It must be a BIG problem when the US Army is taking in "old" soldiers up to 55 years old to serve in Iraq (As reported in CBS 60 Min.). And when young mothers to 3-4 small children also is sent to Iraq is it time to ask what in the hell is going on???? To serve up to 2 years in this cases is crazy!!!

The U.S. currently has 138,000 troops in Iraq, according to U.S. Central Command. Another 18,000 are deployed in Afghanistan.

No surprise - who really wants to go to that hell?


Regards
Udo

The "old" soldiers are members of the National Guard who volunteered to serve in their units. These men and women are all there because they stood up and said that they wanted to serve their country.

The Regular Army is typically much younger, as the National Guard is a place where people can stay in the same position for years and years without changing ranks if they don't really want to.

If you are looking for a tree up which to bark about something negative, you have selected the wrong tree.

DL021, ok, that was a nice rhetoric trick - they aren't old, but the "Regular Army is typically much younger". So the people who "serve their country" are definitely older.
Thanks for serving your country and making the world much unsafer than it was before 9/11. It's an old fact in history: people/countries/nations who got invaded try to "export" the terror they get themselves.

Quoting Bofredrik (Thread starter): It must be a BIG problem when the US Army is taking in "old" soldiers up to 55 years old to serve in Iraq

The Army isn't "taking in" ( as in recruiting) folks who are 55. The people you are talking about are ALREADY in the Army and have been for sometime.

Congrats!! You have been sucked in by sensationalist media!

no12...your post made zero sense. Your use of the term rhetoric is misplaced and your conclusion that we made the world less safe by stirring up the hornets nest is fallacious.

Would you either elaborate or rephrase? thanks

I wish he wouldn't - it will just be drivel anyway.

DL021's explanation is correct.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 2): wanted to serve their country

I don't understand...when the entire world is still unsure about the proper cause of invasion into Iraq, how would you know who you're really serving by being out there?

Quoting Pilotaydin (Reply 7): Quoting DL021 (Reply 2): wanted to serve their country I don't understand...when the entire world is still unsure about the proper cause of invasion into Iraq, how would you know who you're really serving by being out there?

Pilotaydin...
Two things....we always know whom we serve here. We serve our country which is led by people we elect to represent us. We frequently either re-elect them or put someone else in when the majority of us decide to do so. We even put a limit on the amount of time one person can serve as the President so that tyranny cannot develop.

Your question, however, is understandable, in light of the fact that I would bet that most of the reporting you hear is negative.

Now, answer a question for me.....
I firmly believe that no matter what position you take on the beginnings of the war, that the potential now to develop another democracy east of the Bosporus, in a predominately Arab country which is flanked by a fundamentalist Islam led state whose democracy is weak to say the least (even if the elections were not tainted the democratic process can be trumped by the clerics) and a couple of absolute monarchies whos human rights records are questionable to say the least, and are afraid of losing their own power........if we can help the Iraqis set up a real democracy then we will have established a serious platform of hope and opportunity for the people who are now under the thumb of the tyrants of different cloths.

If we help the people of that region develop a new way of governing themselves, where they are self-determining and no one really has to live in fear, then we will have begun the wave of eliminating tyranny and the use of terrorism as a means of controlling the people of the region, and of threatening those outside the region.

Would you agree with that?

[Edited 2005-07-24 17:26:04]

Quoting DL021 (Reply 5): Would you either elaborate or rephrase? thanks

Very simple, DL - Bofredrik wrote that the US army is taking in old soldiers:

Quoting Bofredrik (Thread starter): when the US Army is taking in "old" soldiers

You answered:

Quoting DL021 (Reply 2): The Regular Army is typically much younger

So this is what Bofredrik wrote: the average age of US Army in Iraq is older - you denied and wrote the Regular Army is typically much younger.

So you denied but confirmed what Bo wrote. Thats a rhetorical trick.

Quoting Pilotaydin (Reply 7): I don't understand...when the entire world is still unsure about the proper cause of invasion into Iraq, how would you know who you're really serving by being out there?

Aydim, don't force him to think about the sence of a war their government started because of lies - most of the world knew that the US admin was lying but it seems that lots of people in the US were blind, and accept that their government is lying.

Quoting NumberTwelve (Reply 9): So you denied but confirmed what Bo wrote. Thats a rhetorical trick.

Not really, unless you are a conspiracy theorist.

The average age of the US Army is in the low twenties.

THere are two BCTs from the USANG that are activated now with an average age in the high twenties....and they include a small percentage of troops over the age of 35. Most of them are long term members of the National Guard and joined prior to their 37th birthday. Your inanity and desire to try and make the USA look bad is simply boring at this point, and to back up a person like Bofredrick who posts constant US bashing crap is exactly what I'd expect from you.

