Said one dead Jarhead to a dead GI

[BaliBabyDoc]

cnn

At the funeral at Tri-County Baptist Church, Kathy Dyer delivered what she believed would have been her son's own message: "It has been with the greatest pride I have served ... fighting to preserve freedom."

Don't you have to have freedom to preserve it? I guess anarchy is a kind of freedom, but only morons are that simplistic.

She said he would want mourners to continue supporting the troops in the war against terrorism.

Again are people really that simple? IMHO, most if not just about everyone supports the men and women that make up the US Armed Forces. A significant number (likely a majority) don't support this aspect of Bush's policy. DeLay said it best . . .

"You can support the troops but not the president."
---
"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy."
---
"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"

 

[yllus]

Considering that there's absolutely no way you're going to see troops pulled from Iraq before 2008 at the soonest, I don't really see what talking about that impossible scenario will accomplish - other than to let the word trickle down to the politically savvy terrorists and keep them believing that if they just kill X more soldiers, America will bring them all home...

Not that I'm saying anyone should stop debating the issue if they feel like it, but I can't see how most of you don't find it pointless for the time being.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This woman just lost her son in a war. She is trying to rationalize things and understand what is going on. This isn't about "sense" it's about heart. The woman is grieving. Let her say what she will. She has earned the right when she lost her boy.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: yllus
Considering that there's absolutely no way you're going to see troops pulled from Iraq before 2008 at the soonest, I don't really see what talking about that impossible scenario will accomplish - other than to let the word trickle down to the politically savvy terrorists and keep them believing that if they just kill X more soldiers, America will bring them all home...

Not that I'm saying anyone should stop debating the issue if they feel like it, but I can't see how most of you don't find it pointless for the time being.

Their terrorists are smarter than our liberals. That's a flat fact.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: yllus
Considering that there's absolutely no way you're going to see troops pulled from Iraq before 2008 at the soonest, I don't really see what talking about that impossible scenario will accomplish - other than to let the word trickle down to the politically savvy terrorists and keep them believing that if they just kill X more soldiers, America will bring them all home...

Not that I'm saying anyone should stop debating the issue if they feel like it, but I can't see how most of you don't find it pointless for the time being.

I don't totally disagree with you, actually, though it seems to me that if we learn nothing from our poor foreign-policy decisions, we're doomed to repeat them (particularly since the PNAC playbook seems to envision broadening the front in the ME to include Syria and Iran).

OIF has (as was predictable from before it started) become a real conundrum from a strategic perspective, and it's likely we're damned if we do (withdraw) and damned if we don't. That said, the only POSSIBLE way it could turn out favorably is if we steel our will and stick it out until Iraq has at least some semblence of domestic stability (assuming that's even possible, much less likely - it's certainly possible our presence there is hurting more than it helps).

I frankly think that even then it will likely end in failure, and at this moment I regard it as the worst-considered major American military action in history, to include Vietnam. If history proves me wrong, Bush and PNAC will be honored as visionaries, at least by me.

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: yllus
Considering that there's absolutely no way you're going to see troops pulled from Iraq before 2008 at the soonest, I don't really see what talking about that impossible scenario will accomplish - other than to let the word trickle down to the politically savvy terrorists and keep them believing that if they just kill X more soldiers, America will bring them all home...

Not that I'm saying anyone should stop debating the issue if they feel like it, but I can't see how most of you don't find it pointless for the time being.

Their terrorists are smarter than our liberals. That's a flat fact.

Which makes them fcuking geniuses compared to the right! :laugh:

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: yllus
Considering that there's absolutely no way you're going to see troops pulled from Iraq before 2008 at the soonest, I don't really see what talking about that impossible scenario will accomplish - other than to let the word trickle down to the politically savvy terrorists and keep them believing that if they just kill X more soldiers, America will bring them all home...

Not that I'm saying anyone should stop debating the issue if they feel like it, but I can't see how most of you don't find it pointless for the time being.

Their terrorists are smarter than our neocons. That's a flat fact.

Fixed. 🙂

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
This woman just lost her son in a war. She is trying to rationalize things and understand what is going on. This isn't about "sense" it's about heart. The woman is grieving. Let her say what she will. She has earned the right when she lost her boy.

Fundamentally, I agree with what you are saying . . . but we are in Iraq because a small cadre of people and a complicit media created an environment where it was considered "unpatriotic" to ask real hard questions and expect honest answers.

I'm not opposed to either mother stating her POV. But by definition when someone rationalizes they are trying to make "sense" of what happened. One mother says it doesn't make sense based on available evidence. She asks very pertinent questions . . . questions that have yet to be answered with any degree of credulity.

