Mickey Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 Just one Soldier's opinion, from the Syracuse paper this morning which I pass on without comment other than that I hope it is all worth it and over sooner rather than later. To the Editor: In March 2003, I was ordered to go to Iraq to "be all I can be" and fight for my country like other soldiers in the U.S. Army. Besides being in Iraq for one year for no reason, there was another thing that annoyed my fellow soldiers and me. That was the way President Bush used the word "we" when he talked about the sacrifices that soldiers are making, extending our stay in wartime and the reason we were there. The sacrifices that soldiers are making in Iraq are being tainted every time Bush talks about it using "we." The president is not the one who is losing his wife, children and dog to some other man named "Jodie" at home. He is not the one missing the first breath of a firstborn or the last breath of a soldier, mom or dad. When I was in Iraq, I was working 16-hour shifts due to the lack of troops and the level of untrained personnel that deployed with me. About 75 percent of the soldiers had only two sets of uniforms for the first six months. Imagine trying to wash your body with three bottles of water and having to wash your uniforms day in and day out. At least it was easy to dry my uniforms in 115-degree weather. A great percentage of the soldiers did not have a bullet-proof vest. Therefore, we had to try to find pieces of metal that would fit in our vests in order to have more protection. We also had to find sand bags for our vehicles. These are some of the things that happen to soldiers in wartime, while the president is sitting at home saying "we" did this and that. Extending the stay of a soldier in wartime is one of the worst things for a soldier's morale because we are the ones sleeping in a sandbox while Bush is in Washington cruising through four more years. I was stuck in Iraq for only one year while other soldiers are there for much longer. One and a half, two years or more is what our troops are now facing. The Reservists and National Guard are getting abused out there. They are undertrained and underpaid waiting for that "one weekend a month and two weeks a year." One week before I was supposed to leave Iraq, I received orders (stop-loss policy) to stay in Iraq for three more months. That was one of the saddest days in my life. I have never felt like hurting people for no reason like I did that day. So I can understand why soldiers may start to lose it in wartime, when someone is 4,000 miles away messing with your life and you are left out there powerless. So, how can Bush talk about family and unity when soldiers are kept in war even after they have served? The president should ask himself: Why are U.S. troops in Iraq? Because we, the soldiers, are the ones living the everyday, never-ending hell. Soldiers and people dying, a great amount of oil, but still we have not found any weapons of mass destruction. When you ask a soldier who has been living in Iraq for a year why he is there in front of a camera, he might reply that it is to make Iraqi people free. But when he is out of the spotlight, his anger, pain and hate will come flying out like it does in his everyday Iraqi life. The way the president uses "we" when he talks about the soldiers' sacrifices, the separation from their families and why our troops are in Iraq really brings down our troops' morale. President Bush is not the one on guard duty thinking about his family in a distant place. Now we know that the meaning of "we" for the president is a soldier, another soldier, or other soldiers, but the term does not include him. "We" the soldiers are the ones fighting the war while Bush keeps saying "we" when he is actually sitting at home. Edwar A Uceta Espinal Liverpool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 Clearly this valiant young man wasn't taught that the use of the term "we" by those such as the Bushes (and the Windsors) merely refers to their real, or imagined, royal status. One certainly does not expect contemporary royalty to sully their hands, does one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted December 20, 2004 Author Share Posted December 20, 2004 Clearly this valiant young man wasn't taught that the use of the term "we" by those such as the Bushes (and the Windsors) merely refers to their real, or imagined, royal status. One certainly does not expect contemporary royalty to sully their hands, does one? 168846[/snapback] He is probably used to taking credit for what his servants do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 Sounds like he's a little bitter because his wife's diddling someone else. Tough luck, pal, you signed the papers and you're the one responsible for marrying a whore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin in Va Beach Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 "Hey, I joined the service for free college. What's this 'having to fight for your country' crap?!?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 Up next, Deb and Mick will post up a letter from a postman complaining about having to go from house to house with all those envelopes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daryl Manonica Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 Clearly this valiant young man wasn't taught that the use of the term "we" by those such as the Bushes (and the Windsors) merely refers to their real, or imagined, royal status. 168846[/snapback] Or maybe he's just too stupid to understand that "we" means either all Americans or all military members, two groups of which Bush is a member. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimshiz Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 His editorial starts out with a false and incorrect premise: "Besides being in Iraq for one year for no reason...". George W. Bush is the Commander in Chief and thanks to his steadfastness and the heroism of the Troops, "WE" are safe in our own land as "WE" meet the enemy in their land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichFan Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 Sounds like he's a little bitter because his wife's diddling someone else. Tough luck, pal, you signed the papers and you're the one responsible for marrying a whore. 