 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|||||||||||||
| Battle ready In a large expanse of desert near Yakima, local troops train for their return to Iraq |
|
|||||
| By Rick Steigmeyer World staff writer |
||||||
| Posted August 09, 2008 | ||||||
 Enlarge this photoSgt. Tim Hollingsworth of Walla Walla is the truck commander during a live-fire training run Sunday at the Yakima Training Center. Members of the National Guard's 81st Heavy Brigade Combat Team have been living at the Yakima Training Center for almost a month. The brigade will head to Kuwait in October on its way to northern Iraq. (World photos/Kathryn Stevens)
|
||||||
YAKIMA — Iraq is still a few months off. But the Yakima Training Center's dusty, sagebrush-covered sands with views of Mount Adams and Mount Rainier make a good Mideast war zone stand-in for the 2,400 Washington National Guardsmen preparing to head there in October. Nationwide, more than 8,000 National Guardsmen were notified last October that they will be deployed.
| STORY TOOLS |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
ENLARGEThe Army National Guard's 81st Heavy Brigade Combat Team has been training at the Yakima center since July 12. Friday was their last day before taking a short leave and then heading to Fort McCoy, Wis., on Aug. 18. They'll train there until late October and then will be shipped to Kuwait. By early November, they'll be put to work providing security for convoys and new installations in northern Iraq. For many of the part-time soldiers, it will be their second tour since the War in Iraq began in 2003.
Among those deployed are 35 members of the 161st Infantry National Guard unit in Wenatchee. Soldiers like Sgt. David Flick, Pfc. Angel Efren Bravo and Spc. Matthew Comar will all be leaving their wives and young children behind again.
"It's definitely difficult. It's not easy to leave them, especially now with a little one. But I put my arms in the circle and I'm ready to do this," said Flick, who would have celebrated his seventh wedding anniversary earlier this week with his wife Linda had he been home. His son, Donald, is 18 months old. Flick, 29, said he'll maintain contact with the family through daily e-mails and Internet phone calls.
ENLARGEExtreme times call for extreme measures, said Col. Ronald Kapral, the 81st Guard's commander.
"Ten years ago, we wouldn't have been here. But everything changed after 9/11," he said during a briefing of media last Sunday. Normally, the National Guard is called into active service only to help out during domestic crises. Guardsmen were called in to help after Hurricane Katrina hit in 2005. They were sent to Chehalis last November after that Western Washington community was ravaged by floods.
ENLARGEBut during times of war, they can also be called overseas to fight. The 81st was last deployed in 2004 and served active duty for 18 months, nearly 12 months in Iraq. This time the guardsmen will serve for 12 months, including nine months in Iraq. They should return home by August 2009. Kapral said 60 percent of the brigade's members now deployed are going to Iraq for at least a second time since the war began.
Staff Sgt. Tim Waters of East Wenatchee returned from Iraq in 2005. Now his wife, Denise, and two sons, Thatcher, 6, and Cooper, 4, will be left alone again. Waters also had to take leave of his job as a district manager for Starbucks. He said putting your life on hold to go to war is difficult for soldiers, as well as the family, friends and jobs they have to leave. Coming back home after deployment can be even harder.
"They've all learned how to do without you. You have to learn to put it back together," he said about his return to family life. At work, he said he continually feels he's a couple of seconds out of sync. Going back to a job and worrying about a chair being out of place doesn't seem very important after dealing with life and death issues 24 hours a day, he said.
"It takes a long time to get back to where you were. In some ways, you never do," Waters said.
500 to a tent
Guardsmen were busy with shooting drills and convoy protection simulations last Sunday when reporters were invited to visit the training center. There were few women at the training center, the exception being a couple of medics and an Army chaplain, who seemed to be the focus of a "60 Minutes" video crew.
Capt. Tim Ozmer, a full-time National Guard officer from Spokane, said there are plenty of women in the National Guard who play equal roles, but the armed combat brigades, including the 81st, are male only.
