Regarding the OP, I would say that my feelings more or less are in line with what was written by the SSG.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regarding the rest of the posts in the thread, regardless of what side they were on, they showed, overwhelmingly, how uninformed and ignorant of the real issues that people are, surrounding the conflict in Iraq.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

First, let me say this. In all branches of the US Military, people join for a variety of reasons. Some are running away from something and hoping for a better life with the training, discipline and benefits that the military provides. Some join to pay for education, both education already attended and education that is intended. Some join for tradition. Some join for God and country. Some join for direction. Some join, just because. Regardless of the reasons for joining, none know what the future will hold. Granted, there are some that have joined since 2003 that joined to go to Iraq, but I am certain that number is very low.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The SSG who wrote what was in the OP, certainly did not join the military so that he could go to war with Iraq.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Joining the military, however, is really where the freedom to choose what you do and don't do, or where you go and don't go, ends. By raising your right hand and swearing "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." , you are giving up your freedom so that others can be free.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, for it to be said:

 

 

 

And if a soldier dosen't like the war, then why is he there? How many people in the U.S. are forced to go to war?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You really, truly show your ignorance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sure, a soldier can refuse to go, they always have that option. There are consequences, however.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• A felony conviction.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  Years in a federal prison.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  A Dishonorable Discharge from the military
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  Loss of voting privledges for life.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  Loss of the ability to secure any, meaningful employment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By taking the oath of service, a servicemember is duty bound to go to war, when it is required of them, and the military courts are not forgiving of those who refuse.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Concerning political affiliation of service members, it is overwhelmingly Republican. I have seen estimates at 70-80% Republican, in fact.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ragarding the "war" in Iraq, there has been a huge amount of spin placed on the events that have transpired there, but the reality of the matter is that there was as much justification to invade Iraq as any major military action to date. It could even be argued that there is more.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WMDs had something to do with the reason for going, but it was not the reason to go to war. The whole world thought Saddam had stockpiles of WMDs, in fact, we knew that he did. Yes, partially, because we supplied him with them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Diplomatic relations, particularly in an area as volatile as the Middle East, have historically been about who will cooperate with us and our national interests the most. The Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, had very good relations with the United States. When he was overthrown and relations with Iran became very strained, the US decided to support Saddam Hussein, who at the time was actually very progressive in many areas, particularly women's rights. In our support for Iraq against Iran, we supplied Iraq with a large variety of weapons, including WMDs. It was not until 1988 when Saddam began his wholesale slaughtering of the Kurdish people that his Genocidal tendencies came into light.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A team of Human Rights Watch investigators determined, after analyzing eighteen tons of captured Iraqi documents, testing soil samples and carrying out interviews with more than 350 witnesses, that the attacks on the Kurdish people were characterized by gross violations of human rights, including mass executions and disappearances of many tens of thousands of noncombatants, widespread use of chemical weapons including Sarin, mustard gas and nerve agents that killed thousands, the arbitrary imprisoning of tens of thousands of women, children, and elderly people for months in conditions of extreme deprivation, forced displacement of hundreds of thousands of villagers after the demolition of their homes, and the wholesale destruction of nearly two thousand villages along with their schools, mosques, farms, and power stations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So we know he had WMDs, there is no doubt of that. In 1990, when he invaded Kuwait, the whole world cried out over his abuse of power against another sovereign nation. This led to UN sanctions against Iraq and weapons inspections that were repeatedly disregarded.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the decade following the Gulf War in 1991, the United Nations passed 16 Security Council resolutions calling for the elimination of Iraqi production and use of weapons of mass destruction. The UN showed obvious frustration over the years that Iraq was not only failing to disarm, but was interfering with the work of weapons inspectors. Resolutions were passed and statements were released - at least once a year - calling for Iraq to disarm and fully cooperate with inspectors. On many occasions, Iraqi soldiers physically prevented weapons inspectors from doing their job and in at least one case, took documents away from the inspectors.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In 1998, U.S. President Bill Clinton expressed concerns about Iraq's failure to disarm, noting that he believed the country would give its weapons of mass destruction to other countries. Clinton also stated his belief that Saddam Hussein would eventually use these weapons - it was "only a matter of time." On September 29, 1998, the United States Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act, which states that the U.S. intends to remove Saddam Hussein from office and replace the government with a democratic institution. The Iraq Liberation Act was signed by President Clinton on October 31, 1998. On the same day, Iraq announced it would no longer cooperate with United Nations weapons inspectors.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On September 12, 2002, U.S. President Bush, speaking before the General Assembly of the United Nations outlined the complaints of the United States against the Iraqi government, detailing Iraq's noncompliance to the terms of 16 resolutions of the Security Council since the Gulf War in 1990. Specific areas of noncompliance stated in this speech include:

