Soldier's view on the war

[Riot]

I found this video on youtube and I thought it was very interesting and touching. This is a Ranger who has served two tours of duty in Iraq. He called into a radio station to talk about the Iraq War Funding bill on how the democrats want to pull out of Iraq saying we lost the war. This is how this specific troop feels, and I know from experience, a lot of troops feel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh1dWrf-k_E

[Ty-Land]

Here we go again. Suit up in your battle armour there's a fight a brewin'. Flame retardant helmet on: check. Ok, let's go.

I'm not going to watch the clip yet (as I've got a Contract Tute to depart for shortly), but will if I get a chance tonight. But on a related topic a new mate of mine has been on service for RAAF in Iraq. Very nice guy, top bloke actually. Since returning from his tour of duty, he has left the Air Force to study Psychology so he can go back into the armed forces at a later date to help those suffering from psychological based issues of the war. In general, he thought we had to be there because of the committment we made, but the general feeling in the areas he worked was that most people wished the committment wasn't made in the first place. Very interesting perspective.

Anyway, gotta split...

[Ryan]

And many troops feel the opposite. We won the war four years ago (see "Mission Accomplished".) Now we are occupying Iraq and trying to police people who do not want us there. There is no good way to end this occupation. Bush's plan isn't working, the Dem's plan to pull out could leave Iraq in even more chaos. It's really a lose-lose situation.

Most of my friends have already returned from their tours and they have mixed views on what we should do. My cousin is returning next week and I really would like to hear his opinion on the matter. As for one of my old poker buddies, he returned from Iraq just a little while ago too...

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/fall ... t-c-knoll/

[Riot]

We are policing their country because we took out their government and we're still in the process of installing a free democratic state in Iraq. They may want us to leave, not because they hate us but because they don't feel safe right now, but the reality of the situation is we can't leave. We have to be there to make sure the country doesn't fall into the hands of the wrong people. It's about liberating the Iraqi people, securing American interests and trying to provide a safe environment for the world. If the wrong people, aka the terrorists, get in control in Iraq they will control where the oil goes and where the money goes. That money would go toward terrorist activities and not where it should go, to the Iraqi people.

I think a lot of the troops that feel the "opposite way" are saying things like the war was stupid and unjustified, which is their opinion even though I disagree with it. The Soldiers, Marines and Airmen I've talked to have all said they don't want us to pull out of Iraq because then their buddies that died were taken away in vein. That's the biggest thing that is fueling our troops right now. They are taking these attacks, by the inserugents and the democrats, personally and for a lot of them it's eating them up. My cousin thinks it is an insult that the democrats and media think we are losing the war. He views it as a direct attack on him and his fellow troops who are doing the job.

One Marine who was at Fort Snelling during some event the Marines were hosting for interested recruits told me that he thinks it will be impossible for America to win a war ever again because of the media. The media is going to go anywhere and everywhere now which leaves little up to the imagination. All the killing and bloodshed is on our TV sets now and people don't want to see that. It started in Vietnam and it's continuing on now. People see our troops dying and they think we are losing. War has always been a brutal and horrific scene, you can't expect it to be flowers and daisies. The media, which is very liberal, seems to think that way, though.

[Axel]

Why are you posting this?

I'm still voting democrat regardless as are most people. Your vote will still not count for squat because you live in Minnesota which always votes democrat.

I don't think any one person couple with your 'experience' is going to be enough to convince people that the war is good. I think there is much more to it for most people than simply troop morale.

Why do we kill people for killing people to show that killing people is wrong? It's the most backward thinking I've ever seen.

[Riot]

Why do we kill people for killing people to show that killing people is wrong? It's the most backward thinking I've ever seen.

Yes, FDR should have used that rational during WWII. We shouldn't have killed the Nazi's for killing all the innocent Jews because killing people is bad. Amen.

[Axel]

Why do we kill people for killing people to show that killing people is wrong? It's the most backward thinking I've ever seen.

Yes, FDR should have used that rational during WWII. We shouldn't have killed the Nazi's for killing all the innocent Jews because killing people is bad. Amen.

