Sunday, October 10, 2004

Questions from the Front Line...

This was emailed to me from one of the soldiers who (unfortunately) had to return from Afghanistan via Walter Reed Medical Center. I thought I'd pass it along...


"I'm confused

Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good... Bush
awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad...

Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good...
Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - bad...

Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...

Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists-
good... Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad...

Clinton bombs Chinese embassy - good...
Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad...

Clinton commits felonies while in office - good...
Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit - bad...

No mass graves found in Serbia - good...
No WMD found Iraq - bad...

Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good...
Economy on upswing under Bush - bad...

Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - good...
World Trade Centers fall under Bush - bad...

Clinton says Saddam has nukes - good...
Bush says Saddam has nukes - bad...

Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...

Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - good...
Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad...

Milosevic not yet convicted - good...
Saddam turned over for trial - bad...

Ahh, it's so confusing!"


29 comments:

riceburner147 said...

I am a helicopter fanatic, this is the famous Hind of Russian manufacture. WHat an amazing paint job. I was unaware that the Hind had been sold to US troops for our use. I wonder if its being used by other members of the coalition ?

Trivia: Do helicopters have wings ?
Can Helicopters "Glide" ?

Jericho Brown said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jericho Brown said...

"Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists-"

This statement alone shows the bias inherent to this entire argument. The Albanians here are construed as terrorists merely because they happen to be Muslim when it was the Serbs who were committing PUBLICLY KNOWN acts of genocide against the Albanians, unprovoked. When Clinton sent our troops over there it was known that we were doing it to stop "ethnic cleansing", a cleansed way of saying genocide. Fact is, we were taken to Iraq by W. specifically because they had weapons of mass destruction. Remember? I know that was fifteen reasons ago but it WAS the original reason. Actually, Bush Sr. could've stopped Saddam when he was committing genocide against the Kurds, but of course, he did nothing. And Clinton's not blameless either. He left the Rwandans to certain slaughter. So both sides have fucked up on the preventing genocide tip. But don't try to demean what Clinton did to stop slaughter, something that for once was actually admirable from either side. But we didn't go to Iraq to help the people. That wasn't a reason until the first six reasons were used up. You can't punch someone in the face and then tell them "That's for sleeping with my wife!" Followed by "I was in jail that night, I couldn't have fucked your wife! I have witnesses." "Oh yeah, well, it's cause you scare children." It just doesn't work that way. If Bush wanted to invade Iraq because Saddam was a homicidal dictator, America never would have given him the go ahead. As sad as that is, it's TRUE and you all know this. WE GAVE HIM THE GO AHEAD BECAUSE WE FEARED FOR OUR OWN SAFETY. As good as it is that Saddam is gone, we were still mislead into a war that's costing millions of dollars and thousands of lives. It can't be re-justified away.

Paul G. said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Paul G. said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ALa said...

Paul: I received an email yesturday with this message:

"Check out what some of our boys overseas did to their helicopter.
Some Afghan is probably freaking out right about now.
The story is: this very special Mi-24 helicopter is presently flying in Afghanistan, where it is no doubt causing quite a stir. God Bless the U.S.A."

...and three different views of the chopper.

I looked it up earlier today (because my email wouldn't let me save the picture to put it in the post) and found it on the 'Rangers -Operation Enduring Freedom' site:

http://www.ranger.org/rangerHistoryEnduringFreedom.html

So, there you go...you should know by now that I never blindly post anything (not saying you are wrong -or right -I don't know). I have never used something falsely to attempt to sway people's minds...it's a shame you can't say the same for your party.

Paul G. said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ALa said...