169180[/snapback] Brutal+honest = Brutally honest. Way to call it, Joe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 Obviously that "soldier" is a iraqi sympathizer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 Sounds like he's a little bitter because his wife's diddling someone else. Tough luck, pal, you signed the papers and you're the one responsible for marrying a whore. 169180[/snapback] Tough luck pal? "We need to support our troops, by God, because their morale depends on it." Unless, of course, they question why they are there, or mention that they want to come home after a year and their tour is technically over. Then it's tough sh--. Fug'em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 Tough luck pal? I think we now know that joe6pack = "jodie" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 Tough luck pal? "We need to support our troops, by God, because their morale depends on it." Unless, of course, they question why they are there, or mention that they want to come home after a year and their tour is technically over. Then it's tough sh--. Fug'em. 169692[/snapback] That's what I call Compassionate Conservatism. They're just ambassadors for their cause are they not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 That's what I call Compassionate Conservatism. They're just ambassadors for their cause are they not? 169881[/snapback] It must be very confusing to be that patriotic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 Tough luck pal? "We need to support our troops, by God, because their morale depends on it." Unless, of course, they question why they are there, or mention that they want to come home after a year and their tour is technically over. Then it's tough sh--. Fug'em. 169692[/snapback] Big picture Johnny. Pretty much every guy who gets deployment orders has an excuse for getting out of it. Pretty much every skirmish should be someone else's fight. Standard Operating Procedure, trust me. I support the troops but this guy's nothing more than a whiner. He signed the papers and I promise nobody told him he'd be staying in the "High Rollers Suite" at the Luxor dining on cavier and crumpets through the duration of his enlistment. Suck it up soldier and quit yer bitchin'. There's work to be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 So, y'all are saying they should change the name to the International Guard? I liked the conservatives better (and considered myself one) before they flip-flopped on this.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 Big picture Johnny. Pretty much every guy who gets deployment orders has an excuse for getting out of it. Pretty much every skirmish should be someone else's fight. Standard Operating Procedure, trust me. I support the troops but this guy's nothing more than a whiner. He signed the papers and I promise nobody told him he'd be staying in the "High Rollers Suite" at the Luxor dining on cavier and crumpets through the duration of his enlistment. Suck it up soldier and quit yer bitchin'. There's work to be done. 170011[/snapback] In the French and Indian War, Revolutionary War, Tripolitan War, War of 1812, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, and World War I, in which men VOLUNTEERED their services in defense of this country or others freedom, were NEVER ONCE FORCED into staying on BEYOND their enlisted time during those wars. This soldier has a totally legitimate beef; America has forgotten where it comes from, and now our government looks more like George III's parliament than the body that was created by our Founding Fathers. Stop-loss oversteps the bounds of reasonable service, in my opinion. We didn't need it then, and we don't need it NOW. This man is no whiner; he's telling it like it is... these days, honesty means CRAP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 Big picture Johnny. Pretty much every guy who gets deployment orders has an excuse for getting out of it. Pretty much every skirmish should be someone else's fight. Standard Operating Procedure, trust me. I support the troops but this guy's nothing more than a whiner. He signed the papers and I promise nobody told him he'd be staying in the "High Rollers Suite" at the Luxor dining on cavier and crumpets through the duration of his enlistment. Suck it up soldier and quit yer bitchin'. There's work to be done. 170011[/snapback] I get it, AD, I really do. There will always be whiners. I just don't think this will be an isolated incident. More letters to the editor will be getting published like this young man's letter, justified or not. I find it ironic that those who are most vocal about supporting the troops (no matter what) would be the most vocal in calling him out as a whiner at best, a coward at worst (not that anyone in this thread has used that phrase yet). I wonder how troop morale will be affected the more that this type of thing happens? The yellow ribbons are starting to fade... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 In the French and Indian War, Revolutionary War, Tripolitan War, War of 1812, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, and World War I, in which men VOLUNTEERED their services in defense of this country or others freedom, were NEVER ONCE FORCED into staying on BEYOND their enlisted time during those wars. This soldier has a totally legitimate beef; America has forgotten where it comes from, and now our government looks more like George III's parliament than the body that was created by our Founding Fathers. Stop-loss oversteps the bounds of reasonable service, in my opinion. We didn't need it then, and we don't need it NOW. This man is no whiner; he's telling it like it is... these days, honesty means CRAP. 170060[/snapback] I'm not disagreeing with the ideal. Lord knows I've espoused similiarly for a LONG time. I was also kept past my enlistment because of Bosnia, so I know exactly where the bitterness comes from. Doesn't change the fact that dude's a whiner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted December 21, 2004 Author Share Posted December 21, 2004 There have been plenty of letters from troops posted here in support of the war, a little balance doesn't hurt. I won't stoop to the oft repeated favorite tactic of some and call anyone who questions a story from the front lines a jerk who doesn't "support our troops". We ought to be able to discuss the war and how things are going without pulling that out those kinds of cheap shots. Clearly, this guy has been through one seriously rough deal and I hope he and all the troops get home safe as soon as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts