Bill Greenwood wrote:
Robbie, two points: You make your emphasis on someone being a volunteer. I don't see how the loss of a life is insignificant just because someone is not a draftee.
Never said it was "insignificant", Bill. I said they were volunteers- no one forced them to join, and they knew the risks going in. It is sad they died, but that is part and parcel of the job of being an Airman/Soldier/Sailor/Marine in the military. They were not drafted, so it wasn't fighting "someone else's war". They are fighting the war the Government which employs them ordered them to. And dying is part of it. Most people don't realize this- our enemy doesn't care whether he dies or not in this war. He is just happy to take one of us, or better more, with him, so he gets his 72 virgins in heaven. The closer you let it get to home, the worse the casualties will be. When car bombs start going off in Hometown USA, people will ask, "How did this happen?" the only answer will be, because we worried too much about the wrong things, and did not worry enough about what will happen if we do not fight them there. That is the military's job: we are all volunteers, and we all have accepted the risks. Quit crying for us, when we do not cry for ourselves. We cry for our friends, in private, but know they did not die in vain. So quit harping that innocents died. They didn't. Soldiers/Sailors/Airmen/Marines died. Doing their job. Safeguarding our country. Fighting the war their nation asked them to
Bill Greenwood wrote:
2nd The idea that everyone believed in the Weapons of Mass Destruction myth, of bio and nuclear weapons in Iraq, just before the war is not true and is simply propaganda....
Were there reasons to invade Iraq, to justify the loss of these young people, like Sadaam being an evil guy? Maybe, but it was not the phony ones given to Congress and the American people back then.
Bill, again, I must disagree: Yes, it is true that many of the informants were incorrect, or downright lying. And it is true other countries had different stories from other sources. However, when it a comes down to it, it is better to err on the side of defense: If someone says they are going to hit you, and your friend tells you he is going to hit you, but your other friends say he is not going to, but they all base this on things his friends have said, which do you believe? You hit him first, and take him out. Why? Because you have seen him hit others, he has said it so long that you believe him, even if he is bluffing. But you do not just wait and see after a cetrain point- because after that point he might just stab you- because while he was waiting to see what you did about his possibly hitting you, he bought a knife. Never give a dictator a chance to do to you what he has done to others first.
I am very glad we have Monday Morning Quarterbacks to point out our mistakes, and tell us what we should have done, and how stupid we were for believing things that we were told. It always helps to have people present more problems, rather than try to be part of the solution, anyway. I just wish we had elected all the people who know how to do everything right the first time, so we can cull them out for their costly mistakes.
Robbie