1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured Veterans frustrated by presidential debate on Iraq war

Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by Crabtownboy, May 23, 2015.

  1. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    22,016
    Likes Received:
    487
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I know there's some crazy stuff on this thread, but you can't write off the build up to that war. Which included, as you AND poncho know, a half million Iraqi women & children starved to death, before Bush even got there.

    It going to be hard to pick a good guy in this. Denis Kucinich & Ron Paul are the only two I can think of.
     
  2. carpro

    carpro Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    25,823
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Faith:
    Baptist
    They're even more unhappy with a democrat administration that squandered their efforts.

    For political purposes only.



    Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...n-rep-hunter-says-obama-squand/#ixzz3bBM52t2X
     
    #22 carpro, May 25, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: May 25, 2015
  3. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    18,441
    Likes Received:
    259
    Faith:
    Baptist
  4. Use of Time

    Use of Time Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2014
    Messages:
    4,705
    Likes Received:
    368
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Your definition of stable differs greatly from my experiences.
     
  5. righteousdude2

    righteousdude2 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    11,154
    Likes Received:
    242
    Faith:
    Baptist
    And just what were your experiences? :flower:
     
  6. poncho

    poncho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    It didn't take long for this thread to end up in another lame episode of blame the other team. :rolleyes:

    History and the evidence shows both teams are responsible. I know that's hard for some here to comprehend but that's what it shows.
     
    #26 poncho, May 26, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: May 26, 2015
  7. kyredneck

    kyredneck Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    19,500
    Likes Received:
    2,880
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Expect a whole lot of it from 2016 elections. It's a GOOD thing. Americans NEED to think about what we've done.

    'Both teams' are thoroughly bought and paid for by AIPAC. Another topic needing healthy discussion.
     
  8. Sapper Woody

    Sapper Woody Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,314
    Likes Received:
    175
    I am a conservative. I am registered as a Republican, because I didn't want to be associated with the democrats when I turned 18, and I've just never changed it. But I consider myself an independent.

    I was in Tikrit, Iraq from January 2009 - December 2009. Got there just after New Years', and made it home just in time for Christmas. As some of you know, I am an Engineer. 12B, Combat Engineer, Explosives Expert. But, as some of you know, for most of my tour in Iraq, I was in Intelligence. (Long story short, there was an explosives' expert slot in S2, and with a GT score of 141, they wouldn't NOT let me be Intel.)

    I was there during an interesting time in the war's history. I was there after the surge, but before the drawdown, putting me there pretty much smack in the middle, during the stability operations.

    One thing I don't like about the headline, "Veterans frustrated by presidential debate on Iraq war", is that it's too much of a broad brush. There are going to be veterans who are frustrated by it, sure. And they found some. But the guys that I know, myself included, are more sympathetic to the current situation. The question is, "Knowing what we know now...", which is a valid question, but one that shouldn't be considered for debate. We didn't know then what we know now.

    Most veterans that I know weren't even in the military during the start of the Iraq war. I didn't join until 2008. Most of my officers didn't join until later than that, and all my joes joined later than that. The only ones currently serving who were in during that time are in command teams.

    I decided long ago (and some of you might remember me posting something along these lines in late 2011 or early 2012, while I was in Afghanistan) that I wouldn't debate the legitimacy of the wars. I decided that it was the previous era that got us into them, and it was my job to do the best I could with what I was handed - namely, a war on terror fought in two countries.

    I was told my mission was to keep our troops safe, and make Iraq/Afghanistan safer for the world. And in that mission, my company was successful. We were successful in hunting down High Value Targets (HVTs) and in neutralizing hundreds (literally, possibly into the thousands) of IEDs.

    Now, way back in early 2009, I release a document into the intelligence community that was received by Colonels and Generals. This was a document that I, then PFC Presswood, had compiled, detailing how if we left Iraq that chaos would ensue. Higher ups found it interesting. But who was I? I was a PFC, not even Intel by occupational specialty. Some listened, some didn't. Obviously, I wasn't important enough for my document to go all the way to the top.

