Marines Sound Off About The Iraq War Options

[amy]

Yes Amy, there are a lot of good reasons to join the military.  I joined for all of the reasons you mentioned, and more.  I joined because I felt I owed it to the United States...to defend, to honor, to protect.  I joined to see more foreign places, to employ my previously acquired skills and see how they matched up against the US military expectations.  I joined so that I would have training in warfare tactics and procedures dispensed by the best military in the world.  I joined because this nation has saved so many people all over the world from oppression, and even when they did not succeed, they tried as hard as possible.  I joined because the Soviets were a threat, they were oppressing people, and I was damn sure going to be the person who stood up, trained and ready, against them if I was called to do so.  Wars of liberation were fine by me.  If it had to be done, then I was going to do it.  I could not go into combat, but I did what I could do best, and fully expected to go to combat if I was called.  It was my honor to enlist...to take that oath...and to uphold my end of the bargain as a citizen.  It did not matter to me if the war was something I agreed with, or disagreed with, it mattered that it was "one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all"...and if this government of ELECTED representatives voted to go to war, and if the commander in chief sent the country to war...it never occured to me that it was only "some" wars, or only if "some" presidents sent me there, it only mattered to me that I went when called.

Okay Heart, this nation needs people like you who have an unquestioning loyalty to all military engagements. But this nation also needs people who will question and examine the reasons we go to war to protect the integrity of our "one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all".. I'm not certain, Heart, that those words imply we are to invade other nations to liberate its people. I believe those words mean that all who are citizens of the U.S. are, one nation, under God, a nation that seeks to provide liberty and justice for all its citizens. I do not believe that these words in any way suggest that this nation should expand its liberties to other peoples by way of pre-emptive military invasion.

[Marine]

Thats why our founding fathers wrote a citizens militia into the constitution.

But Ace, have you forgotten? You have innumerable posts in the 2nd Amendment thread advocating stripping the citizen militia of it's guns.

[real_democrat]

I have found this to be true from all sources involved...from Michael Moore, to Alexander Cockburn, to Counter-Terrorism studies and to Iraqis themselves.  Let me know if you need more proof and I will get it from whatever brand of the political spectrum you like.  I can even provide you with a link to the recruitment tapes for foreign jihadis to go to Iraq, and their taped pre-martyrdom messages.
********************************************************
May 12, 2005
Osman said: “The foreign Islamists and the ex-Ba’athists and regime people have nothing in common ideo-logically, but tactically they both want to disrupt and destroy the new situation in Iraq, and they are prepared to ally to that end.’’

One Iraqi intelligence officer said the failure to secure Iraq’s borders had allowed many young men from Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Tunisia, Iran and Egypt, to come to Iraq to “achieve martyrdom’’.

“Cooperation between these foreign militants and the domestic insurgency, however, is also in danger of turning the homegrown resistance into a breeding ground for a major jihadi movement.’’

He said the testimony of scores of non-Iraqi Arabs who had been arrested in Iraq pointed to the network of suicide bombers coming mostly from Syria, and he claimed that the Syrian secret service was involved in their training.

Syria has come under repeated pressure from the US to shore up the gaping holes along its porous border with Iraq, but vehemently denies any involvement in the preparation of suicide bombers. A recent US offensive near the Iraqi-Syrian border was designed to disrupt the flow of fighters into the country.

http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?artic..._international/
***********************************************************
Report: Mess-hall suicide bomber was Saudi
Arab newspaper says medical student killed 22 people The Associated Press
Updated: 7:51 p.m. ET Jan. 3, 2005CAIRO, Egypt - The suicide bomber who killed 22 people when he blew himself up in a U.S. mess hall in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul was a Saudi medical student, an Arab newspaper reported Monday.

The Saudi-owned newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat identified him as 20-year-old Ahmed Said Ahmed al-Ghamdi, citing unnamed friends of the man’s father. The friends said members of an Iraqi resistance group contacted al-Ghamdi’s father to tell him his son was the suicide bomber who carried out the Dec. 21 attack, the deadliest on an American installation in Iraq.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6782944/
***********************************************
March 1, 2005:
The Islamic militant part of the resistance appears to have an endless supply of suicide bombers - most of them non-Iraqi - willing to die while staging attacks. But that also means an extensive network run by Iraqis capable of providing intelligence, vehicles, explosives and the means to detonate them.

A source in Baghdad said: "Sabawi was in Hasakah. The Kurds captured him and handed him to Iraqi Kurds in the north". They were probably members of the Kurdistan Democratic Party which has many supporters among Syrian Kurds.
http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-enders010305.htm 

June 1, 2005 -- WASHINGTON - More than 40 percent of the suicide bombers dispatched by al- Zarqawi to attack Iraqis and U.S. troops hailed from Saudi Arabia, according to a new study. Only 9 percent of the bombers were Iraqis, said the report by the SITE Institute, a counterterror group.