Paul: why are you being such an a-hole? I didn't say I didn't believe you...I am not an intelligence expert and wouldn't know a Hungarian chopper from a Ugandan one. Being a part of the Intelligence community may have made you a humor-less cynical person, but I am not like that. If I see somthing on a Ranger site I will never assume it is fake...I will always assume that it is real -and it's fine if it's proved otherwise --Personally, I don't think its all that important...it's a helicopter -not the atomic bomb. It was a cool picture -I thought the art work was incredible and thought I'd post it. I would have still posted it even if it said "this sits in a junkyard in Bermuda". I can only hope that I never become as cynical and untrusting and grumpy as you. I'll stick with my 'rose-colored glasses' (that's the term of the week right) thank you ...I like them and they make me a happier person and a better mom...

Paul G. said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ALa said...

EVERYONE: Though the US Ranger website says that the posted 'bird helicopter' picture was a 'warbird flying in Afghanistan' Paul says that it is not. I defer to his vast knowldge of Hungarian helicopters and hope that you will all forgive me for falling prey to an evil internet hoax that will somehow make people think that this bird is in Afghanistan and make them all vote for George W. Bush --forget the fact that Paul didn't give half this attention to the fact that Dan Rather knowingly used fake documents to change the direction of an election in the United States of America --this is about my sins, not his...

Paul G. said...

Fine your choice look stupid, I'll remove my posts and sleep sound in the knowledge that facts will never persuade you.

MrMalcolm said...

Paul,
Ala was nice to you and explained the source from which she received the picture and comment. Why don't you just leave it alone? And I going to have to bitch slap you all the way from here? Now behave or be gone.

ALa said...

I said I was deferring...what more do you want?

MississippiMuddCat said...

Paul,
You're all wrong about that copter and Ala is right. I was in Afghanistan at the time so I can verify how this all come down cause I seen it with my own eyes.

The Russian Hind copter in the picture is one of 28 just like it that we own, you see Paul. Two of them are in air shows, one in Europe shown off by them Hungarians and one in the U.S shown by Rangers. They got painted up like that by a former Ranger, great American and a gifted artist, retired Major General Earl Scheib.

There is a special Ranger unit trained to send out false information to web sites such as Snopes and Factcheck and sometimes just ouright lie. They want to keep people with intelligence community connections from figuring it all out and running their mouths off, know what I mean? Huh? In the meantime, them other 26 Hinds is wiping the desert up with them camel jockeys of the Taliban. You ought to see 26 of them damn thangs swoop down on a camel jockey with a machete. Whooee! There aint nothing left but teeth and hair, know what I mean?

They's busy a whacking the Taliban. Or is it banning the Tallywhackers? Oh hell, I forget but you know what I mean don't you?

I probably shouldn't have told anybody about this so kinda keep it to yourself, OK? Know what I mean Paul? Huh?

Jorgesyerdaddy said...

Paul,
Oh God, I just love it when you get bitchy! It turns me on like you wouldn't believe!

Paul G. said...

MississippiMuddCat says it's true those are US Rangers wearing Hungarian uniforms in front of a US helicopter with Hungarian markings. Who am I to argue?

Oh and I see he brought Jorge with him again - Hey look I know when I'm beat, you guys don't need to go get the rest of the SA, I'll go quietly.

Paul G. said...

Ala71,

I can't stay quiet when I have proof -

Your pictures were taken at an Italian Airshow on August 11th or 12th 2001. The same 3 pictures you have and three more.

Why is it important? Some of the emails being circulated contain false information from the Kuran that Alla will destroy them with a Hawk.
This isn't good when it gets into the hands of Moslem's and being the kind of pass it around gung ho stuff it is, it will.
It also represents a false image to our own people.

As for your Dan Rather reference - I never participated in that fiasco one way or the other, it was a job for the experts. I guess this was to.

free0352 said...

I must admit, I was in Afganistan in 2001, and I sure didn't see that helo. Of course that was almost three years ago, so what the hell do I know? that bird is a russian made MI-24. We wouldn't use one, but the Afgans might have a few they managed to get running.

