Anybody besides me getting sick of reading stuff like this everyday?

Not getting sick Uncle, been sick, been way sick. Them 4th Infantry Division boys that are dying by the numbers over there are friends and neighbors from right here at Fort Hood. An infantry division is a pretty big outfit, so it's impossible to know all of them personally. But by the same token, being stationed here with them at Fort Hood, it's impossible not to see the impact on military families here on a daily basis. To see their strength, courage, and dignity in dealing with their loss is a very moving and humbling thing, truly these are the families of warriors.

Us Air Force guys are frustrated and infuriated that we can't do more for our brothers and sisters in Task Force Iron Horse. We've got guys on the ground over there right now, that can bring devastatingly decisive firepower to bear in the twinkling of an eye. Our foremost focus in Close Air Support is keeping the good guys alive, nothing we like better than to "unleash hell" in defense of our own. But there are no lucrative targets for us in what amounts to suicide bombings and drive by shootings. Getting sick? Imagine as a warrior watching your comrades die, and being helpless to do anything about it. Yes sir Uncle, we're getting sick, most sickening is the feeling in my gut that tells me it's far, far, from over.

Sarge
 
I’m rather new here - this is only my second posting - and perhaps I should not intervene, but I cannot resist.

Your guys are dying in Iraq (killing quite a lot of innocent civilians in the process) for Iraqi OIL and to expand U.S. political and military domination in this OIL-rich region.
The fact that G. W. Bush and some members of his administration have vast interests in the OIL industry adds icing on the cake. For them, of course.

Saddam Hussein was all right when Donald Rumsfeld personally offered him U.S. help in fighting Iran, wasn’t he? It was all right in the following years of the Iraq-Iran war and when he gassed the Kurds too.
Now the Bush administration had to convince the world that the invasion of Iraq was necessary because:
1 - Saddam has WOMD,
2 - he was implicated with 9/11
3 - to "liberate" Iraqi citizens.

There are no WOMD, and Saddam had nothing to do with al-Qaida (as George W. had to admit publicly).
Do you actually believe in point # 3?
As John le Carré wrote: "If Saddam didn't have the oil, he could torture his citizens to his heart's content."
You do not agree? So why U.S. do not "liberate" also Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan?

Here should be some good reasons for doing so.
The 9/11 attackers were mostly from Saudi Arabia and Egypt (none from Iraq).
The kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a theocratic dictatorship - never had elections in his history - while
democracy in Egypt is a laughing matter.

Pakistan CREATED and supported the Taliban movement (with U.S. blessing) which in turn supported al-Qaida. It is also a military dictatorship armed with WOMD.
 
Your guys are dying in Iraq (killing quite a lot of innocent civilians in the process) for Iraqi OIL and to expand U.S. political and military domination in this OIL-rich region.
Click to expand...

It sounds cool to me; when do we get a break at the pump, and how many people do we have to kill?

Just remember their are very few saints in this game and Europe is just as dirty, if not more so, then anyone else.

n2s
 
Fil,
We should have waxed his ass last time!Next you think Sad.was a Saint,he tortured people,gave $$ to terrs. helped supply them AND would have been MORE of a problem later & if you don't think so,you are foolish! Look at his record. As for the other nations you mentioned,if we went in any one of them,YOU would find SOMETHING negative to say!Just from your posting,I would say "TROLL"!
Jim
 
Just from your posting,I would say "TROLL"!
Click to expand...

Keep fair - Filibert has a right to think like he does, he did not write unfair or is a Troll I think.
I wondered why the US played down the North Corea problem and pushed the Iraqi-issue at the beginning of this year - I think too that oil played a role in doing so - but that is politics and it is a game of powers - and all of the participants get dirty. I am not too proud of the role Germany played before the war but my administration and even the French had a right to follow their interests as the US followed theirs. In the pre-war history the French, the Germans and the US made questionable deals with Saddam - no winner who could claim the moral here. Looking at the history the US were not too lucky in choosing the allies - a lot of them later became enemies because US foreign policy acted according to the motto "my enemy`s enemy is my friend" Maybe they have learned. At least the US tries most of the time to make the world a better place (even if following own interests - even if sometimes it seems naive) other states do not care.

