Sjoconn,
Great pics. The monday morning generals (quarterbacks), the newspaper reading strategy specialists, and the armchair bound foriegn culture experts will find some way to dismiss these pictures. I’d rather they just said thank you, and went on their way.
If you are in country, keep your head down and stay safe brother.
Semper Fidelis.
Another successful operation against terrorism.
It is true I only have a few pics. Most of the pics I took there are of my team and host nation employees. I dont want to scatter their pics everywhere.
I took the pics Im posting or I am in them. So while I dont have the experience that those grabbing pics off the net do…its all Ive got.
This kid was hit by a car. He was pretty healthy, but the wound needed to be debrided. He would have lost his knee once the infection got into the joint.
Delivering supplies to a very remote mountain village.
Providing dental care to one of the locals.
This is the new clinic we were having built.
[quote]BH6 wrote:
Sjoconn,
Great pics. The monday morning generals (quarterbacks), the newspaper reading strategy specialists, and the armchair bound foriegn culture experts will find some way to dismiss these pictures. I’d rather they just said thank you, and went on their way.
If you are in country, keep your head down and stay safe brother.
Semper Fidelis. [/quote]
Thanks. I got back home a few months ago. I won’t go back over until this summer.
[quote]slimjim wrote:
harris447 wrote:
Keep hoping.
keep being a self-righteous ass monkey[/quote]
Of that we are assured slim
Hey, there is no doubt good things are happening. There is also no doubt that many, most or perhaps all people on these forums want Iraq to turn into a peaceful democracy.
Those are not the issues of contention at all.
It might be nice to realize that issues can in fact be peeled apart and talked about one at a time.
You don’t have to accept everything going on in the world or reject everything going on in the world all at once.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
slimjim wrote:
harris447 wrote:
Keep hoping.
keep being a self-righteous ass monkey
Of that we are assured slim[/quote]
just as we can be assured that certain people on this board will keep cheerleading a losing president and his crusade.
By the way…so Afghani citizens Universal Health Coverage? What a great idea!
SJ
Good pics and a good story. Well done.
Remember fahd and harris “support the troops” they just don’t support the administration…right sure they do.
Hedo: “Remember fahd and harris “support the troops” they just don’t support the administration…right sure they do.”
"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered.
There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake.
There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today…You can support the troops but not the president"
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
That is Tom Delay talking about Kosovo, explaining that that one can disapprove of a war but still support the troops.
How do you define supporting the troops? Is it by cutting their benefits?
I think that supporting the troops means not sending them into war with a vague objective and no planning. Supporting the troops does not mean sending them to have their legs blown off, to be killed, or to have to kill other people…as a christian, GWB should be acutely aware of the gravity of a mortal sin, of klling another person.
Supporting the troops means using them to defend our country, not as pawns in a strategic political game. And if a war is necessary, then supporting our troops means that we all make sacrifices with them. Is that happening? Not to disparage individual contributions - my girlfriend and I sent a package to the troops last month - but why are there tax cuts in the middle of the war?
Can anyone dispute that that tax money could go to assisting the soldiers and their families during war, and then treating the veterans after they come home? This administration never asks civilians to make personal sacrifices, when I think that most of the country would do so to support the troops. And this cuts across political lines: the recent bankruptcy bill maintained corporate protections, but a provision providing bankruptcy exemption for vets was rejected.
Reid, Biden and other supposedly “liberal” democrats voted for this bill, and in doing so, they showed a greater debt of gratitude to their credit sponsors than they did to our soldiers.
If the president supports policies that hurt our troops, then we should not support that president.
Hey, I just looked up the phrase “willy-nilly”.
You might want to look up the meaning of the phrase before you get all offended about it.
Ahahahahaha.
Willy-nilly is a great term to describe the use of torture, assuming it is in fact being used in those super secret detention camps that we aren’t supposed to know about – or in foreign countries where people are shipped… willy-nilly.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Hey, I just looked up the phrase “willy-nilly”.
You might want to look up the meaning of the phrase before you get all offended about it.
Ahahahahaha.
Willy-nilly is a great term to describe the use of torture, assuming it is in fact being used in those super secret detention camps that we aren’t supposed to know about – or in foreign countries where people are shipped… willy-nilly.[/quote]
Marriam Webster’s Dictionary:
Willy Nilly - in a haphazard or spontaneous manner.
Nope, that doesnt help, it’s still incorrect.
[quote]dermo wrote:
Hedo: “Remember fahd and harris “support the troops” they just don’t support the administration…right sure they do.”
"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered.
There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake.
There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today…You can support the troops but not the president"
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
That is Tom Delay talking about Kosovo, explaining that that one can disapprove of a war but still support the troops.
How do you define supporting the troops? Is it by cutting their benefits?
I think that supporting the troops means not sending them into war with a vague objective and no planning. Supporting the troops does not mean sending them to have their legs blown off, to be killed, or to have to kill other people…as a christian, GWB should be acutely aware of the gravity of a mortal sin, of klling another person.
Supporting the troops means using them to defend our country, not as pawns in a strategic political game. And if a war is necessary, then supporting our troops means that we all make sacrifices with them. Is that happening? Not to disparage individual contributions - my girlfriend and I sent a package to the troops last month - but why are there tax cuts in the middle of the war?
