Sunday, November 26, 2006

No Lieutenant, You’re a Coward!

November 26, 2006

In what I perceive as a last ditch effort to save his hide, Lieutenant Ehren Watada is claiming “ It Was His Duty To Refuse ‘lllegal’ Orders.” Sorry, it doesn’t wash.

Yes, everyone in the Military has the right to refuse “illegal orders,” but better have their ducks in a row before they do. Otherwise, you have mutineers deciding what they will or won’t do as they deem necessary.

In this time of war, as all others, hard decisions must be made, men must be sent off to face possible death and orders must be followed by those entrusted to give them. Any officer, especially, should know that.

In Watada’s case, he claims that being sent to Iraq is an “illegal order,” based largely in part upon "a surge in popular resistance to the war as evidenced by the recent elections." Did he somehow miss the reelection of Senator Lieberman (I. Ct.), a staunch pro-Iraq War Democrat turned Independent? Did he miss the shift towards the middle of many “blue dog” Democrats that didn’t speak out against the war and are now first termers?

When someone accepts a Commission in the U.S. Army they must take an oath, “ I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

The last I heard, the Constitution grants Commander in Chief over the Military to the President, not a junior grade Army officer. In the case of Iraq, President Bush went before Congress for approval before invading Iraq. In the six month long “rush to war,” he took the matter before the United Nations and received UN Security Council Resolution 1441 by a unanimous vote, 15 to 0. In October 2002 the Senate overwhelmingly voted in favor of the Iraq War Resolution as did the House of Representatives earlier. Only later, in an obvious ploy of partisanship to win the 2004 elections did Democrats now claim they were misled by the Bush Administration, even though several prominent Democrats had called for similar actions against Saddam long before President Bush was in office.

They have succeeded in making the war unpopular, but it is not illegal and it is not the place of a junior grade officer, trained in the leadership of men, to make that decision. Even if he became disillusioned, he accepted a duty that he swore an oath to carry out.

An Army Officer’s first duty in protecting the US Constitution is the welfare and keeping of those men under his command. He is responsible to see they are fed and cared for properly, especially in war. In this case, Watada abandoned his duty to those he was to lead and watched as they were sent off to war without the cohesive leadership he was to give them through training with them. His intent seems to be first to save his own hide and his men be damned. Even in disagreement with Iraq, he could have led his men safely and properly, keeping them as safe as humanly possible. In his first test of leadership, he failed miserably. Although he claims “former colleagues, now serving in Iraq, respect his decision to follow his conscience rather than his orders,” I have yet to see any making such a claim.

In a remarkable ‘Kerryesque’ cry of 1960’s anti-war hippiedom, Watada’s attorney states, “ the best way for the war to end would be if soldiers refused to serve.” An asinine statement if I ever heard one. What he doesn’t fathom is that doing so would not stop our enemies desiring to destroy our lifestyle. It’s much like saying ‘if the National Guard stopped responding to disasters, disasters will stop.'

Throughout American and World History, a small segment of the society has answered the call and stood proud when threats are faced. Be it rushing to relieve disasters or fight wars, they stand and respond, placing themselves in grave danger. They deserve much better than this cowardly Lieutenant in a position of leadership over them.

Lew

13 comments:

coboble said...

So is this officer now indicating that it is the soldier's responsibility to determine if the war, they are ordered to fight, is illegal? Not a responsibility I would want as a soldier. I never thought I had this responsibility, not on the scale of the legality of the actual conflict. I knew I had this responsibility on the scale of individual acts, related to the treatment of prisoners and civilians and even the enemy, during the conflict.

I think Lieutenant Watada is a coward as well, but that is not the same as being a criminal. Is being a coward a crime?
I sometimes wonder how I would have behaved, if I had been ordered to go to war. I don’t know that I would not have frozen up out of fear. I like to believe that I would have done what I had obligated myself to do when I signed up, but I really do not know.
Every time we had one of those exercises, where we pretended we were going to war, and I was asked if I was a conscientious objector (a required question as part of the processing in preparation for deployment), I had to stop and think because I didn’t know. I always ended up saying no. I guess the time to be certain one is willing to trust the decisions of those who decide what conflicts to engage in, is prior to taking the oath to follow the orders of the President and those appointed under him, not after being ordered into a combat zone.

