Chinook down. (Merged threads)
- Thread starter dinosaur
- Start date
- Status
Deadman
Member
Chinook down.
I didn't notice this anywhere else but apparently a U.S. Chinook has been shot down in Iraq. At this time the media is reporting 13 dead and 20 injured.
damn....
I didn't notice this anywhere else but apparently a U.S. Chinook has been shot down in Iraq. At this time the media is reporting 13 dead and 20 injured.
damn....
Moparmike
Member
Wow. I only heard 2 had died, and others were injured.
w4rma
member
Halliburton says KBR unit revenue profit, sales soar
HOUSTON, United States (AFP) - US oil industry services giant Halliburton said Thursday its Kellogg Brown and Root unit's profits rose four-fold and sales leapt 80 percent, boosted by work in Iraq.
Profits from the unit's operations soared to 49 million dollars in the three months to September from 12 million dollars a year earlier, helped by "government services activity in the Middle East," Halliburton said.
KBR, the engineering and construction division that netted a no-bid government contract to help rebuild Iraq's shattered oil industry, also posted an 80-percent jump in sales to 2.3 billion dollars. "
…
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...9/bs_afp/us_oil_iraq_halliburton_031029181531
Our troops come home in bodybags and Halliburton brings home the moneybags.
pic of the wreckage:
HOUSTON, United States (AFP) - US oil industry services giant Halliburton said Thursday its Kellogg Brown and Root unit's profits rose four-fold and sales leapt 80 percent, boosted by work in Iraq.
Profits from the unit's operations soared to 49 million dollars in the three months to September from 12 million dollars a year earlier, helped by "government services activity in the Middle East," Halliburton said.
KBR, the engineering and construction division that netted a no-bid government contract to help rebuild Iraq's shattered oil industry, also posted an 80-percent jump in sales to 2.3 billion dollars. "
…
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...9/bs_afp/us_oil_iraq_halliburton_031029181531
Our troops come home in bodybags and Halliburton brings home the moneybags.
pic of the wreckage:
Slight oversimplification of a complex issue.
The threat of missile attacks against coalition aircraft has always been present and many attempts have been made by terrorists to bring down aircraft. Unfortunately, it was only a matter of time before something like this happened. Choppers just do not have the evasion and defensive capability that fixed-wing aircraft do.
The threat of missile attacks against coalition aircraft has always been present and many attempts have been made by terrorists to bring down aircraft. Unfortunately, it was only a matter of time before something like this happened. Choppers just do not have the evasion and defensive capability that fixed-wing aircraft do.
w4rma
member
First response: View from the Medivac team
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Nov. 2 (UPI) -- From the air, the Chinook transport helicopter looks flattened. It doesn't look like a helicopter at all, and considering that the 159 Medivac helicopter I'm riding in was supposed to be headed to a roadside bomb explosion, it doesn't occur to me that the mess 400 feet below us is unusual.
I'm half-asleep in the back of the Blackhawk after riding on about a dozen such missions over the previous 36 hours. It's about 9:30 a.m. on Sunday, and I'd returned from the last mission just over six hours ago.
As we near the scene, it's clear that something big is happening below us. There are 6 or 8 choppers already on the ground. Sitting in the back of the Blackhawk without a headset to listen to the two pilots, medic and crew chief that fly the missions, I had no idea what was going on.
It did not take long, however, for reality to sink in, when we touch down about a minute later some 30 kilometers (about 19 miles) southwest of Fallujah. About a dozen men from the 82nd Airborne came running at our chopper as though we were bring them casualties. Usually, it's the other way around.
Minutes later an ambulance pulls up to the chopper with a very badly wounded young soldier inside. We happened to have on board this mission a visiting Air Force Flight Surgeon. He and the medic quickly start working on the wounded man, whose head wound is clearly serious. Within minutes, the doctor's performing CPR and the medic is trying to clear breathing tubes, which have filled with blood. This soldier is barely alive.
Under normal circumstances, the team would have flown to the 28 CSH Hospital in Baghdad, where there's a state-of-the-art medical facility for U.S. troops. But a Chinook filled with wounded had run out of fuel while landing there just moments before, leaving the landing pad unable to take any new helicopters until the crippled chopper was moved.
…
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20031102-103706-1836r
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Nov. 2 (UPI) -- From the air, the Chinook transport helicopter looks flattened. It doesn't look like a helicopter at all, and considering that the 159 Medivac helicopter I'm riding in was supposed to be headed to a roadside bomb explosion, it doesn't occur to me that the mess 400 feet below us is unusual.
I'm half-asleep in the back of the Blackhawk after riding on about a dozen such missions over the previous 36 hours. It's about 9:30 a.m. on Sunday, and I'd returned from the last mission just over six hours ago.
As we near the scene, it's clear that something big is happening below us. There are 6 or 8 choppers already on the ground. Sitting in the back of the Blackhawk without a headset to listen to the two pilots, medic and crew chief that fly the missions, I had no idea what was going on.
It did not take long, however, for reality to sink in, when we touch down about a minute later some 30 kilometers (about 19 miles) southwest of Fallujah. About a dozen men from the 82nd Airborne came running at our chopper as though we were bring them casualties. Usually, it's the other way around.
Minutes later an ambulance pulls up to the chopper with a very badly wounded young soldier inside. We happened to have on board this mission a visiting Air Force Flight Surgeon. He and the medic quickly start working on the wounded man, whose head wound is clearly serious. Within minutes, the doctor's performing CPR and the medic is trying to clear breathing tubes, which have filled with blood. This soldier is barely alive.
Under normal circumstances, the team would have flown to the 28 CSH Hospital in Baghdad, where there's a state-of-the-art medical facility for U.S. troops. But a Chinook filled with wounded had run out of fuel while landing there just moments before, leaving the landing pad unable to take any new helicopters until the crippled chopper was moved.