You're supporting the rationale of the founder of modern democratic ideals?

I'm surprised.

and actually btw, that wasn't why went to war, just incase you didn't know.

[bigh0rt]

Why are you posting this?

I'm still voting democrat regardless as are most people. Your vote will still not count for squat because you live in Minnesota which always votes democrat.

His vote won't count because he's not of legal voting age.

[el badman]

People see our troops dying and they think we are losing. War has always been a brutal and horrific scene, you can't expect it to be flowers and daisies.

Winning or losing doesn't mean much in the current situation. Does losing mean that the US troops would fall back or would all be defeated? Does winning mean that every single insurgent (aka "terrorists" to make it simpler for you...) in this region would be arrested or killed, and that a western-style democracy would be created there for good?
Whatever you wanna associate with "win" and "loss", either alternative is complete utopia. Whatever happens in Iraq, it will not stop there, the US have stirred up too much hate everywhere to prevent a "nice and clean" conclusion to this war (which hasn't been a war for a while btw, just a continuous invasion that gets worse everyday). They made this world a much more dangerous place for everyone, and no amount of troops or $ is likely to change that anytime soon.

[Riot]

Winning would be leaving Iraq with a stable democracy in place that can sustain itself. That is the mission. Sure, we stuck our faces right in the middle of a hornets nest but it was something that had to be done. Whether you believe in it or not (which I find odd if you don't), we are going after terrorism actively now due to the violent attacks on my country.

A loss in Iraq is a win for the Democratic Party, which is why I have a hard time believing anything they say. What they want to do it isn't what is best for this country, but only for themselves. It's not that the Democratic party thinks we lost, they want us to lose. That's a scary thought and the harsh reality.

[Jackal]

[Matt]

^amen to that brotha!

[bigh0rt]

Winning would be leaving Iraq with a stable democracy in place that can sustain itself. That is the mission.

I'm just wondering when that became the mission; because several years ago I heard nothing about leaving Iraq with a stable democracy in a place that can sustain itself. This mission keeps changing.

[Riot]

Winning would be leaving Iraq with a stable democracy in place that can sustain itself. That is the mission.

I'm just wondering when that became the mission; because several years ago I heard nothing about leaving Iraq with a stable democracy in a place that can sustain itself. This mission keeps changing.

No, that's pretty much been the mission from the get go. You maybe talking about other objectives, but they all fall under the same mission which is to have a stable, free, democratic and pro-western Iraq. That's been the mission since Day 1.

[Gundy]

^Wait, what about the whole WMDs reason?

[Riot]

^Wait, what about the whole WMDs reason?

The weapons of Mass destruction was a cause for going to war and it was an objective. It was not the mission. I think you guys need a refreshers course on what MISSION means. The mission the entire time has been to take Saddam and his regime out and put into place a pro-western, democratic government in Iraq. That has always been the mission.

WMDs is not a mission.

[el badman]

The weapons of Mass destruction was a cause for going to war and it was an objective. It was not the mission. I think you guys need a refreshers course on what MISSION means.

I guess you got some inside info from the Pentagon then...
To make it clear, the WMDs were a false justification to invade a country, get ahold of its natural resources, and while they're at it, remove a tyrant who had been bugging them for a couple of decades (but who was their ally against "evil" Iran before that).
We don't need any refreshers course, we can interprete the facts objectively enough.

and put into place a pro-western, democratic government in Iraq.

Precisely, the US don't have any right to impose their political and cultural principles on anyone else, especially when they use phony reasons to achieve this.

[Riot]

To make it clear, the WMDs were a false justification to invade a country

The intelligence was faulty but you can't blame that on the administration. This is intelligence that was shared by numerous countries and was brought to Bush's attention by the Clinton administration. It was wrong, but it was not a lie. It was simply wrong. There is a BIG difference.

get ahold of its natural resources

All the money from the oil is going straight to Iraq. Not one single barrel of oil has been taken by America. Not one single dollar has been taken by America. This protects our assets yes, which is perfectly fine for a country to do, but it's also to protect the Iraqi's. They weren't getting a fair cut of the oil profit and now they are getting all of it.

and while they're at it, remove a tyrant who had been bugging them for a couple of decades (but who was their ally against "evil" Iran before that).

