Letter from Iraq
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=144120
Printed Date: 07 February 2026 at 2:50pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Letter from Iraq
Posted By: goodsmitty
Subject: Letter from Iraq
Date Posted: 28 October 2005 at 3:36am
|
I got a letter from my nephew in Iraq today. He's an infantry specialist in the 82nd Airborne Division. I thought I would rattle some cages with it:
*edit* A shot out to whatever mod deleted the Richard Cheney thread: You are a neocon hero. If you could only delete the transgressions of Bush, Cheney, Delay, Bob Taft, Bob Ney, Scooter Libby, etc., etc., etc. ------------- "Reading this thread, I'm sad to say that the only difference between the average American and the average Taliban is economic status." -Zesty |
the smittybrothers' nephew wrote:Replies:
Posted By: Darur
Date Posted: 28 October 2005 at 3:45am
|
Your point being . . . .?
------------- Real Men play Tuba [IMG]http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/1859/newsmall6xz.jpg"> PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf! http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/log_off_user.asp" rel="nofollow - DONT CLICK ME!!1 |
Posted By: goodsmitty
Date Posted: 28 October 2005 at 4:34am
|
^^^That you won't see a letter like that on O'Reilly Factor. ------------- "Reading this thread, I'm sad to say that the only difference between the average American and the average Taliban is economic status." -Zesty |
Posted By: Badsmitty
Date Posted: 28 October 2005 at 6:09am
|
That troop is denegrating the troops! He is an America hater, obviously. |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 28 October 2005 at 6:25am
|
While some may not like it, that viewpoint makes sense to me. I may not agree with it, but I can understand thinking it.
Not saddam though, BAD choice for a leader. |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 28 October 2005 at 7:51am
|
I don't recall ever saying that the soldiers there WANTED to be there myself. ......and it wasnt me that deleted the Cheney thread. ------------- ? |
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 28 October 2005 at 8:27am
|
.....If I recall the later I posted on the forums about a month
ago....not every soldier hates "this place. We hate these people. Most
guys just want to shoot someone. ------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 28 October 2005 at 9:04am
|
You are priceless,
No war ever waged by any country at anytime in the history of man had all the troops enjoying thier stay, and 99% of letters home were of the "frustration" type, BTDT. But someone, somewhere, somehow, will as history reviews this war as it has many others in mans history find a true reason on why it was needed, and why he/she was there. My son wrote home too from Iraq, many positives, many negatives, humorous as well as almost despondant some times. I even have some of my letters home from a place far, far away, long time ago, no difference. So what is the point here. Doubt the WW2 letters were no differant from the front, soldiers complain, nature of the beast, and once older and wiser, find solace in what they have done, for whatever reason, wherever. I wonder how many troops complained about Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Truman, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Bush 41,Clinton, Bush 43, and found fault in the reason on why they were there, doing what they were doing, and asking "whats the point of me dieing or being here for this?". So no surprise on letter content, only your use of it as a political tool again to attack this administration, that in itself is dishonoring your nephews intent on a private communication to family. ------------- 
|
Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 28 October 2005 at 9:56am
|
Not sure who deleted the Cheney thread regarding the indictments... although I also hadn't looked at it in awhile, so not sure if it had grown into something worth deleting. Feel free to slap up another post on the matter... it's newsworthy, considering the first indictment(s) should be handed down today.
Back on topic though... what OS has written is basically true. Despite the obvious thoughts as to OS's political leanings... having been in combat, I'd suspect his experience with this matter trumps most others here. Not many people enjoy being in a combat zone. All of the amenities and freedoms experienced at home are taken away... nothing to enjoy about that. Factor in the fact that many soldiers currently serving didn't exactly join up to fight, but rather to get money for college or other reasons... and that misery they experience grows exponentially. Given my place of employment, I work alongside many who have been in Iraq, some in Afghanistan. There are indeed several who never want to go back. There are several who have served multiple tours, didn't enjoy themselves, but would go back again without much griping if they were called up. And there are some who can't wait to go back, and are actually hoping to serve more tours, despite the horrors they've witnessed. And they're not masochists ready to do more killing... these are combat medics and Corpsmen, patching holes and not making them. Point being... you have soldiers of all kinds. And no, not all of them *want* to be there. I'd even go so far as to say none of them *want* to be there... it's not a matter of wanting something. |
Posted By: goodsmitty
Date Posted: 28 October 2005 at 10:48am
|
Seems to me like nearly every post regarding troops on this forum is from the angle that they:
Since the letter comes from a grunt in an elite airborne unit, I would say he and his buddies are a pretty good sample of the military. I actually don't know a single soldier that has come home and said that we are improving Iraq, improving Iraqi's lives, or believe in the mission. So who exactly is for this war? In my experience:
------------- "Reading this thread, I'm sad to say that the only difference between the average American and the average Taliban is economic status." -Zesty |
Posted By: Sargent Duck
Date Posted: 28 October 2005 at 11:01am
You never took statistics did you? He and his buddies are NOT a good sampling, as they're from a special group, not the common infantry. And I don't think any solder would prefer to be fighting a war instead of being at home watching the game drinking beer. But the point is, that is there job. Their job is to go fight wars. When there boss says "go", they go. Same as if my boss told me to go mow the lawn. When he says "go", I go. Do I complain? yes. Do they complain? yes. If they hate their job so much, why did they join? ------------- Ref: I want a nice clean game player: but it's paintball! |
Posted By: .Ryan
Date Posted: 28 October 2005 at 11:05am
|
OS, the thing is that Linclon, FDR, Truman, The VN presidents, Bush "41", and Clinton could answer them when they asked why with something more than false intelligence and political rhetoric. And that was from the begining. Only as this war goes on does this "administration" gain that luxury. I say that because there was absolutely no excuse for us going in there and there was no satisfactory answer Bosh and Co. could have given if one of those soldiers involved in the initial invasion would have asked "why?".