If you want to make someone look bad why don't you ask Bofredrik about when the entire ASW section of the Swedish navy went on strike over their desire to take block leave.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 8): Would you agree with that?

Yes, if Iraq becomes a free nation - great.

However, I have heard inklings of information lately that the Iraqi's actually want their constitution to be more like Iran than the U.S. - in other words, we may have deposed a secular dictator in favor of another Islamic fundamentalist state - and if that's what they want it is their right. There is nothing saying that Iraq will end up modeled after the U.S. - there is nothing saying they should. They can choose their own path, and if they end up becoming a religious-governed state, will all of our efforts have been wasted? Now this is all speculation so far, but I wouldn't be one bit surprised if they end up an Islamic State, which will be the opposite of what our country wanted, but perfectly within their rights as a newly freed nation.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 2): The "old" soldiers are members of the National Guard who volunteered to serve in their units. These men and women are all there because they stood up and said that they wanted to serve their country.

No - he's talking about this:
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_age_072305,00.html
They want to make 42 the limit for all branches now, to help add recruits since numbers are actually down - and that's a fact, not just something cooked up by the media. This would replace current limits of 35 for active duty (a 7 year increase) and 39 for guard/reserves (a 3 year increase).

Quoting DL021 (Reply 11): If you want to make someone look bad why don't you ask Bofredrik about when the entire ASW section of the Swedish navy went on strike over their desire to take block leave.

You have learned well from your political leaders my friend - don't answer the question, throw some mud at the person that asked it. It's called a diversion and I can see right through it.  

Quoting NumberTwelve (Reply 9): Quoting DL021 (Reply 2): The Regular Army is typically much younger So this is what Bofredrik wrote: the average age of US Army in Iraq is older - you denied and wrote the Regular Army is typically much younger. So you denied but confirmed what Bo wrote. Thats a rhetorical trick

   You obviously didn't read his post . . . and if you did, you plainly understood only your pre-conceived notion of what you wanted the answer to be.

With the number of National Guard and Reservists usually older in age than Regular Forces, it's no surprise . . .

Quoting NumberTwelve (Reply 10): Aydim, don't force him to think about the sence of a war their government

More of your typical horseshit. Has nothing to do with the subject - just another chance for you to show your ass . . .

My friend Jeff nash - Captian, US Army, Engineers, is 36 - quite old for a Captain. What you don't knowis he spent 12 years in the Army before he went to officer school . . . in the Texas National Guard. If you put his company against a regular Army company and compare ages, the Guard unit will be significant;y higher . . .

Simple as that. No matter how you twist it #12, you can't twist it to whatever perverted, bizarre notion your obviously confused mind can conjure up today . . .

Quoting KC135R (Reply 12): They want to make 42 the limit for all branches now, to help add recruits since numbers are actually down

Quite true . . . I don't like it. Unfortunately, these troops, if entering at age 42, will need an age waiver to get 20 good years.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 11):
If you want to make someone look bad why don't you ask Bofredrik about when the entire ASW section of the Swedish navy went on strike over their desire to take block leave.

You have learned well from your political leaders my friend - don't answer the question, throw some mud at the person that asked it. It's called a diversion and I can see right through it.

KC135R...I actually did answer the question...the entire previous paragraph did so. I also had a little fun...no harm there.

Of course the Iraqis have different ideas about the future of their form of democracy. Some will want something more similar to Iran than the US. I don't know that we are attempting to install any particular form.....we are moreso simply facilitating their transition to democracy. Whether they have a parliamentary structure or a bicameral legislative republic as we do is not really a huge deal for us.

I do seriously doubt that they will be an Iranian modeled country since you have to account for the Kurds and the Sunnis who form a large minority without whom a country will be run. The participation of the Sunnis in the next round of elections will undoubtedly be higher, and with this the constitution will be decided by an electorate that will not rubber stamp an Islamic republic.

It might happen, but I seriously doubt it. You are correct, though....it will be their decision.

As far as the increase in age allowed, one of the main reasons for this is the number of 40+ year olds who have expressed an interest in re-enlisting after a long period of separation and this has never really been a problem before.

Any new recruit would have to be capable of meeting the physical standards, so I don't really see a problem with it. I also don't see a problem with older guys serving, since it's all volunteer. It's not like we are forcibly drafting senior citizens as was implied in the above posts. People seem to get the idea that we are in the same shape as the German army in the last couple of years of WWII. That's not so. The USN and the Air Farce ( ) are overstrength, and the only forces with difficulties are the Marines and the Army.

[Edited 2005-07-25 04:33:34]

Quoting DL021 (Reply 15): KC135R...I actually did answer the question...the entire previous paragraph did so. I also had a little fun...no harm there.

Alright, fair enough - though it does look a little diversionary to me!

