A Young Marine Speaks Out

[Baptist in Richmond]

No, we invaded Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power and to eliminate Iraq's ability to manufacture weapons of mass destruction.

Most Americans, including me, thought that this was the wisest choice in March 2003. Now we know that it was not the best course of action. Hindsight is always 20/20.

And just think: there is no way out for us now. We are stuck there.....

Happy New Year, KenH,
BiR

 

[carpro]

How do you know this is a Marine? Anyone check the legitimacy of it? And why should this be surprising anyway? In every war, there are people who object.

I'm sure we'll find out later if he's legit or not. If he is he has definitely drank the kool-aid.

With statements like:

"patriotic, nationalistic and fascist crap

part of an Orwellian ("1984") war machine

No more nationalistic inanity, no more passing it off as patriotism.

Patriotism is learning, and educating oneself to understand what their country really stands for.

supreme leader Bush

omnipotent W Bush

imperialistic leaders

the word homeland: the most notable countries in the last century that referred to their country in this way were Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia"

He has demonstrated that he is fairly well educated in a liberal jingoistic sort of way. Makes me wonder where all the liberal smarts were when he joined the Corps. The situation wasn't much different then.

If he's for real , he just needs to exit the military as soon as it is legally possible or he can be a man and take a moral stand by refusing to redeploy to Iraq in the future and not whine about it when he is disciplined.

 

[Rufus_1611]

How do you know this is a Marine? Anyone check the legitimacy of it?

What is the basis for your doubting whether or not he is a Marine?

"Philip Martin [send him mail] has been a Marine for 2 years. He is in the infantry (a "grunt"), and spent 7 months in the al-Anbar province of Iraq. He went on more than 180 combat patrols in and outside of the city of Fallujah, where he was hit with 2 IEDs (luckily never injured) and was involved in a number of firefights. He is currently stationed in Twentynine Palms, CA, and due to return to Iraq for a second deployment in April 2007. He is 21-years-old."​

The question no one has answered is where between Saddam Hussein and Adolf Hitler would it have been justified to step in?

The German people should have stepped up just after the Reichstag. The equivalent of the German people in today's situation, should have stepped up after the Reichstag equivalent.

 

[LadyEagle]

Any kool-aid drinking hasn't been done by this Marine who was in combat in some of the most radical places in Iraq. I would say he has a pretty good idea about which he speaks.

 

[carpro]

Any kool-aid drinking hasn't been done by this Marine who was in combat in some of the most radical places in Iraq. I would say he has a pretty good idea about which he speaks.

Being a combat veteran does not make one an expert in foreign affairs or the motivations of those who conduct it.

To the contrary, combat has a tendency to compress ones overall view of the total picture.

 

[Petra-O IX]

Being a combat veteran does not make one an expert in foreign affairs or the motivations of those who conduct it.

To the contrary, combat has a tendency to compress ones overall view of the total picture.

Careful Carpro, Kerry also insinuated that our troops were not very smart also. You are in danger of putting yourself in same swift boat as Kerry.

 

[carpro]

Quote:
Originally Posted by carpro
Being a combat veteran does not make one an expert in foreign affairs or the motivations of those who conduct it.

To the contrary, combat has a tendency to compress ones overall view of the total picture.

Careful Carpro, Kerry also insinuated that our troops were not very smart also. You are in danger of putting yourself in same swift boat as Kerry.

Not a problem.

An observation concerning perspective is a far cry from Kerry's defining moment.:smilewinkgrin:

 

[LadyEagle]

However, carpro, consider this:

Poll of military finds dimmer view of Iraq war
By Robert Hodierne

WASHINGTON — The U.S. military, once a staunch supporter of President Bush and the Iraq war, has grown increasingly pessimistic about chances for victory, a new poll says.

For the first time, more troops disapprove of the president's handling of the war than approve of it, according to the 2006 Military Times Poll.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003501934_militarypoll30.html

 

[777]

Where to start? Taking his opening sentence:

I'm sick and tired of this patriotic, nationalistic and fascist crap.

That could've come straight out of dailykos. Hi bio:

Philip Martin has been a Marine for 2 years. He is in the infantry (a "grunt"), and spent 7 months in the al-Anbar province of Iraq. He went on more than 180 combat patrols in and outside of the city of Fallujah, where he was hit with 2 IEDs (luckily never injured) and was involved in a number of firefights. He is currently stationed in Twentynine Palms, CA, and due to return to Iraq for a second deployment in April 2007. He is 21-years-old.

...would make him have to have signed up in 2004 at the earliest. Bush was president then, the Iraq War wea well underway. The same war he blasts here as:

How do you justify 'sacrificing' your life for a war which is not only illegal, but is being prosecuted to the extent where the only thing keeping us there is one man's power, and his ego.

He's talking about his Commander-in-Cheif there...which, to me, begs the question of why he supposedly joined up in the first place?

