NationStates Jolt Archive

In it's letters to the editor (http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=125&article=33305) section.

This letter by who wrote it, where it was written from, and who was willing to publish it - certainly takes some wind out of those who keep telling us here that the soldiers on the ground are all supportive of this effort.


War based on a lie
Weapons of mass destruction? I’m still looking for them, and if you find any give me a call so we can justify our presence in Iraq. We started the war based on a lie, and we’ll finish it based on a lie. I say this because I am currently serving with a logistics headquarters in the Anbar province, between the cities of Fallujah and Ramadi. I am not fooled by the constant fabrication of “democracy” and “freedom” touted by our leadership at home and overseas.

This deception is furthered by our armed forces’ belief that we can just enter ancient Mesopotamia and tell the locals about the benefits of a legislative assembly. While our European ancestors were hanging from trees, these ancient people were writing algebra and solving quadratic equations. Now we feel compelled to strong-arm them into accepting the spoils of capitalism and “laissez-faire” society. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy watching Britney Spears on MTV and driving to McDonald’s, but do you honestly believe that Sunnis, Shias and Kurds want our Western ideas of entertainment and freedom imposed on them? Think again.

I’m not being negative, I’m being realistic. The reality in Iraq is that the United States created a nightmare situation where one didn’t exist. Yes, Saddam Hussein was an evil man who lied, cheated and pillaged his own nation. But how was he different from dictators in Africa who commit massive crimes again humanity with little repercussion and sometimes support from the West? The bottom line up front (BLUF to use a military acronym) is that Saddam was different because we used him as an excuse to go to war to make Americans “feel good” about the “War on Terrorism.” The BLUF is that our ultimate goal in 2003 was the security of Israel and the lucrative oil fields in northern and southern Iraq.

Weapons of mass destruction? Call me when you find them. In the meantime, “bring ’em on” so we can get our “mission accomplished” and get out of this mess.

Capt. Jeff Pirozzi
Camp Taqaddum, Iraq

Though you have to aplaud them for having the fortitude to actualy print this and not just through it out on sight

Stars and Stripes is a fair paper, and they publish lots of things on either side of an issue. I bet that the OP is surprised at that.

Hey, not everyone in the military is in agreement for the reasons for being there. They're not the mindless automatons that you think they are.

In it's letters to the editor (http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=125&article=33305) section.

This letter by who wrote it, where it was written from, and who was willing to publish it - certainly takes some wind out of those who keep telling us here that the soldiers on the ground are all supportive of this effort.
One disgrunneled Air Force Captain does not a tidal-wave make. :rolleyes:

One disgrunneled Air Force Captain does not a tidal-wave make. :rolleyes:

Maybe you should educate people on the rank structure, Eut. An Air Force Captain isn't exactly a high ranking officer...

I Hope this is not new to you people, all you need to do is watch all the documnetries on Iraq, and all the soliders and Marines will say the same thing.
I am a Proud American, but let's face it, realisticly, the soldiers and Marines think its a waste of time. I can believe them considering the slow progress

Maybe you should educate people on the rank structure, Eut. An Air Force Captain isn't exactly a high ranking officer...

0-3.

Making Captain just takes 2 years Time-in-Service (TIS) and 'good behavior'

Meh, I don't see why this is such a big deal. So Bush did/didn't lie? Make him pay a political price for it. This debate was important in 2003. Not now.

Because the US isn't going to withdraw the troops until they are convinced that it won't become even worse of a quagmire than it all ready is.

One disgrunneled Air Force Captain does not a tidal-wave make. :rolleyes:

No, but another honest voice telling us that the emporer has no clothes and no amount of paid journalism or Rummy/Rove spin is going to make the situation on the ground look good.

One disgrunneled Air Force Captain does not a tidal-wave make. :rolleyes:


No it does not. However it is as valid an indicator as any pro-war opinions by soldiers you've posted here and passed off as being the predominant opinion.

No, but another honest voice telling us that the emporer has no clothes and no amount of paid journalism or Rummy/Rove spin is going to make the situation on the ground look good.
Apparently, NPR has looked into the opinions of soldiers there - the summary is that they knew it would be a long war of occupation - no surprise there - they just think that there are two problems:

1. People on both sides of the aisle expect them to work a fucking miracle and miracle Iraq into a stable quiet place overnight - when they believe it will take decades

2. The soldiers there do not believe that either Congress or the American people support them, based largely on the news they hear from home.

