AWOL tough guy invites militants to attack the men and women that actually serve.

http://bbs.clutchcity.net/php3/showthread.php?s=&threadid=59878&perpage=30&pagenumber=4

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0707/p02s01-woiq.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0707/p01s04-woiq.html

I think they must have only interviewed the one percenters...

 

Woofer, I think we should really define a One percenter: Someone who reads National Review Online, has wished for a Middle East or at least some war for years and has not been deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan or our any of our recent invasions and occupations.

All I know is that my brother in law, 20 years in the Army Rangers sees US foreign policy very similar to how I do. At a recent family gathering in which I was not present he got asked to leave as another brother in law who has never been in the military was prattling on about "precise surgical strikes", to which the career Army Ranger brother in law said "f*** you, there is no such thing as a precise surgical strike; you don't know what you are talking about".

Here's some comments from another veteran of the Special Forces.

"Yesterday, when I read that US Commander-in-Chief George W. Bush, in a moment of blustering arm-chair machismo, sent a message to the 'non-existent' Iraqi guerrillas to "bring 'em on," the first image in my mind was a 20-year-old soldier in an ever-more-fragile marriage, who'd been away from home for 8 months. He participated in the initial invasion, and was told he'd be home for the 4th of July. He has a newfound familiarity with corpses, and everything he thought he knew last year is now under revision. He is sent out into the streets of Fallujah (or some other city), where he has already been shot at once or twice with automatic weapons or an RPG, and his nerves are raw. He is wearing Kevlar and ceramic body armor, a Kevlar helmet, a load carrying harness with ammunition, grenades, flex-cuffs, first-aid gear, water, and assorted other paraphernalia. His weapon weighs seven pounds, ten with a double magazine. His boots are bloused, and his long-sleeve shirt is buttoned at the wrist. It is between 100-110 degrees Fahrenheit at midday. He's been eating MRE's three times a day, when he has an appetite in this heat, and even his urine is beginning to smell like preservatives. Mosquitoes and sand flies plague him in the evenings, and he probably pulls a guard shift every night, never sleeping straight through. He and his comrades are beginning to get on each others' nerves. The rumors of 'going-home, not-going-home' are keeping him on an emotional roller coaster. Directives from on high are contradictory, confusing, and often stupid. The whole population seems hostile to him and he is developing a deep animosity for Iraq and all its people--as well as for official narratives.

This is the lad who will hear from someone that George W. Bush, dressed in a suit with a belly full of rich food, just hurled a manly taunt from a 72-degree studio at the 'non-existent' Iraqi resistance."



more

 

Woofer:

What exactly did you not understand about:

I am quite sure that 99% (yes, it is a big number) of the people over there would rather not be there. No one does. It's currently a hell-hole where your chances of being shot at are almost as good as in the Third Ward, so of course no one wants to be there. It is dangerous. It is dirty. They have to go for long periods of sleep without rest. They have to do things that piss the locals off (like raiding houses, regulating traffic, and dealing with protestors) with practically no thanks from anybody. They have not seen their families in months. Of course they don't want to be there.

I did not think that was too hard to understand. Nor really inconsistent with anything said in either of your articles. But nowhere - nowhere - did anyone in your articles say anything along the lines of "We shouldn't be there", or "This is a bad mission". Of course no one wants to be there. That doesn't mean that they think that the mission wasn't worth it or necessary.

glynch:

Oh, well, if your SF brother sayz it, it must be true... I mean, I'll just take your word for it that the guy even exists...

Say, uh, exactly how many years of your life did you sacrifice to serve your country? Don't you dare denigrate me for my service. I go where I'm told, and last time I checked you never volunteered your life for your country, so don't you dare lecture me on that subject, you spineless twit.

 

I did not think that was too hard to understand. Nor really inconsistent with anything said in either of your articles. But nowhere - nowhere - did anyone in your articles say anything along the lines of "We shouldn't be there", or "This is a bad mission". Of course no one wants to be there. That doesn't mean that they think that the mission wasn't worth it or necessary.

From SF's article, first line:

<I>To Staff Sgt. Charles Pollard, the working-class suburb of Mashtal is a "very, very, very, very bad neighborhood." And he sees just one solution.

"U.S. officials need to get our [expletive] out of here," said the 43-year-old reservist from Pittsburgh, who arrived in Iraq with the 307th Military Police Company on May 24. "I say that seriously. We have no business being here. We will not change the culture they have in Iraq, in Baghdad. Baghdad is so corrupted. All we are here is potential people to be killed and sitting ducks."
</I>

 

I am the great and powerful Oz, I mean Bush, yeah, thats what I mean!

 

Or instead of 'getting our asses out of their', we triple our forces in Iraq and beat the country into submission. Bad neighborhoods? Just carpet bomb then. Casualties? Oh well. Guess you shouldn't have ****ed with our troops.

IMO, that's a better option than just leaving. Iraq should be made a protectorate of the U.S. Saudi Arabia is next.

 

Brilliant analysis. Of course, we can always counter religion and nationalism with brute force. Why didn't I realize this earlier? Bring it on!