NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes I support our troops but i blame the president for the war that has no reason or at least an unclear one of the following:
at first it was for terrorists and 42% of the united states people thought it was for the attack on Our own soil from Iraq had really nothing to do with it.
then it was for the good old WMDs
then it was for Saddam which we accomplished
then it was for security in the middle east which we accomplished...sort of...not really... but with much blood and chaos that should have been avoided
which one was it?! Why billions of dollars for one country? was oil involved? I am not afraid
I Am not afraid of anyone to disagree with the president, because i dont trust him no matter what I hear, there are to many loose ends, to many faults, to much death without a cause.
those who are brave post your ideals ur beliefs even post something about not trusting every word...no matter how unclear and incoherent his words are... out of his mouth. This is not to blame the troops as some people have portrayed others as doing this is to blame the president and his cabinet for a job not well done in my opinion.

Yes I support our troops but i blame the president for the war that has no reason or at least an unclear one of the following:
at first it was for terrorists and 42% of the united states people thought it was for the attack on Our own soil from Iraq had really nothing to do with it.
then it was for the good old WMDs
then it was for Saddam which we accomplished
then it was for security in the middle east which we accomplished...sort of...not really... but with much blood and chaos that should have been avoided
which one was it?! Why billions of dollars for one country? was oil involved? I am not afraid
I Am not afraid of anyone to disagree with the president, because i dont trust him no matter what I hear, there are to many loose ends, to many faults, to much death without a cause.
those who are brave post your ideals ur beliefs even post something about not trusting every word...no matter how unclear and incoherent his words are... out of his mouth. This is not to blame the troops as some people have portrayed others as doing this is to blame the president and his cabinet for a job not well done in my opinion.

no no no no no no no no *rocking back and forth with hands over eyes*

A) Learn how to spell.

B) The war was quite clearly NOT over oil. If it had been, you'd see a quite significant drop in Gasoline prices, and I'm not sure where you live, but $2.45 a gallon is no drop. Check the common sense.

C) By any means, you can not deny that the "domino effect" has taken place in the middle east. We freed Afganistan. We freed Iraq. More and more countries are converting to democracies. Egypt is having elections. Saudi Arabia. Lebanon cried out for its own government. The liberation of the Iraqi people was good for the region, and good for the world. You can't deny that.

D) You can hate Bush all you want, but you can't try to say that he had no part in C). He had the balls to offer them freedom, now they have the balls to take that freedom.

What freedom is this? I hesitate to ask. Is it freedom of speech because when Saddam was in power you were shot for that, now you still get shot.
Freedom of assembly? The same unless it's something that Saddam or the occupying powers put together. Religion? There was more before. Press? Controlled before and after, note: Aljazeera. And I also hate to ask, why support the troops? So they can say that what they're doing is right because someone supports them? By this I mean, the killings, the raping, the brutal beatings.

I support our troops and I blame the Prime Minister. Our (Australia's) reasons for being in Iraq are simple; Firstly, America will give us a free trade agreement if we go into Iraq. Origionally America was going to sign a free trade agreement with Australia and New Zealand, but when the Kiwis decided that invading Iraq was not justified they were cut off, no free trade agreement for you! Mind you, this free trade agreement allows America to subsidize agriculture, giving it a distinct advantage in one of our main markets, how can we compeat with that when they are given fuel at half the price we have to pay? Not so free trade...

Secondly John Howard has his nose so far up Bush's arse that you can't tell where Howard stops and Bush starts these days. Thirdly, Australia is in Iraq so it can capitalise on contracts made to western companies to rebuild Iraq. Billions of dollars worth of work that is being divided up between the invading nations as a reward.

That being said at least some good has come out of this, with Saddam being removed from power. I just hope these invading conquerers don't follow in Saddam's footsteps and abuse the human rights of these people by using torture, murder and locking them up.

A major reason most nations are in is because like Patra said of Australia, they're either sucking up to Bush or capitalizing or like quite a few small countries just afraid they might be next if they don't play along.

Well...
I do not feel that the world is safer without Saddam and the Taliban. Afghanistan is still in some form of disorder, however it is overshadowed by Iraq.

The war has yet to bring democracy to the middle east. As for the domino effect? Now terrorist networks can ally with Iraqi insurgents to strike together against the US led coalition.

The newly elected Iraqi government just took office, wait a few years and see what will happen. I believe the US is heading for a modern version of Vietnam. Minus the insane napalm bombing.

Maybe Iraq will become a democracy. Maybe some general will use a US armed Iraqi army to install a new dictatorship as cruel as Saddam's? We can try to forsee the future but honestly, the war on terror is struggling to survive. The invasion of Iraq had NOTHING to do with terrorism. The motive is still hard to see.

Is it to colonize the Middle East in a new and modern way as opposed to the old Victorian styled imperialism? Maybe Bush wants to reach Pax Americana? Is it oil? Is it an honest attempt to liberate an oppressed people? We can only assume why. It is clear that Iraq was not a threat to US security. Maybe Israel, but it would be difficult for Saddam to strike at Washington DC.

The problem with blaming the troops is that it is done automatically. German soldiers are blamed for Nazi terror, Russian soldiers were seen as villains in Afghanistan, Soviet soldiers are blamed for all evil deeds committed in the former USSR. It is simply a fact that the troops become a part of the government, the instrument with which the politicians carry out their commands.

Of course those who believe the Pentagon knew nothing of the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal are very naive. Just like German generals knew much about German brutality during world war two they turn a blind eye or even encourage it. The interesting thing is that the Americans abusing Iraqis claim they were following orders, which is no excuse after the principles set by the trials after world war two.

In short: Sadly all soldiers become representatives of their government and its policies.

And I also hate to ask, why support the troops? So they can say that what they're doing is right because someone supports them? By this I mean, the killings, the raping, the brutal beatings.[/QUOTE]

raping?...hit me with a news article...or are you thinking vietnam.

shootings happen, but realise that our guys are stressed, tired, and can have trouble ID'ing a kid throwing a green rock from an insurgent lobbing a grenade.

brutal beatings? now are we refering to the torture thing? I assure you our guys have enough trouble gaining public support without randomly beating people

Well, each person is instilled with this little think called a conscienous, mine's broken but all the troops in Iraq can't have theirs broke too. The lack of napalm attacks which is missing from Vietnam to now is wrong, doctors in Fallajuah say that they've had people come in with the pretty apparent signs of being napalmed not to mention to civilian witnesses who some like to discredit.

Using the US army to install a dictatorshop has been done, or at least if it hasn't been called US, it's been called US trained, Chile, Nicaragua, Columbia, to name a few, and then there's Iran and Iraq both of which were given some help in the process, some say we should clean those up, personally I think the people of Iran would rather not after seeing Iraq's liberation.

I support our troops and I blame the Prime Minister. Our (Australia's) reasons for being in Iraq are simple; Firstly, America will give us a free trade agreement if we go into Iraq. Origionally America was going to sign a free trade agreement with Australia and New Zealand, but when the Kiwis decided that invading Iraq was not justified they were cut off, no free trade agreement for you! Mind you, this free trade agreement allows America to subsidize agriculture, giving it a distinct advantage in one of our main markets, how can we compeat with that when they are given fuel at half the price we have to pay? Not so free trade...

