Letter To America From Marines From Iraq!

"To America,

This letter is to all who see fit and think they deserve the right to criticize the actions of an American man fighting enemies in a foreign land. An enemy that is too cowardice to stand up and fight, an enemy that hides behind women and children as they shoot at US marines, soldiers and sailors, an enemy that uses intimidation tactics such as cutting off the heads of innocent men and women in order to strike fear into our hearts, an enemy that shoots and blows up their own citizens, whether children or adults, an enemy that booby traps their own injured or dead to kill the US armed forces personnel that come to care for the wounded and to clean up the city, and an enemy that pretends to play dead so they can strike another blow to the hearts of some American families that have a son or daughter in harms way by blowing him and his fellow men up.

This is the story of such a man. A man who took the worst of what the enemy could throw at him and survived. He survived by being protected from the explosion by his fellow men that died instead of him by sustaining the majority of the blast. He is a man who saw the worst of war and lived to tell the story. He is a man who saw the worst thing imaginable, some of his fellow men pay the ultimate price at the hands of the enemy. It is a thing no one who has been in harms way will ever forget, your fellow comrades dying next to you. He, like everyone else who has lived through such an experience, learned from it. He saw the extent his enemy would go to. The deliberateness of the enemy to recognize that American forces will provide care for injured and then use the ploy of being wounded in last attempt to kill some more marines. When he was presented with the same scenario a few days later he acted in a manner that ensured his safety and the lives of his fellow marines.

You who have been there in harms way and have tasted the horrors of war and watched helplessly as the man to your left or right died instead of you and question this man forget the hard lessons you once learned and do a disservice to marines, soldiers and sailors everywhere. You who have never picked up a rifle and defended your country should stop criticizing what you haven’t done. You who live from day to day in the greatest country in the world yet never consider why it is so. You who sit with rapt attention to what the news camera brings to your screen every night and think you are getting the whole story and think what you see in that brief instant gives you the right to condemn a man who is willing to give his life for you if necessary should stop and reconsider your thinking. You who protest this war and other conflicts forget why you even have the freedom to hold protests in broad daylight in the streets of towns and of cities in America.

You who think about us over here only when the ten o’clock news comes on, try thinking about it as we do. We think about it every second of every minute of every hour of every day of the week. And all we have is each other. And the comrade to our left and right we love as a brother, a father, or as a son. We know that at any moment that comrade to our left or right might be called to lay down his life for us but that if we could determine fate, we would rather die for him. This is the bond we have together.

So while you enjoy the holidays with family and friends, think about why you are sitting down at your table in your home in a free country, and remember us. While you worry about buying that last minute gift Christmas Eve and getting it wrapped before Christmas morning, think about us. While you enjoy the New Year’s celebration in a great country that stands for freedom, think about us. Think about us as we preserve the freedom that many men and women before us have sacrificed so much for. Think about us as we fight the opposition to bring home safely our fellow comrades and family. And think the next time you see fit to criticize an American man who has the courage to fight for his comrade’s lives and America’s freedom and your way of life.



A US Marine in Iraq"

 

Although i am the most inappropriate person to answer, i will because i see nobody else's doing it.

an enemy that booby traps their own injured or dead to kill the US armed forces personnel that come to care for the wounded and to clean up the city, and an enemy that pretends to play dead so they can strike another blow to the hearts of some American families that have a son or daughter in harms way by blowing him and his fellow men up.

old news.
my grandfather got a ball in his belly because (despite indigenous forewarnings ) he thought too cruel & inhuman to stab those lying on the ground.
That was 1936 in Africa.
Too bad boobytraps, "playing dead" etc are common warfare practice.
My grandfather learnt his lesson; you will as well.

your fellow comrades dying next to you.

war.

