Military opinions and war experience

Originally posted by cargo
What have you experienced that could make your stance any more righteous than theirs?

This is the question we are trying to answer. But I do want everyone to understand, this character study is applied to BOTH sides of the debate here. We are examining those whoe are Pro (Ed Singer, LA Maximuss aka Russel Crow) And those who are anti-war.(Myself, ECK, Curme)
After much thought, I believe I may have misworded the 'anti-war' stance. As I said before, I dont think that any of us combat vets are anti-war, we are just anti-Iraq war. We do understand that sometimes war is an unavoidable occourrance, but I believe we think it should only be the very last resort. I dont think all the options in Iraq had been exhausted. Which I might add is painfully obvious now to anyone who isnt a dullard.

Ed, I must admit, I fully expected that if you show up, you would show up with the usual sarcasm. That was a well written piece on your experiences, however I still dont think the fundamental questions this thread addresses have been answered.

Im a Cold War soldier.

I served from 1980-1984 and also served 2 years in the active reserves. My primary MOS was a 19E Tanker.

I served in the 3/11 Armored Cavalry Regiment (Blackhorse) for 2 years and my unit was in charge of a section of the East German border at Bad Hersfeld, which I also patrolled. Our Regiment was facing off against about 30 heavy Soviet Divisions. Like most front line units, we trained hard and spent alot of time in the field.

The 11th ACR is a proud unit and I was proud to serve in it.


Most military people who served overseas during peacetime in combat MOS know it's not a bed-of-roses and there are plenty of times I put my a** on the line, knowing a mistake would cost me..my life, my crew and my track....like crossing a 1/2 frozen river at 2:00 am on one of those mickey-mouse bridges the engineers slap together, one slip and your tank falls off the bridge into the icy water and your parents get that letter from the DoD.

Anyhow, I served the rest of my service in the 2nd Armored Division at Fort Hood, Texas....which I hated, because I noticed that state-side units were missing the pride and sense of mission that over-seas units had. Most everyone had a "short-timers" attitude.

I don't think a combat vet's opinion is as important as mine, cause growing up at 6th and Union in downtown Los Angeles gave me 11 years of combat experiance. Ive seen death up close...I won't go into all my horror stories, but Ill ask y'all to trust me that Im telling the truth.

Kidfinger, I don't like you and I never will, but I posted here because I saw my name brought up and I wanted set the record straight. Now everone in ATS knows my tour of duty and I stand behind it proudly.




Maximu§






[edit on 103131p://666 by LA_Maximus]

Originally posted by LA_Maximus


Kidfinger, I don't like you and I never will,

So much for civility. Your approval is the least of my concerns.

Originally posted by LA_Maximus
I don't think a combat vet's opinion is as important as mine, cause growing up at 6th and Union in downtown Los Angeles gave me 11 years of combat experiance. Ive seen death up close...I won't go into all my horror stories, but Ill ask y'all to trust me that Im telling the truth.

I had no idea the crips were that well kitted.

Originally posted by Kidfinger

Originally posted by Off_The_Street


Kidfinger, I do not understand your point. A large number of people who do not support the war in Iraq and the global policies of Bush have also not served during war time.

Are you saying that any opinion on the war is somehow less relevant if the person holding it is not a veteran?

No, you misunderstand my original post. I am simply attempting to understand why members of ATS who have seen war mostly do not support the war, while those ATS members who have served in the military but have not seen action continue to support the war. Call this a psychological profile of both sides of the debate if you will.

Emphasis added by me.

This is an invalid comparison, Kid, because of what you said in one of your earlier posts:

I know this is a fairly Liberal board. That is not in question.

Not to flame, but your sampling is a bit skewed as you admit yourself.

Originally posted by cargo
Question ed:
Why are you so disrespectful of anti-Iraq War forum members who not only served you and your country but did so in a combat zone...an actual war...under actual threat?

Disrespectful? Well let me see. One, a man whom I dont care for a whole lot but is the commnader in chief of our nation that was attacked after a 10 year warning cycle in which nothing was done :

LINK TO THE REASONS WE ARE IN IRAQ


I do not mean to degrade anyone, but as a nation we need to be united. Many here think that the US CAUSED 911. So naturally I think there are many 'kooks' here, but that being said, the "Tulipwalker' mentality with such hatred of our CiC causes more division and therefore plays into thine enemy's hand. If you anti-war folks keep it up, maybe you will win and we will come home not having finished the job. And I seriously feel that when you help the enemy achieve its goals, that you are unnecessarily causing American and Iraqi deaths. That is why I do not think someone who loves their country could knowingly do this.

