American soldiers discuss the attacks that made them amputees »
Posted By jovial 2 months ago in News
They also discuss their lives after returning home, and the effect war has had on them. More stories that the nightly news doesn't cover, but you should know about.
Read Full Story at liveleak.com »
1110 Views Share Story 12 Comments Report
Submitted By:
jovial
Grew up In Brooklyn. Joined the Navy in 1976 stayed in 10 years. Aircraft Electronics tech. Worked for Major Govt. contractor then settled in California ...
Who Also Submitted: All »
Other Related Articles: All »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 12 (view all)
-
100%
jovial2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
More nightly news that should be shown, but rarely is. More soldiers survive their war injuries than at any other time in history. They discuss their lives now with us in hopes that people can try to understand. My nephew is a navy medic that has been to Iraq twice and he is not the person that left a few short years ago. He's shared some of the pictures that he took over there and his stories are quite terrifying. The pictures are equally as grim.
Reply-
Neutral
hyperbola2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Our elite still hasn't given up the idea of military imperialism - and this hasn't changed under Obama. We will continue to generate "throw-aways" until they do.
Reply
The American Conservative: Perpetual War for Perpetual War
http://www.propeller.com/story/2009/08/10/the-amer...
U.S. Army Col. Timothy R. Reese says it’s time for the U.S. to “declare victory” in Iraq and “go home.” It was time to declare victory and go home in January 2007, when the Bush administration decided to ignore the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group and charged off on its cockamamie “surge” strategy.
...The original stated objective of the surge was political reconciliation in Iraq. By September 2007, when it was clear that the political objective was not in sight, Gen. David Petraeus pulled a bait-and-switch and announced that the military objectives of the surge were being met. Petraeus hagiographer Thomas E. Ricks slipped Freudian in February 2009 when he confessed that Petraeus’s goal was never to end the Iraq conflict but to trick Congress and the American public into extending it indefinitely by achieving short-term results though bribing Iraq’s militias.
Lasting military presence. That’s been the objective of the neoconservatives all along. In their September 2009 manifesto Rebuilding America’s Defenses Cheney’s pals at the infamous Project for the New American Century argued, “While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.” The neocons’ Pax Americana vision has translated into the Pentagon’s “long war,” a strategy that does not seek to win wars but rather to create a sequel to the Cold War in which Islamofacism substitutes for communism and puny Iran, whose defense budget is less than one percent of ours, replaces the Soviet juggernaut.
That might be justified if military applications overseas were making us safer from terrorism, but they are not. In 2008 the highly respected national security analysts at Rand Corporation released a report titled How Terrorist Groups End. The study involved a comprehensive analysis of terror organizations that existed worldwide between 1968 and 2006. 83 percent of the groups ended as a result of policing and political action. Military force accounted for a mere 7 percent of success against terrorists. Rand analysts recommend that the best course of counterterrorism actions should involve “a light U.S. military footprint or none at all.” We’re almost certainly, as Donald Rumsfeld suspected in 2004, making multiple new terrorists for every one we capture or kill. We have discovered a new style of warfare: reverse attrition. The more enemy we attrite the more enemy we have. -
Neutral
hyperbola2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
All the talk about withdrawing from Iraq is an Orwellian card trick. Reese says our “lasting military presence” should not “include the presence of any combat forces save those for force protection needs or the occasional exercise.” Why would we need to leave noncombat forces behind? So they can cook and clean for the combat forces that provide them force protection? The exercises we might do with the Iraqis would involve practicing for the invasions of Iran and Syria, which is the real reason the warmongery wants to keep an enduring base of operations in Iraq. There’s no need to conduct defensive exercises. None of Iraq’s neighbors is capable of invading and occupying it or crazy enough to try.
Reply
President Obama’s promise to remove all U.S combat troops from Iraq by August 2010 was also a see-through canard. As Gareth Porter revealed in March, the “advisory and assistance brigades” that will remain after that date will in fact be combat brigades augmented by a handful of advisers and assistants. The Cold War justified defense spending for a half-century. Now, the Pentagon is trying to validate its existence with another long war in the Middle East.
Sun Tzu famously said, “No nation ever profited from a long war.” The 27- year Peloponnesian War ended Athens’ reign as a superpower. The Thirty Years’ War Balkanized the Holy Roman Empire, dividing German power among multiple smaller states. The 46-year Cold War forced the Soviet Union to change its name back to Russia.
Don’t expect us to withdraw from Iraq or the Bananastans any time soon. The American warmongery, a confluence of Big War, Big Energy, Big Jesus, Big Israel, Big Brainwash, and Big Brother, is trying to entangle us in a state of constant armed conflict that will carry on into the next American century. There’s no need for anyone to challenge our hegemony; all they have to do is sit back and watch us collapse under the weight of our own stupidity.
-
-
100%
rightfromwrong2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
sad that these soldiers went there under false pretenses as little did they know it was all about greed and oil. 9-11 was a huge scam that brought fear & shock into America which was what the evil Bush administration wanted. Like JFK's assassination the Pentagon & their henchmen had it's hand in those towers coming down.
Reply
With 95% of media owned by the elites they brainwashed the nation into accepting their implementation of the agenda.
All for naught as America's domination of the world collapses at an ever increasing speed yet the greed of Wall Street continues unabated. -
-
-
-
Neutral
Veritas12 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
A few years ago, Glamour magazine, engaging in and promoting the rankest form of sexism, specially lamented the death of female soldiers in Iraq, ignoring the deaths of approximately 98 times as many male soldiers. Such horrific sexism has allowed thousands of male Americans to be "sacrificed" in wars like Vietnam and Iraq. (Of course, many thousands more suffered serious combat-related injuries. In Vietnam, tens of thousands of those were drafted.) Not until the lives of male Americans are deemed as precious as the lives of female Americans will the carnage stop.
Reply -
-
-
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.