Secondly John Howard has his nose so far up Bush's arse that you can't tell where Howard stops and Bush starts these days. Thirdly, Australia is in Iraq so it can capitalise on contracts made to western companies to rebuild Iraq. Billions of dollars worth of work that is being divided up between the invading nations as a reward.

That being said at least some good has come out of this, with Saddam being removed from power. I just hope these invading conquerers don't follow in Saddam's footsteps and abuse the human rights of these people by using torture, murder and locking them up.

Defying America is fun :) So we missed out on a free trade deal with the US. whip de fuckin de. We'll still probably get an equally screw-us-over one with someone else, probably china.

Don't worry, no one can screw you as much as the US, believe me, I've done extensive internal research. Implosion techniques are fun.

Yes I support our troops but i blame the president for the war that has no reason or at least an unclear one of the following:
at first it was for terrorists and 42% of the united states people thought it was for the attack on Our own soil from Iraq had really nothing to do with it.
then it was for the good old WMDs
then it was for Saddam which we accomplished
then it was for security in the middle east which we accomplished...sort of...not really... but with much blood and chaos that should have been avoided
which one was it?! Why billions of dollars for one country? was oil involved? I am not afraid
I Am not afraid of anyone to disagree with the president, because i dont trust him no matter what I hear, there are to many loose ends, to many faults, to much death without a cause.
those who are brave post your ideals ur beliefs even post something about not trusting every word...no matter how unclear and incoherent his words are... out of his mouth. This is not to blame the troops as some people have portrayed others as doing this is to blame the president and his cabinet for a job not well done in my opinion.

Allow me to sum everything up. Iraq was a giant millitary and political f***-up. You'd need to be daft not to realize that we are in a world of shit right now in Iraq.

Well...
I do not feel that the world is safer without Saddam and the Taliban. Afghanistan is still in some form of disorder, however it is overshadowed by Iraq.

The war has yet to bring democracy to the middle east. As for the domino effect? Now terrorist networks can ally with Iraqi insurgents to strike together against the US led coalition.

The newly elected Iraqi government just took office, wait a few years and see what will happen. I believe the US is heading for a modern version of Vietnam. Minus the insane napalm bombing.

Maybe Iraq will become a democracy. Maybe some general will use a US armed Iraqi army to install a new dictatorship as cruel as Saddam's? We can try to forsee the future but honestly, the war on terror is struggling to survive. The invasion of Iraq had NOTHING to do with terrorism. The motive is still hard to see.

Is it to colonize the Middle East in a new and modern way as opposed to the old Victorian styled imperialism? Maybe Bush wants to reach Pax Americana? Is it oil? Is it an honest attempt to liberate an oppressed people? We can only assume why. It is clear that Iraq was not a threat to US security. Maybe Israel, but it would be difficult for Saddam to strike at Washington DC.

The problem with blaming the troops is that it is done automatically. German soldiers are blamed for Nazi terror, Russian soldiers were seen as villains in Afghanistan, Soviet soldiers are blamed for all evil deeds committed in the former USSR. It is simply a fact that the troops become a part of the government, the instrument with which the politicians carry out their commands.

Of course those who believe the Pentagon knew nothing of the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal are very naive. Just like German generals knew much about German brutality during world war two they turn a blind eye or even encourage it. The interesting thing is that the Americans abusing Iraqis claim they were following orders, which is no excuse after the principles set by the trials after world war two.

In short: Sadly all soldiers become representatives of their government and its policies.

Here, I think I put the deed... there. Now, sign here, and you'll get that Arizona Oceanfront Property.

Abu Ghraib was a Clusterf**k. You had a unit with badly trained NCO's and neglectful officers under heavy stress handling prisoners. If it had been a deliberate Operation, those vids and pictures would never have been made, much less made public-it would have been a matter of Operational Security to prevent the photos, recordings, and videotape from even being made, do you understand this concept-Operational Security? The fact that you have soldiers not only caught on tape and film doing these things, but actively mugging for the cameras should ... mind you, should tell you that someone who was supposed to be responsible was being irresponsible. Military Officers are not, by and large, stupid people-especially Career officers. NCO's are usually even less stupid, as they lack the excuse of being highly educated idiots.
There are, of course, exceptions. When the NCO's permit actions that are in violation of both Orders, and Army Policy, and permit those violations to be recorded for posterity, those NCO personnel are subjecting themselves, and those under their responsibility, to action by a military court.

A Dishonourable Discharge is not something you can live down-it carries with it permanent penalties including restrictions on your civil rights.
It's also something that is almost impossible to overturn by appeal.
Every single soldier that appears in those videos and images is facing a Dishonourable Discharge at the end of a Courts-Martial. That's the minimum they can expect, and the likely result is going to be somewhat less pleasant. As for the officers, one is already out with a code on his discharge papers that likewise denies him access to any and all benefits of service, including the ability to obtain a security clearance, pass an FBI background check (no guns for you, sir), run for office or hold any position of responsibility outside McDonald's.
(second thought-they might not hire him either...)

We stopped skinning people alive sometime around the mid 1600's, sorry...

This seems like a good thread to put these on ...
*"praying" mods don't have big issue with it*

Prime informant was crazy, U.S. was told before war
-Los Angeles Times (Greg Miller, Bob Drogin)
Week of April 1, 2005