One thing we were taught in Military Leadership school was that if we did not agree with the orders of those above us, we were NOT to reflect that belief onto those who served under us. This is critical to moral, and moral is critical to mission success. This is not the same as being a blind follower, there is a time and place for contributing to decisions and a time for following based on the decisions of others.

But jail still seems harsh to me. A dishonorable discharge and a fine equivalent to what it cost the government to train him (all pay and education subsidies and allowances received included) seems reasonable. He could pay the fine over time, possibly for the rest of his life if it took that long. In jail he costs the tax payer. If out, he can pay back some of what he has already wasted of our money.
I think he would have been more dangerous had he actually gone to Iraq and passed his attitude onto those he had charge to lead. His failure to go was in the best interest of those who would have served under him.

Lew Waters said...

coboble, we agree in part and disagree in part. Where we disagree is on punishment.

A dishonorable discharge is not much today, given that many employers don't even ask about them. Paying a fine is also not a strong message to send to others who feel they are there for the gravy.

As I'm sure you know, according to the UCMJ, desertion in time of war can be punishable by death. I'm not a JAG officer, so I'm not sure his actions meet the legal requirment of desertion, but they appear they might, to my unlegal eye.

A mere slap on the wrist shows others it's no big deal.

As for his going to Iraq, under these circumstances, it is probably better that he didn't. But my point is that a real soldier and leader would have gone and kept his feelings to himself, leading his men safely and honorably. Proper leadership can make all the difference between life and death for our soldiers.

During a time of war, as we are, in spite of what many may feel, cowardice in the face of the enemy is indeed a crime. Here again, it would be up to a JAG or Court Martial if what he did fits the legal definition.

When I was in, 1969 to 1977, and after Viet Nam, when we held manuevers or any other such "practice," we weren't asked anything, just told we were on alert and moving out.

All during Basic and AIT I had a knot in my stomach regarding where I would end up receiving orders for. Viet Nam was a sure bet, but like most others, I held out hope until I got the orders. I felt fear and relief both when I opened them and read I was going to Viet Nam. Relief that I finally knew and fear that I was actually going. Looking back, I survived as did the overall majority of us, so maybe it was having that touch of fear that helped me stay alert.

One thing that never crossed my mind was to run away to Canada or refuse to go.

Arturo said...

I agree with Lew on the punishment aspect. He should go to military jail for a few years. I also agre that he should get a dishonorable discharge. And yes, that means Leavenworth, Kansas.

I received a Bad Conduct Discharge in the late 80's for doing some pretty stupid things. I served time in a military prison in Kansas (not Leavenworth, but the medium security facility at Fort Riley, Kansas known as USACA. It no longer exists). It was essentially 1.5 years of basic training while being guarded by MP's who were under orders to shoot if you tried to escape. It worked on me. No more trouble since that occurred almost 20 years ago. And I was NEVER asked about the type of discharge I received from any of my subsequent employers. Also, anyone who receives a dishonorable discharge will, from my experience, automatically be serving a jail term. I knew many such former soldiers. They were not given plea bargains. So, it is not just a matter of handing him a dishonorable discharge and kicking him out the door. That type of discharge is given after a courts-martial (just like my type of discharge). Knowing my luck, I'll be proven wrong on this one, but that's the way it was back in the late 1980's.

My point is that the type of discharge you get these days doesn't matter as long as you don't bother to show your DD214 to a prospective employer. If you try to claim some sort of veteran's preference you will have to show the DD214. If you don't want the hassle, just don't claim any veteran's preference. If you still get asked about the DD214, all you have to say is that it was lost (in a fire, while moving, etc.). It is not required to obtain employment, so you are under no obligation to obtain a copy before seeking a job. It is just required to claim veteran's benefits.

I claim no veteran's benefits (although I've been told that I can, regardless of the BCD I received). I simply went to school, earned my degree, and now have a nice life and a nice little family. I do not vote because I can't since I was convicted in a federal setting and can only have that right re-instated by Presidential pardon. I support our war effort, support our President, and support conservative candidates in any anonymous way that I can.

Lt. Watada deserves a general courts-martial, a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and benefits, and at least 10 years confinement at hard-labor. If not that, then he deserves to be shot for mutiny.

Anonymous said...

