NationStates Jolt Archive

Something I have never understood, is that when somone says "Brings the troops home." there's this big hue and cry from many people, often the parents of the soldiers, saying that these people don't support their children, etc. They hate their country, soldiers, etc. They want the soldiers not to get killed. How can that be not supporting the troops?

The pro-war guys are putting the soldiers in harms way. How can getting your son or daughter killed be supporting your child?

If there is a person with a military background, or even better, a parent of a soldier, who holds this view I'd love to hear why you hold this view. To be honest, I doubt you'll change my mind, as I'm coming from a position of thinking that people who think pro-war is pro-soldier are either niave, got sucked in by propoganda, or something similar, but you never know. There may be something I've completely missed.

I'm referring to war and conflict in general. I don't want the thread hijacked by an "Is the Iraq war valid" or is "fighting any war valid" argument.

Its their job. While it is very unfortunate when someones is killed, its what they signed up for and you can't shy away for any conflict just because some of your troops will die. It's just a risk they all take.

Its their job. While it is very unfortunate when someones is killed, its what they signed up for and you can't shy away for any conflict just because some of your troops will die. It's just a risk they all take.
Yes! Hurrah!

Someone else with my viewpoint on the matter!

This makes me think: is fighting any war valid?

One reason is PTSD. If you havn't been to war then you don't know what it is like to see a young man with half a head rotting on the side walk. It makes a pretty big impression on you and you need support back home from people who are telling you that it is worth it. Otherwise you see what has happened and it is for nothing which is the worst that can happen to you. Also, people who are anti-war ofter portray mliitary personel as the victims which is completely false and every soldier, sailor, airman and marine takes offense to.

This makes me think: is fighting any war valid?
Especially the Iraq war, really...

Supporting the troops means you support the men and women who defend your nation, even if you don't agree with the actions. They have little control over what their orders are. They are expected to follow orders.

Whether in times of war or in peace, supporting the troops means you support the soldiers and not their actions or inactions.

Or, at least that's my pointless opinion...

Also, people who are anti-war ofter portray mliitary personel as the victims which is completely false and every soldier, sailor, airman and marine takes offense to.

I'm anti-war and I portray the military as perpetrators. Better?

I don't think anyone would say they don't want their son or daughter home.

I think the "You don't support the troops!" comes in when they feel people seem to disrespect them by saying they are dying for nothing, they are murderers, they are all human rights abusers, etc etc etc.

I would also think it comes into play when people say we are spending too much on this -- it hurts when you think that we didn't even send them over with proper body armor at the start.

I'm anti-war and I portray the military as perpetrators. Better?

nope

This makes me think: is fighting any war valid?
Only a defensive war, which is the opposite end of the scale from the Iraq war.

Perhaps fighting to stop genocide in Darfur would also be OK, but I'm not certain about that.

I don't think anyone would say they don't want their son or daughter home.

I think the "You don't support the troops!" comes in when they feel people seem to disrespect them by saying they are dying for nothing, they are murderers, they are all human rights abusers, etc etc etc.
Very true. It seems to be more about the level of respect for the people themselves, and not what the government and the generals decide, which many may disagree with.

Freedom Isn't Free! It is the cost of Freedom.

I'm anti-war and I portray the military as perpetrators. Better?
I agree. I mean how can all these guy who sign up to the US military with the aim of fighting in Iraq not be considered complicit in the murderous war there?

Freedom Isn't Free! It is the cost of Freedom.
That statement is so vague. I personally think it's best used as an argument to support socialism.

nope

It's as I suspected: I don't quite seem to care about the military's sensibilities.

How not odd.

I agree. I mean how can all these guy who sign up to the US military with the aim of fighting in Iraq not be considered complicit in the murderous war there?

Yeah, there seems to be some notion in the US that soldiers cannot be blamed for their actions and the wars they fight, which is a ludicrous notion, especially in a country that doesn't even have a draft. These people all volunteered to spread death. They aren't devoid of culpability, not by a long shot.

This makes me think: is fighting any war valid?
sure, as long as it is obviously required, and there's a plan for ending it. I would say someone should invade the Sudan, if I thought it would accomplish anything more than a mess.

sure, as long as it is obviously required, and there's a plan for ending it. I would say someone should invade the Sudan, if I thought it would accomplish anything more than a mess.

Only a defensive war, which is the opposite end of the scale from the Iraq war.

Perhaps fighting to stop genocide in Darfur would also be OK, but I'm not certain about that.

It wasn't a serious question. Read the end of the OP.

I do have to admit that all of these anti-war protesters shouting that this is an illegal war, bring the troops home, War Crimes, etc... and I'm not referring to the Iraq war, this happens practically during any war time. All of this is extremely hard on the moral of our soldiers. They need to know that the people at home support them and their actions. The military tries to protect the soldiers by not allowing them to watch the news because of it's extreme anti-government and anti-war stance. The troops must know that they are loved and supported from home to have the ability of effectively doing their jobs. Hearing all this anti-war bickering and war crimes and Illegal war hurts the moral of the troops over seas. What's funny about these anti-war protesters is that most of them end up having violent protests, now that's funny for the people who advocate peace, why are they so violent?

Bottom Line: It comes from Home first. The Troops need to know that they are doing the right.

I agree. I mean how can all these guy who sign up to the US military with the aim of fighting in Iraq not be considered complicit in the murderous war there?


That statement is so vague. I personally think it's best used as an argument to support socialism.

Right. All the people who signed up in the military had the aim of fighting in Iraq. Even the ones who signed up before the Iraq war started.

Even the ones who feel they have no other choice to get out of crushing poverty.

Even the ones who do it because they can't see another way to make money for college.

Even the ones who for some reason believe in public service.

Even the ones who have a kid to support and want the job for the benefits and the security of knowing their family will have housing while they are away.

Yup, all of them are yee-haw! let's go murder us some BROWN PEOPLE.

:rolleyes:

I fully Support the US Military and our troops over seas.

I do have to admit that all of these anti-war protesters shouting that this is an illegal war, bring the troops home, War Crimes, etc... and I'm not referring to the Iraq war, this happens practically during any war time. All of this is extremely hard on the moral of our soldiers. They need to know that the people at home support them and their actions. The military tries to protect the soldiers by not allowing them to watch the news because of it's extreme anti-government and anti-war stance. The troops must know that they are loved and supported from home to have the ability of effectively doing their jobs. Hearing all this anti-war bickering and war crimes and Illegal war hurts the moral of the troops over seas. What's funny about these anti-war protesters is that most of them end up having violent protests, now that's funny for the people who advocate peace, why are they so violent?

Bottom Line: It comes from Home first. The Troops need to know that they are doing the right.
Supporting the troops does not equate supporting their actions; it simply means supporting them as people and respecting them. Often that means protesting if the war is against their interest. The soldiers must follow orders. It is the civilians who dissent on part of the troops when something is foul. The civilians show their respect by protesting when it the situation for the soldiers is something that under normal circumstances the troops themselves might have objected to.'

Further, the troops also need to know when they're doing something wrong. They may already know it but can't say anything because of military protocol.

Its their job. While it is very unfortunate when someones is killed, its what they signed up for and you can't shy away for any conflict just because some of your troops will die. It's just a risk they all take.

Yes! Hurrah!

Someone else with my viewpoint on the matter!


You're both missing my point. I'll clarify. Assuming there is some disagreement on whether the conflict is valid (which there has to be to make my OP at all reasonable), why do the people who say "bring them home" get seen as bad guys by many of the nearest and dearest of soldiers while the "we have to fight, soldiers unfortunately die" crowd are seen as supporting troops by many of these people?

You've basically argued "War happens. Soldiers sign up for it. They die. That's what they sign up for." You haven't actually addressed the OP at all. You actually have a valid point. If you join the army, expect to be shot at, but it's got nothing to do with this thread.

Yeah, there seems to be some notion in the US that soldiers cannot be blamed for their actions and the wars they fight, which is a ludicrous notion, especially in a country that doesn't even have a draft. These people all volunteered to spread death. They aren't devoid of culpability, not by a long shot.

Okay, now your just spreading bullshit propaganda. We are not spreading goddamn death. Many infantryman go their entire year tour w/o firing a shot. We are a precision military force and our main goal is not to kill. We are trying to make the living conditions for iraqis go up and for democracy to be established. We only kill when we are attacked first. Hell, we give the same medical care to those who attack us as we give to our own. So just shut the hell up.

Okay, now your just spreading bullshit propaganda. We are not spreading goddamn death. Many infantryman go their entire year tour w/o firing a shot. We are a precision military force and our main goal is not to kill. We are trying to make the living conditions for iraqis go up and for democracy to be established. We only kill when we are attacked first. Hell, we give the same medical care to those who attack us as we give to our own. So just shut the hell up.
But, there was no real point to the war. Why Iraq? Why not Saudi Arabia since it provided almost ALL of the terrorists for the 9/11 attacks? Why not them.

I do have to admit that all of these anti-war protesters shouting that this is an illegal war, bring the troops home, War Crimes, etc... and I'm not referring to the Iraq war, this happens practically during any war time.
That's because it's usually accurate and true, numbnuts.
All of this is extremely hard on the moral of our soldiers.
Lowering the morale of those in the military and those at the top is the whole point of what they do... if you lower their morale, then they want to come home and call of their stupid war, and the situation gets resolved faster.
They need to know that the people at home support them and their actions.
No, they need to know what the public think of their actions. Not just mindless support, but criticism as well.
The military tries to protect the soldiers by not allowing them to watch the news because of it's extreme anti-government and anti-war stance.
Oh yes... the liberal media... now - let me recall... which news in the US is left-wing?

Not FOX. Not CNN. Not NBC.

Oh wait - this 'liberal media' crap is just a way for Frist to stop listening to the media and its criticisms of him so that his ego can remain intact.
The troops must know that they are loved and supported from home to have the ability of effectively doing their jobs. Hearing all this anti-war bickering and war crimes and Illegal war hurts the moral of the troops over seas.
No, what the world needs is less effective killers. Break their morale, and you break the backs of their will to fight, and at that point, they want to come home and pressure mounts on the government.

See what's happened to Rummy a couple of weeks back.
What's funny about these anti-war protesters is that most of them end up having violent protests, now that's funny for the people who advocate peace, why are they so violent?
Because a violent protest is going to get into the news, for good or ill, and hence gets noticed...

Also, I think you'll find that the overwhelming majority of protests aren't violent. We had, IIRC, 3 million people in London protesting against the Iraq war in 2003. Didn't turn violent at all.
Bottom Line: It comes from Home first. The Troops need to know that they are doing the right.
When they're not, though, they need to be told that they're doing the wrong thing. Only then can they be an effective force.

But, there was no real point to the war. Why Iraq? Why not Saudi Arabia since it provided almost ALL of the terrorists for the 9/11 attacks? Why not them.

B/c you don't attack your allies?

B/c you don't attack your allies?
Why the fuck are they still your allies if they're supposedly responsible for an attack that kills about 3000 people, whereas the Iraqis weren't complicit at all and have lost a great many lives regardless?

I think the "You don't support the troops!" comes in when they feel people seem to disrespect them by saying they are dying for nothing, they are murderers, they are all human rights abusers, etc etc etc.
I'm with you on this. In a previous post, in an old thread, I commented on how sickened I was seeing footage of protestors spitting at Vietnam Vets returning home. But the problem is, the reaction of "you don't support the troops" seems too much of a kneejerk reaction to the actions a few misguided fools who should vent their rage at the decision makers, not the soldiers. How can they not see "Bring them home" as anything but a good thing?

I would also think it comes into play when people say we are spending too much on this -- it hurts when you think that we didn't even send them over with proper body armor at the start.
I'm sure there was a cost benefit analysis on this. :mad:
1. How much will Body Armour for all troops Cost?
2. How many people will this save?
3. People saved x cost of dead soldier (compo for family, body bag, etc)
<Cost of body armour for all soldiers.
4. Don't get body armour for all troops unless there are mitigating factors.*

*Such as me or my good friend have large amounts of shares in the company that would make the body armour.

I hope you can see by my tone that this sickens me.

It wasn't a serious question. Read the end of the OP.
yeah, because a war thread isn't going to get hijacked. anyways, i didn't say Iraq. And I should have continued with: I support troops insofar as they aren't Abu Ghraibing and the like. The many incidents in Iraq have made me doubt the training of the US military, or its recruiting standards. Which is unfortunate for the many very honourable soldiers I do not doubt are also in there.

Why the fuck are they still your allies if they're supposedly responsible for an attack that kills about 3000 people, whereas the Iraqis weren't complicit at all and have lost a great many lives regardless?

Ummm, there is no evidence to suggest they were responsible for 9/11 and b/c attacking them would hurt the worlds oil supply greatly. When did i say that i support going into iraq? I do support winning but i do not feel that going in in the first place was a good choice.

In a perfect world, there would be no need for violence or war, and every problem could be solved by negotiation and communication.

This is a very far from perfect world, and there are many causes for war.

Most wars can be avoided. But the fact is, sometimes peace is just another way of saying surrender.

As for supporting our troops - well, the reason they're fighting is so YOU don't have to. Not a small reason to support them.

Okay, now your just spreading bullshit propaganda.

O rly?

We are not spreading goddamn death. Many infantryman go their entire year tour w/o firing a shot. We are a precision military force and our main goal is not to kill. We are trying to make the living conditions for iraqis go up and for democracy to be established. We only kill when we are attacked first. Hell, we give the same medical care to those who attack us as we give to our own. So just shut the hell up.

Haha, and you were talking about "bullshit propaganda." Sorry, honey, the world ain't buying that you're good guys any more, because, well, fool us once, shame on you...

Yootopia: Your last post has just proven to be for the death of the soldiers.

If you lower the morale of the troops, the death of our troops will increase. If they are at war with High Morale they can do their duty much more effectively which would result in less deaths.

If you truly speak for the majority of the protesters, which I doubt you do, then I wish them all to hell if they are truly seeking out to purposely and successfully to lower the morale of our troops. If what you say is true, the anti-war protesters support the deaths of our troops and are in support of the enemy and I wish the protesters with that mindset a slow and painful death and an after life's new home in Hell.

Note: That last paragraph is directed to only those who support and wish for the deaths of our Troops.

Ummm, there is no evidence to suggest they were responsible for 9/11
Three of the bombers were from SA and assuming this bin Laden business has any merit, he's from there also...
and b/c attacking them would hurt the worlds oil supply greatly.
And here we get to the truth of it. It's resources and that's it.
When did i say that i support going into iraq? I do support winning but i do not feel that going in in the first place was a good choice.
And what is there to 'win' in Iraq?

why do the people who say "bring them home" get seen as bad guys

It depends upon the motivation behind the desire.

Why do they want the troops out?

If because they are being killed, then the response that they volunteered for the duty is valid.

If because they don't like the mission, that's a valid argument, but one that needs to be made via one's elected representatives. Our soldiers go where national policy sends them. If one has a problem with a particular national policy, voice it in a clearer, more understandable manner, instead of emotional hyperbole.

But, there was no real point to the war.

Yes, there was. You just don't agree with it.

Just because you don't agree with something, doesn't cause it to cease to exist.

Why Iraq?

Iraq violated a ceasefire.

Why not Saudi Arabia since it provided almost ALL of the terrorists for the 9/11 attacks? Why not them.

So, you're hankerin' for a war, just with someone else...

I was unaware that the Saudi Arabian government sent the 9/11 attackers. Do you have proof of this astounding fact? I'm sure the US government would be very interested in it.

Sarcasm aside, Saudi Arabia did not attack us. Saudi Arabians did. Two different things. Further, Saudi Arabia did not violate a ceasefire.

Yootopia: Your last post has just proven to be for the death of the soldiers.

If you lower the morale of the troops, the death of our troops will increase. If they are at war with High Morale they can do their duty much more effectively which would result in less deaths.
No, it will result in more, because US forces are better armed and casualty ratios between US forces and their opposition is ridiculously high in favour of the US.

