A Message to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney From a Dying Veteran

It's easy to be sorry after the facts when millions of people begged the US not to go to war.  It was pretty clear what the agenda was.  Protesters
were booed at and if you had any criticism, you were anti-America. " You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists"?  What kind of rhetoric
is that?  Not the kind a president who represents the free world should have. 

War never really solved anything throughout history.  After WWII, the Cold War started.  The Cold War is now officially over and there plenty of more
wars. 

To quote one of my heroes:

Here's what we can do to change the world, right now, into a better ride.  Take all that money we spend on weapons and defense each year and,
instead, spend it feeding, clothing and educating the poor of the world, which it would do many times over -- not one human being excluded -- and we
can explore space together, both inner and outer, forever.  In peace. 

Ummm...........To be fair...you probably think that i've singled you out...But, to be honest...that wouldn't be the case...I just wanted to
further the conversation...However...now that you're all butthurt about it and just want to sling crap...then sallie forth, by all means....Have a
nice day

YouSir

You realize you just assumed a reply was directed to you when it actually wasn't?  I wasn't even going to mention it...until you had to add to things
with another snarky comment.  However, I decided to ignore your reply since you weren't even the the one I'd been thinking about when I wrote mine.  I
keep most replies of that nature general because it's rarely ONE person that sort of thing fits for, by the time I actually say something that
directly on it. 

It made your own reply misplaced and ....odd ...given the compete assumption of being the subject of my thoughts.  It'd be funny if not for your last
note. 

I replied to who I'd wanted to though.  I'm under NO obligation to reply to every single message directed to me ...although I do try and catch the
majority. 

Ummm...it's also pretty easy cast aspersions....Perhaps for you, you had the ability or foresight or experiance to read between those lines
back in 2001...For others that realization came later and even after the fact and even after the experiance...I think that the Soldier, the subject of
the OP fit the latter category but ultimately he did wake up and see the truth of his own complicity.  I think his anger is misplaced, however, I think
there are many more than one set of shoulders that culpability rests upon.  I also think it's right to point this out and bring exposure to whatever
exists behind the curtain....Cause we're certainly not in Kansas anymore..

Ummm...it's also pretty easy cast aspersions....Perhaps for you, you had the ability or foresight or experiance to read between those lines
back in 2001...For others that realization came later and even after the fact and even after the experiance...I think that the Soldier, the subject of
the OP fit the latter category but ultimately he did wake up and see the truth of his own complicity.  I think his anger is misplaced, however, I think
there are many more than one set of shoulders that culpability rests upon.  I also think it's right to point this out and bring exposure to whatever
exists behind the curtain....Cause we're certainly not in Kansas anymore..

YouSir

To be clear: I'm not angry, just very disappointed.  I read the soldier's letter with great respect and admiration.  This man deserves nothing but
respect. 

I don't blame the soldier.  I blame the leaders who misled him, his comrades and the entire planet for that matter. 

They will never have to pay for their crimes.  So much for being "equal". 

Ummm...Well then, for that I apologize, I mistakenly thought that because your post followed mine that it was meant for me.  Guess I should'nt
get so snarckally Butthurt for making that mistake now should I?  Oh well, I guess it's time to take my toys and go.....home. 

Originally posted by CthulhuRising
I post this is Political Madness because it is Madness that these people have been allowed to get away with doing this to the American People and the
world. 

From an open letter to George bush and dick Cheney by Tomas Young and Iraqi war Veteran. 

My day of reckoning is upon me.  Yours will come.  I hope you will be put on trial.  But mostly I hope, for your sakes, that you find the moral
courage to face what you have done to me and to many, many others who deserved to live.  I hope that before your time on earth ends, as mine is now
ending, you will find the strength of character to stand before the American public and the world, and in particular the Iraqi people, and beg for
forgiveness

They lied to us as well and Tony Blair should also stand trial beside bush,.  Blair's son like many young patriotic lad's tried to join the army but
Blair put a stop to it, the hypocrisy of a leader whom is still defending the invasion of a Sovereign state and whom gladly sent other people's young
son's off to fight and die is as obvious as can be, I can only hope this soldier and his family find peace and that he find's the arm's of god open
to him. 

