I open this thread for discussion about who the Republican’s (supportive of Bush) define as our enemy against America and it’s armed forces.

I assume that you claim that the Jihadists became our enemy on 9/11/01... is that correct? If so, then who are the top Jihadists leaders that you see as our enemy... just for the record.

I nominate Osama bin Laden! IMO the Jihadist are our enemy. We are fighting in the wrong country if we really want to win. Also it might help a bit if we were not so addicted to oil.

Well ghost, the jihadist leadership doesn't really matter. If Ossama Bin Laden were killed this afternoon, in five minutes someone would step up to take his place.

What matters is if they have a base to support and protect them. Remember when we went into Afghanistan? What reason did we have, in a traditional sense Afghanistan did not attack the United States. We asked the Taliban to turn over the folks who planned 9/11, the Taliban declined. The Taliban is no longer in charge in Afghanistan.

What matters is the leaders of the Muslim( or any other) countries need to cooperate and not provide santuary to these people, if they don't, then I think a regime change is in order.

Two countries who did not want to cooperate have had regime changes, I think the ones who let terrorist hide out within their borders should sit up and take notice(But they are counting on folks like you to save them form the bad old USA, I think they are thinking wrong).

bigtom,

So you see the Jihadist lead by OBL then. I certainly agree with you about fighting in the wrong country. Yes, that foreign oil hang up does have us in a huge pickle doesn't it?

Now did you vote for Bush and or are you Republican? Just for the record so I better understand some of the members here.

So now are we saying that the enemy is the Taliban.... and or is this a joint venture between the Taliban and Jihadists of which you or others may say that they are really both in the same..... correct?

Then I think I understand you in saying that Afghanistan and Iraq (govt regimes) both did not cooperate with BushCo to simply give into Bush upon his asking, correct? Just by any chance since we are at this point in the conversation, if you were actually one of those govt officials of one of those countries, does this make sense for you to somehow surrender yourself, your ppl and your country over to a foreign nation who 'wham bams no thank you mam' their way around the globe? Afghanistan had UN vote for such a surrender, Iraq did not.

Well, I have posted probably about five hundred times that just about everyone believed Iraq had WMDs and most people believed Saddam was playing games with the inspectors. Saddam never did anything to dispel the belief he had WMDs. I think he wanted people to believe he had WMDs as a deterant.

When it's believed you got stuff capable of killing thousands of people and you have the history of not acting responsibly with it coupled with an attitude of screw you then Saddam got what was coming to him.

I won't ever fault anybody for acting when the security of the USA is in the slightest doubt even if it does piss off France.

I could not make myself to vote for George! I am a "Defector" from the Republicans. I was always sort of right of center and the party went WAY too far to the right. I like this place even though I've gotten frustrated and left and come back a couple of times. I feel very good that I voted for Kerry now!

Well, in typical fashion, you avoided the direct questions just as the righties do, but lets see if I can again summarize your latest response to my last question. Are you saying that if you were Saddam (Iraq as your choice of country), that you would have openly surrendered to Bush even when the UN did not call for Saddam to be forced out? Would you also recognize the fact that Saddam was not a Taliban or a Jihadist to the best of my knowledge? Would you also recognize that fact that even tho you drug your feet (you being Saddam) about the inspections, you did complay to inspectors right down to the last minute when it came to that? Then, you being Baddam, you believed in your own Islamic Moslem religious point of view for which you ran your country on. Isn't that your right even in an Arabic nation?

You left out Germany too when you said 'even if it pissed France off'

Congratulations and welcome back. Glad to meet you, Someday we need to catch up on our past war history. By your voting for Kerry to me represents a person of integrity, honesty, and of moral values for which also sports some decent common sense.

You’ve completely dismissed the facts and our history with Iraq. Hussein only used the WMD the Reagan administration gave him. You forget that Hussein was a Reagan puppet, who received his orders from the CIA. I’m not saying Saddam is entitled to a break, he’s dirty and he’ll get what’s coming to him.
Hussein needed a deterrent to keep the Turks and Iranians from trying to take over his country.
Pakistan has “stuff” capable of killing thousands maybe millions, Pakistan is also an irresponsible neighbor who has removed the doubt as to whether or not they have “Nuclear Weapons” and who is also an extremely radical anti-American government who enjoys the support of their people.
I’m curious, you and the rest of the “extreme right” sure have a bug up your butt’s over the attitude of the French, who followed the other 165 nations to say we were wrong about Iraq’s WMD, and certainly even you can see they were right. You have faulted the majority of the world community for mistakes made by your beloved Reagan and then complicated to the extreme by Bush. Typical of you and your leaders, not a one of you will stand up and admit to not one mistake. Even with the horror going on in the American south, your leaders want us to think they are incapable of making a mistake. The mistake of this Iraqi war has already cost almost 2000 American soldiers, and it’s now being said that the Iraq war has cost the lives of some who might have survived the Hurricane and it’s aftermath do to the shortage of military people who should have been here to respond. Where does it end with you righties, is it anything goes as long as the shrub boys all agree?

You're right bro, fake facts all designed to open the door for these BushConic profiteers. Now, as we may draw closer to the very subject matter of this topic, we may not have the opposition in here with us anymore, for they seem to have chickened out... but I hope not for I was so much looking forward to getting down to the truth about how real warriors identify the objectives in war.

If anything vfq..... we'll wing this by ourselves and see where it goes. Seems like the righties never want to do anything head to head do they? They up and run while bs'n their little cheer clubs and groupies.

Good having ya here bro, needless to say.

Good showing cpt off topic... for that says it all for the Right Wing pretenders in here who continues to avoid direct discusion on the topic matter of a thread. You are proving to all how you handle things in real life.... when invited into discussion based on honest intentions, you show your true side. Keep posting off topic, for that is what the Right Wing is all about.

Tell me chickenhawk supporter, whose the enemy in this article above? You righties has so many fictional enemies, maybe you can narrow some of them down for us in between your propaganda off topic postings.

Another off topic garbage post.

Here's the sad results of what BushForce is creating in Iraq.

