If you’re an Iranian operative in Iraq, your morning commute just got a little tougher.
The White House said Friday that U.S. forces in Iraq are now free to take whatever actions deemed necessary — including death — to counter agents aiding attacks on American troops.
The United States detained five Iranians in northern Iraq last month. If it’s been killing others, we probably won’t hear about it.
At first blush, it makes sense to raise the stakes for the Iranians — this is war. But a public announcement of the policy seems counterproductive, handing our foes a valuable propaganda card when a bullet meant for an Iranian operative inevitably hits someone who isn’t.
Posted by Dave Knadler
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- thomaswitt on Let immigrants run
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- minutelady on Open thread 11/23
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
- minutelady on Open thread 11/23
- XXX on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Let immigrants run
- Phantom on Let immigrants run
- XXX on Open thread 11/23
134 Comments
Stray bullets are always a concern – but we have bigger issues in the area.
Iran has just announced that it is going to begin nuclear weapon testing – and North Korea is going to assist.
Iran also just stated that Israel AND the United States are going to be destroyed.
Allowing Iranian insurgents, or operatives to lay claim to billions of dollars should they seize the oil fields of Iraq is like handing them the means to destroy the West.
This is a war that will determine whether or not the Middle Eastern cavemen in designer jeans will usurp the power to carry out their threats.
A stray bullet against that backdrop – is a very small thing.
Thank goodness they are finally allowing the hands of our soliders to be untied. Time to kick butt and mean it.
Other than that. I heard an interesting report about Iran yesterday. They are getting very desperate because their country is on a virtual economic collaspe.
Joe I heard that too, I think that more then anything we do will bring about the fall of their president.From the book I am reading part time, “The secret history of the Iraq war” By the special advisor to the Congress on terrorism and the Middle East. Both Iran and Syria have played a major role in the Iraq war.At once point before the invasion, Saddam was going to step down from power and flee Iraq to a safe country. But Iran and Syria wanted the U.S. to invade and If Saddam step down it would have taken away the stated reasons for the invasion. So they promised Saddam if he would stay they would stand beside him if the U.S. invaded and fight the crusaders!
From the beginning both have provided money, arms and a way for fighters to enter Iraq. It is their goal to prolong this war and make it bloody enough that we will leave the region or be drawn into a regional conflict along side of Israel. Iran wants Iraq to become a satellite country for Iran ruled by the Shiites.This is all just coming out, but was known from 2002 by Washington.
Oh yes; Iran is the new boogyman to blame for the Bush failure in Iraq.
I find this announcement to be another failure of the Bush admin. If we are so tough, so determined, so determined, as the Bush admin. would like us to believe….then why in the hell were we playing hands off with the Iranians in the first place. For God sake – they don’t have the Nuke yet….so are we going to play sissy ball and then wake up when they announce they have the bomb.Iran must be dealt with soon….and in a earth scorching way. They cannot be allowed to go nuclear.So here we sit – we attacked Iraq, the only country without Nuclear capability in the Axis of Evil. George Bush should not be allowed to be our president.
It’s interesting to hear folks claim Iran’s aggressive actions are the fault of GWB. History must be an elective class now in High School, and the kids are opting out.
Of course, it’s currently the fad to blame anything and everything on the President, so why should this be any different?
…wichita blog complain about bush are girly men…armchair quarterbacks…they say their mouth and know no answers…sound like the fisherman’s wife…you catch no fish! you catch no fish!…fishman’s wife say we will starve! we will starve!…fisherman’s wife starved. fisherman ate the wife boiled….fisherman whistles about always having options.
Iran and Syria have been trying to destabilize the region for decades. President Bush is just doing what he has to do to try and win in Iraq and protect our soldiers. But no matter what he does, everyone on the left is against it, even if it is something they argued for to begin with. It is a catch 22 for him.
Bob, I agree totally. There is no pleasing the leftists – they are anti-everything for the most part.
The trouble that may ensue should Iran gain control of the oil fields in Iraq will make our current war look like a child’s skirmish.
That’s the problem with leftists – they are short-sighted.
GS, I agree. They are short sided, which is very dangerous for us and our allies. Think of where we would be if President Bush actually listened to them and based his policies on their “advice”.
The only way to have it both ways, bring democracy to Iraq and control the oil fields is if the President of the Untied States is in control of the government in Iraq. By simple majority, the Shiites who are controlled by Iran would be the leaders. Of course that bites would it not, that the only way to have “democracy” in Iraq is to deny the majority of the people there self governing! damn those double edged swords!
WD, Look at history and you will discover that starting democracies is not easy. In our own country, we had decades of turmoil. In Germany, the violence continued for years. We have an obligation to help Iraq work through the process, just like we did in Germany and JApan.
We don’t have any obligation to install democracy anywhere — especially in regions that don’t want ot welcome it.
Barak Obama said it best:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUMcPGZOT-A&NR
Ken, you just made GS’s point.
That’s the problem with leftists – they are short-sighted.
Sorry guys, there are all sorts of esoteric arguments out there from which whatever point of view one wishes to start. Cutting to chase, here’s the point. If somebody with a diaper on their head and a scraggly beard points an AK-47 or an RPG at my ass, I am not going to worry about checking their passport … if I’m quick enough, he’s burnt toast!
It seems to me, that going into Iraq, that was not a threat to the U.S. and then worrying about Iran going into the mess we created, is a bit short sighted. Let’s invade a country that was no threat, and destablize the entire region.
sorry comrade bob if some of us short sighted leftists don’t share your desires for world domination.In 50 years the oil will be drained from the middle east. At that point no body will give a flying f@@k about the region. Kinda of like Africa.
rm, I agree, but these Iranians are mostly behind the scenes funding and arming the various rival groups. President Bush is just modifying the rules of engagement when it comes to dealing with them.
Who said I was for world domination? I am for Iraqi’s governing themselves and in control of their own resources. In order to try to bring that about, we need to help them get control of their country and train them in governance. THey have just come out from under the rule of a brutal dictator, and don’t have a true concept of what a free society is like. But anytime someone like me pionts that out, Leftists like you go into personal attacks by painting conservatives as facist wanting world domination. All conservatives want in Iraq is Iraqis in charge of a viable government.
don’t have a true concept of what a free society is like
Why not Bob this is the cradle of civilization. Advanced math, engineering, art and science. They don’t need our help they can sort things out themselves.
“By simple majority, the Shiites who are controlled by Iran would be the leaders.”
I am in Iraq, and that is just not true. Iraqi Shi’a are Arab and THEY HATE PERSIANS!!! Iran is just trying to keep a powerful Iraq from coming out of the ashes. And they are helping the insurgents with money, weapons, and training. Plus, the less Iraqi oil on the market, the higher the price of Iranian oil.
Bob and Writerdog, you both clearly have some ignorant views on the subject; I suggest you read a little more about it before you start preaching first.
