RAF Officer Faces Jail - Refuses to Go To Iraq
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nutcracker - What I am trying to say is that polls can be almost completely meaningless. Iraq is clearly a factionalised country and some groups of society are going to be very happy with Saddam's trial. Others are not and what remains to be seen is if any government can actually unite the quite different religious groupings. The poll is a snapshot of opinion - there will undoutedly be dark days ahead for Iraq followed hopefully by peace.
All this does get rather away from the Doctor - however in his case whether he is right or wrong remains to be seen .Either
way it can do he military no harm to show that it's members can think and consider their actions. Far better that then more pictures of staged abuse that makes the Army sink lower in the esteem and reflects on the whole of the Armed Forces.
All this does get rather away from the Doctor - however in his case whether he is right or wrong remains to be seen .Either
way it can do he military no harm to show that it's members can think and consider their actions. Far better that then more pictures of staged abuse that makes the Army sink lower in the esteem and reflects on the whole of the Armed Forces.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The gulag
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Onan the Clumsy.
In what way was the outcome obvious to you? The insurgency of the Shias or that of the Sunni's? Be grateful if you could back up your statement with reasoned logic...helpful to all.
Many thanks.
NC43
In what way was the outcome obvious to you? The insurgency of the Shias or that of the Sunni's? Be grateful if you could back up your statement with reasoned logic...helpful to all.
Many thanks.
NC43
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 964
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NC43
I think with your answers to everone elses posts its about time you got your self righteous head out of your a**e.
[QUOTE]‘’ Not privy to the govt's thinking on exit strategies but I do suspect that after the victory over Saddam, the resultant insurgency was not foreseen and therefore the original exit plan had to be scrapped. If you have any evidence to the contrary then I should be most grateful if you were in a position to share it with us instead of commenting on GWB’s or my IQ
Once again, i will state so that perhaps you may read and understand
"I am in total disbelief that you could consider for one moment that the experts failed to predict the insurgency would occur."
i.e do you really believe that the experts did not foresee the insurgency? If so they should not be advisors on war.
How wrong you are NC. I Do hope you feel better informed?
Now take note SASless as NC impresses you soooo much, this is whats known as back peddling. Bye the way NC i never said i wanted it to mean anything. I asked you the question "What have we won"? You seem to answer everything like a politician NC - avoid the question and give a verbose, elequent but meaningless answer. ( i imagine thats how you write your peoples annual reports)
I never said or implied that at all NC. More flowery fabrication.
I said 50-100 per day are dying is that inaccurate speculation?? Mmm me thinks not.
Mmm i wonder how many have died in the needless wars we have had??
No NC i do not feel better informed, but thanks for your kind enquiry.
SASless
No SASless we were told WMD were the reasons for going to war. Its nothing to do with bad PR it was Lies. WMD became a 'part' of it after we found out he didnt have any.
Wrong here SASless. The current house of Saudi is the most forward thinking in many years, wait and see. ( I hope you feel better informed too)
A very worrying statement SASless.
Also the statistics you quote are meaningless.
No SASless bye the sounds of your love for NC i think you just hold his Nuts!
Its scary that like most of middle america, if you are presented with a few nice statistics and you hear an argument (albeit meaningless) presented in a nice way, then you just get sucked in and believe it. I was in Middle America recently, i never heard anything bad on the news about the situation in Iraq, - scary.
I think with your answers to everone elses posts its about time you got your self righteous head out of your a**e.
[QUOTE]‘’ Not privy to the govt's thinking on exit strategies but I do suspect that after the victory over Saddam, the resultant insurgency was not foreseen and therefore the original exit plan had to be scrapped. If you have any evidence to the contrary then I should be most grateful if you were in a position to share it with us instead of commenting on GWB’s or my IQ
Once again, i will state so that perhaps you may read and understand
"I am in total disbelief that you could consider for one moment that the experts failed to predict the insurgency would occur."
i.e do you really believe that the experts did not foresee the insurgency? If so they should not be advisors on war.
(GWB does have an MBA. by the way which is, I suspect, more than do you).
When I said the war had been won I meant it was a victory according to the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, viz., defeating one’s enemy in battle, or war, and not, unlike yourself, whatever I wanted it to mean.
If you imagine that institutions and mindsets change immediately on the cessation of hostilities then you are naïve in the extreme.
Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power". So do please spare me your inaccurate speculation.
Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran.
No NC i do not feel better informed, but thanks for your kind enquiry.
SASless
WMD's etc, were all a "part" of the reasons for going to war...let's not forget the UN Resolutions and all of the other reasons.
Saudi has its own problems....the House of Saud is getting a bit rickity....at some point the Saudi King will be confronted with a need to accept change in that situation as well.
If one reviews the past as well....we can see foreign policy failures by the Western governments over the years and usually because we could not project "real" power in the region. We are able to do that now and will be even more capable with the establishment of democratically elected free governments there.
Also the statistics you quote are meaningless.
Since you have gone on record as not wishing to joust with me...and seeing as how Nuts has placed the ball squarely in middle of your court....I do so look forward to your response.I would suggest I am the much easier opponent....that is why I usually stand back and merely hold Nut's coat for him during these debates.
Its scary that like most of middle america, if you are presented with a few nice statistics and you hear an argument (albeit meaningless) presented in a nice way, then you just get sucked in and believe it. I was in Middle America recently, i never heard anything bad on the news about the situation in Iraq, - scary.
Lets see here....the 29% were in charge under Saddam...they are no longer in charge...some of the 71% have longer memories than others...well DUH! I guess the 29% that are disaffected just might be the Sunni's.
I might be a dumbass helicopter pilot but I can figure that out guys. Might I suggest it is true...and it is of no surprise nor should it be.
If I am out of the palace and back to picking dates or something....will I guess I would be a tad miffed too.
Run another one out....lets see how it plays?
