Blogcritics Comments on Sacrificing Americans In Iraq

Comment by Mark Schannon on Sacrificing Americans In Iraq

Fri, 13 May 2005 08:39:39 EDT

Gosh, Dave, thanks for clarifying that. I thought I'd completely turned him from the Dark Side. Oh well, naive once again. (I'm going to assume for the sake of polite discourse that you were trying to be funny.) ]]>

Comment by Dave Nalle on Sacrificing Americans In Iraq

Fri, 13 May 2005 01:31:38 EDT

Note that Ski said he understood you, not that he thought you made any sense at all. Dave ]]>

Comment by Mark Schannon on Sacrificing Americans In Iraq

Thu, 12 May 2005 23:59:58 EDT

Thanks! ]]>

Comment by SFC SKI on Sacrificing Americans In Iraq

Thu, 12 May 2005 23:56:13 EDT

I understand what you are trying to say. ]]>

Comment by Mark Schannon on Sacrificing Americans In Iraq

Thu, 12 May 2005 23:22:40 EDT

Ski, it's not hatred as much as outrage, and there's a difference. I don't particularly "hate" Bush...I don't even know him. But I am angry to the point of being irrational...which is why I'm a liberal. We can get away with that, lol. But I refuse to accept the old excuse about how tough military procurement is. I know it well, having worked with a well-known general who tried to modernize the military and got early retirement as a reward. But that's no excuse. I never served in the military, being a Vietnam protest hippie, but I've always respected, admired, and been thankful for their sacrifices. At some point, someone has to stand up and say, "no, this just won't stand." And who else has the authority to do that but our commander in chief? And if, after ranting, raving, firing, replacing and reorganizing, Bush found that he still couldn't create the force necessary to win a war that had no purpose, he shouldn't have started it. We're saddled with a government that thinks first and foremost of it's own survival, with a military whose leadership suffers from the well-known historical phenomenon of petrification, and a media that wouldn't recognize a serious story if someone layered sequins all around it. We had no business attacking Iraq when and how we did, but once the decision was made, there was a profound moral obligation to the country and our troops to do it right. It's been a disaster from the beginning, and if you don't blame the president for that, who the hell can you blame. Hmmmmm....I am ranting and raving. It's a physical pain that I try to disguise with satire, parody, and scorn, but there are times when the rage just rips through. We've done so much harm in the name of freedom, liberty, and democracy--this war's stripping away my cynicism and revealing the simple citizen who's crying out in pain, "this cannot be tolerated." Maybe you're right. I don't hate Bush because of who he is, but because of what he's failed to do, because he's lied and tricked us into sending so many to early deaths, because he won't admit to any mistakes, and because he isn't doing anything to make things right. Whew! That's what too much Irish whiskey'll do--I can't be funny. I'm just sick at heart. And if that makes me irrational and hard to read, so be it. Guilty as charged. ]]>

Comment by SFC SKI on Sacrificing Americans In Iraq

Thu, 12 May 2005 22:46:46 EDT

Mark, your outright hatred is making you irrational and less readable. Waving of hands and saying,"Let it be so" is not the way the military procurement system works, folks. It would be nice if it did, but it just isn't so. The M-16's deficiencies have been known for quite some time, longer than this administration has ben in office. The military has been working the issue of an M-16 replacement for quite a while, now that we are not quite joined ti the hip with NATO, hopefully we'll get away from the 5.56mm and 9mm weapons. ]]>