This was posted originally in another thread but much of it applies here so I am reposting. 

Some responders in the thread have said words to the effect of "Suck it up.  You signed up for it."  They have a point. 

The American military as it is in our time, is not a citizen's army.  It is an Army of employees.  The American military is a mercenary
force, in essence.  Yes, it is dressed up in the trappings of patriotism.  Yes many if not all of its employees serve in the spirit of
patriotism.  The fact remains that the only truly citizen army is a conscripted army in which it is the civic and patriotic duty of every able bodied
citizen to serve in the military. 

The elite or oligarchs, who own the United States of America, and who operate it largely in their own interests, ran into a lot of trouble during the
Vietnam War, at a time when the US did have a Citizen's Army, a military composed of conscripts from across a wide segment of the American population. 
The growing opposition to the Vietnam War led to widespread civil unrest and violence in the streets by large numbers of citizens who opposed that war
for a variety of reasons. 

The American population as a whole had a stake in the doings of the military at the time because so many of America's young people, across all
segments of the society were involved in those doings. 

The way the oligarchs navigated around that problem was to buy the military, in the sense of abandoning conscription in favor of soliciting
volunteers.  The parents of volunteers (employees) are much less politically responsive to anything undertaken by the military.  I'm sure they don't
like it if the military starts running amuck, as they did in Vietnam and to a lesser extent in Iraq, but, and this is the important point, they
have no potent avenue of recourse in protest, as the relatives and friends of conscripts did and would. 

This did not happen by accident. The oligarchical elite in the United States buys its way out of problems when it can and murders its way out when it
can't. 

In the case of the military they have bought the military, just as they bought both political parties in order to subvert the political process in the
United States. 

However, in going to a "volunteer" army they have strongly attempted to maintain the illusion of "volunteering" as a patriotic duty and as something
done in the same spirit that military conscripts approached military service in times past, that is, civic and patriotic duty.  Most
"volunteers/employees" do not realize that they are operating in a military system that is fundamentally different than the one all previous
generations of American veterans have done since the first use of conscription during the Civil War. 

In 1917 the administration of Woodrow Wilson decided to rely primarily on conscription, rather than voluntary enlistment, to raise military
manpower for World War I when only 73,000 volunteers enlisted out of the initial 1 million target in the first six weeks of the war.[10] One claimed
motivation was to head off ex-president Theodore Roosevelt, who proposed to raise a volunteer division, which would upstage Wilson, however there is
no evidence that even Roosevelt had the popularity to overcome the unpopular war. 

I don't want to discuss the military in any wide ranging sense in this post.  Technological developments mean that smaller numbers of military
personnel can do more than they could in the past, but the military demands of a large international economic empire offset this to some degree so
that large numbers of people are still required to meet America's military "needs". 

However, moving to a "volunteer" army in today's context, as a political move, was a game changer. 

The challenge that American military personnel face with respect to service as an employee, is to replace the political backing of the population,
given to a conscript army, with something that can serve them just as well. 

American soldiers, if they are going to be treated and mistreated as employees in the workplace, absolutely must organize themelves into
labor unions to battle for better working conditions on the battlefield and more say in just what they are being ordered to do. 

Where is the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations in this?  American soldiers ought to be talking to them. 

911 wouldnt have happened with a dem president?  Are you truly that ignorant? 

I seem to remember an attempt to blow up one of the towers during the 90s...I seem to remember a president named Clinton...I seem to remember that he
was a democrat.  I also seem to remember that Osama was ultimately involved in that attempt as well. 

I also seem to remember that Clinton had a chance to take him out and passed on it.  I also seem to remember a few embassies being bombed by the
organization headed by Osama...during the Clinton admin. 

They were against the US, the capitalistic nature of our country....not Bush and they probably didnt really have a clue as to what a Cheney was...

So...take your re-write of history and place it somewhere dark. 

Sometimes it is best to keep your mouth shut and let people think you are clueless. 

Well, it DIDN'T happen finally, did it?  There were some attempts. 
Cheney, in contrast, let them in.  Read up on "stand down" orders.  It's on youtube.  It simply served their agenda (PNAC).  Two and two... plus the
Silverstein bets... I will remain suspicious. 

