original statement was directed at Saddam, his family, and Iraq. Not the "oppressed" and "innocent" that you chose to make it about simply so you could piss and moan and start an argument where otherwise there wasn't one. Good job. I can see you've still got it.

 

And Junior- take the same advice I gave carl. It's easier to see and breathe and smells better too.

[Malth]

Every single intelligence agency in the world claimed they had WMDs

 

Er, no.

 

We then have a President that steps up to the plate and finally does something about it to all of a sudden have all of those people change their tune.

 

Because it became painfully clear that they lied their way into war. And then grossly mishandled it.

[carlfense]

Who views our military as bad guys for Iraq? The decision to invade wasn't made by them. Don't fail to distinguish between criticizing the politics of the invasion and criticizing our military. That whole "supporting the invasion is supporting the troops" attitude is complete bunk.

Carl, I know where you're going with this, and I respect and understand your position, but there are "imperfections" in this...

 

We were fighting an enemy with no discernible uniform, which makes force protection that much more difficult. You could get attacked from any direction at any time. Were there itchy trigger fingers, bet your ass there probably were. Does this make it right, probably not, but when you're worried about making it to tomorrow, sometimes your moral compass has to take a backseat to your survival.

 

My friends and I had a big argument once while watching Blackhawk Down. A young kid, maybe 12 or so, picks up an AK and aims it at you, what do you do? I was read the riot act because I would drop the kid without compunction. If it's me or the guys in my squad's life, or that kids, I'm protecting my guys.

I agree with everything that you've said here. I'm not criticizing our troops . . . I'm criticizing the political decision of going to war in Iraq. BRB said that our military is viewed as bad guys for Iraq. I strongly disagree with that. Our troops are (rightly!) thanked and respected for the job that they did in Iraq. All I'm saying is that they shouldn't have been there in the first place and the fact that they were there is not their fault.

[carlfense]

Maybe you wouldn't struggle so much with "consistency" issues if you would pull your head out of your ass and not read waaaaaaaay too much into the simple comment of "very well said", that was aimed at a 5 paragraph post but which you chose (yes-YOU chose) to apply to innocent people. The original statement was directed at Saddam, his family, and Iraq. Not the "oppressed" and "innocent" that you chose to make it about simply so you could piss and moan and start an argument where otherwise there wasn't one.

OK. Not one speck of sympathy for Iraq (except for the innocent and oppressed.) More accurate for you?

 

I'm sure those crazy Islamic radicals shouting "Death to America" only mean Obama, his family, and the non-innocent people.

[strigori]

Who views our military as bad guys for Iraq? The decision to invade wasn't made by them. Don't fail to distinguish between criticizing the politics of the invasion and criticizing our military. That whole "supporting the invasion is supporting the troops" attitude is complete bunk.

Carl, I know where you're going with this, and I respect and understand your position, but there are "imperfections" in this...

 

We were fighting an enemy with no discernible uniform, which makes force protection that much more difficult. You could get attacked from any direction at any time. Were there itchy trigger fingers, bet your ass there probably were. Does this make it right, probably not, but when you're worried about making it to tomorrow, sometimes your moral compass has to take a backseat to your survival.

 

My friends and I had a big argument once while watching Blackhawk Down. A young kid, maybe 12 or so, picks up an AK and aims it at you, what do you do? I was read the riot act because I would drop the kid without compunction. If it's me or the guys in my squad's life, or that kids, I'm protecting my guys.

I agree with everything that you've said here. I'm not criticizing our troops . . . I'm criticizing the political decision of going to war in Iraq. BRB said that our military is viewed as bad guys for Iraq. I strongly disagree with that. Our troops are (rightly!) thanked and respected for the job that they did in Iraq. All I'm saying is that they shouldn't have been there in the first place and the fact that they were there is not their fault.

I think he meant viewed as 'bad guys' elsewhere in the world. I have not seen any venom aimed at the troops from Americans. At this point most of the talk is simply to bring them home. But pretty much anywhere in the middle east they are viewed poorly.

 

An army is for destroying the opposing forces, not for keeping the peace after the fact. And along those lines, this post WWII view that only the uniformed soldiers get targeted is a joke. And keyed into the 'peace keeping' aspect of things. When it has come down to it in any real declared war, Total War is what happens. War is not a neat little event between armies, its a messy endevour between nations.

 

Politics and money for the military industrial complex were the reasons for the war in the first place. Some people have made a mountain of profit off taxpayer money at the cost of people's lives.

