Young Marine dies in Iraq - not just another casualty

This is a story about a young Marine killed in Iraq. He didn't vote for GWB either time and probably never would have. His dad is a Democrat. They both seem to have not been supporters of the war.

I'm posting it, not as a pronouncement of support for or objection to, the war. I'm doing it because I think there's a lesson here. From a young guy caught up in something not of his doing. But he made a decision and it cost him. Guys like this, IMO, are an example of why this country can always be, if we work at it, the greatest on the planet.


LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-marine15dec15,0,4800569.story)

[whiskeytown]

that's honorable - sent off to die in a phony war for oil by a draft-dodging commander in chief, but still willing to uphold his vow to protect the country.

More honor then this commander-in-chief deservers, that's for damn sure. -

RB

good story about a good marine

[ QUOTE ]
And when he gets to heaven,
St. Peter he will tell.
One more Marine reporting Sir,
I've served my time in hell.



[/ QUOTE ]

whiskey, you realize you disgrace his memory by running your mouth like that?

Why don't you just write your Congressman once a week and keep your mouth and typing fingers from disgracing fallen Marines?

[zipo]

>>that's honorable - sent off to die in a phony war for oil by a draft-dodging commander in chief, but still willing to uphold his vow to protect the country.<<

Whiskey, whether one agrees with the war or not, it wasn't a "phoney" war. The blood being spilled is real.

And the ideal - to depose sadaam and to transform Iraq into a working democracy that would serve as an example to other countries in the region was a noble one - and a big gamble.

The fact that the execution of the postwar plan was horribly botched by the civilians running the war is not the fault of the troops, who persevere under the most difficult conditions.

Yes, there have been scandals - prisoner abuse, massive theft and corruption by Bush administration connected contractors, diplomatic blunders, and unconscionable pollyanish spin by the administration attempting to whitewash and excuse their screw-ups.

But if you know anything about the culture of our military, the vast majority of those men and women serving and their military leadership are deserving of our respect and support.

Let's not confuse them with the civilian leadership who saddled them with this difficult and thankless job.

[ACPlayer]

Interesting story.

Not sure what to make of the difference, if any, between a marine choosing to "take a bullet" for his country in a cause he does not believe ine and a Jihadi dying for a cause he passionately believes in. In both cases of course, the supporters of the respective cause promise great respect for their warrior and the leaders of the respective side use the death to further their political agendas.

In considering this point, try to set aside -- if possible -- the question of military justice vs terrorist justice. My point is about the cause and willingness to die.

[whiskeytown]

surprisingly, one of the freedoms that Marine died for is my freedom of speech. I'm allowed to disagree with said Commander in Chief - and I'm allowed to say that while I totally honor his sacrifice and protecting of those freedoms, I am ashamed that this president would use his service in what is essentially an attempt by the US Govt. to ensure ready access to oil reserves and reap great financial windfalls for his Texas and Halliburton contacts.

I'm not a pacifist, BTW - someday I'd like to see us actually do some good in Afghanistan and capture the guy who actually DID attack America. But of course, they don't have as much oil there....

of course, the young man is right - now that we've started a clusterfuck in Iraq we have to sacrifice more men to fix the problem we started....Lovely.

Taking our talking points from the Bill O'Reilly again, have we? When in doubt, just keep saying "shut up, shut up, shut up" -

such patriotism....

RB

[whiskeytown]

some people misunderstood my recent post - and I've clairified it, but I'll clairify it for you.

Yes, I fully support the men and women in the armed forces. I fully support their sacrifice and appreciate that they have taken a vow to protect the country.

Having said that, there is an implicit and yet unwritten vow that says we will not waste their lives in battles that are geared primarily to improving the financial status of Republicans.

We, as Americans, told him we wouldn't squander his life on petty personal squabbles or for anything less then the safety and protection of the United States, and I feel that we, both the Doofus in Chief, and we as Americans who elected him, failed to honor our part of the bargain.

I hope next time the security of this country is REALLY threatened, (not just the profit line) that we'll be able to ask those men and women to stand up there again and they won't have to have any doubts about the cause or reasoning behind that sacrifice.

Cause after all we've screwed them on with, from misleading them on intentions to screwing them post-war with Veteran's benefits, they have every right to tell us to go to hell on that one.

RB

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]

But if you know anything about the culture of our military, the vast majority of those men and women serving and their military leadership are deserving of our respect and support.


[/ QUOTE ]

.....please expand on the above thought.

[ QUOTE ]
And the ideal - to depose sadaam and to transform Iraq into a working democracy that would serve as an example to other countries in the region was a noble one - and a big gamble.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, I'm so stupid. I could've sworn we went there to disarm him because he had soooooooooo many weapons of mass destruction and biological weapons. I had a dream that Colin Powell swore before the U.N. that Saddam had these things and even used a small vial of white powder to simulate anthrax. My memory must be failing me because I don't remember George Bush ever saying anything other than the need to disarm this dangerous rogue man. Remember, he was trying to by uranium from Niger.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
My memory must be failing me because I don't remember George Bush ever saying anything other than the need to disarm this dangerous rogue man.