That being said, I'm still of the opinion that Bosh and Co. should be indited, convicted, tarred, and feathered for getting this country in this mess BUT we can't just leave. I really believe that we need to finish the job over there. If we leave we will be letting AQ win. The fact is that Saddam was the only stabilizing force in that country before we took him down. A force against AQ no less, but now there is a power vacuum that we have to make sure is filled with the right people with the right ideals. We don't want another Taliban, much less one with the resources of Iraq and with neighbors like Syria and Iran. The thing is, this war wasn't about the WoT, but now it is. We made it that way. Now, in order to do any good at all in the WoT, we have to win this thing. There is no easy way out and it sucks but ya know, elections have consequences and this stupid country elected him, twice, now we have to deal with it. I just wish my grandchilderen wouldn't have to. -------------  |
Posted By: Sargent Duck
Date Posted: 28 October 2005 at 11:09am
You know, I'm sure there were more than a few people in Britian who didn't think Britian should have gotten involved with helping France after the Germans invaded. ------------- Ref: I want a nice clean game player: but it's paintball! |
Posted By: cadet_sergeant
Date Posted: 28 October 2005 at 11:24am
i have a friend with the 2nd ranger battalion he's been over for a total of 9 months. he's said it is a currupt (sp) place but I believe its because of the government it had. |
Posted By: Justice
Date Posted: 28 October 2005 at 11:33am
|
OMG yeah lets let Sadam back in as dictaitor so he can continue with his genocide and plans on nuking our city's.
------------- 
-JUSTICE http://www.myspace.com/outkastpaintball - Outkast Myspace |
Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 28 October 2005 at 11:37am
Sorry for butchering your quote... but the phrases above pretty much reflect the sentiment of those soldiers and sailors I know who have been there, but were against the war (not counting those who were not against). Regardless as to why we went, or whether it was right... the one thing they have all agreed on is that now that we're in... you can't just leave it unfinished. I haven't met one person who has told me that everyone should be sent home right now. I truly hate to think of it this way... but WoT has to be fought somewhere. Did it need to be fought in Iraq? Perhaps not. But if not Iraq, it'd be somewhere else. Probably more attacks on our own soil. Expanded in Afghanistan. Expanded in the Philippines/Indonesia. Expanded in Africa. Unfortunately, there is no real option to not fight. Wish there were. Fight the battle where it takes you... happened to be Iraq this time around. Have no doubts... even when the fighting is done in Iraq... the fight will bring us somewhere else. And the soldiers won't want to be there, either. |
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 28 October 2005 at 11:48am
|
I'm thinking we are too focused on the literal concept of "fighting". This leads to simplistic concepts like "fight here or fight there". Terrorism (or, more to the point, militaristic fundamentalist Islam), is a set of beliefs. You can't fight beliefs with guns. The guns may help keep the fanatics at bay, but you cannot kill a belief with a gun. We are not merely fighting terrorists - we are fighting their worldview. And that worldview will not die just because we kill a bunch of terrorists. My concern is not so much with the war in Iraq (which I overall think is a good idea), but with the apparent lack of a legitimate attack on the underlying beliefs. Established democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan might dent the fundamentalists (which is principally why I support the war), but putting all our eggs in that basket seems a little optimistic. Bush was right that we need to win the "hearts and minds" of Iraqis and other middle-Eastern muslims - but so far that seems more of a slogan than an actual plan. We can keep sending more guns to Iraq - and if we don't implement a meaningful "hearts and minds" strategy, we may have to. |
Posted By: goodsmitty
Date Posted: 28 October 2005 at 11:49am
|
I don't think we should be fighting a form of combat at all. We should be fighting an enemy, not an ideology. We would never be having this conversation if we had stayed in Afghanistan and got the job done, focusing on an enemy-the Taliban who harbored al Qaeda, who were responsible for 9/11. Instead we are fighting a nebulous ideal that has us in a country that has nothing to do with 9/11. So you tell me why we need to fight "TURROR". ------------- "Reading this thread, I'm sad to say that the only difference between the average American and the average Taliban is economic status." -Zesty |
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 28 October 2005 at 11:59am
You can't draw a line between "enemy" and "idealogy" beacuse they wouldn't be OUR enemy if their(Arabic Fundamentalists/Radicalists) ideas and opinions of the world did not support the destruction of our entire religion/country(whichever applies to the group they are trying to extinguish) I'm sure there were people who felt that the Nazi's were entitled to their own ideals too. ------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 28 October 2005 at 12:22pm
|
My question to those who do not see the reasons for fighting the terror networks logistical and support base.
