Soldier cleared of murder ordered back to Iraq duty

Twinsburg native Erick Anderson has been ordered to report for another tour of duty in Iraq after spending two years and $11,000 fighting accusations that he murdered Iraqi citizens, U.S. Rep. Full Story
First Prev
of 4
Next Last
cloverfield

Brunswick, OH

#73 Jun 11, 2008
Next wrote:
<quoted text>
You're omitting the fact that there are only 100 some thousand troops in Iraq, and over 300 million people here.
.00001%* is the monthly death rate auto accidents here
.0001%* is your 20/month death rate on 150,000
(*more zeros are better, in case you weren't sure about that)
The commander and chief admitted it was a mistake. It was a mistake. That said, how can anyone else claim otherwise? What else do you need???
The point is it's a war. Sorry if dealing with guns, roadside bombs hid in dead animal carcases, suicide bombers, etc. is a little more dangerous than driving to work in the morning.

The point is the same--for what we are are up against, we've done a phenomenal job and, thank God, we've lost far fewer troops than many estimated given the circumstances. With Iraq, we took the war on their soil, we virtually demolished al-Qaeda's entire network, we wiped out almost every one of their top leaders, we foiled COUNTLESS plans for terrorist attacks, and we destroyed the military epicenter of a warped culture bent of killing anyone not of their religion. In the meantime, we got rid of an evil dictator, we freed millions of people, and we're helping establish democracy in a region that many historians said would never have democracy.

What mistake did the commander in chief admit? It wasn't that we should have never gone into Iraq. There were mistakes made going into Iraq, so I do need more.

We didn't calculate what we would face after ousting Saddam, nor did anyone else. If you recall, we supplied our troops with gas masks and suits, thinking we might face a chemical attack that could have wiped out tens of thousands. We didn't, and the people saying this would happen were wrong. There were miscalculations all over the board from all levels.

Had we had all the correct information prior to going into Iraq, maybe we would not have invaded...we don't know that. But I do not believe we know all the information to this day, like the trucks going into Syria, what they were carrying, and where it went (the evidence suggests it was WMDs, or at least supplies to make them, and that explains the foiled plan from Syria of using 20 tons of chemical WMDs to attack Jordan...Syria is not believed to possess the capabilities of creating the amount of chemical WMDs discovered in foiling this plan).

The bottom line is both Iraq and the world are better off as result of what we did.
Chris

Solon, OH

#74 Jun 11, 2008
cloverfield wrote:
<quoted text>
The point is it's a war. Sorry if dealing with guns, roadside bombs hid in dead animal carcases, suicide bombers, etc. is a little more dangerous than driving to work in the morning.
The point is the same--for what we are are up against, we've done a phenomenal job and, thank God, we've lost far fewer troops than many estimated given the circumstances. With Iraq, we took the war on their soil, we virtually demolished al-Qaeda's entire network, we wiped out almost every one of their top leaders, we foiled COUNTLESS plans for terrorist attacks, and we destroyed the military epicenter of a warped culture bent of killing anyone not of their religion. In the meantime, we got rid of an evil dictator, we freed millions of people, and we're helping establish democracy in a region that many historians said would never have democracy.
What mistake did the commander in chief admit? It wasn't that we should have never gone into Iraq. There were mistakes made going into Iraq, so I do need more.
We didn't calculate what we would face after ousting Saddam, nor did anyone else. If you recall, we supplied our troops with gas masks and suits, thinking we might face a chemical attack that could have wiped out tens of thousands. We didn't, and the people saying this would happen were wrong. There were miscalculations all over the board from all levels.
Had we had all the correct information prior to going into Iraq, maybe we would not have invaded...we don't know that. But I do not believe we know all the information to this day, like the trucks going into Syria, what they were carrying, and where it went (the evidence suggests it was WMDs, or at least supplies to make them, and that explains the foiled plan from Syria of using 20 tons of chemical WMDs to attack Jordan...Syria is not believed to possess the capabilities of creating the amount of chemical WMDs discovered in foiling this plan).
The bottom line is both Iraq and the world are better off as result of what we did.
Well said! How many miscalculations were made in WWII and we overcame and won because we didn't have a treasonous news media nor did we have traitorous politicians (Pelosi, Reid, Murtha, Kerry,...just to name a few)then. Also, no one seems to remember how long we stayed in Japan cleaning up the islands and the mainland after the Japanese surrendered. There was still pockets of fighting going on even after the treaty was signed. No one was second-guessing our leaders then telling them they should have expected it or known better. Are we not still present in Japan today? How about Germany? Are not the wars there over? There are only two outcomes in war: you win or you surrender. No one on the left has ever been able answer this question, now that we are in a conflict (war), like it or not, why in the world would you do everything in your power to help us to lose? At this point the cause of the war in Iraq is no longer important....the only thing that matters is that we win. Anything less than that is surrender. Grow up and start supporting your Country, your Military, and Your President. Had you on the left done this from the beginning we probably would have accomplished our goals much sooner.
cloverfield

