Thursday, October 27, 2005

My conversations with Iraqi War Veteran

I went to visit my alma mater, Ohio University this past weekend to see old friends, and to spend time with a Marine who just got back from Iraq last week. After hearing his stories and experiences over there for almost 8 months, I love our Military even more and am confident we are there for the right reasons.

He lost 16 of his brothers and engaged in some horrible firefights. He had friends die in his arms, and had to carry their burning bodies, skin falling off, away to safety. He warned me that sometimes he wakes up screaming and has nightmares. I hope this will subside but he's only been home a week. I heard him hyperventilating and tossing and turning. Why am I sharing all of this? I'll tell you.

I asked him while sharing a beer: What are your feelings about the War on Terrorism and the War in Iraq? He believes they are one and the same and answered something like this:

"We are not over there to free the Iraqis. Sure thats an added bonus but thats not why we're dying over there. There is a lot of oil in Iraq thats worth billions. We cannot allow the bad guys to gain control of that oil. They will sell it for billions and use that money to buy bad shit to kill us." Even after everything he saw and experienced, both good and bad, he still believes down to his core in our cause there. By killing insurgents and preventing Iraq from harboring and training any future terrorists, we can put a serious dent in the War on Terror.

I see and hear all the anti-war people and it upsets me so much. We are over there to keep the bad guys from hurting us here, I don't see whats so difficult to understand. I've very sensitive when it comes to our military, probably because I've had 2 students die, I have their sisters in class and my friend went through so much and thank god came home safe. He may have to go back and he is prepared for that. I couldn't be more proud of our military and I will do whatever I can for them anytime.

31 Comments:

At 12:59 PM , Blogger Eddie said...

That's good to know. I volunteered for the Bush campaign with a very courageous guy who already served in the Israeli army and was volunteering to serve in Iraq for the U.S. army, he felt so strongly about it. After seeing his relative's homeland bombed time and time again by Saddam funded terrorists, he was sick and tired of it. He told me there is hardly a soldier who doesn't support Bush over there.

It's too bad the left doesn't talk to real soldiers, only puts them on TV commercials and honors the one's who degrade their son's heroic effort.

Others I volunteered with were veterans of the first Iraq war, very strong supporters of our efforts over there.

Why didn't I serve? Honestly, I didn't serve b/c when I was 18 we weren't really at war and it never crossed my mind. So before TWO gets on my back, I will let him know that. My father proudly served in the U.S. army and he, a real man, never onced told us we had too or thought we should, nor did he oppose my brother joining the marines (though he told him the marines were too much work, he should join the army instead as basic training was easier).

Later, TT, thanks for the post.

 
At 1:14 PM , Blogger The Watchful One said...

"Why didn't I serve? Honestly, I didn't serve b/c when I was 18 we weren't really at war and it never crossed my mind. So before TWO gets on my back, I will let him know that."

For the record, I don't buy into the "chickenhawk argument" that too many on my side of the political spectrum like to use.

TWO

 
At 1:19 PM , Blogger Eddie said...

OK, then I just spoke too soon.

 
At 1:21 PM , Blogger The Watchful One said...

I don't doubt that the Bush administration had good intentions for Iraq, but I don't think good intentions are enough.

If a two year occupation, thousands of dead and maimed soldiers, thousands of dead and maimed Iraqis, a balooning price tag of $200,000,000,000, and no end in sight is not a disastrous result, whatever comes next probably will be.

I have nothing but admiration for soldiers who put their lives on the line in Iraq, but I don't think that the mission they were sent on was a wise move, and if it was, it was largely bungled by the Bush administration.

Do I think the US should pull out of Iraq? No. That is what sucks about the Bush administration's Iraq policy. We can't leave it behind now.

TWO

 
At 1:23 PM , Blogger Eddie said...

For the record, Clinton came out in support of us invading Iraq, I do believe. Also, as I have stated before, that 200 billion dollar figure (I love how you like to add all the zeros so as to be impressive) figure includes money spent on Afghanistan. At least you could be honest about it.

 
At 1:29 PM , Blogger Eddie said...

Tori,

I am glad you mentioned that hyperventilating. One of my friend's father was in 'Nam and he did some strange things, even 25 years later. He couldn't even watch the movie Hamburger Hill w/out freaking out. That stuff must be really, really tough to deal with. It never goes away.

 
At 1:35 PM , Blogger Tori said...

I don't understand what intentions, other than good we could've had by invading Iraq. For oil? Ummm, no, where is it? For WMD, EVERYONE thought they had them and I believe they did. My friend found tons of stockpiles of gas masks.

