|
Parents of slain U.S. soldier speak powerful words (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| ali92 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lepanto
It's funny how you always read about parents who's child or children have died in a war and all you hear is . Yet, a friend of mine has died in Iraq and his parents couldn't be more proud of him defending and fighting for his country, no matter how "misguided" or "stupid" it is or whatever you want to call it. I've 4 friends in Iraq and 2 in Afghanistan and all their parents are proud of them. So to sit there and exploit how someones child's life was "wasted" is dishonorable to the memory of a soldier.
P.S. Remmember Pat Tillman? Well, remmember how the government made him out to be a hero because he left the NFL to serve? And then when it was discovered that he was killed by friendly fire everyone started to grumble on about how the government made him out to be a clown for their own sake? How is that article any different exectly? Furthermore, Patt Tillman was indeed a hero no matter what, giving up what he had to serve? Please, look at that thread about the draft, some BITCHES rather run away to a different country rather than serve. |
Oh whoa whoa whoa there! I might be one of those 'bitches' you speak of who'd rather dodge the draft but it would only be if the whoel draft was for a completely unjust cause, like Iraq is. USA has _no reason_ to be in Iraq. Afghanistan in 2001 probably was fine. But Iraq? No way. No WMD in Iraq. |
|
|
| Shakka |
"You go to war with the Army you have--not the Army you wish you had."
Damn son, how do you think the Insurgents families feel that they're out fighting with home-made bombs and pitchforks wearing a faded, grunge rock, flannel shirt at best?! If I could read arabic, maybe I could tell you.
Criticizing a strategy after the fact so that structural improvements for future missions may be made is one thing. But to the degree that there is criticism hurled at this administration on a daily basis, some deserved some not, I'd say the Stimp Meter is reading about 18 right now. Half of your party screams that defense spendnig is already astronomical and through the roof, yet out of the other side of your mouth you cry for more. Was there a snafu with up-armored Humvees? Hell if I know. I've read media accounts that they are vital, and I've read field commentary that says up-armored Humvees won't stop an IED any better than a standard one. Would uparmored Humvees be a make-or-break piece of equipment for this conflict? Most likely not. However, should we consider uparmouring future Humvees? Most definitely, and hopefully with a privately developed, superior quality, OEM installed technology so that the DoD can simply buy a superior finished product on demand. Or if not that, just buy the uparmor kits after-market. However, that is a debate for a different day.
In other news, when the administration fires people that Dems like, it's a bad thing, but when the administration maintains a staff that is dedicated to it's mission, Dems cry foul. To some extent, criticism is merited here, but is it really that surprising of a phenomenon?
For every 1 of these letters, we have seen that there is at least one other that shares a completely different or opposing point-of-view. The good news is that our military is made up of a group that is more diverse than we may have realized.
P.S. Chalk up "military strategist" to your list of near minors that only required a few more credit hours to complete. Just because a strategy doesn't go as planned doesn't mean that the mission is a failure or a loss. Remember, a good plan today is better than the Perfect plan tomorrow.;) |
|
|
| Dervish |
Something I think which backs the thrust of Opus's argument (the neglegence of the administartion, in fact this would indicate gross neglegence).
| quote: | "Often maybe Mr Rumsfeld and Vice-President Cheney would take decisions into the president that the rest of us weren't aware of. That did happen, on a number of occasions."
Asked about post-war planning for Iraq, Gen Powell said his state department staff drew up detailed plans, but they were discarded by Mr Rumsfeld's defence department, which was backed by the White House.
"Mr Rumsfeld and I had some serious discussions, of a not pleasant kind, about the use of individuals who could bring expertise to the issue. And it ultimately went into the White House, and the rest is well known." |
>>> Taken from David Frost's interview with General Colin Powell <<< |
|
|
| Lepanto |
| quote: | Originally posted by ali92
Oh whoa whoa whoa there! I might be one of those 'bitches' you speak of who'd rather dodge the draft but it would only be if the whoel draft was for a completely unjust cause, like Iraq is. USA has _no reason_ to be in Iraq. Afghanistan in 2001 probably was fine. But Iraq? No way. No WMD in Iraq. |
And that's why if you voted in that thread you would've seen the option that says that you'd serve as long as you'd believe in the war.
