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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

True, but some of the recruiters are quite aggressive and persuasive. They will intentionally go to malls and other places favored by young people who have nothing better to do than hang out, and tell them about the perks of "military life".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not all young people have an entirely free will especially if they come from poor conditions. They can be easily persuaded to throw away their lives in the name of patriotism.

Not all young people have an entirely free will especially if they come from poor conditions. They can be easily persuaded to throw away their lives in the name of patriotism.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You know, the majority of military jobs in the States don't require you to go gung-[garden tool] with an M-16 all the time. Most MOS's are support, mechanic jobs, maintanance, training, intel, etc. The people that do infantry are usually the bottom of the barrel (and don't argue, really only the people with the absolute lowest ASVAB scores and gung-[garden tool] patriots take that MOS).

ok, can we get back on topic. how the soldiers are being treated, not why they are over there?

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

True, but some of the recruiters are quite aggressive and persuasive. They will intentionally go to malls and other places favored by young people who have nothing better to do than hang out, and tell them about the perks of "military life".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not all young people have an entirely free will especially if they come from poor conditions. They can be easily persuaded to throw away their lives in the name of patriotism.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Excactly, alot of people who have had the benefit of a middle class upbringing (which seems to be the majority of Internet users, although thats changing) don't seem to understand that alot of people who grow up in poor area's just don't have the same career opportunities as they do. You can argue education all you want but at the end of the day, less well off areas tend to have poorer schools, less opportunity, higher crime/drug/unemployment rates. All these factors lead to the lower ranks of the military to become a cross section of the working class. If you disagree with that just think to yourself how many people who grew up in upper/middle class homes become regular soldiers.....I'm thinking that there won't be many.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Infact I was speaking to my own Dad a while ago about why he joined the Army (UK) when he became old enough and it was for that reason. At the time, where he grew up (which is close to where I grew up/live now) he could have either worked in the mines (which are all now closed) or join the army. Considering the miners strikes during the 70's and 80's that meant he really had no choice.

Military benefits are pretty good. I think the pay is even pretty decent...Like $25,000 per year just starting out...Officers get more, of course. Don't remember exact numbers, just looked at the Army's website one day. :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd join the military right now if I could be gaurenteed a Sniper position. I don't know how all that works out though, so I'm not going to bother. I really don't wish to get stuck as a Boarder Guard or something. :lol:

He must be one tired person. He's tired of everything, it seems.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

True, but some of the recruiters are quite aggressive and persuasive. They will intentionally go to malls and other places favored by young people who have nothing better to do than hang out, and tell them about the perks of "military life".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not all young people have an entirely free will especially if they come from poor conditions. They can be easily persuaded to throw away their lives in the name of patriotism.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah. One recruiter almost got me in 10th grade. I was thinking about doing it because the perks sounded so great.. then I came to my senses.

Military benefits are pretty good. I think the pay is even pretty decent...Like $25,000 per year just starting out...Officers get more, of course. Don't remember exact numbers, just looked at the Army's website one day. :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd join the military right now if I could be gaurenteed a Sniper position. I don't know how all that works out though, so I'm not going to bother. I really don't wish to get stuck as a Boarder Guard or something. :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

snipers are beast, but i wouldnt want to lie on my stomaach for days on end, id probly fall asleep. -.-

 

Military benefits are pretty good. I think the pay is even pretty decent...Like $25,000 per year just starting out...Officers get more, of course. Don't remember exact numbers, just looked at the Army's website one day. :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd join the military right now if I could be gaurenteed a Sniper position. I don't know how all that works out though, so I'm not going to bother. I really don't wish to get stuck as a Boarder Guard or something. :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

snipers are beast, but i wouldnt want to lie on my stomaach for days on end, id probly fall asleep. -.-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Speaking from minor training experience, snipers always have company. They will switch positions after maybe 4 or 5 hours and you usually get to do something else. Not for comfort reasons, but your eye can start hurting really bad which is a risk.

 

 

Military benefits are pretty good. I think the pay is even pretty decent...Like $25,000 per year just starting out...Officers get more, of course. Don't remember exact numbers, just looked at the Army's website one day. :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd join the military right now if I could be gaurenteed a Sniper position. I don't know how all that works out though, so I'm not going to bother. I really don't wish to get stuck as a Boarder Guard or something. :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

snipers are beast, but i wouldnt want to lie on my stomaach for days on end, id probly fall asleep. -.-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Speaking from minor training experience, snipers always have company. They will switch positions after maybe 4 or 5 hours and you usually get to do something else. Not for comfort reasons, but your eye can start hurting really bad which is a risk.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lol, still, give me a mp5 and let me swim up behind a guy and own him, not wait around for a few days.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SEALs pwn

With some water and some food, I guarentee you I could sit in the same spot for days. :P Sleeping might suck though...Can't really curl up with a nice blanket and a teddy bear, now can you? :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I just like as little conflict as possible is all. When I play war games, I always go for the sniper role because it's as little danger to myself as possible. :lol: You could say I'm a coward, but I say I like to whoop from afar. :P

With some water and some food, I guarentee you I could sit in the same spot for days. :P Sleeping might suck though...Can't really curl up with a nice blanket and a teddy bear, now can you? :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I just like as little conflict as possible is all. When I play war games, I always go for the sniper role because it's as little danger to myself as possible. :lol: You could say I'm a coward, but I say I like to whoop from afar. :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i could sit on my butt too, but what about the bugs, they elways suck.

 

 

 

lol, still, give me a mp5 and let me swim up behind a guy and own him, not wait around for a few days.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sounds like you need to speak to some soldiers about the reality of war. Of course, most of them won't tell you, because they don't want to remember fully.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

War means your best friends having their limbs shot off, or being blinded for the rest of their lives. War means shooting one of your allies by mistake because the battle is so confusing. War means that every 'enemy' person you kill is someone with a real life, someone with a real mother and father, possibly with children of their own - someone who has lived for 20 years and has been educated, but will never get to use their education. War is where people don't just respawn like in your computer games, they stay dead forever. War means killing children and women and considering them acceptable damage.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I imagine that you play FPS games from time to time - next time you die in one, remember that in war you don't get a second chance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even if you think you have a good cause to go to war, all of the above is still true.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No one gets "owned" in war.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On TV sometimes it reports that 40 people died, and 5 of them were women and children. But that's someone else that killed them, and it's an acceptable loss, because 35 bad guys died. What though, if you were the one to kill them, would that still be an acceptable loss?

 

 

 

 

lol, still, give me a mp5 and let me swim up behind a guy and own him, not wait around for a few days.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sounds like you need to speak to some soldiers about the reality of war. Of course, most of them won't tell you, because they don't want to remember fully.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

War means your best friends having their limbs shot off, or being blinded for the rest of their lives. War means shooting one of your allies by mistake because the battle is so confusing. War means that every 'enemy' person you kill is someone with a real life, someone with a real mother and father, possibly with children of their own - someone who has lived for 20 years and has been educated, but will never get to use their education. War is where people don't just respawn like in your computer games, they stay dead forever. War means killing children and women and considering them acceptable damage.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I imagine that you play FPS games from time to time - next time you die in one, remember that in war you don't get a second chance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even if you think you have a good cause to go to war, all of the above is still true.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No one gets "owned" in war.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On TV sometimes it reports that 40 people died, and 5 of them were women and children. But that's someone else that killed them, and it's an acceptable loss, because 35 bad guys died. What though, if you were the one to kill them, would that still be an acceptable loss?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dusqi.. You raised all the points that weren't needed.. It was quite obvious the post should've just been ignored.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No 14 year old kid will think of the consequences of REAL war. Hey, after all, we can just respawn and go 'pwn' those enemies who are really just robots with no feelings or families or pasts?

Agreed... but it does highlight the kind of attitudes that people have towards war really. They seem to think of it as: (for example, WWII) "millions of women, soldiers and children died. Dresden became one massive fireball, massacreing thousands. But hey, we killed the evil Nazis right? So surely all those lost lives must be fine?" (Of course, only to open the door to Stalinist Russia anyway).

 

 

 

I'm sorry but this attitude seems to lie with some of the soldiers you see in interviews on news programs. It seems to be a case of "100,000s of Iraqi innocent citizens are dying, but we gotta stay there and blow the brains out of those damn terrorists before their 'acceptable sacrifice' means anything. We gotta protect freedom!" The question I raise with that is, freedom for whom? The US, or Iraqi citizens?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In relation to the post... I'm sorry but that soldier has to wake up to realisation of war. People die. The conditions are (colourful word here). Blood pours etc etc, no-one forced him to go there. Maybe this will enlighten him that perhaps not everything in this "war against terror" is rosy, and perhaps he'll just perhaps start to question the propoganda that's being fed to him and the rest of the world.