During their four-week training at the center, the soldiers were housed in huge tents. More than 500 cots were positioned side by side, offering soldiers little space and no privacy. Between training sessions, they sat on their cots, cleaned the M4 carbines they are never without and practiced packing and repacking their few possessions into two packs. Everything is about preparation.
Cpl. Mark Shaw, 39, of Wenatchee, has been a member of the National Guard for nearly 20 years. The 81st's mobilization put a hold on his retirement, but Shaw said he didn't mind.
"I was going to go anyway," said Shaw, who took leave from his job as a mechanic for Bob Feil Boats and Motors. "I want to be there with these guys to see this end."
Gunning without mistakes
There are no smiles on the three heavily outfitted men riding in two diesel-powered Humvees that lurch and stop on their mock reconnaissance through the desert shrubs. A Pasco guard unit was going through the training today. The day before, it was the Wenatchee unit going through the same movements, over and over until they got it right.
"Target! 11 o'clock! 1,000 meters! Fire!" shouts Truck Commander Sgt. Tim Hollingsworth of Walla Walla.
Spc. Terry Osborn of Tri-Cities lets loose a deafening burst of staccato fire from the M240 Bravo machine gun he has mounted on the roof of the Humvee. He plants his feet solidly on the floor of the vehicle and leans back against the circular hole in the roof that lets him peer over his gun. No ordinary sunroof this. Puffs of dust dance around a distant target ahead of the vehicle as Osborn squeezes off another burst of gunfire at Hollingsworth's command. A rain of hot 7.62 mm shell casings clinks to the floor inside the Humvee as the rounds are belt-fed through the gun. Driver Jose Garcia of Kennewick speeds ahead to the next target and the shooting begins again.
The target doesn't shoot back, but there's another Humvee running a parallel course about 50 yards away shooting at the same target. The object of the training session is to synchronize the two-unit maneuver without shooting each other.
"It helps us with situational awareness. So we know where our partners are at," Hollingsworth said after the training run.
The session may have only been a dress rehearsal for what's to come, but it was serious business.
Sgt. 1st Class Chris Fresh called the teams together after a couple of runs and scolded them for some sloppy work.
"We've got to practice good habits out here. Our crew safety relies on you," he said.
Before the soldiers could get back to their vehicles, Capt. Ozmer yelled at them to hold up.
"Are we tracking? This is not JV folks," he barked.
"Yes sir," they replied.
"You make your mistakes here and you learn a valuable lesson," Ozmer told this reporter minutes later. "You make them in Iraq and it could be a memory you never forget. You can also do everything right and still get killed."
Convoy protection
Several Wenatchee-area soldiers were headed out on a convoy security practice run later that morning. They would be out traveling over the center's miles of sandy roads for the next several hours. Before they left, Lt. Kelly Sowder, a former Wenatchee resident, told his company of 31 men, many of them from North Central Washington, how to stay alive while on a convoy mission in Iraq.
"You look out and check your five. Open your door, look down, close your door and look around 5 meters out. Then you step out and check 25 meters," he said. The driver of the vehicle never steps out. Most IEDs — improvised explosive devices — are buried on the driver's side, he said, and it's the driver who is responsible for getting his vehicle out of a problem situation.
The group of men listened closely, among them Wenatchee soldiers Spc. William Wacker, 24, and newly married Spc. Joshua Diede, neither of whom have been to Iraq before. Spc. Thomas Hart knows what it's like. He was there three years ago. He'll be leaving his wife, two young sons and a stepdaughter behind.
"It's tough, but that's the nature of the beast. I wanted to go back. It's hard leaving the kids but I'm proud to serve my country," he said.
Also listening in was Spc. Kirsten Zucati, 35, who returned from an 18-month stint, most of it in Iraq, only last November. He moved to Omak from Juneau, Alaska, last winter so he could return to the war with the Wenatchee guard unit. His wife is expecting their seventh child. All are girls.