IRAQ BODY COUNT Press Release

A Dossier of Civilian Casualties in Iraq
2003–2005

Click to download the dossier (pdf format)

New analysis of civilian casualties in Iraq: Report unveils comprehensive details

"A Dossier on Civilian Casualties in Iraq, 2003-2005" is the first detailed account of all non-combatants reported killed or wounded during the first two years of the continuing conflict. The report, published by Iraq Body Count in association with Oxford Research Group, is based on comprehensive analysis of over 10,000 media reports published between March 2003 and March 2005.
Findings include:
Who was killed?

* 24,865 civilians were reported killed in the first two years.
* Women and children accounted for almost 20% of all civilian deaths.
* Baghdad alone recorded almost half of all deaths.

When did they die?

* 30% of civilian deaths occurred during the invasion phase before 1 May 2003.
* Post-invasion, the number of civilians killed was almost twice as high in year two (11,351) as in year one (6,215).

Who did the killing?

* US-led forces killed 37% of civilian victims.
* Anti-occupation forces/insurgents killed 9% of civilian victims.
* Post-invasion criminal violence accounted for 36% of all deaths.
* Killings by anti-occupation forces, crime and unknown agents have shown a steady rise over the entire period.

What was the most lethal weaponry?

* Over half (53%) of all civilian deaths involved explosive devices.
* Air strikes caused most (64%) of the explosives deaths.
* Children were disproportionately affected by all explosive devices but most severely by air strikes and unexploded ordnance (including cluster bomblets).

How many were injured?

* At least 42,500 civilians were reported wounded.
* The invasion phase caused 41% of all reported injuries.
* Explosive weaponry caused a higher ratio of injuries to deaths than small arms.
* The highest wounded-to-death ratio incidents occurred during the invasion phase.

Who provided the information?

* Mortuary officials and medics were the most frequently cited witnesses.
* Three press agencies provided over one third of the reports used.
* Iraqi journalists are increasingly central to the reporting work.

Speaking today at the launch of the report in London, Professor John Sloboda, FBA, one of the report's authors said: "The ever-mounting Iraqi death toll is the forgotten cost of the decision to go to war in Iraq. On average, 34 ordinary Iraqis have met violent deaths every day since the invasion of March 2003. Our data show that no sector of Iraqi society has escaped. We sincerely hope that this research will help to inform decision-makers around the world about the real needs of the Iraqi people as they struggle to rebuild their country. It remains a matter of the gravest concern that, nearly two and half years on, neither the US nor the UK governments have begun to systematically measure the impact of their actions in terms of human lives destroyed."

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr12.php

This is so off topic that it belongs in a garbage hole in your Texas thread.
You are really hot to trot tonight..... got your fake world all fizzed out!

Even after I tried to help you save face, you simply can't face reality.

I'm afraid this is about as good as it gets in getting a good response with discussing details about who the enemy really is that we are needing to kill. Seems the right side of this forum doesn't like holding one on one discussions with those of us who requests it, other than posting Bush flavored propaganda and going off to their clubhouse to chat up among their own little gossip of sorts.

So as far as Afghanistan is concerned, and for the most part, we actually have taken it upon ourselves to police Afghanistan to free it of the Taliban of which we are mostly responsible for supporting back when the Taliban formulated it's terror camps with the help of our CIA approx around 1979 or so.

Then we have the head hauncho OBL factor for which we have to be in Afghanistan in order to kill this monster that our CIA also helped to create. Ok, I'll go with that scenario that OBL must be found and taken off the mt paths.

Least we forget that in the PNAC, and New World Order, these Neocons seeks Central Asia in order to build US military bases as to occupy that part of the world as well? Just a reminder that several in here wish not to acknowledge such information involving this, for it goes against the real reasons for why the BushForce is occupying Iraq and trying to militarily take over the Middle East via it's military bases and presence.

You're always good for the propaganda Marie, knew I could count on you!

You sure got that right stranger.... it's like a printing machine stuck on full blast, know what I mean?

Hope you can get this jarbean to stand up to me and discuss some war facts, I've not been able to get them to face the facts at all.

more of topic propaganda by you know who... yep the chickenhawk himself....

Yes, my fine solid war veteran friend. Saddam was very heavily supplied by the good ole USofA and used to war with Iran like a good CIA trained puppet that he was. I'm glad that you brought that fact up vfq, because I have a short list of those in America that did supply Saddam of such harmfull weapons.

Below are the US's businesses who contributed to Saddam. I'm surprised that Halliburton's name is not listed... but then, who knows just how many offshoots they have under different names.


http://www.indymedia.nl/en/2002/12/8107.shtml

List Of US Firms That Armed Iraq Household Na
21.12.2002 01:58

Wednesday, 18 December, 2002

Top-secret Iraq Report Reveals U.S. Corporations, Gov't Agencies and Nuclear Labs Helped Illegally Arm Iraq

Hewlett Packard, Dupont, Honeywell and other major U.S. corporations, as well as governmental agencies including the Department of Defense and the nation s nuclear labs, all illegally helped Iraq to build its biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs.

On Wednesday, December 18, Geneva-based reporter Andreas Zumach broke the story on the US national listener-sponsored radio and television show Democracy Now! Zumach's Berlin-based paper Die Tageszeitung plans to soon publish a full list of companies and nations who have aided Iraq. The paper first reported on Tuesday that German and U.S. companies had extensive ties to Iraq but didn t list names.

Zumach obtained top-secret portions of Iraq's 12,000-page weapons declaration that the US had redacted from the version made available to the non-permanent members of the UN Security Council.

We have 24 major U.S. companies listed in the report who gave very substantial support especially to the biological weapons program but also to the missile and nuclear weapons program, Zumach said. Pretty much everything was illegal in the case of nuclear and biological weapons. Every form of cooperation and supplies was outlawed in the 1970s.