If one soldier is killing 30 Iraqis and he dies, that's 30 lives saved, no?
If you truly speak for the majority of the protesters, which I doubt you do, then I wish them all to hell if they are truly seeking out to purposely and successfully to lower the morale of our troops.
And why is that?

Because we view human life as equal? Do you think that your one trooper is worth the life of the thirty Iraqi lives he might well take?
If what you say is true, the anti-war protesters support the deaths of our troops and are in support of the enemy and I wish the protesters with that mindset a slow and painful death and an after life's new home in Hell.
Our 'enemies' are not the innocent people of Iraq, which have now risen up and are getting shot down for something which is entirely not their fault.

Bush had an enemy, which was Saddam Hussein. This feud has cost about 600,000 lives or something ridiculous inside Iraq, which is not really on.

Nothing to do with 'us'.
Note: That last paragraph is directed to only those who support and wish for the deaths of our Troops.
I don't want them to die, but if it's what has to be done to end this bloody war, then maybe it's for the best in the long run.

Three of the bombers were from SA and assuming this bin Laden business has any merit, he's from there also...
Okay, so there was a murder in philly today and the guy who did it was from the U.S. I geuss the U.S. is responsible for it. Bullshit.

And here we get to the truth of it. It's resources and that's it.
If its a reason to not go to war then i don't see what is wrong with it? Besides, resources are important. w/o oil then our economy and way of life collapses.

And what is there to 'win' in Iraq?

Democracy and peace.

O rly?



Haha, and you were talking about "bullshit propaganda." Sorry, honey, the world ain't buying that you're good guys any more, because, well, fool us once, shame on you...

Okay, way to not make any points. You have the debating skills of a 2 yr old. If your not going to say anything intelligent then go hate somewhere else.

Iraq violated a ceasefire.

Ah, so that's the new invented reason. WMD can't be it any more, since there were none, liberation can't be it after all the murder and torture and rape scandals by the US military, stability can't be it because they're in a civil war which must not be called a civil war... so now, it's some "violated ceasefire."

Well, it's nice to be up to date with the post hoc constructions.

Okay, way to not make any points. You have the debating skills of a 2 yr old. If your not going to say anything intelligent then go hate somewhere else.

"Waah, you didn't buy my pitch about the goodness of the US military, so I'll call you a playa hata kid!"

Sure, soldier boy. Sure.

Okay, so there was a murder in philly today and the guy who did it was from the U.S. I geuss the U.S. is responsible for it. Bullshit.
Right - my point is - that's far more than Iraq is involved.
If its a reason to not go to war then i don't see what is wrong with it? Besides, resources are important. w/o oil then our economy and way of life collapses.
I thought that this war a war on moral grounds. Sort of puts petty resources out of the way, no?
Democracy and peace.
You installed a powerless government, which didn't let Saddam run for President. Doesn't sound very democratic to me.

Because of the massive social problems and the power vacuum created by this war, Iraq will probably be in a civil war for the forseeable future. Nice on there, as well.

"Waah, you didn't buy my pitch about the goodness of the US military, so I'll call you a playa hata kid!"

Sure, soldier boy. Sure.
I think you'll find it's :

"Waah you didnt buy my pitch about the goodness of the us military so ill call you a playa hata kid1"

:p

"Waah, you didn't buy my pitch about the goodness of the US military, so I'll call you a playa hata kid!"

Sure, soldier boy. Sure.

Or you could make a counter-point

If because they don't like the mission, that's a valid argument, but one that needs to be made via one's elected representatives. Our soldiers go where national policy sends them. If one has a problem with a particular national policy, voice it in a clearer, more understandable manner, instead of emotional hyperbole.

You're saying the pro-war camp voice it in a clearer, more understandable manner, instead of emotional hyperbole. :rolleyes:
Here's a link to prove my point. I warn the faint of heart amongst you, it is Ann Coulter.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH4SzjwO9UU

Protest is still a valid way to get your point across in a free democracy with freedom of speech. I think protest is still valid in the USA too, but the USA PATRIOT act may have banned it.

No, it will result in more, because US forces are better armed and casualty ratios between US forces and their opposition is ridiculously high in favour of the US.

Excellent. As it should be.

If one soldier is killing 30 Iraqis and he dies, that's 30 lives saved, no?

Deaths of the enemy are irrelevant except for the loss of manpower to that enemy.

Do you think that your one trooper is worth the life of the thirty Iraqi lives he might well take?

Yes. Most certainly.

Our 'enemies' are not the innocent people of Iraq, which have now risen up and are getting shot down for something which is entirely not their fault.

It is their fault for not having taken down Hussein on their own.

But, that aside, the enemy is the insurgency. We don't target Iraqi civilians, we target the insurgents. But, some innocents will die, too. That happens in combat zones.

Bush had an enemy, which was Saddam Hussein.

He was teh enemy of the United States.

Deal with it.

This feud has cost about 600,000 lives or something ridiculous inside Iraq, which is not really on.

Oh, give it a rest. That bloviated 600K number has been debunked for the flawed statistics that it was. The number has been downgraded, with better figures, to ~150K. Thing is, the vast majority of these deaths are Iraqi on Iraqi.

I don't want them to die, but if it's what has to be done to end this bloody war, then maybe it's for the best in the long run.

Then, you are an enemy of the United States because of your desire to se the deaths of US forces.

Or you could make a counter-point
That you're propagandising the situation just as much as Fass and I are?

i am former military, Australian Navy, and regardless of what conflict or what the objectives are, you have a job to do, follow your orders to the best of your ability with all that training and experience provides you. of course we don't want to be there and half the time we don't even know why or agree with it ourselves, of course we don't want to kill people. we want to get home back to our family. the objectives of our command are irrelevant, we are set a task and we achieve it hopefully without loss and just as hopefully without inflicting loss. thankfully i was never in anything like iraq and have no post traumatic stress or battle fatigue syndrome or whatever they are calling it now but i have seen how it screws with peoples heads, how some commit suicide on return to civilian life.
support us or despise us (personnel of any sevice of any country), so what, we done our service to our respective nations and many died for it, but you may not support our actions but don't hold it against the personnel, the orders come from way up top, so have your way with them, vote them out in the next elections.

Or you could make a counter-point

You were bitching about propaganda, but then offered nothing but a reality-detached propaganda account of the US military.

For there to be a counter-point, there needs to be a point made by you. "We're good, we really, really, really are! Trust us! Because we say so! Because we're Americans!!!" ain't it.

ATTN: OP: I realize that you didn't want this to get hijacked with the War in Iraq, however, the current war in Iraq is a prime example of "Who supports the Military really?" so it was definately foreseeable that the Iraq War would be used as an example since in FACT is the current war.

Yootopia: 600,000+ Iraqi civilians deaths are not on the hands of the US. Their blood is on the hands of their own, including the Iranian and Syrian insurgents crossing into Iraq. The Insurgency has declared war on the Iraqi people. They are killing themselves and their brothers. The Iraqi people needs to stand up against them as does the neighboring countries regimes. As for the mass numbers of insurgents crossing the borders, the regimes, namely Syria and Iran needs to be held accountable. If those two regimes truly want to help put a stop to the insurgency or tremendously reduce the numbers of insurgency, you would see a tremendous reduction of Iraqi civilian deaths. Instead of the world condemning Iran and Syria for not taking a tough stance on the mass numbers of insurgents coming from their countries the world chooses to condemn the USA.

As for Saddam not being allowed to run for President during the Iraqi Elections, must I remind you that he was tried and convicted to death over "crimes against humanity". Why should he be allowed to run especially now since the Iraqi's convicted him (Not the Americans but the Iraqi People).

You were bitching about propaganda, but then offered nothing but a reality-detached propaganda account of the US military.

For there to be a counter-point, there needs to be a point made by you. "We're good, we really, really, really are! Trust us! Because we say so! Because we're Americans!!!" ain't it.

Who's reality detached? IDK, i've served one tour in iraq and another in afghanistan and am returning to afghanistan very soon. I know what i am talking about b/c i have seen and led U.S. forces in these places. You have not.

Excellent. As it should be.