Watada took an oath to serve his country; he had an obligation to lead his soldiers but he committed mutiny by hiding in the rear versus leading from the front. I served my time in the military (to include OEF/OIF) and resigned my commission. I still support the military; not on how the war in Iraq has been mismanaged by politics. Watada should of fulfilled his military commitment and got out. He was not in a legitimate position to dictate what is legal or not. Watada is an embarrassment and a distraction; attention should focus more on the sacrifices by our military men and women who are serving overseas—regardless if they support Bush or not.

Lew Waters said...

How true, anonymous.

When in Viet Nam, I knew a few Officers and NCOs who, although they didn't admit it, were not staunch supporters of the war. Still, they led us, trained us and looked out for us as we too became NCOs to lead others.

They performed their duty to the country and to their men, some even paying the ultimate sacrifice in the process.

Given that Watada's parents are opposers from way back, sometimes I wonder if his 'enlistment' wasn't designed for this all along.

Only they know for sure, but a junior lieutenant isn't in any position for policy making, his job is to lead his men and look out for them.

That's also why, most often, especially on field manuevers (when I was in Germany), our Company Commander made sure enlisted ate first, Officers last.

Anonymous said...

sheesh...how can you call this guy a coward...if he had continued taking orders like going to Iraq he would be no better than the terrorist...if you think a soldier in the army should just do what he's told to do then that's completely wrong!
the terrorists don't act differently, they've got their "big minds" "leading" them and making them blow themselves up
this war was so unnecessary in the first place...i mean...it was the USA who helped Sadam Hussein become President of Iraq in the first place
THEN in gulf war 2 they even lied to the Saudis by showing them some fake satellite photos of A LOT of iraqi troops near the iraqi saudi boarder
and former President Bush DIDN'T take care of Saddam Hussein in gulf war 2..as far as I know general Schwarzkopf or whatever his name is, don't remember, planned on invading Iraq from the south to catch Saddam Hussein, but President Bush didn't allow him...now what could that mean?
All this time the USA had troops deployed in Saudi Arabia...as long as Saddam Hussein was still President, that would guarantee the USA to have troops stationed in Saudi Arabia
And it's quite sad that there were so many people who believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction...how could so many people fall for this, the only way Iraq could have gotten their hands on those kind of weapons is through the USA...I don't think Iraq is that of a sophisticated and developed country that they know how to build weapons of mass destruction...the USA even bombed a baby milk factory because they thought they were building nuclear weapons there
what Lieutenant Watada did is right, and his soldiers should follow him...if all soldiers thought this way...we wouldn't be having this war for oil...this war was all planned...unfortunately for the politicians their plan doesn't seem that bullet proof
for all of those who are going to go all angry at me for saying this right now...remember...the WHOLE world and seriously, literally the WHOLE world was behind the USA after 9/11...but the USA has disappointed everybody with the attack on Iraq

Lew Waters said...

Sheesh, how can you NOT call Watada a COWARD, after what he has pulled? His own actions scream of cowardice by the fact that he deserted his men during the time of war. Since it is coming out that both of his parents are old opposers to Viet Nam, I’m beginning to believe this was a plan all along to try to make out as if the war was illegal, declared by a an Army Lieutenant. If so, it isn’t working.

Watada took an oath and he has violated that, not only to the government, but especially to his men. An officer’s first duty is to see to the welfare of the men placed in his charge, which he refused to do by refusing to deploy. I met a few officers in Viet Nam who were opposed to that and they went, not out of loyalty to the Army or the government, but to their men. Watada failed miserably there.

You don’t think a soldier should do what he is told? Obviously, you know little of the Military. First, maybe you should look up and learn what refusing an unlawful order is. It isn’t about deployment or deciding for your self when and where to deploy. If you can’t figure it out, drop back and I’ll let you in on it.

By the same token, would you have been supportive of the troops refusing to deploy into New Orleans after Katrina because the state and city had not done what they needed to do first and the troops would be in danger? Somehow, I doubt it. But, that is what you recommend, just to a different area.

I will give you credit for having all the old Democrat Party talking points down pat, even if they are nonsense. Yes, Bush 1 failed to remove Saddam and the Iraqis that stood up where slaughtered afterwards, but you should research why. We stopped from going into Baghdad back then because the UN said NO! During the “oil for food” program/scandal, how many of them lined their pockets will kickbacks from Saddam? Enough, that’s for sure. There was nothing illegal about invading Iraq as Saddam was in multiple violations of the cease-fire agreement. Still, Bush went before both the Congress and the UN before attacking Saddam and taking his government out. Remember resolution 1441? Unanimously approved by the Security Council?

