Place to vent your opinions about the current Iraq War.

Well when we went into Iraq I was totally against it, And I am still totally against the fact that we did.
That being said after we went to war I agreed with Powell -- we broke it ,we must fix it.
That was then though this is now
Due to mismanagement by the current administration my gut says its past fixing.
We are breeding the next 2 generations of terrorist as I type.
And while we are pulling peters In Iraq Afghanistan is falling back into chaos
Just imagine if we had taken the billions [whats the current cost now?] we have wasted and spent it uplifting people instead of killing people?

U.S. National Debt Clock (http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/) Check out the current US dept... that is were it really hurts. I'm a red blooded hard charging American Soldier who's also a realist and a Democrat. How much is enough before we pull the plug?

Place to vent your opinions about the current Iraq War.
I think that starting that war was a foolish idea but we cannot abandon the war now. We have to finish what we started and show the world that we can learn from our mistakes. The world looks to see what we do at times, to decide what they will do and pulling out before the mission is complete would be a serious mistake. I'm nobody, but that's just how I feel.

before the mission is complete

Would you please explain what "the mission" is?

Would you please explain what "the mission" is?

Lol that's a good question -- its changed so many times -- I think its just to avoid looking like fools now [too late georgie] -- Savage

This war is a mistake of monumental proportions, and an unmitigated disaster. It is diametrically opposed to the highest and best ideals of this nation and the civilized world. The damage it has done and continues to do will take many generations to even begin to repair. Whether the US military leaves sooner or later, the spasm of violence that has been unleashed will run its course, like a fire that burns until its fuel is all consumed.

This war happened because our leaders and too many of our citizens learned the wrong lesson from the 9/11 attacks. They wanted revenge. They decided that we must become like our enemies in order to defeat them. And the rest, as they say, is history.

How is that even revenge when we kicked the hell out of Afghanistan because of the Saudis? Oil is a powerful asset, we don't rush to liberate people that won't benefit us. Nobody really cares about the guerillas in Africa because diamonds are nice but oil is power.

I don't know about anyone else, but I am real tired of our troops getting seriously injured or killed over in Iraq.

Getting real tired of our troops having to explain why they reacted in a certain way when they were under attack and are being tried as criminals. Disgusting!

I want our troops home. Now. As well as troops from around the world who are our friends.

I don't give a horses tail about any other darn issue but getting our military out of that madness.

God bless our military and THANK YOU for the sacrifices you and your families make. We here at home are proud of you!



http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/images/0623-05.jpg

I think it was the right decision for bush to send troops to iraq. Saddam was a dictator, you don't know what it means to be ruled by one. Anyway, the troops escalated the death rate and therefore it's america's responsibility to finish it. By the way, new oil reserves were discovered and if the U.S. pulls out, Iran and other countries will take over. Then you'll wish you supported Bush.

i think it was the right decision for bush to send troops to iraq. saddam was a dictator, you don't know what it means to be ruled by one. anyway, the troops escalated the death rate and therefore it's america's responsibility to finish it. by the way, new oil reserves were discovered and if the U.S. pulls out, Iran and other countries will take over. then you'll wish you supported Bush.
He was one of many dictators -- hell the one in Pakistan is " our ally " Are we now the worlds police? If Iraq had no oil bush would have cared less if saddam had killed 1/2 the population.

We went to war out of greed and our fellow Americans are dying to line the wealthy pigs pockets with more blood money.

How much have you heard bush and company say about the genocide in Africa? Dang little, NO OIL. -- Savage