 

 

 

• -"In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organization that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments....And al-Qaida terrorists escaped from Afghanistan are known to be in Iraq."
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  -U.N. Commission on Human Rights found "extremely grave" human rights violations in 2001.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  -Iraqi production and use of weapons of mass destruction (biological weapons, chemical weapons, and long-range missiles), all in violation of U.N. resolutions.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  -Iraq used proceeds from the "oil for food" U.N. program to purchase weapons rather than food for its people.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  -Iraq flagrantly violated the terms of the weapons inspection program before discontinuing it altogether.

 

 

 

Following the speech, intensive negotiations began with other members of the Security Council. In particular, three permanent members (with veto power) of the Council were known to have objections to an invasion of Iraq: Russia, People's Republic of China, and France.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyone want to take a quick guess what 3 countries were found by investigators to have been abusing the oil for food program?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You guessed it kids! Russia, China and France

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ok, now here is the question I have...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

President Bush was lying to us? Does that mean the UN was lying to us as well? Was President Clinton lying to us? Was the 105th Congress of 1998 lying to us when it passed Public Law No: 105-338, 105-235 and 105-174?? (George W. Bush was the governor of Texas at that time, btw) My goodness, did the whole, bloody world lie to us???

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Think about it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just because they didnt find WMDs doesnt mean they weren't there and certainly does not invalidate any of the other reasons for invading Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein from power.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Everything that has happened since May 2003 when that objective was accomplished, has been a result of efforts to ensure that there is a stable government in place with the means to provide its own security. All estimates and briefings that I recieved were that it would take up to 10 years to rebuild Iraq. We aren't even at 4 years now and everyone is crying about how long its been and how many casualties we have had. Now, every single life that is lost is important and the sacrifices made by the soldiers that gave life and limb should not be belittled, in the least, but let's look at this mathematically:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

US Revolutionary War -- 8 years : approx. 50,000 casualties

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

US Civil War -- 4 years : approx 360,000 Union Casualties

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

World War 1 -- 5 years : approx 117,000 US Casualties

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

World War 2 -- 5 years : approx 418,500 US Casualties

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Korean War -- 3 years : approx 37,000 US Casualties

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vietnam War -- 9 years : approx 58,000 US Casualties

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Iraq War -- 4 years : approx 3,000 US Casualties

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, every life matters. Historically, however, this is likely our least costly war.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The largest amount of Iraqi lives that have been lost has not been at the hands of US troops, but rather by the terrorists that have sprung up there. Al Qaeda being the largest organization. Other militant groups, such as the Mahdi Army and Ba'athists being major contributors as well. The funny thing about that is that they rarely target military targets. Instead, they target police checkpoints, schools, bus stops and markets.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why is this happening? Easy answer. In 2004, control of Iraq was handed back over to the Iraqis, with coalition troops taking a secondary role in the security of the streets.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If there was any failed policy of the Bush Administration, that was it. Letting the Iraqis take over before they were ready. Now, the Iraqis still arent ready and the "new direction" we are supposed to be taking is doing the same thing we did nearly 3 years ago that caused all of this??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When the US controlled the streets of Baghdad, we did not have many of the issues we have now. We conducted nightly raids of local neighborhoods, capturing insurgents and confiscating weapons and equipment on a regular basis. We had helicopters in the air 24/7 partolling the highways, looking for insurgents and providing air support. There was a heavy presence of troops partolling the roads at night, looking for WMDs and our EOD teams were busy daily, disposing of captured IEDs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What happened?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Politics

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Liberal Media

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An ignorant and misinformed public.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You get those 3 together at the same time in the same place and you have Vietnam all over again.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A war that was lost on the homefront.