Deaths of the enemy are irrelevant except for the loss of manpower to that enemy.
People are people - you can't take that away. They're not just pawns. Kill 30 fighters in Iraq and you're taking away 30 husbands, brothers, uncles, nephews etc.
Yes. Most certainly.
And why is that?

Is an American genuinely worth more lives than an Iraqi for any good reason, or are you just a bigot?
It is their fault for not having taken down Hussein on their own.
They tried that. A whole load of people died because of it. Remember that sham trial?
But, that aside, the enemy is the insurgency. We don't target Iraqi civilians, we target the insurgents. But, some innocents will die, too. That happens in combat zones.
The innocents are still getting a shit time of it, and it's your fault.
He was teh enemy of the United States.

Deal with it.
Yes, I'm sure the average American was genuinely hated and targetted by Saddam. The sheer civilian casualties in the US that Saddam inflicted were... urmm... oh... wait.
Oh, give it a rest. That bloviated 600K number has been debunked for the flawed statistics that it was. The number has been downgraded, with better figures, to ~150K. Thing is, the vast majority of these deaths are Iraqi on Iraqi.
I'm including fighting forces as well ;)
Then, you are an enemy of the United States because of your desire to se the deaths of US forces.
WoOoOoO I'm a fifth columnist in the UK.

Or possibly I'm an ally of the US because I am trying to end a war that's depriving the American public of money for welfare, perchance?

Ah, so that's the new invented reason.

You are a fool.

The request made by President Bush for funds to invade Iraq plainly cite the ceasefire.

So, why did the UN slap sanctions on Iraq, if they weren't in violation of the ceasefire?

Try that one on for size, sport.

Who's reality detached?

The account you gave is reality-detached.

IDK, i've served one tour in iraq and another in afghanistan and am returning to afghanistan very soon. I know what i am talking about b/c i have seen and led U.S. forces in these places. You have not.

Oh, well, a US soldier tooting his and his military's own horns.

Now there's credibility if ever you saw it! :rolleyes:

Right - my point is - that's far more than Iraq is involved.

I thought that this war a war on moral grounds. Sort of puts petty resources out of the way, no?
I don't think oil is a petty resource but we both agree that we shouldn't have gone into iraq in the first place.
You installed a powerless government, which didn't let Saddam run for President. Doesn't sound very democratic to me.
Saddam is on trial and got the death penalty. Nobody in any democracy can run for public office if they have been convicted of a crime, let alone mass murder.
Because of the massive social problems and the power vacuum created by this war, Iraq will probably be in a civil war for the forseeable future. Nice on there, as well.
Actually, we have a good shot at winning in iraq if we go by the following strategy:
The situation in iraq is much more complicated than troop numbers. There are implications to every action that you take and raising the number of troops has considerable ones. Right now, the Shias are using us to hold back the sunni insurgency while they commit attacks against sunni civilians. The Sunnis feel that b/c of this relationship, that everyone is against them and that they should grow the insurgency. Increasing the number of troops just means, for the shias, that they should continue their attacks w/ more ferocity b/c they have even more protection and the sunnis grow their insurgency even more to deal with the added troops. There is no way that that would work.

However, there is a lot of talk among officers of a completely new strategy. It entails ending most of the patrols. What we would do instead would be to conduct raids on suspected insurgent and sectarian killer locations. This would significantly reduce U.S. casualties in the area. In addition, the shiias would start getting hit by sunni attacks and would most likely be driven to a bargain with us. That bargain would entail an end to all sectarian violence, an end to the insurgency by the sunnis in return for that, and a commitment to the democratic process. Notice how there are no changes in troop numbers which is apparently the only way that civilians can think.

You are a fool.

And you're a big old bed-wetting doodie head.

See how childish and unproductive name-calling can be?

The request made by President Bush for funds to invade Iraq plainly cite the ceasefire.
So, why did the UN slap sanctions on Iraq, if they weren't in violation of the ceasefire?
Try that one on for size, sport.

As I said: WMD no more, liberty no more, stability no more... oh, look! A new straw to grasp at! Quick everyone, clutch! Clutch, I say!

The account you gave is reality-detached.




How could you know what the reality is if you have never seen it?

As for Saddam not being allowed to run for President during the Iraqi Elections, must I remind you that he was tried and convicted to death over "crimes against humanity". Why should he be allowed to run especially now since the Iraqi's convicted him (Not the Americans but the Iraqi People).

it doesn't matter how much you try drum this point across people will continue to blame the US for all the world's problems. even every social issue in australia is blamed on americanisation.
frankly i am damn glad and proud to have America to call on if we ever need it

Yootopia: 600,000+ Iraqi civilians deaths are not on the hands of the US. Their blood is on the hands of their own, including the Iranian and Syrian insurgents crossing into Iraq.
I was referring to fighters too. Although I am aware that the total casualty figures may be massively higher than 600,000.
The Insurgency has declared war on the Iraqi people. They are killing themselves and their brothers.
Thank you, the US policy of divide and conquer and for leaving a power vacuum.
The Iraqi people needs to stand up against them as does the neighboring countries regimes. As for the mass numbers of insurgents crossing the borders, the regimes, namely Syria and Iran needs to be held accountable. If those two regimes truly want to help put a stop to the insurgency or tremendously reduce the numbers of insurgency, you would see a tremendous reduction of Iraqi civilian deaths.
The Syrians and Persians are, by and large, fighting the US forces rather than Iraqis. They are reducing civilian casualties by reminding the Iraqis to fight their actual enemies, the Coalition forces, rather than each other.
Instead of the world condemning Iran and Syria for not taking a tough stance on the mass numbers of insurgents coming from their countries the world chooses to condemn the USA.
Because the US brought it upon its own head...
As for Saddam not being allowed to run for President during the Iraqi Elections, must I remind you that he was tried and convicted to death over "crimes against humanity".
And it's a damned shame that the Democrats were too spineless to allow Bush to get away with his war crimes via legislation. Shame it'll never stand in an international court, mind.
Why should he be allowed to run especially now since the Iraqi's convicted him (Not the Americans but the Iraqi People).
Yeah, with conflicting witnesses, many of whom too young to remember the event, people paid to make false testimonies, supposedly dead people who were still alive, biased judges and a couple of Saddam's legal team getting shot up.

How very fair that was.

How could you know what the reality is if you have never seen it?

How can you? Oh, I forget. You're a soldier. And you've been there. Which makes your version of reality somehow less suspect? Right...

How can you? Oh, I forget. You're a soldier. And you've been there. Which makes your version of reality somehow less suspect? Right...

The OP particually asked for people who had experiance to reply. you can't just condem him for is opinon on this just because hes a solider.

How can you? Oh, I forget. You're a soldier. And you've been there. Which makes your version of reality somehow less suspect? Right...
i know i've come late into this but what do you base your opinion on as you appear to discount first hand experience

ATTN: OP: I realize that you didn't want this to get hijacked with the War in Iraq, however, the current war in Iraq is a prime example of "Who supports the Military really?" so it was definately foreseeable that the Iraq War would be used as an example since in FACT is the current war.
I tried. It got to about page 2. :rolleyes:
If it was used as an example to address the opinions back home, great. The problem is, it's got into
poster 1. "The Iraq war isn't valid."
poster 2. "You tree hugging hippy, you're wrong."
poster 1. "All life is important you hegemonistic monster".
poster 2. "If we need to kill all the towelheads to save 1 American,we'll do that." (To Mods. Use of towelhead for comedy purpose, not personal ethnic hatred purposes.)
poster 1. "Idiot."
poster 2. "I hope the terrorists blow up your home."
poster 1. "Is that your Christian attitude coming out. Do you think Jesus would sanction this war and that attitude?"
poster 2. "Straw man, Straw man."

There are millions of threads on the war. Don't pollute this one anymore please. :headbang:

People are people - you can't take that away.

The enemy is the enemy. They are for neutralizing by the most expedient means possible.

They're not just pawns. Kill 30 fighters in Iraq and you're taking away 30 husbands, brothers, uncles, nephews etc.

If they are the enemy, so what?

Is an American genuinely worth more lives than an Iraqi for any good reason, or are you just a bigot?

