Software

Ask something
Discussion Locked

oppose the war, support the troops .. dichotomy ?

0 helpful
135 replies

by gate keeper

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

I had a discussion with a co-worker .. and we were talking about Afghanistan/Iraq wars. He opposes the wars on moral grounds and believes they are illegal but he tells me he still supports the troops.

I have come across this sentiment so many times over the last few years, and personally it does not make sense to me.

lets take Iraq as an example. I oppose the war on moral grounds .. and I believe it is illegal and has cost roughly 1,000,000 Iraqi deaths and 4000 American deaths as of this post.

so logically my opposition would extend to the troops, and the administration that contributed to that death toll. I add the troops because I believe " I was ordered to kill" is no justification, if you believe the command is unlawful .. but if you believe you are doing the right thing .. then you have taken a stance and being killed or injured does not absolve you of 'what I believe is an illegal/immoral act' that you were party to.

If you support the war then I understand your support of the troops, but if you are opposed to the war, do you support the troops and why ?, and how do you reconcile the two.

lets avoid turning this discussion into a anti/pro war, liberal vs conservative.

EDITED for sloppy spelling

135 replies

by jessie

That at least in the USA, most of the soldiers joined up, not because they believed in the cause, but because they wanted money for college... and then they get thrown in a place where people are shooting at them... so they shoot back.

I think above all, the people of the US remember the VietNam war and how horribly the returning soldiers were treated and we want to avoid such a thing at all costs, so yes, we oppose the war in Iraq and support the troops who are mostly just kids from poorer families who want to better themselves and have a chance to go to college without drowning themselves in student loans.

by gate keeper

how far up the chain of command does your empathy go ? ... I realize this is an emotional subject for many people especially those who have served or have family and loved ones serving.

You are opposed to the war, yet you rationalize that "they were just trying to better themselves" I have two questions:
1- In your opinion do the ends(collage) justify the means (the high death toll) ?

2- There must be someone in your mind that is at fault how high up the chain of command does your support end ?

the generals ?, the congress ?, the president ?

who gets your support and who doesn't ? .. is there a ratio of blame or does it all fall squarely on the shoulders of one individual.

to rephrase my original question .. how do you oppose the act and not the actor[s] ?

by the scummy one

for a War, it really isnt that high, not like Vietnam or anything.
That said, I opposed going to war in Iraq without proof in the first place, and thought that Syria was a better target if we had to 'move on'. However, I would have been fine staying in Afghanistan until it was stable.

With that said, I do not blame the soldiers, for whatever reason that they are put in harms way. I blame those that put them in harms way. There is absolutely NO justifiable reason to blame those in the fight, when they are/were placed across the globe, many of whom wish not to be there.

This is how I oppose the act, but not the actors!

by tig2

Our troops are volunteers for whatever reason. I'll extend
that to the generals who, face it, had to join the service of
their own free will. When they joined, they pledged to
follow all legal orders.

The Congress? They spent a ton of money to be elected.
The President? He did the same.

In my point of view, they asked for the ability to make the
tough decisions and direct the actions of those troops. It
was their responsibility. We the people should be holding
them accountable.

If an individual opposes war on moral ground, they are
considered conscientious objectors and are not
considered fit for service.

There is a price tag for living in a free country. That price
tag is paid by every man and woman in a uniform. Service
to country is an obligation, even a moral obligation. There
are some like myself who were considered not capable of
military service. But the obligation stands and I do
whatever I can to support the military. I do that because I
want to continue to have the right to live in a free country.

by maxwell edison

Although it's often repeated, I doubt very much that most soldiers join for college money - some percentage, perhaps (a small percentage), but not the majority.

This image that the typical soldier is a 19 year old plucked off the street and thrown onto the battlefield may have been accurate in the late 60s and early 70s, but not today. And even then, there was always another side of the story. Describe the average Vietnam POW, for example, and you?ll have a late 20s, early 30s (or even older) officer with a college degree.

From what I can determine, the average age of a soldier killed in:

WWII - 26
Vietnam - 19
Iraq/Afghanistan ? 30

Moreover, most military enlistments are for either two or four years (some six), so after a 2-4 year time span, whoever?s there, either wants to be there or knows he/she has a good chance to be.

Edit: The military today is more specialized, they're more professional, and they're better paid. In my day, a G.I. was paid peanuts. Those days are over. Today, a G.I. with a few promotions and years under his/her belt, is earning 30k plus the prospects of life-long retirement benefits. An enlisted person with 20+ years might earn 50k. And officer might be pushing 100k. (With 50-75 percent of that as retirement for the rest of their lives ? after they retire at the ripe old age of 40-50.)

by delbertpgh

Most of them look at soldiering as a not-bad career choice, given that they've got a lot of other choices that pay poorly and will bore the life and joy out of you. If you've grown up in a small town, you know what a lousy set of choices there can be. You graduate from high school standing in your grave, and spend the next 60 years watching it slowly fill up. At least that's how I felt about it.

A lot of soldiers think that driving tanks and shooting guns is a cool thing to do for a living. Others are attracted by command and responsibility. There's plenty of mystique for the different gradations of imaginative boy and tough manly guy. Military life exercises a pull on all the spectrum of masculine identity.

Everybody in the service feels pleasure in a sort of comradeship you don't experience in many other avenues of life. It's also a highly planned environment; you know who you are and what you're doing and what your plans are. And, it's got great benefits. It's a socialist worker's dream state, where everything more or less functions right, and the soldiers are the happy workers. Those guys are taken care of emotionally, developmentally, and psychologically, and get every amusement you can think of to keep them from getting bored. Your Uncle Sam cares about you.

I'm sure some join up because four years in the service will get you some college dough, but those same guys probably felt it was an interesting alternative to the four years they would otherwise live, and that the work was honorable. I can't believe in somebody being scared and disgusted for years just so he could raise some college cash. Coerced service is gone with the draft.

by santeewelding

I am far more interested in the genesis of your question.

You specify wars. And you cast them as illegal and immoral. May I conclude that you do in contradistinction to wars legal and moral? That is, the "just" war? Or, war, period?

by gate keeper

I do not believe all wars are illegal and immoral, the legality part was in loose reference to international law, and the immorality part was in reference to the now the misleading of the people and lies which served as the pretext for the war to begin with i.e WMDs

I realize many people do not agree with me about this war, but theirs is a position that I can understand, even though I strongly disagree.

the ones that continue to baffle me are the ones opposing it but still support the troops.

by deepsand

That's not quite the way it works; under the UCMJ one is required to execute a direct order unless one [b]knows[/b] it to be unlawful, in which case one has an obligation to refuse.

