Letter of a dying Iraq war veteran to Bush

[Jludo]

Dying Iraq War Veteran Tomas Young Explains Decision to End His Life
Smedley Butler was right, War is a racket.

Text

Truthdig - The Last Letter

Video

Exclusive: Dying Iraq War Veteran Tomas Young Reads "Last Letter" to President Bush and Dick Cheney | Democracy Now!

 

[Scarecrow]

Actually the UN agreement from the 90's authorized us to go into Iraq. Should have happened the moment he used chemical weapons on his own people. We only stopped kicking his butt in Gulf 1 because he agreed to a list of things that he immediately broke after we left. Just my .

 

[Jludo]

I don't think we should have given him the gas or helicopters in the first place. Actually we shouldn't have installed him as dictator in the first place.
I don't think any of that justifies the 2003 invasion.

 

[Scarecrow]

True, True, and maybe not, but I spoke with a few that were happy we were there.

 

[rambone]

Sounds like an isolationist.

 

[poptab]

Sounds like an isolationist.

He's a paulbot.

 

[grasshopperlegs]

I think what the VET was saying that Bush was a coward and dodged is duty in the Texas National Guard. I was in the Guard after I got Back from Vietnam and we Had to attend so many meetings a year or we were kicked out. It was a fact that Bush went to some other state and did his so called duty which really doesn't count in The State you are from. I am not a Repulican or democrat I am a American First and We shoud do what we are suppose to do when we Raise our hand to defend our Country.

 

[rooster]

Powerful words

 

[John Titor]

Actually the UN agreement from the 90's authorized us to go into Iraq. Should have happened the moment he used chemical weapons on his own people. We only stopped kicking his butt in Gulf 1 because he agreed to a list of things that he immediately broke after we left. Just my .

hummm got looking ... I missed the part in the Constitution that exempts congress from a declaration of war with a
UN edict .....

 

[Scarecrow]

hummm got looking ... I missed the part in the Constitution that exempts congress from a declaration of war with a
UN edict .....

Sorry didn't mean for it to come across that way. I mean WE should have went back, congress and all.

 

[Shadow8088]

I must have missed the part where we were appointed us the world's police force... We've done it long enough.. it's time to let someone else do it so we can fix our OWN **** at home... Maybe we should stay the frig outta other country's politics? hmm?

 

[Scarecrow]

I believe the last time we became isolationists, Pearl Harbor happened. But I do understand what you are saying and somewhat agree.

 

[Shadow8088]

There were some other factors that drove Japan to their attack on Pearl...

We wanna be the big kid on the block.. we're a superpower dammit! We've got to show em who's boss... what's that? you don't WANT democracy? meh.. too late, your dictator is dead.. here.. let us help you build a democracy anyways..

if i continue down this line of thought, there's going to be a very long rant, and i don't have time for that today.. but you get the idea..

 

[mikem1]

sounds like a lot of blame the U.S. their a lot of bad guys in the middle-east, and there is not any good way to fix it. if you know one please share it.

 

[Shadow8088]

you mean besides one giant glass parking lot? "stay the hell out" sounds like a good one to me..

 

[Cerberus]

I believe the last time we became isolationists, Pearl Harbor happened. But I do understand what you are saying and somewhat agree.

Minding one's own business does not make one an isolationist. Isolationism isn't what caused Pearl Harbor, as we had many Asian irons in the fire at that time. In fact our foreign policy since Teddy Roosevelt led in large part to our current mess. Gun boat diplomacy has not been too kind to us as a nation. I guess you can make a slight argument that isolationism led us to the War of 1812, but even that wouldn't hold true since our nation has never actually been isolationist.

 

[Hohn]

Powerful words

Yes.

Signing up for military service means forfeiting control of your life. Do these vets forget the part of that oath about the "obeying the lawful orders of the President of the United States and officers appointed over me"?

Sometimes, you serve for 20 years and never get a scar. Others serve 6 months and die a horrible death. Others suffer injuries both physical and mental that make them ponder death, and perhaps even wish for it. War is not fair. War is never a good thing-- it is at all times a lesser evil.

I've taken the enlisted oath and served that commitment. I've taken the oath of an officer and accepted my commission. Neither is to be taken lightly. (as the oath states, it must be taken "freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion")

Apparently, this guy didn't understand the oath he took or its potentially fatal consequences. Or he simply wants a do-over.

It's hard to watch something like this a not see it as a spit in the face of those who paid the ultimate price and are survived not by anti-war protesters, seekers of fame, or revenge-- but only by those who know firsthand the solemn pride and pain of having offered up such a great sacrifice to the their country. There are many who suffer in silence of their choosing because they feel any other course would bring them dishonor.

The commensurate solemn obligation upon those who order our public servants into battle is that they not abuse the command authority given them. Every President must consider sacrosanct the massive responsibility that accompanies the right to order someone to do something that may kill them.