This is a heated topic for most people. Since I spent 8 years in the US Marines Infantry, and one tour in Iraq, I have very strong opinions about this.
Politically, I think it has been suicide for Bush. Poor guy. I do believe that he means well. We should have done more to keep our allies' support.
Morally, I have to believe that, given how fortunate we are as a country, we should jump at opportunities to help others who are not capable of helping themselves. With the man or woman standing on the corner of a U.S. street with the cardboard sign, most pass them up but some give a little. Given how fortunate I feel I am, I try to give a little change. I don't care what they use the money for. This is a reoccurring problem. We seem to be heading in the direction of individuality and a lack of compassion.
In Iraq, you can't argue that these people weren't oppressed under the regime of Saddam. I personally saw mass gravesites, I saw underground torture chambers that were used as recently as 2 weeks before we entered Iraq in 2003. I have to believe that, as a nation, we can't just sit back and watch thousands be born into this type of situation without trying to do something. Thousands were killed in Somalia before we went in to do something. There's no oil or any significant resource there (that I know or heard of), but we still went in and tried to do the right thing.
It pains me to hear on the news every day that more people have died in Iraq. I truly feel for the families. I know what it is like to lose a friend in Iraq. It sucks.
All this being said, I have to believe that we are doing the right thing. It is never easy. It took our country years and years to gain our freedom, and over 200 years later, we are still killing people in monumental proportions.
Regardless of whether you believe that we should have gone in, we can't leave. It would be like giving candy to a screaming kid in the grocery store. It reinforces bad behavior, and nothing good can come from it.
I would love to hear from anyone willing to carry on a civilized internet conversation about this (I.e an uncivilized conversation would be: "I hate Bush! He is an Idiot! Pull the military out NOW regardless of the consequences!)

saddam was a dictator, you don't know what it means to be ruled by one. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/rumsfeld_saddam.gif

This is a heated topic for most people. Since I spent 8 years in the US Marines Infantry, and one tour in Iraq, I have very strong opinions about this.
Politically, I think it has been suicide for Bush. Poor guy. I do believe that he means well. We should have done more to keep our allies' support.
Morally, I have to believe that, given how fortunate we are as a country, we should jump at opportunities to help others who are not capable of helping themselves. With the man or woman standing on the corner of a U.S. street with the cardboard sign, most pass them up but some give a little. Given how fortunate I feel I am, I try to give a little change. I don't care what they use the money for. This is a reoccurring problem. We seem to be heading in the direction of individuality and a lack of compassion.
In Iraq, you can't argue that these people weren't oppressed under the regime of Saddam. I personally saw mass gravesites, I saw underground torture chambers that were used as recently as 2 weeks before we entered Iraq in 2003. I have to believe that, as a nation, we can't just sit back and watch thousands be born into this type of situation without trying to do something. Thousands were killed in Somalia before we went in to do something. There's no oil or any significant resource there (that I know or heard of), but we still went in and tried to do the right thing.
It pains me to hear on the news every day that more people have died in Iraq. I truly feel for the families. I know what it is like to lose a friend in Iraq. It sucks.
All this being said, I have to believe that we are doing the right thing. It is never easy. It took our country years and years to gain our freedom, and over 200 years later, we are still killing people in monumental proportions.
Regardless of whether or not you believe that we should have gone in, we can't leave. It would be like giving candy to a screaming kid in the grocery store. It reinforces bad behavior, and nothing good can come from it.
I would love to hear from anyone willing to carry on a civilized internet conversation about this (I.e an uncivilized conversation would be: "I hate Bush! He is an Idiot! Pull the military out NOW regardless of the consequences!)


Thank you - for your service and dedication to our Country. So very proud of you and you should be proud of what you have contributed as well.

Bless you and your family for the sacrifices. We do appreciate it!

Hearts and prayers are always with our troops and the troops from all across the world, who truly are our friends.

Whether you agree with the decision to go into Iraq or not, it is irrelevant, because we are there. From early on, people like John McCain said we don't have enough troops to do the job right. His opinion seems correct, in hindsight. The time for a massive infux of new troops has passed, because Congress, and the American people would not approve it. So we are left with something akin to a turd sandwich; no matter how you bite into it, it won't be pleasant. I believe that Joe Biden has the most reasonable solution. Allow a partition into three separate regions; one for the Kurds, one for the Sunnis, and one for the Shiites. These three states would be in a loose confederation, that would share oil revenues, and the common defense of the whole. Check out the article: Joe Biden Has One Thing Right.
Hirsh: Joe Biden is Dead Right on Iraq - Newsweek Michael Hirsh - MSNBC.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18339254/site/newsweek/from/ET/)

First - after a number of UN violations, known mass exterminations, the use of chemical weapons on his own countrymen, i.e. the Kurds, and failed diplomatic efforts prior to the war, I think the US is justified for being there.

Second - OIL - the world depends on it. We need a stable / reasonable source. Our economy depends on it not only for gas and energy but for plastics and pharmaceuticals.
Unless we are willing to pay much more [ and I would not hazard a guess at how mucj more ] for gas and other commodities that depend on oil, ensuring a stable supply is a realistic objective. Note that the US has not anexed Iraqui oil fields for our own personal supply and profit or to help fund the military effort. I personally would.
This is why we are not in Darfur or Somalia or Rwanda in the 90s - certainly a moral reason but no national interest. We have more at stake going to Iraq than we did in the former Yugoslavia/ Kosovo.

