WoT, Iraq, Afganistan Veterans War Memorial ....

So as not to divert the spirit and topic on another thread, I am starting a new thread to continue an off topic discussion that began between MarineTparitier and myself regarding a possible name for a memorial honoring the veterans of the Iraq and Afganistan war. To catch everyone up to speed I posted our first couple of posts of the discussion below.....

MarineTpartier said:

"...I stopped at the Korean War Memorial. I was looking at the statues when a huge group of South Korean tourists came up. I sat down on a bench in the background and just watched them. They were so excited to see this memorial that you would have thought it was Disney World. They were taking pictures of everything, chattering about the wall, etc. Then they laid a wreath that said "South Korean College of Commerce. Class of 1963. We will never forget what you did for us". All of the bitterness and anger totally washed away. I thought to myself, what if one day 40-50 years from now, a group of Iraqi tourists come to the War on Terror Memorial and do what these people did? I hope they do.

Click to expand...

Moot said:

The War on Terror Memorial?


That alone speaks of American exceptionalism.


lol I came to this thread thinking how nice, a thread about the good things in the US and you had me with you all the way until the very last sentence and then I went, huh? The War on Terror Memorial? You were joking, right? lol Iraqi's laying wreath's of gratitude also seems a bit of stretch. lol Though I must say the whole idea is quite exceptional to say the least.

Click to expand...

MarineTpartier said:

Why wouldn't there be a War on Terror Memorial? Not to turn this positive thread into a negative, but the War on Terror is the biggest event in the history of our country since the Vietnam War. It started with an event, 9/11, that I think could be considered THE biggest event in our country's history. If there is not a memorial I believe it will be an injustice to all of us who have given our lives, whether in death or dedication, to this country. Whether you believe the wars were right or not is irrelevant. They happened. And whether anyone wants to believe it or not, there are many Iraqi citizens who are thankful that we removed Saddam and they have the country they have. Sure, there may be terrorism over there still. However, they can fight the terrorism. They can stand up to Al Qaeda. They couldn't stand up to Saddam. The very authorities they should have expected protection from were the ones brutalizing them.

Click to expand...

Moot said:

The War on Terror is a metaphor and it's new name is "Overseas Contingency Operations". The war in Iraq was an unneccessary war of choice and didn't have anything to do with 9/11. I don't believe Iraqis are grateful for the invasion of their sovereign country anymore than we would be if a foreign country invaded ours and left it in shambles. The memorial for 9/11 is in NYC. But you made some very good points and there probably should be a memorial to honor those who fought and died in Iraq and Afganistan, I just don't think it should be called the War on Terror memorial. That just sounds wrong, imo. Global Freedom Memorial, perhaps?

Click to expand...

MarineTpartier said:

I beg to differ about Iraqis. I know a lot of guys on this website have served in Iraq but not in the same scope that I have. I spent a year in Iraq and never once spent the night on an American base besides the first and last week I was there (in and out processing). I lived with, ate with, slept beside, and fought with Iraqi Army soldiers,"Sons of Iraq" or Concerned Local Citizens groups, and kind civilians as well. They are, for the most part, very grateful for the freedom they now enjoy. The ironic part is that they are going through what our country went through when it first started. They have had a civil war (which had FAR fewer deaths than ours did), they are having elections (with all of the conspiracy theories associated with our first few), and they still have occasional flare ups amongst the population (like ours did in the beginning). That doesn't mean it isn't working. Its going through the same growing pains our country did. The only difference is that everytime something remotely bad happens there, its in your face the moment it happened on the news. I agree with you that Iraq was a useless war. However, the results can't be denied. Those people are more free and are freed from a dictator.
Also, I think the War on Terror Memorial is totally appropriate. Thats what it was called after all. I don't see anything particularly offensive about the name. If you do, what do you think is offensive?

Click to expand...

Although I use them myself on occasion and love hearing them, I am not a big fan of antedotal stories in a debate because they come from one individual's observation and can't be proven or disproven by others. That's not to negate or undermine the person's credibility or opinion, but is a documented fact that any two given people can witness the same event and come to entirely different conclusions based on their own personal perception, past experiences, biases and environmental influences. So there are Iraq vets who experienced and saw the war and the Iraqi people entirely different than you and I know this because I know a few vets and they've told me so. lol

That said, I respect your opinion very much MarineTpartier, but given the controversary of not only the Iraq war but also the very name "War on Terror", I would like to ask if you are willing to compromise on another name for a memorial since few, if any, would dispute the need for a memorial honoring our Iraq and Afganistan war vets, be it now or sometime in the future?