Jerhico,
One of the benifits of being a Marine is living on ship as part of a Marine Expeditionary unit. Your job in one of those is to go to pretty much every hot spot on Earth. In mid 1999 I was part of the MEU who releaved the initial Marine Forces (a meu from 8th Marines.)who landed in Kosovo as part of the NATO forces in theater.
It was kind of a nice mission because we got to drive across Grece and Macidonia, very pretty places. It also kind of sucked because when we got to Kosovo we had to push the Serbs (who suposedly were done fighting, not.)across the boarder and disarm a very upset KLA. While the Serbs were definately scum bags, it is a common misconception that the ethnic Kosovars and ethnic Albanians were pure as the driven snow. People in that little nook of the world have been killing each other for so long, they really don't know any other way. Terrorism and gurilla warfare are a way of life there. So I guess my point is, just because they ARE Muslem doesn't make them innocent ethier. My experiance was that both sides were very screwed up people, and I often wondered why leting them kill each other wasn't a good idea.

Jericho Brown said...

FREE: I don't quibble with your characterization of the ethnic tensions in the Baltics. I researched the subject thoroughly for my senior thesis in college. And you're right, at one time the Albanians were the aggressors and the Serbs were victimized. But when the entire region was united and became Yugoslavia, many of that was thought to have been laid to rest, with Serbs and Kosovars and Croats and Albanians living side by side in peace. Then Milosovic came into power. He was behind a nationalist Serb resurgency, much in the same way Hitler began a German nationalist resurgency. And just as Hitler didn't make any secret of his plans by passing public laws that specifically targeted Jews, Milosovic did the same against all non-Serbs, specifically Muslims. I would not for a second defend the Albanians just because they're Muslim. That really has nothing to do with it, to be honest. I could give a shit if they were Buddhists or Zoroastrians. My issue is with any institutionalized genocide and that America, as the most powerful nation in the world, has a duty to step in when innocent people are being slaughtered merely for their ethnicity or religious beliefs or whatever subjective reason psychopaths can come up with.

So to sum up, my original point was that saying Clinton bombed "Christian Serbs" on behalf of "Muslim Albanian terrorists" is straight bullshit. Muslim does not always equal terrorist. And some times, believe it or not, a person can be Muslim and ALSO a victim. You guys know this.

Aunt Bitchy said...

Testing...Testing 1,2,3
ALA: I can now comment to the ridiculously redundant, "I want my cake and eat it too", LIBERALS on this page...bet all of them live in the Suburbs too!

free0352 said...

Jericho said
"My issue is with any institutionalized genocide and that America, as the most powerful nation in the world, has a duty to step in when innocent people are being slaughtered merely for their ethnicity or religious beliefs or whatever subjective reason psychopaths can come up with."

I agree with you completely. Hence my support for the war in Iraq. We all know only genocide could describe Sadam's treatment of the Kurds, Shiites, and Marsh Arabs. Further, if he could have figured a way to do it, he'd have killed every Jew on earth, and a good deal of Westerners too for that matter.

My impression when I was in Kosovo and later Bosnia, was that the Yugoslav government held the ethnic conflict in check with an iron communist fist. And like many other newly formed nations after communisms fall, those old ethinic hatreds boiled up in nationalist fanatisim after the fall. in short, they just went back to killing each other. Once again the UN was pretty useless. It took NATO to step in and finally stabalise the situation. We STILL have limited troop involvement in the region (fun fact-Haliburton administers all the bases there)

As much as I can't stand Clinton, he was right to back NATO, though it didn't make sense to me at the time. I was 19 and didn't grasp how events acoss the globe could affect the US (SEP 11 edjucated me otherwise, I changed my isolationist tune 180 degrees)

Fun Fact-Clinton spent something like 55 billion dollars on the war there, no one complained?

So my point is Jerhico....you're right

ALa said...

Welcome aboard Aunt Bitchy (LOL)....It's about time!

Jericho Brown said...