USA

1 Honeywell (R, K)

2 Spectra Physics (K)

3 Semetex ®

4 TI Coating (A, K)

5 Unisys (A, K)

6 Sperry Corp. (R, K)

7 Tektronix (R, A)

8 Rockwell (K)

9 Leybold Vacuum Systems (A)

10 Finnigan-MAT-US (A)

11 Hewlett-Packard (A, R, K)

12 Dupont (A)

13 Eastman Kodak ®

14 American Type Culture Collection (

15 Alcolac International ©

16 Consarc (A)

17 Carl Zeiss - U.S (K)

18 Cerberus (LTD) (A)

19 Electronic Associates ®

20 International Computer Systems (A, R, K)

21 Bechtel (K)

22 EZ Logic Data Systems, Inc. ®

23 Canberra Industries Inc. (A)

24 Axel Electronics Inc. (A)

Recon Marine brings knowledge, experience to fight
Submitted by: II Marine Expeditionary Force (FWD)
Story Identification #: 20059144383
Story by Lance Cpl. Evan M. Eagan



AL AMIRIYAH, Iraq (Sept. 14, 2005) -- Becoming a Marine is no easy task. With the longest boot camp in the U.S. Military and arguably the toughest training, Marines have distinguished themselves as America’s finest fighting force.

Some Marines further separate themselves by becoming a part of the reconnaissance community that only few of the “few” are able to join.

One of these warriors is Cpl. Brian Andrews, Iraqi Army Platoon, Echo Company, 3rd Reconnaissance Battalion, 2nd Marine Division.

After attending Blinn College in Bryan, Texas, for two semesters, the Austin, Texas native decided he wanted to take a different route in his life.

“When I joined I was at a time in my life when I knew I wanted to do something different,” said Andrews, who serves as the assistant platoon sergeant and a vehicle commander for the IA Platoon. “After a little thought I realized, in order to get where I want to be in life, joining the Marine Corps would provide me the opportunities I needed, as well as give me a chance to serve my country.”

His initial contract was written for the nuclear, biological and chemical military occupational specialty, but Andrews was not satisfied and decided he wanted to do something more challenging.

“I slept on it for a night and went back to the recruiter and told him I wanted to do the toughest thing in the toughest branch and Marine Corps reconnaissance is it,” said the 24-year-old reserve Marine, whose unit, Charlie Company, 4th Reconnaissance Battalion based in San Antonio, is currently attached to 3rd Recon.

Graduating boot camp from Marine Corps Recruit Depot San Diego as series honor graduate and from the School of Infantry in 2001, Andrews went on to complete some of the toughest schools in the Marine Corps.

Andrews attended the Basic Reconnaissance Course in Coronado, Calif., where he learned land navigation, communications, amphibious operations and reconnaissance skills, among many other things.

“The school was difficult, but it made me realize that with determination combined with resilience I can do almost anything,” said Andrews.

These traits he developed from his training were tested in 2003 when he was attached to Delta Company, 4th Reconnaissance Battalion, during the initial invasion of Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

As a gunner manning an MK-19 grenade launcher, his convoy was ambushed on two separate occasions, both of which he suppressed the enemy fire with well placed rounds, resulting in a citation for a Navy Achievement Medal with a combat “V” for valor.

Upon returning from Iraq, Andrews underwent shoulder surgery and after five months of rehabilitation he was on his way to attending some of the toughest schools in the military.

The reconnaissance Marine attended Airborne Jump School beginning in Feb. 2004 at Ft. Benning, Ga., followed immediately by Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School in Brunswick, Maine, he also received a Cold Weather Survival certificate during the SERE training due to the harsh winter climate of the region.

A few weeks later the veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom arrived at Panama City, Fla., where he attended Dive School and completed what he considered to be his favorite school of all.

As a reconnaissance Marine, Andrews believes the sacrifices he’s made have given him meaning and a clearer outlook on life.

“I realized that you enjoy life more if you don’t focus on all the petty details,” he said. “I don’t focus on the bad things and I always remember that I have a job to do. I am thankful for the opportunities the Marine Corps has given me.”

Andrews is currently on his second deployment to Iraq where his previous experience has helped him to become a knowledgeable leader within his platoon.

“He’s one of those Marines who can always do everything, no matter what is,” said Cpl. Ahrend Buchanan-Klepp, a 24-year-old machine gunner for the platoon. “He’s good because when something happens he never freaks out, he’s always calm. He’s a stand up guy and he’s the kind of guy you want watching your back.”

When he returns home, Andrews plans on spending time with his family and girlfriend in San Antonio, as well as enrolling college to work towards finishing his bachelor’s degree.


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.

http://www.marines.mil/marinelink/mcn2000....F5?opendocument

Very 'so like you' avatar marine, as you only bring OFF TOPIC propaganda material to the thread AGAIN.

Now try this. Bring your war knowledge to the table and tell us who you think the enemy is that we, the real militray and mercs, are to be killing. All we get from you is the Rummsy and Bushie definition.... Jihadists. I'd like your 'expert' wisdom as to who those Jihadists are....or I will be forced to speak on your behalf in this thread as to what the military and mercs are really doing. Now's the time to stop hiding and come to the front row. Bring the rest of your rah rah muscle too if you like. Is this forum about getting to the truth or is it about pretending to suport liberal views and playing games?

If you are going to pretend to be a warrior, you need to show some guts that you can stand on your own two feet. Tell us who the enemey is avatar marine. More than just the DoD version of Jihadists.

Tell me avatar marine, which leaders of these Muslim countries are we looking at as the enemy? Doesn't Bush support countries that do harbor such terrosits that you have only termed as being Jihadists? Which countries are those? Never mind your DoD Bush flavored propaganda articles, tell me in your own words all about these enemies that we, the US, must kill.

Marine..The point was that BenLaden was "WANTED DEAD OR ALIVE". He attacked us. Now he does not matter? You read too many Bush talking points.

RS Des Moines centurions share success secrets
Submitted by: 9th Marine Corps District
Story Identification #: 200591510224
Story by Staff Sgt. Bill Lisbon



RECRUITING STATION DES MOINES, Iowa (Aug. 11, 2005) -- Defying the odds, two Recruiting Station Des Moines recruiters received rare honors here Aug. 11, for signing up 100 recruits each over the past four years.

Dubbed “centurions,” after Roman warriors who commanded 100 men, Staff Sgt. Ryan C. Easton and Staff Sgt. Charles R. Rush each became two of only 170 9th Marine Corps District recruiters since 1982 to earn the title.

Yet with recruiting on the downswing, growing numbers of opponents to military service and lots of bad press, a grim, challenging battlefield lays in front of even the most hard-charging Marine.

So how did these two recruiters rack up the contracts? Most of their “secrets” are really no secret at all.