…
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20031102-103706-1836r
fallingblock
Member
you've got the knack, w4rma....
"Our troops come home in bodybags and Halliburton brings home the moneybags."
************************************************************
Of trying to promote the ridiculous to the detriment of reality.
"Our troops come home in bodybags and Halliburton brings home the moneybags."
************************************************************
Of trying to promote the ridiculous to the detriment of reality.
My sources say it was probably a SAM-7 Strella or maybe a somewhat newer model. Not an RPG.
It's time that the opposition party stops getting joyous over American casualties. We are at war. War is not a clean business. People get killed, equipment is destroyed. I knew that this would eventually happen. We have lost our collective memory of what it's like to be at war. Our society needs to realize that war is not a Playstation2 game.
[RANT] The opposition party needs to stop the body count NOW. Every service member who is killed or injured in Iraq is NOT a tool to use to attempt to gain in the polls against this administration. Every life that we have expended, every limb that has been lost, every drop of sweat dripped into the sand demands that we see this through. The worst thing we can do for our servicemenbers is to turn tail and run. The fact is, we are in Iraq. It doesn't matter right now why we are there, and it doesn't matter how we got there. What matters is that we are there and to pull out now would be to spit on the graves of all those who have given their lives to this mission.
Is it really the opposition party's strategy to use every death and every sacifice to wring their hands and demand we pull out? The opposition party needs to remember that they voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq. It's time for them to shut their mouths about the situation until it's over. If they didn't want to go to war, they had plenty of opportunities to refuse to authorize the administration to prosecute the war.
YOU OWE IT TO THE MEN AND WOMEN YOU VOTED TO SEND INTO HARMS WAY TO SUPPORT THEM 100%. DO YOU PEOPLE HAVE THE GUTS TO SEE ANYTHING YOU STARTED THROUGH? OR IS IT YOU WILL ONLY ACCEPT A SUCCESS IF YOUR PARTY IS IN CHARGE OF IT? ARE YOU THAT UNAMERICAN THAT PARTY POLITICS RISES ABOVE ALL ELSE? LET ME TELL YOU THAT THERE ARE SERVICE MEMBERS OF ALL POLITICAL PARTIES SERVING IN IRAQ.
HOW WOULD YOU LIKE IT IF WE TOOK YOU AWAY FROM YOUR COMFORTABLE HOME, SENT YOU HALFWAY AROUND THE WORLD, PUT YOU IN A DANGEROUS SITUATION, GAVE YOU A HARD JOB AND THEN SAID "OH, SORRY, I NEVER REALLY MEANT TO DO THIS, WHY DON'T YOU GUYS PACK UP AND GO HOME, DON'T WORRY ABOUT FINISHING THE JOB, IT'S NOT IMPORTANT ANYMORE."
You see that's what you're doing when you play these political games. You tell all those YOU sent to do the job that their sacrifice is for nothing, because YOUR priorities have changed. I guarantee you that with every casualty we take, it only increases the resolve of our soldiers to continue to fight. They don't want their sacrifices to be in vain. Apparently those who are calling for us to turn tail and run either don't understand whats involved here (which might be understandable) or don't care (which IMHO is unacceptable).
The fact is, that Congress authorized the use of force. members of both parties voted to authorize the use of force and it wasn't a close vote either. Now it's time to get out of the way and let the administration do it's job.
I don't see this as care for the servicemen. I see it as a bunch of politicians who are out of power gleefully waiting for the casualty reports to come in so they can bash the administration. Like VPC and the Brady Center waits for the next shooting incident so they can make political points, so do a lot of members of the opposition party wait for the body count to come in so they can make points in the polls.
The enemy strategy in Iraq is to cause enough casualties that we pack up and go home leaving the country in chaos. So your free speech is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. They will now fight harder because they think just a few more American bodies and they'll go home. If you were patriots and really supprted our servicemen and women you'd be crying for more resources so we can finish the job. Not dancing on the graves of American servicemen and women because it might give you a boost in this weeks polls. [/RANT]
Jeff
It's time that the opposition party stops getting joyous over American casualties. We are at war. War is not a clean business. People get killed, equipment is destroyed. I knew that this would eventually happen. We have lost our collective memory of what it's like to be at war. Our society needs to realize that war is not a Playstation2 game.
[RANT] The opposition party needs to stop the body count NOW. Every service member who is killed or injured in Iraq is NOT a tool to use to attempt to gain in the polls against this administration. Every life that we have expended, every limb that has been lost, every drop of sweat dripped into the sand demands that we see this through. The worst thing we can do for our servicemenbers is to turn tail and run. The fact is, we are in Iraq. It doesn't matter right now why we are there, and it doesn't matter how we got there. What matters is that we are there and to pull out now would be to spit on the graves of all those who have given their lives to this mission.
Is it really the opposition party's strategy to use every death and every sacifice to wring their hands and demand we pull out? The opposition party needs to remember that they voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq. It's time for them to shut their mouths about the situation until it's over. If they didn't want to go to war, they had plenty of opportunities to refuse to authorize the administration to prosecute the war.
YOU OWE IT TO THE MEN AND WOMEN YOU VOTED TO SEND INTO HARMS WAY TO SUPPORT THEM 100%. DO YOU PEOPLE HAVE THE GUTS TO SEE ANYTHING YOU STARTED THROUGH? OR IS IT YOU WILL ONLY ACCEPT A SUCCESS IF YOUR PARTY IS IN CHARGE OF IT? ARE YOU THAT UNAMERICAN THAT PARTY POLITICS RISES ABOVE ALL ELSE? LET ME TELL YOU THAT THERE ARE SERVICE MEMBERS OF ALL POLITICAL PARTIES SERVING IN IRAQ.