Third - The US has stood by on terrorist attacks prior to 9/11, the first world trade bombing, Lebanon, USS Cole, the African embassys. These terrorist hate us and will kill us whether we are in Iraq, the only difference is now they know we will fight back and take pro-active measures.

Fourth - there is no easy, politically correct solution to ending this. Certainly 'benchmarks' , partitioning and other possible solutions should be considered.
What does it say about us as a nation when things get tough politicians start bailing out and wanting to quit? What about to those who have given life and limb? Is this all for nothing?


Fifth - I work at a VAMC - Regardless of the politics, we need to support out military. In this selfish world, they go out and serve and do a the job defending us and our freedoms.
Thank you all.

I was all for getting saddam out... just not sure taking the country over was wise. I'm torn on that part of it.

Here is something we seemed to have forgot... the US didn't start this war... war was waged on us...

Anyone recall 9.11.2001?? 3,000 innocent Americans murdered?

I want our troops home. A couple months ago I lost a dear childhood friend to the war. He died saving other soldiers. Although I am grateful for everything that the soldiers have done for us... and I am grateful that they risk their lives everyday... the troops need to come home. They have family and loved ones that need them. I think that starting the war in the first place was stupid. I understand that we had to show the people that killed our Americans in 9/11... but now all we are doing is hurting ourself. I am sorry if this offends anyone... I am just really hurt over Chris's death. He was only 22, and have not lived out his life... you know?

We find it amazing as to how the amerikkkans try to justify their invasion of a sovereign state. That saddam was a dictator is no trade secret. Who? We beg, who? Put him such a position of power? Why, the amerikkkans off-course! Just take a peek at post #13 by Needkarma.

it is a sad fact that most amerikkans are unaware of issues beyond their borders, print media, TV and hollywood. Amerikkka is not the bastion of "domocracy and human rights" in the world, that is a blatant lie! Amerikkka is after its own interest and would use "any means necessary" as one of your own enlightened martyrs, Al Malik al-Shabbaz (Malcolm X) proclaimed. Amerikkka is a racist police and military state, you need to acknowledge that. Calll a spade a spade and don't hide behind rhetorics.

where was amerikkka when we here in south africa suffered under the hands of the brutal "white" regime who instituted the draconian "apartheid system which dehumanised people of colour? where were the amerikkkans when when christians serbians were massacaring muslim bosnians? whre is amerikkka when zionism is busy perpetrating genocide against the palestinian people and subjecting them to untold stomach churning atrocities?

the global gripe is not against the amerikkan people as a whole, but against its foreign policy, which is dictated by the zionists and neo-cons in amerikkka. the amerikkkan people need to wake up to the reality that global opinion is changing regarding them. People are no longer fooled by your "western movies" which portrayed the "white cowboy" as the victim, the sympathiser and the hero, and the poor native american, whose land was stolen, as a barbaric, ignorant backward imbecile who needed the "white settler" for his survival. and dont forget the millions of africans who were enslaved and brought to the shores of the "new" amerikkka in leg chains, hungry, thirsty and on the brink of death, and the millions more who died enroute.

so forget your movie world and postulating and return to the real world. The only solution to the iraqi crisis is to leave! And leave now! And leave iraq to its own people. There is no civil strife in iraq, never was. People co-existed in harmony and inter marrying, what right and mandate has amerikkka got to divide its people into different sections as suggested in some posts, this is the same old colonial tactic of divide and rule that was perpetrated in all colonised lands. In conclusion we cite a part of a freedom song which was a motivating factor in our struggle and fight for freedom here in south africa:
"White man dont sleep long and dont sleep to deep
your life and position how long can you keep
for i've heard a rumour that running around
that the black man's demanding his own piece of ground
that the black man's demanding his own piece of ground!"

I was all for getting saddam out... just not sure taking the country over was wise. I'm torn on that part of it.

here is something we seemed to have forgot... the US didn't start this war... war was waged on us...

anyone recall 9.11.2001??? 3,000 innocent Americans murdered?
What in the hell are you talking about? You have swallowed the neocons' propaganda about a link between Saddam's regime and Al-Queda. It is simply not true, and never was. I know D!ck Cheney is still going around saying it, but he's a delusional fool and a pathological liar.