Second, I am for DIPLOMACY this time. I was for war last time when we got lied to (and I joined the army). This time, I don’t trust Bush, or his incompetent State Department, to go about this the right way.
Americans like Bob and Writerdog live in literal fear of things they see on TV. But Iran is thousands and thousands of miles away from us. They are not a direct threat to us. Think about it. Why would Iran attack someone and provoke them into a possibly nuclear war? They would lose for sure, and they wouldn’t make any money.Iran has a large military, yes, but not as big as Saddam’s was and you know how long that military lasted (3 weeks).Iran knows China and Russia (biggest Iranian oil importers) have their backs. Just like the U.S. backs Saudi Arabia (despite their human rights violations).Does anyone honestly think the U.S. would stand by and let China invade Saudi Arabia to prosecute human rights violations?Well China and Russia will not let us attack Iran.
It is time to stop living in fear of people and cultures you do not understand. It is time for peace and diplomacy.
I say WE, the US, offer to build Iran a series of nuclear-powered electricity plants, and just say… “We trust you.” *I mean, we built the Japanese some…*
True Bob that it will all equal out in the end, but in hindsight will it be in the best interest of this country.You bought up Germany, what if the majority party in Germany were the Nazi? They end turn were controlled by Japan? WE liberated Germany to now have two stronger enemies then we had before the liberation.But what is done is done, we can not un-ring that bell. We can not pull out because the vacuum would leave a terrifying situation to be a horrifying situation. It would united Iran and Iraq into one nation and the largest supporter of terror in the world with the revenue from some of the largest oil fields know to fund it all. The Sunni would end up almost envious of the American Indian, the Kurds will flee to Turkmen. Causing Turkey to invade to protect their boarders and grab as much oil as they can in the process.But to stay will slow down what is the only logical outcome given the situation there. The real hope is that the Talban and Al-Qaeda will wait to retake Afghanistan until we can pull out of Iraq. In the meantime we must work hard to keep Turkey from jumping the gun and seizing control of Turkmen as they were going to do at the onset of the invasion till Washington vow to control the Kurds.
In this pottery barn that Powell warned the administration about, the pot we broke has many piece and we may not have enough glue left in the world to fix it. But yes democracy will come to Iraq. If you want to call a theocracy like Iran a democracy.
Andrew, you must have me mixed up with someone else. I am widely read up on the subject, not just from the MSM, but through Mil Blogs. I, also, spent 22 yaers in the military and have been in the region, aleit before 2001. My brother served in Iraq and I still have active duty friends that have served there. BTW, the only fear I have is for a country that doesn’t recognize the danger of redical islam. I have full confidence in out troops and back them 100 per cent.
Bob you are so wrong about so many things.
You support an occupation of Iraq, and that will only increase the hatred they have for us right now. And Bush has been such a good steward of our country (sarcasm), that yeah, I want him being in charge of that country too. Heh. Can we say ‘Haliburton owns Iraq”???
Iraq WAS stable under Saddam, even if he was a dictator. We have no business playing world dictator.
PM, you need to look in the mirror. Iraq was stable like Nazi Germany was stable. Cuba is stable too. Do you support a “stable” government like Cuba or Venezuela? I guess if your definition of a stable government is a country ruled by a totalitarian dictator who murders and rapes his own people, you are right.
Well Andrew it has been a proven fact that Iran is the major founder of Hesbollah who braches reach even into Europe. But I do like you idea about building Iran a nuclear plant or two. That would insure that is of a standard that would avoid nuclear weapon grade material. Why would Iran want to attack us? simple they see Israel as a major threat and we are acting like their big brother. The Iranians at this point anyway are not thinking of the use of Nuclear weapons against the U.S. They are concerned that Israel has them and that gives Israel basically a free pass to do what ever they want in the region.
As to reading more, I have truly not stopped reading since this all began. I have tried to stay informed on every point of view and opinion on it. From books on the Bush administration to the war on terrorism, Iran, Iraq and the middle east. Viewed several different programs that carry the view of not just the right but the left too. Ann Coulter and Rush are terror able sources by the way, still read the stuff though just to see what they say.
“Cuba is stable too. Do you support a “stable” government like Cuba or Venezuela? “So Bob, do we invade these places too?
“It would united Iran and Iraq into one nation and the largest supporter of terror in the world with the revenue from some of the largest oil fields know to fund it all. The Sunni would end up almost envious of the American Indian, the Kurds will flee to Turkmen. Causing Turkey to invade to protect their boarders and grab as much oil as they can in the process.”
What? You are the DUMBEST CON I have ever met. My dad is a funky, and he is not THAT stupid.There are very few Turkmen in Iraq (like a few thousand), and they are mixed in from the North all the way to Baghdad. The Turkish have no desire to protect those people. They just don’t want the Kurds in Turkey to rebel and try to join the Iraqi Kurds. This is, honestly, not a threat right now. Plus there are very few oil fields in Northern Iraq.Also, Democracy, as YOU think of it, will NEVER exist in Iraq. Their culture won’t allow for it, and there is nothing wrong with that. But there is something wrong with Americans thinking they can convert every part of the world to their worldview.Yes, I love America. Yes, I think we have to best society, but that doesn’t mean it is the best for other people. Believing that it is the best, Bob, is ignorant, arrogant, and dangerously foolish.
Cuba is stable too. Do you support a “stable” government like Cuba or Venezuela? “So Bob, do we invade these places too?
No, but I think saying Iraq was stable under Saddam is a bit odd when his own people lived in fear for their lives. But I guess people on the left are too obtuse to understand the point.
Iran is just taking advantage of the situation to try to take position as the leader of the Middle East.
Saudi Arabians (even royalty) have been proven to have funded Al Qaeda, but they were never prosecuted. And we certainly have not invaded SA. There are Iranian elements that support (financially and some weapons) Hezbollah (a Shi’a organization). But that just falls in line with how the entire region feels about Israel.Imagine Muslims occupying Rome. That is how they feel. And, since Bush came to power, Sharon and the Israelis have been the provocateurs.
Since the communist scare, Americans have lived in fear (inspired directly by our own government) of things we do not really understand. Iranians live in fear of what their government tells them to as well. On both sides, it serves to shore up the power of the leaders and their governments at the expense of the people and sometimes… their lives. It is sad and sickening. And this fear, born of ignorance, will lead to our eventual destruction as a species, unless we put the guns down and learn to trust eachother.
Bob, Iraq WAS stable. We made sure of that when we put Saddam into power. Sure, people lived in fear of their government, but it is their job to do something about it. I mean, now they live in fear for their lives, and they STILL won’t do anything about it. The fact is, Arabic culture tends to run smootherr under the thumb of absolute authority.
That sounds sad to me, and most, I know. But that is their way of life, and none of our business. Especially since all the reasons we were given for going to war were lies.
You heard it here first.
bush will find an excuse to attack or invade Iran within a year.
“But I guess people on the left are too obtuse to understand the point.”