The SITE Institue recently discovered a "Martyrs' List" that [ terror leader Abu Musab] Zarqawi posted on a Web site to commemorate the fanatics who were recruited as foot soldiers in the group's deadly campaign of car bombings and other attacks to undermine Iraq's transition to democracy. An analysis of 107 bombers whose names and backgrounds Zarqawi's group published revealed that 45 of the dead extremists, or 42 percent, came from Saudi Arabia, said Rita Katz, SITE director.

Many other bombers were Syrian, Kuwaiti, Palestinian, Afghani, Libyan and even French, while only 10 of the attackers, or 9 percent, were Iraqi-born.

"What we see here is there are a lot of people who appear to be quite well educated leaving universities, good jobs and families to go to Iraq to fight the jihad," Katz said.
reprinted here http://wizbangblog.com/archives/006073.php
********************************************
Is it a coincidence that the majority of suicide killers in Iraq are non-Iraqi Arabs, while we are yet to hear of a non-Palestinian suicide killer in Palestine? Perhaps we will hear of new Fatwa that considers Iraqis who seek to build their country and democracy a greater threat to the future of the Arab Umma (nation) than the Israeli occupiers! Else, how could this amazing ability to stop the infiltration of Arab suicide killers from the neighboring countries into Palestine could be justified, while they easily flow into Mesopotamia? What is the secret to the enthusiasm to kill Iraqis? Do they want to liberate Palestine by killing Iraqis; just as Saddam invaded and occupied Kuwait with the pretext of liberating Palestine?

The message behind the assassination of Samir Kassir to the Lebanese and Syrians is the same message the killers in Iraq send to the Iraqis and Arabs: do not dream of freedom, it could kill you… Would Samir and Hariri be assassinated had it not been for Lebanon to be on the verge of realizing its dream? Would the suicide-bombers flood into Iraq had it not been on the verge of realizing that same dream?

Al-Hayat, June 6,  2005
retrieved at: http://www.tharwaproject.com/English/index...d=2596&Itemid=1
*********************************************************
Monday, February 28, 2005
By Donna Abu-Nasr
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — A few weeks after his son Ahmed disappeared, Abdullah al-Shayea got a call from an Iraqi official saying the 19-year-old was an intended suicide bomber who barely survived blowing up a fuel tanker in a deadly Christmas Day attack in Baghdad.

Ahmed is one of many Saudi youths — estimates run from the low hundreds to as many as 2,500 — who have slipped into Iraq in the past two years, often traveling through Syria to join other Arab and Muslim recruits eager to translate a fiercely anti-U.S., Al Qaeda-inspired ideology into strikes against Americans and their Western and Iraqi allies.

"I was stunned," said al-Shayea of his son's role in the explosion, which killed at least nine people just hours after Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld (search) made a surprise visit to the Iraqi capital. "I had no clue he was even thinking of going there."

Some go because an aggressive anti-terror campaign in the kingdom has made it harder for them to operate in Saudi Arabia, others because they don't think it's right to risk killing Saudis and Muslims while attacking Western targets in their own country. But all of them believe their mission is a jihad (search), or holy war, that a true Muslim should not forsake.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?id=1550
****************************************************

Arab volunteers killed in Iraq: an Analysis By Reuven Paz(PRISM Series of Global Jihad, No. 1/3 – March 2005) Introduction:
Since the end of the major phase of the war in Iraq and the collapse of the former Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein in May 2003, Iraq—like Afghanistan in the 1980s, and Bosnia and Chechnya in the 1990s—has turned into a magnet for Jihadi volunteers. Unlike the case of Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Chechnya, the vast majority of the volunteers that streamed into Iraq are Arabs, while only few fighters stem from non-Arab Muslim countries or emigrant communities in the West. One possible reason for the predominantly Arab composition of Jihadists in Iraq may be the fact that Iraq is an Arab country; occupied by the “Crusaders,” thus stimulating heightened degree of Arab solidarity among Arab supporters of Jihadi-Salafi individuals and groups. An additional reason may be the ease with which Saudis, Kuwaitis, Jordanians, or Syrians can cross the borders to Iraq. Furthermore, the Sunni Jihadi groups, and many other Islamists, even from within the Saudi and other Arab Islamic establishments, view the insurgency in Iraq as a legitimate Jihad not only against the Americans, but against the Shi`is as well.
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:RGkbD...non-iraqi&hl=en
*****************************************************************
SUMMER 2004
We have some statistics to help us sort through this morass. Approximately 300 individuals carrying non-Iraqi passports have been arrested in the past 14 months, according to senior U.S. military sources. The first wave of these “foreign fighters” (between April and October 2003), was mainly composed of Arab volunteers from neighboring countries, most of them Palestinian refugees enlisted to enter the struggle either by the remnants of the Iraqi mukhabarat or any number of terrorist organizations before and during the war in refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.