You who have never picked up a rifle and defended your country

Even Patton (if i'm not mistaken) said the secret of war is not to die for one's country, but to let the other SOB die for his.
You're defending the USA as much as USSR soldiers were defending USSR in Afghanistan.
Next clown in power & it may all be a mistake.

why you even have the freedom to hold protests in broad daylight in the streets of towns and of cities in America.

and that changes nothing.
Frederick II of Prussland was a well-known dictator in his times.
However he was very intelligent.
His motto used to be: talk as much as you like UNTIL & AS MUCH AS YOU OBEY MY ORDERS.
That got him credit from Kant & other philosophers.
Clowns in power decide & i'm free to disagree...provided i go to war if i'm enlisted & finance THEIR wars with my $ etc etc.
When a disaster & shameful tragedy such as 9-11 occurs, they will fly up there on err forss wan while we die down here.
9-11 ok, what about Spain?

great country that stands for freedom

Now there's just 1.
For 50 years we've got 2 & that meant cold war, impending nuclear ordeal etc.

condemn a man who is willing to give his life for you if necessary

that's THE meaning of the army.
Right now that's very unnecessary.

Think about us as we fight the opposition to bring home safely our fellow comrades and family.

you all should be home already.

 

Hmmm....

Too bad boobytraps, "playing dead" etc are common warfare practice.

But it is against the Geneva Convention and that is the point the author is trying to make. Especially since people are so quick to scream it at some young GI just wanting to get home safe.

You're defending the USA as much as USSR soldiers were defending USSR in Afghanistan.

Whatever, but considering Saddam murdered 300,000 of his own citizens the world is well shut of him. The sanctions intended to drive him from power were a failure because so many governments were actively working to end them for their own benefit. We won't even go into the oil for food scandal.

what about Spain?

I'll bite, what about Spain? And what about the inicators that the perp's of the bombing had been planning it before Spain even entered Iraq? Also, what about the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood considers parts of Spain to be part of the historical Muslim khalifate that they intend to restore?

 

but considering Saddam murdered 300,000 of his own citizens the world is well shut of him.

I still haven't realized why Doublejew's father wouldn't get rid of him while he had all rights to do so in 1990, from every perspective.
Perhaps he understood the USA didn't need another Vietnam (whatever sauce, flavor & taste you want to take that with ).

Nothing will change now.
NOBODY ( the USA included despite their bombastic promises ) will ever create a sovereign Kurdistan ( what about the other "rughead" friend, Turkey...? ); hence so much for jurdish people.

About all these muslim sects, groups etc, it shows they are more virulent now than when Saddam was in power ( the hell may take him for all i care ).
Even US or italian forces have very often to shoot at the crowd when these groups start clashing against one another.
Same in Afghanistan.
Half of the groups the USA once enlisted as friends ( because enemies of the Talibans ) now have run to the hill & declared warfare to whoever else (same as under communist Najibullah ).

fact that the Muslim Brotherhood considers parts of Spain to be part of the historical Muslim khalifate that they intend to restore?

Spaniards fought the muslim threat hard; so did germans & italians.
Recently we shuttled them back first class under the "affluent society" auspicious protection (melting pot, affluent society...whatever you call that mess ).
It wouldn't matter anything but just to have new waves of "slaves" to free, who might enter into refinancing schemes, eat hamburgers & help salvage a western system doomed by its debts & etc.
RIGHT NOW
only right now...
The "all-you-can-eat" advocates of the faceless, raceless, faithless "melting pot" realize that very likely...uh-oh... these people might very seriously still take their religion (however instrumental to a few individuals' private aims same as western propaganda is ) word for word, not as a mild entertainment like we, "postmodern" westerners (by the way i'm a deist, not religious ) do.
If the koran says sh!t, they take it as Sh!t, not chocolate muffins.
Anyway even the jewish bible ( an eye for an eye ) wasn't very mild.
Now we're stuck with out thee thou thaa thoo rubbish; our rotten pseudo-christianity ( a travesty that well served the melting pot mongers ) where it's too much of an "insult" to a bazillion "sensibilities" to have a do-or-die opinion.
Fair enough.
Someone ( great son of a b... ) got just what they wanted.
We all shall pay for the mistakes of few.