I might be a dumbass helicopter pilot but I can figure that out guys. Might I suggest it is true...and it is of no surprise nor should it be.
If I am out of the palace and back to picking dates or something....will I guess I would be a tad miffed too.
Run another one out....lets see how it plays?
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The gulag
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tigs 2
Seem to have struck a nerve here...did you never learn that by protesting too much, railing against groupings, in this case, Middle America, and abuse such as yours suggests a lost argument?
Please do not keep repeating yourself because I think I answered your questions perfectly adequately and provided supporting evidence thereto. It is not so much a problem for me if you are unable to understand my reply as it seemingly is for you, and for that I am sorry. However since you seem to imply that you have an MBA as well I naturally wish you the very best of luck wherever you choose to use it.
A happy Christmas to you and yours.
NC43
Seem to have struck a nerve here...did you never learn that by protesting too much, railing against groupings, in this case, Middle America, and abuse such as yours suggests a lost argument?
Please do not keep repeating yourself because I think I answered your questions perfectly adequately and provided supporting evidence thereto. It is not so much a problem for me if you are unable to understand my reply as it seemingly is for you, and for that I am sorry. However since you seem to imply that you have an MBA as well I naturally wish you the very best of luck wherever you choose to use it.
A happy Christmas to you and yours.
NC43
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Baldock
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since when was keeping 71% of Shias 'sort of happy' a valid reason for going to war ?
We wouldn't have been allowed to go to war if that was the reason.
I'd like you to tell that to the families that have lost relatives in Iraq.
Reason 1 : WMD
Verdict: Bolloc*s
Reason 2 : Terrorists (which the Spams created, trained and armed in the first place)
Verdict : Bolloc*s
Reason 3: Well 71% of Shias are happy
Verdict: Fu*k Off, your talking Sh*t.
You don't need the press to know that the politicians are talking BS. Having at least 2 brain cells does the job just as good.
The whole situation stinks and the people that should be in the dock are the ones that sent us there.
They are the ones responsible for deaths of thousands of servicemen.
We wouldn't have been allowed to go to war if that was the reason.
I'd like you to tell that to the families that have lost relatives in Iraq.
Reason 1 : WMD
Verdict: Bolloc*s
Reason 2 : Terrorists (which the Spams created, trained and armed in the first place)
Verdict : Bolloc*s
Reason 3: Well 71% of Shias are happy
Verdict: Fu*k Off, your talking Sh*t.
You don't need the press to know that the politicians are talking BS. Having at least 2 brain cells does the job just as good.
The whole situation stinks and the people that should be in the dock are the ones that sent us there.
They are the ones responsible for deaths of thousands of servicemen.
Last edited by Crab Paste !!!; 13th Dec 2005 at 23:45.
Crab Paste,
Please describe to us exactly how the Americans created the terrorists in the "first place"? To what group do you refer....and what period in history do you refer please? We are a very young country yet...and I am sure there have been "terrorists" long before we came onto the scene.
Are you saying the Americans are the root cause of Terrorism in the world?
The 71% number refers to all Iraqi's Crab...not just the Shia's. That fact should be abundantly clear to any reading of the posts above.
WMD's....maybe not in the amounts thought...1500 gallons of some version of Sarin was found if I am not mistaken as well as an infrastructure that would be easily returned to use at some point. Thus, it would appear there have been WMD at some point in time and the Iraqi's were not cooperating in the verification of their destruction....or do you ignore those kinds of facts?
The politicians talking out of their hind ends....so what is new in the world about that? The press is supposed to be the purveryors of truth but they fail miserably in that regard. You do recall the approval rate for the media is less than George Bush's was at its lowest point a few weeks ago. The press does not publicize that fact do they?
Is is the politicians that are responsible for your orders or did they stem from a perceived need to combat tryanny and the possible transfer of WMD to terrorist organizations posed by the Saddam Regime?
Being responsible and being culpable are too different issues in regard to deaths of soldiers. Thus far, the courts have declared the war legal thus they may be responsible but they have not been proven culpable.
Please describe to us exactly how the Americans created the terrorists in the "first place"? To what group do you refer....and what period in history do you refer please? We are a very young country yet...and I am sure there have been "terrorists" long before we came onto the scene.
Are you saying the Americans are the root cause of Terrorism in the world?
The 71% number refers to all Iraqi's Crab...not just the Shia's. That fact should be abundantly clear to any reading of the posts above.
WMD's....maybe not in the amounts thought...1500 gallons of some version of Sarin was found if I am not mistaken as well as an infrastructure that would be easily returned to use at some point. Thus, it would appear there have been WMD at some point in time and the Iraqi's were not cooperating in the verification of their destruction....or do you ignore those kinds of facts?
The politicians talking out of their hind ends....so what is new in the world about that? The press is supposed to be the purveryors of truth but they fail miserably in that regard. You do recall the approval rate for the media is less than George Bush's was at its lowest point a few weeks ago. The press does not publicize that fact do they?
Is is the politicians that are responsible for your orders or did they stem from a perceived need to combat tryanny and the possible transfer of WMD to terrorist organizations posed by the Saddam Regime?
Being responsible and being culpable are too different issues in regard to deaths of soldiers. Thus far, the courts have declared the war legal thus they may be responsible but they have not been proven culpable.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Baldock
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well here's a few for you to chew on.
The US supports Israel and their terrorist activities.
They supported the Mujahidin with finances and weapons.
This Mujahidin went on to become a faction of Al Queda.
The eastboard of the US finacially supported the IRA .
Laos.
Haiti.
Bolivia.
Cambodia.
Chile.
Iranian Shah.
El Salvador
Iran Contra.
Panama.
The list is endless mate. I reckon you have some reading to do. The US needs to get rid of the terrorists than run their own country before the ride rough shod over the rest of the world. They are the planets biggest Cancer and now they have the UK involved again.
