[amsalpemkcus]

This is the most retarded thing you can think of after having committed yourself into the situation. Oh! so soldiers are dying everyday and you want them to come back home so they can be with their mamas! dont ****ing insult them with this sentiment!! Any soldier worth his salt will be proud to carry out his mission, no matter how hard it is! And as a soldier it is an HONOR to give one's life in the line of duty!! This is the most sacred thing about being a soldier. So shut the whatever up and let them do the job. Cmon America! Wake up and support your troops!! the last thing they need is this bullshit about getting them back home safe!! I believe that backing off at this time or at anytime without cleaning up the mess will be the most idiotic thing to do! So let them focus on the job there and let everyone focus on giving them unwavering support!! Damn I wish I could enlist right now, I wish I was an American citizen, I will be so proud of my troops! Let the otherside know that every bodybag only makes our resolve stronger and mightier to get Iraq back to peace and prosperity!

[beb]

US citizens should support the troops. I just don't support the man who sent them.

[typoon]

People seem to forget more people Die everyday in the US from murder, AIDS, accidents than die every day in Iraq. You son't hear people complaining about that. The US Gov't should allow the tropps to do there job and give them whatever is necessary to do the job. Also they are fighting terroists they should be able to do the job the way it needs to be done, the only way the terroists understand. This Capt I believe he is in the 4th infantry was interrogating a prisoner and he fired 2 shots no where near the captive to get him to talk. The prisoner eventually talked and gave them the plot to assassinate the Capt and other plans of hurting US troops. He got this confession from this guy and countless US soldier lives were saved but yet he may now face a courtmartial because of it? They Gov't should be praising this guy to the hilt for doing what needed to be done to save the lives of HIS men, instead of trying to punish him. THIS is one of the main problems in Iraq. The other is not wanting to lose face in the world community. IMO the US should go into Tikrit and hunt down the terrorists. If citizens of the town are found to be harbouring them the houses should be destroyed. This of course would cause much more problems with the Arab world but it would solve the problem of troops getting killed.

Also you DON'T hear anything about how the Sounthern part of Iraq is doing so much better and how life is returning to normal there. The Media in the US only wants to report the bad things in hopes of undermining our mission there helping the terrorists.

One of the only reasons why there are so many more attacks is because the terrorists know it will get reported here in the US press and they are trying to pull at the heart strings of the US people to get us to make our Gov't pull out our troops and run like we did in somalia. If the Media didn't report this the terrorists would have no outlet.

[petehammer]

Originally posted by amsalpemkcus:
the last thing they need is this bullshit about getting them back home safe!!

You're right, bring them home dead. I wanted them home safe... what was I thinking?

Originally posted by typoon:
People seem to forget more people Die everyday in the US from murder, AIDS, accidents than die every day in Iraq. You son't hear people complaining about that.

Yup, those are pertinent statistics. Mind you, there are 280 mil. people in the U.S. and 150,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq. That is something you might want to control for, if, and only if, you want your argument to be taken seriously.

10/150,000 = 18,666/280,000,000 a day.
3/150,000 = 5,000/280,000,000 a day

And, it might be important to control for similar things, like say gunshot wounds or bombings, since there can be crossover of soldiers in Iraq with AIDS or who die of car accidents.

But, then again, that's only if you want to be taken seriously.

[amsalpemkcus]

Originally posted by petehammer:
You're right, bring them home dead. I wanted them home safe... what was I thinking?

Point taken. What I meant was about distracting them from their focus, which is the mission. If I was on the ground there patrolling streets and I walked into a cafe I wouldnt want to see cnn broadcasting crowds in ohio telling me that I am fighting a worthless godforsaken campaign, which is not supported by my own people! Now that will kill me more effectively than injuries suffered due to a rocket attack, the latter is what I can actually deal with, the cnn broadcast that I alluded to will kill me forever!

[petehammer]

Originally posted by amsalpemkcus:
If I was on the ground there patrolling streets and I walked into a cafe I wouldnt want to see cnn broadcasting crowds in ohio telling me that I am fighting a worthless godforsaken campaign, which is not supported by my own people!