The second wave, which seems to be growing in size, is composed mostly of Islamic militants recruited throughout Europe and the Middle East and then sent to Iraq through the same elaborate human pipeline used by the mujaheddin to send volunteers to the Balkans, Chechnya and Afghanistan in the 1990s. On November 19, 2003, the New York Times quoted American government sources as estimating the “foreign fighters phenomenon” to number between 1,000 and 3,000 individuals. A more reasonable approximation currently being floated by U.S. and British intelligence analysts puts the overall force at between 300 and 500 “foreign volunteers”, most of them Islamic militants, and spread in small cells of between five and eight operatives. This fits the modus operandi of Al-Qaeda and its affiliates.
http://www.inthenationalinterest.com/Artic...sue25Debat.html
*******************************************************************

I don't suppose you have noticed, that all of these people, like the weapons of mass destruction , were not present or operating in Iraq before we invaded. The weapons were never there, so they could never do us any harm, but now terrorists are, and they are doing our troops great harm. We create a breeding ground for terrorists, in the course of fighting a war based on a pack of lies, and you call this a mission worth completing.

Leave Iraq now, it only gets worse.


BTW, you did miss one source of resistance, but the US military did not.

http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/RegionNF...rticleID=168406

senior US military chief has admitted "good, honest" Iraqis are fighting American forces.

Major General Joseph Taluto said he could understand why some ordinary people would take up arms against the US military because "they're offended by our presence".

In an interview with Gulf News, he said: "If a good, honest person feels having all these Humvees driving on the road, having us moving people out of the way, having us patrol the streets, having car bombs going off, you can understand how they would want to fight us."

He said: "There is a sense of a good resistance, or an accepted resistance. They say 'okay, if you shoot a coalition soldier, that's okay, it's not a bad thing but you shouldn't kill other Iraqis.'"

[heart]

I don't suppose you have noticed, that all of these people, like the weapons of mass destruction , were not present or operating in Iraq before we invaded. The weapons were never there, so they could never do us any harm, but now terrorists are, and they are doing our troops great harm. We create a breeding ground for terrorists, in the course of fighting a war based on a pack of lies, and you call this a mission worth completing.

Leave Iraq now, it only gets worse.
BTW, you did miss one source of resistance, but the US military did not.

http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/RegionNF...rticleID=168406

Now terrorists are...yes...true! And if we leave Iraq, they will soon be here and everyplace else Americans travel.

If the justification for WWI was the sinking of Lusitania. There were a variety of reasons, but that was what the slogan that galvanized the nation.

Remember the Maine...I'm sure the Puerto Rican's do, as they have voted in many a referendum that they wish to stay in the United States. However, the Maine was an accident therefore, it didn't turn out that we had good intel there either.

It's pretty well known that FDR knew the Japanese were going to attack us, and he waited, but the two years before that he revved up the US military and planned for war, in the absense of any attack. In 1938, Roosevelt was giving speeches that indicated we were going to war. Pearl Harbor was just the slogan, the rallying cry, that galvanized the nation.

In Korea...thank god for US forces, or the South Koreans would have an even bigger gulag. That was purely a war of interests wasn't it? Idealogy yes, but economic interests most definately.

I'm so shocked that you are so terribly concerned about international law, yet you are perfectly willing to break international law when it suits you (as leaving Iraq without an army and functioning government is most definately in violation of international law). International law says we must complete the mission, even if nothing else sways your opinion, that should hold stock with you, since you care about it so deeply.

And how could I miss your one assertion that there are Iraqis fighting too. I have no doubt that is true, particularly the ex Ba'athists who want to go back to running Iraq the same way Saddam did...Ba'athists and their clans on the top of the food chain and death to anyone else. But, the foreign fighters are the bulk of the suicide bombers...the directions and money are coming from Syria where the Ba'athists fled, and the lowly grunt on the street in Iraq is getting paid $200 to shoot an RPG, or to act as a spotter, but the suiciders that are killing so many, they are *mostly* foreign jihadists, and most of the Iraqis are too scared of them to turn them in, but that too is changing.

[amy]

[quote=heart,Jun 18 2005, 12:59 AM]
Now terrorists are...yes...true! And if we leave Iraq, they will soon be here and everyplace else Americans travel.

So Bush invaded Iraq to draw terrorists there (like flies to honey) so that they can be contained within the borders of Iraq and systematically eliminated by the U.S. military? Okay, so this means that we will be Iraq how long? I mean how long will it take to eliminate all the terrorists that would be a threat to the U.S.? Years, decades, centuries? No attack on the U.S. since 9/11 because they're all fighting or planning on fighting in Iraq? Okay. Did Bush mention any of this in his formal speeches to the American public, the Congress or the UN? Now when he states that invading Iraq is helping the war on terrorism, I'll understand his meaning. No wonder not much emphasis has been placed on homeland security. The war in Iraq IS our homeland security. Geez, how naive could I have been to think that Iraq was about WMD and homeland security was mostly about dozens of ways to better secure our country here in North America. Silly, silly me.