HOW WOULD YOU LIKE IT IF WE TOOK YOU AWAY FROM YOUR COMFORTABLE HOME, SENT YOU HALFWAY AROUND THE WORLD, PUT YOU IN A DANGEROUS SITUATION, GAVE YOU A HARD JOB AND THEN SAID "OH, SORRY, I NEVER REALLY MEANT TO DO THIS, WHY DON'T YOU GUYS PACK UP AND GO HOME, DON'T WORRY ABOUT FINISHING THE JOB, IT'S NOT IMPORTANT ANYMORE."
You see that's what you're doing when you play these political games. You tell all those YOU sent to do the job that their sacrifice is for nothing, because YOUR priorities have changed. I guarantee you that with every casualty we take, it only increases the resolve of our soldiers to continue to fight. They don't want their sacrifices to be in vain. Apparently those who are calling for us to turn tail and run either don't understand whats involved here (which might be understandable) or don't care (which IMHO is unacceptable).
The fact is, that Congress authorized the use of force. members of both parties voted to authorize the use of force and it wasn't a close vote either. Now it's time to get out of the way and let the administration do it's job.
I don't see this as care for the servicemen. I see it as a bunch of politicians who are out of power gleefully waiting for the casualty reports to come in so they can bash the administration. Like VPC and the Brady Center waits for the next shooting incident so they can make political points, so do a lot of members of the opposition party wait for the body count to come in so they can make points in the polls.
The enemy strategy in Iraq is to cause enough casualties that we pack up and go home leaving the country in chaos. So your free speech is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. They will now fight harder because they think just a few more American bodies and they'll go home. If you were patriots and really supprted our servicemen and women you'd be crying for more resources so we can finish the job. Not dancing on the graves of American servicemen and women because it might give you a boost in this weeks polls. [/RANT]
Jeff
mattd
Member
When the story first broke they said 35 dead. Then it turned to at least 2. I lost all trust in the media and don't belive anything at all they say.
The people counting bodies makes me sick. They think its a score card or something.
The people counting bodies makes me sick. They think its a score card or something.
pittspilot
Member
AMEN.
w4rma
member
Soldier dies while heading home for mother's funeral
Among 16 killed by missle attack on U.S. helicopter
Sgt. Ernest Bucklew, 33, was coming home from Iraq on an emergency leave to attend the funeral of his mother when his helicopter was shot from the sky.
In three days, Donald Bucklew, of Darlington Township, lost his wife and his son.
"His mother and dad prayed every night that he would come home safe," said Jack Smith, of Point Marion, Fayette County, Ernest Bucklew's uncle.
The family tragedy started Friday afternoon. Mary Ellen Bucklew, 57, was driving home from work at a warehouse when an aneurysm in one of the arteries leading to her heart burst. Her vehicle ran into the median of the road and she died.
Smith said Ernest Bucklew's wife, Barbara, went to the American Red Cross and put in a plea to get him home for the funeral. The couple lived in Fort Carson, Colo., with their two sons, Justin, 6, and Joshua, 4. Smith said the Army agreed to get him to Fort Carson, but that he would have to get to Pennsylvania on his own.
…
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/03307/236214.stm
Among 16 killed by missle attack on U.S. helicopter
Sgt. Ernest Bucklew, 33, was coming home from Iraq on an emergency leave to attend the funeral of his mother when his helicopter was shot from the sky.
In three days, Donald Bucklew, of Darlington Township, lost his wife and his son.
"His mother and dad prayed every night that he would come home safe," said Jack Smith, of Point Marion, Fayette County, Ernest Bucklew's uncle.
The family tragedy started Friday afternoon. Mary Ellen Bucklew, 57, was driving home from work at a warehouse when an aneurysm in one of the arteries leading to her heart burst. Her vehicle ran into the median of the road and she died.
Smith said Ernest Bucklew's wife, Barbara, went to the American Red Cross and put in a plea to get him home for the funeral. The couple lived in Fort Carson, Colo., with their two sons, Justin, 6, and Joshua, 4. Smith said the Army agreed to get him to Fort Carson, but that he would have to get to Pennsylvania on his own.
…
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/03307/236214.stm
w4rma
member
If I Were Bush's Speechwriter ...
(CBS) A weekly commentary by CBS News Correspondent Andy Rooney.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Years ago, I was asked to write a speech for President Nixon.
I didn't do that, but I wish President Bush would ask me to write a speech for him now.
Here's what I'd write if he asked me to - which is unlikely:
My fellow Americans - (the word "fellow" includes women in political speeches):
My fellow Americans. One of the reasons we invaded Iraq was because I suggested Saddam Hussein had something to do with the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center. No evidence that's so, I wish I hadn't said it.
I said we were going to get Saddam Hussein. To be honest, we don't know whether we got him or not. Probably not.
I said we'd get Osama bin Laden and wipe out al Qaeda. We haven't been able to do that, either. I'm as disappointed as you are.
I probably shouldn't have said Iraq had nuclear weapons. Our guys and the U.N. have looked under every bed in Iraq and can't find one.
In one speech, I told you Saddam Hussein tried to buy the makings of nuclear bombs from Africa. That was a mistake and I wish I hadn't said that. I get bad information sometimes just like you do.
On May 1, I declared major combat was over and gave you the impression the war was over. I shouldn't have declared that. Since then, 215 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq. As the person who sent them there, how terrible do you think that makes me feel?
I promised to leave no child behind when it comes to education. Then I asked for an additional $87 billion for Iraq. It has to come from somewhere. I hope the kids aren't going to have to pay for it - now in school or later when they're your age.
When I landed on the deck of the carrier, I wish they hadn't put up the sign saying MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. It isn't accomplished.
Maybe it should have been MISSION IMPOSSIBLE.