Can anyone dispute that that tax money could go to assisting the soldiers and their families during war, and then treating the veterans after they come home? This administration never asks civilians to make personal sacrifices, when I think that most of the country would do so to support the troops. And this cuts across political lines: the recent bankruptcy bill maintained corporate protections, but a provision providing bankruptcy exemption for vets was rejected.
Reid, Biden and other supposedly “liberal” democrats voted for this bill, and in doing so, they showed a greater debt of gratitude to their credit sponsors than they did to our soldiers.
If the president supports policies that hurt our troops, then we should not support that president.[/quote]
You make some valid points, and appreciate your support. I can separate support for the administration from support for the troops. However, it seems to me and apparently to a few of the other service members who attend this forum, that a few people protest the administration by painting the troops in a very negative light.
I do need to point out that, when you get in country you will receive a briefing that does clearly define the Rules of Engagement (ROE).
I may have done so poorly, but my purpose was to show that some good is being done. Every thread started about what?s going on there was started by someone who hasn?t been there. They also only talked about the terrible things that go along with war. I was simply trying to show another side.
I apologize for the sarcasm at the beginning of this thread; I am afraid my frustration was showing through.
It does seem though that one has to ask:
Why is it that the forum members who have been there support the war effort more than those who have been at sitting at home?
[quote]sjoconn wrote:
You make some valid points, and appreciate your support. I can separate support for the administration from support for the troops. However, it seems to me and apparently to a few of the other service members who attend this forum, that a few people protest the administration by painting the troops in a very negative light.
…
It does seem though that one has to ask:
Why is it that the forum members who have been there support the war effort more than those who have been at sitting at home?
[/quote]
My personal opinion is that you read many people wrong. I have been on these forums for a while and I haven’t read any posts degrading soldiers for no reason. I don’t agree with HOW we went to war and disagree with even starting this with no true plan in place for after the initial fighting was over. That doesn’t mean I don’t support the troops. I haven’t been to Iraq, but chances are, I will be deployed there soon or eventually. Why is it you seem to think that someone who is against this war is against the troops?
I am attaching a photo of one of the patients I treated in Suriname. It is a small little country in South America. The woman in the photo dressed up in the best dress she probably owned just to see us for medical care. The majority of these people were barefoot and that was simply the way of life there. These people waited outside all day long in lines of hundreds just to get treated. This will probably be the last time this woman even sees a professional in any type of health care for the rest of her life.
I would hope that everyone gets a chance to see the positive things that our troops are doing. Most people have no clue about the humanitarian aid we provide to the entire world. It gets lost in between hot topics and politics. However, does this mean I must agree with going into Iraq the way we did? If not, then why make your post the way you did? Who was your post directed towards? Who on this forum degraded the troops and what was said?
This is a picture of the entire medical team. I am the big black guy on the right…the one that’s hard to notice. Those people standing in line were just the early ones there that day. A couple hundred more were to follow.
So, tell me, does the fact that I don’t agree with how the war played out make me against the troops as well? If not, then what led you to believe this was the case with others?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
My personal opinion is that you read many people wrong. I have been on these forums for a while and I haven’t read any posts degrading soldiers for no reason. I don’t agree with HOW we went to war and disagree with even starting this with no true plan in place for after the initial fighting was over. That doesn’t mean I don’t support the troops. I haven’t been to Iraq, but chances are, I will be deployed there soon or eventually. Why is it you seem to think that someone who is against this war is against the troops?
I am attaching a photo of one of the patients I treated in Suriname. It is a small little country in South America. The woman in the photo dressed up in the best dress she probably owned just to see us for medical care. The majority of these people were barefoot and that was simply the way of life there. These people waited outside all day long in lines of hundreds just to get treated. This will probably be the last time this woman even see a professional in any type of health care for the rest of her life.
I would hope that everyone gets a chance to see the positive things that our troops are doing. Most people have no clue about the humanitarian aid we provide to the entire world. It gets lost in between hot topics and politics. However, does this mean I must agree with going into Iraq the way we did? If not, then why make your post the way you did? Who was your post directed towards? Who on this forum degraded the troops and what was said?[/quote]
Great work Prof. I attended a course at Ft Bragg with a soldier from Suriname. He was a very interesting fellow.
Maybe I am reading people wrong, but if you’ll allow for me to paraphrase a few threads I will illustrate how I get this opinion.
Threads that read (paraphrased):
“American soldiers randomly kill civilians”
“American soldiers haphazardly torture innocent people”
“American Soldiers commit war crimes by using WP”
I may be reading to much into it…but judging by a few of the others who responded, Im not the only one.
I dont expect to change anyones opinion on the war effort. And I know that no one here will change my opinion. Like I said, I just thought that with all the negitive post ( a new one every time I turn around) maybe we needed a little balance. I honestly think that many people are completely unaware that anything positive is being done.
SJO,
Hmm, my dictionary has a different opinion on willy-nilly.
It says whether one wishes or not, willingly or not.
OMG, no wonder the left and right disagree so much, they use different dictionaries… we really do speak different languages!
Heh.
I’m using a big honking Webster’s.
To be honestly, I took willy-nilly to be haphazard or some such myself and was surprised when Webster’s said otherwise to me.
Silly rabbit, it’s not the soldiers that are torturing people willy-nilly, it’s the administration that is responsible for the previously secret detention camps and the policy of torture.
Even the people doing it (and I’m not sure they are troop at all, but they certainly aren’t the men on the ground so to speak)… wait for it… are just following orders.
Funny, how just following orders is never a valid defence isn’t it?