Andreas
 
Yeah Jim, take it easy, Filibert has a right to have an opinion. Still, I don't think he'd care much for my opinion of him and all the other weak kneed whiners out there. I get sick of pantywaists carrying on about how we're picking on poor old Saddam, who thumbed his nose at UN sanctions for a full decade AFTER we drove him out of a peaceful neighboring country he'd invaded (proud to say I took part in the liberation of Kuwait). If we would have squared away Hitler sooner, there'd of been no World War II, and no need for the good old U.S. to have to liberate most of Europe (hunh? must have been after their oil fields too). I think for a change we got it right this time "It's all about the oil", yeah, yeah, yeah, sure buddy, whatever you say, you know everything don't you. Funny thing, I didn't see a single oil field when I was in Afghanistan, but I saw a lot of "good" Taliban/Al Qaeda. Yup, they were reeeeaaal "good". Afghanistan was first, Iraq came next, and you better believe that as long as there are people out there who pose a threat to world peace, we are far from done. You can think it's about the oil if you like, but I'll tell you straight up it has a lot more to do with the attacks we suffered on September 11th, 2001. Prior to that we were willing to let the UN try it their way.

Sarge
 
Filbert doesn't get the Troll label yet. Now, if he keeps picking on Jim.....oh, wait, we all do that. :D

Personally, I don't like how the Iraq war was handled. Afghanistan was OK, in that I believe we had reasonable justification to go there. Why we don't pick on Saudi Arabia is a whole tangled mess of worms. But I don't like how the Iraqi war was argued to the American people, I don't like the foreign policy moves made before the war, and I especially don't like Congress handing over the right to declare war.

But that is in the past. We went to Iraqi and squashed the government. Now, we need to make it right - support the Iraqi people in developing the country that they should have. Unfortunately, that requires that American troops be on the ground and expose themselves to people who don't like us very much (which is a serious understatement - rabid, pathological hatred might not be an out-of-line descriptor). I don't blame them or their motives for being there - I think the guys on the ground are mostly pure of heart. (I make no attempt to divine the motives of those in Washington. I'm sure there's a mixture of good and bad in varying degrees.) So it hurts to hear that they are bearing the brunt of this war.

I don't think we can judge now whether it was right to wage war on Iraqi, in the grand scheme of things. History will judge that in the next 50 or 100 years based on what happens in that time, and what information comes to light. But the guys on the ground are dying now, and I wish that the sacrifice required was not so great.
 
Pan,
FAIR!!I toned my reply down!! Fair!!Don't start a post by making a statement Tired of yours dying AND "innocent civilians"!!As for allies with SADDAM,study the past & WHY!As for OIL,"SO"!WAS it necessary to attack! YES! Time to see reality,"WHAT do you think would have been the result if he had stayed in power! He gassed his own people,didn't change at all after DESERT STORM,other ARAB countries looked up to this BUTCHER,even after he SCARED THE S*** out of them! Now think Israel,do you think HE was going to stop,if you do, you need help! WOD
I think he "HAD" them !This guy had to go.! If he is still alive I would turn my SF loose & say FIND & KILL!Oh yeah ,while I'm at it! Tell Pakistan & others,ANYONE comes over the BORDER to fight,WE KILL!!If they retreat into their countries"WE PURSUE & KILL"!KID GLOVES SHOULD COME OFF!Fair!!
Jim
 
