Taking it Out on the Troops

[JediMaster12]

I don't know about you guys but I was sitting down and waiting for my bus when I picked up today's newspaper. What I saw on the front page had me stop, read and I think maybe I blew an emotional gasket.

 

As of today's news, President Bush vetoed legislation to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq by Oct. 1 with the goal of a complete pullout six months later. Bush said that it was a "prescription for chaos and confusion and we must not impose it on our troops." He also said that the bill would "mandate a rigid and artificial deadline" for troop pullouts and that it made no sense in telling the enemy what our plans were.

 

On the opposing side, the Democrats accused Mr. President that he was ignoring the American people's desire to stop the war. The House Speaker Nancy Pelosi put it that he wants a "blank check" but that Congress is not going to give it to him. Bush responded that we needed to put aside the politics and support the troops.

 

I don't know about you but that appealing to the support the troops was maddening. True I had never liked Bush for dragging us into a war that was never in the first place authorized by Congress. Congress is the only body of power that can wage and levy war. Apparently Bush used the Gulf of Tonken incident to plow ahead when in fact it was overturned. In fact it is like he is trying to uphold Wilson's policy of making the world safe for democracy.

 

As much as I would like everyone in the world to get along, there has to be a line drawn on how far we will go. It makes you wonder why the rest of the free world is pissed off at us in one way or another. To many people, us Americans are arrogant, greedy bastards who think they know what's best for everyone. I do believe that history repeats itself and our arrogance, the imperalistic and neocolonialism policies we have show it. It's funny how we fought for the right to be free and yet we turn around and do the same thing to others less fortunate. It's like the oppressed becomes the oppressor.

 

One of my favorite maxims is that history is written by the winners. However like any good story, there are two sides to the same event. What are your thoughts?

[Windu Chi]

As much as I would like everyone in the world to get along, there has to be a line drawn on how far we will go. It makes you wonder why the rest of the free world is pissed off at us in one way or another. To many people, us Americans are arrogant, greedy bastards who think they know what's best for everyone.

 

Yes, arrogant and greedy bastards!

I agree, but some people in America still think that we rule the world and what we say goes for the rest of the world.

I'm tired of hearing statements like, "We are the best country in the world",

or what some christians say, ''God bless America'' and others, "We stand on the higher moral ground".

These statements are really tiresome!

How are we suppose get along with the rest of the world if we keep labeling ourselves supreme citizens of the planet Earth.

 

 

I do believe that history repeats itself and our arrogance, the imperalistic and neocolonialism policies we have show it. It's funny how we fought for the right to be free and yet we turn around and do the same thing to others less fortunate. It's like the oppressed becomes the oppressor.

Yes, JediMaster12 this is a recurring phenomenon.

[Jae Onasi]

JM12, Congress _did_ authorize use of troops in the Iraq war on 10 Oct 02.

[Prime]

The problem is the US has backed intself into a corner were neither option is appealing by any means. Now it has to decide what is worse: sacrificing its troops and public support, or continue to alienate the Iraqi population (and the world at large?) and destablize the region even more.

 

No easy answers.

[Totenkopf]

Congress can authorize war, but cannot itself wage war. While the legislature has the power to control funding, that's about as much real control as they have once the shots are fired (beyond trying to impeach or hamstring a president, I suppose). That's part of the executive branch's power. The interesting question may be why the US Congress hasn't since 1941 actually formally declared war on any of America's various opponents throughout the post war period (up to and including today).

 

One thing is for certain, cut and run (the Reid-Pelosi strategy) is the wrong policy for many reasons, not the least of which is that who'd trust America to ever have their back when the fur really flies. Too much micromanagement from DC will probably make a Vietnam-style loss in Iraq a certitude. Pretty sad when you have to consult a lawyer in the field before defending yourself from enemy fire in combat. Face it, whether in Iraq or elsewhere, people, this fight is for the long haul (possibly decades) and won't be won by taking a legalistic approach (Clinton's response). Let's just hope that if we are forced by circumstance to throw in the towel too early, that we don't get a domestic repeat of self-righteous people who spit on the vets for fighting a war they didn't approve of. Like Code Pink taunting soldiers with signs saying "Was it (ie: losing one or more limbs) worth it?"

[Web Rider]

Face it, whether in Iraq or elsewhere, people, this fight is for the long haul (possibly decades) and won't be won by taking a legalistic approach (Clinton's response). "

 

I don't get why people argue this. There is waning support in the US to continue this war. There is little to no support in the world for continuing this war. Troops are limited beings just like every other human. We have have a finite number of them and they WILL run out eventually. The US will never support a draft without some sort of massive, obvious, extra-national attack on the nation. Something that's not going to happen.

 

This fight won't last decades and all the Democrats have to do is stay in power after the next election and win the presidency and the war wont last past 2009.

[mimartin]

No easy answers.

Too well said.

 

I’m against the “cut and run” strategy, but I’m also against the steer the course strategy. Why do we spending millions on studies and not use the so call recommendations of the so called “experts?” For months the Bush administration pointed to the Iraq Study Group, then the report came out and all they did was criticized it. I say why not give them a try, it can’t get much worst.

 

 

A few things I believe they should do.

1. Get the troops the equipment they needed since day one. This war has been going on too long for them not to have proper body amour and vehicle amour.

2. Set ambitious, but achievable standards for the Iraq government and police force to achieve. If they don’t reach them, then start pulling troops out.

3. Tell the American people the truth. We are not completely stupid. A lot of Bush’s problems stems from his administration’s inability to tell the truth about conditions on the ground in Iraq. Admit it when something goes wrong is not a weakness.

4. Plan for the unknown and let the military handle military affairs.

5. Keep your promise to the troops.

[Emperor Devon]

How are we suppose get along with the rest of the world if we keep labeling ourselves supreme citizens of the planet Earth.

 

Considering invading a country an act of self-defense is entirely different from considering ourselves "supreme citizens of the planet." While I find the war in Iraq distasteful to the extreme, it is not sanctioned killing of civilians.

 

Bush holds a higher moral ground than the terrorists, but just barely.

 

One of my favorite maxims is that history is written by the winners. However like any good story, there are two sides to the same event. What are your thoughts?

 

Less than a year left, less than a year left... Perhaps we'll have a less senseless President then who won't veto such sensible bills.

[Windu Chi]

Considering invading a country an act of self-defense is entirely different from considering ourselves "supreme citizens of the planet." While I find the war in Iraq distasteful to the extreme, it is not sanctioned killing of civilians.

What are you talking about?

You have lost me, Devon.

 

I'm not talking about the war, I was talking about what some people in general in this country, see our country as supreme, in regard to the rest of the world,

it's about time we abandon that stance and stop saying we are extremely better than everybody else in the world.

We don't rule the world yet, we all still share the same planet.

How are we going to get along as a species if we are always looking for enemies on this planet.

With the discovery of a possible new Earth, it's time for our society to get along with each other.

New Planet Could Harbor Water and Life

 

 

Hmm, Mrs. Moral has been by!

 

Yes, yes I have. If you have an issue with it, talk to one of the Admins. --Jae

[SilentScope001]

/sigh.

 

No American is willing to make the really harsh desicions that could easily end this Iraq War. For the sake of a devil's advocate, and for actually wanting this crisis to end on a happy note, I offer a possible solution, as a starting block for discussion, but not as an offical endorsement:

 

"Ally with Al-Sadr and wipe out the Sunni terrorists."

 

Al-Sadr is an Iraqi nationalist, and basically, he has a well-trained military force. He hates Sunnis for blowing up the Mosque, and Al-Sadr also wants US troops out of Iraq as well. He wants Iraq to rule itself...meaning he wants to rule Iraq. So, why not let him? Al-Sadr is rich, he's powerful, and he hates Al-Qadiah like the USA. So, why not work Al-Sadr, tolerating his death squads, and get rid of Al-Qadiah and all the Sunni terrorists? Let Iraq turn into a Shia government.

