"We just destroyed the place for the hell of it."

http://www.westender.com.au/stories.php?s_id=651

Iraq War Veteran, Matt Howard, Speaks At St Mary’s Catholic Church, South Brisbane

<snip>"The tone was set at the outset."

Mr Howard drove a supply truck which carried food, water and equipment for tanks and palettes of humanitarian rations. When he crossed the border from Kuwait into Iraq, he saw hungry children lining the streets. He opened the rations and handed them out. His Sergeant confronted him with his M-16 and said, "What the hell do you think you are doing?" He was ordered not to throw one more box of food out to one more starving child. He took the remaining rations all the way to Baghdad, and back again to Kuwait, without delivering one more ration to starving people. When he asked his Commanding Officer, in Kuwait, what he should do with the food, he was ordered to "F*cking bury it." He buried it.

Howard's Commander explained that he didn't want Iraqis to get the "wrong impression about why we were there".

"It was like that the whole way to Baghdad," said Mr Howard.

"We just destroyed the place for the hell of it."

Nothing gained.. just death & destruction

It doesn't "protect" or "defend," it destroys. If our society wasn't so heavily invested in the Myth of Redemptive Violence, we might see this. Instead we're treated to an endless litany of the joys and wonder of our military, against all evidence to the contrary.

ever!


<snip>

"The Democrats are not going to end the war. Since they've taken power, they continue to give Bush all the funding he asks for," he said.


<snip>

Mr Howard said, "Everyone is dreaming if they think the US will ever get out of Iraq."


He explained that 'Operation Crown Jewel' (to secure the Ramadi oil field) was very explicitly his battalion's first objective when they invaded Iraq in 2003, which they accomplished.


And as for the troubles between the Shias and the Sunnis?

"Sectarian violence is being fuelled by our presence," said Mr Howard. He was quite clear that CIA "Black-Ops" were at work, and pointed out that these two groups had happily co-existed, side by side, for 1,400 years before the invasion.

in broad daylight in the middle of the street..."

I've been telling people since we threatened to invade that this was going to happen, is happening, and is continuing to happen.

Our own forces are keeping the pot stirred so everyone there will keep killing each other. Iraq's infrastructure is still in pitiful shape. Piles of bodies...

We gave them Saddam, and now we gave them chaos. Aren't we just the greatest nation in the world. :sarcasm:

wah?

and post that we have to "continue the fight!" and "Removing Saddam was worth it!" "Ra-ra-ra!"

Idiots. We're f***ing these people over, and claiming to make their lives better.

not DUers
But this is worse than hell that we have created over there, isn't it? Yikes, the karma we must clean up for the next lifetimes is going to be a real_____(whatever, fill in the blank)

The military's job one is to enforce the will of the imperial fascist state. Capital is superior to humanity. Hate and fear must precede love and compassion, courage and empathy.

Anyone who went to Iraq thinking that they were serving the needs or the will of a democratic state must needs endure soul wrenching agony when confronted with truth and reality. The heavily propagandized populace lives in a heavily distorted world in which worship of wealth and financial success is demanded. Financial success is lauded as the truth, the ultimate vindication of all that is portrayed as sacred and holy. The common soldier is drawn from this pool, and much courage is required to confront reality when it stares in one's face.

However, the idea that "The Democrats are not going to end the war. Since they've taken power, they continue to give Bush all the funding he asks for," as Mr. Howard said, discounts the reality of American politics.

Democrats are not "in power." The Democratic party wields some power, but they certainly have not taken control as is implied. Factions exist within the Democratic party as well.

The one candidate who has consistently been against funding this imperial enterprise?

If you know not the answer, you have not been paying attention.

Dennis Kucinich may be the last hope for the american experiment to survive the first half of this 21st century. I do not believe that this is any kind of hyperbole. One does not need to support Mr. Kucinich out of fear, but because he has the courage to speak the truth.

