For THESE Marines, Iraq A Frustrating Fight

NATO AIR

Senior Member
Jun 25, 2004
4,275
285
48
USS Abraham Lincoln
an interesting look at one group of young Marines in Iraq. They make some good points that you'd expect from young devil dawgs who just want to kick the ass that has to be kicked and be done with it. Notice I highlight THESE marines, because this is just one group's views and experiences, not the entire Marine view.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6214573/

For Marines, Iraq a frustrating fight
Some soldiers question how and why war is being waged

Steve Fainaru / The Washington Post
Frustration with the war in Iraq runs high among some members of the 1st Battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment based in Iskandariyah. "Stuff's going on here but they won't flat-out say it," Pfc. Kyle Maio (spotter), 19, of Bucks County, Pa., said. "They can't get into it."
By Steve Fainaru

Updated: 2:08 a.m. ET Oct. 10, 2004ISKANDARIYAH, Iraq - Scrawled on the helmet of Lance Cpl. Carlos Perez are the letters FDNY. After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York, the Pentagon and western Pennsylvania, Perez quit school, left his job as a firefighter in Long Island, N.Y., and joined the U.S. Marine Corps.

"To be honest, I just wanted to take revenge," said Perez, 20.

Now, two months into a seven-month combat tour in Iraq, Perez said he sees little connection between the events of Sept. 11 and the war he is fighting. Instead, he said, he is increasingly disillusioned by a conflict whose origins remain unclear and frustrated by the timidity of U.S. forces against a mostly faceless enemy.

"Sometimes I see no reason why we're here," Perez said. "First of all, you cannot engage as many times as we want to. Second of all, we're looking for an enemy that's not there. The only way to do it is go house to house until we get out of here."

Battling frustration, doubt
Perez is hardly alone. In a dozen interviews, Marines from a platoon known as the "81s" expressed in blunt terms their frustrations with the way the war is being conducted and, in some cases, doubts about why it is being waged. The platoon, named for the size in millimeters of its mortar rounds, is part of the 1st Battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment based in Iskandariyah, 30 miles southwest of Baghdad.

The Marines offered their opinions openly to a reporter traveling with the 1st Battalion, 2nd Marines during operations last week in Babil province, then expanded upon them during interviews over three days in their barracks at Camp Iskandariyah, their forward operating base.

The Marines' opinions have been shaped by their participation in hundreds of hours of operations over the past two months. Their assessments differ sharply from those of the interim Iraqi government and the Bush administration, which have said that Iraq is on a certain — if bumpy — course toward peaceful democracy.

"I feel we're going to be here for years and years and years," said Lance Cpl. Edward Elston, 22, of Hackettstown, N.J. "I don't think anything is going to get better; I think it's going to get a lot worse. It's going to be like a Palestinian-type deal. We're going to stop being a policing presence and then start being an occupying presence. ... We're always going to be here. We're never going to leave."

The views of the mortar platoon of some 50 young Marines, several of whom fought during the first phase of the war last year, are not necessarily reflective of all or even most U.S troops fighting in Iraq. Rather, they offer a snapshot of the frustrations engendered by a grinding conflict that has killed 1,064 Americans, wounded 7,730 and spread to many areas of the country.

Although not as highly publicized as attacks in such hot spots as Fallujah, Samarra and Baghdad's Sadr City, the violence in Babil province, south of the capital, is also intense. Since July 28, when the Marines took over operational responsibility for the region, 102 of the unit's 1,100 troops have been wounded, 85 in combat, according to battalion records. Four have been killed, two in combat.

Senior officers attribute the vast difference between the number of killed and wounded to the effectiveness of armor — bullet-proof vests, helmets and reinforced armored vehicles, primarily Humvees — in the face of persistent attacks. As of last week, the Marines had come upon 61 roadside bombs, nearly one a day. Forty-nine had detonated. Camp Iskandariyah was hit by mortar shells or rockets on 12 occasions; 21 other times insurgents tried to hit the base and missed.

Realities on the ground
Several members of the platoon said they were struck by the difference between the way the war was being portrayed in the United States and the reality of their daily lives.

"Every day you read the articles in the States where it's like, 'Oh, it's getting better and better,' " said Lance Cpl. Jonathan Snyder, 22, of Gettysburg, Pa. "But when you're here, you know it's worse every day."

