Wow- that makes me feel so much better to know that everyday when my son wakes up and straps on his flack jacket and goes out on the streets of Baghdad that his efforts are helping build new schools for another country and put cell phones in the hands of those who might kill him! Every person he passes on the street could be the one who blows him up, like some of his best friends were. That he would rather not brush his teeth than to walk to the px to get toothpaste for fear of incoming missiles. He fought in the Battle of Fallujah, and will tell you that things are worse than ever! He fights to keep his fellow soldiers safe, to honor the officers who fight for them to have whatever equipment and safety measures they can get to protect them from the enemy who is getting bolder and more destructive everyday. He fights for all the dead and wounded soldiers that he shared bunks with. He fights for YOU, and you don't like seeing the ugly truth. I like the idea of the video, and wish that was what my son was witnessing, but sadly, those images are not prevalent where he is. Is it all bad? No, I'm sure it's not, but to turn away from the reality of the kind of people we're fighting over there is irresponsible. These are people who aren't afraid to die, and who have not problem blowing up school children to make their point. These American soldiers are beyond brave, and they deserve leadership that will have a solid plan to quell this violence. And that starts with making demands on the new Iraqi government to put extreme measures into place that will bring about the motivation for these warring factions to sit down and work toward understanding and peaceful co-existence. Until that happens, there will never be a day that our soldiers can come home without a resurgence of violence.

Remember our troops and what they're going through-

I have talked to a handful of soldiers who have come back who have had VERY different experiences than what YOU're saying your son is having over there now.

 

Most of what they say is positive and how they understand why we are there and that we should not leave and that they see the positives every day. (Obviously along with the negatives)

 

I guess you can see it anyway you want to see it, you either look for the good or look for the bad.

I have talked to a handful of soldiers who have come back who have had VERY different experiences than what YOU're saying your son is having over there now.

 

Most of what they say is positive and how they understand why we are there and that we should not leave and that they see the positives every day. (Obviously along with the negatives)

 

I guess you can see it anyway you want to see it, you either look for the good or look for the bad.

 

 

I agree with your post, and the one you quoted, and I think both are true. One of my close friends caught an RPG to the leg and will never be the same.

 

My brother served in the early parts of the Iraq campaign and saw alot of the positives and some of the negatives, I think you see alot of both. It's my understanding that alot of it has to do with where you are stationed and at what point you're there throughout this whole ordeal.

 

One things certain, this whole Cival War seems pretty evident and it's hurting moral and hopes of many in both the U.S and Iraq.

Look for the bad? When you lose your friends in battle? I'm talking about an infantry soldier! And I'm not saying He sees it all bad, in his first tour he saw a lot of progress being made. This tour has been a completely different story. And I think it's pretty presumptuous of you to think that any soldier "wants" to see what he has seen! You see what you see! There are many places in Iraq where things are going very well. But in Badhdad, or Al Anbar Province, that is really not the case.

I'd also like to add that if you spoke to people who were there before the current wave of insurgency broke out- they might have seen it differently.

So stopping the spread of Communism in Vietnam doesn't qualify as an American interest?

Sacrificing over 57,000 Americans on the altar of stupidity was NOT in our interests. If you think that our TEN YEAR stay in Vietnam stopped the spread of Communism, or somehow validated the "Domino Theory", then you and I are from different planets.

 

The dilemma in Vietnam was (is) identical to Iraq. Through an incredible misread of the situation, we have put ourselves in the position of either having to withdraw (and trying to save face as best we can), or wiping out a large segment of a peaceful populace in an effort to get the insurgents (since they have the ability to blend in with the rest of the people).

 

In my opinion, if the Republicans can hold the majority in both houses of Congress through this election, it will turn out to be the worst thing that can happen to them. After another two years of this travesty, the mood of the American voter is going to be anything but conciliatory to those in power.

 

At that point, Red herring wedge issues such as gay marriage won't even be an afterthought.

 

 

Frances

It is amazing how people so concerned about the deaths of Iraqi civilians caught in the crossfire seem to forget the millions of innocents who were slaughtered in SE Asia as the direct result of our abandonment of Vietnam to the communists. Now, these same people are clamoring for a quick withdrawal from Iraq, which will almost surely result in the same kind of wholesale slaughter that occured in Vietnam when liberals got there way in that war.

How long before we realize that you can't win a "compassionate" war?

In my opinion, if the Republicans can hold the majority in both houses of Congress through this election, it will turn out to be the worst thing that can happen to them. After another two years of this travesty, the mood of the American voter is going to be anything but conciliatory to those in power.

That's what was said in 2004.

How long before we realize that you can't win a "compassionate" war?

 

Exactly.

 

If you send troops into a war, it should have one goal. That goal should be the obliteration of a well defined enemy. Anything less is simply a recipe for disaster.

 

If we don't have the stomach for what that entails, then we shouldn't enter into the war in the first place.

