More Wikileaks.Follow

Yeah. Nothing's better for a soldier's stress level than realizing their government covered up the ****** that their friends died for... no better remedy for grieving a lost friend than realizing it's kept secret to protect the reputation of some man sitting in an office while you're out there fighting. Grow up. It's the government's shading of the truth that causes such things.

OMG, talk about being lost in the sauce. Do you even know what an IED is? Do you know what a mortar is? Those things cause PTSD, not "cover ups". Have you ever been deployed or even talked to anyone who has been deployed? Really, you can't be that ignorant and disrespectful to think that the military made up a term to cover up actions. That is absurd, PTSD came about because it wasn't being handled properly in the past. People were made fun of and people were claiming disabilities. Do yourself a favor, stand next to someone, who's been deployed, around a big noise and see what happens. They may or may not react a different way. Loud noises have absolutely nothing to do with "cover ups". Besides, according to you these are the people willingly committing crimes and making reports on themselves, so how can they become sick realizing something they knew from the start?

I hope no other military personnel on this forum is reading this nonsense that you all are saying, because I'm not easily offended, but this up there. Even for trolling. To call people's mental health issues a fake response from a cover up is beyond disrespectful. Fortunately you're an ignorant sheep, else you would be less than human.

Seriously, wtf does a cover up have anything to do with PTSD? Most people don't like war, so any "cover up" wouldn't have any effect because they were probably against it going in. No one has to be killed or even injured to have a mental stress disorder



Even if this whole war was coordinated between the US and Iraqi governments to test out their strength over a bet while drinking at a party, that wouldn't some how magically cause people to have stress disorders. You seriously can't sound any more misinformed.



I honestly don't know what to say other than not hang around stupid people, it's contagious. You have reached that point in stupidity where you think others are dumb. Honestly speaking, this is an objective evaluation.

I am saying "you" in a general sense

1. You claim that this entire war is a "war crime" and have yet posted a single thread of evidence of a war crime. In attempts, you have posted a link about the loss of billions of dollars, which was being investigated by IG, an organization which you claim that you don't trust. So, I guess that means that there really isn't any missing money, since they can't be trusted?

2. You claim that you can't trust IG, yet haven't given any reason on why they shouldn't be trusted. I've asked very specific questions, which all have been ignored.

3. You post a video of Soldiers positively identifying the target, REQUESTING permission to fire and checking for surrounding personnel.

Do war crimes happen? Of course they do, no one is denying that, but to make the bold claim that Soldiers are just acting "cowboy" doing whatever they please and causing more trouble than good needs to be backed up by a large amount of evidence. You can't do this by assuming leaked documents contained this evidence or even by pointing out individual war crimes. Pointing out war crimes only prove that they exist which everyone agrees to.

I even posted links of how the Iraqi police are welcoming US Soldiers to train them. I'm just going to hope that you're just a troll and you don't honestly believe that requesting proof on a governmental conspiracy is actually ignorant, naive and rock stupid...because that would be ignorant, naive and rock stupid.

The idea that you can objectively determine the success of a war is fallacious. You can absolutely win every battle and lose the war, because victory happens in peoples' heads, far from the battlefield.

Somehow I don't think Samira was agreeing with you. But, eh, I've been wrong before.

Protip: Before you do, realize that the lesson is covering up things to make them look kinder to the public makes those things worse in the end.

Stated goal of invasion of Iraq in 2003:

1. Defeat existing Iraqi military.

2. Remove Saddam from power.

3. Stabilize Iraq, rebuild destroyed infrastructure.

4. Assist in the establishment of a democratic form of government.

5. Stay until said government is capable of maintaining the security and stability of Iraq on its own.



Um... In what way has Iraq been a failure? Arguing that it wasn't all duckies and bunnies along the way isn't saying anything you can't say about any conflict in the history of man. Mistakes are made. Tactics have to be changed. But the measure of success is if you accomplish your objectives. Which we did.


The reality is that the anti-war left wants desperately to make Iraq into a failure in the eyes of the public. They worked really really hard to force the US to withdraw early in order to make the conflict fail (and apparently they didn't care much about the loss of life that would cause). And when they failed to do so, and things turned around, and is now to the point that we can withdraw troops without fear of instantly casting the whole country into chaos, instead of being adults and admitting that they are wrong, they're trying to find some new way to make it out to be a failure.

How sad and pathetic do you have to be to do this? Talk about sore f'ing losers.

Regime change was the stated goal?

Really?

Okaaaay.....

Oh sure. Put down "ensure that Iraq can't produce/use WMDs" in there as well. Another thing we succeeded at. Thanks!

Uh... yes? Or did you miss the bit where the US gave Saddam and his family 48 hours to leave Iraq and allow a peaceful transfer of power under UN supervision or we'd attack and remove them from power? How the hell can you have such strong opinions about something you clearly have a selective memory about?

Want me to quote from the speech where this ultimatum was given? The US's primary objective was to remove Saddam from power and put in a more democratic form of government which would abide by the terms of the cease fire agreement signed back in 1991. That was the whole point. How on earth can you have missed that?

I suspect Mr Paulsol is referring to the UN resolution (1441?) that stated international support for an invasion if WMD were still under strong suspicion.

The rest of the world (you know, the bits of the map that aren't USA) made it clear that regime change was not justified, but invasion to prevent the use of WMD would have been justified if Mr Blix had another chance to review and report.

At the very least, keeping the public numb about what really goes on is going to make the problem worse. Alma, buddy, surely you can see... if your best friend is killed in combat because of something illegal on the part of your army, would you want justice, or for his corpse to be swept under the rug?

Figures.



They also know that the moon is made of cheese, a meal must consist of at least 5,000 calories and brown people are all thieves.


[:golfclap:]