The US army is the strongest in the world, but our citizens are pansies. :P They thought this would be a run in, spank the enemy and walk out victorious thing, and since the first death of the war, people have wanted out. People didn't expect anyone to die. Afterall, Iraq is just some random-assed country with a metric ton of Muslims screaming "Allahu Akbar" 24/7, right? Yea, noone expected anyone to die from that crap.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I wish people would stop calling it the "War", really...It's not a war, it's an occupation with little rodents mucking around screwing stuff up. Yes, I just called Muslim extremists "Rodents", get over it, they are. We have men over there trying to help stuff out, build a democracy, and those rodents don't like it, so they, like the cowards they are, blow up cars and themselves near our guys because they think they're fighting a cause and going to Heaven. They are primitive little rats.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Ahem*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yea, this "war" is done. We've spent many more billion dollars than we ever intended to, and all we're doing is building stuff while fighting back Allah's finest, which by the way, suck hardcore. Allah is worthless if that's all he has. :P I wonder if you guys know how much it's really messing America up, not only in the short-term, but also in the long run? My dad is a general contractor and he almost went out of business in 2004 because the cost of plywood shot through the roof. Why? Because we're using all of it to build stupid stuff for Iraqi's that they don't even need. Seriously, we build olympic swimming pools there with our tax money. It's hilariously dumb. Yes, let's reward the little bastards with a swimming pool. Good idea. It's all public relations PC bullcrap now. None of them want us there, they all hate us, children throw rocks at our Hummer's, etc etc. They're all extremely ungrateful, and 70 years ago, they would have gotten a nuke dropped on their faces for being little ungrateful brats.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It makes me mad thinking about that...I've seen a video of kids throwing rocks and even live grenades they found on the ground at our vehicles, and our military isn't allowed to engage them. If a kid throws a grenade, he should be considered a lawful combatant according to the rules o' war, but nooo, political correctness says you can't shoot a grenade-chuckin'-child. The best moment in my life was when I saw soldiers spanking those kids who were throwing rocks at them one time. THAT was awesome.

Sorry to be a history nazi, but we didn't have nukes 70 years ago (1937), no one did. The first nuke ever detonated was in 1945.

I have alot of respect for soldiers in iraq although i think America will never win the war trying fight an enemy that will never stop trying to kill the US forces even if the kill ratio is 1, 2 or 3 per 100 of their own dead. I just dont see how its possible, Having debates and protests against the war makes it worse still

I wish people would stop calling it the "War", really...It's not a war, it's an occupation with little rodents mucking around screwing stuff up. Yes, I just called Muslim extremists "Rodents", get over it, they are. We have men over there trying to help stuff out, build a democracy, and those rodents don't like it, so they, like the cowards they are, blow up cars and themselves near our guys because they think they're fighting a cause and going to Heaven. They are primitive little rats.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lovely attitude indeed. First of all I hope you are part of a small american minority. Underestimating your victim has always been and will always be the worst thing you can do in war. You can look back to history how the Soviet Union tried to take over Finland or Afganistan, how Germany tried to take over the Soviet Union or how you tried something at Somalia. I also just "love" it how you are saying americans are there to help them. Last time I wasted a moment of thinking the word "to help", causing a civil war and causing the death of over 55,000 civilians wasn't the first thing that came to my mind. Dunno how badly you've been brainwashed during this mediawar, but I seriously hope that the majority of Americans don't still hope that you are there just to help.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It makes me mad thinking about that...I've seen a video of kids throwing rocks and even live grenades they found on the ground at our vehicles, and our military isn't allowed to engage them. If a kid throws a grenade, he should be considered a lawful combatant according to the rules o' war, but nooo, political correctness says you can't shoot a grenade-chuckin'-child. The best moment in my life was when I saw soldiers spanking those kids who were throwing rocks at them one time. THAT was awesome.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you, Russia or any other country would try to take over us or drive us into chaos, I'd throw grenades too. They are being attacked in a war and in my opinion they got full rights to defend. I can also imagine how badly you've destroyed the life of millions of Iraqian kids. You've destroyed their homes, their schools, their families and pretty much everything they had. How can you still wonder why are they throwing rocks at you? You can call me whatever you want, but I support Iraq in this war. Why? Because they are victims and are attacked by a superpower. Yet they are fighting back and not giving up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Btw it's always great to stock up a thread with that many racistic comments as you did.

