I have a question for the war supporters..

[SteelCore]

You took an Oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic.....and that (you) I will obey the orders of the President of the United States..."

But again -- what if the orders of the president are contrary to the Constitution? Then there's a conflict. IMHO, the Constitution takes precedence over the orders of ANY man. It's what makes America America.

Read here to see how the current war violates the Constitution (and many other laws and treaties):

http://www.westpointgradsagainstthewar.org/laws_and_treatıes_violated_by_pr.htm

What if soldiers are one day ordered to confiscate all American citizens' guns? Let's not deceive ourselves into thinking it can't happen here. It has already happened on a small scale (after Katrina). Should they just shut up and obey orders then?

I'm not saying current soldiers should desert or whatever. Above all, they need to protect each other against attacks while they're in country. But they have a right to be concerned about what they're being made to do.


Regarding the terrorism question, it's pretty clear that America has angered many people by invading Iraq. And the more people are angry with this nation, the more people will want to attack us. There's a reason why no one ever attacks Switzerland or Norway.

If it were up to me, every one of those troops would be brought home, and then they could be used to seal the borders. Open borders are the REAL danger to our security. But of course the Iraq war never had anything to do with US security anyway:

Iraq was invaded 'to protect Israel' - US official

The neocons are willing to fight to the last drop of American blood and the last penny of our treasury. But they'll keep eating their caviar and drinking their champagne while we eat our "freedom fries."

 

[threegun]

The neocons are willing to fight to the last drop of American blood and the last penny of our treasury. But they'll keep eating their caviar and drinking their champagne while we eat our "freedom fries."

And the liberals are willing to keep appeasing our enemies until we are attacked again only this time with a WMD. If attacked again our economy will collapse then the libs will be out blaming the "neocons" yet again. BTW there are plenty of conservatives that can't afford caviar and plenty of liberals who can.

 

[Musketeer]

Secdef, You said terror attacks were up 30 percent in 2006. Aheny replied that he didn't care as long as they weren't attacks against Americans. You said they were against Americans.........can you provide proof? Please don't use attacks on our soldiers on the battlefield.

Those don't count even though the NeoCons and Administration continue to call this a War against Terror and refer to those carrying out those attacks as terrorists? That seems contradictory.

 

[JuanCarlos]

You specifically stated that terrorists attacks were fairly uncommon, and added the clause about foreign terrorists on US soil, implying that your overall statement included attacks on US interests both at home and abroad.

Are you intentionally being daft, or do you really not understand? The only "US soil" abroad would be embassies, and really I wasn't even counting those (since they're small patches of US soil surrounded by very foreign soil). No, my overall statement did not include "US interests" abroad...which is why I didn't say that.

EDIT: Actually, in all fairness I can see how that portion you quoted in your second reply, if taken in a vacuum, may easily be interpreted the way you chose to. However I'd say that given the context of both the post I was replying to and the entire post you quoted from, it was fairly clear what I meant. Either way, it was very clear after my reply to you.

Attacks against America at home or abroad are significant in that al Qaeda has shown that when they are unable to attack us at home, they attack us abroad. I ask again, how many attacks have been carried out against America at home or abroad since 9/11?

SecDef listed a few, no? If we're counting attacks against Americans abroad (and not even including soldiers) then those haven't exactly stopped...or particularly "plummeted." If we're not, then the lull in attacks within our borders isn't exactly impressive, as terrorist attacks within our borders weren't been particularly common before. Either way, you lose.

Simplifying the issue to only include WTC attacks is misleading. I’ll not go so far as to say it was intentional, but misleading it was. I’m not going to get into a debate with you about whether our military engagements have allowed us to minimize the terrorist’s ability to attack us. The fact is it has. I know, I’ve seen it.

I didn't only include the WTC attacks to "simplify the issue." I only included them because from 1990 to 2001 they were the only two significant terror attacks by foreign groups/individuals within our borders.

Also, what exactly have you "seen?" I've seen a lull in successful terror attacks within our borders that is no more impressive than several previous lulls.

I doubt it.

If you want to try to trade insults lets to it by PM so as not to get this locked. I'm up for it, since you're obviously not bringing your A-game here.

