Thread: Bush accuses Iran of destabilising the Middle East

A soldier with the courage and conviction to stand up to the Bush militaristic regime.

It's not mutiny in my books, when the war they are being sent to fight in is so wrong, and based on false pretences. An illegal war indeed.

you dont need to have been a soldier to know right from wrong

and Iraq is wrong, has been wrong from Day 1

re _fuse

I know you not ,however you are frightenly on target regarding my past,weird !! Indeed the experiences there after in a non military scenario, a parallel world it would seem

Nuckingfutz.

you should be returning to the institution you appear to have been recently released from as sadly the cure has not worked sir !!

I allow myself to ''Have a conscience'' as that is what seperates us from the animal kingdom that you so plainly belong in

I never was,nor ever have even desired to be a reporter, those reporters I met in the field were indeed brave men and women with principals unlike you.They told the truth that was censored from the actual innocent public who in many case were sacrificing their sons on the altar on a nations leaders meglomania and American hype in Vietnam and all the other places the U.S.A. have screwed up. Bay of Pigs, My Lai massacre and many more too,do they ring a bell to you sir ?

Such matters are honourable conduct in your eyes I wonder ?

You may live in a fantasy world, I do not nor ever did I feel the same goes for others who have replied to your post.

''Crossing the line'' is the expression you used. Does that infer that you crossed the equetar on some jolly on a cruise ship perhaps and participated in the frivolities associated with such an event ?

Dare I ask if you are above the age of military service or are you just a plain loud mouthed cowardly heckler sir ?

Or should SIR be spelt CUR in your case ?

I honoured my commission to the full as did many others .

What about you ?

Originally Posted by esoteric1

I'd say the ones who don't ask any questions, and are only "just following orders" are the ones who don't have a set.

interesting to hear what Sanchez has to say about this.

full article at Sanchez may have been commander in Iraq, but he says he was just following orders - Yahoo! News

Sanchez may have been commander in Iraq, but he says he was just following orders
By Nancy A. Youssef, McClatchy NewspapersFri May 16, 4:50 PM ET

WASHINGTON — To hear retired Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez explain it, the mistakes of the Iraq war that happened while he was in command there weren't his fault. Not Abu Ghraib, not the birth of the insurgency, not the decision to let rebel cleric Muqtada al Sadr survive.

Sanchez was a soldier, and according to him, a general's job is to give advice. What the civilian leaders decide after that is out of a general's hands.

"It's our responsibility to provide the best judgment we can," Sanchez said in an interview with McClatchy . "But when those decisions are made, if they are not illegal or immoral, civilian control of the military dictates that we comply."

His explanation is part of an ongoing debate within the military, triggered by the Iraq quagmire: What is the role of a soldier?

Sanchez's comments were part of a series of interviews he's given recently to promote his new autobiography, "Wiser in Battle: A Soldier's Story," the latest of several books by key Iraq decision-makers that seem intended to exonerate them of responsibility. In his book, Sanchez repeatedly spells out instances in which civilian leaders made decisions that countered his recommendations.

Sanchez said he advised President Bush not to go into Fallujah in April 2004 after four private security contractors were taken hostage and killed. Their burned bodies were hung from a bridge as Iraqis celebrated beneath them. The widely circulated photos were grotesque.

Sanchez said that he should have known more about what was going on at the Abu Ghraib prison, where Iraqi prisoners were subjected to degrading treatment that resulted in the courts-martial of seven low-ranking soldiers.

But even there, he said he bore no direct responsibility for what was taking place. Instead, the abuses of Abu Ghraib were a result of the Bush administration's endorsement of aggressive interrogations, which began in Afghanistan . He points out that an Army inspector general report ultimately absolved him.

"One of the things that has frustrated me in this war— everybody sees the military commander as the one responsible for the conduct of the war on the ground when in fact it's about the application of national power across the entire spectrum, and (the general) doesn't control it," he said.

It was rather amusing to see how the Saudi's treated Bush .WITH CONTEMPT !!!!!

George has served his purpose and kept the elite thieves in power in Saudi,they know he is on his way out and now the Arabs are calling their debts in.

Possibly the commentthat the Israeli's are ''The Chosen Race'' didn't actually help to strengthen the ties between Saudi and America either,

A great vote catcher in the upcoming American Knesset (OOPS, sorry),American presidential elections as the Jewish vote is a big one, however,a bit tactless in solving the current problem bedevilling our world.

Well done George Witless Bush.

i'm sorry, but nuckingfutz HAS to be storekeeper. How was box-counting in Japan?

It's time to vote..Go Barak Obama.

Oop! wrong thread...did anyone dropped anything on Iran yet?

and they have a right to influence events in the neighboring countries, if they don't things like the Iran-Iraq war happen, and millions die. In my opinion, they have a lot more right to be involved in Iraq than we do.

Originally Posted by re_fuse

yeah but who's been giving storekeeper weapons ?

I think the only thing he got was a potato peeler.

Originally Posted by theent01

In my opinion, they have a lot more right to be involved in Iraq than we do.

Right on man! I completely agree.