Phinehas

[roguejet]

I have many family and friends over sees, and this isn't that attitude at all. They are all quite angry at the war, and feel as though they are not fighting for anything but Bush's own wants, not the good of the country.

They most certainly do what to come home at all costs. They feel as though they were lied to.

Really? any of them happen to be in combat roles? This would be a first for me, of course I might expect to hear that a lot from support personnel or reservists, but I have yet to hear anyone in:

US Marines (any)
US Navy, Strike Rescue (Combat Search and Rescue)
Air Force - Pilots, Forward Air Controllers
Army - Snipers, CounterIntelligence, Infrantry, Tankers

--- communicate any of those desires. Of course I and they always wanted to come home when I was overseas also. Usually the people who are trained for combat are the ones who are most resolute and have the highest understanding for what their role is in the big picture. They've already made peace with their Creator, and understand the sacrifice they're making.

Here's some statistics that are only four months old:

​

Service Men and Women Upbeat on Bush, War In Iraq, Economy and Intend To Vote, Annenberg Data Show America’s military service men and women and their families are convinced that the country is going in the right direction, like George W. Bush much more than the civilian population does, support the war in Iraq more strongly and are more positive about the economy, the University of Pennsylvania’s National Annenberg Election Survey shows.​

From September 22 through October 5, Annenberg polled 655 adults who have either served on active duty between February and October or who were family members of those who served but were not available to be interviewed. Their answers were compared to the responses of 2,436 adults polled nationally from September 27 through October 3.

The survey did not ask the voting preference of the respondents because a 1948 statute prohibits polling members of the armed services about whom they intend to vote for.

If you want to confirm this, Google naes04.org or annenburg univ. of penn and you'll find the October survey.

So... Anecdotal evidence among the combat troops that I've spoken to along with factual study results from less than four months ago. Since then we've seen elections held in Iraq, and our erstwhile allies start to rally around the concept much more clearly.

 

[Lucretius]

Supporting the troops... What do you think they would tell you they would like in the way of support, or do you just assume that above all, they want to be home, no matter the cost.

No matter which service I speak to, the 'troops' I have encountered want nothing more than to simply have the threat of terrorism eliminated. Being 'HOME' is irrelevant if they cannot live in security and peace.

I have friends in the service too you know. They prefer being home. Peace and security? How many attacks on U.S. soil did we have before 9/11? The one other WTC bombing in '93 and before that we had Pearl Harbor. Okay. Look out, let us live in fear, because once every decade or so the terrorists MIGHT come together and ATTACK the U.S. That gives us Every right to just send troops in and occupy foreign nations, I mean, the best defense is a good offence right? [/sarcasm]

They don't want to be 'HOME' at all costs. That's a value placed on them by people who haven't taken the time to speak to combat troops who are on the front lines. Of course they want to be with their loved ones, but they understand there's a greater good to what they're doing. They understand the value of their task in the big picture of national security.

No, they understand their task of being a pawn in an oil war. UNOCAL is loving this War on Terrorism, even though it has been about as effective as any war the U.S. has made on an improper noun. I mean, look at how freakin' well the War on Poverty and Drugs is going! You think men who are getting shot at just love being on the front lines? You think they enjoy having to kill people every day (who are often times innocent civillians)? If you think the troops enjoy that then you are mistaken.

My point is that bringing our soldiers home immediately is not what they want. Being brought home after the job they were sent to do is complete is what they want. Being able to relax and not worry about a grenade sailing through the window of a department store is what they want. Not having to worry about a Pentagon assignment being the target of an airliner is what they want.

I'm glad you live in fear. What color is Bush's bar today? Orange? Red? Oh God, it's orange alert, TERRORISTS INCOMING! Did we need a terrorism alert color coded system before Bush and his war? No. We got bombed in '93 and Clinton didn't say, "Hmm let's crusade against terrorism. I think I will put the nation into a malleable state of fear with a color coding system to scare them about terrorism which is fresh in their minds." Bush has you right where he wants you. In a state of panic, which in turns helps you back his war with a sort of jingoistic frenzy.

I would say to you, find out what you can do to support our troops and make their lives a bit easier, maybe without judgement about what they are doing and with respect for the fact that they have made a decision to support the policies no matter what.

I respect their lives most, that's why I want them to COME HOME. What good is a beer if you get shot and killed? Not much. What good is a "rah-rah-rah" when you're six-feet under? Not much at all.