 

Indeed, it will only settle things...somewhat. Kurds will get mad at Al-Sadr indeed...being secular and wanting to rule themselves...so you can expect a Kurdistan succession that would widen the conflict (luckily, Turkey has experiences with dealing with the Kurds, so you got an Arab ally willing to contribute troops). Not to mention, you will make all Sunni nations hate you for attacking and destroying the Sunnis to form a puppet Shia regime. But you will win the Iraq War. The majority of the population is Shia after all...and if you ally with the strongest faction, you will win. Al-Sadr has became quite cozy with Iran, but if you ally with Al-Sadr and keep him happy, he could decide to cut off ties with Iran and assert Iraq as a powerful new Shia nation. In fact, he hates SCIRI, an Iranian-backed party of Saddam's exiles, and his Madhi Army fought them in some instances, so you can avoid having a Iranian rump state, and counter Iran's ambitions in the area.

 

So here. Here is a plan to win the Iraq War. I really think there are variables I may be missing, but it is an idea, and my 2 cents.

 

Now, let me ask another question: Is winning the Iraq War worth the consquences?

[Web Rider]

What are you talking about?

You have lost me, Devon.

 

I'm not talking about the war, I was talking about what some people in general in this country, see our country as supreme, in regard to the rest of the world,

it's about time we abandon that stance and stop saying we are extremely better than everybody else in the world.

We don't rule the world yet, we all still share the same planet.

How are we going to get along as a species if we are always looking for enemies on this planet.

 

yes, there are groups of select individuals, like PNAC, who see our country as the greatest thing ever. However, such people are not an American anomoly, as is often portrayed. Such people exist all of Europe, seeing as it WAS the general European attitude of themselves for much of history. Such people exist in the Orient and the Middle East.

 

While I completly agree with you that the elimination of such factions from America and the world would be a wonderful step towards a better tomorrow, such attitudes are almost part of our genetics. We LIKE to feel better than others, and we often look for any excuse to say that we are.

 

 

To: SilentScope, that's just setting up another Taliban situation. We allied with the Taliban to go play Cold War against the Ruskies, and then that bit us in the butt. We allied with Saddam against the Russians, and that too bit us in the butt.

 

Allying with Al-Sadr would simply be a repeat of an already failed strategy. Though, I have to admit that part of your response confuses me. I've debated this subject so long and hard on so many places, my sarcasm radar is broken. So, do I detect some obvious sarcasm there?

[Totenkopf]

I don't get why people argue this. There is waning support in the US to continue this war. There is little to no support in the world for continuing this war. Troops are limited beings just like every other human. We have have a finite number of them and they WILL run out eventually. The US will never support a draft without some sort of massive, obvious, extra-national attack on the nation. Something that's not going to happen.

 

This fight won't last decades and all the Democrats have to do is stay in power after the next election and win the presidency and the war wont last past 2009.

 

 

You confuse the war in Iraq with THE war. It is only one front or campaign. Changing administrations won't change that, merely change the tactics or strategy used to deal with it. Are you perhaps clairvoyant? How do you know that something like that will NEVER happen? Or do you mean that another nation state won't attack the US? You are aware that asymetrical warfare is likely to be the MO the terrorists/opponents of the US and West in general. They can't win conventionally, so that is the only practical strategy open to them.

[SilentScope001]

To: SilentScope, that's just setting up another Taliban situation. We allied with the Taliban to go play Cold War against the Ruskies, and then that bit us in the butt. We allied with Saddam against the Russians, and that too bit us in the butt.

 

For the first time, we merely funded any group willing to battle Russians. Once the Russians fled, all those groups started killing each other, and one group, the Taliban, finally previaled. And, for the second time, we set Saddam up against Iran. Both Russia and the USA, strangely allied to support Saddam, but only because they hated Iran's government.

 

But in both cases, the US won the Cold War. Sure, the US got stuck in a resulting war, but the fact was, the US won that first war. The US defeated the Commies. Sure, the US militrally invaded again, but I guess that's a Machvillean stratgery: Play your enemies against one another, and then take out the suriviors.

 

Allying with Al-Sadr would simply be a repeat of an already failed strategy. Though, I have to admit that part of your response confuses me. I've debated this subject so long and hard on so many places, my sarcasm radar is broken. So, do I detect some obvious sarcasm there?

 

Hm. Might be some sarcasm in the last point of my statement in saying that while this tactic can help to win the Iraq War, many consquences would result from it that it might not work. The American people are not willing to make the sacrifices (like, say, American ideals) needed to win a conflict.

 

I guess I am saying is that victory in the Iraq War may mean future consquences down the road that may not be pleasent to us. Like, as you claim, a possible Fourth Persian Gulf War against Al-Sadr (the First Persian Gulf War is the Iran-Iraq War, the Second Persian Gulf War is the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the Third Persian Gulf War is the Military). But I'm more thinking a bit short-term, with a war against Kurdistan, and many powerful people in Sunni nations finally giving up allying with the USA and start funding Al-Qadiah.

 

You are aware that asymetrical warfare is likely to be the MO the terrorists/opponents of the US and West in general. They can't win conventionally, so that is the only practical strategy open to them.

 

Never underestimate the power of time.

 

It took 500 years for the Barbarians to overthrow the Roman Empire conventionally. Might take 500 years for the Terrorists to march through D.C.?

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Never underestimate the power of time.

 

It took 500 years for the Barbarians to overthrow the Roman Empire conventionally. Might take 500 years for the Terrorists to march through D.C.?

Have 'the Terrorists' ever stated they want to invade and conquer the USA? Ever? Once? You may as well say 'Might take 500 years for the Terrorists to establish a computer gaming publishing monopoly and put Ubisoft and EA out of business'.

 

Terrorism is the symptom, not the disease, and there's not one single terrorist army with one single goal in the world.

 

The PETA terrorists who fire-bomb animal research facilities wants to end animal testing and meat consumption and have no plans to conquer the USA.

 

Christian terrorists bombing abortion clinics want to end abortion, homosexuality, and other 'abominations'. This group is in my eyes the only one that has at least a minimum of chance to one day 'march through the streets of D.C.'.

 

Kurdish terrorists want the Kurds to have their own nation, Kurdistan, where they won't be persecuted like sub-humans, and have no plan to conquer the states and march into Washington D. C.

 

The Chechen terrorists want their nation, Chechnya to be a sovereign state where the Chechnya people can live without being persecuted, and have no plans to invade the USA.

 

Al-Q'aida want the West to stop trying to liberate Middle Eastern women, and to stop interfering in the Middle East, and have no plans to invade the USA and march through the streets of Washington D. C.

 

The US defeated the Commies.

Nonsense. Communism ended in Russia because the Soviets realized it could no longer be maintained. And as a side note, 'the Commies' still maintain a firm grip on Cuba and North Korea, and Vietnam as well as other countries maintain totalitarian regimes very similar to those in Communist nations, not to mention that the People's Republic of China is still a brutal dictatorship occupying Tibet.

 

The American people are not willing to make the sacrifices (like, say, American ideals) needed to win a conflict.

Show me any kind of evidence whatsoever that the obliteration of Habeus Corpus, torture of detainees, wiretapping without warrants, and the other surrenders of American ideals are necessary to win the war in Iraq. Heck, show me some evidence torture is more beneficial than harmful to the practicing nation in the first place.

 

I thought one of the reasons why we were fighting them evil terrorists was that they wanted to overthrow our democracy and throw us into one big Sharia-style dictatorship. I even remember many pro-war people using Iraq's use of torture as a reason to invade them and overthrow Saddam's regime. And yet when Bush does it, it's suddenly totally OK.

[Windu Chi]

Terrorism is the symptom, not the disease, and there's not one single terrorist army with one single goal in the world.

Well said, Dagobahn!

 

Some people in this country (U.S.) need to stop being so naive in believing we are going to defeat terrorism one day and forever, terrorism will always be around.

There will always be groups of people who will use terrorism for specific demands be they personal or political, they are like cockroaches you kill 20, 20,000 pop up later on.

