Fortunate soldier
 

Soldier in Iraq unscathed after close encounter with rocket

By Robert Hodierne
Times staff writer

FALLUJAH, Iraq — There are two ways of looking at it. First way, Ruben Garcia should have put all his money on a lottery ticket because Saturday was his lucky day. Or, he should never bet on anything ever again because he had just used up all of his luck.

He and his friends debated this philosophical point as they examined the hole punched through the plywood-covered window just alongside the 27-year-old specialist’s head. The hole punched by the 57mm anti-tank rocket that then passed through a wooden computer desk — leaving the computer unharmed — and planted itself harmlessly in the concrete wall on the other side of the room. A rocket with a warhead powerful enough to punch through four inches of armor.

Garcia, of Miami, was stretched out on his upper bunk, the rock band Tool’s “Lateralus” blaring in his headphones, when the rocket hit at 10:40 Saturday morning.

“There was a lot of smoke in the room,” Garcia said. “I didn’t notice the hole at first. What I figured happened is a mortar landed on the roof and the roof was caving in.”

When he looked around he said he “saw the hole there (in the plywood) and it had fin traces ... I knew a rocket came through. ... I figured, the rocket didn’t detonate, the best thing to do was just get out of the room.”

Rocket, mortar and rocket-propelled grenade attacks are so common at this 82nd Airborne Division forward operating base on the outskirts of Fallujah that it takes something as remarkable as Garcia’s near miss to raise eyebrows.

In that same Saturday attack, one of the four rockets fired exploded just 70 feet from three soldiers walking down a road picking up trash. Moments after the dust settled, the soldiers continued on their way, picking up cigarette butts and candy wrappers.

One of those three, Sgt. Joshua Carroll, 23, of Atlanta, said later of their quick return to their work, “I know it sounds weird, but there’s nothing you can do about it. ... I figured it was over. They usually only fire five or six rounds.”

Besides, Carroll said, 70 feet isn’t especially close. He said he had a rocket-propelled grenade whiz past him three weeks ago, missing by two feet.

And it wasn’t the first time Garcia’s house has been attacked. A few months earlier, a mortar landed just outside, slightly wounding a member of his unit. On Saturday, fifteen minutes after the rocket careened past his head, Garcia smoked a cigar and made jokes.

Spc. Mary Bigalk, 22, a reservist from Oshkosh, Wis., was in the same building with Garcia, 20 feet from the rocket’s path. Bigalk goes into downtown Fallujah on a regular basis and shrugged off the near miss.

“This is nothing,” she said. “It’s just another day in Fallujah.”

Great gig...just 1 weekend a month....yeah, right.

not fair!!!!!!!
 

Hello, its me agein. I just wanted to let you know. That I am a reservist as well, and well, when you sign on the dotted line, is says that you are willing to be called up for active duty if needed. If there wanst so many cut backs on the active duty military, the reserves might not have to have been activated for so long. But that is just my opinion.

Semper Princeps

I was surprised by that ... people i know who are career military spent the last year sitting in various bases around the US (one of them got "deployed" to New Jersey, much to the distress of his wife and family in the midwest), and it's the reservists who went overseas. Doesn't make sense somehow. With all due respect to the excellent service provided by all in Iraq and Afghanistan, why send accountants, nurses, and school teachers when we have professional soldiers? Is the overall size of our military really reduced to that point where the reserves form the bulk of the services?

Here's an idea? What if we used our DEFENSIVE American military for it's intended purpose which is only to defend American soil and not for starting unprovoked wars with non-threatening countries? What if our military wasn't spread out all over the globe like the Roman Empire as a show of imperialistic force for intimidation? What if we didn't make enemies all over the world through our unconstitutional military interventionism?

Cutbacks in the military are the right thing to do. That doesn't mean cutting pay, it means cutting positions. We need to close every single American military base outside of America. I'm sure we'd have plenty of full-time volunteer servicemen to DEFEND America from attacks. Reservists would hardly be needed let alone activated.

The problem is George W. Bush doesn't read too well. Anyone who has watched him struggle with a teleprompter knows this. Perhaps when he was told the U.S. Military was for defending...

AMERICAN SOIL

he thought it was supposed to be used to defend....

AMERICAN'S OIL

Problem is that, if my infos are correct, you have about 490000 soldiers and 362000 are/were deployed in 120 different countries (The Economist July, 26th '03). And you're right. Why does America still need to have a few thousand soldiers in Germany? The war is over for 60 years. Their are still american soldiers in Japan and about 60000 or so in South Corea. Just imagine that in every country America fought a war and was victorious they need to have military bases for 60 years...

An now just try to send someone to Iraq who wasn't home for two years or so. Should be funny when soldiers stop working to protest against being seperated from their family for 2 years or more. You don't have any professional soldiers left to make a rotation.

I think the argument about fighting a war for oil is not completly correct. If Bush only wanted Iraq's oil, he'd have simply needed to stop UN-Embargo against Iraq. So you cannot say that this war was only for oil!

I never said it was ONLY for oil, although I think the american soil joke I made up is funny. I don't even think it was mostly about oil, though it was a big part.

GWB's daddy invaded Iraq without provocation and embarassed himself, so GWB walked into the office telling people to "find a way" for America to go to war with Iraq and when the 9/11 attacks hit, he got his wish. He was also able to railroad violations of our civil rights through congress by calling it the patriot act.

Georgie boy had lots of reasons to start the war but none of them were valid, constitutional, or justified.

Well, there was one big reason that most Americans don't even know about that may or may not be constitutional, but I believe is arguably valid and justified:

A short time before 9/11, Saddam Hussein suddenly stopped dealing his oil for dollars and began dealing in Euros. Other Middle Eastern countries were looking to follow. From this perspective, to say the war was for oil may be correct but it's not about the profits or implied corporate kickbacks in that oil--it's about the fact that our entire currency is largely based on oil, and to take that away could VERY easily mean the collapse of the US dollar.

I do personally believe 9/11 was an excuse--to take moves ultimately designed to keep us out of another Great Depression. But I think the average American doesn't understand the intricacies of world economics, and it was an excuse the average person could wrap their head around.

We have a large body of evidence showing that we knew Pearl Harbor was going to be bombed in time to stop it, but allowed it to happen so we'd have a publicly acceptable excuse to join the war. Few people now believe that we should have stayed out of WWII, but at the time it would not have gone over well to just jump into the fray. In 75 years, we may also learn that we had the information suggesting that 9/11 was going to happen and we let it happen so we'd have that excuse. I wouldn't be surprised, but I also wouldn't necessarily be angry (assuming I'm still alive.) I personally like having a strong currency, and do not want my children to grow up during another Depression.

If you value a strong currency, you should dislike Bush and his record setting deficit spending. You should also not want America's currency to be based on anything other than our own gold. The reason American dollars might be valueless is because of inflation which is caused by nothing other than the United States government printing more and more money without anything to back it up. (Technically the federal reserve prints the money and they're not part of the government, but that's another topic). And you would insist that they reduce spending. In other words you would vote for Libertarians.

If you want the American dollar to be worth something insist they turn off the printing presses and return to a gold standard. That and insist that America not send our military to police the globe.

It would also be a good idea to get government to stop preventing people from getting into the energy business through the many regulations. In 5 years, biomass energy could completely replace all fossil fuel needs (oil) in America or in three years remove our addiction to foreign oil which wouldn't get people to violate our Constitution and the sovereignty of other nations to protect it.

The U.S. Military IS NOT here to defend American "interests" abroad, nor is it here to defend oil supplies or to prop up the value of our currency. None of those is a valid use of our military.

And for the record, I say America did not have a valid reason to enter WWI. And it was America's military interventionism in WWI that created the conditions that allowed Hitler to come to power. Were it not for us blaming Germany for WWI (Austria started it) at the behest of France (Still angry about the Fanko-Prussian war) Hitler never would have come to power and there would have been no second world war. Millions upon milions would have lived were it not for the American military going where it didn't belong. I also think we had no valid reason to enter WWII. Japan attacked America only after we provoked them by again using our military to meddle with the oil of other people.

Yes, very funny.:D

It's hard to imagine....only 60 years.;)

Thanks Bruce, I made that one up myself yesterday. :)

:D :D :D

Radar.....Im sure you have been around the block a few times. I am sure that you believe in your opinion. But there is one problem with you rmilitary personnel cut-backs. IT MAKES MORE UNEMPLOYED PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My wife is the perfect reason. She was in the USMC as an Ordenance Technition for 8 years. Since the cut backs, she has been unemployed for 3 years now. She finally got her accountants degree and no is working again. You take service members out of the service and replace them with "civies". The military member gets as average of $2.85 and hr.,Plus the pride in whatever job their job is, then put the civies in at $25-$35 an hour, that makes the former service member, as many Demicrats like to call them, Deadbeat people. Your right, lets let the world murder eachother, then the Red Dawn thery, let other countries surprise attack us, then people like YOU complain that the military didnt do anything to stop them from attacking. Oh, wait a min. thats right, we dont have the means anymore, becouse of MRS. CLINTON's MILITARY CUTBACKS!!!!!!!!!! thank you for your time.

Semper Princeps!
(Always First)

Do you call her Hitlary too? :thumb:

Thats a nice name compared to most names I have for both of them. Like I said before,Wolf, I am an Indipendent, I agree with alot of things from both Demicrats and GOP. But not Clintonomics.

Fireman: To be brutally honest, I genuinely don't care if those people become unemployed because if they have skills, they will get jobs in the private sector and as you pointed out, those jobs will pay better than what they were getting in the military so they are better off. The role of government isn't to make sure people are employed just for the sake of being employed and charge those who have legitimate jobs to pay for it.