See http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/militarylaw1/a/obeyingorders.htm

by gate keeper

do they not bear full responsibility for their actions then ? if they acted despite their conscience... to me that invalidates the whole 'they didn't have a choice' argument.

by deepsand

See https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=279409&messageID=2645492

by tony hopkinson

In order to get a bloke to charge into the face of the enemy with the likelihood of death or extreme injury, the morality you are talking about must be stripped away. Introduce it and every order must be questioned, then you lose people and fail.

You can't have a debate in the middle of a military action on whether orders should be carried out. Note I am not talking bayoneting babies here, that's self defeating.

A good soldier is amoral, as a society it's we who took that away to make them effective, so it's we who have to provide their 'conscience'.

As much as I despise some of the decisions my government made, they made them. I'd like soldiers deciding who to kill even less, General isn't an elected position, well OK it shouldn't be. :(

So yes I can feel responsible for the troops, I voted for the twat who sent them to war.

by charliespencer

First, I endorse the military actions in Afghanistan but oppose the invasion of Iraq. I regard the first a legitimate response to a terrorist threat, the second as a sideshow distraction from the real danger.

"I believe 'I was ordered to kill' is no justification, if you believe the command is unlawful..."

In this case, the command was not unlawful. The military does not set policy, it is a tool used to carry out policy. While I disagree completely with the decision, the Bush administration was on firm legal grounds as specified in U.N. resolutions. Service members volunteered to sacrifice certain civil liberties in order to serve as those policy tools. They have no say in how they are deployed, but since this isn't an illegal action I expect they will continue the tradition of serving to the best of their abilities.

I haven't meant anyone yet opposed to the war who didn't "support the troops, of course". I always ask people what they mean by 'supporting the troops' and how they demonstrate it. If all it means is they aren't going to toss eggs at returning troops or call them 'baby killer' a la the Vietnam era, or contributing to the profit margins of magnetic yellow ribbon manufacturers, I don't regard them as 'supporting' anything.

by charliespencer

Callous as it may sound, the casualty rates aren't anywhere near Korean or Vietnamese levels, much less WWII or the Civil War. Part of that is because of the improvements in post-injury medical care, part due to improvements in offensive and defensive war fighting technologies.

by charliespencer

Each already made the voluntary decision to serve their country. Given the actions of the past several years, and the strong possibility of deployment, each should have reconciled with their conscience before signing the papers.

I'd rather serve with people who made that decision voluntarily than with those chosen randomly and enlisted against their will.

by gate keeper

"Each already made the voluntary decision to serve their country. Given the actions of the past several years, and the strong possibility of deployment, each should have reconciled with their conscience before signing the papers."

by deepsand

The true issue at hand is one of "lawful" vs "unlawful" orders, which continues to be ignored.

To repeat, see https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=279409&messageID=2645492

by ontheropes

I don't even like it when I'm being aggressive, as sometimes happens.

I also don't get how someone can't quite grasp the simple idea of supporting the troops. They're just following orders. It's a job, a damn dirty job, and I can support them because they're human beings and although we are one of my least favorite species I still don't like to see lives ended needlessly. Who does? You'd have to be some kind of a monster to think that maiming and killing is great sport.

Saying you don't get it, playing dumb for the sake of having a discussion, seems a little ridiculous to me.

by jamesrl

My father in law, as a young Lt. was sent off to a war he didn't believe in. He went anyway, because he signed up to obey any lawful order, and have his men carry it out. If he had objected and been cashiered, some other slob would be handling his men, and perhaps without as much care and consideration as he had.

The troops know when they sign up they dont have a vote on whether to go to war or fight, they do as they are told.

People want to make things black and white, separate people into two camps, us and them. Its not always that simple.

James

by road-dog

that you don't support the troops who hold pro-war views or that you don't support their position?

That's a big distinction...

by delbertpgh

"Do you support the troops?" "Do you oppose the exploitation of children for pornography?" "Do you believe somebody bleeding to death should be admitted to a hospital and immediately treated?" "Are you opposed to puppies having nails driven through their brown eyes?"

How can you answer "no" to any of these? Are they actually real questions? They are not; they are designed to make you stop thinking about something else.

In the case of supporting troops, what the hell does your love of soldiers have to do with national issues? "Support troops" is supposed to mean "support the war," except framed in such a way that you're embarassed to say you're opposed.

If anyone really supported the troops, like we were a nation of soldiers' mommies, we'd never send them to battle. We'd be cautious to avoid any fighting situation, because supporting the troops comes first. That obviously does not explain why we have a military. We have soldiers so we can defend ourselves against militarized enemies, and so we can force other countries to do things our way, as determined by our politicians.

Soldiers' lives are the coin we spend to get what we want in service of our national interest. If we want to support our soldiers, we should above all be careful when initiating enterprises where they might die, fulfilling these requirements:
1) the goals of the enterprise be in the national interest;
2) the enterprise should have a good chance of success;
3) there not be a practical non-military alternative, as military action is fraught with unforeseen complications; and
4) the military action be well thought-out and executed, upholding military principles: economy of force, clear objectives, decisive action, etc.

I figure that America's Iraq adventure didn't satisfy a single one of these criteria, and that's why I oppose the war. I think we have too much at stake to leave in a haphazard fashion and we'll have to fight our way out over a period of years, which is why I oppose the run-for-the-hills philosophy of retreat. My faith in the Iraqi civilian politicians to ever grow up and be real statesmen is so de minimus that I don't consider staying indefinitely a realistic option, fighting until they achieve a modern and secure state. Those sand rats will take any achievement secured by the sacrifice of soldiers and throw it away in the blink of an eye.

If you want to support troops, you do so by using them well and cautiously; by not having a tin-helmet Prussian imperial approach to foreign policy; and by giving good care to the injured for the rest of their lives.

by gate keeper

of the stance one can take:

"Major General John Batiste was offered a promotion to become a three-star general, the second-highest-ranking military officer in Iraq. Instead, he quit over the war"

maybe not applicable to lower ranking officers .. but nobody is a helpless bystander

by tig2

Is "offered". General Batiste was not being ordered to Iraq.
He was offered an opportunity.

General Schwartzkopf was not "offered" the opportunity to
go to the Gulf. He was ordered there. He agreed that he
was the right person for the job given his background.

There's the difference. My ex-husband was never offered
the opportunity to spend most of a year in the Gulf or Mediterranean. He was obliged to go because that was
where the ship was going.

Once you have obligated yourself to serve, you are not at
leisure to pick and choose your assignments. You can go
and refuse to fight. But no one will back you in that
choice and God help you if you find yourself in a situation
where the actions of another are required to save your
life.

by oz_media

I can see where you are going with that but I also feel its not so simple.

Its not a matter of being innocent but a matter of trust and information.

If millions of Americans were lead to believe that Saddam and WMD were a threat, it is not hard to see that a soldier, feeling he is privvy to qualified information, would get the same picture.
Therefore no matter what the people at home see on TV or read in the newspapers, soldiers will always feel they have the real story.

When in war, adrenaline, training and peer pressure often take over for rational/independant thought.
TRUST is a huge factor in war, you trust your brothers, you trust your commanders, you trust THEIR commanders too.

Face it: There are millions of people who believe a single God created all we see and know today. That HE is responsioble for all of the outcomes of our actions, our personalities and being. That HE will judge us when we die, so as to grant or deny us passage to heaven and enternal peace. Yet there is no factual evidence supporting it, simply a handful of circumstantial evidence that people existed during that time.

Is it really THAT hard to accept that soldiers legitimately BELIEVE in their leaders, so much so that they will follow and fight without question and deny any information to the contrary?

In fact, I think it is a trust in one another even more than their leaders, they are trained not to question their commanders but to simply follow their instructions. (That's the free/democratic part of war I suppose).

by maxwell edison

.....that he does not support the troops - period. (Unless the troop in question does not support the war, in which case, he/she would probably not be in the military in the first place.)

by maxwell edison

Please support that assertion.

Besides, any officer above the rank of Colonel is just as much a political person as a military one.

by road-dog

I'm more than willing to ask for and wait for clarification, because I would totally disrespect a person who held that view.

To "support" only troops who are anti-war isn't support for the troops, it's support for an anti-war position only. To feign support for troops whilst holding that position is weapons-grade weaselry.

by maxwell edison

....at least he admits he doesn't support the troops.

For those who say they support the troops but not the war, I'd like to listen to a one-on-one conversation between him/her and a soldier who believes passionately in what we're doing in Iraq (which is the vast majority of them, by the way.)

by gate keeper

my position is very clear in my original post. I oppose anyone.... troops or not .. who are pro-war .. especially those who have are actively involved in it i.e troops/administration.

------------------------------------------------------
"To feign support for troops whilst holding that [b]position[/b] is weapons-grade weaselry."
---------------------------------------------------------

to borrow a sentence from you ...but in this case the [b]position[/b] being one of anti-war.

that is the view that I hold .. so disrespect away !

by jdclyde

What makes Afghanistan a "good war"?

You will recall, Afghanistan never attacked us, right? Their "crime" was to refuse to hand BeenyLoddens head over on a platter to us.

I am sure some question if we should have attacked a nation over the refusal to hand over a single person, or how "legal" it is.

There are also many that look at the 911 attack as a criminal matter, not a military matter. Should it be the CIA looking to arrest, or the Military looking to kill?

by road-dog

I believe that once a decision is made to go to war, we all assume responsibility. We don't have the defense of "well, I voted for the other guy, he's not MY President".

If one wishes to enjoy the greatness of this nation and the freedoms it embodies, then one must accept the decisions of the duly elected leaders.

For instance, If Barack Obama has legislative support for sending troops into Darfur, then I will support him and the troops. At that point, Obama IS one of the troops. Commander in Chief is part of the structure even if he's not wearing camouflage.

by road-dog

Politics ends at the water's edge. I support the leader because we elect him. I also expect support for the leader I like when he gets elected, but unfortunately that isn't the case here with US liberals.

I believe that if our troops are sent into harm's way, the mission must be supported because victory must be achieved or their sacrifice is wasted.

by jdclyde

other than political talk, was there really anyone in congress that voted to deny funding for a war they pretend to oppose?

by maxwell edison

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has.... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that.... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted "Swimmer" Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein
because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years.... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep.
- Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary "Hypocrite" Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime.... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation.... And now he is is calculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real...."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Not to mention:

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm

by charliespencer

I notice you only quoted Democrats, although Jessie used the phrase 'the people who lied', not 'these people' as you misquoted in your post title. Jessie's statement could be interpreted as covering all parties and recent administrations. Why cite only Dems?

by maxwell edison

Because people seem to forget the others who were saying the same thing, and the stage that had already been set by the time President Bush took office.

by maxwell edison

Do you imagine that the outgoing Clinton Administration briefed the incoming Bush Administration, and that their transition teams coordinated policy and intelligence information? Of course they did. President Clinton, Secretary of State Albright, and any number of other administration officials passed on the intelligence as they believed it to be (or knew it to be?) as suggested in those quotes.

What about the Senate intelligence committees? What about the CIA? What about various European and middle-east intelligence agencies? What about military intelligence?

Were the all lying? Of course not. Were they all mistaken? Possible, but color me skeptical.

No one lied to the American people.

[i]LIE[/i] is a strong word. It means intentionally and maliciously misleading someone. No one did that ? not the Democrats, not the Republicans, not the people in the Clinton Administration, and not the people in the Bush Administration.

Like I asked, were they all mistaken? It?s certainly possible, but I strongly doubt it. Personally, I believe Lt. General Michael DeLong?s account, and that is this: they DID exist, but in the 12+ month run up ? a very public run up ? to the Iraq invasion, they were taken out of the country.

Bottom line ? no one lied to anyone else. The biggest lie is the one about [i]the lie.[/i]

by gate keeper

that is why I edited it. apparently his opposition was the strategy and how it was being carried out .. not the war itself

by gate keeper

"you are right
that is why I edited it. apparently his opposition was the strategy and how it was being carried out .. not the war itself "

by road-dog

I conclude that you are at least morally consistent. I couldn't disagree more but I'll grant you that.

I withdraw my disrespect.... and substitute perplexity.

OK is there a war in history that you deem was moral and legal? Or do you feel that war is never justified or perhaps only defensive ones? Do you preclude preemption?

Could you get behind a war that was to protect one's way of life or individual liberties?

by gate keeper

I am not American, so I am looking at this issue from the outside, I like to think if I were, I would still hold the same position because it is the one that makes the most sense to me .... having someone you know or loved ones serve .. does tend to color you judgment.

by gate keeper

No, I am not opposed to all wars ... I believe some are just and necessary.

Afghanistan/WWII I can agree with and support

Vietnam/Iraq I am opposed to.

"Could you get behind a war that was to protect one's way of life or individual liberties? "

Absolutely

by jdclyde

It is just lucky for our soldiers that there is nothing illegal about Iraq.

We STILL have Nazi war trials after all this time. Often of guard that would have been killed themselves if they had not obeyed orders.

Then again, there is a difference between disagreeing with going to war, and the war being "illegal".

by the scummy one

are for those that exceeded their limits/power. Not all soldiers have been rounded up/convicted. Just beig a soldier and ordered to fight, or return fire does not make one a criminal. Those that do go above and beyond are the targets of these trials.

by maxwell edison

It used to, but not any more.

That's the one thing that's made me lose all respect for today's Democratic Party. I might suggest treason, but that would make me sound like an extremist and a partisan, instead of the other way around.

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=279409&messageID=2645621

I freely admit, I just don't get it.

by jdclyde

because they FEEL that they are right, they are willing to say or do anything, because the ends justify their means.

This includes intentionally undermining our country to the rest of the world.

