The war in Iraq: Vets view

[V4Vendetta]

Many and most people speaking agianst the war in Iraq have no right. Most have not ever served this country's military. So why should someone who can not serve their country, speak on behalf of those who have? Why? Because this is your right as an American citizen as protected by those who serve in your military to help keep this homeland safe. You can be anti-war or anti-military as you want, but the fact remains, they fight with their lives so you can think this way without retribution. Many say the Iraq war is a waste, but is it? Since the war began how many homeland attacks have occured? Under Clinton, many U.S. based attacks occured and Clinton did nothing. U.S.S. Cole being one that comes to mind. I was also serving with the Cole when it was attacks with its battlegroup. Nobody like war or loosing fellow Americans or friends. But, fighting is going to happen reguardless. As a Vet and fellow American, I would rather it be on foriegn fronts than homeland. We all saw how America reacted to 9/11. How would America react to a multiscale attack across the homeland uncluding residental sites? I will continue to pray this never happens as America would be in panic among citizens. This country has survived for over 200 years for a reason, it inflicts fear among those who hate it. WW1 and WW2 proved that. Don't believe me, ask a Japanese WW2 vet. I am sure that if the choice was givin to remain nutreal agian was given they would think twice. As for Iraq, we are not trying to convert them to Americans, we are trying to convert them into a country that can make decisions from the population of the people and for the people. As Americans we are mainly Christian, and I hope that as a country Iraq remains mainly Muslim. As, that is their given right to do so. We are not their to convert their religion, but to try and give their population a say as to what happens to their country. If under Saddam, you said you think their should be public elections to who runs the country, you would be shot on site. No questions asked. Now, they are beginning to have a say and have elections. We as soldiers are proving effective. Most people serving in Iraq are serving believing they are making a difference. If I were a child in a country under war and saw a young man or women sitting in front of me risking their life so that I might have the right to live without fear of death for my thoughts or beliefs, I would be grateful. This country has not made desicions for itslef since Sadaam took control. So, thinking you can convert it to a self reliant country in just a few years is rediculous. It will take time. It will take lives on both sides. But, in the end, the hopefull result is a peaceful country that its own citizens can live. That is all. I am done with my rant.

P.S. Those people of victims of the Iraq war who lost family members or friends from the war who say their son or daughter died for nothing....GO TO HELL as you discrace the integrity and honor of your own. Hope that that died in honor to protect possibly millions in the future.

 

[partier9]

Im suprised that knowbody has posted yet. Surley someone would of commented on this by now.

 

[Iriemon]

Im suprised that knowbody has posted yet. Surley someone would of commented on this by now.

One huge page sized paragraph has that effect.

 

[oldreliable67]

I was also serving with the Cole when it was attacks with its battlegroup.

First and foremost, thanks for your service to your country.

Secondly, welcome to DP! Hope you will come back and share more of your thoughts. As an old used-up 11Bravo from Vietnam (9th Inf Div, '67 - '68), I need all the help I can get dealing with some of these wackos!:lol:

 

[VTA]

One huge page sized paragraph has that effect.

:rofl

It got me too...

First and foremost, thanks for your service to your country.

Secondly, welcome to DP! Hope you will come back and share more of your thoughts....

And please hit the return key once in a while!
Just ribbing you; welcome to DP.

 

[Rightwing86]

Hey bro. Welcome to DP. I support your service to this country 100%. I believe many Americans do as well. Thank you.

 

[Dr_Patrick]

Thank you for your service. However, I think it's pretty arrogant of you to assert that one must have served in order to be able to speak out against the war. That's a pretty weak argument. That's like saying that one must have at one time been a Nazi in order to speak out against Nazism. While many who do speak out against the war don't have the first hand experience that someone who served did, they still have every right in the world to speak out against it. Thankfully we live in a country that affords people the right to speak freely.

 

[partier9]

Thank you for your service. However, I think it's pretty arrogant of you to assert that one must have served in order to be able to speak out against the war. That's a pretty weak argument. That's like saying that one must have at one time been a Nazi in order to speak out against Nazism. While many who do speak out against the war don't have the first hand experience that someone who served did, they still have every right in the world to speak out against it. Thankfully we live in a country that affords people the right to speak freely.