The terrorists were probably surprised they got through impenetrable air defense at a blink of a moment and also didn't know there were explosives
waiting for them.  It would have been an epiphany right before dying. " Wooouh, looks like the Americans wanted us to do this ... and they were waiting
for us with red carpets... semtech and all

Or did they? 
Lots of questions.  I think a dem president would have ordered a far more thorough investigation - if not prevented it (they all prevented such
egregious terrorist acts and violations of air space actually). 

Let's test this out around May 12th.  Something like 911 could happen in Israel or America again, This time, the "culprits" will have clear ties to
Russia.  Or even China. 

Americans will get ALL the answers only once those recently purchased 2 billion bullets start flying on US soil. 
Otherwise they'll never get the message... unfortunately. 
Any further discussion is pointless.  Too many thick skulls! 

I can really understand having supported the wars when they started.  Bush and his people were outstanding in getting public and overall world support. 
A couple exceptions...(France comes to mind for the most visible public example at the time) but for the most part, he was actually pretty successful
on the coalition building side of things. 

* * *

How ANYONE can support Iraq in hindsight is completely beyond my understanding.  To have assumed there was more than we could know in 2003 is
reasonable to me.  To see more than existed TODAY seems willful to ignoring what is now known for what those in power at the time were doing and what
WAS known vs. what we all assumed. 

Now what gets me is that this thread is about Bush... Not Obama.  It's about who started the wars.  It's not about who's continuing one and starting new
ones.  A whole different thread could be made to cover that and literally dozens upon dozens have been. 

So.. ONE thread where the focus is BUSH..AND ONLY BUSH isn't that much to ask occasionally.  After all, history will record the the Commander and Chief
was the one who initiated action against both Afghanistan and Iraq.  Congress didn't.  The President did.  Congress reluctantly agreed after their usual
political calculations and cold planning for advantage. 

* * *

What shocks me and has me actually relating to those on the left is the fact that ON A 100% BUSH FOCUSED THREAD.....Obama STILL needs to come up in
some relation to HISTORIC EVENTS he hadn't even been mentioned as name to think about in national leadership for.  He was a rookie Senator with no name
and no experience during all that.  SO...He has nothing, in any way to do with the thread

It's the fact he gets brought into it that I think was educational to see.  It's NO DIFFERENT than how Obama can't be criticized on the other myriad of
threads that ARE entirely about HIM without Bush always being brought in to justify, mitigate or excuse in some way. 

Well... This has been doing the precise opposite and it's just as cheap, cheesy and partisan from this side.  I just hadn't seen it directed toward me
before.  Now that I have...I appreciate the positions and issues of the left members a bit more than I ever did for how they are aggressively argued on
the slightest thing for some topics. 

edit on 21-3-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

If how anyone still supports Iraq in hindsite is beyond your understanding, then let me make an attempt. 

Saddam gone is an improvement.  Yes?  No? 

With the "tons" of American cash found in Iraq that had been kicked back by the then Secratary of the U.N.'s son, the name escapes, the again in
hindsite connection found with the Pakistani nuclear physicist who developed Pakistan's nukes, do you really believe that if we had left Saddam and
Iraq alone that he wouldn't have procured them by now? 

N. Korea didn't have anough to sell to Iraq at that point, easily could have by now. IMHO.  certainly he'd have had the cash from the French, Germans
and to a lesser degree the Russians.  10 plus years of continued oil for food kickbacks??  Unless you think Saddam wouldn't have jumped at the chance to
buy nukes from someone.  I'd guess it's better than a 50-50 chance that Iraq would be a "nuclear power" by now with Saddam still running the show. 

I believe that the removal of Saddam has pushed back nuclear war in the mid-east for years.  Perhaps decades. 

I can't prove it, it's hard to quantify "what if" scenarios. 

What I don't get is the motive behind your thread in the first place.  I'd go "all in" that it isn't for any reason other than a distraction from
current issues involving the current administration. 

I suspect you are "left". 