The US supports Israel and their terrorist activities.
They supported the Mujahidin with finances and weapons.
This Mujahidin went on to become a faction of Al Queda.
The eastboard of the US finacially supported the IRA .
Laos.
Haiti.
Bolivia.
Cambodia.
Chile.
Iranian Shah.
El Salvador
Iran Contra.
Panama.
The list is endless mate. I reckon you have some reading to do. The US needs to get rid of the terrorists than run their own country before the ride rough shod over the rest of the world. They are the planets biggest Cancer and now they have the UK involved again.
We shall not discuss the comments about Israel for a host of reasons...beginning with your description of the situation.
Yes we supported the Mujahadin....in their war against the Russians who invaded their country and attempted to ensure a Communist government. The same as we have done other places...say France during WWII and other European nations in their fight against the Nazi's. Are those all not quite the same?
Yes, some of them became Taliban and Al Qaeda. Ho Chi Minh, Tito, and others we helped during their war against invaders went on to oppose us later. Why is that a surprise?
Bad foreign policy on our side maybe....but things happen in the world that are hard to foresee. Who would have guessed Castro would become a communist dictator and last as long as he has?
Americans supported the IRA financially....they did. Until it became a crime by a change in the law....it was legal to do so. It was not official government policy thus you cannot blame the government for that. I seem to remember Americans supporting a lot of other pro-British causes as well. We fed a lot of you during the war as some of you remind us.
Laos...what group of terrorists did we support there? We fought a war against the communists...same in Cambodia...Vietnam.
El Salvador, Panama, other Central and South American countries....again we fought communist expansion.
In case you forgot....the Russian communists folded their tent....we beat them. The Chinese communists are rapidly becoming captialists....in time it will morph into a captialist democracy and we will have won that one politically.
How many people now live in freedom now because of the Americans....depends upon where you wish to start the list I guess.
Tiggsy,
I never said I knew Nuts intimately....I said I knew him....and that was not in the biblical sense. Your juvenile barbs cheapen your argument as Nuts has pointed out to you previously.
Also...if you were in the USA anywhere....and did not hear anything bad about the war in Iraq....you never turned on the Television, listened to any liberal talk radio show, read a newspaper, magazine, or opened a Yahoo page on the internet.
If you wish, you can hit all of the major news networks by a simple clicking of keys on your computer and confirm what I am saying about the negative aspect of the liberal media in my country. Thus, I would ask you to explain where you hear all the neutral or good news that you heard vice the bad news I am hearing broadcast daily.
Yes we supported the Mujahadin....in their war against the Russians who invaded their country and attempted to ensure a Communist government. The same as we have done other places...say France during WWII and other European nations in their fight against the Nazi's. Are those all not quite the same?
Yes, some of them became Taliban and Al Qaeda. Ho Chi Minh, Tito, and others we helped during their war against invaders went on to oppose us later. Why is that a surprise?
Bad foreign policy on our side maybe....but things happen in the world that are hard to foresee. Who would have guessed Castro would become a communist dictator and last as long as he has?
Americans supported the IRA financially....they did. Until it became a crime by a change in the law....it was legal to do so. It was not official government policy thus you cannot blame the government for that. I seem to remember Americans supporting a lot of other pro-British causes as well. We fed a lot of you during the war as some of you remind us.
Laos...what group of terrorists did we support there? We fought a war against the communists...same in Cambodia...Vietnam.
El Salvador, Panama, other Central and South American countries....again we fought communist expansion.
In case you forgot....the Russian communists folded their tent....we beat them. The Chinese communists are rapidly becoming captialists....in time it will morph into a captialist democracy and we will have won that one politically.
How many people now live in freedom now because of the Americans....depends upon where you wish to start the list I guess.
Tiggsy,
I never said I knew Nuts intimately....I said I knew him....and that was not in the biblical sense. Your juvenile barbs cheapen your argument as Nuts has pointed out to you previously.
Also...if you were in the USA anywhere....and did not hear anything bad about the war in Iraq....you never turned on the Television, listened to any liberal talk radio show, read a newspaper, magazine, or opened a Yahoo page on the internet.
If you wish, you can hit all of the major news networks by a simple clicking of keys on your computer and confirm what I am saying about the negative aspect of the liberal media in my country. Thus, I would ask you to explain where you hear all the neutral or good news that you heard vice the bad news I am hearing broadcast daily.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Baldock
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't get me started on World War II, 39 -41 and debt repayments etc etc
I was wondering how long it would take you to get 'Liberal' in to the topic, could you not be more original ?
Every pro Iraq war person always falls to this lowest common denominator. It's getting a bit predictable.
I found this video for you to add to your propaganda collection:
http://www.filecabi.net/video/cryingfan.html
I hope you like it.
The US wants economic growth at any cost, even it's own soldiers lives.
I have nothing further to add to the conversation, the proof is out there if you want to see it.
I was wondering how long it would take you to get 'Liberal' in to the topic, could you not be more original ?
Every pro Iraq war person always falls to this lowest common denominator. It's getting a bit predictable.
I found this video for you to add to your propaganda collection:
http://www.filecabi.net/video/cryingfan.html
I hope you like it.
The US wants economic growth at any cost, even it's own soldiers lives.
I have nothing further to add to the conversation, the proof is out there if you want to see it.
Last edited by Crab Paste !!!; 14th Dec 2005 at 01:23.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Europe
Age: 56
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sasless, I'm normally very much in agreement with you but you may well have
and helped us in a myriad of other ways but don't pretend it was for atruistic reasons, you guys were well paid. So much so that
we only just manage to pay you off in 3 weeks time, not forgetting a lot of shared technology at the time. Lets not pretend it was all one sided.
Not bitching per se' just making sure the facts get in there, which will make a pleasant change around here.
We fed a lot of you during the war as some of you remind us.