The other mother wants to "create" a reality that clearly isn't true. Fighting for "freedom" and "fighting for us" might have been possible but that is NOT how this started or how it was executed. Now we are at a juncture where most of us don't know what to do. But it's quite easy to hang on to the platitudes. Regardless, I doubt more than a sliver of the American public really wants 5, 10, or 15 years to build a stable, democratic Iraq. Admittedly, I would have endorsed such an agenda in the early 80s . . . in between trips to the jungle gym.

We cannot go back in time to fix fatal errors of judgement. You acknowledge mistakes and correct your course. But only the ignorant (don't know), fools (know but don't care), and the delusional (don't know but are convinced they know) continue on . . . as if nothing is wrong.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: DonVito
I don't totally disagree with you, actually, though it seems to me that if we learn nothing from our poor foreign-policy decisions, we're doomed to repeat them (particularly since the PNAC playbook seems to envision broadening the front in the ME to include Syria and Iran).

OIF has (as was predictable from before it started) become a real conundrum from a strategic perspective, and it's likely we're damned if we do (withdraw) and damned if we don't. That said, the only POSSIBLE way it could turn out favorably is if we steel our will and stick it out until Iraq has at least some semblence of domestic stability (assuming that's even possible, much less likely - it's certainly possible our presence there is hurting more than it helps).

I frankly think that even then it will likely end in failure, and at this moment I regard it as the worst-considered major American military action in history, to include Vietnam. If history proves me wrong, Bush and PNAC will be honored as visionaries, at least by me.

Yeah, that's why I figure that I shouldn't even begin to put a damper on continued criticism. There probably are a bunch of nuts out there who think that war #3 in the near future is actually a good idea. Like the terrorists, they need to wise up to political reality.

OIF is at a low point currently, but it's had its high points. We do have to keep in mind that 16 of 18 provinces in Iraq are nearly completely peaceful, with the insurgents focusing (rightly) primarily on the Baghdad area and American troops. They've had a successful, legitimate election. The constitution is behind, but nearly written. Not staying the course at this point basically invites terrorist attacks at home ad infinitum - they'll know America'll never dare to venture forth and strike in the ME again.

I don't know enough about Vietnam to comment, but from what I've read the cause was pretty just and that the South Vietnamese suffered from a bum rep as cowards or ineffective fighters. Vietnam also had no palpable effect on the world scene, something I think is much different than Iraq. You're right, it's too soon to tell.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: yllus
Considering that there's absolutely no way you're going to see troops pulled from Iraq before 2008 at the soonest, I don't really see what talking about that impossible scenario will accomplish - other than to let the word trickle down to the politically savvy terrorists and keep them believing that if they just kill X more soldiers, America will bring them all home...

Not that I'm saying anyone should stop debating the issue if they feel like it, but I can't see how most of you don't find it pointless for the time being.

Their terrorists are smarter than our liberals. That's a flat fact.

What does that make Bush Fanboi republicans then? The bottom rung on the smarts ladder, that is what it makes them. With brains 1/3 the size of Liberals. It's science. /ronburgundy voice

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: yllus
Considering that there's absolutely no way you're going to see troops pulled from Iraq before 2008 at the soonest, I don't really see what talking about that impossible scenario will accomplish - other than to let the word trickle down to the politically savvy terrorists and keep them believing that if they just kill X more soldiers, America will bring them all home...

Not that I'm saying anyone should stop debating the issue if they feel like it, but I can't see how most of you don't find it pointless for the time being.

Their terrorists are smarter than our P&N posters. That's a flat fact.

Fixed. 🙂

One more time. 😉

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

DV

OIF has (as was predictable from before it started) become a real conundrum from a strategic perspective, and it's likely we're damned if we do (withdraw) and damned if we don't. That said, the only POSSIBLE way it could turn out favorably is if we steel our will and stick it out until Iraq has at least some semblence of domestic stability (assuming that's even possible, much less likely - it's certainly possible our presence there is hurting more than it helps).

That's a failure of logic. The reason we've gotten this deep is the belief that the ONLY possible way to change Iraq was Bush War 2003-????. Apologies but I refuse to call it Operation Iraqi Freedom when allegedly there would have been no war at all if Saddam had accounting practices better than Enron.

Why is it unreasonable to believe that a Iraqi-hosted conference of ALL regional powers (except Israel of course) wouldn't have helped or could still be the solution? Ask Syria how much Iraqi oil it would take to seal that friggin' border? Ask Iran for help . . . but try not to use the middle finger. Ask Kuwait how much MORE oil they need to help Iraq. Ask Jordan to get their act together as well. Ask Saudi Arabia to export fewer terrorists as well. And of course it would start with Bush saying, "maybe we didn't do the right thing. But a stable Iraq is good for everybody. If not you might have Somalia . . . with more weapons." I'm sure that will get some attention.

