| Author |
Message |
    
Dennis Collins
Mindsight Moderator
Post Number:
2510
Registered: 06-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 02, 2008 - 09:24 am: |   |
Back on Father's Day, it was my pleasure to join with some other members of The Patriot Guard Riders to welcome home a wounded vet from Iraq. He was a sergeant hit by a roadside bomb and paralized from the sternum down. He is the father of four children.
As we waited for his plane to arrive, we stood around the airport looking like a bunch of outlaw bikers. But the fact that most of us stood with American flags by our side drew some curiosity from travelers and eventually some questions. When we explained our mission, many of the people who had just arrived on other flights asked if they could join us to thank an heroic soldier. By the time his plane landed we had amassed a large group of appreciative Americans. (And, I might add, about a dozen Germans.)
The wounded soldier's mission in Iraq had been to lead a construction crew building a school in an area where none had ever existed under Saddam's reign. He didn't even have a gun. The members of his unit were considered angels of mercy by the locals because of their generosity and spirit of caring.
Oh yeah, and Harry... I forgot to ask him if he was a "Blood" or a "Crip!!!"
Dennis Collins
Moderator
www.theunrealmccoy.com
http://theunrealmccoy.blogspot.com |
Harry Simenon
Unity Member
Post Number:
1909
Registered: 10-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, July 03, 2008 - 10:47 am: | |
Dennis,
“Oh yeah, and Harry... I forgot to ask him if he was a "Blood" or a "Crip!!!"
I’m not your enemy Dennis. Forgive me for the long post, still hope you will read it to the end.
If you read back my posts about Iraq you will notice that I NEVER ever said that ALL soldiers in Iraq are criminals or gangsters. I just refuse to believe that they are ALL heroes.
That’s it.
So again my claim: not ALL soldiers in Iraq are criminals or gangsters, and not ALL soldiers in Iraq are heroes. SOME soldiers are criminals or gangsters, and SOME soldiers are heroes. But most soldiers are no heroes or gangsters, they are normal people!
Just to avoid confusion: what is your exact opinion? Or do we perhaps agree on this after all?
That there are heroes in a wrong war does not make that war any better. Even in a ‘good war’ like WWII you had insane maniacs among the allies and great heroes among the Germans.
This is not illogical, contradictive or strange but quite normal in any war. I see no need in turning a war into a Hollywood movie with all good guys in white at one side and all bad guys in black at the other. Wars are usually a dirty game played by greedy or egocentric maniacs using all kind of soldiers as their pawns. Many good people on all sides suffer from this idiotic behavior.
The man you describe seems to be such a good person, doing his job as well as possible, and I do regret what happened to him very much. So, perhaps even I would have joint you Dennis. It is very sad he got injured for life without realizing he was in reality filling a neocon’s pocket instead of just building a school.
Your mentioning of a school in an area where none had ever existed before is rather meaningless to me as schooling was definitely not bad at all under Saddam. Here too schools are build where none were before, and others are torn down because population densities shift. The population certainly shifts in Iraq. And if I would live in Iraq I would not send my children to school: way too dangerous.
I visited some Iraqi refugees who live about 10 miles from me, (their daughter is a friend of my daughter and that is how we met.) We talked about the Iraq of before and during the war. They said Saddam was an asshole, you had to be careful what you said and what you did. But life was livable. They had clean water, food, electricity, computers, schooling, everything they needed and were safe as long as they kept away from politics. Many of them had proper education; the father is an engineer. Saddam had a Western orientated lifestyle, and so had many people in Iraq. The mother wears no headscarf but Western clothing. I talked to their grandmother who was visiting at that moment: she spoke excellent English and we had a very animated conversation about the conflict in Iraq.
They lost about 30 family members during the war, and none during Saddam. They are glad that Saddam was gone, but now they want the USA out. There is a shortage of just about everything now, and the Iraqi’s are never safe. Getting to work (school) and back is hazardous. Every gathering of people is dangerous. Iraq is more Muslim fundamental as ever before. (Saddam was not very religious.)
As you know I’m very, very much against the war in Iraq. That definitely does NOT mean I despise the soldiers who are just sent there to do their job. To me these are separate issues. The soldiers did not plan this insane war so I do not blame them. I’m pretty sure I said this many times?
But I do not automatically admire everyone who is fighting in Iraq, as the army is stretched way beyond its limits and they do not seem to be very particular anymore about WHOM they are sending. The fact is that there ARE a bunch of ‘Bloods’ and ‘Crips’ and other scum among the soldiers, like it or not. You can’t send such criminals into any war zone. Oh, they love it, no doubt, but they do things like raping, (even raping female US soldiers,) murdering (innocents!) and looting. Remember for example Haditha?