"Bob Spink: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what outstanding liabilities there are to the United Kingdom of lend-lease loan facilities arranged during the Second World War; [38441]..."
"Ruth Kelly: The information is as follows."...
"Under the Agreement the loans would be repaid in 50 annual instalments [sic] commencing in 1950. However the Agreement allowed deferral of annual payments of both principal and interest if necessary because of prevailing international exchange rate conditions and the level of the United Kingdom's foreign currency and gold reserves. The United Kingdom has deferred payments on six occasions. Repayment of the war loans to the United States Government should therefore be completed on 31 December 2006, subject to the United Kingdom not choosing to exercise its option to defer payment.
As at 31 March 2001 principal of $346,287,953 (£243,573,154 at the exchange rate on that day) was outstanding on the loans provided by the United States Government in 1945. The Government intend to meet its obligations under the 1945 Agreement by repaying the United States Government in full the amounts lend [sic] in 1945. "
"Ruth Kelly: The information is as follows."...
"Under the Agreement the loans would be repaid in 50 annual instalments [sic] commencing in 1950. However the Agreement allowed deferral of annual payments of both principal and interest if necessary because of prevailing international exchange rate conditions and the level of the United Kingdom's foreign currency and gold reserves. The United Kingdom has deferred payments on six occasions. Repayment of the war loans to the United States Government should therefore be completed on 31 December 2006, subject to the United Kingdom not choosing to exercise its option to defer payment.
As at 31 March 2001 principal of $346,287,953 (£243,573,154 at the exchange rate on that day) was outstanding on the loans provided by the United States Government in 1945. The Government intend to meet its obligations under the 1945 Agreement by repaying the United States Government in full the amounts lend [sic] in 1945. "
Not bitching per se' just making sure the facts get in there, which will make a pleasant change around here.
Let's post the whole article shall we....please note the very last sentence....from your own House of Lords I assume.
According to Hansard, the record of note for the debates that take place in the UK the Houses of Parliament, the debate in the Commons on 28th February 2002 shows that the UK expected to complete its repayment of its monetary debt to the USA on 31st December 2006, over 61 years from the conclusion of World War II:
"Bob Spink: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what outstanding liabilities there are to the United Kingdom of lend-lease loan facilities arranged during the Second World War; [38441]…"
"Ruth Kelly: The information is as follows."…
"Under the Agreement the loans would be repaid in 50 annual instalments commencing in 1950. However the Agreement allowed deferral of annual payments of both principal and interest if necessary because of prevailing international exchange rate conditions and the level of the United Kingdom's foreign currency and gold reserves. The United Kingdom has deferred payments on six occasions. Repayment of the war loans to the United States Government should therefore be completed on 31 December 2006, subject to the United Kingdom not choosing to exercise its option to defer payment.
As at 31 March 2001 principal of $346,287,953 (£243,573,154 at the exchange rate on that day) was outstanding on the loans provided by the United States Government in 1945. The Government intend to meet its obligations under the 1945 Agreement by repaying the United States Government in full the amounts lend [sic] in 1945. "
Similarly, Hansard records from a debate that took place in the House of Lords on 8th July 2002 that:
"Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is this payment part of the lend-lease scheme under which the United States supplied munitions, vehicles and many other requirements including food and other provisions that were needed badly by us in the last part of the war?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I referred to lend-lease in the context of the generosity of the United States throughout that period. However, the debt that we are talking about now is separate; it was negotiated in December 1945.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Lord remind me as to exactly how much the loan was, and how much we have repaid since then in principal and interest?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the loan originally was £1,075 million, of which £244 million is outstanding. The basis of the loan is that interest is paid at 2 per cent. Therefore, we are currently receiving a greater return on our dollar assets than we are paying in interest to pay off the loan.
It is a very advantageous loan for us. "
According to Hansard, the record of note for the debates that take place in the UK the Houses of Parliament, the debate in the Commons on 28th February 2002 shows that the UK expected to complete its repayment of its monetary debt to the USA on 31st December 2006, over 61 years from the conclusion of World War II:
"Bob Spink: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what outstanding liabilities there are to the United Kingdom of lend-lease loan facilities arranged during the Second World War; [38441]…"
"Ruth Kelly: The information is as follows."…
"Under the Agreement the loans would be repaid in 50 annual instalments commencing in 1950. However the Agreement allowed deferral of annual payments of both principal and interest if necessary because of prevailing international exchange rate conditions and the level of the United Kingdom's foreign currency and gold reserves. The United Kingdom has deferred payments on six occasions. Repayment of the war loans to the United States Government should therefore be completed on 31 December 2006, subject to the United Kingdom not choosing to exercise its option to defer payment.
As at 31 March 2001 principal of $346,287,953 (£243,573,154 at the exchange rate on that day) was outstanding on the loans provided by the United States Government in 1945. The Government intend to meet its obligations under the 1945 Agreement by repaying the United States Government in full the amounts lend [sic] in 1945. "
Similarly, Hansard records from a debate that took place in the House of Lords on 8th July 2002 that:
"Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is this payment part of the lend-lease scheme under which the United States supplied munitions, vehicles and many other requirements including food and other provisions that were needed badly by us in the last part of the war?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I referred to lend-lease in the context of the generosity of the United States throughout that period. However, the debt that we are talking about now is separate; it was negotiated in December 1945.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Lord remind me as to exactly how much the loan was, and how much we have repaid since then in principal and interest?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the loan originally was £1,075 million, of which £244 million is outstanding. The basis of the loan is that interest is paid at 2 per cent. Therefore, we are currently receiving a greater return on our dollar assets than we are paying in interest to pay off the loan.
It is a very advantageous loan for us. "
Last edited by SASless; 14th Dec 2005 at 04:10.
I'matightbastard
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In what way was the outcome obvious to you? The insurgency of the Shias or that of the Sunni's? Be grateful if you could back up your statement with reasoned logic...helpful to all.
