Ten Reasons Why Many Gulf War Veterans Oppose Re-Invading Iraq

AlterNet ^ | 9/9/2002 | Anonymous

[Mr. Mojo]

Better not ever go to war....somebody might get hurt. The enemy might not fight where we want them to. We might have to pay medical bills for soldiers. Better to roll our ass over and play dead. Easier that way.

You just presented a perfect summation of this ridiculous piece.

[Pikachu_Dad]

Well, how about the web site: www.militarycorruption.com.

Good guys or bad guys? They have a link to 'free republic' so perhaps they are at least somewhat on the good side?

[Tribune7]

1. U.S. troops are vulnerable to Iraqi chemical and biological warfare agents -- if Iraq is capable of using them.

Well, yeah. It seems to be the main reason for invading, however, is to keep Iraq from using chemical and biological warfare agents on U.S. women and children -- before Iraq is capable of passing them off to a proxy.

[Texasforever]

Vietnam as a Marine grunt You were in combat for 8 days.

OOH RAH!

[pfflier]

The report reads like it was written by Greenpeace.

[Pikachu_Dad]

If their truly is a lack of 'Allied' support, that would be a problem with me. The trouble is evaluating what these countries are really saying versus what the media is attempting to portray them as saying.

More importantly, if their is active, 'alliance' support for Iraq, that would be even more of a problem. As good as we are, we cannot fight the world.

Goodness, at the present time, we are even having trouble getting the support of our own Congress. Yuch. What is wrong with those critters?

[pfflier]

I believe you are right on the mark. I'm reminded of the book "Stolen Honor". We have many that claim to be vets...now.

[Sonny M]

Some of these reasons were the sames ones before the last gulf war, others (the so called horror stories) are at best alleged rumors, and last but not least, to much of this is theory that has been or can be easily dismissed. Reading some of this, it seems like we got slaughtered in the last gulf war. Not how I remember it though. Facts are facts, Saddam Hussein is intent on making weapons of mast destruction, he does have terrorists links and he has no qualms about making weapons and selling it to the terrorists who have the money to spend and the intent to use it on us.

[Conservababe]

Ten wishy washy reasons. I hope the author is not still in the military. I loathe military cowards.

[ChuckHam]

Are you going to defend this post or not? Do you agree with the article or not? Is this just a hit and run for you? Let me tell you something. I'm a Gulf War vet and all of my fellow airmen who were there aren't one of the so-called "many" opposing going back in. As a former scud target I'm ready to go back and finish what we started.

[joesnuffy]

You pussy! I did 13 months in Vietnam as a Marine grunt You were in combat for 8 days. What makes you think your 8 days of knowledge is worth diddly squat? Your just gutless or looking for attention. Tell us oh sage one, what do you know that should make us pause before taking a truely evil man like Hussain out before he nukes some US city or Israel and starts a blood bath the likes we not seen since WWII? Come on son tell us.

Pretty much sums up my thoughts... Army grunt & medic 9th Inf Div Imagine having known as much about Japan as we know bout Iraq...and what a pre-emptive strike would have meant back in Sept '41 Now imagine we are attacked again...and I emphasize again....only this time WMD...we have a supplier of WMD and a potential user of same... If you locate a nest of snakes...do you wait for them to come out one at a time and bite your kids or while they are in the nest wipe them all out much more easily...ahhhhh Logic wasted ...

[kellynla]

There may be ten reasons for not invading Iraq but there is only one solution for dealing with Saddam and that is elimination. Now whether we use one bullet or an invasion force there is no substitute. BTW I agree with my brother veterans. The credibility of this article is in question because of the content and the lack of an author's name. Those of us who have been in combat know that unless there is an unconditional surrender the war is never over. Ex: Viet Nam, Korea. And while we are there I know several Marines who would like to make a house call to Beirut. Something about some unfinished business regarding a truck bomb that was delivered to the Marine barracks in 1983. Semper Fi

[rdb3]

I clicked on the link, but I haven't read it all yet.

[rdb3]

Hussein already used chemicals against us while we were there.

[okie01]

"Yuch. What is wrong with those critters?"

Well, about half of 'em are Democrats...

And I've no problem with Republican Congressmen (e.g., Armey) who make statements that "there has to be a good reason". Of course, there does. We can be confident that, when those reasons are presented (as they will be), Armey will four-square at the side of the President.

Chuck Hagel, however, is draping himself in Viet Nam veteran martyrdom when he lectures the President and the country on the issue. A lesson learned from his mentor, McCain, no doubt.

On the other hand, anybody who has been privately exposed to the "evidence" seems to have no question whatsoever about the necessity of this war. See Tony Blair.

Similarly, anybody on this board who has seriously followed the anthrax case has little doubt as to the source of the weaponized spores...

[justshe]

Please.... Take a minute and check out this thread: SUPPORT OUR NATION IN TIME OF WAR--Here

It might give you a different perspective.

[Centurion2000]

As a veteran I'd like to step forward for the small section of vets that believes in nuking Allah until he glows.

The only good muslim is a dead muslim.

[river rat]

"The author is a Gulf War combat veteran."
I doubt it...

Entire article sounds more like a "protect the radical islamic lunatics" from the consequences of their actions.

Semper Fi

[willyone]

What combat? If he was a Nam vet I would listen to him. Not someone who had twenty hours of one sided shooting at cowards running away.

[Randjuke]

Hmm, sounds like Alternet has a wee bit of a liberal slant. Well, maybe more than wee.