Washington- Prewar claims by the United States that Iraq was producing biological weapons were based almost entirely on accounts from a defector who was described as "crazy" by his intelligence handlers and a "congenital liar" by his friends.
The defector code-named "Curveball" spoke with alarming specificity about Iraq's alleged biological weapons programs and fleet of mobile labs. But postwar probes showed he wasn't even in the country at times when he claimed to have taken part in illicit weapons work.
Despite persistant doubts about his credibility, Curveball's claims were included in the Bush administration's case for war without so much as a caveat (EDIT: replace "caveat" with "reach-around"). And when CIA analysts argued after the invasion that agency needed to admit it had been duped, they were forced out of their jobs.
...
Curveball even influenced assessments in areas where he claimed no inside knowledge, the commission said. One analyst told the panel that Curveball's descriptions of biological weapons activity in Iraq "pushed" chemical weapons experts to be more aggressive in their judgments.
-
Also qualified by ….
-
INVESTIGATIONS FAIL TO TELL US WHY OFFICIALS AREN’T IN TROUBLE
By Maureen Dowd (yowsa) (NY TIMES columnist) - Week of April 4, 2005
…
As the commission’s co-chairman, Laurence Silberman, put it: “Our executive order did not direct us to deal with the use of intelligence by policy-makers, and all of us were agreed that that was not part of our inquiry.”
…
This is the fourth exhaustive investigation that has not answered the basic question: How did the White House and Pentagon spin the information, and why has no one gotten in trouble for it? If your kid lied and his stuff from you to do something he thought would be great, then wouldn’t admit it and blamed someone else, he’d be punished – even if his adventure worked out all right for him.
When the “values” president and his aides do it, they’re rewarded. Condoleezza Rice was promoted to secretary of state. Stephen Hadley, Condi’s old deputy, was promoted to national security adviser. Bob Joseph, a national security aide who helped shovel the uranium hooey into the State of the Union address, is becoming an undersecretary of state. Paul Wolfowitz, who painted the takeover of Iraq as such a cakewalk that our troops went in without the proper armor or backup, will run the World Bank. George Tenet, who ran the CIA when al-Qaida attacked and when Saddam’s mushroom-cloud gained credibility, got the Medal of Freedom.
Then the president appoints a compliant Democrat and a complicit conservative judge to head an inquiry set up to let the president off the hook.
Please, no more pantomime investigations. We all know what happened. Dick Cheney and the neocons had a fever to sack Saddam. Cheney and Rummy persuaded W., “the Man,” that it was the manly thing to do. Everybody feigned a 9/11 connection. Ahmad Chalabi conned his neocon pals, thinking he could run Iraq if he gave the Bush administration the smoking gun it needed to sell the war.
Suddenly Curveball appeared, the relative of an aide to Chalabi, to beome the lone CIA source with the news that Iraq was cooking up biological agents in mobile facilities hidden from arms inspectors and Western spies. Curveball’s obviously sketchy assertions ended up in Tenet’s October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate and Colin Powell’s speech to the United Nations in February 2003, laying the groundwork for an invasion of Iraq.
…
As the commission report notes, a Defense Department employee at the CIA met with him and “was concerned by Curveball’s apparent ‘hangover’ during their meeting” and suspicious that Curveball spoke excellent English, even though the Foreign Service had told U.S. intelligence officials that Curveball did not speak English.
By early 2001, the CIA was receiving messages from our Foreign Service reporting that Curveball was “out of control” and off the radar. A foreign intelligence service also warned the CIA in April 2002 that it had “doubts about Curveball’s reliability” and that elements of the tippling tipster’s behavior “strike us as typical of individuals we would normally assess as fabricators.”
-

I support our troops and I blame the Prime Minister. Our (Australia's) reasons for being in Iraq are simple; Firstly, America will give us a free trade agreement if we go into Iraq. Origionally America was going to sign a free trade agreement with Australia and New Zealand, but when the Kiwis decided that invading Iraq was not justified they were cut off, no free trade agreement for you! Mind you, this free trade agreement allows America to subsidize agriculture, giving it a distinct advantage in one of our main markets, how can we compeat with that when they are given fuel at half the price we have to pay? Not so free trade...

Secondly John Howard has his nose so far up Bush's arse that you can't tell where Howard stops and Bush starts these days. Thirdly, Australia is in Iraq so it can capitalise on contracts made to western companies to rebuild Iraq. Billions of dollars worth of work that is being divided up between the invading nations as a reward.

That being said at least some good has come out of this, with Saddam being removed from power. I just hope these invading conquerers don't follow in Saddam's footsteps and abuse the human rights of these people by using torture, murder and locking them up.
as an aussie, i agree with Patra. i will fully support our troops where ever they go, but i dont like the fact they were sent there.

haloman said it was clearly not about oil, because of the prices. i believe it was about oil, and all i can say there is that they are capitalising on it already ;)

U.N. Inspectors debunked U.S. on Iraq arms
By Dafna Linzer (WASHINGTON POST) -Week of April 4, 2005

…
By the time President Bush ordered U.S. troops to disarm Saddam Hussein of the deadly weapons he was allegedly trying to build, every piece of fresh evidence had been tested – and disproved – by U.N. inspectors, according to a report commissioned by the President and released Thursday.
The work of the inspectors – who had extraordinary access during their three months in Iraq between November 2002 and March 2003 – was routinely dismissed by the Bush administration and the intelligence community in the run-up to the war, according to the commission led by former Sen. Charles Robb, D-Va., and retired appellate court judge Lawrence Silberman.
But the commission’s findings, including a key judment that U.S. intelligence knows “disturbingly little” about nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea, are leading to calls for greater reliance on U.N. inspectors to test intelligence where the United States has little or no access.
…
The Bush administration tussled with inspectors before the Iraq war and maintains a hostile relationship with the IAEA, whose director, Mohamed El-Baradei, the United States is trying to replace this year. The administration also wants to shut down a U.N. inspection regime led by Hans Blix that was set up to investigate biological, chemical, and missile programs in Iraq.
…
The White House has not publicly presented intelligence to support its assertion that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, as it did with Iraq. Instead , it routinely points to the IAEA investigation, Iran’s large oil reserves and the secrecy that surrounded Iran’s nuclear program for nearly two decades.
The IAEA has not found evidence that Iran is using its nuclear energy program as a cover for bomb building, as the administration claims. But those findings have been dismissed by some in the administration.
John Bolton, nominated to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, has called the findings simply impossible to believe.
Jonathan Tucker, a bioweapons inspector for the United Nations in Iraq in the 1990s, said inspectors’ access is limited.
“What they can provide is ground truth and legitimacy. If you hope to persuade countries to impose sanctions or other measures on proliferators, the word of inspectors is valuable.”
…
But at the time of the IAEA’s departure from Pyongyang, attention in Washington and in Vienna, where the IAEA is based, was largely focused on Iraq.
Months before U.S. troops attacked Iraq in March 2003, the IAEA challenged every piece of evidence the Bush administration offered to support claims of a nuclear program there, according to the commission.
In January, IAEA inspectors discovered that documents showing Iraq had tried to buy uranium from Niger were forged. But the CIA chose to stick to the claim for another six months.
Two years earlier, the IAEA disputed CIA claims that Iraq was trying to buy black-market aluminum tubes for a nuclear program. The IAEA assessment, which turned out to be accurate, was first shared with U.S. intelligence in July 2001, according to the authors of the presidential commission report.
Blix’s U.N. group tested evidence supplied by an Iraqi defector code-named Curveball, whose tales of mobile bioweapons laboratories turned out to be fabrications, according to the report. Among Curveball’s claims was that an Iraqi facility had been redesigned with a temporary wall to allow mobile laboratories to slip in and out.
“When United Nations Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission inspectors visited the site on Feb. 9, 2003, they found that the wall was a permanent structure and could find nothing to corroborate Curveball’s reporting,” commissioners wrote.
“We offered eyes and ears,” Blix said Saturday. “We knew a lot about the country, we examined places, got intelligence tips about where to go and conducted 700 inspections at 500 sites in three months.”
-
And in related news ….
-
Nominee for U.N. ruffled feathers through the years
By Douglas Jenl and Steven R. Weisman (NY TIMES) - Week of April 7, 2005

…
With one Republican member, Sen. Lincoln Sharee of Rhode Island, reserving judgment on the nomination, the committee’s (Senate Foreign Relations Committee) approval of Bolton’s nomination appears uncertain, senior congressional officials said.
Carl Ford Jr., the former State Department official, and Bolton clashed angrily during their time at the State Department over what Ford regarded as Bolton’s intimidation of intelligence officials. The committee is also seeking testimony from two intelligence officials, one a top Central Intelligence Agency analyst, over what the officials have said they believed were Bolton’s efforts to have them replaced for disagreeing with him over the weapons programs of Iraq, Cuba and other countries.
Other allegations, made by former government officials, charge that Bolton improperly circumvented State Department channels to gain access to sensitive intelligence reports, the congressional officials said.
…
Bolton’s use of intelligence has long been a source of contention within the Bush administration, particularly the State Department. Some intelligence officials have complained that he used intelligence selectively, promoting views favorable to his positions on Cuba, Iraq, Syria and other countries.
-