What would YOU do if you were faced with an aggressor enemy with superior firepower and tactics? To fight him on his own terms is a strategy destined for failure, but if you disappear amongst your own population, the majority of whom will support you because you are not the outsider you can continue to snipe at will and for every casualty you take there are two two replace them. It's an old story that has been played out many times, so to think that it anything else would happen was naive at best. The war is not over, it's still going on.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lincs
Posts: 695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr dove,
Firstly I do not hate you Sir as you say. I merely believe that you are wrong and I find it difficult to understand why anyone who has been at the front line would condone and even defend and support the action of the doc'
IMHO your comments are damaging to the military and promote a less reliable service. In our (flying) world, 100% reliability is essential to the task and safety of all concerned. Condoning someone who questions the LEGITIMATE order of a superior or otherwise is harmful in the least.
I hope the doc' finds a nice undemanding job in a quiet cottage hospital somewhere, where he won't be faced with to many difficult decisions that he might have to question.
Kind regards
TSM
Firstly I do not hate you Sir as you say. I merely believe that you are wrong and I find it difficult to understand why anyone who has been at the front line would condone and even defend and support the action of the doc'
IMHO your comments are damaging to the military and promote a less reliable service. In our (flying) world, 100% reliability is essential to the task and safety of all concerned. Condoning someone who questions the LEGITIMATE order of a superior or otherwise is harmful in the least.
I hope the doc' finds a nice undemanding job in a quiet cottage hospital somewhere, where he won't be faced with to many difficult decisions that he might have to question.
Kind regards
TSM
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The gulag
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OtC
Thanks for that. In answer to your question: ‘what would I do…?’ I imagine I would melt into the general population as you say…but to me the situation is more complex than the simplistic one you suggest. I am not certain that I would put too much reliance on their having a ‘home side advantage’ in the same way that the VC had in their struggle with the US. There, they were homogenous in ethnicity and had a common purpose. Iraq does not have a common ethnic population and they are deeply divided as to branches of religion and purpose…your other examples are dubious as well with the possible exception of the Roman example. There are a number of instances and areas where the coalition forces are found to be welcome However…that there is a mess is not in dispute and it looks increasingly likely that the US cannot leave immediately for a host of reasons, the main ones being that the thug element would claim that they had defeated a superpower and al Qaeda (aQ) will benefit as a result…the likelihood of greater instability in that region would almost inevitably increase. If one reads as much of the information that comes in instead of selecting those that support one’s particular prejudices, a different picture begins to emerge.
I am not all that certain that the majority of Iraqis actually want the US to pull out because of the dangers of a civil war and the resultant fragmentation that would occur.
Sunnis are naturally 100% pissed off about being marginalized (the dissolution of the army, police and political organs were seen as the manifestations of this marginalisation) and for that, Mr Paul Bremner, is entirely to blame. I think the US has realised that mistakes have been made aplenty and have taken steps to redress the problem (they have started to involve the Sunnis and a rumoured to be in dialogue with some of the resistance groups..directly or through third parties I am less able to say). So for me, OtC, the problem is less simple and more complex than that suggested in you mail.
Thank you.
NC43
Thanks for that. In answer to your question: ‘what would I do…?’ I imagine I would melt into the general population as you say…but to me the situation is more complex than the simplistic one you suggest. I am not certain that I would put too much reliance on their having a ‘home side advantage’ in the same way that the VC had in their struggle with the US. There, they were homogenous in ethnicity and had a common purpose. Iraq does not have a common ethnic population and they are deeply divided as to branches of religion and purpose…your other examples are dubious as well with the possible exception of the Roman example. There are a number of instances and areas where the coalition forces are found to be welcome However…that there is a mess is not in dispute and it looks increasingly likely that the US cannot leave immediately for a host of reasons, the main ones being that the thug element would claim that they had defeated a superpower and al Qaeda (aQ) will benefit as a result…the likelihood of greater instability in that region would almost inevitably increase. If one reads as much of the information that comes in instead of selecting those that support one’s particular prejudices, a different picture begins to emerge.
I am not all that certain that the majority of Iraqis actually want the US to pull out because of the dangers of a civil war and the resultant fragmentation that would occur.
Sunnis are naturally 100% pissed off about being marginalized (the dissolution of the army, police and political organs were seen as the manifestations of this marginalisation) and for that, Mr Paul Bremner, is entirely to blame. I think the US has realised that mistakes have been made aplenty and have taken steps to redress the problem (they have started to involve the Sunnis and a rumoured to be in dialogue with some of the resistance groups..directly or through third parties I am less able to say). So for me, OtC, the problem is less simple and more complex than that suggested in you mail.
Thank you.
NC43
One Soldier's response to the Cut and Run Brigade
I normally remove all the forwarded headers when I forward a message.
However, due to the content of this one, I left them in and just removed the
sender's e-mail addresses, so that you could all see who it was that
forwarded the original. I don't know Andrew Nelson personally, but I know
Vern Abshire, as I know many of you do. My only regret in regards to LtCol
Stark's message to Representative Murtha is that it comes from a Soldier
instead of a Marine. I'll never be able to forgive many of the
Representatives and Senators who, in their efforts to defeat the opposite
political party, are giving aid and comfort to this country's enemies during
this war. But for a retired Marine Colonel to allow his political views to
influence him to the point where he voices the kind of harmful messages that
he has been guilty of for the past month or so, is just beyond my
comprehension. I think LtCol Stark has done a fine job of voicing my own
feelings.
Semper Fi
Jim
The signature block indicates that he is a USAR LTC of Infantry.
I called LTC Stark's office number and talked to his receptionist,
who confirmed that the letter was Faxed to both of Rep. Murtha's
offices.
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005
22:03:14 -0800 (PST)
Subject: WOW!