I understand, I just disagree.
J.R. as a soldier who is on his SECOND tour in Iraq, I hope you are wrong.
If Bush wants to have a legacy worth his billion dollar library he will move both his office and Cheney’s office over to Bhagdad. That’s where the problem – that’s where he needs to be. Or he and Cheney could resign…
Holy shit – Iran has given us a reason to nuke their ass. They want us to be destroyed.Here’s a really good question? Where the hell is Putin and Jintao in all of this Iran business. Aren’t we allies with Russia and China? Why haven’t they stood up for the US? I know why? Because they also hate Bush. Why? Because he is an arrogant little piss ant bully.Bush said he could tell in his gut that Putin was a good man. Hmmm? Just what Putin wanted to hear I would assume.
Iran must be dealt with soon….and in a earth scorching way. They cannot be allowed to go nuclear.
Why? Because then if Israel nukes them they can nuke Israel back? Or vice versa. There is only one way out of the nuclear quagmire. EVERYONE has to give them up in a verifiable manner with huge consequences if someone cheats. I’ve been a nuclear hostage all my life. It’s idiotic.
So true Door King… It is a fear/propaganda tool more than a real threat.
Jim G. – China and Russia get A LOT of oil from Iran.Would America go to war with Saudi Arabia over stupid talk like this… NO!!! It is business.
Sadly, the leftists don’t understand the signifigance behind Iran gaining control of Iraq. Iran is a member of the NPT (Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty) that specifies they will NOT make nuclear weapons, in exchange for foreign aid and other considerations in the world market. Now they claim they are going to test a nuke.
The short-sighted liberals also have short memories.
When Clinton was in office, Congress ALSO passed a new non-proliferation act that deemed Iran to be one of the largest supporters of Internatioal terrorism. These are not the sweet innocents that some here are trying to pass them off as.
Here are some quips from the Act passed in 98, when Clinton was President:
…….SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.This Act may be cited as the `Iran Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 1998′.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Iran remains the world’s leading sponsor of international terrorism and is on the Department of State’s list of countries that provide support for acts of international terrorism.
(2) Iran has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel and Iran supports organizations, such as Hizballah, Hamas, and the Palestine Islamic Jihad, which are responsible for terrorist attacks against Israel.
7) Iran is building up its offensive military capacity in other areas as evidenced by its recent testing of engines for ballistic missiles capable of carrying 2,200 pound warheads more than 800 miles, within range of strategic targets in Israel.
(10) At least 1 reactor could be operational within a few years and it would subsequently provide Iran with substantial expertise to advance its nuclear weapons program.
………….
I posted only a select few -there are more, many more.
http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/issues/proliferation/iran/iran-proliferation-prevention-act_1998-08-03.htm
Andrew – what is it about the United States that you so despise? Who taught you that pacifism was honorable? Pacifism did not win our nation’s freedom from England, and it did not protect humanity in every war we’ve had to fight.
Nature, being what it is – demands that an entity BE STRONG to survive, and when it ceases to be strong – it falls.
There is a difference between fear-mongering and tactical security. Fear-mongering would be Congress spending billions on laser protection against space aliens, because we don’t have any evidence they even exist.
Tactical security is the process by which our leaders determine a collective ‘threat’(and you can see from the Act I just posted – that Iran belongs in that group) and dealing with it in a manner that puts the welfare of the citizens of this country as a priority.
You don’t understand GSheridan. Business runs this world.
The truth is if a nation is considered an economic asset to the US, then we have no problem with them. If they are not an economic asset, but have the potential to become one then that nation may be soon in a world of hurt.Iran has a very prominent role in economies across the globe, namely Russia and China. And we, the US, do a hell of a lot of business with China. An invasion of Iran would drive the price of oil to unprecedented levels. This would collapse the oil-dependent economy of China, which would destroy our own (since so many US companies use China’s cheap labor to produce the shit we need).
Have you ever asked yourself why computers are half the cost of what they were ten years ago despite inflation? The answer is China. I don’t know if you can comprehend how much we import from China. Everything from computer parts, cell phones, and iPods to electrical wiring and light switches. Imagine all that being five times as expensive, we couldn’t afford it. And then China would stop making it… Great Depression II.
In their position, Iran realizes they can do whatever the hell they want.
Onto the other side. You list all these things Iran has done. What about the fact that we (the US’ CIA) overthrew a democratic Iranian government in the 50s and established an absolute monarchy! This allowed for the right-wing islamists to rise to power and eventually take over (like the Nazis in Germany post WWI).
Also, there are many nations that we do business with that are responsible for human rights violations, mass murder, terrorism, etc… Namely China and Saudi Arabia.
Are you suggesting we go to war with any nation that doesn’t think like we do? My friend, you ave a lot to learn about how this world really works.
For instance, Iraq had the potential to make the US a lot of money. Yet, we could do no business with them after Saddam invaded Kuwait and we had to impose sanctions.So, we invade Iraq to “convert” them to our democracy and then take their oil at a discounted price (good for US business). WE justified it with rhetoric about the Iraqi people and WMDs, but the bottome line is that it was a business decision. And it hasn’t quite worked out thus far…
I am not a pacifist. I am a goddamned Soldier (*My views are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of the US Army, the State Department, or the US Government*)!
I am very suspicious of our government. That is patriotism! I want our nation to be the best it can be, and it is not. There is nothing wrong with fighting for what I believe in. And accusing me of being un-American is absurd on so many levels, and a pathetic personal attack…
Your arguments make no logical sense. We barely have the resources to mount a half-assed occupation of Iraq much less invade half the planet… This endless cycle of fear and war will not end with more war. That is absurd. I want people to move forward, but people like you will destroy everything. And when and if that happens, you will find someone else to blame…
Andrew – than yu for your service to our country. Chickenhawks like GS and his hero Bush are real brave as long as it is someone else on the front linee.
Iran and Iraq have diplomatic relations. Iranians are in Iraq at the invitation of the government there. So, are we going to over-rule that government?
Iran has legitimate concern about events in their next-door neighbor. Although Iran has never attacked Iraq the opposite HAS occurred. At US urging and with US support our ally Saddam attacked Iran and it was brutal. Obviously Iran has an interest in seeing that that does not happen again.
You are absolutely correct Andrew; Bush’s idiotic policies are NOT working. Only an America-hater like GS could possibly support that failed policy.
“Sadly, the leftists don’t understand the signifigance behind Iran gaining control of Iraq.”
An excellent post Andrew. But remember that someone like GSheridan cannot comprehend ideas larger than a platitude or sound bite.
Well it was leftists, rightists, and moderates and just about anyone with the vaguest understanding of the middle east that knew that as bad as he was, Saddam Hussein was a stabilizing force in the the region.
You dumb neo cons were too busy beating the war drum to stop and consider that.
“Saddam Hussein was a stabilizing force in the the region.” by JR.
10 year war with Iran resulting in the deaths of 10 million people.