 

[threegun]

They don't count because it is a war zone you expect attacks in a war zone. They can't call them enemy soldiers because they refuse to wear a uniform. They are insergents

An insurgency is an armed rebellion by any irregular armed force that rises up against an established authority, government, or administration. Those carrying out an insurgency are insurgents . Insurgents conduct sabotage and harassment.

pretty accurate. As for the war on terror and yes it is a war on terror, this administration is dead on the money calling it such. Lets see the terrorists are muslim extremists and we are fighting muslim extremists in Iraq. Not hard to see the link for me anyway. If you look at the big picture the only real threat to muslim extremists in that region is capitalism and democracy. It will take time perhaps a decade or two but once capitalism and democracy sets in the WOT is over. Someone who can't put things together or think well in advance might not see this but it is defeat for muslim extremism and even they know it.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The fatal flaw in the argument is that the people in those countries are yearning for capitalism and democracy as we know it. There is little evidence that they are. They don't have the religious or philosophical basis for it.

You have a cultural history of 1000s of years that won't be overturned by delusions of capitalist grandeur.

 

[threegun]

Glenn, Thats why it will take much longer there. Once mama osama sees mama hussain turning the knob on a kenmore washing machine and little osama has a pair of Levi's and a bigmac its over. The extremists know this thats why they are comming from all over the region to fight it. Just look at those muslims who come to our country it isn't long before many are just like us. Look at China and Japan they got a taste of nice things and just look now. Muslims will be harder because of the religious aspect but they will join the dark side sooner of later.

 

[JR47]

There's a flaw in that, as well. We are attempting to put a democratically elected government in place in Iraq, not a democracy. The MSM is the group who have corrupted the image of what the US is doing, surprise, surprise. Heck, we don't have, and never intended to have, a true democracy as our government. We have a Republic, with a representative form of government, and not a democracy in America.

The MSM has portrayed our efforts as an attempt to build a mirror-image of America in the sands of Iraq. Besides, where exactly does the idea that Iraq COULDN'T have a democracy, because the people don't want one? I've yet to see those questions asked of the Iraqi people. All I hear is someone's undocumented OPINION of what the actual people of Iraq want as a government.

As for capitalism, that's NOT a form of government, and was in practice with the elites of Saddam's government, and trickling down into the masses, prior to his removal for cause.

If we're making sweeping claims for people 5000 miles away, let's back it up with something besides anecdotal information. Let's also avoid using MSM polls of a couple of hundred people to represent millions of citizens.

 

[threegun]

The few Iraqi customers I have talked to say that the people of Iraq want freedom but are fearful of being killed by extremists. They say that the people just want jobs and security.

 

[badbob]

They say that the people just want jobs and security.

That's what most people want all over the world, it's extremists and governments that want something else.
Do you or anyone that you know really want anything more than a good job and a future for your kids? Poor people fight and die in wars that rich people start. That's always been the case.
As a lot of posters have stated, follow the money. Who profits?

badbob

 

[threegun]

Bob, In this case the extremist want us dead for simply being us. Our way of life will be the end of their way of life according to them.

In every militant statement you can see a mix of the general and the specific. Imam Samudra, the Bali bomber, saw the night clubs of Bali as part of a general cultural assault mounted by the West against the Islamic world. This is typical.

In Kashmir, locals speak of their repression as part of a global campaign against Muslims. In Chechnya, the war with Russia is seen as a manifestation of the same push to eliminate Islam.

A few months ago a previously unknown group threatened violence in France and listed the banning of the veil from schools alongside continuing American support for Israel, the war in Iraq and the killing of civilians in Afghanistan as evidence that the West never abandoned the Crusades.

This perception that a belligerent West is set on the humiliation, division and eventual conquest of the Islamic world is at the root of Muslim violence. The militants believe they are fighting a last-ditch battle for the survival of their society, culture, religion and way of life. They are fighting in self-defence and understand, as we in the West also believe, that self-defence can justify using tactics that might be frowned on in other circumstances.

We are compelled to defend ourselves from those who wish to kill us. Iraq is just another battlefield to protect ourselves from those who want us dead.

 

[badbob]

Good points, threegun. So what's the answer? We can't force people to love us, it has the opposite effect. Sombody called the ME mess a "tarbaby". A pretty good anology, IMHO.

badbob

 

[Powderman]

Powderman, I think you are way off base.