I truly believe that we went in there to fight terrorism and the countries that harbor them.

 
At 1:43 PM , Blogger The Watchful One said...

"For the record, Clinton came out in support of us invading Iraq, I do believe. Also, as I have stated before, that 200 billion dollar figure (I love how you like to add all the zeros so as to be impressive) figure includes money spent on Afghanistan. At least you could be honest about it."

The $200,000,000,000 does not include operations in Afghanistan. Look it up if you don't believe me.

Furthermore, I haven't "added" any zeros to the cost of the war. Displaying all the zeros in the figure for the cost of the Iraq war is the least I can do to drive home the point that Iraq is costing a hell of a lot of money.

TWO

 
At 2:31 PM , Blogger Eddie said...

So is social security, far more than the war on terror. I don't support it, never will. Should I post how much it costs us?

 
At 2:48 PM , Blogger supplymadam said...

One fact is we never got our oil from Iraq but what your friend is saying if we do leave now it would become a terrorist state and the terrorists would gain control of the oil and we all know that wouldn't be a good thing and leaving Saddam there would also have been a threat. After 9/11 we couldn't take that chance.
Yes Eddie, Clinton was also for taking Saddam from power as was 80% of congress. The reason the UN was against it was because of the dealings that France,Germany and Russia had with Iraq(all the underhanded dealings).
Isn't it amazing that Saddam's scientists were forbidden to be interviewed by the weapons inspectors. Why do these facts seem to always get swept under the rug? Just another convenience for the Bush haters.

 
At 2:52 PM , Blogger Eddie said...

That's the thing Tori, it's easy to destroy WMD's, hide them in the Mountains, or send them to Syria. Even if he never had them, just having the ability to create them, and we know he would use them, is enough of a threat.

 
At 3:47 PM , Blogger The Watchful One said...

"That's the thing Tori, it's easy to destroy WMD's, hide them in the Mountains, or send them to Syria. Even if he never had them, just having the ability to create them, and we know he would use them, is enough of a threat."

The Soviet Union, which Ronald Reagan called an evil empire, had enough nuclear missiles pointed at the US to blow it off the map, and yet the US never invaded it.

Saddam probably did have WMD. So what? In this day and age, God only knows what madmen have in their arsenals.

Are we going to invade every country suspected of having WMD?

TWO

 
At 3:48 PM , Blogger Eddie said...

Different times, different situations. It's a Country by Country basis, TWO.

Thanks,
FOUR

 
At 4:02 PM , Blogger Tori said...

So who's going to be FIVE? RR? Stuffle?

THREE

 
At 4:22 PM , Blogger Ranting Republican said...

"The Soviet Union, which Ronald Reagan called an evil empire, had enough nuclear missiles pointed at the US to blow it off the map, and yet the US never invaded it."

TWO - I think an argument can be made that a big reason we did not invade the Soviet Union was because they ALREADY had those weapons pointed directly at the US. Stepping a foot on to their soil may have set them off.

Here, we know that Saddam had certain weapons of mass destruction. Your reply to that was "so what?" This is an incredibly dangerous mentality - as I'll stipulate so is "so let's go get everyone who has a wmd."

The differences are (1) Saddam was insane and we already knew he had used biological and chemical weapons on his own people - who is to stop him from doing it to others? (2) Most other nations are fairly good at either self-regulating, or complying with UN resolutions because they need help from the UN or US. (3) Whether or not you choose to believe a connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda is not something I'm willing to argue with you on here, again...but when you give a lot of money, and a lot of weapons to people who are born and raised to HATE Americans, dance in the streets of Baghdad on 9/11, and despise all that America stands for - it's a lose-lose situation, and many innocent people will die.

 
At 4:40 PM , Blogger Tori said...

You can't reason with insanity

THREE

 
At 5:14 PM , Blogger Eddie said...

I know what you mean.

FOUR

 
At 6:31 PM , Blogger Ranting Republican said...

I don't think anyone can say it better than this guy!!!

"The Salt Lake Tribune has a wonderful quote from First Lt. Bruce Bishop, a 31-year-old fireman, who explains that he plans to re-enlist in the Utah National Guard "because as I look around at the state of this nation and see all of the weak little pampered candy-asses that are whining about this or protesting that, I'd be afraid to leave the fate of this nation entirely up to them."

LOVE IT!!!

 
At 11:18 PM , Blogger ImMikeJones said...

I actually think one guy can say it better than that guy:

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger. It works the same way in any country."

-Herman Goering (if you don't know who he is you aren't much of a history student but i am sure you can find it out)

 
At 1:21 AM , Blogger Ranting Republican said...

