View Full Version : Hunters or hunted?

01-27-06, 09:32 AM
One of my sons friends was just killed in Iraq by an IED. Word had it that the IEDs were laid out three in a row along the road. I immediately thought of a compromised mission, in other words, someone had to know...if you know what I mean. When I heard the news I thought about the words hunter and hunters. It seems to me that when we (US Armed Forces) first entered Iraq we were the hunters. Now, due to whatever, and that whatever is debatable, whether it be reported lack of cooperation, lack of supplies, lack of aggressive initiative, security leaks and so on, that we have become the hunted. Am I just imagining this? How do you all feel about this? Do you feel as though we have now become the hunted instead of the hunter? If so, what changes would you initiate? Additionally, do you feel that the Iraqis should be more active in establishing a unified Iraq?
I support the coalition troops 100% but I darn sure don't want to see them hanging around while some "official" entity or entities is debating what is best for the citizens of Iraq. Seems like three years has been quite enough time for the Iraqis and to get their "stuff" in order. What seems to have been a noble effort is now turning into deadly BS.

Note- I don't have two cents (I'm saving up for the Super Bowl party) so this would just be considered my rant for today. Peace and eternal rest be with all the fallen.

01-27-06, 10:02 AM
You are right Gary. The Iraqis have had plenty of time to "get their **** together".
Just got word my Grandson, Brandon, will be headed home from the sandbox in the next 30 days. He's with II MEF in the Wrecker Section.


01-27-06, 10:56 AM
Hunters are still the name I would give. Even though the hunters can become the hunted in a quick moment. The time has flown by quickly since we first landed again in Iraq in 2003. You woul dthink that by now the Iraqi and US government would have both thier #### together. One for making thier own nation strong enough to withstand the terrorists and the other to start bringing it's beloved childern home. Three years is more than enough time and the BS talking in Washington DC needs to stop. Debating is just another form of BS talking to waste the time needed to release Iraq back to the Iraqi People and the Government that should rule it since the Iraqi people want it that way. Americans are still looked at sa the " outsiders " and the longer we stay. the worse it will get, and the easier of a target we will become.

01-27-06, 12:02 PM
There are two sides of this.. but the first thing that comes to mind is the simple fact I am very glad my sons are not serving under Rumsfeld, this guy is clearly clueless when it comes to knowing his job.. It took about 5 years for Japan and Germany after WW2, and I think Iraq will clearly take longer, do to the simple fact that we dont have what it takes to do it right, meaning, we have a simple set of rules, you break the rules, you are shot, no questions, no whining, its just the way it is.. stupid rules like if you are carrying any type of arms and you are not in uniform, you will be killed as a enemy, but we cant do that, CNN might actually get footage of that and it would hurt the administrations point in polls, it is far more easy to trade a few lives, rather than a few political poll points.. there is no question, this is what is happening. We have Iran and Syria sending and funding foreign fighters in mass.. yet we do nothing.. what should we expect? we know what the real causes of the problem are.. we are just not willing to fix them.

On the other side, a free Iraq will be the biggest de-stabilizing effect we could ever inject into the sandbox, it is a island we could strike from in a moments notice, not to mention the intel advantages of a free Iraq.. we are dealing with a enemy who watches CNN, MSNBC, FOX, and they know (just like the North in Vietnam) if they can keep the pressure up, they see and hear the things people like Kennedy, and Mutha (did I spell that right?) say, they know we will cut and run sooner or later, they dont have to win battles, they have to be like water against a stone, and slowly just keep wearing away at it, they are winning the news wars, there is no question about that, you hear NOTHING about our victories in Iraq, or the good things we have done, but you sure hear it coast to coast when we lose one of our own, or we treat any captured rags with something less than a kid gloves, a 6 course meal, a holding cell with AC, Prayer Rug, a Koran, a game room, a TV, and so on, you think we did this sh*t in post WW2? hell we treat captured rags better than we do our own in the field.. should we really think we can make a clear victory when we do stupid crap like this? we know it don't work, history proves that.. we are up a river on this deal unless someone (our CIC) actually grows some balls and decides to either do it right and say they hell with the polls, or get the hell out.

But there is one question that I do not like asking myself, do we as a nation really want to just get up and walk away from another war the way we did Vietnam? the answer is sure if we are not going to fight to win it.. but it really makes my gut tighten up just thinking it.

01-27-06, 12:05 PM
The U.S. seen as outsiders? Of coarse. But then what are insurgents and terrorists, who are actively plying their trade of death and destruction within Iraq, from such countries as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Iran, Syria etc. called? Cousins? This whole scenario reminds of a domestic dispute, with distant relatives involved, and woe is the policeman who ventures in to settle it.

Nagalfar- Some DOD link actually chronical all the "good" that has been done,as far as reconstruction, for the country of Iraq but then...who is going to read an official website?

Phantom Blooper
01-27-06, 12:19 PM
I agree with all sides to this post!

God bless this Marine who was KIA. May he rest in peace! May he guard the streets of gold. Godspeed,fair winds and following seas Marine brother!

Semper-Fi! "Never Forget" Chuck Hall :evilgrin: