War Death Perspectives

[RWebb]

Originally Posted by fintstone

Perhaps you could elaborate a bit on your “military education” before you post here. Put up or shut up.

I've never claimed to have a military education, nor have I ever claimed that one is needed to express an OPINION about policy. [and note the difference in the global warming thread - an expert can evaluate the likelihood of assertions being factual - maybe you can't understand that].

Actually, I think every citizen has a duty to inform themselves on the country's policies and if they feel strongly, to express an opinion. I've had some arguments about that with a few Marine friends & colleagues. They feel more comfortable just shutting up - but, once out of uniform, I'd call it a duty of citizenship.

Now - since you wanted to know so badly - I have done some consulting for DoD. I won't comment any further on it. Nor do I think it is relevant.

As one person noted above, very few outside of the highest reaches of State or the JCS have full knowledge of what is going on in the world today. For sure, a lance corporal isn't going to get that view. Of course, he is going to get a pretty unhappy view that no civilian will get, excepting a few working for contractors in country -- but their view will differ too.

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by Snapper33

The recent book, "Engame" by Thomas McInerney spells out the issues most of you are needing information/answers on.

Here's the key: Think like a General, not a politician and you'll understand Iraq.

Oh, yeah! Fox News, that comedy show! I don't watch it often. So their retired military guy's got the info/answers we all are needing?

[Hard-Deck]

Originally Posted by DARISC

Oh, yeah! Fox News, that comedy show! I don't watch it often. So their retired military guy's got the info/answers we all are needing?

My opinion - Yes. Read it and form your own opinion if you'd like. For the most part I see a lot of posts arguing points that are not on track with the reality of why we are in Iraq.

[Rikao4]

Snapper,
not baiting you here..why are we , in your opinion.

Rika

[Hard-Deck]

Originally Posted by Rikao4

Snapper,
not baiting you here..why are we , in your opinion.

Rika

Rika, I've read a lot of your posts, so I know you don't bait.

I don't understand the Q. Maybe you left something out.

[Hard-Deck]

Rika, nevermind, I re-read your post and put it together, crazy that it took me a minute to build the Q.

We are in Iraq due to a large threat to our National Security. I'm not one to post a lot, just some points to ponder. I don't try to force my opinion, I just try to invoke deeper thought than us being there for oil, to help Iraqis, because Bush wanted vengence for his dad etc...blah, blah, blah.

My military position doesn't allow me to post more than I do.

[Tobra]

Originally Posted by island911

I believe that is a false premise. We are not there to "save Iraqis." We are there to promote stability in the region; which in turn helps keep the machinery of the civilized world going.

The thing that gets me is the void of reasonable ideas that come from the 'anti-war' crowd. They don't, or can't extrapolate what will happen to the region if the west pulls out leaving an unstable Iraq. They want to only focus on the well intentioned myopic result of "our guys are home." But what happens to our home/ our world if pissed at the world / pissed at the ME oil Royals OBL and his ilk set the region on fire? (ala Saddam pulling out of Kuwait ) What if Iran fills the void of Iraq, and then keeps on taking more of the region?

Art, you claim the region are a bunch of "People who refuse to be civilized and insist upon living in a tribal environment will never have a peaceful country."

So is this then a good group to have so much money that they can buy what ever nukes they want?

Our troops are doing so much more than the simplistic model of events laid out by those uncomfortable with conflict.

what are you thinking trying to persuade using reason?

Originally Posted by DARISC

What do you see as reasonable ideas from the "pro-war" crowd? Is there a void there also?

while I am certain you would disagree, I think he may just be referring to the fact that none of the "get all the troops out today" folks appear to appreciate the potential downside to doing this. They don't seem to look at the situation realistically.

Originally Posted by Snapper33

My opinion - Yes. Read it and form your own opinion if you'd like. For the most part I see a lot of posts arguing points that are not on track with the reality of why we are in Iraq.

about 90% minimum

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by Snapper33

We are in Iraq due to a large threat to our National Security.

We invaded Iraq because it supposedly had weapons of mass destruction, none of which were found. Prior to the invasion Iraq was not a threat, large or small, to our national security.

[Hard-Deck]

Originally Posted by DARISC

We invaded Iraq because it supposedly had weapons of mass destruction, none of which were found. Prior to the invasion Iraq was not a threat, large or small, to our national security.

There WAS WMD, it was Nukes that were not found. But Saddam WAS trying.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by Tobra

while I am certain you would disagree, I think he may just be referring to the fact that none of the "get all the troops out today" folks appear to appreciate the potential downside to doing this. They don't seem to look at the situation realistically.

You're wrong. I know who he was referring to. My question back to him was...well, it's in the post.

I've never advocated "getting all the troops out today". First, that's a logistical impossibility. Second, it would leave a power vacuum that might suck in the bad guys and cause us even more trouble than we've managed to create for ourselves already.

I believe we should get out of Iraq as soon as we possibly can and I believe we have stupidly created a situation there that makes it extremely difficult to do so.

When the war whoops started up before the invasion, I'm on record as stating "Bad, bad mistake to do this! Watch and see what happens." So what I'm seeing comes as no surprise; my prediction that the aftermath of an invasion would be bloody and controversial, with ever diminishing public support being correct is of no comfort to me.

Your comment, in the requisite green, is laughable. There are two sides to this argument, both having their good points as well as their bad points and neither is devoid of reason if one has an open enough mind to attempt to look objectively at both sides.

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by Snapper33

There WAS WMD, it was Nukes that were not found. But Saddam WAS trying.