"I'm not sure why I want to go back. There are some scary moments, but overall, I feel more relaxed and at ease there," he said.
Spc. Richard Johnson, 27, returned from Iraq with an Idaho guard unit last October. He transferred to the Wenatchee guard unit after getting married in May knowing he would have to go back to Iraq later this year.
"It's harder this time, now that I'm married to Lara. We discussed it and figured I would get redeployed eventually wherever I was. It's better to get it done so I can go back to school," said Johnson, who wants to be a teacher.
Sowder said he's responsible for the soldiers in Bravo Company and wants to bring them all back alive and in one piece.
"These are our brothers, our neighbors, the guys we work with back home. They've all volunteered to leave their families, leave their jobs and go over to Iraq in our interest," he said. "They all have their different reasons for joining, but they're here to put their lives on the line to protect what we stand for. Now we're one big family."
Rick Steigmeyer: 664-7151
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment. Register or Log in
|
Rebecca, I'm glad we agree on the tenants of protected non-violent speech. I am not so sure that most who argue against the war do so for love of country, however. In my experience from watching news feeds of protests, attending many anti-war protests, and debating with many in the far-left, there is an underlying disgust with America and a vision of America as being the center of evil and all that's wrong with the world. It is also my impression that the lip-service given by many of these folks of caring for the troops is done by denying what the core of our warrior class is all about. They want troops home because they believe that war is wrong. They don't care about the truth that our warriors want to win and complete their mission.... to leave the battlefield with honor. Now that the mainstream media increasingly has been forced to cover the successes in Iraq as the alternative media has been taking away market share for biased reporting, the polling has become increasingly supportive of the war. This demonstrates how skewed and biased media reporting has been from the beginning. For example, how many in the public know that northern Iraq has been secured for a number of years now? That there are less than 50 American or allied troops in that entire region? That it is safer to be a tourist in that area than in Italy? Or that an American is looked at as a hero to the Kurds and you will be treated as royalty? That is the state of affairs within 99.9999% of Iraq at this time. With the continued cleanup of Iranian and Syrian supported terrorists... who are desperately trying to escape out of Iraq... the conditions in Iraq right now are equivalent to the conditions which existed for our WW2 troops in Germany and Japan after their respective surrenders. I am not concerned about world opinion whatsoever. It is the world, including the Belgians and French and Germans, who are historically responsible for the African situations in Rwanda, Somalia, and the Sudan. What are THEY doing about it, besides ineffectual declarations in that impotent and corrupt body of the U.N? When the Bosnian ethnic cleansing was occurring on their doorstep, what did the EU do other then blow hot air at the UN? America doesn't have a UN Charter as a governing tool, it has a Constitution. Only the UN has a UN Charter and they violate it with every soul that has been lost due to THEIR inaction, corruption, and impotence. The rest of the world needs to spend the needed percentage of their own GDP to put up an effectual military for their OWN countries instead of supporting their notions of socialism and social spending, and relying on America to provide the world's military muscle. Until they do that then I couldn't care less what the world thinks. As the saying goes, 'When I want the world's opinion, I'll ask'. The interests of America can never be secured when it is tied to world opinion. Unlike you, I see the development of a dramatically and increasingly stable democracy, westernization and moderating influence over the tribal and religious fanaticism in the mideast. Look at Dubai, Bahrain, Kuwait. Consider how far Egypt has come along with Jordan. Even Saudi Arabia, where many of the 9/11 hijackers were born, is beginning to thaw and the shackles of wahhabism are starting to loosen its evil grip. Now we have a true democracy beginning to emerge in Iraq which has the ability to dampen the fascist hold that the fanatical imams have held throughout hte middle east as that entire region of the world's people see the freedom and liberty of Iraq's people. While the administration did make a strong case about the potential danger of WMDs, they ALSO made just as strong a case with regard to the treaty violations by Iraq. If, as many on the far-left claim, the administration went heavy on the WMD issues as the rationale for war in Iraq, it is only because the treaty violations were downplayed by the media and poo-pooed by the radical left. I agree with you that America should only intervene in cases of economic and strategic interests. But wouldn't you agree that Iraq serves that definition? And outside of the obvious humanitarian need (which the UN and the EU could deal with) I don't see how America could intervene in Africa based on our agreed upon definition. Martin Reginald | Aug 20, 2008 5:22 pm | Request Removal |