No, I regret to say that the US most certainly did start this (Iraq) war, deliberately and with forethought. It is a mistake of monumental proportions, but it was not an accident or a miscalculation, it was an intentional act. Those responsible for perpetrating it should be held accountable before the world. The whole doctrine of preemptive war is an abomination. If anybody who feels threatened, is justified in attacking the source of the perceived threat, we are in for a lot of war.

ordinaryguy,
I spent 6 month in Iraq as a Marine infantryman. We crossed the border early March of 2003 and didn't see a single person in iraqi military uniform. We were even fighting Palestinians at one point. Bottom line... we weren't sure who we were fighting.

Those are some pretty big accusations; 'delusional fool' and' pathological liar.' Do you think that they possibly had more information than we have that helped them make a decision about invading Iraq.
How about WW-2. Japan attacked us, but we joined the war against Germany first. Do you criticize that? The bottom line is that Germany and Japan were both enemies. Do you deny that Iraq was an enemy of the U.S. Ever since Desert Storm, Saddam had plenty of chances to comply with the UN, but he chose to string them along, and reject the regulations. Do you think that after we stopped Saddam from taking over Kuwait, that he said, "Oh you are probably right. I shouldn't attack defenseless countries."
The U.S military is criticized for using sleep depravation as a form of coercion, but are you aware that Saddam's sons would place people through conveyor belts and run them through a meat grinder FEET FIRST, just because the disagreed?
Do you deny that Al Queda and Iraq (and Iran for that matter) are fighting for the same cause?
You reject preemptive war, but given the opportunity to prevent WW-2 or 9-11, do you still reject the idea of a preemptive strike?
You criticize gazelleintense for swallowing the 'neocons' propaganda' but could one argue that you too have swallowed someone's propaganda.
Why are we still arguing WHY we went to Iraq and not focusing on HOW to fix it (no, pulling out immediately is not an answer)?
Bottom line: People will always criticize decisions made by the government and other institutions. It's called Monday morning quarterbacking. The United States is still criticized in history books for waiting too long to enter WW-2. I don't doubt that if we entered earlier, we would have been criticized for that instead. People criticize the Bush administration and FEMA for casualties due to Katrina. Focus of the VT shootings is largely on the shoulders of the University and loose gun laws. Or, Clinton had the chance to get Bin Laden a long time ago.
It is clear that you are not a fan of Pres. Bush and Cheney, and that's fine. That's what's great about America; the diversity of opinion.
If you want to settle the debate, we DID find biological weapons in Iraq. It was set up in a van designed to be mobile. Fox News covered it. Nobody else did, which is why most people never heard of it.

Latest from the Penatgon on how deployment strains troops mental health.

Deployments strain troops' mental health - Mental Health - MSNBC.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18488585/)

I am very proud of our troops, they are doing a hard job without the support to do anything needed to end the fighting. If we were allowed the same abiltiy to fight as we had in WWI and WWII the war would have been over long ago. But playing around with rules that the other side does not follow and policing actions like we tried in Nam just does not work.

And I am sick when I see Americans not supporting our troops or the policies of America. Eupope has showed its inability to protect itself time and time again, and too many want America to weaken itself to that level.
It just scares me to death that the day will come when America will not be the major power that he became. And yes my son did three tours in the middle east and he tells me of the oppression of the people there, he tells me how glad the average person is to have us helping them.

But sadly many did not know what to do with the freedom they were given, they were taught for generations to merely kill those who were not the same, so you have small numbers, sometimes fueled by outsiders, trying to keep deatha and destruction going. For that, it can not be stopped, since anywhere one or two crazed people can always kill dozens if and when they want to.

Oh Father Chuck - It did not let me rate you. But I will be back to do so.

THANK YOU so much. For doing what I was so unable to do. Bless you and God bless America.

It sickens me as well, but it will NEVER make me hang my head. Way to proud for that.

Bless you again!

I tried to rate you as well Fr_Chuck. Didn't let me. Thanks for your support, and for your honest answer from your heart.

Autta,

You just know that us Americans are behind you, beside you and with you 100% wherever you are. You are in our hearts, thoughts and prayers always.