[walksalone]

Who views our military as bad guys for Iraq? The decision to invade wasn't made by them. Don't fail to distinguish between criticizing the politics of the invasion and criticizing our military. That whole "supporting the invasion is supporting the troops" attitude is complete bunk.

Carl, I know where you're going with this, and I respect and understand your position, but there are "imperfections" in this...

 

We were fighting an enemy with no discernible uniform, which makes force protection that much more difficult. You could get attacked from any direction at any time. Were there itchy trigger fingers, bet your ass there probably were. Does this make it right, probably not, but when you're worried about making it to tomorrow, sometimes your moral compass has to take a backseat to your survival.

 

My friends and I had a big argument once while watching Blackhawk Down. A young kid, maybe 12 or so, picks up an AK and aims it at you, what do you do? I was read the riot act because I would drop the kid without compunction. If it's me or the guys in my squad's life, or that kids, I'm protecting my guys.

I agree with everything that you've said here. I'm not criticizing our troops . . . I'm criticizing the political decision of going to war in Iraq. BRB said that our military is viewed as bad guys for Iraq. I strongly disagree with that. Our troops are (rightly!) thanked and respected for the job that they did in Iraq. All I'm saying is that they shouldn't have been there in the first place and the fact that they were there is not their fault.

 

I didn't mean to infer that you were criticizing them, and nope, they shouldn't have been there...

[walksalone]

I think he meant viewed as 'bad guys' elsewhere in the world. I have not seen any venom aimed at the troops from Americans. At this point most of the talk is simply to bring them home. But pretty much anywhere in the middle east they are viewed poorly.

 

An army is for destroying the opposing forces, not for keeping the peace after the fact. And along those lines, this post WWII view that only the uniformed soldiers get targeted is a joke. And keyed into the 'peace keeping' aspect of things. When it has come down to it in any real declared war, Total War is what happens. War is not a neat little event between armies, its a messy endevour between nations.

 

Politics and money for the military industrial complex were the reasons for the war in the first place. Some people have made a mountain of profit off taxpayer money at the cost of people's lives.

 

America as a whole is viewed pretty negatively in the middle east due to our ties with Israel and that's a whole different discussion.

 

As for peace keeping duties, that's better left up to some country that isn't us. Now, if some douchebag dictator type is acting up, and you need somebody to go kick his f*cking teeth in, then you call the Marines or the 82nd Airborne. But if you're baby sitting some treaty, then no thanks...

[jimk]

I think he meant viewed as 'bad guys' elsewhere in the world. I have not seen any venom aimed at the troops from Americans. At this point most of the talk is simply to bring them home. But pretty much anywhere in the middle east they are viewed poorly.

 

An army is for destroying the opposing forces, not for keeping the peace after the fact. And along those lines, this post WWII view that only the uniformed soldiers get targeted is a joke. And keyed into the 'peace keeping' aspect of things. When it has come down to it in any real declared war, Total War is what happens. War is not a neat little event between armies, its a messy endevour between nations.

 

Politics and money for the military industrial complex were the reasons for the war in the first place. Some people have made a mountain of profit off taxpayer money at the cost of people's lives.

 

America as a whole is viewed pretty negatively in the middle east due to our ties with Israel and that's a whole different discussion.

 

As for peace keeping duties, that's better left up to some country that isn't us. Now, if some douchebag dictator type is acting up, and you need somebody to go kick his f*cking teeth in, then you call the Marines or the 82nd Airborne. But if you're baby sitting some treaty, then no thanks...

 

 

 

Can we start a PAC or whatever to get this guy elected Sec. of Defense?

[walksalone]

Maybe you wouldn't struggle so much with "consistency" issues if you would pull your head out of your ass and not read waaaaaaaay too much into the simple comment of "very well said", that was aimed at a 5 paragraph post but which you chose (yes-YOU chose) to apply to innocent people. The original statement was directed at Saddam, his family, and Iraq. Not the "oppressed" and "innocent" that you chose to make it about simply so you could piss and moan and start an argument where otherwise there wasn't one.

OK. Not one speck of sympathy for Iraq (except for the innocent and oppressed.) More accurate for you?

 

I'm sure those crazy Islamic radicals shouting "Death to America" only mean Obama, his family, and the non-innocent people.

