Mrs. Wakely - Part 6

Oh man, Mrs. Wakely sure is persistent!  To tell you the truth, it's pretty funny to me as well as gives me plenty of new material.  Apparently, she doesn't think that a pilot patrolling the No Fly Zone in Iraq being shot at is a worthy source of information.  Oh well, at least you guys get to see what kind of emails and posts I get to deal with on a regular basis.  If it wasn't for my belief that all emails should be replied to as in depth as possible, you'd never know the fun I get to have!

 

You say:
1. "We didn't invade Iraq because of 9/11." You say "we invaded Iraq because of their shooting at our planes over the no fly zone." As hard as it is to take that argument seriously, and as pathetic as it is to watch supporters of the war divert their arguments away from things that have subsequently become demonstrably false (WMD. links to Al Queda and 9/11, an imminent threat to our national security), I would ask you to find a quote from Bush himself, telling the American people that "we are invading Iraq because they are constantly shooting at our planes over the no-fly zone."
Find that quote, source it, and give it to me. Don't forget - it has to say, not verbatim, but, since that is in your own words, why we invaded Iraq, pretty much exactly that. From Bush. Not CentCom. Not a pilot. From the ONE person who told us all, in public and repeatedly (and in MY sources, which you obviously didn't care to read) why we were invading Iraq. That's gonna be a tough one for you, because Bush spoke about this you know, publicly, and there is a record. But go ahead.
Bush: "We are invading Iraq because they are constantly shooting at our planes over the no fly zone."
2. In the Cuban Missile Crisis, you're leaving out a rather important detail: the Soviet Union was delivering missiles to Cuba capable of delivering nuclear warheads to the United States. THAT'S what the Cuban Missile Crisis, was about. You seem to have this fixation with enemy planes and the frequency of shots.
3. And, please, stop turning your arguments into what I would do. Try your best to keep your comments confined to actual events and what has been DONE. As fascinating as what you or I might do were we President, it's not really relevant, is it?
4. For example: you seem to be saying it would have been a good idea to invade China during the Korean War because Chinese troops were firing at us. Do you want to go on record as saying that? Yes or no?
5. Do you want to go on record as saying it would have been a good idea to invade Russia, as one of your heroes, Patton wanted to do, at the end of WWII? Yes, or no?
You seem like a young, trigger happy, naive fool. You want your semi automatic glock, or whatever, you don't want Obama to take it away from you (he won't). That's fine. Finally:
5. Have you served in Iraq or Afghanistan? Yes, or no. If so, thank you for your service. Let me know with whom you served, and where. If not, well...

January 30, 2008 9:29 AM

Travis said...

