| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/02/2006 07:34:05 AM · #126 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
This may be the first unpopular war that the troops are being honored while the mission is called into question. I hate to break it to you, but this isn't exactly a popular war with the troops.
A few months ago I was talking with a master sargent special forces guy, about twenty five years in, a year away from getting out with a full pension (disability, his kness are powdered). We were at a wedding and he was in full fig with alot of hardware on his chest. We were talking about his career in general, general polite interest on my part, when the conversation went to how the army feels about the misson in Iraq. I have never heard the term "Cluster f**k" used so many times with such vigor in a short space of time. He had little good to say about the way the mission was being carried out on the ground, or the benefits he saw from risking his men's lives or his own.
I feel it is my right to agree with him. You may think he is undermining the troops. I guess he may not be entitled to his opinion, in your opinion. Being sent into an poloitical quagmire far from home, without the support structure to win, or an clearly defined goal to strive for, might just hurt their moral a touch more than my not putting a yellow ribbon on my pickup truck. However hard my words they will lack the impact of an IED through the side of an unarmoured personel carrier. |
That is my point! They give the risks! But that goes with signing up for the military doesn't it? I have talked with men that were in Iraq and they were frustrated too, but they never heard the good things done over there. WHY is that? You can form an opinion from the news or from just one persons perspective but WE really have no idea, so please don't pretend to know, I have no idea what it is like over there, but I support the troops whether I feel they should be there or not. The egg is broken now so we must clean it up. Far as a soldier having an opinion I hope he does have one for he puts HIS life on the line but again he must know the risks and the responsibility of being a soldier. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 09:32:05 AM · #127 |
Originally posted by jsas:
but I support the troops whether I feel they should be there or not |
I don't know why people keep on posting "I support the troops regardless" when no-one so far has suggested that the case should be otherwise. Criticism is being levelled at the decision to invade and the moral integrity of our political leaders, not the moral integrity of the troops.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 09:47:34 AM · #128 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
This may be the first unpopular war that the troops are being honored while the mission is called into question. I hate to break it to you, but this isn't exactly a popular war with the troops.
A few months ago I was talking with a master sargent special forces guy, about twenty five years in, a year away from getting out with a full pension (disability, his kness are powdered). We were at a wedding and he was in full fig with alot of hardware on his chest. We were talking about his career in general, general polite interest on my part, when the conversation went to how the army feels about the misson in Iraq. I have never heard the term "Cluster f**k" used so many times with such vigor in a short space of time. He had little good to say about the way the mission was being carried out on the ground, or the benefits he saw from risking his men's lives or his own.
I feel it is my right to agree with him. You may think he is undermining the troops. I guess he may not be entitled to his opinion, in your opinion. Being sent into an poloitical quagmire far from home, without the support structure to win, or an clearly defined goal to strive for, might just hurt their moral a touch more than my not putting a yellow ribbon on my pickup truck. However hard my words they will lack the impact of an IED through the side of an unarmoured personel carrier. |
"Cluster Fu$%" oh yeah, i will tell you from experience, there were alot of things in Iraq that didnt run well with the troops, and there are troops who are against the war completely, being on the ground there, it really turned political, there was a lot of stuff we couldnt do because of politics, and how they were involved in iraq,
you all know my stand on the war,
but i will not say that i think it could have been done better and faster,
and
and mr dansig an opinion on a couple of your questions
1. why are we still there, ?, because we cant leave, if we leave iraq will turn into a huge civil war and it will be a breading ground for terrorists.
2. why cant the iraqi army take over, well, because theres not enough of them, and even though they have been trained, they dont have the heart or full desire because the fear is still inside of them because there family is at risk, if someone finds out who they are.
3. that falls back to question 1.
4. if we were there for the oil then wheres it at, because im still paying 2.65 for a galon of gas.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 10:52:05 AM · #129 |
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
And how come everyone that's in opposition to Bush just assumes that he has sinister motives? |
That's a gross generalization. For example, I'm a registered Independent with no particular loyalty to either party. Other than the shady way in which he was appointed to office, I had no particular opinion of him until he tried to sell the Iraq invasion.
My husband is a registered Republican who actually voted for W and woes the day.
In both instances it was the sinister actions of not only Bush, but his entire entourage that changed our opinions. Would it be a fair question to ask "How come those who support Bush assume he has no sinister motives?"
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 11:23:48 AM · #130 |
| I completely support the troops and just wish the president, and the entire Bush administration supported the troops. They were sent there without adequate supplies, armor, etc, and they are woefully outnumbered, and will continue to be so. Many former high ranking military officials (generals), and even some current ones, are very cynical about winning the war there and have publically stated that it will take many thousands of more troops to secure Iraq. Where is the US going to get more troops? The US govt is already so thin that they have to use stop-loss measures in order to maintain current deployments. Fighting on two fronts simultanously does not portend well. Non-violent resolutions need to be explored. Problem is the Bush administration are a pugnacious bunch and know no other way. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 11:37:43 AM · #131 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I completely support the troops and just wish the president, and the entire Bush administration supported the troops. They were sent there without adequate supplies, armor, etc, and they are woefully outnumbered, and will continue to be so. |
Not to mention the overwhelming lack of support in the form of VA budget cuts, proposed by the GOP.
//www.vaiw.org/vet/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=59
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 12:33:58 PM · #132 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by jsas:
but I support the troops whether I feel they should be there or not |
I don't know why people keep on posting "I support the troops regardless" when no-one so far has suggested that the case should be otherwise. Criticism is being levelled at the decision to invade and the moral integrity of our political leaders, not the moral integrity of the troops. |
That is that old game the war supporter̢۪s love. Classic straw man. Of course everyone supports the troops, why the hell wouldn't you? They are America's children and mostly the less fortunate ones, hence the military and not Yale, sent to kill and die in the name of there country.
Really the "support our troops" people are the ones the war starting politicians love the most. They figure if your military move is unpopular, you just have to put some troops on the ground and everyone will switch to "well now that they are there, support the troops!", which somehow equates to supporting the people who sent them there aswell.
Have you guys read about the Pentagon reports citing up to 80% of US marines killed from wounds to the upper body, could have been prevented if they had better body armor?
//www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/07/AR2006010700005.html and //www.nytimes.com/2006/01/06/politics/06cnd-armor.html?ei=5088&en=b13c10bd70ee9190&ex=1294203600&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print
And the continued lack of proper vehicle armor.. Nice support. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 12:38:43 PM · #133 |
Oh god how can anyone support this hypocrisy.. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 12:59:58 PM · #134 |
Freedom is not Free
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 01:00:41 PM · #135 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Oh god how can anyone support this hypocrisy.. |
Are you guys for real? The article you link to was posted nearly three YEARS ago ( March, 2003 ).
How about providing a link to the actual proposal, not a CLAIM that a proposal was being made. For example: Show us the actual BILL that was introduced, and highlight the part that shows a REDUCTION in spending ( a spending CUT ). Then show us the roll call on that BILL to show how many of the GOP supported it.
Message edited by author 2006-02-02 13:10:38. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 01:19:24 PM · #136 |
Originally posted by TroyMosley:
Freedom is not Free |
Where do you see our freedoms being threatened from Iraq? The only freedoms that are threatened are from right her in the US from the current administration. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 01:27:07 PM · #137 |
we have killed numerous amounts of known terrorists, and have stopped terrorist attacks on OUR HOME LAND, since the war in iraq and afhanistan started, we have the worst two on the run, if we dont do something more 9/11 will happen but possibly worse, i dont knwo about you but they are doing a dam fine job,
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 01:35:42 PM · #138 |
You're right Ron, that was a crappy link. I'll work on some more accurate evidence to support my assertion.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 01:37:52 PM · #139 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by TroyMosley:
Freedom is not Free |
Where do you see our freedoms being threatened from Iraq? The only freedoms that are threatened are from right her in the US from the current administration. |
What freedoms do you see being threatened from right here in the US from the current administration? |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 01:45:20 PM · #140 |
Originally posted by dassilem:
And our soldiers that are getting hurt in Iraq are not being taken care of by our government. Its ok to get shot-down defending our country, break your back, but because you can stand up, but can no longer fly, they deam you medically separated from the ARMY (the Army's choice not his), when it comes down to a military retirement, they say, "OH NO you are only 10% disabled. Thanks but no thanks, go fend for yourself."