And I’m afraid that building a school here and there does not change much in the perspective of most Iraqi’s. You can’t build up a nation while you are still tearing it down.
Being a patriot is not about blindly following your leaders, it is about caring for the people of your nation. In my opinion you should drive over to Washington and shove those US flags in the butt of the criminals who raped your America. The America that many nations all around the world once admired.
These are the people who killed 4113 Americans, and injured between 30333 to 100000. And these numbers will increase; the blowback of this operation will haunt the USA for years to come.
Welcoming injured vets is a fine gesture, but trying to prevent more young people from coming back a cripple, a mental case or dead would be even better.
Iran is up next; all the lies are in place again. What will you do? Continue to welcome the future Iran vets too? |
Fred Dungan
Unity Member
Post Number:
2080
Registered: 10-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, July 03, 2008 - 10:13 pm: | |
As I understand it, Dutch troops cut and ran when the Nazis flowed across your borders in World War II. I seriously doubt that such a scenario could take place in America. Like the Japanese, Americans do not believe in surrender and often fight to the last man. Military officers carry sidearms and have the authority to use them against soldiers who cut and run in battle. Your troops, if I understand it correctly, belong to a union. Please do not expect us to agree with you. Can't you see that there are fundamental differences in our two cultures?
http://www.fdungan.com/bushwhacked.htm |
Dennis Collins
Mindsight Moderator
Post Number:
2511
Registered: 06-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, July 04, 2008 - 04:13 am: | |
Harry... We all know that there are good people and bad people in every society. I made the remark that I did because of your constant, almost obsessive reminders that the American military has its proportional share of bad people just like every other army that has ever existed in the history of mankind. We know it, Harry, Just like we know that there are bad Dutch people. But do you constantly hear the other mindsighters pointing it out? No, because we don't collectively hate the Dutch way of life and everything they stand for. What's your excuse?
I'm proud of our American soldiers and will support them in any war in any country.
Dennis Collins
Moderator
www.theunrealmccoy.com
http://theunrealmccoy.blogspot.com |
Harry Simenon
Unity Member
Post Number:
1912
Registered: 10-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, July 04, 2008 - 09:01 am: | |
Fred,
“As I understand it, Dutch troops cut and ran when the Nazis flowed across your borders in World War II.”
I don’t see the connection between your comment and my post Fred. The soldiers fought for 5 days and the nation surrendered the 6th. But if you would like to discuss this further just start another thread and I’ll answer it. It is very easy to read up on such events on internet though, for example this British
site
“Like the Japanese, Americans do not believe in surrender and often fight to the last man.”
Didn’t the Japanese surrender to the US?
You don’t believe in surrender because you’ll never need to surrender: you have the biggest army in the world; half of all the military might in the world is US! The only way the USA might ever need to surrender would be if the rest of the world would unite against the US, which is not very likely. So it is not a case of extraordinary character but sheer size of the army.
But even having the largest army in the world does not always bring you victory: you did run from Vietnam. You did not win in Korea. And you have a hell of a problem in Afghanistan and Iraq and soon in Iran.
War is about winning or at least trying to get the most out of the conflict. Fighting to the last man is not always wise. When outnumbered, underground resistance and guerilla warfare often works better than getting yourself heroically killed.
The reason your soldiers in Iraq get killed by roadside bombs and in ambushes is that the US vastly outnumbers their opponents and is much better armed. Guerilla warfare is the only way to have a meaningful fight against a much more powerful enemy; it slowly drains them and wears them out.
“Military officers carry sidearms and have the authority to use them against soldiers who cut and run in battle.”
Great motivational tool… But why do they need that if Americans do not cut and run?
“Please do not expect us to agree with you.”
I’m always very surprised, shocked even, when somebody here DOES agree with me. It always takes me a few days to recover…
But WHAT exactly is it that you do not agree with?
“Can't you see that there are fundamental differences in our two cultures?”
I don’t know where you want to take this discussion?
Even if that would be true, so what? That would even be a good reason to discuss the differences.
But I’m pretty convinced that we have much more in common than we differ. You even have much more in common with the people of Iran, the nation you will invade next in the row.