Ok, Mrs. Wakely, I'm not going to be your personal Google servant. If you want to find out information, you're going to have to look it up yourself.
I was using the shooting at our aircraft as an example of many acts of war against our country. I also used the fact that Saddam had a vast amount of resources at his disposal and a deep hatred of the US as well as other factors, including his possession and intent to have WMD's.
However, I'll give you one last piece of evidence that is irrefutable, from a "credible news source", and will hopefully show you the error of your ways.
Before the invasion, but after 9/11, Russian intelligence had warned us that Saddam was planning terrorist attacks on US soil.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/18/russia.warning/index.html
Russian intelligence services warned Washington several times that Saddam Hussein's regime planned terrorist attacks against the United States, President Vladimir Putin has said.
The warnings were provided after September 11, 2001 and before the start of the Iraqi war, Putin said Friday.
The planned attacks were targeted both inside and outside the United States, said Putin, who made the remarks during a visit to Kazakhstan.
Sounds like they were a real threat to me doesn't it?
And yes, I know the Cuban Missile Crisis was about.....Missiles. Difficult to understand, but I think I got it. However, it's acts of war that lead up to war, not just empty words.
I ask you what you would do because you come across as a "know it all", and since you're obviously complaining about what's wrong, I want to hear what you would think would be right. It's only fair to ask.
Otherwise you're nothing more then another complaining voice on the Internet, and believe me, there are plenty of those to go around. I'd rather have a constructive debate with you then bickering back and forth over point and counterpoint.
You seem to think that invasion is the only way to go when it comes to military responses. For example, if we find that Iranian weapons and training are coming from...Iran, then I see no problem in bombing the buildings and killing those responsible for the direct and indirect murder of US troops, even if that means we go into Iranian territory.
So, if you want my "on the record" responses to your questions, ok, I'll bite, but then you have to answer my questions, deal?
Russia had done nothing to us up until that point, (as far as I can tell) so no, I don't think it would have been a good idea to invade.
You say that Obama won't take away my guns, yet he's on record as trying to do the opposite. So forgive me if I don't quite believe you.
I have not served in the military, although it's not for a lack of trying.
I attempted to join the military in 1991, but I was too young at the time, and by the time I was old enough, I had already started in a career and was helping my aunt out financially. I then spoke with an Air Force recruiter in August 2002 about joining again. I was unemployed for a short time and thought to myself, "well, if I'm going to join the military, I might as well try now". However, financial obligations meant that the Air Force, or any military career, would not have even begun to fulfill them.
At the beginning of the new Iraq war, I spoke with another military recruiter, and was told I was too old.
For those of you who don't know, my original career path was military weapon's designer.
I excelled at chemestry, math, physics, and other technical areas. At 16, I already had taken advance calculus classes and passed with A's. At the beginning of the Gulf war in 1991, I spoke with my Chemistry teacher about the problems the military was facing, such as Saddam's bunkers and street to street fighting.
So I designed up a couple weapon's that I thought would help. My first design was a bomb similar to what we see in our "bunker busters" with the exception that my design worked on the "implosion" idea rather than the "explosion" idea. In other words, when you have an explosion in a bunker, walls come down, dust is kicked up, but people survive.
In my "implosion" design, anyone near the site of detonation would be killed instantly, and anyone within 100 meters, even around corners, would be suffocated because my design would suck all the air out of the room. It was a pretty advanced design, if I may toot my own horn. My Chemistry teacher admitted that my design would work, but it never got beyond the drawing phase.
The second design that I had, was also similar to what you see the military using now. A small grenade-type device would be fired through a window and after X amount of milliseconds after it when through the window, it would detonate, injuring, or killing everyone inside, depending on your desired outcome (hostage rescue, or taking out an entrenched position)
At the time, the technology for such a device was too large and heavy for your average US soldier to carry around, so the idea never got off the ground beyond the design stages.
As a side note, just about everyone in my family has military experience, and thus, I have a unique perspective on life in the military and proper use of force.
I can trace my family's military experience all the way back to the early 1800's, although records beyond that are pretty sketchy.
So I think that my opinions on the subject are backed up with a pretty good foundation of understanding what goes on when you send someone off to war.
Besides, according to you, "It's like you're arguing that if you break into a store and come upon some guy raping a child, logic dictates to those opposed to the breaking into the store, that the guy should be allowed to continue raping the child."
So you should be glad that we caught a "child rapist".
Now, as for my questions that I want answered "yes or no" from you.
Saddam, by your own admission, has fired upon our aircraft dozens of times, had rape rooms, torture chambers, planned terrorist attacks on US soil, possessed and intended to manufacture WMD's, attempted to assassinate a sitting US President, paid rewards to families of suicide bombers, had a painting of the 9/11 attacks, Was one of two countries that did not immediately denounce the 9/11 attacks (Yassir Arafat was the other), had massacred hundreds of thousands of his own people, has a history of willing to use WMD's, tortured captured US soldiers during the first Gulf War, kicked out weapons inspectors for 4 years, and a host of other things.
With this MOUNTAIN of evidence that Saddam was a threat, can you still say in good conscience that he wasn't? Yes or no?
If you don't believe that 9/11 was an inside job, and that it was executed in the popular believed way, Do you think that with Bill Clinton's lack of doing anything about it when we knew exactly where he was at the time, he should be brought up on 3,000 counts of negligent homicide?
You have said that we should have not invaded Saddam because he was not a threat. Are you willing to allow people to die needlessly because they are not a threat to our nation? For example, genocides in Kenya, Darfur, and other African nations? Are you willing to turn a blind eye to them? Yes or no?
You have said that the nuclear bombing of Japan was done "rightly so", so then, do you agree with me that the Taliban should have been given a 24 window in handing over Bin Laden before we dropped several nuclear weapons? Yes or no? Keep in mind around the same amount of people were killed in the initial attack (3,000), and we were/are up against an enemy that would rather die then surrender.
I look forward to your answers.
Travis

January 30, 2008 10:18 AM