Quoting DL021 (Reply 15): That's not so. The USN and the Air Farce ( ) are overstrength, and the only forces with difficulties are the Marines and the Army.

Wait a minute, did you read my profile??? I think that is insulting!!??  
Seriously though - yes, we are over-manned (supposedly, but many in uniform would debate that as it does not seem that way at all - especially with the increase in deployments) - they even offered a "blue to green" program for people who wanted to volunteer for Army service. When the base commander announced it at theatre-full commander's call the snickering was quite obvious. The program has not done well, I think I just read from USN and USAF they got about 200 total, not surprising if you ask me.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 15): As far as the increase in age allowed, one of the main reasons for this is the number of 40+ year olds who have expressed an interest in re-enlisting after a long period of separation and this has never really been a problem before.

True - and false. Some are returning to duty - but read the article closely:
The current limit is 39 for people without previous military service ...
So this is for non-prior service people. You are right, they will have to pass a physical and all that stuff to ensure they are fit to serve. The thread starter is right too, this is a (arguably) desperate measure because of a lack of new recruits.

Quoting KC135R (Reply 16): Wait a minute, did you read my profile???

I am SURE he read your profile first.   

Quoting Udo (Reply 1): No surprise - who really wants to go to that hell?

I would. In a heartbeat. No second thoughts. I'd have been there too if I hadn't torn my ACL in high school. Serving you country is one of the greatest and most patriotic things that you can do for your country. Many of our friends on this website don't understand that though. They just bitch about the government, and complain about the soldiers that are busting their asses, forgetting that those soldiers are protecting the very freedom that allows them to post their little rants here.

Quoting AirTran737 (Reply 18): those soldiers are protecting the very freedom that allows them to post their little rants here.

Typical mindless sloganeering. Please clarify exactly which of my freedoms are being protected by the US military in Iraq.

Quoting AirTran737 (Reply 18): Serving you country is one of the greatest and most patriotic things that you can do

If you really believe this then you're just not trying hard enough.

Quoting Pacificjourney (Reply 19): If you really believe this then you're just not trying hard enough

I'm not even going to argue. Trying to talk to a liberal is like talking to a damn stump. Do one thing for me. Talk to an old WWII veteran. Seriously talk to him. Ask him what serving his country meant to him. That's all I ask. If you were American I'd tell to go to an airshow where there will be and old WWII bomber like a B-17 or B-29. The best thing is to sit and listen to those old guys talk about their experiences, and what pride they took in serving their country. Putting their country ahead of themselves. Too many people today wouldn't consider doing that.

You know something PacificJ? You would be a lamp shade or perhaps a bar of soap, fluent in German or in some slave labor camp in Manchuria had it not been for people who served their country in the most patriotic way they knew how.

You know nothing of military affairs or patriotism yet you reap the fruits of those who fully understood it and died for it. My opinion of people like you is incredibly low because of your rhetoric that you think is perfect in all aspects. Reality check for you - you need to be a little more aware and not be blind sided by your own inane perceptions.

Thank you very much!

[Edited 2005-07-25 09:48:38]

Yeah that's it, nothing to actually back up your rhetoric so you just get personal.

AirTran737 you haven't answered the question, which of my freedoms is being defended by the US military in Iraq. Please leave the liberal vs others crap to your fellow rednecks as the rest of the world doesn't see things in quiet such simple terms. It's such a cop out from an actual discussion of issues !

Quoting 787 (Reply 21): PacificJ? You would be a lamp shade or perhaps a bar of soap, fluent in German or in some slave labor camp in Manchuria had it not been for people who served their country in the most patriotic way they knew how.

Get over yourself. Did it never occur to you that the guys making the soap and lampshades were soldiers 'serving their country' as well ?

Quoting Pacificjourney (Reply 22): Please leave the liberal vs others crap to your fellow rednecks as the rest of the world doesn't see things in quiet such simple terms.

I agree. I can not stand those liberal versus conservative gutter arguments. I'm just a bit saddened that it is seeping into our political and social sphere in a more stronger tone. Liberal, conservative. How about being a person?

Now down to the bizzo.

Quoting 787 (Reply 21): You know nothing of military affairs or patriotism yet you reap the fruits of those who fully understood it and died for it.

Yeah, that's why we have ANZAC day. We remember those New Zealander's who gave the ultimate sacrifice for their country in times of strife and war.

We are grateful that the United States arrived in South Pacific to fight the Japanese in WWII. They sacrificed a lot to defend the region.

Quoting AirTran737 (Reply 20): Seriously talk to him. Ask him what serving his country meant to him.

Have you watched the Band of Brothers DVD set? Did you hear what the old fullas had to say? Serving their country had to be done. They were at war. It was a second global conflict that threatened the United States.