|
I completely agree with you, Martin, and would never advocate the kind of actions you describe which involve threats, violence, defacing private or public property, ect... My real point is that so often people who simply express dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs are basically told "Here's the door, you can leave any time" which includes no logical discourse and is really contrary to the core values of this country. In my experience, most people who argue against the war are doing it out of a real love for our country and its soldiers and citizens, and concern that things are not going in a good direction. I have never had a conversation with a peace advocate that revealed their desire to do harm to or even insult and belittle returning soldiers. I think that fortunately that violent faction consists of a very vocal few, and 98 percent of them are probably in Berkely :) Polls for the last few years have indicated that the average American is dissatisfied with this war and our CIC for varying reasons. I don't think that the majority should be ignored or their concerns swept under the rug with the "then get the hell out" rhetoric. Of equal concern IMO is the fact that more and more *world* citizens are questioning the actions of this administration. I agree with the assessment that there *were* compelling reasons to engage in this war (and especially in Afghanistan) but the spin put out there by our own government about WMD's and all the BS about bringing peace and democracy to an unstable region is as digestible and nourishing as cardboard, and reveals the fact that this administration regards its citizenry as fools and proles to be led by the nose and never, ever question. There are regions of the world who at this very moment are engaging in genocide, we aren't there. There are dictatorial nations who are starving their people by the millions and putting dissenters in concentration camps, we aren't there. There are many, many unstable nations out there with factions fighting over resources or religion leading to the mass killing of women and children and we aren't there. Our UN charter DEMANDS that we intervene in cases of genocide, why are we not in Darfur? Why were we not in Rwanda where up to 1,000,000 innocent people were slaughtered as a result of ethnic cleansing? My answer? The USA only intervenes in cases where it is strategic or of economic importance. They are trying to feed us a line of BS and I'm not swallowing it. I think a little truthfulness would go a long way with the American people, instead of engaging in war after war after war for spurious and downright transparent reasons. Rebecca Jones | Aug 20, 2008 3:45 pm | Request Removal |
|
I agree with you Rebecca that our Founding Fathers created a secular state and were desireous of a secular rule rather than a theocratic rule under a state-sponsored religion (seperation of church and state). This does not mean, however, that the Founders did not use Judeo-Christian values when forming the foundations of this secular government. Nor does it mean that the Founders intended to purge Judeo-Christian values from the sensibilities and hearts of those who lead us. And by that same token they did not insist that ONLY those of a Judeo-Christian belief lead us. This is where I could insert fifty pages of quotes from our Founders and the various Founding documents to make my point, but that isn't necessary. Iraq is connected to 9/11 in the same way that middle-east terrorists are connected to the first Trade Center bombing, the attack on the USS Cole, the bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, the bombing of our African embassies, the London Subway bombing, the Madrid train bombing, the Bali bombing, etc, et al. Iraq under Saddam funneled money, weapons and allowed training of terrorists on their soil and provided a safe haven for various terrorist leaders within Al Queda, Hamas, and the Taliban. Whether or not the intelligence data by the Israelis, the British, the French, the CIA, Interpol, etc showed WMDs and continued research into WMDs will never produce agreement among the polemists. But if you recall, the WMD issue was only ONE of two major reasons for destroying the Iraqi regime under Saddam. Due to the years of trying sanctions, stationing troops in Kuwait, enforcing No-Fly zones, etc, Saddam continued to violate the provisions of the treaty from the first Gulf War. It was time to do what the