[big sky brad]

I didn't have any time to post here today.

Today Lance Cpl. Dustin V. Birch of St. Anthony was laid to rest.

He was only in Iraq for 3 months before he was killed.

[piccadilly]

It wasn't the quote I had a problem with....it's the accusation that failure to "dissent", does not equal lack of patriotism.  This is what you implied, whether you meant to or not, when you offered this comment in your ire:

"If "Dissent is the highest form of Patriotism", it shouldn't be too hard for you to figure out it's lowest form."

Clearly, you were not thinking when you wrote that, for it does imply that the converse of dissent is "lowest form of patriotism" and if that's not what you meant to say, then I just chalk it up to anger.  I realize that dissent is difficult, but I also realize that dissent from "prevailing opinion" is also difficult.

Heart,

At least you come back for some clarification which I am happy to oblige to.

Even if Tom Paine's quote went unrecognized, and "dissent" appears center to what the quote means, by asking to figure out "the lowest form" refers to Patriotism, which came to my mind because I remembered this other thread still alive and kicking titled "PATRIOTISM means different things to different people."

All things being equal in respect to the different meanings of "patriotism", the paraphrase refered as "the lowest form of patriotism" takes on the various meanings of "low":

About the adjective "low", the American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language (Fourth Edition, 2000) says:

(http://www.bartleby.com/61/55/L0265500.html)


low:

ADJECTIVE

1a. Having little relative height; not high or tall.
1b. Rising only slightly above surrounding surfaces.
1c. Situated or placed below normal height: a low lighting fixture.
1d. Situated below the surrounding surfaces: water standing in low spots.
1e. Dead and buried.
1f. Cut to show the wearer's neck and chest; décolleté: a low neckline.

2. Near or at the horizon: The sun is low in the sky.

3. Close or closer to a reference point: was low in the offensive zone, near the goal.

4. Linguistics Produced with part or all of the tongue depressed, as a, pronounced (ä), in father. Used of vowels.

5. Of less than usual or average depth; shallow: The river is low.

6. Humble in status or character; lowly: of low birth.

7. Biology Of relatively simple structure in the scale of living organisms.

8. Unrefined; coarse: low humor.

9. Violating standards of morality or decency; base: a low stunt to pull. See synonyms at mean2.

10a. Lacking strength or vigor; weak.
10b. Lacking liveliness or good spirits; discouraged or dejected.

11a. Below average in degree, intensity, or amount: a low temperature.
11b. Below an average or a standard: low wages; a low level of communication.
11c. Ranked near the beginning of an ascending series or scale: a low number; a low grade of oil.
11d. Relating to or being latitudes nearest to the equator.
11e. Relatively small. Used of a cost, price, or other value: a low fee; a low income.

12. Having a pitch corresponding to a relatively small number of sound-wave cycles per second.

13. Not loud; soft: a low murmur.

14. Being near total depletion: My savings account is low.

15. Not adequately provided or equipped; short: low on supplies.

16. Depreciatory; disparaging: a low opinion of him.

17. Brought down or reduced in health or wealth: in a low state.

18. Of, relating to, or being the gear configuration or setting, as in an automotive transmission, that produces the least vehicular speed with respect to engine speed.


The literl interpretation of the "lowest form of Patriotism" implies a variable factor which itself determines the different forms patriotism can take.

Going back to how I defined "dissent", the expression of disagreement and the engagement in a political confrontation as commitment to that disagreement,,
those notions involved which may be subject to some variation qualifiable as high or low include:

- expression: a high/low qualification suggests how loud or how well/efficient/stylish such expression is formulated.

- disagreement: a high/low qualification suggests how big or small is a disagreement between two distinct opinions.

- engagement: a high/low qualification suggests the level of personal involvement, i.e. in terms of priority, relative to the dimension of the confrontation, generally described by the evaluation of all forces, agreeing and disagreeing, already engaged in the confrontation.

- commitment: a high/low qualification suggests here the level of determination to address the issue, relative to third partys' expectations

The possible combinations of these factors, which respective importance is more or less globally significant, and more or less significant relative to each other factor, represent the frameworks, in which may be distinguished behaviors in respect of the different forms of patriotism one may understand and adopt, and relative to various degrees of "dissent".

Those behaviors I had in mind when suggesting to "figure out the lowest forms of patriotism" were:

- mute obedience in spite of disagreeing,

- assertion of agreement to the prevailing opinion, either because one lacks an opinion, or by plain opportunist strategy.