Sorry to be a history nazi, but we didn't have nukes 70 years ago (1937), no one did. The first nuke ever detonated was in 1945.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I didn't want to say 60 years because that was too short, and 70 was too long...I just said 70. :P

 

I wish people would stop calling it the "War", really...It's not a war, it's an occupation with little rodents mucking around screwing stuff up. Yes, I just called Muslim extremists "Rodents", get over it, they are. We have men over there trying to help stuff out, build a democracy, and those rodents don't like it, so they, like the cowards they are, blow up cars and themselves near our guys because they think they're fighting a cause and going to Heaven. They are primitive little rats.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lovely attitude indeed. First of all I hope you are part of a small american minority. Underestimating your victim has always been and will always be the worst thing you can do in war. You can look back to history how the Soviet Union tried to take over Finland or Afganistan, how Germany tried to take over the Soviet Union or how you tried something at Somalia. I also just "love" it how you are saying americans are there to help them. Last time I wasted a moment of thinking the word "to help", causing a civil war and causing the death of over 55,000 civilians wasn't the first thing that came to my mind. Dunno how badly you've been brainwashed during this mediawar, but I seriously hope that the majority of Americans don't still hope that you are there just to help.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It makes me mad thinking about that...I've seen a video of kids throwing rocks and even live grenades they found on the ground at our vehicles, and our military isn't allowed to engage them. If a kid throws a grenade, he should be considered a lawful combatant according to the rules o' war, but nooo, political correctness says you can't shoot a grenade-chuckin'-child. The best moment in my life was when I saw soldiers spanking those kids who were throwing rocks at them one time. THAT was awesome.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you, Russia or any other country would try to take over us or drive us into chaos, I'd throw grenades too. They are being attacked in a war and in my opinion they got full rights to defend. I can also imagine how badly you've destroyed the life of millions of Iraqian kids. You've destroyed their homes, their schools, their families and pretty much everything they had. How can you still wonder why are they throwing rocks at you? You can call me whatever you want, but I support Iraq in this war. Why? Because they are victims and are attacked by a superpower. Yet they are fighting back and not giving up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Btw it's always great to stock up a thread with that many racistic comments as you did.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course we're not there to help, we're there to steal their oil and whatnot. :P But I said we're there to help because thats their cover story, and we're NOT there because of terrorism like people seem to think. Trust me, I'm not brainswashed at all, I don't buy into their BS. :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And I didn't make a single racism comment. Did I say Arabs were rodents? No. I said muslim extemists are rodents. And really, who wouldn't agree with that? They hide, then come out, mess crap up and hied again. They're rats.

You can call me whatever you want, but I support Iraq in this war. Why? Because they are victims and are attacked by a superpower. Yet they are fighting back and not giving up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You just dont get it do you?? We are not fighting Iraq, or Iraqis. They are fighting and killing each other. Americans are not responsible for killing 10s of thousands of Iraqi civilians. Americans are not responsible for destroying Iraqi schools, homes, families and pretty much everything they have. It is other Iraqis, other Muslims. It is people who seem to think that killing their own is the only way they can solve their problems. If they just kill off everyone that doesnt agree with them, or terrorize them into submission, then they get the power. That is how they think.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Don't believe the reports you hear on TV. The average Iraqi does not hate America. The media won't show you the kids running alongside the HMMWVs waving and smiling, the media wont show you American soldiers building Iraqi schools, or bringing them the supplies they need to educate their children. The media won't show you American military standing up Iraqi medical clinics, or trucking in million dollar generators to provide power to entire neighborhoods. The media doesnt want you to see the warm fuzzies, because all people will do is change the channel, or grab another newspaper, magazine, etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Someone, honestly tell me the last "fluff" story from the news that stood out to you and made you remember it. They don't exist, but to a very small portion of the population, and even then all you really hear is "Awww, well that's nice" or "How Sweet". Come the next day, do you think someone will actually remember that piece? Hell no. They will remember the bloodiest, most gruesome, or most controversial peice. Why?? HUMAN NATURE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, everything has not been perfect, and innocent lives have been affected. Yes, sometimes those bombs don't land as spot-on as they should have. Sometimes there were innocents that got too close and lost their lives in a battle.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Believe what you want, but the FACT is that the US and other coalition militaries are not there to kill Iraqis. They are not there to destroy homes. They are not there to destroy infrastructure. Does it happen? Sadly, yes, it does. It is war. Every effort possible is made to minimize such things, however. Believe it or don't believe it. It is true.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dont you think it would be a hell of alot easier and infinitely less costly in lives and money if we did not try to protect the people of Iraq during this conflict. We have ground launched missiles that will take out a square kilometer with anti-personnel or anti-tank munitions PER MISSILE. We could shoot shake n bakes on every hut we thought housed insurgents. Hell, we could probably just carpet bomb the whole damn country if we wanted to. After all, we are THE SUPERPOWER.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The reality is that we don't, and we don't for a reason. Yes, mistakes are made. They always are, no matter who is making the decisions.