Yes, because they are Americans. And, I am an American.

They tried that. A whole load of people died because of it.

Then, they try again. If they really want it.

The innocents are still getting a shit time of it, and it's your fault.

Yeah...

The insurgents have absolutely nothing to do with it. They're busy planning and organizing bake sales and picnics...

The sheer civilian casualties in the US that Saddam inflicted were... urmm... oh... wait. Perhaps you could detail the US civilian casualties inflicted by Nazi Germany in World War II.

Thanx...

I'm including fighting forces as well ;)

The 600K number is still severely flawed. But, enemy fighting forces are for killing. The more, the better.

WoOoOoO I'm a fifth columnist in the UK.

If you advocate the deaths of US troops.

Or possibly I'm an ally of the US because I am trying to end a war that's depriving the American public of money for welfare, perchance?

Welfare is not authorized by the US Constitution. But, at any rate, the expenditures on Iraq are DWARFED by what we do spend on unauthorized social programs.

quite true. Federal welfare programs do violate the US Consititution which does not authorize them

Saddam is on trial and got the death penalty. Nobody in any democracy can run for public office if they have been convicted of a crime, let alone mass murder.
Shame crackhead Bush got into power, then, eh?
The situation in iraq is much more complicated than troop numbers.
Agreed!
There are implications to every action that you take and raising the number of troops has considerable ones. Right now, the Shias are using us to hold back the sunni insurgency while they commit attacks against sunni civilians.
Maybe the US should actually be sending in skilled troops and defending civilians on both sides rather than just one, no?
The Sunnis feel that b/c of this relationship, that everyone is against them and that they should grow the insurgency. Increasing the number of troops just means, for the shias, that they should continue their attacks w/ more ferocity b/c they have even more protection and the sunnis grow their insurgency even more to deal with the added troops.
Exactly. And the Kurds are just laughing away up north.
However, there is a lot of talk among officers of a completely new strategy. It entails ending most of the patrols. What we would do instead would be to conduct raids on suspected insurgent and sectarian killer locations. This would significantly reduce U.S. casualties in the area. In addition, the shiias would start getting hit by sunni attacks and would most likely be driven to a bargain with us.
Divide and conquer is going to create more tensions, not less, and the people at the top of the fighters in Iraq aren't stupid. I reckon that after a while both sides are going to understand what the US is doing, and prepare to work together to spite the US even more, lowering troop and officer morale when they realise that their plans aren't working.
That bargain would entail an end to all sectarian violence, an end to the insurgency by the sunnis in return for that, and a commitment to the democratic process.
Ah yes, by magic and all. Sunni and Shi'ite have been at war for about 1350 years. They're not going to stop now.
Notice how there are no changes in troop numbers which is apparently the only way that civilians can think.
I don't think that it's troop numbers that are the problem, it's troop skills.

If you want a good peacekeeping force (which is what the US now is in Iraq), then you need intelligent soldiers with an understanding of the local culture, langauge and way of life, so that they can get a better grasp of what's going on.

I'm sure that, like the UK, US forces will have a Linguist in their platoon-level forces, but really, that's not good enough. Every soldier should be a linguist, so that they can talk with Iraqi civilians much more freely and when a situation arises, they can understand what the public thinks of it.

Because having to wait to have a linguist around must be a complete pain in the arse, and if they bite a bullet, that sort of makes conversation nigh-on impossible.

The enemy is the enemy. They are for neutralizing by the most expedient means possible.

If they are the enemy, so what?
And how are they your enemy?

What has the average Iraqi done to you?
Yes, because they are Americans. And, I am an American.
A human life is a human life. Artificial borders and nationalities mean nothing.
Then, they try again. If they really want it.
Yes, well it clearly wasn't that important to them. The Bhaatist party was actually running the country pretty well considering its sanctions, so it was supported by the public.
Yeah...

The insurgents have absolutely nothing to do with it. They're busy planning and organizing bake sales and picnics...
Christ, you are stupid...

The 'insurgents' wouldn't be cropping up all over the place and blowing up cars in markets etc. had the US not created a massive power vacuum.
Perhaps you could detail the US civilian casualties inflicted by Nazi Germany in World War II.
Some seamen... the US didn't get involved until it was vaguely useful for them to do so.

For example, June '44 "oh no the Commies are and will take over Europe - best start on the western front!".
Thanx...
np, d00d.
The 600K number is still severely flawed. But, enemy fighting forces are for killing. The more, the better.
Yes, it's too low, and, again, I don't see why the average Iraqi, which is who is getting killed, is really your enemy tbh.
If you advocate the deaths of US troops.
Well you're doing so by supporting troops and keeping them in a warzone, which is also inherently dangerous, really.
Welfare is not authorized by the US Constitution. But, at any rate, the expenditures on Iraq are DWARFED by what we do spend on unauthorized social programs.
Sorry, pardon?

I didn't know that needlessly galivanting across the world on revenge attacks for wars that don't improve the life of the average American was either.

Attempt to put thread back on track of the OP:

I feel that it is very important that the majority back home does everything in their power to keep the morale of the troops (their sons, daughters, husbands, wives, brothers, sisters, etc...)as high as possible.

I feel that these protesters go to far when they voice against our troops. Giving the troops high morale and support makes their jobs easier. They can do their jobs much more effectively and that's very important.

These protesters are trying to have it both ways, They claim to support our troops and then they cry illegal war. So how is it possible to claim you support the troops and at the same time accusing them of being criminals. That's what it amounts to. When you claim "we're fighting an illegal war" is defined as calling our troops criminals and to me that is Unacceptable. You can't have it both ways. I'm just glad that the majority of the US does truly support our troops and they know it.

Support and Pray for the Troops. If you see one of our troops, tell them "thank-you" that you support and pray for their safe return home. That you support them in what they are doing and the cause in the name of Freedom.

Attempt to put thread back on track of the OP:
Ah, your point of view is getting so caned that you have no defence left, eh?
I feel that it is very important that the majority back home does everything in their power to keep the morale of the troops (their sons, daughters, husbands, wives, brothers, sisters, etc...)as high as possible.

I feel that these protesters go to far when they voice against our troops. Giving the troops high morale and support makes their jobs easier. They can do their jobs much more effectively and that's very important.
Hurrah for high morale letting the US kill more than its fair share of people all across the world! OORAH! SEMPER FI! DO OR DIE! etc.
These protesters are trying to have it both ways, They claim to support our troops and then they cry illegal war. So how is it possible to claim you support the troops and at the same time accusing them of being criminals. That's what it amounts to. When you claim "we're fighting an illegal war" is defined as calling our troops criminals and to me that is Unacceptable. You can't have it both ways. I'm just glad that the majority of the US does truly support our troops and they know it.
I dunno how many claim to support the troops. I certainly don't.
Support and Pray for the Troops. If you see one of our troops, tell them "thank-you" that you support and pray for their safe return home. That you support them in what they are doing and the cause in the name of Freedom.
Thank-you. For the obligotary reference to free-um and 'mocracy which utterly undermines your argument.

All of this is extremely hard on the moral of our soldiers.
It depends on the opinions of the individual soldiers. There are soldiers out there who believe that the war they're fighting is wrong.

Hearing all this anti-war bickering and war crimes and Illegal war hurts the moral of the troops over seas.
It's bad to report such, even if it's true?

What's funny about these anti-war protesters is that most of them end up having violent protests, now that's funny for the people who advocate peace, why are they so violent?
Prove it, liar.

Right. All the people who signed up in the military had the aim of fighting in Iraq. Even the ones who signed up before the Iraq war started.

In my post I specifically said I wasn't talking about all US Soldiers.

I fully Support the US Military and our troops over seas.
You sicken me. You claim to be a Christian, but your real God is your government's guns.

Attempt to put thread back on track of the OP:

I feel that it is very important that the majority back home does everything in their power to keep the morale of the troops (their sons, daughters, husbands, wives, brothers, sisters, etc...)as high as possible.

I feel that these protesters go to far when they voice against our troops. Giving the troops high morale and support makes their jobs easier. They can do their jobs much more effectively and that's very important.