Free: Surely you know I'm gasping for breath right now with your admission that I'm... can I even say it?...RIGHT? But your reply has also really crystallized something in my mind that I hadn't thought about until I read your last posting. Back when Clinton FINALLY decided to take military action against Milosevic, all these hippies were completely up in arms that the U.S. was "attacking" a sovereign nation. I can't tell you how angry this made me at these so-called "liberals" and, as ALa likes to point out, their humanitarian liberal beliefs. These people didn't give a shit about innocent people being rounded up and murdered, including children, women being taken to rape centers, whose only purpose was to systematically rape these women and therefore water down their genes. It was appalling. And yet, the hippies were still out there in the streets of my sleepy college town protesting. And they had a peculiar ally back then. It was Republicans who, for the most part, didn't want to take part in "policing" the world. Of course, like you have admitted to (and I applaud your honesty and bravery in doing so), the Republicans have realized (also for the most part) that in a global society, which the world is fast becoming, that kind of injustice eventually directly effects us. It's just too bad that it took 9/11 for the majority of Americans to realize this. So in that way I am very happy with the long-distance outcome of 9/11. I think Americans are far less likely to stand idley by and turn a blind eye to such outrageous acts of barbarism ANYWHERE in the world. It was unprecedented this last motnh or two when Colin Powell came right out and said that genocide was occurring in the Sudan. For our country to that willingly call it like it is instead of dragging feet and saying they haven't seen all the facts (which is what Bush I's administration did in Iraq during Kurd genocide) is, like I said, a giant step toward coming closer to the side of right. But there's an exception that I take with what is going on in Iraq now.

I think you'll agree that after 9/11 we were immediately plunged into a necessary war on terrorism. EVERYONE, every country, was a possible suspect. But instead of attempting to find out who was really behind these kinds of activities, Bush and his cronies specifically sought out Iraq and Saddam Hussein. The problem with their evidence was that they named an initial suspect and then tried to make the evidence fit their suspicians. Of course, we all know now that it didn't pan out that way. Iraq ended up being a giant diversion from ACTUAL immediate threats to America. Iran, North Korea, even Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. And now there aren't enough troops in Iraq to get the job done, which of course means that there aren't enough troops to send to regions that most likely have burgeoning terrorist activity like the above-mentioned countries. This is why I am so anti-Bush. There is no other reason. He hot-headedly went after Saddam for whatever reasons he said (to many to list here) and left actual, non-neutralized threats to continue festering. Saddam was already under our thumbs when we attacked him. Even if he was only grudgingly allowing the UN inspections, they were still working because, as we all know definitively now, he had NO WEAPONS. And just as importantly, he was not actively committing genocide. The last cases of that were in the late-80's. Yes, he was an evil man, a bad man. And if there was no war on terror I'd be all for him being taken out. But there is a war on terror. And now W. has created another hot-bed for terrorist activity, therefore making it harder for you guys, soldiers such as yourself Free, to get the job done.

I can not imagine any better or more honorable duty for a soldier than to join a conflict for the good of human beings who otherwise would have no quarter, who would be faceless, nameless and voiceless if not for the valiant efforts of men who are putting their own lives in harm's way to fight a valiant fight for RIGHT. This is why the WWII generation is considered the greatest generation. They faced a certain, immediate evil and in the face of innumerable odds, faced it down and saved the world, for all intents and purposes. American soldiers today have that same opportunity. But because of W's screw-ups, they are going to have one hell of a time doing it in Iraq, where it's nearly impossible to tell friend from foe. My gratitude goes out to you guys, Free. I hope you never feel like I or anyone else who voices displeasure with Bush are against you because nothing could be farther from the truth. I think you guys are true heroes in ever sense of the word. Which makes me that much angrier that Bush and his cronies have misused you so egregiously.

ALa said...

Just for the record --I have never been against policing the world...I was for going into Bosnia/Kosovo from the begining (it was the one honorable ting Clinton did)...I am for going into Sudan right now...and Iran, and N. Korea, and Syria.....I truly do believe that freedom will be the only thing that ultimately kills terrorism.

