Thiebear Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 WOW.. I will abide by you right to say what you say.. i gotta bow outta this thread though.. can't take it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 Originally posted by Snyder Dan define "shortly after his death" Here's an article from May 31 of LAST year. 2004. http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/05/29/tillman.report/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo da Magnificent Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 Originally posted by airborneskins Hey Waldo, STFU, Why don't you come back when you know what you are talking about! No, you STFU. I had my time in the US Army. I know damn well the difference between the dedication of the soldiers and the idiots, especially civilians, who led them. There are a great many soldier who served honorably, nobly and died due to the stupidity and selfishness of their leaders, both military and civilian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yomar Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 he was killed in March Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-Dog Night Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 Originally posted by Kilmer17 And they told them the truth. Is the issue that they didnt do it fast enough? They lied at first (about something they didn't have to lie about) and then they realized that the true story would eventually come out, so they backtracked before that happened. It speaks to bigger questions, which are: what else are they lying about, why are they lying about it, and who controls the lies? It's not a crazy theory that you can just blow off by saying "oh, you've been watching too many Oliver Stone movies". We have evidence here - this happens to be just one instance where they were caught. What we have here is institutionalized propaganda in order to sway a public that, if they knew the real truth about our decisions to go to war, they would be decidedly against the military action in Iraq. It doesn't matter that Tillman was killed in Afghanistan. Very few people have a problem with the military action there. But many people obviously do have a problem with the war in Iraq, and the same people that are controlling the information we receive from Afghanistan are controlling the information we receive regarding all things in Iraq - most notably the pathetically phony reasons that we went to war there in the first place. And those people who are ultimately in charge of that information work in the White House. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
airborneskins Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 Originally posted by Waldo da Magnificent No, you STFU. I had my time in the US Army. I know damn well the difference between the dedication of the soldiers and the idiots, especially civilians, who led them. There are a great many soldier who served honorably, nobly and died due to the stupidity and selfishness of their leaders, both military and civilian. So how many times did you serve in Iraq or Afghanistan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 I have absolutely no doubt they they dont tell the public the truth all the time. And that doesnt bother me at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yomar Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 Originally posted by Kilmer17 I have absolutely no doubt they they dont tell the public the truth all the time. And that doesnt bother me at all. you forgot to say "unless it is a democrat" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyansRangers Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 Originally posted by MAATopDogg That's ashamed. Shot by his own troops. Makes you think how many more lies they are covering up. You posters that are still in high school if you are thinking about a career in the military I'd not do anything under this current (Bush) administration. Wow tried to stay away from this thread but Wow Wow Wow........ Anger.. Blood pressure rising.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyansRangers Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 Originally posted by airborneskins So how many times did you serve in Iraq or Afghanistan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huly Posted May 23, 2005 Author Share Posted May 23, 2005 I stand behind ALL of troops and this thread was not made to debate if he died for a worthless or worthwile cause. Any soldier is out there giving their life for this country is my hero! My only issue is families should know how their loved one dies! That is important! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo da Magnificent Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 Originally posted by airborneskins So how many times did you serve in Iraq or Afghanistan? None. Somehow we weren't at war with them in the '70s and '80s. Your point???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpillian Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 Usually investigations into possible FF incidents do take awhile; and in a fire fight, they are not always readily apparent. Hollywood has never done the fog of war justice. Fire fights are confusing as all the he11 get out. Now, I don't recall the timeline on this report, but my guess is that the findings were still in doubt when they first talked to the Tillman family as to cause of death. The only completely TRUTHFUL thing (and then everyone would gripe about how insensitive the Army is) would have been to have simply listed him as KIA until the final report came out and leave the family up in the air until then. Instead, they probably put the best version forward available to them at the time. As to the issue of the Army lying in general: From my experience, the Army does not lie to the public. It may withhold information as needed, but I have never seen a lie passed on to the public (and I have been privvy to some fairly high level proceedings). It's yet another great Hollywood portrayal of the "establishment" as always lying -- I know. Just think of the military movies made throughout the 80's and 90's prior to 9/11 -- concerning the modern military. I can't name one that was not focused on a judicial/criminal theme. Don't be played by a sad archetype that's been perpetuated by the entertainment industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
