|
Hey Stuntman just giving a direct quote from one of the one held.
I understand what joining the military means and all the bs that comes with it and
just for the record I would've never refused an order and maybe be dead but I
know what you sign up for and would go today just to help out our soldiers if I could
but I'm just passing on the feelings of half the nation.
I never served during war time but know many vets I use to play music and hang out regularly
at our local VFW and these men did things unthinkable whenever ordered and as you know it had
an effect on them which some talked about and some drank about.
I think all our military soldiers are all heroes for whatever their job is and told them every time I visited
or played for them.
You can give your opinion on what Bush's speech meant but most of the people
including the vets I know see it different we can never convince another person on their feelings
they have to figure it out on their own so it's pointless to debate over this.
We'll just have to vote.
Mark
-------Original Message-------
Date: Sunday, October 17, 2004 15:11:23
Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] troops are concerned
Clearly you never served during wartime and lack an understanding of
military discipline and terminology.
When you join the military, doing your job comes first. When someone
refuses to do their job, it IS an issue that can get you put in jail
unless you can prove your case. Being cofined to their post etc is "not
being held against their will" as this option is not even part of
military life. The wording is civilian in nature. If it proves out that
they had legitimate concerns not being met then those who were
responsible for meeting those concerns (IE a commander or NCO) will be
held responsible and the problem fixed.
"A battle" is not the war, only one tactical manuvere of many. "A job
well done" can relate to ANY single job IE a bombing mission can be
referred to as "a job well done". The toppling of Sadamneds regime was
a job, one piece of the puzzle in the war in Iraq.
Instead of argueing about an issue foriegn to your experience, one that
it seems you lack an understanding of, you might considering asking
what something means. Truth is President Bush never SAID "Mission
Accomplished", and it doesn't matter how many people, how many times,
that the lie is repeated.
Kerry lied when he first accused President Bush of saying it.
He keeps repeating his lie even after he was informed it was a lie.
It would seem to be what he does best.
Stuntman
>
>
> I believe they called home after being held against their will and
were
> concerned about the consequences
> they were facing.
>
> As far as how our men died I don't really think it matters whether it
was
> hostile or not I still think they died in a war
> and for that I recognize their sacrifice.
> And don't tell me after 9/11 we didn't think people would blow
themselves up
> if they didn't plan on that happening
> then like I said they had no clue who they were dealing with.
> This isn't nothing new with terrorist they've been doing this for a
long
> time and in some places a preferred weapon.
>
> OK I believed it when I "Read it."
> You can candy coat who you think that sign was for but I think
different it
> was displayed for the whole world to see
> and quotes like the ones below tell me different.
> You can't tell me they needed a sign right behind the podium to tell
their
> crew members mission accomplished they
> have loud speaker I'm sure.
>
> "And tonight, I have a special word for Secretary Rumsfeld, for
General
> Franks
> and for all the men and women who wear the uniform of the United
States:
> America is grateful for a job well done."
>
> "The battle of Iraq is one "victory" in a war on terror
> that began on September the 11th, 2001 and still goes on."
>
> BTW a victorious battle means successful "ending" of a struggle or
contest.
>
> It's obvious to the whole country they thought this was going to be a
whole
> lot easier
> and the fact that they didn't expect terrorist to use terrorist
tactics is a
> perfect example.
>
> How do you defend yourself from someone blowing themselves up?
> First you plan on it happening!
> Then you arm your troops with proper equipment like armor to keep down
> casualties!
> You can't plan on everything but you can at least plan on the obvious.
>
> But your question on how do you defend yourself from someone blowing
> themselves up
> is a good example of Naders plan because the only way is to get out
of the
> freakin way!
> The only way they will stop is when the last one blows up or stop
inflaming
> them so
> stop inflaming them or get out of the way.
> If you're going to fight a war I say fight it and stop screwing
around but
> you can't win this war
> if you're not willing to take the necessary actions like killing a
shit load
> of innocent people and
> I'm not even sure if people not telling us the enemy are living next
door
> are innocent but the
> rest of the world is and that would inflame even more people.
> So either shit or get off the pot!
> This probably isn't a popular opinion but it's mine so I believe
Nader's
> plan to leave is as good as
> Bush's plan to stay and die a slow death unless he plans on getting
old
> school and win this war
> which he doesn't at least I don't think so.
>
> So my opinion is we need a President that is more responsible for our
> soldiers that have their hands tied.
>
> But don't worry I don't believe we'll see Nader giving an acceptance
speech
> this time around because the
> Dems & Rep are so powerful they're having him silenced, they don't
want
> anyone hearing the truth no time soon
> so give your vote for big business dead soldiers and a pocket full of
lies
> and empty promises I guarantee nothing
> will change under these 2 candidates except more people joining
terrorist
> groups which is on the rise.