The war on terror is a war on a violent tactic meant to terrorize a population and not on those who use terror tactics. So imo, it doesn't make sense to memorialize a war against a terror tactic especially considering the US also uses terror tactics...for instance, unmanned drones. A war against a tactic just doesn't make sense and never will...which is the point if you're going to memorialize something for posterity and future generations to contemplate. I think a memorial should represent more than just a meaningless metaphor.

How about the "Iraq and Afganistan War Memorial?"

...The ironic part is that they are going through what our country went through when it first started. They have had a civil war (which had FAR fewer deaths than ours did), they are having elections (with all of the conspiracy theories associated with our first few), and they still have occasional flare ups amongst the population (like ours did in the beginning). That doesn't mean it isn't working. Its going through the same growing pains our country did.

Click to expand...

Are you of the belief that you had to "destroy the village in order to save it?" Iraq civilzation goes back a lot further than the US's does and the notion that we had to destroy their country so they could be more like us......is an American exceptionalism and quite frankly, one I'm not very proud of.

I think it may be a tad bit premature to discuss the possibility of the Iraqis honoring us with a wreath when they just kicked our troops out of their country, despite our pleading to stay!

Now shoes however, they may bestow on us in great numbers!

I'm all for a memorial to honor all that have served our country, but certainly not a memorial to honor a war by the most powerful country on the planet against one of the weakest countries on behalf of big oil getting back in Iraq for the first time in 35 years.

What would that kind of memorial look like..............an Oil Drum?

Moot said:

Although I use them myself on occasion and love hearing them, I am not a big fan of antedotal stories in a debate because they come from one individual's observation and can't be proven or disproven by others. That's not to negate or undermine the person's credibility or opinion, but is a documented fact that any two given people can witness the same event and come to entirely different conclusions based on their own personal perception, past experiences, biases and environmental influences. So there are Iraq vets who experienced and saw the war and the Iraqi people entirely different than you and I know this because I know a few vets and they've told me so. lol

That said, I respect your opinion very much MarineTpartier, but given the controversary of not only the Iraq war but also the very name "War on Terror", I would like to ask if you are willing to compromise on another name for a memorial since few, if any, would dispute the need for a memorial honoring our Iraq and Afganistan war vets, be it now or sometime in the future?

The war on terror is a war on a violent tactic meant to terrorize a population and not on those who use terror tactics. So imo, it doesn't make sense to memorialize a war against a terror tactic especially considering the US also uses terror tactics...for instance, unmanned drones. A war against a tactic just doesn't make sense and never will...which is the point if you're going to memorialize something for posterity and future generations to contemplate. I think a memorial should represent more than just a meaningless metaphor.

How about the "Iraq and Afganistan War Memorial?"

Click to expand...

I could live with that being the title of the memorial. I'm not really hung up on the name. I just don't want the name to be some kind of enlightened, philosophical crap like "The Freedom Light" or "Liberty Illuminated". It was a friggin war and it should be called as such. Like I said though, I think the name you picked would be good.

Moot said:

Are you of the belief that you had to "destroy the village in order to save it?" Iraq civilzation goes back a lot further than the US's does and the notion that we had to destroy their country so they could be more like us......is an American exceptionalism and quite frankly, one I'm not very proud of.

Click to expand...

We didn't destroy their country. We simply accelerated a civil war that was bound to happen anyway. Shias absolutely despise Sunnis in that country because of the treatment they received at the hands of them during Saddams rule. When Saddam died, that civil war would have occured, no doubt in my mind. The only place I can think of that we destroyed is Fallujah. I will agree that we demolished that place. However, we did build it back. Not saying that makes it okay but we did. Fallujah was a very different fight than the rest of the war though.
I never said WE had to destroy it to make it better anyway. As a matter of fact, please define your version of destroyed. I would say their period of civil war and fledgling democracy was a lot faster and more peaceful that ours was.