I understand your point. But if many people in the U.S. do not believe in the war, what should cnn do... not cover it? I know many people on the left support the troops but not the war. There is a big difference and although it may bring down morale for troops to think that the war is not supported, many protestors want them brought home safe.

Your argument, as I understand it, is to not let the troops know what public opinion is here? I'm not sure that is the solution.

[mitchell_pgh]

A great Osama bin Ladin quote...

"if you want the invaders out of your country, kill a few of their people, the US media will do the rest"

We shouldn't just pull out, we need to phase out slowly over the next few years. We also need to help them out financially for at least the next 5-10 years.

Considering "Joe America" is flipping a majority of the bill, countries that aren't contributing should have little or no say in what's going on in the country. If it were up to the UN, 1) Sadam would still be in power 2) They would still be bickering over who should and who shouldn't be involved and 3) the French would still oppose the war.

[amsalpemkcus]

Originally posted by petehammer:
Your argument, as I understand it, is to not let the troops know what public opinion is here? I'm not sure that is the solution.

Thanks. Well if the popular opinion is really indeed popular I dont think there is any need to suppress the minority opinion. I am not for the suppression of the media, not at all. I am actually afraid of that complacent attitude of the majority that knows better, this can easily be drowned by the ignorant minority. Sad as it is in dividing humanity as west and societies in Iraq/Afghanistan, I think in the west generally it is easy to justify pulling out by pointing out the casualties, I think it is a weakness that the "otherside" is well aware of. In my opinion this is not a typical war, it is being fought at many levels, and if we dont recognize that and discuss it extensively with the very vocal minority, I think one will be doing a disservice to the soldier on the ground.

[mitchell_pgh]

The sad part is, it's part of the US culture to protest. It's considered "cool" by the younger generation.

These are people that have always lived under the blanket of freedom.

Most of the people protesting are under the age of 23.

[petehammer]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
Most of the people protesting are under the age of 23.

Wow! That's one hell of an assertion. I would love to see the proof of that.

Protests that I have seen involve, on average, middle-aged folks.

But, feel free to prove me wrong.

[- - e r i k - -]

It seems that you forgot to post this in the Political / War forum. A mod will correct that soon I hope...

[amsalpemkcus]

Originally posted by - - e r i k - -:
It seems that you forgot to post this in the Political / War forum. A mod will correct that soon I hope...

I hope they dont do that as a special consideration!

[ebuddy]

The removal of our soldiers has been suggested by many with the sole intent of a failed mission in Iraq. Then, once the boys are home and the dictatorship explodes back into Iraq like a supernova they can say; "See I told you it would fail." People focused on humanity must know that bringing them home would lead to the greatest atrocities known not only to Americans who would then be seen as yellow-bellied and easily conquerable, but also in Iraq. They'd be coming over from Syria to reclaim their dictatorship so fast your head would spin. Please don't talk about saving lives by bringing the boys home. We're saving lives by having the boys there. I know it's painful to watch, but the consequences of bringing them home would be much more painful. Trust me.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
The sad part is, it's part of the US culture to protest. It's considered "cool" by the younger generation.

These are people that have always lived under the blanket of freedom.

Most of the people protesting are under the age of 23.

I call bullshit.

It may be very different in the US, but here, non-violent protest is considered cool by people under the age of 60, and in the case of Iraq, a lot of people older than that, as well. Actually, *especially* those old enough to remember what war is like on your own territory.

-s*

[moki]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
A great Osama bin Ladin quote...

"if you want the invaders out of your country, kill a few of their people, the US media will do the rest"

We shouldn't just pull out, we need to phase out slowly over the next few years. We also need to help them out financially for at least the next 5-10 years.

Considering "Joe America" is flipping a majority of the bill, countries that aren't contributing should have little or no say in what's going on in the country. If it were up to the UN, 1) Sadam would still be in power 2) They would still be bickering over who should and who shouldn't be involved and 3) the French would still oppose the war.

Here, here! Well said.

[cenutrio]

Originally posted by beb:
US citizens should support the troops. I just don't support the man who sent them.

Amen!

[Spliffdaddy]

The man who sent them is the commander in chief of the US armed forces - no less of a soldier than a gunner in a tank.

So, yeah, you're hating the same sort of folk that you claim to love and support.

spare us the hypocrisy, please.

