However, I did read Sen. Harry Reid’s rebuttal, posted on Huffington Post. Okay, so I just attempted to read it, but I didn’t get very far before my bullshit meter starting going off.
The first offending statement? Here it is:
“But, there's also no honor in sending our troops to battle without the armor, intelligence and planning they need to keep them safe.”
Um, Harry, I’d agree that sending troops to battle with inadequate armor, inaccurate intelligence, and imaginary planning is a bad idea, and may even be dishonorable, but it’s not because it threatens the troops’ safety. It’s just bad war-fighting. The troops, by definition, have a very unsafe job and a “safety first” mentality has no place on the battlefield.
What you should have said is “There’s no honor in sending our troops to battle without the armor, intelligence, and planning they need to achieve victory.” See? Not so wimpy and ignorant of basic military realities.
Then there was this:
“Democrats are unwavering in the fight against terrorism, but the Bush Administration has failed to propose real improvements to our policy in Iraq, while at the same time allowing Iran and North Korea to develop nuclear weapons.”
Good point about the Bush Administration’s inconsistent application of their own foreign policy, but Harry, this part? “Democrats are unwavering in the fight against terrorism.” Come on, bud. We all know that’s not true. When it comes to Iraq, the Democrats have wavered more than a rope bridge in a high wind. They were for it before they were against it, and they have yet to find any solid ground to stand on.
Reading Sen. Reid’s misfired missive will tell you that.
19 comments:
Well here we go again. I have been quiet on this blog for too long! I know how you feel about being lied to. Durring the Clinton era we were lied to many times. Every time a terrorist attack happened, Clinton would come on at 7:00 and tell us "that he would hunt down and punish those responsible". Remember when Osoma sent his guys over here and lit off a truck bomb in the basement of the WTC? Yeah you know what Clinton said. That is when Osoma went on the FBI top ten list. The attacks on our embassys, the USS Cole, Same story from Clinton. The lie that really hit me was when he came on TV, pointed his finger at the camera and said "He did not have sexual relations with that woman" Pointed his finger at us and said it!!! Then 2 or 3 days later came back on tv and admited it. Now too much shit went on durring his 8 years in office. I wanted a change and voted for it and got it. I was tired of his lies and his lack of action.
Now Bush may not be the perfect person, but who is? The only perfect person to ever walk this earth WAS PUT ON A CROSS!!!!!! At least Bush has the balls to do something to these terrorist. Kill em all. Do you think if we just leave them alone they will leave us alone? No never. We need to kill all of em. We don't back down, were americans. Now pound your chest with your fist stand up and yell to the terroist, "FUCK ME? NO FUCK YOU!!! We need to get off the middle east oil tit. That is a fact. To do that we need to use more re-newable energy.
Trust me, Jimbo, when I say this: I am not one of those Clinton-loving liberals who consider his presidency the gold standard of presidencies.
My role model is more like Jefferson, or even FDR, who lifted our country out of the Great Depression AND won WWII, a two-theater war MUCH MUCH bigger and MUCH MUCH more important than Iraq.
The Clinton nostalgia that you hear about (mostly about Hillary these days) is not so much a yearning for another Clinton presidency, or even a Clinton-like president. It's a yearning for the Clinton years, which were prosperous and (relatively)peaceful.
And yeah, I'll agree, Clinton is a liar. And I'm not here to excuse his lie....but come on, man. Cut the guy some slack.
Show me a man, Republican or Democrat, who will stand up and say, "Yes, I had sexual relations with that woman outside of my marriage....and it was GREAT!" It just wouldn't happen. The first thing a cuckhold will do is deny, deny, deny. Denying an unpleasant truth is a little different than completely concocting an alternate reality, which is what Bush did.
See, in the Bush lie, Saddam Hussein's Iraq is somehow connected to Osama Bin Laden. This is simply not true. It's not a cowardly denial. It's a complete fiction!
"Remember when Osoma sent his guys over here and lit off a truck bomb in the basement of the WTC?"
Yes, I remember. I remember the Cole. I remember 9-11. Hell, I remember the attacks in Africa, too.
What does any of that have to do with Iraq???
Maybe you could explain to me how 19 Saudi nationals working for an exiled Saudi dissident, trained in Afghanistan, operating out of Hamburg, Germany and Las Vegas, NV has absolutely anything to do with Saddam Hussein and Iraq.
It just doesn't.
