Iraq War Vet: "We Were Told to Just Shoot People, and the Officers Would Take Care of Us"

reply to post by jackflap


I don't think you understand what I meant. I mean hear their specific gripes and address them individually. Obviously it is an issue of religion. The question is what are those specific issues. Find them out, and try to solve them. If both sides refuse to compromise in the slightest, then make the decision for them and whoever throws the first stone in objection, reduce them to nothing more than a page in history. Take the citizens and disperse them across the globe, while dividing up the land to the groups who were reasonable and sensible enough to avoid violence.

If you come up with a solution and they try to fight, then too bad, you gave them there chance to have their piece of the pie. A third party intervention is the only way it may end.

We need a third party to come up with a fair solution for both side, adult enough to ignore the bias which they may encounter for one side or another. If one or both sides do not accept, tell them they have 3 months to come up with a better idea they can both agree on or else we will go ahead with the solution we came up with and divide the land up properly. If one nation attacks the other, they lose the right to exist as a country.

You are talking in generalizations. That doesn't change anything. You haven't addressed any specific gripes between the groups. You merely identified that it is about religion. That was obvious. Until you can get into specifics, whatever you do is going to be fruitless.

Originally posted by grimreaper797

Originally posted by loveguy

Actually I am going to stop right here. The reason being?
www.usa.gov...

Thanks. But don't you mean there's not enough character slots left to continue in one post?

In order for me to answer your post, I'll have to post more than once, disrupting the thread further. characters (6500 maximum)

And even though I just retired from my job today and have all the rest of my life to reply, I'm not up to even 30 wpm yet. That's starting a new job, with no income to compensate me, so thanks for the invite, but no thanks. How's that for a cop-out? Money makes the world go around.

I will try to simplify things though. How about decompartmentalizing the federal government, first? Doing away with agencies that front to be doing a "different aspect of said duties." Eliminate the Government within the Government, you know, the shady things happening?

Sep. 10, '01 Rumsfield mentioned trillions is lost. It'll turn up.
Here's a kicker, no more aid to Israel, how's that for not raising taxes? Any State rep, or congressman butt-hurt about it can resign. Good riddance. Don't confuse anti-semitism with anti-zionism.

This is a wild crusade that I will not attempt to succeed on my own, so since I'm only as important or as powerful as the company I keep, I can accept defeat.

You can harvest my soul now grimreaper797. I'll take my chances going to hell, but faith in it's self is a miracle isn't it? I'll have to trade my soul in order to even want to "control" another human being. Like I said, I'm no fascist/tyrant/dictator, nor a control freak in any sense of the word.

You win this debate, but I'll be back. I can't say I'll be a competent adversary, but, I'll be back. Thanks for the link.

reply to post by grimreaper797

You are talking in generalizations. That doesn't change anything. You haven't addressed any specific gripes between the groups. You merely identified that it is about religion. That was obvious. Until you can get into specifics, whatever you do is going to be fruitless.

I believe what I am trying to convey is that what I am implying is a good starting point. The specifics can be dealt with after the major problems are addressed. By generalizing and coming to grips what is really at the heart of the matter may open a few eyes.

reply to post by grimreaper797




What you say is true....but not executable.

First, there is no way that either side will budge an inch. If we are going to make them forfeit for this, then both sides will forfeit. Period. They both are so ingrained into the idea that they cannot give an inch or they will fall down the slippery slope.

It is all fueled by greed.

even if you get the two sides to agree to make concessions and abide by the third party arbitration, you then get every other nation in the world rattling sabres.

peace is impossible as long as we have greedy, self serving, pieces of excrement in office worldwide. There is the reality of how it COULD be, then there is the reality of how they want it to be.

reply to post by loveguy


I'm not trying to be your adversary, I'm trying to get you thinking on a level which you would need to think at to make any sort of change. "It's all in the details" as they say.