I've made some mistakes and I regret it. Let me just read you excerpts from something my father wrote five years ago in his book, “A World Transformed.â€
I firmly believed we should not march into Baghdad ...To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant, into a latter-day Arab hero …
This is my father writing this.
...assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerrilla war.
We should all take our father's advice.
That's the speech I'd write for President Bush. No charge.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/31/60minutes/rooney/main581171.shtml
(CBS) A weekly commentary by CBS News Correspondent Andy Rooney.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Years ago, I was asked to write a speech for President Nixon.
I didn't do that, but I wish President Bush would ask me to write a speech for him now.
Here's what I'd write if he asked me to - which is unlikely:
My fellow Americans - (the word "fellow" includes women in political speeches):
My fellow Americans. One of the reasons we invaded Iraq was because I suggested Saddam Hussein had something to do with the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center. No evidence that's so, I wish I hadn't said it.
I said we were going to get Saddam Hussein. To be honest, we don't know whether we got him or not. Probably not.
I said we'd get Osama bin Laden and wipe out al Qaeda. We haven't been able to do that, either. I'm as disappointed as you are.
I probably shouldn't have said Iraq had nuclear weapons. Our guys and the U.N. have looked under every bed in Iraq and can't find one.
In one speech, I told you Saddam Hussein tried to buy the makings of nuclear bombs from Africa. That was a mistake and I wish I hadn't said that. I get bad information sometimes just like you do.
On May 1, I declared major combat was over and gave you the impression the war was over. I shouldn't have declared that. Since then, 215 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq. As the person who sent them there, how terrible do you think that makes me feel?
I promised to leave no child behind when it comes to education. Then I asked for an additional $87 billion for Iraq. It has to come from somewhere. I hope the kids aren't going to have to pay for it - now in school or later when they're your age.
When I landed on the deck of the carrier, I wish they hadn't put up the sign saying MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. It isn't accomplished.
Maybe it should have been MISSION IMPOSSIBLE.
I've made some mistakes and I regret it. Let me just read you excerpts from something my father wrote five years ago in his book, “A World Transformed.â€
I firmly believed we should not march into Baghdad ...To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant, into a latter-day Arab hero …
This is my father writing this.
...assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerrilla war.
We should all take our father's advice.
That's the speech I'd write for President Bush. No charge.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/31/60minutes/rooney/main581171.shtml
Jeff, thank you. You represent the sentiments of many who served over there and serve there now. People here in the states get an extremely slanted view of Iraq from the media, especially of the reconstruction efforts and the sentiment of the Iraqi people themselves. It is certainly going to be an uphill battle for years to come to ensure that Iraq becomes a secure and prosperous democracy to serve as a model for its Arab neighbors.
Although these latest casualties are certainly tragic, it would be more so if those who had given their lives to have died for nothing. It could mean more American lives lost, but the course must be stayed for the good of Iraq, the middle east, and indeed the world.
As for w4rma, instead of posting others' rhetoric, why don't you post your own and back it up?
Although these latest casualties are certainly tragic, it would be more so if those who had given their lives to have died for nothing. It could mean more American lives lost, but the course must be stayed for the good of Iraq, the middle east, and indeed the world.
As for w4rma, instead of posting others' rhetoric, why don't you post your own and back it up?
rock jock
Member
w4,
Your tagline reveals your obvious bias and you are simply parroting the POS democrates who are making poltical hay of this even now.
Your tagline reveals your obvious bias and you are simply parroting the POS democrates who are making poltical hay of this even now.
A more accurate quote: "Our troops come home in bodybags and Gov. Dean smiles as his poll numbers increase."
Malone LaVeigh
Member
Every time I read about a soldier being killed or wounded over there I feel like I've been kicked in the gut. I have a good friend with a son over there, and the thought of him or any other young people paying for the blunders of our corrupt leaders makes me sick. I resent anyone suggesting that those of us who opposed this war get any pleasure out of it. Screw you if you think so.
I hope Dean and the others make lots of political hay out of this. The liars and fools who got us into this mess need to be fired by their bosses.
Oh, do forgive us who don't swallow the government propaganda with sufficient fervor. There are plenty of sheep that do.
I hope Dean and the others make lots of political hay out of this. The liars and fools who got us into this mess need to be fired by their bosses.
Oh, do forgive us who don't swallow the government propaganda with sufficient fervor. There are plenty of sheep that do.
Malone,
Are you saying that those who have already died, have made the ultimate sacrifice for nothing?
Last Friday, 31 Oct 2003 I retired from the United States Army. I ended a career that started on 6 December 1974. Yes I was fortunate that I spent nearly 22 of the 29 years as an AGR traininer for ARNG units and that allowed me to pursure a second career in police work simultaniously.
When I went in the Army we were a broken entity. What broke the army was the way that both Democratic and Republican adminstraions handled Vietnam.
The fact of the matter is there were what, three votes on the use of force in Iraq? I don't seem to recall much dissent from the Democratic side of the chamber.
I have my problems with the way the administraion has chosen to conduct the war. Do a search on my posts, I was quite vocal about them.
What we are facing is an enemy strategy that is Bill Clinton's legacy. Throughout his administration every action he took showed our enemies that we had no stomach to take casualties. Every military operation we launched under his administration was conducted to avoid casualties at the cost of military effectiveness. The sad fact of the matter is that early in his first term Bill Clinton had his own Tet Offensive. It happened in a rathole called Mogadishu, Somalia. I call it the equivilent of the tet offensive because even though we won the battle, it was perceived as a loss, we lost 18 fine young men and to reward them for fighting so hard, we turned tail and ran. Just like we broke the back of the Viet Cong in 1968 (they were never a viable large scale force on the battlefield again) we took the wrong lessons away from the battlefield and decided we were beat. When Clinton pulled out of Mogadishu without getting Aidid, he told everyone that we were a paper tiger. The Americans are powerful they have many machines but kill a few of them, show them some blood and they'll go home. Fast forward to 1999 and the Kosovo war. Our pilots flew mission profiles that they knew weren't effective less one of them get shot down. We expended expensive smart muntions on targets like fuel trucks that would more appropriately have been dealt with with a few rounds of 20mm cannon fire. Again our enemies watched and planned. 2003 we invade Iraq. Much of the Iraqi army takes off it's uniforms and goes home. They know they can't beat us in a toe to toe fight, so they take the what they learned about the American will during the eight years of the Clinton presidency and apply it. Kill some Americans, they have a short attention span, soon they will pack up and go home.
I would only accept all of this Democratic criticism of the war if they had voted to the man against it. But the fact is they didn't. I don't recall there being too many votes against this at all. Every Democrat who voted to authorize the president to use force in Iraq shares equal responsibility with the administration for us being there.
If you want to support your friends son, instead of whining about bring the boys home, why don't you push for an expansion of the army so that we have enough forces to do the job right, so that he can come home a winner.
I have seen war personally. I have a 20 year old son who is B-1-29th Infantry at Ft Benning right now. He goes to Ranger school soon and he may well wind up in harms way soon.
I won't sit by and watch my Army be destroyed for the sake of political expediancy again. I worked too hard to build it into what it is.
I know what's next in the Democratic playbook. Next they are going to start vilifying the troops who are serving. They're going to say that the war is destroying them and making killers of them. Do you think that it is a cooincidence that the Toledo Blade ran a multipart series on alleged atrocities by a scout platoon in the 101st Airborne Division in 1967 last week? I don't. The last article had a paragraph on soldiers in Iraq. Drew some similarities to the type of fighting that's going on.
I'm sorry Malone, but many of the liars and fools who got us into this mess have a D behind their name. I'm not buying the argument about faulty intelligence either. Let me tell you one thing I've learned in nearly 29 years in the Army, intelligence is almost always faulty.
As for the war profiteering, perhaps you should look into who in the Johnson adminstration had ties to Kellog, Brown and Root during Vietnam. They got their big start in this business back then. Or maybe it might prove interesting to look into what first lady during the Johnson adminstration had large holdings in Bell Helicopter. You also might ask any Army aviator if the Hughes OH-6 was a better scout platform then the Bell OH-58. Then look at which one was purchased...
Once you put boots on the ground, you have a moral obligation to support them in the accomplishment of their mission. If the Democrats didn't want to go to war they shouldn't have voted to. That's it, plain and simple. Now they have taken on the moral obligation to see the men and women they sent to war through it.
I hope that you can understand what I'm saying here. I have put myself in harms way before, I will go tomorrow if recalled. I have a son who could go at anytime. All the men and women who serve ask is for their country to support them. The opponents of the war need to be crying for the administration to commit enough resources to do the job as quickly as possible. Not to pull up stakes and go home. And the next time, if they have such moral misgivings about going to war, they shouldn't vote to.
What if we put you and your crew into a forest fire, you lost one or two members of your crew to the fire and you were engaged in a fight not only for your lives, but to save a small town in the path of the fire. And suddenly your bosses in Washington called you up and said, "Malone, pack it up and go home, this fire has cost lives it's not worth it." Would you feel feel betrayed? Would you feel supported? And would you think that your friends died for nothing?
You don't play politics after you send men into harms way my friend. I have to wonder what would the democratic candidates be saying if the economy wasn't recovering and they were trouncing Bush in the polls on domestic issues. Would the war be an issue at all?
Jeff
Are you saying that those who have already died, have made the ultimate sacrifice for nothing?
Last Friday, 31 Oct 2003 I retired from the United States Army. I ended a career that started on 6 December 1974. Yes I was fortunate that I spent nearly 22 of the 29 years as an AGR traininer for ARNG units and that allowed me to pursure a second career in police work simultaniously.
When I went in the Army we were a broken entity. What broke the army was the way that both Democratic and Republican adminstraions handled Vietnam.
The fact of the matter is there were what, three votes on the use of force in Iraq? I don't seem to recall much dissent from the Democratic side of the chamber.
I have my problems with the way the administraion has chosen to conduct the war. Do a search on my posts, I was quite vocal about them.
What we are facing is an enemy strategy that is Bill Clinton's legacy. Throughout his administration every action he took showed our enemies that we had no stomach to take casualties. Every military operation we launched under his administration was conducted to avoid casualties at the cost of military effectiveness. The sad fact of the matter is that early in his first term Bill Clinton had his own Tet Offensive. It happened in a rathole called Mogadishu, Somalia. I call it the equivilent of the tet offensive because even though we won the battle, it was perceived as a loss, we lost 18 fine young men and to reward them for fighting so hard, we turned tail and ran. Just like we broke the back of the Viet Cong in 1968 (they were never a viable large scale force on the battlefield again) we took the wrong lessons away from the battlefield and decided we were beat. When Clinton pulled out of Mogadishu without getting Aidid, he told everyone that we were a paper tiger. The Americans are powerful they have many machines but kill a few of them, show them some blood and they'll go home. Fast forward to 1999 and the Kosovo war. Our pilots flew mission profiles that they knew weren't effective less one of them get shot down. We expended expensive smart muntions on targets like fuel trucks that would more appropriately have been dealt with with a few rounds of 20mm cannon fire. Again our enemies watched and planned. 2003 we invade Iraq. Much of the Iraqi army takes off it's uniforms and goes home. They know they can't beat us in a toe to toe fight, so they take the what they learned about the American will during the eight years of the Clinton presidency and apply it. Kill some Americans, they have a short attention span, soon they will pack up and go home.
I would only accept all of this Democratic criticism of the war if they had voted to the man against it. But the fact is they didn't. I don't recall there being too many votes against this at all. Every Democrat who voted to authorize the president to use force in Iraq shares equal responsibility with the administration for us being there.