treaty had stated if violations occured... hostilities could resume. As to freedom of speech and dissent, I was very careful to seperate the freedom to air dissenting opinion from speech that is designed to incite destructive actions and behavior. I am well versed in the Constitution and it's incorporation of the Bill of Rights. I keep a small pocket copy at my desk and periodically read and review it. I'm sure you're aware that the Supreme Court does not share the view that all unrestrained speech is Constitutionally protected. There are boundaries which have been recognized. The old rubric of not being allowed to yell "FIRE" in a theater where ther is no fire is an example of such a boundary. Speech or writing which advocates the assasination of the President is another. Civil courts have also recognized that there can be limits to unabridged speech with laws against both slander and liable. And is there not institutional penalties that have been allowed by the courts? For example, the expulsion from college campuses for racial epithets and slurs. Or the sanctions against those who oppose homosexuality. And what about verbal or written advocacy for the killing of doctors who perform abortions? I'm a firm believer in the Constitution. I spent two tours of duty in Vietnam because I believed (and still do) that communism posed a threat to America and her allies, including those within the SEATO alliance. As a twenty year old who had served two tours and was now returning home through SeaTac after being away from home for three years, I was greeted as I departed the main terminal with protest signs, foul epithets, spitting, and a baggie full of urine and feces (it missed). Was that protected speech? I ask because that is what many in the far-left peace movement believe. Are you aware that recently more incidences of 'dissenting speech' are leading to aggressive tactics like spitting on returning soldiers and veterans because the raging and angry shouting and foul language just isn't enough for some in the 'peace' movement? How about the recruiting centers that are vandalized with anti-war slogans? My point above is that there is no such thing as complete freedom of unabridged speech. Folks have always been, and will continue to be, held accountable for forms of speech that leads to violence and other damaging behavior. Martin Reginald | Aug 20, 2008 2:19 am | Request Removal |
|
Rebecca... May I point out that I there is a reason the Government issues Security Clearances. If I told you the connection, I would be in violation of my Security Clearance, thus, Jeopardizing my current Military Career (which is going quite well), and also creating the chance for me to be punished under U.C.M.J. Again, I wish you knew me, so You would understand that I wouldn't lie about it. I never said this Country was founded on Christianity. All I stated is that if you look at the governing laws of this land, they are based on the Old Testament books of Law (the ten commandments). Don't murder, don't lie (hints your right hand on the bible), don't steal, don't commit adultery. Along with ethical laws; don't swear, don't cheat, ect... Kevin, Honestly, I couldn't agree with you more on many of your statements. Especially about having Military Commanders run the War, instead of politicians trying to "win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis'" Trust me, I understand that point through and through. Bottom line, rather or not you agree with the war, for whatever reason, the last thing these soldiers need, is someone telling them they are going to do a job that they have no support in doing. Ya ya, you can say you "support your troops", but honestly, discouraging them from there mission, or the purpose of there mission is completely uncalled for, and very degrading to those of us who have fought, lost friends and come home to only negative thoughts on something that most of us consider not only our duty as soldiers, but our duty as a free country. I again, am PROUD of my battle buddies for doing what they are doing. Many of my closest friends are heading over, as well as many soldiers I put into the Guard as a Recruiter. I believe in them, and their mission. As for your thoughts on our founding fathers, congratulations, you can copy and paste from internet websites to state your points. The ultimate bottom line is that for hundreds of years, men and women have fought for what was right, rather it be part of popular opinion or not. That is what we are doing now, and will continue to do forever. Not only because we owe it to all to at least taste the everyday freedom we have, but because we also owe it to all those millions who have gone before us and given the ultimate sacrifice in the name of God, Country and Family! So, to the members of the 81st Brigade, 161st, and other units currently deploying again: Thank you for your service, I stand behind you, and wish I could be with you guys! Be safe, keep your head low, and spirits high. You will be home soon. I pray our community can stand behind your family members you have left behind, and pray only blessings upon them! Daniel Griffin | Aug 20, 2008 1:07 am | Request Removal |