    But, what happened? We left, and my predictions came true, almost to the letter. (To give credit where it is due, my section leader, then Captain Hallet, steered me into this direction, helping me decipher the intel that was coming in, but as it was my footwork, he allowed me to keep my name on it, instead of his. In hindsight, maybe if an Intel Captain had had his name on it, it might have been taken more seriously.)

    Point is, this was known. If a Private could figure it out, surely someone on a higher paygrade could see it. We should have pulled out way earlier, or not at all (strategically speaking - I'm not in favor of occupation and annex).

    So, now you know my viewpoint on it. Let's look at some claims:

    There was victory under Bush. We went in and did what we said we were going to do. Then we decided that we needed to stay there for stability operations. With that decision, we should have committed to a much longer term strategy. We achieved our initial objective, but we never achieved stability for Iraq. As long as we have a presence there as a deterrent, there would be some stability, but only as a dam holds back a raging river. Remove the dam, and the town gets flooded.

    BTW, your numbers mean nothing. We lost more men when there were greater numbers there, and when we were running more combat operations. It's simple, really. The more you push the enemy, and the more you expose yourself, the more you're going to lose. When you don't have to push as hard, and don't have to expose yourself as much, your losses will decline. It doesn't mean victory or loss.

    This is true to a point. It was stable only because we were there. It didn't matter if we were there a year, a decade, or a century, this chaos would have happened whenever we pulled out. And that stability was only relative. There was still rampant lawlessness and terrorism. We just held in check those who wished to do greater harm.

    For instance: while we were there, our interpreter came to us for help. His brother in law had told a police vehicle to slow down. The police responded by shooting him in the leg. Later that night, the police raided his house and took him to prison for being an insurgent. They had no evidence, and by all appearances were just angry that someone had challenged their authority. Now, there was nothing we could do for him. And so I don't know how he ended up. But this type of rampant lawlessness was common.

    Or, the Iraqi Police (IP) would come to us asking for food when we drove through a checkpoint. If we gave them food, they'd show us where an IED was. If not, you could bet there was going to be an explosion just a little further down, in plain sight of the IP checkpoint. It was common. And by common, I mean at least once per week, in our company only. So, you know it was happening multiple times per week outside our area.

    True and false at the same time. In the overall scheme of things, I'd say they're about the same. Our operating base was built on an old airfield. There was a soccer field where the Iraqi soccer team had played there in our base. After losing games, the soccer team was severely punished, made to kick concrete soccer balls, whipped on the soles of their feet, submerged in sewage, etc. Some details can be found here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...addams-son-tortured-defeated-footballers.html

    Painting Saddam as anything but a monster who needed to be deposed is looking at the past through rose colored glasses. That he needed deposed is not in question. But, the debate should be, were we the ones to do it? And that is the debate I don't involve myself in. It was history before I had any say.

    I do know that if our efforts to create a democracy in Iraq had succeeded, then the answer would have been a resounding YES!, we were the ones to do it. But, until and unless the Iraqi people decide they've had enough, there will always be either an evil dictator or terrorist group ready to take the place of the last.

    No, and for that I am forever grateful. I wasn't alive during the Vietnam era, but I've talked to veterans who've served during that time. To go from serving your country, to return to be spat upon, it'd be enough to drive any man insane. One thing I can honestly say, is that even amongst those who disagree with our being over there, I have not personally encountered someone who hated me for being military.

    A common, and I think appropriate show of gratitude today is, "Thank you for your willingness to serve." It doesn't condone the war, but it shows approval of the willingness of a young person to serve their country.

    It goes both ways. The democrats do the same thing with Obama. And whoever takes the next office, it will continue. And then the office after that.

    This is so true. Both Reps and Dems voted for the war, and pushed for regime change. That either side points the finger at the other is amazing to me. Again, I don't engage in the debate about whether it was justified or not. But to point the finger across the aisle is hypocrisy. Both sides called for it.