I rarely get a message that I feel compelled to forward. This is one of
those!
Clarence Nelson, Andrew III
USMC [Retired]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER J. STARK
1615 S. Ingram Mill Road
Telephone No. 417/887-6969
Building F
Facsimile No. 417/887-7715
Springfield, MO 65804
November 21, 2005
Via Facsimile to: (814) 539-6229
Representative John Murtha
P.O. Box 780
Johnstown, PA 15907
Representative Murtha:
During the dark days of the American Revolution the Commanding
General, George Washington seemed unable to win any victories. There were
wholesale desertions, troops were starving, the fledgling government was
sporadic with money, food and ammunition in short supply. Out of this
darkness emerged a genuine American Hero. This officer brilliantly led
his troops in combat and though seriously, and almost mortally wounded,
won victory after victory for the desperate and beleaguered American
Continental Army.
After helping to turn the tide of war in the favor of the
Americans, this officer's fame grew as did his prestige, but his prowess
on the battlefield, his courage under fire and indeed all of his life, is
forgotten because of one act. His name is now synonymous with "traitor" in
the dictionary. General Benedict Arnold, like you, had a brilliant
military career of courage, honor, and sacrifice. Like you, in my
opinion, he was a traitor to his country and to his oath as an American
soldier. It is indeed fitting that you are member of the same political
party as another traitor and seditionist, former Lieutenant John Kerry
USN, who betrayed his country, not only on the very floor of the House of
Representatives that you now serve, but also, secretly, in the presence of
our enemies in Paris, France.
Unlike you, he is a self proclaimed warrior and you earned
your decorations, but the pair of you forgot one important thing. The
United States of America and indeed the world are at war. We are at war
with an implacable enemy. An enemy of racist, bigoted fanatics whose sole
goal in life is to destroy the people of the United States of America,
their culture and their religion. More American civilians have died on
U.S. soil in this war than died in World War I, World War II, Korea,
Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, and Desert Storm put together.
We are at war, Representative Murtha, and your actions and
conduct give aid and comfort to our enemies. Just in case you have
forgotten the definition of treason and sedition, I have attached
Webster's definition as Tabs A and B to this letter.
A wise man once said, "There are no former Marines, only dead Marines."
He was wrong. You are not a Marine. You have lost the right to use that
title. You have dishonored all of those who have fought and died up to
the day you stood on the floor of the House of Representatives and
demanded that we withdraw immediately. You lied to the press, when you
said you did not make that statement. I watched you make that statement.
Albeit your Bill, submitted, which I have also read, added a caveat, "as
soon as practicable." That is pure horse**** and you know it. Yes,
Representative Murtha, you have given aid and comfort to our enemies in a
time of war. You have given them hope, which they have fast been loosing,
due to all of the victories and sacrifice by our sons and daughters on the
field of battle in Iraq and Afghanistan. You have been honored by our
enemies on the front page of Al Jazeera.
No, Representative Murtha, you are no longer a Marine. Your soul is dead.
Your honor is dead, and without a soul or honor, you are nothing.
Be advised, my son is a Marine Officer. He has commanded men in battle
through two (2) tours and he is due to return to Iraq on a third tour. If
he should be harmed in any way as a result of your actions on the floor of
the House this week, I will do everything in my power to see to it that
you are driven from office and that you are charged and tried for treason
and sedition.
The Marine Officer whose message was read on the House Floor by fellow
member of Congress, Jean Schmidt, was right. You are a coward. Marines
do not cut and run.
Fortunately, your obesity prevents you from wearing your Marine Uniform
with even a semblance of pride, but I know your face. If I am in a room
when you arrive, you will not enter. If you are in a room, when I arrive,
you will leave. It is as simple as that.
OUT.
LTC Christopher J. Stark IN USAR
However, due to the content of this one, I left them in and just removed the
sender's e-mail addresses, so that you could all see who it was that
forwarded the original. I don't know Andrew Nelson personally, but I know
Vern Abshire, as I know many of you do. My only regret in regards to LtCol
Stark's message to Representative Murtha is that it comes from a Soldier
instead of a Marine. I'll never be able to forgive many of the
Representatives and Senators who, in their efforts to defeat the opposite
political party, are giving aid and comfort to this country's enemies during
this war. But for a retired Marine Colonel to allow his political views to
influence him to the point where he voices the kind of harmful messages that
he has been guilty of for the past month or so, is just beyond my
comprehension. I think LtCol Stark has done a fine job of voicing my own
feelings.
Semper Fi
Jim
The signature block indicates that he is a USAR LTC of Infantry.
I called LTC Stark's office number and talked to his receptionist,
who confirmed that the letter was Faxed to both of Rep. Murtha's
offices.
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005
22:03:14 -0800 (PST)
Subject: WOW!
I rarely get a message that I feel compelled to forward. This is one of
those!
Clarence Nelson, Andrew III
USMC [Retired]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER J. STARK
1615 S. Ingram Mill Road
Telephone No. 417/887-6969
Building F
Facsimile No. 417/887-7715
Springfield, MO 65804
November 21, 2005
Via Facsimile to: (814) 539-6229
Representative John Murtha
P.O. Box 780
Johnstown, PA 15907
Representative Murtha:
During the dark days of the American Revolution the Commanding
General, George Washington seemed unable to win any victories. There were
wholesale desertions, troops were starving, the fledgling government was
sporadic with money, food and ammunition in short supply. Out of this
darkness emerged a genuine American Hero. This officer brilliantly led
his troops in combat and though seriously, and almost mortally wounded,
won victory after victory for the desperate and beleaguered American
Continental Army.
