Tears For Iraq Hero [Archive]

First

12/01/2007, 12:56 PM

Tears trickled down the face of President George Bush as he attends the award ceremony of a young Marine who died saving the life of colleagues.
Cpl Jason Dunham threw himself onto a grenade hurled by insurgents in Iraq.
His body absorbed most of the blast, saving the lives of fellow soldiers.
The act of the courage earned him the Medal of Honour - only the second time the award has been given to a soldier serving in Iraq.
The soldier's heroism moved the president to tears as he presented the award to the young man's parents at a sombre ceremony in the White House.
"On a dusty road in western Iraq, Cpl Dunham gave his own life so that the men under his command might live," the President said. "This morning it's my privilege to recognise Cpl Dunham's devotion to the Corps and country."
Cpl Dunman, 22, had gone to help a Marine convoy that had been ambushed in Husaybah in April 2004.
A grenade was thrown during the attack.
Cpl Dunham covered the explosive with his Kevlar helmet, which along with his chest plate absorbed some of the blast, but he died a few days later.

There are 2 sad elements to this , the tears from Bush and a medal for your 22 year old son. When is this man going to stop with the theatrics or is there a conscience trying to escape:(

BohsPartisan

12/01/2007, 2:14 PM

There are 2 sad elements to this , the tears from Bush and a medal for your 22 year old son. When is this man going to stop with the theatrics or is there a conscience trying to escape:(

He was probably having trouble with his contacts

First

12/01/2007, 2:42 PM

He was probably having trouble with his contacts

More chance of that than him crying over one of his fallen toy soldiers.

pete

12/01/2007, 3:32 PM

Bush won't be around for much longer. After that will be someone elses problem.

I get the impressions the US actaully loves Wars. Lets face it when one War finishes they find another one to replace it even if is a 'Cold' one. How else can you justify such a massive military budget. I also think Wars don't affect the average persontere unless a draft comes in - a draft for Iraq would be political suicide as many pro war people might have to get involved properly

Never fails to amaze me the way Bush can play the Military pride issue dispite the fact he basically a draft dodger like the rest of them.

BohsPartisan

12/01/2007, 5:34 PM

I disagree. After Vietnam the general consensus in American society was "Never Again". Between the withdrawal from Vietnam and the first gulf war, America's battles were fought by proxy - Nicuraguan contras etc. The first Gulf War wasn't such a big issue as it was predominantly fought in the air with minimum casualties (of US personel that is).
The Neo-Cons hoped that a byproduct of a swift victory in the current Iraq conflict would be to exorcise the demons of Vietnam and win back the support of the American public for foreign "adventures". Unfortunately for them the opposite has happened. A majority of the US public now think that going into Iraq was a mistake. The recent senate and congressional elections were seen as a referendum on the war and the GOP was spanked as a result. This is a major set back for US Imperialism and it is unlikely that they will get any support for this type of operaton for a long time.
On conscription, the calling up of the national gaurd was a kind of conscription. I'm sure most of those guys when they joined up never thought they'd be seeing service overseas. There is also economic conscription, where people from poor backgrounds joined up as the Military was the only decent job they could get.

pete

12/01/2007, 7:08 PM

A majority of the US public now think that going into Iraq was a mistake.

Thats just because they losing. Majority approved of the War beforehand.

Was Vietnam popular beforehand or did they just end up in full scale war before they realised?

On conscription, the calling up of the national guard was a kind of conscription. I'm sure most of those guys when they joined up never thought they'd be seeing service overseas. There is also economic conscription, where people from poor backgrounds joined up as the Military was the only decent job they could get.

A draft would potential mean anyone could be called up irrespective of wealth. Clearly a class think with current National Guard. maybe some of them at the start did not know would be shipped out but anyone joing now knows what they getting themselves in for even if their economic circumstances.

galwayhoop

12/01/2007, 9:54 PM

Thats just because they losing. Majority approved of the War beforehand.

was in the US as the war 'Kicked Off' and the support for it was sickening. the people are so misled by the media it isn't even funny. was staying with an average american family and as the pictures of the first bombs were coming through the mother and father were cheering as another generation of american children were corrupted.

the media had the country convinced that saddam/iraq and bin laden/al quidea (sp?) were one and the same. in conversation i offered a different opinion before being turned on by the room. didn't bother after that - can't teach those who don't seek knowledge.

the 'never again' attitude that was spoken of earlier was not in the slighest of evidence to me

the support was pretty close on 100% - there was an anti-war march in new york and the protesters were viewed as scum.

french fries were renamed freedom fries, a family down the road from us decided that their dog was no longer a french poodle but an irish poodle!

whopee that they have finally got a moral conscience on the war but too little too late in my book - and don't be fooled the only reason that people are now against it is that there is americans coming home in body bags. when it started if a nuclear bomb was dropped on iraq the majority would of been happy with that and view it as a clean strike i.e. no american casualties

Plastic Paddy

12/01/2007, 10:01 PM

At last, and after over 3,000 such chances to do so, Bush turns up for the funeral of one of the soldiers whose death was entirely attributable to his flawed foreign "policy". A touch of conscience? Hardly. More the positive PR spin that comes from banging the patriotic drum upon the award of a Medal of Honor (sic).

God rot him and his cronies. By their actions they have made the world a much less safe place.

:ball: PP

pete

12/01/2007, 10:48 PM

...in conversation i offered a different opinion before being turned on by the room. didn't bother after that - can't teach those who don't seek knowledge.

Got friend living over there in Boston & hes says he was very slow to make any comment on the War even up to recently. Given this is a democratic stronghold & liberal part of the country made me think what the rest like.

I think americans use the "misled by the media" excuse too much as information is there if you seek it out.

BohsPartisan

12/01/2007, 11:51 PM

the 'never again' attitude that was spoken of earlier was not in the slighest of evidence to me

I was refering to the generation that lived through Vietnam. There had been a concerted effort to banish this memory but to truely exorcise it military victory was necessary.

the support was pretty close on 100% - there was an anti-war march in new york and the protesters were viewed as scum.

As the well known football song goes:
"If you know your history..."
The situation was exactly the same at the beginning of the Vietnam war. In fact it was worse. Anti-Vietnam marches were at first Physically attacked!

Thats just because they losing.
I agree 100%. That was my point. Defeat in Vietnam had a powerful effect on the American psyche. The quagmire that is Iraq is turning into a similar nightmare for the US ruling class.

citizenerased

13/01/2007, 9:23 PM

The quagmire that is Iraq is turning into a similar nightmare for the US ruling class.

Anyone with half a brain predicted that the current situation would transpire, once iraq was invaded. There is no way Bush was so stupid that he thought once they got Saddam, it would be over. This civil war will go on for another 10 years at least...DISGRACE

dahamsta

14/01/2007, 2:33 AM

I get the impressions the US actaully loves Wars.Personally I think the problem is that they love guns. Small ones, big ones, fast ones, even enormous ones that traipse around under the water for months at a time, with people inside. Not really because they kill, but because of their potential -- watch a Digg, Slashdot or YouTube discussion about some new kind of weapon, they nearly cream themselves with excitement. And because they love them so much they lie to themselves about them, telling themselves that they're for their own protection; and they create organisations like the NSA to lie to other people about them.

I honestly think that if the "gun control" problem was attacked over there in a realistic way - education, not just campaigning - the warmongering would decrease. However, because they love guns so much, and because the political system over there is so badly broken - your honour, my opening argument is George Bush, my first and only witness is George Bush, my first and only exhibit is George Bush, and my closing argument is George Bush; I rest my case - it's unlikely to happen in my lifetime.

adam

BohsPartisan

14/01/2007, 9:08 AM

There is no way Bush was so stupid that he thought once they got Saddam, it would be over.

Why did he go in so? They went in for Oil. They needed to be able to safely extract, refine and transport it. For this to happen they need order in the country. They have admitted that the current situation is a surprise. Remember Blair going on about "winning hearts and minds" back in '03. I'll think you'll find that Bush and his strategists are in fact stupid, ignorant, illinformed hillbillies.
In the Bush regime the word stratregist can be roughly translated as hillbillies in positions of power. YEEEHAW!

Personally I think the problem is that they love guns. Small ones, big ones, fast ones, even enormous ones that traipse around under the water for months at a time, with people inside.

Did you know that the country with highest number of guns per capita is Switzerland? Every citizen is technically a member of the militia (they have a very small standing army).

dahamsta

14/01/2007, 5:58 PM

I did, and I could rebut with this this (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2007-01-12T025831Z_01_N11177009_RTRUKOC_0_US-GUNS-MURDERS.xml&src=rss), but of course Canadians have plenty of guns too.

It's neither here nor there, since I didn't say anything about quantity in my post.

adam

BohsPartisan

14/01/2007, 6:45 PM

It's neither here nor there, since I didn't say anything about quantity in my post.

adam

But its interesting. Why do Canada and Switzerland have loads of guns and relatively low crimerates, while the states has a mad gun crime figure? You must agree that there's more to it than just the love of guns?

dahamsta

14/01/2007, 7:33 PM

Of course there's more to it than that, no issue as large as this can be attributed to a single factor. Their preoccupation/obsession with weapons remains a primary factor, in my opinion; i.e. "the problem". If you feel the need to be pedantic, you're welcome to read it as "the primary factor" or "the main problem" in my post. *shrug*

DiscoPants

15/01/2007, 9:53 AM

Interesting theory about the Americans loving war. In 1984 - the book that is - Orwell argues that a superpower in a constant state of war leads to a subservient, and easily controlled population.

In times of war people draw on patriotic reserves, some never even knew they had. Even ordinary citizens can turn into the most zealous, flag-waving patriots, when they have a common cause to rally around.

As with Orwell's 1984, the media plays the most significant role in the creation of an atmosphere where blind patriotism is allowed to flourish.

Post 9-11 the US media turned into the mouthpiece of the Bush administration. To question the validity of claim of the presence of WMD in Iraq was, somehow, seen as unpatriotic.

The blame, for these reasons, must lie with the US media and not the people.

dahamsta

15/01/2007, 10:04 AM

Interesting theory about the Americans loving war. In 1984 - the book that is - Orwell argues that a superpower in a constant state of war leads to a subservient, and easily controlled population.

In times of war people draw on patriotic reserves, some never even knew they had. Even ordinary citizens can turn into the most zealous, flag-waving patriots, when they have a common cause to rally around.Or, to quote the lovely Mr Goering:

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."

First

15/01/2007, 12:23 PM

I too was in the US , Alabama, when the war kicked off and was amazed with the patriotism that was shown. Understandable for the war against terror but as has already been mentioned the war on Iraq was against Al queda in the view of the people I spoke to.
I was once travelling from the Airport after watching kids saying their goodbye to the families as they headed out to fight in Iraq and the shouts of Hooraaay were deafing. Once I got into the taxi I was greeted with a big thank you from the driver for all the assistance that my country and my prime minister were giving to the United States. Thinking that this indiviadual was talking about Shannon and the refuelling I gave my opinion that I did not agree that we should be allowing this to happen and this was the opinion of alot of Irish people, the confused look on the drivers face told me that he hadn't a clue what I was talking about. As it turned out the taxi driver thought that Tony Blair was pm of Britain and Ireland.

On the guns and their love of having them, a mate of mine went to a shooting range ,while we were there, with a colleague of ours and once they had pulled up outside the ameican colleague opened the boot of this car to unveal what my mate described as "enough weapons to start a coup in a small country"

pete

15/01/2007, 12:26 PM

I don't think the US deliberately seeks out new wars but when you have such a massive military complex lets face it they need to find something to do. Therefore i think they just automatically look for an enemy. As we all know if you look hard enough you can find anything.

The US going to Iraq for Oil isn't that bad if you look at it selfishly. Ireland is as addicated to the stuff as the US. If you doubled the price of oil I would not like to see where the itrish economy would go to...