I frankly think that even then it will likely end in failure, and at this moment I regard it as the worst-considered major American military action in history, to include Vietnam. If history proves me wrong, Bush and PNAC will be honored as visionaries, at least by me.

It's even harder for me to say it . . . but I genuinely believe it's possible this could have worked. A real plan for the immediate post major combat: 1) humanitarian relief, 2)co-opt the Iraqi military (by any price necessary), 3) secure weapon depots (dependent on #2), 4) secure assistance from neighbors to seal the borders, and 5) UN humanitarian relief. Despite my absolute abhorrence for the military approach . . . it might have worked. None of the above happened, so much like the perfect quadruple bypass . . . you are still in deep trouble compared to what might have been.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
That's a failure of logic. The reason we've gotten this deep is the belief that the ONLY possible way to change Iraq was Bush War 2003-????. Apologies but I refuse to call it Operation Iraqi Freedom when allegedly there would have been no war at all if Saddam had accounting practices better than Enron.

Why is it unreasonable to believe that a Iraqi-hosted conference of ALL regional powers (except Israel of course) wouldn't have helped or could still be the solution? Ask Syria how much Iraqi oil it would take to seal that friggin' border? Ask Iran for help . . . but try not to use the middle finger. Ask Kuwait how much MORE oil they need to help Iraq. Ask Jordan to get their act together as well. Ask Saudi Arabia to export fewer terrorists as well.

Money talks - but not that loudly, and especially when the actions that bring in the cash depend on pissing off your power base of people who would generally rather fraternize with fellow Arabs (even ones they recently fought against) rather than Caucasians.

The thing a tyrant fears the most is the populace rising up to string him up like Mussolini, and they won't go anywhere near actions that might lead them down that path. Quiet cooperation or even usage of military bases, sure. But speaking up against a fellow Arab nation and siding with The Great Satan on television and in print? I'm surprised you consider that even remotely possible.

 

[PELarson]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: yllus
Considering that there's absolutely no way you're going to see troops pulled from Iraq before 2008 at the soonest, I don't really see what talking about that impossible scenario will accomplish - other than to let the word trickle down to the politically savvy terrorists and keep them believing that if they just kill X more soldiers, America will bring them all home...

Not that I'm saying anyone should stop debating the issue if they feel like it, but I can't see how most of you don't find it pointless for the time being.

Their terrorists are smarter than our liberals. That's a flat fact.

So according to you they are light years smarter than Republicams!

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: yllus
Considering that there's absolutely no way you're going to see troops pulled from Iraq before 2008 at the soonest, I don't really see what talking about that impossible scenario will accomplish - other than to let the word trickle down to the politically savvy terrorists and keep them believing that if they just kill X more soldiers, America will bring them all home...

Not that I'm saying anyone should stop debating the issue if they feel like it, but I can't see how most of you don't find it pointless for the time being.

Their terrorists are smarter than our P&N posters. That's a flat fact.

Fixed. 🙂

One more time. 😉

LOL!! Everybody is smarter then P&N posters.

 

[CaptnKirk]

I don't believe I've ever heard a good 'Dead Soldier' joke.

Now I've heard some really dark humor by Soldiers while in war zones, involving death and destruction - but not 'Good'.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

It's not just money. Bushophiles argue that Syria, Iran, etc are belligerent . . . I would argue they have some reasons to be less than cooperative.

Kuwait supported the war so why wouldn't they support rebuilding it? They even ponied(sp?) up cash at a donor's conference. Personally, I think they have an ulterior motive . . . draining southern Iraqi oil.

Syria has nothing to lose and much to gain. Maybe if the Bush junta hadn't rushed to shut off pipelines to Syria . . . cooperation might be a bit more forthcoming? Do ya think they would let "pipeline bombers" cross with impunity?

Iran has more pressing internal issues. Regardless, they are not cheering for chaos in Iraq. IIRC, they essentially agreed to sit on the sidelines and even provide support/repatriation of any US servicepeople that strayed into Iranian territory.

Saudi Arabia has VERY pressing internal issues, but I'm sure they would dress it up as "freeing Iraq from occupation" and "rebuilding a Muslim country" and "protecting Islamic holy sites." The Saudis gave tacit support for Bush War 2003.

You cannot insult a religion shared by over a billion people, violate the sovereignty of a nation on a whim, and then threaten several neighboring countries . . . all the while expecting "help." Then again, the planners and executors of Bush Follies didn't need no stinkin' sand n1&&@*$ help. We didn't need UN help . . . hell we didn't even need UN approval.

Fundamentally, you must relinquish bad ideas (strategy) and bad execution (tactics) before you can expect better outcomes.