|
A big AMEN!! Martin Reginald | Aug 19, 2008 6:34 pm | Request Removal |
|
Sigh... Daniel, first of all, most of our founding fathers were not strictly Christian. Some quotes for you- Jefferson- "Christianity is the most perverted system that has ever shown on man." "The Christian God is a being of terrific character - cruel, vindictive, capricious, and unjust." "Religions are alike -- founded upon fables and mythologies." Thomas Paine- "What is it that the bible teaches us? It teaches us rape, cruelty and murder." "Priests and conjurors are of the same trade." "Take away from Genesis the belief that Moses was the author, on which only the strange believe that it is the word of God has stood, and there remains nothing of Genesis but an anonymous book of stories, fables, and traditionary or invented absurdities, or of downright lies." "The adulterous connection between church and state..." "As to the book called the Bible, it is blasphemy to call it the Word of God. It is a book of lies and contradictions and a history of bad times and bad men." "No falsehood is so fatal as that which is made an article of faith." "Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst; every other species of tyranny is limited to the world we live in; but this attempts to stride beyond the grave, and seeks to pursue us into eternity." Madison- "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise [sic], every expanded prospect." "An alliance or coalition between Government and religion cannot be too carefully guarded against......Every new and successful example therefore of a PERFECT SEPARATION between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance........religion and government will exist in greater purity, without (rather) than with the aid of government." "Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history [attempts where religious bodies had already tried to encroach on the government." "Notwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favor of this branch of liberty, & the full establishment of it, in some parts of our Country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Gov' & Religion neither can be duly supported: Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded against." Franklin- "As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and I think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble." "... Some books against Deism fell into my hands... It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a through Deist." OK. That is a VERY small example of how strongly some of our most famous founding fathers felt about religion and the separation of church and state. Our country was NOT founded on the old testament or Christianity in particular, rather it was to escape all forms of British tyranny *including* religious tyranny. Yes, some of the first colonists were hyper religious, but they were NOT Americans, and they should NOT be considered our founding fathers. They were pre DOE ad pre constitution and were inflicting the same tyranny they were escaping from. Now onto Iraq. I'm not even going to state my opinions on this war except to say that I don't believe it is connected in any way to 9/11, EXCEPT that the American people were particularly vulnerable to suggestion at that time and it was good timing for the government to begin their campaign. If you do indeed know differently please tell me what the connection is. As far as media spin, yes you have to be very careful what you believe and seeing it on the news doesn't make it so. It is popular belief that this country was founded on religion and often used by the media (especially religious figures and politicians) to try and sway public opinion. It is popular belief right now that Russia started the war with Georgia. You have to take everything with a grain of salt and keep your eyes wide open. In the end, public opinion is increasingly against this war and eager for a quick resolution. Not everyone who feels that way is a seditionist or providing comfort to the enemy. People are ready for this to be over. Martin, I have to respectfully disagree with your views on where to draw the line on dissent. I think that we as a nation need to be very careful to preserve the freedom of vocal opinion at any cost. Once we start defining punishable dissent and enforcing it, our country is more a regime than a republic. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." First amendment to the sacred constitution is our right to petition the government for a redress to grievances. Popular opinion is invoking that *right now* and the people should not be ignored. Whether they are correct or not is another story but they have the right to vocalize concerns and opinions without fear of retribution. Rebecca Jones | Aug 19, 2008 3:16 pm | Request Removal |