Oh and by the way...where's Osama these days? That's right.....still planning the next attack. Still think Bush has the balls to do something?
I don't. I don't think Bush even wants to do anything about Osama. Osama is his best friend. As long as Osama is out there, Bush can reserve for himself almost unlimited power, power that NO president should have.
The power to lock American citizens up for years without charging them with a crime or giving them legal counsel. (We give due process to rapists, serial killers, and child molesters...but not suspected terrorists???? There's something wrong with that one.....) The power to legally torture people. (Cruel and unusual punishment anyone?) The power to spy on domestic phone calls and e-mails without a warrant. (If there's a good case against a suspect, why not get a warrant?)
The President's supporters are okay with that now, of course, now that we're under this constant threat of another Osama attack, now that "our man" Bush is in the White House......
But in 08, when Hillary gets elected, I bet these same guys are gonna wish they never allowed the expansion of the President's powers. There's a gulag in Arkansas just waiting for the remnants of the Republican Party.
Disclaimer: That last paragraph about Hillary getting elected.....that was a joke.
She has no chance.
You remember all of that? Well good for you. Bill Clinton forgot all about it. Okay we will move past it. Where do you think we would be right now if John Kerry was elected in the last election? Don't sugar coat it, think about it for a while. Ponder the issues and reply. Think about what he would have inherited economy and military wise. Would we be better off? Worse?
Clinton was never comfortable using the military. He hightailed it out of Somalia as soon as the shit hit the fan. He refused to get involved in the former Yugoslavia until the late 90s, after most of the damage had been done and the region has suffered almost a decade of genocidal war. I do recall, however, that Clinton aggressively enforced the No-fly zone over Iraq throughout his whole administration, refused to lift sanctions, and he ordered decapitation attacks in the form of airstrikes against terrorist camps in direct response to the attacks in Africa. You might recall that, at the time, the Republicans were more interested in who was giving the President blowjobs than who was blowing up our embassies.
After that debacle, painting the Republicans as the only competent party when it comes to national security is disingenous and laughable. If they were so competent, why were they so concerned with who was polishing Clinton's nob? And why were they so against any effort he made to bring Osama under control?
Their sudden reversal now they got into power seems odd, to say the least. Now they claim to be the party of "National Security," and yet, let's examine for a minute just how effective their stewardship of our National Security has been.
Barely a year into Bush's presidency, Osama Bin Laden launched the worst terrorist attack in US history a month after Bush received word in his Daily Briefing that "Osama Bin Laden Determined to Attack America."
In 2003, after a victory against the Taliban, Bush decided, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary, that Saddam Hussein was a "grave threat" to our nationla interests because he had a WMD arsenal. It was a "miscalculation" (Bush's word) because for one, Iraq had no WMD arsenal and despite all appearances to the contrary, they were not a "grave threat." (In fact, their military, which had been one of the biggest and most formiddable in the region a mere decade ago, folded in less than a month.)
Instead of using the military for its intended purpose, protecting American security and interests, President Bush has decided that the military's main function is the dissemination of democracy and freedom to the oppressed people of the Middle East.
It sounds great on paper, but let's be honest. Is the military the proper tool for spreading democracy and freedom to an unwilling populace? Obviously the answer is no. The military's job is to fight and win wars. Bush's "miscalculation" forced America to use the wrong tool for the wrong job, and this is effective leadership?
As for Bush's experiment with democracy, it seems to be working, only not in the way Bush intended. Elections in Iran and Palestine were widely democratic, but Islamist extremists won each time, hardly encouraging signs of the wisdom of Bush's policies.
As for John Kerry, I voted for the guy, yeah, but it wasn't because I thought he was going to be a great president. I voted for him because, no matter his faults, he couldn't have been a bigger failure in every arena than George W. Bush.
Bush has set new standard lows for almost every aspect of the presidency. Candor, transparency, balance of powers, ethics...these words mean nothing to the man.
If John Kerry was elected, I think we would be better off as a country. This is why: Because George W. Bush would then be in Texas, clearing brush on his ranch where he belongs, and not in Washington, pretending to be the leader of the free world.
Here's a question for you: Will we be better off or worse after three more years of Bush? Think about it honestly.
Can he undo the record deficits he racked up in the last five years?
Can he balance the budget so that your tax dollars are going to important things like the Gulf Coast reconstruction and body armor for the troops, rather than say some porkbarrel vanity project for the Republican stooges in Congress?