 

 

 

 

 

lol, still, give me a mp5 and let me swim up behind a guy and own him, not wait around for a few days.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sounds like you need to speak to some soldiers about the reality of war. Of course, most of them won't tell you, because they don't want to remember fully.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

War means your best friends having their limbs shot off, or being blinded for the rest of their lives. War means shooting one of your allies by mistake because the battle is so confusing. War means that every 'enemy' person you kill is someone with a real life, someone with a real mother and father, possibly with children of their own - someone who has lived for 20 years and has been educated, but will never get to use their education. War is where people don't just respawn like in your computer games, they stay dead forever. War means killing children and women and considering them acceptable damage.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I imagine that you play FPS games from time to time - next time you die in one, remember that in war you don't get a second chance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even if you think you have a good cause to go to war, all of the above is still true.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No one gets "owned" in war.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On TV sometimes it reports that 40 people died, and 5 of them were women and children. But that's someone else that killed them, and it's an acceptable loss, because 35 bad guys died. What though, if you were the one to kill them, would that still be an acceptable loss?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dusqi.. You raised all the points that weren't needed.. It was quite obvious the post should've just been ignored.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually I would disagree with you there at 14 you're only 2 years short of being able to sign up for military service. Teenagers with unrealistic visions of what war is in reality are the same people who are targeted by recruiters (in USA specifically) who try use that same image to mislead them into singing up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The kids of my generation (late 80's babies) and younger are so used to seeing war in films, games & on the news that we tend not to realise the full scope of what soldiers have to do. Killing somebody on a game is easy, watching it on TV is pretty horrific (even if we're used to it), looking in somebodies eyes and knowing your responsible for their death.....I couldn't even imagine it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I mean just look at the violence in Iraq, the first few news reports of car/suicide bombings were shocking in 2004/2004 now we get forward to 2007 and nobody bats an eyelid.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I know that probably wasn't excactly what you meant (if at all) but I wanted to make the desensitisation point really. I have a tendancy to go off on a tangent.

 

 

 

 

lol, still, give me a mp5 and let me swim up behind a guy and own him, not wait around for a few days.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sounds like you need to speak to some soldiers about the reality of war. Of course, most of them won't tell you, because they don't want to remember fully.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

War means your best friends having their limbs shot off, or being blinded for the rest of their lives. War means shooting one of your allies by mistake because the battle is so confusing. War means that every 'enemy' person you kill is someone with a real life, someone with a real mother and father, possibly with children of their own - someone who has lived for 20 years and has been educated, but will never get to use their education. War is where people don't just respawn like in your computer games, they stay dead forever. War means killing children and women and considering them acceptable damage.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I imagine that you play FPS games from time to time - next time you die in one, remember that in war you don't get a second chance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even if you think you have a good cause to go to war, all of the above is still true.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No one gets "owned" in war.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On TV sometimes it reports that 40 people died, and 5 of them were women and children. But that's someone else that killed them, and it's an acceptable loss, because 35 bad guys died. What though, if you were the one to kill them, would that still be an acceptable loss?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

yes, this may be true, but i know what i believe in and am willing to fight and die for it. im sorry if you arent.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

btw, that really is off topic.

 

 

 

 

 

lol, still, give me a mp5 and let me swim up behind a guy and own him, not wait around for a few days.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sounds like you need to speak to some soldiers about the reality of war. Of course, most of them won't tell you, because they don't want to remember fully.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

War means your best friends having their limbs shot off, or being blinded for the rest of their lives. War means shooting one of your allies by mistake because the battle is so confusing. War means that every 'enemy' person you kill is someone with a real life, someone with a real mother and father, possibly with children of their own - someone who has lived for 20 years and has been educated, but will never get to use their education. War is where people don't just respawn like in your computer games, they stay dead forever. War means killing children and women and considering them acceptable damage.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I imagine that you play FPS games from time to time - next time you die in one, remember that in war you don't get a second chance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even if you think you have a good cause to go to war, all of the above is still true.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No one gets "owned" in war.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On TV sometimes it reports that 40 people died, and 5 of them were women and children. But that's someone else that killed them, and it's an acceptable loss, because 35 bad guys died. What though, if you were the one to kill them, would that still be an acceptable loss?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

yes, this may be true, but i know what i believe in and am willing to fight and die for it. im sorry if you arent.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

btw, that really is off topic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think the problem was your willingness to "fight and die" for your country, it was more to do with your nonchalant attitude towards killing somebody, or your willingness to 'own' them as you put it so eloquently.