If you want to support your friends son, instead of whining about bring the boys home, why don't you push for an expansion of the army so that we have enough forces to do the job right, so that he can come home a winner.
I have seen war personally. I have a 20 year old son who is B-1-29th Infantry at Ft Benning right now. He goes to Ranger school soon and he may well wind up in harms way soon.
I won't sit by and watch my Army be destroyed for the sake of political expediancy again. I worked too hard to build it into what it is.
I know what's next in the Democratic playbook. Next they are going to start vilifying the troops who are serving. They're going to say that the war is destroying them and making killers of them. Do you think that it is a cooincidence that the Toledo Blade ran a multipart series on alleged atrocities by a scout platoon in the 101st Airborne Division in 1967 last week? I don't. The last article had a paragraph on soldiers in Iraq. Drew some similarities to the type of fighting that's going on.
I'm sorry Malone, but many of the liars and fools who got us into this mess have a D behind their name. I'm not buying the argument about faulty intelligence either. Let me tell you one thing I've learned in nearly 29 years in the Army, intelligence is almost always faulty.
As for the war profiteering, perhaps you should look into who in the Johnson adminstration had ties to Kellog, Brown and Root during Vietnam. They got their big start in this business back then. Or maybe it might prove interesting to look into what first lady during the Johnson adminstration had large holdings in Bell Helicopter. You also might ask any Army aviator if the Hughes OH-6 was a better scout platform then the Bell OH-58. Then look at which one was purchased...
Once you put boots on the ground, you have a moral obligation to support them in the accomplishment of their mission. If the Democrats didn't want to go to war they shouldn't have voted to. That's it, plain and simple. Now they have taken on the moral obligation to see the men and women they sent to war through it.
I hope that you can understand what I'm saying here. I have put myself in harms way before, I will go tomorrow if recalled. I have a son who could go at anytime. All the men and women who serve ask is for their country to support them. The opponents of the war need to be crying for the administration to commit enough resources to do the job as quickly as possible. Not to pull up stakes and go home. And the next time, if they have such moral misgivings about going to war, they shouldn't vote to.
What if we put you and your crew into a forest fire, you lost one or two members of your crew to the fire and you were engaged in a fight not only for your lives, but to save a small town in the path of the fire. And suddenly your bosses in Washington called you up and said, "Malone, pack it up and go home, this fire has cost lives it's not worth it." Would you feel feel betrayed? Would you feel supported? And would you think that your friends died for nothing?
You don't play politics after you send men into harms way my friend. I have to wonder what would the democratic candidates be saying if the economy wasn't recovering and they were trouncing Bush in the polls on domestic issues. Would the war be an issue at all?
Jeff
fallingblock
Member
Sure, Malone......
"Oh, do forgive us who don't swallow the government propaganda with sufficient fervor. There are plenty of sheep that do."
************************************************************
But you're responsible for swallowing the propaganda of the "Dems-wanna-be-in-power" instead.
Only a silly sheep (and there are a few of them) would listen to those folks .
"Oh, do forgive us who don't swallow the government propaganda with sufficient fervor. There are plenty of sheep that do."
************************************************************
But you're responsible for swallowing the propaganda of the "Dems-wanna-be-in-power" instead.
Only a silly sheep (and there are a few of them) would listen to those folks
.From my point of view the only people who are proffiting from the deaths of American soldiers are the liberals in this country. Or is it just a cooincidence that they seem to report this new with barely contained glee? But, of course they arent the bad guys. right?
"You don't play politics after you send men into harms way my friend."
That also applies to President Bush when he says something sophomoric like, "Bring it on" in response to terrorist attacks in Iraq. You make an excellent point about the hypocrisy of the Democrats but don't forget, the war in Iraq was Bush/Cheney's baby and it's becoming obvious that this administration had zero plan for securing Iraq beyond fantasies of cheering Iraqis throwing flowers at American troops. Lack of support for the troops is just as big a Republican problem as its is for Democrats, albiet for different reasons.
Sorrow and disgust over American casualties in Iraq don't automatically equal a lack of patriotism.
Thanks for your service Jeff, and best wishes to your son.
That also applies to President Bush when he says something sophomoric like, "Bring it on" in response to terrorist attacks in Iraq. You make an excellent point about the hypocrisy of the Democrats but don't forget, the war in Iraq was Bush/Cheney's baby and it's becoming obvious that this administration had zero plan for securing Iraq beyond fantasies of cheering Iraqis throwing flowers at American troops. Lack of support for the troops is just as big a Republican problem as its is for Democrats, albiet for different reasons.
Sorrow and disgust over American casualties in Iraq don't automatically equal a lack of patriotism.
Thanks for your service Jeff, and best wishes to your son.
Excellent criticism of the Democrats; fortunately or unfortunately a lot of it applies to the repubs, too.
Somalia, for example--Clinton pulled out... in large part because of intense criticism from republicans about "nation building," "sending our boys into harms way for nothing", blah blah blah. Sure set the tone for now, didn't it?
I simply refuse to accept that my criticism of the asinine actions of the bush administration is in ANY way unpatriotic nor is unsupportive of the troops. Hell, if it was up to me, they would all have body armor, which is more than you can say about Bush.
Bush has been lying from the beginning about the reasons for attacking Iraq; that slimebag switched from (an untrue) claim that Iraq threatened the US, to (nonexistant) WMDs, to some purported connection to the "war on terror", to human rights, to democracy.
One way we can support the troops is by ensuring that no president (of any party) can throw away their lives in a dishonest and futile adventure. Don't insinuate that I or others who disagree with Bush's policies are relishing the body count. Don't suggest that my patriotism is in any way diminished by my not believing the blatant lies of this dishonest administration.