You can't smash them all out of existence, people.

[SilentScope001]

Have 'the Terrorists' ever stated they want to invade and conquer the USA? Ever? Once? You may as well say 'Might take 500 years for the Terrorists to establish a computer gaming publishing monopoly and put Ubisoft and EA out of business'.

 

When I say terrorism, I refer to Islamic terrorism, but more generally, thee "Barbaranism" that the Roman Empire hated. Indeed, the Romans hated barbarianism, but they call all their enemies uncivilized savages, similar to how the USA sees each other.

 

Sure, all these ideologies want freedom. Al-Qadiah wants to form an Islamic state. Yeah. But what happens...AFTER that? After they take over territory? Expansion is necessary. And since the USA and Al-Qadiah is at logger-heads, Al-Qadiah wants to weaken the USA to help increase its power.

 

Eventually, far off in the future, any movement can grow more and more powerful, and someone, I don't know who, will march down D.C.. In fact, maybe this prediction could occur in 100 years...with China defeating USA in a war.

 

Nonsense. Communism ended in Russia because the Soviets realized it could no longer be maintained. And as a side note, 'the Commies' still maintain a firm grip on Cuba and North Korea, and Vietnam as well as other countries maintain totalitarian regimes very similar to those in Communist nations, not to mention that the People's Republic of China is still a brutal dictatorship occupying Tibet.

 

The USA say they won the Cold War. Wheter that is due to the USSR having a bad economy, or if it is due to the arms-buildup, I don't exactly care. USA is still standing, the USSR is not, and the USA is the world's sole superpower.

 

Show me any kind of evidence whatsoever that the obliteration of Habeus Corpus, torture of detainees, wiretapping without warrants, and the other surrenders of American ideals are necessary to win the war in Iraq. Heck, show me some evidence torture is more beneficial than harmful to the practicing nation in the first place.

 

...That's not the Ideas I'm talking about here.

 

What I am advocating is talking to insurgent groups, trying to get negogiations and peace treaties with them, and in the end, letting "terrorists" run their own nations. Pitting enemies against one another, and not exporting democracy or calling people good or evil. Machvellican and Realistic political thought.

 

The Ideas that the American people want to hold onto is that America is the best nation in the world, and that it must safeguard liberty and democracy, instead, of say, safeguarding their own national interest by working with the Enemy instead of against them. That's the Ideas I'm talking about. And no one is going to go and throw that Idea away.

[JediMaster12]

Mama Jae: Thanks for correcting me on that one bit.

 

Less than a year left, less than a year left... Perhaps we'll have a less senseless President then who won't veto such sensible bills.

You and both know that it is highly unlikely. Everyone is trying to push their own agenda and trying to stick with their campaign platform.

 

For the first time, we merely funded any group willing to battle Russians. Once the Russians fled, all those groups started killing each other, and one group, the Taliban, finally previaled. And, for the second time, we set Saddam up against Iran. Both Russia and the USA, strangely allied to support Saddam, but only because they hated Iran's government.

And look where that got us.

With this war many people are saying that Bush is trying to finish what Daddy started in the Gulf War. Could be so considering that now that most people are seemingly blind to the covert ops our agencies are doing.

[lukeiamyourdad]

What will be achieved by pulling out? This is not Vietnam. When the United States pulled out of Vietnam, the Vietnamese had no intention of invading the US or supporting any kind of regime that would send terrorists to America. Pulling out then was the right decision, as it was a blatantly imperialistic war, a war of proxies in the first place.

 

However, is it the right choice now? Prime summed it up quite well. Neither solution is good. If you stay, you lose political capital in your country. If you pull out, you risk a civil war with Iran numero dos coming out of it. Bush should not have lied in the first place. Establishing a democracy does not take a year or two, at least not always. It can be a long process.

[Nancy Allen``]

Well if we're blind to covert ops that occur then the people who do them are doing their jobs arn't they? The purpose of them is to not let the media, or governments or terrorists, know they happen. Personally I don't know why people are so dark on the idea of a secret attack on some terrorist camp. Are such operations to be advertised in the paper a week before they occur?