In the 20th Century several "political ideals" developed, Soviet Russia, Fasist Italy, National Socialist Germany, Imperial Japan, each waged war either hot or cold during its history, against America vowing its destruction and the destruction of what America stands for. Wars are fought for or against an ideaology, and have been, only prior to rhis war we could identify the idea with a certian nation state. Now we fight an idea with no national boundry. How many proxy wars were fought with the Soviet Union/ Communist China, Korea, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Honduras, Grenada, each for a reason, each leading to the final political destruction of the primary antagonist (Soviet Union)without having to fight the Soviets either in Soviet Russia, Europe, or here. Each war many questioned at the time, led to the result America and most of the world desired, the political destruction of Soviet Communisum, and those Soviet Sattilite States within Eastarn Europe. Each time, as we went to war against the ideology of Italy, Germany X2 , Japan, many questioned the reasoning and why we needed to again fight a war against someone who at the time was no direct threat to American soil. Even today with the intelligence and documentation of pre Dec 1941, was FDR holding back from his military commanders, wanting Japan to attack, provoking an attack by his Japan foriegn policy, history will reveal more in time as it has on FDR, then current retoric on this war from polititians with set agendas. Wars against a idea is a new concept, requiring a new way of bringing the fight to the idea. Putting our head in the sand, appeasing those who wish us harm, will only last till, we stand alone against a threat that today we see as limited. Look at what the recent Isreali appeasement of Palestine got them. Isreal conceded and returned the west bank to the Palestinians, forceably removed Isreali settlements, all for a promise of Peace from the Palestinians and other extemists groups. And what was the result, the Palestinians and terror groups said, we got this, now lets get the rest, and the fighting continues. Now Iran declears that the destruction of the Isreali State is thier goal, yep appeasement and ignoring problems will allways lead to "Peace in our time". Instead of giving us all the reasons why we are doing it wrong, give us the way to do it "right", that is the question? -------------
|
Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 28 October 2005 at 12:34pm
As stated above... what is the difference between the enemy and ideology in this case? It would be extremely nice to be able to put this current conflict in old-world terms, where we have a set enemy, in a set environment/region. We don't have that. To say that we are involved in that kind of fight is akin to Bush claiming an end to hostilities in Iraq way back when. There is no set enemy. There is no set region or environment. Bush was right in one sense... our fight against IRAQ, the set enemy, was over. Doesn't mean the fighting is over. If we had kept it to Afghanistan, would that mean the end of Al Qaeda, and terrorism? Not saying that Iraq panned out to be a good idea... but it wouldn't have stopped at Afghanistan. IF we had caught Bin Laden (or killed him like we had the chance pre-9/11), it wouldn't mean the end. We are fighting an ideology. Hearts and minds works to an extent, but not when you don't have a means to win the hearts and minds. I think if there were a peaceful way to accomplish that, it would be ideal. Unfortunately, "ideals" get trumped by "reality". By saying that we should fight one set enemy (Taliban) in one set region (Afghanistan) ignores the fact that the enemy we fight is not a nation, and does not hide within specific borders. Al Qaeda exists everywhere. I don't think we should be fighting a form of combat of all either. But do we really have the choice? Peace is only accomplished if both sides want it. No matter how hard you want it, there is a fundamentalist out there who doesn't... and he's willing to give his life, in order to take yours. While I don't want us to be at war... more than that, I don't want us to be simply reactionary. I don't feel the country can afford to wait for the next 9/11 to happen, and then seek out those specific individuals responsible for that one single act. We can sit back and wait until after we're attacked, and then do very little afterwards... like after the Cole, after the embassy bombings, after WTC'93... or we can take actions to actually prevent those attacks from happening. Neither is pretty, neither is without loss of life... my choice is for the latter, yours is for the former. My way, or your way... neither is ideal. |
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 28 October 2005 at 12:38pm
|
If I knew that, I would be running this place... I don't have a good easy solution. I can simply note that our current strategy does not appear to be working. If we are to succeed, we must somehow because MORE popular/liked/appreciated/accepted in the Middle East (and elsewhere), not less. Like I said, I think establishing democracies in Iraq/Afghanistan could help a lot. I just don't think that by itself will be enough. Nor do I have a specific suggestion for what else could be done.