Can they fix the damage THEY have done?

by charliespencer

"I support the leader because we elect him. I also expect support for the leader I like when he gets elected, but unfortunately that isn't the case here with US liberals."

Yeah, the conservatives are sure in a hurry to line up behind Obama. Conservatives would never fail to support an elected leader just because he's of a different political wing.

"Kettle, this is Pot, over."
"This is Kettle, go ahead Pot, over."

by road-dog

But those who are intellectually honest will admit that some Republicans probably will. The GOP is certainly not without politicians masquerading as statesmen.

I project that there will not be an endless stream of Repubs running away from their votes or claiming they were lied to after seeing the same intel briefings as their peers.

As clarification, I do not define support as withholding dissent. Proposed left leaning policies should be fought hard all the way...

by jdclyde

Of pretending to support the soldiers while not supporting the war.

You do neither.

by charliespencer

I use 2003 because I assume you mean originally voted, not how their votes have changed over the last five years.

Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Edwards (D-NC)
Graham (D-FL)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Sarbanes (D-MD)

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00400

Someone more skilled in searching government sites could probably find the House numbers.

by fregeus

I am not an American, but if I was, I would not support the war but I would support the troops. The war is wrong (the Iraq one); there is no question about that. But the troops did not decide to go there, the commander in chief did. He is the one that needs to bear the responsibility for the casualties and civilian death, not the troops.

Now if a soldier come into a situation where he and his comrades are not threaten, yet he is ordered to kill someone, then I would not support his claim that he "was ordered to do so". But you cannot hold the entire army responsible for being ordered to go to a front.

TCB

by jamesrl

As someone who supported the invasion of Afghanistan but not Iraq, I can take a shot.

The Taliban's involvement with Al Qaeda is a lot deeper than just hiding Bin Laden.

The Taliban government came to power with the help of Bin Laden. Bin Laden had fought the Soviets in Afghanistan, and when the Soviets left, and the civil strife began, Bin Laden was there supporting his Taliban friends.

When they won out eventually, Bin Laden made his home in Afghanistan, and the Taliban provided him with places to run training camps. Those same training camps were the places where the 9/11 plot was hatched.

Al Qaeda and the Taliban are really different sides of the same coin. They were more than just two organizations in the same country, they were in many ways brothers in arms.

So I supported then and now the war in Afghanistan.

James

by jdclyde

Is running a free haven for terrorist camps a reason to take out a sitting government?

Wouldn't Syria be on that chopping block?

And my original question was for the OP, to clarify how HE sees a difference other than if it was Bush that ran the war or not.

by forum surfer

I feel it is disrespectful to not support our troops. They put their life on the line for us. Blame the administration if you will, not the fighting men and women. I disagreed with vietnam also, but you won't catch me slapping a veteran and calling him a baby killer. They deserve our love and respect. I feel no need to explain why I feel that way. I've had family members serve and I was brought up in a household where honor and respect were more more important than empty words or money. You can justify not supporting the troops all you want, that's your choice. But those people fighting and dying beleive they are fighting for your right to have that choice. At least respect and support them on those grounds. They are taking action, whereas we are merely discussing it.

by maxwell edison

Iraq didn't attack us. Afghanistan did not attack us. The terrorists who did transcended national borders. We're not at war with a nation; we're at war with a militant faction. They sought safe-haven in Afghanistan, we went in to get them. Some of them fled to Pakistan, some to Iran, some to Iraq. Add the other Iraq issues into the equation, and it's easy to see that it's simply a second front in the same war.

by jamesrl

In Afghanistan under the Taliban, Al Qaeda was totally and fully supported by the Taliban government. The assumption, given the close ties, was that the Taliban would have at least known that Al Qaeda was planning a major operation against the US, if they didn't know exactlly what was planned. And most importantly, after the attack, the Taliban fiercely supported their friends and that could have lead to more attacks from Al Qaeda planned and trained for in Afghanistan.

As to Syria, my understanding is that the terrorist groups are rather more loosely connected to the government. Syria by the way is where the US sent Mahar Arar, a Canadian suspected of being Al Qaeda (later proven totally innocent) knowing that Syria would torture anyone suspected of being Al Qaeda.

Syria mainly supports Hezbollah and Hamas, which make mischief in Lebanon and Isreal.

James

by forum surfer

You can turn that one around also. Not knowing anyone or having family members in the military leaves you isolated from the human equation involved in supporting troops vs not supporting them.

Many of my friends in armed services are against the war, but it's their job and they do it. Truth be told I respect them more for their ability to put all that aside and stand beside their brothers and sisters in battle.

You're Canadian, do you not support the Caadian troops either? I'm American and I've met a few of Canada's finest that deployed with some special forces friends. I have great respect for them as well.

by oz_media

I oppose the war in Iraq (not Afghanistan) but I "support" the troops.

By support I do not mean I stand by what they are doing, I don't condone their fight and I don't think they should be there to begin with. When a soldier decides to fight fo rhis country, he decides to do that whether he/she personally feels it is right or wrong.
The public and soldiers rarely know exactly what is going on, a soldier places his trust in his government to make those decisions for him. We place our trust in the media to portray events accurately.

You an I both know very well that our media shows us what they want us to see in order to gain support, what we don't see are the sides of war that would make us doubt our position and need for duty.

For a soldier he is told mission by mission what he is to know and that's about it. They have internet access but to think they's do very much critical examination would be naiive. their job and duty to the country is simply to assume they are doing the right thing for the right purposes.

soldiers are stripped down as men and built up as soldiers, they are machines that fulfill someone elses bidding.

So in that sense, I can strictly oppose the war in Iraq, Afghan is different for me, they (The Taliban and AlQaeda) DID attack my ally, they DID plot to kill and not only had the means but also executed their plan and killed many innocent citizens. I support the coalition effort there, but not Iraq.

If we are to go and invade every country where AlQaeda plots to destroy America, when do we invade the USA? There are KNOWN AlQaeda sects operating right in your own country, but that's irrelevant when Bush had teh intent on invading Iraq long before he ever made such an order.

But the soldiers, whether fighting Nazi'z in WWII (where many Americans actually went to their homeland of Germany and wound up fighting AGAINST their American brothers)or Vietnam, tha Flaklands, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq or wherever, are simply trained to rely on the information they are provided as being correct and that they are fighting for worthy reasons, they have agreed to offer such trust to those who send them to war.

Whether they fight for what I believe in or not, I understand WHY they are doing what they do, perhaps 'support' is a strong word, because I don't really support their being there, but my heart and safe wishes go out to them as they are sent to these places to conduct war; I think that is often classified as support as it is not opposition or comtempt toward the soldiers.

by forum surfer

No one has pointed out what "support" encompasses util now. My heart goes out to the men and women fighting (ALL allied soldiers), they have my respect and prayers even though I don't want them in Iraq. Afghanistan is a different story. I feel we need a greater focus and troop concentration in that area.

by jdclyde

What exactly is our stake in Afghanistan now, and what is the military objective you see us having?