Our troops learned that coming home no matter what emboldened Al Qaeda operatives in Somalia in 1993 (yes, they were there arming rebel factions) and they desparately do not want to repeat that mistake.

Somalia wasn't even close to the same as Iraq. Somalia was a humanitarian mission gone bad. Iraq was a "wow,-our-reasons-for-war didn't-really-exist-but-let's-just-continue"-invasion.

Nothing good will come of this war. Iraq's history has proven that.

 

[roguejet]

Look out, let us live in fear, because once every decade or so the terrorists MIGHT come together and ATTACK the U.S. That gives us Every right to just send troops in and occupy foreign nations, I mean, the best defense is a good offence right? [/sarcasm]

The best defense is never having to fight in the first place. Failing that, the next best defense is turning your enemy into an example for others to learn by.

No, they understand their task of being a pawn in an oil war. UNOCAL is loving this War on Terrorism, even though it has been about as effective as any war the U.S. has made on an improper noun. I mean, look at how freakin' well the War on Poverty and Drugs is going! You think men who are getting shot at just love being on the front lines? You think they enjoy having to kill people every day (who are often times innocent civillians)? If you think the troops enjoy that then you are mistaken.

They... understand... their... role.. as a pawn in an oil war... Interesting. What exactly do these friends of yours do in the military? Flip hamburgers?

Besides, there is nothing I said about enjoyment. Let me clarify to you the decision that these people that I've spoken to state - get the job done, come home. Job comes first, coming home second. I know that according to the Annenberg Univ. of Penn. study that the majority of troops and their families support the policy in Iraq. The finer edges, maybe there's some disagreement on, like whether we need more troops, how best to implement, etc. but the main policy is SUPPORTED.

Good grief, I would sound like a monster if I said that anyone enjoyed killing people over there compared to sitting at home watching Cartoon Network with a cold beer. Not my statement. I said, and I'll say again - they want the job done.

I'm glad you live in fear. What color is Bush's bar today? Orange? Red? Oh God, it's orange alert, TERRORISTS INCOMING! Did we need a terrorism alert color coded system before Bush and his war? No. We got bombed in '93 and Clinton didn't say, "Hmm let's crusade against terrorism. I think I will put the nation into a malleable state of fear with a color coding system to scare them about terrorism which is fresh in their minds." Bush has you right where he wants you. In a state of panic, which in turns helps you back his war with a sort of jingoistic frenzy.

Umm. Sorry, I know what terrorism is. Taken courses on it over fourteen years ago and spent quite a bit of time studying it in advanced military circumstances. You're stating the same thing that was once said by Michael Moore over and over again - "There is no terrorist threat". That is sadly false. Plenty of evidence to back that up, could take it to another thread if you choose to get granular.

I respect their lives most, that's why I want them to COME HOME. What good is a beer if you get shot and killed? Not much. What good is a "rah-rah-rah" when you're six-feet under? Not much at all.

These are the same people who enlisted or were commissioned to serve and uphold the Constitution. What good is a beer if you cannot live free?

Somalia wasn't even close to the same as Iraq. Somalia was a humanitarian mission gone bad. Iraq was a "wow,-our-reasons-for-war didn't-really-exist-but-let's-just-continue"-invasion.

Somalia was where Al Quaeda learned a valuable lesson (they thought) in the example given - 16 Americans died, 1500 Somali gunfighters, and we packed up and left. They (Islamist Radicals) have been preaching this type of conjecture that Americans cannot stand to see American blood spilled ever since. Once again, I could start another thread on simply the amount of raw data that reemphasizes this.

Nothing good will come of this war. Iraq's history has proven that.

Define good - as in, Libya folds their WMD program... No further mass casualty attacks in the US... Voting in FOUR former totalitarian/monarchy based Islamic states (Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine).

Hmm. Not seeing those results so far as BAD... opposite of GOOD...

 

[Lucretius]

The best defense is never having to fight in the first place. Failing that, the next best defense is turning your enemy into an example for others to learn by.

The enemy doesn't belong to a country. How do you wage war on an enemy that is scattered all over the world? It's like trying to institute a world-wide recycling program and making sure everyone recycles. It's not going to work.

They... understand... their... role.. as a pawn in an oil war... Interesting. What exactly do these friends of yours do in the military? Flip hamburgers?