Originally posted by cargoTheir experiences may have helped form their opinions about why this war is wrong, yet you are so damning of those opinions. Having never seen actual combat yourself, you should be willing to acknowledge the sacrifice made by walking into a combat zone and respect their views about this current war.

I do not disrespect their service one single bit. I find it hard to believe that they can speak as they do when their brothers are still being shot at. As for combat, well I guess not, the Cold War was not scary now was it? Live combat surely has a feeling that I guess I haven't experienced. Would you feel better if I had? Well if I had, we ALL wouldn't be here, we would have been a pile of radioactive ash. I did my job as did any other soldier, but aiding and a bedding an enemy is a big time no no and I get sick of it.

I can respect that the Gulf War was rough, but let me tell you something that I have heard first hand from my very close friends that did go.

The Air Force guy - yeah when the Scuds might be coming to Bahrain he might have been spooked.

The Three Army guys, well without names I noticed something. One in particular refused to talk about it for the most part. But he would get mad as hell when one of the others would 'claim' all the rough things they saw and heard and smelled. His comment was very simple, he being in a managerial position decided more than once to drive the damn fuel truck up to the Apache's and ride by the many DEAD, while some sat back at the base and played POKER. So I learned something, I grew up with these guys for years and although I do not think any less of them, I realize that combat affects some people differently than others. This one in particular has more balls than I will ever have. I still keep in touch with these guys, only one is against the Iraq war, but this is the same one that before leaving for Saudi Arabia for Gulf War 1 was on the local TV station saying " I don't think we should be going, its all for oil anyway". So at least he is consistant. Republican by the way ....

Originally posted by cargoBut no. You label them Tulipwalkers who hate their country. Hate their country? I dare say they have done more for you by risking their lives to defend you than you did for them. I think you know this too, and I would hope that you felt some shame about using the words against them that you do.

And I would disagree. For one the Tulipwalker is a labeling of a bunch of ideologies that they happen to fit in. Deal with it, they call me a right wing wacko and coward because I never saw combat. Well #, that is a damn joke and a bad one at that. So all the troops who served during the Cold War don't count as much as those who saw combat in Panama or the Gulf?
BULL#. Tell that to the Marines in Lebanon, to those that were lost in operations that we can't even speak of. Like I said, if war came, my life expectancy was in hours and maybe days...the whole group was. In Iraq is that the case?

What I can not say is what it is like to have a 14 year old child shooting at me, or a car driving up that might have a bomb in it. I can not say i have seen that because I haven't. But have you ever thought that you had a nuclear tipped missile heading to your ship? It is a different time and a different war.

Am I sorry for calling it as I see it? Nope, not one damn bit. Do I respect them that they served, well hell yes I do. Do I feel that they should support the war? Not really, that is their decision and they have the right to think as they wish. Do I think they should not cross the line that puts their brethren in more danger this very day to gain some brownie points on some Internet discussion group? Hell no I dont. That is my problem with it.

Originally posted by cargoThey are not anti-war. They are anti-Iraq War. Hell, a lot of us you label as Tulipwalkers are not even "Liberals". I am not anti-war. What makes you so right and them so wrong? What have you experienced that could make your stance any more righteous than theirs?

Well as I pointed out many times, I do believe the "IRAQ" war was necessary and why. Does that make me right? No it doesn't. But while my neighbor is putting his life on the line to do as his country demands, I will at least hold the respect and not say thing that can cause them harm.

I can not compare you anti-war folks to Jane Fonda, but there are similarities. Ask the Vietnam vets how they felt about the protesters back home. What did it do to their morale? Just think about that a bit the next time you say that its only for war, we don't need to be there, its Bushie wanting to grab the Middle East and every other wacko reason that I have heard. Iraq was necessary, be it Iran or Saudi Arabia, you folks STILL would not have wanted it. We ALL hate war, but being part of mankind makes it a part of our existence.

Originally posted by KidfingerEd, I must admit, I fully expected that if you show up, you would show up with the usual sarcasm. That was a well written piece on your experiences, however I still dont think the fundamental questions this thread addresses have been answered.

I feel I have answered them in the best way I can without being banned. Kidfinger - this nation is at WAR. When you went, you had 100% support from your homeland and your country. All I ask, is consider that when posting anti-war items and things of that nature. It gets back to the troops and causes a big problem with morale. As you well know when morale is bad, people make mistakes and people die......