Pfc. Kyle Maio, 19, of Bucks County, Pa., said he thought government officials were reticent to speak candidly because of the upcoming U.S. elections. "Stuff's going on here but they won't flat-out say it," he said. "They can't get into it."

Maio said that when he arrived in Iraq, "I didn't think I was going to live this long, in all honesty." He added, "it ain't that bad. It's just part of the job, I guess."

As a reporter began to ask Maio another question, the interview was interrupted by the scream of an incoming rocket and then a deafening explosion outside the platoon's barracks. Pandemonium ensued.

"Get down! Get down!" yelled the platoon's radio operator, Cpl. Brandon Autin, 21, of New Iberia, La., his orders laced with profanity. "Get in the bunker! Get in the bunker now!"

Members of the platoon raced out of their rooms to a 5-by-15-foot bunker, located outside at the end of the one-story building. The dirt-floor room was protected by a low ceiling and walls built out of four-foot-thick sandbags. Once in the bunker, several Marines lit cigarettes, filling the already-congested room with smoke.

"The reality right now is that the most dangerous opinion in the world is the opinion of a U.S. serviceman," said Lance Cpl. Devin Kelly, 20, of Fairbanks, Alaska.

Lance Cpl. Alexander Jones, 20, of Ball Ground, Ga., agreed: "We're basically proving out that the government is wrong," he said. "We're catching them in a lie."

Fighting an invisible enemy
Senior officers said they shared many of the platoon's frustrations but added that it was difficult for low-level Marines to see the larger progress being made across Iraq. Maj. Douglas Bell, the battalion's executive officer, said "one of the most difficult things about the insurgency is identifying the enemy."

Bell said it was frustrating for "every Marine in the battalion" to search for insurgents on a daily basis, only to be attacked repeatedly with bombs and mortars detonated or launched by an invisible enemy. "You want to get your hand around his frigging collar and kick his ass," Bell said. "But they slip away."

Bell said Marines offering dire predictions for Iraq were not taking into account the training of the new Iraqi security forces. He said the installation of the new Iraqi army, Iraqi National Guard and police across the country would lay the foundation for the withdrawal of U.S. troops.

"That's how we're going to get out of Iraq," Bell said. "That's how America is going to get out of Iraq."

The Marines acknowledged that the elusiveness of the insurgents was frustrating. "You don't really know who you're fighting. You're more or less fighting objects," said Elston, the lance corporal from New Jersey. "You see something on the side of the road. It blows up."

But the Marines said their frustrations run deeper. Several said the Iraqi security forces who are supposed to ultimately replace them were nowhere near ready and may never be.

"They can't take care of themselves," said Lance Cpl. Matthew Combs, 19, of Cincinnati, who added that he didn't think the National Guardsmen "can do anything. They just do what we tell them to do."

The price of precaution
he Marines also expressed frustration that they were unable to fight more aggressively because of restraints in the rules of engagement imposed by senior commanders.

The rules, which require Marines to positively identify their target as hostile before shooting, are cumbersome in the face of urban guerrilla warfare, several of them said.

"When we get called out, we'll sit there staging there for an hour," Maio said. "By the time we're ready to move, they're up and gone. A few weeks ago, the Iskandariyah police station was under attack. We staged for damn near an hour before we went out. It's stupid. You have to wait to get approval and all this other stuff."

Kelly, the lance corporal from Alaska, said he understood the need to protect civilians but that the restraints were jeopardizing American lives. "It seems as if they place more value on obeying the letter of the law and sacrificing our lives than following the spirit of the law and getting the job done," he said of his commanders.

Bell said the Marines' frustration was understandable but that it was extremely difficult to make a determination of hostile intent following a roadside bombing that might have been detonated by anything from a remote-controlled toy car to a cell phone. "That's a pretty difficult decision to make for a 19-year-old kid," he said.

Lance Cpl. Jeremy Kyrk, 21, of Chicago, said the insurgents took advantage of the limitations imposed on U.S. troops. "They don't give us any leeway, they don't give us any quarter," he said. "They catch people and cut their heads off. They know our limits, but they have no limits. We can't compete with that."