What is the clear goal that equals "victory"?

what is the exit strategy?

by gate keeper

This is exactly what I had in mind by not supporting them.

--------------------------------------
By support I do not mean I stand by what they are doing, I don't condone their fight and I don't think they should be there to begin with. When a soldier decides to fight fo rhis country, he decides to do that whether he/she personally feels it is right or wrong.
The public and soldiers rarely know exactly what is going on, a soldier places his trust in his government to make those decisions for him. We place our trust in the media to portray events accurately.
----------------------------

My not supporting them does not mean throwing eggs at them or showing up at their funerals to disrespect their families.

perhaps I should have clarified what support/not support entails in my opinion.

by jdclyde

the more you are forced to think about what you thought, the more you learn about yourself?

It is harder to make knee-jerk statements when you have opened yourself up to justify those same statements, making you look a little closer and a little deeper.

by oz_media

Supporting, to me, is something that does not require belief or faith, it just requires heart.

A mother may support her kids want to play baseball, even if he can't catch, throw or bat very well, a mother will always stand behind her child's decision to try and do something he wants in life. That is all mother needs in order to believe.

A soldier needs that same support, no I am not going ot go and pick him up when he falls, I may not believe in what he is doing but I still support his choice to do what his country asks him to do, as an unquestioned faith in his country.

Any man or woman who is so dedicated to their country as to go to war for it, and withotu question, is someone I support, mentally. I stand beside any person who is so valiant as to fight for what he/she believes. I stand beside our brave soldiers, whether they are there for a welfare check, a college education or to fight for freedom, they all give up a great deal and make those sacrifices [b]for ME.[/b]

Anyone who sticks up for me, has my support any day.

by keighlar

Thunderous applause for maxwell edison. I wish more of this rationality based upon facts were voiced instead of the biased media spin used to rile people up to a non-existent cause.

by the scummy one

1. Our Stake -- to continue to beat down the terrorist activities in the region, not let them build up much more hindering operations.

2. The clear goal will be when the Afghanistan Government is able to control its borders, and continue to fight off terrorist activities.

3. An exit strategy will be much easier when/if the Government becomes stable and self supportive.

by oz_media

As I saw recently, there ARE no borders to control. What we deem Afghans and Taliban as being two differrent things, one a peaceful ally, the other a terrorist are catually one and the same.

Taliban and the Afghans living in the mountainous regions leading into Kandahar are not two different entities, the taliban see Afghans as Taliban, Afghans see Taliban as Afghans. They are one and the same.

the key issue for them is a government that had allowed western CULTURE (not religion) into Islam, they oppose rock music, capitalism, 'loose women', tight jeans and short skirts etc.; everything that we puke into our own culture.

They toppled teh Afghan government for that reason alone and to regain their natural culture.

Taliban is not a group of terrorists, they fight against wesern culture that see see as an enemy to their own culture.

Taliba means STUDENT, and these STUDENTS are often children just like ours, who listen to American heavy metal (very popular in teh middle east) and wear our clothing while adopting our cultural customs. They oppose the iPods and Macs that we have brought to their culture, fearing they will lose that culture and thus be forced into adopting western culture.

SO lets not be agressive towards the STUDENTS and simply allow them to reesatblish their culture while retaining a democratic government/republic.

Once we can let them lead themselves, and our troops too, they will not be as threatening to the Taliban, the STUDENTS will be hardedr to find as people simply accept and learn to live with and see benefits in their combined culture.

Fewer people will feel invaded, there will nto be a feeling of control by occupation etc. They will be supported and it will be known that our troops are readily backed as needed and wll in turn back their own, however THEY will retain control.

This is all VERy different that forcing them to establish a government training troops to do it our way and watching over them as they try to get up to par. The whole idea of RIDDING them of terrorists of STUDENTS (Taliban) is insane and simply impossible, we need to let them establish their own nation, retain cultures etc. and simply BE there in a number that shows that we are always at their side and will call in additional forces as needed.

As most police officers will tell you, presence is more valuable than arms.

I have seen 20 unarmed people keep 10,000 at bay, merely due to presence and teh lknowledge that those 20 people are backed by others, who are in turn backed by others.

Presence and theknowledge tha the rpesence is meresly eyes and ears for a much mroe powerful force is all that it takes most of teh time. Showing extreme force and might works against you more often that for you.

by oz_media

I am split on this one recently. After watching 'Talibam II, the Revival' a documentary by AlJazeera News describing;
"How the Taliban are born, trained and recruited. What type of person becomes a ?Taliban?, and why. In Pakistan, ?Taliban? means ?student?. Like students anywhere else in the world, there are many? and they are ready to be taught a way of life until death."

It seems we are taught absolutely NOTHING about these terrorists and the futility of fighting them.

Afghanistan was a somewhat peaceful republic, has been back and forth since day one, before the Taliban took over Kabul and Aghanistan's government to rename it the [b]Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan[/b].

At that time force was needed to remove teh Taliban from their stronghold and to liberate and create a new government, as were the wishes of the people.

The Taliban though occupoy a slice of land that runs through thre emoutainous regions into Kanadahar, those regions are home to both the Taliban and other Afghans. THis makes it very hard to determine who is who, and as soon as one Taliban is killed, and Afghan of that area picks up arms to fight against America (though he's not technically Taliban, they live side by side and see each other as brothers of the region).

At this point, religion has nothign to do with it anymore, they are simply opposing allid occupation.

Of course, once that occupation ceases, they will once again try and overthrow Afghanistants newly rebuilt government.

So what we need to do, from one perspective anyway, is to build a new military and support a new government, essentially allowing it to operate itself, and as they have requested, have jurisdiction over coalition troops also.

If THEY can call teh shots and still keep the Taliban at bay, with minimal troop support from Allied troops, then they are on the road to recovering and growing as a nation.

When we pulled the bulk of troops out of Afghanistan, we left those who we were protecting citizens from, as the protectors. In essence, willingly turned it over to the same 'gangs' we were there to stop in teh first place.

We need to take control and regain the upper hand again, which is on thin ice now, we need to work with them to resetablish a government and operational military. We need to support that military and allow it to regain credibility of the people and the Taliban in that it is a force to be reckoned with, one that is suported and is backed in a heartbeat by Allied forces.

The Taliban will always exist, the Taliban will always plot against Western Democracy, we cannot remove that threatm, however we can keep it close and understand it, while being better prepared for what is to come, and with out ALIES in Afghanistan so closely tied and reliant on us, we will always have the inteligence we need to do so effectively.

Phew, sorry for the long winded reply.

by jdclyde

what is the difference between that and Iraq?

Are we not trying to do the same thing in Iraq right now?

Was that not the same thing the citizens of Iraq wanted (other than the people that were in Saddam's payoff list?)