Catawba said:

I think it may be a tad bit premature to discuss the possibility of the Iraqis honoring us with a wreath when they just kicked our troops out of their country, despite our pleading to stay!

Now shoes however, they may bestow on us in great numbers!

Click to expand...

Catawba said:

I'm all for a memorial to honor all that have served our country, but certainly not a memorial to honor a war by the most powerful country on the planet against one of the weakest countries on behalf of big oil getting back in Iraq for the first time in 35 years.

What would that kind of memorial look like..............an Oil Drum?

Click to expand...

Ahh, the hypocrite arrives! So, would the Afghanistan Memorial look like this?

I knew you would be one of the first to verbally diarrhea this thread. Once again, you expose your hypocrisy by criticizing one war you claim was so unwarranted yet supporting a President who believes he is some sort of demi-god that can order the killing of another human being with the snap of his fingers.

MarineTpartier said:

Once again, you expose your hypocrisy by criticizing one war you claim was so unwarranted yet supporting a President who believes he is some sort of demi-god that can order the killing of another human being with the snap of his fingers.

Click to expand...

Speaking of hypocrites, I never took you for a terrorist sympathizer. Half the 'tards give Obama grief for staying too long, the other half for prosecuting the WOT.

It's a little premature to be talking about a Iraq/Afghanistan war memorial.

Hikertrash said:

Speaking of hypocrites, I never took you for a terrorist sympathizer. Half the 'tards give Obama grief for staying too long, the other half for prosecuting the WOT.

It's a little premature to be talking about a Iraq/Afghanistan war memorial.

Click to expand...

Not a terrorist sympathizer. And I especially don't understand where you get off calling me a hypocrite. I simply point out hypocrisy when I see it. A) Catawba rails against the Iraq war every chance he gets. He rails against Bush every chance he gets for "killing so many Iraqi civilians". Yet he is going to vote for a guy who thinks its okay to be the judge, jury, and executioner of people by dropping Hellfire rockets on the heads of people, especially American citizens. B) I'm an American servicemember sympathizer. Its easy for people like you to sit back here and say "yeah, we should just kill all of those terrorists. Screw 'em!" when you don't have to do the killing, leave your family, and lose friends. C) Why is it premature? Iraq is already over and Afghanistan is going to be over in a year and a half. Why does that matter anyway? We can't talk about things that we know are going to happen in the future? This entire site talks about things that will happen in the future. 90% of debate occurs about future events on here. What's different about this topic?

MarineTpartier said:

I could live with that being the title of the memorial. I'm not really hung up on the name. I just don't want the name to be some kind of enlightened, philosophical crap like "The Freedom Light" or "Liberty Illuminated". It was a friggin war and it should be called as such. Like I said though, I think the name you picked would be good.

Click to expand...

Lol That sounds reasonable. I don't think I'd want that either.

We didn't destroy their country. We simply accelerated a civil war that was bound to happen anyway. Shias absolutely despise Sunnis in that country because of the treatment they received at the hands of them during Saddams rule. When Saddam died, that civil war would have occured, no doubt in my mind. The only place I can think of that we destroyed is Fallujah. I will agree that we demolished that place. However, we did build it back. Not saying that makes it okay but we did. Fallujah was a very different fight than the rest of the war though.
I never said WE had to destroy it to make it better anyway. As a matter of fact, please define your version of destroyed. I would say their period of civil war and fledgling democracy was a lot faster and more peaceful that ours was.

Click to expand...

It wasn't our place to "accelerate" a civil war in another soveriegn country that had never attacked us and whether it was bound to happen or not is speculative. Shiias and Sunni's have a longer history of siding with each other and living in peace side by side then they do opposing each other. After Abu Graib, Fallujah and British atrocities had humilated all Iraqi's, the Sunni's and Shiia were more united against the occupiers than they were against each other. But that all seemed to change after the bombing of the Golden Dome Mosque and there are many who believe that the occupiers, particularly the British did the bombing to jump start a sectarian war to take the focus off of them. Fallejah and dismantling the Iraq military were also huge mistakes. By destroyed I mean the deliberate dismantling and destruction of all their institutions and infrastructure thereby reducing the country to rubble so they had no choice but to build from the bottom up from scratch. It didn't have to be that way.

As for Iraq's fledgling democracy compared to our beginning, the American revolution only lasted 8 years and the colonial state governments and constitutions that existed prior remained intact the entire time. The new national republic was organized rather quickly after the US Constitution was ratified so there really wasn't that much to rebuild and people went back to doing what they did prior and even resumed trade relations with Britain. So I really dont think the two are that comparable, especially considering the US wasn't trying to form a new democracy under a military occupation with a foreign government pulling the strings.

Hikertrash said:

Speaking of hypocrites, I never took you for a terrorist sympathizer. Half the 'tards give Obama grief for staying too long, the other half for prosecuting the WOT.

It's a little premature to be talking about a Iraq/Afghanistan war memorial.

Click to expand...

Why? We've had thousands of deaths, both civilian and military. The sooner we honor our fallen the better, as far as I'm concerned. We've always honored our fallen in conjunction with how we lost them, as far as I know.

Moot said:

It wasn't our place to "accelerate" a civil war in another soveriegn country that had never attacked us and whether it was bound to happen or not is speculative. Shiias and Sunni's have a longer history of siding with each other and living in peace side by side then they do opposing each other. After Abu Graib, Fallujah and British atrocities had humilated all Iraqi's, the Sunni's and Shiia were more united against the occupiers than they were against each other. But that all seemed to change after the bombing of the Golden Dome Mosque and there are many who believe that the occupiers, particularly the British did the bombing to jump start a sectarian war to take the focus off of them. Fallejah and dismantling the Iraq military were also huge mistakes. By destroyed I mean the deliberate dismantling and destruction of all their institutions and infrastructure thereby reducing the country to rubble so they had no choice but to build from the bottom up from scratch. It didn't have to be that way.

Click to expand...

I agree that we shouldn't have gone in there. Thats a given in this discussion. I'm talking about what happened afterwards. So for the sake of our exchanges, lets both agree that we shouldn't have gone in there.
The Shia/Sunni relationship in Iraq is not like any other country. Sunni dominated Iraq for the better part of 20 years at the time of our invasion. Sunni people in that country would be what we call the "1%" for lack of better terms. However, unlike our "1%", they liked to enforce their superiority by kidnapping young girls on the way to high school/college and raping them, taking land from the Shia whenever they wanted, and generally treating them like a lower form of human being. Sectarian violence erupted literally the day that Baghdad was conquered. I know that because I witnessed it. It was very disheartening to watch the horrible things they did to each other without being able to stop it. We were not allowed to get involved in the sectarian battles unless we were directly fired upon. Al Qaeda used this for their advantage and caused the sectarian violence that erupted in Anbar Province approximately a year later.
As far as their infrastructure, we did not dismantle all of it. It was a HUGE mistake to dismantle the police force, I agree with you there. But we did not dismantle everything else. The Ministry of Interior/Trade/etc were left in place. But, like we have learned so many times, nothing can function without security. Their country was not reduced to rubble though, save Fallujah. Fallujah, like I said earlier, was not like any other battle. It was a siege.

Moot said:

As for Iraq's fledgling democracy compared to our beginning, the American revolution only lasted 8 years and the colonial state governments and constitutions that existed prior remained intact the entire time. The new national republic was organized rather quickly after the US Constitution was ratified so there really wasn't that much to rebuild and people went back to doing what they did prior and even resumed trade relations with Britain. So I really dont think the two are that comparable, especially considering the US wasn't trying to form a new democracy under a military occupation with a foreign government pulling the strings.

Click to expand...

It was almost 80 years after the Revolutionary War before we had our Civil War. That is a big difference that the 8 total years it took Iraq to go through that process. In addition, our Civil War destroyed something that theirs didn't. A whole generation of men. Iraq still has a young generation of men to carry on their traditions. We didn't have that at the end of ours.

Hikertrash said:

Speaking of hypocrites, I never took you for a terrorist sympathizer. Half the 'tards give Obama grief for staying too long, the other half for prosecuting the WOT.

It's a little premature to be talking about a Iraq/Afghanistan war memorial.

Click to expand...

Pathetic.......

Hikertrash said:

Speaking of hypocrites, I never took you for a terrorist sympathizer. Half the 'tards give Obama grief for staying too long, the other half for prosecuting the WOT.

It's a little premature to be talking about a Iraq/Afghanistan war memorial.

Click to expand...

What is a "'tard" by the way? Libtard? Retard? Explain.

MarineTpartier said:

Ahh, the hypocrite arrives! So, would the Afghanistan Memorial look like this?
View attachment 67129423
I knew you would be one of the first to verbally diarrhea this thread. Once again, you expose your hypocrisy by criticizing one war you claim was so unwarranted yet supporting a President who believes he is some sort of demi-god that can order the killing of another human being with the snap of his fingers.

Click to expand...

Oh the follower of fairybook stories arrives who thinks the world should be a utopia where we only pick perfect people for presidents, despite the fact there is no such perfect person.

Iraq war memorial



Numbers will have to be updated.

The memorial probably will not mean as much symbolically as rebuilding the World Trade Center. Not saying a memorial will not mean a lot, but the new WTC will mean and say more.

Catawba said:

Oh the follower of fairybook stories arrives who thinks the world should be a utopia where we only pick perfect people for presidents, despite the fact there is no such perfect person.

Click to expand...

I was already here dude. I did start this thread after all.

MarineTpartier said:

I was already here dude. I did start this thread after all.

Click to expand...

Moot started this thread.

Catawba said:

Iraq war memorial
Numbers will have to be updated.

Click to expand...

Wow, can you get any more disrespectful?

Catawba said:

Moot started this thread.

Click to expand...

Actually, its a spin off of one of my threads as noted in the OP.

MarineTpartier said:

Wow, can you get any more disrespectful?

Click to expand...

What is the proper amount of respect to have for a war on one of the weakest countries on the planet by the most powerful country on the planet on behalf of big oil that resulted in ten's of thousands of needless deaths with a $2 Trillion dollar price tag?

What did your man Ron Paul think of the Iraq war?

Ron Paul on Another War Against Iraq

by Congressman Ron Paul, MD

"I strongly oppose House Joint Resolution 75 because it solves none of our problems and only creates new ones. Though the legislation before us today does wisely excise the most objectionable part of the original text of H.J. Res. 75 – the resolution clause stating that by not obeying a UN resolution Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein has been committing an "act of aggression" against the United States – what remains in the legislation only serves to divert our attention from what should be our number one priority at this time: finding and bringing to justice those who attacked the United States on September 11, 2001.

Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator. The Iraqi people would no doubt be better off without him and his despotic rule. But the call in some quarters for the United States to intervene to change Iraq's government is a voice that offers little in the way of a real solution to our problems in the Middle East – many of which were caused by our interventionism in the first place."

Ron Paul on Another War Against Iraq

MarineTpartier said:

Actually, its a spin off of one of my threads as noted in the OP.

Click to expand...

Created by Moot.

I support a war memorial for the Wot... absolutely.
I'd even support 2 different memorials for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

contrary to some folks beliefs, these memorials are to those whom fought in the wars... it's not a tribute to the war itself, the reasons we went to war, or anything else.

anti-war folks should be thrilled with the idea too... such a memorial will give them something to bellycrawl up to in the middle of the night and spit on for years to come.



Cat, did you cry about the Vietnam war memorial too?... does it's existence offends you?

Thrilla said:

I support a war memorial for the Wot... absolutely.
I'd even support 2 different memorials for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

contrary to some folks beliefs, these memorials are to those whom fought in the wars... it's not a tribute to the war itself, the reasons we went to war, or anything else.

anti-war folks should be thrilled with the idea too... such a memorial will give them something to bellycrawl up to in the middle of the night and spit on for years to come.

Cat, did you cry about the Vietnam war memorial too?... does it's existence offends you?

Click to expand...

(Your insult is noted)

It only bothers me when people confuse honoring the soldiers with the reason they were sacrificed unnecessarily.

Catawba said:

(Your insult is noted)

It only bothers me when people confuse honoring the soldiers with the reason they were sacrificed unnecessarily.

Click to expand...

Your thoughts of servicemembers have already been noted in this thread Cat. Your post earlier was despicable and uncalled for. What little respect I did have of you merely for the fact that you are a fellow human being has evaporated.