[/ QUOTE ]
What's the name of that operation currently going on in Iraq...? My memory may be failing me, but I don't recall it's Operation Disarm Saddam...

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My memory must be failing me because I don't remember George Bush ever saying anything other than the need to disarm this dangerous rogue man.

[/ QUOTE ]
What's the name of that operation currently going on in Iraq...? My memory may be failing me, but I don't recall it's Operation Disarm Saddam...

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever the current state of the war is now, the original plan was not sold as the US freeing Iraq. For good reason IMO, that being everyone in the US would of said [censored] you bush.

Misleading the public is probably the worst thing an elected offical can do. It is a disgrace to the office and our contstitution. Of course you could never prove that the public was intentionally mislead so all the citizens are left to do is die for a cause they would of never agreed to.

Welcome to the lower class, my name is GWB I'll be needing your son/brother/father's life in order to make me famous and my friends a lot of money. Hope you dont mind.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Whatever the current state of the war is now, the original plan was not sold as the US freeing Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe. WMDs were a major reason why we went to war. But freedom for the Iraqis has always been part of the reason too. Towards the end of Bush's State of the Union address in 2003, he says this:

"The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured.

Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained: by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape.

If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.

And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country, your enemy is ruling your country.

And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. "

Couple that with the fact that since we took over the country, we began rebuilding Iraq and it's clear that while WMDs were the main cause for the war, liberating the Iraqis was also integral part of the war. We felt it was so important that we named the military operation responsible after it.

[theweatherman]

No doubt it is an integral part. I just feel that if the war was presented to the people as it is being done now there is no way in hell we'd go.

Since there are no WMDs it turns out that the only reason we went to Iraq is from regime change/ making halliburton bundles of cash. Now that reports of botched intelligence andout right lies is comingto the surface it is even more suspect what the actual goals of the operation were/are.

I'm not sure when the name is released but I'm thinking its sometime when it is too late to do anything about the war anyways so the name is entirely political talk imo.

Operation Iraqi Freedom was coined by GWB about a week after the invasion begun

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
No doubt it is an integral part. I just feel that if the war was presented to the people as it is being done now there is no way in hell we'd go.

[/ QUOTE ]
Solely for the reason of liberating Iraq? Probably not. That's why we're not in many countries right now that have horrible, oppressive leaders. The WMD aspect and the fact that Saddam has a grudge against the U.S. gives the U.S. an interest in toppling him. Liberation for the Iraqis is the cherry on top. We're stuck with just a little ice cream and a cherry, but that cherry was still part of the sunday.

[ QUOTE ]
Since there are no WMDs it turns out that the only reason we went to Iraq is from regime change/ making halliburton bundles of cash.

[/ QUOTE ]
1) No, even though there were no WMDs doesn't mean they weren't one of the chief reasons for invading. It just happened to turn out wrong.
2) From what I've heard, Halliburton hasn't made all that much off of Iraq.

Here are some interesting quotes from Bush's speech to the U.N. making his case for war Source (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html)
[ QUOTE ]
In 1991, the Iraqi regime agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, and to prove to the world it has done so by complying with rigorous inspections. Iraq has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no biological weapons. After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks. U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
United Nations' inspections also revealed that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger . To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance.

[/ QUOTE ]

However, I was more moved by Colin Powell's speech source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/transcripts/powelltext_020503.html)

[ QUOTE ]
My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Our sources tell us that, in some cases, the hard drives of computers at Iraqi weapons facilities were replaced. Who took the hard drives. Where did they go? What's being hidden? Why? There's only one answer to the why: to deceive, to hide, to keep from the inspectors./quote]

Well Colin, where are those outdated computers?
[ QUOTE ]
Dr. Blix told this council that Iraq has provided little evidence to verify anthrax production...

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps that's because they weren't producing it.
[ QUOTE ]
we have amassed much intelligence indicating that Iraq is continuing to make these weapons.

[/ QUOTE ]
Really?
[ QUOTE ]
One of the most worrisome things that emerges from the thick intelligence file we have on Iraq's biological weapons is the existence of mobile production facilities used to make biological agents.

[/ QUOTE ]
And, how many have we found thusfar?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger .

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm curious why you quoted this. My assumption is that it's because you disagree with it and want to show the opposite. But if Saddam was no danger, why did we still have the no fly zone and sanctions? I believe the duelfer report mentioned Saddam wishing to persue his WMD programs once the sanctions were lifted, which he was actively seeking (and even bribing UN officials).

The Houston-based firm has been given reconstruction contracts worth almost $500m so far, according to a US congressman.

Well, seeing that he did not have the weapons Bush was claiming he did, and that is the reason Bush made that statement, you tell me. Or, you just blindly accept whatever the Republican mouthpieces say?
Who did he pose a danger to other than his own people? And, if that's going to justify invading a sovergn nation, what about China? They've been oppressing their own since the cultural revolution, but we don't liberate the Chinese or Tibetan peoples. And I'm pretty friggin' sure North Korea has been in the business of slaughtering it's own since Saddam was just a boy. Tell me you don't see the hypocricy.