    Well, I believe I've had my say.
     
    #28 Sapper Woody, May 26, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: May 26, 2015
  9. kyredneck

    kyredneck Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    19,500
    Likes Received:
    2,880
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Thanks for sharing your eyewitness account SW. It's needed.
     
  10. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    22,050
    Likes Received:
    1,857
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The problem is that all this changed in 2008. IF we can say that AIPAC paid off Congress to get the war in Iraq, we can also say that the Jews changed their minds by 2008 and have been staunch supporters of the far left since that year. In fact, I don't think that American Jews object to Iran's having the atomic bomb to use against Israel. American Jews mostly agree with Obama on Israel. No doubt the Jews will remain staunch Democrats and help to elect Hillary in 2016--Hillary also to the left of Obama as she demonstrated in Libya, which was her doing.
     
  11. kyredneck

    kyredneck Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    19,500
    Likes Received:
    2,880
    Faith:
    Baptist
    ...and on that subject:

    28 For which of you, desiring to build a tower, doth not first sit down and count the cost, whether he have wherewith to complete it?
    29 Lest haply, when he hath laid a foundation, and is not able to finish, all that behold begin to mock him,
    30 saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish.
    31 Or what king, as he goeth to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and take counsel whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand? Lu 14

    Bush and the Zionist neocons et al tried to go to war 'on the cheap', period:

    "....however history judges Shinseki, its ruling should take into account his entire career: that of a man who dedicated his life to the Army and lost his foot to a land mine in Vietnam—and that of a general who told the truth about the Iraq war at great risk to himself.

    Before the invasion of Iraq, Shinseki, then chief of staff for the Army, was asked by the Senate Armed Services Committee how many American troops would be needed to secure a post-war peace. He responded that it would take “several hundred thousand soldiers.”
    His quiet words reverberated across Washington like a bitterly tolling bell.

    At the time, the Department of Defense, under the headstrong leadership of Donald Rumsfeld, was declaring that Iraq could be occupied with fewer than 100,000 troops. Shinseki’s estimate was a direct challenge to his complacent bosses.

    The complacent bosses fired back. Two days later, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz rebutted Shinseki: “Some of the higher-end predictions that we have been hearing recently, such as the notion that it will take several hundred thousand U.S. troops to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq, are wildly off the mark.” Donald Rumsfeld later echoed Wolfowitz.

    Asked about Shinseki’s projection, which was based on his experience with the peacekeeping mission in Bosnia, Wolfowitz said, “There has been none of the record in Iraq of ethnic militias fighting one another that produced so much bloodshed and permanent scars in Bosnia, along with a continuing requirement for large peacekeeping forces to separate those militias.”

    That quote, perhaps more than any other, illustrates with haunting clarity just how impenetrably ignorant the Iraq planners were.

    Despite the pressure, Shinseki didn’t back down, repeating his assessment to another congressional committee. The Pentagon, perhaps worried that its army chief had gone rogue, began tossing brickbats. One unnamed senior official told the Village Voice that Shinseki’s remarks were “bullshit from a Clintonite enamored of using the army for peacekeeping and not winning wars.”

    Of course, Iraq eventually came apart at the seams, cutting stark divisions between Sunnis and Shiites, and creating a vacuum that was filled by jihadists. The Iraq war would ultimately kill half a million people and the final bill could run as high as $6 trillion. After four years of violence, the Bush administration was forced to “surge” the number of troops in Iraq by more than 20,000.

    Shinseki was vindicated, and had been for years. In June 2003, Thomas White, the former Army secretary who was pushed out of his job after quarreling with Rumsfeld, said that Shinseki’s troop predictions had been correct. In 2006, General John Abizaid, then the commander of American forces in Iraq, told Congress the same thing

    There was no gloating on Shinseki’s part, no MSNBC appearances bashing Rumsfeld or vindictive press releases from a newfound consulting firm. Instead the general quietly dabbled in corporate work. He told friends, “I do not want to criticize while my soldiers are still bleeding and dying in Iraq.”.....