Geez, get informed...or inform me! Or are you meaning WAS as "once upon a time there WAS" - which is widely known to be true. Did we find any when we invaded?

[RWebb]

We should be careful who we are putting in what category. Most of the politicians who say "get us out" are advocating an extended draw-down -- IIRC, Obama's is about 16 months long, and the endpoint is not zero troops in Iraq.

The real problem for the US is that we are tied down in Iraq. We might want to use those troops in Pakistan, in Afghanistan, or in Iran.

Or -- we might just want leaders in certain countries to feel like we could easily use our troops in the above countries. A credible threat or show of force is often as useful as actual use. Witness the famed "Dictator Gulp Moment: "Supreme Leader! There are ships full of US Marines sitting just off our coastline!"

It adds to the calculus...

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by RWebb

We should be careful who we are putting in what category. Most of the politicians who say "get us out" are advocating an extended draw-down -- IIRC, Obama's is about 16 months long, and the endpoint is not zero troops in Iraq.

The real problem for the US is that we are tied down in Iraq. We might want to use those troops in Pakistan, in Afghanistan, or in Iran.

Or -- we might just want leaders in certain countries to feel like we could easily use our troops in the above countries. A credible threat or show of force is often as useful as actual use. Witness the famed "Dictator Gulp Moment: "Supreme Leader! There are ships full of US Marines sitting just off our coastline!"

It adds to the calculus...

Agreed.

[Hard-Deck]

Originally Posted by DARISC

Geez, get informed...or inform me! Or are you meaning WAS as "once upon a time there WAS" - which is widely known to be true. Did we find any when we invaded?

I'm informed. Three tours in the M.E. as a SPECOPS Commander with a TS/SCI. There were WMD.

I applaud that you do not blindly accept what people say, but you also do not seem to have access to S/TS in order to prove your point otherwise. All I ask is that people continue to not blindly accept what the politicians say, but be open to the fact the the INTEL community knows more than the public.

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by Snapper33

I'm informed. Three tours in the M.E. as a SPECOPS Commander with a TS/SCI. There were WMD.

I applaud that you do not blindly accept what people say, but you also do not seem to have access to S/TS in order to prove your point otherwise. All I ask is that people continue to not blindly accept what the politicians say, but be open to the fact the the INTEL community knows more than the public.

Was that ever reported on in the media? All I ever read or heard was that they found none and it was speculated that they had hidden it in the desert or spirited it into Syria. It's difficult to believe, with all the controversy at the time, that if WMD had been discovered, the American public wouldn't have been informed.

What is S/TS? What was found? I think I do remember something about some out dated mustard gas, but I don't think that would qualify, eh?

[Hard-Deck]

Originally Posted by DARISC

Was that ever reported on in the media? All I ever read or heard was that they found none and it was speculated that they had hidden it in the desert or spirited it into Syria. It's difficult to believe, with all the controversy at the time, that if WMD had been discovered, the American public wouldn't have been informed.

What is S/TS? What was found? I think I do remember something about some out dated mustard gas, but I don't think that would qualify, eh?

TS-SCI = Top Secret- (with) Sensitive Compartmentalized Information (Access)
S/TS= Secret/Top Secret

Hey bud, it's hard to say this to you, but I've said all I can divulge. I hope you do realize the public doesn't know everything...I'm sure you know.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally Posted by Snapper33

TS-SCI = Top Secret- (with) Sensitive Compartmentalized Information (Access)
S/TS= Secret/Top Secret

Hey bud, it's hard to say this to you, but I've said all I can divulge. I hope you do realize the public doesn't know everything...I'm sure you know.

Like in a Maddox/Turner Joy kind of way?

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa

Like in a Maddox/Turner Joy kind of way?

I, personaly, am shocked and awed by this revelation. We went into Iraq because they had WMD. And we found WMD!

But we, the public, are not privy to where it was found, what was found (except that it was not nukes), how much of it was found and what was done with it after we found it - because that information remains TS.

So, given that, our attack was justified; based on findings that are TS. We the people just have to accept that and believe our gov't when it says it found WMD and we're going to war.

Hmmm....why am I feeling so skeptical?

Anyone? Anyone?

[tshore]

Originally Posted by Snapper33

I'm informed. Three tours in the M.E. as a SPECOPS Commander with a TS/SCI. There were WMD.

I applaud that you do not blindly accept what people say, but you also do not seem to have access to S/TS in order to prove your point otherwise. All I ask is that people continue to not blindly accept what the politicians say, but be open to the fact the the INTEL community knows more than the public.

Why would the Bush admin, which claimed to have remarkably detailed knowledge of Iraq's WMDs prior to the war be so coy about saying what they found once we were in there?

These alleged weapons were described in detail by the Secretary of State in an address to the UN Security Council in a speech heard by the entire world. Now they have actually been found, you say, but it's all tippy-top secret. What changed? Why all the fanfare then, and secrecy now?

Now, I did recall reading a couple of years back that there had been uncovered several mustard-gas shells that had fallen into the hands of insurgents, evidently because we had failed to secure the ammo dumps after our invasion. The shells dated from before the first Gulf War, and from what I read had deteriorated and were not usable. The key thing was this - the shells were MADE IN THE USA. We had sold Saddam chemical weapons back in the 80's, and a few of these shells were still kicking around, although evidently they were not dangerous enough to warrant preventing insurgents from walking into ammo dumps and gathering them up.

So is that it? Were old chemical weapons found that we had sold to Saddam back when he was our buddy? And was their existance so embarrassing to the administration that they didn't dare let the public know?