Brunswick, OH

#75 Jun 11, 2008
Chris wrote:
<quoted text>
Well said! How many miscalculations were made in WWII and we overcame and won because we didn't have a treasonous news media nor did we have traitorous politicians (Pelosi, Reid, Murtha, Kerry,...just to name a few)then. Also, no one seems to remember how long we stayed in Japan cleaning up the islands and the mainland after the Japanese surrendered. There was still pockets of fighting going on even after the treaty was signed. No one was second-guessing our leaders then telling them they should have expected it or known better. Are we not still present in Japan today? How about Germany? Are not the wars there over? There are only two outcomes in war: you win or you surrender. No one on the left has ever been able answer this question, now that we are in a conflict (war), like it or not, why in the world would you do everything in your power to help us to lose? At this point the cause of the war in Iraq is no longer important....the only thing that matters is that we win. Anything less than that is surrender. Grow up and start supporting your Country, your Military, and Your President. Had you on the left done this from the beginning we probably would have accomplished our goals much sooner.
Dead on. The thing is, even if we had found several active nuclear weapons facilities upon entering Iraq, many of the "blame-America-first " libs would still be arguing that none of this was justified.
Spawn

Cleveland, OH

#76 Jun 11, 2008
cloverfield wrote:
<quoted text>
The point is it's a war. Sorry if dealing with guns, roadside bombs hid in dead animal carcases, suicide bombers, etc. is a little more dangerous than driving to work in the morning.
The point is the same--for what we are are up against, we've done a phenomenal job and, thank God, we've lost far fewer troops than many estimated given the circumstances. With Iraq, we took the war on their soil, we virtually demolished al-Qaeda's entire network, we wiped out almost every one of their top leaders, we foiled COUNTLESS plans for terrorist attacks, and we destroyed the military epicenter of a warped culture bent of killing anyone not of their religion. In the meantime, we got rid of an evil dictator, we freed millions of people, and we're helping establish democracy in a region that many historians said would never have democracy.
What mistake did the commander in chief admit? It wasn't that we should have never gone into Iraq. There were mistakes made going into Iraq, so I do need more.
We didn't calculate what we would face after ousting Saddam, nor did anyone else. If you recall, we supplied our troops with gas masks and suits, thinking we might face a chemical attack that could have wiped out tens of thousands. We didn't, and the people saying this would happen were wrong. There were miscalculations all over the board from all levels.
Had we had all the correct information prior to going into Iraq, maybe we would not have invaded...we don't know that. But I do not believe we know all the information to this day, like the trucks going into Syria, what they were carrying, and where it went (the evidence suggests it was WMDs, or at least supplies to make them, and that explains the foiled plan from Syria of using 20 tons of chemical WMDs to attack Jordan...Syria is not believed to possess the capabilities of creating the amount of chemical WMDs discovered in foiling this plan).
The bottom line is both Iraq and the world are better off as result of what we did.
cf, you said it was as safe as driving. you didnt know otherwise until it was spelled out for you. 1 out of 10,000 just a 'little' more dangerous than 1 out of 100,000? stuff like that wont help your cred in other topics.

as for your other comment, you knew the mantra going in. hussein is an evil guy with wmds. that was the advertisement. not just an evil guy. not just a guy with wmds. an evil guy with wmds. there are plenty of one or the other, but this guy was advertised to have red skin, horns, a pointy tail and wmd programs.