>
> Mark
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -------Original Message-------
>
> From: Jim Lubin
> Date: Saturday, October 16, 2004 19:48:40
> To: QuadPirate; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] troops are concerned
>
> At 01:06 PM 10/16/2004, QuadPirate wrote:
>
> Well if you read why they refused it was due to equipment they needed
like
> armor for their hummers.
> I don't think that has anything to do with training this is nothing
short of
> not protecting our soldiers because of poor planning.
> I have not seen their actual complains yet, just the second hand
accounts
> retold by family members. I'm not saying they may not have had
legitimate
> concerns for their safety but it should have been dealt with at the
unit,
> platoon, battalion level through the chain of command. Soldiers have
some
> recourse. If their immediate commander was deliberately sending them
into an
> unsafe situation without proper equipment, he or she would have been
dealt
> with. It was wrong for them to call home. That reflects their
training.
>
> The military hummer was never designed to be an armored vehicle. They
are
> the main transport vehicle since replacing the old jeeps. They are
being
> retro fitted but everything can not stop until it's completed.
>
> My brother may be in a "safer" area, but he said they have still been
shot
> at while on the road. The humve he was travelling in has broken down.
When
> he was home on R&R last month he said the strangest thing was not
having his
> weapon with him.
>
>
> As far as Nader goes I believe he's at least being honest and
actually has a
> plan, this doesn't mean he's going to stop the war on terrorism
> I found Nader's plan for Iraq, http://votenader.org/why_ralph/index
> php?cid=55
> Could not find a plan on the war on terrorism. Apparently he do not
believe
> we are at war.
>
>
> . It means he wants some help because he sees our men dying. I f you
want to
> see what he's tired of just look here.
> http://www.nytimes
>
com/packages/html/national/20040909_THOUSAND_GRAPHIC/index_PICTURES.html
> Regardless of who you're voting for you should at least know who's
dying for
> America.
>
> I didn't mind getting rid of Saddam I thought it was the right thing
to do
> but only if you're ready for the aftermath which this administration
clearly
> had no idea this was going to end up like this and over a thousand
dead
> soldiers so far.
> Here is the updated casualty report. http://www.defenselink
> mil/news/casualty.pdf
> It shows the actual numbers killed by hostile and non-hostile
actions. If
> any administration could have planned for every possible contingency
and not
> have any casualties I would be highly doubtful. How can you defend
against
> someone willing to blow themselves up? That's how many casualties
have been
> caused.
>
>
>
> I remember the exact words that prove my point
> "Mission Accomplished" I believed it when I heard it but these words
are
> clearly wrong and I can't remember the exact date but I think it was
over a
> year ago I heard them.
> If you are referring to Bush's speech from the flight deck of the USS
> Lincoln on May 1, 2003, your memory has been contaminated by the
propaganda.
> Bush never said "Mission Accomplished". Here is the transcript.
> http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/05/01/bush.transcript/
> The sign in back of him read "Mission Accomplished" and was intended
for the
> crew of the USS Lincoln which was returning from the longest carrier
> deployment in recent history. I watched it. The USS Lincoln is based
here in
> Washington state so the coverage about it was on our local news. BTW,
it
> just left again yesterday for a 4 month deployment.
>
>
>
> I know there's a cost for freedom but you need to fight for it like
our
> country did and the you will be rewarded. Where's our reward in this?
> My opinion of this war is changing with time and I personally think
we're
> not doing a good job.
> I personally don't think changing administrations at this elections
would
> improve thing, it would make things worst. The latest survey of the
military
> seems to suggest the same feeling. My brother told me in his unit of
18
> soldiers, 15 were voicing their support for Bush, 3 for Kerry. I hope
the
> final election results are similarly reflected.
>
>
>
> Mark
>
> -------Original Message-------
>
> From: Jim Lubin
> Date: Saturday, October 16, 2004 13:31:43
> To: QuadPirate; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] troops are concerned
>
> At 11:05 AM 10/16/2004, QuadPirate wrote:
>
> River this shows how poorly this war is being run.
> I'm sure president Nader will do a better job since he plans
on "replacing
> US forces with a UN peacekeeping force". http://www.votenader
> org/issues/index.php?cid=17
>
> I might have to translate that.
>
> Put US forces under UN control so I can say "I withdrew US forces and
we are
> now part of a collation participating in the UN peacekeeping forces"
>
>
> I don't blame these troops for speaking up and not driving into an
ambush
> unprepared.
> I blame the training they received prior to being sent over. The
units that
> left from here had intense 2 months of refresher training before each
unit
> was certified ready to deploy. I say refresher training because every
> reservist received basic training in addition to the weekend a month
and 2
> weeks a year. I blame the unit commanders for not addressing their
concerns
> and taking care of their soldiers. I don't see it as a microcosm of
how the
> entire war is being executed.
> Jim
> ____________________________________________________
> IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here
>
>
>
--
It's not the fall that hurts.
Home page http://tnthompson0.tripod.com/homeincyberspace/
Graphics portfolio http://tnthompson1.tripod.com/index.htm
Domain space http://nw-in.com/index.html
. | 
IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here