One disgrunneled Air Force Captain does not a tidal-wave make. :rolleyes:

the justification for the war is Saddam Hussein. He's all the justification necessary, and thank goodness we took the ruthless dictator out.

it remains to be seen if Iraq can become a stable democracy, but we at least have given them reason to hope for freedom.

In it's letters to the editor (http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=125&article=33305) section.

This letter by who wrote it, where it was written from, and who was willing to publish it - certainly takes some wind out of those who keep telling us here that the soldiers on the ground are all supportive of this effort.
Does this mean that the "Everything is fine" articles that the S&S prints are okay, too? I think they outnumber this letter about a million to one.

the justification for the war is Saddam Hussein. He's all the justification necessary, and thank goodness we took the ruthless dictator out.

The US public would never have given it's approval for a war merely based on the fact that there was a dictator somewhere doing evil things. If they did I'd join the US army.

Make no mistake, WMD and Al Queida links were what this war was sold on. The ridding of a country is just a huge bonus.

The US public would never have given it's approval for a war merely based on the fact that theres a dictator somewhere doing evil things. If they did I'd join the US army.

Make no mistake, WMD and Al Queida links were what this war was sold on. The ridding of a country is just a huge bonus.


Wouldn't want to see that officer's evaluation report...

Heh. You'd be surprised.

One disgrunneled Air Force Captain does not a tidal-wave make. :rolleyes:

Kind of like those letters you posted saying everything was hunkydory; right?

Kind of like those letters you posted saying everything was hunkydory; right?
Keyword: "letters" ( plural ).

Keyword: "letters" ( plural ).

Ok the two letters you posted! You are right 2 guys for one against. ;)

the justification for the war is Saddam Hussein. He's all the justification necessary, and thank goodness we took the ruthless dictator out.

But that was NOT the reason the coalition went in.
So: Right thing to do, wrong reason.

[quote]it remains to be seen if Iraq can become a stable democracy, but we at least have given them reason to hope for freedom.

Or die trying.

Why the heck do you people keep bringing this stuff up? The U.S. can't leave Iraq right now, even though we want to. We removed their freaking government, and right now all they have is a weak, inexperienced democracy. Our troops are there to make sure they don't get overrun by their enemies in every direction (not to mention terrorists within their own walls).
All that these kinds of articles do is insesitantly whine about a situation that cannot be fixed immediatly. Mature a little, and stop bringing them up.

Why the heck do you people keep bringing this stuff up?

To assure it doesn't happen again ?

Why the heck do you people keep bringing this stuff up?

Because it hurts Bush. Duh.

Why the heck do you people keep bringing this stuff up? The U.S. can't leave Iraq right now, even though we want to. We removed their freaking government, and right now all they have is a weak, inexperienced democracy. Our troops are there to make sure they don't get overrun by their enemies in every direction (not to mention terrorists within their own walls).
All that these kinds of articles do is insesitantly whine about a situation that cannot be fixed immediatly. Mature a little, and stop bringing them up.

Because the last time it took 50,000 dead before the very same excuses were overcome.

Because the last time it took 50,000 dead before the very same excuses were overcome.

At least back then they told the people truthfully why they were there; Communism. It was a stupid reason but at least it was the truth...

Because the last time it took 50,000 dead before the very same excuses were overcome.

Well, if that's what it takes, then it will take eight times as long.

The Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army were far better at engaging in combat with US ground forces - they make the insurgents in Iraq look like amateurs.

Well, if that's what it takes, then it will take eight times as long.

I can't see how you can speak so easily on the prospect of more casualties...

Meh, I don't see why this is such a big deal. So Bush did/didn't lie? Make him pay a political price for it. This debate was important in 2003. Not now.

Because the US isn't going to withdraw the troops until they are convinced that it won't become even worse of a quagmire than it all ready is.
Actually, the US will start withdrawing troops when it becomes electorally feasible to do so, i.e. next year. This war has always been fought with its political usefulness at the forefront. If it continues to be a drag on the party, as it currently is, the Republican congressional leadership will force Bush to pull troops out in order to save their asses.

Actually, the US will start withdrawing troops when it becomes electorally feasible to do so, i.e. next year. This war has always been fought with its political usefulness at the forefront. If it continues to be a drag on the party, as it currently is, the Republican congressional leadership will force Bush to pull troops out in order to save their asses.