the admitted mistake previously referred to was likely the bad info on wmds. so with that, the whole thing is a mistake. oops. good thing the rest of us cant have a fck up that costs over 4000 American lives and hundreds of billions off dollars, and saying oops makes it all go away..

so for your question, would we have gone in had we had the correct info? seriously, how could we have? it was hard enough with bogus info that backed up gw's argument.

dont get me wrong, im on board with staying and cleaning up after gw. you gotta, no ifs and or buts. and hoping it all works out. and going in, i had serious doubts about wmd advertising. yet, once they were going in, i got behind the admin to get it done. i kept up every day hoping like hell something worthwhile would be found. so i hope you can understand why someone would be more than a little pissed when nothing but a few rockets were found.
cloverfield

Brunswick, OH

#77 Jun 11, 2008
Spawn wrote:
<quoted text>
cf, you said it was as safe as driving. you didnt know otherwise until it was spelled out for you. 1 out of 10,000 just a 'little' more dangerous than 1 out of 100,000? stuff like that wont help your cred in other topics.
as for your other comment, you knew the mantra going in. hussein is an evil guy with wmds. that was the advertisement. not just an evil guy. not just a guy with wmds. an evil guy with wmds. there are plenty of one or the other, but this guy was advertised to have red skin, horns, a pointy tail and wmd programs.
the admitted mistake previously referred to was likely the bad info on wmds. so with that, the whole thing is a mistake. oops. good thing the rest of us cant have a fck up that costs over 4000 American lives and hundreds of billions off dollars, and saying oops makes it all go away..
so for your question, would we have gone in had we had the correct info? seriously, how could we have? it was hard enough with bogus info that backed up gw's argument.
dont get me wrong, im on board with staying and cleaning up after gw. you gotta, no ifs and or buts. and hoping it all works out. and going in, i had serious doubts about wmd advertising. yet, once they were going in, i got behind the admin to get it done. i kept up every day hoping like hell something worthwhile would be found. so i hope you can understand why someone would be more than a little pissed when nothing but a few rockets were found.
I did know otherwise, which is why I never said it was as safe as driving, nor did I say less soldiers are being killed in Iraq per capita than drivers in America per capita. Those are assumptions you created, if you go back and read my original post.

I used the total numbers as figures to compare total deaths, not total deaths per capita. If you want to compare per capita, then look at the total deaths in Iraq in comparison with the soldiers killed in other wars we've fought. Iraq has been one of the least deadly in American history. This is why the media isn't showing total deaths in Iraq on a per soldier level, but as a number milestone ("3,000 dead" sounds worse than "fractions of the amount killed per total soldiers as in Vietnam, WWII, the Civil War"). So I applied a number milestone to compare total deaths with--that being deaths by auto per month in America. Not reading posts thoroughly before refuting them won't help your cred in other topics, though I don't fault you completely for this because you may have based this off of what someone else had said about my original post.

See next post..
cloverfield

Brunswick, OH

#78 Jun 11, 2008
Go back and see who delivered the "mantra going in." Was it Bush or the media that focused solely on WMDs? I already posted the 23 reasons for war--only two of which were about WMDs. This is a distinction people need to make before going forth with this debate. The media knows if they put enough headlines out saying one thing, the American people will begin to latch to that as fact, whether or not it necessarily is.

If people must keep ignoring my WMD info, I will repeat it again. Saddam had WMDs in the past. That is a proven fact. He used them to kill hundreds of thousands of Kurds. He pursued WMDs his entire time in office, and did not get rid of all the WMDs he was supposed to post Desert Storm. That alone was reason for us to go to Iraq, let alone anything else.

