An Open Letter to the Troops: You’re Not Defending Our Freedoms!

[2012rockthevote]

The way you go about delivering the message is too strong. However, your fundemental message is good. American occupation and terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq are responsible for perpetuating anger and frustration from these countries that helps the extremist viewpoint grow. We need to stop adding fuel to the fire of these jihadists and leave. It is not about victory, or ego, or protecting freedom. It is about ending an unjustifiable war that has dragged on and become responsible for countless civilian deaths, a larger national deficit, and a negative viewpoint from the international community.

 

[SFC Ollie]

The way you go about delivering the message is too strong. However, your fundemental message is good. American occupation and terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq are responsible for perpetuating anger and frustration from these countries that helps the extremist viewpoint grow. We need to stop adding fuel to the fire of these jihadists and leave. It is not about victory, or ego, or protecting freedom. It is about ending an unjustifiable war that has dragged on and become responsible for countless civilian deaths, a larger national deficit, and a negative viewpoint from the international community.

American terrorism?

Really?

While there have been some incidents which you could stretch to be called terrorism, we have investigated every report of misconduct and prosecuted quite a few American troops. For every thing from abuse of a prisoner to rape and murder. While I would totally disagree that either Iraq or Afghanistan were unjustified I will admit that there were mistakes made at the highest levels that have drawn them on way too long.

For Iraq I say we pull out and allow them to sink or swim. If they aren't ready by now they never will be.

And Afghanistan, Yes we should leave, burning every poppy field and seed warehouse on our way out the door.

 

[daveman]

We did it only because we were lied to by our President. And because that president has not been charged as a war criminal and prosecuted for his crime does not mean it didn't happen.

Moonbat.

 

[daveman]

The way you go about delivering the message is too strong. However, your fundemental message is good. American occupation and terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq are responsible for perpetuating anger and frustration from these countries that helps the extremist viewpoint grow. We need to stop adding fuel to the fire of these jihadists and leave. It is not about victory, or ego, or protecting freedom. It is about ending an unjustifiable war that has dragged on and become responsible for countless civilian deaths, a larger national deficit, and a negative viewpoint from the international community.

You can join Hornberger in fucking off.

 

[Sallow]

Iraq was a war crime. So was Vietnam.

Afghanistan was the right thing to do. To bad the wrong person did it and screwed the pooch in front of the whole wide world.

Obama got it right by offing Osama.

Fucking conservatives can't shoot straight with a scope.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Iraq was a war crime. So was Vietnam.

Afghanistan was the right thing to do. To bad the wrong person did it and screwed the pooch in front of the whole wide world.

Obama got it right by offing Osama.

Fucking conservatives can't shoot straight with a scope.

Wrong on all levels.

 

[Smash_Hits]

Iraq was a war crime. So was Vietnam.

Afghanistan was the right thing to do. To bad the wrong person did it and screwed the pooch in front of the whole wide world.

Obama got it right by offing Osama.

Fucking conservatives can't shoot straight with a scope.

Wrong on all levels.

Care to elaborate, or will you just make unfounded accusations?

 

[Sallow]

Iraq was a war crime. So was Vietnam.

Afghanistan was the right thing to do. To bad the wrong person did it and screwed the pooch in front of the whole wide world.

Obama got it right by offing Osama.

Fucking conservatives can't shoot straight with a scope.

Wrong on all levels.

No Sarge.

You are wrong on all levels.

You guys elected, supported and backed a family that's been colluding with our enemies for decades.

And that was after electing an actor who committed treason to get into the white house.

 

[daveman]

Iraq was a war crime. So was Vietnam.

Afghanistan was the right thing to do. To bad the wrong person did it and screwed the pooch in front of the whole wide world.

Obama got it right by offing Osama.

Fucking conservatives can't shoot straight with a scope.

Retard.

 

[Smash_Hits]

Iraq was a war crime. So was Vietnam.

Afghanistan was the right thing to do. To bad the wrong person did it and screwed the pooch in front of the whole wide world.

Obama got it right by offing Osama.

Fucking conservatives can't shoot straight with a scope.

Retard.

Clever comeback.

 

[Sallow]

Iraq was a war crime. So was Vietnam.

Afghanistan was the right thing to do. To bad the wrong person did it and screwed the pooch in front of the whole wide world.

Obama got it right by offing Osama.

Fucking conservatives can't shoot straight with a scope.

Retard.

Commie.

