Sorry things didn't work out for the guy. But every swinging dick in the military knows you can't pick and choose your missions or assignments. If they could everyone would be in Hawaii, Italy, Spain, etc. etc. in the rear with the gear. But he at least "walked the walk" so he has the right to bitch, but that doesn't mean anyone has to believe what he says or agree with it. Regardless, I might not have a dog in this fight because I have a hard time accessing deep human emotions, motivations, ethics, etc. Thus I went to Iraq not really giving a shit beyond my next paycheck, keeping Air Traffic Control equipment running, and getting a nice tan. Oh, and I'm not saying I was trying to hook up with a certain old flame, or that I was unintentionally COCK-BLOCKED by certain logistical concerns or anything. But hey, that's life in the big city. Oh, and San Benedeto iced tea ROCKS!
At least in this thread we got Black Dove to admit he was a chickenhawk. He didn't say flat out, but he deliberately avoided answering the question. Case closed.
I went to the link. Why should the information there be considered any better than any other. At any rate, I have a page from Foreign Policy magazine where it details roughly TWENTY different reasons that President Bush, members of his administration, and leading Democrats gave for the Invasion of Iraq in the run up to it. I suppose I don't need to remind people that members of the U.S. Congress supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq by a much wider margin than the military action in 1991.
Why should the ravings of one bitter veteran make any difference now? He VOLUTARILY joined the military. Any reasonably intelligent person will tell you that you do NOT join the U.S. military to avenge an attack or to protect from possible attacks from a PARTICULAR opponent. When you join, you are agreeing to go and fight when and where you are told to fight. This guys letter reminds me of the Doonesbury cartoon where after seeing "Saving Private Ryan" one of the main characters sons says he wants to serve in the military. Wondering where he might be sent the father suggests "You might be sent to fight Iraqis, North Koreans, or Serbians". After mulling this over the son says "No way Dad! I wanna fight GERMANS!"
I'll take your word for it that you TWO were totally against it. But if I was a gambling man, I would wager that the vast majority of Wordforgers were in favor of the war. As were most Americans.
That may be, but if so I was right and they were wrong. I knew that if there were MWDs that there was a chance that GWB & Co. would go down as heroes. There weren't and they didn't. Somehow being right doesn't make me feel any better.
I wasn't for it. Saddam Hussein did not attack us on 9/11 and that is where America's focus should have stayed. I'm not a big Obama fan, but he DID get the person responsible where Bush had the attitude of "I don't know where he is and I don't spend a lot of time worrying about it."
Don't forget that during the run up to the invasion it was strongly implied by members of the Bush Administration that Saddam was somehow involved in 9/11 and/or AQ. Bush did come out and make it clear that there was no connection shortly before the invasion, but many people still retained that impression.
Cheney bald faced lied to Dick Armey that they had "super top secret information", that flat out said Saddam was tied to Al Queda, and was after suitcase nukes. Even the phony intelligence didn't have that, he pulled it out of his ass.
It's a bigger political scandal than Watergate, it's a dirtier war than Vietnam, and it lasted longer than WWII, and the dipshit media doesn't touch it. They're just there to gush about celebrity pregnancies, and pope elections.
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2008-09-16/politics/36829937_1_al-qaeda-qaeda-barton-gellman And this: http://www.amazon.com/Cheney-Americ...ld according to dick cheney#reader_0060723467 Page 376 onward.
A new poll says that Americans think the U.S. is safer today due to military action against Iraq by a 20 point margin. 58 to 38 say the U.S. is safer. That is only a one point difference from 3 years ago 58-37 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...nistan-matters-us-safer-after-action-in-iraq/
Rather than one centralized state with designs on attacking other countries, Iraq is now a bunch of rival factions focused on killing each other. I guess, in a way, that makes us safer.
No way that one bullet would have solved anything. There were dozens ready to step in and take his place. You have kill whole hive, not just the one bee.