They remove a tyrant who was unstable and about to be sanction-less in a region that was growing with anti-American sentiment. Saddam was going to be FREE TO MAKE WEAPONS within a few months anyways. It was a risk I'm glad our leaders didn't take. Saddam was unstable and a threat.

We don't need any refreshers course, we can interprete the facts objectively enough.

You don't seem to understand three key aspects though.

1). Saddam and Iraq's sanctions placed on them were about to expire and the U.N. had no intentions of renewing them or enforcing them.

2). The Iraqi people wanted to be freed from Saddam and were happy when we took him out. They wanted a democracy.

3). The whole WMD mess cannot be placed solely on the Bush administration. It's intelligence that was given to him by numerous sources, including your beloved President Clinton and his cabinet. Clinton was saying for years that Saddam had WMDs.

Precisely, the US don't have any right to impose their political and cultural principles on anyone else, especially when they use phony reasons to achieve this.

But the Iraqi people want it! I don't see how you can't understand this. When we first came into the country and took out Saddam's regime we were hailed as liberators. A few years later a lot of Iraqi's are growing impatient with the occupation simply because little progress has been made to make the country safer. That is understandable, but the majority of them also say they are thankful that the Americans came to help them. They don't hate us for coming in and "imposing our political and cultural principles on them". The democracy is being tailored to them and it's not going to be indentical to America (there would be no way that would work) but once the government is in place and stablized you will see that it will work.

You seem to be under the impression that 85%+ of Iraqi's don't like America and hate democracy. That is false.

[Ty-Land]

^Wait, what about the whole WMDs reason?

The weapons of Mass destruction was a cause for going to war and it was an objective. It was not the mission. I think you guys need a refreshers course on what MISSION means. The mission the entire time has been to take Saddam and his regime out and put into place a pro-western, democratic government in Iraq. That has always been the mission.

WMDs is not a mission.

So the US and allies would have invaded Iraq if, theoretically, the UN weapons inspectors from the IAEA found WMD"s and had them successfully removed on diplomatic terms, to establish a democratic form of government?

I find that very hard to believe. And if that is actually the case, there is numerous other countries that should be considered for invasion as their regimes are very similar and dangerous. Look out Burma, Sudan, North Korea etc.

It's not hard to argue that WMD's weren't the mission, as it doesn't make any sense. But they were a key, if not the key, motive for the invasion. WMD's as well as non-existant links to Osama Bin Laden were the key deliberated factors in the US' argument for Security Council recommendation to go to war.

Further, why was the government to be installed required to be pro-western. Hardly sounds democratic to me, in fact it sounds a lot like a puppet government. I'm sure Vichy France supporters and attackers would agree. If it was to be truly democratic, its relations towards the 'west' would have been determined by the people. Providing only pro-Western candidates for the ranking positions of power limits the true democratic capacities of the new government.

This is not to say that the removal of Sadaam was a bad thing. He had to go sooner rather than later, and more likely than not, should have been gone a lot earlier. It is the same desires for democracy, peace and the protection of civilians from war crimes and genocide in Darfur that would provide my wholehearted support for a joint humanitarian intervention involving the U.S and allies, possible working under the auspices of NATO and the EU (and the African Union if capable to play such a major role in the early stages of its establishment).

[bigh0rt]

^Wait, what about the whole WMDs reason?

The weapons of Mass destruction was a cause for going to war and it was an objective. It was not the mission. I think you guys need a refreshers course on what MISSION means. The mission the entire time has been to take Saddam and his regime out and put into place a pro-western, democratic government in Iraq. That has always been the mission.

WMDs is not a mission.

You have awful selective memory. I'd love you to find me any article or documentation from 2003 or even 2004 where any mention of our final goal and/or mission was to put into place a pro-western democratic government in Iraq. As I said initially, this spin on the war has been a pretty recent one, and you'll have a hell of a time convincing me otherwise, because it's just not the case.