A decision to serve
Perez said the frustrations inherent in the war became apparent almost immediately after he arrived in Iraq in late July. A Colombian immigrant, he said he decided to join the Marine Corps after attending the funeral of a friend who had died in the Sept. 11 attacks. The friend, Thomas Hetzel, was a volunteer firefighter at the Franklin Square & Munson Fire Department on Long Island, where Perez also volunteered.

At the time, Perez was studying criminal justice at Nassau Community College. "While I was at the funeral I was looking at his little daughter cry," he said. "He had a pregnant wife and two kids. I just said, 'All right, this is what I want to do.' "

But Perez said he came to think that war in Iraq was unrelated to his anger. "How do I put this?" he said. "First of all, this is a whole different thing. We're supposed to be looking for al Qaeda. They're the ones who are supposedly responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks. This has no connection at all to Sept. 11 because this war started just by telling us about all the nuclear warheads over here."

Snyder, who was listening, added: "Pretty much I think they just diverted the war on terrorism. I agree with the Afghanistan war and all the Sept. 11 stuff, but it feels like they left the bigger war over there to come here. And now, while we're on the ground over here, it seems like we're not even close to catching frigging bin Laden."

Perez said he thought that in some ways he was still fighting terrorists "and I can see how they might attack the United States in the future. It's a link, but it's not really based in the same thing."

Perez added that he now believes the primary reason for the U.S. presence is to help the Iraqis. "But they don't seem like they want to be helped," he said. "I've only been here two months, but every time you go out, people give you bad looks and it just seems like everybody wants to shoot you."

Questioning orders
The frustration of the Marines was evident one afternoon last week as members of the platoon traveled from Forward Operating Base Kalsu back to Camp Iskandariyah. An attack had reportedly taken place in the area, and members of the platoon were asked to leave their Humvees and walk up a road to look for suspicious activity.

Traffic quickly began to pile up: cars packed with families, trucks loaded with animals and vegetables. The line of vehicles would have taken hours to search. An order was suddenly passed for the Marines to search all buses for insurgents or weapons.

"This is what we call a dog-and-pony show," said Kelly, the heavyset, sharp-tongued lance corporal from Fairbanks. He said the operation was essentially a performance for American reporters who were traveling with the Marines. "This is so you can write in your paper how great our response is," he said.

Combs and another Marine boarded a small bus packed mostly with women and children. He walked up the center aisle carrying his M-16 assault rifle, then got off, disgusted.

"We just scared the living [expletive] out of a bunch of people," he said. "That's all we did."

When the Marines returned to their truck, Autin and Kelly began to debate the merits of the American presence in Iraq.

"And, by the way, why are we here?" Autin said.

"I'll tell you why we're here," Kelly replied. "We're here to help these people."

Autin agreed and said he supported the mission.

He added later that it was difficult to wage the battle when American commanders were holding them back.

"We feel they care more about Iraqi civilians than they do American soldiers," he said.

Asked if he was concerned that the Marines would be punished for speaking out, Autin responded: "We don't give a crap. What are they going to do, send us to Iraq?"

© 2004 The Washington Post Company
 
I know Steve (I've met him a couple of times and have very close friends in his family). He's about as conservative a reporter as you're going to find who does not have an agenda. If he's filing a report like this, things must be worse than I'd thought. He'd try to report the war in as favorable a light as possible if he could.

His family has been quite concerned about him going to Iraq, he has a wife and a couple of young kids. About the time he left for Iraq, his brother went to cover the Olympic games in Athens - it was a very stressful time for both their familes.


Wade.
 
wade said:
He's about as conservative a reporter as you're going to find who does not have an agenda. If he's filing a report like this, things must be worse than I'd thought.

Sure, toss out the words of our President, the interim leader of Iraq, and thousands of military men and women - and take the word of a reporter of all people as gospel. :rolleyes:
 
wade said:
I know Steve (I've met him a couple of times and have very close friends in his family). He's about as conservative a reporter as you're going to find who does not have an agenda. If he's filing a report like this, things must be worse than I'd thought. He'd try to report the war in as favorable a light as possible if he could.

You've got to be kidding, there is so much spin on this story against the basis for war you'd have to be French to believe the author isn't setting out to explicitly use his selective quoting and otherwise unquoted opinions on what they were 'supposed' to have said to distort the opinion we know the troops statistically have, which is to support the war and believe in victory.