[Frenchy]

Very detailed explaination of the statement, however...I have a low BS threshhold so I'll pass.

[piccadilly]

When Hague told Nixon "you have the military" what exactly do you think Nixon would have/ could have done with our military to improve his situation?

Just for the sake of precision, it's Alexander Haig. I mix up names also pretty often.

Haig was definitely a war hawk. (btw, is he still alive ?)

I've often heard the quote, but until now never looked up the reference.
Where was that quote first published ?

[Noonan]

An opinion, and then pick, pick, pick.

Now terrorists are...yes...true!  And if we leave Iraq, they will soon be here and everyplace else Americans travel.

Or would they move on (or is it back?) to Afghanistan, the easiest place to pick off American soldiers after Iraq? Certainly you wouldn't think that Iran and the other countries aiding those fighting our troops in Iraq would stop them from moving on to the next combat zone? Big if here: IF Iraq can stabilize itself as part of a timetable (as called for in House and Senate bills under debate now), I believe the terrorists will simply shift bases if they can no longer use Iraq to target us. If they can destabilze Iraq, then they have a new prewar Afghanistan thanks to our own doing.

BTW - big music festival here locally. Going on two years now and I still haven't met someone personally that has been in Iraq and wants to go back, unless their buddies are still there. With that exception, 100% have been perfectly happy to come home and get out, doing whatever it takes in their RR/IRR time to avoid going back.

If the justification for WWI was the sinking of Lusitania.  There were a variety of reasons, but that was what the slogan that galvanized the nation. 

I think you're correct, but confusing. The final 'cause' of American entry into the war was the Zimmerman Telegram on top of unrestricted submarine warfare (in response to the British blockade of Germany). This telegram was intercepted (in violation of international law) aand decoded by the British and then held for over a year until it would have the most devastating impact upon the American people. Sure, "Remember the Lusitania" was used quite effectively on posters, but there were other slogans used. I'd argue that the Lusitania (in 1917) was used just as 9/11 was used to push Americans towards war with Iraq, only the Lustania really did have something to do with the war, it was one small step towards war, but I think 'justification' is misused in your post.

Remember the Maine...I'm sure the Puerto Rican's do, as they have voted in many a referendum that they wish to stay in the United States.  However, the Maine was an accident therefore, it didn't turn out that we had good intel there either.

Only because there is a large minority of the population that want either independance, or to become the 51st state. I'm to tired to get into the role of the press and industrial forces to push us to war, the Maine was a convenience, a 'lucky break' that allowed us to be pushed into a imperialistic war that the American people wanted. One that would free an oppressed people that had been fighting for their independance, and asked for our help. Sure there were some among the Kurds that wanted our help, but we sure pushed a lot of dissidents away after Daddy Bush called on the Iraqis to rise up against Saddam, and then watched as they were slaughtered. This quagmire could have been done years ago with American assistance, rather than an illegal American occupation.

It's pretty well known that FDR knew the Japanese were going to attack us, and he waited, but the two years before that he revved up the US military and planned for war, in the absense of any attack.  In 1938, Roosevelt was giving speeches that indicated we were going to war.  Pearl Harbor was just the slogan, the rallying cry, that galvanized the nation.

He knew war was imminent. He made secret (and illegal) plans with Churchill before Pearl Harbor to get ready for it, and then didn't inform many of his advisors what he had done. It could be argued that we helped bring on the war through the embargo of raw materials to Japan, but we cannot neglect the militarism within Japan that saw us as a threat to their desire for empire. Their top strategists did not feel they could win a war with us, but that we could be humbled and that they could then be forced to bargain with them, as the Russians had 40 years before. The resolution of that war left a strong feeling of resentment towards us as well (see my above nitpick for relevance to today.) I guess I would need to see what you are refering to with regards to 1938. FDR was a hawk in a party of doves, and he knew it. His party and the American people didn't want war. Google Ludlow Amendment and Nye Committee to see what Americans thought about war. The Panay Incident could well have given us reason to go to war with Japan (as had the Maine), but Americans wanted to know why our ships were in a war zone rather than how we were going to exact revenge for American blood.

In Korea...thank god for US forces, or the South Koreans would have an even bigger gulag.  That was purely a war of interests wasn't it?  Idealogy yes, but economic interests most definately.

I don't see what economic interest we had in saving South Korea at all.

This post has been edited by Noonan: Jun 18 2005, 02:59 AM

[piccadilly]

I'm so shocked that you are so terribly concerned about international law, yet you are perfectly willing to break international law when it suits you (as leaving Iraq without an army and functioning government is most definately in violation of international law).  International law says we must complete the mission, even if nothing else sways your opinion, that should hold stock with you, since you care about it so deeply.

Isn't it just plainly convenient to be concerned about the lesser violation of our collection ?