You know what they say about the sqeaky wheel.

Bless you for what you do. WE ARE SO DARN PROUD OF YOU!

I agree with FR Chuck and I support he men and women who have a very difficult job to do, rules don't win wars, since one side will not follow them anyway.

Fr Chuck is is right on point, if the troops were allow to do the same as WWI & II this would have been over years ago.

This is what scares me. I have a good friend who was a veteran of the Vietnam war.
During a cab ride a few years ago, my friend mentioned that he served in the Vietnam war. The cab driver immediately pulled to the side of the road (on the highway, mind you), yelled obsenities, and forced him out of the cab. Vietnam was a little different, but it seems like people's attitudes are headed that way.
What do you think?
I am proud of my service and I don't want to have to selectively choose when I associate myself with the military, to avoid getting dropped off in the middle of nowhere, for example.

Yes as a Veteran myself and a proud member of the American Legion we had a local gas mart have a employee refuse to wait on a family member of one of our local national guard, they started a protest of their store that day, blocked their drives till the police made them move, then they camped on a empty lot for a few weeks, and put pressure on anybody shoping them, we almost closed that store, the owner finianlly fired that worker, and made all sorts of apologies to the guard and the American Legion.

But yes, a lot of things went wrong in Nam, but then it was a political war, not a real war, this war is worst than that.

Before I respond to any of your points, I want to say that I respect you and other military people. I recognize that yours is a very difficult job, one that often puts you in danger, physically, psychologically, and ethically. I know that the overwhelming majority of you bear these burdens honorably and do your duty courageously, and I thank you for that. In our system of government, the civilian leadership controls the military, so the responsibility and accountability is theirs to bear if they order the armed forces to fight ill-advised wars. A great many military people did see going in that invading Iraq was a fools errand, and said so, but the civilian leadership overruled them.


ordinaryguy,
I spent 6 month in Iraq as a Marine infantryman. We crossed the border early March of 2003 and didn't see a single person in iraqi military uniform. We were even fighting Palestinians at one point. Bottom line...we weren't sure who we were fighting.
Yes, well, might that have something to do with being in too much of a hurry to take the time to develop reliable intelligence?


Those are some pretty big accusations; 'delusional fool' and' pathological liar.' Do you think that they possibly had more information than we have that helped them make a decision about invading Iraq.
As it turns out, they had a lot of information, but since it didn't support their agenda or bolster their case, they ignored and suppressed it, while hyping the nuclear bomb threat and the Al Queda connection, both of which the CIA told them were bogus.


How about WW-2. Japan attacked us, but we joined the war against Germany first. Do you criticize that? The bottom line is that Germany and Japan were both enemies. Do you deny that Iraq was an enemy of the U.S.?
The problem isn't solved as soon as an "enemy" is designated. There's still the practical question of how to reduce the damage they can do while sacrificing as little as possible of what we value.


Ever since Desert Storm, Saddam had plenty of chances to comply with the UN, but he chose to string them along, and reject the regulations. Do you think that after we stopped Saddam from taking over Kuwait, that he said, "Oh you are probably right. I shouldn't attack defenseless countries." The U.S military is criticized for using sleep depravation as a form of coercion, but are you aware that Saddam's sons would place people through conveyor belts and run them through a meat grinder FEET FIRST, just because the disagreed?
Without a doubt, Saddam Husein was a cruel tyrant. His regime clearly posed a major threat to the Kurdish and Shiite populations in Iraq, since he had shown a willingness to use the most ruthless means available to suppress them. He also posed a significant threat to his neighbors in the area. But he did not pose a significant imminent threat to the United States. He certainly was not cooperating with Al Queda. He feared Osama Bin Laden probably more than we did before 9/11 because he understood him better.

Being a despicable tyrant puts Saddam in a class of at least several dozen other leaders of nations in the world. That by itself does not mean that is in the US's interest to invade the country and depose the tyrant. The CIA got it wrong about Saddam's chemical and biological weapons; they were dead-on right about the likely consequences of invading the country (chaos, sectarian violence) but nobody was listening to that part.