The plunder and evasion of Kuwait!
and the list can go on and on.
No! We wasn’t a stabilizing force.
Next!
Andrew – than yu for your service to our country. Chickenhawks like GS and his hero Bush are real brave as long as it is someone else on the front linee.
Iran and Iraq have diplomatic relations. Iranians are in Iraq at the invitation of the government there. So, are we going to over-rule that government?
Iran has legitimate concern about events in their next-door neighbor. Although Iran has never attacked Iraq the opposite HAS occurred. At US urging and with US support our ally Saddam attacked Iran and it was brutal. Obviously Iran has an interest in seeing that that does not happen again.
You are absolutely correct Andrew; Bush’s idiotic policies are NOT working. Only an America-hater like GS could possibly support that failed policy.
Wasn’t Saddam a murderer?Now that really is defending the indefensible.
Saddam was a murderer. Armed by the USA to attack our enemies.
I agree fleettwood – indefnsible. Those who armed and supported him in attacking Iran should share his fate.
What are you suggesting RealPatriot?
G. Sheridan–
Do you have a link to “North Korea is helping Iran build a bomb?”
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-nkorea-iran,1,3593384.story?coll=chi-news-hed
N. Korea denies it! But they also deny that their own people are starving.
Well Joe the US made Saddam as a counter against Iran.
Saddam just had a few ambitions of his own…..like the things you cite in your post.
But contained as he was by no fly zones, Saddam was the glue that held Iraq together.
Another America Hater in realpatriot. You will find many friends here.
Andrew, I have my doubts about you being a soldier – it’s just too convenient a ploy. If, by some stretch of the imagination you are – my apologies.
Your posts, however, are wrong on so many levels. You might want to study European History before you make that comparison again between post WWI Germany – and Iran.
You sidestepped the issue quite quickly with your China tirade, but since no one has advocated an invasion of Iran – it is just one more moot point. And if, by some stretch of the imagination – we DO invade Iran, you can bet that China is going to shake its finger – then fall silent, as will Russia, both who have recently condemned Iran’s statements.
I’ve been in business a long time – I’ve forgotten more than you’ll likely ever pretend to know. You didn’t even have Chavez from the correct country, and we’re supposed to believe your Econ 101 spiel?
You’re missing the main event here- Iran is behind the insurgency in Iraq. To allow them to prevail is to hand the oil fields to largest terrorist-supporting nation in the world.
You still have given no reasons why that is anything but a fatalistic idea.
RealPatriot is suggesting that Reagan and his minions, who armed Saddam and even helped him get chemicals that can only be used for poison gas, bear some culpability in his crimes.
That would be Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld for two that you might have heard of.
Reagan’s White House even stopped Congress from passing sanctions on Iraq after Saddam gassed the Kurds in Halabjah.
“Everybody’s worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there’s a really easy way: stop participating in it.”
(thanks for that Chomsky quote to Tracy for posting it the other day)
GSheridan! You’re missing the point! The purpose is to make Bush and Republicans look so bad that the Democrats will reign power supreme over the US Government forever on!
That is their goal.
“The Daily Telegraph, a British newspaper, this week quoted an unnamed senior European defense official as saying that North Korea is helping Iran to prepare an underground nuclear test — possibly by the end of this year.”
Sounds like curveball and the WMDs etc.
GS – go to hell you America-hater.
Provide proof and crediable links CapnAmerica!
Who is shaking Saddam’s hand in this photo (and video)?http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
RealPatriot! Just like the so called “Unname Sources” of all the Pentagon leaks, the CBS News Dan Rather memos, and etc.
Does the door swing both ways?
Is that Chumsky’s version of “Just Say No”?It’s just as stupid. That’s why capn & tracy like it.It sounds deep, but isn’t.
“Iran is behind the insurgency in Iraq.”
Bullshit. Iraqis are behind the insurgency. They ARE the insurgents.
Huh,
Right wingers never question or have suspicions about Nathan when he says he is in Iraq.
But because Andrew does not support the war, he must be lying?
Yes, Joe, that is their agenda. And they are actually doing a good job of it at present. How long it will take America to wake up – I don’t know. Hopefully, not too long.
Wrong, Joe. I repeatedly sign off my posts with WORST. PRESIDENT. EVER. but I don’t want to see us fail just so that my side can seize power.
I posted on DemocraticUnderground on the day the invasion began, that once this terrible thing happened, the best result would be speedy victory and a stable democratic government in Iraq.
Probably 100 people posted in response and they were virtually all in agreement.
We progressives aren’t all hung up on beliefs like you CONs are. We believe in what ever works. We’re pragmatists.
Vietnam didn’t work. That’s why we shouldn’t try it again in Iraq.
Tax breaks for the rich don’t work. That’s why the national debt doubled (as a percentage of GDP) under Reagan, and went up under H. W. Bush, and went up yet again under W. Bush.
Clinton, who raised taxes, paid DOWN the national debt.
If Iraq was stable with a democratic gov’t and people could work without the threat of violence, then we liberals would have to grudgingly concede that Bush Co. was right and we’d reconsider our assumptions.
In fact, we’d be very happy that our troops were finally home and safe.
UNFORTUNATELY, and I re-iterate the UNFORTUNATELY, it hasn’t turned out that way.
CONs see us libs as “power mad” because that’s what you are. You can’t imagine anyone else having different motives than you do.
CONs know that the existing power structure of tax laws, zoning laws, rents, jobs, banking, exclusive colleges and clubs etc. etc. benefits them. They know that any real change to the status quo means a threat to them–because what they have in many cases is built on the foundation of inequality.
CONs have a hard time understanding that there are people in this world who genuinely want what’s best for everyone–not just for themselves.
And of course Saddam was necessary to counter Iran because????
Because the US helped the brutal thug Shah to oust a democratically elected ruler!
So let me get this straight. If you are a country ruled by a dictator we, the mighty US, will come and rescue you and then spend the next umteen years “helping” you fight off the bad guys?How long are we supposed to sit here at home and puit up with it? According to some of you 4 years isn’t enough and when we question why it is worse now than it was even a few months ago then we are “unpatriotic, terriorists, communists,ect.” That’s interesting since it must mean that a majority of the voters feel the same since we threw your Republican butts out of office. Even that doesn’t mean anything to GW and his cronies because he is just going to keep going down the road to hell anyway.Oh and by the way if you have oil we will probably come and “save” you quicker than if there is just genocide taking place.
Joe wants links–apparently you slept-walked through the 80’s, Joe.http://www.counterpunch.org/dixon06172004.html
The Ties that Bind: How Reagan Armed Saddam with Chemical Weapons
On August 18, 2002, the New York Times carried a front-page story headlined, “Officers say U.S. aided Iraq despite the use of gas”. Quoting anonymous US “senior military officers”, the NYT “revealed” that in the 1980s, the administration of US President Ronald Reagan covertly provided “critical battle planning assistance at a time when American intelligence knew that Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons in waging the decisive battles of the Iran-Iraq war”. The story made a brief splash in the international media, then died.