The world saw the establishment of most nations and states around today before a few thousand colonials, who found in Locke's "natural rights and natural law" a rhethoric to contest the established constitutional law, decided to rebel against the governing constituency, the British Empire, the freest society the world ever saw at that time.
...

but the suiciders that are killing so many, they are *mostly* foreign jihadists, and most of the Iraqis are too scared of them to turn them in, but that too is changing.

Isn't it so convenient that most combattants in iraq are not iraqis ? It keeps US troops from killing iraqis, then iraqis don't have any reason to become angry against the US, right ?

[flydangler]

No fireworks here! Methinks this NPR program, "Analysis: How soldiers injured in Iraq and Afghanistan are dealing with recovery" broadcast December 20, 2004 on TALK OF THE NATION covers a lotta ground. Starts with the story of a young Marine Lance Corporal, then goes on to discuss the medical care system of the military and VA, both positive and negative. I'd hope folks'll find it interesting, eh?

[TheRestofUs]

My two cents. We should withdraw from Iraq. We should never have gone in there in the first place. We should cut the gravy train for Halliburton, Bechtel, and all foreign contractors. Give the rebuilding jobs to the Iraqis, and pay them.

This is their country not ours. We were lied to as to the reason to invade another country. We did so, Saddam is gone from power. Give him to the Iraqis. We should have a timetable for withdrawl for ALL to see, including the terrorists, and Iraqi insurgency. If they want to "wait us out", fine. By that time those Iraqis with paying jobs in the military, and industry will have a stake in maintaining the status quo.

Our guys have done enough for Iraq. Bring em' home to their families and a reasonable life. Honor their service and take care of their injuries. We owe them that.

Impeach Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Rumsfeld for high crimes. Throw them out of office.

[Marine]

I don't suppose you have noticed, that all of these people, like the weapons of mass destruction , were not present or operating in Iraq before we invaded. The weapons were never there,

I suppose about 30,000 Iranian gas victims and a few Kurdish villages might dispute that statement. You would get an argument from about double that number but they are dead (from the WMD that were never there).

This post has been edited by Marine: Jun 18 2005, 08:07 PM

[Marine]

I don't see what economic interest we had in saving South Korea at all.

As far as economic interests, about the same as Kosovo. Humanatarian issues sometimes trump the buck.

[Marine]

U.S. Marine Corps
Cpl. Joel R. Dominguez

Yuma, Arizona Native Receives Purple Heart

By U.S. Marine Corps Sgt. Enrique S. Diaz
compiled by Cpl. Joel A. Chaverri
CAMP TAQADDUM, Iraq — The Purple Heart is widely recognized as one of the most prestigious metals to be earned while serving in the U.S. military.
The honor of receiving this award was granted Dec. 1 to Yuma, Ariz., native Cpl. Joel R. Dominguez, radio operator, Detachment A, Marine Wing Communication Squadron 48, Marine Aircraft Control Group 38, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, for an injury received during a rocket attack on his compound.

Standing duty near the flight line the night of Sept. 23, Dominguez's compound suddenly began receiving indirect fire.

The first barrage was over within a few minutes and each section started to take accountability, said the 24-year-old.

Being in charge of one of the sections, Dominguez made his way to the guard shack to make sure everyone was all right.

Almost immediately after stepping away from the guard shack, a second barrage began raining in, closer with every explosion, said Dominguez.

"It was just a blur. Time stopped for a couple minutes," U.S. Marine Corps Cpl. Dominguez recounted. "The way (the rockets) were coming in; the next one was guaranteed to hit where I was running."

With time against him, Dominguez tried to run for cover, but not before a rocket landed about 30 feet away; close enough to kill.

"I was pretty much sure that he was already dead," said Sgt. Michael Tsytsurin, a 32-year-old Los Angeles native who was also standing post.

Watching helplessly as the rocket exploded so close to Dominguez, Tsytsuirn described the event as being surreal and like something out of a war movie when "someone is running and then there is this big ball of light."

The concussion from the rocket was intense enough to knock the unsuspecting Dominguez to the ground.


"U.S. Marine Corps Cpl. Joel R. Dominguez, radio operator, Detachment A, Marine Wing Communication Squadron 48, Marine Aircraft Control Group 38, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, displays the Purple Heart he received during a ceremony Dec.1 for injuries suffered from a rocket attack. The 24-year-old from Yuma, Ariz., was wounded while standing guard duty, Sep. 23, on Camp Taqaddum when his post began receiving indirect fire. Photo by U.S. Marine Corps Sgt. Enrique S. Diaz

"It was just a blur. Time stopped for a couple minutes," Dominguez recounted. "The way (the rockets) were coming in; the next one was guaranteed to hit where I was running."

Fortunately, the "next one" never came, and Dominguez quickly recovered from the blast and ran back to his barracks. Unsure of what just happened, he had his Marines check him over.

