News flash: the war in Iraq is NOT a war against terror

bang guy

Moderator
Originally Posted by Beth
I'm not critical at all on what Bush has done in terms of Bin Ladin. Perhaps, even, I would say he hasn't done enough. One has to wonder, if we had not been at war with Iraq, if all those military resources may have produced better results on the Bin Ladin front.
We'll never know.

We will never know for sure but I have no doubt that you're 100% correct. Resources would have been better spent finishing Afganistan and sealing our borders to illegal aliens. IMHO.
 

dogstar

Active Member
Maybe Clinton was in bed with the Saudies and the Bin Ladin family just as much as the Bushs' are. Maybe...Thats why niether one of them has killed their boy....
 

jones

Member
Originally Posted by ScubaDoo
Like Hillary Clinton...you can not state you would never have voted to give the president the authority to attack...would now change your vote...but you still support the troops. Sorry to say those comments are inconsistent, mutually exclusive and down right disturbing from a presidential candidate wannabe.
I guess I will never understand the tunnel vision that keeps people from understanding that supporting the troops and suporting the policy are two COMPLETELY different things.
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Dogstar
Maybe Clinton was in bed with the Saudies and the Bin Ladin family just as much as the Bushs' are. Maybe...Thats why niether one of them has killed their boy....
I love this mentality....
Have ya ever been to Texas? A rich Texas family doesn't need Saudi oil... they've got all they need in their backyard just waiting for the price of oil to GO UP so that drilling is profitable.
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by jones
I guess I will never understand the tunnel vision that keeps people from understanding that supporting the troops and suporting the policy are two COMPLETELY different things.
Two edged sword... and that's not the argument... clinton attacked Iraq's "Nuclear, biological and chemical" weapon facilities in 98. Did he destroy them all or was he wrong when he launched an attack against a sovereign nation without consulting congress?
Now, as for the tunnel vision thing... try to explain to a soldier that you support him/her while the party you are associated with calls them gestapo. Try to explain to a soldier how you can support them while being against the war that they are dying for. Try to explain to a soldier how you used to support them and voted for them to start this war, but now you've changed your mind.....
They aren't different things. That's just a silly way of splitting hairs so that people can make themselves feel better at night.
 

jones

Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Now, as for the tunnel vision thing... try to explain to a soldier that you support him/her while the party you are associated with calls them gestapo.
No one, from either party, has called the soldiers gestapo, no idea where you came up with that one.
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Try to explain to a soldier how you can support them while being against the war that they are dying for.
First of all, not even all of the soldiers believe that this war was started with proper cause, and yes, I do know some. However they continue to do their duty, they don't question their authority. It is not allowed for the soldiers to question the lawful order for them to fight. Furthermore it would be extremely counter productive in ANY conflict to have the soldiers philosophizing about the moral implications of the policy making of their superiors. As I've said before, they sign up to provide a brave honorable service for our country. They don't make the decisions about how they are deployed, nor should they. They do what they are told to do. And by doing this they provide a necessary service for the country, and should be honored and respected by everyone for doing so.
The policy making, on the other hand, is a different story. The policy makers are the ones who hold the moral burden, they have the responsibility to utilize the trust the soldiers have given them in a justifiable, necessary, prudent way. An argument about the policy decisions made by the authority and passed down to the soldiers by way of lawful order is not an argument about the soldiers integrity.
Originally Posted by 1journeyman

They aren't different things. That's just a silly way of splitting hairs so that people can make themselves feel better at night.
No, it's a silly way of trying to demonize those who don't support the policy.
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by jones
No one, from either party, has called the soldiers gestapo, no idea where you came up with that one....
Read Senator Durbin's remarks in June comparing our soldiers' treament of prisoners to the actions of Nazi's, Gulags, and Pol Pot's regime... pretty sure he wasn't calling our troops boy scouts.
Soldiers are fighting and dying in Iraq. You explain to them how they can be compared to some of histories worst villains by a guy who "supports them but doesn't support the war."
 

scubadoo

Active Member
Originally Posted by jones
I guess I will never understand the tunnel vision that keeps people from understanding that supporting the troops and suporting the policy are two COMPLETELY different things.