“The biggest thing is motivation out here — showing the kid you love being a Marine and what it’s done for you,” said Rush, 35, who works at Recruiting Substation South Omaha in Bellevue, Neb.

In fact, Rush will often let a prospective recruit put on his Dress Blues blouse and look in the mirror. Then he’ll pop the question: “So are you ready to be a Marine?”

Easton, 27, finds his drive in the results.

“After I began to put guys in and see the change I did for them, that was the motivation that kept me going,” said Easton. “The Marine Corps has done so much for myself, and I wanted to offer that to the other kids. ... Seeing how grateful they are is what drove me to write more contracts.”

Both agree one of the keys to attracting more poolees is use the ones you already have.

“Work your pool to death,” recommended Rush.

Poolees can be a recruiter’s eyes and ears in a high school, pointing out fellow students who are checking out the military. During Rush’s interviews with their friends, poolees would conveniently drop in to help quell apprehension. At least 25 percent of Rush’s contracts were referrals from his poolees.

Staying involved in the poolees’ lives and with their parents helps too, they said. Rush sends his poolees birthday cards and works out with them. Easton tries to keep parents “in the loop” to further ensure the poolee ships to boot camp.

Another key, said Easton, is knowing when to work.

Not only does this mean understanding when it’s the best time to phone kids at home or to cruise by the local hangouts, it is learning how long it takes to complete common tasks, like running police background checks or driving to a school, and scheduling accordingly.

Recruiters learn this by immersing themselves into an area as well as gleaning information from their predecessors, said Easton, who currently runs RSS Quad Cities in Davenport, Iowa, where he leads four recruiters.

Despite working toward a common goal, competition amongst fellow recruiters can fuel superior achievement, said Easton. RS Des Moines, like most stations, spotlights crackerjack recruiters and rewards them with informal awards like baseball bats or swords, as well as formal ones like meritorious masts. Every month he wanted to be on the top of the list.

“It just started adding up,” said Easton.

Above all, the real secret is just loving the job.

“Recruiting is self-gratifying,” he said. "You get what you put into it, and the more you put into it the better you feel ... about helping the youth of America.”

“Recruiting by no means is ever going to be easy,” Easton said. “If you make it fun, if you enjoy it, if you come out here with a positive attitude and say ‘I’m going to do this, I’m going to be successful’; in the end, the Centurion will be there.”

http://www.marines.mil/marinelink/mcn2000....F8?opendocument

In usual fashion as always, more off topic propaganda

RS Des Moines centurions share success secrets
Submitted by: 9th Marine Corps District
Story Identification #: 200591510224
Story by Staff Sgt. Bill Lisbon



RECRUITING STATION DES MOINES, Iowa (Aug. 11, 2005) -- Defying the odds, two Recruiting Station Des Moines recruiters received rare honors here Aug. 11, for signing up 100 recruits each over the past four years.

Dubbed “centurions,” after Roman warriors who commanded 100 men, Staff Sgt. Ryan C. Easton and Staff Sgt. Charles R. Rush each became two of only 170 9th Marine Corps District recruiters since 1982 to earn the title.

Yet with recruiting on the downswing, growing numbers of opponents to military service and lots of bad press, a grim, challenging battlefield lays in front of even the most hard-charging Marine.

So how did these two recruiters rack up the contracts? Most of their “secrets” are really no secret at all.

“The biggest thing is motivation out here — showing the kid you love being a Marine and what it’s done for you,” said Rush, 35, who works at Recruiting Substation South Omaha in Bellevue, Neb.

In fact, Rush will often let a prospective recruit put on his Dress Blues blouse and look in the mirror. Then he’ll pop the question: “So are you ready to be a Marine?”

Easton, 27, finds his drive in the results.

“After I began to put guys in and see the change I did for them, that was the motivation that kept me going,” said Easton. “The Marine Corps has done so much for myself, and I wanted to offer that to the other kids. ... Seeing how grateful they are is what drove me to write more contracts.”

Both agree one of the keys to attracting more poolees is use the ones you already have.

“Work your pool to death,” recommended Rush.

Poolees can be a recruiter’s eyes and ears in a high school, pointing out fellow students who are checking out the military. During Rush’s interviews with their friends, poolees would conveniently drop in to help quell apprehension. At least 25 percent of Rush’s contracts were referrals from his poolees.

Staying involved in the poolees’ lives and with their parents helps too, they said. Rush sends his poolees birthday cards and works out with them. Easton tries to keep parents “in the loop” to further ensure the poolee ships to boot camp.

Another key, said Easton, is knowing when to work.

Not only does this mean understanding when it’s the best time to phone kids at home or to cruise by the local hangouts, it is learning how long it takes to complete common tasks, like running police background checks or driving to a school, and scheduling accordingly.

Recruiters learn this by immersing themselves into an area as well as gleaning information from their predecessors, said Easton, who currently runs RSS Quad Cities in Davenport, Iowa, where he leads four recruiters.

Despite working toward a common goal, competition amongst fellow recruiters can fuel superior achievement, said Easton. RS Des Moines, like most stations, spotlights crackerjack recruiters and rewards them with informal awards like baseball bats or swords, as well as formal ones like meritorious masts. Every month he wanted to be on the top of the list.

“It just started adding up,” said Easton.

Above all, the real secret is just loving the job.

“Recruiting is self-gratifying,” he said. "You get what you put into it, and the more you put into it the better you feel ... about helping the youth of America.”

“Recruiting by no means is ever going to be easy,” Easton said. “If you make it fun, if you enjoy it, if you come out here with a positive attitude and say ‘I’m going to do this, I’m going to be successful’; in the end, the Centurion will be there.”

http://www.marines.mil/marinelink/mcn2000....F8?opendocument

According to avatar marine in this article, this must be what it defines as the enemy.

Lance corporals, bracelets and a lesson in Semper Fi
By: Gunnery Sgt. Mark Oliva
Id #: 20059718246




MARINE CORPS BASE CAMP PENDLETON, Calif.(Sept. 1, 2005) -- It’s a promise kept.

Last month, the Department of Defense announced officials identified Lance Cpl. James R. Sargent’s remains among a group of 12 recovered and repatriated from Vietnam.