These protesters are trying to have it both ways, They claim to support our troops and then they cry illegal war. So how is it possible to claim you support the troops and at the same time accusing them of being criminals. That's what it amounts to. When you claim "we're fighting an illegal war" is defined as calling our troops criminals and to me that is Unacceptable. You can't have it both ways. I'm just glad that the majority of the US does truly support our troops and they know it.

Support and Pray for the Troops. If you see one of our troops, tell them "thank-you" that you support and pray for their safe return home. That you support them in what they are doing and the cause in the name of Freedom.

So everyone who disagrees with the war should hold their tongue just in case the soldiers hear about it? The soldiers are big boys and girls, I think they can live with people not agreeing with the war they're fighting. And lets not forget that there are no doubt a number of soldiers who don't agree with the war either.

If you lower the morale of the troops, the death of our troops will increase. If they are at war with High Morale they can do their duty much more effectively which would result in less deaths.

Complete and utter bullshit. Do you honestly think that US soldiers are crying themselves to sleep just because people don't think they should be there? When I was in Iraq (3d ACR OIF1) we really weren't all that concerned about people in the States protesting against the war. We didn't care if some random person on the Internet didn't love us. Your support is appreciated, but not even remotely necessary.

I find your assertion that US troops will do their jobs worse because someone doesn't like them is more insulting towards soldiers than anything anyone else in this thread had said. Even if there were riots every day in the US about the war US troops would do their job to the best of their ability because they're professionals.

As for the war itself, we shouldn't have gone there in the first place. Many people were fooled at the beginning of the war, including me. I was caught up in the rhetoric about freeing the Iraqis and bringing democracy. I know now that democracy can't be given to a people, they have to want it themselves. If we'd assisted the Iraqis in '94 we may have been right, but we certainly weren't right in invading in '03. We've screwed the Iraqis over a number of times, and this is only the worst of a long list.

The initial invasion was planned and executed well enough, but there was absolutely no plan for the post-invasion stage. Also, US troops are just not well suited to occupation, especially in a culture so different from our own. Given the cultural isolation of the US most of us have an exceedingly hard time dealing with other cultures. If it's only one American they'll eventually adapt, but when there's a group of us we tend to expect the world to change around us. This leads to people (on both sides) getting extremely frustrated and doing some extremely stupid and terrible things.

Also, US troops just aren't well trained for occupation. If you need a lot of people extremely dead, you call the US, but we have difficulty doing much of anything else. To give an example of a real peacekeeping scenario, look at Kosovo. Americans drive around with gun barrels poking out of their trucks in full combat gear while the British and French are having coffee in cafés with the locals. This difference in mentality also causes a lot of problems over there. It's hard to trust someone when their first instinct is to point the business end of their weapon at you. Perhaps the training is getting better (I've been out for about 2.5 years) but mentality and attitude is hard to change, especially in an organization the size and nature of the US military.

To sum it all up, the vast majority of US troops have good intentions while they're over there. However, our attitudes regarding culture and our mentality cause many troops to get extremely frustrated and angry, and that causes the sorts of problems we've seen. I'm not saying that the troops who do bad things shouldn't be held accountable, I'm just telling you why it happens. Do note that the vast majority of troops over there are doing the right thing, or at least as right as the mission they're given allows them.

Most wars can be avoided. But the fact is, sometimes peace is just another way of saying surrender.
Got any particular peace campaigns in mind?

If you lower the morale of the troops, the death of our troops will increase. If they are at war with High Morale they can do their duty much more effectively which would result in less deaths.

By supporting the troops you are causing them to be in Iraq for longer, thus more will die.

Deaths of the enemy are irrelevant except for the loss of manpower to that enemy.
Iraqi civilians are not the enemy.

Yes. Most certainly.
A human life is a human life. Iraqi civilians didn't agree risk death in this war. American soldiers did.

It is their fault for not having taken down Hussein on their own.
If they didn't want to, why should they?

But, that aside, the enemy is the insurgency. We don't target Iraqi civilians, we target the insurgents. But, some innocents will die, too. That happens in combat zones.
You've just made a load of statements saying that the Iraqi civilians are the enemy and deserve to be killed. No backpedalling now.

He was teh enemy of the United States.
Enemies are threats. People who aren't threats are not your enemies, they're just targets, like those of any common murderer.

Oh, give it a rest. That bloviated 600K number has been debunked for the flawed statistics that it was. The number has been downgraded, with better figures, to ~150K. Thing is, the vast majority of these deaths are Iraqi on Iraqi.
The shot doesn't have to be fired by a US soldier for the person to count as a war casualty.

Then, you are an enemy of the United States because of your desire to se the deaths of US forces.
So do you, by your desire for their continued presence in that death zone.

Attempt to put thread back on track of the OP:

These protesters are trying to have it both ways, They claim to support our troops and then they cry illegal war. So how is it possible to claim you support the troops and at the same time accusing them of being criminals. That's what it amounts to. When you claim "we're fighting an illegal war" is defined as calling our troops criminals and to me that is Unacceptable. You can't have it both ways.

No. Protesters are crying Immoral War, or We were lied to war. The "Bring them home" crowd are Not calling the troops criminals. A bit of a straw man their really.

I'm just glad that the majority of the US does truly support our troops and they know it.

I agree. The majority of the US support the troops, and if they really thought about that, they would support the "Bring them home" crowd.

Support and Pray for the Troops. If you see one of our troops, tell them "thank-you" that you support and pray for their safe return home. That you support them in what they are doing and the cause in the name of Freedom.
I think you honestly believe that what the soldiers are doing is in the name of freedom. I was going to say "I pity you", but no, I pity me. If I could honestly believe all the deaths in Iraq was happening because Freedom was being fought for, I would be a lot happier. I can't accept it on an intellectual level though. It's all about the money, and that's hard to swallow if you care about all humanity, not just your countrymen. { I've given up keeping it on topic. If you can't beat them, join them.}

Wallonochia: For you to accuse me of saying the worse thing possible against our Troops is Absurd. One poster for example has stated He supports the death of our troops. You may have missed that earlier post. If you didn't miss that earlier post then I say again, what you accuse me of is Absurd.

I do believe that voicing against are troops and calling them criminals does have some sort of psychological impact. You may be an exception. This is how I feel and again to say that I said the worst against the troops by mentioning Low Morale and the possible impact it may have on the overall mission is ridiculous.

http://www.belgraviadispatch.com/archives/004641.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2003/10/mil-031016-3ce6518c.htm

Wallonochia: For you to accuse me of saying the worse thing possible against our Troops is Absurd. One poster for example has stated He supports the death of our troops. You may have missed that earlier post. If you didn't miss that earlier post then I say again, what you accuse me of is Absurd.

I do believe that voicing against are troops and calling them criminals does have some sort of psychological impact. You may be an exception. This is how I feel and again to say that I said the worst against the troops by mentioning Low Morale and the possible impact it may have on the overall mission is ridiculous.

http://www.belgraviadispatch.com/archives/004641.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2003/10/mil-031016-3ce6518c.htm

Please quote for me where anyone said they wished the deaths of US troops.

As for what I found most insulting was this:

If you lower the morale of the troops, the death of our troops will increase. If they are at war with High Morale they can do their duty much more effectively which would result in less deaths.

There are a couple of assumptions being made here.

1: US troops allow public opinion to effect their performance

2. If troops feel that public opinion is against them they will die at a higher rate.

Do you understand why this is so insulting? You're implying that US troops are unprofessional enough to allow politics back home to effect how they conduct their mission. You're also implying that US troops would somehow become careless if they heard of such negative opinions and would get themselves killed.

The morale issues occuring over there are not due to public opinion. They're due to the fact that the troops are in a country where a lot of people want them dead, summer days are well over 110F, and it just generally sucks being there. Sure, some soldiers may be asking if the US public is behind the war, but in the end they will complete their missions, regardless of whether or not people are protesting back home.

Yes, US troops are aware of the drop in public confidence with the war. However, there is absolutely no way in hell that this would ever cause the troops to not fulfill their mission. To say it would is a slap in the face of everyone who is serving there, completing their mission regardless of how unpopular it may be.