We should not keep a bloated, huge, military, and we should never ever use our military as a show of force to bully everyone else on earth. Whether you like it or not, America has a DEFENSIVE military which means we attack only when attacked. Our military is not here to perform humanitarian aid missions, to train other militaries, to overthrow the leaders of sovereign nations the president happens to dislike, etc.

The founding fathers knew that it was wrong to keep a large military during times of peace and we should heed their warnings.

We would have far fewer enemies to worry about if we weren't pissing everyone else off by sticking our noses where it doesn't belong.

And I've got news for you, countries may attack America, but they will never "suprise" attack us. If an invasion force were to come here such as in "Red Dawn" they'd be blown to bits before they dropped the first paratrooper. If our military did their one and only one job of DEFENDING America rather than being an OFFENSIVE deployment force for the UN, we'd be much safer.

GWB has made America and the rest of the world a more dangerous place by violating the Constitution to START a war of imperialistic aggression against a non-threatening sovereign nation.

Our military shouldn't be any larger than it takes just to defend America (and nobody else) from attack. Not one soldier in Iraq is defending America. Nor are those in Germany, Japan, Italy, or any of the other nations where we have American troops stationed.

America is not the defender of the world, the police of the world, etc. America has no authority to tell any other countries what weapons they may or may not have, nor does the UN for that matter. In fact America has absolutely no authority beyond our own borders.

They Didn't Attack Switzerland

by Bill Walker

Not a week goes by now without another prediction of terrorist attack. The head of Homeland Security, the head of the FBI, and even Chancellor Palpatine himself in his unique syntax have all assured us that further destructive attacks are "inevitable". The unknown terrorists with their worldwide networks hate all Americans because of our tolerance of different ethnic groups, our wealth, and our hedonistic ways. So we must brace ourselves for more waves of destruction, possibly involving scuba-diving terrorists using gasoline tanker trucks to set fire to Jewish suburbs while facing Mecca and detonating radioactive dirty bombs. There is no action we can take to avoid our fate.

But hang on a minute. How did the US gain its monopoly position as the only nation deserving of terrorist retribution? What about England, France, Germany, Sweden, Holland, Denmark, Japan, Australia, or... Switzerland? Aren't these nations tolerant, wealthy, and more or less hedonistic? I think that I can demonstrate this, and I will expect future terrorist attacks to be parceled out among all similar countries on a pro rata basis. It is unfair for the US to hog all the glory of our virtues, and disparaging to the moral strength of the potential victims in places such as Switzerland.

Yes, Switzerland. Let's go down the terrorist-rage checklist. First, tolerance: far superior to the US. The people of Switzerland are not only from different ethnic groups, but actually speak five different languages. The national anthem of Switzerland is sung in these five different languages, and no one tries to force Italo-Swiss to start speaking German, French, or the other Swiss dialects.

Second, wealth. The Swiss have a slightly lower but similar per capita income to US citizens, and given the tradition of tax evasion and banking secrecy one might suspect that their actual income is quite comparable. Financial comparisons between nations are tricky anyway given different methods of collecting statistics. If we look at physical measures of well-being such as life expectancy the Swiss are ahead with lifespans for males of 75 and for females of 81, edging out the US figures of 73 and 79. I think that we can safely state that in terms of wealth the Swiss are quite capable of inducing envy in fundamentalist Muslim terrorists.

Third, and most important, hedonism. It is the work of a moment to check out any Swiss web site and view the Swiss women. QED. If any further evidence is required, the Swiss spend much less money and time chasing recreational drug users than the US DEA does. Ignoring any possible benefit to drug users, the taxpayers are much better off; taxpayers being far more numerous, again, QED. Swiss chocolate vs. Hershey's; QED.

So, Switzerland is tolerant, wealthy, and hedonistic. But yet it remains disgracefully terrorist-free. Not only has it been neglected by Al-Quaida and the other CIA-funded "Islamic" terrorist groups, but historically it has also not been attacked by Hitler, Bismarck, the Kaiser, Mussolini, Stalin, or even Bill Clinton's cruise missiles. In fact, Switzerland has not been in a war of any kind since 1815. It has not been in an official foreign war since 1515. This would be astounding, even miraculous, for any nation. But Switzerland borders Germany. And France. And Italy. And Austria. And Liechtenstein. Now Liechtenstein has rarely lashed out in Blitzkrieg in a desperate bid to reign uber alles, but ALL of Switzerland's other neighbors have spent the last millennium invading other countries. But, they didn't attack Switzerland.