The wars were started by Saddam and the Taliban.  Saddam invading Kuwait and 9-11.  Simple yet apparently "forgotten".  Both by you and many others.  The
dems were even critical that Bush hadn't moved on the Talban faster than he did. 

As Saddam had violated almost every condition of the cease fire, was shooting at U.S. planes almost daily, taking action in Afganistan without
finishing the job in Iraq is borderline insanity. 

In fact, if Bush hadn't acted, I'd be one of the first picketting the White house calling for his impeachment! 

As fas as mentioning Obama in a "Bush thread", you cannot be blind to the fact of Obama's basic continuation of the Bush policies in the Iraq and
Afganistan.  Is that not, to some small degree, evidence that Bush may have been correct, at least in intent, if not results?? 

Please.  I sympathize with the soldier, but disagree with his assessment.  Perhaps every war could have been avoided throughout history.  I don't know. 
Certainly some were more "popular" than this one.  This issue had no easy solutions.  IMHO, Bush had no choice. 

Or did they? 
Lots of questions.  I think a dem president would have ordered a far more thorough investigation - if not prevented it (they all prevented such
egregious terrorist acts and violations of air space actually). 

Let's test this out around May 12th.  Something like 911 could happen in Israel or America again, This time, the "culprits" will have clear ties to
Russia.  Or even China. 

Yeah...kinda like Johnson's investigation into the Kennedy assassination?  Kinda like Clinton's investigation into the Embassy bombings and the
bombing of the Twin Tower in NY and then passed on taking care of Osama when he had the chance?  You could make an argument that had Clinton done his
job in relation to Osama, then 911 would not have happened at all. 

Your assertions that Cheney and Bush were directly and intentionally responsible for 911 is really ...... I suppose you still believe that it was a
cruise missile that hit the Pentagon? 

Again...if you seriously believe that there is a significant difference between Dems and Repubs, then ...lol

As far as accusing me of joining for my own reasons and not those of serving my country - you sir are wrong. 

Yes, thank you for
correcting me.  I said "Because you did not do it for the Freedom of the American people" but what I meant and should have said was "your service was
not being used for the Freedom of the American people".  Intentionally, IMO.  The purpose to send you over there had NEVER been to serve American people
(maybe American mega-corporations, or Iraqi people as you had suggested). 

I see your point of view, and acknowledge it.  It's an unfortunate reality that no, my service has not improved the lives of Americans.  I can
admit that.  I however, do not take responsibility for it, nor can I.

That is correct and I did not mean to blame you for it.  But you agree with my main points: it has NOT improved the lives of Americans, and implicitly,
that this (or Liberty) is the main constitutional purpose for the military, not the commercial interests for American corporations nor the welfare of
people of foreign countries. 

The only fault of yours, and of 80% of the non-enlisted public, for which (again) you cannot be blamed, is that we all did not see through the
deception that the war was NOT intended for the purpose as proclaimed to the American people. 

How can we prevent this from happening again?  By raising our kids' awareness that simply enlisting could lead to them being used (and often killed)
for alternate purposes under a fake justification. 

Sorry, the post by ipsedixit above is more blatant on this point: "American military is a mercenary force". 

The madding reality of life in the workplace is that this gentleman writing letters to people who are no longer in office is that the letter writer
could have been a union carpenter who fell off scaffolding and was severely injured. 

It just wouldn't do him any good to write a scathing letter to the dead Jimmy Hoffa. 

The military is a work place.  There is NO military draft. 

We appreciate what our service people do to protect our country.  Alas, socialism is cutting health care everywhere, including the VA
hospitals. 

With the govt...we do have a choice, however. 
We should send a message to congress by voting out EVERY incumbent. 
Too many of our elected politicians are only concerned with fattening their own wallets and being reelected. 

Our federal govt should be held to the constitution as to what their duties and responsibilities are...no more, no less. 

Have you tried
writing letters to politicians who are only concerned with being reelected?  How do you hold them to the constitution? 

Btw, the mercenary soldiers mostly do it out of self-interest also, not because they objectively weighed the morals about killing people in other
countries "preemptively", not because "intelligence" is as good as a jury trial. 

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors.  The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.