For all you Michael Moore fans out there...

[vegita1220]

on the contrary room. Mike Moore is NOT an idiot. He's a fricking genius who makes movies passed off as documentaries for the idiots out there who all just eat it up.

For another, I think you need to have some level of trust in our government. If you truly belive any man this country could elect for President is capable of lying in order to fight solely for economic advantages...well, then our country is just Fed up.

And lowslow, if you think Bush was worried that Saddam would send a missile to us, you're stupider than I thought. Just imagine how fricking easy it would have been for Hussein to sell WMD, then have the terrorists load it up on a large container ship, float it up New York Harbor, and detonate the thing? Or hijack a LNG tanker and sail THAT into NYC and blow that up-it's a mininuke right there? But a quick common sense summary: Hussein had WMD, not all WMD was accounted for, UN inspectors were driven out(you know that was one of the surrender clauses for the Iraqis back in '91 right? So we technically could've invaded them then...and perhaps should have), and Hussein was free to make more WMD and do whatever he wanted with it. And did we have the intel to guarantee he couldn't get it out, and to account for the missing WMD? Guess not. Could we have asked him nicely to tell us if he didn't want America's foot FLYING up his ass? Probably wouldn't have worked. So we invaded and free the Iraqi people in the process. We'll see how this goes long-term, but as far as coming up with a direct solution to settling the Hussein WMD issue, that was it.

Our unit got a SurfWar briefing from the CO and JOs of USS Ramage, a DDG...it honestly woke me up to realize how many people out there are trying to pull a fast one on us every single day...

 

[DBLang]

lowslow
Mr.Moore was drawing parallels between the shooting at Columbine and a war that was aimed at and accomplished ending the slaughter of thousands of innocent people.

 

[kimphil]

Let's get this straight. We did not invade Iraq because of WMDs. Paul Wolfewitz admitted as much to Congress. WMD was the rationale given, something that all parties that supported regime change could agree on. They're were a variety of reasons to invade Iraq. This surrender monkey will even admit that some of the reasons were legit. The problem is while there were good reasons to invade Iraq, they're weren't any compelling reason to do so. So the administration went on a PR campaign to make us believe that Saddam was an "imminent threat." Contrary to the opinions expressed here, that campaign worked (70 percent of Americans believed that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks).

However, the legit reasons weren't used to sell the War to the American people. Furthermore, selling a war to the public by lying to the public isn't politics, its a lie. That's the same arrogance that got us involved in the Vietnam War. After the "end of major operations" it's becoming clear that more than one lie was fed to Congress and the public.

 

[bunk22]

Originally posted by kimphil
Let's get this straight. We did not invade Iraq because of WMDs. Paul Wolfewitz admitted as much to Congress. WMD was the rationale given, something that all parties that supported regime change could agree on. They're were a variety of reasons to invade Iraq. This surrender monkey will even admit that some of the reasons were legit.

However, those reasons weren't used to sell the War to the American people. Furthermore, selling a war to the public by lying to the public isn't politics, its a lie. That's the same arrogance that got us involved in the Vietnam War. After the "end of major operations" it's becoming clear that more than one lie was fed to Congress and the public.

I'm just curious Kimphil, what lie(s) are you referring to? Are they outright lies meant to deceive or was it info that was exaggerated or was intell info misinterprated? I agree that this war was fought for more than the threat of WMD. The war with Iraq really never ended. Remember OSW and ONW? Remember the many days of bombardment agains military facilities over the last 10 years? Remember how many times US aircraft were fired on and put in jeopardy? The capability of producing WMD was a point of it though. Not the direct threat against the US but the threat of providing any such weapon to a terrorist organization. Indirect warfare if you will. Iraq was a part of the war on terror. That's what our troops are doing now, fighting terrorist. They've done their job and carried the fight to the enemy so it's not fought in our homeland (we have enough crap to worry about here anyway). The CIC has stuck to his guns, believes in this cause and seems to be willing to risk his second term for what he feels is right for America. That's leadership, whether popular or not. I respect that and back him 100% and that has nothing to do with the fact that I'm an O-4 flying for the US Navy. Just my take on it.

 

[paikea]

Originally posted by riley mcconnell
I just hope in 8 years "low slow n dumb" may change to be "low slow and i now think things through all the way before I post stupid comments on a site"

Well, that's all what a forum basically is, a place to post stupid comments on a fu<kin' website. Something so insignificant that it really boggles my mind that you took all that time to prove me wrong on a stupid point about a fat guy who made some movies and books.

 

[Fly Navy]

I'm going to thank bunk, wink, and others for saying what I wanted to say. You beat me to it.

 

[EA-6B1]

I want to say that I think that this is going to wind up being one of those '10 pagers' thread.

 

[paikea]

Let's hope not. Kind of pointless ain't it?