At this point I don't think the current administration or the Republicans in Congress can do anything to save face. They've done too much and tarnished their reputation irrevecably.

Cronyism, the war, the Patriot Act...just a few things.

At this point I don't think the current administration or the Republicans in Congress can do anything to save face. They've done too much and tarnished their reputation irrevecably.

Cronyism, the war, the Patriot Act...just a few things.
I don't know--I never underestimate the power of the American people to forget bad shit done by their politicians. Part of the reason incumbents do so well in elections, even when their party is in the shithole popularity wise, is not only that they have tremendous advantages built into the race, but also that constituents are often willing to say things like "the Republicans are a bunch of douchebags, but my Republican congressman is the exception" and keep re-electing them. Every so often there's a realignment, and we may see one next year--I hope we do--but I also recognize the possibility that the status quo will remain, or that there will only be a minor shift.

I married into the military and live on a military base and let me tell you 95 percent of the people here agree with the war. Most of the military here would rather just nuke Iraq and be done but they accept they can't have it that way. Things like Iraq don't turn around over night. Most of the American public doesn't even really know what is going on over there seeing as the press only reports on the bad things that happen.

And as for that Cptn. that was in disagreement with his station. That is his fault, he joined the military knowing full well the commitment and risk involved. You join the military and you have to do what they want. They joined of their own free will. So he has no place bashing the government for it. And I believe that for any individual in the military that complains about it. You signed the papers all by yourself, deal with the consequences.

Thanks for your insightful "first-post" input Cherokee...

Please report back to your master and have him or her cut the puppet strings.

However your assertion that troops must check their brain at enlistment time is blatantly false. This person is not indicating any desire to shrink from his assigned job nor does he indicate any lack of commitment to perform his duties.

Griping about getting a shit job while still performing said job to the best of one's abilities is, after all, a proud military tradition.

Because the last time it took 50,000 dead before the very same excuses were overcome.
BULLSHIT! :mad:

Please report back to your master and have him or her cut the puppet strings.
Oh, THAT's really helpful! I submit that it's the intellectually challenged on here who have problems believing that anything good is happening in Iraq, who think that everything an idiot collective like MoveOn.org says is gospel truth, but that every American soldier who says "good things are happening" is automatically a liar.

Get real.

Oh, THAT's really helpful! I submit that it's the intellectually challenged on here who have problems believing that anything good is happening in Iraq, who think that everything an idiot collective like MoveOn.org says is gospel truth, but that every American soldier who says "good things are happening" is automatically a liar.

Get real.

Ok. In an attempt to "get real" I'll say this.

Saddam Hussien is a scumbag and I'm glad he's out of the picture. If we had gone to war with the goal of removing a genocidal maniac, then I wouldn't have the problems with this conflict that I have now. But they didn't. They said that it was becuase Iraq had WMD's, which has now been proven false.

I don't listen to MoveOn.org, nor do I listen to soldiers testimony, as all are different and regularly conflict.

Now please calm down. You're starting to sound like me when people diss Catholics...

Thanks for your insightful "first-post" input Cherokee...

Please report back to your master and have him or her cut the puppet strings.

However your assertion that troops must check their brain at enlistment time is blatantly false. This person is not indicating any desire to shrink from his assigned job nor does he indicate any lack of commitment to perform his duties.

Griping about getting a shit job while still performing said job to the best of one's abilities is, after all, a proud military tradition.

When he raised his hand to join his job is "to protect and defend the constitution on the United States against foreign and domestic and to obey the orders of those appointed above him" not to sit and whine about it. If he doesn't like the way the government is dealing with the situation then he can get out.

So when you join the military you waive yoru right to voice your opinion?

When he raised his hand to join his job is "to protect and defend the constitution on the United States against foreign and domestic and to obey the orders of those appointed above him" not to sit and whine about it. If he doesn't like the way the government is dealing with the situation then he can get out.
Can he? Seems to me that getting out of the military once you're in is a difficult proposition, especially if you're stationed in Iraq.

So when you join the military you waive yoru right to voice your opinion?

While on duty, yeah.

Your job is to do as ordered. You can voice whatever you wish as a private citizen.

[/b]
Can he? Seems to me that getting out of the military once you're in is a difficult proposition, especially if you're stationed in Iraq.