While the August 18 NYT article added new details about the extent of US military collaboration with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein during Iraq’s 1980-88 war with Iran, it omitted the most outrageous aspect of the scandal: not only did Ronald Reagan’s Washington turn a blind-eye to the Hussein regime’s repeated use of chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers and Iraq’s Kurdish minority, but the US helped Iraq develop its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.
******
Even if you don’t like Counter-Punch as a source, you can’t discount their links to the New York Times.
I was almost finished with my BA in History from the UT Austin when I got mobilized for this jive (which is being extended an extra four months). I’ll get a picture of me from my other laptop and email it to you tommorow to reassure you.
First, your right about an invasion. It isn’t possible. We don’t have the support or resources to pull it off, and the results could be devastating.
So, what are we all upset about? I shouldn’t feel the need to preach the obvious to people who still follow Bush (their already delusional).
I will explain my Nazi comparision for you. The reparations put on the German people were repressive, and the German economy struggled to feed its people and pay its debts when the rest of the world prospered in the roaring 20s. In these dire times, when people had to spend their pay quickly before inflation made it worthless, extremists like Hitler looked more and more appealing to the average German. When things started to look better, the depression hit and drove renewed vigor into the Nazi Party, and in four years, they were in power.
After the CIA overthrew the democraticly elected president and government of Iran by spreading rumors that he was a communist and performing terrorist attacks which they blamed on the communists, the people rose and overthrew him. It was brilliant.Why did we do this? Well, the oil from Iran was being run by British companies and practically stolen from the Iranian people. Their president wanted to nationalize this resource and take it back for his people. (A president who had destroyed the Communist rebel bands that had been a scourge to the nations’ rural areas for years.) This turn of events was bad news for the US and Britain who needed the cheap oil. So MI6 and the CIA went to work… for business and nothing else.The new monarchy quickly put a stop to many of the rights the Iranians had enjoyed prior to the fall of their old government, and they continued to allow the west to practically steal their oil.These circumstances allowed for the extremists to gain power with the people (just like in Germany). This “backlash”, as the CIA called it, caused the forming of their Theocratic/Islamist state. But how has it lasted so long? Because now THEY control their oil. The nation has more money than before, so it appears to the people to be more productive. This is similar to the Germans prospering initially under the Nazis (more because of the lifting of reperations than anything the Nazis did).
Even if Iran was to gain control of Southern Iraq’s fields (which I don’t think is possible considering how much the Iraqi people hate the Iranians) what would be so bad about that? Why should we even fear something like that? Iran would have the resources to rebuild their economy and put more oil on the market. This would help the Iraqis, the Iranians, and most of the industrialized world (apart from Oil Companies) with cheaper oil.
My final point is there is NOTHING we can do about Iran until the world no longer needs oil or until Iran has none left. I suggest we build their reactors for them in exchange for oil to help mend the fences. How could the Iranians say no? We need an olive branch of trust and peace now not cruise missiles.
But wait, there’s more–
February 23, 1992, Los Angeles Times. Headlined, “Bush secret effort helped Iraq build its war machine”, the article reported that “classified documents obtained by the LA Times show … a long-secret pattern of personal efforts by [George Bush senior]–both as president and vice president–to support and placate the Iraqi dictator.”
Even William Safire, the right-wing, war-mongering NYT columnist, on December 7, 1992, felt compelled to write that, “Iraqgate is uniquely horrendous: a scandal about the systematic abuse of power by misguided leaders of three democratic nations [the US, Britain and Italy] to secretly finance the arms buildup of a dictator”.
Don’t send any pictures to anybody, Andrew.
You could get in trouble.
You’ve got four months . . . stick it out and them come home to a grateful nation.
As for G. Sheriden, he’s so brain-washed that he can’t imagine a service-man opposing the war.
Get a clue. Not everybody is like YOU, dipswitch . . . not everybody is willing to fight to the last drop of OTHER PEOPLE’S BLOOD while you won’t even support a tax increase to pay for the war.
Andrew, you don’t owe CON scum like this any explanation or proof.
No I have a little over five onths left! I was supposed to be done mid-march. Now it looks like early August… And I am missing another best friends’ wedding in June. The second I would have been in since I have been deployed.
He can got to my MySpace page instead: http://www.myspace.com/andrewgotcher
Well, I gtg. I have to get to work. Peace.
Peace, out. Good on you, son.
Andrew, when you ask what would be so bad about Iran usurping the Iraqi oil fields, you disregard the statements made by their President that he will destroy Israel and the US. You also disregard the Act signed under Clinton that stated Iran was the largest terrorist-supporting country in the world.
When you have a terrorist making threats – do you hand him an AK47?
I disagree that Iraq cannot be a democracy. Democracies (or any constitutional governing body) are born of repressed governments, just as Iraq was under Saddam.
Japan seemed like a lost cause after WWII – but now they are not only our allies, but a prosperous and growing country with a Constitutional Monarchy.
We don’t attack countries because they are not democracies – shoot – we’re not even a democracy. That word is used so liberally anymore it ceases to mean much.
I do agree with your reiteration on pre-WWII Germany – I just don’t agree with your analogy of comparing it to modern Iran.
The bottom line here is – and I believe it is also the source of your err – there is EVERY reason to believe Iran will continue on its path of terror. And should it gain the Iraq fields, it will have a lot of capital at its disposal to do so.
That doesn’t mean I advocate invading Iran – I never stated I did. It does, however, mean the Iranian insurgents – the one this thread is about – should be targeted post haste.
We cannot pull out of Iraq until the area is stabilized. A surge in troops will accomplish that quicker and in a safer fashion for our troops there right now.
GSheridan,
“A surge in troops will accomplish that quicker and in a safer fashion for our troops there right now.”
You actually believe that door-to-door operations are “safer”??? The Pentagon says the opposite.
The “surge” (aka “dribble” and “escalation”) will probably do the same as it did last year.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Forward_Together“Result: Insurgent victory (Coalition operations are unsuccessful in securing Baghdad)”
The fun thing is that the region will NEVER be stablilized.
This may or may not have been the intention from the get go.
Thanks for the link, Andrew, I couldn’t see much, I’m on a slow dial up and it timed out, but I saw enough to convince me that you are, indeed, in the military.
I support your opinion that you don’t like the Iraq war, I don’t support the fact that you are a member of the service and you are trashing your Commander In Chief. This is just a guess -but did you enter the military for the educational benefits?
I think you are also too close to the situation to see it clearly. I know you’re missing things here at home and I am sorry for that.
I hope you stay safe – but I totally disagree about your assessment that Iran is basically harmless. And the majority of educated opinion is on my side.
JR – just because the region is not stabilized presently does not mean it cannot be.
GSheridan,
“just because the region is not stabilized presently does not mean it cannot be.”