Funny how every single interview gets a single sentence or two of mention as long as it shows a distinct anti-war bias.

His family has been quite concerned about him going to Iraq, he has a wife and a couple of young kids. About the time he left for Iraq, his brother went to cover the Olympic games in Athens - it was a very stressful time for both their familes.

Oh that's pathetic. I mean millions of regular people paid almost $100 to even attend one event, and this brother of his is, like, supposed to be a hero to take the risk of covering it? I can respect going to Iraq, even if it was to interview what appears to be only coalition forces on base. Hell, I'd do that.

But the risk of covering the Olympic games is one I'd scoff at. Imagine being able to simply be there to see it unfold, how many would leap at the chance.

Are either one a hero? No.

Is this an incredibly biased report from a reporter with an agenda? Yes.
 
War is nasty and despicable. One does not have to look far to find the bad points of war. But, there are good things that do sprout from the most horrendous of mankind’s traits. These are the stories that the media is too narrow minded or lazy to give a speck of attention to and those that do report it get overruled by directing editors who have their head stuffed up their turd cutter.

I have encouraged everyone that I know who does time in the sandbox to send emails home to be posted here and other places so the real stories can be heard. Tomorrow I’ll post the email I got from my friend who was in Fallujah, I don’t have it now (he sent to my work email).
 
I won't defend the reporter, i know nothing about him.

i will defend what the marines said though. i notice a very disturbing trend in quite a few posters on the board who feel anything outside of the official line presented by the white house is anthema to truth. this is not only idiotic, it is dangerous. we have to know the truth of what is happening over there so we can know what to do. if our civilian leaders are screwing up, we need to know so we can call them on it and pressure them to get it right. our troops deserve better leadership than what they've gotten over the past two years in iraq. we've talked about this, a good amount of it has to do with the dems waiting in the wings to pounce on anything bush changes or attempts, but that doesn't excuse the kind of screwups that have been going on. yes, pres. bush and co. have a very tough job in iraq, but its one they themselves have made more difficult with bad decisions on too many occasions. would kerry do a better job? hell no. that's why i'm sticking with bush and just hoping the leadership gets better on iraq.

do i want bush to lose? no. do i want there to be drastic improvement in the leadership around him? hell yes. rumsfield, rice and co. have been botching this deal from day one on too many occasions. iraq is a mess because of their screwups, not our troops.

you claim the report is biased, but i see real, understandable frustration with the marines here. maybe not everybody has the problems they do, but what they're saying often makes sense. if i was getting shot at and rocketed everyday by a faceless insurgency, i would be mad as hell and frustrated. if i was ready to take fallujah then got told to stand down, i would be mad as hell. if i was unable to kick the ass i wanted to kick because of PC politics, i would be mad as hell.

i tend to doubt things are as bad as the marines here claim it is, but i'm probably gonna put more salt in what they're saying over what some folks back home safe in the USA are saying. We're not the ones getting attacked daily, they are. We're not over there, they are.

then the final kicker, you folks act like "being on base" in iraq means they're safe and don't have to worry about attacks. hell, the most heavily defended area in iraq (the green zone) still has weekly terror attacks. this is not quantico or beaufort, this is a real deal base in the midst of the enemy that faces daily assaults and/or attacks.
 
and yes, there is good news in iraq. i've posted on here about that too. but things are not the rosy picture the white house is claiming. its somewhere in the middle, as the truth usually is.
 
I tend to be suspicious of anything from MSNBC.

Having said that, I believe that the sentiments expressed by this particular marine are genuine. In fairness to the reporter, he did state that the sentiments expressed probably do not reflect those of the majority. However, unless soldiers are allowed to do the job for which they are trained, we are going to find an ever increasing level of frustration among those serving in Iraq.

Pres. Bush has fallen into the trap of trying to fight a bloodless, politically correct war during this election year. Our troops probably feel like baby sitters for a pack of homicidal kiddies. They were sent to Iraq to rid the country of terrorists and of Saddam. Now they find themselves at the mercy of politicians. They see their enemy allowed to wriggle out again and again as the politicians get suckered by false cease fire agreements which only serve to allow insurgents to rearm and regroup.