Do you deny that Al Queda and Iraq (and Iran for that matter) are fighting for the same cause?
Who do you mean by "Iraq"? Saddam's regime before the war? Yes, I do deny that they were fighting for the same cause as Al Queda.
Al Queda in Iraq at the present time? I agree that they are allied with Osama Bin Laden's folks in Pakistan/Afghanistan.
The Sunni insurgency? Relations are becoming strained, apparently.
Sunni tribal leaders? Less so as time goes on, it seems.
The Shiite majority government in Iraq at the present time? Definitely not.
The Shiite militias? No way.
The Kurds? No.
The Shiite government in Iran? No, their clients are the Shiite militias.


You reject preemptive war, but given the opportunity to prevent WW-2 or 9-11, do you still reject the idea of a preemptive strike?
If it's possible to disrupt a specific attack that's in the making by a small group of individuals (a la 9/11), sure, do it. That's a whole different thing than a full fledged invasion of a sovreign nation. After you invade a country, there's no way to know what you prevented. Japan's strike on Pearl Harbor is a classic case of a preemptive attack. What do you think that prevented?


If you want to settle the debate, we DID find biological weapons in Iraq. It was set up in a van designed to be mobile. Fox News covered it. Nobody else did, which is why most people never heard of it.
The rest of the news media did cover it. The reason it didn't make much of a splash is that the evidence didn't support the conclusion that it was part of any significant biological weapons program.

I am very proud of our troops, they are doing a hard job without the support to do anything needed to end the fighting. If we were allowed the same abiltiy to fight as we had in WWI and WWII the war would have been over long ago. But playing around with rules that the other side does not follow and policing actions like we tried in Nam just does not work.
In your view, what exactly is "needed to end the fighting"? What tactics used in WWI and WWII would do the trick? In those wars the Allied forces were fighting against other armies, while in Iraq the conflicts are between Sunni and Shiite sectarian groups, between competing Shiite militias, between Baathist Sunni insurgents and competing insurgent groups such as Al Queda in Iraq, between Kurds and Arabs and Turks. Are you suggesting that in such a context, it would be effective for the US military to undertake large-scale tank, artillery and bombing operations? Against whom?


And I am sick when I see Americans not supporting our troops or the policies of America.
I am sick when I see the civilian leadership putting our troops in harm's way for no good reason and with no clear objective. The best thing we can do to support our troops is to replace the civilian leadership that put them in the middle of this impossible situation.

OG - I just want you to know that my upset that I expressed in my post was not due to something you wrote.

It was another one that I REFUSE to call attention to.

Just wanted you to know that.

Allheart

In France, in Poland, in Germany, how many of their citizens continued terror attacks after we used military might against their cities ?
Why the other citizens felt secure after we took over.

And yes it is the weak political system that doesnot allow a clear objective but if you want to replace the political people, it is everyone in power since they all voted for it.

But yes, alot of things went wrong in Nam, but then it was a political war, not a real war, this war is worst than that.
Vietnam was not a real war? Do you need to be reminded that something over 50,000 Americans died there, along with a few hundred thousand Vietnamese and Cambodians? That compares to between 3,000 and 4,000 Americans, a few hundred British and other coalition partners' soldiers, and somewhere between 50,000 and 150,000 Iraquis so far. So measured in terms of deaths to date, Iraq is not yet in the same ballpark as Vietnam. I do agree though, that although the body count may not be as large, the long-run consequences of this war will probably be worse for the US than Vietnam was because we do have vital interests in the Middle East, whereas we didn't really in SE Asia.

Autta,

You just know that us Americans are behind you, beside you and with you 100% wherever you are. You are in our hearts, thoughts and prayers always.

You know what they say about the sqeaky wheel.

Bless you for what you do. WE ARE SO DARN PROUD OF YOU!

Autta - sorry :o I may have use the reference squeaky wheel" inappropriately. But bascially those who scream the loudest tend to get all the attention. See, all Americans are quitely in their hearts with you all the way. It's the loud ones who have nothing good to say about America or Americans that get all the attention, Hence the squeaky wheel gets the oil. The loud ones are the only ones heard sometimes.

OG - You make great points and I think we will just have to agree to disagree. I do agree, however, that we did jump into this war without the support of strong intelligence. This is a really difficult war for the american people to watch.
It pains me so much when I hear casualties reported on the news. To me, it doesn't matter how big the count is (85,000 people died in just over 1 month during the battle of the bulge).
For now, though, I have to go with what I feel in my heart was the right thing to do. I have plenty of room to complain about the war (i.e. I went 63 days without taking a shower, at one point, our food was so scarce that I have a great picture of us on the side of the road waving a sign to passing troop that read, "Will shoot for food," and my specific platoon was tasked with going on a foot patrol to draw out the enemy's fire). It sucked being over there 100% of the time, but I still believe that this situation will turn around for the better, and Iraq will be much better off in the long run.