|
This is where I'll jump back in. That link may be 3 yrs old, but it is a reality. Justin got a severence pay. They issued him a Military Separation (no retirement)(go away-don't come back-but don't think we are paying either). He will get VA medical but for him only, no family coverage for his wife which he would have been entitled to.
A postman can trip on a sidewalk while delivering mail. Hurt his back and get total disability for the rest of his life. But pilot a Kiowa, get shot down, break your back and get a one time severance and be told to turn in your gear.
Doesn't seem just.
Jumping back out now.....
I can't believe this thread has been going on sooooo long. So many vast views...
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 01:52:47 PM · #141 |
Originally posted by TroyMosley:
we have killed numerous amounts of known terrorists, and have stopped terrorist attacks on OUR HOME LAND, since the war in iraq and afhanistan started, we have the worst two on the run, if we dont do something more 9/11 will happen but possibly worse, i dont knwo about you but they are doing a dam fine job, |
Yes, we have Bin Laden on the run too...for 5 years so far. Doesn't matter because our actions overseas are making us many many enemies in the Al Qaeda camp and swelling their ranks. Not just from the war but because of torture scandals, abducting Muslims and keeping them detained without due process, access to legal council or communication with their families, and in horrid conditions will keep the terrorist ranks growing. For every terrorist we kill how many more take their place? Don't know how many terrorists have been killed by coalition forces, but many innocents have been killed overseas as well, creating more hatred towards the US.
Which terrorist attacks have the US authorities stopped on our homeland? Actually, we've been getting a lot of bad intelligence from torture victims that they have used to scare the pants off of us. Yep, they are doing a damn fine job...for Halliburton, Bectel, Lockheed Martin, etc. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 02:14:06 PM · #142 |
Originally posted by TroyMosley:
we have killed numerous amounts of known terrorists, and have stopped terrorist attacks on OUR HOME LAND, since the war in iraq and afhanistan started, we have the worst two on the run, if we dont do something more 9/11 will happen but possibly worse, i dont knwo about you but they are doing a dam fine job, |
Sorry, I'm jumping in here and probably jumping right out again afterwards! I do not think the terrorist attacks have been stopped by the Iraq war, to think so is fooling yourself. The major attacks need a long time to organise and there are bound to be more, both in the USA and in Europe. If you look at the attacks by the IRA on the British mainland, they were months and years apart yet they still kept coming. All the Allied Forces in Iraq have done is create greater hatred and determination to fight back. The troops in Iraq of all nationalities, cannot leave until some form of peaceful way of life is in place and that must be the priority of the leadership. There is no doubt that at present there are many innocents dying in Iraq and this is fueling the ill feeling against the invading force.
A report on the BBC today referred to the lack of positive progress in Afghanistan where the Taliban is taking steps forward again and the improvement of infrastructure is still sadly lacking after five years of US involvement. A lesson must be learnt here if we are not going to be in the same situarion in Iraq in another five years into the future.
My two pence worth for now!
P
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 02:30:41 PM · #143 |
you know, after 9/11, most of America wanted something done,
now those same people have turned their backs on their goverment.
Iraq and Afghanistan had to be invaded, there was other way, everyone says there was a peacfull way, no ther wasnt, the U.S doesn not negotiat with terrorists.
saddam hussein killed more of his own people while he was in power, then have been killed since the war began. there is a non biased documentary on saddam called WMD, its a really heart breaking story,
afghanistan was FILLED with training camps for terrorists,
and i am sure there is even more confidentil information then we know,
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 03:35:41 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by TroyMosley:
you know, after 9/11, most of America wanted something done,
now those same people have turned their backs on their goverment.