Will there be any credibility to a push in Afghanistan if we allow Iraq to fall to the foreign invaders? What Afgan citizen will stand up if he/she suspects the support will not be there, as has been voiced in Iraq?

by oz_media

Afghanistan and Iraq are two VERY VERY different situations indeed.

Taliban are locals, as are the others that share the area with them however as Afghans and not Taliban. The Taliban are just a group of those citizens who are "students" (aka Taliban) of Islam.

They are opposed to having western culture 'invade their' lands. When they saw the former Afghani government starting to cow tow to the US and people in Afghanistan starting to adopt American (Western) culture, they want in and toppled the Afghan government, placing Afghanistan under Islamic culture and rule.

In Iraq, COMPLETELY different situation. MOST of the original forces that we were there to remove are now gone, have moved to redevelop in other nations, such as America and the many other places they hide around the world.

The forces fighting against Americans in Iraq NOW are mostly just insurgents from anywhere and everywhere, Syria, Turkey, Istanbul etc. They flock there in droves just for a chance to fight against the US occupation and everything the US stands for, almost like some form of pilgrimage.

They are not locals, they are not a group of radical yet dedicated citizens, they are foreigners from all over the world who go there just to fight Americans, end of story.

There's no ground to be gained, there's no victory to be won, besides the death of more Americans, the neighbouring countries don't even give a rats themselves, half of them harbour these 'gangs' and help transport them to Iraq, then take them back in when they are injured. The ordinary citizens of Baghdad, which have now fled to claim refugee status elsewhere are living with these same people who go Baghdad and blow up homes, then return to places like Syria to recoup, have a nice warm meal and laugh about killing Americans. They are also treated better/respected more than the Baghdad refugees.

If only more people took time to evaluate, understand and see just how senseless, never ending and full of lies this whole conflict is, people would have a different view.

Start watching, listening to and hearing about the people who live there and deal with it, as well as those who go to Iraq and fight the fight against America. You'll soon realize just HOW vastly different and unending such a war of stupidity is it is completely futile. In Afghanistan there is SOME hope of peaceful settlement if we can work with both sides and help THEM to find middle ground.

Iraq and the fight in Baghdad is an exercise in futility, unless you feel killing every middle eastern citizen (and many others too) that opposes US occupation is a practical and logical move on your behalf.

How many BILLIONS do they have? They aren't warriors of fundamentalists, these are just ordinary people from Syria, Libya, Pakistan, and everywhere else you can dream of, they travel around the world to fight in Iraq, just for the glory of killing the Americans that occupy Iraq.

Saddam was much better at keeping these people at bay than the US has done, that's why the US has lost so much support and respect of Iraqi's now too. That's also why many citizens of Baghdad will now say that they have been disappointed in America's attempt to instill freedoms and that they were better off under Saddam.

by forum surfer

And by no means am I trying to speak for oz, but I beleive that Afghanistan is a credible threat. Iraq was never a credible threat, at least not any more so than any other country in that region. We know there are groups in Afghanisistan that want to do us arm AND possess the capabilities and finances to do so.

I also agree with you. If we pull out of Iraq without finishing the job, there's no way the Afghan populace will stand up beside us. We oulled out of Afghanistan after financing them against the USSR and left their country broke and tattered. Then we pull out of Iraq with a job half finished. Why would they beleive we would go into their country with guns and money...again...and actually deliver on the promise of a stable government?

There's an old saying in south about snakes. Let the snake bite me once, shame on him. Let the snake bite me twice, shame on me. Now I support our troops and I love my country, but IF I was an Afghan and the US promised to come in, clean house and stabilize the government before they left...I'd be skeptic to say the least.

It's like that old saying in the south about snakes. If the snake bite me once, shame on the snake. If he bites me twice, shame on me.

by forum surfer

I like the children analogy. We, as good parents should always love and emotionally support our children. If they go down the wrong path do we abandon them? No, we continue to offer love, support and even guidance. I feel the same about the troops, though nowhere near as deeply of course!

Like you said, the brave men and women of the armed services beleive the huge personal sacrifices they make are for me. The least I can do is offer emotional support, regardless of political feelings.

by forum surfer

Exactly what the scummy one said!

The problem is, the exit strategy. I could see Afghanistan turning into a military and political quagmire just like Iraq. The Afghan government will never be stable on it's own. There will always be resistance within it's own borders from militant groups. But that doesn't mean we should let the Afghan problem should go unchecked.

by delbertpgh

Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda organization had training camps in Afghanistan. People entered and left the country with legitimate visas on Al Qaeda business. Although Al Qaeda is a stateless organization, in Afghanistan it had free run of the country with the government's full knowledge and cooperation. It could run administrative offices, do banking, run a staff, and do long-range planning. It had all the advantages of having a state.

International law, as I see it, says this with respect to third parties in guerilla conflicts. If your enemy conducts active operations against you, and infests a third party country, but the country treats them like a pest and actively fights them, then it is entitled to the security of its own borders and full sovereign rights, and may lawfully exclude you from its territory. If it is infested and lacks the military power to fight them, but is still politically opposed to them, then that third-party country is entitled to its sovereign dignity, but you are permitted to cross its borders and attack your enemy on its land. If the third-party country is the actively collaborating ally of your enemy, and willingly allows your enemy to use its territory as a base to strike you, then you are permitted to attack that country with the aim of controlling its policy and changing its government.

Now, I don't think we should be fighting the Taliban in Afganistan, unless the Taliban is our problem. I don't believe we should be fighting for truth and justice and a better life for Afghanis. I think there were some problem Taliban leaders, and getting rid of them and Al Qaeda were our suitable objectives. Once we were finished with our military enemies, the only reason we needed to stick around was to secure our gains. Looks like we didn't do that very well, and looks like our eyes drifted away from the ball. Like Iraq, once we can find a gang of murderers who will take ownership and keep the place quiet in our absence, we should do the smart thing and absent ourselves.

by oz_media

While I do completely agree that this intelligence was gathered over decades at least, I must contest the final 'go to war' decision by president Bush (and we all know he had been given that personal ability without the need for the senate's approval if a weapons inspection was to fail).

I feel that he DID lie, not just act of false intelligence. False intelligence, which was the straw that broke the camel's back (no pun intended), was from a KNOWN and questionable, untrusted source (an 'informant' known as Curve-ball). He was the big voice that Bush spewed his BS to the American public over THAT was his confirmation.

He assured America that he had factual knowledge of the WMD program and that it was a clandestine operation that inspectors had missed. However he did NOT have factual knowledge at all, his source was said to be questionable by intelligence services all over the world.

The UK, France, Canada, Germany, Russia et al, all asked for greater knowledge and to seek more confirmation, knowing very well that the source was not reliable, as the US had found out previously also.