[edit on 28-5-2005 by edsinger]

Originally posted by edsinger

I feel I have answered them in the best way I can without being banned. Kidfinger - this nation is at WAR. When you went, you had 100% support from your homeland and your country. All I ask, is consider that when posting anti-war items and things of that nature. It gets back to the troops and causes a big problem with morale. As you well know when morale is bad, people make mistakes and people die......

Ed, I do support our troops. I hope each and every one comes back safe and alive. I'd like to think that little billy Doe will have a father to watch his football games. Or little Nancy Smith will have a mother to watch her ballerina recitals. I care about each and every life we have sent out to fight this war. I think you are mistaking my feelings towards Bush and his administration for how I feel about our troops.

I cannot and will not support a war that was based on lies and deciet. We were supposed to be chasing OBL and instead ended up taking advantage of the war on terrorism to establish some bases in the middle east. I think there has been more harm done to American security and the freedoms we hold true since this war started than at any other time in our nations history. IMO, this war was wrong and Bush should have to answer for why OBL is not his top priority. Id be intrested to hear what he has to say about that. The truth, I mean.

Originally posted by jsobecky

Not to flame, but your sampling is a bit skewed as you admit yourself.

No, I think it is plausable that both sides can be examined here as long as we keep the bickering out of it. I feel that we are intelligent enough to discern the motives of both sides through a structured and civil debate. I think we have made some pretty good head way for the most part.


This thread was NOT, and I repeat NOT an attempt to bash one side or another. I am simply trying to get the mentality of both sides out on the table for close scrutinization for all to see. There is nothing dogmatic or abusive transpiring here. I have attempted to keep this thread as clean as possible so as to influence a more condusive and flowing stream of ideas and interpratations.

Originally posted by KidfingerEd, I do support our troops. I hope each and every one comes back safe and alive. I'd like to think that little billy Doe will have a father to watch his football games. Or little Nancy Smith will have a mother to watch her ballerina recitals. I care about each and every life we have sent out to fight this war. I think you are mistaking my feelings towards Bush and his administration for how I feel about our troops.

Well I do to but at what cost can we speak ills of our CiC in such manner. Even though I hated Clinton, he was still CiC. I do not think that you hate our troops at all, I just feel that those that speak so many ills of the JOB that are required to do and the REASONS for it, are not constructive to the troops health if you know what I mean.

Originally posted by Kidfinger
I cannot and will not support a war that was based on lies and deciet. We were supposed to be chasing OBL and instead ended up taking advantage of the war on terrorism to establish some bases in the middle east. I think there has been more harm done to American security and the freedoms we hold true since this war started than at any other time in our nations history. IMO, this war was wrong and Bush should have to answer for why OBL is not his top priority. Id be intrested to hear what he has to say about that. The truth, I mean.

Lies? Are you sure they were lies or misinformation given to the leaders? We are after OBL, but as you well know we cant speak of certain things and what we are exactly up to and for good reason. I either think OBL is dead or we know exactly were he is, but choose to not grab him. If you have an enemy and need to gather intel, watch the leader...either that or he has slipped through the cracks. He has much sympathy in the Middle East. I seriously think he could be in Iran. Yeah I know Sunni/#e stuff , but the very famous Arab saying is that the enemy of your enemy is your friend.

Bases in the Middle East? # I dont want very many there, we are closing them at home, lets bring the troops home, not send them there.

That is why it is so critical to get a taste of freedom spreading there and we will not need to be there at all.


Go here and read the reasons, then say we dont need to be in the Middle East, and if not Iraq, then where else would you have done what needs to be done?



Freedoms? This is a day and age of technology that has not existed. You can be accross the globe in 12 hours! Things change, and with an open socirty such as ours, you ask for troubles....

People in Seattle didnt have to worry about Japanese strapping bombs on their bellies and walking into a supermarket in 1942 and yet the Japanese were interned......there was a reason for that, like it or not.

I find it hard to believe that they can speak as they do when their brothers are still being shot at

They are probably speaking the way they do because they would prefer that their brothers didn't have to be shot at.

No body likes war, and from the few soldiers I know they like it less than anyone else I know, and are generally the least likely to want people to be sent into war without it being the very last possibility.

Just look at WWI, the only people that had enthusiasm for going were the people that knew nothing of what the front was like. Commanders played chess with tens of thousands of lives because they had no knowledge of what the trencehs were like. Watch Black Adder Goes Fourth, great comedy, but it also shows how detached from reality the 'higher-ups' were from the reality of the situation.