"I felt a slight sting in my arm," Dominguez said. "With all the adrenaline, I couldn't tell if I was hit."

A shard from the rocket had pierced deep into his left triceps, but luckily, he would be okay.

Dominguez showed no emotion as he received the Purple Heart from his squadron commander (forward), Maj. Roswell V. Dixon. He simply expressed how he didn't feel the award was deserved.

The Marines on the daily convoys and on the front lines are the ones who truly deserve to be recognized, he said.

"It is gratifying to give the Purple Heart to a Marine that is standing in front of me," noted Dixon, "not his next of kin.

[heart]

Okay Heart, this nation needs people like you who have an unquestioning loyalty to  all military  engagements. But this nation also needs people who will question and  examine the reasons we go to war to protect the integrity of our "one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all".. I'm not certain, Heart, that those words imply we are to invade other nations to liberate its people. I believe those words  mean that all who are citizens of the U.S. are, one nation, under God, a nation that seeks to provide liberty and justice for all its citizens. I do not believe that these words in any way suggest that this nation should expand its liberties to other peoples by way of pre-emptive military invasion.

Amy,

I am not saying that I have unquestioning loyalty...I am saying that, at the time, when I was in the military, I simply wanted to serve the United States. I trusted democracy to work out the details of wars, elections and such.

I consider your right to engage in that public debate about the war as the reason I was prepared to fight for this country; likewise, I consider my right to be in favor of this war, the reason I was prepared to fight for this country. One side should not be labeled as 'warmongers', "republicans, or "black sheep" although that' last one is kinda cute.

The quesiton of liberty for all: It's a discussion I would love to have with you Amy. I think if you go to the online cafe, there is a thread there called Port Huron 43 years ago...and in the Port Huron statement, from the SDS members, they outline what it means to be a "Liberal"...and this is part of the statement, the idea that all human beings everywhere are entitled to this freedom. Then the war came along, and the Liberal values ran into irreconcilable differences in two key planks of the statement. Is it more liberal to fight for freedom for the oppressed everywhere? Or is it Liberal to oppose war, even if that means others live in bondage and oppression. These are issues never resolved in Liberal thought....at least not that I can see...and so I have chosen what I think is more important to me as best I can.

[heart]

Isn't it just plainly convenient to be concerned about the lesser violation of our collection ?

Since I am not in favor of something called "international law" it's not ME that harps on this issue, but if people are going to suggest we must abide by international law (not including treaties here, just the concept okay?) then I think they should be consistent.


Isn't it so convenient that most combattants in iraq are not iraqis ? It keeps US troops from killing iraqis, then iraqis don't have any reason to become angry against the US, right ?

That's an interesting observation...but it was not the point raised.  The point was "how do we know these are foreign suicide bombers".  I answered your question with proof from a variety of sources.

I take your point though, and I would say that many Iraqis have reason to be mad at the US, but they have a greater reason to be mad at the Ba'athists and the Jihadists who think nothing of blowing up mosques, children and crowds of Iraqis to get the country back in Ba'athist hands, only now they OWE the Jihadists too

[Marine]

Father, son plan for special day together in Iraq
Submitted by: II Marine Expeditionary Force (FWD)
Story Identification #: 200561741916
Story by Staff Sgt. Ronna M. Weyland



CAMP FALLUJAH, Iraq (June 17, 2005) -- This Father’s Day will be spent in a foreign country, but the day will still be celebrated together for one Powder Springs, Ga., family.

“I have a couple of cigars that were a gift to me that we are going to smoke on Father’s Day or the first chance we get,” said Larry Murray, civilian contractor, G-6, II Marine Expeditionary Force (FWD).

Murray, who arrived in Iraq June 1, was fortunate enough to be stationed on the same base as his son, Private Nicholas R. Murray, 20, assault amphibious vehicle crewman, 2nd Platoon, Bravo Company, 2nd Assault Amphibian Battalion, 2nd Marine Division.

Nicholas said he knew his father might be coming to Iraq before he deployed himself in March.

“There was talk about it, but nothing was for certain,” said Nicholas. “I was pretty excited when I found out I would have my father out here at the same time. That doesn’t happen for too many people.”

Larry said it was a unique opportunity to be able to come to Iraq; one he couldn’t pass up. He had learned about a job available working for DataPath in satellite communications supporting II MEF (FWD).

“I got a leave of absence from work and my guard unit, to take this opportunity,” he said.

Larry said he is no stranger to deployments and was deployed in support of Operation Bright Star during the terrorist attacks Sept. 11, 2001. He is a reservist with 283rd Combat Communication Squadron, Georgia Air National Guard at Dobbins Air Reserve Base, in Marietta, Ga.

He said despite being in the National Guard, he hasn’t had the opportunity to deploy in support of Operations Enduring Freedom or Iraqi Freedom.