My friend, I will have you know, was getting shelled in Iraq last time I talked. A guy in his squad got shot right through the cheek. He came back and told me how much he hated it. Obviously though, his opinion is zilch, correct?

Besides, there is nothing I said about enjoyment. Let me clarify to you the decision that these people that I've spoken to state - get the job done, come home. Job comes first, coming home second. I know that according to the Annenberg Univ. of Penn. study that the majority of troops and their families support the policy in Iraq. The finer edges, maybe there's some disagreement on, like whether we need more troops, how best to implement, etc. but the main policy is SUPPORTED.

There's no end to the job though... the "war on terrorism" doesn't have an end. The troops are having to spend MORE time there because no one wants to join the military…

Good grief, I would sound like a monster if I said that anyone enjoyed killing people over there compared to sitting at home watching Cartoon Network with a cold beer. Not my statement. I said, and I'll say again - they want the job done.

There is no job to be done. We still have 10,000 troops in Afghanistan and plan to have them for decades there. Iraq will be worse than that because of how unstable it is. The troops aren't going to want to spend almost two-thirds of their lives getting shot at my Iraqi's who just want the U.S. OUT OF THEIR COUNTRY!

Umm. Sorry, I know what terrorism is. Taken courses on it over fourteen years ago and spent quite a bit of time studying it in advanced military circumstances. You're stating the same thing that was once said by Michael Moore over and over again - "There is no terrorist threat". That is sadly false. Plenty of evidence to back that up, could take it to another thread if you choose to get granular.

The terrorist threat you are so up and worried about can be solved by the FBI, INS, and other U.S. institutions. They don't **** nations off as often as oh say… marching thousands of troops and invading a country and another country.

These are the same people who enlisted or were commissioned to serve and uphold the Constitution. What good is a beer if you cannot live free?

What good is a beer if you are always being shot at while you're drinking it?

Somalia was where Al Quaeda learned a valuable lesson (they thought) in the example given - 16 Americans died, 1500 Somali gunfighters, and we packed up and left. They (Islamist Radicals) have been preaching this type of conjecture that Americans cannot stand to see American blood spilled ever since. Once again, I could start another thread on simply the amount of raw data that reemphasizes this.

Yes, I am well aware that they said we were a bunch of girlie men when we left Somalia. If we didn't leave though, what would we have accomplished? More dead Somalians? More dead Americans? Operation Restore Hope was a disaster and no good would have come of drawing out the humanitarian-mission-gone-wrong.

Define good - as in, Libya folds their WMD program... No further mass casualty attacks in the US... Voting in FOUR former totalitarian/monarchy based Islamic states (Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine).

I suggest you read up on the history of Iraq. The British tried the exact same thing in the 20's and failed because the Iraqi's didn't want the British meddling with their affairs. Same will happen to us. Voting means nothing. The Vietnamese voted in the Vietnam War, wow, we accomplished a lot then didn't we? Libya… you believe Libya will have nothing more to do with Al-Qaeda? Do they still have Qadhafi? I forget. If they do… I wouldn't trust them… Afghanistan… read the Afghan news. Taliban resurgency, afghanistani troops slain, officials kidnapped. Yes, all is going well.

Not to mention… where's Osama, the mastermind of 9/11? Bush found it prudent to forget him and move on.

Hmm. Not seeing those results so far as BAD... opposite of GOOD...

I don't view the results as "good", but you forgot the key word in my sentence: will

<continue discussion>

 

[Aimee30]

Hmm, what about those protestors that came home from being in the war? They don't think the country's headed in the right direction and neither do I. Is it right to send skilled workers to homeless shelters in my part of the country because of the economy? No. Should we let innocent people die because we don't negotiate with terrorists? No. Should we blow up people instead of taking care of the needy? No.
What about all those Iraqi kids who picked up some of the weapons used in the war and were either killed or maimed because they thought it was toy? The abused Iraqis in the one prison? The bulk of civilians that were sent to hosptals because of the war? All this war does is stir up trouble. It needs to end. They got Saddam--why isn't it over?
We are headed backwards and not forwards. Love is supposed to conquer all. The only way to judge that we civilized is how we treat our fellow man. If we treat them with disrepect because of their social status or amount of income we are not moving forward. If we ignore them they won't go away. I believe love is the way.