Can he clean up the tone of Washington so that it's not a nest of name-calling, petty partisanship? (Based on the last five years, Bush won't even try....)
Can he capture Osama Bin Laden? What about Zarqawi? What about Zawahiri?
Can he find a way out of the mess in Iraq?
I doubt it. These are the important issues of the day, and yet Bush and his so-called conservatives have been more intent on
* banning stem cell research and gay marriage
* tearing down the wall between church and state
* keeping Terry Shiavo alive
* raising money for the next election cycle
* taking bribes in the form of campaign contributions
* making it easier for rich people to avoid paying taxes
* creating favorable conditions for massvie profit-taking in the oil industry (look up Exxon's latest quarterly results: The biggest EVER in American industry)
I guess the point I'm trying to make in all this is that if you have principles, conservative or liberal, if you're serious about your love for this country, if you want America to remain the economic, military and cultural guiding light of the world...then you cannot seriously support George W. Bush.
His strengths are an illusion and his weaknesses are dangerous. And here's one thing electing John Kerry would have prevented....
The next three years with Georgy boy at the helm.
What a can of worms.
Let's be real for just a minute here and then I'll piss people off.
I think we can all agree, all politicians lie.
So Clinton lied, he was impeached.
I don't understand why, when the Republican Party is in trouble, it turns back to Clinton. I actually hear more Republicans mention Clinton than Dems.
I would think as a military man uncle Jim would be againt Bush for atleast two reasons.
One , he uses the military for photo ops. Remember the boat scene? Mission Accomplished? Really?
Take another look at his few speeches. He was surrounded by military. A great propoganda trick used by hate mongers throughout the last century. Watch a North Korea speech sometime, or an old Hitler speech. The similarities are uncanny.
Two, he's a draft dodger. Think about this,if Bush and Kerry magically switched military records before the election the Republican androids would be hailing Bush as a war hero and Kerry as a draft dodger.
You know it's true.
Why wonder what condition we'd be in if Kerry were elected? Since it will never happen that's purely arguementive. In theory, there could be world peace and everyone would have all the money they needed, disease and famine would be gone, and all little girls would get a pony. We'll never know. But it can be argued as effectively as Kerry would of messed the country up.
There's a reason why the Republican party is in trouble. It's not the lies. It's not the rhetoric or the sensationalism.
It's the getting caught in corruption.
It's the lack of concern for America, the Constitution, and the American way of life.
Oh, did you know active duty soldiers were recently banned from blogging? Do you know why? It's not because they gave up strategy or sensitive information.
It's because they spoke out against the war.
WMD was not the only reason for going into Iraq. There were over 20 "where as" in the declaration. As for the WMD in Iraq. Were the hell are they then???? We know he had them, we know he used them on the Kurds in 82. Thats why he is on trial for mass murder. He did not destroy them. When you destroy these weapons there is evidence. It takes a special machine to destroy. He never had this equipment. So where are they? Iran Syria, WHERE?????? We better find out before they turn up in the wrong hands. This is a fact, and un-disputed fact!!!!! Saddam allowed terrorist to train in his contry. He allowed it, and approved of it. We found these camps, we battled these terrorist, we killed or captured thousands of them. Non-Iraqi terrorist. This is a fact, an un-disputed fact! Do you hear about this on the ABC evening news? No the coverage is slanted by the media. Don't rely on what you hear from some of these liberal media types who put a slant on it and don't give you the whole story or mabey none of the story.He did support terror. Now he might not have had anything to do with Sept 11th but he suported terror. We are at war with terrorism!!! You are with us on this or against us. He had to go. We are fighting terrorist on many front right now. SeAL Team six, Task force 121, FAST Co, are engaged in counter terrorism in places that you will never hear about on the 6:00 news. I like that! I like that alot! There are men in our service who are willing to go out there under cover and do things to beat the terrorist. Not pretty things, things that are so nasty and dirty that it would shock you to know what we are doing to them. I don't care either, hell I support it. If it makes my kids safe by doing this, great! Torture? Let's talk about torture. Torture is what the people who were on the planes on Sept 11th went through. What the people in the WTC and the pentagon went through, what the familys of the people who died are still going through. That's torture. So we catch a few terrorist and torture the fuck out of them, well boo fucking hoo!!! Better them then us. If it saves American lives, do it.I say get the media out of Iraq. Let us do our job without the news coverage.
John Kerry would not be better than Bush. John Kerry would not have the guts to ride this out. Don't say stuff like exxon's profits are up and blame that on Bush. Their profits have been up every single year since 1976. Through all those years we have had both partys in office.
I will be better off with 3 more years of Bush than I would have been with Kerry in office.
As for as your coment on "Pork barrel vanity project" That means nothing to me. That sound like something you would hear on the Al Franken show.
Our national debit is up, but we have never had to fight a global asemetrical war on terror. We did not get to where we are by sticking our head in the sand and hoping the threat goes away. We are a freedom loving country that will fight to preserve our way of life.
Like the charecter Jack Nicholson played in the movie A Few Good Men said. "You sleep under the verry blanket of fredoom that we provide
and the question the manner in wich we provide it. I would rather you just say thank you and go on your way"
A can of worms, indeed!
I'll agree with coolcat that all politicians lie. Otherwise they wouldn't get elected!
And I am truly sick of the Republican political machine smearing their opponents by questioning their military record. McCain and Gore probably suffered the most of it in 2000. McClellan, Murtha, who's next? One or two might be an aberation but this is a repeated pattern. There are a number of Iraq veterans running in various races this year, as Democrats. Will their service be called into question as well?
As for the 20 other reasons to go into Iraq, you're right. That, perhaps, will be the only thing that redeems Bush's decision to invade. Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a problem looking for a solution and no one can question that the world is a better place with Saddam in a jail cell.
However, there is more than one way to skin a cat, and there was more than one way to remove Saddam Hussein. Unleashing the killing power of the American military was just the one Bush chose, and its unintended consequences proved disasterous.
As for torture. You were a Marine. You went thru interogation resistance training. If Al Qaeda captured you and tortured you, what would you say? Do you think that tactic would work on you? Or would it just piss you off?
And Exxon? Who am I to deny them the fruits of their labors? But with war in Iraq (a country currently rebuilding their entire oil industry), Venezuela making noise, the entire gulf coast devasted by hurricanes, you would think it might not be such a great year for Exxon. But as it turns out, it was their best year ever. Something's fishy there.
And the pork barrel vanity project? Oh man, I can't believe you didn't hear about some of these. Al Franken, as you know, is on the radio. He may talk about pork barrel projects, and he may even support a few (being a liberal), but he's not the one pushing them through our Congress. Republicans, who control all three branches of the government mind you, have been loading the budget with ALL kinds of pork barrel projects and Bush has signed every single one of them.
Ever heard of the Road to Nowhere? $300 million for a road to an island up in Alaska, the Don Young Way. The Republican congressman who pushed it thru: Don Young.
Maybe that $300 million could have gone to the Gulf states to help rebuild after Katrina. Maybe it could have gone to the Corps. Maybe it could have gone to Walter Reed Medical Center. We'll never know.
Oh, and Col. Nathan Jessup was the bad guy in A Few Good Men. He made some good points, but in the end got stripped of his command and went to jail. I love that "rises and sleeps under the very blanket of freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it" line too, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a contradiction. Doesn't our freedom include the right to dissent?
There is more than one way to skin a kit is true. But we tried to skin Saddams ass for 12 years ofter Gulf War 1. The time for talkin was over. You did not adress my coments about the WMD in Iraq. I know why. What I said were all facts, undisputed facts! Now you can come up with some bullshit dispute now if you like. All the people who cry "WMD MWD WMD, There were no WMD's in Iraq" have nothing to say when the har facts are shown to them.
As for your coment on the war in Iraq being a disaster, what exactly do you mean when you say that? If you are refering to our casualties. Let me remind you of something. The US Army lost over 4000 men just training for the landing at Normandy in WWII. It did not stop us. We don't give up that easy.
There are plenty of ways to tie Saddam to terrorism besodes WMD's and the assault on his own populace.
For example:
He openly paid the families of suicide bombers in Gaza,West Bank, and Jeruselem.
I'm not sure why this was never a real news point for the invasion.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm
George Bush senior had the right idea after the Gulf War. He caused a civil war. This is a time tested successful war strategy. Unfortunately George senior didn't have the balls to follow through with promised support and left the Kurds hanging out to dry.
The real reason we are in this mess today has more to do with George senior's failures.
I've said it for 15 years, George Bush senior is the most dangerous person in the world.