FROM BAGHDAD TO BIN LADEN
Support Our Troops
Iraq isn't part of the war on terror? Try telling the soldiers that.
BY PAUL WOLFOWITZ
...............
........Not long ago, a woman named Christy Ferer traveled to Iraq along with the USO. She'd lost her husband Neil Levin at the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, and she wanted to say thank you to the troops in Baghdad. She wrote a wonderful piece about her trip, and in it, she wondered why our soldiers would want to see her, when they could see the Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders, movie stars and a model. When the soldiers heard that a trio of Sept. 11 family members were there, she found out why.
Young men and women from across America rushed to the trio, eager to touch them and talk to them. One soldier, a mother of two, told Christy she'd enlisted because of Sept. 11. Another soldier displayed the metal bracelet he wore, engraved with the name of a victim of 9/11. Others came forward with memorabilia from the World Trade Center they carried with them into Baghdad. And when it was Christy's turn to present Gen. Tommy Franks with a piece of steel recovered from the Trade Towers, she saw this great soldier's eyes well up with tears. Then, she watched as they streamed down his face on center stage before 4,000 troops.
To those who think the battle in Iraq is a distraction from the global war against terrorism . . . tell that to our troops.
 

jones

Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Read Senator Durbin's remarks in June comparing our soldiers' treament of prisoners to the actions of Nazi's, Gulags, and Pol Pot's regime... pretty sure he wasn't calling our troops boy scouts.
Soldiers are fighting and dying in Iraq. You explain to them how they can be compared to some of histories worst villains by a guy who "supports them but doesn't support the war."
Those who did the abusing hardly compromise "the soldiers" in general. You are the one making that generality. And the bench mark for the "abuse" was set by the top brass who continued to argue for those policies to continue, while at the same time passing the buck lower and lower on the totem pole for someone else to take responsibility. And Durbins remarks were not the only one's to admonish those procedures. I seem to recall a compelling article by John Mccain, which I agree with by the way, admonishing those same procedures. But, again, which party do you keep trying to slam? I'll post Mccains article if you haven't seen it.
 

scubadoo

Active Member
I'm not certain how one justifies non-support for the war but support for the troops fighting the war. It seems to me one would exclude the other.
The policy is a war on terror that is fought by our brave military. How one can separate the two is beyond me
 

scubadoo

Active Member
Here are the words of Capt. Steve Alvarez:
When I came home from Iraq a couple of months ago, I kept the promise I made while I was still there: I wouldn't watch the news, and I'd step away from the war, ignoring the events that had consumed my life 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It was time to catch up with my family and make them the focus of my life 24/7.
For about a month I was able to successfully ignore the constant horrid imagery and sensational reports filed from Iraq. But as a public affairs officer and self-proclaimed news junkie, I soon found myself scanning headlines on the Web and tuning into radio news programs, instead of my favorite jazz station.
I don't think the charred skeletal remains of a vehicle-borne explosive device are the watermark of this war. The images I see back here are not the same indelible images I saw in Iraq - those of a resilient country making its way back from decades of oppression - helped by the many friendly nations that liberated them.
But now I'm on the sidelines, and instead of feeling and hearing the car bomb explode and seeing its eerie black plume of smoke rise nearby, I read about it. And rather than witness history as I did for a year, I find myself writing my comrades to get accurate accounts of what is happening in Iraq.
What I saw in Iraq was the boundless bravery of a seemingly endless line of Iraqi recruits gathered to join the Iraqi army, the smiles and waves of Iraqis as we convoyed through the city of Sulaymaniyah, the first flight of the Iraqi air force, and the sound of Iraqi tank guns as they thundered for the first time in years in support of liberty, not tyranny.
I remember the jubilation of my Iraqi friends as they showed off their ink-stained fingers, a badge of honor on their fingertips, indicating they had voted in their country's first democratic election in decades. I remember the Iraqi female military police soldiers who became pioneers for women in that region by joining the Iraqi military, clearing not just personal hurdles, but cultural ones.
Mostly, I remember the thousands of Iraqi and coalition troops that each day hunted the enemy and kept me safe. I remember the drivers and gunners on convoy, the pilots and crew chiefs in the sky, the sentries and tankers at the gates, and all of the warriors who were out there trying to make Iraq a better and safer place.
Someday, probably decades from now, the actions of this generation and its brave men and women will grace history books. The lesson, I'm confident, will be that they left a peaceful and productive imprint on the region and its people, and forever changed the landscape of the Middle East.
Despite what is being reported and what is reflected in media opinion polls, there is no doubt in my mind that the public is behind the troops in Iraq.
While I was in Iraq, I received hundreds of Christmas cards from students at an elementary school and from members of a church in Florida. A sorority from Indiana sent dozens of letters and cards of support, and Americans from all over the country sent me e-mails from places like Chicago, Sacramento, and Texas just to name a few.
Wool caps made by an Internet knitting club kept me warm during the cold winter months in Iraq and donated phone cards kept me in touch with my family who waited for me more than 6,000 miles away. Care packages stuffed with goodies and comfort items were never in short supply at our command. In fact, we had to appoint a "morale sergeant" to manage all of the goodwill pouring into our compound.
When I came home in uniform on R&R, strangers approached me at the airport and shook my hand, patted me on the back, and thanked me. Airline employees did what they could, offering passes to their VIP lounges and upgrades to first class, and those airlines who had nothing to offer did what they could-extra pillows, fistfuls of peanut or pretzel bags and free headsets. But their "thanks" alone was enough for me.
Ask any returning war veteran and I'm sure you'll find their experience was similar. At one point I was so overwhelmed by the outpouring that I found myself in an airport restroom trying to keep my composure after a mother walked passed me with her two sons and one of them said aloud, "Thank you, Soldier," his brother waving anxiously at me.
COntinued
 