There are ways to get out it is just a matter of knowing how. And I'm not saying people in the military can't have an opinion of their own but once you sign the papers you are government property you do what they say when they say to do it. A person is losing the right to do as he or she pleases. So if people in the military don't agree with policy or current actions no one is going to feel any sympathy for them. Everyone thinking about joining has the opportunity to make an informed decison. They should have thought about that before they got in.

While on duty, yeah.

Your job is to do as ordered. You can voice whatever you wish as a private citizen.


Could you point me to the law or whatever it is that says active duty soldiers cannot voice an opinion? If not then you have no grounds for your argument. IF you can then I will shut up about it and just feel sorry for the soldiers, and especially the guy who wrote this piece about the war being based on lies because he must be in deep trouble.

Could you point me to the law or whatever it is that says active duty soldiers cannot voice an opinion? If not then you have no grounds for your argument. IF you can then I will shut up about it and just feel sorry for the soldiers, and especially the guy who wrote this piece about the war being based on lies because he must be in deep trouble.

I can't find the protocol myself. But I do have some comentary on the debate on "Soldier's Free Speech".

And I have no argument to give. You asked a question, and I answered to the best of my ability. I don't like it anymore than you do. So please don't treat me as your advarsary.

'Ere ya go!

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20030619_falvy.html

I can't find the protocol myself. But I do have some comentary on the debate on "Soldier's Free Speech".

And I have no argument to give. You asked a question, and I answered to the best of my ability. I don't like it anymore than you do. So please don't treat me as your advarsary.

'Ere ya go!

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20030619_falvy.html

Thanks, that's a lot of reading, I'll check it out. I only wanted to know if it was law or an opinion of someone blindly patriotic that doesn't like to see opinions expressed by soldiers that contradict theirs.

Thanks, that's a lot of reading, I'll check it out. I only wanted to know if it was law or an opinion of someone blindly patriotic that doesn't like to see opinions expressed by soldiers that contradict theirs.

Why would I oppose my comrades in the LGBT Army?

I can't find the protocol myself. But I do have some comentary on the debate on "Soldier's Free Speech".

And I have no argument to give. You asked a question, and I answered to the best of my ability. I don't like it anymore than you do. So please don't treat me as your advarsary.

'Ere ya go!

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20030619_falvy.html
I haven't read it(your evidence), but just going on the fact that the letter was published in Stars & Stripes I'm going to go on the assumption that his opinion is okay to have and express.

And the guy is doing his job, he just thinks it's a bullshit war. That's how it works. Something the thicknecks seem to have trouble with-the soldiers don't have the luxury of putting the administration's feet to the fire about how it decides to risk their lives-that's our duty. It's not being against the troops, it's being for them by making sure, in a way they can't, that they aren't being used frivolously.

Why would I oppose my comrades in the LGBT Army?


I wasn't talking about you! lol
I never though of you as an adversary

In it's letters to the editor (http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=125&article=33305) section.

This letter by who wrote it, where it was written from, and who was willing to publish it - certainly takes some wind out of those who keep telling us here that the soldiers on the ground are all supportive of this effort.


AWESOME!

No, really. Awesome.

There's an old saying you should hear, if it hasn't been posted before - "I don't agree with what you say, but I'll die for your right to say it."

Not that surprising that a soldier in Iraq is against this war. This isn't an insult to the soldiers... I'm just saying that, regardless of their political beliefs, they are fighting for the freedom and security of their nation. While there are plenty of soldiers who don't agree with why this war started, I know that all of them are united in preserving the freedom of America, and soldiers are willing to die so that we may sit here and discuss this freely. :)

To assure it doesn't happen again ?

Oh yeah. I'm sure "leave Iraq" applies to every war the US will ever be involved in. It doesn't even help in the current situation.

Point 1: The war's over. All that's left is reconstruction. Leaving during that period is sheer cold heartedness.

Point 2: Chances are we'll never pull completely out of Iraq. You remember WWII? The US still has soldiers in Germany. I know because I bought milk at their commisary.

Point 3: Vietnam, who people tend to over-dramatize, had the least U.S. casualties of any war the U.S. has been involved in. The battle of Gettysburg had around the same deathcount for the union, and that was considered a victory. Operation Iraqi Freedom had even fewer deaths than Vietnam. More U.S. citezens are hit by lightning in the U.S. than die in Iraq.