Especially since people are so quick to scream it at some young GI just wanting to get home safe.

I will never criticize a soldier trying to survive.
However, even americans or else aren't angels ( as the "torture" scandal showed ) & can have "fun" in the most inappropriate situation ( another example might be italians in Somalia who were busy oversexing underage negresses instead of fighting warfare back ).

 

Easy call..

Everyone in the White House and Defense Department thought Hussein was inches from being tossed out by his own people. They thought continuing the war would result in unnecessary civilian casualties in the cities and result in loss of their international support once they entered Iraq. They were also facing a little discontent from some in the military who felt a lot of Iraqi soldiers were being killed who had no desire to support Saddam. The misconception that all of his soldiers were true believers rapidly melted away in the 100 hous of the ground war. This is well documented in a lot of literature. They were, obviously, grievously wrong about Saddam's danger of being overthrown. However, it is easy to see that in hindsight. I would bet they would not make the same decision today.

No one has said every soldier is an angel. Quite the contrary as several are being tried for their transgressions. One guy in the Abu Ghraib scandal got 8 years in jail for basically making a bunch of guys get into a scrum while naked. As an opposing example, I saw a civilian court in Germany give a guy (yes a GI) that had raped and attempted to murder a woman 6 years in jail. It would appear military justice has a little more kick to it than Euro civilian. Another opposing example is the terrorist's who are celebrated by many in the Arab world as heroes for blowing up innocent women and children.

 

Here is the Poli Sci answer: It has to do with the morality of war. In 1990, the coalition was formed to remove the Iraqi force from Kuwait. Once that was accomplished, there were ethical issues that prevented further multi- or unilateral hostilities that would have resulted in removing Saddam from power at that time.

Essentially, Saddam was wrong for invading Kuwait. We (the coalition) were in the right for coming to Kuwait's aid. If we continued past that point, we would have been in the wrong.

The first graduate class I took was "Modern Political Theory" and this was a highly discussed topic. We spent a lot of it discussing Walzer's "Just War Theory" and how it applied to Gulf War.

 

----------------------------------------------------


The reason why Bush did not invade Iraq at the following web sit (or in the Bush/Scowcroft book cited):
http://www.thememoryhole.org/mil/bushsr-iraq.htm

Quote: “Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.”

 

Re: Hmmm....

The Geneva Conventions are quaint and outdated, at least according to Albert Gonzales, the new U.S. Attorney General.

I wish we could have taken the high ground and said what these people are doing (boobytraps, playing dead, targeting civilians) is completely wrong. But we can't. We have publicly declared that we no longer observe the international rules of war. So why should we expect anyone else to?

In less than 3 years, the U.S. "liberation" of Iraq has been responsible for over 100,000 deaths.

I thought the sanctions were intended to prohibit him from possessing WMD. Or was that just another lie?

 

Re: Re: Hmmm....

My understanding is that Gonzales didn't check with the any branch of the armed forces when he went off and re-wrote interregation policy. According to an interview I hear on NPR with some top brass official in the Pentagon, the army had no intention of ever not following the International rules of war. It was Gonzales and our current president who decided that.

Of course I believe Gonzales is the same man that in Texas was supposed to review every single death sentence before it was acted on, and he never did. Hence why a retarded gentleman was executed.

 

"Doublejew"???

Did I read that right? Are you really advertising your anti-semitism so bluntly that it almost smells of the 30s in this room today?

The fact that I'm the only one (so far) to call this spade a spade is a disgrace to this board....

 

Re: Re: Re: Hmmm....

Two points:

1. I never understood "rules of war." The object of war is to kill. When one has stooped to that level of disregard for human life, how can there be rules?

2. Even if, by some miracle, "rules of war," can be engaged, it takes both (or all) sides. When one side violates the "rules of war," they no longer exist.