So we went to Iraq with belief in hand that Saddam was actively developing WMDs. We didn't find WMDs being actively developed when we got there. We did find WMDs, just older ones Saddam was supposed to have disposed of, and claimed he had. We found mammoth development plants that appeared to have recently been emptied. We have satellite photos of lines of semis going into Syria in the middle of the night, and we had Israeli intelligence telling us already that they knew the WMDs had been shipped from Iraq to Syria months before we ever invaded. After the war began we found al-Qaeda members with 20 tons of chemical WMDs in a plot to attack Jordan. Those WMDs came from Syria, when experts believe Syria was not capable of creating the amount of chemical WMDs discovered. Meanwhile, one of the terrorists caught in the foiled plot admitted to meeting in Iraq to plot the attack. We had Momar Khadafi come out shortly after we invaded Iraq, handing over a nuclear development program he had kept hidden. Sources even say the nuclear scientists working in Libya's nuclear facilities were Iraqi scientists, and that, little did we know, Saddam had outsourced his nuclear program to Libya to hide it. Even Saddam himself admitted he was trying to make it appear that he had WMDs. These are a few of the reasons I don't believe there were never any WMDs, simply because we didn't find active development facilities in Iraq.

On the last part of your comment, I agree with you. Regardless of how anyone feels about how we went into Iraq, we should support our troops and finish the job there now that we are there. We may see things different on the rest of the issues, but I pride you for supporting our current objectives there to finish the job.
cloverfield

Brunswick, OH

#79 Jun 11, 2008
By the way, the "our troops may be safer in Iraq than they are in the streets of Akron" comment was satirical for two reasons: deaths by traffic accident, and deaths due to the increasing violent crime rate in Akron. I may not have made this very clear, but that's why I worded it "in the streets of Akron" rather than "driving on the road."
its me

Youngstown, OH

#80 Jun 11, 2008
Canada announced they are pulling troops and equipment out of iraq. The 2 mounties and canoe should be out of the country by next thursday Sir Edmund LaPew, defense secretary announced.
Use Common Sense

Kent, OH

#81 Jun 12, 2008
its me wrote:
Canada announced they are pulling troops and equipment out of iraq. The 2 mounties and canoe should be out of the country by next thursday Sir Edmund LaPew, defense secretary announced.
Hilarious!!
Next

Cleveland, OH

#82 Jun 12, 2008
cloverfield wrote:
<quoted text>
There were mistakes made going into Iraq, so I do need more.
Bush could not have obtained enough support without the WMD intelligence. He would have had problems getting enough support even from his own party.

He later admitted the intelligence was flawed.

You do recall this being brought up in the UN, radio, State of the Union addresses. He brought it up in an address to the nation speech and even brought it up in his speech in Cincinnati. You also remember the photo presentations.

The media didn't simply "latch on to this". It was used by the President to gain support. Without it, there could be no war. If anything, the media would much rather have poked holes in the WMD theory to prevent a war and I think you know that.

The WMD intelligence was the foundation for gaining support for the war and the President admitted it was flawed. Imagine him trying to gain support for this war without the WMD "evidence". It's easy to see there would be no war. Let's HOPE it was a mistake and not a lie or gross exaggeration.
Next

Cleveland, OH

#83 Jun 12, 2008
I wrote wrote:
<quoted text>You do recall this being brought up in the UN, radio, State of the Union addresses. He brought it up in an address to the nation speech and even brought it up in his speech in Cincinnati. You also remember the photo presentations.
Just adding that I was talking about WMD's in the above paragraph (I re-read it and it looks like I was talking about the flawed intelligence admission).
cloverfield

Canton, OH

#84 Jun 12, 2008
Next wrote:
<quoted text>
Bush could not have obtained enough support without the WMD intelligence. He would have had problems getting enough support even from his own party.
He later admitted the intelligence was flawed.
You do recall this being brought up in the UN, radio, State of the Union addresses. He brought it up in an address to the nation speech and even brought it up in his speech in Cincinnati. You also remember the photo presentations.
The media didn't simply "latch on to this". It was used by the President to gain support. Without it, there could be no war. If anything, the media would much rather have poked holes in the WMD theory to prevent a war and I think you know that.
The WMD intelligence was the foundation for gaining support for the war and the President admitted it was flawed. Imagine him trying to gain support for this war without the WMD "evidence". It's easy to see there would be no war. Let's HOPE it was a mistake and not a lie or gross exaggeration.
Bush likely would not have attained AS MUCH support, though it's arguable whether he would have attained ENOUGH support. There are many people in Congress that would rather let rulers like Saddam get away with everything they're planning until it's too late, rather than address the problem early on.

