TexasCHLforum.com

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

AndyC wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Were you there under penalty of imprisonment or death?

No, Iraq was a stroll in the park. What do you think?

I think thats a no, you were not there under penalty of imprisonment or death if you didn't go.

Could you quit at any time? What happened to you if you quit?

The US hasn't executed someone going AWOL or deserting since WW2. Furthermore, the military doesn't chase down those who go AWOL or desert, so refusing to go is pretty safe as long as you don't mind a dishonorable discharge. Desertion in the face of the enemy is different but as old Bowe B has shown, that apparently no longer brings prison or death. So, you're speaking to technicalities not realities. Futhermore, Joe Schmoe doesn't get employed as a contractor.....those who do have a warrior ethic and they don't desert their compatriots. Your comments suggest to me that you have never been in the military and therefore have absolutely no concept of what it means to be a warrior.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:When you demonstrate these are Iraqi interpreters and not hired guns we can discuss it.

Until then we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

I'm still interested in what aspect of your military service inclines you toward the assessment you've made about the attitudes of other soldiers?

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

The same can be said for those who pack firearms. Those contractors are human beings, and more than likely American citizens.

They may be humans but there's no reason to go to war for them.

Can you clarify which government you think is paying these contractors? As far as I've seen, all are paid by either the US DOD or the US State Department. Now, if a contractor is not American I suppose you could call him a mercenary, but then, you realize, right, that the US military takes foreign nationals who want to become citizens of the US? To me, if someone is fighting on our side either in uniform or under contract and paid by the US government, they're one of ours...no matter where they're from originally.

Equating them to US soldiers is quite humorous.

Such an equivalence is in your mind only. I'm speaking to moral obligation and commitment, which is independent of profession and nationality. Now, there may be circumstances when hard choices have to be made and under such circumstances fellow Americans have to come first. We're not in such circumstances or limited by how we can honor our commitments. OTOH, I'm referring to foreigners being paid by the US government, who may be called mercs from the perspective of their own nations, but I suspect the contractors referenced in this thread are mostly Americans, and ex-US military, and being paid by the US government are, hence, not mercs.

My coworker is currently hosting an Iraqi interpreter who served his brother-in-law in Iraq. Our enemy liked nothing better than killing such interpreters. His BIL did the honorable thing and got him out of Iraq, and this is exactly what we owed anyone who honorably served our interests in a similar way. Now this former interpreter, an Iraqi national, is joining the US army.

You may think that. I doubt actual US soldiers think that. We have a commitment to US soldiers. Other combatant groups? Hardly.

So, enlighten me. Which branch of the military did you serve in? How many of those around do you think shared your attitude? If you were an officer with an Iraqi interpreter you'd have left him to his own devices when we left Iraq? I'm giving you an example of an actual Army officer who worked to get the guy that helped his unit in Iraq out of the country and safely to America --not a hypothetical example.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

The same can be said for those who pack firearms. Those contractors are human beings, and more than likely American citizens.

They may be humans but there's no reason to go to war for them.

Can you clarify which government you think is paying these contractors? As far as I've seen, all are paid by either the US DOD or the US State Department. Now, if a contractor is not American I suppose you could call him a mercenary, but then, you realize, right, that the US military takes foreign nationals who want to become citizens of the US? To me, if someone is fighting on our side either in uniform or under contract and paid by the US government, they're one of ours...no matter where they're from originally.

Equating them to US soldiers is quite humorous.

Such an equivalence is in your mind only. I'm speaking to moral obligation and commitment, which is independent of profession and nationality. Now, there may be circumstances when hard choices have to be made and under such circumstances fellow Americans have to come first. We're not in such circumstances or limited by how we can honor our commitments. OTOH, I'm referring to foreigners being paid by the US government, who may be called mercs from the perspective of their own nations, but I suspect the contractors referenced in this thread are mostly Americans, and ex-US military, and being paid by the US government are, hence, not mercs.

My coworker is currently hosting an Iraqi interpreter who served his brother-in-law in Iraq. Our enemy liked nothing better than killing such interpreters. His BIL did the honorable thing and got him out of Iraq, and this is exactly what we owed anyone who honorably served our interests in a similar way. Now this former interpreter, an Iraqi national, is joining the US army.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

The same can be said for those who pack firearms. Those contractors are human beings, and more than likely American citizens.

They may be humans but there's no reason to go to war for them.

Can you clarify which government you think is paying these contractors? As far as I've seen, all are paid by either the US DOD or the US State Department. Now, if a contractor is not American I suppose you could call him a mercenary, but then, you realize, right, that the US military takes foreign nationals who want to become citizens of the US? To me, if someone is fighting on our side either in uniform or under contract and paid by the US government, they're one of ours...no matter where they're from originally.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Are these mercenaries? If so I could care less.

If not, ok. Not sure what to do about it though.
I'd bet air strikes (drone strikes if you prefer) will start hitting within 24 hours.

Not mercenaries, employees of the DOD there to prepare a transfer of fighter jets to the Iraqi government.

gringo pistolero wrote:At one point weapons of mass destruction were called NBC to encompass Nuclear, Biological and Chemical weapons. At another point they were known as CBR for the categories of Chemical, Biological and Radiological.

I think the current buzzword is CBRN to distinguish between true nuclear weapons and radioactive dirty bombs.

If they wanted to logically include biological and chemical weapons like Sarin gas under the same umbrella they would call them WMM.....weapons of mass murder. A nuke produces mass destruction, radioactive contamination, and death. Biological and chemical weapons just produce death. It was NBC when I was in the military.

philip964 wrote:http://mobile.wnd.com/2014/06/200-u-s-c ... s-in-iraq/

200 US civilian contractors trapped at A surrounded Iraq air base. Working for department of defense.

Taking small arms fire and RPG's from ISIS. So far holding. So far US military not helping to evacuate.

If true, I have to ask.....is the Head Clown deliberately wanting to look weak, foolish, and gutless? How does the clown posse think it's going to play politically if ISIS captures a bunch of Americans working for the military, parades them around on television, then lops off their heads?

baldeagle wrote:

VMI77 wrote:there were no WMD's in Iraq.

Sadly, that is untrue. The left and the media have convinced a great many people that it is, so it doesn't seem to matter any more what the truth is. It's also true that Al Qaeda fighters were being trained in Iraq, but that has disappeared down the black hole as well. It says something about the power of the media that a lie becomes truth and truth becomes a lie.

Any idea where the chemical weapons came from that were used in Syria not too long ago? Syria didn't manufacture them.

I knew someone was going to respond as you did. Well, in the first place, calling the chemical weapons used in Syria WMDs is just a scare term. Weapons of mass destruction used to be nukes, now just about anything is called a WMD --it's like calling a semi-automatic rifle an "assault rifle" and with the same purpose....to exaggerate the danger of something. When Colin Powell was lying at the UN the talk was of yellow cake....uranium.....and the specter of Saddam having nuclear weapons. Now, Colin Powell claims that he was deceived and didn't know he was lying, which I find hard to buy, but he still lied in any case. The poison gas tale is a default excuse because Saddam didn't have nukes. How much public support would there have been to invade Iraq because they had poison gas? Well, they had used it before on their own people and the Iranians, and we not only did nothing --because it wasn't a threat to the US-- we continued to supply Saddam with intelligence and material support in his war with Iran.

So, how come poison gas wasn't a WMD requiring invasion back then? How come if the poison gas you say went from Iraq to Syria --and this claim isn't recent btw, it was being made back in 2003-- was so much of a threat we needed to invade Iraq, we didn't invade Syria to get the stuff we supposedly invaded Iraq to get? When the gas crossed the border did it morph from a WMD to just plain old poison gas? We expended a lot of lives and treasure going into Iraq and then decided it was ok for Syria to have the same thing that required us to spend all blood and treasure in Iraq?

And you can't simply blame the media for lying, because yes, they lie all the time, but when they were lying before the Iraq invasion the lies they were telling were for the purpose of creating public support for the invasion. The media has supported every war we've ever fought....even Vietnam, initially...until the tide of public opinion turned against it....partly because of the ruling class getting deferments while the sons of blue collar families got drafted.

Beiruty wrote:

mamabearCali wrote:Sigh....perhaps a mostly secular despot was not such a horrible thing. We can't win.

I was against Iraq war from the start. I was 100% sure Iraq war did not serve the interest of US, nor the war was winnable. One had just to ask the British how was it in Iraq after WW2.
Now, the Iraq/Syria war is destabilizing the whole ME.
The whole Obama/Hillary Foreign policy is total failure. If for Bengazhi incident, Hillary said who cares if it was for the video or pre-planned attack. Now, what about Iraq, Syria and ISIS?!!
no-action in Syria by Obama administration led to ISIS getting stronger and nobody cared until it is too late.

My attitude from the start as well. I angered many friends when I told them that bad as Saddam might be, Iraq was not a threat to the US and our intervention would make things worse for the people of Iraq, the ME, and the interests of the US --and that there were no WMD's in Iraq.