Your 'support' seems sorta iffy and subject to revocation.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
The man who sent them is the commander in chief of the US armed forces - no less of a soldier than a gunner in a tank.

He went to war?






















Really?


-s*

[Sven G]

Originally posted by beb:
US citizens should support the troops. I just don't support the man who sent them.

If I were an US citizen, I would support neither the troops nor the man who sent them: they are both part of the same vicious circle.

[petehammer]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
The man who sent them is the commander in chief of the US armed forces - no less of a soldier than a gunner in a tank.

No joke! I knew that's what those long vacations were for... first boot camp then actual incursions in Iraq.

Great point!

And I'm sure hundreds of "gunners in tanks" are happy to know that their sacrifice is equal to a man who sits at a desk all day long.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by amsalpemkcus:
This is the most retarded thing you can think of after having committed yourself into the situation. Oh! so soldiers are dying everyday and you want them to come back home so they can be with their mamas! dont ****ing insult them with this sentiment!! Any soldier worth his salt will be proud to carry out his mission, no matter how hard it is! And as a soldier it is an HONOR to give one's life in the line of duty!! This is the most sacred thing about being a soldier.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Nov3.html


Read the link. Looks like this guy scored the daily double. He was on the Chinook that was shot down--He was going home to be with his mama, as you so elegantly phrased it, so he could bury her. But he wound up getting killed himself. So he gets to be with his mama and die for his country.

What a patriot!!!

[thunderous_funker]

Man, I'm having serious deva vu here....

Tonight Americans and Asians are dying for a world where each people may choose its own path to change.

This is the principle for which our ancestors fought in the valleys of Pennsylvania. It is the principle for which our sons fight tonight in the jungles of Viet-Nam.

Viet-Nam is far away from this quiet campus. We have no territory there, nor do we seek any. The war is dirty and brutal and difficult. And some 400 young men, born into an America that is bursting with opportunity and promise, have ended their lives on Viet-Nam’s steaming soil.

Why must we take this painful road?

Why must this nation hazard its ease, its interest, and its power for the sake of a people so far away?

We fight because we must fight if we are to live in a world where every country can shape its own destiny, and only in such a world will our own freedom be finally secure.

This kind of world will never be built by bombs or bullets. Yet the infirmities of man are such that force must often precede reason and the waste of war, the works of peace.

We wish this were not so. But we must deal with the world as it is, if it is ever to be as we wish.

THE NATURE OF THE CONFLICT


The world as it is in Asia is not a serene or peaceful place.

The first reality is that North Viet-Nam has attacked the independent nation of South Viet-Nam. Its object is total conquest.

Of course, some of the people of South Viet-Nam are participating in attack on their own government. But trained men and supplies, orders and arms, flow in a constant stream from North to South.

This support is the heartbeat of the war.

And it is a war of unparalleled brutality. Simple farmers are the targets of assassination and kidnapping. Women and children are strangled in the night because their men are loyal to the government. And helpless villagers are ravaged by sneak attacks. Large-scale raids are conducted on towns, and terror strikes in the heart of cities.

The confused nature of this conflict cannot mask the fact that it is the new face of an old enemy.

Over this war--and all Asia--is another reality: the deepening shadow of Communist China. The rulers in Hanoi are urged on by Peking. This is a regime which has destroyed freedom in Tibet, which has attacked India and has been condemned by the United Nations for aggression in Korea. It is a nation which is helping the forces of violence in almost every continent. The contest in Viet-Nam is part of a wider pattern of aggressive purposes.

WHY ARE WE IN VIET-NAM?


Why are these realities our concern? Why are we in South Viet-Nam?

We are there because we have a promise to keep. Since 1954 every American President has offered support to the people of South Viet-Nam. We have helped to build, and we have helped to defend. Thus, over many years, we have made a national pledge to help South Viet-Nam defend its independence.

And I intend to keep that promise.

To dishonor that pledge, to abandon this small and brave nation to its enemies, and to the terror that must follow, would be an unforgivable wrong.

We are also there to strengthen world order. Around the globe from Berlin to Thailand are people whose well being rests in part on the belief that they can count on us if they are attacked. To leave Viet-Nam to its fate would shake the confidence of all these people in the value of an American commitment and in the value of America’s word. The result would be increased unrest and instability, even wide war.