airborneskins Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 Originally posted by Waldo da Magnificent None. Somehow we weren't at war with them in the '70s and '80s. Your point???? My point is, how are you going to tell us at this board that we are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan for no reason, when you haven't even been there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo da Magnificent Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 Originally posted by airborneskins My point is, how are you going to tell us at this board that we are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan for no reason, when you haven't even been there? Are you truly this stupid, or is this just a knee jerk reaction to anyone who states an opinion that is not 100% within the boundaries of your delusion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
airborneskins Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 Originally posted by Waldo da Magnificent Are you truly this stupid, or is this just a knee jerk reaction to anyone who states an opinion that is not 100% within the boundaries of your delusion? ????? My delusion ????? Stupid ???? Whatever man, go back and smoke your pipe.. I am not delusional, all I am saying is that you have no right to tell me that I was fighting in Iraq for no reason (twice, mind you) and that I was fighting in Afghanistan for no reason. When you have seen what I have seen and been where I have been, then maybe, just maybe you might change your mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyansRangers Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 Originally posted by Waldo da Magnificent Are you truly this stupid, or is this just a knee jerk reaction to anyone who states an opinion that is not 100% within the boundaries of your delusion? The point is that whether you agree with the war or not whether you wear a uniform or not... A soldier who is killed, died for his country. That soldier was fighting for the US not the cause.. You are fighting for the guy next to you..... Soldiers dont fight for causes Politicians do... So if you agree with the war or not a soldier dying in a US Military Uniform is not worthless!!!! oh yea P.S... I would like any of you who think this war is a worthless cause to go over and tell the women in Afghanistan or please go tell the men and women in Mosul or Fallujah that because they think differently.... Cause like Airborne said until you've seen it, you cant call it a worthless cause Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
airborneskins Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 Originally posted by RyansRangers The point is that whether you agree with the war or not whether you wear a uniform or not... A soldier who is killed, died for his country. That soldier was fighting for the US not the cause.. You are fighting for the guy next to you..... Soldiers dont fight for causes Politicians do... So if you agree with the war or not a soldier dying in a US Military Uniform is not worthless!!!! oh yea P.S... I would like any of you who think this war is a worthless cause to go over and tell the women in Afghanistan or please go tell the men and women in Mosul or Fallujah that because they think differently.... Cause like Airborne said until you've seen it, you cant call it a worthless cause Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo da Magnificent Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 Originally posted by airborneskins ????? My delusion ????? Stupid ???? Whatever man, go back and smoke your pipe.. I am not delusional, all I am saying is that you have no right to tell me that I was fighting in Iraq for no reason (twice, mind you) and that I was fighting in Afghanistan for no reason. When you have seen what I have seen and been where I have been, then maybe, just maybe you might change your mind. Yes delusions, running so deep that you can't even read correcty my point. I responded to someone else claiming that any criticism of the reason for being in Afghanistan and Iraq was, quote "spitting on the troops." And my response was the acts of the soldiers to do their duty should not be stained by the worthless actions of their leaders, civilian and military. Somehow, you read a defense of the soldiers into some type of attack on you. Sounds delusional to me. My father fought in Korea. I lost two uncles to Vietnam. I served. I've attended the funerals for two families who lost their sons in Iraq. Don't tell me that I need to have "seen" what you have seen. It's both insulting and entirely beside the point. The servicemen and women have served honorably. They died doing their duty as they were trained to do so. That does not correlate into honorable actions by the White House in sending them, and the DoD in adminstrating the war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
airborneskins Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 Originally posted by Waldo da Magnificent The cause could be completely worthless [or, as in Iraq, almost completely worthles] without any stain on the soldiers. What I am saying is that it is not "completely worthless", and for you to tell me that it is, is ridiculous because you have not seen it over there. It is not, nor was not, worthless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-Dog Night Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 Originally posted by RyansRangers The point is that whether you agree with the war or not whether you wear a uniform or not... A soldier who is killed, died for his country. That soldier was fighting for the US not the cause.. You are fighting for the guy next to you..... Soldiers dont fight for causes Politicians do... So if you agree with the war or not a soldier dying in a US Military Uniform is not worthless!!!! oh yea P.S... I would like any of you who think this war is a worthless cause to go over and tell the women in Afghanistan or please go tell the men and women in Mosul or Fallujah that because they think differently.... Cause like Airborne said until you've seen it, you cant call it a worthless cause Excellent point. I have made the same point