He said that you shouldn't, because most people who speak out against the against the war don't put thier lives at stake every day like the soldiers over there. Its should be up to the soldiers who serve in Iraq who decide what we do there not the people back home who have never been there and speak out against the war.

 

[RightinNYC]

He said that you shouldn't, because most people who speak out against the against the war don't put thier lives at stake every day like the soldiers over there. Its should be up to the soldiers who serve in Iraq who decide what we do there not the people back home who have never been there and speak out against the war.

I'm not one of the people arguing for a withdrawal, but even I can see that this is a really weak argument. Setting aside who in particular is serving, everyone is paying for it. If the military voted tomorrow to attack Belgium, should they be able to? Our military is under civilian leadership for a reason.

 

[bub]

He said that you shouldn't, because most people who speak out against the against the war don't put thier lives at stake every day like the soldiers over there. Its should be up to the soldiers who serve in Iraq who decide what we do there not the people back home who have never been there and speak out against the war.

maybe you should rather ask the Iraqis what they think about the war

 

[Donc]

Quote V4Vendetta

P.S. Those people of victims of the Iraq war who lost family members or friends from the war who say their son or daughter died for nothing....GO TO HELL as you discrace the integrity and honor of your own. Hope that that died in honor to protect possibly millions in the future.



As a proud member of the USMC, from June 1966,July 1970,(heh, heh, had to make up a little time there,) M/3/11/1st Mar., Div, and on my second tour the 2nd Battalion, Battery D /11. You can got to hell, but before you go might be a good idea as Iriemon suggested, learn to break up your post a little so you lame *** post can be read by older eyes.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Many and most people speaking agianst the war in Iraq have no right.

Nonsense. You say later in your post that soldiers die to defend the right to free expression--yet your opening sentence makes a mockery of the same idea.

Most have not ever served this country's military. So why should someone who can not serve their country, speak on behalf of those who have?

As if the onlypeople affected by the war are people in our military.

Why? Because this is your right as an American citizen as protected by those who serve in your military to help keep this homeland safe.

A service I have never, and will never, ask. Frankly, I think militaries in general, not just ours, tend to stir up a lot of trouble. I'm not sure I understand why someone thinks donning a uniform and being willing to kill others they don't know while simultaneously risking their own lives bestowed upon someone some superior view of moral and ethical issues.

In any case, as a citizen, I want our military to come home from all assignments abroad, and only ask for protection in the case of an invasion of our territory, or a clear and gross violation of humanity elsewhere. And I am willing to fight and risk death in such a case. I am not willing to fight or risk death for wars as they are normally fought.

You can be anti-war or anti-military as you want, but the fact remains, they fight with their lives so you can think this way without retribution.

....because prior to the invasions of Iraq, Afganistan, Vietnam, Grenada, Bosnia, or so on, my ability to think for myself was greatly hindered. Without the military blowing away so many people abroad, my ability to say what I think was utterly shackled.

Many say the Iraq war is a waste, but is it? Since the war began how many homeland attacks have occured?

None. Then again, it's fairly clear that there were many years before the first attack on the WTC that we didn't occupy Iraq and there weren't any attacks either. So the correlation is not very clear.

Under Clinton, many U.S. based attacks occured and Clinton did nothing. U.S.S. Cole being one that comes to mind. I was also serving with the Cole when it was attacks with its battlegroup. Nobody like war or loosing fellow Americans or friends. But, fighting is going to happen reguardless.

History certainly seems to be on your side in this...then again, it seems undeniable that if no one went to war, there wouldn't be any wars, and if no one murdered, there wouldn't be any murder.

This line of reasoning is really quite sad. It's like saying that because it's inevitable there will be heart attacks, we ought to just live with it and pray that they happen to others. It seems the proper course of action is instead to understand why heart attacks happen and work to prevent as many as possible, seeking continuously to improve. Similarly, it seems we ought to work to understand violence and why it happens, and work continuously to make it more and more rare.