An interesting read is the book by the American Anthropologist Kenneth Good: “Into the Heart.” He lived with the ‘primitive’ Yanomami tribe in the Amazon area and married one of them. Even the Yanomami are very similar to Westerners when you really get to know them. Our so called civilization is just a very thin layer of paint. Underneath that we are all Yanomami.
The differences between peoples are often exaggerated to make one hate one another, as hate generates power and money for some.
In the propaganda of nations at war you will always see that pattern: the people fighting at their side are saints, and their opponents are always monsters.
In reality the armies of both sides will exist out of saints, normal people and monsters.
And THAT is what my post was about.
I really don’t think I said something unbelievable strange?
You can’t always avoid war, but there is no reason to glorify any war. |
Harry Simenon
Unity Member
Post Number:
1913
Registered: 10-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, July 04, 2008 - 09:11 am: | |
Dennis,
"I made the remark that I did because of your constant, almost obsessive reminders that the American military has its proportional share of bad people just like every other army that has ever existed in the history of mankind."
And I made my remark in response to Freds: "Since I am ignorant, perhaps you will be so kind as to inform me about Senator Obama's military service to his country."
Which seemed to imply that only soldiers would make good presidents. I used the 'blood' and 'crips' argument to illustrate my point that not all soldiers would make good presidents. I could have used the argument that some soldiers are a member of the 'Bende van Venlo,' but I'm afraid that you would not know what I would be talking about?
"I'm proud of our American soldiers and will support them in any war in any country."
Nothing wrong with that. But if they are fighting the wrong war you should try to get them home. |
Dennis Collins
Mindsight Moderator
Post Number:
2512
Registered: 06-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, July 04, 2008 - 11:40 am: | |
Military experience, especially wartime military experience is extremely valuable exposure for any national leader. America, like most countries has had a number of presidents with military backgrounds begenning with George Washington. Some of our greatest Presidents like Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, and even the hapless Jimmy Carter have served in the armed forces.
We have also had great Presidents like Abraham Lincoln who came from the civilian sector but had to govern during wartime and did so admirably.
Nobody said that you HAD to be a soldier to be President but a history of military service gives one a perspective that cannot be parallelled with any other experience.
Dennis Collins
Moderator
www.theunrealmccoy.com
http://theunrealmccoy.blogspot.com |
Harry Simenon
Unity Member
Post Number:
1915
Registered: 10-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, July 04, 2008 - 12:59 pm: | |
Which takes us back again to the Obama thread... |
Fred Dungan
Unity Member
Post Number:
2081
Registered: 10-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, July 04, 2008 - 11:36 pm: | |
Dennis,
Abraham Lincoln led state militia troops during the Blackhawk War. Still it took him several years of trying to persuade General McClellan to go on the offensive before he took charge and abolished the seniority system that was at that time in place for the promotion of officers and replaced it with promotion based on merit - at which point the Union generals began to win battles. In the interim, the Confederates made several attempts to capture Washington D.C., which were repelled at the last minute by troops sent by rail from New York. Had General Lee been successful, we would now be the Confederate States of America and would most likely have a weak central government with most powers residing in the states. In other words, we almost lost the war due to Abraham Lincoln's lack of experience in military matters. I point this out because a lot of people without military experience think that all we have to do is withdraw our troops and all of our problems will be solved. Anyone with a knowledge of military history knows that there are severe consequences for losing a war. It took years for the nation and the Army to recover after Vietnam. We weren't capable of launching even a minor offensive until Grenada. Need I point out how hard it was to recruit troops after the draft was abolished? The slogan was "Today's Army Wants to Join You" and there were beer vending machines in the barracks and a severe lack of discipline. General Colin Powell wrote in his autobiography, My American Journey that infantry officers had to carry sidearms when going into barracks and the U.S. Army did not regain its morale from losing in Vietnam until the First Gulf War. The U.S. Navy experienced similar difficulties. These were the "Z" years when sailors were allowed to grow beards and do pretty much as they pleased. And please don't forget Lebanon where we withdrew the Marines following a successful attack on the barracks by a suicide bomber.
I hope to never again see our military broken after losing a war. Elect another president who thinks he knows more about military matters than the generals and that is liable to happen. As I said earlier, military sevice isn't a prerequisite for running for president, but it sure helps to know that our Commander-in-Chief is capable of effective leadership. Keep in mind that the United States is at war.
Harry,
I beg to differ. We do not have the largest military in the world. The Chinese People's Liberation Army is several times the size of the U.S. Army. Ours, however, is far more powerful and I wouldn't want to see it any other way.
http://www.fdungan.com/draft.htm |
Dennis Collins
Mindsight Moderator
Post Number:
2513
Registered: 06-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, July 05, 2008 - 04:28 am: | |
"Which takes us back again to the Obama thread..."