Jericho Brown said...

ALa said: "Just for the record --I have never been against policing the world...I was for going into Bosnia/Kosovo from the begining (it was the one honorable ting Clinton did)...I am for going into Sudan right now...and Iran, and N. Korea, and Syria.....I truly do believe that freedom will be the only thing that ultimately kills terrorism."

If that is the case, then why did you vote for W. in 2000, when he campaigned on a platform that was specifically against "nation-building." He was of the very Republican mind-set that I spoke of in my last posting.

Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files said...

Policing the world can be a reasonable byproduct of defending America. When there is no America-defending interest involved it's a reasonable position to be against nation-building there, but if we go in to neutralize a threat, setting aside for the moment how reliable the reports of that threat turned out to be, nation-building as a follow-up action can be the thing to do, especially when the target nation is at risk of being taken over by terrorists if we just abandon it.

Just out of curiosity, what would be the nuanced "for it but against it" Kerry response to this question?

free0352 said...

Jerhico

I'll freely admit prior to 9/11 I wasn't even a Republican, I was a Liberatarian. I certrainly didn't support forign intanglements. What brought me over to Bush and common sense was his speach post 9/11, the Axis of Evil "Your with us or against us." speech.Thats when Bush did a 180 himself. He was all against "nation building" untill then. He changed his mind. Up untill then I thought he was a hick moron much like I'm sure you feel about him. After that I was sold on his war stratagy. I've never maintained he can do no wrong, but he's the best thing going far as I'm concerned.

Afganistan was of course the most logical first step in this war, due to it being al'Q heaven. Using the Northern Alience was a brilliant idea dispite what Kerry says. The task of getting our heavy infantry forces on the ground there was not impossible, but horribly difficult. Fear was, our light forces (Like mine)who could get in rapidly would meet with the same fate as the USSR in 79'. No direct land routs except through Pakistan (with sympathetic al'Q just waiting to hit our units moving into position for invasion.)to land troops, focing an air insertion. Our planes were too old and wern't up to that task. There was no realistic way to replace them in a reasonable time period to mount that type of airlift. You probly don't own a car 25 years old, but the Air force transport fleet has a majority of planes that age. Not to mention that the people WE were REALLY there to get was al'Q, the taliban was sort of a fringe benifit that was too good to pass up. al'Q would have melted into the mountains the second they saw the big 3rd ID coming, taking years to find. The NA knew every nook and crany where to look, as they fought the soviets form the same caves. Some might want to suggest otherwise, as we have no confirmed status of Osama. I'd say he's a grease spot in a colapsed cave somwhere. We can't check every cave we bombed shut with thermogenic jdams. We've had zero authenticated sightings or recordings of any type since torabora. Great Osama, figure head of al'Queda who made a ten disk DVD set everytime the US sneezed somewhere in the middle east hasn't been positivly heard from in two years. No one will declare him dead for fear of the political fallout if he's not, but at the very least he's totally ineffectual at his prime position in terrorism, a figurehead. Every day Johnny Jihad doesn't hear a peep its horribly demoralizing. They can't even make a maryr out of him, no great new Saladin to rally around,nothing....nowhere...gone. Thats why so many suposed tapes of his were later found false. al'Q was desperate enough to get fakers to keep thier loyal base. 75% on pre 9/11 al'Q has been killed or cought in three years. Thats 25% a year. I say let Bush have one more year at this rate.