Comment by Mark Schannon on Sacrificing Americans In Iraq

Thu, 12 May 2005 22:12:46 EDT

>IMO the M-16 is NOT the right weapon for use in the type of warfare we face in Iraq where they're more likely to leave their wounded alive with a grenade under them than to carry them away. We need a heavier calibre weapon with greater accuracy and more penetration...But the Bush administration had zero to do with this choice of weapons and blaming them only shows your ignorance.< Well, someone had to get nasty & what a surprise who it is. I'm sorry, Dave, if you knew that the M-16 isn't a good weapon for urban warfare, then why the fuck didn't your hero, Bubble Boy Bush, who sent our troops into Iraq armed with them? As president, he couldn't have called on the DOD to arm our people properly, he couldn't have insisted that vehicles and soldiers had the appropriate armor, he couldn't have insisted that we put sufficient forces on the ground to win the peace? If Bush had zero to do with the choice of weapons, then he should be impeached, convicted and hung for the murder of American soldiers. What the hell is he commander in chief of, the national guard? Your post didn't reveal my "ignorance" but your complete blindness to what a total failure this president has been. Sent them into battle with the wrong weapons & has no responsibility? How sick is that? ]]>

Comment by Dave Nalle on Sacrificing Americans In Iraq

Thu, 12 May 2005 21:54:02 EDT

>>Later that week, the 1st Platoon of Lima Company, 3rd Battalion, 25th Regiment got into a firefight in northern Iraq against insurgents with armor piercing bullets that could go through concrete and walls and still be effective. The bullets our troops had been issued could go through concrete, but then would be traveling at the speed of a moth. << This is not the fault of our administration, it is the fault of a military policy which dates back to Vietnam and has been questioned again and again and has held up as a valid strategic decision. The M-16 isn't a good weapon for urban guerilla warfare. It's issued because in a firefight it produces wounded targets rather than fatalities, making it necessary for the enemy to carry their wounded, theoretically taking two men out for each one hit. IMO the M-16 is NOT the right weapon for use in the type of warfare we face in Iraq where they're more likely to leave their wounded alive with a grenade under them than to carry them away. We need a heavier calibre weapon with greater accuracy and more penetration. I've got a gun that - given a teflon coated round - can shoot through a Humvee or a brick or concrete wall and kill someone on the other side, and our soldiers should too. But the Bush administration had zero to do with this choice of weapons and blaming them only shows your ignorance. Dave ]]>

Comment by BillB on Sacrificing Americans In Iraq

Thu, 12 May 2005 21:28:50 EDT

One of my favorites was Rumsfeld's response to the so called planted question from the soldier who had the gall to ask why they had to sift through dumps to come up with scraps to armor their humvees. It's not money, but a "matter of physics" implying that production was peaked out. Meanwhile the company that makes armored humvees says they could produce another 100 a month and two that produce armor kits said they could produce twice as much if asked. Teflon Ron had nothing on this guy. How about Wolfiwitz being largely responsible for the fact that the White House civilians ignored the advice of Generals, the Army War College and a host of others when it came to "post war planning and security" and he ends up running the world bank which is largely responsible for loans for rebuilding regions suffering from the destruction of war, natural disasters, and other forms of mayhem. Can you say Bizzaro World? ]]>

Comment by Mark Schannon on Sacrificing Americans In Iraq

Thu, 12 May 2005 14:49:57 EDT

Thanks, guys. This isn't a left or right, liberal or conservative issue. Whether or not the war made sense, the least we can do is give our troops the support they need. It's not like this is a new issue, but no one seems to want to take it on. Rumsfeld can lie in front of congress about adequate troops and supplies, and they fold in front of him. It's just beyond belief. ]]>

Comment by MCH on Sacrificing Americans In Iraq

Thu, 12 May 2005 14:20:40 EDT

Hey Mark, Thanx for the post. Not all veterans are in favor of the invasion/occupation of Iraq, including myself. Two of the better organizations in opposition to the White House's policy on Iraq are Veterans Against the Iraq War (www.vaiw.org) and Iraq Veterans Against the War (www.ivaw.net). I agree with army veteran Don Imus, that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz should be "locked up as war criminals." ]]>

Comment by Bennett on Sacrificing Americans In Iraq

Thu, 12 May 2005 13:33:03 EDT

Great post Mark. Indeed, where are the news reports on this story? And google thinks BC posts are satire? Holy crap, that aint right! ]]>