Now, you would think that peacekeeping performance of this kind would make Switzerland the main object of study in every political science and civics course worldwide. "WHY Didn't They Attack Switzerland?" should be the title of many a textbook. But in fact, no one studies Switzerland, because the aim of political science is not to keep peace, but to keep power over people. Switzerland is of no interest to politicians, because the features of the Swiss system that keep the peace are the same features that make Swiss politicians unimportant. Do you know the name of the Swiss President now serving out his nonrenewable one-year term? No, you do not. His name doesn't matter, and he doesn't matter to the defense of Switzerland. There is no central location of Swiss defense, no Pentagon or NORAD into which you can crash a 757 or a black-market Kazakh nuclear weapon. The defense of Switzerland is the entire people of Switzerland itself.

The features of the Swiss system for keeping the peace are simple. They mind their own business, and they have very strict gun control. By which they mean that every Swiss male must have a gun, except for those who have to carry a missile launcher also. Females are not subject to universal military training, but if you go to a Swiss rifle range there are always girls blasting away. So the Swiss can muster an official army somewhere around ten percent of their population, but the number of people who would actually start shooting if Switzerland were invaded is quite a bit higher, somewhere close to 100 percent of those able to pick up a gun. Plus, as a final defense, the Swiss have rigged the vaults of their banks for self destruction. Any dictator attacking Switzerland will find the gold in his numbered bank account buried in rubble hundreds of meters under a mountain. It is known that Hitler had a numbered account...

Switzerland has also provided for defense of the lives of its civilian population against nuclear terrorism. Realizing after World War Two that nuclear weapons in the hands of power-mad idiots posed a public health threat, the Swiss started a nationwide shelter-building program in 1960. By 1991, there was enough shelter space in Switzerland to protect everyone in their home or apartment, and also enough at their workplace and school. A Swiss child is generally never more than a few minutes from a fallout shelter with an air filter.

The entire Swiss shelter program was accomplished for somewhere on the order of 35 dollars per year per capita. I believe those are 1990 dollars, but it doesn't matter. The US spends vastly more every year to achieve a military only capable of intervening in non-nuclear-armed Third World nations. We have no defense for our children at all. The combined US armed forces are incapable of shooting down a single ballistic missile, or even intercepting a single low-flying propeller plane. Nor are there any bunkers with filtered air supplies for the inhabitants of our glass cities or crackerbox suburbs. The only civil defense in the US is for the President and the bureaucrats under Iron Mountain. Everyone else is nuclear fodder, except for those provident few (such as the Mormons) who built their own shelters to protect their families.

Switzerland does not send troops to intervene in other nations. Switzerland does not spend billions of dollars yearly to fund dictators around the world, nor did Switzerland donate hundreds of billions of dollars to the Warsaw Pact through bank "loans". Switzerland does not send billions of dollars worth of weaponry every year to the warring tribes in the Middle East. Switzerland has no enemies. Yet the Swiss are armed to the teeth and dug into every hill and under every building.

US policy is the mirror image of the Swiss. The US intervenes everywhere, spies on everyone, supports every faction in every dispute. We have as many enemies as there are disputatious people in the world. Yet we spend more effort on disarming our own airline pilots than on providing shelters for our children against nuclear, chemical, or biological attack. We have vast conventional armies for refighting W.W.II, vast numbers of nuclear weapons for murdering the populations of cities. But no defense for our children.

They didn't attack Switzerland.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Walker is a Research Associate at the Shay-Wright lab at UT Southwestern Medical Center.

:violin:


Mr.Radar. If you get of your Anarchest High Horse and listen for just one moment while you are in your nice soft cushion shair, maybe you will get a clue. Just becouse you have a degree, and a long education, doesnt mean that you have the right to say that the military is not needed for anything but Stateside Defence. If we cut the military to just strictly state side, the government would have to double on the constent training, and patroles in the US. This would make the US like in the book 1984. The military would run the government, and the police. Then it would be people like you say that the US is a Marxist Government and you would hate that and complain even more thaan you are now. You are, what was in the Novel 1984, an unperson. SO DEAL WITH IT!!!!!!:mad:
But that is only my opinion.

They didn't attack Switzerland because no one would have given a shit.

Page 4 news.

Oh, and another thing, this is just my opinion, its people like you,Radar, that cut back our stateside defences agenst nucular attacks.:worried:

:thumb:

Thanks Wolf. I was thinking that.

Actually I'd have that right regardless of my education level. And it's the truth. You might want to break out a copy of the Constitution which defines and limits our military as solely for the defense of American soil. (not American's oil).

No, we wouldn't. We could close every single base outside of America and we'd still have enough people already stationed in America to DEFEND it effectively.

Enough of your paranoid delusions. Let's stick to reality. In the real world right now America has virtually no defense and the strongest offense on earth. Virtually anyone could sneak into America with a nuke and take out a small city. But rather than defending ourselves, we're out pissing everyone off and making enemies that might want to sneak into America with a nuke.

You are what is known in the reality of 2004 as an idiot. SO DEAL WITH IT!!!

You and your ilk are the reason we were attacked on September 11th in the first place. And WE DON'T HAVE A NUCLEAR DEFENSE. Reagan spent a trillion dollars on "star wars" and never got even a prototype of a missile defense system.