If you want to "support the troops" ask Rumsfeld why they don't have body armor, and what exactly that post-war planning was, and what exactly the strategy is to deal with an escalating insurgency.
We've moved up from 12 attacks/day, and 1 death/day, to 30+ attacks and 3+ deaths every day. I guess they listened to W and are "bringing it on." What's the plan now, eh?
I keep hearing people say, "the plan is to lure them out in the open and then we can blow them away." Sure... except what happens is they set of a bomb by the side of the road, the US soldiers spray some machine gun fire, maybe kill a civilian or two, or maybe not, regroup, and drive on. Not exactly decimating their ranks, I think.
Sorry this is going on so long; it just makes me so mad when people say that exercising the first amendment is unpatriotic; and I get furious about the way this administration is destroying our international credibility, and is putting our soldiers in harms way for nothing. Meanwhile actual threats to the US are ignored.
Somalia, for example--Clinton pulled out... in large part because of intense criticism from republicans about "nation building," "sending our boys into harms way for nothing", blah blah blah. Sure set the tone for now, didn't it?
I simply refuse to accept that my criticism of the asinine actions of the bush administration is in ANY way unpatriotic nor is unsupportive of the troops. Hell, if it was up to me, they would all have body armor, which is more than you can say about Bush.
Bush has been lying from the beginning about the reasons for attacking Iraq; that slimebag switched from (an untrue) claim that Iraq threatened the US, to (nonexistant) WMDs, to some purported connection to the "war on terror", to human rights, to democracy.
One way we can support the troops is by ensuring that no president (of any party) can throw away their lives in a dishonest and futile adventure. Don't insinuate that I or others who disagree with Bush's policies are relishing the body count. Don't suggest that my patriotism is in any way diminished by my not believing the blatant lies of this dishonest administration.
If you want to "support the troops" ask Rumsfeld why they don't have body armor, and what exactly that post-war planning was, and what exactly the strategy is to deal with an escalating insurgency.
We've moved up from 12 attacks/day, and 1 death/day, to 30+ attacks and 3+ deaths every day. I guess they listened to W and are "bringing it on." What's the plan now, eh?
I keep hearing people say, "the plan is to lure them out in the open and then we can blow them away." Sure... except what happens is they set of a bomb by the side of the road, the US soldiers spray some machine gun fire, maybe kill a civilian or two, or maybe not, regroup, and drive on. Not exactly decimating their ranks, I think.
Sorry this is going on so long; it just makes me so mad when people say that exercising the first amendment is unpatriotic; and I get furious about the way this administration is destroying our international credibility, and is putting our soldiers in harms way for nothing. Meanwhile actual threats to the US are ignored.
w4rma
member
Republican controlled House Nixes Anti-Profiteering Penalties in Iraq Spending Bill
…
WASHINGTON, Oct. 31 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The final version of the $87 billion spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan is missing provisions the Senate had passed to penalize war profiteers who defraud American taxpayers. House negotiators on the package refused to accept the Senate provisions.
The Senate provision was authored by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), and Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.). It was one of the last major sticking points this week as negotiators worked through the compromise appropriations bill. The conferees narrowly defeated the amendment after lengthy debate, with House negotiators offering no substitute and no willingness to compromise, despite repeated offers from Senate conferees to negotiate the language. Republican and Democratic Senate conferees consistently supported the provision, which had been unanimously accepted during Senate Appropriations Committee markup of the bill. Leahy, Feinstein and Durbin are members of the Appropriations Committee and also of the Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over the criminal justice system.
"Congress is about to send billions and billions of dollars to a place where there is no functioning government, under a plan with too little accountability and too few financial controls," said Leahy. "That's a formula for mischief. We need strong disincentives for those who would defraud taxpayers, and removing this protection is another major blot on this bill."
"We are about to spend a lot of money in Iraq, quickly and with few real controls on how it is spent," said Feinstein. "The least we can do is prevent private companies from taking advantage of the American Government, its people, and the men and women who are risking their lives every day to make Iraq, and the world, a better, safer place to live. It was a mistake to strip the anti-profiteering provision from the conference report, and restoring it through this bill would send a clear signal that this kind of activity will not be tolerated."
"When the Senate Appropriations Committee considered this supplemental request, Senators Leahy, Feinstein, and I joined together to criminalize war profiteering -- price gouging and fraud -- with the same law that was passed during World War II. Yet this amendment, was stripped out of the final bill," said Durbin. "I fail to understand how anyone can be opposed to prosecuting those who want to defraud and overcharge the United States government and the American taxpayers."
U.S. fraud statutes protect against waste of tax dollars at home, but none expressly prohibit war profiteering and none expressly confer extraterritorial jurisdiction overseas. The Leahy-Feinstein-Durbin amendment would criminalize "war profiteering" -- overcharging taxpayers for any good or service with the specific intent to excessively profit from the war or reconstruction efforts in Iraq. The bill also prohibits fraud and false statements in any matter involving a contract or the provision of goods or services in Iraq. These new crimes would be felonies, subject to criminal penalties of up to 20 years in prison and fines of up to $1 million or twice the illegal gross profits of the crime. Leahy described it as "strong and focused sanctions" that are narrowly tailored to criminalize and create tough criminal penalties for fraud or excessive profiteering in contracts, here and abroad, related to the war or reconstruction efforts in Iraq.
Leahy, Feinstein and Durbin will re-introduce the legislation again as a separate bill and will work to win its passage. But because criminal penalties cannot be made retroactive, the absence of penalties in this supplemental appropriations bill will hamper efforts to crack down on war profiteering that involves funds from this bill.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/031031/180/5qfao.html
…
WASHINGTON, Oct. 31 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The final version of the $87 billion spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan is missing provisions the Senate had passed to penalize war profiteers who defraud American taxpayers. House negotiators on the package refused to accept the Senate provisions.