We are also there because there are great stakes in the balance. Let no one think for a minute that retreat from Viet-Nam would bring an end to the conflict. The battle would be renewed in one country and then another. The central lesson of our time is that the appetite of aggression is never satisfied. To withdraw from one battlefield means only to prepare for the next. We must say in Southeast Asia--as we did in Europe--in the words of the Bible: "Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further."

There are those who say that all our effort there will be futile--that China’s power is such that it is bound to dominate all southeast Asia. But there is no end to that argument until all of the nations of Asia are swallowed up.

There are those who wonder why we have a responsibility there. Well. we have it there for the same reason that we have a responsibility for the defense of Europe. World War II was fought in both Europe and Asia, and when it ended we found ourselves with continued responsibility for the defense of freedom.

OUR OBJECTIVE IN VIET-NAM


Our objective is the independence of South Viet-Nam, and its freedom from attack. We want nothing for ourselves--only that the people of South Viet-Nam be allowed to guide their own country in their own way.

We will do everything necessary to reach that objective. And we will do only what is absolutely necessary.

In recent months attacks on South Viet-Nam were stepped up. Thus, it became necessary for us to increase our response and to make attacks by air. This is not a change of purpose. It is a change in what we believe that purpose requires.

We do this in order to slow down aggression.

We do this to increase the confidence of the brave people of South Viet-Nam who have bravely borne this brutal battle for so many years with so many casualties.

And we do this to convince the leaders of North Viet-Nam--and all who seek to share their conquest--of a simple fact:

We will not be defeated.

We will not grow tired.

We will not withdraw, either openly or under the cloak of a meaningless agreement.

We know that air attacks alone will not accomplish all of these purposes. But it is our best and prayerful judgment that they are a necessary part of the surest road to peace.

We hope that peace will come swiftly. But that is in the hands of others besides ourselves. And we must be prepared for a long continued conflict. It will require patience as well as bravery, the will to endure as well as the will to resist.

I wish it were possible to convince others with words of what we now find it necessary to say with guns and planes: Armed hostility is futile. Our resources are equal to the challenge. Because we fight for values and we fight for principles, rather than territory or colonies, our patience and our determination are unending....

President Lyndon Johnson Discusses Under Secretary of State
George Ball’s Reservations about U.S. Policy in South Vietnam
21 July 1965

[Powerbook]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:

> If it were up to the UN,
"This stinkeng commernists!??! We don't not hear to stinkeng commernists!11"

> 1) Sadam would still be in power
"Weee! Bad! He has many many Weppons of Mass Destrucktion ready in 45 minutes! We is save now!!"

> 2) They would still be bickering over who should and who shouldn't be involved and
"An outrage! Only we proud pepol must be envolved, since we was the only so bright to detect als those baad WMDs!?11?"

> 3) the French would still oppose the war.
"God forbid!? This the country that can only eet chease and say Surrender!? They is stupit!"

[mr. natural]

Posted by Spliff Daddy:

The man who sent them is the commander in chief of the US armed forces - no less of a soldier than a gunner in a tank.

Didn't he recently prove he can fly a jet fighter?

Well, by golly, why doesn't he just git on down over there and lead the troops to VICTORY!



I mean, that would be the ultimate sacrificial Presidential re-election stunt. I can see the "Bring Em On!" ads right now: A star spangled F-16 swoops by, Bush waving out the window, leaving a trail of falling bombs, while a nice baritone voiced narrator sez: "Fighting Terrorists is something your Commander in Chief takes personally. Re-elect Bush in 2004."



Oh well, I guess he's gone AWOL yet again.

Gotta love them "Chicken Hawk" commanders.

[m a d r a]

......as a soldier it is an HONOR to give one's life in the line of duty!! This is the most sacred thing about being a soldier. ....

are you for real?

[the whirring noise is wilfrid owen spinning in his grave]

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
The man who sent them is the commander in chief of the US armed forces - no less of a soldier than a gunner in a tank.

So, yeah, you're hating the same sort of folk that you claim to love and support.

spare us the hypocrisy, please.

Your 'support' seems sorta iffy and subject to revocation.