After helping to turn the tide of war in the favor of the
Americans, this officer's fame grew as did his prestige, but his prowess
on the battlefield, his courage under fire and indeed all of his life, is
forgotten because of one act. His name is now synonymous with "traitor" in
the dictionary. General Benedict Arnold, like you, had a brilliant
military career of courage, honor, and sacrifice. Like you, in my
opinion, he was a traitor to his country and to his oath as an American
soldier. It is indeed fitting that you are member of the same political
party as another traitor and seditionist, former Lieutenant John Kerry
USN, who betrayed his country, not only on the very floor of the House of
Representatives that you now serve, but also, secretly, in the presence of
our enemies in Paris, France.
Unlike you, he is a self proclaimed warrior and you earned
your decorations, but the pair of you forgot one important thing. The
United States of America and indeed the world are at war. We are at war
with an implacable enemy. An enemy of racist, bigoted fanatics whose sole
goal in life is to destroy the people of the United States of America,
their culture and their religion. More American civilians have died on
U.S. soil in this war than died in World War I, World War II, Korea,
Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, and Desert Storm put together.
We are at war, Representative Murtha, and your actions and
conduct give aid and comfort to our enemies. Just in case you have
forgotten the definition of treason and sedition, I have attached
Webster's definition as Tabs A and B to this letter.
A wise man once said, "There are no former Marines, only dead Marines."
He was wrong. You are not a Marine. You have lost the right to use that
title. You have dishonored all of those who have fought and died up to
the day you stood on the floor of the House of Representatives and
demanded that we withdraw immediately. You lied to the press, when you
said you did not make that statement. I watched you make that statement.
Albeit your Bill, submitted, which I have also read, added a caveat, "as
soon as practicable." That is pure horse**** and you know it. Yes,
Representative Murtha, you have given aid and comfort to our enemies in a
time of war. You have given them hope, which they have fast been loosing,
due to all of the victories and sacrifice by our sons and daughters on the
field of battle in Iraq and Afghanistan. You have been honored by our
enemies on the front page of Al Jazeera.
No, Representative Murtha, you are no longer a Marine. Your soul is dead.
Your honor is dead, and without a soul or honor, you are nothing.
Be advised, my son is a Marine Officer. He has commanded men in battle
through two (2) tours and he is due to return to Iraq on a third tour. If
he should be harmed in any way as a result of your actions on the floor of
the House this week, I will do everything in my power to see to it that
you are driven from office and that you are charged and tried for treason
and sedition.
The Marine Officer whose message was read on the House Floor by fellow
member of Congress, Jean Schmidt, was right. You are a coward. Marines
do not cut and run.
Fortunately, your obesity prevents you from wearing your Marine Uniform
with even a semblance of pride, but I know your face. If I am in a room
when you arrive, you will not enter. If you are in a room, when I arrive,
you will leave. It is as simple as that.
OUT.
LTC Christopher J. Stark IN USAR
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Swinging Monkey - I think the detail is that the Doctor doesn't think that the request to go is a Legitamate order on the basis
of the UNSCR and subsequent information gained since that has
proved that the case for war was made stronger.
He is acting on his own and much as it seems to some that he is letting the side down -he can only really be effecting his future. People will continue to join the RAF - I would suggest that the numbers joining the Army will be down based on recent publicity.
This isn't a case of either thinking he is right or wrong -it's a matter of him proving that he has a case not to go and the RAF vice versa. I have no problem with the principle - you can guarantee that if he overstepped the mark in anyway whilst on duty the forces would be down on him like a ton of bricks. Examine how many prosecutions are going through at the moment of servicemen - proving the legitamacy of orders and how they are carried out is of prime importance if we expect our
servicemen to fight for us and not end up in court.
SASless - without wishing to get involved in the whole Democrat/Republican thing . John Kerry might not be to everyone's taste but he spent part of the Vietnam War actually
under fire. George W Bush was I believe in Florida wearing the USAF uniform but I don't believe he got any closer than that.
When I was last over there we got to see all the adverts from his (Kerry's)'comrades' on how he wasn't a hero and all that stuff.
It's really not my kind of thing - he might not be the hero that
some portray him as but he has been in combat and seen people die - that might just make someone more thoughtful when sending people off to war.
of the UNSCR and subsequent information gained since that has
proved that the case for war was made stronger.
He is acting on his own and much as it seems to some that he is letting the side down -he can only really be effecting his future. People will continue to join the RAF - I would suggest that the numbers joining the Army will be down based on recent publicity.
This isn't a case of either thinking he is right or wrong -it's a matter of him proving that he has a case not to go and the RAF vice versa. I have no problem with the principle - you can guarantee that if he overstepped the mark in anyway whilst on duty the forces would be down on him like a ton of bricks. Examine how many prosecutions are going through at the moment of servicemen - proving the legitamacy of orders and how they are carried out is of prime importance if we expect our
servicemen to fight for us and not end up in court.
SASless - without wishing to get involved in the whole Democrat/Republican thing . John Kerry might not be to everyone's taste but he spent part of the Vietnam War actually
under fire. George W Bush was I believe in Florida wearing the USAF uniform but I don't believe he got any closer than that.
When I was last over there we got to see all the adverts from his (Kerry's)'comrades' on how he wasn't a hero and all that stuff.
It's really not my kind of thing - he might not be the hero that
some portray him as but he has been in combat and seen people die - that might just make someone more thoughtful when sending people off to war.
Last edited by RileyDove; 14th Dec 2005 at 13:48.
Why is that Dave?
Merely because someone has a differing view than yours?
The man put his name, address, and telephone number in the letter...seems like he was willing to take a stand for what he believes in.
That is the beauty of living in a free society...one can express one's views whether universially accepted and approved or not.
I personally endorse some of what he said....having been a Vietnam veteran and knowing the Paris accusations are true. I am not a politician so I don't have to play nice with words.
Kerry is a skunk. Was then...is now.