Wait a second there cat. I get what you are saying there, good point but you have something wrong. We never promised the Kurds anything. Wait I take that back, we did. They were told that if Saddam could be overthrown from within we would step in and help those wo did it retain power. They tried to keep their end of the deal but failed. There were over 25 assasination attemts on Saddam but none were succesful. Our law does not allow us to do this hit our selfs. Now we could have done it covertly, or paid a hit squad from somewhere else to do it. Had Bill Clinton had the balls to do it, insted of his balls on Monica's chin. Desert Sheild/Storm was about Kuwait! We did exactly what was allowed and approved of by the UN and the coalition at the time. Which was kick his sorry ass out of Kuwait. That's exactly what we did. But only after exausting all diplomatic options first. Belive me I sat my ass over there for months while we did this. What his troops did to the people of Kuwait was sad. He burned all the oil wells and stole millions, if not billions from Kuwait. I wish we were allowed to do more, but as a member of the military you don't make policy. You obey the orders. I don't think it was a failure at all. We did exactly what we were supposed to do. I do have a problem with the way things were handled after the war more than anything. He sent his WMD's out of there between wars. I want to know where. We had a good "human intell network" until Clinton did away with most of it and downsized our military as well. That was part of the problem that allowed the terrorist networks to do what they did. Bush Jr could not possibly change or correct what had been done the previous 8 years, over night. We know that Muhhamed Atta and his team were in our country and had the Sept 11th attack plans underway before Bush was even elected. He new about the plans before the attack happened, but so did Clinton. I guess they both have some blame there. But remember before Sept 11th, before the attacks. If the security at the airport was put into action the way it is today, we would hear nothing but "bitching" from the general public. This is post 9/11. We better never wait for a smoking gun again. Because as I have said before, you wait for that smoking gun it's too late, you'll have a bullet in your head and be dead!!!!
James, had a question about torture. Yes I did have SERE training in the Marines. Could I resist real torture? I don't know. But I do know this. You can get what you need with torture. It has to be done right. We have guys that do that for a living. They do it and you will never hear the details of it. There may have been terrorist attacks that have been prevented by our guys that we never know of. Hell, most people in this country could not deal with the truth if the knew it. People would freak out and do stupid shit. I send in my taxes each month. I tell myself that MY tax goes to pay for the guys who do this and keep me and my family safe. I like to think it's YOUR tax money that pays for the stupid shit. Just kidding. Nah we are not a perfect country, never have, hopefuly someday we will get it right. I know that. But hey let's keep our heads up. When we do something as a country, or even in your own personal life try this. Look for the reasons why something WILL work!!! Not only the resons something WON"T work. The glass is always half full. It will make your life a lot better. Otherwise life will be a sad miserable existance. Always look for the good man, life is too short.
Just like this debate we are having. I may not agre with you on somethings but hey, I at least respect you for what you have to say and even though your a whacked out weirdo fuckin freak,we still love you, at least a little bit I guess.
Nah just kidding there!!!!
L O L !!!!!!!!
Ha! George Herbert Walker Bush IS the most dangerous guy in the world. Look at what he hath wrought! I agree, he should have helped the insurgency WAY back in 91. With a little more help, Saddam could have been toppled then.
As for his WMDs, Jim, what are we talking about? Nuclear? Chemical? Biological? If we're talking nuclear, their program had been in tatters since the Gulf War. They never got very far anyway, certainly not far enough to have a bomb or even a missle capable of delivering one. We do know that he had, at one time, chemical weapons, because he used them on the Kurds in 88 at Halabja. But Scott Ritter, the UN weapons inspector, said before the war, "We fundamentally disarmed Iraq and that's the point that has to be made. We succeeded in eliminating the threat posed to the world by Iraq." Before the war!
Here's a transcript you should read:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,62916,00.html
CHEMICAL!!!! HE HAD A SHIT LOAD OF THE AT ONE TIME. He had the 4th largest army in the world in 91. He had thosands and thousands of warheads.Some chemical and some biological, between 80-88 it was used against Iran as well. I had to get an Anthrax vacination because of this. I remember it well, I put an Anthrax tape in my walkman and that is what I was listening to when I got a series of shots. Again this is an un-disputed fact. We did not give more help to the anti-Saddam insurgency than was legaly allowed. Belive it or not Bush Sr followed the law on that one and played it by the book. He had no choice due to the fact that we were in colusion with many other countrys at the time.
I think I got a dose of some of it too, it fucked up my brain. I cant spell so good.
HA HA
Anthrax RULEZ!!!