However, whether it was due to the constant dismissal of arms inspectors, the constant underhanded actions and lies from Saddam or whatever, he then took this questionable information and claimed it was known FACT and that the USA had no choice but to invade the country and topple Saddam.

THAT, is misguidance with prior, conflicting knowledge; or as per your definition, a lie.

He did NOT have proof, they did NOT know for sure; they assumed, were confident they were right and were assured by a questionable source.

Did he decide to confirm that sketchy information? No. Did he abide by the wishes of other allies who were fighting at your side in Afghanistan? No, in fact he got right pi$$ed off and said they are either with us or against us, very nice indeed,

I know that you feel the administration was certain and the fact that they didn't find anything they were certain about is irrelevant, he could have easily got them out of the country. Some trucks were even seen leaving the area, as they do every day, and it was ASSUMED that they COULD be getting rid of WMD's, however that again was not known nor confirmed, just assumed possible, more unconfirmed intelligence.

Let's say I assured you that I knew something and wanted your support but you questioned my source, I then told you my source was correct, that I had facts and there was no need to question it. You believe that I would not mislead you so you go along with me.(hey, its hypothetical, okay?

Later, nothing I had said rings true.
You won't then say that I lied to you to get you to follow me?

I think not.

In fact I doubt you'd be dumb enough to fall for it to begin with, but several HUNDRED MILLION Americans did just that.

by oz_media

You mean like when the media jumped all over GWB's assurance that Saddam was stockpiling WMD's? Or was it when they jumped all over GWB's assurance that he had confirmation Saddam had sought out nuclear weapons? Only to find that he had neither gained such knowledge or had even discussed it.

In fact intelligence had just returned that same day and said they they had NO proof he had done so, his speech writer at that time, was told not to say that and just to follow along the road that it was confirmed.

So it wasn't GWB being a liar and the media gobbling it up, the media just made it all up and 'everyone' watches CNN and Fox news so they MUST be wrong of course.

But what about people from other nations, intelligence that proved otherwise and requests for confirmation which were rudely ignored?

What about the source of said information that was KNOWN to have an ulterior motive and had been caught BS'ing them before?

More media, huh?

It would have been nice if GWB had noticed these lies from the media and held a press conference setting them all straight, intoning that he needed more factual evidence, that his intelligence gatherers had said Saddam was not able to obtain or seek out nuclear arms, not had the ability or means to develop such a facility.

However it isn't GWB's job to fix media spins about him or Americas future and safety, he just let them run with it while he sent more troops to die, while leaving outlying areas of Afghanistan to once again be overrun by Taliban.

Damn media!

Dont get me wrong, I don't side with them, I know they spin and fabricate for a living, but that's not an excuse for why GWB let them spew these lies and mislead public without his at least saying it was pure BS.

by maxwell edison

.....in 2001 is a stretch.

The Taliban were (are) a Muslim fundamentalist group who fought, coerced, and bribed their way into power, and who ran roughshod over the population for four years. They were not even recognized by the United Nations as the legitimate government. At best, they were a gang of thugs who took over.

Our enemies are those Muslim fundamentalist groups who are waging war - their jihad - against the west. Our mission should be to go after them, if practical, wherever they may be, wherever they may hide, and wherever they might flee.

Many of them did indeed flee to Iraq in 2001-2002. Moreover, Saddam Hussein was paying bounty payments to the families of terrorists who killed Jews or westerners, and Iraq was listed by the State Department (in both Clinton and Bush administrations) as a nation-state sponsor of terrorism. Saddam Hussein tried to assassinate a former U.S. president (paid others to do it). The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 put regime change in motion. (Not to mention the WMD question.)

We're not waging two wars, but rather one war with several fronts.

by oz_media

now if you could just point me to WHERE I said that I may agree with you.

When you summarize and conlude with such ridiculous comments that I have neither said nor intoned its no wonder I give up on trying to debate politics with you.

Simple mind, one direction, that's you.

I made no comment at all about leaving Iraq, the best you can do there now is to either stay the course,quit bitching about Arabs and just die one by one until the fight is done many decades from now, or you can quickly turn it over to Iraqi troops again and find some other tyrant of a leader that keeps them at bay.

If the US left, the violence would drop immensely overnight, no question, they are there to fight YOU, not citizens of Baghdad. They will probably try to topple any new leader elected now too, as they failed so many times with Saddam there. Horrific or not, he kept them at bay, something you are failing miserably at.

The only problem is, if you leave now, AMERICAN soil becomes the target once again, and not just Americans being sent to Iraq as the targets.

But that's not anyone's fault but your own is it? Is there ANYONE else to blame for this horrendous mistake you have made other than yourselves and your government? ANYONE?

It sure as hell isn't Saddam, Iraqi's, Taliban, AlQaeda or anyone else, except you COULD blame it on the false intelligence that came from a "trusted" US source, but that just makes America government look stupid as usual, nope nobody to blame but you.

So stay the course for a few decades and send a few thousand more Americans to die for nothing? Or pull out and wait for the other shoe to drop?

Its not my mistake to sort out, I didn't support it to begin with. Talk to the flag waving yahoos that went in with the 'camel jockeys die' mentality only to find out they bit off more than they could chew.

You pick a fight with the bully in the school yard and then ask the other kids how to get out of it as if it is THEIR problem now?

by oz_media

Sounds kinda neat, but though it was not recognized by most other nations as a form of government, Afghans initially welcomed Taliban into Afghanistan as they got rid of the oppressive dictators that were in rule and pushed for a more traditional Islamic rule. Petoria was not a country, (see Family Guy)OzMedia is not a nation, but the Islamic Emirate if Afghanistan was welcomed by Afghans.

Initially the USA was supportive of the Taliban and they saw the Taliban as an end to the many years of rule by corrupt warlords.

When the Taliban captured Herat and expelled thousands of girls from schools, the US ignored the whole issue, it wasn't until they started to target ethnic groups, unarmed citizens and beat women that the US really wanted to do something about it.

When Albright removed support for the Taliban and Unocal pulled out on their deal for the pipeline, things got hairy for the USA.

However, with all of the pseudo-facts and news on the Taliban, I have yet to see a single confirmation that the Taliban have or do exist in or near Iraq. Not one.
There are groups within Iraq that support the Taliban and it is even shown that they pass of weapons and prisoners between them, but Baghdad has been practically leveled, entire complexes well known to only house ordinary citizens gutted, stores and businesses owned and operated by innocent citizens, right up to the day they were bombed. You are NOT fighting the Taliban in Iraq, and probably have never actually fought them in Iraq either. But any radical insurgent is quickly tagged as Taliban, Taliban is such a loose definition it applies to many people who have nothing to do with the Taliban at all.

They are Taliban in the same sense that attacking Canada is the same as attacking Americans.

Well we work together, we share trade agreements and common interests but we don't support each other all the way nor do we exist under the same laws.