Where’s your support re that claim?? If 400,000 troops might not be enough, how can 130,000 plus a “dribble” of 20,000 do it? How many would it take? 1 million? More?
‘War simulation in 1999 pointed out Iraq invasion problems’http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/04/war.games.ap/” A series of secret U.S. war games in 1999 showed that an invasion and post-war administration of Iraq would require 400,000 troops, nearly three times the number there now.
And even then, the games showed the country still had a chance of dissolving into chaos.”——How would those troops stop the suicide bombers, etc? How many years would they stay? What about hatred caused by “occupation” issues?
Like Kerry meant to say — if you don’t do your homework, you get us “stuck in Iraq”.
Piss on this country and all of you who support it.
Well, thank Gawd Kerry wont be running in 2008. We certainly don’t need a brainless crybaby for a President.
You ask how we will deal with suicide bombers as if we can solve the issue by ignoring them.
How do we deal with ANY problem – by addressing it – and solving it.
We don’t run away. I don’t know who started that, but it only leads to bigger problems down the line.
Would your cavalier attitude be the same if the suicide bombers were here in the US?
Would you just throw up your hands and wail that there is no stopping them?
Or would you support increased law enforcement presence and stricter punishments?
That was really an adult thing to say, Brenda.
Thanks for contributing to this discussion.
…jimmy carter crats limp, flacid…politicile dysfunction…
Andrew, you make a lot of comparison of Nazi, the Iranians and etc., some of your understanding of history is not correct.Hitler’s appeal was because of ethnic cleansing, you can see that in its infrastructures and the Jews were targeted because their wealth and controls of much of Germany’s economics.Recession and Depression is not the whole picture behind the Nazis.
Most of the Iranian population has hated the Americans for decades but their Monarch did not hate the Americans, they did a lot of business with the Americans and a lot of business with the old U.S.S.R.I remember this because my father lived in Tehran during the mid sixties and he had to be very careful of his surroundings whenever he went out in public.
For capnAmerica –I also remember servicing five F-15 fighter jets that were purchase by Iraq for the Iraq and Iran war during the 80’s.
GS,Thanks for trolling me. That takes a real adult to do that , huh?
GSheridan,
“You ask how we will deal with suicide bombers as if we can solve the issue by ignoring them.”
I’ve never said we should “ignore them”. IMO, the ISG’s recommendations should be tried, instead of a “dribble” of 20,000 troops.
“Or would you support increased law enforcement presence and stricter punishments?”
You’re joking… right? “Stricter punishments” to stop SUICIDE bombers??
Hmm the troll has reappeared.
Who recently disappeared?
JM? Where’s fleets enema?
Go away trolls.
The Eagle is onto you. And WEbloggers from the meetup have a strategy for dealing with you now.
GSheridan?I think it was linda that called you “a worthy opponent” on another thread.
She was wrong about that.
You just rant talking points and fear mongering.
So let’s cut to the chase.
How long G? How long do we attempt to “stabilize the region” like we are doing?
DO NOT TELL ME “As long as it takes”. I think recent polls will show that America is not going to stand for that and they shouldn’t.
How long G? And how much do we spend and sacrifice?
Well Bob, our religion and political structure are not so intertwined as to be indistinguishable, at least not yet despite 6 yrs. of effort from the whackos on the right. Maybe we’ll get there someday, but I doubt it your boys are history. So a comparison of our democracy and an islamist nation ‘march to democracy’ are laughable at best. Had we had the belief systems and the socio-economic realities of the mid-east we would not be a democracy today. Bush is starting to realize that gradually, why he keeps resetting his objectives. Moved quite a distance from the “Iraqi Spring” bull shit. REality Bites, doesn’t it?
“There is no pleasing the leftists – they are anti-everything for the most part.”
Turn-about’s fair play.
The libs put up with the cons whining for eight years during Clinton’s two terms. Do you really expect us to keep quiet now?
Karma, baby. ;)
Good posts, JR, steve, Real Pat, and RD.
The CONs love to say that we libs WANT Bush to fail in Iraq.
1. It’s not true. We wanted the war over ASAP, preferably before it began even. But you can’t find one liberal, including the much maligned Michael Moore, who said they WANT the war to fail.
2. What we want is wholly irrelevant. The American citizen’s attitude is not going to win or lose this war. Bush’s policy and the reaction of forces in Iraq will determine that.
The American people haven’t been asked to make a single sacrifice to support this war–not gas rationing, not war bonds, not even higher taxes.
3. Bush already lost the war in Iraq. The best window of opportunity was the first year of the invasion. Immediate elections and massive and multinational re-construction using 100 percent Iraqi labor might have gotten the economy going and job growth started.
Instead, Bush Co. stalled the elections–replaced Gen. Garner who wanted them with Paul Bremer who held off as long as possible.
Bush Co. also spend a quarter BILLION a day in Iraq, 40 percent of which goes to private contractors, not Iraqis.
If Bush couldn’t do it in four years, he can’t do it in another 40 . . .
Biggest mistake was throwing the million man army out of employment, then Bush and his cronies dyviying up the reconstruction money among his base. What the hell did they expect with 70% employment? Kisses?
Capn
I gotta disagree with you on #3.
The “war” if you could call it that was over in 3 weeks. “We” won and did so easily. It is probably giving in to right wing appeals to vanity or nationalism to even be still calling Iraq a war. It is also kind of demeaning to the troops to suggest that they did not win the war.
What bush and company have failed at is the occupation (incompetent) and the peace (probably not possible given the circumstances and how the occupation was/is handled)This in no way reflects on the troops.
I try to be intelligent but I do it so poorly.
You’re right, JR.
Thanks for that clarification. By “war,” I meant the whole on-going conflict.
But the true war part was when the US military rolled over Saddam’s pathetic defenses like a steam roller over tin cans in a few weeks.
What was failed at was just what you said, the post-war reconstruction.
In fact, the almost too-easy military victory again proved Bush lied–this man that couldn’t even defend his own country was a “grave and growing threat” to the United States?
Clearly wrong.
capn, I think you intent was clear and doubt that JR was really attacking you, just clarifying. He (and you) are right – we ‘won’ phase one immediately but then quickly lost phase two. Bush deliberately made the decision to not do what was needed to win phase two.
Back to the original topic – Iran – can anyone name a time when Iran has attacked a neighbor? I can name the opposite; I can even name a fairly recent time when an Iranian civilian airlined was shot down.
“Bush deliberately made the decision to not do what was needed to win phase two.”
Dear Ass-Please explain how you know this and why he would do this.
Do you people ever read yourselves?
You are stark raving mad.
Just look at your crazy accusationswith nothing at all to back them up. “If you think Bush has commited criminal acts, act like it” The thing is, you won’t do anything except blab about it. Pussies
steve already answered your question, Peckerwood.