They said they served their country and they were proud. But they also reminded us of the horrors of war and seeing their buddies die in their arms.

To all, do you really think that patriotism is the first instinct in combat? Garbage. To serve your country in times of strife is instinct. So why haven't more people flocked to the Army? There must be something stronger than feelings for the country.

The first instinct is to get the objective done and get all your comrades out alive. If some of you can remember the movie Black Hawk Down, remember the quote "Hoot" said to Sgt. Eversman.

Cheers

Zeekiel

The US army are having trouble recruiting for Iraq ??

Why - is there no one left in West Virginia then....?  

Good question, "Cornish"!

Another question i have is how many sons and daughters of the polictical elite in Washington is or have been in Iraq?????  

Quoting AirTran737 (Reply 18): They just bitch about the government, and complain about the soldiers that are busting their asses, forgetting that those soldiers are protecting the very freedom that allows them to post their little rants here.

I don't see how that invasion and occupation of Iraq protects my freedom or anything else. The war in Iraq has been creating countless additional terrorists who will still bomb us decades from now...

Quoting AirTran737 (Reply 20): I'm not even going to argue. Trying to talk to a liberal is like talking to a damn stump.

No wonder you are not going to argue - because you don't have any logic arguments.  

Quoting AirTran737 (Reply 20): Talk to an old WWII veteran. Seriously talk to him.

The ones with brain in their heads would tell you how different WWII was. Comparing WWII to Iraq either shows me a total lack of history knowledge or complete insanity.

Quoting AirTran737 (Reply 20): Too many people today wouldn't consider doing that.

Yeah, why risking my life for dirty lies?


Regards
Udo

udo:"I don't see how that invasion and occupation of Iraq protects my freedom or anything else. The war in Iraq has been creating countless additional terrorists who will still bomb us decades from now..."

OK...so what you are saying is that you accept that terrorists are going to be part of your life from now on, and that you don't think they should be fought in an organized manner? Or are you saying that you believe, firmly, that the Iraqis are incapable of moving into democracy? If so, why? Do you think that Iraqis are not intellectually capable?

The only way to take terrorism off the table is to help change the environment from which it comes. Help people achieve self-determination and they will not feel as hopeless, there will be something to lose, an imaginary version of heaven filled with rewards will no longer have enough appeal to overcome the reality of a free and self-determining home environment.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 27): OK...so what you are saying is that you accept that terrorists are going to be part of your life from now on, and that you don't think they should be fought in an organized manner?

Don't put words in my mouth. I fully support the war on terrorism in Afghanistan or in many other regions but Iraq was no hiding place for terrorists prior to the US invasion. All the stories about links between Al Qaida and Saddam were f**** lies just like the WMD trash. That war was based on dirty lies, took the focus and resources away from fighting Al Qaida and OBL and has been creating masses of new terrorists. And the attempts to cover the war as a "liberation action" of the Iraqi people is just ridiculous. The US gave a s*** about the Iraqi people for decades and even supported Saddam in the dark past. What about the other dictators still around, especially those who are regarded as "allies"? Hypocrites all over.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 27): Or are you saying that you believe, firmly, that the Iraqis are incapable of moving into democracy?

Where and when did I suggest that?

Quoting DL021 (Reply 27): If so, why? Do you think that Iraqis are not intellectually capable?

Get over it and stick to things which I actually said.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 27): The only way to take terrorism off the table is to help change the environment from which it comes.

Then have a look at Palestine and all those countries which are regarded as allies by the US. Why not start with Egypt, Pakistan and Saudi-Arabia?

Quoting DL021 (Reply 27): Help people achieve self-determination and they will not feel as hopeless, there will be something to lose, an imaginary version of heaven filled with rewards will no longer have enough appeal to overcome the reality of a free and self-determining home environment.

Wow, if I said that I would be called a "terrorist appeaser"...


Regards
Udo

Quoting DL021 (Reply 27): The only way to take terrorism off the table is to help change the environment from which it comes.

You aren't changing any environment when all you are doing is throwing military might at the problem.

Quoting AirTran737 (Reply 20): Putting their country ahead of themselves. Too many people today wouldn't consider doing that.

Just think back a few hundred years, people would laugh at that idea

Quoting AirTran737 (Reply 18): Serving you country is one of the greatest and most patriotic things that you can do for your country. Many of our friends on this website don't understand that though.

Many of our friends on this website have gotten past the whole blind patriotism thing you learn as a child to conform with others.

Quoting AirTran737 (Reply 18): They just bitch about the government, and complain about the soldiers that are busting their asses, forgetting that those soldiers are protecting the very freedom that allows them to post their little rants here.

The only complaints with the soldiers is how easily they fall for something and will jump off a bridge or herd people in concentration camps if Uncle Sam says so.

By the way, what freedoms has any US soldier protected since WWII?