Let me explain why in simple terms. Humans are complicated. Soldiers sign up to be cogs in a gigantic machine. However, they still maintain their humanity. If Danzig feels the need to vent and complain about his commander in Chief, why would you deny him that outlet?

Your comment would be valid--if we were discussing any other job in the world.

Danzig is a Non-Commissioned Officer in the Armed Forces of the United States. His job is to motivate soldiers--ANY soldier of lesser rank--in such a manner as to accomplish the mission that is assigned or undertaken.

Danzig is in a unique position. Where any other employee of a major corporation has the right to refuse an assignment that might harm them or be detrimental to their health, soldiers do not have that luxury.

Danzig might find himself in the position to actually send a man--or men--into a position where he knows that they will probably be KILLED. Guess what? Soldiers aren't stupid--they know it too!!

If the soldier feels that his or her NCO is NOT competent, wavers, has no backbone--or questions the circumstances they are in, THE MISSION WILL NOT BE DONE.

How is that important? Example:

"OK, folks, here's what we're doing today. There's a battalion of Marines here (marks position on a map). They need some fuel to prepare for a mission first thing tomorrow. I have not been told what the Marine mission is, but getting fuel to them is of the highest priority. I also have to tell you--intelligence has informed us that there is a GOOD chance that Johnny Jihad knows about this transport, and will be hunting for us.

"We will be running a convoy of 8 tankers, with escort; we have been told to expect a full scale attack on our convoy, by insurgents with access to advanced weaponry.

"Any questions?"

What have the soldiers been told?

1. They're driving bulk haulers.
2. People WILL be shooting at them.
3. There's a GOOD chance they're going to catch some bullets--while driving mobile bombs.

So, what would a soldier do, if they were assigned to a squad or platoon where the NCO questions the authority of the Commander in Chief--OPENLY?

My comment still stands.

Life sucks, Danzig. And being shot at sucks even more.

I want you to do something. Stand up, and look--first to your right side, now to your left. What you're looking for, is any sign of the person who held a gun to your head and forced you to enlist!!

You were a volunteer--and now, you're a leader. SHUT your MOUTH, and LEAD!!

And, don't you DARE say, "Hey--I might as well stay in, and collect my retirement" if you do not BELIEVE in your job.

You have two choices here, Danzig.

You can choose to man up, perform a package check, and be a LEADER--because, God knows, our soldiers need strong leaders right now to take them through and to take care of them. You can choose to be an NCO; to put the welfare of your soldiers before your own; to ensure that their needs are met; to motivate them and to help them build morale, discipline and esprit de corps; and to do whatever it takes to try to get them home safely!

Yes, in a war soldiers die. That is the sad, hard fact--and I know that I--and lots of other Americans--get a lump in the throat when we see another flag draped coffin; when we see another grieving family, their hopes and dreams shattered forever by combat.

Our soldiers NEED strong NCO's--because you, as a Non-Commissioned Officer have the DUTY to lead those soldiers--to the fire, THROUGH the fire, and OUT of harm's way!

You can lead your soldiers, Danzig...

or you can GET the HECK OUT OF MY ARMY!

If you're going to WHINE, MOAN and CRY, you are a disgrace to EVERY ONE OF THOSE MEN AND WOMEN WHO HAVE DIED WEARING THE UNIFORM, IN SERVICE TO THIS COUNTRY!

And if you choose to run down the Commander in Chief, while wearing that uniform, YOU GET OUT, RIGHT NOW!!! DON'T YOU DARE TRY TO COLLECT A RETIREMENT CHECK, IF YOU'RE GOING TO WHINE AND CRY ABOUT HOW UNFAIR THIS MESS IS!!!!

You want to moan about it, and if you have some sand in your nether regions about the way the President is handling it, GET OUT, and complain from the OUTSIDE.

Other than that, man up, SHUT UP, and do your job!

I hope you are clear on that, Danzig.

I know I am.

 

[SecDef]

So, what would a soldier do, if they were assigned to a squad or platoon where the NCO questions the authority of the Commander in Chief--OPENLY?

Well, that's where you are wrong. This is not open. You have no idea who he is.

The rest of your post after what I quoted should best be edited or deleted. You are making Danzig out as if he is not doing his job, or is incapable of doing his job with the convictions he has. That is an obviously asinine position to take.