Now if we were to close every military base outside of America and train and use our military for DEFENSE rather than offense (And please lame enough to use the stupid and tired "The best defense is a good offense" bullshit line), America would be much safer. And if we used only a small part of the currently bloated military budget, we might actually be able to build a nuclear missile defense system.

People like you, who support a large and imperialistic military force are the ones who are endangering America, placing a huge financial burden on Americans (who could otherwise create jobs), and ensuring that America is hated throughout the world.

GET A CLUE!!!

The vast wealth of most world leaders is stored in Switzerland and nobody would have cared? That's laughable. Nobody attacks Switzerland because they'd get their asses handed to them and because unlike America, Switzerland has an actual defense against attacks from everything including nukes.

Money or not, Switzerland is not feared as a major world power.

Radar.....now lets talk like rational people. You have the belief that "I" am the couse of 9-11.(I ,meaning military people) I lost several freinds in the fire dept. I have been in the firefighting business for quite some time. But I can not, will not, let someone degrade OUR country like you have been doing. My reference to the Novel 1984, was of the essense(sp) of pointing out that there are some that are very Patriotic and is willing to die for there country. I am 3rd generation military. I am not an Imperialist, and according to the Constitution, that you pointed out, I have the right to speak my mind without ridicule. So lets stop the name calling, I am nothing but redneck with a simple mind and opinions. So please just sit back and understand that I am here for my beleifs that people should live a better life, rather than "serve" a man that lets his people starve in the streets.

But that is my opinion

Radar isn't going to change his position, just in case you were wondering. But he is excellent for honing your own arguments for other venues.

Oh, and Radar........DONT EVER TELL ANYONE THAT THEY ARE THE CAUSE OF 9-11-01!!!! YOU WERE NOT THERE TO SEE THE DEVISTATION!!!!!!!

Radar - I like the American Soil/Americans' Oil, thing, but I'm pretty sure the apostrophe goes after the s in this case.

wITH EVERY PEICE OF RUBLE REMOVED CAME A TEAR, WITH EVERY BODY FOUND CAME A PRAYER. tO SAY THAT i AM THE CAUSE OF 9-1101, IS A DISCRASE TO ANY MANE THAT SERVES THE COUNTRY "YOU" LIVE IN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now that is out of my system, I can be rational.
Thank you

This is just my opinion

Neither were most of these countries.
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/history/wwii/etomap1.gif

I have to be the man here, and appoligise to all concerned for my inconsiterate responses to Radar. I understand that he feels that he is right, and I am the mindless military person here, but I hope that all will be resolved, and we all can get on the right track. I do admire his pationate argument though. But, I still believe he is wrong in his views, but at the same time right in some ways. Radar, you just sit back and hope for the Utopia(sp?)That you so much want, then put reality in in prospective, and when you wake up the next morning, which one do you wake up to see? I donnot support Imperialistic values, thats Marxists. You are the type of person that burns the flags, arent you. Are you the leader of the an Anti- American, Anarchist Group? If you dont like the country you live in, move.

That my opinion

Yes, very rational. I don't think you personally helped the terrorists, but those who believe America should have our military spread out all over the globe like the Roman Empire in a show of force to bully other people around, act as the world's police, and be the UN's "enforcer" are indirectly responsible. It is thier ignorance that caused the hatred of the United States in the first place. And if our mlitary had been defending the United States instead of pissing off these nations, the September 11th attacks never would have happened.

Do I think those who died that day deserved it? Not at all. It was a senseless tragedy that could have been avoided if we had only minded our own business and defended our own country.

Do I think those who did it should be attacked by us? Of course. But Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, nor did they plan with, train, support, those who did. 17 of the 19 terrorists who attacked that day were from Saudi Arabia and the others were Egyptian. Were Egypt and Saudi Arabia attacked in retaliation? No. Instead we attacked a sovereign nation that had nothing to do with it because Bush has a personal vendetta against their leader. But hey, 500+ American lives are nothing right? More than 500 Americans have died because George W. Bush alone started an unprovoked war against a non-threat.

I would change my position, but I see no reason to do so when I'm right. If I were to change it, I would be wrong.

Duly noted.


BTW Fireman, I served in the US Military.

I don't believe in Utopia. My solutions work in the real world around us that we wake up to right now. We don't need a Utopia for them to work.

Imperialism is entirely different than Marxism. Imperialism is the belief that one country should run other countries. Marxism is the beleif that the means of production should be owned by the state and everyone should make the same amount of money regardless of how much they produce. (Well there's a lot more to Marxism, but that's it in a nutshell)

One can be a Marxist but not an imperialist and one can be an imperialist but not a Marxist. England is a nation of imperialists. They had a large Empire. Perhaps you're familiar with the phrase, "The sun never sets on the British Empire". America was created to escape from Imperialism (The British Empire) and now, thanks to the likes of George W. Bush, we're practicing it.