As a Vet and fellow American, I would rather it be on foriegn fronts than homeland.

And as a human being and a servant of God, I would hope it doesn't happen at all to anyone, and if it does, regardless of where, I know it is better to forgive and to work so that violence is diminished. Sometimes violence is inevitable, but it ought to be kept at the absolute minimum possible--anything else is by definition wanton.

We all saw how America reacted to 9/11. How would America react to a multiscale attack across the homeland uncluding residental sites? I will continue to pray this never happens as America would be in panic among citizens.

To whom are you praying? Anyway...you seem to be saying that hopefully these attacks won't happen here because people will panic. I hope they won't happen anywhere because I think it's bad when people are blown up.

This country has survived for over 200 years for a reason, it inflicts fear among those who hate it. WW1 and WW2 proved that. Don't believe me, ask a Japanese WW2 vet.

Oh, I believe you. It seems to me that was also the tactic of such people as Joseph Stalin, Vlad the Impaler, Heinrich Himmler, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, and their kind. It also seems to me that you're stating this as if we're to be proud of this fact.

The things that make me proud of America are getting fewer and farther between lately. But I am proud of a few things America has done. None of them have anything to do with scaring our potential enemies, though.

I am sure that if the choice was givin to remain nutreal agian was given they would think twice.

Your handle-sake appreciated literature enough to have actually read a few books. Your lack of ability to spell or to string together a coherent passage of prose leads me to think maybe you should follow in his footsteps before you get it in your head to spew forth such a screed again.

As for Iraq, we are not trying to convert them to Americans, we are trying to convert them into a country that can make decisions from the population of the people and for the people.

No doubt we are succeeding admirably. That's my impression from the news reports, but of course the media has been known to selectively shape reality for their audience.

As Americans we are mainly Christian, and I hope that as a country Iraq remains mainly Muslim. As, that is their given right to do so. We are not their to convert their religion, but to try and give their population a say as to what happens to their country.

Wait a minute...I thought we were making sure no terror attacks happen on American soil. Not that this isn't an admirable enough goal, but is it really any of our business?

We as soldiers are proving effective. Most people serving in Iraq are serving believing they are making a difference. If I were a child in a country under war and saw a young man or women sitting in front of me risking their life so that I might have the right to live without fear of death for my thoughts or beliefs, I would be grateful.

Strange that most of them are not. Either you're abnormal, or the situation you describe doesn't exist.

This country has not made desicions for itslef since Sadaam took control. So, thinking you can convert it to a self reliant country in just a few years is rediculous. It will take time. It will take lives on both sides. But, in the end, the hopefull result is a peaceful country that its own citizens can live.

I'm not sure it did prior to Saddam taking power...and just who supported Saddam, anyway?

That is all. I am done with my rant.

Thanks.

P.S. Those people of victims of the Iraq war

Apparently you're not done after all...

who lost family members or friends from the war who say their son or daughter died for nothing....GO TO HELL as you discrace the integrity and honor of your own.

It seems to me that Iraqis have done the majority of the dying and losing family members, however you slice it. So you want to go to their country, kill people, and then tell those who are in mourning on either side and who may be a little disillusioned about things to GO TO HELL? It seems likely they're already in hell. The only thing your harangue does is indicate just how full of darkness you are.

Hope that that died in honor to protect possibly millions in the future.

And what if they did die for nothing except making a few already rich men a bit richer? When facing the cold reality that your child, spouse, brother/sister, or best friend is dead, hope that they might have died in honor and just possibly saved people in the future seems like a pretty underpriced recompense.

Just suppose we woke up tomorrow and found Manhattan had been vaporized. How will we know whether the Iraq war stopped an even worse attack, or motivated that one? We will never achieve certainty, but we can make some decent enough guesses, I would think. Generally, it's my experience in life that the more people one angers, the less safe one is. Sometimes it's necessary and sometimes its unavoidable, but in the case of the wars we are currently fighting, neither is the case. We're making a lot of people angry right now for far less noble purposes than you suggest.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

maybe you should rather ask the Iraqis what they think about the war

Ecpecially sens it can be hundred times more killed Iraqies then American soldiers.