As in Viet Nam, the damn government needs to GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY. If we're going to fight, then let's get on with it. If we're not going to do that, then bring the troops home.
 
Merlin1047 said:
I tend to be suspicious of anything from MSNBC.

Having said that, I believe that the sentiments expressed by this particular marine are genuine. In fairness to the reporter, he did state that the sentiments expressed probably do not reflect those of the majority. However, unless soldiers are allowed to do the job for which they are trained, we are going to find an ever increasing level of frustration among those serving in Iraq.

Pres. Bush has fallen into the trap of trying to fight a bloodless, politically correct war during this election year. Our troops probably feel like baby sitters for a pack of homicidal kiddies. They were sent to Iraq to rid the country of terrorists and of Saddam. Now they find themselves at the mercy of politicians. They see their enemy allowed to wriggle out again and again as the politicians get suckered by false cease fire agreements which only serve to allow insurgents to rearm and regroup.

As in Viet Nam, the damn government needs to GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY. If we're going to fight, then let's get on with it. If we're not going to do that, then bring the troops home.

amen! stop this PC nonsense or stop the war, because the status quo is not gonna win the day.

(oh and merlin its actually a washington post article (could be even worse to ya) that is linked on MSNBC)
 
if i was ready to take fallujah then got told to stand down, i would be mad as hell. if i was unable to kick the ass i wanted to kick because of PC politics, i would be mad as hell.
I agree. They needed to just let them take care of Fallujah and rid that place of these terrorists.
 
Sounds great however we are now there at the request of the Iraqi govt. A wise move in the sense of allowing them to form their own democracy but it puts our military under Iraqi politicians will. Unfortunately many of the troops there are not trained nor should be used for this type of action. If Fallujah indeed needs to be taken, Iraqi troops should do it with American troop support. Until the Iraqi Army is trained, armed and sizable to accomplish this, our troops are going to have to accept a holding action role. Not a good thing but a real thing.
 
NATO AIR said:
I won't defend the reporter, i know nothing about him.7

i will defend what the marines said though. i notice a very disturbing trend in quite a few posters on the board who feel anything outside of the official line presented by the white house is anthema to truth. this is not only idiotic, it is dangerous. we have to know the truth of what is happening over there so we can know what to do. if our civilian leaders are screwing up, we need to know so we can call them on it and pressure them to get it right. our troops deserve better leadership than what they've gotten over the past two years in iraq. we've talked about this, a good amount of it has to do with the dems waiting in the wings to pounce on anything bush changes or attempts, but that doesn't excuse the kind of screwups that have been going on. yes, pres. bush and co. have a very tough job in iraq, but its one they themselves have made more difficult with bad decisions on too many occasions. would kerry do a better job? hell no. that's why i'm sticking with bush and just hoping the leadership gets better on iraq.

That's not a fair response. I pointed out the report is biased, not untruthfull.

Was Farenheit 9-11 a lie? No

Was Farenheit 9-11 biased? Dude!

do i want bush to lose? no. do i want there to be drastic improvement in the leadership around him? hell yes. rumsfield, rice and co. have been botching this deal from day one on too many occasions. iraq is a mess because of their screwups, not our troops.

Because the UN didn't sign off, and we missed out on French, German, Russian, and Chinese troops to secure Iraq?

100,000 troops was not enough?

Or we needed a draft?

Or we should have watched the zoo and guarded Iraqi national art instead of our own ass?

What is it specifically Bush didn't do in the followup? I've never heard a single thing to say what!

Something about France and how the world who hated us would have liked us if we didn't attack Saddam, thereby helping them join us in attacking Saddam eventually. Or not. Actually without WMD's we shouldn't have ever, never.

Still, something about France liking us, ergo, victory, peace, prosperity, enlightenment, killer buds, etc... Or WHAT???

you claim the report is biased, but i see real, understandable frustration with the marines here. maybe not everybody has the problems they do, but what they're saying often makes sense. if i was getting shot at and rocketed everyday by a faceless insurgency, i would be mad as hell and frustrated. if i was ready to take fallujah then got told to stand down, i would be mad as hell. if i was unable to kick the ass i wanted to kick because of PC politics, i would be mad as hell.

You see what is constructed, and derive what the author intended for you.

