<a href='http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16513' target='_blank'>How The Left Betrayed My Country</a>

A great perspective worth reading. Thanks!

DrTorch Wrote:A great perspective worth reading. Thanks! weasled

I could go out into any city in America and find a Nazi, a Marxist, Bleeding heart Hippy, a Hawk, or anyone else that would have an oppossing view from the main stream. Evidently most Iraqis don't agree with him.

He curses "liberals" that believed that the US taking out Sadom was wrong. Well that being said, they aren't the only ones that he is cursing. In fact he as well as most Sheit's (spelling?) cursing go back almost 14 yrs. And that cursing is heavist toward the conservitives and Bush Sr.

I was in Safwan, Iraq when the cease fire went into affect and the city of Basra revolted. I was there as the city's refugees rolled in thier dead and wounded, while pleading with us to help. The US told them to rise up and then we just sat there and watched their slaughter. Us soldiers went crazy. We begged to help, but Bush had other plans.

He did not want the Sheit majority to take control. It has always been generally agreed that this would only make a state more like Iran's. Iraq would be more oppressive to its citizens and less friendly to the West. Instead we wanted the Iraqi Army to revolt. The Bathist was the best option there was and we were happy with it so long as Sadom was not in charge.

Now we have opened Pandora's Box and can not close it again. The future is not bright.

Most of those that opposed the war did so because of how we knew that Bush's plan to conducted it would only make Iraq and the world LESS safe. YES, some of the more visible protesters are foolish "Peace at all cost" tree hugging hippys, but they are no bigger fools than the "War at any cost because we are right" hawks.

Lastly, nothing pi**es me, and my fellow brothers of arms off more than to have some coward that weasled out of war himself, tell us that we are not patriots because we do not support his policies. If that was me that went AWOL during war time (not having a father that was the head of the CIA at the time ) I would probably still be in Leavenworth. I have no problem with someone not wanting to go of and possibly dieing in Vietnam. I do though, have a problem with them making war and sending or sons and daughters off to do what he would not!

Thank you for listening to an old soldiers rant and please at least give honest thought to the words that I have written.

I think the war in Iraq is just.

from,

another old soldier

RebelKev Wrote:I think the war in Iraq is just.

from,

another old soldier

Why?

Well, lets see. He was left in power for over 10 years shrugging off several resolutions that were put in place with the help of the blood of "our brothers". He funnelled money to terrorist organizations, having his own terrorist training camp right south of Baghdad. He kicked inspectors out of Iraq several times and when they "were" there, he wouldn't let them inspect his numerous palace compounds, many times covering 100 acres. He almost had H.W. Bush assassinated. He had the ability and the desire to start his weapons programs again, to which he had used to kill millions. And one last thing, I think placing a democratic government inm Iraq will make all other totalitarian regimes slowly crumble. Just to name a few.

RebelKev Wrote:He funnelled money to terrorist organizations, having his own terrorist training camp right south of Baghdad.

Proof? I know that was mentioned once but when challanged, it was dropped. As far as I know, not only has no proof, but no evidence of terrorist connections have been found.

No evidence? What was Salman Pak? A resort? How about the fact that Atta was observed in Prague meeting with one of the Ba'athist top officials? Checks going to Palestinian homicide bombers ring a bell?

RebelKev Wrote:And one last thing, I think placing a democratic government inm Iraq will make all other totalitarian regimes slowly crumble.

This would be great, but face it few leaders and their personnel believe this possible anymore. They would be happy with just getting a stable enough government in place so that we could get the hell out of there. Only time will tell on this one.

What would have been better is we could have put all this money and energy into Afgahnistan. Apply increasing presure on Bin Laddin and most likely would have had apprehended him by now. All the while, truly rebuilding a nation that has been devastated by 30 yrs. of war. We could have done the Marshall Plan in Afganistan and would be the heroes of the world.

RebelKev Wrote:No evidence? What was Salman Pak? A resort? How about the fact that Atta was observed in Prague meeting with one of the Ba'athist top officials? Checks going to Palestinian homicide bombers ring a bell?

Are you kidding me about the Prague thing?

"The meeting is in dispute because the CIA and FBI do not believe that Mohammed Atta ever left the United States during April 2001."

<a href='http://www.computerbytesman.com/911/praguefaq.htm#8' target='_blank'>http://www.computerbytesman.com/911/praguefaq.htm#8</a>

RebelKev Wrote:I think the war in Iraq is just.

from,

another old soldier

And you have not been in active duty in Iraq, have you?

I personally know a handful of soldiers who went over there supporting the war and came back against it, in addition to a couple who never supported it. I asked a few of them if your 75/25 figure is right, and they said "bull****, it's far closer to 50/50." Kev, you can spew all the rhetoric you want about 75% of the soldiers supporting the war, but that doesn't make it true...

Open Secrets Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:I think the war in Iraq is just.

from,

another old soldier

And you have not been in active duty in Iraq, have you?

I personally know a handful of soldiers who went over there supporting the war and came back against it, in addition to a couple who never supported it. I asked a few of them if your 75/25 figure is right, and they said "bull****, it's far closer to 50/50." Kev, you can spew all the rhetoric you want about 75% of the soldiers supporting the war, but that doesn't make it true...

A handful OS? Let's see, 4 months training SBCT 3 at Ft. Wainwright, Alaska last year, 2 weeks at Ft. Hood, Texas last October, based here at Ft. Gordon, Georgia, home of the 63rd and 67th Signal Battalion(93rd Signal Bde.) that have been or are in Iraq and the 513th MI Brigade, heading to Ft. Lewis, Washington next month for Re-NET training for SBCT 1 coming back from Iraq, spending 4 more months later this year training SBCT 4, who will head to Iraq next year. Not to mention my service to my country, my co-worker's husband in Iraq right now, and several, and I mean SEVERAL friends there right now. I personally train between 100-400 soldiers a year and have personal relationships with even more. ...and you say handful. I "HAVE" been to combat OS. The only combat you've seen is playing Ghost Recon with your high school buddies. :rolleyes:

RebelKev Wrote:The only combat you've seen is playing Ghost Recon with your high school buddies. :rolleyes:

Probably not even that. :laugh:

I too have been in combat as well as much of my family. I have relatives that have been their and swear that they will never return. I have family there now and they that curse it and question why we are there. And lastly, I have old freinds that I was in Desert Storm that are senior NCO's and have told me that moral is low.

I am sure that you are hearing good and well displined soldiers giving you the Hooaah. Thats what good soldiers do, but when they are around close friends or people that are like minded they give their honest oppinion.

Even you are right, 75% not being up for the job with an all volunteer army is pitiful.

There is a high probability that Iraq will end up in a civil war and when the shia majority prevail we will have something more in the lines of Iran. A total cluster**** in most reasonable people's eyes. These neocons have put the screws to the Republican party. William F. Buckley came out last week with a scathing article debating the Iraq war. Now how much faith do you put into this administration? The easiest way to get a W supporter to clam up is to ask him or her this simple question. If we knew then what we know now would you still have went into Iraq? It's a pitfall for them. For if the say they would still go in they ignore the WMD issue, the lack of a plan for reconstruction, and the fodder this fiasco has been for the recruitment of Islamic fundamentalist's for Al-Queda. Then if they admit they wouldn't have went in they are admitting Iraq was a mistake. I suggest you try it.

westernwilly Wrote:Even you are right, 75% not being up for the job with an all volunteer army is pitiful.

75% ARE for the Iraqi war, NOT opposed to it.

I just got talking to a friend of mine tonight at a favorite sports hangout, Stool Pigeons, and he concurs, 75% for. He's a BNCOC instructor at Ft. Gordon. The Army Times also concurs. You guys that don't agree with it are in the minority and, maybe, should just get out. It's not yours to question why. Like you said, it's an all-volunteer military.

Dogger Wrote:There is a high probability that Iraq will end up in a civil war and when the shia majority prevail we will have something more in the lines of Iran. A total cluster**** in most reasonable people's eyes. These neocons have put the screws to the Republican party. William F. Buckley came out last week with a scathing article debating the Iraq war. Now how much faith do you put into this administration? The easiest way to get a W supporter to clam up is to ask him or her this simple question. If we knew then what we know now would you still have went into Iraq? It's a pitfall for them. For if the say they would still go in they ignore the WMD issue, the lack of a plan for reconstruction, and the fodder this fiasco has been for the recruitment of Islamic fundamentalist's for Al-Queda. Then if they admit they wouldn't have went in they are admitting Iraq was a mistake. I suggest you try it.

Go ahead and ask me, I STILL say we should have gone into Iraq. We SHOULD have gone into Iraq in the damn '90's when "No-Balls" Clinton was in office. They were NOT living up to the damn treaty signed by Saddam.

Face it, if there was a Democrat in office, we wouldn't hear a damn PEEP out of you guys. ...and Buckley? Screw Buckley. WMD's was a reason but, IMO, it was FAR from the reason that Saddam needed to be ousted.

...and you don't go to war with what you know now. Wanna know why? BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE A CRYSTAL BALL! We received our intel from the Clinton Administration. Maybe I need to bring up old Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Kennedy quotes just to shut you guys up.

You guys that don't agree with it are in the minority and, maybe, should just get out. It's not yours to question why. Like you said, it's an all-volunteer military.

Quote:

One little problem is Rummy's stop order ehh Reb.