 

I guess I'm going to be the bad guy, but did I have one speck of sympathy for Iraq? Not really. I was more worried about our folks over there, trying to "unf*ck" an "unf*ckable" situation. When you're fighting an enemy that wears no discernible uniform, could attack anywhere at any time, doesn't have any problem using civilians for cover, and doing all this while dealing with a f*cked up ROE, I'm going to worry about the guys on my team. I will always try to look out for those who wear the uniform, and also those in the army, that have a unit patch on their right shoulder...

 

How easy do you think it is, for a 19 year old kid to have to shoot some kid, who should be in Jr. High, because this kid decided to pick up an AK and try to kill an american soldier. He's got to live with that for the rest of his life. Not only that, but grasp the fact that he or his closest friends could die in a hour or a week. His only worry is making it to tomorrow...

 

So, if I'm an a-hole for not feeling an iota of pity, then so be it. I'd rather be the guy supporting the troops, when the average swingin' dick, who's more worried about getting his latte from starbucks than what the average U.S. Soldier is going through on a daily basis...

[carlfense]

Maybe you wouldn't struggle so much with "consistency" issues if you would pull your head out of your ass and not read waaaaaaaay too much into the simple comment of "very well said", that was aimed at a 5 paragraph post but which you chose (yes-YOU chose) to apply to innocent people. The original statement was directed at Saddam, his family, and Iraq. Not the "oppressed" and "innocent" that you chose to make it about simply so you could piss and moan and start an argument where otherwise there wasn't one.

OK. Not one speck of sympathy for Iraq (except for the innocent and oppressed.) More accurate for you?

 

I'm sure those crazy Islamic radicals shouting "Death to America" only mean Obama, his family, and the non-innocent people.

 

I guess I'm going to be the bad guy, but did I have one speck of sympathy for Iraq? Not really. I was more worried about our folks over there, trying to "unf*ck" an "unf*ckable" situation. When you're fighting an enemy that wears no discernible uniform, could attack anywhere at any time, doesn't have any problem using civilians for cover, and doing all this while dealing with a f*cked up ROE, I'm going to worry about the guys on my team. I will always try to look out for those who wear the uniform, and also those in the army, that have a unit patch on their right shoulder...

 

How easy do you think it is, for a 19 year old kid to have to shoot some kid, who should be in Jr. High, because this kid decided to pick up an AK and try to kill an american soldier. He's got to live with that for the rest of his life. Not only that, but grasp the fact that he or his closest friends could die in a hour or a week. His only worry is making it to tomorrow...

 

So, if I'm an a-hole for not feeling an iota of pity, then so be it. I'd rather be the guy supporting the troops, when the average swingin' dick, who's more worried about getting his latte from starbucks than what the average U.S. Soldier is going through on a daily basis...

You sound like you believe you can only support the US troops or innocent civilians. That's a false dichotomy.

[walksalone]

You sound like you believe you can only support the US troops or innocent civilians. That's a false dichotomy.

 

In the world where you don't know where the next attack is coming from, who's your enemy or who's your friend, you've got to adopt that mindset. You can only trust the guy next to you to have your back. I can see where you can think that there are other options, but sometimes there aren't.

 

As stated by one of my training Sgt's, "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everyone not on your team"

[carlfense]

In the world where you don't know where the next attack is coming from, who's your enemy or who's your friend, you've got to adopt that mindset. You can only trust the guy next to you to have your back. I can see where you can think that there are other options, but sometimes there aren't.

I think that you're talking about tactical considerations . . . I'm talking about the big picture. You can support our troops and believe that it was a huge mistake to invade Iraq. You can support our troops and mourn the deaths of tens (hundreds?) of thousands of innocent civilians. You can support our troops while faulting political leadership. Etc.

[walksalone]

In the world where you don't know where the next attack is coming from, who's your enemy or who's your friend, you've got to adopt that mindset. You can only trust the guy next to you to have your back. I can see where you can think that there are other options, but sometimes there aren't.

I think that you're talking about tactical considerations . . . I'm talking about the big picture. You can support our troops and believe that it was a huge mistake to invade Iraq. You can support our troops and mourn the deaths of tens (hundreds?) of thousands of innocent civilians. You can support our troops while faulting political leadership. Etc.

 

And I guess that's where I think one of the issues are. Sometimes I think the "tactical considerations" aren't emphasized enough, and that the big picture may muddle how things are perceived.

[carlfense]

And I guess that's where I think one of the issues are. Sometimes I think the "tactical considerations" aren't emphasized enough, and that the big picture may muddle how things are perceived.

I certainly agree that Bush/Cheney (and everyone who voted for the war on the intelligence provided) should have spent more time thinking about the tactical problems of invading and occupying Iraq.