 

Where is this said?

Where is this stated?

An oft quoted but never substantiated post. Never mind the fact that most of the deaths are caused by people attempting to return Saddam to power.

Where have you been? Bill Clinton stated it was the intention of the USA to drive Saddam from power. This predated Bush by years..

 

Re: Where is this said?

We also have to remember Saddam had a hit out on both Bush 41 and Clinton.

I think this alone justifies removing him from power.

 

*People hear what they want to hear. The U.S. never said that it wasn't going to follow the rules of the Geneva convention. Mr. Gonzalez decided that the Geneva Convention rules shouldn't apply to these combatants...read it and compare it to what has happened here (9/11) and what's going on over there and I don't doubt at all that you will come to the same conclusion. I'm just glad he had the "gonads" to say what most of us would have just been thinking.


*You keep saying that we've killed over 100,000 people over there. I sincerely doubt it. I've read over and over again that the toll is between 13 - 17 thousand (that's a far cry from 100,000). Not that 13,000 is good but...

*I agree with you on your post, Carl. I'm shocked that no one noticed the anti-semitism coming from our resident deist.

*It's easy to criticize our troops while watching from the comfort of your living room. Considering where he is and what he's been through, I don't think that I would have done anything differently. How are you guys getting this so confused? We're fighting this war civilly--they're not. If you want to "educate" someone on the "rules of war" why don't you fly over there and enlighten them? Oh, you'd never do that because you know they would cut your head off and broadcast it. Better yet, why don't you enlist, step in harm's way, and show "us" how a war is supposed to be fought?

 

Re: Where is this said?

I've been on Earth.

On what planet does Bill Clinton stating that the intention of the USA was to drive Saddam from power mean that the intention of the United Nations sanctions was to do the same?

 

Re: Re: Where is this said?

Maybe so.

We've heard a dozen legitimate reasons why Saddam should have been removed from power. Yet, before the war, we didn't hear these. What we heard was that Saddam had a nuclear program, that he had WMD, that we knew where those WMD were. Oh, and that the oil revenue would pay for rebuilding the country.

Yes, blame it on the imcompetent CIA. How convenient. What ever happened to "The Buck Stops Here?" Now it's "The Buck Starts Here." Nothing is EVER Bush's fault. In fact, according to him, he has not made one single mistake in his tenure in office. The scary thing is, perhaps he is telling the truth. Perhaps this is exactly what he intended.

 

Good morals, Carl, bad research.

Hi Carl & BDev:

If you check the interminable and now closed thread on Sorbon, you will find that I have been rebuking this filth's antisemitism from the time he started infecting the board with it. Why it remains here to be viewed is another question entirely.

Warmest regards, your pal Janko

 

Well, when an American soldier takes a car thief (not in any way an enemy combatant) and tortures and humiliates him just for kicks, I am going to criticize.

Call me crazy, but I think that learning from history is a good thing. Tekman, I would LOVE to hear your justification of what happened at Mi Lai. And why it was wrong for Calley to be "criticized," simply because he was "an American man fighting enemies in a foreign land."

Maybe I don't have the right to criticize anymore. Maybe that's what my country is now about. I hope not. And I won't go down without a fight.

 

In the real world.

In the world where even John Major said about 10 years ago that the sanctions will not be lifted while Saddam is in power. Since Bill Clinton (and John Major) represented countries with veto power over any attempt to remove sanctions guess what? Pretty much everybody in the world knew the real goal was to remove Saddam. ...

 

You must have read this site.

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?FallaciousArguments

Pay particular attention to these to fallacious arguments you seem to specialize in:


RedHerring (A is true because of totally irrelevant B)
StrawMan (a weak argument specifically put forth to be knocked down)
ArgumentumAdInfinitum (aka ArgumentumAdNauseum?; A argues longer/more eloquently than B, so A's proposition must be true)