The Cut and Run Brigade are indirectly responsible for harm coming to our troops by using the war as a method of hopefully regaining their own lost power. They hate Bush and the Republican Party more than they love the country and forsake National interests for purely personal issues at a time when we are engaged in a war. There is a way to wage politics and also protest the war...but it should be done without giving aid and comfort to the enemy. I do not believe you can understand that concept based upon your statements in most of your posts.
Personal acts as the Good Doctor has taken I can understand despite having nothing but disgust in what he is trying to do. He would not want me sitting on his courts martial board I assure you.
His orders boil down to go to a combat area and attempt to save as many lives as possible.....not kill people. His moral dilemna just does not meet the Bull **** test. If he were assigned to a combat unit whose mission is to engage the enemy in combat and render them combat ineffective ( dead)....then I would have more sympathy for him. That is not his case.
Whether you agree with the reasons given...our countries and society in general are at "War" with a determined enemy which seek to destroy us. Iraq is but one campaign in that war.
Your national leaders have committed us to that if you serve in the military. Last time I checked....the military of both the US and UK are all volunteers. If you do not like what you are being asked to do....then resign....leave....depart....but do so honorably. You signed a contract when you entered....abide by the contract terms. You knew combat service was part of the job...nothing has changed...it still is and will continue to remain so.
For the record Dave....when confronted with the possibility of a third combat tour in Vietnam...I did just that....accepted my Honorable Discharge Certificate and returned to civilian life.
That also allows me to pass judgement on the comparative service records of both Bush and Kerry. Kerry served four months in Vietnam. He claimed wounds on three occasions. He never spent a night in hospital, nor received any stitches or underwent any surgery. He never missed a day of duty as a result of the three wounds he claimed were combat related. One of the wounds was very clearly self inflicted as a result of negligent use of a M79 grenade launcher.
Kerry while a serving Naval Officer (in the Reserves) went to Paris and made propaganda statements for the North Vietnamese. The very same kind of statements that other airmen, soldiers, marines, and sailors were being tortured to make. He protested Abu Grahib....but never...never....protested the torture of his own people by the enemy he was assisting.
I say it again....Kerry is a two faced lying weasel. He did not serve honorably.
Bush on the other hand did not see combat. He served. He did not brag about his service and make it a cornerstone of his campaign. Kerry did. Kerry got caught in that lie.
I would think twice about aligning myself with the likes of John Kerry if I were on active military service. It might be you in the torture chamber and a John Kerry type helping your enemy.
Merely because someone has a differing view than yours?
The man put his name, address, and telephone number in the letter...seems like he was willing to take a stand for what he believes in.
That is the beauty of living in a free society...one can express one's views whether universially accepted and approved or not.
I personally endorse some of what he said....having been a Vietnam veteran and knowing the Paris accusations are true. I am not a politician so I don't have to play nice with words.
Kerry is a skunk. Was then...is now.
The Cut and Run Brigade are indirectly responsible for harm coming to our troops by using the war as a method of hopefully regaining their own lost power. They hate Bush and the Republican Party more than they love the country and forsake National interests for purely personal issues at a time when we are engaged in a war. There is a way to wage politics and also protest the war...but it should be done without giving aid and comfort to the enemy. I do not believe you can understand that concept based upon your statements in most of your posts.
Personal acts as the Good Doctor has taken I can understand despite having nothing but disgust in what he is trying to do. He would not want me sitting on his courts martial board I assure you.
His orders boil down to go to a combat area and attempt to save as many lives as possible.....not kill people. His moral dilemna just does not meet the Bull **** test. If he were assigned to a combat unit whose mission is to engage the enemy in combat and render them combat ineffective ( dead)....then I would have more sympathy for him. That is not his case.
Whether you agree with the reasons given...our countries and society in general are at "War" with a determined enemy which seek to destroy us. Iraq is but one campaign in that war.
Your national leaders have committed us to that if you serve in the military. Last time I checked....the military of both the US and UK are all volunteers. If you do not like what you are being asked to do....then resign....leave....depart....but do so honorably. You signed a contract when you entered....abide by the contract terms. You knew combat service was part of the job...nothing has changed...it still is and will continue to remain so.
For the record Dave....when confronted with the possibility of a third combat tour in Vietnam...I did just that....accepted my Honorable Discharge Certificate and returned to civilian life.
That also allows me to pass judgement on the comparative service records of both Bush and Kerry. Kerry served four months in Vietnam. He claimed wounds on three occasions. He never spent a night in hospital, nor received any stitches or underwent any surgery. He never missed a day of duty as a result of the three wounds he claimed were combat related. One of the wounds was very clearly self inflicted as a result of negligent use of a M79 grenade launcher.
Kerry while a serving Naval Officer (in the Reserves) went to Paris and made propaganda statements for the North Vietnamese. The very same kind of statements that other airmen, soldiers, marines, and sailors were being tortured to make. He protested Abu Grahib....but never...never....protested the torture of his own people by the enemy he was assisting.
I say it again....Kerry is a two faced lying weasel. He did not serve honorably.
Bush on the other hand did not see combat. He served. He did not brag about his service and make it a cornerstone of his campaign. Kerry did. Kerry got caught in that lie.
I would think twice about aligning myself with the likes of John Kerry if I were on active military service. It might be you in the torture chamber and a John Kerry type helping your enemy.
Greetings From Hell's Dark Heart
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Emerald City
Age: 70
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice post SASless, and thank-you for a very clear, forceful and well-put statement of your position. Never knew you were a moderate...
Disagree with this bit
Possibly in another thread (since this one has wandered into the familiar mud-bog); I'd be interested in how you would want a politician to "protest the war" without giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
(Serious question -- looking for an example for my education, not as an attempt to nit-pick your position)
Disagree with this bit
They hate Bush and the Republican Party more than they love the country and forsake National interests for purely personal issues at a time when we are engaged in a war. There is a way to wage politics and also protest the war...but it should be done without giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
(Serious question -- looking for an example for my education, not as an attempt to nit-pick your position)