 

 

Frances

That's what was said in 2004.

I would say that polls showing a 65% disapproval rating demonstrates that that was an accurate statement.

 

I'm saying that if the status quo holds, in another two years, the Republicans will look back on that 65% dissaproval rating as "the good old days".

 

 

Frances

Not really. The Khmer Rouge insurgency didn't even start until 1968. They weren't a danger to the government of Cambodia until the early 70's. By that time, the media and peaceniks had convinced us that we were losing the Vietnam war. We wouldn't have been embroiled in Vietnam the way we were in 1968 if LBJ hadn't wanted to be a war president.

 

 

If the peaceniks were so influential in the early 70's then how did Nixon win by such a landslide? The war began to grind down for the US by '73 but we were still escalating the area with our invasion of Cambodia to cut off supplies to VC in 1970.

 

My only point HHS was that we seem to pick and choose which dictator is worth changing and which one is not.

It is amazing how people so concerned about the deaths of Iraqi civilians caught in the crossfire seem to forget the millions of innocents who were slaughtered in SE Asia as the direct result of our abandonment of Vietnam to the communists. Now, these same people are clamoring for a quick withdrawal from Iraq, which will almost surely result in the same kind of wholesale slaughter that occured in Vietnam when liberals got there way in that war.

 

 

As opposed to the slaughter within the war? Nixon put an end to that war and while he was a moderate he was a Republican President. Johnson (a political/social liberal) waged the war even when he was told our position was untenable. Not sure your blanket uses of "liberal" fit everywhere you want them to.

Exactly.

 

If you send troops into a war, it should have one goal. That goal should be the obliteration of a well defined enemy. Anything less is simply a recipe for disaster.

 

If we don't have the stomach for what that entails, then we shouldn't enter into the war in the first place.

 

 

Frances

 

 

Well said. Our military defeated Iraq's army in what, about a week? The Iraq War ceased to be a military operation and started to be a political quagmire shortly thereafter. It has been a political mess ever since. It's questionable what our military's mission in Iraq even is at this point. They are not engaged in battle with an enemy for territory in a traditional sense. I guess you could say they're policemen now. They are effectively targets in a shooting gallery, waiting for some insurgent to take a pot shot so we can bring our overwhelming force to bear.

 

That the Bush administration evidently didn't see this as a possibility just underlines their shocking incompetence, arrogance, hubris, etc. once again. Well, one person saw it (Colin Powell), but nobody listened to him...

Exactly.

 

If you send troops into a war, it should have one goal. That goal should be the obliteration of a well defined enemy. Anything less is simply a recipe for disaster.

 

If we don't have the stomach for what that entails, then we shouldn't enter into the war in the first place.

 

 

Frances

I think what you state here is an issue that this country is facing. The war on terror has no defined country and no defined enemy and so I think we are going through a transition stage trying to determine the best way to fight a war where there is NOT a well defined enemy.

Well said. Our military defeated Iraq's army in what, about a week? The Iraq War ceased to be a military operation and started to be a political quagmire shortly thereafter. It has been a political mess ever since. It's questionable what our military's mission in Iraq even is at this point. They are not engaged in battle with an enemy for territory in a traditional sense. I guess you could say they're policemen now. They are effectively targets in a shooting gallery, waiting for some insurgent to take a pot shot so we can bring our overwhelming force to bear.

 

That the Bush administration evidently didn't see this as a possibility just underlines their shocking incompetence, arrogance, hubris, etc. once again. Well, one person saw it (Colin Powell), but nobody listened to him...

I am not as sure it is from their incompetence but a feeling out of how do you do this. They expected the citizenry to welcome them with open arms and for the most part they did.

 

And then the fanaticals and terrorists from other parts of the world came into Iraq and changed the situation.

I am not as sure it is from their incompetence but a feeling out of how do you do this. They expected the citizenry to welcome them with open arms and for the most part they did.

 

And then the fanaticals and terrorists from other parts of the world came into Iraq and changed the situation.

 

The "Gee, we couldn't have known postwar Iraq would attract trouble-making fanaticals" is an excuse as lame as "my dog ate my homework". The bottom line is that the Bush White House is responsible for the results of its actions. Period. The truth has been pouring out in the form of insider accounts of the tolerate-no-dissent attitude at the administration's highest levels and the utter lack of postwar planning that resulted.

 

Here are a few notable quotes that highlight how wrong the Bush administration has been:

 

"[superpowers] don't want to do peacekeeping, we don't want to do nation-building", George W. Bush, Oct 2000

"We will be greeted as liberators" Dick Cheney, March 2003

"Democracy is 'untidy'", Donald Rumsfeld, Spring 2003

"Mission Accomplished", George W. Bush, May 2003

"the insurgents are just a few dead-enders", Donald Rumsfeld, summer 2003

"The insurgency is in its last throes", Dick Cheney, May 2005

 

Incompetence, plain and simple.