Bush has been and is more interested in funnelling money to his backers and cronies (Halliburton, Kellogg Brown & Root, CACI, Bechtel, Blackwater Security etc.) than he is in helping the Iraqis rebuild their country.
It’s perfectly consistent with what we’ve seen in our own country–the man who told democracy to drop dead in Florida in 2000 clearly doesn’t have free and fair elections as a primary action item.
And it took like two and a half years before the Iraqis got any kind of election, and that was only after massive street protests by Al Sistani’s people.
Meanwhile, Bush-friendly US companies are spending 100 million dollars a day in Iraq, and nobody knows what they do because all the contracts are “classified.”
The Iraqis need water, lights, roads and functioning plumbing to be able to work. Hell, Bush didn’t give a crap about it our own city of New Orleans . . . why does he care about it in Baghdad?
And by the way, Fleettwood, why do you hate America?
If your accusations are true, the Democrat leaders should be the ones under fire. What you say is serious.I suspect that what you say is not true, otherwise something would have been done by now.
Re-read the part about the contracts being “classified.”
Classified means secret. As in no one can know.
Also, the Democratic leaders have nothing to do with all this graft. These are military contracts handed out by the President’s men in the White House.
It will all come out now that we’ve got some real adults on oversight committees like the Senate intelligence committee.
But it’s going to take time.
“the man who told democracy to drop dead in Florida in 2000 clearly doesn’t have free and fair elections as a primary action item.”
If you let a crazy man go on long enough, he will hang himself, unless it’s the Carr brothers, then you defend them until the end.
Still living the 2000 election?If only Gore could have won his own state. If only.I know. Let’s blame the loss on something else. We couldn’t win our own state, where the people knew us best, so, let’s blame and deny.
Sounds like crap, capn. Bush did this and that but we have to wait, it takes time ;in the mean time I’ll just throw out crap which means nothing.capn=nothing
fleettwood – as CiC it was Bush’s call whether sufficient troops and security be made available immediately after the invasion. He was fully informed about what was going on; personell in the field were ordered not to intervene with the looting of ammo dumps etc. This is what provided the material to make IEDs.
Why did Bush do that? I don’t know, you should ask him. Best guess: cocaine use leads to severe attention deficit problems. He just thought everything would magically turn out fine. DELUSIONAL.
… <——-fleetwood
popup! – is that why he plays with himself?
Dot boy: By virtue of posts to date, adding geometrically (totally, creepily, and unknowingly) to the greatest argument against W and what passes for the GOP today.
Emphasis on the creepiness.
See Wikipedia for other examples of scary conservative political activists, possibly a pic.
You rock, d00d, LOL.
Yep, I think fleets enema is the troll!
…popup! weak and inept…
…… sad but amusing…
This thread has gone South. We’re supposed to be discussing the virtue of targeting insurgents in Iraq that come from Iran.
It seems clear that our soldiers need to clamp down on these guys at the border.
Of course it’s tough to do that when they are short handed.
Iran has an agenda in Iraq. Should we allow them to pursue that?
“Iran is behind the insurgency in Iraq.”Bullshit. Iraqis are behind the insurgency. They ARE the insurgents.
Yes and no, Iran has been proving aid and comfort to all of the different elements in Iraq.Shiite, Sunni, Al-Qaeda (yes I will admit the Al-Qaeda is there but just not to the large extent that has been played up) . But you have hit the head on this, it is a coalition of the different elements within Iraq that is the insurgency. For the most part it is largely Iraqis, with help from different countries and organizations outside of Iraq. Often it is a coordination between the differing elements that make up the insurgency.“the enemy of my enemy is my friend” kind of thinking.
Iran does have sway with the Shiites and has proved not only the Shiites but any other element that accept it with advise and money. But the largest part of the insurgency is purely Iraqis. But a good deal of what happens could not have been accomplished without the aid from Iran among some other parties.
Iran is fighting a proxies war, much like the U.S. had done in the past. Our support of Bin Laden and the Mujahend in Afghanistan was a indirect fight with the Soviets. Likewise Iran’s support is a indirect fight with the U.S. and Israel. Sadly, as to Iran I do believe the average Iranian likes the U.S. but like another country I know. Has been taken over by war mongers and those thinking that they have a right to inflict themselves on others. Left to their natural course, Iran will throw out their trouble makers and begin once again to move toward a normalization with the West.
This is just a guess -but did you enter the military for the educational benefits?GS, if the truth be known you would find most of the National guard there and a good sum of the regulars there join for the ed benefits. That is a silly point to even bring up, it is like to compare whether those killed in past wars were enlistments or draftees?
Andrew, LoL in the past I have been called on this blog a liberal, Un-American, unpatriotic.But to the best of my recall, it is the first time I have been called a “stupid Con”.
Gee, maybe it will put off that dark night when I get mugged and the only thing taken is my voter’s registration card! P.S. I almost forgot about being called a R.I.N.O. once, though to me the definition more fits a number of Neo-Cons and our current President.
Writerdog – the reason I ask if someone enters the military for mainly educational benefits, is to establish their base reason for joining.
Like any other job – the military offers compensation – educational benefits being one of the more lucrative.
But, somewhere in the past thirty years joining the Army lost its meaning. It became (in society’s mind) a replacement for traditional college.
Some of the problem must lie with recruitment tactics – but when all the fluff is cleared away – one thing remains true – the military is about WAR. It’s about putting one’s life in jeopardy for any cause this country deems is important enough to fight for.
When someone joins the Army – or any armed force – they SHOULD realize it may be a career move that ends their life. If they don’t realize this – someone has failed them; parents, recruiters, teachers, society – someone. No one should enter the armed forces without the knowledge that they are making a sacrifice by doing so – maybe the ultimate one.
To maintain a strong military we must not allow the soldiers to break-rank, by trashing their superiors. Yet this is happening.
Perhaps some deem the Iraq war to be unnecessary – but allowing soldiers to disrespect the chain of command now – virtually guarantees it will happen again, and again, and again. It is a dangerous precedent, indeed.
If this country were attacked tomorrow (heaven forbid) the groundwork has already been laid for soldiers to start speaking out against protecting ourselves, if they feel they might be in jeopardy – and then where would we be?
In this ‘me, me, me’ society – the greater cause of national security has been flushed down the toilet. This is a direct result of liberal practices in promoting a ‘devil may care’ attitude when it comes to our nation.
GSheridan,
Yeah, liberals are so instrumental in the ‘me first!’-ism that characterizes that conservative holy of holies, the ‘free market.’ Please.
As for your apocalytic and hysterical prophesizing about the breakdown of the chain of command, should the scenario you predict come to pass in which America is again attacked, I have no doubt that the men and women of the military would absolutely uphold their oaths. To the extent that they currently are not, this is the result of seeing the lives of their comrades wasted in a dishonest and ultimately futile conflict in Iraq.