Some of the intelligence was flawed in some ways, and Bush admitted this. Not all of the intelligence was flawed, and some of the intelligence was not flawed in every way, even though elements of it were flawed. This was the same intelligence the Democrats and other countries saw...in fact, a lot of the intelligence was given to us by other countries.

The media would have poked holes in the WMD theory, but they couldn't because they couldn't find information to refute the intelligence we had. And trust me, if they had anything even close they would have bitten...just ask Dan Rather and his phony documents. The info that was discovered to show the intelligence flaws was discovered after we invaded.

And again, I pose a few obstacles to the differing view:

1/ Only parts of some intelligence was flawed. There was quite a bit of intelligence, most of which was not flawed.

2/ No one refuted the flawed intelligence beforehand--not the Clintons, not the Dems, not Britain, Australia, Japan, Israel, Spain, etc. They all saw the same intelligence and had just as much of an opportunity to prove any flaws that we had. The few flaws that existed were not brought into question beforehand because we didn't have any evidence that there were flaws beforehand.

3/ The "flawed" intelligence was actually from Britain. And by saying it was "flawed" doesn't mean it was dead wrong. Most of the "flawed" intelligence was nothing more than a source was less certain of something than they originally led on. That doesn't even make the source completely wrong, it makes them less certain. There may not be as much evidence to support their claims than originally believed. But show me where the claims were wrong entirely.

4/ If Bush had intentionally lied or exaggerated the intelligence, he was working from an agenda he would obviously stop at nothing to achieve, which is the claim opponents have made. If that is true, Bush would have known going in that we likely wouldn't find WMDs because he had lied or exaggerated evidence of them. Therefore, in part of "stopping at nothing," he would have lied about finding them, or had WMDs planted in Iraq to prove he was right.

Bush was man enough to admit that we didn't find WMDs the way we thought we would (not that we didn't find any at all, because we did), that we had intelligence that was flawed (not that it was all flawed, because it wasn't), and that the "Mission Accomplished" banner was premature (we had accomplished our initial mission, though we did not foresee what lied ahead).
cloverfield

Canton, OH

#85 Jun 12, 2008
Next wrote:
<quoted text>
Just adding that I was talking about WMD's in the above paragraph (I re-read it and it looks like I was talking about the flawed intelligence admission).
Thanks, I understood.

Since: Mar 07

Akron, OH

#86 Jun 12, 2008
Well then, there's y'alls problem. How can any-buddy take y'all seriously when y'all think Kucinich was ever right about anythin'?

As for Bushyboy. Love him or hate him, he's always done what he's said he'll do. I can't remember the last time one of the demoncritters did that.
concerned citizen

United States

#87 Jun 12, 2008
Betamax wrote:
Well then, there's y'alls problem. How can any-buddy take y'all seriously when y'all think Kucinich was ever right about anythin'?
As for Bushyboy. Love him or hate him, he's always done what he's said he'll do. I can't remember the last time one of the demoncritters did that.
well lets see- GWB ran vehemently opposed to nation building and said he would never do it.
care to try again?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Rootstown Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
A.N.T. go to Western Union get 200.00 U need I.D. 14 hr Custo 3
Whatever happened to Attorney Robin Bostick????? Feb 24 James Auther 4
Wayne Dawson (Oct '09) Feb 23 Shemp 144
the music thread (Apr '12) Feb 20 Musikologist 17
Grade Attorney Dennis Day Lager Public Defender Feb 18 truth be toad 3
Akron man posing as coach charged with sexual b... Feb 15 Walkin Boss 1
Register for CPR and First Aid Training in Kent Feb 12 Derrick Sly 1
Rootstown Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Rootstown People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 4:00 am PST

Bleacher Report 4:00AM
Re-Visiting the Steelers' 2014 Draft
NFL 6:29 AM
Steelers reportedly to allow Worilds to hit market
Yahoo! Sports 8:12 AM
AP source: Bills negotiating to sign quarterback McCown
Bleacher Report 6:15 PM
Pittsburgh Steelers' Ultimate Free-Agency To-Do List
NBC Sports 9:09 PM
Reports: Browns still in the mix for Josh McCown