If you approach a situation without competent and complete ways to fill the voids created, you will get nowhere. Believe in or not, I am actually a libertarian. My objections to your ideas have nothing to do with me opposing such ideas. My questions come from trying to challenge such ideas so that when they do fall under scrutiny, they don't crumble, or at the very least, come off as competent enough to consider and modify if needed.

What I am proposing to you is not control over another soul, but the ability to out-reason the opposing group so that they are no longer the opposing group. The reason "the powers that be" are in control is because they are smarter and more equipped to shoot down plans with even the slightest flaws. Push your ideas to be impermeable to such scrutiny out of sheer logical force, and then you will have something to go on, and something to complain about.

Originally posted by jackflap

I believe what I am trying to convey is that what I am implying is a good starting point. The specifics can be dealt with after the major problems are addressed. By generalizing and coming to grips what is really at the heart of the matter may open a few eyes.

But the major problems weren't addressed. You see mass murder and killing of each other as one of the major problems. You see a two religions unwilling to budge for one another as a major problem. That is why things don't get solved. Both of those things are not major problems, they are results of major problems. Murder is the result of the problems. Unwillingness to negotiate is a result of the problems.

Saying those two things are problems is nice, on the PR front but it simply isn't true because you aren't addressing the causes.

It is like the people that went "crime in major cities is a problem" in the early nineties. That is wrong. Crime is a result. The problems were far ranging and complex in nature. That is probably why people preferred saying crime is a problem. Crime was the net result of the problems, but because these problems were so varied and complex people just couldn't see it that way.

The middle east is the same thing. In fact, most problems are the same. People don't identify the core problem, just effects that stem from the problems that they see.

A single blurry frame? More Pentagon photo shopping?

You will have to do better than that.

Unwarrantedly killing civilians on 911 is terrorism.

Unwarrantedly killing Iraqi civilians in their own country is terrorism.

Iraq was a war of OUR making.
Iraq was a war of OUR choice.

Or perhaps more correctly of the corporate media spin doctors working for the choice of the war profiteers to loot the US treasury with the excuse of 'terrorism'.

The Pentagon is a terrorist organization.

All you bloodthirsty war mongering thugs are natural born terrorists.
Always trying to pin the blame on the 'other' guy.

I just hope the American populace won't be so gullible the next time the American government tries to peddle a war via propaganda to them.

Iran.....

reply to post by slank


and we are not winning this war in the bloodthirsty fashion of your chosing?Get some balls and talk to those of us that went to anser th bell. Should using the word "balls" instead of a euphemism such as huevos, or gonads or pair, et al result in a kick or other sanction, so be it, I feel terribly strong about this. I gave my ounce, and nbow myt children go. To give theirs.
Long Live The Republic

Originally posted by grimreaper797
reply to post by loveguy

 

I'm not trying to be your adversary, I'm trying to get you thinking on a level which you would need to think at to make any sort of change. "It's all in the details" as they say.

If you approach a situation without competent and complete ways to fill the voids created, you will get nowhere. Believe it or not, I am actually a libertarian. My objections to your ideas have nothing to do with me opposing such ideas. My questions come from trying to challenge such ideas so that when they do fall under scrutiny, they don't crumble, or at the very least, come off as competent enough to consider and modify if needed.

What I am proposing to you is not control over another soul, but the ability to out-reason the opposing group so that they are no longer the opposing group. The reason "the powers that be" are in control is because they are smarter and more equipped to shoot down plans with even the slightest flaws. Push your ideas to be impermeable to such scrutiny out of sheer logical force, and then you will have something to go on, and something to complain about.

Words of wisdom right there friend. Thanks.
I did a copy and paste of this and sent it to myself in an email. I hope that's OK. I want to be able to pull it up to study the wisdom.

Oftentimes, when discussing things with my wife; She loves who I am and is OK about me having LOGIC as an enemy. She wins our discussions because well, she's smarter than me, or broadens my perspective. And I never easily give much credence to logic anyhow. I like you.