Isn’t it convenient that now Democrats are complaining that they were misled on the vote for granting Bush authority to invade Iraq, when some of them were calling for the same act long before Bush was even a candidate? Even St. Hillary said Bush had the same intelligence she and her co-president, B.J., had.

I grow weary hearing the same crap over and over again; “the whole world was with us, now they are against us.” Bovine Scatology!! Who was dancing in the streets? Who had a mural of the Twin Towers being hit painted on their buildings? Who refused to cooperate and turn over Bin laden? And, being against us? Is that why several nations still have small contingents of their troops there too?

You liberal moonbats really should pull your heads back out into the sunshine.

But, bottom line, Watada wasn’t and isn’t in any position to decide matters of National Policy. If he felt Iraq was so wrong and illegal, why did he enlist? He wasn’t drafted, he volunteered, just like all the rest of troops have.

In closing, for now, Watada doesn’t even have the support of the Japanese Americans that went before him. Nisei Vets End Silence on Watada. Yes, he is a coward, a man with no honor; he let all of his men down!!!

Anonymous said...

Alright, you definitely have more arguments than I do, so I won't try to state the opposite.
BUT I do want to say a few other things. The USA didn't get Saddam in Gulf War Two because the UN said no. Why would the USA even listen to the UN, they didn't listen to them in 2003. The UN was against the invasion of Iraq, they said it would be better if they continued with those inspections (which actually weren't successful). The USA didn't listen to them, they invade Iraq with their allies.
Another thing, those people you see on TV all happy about 9/11 and about dead Americans do not represent the whole country. These demonstrations are organized by all those radial Islamists who never shave their beard. Believe it or not, the majority of Arabs or Muslims were NOT happy about 9/11. Other than that, the USA has got the CIA. Probably the BEST secret service agency there is. The fact that they don't know where Bin Ladin is seems quite unbelievable to me.
And what happened in New Orleans was not war. The time when the soldiers were needed, they weren't there.
What Watada did might have been wrong and something completely insane for a lot of people, but this war isn't to prevent terrorism, it's just encouraging terrorists to spread world wide and that's what making me angry the most. A lot of arab countries aren't as safe as they used to be, because of terrorists that are threatening to attack in public or foreign embassies. This war is not a way to fight terrorism and I don't think that's why it's being fought.

Lew Waters said...

BUT I do want to say a few other things. The USA didn't get Saddam in Gulf War Two because the UN said no. Why would the USA even listen to the UN, they didn't listen to them in 2003. The UN was against the invasion of Iraq, they said it would be better if they continued with those inspections (which actually weren't successful). The USA didn't listen to them, they invade Iraq with their allies.

Read UN Resolution 1441, unanimously signed.

The UN has become a worthless organization that has the goal of opposing the US and redistributing our wealth amongst all smaller nations. They are not the Supreme World leader, no matter how much the left desires they be.

The UN inspectors were doing a poor job because Saddam thwarted them at every step, while paying kickbacks to other officials in the Oil for Food debacle.


Another thing, those people you see on TV all happy about 9/11 and about dead Americans do not represent the whole country. These demonstrations are organized by all those radial Islamists who never shave their beard. Believe it or not, the majority of Arabs or Muslims were NOT happy about 9/11.

While I will agree with you to a degree, those who danced about did represent their governments. No less than Yasser Arafat tried unsuccessfully to claim footage of his people dancing was archived footage from years before.

I will agree the majority of Muslims are unhappy about 9/11 and even with terrorists, but I will also note that not enough are willing to stand up to those who highjacked their religion and either expose their presence or join in the fight against them.

Other than that, the USA has got the CIA. Probably the BEST secret service agency there is. The fact that they don't know where Bin Ladin is seems quite unbelievable to me.

The CIA isn’t what it used to be. Like other bureaucracies, they too have become more concerned with their longevity than their mission. Add to that how previous administrations gutted the agency and prevented the collection of hands on intelligence, relying solely on high tech, it’s little wonder we know about anything.