 

[MikeK]

Dear Mr. Hornberger,

[...]

As I remember it, I believe that your comments to the troops fighting today are very much an echo of the ones made to us in those days. Let's see; by killing the VC we were "winning hearts and minds for communism all over the world" through our "brutal and unconscionable tactics". Naturally any mention of the brutality of the enemy, who conveniently often did not see fit to wear a uniform, or observe any of the other laws of land warfare, who hid among, fought among, and committed atrocities against his own civilian population, was usually omitted. Whenever this was grudgingly admitted, it was asserted that they were only doing it "because American soldiers were there" (this despite the fact that they had been doing precisely the same thing before the first American ever set foot in Vietnam). I cannot help but observe the striking similarity to your own assertions regarding the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. I seem to recall it was also asserted that by fighting there, we were "turning the whole world against America" and that for every VC we killed, ten, twenty or a hundred more "enraged peasants" would take their place. Sound familiar? The facts, sir, are that by the time we were ordered to abandon Vietnam, the VC had been decimated. Uncle Walter may have told America on the six o'clock news that we could "never defeat them"; I am here to tell you we were doing precisely that. I find those suggestions to the contrary back then eerily similar to your remarks today as well.

We were, we were told, fighting and dying for nothing, and "murdering innocent peasants and freedom fighters for nothing". Well, not exactly. Vietnam was one battle in a prolonged Cold War with the former Soviet Union. It might have been fought somewhere else, perhaps under better circumstances, but it would have been fought somewhere, sometime.

That is the rationale massaged into the brains of gullible civilians and the troops in Vietnam who chose to believe what seemed an acceptable reason for what they were consigned to do there. But those of us in the protest movement, which included many decorated (and some crippled) Vietnam veterans, knew very well that it was pure bullshit. If you read Robert McNamara's book, In Retrospect, you know that even he, the man responsible for sending you to Vietnam, admitted that such reasoning was "flawed," and there was no good reason for our presence there, and there was no way the U.S. could have prevailed in Vietnam without provoking WW-III. So Vietnam was not a way of supporting our position in the Cold War but rather a very good way of turning it Hot.

What we know today, is the end result of the larger conflict of which Vietnam was a part: the Soviet Union is DEAD! It is dead, because it committed suicide, trying to impose its aggressive expansionist will on the world, because it could not overcome the one obstacle to that aim-American military power. We stopped them, and despite what all the pundits said, we didn't "start WW III" in doing it. What those who fought and died in Vietnam did, and what those service men and women who remained on guard through years of uneasy peace did, was prevent just such a conflict. I would say that is a lot more, than "nothing".

The Soviet Union died from the same thing that presently is killing the United States; corrupt, incompetent, war-mongering government and economic attrition through prolonged, unnecessary, ruinously costly military engagement with all its accompanying political ramifications. Those who fought and died in Vietnam were wasted. They fought and died or were gravely injured for nothing. The fact that our withdrawal produced absolutely no negative effect on the U.S. is undeniable evidence of that. The only problem is we didn't withdraw much sooner.

Our action in Vietnam was totally aggressive and it served absolutely no defensive purpose. As far as you and the rest of the troops who served there are concerned, you did what you were required to do under the UCMJ

Period.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Iraq was a war crime. So was Vietnam.

Afghanistan was the right thing to do. To bad the wrong person did it and screwed the pooch in front of the whole wide world.

Obama got it right by offing Osama.

Fucking conservatives can't shoot straight with a scope.

Wrong on all levels.

No Sarge.

You are wrong on all levels.

You guys elected, supported and backed a family that's been colluding with our enemies for decades.

And that was after electing an actor who committed treason to get into the white house.

OK, you just keep on telling yourself all that. Also remind yourself that you can do that because you never have to prove it.

 

[Sallow]

Wrong on all levels.

No Sarge.

You are wrong on all levels.

You guys elected, supported and backed a family that's been colluding with our enemies for decades.

And that was after electing an actor who committed treason to get into the white house.

OK, you just keep on telling yourself all that. Also remind yourself that you can do that because you never have to prove it.

K.

Let's do the Q&A thing.

Let's see how honest you are?

Who was head of the CIA when the United States was supporting the mujahideen?

And don't give me no ISI crapola.

 

[SFC Ollie]

No Sarge.

You are wrong on all levels.

You guys elected, supported and backed a family that's been colluding with our enemies for decades.

And that was after electing an actor who committed treason to get into the white house.