    ...at a time when Colin Powell was presenting evidence to the UN that he almost certainly knew to be flawed, and George Tenet was lying to the president that the intelligence case for Iraq was a “slam dunk,” Shinseki boldly told the truth.

    Had we listened, many more veterans might be alive today...."

    The time Eric Shinseki told the truth about Iraq
     
    #31 kyredneck, May 26, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: May 26, 2015
  12. kyredneck

    kyredneck Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    19,500
    Likes Received:
    2,880
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Nothing's changed, you've just articulated two daughters of The Harlot, two faces of the same entity, Zionism and Marxism.
     
    #32 kyredneck, May 26, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: May 26, 2015
  13. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    22,016
    Likes Received:
    487
    Faith:
    Baptist
    This is what I have always said. To pick sides politically over this war is one boneheaded fight. We would have still invaded Iraq if Gore had been elected. This was a complete bi-partisan set up. We saw the 2006 midterms, flip hard to the dems, yet they signed every war funding bill put in front of them.
     
  14. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    22,050
    Likes Received:
    1,857
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The purity of the paleo-cons never ceases to amaze soap makers. And then there is the notion that Jesus is a communist....
     
  15. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    22,016
    Likes Received:
    487
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Crabtownboy calls me names, too. And he also says stupid stuff about Jesus all the time.

    Do you have a true rebuttal, or you gonna wallow in the gutter ?
     
  16. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    22,050
    Likes Received:
    1,857
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I am waiting for the paleo-cons to show that they were always against the invasion of Iraq. You were not called a name unless you want to be recognized as a Libertarian instead of a paleo-con like the person you addressed.

    As for the remarks about Jesus, the subject did not originate with you, did it?

    OK?

    Wallow in the gutter??? More like laughing at you for claiming such purity.
     
    #36 church mouse guy, May 26, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: May 26, 2015
  17. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    18,441
    Likes Received:
    259
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You articulated what I said before we invaded Iraq. We would bring stability, of a sort, but as soon as we left the chaos would begin again and would continue until another dictator came into power. If we had stayed 100 years it still would have descended into chaos once we left.



    You are right on. I found it madding that people in authority, who must have know better, kept their mouths shut. I can only surmise they did so as the did not want their careers ruined by being the bearers of bad news.


    But we did not gain the victory of lasting peace and that was an impossible task as stated above. Yes, there were victories, but not the one we really wanted.

    Thanks for your reply and your good, rational thinking.
     
  18. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    22,016
    Likes Received:
    487
    Faith:
    Baptist
    So you did call me a name. And we don't gotta prove anything.

    It was included in a statement you made while quoting me.


    Laugh away.
     
  19. OldRegular

    OldRegular Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    64
    The so-called genius in the White House was determined to make Iraq the disaster it has become. Furthermore, as I have said since 2008 this person is determined to destroy this country and has been successful so far.
     
  20. OldRegular

    OldRegular Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    64
    Excellent comments!

    I supported the war in Iraq because I supported the men who were there. In retrospect it was a terrible mistake. But the actions of Obama have made the situation far worse and gave rise to ISIS. I don't believe Iraq will ever be put back together. The Shia will become a puppet for Iran or else become a part of Iran. The Kurds will become autonomous; they have been shafted too long by Bagdad. The sad part is that, although they are willing to fight ISIS they get no help from Bagdad or this president. As for the Sunni in Anbar, who knows?

    It is just possible that Joe Biden got one thing right in his lifetime of swilling at the public trough. He suggested partitioning Iraq years ago!

    I supported the initial incursion into Afghanistan because that is where the people responsible for 9/11 were, I believe the smart thing was to go in, do what was necessary, and get out!

    I also remember Viet Nam and the silent majority who stood by while the leftists slimed the troops. Didn't happen where I live but then there are not many leftists in my neck of the woods!
     
Loading...