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.
Veterans frustrated by presidential debate on Iraq war
Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by Crabtownboy, May 23, 2015.
Page 2 of 4
-
Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>Site Supporter
-
For political purposes only.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...n-rep-hunter-says-obama-squand/#ixzz3bBM52t2X -
Crabtownboy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
The US lost 314 soldiers in 2008. Under Obama the number of soldiers lost was:
2007 904
2008 314 *More than the grand total under Obama.
2009 149
2010 60
2011 54
2012 until now 6
http://icasualties.org/iraq/ByYear.aspx
There was no victory under Bush. -
Use of Time Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
righteousdude2 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
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. -
-
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well, I believe I've had my say. -
Thanks for sharing your eyewitness account SW. It's needed.
-
church mouse guy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
...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 -
-
Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>Site Supporter
-
church mouse guy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>Site Supporter
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 ? -
church mouse guy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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. -
Crabtownboy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Thanks for your reply and your good, rational thinking. -
Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>Site Supporter
-
-
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!
Page 2 of 4