More than half the Marines are currently scientifically polled as backing Bush and his Iraq policy, and more than half believe conditions are improving, and that more than half believe their personal sacrifice well worth the cost.

Ask yourself, of the 10 out of maybe hundreds of
randomly' interviewed marines, again, and I'm asking you to specifically address, WHY IS IT, that every quote taken from his sample is anti-Bush and based on leftist, Iraqi defeatism?


Listen, he says:

"For Marines, Iraq a frustrating fight,"

I'm saying Bullshit already on that claim, just because I've seen polls and understand the opinion held in the military.

Now, reporters never lie directly, they cover their ass. And in an unusual example here, what was presented in super-text as ALL MARINES ARE FRUSTRATED, is qualified neatly in sub-text as:

"Some soldiers question how and why war is being waged"

Who and how many and where is the full transcript? Where is the survey and taped or reproduced transcriped recalled in part exactly via select quotes, but unfortunately lost to time in total, among the questions used to invoke such responses? Not to mention the context!

Well who knows, right? And what's left? Well read the fukkers report, and thats what you believe! You're not an ignorant neo-con who's here to cause trouble, are YOU?


NATO, I could go back and dig up prior reports to illustrate a trend from this particular sports investigator who somehow transformed into an unbiased war correspondent in the field, but I shouldn't have to.


I already know his agenda from a cursory glance at the title.


Notice the unusual subtext being used to qualify the supertext. That's what keyed me off from the start. As I read further I felt more and more like any who would stand up to claim the author's agenda is an enemy of all that is truth.

i tend to doubt things are as bad as the marines here claim it is, but i'm probably gonna put more salt in what they're saying over what some folks back home safe in the USA are saying. We're not the ones getting attacked daily, they are. We're not over there, they are.

Well no shit.


I tend to think that the whole report is so obviously disturbing when quoted selectively and out of context, so often interpretated and without explicit text, as in:

"The Marines' opinions have been shaped by their participation in hundreds of hours of operations over the past two months. Their assessments differ sharply from those of the interim Iraqi government and the Bush administration, which have said that Iraq is on a certain — if bumpy — course toward peaceful democracy."

Okay, fuck this fucker, right? I have all kinds of historical polls and linkable text from direct comments from Marines in the field to dispute this, but fuck his 'interpretation' from 'some Marines'.

That's 'some' not 'all', like he said in his title before he was against it.


All the dirty tricks of the anti-Bush crusade are here. All of it is intended to manipulate popular opinion in a way I can see as so transparent by now, what the hell is the problem? This report is a mokery of fair reporting.


then the final kicker, you folks act like "being on base" in iraq means they're safe and don't have to worry about attacks. hell, the most heavily defended area in iraq (the green zone) still has weekly terror attacks. this is not quantico or beaufort, this is a real deal base in the midst of the enemy that faces daily assaults and/or attacks.

Are you comparing the 'righteous' risk of this reporter to what I commented on as the silly facade that his brother also risked and 'stressed' his family by attending the Athens games? Well that was wade who said that, not you. Don't start backing wade!

I mean, after all, people paid out hundreds of dollars and took vacation time all around the world, just to be in Athens. So heroism behind

I can respect going to Iraq, even if it was to interview what appears to be only coalition forces on base. Hell, I'd do that.

^^^^^^^^^^
I said that. Remember?

The part I found pathetic was:

And about his Brother who went to cover the Olympic games in Athens - it was a very stressful time for both their familes.

I called wade on it. You're not backing wade, are you?



I shouldn't have to go quote by quote to deconstruct Steve Fainaru's piece of crapola unless we can all agree his intent is to create a perception I would put in the same category as Moore's F-911 polemic.

Sure, nobody falsified quotes here, but I'm stupified if these quotes alone represent the Marines in aggregate. I'd be surprised if half the quotes taken from individual interview, that is, even the one convicting sentence pulled from each, is representative of those who were quoted. You'd have to be shitting me, to tell me this reporter just 'happened upon' these anti-war candidates and chose these quotes offhand as their primary statement.


Look, I can go through this paragraph by paragraph, but I shouldn't have to.

Don't ask me to unless you are in this to learn and exchange ideas. Honestly, if you don't give a shit when I invest time into details don't and won't respond, I'd like to know.


Otherwise, we can go through the entire diatribe. And a diatribe it is.
 