Oh fantastic - look who's back! :)

 
At 1:35 AM , Blogger Ranting Republican said...

And yes mikejones, I'm aware of who Herman was. So come on, where are the rest of the Republicans are facists and Nazi remarks...I know you're just dying to make them...

 
At 2:00 AM , Blogger Ranting Republican said...

Let me just add that I love the fact that Republicans are considered the war-party when all but two major wars we have ever been involved in, Democrats have put us there...let's recap, shall we?

World War I - Woodrow Wilson (D)
World War II - Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)
Korean War - Harry S. Truman (D - and Truman dropped the bomb)
Vietnam - John F. Kennedy (D); Lyndon B. Johnson (D)
Persian Gulf - George H. Bush (R)
War on Terror - George W. Bush (R)

 
At 8:25 AM , Blogger Eddie said...

Let's not forget about all the wars Clinton through us in, for no reason whatsover, Bosnia, Haiti, other various shitholes.

 
At 8:25 AM , Blogger Eddie said...

threw us in.

 
At 8:49 AM , Blogger ImMikeJones said...

The "all Republicans are Nazis" comments are in the same place as the "all liberals are commies and don't shower" comments. i never said you are all Nazis. I was just pointing out how appropriate those comments are in describing the blind sheep that your party is full of.

I enjoy how every now and then I will read a comment here about how liberals blindly listen to liberal leaders and then I will read a comment about how we have no message and Republicans are a stronger party because you all have the same values and same morals and same opinions on everything.

And while we are discussing wartime presidents, I am the first to admit that Democrats have presided over many of the wars of the 20th century (although you conveniently left Nixon off the Vietnam list and forgot to mention what an amazing job JFK did of keeping us OUT of what would have been the biggest war of them all with the Soviet Union.

It is because of this that I am unsure how we have become the party that is "soft on National Security." And also, there is a difference between presiding over the two World Wars and Korea and presiding over this nonsense in Iraq. And I love how even you are too ashamed to call it the Iraq War so you conveniently throw it under the blanket of "War on Terror" even though you know outright that it is a different war altogether. And don't come with "the Iraq War is part of the War on Terror." You might think it has something to do with it but it is a seperate war. So make sure you put it on your list with pride. You guys did it!!! Take credit!! Be proud!!

 
At 10:53 AM , Blogger Ranting Republican said...

"And also, there is a difference between presiding over the two World Wars and Korea and presiding over this nonsense in Iraq."

mikejones - first off, I want to commend you on posting a thoughtful and not antagonizing comment. Now, I am wondering if it would have been okay in your mind to remove Hitler? Seems to me that in previous times, liberating a country and removing an evil dictator who slaughtered masses is a prime liberal issue worth taking care of...

 
At 11:26 AM , Blogger Eddie said...

Iraq and the war on terror are unseperable. They are one in the same. In fact, until Kerry started using Iraq for political gain, this wasn't even debated. Just like a typial lib though, all the other sheep fell right in line.

"ahh, yeah, that must be true, Kerry says so!"

 
At 1:02 PM , Blogger ImMikeJones said...

Ummm....lets see....Adolf Hitler was a megalomaniacal madman bent on world domination who was actively invading all of Europe in addition to slaughtering millions of Jews. If Saddam Hussein began sending his armies all over the Middle East as he did in the early 90's and was threatening to take over the world then I would more than gladly see a reason to attack. But if now your reasoning for the war has shifted to the humanitarian causes, there are plenty of other places on this globe where people are living in similar cirucmstances to those faced by the Iraqis who Saddam was murdering. Why not invade the Sudan? Or Uganda? Not a lot of oil in Uganda, is there?

And Eddie, I officially label you dumbest person on the site. No one followed Kerry. It was way before him that people differentiated the war on terror in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq. Even your beloved leaders differentiate the two. It is the blind masses of conservative lemmings who still have not managed to distinguish one from the other. They are two entirely different operations. Related, but seperate.

 
At 1:40 PM , Blogger Eddie said...

I think you're just jealous that you're side can't win elections. I officially label you powerless.

 
At 1:41 PM , Blogger Eddie said...

BTW, all the Kerry voters I knew personally were unsure about how they were going to vote until Kerry started having an ulcer over Iraq.

 
At 5:48 PM , Blogger Mahndisa S. Rigmaiden said...

10 28 05

Geesh! You get a lotta Leftist trolls huh? LOL! Yes, the usual nothing really to say ignorant of the Iraqi invasion of the Kurds and their genocide and dislikes the Hitler comparison? Do I smell a leftnazi? LOL. Have a nice weekend!

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home