Not to pick on your age here, Riot, but if I'm remembering, you're what, 16 - 17 now? That would put you at possibly 13 years old during the time period I'm referring to. I'm struggling to believe that you were politically and/or socially engaged enough to even fully understand cognitively what was going on at that point. I know when I speak to kids that age even in my own classrooms today, they don't have as full a grasp on current events as I would anticipate. Again, this isn't a shot at you, or something like, "You're just a kid, what do you know?" But I'm talking about 2002, 2003, 2004, where there simply was no mention of forming a stable government in Iraq, nevermind calling it our main operative mission, and I'd just struggle to think you were that aware at that time.

[Ty-Land]

^Wait, what about the whole WMDs reason?

The weapons of Mass destruction was a cause for going to war and it was an objective. It was not the mission. I think you guys need a refreshers course on what MISSION means. The mission the entire time has been to take Saddam and his regime out and put into place a pro-western, democratic government in Iraq. That has always been the mission.

WMDs is not a mission.

You have awful selective memory. I'd love you to find me any article or documentation from 2003 or even 2004 where any mention of our final goal and/or mission was to put into place a pro-western democratic government in Iraq. As I said initially, this spin on the war has been a pretty recent one, and you'll have a hell of a time convincing me otherwise, because it's just not the case.

This premise hardly even existed in 2004 when I studied this subject. The 2002 NPR, which stated the U.S Governments military aims and ambitions, did not list the introduction of democratic governments into states with dictators as a key objective. But terrorism and the removal of WMD's from rogue states were clearly prevalent (and in fact the main motivating factors behind the latest revisions).

If the US had such a concern with the Hussein regime, to an extent that they had to invade the country to install a new democratic government, then:

1) Why didn't they do it at an earlier date?

2) Why aren't they tacking the same problem (worse to a certain extent) in Sudan, Burma, Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea etc.

3) Are you suggesting this was the same motive to invade Afghanistan i.e. to remove the Taliban and not suppress the terrorist activities there (as even though they are linked, they are organised and operated seperately)?

Furthermore, thinking that this was the true objective and justification for the war in Iraq, it gives the US further legal justification for there presence there. While humanitarian intervention is accepted while sanctioned by the UN Security Council, entering a nation to dispose of a dictator is not if it is to purely establish a pro-Western form of government. Looking at political theory, involvement in Iraq's domestic politics by the US is a gross invasion of sovereignty. It would be like France invading the US to remove Bush from power cause they don't like what he is doing. Totally unacceptable.

If 9/11 never occurred, then I doubt the US would be there as well. Terrorism and a fear of WMD attacks (fear that is often irrational or misguided) where the spine of this mission, the key motivating factors, the catalysts and, seemingly, likely outcomes of its occurrence.

[Riot]

http://www.twq.com/03summer/docs/03summ ... ollack.pdf

I have to go but that article is from the summer of 2003 and it has quotes from President Bush saying he wants a democracy in Iraq. That has been the focus for the entire time. I will find more when I get home later this afternoon.

[el badman]

If 9/11 never occurred, then I doubt the US would be there as well. Terrorism and a fear of WMD attacks (fear that is often irrational or misguided) where the spine of this mission, the key motivating factors, the catalysts and, seemingly, likely outcomes of its occurrence.

Can't believe anyone wouldn't be able to realize that.

http://www.twq.com/03summer/docs/03summ ... ollack.pdf

I have to go but that article is from the summer of 2003 and it has quotes from President Bush saying he wants a democracy in Iraq. That has been the focus for the entire time. I will find more when I get home later this afternoon.

Since the invasion had already started and 90% of the world was very much against it, it's pretty obvious that the administration had to come up with whatever reason they could find to justify their decision further. Since they knew they lied about the WMDs from the beginning, they had to pretend they actually cared about Iraqis and wanted to develop a democracy. Also, why not throwing in there a connection to Al Qaeda, at least the US population wouldn't question that, right?

But the Iraqi people want it! I don't see how you can't understand this. When we first came into the country and took out Saddam's regime we were hailed as liberators.