Aha! We have the effervescent B744F posting here...let's see what he has to say

"Quoting DL021 (Reply 27):
The only way to take terrorism off the table is to help change the environment from which it comes.

You aren't changing any environment when all you are doing is throwing military might at the problem.


Military might has solved all kinds of problems in the past....I could point out cases in the past, but if you don't know them I don't see the need to educate you here...........oh, ok..so you don't accuse me of not knowing my history (and to prevent me from quoting you in other threads where your lack of historical perspective and study really shows).
WWII and the Korean conflict were two instances where throwing military might at a problem either cured it or at least restrained it. Next?

"Quoting AirTran737 (Reply 20):
Putting their country ahead of themselves. Too many people today wouldn't consider doing that.

Just think back a few hundred years, people would laugh at that idea
"
do what? Not really sure what you mean there. WHo would laugh at the idea of putting their country ahead of themselves a few hundred years ago, and how would the person to whom you speak there be able to remember that far back? Oh, you meant think about how it was a few hundred years ago. OK....the average soldier in the Continental Army who returned after the crops were in, the average soldier in the Iraqi army who is now training to defend a new homeland in spite of the dangers presented to him...or her (a new twist in the Arab world for those looking for change)...and their families.

next..oh, here
'Quoting AirTran737 (Reply 18):
They just bitch about the government, and complain about the soldiers that are busting their asses, forgetting that those soldiers are protecting the very freedom that allows them to post their little rants here.

The only complaints with the soldiers is how easily they fall for something and will jump off a bridge or herd people in concentration camps if Uncle Sam says so.
By the way, what freedoms has any US soldier protected since WWII?'

Well, to answer those pithy questions I'll have to remind you that it has been proven that the average intelligence and education level in the US military is equal to or greater than the general populace, and they seem to think what they are doing is worthwhile, as they are re-enlisting in record numbers (and it ain't for the $10k reup bonus....you don't get shot at for chump change...you do it for slightly higher reasons). I would challenge you to make that assertion to a serving soldier....as the US serviceman is world reknowned for not really being tolerant of too much idiocy.

Oh, and the freedoms they have protected since WWII? All of them. Any other dumbass questions?

Quoting DL021 (Reply 30): Military might has solved all kinds of problems in the past....I could point out cases in the past, but if you don't know them I don't see the need to educate you here...........oh, ok..so you don't accuse me of not knowing my history (and to prevent me from quoting you in other threads where your lack of historical perspective and study really shows).

Yes lack of historical perspective and study, nice baseless comment. Only because it's not the history you read growing up. Don't blame me for that.

And tell me when military might has "solved" the problem of terrorism.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 30): WWII and the Korean conflict were two instances where throwing military might at a problem either cured it or at least restrained it. Next?

Nice sidestep.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 30): do what? Not really sure what you mean there. WHo would laugh at the idea of putting their country ahead of themselves a few hundred years ago, and how would the person to whom you speak there be able to remember that far back? Oh, you meant think about how it was a few hundred years ago. OK....the average soldier in the Continental Army who returned after the crops were in, the average soldier in the Iraqi army who is now training to defend a new homeland in spite of the dangers presented to him...or her (a new twist in the Arab world for those looking for change)...and their families.

Actually it was difficult to get many soldiers to fight in the Continental Army, even WWII saw draft riots. But I am talking about pre-American history.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 30): Well, to answer those pithy questions I'll have to remind you that it has been proven that the average intelligence and education level in the US military is equal to or greater than the general populace, and they seem to think what they are doing is worthwhile, as they are re-enlisting in record numbers (and it ain't for the $10k reup bonus....you don't get shot at for chump change...you do it for slightly higher reasons). I would challenge you to make that assertion to a serving soldier....as the US serviceman is world reknowned for not really being tolerant of too much idiocy.

Equal to or greater? Do you not even know the stats your buddy posted? The education level is far less, and if they are reenlisting in record numbers it can easily be attributed to the lack of good job opportunities here.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 30): Oh, and the freedoms they have protected since WWII? All of them. Any other dumbass questions?

Yes, they protected Americans freedoms by fighting in Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Chile, Venezuela, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Argentina, Bosnia, Kosovo, etc.

And which freedoms were threatened exactly?

Quoting Udo (Reply 28): I fully support the war on terrorism in Afghanistan or in many other regions but Iraq was no hiding place for terrorists prior to the US invasion.

Funny, we and the world community knew very little about what was going on in Afghanistan when we invaded. Intel was gathered the same way it was gathered in Iraq, by sending in spies, questioning individuals coming out and going in, by satellite photos and such. And with that, we were correct when it came to Afghanistan. So what makes you think that we were flawed when going in and knowingly doing so. At least we had been in Iraq, no US or UN delegation had been in Afghanistan since the least 80's. It was a miscalculation. Tragically, the WMD's weren't there.