I don't want them to die, but if it's what has to be done to end this bloody war, then maybe it's for the best in the long run.

I think he might be refering to this statement, which could be interperated as wanting the soilders to die.

I think he might be refering to this statement, which could be interperated as wanting the soilders to die.

It could possibly, it's a bit of a stretch since he said "I don't want them to die".

How can you? Oh, I forget. You're a soldier. And you've been there. Which makes your version of reality somehow less suspect? Right...

I agree. In history we usually discount first-hand witnesses, and instead rely on the political commentors of the time for an accurate description.

It could possibly, it's a bit of a stretch since he said "I don't want them to die".

That really doesn't make sense to me. You're crediting his first part of the sentence and discrediting his 2nd part.

I think he might be refering to this statement, which could be interperated as wanting the soilders to die.
Less of them will die in the long term, though, and it'll save a great deal of Iraqi lives. It's a fair trade-off, no?

That was really my point.

That really doesn't make sense to me. You're crediting his first part of the sentence and discrediting his 2nd part.
My point was that if a few die and we leave, that's for the best, even if people have died, basically.

Less of them will die in the long term, though, and it'll save a great deal of Iraqi lives. It's a fair trade-off, no?

That was really my point.

I was just providing the evidence which was asked for. I'm just going to go back to lurking in the shadows as I have said my bit.

I was just providing the evidence which was asked for. I'm just going to go back to lurking in the shadows as I have said my bit.
I thank you for what you did, it was good of you :)

Let me clarify something to you. So not to cause a slap to people that I tremendously support and respect and am very thankful to the US Soldiers.

There has been some mixed reports of the causes of the Morale level of the troops. In my opinion, I feel that the troops need to know that the public by the majority supports them and agrees what they are doing is right. There has also been certain commanders in Iraq who have mentioned the morale of troops and mentioned the drop in public support for the actual mission which as you say is not true then it's very misleading that leads me to my opinion. To say that there is absolutely no effect to the Troops morale levels I do disagree. For example: If the majority of the USA did not support the troops or the cause you are saying it would have no effect on their jobs or duties. This is my opinion, and I find it very insulting to accuse me of slapping the troops in the face.

Even if it doesn't have a big effect what I mean to say is that it has somewhat of an effect.

Let me clarify something to you. So not to cause a slap to people that I tremendously support and respect and am very thankful to the US Soldiers.

-snip-
What a terrible post. Why don't you answer the damn arguments directed against your points?

ok bud now how is that a horrible post. he just said he supports the troops. if he says that i think its one of the best posts ever made.

those of you that live in america that are "anti war" and "dont support the troops" i don't understand. you are allowed to think that way because some guy got his head blown off fighting for your right to even think that. freedom isn't free. we're a country because of war. im not saying i want troops to go to war but sometimes its required for the defense of the nation. not sayin iraq is but terrorists sure aren't going to stop bombing us. If they wanted us to be "quiet" they would have stopped long ago. they want us dead. its a dirty world and i sure ain't ready to turn the other cheek.

I support our troops.

those of you that live in america that are "anti war" and "dont support the troops" i don't understand. you are allowed to think that way because some guy got his head blown off fighting for your right to even think that. freedom isn't free. we're a country because of war.
I'm not American but I'll tell you anyway, the war for independence was entirely different, and legitimate. The Iraq war is not necessary to defend America or Europe, and because it has not served the interests of anyone but terrorists, is indefensible and illegitimate. I blame the Iraq war for inspiring terrorists to kill people in London and Madrid.

i stated that iraq may or may not count so in that manner i agree. but it wasn't entirely different. people were oppressed under some form of government. whether all or little cared about that didn't matter but i think that seeing the iraqis so happy (at least in the western province) showed that we made the right choice. of course we didn't go in to "free the oppressed" but too "free the oil". but it wasn't entirely different. we have either taken the war too long or too short.

i also understand your belief of that because you are not american. However i think i disagree with the iraq war inspiring terrorists to bomb europe. france isn't even in iraq, they were one of the big boys to denounce the iraq war first thing because their black market is very large and is based on terrorists, and britain is or was pulling out anyway. But perhaps i am wrong. you have to see the mentality of the actual terrorists that planned it to find out the answer.

i stated that iraq may or may not count so in that manner i agree. but it wasn't entirely different. people were oppressed under some form of government. whether all or little cared about that didn't matter but i think that seeing the iraqis so happy (at least in the western province) showed that we made the right choice. of course we didn't go in to "free the oppressed" but too "free the oil". but it wasn't entirely different. we have either taken the war too long or too short.

i also understand your belief of that because you are not american. However i think i disagree with the iraq war inspiring terrorists to bomb europe. france isn't even in iraq, they were one of the big boys to denounce the iraq war first thing because their black market is very large and is based on terrorists, and britain is or was pulling out anyway. But perhaps i am wrong. you have to see the mentality of the actual terrorists that planned it to find out the answer.

I'm sorry, when did Britain announce it's intentions to withdraw from Iraq?

people were oppressed under some form of government. whether all or little cared about that didn't matter but i think that seeing the iraqis so happy (at least in the western province) showed that we made the right choice.
When they voted, yes, but now that the coalition has a seemingly unstoppable civil war on its hands, are people so happy?

However i think i disagree with the iraq war inspiring terrorists to bomb europe.
Terrorists bombed London and Madrid, the capitals of two countries who were involved in Iraq. Even if the perpetrators had not told us their motives, it's incredibly obvious that the Iraq war has antagonised Muslim radicals, and encouraged their latent terrorist urges. Bush is one of the most successful terrorist recruiters ever to live.

Seriously, what has anyone gained from the Iraq war?

and britain is or was pulling out anyway.
If you want to talk about this issue, at least know the basic facts.

Who's reality detached? IDK, i've served one tour in iraq and another in afghanistan and am returning to afghanistan very soon. I know what i am talking about b/c i have seen and led U.S. forces in these places. You have not.

I, for one, would like to thank you for your service to our country USMC.
I do not agree with the war in Iraq but I certainly support our men and women in the military that are doing a very hard job.
I myself have a close friend in Iraq right now.
I would love to see him, and all of our military personnel, come home soon and safely.

It is possible to support the troops without agreeing with the politicians that sent them to war.

How can you? Oh, I forget. You're a soldier. And you've been there. Which makes your version of reality somehow less suspect? Right...

It doesn't make my motives less suspect but it sure as hell lets me know more about the subject than you.

Attempt to put thread back on track of the OP:

I feel that it is very important that the majority back home does everything in their power to keep the morale of the troops (their sons, daughters, husbands, wives, brothers, sisters, etc...)as high as possible.

I feel that these protesters go to far when they voice against our troops. Giving the troops high morale and support makes their jobs easier. They can do their jobs much more effectively and that's very important.

You can be against war, especially one such as the Iraq war which was started under dubious circumstances, and not be against our military.
I fully supported the invasion of Afghanistan as there was a clear link between the Taliban and Al-Qeda.
I do not support the war in Iraq because it was planned well before 9/11 and the reasons that we invaded keep changing.
We also went in with no clear exit strategy or goals which is a terrible way to execute a war.


These protesters are trying to have it both ways, They claim to support our troops and then they cry illegal war. So how is it possible to claim you support the troops and at the same time accusing them of being criminals. That's what it amounts to. When you claim "we're fighting an illegal war" is defined as calling our troops criminals and to me that is Unacceptable. You can't have it both ways. I'm just glad that the majority of the US does truly support our troops and they know it.
I do not know of anyone in my circle of acquaintances that thinks our troops are criminals, except of course the ones that actually ARE criminals such as the scumbag that plead guilty this week to raping a 14 year old girl.
We do believe that the war in Iraq is illegal by the standards of international law but the troops are only doing their job and are not criminals.


Support and Pray for the Troops. If you see one of our troops, tell them "thank-you" that you support and pray for their safe return home. That you support them in what they are doing and the cause in the name of Freedom.
I thank any military personnel that I meet for serving our country.
I tell them how much I truly respect them for their service.

Shame crackhead Bush got into power, then, eh?