If you had read the writings of the founding fathers, you'd know that America was created to secure individual liberty and that we wanted to people to keep our government in check through the Constitution.

No, I am not. But unlike you, I recognize the fact that one of the things the American flag stands for is the freedom to burn American flags.

No, I'm a leader of a very pro-American political party that is minarchistic. We want a small, efficient, and cheap government that only does what is specifically listed in the Constitution. Just like Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, etc.

I love my country very much and I've sworn an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. And the greatest danger to it right now is domestic. In fact it's in the oval office.

In the words of Edward Abbey, "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government."

Unlike the fools who think the measure of patriotism is in how many flags they can stick to their pickup truck, I am a true American patriot. And patriots have always questioned authority and the motives of government. You on the other hand are not a patriot. You are a nationalist. You are the type who wraps himself up in the flag and says stupid things like, "My Country Right or Wrong"

Then Radar, you did see the wall painting that were dated "1994" ont the walls of the Terrerist camps. One know the ones, here at the airport, of the two planes crashing into buildings. I have lost 36 friends here. So to answer your question, another 500 is ok? NO. When my father came back from war he was beaten down by "peace" activists. You are only 7 months oldr than I, so we may have eaten the same dirt.(ie;Kuwait,Somolia,Panama,and so on.) I am not mad at you personally, just some of your views. Let me tell you about some things, my weapon, is a fire hose, an air pack, a medic bag, and fear of loss of life. I will forever be in the debt of those who did not make it alive, yes, their loss was dredfull, and I will NEVER forget them. I do not feel that Bush had a personnal vendetta.
But when I see what this country,here has gone through, and seen how their so called leader was living, it makes me sick. I just wish that you can see what I see here. Maybe someday, you and I can see eachothers veiws and agree to disagree.

Well, Radar. I guess you are the one on top of it all. Like I said before, I am a simple redneck. And no I do not drive a pick-up truck with flags all over it. I was raised to believe in my country. My heart is in my country. The questions that I asked, were retoricle. I love my country, I believe in government. I beleive in Americans. The only flags that I own are in shadow boxes of my diseased family members, and on my Scout leader uniforms. I own a little station wagon to haul my children off to school in. No steritypical red neck here. I do beleive in freedom for all men, and to be created equal under god. If you want to treat me like some idiot off the streets, fine, I can take it. But my views are my views, but like I said before, I agree with some of what you are saying, but , you cannot force people to beleive in what you say is right. Our for-father had once wanted us to be able to hole our own, then later, I guess it became more of a lets share the wealth of freedom around the world. I just feel that when one person down grades a military person for doing what he/she believes in, I take it personally. I do appoligise for the mix up of the Marxist and the Imperialist. Thank you for your time.

Thats just my opinion

If that really was your position, then you were appauled if not outrightly angery that Reagan attacked Muslims in Lebanon first with A-6s and then with the USS New Jersey. Basic historical education says that premature use of military force only compromises US positions throughout that entire part of the world AND makes Americans a target of terrorism. Radar has accurately demonstrated same having first learned history.

In days before the 250+ Marines were attacked in Beriut, Americans could walk among all combatants because, like the Swiss, we were honest brokers. Only those who read Daily News or don't read news at all did not understand this. Some shameful aspects of American history are when we choose, like extremist militants, to solve problems only because we preceived a great threat that never existed. VietNam is the classic example of shameful military policy only because we 'feared' before we 'understood'.

By admission, you are not a great student of history. You see enemies on our borders if we don't maintain a military larger than the entire world combined. That being a fact you had better understood. Our military is larger than the entire world combined. This militaristic mentality has long through history resulted in unjustified wars and a long term destruction of the domestic economy. One must first learn from history before one can recognize any threat to this nation.

Learn American history if only from one book: The Pentagon Papers. Long before one sees any threat, one should have learned from this history. Thank goodness for one of America's greatest patriots who got these lessons of history to us. We spent massive force and American lives only because extremist militants saw enemies throughout SE Asia. Reailty was that the enemy, instead, wanted to be a protectorate of the United States. Reread that sentence. Why then did we attack someone who so want to so be us as to .... even write a Declaration of Independence that was a copy of the US Declaration of Independence. Do you know this history or do you think the war in VietNam was justified - to protect American borders?

Radar has accurately defined the good and evil in American history. So important that, after VietNam, military officers were expected to be well educated in such history. To learn the bigger picture so that military force is only a last option. Unfortunately, we are right back to pre VietNam war days when the extremists among us again see enemies everywhere. Enemies that just don't exist except when when inspire them in boondoogles such as the unjustified invasion of Iraq.

Concepts are even well defined in Sun Tzu's Art of War - a book one should familiar before one cites a need for more military. Lessons taught in 500 BC. IOW those without the extensive lessons of history are doom to repeat it. Firemen only advocates reasons that caused the WTC attack. Osama bin Laden and the Muslim Brotherhood had little interest in attacknig the US - that is until we lied. Fireman then uses the WTC attack to justify war against others. That and such an exceesively large military will only undermine American strength and American popularity throughout the world. More important - we must first be an honest broker as we were in the Balkans.