Quoting Udo (Reply 28): All the stories about links between Al Qaida and Saddam were f**** lies just like the WMD trash. That war was based on dirty lies, took the focus and resources away from fighting Al Qaida and OBL and has been creating masses of new terrorists

So Zarqawi being in Iraq in 2001-present(in which time he got his prosthesis, lived in luxury as a guest of Saddam) isn't proof that Saddam had ties to terror, and his his blood money to Palestinian familes of suicide bombers in Israel. He openly made this proclamation in 2002.

Quoting Udo (Reply 28): And the attempts to cover the war as a "liberation action" of the Iraqi people is just ridiculous. The US gave a s*** about the Iraqi people for decades and even supported Saddam in the dark past. What about the other dictators still around, especially those who are regarded as "allies"? Hypocrites all over.

Our involvement with Saddam back then is moot. We were fighting the Iranians indirectly then, and did what we thought was necessary. While you're at it, why not hold it against us that collaborated with the Russians during WW2?

Quoting DL021 (Reply 30): Military might has solved all kinds of problems in the past....I could point out cases in the past, but if you don't know them I don't see the need to educate you here...........

It has but it also has caused so many other problems.

Note that in the case of WWII, the United States was attacked by Japan without provocation. But also the war started 2 years later in the case of the United States.

Europe and the Pacific had been under siege for 2 and several more respectively. Can't remember exactly when Japan started their little melee.

Korea was a war based on ideologies and the fact that the North crossed the border.

Vietnam delayed the inevitable but caused so many to die in a war that many did not know what they were fighting for apart from the arbitrary notion of against communism.

Did the Iran-Iraq war solve any problems? 1 million died in a war that ended up being a stalemate and created the huge debt that Iraq owed. Essentially Saddam the monster that was created from the beast.

The Gulf War ejected the Iraqis from Kuwait and that was justified.

So you have your good days and your bad.

No one cared about Iraq during those WMD purges in the late 80's and all the mass killings when the Iraqi's were told to rise up against Saddam.

Cheers

Zeekiel

Quoting B744F (Reply 29): By the way, what freedoms has any US soldier protected since WWII?

When DL021 responded with "all of them", you responded by saying:

Quoting B744F (Reply 31): Yes, they protected Americans freedoms by fighting in Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Chile, Venezuela, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Argentina, Bosnia, Kosovo, etc. And which freedoms were threatened exactly?

We don't necessarily protect freedom by fighting, we protect freedom by existing. Every day and night, the US military stands watch, making sure that you freedoms are protected. The fact that we haven't had a major fight that directly affected you is a testament to how good a job we've been doing. I f you need to lose freedom in order to appreciate what others have done for you, you are out of luck. Because I am willing to stand between you and anything that threatens it, even if that means giving up my life. And I would do that for any citizen of this planet.

Navymidn,
Welcome to my Respected User list. Your explanation was simple and to the point. Well done sir, and thank you for your service to our country.

Quoting Navymidn (Reply 34): Because I am willing to stand between you and anything that threatens it, even if that means giving up my life. And I would do that for any citizen of this planet.

OK Exit the fairy tale and get with reality. The only thing you are protecting and fighting for is the corporate interest. Otherwise you would be stationed in any country in Africa, for example.

Quoting B744F (Reply 36): Otherwise you would be stationed in any country in Africa,

What does one cluster of Africans killing another cluster of Africans have to do with US interests?

The Iraq arguments sounded plausible at the time.

Quoting CaptOveur (Reply 37): What does one cluster of Africans killing another cluster of Africans have to do with US interests?

Because you claim to defend freedom and democracy somehow by engaging in non-related combat situations yet where there is a big struggle for freedom and democracy you see nothing being done worthwile except high interest loans.

Quoting CaptOveur (Reply 37): The Iraq arguments sounded plausible at the time.

Only to people who did not see the big picture.

Quoting B744F (Reply 36): Quoting Navymidn (Reply 34): Because I am willing to stand between you and anything that threatens it, even if that means giving up my life. And I would do that for any citizen of this planet. OK Exit the fairy tale and get with reality. The only thing you are protecting and fighting for is the corporate interest.

Am I reading that correct? Anyone in the United States Military is only fighting for corporate interests?

B744F, my heart bleeds for those in Africa. If I were in charge, the US would be doing more to aid them. I see injustices everywhere, and seeth because there is nothing I can do about it. The fact is that I am not in charge, and can do nothing about it in that way. I, however, see the campaign (I don't call it a war) in Iraq, however misguided it may have been, at least a small step in the right direction. It is possible to do the right thing for the wrong reasons. I personally believe that the government honestly believed that Hussein had NBC weaponry. I know that you have a different opinion, and you are entitled to it. But I think that an Iraq free of Hussein is a good thing.