When I joined I took an oath. In that oath I swore to protect the Constitution of the United States. I didn't swear to build democracies in countries on the other side of the world under the guise of "national security." I didn't join the military to be part of an Orwellian ("1984") war machine that is in an obligatory war against whoever the state deems the enemy to be so that the populace can be controlled and riled up in a pro-nationalistic frenzy to support any new and oppressive law that will be the key to destroying the enemy. Example given – the Patriot Act. So aptly named, and totally against all that the constitution stands for.

Foaming-at-the-mouth DU rhetoric. Something's WAY off here.

 

[The Galatian]

Bottom line? You sign up for the armed forces, and you swear to follow the lawful orders of your commanders.

Note "lawful." Not "wise" or "sensible." Lawful. Even if you think the commander is an idiot, you still follow orders, so long as they are lawful. Troops don't get to decide if they want to follow them or not.

That's how it works.

Have to agree with carpro on this one. If this young marine makes a stand, I can respect that, so long as he's willing to take the consequences.

But I think it's a major mistake on his part.

 

[LadyEagle]

Okay, fine. Now I must ask this question:

Suppose, (c'mon play along with me, please), just suppose the COC ordered the National Guard to go door to door and confiscate rifles and handguns found in any home in America, without a search warrant, without due process -- it is ordered as a military order because martial law has been declared. Would your answer be the same?

 

[carpro]

However, carpro, consider this:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003501934_militarypoll30.html

Trained warriors like clear cut victories and the full support of the people back home.

They have neither.

I understand completely. Been there, done that.

 

[Petra-O IX]

Trained warriors like clear cut victories and the full support of the people back home.

They have neither.

I understand completely. Been there, done that.

Put the blame on every one else but the one who deserves it.
What a cop- out.

 

[777]

Okay, fine. Now I must ask this question:

Suppose, (c'mon play along with me, please), just suppose the COC ordered the National Guard to go door to door and confiscate rifles and handguns found in any home in America, without a search warrant, without due process -- it is ordered as a military order because martial law has been declared. Would your answer be the same?

Yep, and that's exactly what happened in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina - Nagin issued a gun confinscation order that was obeyed by his police, so your scenario is not implausible at all.

But your analogy is flawed in some respects. Say an anti-gun nut was elected POTUS, had issued the order in the past, makes it crystal-clear that he wants to continue the gun grab, why would I sign up if I disagreed with the confinscation?

 

[Rufus_1611]

Yep, and that's exactly what happened in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina - Nagin issued a gun confinscation order that was obeyed by his police, so your scenario is not implausible at all.

Was it Nagin's National Guard as well?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sm5PC7z79-8

 

[carpro]

Quote:
Originally Posted by carpro
Trained warriors like clear cut victories and the full support of the people back home.

They have neither.

I understand completely. Been there, done that.

Put the blame on every one else but the one who deserves it.
What a cop- out.

One who deserves it? Only one?

You go ahead and cop out if you wish, I'll pass.

 

[Petra-O IX]

Quote:
Originally Posted by carpro
Trained warriors like clear cut victories and the full support of the people back home.

They have neither.

I understand completely. Been there, done that.




One who deserves it? Only one?

You go ahead and cop out if you wish, I'll pass.

Too late, you already committed yourself.
You are all alone on this one.

 

[carpro]

Quote:
Originally Posted by carpro
Trained warriors like clear cut victories and the full support of the people back home.

They have neither.

I understand completely. Been there, done that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Petra-O IX
Put the blame on every one else but the one who deserves it.
What a cop- out.


One who deserves it? Only one?

You go ahead and cop out if you wish, I'll pass.

Too late, you already committed yourself.
You are all alone on this one.

I don't ever mind standing alone with the truth.


"Trained warriors like clear cut victories and the full support of the people back home.

They have neither."

is a true statement and can stand on it's own. No one is being "blamed" for anything.

 

[Petra-O IX]

Quote:
Originally Posted by carpro
Trained warriors like clear cut victories and the full support of the people back home.

They have neither.

I understand completely. Been there, done that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Petra-O IX
Put the blame on every one else but the one who deserves it.
What a cop- out.


One who deserves it? Only one?

You go ahead and cop out if you wish, I'll pass.






I don't ever mind standing alone with the truth.


"Trained warriors like clear cut victories and the full support of the people back home.

They have neither."

is a true statement and can stand on it's own. No one is being "blamed" for anything.

To my suprise, I thought you were being negative about the way that the Bush Adminsitration was handling the war in Iraq and I can understand that since General Casey didn't deliver the desired results for the President. But to infer that the majority of Americans do not support the troops,well that took me totally by suprise. I wouldn't say the kind of thing that you stated to a U.S. soldier though, it would seem too demoralizing and unappreciative of their sacrifice and efforts.

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

Hardly. But if they try, they will deeply regret it.

Of course any nation has the right to try to invade the U.S. However, since wew have firmly set the notion of "might makes right" they will fail.