“It gives me a chance to feel like I have done something for the cause,” he said about working in Iraq.

Despite Nicholas’ high operational tempo requiring him to go outside the wire often, both father and son hope to be able to spend some time playing cards and just hanging out getting to know each other on a different level.

“It is a good chance for us to bond and get to know each other, not to sound to cliché,” said Nicholas about spending time with his father. “I got to take him out on a ride in one of the tracks too and that was fun.”

Both agree they believe in what they are doing in Iraq.

“I didn’t know exactly what to expect when I first got here since it was my first deployment,” said Nicholas. “I think we are doing a lot of good out here. I am lucky to be working with a good group of guys who know what they are doing and learning from some who have been here before.”

Nicholas said he has also learned to appreciate things a lot more and not to take life for granted. His father agreed.

“I think learning to appreciate life is a lesson people don’t usually learn until later in life,” Larry said. “In a way it is a gift for these young people to learn this early on in life.”

Back home in Powder Springs, Deborah Murray is proud of both her husband and son.

“I am so proud of both of them. The feeling is too big for words,” she wrote in an e-mail. “When I found out about Larry going over there I was happy. I am glad they are together and that Nick has someone to look after him. I am greatly comforted by that. Most people don't understand, they say it's terrible that both my husband and son are over there, and I tell them, no, that's right where Larry needs to be right now.”

Deborah had her own message to pass to her husband, “Happy Father’s Day Larry...you are truly the best dad and as far as I'm concerned, no one else even comes close. I love you and am very proud of both of you.”

EDITOR’S NOTE
Please feel free to publish this story or any of the accompanying photos. If used, please give credit to the writer/photographer, and contact us at: cepaowo@cemnf-wiraq.usmc.mil so we can update our records.

[TheRestofUs]

Amy,

I am not saying that I have unquestioning loyalty...I am saying that, at the time, when I was in the military, I simply wanted to serve the United States.  I trusted democracy to work out the details of wars, elections and such.

I consider your right to engage in that public debate about the war as the reason I was prepared to fight for this country; likewise, I consider my right to be in favor of this war, the reason I was prepared to fight for this country.  One side should not be labeled as 'warmongers', "republicans, or "black sheep" although that' last one is kinda cute.

The quesiton of liberty for all: It's a discussion I would love to have with you Amy.  I think if you go to the online cafe, there is a thread there called Port Huron 43 years ago...and in the Port Huron statement, from the SDS members, they outline what it means to be a "Liberal"...and this is part of the statement, the idea that all human beings everywhere are entitled to this freedom.  Then the war came along, and the Liberal values ran into irreconcilable differences in two key planks of the statement.  Is it more liberal to fight for freedom for the oppressed everywhere?  Or is it Liberal to oppose war, even if that means others live in bondage and oppression.  These are issues never resolved in Liberal thought....at least not that I can see...and so I have chosen what I think is more important to me as best I can.

Heart. As Amy says you have evey right to your opinion. I understand where your coming from (I think). I am a Liberal. I was For the Second World War, as we were attacked and Both Totalitarian regiemes were hell bent on conquest. I was against the Vietnam War because it was wrong to help the French to maintain their colony. When it became about Communism, I was still against it because we caused that to happen by denying Ho Che Min the help he asked of us to tell the French to leave. It became a Civil War of largely our own making (see MacNamaras "Fog of War").

I too would like to see people "liberated" from oppression around the world, but it is not our job! We can spread liberating movements and philosophies through better means than war. IMO, war is only justified in self defense. The only other exception in MY mind is when Genocide is occuring. But then it is our responsibility to get the vast Majority of the civilisied world to join us.

The invasions of Bosnia, and Kosovo were an example of this handled properly and justly. I am conflicted on Gulf War I, but at least Bush41 did it properly with a wide coilition. And Saddam was invading another country, though that demarcation was drawn up on a napkin by the Brits.

As evil and murderous as Saddam was, it was always up to the Iraqi people to overthrow him, not us. Especially after we armed him to attack Iran. If he was a threat, it was to them not us. If our reason for invasion was that he was genocidal against the Kurds and Shia so we should take him out were true, then we would have done so in the late 80's or during GW1 when it was occuring. This was BS as a reason, since we helped him target the Kurds.

That said, I don't want you to think that I'm "soft" on tyrants. I despise them wherever they are. But the people under tyrants have the responsibility to throw them off. We did it when we were only thirteen piddly colonies. Sure we had some help, but the French didn't invade and occupy fledgeling America to "Liberate" us. We beat the British, we threw them out.

Likewise the North Koreans and the Iranians, and all other oppressed people. THEY must rise up and win their own freedom. It MUST come from within the soul of the people themselves so that it is their victory. They have to win their own freedom for it to be worth anything to them.

So this is where we differ, on the MEANS to achieve Liberty. Not on the GOAL.