OK, you just keep on telling yourself all that. Also remind yourself that you can do that because you never have to prove it.

K.

Let's do the Q&A thing.

Let's see how honest you are?

Who was head of the CIA when the United States was supporting the mujahideen?

And don't give me no ISI crapola.

I don't know but I would Guess Bush 41. And I say so what?

 

[daveman]

Iraq was a war crime. So was Vietnam.

Afghanistan was the right thing to do. To bad the wrong person did it and screwed the pooch in front of the whole wide world.

Obama got it right by offing Osama.

Fucking conservatives can't shoot straight with a scope.

Retard.

Clever comeback.

Astoundingly accurate, I'd say.

 

[daveman]

Iraq was a war crime. So was Vietnam.

Afghanistan was the right thing to do. To bad the wrong person did it and screwed the pooch in front of the whole wide world.

Obama got it right by offing Osama.

Fucking conservatives can't shoot straight with a scope.

Retard.

Commie.

Your evidence that I'm a Commie (snerk) is based on your own stupidity and can't be trusted. My evidence that you're a retard IS your own stupidity, and is therefore trustworthy.

 

[The Gadfly]

Iraq was a war crime. So was Vietnam.

Afghanistan was the right thing to do. To bad the wrong person did it and screwed the pooch in front of the whole wide world.

Obama got it right by offing Osama.

Fucking conservatives can't shoot straight with a scope.

Really? Quite a few VC and NVA could tell you that this one can shoot VERY straight, with or without a scope...except that their discovery of that fact was a terminal event for them, and they are no longer around to discuss the matter.

 

[The Gadfly]

Dear Mr. Hornberger,

[...]

I must admit that I am somewhat mystified as to just what it is you expect the troops serving in our current conflicts to do about your letter. I do feel I can tell you with certainty what they are NOT going to do. They are NOT going to start disobeying the lawful orders of their superiors (whether or not said orders meet with your approval), nor are they going to desert en masse. You see, they happen to be made of the same stuff as those who fought at Belleau Wood, those who stormed Omaha Beach sixty-seven years ago today, those who fought on Tarawa, and Okinawa, those who landed at Inchon, and yes, those who held Khe Sanh and Dak To. They are the latest version of American troops, even stronger, tougher, and better trained than those before them.....and they don't quit. As I recall, Americans with your point of view sent much the same message to those of us fighting in Vietnam some forty years ago. We didn't quit, either.

You are defending a castle which has not been stormed. The discipline, training and fighting capabilities of our troops has not been questioned.

A weapon may be used either defensively or aggressively. There is no in between. The same circumstance applies to a nation's armed forces. And the simple fact of the matter is we invaded a sovereign nation which not only did nothing to provoke our action but was utterly incapable of harming us militarily. We did it only because we were lied to by our President. And because that president has not been charged as a war criminal and prosecuted for his crime does not mean it didn't happen. Nor does it mean the invasion and occupation of Iraq was in any way necessary, justified -- or defensive.

Again, these circumstances have nothing to do with the integrity and functional capabilities of our troops. A weapon which is misused is not the fault of the weapon but that of the user.

Mike,
Mr. Hornberger directed his remarks to the troops. Since they are , to use your words, "only doing what is required by the UCMJ", it can be easily inferred that the intended purpose of those remarks would be to encourage them to (a) desert, (b) resist deployment, (c)resist and/or disobey orders (d) not re-enlist or any and all of the foregoing. Well, that's not new, either; did the "protest movement not encourage any or all of the same, in its messages/comments to soldiers during Vietnam? A simple yes or no will suffice. I am not asking if you personally did so, or if any members of VVAW did so (I already know the answer to the latter). Did people involved in the protest movement advocate MUTINY? Isn't that what Mr. Hornberger in effect advocates now? I was just informing him (and you) that despite your hopes, that is not going to happen; it didn't back then, and won't now.

P.S. You have any idea of what the majority of Vietnam vets think of VVAW (it is not anything good, not among those I know).

 

[Dr Grump]

Iraq was a war crime. So was Vietnam.

Afghanistan was the right thing to do. To bad the wrong person did it and screwed the pooch in front of the whole wide world.

Obama got it right by offing Osama.

Fucking conservatives can't shoot straight with a scope.

Really? Quite a few VC and NVA could tell you that this one can shoot VERY straight, with or without a scope...except that their discovery of that fact was a terminal event for them, and they are no longer around to discuss the matter.

And how do you feel about that?