A ‘devil may care attitude when it comes to our nation?’ Indeed. But you’re looking in the wrong place. The real practitioners of this attitude are, rather, the neocons and Likudniks who have pushed a fantasy crusade in Iraq while risking NOTHING of their own: Bill Kristol, George Bush, and Dick Cheney.
Oh, and by the way, ‘educated opinion’ to the contrary, Iran is no nuclear threat at present, and is highly unlikely to become one anytime in the near or proximate future.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2000303,00.html
I trust reporters and actual technical experts, GSheridan, rather than a bunch of think-tank marketers and an Administration that together have already lied us into one unwinnable conflict.
GS, I have met more then one that told how after a night on the town, awaking to learn they had enlisted.Yes in some respects it is how recruiting is handled, the military is sold as a way to earn money for college and the danger and war aspects of serving is undersold. Nathan God protect him and all that serve is in Iraq too. He seems to have no problem saying his opinion that Bush is a great President and the war in Iraq is right and just. He and Andrew opinions do carry a little more weight then others. It is often said“if that is the way you feel then go fight in Iraq!”.
Both are, so both opinions is weighted in my eyes. it does not matter how or why they enlisted and Andrew never said he is or would disobey a direct order. My dad told me of one night in Korea, a bunch of G.I. were setting about a campfire trying to get warm. Along with the G.I. were several S. Korean soldiers, the G.I. were lambasting Truman and cursing him for them being there. The S. Koreans were setting in shock listening to the U.S. G.I. Finally one of the G.I. asked what was so shocking? The Koreans said that if they had said half the bad things about their President as the G.I. had said about theirs. The Koreans would have been shot!
Both Andrew and Nathan have won and earned a opinion on Iraq, though they have totally different opinions. I think if Nathan has the right to express his opinion while he serves rather then remain silent.So has Andrew earned his right too.
“When someone joins the Army – or any armed force – they SHOULD realize it may be a career move that ends their life. If they don’t realize this – someone has failed them; parents, recruiters, teachers, society – someone. No one should enter the armed forces without the knowledge that they are making a sacrifice by doing so – maybe the ultimate one.”- GS
I’m rather positive about this- that these young men and women know exactly what they are being asked to do. I think it’s sadly condescending to think they don’t understand this.
The difference is, when they sign up to put their lives on the line for this country, that they do it based on the presumption that those who send them into war- do so with noble reasons.
Perhaps our friend GS was just asking for the clarification as to how Andrew joined? That is a fair question as to his thinking at the time. Not meant as a cheap shot, I do understand that it is long been held that during military service that you give up your opinion on the right and wrong of your orders. In order for a soldier to be effective, they must follow orders without question. But as I pointed out there is a difference between not being in the heat of battle questioning the sense of an order. And refusing the order at the on-set of battle, LoL when being shot at it is often common to ask “What the hell am I doing here?”.
GSheri deary?
If the baddies come for you I shall personally hold the door!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yossef_Bodansky
FYI I have reference the book “The secret history of the Iraq war” please find above the link that tells about the authorYossef Bodansky. Be warned though, the book is over 500 pages long and tell of many things that have not been reported here in the United States. If you start reading the book you will understand why…It is more frightening that anything you have heard.
During my junior year at the University of Texas at Austin (studying History), the war in Iraq started. I had always fantasized about joining the military as a kid, so I talked to the different branches and decided to enlist for basic training and then finish the last two years of ROTC to graduate as an officer.So I went to basic, graduated, went back to school, and realized that ROTC was a huge waste of time. I found out I would not get a guaranteed branch or even an active duty slot, so I left and decided to finish out my enlistment contract (a 6-year reserve contract).I went to AIT at FT Huachuca, AZ and graduated an Intelligence Analyst. I went home in September 2005, too late to start school that semester. But I found out in early January I was being mobilized, and by the end of March I was in Iraq. I’ve been bounced around a few times, and now I am going to get an extra four months to work out the kinks… ha-ha.I will say that I never joined the Army for the money. I don’t need it. My Dad pays for everything to do with college. In fact, I haven’t touched my GI Bill.My original plan, after finishing AIT, was to finish school and become and officer (OCS/OBC). But I don’t see that happening anymore…
And as for GS hinting I am not allowed to talk like I am. There are a few rules: I can’t be in uniform (I’m on the internet so that is irrelevant), I need to say that my views are my own and not necessarily the views of my chain of command, the state department, the army, etc…, and finally, I cannot reveal anything that would endanger my mission.That’s it… blog on!
Very mature…
Hello Andrew; and thanks again for your valiant service to our country. I believe that you are a man who would lay down your life in our country’s defense. However, I also believe that the mission you are on is not worthy of you. And I especially believe that our civilian leaders are dis-serving both you and our country.
And for those like ‘…’ and GS to denigrate your service …
As was noted above, both you and Nathan have EARNED our respect. I tend to agree with you more than disagree and tend to disagree with Nathan but I can respect you both.
I find it hard to respect our leaders however.
Mr./Ms. Ellipsis (or . . .),
The following is from the Oxford English Dictionary, Shorter Version:
“Ellipsis: the omission of one or more words in a sentence, which would be needed to express the sense completely.”
Kudos for choosing a name that pefectly conveys the incoherence of your posts.
Andrew,
We’re much obliged for your willingness to post. I will caution you, on the basis of recent experience, not to associate your postings here with a live email address that contains an identity that can be traced back to you. There may be folks who cannot abide your views, and will try to threaten you or damage your professional standing in order to keep you from posting.
…Chuckles at WE Blog’s failed attempt to block…
Ah, but they likely know who you are anyway tripledot.
Who cares who he is? he’s not harassing anyone.
The Iranian President unlike our President is just a figure head. The country is a theocracy, and the real power is with the allatolla’s. I read the other day that a former Iranian President wanted to make nice with America, but we declined even talking to him, because he wielded no power to make things happen. The Right is just pumping up another boogeyman.
…WE Blog doesn’t like truth…Tries to IP block ……chuckles…
Andrew – I thank you for your proactive attitude and your willingness to stand up for your beliefs.
You know I disagree with your assessment of the war – but I support your right to speak your mind.
And thank you for your service.
Contrary to some trouble-makers here who would like to use you as a pawn to further their agenda by claiming that I am somehow disrespecting your service – that is totally untrue.
I doubted that you were a soldier at first – because it is a common ploy on these discussion boards for individuals to pretend they are in the service. I have run across at least three before who were later proven to be making it up.
Now that you have cleared up the fact that you really ARE a soldier – you have my respect.
I DO have a question for you, however. I understand from your post that you are allowed to speak against the action as long as you are not in uniform and you state that it is yonly our opinion.
I know Ehren Watada is being Court Martialed because he refused to fight – but now they say additional charges that may net him another four years in prison for speaking against the war will be levied. “Unbecoming conduct,” or something similar, is the charge.
Is he only being charged with that because he also refused to fight? Or could other soldiers be charged with the same thing even though they did fight? If you know that, I would appreciate a clarification.