Sargent, of Anawalt, W.V., has come home. He was killed in action on May 10, 1968 in South Vietnam, near the Laotian border.

This day took 37 years.

This means the world to me. I’ve carried Lance Cpl. Sargent with me for more than 15 years. His name is engraved on a small, shiny band of steel I’ve worn on
my right wrist.

I first picked up Lance Cpl. Sargent’s wristband when I was in high school while visiting the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington D.C. I knew I wanted to be a Marine and wanted to further connect myself with our band of brothers. I remember standing there and looking at the box of names, picking up his red wristband several times. I finally gave in, taking it that maybe this was the name I should carry.

I didn’t know it then, but he had started teaching me the meaning of Semper Fidelis.

Lance Cpl. Sargent stayed with me. I wore his wristband after graduating boot camp. It was twisted once on a field exercise when it got snagged. Its red surface dulled and scratched, a victim of the rough life as a Marine. I’d always look at it, wondering where he was and wondering if I was making him proud.

I lost that initial bracelet. Surfing at Onslow Beach at Camp Lejeune, N.C., I came up out of the roiling water and the bracelet that I hardly even noticed on my wrist after four or five years was gone. The weight of its absence was almost shocking. I searched, but never found it.

A while later, I felt the urge to do the right thing. I made a promise to the Marine to never forget. I vowed to honor his memory and support our promise as Marines to never leave another behind. I ordered up his bracelet once again, this time on the thicker stainless steel band I now wear.

He’s been there with me the whole time. I carried his name with me to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Haiti, on two Mediterranean Sea deployments. He’s gone ashore with me during a noncombatant evacuation operation in Albania and to Congo. Lance Cpl. Sargent’s name was part of my uniform when I trolled the streets of North Carolina during a recruiting duty tour and went with me to Okinawa, Japan. He was there with me when I deployed to the Philippines and Thailand. He’s served two tours with me in Iraq.

But as I’m gearing up to go back for my third tour in Iraq, Lance Cpl. Sargent won’t go with me. The promise to him is fulfilled.

Soon, I’ll fly to Washinton, D.C., and personally deliver the bracelet to Lance Cpl. Sargent’s family during his funeral at Arlington National Cemetary.

It’s a proud, but bittersweet day. I’m proud that as a nation we kept our vow. Proud, that as a Corps of Marines, we never abandoned our brother. Proud, that as a son, brother, husband and father, his family now has the closure they deserve.

But it still stings. It’s the same stinging sensation I felt when I stood before those helmets, rifles and boots at memorials in Iraq. It’s a loss of a Marine and one we can never quite replace.

That’s why, shortly after sending this bracelet on, I’ll do as I did 15 years ago. I look for the one name of a Marine that grabs a hold of me and I’ll wear it. The promise continues until they all come home.

That’s what we do as Marines. We keep our promises. We live our faith in one another.
It’s a lesson taught to me a long time ago by a lance corporal I never knew.

Semper Fidelis, Lance Cpl. Sargent.

http://www.marines.mil/marinelink/mcn2000....62?OpenDocument

Is this what you aew saying that is the US enemy?

You are saying that this is the enemy of the US military??

What's so hard about not drinking and driving?
By: Sgt. Roe Seigle
Id #: 200591418129




MARINE CORPS BASE CAMP PENDLETON, Calif.(Sept. 12, 2005) -- We have all heard the issue on drinking and driving more than 100 times, but apparently, it is not sinking into the thick skulls of some Marines.

Every Friday I tell my Marines that drinking and driving is stupid. It’s just something that we, as Marines, hear every weekend during a safety brief. You would think that if we are smart enough to navigate on a battlefield, we should be smart enough to understand such a simple order.

However, this very weekend it is likely a Marine will get behind the wheel of a vehicle, while intoxicated, after being told not to do so in a safety brief by his superior. According to the Provost Marshal’s Office, it is mostly males below the rank of sergeant and also below the age of 25 that think they are not going to get caught. Despite seemingly popular opinion, you are not Superman just because you had a few shots of whiskey. If anything, you are now even more stupid than you were before you started drinking that poison.

Recently, I was out in Oceanside seeing a movie and having a good time without getting liquored up. I noticed two obviously drunk Marines stumble out of a bar and get into the passenger side of a four-door truck. I sat for two minutes, and low and behold, here comes some other wasted Marine fumbling his keys around and getting into the driver’s side of the truck.

I tried talking to this moron, but he was in what I call the “invisible and invincible stage” of being drunk. I tried talking sense to this genius without getting abrasive, but he insisted that even though he smelled like a brewery, he was just fine to drive.

After trying to deter this idiot and attempting to block his truck, the 150-pound knucklehead threatened to “slam” me, at 205 pounds, then sped off, putting everyone in the vehicle with him in danger, as well as all of the innocent people on the road.

So, he got away, but I am sure he will do it again, and eventually get caught.

There is something that 90 percent of these drunks have in common when they are busted by the cops. They all claim to have had only “a couple” drinks.

They can be so drunk they can barely talk, but somehow they got that drunk off of a couple of drinks. I guess the half of a keg they drank was one drink, and the half bottle of liquor they had with it was the other drink.

Listen Marines, I don’t care if you had one drink, or 20 drinks. You do not get behind the wheel after drinking alcohol. It is not that hard to understand. You are not invincible and even though you feel fine and think you do not appear drunk, other people, such as law enforcement, can tell you are drunk.

There is only so much that can be done to prevent Marines from driving drunk. It is ultimately in the hands of the individual Marine that knows he is going to go out and consume alcohol.

Is it really worth the risk? Is it really worth getting arrested, paying fines, having to go to court, losing your driving privileges, possibly dying over or becoming a murderer when you kill an innocent person with your stupidity?

No, it is not Marines. So just don’t do it.

E-MAIL
monroe.seigle@usmc.mil

Seems to me that Saddam stated many times that 'he did not have WMDs' as he complied with the UN inspections either instantly or sometimes dragged out........ regardless, he complied. This must be the latest with rightie talking points on the subject matter of Saddam's lack of WMDs. Lets simply make it look like Saddam now was faking everybody out trying to make us believe that he really had them.

Well you can try to make up stories all you want, there is to much evidence to the contrary.