 

[Banjo33]

I'm going to stay out of the political discussion....not my cup of tea. BUT, I've gotta ask! How can some of you look at yourselves in the mirror!? If I distrusted my government as much as some of you I KNOW I COULDN'T DO MY JOB PROPERLY! I would always be looking over my shoulder for the guy who was gonna screw me next! Ya know, on those six hour missions, you've got a lot of time to just sit and think, all alone. Half way through the flight I would be in a serious debate as to whether I should a. drop my bombs on target or b. punch out over some small little village and 'disappear' into the general population! Now, call me ignorant or classify me as 'another sheep in the flock', but I think I'm a better warrior than YOU because I have 100% faith that my government is going to take into account all of those minute little variables that are so important to you and me and my commanders are going to give me everything I need to accomplish my mission successfully and return home alive with the mission accomplished. I trust them, period. I would take a bullet for President Bush, I would have taken a bullet for President Clinton...he's my Commander in Chief elected by the majority, given the responsibility of representing my Country and forcing its will upon the world! I'm a trigger-puller! My CO tells me to go to Point A and deliver death and destruction, then by God, don't be there when I get there....I'm not asking questions, looking for the 'truth', or debating who's right/wrong or making the wrong decisions. To me, that stuff is just baggage...there to try and keep me from doing my job with total confidence.

You start second guessing your leadership and you become a drag. You bring down morale and noone wants to hang around you. You permeate 'negativity' and slip into a deep state of depression. One late night, while you are rimming your rack mate you realize you've hit rock bottom, slip into the head, and put a bullet into the back of your throat. I think you're a suicide risk and should be placed on 24 hour suicide watch! Leave politics to the politicians. If you want to be an aviator, then Christ, let's talk airplanes!!

 

[Fly Navy]

Hey boomer, take a look at the ones spouting the bull****. They aren't even in OCS yet.

 

[kimphil]

Originally posted by kevin
...unfortunately, prevention is not a sales point in front of congress, existing threat is. so the "lies" are a means to an end. welcome to politics.

Massaged intelligence sold to Congress and the American public constitutes a lie. However, there are specific examples.

Let's start with the rhetorical lies. My favorite, the sound bite where you see before Dick Cheney giving a speech before the war he says we know Saddam has WMDs and we know where they are. This was obvious BS.

Then there were the weeks before the war when the administration's favorite flavor was the evils of aluminum tubes. We were told repeatedly that the purchase of aluminum tubes by Iraq was for the use in enriching uranium. The truth turns out to be that the tubes were to be used for missiles (legally), but could possibly be used for enriching uranium.

The President was fond of repeatedly citing a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency that studied Iraq's atomic weapons program and found that before the first Gulf War, Iraq was six months away from building an nuclear weapon. Everyone accepted this as true until one day the someone at the (conservative) Washington Times called the IAEA and they denied ever writing such a report. Mysteriously, the President stopped mentioning the report.

Then there's the infamous mention of Iraq trying to acquire uranium yellowcake from Africa in the State of the Union address. When Joe Wilson contradicted the administration, first they refused to admit that the citation was false by explaining that although the CIA wouldn't vet the info, the British did (huh?) so it was true. Then finally George Tenet, the CIA director admitted responsiblity for letting the President cite the bad intel; Then Condeleeza Rice, his security advisor took blame; Then finally the President took responsibility. Reminds me of the scene in Spartacus where everyone claims to be Spartacus and everyone ends up being crucified by the Romans.

The administration also claimed that Iraqi oil would pay for the rebuilding of Iraq. How the administration came to this conclusion is a mystery. We know the deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfewitz received an intelligence assessment weeks before the War in Iraq that concluded that Iraq's oil infrastructure was too damaged to allow Iraq to pay for it's reconstruction anytime soon.

The adminstration has taken intelligence that is nuanced and spit it back out with absolute moral certitude (we know he has WMDs and we know where they are!). They've ignored evidence that contradicts the administration's plans (the revenues from Iraqi will pay for its reconstruction). And they've also set the bar so low in terms of bad intelligence not properly vetted is spoken by the President (Iraq was six months away from having a nuclear bomb). You wanted specifics, you got it.

Do I remember OSW and ONW? Yes I do. However, I remember them as operations to prevent Saddam from using aircraft to retaliate against the Kurds in the North and the Shia in the South. Not as fishing expeditions for WMDs.

Furthermore, Iraq was not a part of our war on terrorism, but it sure is now. And it's a joke to say that fighting the war in Iraq is taking the fight out of our backyard. Hmm, right now, terrorists are closing dow their satellite office in Omaha to book it back to the Middle East to attack our troops there. Not likely.

The CIC isn't risking his second term by sticking to his guns--he's already bet the farm on this war. Withdrawal from Iraq would be an admission that he was wrong and sink his reelection chances. There's no leadership in that.

After eight years of "Slick Willie" the President promised to call it straight. It's clear that just on the issue of the War alone, the President isn't telling us the real story.

 

[EA-6B1]

Just curious, Kimphill, what's your status as far as on your way to being an officer?