|
The country's "foundation was built on the Old Testament books of Law"? Not even close. Not to mention how ironic your post would be if it WERE true, since you were also alluding to some sort of freedom of worship....... As for the actions against Iraq, there is plenty of blame to go around on the perceptions vs. the reality. Bush erred greatly in my mind when he tried to oversell the reason for military action. He was justified in taking action simply because Hussein was not in compliance of the cease fire agreement, and continued to be out of compliance. Making the case that he actually had WMDs, and trying to "market" reasons for using military might was where he went wrong. He needed to sell the folks on what was happening, the non-compliance, rather than what might have been happening (and has yet to be proven thus far). It should be obvious to most anyone that Hussein wasn't ever going to comply, so action was needed. But the manufactured "evidence" of WMD programs, etc., only helped to give detractors ammo against Bush's motives. This wasn't media spin, this was spin created by the administration to try to market the use of force. Thomas Friedman has given perhaps the most accurate reasoning of why action was important, while at the same time still pointing out how much the administration has mangled the job by listening to political strategists (Rove and Co.) instead of military leaders who actually understand how to accomplish the mission at hand. Kevin L | Aug 19, 2008 11:06 am | Request Removal |
|
First: Rebecca. You don't know me. But I will explain this to you so you at least have an idea what I have done. I am a two time Iraq Vet. Been twice, volunteered twice. Went for combat, and also for Temp Duty. I really, really, really wish that the 50% of the truth the Government tells us would be believed. Just because you don't know 100% of the truth about the Iraq War, doesn't mean the 50% you do know isn't true. I really wish you knew me, that way you'd know when I say, that from PERSONAL EXPERIENCE I know why we are at War. And there is a connection to 9-11. You would believe me. Second: Our Fore-Fathers left a Country of tyranny for religious freedom of worship. They didn't come here to test the laws. This Country's foundation was built on the Old Testament books of Law. Although I understand your points. Just a little history, this Country was founded for one thing, and we are so far from that now, there is no way under God (opps, can I say that anymore?) that we can get back. Third: I do not condemn everyone who disagrees with my views to a worse Country. I say worse because I have traveled quite a bit in my small number of years, but I have seen alot, and I know by far, that we live in the greatest Country in the world. And I hold HUGE pride in living here, and fighting for her, and my family and friends. There is a HUGE difference in questioning authority, and assuming what you've been told. If the media would have reported this war fairly, this country would have stood behind this war through and through. Instead, this Nation has been tangled by the media and made to believe what many people do, and that is, that this war is not worth fighting. That is what every point made against this wars' strong point has been. Something the media created, or spun. I for one am not only tired of it, but am out to change the views of this war. Again, I point out, maybe you have lost a loved one in this war, maybe you know someone who has. But when you hold a Soldier in your arms as he dies, and you promise that he not die in vain, you keep that promise. Which is why I am sick and tired of hearing people protest a war, they truly know nothing about. Not to mention protesting a President which they also know only what the media wants them to know. And Martin, I think we need to get coffee or something man. You are one smart cookie! Daniel Griffin | Aug 18, 2008 6:42 pm | Request Removal |
|
Rebecca, you are correct that the Guard has a State mission, BUT it has also has a long-standing and over-riding Federal mission. Its primary Federal mission has always been, along with the Reserve, to provide a battle-ready force during war time. There is absolutely NO misuse of Guard troops by Federalizing them. While not disregarding Daniel's sentiments, I also agree with what you have to say about dissent. However, I personally draw the line at supporting dissent which advocates ideas that can provide comfort to the enemy, hurt the morale of troops in battle, promote anarchy, or which promote violence against those who are living within the laws of the land. Martin Reginald | Aug 18, 2008 3:43 pm | Request Removal |
|