Originally posted by Jazzyguy
Something else we were encouraged to do, almost with a wink and nudge, was to carry 'drop weapons', or by my third tour, 'drop shovels'. We would carry these weapons or shovels with us because if we accidentally shot a civilian, we could just toss the weapon on the body, and make them look like an insurgent."

Yeah also believed to be a common tactic in the inner cities of the US.

Originally posted by PhyberDragon
reply to post by jerico65

 

actually at the time of the revolution the king of england was also the king of france.
[/quote

No, he wasn't. George III was the King of England. (strictly speaking of the United Kingdom), and Louis XVI was the King of France.

Truthout is an uber leftwing pseudo newssource who frequently lies. I've seen a couple mass email 250000 apologies for misleading readers about palestine. In my eyes they are more partisan than Fox.

The simple fact is, and folks who haven't served don't understand this, is that the military is made of human beings. Volunteers. There are good and bad. Some enter the service for patriotic reasons, some enter because they have no other employment options, and there are some sickos who enter because they want to kill someone. There are good officers and bad. I tend to think what his CO actually said was on the lines of "If you see a hostile target or feel you are in danger, eradicate the target. Any issues that arise, we'll protect you.".

The simple facts are if everyone in his unit had been ordered to arbitrarily shoot civvies then more people would speak out. Did you ever think that maybe he's flying solo is because he's full of beans?

As far as the Wikileaks video, again we're dealing with commentary from people outside of the situation who haven't experienced it. The gunner wanted his kill shot because he didn't want to lose LOS on the target which could lead to a loss of human life. They gunned down an armed party in the street. The Reuters folks true purpose is unknown and they knowingly put themselves out there. The van picking up the wounded were picking up hostile targets. With their kids in the car. How many of you are stupid enough to have your kids in the van picking up terrorists in a combat zone? None of you I venture.

reply to post by poedxsoldiervet


Could not agree more my friend. Or if not a draft something that dictated if you vote for war, you have an interest (non-monetary) in its execution and strategy.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
I just hope the American populace won't be so gullible the next time the American government tries to peddle a war via propaganda to them.

Iran.....

RE: Iraq, i am not sure that the American populace was gullible at all. I was living in Laramie, WY at the time. I didn't know a single person who favored the Iraq war.

The American people don't get to make these decisions. If we did, there would have been no bailout.

reply to post by freighttrain

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
Does this surprise anyone?

Our military gives kids a free video game to entice them to join up.

The banter of the wiki leaks soldiers sounds like my living room when the kids play Halo.

And please keep the America Hate rhetoric to yourself. If America is hated for this, other countries are hated for the same cruelties, war is ugly and this is war. No one gets to wear the I am the worst country badge in war, because all war is ugly and violent.

To be honest it seems most of the world problems today to do with war and weaponry stem from america, so you know what you dont tell me to keep it to myself.

And those oblivious enough to support it and sugar coat it are just as guilty as those running it.

reply to post by star in a jar


It seems amazing those who pushed the hardest for this war never spent a day in uniform. I guess it must just be good for business.

reply to post by Jazzyguy


Thank you for the post. I read it when you posted it, but could not log in from my phone to star and flag it. I hope people continue to flag this post and others like it. Im tired of turning on the T.V. and all people are worried about is which celebrity is screwing who, whose hot and whose not, American Idol, and all the other trash that seems to drown out the truth of how the world really works. It hurts my heart more and more as every day passes. S&F for you.

LAUGHING-CAT,

a war against terrorism is a whole different ball of wax than re-fighting WWII.

Iraq had NOTHING to do with 911, NOTHING to do with any terrorism outside its own borders.

How the hell do rationalize the Iraq war? Mythical WMDs? What?

One could make some kind of argument about stabilizing Afghanistan, but it has to be done with some deft skill,

Which clearly THIS US military is completely incapable of.

They do so badly with it & all their massive civilian casualties that they are CREATING far more terrorism than they are quieting or reducing.

I don't know what planet you are living on, but you might want to catch up to speed on the hear & now Earth rather than keeping your head misguidedly in some romanticized history.