And finally,
Anti-war does not mean anti-troop.
Anti-war does not mean anti-american.
Anti-war does not mean anti-freedom.
Anti-war does not mean anti-democracy.
Anti-war does mean anti-lies.
Anti-war does mean anti-illegality.
Anti-war does mean anti-needless-death.
Anti-war does mean exhaustive use of other means before war.

Originally posted by edsinger

Go here and read the reasons, then say we dont need to be in the Middle East, and if not Iraq, then where else would you have done what needs to be done?

Ed, that was a very inspiring post, but you do realize that the people responsible for ALL of those attacks had nothing to do with Iraq? We ar e going after the wrong responsible group. Now I know that Alqueda is now in Iraq, but they wouldnt be there if Bush had stayted the course and kept kicking some butt after Tora Bora. Instead, well, you know.

Im glad you dont want the bases either, but did you see the ATSNN article about the three new huge bases being built there? If we are planning on leaving and contiunuing the war on terror, then why are we making preparations to stay?

IMO, Bush mad a trajic and fatal mistake when he decided to go to war with Iraq. He has put the lives of our soldiers on the line unnecassarally. None of the soldiers and servicemen and women should have lost there lives in Iraq.

As far as 'lies' goes, I have a hard time believing that the richest most technologically and millitarally advanced nation on the globe is going to get and use bad intelligence. It didnt work that way in 1991 and know it doesnt happen now.

Now see, some said this would be a one sided thread that couldnt possibly have quality representation of both sides.

Oh, I just thought of something. Ed singer and I are actually not having a knock dow drag out here. HELL MUST BE FREEZING OVER! Every one grab firewood!

Originally posted by cmdrpaddyAnti-war does not mean anti-troop.

Ask the troops in the line of fire their opinion of that statement. The actions of the antiwar group in the US speaks for itself.

Originally posted by cmdrpaddyAnti-war does not mean anti-american.

Well I could see this but I guess in this case it would also mean pro-Islamic terrorist then also?

Originally posted by cmdrpaddyAnti-war does not mean anti-freedom.

Tell that to the millions who voted while under FIRE.

Originally posted by cmdrpaddyAnti-war does not mean anti-democracy.

See above

Originally posted by cmdrpaddyAnti-war does mean anti-lies.

So who lied exactly? be specific since you were in the National Security meetings.

Originally posted by cmdrpaddyAnti-war does mean anti-illegality.

Saddam never properly owned up to the 1991 peace treaty and was in non-compliance with how many resolutions. There goes that argument out the window all together.

Originally posted by cmdrpaddyAnti-war does mean anti-needless-death.

So you would have a few lives saved now at the expense of many more later? Kinda selfish isnt it?

Originally posted by cmdrpaddyAnti-war does mean exhaustive use of other means before war.

Oh yeah you mean the UN right, but the way are you in the oil business? You get any kickbacks? Pun intended.

Originally posted by KidfingerAs far as 'lies' goes, I have a hard time believing that the richest most technologically and millitarally advanced nation on the globe is going to get and use bad intelligence. It didnt work that way in 1991 and know it doesnt happen now.

Well I for one know that the size of the complex is to damn bloated. In all honesty neither you nor I can say that we sat in on the national security meetings and therefore we just don't know.

Personally, as I stated in the other thread, Iraq was the logical choice, no matter the WMD. Somehow the fight had to be taken to them and Afghanistan was not that place....

Lets not forget all the niceties we are trying to imbue upon this thread as it progresses. I can sense this turning in a page or two. Lets please keep it nice.

Originally posted by Kidfinger
Lets not forget all the niceties we are trying to imbue upon this thread as it progresses. I can sense this turning in a page or two. Lets please keep it nice.

Thats my fault I and I will try , as you can tell this subject is truly heart felt by both sides.

Originally posted by edsinger

(snip) as you can tell this subject is truly heart felt by both sides.

Yes, it is something that can really strike a nerve if we let it. Dont sweat it Ed, I have been guilty of it a time or two as well I would just like this thread to not have any of the bad qualities that seem so prevalent on all the other political threads.

Ask the troops in the line of fire their opinion of that statement. The actions of the antiwar group in the US speaks for itself.

When I think of anti-war I think of the people that want troops brought home because they think the war is unjust and that they don't want their fellow country men dying needlessly. If the troops think that is in some way anti-troop then i don;t know what to think.

I guess in this case it would also mean pro-Islamic terrorist then also?

This is more with us or against us stuff, isn't it? Saddam was not an Islamic terrorist, he was an evil dictator. I am against a very badly justified war which has proven to have been sold on very dodgy intelligence.

Tell that to the millions who voted while under FIRE.