And Opus, you write alot but say very little. You just go on and on. Once again point is that these parents are exploiting what happened just because their child has died. The government tried to "cover up" Tillman? Really? That's why the truth got out, right? They tried to exploit Tillman as a hero but failed to mention that he was shot by friendly fire and regardless it still makes him a hero. And parents of a soldier who ENLISTS, not "chooses to go to war", who then start whining about how their child is dead do not deserve the honor that comes with being a soldier and a warrior. What are you going to tell me? Ok he died for a reason that you're going to sit there and analyze for hours, and then what? Point being is that he enlisted to serve his country, a country that gives so much to people and doesn't force anyone in the army last time I checked and no just because they have commercials and put out video games doesn't make them too much more aggressive. Anyways, what is the point again? Oh ok he died for a stupid reason...yeah and? Another thing you could perhaps enlighten me is how you're so smart and "Rummy" and the rest of the staff are such dumbasses. Did you really sit there and say we need more troops before the actual fighting, or at the early stage of the war? |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
"You go to war with the Army you have--not the Army you wish you had." |
Yeah, a real bright and shiny moment in Rummy's career. You're not really standing behind this piss-poor excuse as the answer to my question, are you? Jesus, even one of your main boys, Bill Kristol didn't think too highly of him at that time:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2004Dec14.html
But strolling down memory road reveals some interesting things about Rummy's asinine response that particular soldier's concerns:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/07/i...print&position=
Those highlights included:
– The Pentagon gave a contract for thousands of the ceramic plate inserts that make combat vests bulletproof to a former Army researcher who had never mass-produced anything. “He struggled for a year, then gave up entirely.”
– In shipping plates from other companies, the Army’s equipment manager “effectively reduced the armor’s priority to the status of socks….Some 10,000 plates were lost along the way, and the rest arrived late.”
– Going into the war, the Pentagon decided against asking Detroit automakers like General Motors to start making armored Humvees because they would need too much time to set up new assembly lines. But the Pentagon originally under-ordered from its sole contractor, O’Gara-Hess & Eisenhardt, and the company is not expected to reach the Army’s current 550 per month demand for the vehicles until this spring.
Ahh yes, that truly supports you and Rummy's point quite well. By all means, keep quoting him - he's a real shiner.
But perhaps even the most basic question is overlooked by Rummy's ridiculous response: isn't Rummy essentially in charge with deciding how many troops go to fight the war in the first place? Merely stating to the soldier: "tough " doesn't do him or you much good logically - not that it's one of Rummy's strong points of course.
| quote: | | Damn son, how do you think the Insurgents families feel that they're out fighting with home-made bombs and pitchforks wearing a faded, grunge rock, flannel shirt at best?! If I could read arabic, maybe I could tell you. |
Why would I care?
| quote: | | Criticizing a strategy after the fact so that structural improvements for future missions may be made is one thing. But to the degree that there is criticism hurled at this administration on a daily basis, some deserved some not, I'd say the Stimp Meter is reading about 18 right now. |
Well you might actually have a point if, in fact, it is criticism after-the fact only. The problem with your argument, however, is that these criticisms were correctly given prior to invasion.
Bush, Rummy, and the rest of the neocon gang just didn't wanna listen.
| quote: | | Half of your party screams that defense spendnig is already astronomical and through the roof, yet out of the other side of your mouth you cry for more. |
Well man, part of your party screams about too many rights being stripped away from whites, and that Jews and Blacks are gonna take over our society!