I started this thread as a tribute to our brave American soldiers. Obama has no place in this thread.
Speaking of an all volunteer Army with a solid morale, I understand that re-enlistment figures are way up. And they've requested bibles. 200,000 camo jacketed bibles are on their way.
As far as I know, the only "war" that we're actually engaged in is the war on terrorism. The U.S. Army in Iraq no longer has a majority of combat troops. Many other specialties necessary to build and, in some cases, restore infrastructure now permeate the ranks. We are not "at war" in Iraq, we are there to support their democratically elected government and to assist in training their armed forces.
Dennis Collins
Moderator
www.theunrealmccoy.com
http://theunrealmccoy.blogspot.com |
Harry Simenon
Unity Member
Post Number:
1919
Registered: 10-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, July 05, 2008 - 05:12 am: | |
Dennis:
"Obama has no place in this thread."
The topic in this thread diverted to the topic the Obama thread ended up at. That is what I mean.
"We are not "at war" in Iraq, we are there to support their democratically elected government and to assist in training their armed forces."
That is what you believe. It is not what I believe. |
Claudia Turner VanLydegraf
Wandering Member
Post Number:
167
Registered: 08-2001
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, July 05, 2008 - 11:56 am: | |
Harry,
YOU aren't the ones fighting the war over there in Iraq, WE are, so whatever you believe is really of no consequence, here or there.
"Support" is totally different than "at war" and IF you totally understood what the difference is you wouldn't be so against what it is we are doing there. Support is when you are requested to stay there to help those that need it, even if some of the needy ones don't realize that fact, those that want us there realized it and asked us to PLEASE NOT LEAVE THEM ALONE to carry on THEIR battle by themselves, because they weren't/still aren't totally prepared. Whether or not you understand that, is really irrelevant, the fact that you seem to think you have a right to ask it is a clear show of your lack of understanding of the whole reason for the US Forces even being there in the first place.
Just as the US would NOT have left Holland or any of the other countries that were being bombed, threatened, and overrun; alone in WWII, at the mercy of Germany or Russia, had they gotten that close to you, we will not leave a country that expresses a clear asking for our help now, (that country being Iraq) and the Iragi citizens, before Saddam was toppled, the Iraq emissaries and independent people came to the powers that were here and asked US to go in and take him out to protect the Kurds and several other groups that felt threatened, who had very recently lost over 300,000 of its citizenry to Saddam's brutality. The Iraqi citizens begged someone to do something to help them. We did it, partly because we were asked to help and partly because Osama bin Laden came over here and blew up several buildings in New York, thus giving us ample reason to have our military over in that region and for Bush open his eyes to see the coming fray and the "War on Terror" as looming and needed a place to take care of that and our country and the rest of the world at large, a sort of central base of intentions, you might say. Was it right to use Iraq as that place, probably not really, but had the Iraqi's settled down and the Bathist's not tried so valiantly to hold on and create more problems between the Islamic Sects there (Sunni's & Shia & Kurds) the whole thing would have ended a lot sooner and Bush, Military and all, would have left right after the Announcement that the WAR was over and we would have all pulled out then and there. BUT, the Taliban & Al Quaida had started rearing its ugly head and the war in Afghanistan was not over, and several other factors came into play with Iran and other country's supporting the terrorists in their small battles to keep the sects in Iraq fighting and at war with each other, thus we ended up staying, and now we are wanted there and have been for the last few years, again, because the regular Iraqi people understand what our presence there means as far as keeping the problems centralized in the regions that have the manpower to fight rather than all over the whole country...... They knew/know that they could no more prevent and take out all the other problems without our help, than they could put a man on the moon at this point. It is just too stupidly bad that the rest of the world doesn't understand what the Government of Iraq understands. Rome (Iraq) can't be rebuilt in a day, or a year or even a few years, at that matter. That is what we are trying to help Iraq do now, and that has been our major point of reference since all the problems started happening back in '03, after Saddam was captured
In other words, try looking at some things a bit more like you are thinking about what is right for the whole, rather than what is expedient for the few. That is what I firmly believe Bush and his whole crew were and still are trying to do, and that take a mind of a military person to grasp, even though Bush personally, didn't have all that much military service, he got in there with that mindset, and that is something that Obama would never do, because he doesn't have that ability. (in my humble opinion....)