Autta -

It pains me as well EVERY time we loose another of our dedicated soldiers. And I am with you, I too believe it will be a better Iraq, and as a result, the world will be a little better as well.

Again, thank you for your service and don't you dare listen or belief any thing other than what is in that American heart!!

Yes, my son who did three total tours over there ( one in the first and two this last one) has tried for over 1 1/2 years to get back in and go back, he got out when he was wounded. He believes in what was being done, and all I could hear was how the people were so glad that we were there, Not what you normally hear on the news. He still says that the biggest enemy we have there are news crews since what he saw on the news was nothing like what he saw. I have on my wall right now that I am looking at, a US flag that flew over one of the first armoured vechiles that went from the Bagdad airport into the city on the first day of the invasion. It was signed by the entire group that made someof the first raid into the palace. It is there to remind me of all the fine men and women who suffer for others.

What a great thing to have Fr Chuck. One of my prized possessions is an Iraqi military kevlar helmet that everyone in my platoon signed. If my house caught fire, I would grab my wife, daughter, cats, and probably the helmet. I have a relationship with these men that I served with that I will never have with anyone else, not even my wife. There is something about risking your life daily for someone else that creates an incredible bond.
I too, given different circumstances with my family, would love to go back. Unfortunately, I broke my hip during my first year, and I probably wouldn't be able to go back in an infantry position.
My family and friends think I am crazy for wanting to go back, but they will never understand, nor do I expect them to.

YouTube - Have you forgotten (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOHZVibwdmQ) Look this is why... Enough Said.

"Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans-born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage-and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world."

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

JFK Inauguration Speech

YouTube - Have you forgotten (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOHZVibwdmQ) Look this is why.....Enough Said.
There is simply no evidence that Saddam Hussein collaborated or conspired with Osama bin Laden in carrying out the 9/11 attacks. The CIA knew this and told the politicians so before the war began, and every investigation done since has confirmed it. Still, the lie lives on and gets endlessly repeated. Osama bin Laden is still alive and at large, recruiting ever more jihadis for the purpose of attacking the US and other western societies. The war in Iraq has been of great help to him in this enterprise.

"...unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world."
Would that our current political leadership and body politic were as committed to preserving these rights as JFK was. Too many of us are perfectly willing to witness and permit the not-so-slow undoing of these rights in the name of vengeance, thereby sacrificing the very ideals and values we claim to defend.

tomder55 agrees: I cannot comment on a broad sweeping generality like this . Care to be specific ? Which "human rights " have you lost ?

The President has asserted that he has authority to designate ANYONE and unlawful enemy combatant, that the courts have no authority to review such a desigation, and that anyone so designated is not entitled to any of the rights enumerated in the US Constitution or the Geneva Conventions, including, but not limited to the following:

Rights enumerated in the US Constitution:
4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

5th Amendment: No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

6th Amendment: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Rights enumerated in the Geneva Conventions of 1949, to which the US is a signatory:
Article 7: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 9:
1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law.
2. Anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him.
3. Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release. It shall not be the general rule that persons awaiting trial shall be detained in custody, but release may be subject to guarantees to appear for trial, at any other stage of the judicial proceedings, and, should occasion arise, for execution of the judgment.
4. Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that that court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful.
5. Anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable right to compensation.

He is not designating anyone unlawful enemy combattants . He is designating unlawful enemy combattants as unlawful enemy combattants .

Hey, mind if I jump in?
Ordinary guy, not saying I agree whether the pres. Should be able to designate anyone as an unlawful combatant, but do you agree that the rights of the 4th amendment apply to lawful citizens of the U.S. Don't felons give up some of their rights? I'm just talking about the ones guilty of terrorism. Do you feel that a foreigner, given that they are guilty of committing an act of terrorism, should be allowed to take part in the system that they are trying to destroy?