But considering that's not what you feel, I guess it's no more relevant than you bringing up what some Dems. feel in regards to my argument at hand.
| quote: | | Was there a snafu with up-armored Humvees? Hell if I know. I've read media accounts that they are vital, and I've read field commentary that says up-armored Humvees won't stop an IED any better than a standard one. Would uparmored Humvees be a make-or-break piece of equipment for this conflict? Most likely not. However, should we consider uparmouring future Humvees? Most definitely, and hopefully with a privately developed, superior quality, OEM installed technology so that the DoD can simply buy a superior finished product on demand. Or if not that, just buy the uparmor kits after-market. However, that is a debate for a different day. |
Well if memory serves, I do believe we did debate that before, and I posted the problems with Rummy's argument above as well just as a refresher.
| quote: | | In other news, when the administration fires people that Dems like, it's a bad thing, but when the administration maintains a staff that is dedicated to it's mission, Dems cry foul. To some extent, criticism is merited here, but is it really that surprising of a phenomenon? |
Well no one is being fired here - it's just a dad complaining about the mismanagement of a war that may very well have led to the death of his son.
But lemme take a crack at your statement here. This isn't about the Administration firing people that the Dems. like. Hell, lotsa people being let go or leave on their own accord are anything but Dems. But one thing does seem to be in common with nearly all of them:
they had reservations about how Bush and Rummy was conducting this war, in one way or another. And what's more, their reservations were right. Whether it be those folks questioning the link between Saddam and bin Laden, questioning WMD arsenal, questioning the troop numbers, or what have you, across the board you tell me how those being let go or quit were wrong.
Did we find WMD? Were there connections to al Qaeda? Do we honestly have enough troop numbers, especially if like the father stated his son was trying to secure a spot for the 5th ing time? Did we and have we truly secured Iraq's borders?
| quote: | | For every 1 of these letters, we have seen that there is at least one other that shares a completely different or opposing point-of-view. The good news is that our military is made up of a group that is more diverse than we may have realized. |
Yes, and Bush's support by the military members across the board continues to decline along with the rest of the public:
http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2005_main.php
| quote: | | P.S. Chalk up "military strategist" to your list of near minors that only required a few more credit hours to complete. Just because a strategy doesn't go as planned doesn't mean that the mission is a failure or a loss. Remember, a good plan today is better than the Perfect plan tomorrow.;) |
Now you're just being silly. You know my criticisms stretch much further than that. I am, however, trying to keep the focus on this one criticism raised by the father. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lepanto
And Opus, you write alot but say very little. |
You write very little and say little. I'm not sure which is worse really.
| quote: | | You just go on and on. |
Of course I do, but I do so with supported assertions. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for you.
| quote: | | Once again point is that these parents are exploiting what happened just because their child has died. |
So ing what? They have every right to "exploit" an event when their child has died when they rightly point out that the management above has willfully neglected to support and protect the troops both in numbers and in armour.
They have every right to call "foul" on this situation, just as the miners' loved ones have every right to call "foul" on the coal company for willfully neglecting over 200 safety regulations.
This is a very simple point I am making along with the father. It's unfortunate that you haven't understood that yet. Judging by your posts, however, it doesn't seem too unexpected though.
| quote: | | The government tried to "cover up" Tillman? Really? That's why the truth got out, right? |
Hi Lepanto, welcome to Earth. Yes, bub, the military tried to "cover up" how Tillman died to protect their image:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5050301502.html
They were trying to cover their asses on how he died, attempting to make his death a much greater theatrical event then it actually was. But to answer your silly question, the truth "got out" because the WaPost actually did their job as investigative reporters (something that's sincerely lacking in today's media)::
| quote: | | Soldiers on the scene said they were immediately sure Tillman was killed by a barrage of American bullets as he took shelter behind a large boulder during a twilight firefight along a narrow canyon road near the Pakistani border, according to nearly 2,000 pages of interview transcripts and investigative reports obtained by The Washington Post. |
Is that to say that Tillman wasn't a brave man for fighting in the war? No, but it seems you're pretty hellbent on trying to paint me in that corner.