I stand by my statement: I will stand between you and whatever threatens your liberty. Even if you don't believe I will.

Quoting Navymidn (Reply 40): I see injustices everywhere, and seeth because there is nothing I can do about it

Blokes like you are what we need more of. Say what you say. Do what you have to do. Regardless of other petty issues, cronyism and mindless suggestions.

Good on you.

Cheers

Zeekiel

Quoting Navymidn (Reply 40): I personally believe that the government honestly believed that Hussein had NBC weaponry. I know that you have a different opinion, and you are entitled to it. But I think that an Iraq free of Hussein is a good thing.

They did have them. A couple of weeks ago, I posted a thread (that was deleted by the forum police) proposing that Natalie Holloway, missing in Aruba, proposing that maybe she was't there in the first place. In 20 seconds, I returned to the thread with 15 responses saying that she was there, her parents said she was there, the hotel said that she was there, her chaperones said that she was there. I then said, than isn't it possible that WMD's were there and were moved, hidden, smuggled out of the country. After that, I was called every name in the book. I really wish they left that thread alone, But of course they didn't.

Quoting Navymidn (Reply 40): I stand by my statement: I will stand between you and whatever threatens your liberty. Even if you don't believe I will.

Because that's gives them the right to criticise. The Iraqi's didn't have that right, they do now.

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 42): I then said, than isn't it possible that WMD's were there and were moved, hidden, smuggled out of the country.

Yes it's possible. It is also possible, and apparently more likely, that - as the CIA report stated - Iraq did not appear to have any illegal weapons since we swatted him the first time in the early 90's.

The reason I don't buy the "Sean Hannity Smuggled Out Theory" is because we surely were watching the borders as we prepped for war (we do have some of the best recon in the world you know) and if there were stockpiles of WMDs (as claimed) they would have been seen smuggling them out and we would have seen them, don't ya think?

It's a little too convenient, nearly 3 years and no sign of WMDs later, to keep claiming they were there, and something must have happened to them. Even the administration admits that they were - no wait, scratch that - the "intel" was wrong.

The administration, of course, has never been wrong - but I am sure if you give Bush long enough, and didn't catch him off guard, he could think of one mistake.   

I don't know if the intel was manipulated, or if the CIA really screwed up, or if they really were there and "disappeared" - what I do know is this, I supported this going in because I thought we were in danger (as I was told). I know now that someone, somehow apparently botched that. I know now that this is a diversion from the war on terror and will do nothing but breed new terrorists for years to come. Why? They think we are imperialist conquerors who want to take over their land, however irrational that may seem to us - how does it look when we invade a sovereign country under what turns out to be false pretenses? It makes us look like imperialist conquerors who want to take their land.

All I can hope for is that, in the end, Iraq ends up a better place than it was. It doesn't look good now, but I realize the road to freedom is not a short one - I hope the problems are overcome and they end up prevailing, I really do.

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 42): They did have them.

It is amazing to me that you continue promote the idea that Iraq had (circa 2002) stockpiles of WMD despite zero evidence to support that contention. Our own government’s weapons experts from the CIA and the NSA have made that unambiguously clear in a series of reports and in sworn testimony before Congress. Your continued assertions about WMD in Iraq are utterly delusional Jetjack. They are simply without any foundation whatsoever.

I wish for the sake of our country’s honor and integrity that we would have found some WMD in Iraq, but we didn’t. We didn’t find any because it wasn’t there. To pretend otherwise is nothing short of profoundly dishonest.

Quoting KC135R (Reply 43): The reason I don't buy the "Sean Hannity Smuggled Out Theory" is because we surely were watching the borders as we prepped for war (we do have some of the best recon in the world you know) and if there were stockpiles of WMDs (as claimed) they would have been seen smuggling them out and we would have seen them, don't ya think?

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 44): It is amazing to me that you continue promote the idea that Iraq had (circa 2002) stockpiles of WMD despite zero evidence to support that contention.

I'm not clinging to any one theory, but you can't say "oh that never happened, we would've caught that with our satellites" because nobody knows what happened. There are plenty of hidden ways to move thing out of Iraq. They have a large border with Syria, and Saddam had secret escape tunnel that nobdy knew about until we invaded. Satellites can miss things as well. Not everything is 100%.

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 45): Not everything is 100%.

While I maintain that anything is possible - you are hanging on too hard to what I now am almost certain is a myth.

At this point, even the administration admits they were wrong - if they had one tiny scrap of proof that Iraq had, and subsequently moved, WMDs we would have heard about it - especially around election time last year.