Obama is not a military man in any way shape or form, in fact he is worse than Carter or Clinton ever thought to be, in that he would completely dismantle our military and break down any ability of our forces to even protect this country, let alone any other country that might need it. He would "negotiate" everyone out of a war mentality, yeah right..... Maybe that is what the world thinks is needed, but in reality, it is not, for as long as there is man, there will always be someone who thinks he is better, stronger, more needy of what the other person has, jealous, greedy, hateful, dominant, power seeking, and judging of others for them being of lesser quality, or thinking that they have a better answer to the affairs of the religion of peoples. The smarter or more conscious man becomes of his mind, the more things there are as reasons for war and terrorism to exist, and thus the need for war and military and protection and borders.
To make everyone in the world happy is a big huge job and I don't even think the "One World Government" could possibly do it, as man is a beast with a mentality that is self determining to be best at something, and a One World Gov., could not be able to handle the job any better than individual governments can, and that is not saying that even each country is exemplary at that job, but being smaller is better in many cases, or at worst, more controllable of smaller portions of the population is a better start at the job getting done. Who is to say that ONE person/entity has the right to determine for the whole world what is right or wrong at any given time in any given situation? Certainly not just one governing body can have that much control, unless it would be total control by force and complete submission of all individuality. Give me my submission pill every morning and I will be a good little obedient child/soldier..... and let someone make alll my decisions for me (George Orwellian thoughts and Soylent Green). But humankind is not obedient and submissive by nature. Sorry Harry, won't work.
Sorry I got off topic here, but I just started thinking about the whole problem as it came into my mind and writing about it as it came out.
Claudia
MINDSIGHT MODERATOR
|
Claudia Turner VanLydegraf
Wandering Member
Post Number:
168
Registered: 08-2001
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, July 05, 2008 - 12:15 pm: | |
Dennis,
Sorry I got off topic in that last posting, as this thread was supposed to be about your Soldier who came home.
Your soldier was a very valiant man and deserves to be honored and given a hero's welcome, as does every soldier who comes home from any war, no matter what the cause or how the justness of such actions are deemed. That young man sounds like a very special person who was doing his best at a demanding position and that deserves total respect and honor from us and from every other person in the world. War is not convenient, nor happy, and as this 4th of July reminds us every year, FREEDOM ISN'T FREE.... for anyone. IF I were there, I would tell him how very proud of him I am. Of him, and every single other person serving away from home doing a job that very few consider is worthy of the doing. Unfortunately with the ways our mentality and fickle mindset is, many people don't realize how much it takes to give totally of yourself for anyone else's well being. He did that and he is Special.
Claudia
MINDSIGHT MODERATOR
|
Harry Simenon
Unity Member
Post Number:
1920
Registered: 10-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, July 05, 2008 - 03:32 pm: | |
Claudia,
If you want to start a new thread to respond then that's fine with me. It is indeed way off topic by now.
Here is what I think you said, please correct me if I'm wrong:
You say that the US is in Iraq on request of the Iraqi's.
This to save the Kurds and others who lost already about 300,000 people.
Also, Osama blew up the WTC, and you needed to have a base in the 'region' (Middle East?) for the war on terror.
You do not really believe that it was right to use Iraq as a base.
But if all those folks would not have start fighting among each-other the whole thing would have been over soon when Bush declared "Mission accomplished"
The regular Iraqi's understand why you are there and want you there to help you.
The rest of the world is stupid and can't understand.
One entity should not have the right to determine for the whole world what is right and what is wrong.
Is this distilled version of your words correct? (And then we take it from there, if you will in a new thread.) |
Fred Dungan
Unity Member
Post Number:
2084
Registered: 10-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, July 05, 2008 - 07:14 pm: | |
Last month more American soldiers were killed while fighting against the Taliban in Afghanistan than we lost in Iraq. And we had to extend the tour of duty of the Marine Expeditionary Force by one month because several European Union nations did not supply as many troops to the fight as we had been led to believe.
The truth is that without a draft we are spread thin in meeting our military commitments, especially in Afghanistan. And we continue to finance the war on credit to the tune of $2 billion a day. I think that we should pay as we go even if this entails new taxes and rationing. If the troops have to sacrifice the good life to win the war, is it too much to ask the folks on the home front to do so also? In a nation that is super-sizing to the point of obesity, a little belt tightening wouldn't hurt. We should be focusing our efforts on the war rather than the pursuit and acquisition of consumer goods.
http://www.fdungan.com/draft.htm |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page