Intelligence on Iraqi weapons 'dead wrong'
-Washington Post (Walter Pincus, Peter Baker)
Week of April 1, 2005

Washington - U.S. intelligence agencies were "dead wrong" in their prewar assessments of Iraq's nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and today know "disturbingly little" about the capabilities and intentions of other potential adversaries such as Iran and North Korea, a presidential commission reported Thursday.
...the commission's report offered a withering critique of the government's collection of information leading to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, calling its data "either worthless or misleading" and its analyses "riddled with errors," resulting in one of the "most damaging intelligence failures in recent American history."
... the panel that Bush appointed under pressure in February 2004 said it was "not authorized" to explore the question of how the commander in chief used the faulty information to make perhaps the most critical decision of his presidency. As he accepted the report Thursday, Bush offered no thoughts {EDIT: SURPRISE} about relying on flawed intelligence to launch a war and took no questions from reporters {EDIT: they hadn't signed a loyalty oath}.
-
Some Democrats complained that the commission effectively ducked the central issue of how Bush decided to go to war in Iraq to eliminate weapons that were not there. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the report "fails to review an equally important aspect of our national security policy-making process - how policy makers use the intelligence they are provided."
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., was even sharper. "The president's decision to go to war in Iraq was also dead wrong," she said. "The investigation will not be complete unless we know how the Bush administration may have used or misused intelligence to pursue its own agenda."
...
At the same time, it exonerated Bush and Vice President Cheney from allegations of pressuring analysts to conclude that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction.
-

Must be some good nuggets in here to argue about. N'joy!

In Soviet Russia, troops blame you!

Defying America is fun :) So we missed out on a free trade deal with the US. whip de fuckin de. We'll still probably get an equally screw-us-over one with someone else, probably china.

Well then you'd better act fast because we're pushing for one as well. So far to suck up to the Chinese we've stopped supporting Taiwan and we turn a blind eye to human rights violations. I think Prime Miniture Howard might even go there for the Olympics, in his trackies of course.

In Soviet Russia, troops blame you!
LOL
Whatever happened to Yakov Smirnov (sp?) anyway? Did he go into politics? Or, due a peculiar rumour, "country" music?

well it's better to be killed and tortured by the US than it is by Saddam. so shut up

About the oil thing. Why would the oil prices go down if we had more? The fact is, the companies are raising the prices, and people are still buying. A company will never lower prices unless it means more sales to compensate for the loss.

Oil is running out. America is monopolizing the oil for when it starts declining at a rate more rapidly than ever before, with more usage of it, and less production of it. This will give america a powerfull tool in the future, being able to nearly control the energy of nations...unless they go heavily into nuclear power(though the US is doing all it can to stop nations who even try that).

well it's better to be killed and tortured by the US than it is by Saddam. so shut up

Not really, it isn't. Less died under saddam from non-civilian reasons(shot/tortured/etc), and its very disillusioning for americans to do it. Saddam might have had some bad fetishes, but he wasn't killing tens of thousands a year.

Well then you'd better act fast because we're pushing for one as well. So far to suck up to the Chinese we've stopped supporting Taiwan and we turn a blind eye to human rights violations. I think Prime Miniture Howard might even go there for the Olympics, in his trackies of course.

So whats the estimated job loss? I've heard the number 3000 (or was it 30000? shit..) thrown around here..

I blame the secret service.

So whats the estimated job loss? I've heard the number 3000 (or was it 30000? shit..) thrown around here..

No one realy knows, estimates vary wildly. Personally I am quite concerned about where these job losses are, agriculture. As a nation we cannot afford to to rely on foreign imports for basic foodstocks.

No I do not support the troops. They had a choice whether to join the military, a reactionary institution and I don't respect their choice. Of course lots of people get pushed into the military since it's one of the few ways a poor American can get a uni education. (It's a little different here in Australia, but there's still the scholarship factor)

No I do not support the troops. They had a choice whether to join the military, a reactionary institution and I don't respect their choice. Of course lots of people get pushed into the military since it's one of the few ways a poor American can get a uni education. (It's a little different here in Australia, but there's still the scholarship factor)

Exactly. And, don't forget the "Gung Ho Factor", which is people joining the army just to kill Iraqis.

You don't support the troops in East Timor? Or those doing Tsunami relief work in Indonesia? Or those who are acting against Lawless elements in Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands and Fiji? I might add we were even asked.

These people didn't choose to invade Iraq, they choose a career wich is taxfree. Are you honestly saying you don't support some 18 year old who left school, joined the military as a mechanic or a cook just so he could have a marketable job skill and got screwed by Howard? Just because someone chooses the military does not mean that they choose to participate in the conflict in Iraq.

C) By any means, you can not deny that the "domino effect" has taken place in the middle east.
i'm just pointing out that the domino effect was the rationalization for vietnam. it's widely regarded as a very large, steamy pile of shit.

You don't support the troops in East Timor? Or those doing Tsunami relief work in Indonesia? Or those who are acting against Lawless elements in Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands and Fiji? I might add we were even asked.

These people didn't choose to invade Iraq, they choose a career wich is taxfree. Are you honestly saying you don't support some 18 year old who left school, joined the military as a mechanic or a cook just so he could have a marketable job skill and got screwed by Howard? Just because someone chooses the military does not mean that they choose to participate in the conflict in Iraq.
I don't deny that the military does some worthwhile stuff, but in essence the military is a tool of repression on the part of the state and a reactionary organisation. And the way the military is organised freaks me out, the whole culture. Those things could be done by other bodies...

And that's the thing, I don't think teh military should EVER be someone's only option. And there are other apprenticeships available.

Edit: And Australia acting as the police of the South Pacific smacks of racism to me...

Edit: And Australia acting as the police of the South Pacific smacks of racism to me...

Really? Because to me it smacks of helpfulness. Other nations have asked for our assistance because of a coup/tsunami/corruption/tribal warfare and in every one of these situations we are acting in accordance with both their laws and welfare. Our citizens are getting shot and killed because we provide the law enforcement that they know they need but are unable to provide themselves.

I don't deny that the military does some worthwhile stuff, but in essence the military is a tool of repression on the part of the state and a reactionary organisation. And the way the military is organised freaks me out, the whole culture. Those things could be done by other bodies...

And that's the thing, I don't think teh military should EVER be someone's only option. And there are other apprenticeships available.

Edit: And Australia acting as the police of the South Pacific smacks of racism to me...

A.) What "other bodies"? Ummm, ok, let's send a bunch of activist protestor civilians over there, that'll work...NOT! Islamic extremists hate the US, civilians and servicemembers alike, just look at 9/11.