Remember, More Veterans killed themselves after returning from Vietnam, than died in Vietnam.
What are we doing to Americans Today?
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/08/16/ap4026007.htm...
WASHINGTON -

Ninety-nine U.S. soldiers killed themselves last year, the highest rate of suicide in the Army in 26 years, a new report says.

More than one out of four soldiers who committed suicide did so while serving in Iraq or Afghanistan, according to a report scheduled to be released Thursday. Iraq was the most common deployment location for U.S. soldiers who either attempted suicide or committed suicide.

"We had to destroy the {village) in order to save it."

Wrong impression as to why we are there? The impression is that we are there to completely enslave them and take their oil! So, are they wrong? :(

It never is in the insanity of war.

and starve if necessary.

that was a violation of General Order Number One, had that been my soldier he would have had some serious explaining to do about why he felt it neccessary to do his own thing and disobey orders.......And before anyone gives me that crap about having a heart, having a heart is not a luxury you can have in the middle of an invasion, legal orders are given, legal orders must be followed, anyone that can't or won't follow legal orders needs to be thrown under the bus metaphorically............

taking food and burying it vs feeding human beings, (children) this in itself is inhuman and you are suggesting if you are told to jump off a building not doing so means one should be thrown under the bus metaporically. Maybe you should trade places with this being.......Blessings

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I have asked this question and no one has dared to answer it, they just hurl the accusation and then run away........

So again if my mission and my legal orders (the orders passed by Congress, signed by the Resident and enforced by my chain of command)were to not distribute food what law was broken?

The operative word is "legal" ... and lawyers are hard to find in a combat zone.

while I buried it in the sand. That is evil in one of it's most pure forms.

He's a vet. I think the vet who was ordered to bury the food would tell you the same thing.

It's easy to think you'd be heroic when you're not in the situation.

And on what ground do you doubt my word?

I am sure you are sincere in what you said. What TahitiNut, and DemBones said, however, is that it's easy for those of us who've never been in the military and never been in a war zone to say that we'd definitely "never" or "always" do something. It's just not possible for someone not in those circumstances to predict how they'd act. If you asked most Americans if they'd hand out food to hungry Iraqi kids, most people, Dems and Repubs, would say yes, they would. But it's just not that simple, even though it sounds absurd to say that and even though it seems very simple to us.

For the record, I don't think "legal" orders (and I don't doubt the legality of those orders) equates to moral orders, and that's why I could NEVER be in the military - because soliders are quite simply not given the freedom to act as their morals instruct them to; they must follow their COs or the letter of the law at all times.

Of particular relevance is your comment that "I don't think 'legal' orders equates to moral orders."

Precisely. No matter how often it's pointed out, people who haven't been there just cannot seem to keep it in their head that military personnel are trained and indoctrinated to kill (or be killed) ... and that's about the most basic "immorality." Yes ... we hyper-rationalize and talk endlessly about necessity and extenuating circumstances ... even when discussing it in a civil context. But who can doubt how easily nearly any DUer can be convinced of an exception to the immorality of killing? We see it endlessly in threads about sexual predators and rapists and animal torturers and so on. Well, take that willingness to contemplate killing and put it in a circumstance where others in your 'society' are killing and your own life is constantly under threat and maybe there's just a glimmering of comprehension.

It turns out that less than perhaps 2% of those who sophomorically engage in the dormitory braggadocio of "adhering to a higher principle" would actually do so.

A combat zone is a "different world." I can only imagine how much more extreme it'd be like, serving a second 15-month tour of duty in the company of people who 'volunteered' for that service with no draftees (i.e. civilians in uniform who have no military career aspirations) and watching the empty rhetoric of a bunch of chicken-hawk posturing politicians whose greatest discomfort is too few ice cubes in their highballs.

It is absolutely essential, imho, that the People assert their sovereignty over the deployment of the military and fully participate in that military themselves. If you want a job done right, do it yourself. In this way and ONLY in this way can a democratic society gain any kind of confidence that people wearing the uniform of their nation are acting in ways that best represent the values of that nation.

I could just as easily claim that our military is representing the prevalent values of our nation ... and those values are hypocrisy. We show that every time we claim the 'right' to condemn but fail to risk our own comforts. We show that when we spout "rule of law" and break a speed limit.


Personally, I detest 'military life.' My time in the military was as a fish out of water. "FTA" was on my helmet cover and in my mind 100% of the time I was in the Army. At the same time, I felt it was essential that I serve instead of flee to Canada. Sometimes it's not easy to do what one regards as 'right' - especially when there are many who'd condemn that and support doing what was more self-serving.

Even more pertinent ... I detest the "you'd have to be there" response to such issues. I get enormously frustrated when my powers of expression are insufficient to convey the realities of such an existence. Even more frustrating is confronting an implacable stance of ignorance and close-mindedness - doing nothing to assist in bridging the gap between experience and absence of that experience. That's why I've kept my DU sig the way it is for several years.

You didn't.

Believe me when I say I've been in situations where my entire livelihood were up in arms, weighed against my conscience.

Believe me when I say, I will die before I starve a needy child for reasons of self preservation.

But continuing to defend something that you know was WRONG,
years after the fact, is a behavior that comes from a very
different point of view than the one you are expressing.

IMHO, a point of view not nearly so worthy of support as yours is.

so I should disobey legal orders? I should just say fuck it to good order and discipline, I should just forget the oath I took to obey legal orders............Yeah don't join the military pal, we don't need people that can't understand the difference between an Illegal order (which I must never obey) and a Legal Order (which I and others must always obey).......In this case giving food to Iraqis would be breaking a legal order to not give them food. We were there to destroy military assets, targets, and personnel, not feed people who are noncombatants.......So again if I followed LEGAL ORDERS, how am I a war criminal......way to support the troops there pal........

FYI: This thread isn't about YOU; it's about the experiences described
by someone else. Read the OP.

That person wasn't talking about giving an Iraqi a packet from an MRE
intended for our troops;
He was talking about deliberately preventing civilian noncombatants
from receiving humanitarian aid.
So please quit trying to change the subject with your broken-record "legal order" mantra.

There's not a DAMN thing "legal" about the ORDERS we're discussing in this thread.
If you don't understand that, then you don't understand what a "legal order" is.
I'd be happy to send you some literature. :eyes:

And you can also feel free to SPARE ME your lame-assed accusations
of "not supporting the troops". I'm not 12, and I'm not a B*sh-supporter,
so you're wasting your time imagining that jingoistic crapaganda is going to
change the course of the discussion.

If you think "way to support the troops, pal" is an effective conversational tool,
you're on the WRONG discussion board. It isn't- We THINK here at DU.
I'd be happy to send you some literature explaining THAT concept as well.:eyes:

WOW........now I know you have no idea what you are talking about.......Those rations were ours, the US government paid for them, the US military was tasked to destroy them.

So I am now to infer you support the troops that only disobey LEGAL orders, because that is what I am getting from you. So only troops that crap all over the Army, other military personnel, and the concept of duty are getting your support?

Of course if you want to prove to me that destroying rations purchased and controlled by the US military is a war crime, feel free to do so........If not then I advise you to back off.

So yes I would enjoy you trying to prove to me that destroying rations controlled by the US military is a war crime........Our orders were clear and legal, we were not there to feed people........So please embarass yourself some more.

Again, spare me the lameassed attempts to put words in my mouth.
Few of us here are 12; that grade-school nonsense won't work.

Hillary because we've just been warming up in Iraq and now things are working, don't ya know. And we've got a new war to fight, don't ya know. :eyes:

Joseph Heller only touched a tiny bit of it in "Catch-22" ... and made it funny. A sense of humor is essential - the outrages can drive a sane man without one totally around the bend. Truly. It's not wise to be anything close to "too tightly wrapped" in a combat zone.