scubadoo

Active Member
On my return to the war after R&R, a few other soldiers and I were dining on one last restaurant-cooked meal in the airport when the waitress approached us and told us that another patron had paid for our meal.
We thanked the man but said we couldn't accept his offer. He replied that it was "the least I can do for you guys," adding, "We're all proud of you."
In my town when I came home after the war, I passed homes displaying yellow ribbons and flying U.S. flags. At my welcome home party, a restaurant donated food for more than 100 guests and people all over the city made it a point to express their support and gratitude.
The support I received bordered on immense. Never had I expected such support, and never had I received so much for merely doing my job.
My memories of Iraq will forever be engrained in my mind alongside of the memories of the incredible outpouring I received when I came home. They are one.
Last weekend, keeping true to the promise I made to make my family the 24/7 focal point I attended a baseball game on Father's Day and during the seventh inning stretch there was a salute to U.S. military personnel serving the war on terror.
A singer proudly sang "God Bless America" and all around me, people joined in and sang along.
My personal opinion poll has found, plus or minus a few percentage points, that the American people unconditionally support the soldiers in Iraq. I arrive at this conclusion having experienced their support firsthand, and having been held in their warm embrace upon my return from the war.
And the support continues today. When I recently learned about the opinion poll results I e-mailed one of my stateside supporters who befriended me during the war. I wrote him to say hello, and to restate my appreciation for his support during my deployment.
I asked him if he had heard about the media opinion polls and he replied as I had when I learned of the poll.
"News to me."
Capt. Alvarez, thank you for serving. May you hear that over and over again.
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by jones
Those who did the abusing hardly compromise "the soldiers" in general. You are the one making that generality. And the bench mark for the "abuse" was set by the top brass who continued to argue for those policies to continue, while at the same time passing the buck lower and lower on the totem pole for someone else to take responsibility. And Durbins remarks were not the only one's to admonish those procedures. I seem to recall a compelling article by John Mccain, which I agree with by the way, admonishing those same procedures. But, again, which party do you keep trying to slam? I'll post Mccains article if you haven't seen it.
I'd love to see any quote by Senator McCain comparing our soldiers to Nazis, Pol Pot thugs, or Gulag commandants...
You said no one called our troops "gestapo", I provided the article. Now, if you would like to debate the need for torture we can... although we both know the US, at it's worst, has never done anything compared to the millions of innocents slaughtered by the former regimes Durbin referenced.
 

jones

Member
Now I truely understand how someone else here noticed the trend of the "la la la I can't hear you argument around here."
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by jones
Now I truely understand how someone else here noticed the trend of the "la la la I can't hear you argument around here."
Why, because I refuse to drink the bitter Kool Aid you keep trying to shove down the throats of everyone who disagrees?
I've done my best to be civil, and I always back up my points with facts... sorry if that is "la la la".
 

jones

Member
No, because you refuse to see commn sense when it's put right in your face. I'm sorry I guess I confused intentional la la la for simple closed minded ignorance.
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by jones
No, because you refuse to see commn sense when it's put right in your face. I'm sorry I guess I confused intentional la la la for simple closed minded ignorance.
So, what exactly did I say that wasn't true?
I'm willing to be wrong, but I'm not willing to accept your opinion is more correct than my own when your side cannot post facts to support it...
 
Top