Hey Jim

"FAIR" :D (I like the idea of you jumping up and down because of this word...)
You know I mean the tone on the forum (which is - like this world - dominated by US-Americans but international).
Politics and war will never be fair - we should try nevertheless.
No doubt Saddam is a butcher no doubt he had to be stopped - but right before the war the acute danger seemed not to be Iraq.
Now think Israel,do you think HE was going to stop,if you do, you need help!
Click to expand...
read carefully. I did not write anything about Saddam and Israel - I just said that it is difficult for Arabs to see the US troops as librators because they have some kind of panarabic view and identify the US with Israel. Even some of the Iraqi that were against Saddam now see the US as a different enemy - not as their friend. When I see the pictures from Iraq I think that if free elections were held now you would see a theocratic Iraq, similar to Iran - and the next free elections would not take place... :(
Andreas

P.S. Do you know the following quote (do not know who said it but it is from the age of enlightenment)? "I do not think like you do and I am of a different opinion - but I would die for your right to state your opinion."
 
So, what’s the point?
The US have occupied a sovereign country without the support of the rest of the world (well, except the UK , The Netherlands, Hungary and Australia) – and without involving the UN.
They turned a country run by a madman into a country run by many, many sick guys – by simply removing all border patrols, policemen, etc. …. So, now Iraq really is a danger to the rest of the world – a haven for “terrorists” of all kind – Congratulations.
 
Hey kukri 4302,
could we get even in calling nihilus` post "trollish"? :grumpy:
seems more provocative and less constructive than filibert`s post
Nihilus,
it is easy to know afterwards - but as you call yourself "nihilus" of couse "noone" ever said what you wrote in your post...
 
Actually Pan, re-reading my own response, even I came across a bit "trollish". Just goes to show what an emotionally charged subject we're dealing with. Still, it's been my experience that when anger walks into a conversation, good judgement walks out. So, I think I'll go fire up the grill, throw on some bratwurst, and let the deeper thinkers have at this one.

Sarge
 
Sarge,
...not trollish at all in my eyes. Enjoy the "Bratwurst" - I will see if I can get a T-bone steak or if I do not get one at least a few marshmellows instead ;)

and after a lot of posting I see I did not answer the original question -
Yes, it makes me sick too to see the growing toll these young men and women and your country have to pay. - And everyone should be as these are precious lives lost (no way I could accept someone who sees the deaths as justified because he talks of "imperialism" or other bullsh**)
Andreas
 
Boy, here we go saving Europe from itself two or three times in one century and still they criticize us...
 
When it was clear that we would invade Iraq, my concern was the "end game." How could it possibly be neat? Hate is endless. Patience, resolve, understanding, and resounces are finite. Palestine - and our role vis-a-vis Palestine - is the joker in the deck. (WIll the back-and-forth of death EVER stop?)

Having said that, between nations there are no real "friends," there are only interests. Of course, yesterday's enemy (even the "ancient foe") can be today's so-called "friend." Just as the "friend" of yesterday can be less supportive in the present than yesterday's enemy.

After the Shah was overthrown, Irag seemed - to a series of U.S. governments - to be a lesser threat than Iran. Now, who knows. Perhaps Iran will have the "Islamic bomb" before democratic forces moderate their government. Pray for the "moderates."

Why invade Iraq when N. Korea may be the greater threat? That is a legitimate question except if it suggests that use of military force against N. Korea was/is a practical option. N. Korean weapons already ranged on the most populous region of S. Korea would cause hundreds of thousands of casualties. S. Korea and Japan are dead set against the military card, and so, apparently, are the generals.

Did we invade to insure the flow of oil from Iraq -- to the U.S., Europe, and Japan? I don't know. You don't know (Except where genralized suspicion subsitutes for reasoned analysis. In my youth, the denial that one was a Communist was regarded by some as proof that one was a Communist whereas "confessed Communists" were trusted completely. When one has a direct pipleline to truth, facts, or the absence of facts, is no impediment to forming judgments.) We were told G.H.W. Bush was "after the oil" in Gulf I ("No blood for oil!"). That was not true. In any case, so what? Time, as observed above, will tell.

How 'bout them Sox?

TAL
 
Jim, I guess "Troll" is the definition for somebody having an unsuitable behavior on the forum.
Somebody who has to be banned from the forum, right?
If so, would you please specify why you want me out? Just because I do not agree with you?