As for the biological weapons, check this out, from that interview with Scott Ritter, the UN inspector:
"Iraq produced liquid bulk anthrax, that's all they ever produced, not the dry powder that we saw here in the United States."
Later on, Ritter explaings "liquid bulk deteriorates after three years under ideal storage conditions."
So the matter of where did Saddam's stockpiles of anthrax go becomes irrelevant. If it's still around, I don't know what it is, but it's not anthrax.
As for Bush Sr. following the law....that never stopped Jr.
IT'S ONLY BREAKING THE LAW IF YOU GET CAUGHT!
Okay so I hear you on the liquid Anthrax. What about the serin gas warheads, the VX agent warhead, mustard gas agent warheads, the other chemical warheads that does not come to mind right now. Thousands of them! Where the fuck are they???? You know that little plane that flies arond Invesco feild that has the banners behind it at a game. What if they had one shell of VX gas and threw it out the door durring a Bronco game and rigged a secondary detination devise to explode it on the south stands? I'll bet you would be asking then, Where the fuck are the rest of the warheads????
I wish the CIA or the FBI would recuit me to help spread the word or help in some way to find the stuff. I would do what ever they asked of me to help!!!! I don't ask what my country can do for me, I ask what I can do for it!!!! I gave Uncle Sam 4 years of my life, the best 4 years of my life as A US Marine. I was i was 18 again right now so I could go in and do it again in Iraq
"IT'S ONLY BREAKING THE LAW IF YOU GET CAUGHT!"
Ha! I hope you're joking, man. Osama would love that one, considering he hasn't been caught.
As for the VX agents over Invesco Field....that's pretty scary, man. Hell, VX, sarin, mustard gas, dirty bombs, all of that is scary.
But is that a real possibility? Or is it a worst case scenario hypothetical that's scary to think about but for all intents and purposes impossible? I'd say it was the worst case scenario...and while we should perhaps prepare for a situation, let's not pretend that it's likely, or even remotely possible.
Consider this:
You wouldn't fuck a man in the ass, right?
But what if you had a gun to your head and your family was going to be executed unless you fucked a dude in the ass? You'd be so deep in that ass, you could ring his tonsils like bells.
I mean, what does that prove really? That you're one of those guys who'd fuck a person in the ass and not even have the goddamn common courtesy for a reacharound?
Or does it prove that just about anything can be justified somehow? You have to remember, just because something can be justified (even with an outlandish hypothetical), doesn't mean it's right.
Okay, Bin Ladden when caught will be killed. He may have been killed a few years back in Tora Bora. Until I see a picture of him with something dated or he makes a specific comment on something going on, I question the tapes we hear.
As for the bomb on Invesco feild. That's not worse case. Worse case would be a large nuke in a major city, or an even larger chemical or bio attack. Man I pulled that idea out of the air in 10 seconds. Just think if I really hated this country our our government. But I don't and never would do that stuff. There are some twisted people out there. Untill Sept 11th we would say that hijacking 4 planes at the same time and flying them into buildings would be impossible. Anything is possible.
As for your last few paragraphs, talk about worst case!!! Hell I dont know what I would do. Let me think a second here....let my family go first. As soon as they are safe, I guess I put up a fight and take a bullet in the brain.
The Marine Corps code of conduct states this. This is published in the Guide Book for Marines. I'll show it to you next time you come to my house. "You shall not surrender so long as you have the means to resist" In other words as my Sr Drill Instructor put it to me on a hot summer day in July of 1987. You better be dead before you are taken prisioner. If we are returned alive he would personally be at our trial and recomend a dis-honorable discharge. Death before dishonor. But back to you worst case. If they would not let my family go, then they probably never would even if I did what they said so you know what? fuck it. We're going down with a fight.
I'm glad you mentioned the interogation resistence (or whatever it's called) training you received in the Corps.
I'm sure if the the Iraqis or anyone else took you or any other Marine prisoner (alive, that is), they would have serious problems extracting anything other than a blood-curdling "Fuck you and fuck your mother!" Right?
And you were a Marine, just an American kid with hard on to fight, not some psycho killer willing to die for your jihad.
These guys think they are commanded by God to kill the infidel. I guarentee you they receive "interogation resistence" training too.
If you wouldn't break under torture, what makes you think they will?
As for the worst case scenario, I think we can agree that steps need to be taken to ensure that shit doesn't happen. It's a very real possibility, as real as mutually assured destruction in the Cold War, but our government doesn't need to get their panties all twisted up about it, right?
Post a Comment