 

[JuanCarlos]

Yep, I said it to dyoun06 and I'll say it to you Powderman.

You do not know who Danzig is. You have no idea how he carries himself while in uniform, or how dedicated he is to his job or his men. You are speaking directly out of your third point of contact, and I recommend you stop.

Seriously, I've never seen somebody appear so passionate about being entirely and utterly wrong.

 

[Powderman]

This isn't open?

Tell me, in a public forum such as this, can YOU say beyond a reasonable doubt that you know absolutely no one here?

Can anyone state, without a doubt, that there is no one else here who knows Danzig--that is, past his screen name?

I know that there are quite a few other cops who post to the board, some of which I can identify. I know that there are others.

I also know that there are quite a few active duty servicemembers who post here. Some are active, and some lurk.

I would say that this is QUITE open, indeed.

As to the rest of my post, it stands.

If Danzig is having an attack of conscience, then he should talk to his senior NCO's and chain of command about it. He should NOT air his laundry in a public forum.

If he cannot do the job, then he should finish his current enlistment and get out. In extreme cases, he could request a discharge for the good of the Service.

But while he is in, he is still an NCO. He should act like one.

SecDef, are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Armed Forces? If so, you should understand what I mean.

 

[FirstFreedom]

Originally Posted by Powderman
You took an Oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic.....and that (you) I will obey the orders of the President of the United States..."

But again -- what if the orders of the president are contrary to the Constitution? Then there's a conflict. IMHO, the Constitution takes precedence over the orders of ANY man. It's what makes America America.

Read here to see how the current war violates the Constitution (and many other laws and treaties):

http://www.westpointgradsagainstthew...ated_by_pr.htm

What if soldiers are one day ordered to confiscate all American citizens' guns? Let's not deceive ourselves into thinking it can't happen here. It has already happened on a small scale (after Katrina). Should they just shut up and obey orders then?

I'm not saying current soldiers should desert or whatever. Above all, they need to protect each other against attacks while they're in country. But they have a right to be concerned about what they're being made to do.


Regarding the terrorism question, it's pretty clear that America has angered many people by invading Iraq. And the more people are angry with this nation, the more people will want to attack us. There's a reason why no one ever attacks Switzerland or Norway.

If it were up to me, every one of those troops would be brought home, and then they could be used to seal the borders. Open borders are the REAL danger to our security. But of course the Iraq war never had anything to do with US security anyway:

Iraq was invaded 'to protect Israel' - US official

The neocons are willing to fight to the last drop of American blood and the last penny of our treasury. But they'll keep eating their caviar and drinking their champagne while we eat our "freedom fries."

Wow. I rarely see such a densely-packed assortment of truths in one post - thank you SteelCore!

 

[SecDef]

If he cannot do the job, then he should finish his current enlistment and get out. In extreme cases, he could request a discharge for the good of the Service.

Danzig appears to know exactly what his job is and what his role is. I think you are misinterpreting his motivation for posting this.

As for complaining about those that look forward to earning more money by being in combat zones because of poor personal financial decisions, he has a point that they HAVE disassociated their job from duty, honor, and defending America.

SecDef, are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Armed Forces? If so, you should understand what I mean.

My name is Donald Rumsfeld. Of course I haven't served. . . I'm the freakin' SecDef! I send others to put their butts on the line. But why do you hate the troops.

 

[threegun]

Badbob, I don't have the cure only treatments to ease the symptoms. The long term cure just won't help right now so keeping our soldiers boots on their throats is the treatment. If we let off now the problem gets stronger and soon we get hit here.

 

[cje1980]

Danzig, I appreciate and respect your service to our country. My brother is currently over there and is expecting to come home in August. My only point is that it wasn't just Bush who sent troops over there. Both Democrats and Republicans authorized the use of force in Iraq. In fact, just about every prominent Democrat is "on record" stating why it was necessary to use military force against Iraq in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

While you may not agree with Bush he at least has the guts to stand-up for his decision and not change his policy so that it mirrors public opinion. The Democrats also wanted to use military force against Iraq and did authorize it. Now that the war is unpopular they are playing political games, pretending like they never said what they did. The worst thing to me is when politicians politicize something as serious as a war. When you send troops to war you support them and give them everything they need. You don't belittle their effort and say that they have lost the war(Reid) while they are still fighting.