 

 

 

 

 

 

lol, still, give me a mp5 and let me swim up behind a guy and own him, not wait around for a few days.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sounds like you need to speak to some soldiers about the reality of war. Of course, most of them won't tell you, because they don't want to remember fully.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

War means your best friends having their limbs shot off, or being blinded for the rest of their lives. War means shooting one of your allies by mistake because the battle is so confusing. War means that every 'enemy' person you kill is someone with a real life, someone with a real mother and father, possibly with children of their own - someone who has lived for 20 years and has been educated, but will never get to use their education. War is where people don't just respawn like in your computer games, they stay dead forever. War means killing children and women and considering them acceptable damage.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I imagine that you play FPS games from time to time - next time you die in one, remember that in war you don't get a second chance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even if you think you have a good cause to go to war, all of the above is still true.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No one gets "owned" in war.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On TV sometimes it reports that 40 people died, and 5 of them were women and children. But that's someone else that killed them, and it's an acceptable loss, because 35 bad guys died. What though, if you were the one to kill them, would that still be an acceptable loss?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

yes, this may be true, but i know what i believe in and am willing to fight and die for it. im sorry if you arent.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

btw, that really is off topic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think the problem was your willingness to "fight and die" for your country, it was more to do with your nonchalant attitude towards killing somebody, or your willingness to 'own' them as you put it so eloquently.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

sorry, just trying to keep a lighthearted attitude, the world would go to the dogs if we ALL turned Emo :boohoo: :XD: :thumbsup:

 

 

 

sorry, just trying to keep a lighthearted attitude, the world would go to the dogs if we ALL turned Emo :boohoo: :XD: :thumbsup:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah killing somebody a truly light hearted subject........

A very good friend of mine told me a story once of his first combat experience.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He was fresh out of Ranger training and assigned to 1st Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment. Being an 11B, he drew sniper duty and before he knew it, he was on his way to Panama to participate in an operation to capture Manuel Noriega, called "Operation Just Cause". During the course of this operation, he had his first two confirmed kills. Being the "Hooah!" soldier that he was, my friend was more than likely excited about this. (I am not saying this to infer that he was some sort of sociopath or psycho, but the type of training that infantrymen, Rangers and other special ops units in particular, get is geared to desensitize them to the act of killing, to a certain extent. Everything you do is geared around killing, and without the reality of the situation staring you in the face it your training becomes as close to second nature as possible.) My friend's platoon leader knew this, knew my friend was a good kid, but also knew he was getting caught up in something that was not healthy for him. This Lieutenant's remedy to my friend's excitement was to have him take polaroids of those 2 young men and write their name, rank and DOB in the white area under those photos.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

While this may seem, gruesome, unthinkable, whatever to many of you, it served a very real purpose. In battle, every person on both sides of the line is a real person. They have a real name, a real family, a real age, a real life. The reality of war is that you have a duty to fulfill, that you have sworn to fulfill, sometimes many, many years before you are actually asked to fulfill that duty. The soldiers that have this required of them do not revel in the fact that they may be required to travel thousands of miles away from everything they know and love, to someone elses home, to ultimately give their life, if it is required of them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I know I didn't. I had a wife who was three months pregnant with our first child and I tried everything I could to be able to stay with her. It all came down to the bottom line though. Duty. I went and I served for 18 months. 12 in Baghdad, at a camp very close to Sadr City and 6 more months in Ad Diwaniyah, a town very close to Najaf. Ultimately, this was very costly to me, but I did get a very real sense of why we are there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, many things were done wrong. From day one. The biggest challenge was learning how to fight a new kind of war, where your enemy would rarely, if ever, face you. Through all of the mistakes, however, the purpose always remained very clear. We knew that, the Iraqis we trained knew that, the average Iraqi citizen knew that and believe me, nearly every Iraqi I had contact with was thankful we were there. Has this changed? Sure, I have no doubt that it has. Tens of thousands of Iraqis, most innocents, have died so that a few power hungry individuals could put us in a place where everyone wants us out. It was a good plan, apparently, because it has worked.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, we may end up pulling out soon, but I pray that it is not before the new Iraqi goverment is ready. Perhaps our leadership had mishandled many things. I certainly believe there are things that should have been handled differently, foremost of those being the time we handed control of the street back over to the Iraqis. We should have waited a couple years on that, IMO, to allow us to better train them. Particularly their leadership.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The bottom line though, through all of the successes and the failures is that freedom is never free. People want to talk about how many people have died and that they were "safer" under Saddam Hussein. I, personally, disagree with this, very strongly. Yes, many have died, but when has freedom never been costly? To pack up and go home now, would likely ensure that Iraq's new government fails. Do the leaders in Iraq need to take a more active role in persuing their freedom? Absolutely!! It may end up costing them 10s of thousands more lives before they find peace.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What worries me, however, is how easily society forgets the price of freedom. For Americans, we have not had to fight for our freedom for a very long time. Europe, however, has a much more recent memory of the cost of freedom, though they seem to be the quickest to wish it away from others, it seems.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A man named Patrick Henry gave a speech in March of 1775 in Richmond, Virginia successfully convincing the Virginia House of Burgesses to join a quest for freedom. This speech's last paragraph culminated in one of the most famous quotes in American history and, to me, it still rings true, regardless of WHO it is applied to. Personally, I would do it all again, damn the costs, to help those people escape tyranny.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is in vain, sir, to extentuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

 

 

 

Thanks for serving Binyam. ;) ...Not that you had a choice, but still. :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It was a good idea for him to have your friend take pictures of his victim's. Doesn't sound brutal at all. If someone thinks killing is cool and fun, they need to be taught that it isn't. He apparently lacked the part of his brain that made dead faces haunt his brain. He probably has it now. :P

Thanks for serving Binyam. ;) ...Not that you had a choice, but still. :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It was a good idea for him to have your friend take pictures of his victim's. Doesn't sound brutal at all. If someone thinks killing is cool and fun, they need to be taught that it isn't. He apparently lacked the part of his brain that made dead faces haunt his brain. He probably has it now. :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I wouldn't call them victims. They were enemy soldiers. I really don't think it was about my friend thinking it was cool or fun, but being a new soldier with nothing more than his training to draw from, it was very easy to not understand the reality of the situation. It's a very valuable lesson that every young soldier that has to take a life should learn.

 

Thanks for serving Binyam. ;) ...Not that you had a choice, but still. :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It was a good idea for him to have your friend take pictures of his victim's. Doesn't sound brutal at all. If someone thinks killing is cool and fun, they need to be taught that it isn't. He apparently lacked the part of his brain that made dead faces haunt his brain. He probably has it now. :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I wouldn't call them victims. They were enemy soldiers. I really don't think it was about my friend thinking it was cool or fun, but being a new soldier with nothing more than his training to draw from, it was very easy to not understand the reality of the situation. It's a very valuable lesson that every young soldier that has to take a life should learn.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yea, that's kinda' what I meant. I refered to them as victim's because...Well, he killed 'em. No other reason. :P

A very good friend of mine told me a story once of his first combat experience.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He was fresh out of Ranger training and assigned to 1st Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment. Being an 11B, he drew sniper duty and before he knew it, he was on his way to Panama to participate in an operation to capture Manuel Noriega, called "Operation Just Cause". During the course of this operation, he had his first two confirmed kills. Being the "Hooah!" soldier that he was, my friend was more than likely excited about this. (I am not saying this to infer that he was some sort of sociopath or psycho, but the type of training that infantrymen, Rangers and other special ops units in particular, get is geared to desensitize them to the act of killing, to a certain extent. Everything you do is geared around killing, and without the reality of the situation staring you in the face it your training becomes as close to second nature as possible.) My friend's platoon leader knew this, knew my friend was a good kid, but also knew he was getting caught up in something that was not healthy for him. This Lieutenant's remedy to my friend's excitement was to have him take polaroids of those 2 young men and write their name, rank and DOB in the white area under those photos.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

