How would you feel....

[MacFett]

How would you feel to hear that your son was the first soldier killed in Iraq affter combat operations had ceased?
"Mission Accomplished" all over again?

[Cousi]

I look at my eight year old son now; full of life, hopes and dreams for the future and I know that one day he might put on a uniform and fight for our country. Should he decide to do so, I would be proud beyond reason. His older sisters have at times mentioned the desire to serve our country and I would be no less proud of them.

If I received that news, I would be devastated and outraged but I would still be proud that my child had the courage to serve. I would honor them in the best way possible.

[Blackthorn]

Not good, not good. I remember when the papers printed a story about the man who had the "dubious honor of being the last American soldier killed in Vietnam."

[n11pilot]

As long as America values its freedom and is forced to engage in conflict to defend that freedom, there will always be a last American fighting man or woman killed. Their sacrifice is no less than that the first to fall, nor is their honor diminished by the capriciouness of fate or the arbitrary workings of a timeline.


I would feel the same sense of loss and gratitude that I feel for all of my brothers and sisters who have made the ultimate, unselfish sacrifice.

[Eric Renderking Fisk]

In an article that I wrote (and then lost) about the current situation between Iran and Israel, I ask this simple question - are there no children in Iran?

I ask this question because of all the posturing Iran's president is doing. He says that once he gets an atomic weapon, he's going to use it. I'm not making that up, neither is the NSM that has been reporting this faithfully. Don't the people of Iran know that when the Americans and Israelis retaliate or strike primitively that there will be children that will die as collateral damage?

We're talking about other people's children, either as babies, as school children, college students, or solders. I'm regret saying this - but that's war. We are going to come in, do what we have to do, and other peoples children will die. Not a matter of why, it's a matter of how many.

If you threaten the children of another nation, whether directly or indirectly, the base human instinct it to retaliate. We're going to "shock and awe" you back into the stone age and I don't feel a moment's remorse. I want OUR side to protect OUR children with extreme prejudice.

The notion that a solder dies after the war has ended is a travisty and a crime. Question is, who do we charge?

[MacFett]

I guess my whole point is that nothing has changed over there. The only change is the wording. Something that seems to be becoming common place. For example, no more combat troops in Iraq. So what do you call the soldier that just died over there? A civillian? Or, how about no more Global War on Terror because that may be offensive to the terrorists I guess. The new term is Overseas Contingency Operations. Again, no change in who's over there fighting. Or policing since "fighting" might offend someone.
It just seems that rather than any action, we'll just re-title everything which will make it better.
Fisk, I have an opinion on your comments. But, I best keep them to myself.
And just in case anybody is thinking I don't support the WAR on TERROR. Or any war on anybody who would threaten our freedoms, rest assured that is not the case.

[Super Ordinary Guy]

Fisk, I have an opinion on your comments. But, I best keep them to myself.
And just in case anybody is thinking I don't support the WAR on TERROR. Or any war on anybody who would threaten our freedoms, rest assured that is not the case.

\

I was thinking the exact same thing, don't know if we both feel the same but I best keep my thoughts to myself.....

[Eric Renderking Fisk]

Guys, this is the Rant Sheet - outsiders or general members can't read what goes on here. Say your peace. This is your forum too.

[Cousi]

And just in case anybody is thinking I don't support the WAR on TERROR. Or any war on anybody who would threaten our freedoms, rest assured that is not the case.

Never crossed my mind sir. I figured since you're over there and you see what's happening that the question was posed because of what you see day in and day out.

As Ren said - say your piece. We do not retaliate against anyone expressing their opinion providing that doing so does not violate the rules.

To be honest, I like it when we disagree: I learn more that way and I love a good debate.

Besides, the curiosity is KILLING ME!!!

[n11pilot]

I guess my whole point is that nothing has changed over there. The only change is the wording. Something that seems to be becoming common place. For example, no more combat troops in Iraq. So what do you call the soldier that just died over there? A civillian? Or, how about no more Global War on Terror because that may be offensive to the terrorists I guess. The new term is Overseas Contingency Operations. Again, no change in who's over there fighting. Or policing since "fighting" might offend someone.
It just seems that rather than any action, we'll just re-title everything which will make it better.
Fisk, I have an opinion on your comments. But, I best keep them to myself.
And just in case anybody is thinking I don't support the WAR on TERROR. Or any war on anybody who would threaten our freedoms, rest assured that is not the case.

Mac, I never doubted you even for a second.

I have been witness to enough stupid political decisions regarding the military to know exactly what you mean. I served with guys who saw White House micromanaging of our troops in Vietnam down to the squad level, men ordered to do gun runs on empty jungle, men whose units were cut to pieces by fire coming fron "No fire zones". In my own experience I saw the horrible cost of the politically mismanaged "Desert 1" and I remember being sent in a very hostile area of the World after being forced to surrender my sidearm and being issued an M-16 with 90 mile-an-hour tape over the magazine well. The three rounds I was allowed were in a magazine similarly secured with the same tape.
Now we have a war that we can't call a war. We have terrorists who must be described as suspects so we don't hurt their feelings. Our "Winnie the Poo" rules of engagement are a sad joke that seem designed to give advantage to the enemy and cost us as many casualties as possible.

I am the first one to say that the US military is and ought to be subject to the civilian government. We take an oath to protect and defend the US Constitution and unlike may politicians we actually mean it. These facts are what keeps the US free and in the hands of the people.