B.) Who says the military was our only option? We already knew Saddam wouldn't cave to UN inspectors, and we only have to look at Desert Storm to see that more peaceful methods wouldn't work either. People blame us for invading Iraq, but look at Iraq! And FYI, the Iraqi rebels are stupid. They claim they are ousting US imperialism/democracy. Hello, what they are in right now is a transition police state/democratic fledgling government. They haven't had a chance to experience a real democratic government, so the rebels are actually protesting against something that hasn't happened yet. An Iraqi citizen, I believe politcian as well, came here a few months ago to speak here at the university. He said that if the US left now, with the state Iraq is in, civil war and anarchy would all but be certain.

Not that it really matters but Al Qaida saw the people working in WTC and Pentagon as directly oppressing the Arab world. WTC was the symbol of western capitalism and the Pentagon the US military. I do not support the terrorists, please no flame!

To get back to business: The trials of the Abu Ghraib troops have all but confirmed senior officers involvement, forbidding naming of high ranking officers who were aware of the torture.

An interesting fact is that during the last few years the US and Great Britain have used Uzbekistan for torturing prisoners. This is according to the former British ambassador who was retired after revealing this appaling fact. Torture is obviously Ok with the "free world", as long as it's on foreign soil.
Guantanamo Bay anyone?

The domino effect means that one country falls and then neighbours follow. First the US pushed Afghanistan down. Nothing happened. Then Iraq. Still no Middle Eastern-wide outcry for democracy is heard. The belief in a domino effect is that only one country would be necessary for a chain reaction.

US troops are no better than other nationalities. Murder, rape, and robberies are always committed in times of war. Of course they don't behead prisoners but they surely mow down unarmed and wounded enemies when the cameras aren't around. Sometimes even when they are.

Its always either blame President or soldiers.

Yes sometimes you have to blame the government but also, the soldiers, if they do wrong, can be blamed too.

Well...
I do not feel that the world is safer without Saddam and the Taliban. Afghanistan is still in some form of disorder, however it is overshadowed by Iraq.

The Taliban is beginning to surrender in Afghanistan. They are in the process of talking peace with the Afghani government which was ELECTED by the people of Afghanistan.

The war has yet to bring democracy to the middle east. As for the domino effect? Now terrorist networks can ally with Iraqi insurgents to strike together against the US led coalition.

1. Iraq had free and open elections
2. Saudi Arabia is doing election reforms. More people are able to vote. Still have a ways to go but its a start
3. Kuwait is also have election reforms.
4. Egypt is having elections
5. Lebanon wants its own government and Syria is FINALLY pulling out of it.
6. The Sunni rebels in Iraq want to talk with the New Iraq Government about Peace. This will leave the Zarqawi team left and they're numbers are dwindling.

The newly elected Iraqi government just took office, wait a few years and see what will happen. I believe the US is heading for a modern version of Vietnam. Minus the insane napalm bombing.

Not this trip it won't. Technology is different and our soldiers are better prepared. The terrorist in open, large scale assaults have gotten their butts kicked with large casualties whereas the US suffered very little casualties.

Maybe Iraq will become a democracy. Maybe some general will use a US armed Iraqi army to install a new dictatorship as cruel as Saddam's? We can try to forsee the future but honestly, the war on terror is struggling to survive. The invasion of Iraq had NOTHING to do with terrorism. The motive is still hard to see.

It had something to do with Terrorism. He did support middle east terrorism and he did shelter Al Qaeda. Zargawi is an Al Qaeda agent and was there prior to the Iraq War being treated for wounds suffered in Afghanistan.

Is it to colonize the Middle East in a new and modern way as opposed to the old Victorian styled imperialism? Maybe Bush wants to reach Pax Americana? Is it oil? Is it an honest attempt to liberate an oppressed people? We can only assume why. It is clear that Iraq was not a threat to US security. Maybe Israel, but it would be difficult for Saddam to strike at Washington DC.

1. No
2. No
3. No
4. yes

Saddam was a threat to the whole region. If he wasn't, we wouldn't have had bases in Saudi Arabia (invited by the government for protection from Saddam) which in turned help ignite the war on terror. So yes, Saddam WAS a threat to US Security as well as to the security of the entire planet.

The problem with blaming the troops is that it is done automatically. German soldiers are blamed for Nazi terror, Russian soldiers were seen as villains in Afghanistan, Soviet soldiers are blamed for all evil deeds committed in the former USSR. It is simply a fact that the troops become a part of the government, the instrument with which the politicians carry out their commands.

First good thing you've said! You also forgot American Soldiers in Vietnam.

Of course those who believe the Pentagon knew nothing of the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal are very naive. Just like German generals knew much about German brutality during world war two they turn a blind eye or even encourage it. The interesting thing is that the Americans abusing Iraqis claim they were following orders, which is no excuse after the principles set by the trials after world war two.

Actually, I believe your the one that is naive if you actually believe the Pentagon knew. They didn't either till it broke and besides that, it was already being investigated before the Press got their grubby little hands on it. People are right now being prosecuted and tossed into the brig and getting a dishonerable discharge. The female in charge has also been relieved of duty and she also resigned from the military. As to the soldiers, of course their going to claim that. They know that they were in trouble and wanted to cya themselves. Didn't matter. They're still getting punished for what they did.

In short: Sadly all soldiers become representatives of their government and its policies.

Not all the time they don't.

I think supporting the troops and supporting the Political Leader are two totally different issues. How CAN'T you support the troops of your own army. People are going to support them because they are the very citizens of the country you live. I think the term "Support Our Troops" is a term overused by the governments to sway the public's opinion.

Just because you support the troops of a Nation does not mean you have to believe in the cause they are fighting for. Some of the troops themselves may also feel strongly against the reasons they are fighting.

Just because the government makes their armies do horrible things doesn't make the men and women who fight horrible people.

So the next time your government is saying "support our troops" listen to the issue they "tag" on to it, because they know the people will support anything if it means supporting our troops, and now because you support the citizens of your country. Your neighbours. Your relatives. You also find yourself supporting thousands of unneeded deaths.

You CANNOT prove that the Pentagon didn't know of prisoner abuse, however, if they didn't know it's almost worse. Not being able to detect severe abuse in prisons? That makes them look dumb.

Afghanistan has yet to prove itself being democratic and not just a semi-democratic country that will move towards less democracy and become a new dictatorship. At least the country finally starts distributing drugs after the fall of the Taliban, something not happening before.

Kuwait has always been a seemingly democratic country in the Mid-East. With the Lebanese mentallity I doubt it will become democratic. The Iraqi rebels have yet to surrender and I suspect negotiations are a lot harder than US and Iraqi government claims. Egypt and Saudi Arabia are both highly doubtful on the democratic front.

The casualties might be counted like during Vietnam. Anything killed that is not US soldier or Iraqi government soldier is counted as an insurgent.

You cannot prove the reason US invaded Iraq, with the little public support and poverty it is unlikely that Saddam would be able to develop threatening weapons(I am talking WMDs) which was claimed by the CIA. You cannot prove that it wasn't for oil, modern imperialism, or some other despicable reason. Bases in Saudi Arabia can first of all be explained by economic ties. Iceland doesn't have US bases because they fear a Danish or British invasion.

It all comes down to the fact that you simply cannot prove what was the true reason of war. Most Americans don't know that the US entered world war one because it wanted to get its borrowed money back(according to a 1936 government investigation). This proved that the reasons Wilson claimed were only used as an excuse.

PROVE that Bush doesn't have some other reason.

"Or, as in the Persian Gulf War, "Support our troops." Who can be against that? Or yellow ribbons. Who can be against that? Anything that's totally vacuous.

In fact, what does it mean if somebody asks you, Do you support the people in Iowa? Can you say, Yes, I support them, or No, I don't support them? It's not even a question. It doesn't mean anything. That's the point. The point of public relations slogans like "Support our troops" is that they don't mean anything. They mean as much as whether you support the people in Iowa. Of course, there was an issue. The issue was, Do you support our policy? But you don't want people to think about that issue. That's the whole point of good propaganda.

You want to create a slogan that nobody's going to be against, and everybody's going to be for. Nobody knows what it means, because it doesn't mean anything. Its crucial value is that it diverts your attention from a question that does mean something. Do you support our policy? That's the one you're not allowed to talk about. So you-have people arguing about support for the troops? "Of course I don't not support them." Then you've won. That's like Americanism and harmony. We're all together, empty slogans, let's join in, let's make sure we don't have these bad people around to disrupt our harmony with their talk about class struggle, rights and that sort of business."

- Noam Chomsky

I am proud NOT to support British troops in Iraq and as far as I am concerned they can all go to hell.

Hey, it's war, shit happens in it, people die. And napalm has been destroyed in 2001 (ok, there are new, better things in use than napalm, but still). And napalm isn't a banned weapon, like land mines (which... are also still used, amazing, no?).

People don't get one thing. In war, everything is allowed as long as it hits the opponent and helps to defeat him. All this talk about laws of war and rules and civilized war is a load of bull. In war people are killed, what's civilized with that.

And, even though I'm not American, I hold it with Patton when it comes to war. The point is not to die for your country, but to make sure that some poor bastard on the other side dies for his.

I won't comment on Falluja, I still think the Americans have been pussy-footing with it.

You CANNOT prove that the Pentagon didn't know of prisoner abuse, however, if they didn't know it's almost worse. Not being able to detect severe abuse in prisons? That makes them look dumb.

Just because something is happening doesn't mean everyone will know about it. These people that abused the prisoners were already in custody when the story broke in the press. This caused the female general in charge to resign. Did the Pentagon know? Probably not at first but when they did find out about it, they immediately launched an investigation and now you have over a dozen people being brought up on charges, being tried, or in jail right now.

Afghanistan has yet to prove itself being democratic and not just a semi-democratic country that will move towards less democracy and become a new dictatorship. At least the country finally starts distributing drugs after the fall of the Taliban, something not happening before.

Semi-Democratic? How did you come to that conclusion? They had free and fair as well as full, elections. They are now a democratic nation. I don't think it'll move to a lesser democratic nation. The people are tired of fighting and want to help secure the peace.

Kuwait has always been a seemingly democratic country in the Mid-East. With the Lebanese mentallity I doubt it will become democratic. The Iraqi rebels have yet to surrender and I suspect negotiations are a lot harder than US and Iraqi government claims. Egypt and Saudi Arabia are both highly doubtful on the democratic front.

http://www.command-post.org/2_archives/019188.html <--Iraqi insurgent story

We don't know what will happen in Lebanon right now but Syria is gone and I am placing bets that they will become democratic. As for Egypt and Saudi Arabia, its a start. They both have election reforms. It isn't much but its a start.

The casualties might be counted like during Vietnam. Anything killed that is not US soldier or Iraqi government soldier is counted as an insurgent.

Casualties are nowhere near Vietnam. Heck, there not even up to the American Revolutionary War yet. As for the Insurgents, not true. We investigate if it was an actual civilian killed or an insurgent killed.

You cannot prove the reason US invaded Iraq, with the little public support and poverty it is unlikely that Saddam would be able to develop threatening weapons(I am talking WMDs) which was claimed by the CIA. You cannot prove that it wasn't for oil, modern imperialism, or some other despicable reason. Bases in Saudi Arabia can first of all be explained by economic ties. Iceland doesn't have US bases because they fear a Danish or British invasion.

I guess you didn't hear from the people that it was really the sanctions that was keeping the lid on Saddam's drive to have wmd. I guess you also didn't know that they had organized looting of major sites that took out all the technology to make wmd. I guess you didn't know that he still had duel use facilities. As for the CIA, they only trusted one source and that is something you don't do. Also, it wasn't just the CIA but Britain, France, Russia, Poland, Germany, etc etc all thought he had WMD! I can prove this isn't for oil. All I have to do is go to my local gas pump and see how high the price is. It isn't for modern Imperialism because our flag isn't flying over the capitol and we wouldn't be training their own army and police to take over when we leave. As for our bases in Saudi Arabia, we no longer have a base in S.A. There is no need to have a base there now. Saddam is gone so the No Fly Zones are gone too. Saudi Arabia doesn't need our protection anymore.

It all comes down to the fact that you simply cannot prove what was the true reason of war. Most Americans don't know that the US entered world war one because it wanted to get its borrowed money back(according to a 1936 government investigation). This proved that the reasons Wilson claimed were only used as an excuse.

Can you prove this please? I suggest you go back and read up on the causes of WWI and why we entered it. I do want to see this government study. It should be an interesting read. Do you have a link or someplace where I can get a copy of said report?

PROVE that Bush doesn't have some other reason.

He wanted to liberate the oppressed people of Iraq from a tyrant called Saddam Hussein.

I won't comment on Falluja, I still think the Americans have been pussy-footing with it.

They did pussy-foot and that drove me nuts. Unfortunately, we were held back not because of our generals but by the Iraqi interim government. I would've leveled the joint then send in the marines.

The Pentagon can always claim not to know that things happen, the investigations and trials will make the US military look as if it didn't know but might as well just be making the soldiers take the full blame, relieving Pentagon.

Afghanistan still is in turmoil, elections have nothing to do with democracy. The Soviet Union had free and fair elections. Was that a democracy in your opinion?

The casualties are not near Vietnam because Iraq just started two years ago. If over 60,000 americans would have died before now it would really be bad.

The sanctions(that were initiated by the UN) did indeed keep the lid on it, I never said they didn't. I said Iraq didn't have WMD, something that has not been proved otherwise. Gas prices say nothing wheather it was because of oil, the main reason oil prices are up is rising consumption by the People's Republic of China.

Saudi Arabian bases are just substituted by bases in Iraq.

I was talking of MODERN imperialism, an american flag over Baghdad would be VICTORIAN imperialism. Now people have a problem with the great powers aquiring territory by conquering it, something common in Victorian imperialism. The Modern imperialism rather than conquering a nation makes sure the government become dependent on it, giving it enormous influence. Examples of Modern imperialism are the east European nations liberated during world war two and later becoming the Warsaw Pact. According to some Israel is a part of US Modern imperialism, something I will not comment on.

Modern imperialism in short is aquiring satellites rather than turning countries into colonies. Even if the US finally leaves Iraq it is likely Iraq will still owe the US cooperation in the future. Modern Imperialism.

I am not saying that is the reason, I'm saying it might be. Because Bush says the reason was liberating the Iraqi people doesn't make it the truth. I'm sure Hitler and Stalin both could have "proven" their own goodness if you take their words for proof.

The Pentagon can always claim not to know that things happen, the investigations and trials will make the US military look as if it didn't know but might as well just be making the soldiers take the full blame, relieving Pentagon.

And it is also possible that they didn't. We have no way of knowing one way or the other

Afghanistan still is in turmoil, elections have nothing to do with democracy. The Soviet Union had free and fair elections. Was that a democracy in your opinion?

The Soviet Union didn't have free and fair elections. Kinda hard when all other political parties were outlawed! :rolleyes: Afghanistan is not in as much turmoil as you might think.

The casualties are not near Vietnam because Iraq just started two years ago. If over 60,000 americans would have died before now it would really be bad.

55,000 died in TEN YEARS of fighting. Doing the math that is just less than 5,000 per year. We aren't even to that point. We have averaged 750 per year. Don't get me going on casualties because I could bury you.

The sanctions(that were initiated by the UN) did indeed keep the lid on it, I never said they didn't. I said Iraq didn't have WMD, something that has not been proved otherwise. Gas prices say nothing wheather it was because of oil, the main reason oil prices are up is rising consumption by the People's Republic of China.

And India, the problems in Nigeria, Russia, Venezuela, and the lack of refineries in the United States. I could go on and on but that about settles it. If this was about oil, Gas prices would've been down because we would've had more of it and we're not.

Saudi Arabian bases are just substituted by bases in Iraq.

Actually, not totally factual. Its been replaced by Qatar where we signed a 99 year lease which was approved by the Senate.

I was talking of MODERN imperialism, an american flag over Baghdad would be VICTORIAN imperialism. Now people have a problem with the great powers aquiring territory by conquering it, something common in Victorian imperialism. The Modern imperialism rather than conquering a nation makes sure the government become dependent on it, giving it enormous influence. Examples of Modern imperialism are the east European nations liberated during world war two and later becoming the Warsaw Pact. According to some Israel is a part of US Modern imperialism, something I will not comment on.

Since the US isn't engaging in Modern Imperialism, I will say your wrong.

Modern imperialism in short is aquiring satellites rather than turning countries into colonies. Even if the US finally leaves Iraq it is likely Iraq will still owe the US cooperation in the future. Modern Imperialism.

In that case, every nation is guilty of it because the world's economy is connected to eachother. But that is globalization and not imperialism. The US isn't engaging in imperialism and we don't want to be engaging in imperialism either.

I am not saying that is the reason, I'm saying it might be. Because Bush says the reason was liberating the Iraqi people doesn't make it the truth. I'm sure Hitler and Stalin both could have "proven" their own goodness if you take their words for proof.

could be. Frankly, I wish that Hitler did defeat Stalin but that would've made the war that much tougher.

According to some Israel is a part of US Modern imperialism, something I will not comment on.

Those "some" must have a skewed understanding of history.

Which would clearly explain the Balfour Declaration and the UN's decision on Nov 29, 1947 to partition Palestine.

I guess you didn't hear from the people that it was really the sanctions that was keeping the lid on Saddam's drive to have wmd. I guess you also didn't know that they had organized looting of major sites that took out all the technology to make wmd. I guess you didn't know that he still had duel use facilities. As for the CIA, they only trusted one source and that is something you don't do. Also, it wasn't just the CIA but Britain, France, Russia, Poland, Germany, etc etc all thought he had WMD! I can prove this isn't for oil. All I have to do is go to my local gas pump and see how high the price is. It isn't for modern Imperialism because our flag isn't flying over the capitol and we wouldn't be training their own army and police to take over when we leave. As for our bases in Saudi Arabia, we no longer have a base in S.A. There is no need to have a base there now. Saddam is gone so the No Fly Zones are gone too. Saudi Arabia doesn't need our protection anymore.

I guess YOU didn't read all the posts on this thread .... 15, 16, 17, et cetera.
*taps you on the shoulder*

Yes I support our troops but i blame the president for the war

I served in the US military for 26 years. I served in Thailand during the Viet Nam war. You cannot say you support the troops and protest the war. If you are protesting the war, the troops see you as not supporting them. They see the protest as a direct opposition to what they are doing which it is.

It’s OK to protest the war if that is your thing but please don’t say you support the troops. You cannot do both.

I served in the US military for 26 years. I served in Thailand during the Viet Nam war. You cannot say you support the troops and protest the war. If you are protesting the war, the troops see you as not supporting them. They see the protest as a direct opposition to what they are doing which it is.

It’s OK to protest the war if that is your thing but please don’t say you support the troops. You cannot do both.

With all due respect -- and I do respect your service -- that is absurd.

It may be most soldiers feel that way. That is most unfortunate. At least some soldiers do not feel that way.

Regardless, it would make more sense to explain to the troops the difference than it does to say protests must simply cease.

Assume the troops are sent to do something they do not want to do and is morally wrong (which many soldiers do feel about the war in Iraq). With the current system of executive orders it is nigh impossible to stop a President from sending troops on an objectionable mission. The only way to support the individual members of the military in that situation is to protest the President's actions -- i.e., the war. Something that the troops themselves have only a limited ability to do -- if they dare.

To seek our troops safe return home is to do nothing but support them.

Next to serving beside them, protesting an unwise war is among the greatest supports one can offer our troops.

Was Lincoln against the troops or anti-American when he spoke out against the Mexican War in 1848?

Was Mark Twain against the troops or anti-American when he spoke out against the Spanish-American War?

I can go on and on with examples.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt

So it's not possible to support our Armed Services, who signed up to defend the constitution of the United States and at the same time protest the mis-use of such forces?

Sir, are we not allowed to question the deployment and dedication of military resources whose entire reason for being is the defense of our democratic nation and not to fight as some proxies?

For your 26 years, you obviously do not hold yourself and the military for which you serve in high regards, if you believe that you are not a valuable resource which should be used wisely, instead of deployed all of the world.

Sir?

With all due respect -- and I do respect your service -- that is absurd.

It may be most soldiers feel that way. That is most unfortunate. At least some soldiers do not feel that way.

Regardless, it would make more sense to explain to the troops the difference than it does to say protests must simply cease.

First, the troops are not saying don't protest. They realize that is your Constitutional right and although they may not agree with your protesting, they are defending your right to do so.

Secondly, there is no "explaining" the actions of the protesters to the troops. They see the protesters, they see the protesters are against what they are doing and because they are doing it, the protesters are also against them.

Third, there is no way you can understand how the troops feel about protesters unless you have been there.

All that is being asked is don't say you support the troops and are against the war. That is a genuine oxymoron.

Assume the troops are sent to do something they do not want to do and is morally wrong (which many soldiers do feel about the war in Iraq). With the current system of executive orders it is nigh impossible to stop a President from sending troops on an objectionable mission. The only way to support the individual members of the military in that situation is to protest the President's actions -- i.e., the war. Something that the troops themselves have only a limited ability to do -- if they dare.

I must also address this. First, all of the people currently serving in the military are volunteers. They know that they can be asked to go to war by the President at any time. If they have any compunction about doing that, they do not have to enlist, or they can enlist with the understanding that they are a conscientious objector (CO.) If they are a CO and do enlist they will be placed in a non-combatant position such as medic, clerk, etc.

If an individual who is already enlisted feels a mission is morally objectionable, he/she can apply for CO status, refuse to go and pay the consequences of his/her actions, or desert and go to some foreign country. Everyone who enlists knows what is expected of them and if they do not want to live up to those obligations, they should not enlist.

A little side note. The President can only commit troops for 90 days unless he gets the consent of Congress. In the case of the present wars, the Congress consented to both Afghanistan and Iraq.

So it's not possible to support our Armed Services, who signed up to defend the constitution of the United States and at the same time protest the mis-use of such forces?

Sir, are we not allowed to question the deployment and dedication of military resources whose entire reason for being is the defense of our democratic nation and not to fight as some proxies?

For your 26 years, you obviously do not hold yourself and the military for which you serve in high regards, if you believe that you are not a valuable resource which should be used wisely, instead of deployed all of the world.

My point again. The troops will not see you as supporting them if you are protesting the war.

You are allowed to question the deployment, and you can protest that but please don't say you support the troops if you are a protester.

I do not appreciate your last comment. You have no idea how proud I am of my service to my country. I also believe I was a valuable resource who was willing to make the sacrifices I made to defend the freedom of the American people and people all over the world. I also have the highest regard for those who gave the ultimate sacrifice to defed those freedoms.

Perhaps I should explain a little further, or clarify my position. There is a definite difference between active and passive, or personal opposition to military action.

I was against the Bosnian war. I called my Congressmen and voiced that opposition. Once President Clinton with the consent of Congress made the decision to go to war I was not pleased, but I did not actively protest the war. Why?

Because of my personal experiences and the experiences of other military members during Viet Nam, I knew I could not protest the war and support the troops. Having been there, I knew how most of the troops felt about protesters. The troops don’t see it as a protest against the President, the Congress, or the government. They take it personally, very personally because they are the ones that must carry out the policies of the government.

I also knew that the protest movement during Viet Nam prolonged the war and caused more American troops to die. It gave hope to the enemy and it gave them a reason to continue fighting. I don’t want to see more of our military die as a result of our own people protesting the war.

We need to support out troops. We need to thank them for the job they are doing. We need to pray for them, we do not need to make them feel like we are against them.

Well guys and gals, that’s how and why I feel the way, I do.

I concede to most of the points you have made.

However, I believe it is still possible to support the military of the United States, strictly honoring their selfless dedication to the protection of the country and at the same time protest the deployment of troops in certain cases.

Any misunderstanding that arises on whether or not we are protesting the government or the troops, is simply an error on the part of the military forces.

I talked to a National Guardsmen who had just came back from Iraq, he was against the war at first, but now he has seen all the good things that have came out of the war, he has changed his mind. However, I asked him about the protesters and he feels no ill will from their actions, he does not believe it a personal attack against him or his fellow troops.

I believe your beliefs were formed by the Viet Nam war, where protests back then were extremely hostile towards our troops and our government's actions, "baby killer", etc, etc. Probably rings a bell or two to you.

Viet Nam and Iraq are two different wars, Sir. The protesters have changed, the methods have change, the hatred of your fellow soldiers is all but gone.

I believe you do not speak for all members on the military upon your behalf, especially not the current generation deployed in Iraq.

Different generations, different protesters, different soldiers, different wars.

Please keep that in mind. What may have been true thirty years ago certainly isn't true today.

I concede to most of the points you have made.

However, I believe it is still possible to support the military of the United States, strictly honoring their selfless dedication to the protection of the country and at the same time protest the deployment of troops in certain cases.

Any misunderstanding that arises on whether or not we are protesting the government or the troops, is simply an error on the part of the military forces.

I talked to a National Guardsmen who had just came back from Iraq, he was against the war at first, but now he has seen all the good things that have came out of the war, he has changed his mind. However, I asked him about the protesters and he feels no ill will from their actions, he does not believe it a personal attack against him or his fellow troops.

I believe your beliefs were formed by the Viet Nam war, where protests back then were extremely hostile towards our troops and our government's actions, "baby killer", etc, etc. Probably rings a bell or two to you.

Viet Nam and Iraq are two different wars, Sir. The protesters have changed, the methods have change, the hatred of your fellow soldiers is all but gone.

I believe you do not speak for all members on the military upon your behalf, especially not the current generation deployed in Iraq.

Different generations, different protesters, different soldiers, different wars.

Please keep that in mind. What may have been true thirty years ago certainly isn't true today.

Interesting points you have made. Yes, my beleifs were formed back then. No, I do not speak for most of the troops and yes to different generations, soldiers and wars. Something for me to ponder, as I'm sure you are pondering what I have said.

Very nice to have a civil discussion. Thank you.

Thankyou,

I did learn quite a bit while conversing with you.

I should mention my attitude towards the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War has changed considerably, I believe both wars have created positive results and in the end the cost was justified.

My mind changed when I heard first hand accounts of the occupation from soldiers as they came back from Iraq, not the propoganda drivel we hear on CNN. So let that be proof, minds do change, even liberal yuppies like myslelf.

However, I still believe that the occupations of both countries were mismanaged. Especially with the relatively small numbers of troops deployed in Afghanistan during the siege of Bin Ladin's stronghold.

I am still 100% anti-Neo-Conservative agenda. Specifically self pro-claimed faith and morality based mandates. I really miss the old conservatives, I also miss our skeptical independant jouranlist media, may they rest in peace.

Errrr.. I guess I've said too much, still, Thankyou.

Thankyou,

I did learn quite a bit while conversing with you.

I should mention my attitude towards the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War has changed considerably, I believe both wars have created positive results and in the end the cost was justified.

Errrr.. I guess I've said too much, still, Thankyou.

It sounds like you have been "Hanatized" (Sean Hanity). :fluffle:

I do so miss the Reagan Republicans (and Democrats) and an unbiased press.
There is hope yet, maybe they will come back. :D

Yes I support our troops but i blame the president for the war that has no reason or at least an unclear one of the following:
at first it was for terrorists and 42% of the united states people thought it was for the attack on Our own soil from Iraq had really nothing to do with it.
then it was for the good old WMDs
then it was for Saddam which we accomplished
then it was for security in the middle east which we accomplished...sort of...not really... but with much blood and chaos that should have been avoided
which one was it?! Why billions of dollars for one country? was oil involved? I am not afraid
I Am not afraid of anyone to disagree with the president, because i dont trust him no matter what I hear, there are to many loose ends, to many faults, to much death without a cause.
those who are brave post your ideals ur beliefs even post something about not trusting every word...no matter how unclear and incoherent his words are... out of his mouth. This is not to blame the troops as some people have portrayed others as doing this is to blame the president and his cabinet for a job not well done in my opinion.

I don't like the war and I don't like the President but I certainly hope the troops come home safe. That is something i hope we can all agree on.