|
Posted By: .Ryan
Date Posted: 28 October 2005 at 12:49pm
|
I think it's a problem of semantics. We're not really fighting "terror" we are, as OS said, fighting the terror networks' logistical and support base. And I support that. The fact was that Iraq didn't fit in to that target area. While "islamofacism" or whatever the hell you want to call it has no boarders, there are nations, with boarders, that are good targets. Iraq wasn't one of them. If this war had been in Iran, or Pakistan, or Syria, or almost any other country than Iraq it would have made much much sense. What we've done is added a name to that list instead of taking one off. What we've done is like if we would have invaded Poland instead of trying to save Vietnam. Vietnam's communist regime would point to that as Capitalist agression and whatever Communist part Poland had at the time would have gotten the support of the people, not to mention help from the rest of the Communist block. Maybe Poland isn't the best analogy but you get my point. I probably would have supported the Vietnam War if I had been alive because it was a legitimate battle in the war on Communism. Iraq, even though it is now, wasn't a legitimate battle in the WoT.
As for the way to do it "right", I'd say maybe the troops should be properly equiped and reenforced, maybe we should look outside of the current establishment(which happens to be full of political cronies) to find someone who knows how to fight this kind of war, go to the UN/NATO/Global Community and tell them we screwed up and we need some help, and possibly finish up in Afghanistan in the same ways so we have all our resources to to use in cleaning up the Iraq mess. I would also explain my view that we shouldn't have went but we need to finish to the American public and stop being a jerk about it and possibly rally some more support from the public. Admitting you're wrong usually gets you more credit than pretending you're never wrong. Thats what I'd do anyway. ------------- |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 28 October 2005 at 12:51pm
|
.Ryan
"OS, the thing is that Linclon, FDR, Truman, The VN presidents, Bush "41", and Clinton could answer them when they asked why with something more than false intelligence and political rhetoric. And that was from the begining." Please explain to us who were there and remmember what was the true reason for Vietnam. Never recieved what we would call a legitimate reason from Kennedy, Johnson, nor Nixon. .Ryan, Pleae review the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and the incident that led to it, and then explain Presidents Johnson's "truthfull" explination of the event based on the intelligence he recieved. So from the Advisors in 54 thru the Marines in 64 till Siagon of 72 each American there knew the real reason he/she was there. -------------
|
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 28 October 2005 at 12:54pm
|
Ryan, its not so much that iraq wasnt a bad target, its more that the tribes all overlap between different countries. What we basicaly did was pick the weakest country and baited terrorists to come to Iraq, we used iraq as a theater of operations.
Killed something like 3 birds with one stone. I dont think the WMDs are in Iraq, they are somewhere else. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors"> 
|
Posted By: Hades
Date Posted: 28 October 2005 at 1:04pm
|
I think the Middle East needs more Rock and Roll. Not the current pop music they are sending overseas. No wonder they hate us so. ------------- 
|
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 28 October 2005 at 1:07pm
|
No, they need fast food.
You are starving, poor, and life sucks. The pimpinest guy around with like 5 wives hands you a gun and says god wants you to kill people, and if you do, ile make you a pimp like me. What are you going to do? BUT! Add comerce to the mix, some strip clubs, a burger king or three or four and a wal mart. The potential insurgent will say, "Ide rather have a coke and a smile." Just my half brained idea of the day. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">
|
Posted By: .Ryan
Date Posted: 28 October 2005 at 1:11pm
|
OS: I was speaking of the Domino Effect theory....
Dbib: I guess you could argue that but we could have killed 3 much bigger birds with one stone had we invaded a good target. It might have been a good idea to finish the job in Afghanistan before invading anyone else though. Just a thought... Edit: Did you know that no country with a McDonalds has ever attacked the U.S.? ------------- |
Posted By: Hades
Date Posted: 28 October 2005 at 1:11pm
That sounds like you would have then turned Iraq into Redneck Central, USA.  -------------
|
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 28 October 2005 at 1:12pm
How many rednecks do you see runnin around with guns? Wait, nevermind. 
Lol. I find im in a good mood today. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 28 October 2005 at 1:20pm
|
Another why on war question. We allied in WW2 with a dictator who in the look back on history made the human attrocities committed by Hitler pale in comparison. Then, we did not know or realize who we allied with, and the repercutions of the next 40years, now in hindsight...........................