 

[sourceninja]

I am so sick of people turning the death of a man into a political forum. I've seen protesters at funerals blocking the procession from getting into the cemetary. I've seen cheering anti-bush crowds blocking the streets so familys can not mourn their lost loved one. I've seen mother's trivialize their own sons death just to make a political statement.

These kids knew they might die, they knew they might have to fight for something they didn't belive in, but they did it. We should respect and honor them for that. What these people are doing is disrespectful. Let the dead have some peace. Fight your war at the capital not the graveyard.

I do not support the war, but what I've seen the last few months is appaling.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: sourceninja
I am so sick of people turning the death of a man into a political forum. I've seen protesters at funerals blocking the procession from getting into the cemetary. I've seen cheering anti-bush crowds blocking the streets so familys can not mourn their lost loved one. I've seen mother's trivialize their own sons death just to make a political statement.

These kids knew they might die, they knew they might have to fight for something they didn't belive in, but they did it. We should respect and honor them for that. What these people are doing is disrespectful. Let the dead have some peace. Fight your war at the capital not the graveyard.

I do not support the war, but what I've seen the last few months is appaling.

POV matters but facts matter more. I don't agree with any of the tactics you noted in your first paragraph. But I think your second paragraph is hopelessly lost.

I imagine that MOST kids that join the military don't expect to die. Many probably thought they would ALWAYS be fighting for something they believed in. It's part of the reason their government orchestrated a PR campaign to convince the public that Bush War 2003 was just. Why else call an operation to protect America from WMD . . . Operation Iraqi Freedom?

Regardless, we should give just respect for all people that pass on. We should honor those that die for a just cause. The cause is never just . . . simply because you believe it to be so.

And for the record, we couldn't fight the pre-war at the capital b/c we were "scared", "lacked vision", "didn't understand what was a stake", or "coddling a dictator." After the war started, we were "unpatriotic" and "supporting terrorists". Considering the pro-war camp had better PR . . . unlike Iraq . . . the war that started the war was a cakewalk.

Uh, the dead always have peace. Leave the cliche and say what you mean . . . "I don't want to admit those lives were lost for an unjust cause or a futile one." Personally, I wouldn't want to say it either . . . but the truth doesn't stop being the truth just b/c it's not spoken.

 

[sourceninja]

No I said what I mean, let them have some peace. They did die for nothing. I will not argue that anything we do in iraq will change anything. My post is about how horrible things have gotten here that we term funerals into politcal party agendas.
I have a few friends in the service. All of them were aware that they may have to go to war. They choose to join, they were not forced (they weren't drafted) and as my friend told me who just got back from iraq "I hated every minute of it. We had no reason to be there, but I had a job to do." If people are so daft to think that they get to choose who and when they fight, well thats their faults for being morons. I'm sorry stupidity is not a defense.

Maybe this will show a few kids that they should not join the military for college money. They should join to serve this country. And that means doing a job.

And for the record, the reason the we are at war is because the democrats are weak. They lack focus and direction. They have no strong leaders. Sadly, I perdict a nice long stint of republican rule. And in the end, we will be less free and our troops will have less to fight for.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: DonVito
I frankly think that even then it will likely end in failure

by then shrub will be long out of office, and his pals will have made billions thru arms sales, oil pillaging, reconstruction, etc. - mission accomplished!

 

[BushBasha]

Originally posted by: Condor
Their terrorists are smarter than our liberals. That's a flat fact.

Our liberals ARE terrorists.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

How about the retarded noobs start their own twitage threads?! If you have something substantitve to contribute by all means . . . let it rip here. Otherwise put this crap

Our liberals ARE terrorists.

in your own space. Nobody expects agreement on everything. Hell, some people cannot agree on anything. But that's not an excuse to be an arse.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
How about the retarded noobs start their own twitage threads?! If you have something substantitve to contribute by all means . . . let it rip here. Otherwise put this crap

Our liberals ARE terrorists.

in your own space. Nobody expects agreement on everything. Hell, some people cannot agree on anything. But that's not an excuse to be an arse.

Topic Title: Said one dead Jarhead to a dead GI
Topic Summary: "my mom is more patriotic than your mom"
Created On: 08/18/2005 08:37 AM

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
How about the retarded noobs start their own twitage threads?! If you have something substantitve to contribute by all means . . . let it rip here. Otherwise put this crap

Our liberals ARE terrorists.

in your own space. Nobody expects agreement on everything. Hell, some people cannot agree on anything. But that's not an excuse to be an arse.

Topic Title: Said one dead Jarhead to a dead GI
Topic Summary: "my mom is more patriotic than your mom"
Created On: 08/18/2005 08:37 AM

They're both morons. Leave it at that.