I just got an email back from my Brother who is an E-9 in the Navy.  I sent him a link to this topic.  Here is his response:

One things for sure though, and this ain't just my opinion it's from friends over there and friends in high places...  We sure ain't winning and if we ain't winning what are we doing?  We need to start drawing down and it's time for the Iraqi's (shia and sunni) to start carrying the load because they aren't.  Period.  They aren't. 

The only reason we are there now is to prevent another Rwanda Hutu-Tutsi slaughter and protect the oil.  I'm sure we have noble sentiment, at least I'm sure the troops do.  The Kurds are doing great up north but the rest of the country is barely under control and probably even worse.  I could go on and on because I read about it and talk about it with people who are there or spent alot of time in theatre. 

 Hell, I've spent too much time in that shit hole myself.  Honestly, though Barry - it's a f'ing mess and not much else. Best of intentions no doubt - but we all know what the road to hell is paved with. 

---

Originally posted by outfctrl

---

Originally posted by Awakened

  I am of the personal belief that once we've gone into a war, it's the people's duty to support our government even if we disagree with it.  Making your voice heard if you disapprove is acceptable, but bashing the government over and over after you've made your point is overkill and makes us as a nation look bad.  It's kind of like having manners with the freedom of speech or right to protest, just because you have the physical ability to do something without repercussion doesn't mean that you necessarily should. 

---

Very good post.  I agree 100%.  When the world sees people in the US protesting and marching against the war, it does make our Nation look bad.  Especially when you see some of our movie celebrities bash our president and personally protest the war.  Sometimes it just makes me sick. 

"Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent-resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.

Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with an its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured. "

 -Martin Luther King Jr.

Dialogue is important in our country - it is essential. The men and women who stand for the voice of dissent in this country show that America is not one-dimensional, that it entertains the thoughts and ideas of its citizens, that it reflects upon its actions through national discourse. It shows people in foreign countries that America does not respond to the beck and call of one man and his political party, that we are a country of opinions, ideas and most importantly, of dissent.

I know Bush's term is almost up, but hopefully our next president will have the strength and fortitude that Bush has now.  Actually, I think Bill O'Reilly should run for President. 

What you interpret as fortitude is merely obstinance. I wish that President Bush and the Republican Party made the effort to reach out to the other side. In 2004, 49% of the country voted for his opponent, John Kerry - just under half of the country disagreed with his policy, just under half of this country wants a significant policy shift in Iraq. Cheney interpreted this as a "mandate". I wish that the Republican Party sought to include more Democrats, that votes were not merely along Partisan lines, and that the spirit of discourse and compromise was omnipresent. Maybe then, our policy would be shift. If our President shows willingness to compromise, then I'll stop pointing out his stubbornness.

As for Bill-O'Reilly: If outfctrl's imaginary GOP is O'Reilly/Hannity, then my imaginary ownage party is Stewart/Colbert. Bring it on!

---

Yup, this is it.  So, the final determination is that war protesting is wrong.  I am right and everyone is wrong.

well i dont agree with the WAR but as long as we are there might as well finish the job so our children dont have to clean up the pieces like Good Ole BOY Bush Sr. did....

Well I am a Canuck that is totaly against the war, I think it was executed in the worst way possible with the worst possible planners. I really think if they had left Iraq alone and even under Saddam Hussein the Iraqi people wouldnt be suffering as much as they have been for the past few years. If 650k people really died as a result of the war then GW Bush and the top dogs of his admin should be tried as war criminals and sentanced to death like the Nazi's.

That doesnt mean I dont respect the american troops because they just do what they are told and aside from a few bad incedents the most of them are just trying to get the job done and go home. The sad part is they have no clear plan to finish the job thanks to inept war planning on the higher ups who mostly never seen combat themselves. The Americans will want to forget all about this war when its over because its caused nothing but national shame and anti-American sentiment around the world.

---

Originally posted by Slickinfinit

 The sad part is they have no clear plan to finish the job thanks to inept war planning on the higher ups who mostly never seen combat themselves. The Americans will want to forget all about this war when its over because its caused nothing but national shame and anti-American sentiment around the world.

---

I think that the personality of this or that president, and in this case President George W. Bush, does make a difference, but all presidents of this country, because of our power, are targets of caricature and ridicule. To some extent, even Bill Clinton was taken over the international coals. So I think a different style of diplomacy emanating from the White House will make a difference. But I think this is a problem that is much deeper than the personality of George W. Bush and I would contrast this anti-America moment with the kind of anti-American episodes of the Cold War.