a number of times, and people who agree with the reasons we are in Iraq seem to lump my lack of support for the Bush administration along with not supporting the troops. :doh: They are two totally different things. I will NOT fall into that knee-jerk jingoistic "you don't support the war so you don't support the troops" nonsense. It makes me sad and disgusted to know what the Bush administration has done, and I know for an absolute certainty that the reasons we went Iraq and the reasons the administration gave are not the same - they lied through their teeth and American citizens are dead because of it. They sent Americans to their death for reasons that had nothing to do with terrorism or a threat from Saddam or freeing the poor Iraqi people from oppression. Afghanistan is a little different - that's where the terrorist breeding grounds were, and we were/are doing the right thing by going there. But in the end, I support every single man and woman who puts their life on the line wherever they are, regardless of whether they or I agree with the reasons to fight. These are our brothers and sisters, our neighbors, our friends. I pray for every one of them to get home safely, and soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyansRangers Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 Originally posted by Waldo da Magnificent Yes delusions, running so deep that you can't even read correcty my point. I responded to someone else claiming that any criticism of the reason for being in Afghanistan and Iraq was, quote "spitting on the troops." And my response was the acts of the soldiers to do their duty should not be stained by the worthless actions of their leaders, civilian and military. Somehow, you read a defense of the soldiers into some type of attack on you. Sounds delusional to me. My father fought in Korea. I lost two uncles to Vietnam. I served. I've attended the funerals for two families who lost their sons in Iraq. Don't tell me that I need to have "seen" what you have seen. It's both insulting and entirely beside the point. The servicemen and women have served honorably. They died doing their duty as they were trained to do so. That does not correlate into honorable actions by the White House in sending them, and the DoD in adminstrating the war. Actually you read my post wrong.. What I said was this... "Dont Say that..... When you say that you are spitting on all the people who have died in war... When you serve your country you swear to protect your country.... even if the soldiers dont agree with why they are where they are, a soldier NEVER DIES for a worthless cause.. Waldo - No one would question your service to your country or any of your family or friends... Any one who servces deserves respect..... However, Being a former soldier you should know the sensitivity of these things. I said that no soldier dies for a worthless cause because thats insulting.... If the leadership stained a soldiers effort than why wasnt Clinton little fiasco called "bosnia" staining?? Saying a soldier who died in afghanistan or Iraq is a worthless cause means you are disrespecting all that soldier has worked and trained for his whole life.. Not one person I served with ever said this was a worthless cause.... Thats why airborne said it, When you see what was happening to them then needed help... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo da Magnificent Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 Originally posted by airborneskins What I am saying is that it is not "completely worthless", and for you to tell me that it is, is ridiculous because you have not seen it over there. It is not, nor was not, worthless. Again, you don't, can't or won't read. I specifically stated Iraq was "almost completely worthless." Being there would not change that opinion, because all the reasoning behind it lie in the White House and DoD. Repeating again, there is no link between the actions of the soldiers and the worthiness of the cause. Soldier do what they are ordered to do. The civilian leadership had ulterior motives - that is NOT the soldiers fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo da Magnificent Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 Originally posted by RyansRangers Actually you read my post wrong.. What I said was this... "Dont Say that..... When you say that you are spitting on all the people who have died in war... When you serve your country you swear to protect your country.... even if the soldiers dont agree with why they are where they are, a soldier NEVER DIES for a worthless cause.. Waldo - No one would question your service to your country or any of your family or friends... Any one who servces deserves respect..... However, Being a former soldier you should know the sensitivity of these things. I said that no soldier dies for a worthless cause because thats insulting.... If the leadership stained a soldiers effort than why wasnt Clinton little fiasco called "bosnia" staining?? Saying a soldier who died in afghanistan or Iraq is a worthless cause means you are disrespecting all that soldier has worked and trained for his whole life.. Not one person I served with ever said this was a worthless cause.... Thats why airborne said it, When you see what was happening to them then needed help... Actually, I did read you correctly. I am stating that you are confusing the actions of the soldiers with the worthiness of the cause. WWII was as worthy cause - freeing the world from tyranny. Vietnam was not - US troops were used to prop up a corrupt South Vietnam government that was completely unwilling to defend itself. In both cases, the troops performed to the best of their duty, commitment and skill. I simply see a difference in the order to commit to a cause, and the actions of the soldiers in performing that cause. Bosnia isn't viewed the same because (1) Few US ground troops were used; (2) the majority of the troops were UN [non-American]; (3) US airpower was it's principle weapon, and (4) it worked - once the fighting ended, there was only limited violence for a limited time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 Destino got it in one. Sometimes a thing is just a thing. Another thread bites the dust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.