The Commander-in-Chief is a civilian position, not a military one. He's an elected official, not a soldier, and is not immune from criticism.

I believe that we have to forge ahead, but that won't prevent me from holding an elected official responsible for his actions.

[finboy]

Originally posted by typoon:

Also you DON'T hear anything about how the Sounthern part of Iraq is doing so much better and how life is returning to normal there. The Media in the US only wants to report the bad things in hopes of undermining our mission there helping the terrorists.

Don't be paranoid. Of course the media here only report what's best for the American people to hear, and that involves discrediting the Bush Administration at any cost. Don't be paranoid.

[finboy]

Originally posted by petehammer:
Wow! That's one hell of an assertion. I would love to see the proof of that.

I don't have "proof", but that's been my observation (in DC and Denver, at least). Kids and hippie holdovers from the 60s. That's pretty much the demographic as I've seen it, up close and personal.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by typoon:
Also you DON'T hear anything about how the Sounthern part of Iraq is doing so much better and how life is returning to normal there.

We do hear that. But don't worry, it'll change soon.

One of the only reasons why there are so many more attacks is because the terrorists know it will get reported here in the US press and they are trying to pull at the heart strings of the US people to get us to make our Gov't pull out our troops and run like we did in somalia. If the Media didn't report this the terrorists would have no outlet.

So you propose the media shouldn't report bad news?

[eklipse]

Originally posted by typoon:
Also you DON'T hear anything about how the Sounthern part of Iraq is doing so much better and how life is returning to normal there. The Media in the US only wants to report the bad things in hopes of undermining our mission there helping the terrorists.

:cough: Karbala :cough :

A new gun battle erupted in Karbala on Thursday night between US-led troops and fighters loyal to a maverick Shia preacher, Mahmoud al-Hassani, who is said to be allied to Mr Sadr.

That clash left eight fighters, three American military policemen and two Iraqi policemen dead.

Correspondents say that the trouble in Karbala is an ominous development for the US-led coalition which previously enjoyed widespread support among Iraq's Shia Muslims, who were happy to see Saddam Hussein, their oppressor, ousted.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by kvm_mkdb:
So you propose the media shouldn't report bad news?

Actually - this is just a sidenote - there was a concensus a couple years ago in the German media to tone down (but NOT stifle) coverage of domestic right-wing Neonazi violence. The reason being that sensationalist coverage and focus on every single incident led to an *increase* in violence, due to better attention.

That situation, of course, is not comparable to this one, for two reasons:

1. These aren't isolated domestic crimes; this is war, and

2. I doubt that the level of media coverage in the US will have any effect upon motivation/determination of resistance fighters in Iraq. There is no "copy-cat" factor involved.

-s*

[petehammer]

Originally posted by finboy:
Don't be paranoid. Of course the media here only report what's best for the American people to hear, and that involves discrediting the Bush Administration at any cost. Don't be paranoid.

No kidding! They keep bringing up that sex scandal over and over and over again so that Bush can't get any work done because Ken Starr is up his ass!

Then they bring up allegations of murder, sexual harassment and rape. No joke! They're really out to discredit him!

Oh, wait... are we thinking of the same media and/or president?

[DBursey]

......as a soldier it is an HONOR to give one's life in the line of duty!! This is the most sacred thing about being a soldier. ....

Originally posted by m a d r a:
are you for real?

[the whirring noise is wilfrid owen spinning in his grave]

No doubt. Far too many of our best and brightest have had the 'honour' of having their young lives extinguished prematurely in prosecuting the military campaigns of their elders.

from Mr. Owen's works:

Anthem for Doomed Youth

What passing-bells for these who die as cattle?
Only the monstrous anger of the guns.
Only the stuttering rifles' rapid rattle
Can patter out their hasty orisons.
No mockeries now for them; no prayers nor bells;
Nor any voice of mourning save the choirs,-
The shrill, demented choirs of wailing shells;
And bugles calling for them from sad shires.

What candles may be held to speed them all?
Not in the hands of boys, but in their eyes
Shall shine the holy glimmers of goodbyes.
The pallor of girls' brows shall be their pall;
Their flowers the tenderness of patient minds,
And each slow dusk a drawing-down of blinds.

-----
November 11 is almost upon us. Lest we forget.