I will agree here. One of the very few positives from this war is that Iraq looks like it might become a model democracy in the Middle East, but did the end justify the means?

So who lied exactly? be specific since you were in the National Security meetings.

Iraq was targeted in the war on terror. This war on terror had as a main target the terrorist group Al-Qaida, there is no connection between Al-Qaida and Iraq. This was known the January before the invasion. in fact the links between Saudi Arabia and Al-Qaida were stronger than the (non existant) links with Iraq. Also you do remember the words fourtyfive and minutes don't you?

Saddam never properly owned up to the 1991 peace treaty and was in non-compliance with how many resolutions. There goes that argument out the window all together.

The resolution that I remember being the biggest issue was 1441, Lord Goldsmith has stated in his report that a second resolution would have been the best option because the resolution does not state that military action was a consequence of non compliance.

So you would have a few lives saved now at the expense of many more later? Kinda selfish isnt it?

What more latter?


Edsinger, I believe the reasons for going to war were not valid, I don't think regime change is a valid reaon for going to war, I do think that Saddam was a vile man who did disobey UN resolutions but progress was being made. I believe that both the US and UK governments knew that evidence used to garner support for the war was creatively used. I appreciate that you believe the war was right, and that the reasons were correct. We will have to disagree on those points. I think we can agree on the fact however that the world is a better (if not necessarily safer) place now that Saddam is not in power, and that the coming of democracy to Iraq is a good thing.

Hopefully this has added to the thread and not brought it (too far) off-topic.

[edit on 28/5/05 by cmdrpaddy]

Originally posted by cmdrpaddy
I appreciate that you believe the war was right, and that the reasons were correct. We will have to disagree on those points. I think we can agree on the fact however that the world is a better (if not necessarily safer) place now that Saddam is not in power, and that the coming of democracy to Iraq is a good thing.

Yes can can definitely agree on this

Originally posted by edsinger
Ask the troops in the line of fire their opinion of that statement. The actions of the antiwar group in the US speaks for itself.

Hmm, touchy subject. Most of the boys on the frontline don't hate those who oppose the war....they don't dislike people who think we should not have gone over there.

However.....this is what they do not like and this what the media allows them to see....even back in the states.

I mean think about it....how many peaceful protest do we see on TV that actually stay on topic of "we should not have gone to Iraq, lets pull out"
Not many right.....most of them are "Marines and soldiers are bad" "baby-killers" "do what's right and quit" stuff like that....

My buddies who got out the Marines tell me about this all the time......about how they are hated because used to be in the Marines by people who can't even back uo thier claims or make an attempt to.

True the actions of the anti-war group in the US do speak for themselves. I think that most of the protestors, the ones doing all the leg-work and yelling are college students. And for the most part that is the ones that todays boys in Iraq really do not like....

because.....

Many of these college kids are in the "anti-war" group because they think it's cool, it's the trend going on now. But go ask these kids why they feel the way they do....they will answer with something like "It's bush's fault", "oil", "Umm I hate bush", "people are dying" and stuff along them lines. Not really an answer. More of a statement that they cannot back-up why that statement is true.

Again, this is what they see going on by thier peers, thier college counterparts....

Yeah there are many of them who actually know or think they know why they fell that way.....they have researched, studied and are doing it because they believe it....not just because its the trend and most college are doing it.

Well that is what we see....we turn on MTV and we see celebs giving there 2 cents without even backing it up. We see college marches, protest and people HATING ON THE TROOPS. That's what they see....they see people there age not liking them because they are in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo or someother hot zone. See my point.

Thats is the type of people we do not like. Go upto a Marine that just got back Iraq and tell him what you think...tell him you think we should be there and then back it up...shake his hand and carry on. Chances are he'll say ok and listen to you....ofcourse he probably will not know why we are there other than "to fight terrorism"....but he will not hate on you...he'll he may even have the same views you do...I know many that do.
Know what the hell you're talking about or atleast sound like you do.

Now if some 21 year political science major comes and tells the same Marine about how he don't like him and how he thinks he's wrong for going over there to Iraq and how he is "killing civilians" or "baby killing" (not true)........chances are he's gonna knock you the hell out..with reason. IMO.

Just my thoughts as to why many young men in Iraq don't like the "anti-war" group....it's not so much the group as a whole....just many people in it. And sadly the people in Iraq only see or have seen the group I described above.





[edit on 28/5/2005 by SportyMB]

When I think of anti-war I think of the people that want troops brought home because they think the war is unjust

You think of that...but our college campus's and media are not putting that image out.

They put out the [read post above this post]