Ummm, he's not in trial and he was never convicted of anything. If you want to have everything go by heresay evidence then you pretty much want a police state.


Maybe the US should actually be sending in skilled troops and defending civilians on both sides rather than just one, no?
Ummm, our forces are highly skilled and we are protecting both sides. It's just that the Sunnis are wasting their efforts on us and the shiites are going all-out against the sunnis.


Divide and conquer is going to create more tensions, not less, and the people at the top of the fighters in Iraq aren't stupid. I reckon that after a while both sides are going to understand what the US is doing, and prepare to work together to spite the US even more, lowering troop and officer morale when they realise that their plans aren't working.
Wait, where did you get divide and conquer from? Spiting the US doesn't serve anyones interests. And btw, morale is pretty high.
Divide and conquer is going to create more Ah yes, by magic and all. Sunni and Shi'ite have been at war for about 1350 years. They're not going to stop now.
O wait, i thought that they were going to work together against us. Or do you just make stuff up when it helps your argument.
I don't think that it's troop numbers that are the problem, it's troop skills.
No it's not. But if you want to make that argument then give an example of an area where U.S. forces need to improve besides linguistics b/c we can all agree with that. I'd much rather have a marine translating for me than an iraqi.
If you want a good peacekeeping force (which is what the US now is in Iraq), then you need intelligent soldiers with an understanding of the local culture, langauge and way of life, so that they can get a better grasp of what's going on.
It would be nice to have everyone trained to that level on cultural tidbits but i don't think that it is attainable to teach 100,000 people arabic. You do pick up on the cultural differences pretty quickly your first time out so that really isn't a problem.
I'm sure that, like the UK, US forces will have a Linguist in their platoon-level forces, but really, that's not good enough. Every soldier should be a linguist, so that they can talk with Iraqi civilians much more freely and when a situation arises, they can understand what the public thinks of it.
I agree it should but i don't think that it can happen.

There you go. Theres a "basic fact".

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:FhfwtsMQG4UJ:www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2006-01/07/content_543145.htm+%22british+withdrawal+from+iraq%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3

No the people are not happy but wtf? they're the ones making the war! they wanna get shot by whoever then at least they have the right to do so.

No it's not. But if you want to make that argument then give an example of an area where U.S. forces need to improve besides linguistics b/c we can all agree with that. I'd much rather have a marine translating for me than an iraqi.



OT, but I have to ask. Have you heard of/used this fancy-dan Translation Machine (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6480428)?

Being a linguist, I'm fascinated by this. What sort of phrases do you learn? How much effort are the troops putting into learning the language?

I'd be very interested to know.

This makes me think: is fighting any war valid?

Not according to me.

OT, but I have to ask. Have you heard of/used this fancy-dan Translation Machine (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6480428)?

Being a linguist, I'm fascinated by this. What sort of phrases do you learn? How much effort are the troops putting into learning the language?

I'd be very interested to know.

I havn't seen that before but it looks pretty cool. Typically, most units will deal out cards with key phrases on them like "keep down" or "don't move" but those kinds of things get quickly recognized. Some guys get lucky enough to get some pre-deployment training but it isn't the norm. There are also quite a bit of english speaking iraqis and most of them will help you out.

It doesn't make my motives less suspect but it sure as hell lets me know more about the subject than you.

*says he's been there, too, and seen more than you*

Isn't the Internet grand? People can claim all sorts of things. Doesn't make them valid arguments in the least.

*says he's been there, too, and seen more than you*

Isn't the Internet grand? People can claim all sorts of things. Doesn't make them valid arguments in the least.

There's the good old, "he has a different opinion than me, he must be lying"

I havn't seen that before but it looks pretty cool. Typically, most units will deal out cards with key phrases on them like "keep down" or "don't move" but those kinds of things get quickly recognized. Some guys get lucky enough to get some pre-deployment training but it isn't the norm. There are also quite a bit of english speaking iraqis and most of them will help you out.

Interesting. Who normally gets the training?

Forgive me for being trite, but I kind of picture the situation for troops being long periods of boredom, interspersed with hectic activity. It seems a shame not to train soldiers in languages - it's surely one of the strongest tools in the whole "hearts and minds" thing. I mean, how much time do you spend performing duties that, you could argue, have little application or even merit?

LikeI say - trite. If I'm wrong about stuff above, I heartily apologise.

*says he's been there, too, and seen more than you*

Isn't the Internet grand? People can claim all sorts of things. Doesn't make them valid arguments in the least.

It is encumbent upon me to now reveal to you all that I am, in fact, a small & primitive fishing village on the coast of the North Atlantic, located sometime in the late Neolithic era.

Yea it is a pretty valid argument

I am, in fact, a small & primitive fishing village on the coast of the North Atlantic, located sometime in the late Neolithic era.

The coast of the North Atlantic? Help us out, here.

There's the good old, "he has a different opinion than me, he must be lying"

No, it's basically pointing out that going "I know better than you because I say I do" ain't that much of a tactic that brings anything to your cause. Just shows that you've very little to bring to the table, indeed.

It is encumbent upon me to now reveal to you all that I am, in fact, a small & primitive fishing village on the coast of the North Atlantic, located sometime in the late Neolithic era.

And I am international war zone monitor and thus know everything there is to know about the situation in Neolithic fishing villages, and you sir are no Neolithic fishing village. Primitive, I shall grant you.

No, it's basically pointing out that going "I know better than you because I say I do" ain't that much of a tactic that brings anything to your cause. Just shows that you've very little to bring to the table, indeed.

Why do I get the feeling this is going to eventually devolve into whether or not hippies spat on returning Vietnam veterans?

Oh, and Ngyuen - think outer Hebrides. Fishing nets are the in thing this generation! (We've finally given up on the whole idea of harpooning the Sea Bass individually, dig)

And I am international war zone monitor and thus know everything there is to know about the situation in Neolithic fishing villages, and you sir are no Neolithic fishing village. Primitive, I shall grant you.

Damn, you're good. There's no pulling the wet bearskin over your analytical eyes, I can see that now.

Would you believe a small 17th-century farming community outside of Minsk?

Ya know hippies really spat on returning vietnam vets. :D

Interesting. Who normally gets the training?

Forgive me for being trite, but I kind of picture the situation for troops being long periods of boredom, interspersed with hectic activity. It seems a shame not to train soldiers in languages - it's surely one of the strongest tools in the whole "hearts and minds" thing. I mean, how much time do you spend performing duties that, you could argue, have little application or even merit?

LikeI say - trite. If I'm wrong about stuff above, I heartily apologise.

Eh, for most wars it is my understanding that infantry went through long periods of boredom as you have said but it isn't so much that way in this war and when there are periods of boredom it is because you are on watch, not just having freetime. A typical day would be about 8 hours of patrolling, 1 hour of briefing and debriefing, 2 hours for eating, 8 hours on watch. Now i tried to rotate out my units, whether it was when i was an lt or cpt, so that they could get a couple days rest everyonce in a while but that isn't always possible and the last thing they would want to do then is train w/ a language. Now if we weren't on such a fast turnover rate for personel we could slow down and train inbetween deployments but right now the predeployment training schedule is way over booked. But to answer your first question it is usually people with language experience already and those going into volatile areas with units that don't have sufficient language specialists.

No, it's basically pointing out that going "I know better than you because I say I do" ain't that much of a tactic that brings anything to your cause. Just shows that you've very little to bring to the table, indeed.
Actually, i have a lot to bring to the table but you don't believe me so this will be my last response to you as you seemingly can't say anything productive to the debate.

Damn, you're good. There's no pulling the wet bearskin over your analytical eyes, I can see that now.

Would you believe a small 17th-century farming community outside of Minsk?

Curses! You know of my weakness for Eastern European twinks... grudgingly, I shall accept your proximity to Minsk out of self-interest.

Actually, i have a lot to bring to the table but you don't believe me so this will be my last response to you as you seemingly can't say anything productive to the debate.

Sorry, honey, but "I'm a soldier and thus what I say is true and what you say is false" does not a debate make. Nice attempt to hide that fact, though. Those less perceptive might actually have been fooled.