History in looking back on the Radical Islamic Wars of the Late 20th, early 21st Century, will determine who was right, and determine what mistakes were made. Right now it is just a political football for power in our Government. -------------
|
Posted By: .Ryan
Date Posted: 28 October 2005 at 1:27pm
|
Speaking of Stalin and WWII, did anyone read that article questioning rather WWII was a waste because we gave Stalin who was as bad/worse than Hitler control of half of Europe?
Off topic but still interesting. Anyway, it's not just "political football" for some of us. Some people actually see what Bosh did to our country and get genuinely pissed. Or are you too partisan to see that? ------------- |
Posted By: Kristofer
Date Posted: 28 October 2005 at 1:29pm
|
Yeah. always easier making decisions in hindsight. to bad we cant see the future eh?
|
Posted By: TruePaintballer
Date Posted: 28 October 2005 at 1:31pm
|
i feel that i can relate to that...and somewhat agree ------------- http://www.freewebs.com/outlawspaintball/index.htm - Outlaws *Sponsors* http://www.abrika.ca - Abrika |
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 28 October 2005 at 1:35pm
What did he actualy do? ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">
|
Posted By: Zesty
Date Posted: 28 October 2005 at 1:47pm
You miss the point.....most people signed up for tour feeling all patriotic because they were brainwashed that we as Americans were going to Iraq to fight "evil", and be "patriotic"...so kids signed up thinking they were doing the right thing. Now that they're there and are living it, they don't feel it's such a good thing they're doing. Not to be a **edited**, because I do highly respect OS for serving his time, but he isn't over in Iraq. It's kinda messed up that we have someone that is actually serving and he gets no respect. Everyone loves those soldiers until they act like actual humans. |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 28 October 2005 at 2:01pm
|
I love youth, patriotism and duty is not brainwashing.
The German soldier of 1939-1945 was not brainwashed, he only believed in his country and his leaders. The Soviet soldier of 1917-1989 was not brainwashed, but believed in Mother Russia and again his leaders. Every soldier for every nation and cause believes in that cause, and believes that God is on his side, the nature of the beast. American Soldiers are not brainwashed on Iraq, and since the end of the draft in 72 has volunteered for service. Anyone who is ignorant enough to believe that military service is just a collage benifit job, and someday he may be called to go to war, and to give his life for another, has been brainwashed, but by the left. And as a soldier the decesions on why and where he goes to war, are not his to question, only to do the duty he swore an oath on. Evil exsists in the world, be it an idea, a national leader, a terrorist, and someone somewhere will be required to stand somewhere less pleasent than home, and draw that line in the sand and state "evil stops here". -------------
|
Posted By: Badsmitty
Date Posted: 28 October 2005 at 2:03pm
|
No, it's too bad when evidence that goes against the build up to war is ignored, evaded or we out our C.I.A. agents to discredit those who bring us that evidence. It doesn't take clairvoyance, it takes common sense. |
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 28 October 2005 at 2:16pm
|
Actually, I think you are exactly right - the question becomes one of implementation. How do we accomplish this? History has, I believe, been quite clear that crime/terrorist/revolution/riot/whatever is closely tied to poverty, lack of hope, and general suckiness of life. Very few people intentionally worsen their situation. While some of the guys (like OBL) come from wealth and privilege, the overwhelming majority of terrorist grunts are choosing between being an uber-kewl martyr with a gun and a boatload of hot chicks, and being a begger-slash-handiman who won't get laid ever. It's the same issue that we see with gangs in our inner cities. Given those choices, I expect I would be a druglord/terrorist as well. What we need to do is change the choices. Provide a Plan B for the would-be recruits. While there will always be some people willing to throw it all away (like the folks in England), it is oh-so-much easier to recruit extremists in an extreme environment. And therein lies part of our dilemma - Al-Zarqawi and his guys are doing their best at Crisis Maximation (making life extra sucky for your own people, which makes them angry and easy to recruit), and the US military is helping them out in our effort to fight those same people. But overall I agree - if we could send Nick & Jessica on an extended Middle East tour (sponsored by McDonald's), that just might do it. :) |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 28 October 2005 at 2:19pm
|
I love your single mindset......BS and GS,
Lets see since we are hashing up bad go to war decesions....USS Maine, FDR's Japan forign policy, Lend Lease Act provoking Germany, Gulf of Tonkin, Aspirin factory Cruise missile targets, miss Id'd Chinese Embasies, faulty intelligence, iced over by intell services who are careerists, given to polititians who can be part time, to run with and either it goes real well and all is happy, or bad and the intell services and polititians begin to eat thier own. Turning back the clock happens only in SciFi, so now we must make the best of this mess and fix the problem in the Mid East instead of just saying over and over, you are doing it wrong, maybe if the left had an idea, other than Bush is wrong, on how to do it right, someone would listen and take credence in thier retoric. Got to love SocDems and NeoCons, what would McCarthy do. Are you, or have you ever been a "insert here", the great inquisition continues. -------------
|
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 28 October 2005 at 2:25pm
|
McCarthy? I'm missing the McCarthy reference... |
Posted By: .Ryan
Date Posted: 28 October 2005 at 2:29pm
|
OS, again with "the left". How the hell is someone thinking that it's a good idea to join The National Guard, who hasn't been activated since Vietnam btw, for college money a sign of leftwing brainwashing? And how is that MORE brainwashing than the examples of soldiers you listed? You stopped making sense there man.