Vol. 5 No. 11 Table of Contents
MEIB Main Page November 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Intelligence on Iraq's WMD
by Thomas Patrick Carroll

David Kay and his team are not coming up empty-handed in their search for weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq. They have uncovered networks of clandestine chemical weapons (CW) and biological weapons (BW) laboratories, proof of systematic concealment and deception, reference strains of BW-related organisms, evidence that Saddam remained intent on acquiring nuclear weapons, and much more. These discoveries notwithstanding, Kay and the Iraq Survey Group have not yet found stocks of chemical or biological weapons. Since WMD played such a big part in the public justification for Operation Iraqi Freedom, fingers are starting to point.

Some (mostly Republicans) are saying the CIA provided lousy intelligence to President Bush and his advisors, leading them to believe the WMD threat from Baghdad was greater than it was - a classic intelligence failure. Others (mostly Democrats) claim that Bush took the intelligence and deliberately exaggerated it, dishonestly manipulating the CIA's judgments in order to rationalize an invasion of Iraq that he and his advisors had already decided upon.

These two accusations both need to be treated with the greatest skepticism.

The National Intelligence Estimate

Much of the talk about an intelligence failure points to statements made in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq's WMD, a classified report produced by the CIA and five other members of the Intelligence Community. In July 2003, a declassified version of the NIE's Key Judgments was made public.

In its Key Judgments, the NIE unambiguously declared that there were WMD in Iraq. It said Baghdad possessed between 100 and 500 metric tons of CW, and was producing mustard, sarin, GF (cyclosarin), and VX. The NIE asserted that "all key aspects - R&D, production, and weaponization - of Iraq's offensive BW program are active and [most] elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the [1991] Gulf War."

Of course, most of the 90-page NIE remains classified, and therefore beyond the scope of public commentary. Still, by taking the declassified Key Judgments and combining them with Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs, an unclassified supplementary report that the CIA has also released, we can come to reasonably confident conclusions about just how sound those Key Judgments actually were.

But before we get to the NIE, we need to take note of a fact that hovers over the entire enterprise like a dark cloud. The analysts who wrote the NIE had almost no recent human intelligence (HUMINT) to draw on. This was not surprising, as Saddam's security services spent the past decade killing every CIA agent they could find, leaving our Clandestine Service with few, if any, well-placed spies in the Baghdad government. About a year ago the Agency evidently started rebuilding its web of Iraqi agents, but twelve months is not enough time to spot, develop, and recruit anything like an adequate agent network, especially in a totalitarian state like Saddam's Iraq.

This HUMINT gap is actually implied in the NIE itself. In the section entitled Confidence Levels for Selected Key Judgments in this Estimate, three judgments are listed about which the NIE claims to have the lowest confidence - i.e., when Saddam would use WMD; whether Saddam would clandestinely attack the U.S. mainland; and whether Saddam might share WMD with al-Qa'ida. Notice that all three have to do with plans and intentions, two subjects on which only human spies can effectively report.

To make up for the dearth of agent reporting, the CIA seems to have fallen back on three other categories of information in its preparation of the NIE:



Analysts relied heavily on historical information. This ranged from discoveries of Iraqi nuclear programs shortly after the end of the Gulf War, to data on the use of CW against Kurds and Iranians in the 1980s, to the reams of material produced by the UN inspection regime over the years. Although dated, this was important documentation on what Saddam Hussein was willing to do and capable of attaining. Saddam's continuing desire to possess WMD was never in doubt, and who could say (without good HUMINT sources) that his capabilities were adequately blunted?


Analysts made extensive use of negative inference - i.e., when Saddam refused to prove something was not the case, the inference was drawn that it possibly (sometimes probably) was the case. And there was a lot of this kind of information. Many times Baghdad refused to account for gaps and inconsistencies in its WMD declarations, or never provided proof that it completely destroyed the weapons and production infrastructure it said it had. The Iraqis withheld important details on their nuclear program, never documented the 6,000 missing CW bombs from the Iran/Iraq war, never explained what happened to thousands of tons of chemical precursors, and much more. If all was actually as Baghdad claimed, why then the refusal to prove it? To this day, the most plausible explanation for this ultimately self-destructive behavior remains that the Iraqis were lying.


Finally, analysts drew on national technical means (NTM), such as satellite photographs. They looked at rocket test facilities where buildings were going up, chemical plants with suspicious new additions, and the like. Although overhead photographs tell analysts nothing about plans and intentions, they provide incontrovertible evidence that something is going on. And when that 'something' involves a dual-use chemical production facility in a rogue state like Iraq, it is logical to suspect (if not assume) the worst.

When all these sources were pulled together and the analysis was written, the result was a realistic, responsible National Intelligence Estimate. No effort was made to present the sources as being stronger than they were. Old material, for example, was labeled as such, and when inferences were drawn from Iraq's refusal to answer questions, this too was clearly identified. No sophisticated policy maker, in the White House or anywhere else, can plausibly claim to have been misled.

On the other hand, the Key Judgments were undeniably strong. Honest critics might legitimately question whether the triad of historical data, negative inference, and NTM was robust enough to support such confident conclusions. But supporters of the Key Judgments can make the opposite case, and do so at least as persuasively as the critics. For in the final analysis, however lacking in HUMINT corroboration the Estimate may be, the data it cites is voluminous and accurate.

The White House and the NIE

So the NIE was a credible document. But did White House officials illegitimately exploit intelligence to further a veiled agenda, as some of the President's detractors are claiming? Their public statements on the likelihood that Iraq had WMD, however confident, do not appear to have gone beyond the available intelligence estimates. More complex is the question of whether the Administration used WMD as an excuse for pursuing 'hidden' ends.

Although WMD concerns were certainly the centerpiece of Bush's public campaign to gain support for Operation Iraqi Freedom, they were only part of a much larger strategy about which the President and his advisors have been remarkably candid. In the important National Security Strategy series and collateral statements (like the President's June 2002 speech at West Point), the Administration laid out the need for power projection, regime change, preemption (preferably with allies, alone when necessary), the application of political and military pressure in the Middle East, and other elements of America's strategy for combating terror.