As for Bin Laden, how long did it take to find the Uni-bomber? The Olympic bomber? The BTK killer? The Green River Killer?

And what happened in New Orleans was not war. The time when the soldiers were needed, they weren't there.

It is not now, nor has it ever been, the soldiers mission to be first responders to disasters. Mayors, governors and county officials are charged with that task and clearly, in New Orleans, they failed and put it off on Bush. Amazing too, Mississippi was hit as hard as New Orleans and they have somehow managed without all the bellyaching and demands for handouts from New Orleans residents.

If nothing else, make note how the welfare state of New Orleans left people totally unprepared to do anything for themselves, at all, and made demands that others care for them.

As one who has gone through several hurricanes and other events, I was able, along with my neighbors, to pull ourselves out and manage until help did arrive. When it did, we didn’t really need it that much.

What Watada did might have been wrong and something completely insane for a lot of people, but this war isn't to prevent terrorism, it's just encouraging terrorists to spread world wide and that's what making me angry the most.

Terror was already spread throughout the globe before this war started. It has been ongoing, in this latest guise, since 1979.

A lot of arab countries aren't as safe as they used to be, because of terrorists that are threatening to attack in public or foreign embassies.

The Middle East has been a hotbed for centuries. Lebanon was a peaceful and mostly Christian country and fell to acts of terror and radical in the earlier 1970s. If anything, they realize our presence there has helped them. If they didn’t, the entire Middle East would have banded together and forced us out of the Middle East, long ago.

This war is not a way to fight terrorism and I don't think that's why it's being fought.

Pray tell, how would you fight terrorism? 30 years of attempts of appeasing didn’t stop anything, so what is the best way?

Anonymous said...

Attacking a poor and weak country isn't a way to fight terrorism. The USA never cared about the people in Iraq. Those Sanctions were removed when the invaded Iraq in 2003. 1 1/2 MILLION people died in Iraq because of these sanctions, and half a million were children. They weren't even allowed to import chlorine to clean the drinking water, because it can be used to build weapons of mass destruction.
And now this war is killing more civilians than terrorists. No wonder you see a whole lot of Iraqis shouting angrily, cursing Americans. They got Saddam Hussein, which a lot of Iraqis are happy about, but the troops are still there and life is still like hell for people living in Iraq.
More and more youngsters tend to become "terrorists" right now, because the radical side is becoming more powerful, which usually happens in every war.
If this war were really about terrorism, why doesn't the USA invade Saudi Arabia? A lot of terrorists are in Saudi Arabia. That country is so religious, that even women aren't allowed to drive a car there. Half of those imams who sit in mosques, preach about how bad Jews and Americans are. I wouldn't be surprised if they would find a whole bunch of terrorists in Saudi Arabia.
But let's not forget, the USA and Saudi Arabia are really good buddies.
And no not the whole Middle East was hotbed for centuries. Egypt is a peaceful country. Those bombings in Sharm El Sheik you hear about in the news started after the attack on Iraq. Egypt is a country that is quite dependant on tourism, it's in their best interest to prevent these terrorist acts from happening, but they can't since their government is corrupt and their secret service agency is a complete failure.
Those countries would never dare band against the USA. With all the money they get from the USA, that would be the most stupid thing to do. Even if they did, they wouldn't last long and would eventually return the way they were before.
How would I fight terrorism? I would definitely not attack another country because 20 or 30 crazy terrorists attacked mine. And I would not sacrifice the lives of my men to help a country that doesn't even want our help.
The best way would have probably been to work together with other leading secret service agencies and then try to arrest or kill these terrorists. The civil world should have been left out of this.

Lew Waters said...

Anonymous said...
Attacking a poor and weak country isn't a way to fight terrorism. The USA never cared about the people in Iraq. Those Sanctions were removed when the invaded Iraq in 2003. 1 1/2 MILLION people died in Iraq because of these sanctions, and half a million were children. They weren't even allowed to import chlorine to clean the drinking water, because it can be used to build weapons of mass destruction.

Iraq was neither poor or weak. All during the previous administration, bombings occurred, our flights were fired upon, UN resolution after resolution was passed and ignored, and plenty calling for fast withdrawal today, were demanding Clinton enter Iraq and take out Saddam, most notably, John ‘F’in Kerry (who is said to have served in Viet Nam).