As for Iraq, man look...all the credible intel we were getting from the Iraqi defecters said Anthrax, Botulism, Serin, and attempts to procure uranium. I remember the briefs before the invasion "And at phase line Bravo is when you'll get the gas." The command beleived it, because that's where the intel was pointing. Think about it from thier perspective. Hope for the best and plan for the worse. Thats it in a nutshell. When the spy satilites saw the Iraqi army loading up on the Chem suits prepairing for NBC warfare, we took it serious. When Iraqis were lieing to us telling the CIA there was WMD in Iraq, everybody bought it. And so did the Presedent. He didn't lie to go to war with Iraq. Come on, does any body really buy that when you think about it? He's guilty of beleiving the wrong intel. I don't hold it against him because I beleived it too. Everybody who wasn't laughed out of the service did. No one thought Sadam would ever really get rid of it all. I mean come on, its Sadam, honesty was not one of his virtues. I personally think he did finally compliy at the last minute, or someone in Sadam's government with a brain did. But it was too late. Either way, it's as good a place to start anyway. It surrounds Iran on two sides, and while that motivates Iran to develope nukes, it justifies us ivading them next. Also, once the government in Iraq starts to work and the Iraqis start to prosper from the benifits of capitalism and democracy, the undecided people of the middle east will start to crave that for themselves. And like I've always said, terrorism can not thrive in a free country with a second ammendment. As far as there not being enough troops, tommy franks got what he asked for. thats on video record. And it worked like a charm to take the country. Keeping the peace we could have used more. There was more anticipated cooperation from the Iraqis. All I have to say, is I've won every tuesday morning football game I played in my own mind 100%. We should commit only enough to get the haiji's on their collective feet. At some point the responsibility is thier's.

I would love to help in the Sudan and Africa in general. Africa is the biggest mess on earth. But Kerry is right about one thing, we are too extended for that type of mission. Just once I'd like to see the UN grow some balls and do what it was ment to do without us draging them kicking and screaming. But we all know they'll pass resolution on end. Can you hear the dictators now "OOOOOOHHHHHH, the UN passed a resolution, I'm shaking. You want some oil, hummmmmmmm?" What a joke. Priorities are a bitch, but nessessary in war.

Jericho Brown said...

FREE: First off, let me say that your last post explained more to me as to how people can logically support Bush than anything else I've read so far by anyone. I can honestly say that I can completely understand your rationale by the way you explained it. Of course, I do take issue with some of it, so here goes:

Not being a military man, I can only suppose you've got it right regarding the Northern Alliance being used primarily to get Bin Laden. But in Kerry's defense, I think his point was that we should have gone with them to assure that there would be no payoffs that would allow him to get away. You might be right and he might be dead, in fact he probably is dead. But being the architect of 9/11 probably should have made him #1 on the list of priorities to make sure he IS dead instead of, as Kerry puts it, outsourcing the job to someone else. Now to Iraq:

I don't have a doubt that the Intel said one thing and most if not everyone believed it, including the military commanders. But I think the main point we anti-Bush people make is that Bush RUSHED to war. If we had waited long enough, we would have known he didn't have weapons. That's all there is to it. Simple as that. But since Bush didn't want to wait, we've now spent all these lives and money on a dictator who was for all intents and purposes neutralized by the U.N. These are resources that we could have spent on Iran and Syria and N. Korea and even to stop the genocide on Sudan. But now those resources, like you said, are no longer available. It just seems like at a time when America really needed to make wise, well-thought-out decisions, our commander in chief made a rash one. He was playing checkers when the game on the table was chess.

free0352 said...

I don't know if you'll come back to read this Jerhico, but here goes.


First off.
I think the 5th Special forces, the Ranger Battalion, and a Regiment of Marines plus the entire airpower of the United States qualifies as help for the Northern Aliance. Remember Operation Anaconda?

If Bush found weapons, would it have been a rush? He thought Sadam had WMD, so you're right, he got in there as fast as he could before Sadam gave em to someone, like say, Zarqaui.

Sadam had 12 YEARS to prove he had disarmed, how much deplomacy is enough?

Sadam fired upon our aircraft patrolling the no fly zone over 4000 times in that 12 year period. Do the math, thats almost once a day.

In hindsight, I can still say with certainty that Sadam still wished to aquire weapons. Why...mainly because he's Sadam Hussien? Secondly, the labs were intact, and the people to staff them. Invading Iraq was still benificial to the overall war on terror for reasons I've already posted.