Before America became an extremist nation that would attack anyone - Americans were welcome virtually everywhere. This despite what extremists will tell you. Today, American popularity is sharply down - only because the current administration would even advocate an attack on mainland China - over a silly spy plane. Again, the lessons of history. Only an extremist would see the China spy plane incident as a reason for war between nations. And yet that is what this administration - that needs more military - advocated. We almost went to war over something as silly as a spy plane. No wonder American popularity has dropped by factors such as *7 times* in only three years. No wonder this president is considered a mental midget throughout the world. Those who spend time drinking and doing drugs should instead have been learning the lessons of history. Six months training from Conny Rice is not sufficient.

TW.....Let me see if I have what you are saying is correct. (me being an idiotic redneck,as pointed out by Radar) Because the US has a military, is the right for somone to attack us? When I said that I am here for my beleifs that people shoudl live a better life, rather than serve a man that lets his peaople starve ing ther streets. I ment from what I have seen here in Iraq. I see all the beutiful Palaces, then I see shanties and people living in old train boxes, thats what I was saying. Lebanon, I was a mear teen still trying to make the first cut for the football season, and worried about getting my drivers license. Look. I know that all here are all blessed with the knowlage of the universe, but we are all on the same planet, some choose to hate certain people, some just want to go on and do what life has in store for them. Lets cut to the chase. Dont blame a military man/woman for serving in the military, its our constitutional right to choose to do so, its the rights of others to be Lawers, Doctors, Policemen, Polititions.
I agree to disagree. Agreed?

"On ne peut prévoir les choses qu'après qu'elles sont arrivées" Eugène Ionesco. (free translation : One can only predict actions after they happened)
"It is better to be vaguely right than precisely wrong" John Keynes.

I'm glad USA came over in WWII. I think Constitution could be wrong. Would it be the same if it would be written today or in 250 years? I don't want to be the man who has to take the decision to send people to war. I think that such a wealthy and strong country with the Constitution it has, has some moral obligations to let the world go nuts.

I'm not judging anyone's opinion, I just want to give some points of reflection...

Pi. I agree. After "discussing" several different views with Radar, which he does put up several fair arguments(sp) for which I commend him of his ideas. I feel after several lines of lines of arguments, that we are all proud americans. After WWII, my grandfather and uncles visited the beaches that they stormed for one last time, they felt that what they did was good, but because of the losses, they felt terrible. I feel the same way.

It takes a very twisted mind indeed to stare Nazism in the face and say that neutrality was the correct position.

Or that the other countries were taken because they were NOT neutral.

Or that Switzerland forged its identity and position through careful judgement and not because it had centuries of experience building a strategic defense of its mountainous landscape.

Or that Switzerland would have lasted two weeks after the rest of Europe had been taken.

Or that the US, the most wealthy country on the earth, trading for resources in every deep corner, can manage its trade -- and thus its continued economic growth -- without protection of the systems that permit that trade. (I think DeSoto's "The Mystery of Capital" explains why free trade requires such protection.)

Or that the most wealthy and powerful nation on earth would never be a target merely for the sake of its power and wealth.

You know folks.....it just occured to me that we got off the main subject. But all in all, Radar, Pi, Monkey,Undertoad, I think that we can all agree together that war is a bad thing, right?
Radar, I see some of your veiws as very thought through, ie;not speading our military out all over the world, this I agree with. But do not blame a military member for serving in the military, someone once said, when this all started, Support the Troops, but not the cause. I think it was an actress, I dont know I dont watch TV very much, I dont even know how to turn it on(red neck you know)

Semper Princeps

Now you have completely misquoted and misrepresented what I said. A great nation shows restrain. People starving in the street is sometimes important for a nation to become adults. Worst thing the US could do is try to solve starvation by military action. Emotional will not like it. But the hard nosed realist (an enemy of liberals and extremist conservatives) has long learned that things must get worse before the local people will decide to solve their own problems.

First, the problem must be solved by the local powers. Then by the UN. To walk in like a big bully and demand solutions - be it between nations or between persons - simply never solves the problem. But even worse, the big bully- the 800 pound gorilla - too often will resort to power before letting smarter negotiators solve the problem.

Iraq was a classic example. Problem was responsiblity of local powers actually threatened by Iraq - Kuwait, Turkey, Saudia Arabia, Jordan, and Iran. None - nada - saw any threat and said so because there was no threat. And yet we had to stumble in and protect them from themselves. Now we are paying the price. No smoking gun means no justification for war.

One need only learn that mistake in Somolia. We were stupid and fortunately got out before we got too deep in shit.