You just dont get it do you?? We are not fighting Iraq, or Iraqis. They are fighting and killing each other. Americans are not responsible for killing 10s of thousands of Iraqi civilians. Americans are not responsible for destroying Iraqi schools, homes, families and pretty much everything they have. It is other Iraqis, other Muslims. It is people who seem to think that killing their own is the only way they can solve their problems. If they just kill off everyone that doesnt agree with them, or terrorize them into submission, then they get the power. That is how they think.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The reason why that place is in a civil war is american actions. Before when Saddam ruled, the things were in a bad condition, but now they are even worse. It's also

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Believe what you want, but the FACT is that the US and other coalition militaries are not there to kill Iraqis. They are not there to destroy homes. They are not there to destroy infrastructure. Does it happen? Sadly, yes, it does. It is war. Every effort possible is made to minimize such things, however. Believe it or don't believe it. It is true.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Their first motive for sure isn't causing (see the verb; to cause, not to kill) the death of over 55,000 civilians. Yet, it doesn't change the fact that they are the ones to blame for it. Bad things and accidents happen during wars, but you've caused one helluva big accident.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dont you think it would be a hell of alot easier and infinitely less costly in lives and money if we did not try to protect the people of Iraq during this conflict. We have ground launched missiles that will take out a square kilometer with anti-personnel or anti-tank munitions PER MISSILE. We could shoot shake n bakes on every hut we thought housed insurgents. Hell, we could probably just carpet bomb the whole damn country if we wanted to. After all, we are THE SUPERPOWER.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your motive isn't destroying whole Iraq, your motive is to get benefits from it. Middle east is politically and economically an important place and you just can't let it go to other hands. Destroying whole Iraq would be a political suicide within muslim countries.

 

 

 

You just dont get it do you?? We are not fighting Iraq, or Iraqis. They are fighting and killing each other. Americans are not responsible for killing 10s of thousands of Iraqi civilians. Americans are not responsible for destroying Iraqi schools, homes, families and pretty much everything they have. It is other Iraqis, other Muslims. It is people who seem to think that killing their own is the only way they can solve their problems. If they just kill off everyone that doesnt agree with them, or terrorize them into submission, then they get the power. That is how they think.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Don't believe the reports you hear on TV. The average Iraqi does not hate America. The media won't show you the kids running alongside the HMMWVs waving and smiling, the media wont show you American soldiers building Iraqi schools, or bringing them the supplies they need to educate their children. The media won't show you American military standing up Iraqi medical clinics, or trucking in million dollar generators to provide power to entire neighborhoods. The media doesnt want you to see the warm fuzzies, because all people will do is change the channel, or grab another newspaper, magazine, etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's actually really not true. I think you're another person who would benefit from seeing the 2006 documentary "Iraq in Fragments." I was actually able to see it this past Wednesday, and the director spoke afterwards - after living with Iraqis (Kurds, Sunni, AND Shiite) for two years and following their daily lives and documenting them on film, he said that most Iraqis really just feel the continued US presence is threatening and they view it as an occupation. Most of them were happy that Saddam was toppled, but many viewed the American occupation is worse, because at least Saddam was honest about oppressing them. These are not my words; these are theirs and James Longley's (the director's). The movie is pretty impartial, but upon speaking to Longley afterwards, after he immersed himself in Iraqi culture for two years, I respect Longley's assertion that the best thing for the Iraqis right now would be immediate withdrawal of American troops. That won't solve all the problems (Iraq might still be split into three countries, which Longley admitted would probably just cause more problems and wasn't the best solution either), but it's better than what we have now.

My cousin in Iraq got his shoulder like blown off by an RPG (it was a dud or something) and when he came back, he told us how much it sucked and how it would be better if they just letthem go out with rifles instead of all the tactics and planning and everythin. Basically a short and edited version of what you said.

My cousin in Iraq got his shoulder like blown off by an RPG (it was a dud or something) and when he came back, he told us how much it sucked and how it would be better if they just letthem go out with rifles instead of all the tactics and planning and everythin. Basically a short and edited version of what you said.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm currently in army (60 more days left) and this is my point: Without proper equipment and tactics, you would have lost a lot more soldier than you have done now. Dunno real english terms, but a tactical light, redpoint viewfinder and other special equipment might make your assault rifle weight a bit more, but in a real case they are worth every single gram they add. You got a 1st class strategic planning, training and equipment, so don't mock it :P

 

 

 

You just dont get it do you?? We are not fighting Iraq, or Iraqis.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who do you think the members of those rebel factions are, Mahdi's army, brigades of Al-Sadr... They are people who were bred since birth to be terrorists and blow up anything that moves?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...No. Those organisations consist of normal citizens who hate having their country occupied. They have big popular support. Some representatives of those rebel organisations/factions even have legitimate power in the Iraqi parliament.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How exactly do you think US soldiers die there? Just by car bombs and sneak attacks? They have to fight back the rebel factions daily because they're being attacked. The US has better equipment, but the rebels aren't entirely powerless as you can see from death statistics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...Still, 55,000 civilian deaths, compared to what amount of rebel deaths, that openly fought US forces?

Ironically, the only solution to many of the problems raised by this soldiers self-righteous rant is for the US to end it's aimless and ill-planned occupation of Iraq. The failure of the US to make meaningful progress on the path to peace is accentued by comparisons to Saddams regime, where Iraq was safer (if less democratic) than it is now, and comparisons to the war in Vietnam, where escalation only deteriorated the situation in a war torn country where most citizens were against US intervention. Reports on the subject suggest that US intervention in Iraq only fuels the fires of Islamic fundamentalism. The majority of Iraqis don't want us in Iraq, and almost half support suicide bombings. I conjecture that the underlying issues that prevent US sucess at in Iraq have less to do with the way the US is fighting the war and how it is viewed and covered by the media, and more to do with why, and for what goals, the US is fighting in Iraq. For there is not, and never has been, a coherent reason for invading and occupying Iraq. Nor has there been any way to measure success.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We are not in Iraq and Afghanistan to build nations. We are there to kill our enemies. We make the work of the State Department easier by the results we achieve.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So it was a waste for the US to spend billions on building schools, hospitals, and holding democratic elections? If the US wanted to confront her enemies directly, why not hold an independent and thorough investigation of the 9/11 attacks and find those responsible, rather than attacking the nation of Iraq?

My cousin in Iraq got his shoulder like blown off by an RPG (it was a dud or something) and when he came back, he told us how much it sucked and how it would be better if they just letthem go out with rifles instead of all the tactics and planning and everythin. Basically a short and edited version of what you said.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i know what you mean, just let me re-word it for you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the US soldiers need to kick all the stubid lawyers and journalists out of iraq, along with all un-essential personell. then we send americas best out and let them try to fight us on the ground, on our terms, instead of hiding in a cave where we cant get them with our planes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

that about sums it up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And the hating of the US soldier continues :ohnoes: .

the US soldiers need to kick all the stubid lawyers and journalists out of iraq, along with all un-essential personell. then we send americas best out and let them try to fight us on the ground, on our terms, instead of hiding in a cave where we cant get them with our planes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kicking out journalists and allowing same kind of massacres as in Vietnam would be a total political suicide in both domestic and international politic fields. Kicking out journalists would cause a major hey around western world, your propaganda machines (not saying that all journalists are like that) would stop running and freelancers would just get bigger bucks for their stories. Taking even more unhumane (not saying that Iraqian tactics would be any better) line would just cause a lot of problems during other muslims and probably even at western worlds.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I also find it really funny how you're saying Iraqians should fight by your rules. Heck, you're the ones who started the war at their ground. They are using the best tactic for them, just like you would do if someone attacked your soil.

one of my best friends was in Afganistan once and iraq once

 

 

 

He says 95% of the Iraq Want them over there

 

 

 

and my brother is going to iraq soon and he supports The war.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I hate those liberal protest Saying "we suport our troops bring them home!"

 

 

 

Soldiers train all the time I am pretty sure alot of them want to go fight and do what they are trained to do

one of my best friends was in Afganistan once and iraq once

 

 

 

He says 95% of the Iraq Want them over there

 

 

 

and my brother is going to iraq soon and he supports The war.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I hate those liberal protest Saying "we suport our troops bring them home!"

 

 

 

Soldiers train all the time I am pretty sure alot of them want to go fight and do what they are trained to do

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

First of all, I think by now (after the almost daily attacks on coalition troops) that its pretty clear that Iraqi's dont want them there. They may have liked it when Saddam was removed but now they seem to be making the problem worse in the eyes of the Iraqi population.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Secondly do you think that soldiers are phsychopaths? Yes they may be trained to kill but do you really think that most soldiers dream of having to kill somebody, I dont think so. If they've or their comrades have been been attacked then maybe they'll want to fight but most people now see this bs war for what it is, and therefore dont want be put into harms way for no reason.

 

one of my best friends was in Afganistan once and iraq once

 

 

 

He says 95% of the Iraq Want them over there

 

 

 

and my brother is going to iraq soon and he supports The war.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I hate those liberal protest Saying "we suport our troops bring them home!"

 

 

 

Soldiers train all the time I am pretty sure alot of them want to go fight and do what they are trained to do

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

First of all, I think by now (after the almost daily attacks on coalition troops) that its pretty clear that Iraqi's dont want them there. They may have liked it when Saddam was removed but now they seem to be making the problem worse in the eyes of the Iraqi population.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Secondly do you think that soldiers are phsychopaths? Yes they may be trained to kill but do you really think that most soldiers dream of having to kill somebody, I dont think so. If they've or their comrades have been been attacked then maybe they'll want to fight but most people now see this bs war for what it is, and therefore dont want be put into harms way for no reason.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think that if all, most or even a majority of the 28 million Iraqis hated Americans, there would be far far more than 3000 dead going into our 5th year there. I think, that with 55,000 Iraqis dead, that they hate each other far more than they hate us. People that claim that the US is responsible for the Iraqi deaths, really have no understanding of the history of Islam or Iraq. Additionally, to say that Iraq was better off or more stable with Saddam Hussein in power is akin to saying Germany was better off and more stable with Adolf Hitler in power. 75-80% of the country's population was oppressed and lived in fear of their lives every day, because of their ethnicity or their religion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sure! Everything was peachy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sunni's werent fighting because they received anything they wanted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kurds werent fighting because Saddam had already killed a couple hundred thousand of them and destroyed a couple thousand villages, displacing huge numbers of Kurds from their homes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shi'a weren't fighting because, after losing the Persian Gulf War, where Saddam had invaded Kuwait, he slaughtered a couple hundred thousand of them and tortured countless more because he blamed them for losing the war.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So yah, they were safe, as long as they weren't Shi'a or Kurd.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Peachy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The fact is, that the types of attacks that are being made all over Iraq can be fairly easily done by a few thousand insurgents. For these kinds of attacks, the fewer people involved the better. That is what makes them so effective. They are a very well funded and small network.

Let's be clear about one thing first... Democracy isn't the absolute "best" form of government. There have been many cases in the past where an autocrat has done better simply for the fact that they are a good leader, and that because of the nature of autocracy, there's a lot less Bureaucracy. So to say that Iraq HAS to have a Democracy with universal suffrage in order to advance is not a particularly valid statement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is something that the Americans seem to be misunderstanding. Ever since the Cold War, and the irony of the black civil rights movement during that time (read about the racism in the south, the most horrific of which, the "Emmett Till" case, 1955); America has been on a mad campaign to portray itself as the leader of the free world. This means that it now denounces any form of "oppresive dictatorship", and saying that all countries in the world will be better under a free capitalist democracy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, if you read the polls, watch the news, study the reports by revisionist groups, and read newspapers you seem to get an idea that a fair bulk of the Iraqi population feel that they were better off under Saddam. I agree with them quite frankly - Iraq cannot exist in this state. When the "great" British Empire collapsed, we literally drew a box in the Middle-East and called it Iraq, not caring to think of the racial groups involved. The problem stems from this. All three races want autonomy of their own affairs, and some will do anything to get it - including the slaughter of their own people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is just something that the Americans cannot deal with. I'm sorry but it's physically impossible to "fight" terrorism. All you do is spread terror yourselves; you solve one problem, and create a bigger one in your wake. Obviously, you cannot talk and negoitiate with them. I'm sorry to think what seems to be the unthinkable, but Iraq has to split up into its three race groups. Now I'm not saying that this will solve everything - it'll create problems in itself; but if you want the situation in Iraq to end, and US soldiers to stop dying, then Iraq has to be devolved into three new states, and the coalition has to be withdrawn immediately!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for your comment about removing all non-essential personel. This is just as stupid as it is ill-thought-out and narrow-minded. It would escalate the problems. For two reasons:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1) OK, the Middle-Classes have gone. How will that force the terrorists out their caves, so you can fight them on "your terms"? This is more than just a battle tactic/strategy! They know they'll die in a battle with you - believe it or not they ARE clever people! All the stupid ones died in the months immediately after March 2003!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2) Let's think in the mind of a terrorist here: "The Middle-Classes have gone. Hey look lads, a complete vacuum of power in Iraq!!! Come on guys - let's seize control of government in the name of our race!!!" (And don't think the coalition could stop this... this would get world-wide press coverage, it would be a complete embarassment and they'd probably elect for a laissez-faire approach)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is more than just a issue of "Clever, Superior Americans" vs. "Dumb, Inferior Middle-East Terrorists"...

 

 

 

This is more than just a issue of "Clever, Superior Americans" vs. "Dumb, Inferior Middle-East Terrorists"...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wow, you get an e-ovation. Great post. I don't agree with some of your proposed solutions, but your anylisis is dead on. The United States attempt at dismantling "Terrorism" has only strengthened it and the average Iraqi was better off under Saddam than coalition occupation. These facts are ignored by most Americans, despite their self-evidence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For anyone looking for more information on the Emmit Till case mentioned above, you should try the excellent "A Death in the Delta" by Stephen Whitfield, I just finished it and the book does an excellent job of fleshing out the key historical actors and explaining how a culture of hate and violence perpetuates itself.

what i meant by saying "on our terms" is that we need to get rid of all this political wishy washy and get er dunn on the ground, with a high powered rifle. give them what they want, someone to shoot at.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

because if they shoot at one of us, the rest of us shoot all of them.

one of my best friends was in Afganistan once and iraq once

 

 

 

He says 95% of the Iraq Want them over there

 

 

 

and my brother is going to iraq soon and he supports The war.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A majority of Iraqis support immediate US withdrawal.

 

 

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq ... over_x.htm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I hate those liberal protest Saying "we suport our troops bring them home!"Soldiers train all the time I am pretty sure alot of them want to go fight and do what they are trained to do

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ok. I don't support the troops.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bring them home.

what i meant by saying "on our terms" is that we need to get rid of all this political wishy washy and get er dunn on the ground, with a high powered rifle. give them what they want, someone to shoot at.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

because if they shoot at one of us, the rest of us shoot all of them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See.. this is what you don't understand. They are not interested in picking off every single coalition soldier in that region. I agree... the political wishy washy isn't working, and Iraq needs an autocrat which will slowly guide it to a democracy, instead of just hoping that democracy will establish itself and presuming that this is what the Iraqi people want.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But the Middle-Eastern Terrorist are exactly that - Terrorists. They're NOT soldiers. They are not fighting a war against you, and a military one anyway. They set out to spread terror, because they know that the press coverage will destabalise the democratic Iraqi (which they simply don't want to exist). Therefore, their initial thoughts when they see an American soldier (at the clever ones anyway) will not be "oooo an American soldier let's shoot him", it'll be "let's wait until they've gone to another area of Baghdad and bomb that marketplace over there, and then they can get the blame for being so neglegent".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You simply aren't going to win this through guns... in fact I actually have doubts as to whether you can win this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I support my troops too. I'm no patriot (I actually class myself as Irish, not British), but that doesn't mean I like people dying unneccessarily. Thus, I want the UK forces to be withdrawn immediately, and I would say most of the Labour Party, and the majority of the population do as well. Unfortunetely, it just seems to be Tony Blair that wants them there... just so he can have some kind of legacy.

its just one person. And if a soldier dosen't like the war, then why is he there? How many people in the U.S. are forced to go to war?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The correct answer to your question would be zero