Sarge, more directly called me (and the others like me) weak kneed whiners and pantywaists. Gee. Thanks. I couldn’t expect less from a military man. You are right, you were a bit trollish :D

Sarge, did I ever say that Saddam is an innocent poor man? No, I am fully convinced that Saddam IS a criminal. He also WAS a criminal when he was one of your allies.
But at the time it didn’t matter.
Then you say: "You can think it's about the oil if you like, but I'll tell you straight up it has a lot more to do with the attacks we suffered on September 11th, 2001."
Yeah! That’s one of my points!

Title and subtitle from a BBC article:
Thursday, 18 September, 2003
Bush administration on Iraq 9/11 link.
US President George W. Bush has explicitly stated for the first time that there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 11 September attacks.

The rest of the article, however, enumerates the previous efforts by Bush & Co. to link Iraq to 9/11.You can read he whole text here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm

Don’t you feel you have been conned?

One last thing: Yes, thank you again for having liberated Europe. This doesn’t make you infallible for eternity, though.
Regards,
 
fil,
A troll is someone that baits & stirs,banned,no,you are right to have OPINIONS no problem!! However when ,one starts an opinion the way you did,causes the blood to rise!To elaborate a little, previous dealings with "people" is called politics,good or bad allies depend on numerous instances,some we like,others we don't!If I would have been in charge he would have been done away with!Politics is strange, "you" with your views appear to be far to the left of Sarge! "ME"!! I'M FAR TO THE RIGHT OF GEN.GEORGE S PATTON!! Your (seems to be)liberal views are to me unrealistic! By that I mean you don't really say, "you imply"!I'll end this by leaving you with a thought! Men like SARGE(these men are in your country also)are not always "liked"BUT THEY GO & DO,while others can't or won't! THEY see that you can have "your views"!Liberals & others distain them, ridicule then etc.UNTIL the s*** hits the fan!! Then! ALL THESE PEOPLE "YELL HELP"!!When "WHATEVER"is over, the "liberals"then go back distaining etc.Just remembered,a long time ago saw a man in a parking lot,trying to explain something to a much larger & tougher looking man,big guy started "beating him"! People stood & watched,looks of disbelief,one guy stepped forward(not a real big guy)told him,"that's enough"big guy,got his clock cleaned! Moral: Guys like SARGE,"THANK GOD WE HAVE THEM!!
Ban you "NAW"!!You have a right to whatever!
THE SAINT! :cool:
 
Watching the news reports of Afghanistan,North Korea,and Iraq caused me to wonder what can these three countries do really well.
Well Afghans can grow some boss opium poppies
The North Koreans can march(goose step) like nobody's business
The Iraqi's can kill people left and right, even themselves

SO

If we could just divert 1 billion of that 87 billion in Iraqi aid to Afghanistan to build some heroin processing plants,give the heroin to the North Koreans so they will nod out and stop all that goose stepping and give some heroin to the Iraqi's so they will stop killing everything and everyone--- maybe,just maybe, things will mellow out over there and we can get down to the business of reducing the price of gas here at home.:rolleyes: ;)
 
It's too early to determine if filbert is a troll, IMHO. If he responds to other posts, makes reasonable arguments, presents and substantiates facts and acknowledges facts and evidence presented by others, then he isn't a troll whatever his opinions might be. He's clearly wrong in some of his views and facts, but he can't be presumed to have read all the other posts on other threads. Judging by this thread alone, he is only repeating the propaganda out there about the war being about oil only, the absence of a connection to terrorism and the straw man argument that the USA claimed Iraq was responsible for 9/11. All three are false. But he has yet to be directed to the arguments and proof in that regard. You could refer him to previous threads, or articles or make the arguments here. yet again. If his posts aren't responsive [ he could still disagree with the evidence, if he can muster an argument ], or if he's seen the evidence elsewhere and is starting afresh here, then he's a troll.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top