Having said that and believing every word, I would also like to tell the politicians some facts.
War should be a last resort at all times and should be avoided if possible, but if the situation needs us to go to war then that is exactly what we do. We inflict pain upon the enemies of this country until they surrender or cease to be a threat, and I mean no threat at all. When we go in we go in with as much force as possible and come home with as many American lives intact as possible.

The civilian government makes the painful decision to go to war and once that decision is made the military makes the war. There is no micromanaging, there is oversight to be sure but unless the politician giving orders is a West Point graduate with at least two combat stripes then he stays away from dictating tactics. We have folks who actually know how to meet the enemy and their on the ground judgement is much better than that of a think tank five thousand miles from the sound of shots fired in anger.

The US military is a fighting force. It is comprised solely of dedicated people who volunteered to defend this country and our way of life.
It is not a social program, it is not a charity, a humanitarian organization, or a sensitivity council. It can do humanitarian things but its primary mission is to make the US secure.

Finally MR/MS Politician the US Military is just that, the American force that you choose to send into harms way to protect us. That makes them the good guys, the home team, OUR side. Now why not try rooting for it for a change?

[MacFett]

I am the first one to say that the US military is and ought to be subject to the civilian government. We take an oath to protect and defend the US Constitution and unlike may politicians we actually mean it. These facts are what keeps the US free and in the hands of the people.

Having said that and believing every word, I would also like to tell the politicians some facts.
War should be a last resort at all times and should be avoided if possible, but if the situation needs us to go to war then that is exactly what we do. We inflict pain upon the enemies of this country until they surrender or cease to be a threat, and I mean no threat at all. When we go in we go in with as much force as possible and come home with as many American lives intact as possible.

The civilian government makes the painful decision to go to war and once that decision is made the military makes the war. There is no micromanaging, there is oversight to be sure but unless the politician giving orders is a West Point graduate with at least two combat stripes then he stays away from dictating tactics. We have folks who actually know how to meet the enemy and their on the ground judgement is much better than that of a think tank five thousand miles from the sound of shots fired in anger.

The US military is a fighting force. It is comprised solely of dedicated people who volunteered to defend this country and our way of life.
It is not a social program, it is not a charity, a humanitarian organization, or a sensitivity council. It can do humanitarian things but its primary mission is to make the US secure.

Finally MR/MS Politician the US Military is just that, the American force that you choose to send into harms way to protect us. That makes them the good guys, the home team, OUR side. Now why not try rooting for it for a change?

First sentence: Absolutely. I am on the fat end of the bat. Someone else gets to swing then I get to hit. But, if you swing...... Mean to hit and hit hard.
Rest of your post you described my Shangri La.

[MacFett]

Comments that I held back earlier were in regards to the "Are there no children in Iran" question.
Yes, there are children in Iran and Iraq and Afghanistan and the horn of Africa.
How do we know this?
The terrorist are hiding behind them. Not figuratively, physically.
They do not value life the way we do. We saw this in Mogadishu. Gunmen advancing behind women and children knowing American forces will hesitate in order to preserve the "innocent" life. We've seen it in Iraq; militants blowing up a car bomb in a crowded market place. Not killing American soldiers. Killing their own people. In Afghanistan, the millitants or terrorist or dirt bags or enemy combatants will fire on our troops then run and barricade themselves in a building full of THEIR own children and women..... Periodically poking their head out to take a pot shot or drop a grenade out the door or something like that. (I've CASEVAC'd our guys off a mission like that more than once.)
These guys know that our hands are tied. Not just by the actual ROE. But because we don't want to kill innocent civilians. Trust me, the American Soldier is not a blood thirsty individual looking to do indiscriminant death. (well there might be one or two of those )
Then when we finaly do have to defend ourselves, the media (our own media not just Al Jezera) condem us as baby killers and every body says we should fry.
The bad guys are killing us in the Public Opinion war. The advantage and disadvantage of government controlled media.
Sound familiar SOG? "I will not win this war in the Jungles of Viet Nam. I will win it in the streets of America." I believe it was Ho Chi Mihn who said that.
Sorry for the rant. But, short answer is Yes, there are kids in Iran....

disclaimer: I am a helicopter pilot. When I say "we" or "us", I mean the American Military in general. I do not want to give the false impression that I am in the dirt with the ground forces. But, I DO care deeply about "my guys". From when they get on my bird until I bring them home safely (or at least bring them home) they are MY guys.

[Eric Renderking Fisk]

Then my question should be, why don't they value their children as much as we value ours. The notion that some religion dictates that I should cower behind my own sons and "Alah" say's it's ok makes me sick.

What's wrong with these people? Seriously... I wish we could use members of our own media as human shields. Maybe I don't mean that, I'm tired.

[n11pilot]

Then my question should be, why don't they value their children as much as we value ours. The notion that some religion dictates that I should cower behind my own sons and "Alah" say's it's ok makes me sick.

What's wrong with these people? Seriously... I wish we could use members of our own media as human shields. Maybe I don't mean that, I'm tired.

Eric, If I'm going to take cover it wll be behind something much more substantial than today's American media. These guys can't even stop a loss of professional integrity, how could they hope to stop a 7.62X39?

[Blackthorn]

Well said, all of you. We are on the same page. It just boggles the mind, the stupidity of...so many who can't see obvious truth.