Because the Cold War is over and there is no sort of negative alternative out there [like the Soviet Union], we remain the single superpower and so all eyes are on us and so what we do and what we don't do really matters and there's no sort of negative contrast out there. But also, it's not just Bush, it's not just Iraq.

---

Originally posted by outfctrl

---

Originally posted by Slickinfinit

 The sad part is they have no clear plan to finish the job thanks to inept war planning on the higher ups who mostly never seen combat themselves. The Americans will want to forget all about this war when its over because its caused nothing but national shame and anti-American sentiment around the world.

---

I think that the personality of this or that president, and in this case President George W. Bush, does make a difference, but all presidents of this country, because of our power, are targets of caricature and ridicule. To some extent, even Bill Clinton was taken over the international coals. So I think a different style of diplomacy emanating from the White House will make a difference. But I think this is a problem that is much deeper than the personality of George W. Bush and I would contrast this anti-America moment with the kind of anti-American episodes of the Cold War.

Because the Cold War is over and there is no sort of negative alternative out there [like the Soviet Union], we remain the single superpower and so all eyes are on us and so what we do and what we don't do really matters and there's no sort of negative contrast out there. But also, it's not just Bush, it's not just Iraq.

---

---

Originally posted by SnaKey

We are still getting hit just a frequent as vietnam or korea.

---

Not very likely is it?

 In Iraq we are fighting an insurgency, sporadic ambushes, bombings and sniper attacks. In Korea it was pitched battles with thousands and thousands of superior armed communists all at the same time.

---

If you don't know how strong M1A1s are, let me put it to you this way: There is not a hand held weapon on the face of the earth that can take out an M1A1 Tank.

---

There are loads of them.

M1A1's have been taken out by RPG7 in Iraq. It's a 30 year old tank. The gun is newer, the sights and the networking systems the armour surrounding the gun at the front of the turret upgraded at the same time. The rest just rolled steel.

One famous M1A1 in Iraq was taken out during a thunder run by an AK47 round to the radiator grill in the rear. The engine overheated and it burst into flames. The tank was abandoned and then recovered at a later stage.

For decent armour you need to look at the later Russian and European tanks with all over Chobam, reactive, grilling and anti missile sytems.

No armour, neither mechanised nor personal is unkillable. Least of all the immensely heavy dinosaur armour the M1A1 is dragging around with itself.

.

The reason your casualties are going up is because you have all recently started patroling/operations in Bagdad and Ramadi again instead of just staying in your bases. You changed your tactics. 

Stay out of the cities.

---

Originally posted by SnaKey

You're talking theory, I'm not... which you're not even really talking theory... you're just assuming. I am being trained to go over there by people who have been over there. They are getting deployed in 10 months for the second time. I'm not going, because I'm also training to be an officer, but I still have to train with my unit while they prepare to go over.

---

---

Originally posted by viadi

It’s not so much that I'm anti war

It’s just we live in a democracy the main aim of our collective governments should be to protect its people. The "war on terror" fails to do that. Instead it makes us a big fat target and radicalises more people to act against us.

Besides it’s not really a war as such its more like a movement there are no battle lines other than the ones we made for ourselves by invading Iraq and Afghanistan.

I suppose as an after thought we should ask ourselves this. Other than beating off an aggressive country/state like Hitler’s Germany should we ever go to war at all? And if we need to should we not make sure it’s done quickly and properly. Rather than what we have done in Iraq?

---

You've been a big fat target for the last 60 years. You did well to get away with it for as long as you did.

But yes, Iraq will aggravate more. However leaving Iraq won't stop it either.

"there are no battle lines other than the ones we made for ourselves".

The initiative was ours. It still is, we can invade other countries without retaliation too. It's when the others decide on where the battlelines are that things are going wrong.

---

Originally posted by paade

You're partially right, but the main reason remains and that is Iraq. US completely overrun UN by attacking Iraq, most of Europe and Asia were against it. After 9/11 USA had the world symphathy, a major political advantage if used right. Unfortunately Bush&co flushed all that down the drain by attacking Iraq.

So its not really exaggerating (sp?) to say that Bush&co is mostly responsible for the current anti-american movement.

---

That's where it all started.

After 9/11 America turned all Nazi. Before that it was all Silicon Valley dream. Disney world, San Francisco California and the oportunity to work hard and get rich. High technology and astronaut training. Now it's all terror, racism and war. The love affair is over.