While this may seem, gruesome, unthinkable, whatever to many of you, it served a very real purpose. In battle, every person on both sides of the line is a real person. They have a real name, a real family, a real age, a real life. The reality of war is that you have a duty to fulfill, that you have sworn to fulfill, sometimes many, many years before you are actually asked to fulfill that duty. The soldiers that have this required of them do not revel in the fact that they may be required to travel thousands of miles away from everything they know and love, to someone elses home, to ultimately give their life, if it is required of them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I know I didn't. I had a wife who was three months pregnant with our first child and I tried everything I could to be able to stay with her. It all came down to the bottom line though. Duty. I went and I served for 18 months. 12 in Baghdad, at a camp very close to Sadr City and 6 more months in Ad Diwaniyah, a town very close to Najaf. Ultimately, this was very costly to me, but I did get a very real sense of why we are there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, many things were done wrong. From day one. The biggest challenge was learning how to fight a new kind of war, where your enemy would rarely, if ever, face you. Through all of the mistakes, however, the purpose always remained very clear. We knew that, the Iraqis we trained knew that, the average Iraqi citizen knew that and believe me, nearly every Iraqi I had contact with was thankful we were there. Has this changed? Sure, I have no doubt that it has. Tens of thousands of Iraqis, most innocents, have died so that a few power hungry individuals could put us in a place where everyone wants us out. It was a good plan, apparently, because it has worked.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, we may end up pulling out soon, but I pray that it is not before the new Iraqi goverment is ready. Perhaps our leadership had mishandled many things. I certainly believe there are things that should have been handled differently, foremost of those being the time we handed control of the street back over to the Iraqis. We should have waited a couple years on that, IMO, to allow us to better train them. Particularly their leadership.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The bottom line though, through all of the successes and the failures is that freedom is never free. People want to talk about how many people have died and that they were "safer" under Saddam Hussein. I, personally, disagree with this, very strongly. Yes, many have died, but when has freedom never been costly? To pack up and go home now, would likely ensure that Iraq's new government fails. Do the leaders in Iraq need to take a more active role in persuing their freedom? Absolutely!! It may end up costing them 10s of thousands more lives before they find peace.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What worries me, however, is how easily society forgets the price of freedom. For Americans, we have not had to fight for our freedom for a very long time. Europe, however, has a much more recent memory of the cost of freedom, though they seem to be the quickest to wish it away from others, it seems.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A man named Patrick Henry gave a speech in March of 1775 in Richmond, Virginia successfully convincing the Virginia House of Burgesses to join a quest for freedom. This speech's last paragraph culminated in one of the most famous quotes in American history and, to me, it still rings true, regardless of WHO it is applied to. Personally, I would do it all again, damn the costs, to help those people escape tyranny.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is in vain, sir, to extentuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

thank you very much for serving and putting in a usefull post :thumbsup: =D>

Well,it certainly is a great post and definetely the best one I've seen on this topic of Iraq. But I do have a few points.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Freedom is a very broad word. If I ask you "What is Freedom?", it's one of them questions where we have a vague idea but we've never really had to sit down and think about it really. For me, freedom is the ability for one to live by the way that one wishes. In this sense, I believe that, for example, the people living under Hitler's or Lenin's rule were actually free. In Russia, there is a clear sign of a socialist popular movement, the evidence being the November Elections where the SRs (Socialist Revolutionaries) actually have a massive majority. In Nazi Germany, any people admired Hitler for the way he basically ripped the Treaty of Versailles apart - they felt free for the first time since pre-WWI! Both of these represtn freedom within themselves - both were popular movements even though there was no democracy in place. People had the freedom to set an autocrat as head-of-state.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So really, can you say that you are making the Iraqi citizens "free"? Firstly, you lied to the about the reason for going to war. This isn't freedom! People live in constant fear of sectarian viloence. This isn' freedom! People don't actually have the power to change the political system, because a) The Americans have decided the system of government, not Iraqis and B) they can't vote or else they're blown to pieces by a suicidal bomber. This isn't freedom!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are right, here's famous saying:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Anyone who would sacrifice a little bit of liberty, to gain a little bit of security; will deserve neither, and lose both"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is improtant that people have control over their own affairs to a lesser or more extent. But the Americans staying there is not making the Iraqis free; if anything, it is making them more oppressed as the situation becomes slowly worse and worse. The coalition has to allow Iraq to manage its own affairs now - I don't think that there is much more the armed forces can do for Iraq. Not to mention the biggest point of all - most of Iraq wants us to leave! If we proclaim to be leaders of the free world, we should at least grant them this request...