I believe from President Bush's conduct out of office that he took that obligation very seriously. His regular visits to veterans hospitals and many hours of charity work supporting veteran's causes testify to the weight that must still rest on his shoulders for having ordered what he did order.

I'm grateful that this vet's sad ending was not indicative of our military in general-- in its character or in the undertakings it assumes.

H

 

[jdmack79]

I believe the last time we became isolationists, Pearl Harbor happened. But I do understand what you are saying and somewhat agree.

"Isolationism" as you call it did not cause Pearl Harbor, but it could have prevented it.

Below is a list of reasons as to how the USA caused Japan to attack pearl harbor, none are isolationist:

1. Wilson treated Japan poorly at the Treaty of Versailles
2. USA pressured Britain to end their alliance with Japan which angered them
3. When a civil war occurred in China, Japan invaded Manchuria as a buffer. The west thought that this was horrible even though they did similar things
4. Japan did exactly what England did, and took over land to colonize. The west was not happy with this.
5. The USA imposed a steel and metal embargo on Japan in 1940
6. The USA imposed an oil embargo on Japan, which forced them to expand their empire in search of oil.

 

[Hohn]

sounds like a lot of blame the U.S. their a lot of bad guys in the middle-east, and there is not any good way to fix it. if you know one please share it.

You can't fix the middle East. You can only stay close enough to try and break it so they can't break you.


The history of the Middle East since 682 is one of Muslim aggression and tribal infighting. If you have Muslims, you will have aggressors. Islam spread throughout the middle east by force of arms. Converts were made from those who would not die for their freedom.

Today, Islam remain a force of aggression. It is endemic to the religion. The only "peace" in the "religion of peace" is the peace that comes after Islam has conquered the whole world and there is established a global Caliphate. Short of that, there is no muslim peace. Only war seeking that "peace."

Then again, history says that muslims that aren't at war with someone else are at war with each other. Shia vs Sunni. Salafis vs Sufis (as in Egypt now).

Attempting to nation-build in the Middle East is a mistake. They lack all the basic prerequisites to have a modern country. They are stuck in the 8th century not by accident, but because they have rejected concepts like the rule of law and natural rights that underpin Western advancement.

Ask a historian to mention things that Islamic culture has contributed to the betterment of the world and they have to go all the way back to Algebra. Where's their Magna Carta? Their Pilgrims to the new world? Metric System? Chemistry?

Instead, the contributions of modern Islam are things like mutilating the genitals of young girls. Beheadings of reporters just for having Jewish parents. Killing people just for whatever reason you feel like at that particular moment. The punishment of independent thought. The list is much longer, but you get the idea.

We can't fix the middle east because they don't WANT to be fixed. They like poverty and lawlessness just as it is, thank you very much. They reject the "fixes" because Islam has taught them that American prosperity has come from doing evil in the eyes of Allah.

Finally, we can't fix the middle east because any lasting change is a bottom-up approach. If the masses don't want it, it will never happen. Our attempt at a top-down reform has been an utter failure. The Smart People thought that if we just took out the evil oppressors like Saddam and the Taliban in their respective areas, then the people would rise up and magically desire freedom and liberty.

But they don't want those at all. They don't have a problem with dictators-- they just want that dictator to be THEIR guy (their religious sect, their tribe) so he will kill off and suppress the OTHER people. If they can make the US a useful idiot by getting us to think they want liberty (and therefore take out their enemies), then life is easier for them.

This is happening (AGAIN!) in Syria as we speak. Bashar al Assad is an evil tyrant. But the uprising against him is composed of islamic militants that are just as evil and just as willing to kill. They are fighting not for liberty, but for the right to be master instead of slave. They don't mind slavery so much as which side of it they are on.

Queue US State department to step and magically anoint one evil arab as the 'bad guys' and another set of evil arabs as the "good guys". We'll give the 'good guys' guns to they can win.

Then those "good guys' will be fighting us with the weapons we gave them.

Just like in Iraq (whom we armed because Saddam opposed Iran in the 1970s).

Just like in Afghanistan, where we gave aid to the Mujahideen fighting the Soviets.

Just like we did in Libya, ousting a dictator so a new one likely to be even worse can be installed.

Just like we supported Egypt (and are now selling them arms) after they ousted the pro-American dictator Mubarak and installed a VERY islamofascist Morsi.


Time and again, the US forgets that a dictator might not the be worst outcome.

Jeane Kirkpatrick is rolling in her grave.

 

[BIGKAT9]

We should never have gone into Iraq,but we did ,when we found Sadam in that spider hole we should have cleaned him up ,given him the key to Bagdadan told him to put down this rabble an by the way we want your oil.The only way to rule those people is with a boot ,an it has to be on their neck. Now Iran is a bigger player in the region .What was accomplished .