 

[Lerxst]

I served this nation for many, many years. V, I completely disagree with your standpoint. I think it's both arrogant and ignorant.

First and foremost, we are NOT in Iraq fighting for American freedom. We are in Iraq fighting for American influence in a resource rich region. Let's be clear about that.

Second, freedom of speech. Read up on it.

Third, your comment about those family members who have lost some of their own being a disgrace because of their protests...you sir, just insulted those people more than any protest they could have made.

Fourth, the war in Iraq has shown no parallel to our lack of homeland attacks since 9/11. Massive improvements in local, state, and federal law enforcement practices and our cooperation with other nations on pursuing known terrorists and either killing or capturing them has made the difference. Show me one piece of evidence that show Iraq has anything to do with our homeland being safer please.

Fifth, the attack on the Cole was not an attack on our homeland. The Oklahoma City bombing was not committed by international terrorists, it was committed by domestic terrorists and in retaliation for the Waco abortion. Completely irrelevant in the realm of this discussion. Other than the 93 WTC bomb, please list one other U.S. based terrorist attack.

I would also ask you to read up on the history of Bill Clinton, terrorism, and the Pentagon. Tell me after reading "Against All Enemies" how it was Bill Clinton was going to get much more done than he did.

Thanks for your service to our nation.

 

[Awesome!]

I served this nation for many, many years. V, I completely disagree with your standpoint. I think it's both arrogant and ignorant.

First and foremost, we are NOT in Iraq fighting for American freedom. We are in Iraq fighting for American influence in a resource rich region. Let's be clear about that.

Second, freedom of speech. Read up on it.

Third, your comment about those family members who have lost some of their own being a disgrace because of their protests...you sir, just insulted those people more than any protest they could have made.

Fourth, the war in Iraq has shown no parallel to our lack of homeland attacks since 9/11. Massive improvements in local, state, and federal law enforcement practices and our cooperation with other nations on pursuing known terrorists and either killing or capturing them has made the difference. Show me one piece of evidence that show Iraq has anything to do with our homeland being safer please.

Fifth, the attack on the Cole was not an attack on our homeland. The Oklahoma City bombing was not committed by international terrorists, it was committed by domestic terrorists and in retaliation for the Waco abortion. Completely irrelevant in the realm of this discussion. Other than the 93 WTC bomb, please list one other U.S. based terrorist attack.

I would also ask you to read up on the history of Bill Clinton, terrorism, and the Pentagon. Tell me after reading "Against All Enemies" how it was Bill Clinton was going to get much more done than he did.

Thanks for your service to our nation.

Getting rid of Saddam is evidence that our homeland security has improved by going to Iraq, and all of the R&D we are gaining learning how to fight an enemy that hides in cities and kills innocents. I think we probably have many technological advances, new methods, and a better understanding of how to wage war that could only be gained by an invasion. Were writing the book and securing oil too. All by products of a great strategy.

 

[Lerxst]

Getting rid of Saddam is evidence that our homeland security has improved by going to Iraq,

Please substantiate this claim by any measure. How is getting rid of Saddam "evidence" of our homeland security improving? Can you provide any evidence of Saddam being an imminent or even somewhat medium to high risk threat to the U.S. homeland?

and all of the R&D we are gaining learning how to fight an enemy that hides in cities and kills innocents.

As opposed to an enemy who kills the guilty? How is that evidence of improving our homeland? Are we are at war in the streets of our cities?

I think we probably have many technological advances, new methods, and a better understanding of how to wage war that could only be gained by an invasion.

I won't dispute this. However it's not a benefit that was worth the price of all the innocent Iraqi's that have died.

Were writing the book and securing oil too. All by products of a great strategy.

We are writing what book? The book of how to **** up an occupation? The book of how to go war without a sound strategy? The book of how to invade a nation without having any idea how to plan for it? The book of how to completely disregard your generals advice and then go to war and completely **** it up? Yeah we are writing those books.

Great strategy? Yeah, if your a dummy.

