An Iraq veteran on Huckabee's concept of staying for "honor"
tags:
Stumble ThisA soldier comments on Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee's disagreement of whether the US should admit its mistake and leave Iraq or stay in the name of "honor".
X Greetings! You are not currently logged in, but please don't let that stop you from voting up any videos you like. :)
|
| |||||||||||||||
iraq,war,military,saving face,profits,contractors,honor An Iraq veteran on Huckabee's concept of staying for "honor"
Comments  playlists with this video current politica by calvados
• Election08 - (R) Mike Huckabee by joedirt
• present arms by my15minutes
who voted for this video my15minutes
- flavioribeiro
- enon
- xxovercastxx
- siftbot
x146who has this post bookmarked boblobblaw
- viewer_999
- lertad
An Iraq Veteran On Huckabee's Concept Of Staying For "honor" Related Videos
| Watch this Video NextFriends O' the Sift Top New Election08 Videos by Vote  Subscribe Top 15 Election08 Sifters of All Time Top 1 Election08 Sifters of the Past Week Newest Appreciated Comments          | ||||||||||||||
Disgusting.
Edit: Hmm, I'm ignorant of the laws governing public speech for servicemen. Is it not okay to do this while deployed?
A horrible civil war would start and would kill MUCH more people that were already killed and might be killed in the future.
Not only that, but all (civilians and US servicemen/women) lives already lost would have been for NOTHING. They would have died for stupidity and NOTHING. Iraq would just fall back to where it was before, or worse.
Not to mention that the reputation of the USA would suffer even more, especially to those people who have faith in the USA to help them create democracy in their country. Those people would be betrayed by the US and you can be sure that their following generations would learn from that betrayal.
No matter what the USA will do, people will bitch about it. If they just leave, they leave a country in chaos and people will criticize that because people will die. If they stay, people will criticize it still because there are people dieing every day.
You know, the majority of the people in Iraq actually appreciate the positive things the US brought to them. Its just the rebels that pull things down so much. And what he talks about "they just want their country back" is bullshit. Those people blowing up THEIR OWN PEOPLE, just want a single thing back: THEIR POWER. They are indoctrinating THEIR people to send em in as cannonfodder, to fight for them to get THEIR power back, so they can oppress their citizens again as it was before.
I would think people learned from history...
Seriously, if you dont want to fight for another countrys freedom, then dont join the military. The USA always fought wars for other countries, especially soldiers should know that. And I as german am extremely grateful for what they did in the past.
I dont understand this "honor" bashing bullshit. Think a bit further and you will clearly see the honor/dishonor...
1) stay in the country ( more amercan troops die probably less savilean death in short term small bombings happen for the next 60-200 ore so years.
2) pull out ( huge death and chaos for 15-50 years) new govement replaces old probably Simula to sadam probably worse more fundamentalist )
i think ether way there will be a good deal of death and terbulance in the country i think the bush government should be imprisoned for the desicoin to go in in the first place and then we Analise the situation and pick the least voilont way to procide
Lastly, you don't join the military to "bring freedom and democracy to other countries." While the US military has indeed done that in the past, the purpose of the military is defensive (protect America from enemies foreign and domestic) and offensive (protect friends and allies of America and American interests). Being nice and helping other countries is lofty goal but what America does and when with its military always depends on the civilians in charge-- the government and Commander In Chief (president).
Don't kid yourselves-- while the US did free many countries from tyranny in the past, it wasn't because "that's a good thing." What the US does, both good and bad, is because someone thinks it's in their best interest. Most other countries are the same way.
As a German, if you are grateful be grateful for this: that the Japanese bombed Pearl harbor and got the Americans involved. They may not have otherwise.
All the above is just my opinion.
I too appreciate your comments. But I would like to ask, how do you know that casualties would go up if the US pulled out of Iraq? I don't think that anyone actually knows the answer to that question.
Here we have someone who has been there for a tour of duty, spent time with the locals, and has come to the exact opposite conclusion. I am assuming that you haven't been there (neither have I).
I think it can be reasonably argued that casualties would go down if the US were to leave. Much of the violence would seem to be directed at the US military and their supporters. The US occupation (it's not a war) serves as a potent recruitment tool for extremist organizations as well as ready targets for attacks.
Ultimately the situation in Iraq will need to be solved by the people of that country. Frankly, I believe that the "solutions" that may be deemed acceptable to the Iraqis may not be compatible with US aims there.