And patriotism isn't blindly believing your leaders. It's loving your country and wanting what is best for it. Stop insinuating that people who are against Bush and against the war aren't patriotic. If I weren't patriotic I wouldn't care about the war and I wouldn't be so pissed. I'm in that state because I love this country and I have been watching this administration do one thing after another that hurts this nation and her interests. Stop towing the party line and THINK. And Dbib: When I say Bush I am refering to he and his administration. I know he personally isn't entirely responsible for everything this administration has done but it's just easier to refer to one four letter name. Actually though, he is head of his administration so he could be considered responsible for everything it does. Depends on how you look at it. ------------- |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 28 October 2005 at 2:29pm
|
The NeoCon name calling from the twins, kinda like the communist finger pointing of the late 50's.
"Are you, or have you ever been a NeoCon, and do you know any NeoCon's", a liberal democrats dream......as the finger points to those who disagree with them. -------------
|
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 28 October 2005 at 2:31pm
| Ah - of course. Nice. |
Posted By: .Ryan
Date Posted: 28 October 2005 at 2:32pm
|
Oh please....Ok, OS has resorted to spraying partisan crap, I guess I'm done here. I have to go pick my girlfriend up at school anyway. Later all... ------------- |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 28 October 2005 at 2:34pm
|
.Ryan, wake up........it is a volunteer military, active, guard and reserve, whose primary mission is to defend american interests, and go to war if ordered, not an organisation to provide collage benifits.
Anyone who thru lack of knowledge and education on what a military is required for, still lives in the "peace, love and understanding" mindset of the average leftist. Willing to take the pay and benifits, but not willing to do the actual job when required. -------------
|
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 28 October 2005 at 2:37pm
|
I hang out with a lot of "average leftists", but they generally don't seem to meet that description... None of them do, actually. |
Posted By: Zesty
Date Posted: 28 October 2005 at 2:55pm
Just because someone doesn't agree with the war doesn't mean they signed up just for the benefits! After the terrorist attacks, people were all on their patriotic high-horse, the President included. the government and President have access to the media like no one else, thus he has influence like no one else. Pres Bush BRAINWASHED the people that we were fighting a war on terror, a war of good against evil. All coinciding with an OUTBREAK of armed forces commerciels rammed down our throats.....seems enough to get a young impressionable man motivated! So these brave young men sign up to fight a war on evil, and they get there and feel differently....they feel we are fighting a needless battle. I have no problem respecting their views, but for some reason, you a combat vet yourself, do. It's not for me or you to question, because we aren't there! Theirs are the views we should respect most in this situation, because theirs are the lives that are in danger. ------------- "People who see the future earlier than others are always feared and misunderstood." - Jose Canseco |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 28 October 2005 at 3:19pm
|
Ok, we are all brainwashed. No one in the world has ill will towards America (unless a Republican is President)and will let America live forever in Peace (as long as there is an honest Democrat in office). We can disband our armed forces, use the money for social programs. We can trust the UN to protect us from evil intentions. To bad the world is not that simple.