While sanctions may have been harsh, if Saddam cared for his people, why not just comply with the ceasefire or the 17 UN resolutions passed against him? Saddam and his cronies carry any responsibility for civilian casualties in Iraq throughout the Clinton administration.

Oh, if you think chlorine can’t be easily misused to make into chlorine gas, study up a little on World War One, where it was used.

And now this war is killing more civilians than terrorists. No wonder you see a whole lot of Iraqis shouting angrily, cursing Americans. They got Saddam Hussein, which a lot of Iraqis are happy about, but the troops are still there and life is still like hell for people living in Iraq.

I don’t see all that many Iraqis shouting angrily at the US. Some, yes. Our lamestream media and Democrat party leaders would have us believe it is the majority of Iraqis. Not true. Even though they would prefer us not be there, they also want us to stay for their protection until they can get the country working smoother.

Yes, they got Saddam and hung him. Can you explain why Democrat party leaders, who claim we are an occupying Army, were opposed to the Iraqis determining what happened to Saddam and carried out? Even the Bush administration was opposed to his early hanging, but they did as they pleased. Some occupiers.

More and more youngsters tend to become "terrorists" right now, because the radical side is becoming more powerful, which usually happens in every war.

Al Qaeda is recuiting still and guess what they use as their fuel for recruitment? Everything the left holds dear. Abortion, homosexuality, free love, you name it, Muslims are opposed to it and claim if they lose, America will be imposing that on them.

They are becoming more powerful, but they are receiving help that needs to be nipped in the bud.

If this war were really about terrorism, why doesn't the USA invade Saudi Arabia? A lot of terrorists are in Saudi Arabia. That country is so religious, that even women aren't allowed to drive a car there. Half of those imams who sit in mosques, preach about how bad Jews and Americans are. I wouldn't be surprised if they would find a whole bunch of terrorists in Saudi Arabia.

You still can’t get passed that we aren’t fighting Iraq. The insurgents come from all over and are spread everywhere throughout the globe. Except, of course, Iraq, according to the anti-war left.

If you haven’t noticed, Saudi Arabia has combated terror, has prosecuted and executed terrorists.

Women aren’t permitted to drive in the Muslim world, not just Saudi Arabia. Odd that our efforts to liberate them from oppressive Imans and cruel Sharia law is condemned by the very people who complain they are mistreated.

Incidentally, last I heard, Saudi Arabia has been softening.

Yes, there are terrorists there. But guess what? We have cells right here in America as well. Every time a program used to identify them or monitor their whereabouts gets front page news in the New York Times, they become that much harder to find and eventually, will strike us again.

But let's not forget, the USA and Saudi Arabia are really good buddies.

So?


And no not the whole Middle East was hotbed for centuries. Egypt is a peaceful country. Those bombings in Sharm El Sheik you hear about in the news started after the attack on Iraq. Egypt is a country that is quite dependant on tourism, it's in their best interest to prevent these terrorist acts from happening, but they can't since their government is corrupt and their secret service agency is a complete failure.

Uh, read some history. Egypt was very much a part of the hostilities in the Middle East until Anwar Sadat led Egypt into burying the hatchet between their countries as he moved away from his Soviet Alliances. Many in Egypt weren’t too happy about that and some still aren’t, which led to his assassination in 1981. It isn’t the government that is terrorist, but individuals, as elsewhere.

The reason the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq needed to be deposed was their support for terrorists, well documented in the 911 commission report. (just not in regard to the actual attacks of 911).

Those countries would never dare band against the USA. With all the money they get from the USA, that would be the most stupid thing to do. Even if they did, they wouldn't last long and would eventually return the way they were before.

Oh please! There is so much wealth in oil rich Arab lands it is pitiful. True, it doesn’t filter down to the people. If you think they won’t attack us, terrorists, not the governments, think again. Read up on the Crusades, all of them. They weren’t always from Christians against Muslims.

How would I fight terrorism? I would definitely not attack another country because 20 or 30 crazy terrorists attacked mine. And I would not sacrifice the lives of my men to help a country that doesn't even want our help.

Tell me, how many terrorist attacks would be enough to stand up and push them back? How many people need die at their hands to encourage the left to take a stand and stop them? It is easy to say what you would not do, not so easy to say what you would do.

If you recall, Democrats were clamoring for Bush to attack someone right after 9/11, leading to his comment, "When I take action, I'm not gonna fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be decisive."