The argument that we must stay or "things will get much worse" serves quite nicely the original intent and purpose of this entire misadventure in my opinion - that is, a permanent US presence in the Middle East, right on top of a big ol' pool of black gold.
Frankly, the presentation of this position (US gone=chaos) as a foregone conclusion, the complete lack of credibility of the current occupant of the oval office and the expediency of this claim to their purposes (I believe) makes this "truth" highly suspect.
Can somebody explain to me why the conventional wisdom is suddenly "the surge is working?" I've heard that several times lately, but I just don't get it. Working how exactly? Nobody every follows up on that other than maybe to say something like "casualties are down." If it's true, that's good of course, but to jump from there to "the surge is working" is to commit the most basic of logical fallacies--correlation does not necessarily imply causation. Since the goal remains undefined, I suppose you could point to any subsequent statistic as evidence that the surge is somehow "working," but the statement is shallow and meaningless; basically it's an example of magical thinking. Of all the various ways those same resources could have been used, was "the surge" really the best way forward at the time? Is it now? These questions remain totally unaddressed by a statement such as "it's working."
Make no mistake, it pains me to say this, but those lives will have been lost for nothing no matter what we do at this point.
We're in complete agreement here. There's no good answer for the current situation. We have to decide which is the lesser of two evils and hope we choose correctly.
The US military is not fighting for anyone's freedom. Individuals may say or think "I'm doing this to help the oppressed Iraqi people", but that is not why they were sent to Iraq. Our military was sent to Iraq for two things: Revenge and Oil.
Something that strikes me about people who are in favor of the war are statements indicating that we can win or that we are winning. We're not and we can't, you know why? We don't even have an objective anymore. We had one before: taking out Saddam. Whether that was right is another debate, but since we caught him we haven't had an objective to my knowledge.
I find myself mostly agreeing with one of Huckabee's statements even though I reach the opposite conclusion:
"Whether or not we should have gone to Iraq is a discussion historians can have, but we're there. We bought it because we broke it."
I don't believe we should have gone, but it's too late for that so it's not worth debating. I feel like we have an obligation to Iraq, now, to fix all the problems we've created. Unfortunately, I don't think we can fix any of them.
We invaded without honor and we killed without honor. There is no honor for us to leave with.
Let's assume it was a mistake to go to Iraq (not a big stretch for most). Who's paying for that mistake? If it's us then let's pay the piper, learn from it, and not do it again. If it's the Iraqi's then we need to make it right to them. How to best do that is up to you to decide but I don't think saying to Iraq, "wow, sucks to be you. We shouldn't have done that. Hope it works out for you in the end, but you're on your own." is going to make that happen.
I'd say that less troops and more reconstruction/humanitarianism is a good start, but if there are still attacks then removing troops doesn't work and I'm sure we can all agree there is something very wrong with the contractors who are currently there. I think (from what I've seen) that we're making (slow) progress there and that having an immediate troop evac would throw that away.
As far as the soldier suggesting McCain misrepresented the feelings of soldiers, he stands just as much chance of misrepresenting them. I am a Californian, but that doesn't mean I have a better idea of what Californians think that someone who isn't from California. It is possible the outside source has a less biased view, a wider sample audience, etc. I'm sure you can find every point of view among the soldiers and the one you feel in the majority can change based on who you talk to.
I understand that he's upset to fight a war he doesn't believe in, but someone should have told him that was part of the armed forces. Don't like it: don't sign up. That's one of the reasons I didn't.
You can actually read his apprehensions at delivering such bullshit, and his relief at the reception:
"We should not lose our honor [empty word] and that is more important [emotionally charged statement] than the Republican party." [pause, sweat] [listen to crowd] [they liked it?] [relax].
I don't know what's worse, that one of the candidates looking to run the country is touting so much of yesterday's outdated trash, or that the morons in the audience are applauding him.
"If we screw up, we screw up as a nation!"
DIE FUCKING MORON.
I can't wait for the day when all of those in the world charged with fighting - starting or ending wars, defending or attacking countries, and the like - all collectively lay down their weapons and say to their leaders, "I've had enough, I'm not going to fight this stranger. If you want to die for [insert pointless cause], do it yourself."
The people hold all the cards, if they'd only realize it and stand up. When only one in a million does it, the effort usually lacks the strength necessary to change things.
On the other hand, if they are trying to tell us "Operation Iraqi Freedom" is not bring us Iraqi freedom then their point of view is valid. Otherwise, it seems to be as useful as asking Hollywood....