 

[danarhea]

Many and most people speaking agianst the war in Iraq have no right. Most have not ever served this country's military. So why should someone who can not serve their country, speak on behalf of those who have? Why? Because this is your right as an American citizen as protected by those who serve in your military to help keep this homeland safe. You can be anti-war or anti-military as you want, but the fact remains, they fight with their lives so you can think this way without retribution. Many say the Iraq war is a waste, but is it? Since the war began how many homeland attacks have occured? Under Clinton, many U.S. based attacks occured and Clinton did nothing. U.S.S. Cole being one that comes to mind. I was also serving with the Cole when it was attacks with its battlegroup. Nobody like war or loosing fellow Americans or friends. But, fighting is going to happen reguardless. As a Vet and fellow American, I would rather it be on foriegn fronts than homeland. We all saw how America reacted to 9/11. How would America react to a multiscale attack across the homeland uncluding residental sites? I will continue to pray this never happens as America would be in panic among citizens. This country has survived for over 200 years for a reason, it inflicts fear among those who hate it. WW1 and WW2 proved that. Don't believe me, ask a Japanese WW2 vet. I am sure that if the choice was givin to remain nutreal agian was given they would think twice. As for Iraq, we are not trying to convert them to Americans, we are trying to convert them into a country that can make decisions from the population of the people and for the people. As Americans we are mainly Christian, and I hope that as a country Iraq remains mainly Muslim. As, that is their given right to do so. We are not their to convert their religion, but to try and give their population a say as to what happens to their country. If under Saddam, you said you think their should be public elections to who runs the country, you would be shot on site. No questions asked. Now, they are beginning to have a say and have elections. We as soldiers are proving effective. Most people serving in Iraq are serving believing they are making a difference. If I were a child in a country under war and saw a young man or women sitting in front of me risking their life so that I might have the right to live without fear of death for my thoughts or beliefs, I would be grateful. This country has not made desicions for itslef since Sadaam took control. So, thinking you can convert it to a self reliant country in just a few years is rediculous. It will take time. It will take lives on both sides. But, in the end, the hopefull result is a peaceful country that its own citizens can live. That is all. I am done with my rant.

P.S. Those people of victims of the Iraq war who lost family members or friends from the war who say their son or daughter died for nothing....GO TO HELL as you discrace the integrity and honor of your own. Hope that that died in honor to protect possibly millions in the future.

1) I believe the real crime is a government that throws our soldiers and vets away like garbage one they have no more use for them.

2) A look at the demographic backgrounds of many who ended up joining the military and went to Iraq, and how the government used them, courtesy of Mad Magazine.

 

[Awesome!]

Please substantiate this claim by any measure. How is getting rid of Saddam "evidence" of our homeland security improving? Can you provide any evidence of Saddam being an imminent or even somewhat medium to high risk threat to the U.S. homeland?

As opposed to an enemy who kills the guilty? How is that evidence of improving our homeland? Are we are at war in the streets of our cities?

I won't dispute this. However it's not a benefit that was worth the price of all the innocent Iraqi's that have died.

We are writing what book? The book of how to **** up an occupation? The book of how to go war without a sound strategy? The book of how to invade a nation without having any idea how to plan for it? The book of how to completely disregard your generals advice and then go to war and completely **** it up? Yeah we are writing those books.

Great strategy? Yeah, if your a dummy.

I just think that our government realized there was a lot that they didn't know after 911 and being absolutely sure of WMD's being in Saddam's hands by invading was a good call because what if he did?

I don't Saddam was going to live forever either, and after he died his country may of got worse with his retarded sons in power, maybe leading to Iran taking over Iraq, and then us losing control of the oil.

I think Saddam could of attacked Israel anytime baiting them into war leading to a holy war that would destabilize the region.

I think due to the reason's above Saddam was a threat to our national security directly or indirectly by attacking us with a WMD or threatening our economy by uniting the oil rich countries against the U.S.


No, we are not fighting terrorists in the streets of the US, but fighting their pantshi**ing ideology head on I believe helps thwart their determination as they may of thought we were a paper tiger and unwilling to shed blood.