Daniel, you said- ""it's called a border, and feel free to cross it ANY TIME and GET OUT OF OUR COUNTRY! You don't like the way things are ran, then please, feel free to run, AWAY!"" Does that go for anyone who disagrees with your views? This is a hot button issue for sure, but disagreeing does not make a person anti-American or undeserving of being here. Those who questioned authority were those who forged this nation, and it is not only our sacred right, but our *duty* to question what we do not agree with. In the immortal words of the great Benjamin Franklin ""It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority." It's what our country is founded on. The moment we lose it is the moment the heart of the nation stops beating. Why would you want to take that away from anyone, for any reason? Rebecca Jones | Aug 18, 2008 3:10 pm | Request Removal |
|
""Ten years ago, we wouldn't have been here. But everything changed after 9/11"" What does 9/11 have to do with the Iraq war? Anyway... This concerns me because we need our National Guard here to directly protect our borders and help in times of *local* crisis. This is a misuse of our National Guard, and extra concerning with fire season here in full force. I hope you are right about this soon being over, Martin. Rebecca Jones | Aug 18, 2008 2:50 pm | Request Removal |
|
Peggy, it must be hard for you to wake up every day full of vitriol, misinformation, and anger at and about America. So be it.... that's your own anchor that you've forged and that you have to drag around. These soldiers are part of a mission that has now secured the right of The Iraqi people to liberty and self-determination. Those soldiers are PROUD of what they have done and continue doing. Our soldiers have trained the Iraqi army who are increasingly taking over the security of their own country; so much so that our soldiers will soon be able to stand down and come home. In case you missed it Peggy, the war in Iraq has been won, and with no thanks at all to you and your cohorts. Martin Reginald | Aug 18, 2008 10:46 am | Request Removal |
|
Amen Daniel!!!! No one could have said that any better. I hope Peggy read it and will some day get understand it. none none | Aug 18, 2008 8:49 am | Request Removal |
|
Peggy!!! Have you been to Iraq? Or are you just ANOTHER person reading/viewing the wonderful drive by media? Go have an Iraqi Child hand you an Iraqi Flag and say thanks for freeing us! I have seen it time and time again. Those people are SO proud of what we have done for them. Although they may want a time table for us to leave, and maybe they will be ready to manage there own Country soon so we can, we must maintain our mission. My brothers did not die FOR YOU and for their Country to have people like you listen to the biggest crock of Tom Foolery known to man (the media) and let them die in vain because of it! No one put a gun to their head and said you have to go, they ALL volunteered for their duty, and they will return safely with or without your support and prayers! Go walk a day in our boots, go walk a minute in Iraq then come home and see how you feel. I'm not sad in any way that they are leaving to protect what I and others have fought for hundreds of years for. I am PROUD! As for your comment about our President, last time I checked, HE'S THE PRESIDENT!!! What have you done? Who voted for you? Which branch did you serve in to become so Anti America. You don't have to support us, You don't have to support your President, heck, You don't have to support your Country. You know why? Because there is this great thing, and it's not January 20, 2008, it's called a border, and feel free to cross it ANY TIME and GET OUT OF OUR COUNTRY! You don't like the way things are ran, then please, feel free to run, AWAY! Daniel Griffin | Aug 17, 2008 3:59 pm | Request Removal |
|
It is indeed sad to see these men being sent to a country that does not want them there by a commander in chief who failed to show up when his Guard unit needed him. I hope they return safely. Peggy Love | Aug 15, 2008 6:31 pm | Request Removal |
|
Be safe battles! God Bless and Godspeed! Daniel Griffin | Aug 9, 2008 2:12 pm | Request Removal |
|
God Bless these soldiers as they carry out their mission. Martin Reginald | Aug 9, 2008 10:57 am | Request Removal |
Some readers using Firefox 3 for their browser have had problems posting comments. Until this is resolved, please use an alternate browser if you are experiencing this problem.
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
© The World Publishing Company
Headlines you may have missed from the last week
Free recycling for electronics coming
Locals look for stimulus dollars
Wenatchee woman stabbed by unknown intruder
Man booked into jail on suspicion of attempting to smother wife
For women in need, the YWCA provides ... shelter from a storm
MORE RECENT NEWS
1. Man booked into jail on suspicion of attempting to smother wife
2. Wenatchee woman stabbed by unknown intruder
4. Free recycling for electronics coming
6. Locals look for stimulus dollars
8. Commissioners ask Humane Society to cut costs by $64,000
9. WVC soccer coach steps down
10. Cascade Christian a big final obstacle