Wars through out history have been started on a whole by miscommunication and bad intelligence, and is some cases really for bad political reasons, no secret there. Soldiers from all nations who actually have half a mind do not want to be in a war, anywhere near a war, nor even dream of war, they actually join a military to prevent war through a show of national strength and resolve. Bush as well as Congress both Republican and Democrat relied on the information they were given by various intelligence agencies, who by nature are careerists and tend to tell whoever is in office what they feel the one in office cares to hear, not allways the truth, in order to protect their positions in government. What CIA agent would say that there is no threat to America from his area of expertise, he would be unemployed that quick. From Bush, to Kerry, to Hillary, they all said the same before the war, Saddam had WMD's, based on the same information from the same career intelligence community. The Armed Services Committe in Congress gets the same info as the President, and not a peep prewar on disagreement from right or left, on why we were going to war with Iraq, only now do these same people get "selective memory" for political gain. -------------
|
Posted By: Badsmitty
Date Posted: 28 October 2005 at 3:29pm
| O.S. Does anyone really read your posts? I swear to God I used to try, but I just gave up. Please, Please, Please, if you reply to this one just put, "You suck, Smitty," or "You, don't know what you are talking about." One line. That's all. |
Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 28 October 2005 at 3:35pm
|
No Badsmitty, you just hate America. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Jim Paint
Date Posted: 28 October 2005 at 4:15pm
What about how the generals wanted to march on Moscow, but Democrats said no? ------------- 
saepe fidelis |
Posted By: Kristofer
Date Posted: 28 October 2005 at 4:20pm
I read his posts. After my last post about politics and me not reading everyhting everyone said. I decided to start reading. |
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 28 October 2005 at 4:29pm
I know. It would so work, but i dont see how it would actualy be done. The idea came to me today when i was watching the history channel, i saw a bunch of teenager mudjahedeen fighters all with AKs screaming god is great, there is no god but allah and what not. And i thought to myself, "Ide rather go to the mall than do that." And then i thought that maybe that was the answer. Who wants to be a goat herder living in poverty when you could go find some exitment and fight the infidels, get a gun, food and be a man of power. Give them a mall and a starbucks and terrorism would be wipped. Not really, but the general idea stands i think. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">
|
Posted By: Sargent Duck
Date Posted: 28 October 2005 at 11:11pm
I read his posts. And since he seems to be the only one here with any combat experience, when he talks about soldering, I'll tend to read his posts with greater care. ------------- Ref: I want a nice clean game player: but it's paintball! |
Posted By: Sargent Duck
Date Posted: 28 October 2005 at 11:13pm
Did we give Stalin half of Europe? Yep. Did we know what was going to happen? Nope. Did we trust Stalin to hold true to his word? Yep. Did he? nope Nobody can be faulted for what happened, simply becuase nobody knows the future. ------------- Ref: I want a nice clean game player: but it's paintball! |
Posted By: Badsmitty
Date Posted: 29 October 2005 at 7:57am
|
Good, I'll refer to you for interpretation if you can go beyond "Right on, O.S.," or "Well said O.S." I don't need clonespeak, there is plenty of others who can do that. |
Posted By: Sargent Duck
Date Posted: 29 October 2005 at 9:44am
|
Heh, I love how you took what I said out of context. I never said
that'd I'd agree with him (don't ever remember saying "Right on, O.S.,"
or "Well said O.S."). I never said I'd cheer for him, I never said I'd
mimic or even clone what he said. I merely stated that since he has
experience, I'd pay greater attention to what he said concerning
soldiers feelings over wars than a 20 yr old who has never held a
gun.
------------- Ref: I want a nice clean game player: but it's paintball! |
Posted By: Jim Paint
Date Posted: 29 October 2005 at 10:17am
I wasn't making that up... -------------
saepe fidelis |
Posted By: Zesty
Date Posted: 29 October 2005 at 10:41am
You say you would respect a fighting soldier more than the average grunt, but then you give OS more respect than a soldier who is actually over in Iraq as we speak. I don't get it. |
Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 29 October 2005 at 11:01am
|
Or why he gives OS all the respect but disses Badsmitty, another former soldier. -------------
|
Posted By: redneckdeerhntr
Date Posted: 29 October 2005 at 11:13am
| tell him i said thank you for your service |
Posted By: Sargent Duck
Date Posted: 29 October 2005 at 11:51am
|
How am I dissing Badsmitty? Show me where I come out and diss him. I
was not aware he was a soldier (I accept the blame for this (not
knowing he was a soldier). I probably should have read his posts
harder). How have I in any way disrespected Badsmitty, or any other
soldier, or even the ones fighting now? I might disagree with
Badsmitty, but in NO ways have I dissed him, or disrespected him. And I
never said I give more respect (I never even used that word) to OS over a soldier fighting in Iraq
right now. I said I pay more attention (notice that attention does not equal respect) to his posts than a 20 year old
who has not seen combat. (If Badsmitty is over in Iraq right now, then
I did not know this, and will go back and re-read his posts). I'd love to know how by me saying I read OS's posts more carefully, that everybody thinks I'm dissing Badsmitting and disrespecting troops over in Iraq. ------------- Ref: I want a nice clean game player: but it's paintball! |
Posted By: Jim Paint
Date Posted: 29 October 2005 at 2:14pm
Cause you arent a democrat. -------------
saepe fidelis |
Posted By: Cedric
Date Posted: 29 October 2005 at 2:23pm
|
Reb, you going to delete this thread too?