That would be quite the straw man if you attempted to do so.
| quote: | | They tried to exploit Tillman as a hero but failed to mention that he was shot by friendly fire and regardless it still makes him a hero. |
Who ever said he wasn't a ing hero? What the is your point about this? Quit with the ing straw man argument, will you?
| quote: | | And parents of a soldier who ENLISTS, not "chooses to go to war", who then start whining about how their child is dead do not deserve the honor that comes with being a soldier and a warrior. |
Who ever said they deserve such an honor? They are not asking for that honor, Lepanto, so what the again are you talking about?
They are merely asking questions on how this war was conducted with such few troops BY THIS ADMINISTRATION!
You understand this, right? They are not attacking the troops, if that's what your silly line of thinking is going. They are attacking the policies set forth by dip Rummy and Bush by setting out too few troop numbers to protect one another and secure Iraq's cities, borders, and civilians.
Give me a sign that you understand this simple point. PLEASE!
| quote: | | What are you going to tell me? Ok he died for a reason that you're going to sit there and analyze for hours, and then what? |
I realize that analyzing points is not one of your strengths, but it really didn't take me hours to come to my question as well as this father's question that you still refuse to answer.
| quote: | | Point being is that he enlisted to serve his country, a country that gives so much to people and doesn't force anyone in the army last time I checked and no just because they have commercials and put out video games doesn't make them too much more aggressive. |
Huh? Again, what the are you talking about? Why don't you stick to my points, rather than run off in a rather strange tangent like this. I don't argue that he enlisted on his own, nor do I argue that he AND HIS FAMILY didn't understand the risks involved with serving in the military.
I again bring up my argument, just in case you missed it (which by now I'm beginning to wonder if you're deliberately sidestepping it):
| quote: | we can't simply hold the parents and/or their loved ones who are fighting in this war responsible for the tragedies of their loss of life simply because they are aware of the risks involved in their work. Certain risks are inherent with the employment. But we CAN hold individuals and corporations responsible who put a greater risk of danger for those workers who already have a great deal of risk with their line of work.
The same is true with the soldiers in Iraq. They damn well know the risks, as do their loved ones. But they and their loved ones have every ing right to question their bosses (the current Administration) IF their bosses create a much greater risk in their line of work.
And blissfully ignoring the necessity for greater troop involvement no doubt creates a much greater risk on the troops, one that could be avoided with higher numbers. We have every ing right to question why this hasn't been done, just as this parent did. |
| quote: | | Anyways, what is the point again? |
Tilt your eyes about 3 cm. above and you'll see.
| quote: | | Oh ok he died for a stupid reason...yeah and? |
I know, it's easy for you and the rest of the Bush supporters to be in such blissful ignorance on why our men and women are dying there. It must be real nice for you to know we are installing a fundamentalist Islamic regime that looooooooves Iran as its neighbor while our troops fight for them against insurgents in the same country who've fought for hundreds of years with the Shiites.
It must also be nice that our rationales for invasion, WMD proliferation and al Qaeda ties are no longer in existence and likely were known to not be in existence prior to invasion.
It must also be nice for you to merely handwave away the criticisms on our low troop numbers in post-war Iraq as we continue to try to secure hotspots over and over again while our men and women get picked off one by one.
You Bush supporters are just lovely people, really.
| quote: | | Another thing you could perhaps enlighten me is how you're so smart and "Rummy" and the rest of the staff are such dumbasses. |
Where do you want me to start?
| quote: | | Did you really sit there and say we need more troops before the actual fighting, or at the early stage of the war? |
Actually no, personally I didn't - if I said this specifically then I mispoke and I apologize. I personally believed this President would know what he was doing, considering the success in Afghanistan. But there's nothing wrong with agreeing with those who have a clear understanding of military strategy who clearly stated the troop numbers were too low beforehand:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/...5-iraq-us_x.htm
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion...omment-opinions
My sentiments on the matter are simple - we shouldn't have been there in the first place. We should have stayed the course hunting down bin Laden. But since we're there now, we should have done it right by having much greater troop numbers to fully secure the borders, the cities, and each other.