Iraq and Afghanistan had to be invaded, there was other way, everyone says there was a peacfull way, no ther wasnt, the U.S doesn not negotiat with terrorists.
saddam hussein killed more of his own people while he was in power, then have been killed since the war began. there is a non biased documentary on saddam called WMD, its a really heart breaking story,
afghanistan was FILLED with training camps for terrorists,
and i am sure there is even more confidentil information then we know, |
Attacking Afghanistan after 9/11 was and, I believe, still is popularly supported in the U.S. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Al Quiada̢۪s objectives (expelling non-Islamic peoples from Islamic lands, a Pan-Islamic state, and the eventual destruction of Israel and classical Western Civilization (secular and sectarian) via jihad) and Saddam Hussein̢۪s objectives (keeping himself and the Baathist Party in power in Iraq) are not complementary nor credibly linked. Reading even the most cursory books on the subject would reveal that fact. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 03:45:41 PM · #145 |
Either way, they both had to be taken out, and saddam did have contact with afghan leaders at the time, if you read american soldier by tommy franks you will see that,
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 05:21:07 PM · #146 |
have anyone of you ever stopped to think WHY USA and England is the main target for terrorist attack ?
well it can't be because of the money.. USA is one of the poorest countries in the world, it owes more than the whole of Europe produces in a decade !
it can't either because of cultural differences, the terrorists are usually from the middle east, and there are plenty of people from the middle east in USA, and the same cultural diffenece apply to most European and Asian contries
it can't be because of religious reasons, muslims live all over the world, including the USA, so there would be no reason to target the states based on religious reasons.
it can't be political, republicans and democrats rule every other country in the world...
so the reason must be the military and it's constant intrusion into other countries, it's lack of respect for civillians and goverments of other countries.
so if the US military goes home and stays there, there will be no reason for terrorist to single out the USA for terrorist attacs !
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 05:29:18 PM · #147 |
dansig, you are wrong about the USA being the poorest country, thats crazy,
here is a link updated january 10 2006
//www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html
and also in Political Science class last semester, we did extensive research on the american economy, and to cut it short, if america goes into depression, the rest of the world goes into depression.
as for a link to that i do not have one, it was all in class work, but if you PM me, i will give you contact to my professor and i am sure she will explain to you.
Message edited by author 2006-02-02 17:37:11. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 05:32:22 PM · #148 |
and also here is a link that pretty much says that if the fish decide to swim away from icland you wouldnt even exist
//www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ic.html |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 05:48:03 PM · #149 |
Originally posted by DanSig:
the reason given for invading Iraq was to capture Saddam Hussein |
Actually I believe the bigger reason given was the "Weapons of Mass Destruction."
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 06:02:11 PM · #150 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
-- Benjamin Franklin |
I commonly see this quote come up in debates such as this.
The quote might look good on paper, but just think about it. By having speed limits on highways, for example, we are giving up our liberty to drive as fast as we want to, and in return we get security and added safety - but heaven forbid that we have speed limits! We're giving up our Liberty!
And how come everyone that's in opposition to Bush just assumes that he has sinister motives? |
The Franklin quote refers to "Essential Liberty". The commonplace rules and regulations of an organized society are not infringements upon an essential liberty; these, in the American interpretation at least, are spelled out in our constitution. Such things as freedom of assembly, freedom of worship, freedom of speech, the right to a speedy trial, the right to due process of law, and so forth. To argue that a hypothetical freedom to drive in an unregulated manner is in the same category as the right to go about our lives free of government surveillance is simply ridiculous IMO.
Robt. |
I wasn't considering the "right to drive as fast as i want to" an "essential liberty" but merely trying to use an analogy to make my point. I guess it was a poor analogy.
The fact is, however, that Bush is not sitting in the White House getting a kick out of listening to random phone calls. I'd like to think is that he's targeting suspected terrorists.
The problem I DO have with Bush's actions was that he did so without a court order, almost as if he's above the law. He should have done so legally and at least informed the American public. I don't think the "war on terror" can justify what he did. BUT I don't think that Bush's intent in doing so was to secretly spy on Americans - that seems to be the way that this is being portrayed.
|
|