------------- 
|
Posted By: Sargent Duck
Date Posted: 29 October 2005 at 2:26pm
ahhhhhhh. The anwers which I so sought after, have been given to me. It all makes sense now.  ------------- Ref: I want a nice clean game player: but it's paintball! |
Posted By: Badsmitty
Date Posted: 29 October 2005 at 4:12pm
|
You're just a Badsmitty hater and an unpatriot. Jesus hates you. |
Posted By: Sargent Duck
Date Posted: 29 October 2005 at 6:48pm
|
Well now, that was a little harsh. I don't even know and yet you think
I hate you? Nahhhhh. Just cuase I disagree with a person doesn't mean I
don't like the person. And I usually reserve judgment till I've met the person and spent some time with them Unpatriotic? I thought all rightwingers were patriots ------------- Ref: I want a nice clean game player: but it's paintball! |
Posted By: goodsmitty
Date Posted: 29 October 2005 at 10:45pm
|
Everyone else but OS skip this post, you already know. Actually, Joseph Wilson said before the war that they did not have uranium, and he was the person sent by the gov't to investigate the claim. They ignored his report so he wrote in the NYT that the Bush administration knew that there was no uranium sale and that they were misleading the American people. Three days later his wife (a CIA operative) had her cover blown by an administration official in the whitehouse, who Wilson claimed had to work for Cheney, or Cheney himself. Yesterday Scooter Libby, Cheney's chief of staff resigned after being formally indicted by a grand jury for covering up info in the case. There have been two threads now about this case, which you have typed some lengthy nonsensical diatribe on. Apparently you did not read any of the links I posted before starting your ramblings. So how can you even say that Bush was innocent by ignorance, especially after there have been two threads offering very compelling proof that he wasn't? ------------- "Reading this thread, I'm sad to say that the only difference between the average American and the average Taliban is economic status." -Zesty |
Posted By: Badsmitty
Date Posted: 30 October 2005 at 12:05am
| ^^^^^Why do you bother? You can lay it out over and over and you waste your time. Most of the people who agree with O.S. don't even know who Joseph Wilson is and aside from Duncan Hines, yellow cake is a total mystery, too. |
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 30 October 2005 at 12:46am
not to discredit any smitty here, but your statement has one variable that OS doesn't have to worry about from his posts on experience. it was a letter from an active soldier in the war. but this person has no forum account so whatever someone types as the letter supposedly reads, we have to trust them. although i disagree with smitty at times, i do trust him to honestly report what the letter truly says. but being that it is the only unknown in the situation, i can see where one may be partial to the soldier with experience posting from his own account, over the person posting what a letter from someone else supposedly states. once again, i do not wish to be seen as discrediting smitty, for i do believe what he typed from the letter was accurate. but just step back and analyze a situation before trying to jump in a person's mind and tell the public how they feel about/regard others. ------------- 
|
Posted By: BARREL BREAK
Date Posted: 30 October 2005 at 1:14am
| Seems to me that letter is exactly the same sentiment I have seen in every letter from soldiers in Iraq. |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 30 October 2005 at 3:48pm
|
No soldier who has BTDT, will ever doubt the content of the letter, it is the nature of soldiers to complain, wonder, and ask why, for what, is it all worth it and, whem am I going home. No letter from a soldier on the front in any war, anywhere, from anybody, varies much from the theme.
The nature of war exposes americans to cultures and peoples we do not understand, we all try to judge others based on American role models, and 90% of the world does not come close to the American example. In Papau New Guinea in 1942, American soldiers could not understand the native peoples, who cared little whether it was a Japanese or American, Austrailian, who ever, the native peoples where just out of the stone age, and could not nor cared to, understand "modern civilization ideas". And read some of the published letters from there by American service men, nothing changes but the country, the enemy, and the date from the letter from Iraq. Nor could we understand the Germans, who in 1940 were true National Socialists, yet in 1945 it seems all were ordered or forced by Hitler to commit whatever act, no one knew of anything, a Western Civilization doing what it did was unfathomable to many. Nor the Japanese way of war and home culture, no POW's, who were considered subhuman acording to Bushido, total worship of the Emporer God. Our soldiers once the wars are over, try to get the locals to embrace our way of life, on peoples who do not understand, have no concept, or have ideals from previous government so ingrained into thier youth, our culture and our ideals are total foriegn, but the locals are expected to immediately change or it is an immediate political failure. American have been conditioned to the quick fix, nintendo wars, and can not understand that culture and people take time to change. Look how long before the Osteys of East Germany after the fall of communism could grasp the ideas of democracy, free enterprise, and stop relieing on the government for set pay, benifits and social needs. Many from Russia and Eastern Europe are still struggling with the concept, 16years later. Wars are never the last answer to world problems, they just set forth a chain of events that society today cares to ignore unless it directly effects their daily life. Joe Bob the Iraqi only wants his mud hut, his goat, and food on the table, doesn't care who is in charge as long as he is left alone, and the idiots in charge or want to be in charge do not kill him for whatever the reason of the day is. -------------
|
Posted By: Zesty
Date Posted: 02 November 2005 at 2:19pm
------------- "People who see the future earlier than others are always feared and misunderstood." - Jose Canseco |
Posted By: Razgriz Ghost
Date Posted: 02 November 2005 at 4:53pm
| What this letter is, is a soldier blowing off steam, nothing more or less. |
Posted By: Da Hui
Date Posted: 02 November 2005 at 5:07pm
------------- 
|