The eradication of WMD was always an important part of the Administration's strategy, but it was (and is) far from being the whole. And this fact was never hidden, although the WMD piece was publicly much more prominent than were the larger, strategic elements. This was hardly surprising, since the Administration was trying to give potential allies (e.g., Germany, France) something they could endorse, and the destruction of Iraqi WMD was a far easier goal for the Europeans to support than a proposal for sheer US power projection would have been.

Still, the decision to be relatively coy about the strategic goals of Operation Iraqi Freedom carried a risk: If WMD were not found, there would be some explaining to do. When the decision to emphasize WMD was made, this risk seemed relatively low. It retrospect, it was not.

http://www.meib.org/articles/0311_iraq1.htm

And then there is this report from 1999

CIA Concerned about Potential "Surprise" in Nonconventional Weapons Proliferation

The CIA is warning that Russian aid and expertise might allow states such as Iran and Iraq to secretly "shortcut" their development of nuclear weapons without attracting the attention of U.S. intelligence agencies.


John Lauder, special assistant to the Director of Central Intelligence for Nonproliferation, said that the bulk of CIA efforts to monitor nonconventional weapons programs are concentrated in 10 countries, including Iran, Iraq, Libya and Syria. "But even concerning these states, there are important gaps in our knowledge. Our analytical and collection coverage against most of these states is stretched, and many of the trends seen, such as the possibility of shortcuts to acquiring fissile material and increased denial and deception activities, make it harder to track some key developments, even in the states of greatest intelligence focus," said Lauder in testimony to the Commission to Assess the Organization of the Federal Government to Combat the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Lauder said that his agency is particularly concerned about the "leakage" of Russian nuclear material for use by states interested in acquiring non-conventional weapons. "U.S. intelligence is increasing its emphasis and resources on many of these issues, but there is a continued and growing risk of surprise."

The CIA asserted in testimony to Congress a year and a half ago that Iran would not complete its Shihab-3 missile program before 2005. Last week, however, a member of a White House commission said the missile is being completed and will be deployed this year. The CIA official said Russia, despite its pledges, has failed to stop the transfer of technology to Iran's missile and nuclear weapons program. He said the pace of technology transfer is likely to increase amid Russia's economic crisis. "Russian entities have helped the Iranian missile effort in areas ranging from training, to testing, to components," Lauder said. "This assistance is continuing as we speak, and is playing a crucial role in Iran's ability to develop more sophisticated and longer-range missiles."

"Foreign assistance helped Iran save years in its development of the Shihab-3 missile, which is based on the North Korean No Dong and, as I noted earlier, includes Russian -- and, to a lesser extent Chinese -- assistance," he added. "Moreover, Iran will continue to both seek longer range missiles and foreign assistance in their development."

Lauder said that two major concerns of his agency are the continuing emigration of weapons scientists from the former Soviet Union and the lax security around nuclear sites in Russia. "Although we have not had recent reports that weapons-usable nuclear material is missing in Russia," Lauder said, "what we have noticed are reports of strikes, lax discipline, poor morale, and criminal activity at nuclear facilities. These are alarm bells that warrant our closest attention and concern."

Lauder also noted that Syria is continuing to acquire components for chemical weapons. Damascus has already stockpiled the nerve agent sarin, he said, and is trying to develop even more toxic and persistent nerve agents.

The CIA official added that "one of our greatest concerns is the serious prospect that Osama Bin Ladin or another terrorist might use chemical or biological weapons. Bin Ladin's organization is just one of about a dozen terrorist groups that have expressed an interest in or have sought chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear agents." Earlier this month, an agent in Bin Laden's organization said that the Saudi militant has acquired chemical and biological weapons.

Well, since you feel like talking, care to share with us who the enemies are that we are to stalk out and kill? We have it narrowed down to Jihadist. Now, tell us what those Jihadist looks like?

http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/terrorists/fugitives.htm
http://www.rewardsforjustice.net/french/wa...tured/index.cfm
http://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/FactSheets/TE01.pdf
http://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/FactSheets/TE02.pdf

Now see, I told you all along that this would be easy. I ask simply questions and you plop down your borrowed 'most wanted' posters. By the way, the last link was a dud, but I get the picture(s). Now.... do you know where all these Bush made bandits originated from? I'd say not many from Iraq just for starters... might you agree or has Rumsy worked a way to change out their DoBs and bps that puts them all from Iraq?

Out of all these mug shots, and you were that very mean bad killing machine somewhere in Iraq or Afghanistan... or both, could you in fact, indentify these Jihadists just by sighting them? Tell us how you would track down and ID a Jihadists that is worthy to kill? Again, this is a very simply quiz... no tricks, all up front questions.

Well the enemy is not BenLaden because Marine/Bush no longer thinks he is worthy of capture or death. I guess Pakistan will not give him up and they have nukes now. As we all know Bush does not F..k with those with nukes. And also there is the problem of the Bush family and the BenLaden family being in business together for the last 20 or so years. To kill your business partners is not good for business no matter how many Americans they killed.

Gosh David, if you are so sure where Ossama is there is a 25 million dollar reward from the State department and an additional 2 million funded by the Airline Pilots Association and the Air Transport Association.

If you don't want it clue me in, I think I know some folks capable of helping me doing what it takes to collect it.

Maybe I can help this along for you some. I can only try.

Ok, now in your hot pursuit of the enemy, either in Iraq or Afghanistan, and you have your helmet full of about 40+ pictures of the DoD tagged enemy, you also come upon other locals. Now, lets help you think this through if I may. Do these Jihadists have a tattoo on their foreheads that identifies them as being Jihadists? Do they all belong to the Jihadist's fashion club and dress exactly alike that distinguishes them from all the other locals? Do the boldly admit that they are Jihadists when they see some high powered marines heading their waty in their tanks and choppers, by yelling out to BushForce that they are indeed the Jihadists that are on the most wanted lists? Then of course they are not sporting around in any heavy military type vehicles themselves that sports any emblems of their Jihadist club. So, is it safe to say that so far, you really couldn't tell the difference between a Jihadist, Muslim, or Arab for the most part? At this point I must allow you to confirm what I just helped state for you.... or if you have supreme ways of knowing who the enemy is to this point, please share that top secret info with us. (aside from your photo album).

Well ghost, there are a multitude of identifying who the jihadist are. I understand a good many of them get picked up in Iraq because a plain old Iraqi citizen rats them out, the jihadist isn't Iraqi, doesn't speak like an Iraqi, and they just don't seem to fit in to the general population.

No, I probably couldn't tell you the differences between an Iraqi and a Saudi but that is because I don't live there and never been there. I bet I could spot the difference between a Kansan and a Texan though because I am from Texas. I bet the United States Military uses local Iraqis who can spot the differences between a Saudi and an Iraqi too and since the Jihadist target Iraqis I also bet they have no shortage of people willing to point out the differences.

It didn't just "piss off France", Marine. It pissed me off and I am a patriotic American, but I knew BEFORE the invasion JUST FROM GETTING INFORMED that (1) Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the attacks on 9-11; (2) Saddam Hussein had no ties to al Qaeda; in fact, Osama bin laden hated Saddam Hussein; and (3) Iraq was the most westernized of the Middle Eastern nations; its women were not "under the veil"; its girls as well as its boys were being educated; and its wome could have jobs; in other words, women in Iraq were not subjected to the strict rules of Islam as interpreted by the Taliban, Saudi Arabia, and Osama bin laden. Fourth, I was not sure about WMD's but the UN inspections were showing that there were none. Why on earth would we want to invade another country and cause the deaths of who knows how many people when the UN inspections were turning up NO WMD's? So, from the get-go, I opposed the invasion. And here we are two and half years later and what do we know. All of the above are true, plus there actually were NO WMD's! And now, women are being forced under the veil. We have blasted Iraq back into the DARK AGES. And, don't you dare accuse me of supporting a bloody tyrant. I do not support Saddam Hussein. But point in fact, Rumsfeld and Company did support him back in the 1980's.

Well Marine if I knew you would be the first one I would tell. But it appears Bush does not care to know where BenLaden is for the reasons I expressed above. You mean you care more than our WANTED DEAD OR ALIVE president?? That is shocking to realize. But then again I can assume you do not have business dealings with the BenLaden family.

Then avatar marine, is this why so many Iraqi civilians are being killed?

Is it also not only faulty American intelligence but faulty Iraqi intelligence, or is everything 100% perfect with all this intelligence that BushForce is being fed? Have you ever heard of informants that are being rewarded when simply ratting out some of their own just to get some 'goodies' from those that they collaborate with? Possibly these informants, are also ones who help walk Bushforce into ambushes sometimes. You think? But I still will go with your intelligence reporting here.... for I am not here to disrupt your warrior expertise that you present on this forum.

I'm glad to know that you can spot a Kansan from far away when in Texas. I have many times mistaken ppl from the south from those in my neck of the woods. Come to find out, ppl may have lived in a new area for maybe 5+ yrs and picked up on the locals accent.... and the way they look, etc etc. I've spoken with southerners now living in NY who sounds just like New Yorkers. Then we have those 100s of thousands of Arabic terrorists or collaborators who had come to America who have also learned to blend in with our population, making it hard to tell who is a terrorist and one who is not. Just a reminder of how folks can just blend in.

Lets see if we can boil this down further... who the enemy looks like or acts like.

Ok, the real easy part is anybody with a weapon and firing it at you makes them the enemy. Now that one we both can agree on. Although, for those of us with more broader vision, we understand that just because some over there are holding weapons and taking aim on us does not always mean that they are the enemy per say. Us, being the occupiers of theri land, and after several years of occupying their land and destroying it, many locals/civilians will join arms with their own defending fighters to not only defend themselves but also take join forces (militias) against that occupying force on their land... which would be US (coaliton). So, in a sense, our presence there in Iraq have caused many civilians to takes arms against us just to either defend themselves or be a part of those militias to stop the occupying force whose there in their country. The rest of the civilians are caught up in the vicious crossfires and sometimes become easy kill targets just for the hell of it.

Now at this point avatar marine, have we some better idea of who this Jihadist enemy is when among the mass population in Iraq or are you still firm that your BushForce intelligence is all up to snuff with who exactly the enemy is that you are about to kill? Or... is it more simplier to head out on patrol and waste anything that moves and make double sure that the stiffs laying on the ground are for sure dead by pumping a few more rounds into them? I know that locals do play dead because they also know that they have become targets no matter what. So you see avatar marine, there's many civilians who lives a life everyday in Iraq who are tip toeing between the bullets and having to live on the edge playing possum at any given moment, for weeks, mths and yrs because the Bush Coalition is there blasting away in Iraq.... for freedom and liberty.... placing a Western Democracy in an Islamic Muslim state. Even though many of those pictured terrorist that you sport in your photo albums actually originated from places like Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, I do believe, it appears that for some reason, Iraq was the chosen hot spot to start this Middle Eastern crusade. Maybe decades of careful planning around the CIA's puppet Saddam had something to do with that? Yeah, I could buy that PNAC plan.

Are there any other of your RA friends who knows just for sure who they would kill as a defined enemy while on patrol in Iraq? Again, those who are shooting at you, do not count for at that moment, and for the purpose of one's own survival, they are determined the enemy. It's the search and destory missions I speak of. Does the RA team in here all banked on the great intel on both sides as to who the BushForce is to kill? Please get a report from your RA team and add more to this if you can. I want to learn the great wisdom that the privilaged RAs have.

No, I'll just say you are woefully misinformed.

I'll wait until someone drags Bin Ladens corpse in for the reward and have a good laugh on you David. It's just a matter of time.

The laugh, as you say, has cost 1900 good Americans, pretty funny huh marine, are you busting a gut with laughter. Hmmmmm, that’s what the world is doing right now, laughing their collective azzes off, at bush, his team and all those they sucked into his catastrophe they call the Iraqi war. My sense of humor was gone since the first American KIA, it’s now mine and your patriotic duty to help put an end to the bush war and the needless loss of life. We thinking people never doubted the facts that this war is for bush and bush alone, there has never been nor will ever be a solidly backed by the American people reason for going to this war, WMD, Iraq attack on America, what have you and the bush team been smoking, or is it that george never really quit cocaine and you love him so much you have to emulate him.

Well, if it comforts you to think me "woefully misinformed," then you certainly are free to do so. Knowing what I do know keeps me awake too often at night. Suffice it to say I know enough to worry greatly about our nation's future and to question constantly our leaders' motives.