Point 4: Saddam Hussein has been linked to anti-Israeli terror. By removing him from power, the U.S. is protecting one of our strongest allies. Plus, anti-Israeli terror groups are a threat to the U.S. because of our positive relationship with Israel. Even though it turned out we were wrong about the WMDs, removing Saddam did improve safety by crippling anti-Israeli terror.

Point 5: The troops in Iraq are mostly proud to be there. Their morale is through the roof, meaning they're enjoying themselves. In other words, the soldiers are happy. Morale amongst U.S. civillians is pretty crappy right now, making the logical conclusion that being in Iraq is better for most soldiers than being home in the U.S.

Point 6: You don't know all the factors. For safety reasons, much information is kept classified and out of the public eye. The only people who know this information are the world leaders (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.), who are therefore more qualified to judge the situation than you. They, by the way, suggest we stay the course.

Need I continue? I can.

Oh yeah. I'm sure "leave Iraq" applies to every war the US will ever be involved in. It doesn't even help in the current situation.


Who said "leave Iraq" ? The "to assure it does not happen again" refers to going to war under false pretences, providing misinformation to the public and then refusing to apoligize. I would probably have supported the war if the leaders would have been truthful about their reasons.

Need I continue? I can.

Sure - but none of your points were relevant ;)

I can't see how you can speak so easily on the prospect of more casualties...
What makes the green grass grow?





Free love to the first with the correct answer

Who said "leave Iraq" ? The "to assure it does not happen again" refers to going to war under false pretences, providing misinformation to the public and then refusing to apoligize. I would probably have supported the war if the leaders would have been truthful about their reasons.

They were truthful right from the start; Saddam Hussein was a threat, and we believed from satalite surveilance that the threat was critical (he did appear to have WMDs, and his administration had been avoiding inspections for years).

They were truthful right from the start; Saddam Hussein was a threat, and we believed from satalite surveilance that the threat was critical (he did appear to have WMDs, and his administration had been avoiding inspections for years).

False assumption. Iraq was under inspection prior to the war. Bush pulled the investigators out before they could finish their job and said. "Since you didn't finish your job, I'll just assume he had them"

There's an old saying you should hear, if it hasn't been posted before - "I don't agree with what you say, but I'll die for your right to say it."


Not exactly an old saying. It's a quote of Voltaire. "I detest what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it"

Thanks, that's a lot of reading, I'll check it out. I only wanted to know if it was law or an opinion of someone blindly patriotic that doesn't like to see opinions expressed by soldiers that contradict theirs.
I did read it and I'll sum up what I think is important. It's basically Article 88 of the UCMJ.

There are differences in both the privileges, responsibilities and duties of officers and enlisted men. Enlisted men are granted privileges of free speech that are withheld from officers. If this letter were written by an enlisted man, there would be no argument about its propriety. There is far more restraint on the enlisted when it comes to what they say about superiors in their chain of command.

Officers are discouraged from meddling in things political. This captain has certainly tested the limits of what he is allowed to say. An example was given of the LtCol in Monterey, Ca, that wrote a letter to the editor stating that 'Bush had full knowledge' of the 9/11 attacks and went on in some incoherent explanation of how it was so. This officer was relieved of his command of the Defense Language Institue.

So, I think it's unlikely that Captain whoever will be prosecuted for any violation of the UCMJ, but if I were his reporting senior, I'd have a few things to say about his lack of judgement. And I wouldn't mark him very well in his next fitrep, either.

There's an old saying you should hear, if it hasn't been posted before - "I don't agree with what you say, but I'll die for your right to say it."

Not that surprising that a soldier in Iraq is against this war. This isn't an insult to the soldiers... I'm just saying that, regardless of their political beliefs, they are fighting for the freedom and security of their nation. While there are plenty of soldiers who don't agree with why this war started, I know that all of them are united in preserving the freedom of America, and soldiers are willing to die so that we may sit here and discuss this freely. :)
Apropos of nothing in particular, I remember a phrase from boot camp that something like "We're here to defend democracy, not practice it". I think that was in the article linked in to one of the posts. My favorite commanding officer had a phrase that is just as irrelevant. He used to tell us that "we're a democracy and I have 51 percent of the vote".

All I want to know is why this AF Captain hates America for its freedoms?

He's obviously a coward, like Murtha.

I think Bush needs to make another appearance somewhere, wearing his favorite flightsuit.

The letter is fake. It was planted by the terrorists. They paid for the ad with money from Al Franken.

Besides, Stars and Stripes is just a liberal rag.