(1) i addressed the issue of the bases in iraq being dangerous not for the benefit of wade and his sports reporter, but for the marines themselves... they're on the frontlines at all times, whether they're on patrol or sitting in their big fat target of a forward base in the midst of the insurgency

(2) problems with bush and co on iraq after the fall (had no real problem before the war other than the horrible performance of american diplomacy to catch and understand the depth of the looming french betrayal, our diplomats failed us on that, they didn't realize how serious the french were about screwing us in the ass)
problems now and then...

we didn't have enough troops on the ground then or now.
we disbanded the iraqi army.
we relied way too much on the exiles, who had no real understanding of the realities of modern Iraq, which was a collapsed state after 30 years plus of Saddam and the UN ruining it.
we let the militants win in fallujah by walking away, we should have kept fighting.

good enough for ya for an honest exchange of what i felt they've done wrong?

onto the marines... alright, i already posted up there about how i would be frustrated if i were a marine. i don't think i would be hating bush and voting kerry, but i would be pissed about the tactics of the enemy. find me a marine who isn't ready to fucking go off after getting shelled, rocketed and strafed every day for weeks and he never gets to find the bastard who is doing it. of course they'll be frustrated. there is a bias in the article and in numerous others. but there is an essential truth to this... they're frustrated. that doesn't mean they're ready to give up or vote kerry.. that just means they want to get the shit over with and do what's got to be done.

the white house paints iraq as heaven with a few troublemakers.
the media paints iraq as the inner circle of hell.

the truth is closer to the media's version but not quite that bad, and its only that bad right now because the insurgents are desperate to stop the elections and embarass bush with lots of american and iraqi casualties.
 
Comrade said:
Don't ask me to unless you are in this to learn and exchange ideas. Honestly, if you don't give a shit when I invest time into details don't and won't respond, I'd like to know.

i exchanged a few opinions and ideas with you. i didn't know the frigging reporter was a dimwit, i learned something there.

i even posted both in the thread title and my preamble before the article itself that this was only the views of THESE marines, not the whole marine force in iraq. if he took some of their quotes out of context, its nothing new. i found more interest in the fact that they weren't mad about the war itself, but mad about the way it was being fought. they just want to kick the ass that needs to be kicked and go home. true jarheads.
 
jimnyc said:
Sure, toss out the words of our President, the interim leader of Iraq, and thousands of military men and women - and take the word of a reporter of all people as gospel. :rolleyes:

I will take the word of someone I know to be honest and principaled over someone I don't know every time.

Steve is a dedicated reporter. His religion is being a reporter, being unbias in his stories.

Wade.
 
Comrade said:
Oh that's pathetic. I mean millions of regular people paid almost $100 to even attend one event, and this brother of his is, like, supposed to be a hero to take the risk of covering it? I can respect going to Iraq, even if it was to interview what appears to be only coalition forces on base. Hell, I'd do that.

But the risk of covering the Olympic games is one I'd scoff at. Imagine being able to simply be there to see it unfold, how many would leap at the chance.

Are either one a hero? No.

Who said anything about heros? I said their families were concerned.

Mark had been standing right next to the trash can that exploded in the 1996 olyimpics in Atlanta just a half hour before it went off. So his family is a little over sensitive about it.
 
wade said:
I will take the word of someone I know to be honest and principaled over someone I don't know every time.

Steve is a dedicated reporter. His religion is being a reporter, being unbias in his stories.

Wade.

And I'll take the word of the thousands of soldiers I have read direct feedback from. Picking or choosing a couple who support what your agenda is means nothing to me. No disrespect meant to your friend, but his insight from a couple of soldiers means nothing to me.

If he's unbiased, why isn't he reporting about the thousands of soldiers who are 100% behind what they are doing?
 
jimnyc said:
And I'll take the word of the thousands of soldiers I have read direct feedback from. Picking or choosing a couple who support what your agenda is means nothing to me. No disrespect meant to your friend, but his insight from a couple of soldiers means nothing to me.

If he's unbiased, why isn't he reporting about the thousands of soldiers who are 100% behind what they are doing?

Because he is with this particular company of soldiers and he is reporting what they are saying. He is not with those 1000's of soldiers you imagine are 100% behind what they are doing.
 

Forum List

Back
Top