 

If Clinton or Obama get in I can safely assume that there will be action taken on Iraq. It should be their main vehicle if it's not already.

 

I'm going to throw the idea of negotiating with terrorists and letting them rule away. Here's why. A friend of mine put this forward.

 

America, allies with America, with Iraq, against terrorism, western countries, Al Qaeda want you dead because they hate the west. We saw that with September 11, with Bali since Jimaar Islamiah is an ally of Al Qaeda, Spain, London, Indonesia again. Christians, they want you dead because you do not follow Islam, we saw that with the terrorist attacks I just mentioned. Israel, they want you dead because you are an example of the west working, they are meant to be a supporter of terrorist attacks against Israel and have said of their condemnation of Israel. Jews, Al Qaeda want you dead for the same reason they want Christians dead, when you look at Palestine you see Al Qaeda celebrating every Jew killed. Eastern countries, they want you dead because you are not Muslim, we saw that with Bali and you could make a case with Eqypt, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Muslims, Al Qaeda want you dead because you are not militant enough, we saw this with the above attacks and when one of the London bombings as specifically targeted in a Muslim suberb.

 

As far as torture goes, if you want Private England's blood over Abu Gharib, go for it, what happened there was exactly the criticisms we rightfully levelled at Saddam. Torture for information however that would save lives, as opposed to torture for fun, I'll say this. I think any and all means nessecary to preserve life should be utilised, and that includes torture. With that said however there are two things to consider with this. One is what you class torture as; if it's something such as truth serum then no I wouldn't class that as torture but some of the things that are used as interrogation, as well as some of the things you may see in 24 and the Punisher, that would be torture (though it was funny seeing a thug scream when a piece of steak and an icy pole was used). The other thing is not only is torture a very difficult skill that few get right, it hardly does work. There are other means to get the information you need that won't get the media treating you as though you're the **** of the world.

 

I'm not sure if terrorists want to conquer America, I think it has more to do with driving them out of the Middle East, but there objectives can be summed up in two words: wholesale murder, and as the post I put above on terrorism indicates they don't care who dies.

 

With Bush hell bent on keeping troops in Iraq, he of all people must do what is best for the Iraqis, especially considering he invaded their country. To do anything less is heartless and thoughtless. Now he believes that we must keep forces in Iraq, that this is the best thing for them. As has already been said, we're trapped. We can't leave because it could well open the floodgates and we can't stay because it fuels further aggression to Iraq as well as all involved.

 

The title of this thread, 'taking it out on the troops', has me wondering if this would happen. Could we be seeing returning soldiers dumped with red paint like they were after Vietnam? It'd be an outright disgrace if this were to occur, as it's not the soldier's fault for Bush invading and continuing the occupation of Iraq.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Insulting and crapping on the troops is both disgraceful and repugnant. Canada is involved in a mission in Afghanistan right now. There's a University here called UQAM, which is an ultra-left den. It makes us people at the Université de Montréal look like a punch of right-wing extremists. And we're not!

 

Anyway, at the UQAM, there's a program that lets our soldiers get some education there. See, the problem is that you're having soldiers around what we can seriously call hippies (yep, with the clothing and all), not just leftists mind you, hippies. Peace loving? Not at all. They constantly fling insults such as "fascists" and "imperialist pigs" at the soldiers who often became joined the army because they could not afford to pay for their education otherwise. It makes me sick just to think about it. Love the poor they say, hypocrites they are.

[Windu Chi]

I'm not sure if terrorists want to conquer America, I think it has more to do with driving them out of the Middle East, but there objectives can be summed up in two words: wholesale murder, and as the post I put above on terrorism indicates they don't care who dies.

 

I think I heard somewhere Nancy where al-Qaida want to conquer the world; they want a Muslim world or Muslim empire.

[GarfieldJL]

Okay, whether or not we should have gone into Iraq is moot we're there now. As far as the situation in Iraq, pulling out would be just plain stupid. As far as Pelosi and Reid, if it were World War II and they went to meet with Hitler, they would be executed for treason.