The best way would have probably been to work together with other leading secret service agencies and then try to arrest or kill these terrorists. The civil world should have been left out of this.

Work with who? All were invited, mainland Europe, for the most part, refused to join in. Of course, it is coming out the amount of money they made off of Saddam’s oil for food fiasco. Which one of their intelligence agencies said there weren’t WMDs, prior to the invasion?

As for “arresting or killing the terrorists,” isn’t that what Bush is doing?

Anonymous said...

If Saddam would have cared for his people??
Saddam Hussein USED chemical weapons AGAINST his people...why would he care about them in the first place? The sanctions didn't do anything to him. They didn't weak Saddam Hussein one bit, they made him more powerful in fact, because more and more people joined his party to enjoy the luxury that Saddam Hussein would give them.

Saudi Arabia has caught terrorists? I don't think you know how life is in Saudi Arabia. When there is a bombing or something caused by terrorists, the police (this also happens in Egypt) search through buses and cars, and they take a lot of young people as "suspects" into custody. Especially those who are poor, namely poor Saudis, Pakistanis, Sudanis and so on. Terrorists have a lot of money with them most of the time, if they are stopped by the police, they just have to take out their wallet and then the problem disappears.
How do you think the terrorists get into Sharm el Sheikh in Egypt. They have their bombs with them in the car alright, and there are a lot of checkpoints where the police searches the cars and checks their identities, but if they're being paid enough, they don't check ANYTHING. Policemen aren't really well off people, and terrorists take advantage of that. Another thing, there are a lot of radical islamists within the police. The terrorists that managed to get into a compound in Saudi Arabia and knocked on the doors of houses, asking if the person were american or christian, got in the compound in the first place, because the security men who were supposed to keep those kind of people out of the company were working with these terrorists.

The demonstrations against the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt were organized by islamists, just like in Iraq. They don't represent the whole country. Even today the majority of Egyptians are happy about the actions Saddat took, and are happy to be the first country in the arab world that acknowledged Israel as a nation.

Tell me, when was the last terrorist attack after 9/11 in the USA. And isn't it quite surprising and awkward that the pieces of the plane that did not reach its target and crashed somewhere, weren't found, or that the hole that the plane supposedly made was way smaller than the actual aircraft.
If the USA was so sure about those WMD Saddam Hussein had, how come they didn't do anything about 9/11. I'd be really surprised and disappointed of the CIA if they said we didn't know anything about it. And if they knew about it and Bush refused to take any actions, why is he still the president of the USA? Why was he elected a second time? I really don't see any progress on that war on terror. Where's the democracy? I'm not a big fan of Putin and his government but I do agree with what he said yesterday. The USA has been trying to spread democracy for years, but I don't see a democratic nation when I think about the USA. Just because the USA is such a powerful country, doesn't mean that they can just ignore the rest of the world and do as they please. Afghanistan, Iraq..who's next, Iran maybe? I wouldn't be surprised if it was.

Lew Waters said...

Saddam Hussein USED chemical weapons AGAINST his people...why would he care about them in the first place? The sanctions didn't do anything to him.

Sort of my point, anonymous. The sanctions accomplished nothing. But, that is the usual left wingers tactic to combat despots.

Saudi Arabia has caught terrorists?

Did you miss in April 2005 where they executed some terrorists?

No, they aren’t as effective against terror as I would like, but they area far cry from Iran.

isn't it quite surprising and awkward that the pieces of the plane that did not reach its target and crashed somewhere, weren't found, or that the hole that the plane supposedly made was way smaller than the actual aircraft.

Let me guess, 4 aircraft just vanished with their crew and passengers, they were never involved in the attacks of 9/11, right?

United 93 Conspiracy Refuted

United Airlines Flight 93

If the USA was so sure about those WMD Saddam Hussein had, how come they didn't do anything about 9/11.

Such as? What was Bush supposed to have done that Clinton didn’t?

The USA has been trying to spread democracy for years, but I don't see a democratic nation when I think about the USA.

Democracy can neither be “spread” nor “imposed.” It can only be offered.

Did you miss the elections and purple fingers? And, the threats of death from terrorists to any who voted that went ignored?

I can only repeat what another once said, “All we ask for in exchange is a plot of land to bury our dead.”