 It's not just Iraq, it's an internet full of people hating foreigners and muslims etc. It's Guantanamo Bay, it's all the threats and religious zeal coming out of the White House. It's the ill mannered/totally paranoid guards at the international airport. Iraq however encapsulates most of it quite nicely. America's attitude to foreigners. On display for all the world to see. And yes, Bush is a big part of it. He is your leader he speaks for you. And we all know that he got re-elected and that, broadly speaking, 4/10 U.S. citizens think like him.

---

Originally posted by baff

---

Originally posted by paade

You're partially right, but the main reason remains and that is Iraq. US completely overrun UN by attacking Iraq, most of Europe and Asia were against it. After 9/11 USA had the world symphathy, a major political advantage if used right. Unfortunately Bush&co flushed all that down the drain by attacking Iraq.

So its not really exaggerating (sp?) to say that Bush&co is mostly responsible for the current anti-american movement.

---

That's where it all started.

After 9/11 America turned all Nazi. Before that it was all Silicon Valley dream. Disney world, San Francisco California and the oportunity to work hard and get rich. High technology and astronaut training. Now it's all terror, racism and war. The love affair is over.

 It's not just Iraq, it's an internet full of people hating foreigners and muslims etc. It's Guantanamo Bay, it's all the threats and religious zeal coming out of the White House. It's the ill mannered/totally paranoid guards at the international airport. Iraq however encapsulates most of it quite nicely. America's attitude to foreigners. On display for all the world to see. And yes, Bush is a big part of it. He is your leader he speaks for you. And we all know that he got re-elected and that, broadly speaking, 4/10 U.S. citizens think like him.

---

Do you live in America?  It doesn’t appear that you do by your post.  If not, what makes you such an expert on the subject?  Most Americans don't hate foreigners at all...  The voice of the ignorant is often louder than the voice of the wise.  Just because more people make their hateful views more vocal doesn't mean they speak for the majority.  Sorry if I came off as rude, I'm sure you as an individual are a smart person, but your post didn't seem well thought out or intelligent in conception.

If you aren’t American, please take my advice and don’t believe everything you see on the news.  If you are American, please take some time to get to know your fellow countrymen better.

---

Originally posted by Awakened

 

Do you live in America?  It doesn’t appear that you do by your post.  If not, what makes you such an expert on the subject?  Most Americans don't hate foreigners at all...  The voice of the ignorant is often louder than the voice of the wise.  Just because more people make their hateful views more vocal doesn't mean they speak for the majority.

If you're going to say that he's wrong, then you should prove what you're saying, too.

---

---

Originally posted by paade

 

You're partially right, but the main reason remains and that is Iraq. US completely overrun UN by attacking Iraq,

---

---

Originally posted by bhagamu

---

Originally posted by Awakened

 

Do you live in America?  It doesn’t appear that you do by your post.  If not, what makes you such an expert on the subject?  Most Americans don't hate foreigners at all...  The voice of the ignorant is often louder than the voice of the wise.  Just because more people make their hateful views more vocal doesn't mean they speak for the majority.

If you're going to say that he's wrong, then you should prove what you're saying, too.

---

Why did you say "too"?  He never proved anything, his entire post was based on opinion, so I responded appropriatly.

---

Originally posted by Awakened

Do you live in America?  It doesn’t appear that you do by your post.  If not, what makes you such an expert on the subject?  Most Americans don't hate foreigners at all...  The voice of the ignorant is often louder than the voice of the wise.  Just because more people make their hateful views more vocal doesn't mean they speak for the majority.

---

Why did you say "too"?  He never proved anything, his entire post was based on opinion, so I responded appropriatly.

---

---

Originally posted by Draenor

Maybe the fact that we pay a full quarter of the UN's  total expenditures means that we have some say as to what the hell we do with our own military?  Just a thought.

---

---

Originally posted by bhagamu

---

Originally posted by Draenor

Maybe the fact that we pay a full quarter of the UN's  total expenditures means that we have some say as to what the hell we do with our own military?  Just a thought.

---

Of course we do! We can do whatever we want with our millitary - it's just that we can either choose to support the idea of the United Nations, or we can abandon it and do whatever we want. Obviously, you believe that we should screw the U.N. and do what we want, but that's the choice: either stick to the idea of the United Nations or every nation for itself.

---

If the UN had a proven record of getting things done, then I would agree that we should stick with them, but their record has shown nothing but incompitence on a massive scale on the most important issues.

Geraldo Rivera said something interesting today that I think Bush really might want to consider...Have the Iraqis take a vote about what to do with US involvement in their country...they can vote for slow withdrawl with a certain date for complete removal, immediate withdrawl, or to stay until a next election is held...that way Bush is doing what the Iraqi people feel is best for THEIR country...discuss :)