 

The media, isn't telling people everything, only what supports their leftist agenda. The reason the mainstream media was so timid after 9/11 was due to TIME getting its head handed to it for releasing a story supporting and sympathizing with someone that bombed police stations during the 1960s and the day when the story came out was September 11, 2001.

 

You can't run a war by committee, and I'm going to go even further and accuse the Democrat leadership of wanting the United States to lose for political purposes.

[JediMaster12]

The title of this thread, 'taking it out on the troops', has me wondering if this would happen. Could we be seeing returning soldiers dumped with red paint like they were after Vietnam? It'd be an outright disgrace if this were to occur, as it's not the soldier's fault for Bush invading and continuing the occupation of Iraq.

I named it so because in another article regarding this, a local civilian thought that this would amount to taking it out on the troops. As far as I can see however, people in America support the military in this case. LIAYD is right in pointing out that this isn't Vietnam but if we aren't careful we can be thrust into similar situations. We have already heard of the conduct unbecoming towards prisoners by American troops though the military claims that they are isolated incidents. From my understanding there is a certain form of etiquette involved. We hear often about the rules of war and to be honest we still follow them to a degree. I am sure there are those who say that in war there are no rules but in a way these are the unspoken rules that are obeyed by the recognized military forces. Unfortunately the insurgents in Iraq do not recognize those rules that are often referred to as the Geneva convention. (Correct me if I am wrong.)

 

As far as the troop pullout, there has to be some point in which we have to realize that not everybody is going to agree with our way. As I pointed out before, though Iraq was secularly ruled under Saddaam, the imams had much say over the people by using the Koran and the hadiths. I find it rather difficult that Bush believes he could bring democracy to Iraq when the democratic system itself is considered the devil's invention to the conservatives.

[Nancy Allen``]

Regardless of the religious beliefs America's invasion alone is enough to incite the hatred and violence it has. I can only imagine what their religious teachings would add to this, considering that Saddam was not considered a true believer and probably cherry picked those that supported his cause.

 

@windu: Now that you mention it I do remember hearing Al Qaeda saying they intend to force the world to Islam, it was on the news and the papers. I looked in the Internet but couldn't find anything about it but this has been their stated goal: Worldwide submission to Islam, their intolerant and blasphemus version of Islam at that.

[Allronix]

At the risk of adding nothing but petrol to the fire...

 

I was against this war before the damn thing began. Febuary 2003, I was marching with over 5000 other Seattle residents. Spring Equinox 2003, I was standing with a Port Angeles coven in front of the Federal Building and praying this mistake would be over soon.

 

When Bush and Cheney were deluding themselves and everyone in earshot with the fairytale that the troops would be greeted with rose petal parades and celebrations, we were predicting the chaos we now find ourselves in. For this, we were called "Terrorist lovers," "Traitors," "Unpatriotic," and "Troop haters" (apparantly they didn't see the Vietnam Vets for Peace or the elderly fellow in the wheelchair who showed up in full WW2 uniform).

 

I was arguing the hypocritical "Support the Troops = Blind support of the war" attitude, since two of my best buddies are disabled vets, and I just saw their benefits slashed. Oh, and Walter Reed? Well, a lot of VA hospitals have the same problem with run-down buildings and anemic staffing. Judging from my sister's roomie, a fellow who just came back from 2 tours in Baghdad, and discharged for PTSD, it hasn't done any better since. I also come from a military town where at least half of my classmates went into the military. Soldiering can be an honorable profession. It's the jackasses (and yes, I used the term deliberately - most of the Democrats don't have the spine the Gods gave a snake, and most Republicans I think are snakes) in charge I wouldn't trust with my car keys, much less with the lives of others.

 

Speaking as a dedicated, angry-as-hell, bonna fide member of the Anti-War Movement: only a marginal faction of the movement would do something as dumb as spitting on the guys who didn't have much of a choice. It's like the jerks who smashed windows during the 1999 WTO demonstration and effectively smeared 50,000 of their brethren portesting peacefully. They give the movement a black eye.