Yes - anything is possible, but the chance that your hypothetical scenario is correct, at this stage in the game, is so far from likely that it almost is impossible. Two years ago, maybe even a year ago, I might have agreed - but chalk this one up to a huge mistake - the chances are beyond slim that anything exists.

What this does prove is that the "Bush Doctrine" has a fatal flaw - you cannot preemptively attack a country with intelligence alone, even from the best agencies in the world, because you might be wrong. Then where does that leave you?

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 45): I'm not clinging to any one theory

Sure you are. You're clinging to the idea that Iraq had lots of WMD and through some nefarious and clever way they managed to stash it away somewhere. You say it’s “possible” that they did this, and of course you’re right, but it’s also possible that Peruvian secret agents stole it, or that the Gambino crime family got hold of it. The problem with all of this is that there is no evidence to support those conclusions. They are purely speculative with no basis in fact.

You believe what you want Jetjack, but don’t expect anyone to embrace your ideas on Iraqi WMD when all you offer is conjecture and unsubstantiated speculation as evidence.

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 44): I wish for the sake of our country's honor and integrity that we would have found some WMD in Iraq, but we didn't. We didn't find any because it wasn't there. To pretend otherwise is nothing short of profoundly dishonest.

FYI - very nicely said, that echoes my sentiments exactly.

I had expected (initially) and later hoped against all odds that we would find WMDs. When we did not, I felt embarrassed and - whether the intel was manipulated or not (and at this point, who knows?) - I was disappointed in our government. It is a stain on our country's image that I fear will be around for a long time.

To those of you who might say "It does not matter what the rest of the world thinks" - I beg to differ. It does matter when that negative opinion manufactures exactly what we are trying to fight in the first place - terrorists! Also, when we are fighting a global war against a shadowy enemy - we should take all the help we can get from the global community - when we spit in the face of our former allies, we risk losing their help - and this is not time for petty bickering to be able to weaken us. I realize, of course, that this is a 2-way street and we are not alone in being at fault here.

BTW, to go back to the original topic, it also matters in regards to military recruiting, as we are seeing now. A good bit of the country feel this is now a losing battle, at worst - not worth dying for, at best. As I said before, I just hope we straighten up what we broke - and, on the plus side, at least the world is a better place with Saddam Hussein out of power. The problem I have with how we got to that end is two-fold - #1. It is apparent now there was no need to rush to take Saddam out of power, had we waited maybe we could have gone to war with the "...Army we want", if that was the case maybe 1700 troops would still be alive (if we waited we would have had time to armor everything correctly, amongst other things, and that would have prevented loss of life). #2. I still strongly believe, knowing what I do now, that this is a diversion from the more important war on terror - not an extension of it.

Just my   !!

[Edited 2005-07-26 07:50:09]

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 32): Funny, we and the world community knew very little about what was going on in Afghanistan when we invaded. Intel was gathered the same way it was gathered in Iraq, by sending in spies, questioning individuals coming out and going in, by satellite photos and such.

It was very clear Al Qaida was operating in Afghanistan and that the Taliban were hosts for OBL and his crew. So don't start to compare known facts with speculations about WMD in Iraq.

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 32): So what makes you think that we were flawed when going in and knowingly doing so. At least we had been in Iraq, no US or UN delegation had been in Afghanistan since the least 80's.

Having been somewhere doesn't necessarily mean knowing more.

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 32): Tragically, the WMD's weren't there.

I'm close to tears...  

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 32): So Zarqawi being in Iraq in 2001-present(in which time he got his prosthesis, lived in luxury as a guest of Saddam) isn't proof that Saddam had ties to terror, and his his blood money to Palestinian familes of suicide bombers in Israel.

Zarqawi turned into a major terrorist leader after the US invasion. And when you go after Saddam for supporting Palestinian bombers (or their families) then what about Iran, Syria and Saudi-Arabia?

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 32): Our involvement with Saddam back then is moot. We were fighting the Iranians indirectly then, and did what we thought was necessary. While you're at it, why not hold it against us that collaborated with the Russians during WW2?

"Thought was necessary" says it best...  
As I said before - WWII is a totally different story. The Nazis were a threat to the whole world, don't compare that to Iraq or Iran.

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 42): Because that's gives them the right to criticise. The Iraqi's didn't have that right, they do now.

Yeah, they have rights on the paper but get blown up in daily routine, no matter where they are. What an achievement.  

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 45): I'm not clinging to any one theory, but you can't say "oh that never happened, we would've caught that with our satellites" because nobody knows what happened.

So "when nobody knows what happened" - why invade a country then?

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 45): There are plenty of hidden ways to move thing out of Iraq. They have a large border with Syria, and Saddam had secret escape tunnel that nobdy knew about until we invaded.

Sure, the invasion of Syria will then be justified by the "observation" of imported Iraqi WMDs in the country...


Regards
Udo