More sacrifices will have to be made to protect our interests, and that is the reality due to a people in the middle east that still want to live in the stone age. It has to change.

Your quarrel about the methods of invasion would be completely different if we found a WMD, or if any of the issues mentioned above happened. You would be pissed at the administration because they refused to act. There is no perfect solution or waiting years to have an ideal plan. Take any real world situation. World War 2, thousands and thousands of men died rushing beaches. Alot of innocent civilians died too due to us invading Europe. Was is worth it?

 

[John1234]

I just think that our government realized there was a lot that they didn't know after 911 and being absolutely sure of WMD's being in Saddam's hands by invading was a good call because what if he did?

The inspectors, our allies, and the entire world knew that he did not have WMD.
Our government also knew.

And if he did?
Of all the Muslim nations, a Saddam controlled Iraq being the one to have nuclear weapons would have been the safest.
He had tight control.
Their society was one of the more advanced in areas such as woman's rights compared to other Muslim nations.
They were much more moderate than even some of our "ally" Muslim nations.
The point being that they were the most likely candidate of all the Muslim nations including even our allies, for mutual assured destruction to work.

I would be 100x time more worried if Saudi Arabia had nukes than i would of been with Saddam having them.

 

[Awesome!]

The inspectors, our allies, and the entire world knew that he did not have WMD.
Our government also knew.

And if he did?
Of all the Muslim nations, a Saddam controlled Iraq being the one to have nuclear weapons would have been the safest.
He had tight control.
Their society was one of the more advanced in areas such as woman's rights compared to other Muslim nations.
They were much more moderate than even some of our "ally" Muslim nations.
The point being that they were the most likely candidate of all the Muslim nations including even our allies, for mutual assured destruction to work.

I would be 100x time more worried if Saudi Arabia had nukes than i would of been with Saddam having them.

No matter how you spin it, we are going to have to deal with that part of the world either sooner or later. I say it's better to do it now.

 

[John1234]

No matter how you spin it, we are going to have to deal with that part of the world either sooner or later. I say it's better to do it now.

Yes that I agree with.
We've been screwing with these people for decades.
Its about time we deal with them in a fair and humane manner and leave our war toys, our threats, and our demands at home.

But until we accept that we have no right to control them and approach the table as a country that wants peace, we will continue to be unable to deal with the problem.
Electing big business puppets like Bush or war mongers like McCain will just continue to postpone dealing with the real problems.

 

[MSgt]

Thank you for your service. However, I think it's pretty arrogant of you to assert that one must have served in order to be able to speak out against the war. That's a pretty weak argument.

I would have stated that people who don't understand what is going on over there has the same right as anyone to an opinion, but it means nothing because it can do nothing but harm efforts. How many people hold the opinion that stem cell research is wrong, but really don't know the issues involved? Yet these opinions have gone a long way to stagnate this research hasn't it? How many people hold an opinion that Africa doesn't matter, but have never even stepped foot into these cultures and are ignorant of any potential? Yet, ignoring Africa has been the status quo by these ignorant arm chair opinions hasn't it?

My point is that anyone can read Shakespear, but this does not give the reader wisdom into relationships. The same is true for the Middle East. For some reason any opinion offerred by true experts are always trumped by people who have never stepped foot in the sand, have no idea about what this culture is, or understands any of the historical significance of what is happening. This includes Rumsfeld and Micheal Moore.

Usually, the opinions of protestors surround "Bush lied" as a way to exhonerate themselves from actually learning about the region. An entire civiliazation is supposed to suffer, because people absolutely have to ground their opinions to "Bush lied."

 

[Awesome!]

Yes that I agree with.
We've been screwing with these people for decades.
Its about time we deal with them in a fair and humane manner and leave our war toys, our threats, and our demands at home.

But until we accept that we have no right to control them and approach the table as a country that wants peace, we will continue to be unable to deal with the problem.
Electing big business puppets like Bush or war mongers like McCain will just continue to postpone dealing with the real problems.[/QU

Someday my friend we can all light candles and sing kum bi ya and maybe throw in some tie dye shirts...

but the reality is that countries have fought for those resources in the ME for years now and we probably would of lost to German aggression in both wars if we didn't secure those resources. You could assume that our relationship with China and Russia our old enemies could become cold again too etc. etc.

It's not that we are trying to control the people there, it's that they need to get with the program and become more democratic. It's happened before, look at Japan and Germany. Imagine if the all that hate and idealist mentality could be put to productive use in the ME right?

 

[Lerxst]

I would have stated that people who don't understand what is going on over there has the same right as anyone to an opinion, but it means nothing because it can do nothing but harm efforts. How many people hold the opinion that stem cell research is wrong, but really don't know the issues involved? Yet these opinions have gone a long way to stagnate this research hasn't it? How many people hold an opinion that Africa doesn't matter, but have never even stepped foot into these cultures and are ignorant of any potential? Yet, ignoring Africa has been the status quo by these ignorant arm chair opinions hasn't it?

My point is that anyone can read Shakespear, but this does not give the reader wisdom into relationships. The same is true for the Middle East. For some reason any opinion offerred by true experts are always trumped by people who have never stepped foot in the sand, have no idea about what this culture is, or understands any of the historical significance of what is happening. This includes Rumsfeld and Micheal Moore.

Usually, the opinions of protestors surround "Bush lied" as a way to exhonerate themselves from actually learning about the region. An entire civiliazation is supposed to suffer, because people absolutely have to ground their opinions to "Bush lied."

I absolutely respect your opinions here Gunny, but I do take exception to the last part of your statement. The bottom line is that Bush did lie to drum up support for this war. Regardless of what he thought America's response would be, we deserved the truth...and nothing but. Not all of those who believed Bush lied hang their hat on only that, focus only on that.

History is proving that our skepticism was well founded. It smelled very fishy, and as it turned out...it was. People talk about utilizing war to protect our interests and I understand that. But invading a nation on false pretenses is not protecting our interests. Explaining the case for war in clear, truthful language should be enough. If it's not enough to persuade Congress, then this nation does not go to war.

Thank you for your thoughtful insights.

 

[Ethereal]

I usually tend to stay away from Iraq debates and the like (I find them far too partisan for my tastes), but I will convey my opinion on the war - being that I'm a vet.

In order to appropriately analyze the conflict in question one must adress it from multiple perspectives. Each perspective warrants its own specific analysis and subsequent summation. Based upon each respective analysis the Iraq war can be viewed as a whole and it's impact can be adequately measured.

First, the decision to invade, was it wise? In my opinion, no, it was not. The justification for the war did not satisfy my litmus test for a pre-emptive invasion. Iraq did not pose an immediate threat to the national security of the United States in any conceivable way.

Second, has the war been conducted competently and effeciently? Once again, the answer is no. Improper supervision and inadequate equipping of troops, misallocation of equipment, lack of budgetary oversight, a misguided stategum, and a lack of understanding and respect for our host nation (just to name a few) has lead to a protracted and bloody quagmire.

Third, was the decision to remain in Iraq the correct one? Given the administration's understanding of the situation I believe it is. Despite the initially bad decision to invade I felt that once we had displaced the Iraqi government and dessimated their infrastructure we had an obligation to remain until we had adequately secured their nation.

However, the administration's understanding of the situation is limited by the information they recieve, and the people they get their information from is their military commanders, who, I feel, do not posses the know-how to win this war.

The saying in the military is that the **** rolls down hill, but the roses rise to the top. A negative situation on the ground will be viewed through rosy-colored spectacles by the time it reaches a General, because nobody wants to be the one who has to give bad news to his commander. This is a symptom of military careerists, which I feel inhibits our military's ability to effectively communicate, but I digress.

Given all of this, I will attempt to sum up my opinion of the war. It was wrong to invade, the war has been conducted with terrible incompetance although things are being done (very slowly) to rectify this, ideally we should stay in Iraq until we win, but given the fact that I don't think we're capable of winning I think it would be best to cut our losses and leave.

*Braces self for shrill partisan onslaught*