I hardly believe you would know exactly what a population with radically different cultural, religious and political beliefs would want, and how they want it. While their majority wanted Saddam removed, it's fair to assume they didn't want it done by the Americans, who certainly weren't hailed as liberators when they arrived. You're obviously trying very hard to convince yourself, but it's not what happened.

[Riot]

Can't believe anyone wouldn't be able to realize that.

Not true...Bush was planning on taking over Iraq before 9/11 even happened.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/

Since the invasion had already started and 90% of the world was very much against it, it's pretty obvious that the administration had to come up with whatever reason they could find to justify their decision further. Since they knew they lied about the WMDs from the beginning, they had to pretend they actually cared about Iraqis and wanted to develop a democracy. Also, why not throwing in there a connection to Al Qaeda, at least the US population wouldn't question that, right?

What the hell do you want from me? You ask me to get you an article and a quote from 2001-2003 about them wanting to place a democracy in Iraq. The war was only literally 2-3 months old when this article was published. Those quotes could have been said weeks before, too. You wanted something from the beginning of the war stating that democracy was the mission and I gave it to you.

If you don't think putting a democracy in Iraq was the original mission than what was it? Take out Saddam and leave? What do you excatly think the adminstration was thinking then if they had no intention of putting Iraq in a democracy because I think it's been pretty clear that has been the goal since day 1.

I hardly believe you would know exactly what a population with radically different cultural, religious and political beliefs would want, and how they want it. While their majority wanted Saddam removed, it's fair to assume they didn't want it done by the Americans, who certainly weren't hailed as liberators when they arrived. You're obviously trying very hard to convince yourself, but it's not what happened.

I wouldn't because I haven't been there but I know people who have been there. From the opening invasion to the actual occupation of Iraq. It is probably different throughout the country but the people I've talked to (cousins, friends and Marines I met at Fort Snelling) told me the Iraqi's were very nice to them and thanked them dearly. We've all seen the videos of them dancing in the streets with their purple die on their fingers. They were PROUD to be IRAQI and to be FREE. They wouldn't risk their lives to go out and vote if they didn't want democracy. I just don't understand how you can disagree with that.

Like I said, right now a lot of the Iraqi's are running out of patience which is too bad. They need to step up, not step back. However, in the beginning a lot of Iraqi's were very thankful (and still are) that we took out Saddam for them. I forgot where I heard it from, it might have been one of those Iraqi specials on Discovery Times channel, where they said the Iraqi's were actually embarassed when we caught Saddam inside a fox hole. They took it as they needed an outside force to takeout someone who was so weak and cowardly. Regardless though, they are grateful that we came and helped them.

But quite honestly, I don't give a fuck if you don't think they respect and thank America. I can't really blame you either because that's the vibe you get from the news everyday. The only thing I ask of you is to remember that the attacks are done by a small percentage of people. The majority of Iraqi's aren't doing anything wrong. Many of them don't show their support to the Americans simply because if they are seen supporting or talking with an American they will be killed by the inserguents. Once it calms down over there you will see.

[el badman]

You wanted something from the beginning of the war stating that democracy was the mission and I gave it to you.

Actually, I didn't ask for anything. I don't need any article to make me believe that the administration's initial goal was to spread freedom and democracy. The entire world knows this wasn't the case.

If you don't think putting a democracy in Iraq was the original mission than what was it?

There's a difference between going to the rescue of a population/creating a democracy out of compassion, and finding any phony reason to remove someone who was basically a thorn in their foot. After the 1st Gulf War, the US were desperate for any excuse to kick out Saddam, they never cared about what could happen to the Iraqis afterwards.

Like I said, right now a lot of the Iraqi's are running out of patience which is too bad. They need to step up, not step back.

Yeah, they should really stop being whiny little bitches, right? After only 4 years of forced occupation, their patience is running low??? shame on them

I can't really blame you either because that's the vibe you get from the news everyday.

Yeah, mentioning the daily casualties, the explosions, the kidnappings...that's such a liberal thing to do. Damn you medias, you're giving me a bad vibe!
Anyway, pointless as usual...