But that was all under the pretense thought of successfully installing an actual democracy. Well Iraq, dominated primarily by Shiites, had other intentions, and what they are installing and what we are by default effectively assisting with is installing a fundamentalist Islamic regime in leagues with Iran. I believe we have no business there now fighting in a civil war on one side between two groups of people who've fought for hundreds of years. We overthrew the secular side for a fundamentalist side. Granted, the secular side had a head dictator at the helm, but a hapless one at that thanks to our sanctions.
IF we were successfully creating a democracy as Bush would want everyone to believe who will be oh so friendly to us and everyone else, then I would advocate more troop numbers RIGHT NOW. But as the Iraqi elections progressed, it was clear this wasn't going to be the case, so I do not want our men and women there fighting for such a cause of Islamic fundamentalism in a civil war, and that has nothing to do with any of our original intentions of being there in the first place:
No WMDs
No al Qaeda ties
No democracy that just LOOOOOVES us oh so much!
This parent who's son was slain is apparently advocating the same philosophy. Why is that so hard for you to understand? |
|
|
| Dervish |
The way I understand it is the argument goes like this, just because they signed up for the forces does not give the forces carte blanche to kill them, either though negligence (which I think it can be said has happened here) or delibrately.
The idea of being in the army is not to die for your country. The idea is to defend it.
That is why that parent is anoyed. A soliders duty is not to die, it is to protect. And the people who send them there have a duty of care to them.
In this case (the invasion of Iraq) the duty of the administration was not fulfilled.
1) The reason for going was wrong.
2) The handling of the situation created was wrong.
I don't think anyone could argue against thouse two statements? So who is accountable? |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
No al Qaeda ties
|
I fail to believe a man who would give cash bonuses to terrorists for blowing themselves up, not having ties with al Qaeda...
(but that's just my personal opinion...)
People need to take a closer look at the people involved instead of this virtual-armchair-critic nonsense...
| quote: |
Rise of the Milblogs
Some of the best sources of information on the war are from the people actually fighting it--and their blogs.
|
>>Source<< |
|
|
| gouuryella |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dervish
1) The reason for going was wrong.
2) The handling of the situation created was wrong.
I don't think anyone could argue against thouse two statements? So who is accountable? |
I can argue, I think your wrong. Yes a soldiers duty is to protect, but at the same time, they know the chances of them dying in a war are good. So stop bitching about it. Yes its sad that they are dying, but fu*k man, its a war, what do you expect, people throwing fists at each other? |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by gouuryella
people throwing fists at each other? |
What a funny visual that was the first time I read it.;) |
|
|
| Lepanto |
Opus again, you go off in all directions without handling it in it's simplicity which is easier and not as boring as your 10 hour rants.
Yes they shouldn't die and it was for a "bad reason" yet the parents stance is not something I'd expect from a soldier's parents. As I've said earlier I have friends overseas and I know that their parents would not handle the situation like this. And I'm from a "liberal enclave NYC" not from Bumble, Ohio if that's what you might be thinking. |
|
|
| Dervish |
| quote: | Originally posted by gouuryella
I can argue, I think your wrong. Yes a soldiers duty is to protect, but at the same time, they know the chances of them dying in a war are good. So stop bitching about it. Yes its sad that they are dying, but fu*k man, its a war, what do you expect, people throwing fists at each other? |
I said you can't argue with the two statements. You haven't.
Also my point made via the two statements is not that soliders shouldn't die, only that the duty of care to the soliders isn't being upheld.
And that "they are soliders it's their job to die" isn't correct. |
|
|
|
|