Killing me is not killing an American, even if I was to go and fight off foreign invaders in your country, I am NOT American at all, I do not fight for your president or your culture, I don't fight for the same reasons you do at all, I simply fight because you were invaded by a foreign force; just as with those fighting in Iraq are not Taliban.

by maxwell edison

1. 500 tons of low-grade yellow cake uranium at the al Tuwaitha nuclear weapons development plant. Saddam had begun to enrich upwards of 2 tons of the stuff. The U.S. Energy department started to recover it in early 2004. It was shipped to Canada earlier this year.

2. Georges Sada, a high-ranking Iraqi military officer, has said the 20 tons of toxic chemicals - Iraqi nerve gas - was what was intended to be used in a thwarted terrorist attack in Jordan in 2003 - intended to kill upwards of 8,000 people.

3. [i]I do know for a fact that some of those weapons went into Syria, Lebanon and Iran. ... We also know that before then, they buried some of the weapons of mass destruction ..... Biological Weapons, you could put almost your whole program in a suitcase. You could probably put your whole chemical weapons industry inside a van.[/i] - Lt. General Michael DeLong

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/interviews/delong.html

http://www.defesanet.com.br/wars/delong/

What's more likely, suggesting that SO MANY people were wrong, or that they were right, but they (WMDs) managed to slip through our fingers? I think the latter.

Like I said, no WMDs? Color me skeptical

by oz_media

We stayed behind and took over operations with other allies in Afghanistan.

As for the UK, there is and always had been massive uprising from the people against Blair for following you to war, its not like the US where everyone was cheering it on and saying how great they were to take on the fight for freedom. Even then the only reason you went was out of fear anyway, its hardly some noble undertaking to save the world.

Brits were told they were being sent to remove Saddam, as per a request by thousands of exiled Iraqi women. The whole WMD thing was American, Brits doubted it but assured themselves it was still for the greater good, WMD or not.

Brits STILL don't think they should be there and hold Blair accountable, he's nobody's hero for helping invade Iraq, nobody wants to be there. Even the troops are begging to leave because 1) they don't like fighting near American, who they fear put them in greater danger due to inexperience and field mistakes. 2) they are.....Americans
Its kinda like you fighting beside the French (or the UK doing so for that matter).

But there is definitely no flag waving gung ho heroics seen from the UK side, they despise TB for going there to begin with, they despise the war, the despise fighting with America and they KNOW and admit it was all based lies and BS (the WMD part anyway).

They don't pretend that, even though the truth is out now, that they were right all along and they are still doing the right thing, they didn't support it from the get go. Nobody's proud to be there or have family there, they don't support and praise it at all, it was wrong and they know it and knew t from day 1. they fought for their nation even though they knew they weren't justified in doing so, but they were loyal, were trained soldiers and that is what they do, or else face court marshal.

by the scummy one

"Nobody's proud to be there or have family there, they don't support and praise it at all, it was wrong and they know it and knew t from day 1. they fought for their nation even though they knew they weren't justified in doing so, but they were loyal, were trained soldiers and that is what they do, or else face court marshal. "

My little bro was in Air Foce Intelligence at the time.
They DID NOT know it was wrong at the time. I argued wih him on several occasions and he just kept on with "You dont know what we know".
He stated several times to me that (on his base) morale was high and there was a definite NEED to take Saddam out.
So I dont think that from day 1 everyone knew it was wrong (just those with brains). When it became evident that we as a nation were misguided, it was already too late, leaving would cause more problems than staying.

by oz_media

[i]"Energy department started to recover it in early 2004"[/i]

Yeah, no WMD hidden from inspectors there, no reason for forced inspection compliance.

[i]"Georges Sada, a high-ranking Iraqi military officer, has said the 20 tons of toxic chemicals - Iraqi nerve gas - was what was intended to be used in a thwarted terrorist attack in Jordan in 2003 - intended to kill upwards of 8,000 people."[/i]

And that threat was toward America in what way?

[i]"We also know that before then, they buried some of the weapons of mass destruction ..... Biological Weapons, you could put almost your whole program in a suitcase. You could probably put your whole chemical weapons industry inside a van."[/i]

Of COURSE he had WMD, you supported the programs and helped train him in the use of such (as you did your other arch enemy the Taliban), you turned a blind eye when he used them on the Kurds (them used the mass graves they were buried in as more fodder to start the war).

But this is not a stockpile of WMD that the US was to fear. if so, why was he not inavded in teh 90's when you supplied teh means and then watched him use such weapons? Why were they not a threat when used against a common enemy?

It is NOT what was sold to America and the senate as a reason for invasion due to noncompliance with inspectors. Not even close. Of course there is some evidence of him having such programs, of COURSE you knew it, of COURSE there were mass graves, did you really expect him have individual graves for all his enemies?

Are you now burying all the Iraqi's, in individual graves, that you kill over there?

No but for someone else to do it is reason to go to war, especially when you explicitly told him not to kill any more people with those weapons, they were only for one war that was to your benefit, well two, there was Russians in Afghanistan too when you supported the Taliban.

An officer knows you do cocaine and even gives you some for ratting out a dealer. He later tells you to stop doing coke or you'll arrest him for possession, you stop buying coke, you stop taking coke and assure him you have done so, he doesn't believe you. So he asks a crackhead to keep an eye on you, if he rats you out he gets a get out of jail free pass.

The crackhead rats you out, the police storm your house and find nothing. A few weeks later they find some old coke packages in the yard, some razor blades and a few bindles in th garbage etc.

Does that mean you are proven to be a liar and that you were doing coke all along? Nope, and it doesn't in Iraq either,

by oz_media

That association is MILES from accurate.

That's like saying killing an Russian is the same as killing a Japanese man, both in Asia.

Or killing a Brit is the same as killing a German, or a Frenchman all Europeans. Get real.

On that same sense, killing a Mexican is killing an American?

Explain that one at the border, no sir I am AMERICAN, don't you see? WE all live in America!

by oz_media

You clearly stated who followed you, well there was only one other nation that lead the campaign into Iraq, Great Britian.

Your comment tried to illustrate that someone else was dumb enough to follow you, as it was intended to be a poke at me, that leaves either Canada, which didn't technically follow you, or the UK, who didn't follow you either but initially went in on individual, secret missions with green berets.

As for Brits, they contested it from the first words from Bush, when Blair jumped on the wagon, all hell broke loose, but they went and fight today anyway. There was no triumphant cheering and support for it ever. People who opposed it were agreed with, not slammed for being unpatriotic.

THAT was your weak point, that you were not alone, but you were when it came to supporting a stupid and senseless war for the reason of finding WMD.

by maxwell edison

Like I said somewhere in a previous message, you and I will never agree on very much about this. There's no point to rehash it.

However, you probably will agree with this. Either you're more right, or I'm more right; and regardless of which it is, neither one of us can possibly change the other's mind.