Bosnia and Kosovo demonstrate how to solve world problems. First it was Europe's and the UN's problem. Second, the solution would not work until numerous locals died. That applies everywhere. Only after enough had died (and I feared he was going in too early) and only after the local power proved to be incapable; only then did Clinton move into and solve the Balkans. Balkans demonstrate how smart people solve problems - military being only the last option - which is why the locals did not attack US troops (as in Iraq).

You are in the military. My restraint means I (and Radar) am your best friend especially having learned from Nam. You are to be deployed only when you can be effective. When our wealth is spent to good purpose. And when the action does not make us enemies of everyone. Not enought people died in Iraq to justify an American involvement.

There must be a smoking gun before America is threatened. IOW yes, many must die before war is justified. That also is the lessons of history. Smoking guns included Pearl Harbor, WTC, and Korea. There was no smoking gun in Somolia or Iraq. There was no threat even to local nations in that region. Unlike Afghanistan, we know there is no justification for US in Iraq.

I don't care if some live in shanties and others in mansions. That is not America's problem. It is a domestic or regional problem. In the meantime, people are living in shanties - without even a glass window - in W Virginia. Should we attack W Virginia - or seek an intelligent solution?

People living in shanties is a classic (and therefore naive) reason for justificaton of war? A reason that only the emotional would use. Sorry but the shanty comment must be replied to in the context it was posted - silly emotional reasoning must be blunty attacked. Shanties do not justify risking your life anywhere in the world - especially when the solution is found in diplomacy.

What the world needs is a smaller US military so that local powers take more action to solve their own problems. Other nations downsize because the US will pay for their protection. This is will continue because the US has too much military and gets involves (sometimes) too early. And yet that mistake is what an extremist military solution advocates. Fortunately places such as Sierra Leone did not have US involvement. Therefore the local powers solved the problem. Again lessons of history.

Iraq was only a local problem. We now know the local powers were correct. Saddam was a threat to no one. Too many shanty towns? That is a regional problem - not an American problem. Now we have major American economic problems because we decided (stupidly) again to be the world's policeman. Only enemies of American send American troops to solve all world problems.

Lets keep this straight. Your post implies you were personally insulted. You were not. Posted from Radar is what you want your leaders to do before you are deployed anywhere. So don't get emotional - and therefore misunderstand what is posted. Justifying the invasion of Iraq because of shanty towns is a very irresponsible and illogical response. Americans are intelligent when they don't try to solve all the world's problems - and instead let the locals eventually solve those problems. And yes, that means enough locals must die so that they never make those mistakes again.

Long before we attacked Iraq, we instead should have been going after Osama bin Laden AND let the 'powers that be' solve the silly Iraq distraction. Instead we let the French and Germans go look for bin Laden. More irresponsible use of US troops. This president let bin Laden run free - in part because he wanted to fix the world starting with Iraq.

America is attacked if we too quickly and to often resort to a military response. How often are the Bosnians, Serbs, and Croatians attacking US troops? Holbrook properly demonstrated how and when to use a military - only as a last resort. Attacking Iraq only made the US a target of terrorist - and let Osama bin Laden run free.

TW. Thank you for the most logical reasoning I have read so far. The shantie thing, is a personnal observation, I shouldnt have used it in that way. But I do agree with alot of what you said, now it make sence, the idea of "curving" toward Iraq is kind of a sketchy idea for the US to make. You are right with that.
As for my wealth to be spread for a perpose, I feel I have been a well used insterment here, (Firefighter,Medic) But I still disagree with the idea that we shouldnt do cirtain deployments, I was on Dagger Base in Mukaditu,Samolia. I was very young, my 2nd deployment, and after reading in on why we were there, I still dont understand, but I will have to say that what little help we did there,(I do mean little) was needed. Do I think that my high school friend Roscoe , should have died, no. But he beleived in what he was doing was good. We as the military can only know whats being told to us, and you folks back in the states, can only see what the media is putting out. With this note, I agree with several of your points, and I disagree with some. I do, however,
thank yo for your support.

Semper Princeps

Were I still in the military and ordered to invade Iraq, I would know it was an unconstitutional order and would refuse even if it meant facing a court marshal or time in jail. I would know I did the right thing and upheld my oath.

Let's not forget the Nazis said they were "only following orders" too and they had a much stronger history and culture for following orders blindly than do Americans.

Saying you were just "following orders" is an attempt to avoid taking responsibility for your own actions. And in the end, regardless of what you're told to do or what orders you have, you alone decide whether or not to do it and therefore you are responsible for your actions.

Let's say you're in the marines and ordered to mow down a bunch of school kids by an insane superior officer. Would you do it? I certainly wouldn't. I would know that order was unlawful and refuse to comply just as I would have refused the unlawful order to invade Iraq.

You are right, and with this I agree.

Despite all that is said politically, constitutionally, and due to direct orders; there remains one unwritten rule that dominates. Protect your buddies. At the grunt level, that remains the most essential objective.