The Senate provision was authored by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), and Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.). It was one of the last major sticking points this week as negotiators worked through the compromise appropriations bill. The conferees narrowly defeated the amendment after lengthy debate, with House negotiators offering no substitute and no willingness to compromise, despite repeated offers from Senate conferees to negotiate the language. Republican and Democratic Senate conferees consistently supported the provision, which had been unanimously accepted during Senate Appropriations Committee markup of the bill. Leahy, Feinstein and Durbin are members of the Appropriations Committee and also of the Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over the criminal justice system.
"Congress is about to send billions and billions of dollars to a place where there is no functioning government, under a plan with too little accountability and too few financial controls," said Leahy. "That's a formula for mischief. We need strong disincentives for those who would defraud taxpayers, and removing this protection is another major blot on this bill."
"We are about to spend a lot of money in Iraq, quickly and with few real controls on how it is spent," said Feinstein. "The least we can do is prevent private companies from taking advantage of the American Government, its people, and the men and women who are risking their lives every day to make Iraq, and the world, a better, safer place to live. It was a mistake to strip the anti-profiteering provision from the conference report, and restoring it through this bill would send a clear signal that this kind of activity will not be tolerated."
"When the Senate Appropriations Committee considered this supplemental request, Senators Leahy, Feinstein, and I joined together to criminalize war profiteering -- price gouging and fraud -- with the same law that was passed during World War II. Yet this amendment, was stripped out of the final bill," said Durbin. "I fail to understand how anyone can be opposed to prosecuting those who want to defraud and overcharge the United States government and the American taxpayers."
U.S. fraud statutes protect against waste of tax dollars at home, but none expressly prohibit war profiteering and none expressly confer extraterritorial jurisdiction overseas. The Leahy-Feinstein-Durbin amendment would criminalize "war profiteering" -- overcharging taxpayers for any good or service with the specific intent to excessively profit from the war or reconstruction efforts in Iraq. The bill also prohibits fraud and false statements in any matter involving a contract or the provision of goods or services in Iraq. These new crimes would be felonies, subject to criminal penalties of up to 20 years in prison and fines of up to $1 million or twice the illegal gross profits of the crime. Leahy described it as "strong and focused sanctions" that are narrowly tailored to criminalize and create tough criminal penalties for fraud or excessive profiteering in contracts, here and abroad, related to the war or reconstruction efforts in Iraq.
Leahy, Feinstein and Durbin will re-introduce the legislation again as a separate bill and will work to win its passage. But because criminal penalties cannot be made retroactive, the absence of penalties in this supplemental appropriations bill will hamper efforts to crack down on war profiteering that involves funds from this bill.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/031031/180/5qfao.html
Malone LaVeigh
Member
Whoa, folks. I hope no one thinks my comment means I support the 'rats that gave (even tacitly) the power to Bush to do this thing. Kerry and Edwards and even Clark are scrambling, but I'm not buying it. As far as Lieberman is concerned, he might as well join the repugs.
Jeff White,
I disagree with little that you wrote.
Jeff White,
I disagree with little that you wrote.
See my sig line. I just want to see the political leaders (D and R) who made this horrible blunder pay. But you have to agree that most of the responsibility rests with the cabal of neocon chickenhawks in the White House. They went to great lengths to decieve the country into giving them the power to do this thing, all to promote a global agenda that was laid out years ago, and which few of us would support if given the facts.
Exactly. Especially when you've been put in a situation where you're depending on intelligence from people who distrust your motives. That is, unfortunately, the situation our leaders have put the troops in.
Your analogy is imperfect, as are all analogies. But I'll see what I can do with it. In the situation you describe, I wouldn't wait for superiors to tell me to get out, I'd pull them out as soon as it got too risky. No tree, house, natural resource, or anything else is worth risking the lives of my crew. I know that ethic can't be extended to the military, and don't expect it to be. The time to make the decision with the military is before we are committed. Are oil wells and Halliburton contracts worth putting our young peoples lives and futures at risk? Who benefits if we create a world of global US hegemony? Sorry, I did the cost/benefit analysis a long time ago and decided it wasn't worth it.
w4rma, post something showing original thought, not just cut and paste from elsewhere.
As for the "speech writer," he stated
Using his own logic contesting going into Iraq, we should have done nothing about AQ, given that OBL isn't in custody and AQ still exists. Yes, we should have said "whoops, can't get them. I guess 9/11 was a freebie. Better not do it again."
As for rapaz,
Actually, you suggest both yourself. "Blatant lies of this dishonest administration"? By that, you mean the same information which the United Nations accepted as correct? The same information that Russia, France, and Germany accepted as correct? The same information which Democrats espoused for years?
As for the "speech writer," he stated
Using his own logic contesting going into Iraq, we should have done nothing about AQ, given that OBL isn't in custody and AQ still exists. Yes, we should have said "whoops, can't get them. I guess 9/11 was a freebie. Better not do it again."
As for rapaz,
Actually, you suggest both yourself. "Blatant lies of this dishonest administration"? By that, you mean the same information which the United Nations accepted as correct? The same information that Russia, France, and Germany accepted as correct? The same information which Democrats espoused for years?
This is a good example. Call me wrong, misguided, or dumb. Suggest that I'm informed soley by communist alien voices speaking through my fillings. Hell, even call me a stooge for the oh-so-lovely democratic candidates. But just lay off the unpatriotic/happy about dead soldiers crap.
Tarring critics of this administration with these lables is an unpleasant way to try to stifle debate and free speech. I mean, if criticising a president is unpatriotic, there are a long line of Clinton critics who I guess should be buying one-way tickets to Iran?
All politicians lie; I suppose whether Bush's lies matter depends on whether you like the direction his administration is going, or not.
- Status