 

[Ryoukai]

Boomer, can you not see that blind faith is just as bad as a total lack of trust? That goes back to the post I made on the first page of this threat, neither extreme is good. If you just go along with everything you hear and never question it, in a respectful and well thought out manner, you've effectively stopped thinking. That, at least to me, is a truly scary thought.

 

[bunk22]

Guys, as we know arguing on the net is ghey at best. Kimphil does come across as very arrogant for a wanna-a-be. I've got more time in left turns than he has dreaming about wearing a flight suit. However, this thread is political in nature, not about his aptitude to become an effective officer, and he has some valid points. I'll hit on a few.

I've already spoke my mind on how I look at this situation. WMD's were not the major reason for going at it in Iraq but was definitely used to hype public support. Were out right lies committed? I don't believe so for the reasons stated before. Exaggerations of the truth without knowing all the details, maybe. There were WMD programs ready to go that may not have constituted weapons ready for use but at least now, they will ever be put into production. Maybe that would have been the better way to go for the "truth" but probably would not have gained the support. If the administration chose to completely make lies about WMD, well hell, pick the hill you want to die on. Spinning that one will prove to be a tough one.

As far as OSW and ONW, I understand what they were meant for but my question is what exactly transpired during the 10 years of that cat and mouse game? I never mentioned any relation between those operations and WMD. I knew of a few things that went on but because of my platform, I'm normally out of the loop. The moment I became part of this E-2 squadron, some of the intell briefs concerning the past ten years surprised me on Iraqi actions and assured me the CIC did the correct thing.

The war on terrorism has been carried to the middle east. It's on the news every night. I like to look on the good side of this situation in that since 9/11, there have been no attacks at home. The soldiers are doing the job of carrying the fight to the enemy, period. This probably was not the inital goal of the operation but has now become the focus.

It's easy being the fat guy in the stands screaming a the pro QB tellining him he sucks and is a bum when the going is rough for the team. The truth is the QB is still the pro, making the hard decisions based on what is given to him and the fat guy in the stands is the loser making the call without the playbook. The President is offering leadership, while not popular amongst many, it's effective in this officer's opinion. If you make it in the military Kimphil, you will eventually run into very, very poor leadership and once in a while very good leadership. You think you understand and know leadership now, just wait. The military will give you a very good education in the essentials on effective and bad (very bad in many cases) leadership.

One more thing, withdrawling from Iraq is not an option right now. That would be a victory for the terrorist. It would demonstrate a weakness that has been exposed since the early President Reagan years that when the going gets tough, we opt for the easy way out. There is no triumph without loss.

 

[Banjo33]

FlyNavy, yeah, I've noticed. Maybe their attitudes will change when they put on the uniform. Or, maybe they're the ones DORing at FAM-0 to be SuppOs.

UInavy, ya know, in most any other profession, being an Idealist is frowned upon. But, if you're military, you pretty much have to be. As a Marine, it's really not optional and is forced upon you whether you like it or not. I'm pretty sure the Navy and the rest of the services are the same (I've gotta wonder about the AirForce though). Although, maybe that is what stands out about Academy grads. Most that I have met aren't 'idealistic', I've always noticed that they think too much. I threw the rack mate part in to lighten the reaction of some of these guys a little.
Ryoukai, blind faith is such a harsh comment, but there really isn't another term for it is there? I was an enlisted grunt before an SNA and we DIDN'T question anything. If the Plt.Sgt. said jump, we DIDN'T ask how high, we jumped until he said stop. You DO NOT question orders. As an officer, you are giving orders. Yet, as an 1stLt/Ens/Lt/Col you are still getting your orders from somewhere else. Now, you can 'respectfully question' the orders given to you, but the only time this is an option is during the Planning Stage. Once you move into Execution, you shut your mouth, stop thinking about how you could've planned it better or why you shouldn't be there, and execute the mission 'with blind faith' knowing that your superior has taken the most precautions to ensure you return while at the same time giving you all the necessary tools to accomplish your mission. You've gotta understand that he's gonna have more information than you and that there are LOTS of things he can't share with you (need to know info, secret (read: protected) intelligence, etc). These things may serve to ease your mind, yet you'll probably never see them. Also understand that your chain of command doesn't want you dead. With that in mind, they're going to do everything in their power to ensure you come home. But, they also ensure you're going to accomplish your mission. In TBS, the SPCs try to screw with you by asking "which comes first: Mission Accomplishment or Troop Welfare?" Don't spout off Mission Accomplishment, because it's more complicated than that and it's not always the correct answer. Your leaders have had to ask themselves that question, probably every time they enter that 'Planning Stage', as will you when it's your turn. It's one thing keeping an open mind and trying to justify why you are executing a mission, but when that hinders your performance, the performance of your peers, or, God forbid, mission accomplishment,you have just become a liability and put EVERYONE at risk
and I would rather you call in sick that day.