I agree that there should be more checks and balances with this presidential authority. I don't think the president should be allowed to do anything without someone else reviewing and OK-ing it. But I also believe that in 1949, we didn't have to worry about our own planes being used as bombs, nor did we have to worry about a group of guys trying to sneak onto a military installation in order to shoot and kill as many as possible. It is definitely a different war than what the 1949ers had to deal with. We pretty much knew who our enemies were back then. Of all the time I spent in Iraq (most of which was the spring of 2003) I never saw a single person in an iraqi uniform. Our enemies turned out to be the nice gentleman that shook my hand 5 minutes earlier and then tries to pick me off with an RPG.

I don't know what the answer is, but I do feel that a person who has been designated as an unlawful enemy combatant (however that happens) does not deserved to have the same rights as me until it is proven that they are an enemy combatant. I do think this process should be handled in a court of law, but definitely not the sam court of law that handles petty theft. We need to come up with more concise rules for these situations and not just leave it up to the president to decided what to do. I have a feeling that as time passes, this will become an even bigger issue than it is right now.

Here is a historical reference
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=425ence
Not saying Civil War is same as Iraq war, or ends justifies the means.



4th amendment - isn't that violated every time some other entity checks your credit report without your permission, or every time a program follows your internet browsing?

5th amendment - where does 'eminent domain ' figure in this?
Or for that matter the life of a fetus?


Since 9/11/01 should there be a change in the current paradigm of prosecution AFTER a criminal event?
Should not PREVENTION of terrorism come before reacting AFTER a terrorist event?
How to prevent can be a matter of open discussion, but I have no problem with tracking money or arms sources.

I know, completely off thread. I appreciate everyone's views. Thanks





Grace and Peace

He is not designating anyone unlawful enemy combatants . He is designating unlawful enemy combatants as unlawful enemy combattants .
You are quite right, and you pinpoint the problem exactly. The president's designation of them as unlawful enemy combatants is the only way they can actually become unlawful enemy combatants before the law. He recognizes no legal restraint or judicial review of his sole authority to determine which persons, regardless of citizenship, living anywhere in the world (including the US), are to be so designated, and may therefore be deprived of the rights they would otherwise be entitled to under the US Constitution and international treaties. Just because I haven't been disappeared yet doesn't mean my rights are not being violated. If ANYONE can be disappeared, I can be disappeared.

Hey, mind if I jump in?
Not at all, glad to have you.


Ordinary guy, not saying I agree whether the pres. Should be able to designate anyone as an unlawful combatant, but do you agree that the rights of the 4th amendment apply to lawful citizens of the U.S.
Yes, all lawful residents, not just citizens.


Don't felons give up some of their rights?
Of course they do, after being found guilty of a felony offense by due process of law.


I'm just talking about the ones guilty of terrorism.
Yes, but the whole reason for "due process of law" is to determine who actually is guilty before the law.


Do you feel that a foreigner, given that they are guilty of committing an act of terrorism, should be allowed to take part in the system that they are trying to destroy?
Anyone, foreigner or citizen, has the right to be treated as innocent until proven guilty by due process of law. It is not "given" that someone is guilty, it is litigated and adjudged that they are guilty, and unless and until that process occurs, they may be charged with committing a crime, terrorist or otherwise, but they are not yet guilty of it.


I agree that there should be more checks and balances with this presidential authority.
More? How about Any?


I don't think the president should be allowed to do anything without someone else reviewing and OK-ing it. But I also believe that in 1949, we didn't have to worry about our own planes being used as bombs, nor did we have to worry about a group of guys trying to sneak onto a military installation in order to shoot and kill as many as possible. It is definitely a different war than what the 1949ers had to deal with. We pretty much knew who our enemies were back then. Of all the time I spent in Iraq (most of which was the spring of 2003) I never saw a single person in an iraqi uniform. Our enemies turned out to be the nice gentleman that shook my hand 5 minutes earlier and then tries to pick me off with an RPG.
Believe me, I see how impossible the situation is for a soldier on the street. The worst thing a Commander in Chief can do to the military is to send them into a situation where they can't tell who the enemy is. Fighting a guerilla war on the guerillas' home turf is hard enough. Trying to stop a civil war when you can't tell one side from the other is impossible. You're the enemy of both sides, ripe for manipulation by both sides trying to gain advantage over their adversary, held in contempt by both sides for being so clueless. Actually a civil war with only two sides would be much simpler than the multi-way power struggle going on in Iraq today.


I have a feeling that as time passes, this will become an even bigger issue than it is right now.
Hoo boy, I'm afraid you're right.